Why would Paul "want to" add to
what God says when there are warnings against doing this.
When he spoke on marriage and
it was his own thoughts he said so. No I don't
believe Paul added and the word Father is in there
because it fits and is supposed
to be there for reasons of clarity.
Your logic versus your
own rules !!! You are the one who believes that
adding to the words of the book are a dreadful sin,
yet you admit that "Father" is not in the text but think
that it should be and therefore is. Do
you know what convoluted means?? You simply do not
follow your own rules .
Another accusation
JD? God makes the rules and I am not into adding or
subtracting from the Word of God. What I
am saying here is that the word Father goes along with the
clear
meaning of the
text. Jesus was not into glorifying himself or
reconciling anything to himself. He was here to do
the will of the Father. Why can't you see
this? He said it and it is written about
him often enough. You are a
good example of how doctrine can blind
ppl.
Also, you appealed to the NASV to argue for the
insertion of "Father." A reasonable
argument, by the way. But, even in the NASV,
the word "Father" is italicized -- the translators
want you to know that it is added to the
text. The pleasure expressed in v 19 is Godly
pleasure -- IMPLIED but not written. It
is a divinely appointed pleasure -- and
Christ is a part of that circumstance. That Christ
was going to reconcile all unto Himself from the
foundations of the world meets with the
pleasure of both Himself and His Father -- it
is a divinely appointment mission.
Only problem is He
(Christ) wasn't going to do that; because He came to do
the will of the Father and to reconcile
ppl back to
the Father which is the focus of both Col 1:19 and 2 Cor
5:19 for one who reads without a
bias.
Are you now saying that
Christ was never God? Do you now deny His deity
altogether? It was God in Christ -- that makes Him
deity, in this case.
Yes God the Holy Spirit
in Jesus the son of man, making him Christ the Son of
God.
Look -- take
a cup and set it on the table. Call that cup
"Christ." Now, put an object inside the cup and call
it "the Father" or "God.." When God draws the
outside unto Himself (inside the cup) , He is of
necessity drawing others unto the cup.
If it is God in Christ and Christ is drawing all unto
Himself, He is drawing all unto God.
Where did this object
lesson at come from JD? - Ppl being drawn into a tea cup?
I don't
think so. The word
Christ itself means anointed - The man Jesus went about
preaching
and teaching. The
Words he spoke were the Fathers and the works He did were
the Fathers. All of them were anointed by the Spirit
of God and these are what drew the
people.
You argue because you
think that they, the Father and the Son are
separate. I do not . They are different but
cannot be separated. Pour a cup of
water into a large glass and then, mix in a cup of orange
juice. Stir.. In a matter of mo mets , the two
become inseparable while different at the same
time. I offer this illustration while knpwing
that it does not fully explain the Deity.
jd
I agree that it does not
explain the diety. While He was without the glory he
had with the
Father, having set it
aside before coming to earth and inhabiting a body of
flesh Jesus
was not joined at the hip
with the Father. Why did he get up early every day
and pray to
Him? Why did he
make the statement in John 14 that "the Father is greater"
if they are
one and the same?
No they are unified in purpose as the Godhead but are not
always
the
same.
