Deutro-Isaiah. Credible or Incredible...?

[_Drifting]

And as I've said, I'm not Roman and I don't care. If you wish to actually argue against what I've said in an meaningful way, I'm all ears.

You haven't discussed the reasons why there is broad consensus on this issue and why we should reject that consensus. All you've said is that Jesus wouldn't have cited Isaiah had it not been written by a single author. Why you think that is a complete mystery to me. You haven't made a case for that beyond asserting that Jesus would have known. Ipse dixit.

I wasn't aware that Jesus wrote anything down himself. So as such, the New Testament is just a second hand account based on what people claim Jesus cited.

[_Tobin]

You are making the mistake of assuming that because the author of Deutero-Isaiah is not the author of the rest of Isaiah, that it is somehow a forgery or a fraud. The author of Deutero-Isaiah was considered, both by the Jews of his era, and by the later Church Councils such as at Laodicea, to have been "divinely inspired." The point being, just because the author of Deutero-Isaiah is not the same as the author of the rest of Isaiah, that does not mean that he was not "divinely inspired."

The Deutero-Isaiah theory is a 19th century invention, so how were the Jews of his era, or the Church Councils at Laodicea aware of it?

Similarly, much of the Gospels were written, not by the actual Apostles named, but by their students and followers, in their name. In the ancient world, this was seen as a way of paying homage, of practicing humility, and (yes) of establishing authority. The idea is that you would write something in your teacher's name, in order to add to your teacher's reputation, and to draw on the authority of your teacher within the wider community. There is no reason to believe that the author of Deutero-Isaiah had any nefarious motives.

So, you claim that many of the books of scripture are just a made up fiction (but a well-meaning fiction) written by a student or some other author? That is quite a statement.

[_Samantabhadra]

The Deutero-Isaiah theory is a 19th century invention, so how were the Jews of his era, or the Church Councils at Laodicea aware of it?

I didn't say that they were aware that there were two Isaiahs. I said that they believed the whole of the received text of the Book of Isaiah was "divinely inspired" and that the authorship was therefore irrelevant, because both authors were "divinely inspired" according to standard, traditional Christian teaching.

So, you claim that many of the books of scripture are just a made up fiction (but a well-meaning fiction) written by a student or some other author? That is quite a statement.

I didn't say they were fiction, well-meaning or otherwise. I said that many of the books of the Bible, especially the New Testament, were clearly written by the followers of the Apostles as opposed to the Apostles themselves.

But who do you think wrote the Gospels? As I recall you seem to have claimed at some point that Jesus Himself wrote the New Testament? This is utter nonsense and has never been asserted even by the most ridiculous of the fundamentalists.

[_Tobin]

I didn't say that they were aware that there were two Isaiahs. I said that they believed the whole of the received text of the Book of Isaiah was "divinely inspired" and that the authorship was therefore irrelevant, because both authors were "divinely inspired" according to standard, traditional Christian teaching.

So your position is that the Councils at Laodicea, in which the authorship of works was so thoroughly analyzed, debated, and ultimately voted upon was ultimately of no concern to them. We are talking about the same Councils that decided which books would be ultimately included in the Bible and which would not? Your claim seems far-fetched in light of that.

I didn't say they were fiction, well-meaning or otherwise. I said that many of the books of the Bible, especially the New Testament, were clearly written by the followers of the Apostles as opposed to the Apostles themselves. But who do you think wrote the Gospels?

I would presume they were authored by the people to whom the books are attributed to. It seems you are of the opinion that in fact they did not author these works, but they were authored by students or someone else. This would seem to indicate that they were not true accounts of what happened, but fictional accounts penned much later.

As I recall you seem to have claimed at some point that Jesus Himself wrote the New Testament? This is utter nonsense and has never been asserted even by the most ridiculous of the fundamentalists.

Actually, I never made any such claim.

[_Drifting]

Perhaps it would be useful to examine the basis for believing 'Isaiah' was written by more than one author.

For example:

J. C. Doederlein, one of the earliest to argue for a second author, said explicitly that since Isaiah could not have forseen the fall of Jerusalem, the 70 year captivity, the return or Cyrus, Isaiah could not have written those chapters making such claims (e.g. chapters 40-66).

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_D ... z1lyPzjU9Y

and

Okay, so what have the older school of German Bible critics proposed about the Book of Isaiah?

Basically, they have imposed three divisions on the book:

First Isaiah. Chapters 1-39.
Possibly actually written by somebody called 'Isaiah' although "higher critics" were far from convinced on this point.

Deutero-Isaiah. Chapters 40-55.
Supposedly written by an unknown Jewish exile in Babylon during the sixth century B. C.

Trito-Isaiah. Chapters 56-66.
Supposedly written by a post-exilic Palestinian because of 'considerations of structure and background ideas.'

[_Samantabhadra]

So your position is that the Councils at Laodicea, in which the authorship of works was so thoroughly analyzed, debated, and ultimately voted upon was ultimately of no concern to them. We are talking about the same Councils that decided which books would be ultimately included in the Bible and which would not? Your claim seems far-fetched in light of that.

Most likely they would have also thought that the Torah was written by Moses, but we know that the Torah wasn't written by Moses since it details events after the death of Moses. Just because they declared a certain text canonical or "divinely inspired" does not mean that they knew everything about the history of that text. Nor does the history of the text that we now know today in any way imply that those texts are not canonical or are not "divinely inspired."

I would presume they were authored by the people to whom the books are attributed to. It seems you are of the opinion that in fact they did not author these works, but they were authored by students or someone else. This would seem to indicate that they were not true accounts of what happened, but fictional accounts penned much later.

Why would the fact that the "real" author's name is different from the name recorded at the top of the document mean that the content of the document is fictitious or false? The content of the document is true or false irrespective of the name of the author. It is logically distinct.

[_Franktalk]

Those who believe that they must be scriptural literalists in order to believe in God either lack faith or are afraid to let any doubt enter their minds. An occasional agnostic thought does not condemn one to hell. It is perfectly normal for the mature Christian.

The term "mature Christian" I have a problem with. I am not sure what you may define a mature Christian as but I will give my definition of what a mature Christian should be.

A mature Christian is one that has a relationship with God at a spiritual level. To some extent they see scripture as layered with many applications concerning individuals, groups, and times. They realize that scripture has been touched by many but that the message from God is in tact. They know that the message is only understood by direct spirit to spirit communication. They know that the words are just steps to ask the right questions. They know that the words take on the message from God when the answers come. They know that the world will reject what they say about scripture and will reject the message. The mature Christian knows that only God can see into the hearts of man. The mature Christian knows that only God can provide the path for each man to come to Him. The mature Christian knows to talk about the core Gospel and leave the hard doctrine out of the discussion. For ears that are not ready will not hear and eyes that are not ready will not see. The mature Christian knows that the world can not be used to find God or His message. The logic and reason of this world is for us to stumble and stumble we do. To see the message requires a castings off not an embracing of man's knowledge. The mature Christian knows that the path to God is through love of God not the love of this world. Only when the love of God is stronger than the ties of the creation will your eyes open and your ears will open to the message. The mature Christian knows that to argue the world with the world gets no one closer to God.

I read the scripture quite literal when the spirit tells me I should. Most of scripture I read quite literal. But what I read as literal few see.

[_Buffalo]

If you're going to ignore evidence because you don't like the implications, then I don't see the point in trying to help you out.

Well, if your position is that Christianity and God is a bunch of hooey, I'm sure we could discuss it. But, I think there are bigger issues to fry than who ultimately penned Isaiah in that case.

My personal position IS that God is a bunch of hooey, but that does not follow based on the Deutero-Isaiah issue. Many faithful Jews and Christians acknowledge that Isaiah was written by multiple authors. It's only an insurmountable problem for Mormons.

[_Runtu]

My personal position IS that God is a bunch of hooey, but that does not follow based on the Deutero-Isaiah issue. Many faithful Jews and Christians acknowledge that Isaiah was written by multiple authors. It's only an insurmountable problem for Mormons.

And fundies.

[_Buffalo]

As has been pointed out, this really is nothing more than ipse dixit on your part.

And as I've said, I'm not Roman and I don't care. If you wish to actually argue against what I've said in an meaningful way, I'm all ears.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=ipse+dixit