### Background Zechariah 12:10 is cited in the New Testament as an explicit prophecy for Jesus's crucifixion by the Gospel of John: > These things occurred so that the scripture might be fulfilled, “None of his bones shall be broken.” And again another passage of scripture says, “**They will look on the one whom they have pierced**.” *John 19:36-37 (NRSV)* Christians through the ages cite Zechariah 12:10 as one of the clearest prophecies of Jesus's death, down to the details of him being pierced. However a close reading of Zechariah 12, starting just a few verses earlier seems to indicate more to the prophecy than simply someone being pierced: > On that day **the Lord will shield the inhabitants of Jerusalem** so that the feeblest among them on that day shall be like David, and the house of David shall be like God, like the angel of the Lord, at their head. > > And **on that day I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem**. > > **And I will pour out a spirit of compassion and supplication on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem so that, when they look on the one[a] whom they have pierced**, they shall mourn for him as one mourns for an only child and weep bitterly over him as one weeps over a firstborn. *Zechariah 12:8-10 (NRSV)* Critically this passage appears to promise that Jerusalem will be divinely protected, and that the nations who come against Jerusalem will be destroyed by God. This is extremely curious since Jerusalem was famously destroyed a few years after Jesus's death. ### Question How do Christians who believe Zechariah 12:10 applies to Jesus interpret Zechariah 12:8 and 9? Do they believe Jerusalem was miraculously protected in 33 CE and her enemies destroyed? What parts of this passage actually came true in Jesus's time?

In John 20:27, after His resurrection, Jesus invites Thomas to touch the wounds in His hands and side. That detail has always struck me — if Jesus was raised in a glorified body, why were the wounds from His crucifixion still visible? Paul describes the resurrection body in 1 Corinthians 15 as imperishable and glorious, which makes me wonder: shouldn’t that mean it would be healed or perfected, without any remaining scars? I’m curious how Christians understand this. Is there a theological reason why Jesus kept the marks of His suffering? And what does that say about the nature of the resurrection body, or about His mission?

At John 13:1-30 we see the narrative of the last Passover meal that Jesus partook with his disciples, in which Judas is identified as the one who would betray him : > .... After saying this Jesus was troubled in spirit, and declared, “Very truly, I tell you, one of you will betray me.” .... So while reclining next to Jesus, he (John ) asked him, “Lord, who is it?” . Jesus answered, “It is the one to whom I give this piece of bread when I have dipped it in the dish.” So when he had dipped the piece of bread, he gave it to Judas son of Simon Iscariot. After he received the piece of bread, Satan entered into him. Jesus said to him, “Do quickly what you are going to do.” ... So, after receiving the piece of bread, he immediately went out. And it was night Now, the Gospel according John does not contain an explcit narration of the Institution of Holy Eucharist . Reading that with I Corinthians 11:25 which says that the supper had been ended as Jesus took the cup calling it the new covenant of His Blood, one is inclined to believe that Judas had left the venue even before the Eucharist was constituted. My question therefore, is: **Does the Catholic Church categorically teach that Judas Iscariot participated in the First Eucharist instituted by Jesus at the Last Supper?** If it does not, why do the images of Last Supper that we have, contain the picture of twelve Apostles?

He starts with a most powerful declaration of the One who became Jesus in the flesh as having being God in the beginning, see John 1:1-14. But from there on in, similar expressions of deity come thick and fast, and with a clarity that seems to be crisper than in the other accounts. I am not asking for a comparison between John’s gospel and the others, but **to seek from Trinitarians of the Protestant group how they would respond to a non-trinitarian accusing John of portraying Jesus differently to the others, perhaps due to an unwarranted bias.** A linked question https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/78496/the-statements-of-the-early-church-fathers-regarding-the-doctrine-of-the-trinity does allude to John calling the Word 'God' but it enquires about the early Church Fathers and the formation of the formal Trinity doctrine, not about why the apostle John had his particular emphasis in his gospel. I am not searching out the history of the formation of the doctrine but sticking to why John wrote the way he did. Nor do I want answers majoring on disagreement with my claim that John writes far more clearly about the deity of Christ than do other New Testament writers. That has been dealt with elsewhere on here. Surely nobody will disagree that his first 14 verses are immensely more attention-grabbing as to the deity of Christ than elsewhere in the N.T? If we can take that as understood, **can answers suggest whether or not John’s emphasis on the deity of Christ is too much, or perhaps understood in light of what he wrote in his epistles and in the Revelation of Jesus Christ?** This should not end up as a mere argument about manuscripts (as if John's strong claims can be diluted by questioning the veracity of ancient manuscripts). I hope answerers will grasp that we view the biblical gospel of John as taken, because that is what Protestant Trinitarians do. If anyone disagrees, please post your own question on that!

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?**

> 13 When it was almost time for the Jewish Passover, Jesus went up to Jerusalem. 14 In the temple courts he found people selling cattle, sheep and doves, and others sitting at tables exchanging money. 15 So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple courts, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. 16 To those who sold doves he said, “Get these out of here! Stop turning my Father’s house into a market!” 17 His disciples remembered that it is written: “Zeal for your house will consume me.” - John 2:13-17 NIV This passage can easily be read to be a "violent" reaction from Jesus. Leaving aside Niebuhr and pontifical statements *against* Christian Pacifism, how do Christian Pacifists interpret and apply this passage of scripture?

According to orthodox trinitarian doctrine, the Father is God, Jesus is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. Jesus is co-eqaul, eternally begotten, not made. With that in mind, how could Jesus have a God? For instance, how do Trinitarians explain verses such as the following verses in a way which is consistent with their doctrine? John 20:17 (KJV) > Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my > Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my > Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God. John 17:3 (KJV) > "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true > God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent."

Hymn 22 of St. Ephrem's *Hymns on Virginity* gives his exegesis of Jesus's conversation with the Samaritan woman in John 4 . McVey & Meyendorff *ibid.* p. 354 show that St. Ephrem argues that: >It is not the case that this woman has been divorced and remarried five times and is therefore reproached by Jesus for immorality. Instead she is the victim of a plight like that of Sarah before her marriage to Tobias (str. 4–5). Because the deaths of five successive husbands made all fearful of marrying her and yet to be unmarried subjected her to reproach, she had devised a false marriage for the sake of appearances. Far from being virtually a harlot, as others assume, Ephrem argues that her secret revealed by Jesus is that she is living chastely in her marriage (str. 12–13). This is evident on three grounds: 1) the confidence of her manner of argument (str. 5–9); 2) Jesus’ willingness to speak along with her (str. 5, 10–11); and 3) several typological precedents for her behavior for example, others, notably Elizabeth and Hannah were chagrined by their lack of husbands or children (str. 14–15); just as the unmasking of a deception by Abraham and Sarah about Sarah’s marital status led to the respect of a Gentile king for God, the unveiling of this woman’s deception led to the belief of a city of Gentiles (str. 16–18); just as Tamar disguised her marital status for the sake of continuing the messianic line so the deception of the Samaritan woman led to the revelation of the Messiah to her people (str 19–20). What other Church Fathers, besides St. Ephrem, thought that the Samaritan woman in John 4:17-18 was in a lawful (or virginal?) marriage with her husband?

In the Gospel according to Matthew John the Baptist is explicitly shown to be Elijah whereas in John, he denies being Elijah. Obviously the parallels between John the Baptist and Elijah are bountiful ; I suppose the real question is why John denies being Elijah in John ch. 1.

> Isaiah 44:6, Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel And His Redeemer, the Lord of host; I am the first and I am the last, AND THERE IS NO GOD BESIDES ME. > > Isaiah 44:24, Thus says the Lord your Redeemer, and the one who formed you from the womb, I. the Lord, am the maker of all things BY MYSELF, And spreading out the heavens BY MYSELF. > > Isaiah 45:5, I am the Lord and THERE IS NO OTHER; BESIDES ME THERE IS NO GOD." Now that it’s established that there is no other God, then why do Jehovah’s Witnesses teach that Jesus Christ is "a god" according to their NWT of the Bible at John 1:1? They explain their position here: https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1984647#h=18 So the specific question I'm asking is as follows: is Jesus Christ a true god, or a false god? > John 17:3, "And this is eternal life, that they may know Thee, THE ONLY TRUE GOD, and Jesus Christ whom Thou has sent." John 5:44, "How can you believe, when you receive glory from one another, and you do not seek the glory that is FROM THE ONLY GOD?" If there is only one true something, then everything else is false. The Apostle Paul speaks about this at 1 Corinthians 8:5-6: > For even if there are so-called gods whether in heaven or on earth as indeed there are many gods and many lords, yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things, and we exist for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him. So in view of the following statement, "Jehovah’s Witnesses do not deny Jesus’ godship, or divinity" "Jesus himself said that he lived in heaven before being born as a human. As a spirit creature in heaven, Jesus had a special relationship with Jehovah." "He is called the firstborn of all creation, for he was God's first creation. "This means that Jesus is the only one directly created by God. Again, is this first spirit creature created by God and described as "a god" at John 1:1 a true god or a false god, and what is his nature? Galatians 4:8, "However at that time, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those WHICH BY NATURE ARE NO gods." Some of the information is from the following site. https://answersingenesis.org/jesus/jesus-is-god/is-jesus-the-creator-god/

**Introduction** Arius believed that Jesus was a creature, a created god. What did he write about John 1:1? Or if there is no such extant manuscript, how would he interpreted ''the Word was God'' in John 1:1 based on his Christology? > Arius was was a Libyan presbyter and ascetic, and priest in Baucalis > in Alexandria, Egypt. His teachings about the nature of the Godhead in > Christianity, which emphasized God's uniqueness and the Christ's > subordination under the Father,and his opposition to what would become > the dominant Christology, Homoousian Christology, made him a primary > topic of the First Council of Nicaea, which was convened by Emperor > Constantine the Great in 325.'' (Source ). > > In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God, and > the Word was God. John 1:1 (ESV) ---------- **Question** What was the stance of Arius on the third clause of John 1:1?

I am confused about whether or not it was St. John the Baptist who wrote the Book of John in the New Testament. I thought this was a different John who was one of the apostles.

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?**

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?

In John 19:34, it says: >“But one of the soldiers pierced His side with a spear, and immediately blood and water came out.” This moment has been interpreted in various ways throughout Christian history and theology. In some devotional contexts, particularly in Catholic and Orthodox traditions, the outpouring of blood and water from Christ’s side is seen as a profound symbol of Divine Mercy - often connected with the sacraments (e.g., Eucharist and Baptism) and the birth of the Church. My question is: **Is the blood and water that flowed from Jesus’ side traditionally understood as an expression of God’s mercy? If so, how is this understanding supported theologically or doctrinally within Christian traditions (e.g., Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant perspectives)?**

John 18:37 > “‘So you are a king?’ Jesus said, ‘You say that I am a king. In fact, the reason I was born and came into the world is to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me.’” John 14:6 > “Jesus answered, ‘I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.’” John 15:26 > “When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Father—the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father—he will testify about me.” John 1:18 > “No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known.” If Jesus declares that He came into the world to bear witness to the truth (John 18:37), and also affirms that He Himself is the truth (John 14:6), how does this personal testimony reveal the intrinsic relationship between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit in the Trinitarian concept—where the Son not only communicates truth but is the very Truth proceeding from the Father and manifested in the Spirit?

In the following verse, did Jesus in fact say the word, the name of God, that no Jew would dare to say aloud at that time? > As soon then as he had said unto them, I am [he], they went backward, > and fell to the ground (John 18:6) If yes, why was He not tried for that before the high priest (there were so many witnesses after all)? If not, why then so many say that here He was quoting Exodus 3:14 (which means He DID pronounce the forbidden word)?

We read in John 1:1-2: > In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. Clearly, John means The Son of God for “the Word who was with God”, as is evident from Vs 1:2. No other Evangelist uses the concept of "The Word was God "; neither do we hear Jesus referring to himself as "The Word". Of course, he speaks of the words from the mouth of God, as in Matthew 4:4: > But he answered and said, it is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. Now, there is a difference between Word that proceeds from God' and Word that was God'. Is it possible that John sourced the concept from an ancient Jewish text, or from Greek philosophy? My question therefore is: **According to Catholic Church, what was the source of the concept "The Word was God " that John the Evangelist introduced in Jn 1: 1?**

In John 21:9-14, after His resurrection, Jesus prepares a meal of fish and bread for His disciples by the Sea of Galilee. This moment is both intimate and practical, showing Jesus serving His followers with a simple act of hospitality. Does this scene offer any theological or moral encouragement for Christians today to develop practical life skills like cooking and serving others, especially within the context of ministry, hospitality, or daily Christian living? How have different Christian traditions interpreted this act?

Unity Church often refers to the Holy Spirit in feminine terms, a view that contrasts with traditional Christian doctrine. This raises the question of whether their belief is tied to certain biblical wordings. In Genesis 2:18 (ESV), Eve is introduced with: > “Then the Lord God said, ‘It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.’” In the Gospel of John, the Holy Spirit is called a helper multiple times. For example, John 14:16 (ESV) says: > “And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper, to be with you forever.” Other similar references include John 14:26, 15:26, and 16:7, all using the Greek term paraklētos (translated as Helper, Comforter, or Advocate). Is Unity Church’s feminine understanding of the Holy Spirit based on this shared role/title of “helper” between Eve and the Spirit? Or is their interpretation shaped more by metaphysical symbolism or other theological influences?