# Does the Christian hierarchy really believe in Christianity? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 6, 2017, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-christian-hierarchy-really-believe-in-christianity/783898 "2017-04-06T16:54:04Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![constanze](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f9ae1b/32.png) [@constanze](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/constanze)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2017, 8:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-christian-hierarchy-really-believe-in-christianity/783898/61 "2017-04-10T08:28:10Z")
> [@Hector\_St\_Clare](#): > > I don’t know what the Old Testament may or may not have said about abortion, … > > I don’t know for sure if Jesus said anything explicitly about abortion, but given how old, well attested and (at least for the first thousand years or so) unanimous the “abortion = murder” belief was, I would be surprised if it didn’t date back to Jesus. You Need to define what Counts as abortion back then, and what’s considered abortion today. A lot of US fundies consider the “after-pill” as abortion, despite it not medically being abortion. Many argue against condoms with the same reasons as against abortions (a relative new development (see here [http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2012/02/18/the-biblical-view-thats-younger-than-the-happy-meal/](http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2012/02/18/the-biblical-view-thats-younger-than-the-happy-meal/) how translations of the Bible were changed to reflect a Change in attitude). Back in the times of OT and Jesus, not many reliable abortifacients were known, and there were no pregnancy tests, either. So by the time the mother noticed, and tried to Abort, the Embryo would already be far along. In many societies of that time (and medical development) a Baby could be “aborted” immediately after birth, too. And if there was any medical Problem during pregnancy, a safe abortion was not really an Option at all, since every surgery had the risk of death from infection. Today’s medical practice makes both prevention of pregnancy in the first place and legal abortion, when necessary, much safer for the mother than previous methods. Today, most Christians no longer believe that a women without children has been punished by God, or that it’s the duty of every woman to give birth because she might bear Messiah. We already have billions of People on this earth; a lot of Christians recognize that responsible parenting means limiting the amount of mouths to feed, clothe and educate. A lot of Christians recognize that if medically or emotionally the mother’s life is in danger through pregnancy, then abortion is the lesser evil than letting both die. ---
**Author:** ![constanze](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f9ae1b/32.png) [@constanze](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/constanze)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2017, 8:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-christian-hierarchy-really-believe-in-christianity/783898/62 "2017-04-10T08:49:43Z")
> [@Hector\_St\_Clare](#): > > 1. Jesus said that the law stood until “all was finished”, but you can make a good case that that happened with his death (and it’s not clear why the Mosaic law would ever have applied to gentile Christians anyway). Actually, if you read beyond the four evangelions (which never Claim to contain all the words of Jesus) into the History of Apostles and the letters, you see that the very new Church struggled quite a lot with the Problem of having a visionary Idealist calling for repentance and how to apply that to real life. (I’ve heard that’s a criticism that several Jewish Rabbis have made against Jesus: his teachings and commandements are so otherwordly that they cannot be applied in this world, meaning People fail all the time, whereas the Jewish Rabbis usually tried to make rules that People could actually Keep.) One of the questions for the New Church was: Is it necessary to become a Jew first (including circumcision) and follow the whole law, and then becoming a Christian on top, or could one stay Gentile (without circumcision) and convert only to Christianity? History of Apostles has that passage about Petrus having a Vision about unclean things and deciding it apples to Gentile People (see [http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2014/02/10/erick-erickson-says-that-the-apostle-peter-is-an-idiot-who-doesnt-understand-the-vision-god-gave-to-the-apostle-peter/](http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2014/02/10/erick-erickson-says-that-the-apostle-peter-is-an-idiot-who-doesnt-understand-the-vision-god-gave-to-the-apostle-peter/) an Explanation here, with links at the bottom. Also [http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2012/05/29/p-s-please-dont-eat-the-chimpanzee/](http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2012/05/29/p-s-please-dont-eat-the-chimpanzee/)). This basically settled the question, and soon the Gentile-Christians outnumbered the Jewish questions, influencing the direction of Anti-Semitism that then cropped up. It’s interesting to speculate that if conversion to Judaism first stayed as requirment, because Jeschua was a Jew and didn’t want a new church, how Christianity would have stayed a minor sub-sect of Judaism instead of developing into a Group big enough to become important for a Roman emperor to woo. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2017, 10:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-christian-hierarchy-really-believe-in-christianity/783898/63 "2017-04-10T10:46:49Z")
> [@constanze](#): > > And regarding divorce: the context is that learning about the conditions at that time, if a man divorced a woman, she was both without financial Support (no alimony or Splitting the wealth back then) and shamed. That’s e.g. the reason why the OT considers it just to require a rapist to marry the woman he raped. In some instances, it might have been two Lovers whose parents disagreed and used a loophole; in many other cases it would have been real rape, but the OT doesn’t care about what the woman feels, only that by marrying her and not being allowed to divorce her, the woman is provided for financially. I don’t sense that you’re going to be much swayed by a quote-off, for most of your other points (i.e. the things I did not quote from your post). I would agree that any position can be argued using the Bible, and it’s really up to others to run the various arguments through a **complete** read of the work (not accepting the quote as given, outside of the context it is in) to decide which arguer has a stronger argument. But as regards your statement above, I have to say that this is a silly argument. God has mandated that people cut parts off their bodies, go to war, execute people, change their diet, provided a full legal system, etc. and yet he is unable to mandate things like, oh say, gender equality? How is that just one step too far for a guy who can drown the Earth in water if you piss him off to be able to convince his followers to swallow? How did “Chop pieces off of your willy” rank as a far more essential rule to lay out before “All humans are created equally before me.” Or, to move into the New Testament, how did “Though shall not put a market in front of the Temple” rank higher? ---
**Author:** ![igor\_frankensteen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/839c29/32.png) [@igor\_frankensteen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/igor_frankensteen)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2017, 11:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-christian-hierarchy-really-believe-in-christianity/783898/64 "2017-04-10T11:57:17Z")
Okay, starting back at the opening post and the technical reason for the thread, what the OP is actually asking, isn’t accurately reflected in the title question. What is actually asked in the body of the opening text is, “Does the Christian Hierarchy Really Believe in MY PERSONAL version of what Christianity is about?” Pretty much all the rest of the complicated posts in reaction, are either alternate versions of the same mistake, or excessively detailed arguments about someone else’s version. One small point: there IS no “Historical Jesus” to refer back to for confirmation of anything. There are only second and third person writings by people who claim to know. That means that even the earliest writings, are themselves the personal INTERPRETATION of what Jesus was about, and not actual statements of fact. But back to the opening poster’s personal idea of what the most important core belief is, that Christianity isn’t Christianity unless it’s focused around direct and unthinking worship of Jesus. Even THAT requires that the OP be the one in charge of deciding exactly who is, and who is not proving that they worship accurately. That’s the problem with all such interpreted religion. Finally, even if we start by blindly accepting that one particular translation of the supposed sayings of Jesus are entirely accurate, the one that the OP focuses on ( the " “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” passage), there are no details provided as to HOW that “through” works. The OP clearly wants the exact METHOD of following that idea, to consist of all Christians actively pushing any non-Christians to knuckle under. But there’s nothing to support that idea, in the existing faithfully accepted texts. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2017, 12:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-christian-hierarchy-really-believe-in-christianity/783898/65 "2017-04-10T12:05:43Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > I believe Catholic doctrine is that people who never had a chance to learn about Jesus are not held responsible for not believing in him. They can receive salvation as long as they live otherwise virtuous lives. > > But if you’re aware of Jesus and reject him, then you’re held accountable for that choice. That’s denial of Jesus rather than just ignorance. Yes, but it requires more than just having heard of him and refusing to believe. It’s _knowing_ that god died for your sins, etc… and still deciding to reject him. But if you’re aware of him, as in some preacher told you about him but you didn’t give a shit because you’re hindouist/atheist/whatever, you aren’t necessarily doomed. Basically you need to already have faith for this rejection to guarantee a warm place in hell. And not just lose this faith, but stubbornly reject god despite still believing in him. Which probably doesn’t apply to many people. Essentially, that would be what Satan supposedly did. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2017, 12:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-christian-hierarchy-really-believe-in-christianity/783898/66 "2017-04-10T12:24:07Z")
> [@aldiboronti](#): > > So Jesus is necessary for salvation but you don’t have to believe that he is? By that yardstick the whole population of the world is Christian. Nope. If you don’t believe in Jesus, you aren’t Cristian. But it’s not necessary to be Christian to be saved. As I said, the RCC doesn’t presume to know who isn’t saved (although somehow it presumes to know who is : see beatification, etc…) > [@](#): > > That “in some sense” of course potentially opens the doors wide to people of all faiths and if that is indeed Catholic doctrine then the main premiss of my OP is wrong, at least when it comes to the RCs. That’s indeed the current Catholic doctrine. [QUOTE= RCC Cathechism] “Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.” 847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church: “Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.” [/QUOTE] ---
**Author:** ![constanze](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f9ae1b/32.png) [@constanze](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/constanze)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2017, 12:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-christian-hierarchy-really-believe-in-christianity/783898/67 "2017-04-10T12:47:21Z")
> [@clairobscur](#): > > That’s indeed the current Catholic doctrine. Emphasis on current. It used to be that “anybody who doesn’t believe the exact Dogmas the RCC teaches (which includes all protestants, and possibly the orthodox) is a heretic and will go to hell.” It’s nice that they have mellowed. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2017, 12:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-christian-hierarchy-really-believe-in-christianity/783898/68 "2017-04-10T12:51:45Z")
> [@aldiboronti](#): > > I may be under a misapprehension then. I assumed (even though I know assumptions are dangerous) that people who prayed five times a day were more zealous than Christians for most of whom once a week is ample. Praying five times a day might be an evidence of zelotry, but you first have to make the assumption that Muslims actually pray five times a day. Those I know don’t. In fact, I’m not convinced they pray even once a week. Of course, I’m not living in a predominantly Muslim country, but I somehow doubt that the overall %age of Muslims actually praying 5 times/day is that high. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2017, 1:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-christian-hierarchy-really-believe-in-christianity/783898/69 "2017-04-10T13:08:45Z")
nm ---
**Author:** ![constanze](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f9ae1b/32.png) [@constanze](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/constanze)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2017, 1:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-christian-hierarchy-really-believe-in-christianity/783898/70 "2017-04-10T13:14:31Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > But as regards your statement above, I have to say that this is a silly argument. God has mandated that people cut parts off their bodies, go to war, execute people, change their diet, provided a full legal system, etc. and yet he is unable to mandate things like, oh say, gender equality? How is that just one step too far for a guy who can drown the Earth in water if you piss him off to be able to convince his followers to swallow? How did “Chop pieces off of your willy” rank as a far more essential rule to lay out before “All humans are created equally before me.” Or, to move into the New Testament, how did “Though shall not put a market in front of the Temple” rank higher? Depends on what Tradition of Interpretation you are following. Those who follow the “KJV only” Tradition don’t even bother to think of the Problems reading a translated Version of the holy text, and how each Translation is an Interpretation, or that the text is over 2000 years old and belongs into a different culture. Shakespeare Plays, who wrote in English, usually have and added booklet explaining what some words meant back then, or the context of beliefs in his Age, and that’s only a few centuries ago. Most critical Bible scholars therefore are interested in researching and finding out the context of Biblical Society, to put things into context. Only People who don’t are about context, and wilfully disregard culture and Age and how much societies Change, will Claim that the text can applied without any changes to a completly different Society. Most modern Protestant Groups however went through a gradual Evolution over the centuries as the Society they lived in recognized that certain things that used to praised (killing your enemies to take their land, their cattle and their women as slaves!) or considered normal (Slavery, women as second-class citizens) were not ok, and Churches changed their Interpretation into “That was normal then, but we know better know and don’t do that any longer”. The Bible never outright condemns slavery. The OT accepts slavery as normal. The OT has the famous Philemon letter, which was used as Argument for slavery for centuries by US Churches, because if Paul / God was against slavery, he would have said explicity so at this opportunity - although anybody without preconceived notions reading that Comes to the conclusion that while Paul didn’t call to abolish that System overnight, he makes it very clear that Christians should set their slaves free, and he’s coming over to check up on it! He could order Philemon to set Onesimus free, but considers it better for Philemon’s Soul to do so voluntarily, so that’s why he’s giving him the Chance to do the right Thing. (Paul also never mentions why Onesimus ran away: was Onesimus a lazy bugger and Philemon a good master, or was Philemon cruel and Onesimus rightful? Paul doesn’t care.). [http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2012/10/11/the-book-of-philemon-does-not-defend-slavery/](http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2012/10/11/the-book-of-philemon-does-not-defend-slavery/) And yet, today only the fringest of fringe Group Christians Claim that God is in favour of slavery, when it was Mainstream theology a few centuries ago. [http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2014/07/09/whatever-happened-to-the-clobber-texts-for-slavery-unlearning-the-lies-contd/](http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2014/07/09/whatever-happened-to-the-clobber-texts-for-slavery-unlearning-the-lies-contd/) So there are a lot of things that a truly all-knowing, all-merciful God could have written into his holy texts. The usual Explanation is that (unlike the Quran) the Bible was never dictated word for word. Some prophets heard a voice - which is made explicit with certain phrases - and a lot is just told without saying how much was filtered through the minds of the People who wrote the stories down. Maybe God was sitting on his throne, calling down, and ripping out his White beard in Frustration over how the People in this primitve Society were getting every Thing wrong because they couldn’t wrap their heads around it. We don’t know, it’s never said. ---
**Author:** ![Nava](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/da6949/32.png) [@Nava](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nava)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2017, 1:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-christian-hierarchy-really-believe-in-christianity/783898/71 "2017-04-10T13:15:17Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > So, Jesus saved everyone and you won’t be punished for not believing that he did? > > If that’s the case then Catholicism has considerably risen in my esteem. The way the reasoning went in a 10th grade class where the Father barely had to do any speaking was, “are you saying that God can’t save anybody who died before He himself did? 😛 Abraham and David and all those prophets, they’re in Hell because of being born too early, really?” “Eh, uh… Huh. Oh. I guess that wouldn’t make a lot of sense, right.” I understand the official version includes more Latin, but that’s about the gist of it. Add more subtlety along the lines of “it’s not the same thing to not know than to reject” and a leavening of “don’t tell God how to do His job”. ---
**Author:** ![constanze](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f9ae1b/32.png) [@constanze](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/constanze)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2017, 1:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-christian-hierarchy-really-believe-in-christianity/783898/72 "2017-04-10T13:20:49Z")
> [@clairobscur](#): > > Praying five times a day might be an evidence of zelotry, but you first have to make the assumption that Muslims actually pray five times a day. Those I know don’t. In fact, I’m not convinced they pray even once a week. Of course, I’m not living in a predominantly Muslim country, but I somehow doubt that the overall %age of Muslims actually praying 5 times/day is that high. I’ve heard that the practical reason for Mohammed instituting the “Five times a day” rule was because in the friggin hot desert, having regular breaks is a good idea to prevent Exhaustion. Anyway, one of the five pillars of Islam is daily prayer [Five Pillars of Islam - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Pillars_of_Islam#Salat:_Prayer), whereas Christianity has no commonly-agreed on pillars. And given that the prayers, along with the movements, are formalized, I doubt that most of those muslims who perform are more zealous than those millions of old ladies who go to Sunday Service because “that’s what done” and live normal lifes the rest of their week. ---
**Author:** ![constanze](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f9ae1b/32.png) [@constanze](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/constanze)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2017, 1:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-christian-hierarchy-really-believe-in-christianity/783898/73 "2017-04-10T13:23:02Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > I don’t sense that you’re going to be much swayed by a quote-off, for most of your other points (i.e. the things I did not quote from your post). Yes, because I don’t read the Bible by cherry-picking quotes. I use some quotes to illustrate a theme that repeats, but as (Lutheran Protestant) I believe I’m called onto using my mind to read intelligently and decide for myself where my conscience is; and today, with over a 100 years of critical Bible study, reading what scholars have found out to better understand the context. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2017, 2:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-christian-hierarchy-really-believe-in-christianity/783898/74 "2017-04-10T14:21:12Z")
> [@Hector\_St\_Clare](#): > > It’s irrelevant anyway: the Old Testament here is wrong, as it’s wrong in many other places (either intellectually, morally or theologically). The writers of the Old Testament would have utterly rejected the concept of a Trinity, and had many other views that Christianity has soundly rejected (in some cases Jesus himself- he didn’t follow the injunctions about shunning lepers, after all). Your error here is that you’re suggesting that Christianity is founded on the Bible (= Old Testament plus New Testament). This is clearly not the case since there have been Christian groups since the first century who rejected the Old Testament (the Marcionites and their followers), and also since Christianity existed for at least four decades _before there was a New Testament_. What did they have to go on, for those four decades? Tradition. > > The teaching against abortion doesn’t _derive from_ the Apocalypse of Peter, there are plenty of other early Christian sources (all extra-biblical) that suggest Christians were more or less agreed about when life began and that killing an unborn human being was homicide. (Probably the best citation here is Clement of Alexandria). I cite the _Apocalypse_ as an example of what early Christians believed, and it’s a pretty good example: it was included in the earliest drafts of the New Testament and was dropped on the basis of late date and uncertain authorship, not on the basis of its teaching. My point here isn’t to cite the Apocalypse as an example of what God dictated to the author (that isn’t my view of inspiration anyway), it’s to cite it as an example of what was broadly held Christian belief within seven or eight decades of the death of Christ. > > So you’re basically suggesting here that scripture is a more reliable source for “Christianity” than tradition, or alternatively that Christianity is founded on the Old and New Testament and that later traditions got accreted on top of that. I don’t think that is either a historically or logically supportable view, and it’s certainly not the view held by the Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican or Methodist churches, or for that matter by me speaking from my heterodox, Gnosticism-influenced personal viewpoint. The Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican and Methodist churches all treat tradition as a source of truth alongside of scripture. Luther and the churches derived from him disagree, obviously. But it’s not clear why the Lutheran view would be correct. > > From a “neutral” viewpoint, speaking outside of any church communion, if Christianity is rooted in anything it ought to be rooted in the life of Jesus. What do you think is a more reliable guide to what Jesus believed: a text written maybe a thousand years before, or a series of texts written by purported followers of Jesus within decades or centuries of his death? While it’s true that there’s a spectrum in Christianity about how much value should be given to tradition, ranging from the Catholics (a lot) to the Lutherans (very little), this is the first time I’ve come across anyone who puts tradition ahead of scripture. I think every major branch of Christianity give the scriptures primary authority and see other sources like tradition as something which supplement the scriptures. And let’s not isolate Jesus too much from God. Paradoxical as it can sometimes be, Christians believe Jesus is God. Which means Jesus/God spoke through Exodus just as much as he did through the Gospels. ---
**Author:** ![aldiboronti](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9fc348/32.png) [@aldiboronti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aldiboronti)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2017, 2:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-christian-hierarchy-really-believe-in-christianity/783898/75 "2017-04-10T14:41:41Z")
> [@clairobscur](#): > > Praying five times a day might be an evidence of zelotry, but you first have to make the assumption that Muslims actually pray five times a day. Those I know don’t. In fact, I’m not convinced they pray even once a week. Of course, I’m not living in a predominantly Muslim country, but I somehow doubt that the overall %age of Muslims actually praying 5 times/day is that high. I did wonder about that, whether most Muslims actually do pray five times a day. It’s one of those things that you see and take as read when in fact it may not be true at all. I’m learning a great deal from this thread. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2017, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-christian-hierarchy-really-believe-in-christianity/783898/76 "2017-04-10T16:38:32Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > Are you content to have your standard of evidence be what’s “clear to many”? > > Your certain “and he doesn’t do that either” is an argument that your cite doesn’t back up. At best, it throws uncertainty into the mix. No, he didn’t. He stopped\*\* a\*\* stoning. Are you comfortable taking a single example of Jesus’ actions as a statement on all situations of that type? I think that would lead to further problems. I am very comfortable with it. Christain and religious scholars agree with me and disagree with you. In any case, stoning and other means of capital punishment were common and not cruel in that day, all the way thru 18th century Europe. But after the Death and Resurrection of Jesus, Christians had a New Covenant, freeing them from OT law. So, Christians, since Ad33 or so, no longer have to stone. Your entire argument is specious and based upon general ignorance of Christian theology and Morality. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2017, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-christian-hierarchy-really-believe-in-christianity/783898/77 "2017-04-10T16:41:47Z")
> [@igor\_frankensteen](#): > > One small point: there IS no “Historical Jesus” to refer back to for confirmation of anything. There are only second and third person writings by people who claim to know. That means that even the earliest writings, are themselves the personal INTERPRETATION of what Jesus was about, and not actual statements of fact. > . The Gospel of John is first hand. ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2017, 11:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-christian-hierarchy-really-believe-in-christianity/783898/78 "2017-04-10T23:45:45Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > The Gospel of John is first hand. Evidence/proof? ETA: Preferably evidence/proof that isn’t derived from the Gospel of John claiming first-handness for itself. ---
**Author:** ![constanze](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f9ae1b/32.png) [@constanze](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/constanze)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2017, 9:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-christian-hierarchy-really-believe-in-christianity/783898/79 "2017-04-11T09:09:11Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > The Gospel of John is first hand. Seriously? The one Gospel that’s least interested in Facts and all about theology and spirituality is what you call first Hand? > [@](#): > > The Gospel of John is anonymous. Traditionally, Christians have identified the author as “the Disciple whom Jesus loved” mentioned in John 21:24,[15] who is understood to be John son of Zebedee, one of Jesus’ Twelve Apostles. These identifications, however, are rejected by the majority of modern biblical scholars.[1][16][Notes 5] Nevertheless, the author of the fourth Gospel is sometimes called John the Evangelist, often out of convenience since the true name of the author remains unknown. [Gospel of John - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_John) That’s aside from the question of when it was written, if an eyewitness could still have been alive. People back then not only didn’t understand “eyewitness” or first Hand accounts as we do today after scientific Revolution and method. They also were not writing Police reports or giving evidence at Trial. They were writing pamphlets to convince People that this guy called Jeschua from Nazareth was really awesome, here’s what he did and said. There was no Intention of objectivity. ---
**Author:** ![Nava](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/da6949/32.png) [@Nava](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nava)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2017, 9:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-christian-hierarchy-really-believe-in-christianity/783898/80 "2017-04-11T09:19:15Z")
“First hand” doesn’t mean “factual”, it means “reported by someone who was actually there”. My uncle’s memoirs contain details which his siblings contested: that doesn’t make them any less first hand. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-christian-hierarchy-really-believe-in-christianity/783898.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-christian-hierarchy-really-believe-in-christianity/783898.md?page=5)