Posts by aqwsed12345

90

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

Actually, the Trinity perfectly grounds the act of creation in love. Your objection misconstrues the doctrine of the Trinity, particularly its relation to love, will, and freedom. Rat her than undermining God's loving choice to create, the Trinity provides the metaphysical basis that makes the act of creation an expression of love in the first place. To claim that because God exists eternally as a Trinity, creation is not a free act of love, is to misunderstand the relationship between divine necessity and divine freedom.

God is absolutely simple and free (Summa Theologiae I, q.19, a.3). Nothing outside God necessitates His action. While the divine persons are eternally and necessarily who they are in relation to each other (Father, Son, Spirit), God’s act of creation is not necessary, but contingent and free. The Trinity does not impel God to create the world. God creates not out of compulsion but out of the fullness of His being. As Aquinas writes: “The love of God is the cause of the goodness of things” (ST I, q.20, a.2). God's triune being—eternal communion of love—is precisely why creation can be an act of love. In other words: God’s inner Trinitarian life is the eternal actuality of love, and creation is an overflow of that love—not a necessity imposed by it.

Rowan Williams says: “The world exists because God desires that there be an other.” This is profoundly true. But this truth is only possible in a God who already knows what “otherness in unity” means. And this is precisely what the Trinity offers. The Father is not the Son; the Son is not the Spirit—yet they are one in essence. God is not monadic solitude, but unity-in-communion. If God were absolutely solitary (as in strict unitarianism), then love would not be essential to His nature, but something realized only after creating another. That would make love contingent. In contrast, the Trinity teaches that God is eternally love (1 John 4:8) because He is eternally relational in Himself. Augustine, echoing Scripture, says: “There is the Lover (Father), the Beloved (Son), and Love Itself (Spirit).” Thus, the Trinity does not hinder God's ability to create as an act of love—it is the very reason He is capable of loving at all.

The claim assumes that if God's love is eternal within the Trinity, then the act of sharing existence with creatures is not truly "loving." But this is a false dichotomy. Creation is a gratuitous participation in God’s goodness (ST I, q.44, a.4). God does not need to create in order to be loving. Rather, creation is a free expression of the eternal Love that already exists within God. The Son and the Spirit are not "creatures" brought into being out of loneliness. They are eternally generated, consubstantial persons of the Godhead. Creatures, unlike the Son, are created ex nihilo. That difference makes all the difference. God’s love in creating is not about fulfilling a lack, but about sharing the fullness of being, gratuitously.

Let us test your claim against its own logic. If God were unipersonal (as in strict unitarian theologies), then before creation, God could not love another in a real, personal sense. Thus, love would not be an eternal attribute of God, but something contingent—dependent on creation. This contradicts 1 John 4:8: “God is love.” A God who requires creation in order to be loving is a dependent being—not the God of classical theism. Only a Trinitarian God can be said to be essentially and eternally love, which is the very foundation upon which creation as an act of love makes sense.

Your response raises profound theological considerations about God’s self-sufficiency, creation, and love. However, your conclusion—that divine love and the Trinity are incompatible or unnecessary—overlooks a critical theological truth: God’s love is eternal and must therefore be interpersonal from all eternity, not something contingent upon creation. Let me respond in detail to the key points you raised.

Yes, “God is sufficient in himself”, Trinitarians wholeheartedly agree — and that’s precisely why the Trinity is necessary. If God is truly self-sufficient (aseity), and yet God is love (1 John 4:8), then love must be intrinsic to God’s being. But genuine love always implies a beloved and a loving relationship. If God is love and yet eternally alone (as in unitarian theology), then love becomes contingent, dependent on the creation of others. That would mean God changed — from a non-loving being into a loving being — which contradicts divine immutability (Malachi 3:6, James 1:17). Only a Triune God can be truly self-sufficient and eternally loving. In the Trinity:

The Father loves the Son (John 17:24),
The Son reciprocates this love (John 14:31),
The Spirit is often described by the Church Fathers as the bond of love (cf. Augustine, De Trinitate).

Therefore, God's love does not begin with creation; it is eternal and internal to His very being. Love isn't just something God does — it's who He is.

You wrote: “God doesn’t require another, but chooses to create others as an expression of love.” Again, true. But if God were not tri-personal, then prior to creation, He would have no object of love. That means love would not be eternal — it would only come into expression after the creation of the first “other.” So, either God did not love until He created something else (denying 1 John 4:8), or love is not essential to God’s nature (denying God’s immutability and fullness), or God has always been a community of love — the Trinity. The third is the only consistent answer.

“Before” does not apply to God — He is outside of time, this is correct. But this further strengthens the Trinitarian view. If God is timeless, then everything essential to God exists eternally and simultaneously. That includes God's love. So unless God exists eternally in relationship, love is not eternally real — or else we are forced to say God was incomplete without creation. This is not just philosophical speculation. In John 17:5, Jesus says:

“And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world existed.”

Here Jesus speaks of eternal communion with the Father. Not as a creature, but as the pre-existent Son.

Rowan Williams is indeed a thoughtful scholar, and his book Arius: Heresy and Tradition is widely respected. But it's important to note that Williams’ fairness toward Arius is not an endorsement of Arianism. In fact, Williams ultimately argues that Arianism failed because it could not explain the soteriological implications of the Incarnation. If Christ is not truly God, he cannot unite humanity with God (cf. Athanasius, De Incarnatione). Arius’ subordinationist Christ may be a noble creature, but he is not capable of saving. That’s why the Nicene Creed rejected Arianism and affirmed that Christ is “God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten not made, consubstantial with the Father.” The early Church understood that a merely created Christ could not save us or mediate divine life. Only one who shares in the same essence with the Father can reconcile us to God.

If God is a solitary monad, then love and relationship are not essential to His being. If God is a Triune communion, then love, relationship, and mutual self-giving are eternal realities. We are made in God's image. We are personal, relational, loving beings. That is not a bug, but a feature — a reflection of our Creator. In the end, the Trinity is not a “complication.” It is the only explanation that preserves:

God’s self-sufficiency,
God’s unchanging nature,
God’s eternal love,
God’s ability to truly save.

To deny the Trinity is not to make God simpler — it's to make Him less.

You’re right: “God is not an additional thing in the universe that requires explanation. He is the explanation.” And the clearest expression of who He is comes in the person of Jesus Christ — the eternal Word made flesh, who reveals the Father and sends the Spirit (John 14:26; John 15:26). That is the Triune God: not a philosophical abstraction, but the living God who loves eternally and acts in history to save. “This is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent” (John 17:3) — not in opposition, but in perfect communion.

The claim that “God’s first act of love was to create his firstborn son” is a return to the old Arian heresy. But Scripture and tradition deny that the Son was created:

John 1:1 — “In the beginning was the Word… and the Word was God.”
Colossians 1:15 — The “Firstborn of all creation” means “preeminent,” not first-created (cf. Psalm 89:27; Romans 8:29).
The Nicene Creed: “Begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father.”
Thomas Aquinas: “The generation of the Word is eternal… The Son is co-eternal and co-equal with the Father” (ST I, q.42, a.2).

Thus, the Son is not created, but eternally begotten, and creation is not the beginning of God’s love—it is its overflow.

Rather than refuting the Trinity, the desire to understand creation as an act of love actually depends on a Trinitarian framework:

Only if God is eternally a communion of persons can love be an eternal attribute of His nature.
Only if creation is unnecessary can it be truly free and loving.
Only in the Trinity do we find unity without solitude, and diversity without division—the very conditions for love and freedom.

As C.S. Lewis once noted: “All sorts of people are fond of repeating the Christian statement that ‘God is love.’ But they seem not to notice that the words ‘God is love’ have no real meaning unless God contains at least two Persons.”

To affirm that creation is an act of love is to implicitly affirm the Trinity, even if unknowingly.

171

Insight Book LIES - then tells the TRUTH!

by BoogerMan in

it-1 p. 493 communication - "when the circumcision issue was resolved by the governing body in jerusalem......".

it-1 p. 881 galatians, letter to the - "by reason of a revelation, paul, with barnabas and titus, went to jerusalem regarding the circumcision issue; he learned nothing new from james, peter, and john, but they recognized that he had been empowered for an apostleship to the nations.

" (galatians 2:1-10).

aqwsed12345

The Jerusalem Book

171

Insight Book LIES - then tells the TRUTH!

by BoogerMan in

it-1 p. 493 communication - "when the circumcision issue was resolved by the governing body in jerusalem......".

it-1 p. 881 galatians, letter to the - "by reason of a revelation, paul, with barnabas and titus, went to jerusalem regarding the circumcision issue; he learned nothing new from james, peter, and john, but they recognized that he had been empowered for an apostleship to the nations.

" (galatians 2:1-10).

aqwsed12345

JW claim:

"Jeremiah 25:11-12 does not merely represent Babylon’s domination but explicitly indicates a literal 70-year exile and desolation period, starting in 607 BCE and ending in 537 BCE."

Refutation: This JW argument misconstrues the explicit wording and context of Jeremiah 25:11-12. The verses explicitly state that Judah and surrounding nations would "serve the king of Babylon seventy years." This passage clearly emphasizes Babylon’s supremacy—not the duration of Judah’s exile or desolation explicitly. Jeremiah never states explicitly that the land would remain completely desolate for exactly 70 years. This is an interpretative leap made by the JW organization. Historically, the period of Babylonian supremacy fits exactly 70 years from 609 BCE (Babylon defeats Assyria decisively at Harran) to 539 BCE (the fall of Babylon to Cyrus). Thus, their argument of a fixed 70-year desolation is not scriptural but interpretative.

JW claim:

"The WT 1981 article (August 1, p. 27) was misapplied by critics, as it refers to Habakkuk’s prophecy, not Jeremiah 25."

Refutation: The Watchtower often intermixes Jeremiah 25 and Habakkuk when discussing Babylon’s judgment. However, Jeremiah 25:12 explicitly links the judgment of Babylon with the end of the 70 years. The JWs themselves teach the 70 years ended in 537 BCE, yet Babylon’s fall (539 BCE) is universally acknowledged historically and biblically as the judgment event that ends Babylon’s supremacy. Thus, the JW position artificially separates the judgment of Babylon (539 BCE) from the end of the 70 years (537 BCE) to fit their timeline, which creates a two-year contradiction in the prophetic logic of Jeremiah 25:12.

JW claim:

"Jeremiah’s prophecy of 70 years pertains exclusively to Judah’s desolation and exile, and Babylon was only the instrument."

Refutation: Jeremiah 25:11 explicitly includes "these nations" (plural) serving Babylon, clearly showing Judah was not the sole focus. The JW interpretation ignores Jeremiah’s broader international context. The prophecy, in reality, concerns a period of regional Babylonian supremacy affecting Judah among other nations. Thus, the JW claim that the prophecy applies exclusively to Judah contradicts Jeremiah’s clear wording.

JW claim:

"The 70-year exile can only begin with Jerusalem’s destruction (607 BCE) and end with Cyrus’s decree (537 BCE)."

Refutation: Historically, 607 BCE is an entirely untenable date, as it contradicts all archaeological, historical, and astronomical records. The 70-year period was of Babylon’s supremacy (609-539 BCE), not of a literal exile and desolation. Moreover, Cyrus conquered Babylon in 539 BCE and issued his decree shortly thereafter (538 BCE), not in 537 BCE. This date (537 BCE) is a JW invention with no historical support.

JW claim:

"The judgment on Babylon in Jeremiah 25:12 began after the 70 years ended, so it must be post-537 BCE."

Refutation: This claim is chronologically and logically impossible, as Jeremiah explicitly states judgment on Babylon occurs immediately at the end of the 70 years. Babylon historically fell in 539 BCE, thus marking the end of Babylon’s supremacy. If the 70 years truly ended in 537 BCE, Jehovah would have prematurely judged Babylon two years before the prophecy ended—a contradiction. Therefore, the JW interpretation violates the direct chronological sequence of Jeremiah.

JW claim:

"Daniel’s viewpoint considers Babylon’s dominion beginning with Jerusalem’s destruction (607 BCE)."

Refutation: Daniel explicitly begins his dating of events from Nebuchadnezzar’s first arrival in Jerusalem (Dan. 1:1), which historically occurred in 605 BCE. Daniel nowhere asserts a 607 BCE date. Babylon’s role as a "world power" did not begin with Jerusalem’s fall but earlier when Nebuchadnezzar defeated Egypt at Carchemish in 605 BCE (Jeremiah 46:2).

JW claim:

"Nebuchadnezzar ruled 624-581 BCE; secular dates (605-562 BCE) rely on secular (Ptolemy’s) records, not the Bible."

Refutation: This JW chronology contradicts countless Babylonian astronomical diaries, economic tablets, royal inscriptions, and independent Egyptian and Persian records. Even the Bible aligns precisely with secular records: Nebuchadnezzar destroyed Jerusalem in his 18th year (Jer. 52:12-13), aligning with 586/587 BCE. The JW proposal (624-581 BCE) would require ignoring extensive historical documentation.

JW claim:

"Daniel mentions a 7-year absence of Nebuchadnezzar from his throne, unaccounted for by secular scholars, thus invalidating standard Babylonian chronology."

Refutation: The seven-year period described in Daniel 4 (Nebuchadnezzar’s madness) does not create a chronological gap. Babylonian administrative texts show continuity throughout Nebuchadnezzar’s reign without interruption. Daniel's text does not state Nebuchadnezzar lost his throne literally; rather, it indicates temporary incapacity. This event caused no chronological gap. The JW insertion of a seven-year gap contradicts well-attested historical records.

JW claim:

"Josephus and Ezra support the 70-year exile from 607 to 537 BCE."

Refutation: Josephus explicitly confirms Jerusalem’s destruction occurred in the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign, aligning precisely with secular records (586/587 BCE). Ezra, likewise, makes no explicit mention of a 607 BCE date. He refers to Cyrus’s decree in his first year (538 BCE), historically verified by Persian records. JWs misread these sources to uphold their chronology artificially.

JW claim:

"Secular chronology leaves no room for the biblical 70-year exile."

Refutation: The opposite is true: Secular chronology fully aligns with the biblical 70-year prophecy if understood correctly as Babylon’s dominance. The 70 years precisely fit secular historical records: 609 BCE (Babylon defeats Assyria decisively) to 539 BCE (Babylon’s fall). No chronological gap is required. The JW view artificially inserts gaps and ignores well-attested historical records.

JW claim:

"Critics (such as Carl Olof Jonsson) neglect the Jewish Exile, which invalidates their chronology."

Refutation: Carl Olof Jonsson’s work extensively documents the exile, but he correctly shows the Bible never explicitly teaches a literal 70-year exile period. It explicitly mentions Babylonian supremacy for 70 years, confirmed historically. The JW assertion that critics neglect the exile is incorrect and misleading.

JW claim:

"586/587 BCE dates for Jerusalem’s destruction are bogus and uncertain among scholars."

Refutation: Contrary to JW assertions, scholars universally accept 586 or 587 BCE based on overwhelming evidence (Babylonian Chronicles, VAT 4956, economic records). The uncertainty between 586/587 is minor, representing a few months, not decades. No credible scholar proposes 607 BCE as even remotely plausible.

JW claim:

"Jeremiah describes explicitly a 70-year exile starting with Jerusalem’s destruction."

Refutation: Jeremiah never explicitly states a literal 70-year exile beginning precisely at Jerusalem’s destruction. He explicitly identifies the 70-year period as Babylonian supremacy (Jer. 25:11). The JW position misreads Jeremiah by conflating the exile, servitude, and desolation into one literal 70-year event beginning at 607 BCE.

Conclusion:

Every single JW argument provided here relies on artificial reinterpretation, selective citation, and outright denial of established historical facts. Their date of 607 BCE is unsupportable historically, astronomically, archaeologically, and biblically. The proper biblical and historical reading of Jeremiah’s 70-year prophecy aligns perfectly with secular chronology (609-539 BCE), confirming the conventional date (586/587 BCE) for Jerusalem’s destruction as accurate.

10

The Apostles Creed vs. Watchtower

by Sea Breeze in

the apostles creed could be recited in less than a minute in latin.

it was like an ancient youtube video clip: christianity in less than a minute.

it is very ancient, reaching back to the 200's.

aqwsed12345

@slimboyfat

While JWs may have referred to Jesus as “our Lord” in a limited sense, their theology fundamentally denies the full implications of Christ’s lordship. In Scripture, the title Kyrios (Lord) is used in a divine sense, especially when applied to Jesus (e.g., Philippians 2:9-11, Romans 10:9-13). The early Christians, drawing from the Septuagint, applied Kyrios—the term used for Yahweh—to Jesus, indicating His divine nature. JWs, by contrast, reduce this title to mean a mere exalted role for Jesus as a created being, which is far from the early Church’s understanding of the term. The Catholic Church, in line with the Church Fathers, affirms that Jesus’ Lordship is not secondary or derivative but fully divine.

The claim that Jehovah’s Witnesses use the phrase “God the Father” is technically true, but misleading in how it’s presented. The distinction made between “God the Father” and “God the Son” is not arbitrary but reflects the biblical and traditional understanding of the relationship within the Trinity. The phrase “God the Son” may not appear verbatim in Scripture, but the concept is undeniably present. John 1:1 explicitly calls the Word (who is identified as Christ in John 1:14) Theos, and Jesus is repeatedly identified as divine (John 20:28, Colossians 2:9, Philippians 2:6). The early Church formulated the term “God the Son” to reflect the truth that the Son is fully divine yet distinct in personhood from the Father. The Jehovah’s Witness argument that 1 Corinthians 8:6 equates the Father alone with “one God” is an oversimplification. This passage mirrors the language of the Shema (Deuteronomy 6:4), but Paul integrates Jesus into the divine identity by pairing Him with the Father as the “one Lord,” drawing directly from Old Testament references to Yahweh. This does not exclude Jesus from being God; rather, it affirms His role within the divine unity.

Christ’s descent into Hades as an active proclamation of victory over death and His liberation of the righteous souls (1 Peter 3:19, 1 Peter 4:6). JWs, by contrast, hold an annihilationist view, rejecting the traditional understanding of the intermediate state of the dead. Their belief that Jesus was simply unconscious in nonexistence for three days is irreconcilable with the Christian doctrine that Jesus, as the God-man, was conscious and active even in death. This again highlights their misunderstanding of Christ’s divine nature.

The Apostles’ Creed affirms the bodily resurrection of Jesus and believers, yet Jehovah’s Witnesses reject the physical resurrection of Christ, teaching instead that He was recreated as a spirit creature—an idea entirely foreign to Christian tradition. Likewise, their denial of the communion of saints, their refusal to acknowledge a universal (catholic) Church beyond their own organization, and their rejection of the Holy Spirit as a divine person all place them in direct opposition to historic Christianity.

Finally, the claim that the Creed lacks any reference to the Trinity because the doctrine had not yet been “invented” is historically inaccurate and theologically naïve. The Apostles’ Creed reflects an early baptismal formula that implicitly supports Trinitarian belief. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all affirmed, reflecting Matthew 28:19’s Trinitarian baptismal command. The formulation of the Nicene Creed in 325 AD was not the “invention” of the Trinity but a precise articulation of what the Church had always believed, in response to heretical distortions. The early Church Fathers—long before Nicaea—testified to Trinitarian belief. Ignatius of Antioch (c. 107 AD) calls Jesus "our God" (Letter to the Ephesians 7:2), and Tertullian (c. 200 AD) explicitly uses the term “Trinity.”

76

Rekindled Light — The Narrative Structure of the Hexaemeron (Genesis 1:1–31)

by Mebaqqer2 in

i used to comment here many years ago when i had an interest in biblical research in relation to jehovah’s witnesses.

these days my biblical research is little concerned with jehovah’s witnesses.

i feel my time is better spent researching the diachronistic development of the biblical text and ascertaining what the biblical writers and editors intended in the times in which they lived.. i have recently placed a summary diagram for a paper that i have written with original research entitled the narrative structure of the hexaemeron on academia.edu.

aqwsed12345

@Mebaqqer2

You argue that the Hexaemeron is primarily a literary construct designed to align with the cosmological symbolism of the Tabernacle and that theological concerns should not necessarily dictate its interpretation. However, from a Catholic standpoint, this approach is inadequate because it overlooks the primary function of the text as divine revelation. The structure of Genesis 1 does not exist in isolation but serves the fundamental purpose of revealing the divine act of creation. The inspired author was not merely recording an artistic arrangement but was transmitting the truth about the origins of the world in a form intelligible to the faithful. While structural analysis can certainly provide insight into the narrative’s organization, it cannot be used to redefine or limit its theological import.

You claim that the Sabbath account in Genesis 2:1–3 is thematically distinct from the six days of creation, marking a textual break. However, Catholic theology does not see this distinction as evidence of separate literary or theological intentions. Instead, the culmination of the six-day creation week with the Sabbath underscores the divine order and purpose in creation. The fact that the Sabbath is set apart does not imply a different source or intention but rather confirms the intrinsic relationship between creation and divine worship. As St. Thomas Aquinas and other Church Fathers have explained, the rest of God on the seventh day is not merely a cessation of activity but a divine model for human participation in God's order. The Sabbath’s sanctification in the Decalogue further reinforces this. This directly contradicts the assertion that its presence is a later thematic addition. Moreover, Catholic tradition does not rely on later rabbinical interpretations (such as those found in the Masoretic text’s use of pǝtûḥôt or Samaritan qiṣṣim) to determine the structure of divine revelation. The unity of Genesis 1:1–2:3 is not merely a function of literary arrangement but a theological necessity.

You suggest that my argument assumes an “a priori” integral unity of Scripture, potentially obscuring the distinct viewpoints of individual biblical authors. However, Catholic tradition does not approach Genesis as a mere collection of diverse authors with potentially conflicting views. Instead, Genesis, like all of Scripture, is inspired by the Holy Spirit and possesses a unified message that transcends human literary limitations. This is why the traditional view affirms both the literal-historical sense and the theological coherence of the text. St. Augustine, St. Basil, and St. Thomas Aquinas all acknowledged different layers of meaning in the text but never reduced Genesis to a purely literary construct. The unity of Scripture is not an imposed framework but a recognition of divine authorship. To suggest otherwise undermines the Catholic understanding of biblical inspiration. Additionally, while it is true that individual biblical authors had their own styles and immediate historical contexts, the Catholic perspective maintains that they were guided by divine inspiration, ensuring that their accounts were free from theological error and in harmony with the broader revelation.

You hint at the possibility that the Sabbath passage may be a later redactional addition but withholds final judgment. However, this approach reflects the problematic assumptions of higher criticism, which have been consistently cautioned against in Catholic biblical interpretation. Pope Leo XIII (Providentissimus Deus, 1893) and Pope Pius XII (Divino Afflante Spiritu, 1943) affirmed that while textual and historical criticism have their place, they must never be used to undermine the divine authority and unity of Scripture. The suggestion that the Sabbath commandment may be a later addition fails to account for its integral role in biblical theology, as seen in Exodus 20:8–11, where the six-day creation week is explicitly tied to the institution of the Sabbath. If the Sabbath narrative were merely a later addition, then this connection would lose its authoritative weight. Additionally, your hesitancy to affirm or reject the validity of these redaction theories suggests an underlying methodological issue: an unwillingness to commit to the integrity of the text as received by the Church. Catholic doctrine, however, maintains that the Scriptures, as preserved by the Church, are divinely inspired in their entirety.

The Catholic understanding of the Hexaemeron, which I have outlined in my original response, remains the most theologically coherent and exegetically sound interpretation. The vision theory (as espoused by St. Augustine and supported by St. Thomas Aquinas) is not merely an arbitrary construct but an attempt to reconcile the literal truth of Scripture with theological depth. The vision theory allows for:

The integrity of divine revelation – preserving the biblical teaching that creation occurred by divine fiat.
The recognition of different literary styles – acknowledging that Genesis 1 may represent a revelatory vision rather than a chronological diary.
Compatibility with theological tradition – aligning with the teaching of the Church Fathers and the authoritative magisterial statements on creation.

This approach avoids the pitfalls of both hyper-literalism (which reduces the Hexaemeron to a rigid scientific chronology) and higher criticism (which fragments the text into allegedly competing sources). The Catholic Church has never accepted the radical redaction theories that attempt to dissect Genesis into competing theological viewpoints.

You highlight a fundamental methodological difference: whereas Catholic exegesis starts from the premise that Scripture is divinely inspired and unified, you the text as a purely human composition subject to independent historical reconstruction. This approach is incompatible with Catholic teaching, which holds that:

Scripture is inspired in its entirety (Vatican I, Dei Filius).
Mosaic authorship of Genesis cannot be denied without contradicting the consistent tradition of the Church (Pope Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus).
The unity of the biblical message is essential to understanding its meaning (Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis).

Thus, while your structural analysis may have academic value, it cannot be allowed to override the Church’s theological framework. Any interpretation that dismisses the unity of divine revelation must be rejected.

25

Why the WATCHTOWER doesn't believe in the GREAT APOSTASY but you should!

by raymond frantz in

https://youtu.be/i4uttjj7eus?si=0b-fzpqm8axb_d3p.

in its latest april 2025 watchtower study article 17 and paragraph 12 the watchtower promotes 2 dangerous lies that will cost your life if you are a believing christian during the time of the end, so i'm considering today the first lie in the first part of the paragraph, but first let's read the paragraph itself: "today, jehovah promises to provide us with spiritual protection.

he will never allow satan to corrupt true worship.

aqwsed12345

Today, Jehovah promises to provide us with spiritual protection. He will never allow Satan to corrupt true worship. (John 17:15)

Interestingly, this claim aligns closely with the Catholic doctrine of the indefectibility of the Church, which asserts that the Church established by Christ will endure until the end of time, safeguarded by God from falling into total error or corruption. However, this raises an important question: if pure worship cannot be corrupted, how do groups like Jehovah’s Witnesses reconcile their claim of being the sole "true Church" with the notion that the original Church supposedly fell into a "Great Apostasy"?

Jehovah's Witnesses assert that after the death of the Apostle John, the first-century Christian Church quickly fell into apostasy, allowing "false Christianity" to dominate the world for approximately 1800 years until their movement restored "true worship" in the late 19th century. But if God permitted such a complete loss of true worship for nearly two millennia, how does this not contradict their own claim that God would never allow Satan to defile pure worship? Such an assertion implies that God either abandoned His Church or failed to protect it, which stands in stark contrast to their claim that He would never permit Satan to overcome it.

The Catholic doctrine of indefectibility, rooted in Christ's promises, provides a coherent and scriptural response to these questions. In Matthew 16:18, Christ states unequivocally, "And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock, I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it." This promise affirms that the Church founded by Christ will never be overcome by the forces of evil. Similarly, in Matthew 28:20, Jesus promises, "And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age." These assurances confirm that the Church will remain intact, guided and protected by Christ Himself, until the end of time.

The Jehovah's Witnesses' narrative of a total apostasy undermines these divine promises. If, as they claim, the Church fell into complete corruption immediately after the apostolic age, then Christ’s words would seem empty, His promises unfulfilled, and His mission thwarted. Such a view inadvertently portrays God as incapable of preserving His Church against Satan’s influence, a conclusion that contradicts both Scripture and reason. Moreover, the idea that "false Christians" could erase "true worship" from history for 1800 years directly opposes their own teaching that God would not allow Satan to corrupt pure worship.

This inconsistency becomes even more apparent when we consider the practical implications of their claim. If true worship disappeared for nearly two millennia, how can Jehovah’s Witnesses be certain that their current teachings reflect the original message of Christ and the apostles? Without an unbroken continuity of doctrine and practice, there is no reliable means of verifying their claim to represent "pure worship." In contrast, the Catholic Church, through its unbroken apostolic succession and consistent teaching authority, provides an enduring witness to the truths handed down by Christ and His apostles.

Historically, the claim of a "Great Apostasy" is also deeply flawed. There is no evidence of a sudden and total collapse of the early Church, as Jehovah’s Witnesses suggest. Instead, the historical record demonstrates a continuous development and preservation of Christian doctrine and worship. The writings of the early Church Fathers, such as Ignatius of Antioch, Irenaeus, and Augustine, testify to the unbroken transmission of apostolic teaching and the visible unity of the Church. These early Christians wrote extensively about the sacraments, the role of bishops, and the authority of the Church—elements that Jehovah’s Witnesses dismiss as later corruptions but which are clearly rooted in the practices of the earliest Christian communities.

Furthermore, the concept of a "Great Apostasy" raises theological problems regarding God’s fidelity and justice. If God allowed the Church to fall into total error for centuries, what does this say about His promises and His care for humanity? Such a scenario implies that countless generations were deprived of access to true worship and salvation—a notion that is irreconcilable with the biblical portrayal of God as a loving and faithful shepherd who desires all people to come to the knowledge of the truth (1 Timothy 2:4).

In contrast, the Catholic understanding of indefectibility provides a theologically sound and historically consistent explanation. While the Church has faced internal scandals, external persecutions, and doctrinal challenges, these do not undermine its divine foundation or its role as the guardian of truth. Human sin and weakness have always been present within the Church, as evidenced by the behavior of some of its members throughout history. However, these failings do not invalidate the Church’s teaching authority or its mission. Just as the apostles were fallible men chosen to spread the Gospel, so too the Church is made up of imperfect individuals who rely on God’s grace to fulfill their vocation.

Check my comments here:

The Question of the "Great Apostasy" and the Historical Continuity of Christianity

13

JWs and Christmas

by Rnadomchris83 in

i have been lurking around here for years.

i'm not a witness, but my in-laws are.

my wife grew up in it but was never baptized.

aqwsed12345

You should read these:

13

JWs and Christmas

by Rnadomchris83 in

i have been lurking around here for years.

i'm not a witness, but my in-laws are.

my wife grew up in it but was never baptized.

aqwsed12345

The discussion surrounding whether Jehovah’s Witnesses might one day permit the celebration of Christmas is intriguing, given their staunch opposition to this holiday. Their reasons for rejecting Christmas are rooted in its supposed "pagan origins" and the lack of explicit biblical authorization to celebrate Jesus' birth. Jehovah’s Witnesses claim moral and doctrinal high ground by rejecting Christmas, yet the history of the Watch Tower Society suggests otherwise. As Zion’s Watch Tower (1904) noted, the organization’s founder, Charles Taze Russell, acknowledged that Christmas could be celebrated as a tribute to Christ. The publication even stated that "it is not necessary to quibble particularly about the date" and endorsed participation with the "civilized world" in celebrating Christ’s birth on December 25th. Until 1928, Christmas was celebrated at the Watch Tower headquarters, including the exchange of gifts and festive meals. This practice occurred long after the organization claimed Jesus had "inspected" them in 1919 and deemed them the true religion. If Christmas was considered pagan or unacceptable, why was it celebrated during such a formative period?

One of the primary arguments Jehovah’s Witnesses use to condemn Christmas is its alleged connection to paganism. However, this reasoning is flawed for several reasons. Jehovah’s Witnesses dismiss Christmas due to supposed pagan origins but inconsistently tolerate other customs with similar roots. For example, wedding rings, which are widely used by Witnesses, have origins in pagan rituals. Or the names of days and months (e.g., Thursday, named after the Norse god Thor) are of pagan derivation but are freely used without objection. The claim that Christmas was established to replace pagan festivals such as Sol Invictus is historically dubious. Scholarly research shows that December 25th was chosen based on theological reflection, such as the "integral age" theory, which posited that prophets died on the same date as their conception. This calculation places Jesus’ birth nine months after March 25th, the Feast of the Annunciation, resulting in December 25th.

While the Bible does not mandate the celebration of Jesus’ birth, it provides ample precedent for commemorating significant acts of God. The angels announced Jesus’ birth with rejoicing, declaring, "Glory to God in the highest" (Luke 2:13-14). This heavenly response to the Incarnation sets a clear example for believers to commemorate this momentous event. Jewish culture, from which Christianity emerged, embraced annual festivals such as Passover to commemorate God’s saving acts (Exodus 12:14). Celebrating Christ’s birth aligns with this tradition of honoring God’s intervention in history.

The Watch Tower Society’s stance on Christmas highlights broader inconsistencies in their doctrinal evolution. As mentioned in The Watchtower (October 2024), a Bible student is depicted discarding Christmas decorations after studying Scripture. Yet, this contradicts their earlier position in Zion’s Watch Tower, which viewed Christmas as a legitimate way to honor Jesus. The Governing Body has a history of adjusting policies to suit organizational goals. While Jehovah’s Witnesses currently reject Christmas, it is conceivable that this stance could change in the future, especially if it aligns with strategic interests.

Critics often ask why December 25th was chosen if the Bible does not explicitly mention Jesus’ birthdate. Here’s why this date remains significant. December 25th, near the winter solstice, symbolizes the light of Christ entering the world. This analogy is supported by John 1:5, which describes Jesus as the light shining in the darkness. Early Christian writers such as Hippolytus of Rome (c. 170–235 AD) mentioned December 25th as the date of Christ’s birth, demonstrating that this tradition predates accusations of pagan influence.

While Jehovah’s Witnesses reject Christmas based on claims of pagan origins and a lack of biblical command, these arguments are neither historically consistent nor theologically compelling. The celebration of Christ’s birth is rooted in biblical principles, theological reflection, and historical tradition. Furthermore, the Watch Tower Society’s own history of Christmas observance undermines its current stance. Ultimately, Christians celebrate Christmas not because of the date but because of the profound significance of the Incarnation—God becoming man to bring salvation to the world. This celebration aligns with biblical principles and the joyful proclamation of Christ’s coming, offering believers a meaningful way to honor God’s greatest gift to humanity.

408

Is Jesus the Creator?

by Sea Breeze in

that's what the word says.

.

colossians 1:16. for by him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through him and for him..

aqwsed12345

@Earnest

Firstly, you are correct that "ho theos" typically refers to the Father in John's Gospel. This usage reflects the relational structure within the Trinity, where the Father is the source (arche, principium) of the Godhead. However, the key point in Trinitarian theology is not whether "ho theos" is frequently applied to the Son but whether its occasional application to Jesus, such as in John 20:28, aligns with the theological framework presented throughout John's Gospel and the New Testament as a whole.

John 20:28 is indeed an exceptional use of "ho theos" because it is the only explicit instance in the Gospel of John where this title is directly applied to Jesus. This does not undermine its significance; rather, it highlights the climactic nature of Thomas's confession within the narrative structure of the Gospel. Thomas’s declaration serves as the culmination of John’s Christological argument, beginning with the prologue in John 1:1 and confirmed by Jesus’s resurrection. The rarity of "ho theos" being applied to Jesus does not negate its theological implications. Instead, it underscores the uniqueness of the moment. Just as John 1:1 introduces the Logos as fully divine without frequent repetition of that exact language, John 20:28 does not need to be accompanied by numerous identical statements to affirm the Son's deity. The placement of this confession at the conclusion of the Gospel reinforces its doctrinal weight.

While "ho theos" predominantly refers to the Father, John’s Gospel consistently presents Jesus as sharing fully in the divine nature:

John 1:1: "The Word was God [theos]"—Here, "theos" is anarthrous, emphasizing the qualitative nature of the Word's deity, which aligns with Trinitarian theology. While "ton theon" (with the article) refers to the person of the Father, "theos" affirms the Logos as fully divine in essence.
John 10:30: "I and the Father are one"—Although "ho theos" is not explicitly used, this statement affirms the unity of essence between the Father and the Son. The reaction of the Jews, who accuse Jesus of blasphemy for making Himself equal with God (John 10:33), further supports this interpretation. Jesus only calls it accusation in 10:36 that His words were considered a blasphemy, but He does not dispute this interpretation of His words.
John 5:18: "He was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God"—This verse explicitly links Jesus's unique relationship with the Father to His divine status.
John 14:9: "Whoever has seen me has seen the Father"—While maintaining the personal distinction between Father and Son, this statement underscores their shared divine essence.

These examples collectively affirm the Son's deity and His unity with the Father, even when "ho theos" is not directly applied to Jesus. The theological framework of John’s Gospel supports the Trinitarian understanding of the Godhead, where the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit share the same divine essence while remaining distinct persons.

The principle of appropriatio (Trinitarian Ascription) in Trinitarian theology helps clarify why "ho theos" is primarily used for the Father. This is a convention of ascription, where certain titles or roles are more commonly associated with one divine person to reflect their relational distinction within the Godhead:

The Father is often referred to as "ho theos" (e.g., John 17:3) to emphasize His role as the source (arche, principium) of the Trinity.
The Son is commonly referred to as "ho kyrios" (e.g., John 20:28), highlighting His messianic and redemptive role.
The Spirit is identified as "to pneuma" to emphasize His work in sanctification and inspiration.

This ascription does not imply ontological inequality, or indicate separate beings, but a terminology that reflects the relational dynamics within the Trinity. Therefore, the predominance of "ho theos" for the Father does not exclude the Son from sharing the divine essence. The rarity of "ho theos" being applied to Jesus in the New Testament does not contradict His full divinity. Instead, it reflects the relational language used to describe the persons of the Trinity. Just as the term "Father" is not applied to the Son, and "Son" is not applied to the Father, the distinct roles and titles of each person within the Godhead are expressed in Scripture without diminishing their shared essence.

408

Is Jesus the Creator?

by Sea Breeze in

that's what the word says.

.

colossians 1:16. for by him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through him and for him..

aqwsed12345

@Earnest

The problem is with the implication that the Greek article "ho" is allegedly a linguistic tool, the absence of which indicates that this is not really "God" in the true sense, but a kind of mighty spirit creature only could be interpreted in a henotheistic-monolatristic framework. While it is true that "ho theos" most commonly designates the Father in John's Gospel, this does not preclude its application to the Son or the Spirit in appropriate contexts. Importantly, Trinitarian theology does not hinge on every instance of "ho theos" applying equally to the Son or the Spirit. Instead, it recognizes the relational distinctions within the Godhead while affirming the shared divine essence.

In Trinitarian theology, the Father is often described as the arche (source or principle) within the Godhead. This relational role naturally explains why "ho theos" is the standard designation for the Father. John's Gospel reflects this theological reality, using "ho theos" most often to refer to the Father without excluding the Son and the Spirit from the divine essence. The Father’s role as the source does not imply that the Son or Spirit are subordinate in nature but highlights their distinct relational roles. For example:

John 3:16-17: The Father sends the Son into the world.
John 14:26: The Father sends the Spirit in the Son's name.

These verses demonstrate a relational ordering within the Trinity, not an ontological inequality. While "ho theos" typically refers to the Father, there are instances in John’s Gospel where the context suggests a broader application:

John 1:1: The Logos (Word) is described as "theos" (without the article) and is explicitly distinguished from the person of "ton theon" (the God, i.e., the Father). This highlights both the personal distinction between the Word and the Father and their shared divine essence. While "ho theos" here refers to the person of the Father, the Logos is equally God in essence, denoting His quiddity, not his identity. According to JWs, John 1:1c has "only" theos, and not ho theos, to justify the henotheistic Arian Christology, even though John could not have written ho theos here because that would justify Sabellian modalism. If ho theos here would justify Sabellianism, and theios Arianism, then what would justify the Nicene Christology? The anarthrous theos, exactly.
John 20:28: Thomas addresses Jesus directly as "ho kyrios mou kai ho theos mou" ("My Lord and my God"). The use of "ho theos" for Jesus here is unique and deliberate, underscoring His divine identity and equality with the Father.
John 10:30: Jesus states, "I and the Father are one." While "ho theos" is not explicitly used here, this unity implies shared divine essence, consistent with Trinitarian theology.

These examples demonstrate that John does not rigidly restrict the use of "ho theos" to the Father, particularly when emphasizing the Son’s divine nature. John 20:28 stands out because it explicitly applies "ho theos" to Jesus. Thomas’s declaration, "My Lord and my God," is addressed directly to Jesus, as indicated by the Greek phrase "eipen auto" ("he said to Him"). This is not a generic exclamation but a personal confession of Jesus’s divine identity. The Gospel’s prologue (John 1:1-18) sets the stage for this climactic moment, affirming the Logos as both distinct from and fully equal to God.

John’s use of "ho theos" reflects the relational distinctions within the Trinity while affirming the full divinity of the Son and the Spirit. The deliberate application of "ho theos" to Jesus in John 20:28 is not an exception but a culmination of John’s theological narrative. By placing this confession at the conclusion of his Gospel, John underscores its significance: Jesus is fully God, fully man, and worthy of worship.