I can't find any CSE questions about this religion, although I think it is linked to John the Baptist. There may be different spellings for the religion, and perhaps that's why I have been unable to find out how and when it originated and what the main beliefs are.

If Jesus was of the tribe of Judah, with both his parents of the lineage of David, and John the Baptist's parents of Levi's tribe, Luke 1.5, how is it possible that John and Jesus could be related, Luke 1.36?

I am wondering how long John the Baptist had been preaching before Jesus started his public ministry. Had John been preaching for a few weeks, a few months, or for a few years before Jesus came to see him and to be baptized by John in the River Jordan?

In studying through the gospels chronologically, I realized that at least two of the apostles, Andrew and most likely John, were already close disciples of John the Baptist before they met Christ. Andrew went to get his brother Peter, which implies he wasn't far away. It occurred to me that, at least for the inner core, these first disciples of Jesus did not start following Him out of a vacuum. They were spiritual men and were most probably seeking for the Messiah, as directed by John. It seems worthy of note. I could not find any biblical commentary on this , to get more information. For example, where was John baptizing? These were working men; yet they were hanging around John, away from home. Bathabera is traditionally considered to be near the north end of the Dead Sea and east of Jerusalem, and about 70 miles from Gallilee. This makes sense considering John the Baptist preached in the wilderness, and Christ was immediately led out there after His baptism. I would like to know, besides if there is any commentary on the first disciples before they met Christ, what is considered a reliable current source for ancient geography. Thank you.

John the Baptist is a central figure in Christianity. Sent by God as shown by the prophets, he prepared the way of the Lord, the way of Jesus Christ (Malachi 3:1, Mt 3:3, 11:10). John was of the priestly Levitical tribe in the order of Abijah, being born of Zechariah and Elizabeth, both of whom were of Levi (1 Ch 24:10, Luke 1:5). When John was preaching and baptizing, it is important to note for this question, he did so apart and away from the temple in Jerusalem. He preached in the wilderness. He baptized in the Jordan. (See Mt. 3:1, Mar 1:4.) The point is he did this without reference to the Levitical system of confession of sin and sacrifice. (See Lev 4, 23, etc.) With these things in mind, from a Trinitarian position, what exactly was John the Baptist preaching apart from the temple system when he said repent? Repent means change your mind. Metanoeo, Strong's G3340, to think differently, to reconsider. How would this change prepare the way of the Lord? How would it make straight His paths?

Question: What was the normal way to cross the Jordan River during first century in Israel? Reading John 1:28 it says that John was baptizing on the East side of the Jordan River and I've wondered how the people would get to him. And not just him but any travel that may require crossing the river. I'm sure that it could probably be crossed by swimming but it seems that hauling goods and possessions, families, or even the upper class like the priests this wouldn't have been the case. No where in scripture do I find mention of a bridge. Through different google searches the earliest bridge I could find was circa 700CE. ---------- Information on the river itself: The baptismal site of Bethany Beyond the Jordan (John 1:28) is near the southern end of the Jordan River, across from Jericho and 8 kilometres south of the King Hussein (or Allenby) Bridge. It is 40 minutes by car from the Jordanian capital of Amman. El-Ghor: "Twenty miles below Lake Galilee the river is joined by the important Wady el-Jalud, which descends through the valley of Jezreel between Mt. Gilboa and the range of the Little Hermon (the hill Moreh of Jdg 7:1). This valley leads up from the Jordan to the valley of Esdrelon and thence to Nazareth, and furnished the usual route for Jews going from Jerusalem to Nazareth when they wished to avoid the Samaritans." Deep and turbulent during the rainy season, the Jordan is reduced to a sluggish, shallow stream during the summer. The Jordan River only reaches 20 yards across in some places, and its deepest point is around 17 feet. From the Sea of Galilee , at the level of 682 feet below the Mediterranean, the river flows through a long, low plain called “the region of Jordan” (Matt. 3:5), and by the modern Arabs the Ghor, or “sunken plain.” This section is properly the Jordan of Scripture. Down through the midst of the “plain of Jordan” there winds a ravine varying in breadth from 200 yards to half a mile, and in depth from 40 to 150 feet. Through it the Jordan flows in a rapid, rugged, tortuous course down to the Dead Sea.

We know the story about Jesus being baptised: >13 Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to be baptized by John. 14 But John tried to deter him, saying, “I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?” 15 Jesus replied, “Let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness.” Then John consented. (Matthew 3:13-15) Why was it necessary for Jesus to be baptized by John the Baptist in order to "fulfill all righteousness", according to any well known Protestant theologians?

John the Baptist was aware the Messiah was coming after him, and His identity was revealed (or rather, confirmed) to him in the Jordan though a [voice from Heaven](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew.3%3A13%E2%80%9317%3B+Mark.1%3A9%E2%80%9311%3B+Luke.3%3A21%E2%80%9323&version=NIV) . And yet, it seems John the Baptist did not became one of Jesus's many disciples, nor was he chosen by Jesus as one of the Twelve (whereas two of John's disciples did follow Jesus, [one being identified as Andrew](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john%201:35-1:42&version=NIV)) . It seemed like they had different tasks altogether and could not mix. I am not aware of an instance where they are preaching together or sharing other moments. Why John the Baptist did not "follow" Jesus and became one of his disciples? He remained having disciples of himself, which you would imagine being a "less perfect way" than following Jesus. PD: If needed as per site rules, a Catholic perspective is preferred.

Matthew 26:29, Mark 14:25 and Luke 22:18 are three New Testament passages that seem to indicate that Christ once took the Nazirite vow (as did Samuel, Samson, and John the Baptist). It is known that the Nazirite Vow was made as follows: the Nazirite should abstain from wine, corpses and let his hair grow during the period of his vow. Nazirites were specially set apart for God and their long hair was equivalent to a king's crown. So did Jesus make the vow? Does this prove that Jesus had long hair?

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.

I am reading *The Life & Glories of Saint Joseph*, by Edward Healy Thompson, which was first published in 1888. At the start of Chapter VII, in which the argument is made that Joseph was born without original sin (related, but not identical to how Mary was immaculately conceived), he says this: > From Holy Scripture we also learn that some souls through divine predilection, as those of Jeremias [a.k.a. Jeremiah] and [John] the Baptist, were sanctified before they saw the light of day. Unfortunately, Thompson doesn’t explain which parts of Holy Scripture he is referring to and seems to assume that the reader already knows. What is the biblical basis that Jeremiah and John the Baptist were sanctified before birth (i.e. born without original sin)?

We read in Mark 1:1-4 : > The beginning of the good news of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. As it is written in the prophet Isaiah,“See, I am sending my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way; the voice of one crying out in the wilderness: ‘Prepare the way of the Lord, make his paths straight,’” John the baptizer appeared in the wilderness, proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. One wonders as to why John the Baptist chose to cry out in the wilderness where he would have no one listening to him. His intended audience was the people living in cities and villages, with the exception of hermits who had left the place of human habitation in order to lead an austere life. Or is it possible that the wilderness that John the Baptist preached in was on the way of travelers? Matthew 3:13-17 shows that John baptized people in the river Jordan, which must have been close to human habitation. My question therefore is: **According to Catholic scholars, why did John the Baptist cry out in the wilderness?**

After reading 2 chronicles 1-8 (many, many names) I was surprised that noone had the same name as their father, or grand father. I remembered the story of Zechariah not being able to talk until he told the name of his son, John. The people who heard the name were surprised because no one in the family had the name John. Why was this so surprising, because in the lists of names in the bible, I do not find people having the same name as their father?

**Considering:** Matthew 11:13-15 (King James Version): > 13 For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John. 14 And if ye will receive it, this is Elias, which was for to come. 15 He that hath ears to hear, let him hear. Matthew 17:12-13: > 12 But I say unto you, That Elias is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them. 13 Then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John the Baptist. **The Question:** How do Christian denominations interpret scriptures where Jesus said John is Elijah as anything other than indicating reincarnation? **Note** this is not a question about whether the Bible teaches reincarnation, nor whether the Bible says reincarnation is true, it is asking for how these verses are interpreted as anything other than reincarnation. It's actually looking for the opposite of affirming reincarnation. **Note:** - Though in John 1 John the Baptist said he is not Elijah it is common, under theories of reincarnation, for someone to not know they are reincarnated. - Though Elijah never died but was brought up to heaven, under theories of reincarnation a death is not required, only that a spirit once inhabiting a body inhabits another. Under some theories of reincarnation a spirit can inhabit multiple bodies simultaneously. - The passage in the Bible that states "a man dies once and then face judgement" (Heb 9:27) is irrelevant to this question as those that use it to claim that the Bible teaches against reincarnation are misunderstanding what a man is and what reincarnation is. A man is a combination of a Spirit, a Mind and a Body. A man dies once, the spirit may then be joined to another mind and body (i.e. reincarnated). The second man is a different man who will also die once. Furthermore in answers to this question: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/93215/60459 Heb 9:27 may not be stating a hard and fast rule.

I'm curious - is there a tradition from the early church (from Christ to 700 AD) about what John the Baptist said when he was baptizing people? How did he get that information?

How is Matthew 11:3 usually interpreted in Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy and mainstream Protestantism? > And said unto him, Art thou he that should come, or do we look for > another? (NIV, Matthew 11:3) The very fact that John the Baptist asked such a question strikes me as a bit illogical. John knew that he came to prepare the way for the Lord. Even before he saw the Lord he said it clearly that the One "the straps of whose sandals he was not worthy to untie" was coming after him, the One who "surpassed him because He was before him". When he first saw Jesus he right away proclaimed Him to be the Lamb of God who was going to take away the sin of the world. Later he said that Jesus was the true Bridegroom who "must be greater, while John must be less". All of these words send a clear message that John had no doubt in his mind about who Jesus was. However, when he was imprisoned he suddenly asked this kind of question. I heard many different theories. One claims that this was John's way of asking Jesus to deliver him from prison. Another one says that John was forced to ask this question by Pharisees in order to accuse Him later. Another theory says that John was simply losing his faith in Jesus. And yet another one that I don't remember well, says something about some Jewish tradition that, in fact, two Messiahs were supposed to come. So, what is an overview of common interpretations that are given to this matter in the three main branches of Christianity?

Matthew 3 and Luke 3 recount the emergence of John the Baptist and the beginning of his ministry. When the Pharisees and Sadducees come to receive his baptism, he calls them out as a "brood of vipers", with the implication that he denies them the water baptism. The account in Luke 3 proceeds to say, "What should we do then?" the crowd asked, and John gives them teachings and examples on repentance, but we do not know whether or not "the crowd" included some of these Pharisees and Sadducees, and my own inference is that it did not. Why did John call ***them*** a "brood of vipers"? Now, I understand the application of this title to these two groups overall, so I don't require an explanation of its meaning. But *why specifically in this instance when they came to be baptized*? Some may say it was to "flex" their position, show off to the people, and receive "praise" and honour from them in doing so. Or some could say that they did it to receive more blessing, and more of God's "approval". But neither of these reasons seem characteristic of them to me. Their general mindset was that they thought: 1. John was a lunatic and/or heretic, and 2. They were God's chosen group, and were already blessed and anointed to be in the positions they were in. So going to receive baptism from John just to "show off" to the people doesn't make sense in that mindset. In fact, it would seem to do the opposite: it would probably confuse the people to see these highly religious people want to receive something from a guy they considered crazy and blasphemous. So it makes me think that those who went to him were genuine in heart to receive it. But if they were, then why did John call them "brood of vipers" and deny them the baptism? I guess the implication of these passages is that they *were* doing it for selfish reasons, but if so, I can't for the life of me think what those reasons might be. So my real question is, for those Ps and Ss that went to John at the Jordan: * If they *did* have a "brood of vipers" heart, then why did they go to John in the first place? What did they have to gain by doing so? * If they went with genuine hearts to receive baptism, then why did John call them out (and possibly deny them the baptism)?

In Luke 1:24-25 we read: > 24 After these days his wife Elizabeth conceived, and for five months she kept herself hidden, saying, 25 “Thus the Lord has done for me in the days when he looked on me, to take away my reproach among people.” Why did she keep herself hidden? Certainly something to do with the fact that she was barren and isn't any more... But why would that cause her to hide this fact?

We read at Mk 1:4-5 (NRSVCE): > John the baptizer appeared in the wilderness, proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. And people from the whole Judean countryside and all the people of Jerusalem were going out to him, and were baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins. We read on at Mtt 3:13-15: > Then Jesus came from Galilee to John at the Jordan, to be baptized by him. John would have prevented him, saying, “I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?” But Jesus answered him, “Let it be so now; for it is proper for us in this way to fulfill all righteousness.” Then he consented. Although the term "baptism" is not used to describe the Jewish rituals, the purification rites in Jewish law and tradition, called tvilah, have some similarity to baptism, and the two have been linked. The tvilah is the act of immersion in natural sourced water, called a mikva. In the Jewish Bible and other Jewish texts, immersion in water for ritual purification was established for restoration to a condition of "ritual purity" in specific circumstances. For example, Jews who (according to the Law of Moses) became ritually defiled by contact with a corpse had to use the mikvah before being allowed to participate in the Holy Temple. Immersion was also required for converts to Judaism (Courtesy: Wikipedia) Reverting to Jesus's statement to John that "it is proper for us in this way to fulfill all righteousness", one can conclude that John himself had received the Baptism of Repentance before he embarked on his mission of baptizing others. John`s humble submission that he ought to have been baptized by Jesus implies that Jesus did not baptize him . My question therefore is: According to Catholicism, by whom was John the Baptist was baptized?

Are there any records that explain why baptism was used for repentance when the Jews already had a method of repentance by putting ashes on them and wearing sackcloth? This seemingly worked as noted in various parts of the bible (e.g. Ninevites in book of Jonah) What made repentance through baptism unique?