The question is above. The term Sola Scriptura: Belief that Scripture is the final and only infallible authority for the Christian in all matters of faith and practice. While there are other authorities, they are always fallible and the must always be tested by and submit to the Scriptures. The Adherents are generally speaking Reformed Protestants/Evangelicals --- Please note, This is not directed at those who believe in **solo** scriptura: The Belief that Scripture is the sole basis and authority in the life of the Christian. Tradition is useless and misleading, and creeds and confessions are the result of man-made traditions.

How should I as a born again Christian begin to practice messianic Christianity?

Baptists not the only denomination where it is common for the male children of the pastor to go to seminary and enter the pastorate as well. It appears somewhat common not only for nationally known ministers but also ministers of local congregations to have some of their children follow in their footsteps. The question is for Baptists for scoping purposes. I could not find any actual statistics regarding how commonly this occurs and therefore ask only from the standpoint of personal observation. Given that the Bible indicates pastors and teachers are gifted by God and called into that position rather than it being handed down from father to son like regular vocations (Grandpa was a carpenter, dad was a carpenter, and I am a carpenter), how do Baptists reconcile the relative frequency of a pastor's son becoming a pastor himself?

The Anglican communion has split in two as far as I can tell, divided between anglican churches aligning themselves with the current organizations known as the Anglican Communion, and a new one, GAFCON. What practical implications does this split have on a local level?

*Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy* (IEP) article on Philo claims that Philo > “laid the foundations for the development of Christianity … as we know it today.” It says > “Philo’s primary importance is in the development of the … foundations of Christianity.” More specifically, it claims that the Logos theology , that became the standard explanation of Jesus after the church became Gentile dominated in the second century, was inspired by Philo, namely, that Philo, by synthesizing Judaism and Greek philosophy, developed concepts which formed the basis for the Christian interpretation of Jesus Christ. The IEP article mentions > “Clement of Alexandria, Christian Apologists like Athenagoras, Theophilus, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and by Origen” as Christian theologists who used Philo’s concepts to explain the Biblical Son of God. Furthermore, and much more important, the IEP article claims that Philo influenced the Bible itself. (Philo lived and wrote a few decades before the writers of the New Testament.) The article says Philo > “may have influenced Paul, his contemporary, and perhaps the authors of the Gospel of John … and the Epistle to the Hebrews.” To justify these statements, the IEP article points to the following similarities between Philo and the New Testament: Same Titles ----------- In Philo, the Logos exists before everything else and, therefore, is called the “first-born” (IEP), “the ‘first-born’ of God” (Blogos ), and the first-begotten Son of the Uncreated Father (IEP). Consequently, both Philo's Logos and Jesus Christ are called: - Logos (the Word - John 1:1), - The first-born (Col 1:15; Heb 1:6), and - Son of God. Eternal ------- In both Philo and the NT, the Logos is eternal: - In the NT, the Son "was" in “the beginning” (John 1:1-2) and is “the First and the Last” (Rev 1:17). “His goings forth are from long ago, From the days of eternity” (Micah 5:2). The Arians liked to add, “From everlasting I was established” (Prov 8:23). - Similarly, in Philo, the Logos was begotten from eternity (IEP). The Logos has an origin, but as God’s thought, it also has eternal generation (IEP). God begat the Logos eternally because it is a manifestation of God’s thinking-acting (IEP). Created and Maintains All Things -------------------------------- In both Philo and the NT, the Logos created and still maintains all things: - In Philo, the Logos is “the organizing principle of matter” (Blogos), the power by which God made and ordered all things (IEP), and the bond holding together all the parts of the world (IEP). - In John, God created all things through the Logos (John 1:1-3; cf. Col 1:16; Heb 1:2; 1 Cor 8:6) and also maintains all things through His Son (Heb 1:3; Col 1:17). Entrusted Power --------------- In both Philo and the NT, the Logos receives His power from God: - In Philo, the Logos has no autonomous power, only an entrusted one (Wikipedia ). - Similarly, in the New Testament, the miracles which Jesus performed were performed by God “through Him” (Acts 2:22). God “seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places, far above all rule and authority and power and dominion” (Eph 1:17-21). The Angel of the Lord --------------------- In both Philo and the NT, the Logos is the Old Testament Angel of the Lord: - Many Christians identify the Old Testament Angel of the LORD as the pre-existent Christ. - Similarly, Philo describes the Logos as the revealer of God symbolized in the Scripture by an angel of the Lord (IEP). Reveals God ----------- In both Philo and the NT, the Logos reveals the invisible and incomprehensible God to the created things: - In Philo, “God is revealed to His creation through the Logos” (Blogos). - Similarly, in the New Testament, God “alone possesses immortality and dwells in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see” but the Son is “the exact representation” of God’s nature (Heb 1:3); “the (visible) image of the invisible God” (Col 1:15). Therefore, Jesus said, “He who has seen Me has seen the Father” (John 14:9). Light ----- In both Philo and the NT, the Logos illuminates the soul: - In Philo, the Logos illuminates the human soul and nourishes it with a higher spiritual food (Wikipedia ). In the mind of a wise man thoroughly purified, it allows preservation of virtues in an unimpaired condition. (IEP) - Similarly, Jesus said, “I am the Light of the world; he who follows Me will not walk in the darkness” (John 8:12). And John wrote: “In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men.” “There was the true Light which, coming into the world, enlightens every man” (John 1:4, 9). Begotten -------- In both Philo and the NT, the Logos is neither uncreated as God nor created as men: - In Philo, "the ontology of the Logos would most closely resemble an emanation from the divine essence” (Blogos), and “an extension of a divine being” (IEP). The Logos is more than a quality, power, or characteristic of God; it is an entity eternally generated as an extension (IEP). Therefore, the Logos … is neither uncreated as God nor created as men (IEP). - Similarly, in the NT, the Son is the only being ever “begotten” by the Father. If we interpret this fairly literally, it seems to indicate that He came out of the being of God. The Nicene Creed interprets “begotten” as that He was not created but came from the substance of the Father. The anti-Nicenes warn that humans do not understand what “begotten” of God means and that we should not introduce non-Biblical words or thoughts. Mediator between God and man ---------------------------- In both Philo and the NT, the Logos is the mediator between God and man: - In Philo, the Father is the Supreme Being and the Logos, as his chief messenger, stands between Creator and creature (IEP). The Logos is a perfect being, procuring forgiveness of sins and blessings (IEP); the mediator between God and men (IEP). “The Philonic Logos is the bridge between the infinite God and finite creation” (Blogos). - Similarly, in the New Testament, “there is one God, and ***one mediator*** also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Tim 2:5; cf. Heb 8:6; 9:15). Everything that the creation receives from God, including existence, sustenance, knowledge, and salvation, flows through His Son. Also, through Christ, we draw near to God and worship Him. Question -------- It is fairly common knowledge that the pre-Nicene Fathers (the Apologists ) explained the Son of God in terms of Greek philosophy. My main question is whether Philo influenced the formulation and contents of the New Testament. Perhaps I can frame the question like this: Jesus and Philo lived at the same time. Jesus said that all power and all judgment have been given Him but He never said that He is the Logos or that God created all things through Him. However, Philo, at that same time, taught that the High God created all things through His Logos. So, did John, Paul, and Hebrews get the idea that Jesus is the Logos and that God created all things through Him from Philo?

Approaching this from a Catholic perspective, what are good signs that God is calling you to the vocation of priesthood, in other words, what must one look for to know whether you are called to the priesthood?

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.

I have heard the term "Lordship Salvation" several times now, including in an answer I read recently. Can anyone explain to me what this is? Is this the official position of any major churches? Is this a term only used by critics of the view? (Like "easy believism" or "cafeteria Christianity" - terms nobody would actually associate ***themselves*** with!)

I wonder if this practice was uniquely part of the 'Jesus movement' at the time or if it was just standard?

[Word of Faith](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word_of_Faith) : > Word of Faith is a movement within charismatic Christianity which teaches that those who believe in Jesus' death and resurrection **have the right to physical health**, **that our words have power**, and that **true faith is more than simply mental knowledge, it is deeply held belief that cannot be shaken**. The movement was founded by the American Kenneth Hagin in the 1960s, and has its roots in the teachings of E. W. Kenyon. > **Teachings** > > Distinctive Word of Faith teachings include **physical, emotional, financial, relational, and spiritual healing** for those who keep their covenant with God. **The movement urges believers to speak what they desire, in agreement with the promises and provisions of the Bible, as an affirmation of God's plans and purposes. They believe this is what Jesus meant when he said in Mark 11:22–24 that believers shall have whatsoever they say and pray with faith**. The term word of faith itself is derived from Romans 10:8 which speaks of the word of faith that we preach. Many dismiss *Word of Faith* teachings as heretical (for instance, as discussed in [*Is the Word of Faith movement biblical?*](https://www.gotquestions.org/Word-Faith.html)) . Simultaneously, there is a belief among many that [Christianity is testable](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/97877/61679) , implying that Christianity encompasses promises that can be tested through sincere and faithful engagement. I'm interested in the views of those situated at the intersection of both groups. What Christian traditions consider Word of Faith teachings heretical but continue to uphold the belief in the empowering role of faith to activate God's promises? --- **Notes** 1. By activating/testing God's promises, I'm specifically referring to the belief in promises that can be tested *on this side of the grave*. Therefore, promises that only become actualized *on the other side of the grave*, such as resurrection to eternal life, for the purposes of this question, do not count. 2. My use of the word *activate* has been criticized as inappropriate in the comments section. My observation in response is that my use of this word in the context of God's promises is not novel. With a quick search one can easily find several examples of churches/ministries that have used it in this way. For instance: - [GOD’S PROMISES AREN’T AUTOMATED, THEY’RE ACTIVATED](https://www.redeemercoast.church/blog/2021/1/22/gods-promises-arent-automated-theyre-activated) - [3 Keys to Activating God’s Promises in Your Life](https://faithisland.org/bible/3-keys-to-activating-gods-promises-in-your-life/) - [Activating the Promises of God: Unlock the Power of the Bible & Empower Your Life](https://www.amazon.com/Activating-Promises-God-Unlock-Empower-ebook/dp/B0CR31XPYS/) - *"Perhaps they did not believe that such a simple action could **trigger the promised healing**. Or perhaps they willfully hardened their hearts and rejected the counsel of God’s prophet."* *"The principle of **activating** blessings that flow from God is eternal.* [...] *In fact, it can be seen in heaven because small acts of faith are required to **ignite God’s promises**."* *"I invite you to faithfully **activate heavenly power to receive specific blessings from God**. Exercise the faith to strike the match and light the fire. Supply the needed oxygen while you patiently wait on the Lord. With these invitations, I pray that the Holy Ghost will guide and direct you so that you, like the faithful person described in Proverbs, will “abound with blessings.” I testify that your Heavenly Father and His Beloved Son, Jesus Christ, live, are concerned with your welfare, and delight to bless you, in the name of Jesus Christ, amen."* (source: [Abound with Blessings](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2019/04/41renlund?lang=eng)) What I'm having a hard time verifying is whether any of these ministries denounce *Word of Faith* teachings as heretical, or if they are tacitly endorsing them.

I encountered an opinion that the Old Covenant is still valid and that Israel is still the Chosen Nation of God. I haven't checked the accuracy of the source, but I read on the Internet that St. John Paul II said that "God has never revoked the Old Covenant". Also, St. Paul wrote in Romans 11 a difficult passage about the Jews, particularly in Romans 11:29 : > "For the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable." (RSV). On the other hand, in my language, during the Liturgy of Good Friday, something like "Jews that used to be Chosen Nation in past" is said. (Some say that's a wrong translation; I didn't check the Latin original). Also, the parable of the vineyard in Matthew 21 says: >"Therefore I tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a nation producing the fruits of it." (v. 43). This seems to state that the Church replaced Israel as a Chosen People. So, what is the Catholic solution to this seeming contradiction?

I understand the inspiration concept, but I don't understand how to consider a quote if it's inspired from God [then we consider it God's Words], or if it explanations by the the apostle or prophet? Is there any verse in the Bible says that the whole Bible is inspired, and not absolute-human-talk?

**Summary of the question**: How can the "angel of the Lord" be the pre-incarnate Jesus if Hebrews 1:5 makes the point that God never said "Thou art my Son" to *any angel*? Those who believe Michael the archangel is Jesus (JW, SDA, and others) usually get Hebrews 1:5 quoted by those who don't share their belief about Michael in an effort to disprove their belief. But what about those who believe the angel of the Lord is the pre-incarnate Jesus? Doesn't the same verse disprove that belief? This is a fairly widely accepted stance, in my opinion. We even have the following question with good answers on this very site: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/89609/on-what-basis-do-some-protestants-believe-the-angel-of-the-lord-is-the-pre-incar However, some groups like Jehovah's Witnesses (due to the belief that Jesus is Michael the Archangel) have to respond to questions like this one: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/78168/dont-the-questions-of-hebrews-15-and-113-demand-an-answer-of-none-so-how-c **How would a Protestant who believes the angel of the Lord is the pre-incarnate Jesus (or any Christian who believes this) respond to a very similar question?** If one believes that the angel of the Lord was the pre-incarnate Jesus, how can that be reconciled with Hebrews 1:5 (KJV): > For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son? I've heard some explain this by saying that the angel of the Lord was not a created angel so that excludes him from the context of "the angels" in this passage. However, the verse doesn't say, "For unto which of the *created* angels said he at any time"... Of course, the basic meaning of "angel" in both the Hebrew and Greek is "messenger". But that doesn't really change the meaning of the passage either. I'm curious how this could be answered satisfactorily.

Which biblical texts are directed to a gentile audience?

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 [short video](https://www.youtube.com/shorts/5Ctpqezp0Nk?feature=share) on John 17:3: > 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 affirms that some Christians reject the idea of seeking experiences with God because they view such experiences as mere emotional pursuits. Emotions, in that view, are often understood as neurochemical highs, products of the flesh, and therefore something to be avoided, being contrary to the things of the Spirit. But this seems to assume, arguably incorrectly, that all emotions arise from the flesh, as if no emotions could come from the Spirit. It denies the possibility of genuinely *spiritual* emotions or affections. Yet Galatians 5:22 says: *“But **the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace**, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.”* The first three fruits listed, **love, joy, and peace**, arguably involve emotions. So, do Christians hold a more nuanced view of the nature of emotions? Do they believe that all emotions are of the flesh, or do they recognize the existence of spiritual emotions or affections? More broadly, do Christians acknowledge different categories of emotion or experience, such as physical experiences and spiritual ones? If God can produce authentic spiritual affections or emotions, would it then follow that pursuing them is a good and worthwhile thing?

## Short version I'm specifically referring to [Graham Oppy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_Oppy) 's paper [An Argument for Atheism from Naturalism](https://philarchive.org/rec/OPPAAF) : > **Abstract** This paper outlines an argument for atheism from naturalism that I have developed in more detail elsewhere (in particular, in *The Best Argument against God*). The overall shape of the argument is as follows: first, naturalism is simpler than theism; second, there is no data that naturalism does not explain at least as well as theism; and, third, naturalism entails atheism; so we have good reason to prefer atheism to theism. Note that this statement of the shape of the argument is NOT a statement of the argument itself. In short, Oppy argues that *naturalism is simpler than theism*, and that, all else being equal, we should always rationally prefer a simpler explanation of the data. How do Christians rebut Graham Oppy's position? ## Longer version A few relevant quotes from the [paper](https://philpapers.org/archive/OPPAAF.pdf) : > Theists differ in the ways that they depart from naturalism. Some theists believe in a God who created our universe ex nihilo. Some theists believe in a God whose actions preserve our universe in existence. Some theists believe in a God who inhabits an eternal realm that has no spatiotemporal relation to our universe. Some theists believe in an intelligent and active God who is neither a natural organism nor an artificial intelligence created by natural organisms. Some theists believe in a God that is a non-personal supernatural power or supernatural force that exerts influence on our universe. Some theists believe that the universe possesses the non-natural property of being divine, or that the non-natural property of being divine ‘permeates’ the universe. And so on. > > **Although theists differ in the ways in which they depart from naturalism, there is a common feature** **to theistic departures from naturalism. In every case, theists differ from naturalists by believing in** **something additional**: either believing in one or more additional intelligent agents, or believing in one or more additional forces or powers, or believing in one or more additional non-natural properties of the universe. > > > Suppose that we are comparing a particular version of theism with a particular version of naturalism. Suppose, further, that these versions of theism and naturalism agree in their beliefs about which natural entities, and natural powers, and natural forces, and natural properties, and natural laws there are. In this case, it’s not just that the theist has beliefs in something over and above the things the atheist believes in; it’s also the case that the naturalist does not have beliefs in anything over and above the things the theist believes in. **From the standpoint of the naturalist, the theistic beliefs** **of the theist are pure addition; and, from the standpoint of the theist, the naturalistic beliefs of the** **naturalist are pure subtraction**. > > **In this case, if all else is no better than equal, then there is clear reason to prefer naturalism to** **theism. For, if all else is no better than equal, then there is no reason to have the additional theistic beliefs**. Hence, in this case, in order to decide between theism and naturalism, we just need to determine whether all else is no better than equal. ... > **The burden of the rest of this chapter is to argue that there are no features of the natural universe** **that have a better explanation on theism than they do on naturalism**. Of course, I won’t be able to examine every feature of the natural universe that might be thought to have a better explanation on theism than it does on naturalism. However, I shall try to examine all of the most prominent features of the natural universe that have been widely supposed to have a better explanation on theism than on naturalism. Given the treatment of the cases that I do discuss, it should be obvious how to extend the discussion to features of the natural universe that I do not examine here. He then goes on to explain how 8 features of the world commonly used to argue for theism can be better accounted for under naturalism. Namely: - Existence - Causation - Fine-Tuning - Morality - Consciousness - Miracles - Religious Experiences - Meaning and Purpose > 9\. **Conclusion** > As I mentioned at the outset, I cannot claim to have considered all of the data that bears on the decision between theism and naturalism (and not can I claim to have given a fully adequate assessment of any of the data that I have considered). However, I hope that I have done enough to indicate how my argument for naturalism would look if it were set out in full and complete detail. (I give a fuller—but still incomplete—exposition of the argument in The Best Argument against God, Palgrave-Macmillan, 2013.) > > 10\. **Note about Evil** > Of course, there is data that at least some theists suppose favours naturalism over theism—e.g. data about horrendous suffering, data about non-belief, and data about the scale of our universe. Some naturalists think that data about horrendous suffering is logically inconsistent with theism. As Epicurus argued long ago: >> Is God willing to prevent evil but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? > > Other naturalists think that data about horrendous suffering renders theism highly improbable: given the major horrors of the twentieth century alone, isn’t it incredible to suppose that our universe is the work of an omnipotent, omniscient and perfectly good being? I have focussed on data that many theists suppose favour theism over naturalism because my argument requires only that, on any piece of data, naturalism does at least as well as theism in explaining that data. Even if it is true, for example, that naturalism affords a better explanation of horrendous suffering in our universe than is given by theism, that truth makes no contribution to the argument that I have been advancing here. --- **NOTE**: Graham Oppy's formulation of the argument is arguably one of the strongest available in the literature, given Oppy's reputation as one of the most respected contemporary atheist philosophers. For instance, William Lane Craig once said about Oppy's book *Arguing about Gods*: > Oppy's book is not merely recommended but essential reading for anyone interested in natural theology today. No one can pretend to a successful theistic argument unless he has dealt with Oppy's criticisms first. ([source](https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/scholarly-writings/the-existence-of-god/arguing-successfully-about-god-a-review-essay-of-graham-oppys-arguing-about)) However, the claim that naturalism is "simpler" than theism is thrown around quite frequently in informal discussions with atheists. For example, take a look at some of the answers to [Could Occam's Razor ever favor theism?](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/q/110026/66156) .

[Thomas More](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_More) , whose birthday it is today (7 February), was a strong defender of Catholic eucharistic theology. In his *Answer to a poisoned book* (1533), a reply to a [Zwinglian](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theology_of_Huldrych_Zwingli#Eucharist) tract probably written by [George Joye](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Joye) , he wrote: > I shall, beside all such spiritual expositions as this man useth therein by way of allegories or parables, declare you the very literal sense of those words, "My flesh is verily meat, and my blood verily drink": so that that ye may see thereby that our saviour verily spake and meant, not only such a spiritual eating as Master Masker saith he only meant, but also the very bodily eating and drinking of his very flesh and blood indeed. 1 The basic dispute [depends upon what the meaning of the word "is" is](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4XT-l-_3y0) , in the words of institution, and in other passages like the one quoted ([John 6:55](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%206:55&version=NRSVACE)) . Zwingli and Joye thought it meant "signifies". More asserts (among other arguments) that since Jesus had a body of flesh and blood, "This is my body" admits a literal reading, unlike when Jesus elsewhere says that he "is" a vine, a door, and so on. He says that although there are also symbolic meanings, a literal one cannot be wholly dismissed, since that would mean ignoring the plain words. Moreover, although one has to go to some effort to explain how it's possible (how Christ's body can be present in the Eucharist, at many places and times, appear as bread, etc.), it's more acceptable to believe in miracles than to remove all literal meaning from "is". At first glance this seems to be the same kind of argument made by Biblical literalists today about many other passages. Does More's reasoning - that it is necessary to find *some* plain reading if at all possible - count as a "literal" argument, according to a modern understanding about what that means? What rules or safeguards are present in the modern approach, whereby self-described literalists today are generally not led to consider transubstantiation a viable option in this case, when supernatural explanations are accepted in other cases? 1. [*The answer to the first part of the poysoned booke whych a nameles heretike hath named the supper of the Lord*](http://www.thomasmorestudies.org/1557Workes/Answer_poysoned_booke1.pdf) , 1.3. In *The workes of Sir Thomas More ... in the Englysh tonge* (London, 1557), p1042. Spelling and punctuation modernised by me.

Denying the deity of Jesus Christ is one of the core beliefs of the Jehovah Witnesses: [Jehovah’s Witnesses View of Christ](https://www.namb.net/apologetics-blog/jehovah-s-witnesses-view-of-christ/) . John 5:18 states, > For this cause therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill > Him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was > calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God. John 8:59, > Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him; but Jesus hid > Himself, and went out of the temple. John 10:31, > The Jews took up stones AGAIN to stone Him. John 10:33, > The Jews answered Him, "For a good work we do not stone You, but for BLASPHEMY; and because You, being a man make Yourself out God. Also, according to the trial record at Matthew 26:57-66, and specifically at vs65 the high priest Caiaphas makes a strong accusation: > The high priest tore his robes, saying, "He has blasphemed! What further need do we have of witnesses? Behold, have you not heard the blasphemy;" What was the blasphemy, according to the Jews, that Jesus committed that resulted in His crucifixion and eventual death? Related question asked here

It is believed by radical unitarians, Herbert W. Armstrong advocates and various others that Jesus was the Son of God by virtue of his birth by Mary. If that was true then presumably she would have told that story to perhaps many persons. Throughout the New Testament various persons relate that "Jesus is the Son of God" but I can find no scriptures that relate of Mary telling anyone about this, so I'm left wondering how these various individuals came to know Jesus as the Son of God.

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?**