# 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:** 12\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2017, 5:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-christian-hierarchy-really-believe-in-christianity/783898/121 "2017-04-18T05:10:00Z")
> [@clairobscur](#): > > But the scriptures were written long after that. Who knows how big the differences were between the beliefs of the group you’re refering to and that of the people who converted reading them. > > Besides, Christianism mostly follows the teachings of Paul, and we know there were disagreements between him and the original apostoles. Again, how big were these disagreements? According to a Muslim author, there still was in his time a group of Christian Jews who stated they followed the teachings of Peter only (not the gospels), the entire Jewish Law, and utterly rejected Paul as a fraud, for instance. Current (and even rather early) Christianism might be completely at odds with Jesus actual beliefs. > > Finally, as we know from looking at modern cults, your original group could very well believe in things that were blatantly false, and just ignore any statement to the contrary by direct witnesses. “And Jesus was resurrected” “Hmm…no, his rotting body was still there when my cousin buried another corpse in the tomb” "your cousin is mistaken or lying. Check [this](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=19343163) out, which fascinated me then and still does now. In short, a poster claims that Jesus did something miraculous, and so I ask him for a cite. _“As for Jesus appearing to the guards at the tomb,”_ he confidently replies, _“my cite is Matthew chapter 28.”_ He then posts the big fine quote. That’s how he remembered it, see. That’s how he _still_ remembered it, even with the actual words to the contrary right there in front of him. I don’t know how wrong an illiterate guy can get it from memory decades later – but I know _exactly_ how wrong an educated guy can remember it while he’s looking right at it. To his credit, he realized his error once I emphasized that the text in front of him didn’t actually say that. But my point is: what’s that like for people who _don’t_ have the words right there in front of them? Do they just assert that Jesus did something miraculous, _while genuinely remembering it,_ full stop? ---
**Author:** ![Nava](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/da6949/32.png) [@Nava](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nava)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2017, 5:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-christian-hierarchy-really-believe-in-christianity/783898/122 "2017-04-18T05:53:47Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > But my point is: what’s that like for people who _don’t_ have the words right there in front of them? Do they just assert that Jesus did something miraculous, _while genuinely remembering it,_ full stop? Why wouldn’t they? Have you never been in the situation of someone telling you something that happened to you, and their memory and yours are completely different? I understand it’s a big problem for cops: most people make lousy witnesses. One of the biggest differences between both sides of my family is that one knows the difference between “what I remember” and “what happened”; the other will hold to what they remember even after you show them proof. ---
**Author:** ![Razncain](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/9d8465/32.png) [@Razncain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Razncain)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2017, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-christian-hierarchy-really-believe-in-christianity/783898/123 "2017-04-18T15:50:48Z")
> [@Hector\_St\_Clare](#): > > Since I don’t accept metaphysical naturalism, I think that a disbelief in miracle claims and prophecy- in principle- are false assumptions and in some cases are going to lead you to false conclusions. Have any examples? > [@](#): > > Methodological naturalism is fine to an extent- when studying the natural world, for example- but since the whole claim of the Gospels is that they relate a set of supernatural events, assuming naturalism is, essentially, begging the question. It being a very natural world is more than an assumption, it has a mountain of empirical data to back it up in all of the sciences. What concrete evidence does anybody have that would give supernatural any credence? Do you rate the Gospels as real events? ---
**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 20, 2017, 12:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-christian-hierarchy-really-believe-in-christianity/783898/124 "2017-04-20T12:34:32Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > The Gospel of John is first hand. Wrong. “First Hand” means that Jesus wrote things down himself. Also, there is no proof that the “John” of that “gospel” was the actual disciple John. ---
**Author:** ![Nava](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/da6949/32.png) [@Nava](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nava)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2017, 7:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-christian-hierarchy-really-believe-in-christianity/783898/125 "2017-04-27T07:25:44Z")
> [@igor\_frankensteen](#): > > Wrong. “First Hand” means that Jesus wrote things down himself. No, it includes anybody who happened to be there. It’s a first hand account of the writer’s experience. Plato saying “and then Socrates sent me to the grocery store” is a first hand account; Socrates saying “and then I sent Plato to the grocery store” would also be one. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2017, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-christian-hierarchy-really-believe-in-christianity/783898/126 "2017-04-28T18:20:57Z")
The idea that most Christians are not _sola scriptura_ is true but misleading in an U.S. abortion discussion. Because the majority of denominations that are against abortion in the U.S. do claim to be _sola scriptura_. And because, unlike in the world at large, the majority of Christians in the U.S. are protestant, not Catholic. And _sola scriptura_ is much more common among Protestantism. I would go so far as to say that most pro-lifers in the U.S. are such for religious reasons, and that most of those are in a denomination that claims to be _sola scriptura_. But, even if that’s not true, it’s still sizeable minority. So the concept is still relevant. That said, the trial by ordeal is not an abortificient. The issue is merely that the Bible does not actually state when life begins nor discuss abortion at all. And abortion, with actual abortifacients, was a thing at least by the time of the New Testament. The silence on the issue suggests it was not something of importance, far from the primary issue of Christianity that it is treated as today. And, then, we also have earlier interpretations, which did not believe life started until the “quickening,” and there is nothing inherently about what we’ve learned since that disagrees with this. We knew even back then that there was something in there that became a baby over time, but that something was not seen as alive until it could move enough to be felt. So, to be honest, I believe it fails the “Tradition” test, too. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2017, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-christian-hierarchy-really-believe-in-christianity/783898/127 "2017-04-28T18:39:11Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > The group’s intent was to stone the woman. They went to him, largely it seems to try and trap him into saying the wrong thing. His words send them all away; he then, himself, does not stone the woman. And, like I said, if you’re correct, then he is inaccurate in spreading the word about the new standard which isn’t in effect. If you’re right, then Jesus caused that group of people to break the law; and he, too, broke the law. Is that a sin? > > And, if we’re going to go back to what’s “clear to many”, my impression of the Christians I’ve seen speak about this subject is that they have believed Jesus “prevented” the stoning. There’s a lot packed into that “etc.”. I was under the impression that killing, thievery, adultery, and holding to other gods were still a big problem to Christians. Too, the examples you give aren’t quite accurate; it’s a different Sabbath but it’s kept holy, and my (admittedly loose) understanding of graven images as regards the Catholic Church is that it is not quite as simple put as you put it. Not meting out the proscribed punishment is not breaking a law. That’s just not how laws work. If I see you smoking marijuana and don’t turn you in, I’m not breaking the law. If a cop sees it but decides they don’t want to turn you in, that cop is not breaking the law. Jesus, like everyone else, has the choice not to punish the woman if he doesn’t want to. He didn’t catch her in the act. He doesn’t know this was a legal stoning. Heck, he has reason to believe it isn’t. Because the actual law says that both the adulterer and adulteress are to be stoned. The lack of the adulterer in the act suggests that this isn’t legitimate. And that’s without getting into how Jesus stops them. He doesn’t contradict the Law by saying “You should not stone her.” He, in the common Jewish tradition, uses his wits and speech to get out of a trap. He feels sorry for the woman and doesn’t want her to die, but he also doesn’t want to contradict the Law. The story, whether real or not, is, in context, showing how Jesus is smart and resourceful, like when Moses argued with God or Jacob wrestled with Him. Or when Jacob tricked LaBan or Jael tricked Sisera. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2017, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-christian-hierarchy-really-believe-in-christianity/783898/128 "2017-04-28T18:48:34Z")
I will point out that this does not in any way mean that Jesus was not a reformer, and was not trying to change how the Law was interpreted. He was really, really big on the whole “spirit of the law” thing. He condemned people who mindlessly followed the Law instead of the principles that it espoused. And he hated the whole “hedge around the law” aspect–at least, when it got to the point where the Hedge was treated like the Law. It is true that later Christianity got away from Judaism altogether. Paul argues this is because Judaism refused to accept him, so the Gentiles were “grafted in.” And, even in the gospels, there are allusions to Old Testament scripture that shows that the Jewish people may have been “Chosen,” but they were also supposed to be a light to the world. And I will again point out that this disagreement was not just Paul’s, but one that was a disagreement in the early church, with a compromise completely ironed out. Paul would preach to the Gentiles, who Peter confirmed could also be Christians, while the Judaizers would stick with their own. Paul is explicitly allowed to do this by the group–he does not just go off on his own. And he makes his appeals using the Jewish Scripture he knows. And, while he will sometimes condemn the “super-apostles,” he does also say that there is only one God, and you should follow Him, and not these separate groups. He just argues that the “super-apostles” are no better than he is. The idea that Paul unilaterally changed Christianity is just untrue. He brought in some new ideas, yes. But they became part of the Church as a whole. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2017, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-christian-hierarchy-really-believe-in-christianity/783898/129 "2017-04-28T18:49:44Z")
As for the OP’s question: most clergy do very much believe what they teach, while some don’t. The most prominent “hierarchy,” the Catholic clergy, definitely tend to believe what they preach. The Pope most certainly does. ---
**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 28, 2017, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-christian-hierarchy-really-believe-in-christianity/783898/130 "2017-04-28T22:15:22Z")
> [@Nava](#): > > No, it includes anybody who happened to be there. It’s a first hand account of the writer’s experience. Plato saying “and then Socrates sent me to the grocery store” is a first hand account; Socrates saying “and then I sent Plato to the grocery store” would also be one. The fact that probably none of the Evangelists actually wrote the Gospels named for them is a rather more important problem for “first-hand” accounts. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2017, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-christian-hierarchy-really-believe-in-christianity/783898/131 "2017-04-28T22:48:19Z")
> [@jayjay](#): > > The fact that probably none of the Evangelists actually wrote the Gospels named for them is a rather more important problem for “first-hand” accounts. Again, that is highly debated for John. Next Mark is possibly John Mark, a companion and interpreter of the Apostle Peter, _not_ the Apostle Mark. If someone wanted to make up a Gospel and put a Apostle name on it, it would be Peter, not this complete unknown “Mark”. Same for Luke. The tradition that they are the authors goes back as far as we know. > **[How Do We Know Who Wrote the Gospels in the New Testament?](https://www.timothypauljones.com/apologetics-how-do-we-know-who-wrote-the-gospels-2/)** > > Have you ever wondered who wrote the Gospels in the New Testament? Was it really Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John? Or could these texts have been anonymous? [http://crossexamined.org/wrote-gospels-2/](http://crossexamined.org/wrote-gospels-2/) ---
**Author:** ![Ulfreida](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ulfreida/32/8014_2.png) [@Ulfreida](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ulfreida)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2017, 2:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-christian-hierarchy-really-believe-in-christianity/783898/132 "2017-04-30T02:48:24Z")
> [@ZPG\_Zealot](#): > > I suspect for the Roman Catholic Church simply lack of manpower combined with the increasing age of the priest/missionary population may be the primary reason there are less large scale missions to proselytize among non-Christian nations. Another is the ramifications of such activities in places where the civil authorities are not favorable to missionaries. The friars that colonized Central and South America had an empire behind them. Protestant missionaries in Africa and India were strongest during the eras when the sun never sat on the British Empire. The aging priesthood is much more of a problem in first world countries. Most of the Catholic population is not in first world countries any more. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-christian-hierarchy-really-believe-in-christianity/783898.md?page=6)