As far as I can tell, Christians are morally obligated to stay faithful to their beliefs at any cost, even under pain of martyrdom. However, what if it's someone else's life at stake? For example, if someone holds an innocent bystander at gunpoint and threatens to kill them unless you worship a false god, what do the Church or Scripture have to say about this?

Jesus said to them, “You will drink the cup I drink and be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with... I know about James but what is reported in the later writings about the death of John?

In the book The Trail of Blood by James M Carroll, the author makes the claim that 50,000,000 early Baptists were martyred under persecution by the Catholic Church. The author makes the claim multiple times without any sourcing for that number. My question is essentially two parts. Is the claim of 50,000,000 Baptist martyrs accurate, and if so, can someone point me to a source that validates the claim?

**Did any early church Christian writers ever place Origen in a early martyrology or menologium ?** There are many early Church Fathers . Some are canonized saints, while some are not. Origen is not without controversy in his writings, motivations and actions. Yet one can not deny that he genuinely believed in Jesus Christ and was more than willing to suffer death for his belief in God. > Origen, most modest of writers, hardly ever alludes to himself in his own works; but Eusebius has devoted to him almost the entire sixth book of "Ecclesiastical History". > > Finally, at a much later period, under Pontian of Rome and Zebinus of Antioch (Eusebius, VI, xxiii), he journeyed into Greece, passing through Caesarea where Theoctistus, Bishop of that city, assisted by Alexander, Bishop of Jerusalem, raised him to the priesthood. Demetrius, although he had given letters of recommendation to Origen, was very much offended by this ordination, which had taken place without his knowledge and, as he thought, in derogation of his rights. If Eusebius (VI, viii) is to be believed, he was envious of the increasing influence of his catechist. So, on his return to Alexandria, Origen soon perceived that his bishop was rather unfriendly towards him. He yielded to the storm and quitted Egypt (231). The details of this affair were recorded by Eusebius in the lost second book of the "Apology for Origen"; according to Photius, who had read the work, two councils were held at Alexandria, one of which pronounced a decree of banishment against Origen while the other deposed him from the priesthood (Biblioth. cod. 118). **St. Jerome declares expressly that he was not condemned on a point of doctrine**. > > Age did not diminish his activities. He was over sixty when he wrote his "Contra Celsum" and his "Commentary on St. Matthew". The persecution of Decius (250) prevented him from continuing these works. Origen was imprisoned and barbarously tortured, but his courage was unshaken and from his prison he wrote letters breathing the spirit of the martyrs (Eusebius, Church History VI.39). He was still alive on the death of Decius (251), but only lingering on, and he died, probably, from the results of the sufferings endured during the persecution (253 or 254), at the age of sixty-nine (Eusebius, Church History VII.1). His last days were spent at Tyr, though his reason for retiring thither is unknown. He was buried with honour as a confessor of the Faith. **For a long time his sepulchre, behind the high-altar of the cathedral of Tyr**, was visited by pilgrims. Today, as nothing remains of this cathedral except a mass of ruins, the exact location of his tomb is unknown. - Catholic Encyclopedia There are claims that Origen may have castrated himself, but the claim seems somewhat dubious. > Eusebius claims that, as a young man, following a literal misreading of Matthew 19:12, in which Jesus is presented as saying "there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuch for the sake of the kingdom of heaven", Origen went to a physician and paid him to surgically remove his genitals in order to ensure his reputation as a respectable tutor to young men and women. Eusebius further alleges that Origen privately told Demetrius, the bishop of Alexandria, about the castration and that Demetrius initially praised him for his devotion to God on account of it. Origen himself, however, never mentions anything about having castrated himself in any of his surviving writings and, in his exegesis of this verse in his Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, written near the end of life, he strongly condemns any literal interpretation of Matthew 19:12, asserting that only an idiot would interpret the passage as advocating literal castration. > > Since the beginning of the twentieth century, some scholars have questioned the historicity of Origen's self-castration, with many seeing it as a wholesale fabrication. Trigg states that Eusebius's account of Origen's self-castration is certainly true, because Eusebius, who was an ardent admirer of Origen, yet clearly describes the castration as an act of pure folly, would have had no motive to pass on a piece of information that might tarnish Origen's reputation unless it was "notorious and beyond question." Trigg sees Origen's condemnation of the literal interpretation of Matthew 19:12 as him "tacitly repudiating the literalistic reading he had acted on in his youth." Alleged self-castration Wikipedia goes on to say this about his last years: > In c. 249, the Plague of Cyprian broke out. In 250, Emperor Decius, believing that the plague was caused by Christians' failure to recognise him as Divine, issued a decree for Christians to be persecuted. This time Origen did not escape. Eusebius recounts how Origen suffered "bodily tortures and torments under the iron collar and in the dungeon; and how for many days with his feet stretched four spaces in the stocks". The governor of Caesarea gave very specific orders that Origen was not to be killed until he had publicly renounced in faith in Christ. Origen endured two years of imprisonment and torture, but obstinately refused to renounce his faith. In 252, the emperor Decius was assassinated and Origen was released from prison. Nonetheless, Origen's health was broken by the physical tortures enacted on him and he died less than a year later at the age of sixty-nine. A later legend, recounted by Jerome and numerous itineraries, places his death and burial at Tyre, but little value can be attached to this. - Origen (Wikipedia) Although Origen was a controversial figure in the Early Church . It seems that he may have been honored as a true martyr within the community of some of the faithful, being buried behind the high-altar of the cathedral at Tyre. His father, St. Leonides of Alexandria , is recognized as a martyr in the Catholic Church (April 22). Thus once again I ask: **Does the name of Origen appear on any early martyrology or menologium and if so does it assign a date for his feast?**

According to [Acts 8:1](https://bible.oremus.org/?passage=Acts%208:1&version=nrsv) and [Acts 22:20](https://bible.oremus.org/?passage=Acts%2022:20&version=nrsv) , Saul participated in the martyrdom of Stephen, at least by granting approval to those who physically stoned him to death. Saul later underwent a conversion and became recognized (by the Roman Catholic Church and in Christendom generally) as a saint, St. Paul. Are there any other saints recognized by the Catholic Church who had participated in the martyrdom of other saints recognized by the Catholic Church?

I have learnt that some of the Jews linked to the early Jewish council stoned St. Stephen to death and Paul as a witness. But I have a bit of confusion that who ordered the decree of Stephan's death.

Was any Doctor of the Church martyred?

I understand that Foxe's Book of Martyrs (first published in English in 1563) is an exhaustive account of Christian martyrs, both pre- and post-Reformation. However, at a daunting 1,570 pages in length, my need is for a more concise overview. Also, my assignment specifically focuses on the early Church Fathers. So far I've got Ignatius of Antioch (martyred circa A.D. 110), Justin Martyr (A.D. 165), Irenaeus of Lyon (circa A.D. 202) and Origen of Alexandra, who was persecuted, tortured, imprisoned and after his release, died A.D. 254. Eusebius of Caesarea fled persecution and witnessed the martyrdom of Christians (circa A.D. 300) and John Chrysotom died while in exile A.D. 407. No mention of them dying as martyrs, though. Is there a link to a credible source of information about the early Church Fathers who were martyrs?

Church tradition tells us that most of the 12 apostles were martyred, with the apostle John being the only one considered to die an old death. Is there any extra-biblical evidence that shows the apostles were martyred?

St. Maria Goretti was stabbed several times for her refusal to consent to sin against purity; Alessandro Serenelli, her "would-be rapist" (ch. 25 of *Modern Saints: Their Lives and Faces* vol. 1 ), was trying to seduce her. Certainly it is heroic that she would rather die than to consent to sin, but how is she a martyr? I thought martyrs had to die *in odium fidei* (because of hatred of the Faith).

We read in Matthew 22, on the **Parable of the Wedding Feast**, in Verse 6, the king's servants deputed to bring the invited, are killed by the invitees. That is not something which happens in normal course. Jesus was, in fact, referring to the Prophets killed by those to whom they had preached. One wishes to know who those prophets and the circumstances leading to their death were.

I am reading Ivan Illich's 1987 essay "Hospitality and Pain" (freely available to consult here ) which concerns the Western conception of pain and the body. Illich claims, on page 13, that, after the first millennium, a transvaluation of the Incarnation and the Passion occurred in the West. He suggests that the earliest artistic depiction of the crucifixion emerges in the Rabbula Gospels and draws attention to the way Jesus is depicted as bloodless and with eyes open. > All the Gospel details are depicted: The two thieves, the soldiers throwing dice for the cloak, Longinus with the lance, Mary the mother and John the beloved apostle, the mourning women, the sun and moon hiding their faces. But the figure of Jesus is a symbolic iconogram rather than a picture. Unlike the naked thieves, he is veiled in the long mantle (columbium). The breast wound shows that his body is dead. But his open eyes and the halo around his head reveal the glory of divinity ever present in this body. The work is a Christological statement of the Council of Chalcedon: There are no signs suggesting torture or pain. > > In the first millennium, Christians do not focus on the bodily pains suffered by Christ in his passion. Certainly one reason for this is the fact that they had no term fitting the word field of modern English pain. Pain directly denotes an ache in the body, and only obliquely emotion or feelings. The Greek words, lype, algos and nosos directly mean a state of the soul. And the Old Testament, one long story of woes and miseries in which Israel comes to recognize the hand of the living God, simply has no one word that directly refers to the body in pain. Illich then briefly traces a history of the portrayals of Christ on the cross, describing how, in the 7th and 8th centuries, Jesus is typically veiled in a colobium sindonis , "sometimes reminiscent of the vestments of a priest or king." A century later, Illich claims, Jesus is now undressed down to the loincloth; from the 9th until the 11th centuries, the naked body is found in art, but not commonly. A break occurs in the 12th century - Illich claims the body is now "even more important than the cross." (page 15) > But then, within Hildegard's generation, the iconogram of the Savior gives way to the realistic representation of a tortured man. As far as excruciating pain can be pictured, it is shown above every altar during the late Middle Ages. Once more the history of the perceived body, and the history of bodily pain, together pass a watershed. Just imagine the crucifixion of the Isenheim altar, painted by Grünewald, which I mentioned earlier. The limbs of Jesus are gangrenous, contorted, discolored - like those of the dying patients, to whom the indescribable light that infuses the painting speaks of themystery of salvation through pain. In conversation with David Cayley in 1988 (see transcript here ) Illich makes reference to these same ideas and summarises his point on how compassion, as a lived experience, becomes possible only at that historical moment when pain has been disembedded from the huge and varied matrix of suffering in which it had been diffused: > In 1100, the crucified Christ, who is one of the most important representations which are left to us of what people thought about the flesh, is still very much the Christ of the first millennium. The first 300 years of Christianity knew absolutely no crucifix. From then on, until the 11th century essentially, he who is on the cross is dressed up as a priest, is a person alive, crowned by the sun. Even if his heart is pierced and the blood flows out, you can see that he’s a fully alive person. It’s an icon, an ideogram. It is not a body which is represented. In the 9th century, slowly the clothes of the priest, the king, the columbium, as they call it, disappears from the body and he is represented in his nakedness, but still as a live body with eyes which look at you, even if his heart is opened. By the end of the 12th century, his head is inclined--he’s a dead man. His body is shown tortured. Physical pain is represented as acutely as you can possibly represent it. No wonder twenty years later, Francis will go and begin to kiss the wounds of lepers. No wonder Francis of Assisi will feel a new feeling for which there was no real word nor importance, even in Christianity, compassion so strong that the suffering with the suffering Christ will express itself written on his hands and feet as stigmata, and the epidemic of stigmata will appear all over central Europe. Illich is a reputable historian but I have tried looking for depictions of the Crucifixion from before the 12th century and had a very difficult time finding any examples. In one word: is there any significant truth to his thesis that Christ on the cross was depicted initially robed and "alive" and then a sharp break happened around the 12th century, with Jesus now seen as a pained, hurt body?

I heard that if martyrs denied Christ when forced under the punishment of death, the sin would not count since it was not freely chosen. Basically, they wouldn't commit a mortal sin since the mortal sin requires freedom of choice. But some theologians disagree and supposedly they would still have to repent and confess their sin. What is the Catholic perspective on this? If it's not a sin why were the martyrs willing to die if denying wouldn't be even considered rejection of their faith under this circumstance?

Do we know of any martyrs from among the Roman Catholic Church that lived during the five centuries before Martin Luther (i.e., 10–15th centuries)? I am especially interested in those who have been well-spoken of by Martin Luther.

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'm wondering what the Roman Catholic church stance is on this man and whether they will ever declare him a martyr? I'm guessing he is too protestant to ever have any recognition in the Catholic church. What has the stance of the Catholic church been in regards to other Nazi dissidents?

In Christian apologetics, a common argument for the reliability of the eyewitness accounts of the apostles is the fact that they were willing to withstand persecution and even martyrdom for what they believed to be true. However, Latter-day Saints use the very same argument to back up the authenticity of Joseph Smith's testimony, who, according to them, sealed his testimony with his own blood as a martyr, just like the 1st century apostles (e.g. see [here](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/teachings-joseph-smith/chapter-46?lang=eng) and [here](https://history.churchofjesuschrist.org/content/martyr-for-god?lang=eng)) . How do non-LDS Christians respond to the *Joseph Smith's martyrdom* argument? ______ A counterpoint question can be found at [How do Latter-day Saints respond to the non-LDS argument that Joseph Smith's death was not comparable to the martyrdom of the ancient apostles?](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/84457/50422) More examples of non-Christian religious martyrs can be found in [this answer](https://history.stackexchange.com/a/65666/46818) .

This question is offered as a counterpoint to: How do non-LDS Christians respond to the LDS argument that Joseph Smith died as a Martyr for God, just like the Apostles? In particular, an argument from Sean McDowell focuses on the character and motives of Joseph Smith, to suggest that no comparison is warranted. How do Latter-day Saints respond to these claims?

I'd heard of green martyrdom a few times on the radio, but never gave it much thought > Three kinds of martyrdom that are counted as a cross to man, i.e. white martyrdom, green martyrdom, and red martyrdom.—The Cambray Homily (Thesaurus Palæohibernicus, II., p. 246). Green martyrdom somewhat anachronistically seems to have been defined as having something to do with dollar bills being of a greenish hue. I don't think that would be the case in the Ireland when the Cambray Homily was transcribed. So why green? Red and White I understand, but green usually has a different significance than dying.

Besides Matthew 2:16 , >Herod perceiving that he was deluded by the wise men, was exceeding angry: and sending killed all the menchildren that were in Bethlehem, and in all the borders thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently inquired of the wise men. What historical evidence is there of the Slaughter of the Innocents?