@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?