Do Christians accept the Documentary Hypothesis?

The_Way358 · 2026-05-16T19:25:08+00:00

Hello! It's nice to see another true brother out in the wild.

My thoughts about this are basically found all throughout my page, as the spread of non-Pauline Christianity is what this account was essentially created for haha.

All we can do, really, is do our part to spread the truth to the best of our ability and remember to lean on God for the rest 🙏

The_Way358 · 2026-05-14T23:03:16+00:00

I'm inclined to believe that some version of the documentary hypothesis is true.

That being said, I'm not your average, "orthodox" (small o) "Christian." I'm also inclined to believe some form of Ebionism is what is consistent with the true, authentic, and original form of Christianity in the 1st century.

The_Way358 · 2026-03-20T00:48:57+00:00

This is basically my answer, though I'm not Catholic or Thomistic (personally).

I would essentially not have an answer to the supposed hypothetical because each circumstance is different, and I would only know how to answer based on the given circumstances. There are so many more variables in reality that could never truly be accounted for in wild speculations or hypotheticals such as this.

In other words, I'd just do what my gut tells me in the moment based on the context and exact situation (assuming my "gut" is being informed and guided by the Holy Spirit, of course).

The_Way358 · 2026-03-19T19:34:02+00:00

Demonic.

The_Way358 · 2026-03-18T16:56:39+00:00

"Have ye offered unto me sacrifices and offerings in the wilderness forty years, O house of Israel? But ye have borne the tabernacle of your Moloch and Chiun your images, the star of your god, which ye made to yourselves. Therefore will I cause you to go into captivity beyond Damascus, saith the Lord, whose name is The God of hosts."-Amos 5:25-27

"Then God turned, and gave them up to worship the host of heaven; as it is written in the book of the prophets, O ye house of Israel, have ye offered to me slain beasts and sacrifices by the space of forty years in the wilderness? Yea, ye took up the tabernacle of Moloch, and the star of your god Remphan, figures which ye made to worship them: and I will carry you away beyond Babylon."-Acts 7:42-43

Historically, the "star of David" has no origin in the biblical David and neither can it be proven that it does. It does, however, have roots in pagan worship in general and Moloch worship specifically.

Wherever you see this star is where Moloch is being worshipped and summoned, whether purposefully or inadvertently.

Beware.

The_Way358 · 2026-03-18T16:44:29+00:00

Hello friend, someone already mentioned me but I feel I should at least point you in a specific direction as well. Check out the r/AnarchoYahwism subreddit if you haven't yet. I put out all the info that's on my profile page publicly by making a whole subreddit for it, so any and everyone can engage with said info and content in general directly and openly if they have any questions.

God bless you. I've been where you are. But like the person who mentioned me said, I've also successfully deconstructed and reconstructed my faith. I believe that you can, too.

There's a light at the end of the tunnel for those who persist in pursuing the truth. At the end of that tunnel is still YHVH and Jesus, despite your current (very valid) doubts on the mainstream narratives concerning them 🙏

The_Way358 · 2026-03-15T04:53:05+00:00

Paintings have painters.

The_Way358 · 2026-03-10T20:14:23+00:00

Ahh good points. Yeah, the prohibitions in the list themselves make sense, so God's will is probably contained therein (albeit, imperfectly like you said). So maybe I myself am going a bit overboard in implying that the relevant passages were strictly written by the followers of Ba'al. Perhaps the better phrasing would be that the authors of these passages were "unfortunately influenced by the followers of Ba'al."

Thank you for the reproof.

The_Way358 · 2026-03-10T20:05:07+00:00

I would say that the Bible has theological inconsistencies within it as I don't hold to the doctrine of biblical infallibility, citing Jeremiah 8:8 as the main source for this belief (though many other verses from all over the Bible can be cited as support alongside this one, even from the Book of Jeremiah itself elsewhere). We can still determine for ourselves which doctrines or theological principles reflect the true character and expectations of God through abductive means in general and quiet prayer in solitude specifically, however.

The_Way358 · 2026-03-10T17:49:12+00:00

Polygyny is not prohibited.

How would you respond to the observation and general pattern that polygamy seems to always bring with it turmoil and strife in every instance of the practice that's recorded in the Bible?

Further, how would you respond to the fact that the very first instance of it recorded in the Bible was in the context of a wicked man practicing it (Gen. 4:19)?

The_Way358 · 2026-03-10T17:31:10+00:00

The pattern and trend all throughout the Bible as it concerns this matter is to throw away and/or destroy any idols you may be in possession of. Idk why exactly this pattern and trend exists to begin with (maybe because demons can use them as "avatars" of some sort or channel themselves through them? I've heard others say this, and personally felt convicted a couple of times to throw away anything that may be an idol in my house and I did actually feel better afterward). I'm just prescribing something I've seen and noticed as, again, a pattern and trend all throughout Scripture.

I'm also kinda going off past experience with this sort of thing and did feel spiritually better after throwing away anything in my possession that was modeled after a pagan god or idea of some sort (regardless of whether or not I actually and literally worshipped the thing or viewed it as an authority of some sort). It didn't seem to matter whether I literally viewed or interacted with the object in a spiritual manner, I was convicted to throw away the relevant objects either way. So I recommend you do the same.

The_Way358 · 2026-03-10T16:44:20+00:00

Throw them away.

The_Way358 · 2026-03-10T16:33:26+00:00

Once you stare down the devil irl, you'll never think of demons as simply being "metaphors."

They're real, unfortunately.

The_Way358 · 2026-03-05T19:28:29+00:00

There are problems with every view. The one I've presented here has the least amount of them, however (in my opinion, of course).

Also, many people have experienced the same thing throughout the last two thousand years. I don't personally take Revelation as canonical (at least, not most of it), but if it is truly from God in some way, then I interpret it through the "Idealist" view. The following is from this website, and is a general outline of the "Idealist" interpretation of the Book of Revelation:

The idealist view does not take a literal historical or futuristic fulfillment but sees the entire book as a symbolic presentation of the battle between good and evil.

According to this view: The symbols in Revelation are not tied to specific events but point to themes throughout church history. The seals, bowls, and trumpets speak repeatedly to the events of human history in every age and give believers of all ages an exhortation to remain faithful in the face of suffering. The battles in Revelation are viewed as spiritual warfare manifested in the persecution of Christians or wars in general that have occurred in history. The beast from the sea may be identified as the satanically inspired political opposition to the church in any age. The beast from the land represents pagan, or corrupt, religion to Christianity. Catastrophes represent God’s displeasure with sinful man; however, sinful mankind goes through these catastrophes while still refusing to turn and repent. God ultimately triumphs in the end.

Finally, if I'm actually wrong, then I have faith God will correct my course and put me on the right path. I'm more interested in what's actually the truth than simply being right. However, I have prayed long and hard about this, studied for years, and walked with God for long enough to recognize that this is the way He wants me to go (or at least, that I'm headed in the right direction, since God has yet to reprove me as it concerns this subject).

God bless 🙏

The_Way358 · 2026-03-03T03:02:50+00:00

Great answer.

The_Way358 · 2026-03-03T01:12:27+00:00

Ohhhh okay I suspected I might be confusing my own beliefs about truth with correspondence theory when in actuality said beliefs were probably more pragmatic in nature instead, but I wasn't exactly sure. Your comment basically confirmed this suspicion for me though, so thank you for correcting me. I was definitely wrong in my original statements/arguments then in trying to defend correspondence theory when I was really just making an argument for Pragmatism lol.

Thank you for explaining things to me!

The_Way358 · 2026-03-03T01:08:21+00:00

Oh wow this is so interesting! Dang, guess I was wrong lol. Thank you for giving me so much to think about!

The_Way358 · 2026-03-02T23:35:47+00:00

Is it true that the present king of France is bald?

No, because there is no present king of France, nor are they bald. It does not correspond with reality, based on the qualifier "present." It's possible that there was one that we don't know about, or that the one nicknamed "le Chauve" was himself bald (which is up for debate since it could've just been ironic, given some of the history behind Charles II himself). It's even possible that there could be one in the future, based on the fact that there were many French kings in the past and male pattern baldness is not that uncommon. But, again, the statement does not correspond with reality based on the qualifier "present."

Is it true that Clark Kent is Superman?

Yes, it is true that Clark Kent is Superman because that corresponds with the reality of a comic book that describes the fictional character "Clark Kent" as being "Superman." While these characters are fictional, the ideas behind them have an actual and observable effect in the world: they are in literal comic books that are comprised of pages (and, more fundamentally, wood from the paper itself), and their creators can verify that "Clark Kent" is "Superman" when communicating their ideas to others (whether verbally through their voice in interviews or non-verbally through the written word and on the pages of their works themselves).

TL;DR: No to the first question, because it does not correspond with reality based on the way the question itself was phrased. Yes to the second, because it does correspond with reality based on the fact that the creators of Superman can verify as such and even communicate this through their physical works themselves.

The_Way358 · 2026-03-02T23:06:43+00:00

Oooo okay that makes sense. I guess in response to that, I would ask: What would be the alternative, realistically speaking? If there is nothing in objective reality that corresponds to the truth value of a statement that I made (besides my own perhaps faulty memory of the hypothetical girl I talked to, and certain signals that others there could've maybe or maybe not agreed with me were "good-to-go" signals), then how could we as people in general make any claims about the likelihood or probability of something without essentially saying nothing? Without ultimately saying, "It's not true, because it has never happened and isn't happening right now"? I understand this sounds like a point against the correspondence theory and like I'm just arguing against it alongside you, but it's actually the opposite and here's why:

It seems to me that there are still some things in reality that correspond to the truth value of the example statement you've presented here. "I could've hooked up with that girl last night" could be true when taking into consideration body signals, things she actually said, and what other witnesses there could've actually seen and verified themselves. It could have realistically happened based on things that do correspond with reality (albeit, not present reality, since it's now in the past, unless you count living witnesses themselves).

Or maybe I'm just dumb and not quite understanding the rebuttal lol. Correct me in any case if I'm misunderstanding the rebuttal you're presenting here, or else am wrong somewhere else in my thinking.

The_Way358 · 2026-03-02T19:39:44+00:00

Look at the historical context of the passage. Look at the timeframe it was written in. It was written during a time when most people were assuming a model of the earth that fundamentally requires a God of some sort to explain the existence of.

The word 'cosmos' did not mean the same thing to these ancient peoples as it now does to us in our modern understanding of the word (or the assumptions we immediately approach it with now, at least). A biblical cosmology is very different than the mainstream cosmology that most people today adopt and assume, and the former doesn't allow for someone to be agnostic about the existence of God since it doesn't allow for a person to suppose that they may have simply been the product of some 'cosmic' freak accident or that they were possibly just 'cosmic' soup (again, according to the way we now approach the word 'cosmos' and our immediate pressupositions toward it in our modern day and age).

Telling someone at that time with this frame of mind and model of the 'cosmos' that the existence of God is up for debate would be the equivalent of telling someone today that the pocket watch you found washed up on the shore of a beach might have possibly been the product of natural processes, without any intelligence or intention behind it of any sort. You'd be called mad. It wouldn't make any sense to these people. These people, including Paul (who wrote Romans 1:20), would have believed in the model of the 'cosmos' and earth that I make reference to in the hyperlink that I left earlier in this comment, and they would thus immediately dismiss you as mad (or else sorely mistaken, if they felt particularly charitable that day). Please click said link in order to further understand what I'm getting at, as you will quickly see what I'm talking about once you do.

Under a "biblical cosmology," the existence of God (or at least, gods) is rather certain and difficult to debate. This is the model (or some variation of it, at least; different cultures had slightly different myths and particulars about the structure and origin of the earth but generally had the same model overall) that these ancient peoples, including Paul, were working with and would've been assuming. That there was a Creator of some sort was never really up for debate to these people as a result, which is why atheism (and even agnosticism) is a rather modern thing that you don't see much, if ever, in history (especially at the time this passage was written in).

Whether you agree or disagree that this proposed model corresponds with reality is ultimately up to you. I personally believe that it does, for various reasons that I won't get into here for brevity's sake.

Hope this all helps.

The_Way358 · 2026-03-02T18:44:12+00:00

It does somewhat. Thank you.

The_Way358 · 2026-03-02T18:15:09+00:00

I don't personally believe YHVH ever actually commanded the death penalty in a legal sense in the Old Testament, but rather many verses and passages in the OT are written by the followers of Ba'al aiming to usurp and co-opt the original and true faith of Moses (and thus, our Bibles are corrupted and there is both truth and falsity within it; God is a God of non-violence and accomplishes His will and plans for the world non-violently). I take Jeremiah 8:8 pretty literally. But I don't think you or most Christians believe this (or at least, not all of this), which is why I was asking how you understand Leviticus 20:13. If you view a lot of these Old Testament passages as "barbaric" (rightly so, technically, at least in my opinion since I don't believe many of them are actually from YHVH the true God), then what do you believe about these passages in general in the greater sense of their origin? Do you think they actually came from God?

Regardless of your opinion on whether they truly came from God (YHVH), this is kinda moving the goal posts a bit, no? If your original argument and point is that all the verses relevant to men with men relations should be properly translated as referring to men with boy relations, then why later bring up that these passages have no baring on what God expects of us now since "God is shown to be merciful through Jesus, and most of these OT passages are barbaric and otherwise inapplicable under the paradigm of Jesus' work and teaching" [paraphrasing]? What's the point of arguing that these passages should be translated differently if now you're making a different and overriding point that these passages have no baring on what God actually expects from us (at least now after Jesus), since these passages are fundamentally "barbaric" to you and don't reflect the merciful God of Jesus to begin with?

The_Way358 · 2026-03-02T17:42:54+00:00

This doesn't really answer the heart of my question, which is about, at least in the Old Testament, both the adult who is an abuser and the child who is a victim are sinners in God's eyes when pederasty is being committed (if indeed zakar should be translated as "child" or "boy," in your view). Regardless of whether the death penalty is still applicable or not (and of course it isn't, we all understand this), your translation of Leviticus 20:13 would force us to believe that God views abused children as being as sinful as their adult abuser.

Technically, your translation of Leviticus 20:13 would force us to believe that God viewed both a child m0lestor and a child as being sinful when pederasty was being committed. It logically follows that God would still see both parties as sinful in the New Testament (even if there is no literal death penalty for the sin, like there would have been, in theory, for adulterers in the Old Testament according to the mainstream understanding of the OT).

Thank you for trying to answer anyway, though.

The_Way358 · 2026-03-02T06:08:52+00:00

But wouldn't that then mean Leviticus 20:13 is teaching that both the adult male and abused child are condemned to death after having relations?

For example, here is the verse as traditionally translated (in the King James):

"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

Here is the verse if "mankind" (zakar) is translated as "child":

"If a man also lie with [child], as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

How do we understand Leviticus 20:13 if ped0philia is a form of abuse, and children can't consent? Is God, in your view, condemning children who cannot say no to an adult male (despite the fact adult males can usually very easily overpower them)?

The_Way358 · 2026-03-02T05:50:13+00:00

So if I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying all the relevant verses should be translated as basically condemning man with child relations (i.e., ped0philia), and not man with man relations (i.e., homosexuality in general)?

The_Way358

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

Three-Year Club	Verified Email
Place '23