/lit/ - Literature

>>19263762
Kill yourself, incel

>>19263762
It's literally just a written version of the Oral Tradition amongst the Jews, attributing authorship to any of it is silly.

>>19263762
I think it is fine to keep heretical books, just so you actually know the arguments of heretics so that you may argue against them. As long as you have the mental fortitute to resist their tricks that is.

>>19263819
I heard the story about the Blessed Theotokos not entering a monk's cell because he had some Nestorian writings in it.
I don't know if I should burn the book, because I don't want someone to find it and believe in these lies about "deutero-Isaiah". But maybe the book also has some good stuff in it I haven't read yet, it's from a priest who relies it seems too much on modern scholarship.

>>19263762
It depends because ancient cultures had a different idea/definition for authorship of stuff. If the Book of Isaiah was actually written by Isaiah for the first 39 chapters and then 40-55 and 56-66 were from students of Isaiah capturing his oral teachings and prophesies before his death, that would still be considered as being authored entirely by Isaiah by ancient standards. This "three people" theory has actually been disputed in recent years, with a competing view being a 1-33 and 34-66 division on "judgments to come" and "the aftermath and restoration to come." The prevailing view that supports complete authorship by Isaiah is simply that he, and other prophets, sealed their post-exile prophesies away by order of God and they were unsealed in exile so he could speak 200 years into the future with perfect accuracy about the state of affairs. This view is supported by Isaiah 29:11-12.

However, if you're suggesting that completely random and unrelated people to Isaiah wrote the latter half of his book, and weren't using his actual prophesies and merely editing them into book form, then that is heretical.

>>19263762
Some of the Torah was penned by Moses whom recieved from God through the Holy Ghost. Most of it is corrupted by the Jews. Read Qur'an.

>>19263981
>Read Qur'an.
Denies the divinity of Christ, so it's to be discarded.

>>19263912
What is the modern state of scholarship about Moses and the five (or however many they like to say) sources the Torah was supposedly compiled from?
I find it funny that people take it so seriously that different names of God being used must mean it was different group making the text.

>>19263987
You have more trust in Paul then trust in your Christ. Worship your "Father", instead, it is written in your gospels. Do not call Christ the Lord, for there is one LORD.
Christ says, "Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity."(Matt. 7:22-23)
Christ says, "Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is GREATER THAN I."(John 14:28)

>>19264038
>it's another muslim quotes the Gospel episode

>>19264067
This.
>Those parts were legitimate! But not the other parts where it says Christ is God!

>>19264093
Where, in the Gospels, does Christ claim superiority over the Father?

>>19264098
>superiority over the Father
You are putting words into my mouth.
If you knew anything about Christian belief, we do believe the Father is superior to Christ in some senses (that of being the One who gives Christ existence eternally) but that their divine power and will is still one and the same power and will. Christ says numerous times that He is One with the Father and that He possesses the Father's glory from all eternity. This is not a created glory He possesses. Because in Christ's humanity the glory only became fully apparent after His resurrection, and briefly in His transfiguration, where He claims it is HIS kingdom that is to come, not just His Father's.
I urge you to sit down and actually read the Gospel of John from cover to cover before quoting it.

>So now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had in your presence before the world existed.
John 17:5
>Assuredly, I say to you, there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His Kingdom.”
Matthew 16:28

>>19263762
Yes, Isaiah is a composite of multiple different authors, and yes, the Torah is likewise. The books of the Hebrew bible all have complicated textual histories over (in many cases) literal centuries down to when they were more or less fixed, probably when the translation of the Septaugint made it necessary in the Hellenistic period.

>>19264137
There are many things wrong with what you said, but at least you are reading your scriptures, even if they are corrupt(you will deny this). Much of Christian theology is adapted from Greek(pagan) philosophy and belief and likewise are the Greek gospels, which are the only known today. Therefore, it is impossible for me to argue through your scripture. I would not like to quarrel, your views are a result of two thousand years of cope which I am, unfortunately, unable to demolish.

>>19264195
>even if they are corrupt
I have the same scriptures the first Christians had. And I have an uncorrupted Old Testament which dates to more than a thousand years before Muhammad. I would have to be insane and completely untrusting in the Lord to assume it all got corrupted so long before the Qur'an came to us. If it is supposed to be the measure for all scripture, there can't be a multiple century gap where no preserved scripture exists. Do you at least see why I distrust the idea that your religion is true when it is in such stark discontinuity with previous revelation?
Islam cannot even coherently explain the idea of what it means to be the Messiah without relying on the Old Testament which it claims is a corruption. Having a few vague quotes (from Christian heretical books!) about Christ making miracles is not sufficient to explain why He was sent and how He is a fulfillment of the promises given to Israel.
>two thousand years
So you admit Islam is just a later view which originated in a world which already had Christ's preserved revelation?

>>19263912
>If the Book of Isaiah was actually written by Isaiah for the first 39 chapters and then 40-55 and 56-66 were from students of Isaiah capturing his oral teachings and prophesies before his death, that would still be considered as being authored entirely by Isaiah by ancient standards.
That Deutero-Isaiah has a very different style, is writing in the context of a period centuries later. and has a completely different theology, are pretty strong reasons to disbelieve the idea of students.
>The prevailing view that supports complete authorship by Isaiah is simply that he, and other prophets, sealed their post-exile prophesies away by order of God and they were unsealed in exile so he could speak 200 years into the future with perfect accuracy about the state of affairs.
Lmao. If you desperately want to believe unitary authorship that you'll come up with some story that we have zero evidence for about scrolls being sealed for 200 years then okay.
>>19264008
>What is the modern state of scholarship about Moses and the five (or however many they like to say) sources the Torah was supposedly compiled from?
Literally no-one apart from ultra-Orthodox Jews and the most fundamentalist of fundamentalists defend Mosaic authorship anymore. The classic documentary hypothesis (there were 4 sources combined by one guy) has also been discredited in favour of different "supplementary" or "fragmentary" approaches where various stories were composed independently and added to each other and expanded over a period of centuries.

Are there seriously people who don't get this? Have you ever actually read the damn thing? The scribes are constantly talking about how they're editing it to smooth over some doctrinal point that the last generation was arguing about. Moses ascends into heaven before many of the events in it happen, how could he possibly have written it?

>>19264307
>Literally no-one apart from ultra-Orthodox Jews and the most fundamentalist of fundamentalists defend Mosaic authorship

>>19264307
>has a completely different theology

>>19264330
Yeah. Deutero-Isaiah literally proclaims Cyrus the Great as the Messiah.

>>19264307
>is writing in the context of a period centuries later
Gee, it's almost like Isaiah was a prophet who, through God, could prophesy about the future and thus write in that future context to his future audience...
>you'll come up with some story that we have zero evidence for about scrolls being sealed for 200 years then okay.
Isaiah 29:11-12 refers to the sealing away of teachings that people aren't ready for, and since Isaiah 29 is contained within the portion that most scholars accept as the historical Isaiah's teachings (either the first 33 or first 29 chapters), it can be considered as evidence.

>>19264307
>is writing in the context of a period centuries later
Gee, it's almost like Isaiah was a prophet who, through God, could prophesy about the future and thus write in that future context to his future audience...
>you'll come up with some story that we have zero evidence for about scrolls being sealed for 200 years then okay.
Isaiah 29:11-12 refers to the sealing away of teachings that people aren't ready for, and since Isaiah 29 is contained within the portion that most scholars accept as the historical Isaiah's teachings (either the first 33 or first 39 chapters), it can be considered as evidence.

>>19265778
>Gee, it's almost like Isaiah was a prophet who, through God, could prophesy about the future and thus write in that future context to his future audience...
Well yeah, but Islam and Mormonism and Hinduism etc. claim the same thing to explain logical inconsistencies in their own sacred texts. You can claim Isaiah is different based on your own faith, but that's not rational argumentation that can convince anyone who doesn't already share your presuppositions. Just say you want to believe it and move on.
>Isaiah 29:11-12 refers to the sealing away of teachings that people aren't ready for, and since Isaiah 29 is contained within the portion that most scholars accept as the historical Isaiah's teachings (either the first 33 or first 39 chapters), it can be considered as evidence.
Well, Isaiah 29:11-12 is a prose interpolation in the middle of verse oracles. But if you want to say that proto-Isaiah was sealed then sure, that would in fact suggest no relationship to Deutero-Isaiah (proto-Isaiah was unsealed centuries later for Deutero- and Trito-Isaiah to be added).