Adam was created in the original state of justice and holiness, he have a pure heart originally, a sinless creature. >The concept that Adam was created in a state of original justice and holiness is a doctrine rooted in the biblical narrative of Genesis 1-3 and supported by New Testament reflections on the image of God. >Key Bible verses and theological points supporting this doctrine include: Ecclesiastes 7:29: "Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions" (KJV). This verse is widely cited as direct scriptural evidence that humanity’s original condition was one of moral integrity, righteousness, and innocence. Genesis 1:26-27, 31: God creates man in His own image and likeness and declares all of creation, including humanity, "very good." This state is interpreted as original justice—a harmonious relationship with God, oneself, and creation. >Ephesians 4:24: While referring to the "new self" in Christ, this verse highlights the original state intended for humanity: "...put on the new self, created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness" (NIV). This implies that the restoration of humanity brings them back to the original holiness Adam possessed. >Colossians 3:10: Speaks of being "renewed in knowledge in the image of its Creator," referencing a return to the original righteous state. >Genesis 2:25: "And the man and his wife were both naked, and were not ashamed." This describes a state of innocence, internal harmony, and lack of sin before the Fall. >**Key Aspects of Original Justice:** >Original Holiness: Friendship with God and sharing in God's own life (sanctifying grace). >Original Justice: Harmony between Adam and Eve, inner harmony of the human person (reason, will, and desires were aligned), and harmony with creation. >Preternatural Gifts: Freedom from sickness, suffering, and death. >The Council of Trent (Session V, 1511) formally affirmed that Adam lost this "holiness and justice" through disobedience. It would seems that Adam was created with a pure heart before the fall, and there's no obstacle for him to see the face of God. **Did Adam saw the face of God before the fall?** This question is open for Catholicism, Protestant and Christians who have a source or writings that stated, Adam had seen the face of God before the fall.

I’m seeking some theological and exegetical insight regarding the use of the word “appoint” in the New Testament passages about the establishment of elders (e.g. Acts 14:23; Titus 1:5). In many English translations, appoint can sound like a top-down decision made by a few leaders. However, the Greek terms involved (such as χειροτονέω and καθίστημι) seem to carry a broader sense related to recognition, commissioning, or placing someone into a role, often within a communal or ecclesial context. My question is this: Does the New Testament use of “appoint elders” necessarily imply a unilateral decision by church leaders, or does it presuppose some form of communal discernment, recognition, or confirmation by the local church? I would appreciate perspectives from biblical studies, church history, or different ecclesiological traditions.

I read [an article by Russell Moore in Christianity Today](https://www.christianitytoday.com/2026/01/christians-romans-13-ice-shooting-minneapolis/) explaining that Christians shouldn’t abuse Romans 13, particularly in the Minneapolis ICE shooting. When I read verses 1-7, specifically verse it seems to apply directly to this tragedy, specifically verses 3-4: >“For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. 4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.” Renee Good was engaged in criminal behavior as she blocked law enforcement with her vehicle, disobeyed official orders to get out of her vehicle, and ultimately hit law enforcement with her vehicle. I struggle to understand Russell Moore’s explanation that applying Romans 13 here is abuse. Romans 13 does not seem complicated, but he seems to over-complicate the text.

In the book of Genesis where you can read how Satan tempt eve and eve passed to Adam and in the book of Isaiah and the book of revelation.

What is the history of Biblical interpretation for "not abolishing the law but to fulfill them" (Matt 5:17), accounting for the Jewish history of understanding the Law of Moses, and the issue of how they interpret and teach in the synagogue?

For context, Heb 11:1-5 (NIV): > "Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see. This is what the ancients were commended for. By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible. By faith Abel brought God a better offering than Cain did. By faith he was commended as righteous, when God spoke well of his offerings. And by faith Abel still speaks, even though he is dead. ... https://www.bible.com/bible/2692/HEB.11.NASB2020 https://www.bible.com/bible/2692/HEB.10.NASB2020

Heb 4:12: > For the **word of God** is **living** and effective and sharper than any double-edged sword, penetrating as far as the separation of soul and spirit, joints and marrow. **It is able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart.** (CSB) > For the **word of God** is **quick**, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and **is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart**. (KJV) is quoted a lot by evangelicals in promoting devotional Bible study as though *the act of reading the Bible text in itself* produces the benefit that the Pastor of the book of Hebrews mentions in the verse, i.e. "judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart". But technically, isn't it true that it is **NOT** the text on paper that "judges" but **Jesus (God the Word)** speaking to us? Jesus is the one living, not the text. The theme of the sermon makes it clear what "word of God" refers to, *cf* Heb 1:1-2: > Long ago God spoke to our ancestors by the **prophets** at different times and in different ways. In these last days, **he has spoken to us by his Son**. God has appointed him heir of all things and **made the universe through him**. (CSB) > God, who at sundry times and in divers manners **spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets**, Hath in these last days **spoken unto us by his Son**, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; (KJV) which more precisely refers to the words God spoke by the OT prophets, culminating in His word by Jesus's body, life, action, and words. V. 2 alludes to the words through which God spoke creation into existence (Gen 1) that the Pastor implied as "through Jesus". It seems clear to me that proper exegesis should center the referent of "the word of God" in Heb 4:12 on Jesus who *indeed* is **living and present** preaching to us through the various ways alluded by Heb 1:1-2: - prophecy to OT fathers by the prophets - voice of our conscience (part of the created order), - the beauty & order of nature herself (testified in Job, Psalms, etc.) rather than ***ONLY*** through the words of the text of the Bible (though of course the Bible is the inscripturated word of God also). Furthermore, the more immediate context of Heb 4:12 is Heb 3:1-4:13 about the warning from the lesson learned at Kadesh Barnea's rebellion where they didn't heed the word of God delivered through Moses. Thus the warning of that passage is so that we heed Christ's words to our soul TODAY (*cf* frequent reference to Ps 95:7-8) now that God has spoken to us a lot more clearly by sending Jesus, His own incarnation, greater than the word He spoke to Moses. So why do Evangelicals, whenever they cite the verse in many sermons, Bible study guides, proof-text for apologetics, etc., regularly shift the referent of Heb 4:12 from Jesus to the text of the Bible itself, even broadening the scope to the NT text that has *yet* to be recognized as Scripture? ### 2 illustrations of the consequence of bad exegesis I think my concern for my evangelical brothers and sisters is important when considering **the two disturbing practices I notice** which seems directly to follow from this bad Evangelical exegesis: 1. In several evangelical churches I have attended, they imply that to obtain the benefit in Heb 4:12b, reading the Bible text in itself *is more efficacious* than other books (such as a good theology book, the Catechism, or a C.S. Lewis book), as though God works in a MORE SPECIAL MANNER in producing the benefit when the text read is the Bible but not other books. They seem fearful as though theology books can be more corrupting than the effect of uninformed straight reading of the Bible that has the risk of bad private interpretation if not checked by the church's interpretation mediated by the pastor's sermons. Some even eschew using a commentary, fearing that the commentator's interpretation obscures Scripture rather than making it brighter to the mind! To me this is not coherent. Doesn't the **agent** need to be someone LIVING rather than words on a page? But Evangelical careful readers (adopting the Berean discernment) certainly prioritize the teaching in Scripture to serve as a norm and a rule to judge whether a book elucidate or distorts the orthodox teachings of the Bible. Thus they pick and choose better parts of C.S. Lewis books and quote judiciously from writers such as Dallas Willard / A.W. Tozer. When a Christian reading those books became convicted of their sins and obtained more wisdom to know their hearts more clearly (thus obtaining the benefit of Heb 4:12b), can we *not* say it was Jesus speaking through those books? Can we *not* say it was Jesus speaking through a Biblical sermon prepared with lots of research including the use of commentaries, philosophy, and theology books? No one is going to mistake those books as "word of God", put them on the same level as the Bible, or attribute the author or the pastor as "Jesus speaking". By the way, I am in no way disputing the status of the text of the Bible as Scripture, nor am I excluding Scripture from the "word of God". Evangelical doctrines of - Verbal inspiration of Scripture - Infallibility of Scripture - *Sola Scriptura* as the norm for interpreting other sources such as tradition, council canons, patristic writings, church doctrines, post-NT prophecies, etc. - Protestant understanding of canon of "recognition" instead of Magisterium can be derived from other parts of the Bible instead of misusing this verse in support of the above, which in turn make the above doctrines stand on a less secure foundation. 1. The advice I got from several fundamentalist leaning evangelicals is that to evangelize you HAVE to look for an opportunity to cite a series of strategic Bible verses as though by the very act of reading them aloud to the non-Christian you're speaking to, the Holy Spirit can work BETTER in convicting him/her. One such sequence is this: 1. Romans 10:9 1. John 1:12 1. John 3:36 1. Rev 3:20 1. Rom 6:23 They say I am NOT supposed to let my own explanation to cloud over the reciting of those verses, even explanation of the CONTEXT of each verse! Nor is it necessary to let him/her talk about his/her current misunderstanding of the gospel or the difficulties he/she has with Christianity. **One should simply recite the verses to let them "work" in the hearer's heart unmediated by explanation**. I think I'm justified to say that this practice is adding a mystical element to the Bible text itself, as though the text has mystical power akin to incantation. So my question is: **Why do evangelicals tend to conflate "word of God" in Heb 4:12 with the "text of Scripture", thus with a meaning that ascribes animacy and agency to the words of the Bible text instead of to the Living God?**

Most English translations in Rev 5:9 read something like "You purchased people for God by your blood from every tribe and language and people and nation." However, the Revelation ECM/CBGM data prefers the reading τῷ θεῷ ἡμᾶς over the reading of τῷ θεῷ (supported by only one Greek manuscript, 02). If I am not mistaken, this would read something like "you purchased ***us*** for God by your blood...". My question(s) pertain to the significance of this change in reading. Who are the 24 elders? How does this reading change our understanding of their identity and function? Are they a part of the redeemed?

When we come to Exodus 33:12-16, all efforts at atonement for the sin of the golden calf have failed in renewing God's covenant with His people. Here Moses seems truly at a loss: he has burned the calf and made the people consume its ashes from the water; he has had the sons of Levi put 3,000 men to the sword; he has tried to atone for their sins by offering his own life; the Lord has sent a plague; the Lord has made them rid themselves of ornaments; yet even in this last instance it is obvious that the question remains even now with Moses in this encounter if Israel is restored by God to the covenant He had made with Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph. The last word on the subject was God declaring, “if for a single moment I should go up among you [Israel], I would consume you. So now take off your ornaments, that I may know what to do with you,” (Exodus 33:5). So, we have Moses in the tent interceding for the people, and we read: “And [the Lord] said, ‘My presence will go with you, and I will give you rest,” (Exodus 33:14). It is hard to see if perhaps there is ambiguity in “you” here, whether the Lord is speaking uniquely of Moses, or of Moses and the people. It is in the second person masculine singular, but that is also the case elsewhere when it is obvious that all Israel is understood. For example, where God says “for you are a stiff-necked people,” (Exodus 33:3), He is addressing them in second person masculine singular. Yet, when God repeats the phrase as direct speech that Moses is to convey to the people, “Say to the people of Israel, ‘You are a stiff-necked people,’” (Exodus 33:5), He uses the second person masculine plural. Then, in the same direct speech, referring still to the people Israel, God says “among you,” “consume you,” “your ornaments,” “with you,” all in the singular. Yet, it seems to be something of the point that Moses is turning on as he intercedes for the people, where he adds that, while he has found favor with God, “Consider too that this nation is your people,” (Exodus 33:13), and again, “I and your people,” (v 16). Does Moses remain unsure of the standing of Israel and God's covenant with them in part because God is addressing Moses uniquely? Sorry for the length.

Searching from different bible translations, I had looked deeply into Douay-Rheims version. > "And she entered into the house of Zachary, and saluted Elizabeth." - Luke 1:40 From this passage, we can see that it ends with a period. This event is finished. A casual greetings can be inferred on this passage and nothing much, it's like Mary saying "Hi! or Hello!" to Her cousin Elizabeth, who knew nothing, about what happened to Mary in the annunciation and Her, having conceived the Messiah. Moving on to next verse... > And it came to pass, that when Elizabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the infant leaped in her womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost: And she cried out with a loud voice, and said: Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? - Luke1:41-43 The word ***"and it came to pass"***, meaning, this event is separated from v.40, where the casual greetings occured. This salutation is much different, it delivered a profound effect on the child in the very womb of Elizabeth, who never knew the Blessed Virgin Mary. The greeting in v. 40 compare to v. 41 can be seen as two separate events. Luke described that it was Elizabeth who heard the salutation and not the infant in her womb. Elizabeth was overjoyed, cried out in a loud voice...this unexplainable feelings was then felt by the child in her womb, that made the infant leaped, as if he shared in the joy that Elizabeth her mother was experiencing at that very moment, that made him leaped. Could it be, that the ***"greetings or salutation"*** that Elizabeth heard at that moment from Mary while praying, is the **Magnificat**. Hearing the words from the Magnificat, was the cause, and the instrument that made her filled with the Holy Spirit. Because Mary's Magnificat was uttered, having overshadowed by the Holy Spirit, the very words of Mary are inspired by the Holy Spirit, to praise the Father in spirit and truth. Elizabeth heard Mary's Canticle, and had realized that Mary was pregnant with the Messiah, and hearing Mary saying, ***"All generations shall call me blessed..."***, Elizabeth reacted,and she is the first one who praised Mary, saying ***"blessed are you among women..."***, and also the first one who proclaimed ***"Jesus is Lord"*** by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, recognizing, the child as her Lord, the way she knew the Lord as the chosen People of God, addressed God in the Old Testament. John the Baptist in Luke1:15 had been prophesied to be filled with the Holy Spirit in the womb of his Mother, and Luke's gospel described the moment, how it happened in v.44 > *For behold as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in my ears, the infant in my womb leaped for joy.* - Luke 1:44 From the discernment above, we can see that the *"greetings"* in Luke 1:40 is different from the *"greetings"* in Luke1:41, the two greetings are a separate event. The other is obviously a casual greeting and the other is a mysterious greetings. In view of the above, I am looking for a commentary or writings from Catholic sources or Christian sources,biblical even extra-biblical showing that the "greetings" in Luke 1:40 and Luke 1:41 is a separate event and different from each other. Elizabeth didn't need to hear Mary's Magnificat to know that she was pregnant with the Lord. Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit, who was perfectly capable of conveying that knowledge. Elizabeth's intuition was very manifest here.

I believe that when Paul stated that he thanked God that he spoke with tongues more than the others that he actually meant that he knew more "foreign languages" than the others... otherwise, it would be virtually impossible to know that he "spoke in tongues" more than the others without taking a survey from the people or being around them all 24 hours per day.

For a while, I have had thoughts on areas of scripture that suggest different degrees of punishments and rewards for different kinds of people both for and against Christ. Starting with Christians, we see Jesus making a statement in Mathew 5:19 where he says: > 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. Note how Jesus doesn't say they won't be saved but rather, they will be of a lower status in heaven than those who actively put their faith to action. Paul repeatedly echoes this point in multiple places such as: (2 Corinthians 5:10 ) > 10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each of us may **receive what is due us for the things done** while in the body, whether good or bad. (1 Corinthians 3:11-15 ) > 11 **For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ**. 12 If anyone builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, 13 **their work will be shown for what it is**, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and **the fire will test the quality of each person’s work.** 14 **If what has been built survives, the builder will receive a reward**. 15 **If it is burned up, the builder will suffer loss but yet will be saved**—even though only as one escaping through the flames. Paul here also implies that all those who are in Christ will be saved because he is a strong foundation even if the work they build in that foundation is poor. However they will be at a loss when it comes to receiving whatever inheritance (possibly other than eternal life which will be given to all Christians) God has prepared for us. The same also goes for the other side where Jesus mentions the punishment given to the pharisees and those towns that reject his disciples being worse than the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah on judgment day.(Matthew 10:15, Matthew 11:24, Luke 10:12 ) or his parable in Luke 12:47-48 : > 47 “**The servant who knows the master’s will and does not get ready or does not do what the master wants will be beaten with many blows. 48 But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows**. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked. Considering all these (and more), is it safe to assume (and why) that there will be varying levels of punishment and reward within both hell and heaven respectively? If not, kindly explain how and why these verses do not support that idea. Appreciated.

**New International Version** >To the one who is victorious, I will give > the right to sit with me on my throne, just as I was victorious and > sat down with my Father on his throne. **New Living Translation** >Those who are victorious will sit with me on my > throne, just as I was victorious and sat with my Father on his throne. **English Standard Version** >The one who conquers, I will grant him to sit > with me on my throne, as I also conquered and sat down with my Father > on his throne. From what I can gather, there are two thrones spoken of here. How do modalist sects explain this verse?

Why is everything 1/3 in Revelation? It comes up with the four angels, and the dragon: > 8:7 The first [angel's trumpet] sounded, ... and a third of the earth was burned up, and a third of the trees were burned up, and all the green grass was burned up. 8 The second angel sounded, ... and a third of the sea became blood, 9 and a third of the creatures which were in the sea and had life, died; and a third of the ships were destroyed. 10 The third angel sounded, and a great star fell from heaven, burning like a torch, and it fell on a third of the rivers and on the springs of waters. 11 The name of the star is called Wormwood; and a third of the waters became wormwood, and many men died from the waters, because they were made bitter. 12 The fourth angel sounded, and a third of the sun and a third of the moon and a third of the stars were struck, so that a third of them would be darkened and the day would not shine for a third of it, and the night in the same way. > > 9:15 And the four angels, who had been prepared for the hour and day and month and year, were released, so that they would kill a third of mankind. 18 A third of mankind was killed by these three plagues, by the fire and the smoke and the brimstone which proceeded out of their mouths. > > 12:4 And [the dragon's] tail swept away a third of the stars of heaven and threw them to the earth.

>1 Peter 3:18-20: Because even Messiah once suffered for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to Elohim, having been put to death indeed in flesh but made alive in the Spirit, 19 in which also He went and proclaimed unto the spirits in prison, 20 who were disobedient at one time when the patience of Elohim waited in the days of Noaḥ, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight beings, were saved through water, This seems to disprove consciousness ceases at death.

In Romans 11, Paul describes Gentile believers as being “grafted in” to the olive tree of Israel. If Gentiles are joined to Israel spiritually, why does circumcision — a covenant sign originally given to Abraham and his descendants (Genesis 17) — no longer apply as a requirement for salvation or covenant membership? How do Christian traditions theologically reconcile the Abrahamic circumcision command with the New Testament statements that circumcision is not required (Acts 15, Galatians 5)?

The Babylon spoken of in Revelation chapter 14;8 KJV is clearly labeled as a city, and in Chapter 18:1 & 2 it seems to be more of a systematic degradation of God's holy words. In chapter 19:1, 2 & 3 God is judging Babylon which would lead me to believe that it would more suit judging Satan and his minions. Rev_14:8 KJV And there followed another angel, saying, Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that great city, because she made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication. Rev 18:1 & 2 KJV 1 And after these things I saw another angel come down from heaven, having great power; and the earth was lightened with his glory. 2 And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird. Rev 19:1, 2 &3 KJV 1 And after these things I heard a great voice of much people in heaven, saying, Alleluia; Salvation, and glory, and honour, and power, unto the Lord our God: 2 For true and righteous are his judgments: for he hath judged the great whore, which did corrupt the earth with her fornication, and hath avenged the blood of his servants at her hand. 3 And again they said, Alleluia. And her smoke rose up for ever and ever. David Gusik puts forth these words in his commentary on Revelation 14:8; >Revelation 14:8 An angel announces Babylon's fall. >And another angel followed, saying, "Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that great city, because she has made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication." Babylon is fallen: More on Babylon will come in Revelation 17. For now, it is enough to see it representing mankind in organized rebellion against God. "Prophetically, 'Babylon' sometimes refers to a literal city, sometimes to a religious system, sometimes to a political system, all stemming from the evil character of historic Babylon." (Walvoord) Because she has made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication: When we are told that Babylon has led all nations into fornication, the main idea is spiritual fornication - the worship of other gods. However, we are never surprised to see spiritual fornication accompanied with literal immorality. Revelation 18 - The Fall of Commercial Babylon A. Announcing the fall of Babylon. 1. Introduction: is this the same Babylon as is described in chapter 17? a. Good scholars see the issue differently. Some point to two manifestations of Babylon, one religious and one commercial or material. Others see the two as one, both being judged at the same time. b. There are definite similarities between Babylon as described in Revelation 17 and Revelation 18. Both are under the rule of Antichrist, and have ruling queens; both are filled with blasphemy; both hate the saints, and shed their blood; both are associates with kings in fornication; and both are under judgment and destroyed. c. However, there are also some significant differences: Religious Babylon (Rev. 17) Commercial Babylon (Rev. 18) 1. Mystery Babylon 1. Great Babylon; Babylon the Great 2. Symbol: a harlot woman 2. Symbol: a great city 3. Identified with Rome (inland) 3. Identified with a port city 4. Woman, whore, and mother 4. Habitation, great city, market place 5. Guilty: religious 5. Guilty: greed, self-indulgence abominations 6. Destroyed by a political 6. Destroyed by a sudden act of God power that previously supported her d. In my view, it is best to see them as intertwined, yet somewhat distinct. Religious Babylon of Revelation 17 is judged at the mid-point of the seven- year period of tribulation. Commercial Babylon is judged at the end of that period.< Those and other commentaries I have studied have caused me to wonder if they were the same or one religious and one Commercial Can anyone recommend any sources for further study on this subject?

Acts 15:19-21 (NIV, Emph mine) > 19 “It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20 Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. **21 For the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.**” This verse is used for and against observing law. Seems like this could mean either, "There are enough people following Moses and observing the law, so no need for more people to follow the law." or "The law is repeated in synagogues and new believers will go to synagogues, so they'll learn and follow them later."

The Bible speaks of the Nephilim as the offspring of the “sons of God and daughters of men” in books such as: Genesis, Enoch, and a couple others. It does explain that they bred from evil beings, but it doesn’t specify if they themselves were evil or not, and even if they were supposed to be “evil”. Were they **all** evil?

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?**