There's a Christian podcast on YouTube named [*A Stronger Faith*](https://www.youtube.com/@AStrongerFaith/) , which also has a [website](https://www.astrongerfaith.org/) . The podcast focuses on interviewing Christians about their spiritual experiences, conversion experiences, their testimonies, and so on. The host is [Stacy McCants](https://www.astrongerfaith.org/about) . My question is motivated by Stacy's reference to John 17:3 in this [short video](https://www.youtube.com/shorts/5Ctpqezp0Nk?feature=share) : > You can experience God, so whatever doubts you might have in your mind of "am I just believing something that I've been taught because just in case there really is a hell I don't wanna go there" or have an encounter and experience him. You experienced God. People kind of get in our comments sometimes and talk about "don't be trying to go for the emotional experiences." I think God wants us to experience him. I think a lie of the enemy is that we should not seek experiences with God. That it should just be from an intellectual "just get the book, believe what the book says" perspective. And I can't read what Jesus said in John 17:3 and then say he doesn't want us experiencing him. He says "this is eternal life, that they know you, the one true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent." Not that they know *about* you, and *about* Jesus. He says that they *know you*, and know his son. You cannot know somebody without experiencing them. Stacy posits that you cannot know someone without experiencing them. If we apply this to God, then John 17:3 would implicitly suggest that eternal life involves knowing God and Jesus, which, by his logic, means we ought to experience God and Jesus. Interestingly, Stacy McCants's podcast *A Stronger Faith* largely revolves around spiritual or supernatural experiences shared by the Christians he interviews. I suspect Stacy is a charismatic Christian, which might suggest a charismatic bias in his interpretation of John 17:3. **What are the Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox Church's interpretations of John 17:3? Is knowing God and Jesus typically understood as involving experiences, and if so, what kinds of experiences are usually understood to be implied?** **Are there significant differences and/or similarities between both churches as to how they interpret John 17:3?**

It is common to hear phrases such as "God exists outside of time" used to explain away anachronism or avoid addressing it altogether--for example, the idea that God has in the past progressed to become Who He Is today is sometimes dismissed as nonsensical because being "outside of time" is interpreted to preclude such contemplation. But if that were true, then why do Scriptures make reference to the acts of God within time, and ascribe causality at all to His acts and attributes? We might take license from such expressions so as to hand-wave further understanding of the true nature of God out of our minds. However, numerous passages in the Bible describe God and His acts in time, including His progression and development. The law of causality is never violated. For example, Luke 2:52 states, "And Jesus grew in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man." The central message of the Bible is that the Son of God came down from the presence of His Father, took upon Himself a tabernacle of flesh, and submitted to the Father in all things, including paying the price for sin so that we could be redeemed on conditions of repentance. For all we might say about being "outside of time", an assertion that God does not obey or is not consistent with laws of causation is clearly untenable. What Bible verse or verses suggest that God "exists outside of time", or gives a sensible definition to what that might more appropriately mean? I am not asking for philosophical interpretations, lawyerisms or hand-waving references to what so-called "mainstream Christianity" teaches. I am asking what the Bible says. Note that verses saying or suggesting that God has always existed or is eternal (which I accept) are not the same as saying He has never changed or is "outside of time". Such verses explicitly mention notions of time and causality as being valid and applicable to God as well as everything else.

Genesis 1:28 (NLT) Then God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and multiply. Fill the earth and govern it. Reign over the fish in the sea, the birds in the sky, and all the animals that scurry along the ground.” What does the four things that God told man to do actually imply?

Matthew 21:43 says > *....the kingdom of God will be taken away from you.* In order for the kingdom to be taken, it had to have been given. So, the people that Jesus is talking to would have been part of the kingdom. John 6:37 says > *....the one who comes to me I will never cast out.* Cast out of where? Context seems to be talking about eternal life (see vs 27 and 40). Assuming that the “kingdom of God” and “eternal life” are in essence the same, then these verses seem to contradict each other. Or does my understanding of these verses need to be corrected?

There's a Christian podcast on YouTube named *[A Stronger Faith](https://www.youtube.com/@AStrongerFaith/)* which also has a [website](https://www.astrongerfaith.org/) . The podcast focuses on interviewing Christians about their spiritual experiences, conversion experiences, their testimonies, and so on. The host is [Stacy McCants](https://www.astrongerfaith.org/about) . My question is motivated by Stacy's reference to John 17:3 in this [short video](https://www.youtube.com/shorts/5Ctpqezp0Nk?feature=share) : > You can experience God, so whatever doubts you might have in your mind of "am I just believing something that I've been taught because just in case there really is a hell I don't wanna go there" or have an encounter and experience him. You experienced God. People kind of get on our comments sometimes and talk about "don't be trying to go for the emotional experiences." I think God wants us to experience him. I think a lie of the enemy is that we should not seek experiences with God. That it should just be from an intellectual "just get the book, believe what the book says" perspective. And I can't read what Jesus said in John 17:3 and then say he doesn't want us experiencing him. He says "this is eternal life, that they know you, the one true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent." Not that they know *about* you, and *about* Jesus. He says that they *know you*, and know his son. You cannot know somebody without experiencing them. Stacy posits that you cannot know someone without experiencing them. If we apply this to God, then John 17:3 would implicitly suggest that eternal life involves knowing God and Jesus, which, by his logic, means we ought to experience God and Jesus. Interestingly, Stacy McCants's podcast *A Stronger Faith* largely revolves around spiritual or supernatural experiences shared by the Christians he interviews. I suspect Stacy is a charismatic Christian, which might suggest a charismatic bias in his interpretation of John 17:3. **What is an overview of Protestant interpretations of John 17:3? Is knowing God and Jesus typically understood as involving experiences, and if so, what kinds of experiences are usually implied?**

*"The Apocalypse, or Revelation to John, the last book of the Bible, is one of the most difficult to understand because it abounds in unfamiliar and extravagant symbolism, which at best appears unusual to the modern reader."* The 4 living creatures and 24 elders are mentioned numerous times in Revelation. --- In Revelation 4: >4 Surrounding the throne I saw twenty-four other thrones on which **twenty-four elders** sat, dressed in white garments and with gold crowns on their heads. 5 From the throne came flashes of lightning, rumblings, and peals of thunder. Seven flaming torches burned in front of the throne, which are the seven spirits of God. 6 In front of the throne was something that resembled a sea of glass like crystal. In the center and around the throne, there were **four living creatures** covered with eyes in front and in back. 7 The first creature resembled a lion, the second was like a calf, the third had a face like that of a human being, and the fourth looked like an eagle in flight. 8 The four living creatures, each of them with six wings, were covered with eyes inside and out. Day and night they do not stop exclaiming: “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God almighty, who was, and who is, and who is to come.” >9 Whenever the living creatures give glory and honor and thanks to the one who sits on the throne, who lives forever and ever, 10 the twenty-four elders fall down before the one who sits on the throne and worship him, who lives forever and ever. They throw down their crowns before the throne, exclaiming: 11 “Worthy are you, Lord our God, to receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things; because of your will they came to be and were created.” In Revelation 5: >6 Then I saw standing in the midst of the throne and **the four living creatures and the elders**, a Lamb that seemed to have been slain. He had seven horns and seven eyes; these are the [seven] spirits of God sent out into the whole world. 7 He came and received the scroll from the right hand of the one who sat on the throne. 8 When he took it, **the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders** fell down before the Lamb. Each of the elders held a harp and gold bowls filled with incense, which are the prayers of the holy ones. The creatures and elders are directly mentioned again in 5:11 and 5:14. In Revelation 6: > 1 Then I watched while the Lamb broke open the first of the seven seals, and I heard **one of the four living creatures** cry out in a voice like thunder, “Come forward.” 2 I looked, and there was a white horse, and its rider had a bow. He was given a crown, and he rode forth victorious to further his victories. This pattern is repeated thrice more in the next passages, 6:3-8. The Lamb breaks the next seal, the next living creature cries out "Come forward", and the next horse and rider emerge. Then in Revelation 7, 14, 15, 19: > 7:11 All the angels stood around the throne and around **the elders and the four living creatures**. They prostrated themselves before the throne, worshiped God, > 14:3 They were singing [what seemed to be] a new hymn before the throne, before **the four living creatures and the elders**. No one could learn this hymn except the hundred and forty-four thousand who had been ransomed from the earth. > 15:7 **One of the four living creatures** gave the seven angels seven gold bowls filled with the fury of God, who lives forever and ever. > 19:4 **The twenty-four elders and the four living creatures** fell down and worshiped God who sat on the throne, saying, “Amen. Alleluia.” --- What does Christian scripture, major/longstanding tradition, or Church teaching tell us about the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders? Note that I am not asking for personal opinions or interpretations of these passages. Please do not post answers that "reason through" the passages, saying "because of X, the elders are probably Y", unless you are quoting or carefully explaining some source that is considered reasonably popular and scholarly by some body of Christians.

Genesis 4 discusses the descendants of Cain: >"Cain knew his wife, and she conceived and bore Enoch. When he built a city, he called the name of the city after the name of his son, Enoch. To Enoch was born Irad, and Irad fathered Mehujael, and Mehujael fathered Methushael, and Methushael fathered Lamech. And Lamech took two wives. The name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other Zillah. Adah bore Jabal; he was the **father of those who dwell in tents and have livestock**. His brother's name was Jubal; he was the **father of all those who play the lyre and pipe**. Zillah also bore Tubal-cain; he was **the forger of all instruments of bronze and iron**. The sister of Tubal-cain was Naamah." Genesis 4:17-22 Why are we given details about what the descendants of Cain did? Is there some special significance to these details?

During Ancient Biblical times, it was common for 1st cousins to get married. > Genesis 24:15 > > New American Standard Bible 1995 > > Rebekah Is Chosen > > 15 Before he had finished speaking, behold, Rebekah who was born to > Bethuel the son of Milcah, the wife of Abraham’s brother Nahor, came > out with her jar on her shoulder. > Genesis 24:67 > > New American Standard Bible 1995 > > 67 Then Isaac brought her into his mother Sarah’s tent, and he took > Rebekah, and she became his wife, and he loved her; thus Isaac was > comforted after his mother’s death. > Genesis 28:2 > > New American Standard Bible 1995 > > So Isaac called Jacob > and blessed him and charged him, and said to him, “You shall not take > a wife from the daughters of Canaan. 2 Arise, go to Paddan-aram, to > the house of Bethuel your mother’s father; and from there take to > yourself **a wife from the daughters of Laban your mother’s brother.** > Genesis 29:21-30 > > New American Standard Bible 1995 > > Laban’s Treachery > > 21 Then Jacob said to Laban, “Give me my wife, for my [a]time is > completed, that I may go in to her.” 22 Laban gathered all the men of > the place and made a feast. 23 Now in the evening he took his daughter > Leah, and brought her to him; and Jacob went in to her. 24 Laban also > gave his maid Zilpah to his daughter Leah as a maid. **25 So it came > about in the morning that, behold, it was Leah! And he said to Laban, > “What is this you have done to me? Was it not for Rachel that I served > with you? Why then have you deceived me?” 26 But Laban said, “It is > not [b]the practice in our place to [c]marry off the younger before > the firstborn. 27 Complete the week of this one, and we will give you > the other also for the service which you shall serve with me for > another seven years.” 28 Jacob did so and completed her week, and he > gave him his daughter Rachel as his wife.** 29 Laban also gave his maid > Bilhah to his daughter Rachel as her maid. 30 So Jacob went in to > Rachel also, and indeed he loved Rachel more than Leah, and he served > with Laban for another seven years. However, if one reads about European Royal families then one will notice that there were inbreeding health problems amongst offspring because cousins married each other. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Excerpt from Credit Reference url: [Royal Inbreeding and the Hapsburg Jaw](https://www.utmb.edu/mdnews/podcast/episode/royal-inbreeding-and-the-hapsburg-jaw) > The Hapsburg dynasty ended with King Carlos the Second of Spain whose > tongue was so large he couldn't chew or talk well and drooled. He was > intellectually disabled and died just short of his thirty-ninth > birthday. > > To confirm that marriage with relatives closer than second cousins > caused the Hapsburg jaw, ten maxillofacial surgeons viewed sixty-six > portraits of fifteen members of the Hapsburg dynasty. They looked for > eleven features of the disorder and found them in at least seven > family members. Researchers also studied a family tree that included > six thousand people over twenty generations and established a link > between inbreeding and the disorder. Excerpt from Credit Reference url: [Royal Inbreeding and the Hapsburg Jaw](https://www.utmb.edu/mdnews/podcast/episode/royal-inbreeding-and-the-hapsburg-jaw) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Why weren't there any reports of health problems amongst offspring caused by inbreeding when closely related relatives got married to each other, and produced offspring during the Ancient Biblical days?

In the story of Gideon (Judges 6-8), near the end it talks about Gideon building an ephod out of the gold earrings from the spoils of the battle against the Midianites. What is an ephod, and why did gideon build one. Is it significant?

I don't understand the following counter argument by Jesus. > And if I by Beelzebul cast out demons, by whom do your sons cast them out? Luke 11:19 One viewpoint is that the Pharisees' students (which I believe is what Jesus meant when he said sons) did try to cast out demons, but that would mean that I would be assuming that the Pharisees' student did actually cast out demons during that time. 1) Would the aforementioned argument be valid? 2) Are there any other ways of understanding Luke 11:19? If yes, could someone please explain them?

In John 8:19 (NIV), the Jews ask Jesus: >“Where is your father?” But instead of giving a direct answer to where, Jesus replies: >“You do not know me or my Father. If you knew me, you would know my Father also.” Why did Jesus respond with who (about identity/relationship) rather than answering the where they asked? Was this a deliberate redirection of their misunderstanding, or is there a deeper theological reason for this shift in focus?

The passage reads: > [Ephesians 5:18-21 NASB] 18 And do not get drunk with wine, in which there is debauchery, **but be filled with the Spirit**, 19 speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody with your hearts to the Lord; 20 always giving thanks for all things in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ to our God and Father; 21 and subject yourselves to one another in the fear of Christ. My modern-day interpretation of verse 18, *“And do not get drunk with wine, in which there is debauchery, but be filled with the Spirit,”* would be this: Instead of chasing a dopamine rush or neurochemical high through alcohol, drugs, opioids, or any other addictive behavior (whether food, sex, pornography, gambling, or the like), seek to be filled with the Spirit. The one who is filled with the Spirit experiences a holy satisfaction that immeasurably surpasses alcohol, drugs, food, sex, psychedelics, or any combination of fleshly indulgences. In other words, I see Ephesians 5:18-21 as a spiritually challenging passage because it seems to urge the Christian to pursue a deep, Spirit-filled state, a profound transformation of affections and emotions that far exceeds any earthly intoxication. I personally picture this spiritual state as vastly superior to the strongest dopamine-driven highs of substances such as alcohol, cocaine, ecstasy, methamphetamines, or any other stimulant the world offers. Furthermore, in verses 19-21 the apostle sets forth several practices. What is not immediately clear, however, is whether these should be understood as *manifestations* (that is, consequences) of being filled with the Spirit, or rather as *means* (that is, practices that foster or open the way toward being filled). With this in mind, I am seeking an **overview of Protestant interpretations** of Ephesians 5:18-21 concerning the lived Christian experience of being filled with the Spirit. In particular, I am asking: - How do Protestants compare the experience of being filled with the Spirit to indulgence in alcohol, drugs, or other dopamine-releasing behaviors? - How do Protestants understand and seek to obey Paul’s command to be filled with the Spirit? ----------- NOTE. You can read parallel commentaries by Biblical scholars on Ephesians 5:18 here: https://biblehub.com/commentaries/ephesians/5-18.htm

1 Corinthians 8:9-13 (NIV): >Be careful, however, that the exercise of your rights does not become a stumbling block to the weak. For if someone with a weak conscience sees you, with all your knowledge, eating in an idol’s temple, won’t that person be emboldened to eat what is sacrificed to idols? So this weak brother or sister, for whom Christ died, is destroyed by your knowledge. When you sin against them in this way and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ. Therefore, if what I eat causes my brother or sister to fall into sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause them to fall. It is clear that eating meat sacrificed to idols is not a sin. But it could lead other Christians to do so too, and as a result they would be destroyed? Or fall into sin? Is Paul implying that it will lead them into other sins? Or just that they will think they are sinning (when in fact they are not) and will feel bad, and we should be mindful of this? That they think that they will be destroyed (when in fact they won't be)? Why did Paul say these people have a weak conscience? Don't they have an over active conscience?

The verse reads (KJV): > “And he shall stand and feed in the strength of the LORD, in the majesty of the name of the LORD his God; and they shall abide: for now shall he be great unto the ends of the earth.” I understand this verse is tied to the prophecy of the Messiah being born in Bethlehem. However, the wording “**his** God” raises questions for me in the context of the Trinity. I am following Chuck Smith's Blue Letter Bible (verse by verse commentary) but he doesn’t address this phrasing. Matthew Henry's touches on it, suggesting that the Messiah “speaks with God’s authority,” referencing Matthew 7:28 (“because he was teaching them as one who had authority”). This seems related to other biblical patterns where God’s people or godly figures are “called by God’s name,” such as Daniel 1:19, Jeremiah 15:16, Jeremiah 14:9, Isaiah 43:6, and Acts 15:17. Another example is Exodus 23:21, where the angel (or Jesus, if seen as a Christophany) “carries God’s name.” I also understand that Jesus can address God as “My God” (Matthew 27:46), but in Micah, the author doesn’t seem concerned about drawing a strong distinction between the Messianic figure and God. I would greatly appreciate insight into this phrasing in Micah 5:4 — why does it say “His God”? What theological or textual reasons might explain it? Thank you in advance.

Commentators on the story of [Acts 1:15–26](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+1%3A15-26&version=ESV) , where the Apostles select Matthias to replace Judas as the 12th apostle, often say vague things like: > Some have held that the choice of Matthias was unauthorized and that he was never accepted as an apostle. ([*People's New Testament*](http://www.ccel.org/ccel/johnson_bw/pnt.pnt0501.html)) There seems to be some biblical evidence that Paul *was not* considered (not even by himself) to be "one of the twelve," like [Acts 2:14](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+2%3A14&version=ESV) and [1 Corinthians 15:5–9](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+corinthians+15%3A5-9&version=ESV) . But some apparently either disagree with this assessment, or think that if Paul was not considered the 12th apostle, he should have been. So, my question. What are the arguments used by theologians who believe that the apostles erred in selecting Matthias to be the 12th apostle instead of Paul? Related: [Who was the 12th Apostle - Matthias or Paul?](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/7507/21576) Unlike this closed question, my question focuses on one side of the debate.

In Matthew 22, after basically frustrating the Pharisees and the Saduccees by answering some really tricky questions, Jesus finally turns the tables on them and asks this question: > 41 While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, 42 “What do you think about the Messiah? Whose son is he?” “The son of David,” they replied. 43 He said to them, “How is it then that David, speaking by the Spirit, calls him ‘Lord’? For he says, 44 “‘The Lord said to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet.”’[e] 45 If then David calls him ‘Lord,’ how can he be his son?” The response is silence, and apparent victory: > 46 No one could say a word in reply, and from that day on no one dared to ask him any more questions. What I understand is this - Jesus is pointing out that the Messiah is both David's son and David's Lord. I get that its a good theological point. But why does it silence his critics?

In [2 Corinthians 10:3-5](http://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/2-corinthians/passage.aspx?q=2-corinthians+10:3-5) Paul makes a contrast between spiritual warfare and war "according to human standards": >Indeed, we live as human beings, but we do not wage war according to human standards; for the weapons of our warfare are not merely human, but they have divine power to destroy strongholds. We destroy arguments and every proud obstacle raised up against the knowledge of God, and we take every thought captive to obey Christ. In using the phrase "we do not wage war according to human standards", is Paul assuming or expecting Christians will all be pacifists, or is he merely highlighting the contrast between physical and spiritual warfare?

Daniel Chap 8 always confused me. The last (4th) Beast was detailed in Chap 7 and the former 3rd beast detailed in Chap 8. Both detailed beasts had a little horn coming up later but from different scenarios of previous horns. However Chap 8 explains the 3rd Empire (Chap 7 Leopard) instead as a Goat and in more detail. It's little horn rises out of 4 horns (Generals) taking over (per history) Alexander the Great's empire (at his death). But this little horn isn't said to subdue any previous horns but rather it waxed exceeding great to the south, east, and pleasant land. If one examines history the first sections of Chap 8 seems to be about the Seleucid Empire's Antiochus Epiphanes IV. But the latter part of Chap 8 also seems to go beyond Seleucid's Epiphanes IV and details more in line with the timeline and happenstance of the 4th (final) beast of Chap 7(?). Other than this said implicit latter section expansion Chap 8 does not specifically mention the 4th beast empire included Daniel Chap 7. The Seleucid Empire encompassed a good fraction of the same area as the Eastern Roman (4th beast) Empire. But it's confusing to see the little horn out of the 4 horns go on in the latter section of Chap 8 to sound synonymous with the little horn of the Chap 7's 4th beast which subdued 3 of it's previous 10 horns. Unless Chap 8 is not referring to the 4th beast at all (timeline or premise) and verse 11 is referencing Israel of Christ's earthly time. And verse 23's latter time is referencing the same? I.e. making Chap 7 more about the end of the times of the Gentiles and Chap 8 more about the cutting off of the messiah and Israel being scattered until the last days?

According to ChatGPT-5, "both numbers are thought to be examples of gematria ", which is a system where "letters also stand for numbers": Meaning the name of a person can be expressed as a number. However I've searched online and can't see how you can get to "Nero" from these numbers? Is it all pseudo-science? Again, according to ChatGPT-5: 666: Often interpreted as referring to Nero Caesar when written in Hebrew letters (נרון קסר = 666). 616: Matches the same name Nero Caesar but in a slightly different spelling (the Latin form without the final “n”: נרו קסר = 616). It concludes: "So both numbers likely point to Nero, the Roman emperor infamous for persecuting Christians." Does gematria really point both of these numbers to "Nero"?

In Luke 2:26 the text states that Simeon would not see death before he had seen τὸν χριστὸν κυρίου (‘the Christ of the Lord’). How can Trinitarian theology reconcile the genitive construction — ‘of the Lord’ — which implies belonging or being sent, without diminishing Christ’s ontological equality with the very Kyrios? (Lk. 2:26 BGT) > καὶ ἦν αὐτῷ κεχρηματισμένον ὑπὸ τοῦ πνεύματος τοῦ ἁγίου μὴ ἰδεῖν θάνατον πρὶν [ἢ] ἂν ἴδῃ τὸν **χριστὸν κυρίου**. Luke 2:26 (KJV) > “And it was revealed unto him by the Holy Ghost, that he should not see death, before he had seen the Lord’s Christ.”