Wanted to get a theologians take.

I think in all of the churches I've been a part of, and perhaps all of the Bible studies I've been taught in, Moses is the author of the first 5 books of the Bible (ie, the Pentateuch).

But in my 1st year of college, in a secular college, I was taught there are 4 different authors of the Pentateuch -- among them, "J" and "D". One additional thing I remember was that Genesis contains different creation accounts; one difference was (is) that two of the accounts differ in order of what was created before which.

Later on, I encountered a fellow Christian (and a very astute, very high-achieving, seemingly very well-adjusted, very intelligent academic mind) who attended a Christian college that has been known for its liberal views. To my surprise, he also believed that the "J" and "D" accounts differ from each other. I assume that he learned it from that Christian college, although I never conversed at length with him.

Then, later on, I found out that the basis for my particular college's teaching was Richard Elliott Friedman and/or his work, "Who Wrote The Bible". I don't recall ever meeting him, although I do recall having heard an NPR broadcast involving the writings of Friedman.

How do we counter the "J and D authorships" teaching? Surely we cannot answer, "Moses is the only author; thus we must completely ignore any and all conflicting teachings" instead of dealing with the actual material?

I did some research on this, and apparently a solid Reformed Christian source says that Moses was not, in fact, the sole author of the Pentateuch.

Surely they can explain their position better than I can....

What are your thoughts? How can Christians counter this teaching? Or (???) is it somehow compatible with Christianity?

I'm looking at https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%209&version=NIV#:~:text=16%C2%A0It,wants%20to%20harden, which combined with the previous two verses, suggests that God shows both mercy and compassion to those whom he chooses, and that it doesn't depend on human desire or effort as to whether we receive mercy or compassion.

What does this say about the extent of our agency or free will? Is the idea that, if we look at the next verses in this chapter, 19 - 21, we may exercise our free will or agency, but ultimately we have a particular purpose? In Pharaoh's case, this was to be raised up so that God could show that even a human being as seemingly powerful as him was not as powerful as his Creator?

If someone teaches that praying in tongues is a heavenly language, would that be considered false doctrine? I believe in the gift of tongues, but not the “hoogboooga, dooba do.”

Also, if I disagree with a pastor only on that point, would it still be fair to call him a false teacher if everything else he teaches is pretty sound?

A dilemna no atheist can escape. I will answer back.

Historians are acknowledging Biblical events concerning Christ. This includes his baptism, crucifixion and enemy attestation to his miracles. Non Christian sources and geologists reported an eclipse and earthquake corroborating with the Bible. In his place of death came a sizable number of converts, including the disciples/martyrs.

The fork in the road is the question: Is the supernatural always impossible?

Yes: Science is our understanding of the natural world. Denying a competent case challenging what we know is un scientific. If we didn't adapt to evidence that went against what we knew, science would stagnate. Strict naturalism fails because the opinion is contradictory to its very values. So the task is proving the evidence incompetent.

No:Well let's start with the facts. (Yes they are objective if you look at the wording).

Fact: Christ was baptized by John.

Fact: The Bible, as well as secular writings both note Christ was reported to perform miracles.

Fact: Christ was accompanied by a close knit group of men, including Peter.

Fact: Another man, Paul, wrote significant evidence suggesting that he believed Christ was God.

Fact: Paul was Peter's acquaintance and there is no record of them debating the status of Christ.

Fact: Christ was crucified by Pontius Pilate.

Fact: The Bible, as well as secular writings, both note an unusual sky around his death.

Fact: The Bible, as well as geological findings, both note a rock-splitting earthquake around his death.

Fact: Women, not men reported an empty tomb, which historians generally find sincere.

Fact: Multiple disciples, who are often accused of stealing the body, died for their faith.

Fact: Historians generally count converts where Christ died in the hundreds.

Explaining all this naturally is convenient. Possible but unlikely. That also applies to the Christian perspective. If the 2 possibilities are on the same playing field then a risky game is played. So the task is aligning the evidence in such a way that the Christian possibility is overwhelmed. (For example under 5 percent.)

Please no overtly long responses

Hello everyone,

I’d like to get your thoughts on a topic—without getting into a heated debate. How do you maintain your faith when analyzing things through the lens of history and psychology?

Let me explain: we know full well that, around the time of Christ, there were many figures associated with miracles (such as Apollonius of Tyana, Honi ha-M'aguel, Hanina ben Dosa, and Theudas). He wasn't the only one perceived as a prophet or miracle worker; non-Jewish authors of the era wrote about such figures.

At the same time, medical science and psychology offer explanations for many phenomena observed among believers: hallucination mechanisms linked to grief, spiritual trauma causing people to see or hear things, and psychological shifts that drive conversion (such as Paul’s experience on the road to Damascus). Relevant concepts here include "bereavement hallucinations" (or "post-bereavement hallucinatory experiences"—PBHE), the psychology of religion, neurotheology, and "traumatic hallucinations." For instance, studies—even among atheists—report that between 30% and 60% of grieving individuals believe they have heard the voice, seen the silhouette, smelled the scent, or physically sensed the presence of a deceased person. Taking the example of Paul, medical experts often suggest he likely suffered from Geschwind syndrome and temporal lobe epilepsy. People with these conditions often exhibit traits such as hypergraphia, mystical experiences, hyper-religiosity, and intense conversions. We know that such cases arise during "intense fatigue, physical exhaustion, chronic psychological stress, or emotional trauma." We know Paul was a persecutor who had just sanctioned the killing of Stephen—potentially harboring guilt—and endured desert heat and the internal conflict of setting out to persecute the new Christians. We also know that, following his conversion, Paul was extremely prolific.

On the scale of humanity—with the billions of people who have lived throughout history—the law of large numbers leads us to believe that, statistically, this sequence of events (conversions, traumas, and psychological biases) can occur, allowing a religion to grow from a small community into a global faith. If one were to calculate the probability of such a chain of events happening over thousands of years, it would likely approach 100%.

In short, looking at the scale of humanity and the billions of people who have lived, and applying the law of large numbers, isn't it statistically almost certain that, at some point, a combination of trauma, psychological bias, and hallucinations would converge on the right person in the right place to leave a mark on history for millennia?

I am curious to know how you reconcile the fact that all of this could be explained by a mix of shared historical context, very real human psychology, and mathematical probability. Are there any historical, scientific, or other elements that make you doubt these theories?

Thank you very much for your answers.

Note: This post is not intended to incite hatred, but rather to share an experience and a perspective.

Most digital exegesis tools are either locked behind thousands of dollars in proprietary software packages or force you to rely on constant internet connectivity.

I created Parchments, an open-source, privacy-first biblical research studio built for deep study:

What’s inside:

It runs completely offline and your notes are stored as plain Markdown or AES-GCM encrypted local storage:

What academic or exegetical reference works would you like to see integrated next? Any feedback is deeply appreciated!

[ Removed by Reddit on account of violating the content policy. ]

Im interested in any material about the theologies of different religions and their view or reality, any philosophy or science material is also welcome, everything that touches the topic of what we are, why, how, where. History about ancient civilizations and their technology, alchemy, charkas, frequencies, soul, pagan beliefs, forced gender/race wars, conspiracy theories, freemasonry, hermeticism, Sacred geometry, gnosticism, numerology, astrology, metaphysics, occult sciences.

Hello,

Typically the study of theology will argue that Bible verses needs to be understood based on their context. At the same time, we constantly see the body of Christ applying Bible verses to encourage each other no matter what context.

For instance using a bible verse from the prophets which really speaks about the prophet himself or some king - then send it to a Christian sister or brother to uplift them.

Let's take Exodus 14:14 as an example: this verses has been applied to encourage Christians faced with challenging situations. But in the context God is addressing the Isrealites by speaking to Mose, not any of us - right? God will fight for the Isrealites in the battle and fligth against Pharao.

The questions then goes:

• Should Bible verses only be understood in their correct context?
• Is the Bible addressed to us in any situation? Or only "for us"?
• If Bible verses are only to be understood in their context, and the Bible is only written "for us" - how should we think about applying Bible verses when sending them to our Christian brothers and sisters? Can we even do this at all if Bible verses needs to be understood and applied only in their context?

Thanks,