The Bible is Father-Centric not Christo-Centric

[APAK]

The so-called Orthodox Christian apologetic should be reaffirming and defending his/her beliefs and faith to others by arguing for a doctrine(s) with a Father centric message(s) of hope and salvation rather than wrapped neatly in a Christocentric message(s). If not understood and believed that scripture reaffirms a Father-to-Son relationship first, then even the most simple and common Christocentric message eventually unravels and becomes chaotic and confused. This is my premise and personal belief.

As one source puts it...Albert Emanuel 2007...

"The Bible is Father-Centric, not Christocentric. The entire bible revolves around the central role of God the Father in the plan of salvation. God the Father is the God of Israel, the God of Jesus, and the God of Christians. It was God the Father who sent His Son, sacrificed His Son, and resurrected His Son. The Bible is primarily about God the Father and secondarily about Christ the Son. The biblical emphasis is upon God the Father. Jesus constantly and continuously emphasized God the Father. The Lord's prayer is entirely about God the Father. The kingdom and the power and the glory belong to God the Father. The kingdom of God is the kingdom of God the Father, not the kingdom of Christ. The time has come for the theological restoration of God the Father to His rightful place as the one ultimate and absolute God of Gods....."

What about it? Can you see the bright light shining in this topic?

[APAK]

Dear APAK,

Your OP is well stated and correct. Thank you!

I realize of course that there are some who have an incorrect understanding of the Father and the Son which in and of itself adds more error and confusion.

Is it not also of fundamental import that we all should have a clear and certain knowledge of every aspect of the corporeal nature of both the Father and the Son?

For example, has the Son ever received or possessed anything which the Father does not already have?

Another example is, has the Son ever done anything which the Father ha not already done?

Did not Christ also have glory with the Father before the world was?

Did not, according to scripture Christ bring more glory to the Father in heaven before he became the only begotten Son of the Father in the flesh?

Did not Christ in his mortal mission by submitting to the will of the Father in all things also bring more glory to the Father?

Mortal man may devise philosophies of man trying to formulate their man made ideas relating to heavenly things.


I submit that all that efforts by man completely fail in comparison to the most powerful testimony given by Christ himself when he so testified in the following:

John 8:28 Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things.

John 5:30 I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.


John 5:19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.


Do we not also follow and worship Christ as the angels of God do as our great exemplar?

Do we also in this process humble and condition ourselves by so doing to also ultimately prepare ourselves to become worthy to allow Christ to introduce us to the point of our ultimate focus of highest worship of the great Elohim, the most high God even our Father in heaven, who is literally the very Father of our spirits and ultimately serve him who is the most high God?

Thank you as well for understanding the significance of this thread and subject.

The servant of our Father God, Yahshua, yielded his will and mind over to him as he grew, and all that he did encompassed all aspects of his Father's desires.

Their minds became in perfect lockstep. And we, as one in Christ, can obtain the very mind and attitude of Christ, our lord, as a truly humble servant also of the Father, and in the Son, every day of our lives, to do his will.

What can I do today for you..

[APAK]

This thread is a wake up call to refocus on the 'Father first' as the source in al things holy, divine and eternal...

It would help rebalance things in the mainstream Christian mindset if the Father's name was highlighted appropriately. Begrudgingly acknowledging that God the Father has a personal name but one that has been removed from most modern translations is deeply problematic as it leaves people essentially worshipping a "nameless" god whose identity is acknowledged only rarely and often under duress. How can worshippers forge a close personal relationship with a god whose name they do not use in prayer or worship?


JEHOVAH'S WITNESS

Thank-you. That's been done in the King of kings' Bible, where the vague references have been replaced with "I AM" from the Hebrew "YHWH", sometimes expressed as "Jehovah".

To all: very nice thread, by the way. All praise and glory be to Father, the One True God.

Thank you very much, to the glory of God our Father

[Capbook]

This thread is a wake up call to refocus on the 'Father first' as the source in al things holy, divine and eternal...

It would help rebalance things in the mainstream Christian mindset if the Father's name was highlighted appropriately. Begrudgingly acknowledging that God the Father has a personal name but one that has been removed from most modern translations is deeply problematic as it leaves people essentially worshipping a "nameless" god whose identity is acknowledged only rarely and often under duress. How can worshippers forge a close personal relationship with a god whose name they do not use in prayer or worship?


JEHOVAH'S WITNESS

I have posted that there are Bible translations that still wrote the Father's personal name, the Tetragrammaton.
The question might be, for us to be Father centric, which personal name we have to addressed our pleadings?
To the Tetragrammaton or to the Latinized?

[APAK]

This thread is a wake up call to refocus on the 'Father first' as the source in al things holy, divine and eternal...

It would help rebalance things in the mainstream Christian mindset if the Father's name was highlighted appropriately. Begrudgingly acknowledging that God the Father has a personal name but one that has been removed from most modern translations is deeply problematic as it leaves people essentially worshipping a "nameless" god whose identity is acknowledged only rarely and often under duress. How can worshippers forge a close personal relationship with a god whose name they do not use in prayer or worship?


JEHOVAH'S WITNESS

I have posted that there are Bible translations that still wrote the Father's personal name, the Tetragrammaton.
The question might be, for us to be Father centric, which personal name we have to addressed our pleadings?
To the Tetragrammaton or to the Latinized?

Either one, or even using other names that stand for YHWH, of other languages if you wish, and formally, whom you think is your personal God YHWH and who you prayer to. It would be pointless to seriously argue over the symbols that mean your personal God. It is all about the meaning and intent of using the word/symbol.

When I pray, I use the symbols LORD God, who is the one God, or ever just plain Father (in heaven), and I approach him either directly, or using his Son in the process. And all the while I believe the LORD God, or the Father is the one YHWH, eventhough I might not say YHWH in my prayers.

I personally do not use the latinized version of YHWH (the vowels of Adonai infused into Jehovah), although it would not be wrong to do so.

What would be incorrect though, if we deliberately abused the symbol, YHWH, Jehovah, or LORD, and used it as Lord or lord for his Son, as many apparently do today.

[servant1]

[Replying to APAK in post #1]


To Jesus it was all about the Father--Trinity religions= darkness. They do not listen to Jesus in much.

[APAK]

[Replying to APAK in post #1]


To Jesus it was all about the Father--Trinity religions= darkness. They do not listen to Jesus in much.

They do not listen to the words of Jesus, and about his Father, especially when it becomes inconvenient for them, as many of his words do not conform to their doctrines of pagan philosophies as they love to mix in with scripture, indeed.

[Capbook]

This thread is a wake up call to refocus on the 'Father first' as the source in al things holy, divine and eternal...

It would help rebalance things in the mainstream Christian mindset if the Father's name was highlighted appropriately. Begrudgingly acknowledging that God the Father has a personal name but one that has been removed from most modern translations is deeply problematic as it leaves people essentially worshipping a "nameless" god whose identity is acknowledged only rarely and often under duress. How can worshippers forge a close personal relationship with a god whose name they do not use in prayer or worship?


JEHOVAH'S WITNESS

I have posted that there are Bible translations that still wrote the Father's personal name, the Tetragrammaton.
The question might be, for us to be Father centric, which personal name we have to addressed our pleadings?
To the Tetragrammaton or to the Latinized?

Either one, or even using other names that stand for YHWH, of other languages if you wish, and formally, whom you think is your personal God YHWH and who you prayer to. It would be pointless to seriously argue over the symbols that mean your personal God. It is all about the meaning and intent of using the word/symbol.

When I pray, I use the symbols LORD God, who is the one God, or ever just plain Father (in heaven), and I approach him either directly, or using his Son in the process. And all the while I believe the LORD God, or the Father is the one YHWH, eventhough I might not say YHWH in my prayers.

I personally do not use the latinized version of YHWH (the vowels of Adonai infused into Jehovah), although it would not be wrong to do so.

What would be incorrect though, if we deliberately abused the symbol, YHWH, Jehovah, or LORD, and used it as Lord or lord for his Son, as many apparently do today.

Jesus had taught us how to pray, "Our Father who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name. By the "name", who in our mind we pray to, is it to the Tetragrammton or the Latinized. As God said, I am a jealous God.

[Capbook]

[Replying to APAK in post #1]


To Jesus it was all about the Father--Trinity religions= darkness. They do not listen to Jesus in much.

Same question to you. Jesus had taught us how to pray, "Our Father who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name. By the "name", who in our mind we pray to, is it to the personal name of the Father, the "Tetragrammton" or the Latinized used by your church? As God said, I am a jealous God.

[APAK]

[Replying to APAK in post #1]


To Jesus it was all about the Father--Trinity religions= darkness. They do not listen to Jesus in much.

Same question to you. Jesus had taught us how to pray, "Our Father who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name. By the "name", who in our mind we pray to, is it to the personal name of the Father, the "Tetragrammton" or the Latinized used by your church? As God said, I am a jealous God.

And so, you said as me, in brief, and now what is your point here? You must have a point I would think.

[servant1]

[Replying to Capbook in post #18]

We don't speak Latin. Or Hebrew, or Greek, Our translations are not in Latin, Hebrew or Greek, they are written in English. Jehovah is the true living God.