[سواها قلبي]

In the Name of God, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful

4. The Gospel of John:

It has long been believed that John was aware of the existence of the three parallel Gospels, and that he wrote to supplement or correct them in one or two instances. It has been suggested that the event of the cleansing of the Temple, for example, was deliberately placed at the beginning of Jesus' ministry, because, as John remembered it, that was its proper place.

He also corrected the date of the crucifixion, placing it on the eve of Passover, on the day on which the Passover lambs were slaughtered. On the other hand, the title “Son of Man,” which Paul never used, was retained by John.


Who is John? John was a Christian, and besides that, he was a Hellenist, and it is possible that he was not Jewish, but rather Eastern or Greek. It is possible that the Gospel of John was written in Antioch, Ephesus, Alexandria, or even Rome, as each of these cities was a global center for doctrinal propaganda in the first and second centuries AD. (Frederick Grant: pp. 156, 166, 174, 178)


John Marsh, in his introduction to his commentary on the Gospel of John, entitled "The Impossibility of Assertion," says:

When we come to discuss the important and complex problems related to the Fourth Gospel and its author, it is appropriate and useful to acknowledge at the outset that there is no problem of identification (of the Gospel and its author) that can be resolved.

Who was this alleged author of John? Where did he live? For whom did he write his Gospel? What sources did he rely on? When did he write his work?

On all these questions and on many others there are conflicting judgments. Sometimes strong assertions are made, yet none of them rises to the level of certainty. (John Marsh then concludes his introduction by saying):

After exhausting all our resources, we find it difficult, if not impossible, to achieve anything more than a probability regarding the problems of the Gospel of John. The writer of these lines (John Marsh) believes that it is not impossible to believe that during the last ten years of the first century AD, a person named John - possibly John Mark - who had accumulated abundant information about Jesus, and was likely familiar with one or more of the similar Gospels, then recorded a new form of the story of Jesus, specific to his own sect or more, which considered itself universal, and was also influenced by the presence of disciples of John the Baptist (John Marsh, pp. 20, 80).


Problems with the Gospel of John:

The Encyclopedia Americana states:

There is this blatant contradiction between it and the similar Gospels.. The latter follows Mark’s account of the historical sequence of events, making the Galilee region the main location of Jesus’ message.. while the Gospel of John decides that the state of Judea was the main center. And there is the problem of the last chapter, number (21) of the Gospel.. The ordinary reader can see that the Gospel ends in complete harmony with the end of the twentieth chapter, which says:

31 but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name.

This announcement clearly shows the purpose for which this book was written.

Then comes the last chapter (number 21) which tells us that Jesus appeared as Lord raised from the dead to five disciples... and that he said to Peter: Feed my sheep... and also an ambiguous comment that says:

This is the student who came through the group that refers to itself with the word: We (teach). In reality, these people are difficult to define. (Encyclopedia Americana: Vol. 16, p. 159)

There appeared to be some similarity between the Gospels of Luke and John, which helped give rise to the theory that John used the Gospel of Luke as one of his sources. However, this theory is challenged due to the clear difference between the two Gospels in the common themes between them.

** Both Gospels talk about Peter and the miraculous catch of fish, but one of them (Luke) places the story early in Jesus’ mission in Galilee.. As for the other (John), it is after his resurrection from the dead (Luke 5:1-11) .. John (21:1-14) ..

*** Both of them speak in a common language about how Jesus was anointed (with perfume) by a woman.. but in one of them (Luke) she was a prostitute in the house of a Pharisee.. while in the other (John) she was a woman who was a friend of Jesus.. and that it happened in her house.. (Luke 7:36-38, John 12:1-8) (George Caird p. 20) .

The inevitable conclusion, as this summary has shown, is that the canonical Gospels are nothing but composed books - in every sense of the word - and are therefore subject to truth and error. It cannot be claimed, even for a single moment, that they were written by inspiration, by unknown people, in unknown places, and at uncertain dates. What is certain, which the simple reader will notice, is that these Gospels are different and not harmonious. Rather, they contradict themselves and the facts of the external world (as the predictions of the end of the world failed, as we have seen and as we shall see later).

This statement may upset the average Christian... it may even shock him. But for the careful Christian world, this statement, which means that there are errors in the books of the Bible, has become an accepted fact.

The Catholic Church, which strongly adheres to the doctrine of inspiration, which was confirmed in the Vatican Council held in 1869-1870 AD, in which it was decided that “the canonical books of both the Old and New Testaments were written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and were thus given to the Church.”

But now, after about a century, it has returned to face the facts and acknowledge them. The Second Vatican Ecumenical Council (1962-1965 AD) examined the problem of errors in some texts of the Old Testament books. Five proposed formulas were presented to it, the research of which took three years of debate and discussion. Finally, a formula was accepted that received an overwhelming majority. 2,344 scholars voted in favor of it against 6. A paragraph was included in the Fourth Ecumenical Document on Revelation, which deals with the Old Testament (Chapter Four, p. 53), which says:

“Considering the human condition prior to the salvation established by Christ, the books of the Old Testament allow everyone to know who God is and who man is... However, these books contain impurities and some invalidity.”

The question that arises now is: How many of those who believe in the sanctity of these books and consider them divine teachings inspired by God... know what the Church has decided regarding them... and what impurities and invalidity they contain?

Why should we go far when we have the Holy Bible - Catholic Edition 1960 AD. It introduces the five books of Moses (the Torah) by saying:

“Many signs of progress appear in the narratives and laws of this book, which has led Catholic and non-Catholic commentators to investigate the literary origin of these five books. No Catholic scholar in our time believes that Moses himself wrote all five books, from the story of creation to the story of his death. Nor is it sufficient to say that Moses supervised the compilation of the inspired text, which was recorded by many scribes over a period of forty years.”

As the Bible says in its introduction to the Book of Ruth:

"It is likely that the writer initially relied on traditional memories whose circumstances were not entirely clear... then he added a number of details to them to make the novel more vivid and give it literary value!!"

And here are the evangelistic books distributed here among Muslims admitting that serious errors have crept into the books of the New Testament. The book, “Is the Bible Really the Word of God?” on page 160, states the following:

By carefully comparing large numbers of ancient manuscripts, scholars are able to root out any errors that may have crept into them. An example of this is the false entry in the First Epistle of John, Chapter 5. The last part of verse 7 and the first part of verse 8 say, according to the Arabic Protestant translation: “It was printed by the Americans in Beirut.” And we read in the Arabic Jesuit translation something similar to this text.


“In heaven...the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. And those who bear witness on earth are three (the Spirit, the water, and the blood, and these three are one.”

But throughout the first thirteen centuries AD, no Greek manuscripts included these words. The Arabic translation of "Harissa" omits these words entirely from the text...and the Arabic Protestant translation, which has citations, places them in parentheses, explaining in the introduction that they do not exist in the oldest and most authentic versions.

I think the simplest comment is just to remind you that this dangerous text that was introduced starting from the thirteenth century.. and from which the idea of ​​the Trinity is taken.. did not exist throughout the previous centuries.. and this is something that cannot be considered a simple distortion.. rather it is a dangerous distortion.. because it touches on the foundation of the faith.. and thus we find that texts and ideas seep into the writings that were considered sacred throughout the centuries.. everything related to the Trinity or Trinity.. there is no doubt that it is foreign to the true Christianity of Christ that still has firm roots in the Gospels that exist today..


It is sufficient that when scholars come to interpret Christ’s last prayer in the Gospel of John 17:3, in which he says:

3 And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.

** They say: This is unquestionable monotheism.

Of course, in colloquial Arabic, this means:

There is no god but God... Jesus is the Messenger of God...

3 And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.

From these points, Christianity and Islam can converge.

In other passages and in other meetings with Israelis, he said:

29 "The first of all the commandments is: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one

This passage refers to what is in the Old Testament. (Deuteronomy 6:4)

When an Israelite approached him to ask him:


18 Now a certain ruler asked Him, saying, "Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?"

** What did Christ say?

He did not tell him to do this or that... but first, he denied his own righteousness, saying:

19 "Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God.

Then Christ began to teach him what was stated in the books of the Old Testament and what he called for, which is monotheism in belief and adherence to and preservation of the Law of Moses.

I believe this concludes our discussion of the books of the New Testament.

Next, we will discuss "A Look at the Books of the New Testament," so that everyone, regardless of their level of culture or knowledge, can verify the validity of these statements.

There's more to come... Your brother, Al-Athram