Know Islam

Know Islam, Know Paradise


April 16, 2018 Comparative Religion Rebuttals 0

Click here for previous session






All the ancient Christian writers and a great number of modern writers are
unanimous on the point that the Gospel of Matthew was originally in the
Hebrew language and has been completely obscured due to distortions and
alterations made by the Christians. The present Gospel is merely a translation
and is not supported by any argument or authority. Even the name of its
translator is not definitely known. There are only conjectures that possibly this
of that person might have translated it. This kind of argument cannot be
acceptable to a non-Christian reader. The book cannot be attributed to its author
only on the basis of uncertain calculations.
The Christian author of Meezn-ul-Haq could not produce any authority
regarding the author of this book. He only conjectured and said that Matthew
might possibly have written it in the Greek language. In view of this fact this
translation is not acceptable and is liable to be rejected.
The Penny Encyclopedia says regarding the Gospel of Matthew:
“This Gospel was written in the Hebrew language and in the language which
was in vogue between Syria and Chaldea in 41 AD Only the Greek translation is
available. And the present Hebrew version is only a translation of the same
Greek version”
Thomas Ward, a Catholic writer, says in his book:
“Jerome explicitly stated in his letter that some ancient scholars were
suspicious about the last chapter of the Gospel of Mark, and some o them had
doubt about some verses of chapter 23 of the Gospel of Luke; and some other
scholars were doubtful about the fist two chapters of this Gospel. These two
chapters have not been included by the Marchionites 40 in their book.”
Norton writes in his book printed in 1837 in Boston:
“This Gospel contains a passage running from verse none to the end of the
last chapter which calls for research. It is surprising that Griesbach has not put
any sign of doubt about its text, since he has presented numerous arguments to
prove that this part was an addition by some later people.”
Later in his book, giving some more arguments, he said:

“This proves that the passage in question is doubtful, especially if we keep in
mind the habit of writers in that they usually prefer to add to the text rather than
to omit from it.”
Griesbach is one of the most reliable scholars of the Protestant faith.




There is no authority for the claim that the Gospel of John in the book of the
Apostle John to whom it has been attributed. On the contrary, there are several
arguments that strongly refute this claim.


Before and after the period of the Prophet Jesus, the style of writing and the
method of compiling books were similar to the style of the present Muslim
writers. It does not appear from this Gospel that John was making his own
statements 41.
It is not possible to refute the obvious evidence which the text itself offers
unless strong arguments are presented to negate it.


This Gospel contains this statement in 21:24:
“This is the disciple which testifieth of these things: and we know that his
testimony is true” describing the Apostle John. This denotes that the writer of
this text is not John himself. It leads us to guess that the writer has found some
script written by John and has described the contents in his own language
making some omissions and additions to the contents.


In the second century AD when the authorities refused to accept this Gospel
as the book of John, Irenaeus 42, a disciple of Polycarp 43 the disciple of John,
was living. He did not make any statement to negate those who refused to
accept the book and did not testify that he had heard Polycarp saying that this
Gospel was the book of John, the Apostle. Had it been the book of John,
Polycarp must have known it. It cannot be the truth that he heard Polycarp
saying many secret and profound things which he related but did not hear a single word about a matter of such importance. And it is even more
unbelievable that he had heard it and forgot, since we know about him that he
had great trust in verbal statements and used to memorize them. This is evident
from the following statement of Eusebius regarding the opinion of Irenaeus
about verbal statements:
“I listened to these words with great care by the grace of God. And wrote
them not only on paper, but also on my heart. For a long time, I have made it
my habit to keep reading them.”
It is also unimaginable that the remembered it and did not state it for the fear
of his enemies. This argument also rescues us from the blame of refusing the
genuineness of this Gospel from religious prejudice. We have seen that it was
refused in the second century AD and could not be defended by the ancient
Celsus, who was a pagan scholar of the second century AD, fearlessly
declared that the Christians had distorted their Gospels three or four times or
more. This change of or distortion changed the contents of the text.
Festus, the chief of the Manichaeans 44 and a scholar publicly announced in
4th century AD:
“It has been established that the book of the New Testament are neither the
books of the Christ, nor are they the books of his apostles but unknown people
have written them and attributed them to the apostles and their friends.”


The Catholic Herald, printed in 1844,includess the statement in vol.3on page
205 that Stapelin said in his book that the Gospel of John was undoubtedly
written by student of scholar in Alexandria. See how blatantly he claims it to be
a book of a student.


Bertshiender, a great scholar said:
“The whole of this Gospel and all the Epistles of John were definitely not
written by him but by some other person in the second century A.D.”


Grotius, a famous scholar, admitted: “There used to be twenty chapters in
this Gospel. The twenty-first chapter was added after the death of John, by the
church of Ephesus.”


The Allogin, a sect of the Christians in the second century AD, disowned
this Gospel and all the writing of John.


The first eleven verses of chapter 8 are not accepted by any of the Christian
writers and it will soon be shown that these verses do not exist in the Syriac
If there were any authentic proof to support it most of the Christian writer
would have not made such statements. Therefore the opinion of Bertshiender
and Stapelin is undoubtedly true.


Horne in chapter two of vol.4 of his commentary says:
“The information that has been covered to us by the historians of the church
regarding the period of the four Gospels is defective and indefinite. It dose not
help us reach any meaningful conclusion. The ancient theologians have
confirmed absurd statements and written them down. Subsequent people
accepted them just out of respect to them. These false statements thus were
communicated from one writer to another. A ling period of time has passed, and
it has become very difficult to find out the truth.”
Further in the same volume he says:
The first Gospel was written either in 73 A.D. or 38 A.D. or in 43 A.D. or in
48 A.D. or in 61, 62, 63 and 64 A.D. The second Gospel was written in 56 A.D.
or at any time after it up until 65 A.D. and most possible in 60 or 63 A.D. The
third Gospel was written in 53 or 63 or 64 A.D. The fourth Gospel was written
in 68, 69, 70 or in 89 or 98 A.D.”



The Epistle to the Hebrews, the Second Epistle of Peter, the Second and the
Third Epistles of John, the Epistle of Jacob, the Epistle of Jude and several
verses of the First Epistle of John are wrongly attributed to the apostles. These
books were generally supposed to be doubtful up until 363 AD and continue to
be considered false and unacceptable to the majority of Christian writers up
until this day. The verses of the first Epistle of John have been omitted in Syrian
The Arabian churches have rejected the second Epistle of Peter, Epistles of
John, the Epistle of Jude, and the Revelation. Similarly the churches of Syria
have rejected them from the beginning of their history.
Horne says in the second volume of his commentary (1822) on pages 206
and 207: “The following Epistles and verses have not been included in the Syrian
version and the same was the case with Arabian churches; the second Epistle of
Peter, the Epistle of Jude, both the epistles of John, the Revelation, the verses
from 2-11 of chapter 8 in the gospel of John, and chapter 5 verse 7 of the first
Epistle of John. The translator of the Syrian version omitted these verses
because he did not believe them to be genuine. Ward confirms this in this book
(1841) on page 37: “Rogers, a great scholar of the Protestant faith has
mentioned the name of a number of Protestant scholars who declared the
following books as false and excluded them from the holy scriptures: the
Epistles to the Hebrews, the Epistle of Jacob, the second and the third Epistles
of John, and the Revelation.”
Dr Bliss, a learned scholar of the Protestant faith stated:
“All the books up until the period of Eusebius are found acceptable: and he
insists on the point that:
“The Epistle of Jacob, the second Epistle of Peter and the second and third
Epistles of John are not the writing of the Apostles. The Epistles of the Hebrews
remained rejected for along period; similarly the Syrian church did not
acknowledge the second Epistle of Peter, the second and third Epistles of John,
the Epistle to Jude and Revelation.”
Lardner said in vol. 4 of his commentary on page 175:
“Cyrillus and the Church of Jerusalem did not acknowledge the book of
Revelation in their period. Apart from this, the name of this book does not even
occur in the list of Canonical books which he wrote.”
On page 323 of the same volume he further said:
“Revelation was not the part of the Syrian version. Barhebroeus and Jacob
did not include this book for comments in their commentary. Abedjessu omitted
the second Epistle of Peter, the second and the third Epistles of John, the Epistle
of Jude and the Revelation from his list. All other Syrian have the same opinion
about these books”.
The Catholic Herald (1844) contains the following statement on page 206 of
vol. 7:
Rose has written on page 161 of his book that many Protestant scholars
consider the book of Revelation non-believable. Professor Ewald has produced
powerful arguments to prove that the Gospel of John and the Epistles of John
and the Revelations of John cannot be the writings of the same person.
Eusebius makes the following statement in chapter 25 of vol. 7 of his
Dionysius says that some ancient writers excluded the book of Revelation
from the Holy Scriptures and have completely refuted it. He said that this book
is meaningless and a great example of ignorance. Any association of this book
with John or with a righteous man or with any Christian is wrong. In fact, this
with book was attributed to John by a heretic Cerinthus. I wish I had the powers
of excluding it from the Holy Scriptures. As far as my own opinion is concerned, I believe it to be from someone who was inspired. But what I cannot
easily believe is that the writer was any of the apostles, or that he was the son of
Zebedee or brother of Jacob.”
On the contrary the idiom of the text and style strongly indicate that the
writer cannot have been the Apostle John who is mentioned in the Book of Acts
because his presence in Asia Minor is not known. This John is totally a different
man who is an Asian. There are two graves in the city of Ephesus, both bearing
the inscription of John. The contents and the style of this book indicate that
John, the Evangelist, is not the writer of this book. Since the text of the Gospel
and the Epistles is as refined as the style of the Greeks. Contrary to this the book
of Revelation contains a text very different in style from the Greeks, full of
uncommon expressions.
Besides this the Evangelists have a common practice in that they do not
disclose their names in the Gospels nor in the Epistles, but describe themselves
in the first person or in the third person, which writer of this book has
mentioned his own name. In the revelation of Jesus in chapter 1 he says: “The
revelation of Jesus Christ which God gave unto him to show unto his servants
things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified id by his
Angel unto his servant John.” He also writes in chapter 4: “John to the seven
churches which are in Asia.” In chapter 9 he says: “I, John, who am your
brother, and companion in tribulation and in this kingdom, and patience of Jesus
Christ.” Again in 22:8 he says: “I John saw this things and heard them.”
He mentions his name in all the above verses contrary to the general practice
of the Evangelists. The explanation that the writer has disclosed his name
against his normal practice in order to introduce himself cannot be acceptable
because if this had been his object he would have used specific words to gather
with his name defining his intention. Fore example, he could have written John,
the sun of Zebedee or brother of James. He only uses some general words like
“your brother”, companion in patience etc., which do not serve the purpose of
his introduction.
Eusebius also says in chapter 3 of vol. 3 of his book:
“The first Epistle of Peter is genuine, but his second Epistle should never be
included in the Holy Scripture. Fourteen Epistles of Paul are, how ever, read.
The Epistle to the Hebrews has been excluded by some people.”
He further elaborates in chapter 25 of the same book: “It has been a point of
debate whether the Epistles to James, and Jude, the second He epistle of Peter,
and the Epistles of John I and II were written by the Evangelists or some other
writers of the same names. It should be understood that the Acts of Paul, the
Revelation of Peter, the Epistle of Barnabas and the book entitled, “The
Institution of the Disciples” are rejected books and this can be proved. The
Revelation should also be included in this list.”
Eusebius also quotes a statement of Origen concerning the Epistle to the
Hebrews in chapter 25 of vol. 6 of his book: “It is a popular notion among the people that this Epistle (Hebrews) was
written by Clement of Rome (150-220) and some people think that it was
written by Luke.”
The Irish missionary Lyon (178) and Hippolitus (220) and Nouclus, the
missionary of Rome (251), refused to accept the genuineness of the Epistle to
Hebrews. Turtullien, the bishop of Carthage (d. 200) says that this Epistle
belongs to Barnabas. Caius, the Presbyter of Rome (d. 251) counted thirteen
Epistles of Paul and did not count this Epistle. Cyprien, the bishop of Carthage
(248), does not make any mention of this Epistle. The Monophysite churches
still refuse to acknowledge the second Epistle of Peter and the second and third
Epistles of John.
Scaliger disowns the Epistle to the Hebrews by saying that whoever was the
author of this Epistle had wasted his time Eusebius, in chapter 23 of vol. 2 of his
book says:
“Generally this Epistle is supposed to be false and several ancient writers
have mentioned this. Our opinion about the Epistle of Jude is not different but
many churches still act according to it.”
The History of the Bible (1850) contains this statement:
“Grotius says that this Epistle, that is, the Epistle of Jude was written by Jude
Oskolf (Archbishop) the 15th Oskolf of Jerusalem living in the period of
Emperor Hadrian.”?
Eusebius has stated in his history vol.6, chapter 25:
“Origen said in vol. 5 of his commentary on the Gospel of John that Paul did
not write any thing to the Churches, and if he wrote to any Church it was not
more than a few lines.”
According to Origen, all the Epistles which are attributed to Paul, where not
written by him. They are hypothetically attributed to him. Perhaps a few lines of
Paul might also present in these Epistles. Keeping all this statements in mind,
we are led to believe the truth of the following statement made by Festus:
“The author of the New Testament is neither Jesus Christ nor his apostles,
but a certain man of unknown identity has written them and attributed them to
the Evangelists.”
The truth of this statement has been proved beyond doubt. We have already
shown earlier in this book that this six Epistles and the book of Revelation were
believed in and remained rejected up 363; and they were not acknowledged
even by the council of Nicaea in 325. Then in 364 the members of the council of
Liodesia acknowledged the six Epistles. The Book of Revelation remained
excluded even in this meeting but later on in 397 was acknowledge by the
Council of Carthage.
The decision of the two councils about these cannot be considered as an
argument for obvious reasons. Firstly all the councils had acknowledged the
Book of Jude. The Council of Liodesia then accepted the ten verses of chapter
10 from the Book of Esther, and the six chapters subsequent to chapter 10. The Song of Solomon, Tobit, Baruch, Ecclesiastes and Maccabees were
acknowledged by the council of Carthage, while all the subsequent councils
confirmed the decision of the above three councils.
Now, if the decisions of these councils were founded on authenticated
arguments, which they most certainly were not, then the Protestant would have
accepted them, but on the other hand, if their decision s were arbitrary, as was in
fact the case, it was necessary for the Protestant s to reject all of these books.
We are very much surprised to note that they accepted the councils` decision
regarding the six Epistles as well as the Book of Revelation but rejected it
concerning the other books, especially the book of Judith which had been
unanimously acknowledged by the councils. This decision again arbitrary and
with out justification.
Their only proffered reasons, does the original versions of these books has
been lost, cannot be accepted because Jerome confirmed the fact that he found
the original versions of Jude and Tobata in the Chaldean language and the
original book of Ecclesiasticus in Hebrew, and these books have been translated
from the original versions. On this basis, the Protestants should at least accept
these books and they should in fact reject the Gospel of Matthew since the
original of that book was lost.
The statement of Horne, already quoted previously, proves the fact that the
ancient Christians were not very particular about looking into the Authenticity
of their traditions. They used to accept and write all kinds of mythical and
fabulous stories and traditions which were followed and acted upon by the
people of subsequent times. In view of this, the most acceptable conclusion is
that the scholars of these councils must have heard some of these traditions,
which, after having been rejected for centuries, where acknowledged by them
without any authentication.
Because the holy scriptures are treated by the Christians in the same way as
ordinary books of law and civil administration, they continually changed and
altered the texts suit their needs. A few examples of this will be sufficient to
establish our claim.
The Greek translation was consistently acknowledged as the authoritative
text from the time of the Apostles to the 15th century. The Hebrew versions were
believed to have been distorted and the Greek translation was considered the
accurate version. Subsequently the position of theses books was altogether
changed. The destroyed version was acknowledged as accurate and accurate one
as distorted.
The Book of Daniel in the Greek version was genuine in the eyes of the early
scholars, but after Origen declared that it was incorrect, they rejected it and
replaced it with the version of Theodotion.

The Epistle of Aristias remained on the least of the Holly Scriptures but in
the seventeenth century some objections were raised against it and suddenly it
turned into a false document of the eyes of all the Protestant scholars.
The Latin version is believed genuine by all the Catholics, while it is
considered distorted and unbelievable by the Protestants.
The small book of Genesis remained genuine and believable up until the 15th
century while the same book was declared false and rejected in the 16th century.
The Third Book of Ezra is still acknowledge by the Greek Church but has
been rejected by both the Catholics and Protestants. Similarly the Song of
Solomon was considered genuine a part of the Holy Scriptures and can still be
found in the Codex Elexandrine 46, yet it is now rejected.
The gradual realization of the distortions present in a number of their holy
books is bound to lead the Christians, sooner or later, to admit to the truth of the
fact that the great parts of the Judeo-Christian scriptures have undergone great
changes and distortions.
We have shown that the Christians do not possess any authentic records or
acceptable arguments for the authenticity of the books of either the Old
Testament of The New Testament.




….continue reading……

218 total views, 0 views today



Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *