Know Islam

Know Islam, Know Paradise

IZHARUL HAQ READING CONTINUED

June 2, 2018 Book Reading Events 0

Click here for previous session

 

 

Error No. 91

We find in Mark:
“For Herod himself had sent forth and laid hold upon John, and bound
him in prison for Herodias’ sake, his brother Philip’s wife 270…”
This statement too, is erroneous, as we have already discussed. All the three
evangelists are equally responsible for this error. The translator of the Arabic
versions printed 1821 and 1844 has manipulated the texts of Matthew and Luke
and deleted the word Philip, while other translators have not followed his
example.

 

Errors No. 92 – 94: Did David Eat Shewbread?

It appears in Mark:
“Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was an
hungred, he, and they that were with him?
How he went into the house of God, in the days of Abiathar, the high
priest, and did eat the shewbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the
priests, and gave also to them which were with him. Earlier in the book we showed that this statement is also incorrect, since
David at that time was alone 272, therefore the phrase ”they that were with
him” is a mis-statement. Besides, it is incorrect to say the high priest at that time
was Abiathar, whereas, in fact, Ahimelech was the high priest. The falsity of
this statement can also be understood from the beginning of 1 Samuel 21 and
22.
There are three errors in two verses of Mark. The third error will also be
discussed later. The Christian scholars have plainly admitted that Mark has
made a mistake in this text.

 

Errors No. 95 – 96

The Gospel of Luke also describes the same event with words signifying that
David was accompanied at that time, when, as we have just shown, he was
alone.

 

Error No. 97

The First Epistle to Corinthians contains the following sentence:
“And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve 273.”
This statement is quite obviously wrong, since one of the twelve, Judas
Iscariot had died prior to this event, reducing the number of the disciples to
eleven. Mark, therefore, says in Chapter 16:
“He appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat 274.”

 

Errors No. 98-100

Matthew says:
“But when they deliver you up, take no thought how or what ye shall
speak: for it shall be given you in that same hour what ye shall speak.
For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in
you

Luke also reports this in the following words:
“And when they bring you unto the synagogues, and unto magistrates,
and powers, take ye no thought, how or what thing shall ye answer, or what
ye shall say:
For the Holy Ghost shall teach you in the same hour what ye ought to say
276.”
A similar statement is also given in Mark in chapter 13. The implication of
the texts contained in the three gospels is that Jesus promised his disciples that
whatever they said to the officers would be inspired to them by the Holy Ghost,
which in turn signified that their words would not be their own words but the
word of the Holy Ghost.
This statement is shown to be incorrect in the light of the following passage
of the Book of Acts:
“And Paul, earnestly beholding the council, said, Men and brethren, I
have lived in all good conscience before God until this day.
And the high priest Ananias commanded them that stood by him to smite
him on the mouth.
Then said Paul unto him, God shall smite thee, thou whited wall: For
sittest thou to judge me after the law and commandest me to be smitten
contrary to the law?
And they that stood by said, Revilest thou God’s high priest?
Then said Paul, I wist not, brethern, that he was the high priest: for it is
written, Thou shall not speak evil of the ruler of thy people 277.”
Had the statement of Matthew and Luke been true, their spiritual leader Paul,
who is considered equal in status with the disciples and who himself claims to
be equal to Peter, the greatest of all disciples 278, could have not said anything
erroneous before the council 279. Paul’s admission to his fault is enough to
prove the text incorrect. We shall later on show that the Christian scholars have
admitted the presence of error in this text. Since this text has appeared in the
three gospels, this makes three errors in the text.

 

Errors No. 101 & 102

In Luke we find:

“…in the days of Elias, when the heaven was shut up three years and six
months 280…”
and in the Epistle of James:
“…and it rained not on earth by the space of three years and six months
281.”
This also seems incorrect as it is understood from I Kings that there was rain
in the third year 282.
Since this statement has appears in Luke as being said by Jesus, while in the
Epistle of James, as the statement of James himself, this, in fact, makes it two
mistakes.

 

Error No. 103: Jesus and the Throne of David

The Gospel of Luke says in chapter 1:
“And Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:
And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever, and of his Kingdom
there shall be no end 283.”
This is incorrect for the following two reasons:
1. Because Jesus, according to the genealogy given by Matthew, is a
descendant of Jehoiakim, and none of his descendants can sit on the
throne of David according to the statement of the Prophet Jeremiah
284.
2. Secondly because historically we know that Jesus never sat on the
throne of David even for a single minute; nor did he ever rule over the
house of Jacob. On the contrary, the Jews became hostile to him to the
extent that they arrested him and took him to Pilate, who reviled him
and then handed him over to the Jews to crucify.

Besides, it is clear from the Gospel of John that Jesus hated the idea of
being a king 285 and, moreover, it is unbelievable that Jesus would hate
something for which he was sent by God.

 

Error No. 104

We find the following passage in Mark:
“Jesus answered, and said, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that
hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or
children, or lands for my sake, and the gospel’s,
But he shall receive hundred-fold now in this time, houses, and brethren,
and sisters and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in
the world to come eternal life 286.”
And Luke reports these words in the same context:
“…who shall not receive manifold more in this present time, and in the
world to come, life everlasting 287.”
This cannot be true because, according to their law the Christians are not
allowed to marry more than one woman. It would therefore, not be possible for
a man leaving his wife for the sake of Jesus, to receive ”hundred-fold or at least
manifold wives in this present life.”
Besides the phrase, ”lands with persecutions”, is out of place here as Jesus is
speaking of the reward that would be given to them by God, hence the phrase
”with persecutions” is not relevant, and does not fit the context.

 

Error No. 105: Jesus Healing the One Possessed by Devils

The Gospel of Mark describes the event of a man possessed by evil spirits 

and being healed by Jesus, saying:
“And all the devils besought him saying, Send us into the swine that we
may enter into them.
And forthwith Jesus gave them leave. And the unclean spirits went out,
and entered into the swine; and the herd ran violently down a steep place into
the sea.

This is incorrect, for the reason that the Jews were not allowed to keep
swine, being inadmissible for them under the law.

 

Error No. 106

Matthew reports Jesus saying to the Jews:
“I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the son of man sitting on the right
hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven 289.”
It is wrong because the Jews have never seen Christ coming in the clouds of
heaven before or after his death.

 

Error No. 107

Luke has reported in chapter 6:
“The disciple is not above his master, but every man that is perfect shall
be as his master 290.”
This appears to be wrong as there are many personalities who have had
greater perfection than their teacher.

 

Error No. 108: Parents: Honour or Hate Them?

The following statement of Jesus has been reported by Luke:
“If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife,
and children, and brethren, and sisters yea, and his own life also, he cannot
be my disciple 291.”
It is, all the more, incredible to think that such a remark could have been
made by Jesus, when he had said, reproaching the Jews:
“For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother, and, He
that curseth father or mother, let him die the death 292.”
We cannot see how Jesus could have said this.

 

Error No. 109

The Gospel of John says:
“And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year
said unto them, Ye know nothing at all.
Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the
people, and that the whole nation perish not.
And this spake he not of himself, but being high priest that year, he
prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation;
And not for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in
one the children of God that were scattered abroad 293.”
This statement cannot be accepted as true for the following inconsistencies
in the text.
Firstly, because this statement implies that the high priest should necessarily
be a prophet which is certainly not correct.
Secondly, if the statement of the high priest is accepted as prophetic, it
necessitates that the death of Jesus should be an atonement only for the Jews
294 and not for the whole world, which is obviously against the established
beliefs and claims of the Christians. And the phrase, ”not only for this nation”
becomes an absurd statement and against the prophethood of Jesus.
Thirdly, according to the evangelist, this high priest who enjoys the status of
a prophet happens to be the same man who was the high priest at the time of the
’crucifixion’ of Jesus and the one who passed the religious decree against Jesus
accusing him of being a liar, a disbeliever and being liable to be killed. And he
was the one who was pleased at the smiting and insulting of Jesus. This is
witnessed to by Matthew who says:
“And they that had laid hold on Jesus led him away to Caiaphas the high
priest, where the scribes and the elders were assembled 295.”
And further in the same chapter we find the following details:
“But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest answered and said unto
him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the
Christ, the son of God.

Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you,
Hereafter shall ye see the son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and
coming in the clouds of heaven.
Then the high priest rent his clothes saying, He has spoken blasphemy;
what further need have we of witnesses? Behold, now ye have heard his
blasphemy.
What think ye? They answered and said, He is guilty of death.
Then did they spit in his face, and buffeted him; and others smote him
with the palms of their hands,
Saying, Prophesy unto us, thou Christ, Who is he that smote thee 296?”
The fourth gospel, John, is even more explicit, saying:
“And led him away to Annas first: for he was father in law of Caiaphas,
which was the high priest that same year.
Now Caiaphas was he, which gave counsel to the Jews, that it was
expedient that one should die for the people 297.”
We may now be allowed to say that if this statement of the high priest was
made by him as a prophet why did he gave his judgment to kill Jesus? He
declared him blasphemous and was happy at the humiliation of Jesus in his
court. Is it in any way credible that a prophet should command people to kill his
God?
We declare our utter disbelief in such prophet who remains a prophet even
after committing such profane and sacrilegious acts. From this situation it
logically deduced that Jesus was a prophet of God but having gone astray (may
God forbid) he claimed of being God incarnate and put a false blame on God. In
short, the innocence of Christ, in this case, becomes doubtful. In fact, the
evangelist John is also innocent, as is Jesus Christ, of making such incredible
statements. The responsibility for all such statements lies totally on the
shoulders of the Trinitarians.
If, for a moment, we suppose that Caiaphas’s statement is true, even then the
significance of his statement would be that when the disciples and the followers
of Jesus confirmed that Jesus was, in fact, the Promised Messiah or Christ, since
it was generally believed by the people that it was necessary for the Messiah to
be a great king of the Jews, Caiaphas and his elders, were afraid that having
come to know this fact, the Caesar of Rome would be angry and might make
trouble for them, he proposed, ”one should die for the people”
This was the real and natural significance of that statement and not that the
people of the world would be redeemed and saved from their ’original sin’, as
they call it, which was committed by Adam thousands of years prior to the birth of the Christ, which is a whimsical and, of course, illogical interpretation of the
statement. The Jews also do not believe in this whimsical conception of the
Trinitarians.
Perhaps this evangelist, later on, realised the mistake and he replaced the
phrase ’he prophesied’ with the words ’he gave counsel’, in Chapter 18, because
to give counsel is very different from making a prophesy as a prophet. Though
by making this change he has opened himself to the charge of contradicting his
own statement.

 

Error No. 110

Paul’s letter to Hebrews contains this statement:
“For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to
the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water and scarlet
wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book and all the people,
Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto
you.
Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle and all the vessels
of the ministry 298.”
The above statement is incorrect for the following three reasons:
Firstly because the blood was not of calves and goats, but was only of oxen,
at that occasion.
Secondly because, the water, the scarlet wool and hyssop were not present;
at that moment only the blood was sprinkled.
Thirdly, because Moses himself did not sprinkle on the book and on the
vessels as described by Paul, rather half the blood was sprinkled on the altar and
half of it on the people.
These three mistakes are clear from the following description given by the
book of Exodus. It reads:
“And Moses came and told the people all the words of the Lord, and all
the judgements: and all the people answered with one voice, and said, All the
words which the Lord hath said will we do.
And Moses wrote all the words of the Lord, and rose up early in the
morning, and builded an altar under the hill, and twelve pillars, according to
the twelve tribes of the Israel…
…which offered burnt offerings and sacrificed peace offerings of oxen
unto the Lord.
And Moses took half of the blood and put it in basons; and half of the
blood he sprinkled on the altar.

And he took the book of the covenant, and read in the audience of the
people: and they said, All that the Lord hath said will we do, and be
obedient.
And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said,
Behold the blood of the covenant, which the Lord hath made with you
concerning all these words 299.”
In view of the textual defects and inconsistencies present in the Bible,
pointed out to the readers so far, the Roman Catholic Church prohibited the
study and reading of these books for common people. They rightly said that the
damage caused by the reading of them would be greater than the benefit to be
expected from them. They were certainly right in having this opinion. In fact,
the contradictions, errors and inconsistencies of the biblical texts were not
known to the people until the appearance of the Protestant movement. They
discovered and dug into these books and the secrets were disclosed, causing the
strong reaction which is well known to the world today.
The book entitled, Kitabu’th-Thalathu-Ashrah (The Thirteen Books) printed
in Beirut in 1849, contains the following on pages 417, 418 of the Thirteenth
Book. We give its faithful translation from Urdu:
“Let us now look at the law passed by the Council of Trent and duly
stamped by the Pope. It said that the experience of the past showed that such
words when read by common people would produce greater evil than good.
It was therefore the responsibility of the priest or of the judge that, according
to his description, or in consultation with the teacher of confession, he
should allow the reading of the words in these books only to those who, in
their opinion, might be benefited by them, and it was of great importance
that the book must have been previously checked by a Catholic teacher, and
it had to bear the signature of the teacher who allowed it to be read. Anyone
who dared read it without permission, was not to be excused unless he was
sent to the proper authorities.”

 

…..continue reading…..

542 total views, 0 views today

Enter your email address:

Delivered by KnowIslam.com.ng

Comments

comments



Leave a Reply

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