|
|
Architects of the Faith
The
Religion of Moses and Paul
Copyright (c) 2003. Jay Ketcherside. All Rights Reserved.
Introduction
While being indoctrinated into Christianity, most people accept what
they are told by their parents, Sunday School teachers, and witnesses of
the faith: that Christianity (and Judaism before it) is the true
religion of the Creator, and that its canon, the Holy Bible, is not only
the chronicle of supernatural influence over the lives of those
following that path, but that it is the Holy Word breathed by God
himself.
Taking on such beliefs requires only faith, the substance that humans
around the world freely hand over in the search to belong to something
"greater." But when examining this canon and its teachings without
"blood-tinged" glasses, there are some interesting facts that seem to
rise to the surface -- when looking at this entity we call Christianity
from a distance, not focusing on the details. When step back and look at
the "broader picture," it not only becomes a collection of histories,
genealogies, prophecies, biographies, poetry and teachings, it can also
be seen as a patchwork quilt: a strange mixture of the mythologies,
tragedies, promises, curses, and -- oddly enough -- personalities. Each
one of these characteristics create the whole, and they don't entirely
make a lot of sense, and don't always seem to fit in a particular order
-- but neither did my grandmother's beautiful quilts.
What is strange about this mixture is the personalities that rise to the
top. What is interesting about the whole matter is not the
accomplishment and achievement of those mentioned, but the personalities
that aren't represented in proportion to their position in the belief
structure. And with those that are extremely important to the framework
of the Bible -- there are some interesting realities in relation to
their presence.
Moses: Prince of Egypt
The Old Testament is the foundation of all things Jewish, Christian, and
Muslim. It goes beyond just laying the basics for these religious
faiths: it explains the origin of man -- as a creation of the One
Creator God, and the relationship between humanity and the God they must
serve. It illustrates the history of the Jews from the family of Abraham
being "chosen," through their nationhood and demise. It contains poetry
from two of this nation's most important kings, and warnings from its
most influential prophets. The collection seems to be of great
importance and great promise, but it wanes and disintegrates into
prophecies of retribution and vengeance from an all-knowing Deity who
seemed to miscalculate the human frailties of his "chosen ones."
Before the prophecies, there is the poetry of kings, and before that,
the living history of the first Israelis. What's interesting about all
of the books in the Old Testament is the fact that all of them hinge on
the details, stories, and explanations given in the first five. In fact,
the rest of the Old Testament falls apart without them: it is in these
first five books that the origin of man is explained, and the covenant
between God and the children of Israel is detailed, and the origin of
the nation of Israel is revealed. What's even more interesting is that
these first five books and the stories contained in them are
historically credited to have been written by one man, Moses.
These books not only form the whole foundation of the Old Testament, but
the foundation for all of Judeo-Christianity, and -- to a certain degree
-- Islam. One man and five books create the foundation for one of the
largest and most successful belief systems in the history of this
civilization. To me, that's a heck a lot of responsibility, but to the
faithful Christian or Jew, they might counter by simply saying, "So,
what?"
Of course, there are many in Christianity and in Judaism -- even in
fundamentalist or literalism branches -- that suggest that Moses may not
have written all five, or at least not written them by himself. For me,
it's hard to accept Judaism or Christianity at its word if their canon
cannot be accepted at face value -- and in the Old Testament of the King
James Version of the Bible (at least), these five books are credited to
Moses. So, my argument starts at this point -- presuming the individual
books of the Bible mean what they state in common fashion.
In Book One, or Genesis,
Moses describes the beginnings of the Universe, and of man. He describes
man's disobedience, his fall from grace, and his "curse" to work for a
living (instead of simply picking peaches out of the grove). By Chapter
7 in this book, we've jumped to Noah and the Great Big Boat that saves
the only faithful family as God drowns the rest of the world that
happens to live without gills. By Chapter 12, we are met with the ethnic
father all of Jews and Muslims, Abram -- later renamed Abraham. We
continue through this book and his lineage, from Isaac to Joseph, and by
the end of the Book, all of his nomadic heirs have moved lock, stock,
and wagon to Egypt, one of the few kingdoms in all of civilization at
that time.
In Book Two (Exodus),
we are barely in paragraph two before we discover that these Hebrew
tenants have been reduced to slaves. In Chapter two, Moses mentions his
own story, as a Hebrew baby taken in to the Egyptian royal family to be
raised as one of their own. Sooner or later, he realizes his destiny,
accepts his fate, and leads his people out of Egypt, but only after the
ruling landlord has to deal with the Great Padre in the sky. By the end
of the book, the Ten Commandments (the basic law of their nation) have
been handed down, as well as the creation of the Ark of the Covenant.
And of course, there's all that wondering in the wilderness (which
inspired the title).
In Leviticus,
the law is really laid down sin-by-sin. In
Numbers,
the tribes are named and . . . well, numbered. Then, the book is simply
"Further Tales of the Wandering Children." In the last book,
Deuteronomy, the wandering is
finally over, and the land-less nation finally inherits the land
promised to them by the Almighty.
It's a great story; a story attributed to being told by one man. All of
this rich history, and tales of supernatural power, not to mention the
history of the universe and their own nation -- all told by one person.
One man. Are you getting the picture? After this, things sort of settle
down -- what happens next are further tales of the Israelites, but
mostly without all the fire and brimstone, and lightening-penned tablet
writing.
My question is -- why is Moses account the only version of this? One
presumes if Moses wrote this, he wrote it -- at least in a Biblical
timeline -- close to the beginning to the nation of Israel becoming a
"landed" nation. Perhaps he was simply writing down an oral history (or
weaving it all together -- I'm not sure when the actual writing of oral
histories began) that had been passed down, but the sudden necessity of
doing so for a brand new nation seems a bit suspicious to me. Such a
responsibility for one man at the time of a new nation being
established!
The rest of the histories of this nation seem author-less; as perhaps a
history of a people should be -- the recollections of events that
occurred. Perhaps this is how it should have all been -- from the
beginning -- but the first five books aren't that way; they are the
story told by a man to a nation in this fashion: "What happened before
Now." It is this fact that has seemed odd to me, that simple oral
histories wouldn't (or couldn't) do -- that "I, Moses, must tell you all
how you came to be and why you are here." It seems to be a desperate and
final act of a man whose time has come -- a gift to the people who
placed him in leadership, and who looked to him for all their answers as
they started their new world. It would seem that this was his final
effort in their behalf -- the creation of a history and legal system to
govern themselves with when he was gone.
If my presumptions are correct, there would have to be a time when the
story telling stopped and the history began, since four of the five
books include Moses himself as an eyewitness. The whole idea of a
nomadic tribe settling down is not odd, or supernatural, and would seem
a perfect solution for a group of natural nomads who found themselves a
bit more cultured and civilized after generations of living in a
civilized nation (Egypt). But, who could verify Moses own biography?
Such a story told by an elder might not find many detractors, even if he
weren't in such a leadership position. Most of his peers would have been
dead by the time those books would have been written. The other personal
stories -- especially the times when he would go up into the mountain
alone -- how could those stories be verified? They couldn't. If Moses
was the leader of this nomadic tribe, they simply had to take him at his
word and trust that what he said was true. Though many of these stories
(even some of the Exodus
stories) could be false (remember, my presumption is that an elder Moses
is telling these stories to a younger nation who did not witness the
captivity or the early part of the nomadic drive), what strikes me as
peculiar is that a few of this books' most spectacular events (the
"burning bush" and the "Ten Commandments") occurred while Moses was
self-admittedly alone. While details of the trek might get missed, or
memories may fade (i.e., a "parent" may not remember the "manna," or the
striking of the rock), events such as the Voice of God and the Great
Tablets would have been pretty special events and would have survived
generation to generation (despite any tale-weaving a dying leader might
provide). If any part of this story were "invented," it would have had
to be these "direct encounters with God." No amount of charisma,
slight-of-hand, or crowd-manipulation could conjure up a "God-like"
sounds coming from the sky -- it would have had to be the "real thing"
for it to have happened in that manner (which it didn't -- and probably
should have been). If these stories were contrived, he would have had no
choice but for them to "take place" when he was alone for them to be
believed by his followers at large.
Aside from simply accepting the books for what they say on faith (which
is required -- there is no logical, scientific explanation for anything
that they claim, nor can there ever be), the only realistic explanation
is that they were a gift from a dying leader to his newly landed people.
A gift like no other, it gave these people with no history, no name, and
no land -- and only recently civilized by their years in captivity into
possible "needing" such things for themselves (an identity, land of
their own, a reason for being). This was at the point in human history
when humans around the world were starting to "civilize," and this could
have been just the moment when a group of nomads fleeing Egypt finally
"got it" for themselves.
Who was this man Moses, then -- if not the chosen leader by God? Who
knows? History may never tell us. Perhaps he was a Hebrew slave,
educated by his master. Perhaps he was simply brilliant, learning along
the way -- picking up what culture he could in his role as an Egyptian
servant. Or, perhaps he was the second or third son of a Pharaoh, but
one not destined for the throne. Maybe he was this Prince of Egypt,
seeking his own realm to reign, and finding this possibility in a
beleaguered and enslaved people, a people that needed and wanted a hero,
and who adopted this brilliant leader as their own, and trusted him to
"lead them out."
Regardless, he was the master of these people, as he led them into their
own existence -- giving them their own history and law, and setting the
stage for their civilization and three of the most prominent faith
systems today.
Paul: Prince among Bishops
When closing one's eyes, and just mulling over Christianity in general,
there is the undeniable hierarchy of important personalities. They are
undeniable because we are told all along how important they are supposed
to be. At the forefront is Jesus Christ, the living human-deity, the
immortal Son of the Father of Creation, and the Savior of Mankind. The
second would, of course, be the one in whom He entrusted his ministry
to, Peter; then thirdly to the other eleven who shared his ministry on
the earth. Fourthly, the convert Paul, who joined the apostles later.
The life of Christ is the first four books of the New Testament, but
this is kind of misleading. As we all know, it isn't four volumes of His
life, but four versions -- and there is a reason for this. In the early
church, there was no "New Testament." There were the Scriptures of old
and then the new gospel as taught by the Apostles. These Apostles left
behind accounts of the life of Christ behind in the churches they had
influence over. Although there was some sharing of these new scriptures
between the churches of close proximity, most of them only had their
"one" gospel to understand the life of the man they worshipped.
The Acts of the Apostles,
the fifth book, was written to describe the early ministry of the
Apostles, and Peter and John wrote a few letters to their churches. So,
it would seem, that the New Testament should have contained the story of
the Messiah, and a few books by the Apostles as guides on Christian
living.
Then, there's the big problem, and his name is Saul/Paul. This man
literally comes out of nowhere and is suddenly the most important of all
the Apostles, and the chief architect of the Christian church, having a
greater influence on Church life than Jesus Christ Himself
The story of Paul (first named Saul) is quite simple, according to the
Bible. He was a persecutor of Christians, and was partly responsible of
the death of an early Christian, Stephen. Then, as he was on his way to
Damascus, Jesus talks to him -- according to the story -- and converts
him instantly. The Acts
seem to go out of its way to make a huge explanation of the obvious. It
quickly states that the whole incident was witnessed by those in Saul's
charge -- albeit these people were most likely his slaves, servants, or
-- at least -- his apprentices (people that Saul had a great deal of
influence over).
When he presents himself to the Apostles as being one of them,
The Acts
reveals in Chapter 9 and verse 26 that "they were all afraid of him, and
believed not that he was a disciple." Then, someone whose opinion they
trusted convinced them otherwise. Hmmm! How's that for discernment!
This all may sound a bit confusing, because it all is. It was understood
that the ministry of Christ would expand beyond the initial 11 loyal
disciples that didn't betray Him (and one or two more were added nearly
immediately in the first part of Acts). However, one would think with
the influence that Paul displayed over this band of first-hand witnesses
that Christ might have prophesied about him. Christ might have said,
"Peter, I'm giving you the keys to the kingdom, but there will come
another that will outdo all your work, and will prove more important to
my eventual church than any of you first-hand witnesses." It would seem
that Christ made Peter the leader of the disciples, but it is clear that
after this moment, it is Paul who is the leader, the only Apostle who
was never around during the life of Christ.
For those of you who believe I am full of nonsense, please stop now and
take out your New Testament. Who wrote half of it? Peter, John, Matthew?
No! Half of the books of the New Testament were written by one man: Paul
(in addresses to the churches he founded or controlled). Count 'em!
Since these early days, Christians throughout time have looked to Paul's
letters to the churches as instruction for Christian living and social
behavior, and have even placed an emphasis in Christianity overall on
modeling themselves after Paul's teachings rather than after the founder
of the faith, Jesus Christ. Where Christ speaks of loving your neighbor,
or when he socializes with the outcasts of society, or speaks of
salvation through belief on Him, Paul teaches Christians to obey certain
codes of behavior, and lists the types of sin that will keep one out of
Heaven. Very few Christian faiths base their ministry on the messages of
love, acceptance, and charity that Christ teaches, while most have built
their foundation on the Pauline doctrines. Despite the differences of
emphasis between the teachings of Christ and Paul, the latter church
smudges them away -- declaring in their doctrinal decisions that every
word of the compiled Bible is the Word of God: not Paul's, not Moses',
and not John the Revelator's. Only God's. Suddenly -- to make up for
these obvious discrepancies -- these books weren't the written works of
historians, scribes, Kings, prophets, and disciples, they were the
literal dictation of God Almighty.
Back to my point. For such a man (Paul) to have such an impact on the
outcome of Christian ministry would have been important enough -- in my
view -- to have been prophesied about by the Founder Himself. Instead,
all of Christianity accepted this man for who he said he was, and
accepted his leadership in this new faith. His solitary conversion
didn't happen after hearing the salvation story, but as he walked alone
on an empty road (sounds familiar, he?) with no one to collaborate his
story -- save a few travelers who were most like under his employ (not
going to contradict the boss man, huh?).
So, who was this man, Paul? A quite intelligent man obviously, and most
likely employed in the manner that the Apostles feared him to be -- an
agent of the Jewish priesthood seeking to squelch this growing religious
threat (remember, the early fathers were actually trying to reform
Judaism, not create a separate faith). But, might he have seen that this
was a belief system growing faster than could be contained? Might he
have sensed a leadership vacuum, or perhaps sensed the good or control
such a moral system could provide for society? Who knows, and who knows
what Christianity might have become had not a former anti-Christian
showed up one day and convinced the followers of Christ that he was one
of them.
Finale
In Christianity, we are expected to take what we are taught as it is
taught at face value -- no questions asked. There is no room for fault,
the system is perfect and without error. All that's required is your
blind faith. During the Middle Ages, the mere act of questioning could
bring a death penalty. The whole concept depended on the idea that
questioning simply wasn't necessary, that accepted truth was truth for
all time, and need never to be re-interpreted.
The history of Christianity -- despite this "embargo" against change --
has only survived and grown because of "threats to the system," because
of questioning or re-interpretation. Accepted doctrines were no longer
"untouchable" when Martin Luther pounded his Thesis on the door of a
church, or when the Protestant Reformation broke out all over Europe.
The institutional church itself split in half because of differences of
opinion and acceptance of authority figures, and even more recently
Christianity has been rocked to its core by the "redefining" taking
place due to the influence of the Pentecostal and Charismatic movements.
This is the manner in which I present this essay: not in a presentation
of truth, but as a presentation of observations . . . and of questions.
I don't pretend to know the answers, and have never pretended to be a
Bible scholar, but these two issues seem so important that they simply
cannot be ignored. These two men alone defined Judaism and Christianity
in a way neither have been influenced during their own time or
afterwards. If not for their imprint on these faith systems, it is
entirely possible neither would exist. If not for their participation --
regardless of their motives -- there simply might not have been a
Christianity.
These two men are truly the Chief Architects of these faiths.
Copyright (c) 2001-2005.
Association of Former Pentecostals. All Rights Reserved. No material
published within this domain may be reproduced without the expressed
permission of Association of Former Pentecostals, or the copyright
owner(s).
DISCLAIMER: Though this website may speak of spiritual abuse within
religious systems, we do not make the claim that any faith system,
organized or otherwise, or any individual religious congregation is a
"cult," or "cult-like." Association of Former Pentecostals and the Board
of Directors are not responsible for the content of "off-site" links, or
the individual postings on our forums.
|
