Merriam-Webster defines *martyr* as "a person who voluntarily suffers death as the penalty of witnessing to and refusing to renounce a religion." John the Baptist did suffer death, the first known associate of Jesus to do so. But it does not seem that he suffered for refusing to renounce his religion, nor did he suffer for witnessing to Jesus. Instead, we are told that he was imprisoned and later beheaded because 'John said to Herod [Antipas], “It is not lawful for you to have your brother’s wife.”' (Mark 6:18) The issue was that according to Jewish law (Leviticus 20:21), a man must not marry a woman was divorced from his brother (as opposed to his widow). This was the situation between Herod Antipas and his brother, known both as Herod II and Herod Phillip. This being the case, it seems that John the Baptist died for the political offense of publicly criticizing the ruler. He may be seen as dying for refusing to renounce the particular Jewish law mentioned above, but not for his belief in Jesus. Jesus is not known to have ever mentioned the issue of Antipas' marriage. John is clearly a saint according to many Christian traditions. But do these traditions consider him a martyr of Christian faith? **The question: Is John the Baptist a Christian martyr? I am seeking information on this subject both from experts and from denominational perspectives.** ________________________ > note: I would appreciate help from the moderators in phrasing the > question in case it is thought to be opinion-based.

In the book of Genesis, the serpent speaks to Eve at Genesis 3:1-5. > 1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field that the > LORD God had made. And he said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You > must not eat from any tree in the garden?’ ” > > 2 The woman answered the serpent, “We may eat the fruit of the trees of > the garden, 3 but about the fruit of the tree in the middle of the > garden, God has said, ‘You must not eat of it or touch it, or you will > die.’ ” > > 4 “You will not surely die,” the serpent told her. 5 “For God knows that > in the day you eat of it, your eyes will be opened and you will be > like God, knowing good and evil.” This happens in the the Garden of Eden. What scriptural basis is there for believing animals talking was normal before Adam and Eve left the Garden?

>All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him **nothing came into being that has come into being**. > >John 1:3 There are also Book of Mormon verses saying that God created all things as well. >There is a God, and he hath created all things, both the heavens and the earth, and all things that in them are. > >2 Nephi 2:14 How do Mormons interpret these verses in accordance with their belief that God was not always God (and so could not have created the things that existed before he became God)?

Many questions on this site (usually about Catholic/Marian doctrine) have had references to sin as being inherited/transmitted from the father (and specifically the father, as opposed to either/both parents), almost as if it were some kind of genetic disorder, which is an idea I've never encountered before. Is this official Catholic doctrine? Are there many/any Protestant denominations that include a similar belief?

I am having a discussion with my friend about what church doctrine is applied to the 6th Commandment, "Thou shall not commit adultery." I believe it falls under the doctrine of faith/salvation, he believes it falls under the doctrine of marriage. I argue that the last five commandments of "...shall nots" really falls under the umbrella of soteriology and that to single #6 out for marriage would not fit the context of these 5 commandments. Does the Catholic Church have a preference or position on this?

>All things came into being **through** him, and apart from him not even one thing came into being that has come into being John 1:3 Are we given any indication that the logos made anything? Or is it simply that God is the *sole Creator* and does so *through* His logos/word? What is the Biblical basis for the logos being *only the means* for God's creating process? And explicitly, that the logos did not, could not, make anything of itself. As an example using the same word *dia*, >More than that, we also rejoice in God *through* our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation. Rom 5:11 We note we are rejoicing IN GOD not in Jesus - it is made possible *dia* (through) Jesus. Jesus is the means, the manner etc. by which the joy is expressed or realised.

For example, is the tradition that the Gospel of Matthew was "written according to Matthew" considered an infallible **Sacred Tradition** in the Catholic or Orthodox churches?

1 John 3:5-6 is > 5 But you know that Christ appeared to take away sins, and in Him there is no sin. 6 No one who remains in Him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to sin has seen Him or known Him. Is there a name for the idea that Jesus' 'taking away the sin of the world' (John 1:29) is done **in a *causal* way** by decreasing the prevalence of sin and increasing the prevalence of righteousness in one to the degree that one abides in the Christ?

**My background**: 4 years undergraduate in Catholic university including 3 unit Theology course on sex, love and marriage with M Scott Peck readings. Recently been following Brene Brown who says 'We can only love others as much as we love ourselves '. Example: If a socially struggling parent wants to love a socially struggling child, then the parent needs to love himself/herself by accepting his/her social struggles. **Question 1**: Which part of my understanding or assumptions below is wrong, and why? 1. It's an alternative interpretation to Love your neighbor as yourself (Lev 19:18) . 2. The usual interpretation is > Humans generally don't have difficulties loving themselves, and their task is to love others to the level they love themselves. (2) 3. Brene Brown discovers > Humans love others almost as much as themselves. Thus, they must love themselves more to love others more. (3) 4. Brene Brown calls self-love 'vulnerability' and loving others 'empathy'. [Edit: Alternatively, 'empathy' is one way to love others. I guess others would be generousity, hard work, etc] 5. Brene Brown says in order to have more empathy we need to have more vulnerability. 6. M Scott Peck does not say anything similar. 7. There is something in Catholic teaching that contradicts what Brene Brown said. --> **If this is true, please cite from the Bible or Catholic teaching.** 8. The Catholic Church agrees with (2) and disagrees with (3). **Question 2**: (If there is a disagreement) What specifically is the practical implication, if any? I really don't see how Brene Brown's interpretation of Lev 19:18 might make one a worse Catholic. For example, Headspace on Generousity has a similar idea and it seems to complement the Prayer for Generousity . But if Headspace and Brene Brown are so dangerously contradicting the , I hope to know right away so I can be unbrainwashed.

In the LDS Church, some offices in the Priesthood have minimum age requirements: - A deacon must be at least 12 years old - A teacher must be at least 14 years old - A priest must be at least 16 years old - An elder must be at least 18 years old I am wondering, what is the history of these age requirements?

Since all men are sinners according to some of the following verses, why do other verses teach that Jesus Christ was sinless? > Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin my mother conceived me. > > Psalm 51:5 > Indeed, there is not a righteousness man on earth who does good and who never sins. > > Ecclesiastes 7:20, > For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." > > Romans 3:23 Other verses would include, Jeremiah 17:9, Romans 5:12, Romans 6:23. On the other hand, the following verses identify Jesus Christ as sinless. > He/God made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him. > > 2 Corinthians 5:21 > Who committed no sin, nor was any deceit found in His mouth. > > Hebrews 4:15, > For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin." > > 1 John 3:5. So, how do the Jehovah's Witnesses reconcile this apparent/seemingly contradiction?

According to the stolen body hypothesis, the body of Jesus was stolen from the tomb. Alternatively, Christians believe that Jesus was resurrected from the dead. Besides these hypotheses, are there other ideas about what happened to the body of Jesus after the crucifixion? Do many people (scholars) support these views?

In the afterlife, is one still a human? Or is an angel (or whatever you are after death) something other than a human? Obviously, according to Christian views you would not be an animal, but would you still be a human?

This Q is a follow-up to one I recently asked in Hermeneutics – link - https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/80776/does-the-hebrew-of-deuteronomy-312-indicate-that-moses-date-of-death-was-exact/80821#80821 It appears from one answer given there that there is an interesting development of this idea, based on dates of death and birth of significant characters in the Hebrew scriptures, but as Hermeneutics is not for topics, but for examination of biblical texts, my Q there was confined to the text of Deuteronomy 31:2. > "And [Moses] said to them, I am an hundred and twenty years old this > day..." (A. Now, having obtained the answer to that ***(“No, the Hebrew of that text does not indicate that Moses’ date of death was exactly the same as his date of birth, 120 years later”)***, **I wish to explore the topic of how the view regarding "the integral age of the righteous" developed.**

I've seen this meme running around from some Catholic folks responding to Reformation Day Who are these people, and what did they do that (in the minds of Catholics) reformed the Catholic Church more than Martin Luther did? (Luther is that middle square, if it wasn't obvious)

Both Athanasius noted that Arius taught two Wisdoms. Athanasius wrote that in Arius’ theology, > “There are … two Wisdoms, one God's own who has existed eternally with > God, the other the Son who was brought into existence. … There is > another Word in God besides the Son” (RH, 13). Alexander similarly wrote that Arius stated, > “Nor is he the Father's true Logos nor the Logos by nature, nor his > true Wisdom” (RH, 16). > > “He came into existence himself through the proper Logos of God and > the Wisdom which was in God, in which God also made everything and him > (the Son) with it” (RH, 16). In Lorentz's summary of Arius’ theology, he said: > “There are two Logoi and two Wisdoms (Sophiae), and several powers of > God. … Arius distinguished between an original Reason (Logos) or > Wisdom immanent from eternity in the Godhead and the Son who was not > immanent in the Godhead but created, and who could only be given these > titles loosely or inexactly.” (20) Why is it significant that Arius taught “two Logoi and two Wisdoms”? Was this a deviation of some kind? (All references are to RPC Hanson's book, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God - The Arian Controversy 318-381

We read in Ex 21: 12-14 (NRSVCE): > Whoever strikes a person mortally shall be put to death. If it was not premeditated, but came about by an act of God, then I will appoint for you a place to which the killer may flee. But if someone willfully attacks and kills another by treachery, you shall take the killer from my altar for execution. Now, 2 Samuel 11 narrates how King David got Uriah the Hittite killed in war in a deceitful manner so as to marry his would-be-widow Bathsheba. Of course, David repents at the intervention of prophet Nathan , and is punished by God with the death of his fist child born of Bathsheba ( 2 Sam 12). But the rule of death-for-death in Ex 21, which spared not even the priests, does not appear to have been implemented in the case of David. My question therefore is: **Why was King David spared of the death-for-death rule of Exodus 21?** Inputs from any denomination are welcome.

Being irreligious I find some arguments in Christianity utterly ridiculous. Like the question of Jesus's nature (miaphysite vs monophysite vs etc.). Why do believers care so much about such meaningless minutia? What does it change for anyone? If you want to know, just ask him personally when you die. People were persecuted as heretics for things that seem to be inconsequential to me. Why does it matter if you believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son or just from the Father? What does it change? Why would any believer even care? I would understand if people would care what you do or say, but what difference does it make whether you believe Christ has two natures or one? I cannot think of another religion that puts so much value on doctrine... Or to make a more bold statement, why does it matter if you believe in the Trinity or you are an Arian? What does it change? Why do Christians take it so personally whether somebody believes that Jesus is god or is just god's son? I never heard Greek pagans going to war over who was truly the father of Ganymede... P.S. I don't know if this is the right place to ask but I assumed that most people here are secular and have an academic interest in Christianity...

John 14:8-14 (NIV): > 8 Philip said, “Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us.” 9 Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? 10 Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you I do not speak on my own authority. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work. **11 Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the works themselves. 12 Very truly I tell you, whoever believes in me will do the works I have been doing, and they will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father**. 13 And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14 You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it. My understanding of verse 11 is that Jesus is pointing to the works he has done that give evidence that the Father is in him, which without a doubt include the signs and wonders he had been performing during his ministry. Then in verse 12 he says _"**whoever believes in me** will do the works I have been doing, and they will do even greater things than these"_. How do Cessationists interpret this passage, especially verses 11 and 12? _______ Edit: Luke 7:20-23 (NIV) gives explicit examples of the works Jesus did: > 20 When the men came to Jesus, they said, “John the Baptist sent us to you to ask, ‘Are you the one who is to come, or should we expect someone else?’” 21 At that very time Jesus cured many who had diseases, sicknesses and evil spirits, and gave sight to many who were blind. 22 So he replied to the messengers, **“Go back and report to John what you have seen and heard: The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is proclaimed to the poor**. 23 Blessed is anyone who does not stumble on account of me.”

1 Kings tells us that, when David was elderly and impotent, Adonijah considered himself as heir-apparent and crowned himself, but Nathan the Prophet and Bathsheba approached David: > She said to him, “My lord, you yourself swore to me your servant by the Lord your God: ‘Solomon your son shall be king after me, and he will sit on my throne.’ But now Adonijah has become king, and you, my lord the king, do not know about it. Why would David have chosen Solomon, the younger candidate, as a successor?