Was any Doctor of the Church martyred?

**Where can I find a Jehovah's Witnesses version of a Hebrew Interlinear Old Testament?** I'm at my wits' end googling for one.

Previous questions have already explored various facets of the notion of having a "personal relationship" with Jesus/God, such as: - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/470 - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/7703/61679 - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/44771/61679 However, a question on the Biblical basis for this concept is missing. Do Christians who claim to have a "personal relationship" with Jesus/God believe that this concept has a Biblical basis, and if so, what is it? Does the Bible explicitly outline all the elements of a "personal relationship"? Is there anything close to a canonical list of attributes that define what it means to have a "personal relationship" with Jesus/God, with each attribute supported through exegesis of one or more Biblical passages?

At the time of Daniel, Rome was not yet powerful and known, but at the time of St. John at Patmos. So why it is referred to as Babylon by many Christians.

In his First Apology Justin Martyr writes : > We find it also predicted that certain persons should be sent by Him into every nation to publish these things, and that rather among the Gentiles [than among the Jews] men should believe in Him. And He was predicted before He appeared, first 5000 years before, and again 3000, then 2000, then 1000, and yet again 800; for in the succession of generations prophets after prophets arose. Please identify the predictions he refers to (prophet, document, passage): 1. that certain persons should be sent by Him into every nation to publish these things 2. that rather among the Gentiles [than among the Jews] men should believe in Him 3. predicted 5000 years before He appeared 4. predicted 3000 years before He appeared 5. predicted 2000 years before He appeared 6. predicted 1000 years before He appeared 7. predicted 800 years before He appeared If we don't know to which prophecies he refers, then how do we know he wasn't mistaken?

There is another question here that asks for the significance of the number 666. Most of the answers relate it to papacy, Nero or some other apocalyptic event. I have read several prophetic websites and they do the same thing. Sum up the numeric value of the alphabets in somebody's name. Multiply it by 2, divide by 3 and it comes to 666. However I was reading my Bible was surprised to find the following verse - > 1 Kings 10:14 The weight of the gold that Solomon received yearly was > 666 talents, > >2 Chronicles 9:13 The weight of the gold that Solomon > received yearly was 666 talents, My question is how did everyone over look this? Could it be that the number has nothing to do with papacy or Nero. There seems to be some sort of connection with Solomon. If so what is it?

As far as I have understood, God can forgive all sins (Romans 5:8, 1 John 1:9), least blasphemy against the Holy Spirit (Mark 3:28-29), and that we are not to judge (Matthew 7:1, Luke 6:37, John 7:24) , God is the only one (James 4:12) and that we shall forgive (Matthew 6:14-15, Matthew 18:21-22), however, we shall exhort us (Galatians 6:1, 1 Thessalonians 5:11, Hebrew 10:25), not to point to each others as sinners (we all are; Romans 9-26), but in love (Romans 12:8). As a sinner we shall live in repentance, say "I made a mistake and will (try to) not make this mistake again" (Matthew 3:8). However, sins are often times discussed as a terminal action (e. g. a lie) and even if repetitive as an ongoing sin (e. g. notorious lying). But what about a continuous sin, a sin one cannot come out as easy as one might wish to (an illicit marriage)? I will rephrase my question (from here: soteriology - How can a person in this situation be forgiven his sins? - Christianity Stack Exchange) in more general terms. My question is twofold. a) How to position oneself, a practicing Christian, towards a person as described below in your live (family member)? b) What can a person in the described position do to be saved, do go the right path, Gods path? I believe to not have found an answer to both questions directly. Imagine a self-identified Christian (evangelical) who married his first woman in civil union and in church, has two children who he not educated the faith, and who he abandoned after being unfaithful to his first wife several times. He was divorced by his first woman on civil terms, however, he was not reputed for his sins to a church member (or at all). Hence, divorced by law, not by the terms of the bible (Matthew 5:31-32). He then married in civil union only a second wife, which he divorced without children. Lastly, he married for a third time in civil union and in church (for a second time), with which he had fathered a baby now. To my understanding of the scripture, he was never repented by his first wife of unfaithfulness (Matthew 19:9), meaning that he would still married by church to his first wife (Mark 10:8-9), meaning all his following marriages are illicit. Now, the problem: how does he (if he wanted to) come out of this situation or his he doomed to continue sinning? Let me rephrase: to most Christians, an homosexual marriage or union would not be considered licit by the bible (Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13) and he homosexual person living in an union like this who would say that he did wrong marrying a same-sex person was wrong, continuing living so, would not be believed. Why then a man who continues to live in an illicit marriage to a woman? I pray and prayed for this person especially for Hebrew 3:13 and Hebrew 6:4-6, but do not how to position myself. Play along? Exhorting?

I'm writing a story of sorts that has its basis in an Episcopal character who performed a great number of good and faithful deeds (caring for the sick, preaching and even claims of miracles). He was a good and faithful person. After his tragic death, I wonder how he may be remembered or venerated? I know devotion to the saints is usually less focused on than in say, Catholicism. Would the Anglican calender, perhaps at least locally, commemorate his death? Would he get visits to his grave?

**Hebrews 1:2 (KJV)** says about the Son of God: > [God] hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath > appointed **heir of all things**, by whom also he made the worlds; So God (the Father I suppose) has appointed his Son (Jesus) as heir of all things. How is this possible though, when Jesus is fully God, as the OT says about God in **1 Chronicles 29:11 (KJV)**: > Thine, O LORD, is the greatness, and the power, and the glory, and the > victory, and the majesty: **for all that is in the heaven and in the > earth is thine; thine is the kingdom, O LORD, and thou art exalted as > head above all.** How can God the Son be appointed heir of „all things“ if “all that is in the heaven and in the earth“ belongs to Him already? How can God the Son be exalted if God is already „exalted as head above all“? Does 1 Chronicles 29:11 speak about God the Father or about the triune God? If it’s speaking about God the Father only, does that mean that God the Son is below God the Father in authority, power and „wealth“ so that God the Father could appoint Him heir? If so, why wasn’t Jesus already appointed heir before „these last days“?

[Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennial_Day_Theory) states that Young Earth Creationists are among [premillennialists](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premillennialism) , as well as several early church fathers, who believe that > human history will continue for 6,000 years and then will enjoy Sabbath for 1,000 years (the millennial kingdom) thus all of human history will have a total of 7,000 years prior to the [new creation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_to_Come) . **Question**: What have been the year(s) suggested by post-2000 YEC / premillennialists to be the year 6000 since the creation of earth? **Optional question**: If they still use the [Ussher Chronology](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ussher_chronology) (see also an article on [suggestions for correction](https://answersresearchjournal.org/comments-usshers-date-of-creation/)) , how do they correct the calculation, since by straightforward addition year 6000 should have occurred in 1996 AD ? ----------- Related question: [Quotations from the early church fathers who support the Jewish year 6000 as significant to eschatology](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/84736/10672)

A [biblical study in 2023]( https://www.researchgate.net/publication/373453174_Biblical_Earth_Age_Anno_Mundi_5923_Second_Coming_of_Christ_in_Glory_Anno_Mundi_6001_and_an_Interpretation_of_the_Number_of_The_Beast_666_in_Revelation_as_the_Year_Anno_Mundi_5994_a_Biblical_Study) proposes an Interpretation of the Number of the Beast as the Anno Mundi 5994 (=9x666) in combination with the assumption of a Second Coming of Jesus Christ in Glory in the year Anno Mundi 6001 (the latter being well known hypothesis in the Talmud -only of course as a first coming of the Messiah- as well as all along the Middle Ages-see also [Year 6000](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_6000)) . According to the Bible, the last seven years prior to the Second Coming of Christ in Glory form the [Tribulation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Tribulation) , which is also the final (year-)week of Daniel's Prophecy of Seventy Weeks, found in Daniel chapter 9. During the Tribulation the Beast and the Antichrist reign. The year Anno Mundi 5994 (=6001-7) is right at the beginning of the Tribulation period and might be the year in which the Beast/Antichrist rises to power. So my question is: are there some major medieval theologians who interprete the Anno Mundi 5994 as the year in which the beast will rise to power? Using google I found the following old books - [The Coalition of the Beast of the Apocalypse and His Ten Regal Confederates ...](https://books.google.de/books?id=_UFVAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA9&lpg=PA9#v=onepage&q&f=false) - [Grosses vollständiges Universal-Lexicon Aller Wissenschafften und ..., Band 36](https://books.google.de/books?id=VkxXAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA865) - [The Measure of the Circle. Perfected in January, 1845](https://books.google.de/books?id=SIdaAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA87&lpg=PA87) which all associate the number 5994=9x666 with the Number of the Beast, however not exactly the same way with the 2023 study and not as fully developed hypotheses. And I am not quite sure whether the interpretation has been well known and wide spread all along the Middle Ages (just currently not uploaded to google books). So the historians and theologians among us are asked. Thank you.

The [Books of the Maccabees](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Books_of_the_Maccabees) recount the history of the [Maccabees](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maccabees) which include historical-theological narratives of the [Maccabean Revolt](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maccabean_Revolt) . The major events and characters within the revolt itself have solid historicity, even by modern standard. While theological narratives are usually biased, the theological elements cannot be disproven by historiography. Instead, I'm looking for a scholarly evaluation of the **historical elements** in [1 Maccabees](https://ebible.org/pdf/eng-web/eng-web_1MA.pdf) , [2 Maccabees](https://ebible.org/pdf/eng-web/eng-web_2MA.pdf) , and [3 Maccabees](https://ebible.org/pdf/eng-web/eng-web_3MA.pdf) that are *more likely* to be fictional than factual, so we can assess the overall historical reliability of the books.

Not sure I understand what's going on here Excommunication of Margaret McBride . It says 1. > McBride was an administrator and member of the ethics committee at St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center, Phoenix, Arizona, which is owned by Catholic Healthcare West, later, Dignity Health On 27 November 2009, the committee was consulted on the case of a 27-year-old woman who was eleven weeks pregnant with her fifth child and suffering from pulmonary hypertension Her doctors stated that the woman's chance of dying if the pregnancy was allowed to continue was "close to 100 percent" McBride joined the ethics committee in approving the decision to terminate the pregnancy through an induced abortion. The abortion took place and the mother survived. 2. > Afterwards, the abortion came to the attention of Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted, the bishop of the Catholic Diocese of Phoenix. Olmsted spoke to McBride privately and she confirmed her participation in the procurement of the abortion. Olmsted informed her that in allowing the abortion, she had incurred a latae sententiae (an automatic) excommunication. McBride was subsequently reassigned from her post as vice president of mission integration at the hospital. 3. > In December 2011, a statement from St. Joseph's Hospital was emailed to the Catholic News Service announcing that McBride had since her excommunication "met the requirements for reinstatement with the church and she is no longer excommunicated. She continues to be a member in good standing with the Sisters of Mercy and is a valued member of the St. Joseph's executive team". The hospital did not provide further details. At the time, McBride was the St. Joseph's Hospital's vice president for organizational outreach. In particular for the parts > is no longer excommunicated and > The hospital did not provide further details. It sounds like they don't confirm which of the following happened: 1. **Forgiven** - McBride was wrong but then apologised. McBride was wrong because ______ (fill in the blank as to how an abortion for 'close to 100 percent' death isn't justified?) 2. **Exonerated** - McBride was right and then was exonerated meaning McBride's excommunication was like 'annulled' or 'void ab initio' or something. 3. **Other** - What happened?

Some people people say that we have two kinds of prayer, i.e. vocal and mental prayer. When I looked up the term mental prayer in Catholic dictionary I found this: "The form of prayer in which the sentiments expressed are one's own and not those of another person and the expression of these sentiments is mainly, if not entirely, interior and not externalized." When I looked up vocal prayer I found this: "The form of prayer that is a "conversation" with God, or the angels and saints, and is formed in words or equivalent symbols of expression. More technically, vocal prayer involves the use of some set formulas, since it is assumed that even when a person prays mentally he necessarily employs some form of at least internal speech." It seems to me that Catholic dictionary says that mental prayer is simply prayers without pre-writtten words. On the other hand it seems that it says that vocal prayer can refer to that things as well. It does say that vocal prayer sometimes refers to prayers with pre-written words. It also seems to say that you can do vocal and mental prayer at the same time. Would every prayer without pre-written words be called mental prayer?

From this question , and the comments, I am under the impression that Isaiah 44:6-8 >6 Thus saith the Lord the King of Israel, and his redeemer the Lord of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God. > >7 And who, as I, shall call, and shall declare it, and set it in order for me, since I appointed the ancient people? and the things that are coming, and shall come, let them shew unto them. > >8 Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. **Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any.** implies to many Christians that an omniscience God knows of no other gods because there are no other gods. >He is the only God ... He also says that He knows of no other God >there is only one God, period, He just said so Psalm 82 seems to indicate otherwise >1 God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; **he judgeth among the gods.** > >2 How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked? Selah. > >3 Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy. > >4 Deliver the poor and needy: rid them out of the hand of the wicked. > >5 They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness: all the foundations of the earth are out of course. > >6 I have said, **Ye are gods;** and all of you are children of the most High. > >7 But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes. > >8 Arise, O God, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations. This Psalm is quoted/referenced later by Jesus in John 10:33-36 . Other scriptures that seem to indicate multiple gods is 1 Cor 8:5-6 How do non-LDS Christians (the other question was focused on Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints understanding of the Isaiah verse), interpret these scriptures together? Or am I misunderstanding other Christian's interpretation of Isaiah 44?

Elder Jeffrey R. Holland of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (LDS) has taught that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are separate persons, three divine beings . Thus, there currently are at least three separate and distinct beings to whom the term *God* applies within the context of our world and within the sphere of our knowledge. Additionally, in the future there will be an as yet unspecified number of Gods when certain individuals achieve exaltation and become equally divine. Another official LDS teaching is that God knows all things , i.e. God is omniscient. The Book of Mormon teaches: > 20 O how great the holiness of our God! For he knoweth all things, and there is not anything save he knows it. (2 Nephi 9:20) Of the many times in the book of Isaiah alone where God declares Himself to be the only God there is one particular passage where, in addition to the claim that He is the only God and that He declares the future, He also says that He knows of no other God: > **Thus saith the LORD** the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and **beside me there is no God**. And **who, as I**, shall call, and **shall declare** it, and set it in order for me, since I appointed the ancient people? and **the things that are coming, and shall come**, let them shew unto them. Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. **Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any**. - Isaiah 44:6-8 According to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, why doesn't omniscient God, *who declares things that are and that will be* (future does not limit His omniscience), know about the existence of any other Gods? ____________________________________________________________________________ *A point of clarification*: This question is not about God's declarations of singularity and how LDS interprets them--that has already been addressed here , here , and here . This question asks why omniscient God does not know of the other Gods that LDS claims exist. *In defense of non-duplication*: Here is an extended explanation detailing why this question is not a duplicate and why answers given thus far to this question and other related question do not answer this question.

William Barclay A prolific author of 70 books, including commentaries on each New Testament books, is a well known and often quoted scholar. However some have written articles about him and challenge his Christianity based on the facts that he did not accept the miracles of Jesus, did not believe in the preexistence of Jesus, was a universalist and as can be seen in the quote below did not hold to classic views on the trinity. >Nowhere does the New Testament identify Jesus as God. Jesus did not say, "He who has seen me has seen God." He said, "He who has seen me has seen the Father." There are attributes of God I do not see in Jesus. I do not see God's omnipotence in Jesus, for there are things which Jesus did not know. I do not see God's omnipotence in Jesus for there are things which Jesus could not do (William Barclay, A Spiritual Biography, 1977 Edition, p. 56). Is William Barclay an esteemed scholar recognized by main stream Christianity, or are his views considered heretical in many ways?

We see in Matthew 10:25 how Jesus cautions his disciples against adversities: "If the head of house has been called Beelzebul, how much would the members be!" Going ahead to Matthew 12:24 we see the Pharisees commenting that Jesus was casting out demons with the help of Belzabul. There are two possibilities to explain the arrangement of the events in an order that is not chronological. First, Matthew may have erred in mentioning 10:25 followed by 12:24. The second possibility is that in Mtt 10:25 Jesus was perhaps referring to an event that had taken place earlier, but was not recorded in the Gospels. Moreover, Jesus is specific in saying that the Head of Family **has been called** Belzabul, whereas in 12:24 he is accused of **getting help** from Belzabul. My question therefore is: **Who is the Head of House that Jesus is referring to in Matthew 10:25?** Views of scholars of any denomination are welcome.

One of the early collections of Rabbinic Law and Doctrine is contained in the Babylon Talmudic. I presume it’s fairly safe to say that it is a good source to indicate what the Rabbis at the time of Christ may have been thinking. Of course Rabbinic thinking is considered irrelevant by Christians with respect to what is true when not in-line with scripture. However from the standpoint of understanding the context of the gospels it has some value. This makes the reference below, from it to Dan 12:2, describing the eternal blessing of the resurrected, as well as the eternal contempt of the wicked also resurrected, as opposed to an odd theory of a temporal punishment for some not that wicked and not that good. This third class seems to be an invention of them outside of the scripture but does make the conclusion of the ‘non-temporal’ nature of the wicked souls subjection to contempt iron clad. Are there any references or parables of Christ in the gospels that indicate a familiarity with the Rabbinic view of the dual resurrection of both the wicked and the righteous? Is there anything rejected or accepted in them by the Lord? Talmudic Tractate Rosh haShanah > It is taught in a baraita: Beit Shammai say: There will be three > groups of people on the great Day of Judgment at the end of days: One > of wholly righteous people, one of wholly wicked people, and one of > middling people. Wholly righteous people will immediately be written > and sealed for eternal life. Wholly wicked people will immediately be > written and sealed for Gehenna, as it is stated: “And many of those > who sleep in the dust of the earth shall wake, some to eternal life > and some to shame and everlasting contempt” (Daniel 12:2). Middling > people will descend to Gehenna to be cleansed and to achieve atonement > for their sins Daniel 12:2 ESV > 2 And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to **everlasting life**, and some to shame and **everlasting contempt**

Latter-day Saints, like many Christians, are encouraged to not use phrases like "Oh my God!" because they are seen as violations of the commandment to not take the name of God "in vain." However, in some languages (e.g. Arabic), God's name appears frequently in common phrases and is not considered offensive by most. Has an LDS leader ever commented on the application of this commandment in other cultural contexts? Has an exception ever been made for cultures, like Arab culture, where it is so common? (I am asking this in an LDS context specifically, although I understand this issue is applicable more broadly as well.)