How Many Isaiahs Wrote Isaiah?

Skeptics who don’t believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God have a few problems, not the least of which is that it successfully prophesies major world events before they took place. And I’m not just talking about end-times prophecies that haven’t occurred yet.

Isaiah and Daniel are the two starkest examples. I’ve already written about Daniel in my previous blog, “The Daniel Lynchpin,” which you can read here. This week I want to talk about Isaiah, why it’s come under fire by Bible critics, and resolve the “multiple authors” controversy.

Isaiah’s prophetic ministry started in around 740 BC, during a dark time in the history of the Jewish people. The Assyrian empire was growing while Egypt was shrinking, with Israel and Judah caught in the middle. The Assyrians were some of the most brutal conquerors in history. They were known to flay their enemies alive and hang the skins on the wall surrounding the capital, Nineveh. The city was also decorated with amputated arms and legs and piles of severed “head pyramids” of their victims. Perhaps worst of all, the Assyrians perfected the art of “assimilation;” forcing out a city’s inhabitants to either be brutally executed or sold into slavery, then occupying their homes for themselves.

This is exactly the fate suffered by the Northern kingdom of Israel. In 722, the Assyrians invaded and conquered the ten tribes of the North, scattering them in exile across the empire. This tragedy is covered in II Kings 17 and II Chronicles 22. With Israel in ruins, the Assyrians now gathered at the border, ready to invade Judah.

The theme of Isaiah is two-fold: forsake idolatry and turn back to worship of the One True God to be saved from Assyria. Isaiah 10:24-25: Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD of hosts, O my people that dwellest in Zion, be not afraid of the Assyrian: he shall smite thee with a rod, and shall lift up his staff against thee, after the manner of Egypt. For yet a very little while, and the indignation shall cease, and mine anger in their destruction.

But Isaiah doesn’t stop there. Not only does God promise to spare Jerusalem if they return to Him, He also foretells major world events that took place well after the eighth century BC.

While Jerusalem was spared from Sennacherib, one hundred years later, a new menace would arise to take its place, Babylon. But this time, the results would be very different. Jeremiah’s warnings went unheeded until God removed His protection and Nebuchadnezzar broke the city walls. In 586 BC, Babylon totally destroyed Jerusalem, razing Solomon’s temple to the ground and burning the city. The Jews were taken into captivity that would last seventy years.

However, Babylon itself wouldn’t last. Not long after Nebuchadnezzar’s death, his grandson Belshazzar would oversee its downfall when Babylon was invaded by a new empire, a union between Media and Persia. The Medo-Persians breeched its defensive walls and killed its king, bringing Babylon to ruin. Daniel 5:30-31: In that night was Belshazzar the king of the Chaldeans slain. And Darius the Median took the kingdom, being about threescore and two years old.

The fall of Babylon to the Medo-Persians occurred in 539 BC, but was prophesied by Isaiah about 150 years beforehand. Thus saith the LORD to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have holden, to subdue nations before him; and I will loose the loins of kings, to open before him the two leaved gates; and the gates shall not be shut; I will go before thee, and make the crooked places straight: I will break in pieces the gates of brass, and cut in sunder the bars of iron: (Isaiah 45:1-2). This likely refers to Cyrus II, who lived from 576-530 BC. While Daniel calls the conqueror “Darius the Median,” this could be a misnomer: history doesn’t have record of a king “Darius” during the time of the Babylonian invasion. However, Cyrus the Great did have a military general named Gobryas who oversaw the conquest, so this is probably the “Darius the Median” identified by Daniel.

There’s much controversy over Isaiah specifically naming “Cyrus” years before the man existed, leading to the charge by some critics that this is a later addition by scribes tampering with the text. But even if that is the case, it doesn’t change the point: Isaiah clearly promises that the gates of Babylon will be opened by a king the Lord had anointed to break the kingdom.

In “The Daniel Lynchpin,” I mentioned a 19th century textual critic named JG Eichhorn who first proposed that Daniel was a fictional book created during the Maccabean revolt to inspire the Jews into believing that God and destiny was on their side. This was Eichhorn’s way of getting around the fact that Daniel prophesies so many world events, such as the rise and sudden death of Alexander the Great and the Six Syrian wars of chapter 11.

I’ve already written on this extensively, but to sum it up: Eichhorn’s date for Daniel can be dismissed if we find copies of Daniel from before the Maccabean period (137 BC), and sure enough, multiple copies of Daniel from the Dead Sea scrolls date back from thirty to sixty years prior (160-200 BC at the earliest). Furthermore, it’s clear that Daniel was a highly revered prophet among the radical Essenic Jews that formed the Qumranite community, as there are several meticulously copied Daniel scrolls; this would not be the case if he were a fictional character.

But it’s moot anyway, because Eichhorn’s proposal fails spectacularly in another gigantic way; placing Daniel during the Maccabean revolt doesn’t explain how the book prophesies world events that took place after the Maccabean revolt! Daniel doesn’t just predict Alexander the Great and the Six Syrian wars: he also predicts the rise of Rome. The two iron legs from Nebuchadnezzar’s statue represent a world kingdom founded by two brothers (Romulus and Remus), as does the great beast with iron claws emerging from the seas in Daniel 7 (he also predicts the destruction of the second temple at the hands of Emperor Titus in Daniel 9:24-27; this occurred in 70 AD).

Eichhorn was committing the classic fatal error of atheism. He presumed philosophical naturalism (the belief that physical matter is all there is in the universe, rejecting the existence of the supernatural or God), then judged all theology as if naturalism were the truth, dismissing miraculous events as described in the Bible. But he never established why naturalism is the truth. Because inconveniently for the nonbeliever, naturalism has never been proven, and is actually scientifically problematic.

But I digress. Eichhorn’s presumption that the supernatural doesn’t exist left him at a loss to explain prophesies in Daniel and Isaiah. So he had to come up with naturalistic explanations. And even when his explanations have been disproven by recent discoveries, academia, under the same philosophical bias towards naturalism, refuses to abandon them.

Eichhorn is also responsible for the “multiple authors of Isaiah” theory. Isaiah 45 predicts the fall of Babylon to the Medo-Persians. So to address that, Eichhorn proposed that it has more than one author. Isaiah 1-39 all consist of a similar pattern: it takes place in a particular time period (pre-Assyrian invasion) and Isaiah references himself several times. Chapter 39 ends with Sennacherib’s forces being smitten by the angel of the Lord just outside the gates of Jerusalem. But the final 27 chapters of Isaiah seem different. They aren’t contained within a story, don’t claim to be written during the reign of any particular king, are much more poetic, and Isaiah doesn’t mention himself. Some scholars have taken this a step further, isolating chapters 40-55 and calling them “Deutero-Isaiah.”

The most well-preserved Dead Sea scroll has been called the “Great Isaiah scroll,” a near flawless copy of Isaiah found in Cave 1. It is the first of 22 ancient copies of the book discovered near the Dead Sea, from a variety of different time periods. At the very latest, the Great Isaiah scroll is from the late second century BC, maybe even earlier. If Eichhorn’s proposal is true, evidence for it should be found here of all places.

This isn’t just because of the scroll’s age; it’s also because the Essenic scribes were extremely diligent in their copying. They Great Isaiah scroll contains thorough footnotes and commentary from whoever compiled it. These notes are so myopic that they even focus heavily on a slight inconsistency between the account of Hezekiah’s healing in Isaiah 38 and II Kings 20. Yet there is absolutely no mention of multiple authors. Chapter 39 transitions effortlessly into chapter 40; and believe me, had there been any hint of a discrepancy within the text, the Dead Sea copyist would have spotted and wrote extensively on it in the margins.

So we can say with certainty that the no one was aware of a second author for Isaiah as far back as at least the second century BC. And since the Essenes were copying older scrolls, there was clearly no evidence for this going back much further in time.

But just like with Daniel, I have another contribution to the argument that blows Eichhorn’s proposal out of the water. In short, he was assuming that Isaiah 45 was the only reference to the fall of Babylon. But if there’s a prophecy of it in the clearly unified text of Isaiah 1-39, that undeniably was written by Isaiah, his entire premise falls apart. And sure enough, we do have such a direct prediction in the thirteenth chapter: Behold, I will stir up the Medes against them, which shall not regard silver; and as for gold, they shall not delight in it…And Babylon, the glory of kingdoms, the beauty of the Chaldees' excellency, shall be as when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah (Isaiah 13:17,19).

Here once again, Isaiah gives an exact prophecy: God will destroy the Babylonians through the hands of the Medo-Persians. And unlike chapter 45, there is no question that this was written 150 or so years beforehand. As I stand back and look at the Bible as a whole, I am in awe of how well it stacks up despite the world of criticism aimed at it over the centuries. No other document from ancient history could endure so much yet still be so immovable. As we honestly assess the evidence, its supernatural nature becomes undeniable. This blog hasn’t even begun to address the Messianic prophesies of the suffering servant and how they are fulfilled by Jesus. Perhaps those who have tried so hard to discredit the book of Isaiah are missing one of its most dire warnings: There is no peace, saith the LORD, unto the wicked (Isaiah 48:22).

The statement at the end of Revelation/Apocalypse is refering to the book of the Apocalypse only (for instance)

Are you trying to tell us here that the Author of the commandment at the end of this volume has not given it before, or at least intimated as to His Will in preserving and propagating the whole Book of books? That the implication is only for the summary of the things which must shortly come to pass? That out-take is sort of simplistic and incomplete when one understands the role that the Revelation The God gave to His Son concerning the future, that He The Son would show (with heavenly messenger helping) to His servants, which they could re-tell, accurately and precisely, without change.

(See Deut. 4:2, 12:32; Prov. 30:6; Mt. 4:4, 5:18, 15:6-9, 15:13, 28:20a; Lk. 4:4, 16:17)

A pedantic point, but the Bible is not a book, it is a collection of books.

No, that is not so, nor do I consider it very good pedantry. The Bible is not merely a random collection of independent pious, but inspired books. I ti also their organization that is inspired.

I must apologize that awhile upthread, in discussing God's revelation of His Will to mankind, I neglected to mention a pervasive factor, and that is that the the Holy Scriptures, the Sacred Writings, of which He is the Only Author, embody His plan of presenting them, which is an ongoing progressive revealing, through hundreds of years gradually unrolled according to His timing.

Like a tapestry, the revelation has a beginning, and an end in His Omniscient sight. As the fabric of this verbal communication is woven, there have been no mistakes in the pattern. Jehovah God is never, ever wrong. Not only is it a perfect fabric at any moment of the weaving, but once a stretch has been completed, not only does He not need to make changes, but most certainly it is not within the purview of the copyist to alter, delete, embroider, or add supplements.

And when the tapestry is completed, final row in place, the threads tied off, nothing can increase the information it supplies. There is no more special revelation, no more theofantasies being promoted as theophanies. I am sure the Bible now rests complete, displayed in The Holiest Place of Heaven, in the sight of the Father and The Son, occupying the highest place of Honor, together with the Blood of Christ:

"I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name" (Ps. 138:2 AV).

In this sense, God had each segment of the writings coherently address a certain deepening of the richness of His Will, of which the overall theme is the Coming of the King of Kings, the Prince of Princes, and His Kingdom of Righteousness and Peace. The purpose of this tapestry of words has been to tel His Plan of Salvation to a depraved community of condemned and spiritually imprisoned spawn of Satan, the god of this world, that they might be ransomed, rescued, released, reconciled, restored, reborn, received as His children, reconstituted as citizens of His Kingdom, recruited as discipled soldiers of the Gospel, redeployed to carry the Good and Gracious News out to the limits of men's habitations, raptured into the clouds to become His Bride, rewarded for their diligence in furthering His earthly Estate, ravished with His never-dying love, and returned to the earthly sphere to reign with Him in the Disposition of His Rightfully Ruled Realm.

Again, each of the volumes was added in its time, not independent of the Plan, but integrated with the previous portions, until the entire proposition was completed, and presented as a finished work to the populations of the earth. To change one component, one knot, would be to change it all. Therefore even at the conclusion, this is the last and most important imperative to implement.

The finishing touches were added by His Servant, the Theologian, Beloved John, His long-living liege in his last days of earthly residence. He must have been cheerfully contemplating his jubilant rejoicing with His Dear Savior as he laid his pen, finally, down.

Mine isn't conjecture - the facts are:

Peter and Paul traveled within the Roman Empire. For the first Christians, they followed the route of the Roman empire - within the boundaries they had free travel, safety and infrastructure. -

Christianity spread along the roads and routes of the Roman Empire
You have the facts about Paul's letters
you have the history of the Ancient Church of the East based in Ctesiphon. If they could have proved that Peter visited them, they would have claimed it. They clearly claim that St. Thomas the Apostle founded it -- why would someone in the 21st century know better than them and what they have claimed since the 1st century?
It had a harder time spreading in the Sassanid Empire AFTER Theodosius declared Christianity as state religion in 378 AD
Christianity in the East really took off after the disassociation with Christianity in the West -- by the 8th century, fully 33% to 40% of Christians lived under the Catholicos of the Church of the East, spread from Persia to India and to Mongolia (the Naiman tribe for instance)

Going to Babylon (btw Dangus, while Babylon had been deserted in the 1st century, it was just across the river from Ctesiphon, the capital of the Parthians and from Seleucia (set up by Seleucid, a diadochi (companion) of Alexander the great) of which it was originally a suburb. - you have the Seleucian histories which state that Seleucus I Nicator moved artisans, bureaucrats and many businessmen from Babylon to Seleucia (his city across the river) in 275 AD and the population decline was steep. By the time the Parthians came, they didn't even bother to beseige Babylon. They set up shop in Ctesiphon, a suburb of Seleucia. Ever since then the center was Ctesiphon-Seleucia and that is still the seat of the Patriarchate of the Chuch of the East
Other apostles went to the east, significantly St. Thomas who preached to the Jews in southern India (Jews had and have been there since the 5th century BC) - again this is factual - you can visit the basilica of St. Thomas in Kodungallur (i've been there)
Peter did die just outside Rome - every source mentions this
> -- as dangus correctly points out, the Vatican hill is not one of the seven hills of Rome and was outside the boundaries of the city even outside the Aurelian walls - this is again a factual statement

So I'm not sure where you see conjecture in my above statements

------------

To your points

No one says that Babylon meant nothing to Peter -- the very wikipedia article you quote says "After the fall of Jerusalem, Babylon would become the focus of Judaism for more than a thousand years, and the place where Jews would acclimate themselves as a people without a land" -- Jews really started moving there AFTER 69 AD when the Temple was destroyed. Prior to that, you didn't have a large reason for Jews to go to the capital of the Parthian Empire except as traders. Yes there was a small community there, just as in India

Now as to Peter going there -- as I pointed out, you have the Ancient Church of the East - based in Ctesiphon-Seleucia (in the Bagdad/Babylon area) - and they claim to be founded by St. Thomas the Apostle.

These guys were opposed to the Church of the West (the ancestor Church of the Orthodox, Catholic, Copts, Armenians, Protestants etc.) - so if they could have claimed descent from Peter, why would they not have done so? Mar Babai the great acknowledged the primary of the bishop of Rome but said that the Westerners were wrong -- if he could instead have claimed primacy, he would have, but he didn't - so no, Peter didn't visit there

Peter stood not so far from the Babylonian exile that the land was not any longer known by the metonomy "Babylon." Surely he could not disregard the heavy concentration of Jews remaining and multiplying in it. - as pointed out above, historically this is inaccurate - there was not a heavy concentration of Jews before the destruction of the temple and even after that, the numbers didn't explode until the Bar Kochkba revolt in 194 AD -- before this, the Temple was destroyed but the Jews could still live in Israel. After 194 they were kicked out. During Peter's time, Ctesiphon was still a weak trading post. AND St. Thomas went there - the apostles divided up the travels amongst themselves

you talk about The rabbi Abba Arika (175–247 AD), -- but this was AFTER the Bar Kochkba revolt -- sheesh, come on, post the destruction of the temple, Jews still preferred to stay in their holy land. The ones who didn't were those enslaved (and those were fighters and their families of the 69 AD revolt. The BAR KOCHKBA revolt was far more wide-spread - Jews in Cyprus and Cyrenica (north-east Libya) slaughtered all the gentiles in their lands and the Roman Empire came down HARD. They then followed the scorched earth policy and Jews escaped to the IRANIS - the Sassanid Empire. This Rabbi was during THAT period, not earlier

I offer not just my opinion, but the facts of Jewish religious history - you give the history 100 to 150 years later.

With all due respect for your leanings, there is not one smidgen of information residing in the Scriptures to support that assumption. - there's no information in the Scriptures that Peter even died, so would you dispute that? I'm talking about historical proof and to me the clincher is that the Ancient Church of the East NEVER claimed that Peter died there.

Come on -- the Parthians freely allowed Christians to preach in their lands, why would they CRUCIFY Peter for preaching? And Crucifiction was a uniquely ROMAN form of execution.

What makes you think that Simon Peter would leave the rich, spiritually fertile geographical area that was at the center of his allocated area of ministry to Jews and Jewish Christians, to go off and drag over the territory that Paul and his evangelistic team were predominantly in the process of plowing? - because his allocated area of ministry was to the West. St. THOMAS went to the East. Paul was the Apostle to the Gentiles remember, so technically across all the other apostles. Peter was the first to baptise a gentile but he, like Thomas, went to Jewish communities first (St. Thomas went to the Jewish community in Kodungallur in modern day Kerala

It would not surprise me at all that of the many thousands of new disciples that were in Jerusalem for the mandated festival, were from the Babylonian shuls - it would surprise everyone as those shuls were largely populated AFTER the Bar kochkba revolt and even their origins are after the 69 AD revolt

sorry, but historically and by the very statements of the competing Church of the East (based in Ctesiphon-Seleucia), Peter neither preached in Babylon, nor did he die there. So factually your post is wrong.

you got it wrong - the "saved" part namely the Justification is purely from Christ's sacrifice which saved us all. You can't earn it from the process of sanctification

According to Trent, “none of those things that precede justification, whether faith or works, merit the grace of justification. When we come to God and are justified, it happens without any merit on our part. Neither our faith nor our works—nor anything else—merits justification.

Ephesians 2:10 reads:

For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

Mark 10:22

And you will be hated of all men for my name’s sake. But he who endures to the end will be saved

"Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal bodies, to make you obey their passions. Do not yield your members to sin as instruments of wickedness, but yield yourselves to God as men who have been brought from death to life, and your members to God as instruments of righteousness" Romans (6:12-13).

According to Scripture, sanctification and justification aren’t just one-time events, but are ongoing processes in the life of the believer. Both can be spoken of as past-time events, as Paul mentions in 1 Corinthians 6:11: "But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God." Sanctification is also a present, ongoing process, as the author of Hebrews notes: "For by one offering he has perfected forever those who are being sanctified" (Heb. 10:14).

im, you said whereas Scriptural salvation means that the gracious God alone does the saving when the justifying transaction of exchange of the sin-debt (paid by the Crucified One) -- you do realise that is Catholic theology, right? That God alone does the saving. you don't save yourself, you don't merit salvation of your own deeds

"Justification has been merited for us by the Passion of Christ who offered himself on the cross as a living victim, holy and pleasing to God, and whose blood has become the instrument of atonement for the sins of all men."

- "But when is the Judge's decree, "Not Guilty" announced, and the case dismissed?" -- err.. the decree was NOT that you are "Not guilt" but that your sins have been forgiven, that your debt is paid. Sorry, but you and I are guilt of sin, but we get saved not because we are "not guilty" but because we are forgiven, by the All-Merciful

You've forgotten that part, eh? It is not merely atonement, a once-for-all-and-for-all-time the satisfaction of the sin-debt and ownership of them; it is a propitiation, a placating of the fiery wrath of an Angry God, the assuaging of the hurts of a disappointed Father, a redirection of the justice of an offended Ruler? - I didn't forget that, as I said, you are still guilty of sin as am I, but we are saved, forgiven of this sin by God through Jesus' sacrifice. Don't go about saying you are not guilty of sin, that is false, you are. You were forgiven of this, you are cleansed of this not because you are suddenly "not guilty" but because you have been forgiven by another who took your punishment due

Come on! When is that ransom process completed, the sins forgiven, abandoned, and forgotten; and the confessing penitant cleansed from all unrighteousness, for once and all time?

there is no ransom process
You are brought in front of court and told you are guilt but someone else has paid the price for your guilt and you can walk free. You can now rise in holiness to be in God's presence, you are no longer bound
The sins were forgiven
The sins are abandoned when we stop sinning, but the forgiveness is already paid, out of space and time
the confessing penitant is cleansed from all unrighteousness in the process of growing in Christ
you were forgiven before you were even born (if we reckon in space-time concepts we can comprehend), but we are still guilt of sinning and we rise in holiness, in God given grace we grow until we return to His presence -- your life is a testimony to God, not a sudden wack on the head

To be very specific, the author of the book of the Apocalypse, John of Patmos wrote specifically about not adding to his vision.

Do not forget that God used men to author the books of the Bible - Christians do not believe that the Bible is word-for-word dictated by God through Gabriel -> that is the Islamic belief about the Quran (well the main Izlamik belief of about 98% of Mohammadens -- the Quranists and Mu'tawikillites and to some extent Ismailis don't agree with that)

----------------

Also remember that the book of the Apocalypse was the last book to be added in -- it was nearly dropped out of the canon due to objections by some such as Gaius that it was a forgery of the heretic Cerinthus while Dionysius of Alexandria, in the late third century, makes the argument that Revelation was written by another John besides the apostle. Eusebius appears to agree with him. However Dionysius does not reject the book on these grounds and considered it holy and inspired.

It IS Inspired, don't get me wrong, and many,many Church Fathers also agree with this conclusion (as do I :) and I am far, far from wise)

----

Anyway, after that historical digression, note that the admonition is only about the book of Revelation, not abotu the future canon (as the canon wasn't closed until the 4th century)

your references are not related to this at all

Detu 4:2 "Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the Lord your God that I give you." -- This is about Deuteronomy and if you take this blindly, you may reject the commandment of Christ, but I don't think you do. Note that most of the books of the Bible were written after Deuteronomy
Deut 12:32 "32 See that you do all I command you; do not add to it or take away from it" -- again, the command at the end of the book of Revelations is pertaining about the book of revelations alone
Prov 30:6 "Every word of God is flawless; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. 6 Do not add to his words, or he will rebuke you and prove you a liar." -- by taking this literally as you have, you would rejct Daniel, Isaiah, Micah as well as the entire New Testament

I could go on, but your links are completely out of context and if you read them as literally it would suggest you reject every book of the Bible written after that verse

---------

I didn't say the Bible was a random collection of inspired books. I did say that it IS a collection of books - the books are not arranged in any God-given order the books of the Old Testament are divided along a topical arrangement. They are divided into sections for sake of convenience:

The Law (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, numbers, deut
Poetry (Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Eccl, Song of Solomon
Prophets (17 books)
Minor prophets (12)
The terms major and Minor Prophets are derived from the size of the writings - it has nothing to do with their importance. The Major Prophets are longer writings than the Minor Prophets.
This division goes back to the time the Old Testament was translated from Hebrew into Greek. This translation, known as the Septuagint (which means seventy and is abbreviated LXX), began in the third century before Christ. Jerome, who translated the Old Testament into Latin in the fourth century A.D., also adapted this division. The English division follows Jerome.
The Hebrew bible follows a different order - The Hebrew Bible divides the Scripture into three divisions - the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings. The Hebrew terms are Torah, Nebhiim, and Kethubiim. The acronym TeNaKh is used to describe the entire collection (Torah, Nebhiim, Kethubiim).
1. The Law (Gen, Ex, Levi, numbers,Deut)
2. The prophets (8 books: Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Isaih, Jeremiah, Ezekiel)
3. Kethubiim (11 books)
This threefold division is even referred to in the NT - Jesus Himself referred to the threefold division of the Old Testament.
He said to them, "This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms" (Luke 24:44).
Now when it comes to the New Testament - The twenty-seven books are roughly chronological but they are not placed in the order in which they were written.
The order of the four gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John is known as the Augustinian order. This is named after the early Church Father, Augustine. Augustine concluded that the gospels were written in this chronological order - Matthew the first and John the last. Most modern scholars assume that Mark was written first
In the western Church, the letters of Paul are placed before the general letters. In the eastern Church this is reversed - the general letters come before Paul's writings.
The thirteen letters of the Apostle Paul are not ordered as to when they were written but rather according to their length. The Book of Romans is the longest letter that Paul wrote to the churches while Colossians is the shortest. First Timothy is the longest letter that Paul wrote to an individual while Philemon is the shortest.
-------------
Scripture is God-inspired, God-breathed, but written down by men. Do not deify the Bible or we end up in a situation like Izlam and the Quran where they conclude that the Q was pre-existent.
"I am sure the Bible now rests complete, displayed in The Holiest Place of Heaven, in the sight of the Father and The Son, occupying the highest place of Honor, -- do NOT do that, that is deifying the Bible. IT is wrong, utterly wrong. The Word of God is Jesus, whole and complete. The Scriptures are God's teachings to us, God-breathed, but not some pre-incarnate object. No. No. No.

Let's go through what is in the Septuagint first:

Genesis
Exodus
Leviticus
Numbers
Deuteronomy
Joshua
Judges
Ruth
1 Samuel
2 Samuel
1 Kings
2 Kings
I Chronicles
II Chronicles
1 Esdras
Ezra-Nehemiah
Tobit or Tobias
Judith
Esther with additions
1 Maccabees
2 Maccabees
3 Maccabees
Psalms
Psalm 151
Prayer of Manasseh
Job
Proverbs
Ecclesiastes
Song of Songs or Song of Solomon or Canticle of Canticles
Wisdom or Wisdom of Solomon
Sirach or Ecclesiasticus
Psalms of Solomon[53]
Minor Prophets
Hosea
Amos
Micah
Joel
Obadiah
Jonah
Nahum
Habakkuk
Zephaniah
Haggai
Zachariah
Malachi
Isaiah
Jeremiah
Baruch
Lamentations
Letter of Jeremiah
Ezekiel
Daniel with additions
4 Maccabees[g]

All are included in the bible with some exceptions:

Those included in the Bible under different names:
- 1 Esrdas - called Ezra
- 2 Erdas - called Nehemiah
- Prayer of Manasseh - put in the Appendix
The ones not included in the Bible are :
- 3 Maccabees
- 4 Maccabees -- the Catholic Encylopedia says this about these two
  III Mach. is the story of a persecution of the Jews in Egypt under Ptolemy IV Philopator (222-205 B. C.), and therefore has no right to its title. Though the work contains much that is historical, the story is a fiction. IV Mach. is a Jewish-Stoic philosophical treatise on the supremacy of pious reason, that is religious principles, over the passions. The martyrdom of Eleazar and of the seven brothers (2 Maccabees 6:18-7) is introduced to illustrate the author's thesis. Neither book has any claim to canonicity, though the first for a while received favourable consideration in some Churches.
- Psalm 151 - Jews as well as Christians reject this, considering it to be written after the rest of Psalms
When St. Jerome first compiled the Vulgate in the 5th century, he compared the Septuagint to other Hebrew translations and found the Hebrew translations to be more accurate. As far as I understand, in the intervening years, the Jews came to the same conclusion independently.
So when the first Vulgate in 405 was compiled, decisions were made as to what was accurate and what wasn't. Works that had some basis in the Hebrew translations available at the time were kept, and others that were called into doubt were dropped.

The deuterocanonical canonical books were in the Jewish Septuagint which Jesus and the Disciples referred to,

Invoking the LXX in support of the deuteros is specious since this presumes that the Septuagint was a uniform body of texts in the time of Christ which contained all the apocryphal books at that time, but for which there is no real historical evidence. The earliest mss which contains them dates from the 4th century, and they are not uniform, and are missing or contain books not accepted as canonical by Rome, while the 1st mss are understood to have been smaller.

Edward Earle Ellis writes, “No two Septuagint codices contain the same apocrypha, and no uniform Septuagint ‘Bible’ was ever the subject of discussion in the patristic church. In view of these facts the Septuagint codices appear to have been originally intended more as service books than as a defined and normative canon of Scripture,” (E. E. Ellis, The Old Testament in Early Christianity [Baker 1992], 34-35.

British scholar R. T. Beckwith states, Philo of Alexandria's writings show it to have been the same as the Palestinian. He refers to the three familiar sections, and he ascribes inspiration to many books in all three, but never to any of the Apocrypha....The Apocrypha were known in the church from the start, but the further back one goes, the more rarely are they treated as inspired. (Roger T. Beckwith, "The Canon of the Old Testament" in Phillip Comfort, The Origin of the Bible [Wheaton: Tyndale House, 2003] pp. 57-64)

Manuscripts of anything like the capacity of Codex Alexandrinus were not used in the first centuries of the Christian era, and since in the second century AD the Jews seem largely to have discarded the Septuagint…there can be no real doubt that the comprehensive codices of the Septuagint, which start appearing in the fourth century AD, are all of Christian origin.

Nor is there agreement between the codices which the Apocrypha include...Moreover, all three codices [Vaticanus, Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus], according to Kenyon, were produced in Egypt, yet the contemporary Christian lists of the biblical books drawn up in Egypt by Athanasius and (very likely) pseudo-Athanasius are much more critical, excluding all apocryphal books from the canon, and putting them in a separate appendix. (Roger Beckwith, [Anglican priest, Oxford BD and Lambeth DD], The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church [Eerdmans 1986], p. 382, 383; http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/01/legendary-alexandrian-canon.html)

Likewise Gleason Archer affirms,

Even in the case of the Septuagint, the apocryphal books maintain a rather uncertain existence. The Codex Vaticanus (B) lacks [besides 3 and 4] 1 and 2 Maccabees (canonical, according to Rome), but includes 1 Esdras (non-canonical, according to Rome). The Sinaiticus (Aleph) omits Baruch (canonical, according to Rome), but includes 4 Maccabees (non-canonical, according to Rome)... Thus it turns out that even the three earliest MSS or the LXX show considerable uncertainty as to which books constitute the list of the Apocrypha.. (Archer, Gleason L., Jr., "A Survey of Old Testament Introduction", Moody Press, Chicago, IL, Rev. 1974, p. 75; http://www.provethebible.net/T2-Integ/B-1101.htm)

The German historian Martin Hengel writes, “Sinaiticus contains Barnabas and Hermas, Alexandrinus 1 and 2 Clement.” “Codex Alexandrinus...includes the LXX as we know it in Rahlfs’ edition, with all four books of Maccabees and the fourteen Odes appended to Psalms.” “...the Odes (sometimes varied in number), attested from the fifth century in all Greek Psalm manuscripts, contain three New Testament ‘psalms’: the Magnificat, the Benedictus, the Nunc Dimittis from Luke’s birth narrative, and the conclusion of the hymn that begins with the ‘Gloria in Excelsis.’ This underlines the fact that the LXX, although, itself consisting of a collection of Jewish documents, wishes to be a Christian book.” (Martin Hengel, The Septuagint as Christian Scripture [Baker 2004], pp. 57-59)

Also,

The Targums did not include these books, nor the earliest versions of the Peshitta, and the apocryphal books are seen to have been later additions, and later versions of the LXX varied in regard to which books of the apocrypha they contained. “Nor is there agreement between the codices which of the Apocrypha include. (Eerdmans 1986), 382. The two most complete targums (translations of the Hebrew Bible into Aramaic which date from the first century to the Middel Ages) contain all the books of the Hebrew Bible except Ezra, Nehemiah and Daniel.

And Cyril of Jerusalem, whose list rejected the apocrypha (except for Baruch) exhorts his readers to “read the Divine Scriptures, the twenty-two books of the Old Testament, these that have been translated by the Seventy-two Interpreters,” the latter referring to the Septuagint but not as including the apocrypha. (http://www.bible-researcher.com/cyril.html) ^

As for the Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumran,

these included not only the community's Bible (the Old Testament) but their library, with fragments of hundreds of books. Among these were some Old Testament Apocryphal books. The fact that no commentaries were found for an Apocryphal book, and only canonical books were found in the special parchment and script indicates that the Apocryphal books were not viewed as canonical by the Qumran community. — The Apocrypha - Part Two Dr. Norman Geisler http://www.jashow.org/Articles/_PDFArchives/theological-dictionary/TD1W0602.pd

All of which has been shown to you i am sure, yet we still see the same parroted propaganda.

In fact 2 Maccabees 7 is what Hebrews 11:35 refers to (among many cases where they are referenced in the NT

You mean allusions to it, versus actual quotations or like many statements from canonical books , are called "Scripture," "the word of God/the Lord," "thus saith the Lord," "God said," "it is written" "Moses said," or the like.

And even a clear reference to something from the deuteros that does not make it Scripture any more than Paul actually quoting a truth uttered by a pagan prophet in Acts 17, or affirming information such as the names of Jannes and Jambres as being those who withstood Moses (2 Timothy 3:8) sanctions the entire body of tradition from whence it came.

Jesus was no doubt drawing on the historical memory of the Jews -- or rather on the recent historical memory -- this had happened less than 200 years earlier.

And what does that prove or support, other than part of the deuteros being used for historical content (yet not wholly accurate as a whole)? The Lord was also drawing on the recent memory of the Jews in Luke 13:3,4. And Bible teachers invoke history on such subjects as the Abomination of Desolation. Being valid history (which fables like Tobit is not) does not make it the wholly inspired word of God, which is not simply true, but " quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart." (Hebrews 4:12) Thanks be to God.

But its not like the deuteros is to be forbidden reading to Prots, but as with Jerome and Luther, the "second canon" falls short of being Scripture proper and fit for doctrine.

Good on you. The made-up religion takes aspects of Christianity but is not the same What is fascinating is that The word "Jesus" is used more times in the Quran (24 times) than the word "Muhammad" (4 times). "Muhammad" was originally a title meaning "the praise-worthy one" and was not a given name prior to the 7th century. So this was clearly the title given to a person. in fact if you read the times Mohammad is used in the Quran it shows "The praiseworthy one" is only a messenger "The Praiseworthy one" is the messenger of Allah... But those who believe in the revelation sent down to "the praiseworthy one" "The praiseworthy one" is the messenger of Allah The first time one hears of a "muhammad" or the Quran or Islam or Muslim is NOT at the time the Arabs supposedly conquered Egypt and Persia and Syria -- all HIGHLY LITERATE places that wrote down their hsitories. No, you read these words nearly a century later after the Ummayads were overthrown in 750 AD by the Abbassids The first biography of Mohammad is written more than one and a half century after this person allegedly lived. Prior to the "conquest" the Arabic tribes were already "Christian" - but Christian in the same sense that Jehovah Witneses are Christian - they were Gnostics or believed that Jesus was not God or was a lesser God etc etc. And these Arabs lived in the Roman Empire and the Persian Empire The "arabs" in the Hejaz were heterodox, believing in Arabic paganism but also with Gnostics, Nestorians, Ebionites (Jehovahs Witnesses like), Zoroastrians, Buddhists, even Hindus - and they had a large community of Jews - Medina was a Jewish city and 50 years prior to the alleged birth of "Muhammad" you had a Jewish King in Yemen slaughtering Christians and being overthrown by the Christian Axumite (Ethiopian) empire. The Quran has ben re-read in Aramaic - the lingua franca of the middle east from 700 BC to 700 AD and it reads as an Ebionite "Christian" text To me this is clear that Originally there were Ebionite "Christian" converts among the Arabs They believed that Jesus was a prophet and "possessed" by the Holy Spirit (which is why the Koran says that he was abandoned by the Spirit on the cross They absorbed pagan Arab beliefs (the Ka'aba) and Zoroastrian beliefs (Paradise, dualism) and Jewish beliefs (making themselves the chosen people by having the Quran have Ishmael the one to be sacrificed instead of Isaac They emulated the PALMYRENE Empire (remember Palmyra which the Islamic state wanted to destroy? in the 3rd century they created an "Arab" empire that took over much of the Middle East before collapsing to the Romans) and also emulated Roman emperor ELAGABALUS (who was a descendent of the Semitic priest kings of Emesa (Homs) who worshipped a black rock) and took their chance when teh Roma and Sassanid Persian empires nearly collapsed after a 50 year brutal war They were WELCOMED by the Semitic Copts, the Semitic Syrians and by Jews and Samaritans -- why? Because they were fellow semites and they seemed to profess a similar Judeo-Christian monotheistic belief The ummayyads (661 to 750) were secular and are criticised by later Moslems for this - but they don't mention Mohammad, Islam etc - in fact Muawiyah calls himself a "defender of the faith" and has a cross on some of his inscriptions they were still trying to distinguish themselves from the Roman (Orthodox) Christians. Only with the Abbassids do they firmly make themselves Muslim And at the same time you see that the Moslem custom of bowing changes from Mecca to PETRA and ultimately to MECCA -- why? Why wasn't it Mecca from the beginning? Because Jerusalem was the holy city, only later under the Abbasids did they try to make it an exclusively Arab nationalism and chose Mecca, a city that wasn't on any trade-routes or cosmopolitan, hence decidedly ARAB (as opposed to other cities that were influenced by others) To Yulee what is the inscription on the inside of the dome of the rock? . There is no god but God. He is One. He has 2.no associate. Unto Him belongeth sovereignity and unto Him belongeth praise. He quickeneth and He giveth death; and He has 3.Power over all things. "The praise worthy one" is the servant of God and His Messenger -- this is NOT what is in the Quran -- to Muslims it would be HARAM (evil, wrong) to misquote the Quran. Yet this Ummayyad era mosque DOES it. - and notice if you read M as a title it is clearly referred to the EBIONITE Christian version of Jesus Yes, Jesus was the original, in the Quran referred to "praiseworthy one" - the Mohammad The Mohammad of the Sira is a mix of different Arab warlords ditto for the Hadiths which are heavily contradictory They started out as a heresy of Christianity jsut as the Jehovah's Witnesses are or the Ebionites or Gnostics were, but then added in Arab nationalism and created the idea of their prophet. Their very beliefs are contradictory -- "Allah is all-merciful", yet that means that he is dependent on his creations (how can you be all-merciful if you are just one). Without the concept of a Trinity, the idea of God saying "Let US make man in OUR image" makes no sense. The push back on Mohammadenism must start from this -- [point out that the belief is contradictory, that it is originating as a Christian heresy and fails even religious belief.

Impressive. Thanks

you cannot earn your salvation - that is Pelasgian and not Catholic.

But you do not deny that "by the grace of God" one can merit eternal life, becoming good enough to be with God?

The growing in holiness prepares us for our eternity in the presence of God. In the presence of God there can be no evil, no "stain" - we progress towards godliness in preparing ourselves for Him. It does not save us, we do nothing to save ourselves.

Just where do you get this "it does not save us, we do nothing to save ourselves" from Catholic teaching, which teaches that one is justified by the good works that he performs by the grace of God, and is accounted to have truly merited eternal life by these very works he did in God (meriting salvation by grace). (Trent, Chapter XVI; The Sixth Session Decree on justification; Canon 32)

And that being initially formally justified and made holy by his own personal justice and holiness (causa formalis) means that one must actually become good enough in character to be with God via the purifying punishments of RC Purgatory, unless he has attained to that state by the time (and maintains to the time) he dies?

By making "grace" as the cause of salvation by works the Catholic attempts to avoid the charge, but which basically makes salvation as being under the law, requiring practical perfection in order to be with God.

Believers are accounted to be believers and fit to be rewarded in the light of the evidence of their faith, (Mt. 25:31-40; Rv. 3:2) which God rewards, (Heb. 10:35) but the basis for their acceptance with God is by heart-purifying regenerating faith (Acts 10:43; 15:7-9) being counted for righteousness, (Rm. 4:5) the sinner being made accepted in the Beloved, and made to positionally sit together with Him in Heaven, on His account, (Eph. 1:6;2:6) by whose sinless shed blood he has direct access with boldness into the holy of holies in Heaven, (Heb. 10:19) even though he yet possesses the defiled carnal nature in which dwelleth no good thing, (Rm. 7:18) but which shall not be with him after death, in which he ceases to sin. (Rm. 6:7)

Expresses more fully, purgatory is based upon a false premise, that of the need for perfection of character (if by grace) in order to be with God, versus penitent faith which appropriates justification, which purifies the heart (Acts 15:9) and is counted for righteousness (Romans 4:5) and renders one accepted in the Beloved (on His account) and positionally seated together with their Lord in Heaven, (Ephesians 1:6; 2:6) from where they await the Lord's return and His final subduing of our "vile body," that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body," (Philippians 3:21)and which is the only transformative change after this life that the Scriptures speak of.

However, this saving justifying faith, is a faith which effects obedience by the Spirit, in word and in deed, in heart and in life, whereby "the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit, (Romans 8:4) insofar as we do. And since faith and works go together like light and heat, sometimes they are used interchangeably as to what they effect. And which obedience includes penitent confession when convicted of not pleasing the Object of his faith for salvation, the risen Lord Jesus.

The appeal to the believer is to produce fruit consistent with faith, as a consequence of being accepted in the Beloved (on His account), to be practically (in heart and deed) as they are positionally in Christ, to be as much conformed to the Lord Jesus in this life as we can be, and will be in the resurrection. (Philippians 3:7-21) If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit. (Galatians 5:25)

If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God. Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth. For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God. When Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall ye also appear with him in glory. (Colossians 3:1-4)

But which progressive practical sanctification is not the cause of the sinner's justification and acceptance in Christ, but testifies to such being a believer, evidencing "things which accompany salvation," (Hebrews 6:9) and fit to be rewarded. (Revelation 3:4) For this faith, as manifested in said obedience, God will recompense (Hebrews 10:35) under grace, even though it is God who motivates and enables all obedience, (Philippians 1:12,13) while the only thing we can and must take credit for it our disobedience.

In contrast to this salvation by effectual faith, is salvation by grace thru works, as in Roman Catholicism, in which by grace one is actually made good enough to be with God via the act of baptism, even without the required wholehearted repentant faith. (Acts 8:38; 8:36,37)

However, since the carnal nature remains and few successfully attain to complete victory over any attachment to sin and perfection of character, then most baptized souls are sent to Roman Catholic (EOs trend to reject Rome's) Purgatory to endure purifying torments to atone for sins they sufficiently failed to provide for while on earth, and become good enough to enter glory.

There is some wiggle room as regards the conditions of purgatory since what this suffering actually entails and how long are not dogmatically taught, but while salvation by grace thru faith as in sola fide means it is effectual faith being imputed for righteousness that justifies, salvation by grace thru works means that by grace one is actually made good enough to be with God, which premise either requires perfection of character in this life (and which merely being made clean in baptism would actually not effect) or postmortem purifying torments.

The Catholic Encyclopedia states that St. Augustine "describes two conditions of men; "some there are who have departed this life, not so bad as to be deemed unworthy of mercy, nor so good as to be entitled to immediate happiness" etc.

And thus by the close of the fourth century was taught "a place of purgation..from which when purified they "were admitted unto the Holy Mount of the Lord". For " they were "not so good as to be entitled to eternal happiness". - CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Purgatory

Likewise Catholic professor Peter Kreeft states,

"...we will go to Purgatory first, and then to Heaven after we are purged of all selfishness and bad habits and character faults." Peter Kreeft, Because God Is Real: Sixteen Questions, One Answer, p. 224

However, wherever Scripture clearly speak of the next conscious reality for believers then it is with the Lord, (Lk. 23:43 [cf. 2Cor. 12:4; Rv. 2:7]; Phil 1:23; 2Cor. 5:8 [“we”]; 1Cor. 15:51ff'; 1Thess. 4:17) Note in the latter case all believers were assured that if the Lord returned, which they expected in their lifetime, so would they “ever be with the Lord,” though they were still undergoing growth in grace, as was Paul. (Phil. 3:7f)

And the next transformative experience that is manifestly taught is that of being like Christ in the resurrection. (1Jn. 3:2; Rm. 8:23; 1Co 15:53,54; 2Co. 2-4) At which time is the judgment seat of Christ, which is the only suffering after this life, which does not begin at death, but awaits the Lord's return, (1 Corinthians 4:5; 2 Timothy. 4:1,8; Revelation 11:18; Matthew 25:31-46; 1 Peter 1:7; 5:4) and is the suffering of the loss of rewards (and the Lord's displeasure) due to the manner of material one built the church with, which one is saved despite the loss of such, not because of. (1 Corinthians 3:8ff)

In addition, the whole premise that suffering itself perfects a person is specious, since testing of character requires being able to choose btwn alternatives, and which this world provides. Thus it is only this world that Scripture peaks of here development of character, such as "Wherein ye greatly rejoice, though now for a season, if need be, ye are in heaviness through manifold temptations." (1 Peter 1:6)

And even in making the Lord "perfect" as in experiencing testing, being "in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin," (Hebrews 4:15) then it was in this world: "For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings." (Hebrews 2:10)

I believe it is very important to know the details of the religion of Izlam - too often we fall into the tropes of "religion of peace" or other statements

To me it was fascinating:

How could the Arabs take over the powerful Roman and Persian Empires, so I read a bit more and found out that
1. the Persians and Romans ahd put themselves through a bruising 50 year war in which the Persian Shahenshah had conquered Egypt, the Holy Land, Syria etc. just before Emperor Heraclius turned the tables and burned Ctesiphon
2. The Romans and Persian mostly used Arab intermediaries as their warriors/mercenaries
3. There were Arab controlled areas in what is now Jordan and Iraq rueld by the Ghassanids and Laxmid tribes - analogous to how the Lombards and Goths carved out kingdoms of their own within the Western Roman Empire
4. The Arabs were collecting taxes, fighting and providing much fo the administration
5. But the Persians and Romans lost the ability to pay somewhere in the middle of the 50 year war
6. The Romans were persecuting the Afro-Asiatic or Semitic Christians as a result of the various Christological controversies, so that even though the majority of christians in Egypt and Syria were Copts and Syriacs respectively (both non-Chalcedonian), the Emperors/Basileus enforced only Chalcedonian Christianity (the Melkites where Melik or Malik means those who follow the "lord" i.e. the Emperor) - making the Egyptians and Syriacs more conducive to being ruled by Semites (Arabs)
7. The Arabs were more Ebionites (a form of Christianity where Jesus was not quite the same essence as God the Father)
8. The Persian Shahenshah was pro-Ebionite Christian as his mother was Nestorian and his favorite concubine was ebionite
9. Jews were distributed heavily in Sassanid lands (60% of the worlds Jews were in Iraq in the 7th century) and in Arabia (Dhu Nawaz a Yemenite king converted to Judaism in the himyarite region and proceeded to persecute Christians before being defeated by the Christian Aksumite kingdom just about 100 years before Mo's alleged birth -- Anyway we know that Jews in the Christian lands were the initial supporters of Islamic invaders (this is NOT to knock present day Jews) - as it was logical - the Christians persecute you, now there comes a group that is strictly monotheistic and look, they bow to Jerusalem (Mohammadens did this until the time of the Abbasids) so they must be a variety of Jews or Jewish-friendly, which they WERE until later in history
How come Izlam aggrandizes Mecca when it is not mentioned at all in a highly literate part of the world -- Yemen was called Arabia Felix and the entire coastline was well known as far back as 300 BC, so why do we not hear of this grand cosmopolitan city of Makkah? perhaps its because it was not grand, more like a temple city
Why does the Kaaba resemble the other pagan monuments in Arabia -- the Arabs were fascinated with meteorites and with cubic shapes
Why does the black stone of the ka'aba resemble the black stone of Emesa -- the "god" Elagabal who was worshipped by Elagabalus??
Why was the IS so eager to destroy Palmyra? Was the Palmyrene Semitic (practically ARABIC) brief Empire not a precursor to the Arab empire 300 years later, arising in the same way (Perso-Roman war and Arab intermediaries first fight for both and then take advantage to set up their own empire)
Why does Izlam take the 2000+_ year old story of Abe about to sacrifice Isaac and replace him with Ishmael? Is it not a blatant attempt to create Bedo nationalism?
Why does the Quran say that Jesus was not crucified, but was:
1. A phantom (mentioned once in the Q)
2. replaced by Simon of Cyrene
- both of these are GNOSTIC ideas, the latter mentioned in the gospel of Thomas and the former in other places. Weird
Why is the birth of Christ in the Q look exactly like the book of Apocalypse's story of a birth of a baby?
Why does the Q show clear signs of being edited in Sura 33?
Why does it mention Mo only 5 times and each time uses his name more as a title than as a person?
Why is There not mention of being conquered by Islam or Muslims and no mention of a Mohammad or Islam or Quran until nearly 100 years after the conquests? the Ummayyads are vilified by later Muslims
Why, in a highly literate part of the world do I not see any writing by Copts, by Syriacs, by Sassanid Jews or Christians or by the Romans themselves saying the words "Islam" or Muslim or Mohammad or Quran. Nothing, nada, zilch. Not possible

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.