Extracts From Correspondence Between a Muslim and a Christian

Supplement 7

When the correspondence reached this stage the Christian correspondent stopped writing altogether.

Obviously, he did not want dis closures of any more contradictions and myths of the Gospels and Bible. One thing clearly emerges from these letters - these Christians missionaries have not come to our country to tell the truth or to seek the truth.

Their aim is something else. If they really wanted to spread the truth, they should have accepted it when it was shown to them.

They remained chained to prejudice and blind acceptance of ancestral beliefs, when they should have admitted that the present Gospels were not revealed books: apart from the fact that their authors were unrealiable persons, even the matters written therein are not worthy of revelation.

It is not too much to hope that the Christian youths would look at their beliefs with more searching eyes, and would not remain fettered to the ancestral beliefs without critically studying them.

Appendix

(See Translator's Note)

Who Wrote the `Gospels'?

Now coming to the present four `gospels,' the first thing which must be mentioned is that it is not certain who wrote the first and fourth books.

The first is the `gospel' attributed to St. Matthew, who was one of the twelve apostles of Jesus Christ. But this `gospel' is based mostly on the `gospel' of Mark who was not a disciple of Jesus and had no first-hand know- ledge of the events of the ministry of Jesus.

Westminster Dictionary of The Bible (under ` Matthew') mentions that according to many scholars it is difficult to accept that Matthew was the author of the gospel.

"Matthew re- produces about ninety per cent of . the subject matter of Mark in language very largely identical with that of Mark.

Now, it is highly improbable that an apostle would have used as a major source the work of one who in all likelihood had not been an eye witness of the ministry of Jesus."

Moreover, Papias wrote in about 140 A.D. that "Matthew collected `logia' (saying or orac- les) in the Hebrew language and each one interpreted them as he was able."

But the original `gospel' of Matthew is not in Hebrew, it is in Greek; and Greek was not the language of Matthew!

It is clear that the book written by Matthew was lost and later his name was transferred to another edited work.

Likewise, it is not known who was the John, the author of the fourth `gospel', Christian public is led to believe that it was written by John, the apostle of Jesus Christ.

But the above-mentioned Dictionary (under `John, the gospel according to') clearly says that many scholars believe that the author was some "disciple and follower of John the son of Zabedee (the apostle). His name is either un- known to us or, more likely, was John the Presb- yter or Elder."

Writers of the remaining two `gospels' were disciples and followers of the Apostles, and most probably had not seen or met Jesus Christ at all.

Thus, not only were these four books written decades after Jesus Christ, but they were not written by his immediate disciples either. And at least two of them were written by unknown persons.

Gospels: Not Trustworthy

Apart from this dubious authorship, the texts of these `gospels' show that the writers, whoever they were, were not trustworthy. Let me point out a few examples of blatant alterations:

The figure `7' was considered very impor tant to Israelites (no doubt, because of the pa- ganistic idea that God was tired after creating the universe in six days, and rested on the seventh day).

Thus they were fond of adjusting known historical facts to fit in the frame of `7' or multiples of `7'. The author of the `gospel' according to Matthew gives the geneology of Jesus Christ in the first chapter. He divides it into three parts of 14+14+14. And to fit the names in this scheme of `14,' he omits four names in between.

He has omitted the name of Jehoiakim between Josias and Jechonias (thus presenting the grandson as the son); and the names of Ahaziah, Goash and Azariah between Joram and Ozias (thus presenting a great-great- grandson as the son).

It is quite apart from other known histori- cal inaccuracies which permeate this geneology.

Then if you compare this geneology with that given in the `gospel' according to Luke (Chapter 3) you will find that the names between David and Joseph (husband of Mary) are completely different, putting one man in two different clans.

In the `gospel' of Matthew, Joseph was son of Jacob, son of Matthan who was from the clan of Prophet Solomon son of Prophet David, and between Joseph and Prophet Solo- mon were twenty four generations.`

According to the `gospel' of Luke, Joseph was son of Heli, son of Matthat, who was from the clan of Nathan son of Prophet David, and between Joseph and Nathan were thirty nine generations.

Naturally, one man cannot be born in two different lines of David; he cannot be at one and the same time from the progeny of Solomon son of David and that of Nathan son of David. This one example is enough to show that these so-called `gospels' are not truthful.

In this background the English phrase `gospel truth' may mean anyfhing from the news-bulletins of Goebels to the 'information' of fighting countries.

An observer has a right to ask that if the writers of these `gospels' could have changed the established facts to suit their i magination, what assurance can be given that they did not change the dogma to suit their fancy?