Posts by aqwsed12345

posted

17
Can someone remind me the reason's you could be disfellowshipped?
by SydBarrett in
1. jw
2. friends
the only reasons i can remember are smoking, sexual immorality and of course, apostasy.

there must be others but having been out since 1990, i'm drawing a blank.

i was thinking perhaps serious criminal offenses that result in prison, but then i remembered a brother in my congregation in the 1980's who went to prison.
aqwsed12345
The reasons one can be disfellowshipped (now officially referred to as being “removed from the congregation”) as a Jehovah’s Witness are far broader and more invasive than just smoking, sexual immorality, or apostasy. The judicial system within the organization is secretive, punitive, and often arbitrary. Below is a categorized list based on the organization’s own literature and internal elder manuals, highlighting just how extensive and oppressive the rules are.

Moral and Sexual Conduct
1. Fornication (any sex outside of marriage)
2. Adultery (even remarriage without “scriptural” divorce)
3. Homosexual activity
4. Oral or anal sex (even within marriage)
5. Cybersex / phone sex
6. Pornography use (especially "hardcore")
7. Incest or bestiality
8. Dating while not “scripturally free” to remarry
Spiritual "Crimes"
1. Apostasy (disagreeing with Watchtower teachings—even privately)
2. Celebrating birthdays or holidays (including Christmas, Easter, etc.)
3. Accepting a blood transfusion
4. Spiritism / occultism / hypnosis
5. Idolatry (e.g., bowing before religious statues)
6. Interfaith activities (including entering churches)
7. Praying or singing hymns in another religion
Social Infractions and Attitudes
1. Association with disfellowshipped individuals (even family)
2. Publicly criticizing a disfellowshipping decision
3. Gambling
4. Drunkenness
5. Gluttony
6. Greed or extortion
7. Laziness, dirtiness, or being "meddlesome"
8. Verbally abusive behavior
9. Brazen conduct (disrespectful attitude toward WT rules)
10. Lying
Medical / Ethical Violations
1. Blood transfusions (even if life-saving)
2. Working in an abortion clinic, selling cigarettes, etc.
3. Performing abortions or supporting someone who does
4. Refusal to provide for family members
5. Professional boxing (because it’s considered violent)
Political and National “Disloyalties”
1. Voting in political elections
2. Joining the military or government service
3. Political activism or nationalistic behavior
4. Subversive or antigovernment activity
Criminal Behavior
1. Theft
2. Fraud
3. Physical assault (if persistent and unrepentant)
4. Child sexual abuse (though often mishandled internally)
5. Murder or manslaughter
Disassociation (Self-Removal) Triggers Shunning Too
You don’t even have to commit any of the above. You can be shunned for:
- Formally resigning from the religion.
- Associating with another church or faith.
- Taking a blood transfusion, even once.
- Joining the military or police.
Even Employment Can Get You Shunned
You can be disfellowshipped for working at:
- A church (even as a janitor)
- A military base
- A hospital that performs abortions
- A store that sells tobacco or lottery tickets
The System Is Secretive and Harsh
- Judicial hearings are held in secret with no recordings, no observers, and the committee serves as judge, jury, and executioner.
- A person can be disfellowshipped for persisting in a private belief that differs from the Watchtower's doctrine—even if they never speak about it.
- Failure to report someone else’s “serious sin” can also lead to punishment.
What About Domestic Violence?
As you noted: No, beating your wife won’t automatically get you disfellowshipped. If you deny the allegations or claim repentance, many elders may give only “reproof.” The organization has been repeatedly criticized for turning a blind eye to abuse—unless it meets their internal "two-witness rule."

Final Thoughts
The Jehovah’s Witness judicial system is not about justice or spiritual restoration—it’s about control, fear, and conformity. Many have been shunned, isolated, and psychologically harmed for infractions as minor as celebrating a birthday or holding a different opinion. Disfellowshipping isn't about sin—it's about disobedience to the organization.
228
The point of existence and how it refutes the Trinity
by slimboyfat in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
rowan williams, the former archbishop of canterbury gave an interesting answer to the somewhat stark question, what’s the point of us existing?

as a christian, my starting point is that we exist because the most fundamental form of activity, energy, call it what you like, that is there, is love.

that is, it’s a willingness that the other should be.
aqwsed12345

Is Jesus Merely a "Corresponding Ransom"?
A Catholic Refutation of Watchtower Theology on 1 Timothy 2:6
Jehovah’s Witnesses have long built a foundational doctrine on a misreading of one biblical phrase: “a corresponding ransom” (1 Timothy 2:6, New World Translation). According to the Watchtower Society, Jesus had to be exactly equal to Adam—no more, no less. Hence, they argue, Christ could not be divine, could not have been raised in a human body, and could not offer more than the mere restoration of Adam’s lost condition. But this theology collapses under serious exegetical, theological, and philosophical scrutiny. In this article, we will expose the fatal flaws of this Watchtower doctrine and offer a Catholic response rooted in Scripture, reason, and the true dignity of Christ’s redemptive work.

1. A Fabricated Phrase, a Faulty Foundation
Let’s start with the obvious: the phrase “corresponding ransom” is not found in the original Greek of 1 Timothy 2:6. The Greek word used is ἀντίλυτρον (antilytron)—a term meaning “ransom in place of,” not “ransom equal to in value.” The Watchtower inserts the word “corresponding” to smuggle in a doctrine that reduces Christ to a mere Adam 2.0.
But the word antilytron does not convey an ontological equivalence. It signifies substitution, not sameness of nature or value. The prefix anti- simply expresses that Christ gave His life in place of others—not that He had to match Adam’s nature tit-for-tat. Even the Greek scholar Parkhurst, whose outdated lexicon is the Watchtower’s sole source for this rendering, never defines the word with the theological precision the Society demands. Modern Greek lexicons, such as BDAG and the Concise Greek-English Lexicon, universally define antilytron as “ransom”—with no implication of exact equivalency.
The Watchtower’s argument is built on a word they mistranslated, defined wrongly, and misunderstood entirely.

2. The Watchtower’s Legalism: A Transaction Without Love
According to the Society, Christ’s death was a legal transaction: one perfect man (Jesus) dies in place of another (Adam) to balance the cosmic scales. But this cold, mechanistic view of salvation distorts the biblical message.
Let’s be clear: sin is not just a legal error; it is an offense against a personal, infinite God. The gravity of sin is not rooted in the worth of Adam, but in the worth of the One whom Adam offended. That’s why Psalm 49:7-8 says: “Truly no man can ransom another, or give to God the price of his life.” A mere man cannot satisfy the demands of divine justice. Only God can offer to God what is owed to God.
This is why Christ’s divinity is essential. As Colossians 2:9 declares, “In him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily.” The New World Translation corrupts this verse into “the fullness of divine quality,” erasing the clear affirmation of Jesus' divinity. But no “divine quality” can ransom humanity. Only God in the flesh could achieve that.

3. A Spirit Resurrection? Then Jesus Didn’t Ransom Anything
The Watchtower claims that Jesus gave up his human life forever—meaning he was resurrected as a spirit creature, not in a human body. But Paul contradicts this explicitly. In 1 Timothy 2:5–6, Paul writes:
“There is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all.”
If Jesus gave himself—and if he didn't get himself back—then there is no risen Jesus. But Paul affirms that Jesus is still the man, not was. The glorified Christ is still fully human. Paul says the same in Acts 17:31: “[God] will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed.” The man, not a ghost.
Furthermore, Jesus Himself said:
“I lay down my life that I may take it up again.” (John 10:17)
Jehovah’s Witnesses twist this to mean Jesus merely had the right to take it up, but chose not to. This is grammatical nonsense. The Greek construction (hina labō) expresses purpose, not permission. Jesus laid down his life in order to take it up again. His death was not a dead-end, but a gateway to victorious resurrection. A ransom that ends in permanent death is not a victory—it’s a loss.

4. Redemption: Restoration or Glorification?
The Watchtower insists that Jesus merely restored what Adam lost—perfect human life on Earth. This is a tragic reduction of the Gospel. Christ did not just restore Eden; He opened Heaven. As Paul writes:
“If many died through one man’s trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift… abounded for many.” (Romans 5:15)
The “ransom” of Christ is not a mere transaction that returns us to a pre-fall state. It is an elevation—a participation in the divine nature (2 Peter 1:4). The grace of Christ doesn’t just undo Adam’s failure—it ushers humanity into communion with God Himself. The Catholic doctrine of the felix culpa ("happy fault") celebrates this: Adam’s fall, though tragic, led to the greater good of the Incarnation.

5. Who Received the Ransom? A Question Jehovah’s Witnesses Can’t Answer
The Watchtower’s overly literal view of the ransom creates a theological nightmare: To whom was the ransom paid? To Satan? That would mean God is subject to the devil’s demands. To God? That would imply God needs something He lacks.
This is the pitfall of hyper-literal ransom theories. The Bible uses redemption metaphorically, not as a financial or legal contract. Christ’s death was not a payment in a cosmic marketplace—it was a personal, sacrificial act of divine love. As Paul writes:
“God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.” (Rom. 5:8)

6. Trinitarian Love, Not Watchtower Transactionalism
Finally, the entire Watchtower framework collapses because it denies the Trinity. They present a God who sends a created being to pay off humanity’s debt like a heavenly accountant. But Catholic theology reveals something far more beautiful: the God who saves us is the One we offended. In Christ, God took on our nature, died in our place, and raised us to divine life.
As St. Augustine said: “The one who made us without us did not will to save us without us.” God didn’t outsource our salvation. He came Himself.
Only in the Trinity does this make sense. Only the Son can offer a perfect sacrifice to the Father, in the Spirit. Only God can satisfy God. And only if Jesus is God can we be truly saved.

Conclusion: The False Ransom of Watchtower Theology
The Watchtower’s doctrine of a “corresponding ransom” is a theological house of cards. It misreads Scripture, denies the divinity and bodily resurrection of Christ, and reduces salvation to a legal exchange rather than the divine drama of love and redemption.
Jesus did not come merely to restore Eden. He came to give us Heaven. He did not merely give us what Adam lost. He gave us what Adam never had: the indwelling of God, eternal life in communion with the Trinity.
The ransom of Christ is not “equal” to Adam. It infinitely surpasses him. Because Christ is not “no more and no less than a perfect man.” He is God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God.
And He gave Himself for all.
“Thanks be to God for His inexpressible gift!” (2 Corinthians 9:15)

Ad maiorem Dei gloriam.
228
The point of existence and how it refutes the Trinity
by slimboyfat in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
rowan williams, the former archbishop of canterbury gave an interesting answer to the somewhat stark question, what’s the point of us existing?

as a christian, my starting point is that we exist because the most fundamental form of activity, energy, call it what you like, that is there, is love.

that is, it’s a willingness that the other should be.
aqwsed12345
@Duran
Your response insists that Jesus cannot be God because 1 Timothy 2:5 calls him “a man,” that he gave a “corresponding ransom,” and that Revelation 3:14 calls him “the beginning of the creation by God.” Yet each of these claims either rests on mistranslation, misunderstanding of key terms, or a selective reading of the biblical witness that refuses to let Scripture interpret Scripture.
Let us start with your interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:5–6: “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, a man, Christ Jesus, who gave himself a corresponding ransom for all.” You claim that since Jesus is called “a man,” he cannot be God. But this passage does not deny Christ’s deity—it affirms his true humanity, which is essential for his role as mediator. The text does not say he is only a man. In fact, only one who is both fully God and fully man could mediate between God and men. A mere man cannot reconcile us to God; a created angel cannot redeem that which is infinitely beneath and infinitely above him at once. The mediation of Jesus Christ flows from the fact that he possesses both natures—divine and human—in one person (cf. Hebrews 2:14–17). The ransom he offers is of infinite worth precisely because of his divine identity. That is the very reason Paul writes in Acts 20:28 that “God purchased the Church with his own blood”—a statement that makes no sense if Jesus is not God in the flesh.
As for the “corresponding ransom” (Greek antilytron)—you reason that the ransom must be of equal ontological value to Adam and that therefore a created being, like a spirit son, could suffice. But this is a philosophical fiction, not a biblical doctrine. The term antilytron does not mean “equal in kind”; it means “in place of.” It speaks of substitution, not equivalence of created natures. Your claim collapses once we remember the fundamental truth: the offense of sin is not measured by the dignity of the offender (Adam), but by the dignity of the one offended (God). And because God is infinite, the satisfaction must be infinite. This is why Psalm 49:7–8 says: “Truly no man can ransom another, or give to God the price of his life.” Only God could pay what was owed to God. If Christ were merely an angel or a man, his death would have no more redemptive value than the death of a prophet or martyr. But Scripture presents the cross as a divine act: “For in him all the fullness of deity dwells bodily” (Col 2:9). Jehovah’s Witnesses erase this truth by mistranslating this verse in the NWT as “the fullness of divine quality”—a distortion designed to strip Jesus of his divine nature, and one that no reputable Greek lexicon supports.
1Timothy 2:6 in the original text there is no "corresponding", this is also one of the infamous Bible forgery inserts in the NWT. While in the WTS theology the ramsom is of equal value, Jesus gives more than the restoration of Adam's perfect condition to those who believe in Him (Romans 5:15-16). You can read about the Adam-Jesus parallel used by the apostle Paul and its WTS reinterpretation here:
- The significance of the “Antilytron”
- Was Adam created "perfect"?
The JW theology hinges on the idea that a perfect creature (Jesus, in their view, as Michael the Archangel) could provide a ransom for humanity. This premise drastically undervalues the gravity of sin. Sin, in its essence, is not merely a violation of God’s laws but a radical rupture in the relationship between humanity and God (cf. Isa. 59:2, Rom. 3:23). This rupture is infinite because it is an offense against an infinite God. A finite being, no matter how perfect, cannot repair this breach. Only God, who is infinite, can offer an infinite atonement. This is why God the Son became incarnate. Phil. 2:6-11 reveals that Christ, who "did not count equality with God something to be grasped," humbled Himself to take on human nature and obediently died on the Cross. This act of self-giving love is not God "paying Himself," but God stepping into His creation to restore it from within, a point beautifully captured in the doctrine of the “felix culpa.”
The Incarnation was not merely a post hoc response to sin but part of God’s eternal plan to unite creation to Himself. The Exsultet, the hymn sung during the Easter Vigil, praises the Fall of Adam as a "happy fault" (felix culpa), because it occasioned the Incarnation of Christ, through whom humanity is brought into an even greater union with God than Adam ever experienced. The Incarnation reveals the depths of God’s love. By becoming man, God dignifies human nature and opens the way for humanity not only to be redeemed but to share in the divine life (2 Peter 1:4). This divine condescension demonstrates God’s justice and mercy: justice in that sin is truly atoned for, and mercy in that the atonement is entirely God’s initiative, given freely out of love (John 3:16, Eph. 2:8-9). In the JWs’ theology, which sees Jesus as merely a created being, diminishes the profound mystery of the Incarnation. If Jesus were not God, the ransom would be inadequate, as no creature could restore the infinite breach caused by sin.
JWs frequently cite texts like Job 1-2, Gen. 3, and Rev. 12:10 to suggest that God’s sovereignty needed to be vindicated against Satan’s accusations. However, this framework implies a dualistic struggle between God and Satan, as if God’s sovereignty were ever in question. At the core of the JWs’ theodicy, God is effectively a supernatural Marty McFly playing a cosmic chicken game with the world just because Satan challenged him.
Catholic theology rejects this dualism entirely. God is omnipotent and sovereign, and His actions are never contingent upon Satan’s accusations or challenges. Instead, the story of redemption is about God’s initiative to restore humanity, not as a reaction to Satan’s rebellion but as a fulfillment of His eternal plan. In Gen. 3:15, God promises a Redeemer who will crush the serpent’s head, prefiguring Christ’s victory over sin and death. This victory is not a mere legal transaction but a cosmic renewal of all creation (Rom. 8:19-21).
JWs assert that Jesus’ sacrifice merely restores what Adam lost—perfect human life in an earthly paradise. This view, however, fails to grasp the transformative power of Christ’s redemption. The NT repeatedly emphasizes that Christ does far more than restore; He elevates humanity. Through His death and resurrection, believers are not merely returned to Edenic innocence but are made partakers of the divine nature (2 Pet. 1:4), adopted as children of God (Rom. 8:15-17), and united with Christ in His glory (Col. 3:4). The JWs’ focus on Christ as a "corresponding ransom" (NWT) for Adam’s sin reduces the Incarnation to a mere corrective measure, ignoring the fullness of God’s salvific plan. As Paul writes in Rom. 5:15-17, the grace given through Christ surpasses the trespass of Adam. Salvation is not merely the restoration of what was lost but the elevation of humanity to eternal communion with God.
Catholic theology offers a coherent soteriological framework that fully accounts for the depth of sin and the necessity of God’s direct intervention. The Trinity is not a contradiction but the ultimate expression of God’s nature as love (1 John 4:8). Only a Trinitarian God—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—can fully accomplish the work of creation, redemption, and sanctification. JW theology, by denying Christ’s deity, limits the scope of salvation and misunderstands the radical transformation offered through Christ. The Catholic view, grounded in Scripture and tradition, affirms that the Incarnation and the Cross are not merely about restoring what was lost but about drawing humanity into the very life of God—a mystery so profound that it can only be described as a “felix culpa.”
Your appeal to Revelation 3:14, where Jesus is called “the archē of the creation of God” (not "by God", as the NWT falsely renders), is based on a mistranslation. The Greek phrase is hē archē tēs ktiseōs tou Theou. But archē in Greek does not mean “first created thing” but “source” or “origin.” The same word is used in Revelation 21:6 and 22:13 to describe God as “the beginning and the end.” Are we to believe God Himself is a created being? Certainly not. Jesus is the principium, the origin, the source of creation—not the first creature. This is confirmed by John 1:3, which states that “All things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made.” Jesus is not part of creation—he is its Creator. If he were created, he would belong to the category of “things that were made.” But John explicitly excludes him from that category.
You cite Colossians 1:15, calling Jesus “the firstborn of all creation,” to support the idea that he was created. But again, this reflects a linguistic error. “Firstborn” (prōtotokos) in Jewish and biblical thought refers not to time of birth, but to rank and preeminence. Israel is called God’s “firstborn” in Exodus 4:22—not because it was the first nation ever created, but because of its privileged status. Likewise, Psalm 89:27 says of the Messiah, “I will make him the firstborn, the highest of the kings of the earth.” Paul’s point in Colossians 1 is not that Jesus is the first created being, but that he is supreme over all creation—because (v.16) “by him all things were created.”
Jehovah’s Witnesses distort this passage by inserting the word “other” four times (“all other things”) into their NWT—without any textual warrant—solely to maintain their theological presupposition that Jesus is created. That is not translation. That is manipulation.
You also quote Philippians 2:6–8, claiming that Jesus “did not even consider the idea of trying to be equal to God” (NWT). But this again is a mistranslation. The Greek says that Jesus, “existing in the form of God (en morphē theou hyparchōn), did not regard equality with God something to be grasped (or clung to), but emptied himself.” Paul’s point is not that Jesus lacked equality with God, but that he possessed it—and chose not to exploit it. The word harpagmos ("grasped") implies something one already has, not something one tries to seize unlawfully. Thus, Christ’s humility does not prove inferiority—it demonstrates that though he is God, he did not use his divine status for self-advantage but entered into human suffering for our sake. The NWT mistranslates this to avoid what the text affirms: Jesus is God, but chose the path of servant love.
You attempt to construct a theology in which Jesus is merely God’s first spirit creation, an exalted angel turned man. But that theology collapses when held up to the whole of Scripture. Consider again Hebrews 1:3: “He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his being (hypostasis).” This does not describe a creature. No created being is the exact imprint of God's essence. Psalm 89:6–7 (NWT) states clearly: “Who in the heavens can be compared to Jehovah?”—and the answer is none. Yet Hebrews says the Son is the precise imprint of God’s being. Therefore, the Son is not merely comparable to God—he is God, sharing in the very essence of the Father.
And lest there be any doubt, Hebrews 1:6 commands the angels to worship the Son. The Greek word is proskuneō, which in this context refers to divine worship. Yet Isaiah 42:8 says: “My glory I give to no other.” If Jesus were a creature, then Hebrews would be commanding blasphemy. But it is not blasphemy—because the Son is not “another” from God in essence. He is one in being, distinct in person. He is worthy of the same worship as the Father, because he shares in the same divine glory.
You appeal to emotion and simplicity. But theology must be guided not by our feelings, but by revelation. The God of the Bible is not a solitary monad who creates creatures to solve problems for him. He is the eternal communion of love—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—who, in the fullness of time, took on flesh not because He lacked options, but because He is the option. No angel can save us because no angel is God. And only God can reconcile us to God.
You strip Christ of his glory, claiming he is merely a tool used by Jehovah. But Scripture says “in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily” (Col 2:9). Not “divine quality,” as the NWT says, but deity—theotēs. Only one who is truly God can bear infinite justice, offer infinite mercy, and pour out the Holy Spirit to transform the world.
The Trinity is not a philosophical add-on. It is the only theology that preserves the fullness of God’s justice, mercy, and love—while grounding redemption not in creaturely merit, but in divine initiative. It is mystery, yes. But mystery revealed. Not invented by man, but proclaimed by the apostles, confessed by the Church, and preserved by the Spirit.
You can deny it—but Scripture does not. And every page, from Genesis to Revelation, testifies not to a created messenger, but to Emmanuel—God with us.
228
The point of existence and how it refutes the Trinity
by slimboyfat in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
rowan williams, the former archbishop of canterbury gave an interesting answer to the somewhat stark question, what’s the point of us existing?

as a christian, my starting point is that we exist because the most fundamental form of activity, energy, call it what you like, that is there, is love.

that is, it’s a willingness that the other should be.
aqwsed12345
@Duran
Jehovah’s Witnesses claim that Jesus Christ is identical to Michael the Archangel—a created being, albeit the greatest of all angels. But this claim collapses under the weight of Scripture itself, especially when we examine Psalm 89:6 and Hebrews 1:3 (both from their own New World Translation).
Let’s begin with Psalm 89:6 (NWT):
“For who in the skies can compare to Jehovah? Who among the sons of God is like Jehovah?”
This is a rhetorical question, and its answer is clear: no one. Not a single angel—none of the “sons of God”—can be compared to Jehovah. The text makes an emphatic and exclusive claim: Jehovah is utterly incomparable to even the highest angelic beings, including Michael.
Now contrast that with how Hebrews 1:3 describes the Son:
“He is the reflection of God’s glory and the exact representation of his very being…” (NWT)
The Greek word translated "exact representation" is charaktēr, which in ancient usage referred to the precise imprint, as with a stamp on a coin. This means that the Son is not merely like God in some vague or representative way, but is the perfect expression of God’s very being (hypostasis in Greek).
But let’s stop and ask the obvious question:
If “no one in the heavens” is even comparable to Jehovah (Psalm 89:6), how could Jesus be “the exact representation of His being” (Hebrews 1:3) unless He is of the same divine nature?
Michael the Archangel, as an exalted creature, falls squarely under the category of “sons of God” in Psalm 89. And Psalm 89 insists that no such being can compare to Jehovah. Yet Hebrews says the Son is not just comparable to Jehovah—He’s the exact imprint of Him.
This poses an inescapable dilemma for Jehovah’s Witness theology:
- If Jesus is Michael, then He cannot be the exact representation of God’s being, because Psalm 89 rules that out.
- But if Jesus is the exact representation of God’s being, then He cannot be Michael, because Michael is not comparable to Jehovah.
Jehovah’s Witnesses cannot have it both ways. They must either:
1. Deny the Bible’s plain teaching in Hebrews 1:3,
  or
2. Accept that the Son is not a created angel, but shares in the very nature of Jehovah God Himself.
Hebrews 1:3 is not compatible with the claim that Jesus is Michael. It is, however, fully compatible with the doctrine of the Trinity.
Your reply is not so much a biblical objection as it is an emotional caricature rooted in a misunderstanding of divine providence, creaturely nature, and the economy of salvation. While your tone implies concern for divine fairness or consistency, your theology collapses under the weight of its own contradictions—precisely because it misunderstands the nature of God, of creation, and of the Incarnation.
First, you presume that it would somehow be a flaw or “failure” on God’s part that none of his creatures, angelic or human, could serve as the sufficient ransom for mankind. But that is not a defect in creation; it is a testimony to the infinite holiness and justice of God and the real difference between Creator and creature. Even the highest of angels—perfect as they are in their created nature—remain finite. God alone is infinite. The ransom required to bridge the chasm of sin, which is an offense against the infinite dignity of God, must be of infinite value. Lex talionis, the law of proportionate justice, demands that the payment be commensurate with the offense. No finite being—angel or man—could ever offer to God a sacrifice of infinite worth. That is not a failure of God’s craftsmanship. That is simply metaphysical reality.
This is why only God himself, becoming man, could offer a sufficient sacrifice. Not because God "couldn't trust" his creations, but because no creature is God. The dignity of the satisfaction must correspond to the dignity of the person offended. This is why the Incarnation was not a last resort, but the most perfect expression of divine love and wisdom. Far from being a Plan B, the sending of the Son was God's will from eternity, as the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world (Rev 13:8).
You attempt to mock the doctrine of the Incarnation by presenting it as if God split himself or “used himself as his own son.” But this betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of Trinitarian theology. We do not teach that the Father became the Son, nor that God turned into Jesus. That would be modalism, a heresy the Catholic Church has always rejected. Rather, the eternal Word, who is the only-begotten Son of the Father, fully God by nature, assumed a human nature. He did not cease being God, nor did the divine nature change. What happened was a union of two natures—divine and human—in the one divine Person of the Son. This is the hypostatic union, not a confusion of persons or essence.
You say, “So he couldn’t use an angel?” No, because no angel is God. An angel could not pay the debt of mankind’s sin. Nor could an angel bridge the ontological gap between God and man. The Incarnation is not about “trust.” It’s about who is capable of bearing infinite justice and offering infinite love. Only God can redeem man, because only God is the source of life, and only He can restore what was eternally lost.
Your attempt to paint God as unjust for not enthroning angels ignores the fact that Scripture itself explains why glorified humans—not angels—are raised to rule with Christ. The Letter to the Hebrews says explicitly that it is not to angels that God subjected the world to come, but to the Son made man, the new Adam (Heb 2:5–9). Why? Because Christ is not just God, He is man—true man, the Head of a redeemed humanity. Through His obedience unto death, He undoes the disobedience of Adam (Rom 5:19). This is what makes it fitting that humans, not angels, are co-heirs with Him. You are offended at the glorification of humanity, but the scandal is not injustice—it’s grace.
Moreover, you invert the entire logic of divine condescension and humility by interpreting it as a failure. In Christian theology, the Son “did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,” but humbled himself (Phil 2:6–8). You twist this into an accusation, but the Scriptures present it as the supreme revelation of God’s love. The humility of God in becoming man is not proof of divine desperation—it is the glory of divine generosity. That is what we worship.
Finally, your anthropomorphic picture of God as needing trustworthy subordinates whom He "can rely on" is not the God of the Bible. God does not need angels or men. He is not wringing His hands in heaven, wondering whom He can trust. He is not a disappointed engineer lamenting the imperfections of His designs. He is a sovereign Lord who, in His omniscience and love, foreknew the fall of angels and men and still chose to create, redeem, and glorify according to His perfect will. To call Him a failure for the disobedience of creatures is to blame the sun for the shadows.
You deny that Jesus is of the same divine essence as the Father. And yet Scripture speaks differently. John 1:1 says the Logos was God, not merely “a god.” Hebrews 1 says the Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact imprint of His being. Colossians 1 says all things were created through Him and for Him. Thomas, seeing the risen Christ, adresses Christ as “My Lord and my God!” and Jesus does not rebuke him. You can keep insisting that this is all “just a title,” but that’s not exegesis—that’s eisegesis. The Scriptures present the Son as truly God, eternally begotten, one in essence with the Father, and worthy of worship.
You reject this because your theology cannot accept mystery. But the Church has never claimed to explain away the Trinity—it confesses it, because this is how God has revealed Himself. Not as a lonely monad, nor as a solitary monarch, but as eternal communion: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—one God, three persons, perfect in love and unity of essence.
You mock what you do not understand. But what you call failure, we call kenosis—the self-giving of divine love. What you call inconsistency, we call mercy. What you call contradiction, we call mystery, revealed not by human logic but by the God who is love.
228
The point of existence and how it refutes the Trinity
by slimboyfat in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
rowan williams, the former archbishop of canterbury gave an interesting answer to the somewhat stark question, what’s the point of us existing?

as a christian, my starting point is that we exist because the most fundamental form of activity, energy, call it what you like, that is there, is love.

that is, it’s a willingness that the other should be.
aqwsed12345

@Duran
Your argument rests on several interpretive missteps, the most fundamental of which is a category error: you collapse grammatical distinction into ontological division, failing to grasp the theological depth of what Scripture reveals about the unity of God and the distinction of persons within the Trinity.
Let’s begin with your reading of John 17:21–23, where Jesus prays that his disciples “may all be one. As you, Father, are in me and I am in you.” (The NWT's rendering “in union with” is a simple mistranslations.) You treat this passage as though it neutralizes any claim of ontological unity between the Father and the Son. But this confuses likeness of relationship with equality of nature. When Jesus prays for believers to be “one,” he clearly desires moral, spiritual, and ecclesial unity—rooted in love and truth, mediated by grace. But nowhere does Scripture suggest that believers will share in the divine nature by nature itself. Rather, we become “partakers of the divine nature” by grace (2 Peter 1:4), not by essence. You cite John 17 as though it equates the unity of believers with the unity of Father and Son in the same sense—but this is a false equivalence. In reality, Christ is using a familiar rabbinic teaching technique: a kal va-chomer argument, where the lesser (disciples being one) reflects, but never exhausts or equals, the greater (the essential unity of divine persons). The divine unity is not a moral alliance. It is a shared essence (ousia), something no creature can attain.
This is why John 10:30—“I and the Father are one”—uses the neuter form hen, not the masculine heis. Jesus does not claim they are the same person, but that they are one thing, one essence. Your appeal to the disciples’ unity proves nothing against this because their unity is by grace; the unity of Father and Son is by nature. Creatures are said to be one by likeness of will or operation, not by nature; whereas the Father and the Son are one in being, essence, and power.

The Watchtower Society, referring to John 17:11, seeks to weaken the meaning of John 10:30 (“I and the Father are one”) and claims that the unity of the Father and the Son would be solely the same as the unity existing among the believers. In this verse, Jesus asks the Father that the disciples “may be one,” meaning that unity of conviction and endeavor—after the model of the unity of the divine persons—should bind them together. That is, this unity serves as a model, but it does not mean that Christian unity is exhausted in this way, just as the unity of the divine persons is not merely some kind of “unity of will.” Rather, the Father and the Son have one and the same divine being and nature.
Let us take as a basis this statement: “Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect!” (Mt 5:48). If we wished to interpret this verse with the same logic as the passage in question, then we would conclude that the perfection of the Heavenly Father is attainable for man. Since this is not possible, it must be interpreted in the same way as the other: both the perfection of the Heavenly Father and the unity between the Father and the Son serve as goals and models before us, toward which we can only converge, but never fully attain as humans. Neither implies that such a degree of perfection or unity is actually attainable.
In the High Priestly Prayer, certain traits of this essential unity are reflected in the loving relationship among Christians as well, but this does not mean that every element of the Father-Son relationship also appears there. The unity of Christians with one another cannot, for example, include the transmission of supernatural life to one another, or the offering of an atoning sacrifice to the Father. Instead, they inherit the unity of the Father and the Son in this way: whoever belongs to the Son also belongs to the Father (Jn 17:10). As the Father loves the Son, so the Son loves his followers as well (17:23). Where the Son is, his followers will also be (v. 24).
This interpretation might rely on the sectarian, literalistic, formal-logical interpretation of the following phrase when Jesus says in his prayer: “that they may be one, as we are one” (i.e., he, Jesus, with the Father). However, based on the vocabulary of Scripture, the words “as,” “like,” “just as,” and “so” do not necessarily imply equivalence, but rather serve as a reference point, pattern or model: they suggest a certain similarity, analogy between the unity of the divine persons and the unity of God’s children lived in truth and love. It is enough to cite as an example the biblical statement: “Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect!” (Mt 5:48). Clearly, we will not interpret this statement in the same way the Watchtower wishes to force the text of the High Priestly Prayer—namely, as if Jesus were calling for the achievement of the absolute perfection of the Father God, which is of course conceptually impossible for a creature. It must be interpreted in the same way as the High Priestly Prayer: the perfection of the Father God is the ideal model of perfection, which must shine before our eyes as an ultimately unattainable goal.
This word, “one,” can be understood by believers as referring to unity of love in grace, and by the divine persons as unity in identity of nature, just as the Truth says elsewhere: “Be... perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Mt 5:48), as if stating more tangibly, “be perfect” in the perfection of grace, just as “your heavenly Father is perfect” in the perfection of his nature—each in its own way: since between the Creator and the creature no such similarity can be marked out without also acknowledging the far greater differences that exist between them.
Now regarding Revelation 22:3. You object to the Trinitarian interpretation of the singular pronoun “him” referring to both “God and the Lamb,” claiming instead that they are seated on separate thrones. But this simply contradicts the text. Revelation 22:1 speaks of the singular “throne of God and of the Lamb.” Not two thrones—one. There is no mention of Christ awaiting a separate throne in the New Jerusalem. Revelation’s vision is one of shared glory and shared rule. You cite Revelation 3:21 and Matthew 25:31, but these reference stages of redemptive history—not eternal ontological hierarchy. In Revelation 3:21, Jesus says, “I also conquered and sat down with my Father on His throne.” This is not anticipation of a later upgrade in thrones; it is fulfillment of Psalm 110:1, where the Messiah is seated at God's right hand. The very sharing of God’s throne is the sign of Christ’s divinity—not its negation. In the Old Testament, no one sat on God’s throne but God Himself. In the New Testament, the Lamb does—because He is of the same divine nature.
The ambiguity of the pronoun “him” in Revelation 22:3 is only ambiguous to those determined to separate what Scripture unites. Grammatical proximity places “the Lamb” as the likely antecedent. But context reveals theological unity. The one throne (22:1), the one reign (11:15), and the one temple (21:22)—all refer to “God and the Lamb.” The singular verb latreuō (“they will serve him”) is used throughout the LXX for cultic worship of YHWH alone. That this term is now applied to the Lamb alongside God reveals that Christ is the object of divine worship. This would be blasphemy—unless He is God. The same is true of Revelation 5:13–14, where the Lamb receives the same glory, honor, and worship as the One on the throne. In Jewish monotheism, such worship cannot be distributed. Either Jesus is a divine person of the one God, or John is promoting idolatry.
You argue that Jesus is worshipped merely as God’s appointed king. But this misses the deeper point of Philippians 2:6–11. Paul quotes Isaiah 45:23—where YHWH declares, “To me every knee shall bow”—and applies it to Jesus. The name given to Jesus is not just “Jesus,” but the divine title “Lord” (Kyrios), used consistently in the LXX for YHWH. Paul is not describing mere delegated authority; he is proclaiming divine identity. And lest we think this is a promotion for good behavior, the hymn begins with the pre-existent divine Son who, “being in the morphḗ of God, did not regard equality with God something to be grasped,” but emptied Himself in humility. His exaltation is the unveiling of His divine status—not its reward.
Finally, your entire argument rests on the idea that Jesus cannot be God because He is distinct from the Father. But this is the very heart of Trinitarian theology. Jesus is not the Father. That is not a denial of divinity—it is an affirmation of personal distinction. The doctrine of the Trinity confesses one divine essence (ousia) subsisting in three persons (hypostaseis). The Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Spirit—but each is fully God, not as parts, not as manifestations, but as subsisting relations within the one divine being. The thrones of God and the Lamb are one because the essence is one. The worship directed to both is one because the glory is one.
You cite the biblical text but interpret it through a framework that cannot account for the full depth of its claims. You deny the Trinity not because the text denies it, but because your theology demands it. But the Church—guided by the Spirit, illumined by the whole of Scripture, and tested in the fire of heresies ancient and modern—has always confessed: Jesus is Lord. Not merely in office, but in essence. Not as a secondary being, but as true God from true God.
That is not a philosophical addition. That is the testimony of the apostles. And it remains the faith of the Church.

@vienne
Your claim that Revelation 22:1 "disproves" the deity of Christ and exposes my reliance on “Catholic sources” rather than “Scripture alone” (practically: heretical nuda Scriptura) is not only laughably shallow but betrays a profound ignorance of both the text itself and the historical and theological structure of the Christian faith. You accuse me of quoting Scripture through “extra-biblical” lenses—yet you impose your own, deeply anti-biblical lens: namely, that of Arian reductionism. You force every verse through the narrow filter of Watchtower dogma and then scold others for not doing the same. That’s not sola Scriptura—it’s sola Watchtura.
Let’s look at Revelation 22:1, the verse you latch onto with false confidence:
“Then the angel showed me a river of the water of life, bright as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb.”
Now stop. There is one throne here, not two. And it is not “God’s throne with the Lamb nearby.” The throne belongs jointly to “God and the Lamb.” This isn’t a matter of metaphor or poetic language. In the ancient world—and in Scripture—the throne is the definitive symbol of sovereign rule. For the Lamb to share the throne of God is not a statement of subordination, but of shared kingship, shared rule, and shared identity. If the Lamb were a mere creature or exalted archangel, this would be the very blasphemy the Book of Revelation warns against.
But you say, “The Lamb sits on the throne with God. It doesn’t say he is God.” That’s a textbook case of eisegesis—forcing your presuppositions onto the text. Because the verse also doesn’t say the Lamb is not God. And if Revelation 22:1 doesn’t state outright “Jesus is God,” then neither does it say “Jesus is not God.” The difference is that you demand an isolated proof-text in service of your ideology, while the whole context of Revelation testifies that the Lamb is worshipped, enthroned, served, and identified with the divine prerogatives of God Himself.
Let’s now read Revelation 22:3:
“The throne of God and of the Lamb will be in it, and His servants will serve Him.”
One throne. One singular pronoun. His bondservants. They will serve Him. The Greek word here is latreuō—a term used exclusively in the New Testament for the cultic, sacred service due to God alone. Never for men. Never for angels. And yet it is used here for service rendered to the singular “Him”—after naming both “God and the Lamb.”
This is devastating for your position.
You try to dodge this by claiming that the singular pronoun means the service is rendered to God alone. But Greek doesn’t work that way—not in Revelation. As many scholars, including Bauckham and Beale, have shown, John routinely uses singular pronouns and verbs to refer to both God and the Lamb together, to emphasize their unity in deity, not to deny it. He’s not sloppy with grammar—he bends it intentionally to theologically signal their unity. This is why we see the same structure in Revelation 20:6, where “priests of God and of Christ… reign with Him.” Him—singular. Same structure. Same logic. Are you going to argue Christ is excluded from the reign in that verse too? Absurd.
But let’s push even further. Who is “seen” in Revelation 22:4?
“They will see His face, and His name will be on their foreheads.”
Whose face? Whose name? The Father’s? The Lamb’s? Scripture answers: both. Revelation 14:1 already told us:
“They had His name and the name of His Father written on their foreheads.”
So why is Revelation 22:4 using the singular “His name”? Because the name is shared. It is the divine name—the name above every name—because the Father and the Son are one in nature, one in worship, one in glory.
And here’s what should terrify you, if you truly cared about honoring the Word of God: in Revelation 5:13, all of creation cries out,
“To Him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb be blessing and honor and glory and might forever and ever!”
This is not two different acts of worship. It is a single doxology, offered jointly to God and the Lamb, and no one protests it. In fact, the angels and elders fall down in adoration—because the Lamb shares the same divine glory (cf. John 17:5). Meanwhile, in Revelation 19 and 22, angels refuse worship. Why? “Worship God!” But the Lamb receives it—because He is God.
You accuse me of “cut and pasting from Catholic sources.” Thank you. You’ve accidentally paid a compliment. Because the Catholic Church preserved the Trinitarian faith from being butchered by heresies like yours for nearly two millennia. Your theology didn’t come from the Bible—it came from a 19th-century religious publishing company in Brooklyn. The early Church Fathers, long before Nicea, long before Constantine, were already worshiping the Son with latreuo, already defending His full deity, already reading Revelation and confessing what you deny: that the Lamb is Lord, the Son is God, and Christ is to be served with sacred worship.
You think you’re championing “Scripture alone”? No—you’re gutting Scripture of its depth and unity, clinging to half-verses and avoiding the ones that shatter your theology. Like John 20:28, where Thomas falls before Jesus and confesses:
“My Lord and my God!”
Did Jesus correct him? No. Because it was the truth.
So no, I’m not afraid of the text of Revelation 22. I’m afraid for you—because you refuse to see what’s there. The throne is one. The worship is one. The God is one. And the Lamb who shares the throne, receives the sacred service, bears the divine name, and is worshiped by all creation—He is no creature. He is the eternal Son, consubstantial with the Father.
You don’t get to rip the Lamb from His throne and drag Him into your Arian marketplace. He reigns. And one day, you too will bow—not to an exalted angel, but to “the First and the Last,” the Alpha and the Omega, the one who was dead and is alive forevermore. The question is: will you bow in faith, or in fear?
228
The point of existence and how it refutes the Trinity
by slimboyfat in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
rowan williams, the former archbishop of canterbury gave an interesting answer to the somewhat stark question, what’s the point of us existing?

as a christian, my starting point is that we exist because the most fundamental form of activity, energy, call it what you like, that is there, is love.

that is, it’s a willingness that the other should be.
aqwsed12345

@vienne
That's laughable—because your problem is not that I don’t use Scripture. It’s that I use too much of it for your liking. You’re not interested in Scripture. You’re interested in a cherry-picked selection of verses ripped from their context, interpreted through the lens of your anti-Trinitarian ideology. And when someone brings the full weight of Scripture—Old Testament prophecy, New Testament fulfillment, apostolic testimony, and theological coherence—you recoil and start yelling "Pharisee!" as if calling names wins arguments. You're not doing sola Scriptura. You’re doing sola snippetura—cutting and pasting whatever props up your theology while closing your eyes to everything else.
You think I’m afraid of Scripture? No, friend. You’re afraid of all of Scripture. You fear what it would mean if Jesus really is who he claimed to be—the eternal Son, one in being with the Father, worthy of worship, and seated on the same throne as the Almighty (Rev 22:1). You fear the doctrine of the Trinity not because it isn’t in the Bible, but because it exposes your cheap theology as man-made reductionism.
If quoting Church Fathers and creeds makes me a “Catholic troll,” so be it. But your rejection of the historic Christian faith—shared not only by Catholics but by the early Fathers, the Reformers, and every orthodox stream of Christianity—is not bold. It’s rebellion. It’s what Paul called “another gospel,” which is no gospel at all.
So keep mocking. Call names. But don’t pretend I’m the one afraid of Scripture. I follow the Lamb who is on the same throne as the One seated on it (Rev 22:1). And one day, you, like everyone else, will bow before Him—not as a creature, not as an angel, but as “My Lord and my God” (John 20:28). The only question is whether you’ll bow now in faith or later in judgment.
53
What is really Babylon the great?
by Halcon in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
for believers of god and christ, it seems that it should be obvious that babylon the great of revelation should be all religions and spiritual practices associated with the one true enemy of christ...the devil, satan, the snake etc.

essentially any group or individual practicing and promoting witchcraft, sorcery, devil worshipping etc.

all things practiced in ancient babylon (the nation presumably used as the model for the one in revelation).. or is this too simple of an explanation?.
aqwsed12345
“Fallen, fallen is Babylon the great! She has become a dwelling place for demons…” (Revelation 18:2)
The identity of Babylon the Great in the Book of Revelation has long intrigued and divided interpreters. To many modern readers, especially those influenced by sensationalist or literalist readings of Revelation, the answer seems obvious: Babylon must be a symbol of all false religions, cults, and explicitly satanic practices, including witchcraft and sorcery. After all, ancient Babylon was a center of idolatry, astrology, and opposition to the God of Israel—so surely, the symbolic "Babylon" must represent the same today?
While this interpretation appears plausible at first glance, Catholic tradition—especially through the lens of amillennialism and partial preterism—offers a richer, more nuanced view rooted in Scripture, history, and theology.

1. What is Amillennialism and Partial Preterism?
Before we answer who or what Babylon the Great truly is, we must first understand the interpretive lens through which the Catholic Church traditionally reads Revelation.
- Amillennialism holds that the "millennium" of Revelation 20 is not a literal future 1,000-year reign of Christ on earth, but a symbolic description of Christ’s present reign from heaven, which began at His resurrection and continues until the final judgment. This is the current Church Age.
- Partial Preterism understands much of Revelation (especially chapters 1–19) as a symbolic depiction of events that were near-future from John’s perspective, most notably the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 and the persecution of the early Church by the Roman Empire.
With these two tools, the Catholic interpretation avoids both extreme futurism and superficial literalism, offering instead a theologically grounded and historically conscious reading of Revelation.

2. The Symbolism of Babylon in Revelation
The term Babylon in Revelation is symbolic—not literal. Ancient Babylon had already fallen centuries before John's time, so the use of its name is clearly metaphorical. The Book of Revelation is saturated with Old Testament imagery. Just as ancient Babylon destroyed the first Jerusalem and exiled the people of God, so too Babylon the Great represents a power or system that opposes God’s covenant people in John's own day and beyond.
Key Characteristics of "Babylon the Great" in Revelation:
- She is a “great city” (Rev 17:18).
- She is "drunk with the blood of the saints and the martyrs of Jesus" (Rev 17:6).
- She commits fornication with the kings of the earth (Rev 17:2).
- She is adorned in purple and scarlet and is extremely wealthy (Rev 17:4; 18:11-19).
- Her fall brings joy to the apostles, prophets, and saints (Rev 18:20).
3. The Catholic View: Babylon as Apostate Jerusalem and Pagan Rome
Catholic biblical scholarship, drawing from early Church tradition and reinforced by contemporary research, identifies Babylon the Great as having multiple layers of meaning, both historical and spiritual.
A. Jerusalem (the Apostate City)
From a partial preterist standpoint, Babylon first points to Jerusalem, the once-holy city that rejected and crucified her Messiah (cf. Luke 13:34). Consider:
- Jesus Himself calls Jerusalem "the city that kills the prophets and stones those sent to her" (Matthew 23:37).
- Revelation 11:8 says the two witnesses are killed in "the great city that is spiritually called Sodom and Egypt, where also their Lord was crucified"—clearly referring to Jerusalem.
Thus, in John's day, Babylon the Great partly represents apostate Judaism, which allied with the Roman Empire to persecute the early Church and reject the Gospel.
B. Rome (the Pagan Empire)
As Revelation progresses, especially by chapters 17–18, the image of Babylon begins to shift toward pagan Rome:
- Rome was famously built on seven hills (Rev 17:9).
- The “beast” that the woman (Babylon) rides symbolizes imperial power—Rome was the dominant beastly empire in John's day (Rev 13:1–10; 17:3).
- Rome persecuted Christians, executed Peter and Paul, and demanded emperor worship. It perfectly fits the description of a city “drunk with the blood of the saints.”
Therefore, Babylon is not merely about religion or sorcery—it is the union of corrupt spiritual authority with political tyranny. It is a symbol of any power—religious or secular—that opposes Christ and persecutes His Church.

4. Beyond the First Century: Babylon as an Ongoing Reality
According to Catholic amillennial theology, the Book of Revelation describes patterns of persecution and apostasy that recur throughout history. Babylon is not confined to ancient Jerusalem or Rome. Rather, she reappears in every age where the powers of this world rebel against God, persecute His saints, and exalt themselves in pride, luxury, and false worship.
Babylon is:
- Every corrupt religious institution that betrays God’s truth.
- Every empire or political system that suppresses human dignity and moral law.
- Every cultural force that mocks holiness and celebrates rebellion.
Thus, Babylon may appear as a false religious system, a totalitarian government, or even a decadent civilization. She is the spiritual anti-city to the New Jerusalem (Revelation 21).

5. Not Just Witchcraft and Devil Worship
You asked whether Babylon is simply all forms of sorcery, witchcraft, and devil worship. These are certainly aspects of what Babylon promotes—but reducing her to these fringe phenomena misses the deeper point. Babylon is not merely about occult practices; she is about systemic opposition to the Lamb.
In Revelation, the most dangerous evil is not the obviously demonic—but the beautiful, seductive, politically connected system that makes itself a counterfeit kingdom. Babylon intoxicates the world with her allure, luxury, and apparent power. She mimics the Church, but her foundation is built on rebellion and blood.

6. The Fall of Babylon and the Victory of the Lamb
Revelation 18 describes the sudden and catastrophic fall of Babylon, to the lament of kings and merchants who profited from her.
But in contrast, Revelation 19–22 reveals the wedding of the Lamb and the New Jerusalem—the true Bride of Christ. The faithful Church, purified through suffering, is eternally united with her Lord.
This is the hope of Catholic eschatology: not a future earthly millennium, but a present spiritual reign of Christ, and a future new heaven and new earth, where God will dwell with His people forever (Revelation 21:3-4).

Conclusion
Babylon the Great is not merely a symbol of witchcraft or the occult. It is a multifaceted, prophetic image representing any worldly power—religious, political, or cultural—that exalts itself against God, corrupts the nations, and persecutes the faithful.
The Catholic amillennial and partial preterist perspective offers a profound theological vision: Babylon has already fallen in history, continues to manifest in different ways today, and will finally be judged at the end of the age when Christ returns in glory.
Until then, Christians are called to come out of Babylon (Revelation 18:4)—to resist her seductions, to remain faithful to Christ, and to hope not in earthly empires, but in the heavenly city to come.
“For here we have no lasting city, but we seek the city that is to come.” (Hebrews 13:14)

Deo gratias.
228
The point of existence and how it refutes the Trinity
by slimboyfat in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
rowan williams, the former archbishop of canterbury gave an interesting answer to the somewhat stark question, what’s the point of us existing?

as a christian, my starting point is that we exist because the most fundamental form of activity, energy, call it what you like, that is there, is love.

that is, it’s a willingness that the other should be.
aqwsed12345

@Duran
Your frustration seems to stem from the fact that I answer from the standpoint of the doctrine of the Trinity, yet you repeatedly present arguments whose only force rests on rejecting that very doctrine. You can say “Trinity talk aside,” but if your entire point is to make theological distinctions between Jesus and the Father, then you're already engaging with the very essence of what Trinitarian theology addresses. You are already trying to interpret Scripture with a Unitarian/Arian lens while demanding a Trinitarian not respond with Trinitarian theology—as though reasoned theology should be suspended in favor of your preferred framework. That is not how dialogue works, nor how theology proceeds.
You object that I mention “ontological separation” between Jesus and the Father, while you claim your only interest was in discussing Revelation 3:21 and the identity of those who will sit on the throne. But your own framing presupposes two different divine beings with different names, different thrones, and ultimately different statuses in the divine order. So yes—ontological separation is exactly what you’re implying, whether you admit it or not. The issue is not that I’ve misunderstood your grammar, but that you don’t understand how language interacts with theology. And in particular, you have no room for mystery—no concept of how Scripture can reveal both distinction and unity in God.
You emphasize the two names—YHWH and Yehoshua—as though naming proves essence. But this is a shallow and reductionist reading of Scripture. Names in the Bible are not bare labels—they reveal character, mission, and divine presence. “Yehoshua” literally means “YHWH saves.” That name is not meant to distance the Son from YHWH, but to identify him as the manifestation of YHWH’s saving power. You quote John 1:29: “Behold the Lamb of God.” Yes—of course the Lamb is of God. But Trinitarian theology never teaches that the Son is the same person as the Father. What it teaches is that the Son, though distinct in person, shares fully in the divine nature of the Father. You cite that verse as though it disproves the Trinity, when in fact it fits perfectly within its framework.
Your continued appeal to Revelation 3:21 fails for the same reason. You want to emphasize that Jesus says, “I sat down with my Father on his throne,” as though this proves that Jesus is not God. But what you ignore—every single time—is the broader theological meaning of that shared throne. The Book of Revelation never says there are two thrones. Revelation 22:1 speaks of the throne (singular) “of God and of the Lamb.” There is only one throne, and it is shared. This is not Trinitarian spin. It is exegesis. The Lamb shares in the throne not merely as a servant or creature, but as one who is worshipped alongside the Father (Revelation 5:13–14). The vision is not of a divine monarch and a created assistant. It is of co-regency in divine glory.
Furthermore, your dichotomy between “Jehovah” and “Jehoshua” is theologically incoherent. You say, “The names are different, therefore the persons must be different.” But that presumes that divine essence is defined by nomenclature. It’s as though because you call God the Father “Jehovah” and call the Son “Jesus,” they cannot both be God. That is absurd. Isaiah 9:6 says the Messiah will be called “Mighty God, Everlasting Father.” You quote Scripture to prove that the Father and Son are distinct—which no Christian denies—but then you refuse to hear the full voice of Scripture when it attributes the very identity and worship of YHWH to Jesus. In Philippians 2, Paul quotes Isaiah 45:23—where YHWH says every knee will bow to him—and applies it to Jesus, who has been given “the Name that is above every name.” That name is not merely “Jesus.” It is the divine title “Lord” (Kyrios), the Greek rendering of YHWH in the Septuagint. To confess “Jesus is Lord” is to proclaim him as YHWH in person.
Your repeated statements that “Yehoshua is not Jehovah” rely on misreading a fundamental point: that the New Testament authors intentionally identify Jesus with the Lord of the Old Testament. Hebrews 1:10–12 quotes Psalm 102, a passage about YHWH, and says it applies to the Son. John 12:41 says that Isaiah saw the glory of Jesus—referring to Isaiah 6, where the prophet sees the glory of YHWH seated on his throne. These are not slips or poetic metaphors. They are theological affirmations rooted in the earliest Christian conviction that Jesus is not merely God’s agent, but God incarnate.
You also cite Romans 10:9, where Paul says we must confess Jesus as Lord and believe God raised him from the dead. But again, this is not a problem for Trinitarians. The Son, in his humanity, was raised by the power of the Father—and indeed, by his own power (John 10:17–18). That he died does not negate his divinity. He died in his assumed human nature, not in his divine essence. God the Son cannot die in his divine nature, because God is eternal and immortal. That’s why the Incarnation matters: the eternal Word became flesh, not by ceasing to be God, but by taking on human nature.
Let’s be clear: Christians confess one God in three persons, not three gods. The man Jesus can speak to the Father as “my God” (John 20:17) without that implying inferiority in nature. The Son speaks from his humanity—and even in his glorified state continues to relate to the Father as the Son. If you want to say this proves he isn’t divine, then you’ll need to explain why the New Testament repeatedly ascribes divine honors, attributes, and titles to him—worship, judgment, omniscience, creation itself.
You want to strip the Son of his divinity based on relational language. But relational language is not ontological language. The Father is the Father, the Son is the Son, the Spirit is the Spirit—yet the three are one in divine essence. That is what the Christian Church has always confessed, long before “Rome” became your scapegoat.
In the end, your argument is not with me. It is with the text of Scripture itself, which refuses to conform to the narrow categories you try to impose. The early Christians didn’t invent the Trinity—they were compelled by the witness of Scripture to confess it. That’s why you can’t erase the Son’s divine status by pointing to distinctions of person. Those are the very foundations of Trinitarian faith.
So yes—Jesus speaks of “his Father.” That does not mean he is not God. It means he is not the Father. But he is the Son of God, begotten from eternity, consubstantial with the Father, and Lord of all. And to him every knee shall bow—not as an honored servant, but as the living God.
228
The point of existence and how it refutes the Trinity
by slimboyfat in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
rowan williams, the former archbishop of canterbury gave an interesting answer to the somewhat stark question, what’s the point of us existing?

as a christian, my starting point is that we exist because the most fundamental form of activity, energy, call it what you like, that is there, is love.

that is, it’s a willingness that the other should be.
aqwsed12345

@Duran
Thank you for raising the question again with greater clarity—although it’s unfortunate that you continue to couch your remarks in unnecessary mockery rather than genuine theological dialogue. Still, I’ll engage your point sincerely and respectfully, because the question of divine identity matters deeply. You're asking whether, in Revelation 3:21, we should interpret the pronouns “I,” “me,” and “my” as referring to Jesus, and “his” and “his throne” as referring to YHWH God. You’re satisfied that I affirmed the grammar, and you take that as a concession that there are two separate beings with separate thrones and identities. But what you’re missing is the theological content behind this grammatical distinction, which is where your argument falls apart.
Yes, Jesus is speaking in the first person in Revelation 3:21. He says, “I also conquered and sat down with my Father on his throne.” That’s straightforward on the surface. But if you suppose this proves ontological separation between Jesus and the Father—if you assume this distinction in person means Jesus is not divine—then you’re importing an a priori assumption that only the Father is Jehovah. That assumption is not derived from the text but from Watchtower doctrine. It’s part of what we call JW theological “Newspeak,” where the divine name “Jehovah” is treated as exclusive to the Father, while the Son must be something other—lesser, created, angelic. This linguistic framing is loaded, not neutral.
Let’s be very clear: Trinitarian theology never claims the Son is the same person as the Father. We affirm distinction of persons. But distinction of person is not distinction of essence. In Revelation 3:21, Jesus, as the exalted Son, speaks from the vantage of his glorified human nature, which he assumed in the Incarnation. As true man, he conquered through obedience unto death (Philippians 2:8), and he is now enthroned at the right hand of the Father (Hebrews 1:3; Psalm 110:1). Yet that same enthronement is shared: in Revelation 22:1, there is one throne—the throne of God and of the Lamb—not two thrones for two gods. This is not a slip of grammar. It is a theological affirmation that God and the Lamb rule as one, in shared divine majesty. The singular throne implies unity of essence.
So yes, the "I" in Revelation 3:21 refers to Jesus, and “his” refers to the Father. But what you’re assuming—falsely—is that this linguistic distinction must mean Jesus is not divine. That’s where your reasoning collapses. By your logic, if two persons are distinct, then they must have different natures, different essences. But this is not true even in the realm of human beings, much less in Trinitarian theology. A father and son are different persons but share the same nature. When the New Testament reveals that the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Spirit is God—and yet God is one—this is not a contradiction; it is a revelation of God’s tri-personal nature.
Moreover, the divine name “Jehovah” or “Yahweh” is not restricted in Scripture to the Father. That is a Watchtower invention. In the New Testament, texts that originally referred to YHWH in the Old Testament are often applied to Jesus. Philippians 2:10–11 quotes Isaiah 45:23, where YHWH says, “To me every knee shall bow,” and applies it to Jesus: “every knee will bow... and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.” This is not giving Jesus honor “next to” Jehovah. It’s assigning to Jesus the divine prerogative and worship due to YHWH alone. Similarly, in John 12:41, we are told that Isaiah “saw His glory and spoke of Him.” This refers to Isaiah 6, where Isaiah saw the glory of YHWH. John tells us that Isaiah was seeing Jesus.
You speak of Jesus and Jehovah as if they are mutually exclusive. But that dichotomy is foreign to Scripture. Jesus is not a second god beside Jehovah. He is Jehovah revealed in the flesh. The Tetragrammaton does not name a single person—it names the divine being, the essence of God, in which Father, Son, and Holy Spirit subsist. So when we say “Jesus is Jehovah,” we are not saying “Jesus is the Father.” That would be a heresy known as modalism. We are saying Jesus shares the divine essence—He is YHWH in person as the eternal Son.
Your reduction of identity to pronouns ignores this reality. Yes, Jesus distinguishes himself from the Father. He— as a man—prays to Him, obeys Him, sits at His right hand. These distinctions are not evidence against the Trinity—they are part of it. The early Church didn’t "invent" this framework; it recognized it in the pattern of Scripture. You are offended that I bring in Trinitarian theology—but I must, because the grammar you appeal to cannot be understood apart from it.
To sum up: I agreed grammatically that Jesus refers to “I” and the Father to “his.” But I do not agree with your assumption that this disproves the Trinity or Christ’s deity. That assumption is not found in the grammar—it is imported from a theology that isolates “Jehovah” to the Father alone. When Jesus sits with the Father on His throne, He is not sitting as an ontologically subordinate angel. He is reigning as the exalted Lord, the divine Son, who shares the Father’s glory (John 17:5) and essence (Hebrews 1:3). Revelation 3:21 is not a problem for Trinitarians—it is a witness to Christ’s glorified humanity and shared divine rule.
Your argument is not grammatical. It is theological. And as such, it must be tested against the whole counsel of Scripture—not against a narrow Watchtower lexicon. Jesus is not merely beside Jehovah. He is “Emmanuel”—God with us.
228
The point of existence and how it refutes the Trinity
by slimboyfat in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
rowan williams, the former archbishop of canterbury gave an interesting answer to the somewhat stark question, what’s the point of us existing?

as a christian, my starting point is that we exist because the most fundamental form of activity, energy, call it what you like, that is there, is love.

that is, it’s a willingness that the other should be.
aqwsed12345

@Duran
Your latest question presents a false dilemma wrapped in a superficial agreement. While we may agree on the transliterations of the Hebrew names—Yehoshua (יהושע) as “Jesus” and Yehovah (יהוה) as “Jehovah” or “Yahweh”—your conclusion misrepresents both Scripture and Christian theology by implying that the grammatical distinction between “I” and “my Father” must entail a difference in essence or deity. Let me explain clearly, without deflection.
Yes, Jesus says, “I will grant to sit down with me on my throne, just as I also conquered and sat down with my Father on His throne” (Revelation 3:21). But you are reading this with an anthropomorphic and anti-Trinitarian lens that treats God as a unipersonal being. Your interpretation ignores the very point of the Incarnation: that the eternal Word (who is God) took on human nature and, in that nature, distinguishes Himself in person from the Father—without ceasing to be God.
You ask whether the pronoun “I” refers to Yehoshua (Jesus) and “his” refers to Jehovah. Grammatically, yes—those are the subjects being distinguished. But your error lies in equating grammatical distinction with ontological separation. Jesus, speaking as the Son, addresses the Father as distinct in person but not in essence. This is the consistent testimony of the New Testament: that the Son is not the Father, but shares the same divine nature.
This is not speculation—it is the teaching of Scripture. Jesus says, “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30), not meaning one person, but one being (hen in Greek, not heis). He also says, “He who has seen me has seen the Father” (John 14:9). Yet He prays to the Father, submits to the Father, and calls Him “My God” (John 20:17) precisely because He has taken on human nature. In Revelation 3:21, Jesus speaks from that glorified humanity which shares the divine throne but also preserves the distinction of persons.
Moreover, in Revelation 22:1, the throne is not divided between two separate gods, but described as the “throne of God and of the Lamb”—one throne, one reign, one essence. The singular throne signifies unity, not polytheism. That is why throughout Revelation, the Lamb receives the worship due to God alone (Revelation 5:13–14). This is not idolatry—it is divine revelation.
Your final question seeks to reduce divine identity to mere pronouns, but Scripture reveals a God who is tri-personal. The Son prays to the Father and distinguishes Himself from the Father because He is not the Father. But He is no less Jehovah. That is the mystery and beauty of the Trinity: not confusion, not contradiction, but the unity of one divine nature shared eternally by the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
So no, it is not “Jehoshua = Jesus” and “Jehovah = a separate being.” Rather:
Jehoshua is the Incarnate Word—Yahweh in the flesh.
And the Father is Yahweh.
And the Spirit is Yahweh.
Not three Gods, but one. That is what the Scriptures reveal, and that is what Christians confess.