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]

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.

It is not just "my church." All versions of the Bible say "Jehovah" when referring to His name. The KJV, Young's Literal Translation, The Living Bible, The Divine Name KJV, The American Standard Version, and the Jerusalem Bible uses "Yahweh." It is acceptable to use the "Latinized" form of His name. Do you object to "Jesus"? That is also "Latinized."

Jesus is a transliteration and it is not Latinized. While your church used the Latinized, described as alteration and not a transliteration of the Tetragrammaton.

Yes, the English name "Jesus" is a transliteration of the Greek name "Ἰησοῦς" (Iēsous), which itself is a transliteration of the Hebrew name "Yeshua." https://www.google.com/search?q=is+jesu ... e&ie=UTF-8

[onewithhim]

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.

It is not just "my church." All versions of the Bible say "Jehovah" when referring to His name. The KJV, Young's Literal Translation, The Living Bible, The Divine Name KJV, The American Standard Version, and the Jerusalem Bible uses "Yahweh." It is acceptable to use the "Latinized" form of His name. Do you object to "Jesus"? That is also "Latinized."

Jesus is a transliteration and it is not Latinized. While your church used the Latinized, described as alteration and not a transliteration of the Tetragrammaton.

Yes, the English name "Jesus" is a transliteration of the Greek name "Ἰησοῦς" (Iēsous), which itself is a transliteration of the Hebrew name "Yeshua." https://www.google.com/search?q=is+jesu ... e&ie=UTF-8

"Jesus" is indeed Latinized, just as "Jehovah" is Latinized. Jesus was not called "Jesus" in his day on Earth. It was more like "Yeshua," as you said.

[Capbook]

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.

It is not just "my church." All versions of the Bible say "Jehovah" when referring to His name. The KJV, Young's Literal Translation, The Living Bible, The Divine Name KJV, The American Standard Version, and the Jerusalem Bible uses "Yahweh." It is acceptable to use the "Latinized" form of His name. Do you object to "Jesus"? That is also "Latinized."

Jesus is a transliteration and it is not Latinized. While your church used the Latinized, described as alteration and not a transliteration of the Tetragrammaton.

Yes, the English name "Jesus" is a transliteration of the Greek name "Ἰησοῦς" (Iēsous), which itself is a transliteration of the Hebrew name "Yeshua." https://www.google.com/search?q=is+jesu ... e&ie=UTF-8

"Jesus" is indeed Latinized, just as "Jehovah" is Latinized. Jesus was not called "Jesus" in his day on Earth. It was more like "Yeshua," as you said.

I believe you just make the reply without reading the link I've provided. Jesus is a transliteration of the His Greek name "Ἰησοῦς" (Iēsous)."
Bible lexicon defined "Jesus," in Greek "Ἰησοῦς Iēsous" as the Son of God, Saviour of mankind, God incarnate, etc.

Any support of your assumptions of "Jesus" as Latinized?
Or you just made it up to support the Latinized alteration of Tetragrammaton used by your church.

Mat 1:1 The  N1 record G976  of the genealogy G1078  of  N2 Jesus G2424  the  N3 Messiah G5547 ,  R1 the son G5207  of David G1160b ,  R2 the son G5207  of Abraham G11 :

G2424 (Thayer)
Ἰησοῦς Iēsous
Thayer Definition:
Jesus = “Jehovah is salvation”
1) Jesus, the Son of God, the Saviour of mankind, God incarnate

[onewithhim]

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

It is not just "my church." All versions of the Bible say "Jehovah" when referring to His name. The KJV, Young's Literal Translation, The Living Bible, The Divine Name KJV, The American Standard Version, and the Jerusalem Bible uses "Yahweh." It is acceptable to use the "Latinized" form of His name. Do you object to "Jesus"? That is also "Latinized."

Jesus is a transliteration and it is not Latinized. While your church used the Latinized, described as alteration and not a transliteration of the Tetragrammaton.

Yes, the English name "Jesus" is a transliteration of the Greek name "Ἰησοῦς" (Iēsous), which itself is a transliteration of the Hebrew name "Yeshua." https://www.google.com/search?q=is+jesu ... e&ie=UTF-8

"Jesus" is indeed Latinized, just as "Jehovah" is Latinized. Jesus was not called "Jesus" in his day on Earth. It was more like "Yeshua," as you said.

I believe you just make the reply without reading the link I've provided. Jesus is a transliteration of the His Greek name "Ἰησοῦς" (Iēsous)."
Bible lexicon defined "Jesus," in Greek "Ἰησοῦς Iēsous" as the Son of God, Saviour of mankind, God incarnate, etc.

Any support of your assumptions of "Jesus" as Latinized?
Or you just made it up to support the Latinized alteration of Tetragrammaton used by your church.

Mat 1:1 The  N1 record G976  of the genealogy G1078  of  N2 Jesus G2424  the  N3 Messiah G5547 ,  R1 the son G5207  of David G1160b ,  R2 the son G5207  of Abraham G11 :

G2424 (Thayer)
Ἰησοῦς Iēsous
Thayer Definition:
Jesus = “Jehovah is salvation”
1) Jesus, the Son of God, the Saviour of mankind, God incarnate

"Jesus" may be a transliteration of his Greek name, but, then, so is "Jehovah" a transliteration, whether "Latinized" or not. Other translators use the Tetragrammaton to recognize God's name, and usually transliterate it to "Jehovah." Have you checked out Young's Literal Translation, the American Standard Version, the Living Bible, the Divine Name King James Version, or the Jerusalem Bible (which uses "Yahweh")? It is not just "my church."