Is it ok for Muslims to torture Christians?

[True-Jesus]

To All:

There are few points you all must keep in your mind.
It seems to me that almost all of you love to live in your own defined world (right or wrong) and care not to see any issue from unbias and independent angle.

Having said this let me start with this:

This thread started with a supposed “news” article taken from ‘Asia News’. This source of news is actually a Catholic Site but decidedly an anti-Islam source if you read it’s contents. This tells a lot. Further this site is not reliable. In one of its article it says : “The Catholic Church is the only hope left to tsunami victims on India’s Andaman Islands.” Is it true? obviously not. If you reveal this “truth” to the victims of Andaman Islands or the Government of India, then you will find out how “truthful” is Asia News.

Now as to the issue of Saudi Laws and Christians:

1.You need to know that Saudi Arabia’s population is 100% muslim. All of her citizens are Muslims. There is not a single non-muslim Saudi there.

2.Saudi Government invites foreigners to work for her on a condition that they sign an agreement that they will follow and respect Saudi goverment’s rules and regulations and also repect Saudi national’s conscience during their stay in the Kingdom.

3.If you disagree and don’t want to sign the agreement and don’t want to respect her citizen’s conscience, then do not go there, because no one is forcing you to go to Saudi Arabia and work for them in the first place.

1. If you, as a sincere and religious catholic, somehow signed the Saudi agreement and went there to work for them to make more money and then during your stay in the Kingdom try to voilate the agreement that you singed, then guess what you are actually doing? You are actually:
   a. proving that you are not a sincere person.

b. You really do not care what you agreed prior to coming to the Kingdom.

c. Your intent was to somehow go there and disrupt and create mischeif in the Kingdom while making money at the same time.

d. You are proving that you are not a man of word.

e. You cannot be trusted especially when you are claiming that you follow Jesus Christ (pbuh).

g. Most certainly Jesus Christ would not ask you do something which is contrary to his true teachings, like signing something and then voilating it and after voilating you start shouting that you were not allowed to do certain things as if you were forced to go to Saudi Arabia.

(continued on next post)

 

[True-Jesus]

To All:

---

Final point:

Those Christians who do not go to Saudi Arabia and just criticise by not looking deeper the issue at hand, I would like to ask them:

Why do you feel so important to preach “Christianity” to muslims?

I say: there is no need to teach them because:

They already accepted Jesus (phub) as their Messiah without even reading or looking at any version of the Bibles. Their religion is based on the Final Testament (the Holy Quran), when yours is based on something which is not meant for whole mankind but just Children of Israel, because Jesus Christ was sent as a Prophet to the ‘lost sheep of house of Israel’. He did not come to destroy the Law (Torah) but to protect it and fulfill. Thats all. But he left his mission incomplete because it was not meant for the whole humanity, thus he prophesised that someone else will come after him whose job is to complete his mission and guide all the truth to the whole humanity and it is someone who will accept/admire Jesus Christ (in other words he will recognise him as Messiah). So, that person came and it was Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) who annonced on the authority of God’s Revelation that Jesus is the Messiah and he was one of the mightest Messengers of God Almighty.
Based on Prophet Muhammed (pbuh)'s proclamation today more than 1.2 billion Muslims around the globe believe that Jesus is the Messiah. It is part of their articles of faith otherwise they cannot be called Muslims.
Besides they follow all the true teachings of Prophet Moses (pbuh) and Jesus (pbuh). Like worshiping One and Only God who is Almighty and who is God of all and the whole universe. Jesus (pbuh) was cricumsised so all Muslim males get circumsised. They believe in virgin Mary as most pious and saintly woman in the world…etc.

On the other hand if you see the position of Holy Bible:

There are a number of different versions ( about 24,000 ) and no two of them are identical and they not in the original language of the revelations or langauge(s) of the Prophet(s). No gospel is available which is approved by Jesus (pbuh) and not even in his own mother-tongue/language (i.e. Aramaic). Moreover, all the so-called Gospels do not match. They all contradict each other. Not even the geneology of Jesus Christ is recorded properly. In one of the Gospels, in the geneology of Jesus Christ we find two “strange” names, Sarah and Perez of Tamar. I am sure you all know who was Tamar and who was actaul father of her two “strange” kids. Plus there are so many indecent passages in the Bible like in the Ezekiel chapter 23 which describes the views/actions of two adultrous sisters.

So:

Why you want to teach Muslims in the first place, when their teachings are already pure and free from any human corruption and indecent passages, when they already not only believe in Jesus Christ but also in his last prophecy?

Muslims are the true followers of Jesus Christ. But you want them to bring them back again to some corrupted teachings which are not of Jesus Christ in the first place, and second you don’t really follow him but his enemy St. Saul who used to persecute Jesus’ true followers and he was actually an anti-Christ’s teachings.

 

[radhika]

"animal rights in 7th century arabia! if you want to learn more about this let me know)."

The only religion other then some pagan, primitive religions, to kill animals as sacrifice in the world today is Islam!

 

[deen]

"animal rights in 7th century arabia! if you want to learn more about this let me know)."

The only religion other then some pagan, primitive religions, to kill animals as sacrifice in the world today is Islam!

Does that make Islam wrong? FYI, when an animal is sacrificed, the meat is distributed amongst the needy members of the society, relatives or friends. In other words, it does not got waste and it is one way of exerccising obedience and charity.

Are you vegetarian?

peace,

deen

 

[deen]

Maranatha:

If a person follows the teaching of the Catholic Church they would not fall in to that problem. I still don’t have a good reason way I need to follow Mohamed.

Just keep an open-mind my friend because, Godwiling, you will find a reason. There are already many Christians, priests and pastors who embraced Islam. You can read their stories at:

www.islamtomorrow

peace,

deen

 

[deen]

Maranatha:

Why is it necessary to submit to Mohamed? Why isn’t it good enough if I submit my will completely to God?

Because a big part of God’s will is that we follow His last prophet in order for our worship to be accepted. In Jesus time, he was the way and the example. When Mohammad came as the last Prophet, any person who wants to completely submit to God should follow the teachings of Mohammad (peace be upon him).

peace,

deen

 

[selvaraj]

deen:

Because a big part of God’s will is that we follow His last prophet in order for our worship to be accepted. In Jesus time, he was the way and the example. When Mohammad came as the last Prophet, any person who wants to completely submit to God should follow the teachings of Mohammad (peace be upon him).

peace,

deen

So you believe Jesus. According to Jesuss word John the Baptist was the last Prophet, not Mohammed.(Luke 16:16) Then, why dont you follow Jesus`s teachings instead of Mohammed.
In Christ,
selvaraj

 

[radhika]

deen:

Does that make Islam wrong? FYI, when an animal is sacrificed, the meat is distributed amongst the needy members of the society, relatives or friends. In other words, it does not got waste and it is one way of exerccising obedience and charity.

Are you vegetarian?

peace,

deen

My point is that most religion have progressed beyond animal sacrifce. Hindus used to be big on sacrificing animals but now restrict temselves to cutting fruits and breaking coconuts, except for a few devients who do it in secrecy. It is banned for Hindus by the government to sacrifice animals. It is cruel and unnecessary. And yes I am a vegeterian and an animal rights actvist.

 

[scylla]

I will look more into his life (Mohammed).

What I find disturbing about him is the lack of unity or organization among the followers of his message. Kind of like Christianity, where there are competing opinions of who is a true follower.
How is understanding unified so as to not arrive to private interpretations that lead to division and infighting? It seems to me that Islam’s success is a result of the teachings aggressiveness.

I can see a unity in Catholicism and a continuity where Christ founded a Church and it has endured for 2000 years. I see no contradiction of belief, but a misunderstanding of people outside the Catholic Church who describe it.

Scylla

 

[Donna_P]

No - It is NOT OK ofr Muslims to torture Christians. Just as it is not OK for a father to molest his daughter or one person to commit murder or for someone to break into your home and steal from you. Just as abortion is always wrong even tho it is “legal” to have one in the US.

God wants us to love each other. The fact that Muslims are not living in the fullness of Faith does not mean that they can make a law against God. They are wrong. We need to pray for them and others who are not living in the fullness of Faith in the Church that God/Jesus/Holy Spirit started.

God Bless,
Donna

 

[True-Jesus]

scylla said:
“I can see a unity in Catholicism and a continuity where Christ founded a Church and it has endured for 2000 years. I see no contradiction of belief, but a misunderstanding of people outside the Catholic Church who describe it.”​

Sorry!!!..If you look back Catholic Church’s history and especially on her stand on so-called “Jesus Killers”-(Jews) that caused the death of millions of innocent Jews, when these innocent Jews had nothing to do with the alleged “painful crucifixion” of Jesus (pbuh) because Jesus (pbuh) did not die on the cross in the first place, it reveals that truth is not what you (scylla) perceived

According to his own prophecy Jesus (pbuh) should not and could not have die otherwise he is either a liar or not a person sent from God Almighty. So in either case Jesus (pbuh) was not as Church perceived him but he was as he himself prophesised and really who cares what a particular church, no matter how biggest and how old it is, but about 300 years after the alleged ‘crucifixtion’, declares due to either it’s own sheer ignorance/misunderstnading or political agenda something very very strange and blatant-contradictory fabricated stand about Jews and about the nature of Jesus (pbuh), that later caused merciless killings and mass massacre of innocent Jews and as such put the responsibilty of her own henious crimes and killings and massacre on Jesus Christ’s shoulders.

But…how sad it is…for the Church that…it took almost 2000 years to realise (either through re-reading/reconsideration of her own fabricated interpolated scriptures or due to her an another political opportunitist attitude) that in 1965 changed partially (not completely) its long held stand/view on Jews being responsible for the alleged painful death of Jesus Christ.

Now the questions needed to be answered:

Why it took so long? Why Holy Spirit did not reveal the truth about so-called alleged crucifiction?

Why Holy Spirit did allow innocent Jews to be killed mercilessly through the order of Church spiritual leaders and crusades.

Why Church did not allow inocent Jews to settled down peacefully in their areas/countries that these so-called “Christ Killers” had to take refuge in Muslim/arabs lands where they were welcomed and given refuge and shelter.

On what authority or who gave the permission to the Church to drove Jews out of their lands.

What assurance do you have that Church indeed is on the right path when we see every now and then its bishops are caught in shameful crimes such as molestation of young children in the churches/holy places?

What kind of a relationship that Church have with God or Holy Spirit that did not raise any serious voice against the illegal occupation of Palestine by the Zionists who robbed poor Palestenian’s homes and lands and kill their inocent children, men and women.?

What kind of a loving and merciful relationship Church has with the loving-God that she did not solve the booldy conflict between the two “God-loving” factions-Irish Catholics and Protestants that resulted death of innocent people of both God-loving sides?

What made God-loving Christian, Hitler to say this: “I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty Creator. By warding off the Jews I am fighting for the Lord’s work.”?? * (Speech at the Reichstag, Berlin, in 1936)* what kind of a “Lord’s Work” was that caused brutal murder of 6 million innocent jews?

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

True-Jesus:

To All:

---

Final point:

Those Christians who do not go to Saudi Arabia and just criticise by not looking deeper the issue at hand, I would like to ask them:

Why do you feel so important to preach “Christianity” to muslims?

I say: there is no need to teach them because:

They already accepted Jesus (phub) as their Messiah without even reading or looking at any version of the Bibles. Their religion is based on the Final Testament (the Holy Quran), when yours is based on something which is not meant for whole mankind but just Children of Israel, because Jesus Christ was sent as a Prophet to the ‘lost sheep of house of Israel’. He did not come to destroy the Law (Torah) but to protect it and fulfill. Thats all. But he left his mission incomplete because it was not meant for the whole humanity, thus he prophesised that someone else will come after him whose job is to complete his mission and guide all the truth to the whole humanity and it is someone who will accept/admire Jesus Christ (in other words he will recognise him as Messiah). So, that person came and it was Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) who annonced on the authority of God’s Revelation that Jesus is the Messiah and he was one of the mightest Messengers of God Almighty.

We need no Mohammed to know that Jesus is the Messiah TY - it’s obvious from St. Matthew alone - quite apart from St.Paul, who was well aware of it (1 Corinthians 21 ff.)​

Based on Prophet Muhammed (pbuh)'s proclamation today more than 1.2 billion Muslims around the globe believe that Jesus is the Messiah. It is part of their articles of faith otherwise they cannot be called Muslims.

The problem is, that He is Messiah - and more. That “more” is what is being overlooked.​

Besides they follow all the true teachings of Prophet Moses (pbuh) and Jesus (pbuh). Like worshiping One and Only God who is Almighty and who is God of all and the whole universe. Jesus (pbuh) was cricumsised so all Muslim males get circumsised. They believe in virgin Mary as most pious and saintly woman in the world…etc.

On the other hand if you see the position of Holy Bible:

There are a number of different versions ( about 24,000 )

Ahmed Deedat is fond of taking pot-shots at Holy Scripture too ​

Source for the figure, please ? ##

and no two of them are identical and they not in the original language of the revelations or langauge(s) of the Prophet(s).

Why must they be ? We don’t believe that the Bible has to be available only in its untranslated form - it is perfectly capable of conveying its message in translation.​

No gospel is available which is approved by Jesus (pbuh) and not even in his own mother-tongue/language (i.e. Aramaic).

Syriac-speaking Christians have Aramaic texts, FWIW​

Moreover, all the so-called Gospels do not match. They all contradict each other.

This is sufficiently vague to be impossible to discuss in a post of 5000 characters.​

Not even the geneology of Jesus Christ is recorded properly. In one of the Gospels, in the geneology of Jesus Christ we find two “strange” names, Sarah and Perez of Tamar. I am sure you all know who was Tamar and who was actaul father of her two “strange” kids.

What has that little episode to do as an argument about​

the value of the Bible (see Genesis 38 for the details) ?

What it does show, is that Jesus was not ashamed to have people of rather shady morals in his ancestry - it shows that He is the Saviour of sinners.

For Sarah - who is not mentioned in either genealogy - read “Zerah”; a man, not a woman. ##

Plus there are so many indecent passages in the Bible like in the Ezekiel chapter 23 which describes the views/actions of two adultrous sisters.

That passage is explicit, but not indecent - and the explicitness was full justified by the prophet’s message. Why should a prophet of 25 centuries ago be judged by more sophisticated standards than those of his time ?​

[continue…]

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

[continued & ended]

So:

Why you want to teach Muslims in the first place, when their teachings are already pure and free from any human corruption and indecent passages, when they already not only believe in Jesus Christ but also in his last prophecy?

Freedom from indecency - real or alleged - is no evidence of inspiration. ##

Muslims are the true followers of Jesus Christ. But you want them to bring them back again to some corrupted teachings which are not of Jesus Christ in the first place, and second you don’t really follow him but his enemy St. Saul who used to persecute Jesus’ true followers and he was actually an anti-Christ’s teachings.

Except that Acts 9 says otherwise. It is not possible to reject St.Paul, without rejecting whatever agrees with his teaching: and that only leads to shredding the NT. If St. Paul was not rightly called a “chosen vessel” by Christ in Acts 9, maybe we should omit those parts of Acts which show him acting as an Apostle of Christ - which is basically 2/3 of the book. If that goes, maybe the other Apostles were wrong to receive him; so that part also goes. St. Paul teaches of a Christ who is God - but so doe St. John. So the Revelation and three letters and a Gospel go too. St. Luke is associated with St.Paul - so Acts and Luke, which belong together, together go. St. Luke and St. Matthew have a good in common in their thinking - so Matthew too goes.​

Why should the Church reject her sacred books ? She’s not going to - for all the arguments against them has taken the form of denigrating them, in order to establish the Koran. So much for Islam’s respect for Christianity ##

 

[scylla]

Regardless of your perception, I do hold to my statement as what you are describing does not have anything to do with dogma.

Please answer my question and if you are going to make accusations against the Catholic Church please post links with supporting documentation. Then we can discuss this.

Peace
Scylla

 

[True-Jesus]

"In his book, Is the Bible God’s Word? Dr. William Scroggie of the Moody Bible Institute in Chicago, states:

**“Yes, the Bible is human, though some out of zeal, which is not according to knowledge, have rejected this. Those books have passed through the minds of men, are written in the language of men, were penned by the hands of men, and bear in their style, the characteristics of men.” ** (Page 17)

The Bible comes in many versions. Some common ones are the King James Version, the Revised Standard Version, the New International Version, the American Standard, the Catholic (Douay) and the Good News Bible etc. If the Bible is indeed the word of God, then we need to ask, “which version is from God?” The different versions of the Bible are not merely different translations. They add and take out what other “versions” contain.

The most common among the Bibles in the world is the King James Version and its many major revisions. It was first published in 1611. It is the only Bible that has been translated in over fifteen hundred different languages of the world. The King James Version (KJV) has 66 books bound together within its covers. Compare this to the Roman Catholic Version (Douay) of the Bible which has 73 books bound within its covers. Seven whole books have been removed from the King James (a Protestant version of the Bible) that the Douay Version includes. Protestants have expunged these books from their Bible, calling them “Apocrypha” or “weak” in authority.

The Bible within its text never claims to be one uniform book. Nowhere within the text of the Bible is the Bible called “The Bible”. The word Bible itself was invented to represent a collection of books. As we saw above, this collection of books was not the same among different groups. Compare this to the Koran; there is not a word of difference between two Koran’s anywhere in the world. The Koran is the only thing common among Muslims of whatever nationality, sect or group. The Koran within its text names itself times as “The Koran”. It also claims to be completely from God, as a whole (Koran 55:2 etc.).

There are about 24000 manuscripts of the New Testament in the Greek that are termed “original”. However the fact is that these “originals” are themselves copies of documents that have now been lost. Also, no two of these 24000 “originals” are identical. They are not even self-consistent. To substantiate this claim, one need not be a scholar of the history of the Bible. Any modern version of the New Testament has footnotes that clearly state after most statements, “Other ancient manuscripts add” or “Other ancient manuscripts delete” or “Other ancient manuscripts insert” Which manuscript out of these is from God and who did the additions and deletions?"

 

[True-Jesus]

"The Koran in its history and transmission is very different to the Bible:

1. The Koran is present in a living language, Arabic. Over 250 million people speak the language of the Koran. Hundreds of millions more study the classical script of the book, making the Koran the “most read” book on earth (ironically the least understood).
2. The Koran has always been in the possession of the people, the masses and not only the elite, as there is no priesthood in Islam. The Bible on the other hand has always been the possession of the Church elite, where it got shaped, modified and passed on based on Church authority.
3. There is not a word of difference between two Arabic Koran’s anywhere in the world. The Koran is the only unifying force among Muslims. Muslims frequently disagree on everything else except the Arabic wording of the Koran. However, in the case of the Bible, ancient manuscripts are not identical, no two “copies” of the so-called originals are the same. Footnotes in all new versions of the Bible clearly document the differences."

 

[True-Jesus]

"The Most Ancient Manuscripts:

The Revised Standard Version (RSV) of the Bible first appeared in 1952. The editors claimed in the preface that it went to the “most ancient manuscripts” of the Bible. By “most ancient” they mean those that date 200 to 300 years after Jesus. “Ancient” manuscripts on the other hand, on which the King James Version was based, date 400 to 600 years after Jesus. All scholars agree that none of the originals of any of the manuscripts exist. All we have are “most ancient” and “ancient” copies.

The preface to the RSV says that it was produced by thirty two scholars of “the highest eminence”, backed by “fifty cooperating denominations (of Christianity).” Historically, since the RSV goes back to the “most ancient” manuscripts it is more accurate than the KJV. About halfway down the preface of the RSV, on page one, these fifty-two scholars unanimously declare:

The King James Version has grave defectsand that these defects are so many and so serious as to call for a revision (1952:1)"

 

[True-Jesus]

The Grave Defects:

A look at the New Testament section of the RSV, we see that the only “proof” from the Bible that the Christian fundamentalists had of the concept of the Trinity has been removed. The “most-ancient” manuscripts never had this passage (1st Epistle of John 5:7). However, as Christianity got Romanized and moved away from pure monotheism, the elite who possessed authority on what becomes doctrine shoved this statement in:

“For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one.” (New Testament, 1John 5:7)

Not only the RSV but also all modern versions of the Bible do not contain this statement anymore. It has been unceremoniously thrown out. By doing this the scholars are not only bringing Christianity closer to Islam, they are confirming the part of the Koran that says:

“And do not say Trinity, desist from this, it will be better for you, for God is one God (Waahid in Arabic).” (Koran 4:171)

Another thing that we notice in the RSV, that goes to the “most-ancient” manuscripts is that the word “begotten” in the famous verse in John (3:16) has been taken out. John 3:16, in the King James Version (KJV) reads:

“For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son”(New Testament, John 3:16)

By removing the word “begotten” from this verse, the scholars of Christianity are once again coming closer to Islam. The Koran states that God doesn’t adopt or beget sons or daughters. The concept of “son” and an uncreated, eternal “God” are mutually exclusive, logically speaking. God represents one who received life from no one, while son signifies one who got existence from another source. In the literal sense of the word, no one can claim to be God and son at the same time.

In the language of the Jews however, the word “son” has a metaphoric meaning as well. Thus, the term “son of God” is used in the Bible, both Old and New Testaments to signify good, righteous people. Jesus himself is quoted as saying, “Blessed are the peace-makers for they shall be called sons of God.” (Matthew 5:9). The word that was causing difference in John 3:16 was the word “begotten”. The scholars “of the highest eminence” are informing us that this was an interpolation, a later addition to the text of the statement.

“In their relentless search for “the historical Jesus,” various Biblical Scholars argue that the Gospel stories of the empty tomb and Jesus’ post-resurrection appearances are fictions devised long after his death to justify claims of his divinity.” (Rethinking the Resurrection, Newsweek. April 8 1996, page 42)

“While believers through the ages have echoed Peter’s faith-filled declaration, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God,” some modern scholars say that historical evidence reveals a much different portrait of Jesus than the one in Christian creeds.” (In search of Jesus, U.S.News & World Report, April 8 1996, page 47)"

 

[True-Jesus]

"In the 1952 version of the RSV, the first eleven verses of the 8th chapter of the Gospel of John have been removed. The chapter now begins at verse 12. The scholars explained that these eleven verses were interpolations, later additions to the manuscript of John. As a result they are now in the footnote and not the text of the 1952 RSV. Also taken out are the only two references in the gospels to the ascension of Jesus (Mark 16:19 and Luke 24:51). They are taken out as interpolations as well.

In 1971 they revised the RSV, and this time due to pressure from certain denominations, they added back the eleven verses of the 8th chapter of John that were taken out. This “game” of adding and taking out has been going on for centuries. The construction of “God’s word” has also been a prosperous industry. It is precisely for this reason that the Koran warns us:

Woe unto those who write the book with their own hands and then say, “This is from God,” that they may trade it for some miserable gain. Woe to them for what their hands do write and woe to them for what they earn with it." (Koran 2:79)

According to the doctrine of most Christian denominations, the first five books of the Bible, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy were “written” by Moses and are called the “Books of Moses”. However, scholars don’t attribute any of these books to Moses at all. Internal evidence in these books makes it clear that Moses could not have written these words. In the 34th chapter of the Book of Deuteronomy, we read:

“So Moses the servant of the lord diedand He (i.e. God) buried Himand there arose not a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses.” (Deuteronomy 34:5-10)

Moses could not have written these words, written in the past tense, after he died! Also the word “since” in the verse clearly shows that whoever is writing this lived long after Moses had died. All through these five books, the structure of the sentence as well as the “third-person” reference to Moses and to God shows that neither God nor Moses wrote these words. Sentences, repeated hundreds of times, “God said unto Moses and Moses said unto the Lord,” in these five books, clearly shows that a third person, someone other than God and Moses is writing these words.

Also, consider these words in the Book of Numbers, thought to have been written by Moses:

Now the man Moses was very meek, above all the men which were upon the fact of the earth." (Numbers 12:3)

The meekest man on the face of the earth would never say that he was meek. Moreover, the meek man does not appear to be very meek in the judgments that he gives in the same book of the Bible:

“And Moses was wroth…And Moses said unto them, “Have ye saved all the women alive? … Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman, … But all the women children … keep alive for yourselves.” Num.31: 14-18”

 

[True-Jesus]

What about the Gospels?

J. B Phillip, a prebendry of the Chichester cathedral in England, a paid servant of the Anglican Church, in his New Testament in Modern English (1996) states in the preface to the gospel according to Matthew:

“Early tradition ascribed this gospel to the apostle Matthew, but scholars nowadays almost all reject this view…The author, whom we can conveniently call Matthew has plainly drawn on the mysterious “Q”, which may have been a collection of oral traditions. He has used Mark’s gospel freely”

J.B Phillip is telling us clearly that Matthew didn’t write Matthew. We don’t know the source or the author of this anonymous book. He is further stating that whoever has written this gospel (one that can be conveniently called Matthew), has plagiarized Mark.

Not only do modern scholars reject that idea that Matthew wrote Matthew, internal evidence in this gospel clearly shows that someone other than Matthew (and other than Jesus) wrote it. Consider the 9th verse of the 9th chapter of Matthew:

“And as Jesus passed forth thence, He (i.e.Jesus) saw a man called Matthew sitting at the receipt of custom, and he (Jesus) said to him (Matthew), “Follow me,” and he (Matthew) arose and followed him (i.e. Jesus).” (New Testament, Matthew 9:9)

The “third-person” reference to Jesus and Matthew, the hes and the hims, clearly shows that whoever is writing this is not Jesus and is not Matthew. The same situation is encountered while reading the gospel of John, in at least two places:

i) "And he that saw it bare record, and his record is true, and he knows that he says the truth so that you may believe (John 19:35)

ii) “This is the disciple who testifies of these things, and who wrote these things, and we know that his testimony is true.” (John 21:24-25)

The word “we” above clearly shows that more than one person authored the passage above. Similarly the “third person” reference to the witness of events shows that the writer is either copying or editing the narration of “he that saw it.”

The author of the gospel of Luke does not claim inspiration of his gospel writing from God. He says that he wrote it because he knew of the events and it “seemed good to him” (Luke 1:1-5). Also see 1 Corinthians 7:25 where Paul, in this specific case says that he’s informing without God’s commandment. 2 Timothy 3:16 is presented to “prove” that the entire Bible is God’s inspiration, the above 2 references apart from the many others disprove that.

“Many scholars think the gospels are unreliable records since they were written as proclamation, not objective history, decades after Jesus’ death.” (In search of Jesus, U.S.News & World Report, April 8 1996, page 47)

“There are, after all, four Gospels, whose actual writing, most scholars have come to acknowledge, was done not by the Apostles but by their anonymous followers (or their follower’s followers). Each presented a somewhat different picture of Jesus’ life. (The search for Jesus, TIME, April 8 1996, page 38)”