REF: ESW121825EN
While many people focus on studying the history of Christianity and its evolution over the centuries—how it fragmented into religions and denominations, how doctrines, councils, institutions, and influential leaders emerged—there is no doubt that this historical work has value. Understanding how beliefs were formed, how power structures developed, and how interpretations changed over time can provide important insight for those who wish to study Christianity as a religion.
I recognize that these historical facts, when presented correctly, are valuable and often fascinating. They help explain why different traditions believe what they believe, how certain doctrines came into existence, and how cultural and political factors influenced religious expression across generations. From an academic and historical point of view, this type of study provides context and should not be dismissed.
However, my personal interest is not centered on Christianity as a religious system or on its institutional development. I am not interested in analyzing it through denominations, creeds, or theological movements that emerged centuries after the biblical texts were written. My focus is much simpler and, at the same time, more demanding.
My interest is in the Scriptures themselves.
Rather than starting with what Christianity eventually became, I believe understanding must begin with the Bible as the original blueprint. That means approaching the text as it is, studying the original languages, the historical and cultural context of the ancient world, and the mindset of the people who wrote, heard, and lived these texts long before modern religions and denominations existed.
I have reflected on this through the lens of my background in electronics and automation engineering, especially in troubleshooting and fault diagnosis. Over the years, I developed a very specific way of approaching technical problems. Whenever a failure occurred—whether in a factory or in complex transportation systems—I avoided common assumption-based methods and focused instead on following the evidence.
I worked for several years at a company with close to one hundred technicians spread across different shifts and locations. Many times, entire teams spent days or weeks unable to identify a fault. When I was asked to review the issue, I was often able to identify it within a few hours. In more complex cases it took longer, but I almost always found the cause and completed the repair the same day.
One very clear case involved a light rail train that had been out of service for more than two months. The propulsion system kept burning electronic boards, and technicians kept replacing them without success. Everyone was focused on the propulsion system because it seemed like the most logical place to look.
I was asked to step in, and on that first day I didn’t find the problem, which was unusual for me—it was clearly a difficult fault to locate. I asked that the train be sealed, that no one else intervene, and that everything be left exactly as I had it so I could continue the next day. When I resumed the work, after a couple of hours of systematic analysis, I found the problem.
The fault was not in the propulsion system. It was far away, in the main knife switch that cuts power to the entire train. That switch had a proximity sensor that indicated whether it was fully closed. The sensor was damaged and shorted. A small and seemingly insignificant component, far from where everyone was looking, was the real cause. After replacing it and reconnecting everything, the train operated normally again.
Why did so many technicians miss it? Because they were only looking where they thought the problem should be. They were unwilling to look beyond the obvious.
This pattern repeated itself many times. I never guessed. I used schematics, diagrams, manuals, and real measurements. I took detailed notes on voltages, currents, resistances, and expected values. Guessing was a common practice among many technicians. I, on the other hand, relied only on the available evidence.
All of this leads me to a key question.
Is it possible to apply this same methodology—following the evidence, setting aside assumptions, and returning to the original blueprint—to the correct interpretation of the Bible?
Instead of inheriting interpretations, justifying doctrines, or assuming conclusions, what would happen if we approached the Scriptures the same way? By studying the original languages, the cultural context, the historical framework, and the internal consistency—connecting the Old and New Testaments logically rather than emotionally or institutionally.
I do not deny the spiritual dimension of the Bible. I believe God speaks through His Word, and that there are things only He can reveal. But I also believe human beings have complicated this process far more than necessary. Over the centuries, we have modified things that were not broken, just like those technicians with the train. We have built entire systems based on assumptions.
If we look closely, neither God, nor Moses, nor the prophets, nor Yeshua, nor the apostles founded a religion called Christianity. Nor did they instruct anyone to build or form denominations, religious institutions, or belief systems as we know them today. Much of what we call religion is purely a human creation.
As social beings, people desire to belong to a group. We like agreement. Over time, that desire gives rise to movements, hierarchies, leaders, and power structures.
Personally, my only interest is to understand the Scriptures as they were originally understood and taught by Moses, the prophets, Yeshua, and the apostles, and how they taught them to both Israelites and non-Israelites.
In the time of Yeshua, only two of the twelve tribes were in the land of Israel; the other ten had been scattered more than seven hundred years earlier. Even so, the message remained the same from the beginning—a message restored by Yeshua, because the religious leaders of His time had distorted it with human traditions, just as happens today with many preachers.
It is important to note that in the time of Yeshua and the apostles, the New Testament had not yet been written. Therefore, whenever Yeshua or the apostles said phrases like “as it is written” or “the Scriptures are useful for…,” they were referring exclusively to the Old Testament.
We can conclude, then, that they themselves observed it and taught it among both Israelites and new Gentile believers. Therefore, it remains valid to this day, just as the New Testament does.
When we read the Bible carefully, we see that the apostles believed in and kept the Torah. They kept the Shabbat. They observed the feasts of the Eternal—not “Jewish feasts,” but the feasts God Himself established in the Torah. They understood the distinction between clean and unclean animals as something established by God, not as cultural customs. These were not arbitrary rules, but clear instructions on how to live.
Yeshua did not abolish the law (Torah). He fulfilled it. Just as someone can pay the penalty for a crime without eliminating the law, Yeshua paid the penalty for sin, but that does not mean the law ceased to exist. Forgiveness is available through Yeshua by God’s grace and through repentance, not as an automatic license to continue sinning without consequences.
So the question is simple.
Can this way of thinking, based on evidence and returning to the original blueprint—the Bible—help bring clarity to how we understand the Scriptures today? Can it help us remove assumptions and human traditions in order to reconnect the Old and New Testaments as they were always meant to be understood by people who lived in a very different language, culture, and mindset than our own?
That is what I am trying to explore.
Have Questions?
If this content sparked a question in you — or if you have questions about any biblical topic — I invite you to share it here. Your questions may help others as well.
Before you go…
If this topic resonated with you, I invite you to visit the homepage, where you’ll find a clear breakdown of all the topics I share and explore. From biblical studies and spiritual reflections, to personal growth, life lessons, and even deeper conversations around culture, systems, and conspiracy theories—everything is organized so you can easily find what speaks to you.
My goal is simply to share perspectives that invite reflection, encourage critical thinking, and help you see the world—and your own life—from a clearer and more grounded place.
Thank you for taking the time to read this.
Take what serves you, question everything else, and stay curious.
— Eduardo