From Belief to Understanding

Hear me out before you curse me. Before you accuse me of blasphemy, be sure that I indeed blaspheme. I mean no offense, but as a former Christian believer, I feel it somewhat needful that I share the story of my struggle with Christian fundamentalism. As I said before, I am a former Christian believer. I never stopped believing in God, only in man's ability to accurately relay God's message. In fact I have come to know God even better since I stopped believing in God the way I had been taught to.

I was born to a Baptist mother and a Pentecostal father. At the age of 17, I voluntarily joined a local independent Church of Christ and became a devout believer and follower of Christianity. It was during this phase that I encountered the first evidence of my ignorance. Because of the doctrinal differences between the Church of Christ and my grandfather's Pentecostal Temple, I was ostracized by my family and told that I was now hell-bound because of my chosen faith. Even though my beliefs were biblical, just as my grandfather's was, according to him I was no longer welcome into heaven. From then on family conversations about religion were off limits. Over time, I drifted away from my fervent devotion while questioning the logic of what my grandfather had said to me.

How could it be that I was now hell-bound because my beliefs had changed? Who was right? Who was wrong? These questions plagued my mind for a number of years. I never did loose faith in God, only in the religion I had believed in and the book used to teach me. I was a confused young man in my mid 20s, grappling with the question of religion. Alone.

Then I discovered the Internet. I began to research the history of the bible. Attempting to share my discoveries, I was accused by many Christians of being misled by the devil, and cautioned that my investigative forays into religious history and the forbidden 'apocrypha' or 'hidden' books were dangerous, and would likely only confuse me further.

I didn't listen. I'm glad I didn't. My studies continued to advance. Each new discovery was more amazing than the last. I was shocked to realize how much ignorance I had about my religion and the bible itself. But as it is written in John 8:32, "...ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." It freed me indeed.

Christianity teaches that the bible is the 'inspired' word of God. That every word in the bible came from God and is holy, perfect, and infallible. I agree with the former in spirit, but the latter I disagree with to the letter. The bible, as a matter of historical fact, was canonized by the fledgling Roman Catholic or 'Universal' Church. The so called 'protestant' bible-most often the King James Authorized Version-differs from the original Catholic bible in that it contains a total of 66 books, whereas Catholic bibles contain 73.

The reason for this is known as the protestant movement. Martin Luther, a German friar, opposed what he felt to be the Roman Church's unethical practice of selling heavenly indulgences. He launched the first salvo of his 'protestant movement' with the posting of '95 Theses' on a church door, or so the story goes. He later translated the Old and New Testament into German, beginning the first real effort to put the bible into the hands of the common man.

His efforts were rewarded with his excommunication from the Roman Catholic Church. But it was also the beginning of his own version of Christian faith- Lutheranism, the first protestant denomination of Christianity of more than 30,000 today. Amazing when you consider that the New Testament teaches in 1 Corinthians 1:10 that there should be no division among Christian churchgoers. That they should all be of the same mind and judgment.

In comes my conversion to the Church of Christ and the cause of the disagreement between my family and I. Church of Christ members believe themselves to be the only 'true' Christian church because of their literal interpretation and adherence to the New Testament. This was the problem my grandfather had with my new Christian belief. It excluded every other church from biblical salvation.

It was quite the controversy in my family circle. My grandfather's church, like many denominational churches, do not agree with all New Testament teachings. Many allow women to preach, in opposition to Paul's instructions in 1 Timothy 2:12. Some ignore Peter's instruction in Acts 2:38, teaching that baptism is not necessary for salvation. That the proclamation of certain beliefs about Jesus is enough (Romans 10;9), as Paul instructs. Now logically, at least to me, such discrepancies indicated that somewhere something was wrong.

For the believer, it is an assumed fact that the bible is the inspired word of God. But the claim that the apostles were 'holy spirit inspired' writers suffers from two flaws of note. First, this was a claim put forward by the New Testament writers themselves, and not something spoken of or even alluded to by Jesus.

Secondly, God spoke directly to humanity by way of individuals chosen specifically for that purpose. They were called the prophets (or spokespersons) of God and they wrote down the details of God's revelations because they were instructed by God to do so. These were the very words, warnings and prophecies of YAHWEH (the Name of God).

Furthermore, the holy spirit was not sent to guide the apostles in the writing of gospels, but to remind them of the things Jesus had said to them, and 'to teach them all things' (John 14:26). It did not confer inspiration to the apostles or anyone else. Jesus was very clear about the purpose of the holy spirit.

Here is where I need you to pay close attention to what I'm saying: Understand that the only true and literal word of God to be found in the bible are those words spoken by the Prophets (or spokespersons) Of God and attributed to Yahweh. The 'apostles' (or messengers) were not spokespersons for God, but individuals sent out by Jesus with instructions to spread the 'gospel' (or good news) that the Messiah of Israel had been revealed.

Some theologians try to overcome this obstacle by quoting the Old Testament scripture of Joel 2; 28,29 which says: "And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions. And also upon the servants and upon the handmaids in those days will I pour out my spirit."

Key point number one: According to most popular sources, all the apostles were male. Key point number two: None of the apostles actually prophesied. That is, none of them relayed to the people words revealed to them by God.

In the Old Testament, the words of God were clearly established. The apostles, however, were retelling the details of events they were supposed to have witnessed. With a few minor exceptions. For example Luke was notan apostle oran eye-witness. He was the companion and faithful servant of Paul. Luke is also said to have written the book of Acts. Even so, why include his gospel and book of Acts in the Roman Catholic's New Testament canon when he was not a part of the events taking place?

Furthermore, Paul never met Jesus, and when he began his ministry he hadn't even met the apostles. The mysterious Luke is the cotter pin that connects Paul's of Tarsus-the original Christian persecutor-to the story of Jesus. Luke's inclusion of Paul's conversion in his book of Acts is the only thing connecting Paul to Jesus.

Paul is said to have had a vision in Acts 9,3 resulting in his conversion a persecutor of Christians into a preacher of Christianity. But Paul got his conversion story wrong. Or Luke did. Because in Acts 9;7 the men with Paul heard a voice, but saw no light, and in Acts 22;9, the men with Paul saw the light, but heard no voice.

Paul wrote most of the books of the New Testament and his epistles contain all the instructions needed to manage and operate a New Testament church. Without Paul, the Christian church as we know it today would cease to exist because the very meat and bones of Christian theology would be absent.

Pop question: What credibility does Luke have? What credibility does Paul have?

If you believe the New Testament to be inspired by God or that the Roman Catholic Church's decision to canonize the Gospel of Luke and Acts, then these two have all the credibility they need. But understanding that it was not God who determined what books would and would not be a part of the bible brings up this question. Why include Paul and Luke, while excluding the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of the Hebrews?

A short bible study would clearly show that Paul's teachings diverge significantly from Jesus'. Jesus pointed to the Law and Yahweh as the key to eternal life (Matt 19,17). Paul teaches that Jesus is your salvation (Rom 10,9). Maybe you were unaware of this biblical conflict. At any rate, Jesus left off creating a literal and physical church. His was a spiritual one (John 3,5-8) tied into obedience to the ten commandments (Matt 5,17-20), through which one was able to enter the Kingdom of God (Yahweh).

At this point I began to understand that much of the conflict between Christian churches had at its heart the epistles of Paul. Something that has dawned on me that I feel the need to share now is this: I do not question the devotion of Christian believers or their faith. Devotion to God is devotion to God. At any rate, the righteous and the wicked will be separated by their works (Rev 20,12-13) and not their beliefs. An individual's devotion to God will be his or her own legacy.

To conclude, the future parts of this article are intended to further compare the teachings of Jesus with the teachings of Paul, introduce God's position as the original authority on instructions for living righteously and to contrast God's words to mankind with the common teachings of Christianity. Stay tuned, please, and thanks for reading.