Critical Review of Faith

Recently I was asked by someone with whom I debate frequently about religious matters: Do you accept the Bible as written? For me, the answer was easy, because of my interest in Christian and Islamic history. The answer is no. I believe the Christian world requires an honest review of what it means to be a Christian, because what is a “Christian?” Even Jesus claimed to be a Jew.

Regarding accepting the Bible as written, the Old Testament is difficult to assess, mostly because of its antiquity, but also because its authorship is unidentifiable. The New Testament (NT), however, being relatively recent, can be traced. Its authorship can be negatively identified (meaning we know who didn’t write certain books), and its history can be followed.

As such, there are in existence over 5,000 versions of the Bible. There is no question that a man named Jesus existed who put forth profound ideas of love and peace. But there’s also no question that only 17% of Jesus’ teachings cannot be found in Hellenistic and Jewish philosophy pre-dating the birth of Jesus. In other words, 83% of the works attributed to Jesus can be credited to other sources. My personal discovery is not simply a dry mathematical analysis of the Jesus’ works quantified, nor am I suggesting that Jesus plagiarized. I’m suggesting that the four canonized gospels were edited subjectively; they were modified to address a contemporary political issue, and specifically selected for canonization. And, taking it one step further, of the three synoptic gospels, there really is only one source: the mysterious “Q.” So, viewing it academically, only one book of the 80 (or so) gospels makes claims of the Jesus who Christians worship as God. I can’t remember for sure, but I believe Matthew and Mark were adopted from Q, and Luke was written from Matthew (it’s been a while since I researched it). John, the final canonized gospel, is a different story of Jesus altogether.

I focus on the four canonized gospels because those books provide the core of Christian philosophy. Looking at the other books of the NT is where we can find the “Pauline” Christianity. Pauline Christianity is what Paul preached after his conversion when he traveled throughout the Holy Land, Greece, and modern Turkey. And here’s the point of contention: comparing Pauline Christianity with the Gnostic gospels we see quite a divergence from the “original” Christianity.

Since the 300s, Christians have dismissed the Gnostics as heretics, but an academic review of pre-Constantine Christianity shows quite a different form of Christianity, one that taught the unity (versus trinity) of God through the mystic teachings of the Prophet Jesus. Those original followers of Jesus were the Gnostics (from Greek “gnosis,” meaning “knowledge”). Since the Council of Nicaea in 325, the Nicene Creed has formed the basis for post-Constantine Christianity, which survives in various forms today. The pagan emperor Constantine used Christianity for political purposes. He called the Council of Nicaea, but he didn’t accept Christianity until his deathbed. So I oppose the common idea that “error” has crept in to the Bible. No doubt there were minor syntactical copying errors in the early days of hand-copying the Bible, but I attribute the vast differences in the various versions of the Bible to intentional misrepresentation of the teachings of Jesus.

The questionable authorship, the political workings to use the religion, and the need to control the knowledge makes me question the deepest core of Christian faith. Nothing of what I’ve written here even addresses the historical parallels between Egyptian Osiris, Greek Dionysus, and Persian Mithras, all of which pre-dated Jesus, and all of whom were child-kings, were born to virgin mothers on December 25, had twelve disciples, died as martyrs, and ascended to take his throne as lord of the universe. The early Catholics called those ancient religions “Diabolical Mimicry,” which meant that those religions were created by the Devil to confuse people after the birth of Christ to cast doubts as to his role as the Savior. To me, it’s more logical that the Constantine Christians adopted those ancient stories to give credibility to their political version of Christianity.

So, do I accept the Bible as written? No. I believe that the original teachings of Jesus were hijacked by politicians. There are literally almost 80 gospels that explain the life of Jesus, only three of which attest to his divinity (written from a single source), and those became the official “canonized” gospels. The Constantine Christians, who created modern Christian theology, have no credibility.

So what should happen now? If, in fact, the bulk of Christians are worshipping the Christianity of Constantine, modified for fourth-century political movements and Christianized pagan ritual, then Christianity, as a religion, is practicing false worship. Christmas, Easter, and the doctrine of the Trinity are all rooted in pre-Christian pagan worship, and historically have nothing to do with Jesus, regardless of the justification in celebrating such ritual. If Jesus truly was sent by God, Christianity would be wise to heed God's word, not the word of fourth-century pagan politicians. The church should review the history of Jesus' teachings and realign the church with his true teachings. The works of Celsus need to be re-examined. The works of once-revered and now-shunned Origen, who opposed Celsus, should be reviewed. Celsus understood the Hellenistic and Jewish histories and wrote “blasphemously” against Christian theology, when, in reality, he was Christianity’s prime apologist.

So I cannot understand how anyone can accept the Bible as written, with its countless technical flaws and staggering quantity of “revisions.” Man’s Free Will has altered God’s word, and the masses pray to the word of man.

Saddam Swings

The short-sighted politics of George Bush and his loyal supporters were on display today with the hanging of former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. Without the Baath party's regional stability Iran is growing unchecked and Iraq's porous borders are allowing in hordes of fanatical Muslim terrorists to set up new Afghan-style training camps. But this is not news. This is the continuing evolution of a disastrous foreign policy.

So while our nation's vengeance is satisfied by Saddam swinging in the gallows, I hope the conservatives are content because in Saddam's place are now thousands of terrorists waiting to welcome Iran's missiles into their arsenal. So cheer Saddam's death, but remember that 3,000 US soldiers have died in Iraq, and Osama bin Laden still lives.