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?

[Capbook]

[Replying to Capbook in post #23]


Latin is a whole language. I speak a couple names, thus can not speak or read the language itself. Does this clear the matter up for you?

I mean the Latin word of the Tetragrammaton.
You speak a couple names, do that mean the Latinized or the original Tetragrammaton?
So, you abandon your statement below now?

Below is post#20;
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.

His statements are clear and they are correct. Why would he abandon his statements? We always go back to the Tetragrammaton, not the "LORD" or "Adonai" as is the habit of many translators.

Is it true that you go back to the Tetragrammaton? What do "J" represent in the JW?
Is it the "יהוה" or the Latinized?

[Capbook]

[Replying to Capbook in post #23]


Latin is a whole language. I speak a couple names, thus can not speak or read the language itself. Does this clear the matter up for you?

I mean the Latin word of the Tetragrammaton.
You speak a couple names, do that mean the Latinized or the original Tetragrammaton?
So, you abandon your statement below now?

Below is post#20;
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.

His statements are clear and they are correct. Why would he abandon his statements? We always go back to the Tetragrammaton, not the "LORD" or "Adonai" as is the habit of many translators.

Is it true that you go back to the Tetragrammaton? What do "J" represent in the JW?
Is it the "יהוה" or the Latinized?

[Capbook]

[Replying to Capbook in post #23]


Latin is a whole language. I speak a couple names, thus can not speak or read the language itself. Does this clear the matter up for you?

I mean the Latin word of the Tetragrammaton.
You speak a couple names, do that mean the Latinized or the original Tetragrammaton?
So, you abandon your statement below now?

Below is post#20;
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.

His statements are clear and they are correct. Why would he abandon his statements? We always go back to the Tetragrammaton, not the "LORD" or "Adonai" as is the habit of many translators.

Is it true that you go back to the Tetragrammaton? What do "J" represent in the JW?
Is it the "יהוה" or the Latinized?

[onewithhim]

[Replying to Capbook in post #23]


Latin is a whole language. I speak a couple names, thus can not speak or read the language itself. Does this clear the matter up for you?

I mean the Latin word of the Tetragrammaton.
You speak a couple names, do that mean the Latinized or the original Tetragrammaton?
So, you abandon your statement below now?

Below is post#20;
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.

His statements are clear and they are correct. Why would he abandon his statements? We always go back to the Tetragrammaton, not the "LORD" or "Adonai" as is the habit of many translators.

Is it true that you go back to the Tetragrammaton? What do "J" represent in the JW?
Is it the "יהוה" or the Latinized?

It is as it is in Jesus' name. Do you object to the "J" in his name? What difference does it really make whether there is a "J" or a "Y" (or an "I" as we find in the original KJV)? KJV: "Iehovah," "Iesus." I have the 1611 version where there are "I's" instead of "J's." I don't think there is a problem with more modern versions using the "J." The important thing is that people know who is being referred to. If you use either the "I" or the "J" or the "Y," a person can determine who you are talking about.

[Capbook]

[Replying to Capbook in post #23]


Latin is a whole language. I speak a couple names, thus can not speak or read the language itself. Does this clear the matter up for you?

I mean the Latin word of the Tetragrammaton.
You speak a couple names, do that mean the Latinized or the original Tetragrammaton?
So, you abandon your statement below now?

Below is post#20;
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.

His statements are clear and they are correct. Why would he abandon his statements? We always go back to the Tetragrammaton, not the "LORD" or "Adonai" as is the habit of many translators.

Is it true that you go back to the Tetragrammaton? What do "J" represent in the JW?
Is it the "יהוה" or the Latinized?

It is as it is in Jesus' name. Do you object to the "J" in his name? What difference does it really make whether there is a "J" or a "Y" (or an "I" as we find in the original KJV)? KJV: "Iehovah," "Iesus." I have the 1611 version where there are "I's" instead of "J's." I don't think there is a problem with more modern versions using the "J." The important thing is that people know who is being referred to. If you use either the "I" or the "J" or the "Y," a person can determine who you are talking about.

Don't just say it.
Can't you post it?
Do the "J" means "Jesus Witness" or " Jehovah Witness?"

[onewithhim]

I mean the Latin word of the Tetragrammaton.
You speak a couple names, do that mean the Latinized or the original Tetragrammaton?
So, you abandon your statement below now?

Below is post#20;
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.

His statements are clear and they are correct. Why would he abandon his statements? We always go back to the Tetragrammaton, not the "LORD" or "Adonai" as is the habit of many translators.

Is it true that you go back to the Tetragrammaton? What do "J" represent in the JW?
Is it the "יהוה" or the Latinized?

It is as it is in Jesus' name. Do you object to the "J" in his name? What difference does it really make whether there is a "J" or a "Y" (or an "I" as we find in the original KJV)? KJV: "Iehovah," "Iesus." I have the 1611 version where there are "I's" instead of "J's." I don't think there is a problem with more modern versions using the "J." The important thing is that people know who is being referred to. If you use either the "I" or the "J" or the "Y," a person can determine who you are talking about.

Don't just say it.
Can't you post it?
Do the "J" means "Jesus Witness" or " Jehovah Witness?"

I just posted it. You don't understand what is being said, you poor fellow. The "J" is in Jehovah's and Jesus' names. Or, a person can use the "Y" or the "I."

[Capbook]

His statements are clear and they are correct. Why would he abandon his statements? We always go back to the Tetragrammaton, not the "LORD" or "Adonai" as is the habit of many translators.

Is it true that you go back to the Tetragrammaton? What do "J" represent in the JW?
Is it the "יהוה" or the Latinized?

It is as it is in Jesus' name. Do you object to the "J" in his name? What difference does it really make whether there is a "J" or a "Y" (or an "I" as we find in the original KJV)? KJV: "Iehovah," "Iesus." I have the 1611 version where there are "I's" instead of "J's." I don't think there is a problem with more modern versions using the "J." The important thing is that people know who is being referred to. If you use either the "I" or the "J" or the "Y," a person can determine who you are talking about.

Don't just say it.
Can't you post it?
Do the "J" means "Jesus Witness" or " Jehovah Witness?"

I just posted it. You don't understand what is being said, you poor fellow. The "J" is in Jehovah's and Jesus' names. Or, a person can use the "Y" or the "I."

I just wanted to clear that out, because it seems that I never know JWs as Jesus Witnesses, just now.

Peace.

[onewithhim]

Is it true that you go back to the Tetragrammaton? What do "J" represent in the JW?
Is it the "יהוה" or the Latinized?

It is as it is in Jesus' name. Do you object to the "J" in his name? What difference does it really make whether there is a "J" or a "Y" (or an "I" as we find in the original KJV)? KJV: "Iehovah," "Iesus." I have the 1611 version where there are "I's" instead of "J's." I don't think there is a problem with more modern versions using the "J." The important thing is that people know who is being referred to. If you use either the "I" or the "J" or the "Y," a person can determine who you are talking about.

Don't just say it.
Can't you post it?
Do the "J" means "Jesus Witness" or " Jehovah Witness?"

I just posted it. You don't understand what is being said, you poor fellow. The "J" is in Jehovah's and Jesus' names. Or, a person can use the "Y" or the "I."

I just wanted to clear that out, because it seems that I never know JWs as Jesus Witnesses, just now.

Peace.

Well, JWs copy Jesus' own witnessing, and he is called "the faithful and true Witness." (Revelation 3:14, NASB) What does Jesus witness about? His Father, of course. So we also witness about his Father, and along with that, of course, there is a witness about Jesus. You don't now have one without the other.

"Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son." (2John verse 9, NASB)

[Capbook]

It is as it is in Jesus' name. Do you object to the "J" in his name? What difference does it really make whether there is a "J" or a "Y" (or an "I" as we find in the original KJV)? KJV: "Iehovah," "Iesus." I have the 1611 version where there are "I's" instead of "J's." I don't think there is a problem with more modern versions using the "J." The important thing is that people know who is being referred to. If you use either the "I" or the "J" or the "Y," a person can determine who you are talking about.

Don't just say it.
Can't you post it?
Do the "J" means "Jesus Witness" or " Jehovah Witness?"

I just posted it. You don't understand what is being said, you poor fellow. The "J" is in Jehovah's and Jesus' names. Or, a person can use the "Y" or the "I."

I just wanted to clear that out, because it seems that I never know JWs as Jesus Witnesses, just now.

Peace.

Well, JWs copy Jesus' own witnessing, and he is called "the faithful and true Witness." (Revelation 3:14, NASB) What does Jesus witness about? His Father, of course. So we also witness about his Father, and along with that, of course, there is a witness about Jesus. You don't now have one without the other.

"Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son." (2John verse 9, NASB)

Yes, but your church used of the Father's Latinized name is not the transliteration of the Tetragrammaton but an alteration.