Protestant priests argue as follows in one of the pamphlets they have published: "Muslims, unaware of the history of Gospels, assert that the Gospels kept by Christians are not genuine, and that Christians defiled and changed the Bible in order to conceal the verses testifying the prophethood of Muhammad 'alaihis-salam'. They will be answered as follows: scholars such as Imam-i-Bukhari, Shah Waliyyullah Dahlawi, Fakhr-ud- din-i-Radhi, Sayyid Ahmad, an Indian scholar, and others declare that the Gospels used today are the same as those that were used before the time of hadrat Muhammad 'sall-allahu alaihi wasallam', and so they are not changed. Several very old copies of the Bible existing in some well-known European libraries bear witness to the truth of our claim. Therefore, if Muslims have any proofs to buttress up their assertions that the Bible was interpolated, be it in the Gospels they have or in the versions hat were translated to various languages before 'Asr-i-saadat (the time of our Prophet 'sall-allahu alaihi wasallam' and his four rightly-guided Khalifas), we challenge that Muslims disclose all such proofs."

It is a pleasure for us Muslims to accept this invitation of theirs and put forward all the proofs they want, one by one.

As is known, the Holy Bible, the basis of Christian creed, is of two divisions: Old Testament, and New Testament. The division called Old Testament consists of chapters said to have been taken from the heavenly book Taurah and episodes ascribed to some Israelite Prophets. The New Testament consists of the four Gospels and some letters and pamphlets claimed to have been sent forth by some apostle, e.g. Paul. It is admitted by Christians also that the books of Old Testament were defiled. Those who would like to get detailed information in this respect may have recourse to the book Iz-har-ul-haq, by Rahmatullah Effendi "rahmatullah-i-alaih'. We shall not give detailed information concerning the Old Testament here. [Jews augmented the persecutions and torments they have been practicing over the Nazarens. In addition to these persecutions and murders, they calumniated Isa 'alaihis- salam' and his blessed mother, hadrat Maryam (Miriam, Mary). So much so that they went so far as to call that exalted Prophet an illegitimate child and his blessed mother a fornicator. In order to prove that the Holy Book of Taurah, which was revealed by Allahu ta'ala, did not contain such abominable, detestable slanders, the Nazarenes translated the Taurah to Latin. In the final part of our book, detailed information will be given about the inner natura of the Jewish religion and the slanders and enmities that Jewry has done to Muslims and Christians, i.e. in the chapter headlined Judaism, the Taurah, the Talmud.

Strauss, a Protestant historian, [Strauss, (David Friedrich), is a German historian. He died in 1291 [A.D. 1874]. He published such works as The Life of Christ, Instruction on Christianity, The New Life of Jesus Christ] states as follows: "During the early years of expansion of Christianity the Christians made a Greek translation of the Old Testament, which had already been interpolated a number of times by Jewry. The Jews protested, with the pretext that the translation did not agree with the Israelite books that they had then. In order to find such answers as would rebut the Jews, the Christians made some new additions to the Greek version of the Old Testament. For example, several names which were supposed to be the names of Isa's 'alaihis-salam' ancestors were inserted into the Zabur (Psalter, Book of Psalms in the Old Testament, the heavenly Book revealed to Dawud 'alaihis-salam'). The section on Isa's 'alaihis-salam' entering hell, was placed in the book of Jeremiah. The Jews, upon seeing these interpolations, clamored, "These things do not exist in our book." The Christians answered, "You cheaters have no fear of Allah! You dare to change the holy books," and attacked the Jews. By and by these quarrels between the Christians and the Jews intensified. The Christian priests began to doubt and falter. Thus the Christians were fractured into a number of groups. The disagreements caused many wars among them. Three hundred and twenty-five years after Isa 'alaihis-salam' three hundred and nineteen priests came together at the Nicea council with the command of Constantine the Great, the Byzantine Greek Emperor. They started a collective deliberation and consultation on the copies of the Holy Bible, each of which contained a number of uncertainties and inconsistencies. In this council, those who believed in the divinity of Isa 'alaihis-salam' were in the ascendant. Adding some translations from the Israelite books, they reshaped the Holy Bible. They decided that all copies, other than the one they had just sanctioned, were doubtful. This decision is stated in the introduction which Jerome wrote for this new version. [Jerome, Saint, is called Irunimus by the Arabs. He stayed in Istanbul for three years. He went to Rome in 382. He became the Pope's secretary. He translated the Holy Bible to Latin. His day is celebrated on September 30 th. His translation became the church's official Bible]. In 364 another council, called Lodisia, was convened. This council, after sanctioning the books of the Old Testament, also sanctioned the authenticity and dependability of the Book of Esther, which had been repudiated in the Nicene council, and the six epistles that were attributed to the Apostles. These six epistles are the epistle of Jacob, the two epistles of Peter, the second and the third epistles of John, the epistle of Judah, and the epistle written to the Hebrews by Paul. They publicized the authenticity of these books and epistles. John's Book of Revelations (the Apocalypse) was not sanctioned in either of the councils convened in 325 and 364; so it remained doubtful. Later, in 397, a council of hundred and twenty-six members was convened in Carthage. This council sanctioned the authenticity of a few of the books that had been found dubious or false, and so rejected, by the previous two councils. These books are Tobit (Apocryha). Baruch, Ecclesiasticus, MaccAbis, and John's book of Revelations. After the sanctioning of these books by the Carthaginian council, all those books that had been said to be doubtful, became acceptable to all Christians. This state lasted for a period of twelve hundred years. With the emergence of Protestantism, grave hesitations arose concerning the books Tobit, Baruch, Judith, Wisdom (of Solomon), Ecclesiastes (Ecclesiasticus), I MaccAbis, and II MaccAbis. The Protestants claimed that these books, accepted by the earlier Christians, were to be rejected as uncanonical. They repudiated some chapters of Esther, and sanctioned some others. They proved these repudiations and sanctionings through various evidences. One of these evidences was that the originals of these books, which were in Hebrew and Caledonian (Celtic) languages, did not exist then. The historian priest Vivibius writes in the twenty-second chapter of the fourth volume of his book that all the books mentioned above, particularly II MaccAbis, were changed."

Protestans themselves admitted the fact that the councils, that is, the clerical assemblies, who had been looked on as inspired with the Holy Spirit and whose decisions had been considered the basis of Christianity by all Christians for twelve hundred years, had been agreeing in error and aberration. Nevertheless, they accepted many of the quite unreasonable and inadmissible decisions of those councils. Thus they took an unprecedented course that was based on contradictory principles. What a surprising event it would be for millions of discreet Christians to look on a religion whose essence is covered with doubts and uncertainties as a means of happiness and salvation, alluring the hearts towards itself; one would bite one's finger with astonishment.

Christians obtain the principles of belief both from the Old Testament and from the New Testament. These books are not free from doubts and hesitations. Neither of them has been proven to have survived to our time through a sound document. In other words, they have not been transmitted through a series of true people from Isa 'alaihis-salam' to our time. As is known, a book's authenticity and heavenliness, that is, its admittance as a book revealed by Allahu ta'ala depends on an authoritative declaration such as, "This book has been written (revealed) through Prophet so and so and is free from being changed or defiled and has reached us by being transmitted through sound documents and true people." Unless this is firmly documented to people with common sense, doubts and hesitations concerning the book in question will not go away. For, a book that is attributed to a person considered to be endowed with divine revelations will not prove by itself the fact that it has been arranged by that person himself. Nor will a few Christian groups' claims, based on sheer bigotry and zeal, suffice to prove the book's validity. Christian priests do not have any documents to prove the soundness of their Holy Bible, except that they attribute it to one of the past Prophets or Apostles. These claims of theirs are not a proof, persuasive enough, to lay down the principles of belief [iman] or to remove doubts as to their authenticity. No one who is wise enough would feel safe and peaceful if his religion, which would guide him to comfort and peace in this world and save him from torment and take him to eternal felicity in the next world, were based on precarious essentials. As a matter of fact Christians deny and reject, as fictitious, lies in most of the books in the Old Testament and more than seventy of the New Testament books which tell about hadrat Isa and hadrat Maryam (Mary) or events in their time and which partly exist still today. There is detailed knowledge in this respect in the book Iz-ah-ul-haq.

Christian priests, the early ones and the modern ones alike, unanimously state that Matthew's Gospel was in Hebrew. Later, during their factious fractioning into sects. Christians lost that original version. The existing version of Matthew's Gospel today is a translation of the original Hebrew version, the translator being anonymous. Even Jerome, an outstanding Christian priest, concedes that its translator has remained anonymous so far.

Thomas Ward, a Catholic, says in an article of his, "Some early Christian scholars had suspicion about the authenticity of the last chapter of Mark's Gospel, some about a few verses of the twenty-second chapter of Luke's Gospel, and some others about the first two chapters of Luke's Gospel. The version of the Bible possessed by the Marcion group of Christians does not contain these two chapters." Nortin (Norton) states about Mark's Gospel as follows in the seventieth page of his book, which was published in Boston in 1253 [A.D. 1837): "This Gospel contains paragraphs that need scrutiny, e.g. the part from the ninth verse to the end of the sixteenth chapter." Norton says that tough the text does not have any signs to arouse doubt, the so-called verses were inserted in its interpretation, and gives a series of evidences to prove it, and then states: "When we study the habits of the scribes, who copied from the books, we see that they tried to insert their own ideas into the texts rather than trying to understand and write the paragraphs. When this fact is known, it will be understood why the paragraphs in the Bible are doubtful."

NORTON, Andrews,American Biblical scholar and educator. He was born in 1201 [A.D. 1786]. He died on September 18, 1853. He graduated from Harvard in 1804, and after studying theology was a tutor in Bowdoin College in 1809. He returned to Harvard, in 1811, as a mathematical tutor there; and became, in 1813, librarian of the university and lecturer on Biblical criticism and interpretation. From 1819 to 1830 he was Dexter professor of Sacred literature. He was among the most eminent exponents of unitarianism [which rejected trinity and upheld the belief in the Unity of Allah], equal strong in his protests against Calvinism and the naturalistic theology represented by Theodore Parker. He published A Statement of Reasons for not Believing the Doctrines of Trinitarians (1833)." [Encyclopedia Americana, Volume: 20, p. 464].

The Gospel attributed to John does not have a sound document of transmission, either. Like Mark's Gospel, it contains ambiguous and contradictory paragraphs that need scrutiny. For example:

Firstly, this Gospel does not contain any evidence to prove that John wrote what he had seen. A judgement will remainvalid unless it is proven to the contrary.

Secondly, it is stated in the twenty-fourth verse of the twentieth chapter of John, "He [John] is the pupil who wrote and who bears witness to the authenticity of these statements. [i.e. John's Gospel]. We know that his testimony is true." As is seen, this statement about John belongs to the scribe that wrote John's Gospel. In this verse John is mentioned with the third person (absent) pronoun 'he', and the scribe who wrote (fabricated) the book mention himself with the pronoun 'we', which signifies the writer. This comes to mean that the writer of John's Gospel is someone other than John. The writer claims to have knowledge of the trueness of John's testimony. In conclusion, the man that wrote this Gospel obtained possession of some of John's epistles and wrote this book after rendering some excisions and additions.

Thirdly, in the second century of the Christian era, when controversies and objections as to the authenticity of John's Gospel appeared, Iranaeus, a pupil of Polycarpe who was a disciple of John, was still alive. Why did he not answer the objectors by proving the authenticity of the Gospel he had transmitted by documents? If his transmission (the Gospel of John taught by him) had been true, he would have cried out and said, "My transmission is true." The predication that "the matter of authenticity should not have been discussed between Polycarpe and his pupil Iranaeus" would be far from factual. Would it have been logically possible for Iranaeus not to have learned anything about the authenticity of the Gospel they were reading by at least asking, "Is this Gospel John's?", while asking and learning about many useless matters from his master? His having forgotten would be an even weaker probability. For Iranaeus is well-known for full cognizance of his master's way and habits and his strong memory to keep well what he learned. Eusebius (of Caesaria), in the two hundred and nineteenth page of the twentieth chapter of the fifth book of his history, which was published in 1263 [A.D. 1847], quotes Iranaeus' statements about the languages in which John's Gospel was transmitted, as follows: "As a bestowment of Allahu ta'ala, I heard and memorized these words. I did not write them down. This has been my habit since long ago. Thus I have been saying and reciting what I learned." As is seen, the Gospel was denied even in the second century and such denials could not be answered by proving its authenticity. Celsus, a Christian scholar, cried out in the second Christian century that "Christians clanged their Bible in a manner as to defile its meaning three to five times or even more." Faustus, an outstanding Manichaen scholar, said in the fourth Christian century, "Changes were made in Biblical books. It is true. The Old Testament was not compiled by Isa 'alaihis-salam' or by the Apostles. It was represented in the name of evangelists or their colleagues with a view of gaining popularity. Books containing many errors and paradoxes were published and thus Christians were hurt."

Fourthly, Herald, a Catholic, citing from an editor named Estadlen in the two hundred and fiftieth page of the seventh volume of his book published in 1844, states that he does not doubt the fact that John's Gospel was written by one of the pupils of the Alexandrian school.

Fifthly, Bretschmeider says that John's Gospel, or John's epistles, does not belong to John as a whole, and that it may have been written by an anonymous scribe in the second century, [Bretschneider (1776-1848) was a German Protestant theologist who wrote a book to criticize the Bible].

Sixthly, Cirdinius said that "John's Gospel had twenty chapters. Later the twenty-first chapter was added by the church of Ephesus."

Seventhly, this Gospel of John, together with all its contents, was rejected by the group of Alogience in the second Christian century.

Eighthly, eleven verses at the beginning of the eighth chapter of John's Gospel have been rejected by all Christian men of knowledge.

Ninthly, during the compilation of the four Gospels, many erroneous transmissions without any documents were inserted into them. These transmissions do not even have any documents to testify the authenticity of the existing four Gospels. Thomas Hartwell states in the second chapter of the fourth volume of his interpretation published in 1237 [A.D. 1822], "The information reaching us concerning the times of edition of the Gospels is insufficient and inconclusive. It gives us no help as to the dependability of the Gospels. The early Christian men of religion continued to write wrong transmissions that they accepted and took for granted. Their successors, because of the respect they felt for them, unanimously accepted their writings without even considering whether they were true or not. Thus, all these careless and superficial transmissions passed from one scribe to another, from one version to another, and reached our time. And now, after so many centuries, it is very difficult to purify the Gospels of wrong transmissions." He says in the same volume, "The first Gospel, i.e. Matthew's Gospel, was edited in the thirty-seventh, thirty-eighth, forty-first, forty-seventh, sixty-first, sixty-second, sixty-third, sixty-fourth or sixty-fifth years of the Christian era, and the second Gospel, i.e. the Gospel of Mark, was edited in the fifty-sixth. According to a more dependable view, it was edited in the sixtieth or sixty-third year. The third Gospel, the Gospel of Luke, was edited in the fifty-third, sixty-third or sixty-fourth years of the Christian era, and the Gospel of John in the sixty- eighth, sixty-ninth, seventieth or ninety-eighth years." There is no document or proof to testify that the epistle to the Hebrews and the second epistle of Peter and the second and third epistles of John and the epistle of Jacob and the epistle of Judah and the Revelation of John were transmitted by the Apostles. Their soundness was doubtful till the year 365. Some of their parts were rejected as erroneous by Christian religious scholars, until that time. In fact, the versions translated into the Syrian language do not contain those parts. All the Arab churches rejected the soundness [authenticity] of the second epistle of Peter, the second and third epistles of John, the epistle of Judah and the Revelation of John. Horn, a Biblical scholar, says in the two hundred and sixth and two hundred and seventh pages of the second book of bin interpretation. "Peter's epistle Judah's, epistle, the second and the third epistles and the Revelation of John, the nine verses from the second verse to the eleventh verse of the eighth chapter of the Gospel of John and the seventh verse of the fifth chapter of the first book of John, never existed in the Syriac copies of the Bible." This means to say that the translator, who wrote the Syriac version, knew that the sections we have just mentioned could not be documents for an authentic religious principle, and did not translate these parts which he noticed during translation. Ward, a Catholic, in the thirty-Seventh page of his book published in 1841, quotes Rogers, a Protestant, as saying, "Because the Hebrew epistle contradicted the creed taught in the epistle of Jacob, in the second and third epistles of John and in his Revelation, the ecclesiastical authorities excised these epistles from the Holy Bible." Dactrice states that, till the time of Josneys, not every book was accepted as authentic, and insists that the epistle of Jacob, the epistle of Judah, the second epistle of Peter, the second and third epistles of John did not contain information compiled and written by the Apostles. He adds that, "The Hebrew epistle was rejected until a certain time, and the second and third epistles of Peter, the Revelation of John and the epistle of Judah were not accepted as authentic by the Syrian and Arab churches; yet we take them for granted, that is, we accept them as authentic."

Dr. Nathaniel Lardner, a Christian Biblical scholar, states in the hundred and seventy-fifth page of the fourth book of his interpretation, "The book of Revelations of John was not accepted as authentic by Serl and his contemporary Orshilim, that is, by the church of Jerusalem. The index of the book 'Canon", written by Serl, does not even contain the name of this book." He gives more detailed information in the three hundred and twenty-third page, and writes, "The Revelation of John does not exist in the Syrian translations of the early Gospels. They do not contain any marginal notes written on them by such editors as Webar Hiberios or Jacob. Also, Waybidicsou did not include the second epistle of Peter, the second and third epistles of John, the Revelation of John or the epistle of Judah in his index of books. The Syrians are of the same opinion."

Herald, a Catholic, says in the two hundred and sixth page of the seventh volume of his book: "As Raus states in the hundred and sixtieth page of his book, most of the notables of the Protestant church do not accept the authenticity of John's Revelations," Prof. Rabwald states, "John's Gospel and John's epistles and Revelations cannot have been written by the same person," and proves this by strong documents. Vivisbius, quoting from Webunisicheen in the twenty-fifth chapter of the seventh volume of his "History', says that the early priests tried to excise the Revelations of John from the Holy Bible, and adds: "This book of Revelations is thoroughly nonsensical. It is quite wrong to attribute it to John, who was one of the Apostles. It is ignorance and being unaware of the facts. The person who wrote it was neither an apostle nor a follower of the Messiah, nor was he a true person. Perhaps this book of Revelations was written by a Roman named Sern Tehsin (Cerinhac) and was attributed to John." Further on he says, "But ' do not have the capacity to excise this book, i.e. John's Revelations, from the holy Bible. For thousands of our Christian brothers revere this John. I confirm that the person who wrote this book had

inspirations. But I do not admit that he was the Apostle John, who was the brother of James, an apostle, and the son of Zebedee and the writer of the Gospel of John. It is inferable from his words and manners that he was not an apostle. Nor is the person who wrote the book of Revelations the same John mentioned in the Book of Acts, which tells about the Actions. For he never went to the country of Isaiah. The person who wrote that Gospel was another John, who was an inhabitant of Isaiah. Again, as is inferred from the paragraphs and expressions in the Gospel of John, in the epistles and in the Revelations, John, who is the editor of John's Gospel and the epistles, is not the same John who compiled the Book of Revelations. For the paragraphs in the Gospel and in the epistles are well arranged and have a smooth language in Greek. They do not contain erroneous expressions. The case is not so with the discourse in the Book of Revelations; it is written in a queer, unusual style unwonted in Greek. John the Apostle does not mention his name overtly in his Gospel and epistles; he writes of himself as 'the speaker' or in the third person singular. He directly gets into the matter under question without giving lengthy information of himself. As for the author of Revelations; he uses quite a different style. For example, the first verse of the first chapter of John's Revelations reads as follows: 'This is the revelation of Jesus the Messiah; it is the revelation that God gave unto the Messiah. He gave him the revelation so that he would show His servants the things that will certainly happen soon. And He sent it through John, His own servant.' The ninth verse says, 'I am John, your brother, who shares with you the afflictions, the saintliness and the patience undergone by Jesus.' The eighth verse of the twenty-second chapter says, 'I am John, who has seen and heard these events.' As is seen, these verses, unlike the style followed by the Apostles, mention the speaker's name clearly. If it is suggested that unlike his past habit, he (John) might have mentioned his name clearly here in order to make his people know about him, the following answer is appropriate: If his purpose had been so, he should have written the nickname and title belonging to him. For example, he should have used such expressions as, 'I am John, the brother of James and the son of Zebedee and own qualification and differentiating himself from other people, he used such expressions as 'your brother', 'who has seen the events', etc. Our purpose here is not to make fun of reasonable people, but to clarify the distinction between the styles of expression and writing of the two people."

Again, it is written in the third chapter of the third book of the history of Eusebius, "The first epistle of Peter is authentic. But his second epistle cannot be from the Holy Bible. Paul's fourteen epistles are read. But some people excised his epistles to Hebrew's from the Holy Bible." Eusebius states in the twenty-fifth chapter of his same book that there is disagreement on the epistle of Jacob, the epistle of Judah, the second epistle of Peter, and the second and third epistles of John, and that their real authors are unknown. Eusebius says in the twenty- fifth chapter of the sixth book of this same history, "Airgin's account of the Hebrew epistle is as follows: this epistle, which is very popular among the Christians, was written by some Gulnaht in Shab-i-room. Some people said that it was translated by Luke." Irenaeus (140-220), an early theologian, Polinius, one of the dignitaries in 220, and Pontius, in 251, rejected the Hebrew epistle entirely. Tortilin Bersper of Carthage, one of the dignitaries of A.D. 200, says: "The Hebrew epistle belongs to Barnabas." Kis Bertsper, one of the notables of 212, says: "The epistles of Paul are virtually thirteen; the fourteenth, the Hebrew epistle, is not one of them." Saey Pern Bashb of Carthage, in 248, did not even mention the name of this epistle. The Syrian church has not accepted, so far, the authenticity of the second epistle of Peter and the second and third epistles of John. Aiscalcen, a notable Christian, says: "The person who wrote the second epistle of Peter wasted his time by doing so." It is written as follows in the Biblical History published in 1266 [A.D. 1850]: "A writer named Critius says that the epistle of Judah belongs to John, who was the fifteenth usquf (priest)of Jerusalem during the reign of Aydernick." [Usquf: a ranking clergy responsible for reading the Bible]. Airgin, an early writer who interpreted the Gospel of John, says in the fifth book of this interpretation of his: "Paul did not write epistles to every church; and the epistles he wrote to some churches consisted of a few lines." As is inferred from this statement of Airgin's, none of the epistles said to be Paul's belongs to him; all of them belong to some other writer, but are attributed to him. The second chapter of the epistle that Paul wrote to Galatians contains the following statements, from the eleventh verse to the sixteenth verse: "But when Peter came to Antioch, when he deserved being scolded, I confronted with him. He was guilty. For he had been eating with some people [pagans] before some people that came from Jacob. But when they came, he left because he feared the circumcised people [Jews]. Other Jews followed Peter's example and dissembled to withdraw. So much so that even Barnabas was taken in by their dissimulation. But when I saw that they were not walking in the right path as shown by the essence of the Bible, I said to Peter in front of all the others, 'You are a Jew, but you are living as if you were not a Jew, as if you belonged in another nation [pagans]! Why are you forcing other people to act like the Jews? Let alone the sinners of those people, we who are already Jews have had belief in Jesus the Messiah because we know that a person becomes a true one, not through the canonical deeds but by believing in Jesus the Messiah. Let us make ourselves true not only through the canonical deeds but by having belief in the Messiah. For no one can be true by doing the canonical deeds."

Because the beginning part of these statements contradicts the final part, one of the parts, (that is, either the beginning part or the final part), must have been added afterwards. For, although Paul writes in the beginning of his epistle [eleventh verse] how he scolded Peter in Antioch, the guilt he blamed him for was his eating with other people, i.e. pagans, which was against Jewish customs. [Supposing it were not an insolence for him to direct the insults we have mentioned above towards such a person as Peter, who had been inspired by the Holy Spirit and served the Messiah]. In fact, his scolding him was based on the following reasoning: "A Jew as you are, you slight the commandments of your religion like pagans. How can you have the face to call them to (follow) the Jewish canon?" But after this (reasoning) Paul changes his course and begins to explain the futility of the canonical commandments. In the third chapter, after long discourse on the needlessness of worships, he says that he has entirely adapted himself to the canonical laws of Musa 'alaihis-salam'. As a matter of fact, the seventeenth verse of the twenty-first chapter of the Book of Acts reads as follows: "When Paul came to Jerusalem and visited Jacob, together with his pupils, all the old ones were there. They said unto Paul, "Brother, you see how many thousands there are of the believing Jews. All these people take pains to follow the canonical laws of Musa 'alaihis-salam.' They have heard that you have been teaching all the Jews living among the pagans not to circumcise their children, not to follow their own customs, and to leave the way of hadrat Musa. What shall we do now? For they have heard of your arrival. Now do as well tell you to; there are four vowed people with us. Take them with you, clean yourself together with them, have them shave their heads, and follow the canonical laws yourself so that they will realize that you have been acting upon the commandments of the canon and what they have heard about you is untrue. As for the peoples who have believed; we have decided and written (to them) that they should avoid (eating) what has been sacrificed to idols, blood, the strangled, and fornication.' Then Paul took these men, cleaned himself together with them the following day and entered the temple, announcing that the days of cleaning would be over when a sacrifice has been offered for each of them."

As seen, Paul, who kept saying that "The body will not be clean by (following) the canon. Though accursed for us, the Messiah has saved us from the commandments of the canon", follows the old people's advice, adapts himself to the canon by cleaning himself and enters the temple.

Three verses from Paul's epistle tell us a few subtle facts about the mysteries of Christianity:

First: It was rumored among the Jews believing the Messiah that Paul was saying, "Circumcision is unnecessary." This comes to mean that the Jews, who had believed Isa 'alaihis-salam' on condition that they would not desist from the canon of Musa 'alaihis- salam', did not approve the changing of the canonical laws of Musa 'alaihis-salam.'

Second: At that time it was not considered important whether the canonical laws would continue to exist. The person, who was one of the apostles of Isa 'alaihis- salam', said, "The people must be gathered together whatever the cost'; hence it is inferred that his real purpose was to bring the people together in their own religion by using all sorts of methods. This suggestion, which an apostle of Isa 'alaihis-salam' had the courage to make to Paul only in order to bring the people together, reveals the basis on which Christianity was founded.

Third: Papias, who was the bishop of Hirapulius towards the middle of the second Christian century, referred to two short treatises pertaining to he words and acts of Isa 'alaihis-salam'. One of them is a treatise by Mark, who was the interpreter of the Apostle Peter, the other is Matthew's treatise, a compilation of Hebrew commandments and rules. Papias stated that the treatise belonging to Mark was very short, inadequate, not written in chronological order, consisting of some stories and traditions. This signifies that, in the middle of the second century. Matthew and Mark had a treatise each; Papias saw them and wrote about them, describing them and pointing out the differences between them.

As for the Gospels of Matthew and Mark existing today; they are quite alike, both being detailed in such a manner as if they were copied from each other. It is apparent that these are not the versions seen by Papias and that those versions were later enlarged by additions.

On the other hand, Papias never mentioned the Gospels of Luke and John. Papias, who was in Hirapulius and, naturally, met John's disciples and learned some facts from them, did not even say a single word about the Gospel of John. This fact shows that the Gospel of John was written some time afterwards.

The ninth verse of the ninth chapter of the Gospel of Matthew reads as follows: "And as Jesus was passing there he saw a man who was sitting at the customs place and whose name was Matthew; when he said to him, 'follow me and come after me', he stood up, followed him and went after him." Now, please pay close attention to this point: if Matthew himself wrote these statements, why did he use the name Matthew in the third person instead of speaking as Matthew himself? [If the author of this Gospel had been Matthew himself, he would have said, "As I was sitting at the customs place Isa 'alaihis-salam' passed by. When he saw me he told me to follow him, to walk behind him. So I stood up and followed him, walked behind him."]

In the Gospel of Matthew, every speech quoted from Isa 'alaihis-salam' is so long that it is impossible to say any one of them at one sitting, at one time. In fact, the advice and the directions that he gave to the apostles in the tenth chapter, his continuous words in the fifth, sixth and seventh chapters, his scolding of the Persians in the twenty-third chapter, his continuous exemplifications in the eighth chapter are absolutely not short enough to occur within one sitting. A proof of this is that these same speeches and exemplifications of his are divided into various sittings in the other Gospels. This means to say that the author of this Gospel is not Matthew, the customs officer, the faithful companion of Isa 'alaihis-salam'.

In the Gospel of Matthew, miracles (mujiza) of Isa 'alaihis-salam' such as his curing the poor people who were blind, leprous or paralyzed, his feeding large numbers of poor people, are mentioned at two different places each. The Gospels of Mark and Luke, on the other hand, mention each of these events at one place. Hence, the author of the Gospel attributed to Matthew probably consulted two sources when writing the book and saw the same event in both sources. Then, perhaps, thinking the two events were different, he wrote them as such in his book.

It is written in the fifth verse of the tenth chapter of the Gospel of Matthew that hadrat Isa commanded his messengers, i.e. the Apostles, not to go to [call] the pagans [to their religion] and not to enter the city of Samaria, Further ahead it is said that he cured a pagan captain's servant and cananite woman's daughter.

On the one hand, the sixth verse of the seventh chapter says, "Do not give sacred things to the dogs [pagans]. Do not throw your jewels to the swine"; and the nineteenth verse of the twenty-eight chapter, on the other hand, declares, "Go and make all peoples your pupils. Baptize them [each them your religion], in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit."

While the fifth verse of the tenth chapter commands, "Do not follow (other) peoples' ways. Do not enter any of the Samaritan cities", the fourteenth verse of the twenty-fourth chapter declares, "The Gospel shall be preached to all nations, and the end shall be salvation." [Such verses, like the ones before, are quite contradictory].

Countless contradictions and oppositions of this sort are repeated in this Gospel. These additions leave no doubt as to the fact that the Gospel of Matthew was interpolated. Some important episodes contained by the other Gospels do not exist in the Gospel of Matthew. For example, the episodes such as the selection of seventy pupils by Isa 'alaihis-salam', his ascension in the Mala-i-hawariyyun, his coming to Jerusalem twice for celebrating the Bayram (Holy Day), and LuAzar's resurrection from his grave do not exist in this Gospel. Therefore, it is doubtful that the Gospel of Matthew was written by Matthew the Apostle.

All historians agree that Mark was not one of the Apostles. Perhaps he was in interpreter to the Apostle Peter.

Papias states, "Mark was in interpreter to Peter. Mark wrote the words and acts of Isa 'alaihis-salam' as correctly as he could recollect them. But he did not write the words and acts of Isa 'alaihis-salam' in a regular order. For he had not heard them form Isa 'alaihis- salam', nor had he ever been with him. As I have said, Mark was only a friend of Peter's. In order to have a book containing his conversations with Peter and the words of Isa 'alaihis-salam', he related the events in a haphazard way, choosing the right time and the appropriate gathering for each event he was to tell about. For this reason, Mark should not be blamed for having written some parts of his book in a manner as if he had learned them from his master, Peter. For Mark did not consider it important to write what he had heard without forgetting or changing any parts."

The early Christian scholars wrote explanations to the Gospel of Mark daily. Iren, one of them, states: "After the deaths of Peter and Paul, Mark wrote what he had memorized before." Calman of Alexandria says: "As Peter was in Rome yet, Peter's pupils asked Mark to write his Gospel. He did so. Peter heard of the writing of the book. But he did not say whether he should write it or not." Eusebius, a historian, says: "Upon hearing of this, Peter was pleased about this effort of his pupils. He ordered that it be read in the church." Nevertheless, the Gospel of Mark appears to be an imitation of the Gospel of Matthew, rather than the epistles of Peter. Accordingly, the book that Papias says was written by Mark must be another one, other than the existing second Gospel. The seventeenth verse of the sixth chapter of the Gospel of Mark reads: "But Hirodes married Hirodia, the wife of his brother, Philippus. Therefore he had Yahya [9] arrested and shut him up in a dungeon. For Yahya had been saying it is not permissible to marry a brother's wife." This is completely wrong. For the name of Hirodia's husband is given clearly as Hirius, not as Philippus, in the fifth chapter of the eighteenth book of the history of Eusebius. This error exists in the Gospel of Matthew, too. In fact, the translators who wrote the Arabic version which was edited in 1821 [1237 hijri] and 1844 changed this verse by having excised the word 'Philippus' from the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, though it exists in the translations done in other years.

Again, the two statements in the twenty-fifth and twenty-sixth verses of the second chapter of the Gospel of Mark bear the following meaning: "Hadrat Isa said unto his pupils: Haven't you ever read about how Dawud (David) and those who were with him, when they were hungry and in need, entered the home of God and he and also those who were with him ate the sacred bread, which was not permissible for anyone except the rabbis to eat, in the days of the head of rabbis, Abiatar?" These statements are wrong, erroneous for two reasons:

Firstly, at that time hadrat Dawud was alone. No one was with him. Secondly, in those days the head of rabbis was not Abiatar, but perhaps his father, Ahimlik. [Members of the Congregation of Seventies that administer the Jews' affairs are called Rabbi. Their preachers are called Scribes.]

It is a certain fact that Luke was not one of the Apostles. It is written in the beginning of the Gospel of Luke: "O thou the virtuous Theophilus; as those who were the deputies and servants of the Logos saw with their own eyes and narrated to us, many people attempted to arrange and write a chronology of the happenings that took place among us; so I have deemed it appropriate to scrutinize all the events from the beginning and write them to you just as they are in chronological order." [Luke, Chapter I, verses 1-4].

This paragraph has several denotations:

First; Luke wrote this Gospel as many other people contemporary with him wrote Gospels. Second; Luke points out the fact that there is no Gospel written by the Apostles themselves. For he distinguishes the Gospel writers from those who have seen with their own eyes, with the expression "As it is narrated to us by the deputies of the Logos who have seen with their own eyes..."

Third; he does not claim to be a disciple of one of the Apostles. For in his time there were numerous publications, articles and epistles attributed to each of the Apostles; he did not hope that such a documentation, i.e. claiming to be a pupil of one of the Apostles, would cause others to trust his book. Perhaps he thought it a more dependable document to point out that he had observed every fact in its original source and learned everything by personal scrutiny. One point should be noted: recently it has become a customary practice on the part of the Protestant clergy to replace the criticized expressions with some other appropriate expressions, each time a Gospel is reprinted. In fact, with permission, registered with the date 1371 and number 572, given by the (Turkish) Ministry of Education, the British and American Bible companies transformed this paragraph, too. By substituting the expression "As I know all the facts to the most minute details,...." with "Since I, too, am fully cognizant of all the facts from the outset...", they adapted the meaning to their own goals. But the French versions and the versions printed in Germany retain the meaning we have translated above.

In giving the genealogy of Isa 'alaihis-salam', the twenty-seventh verse of the third chapter of the Gospel of Luke writes as follows: "John, the son of Risa the son of Zerubabel the son of Shelteil the son of Niri." There are three errors here:

First; the children of Zerubabel are written clearly in the nineteenth verse of the third chapter of the first history section of the Old Testament. There is no one by the name of Risa there. This writing of his contradicts Matthew's writing, too.

Second: Zerubabel is the son of Fedaya. He is not the son of Shelteil. He is the son of Shelteil's brother.

Third; Shelteil is the son of John, not the son of Niri, Matthew writes so, too.

Again, the thirty-seventh verse of the third chapter of the Gospel of Luke reads, "Salih the son of Kanan the son of Arfahshad", which is wrong, too. For Salih is not the grandson of Arfahshad; which is wrong, too. For Salih is not the grandson of Arfahshad; he is his son. This fact is stated in the first chapter of the first history section and in the Genesis [in its tenth, eleventh and twelfth verses].

Also, the first and second verses at the beginning of the Gospel of Luke, "In those days a firman commanding a worldwide census was issued by the Kaiser, Augustus. This was the first census executed when Kirinius was the governor of Syria", are wrong. The Romans never dominated the whole world; how could they have issued a firman concerning a worldwide census? In fact, the Protestant priests, in order to dodge this question as usual, changed these statements in the version of the New Testament and wrote as "In those days a firman concerning the registering of the whole world was issued by the Kaiser Augustus." On the other hand, in the Turkish version issued by the British society in Paris in 1243 [A.D. 1827], this passage is written as "In those days it befell so that a firman concerning a census of the world was issued by the Kaiser Augustus. Even John went up to the city of Dawud called Bayt-i-Lahm with his fiance Maryam in order to be registered." Afterwards, when scrutinies on the passage about the census began, it was seen that neither the historians contemporary with Luke nor those a short while before him said anything concerning the census. As for Kirinius; he became the governor of Syria fifteen years after the birth of Isa 'alaihis-salam'; it is an obvious fact, therefore, that the census could not have taken place in his time, supposing after all the doubtful census did occur.

As for the Gospel of John; as is known, till the emergence of the fourth Gospel which is attributed to John, the religion of Isa 'alaihis-salam' was based on the principle of unity, no different from the canonical laws of Musa 'alaihis-salam' in its fundamentals. For it is the Gospel of John that first mentioned the word 'trinity' and which misled the believers of Isa

'alaihis-salam' by inserting the doctrine of trinity (believing three Gods) into their belief. For this reason, it is extremely important to search into the facts about the Gospel of John. Various quotations from the books of early Christian men of religion about the Gospel of John have been given above.

This book does not belong to John the son of Zebedee. It was written by an anonymous author after the second century. Contemporary European orientalist historians have proved this fact by various evidences.

First evidence: It is written as follows at the beginning of the Gospel of John: "Logos existed in the beginning, Logos was with God, and Logos was the God." These words are of the subtle matters of the knowledge of Word and do not exist in any of the other Gospels. If these words had been heard from Isa 'alaihis-salam', they would exist in the other Gospels, too. Hence, the author is not John the apostle but another person, who must have studied the Platonic philosophy of three hypostases in Roman and Alexandrian schools. As a matter of fact, this will be explicated below.

Second evidence: The writings about the adulteress, from the first verse to the eleventh in the eighth chapter of the Gospel of John, are repudiated by all Christian churches, who say that hose writings are not Biblical. This means to say that the author compiled a number of Gospels he came across, adding many other things he happened to find here and there; or someone after him added these verses. According to the first case, the author wrote a compilation without distinguishing between the true and the untrue. So the compilation he wrote consists of unacceptable things. According to the second case, it must be admitted that his Gospel was interpolated. In either case, it is of doubtful origin and does not deserve trust.

Third evidence: Some examples, occurrences and miracles narrated in the other Gospels do not exist in this Gospel, which in its turn contains a number of things non-existent in the others. Episodes such as LuAzar's coming back to life, the water's changing into wine, his (Jesus) confiding his beloved disciple and his mother to each other, exist only in the Gospel of John and not in the others. Later on we shall give detailed information in this respect.

Fourth evidence: Of the early Christians, neither Papias nor Justinien mentioned seeing this Gospel. Justinien, especially, who admitted that the author of the Gospel of John was not John himself, did not say anything about this Gospel.

Fifth evidence: The way of expression in the narration of the events complied in the other three Gospels in quite contrary to the style of discourse used in the Gospel of John. For example, in the other three Gospels Isa 'alaihis-salam', like a tutor who wants to train the people, disapproves the hypocritical behavior of the other three Gospels Isa 'alaihis-salam', like a tutor who wants to train the people, disapproves the hypocritical behavior of the Pharesees. He commands to purify the heart, to approach Allahu ta'ala, to love people, to form beautiful habits, and prohibits inclinations contrary to the Sharia of Musa 'alaihis-salam' (Mosaic laws). His teachings and advice to the people are quite clear, natural, and comprehensible to anyone. Although these three Gospels contradict one another in some of their narratives, they are apparently based on common sources in those that agree with one another. The Gospel of John, on the other hand, is quite dissimilar and uses an altogether different style both in its discourse and concerning the moral and habitual conduct of Isa 'alaihis-salam'. In this Gospel, hadrat Isa is represented as a person who has knowledge of Greek philosophy and whose elegant and eloquent language expresses his personal nobility rather than such values as the fear of Allahu ta'ala and beautiful morality. And the way of expression chosen is not the Messianic style common to the public but the lexical and syntactical dialect peculiar to Alexandrian schools. His statements, though thoroughly clear and plain in the other three Gospels, are ambiguous in this Gospel. It is full of well-organized iterations mostly with important double meanings and arranged in a singular way. The style used in John arouses one's feelings of denial and hatred instead of alluring one's heart. If this Gospel had appeared all of a sudden, recently, after having remained concealed somewhere, no one would believe it was written by one of the Apostles. Because it has been known for centuries, Christians cannot realize these oddities.

Sixth evidence: More mistakes are noticed in this Gospel. For instance, the fifty-first verse of the first chapter of the Gospel of John reads as follows: "Indeed I tell you that from now on you shall see the heaven open up and the angels of God descend repeatedly unto mankind." In actual fact, these words of Isa alaihis-salam' took place after his baptism in the water of Eden and the descension of the Holy Spirit; after that no one saw the opening of the heaven or the descension of angels unto Isa 'alaihis-salam'.

The thirteenth verse of the third chapter of this Gospel states, "No one has ascended to heaven. Only the mankind who descended from heaven, tat is, who is in heaven, has ascended there." This verse is wrong in several respects:

First; the part interpreted with the phrase (that is) was added afterwards. Thus the verse was changed. For the beginning part of the verse purported that "No one other than who descended from heaven has ascended to heaven"; but the author of the Gospel or one of its editors inserted an explanatory phrase in order to point out that mankind, i.e. Isa 'alaihis-salam', is meant by this verse. Careful observation will show at once that this phrase is an addition. For when we separate the initial part of the verse from this explanatory phrase, its correct meaning, "No one other than the angels who descended from heaven has ascended to heaven", will become clear. On the other hand, if it is asserted that "It is mankind who descended from heaven", the fact that hadrat Isa did not descend from heaven but was conceived by hadrat Maryam (Mary) through the Holy Spirit [the Archangel Jabrail 'alaihis-salam'] will have been disavowed. Moreover, it will be necessary to reject that Isa 'alaihis-salam' was on earth and not in heaven as he said, "...who is in heaven...". Furthermore, it is impossible for Isa 'alaihis-salam' to have uttered both expressions, i.e. "who descended from heaven" and "who is in heaven", at the same moment.

Second; the initial part of the verse is wrong, too. For it is stated in the twenty-fourth verse of the fifth chapter of Genesis and in the twelfth verse of the second chapter of Kings IV that Ahnuh and Ilya 'alaihimus- salam' also ascended to heaven. There can be no doubt as to the fact that this verse has been interpolated.

.