Posts by aqwsed12345

53

What is really Babylon the great?

by Halcon in

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

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

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

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.

228

The point of existence and how it refutes the Trinity

by slimboyfat in

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

Let’s answer your question clearly and directly, without being distracted by the abuse you included, which only reveals your inability to engage civilly with theological dialogue.

1. What is the Hebrew name (3068) יהוה in English, and who does it represent in Exodus 3:15?

The Tetragrammaton יהוה is traditionally rendered in English as Yahweh or, in its older English form, Jehovah. It represents the one true God—the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as the text explicitly states. It is the divine name by which God identifies Himself to Moses at the burning bush. So yes, this name clearly refers to the eternal God.

2. What is the Hebrew name (3091) יהושע in English, which corresponds to the Greek name (2424) Ἰησοῦς, and who does it represent in Luke 1:31?

The name יהושע (Yehoshua) is the original Hebrew form of the name rendered in Greek as Ἰησοῦς (Iēsous), and in English as Jesus. The name means “Yahweh is salvation” or “Yahweh saves.” In the context of Luke 1:31, this name is given by divine command: “You shall name him Jesus.” The one it refers to is Jesus Christ, the incarnate Son of God—the second Person of the Trinity, who became man for the salvation of mankind.

Now, while you were simply “asking questions,” your implication was clear: that these are two distinct individuals with distinct identities and names—Yahweh and Jesus (the Son), and thus they must be separate gods or beings. But here’s the theological problem with that suggestion.

The Christian faith, grounded in Scripture, teaches that the one God of Israel, YHWH, reveals Himself fully in Jesus Christ. The New Testament does not present Jesus as separate from YHWH—but as the very incarnation of the same divine being revealed in the Old Testament. This is why the apostle Paul, in Philippians 2:9–11, says that Jesus is given the name above every name, and that “every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.” This is a direct quotation of Isaiah 45:23, where YHWH says that every knee will bow to Him. In other words, Paul is identifying Jesus with YHWH—not merely giving him a high title, but ascribing to him the worship and identity that belong to YHWH alone.

Moreover, Hebrews 1:10 applies Psalm 102—a psalm addressed to YHWH—directly to the Son, calling Him the one who “laid the foundations of the earth.” John 1:1 likewise affirms that the Word (who becomes flesh in verse 14) was God and was “in the beginning with God.” And in John 8:58, Jesus says plainly, “Before Abraham was, I AM,” using the very divine identifier God used in Exodus 3:14.

So while יהוה in Exodus refers to God—whom we call the Father—we must not pretend that this name excludes the Son. Jesus bears the very name of God because He is God. That’s why the name “Yehoshua” (Yahweh saves) is not a name in contrast to Yahweh, but a name that reveals Yahweh’s saving action in the person of Jesus. In Isaiah 43:11, God says, “I, even I, am YHWH, and beside me there is no savior.” Yet in Luke 2:11, Jesus is announced as the Savior—again, this is not a contradiction unless one denies that Jesus shares in the divine identity.

You asked who these names refer to. I’ve told you plainly:

YHWH (Jehovah/Yahweh) refers to the one true God, revealed in the Old Testament—especially to Israel—and in the New Testament, fully revealed in the Trinity: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Yehoshua (Jesus) refers to the incarnate Word, the Son of God, who is Yahweh in the flesh. His name means “Yahweh saves,” and He is the very embodiment of that truth.

You cannot pit the name Yahweh against the name Jesus, because Scripture shows they belong to the same divine reality. To divide them is to misunderstand the very unity of God’s revelation. The Father is Yahweh. The Son is Yahweh. The Holy Spirit is Yahweh. One God, three Persons—not confusion, not separation, but the mystery of the Trinity revealed in Jesus Christ.

228

The point of existence and how it refutes the Trinity

by slimboyfat in

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 attempts to establish a rigid distinction between the Hebrew names YHWH (יהוה, Strong’s 3068) and Yehoshua (יהושע, Strong’s 3091), linking them respectively to the Father and to the Son, and presuming that these names function as identifiers in a literal, phonetic sense. This framing, however, fails to appreciate the theological and literary richness of how "name" is used in Scripture, especially within Trinitarian theology and the apocalyptic context of Revelation.

First, the Hebrew Tetragrammaton (YHWH) revealed in Exodus 3:15 is indeed the divine name by which God identifies Himself to Moses and Israel. Yet even in the Old Testament, “name” is more than a vocal sound—it embodies God's revealed character, presence, authority, and covenantal faithfulness. To “remember His name” means to worship, invoke, trust, and submit to His lordship. The divine name signifies God’s self-revelation, but God is not confined to phonetic expression. The notion that correct vocalization of "YHWH" is required for right worship was foreign to the biblical prophets, who were far more concerned with faithfulness to the covenant than with linguistic formality. This understanding carries over into the New Testament, where the emphasis is on the revelation of the divine name in the person of Jesus Christ.

The second part of the argument connects the Hebrew name Yehoshua (Joshua) to the Greek Ἰησοῦς (Iēsous), asserting a clear distinction in personal identity. It is true that Jesus’ human name, “Yeshua” or “Yehoshua,” meaning “YHWH saves,” links His earthly identity to Israel’s hope in God’s deliverance. But in Trinitarian theology, the Son is not merely the bearer of a name that references God—He is Himself the full revelation of the divine name. Jesus explicitly says in John 17:6, “I have manifested Your name to the men whom You gave Me.” He does not mean that He taught them how to pronounce YHWH; He means He made known the very essence and will of the Father. Jesus is the visible image of the invisible God (Colossians 1:15), the exact imprint of His nature (Hebrews 1:3). To know Jesus is to know the Father (John 14:7–10).

Moreover, when Revelation 14:1 speaks of the name of the Lamb and of His Father written on the foreheads of the 144,000, it does not distinguish between two divine identities, as if the Son were not God. Rather, it expresses shared divine authority and ownership. Just as the Father’s throne is also “the throne of God and of the Lamb” (Revelation 22:1, 3), so too the name of the Father and the Lamb on the elect signifies unity of essence and rule. Within Trinitarian theology, the name of the Father is not exclusive of the Son, because the Son is consubstantial with the Father (John 10:30). When believers bear the name of God, they are marked as belonging to the Triune God, not to one person of the Trinity alone.

Finally, my original point regarding the Holy Spirit remains sound. Scripture identifies the Spirit as the one who seals the elect (Ephesians 1:13–14; Revelation 7:2–4). The Spirit does not need to have His name written externally on the believer’s forehead, because He dwells within them (Romans 8:9). His presence is the internal mark of divine ownership and transformation. The Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son and glorifies both—not Himself (John 16:13–14). Thus, the absence of a “name of the Spirit” written on the forehead is entirely consistent with His divine role as the bond of love within the Trinity and the seal of divine life in the believer.

In conclusion, your argument reduces “name” to a linguistic tag, missing its deeper biblical and theological significance. The “name” in Revelation is not about phonetic precision or etymological trivia—it is about participation in the life of the Triune God. The Lamb and the Father share one name because they share one divine nature. The Spirit’s seal is not neglected; it is the means by which this name is written on the faithful. Thus, the Trinitarian reading is not only consistent with the biblical text—it is the only one that does justice to the richness of the Christian revelation.

228

The point of existence and how it refutes the Trinity

by slimboyfat in

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

You asked why the Holy Spirit is not mentioned in John 5:22–23, where Jesus says that the Father “judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son, that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father.” This passage focuses on the particular relationship between the Father and the Son in the economy of salvation, specifically concerning divine judgment and the Son’s glorification. The fact that the Holy Spirit is not named in this specific text does not imply His inferiority or non-divinity. Scripture often highlights one or two Persons of the Trinity depending on the subject at hand—such as the Incarnation or the sending of the Son—without implying that the third Person is absent or less divine. For example, in Matthew 11:27, Jesus says, “No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son,” without mentioning the Holy Spirit—but this does not mean the Spirit lacks divine knowledge. Rather, Scripture speaks in a way that reveals the Persons in their appropriate missions.

As to the question of how one honors the Father and the Son: we honor the Father by worshipping Him in spirit and truth, obeying His commandments, and recognizing Him as Creator and source of all being (cf. John 4:23–24). We honor the Son by believing in Him as the one sent by the Father, by acknowledging Him as Lord and Savior, and by giving Him the same worship and glory due to the Father, as the early Christians did (cf. Philippians 2:10–11). We also honor the Son liturgically—every time the Church celebrates the Eucharist, prays the Gloria, or concludes prayers “through Christ our Lord,” we are offering true honor.

You then quoted Revelation 14:1 regarding the 144,000 who have the name of the Lamb and of His Father written on their foreheads. You asked: what is the Lamb’s name, and what is the Father’s name? Symbolically, the “name” represents consecration, belonging, and identity—not merely phonetic labeling. In apocalyptic literature like Revelation, the “name” refers to divine ownership and covenantal relationship. The fact that both the Lamb and the Father are named together and written upon the faithful symbolizes their full union with God in Christ, who is the Lamb. The Holy Spirit, though not explicitly named in that particular verse, is the one who seals the faithful, as seen elsewhere in Revelation (7:2–4) and in Ephesians 1:13. The Spirit is the bond of that sealing, and thus is the active agent who inscribes the name of the Father and the Son on the elect—not needing His own name to be written, because He is the one who writes.

For example, regarding Stephen’s vision in Acts 7, the objection is often raised that the Holy Spirit is not “seen,” and therefore is not a divine Person. But this misses the point of the passage. Luke clearly says that Stephen was “full of the Holy Spirit” when he saw the vision of Christ at the right hand of God. In other words, the Holy Spirit is the one who revealed the vision. The Holy Spirit is not “seen” because His role is to reveal the Son and glorify Him (cf. John 16:14), not to manifest Himself visually. The absence of a visible or named reference to the Spirit in that moment does not mean the Spirit is absent or impersonal. The Spirit is fully active, indwelling Stephen at the very moment of his martyrdom and empowering his final witness.

Furthermore, Scripture frequently names Father, Son, and Holy Spirit together in contexts that affirm their equal dignity and personal reality. For example, in Matthew 28:19, Jesus commands baptism “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” That singular “name” followed by three divine Persons reveals their consubstantial unity and distinct personhood. It would be incoherent to insert a non-personal force into that list alongside two divine Persons. Similarly, in 2 Corinthians 13:14, the blessing of “the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit” is pronounced on the Church—showing a triune structure of divine blessing and communion.

Finally, we must remember that the Holy Spirit is indeed personal and divine not because He is mentioned in every verse, but because of what Scripture reveals about His actions. He teaches, speaks, intercedes, can be lied to, grieved, resisted, and obeyed. These are not traits of an impersonal force, but of a divine Person. The fact that some verses do not explicitly name all three Persons of the Trinity does not challenge the doctrine. Rather, the cumulative witness of Scripture, especially when interpreted with the Church’s guidance and sacred Tradition, confirms that the Holy Spirit is truly God—consubstantial, coequal, and coeternal with the Father and the Son.

The sacred mystery of the Trinity cannot be reduced to simplistic enumeration in every passage. Revelation unfolds progressively, and the divine Persons are revealed in their missions—through the Father who sends, the Son who is sent, and the Spirit who proceeds to dwell in us. The silence of a text about one of the Persons does not mean theological absence—it simply reflects the economy of revelation. What we proclaim, with the whole Church, is the unity of God in three Persons, each worthy of equal honor and worship, as revealed in Scripture and safeguarded in Catholic doctrine.

65

The unending and fruitless argument on Trinity

by Longlivetherenegades in

those who say they are christians or follow christianity needs .

1. father .

2. jesus .

aqwsed12345

@MeanMrMustard

What a thoughtful and honest message — thank you for sharing it. I deeply appreciate your willingness to enter into this kind of dialogue, especially when the subject touches on personal experience, parenting, and the sincere search for what is true. And I truly respect the care you and your wife have taken in how you've raised your daughter — to think, to question, and not to accept things blindly. That’s not something I would ever criticize. In fact, I think many Christians, including myself, would say that real faith must never be blind.

Your story about your daughter at the church event was vivid and actually quite moving. That “wtf face” — I can see it. Children are remarkably perceptive, and they know when something feels off or deeply unfamiliar. And when it comes to the Christian story — the idea of a God who becomes man, who dies on a cross, who speaks of forgiveness through blood — I’ll be the first to admit: if we’re not already steeped in the framework, it’s going to sound really strange. It’s not intuitive. It's certainly not obvious. And, to be honest, if someone doesn’t already believe in the depth of human brokenness or the need for grace, the whole concept of “ransom” can feel like some weird cosmic drama. Why not just forgive, right?

So, to your daughter’s honest reaction — yes, that makes complete sense to me.

And to your larger point: Does someone really need a theological degree — or Thomistic metaphysics — to be saved? Of course not. Salvation is not a vocabulary exam. Jesus didn’t say, “Blessed are the philosophers,” but “Blessed are the poor in spirit.”

You’re right to sense that I believe grace is key. The heart of the Christian claim — at least as I understand and try to live it — is not that God gives us a puzzle and says, “Figure me out or else,” but that God meets us before we understand. He moves first. Any true knowledge of Him is already a gift.

But here’s where I’d offer a gentle clarification to your concern. When I talk about the need to believe “in the Trinity,” I don’t mean someone has to start with that or understand it fully. What I’m saying is this: if God is Trinity — if He has revealed Himself through Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit — then saving faith, even if undeveloped, must at least be open to the real God as He is. Not closed off to Him because His nature doesn’t fit our expectations or logic.

That means someone might trust God sincerely, even without yet knowing or grasping His triune nature, and still be within the reach of His grace. I’m not God — I don’t know how He judges hearts. But what I do know is that if someone knowingly rejects the God revealed in Christ — after really encountering that revelation — then it’s not a matter of ignorance or simplicity anymore. It’s a rejection of relationship.

You said something very insightful:

“There was a different meaning to them [the words]. It occurred to me then that the amount of groundwork needed to even begin to accept and believe is immense.”

I think that’s both true and not the full story. Yes, the Christian vision is layered — it has developed over centuries, it uses dense language, and the Church has had to be very precise in order to protect its truths from being twisted. But at its core, Christianity is not a philosophy — it’s a person. Christ. You don’t need to be able to articulate the “hypostatic union” to encounter Him. You don’t need to understand consubstantiality to say “yes” to love, to mercy, to truth.

The early Church didn’t "invent" the Trinity to confuse people. It developed that language to protect the encounter that people were already having — with the Father through the Son in the Holy Spirit. So yes, terms like “essence,” “person,” and “nature” can feel cold or academic, but they came from lived experience of a divine mystery that Christians were trying not to misunderstand or misrepresent.

Let me return to your daughter for a moment. She had questions, and that’s beautiful. That’s where all real theology begins — not with answers, but with wonder and puzzlement. I’d never want her to feel like she has to “catch up” or fake belief to belong. God doesn’t ask us to suspend reason or pretend. What He asks — if Christianity is true — is trust, a willingness to walk toward the light even when we don’t see the whole path.

So no, I don’t believe the average person needs dead languages or a metaphysics course to be saved. But I do think that when someone says, “Tell me more about who God really is,” the Church has a responsibility to speak as clearly, faithfully, and intelligibly as it can. That’s why I use those technical terms — not because I think they save, but because they help preserve the truth of the God who does.

And to your final point — yes, grace is the beginning of all true faith. And if your daughter one day becomes curious not just about the words, but the Word — the person of Jesus — I hope there are Christians in her life who won’t just hand her a pamphlet or a dogma, but who will walk with her, listen, and show her that Christianity is not a system, but a love story. And if she keeps asking “Why?”, I hope they’ll say, “That’s a holy question. Let’s ask it together.”

Thanks again for such a thoughtful and respectful conversation. I’d love to continue it anytime.

228

The point of existence and how it refutes the Trinity

by slimboyfat in

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

@joey jojo

Thank you for the response—your skepticism is honest, and I appreciate the opportunity to clarify further. I understand how the phrasing "not a what but a who" might sound humorous or even absurd when heard through the lens of modern speech or pop culture. But I’d ask you to pause for a moment and consider that we are speaking here not of a creature or a physical entity, but of the infinite, transcendent God—whose very nature is beyond complete human comprehension, yet who has revealed Himself in Scripture as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. When I wrote that the Holy Spirit is "not a what but a who," I meant precisely this: the Holy Spirit is not a thing, not an impersonal force, not a symbolic metaphor, but a divine person. Not “a person” in the modern psychological sense (e.g., someone with a Myers-Briggs type or quirks), but in the classical theological sense—as a subsistent relation within the one undivided divine essence. Now, let’s unpack this more carefully—not for the sake of clever wordplay, but for the sake of reverence and truth.

Yes, it’s absolutely true—and not merely convenient—that the word “person” in Trinitarian theology does not mean what it typically means in modern speech. And this isn't some post hoc rationalization; it’s part of a long and careful intellectual tradition reaching back to the early Church and articulated most profoundly by St. Thomas Aquinas and the scholastic theologians. When you or I say “person” today, we often mean “a center of consciousness,” or “a psychological being with preferences, emotions, and a personality.” But this modern definition comes from post-Enlightenment developments and doesn’t work when describing the inner life of God. Why? Because if we applied this meaning to God, we would end up with three minds, three wills, three essences—which is tritheism, not monotheism. Instead, in classical theology—especially as developed by Boethius and Aquinas—a person is defined as: "An individual substance of a rational nature" (Boethius, De Persona et Duabus Naturis). But in God, we must go further: since God is one undivided being (actus purus), the Persons are not separate beings or minds. Rather, the term "Person" in God refers to a real relation within the divine essence. The Father is not the Son, and the Son is not the Holy Spirit—but they are not divided in nature. They are distinct only in terms of origin and relation:

The Father is unbegotten.
The Son is eternally begotten of the Father.
The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from one principle.

This is not “convenient,” but necessary to preserve both God’s unity and the reality of the distinctions Scripture teaches.

Let’s return to the original point. The Holy Spirit is not a “what,” because He is not an impersonal force like gravity. A what can’t teach, can’t be grieved, can’t speak, can’t be lied to. But Scripture shows the Holy Spirit doing all of these:

He teaches (John 14:26)
He speaks (Acts 13:2)
He distributes gifts as He wills (1 Cor 12:11)
He can be resisted and lied to (Acts 5:3–4)
He intercedes with the Father (Romans 8:26)

These are personal actions. They are not what a mere “force” does. If Scripture speaks this way, we must either take it seriously or explain why it should be reinterpreted. As Catholics, we take it seriously—while avoiding both tritheism and modalism.

Why not just say the Holy Spirit is God’s power? Because Scripture doesn’t treat Him that way. When Jesus sends out His disciples, He commands them to baptize in the name (singular) of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19). That formula reveals equality of dignity and being. It would be incoherent to list a Person, a Person, and then an impersonal power. Moreover, if the Holy Spirit were merely God’s power or active force, why would He speak? Why would He forbid Paul to enter Asia (Acts 16:6)? Why would He be grieved (Ephesians 4:30)? Why would He test Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5)? And why would blasphemy against Him be an unpardonable sin (Matthew 12:32)? You don’t blaspheme a metaphor. You don’t lie to an “it.”

I get it—it may sound strange. That’s because we’re describing a reality we can’t fully grasp. We’re not talking about apples, chairs, or animals. We are talking about the infinite inner life of God. The Trinity is not a puzzle we solve, but a mystery we receive—not irrational, but beyond the limits of finite human concepts. The Church doesn’t ask us to accept absurdity, but to accept what has been revealed and clarified through millennia of prayer, study, and faithful worship. St. Augustine once said that when someone denies the Trinity, they risk losing their soul—but when someone tries to understand it fully, they risk losing their mind. Yet through faith and love, what seems like a riddle becomes a window into the divine life. The Holy Spirit is that divine Love between Father and Son, who has been given to us so that we might become sharers in God’s own life.

So yes—perhaps to modern ears, “not a what but a who” sounds strange. But if we take revelation seriously, and if we want to avoid flattening God into a caricature—either a modalist mask-wearer or a collection of divine beings—we must speak in precise and faithful terms. The Holy Spirit is not just “God’s power.” He is God. Not a separate deity, but the one God in three Persons. Not a force, but the divine Person who indwells the hearts of believers. He is, as the Creed says, “the Lord and Giver of Life.” That is not comedy. That is awe. And that is the God we are called to know, love, and worship.

If you’re willing, I’d love to keep discussing this. I’ve been where you are—in the wrestling, in the questions, and in the desire for clarity. But truth has a way of inviting us deeper. And sometimes what sounds strange turns out to be the only thing that makes sense.

228

The point of existence and how it refutes the Trinity

by slimboyfat in

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

@joey jojo

First, we need to define what we mean by "person." The traditional formulation of the Trinity is "one God in three persons." However, in modern language, the concept of "person" is practically identical with "being," and it has connotations such as "personality." Within the Trinity, these are "persons" only in a relative sense, in which sense the Father and the Son are not "persons" either, in the same way that humans are persons. It is more correct to speak of three subjects (supposita) or three subsistencies.

The Holy Spirit is truly God—coequal, consubstantial, and coeternal with the Father and the Son. He is not a mere force, energy, or divine influence, nor is He a separate deity alongside the Father and the Son. He is the third Person of the Blessed Trinity, fully God, yet distinct in personhood. To speak clearly and faithfully, we must begin by carefully defining what it means to be a “person” in the Trinity, and how this applies to the Holy Spirit.

The term “person” in Trinitarian theology does not carry the modern psychological or behavioral meaning it often does in casual speech today. It does not refer to personality traits or psychological self-awareness. Rather, in classical Catholic theology, especially as defined by Boethius and developed by Aquinas, a “person” is an individual substance of a rational nature. In God, however, we must refine this further, since God's nature is not divided among the Persons. In the Trinity, there is one divine essence, one intellect, one will—shared entirely and equally among the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The distinction among the Persons lies not in what they are, but in how they are related. The Father is unbegotten, the Son is begotten of the Father, and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from one principle.

Therefore, the Holy Spirit is not “another god,” but the same God. He is the same divine being who is eternally breathed forth as the mutual Love between the Father and the Son. He is not a separate mind, not a separate nature, but He is a distinct person—a unique I within the Godhead. This can be difficult to grasp because our human concept of “personality” is often tied to distinct centers of consciousness, and this creates confusion. Some ask: does the Trinity contain three egos, three “I”s, three consciousnesses? Are we not then veering toward tritheism? But this is not how the Church speaks. In fact, we must distinguish carefully: while there are indeed three Persons—and hence three I’s—there is only one divine essence, and therefore only one divine intellect and one divine will. So while the Father can say “I,” and the Son can say “I,” and the Holy Spirit can say “I,” these three Persons do not constitute three separate minds, nor do they each possess a different divine essence. They each fully are the one and only God.

To understand this, the analogy often employed by the Church Fathers and developed by Aquinas is that of relations. In God, the Persons are distinct only by their relations of origin. The Father is the origin without origin. The Son is eternally begotten, meaning He receives the fullness of the divine nature from the Father in an eternal act of generation. The Holy Spirit proceeds not by generation but by spiration—He is spirated by the mutual love of the Father and the Son. He is not their creation, not their product in time, but their eternal gift to each other, their shared breath of divine Love. That is why the Church speaks of Him as the “Gift,” the bond of charity, the living flame of divine communion. And yet, as the Nicene Creed proclaims, He is “the Lord and Giver of Life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified.” He is not a mere expression of God’s power or presence—He is God.

This understanding guards us from two major errors: on one side, modalism, which says that God is only one person appearing in three different “modes” or roles; and on the other side, tritheism, which would treat the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three distinct gods. The Catholic faith avoids both extremes by carefully affirming one essence in three Persons. The Holy Spirit is not simply the “power” of God, as some heretical sects suggest. He is not a faceless “force” like in pantheistic systems. A force does not speak, does not love, does not intercede, does not grieve. But the Holy Spirit does all of these things in Scripture. He teaches (John 14:26), He intercedes (Romans 8:26), He distributes gifts (1 Corinthians 12:11), He is lied to (Acts 5:3–4), He sends (Acts 13:2), and He is named equally with the Father and the Son in baptism (Matthew 28:19). These actions are not those of an impersonal energy but of a divine person.

The Holy Spirit, then, is not a separate deity, nor is He a mere function or action of God. He is the third Person of the Most Holy Trinity. He is the Love breathed eternally between the Father and the Son. And because love is not something God has but something God is (1 John 4:8), the Holy Spirit is not simply what unites the Trinity but who unites the Trinity. He is not the passive effect of the Father and the Son, but a Person in His own right—possessing the fullness of divinity, acting with divine authority, and worthy of divine worship.

The Thomistic tradition preserves this mystery by maintaining the essential unity of God’s being while also upholding the real distinction of persons. God is one substance, one divine being, but He exists as three subsistent relations. This language may seem technical, but it protects the mystery: we do not invent explanations out of human categories. Rather, we confess what has been revealed—what Christ has spoken, what the Spirit has inspired, and what the Church has handed on with clarity and reverence. In this confession, we adore not three gods, but one God in three Persons. And in this mystery, we discover that God is not solitary, but eternally relational: an infinite communion of love, into which we are drawn by grace.

So when we ask, “Who is the Holy Spirit?”, the answer is not a what but a who. He is the Lord, the Giver of Life, the Sanctifier, the Teacher, the Advocate. He is the divine Person who comes to dwell in the souls of the baptized, making them temples of God. He is not an impersonal presence but the personal Love of the Father and the Son, poured into our hearts. And by Him, we cry out “Abba, Father” (Romans 8:15), because He draws us into the inner life of the Trinity, where the Love that is God becomes our own life and joy forever.