Deutro-Isaiah. Credible or Incredible...?

[_Buffalo]

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?

The learned Jews near the end of the Babylonian captivity (when Deutero-Isaiah was written) most certainly knew that Isaiah didn't write it. But as Samantabhadra, this was common practice in the ancient world.

[Guest]

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.

What an odd claim. The gospels come from the oral tradition of passing along stories about Jesus. It was some time before they were written down. This has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not they are "true accounts."

If I were to write a true biography, would the use of a pseudonym make my book a work of fiction?

[_Buffalo]

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.

You're not a mature Christian. You have a primary-level approach to scripture.

[_Buffalo]

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.

Indeed.

[_Franktalk]

You're not a mature Christian. You have a primary-level approach to scripture.

I guess when I advance I will make the following statements.

"My personal position IS that God is a bunch of hooey"

But the term advance comes in two flavors. One flavor is of the world and to advance in the world leads to your comments. But to advance in spirit leads to other conclusions. I may not be correct in everything I write but I do know that I am closer to the truth than many who claim to be wise.

[_Tobin]

What an odd claim. The gospels come from the oral tradition of passing along stories about Jesus. It was some time before they were written down. This has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not they are "true accounts." If I were to write a true biography, would the use of a pseudonym make my book a work of fiction?

Is that so? So, what parts of these books are we to believe then? We all know oral stories tend to get exaggerated and distorted over time. Even a simple message passed between a circle of few people can become very mangled, so it become less and less clear (using this line of reasoning), if anything in these books can be trusted. For example, Jesus's magic tricks? Real or exaggeration? How about Jesus coming back from the dead? and so on. Certainly any quotes from Jesus are not his words and can not be trusted. Basically, this view of the books of the Bible turns them into mushy peas, but little else. We might as well cook up and eat the Bible for all the use it is in relaying information about the true Jesus and what he may truly have said and done.

[_Buffalo]

You're not a mature Christian. You have a primary-level approach to scripture.

I guess when I advance I will make the following statements.

"My personal position IS that God is a bunch of hooey"

But the term advance comes in two flavors. One flavor is of the world and to advance in the world leads to your comments. But to advance in spirit leads to other conclusions. I may not be correct in everything I write but I do know that I am closer to the truth than many who claim to be wise.

No, but when (if) you do become a mature Christian you'll learn to see scripture in more shades than black and white.

[_Buffalo]

What an odd claim. The gospels come from the oral tradition of passing along stories about Jesus. It was some time before they were written down. This has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not they are "true accounts." If I were to write a true biography, would the use of a pseudonym make my book a work of fiction?

Is that so? So, what parts of these books are we to believe then? We all know oral stories tend to get exaggerated and distorted over time. Even a simple message passed between a circle of few people can become very mangled, so it become less and less clear (using this line of reasoning), if anything in these books can be trusted. For example, Jesus's magic tricks? Real or exaggeration? How about Jesus coming back from the dead? and so on. Certainly any quotes from Jesus are not his words and can not be trusted. Basically, this view of the books of the Bible turns them into mushy peas, but little else. We might as well cook up and eat the Bible for all the use it is in relaying information about the true Jesus and what he may truly have said and done.

I don't think even the most fundamentalist Christians would deny that the stories of Jesus were passed on orally before they were written down.

[_Franktalk]

No, but when (if) you do become a mature Christian you'll learn to see scripture in more shades than black and white.

I rather enjoy my black and white world. When everything is gray things have no edges and it hard to see clearly.

[_Tobin]

I don't think even the most fundamentalist Christians would deny that the stories of Jesus were passed on orally before they were written down.

Well, I guess it is all a question of how you like your mushy peas? Are these first-hand accounts or as I best understand it, 2nd and 3rd or 4th-hand or even further on down the chain accounts? So far, the prevailing theory I'm hearing is that John wasn't written by John, Luke wasn't written by Luke, and so on. It was written by other people who had no direct knowledge or even access to the people that took part in the actual events. I think it is one thing to state that the authors of the books were the authors themselves and they were relaying first-hand accounts of the people involved (say Luke asking Mary about the early life of Jesus) vs yeah, mushy peas.