Josef Ben Caiaphas was the Jewish high priest during the time of Jesus’ ministry and for a few years afterwards. He was a strong opponent of Jesus and His message. Acts 4:1-22 informs us that Caiaphas continued to persecute the followers of Christ, being present at the trial of Peter and John. He is believed to have been born around 14 B.C. and died a few years after the crucifixion of Jesus. One source says he died in Crete and was buried in HaShalom Forest (Yaldei Israel Garden), Jerusalem. I would like to know if Josephus has any additional information about Caiaphas after the crucifixion of Jesus and up to the death of Caiaphas.

I understand there are state-sanctioned churches in China, but that implies that Bibles in China are edited by the CCP. Would an Anglican Bible be legal, or at least easy, to bring into China?

I am pondering this question and would like other people's help/thoughts. James, the brother of Jesus, author of the Epistle of James and leader of the early Jerusalem church, writes in the book of James, "Faith without works is dead." He clearly sees that faith leads a person to action. Yet, in Acts 21, Paul comes to Jerusalem and James tells Paul to perform the Jewish ritual of purification so that other Jews do not wrongly judge Paul as being anti-law. Paul does what James asks, but the plan does not go well. Paul is nearly killed and is imprisoned. Here is my question - why did James not support Paul when he was arrested? Where is James' faith in action supporting and caring for Paul?

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?

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?

I saw on a YouTube channel a reference to a certain man that interviewed early Christians just about to be crucified. He said he saw only courage in them. Does anyone have a reference to this or know the name of this man?

I had a strange exchange with a user on this forum. They took a view I doubt Thomas Aquinas would have agreed with. They felt that anything that interfered with saying the Mass was persecution. Let me give you two trivial examples where it logically is not and a real-world example where it might be. Imagine a priest, for whatever reason, may be late to say the mass and is hurrying to church. Rather than go to a corner and cross at the light using a crosswalk, the priest walks between two parked vehicles and crosses in the middle of the street. A policeman detains the priest, even though they know why they committed the misdemeanor of jaywalking. The police officer explains that they never make exceptions based on rank or position and that they were to be detained until the officer writes the ticket. The priest is late but does make it to church. Instead, imagine the same priest had lived in a different city and had forgotten to renew their vehicle registration. They are pulled over for a broken tail light. Upon inspection, the police officer impounds the vehicle as it is illegal for it to be driven. The priest never makes it to say the mass. The other person argued that any use of the civil law that interferes with the mass is a persecution of the Christian Church. There is a real-world flip side to this coin. Richard Nixon's former chief of staff admitted in an interview that the actual reason for the war on drugs and the making of certain drugs illegal was to facilitate the arrest of Nixon's political opponents. The law was targeted at blacks and hippies. If they could be blocked from voting by arrests, then Nixon would likely win the election. The language of the law is neutral but clearly written to target people on the basis of race and political affiliation. A law with completely neutral language could be written to target Christian churches. Under Catholic and Orthodox theology, when would a law be considered as persecuting the church? Persecution is not a trivial thing, in my mind, and certainly not a claim to vainly bandied about.

**Do we know how many bishops attending the Council of Nicaea were actual victims of the Roman perscutions?** The Council of Nicaea opened on May 20, 325 AD. > The First Council of Nicaea, the first general council in the history of the Church, was convened by the Roman Emperor Constantine the Great upon the recommendations of a synod led by Bishop Hosius of Corduba in the Eastertide of 325, or rather convened by Hosius and supported by Constantine. > > Constantine had invited all 1,800 bishops of the Christian church within the Roman Empire (about 1,000 in the East and 800 in the West), but a smaller and unknown number attended. Eusebius of Caesarea counted more than 250, Athanasius of Alexandria counted 318, and Eustathius of Antioch estimated "about 270" (all three were present at the Council). Later, Socrates Scholasticus recorded more than 300, and Evagrius, Hilary of Poitiers, Jerome, Dionysius Exiguus, and Rufinus each recorded 318. This number 318 is preserved in the liturgies of the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Coptic Orthodox Church. - [First Council of Nicaea](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea) The Roman perscutions ended with the Edict of Milan in February 313 AD. Do we know how many of the bishops, who attended the Council of Nicaea were persecuted by Roman authorities prior to 313 AD? Someone once told me that some of the bishops who attended the Council had been previously tortured and even mutilated in the Roman Persecutions. There is simply 12 years between the two!

As early as today (April 7 2017) the Supreme Court of Russia may ban the religion of Jehovah's Witnesses. This would make it a criminal offense for Jehovah's Witnesses even to meet together to pray. Additionally all of their properties will be seized by the Government. It is suggested that behind the scenes and even openly the Russian Orthodox Church is responsible for inciting this crack down on freedom of religion in Russia. An article in Christianity Today stated in part : > “A ban on Jehovah’s Witnesses is just the beginning in a series of repressions. Society needs an internal enemy to which the government can point in full cooperation with the Russian Orthodox Church,” Cherenkov said. “The silence of Protestants with regard to repressions against Jehovah’s Witnesses will merely unleash a new wave of restrictions and repressions. Additionally see the article from Forbes entitled "An Un-Holy Alliance" [(Un)Holy Alliance: Vladimir Putin, The Russian Orthodox Church And Russian Exceptionalism](https://m.forbes.com/sites/paulcoyer/2015/05/21/unholy-alliance-vladimir-putin-and-the-russian-orthodox-church/?c=0&s=trending) Is the Russian Orthodox Church actually encouraging such intolerance? Update the Russian government has banned Jehovah's Witnesses as an extremist group. (April 20,2017) See: https://www.google.com/amp/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN17M1ZT

It is relatively easy to find estimates for the number of people killed during the Catholic Inquisition; one just needs to check the Wikipedia page , to see several estimates of the number of people killed. However, there are several historical references to Protestant Inquisition-style tribunals, e.g. in Scotland. Furthermore, there are also historical references showing that even among different Protestant currents, Protestants were killed . I am looking for estimates of how many Christians (Protestants and Catholics) were killed in newly Protestant countries. Please provide references in support of your answer.

It's commonly agreed upon that the Ministry of Jesus lasted at least 3 years. However, the plot to arrest Jesus begins only a few days before his crucifixion according to Matthew 26:1-5. Do we know if Jesus was actively persecuted during his Ministry (and/or earlier in his adult life) by command of either the Roman government or the Jewish leaders at any point other than the few days immediately leading up to his crucifixion?

In the Catholic Church there is a certain mystic aspect regarding to the suffering of Jesus Christ in which often faithful who go trough sufferings, especially for the faith, see their suffering as somehow joining to that of Christ. Very often Matthew 16:24-26 is cited here. Must we all suffer in life?

This post may be considered as a follow-up for a previous post of mine , which unfortunately was closed because it was deemed to lack "details or clarity". Let me try to rephrase my question. What are the most appropriate passages from the Holy Bible that would give comfort and solace to our hapless brothers and sisters, who are languishing as 3rd class citizens, under extreme oppression, in their native lands, and who wonder why they have been forsaken by their more fortunate brothers and sisters?

Was it possible for Catholics to express their faith openly (if at all) in Britain during the time of the of English persecutions (April 29, 1559)-(April 13, 1829)? > On 29 April 1559, the English House of Lords by 33 votes to 12 passed a bill abolishing papal supremacy over the Christian church in England, and establishing the supremacy of the English monarchs over it. Also in April 1559, a bill abolishing the Mass and imposing an English language Book of Common Prayer liturgy passed in the House of Lords by a majority of three and was implemented on 24 June of that year. To refuse to take an oath of belief in royal supremacy over the church became a crime punishable by removal from public office and inability to hold any office. To defend papal authority over the church became punishable in the first offense by loss of goods; the second by imprisonment for life; the third offence was considered treason punishable by death. - The Persecution of Catholics in Elizabethan England The persecution against Catholics officially ended on April 13, 1829. > The Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829, passed by Parliament in 1829, was the culmination of the process of Catholic Emancipation throughout the UK. In Ireland it repealed the Test Act 1672 and the remaining Penal Laws which had been in force since the passing of the Disenfranchising Act of the Irish Parliament of 1728. Its passage followed a vigorous campaign that threatened insurrection led by Irish lawyer Daniel O'Connell. The British leaders, starting with the Prime Minister the Duke of Wellington and his top aide Robert Peel, although personally opposed, gave in to avoid civil strife. Ireland was quiet after the passage. > > The Act permitted members of the Catholic Church to sit in the parliament at Westminster. O'Connell had won a seat in a by-election for Clare in 1828 against an Anglican. Under the then extant penal law, O'Connell as a Roman Catholic, was forbidden to take his seat in Parliament. Sir Robert Peel, the Home Secretary, until then was called "Orange Peel" because he always supported the Orange (anti-Catholic) position. Peel now concluded: "though emancipation was a great danger, civil strife was a greater danger." Fearing a revolution in Ireland, Peel drew up the Catholic Relief Bill and guided it through the House of Commons. To overcome the vehement opposition of both the House of Lords and King George IV, the Duke of Wellington worked tirelessly to ensure passage in the House of Lords, and threatened to resign as Prime Minister if the King did not give Royal Assent. - Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829 (Wikipedia)

I am trying to learn when did things start to go wrong in Christianity and when did it start to change from a peaceful, loving religious group into a movement that engaged in war and physical repression, including executions, in the Middle Ages. Therefore I was wondering who was the first person killed by a Christian, two Christians or a group of Christians due to religious disagreements.

Yes, we all have our own trials, but there are a few Christians who, very obviously, suffer so much more and much more often too (I am not talking about "bad choices" either, so please do not even bring that up). Are these tormented Christians cursed by God? Does satan just have a major vendetta towards them? Are they not "truly" saved? Is God punishing them for small sins, hates them, or what? Not sure how else to ask this, so if any of the Stack Exchange contributors have any suggestions, please let me know.

In Justin Martyr's First Apology Chapter 26, we read: > And whether they perpetrate those fabulous and shameful deeds — the upsetting of the lamp, and promiscuous intercourse, and eating human flesh — we know not; but we do know that they are neither persecuted nor put to death by you, at least on account of their opinions. The context is: >...the devils put forward certain men who said that they themselves were gods; and they were not only not persecuted by you, but even deemed worthy of honours. But these three accusations seemed to have been laid against the Christians, charges which Justin supposed was rather invented by them that probably committed it themselves and then charged to the Christians: "upsetting of the lamp, and promiscuous intercourse, and eating human flesh". The "promiscuous intercourse" evidently referred to incestuous practices and "eating human flesh" to cannibalism which Eusebius confirms were charges laid against Christians,... > And some of our heathen servants also were seized, as the governor had commanded that all of us should be examined publicly. These, being ensnared by Satan, and fearing for themselves the tortures which they beheld the saints endure, and being also urged on by the soldiers, accused us falsely of **Thyestean banquets** and **Œdipodean intercourse**, and of deeds which are not only unlawful for us to speak of or to think, but which we cannot believe were ever done by men. *Ecclesiastical History, V.1.14* Other non-Christian writers also refer to such accusations against the Christians that explains two of these charges in *The First Apology* , but I cannot find a meaningful explanation of what "upsetting of the lamp" means.

So I recently watched a documentary about a new age movement and felt a bit rattled by what I perceived to be some examples of peoples behaving in a way that undermines the common arguments for trusting the gospel accounts. The video was about a new age movement called Breatharianism which basically claims that humans don't need to eat food but can instead subsist on the divine energy within them. While the gurus of this movement certainly did benefit financially and otherwise by promulgating their message which they had to have known was a lie, they also seemed to me at certain points to risk their lives for it. At multiple points, there was evidence that the gurus who claimed to have gone years without eating actually did eat regularly. So they knew what they were saying was a lie. Yet, they several times volunteered to undertake tests to prove this thing they knew was a lie. Even after knowing that some of their followers had died genuinely trying to follow the no eating rule. For instance, the most prominent woman volunteered to be monitored by 60 minutes to ensure she didn't eat for an entire week. The experient was ended by 60 minutes and not by her when the doctor who was monitoring her told her she was in imminent danger of dying. Certainly, it worked out in her favor, she got more publicity for nothing, but it seems as though she was determined to do this thing that she knew very well could have killed her despite the fact she had to know what she believed was a lie. Lots of people say, it's not plausible that the Apostles knowingly lied about seeing Jesus resurrected because of the persecution and eventual death they suffered because of it. It doesn't seem rational to die for a lie. And yet these breatharian people seem to be willing to do so. So what's the difference here?

There is news that [Modi government likely to bring bill to prevent religious conversion in next Parliament session](https://zeenews.india.com/india/modi-government-likely-to-bring-bill-to-prevent-religious-conversion-in-next-parliament-session-2226198.html) There is [currently this plea from persecution relief](https://www.facebook.com/753076218058620/posts/3465904810109067/) and a [petition to be signed](https://www.change.org/p/petition-to-the-prime-minister-to-stop-introducing-freedom-of-religion-bill-alleged-anti-conversion-law-in-india) How have such laws affected Christians in the world in the past? And how would they affect Christians in India? Have such laws caused any type of unity and revival of fellowship among denominations who would not otherwise fellowship with each other in the past in world history?

Everett Ferguson, in [*Church History*, I, 23.I.D](https://books.google.com/books?id=VB_StdsoDV4C&pg=PT498) , discusses the brutality of the crusades in the early 13th century, when Constantinople was sacked. One point I found particularly interesting was a comparison between the persecution then and the harsh anti-religious campaigns of the early 20th century in the USSR: > Memories are long in the East, and Orthodox Christians in the twentieth century affirmed that they had more religious liberty under the Marxists than they did under the crusaders. Wikipedia's article on the [persecution in the Soviet Union](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians_in_the_Soviet_Union) indicates that that was no walk in the park either – tens of thousands of clergy were murdered and many members were sent to labor camps, transforming an openly Christian nation into one with no public expressions of religion. Yet some Eastern Orthodox Christians apparently judged that persecution as preferable to that of the crusades. I'd love to understand why, but to do so I need to know who Ferguson is referring to – **which Orthodox Christians positively compared Marxist persecutions to the crusades?** Was this a statement by an Orthodox church, or a group of clergy, or just a few individuals speaking for themselves?