Check this 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?
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.
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?
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.