To steelman the case for proving God's existence using reason alone, I think one of the best contemporary examples of how this could be done is found in Edward Feser's book [*Five Proofs of the Existence of God*](https://www.amazon.com/Five-Proofs-Existence-Edward-Feser/dp/1621641333) : > This book provides a detailed, updated exposition and defense of five of the historically most important (but in recent years largely neglected) philosophical proofs of God’s existence: the Aristotelian, the Neo-Platonic, the Augustinian, the Thomistic, and the Rationalist. > > It also offers a thorough treatment of each of the key divine attributes—unity, simplicity, eternity, omnipotence, omniscience, perfect goodness, and so forth—showing that they must be possessed by the God whose existence is demonstrated by the proofs. Finally, it answers at length all of the objections that have been leveled against these proofs. > > This work provides as ambitious and complete a defense of traditional natural theology as is currently in print. Its aim is to vindicate the view of the greatest philosophers of the past— thinkers like Aristotle, Plotinus, Augustine, Aquinas, Leibniz, and many others— **that the existence of God can be established with certainty by way of purely rational arguments**. It thereby serves as a refutation both of atheism and of the fideism that gives aid and comfort to atheism. > ## Editorial Reviews > > **Review** > > "A watershed book. Feser has completely severed the intellectual legs > upon which modern atheism had hoped to stand." **— Matthew Levering**, > James N. and Mary D. Perry Jr. Chair of Theology, Mundelein Seminary > > "A powerful and important book. The concluding chapter, where Feser > replies to possible objections to his arguments, is a gem; it alone is > worth the price of this excellent work." **— Stephen T. Davis**, Russell > K. Pitzer Professor of Philosophy, Claremont McKenna College > > "Edward Feser is widely recognized as a top scholar in the history of > philosophy in general, and in Thomistic and Aristotelian philosophy in > particular. This book is a must-read for anyone interested in natural > theology. I happily and highly recommend it." **— J. P. Moreland**, > Distinguished Professor of Philosophy, Biola University > > "Refutes with devastating effect the standard objections to theistic > proofs, from David Hume to the New Atheists." **— Robert C. Koons**, > Professor of Philosophy, University of Texas at Austin > > "Yet another fine book by Edward Feser. He replies to (literally) all > of the objections and shows convincingly how the most popular > objections (the kind one hears in Introduction to Philosophy courses) > are very often completely beside the point and, even when they're not, > are 'staggeringly feeble and overrated'." **— Alfred J. Freddoso**, > Professor Emeritus of Philosophy, University of Notre Dame > > **About the Author** > > **Edward Feser, Ph.D.**, is Associate Professor of Philosophy at Pasadena > City College in Pasadena, California. Called by National Review "one > of the best contemporary writers on philosophy", he is the author of > The Last Superstition: A Refutation of the New Atheism, Aquinas, > Scholastic Meta- physics, By Man Shall His Blood Be Shed, and many > other books and articles. For illustrative purposes, the following is a brief excerpt from chapter 6 of Feser's book: > ### The Nature of God and of His Relationship to the World > > We have now examined five arguments for the existence of God, which can be summarized briefly as follows. The Aristotelian proof begins with the fact that there are potentialities that are actualized and argues that we cannot make sense of this unless we affirm the existence of something which can actualize the potential existence of things without itself being actualized, a *purely actual actualizer*. The Neo-Platonic proof begins with the fact that the things of our experience are composed of parts and argues that such things could not exist unless they have an *absolutely simple* or *noncomposite cause*. The Augustinian proof begins with the fact that there are abstract objects like universals, propositions, numbers, and possible worlds, and argues that these must exist as ideas in a *divine intellect*. The Thomistic proof begins with the real distinction, in each of the things of our experience, between its essence and its existence, and argues that the ultimate cause of such things must be something which is *subsistent existence itself*. The rationalist proof begins with the principle of sufficient reason and argues that the ultimate explanation of things can only lie in an *absolutely necessary being*. Note that Edward Feser's five proofs never resort to evidence of design or complexity in nature. Those sorts of arguments, which look at nature for evidence of design (and, therefore, of a designer), are commonly referred to as [*teleological arguments*](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleological-arguments/) . In order to illustrate this point, and to present steelman versions of this line of reasoning, the following are two important books in this area: [*Return of the God Hypothesis: Three Scientific Discoveries That Reveal the Mind Behind the Universe*](https://www.amazon.com/Return-God-Hypothesis-Compelling-Scientific/dp/0062071505/) , by Stephen C. Meyer. > **The *New York Times* bestselling author of *Darwin’s Doubt*, Stephen Meyer, presents groundbreaking scientific evidence of the existence of God, based on breakthroughs in physics, cosmology, and biology.** > > Beginning in the late 19th century, many intellectuals began to insist that scientific knowledge conflicts with traditional theistic belief—that science and belief in God are “at war.” Philosopher of science Stephen Meyer challenges this view by examining three scientific discoveries with decidedly theistic implications. Building on the case for the intelligent design of life that he developed in *Signature in the Cell* and *Darwin’s Doubt*, Meyer demonstrates how discoveries in cosmology and physics coupled with those in biology help to establish the identity of the designing intelligence behind life and the universe. > > Meyer argues that theism—with its affirmation of a transcendent, intelligent and active creator—best explains the evidence we have concerning biological and cosmological origins. Previously Meyer refrained from attempting to answer questions about “who” might have designed life. Now he provides an evidence-based answer to perhaps the ultimate mystery of the universe. In so doing, he reveals a stunning conclusion: the data support not just the existence of an intelligent designer of some kind—but the existence of a personal God. [*A Mousetrap for Darwin: Michael J. Behe Answers His Critics*](https://www.amazon.com/Mousetrap-Darwin-Michael-Answers-Critics/dp/1936599910) , by Michael J. Behe. > In 1996 Darwin’s Black Box thrust Lehigh University biochemist Michael Behe into the national spotlight. The book, and his subsequent two, sparked a firestorm of criticism, and his responses appeared in everything from the New York Times to science blogs and the journal Science. His replies, along with a handful of brand-new essays, are now collected in A Mousetrap for Darwin. In engaging his critics, Behe extends his argument that much recent evidence, from the study of evolving microbes to mutations in dogs and polar bears, shows that blind evolution cannot build the complex machinery essential to life. Rather, evolution works principally by breaking things for short-term benefit. It can’t construct anything fundamentally new. What can? **Behe’s money is on intelligent design**. --- What is the biblical basis for proving God's existence using reason alone? Moreover, if reason alone is enough for proving God's existence, what's the point of faith? How are faith and reason reconciled?

Deuteronomy 20:10-18 ESV > 10 “When you draw near to a city to fight against it, offer terms of peace to it. 11 And if it responds to you peaceably and it opens to you, then all the people who are found in it shall do forced labor for you and shall serve you. 12 But if it makes no peace with you, but makes war against you, then you shall besiege it. 13 And when the Lord your God gives it into your hand, you shall put all its males to the sword, 14 but the women **and the little ones**, the livestock, and everything else in the city, all its spoil, you shall take as plunder for yourselves. And you shall enjoy the spoil of your enemies, which the Lord your God has given you. 15 Thus you shall do to all the cities that are very far from you, which are not cities of the nations here. 16 **But in the cities of these peoples that the Lord your God is giving you for an inheritance, you shall save alive nothing that breathes**, 17 **but you shall devote them to complete destruction, the Hittites and the Amorites, the Canaanites and the Perizzites, the Hivites and the Jebusites, as the Lord your God has commanded**, 18 that they may not teach you to do according to all their abominable practices that they have done for their gods, and so you sin against the Lord your God. Joshua 6:20-21 ESV > 20 So the people shouted, and the trumpets were blown. As soon as the people heard the sound of the trumpet, the people shouted a great shout, and the wall fell down flat, so that the people went up into the city, every man straight before him, and they captured the city. 21 **Then they devoted all in the city to destruction, both men and women, young and old, oxen, sheep, and donkeys, with the edge of the sword**. It's undeniable that a plain reading of these passages suggests that God commanded the complete annihilation not only of the adult inhabitants of Canaanite cities but also their children. Slaughtering children is universally recognized as a profound moral evil. If a group of soldiers were to invade our city, break into our homes, and kill and slaughter everyone, including babies and children, our fundamental moral instincts would undoubtedly recognize it as an egregious atrocity. In light of this, how can such actions be reconciled with the concept of a loving God? If under any other circumstances, our moral compass would unequivocally condemn the slaughter of children as profoundly wrong—arguably the epitome of wrongdoing—why should the slaughter of Canaanite children be viewed as an exception? How could such a command be considered the most loving, just, and benevolent action that God could have taken? To encourage objective answers, I'm primarily interested in exploring theodicies found in Christian literature (please provide references where applicable). --- **Note**: My question has been prompted by recent discussions on YouTube, namely, [William Lane Craig Defends the Canaanite Slaughter](https://youtu.be/WjsSHd23e0Q) and ["It's Horrific" | Reviewing WLC's Defense of the Slaughter of the Canaanites w/ Akin and Rauser](https://youtu.be/lhZtIvgbi9M) . --- **A related passage from Psalm 137** > 8 O daughter of Babylon, doomed to be destroyed, blessed shall he be who repays you with what you have done to us! 9 **Blessed shall he be who takes your little ones and dashes them against the rock!** I thank @NigelJ for the suggestion.

I have seen testimonies of converts from America describing they raised their hands when the preacher asked "who wants to accept Jesus as their Lord?" or something like that. Which churches have this practice on a regular Sunday service? If so, do these churches always have new visitors, or some of the regular members themselves raise hands in these altar calls?

The claim can be found in the article [Mormonism’s Infinite Regression of Gods](https://www.mrm.org/infinite-regression) : > Tenth President Joseph Fielding Smith seems to have understood that Joseph Smith was teaching what is known as an **“infinite regression of gods.”** This can be seen by the words “and so on,” in Joseph Fielding Smith’s book, Doctrines of Salvation (1:12). In what appears to be an obvious reference to the Sermon in the Grove, he wrote, “The Prophet taught that our Father had a Father and so on. Is not this a reasonable thought, especially when we remember that the promises are made to us that we may become like him?” Is this true?

The German translation for the phrase “priesthood of all believers” is “Priestertum aller Gläubigen”. According to everything I have read, Martin Luther popularized the doctrine but did not use this exact German phrase anywhere in his writing. What is the earliest known time this phrase appeared in print, either in German or English? So far, this question has stumped Google and Microsoft Copilot. To start things off, Google gets me back as far as the early 19th century: - 1860: *The Priesthood of the Church* by Newman Hall - 1857: *The Religious Condition of Christendom* by the Rev. Dr. Mallet of Bremen (from papers read at a conference in Berlin by the German branch of the Evangelical Alliance) - 1839: *The Heresy of a Human Priesthood* by R.M. Beverley - 1812: *Seventh Day Baptist Yearbook*

When the New World was discovered, slavery was virtually unknown in Christian Europe. Soon after the discovery of the New World, European powers began to make slaves there, and to transport slaves from Africa to the Americas. What part did the church (mainly the Roman Catholic church, which dominated Europe) play in this? Did it discourage or encourage the slavery of native peoples? What were their beliefs and teachings at that time?

While this question is similar to [this question](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/8/how-were-the-books-of-the-new-testament-chosen) , I'm certain the answer will be very different, and far more complex.... How was the Old Testament compiled?

The discoveries in modern science by Einstein and Hubble assert that the universe is expanding, and that if the "clock" were rolled back, the universe would come to a "Singularity Point." They stop, scientifically, and cannot speak as to where the "plasma" of that Point came from. But they do raise the inescapable need for a "Cause." The scientific Law requires one: *Every thing that came to be must have a Cause for its coming onto being.* (Law of Causation) And common sense dictates: *ex nihilo, nihil fit* (From nothing, nothing comes.) Of course, science does not name the Source (God) even though it does require a Cause with the attributes of a "Cause" that matches the Christian God. **In the Beginning God** is the beginning of the revelation by God to mankind. In this statement lies the Cause, purpose, and meaning of all creation! And this revelatory FACT is the basis for the Christian doctrine in Christianity. This query asks nothing about the mode or method of Creation nor the process of speciation, nor the development of stars, planes, galaxies, etc. But only focuses on the original **Source, Cause, Creator** of this vast universe. And if modern science gives any **factual input** that would help settle this dilemma that perplexes the human mind. This question asks neither for opinion or traditional folklore, but only for the application of **scientific Laws** recognized by modern researchers, that confirm the biblical Doctrine of Creation. This question is ***neither philosophical nor sociological*** but references well-accepted *scientific facts* in relates them to well-taught *Christian doctrines* in Christianity.

I've been looking through the Septuagint and NT Greek manuscripts online and seen these different forms of the name for both Joshua and Jesus. Can someone please explain to me the differences?

Many people argue that we only created God and religion to give our lives meaning, and that is why we worship God and other gods. However, we have to take into consideration that humans tend to worship everything, and it is in our nature, which is evidence that God exists. (If we are merely evolved from inanimate matter with no aspect of Design involved, why would we possess this big sense of spirituality, worship and believing in gods, when in reality believing in gods that do not exist does not matter and does not help us survive?) How can we rebut the argument that we only worship God because we want meaning in our lives and to give an explanation for our existence?

When reading this *GotQuestion* [article on "already but not yet"](https://www.gotquestions.org/already-not-yet.html) paradigm that I often hear in evangelical sermons, I was surprised that the article author emphasized its popularity with charismatics groups. I thought this paradigm has been adopted a lot more widely, especially among non-charismatic evangelical groups as well. Which led me to ask this question: **which non-charismatic theologies / denominations *also* adopt this paradigm**? On the surface I thought this is a straightforward reading of NT verses about the arrival of the Kingdom of God that even Catholics and Eastern Orthodox would also adopt. - The *GotQuestion* article as well as the *Wikipedia* article on a closely related concept [inaugurated eschatology](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inaugurated_eschatology) says that the 2 aspects "already" and "not yet" to the Kingdom of God was first proposed by [Geerhardus Vos](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geerhardus_Vos) who is *non*-charismatic **Reformed**. - I also frequently hear an equivalent analogy in terms of "D-Day" (already) vs. "V-Day" (not yet), that the same *Wikipedia* article attributes to [Oscar Cullmann](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscar_Cullmann) who is **Lutheran**. - Then there is also the famous quote of [God landing in this enemy-occupied world in disguise](https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/437442-why-is-god-landing-in-this-enemy-occupied-world-in-disguise) from *Mere Christianity* that I often hear pastors use in association with the Kingdom of God, a book authored by C.S. Lewis who was definitely a non-charismatic **Anglican** but who wrote for all denominations. The following quote from the *Wikipedia* article on the [Kingdom of God (Christianity)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_God_(Christianity)) indicates that not all theologies subscribe to inaugurated eschatology: > The term "kingdom of God" has been used to mean Christian lifestyle, a method of world evangelization, the rediscovery of charismatic gifts and many other things. **Others relate it not to our present or future earthly situation but to the world to come.** The interpretation of the phrase is often based on the theological leanings of the scholar-interpreter. A number of theological interpretations of the term the Kingdom of God have thus appeared in its eschatological context, e.g., apocalyptic, realized or Inaugurated eschatologies, yet no consensus has emerged among scholars. I would like the answer to **supply references to as many theologies / denominations as possible, that explicitly adopt** either the "already but not yet" or the "inaugurated eschatology" paradigm to their understanding of the Kingdom of God.

"Light" was created on day 1 - [Genesis 1:3-5](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%201:3-5&version=NIV) . However the sun was created on day 4 - [Genesis 1:14-19](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%201:14-19&version=NIV) . How can a day-night transition occur when the sun (which is the primary cause of this variation) had not yet been created as it was created on the fourth day?

Our diocese recently had a big re-org and went down from over 100 parishes down to 30. But now our cozy little ex-congregation can't do anything fun unless the big mega-church ladies say so or we beg our pastor. Given the principle of subsidiarity, are there any lay-structures that exist, or have existed in the past, to allow some level of self-governance in parish life? We'd like to be able to organize our own men's and women's slightly-larger-than small groups, youth activities, dances, novenas, non-Eucharistic processions (like the seven-churches visitation) I think there would still be a point person who would go to the priest for approval, where necessary, but we could avoid the hassle of being vetoed by church ladies and the stress of being lone wolves trying to organize things in vacuums.

I have read the scripture and learnt that spiritual entities like the demons are capable of emotions of fear, this can be validated by the Biblical verse where The **Holy Spirit speaking through the mouth of Saint James** says that even the devils know that God is One and they tremble. **James 2:19** >You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe and tremble And since the devils are fallen angels the it follows that even the angels who kept their former state are capable of the same emotions. Now lightnings and thunders proceed from the Great White Throne, and around the Throne are **millions of angels**. **Revelation 5:11-12** >Then I looked, and I heard around the throne and the living creatures and the elders the voice of many angels, numbering myriads of myriads and thousands of thousands, saying with a loud voice And the Biblical basis for the thunders and lightnings proceeding from the GWT **Revelation 4:5** >From the throne came flashes of lightning, and rumblings and peals of thunder, and before the throne were burning seven torches of fire, which are the seven spirits of God, Do these angels ever experience the same fear and if that is so, how can they serve God out love?

In contrast to the *Reformed* tradition, it it the best of my understating, that Lutherans hold in election unto salvation for all who all in Christ, yet also hold that individuals, because of their own fault and will, can turn away fro the faith and lose their salvation. This being the reason for all the warnings and admonitions in the Bible. One example would be John 15, where Jesus says that anyone who does not abide in his word, will be cut off. Given all that, what does apostasy mean in Lutheranism? Is it someone who utterly rejects Christ, or is it anyone caught up in habitual sin, like for example adultery or gambling, etc.

Latter-day Saints often claim to gain a personal witness of the truth of their beliefs through the Holy Ghost. Sometimes this has been described as a *"burning in the bosom"*: > **A Latter-day Saint “spiritual” experience has intellectual content as well as emotional elements of peace or joy** > > Accordingly, a Latter-day Saint “spiritual” experience has > intellectual content as well as physical phenomena which can include > elements of peace or joy. In the early days of the Church, Oliver > Cowdery received the following revelation through Joseph Smith: > > >Verily, verily, I say unto you, if you desire a further witness, cast your mind upon the night that you cried unto me in your heart, that > you might know concerning the truth of these things. Did I not speak > peace to your mind concerning the matter? What greater witness can you > have than from God? (D&C 6:22–23). > > Notice the information is spoken to the “mind,” and the feeling of > peace accompanies the intellectual gift. Further, the solution for > later doubts or concerns is not reliance on “a feeling” alone but an > admonition to recall specific information communicated earlier. > > This matches the revelatory pattern later explained to Oliver Cowdery > when he attempted to participate in the translation process of the > Book of Mormon: > > >Behold, you have not understood; you have supposed that I would give it unto you, when you took no thought save it was to ask me. But, > behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then > you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that > **your bosom shall burn within you**; therefore, you shall feel that it is right. But if it be not right you shall have no such feelings, > but you shall have a stupor of thought that shall cause you to forget > the thing which is wrong… (D&C 9:7–9). > > Again, the united witness of intellect and heart are essential. If > either does not agree, then revelation has not yet confirmed the > matter under consideration. Anyone who relies exclusively on any one > faculty – either feeling or reasoning or physical sensation – does not > properly understand the LDS approach to spiritual witness. > > (Source: [Holy Ghost/Burning in the bosom - FAIR](https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Holy_Ghost/Burning_in_the_bosom#Question:_Is_a_.22burning_in_the_bosom.22_simply_a_subjective.2C_emotion-based.2C_unreliable_way_to_practice_self-deception.3F)) Although I find this "burning in the bosom" experience quite intriguing, I'm curious about the LDS Church's stance on other forms of revelation, such as prophecies, dreams, and visions. Here I'd like to mention Jack S. Deere's book, [*Why I Am Still Surprised by the Voice of God: How God Speaks Today through Prophecies, Dreams, and Visions*](https://www.amazon.com/Surprised-Voice-God-Through-Prophecies-dp-0310108152/dp/0310108152/) : > **Not only does God still speak to us apart from the Scriptures—we** > **should expect Him to.** > > This is the story of how Jack Deere learned to hear the voice of God > in his life and how you can too. > > Now a modern classic, Jack wrote *Surprised by the Voice of God* over > twenty-five years ago. Based on that first book, *Why I Am Still* > *Surprised by the Voice of God* has been entirely rewritten and includes > additional thoughts and insights from a lifetime of hearing God speak. > > Deere will guide you through the Bible to discover the variety of > creative, deeply personal ways God still communicates with us today. > You'll learn: > > - How God speaks with people apart from the Bible, though never in > contradiction to it. > - The ways God revealed his thoughts to the men and > women of the Bible. > - Why God continues to speak to us today using the same methods. > > Deere provides counsel and guidance for knowing how to > accurately hear God speak through prophecies, dreams, visions, and > other forms of divine communication. With candor, sensitivity, and a > profound understanding of Scripture, Deere identifies our hindrances > to hearing the voice of God and calls us to a more intimate > relationship with God. > > Filled with fascinating stories and intimate personal accounts, *Why I* > *Am Still Surprised by the Voice of God* is for all who want to walk in > friendship with God Please note that [Jack Deere](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Deere) is a charismatic Christian, not a Latter-day Saint. He used to be a cessationist but later shifted his theological stance after experiencing the charismatic gifts for himself through the ministry of John Wimber. Setting aside theological debates, I believe Deere's emphasis on God's ability to communicate through various means, such as prophecies, dreams, and visions, is pertinent here. What is the LDS Church's stance on seeking communication with God through prophecies, dreams, and visions, or hearing God's voice directly, as a means to gain a testimony, instead of solely relying on a "burning" sensation?

*Sefer Ha-Mitzvoth of Maimonides*, Volume two, Negative Commandment 63: "Neither shalt thou profane the name of they God: I am the Lord." Lev. XVIII, 21. "And you shall not let any of your seed pass through the fire to Molek, neither shall you profane את eth-the name of your ELOHIYM: I am YAHUAH." Leviticus 18:21, *eth-Cepher*. את "eth" appears many times in the Scriptures, א (tau) ת (alep) in Hebrew order, is "beginning to end" in English order. The LXX came about circa 300 B.C. Subsequently, the Jews compromised with Greek philosophy, and by 265 B.C. placed a ban on using the Set-Apart Names, *Yehueh* and *Elohim*, and replaced them with *Lord* and *God* (and variations thereof). Those substitutions are found in nearly all English translations of Scripture. "And you shall not swear by My Name to a falsehood; nor shall you pollute the name of your Elohim; I AM Yehueh." Leviticus 19:12, *eth-Cepher*. "You shall not take the name of Yehueh your Elohim in vain; for Yehueh will not leave unpunished the one who takes His name in vain." Exodus 20:7. "How long shall this be in the heart of the prophets that prophesy lies? yea, they are prophets of the deceit of their own heart; Which think to cause את eth-my people to forget my name by their dreams which they tell every man to his neighbour, as their fathers have forgotten my name for Ba`al." Yermeyahu 23:26-27, *eth-Cepher*. During the times since the Dead Sea Scroll were found, hundreds, if not thousands more writings have been found that prove the original Hebrew and Aramaic truths have been highjacked by the traditions brought from the Judeo-Greco-Roman-Latin as seen in our Bibles. Why does this practice continue? Why are our leaders, pastors, and teachers not restoring these Set-Apart Names in our churches? Shalom.

After the Gospels, the Greek scriptures contain many instances of application, clarification, and detail about Christian doctrine. For instance: - The *Book of Revelation* certainly gives many specifics about the end times, as revealed by Jesus to John in a vision. - In *Acts*, Peter was shown by God that he "*should not call any man common or unclean*". But these are not newly introduced doctrines or concepts: - Jesus talked about the Tribulation and about the Kingdom of God, and the latter prophets talked about the resurrection of the dead and the day of the Lord. - Jesus told the disciples to "*teach all nations, baptizing them*". Do the rest of the Greek scriptures contain *any* totally new Christian doctrines not already mentioned in the Gospels or Hebrew scriptures?

I understand this belief is held by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, as indicated by the following quote: > This is the true, solid evidence of religious faith. Millions upon millions of Latter-Day Saints attest to the power of this principle: when you go to God in prayer, asking if this thing that purports to be from Him is true, he does answer. **It is a distinctive and unmistakable experience**, and once you have received a confirmation of the truth from God, any earthly evidence pales by comparison. **People can make mistakes, but the witness of the Holy Ghost is powerful and absolute**. > > Source: [According to Latter-day Saints, should every honest, rational, and well-informed individual be able to reach the conclusion that Mormonism is true?](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/99550/61679) However, I'm curious to explore whether Christians outside of the LDS faith hold comparable beliefs: 1. Are Latter-day Saints unique in their belief in "unmistakable" and "absolute" personal revelatory experiences by the Holy Ghost? 2. Do Christians from other denominations maintain similar beliefs, albeit with nuances, and if so, what are these nuances? 3. What is a purely biblical basis for this belief, if any?

**Accordring to Trinitarians who is this person with a form, sitting on His throne?** Daniel 7:9-27 New King James Version Vision of the Ancient of Days > 9 “I watched till thrones were put in place, **And the Ancient of Days > was seated**; His garment was white as snow, And the hair of His head > was like pure wool. His throne was a fiery flame, Its wheels a burning > fire; 10 A fiery stream issued And came forth from before Him. A > thousand thousands ministered to Him; Ten thousand times ten thousand > stood before Him. The court was seated, And the books were opened. > > 11 “I watched then because of the sound of the pompous words which the > horn was speaking; I watched till the beast was slain, and its body > destroyed and given to the burning flame. 12 As for the rest of the > beasts, they had their dominion taken away, yet their lives were > prolonged for a season and a time. > > 13 “I was watching in the night visions, And behold, One like the Son > of Man, Coming with the clouds of heaven! He came to the Ancient of > Days, And they brought Him near before Him. 14 Then to Him was given > dominion and glory and a kingdom, That all peoples, nations, and > languages should serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion, > Which shall not pass away, And His kingdom the one Which shall not be > destroyed.