**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.

In the Old testament, it was important for the High priest to present a bowl of pure, spotless blood in the Holies of Holies. If accepted by Jehovah, the Israelites would be in God's favor. In the New Testament, it is revealed that Jesus, as High Priest, presented a bowl,*but this time, His own blood* and placed it in the Holy of Holies (spiritually speaking: in the heavenlies). Hebrews 9:7,11-14. *But only the High Priest entered the inner room, and that only once a year, and never without blood which he offered for himself and for the sins of the people...(Jesus) did not enter by mens of the blood of goats and calves, but He entered the Most Holy Place once for all by His own blood, having obtained eternal redemption.* (NIV, 1984) *In Him (Jesus) we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins.* (Ephesians 1:7, NIV) When during the Passion week did this happen?

When Jesus was alive, there was an earthquake in Alasehir in 17 AD. Quantitative records of this earthquake are very scarce. I wonder if there are any records of this event being pointed out in the Old or New Testaments. For example, while there are a few verses in the Qur'an that overlap with the 1556 Shensi earthquake, I can interpret the Alasehir earthquake within the scope of the destruction of the clans. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ala%C5%9Fehir

The **Testimony of the Apostles** concerning the ministry, miraculous deeds, and alleged Resurrection, was fantastic, way out of the ordinary, revolutionary, and mind-boggling! The message they proclaimed was not ordinary 5 o'clock news material! It would pique everyone's interest that heard it. And not only did they proclaim it, but they challenged everyone to **dedicate their lives to it**! They expected people to believe it and even "lay their lives down" for it. And today in modernity, preachers of this same message---based on the Apostles' witness---seek disciples who will be wholly dedicated to it. These preachers (pastors, evangelists) are convinced that the **original testimony** of the Apostles was true...is true. But on what do they base this unswerving confidence? What convinces modern ministers and scholarly theologians that the Witness of the Apostles is Credible, Reliable, and Substantial for dedicating their lives to it?

is piracy always a sin ? i have games from old consoles and emulators of arcade and console many of these games are not avaliable anymore but on internet so if i download music games programs am i sinning ? is sharing content a piracy act and a sin against God ? i know we must obey the law but depending on the country is not ilegal (i.e in spain is not illegal downloading )

How do we get that “Sexual Immorality” equals “Sex outside of marriage?” I cannot find Old Testament law stating it is forbidden. I can only find where sex outside of marriage, along with sexual immorality,gets termed as fornication. I also hear the word Porneia translates as sex outside of marriage. My Strongs defines it as Deriving from harlotry (includ. Adultary and incest); fig. Idolatry

Latter-day Saints believe in the concept of 'gaining a testimony'. I provide supporting quotes in my previous question *https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/99578/61679* . A quote worth reiterating here is the following: > 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) A Latter-day Saint asserts to have received a clear confirmation from the Holy Ghost affirming the truth of their faith. They describe an experience purportedly bestowed by God, which holds significant epistemic weight as it grants them certainty in their decision to join The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Given the multitude of Latter-day Saints attesting to such personally revelatory encounters, it seems implausible that they must be all fabricating their stories. Surely, there must be genuine experiences underlying at least some of their testimonies. How do Christians not affiliated with the LDS faith interpret these accounts? --- **Note:** Additionally, I recently posed a more broadly formulated version of this question on Philosophy Stack Exchange: [Can religious, mystical, or spiritual experiences reveal truth?](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/q/110745/66156) . Since asking this question here would likely be deemed off-topic, I extend a cordial invitation to anyone interested in the broader inquiry to contribute their insights via the provided link.

Simple question: non-LDS Christians believe the testimonies of the apostles, yet they reject the testimonies of the (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Witnesses) & (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight_Witnesses) witnesses to the golden plates. Why? *In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every matter be established* (2 Cor 13:1) -- why is this reason not enough? _____ EDIT: Why should they? From a Latter-day Saint perspective, because this is one of the positive arguments for the divine inspiration of the Book of Mormon -- which should be of the utmost importance if it happens to be the case. See [this answer](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/83978/50422) and [this answer](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/83904/50422) for example presentations of this argument. _____ Related: [Is there anything close to a consensus on how to assess the credibility of eyewitness accounts as supportive evidence for supernatural beliefs?](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/84551/50422) _____ For a defense of the credibility of the Book of Mormon witnesses (the opposite view), see https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/89274/50422

Genesis 18:21 (KJV) states: > I will go down now, **and see whether** they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and **if** not, *I will know*. If God is all knowing, why did he have to come down to earth to see if what he had heard about the evilness going on in Sodom was true?

[Trent Horn's](https://www.catholic.com/audio/cot/a-neglected-argument-against-sola-scriptura) quote > Modern scholars even doubt that they consider the New Testament a divinely inspired authority at all, much less a part of the only infallible rule of faith. Here’s some of those quotes, you might recognize them, I’ll share them in the debate. Michael Krueger, who shares a lot of views with Gavin, he tries to defend a model of the canon that will affirm sola scriptura. But he admits, for many modern scholars the key time is the end of the second century. Only then, largely due to the influence of Irenaeus, were these books first regarded as scripture. **The New Testament scholar, Gordon Fee, says the term scripture meant only the Old Testament for Christians until the end of the second century.** Can you find the reference of Fee's book and some similar quotes about early Christians reference of "scripture" basically to mean the OT?

In Orthodoxy, G.K. Chesterton describes heresies as virtues gone wild and then attempts to connect a few dots to historical examples. > When a religious scheme is shattered (as Christianity was shattered at the Reformation), it is not merely the vices that are let loose. The vices are, indeed, let loose, and they wander and do damage. But the virtues are let loose also; and the virtues wander more wildly, and the virtues do more terrible damage. The modern world is full of the old Christian virtues gone mad. Was this an original idea he had. Most people think of heresies as something incorrect or lacking, but adopting GKC's mindset that the heretical thing isn't what's lacking, it's everything else that is lacking seems to me both a good way to dialogue and a good way to understand orthodoxy in light of classical heresies. Is this simply one of many of his original musings or does the idea have roots in Christian thought?

I've been a Catholic my whole life and this Lent is the first time I've ever heard the term Passiontide. I was just wondering though, because it doesn't seem to fit the same trend as the other mini-seasons, why does it start the last two weeks in Lent and isn't simply synonymous with Holy Week? And if Palm Sunday is Passion Sunday, why would Passiontide start before it?

>The requirement of miracles in the causes of canonization are crucial because they are a divine confirmation of the holiness of the person invoked, says a Vatican aide. (EWTN ) Given that these confirmed miracles are causes for public veneration, do the miracles themselves have to be believed? Or are they matters of private revelation (like Marian apparitions, for instance)?

In Galatians 5, Paul helps us understand the work of the flesh, such as in verse 17: "For the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh, for these are opposed to each other, to keep you from doing the things you want to do" (ESV). Also in vv. 19-21: "Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God" (ESV). The main identifier of the flesh seems to be in v. 17, as being against the Spirit. In what ways do we mistake normal weaknesses in our bodies and faculties as the flesh when they are not? What examples would help us know the difference, and perhaps not feel guilty and attempt wrong solutions for recovery?

St. Joseph was a father to Jesus (Luke 2:48 : "… Behold thy father (πατήρ) and I have sought thee sorrowing."), having all the rights a father has over his son, but he was not the natural father of Jesus; all Jesus's flesh came from the blood of His mother, Mary. Nor was he a "foster father", as he didn't adopt his Son from another marriage; Jesus came from within Sts. Mary's and Joseph's true marriage . Thus, what best describes the sort of father St. Joseph was?

What evidence is there that the OT was accurately passed down. Muslims claim they were corrupted - what is the likelihood of this?

I just finished reading Herman Sasse's *This is My Body*, which was highly recommended by two different Lutheran pastors. The Lutheran position, as I understand it, is that believing in Christ's Real Presence in Communion is essential, but philosophical explanations as to what/how this presence is accomplished are not. Luther's own explanation, that Christ's human nature is "ubiquitous" and thus can be present anywhere including in the wafer of bread, is not asserted as dogma, but simply as a possibility. Sasse and the pastor I talked to are both emphatic, however, that eating Christ's body *does not* mean we are eating his bones or muscles or viscera. Then comes Calvin, who also speaks of a "Real Presence", but with a different explanation of what this means: In taking Communion, we are spiritually lifted up to heaven where Christ is (bodily) and consume his body in a spiritual manner. The Lutherans seem to object to understanding the eating of Christ's body as "spiritual" instead of "literal", but it isn't clear to me what the difference between eating Christ's body in a spiritual way (as Calvin talked about) is different from eating Christ's body, but not the bones or muscles or viscera (as Luther talked about). What other sense is there, other than mere symbolism (as Zwingli said, and both Luther and Calvin rejected)? I thought the Lutherans' objection might be that Calvin's view requires the communicant to engage his/her intellect in contemplating Christ in order to receive the blessing, whereas Luther might say that you only must receive the elements in faith. However, this doesn't seem to be the difference. The Lutherans do not offer communion to children, on the basis of their inability to "discern the body" (1 Cor. 11:29), an intellectual exercise. The Lutheran pastor told me that the important thing to believe is that Christ is present in a special, unique way in communion, different from how he is present "in this room". However, Calvin would also assent to that, as does my (Baptist) pastor, and Wayne Grudem in *Systematic Theology* Chapter 50. These three would not assent to Luther's theory of ubiquity, but neither Luther nor Sasse nor that pastor would say that belief in ubiquity is required for an acceptable doctrine of communion. With all this in mind, I am a bit at a loss as to what, in particular, about Calvin's eucharistic theology the Lutherans find unacceptable?

Hugh Ross and others of the old-Earth creationist organization [Reasons to Believe](http://www.reasons.org/) , who claim to have a literal interpretation of Genesis, believe that Adam and Eve were vegetarian before the Fall (Genesis 1:29), but that carnivorous animals of today were carnivorous then as well. They say that Genesis 1:30: >And to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the heavens and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food.” And it was so. is stating that all of Earth's major ecosystems are based on green plant life, and is not saying that all animals were herbivores. Is there any historical or linguistic precedent for this interpretation? In other words, did any Jewish or early Christian scholars interpret Genesis 1:30 as anything like this? If so, what linguistic subtleties do they point to that results in a carnivorous interpretation of 1:30, but a non-carnivorous interpretation of the preceding verse?

Christianity gets a bad reputation in its treatment of women in the modern day. However, when contrasting with the Roman Empire was it an improvement?

In Nehemiah 6:10-14, Shemaiah tries to get Nehemiah to meet with him in the temple and close the door, alleging (falsely) that people will try to kill Nehemiah at night otherwise. The goal was to get Nehemiah to sin, but Nehemiah refused, saying that someone like himself could never go to the temple to save his life. Would this contradict situation ethics? If Nehemiah followed situation ethics, wouldn't entering the temple to save his life been permissible?