The Bible is Father-Centric not Christo-Centric

[Mindcruiser]

The Christian apologetic should be reaffirming and defending his 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 2017...

"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....."

 

[Matthias]

Offered in support of the OP:

”In the New Testament gospels, Jesus presents himself as being primarily God-centered, not self-centered thus Christ-centered. Jesus is very clear about this, that to come to God one must go through Jesus. Thus, for Jesus, God is the ultimate destiny, the ultimate authority, the source of all things, the main one with whom we must have to do, and God has made Jesus the conduit through whom we approach God.”

(Kermit Zarley, “The Bible Is Primarily God-Centered, Not Christ-Centered”)

The Bible Is Primarily God-Centered, Not Christ-Centered

So many Christians get this wrong. They are taught that the Bible is primarily Christ-centered and that a person's faith should be judged accordingly. I

www.patheos.com

***

A word to my readers. I seldom quote non-trinitarian sources. For that reason I want to alert readers that I am doing so now: This is a non-trinitarian source.

 

[Mindcruiser]

Offered in support of the OP:

”In the New Testament gospels, Jesus presents himself as being primarily God-centered, not self-centered thus Christ-centered. Jesus is very clear about this, that to come to God one must go through Jesus. Thus, for Jesus, God is the ultimate destiny, the ultimate authority, the source of all things, the main one with whom we must have to do, and God has made Jesus the conduit through whom we approach God.”

(Kermit Zarley, “The Bible Is Primarily God-Centered, Not Christ-Centered”)

The Bible Is Primarily God-Centered, Not Christ-Centered

So many Christians get this wrong. They are taught that the Bible is primarily Christ-centered and that a person's faith should be judged accordingly. I

www.patheos.com

***

A word to my readers. I seldom quote non-trinitarian sources. For that reason I want to alert readers that I am doing so now: This is a non-trinitarian source.

And to quote that source again: as the Father used his Son as an agent, his instrument and purpose whereby through his Son, the Father could accomplish his purposes for our own salvation.

".. Salvation is through Christ, but it is God who saves. My favorite Bible verse reflects this: “For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son [Jesus], so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life” (John 3.16). So, God sent Jesus, not Jesus sent God. The next verse says, “God did not send the Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him” (v. 17).

 

[Matthias]

Some time ago, and on a different discussion forum, I was temporarily banned for saying the Bible is God-centered rather than Messiah-centered.

 

[Mindcruiser]

Some time ago, and on a different discussion forum, I was temporarily banned for saying the Bible is God-centered rather than Messiah-centered.

It sounds like the crew at the helm felt uncomfortable that God was in charge instead of his Son, who he anointed. Well I hope they learned a lesson, or at least maybe one or two gained a life-changing eureka lightbulb experience. I hope they then reviewed their policies and ruled afterwards and adjusted the contents and language accordingly, if it was necessary.

Well the thing is, you became the single positive catalyst for a worthy or merited cause or change here. I hope others like you who will continue their service to God, even if it means bravely standing out in a long conspicuous line with the only one wearing the white tennis shoes, that instantly draws a juvenile chuckle at kindergarten.

 

[Matthias]

It sounds like the crew at the helm felt uncomfortable that God was in charge instead of his Son, who he anointed. Well I hope they learned a lesson, or at least maybe one or two gained a life-changing eureka lightbulb experience. I hope they then reviewed their policies and ruled afterwards and adjusted the contents and language accordingly, if it was necessary.

Well the thing is, you became the single positive catalyst for a worthy or merited cause or change here. I hope others like you who will continue their service to God, even if it means bravely standing out in a long conspicuous line with the only one wearing the white tennis shoes, that instantly draws a juvenile chuckle at kindergarten.

The story would have been different if I had simply said the Bible is God-centered. Adding rather than Messiah-centered was more than one of the moderators was able to take.

“The Bible is God-centered rather than Messiah-centered“ was deemed to be Jewish, not Christian, and a rejection (and worse) of Jesus.

Jewish Christianity isn’t Nicene Christianity.

That particular forum administration didn’t have the same mindset as this forum administration but one of the moderators there did, and she flexed.

 

[Mindcruiser]

The story would have been different if I had simply said the Bible is God-centered. Adding rather than Messiah-centered was more than a moderator was able to take.

“The Bible is God-centered rather than Messiah-centered“ was deemed to be Jewish, not Christian, and a rejection (and worse) of Jesus.

Jewish Christianity isn’t Nicene Christianity.

That particular forum administration didn’t have the same mindset as this forum administration but one of the moderators there did, and she flexed.

Although the earlier Apostles Creed would come in a close second over the Nicaean version...

I wonder why the official policy of Lutheran Churches in the US 'accept' both the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds? How would that function or work in practice?

 

[Matthias]

Although the earlier Apostles Creed would come in a close second over the Nicaean version...

I wonder why the official policy of Lutheran Churches in the US 'accept' both the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds? How would that function or work in practice?

The Apostles’ Creed is a historical creed of the church. The Lutheran church doesn’t find anything objectionable about it and so doesn’t have any reason to reject it. The Nicene Creed takes a LARGE step forward and is a fuller expression of the Lutheran faith.

 

[Mindcruiser]

The Apostles’ Creed is a historical creed of the church. The Lutheran church doesn’t find anything objectionable about it and so doesn’t have any reason to reject it. The Nicene Creed takes a LARGE step forward and is a fuller expression of the Lutheran faith.

Sure, that does make a lot of sense.

Yes, the God-centric Bible is of the real Jews of the OT, although the early Christians would have still used this Father God-centric approach as their basis in understanding Christ and the new age of grace for salvation. This would be a natural logical step, and progression in understanding.

What gets me, is that in the last 30 years or so, many 'Christians' have made Jesus the center of the universe and left his father behind as the back up bass player in the band. It is a trend that should be alarming to the well-informed Christian today, who actually cares. I think they need to reexamine the many 'limitations' the Son has as compared with his Father....

 

[Matthias]

Sure, that does make a lot of sense.

Yes, the God-centric Bible is of the real Jews of the OT, although the early Christians would have still used this Father God-centric approach as their basis in understanding Christ and the new age of grace for salvation. This would be a natural logical step, and progression in understanding.

What gets me, is that in the last 30 years or so, many 'Christians' have made Jesus the center of the universe and left his father behind as the back up bass player in the band. It is a trend that should be alarming to the well-informed Christian today, who actually cares. I think they need to reexamine the many 'limitations' the Son has as compared with his Father....

Some trinitarians complain that Jesus has, for many, eclipsed the Trinity.

“Just give me Jesus” doesn’t necessarily sit well with everyone in the trinitarian camp.

 

[ScottA]

The Christian apologetic should be reaffirming and defending his 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 2017...

"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....."

There is much that is true in that explanation--but it is not all of what is true.

Your (and Albert Emanuel's) explanations assumes that Jesus is not God, and that the two are not One. That is not biblical.

Those are signs of a merely superficial understanding, and a world-centric perspective. It shows a lack of understanding the creation--the created world and all that is in it--and what it actually is. It assumes that God can not send Word, and that His Word is not equally good. If a mere man sent word to another--if he is a good man, is his word not as good as he who sent it? Do you see that you have effectively given more credit to mere men, than to God?

On the contrary: The Father and His Word are One.

 

[ScottA]

".. Salvation is through Christ, but it is God who saves.

No. That too is not biblical.

Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life.

 

[Rockerduck]

John 1:1

 

[Mindcruiser]

There is much that is true in that explanation--but it is not all of what is true.

Your (and Albert Emanuel's) explanations assumes that Jesus is not God, and that the two are not One. That is not biblical.

Those are signs of a merely superficial understanding, and a world-centric perspective. It shows a lack of understanding the creation--the created world and all that is in it--and what it actually is. It assumes that God can not send Word, and that His Word is not equally good. If a mere man sent word to another--if he is a good man, is his word not as good as he who sent it? Do you see that you have effectively given more credit to mere men, than to God?

On the contrary: The Father and His Word are One.

Well it's not quite John 10:30 is it, where it says "I and the Father are one." There is nothing in this passage that claims the I as in Jesus is the actual expression as from his God, although Jesus did become the word or expression of his God. And they, together as John says before v30., Jesus worked with his Father as in one purpose, not as one in nature as I believe you are attempting to suggest here.

Jesus said in v30 that he and his Father work as one - together (John 14:11). The Son and the Father work in common purpose in the same Spirit and mind and purpose. See also John 17:11 and 21. Thus, they are ‘one’ as a figure of speech.

Now note that the ‘one’ of John 10:30b in Greek is ἕν (hen) and not εἷς (heis). The former is used as one in action, as in one agreement or one as in teamwork or in one purpose and the latter is used for one in (the same) person or related to a person. This should be sufficient evidence Christ never meant the same God as his Father.

 

[Mindcruiser]

No. That too is not biblical.

Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life.

I suspect you are impressing upon me expression, 'the way.' And do you realize it might not means Jesus in himself, alone. And it does not..

This is biblical:

The phrase "I am the way, the truth, and the life" is a well-known statement by Jesus found in the Gospel of John 14:6. Jesus says, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." This verse emphasizes that Jesus is the path to God, his Father, the ultimate truth, and the source of eternal life, indicating that salvation is through Him alone. It is the Father who actually chooses his elect and then saves them in his Son's keeping, in is spirit that every Christian possesses.

 

[Matthias]

John 1:1

Isn’t the verse God-centered? (It is for a Jewish monotheist.)

 

[Matthias]

A problem is that Nicene affirming Christians tend to claim the New Testament (and the Hebrew Bible) for themselves and deny them to Jewish monotheists who believe Jesus is the Messiah, Son of God.

It’s the Nicene who is the Johnny come lately, not the Jewish monotheist.

Jewish monotheism doesn’t deny that “Jesus is God”. Jewish monotheism affirms that “Jesus is God” within the constraints of Jewish monotheism. The trinitarian scholar A.E. Harvey is one who does a masterful job explaining this to trinitarian and non-trinitarian readers.

 

[ScottA]

Well it's not quite John 10:30 is it, where it says "I and the Father are one." There is nothing in this passage that claims the I as in Jesus is the actual expression as from his God, although Jesus did become the word or expression of his God. And they, together as John says before v30., Jesus worked with his Father as in one purpose, not as one in nature as I believe you are attempting to suggest here.

Jesus said in v30 that he and his Father work as one - together (John 14:11). The Son and the Father work in common purpose in the same Spirit and mind and purpose. See also John 17:11 and 21. Thus, they are ‘one’ as a figure of speech.

Now note that the ‘one’ of John 10:30b in Greek is ἕν (hen) and not εἷς (heis). The former is used as one in action, as in one agreement or one as in teamwork or in one purpose and the latter is used for one in (the same) person or related to a person. This should be sufficient evidence Christ never meant the same God as his Father.

As I meant to convey, all of that is understandable and reasonable to think. But it is not true. Which is because the translation is from spirit to literary--language purposely confused by God. Thus, defining the words according to their original meaning is helpful, but only to a point. Which I do not say as a suggestion or my opinion, but as the truth from God.

Consider the analogy again of a good man sending a good word--this time animated. That is what the world is, it is the spiritual word of God made manifest--not fully, but rather limited. In the case of a man, a man cannot send his word in such a way (--almost), but God can and has. All of which is no addition in the way we might think, but simply for presentation and revelation, and this before the Judgement. But just like the animations made by men, when the light goes out, what have you? I tell you--you have the same "void" that was before "Let there be light!"

This, I do suggest, that you consider that revelation that is creation and all the world, as having a next-level finale, as it is written, of leading unto all truth, and the finish of the mystery of God as He declared to His servants the prophets.

 

[ScottA]

I suspect you are impressing upon me expression, 'the way.' And do you realize it might not means Jesus in himself, alone. And it does not..

This is biblical:

The phrase "I am the way, the truth, and the life" is a well-known statement by Jesus found in the Gospel of John 14:6. Jesus says, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." This verse emphasizes that Jesus is the path to God, his Father, the ultimate truth, and the source of eternal life, indicating that salvation is through Him alone. It is the Father who actually chooses his elect and then saves them in his Son's keeping, in is spirit that every Christian possesses.

You again take the path of explaining that which was true--but only true to a point. Insomuch as the six days are of this world, you are correct. But I was making clarification beyond that. If you are determined to stop before all is complete--then stop where you will. Otherwise, the renewing of your mind is now all the more necessary than in times past.

 

[Rockerduck]

Isn’t the verse God-centered? (It is for a Jewish monotheist.)

It says the Word was with God and the Word was God. So Jesus is the Word of God and is God. Wouldn't that be Jesus centered as God and equal to God. Philippians 2.6