Bismika Alllahuma

En cet article, j'ai comparé les comptes d'un événement comme décrit dans les trois premiers evangiles synoptiques, Matthew, marque et Luc. Le lecteur devrait se rendre compte après comparaison que les evangiles ont été à l'origine transmis par la tradition orale. En cours d'écriture, les auteurs des evangiles avaient changé la tradition selon leurs caprices et fantaisies.

Comparer les textes

La discussion suivante peut montrer que les auteurs des evangiles ont compté sur la tradition orale. Cette tradition, quand on lui a écrit, a été changée.

Dans l'evangile de la marque, on rapporte qu'un homme demande à Jésus,

« Bon professeur, ce qui doit je faire pour hériter de la vie éternelle ? »

Jésus (p) a simplement répondu,

« Pourquoi m'appelez-vous bon ? Personne n'est bon mais seul Dieu. Vous savez les commandements : `Que vous n'assassinerez pas ; Vous ne commettrez pas l'adultère ; Vous ne volerez pas ; Vous ne soutiendrez pas le témoin faux ; Vous ne frauderez pas ; Honorez votre père et mère.'  »

Cet incident est également rapporté en evangile de Matthew. Luc est d'accord avec la marque, mais dans Matthew la conversation est complètement changée. Dans Matthew, l'homme s'adresse à Jésus (p) en tant que « professeur, » et au lieu de « bon professeur » est dans la marque et le Luc, dans Matthew que nous voyons le « bon contrat. » Dans Matthew, on rapporte que l'homme dit :

« Professeur, quel bon contrat doit je faire pour avoir la vie éternelle ? »

Ceci change la question réponse en Jésus' de la qualité de Jésus (P) à la qualité du contrat :

« Pourquoi m'interrogez-vous au sujet de ce qui est bon ? Il y a seulement d'un qui est bon. … » (Matthew 19:16 - 17)

La marque et le Luc donnent les descriptions qui sont conformes au concept islamique de Dieu et de Jésus, ce seul Dieu est bon et Jésus était son messager. Mais, Matthew ne pourrait pas penser à Jésus (P) appelle Dieu « bon, » et donc, il change la tradition plus tôt.

Immédiatement, ceci prouve également que la marque employait une tradition plus tôt ce qui n'a pas identifié Jésus en tant qu'étant divine.

Tous trois evangiles synoptiques conviennent que Jésus (p) est allé chez John à baptiser, de sorte que péchés de Jésus des' soient pardonnés. Est en accord avec ce ce que nous avons vu ci-dessus : Jesus(P) considered God alone to be good and didn’t preach the Trinity.

Luke and Mark mentions that Jesus (P) was baptized by John, but they did not mention any words between them. But to Matthew, this is inconceivable. Matthew could not even think of Jesus being baptized for the reason of his sins being forgiven. Therefore, he fabricates a conversation between John and Jesus (P):

“John would have prevented [Jesus from being baptized], saying, ‘I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?’ But Jesus answered him, ‘Let it be so now, for it is proper for us in this way to fulfill all righteousness.’ Then [John] consented.”

In Mark, we are told that:

“And they crucified with him two bandits, one on his right and one on his left … . Those crucified with him also taunted him.” (Mark 15: 27, 32)

This time Matthew agrees with Mark, both the bandits crucified with “Jesus” taunted him. But Luke could not even think that his “Savior” was crucified without any “saving act.” Therefore, he fabricates a conversation:

“One of the criminals who were hanged there kept deriding him and saying, ‘Are you not the Messiah? Save yourself and us!’ But the other rebuked him, saying, ‘Do you not fear God… we are getting what we deserve for our deeds, but this man has done no wrong.’ Then he said, ‘remember me when you come into your kingdom. Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in Paradise’” (Luke 23:39-43)

Luke has changed the bandit who taunted Jesus(P) as reported in Mark and Matthew into a “good guy.” Furthermore, this is definitely a fabrication because it says “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in Paradise”. This means Jesus said that he would be in Paradise “today,” i.e. the day of his crucifixion. But, in the gospels we are also told that Jesus(P) didn’t go to Paradise when he was crucified according to his own words. Jesus said: “After three days I will rise again.” (Matthew 27:93)

Through the gospel of Mark, we got to know that he went to heaven after the resurrection, after he was crucified. (Mark 16:19)

This shows that Luke too thought like Matthew about Jesus(P). Both Matthew and Luke were corrupters of earlier tradition. It was Mark who reported the earlier tradition as it had reached him. And yes, an interesting question arises: If Jesus(P) did not go to heaven on the day he was crucified but he went to heaven after his resurrection, does this mean that Jesus(P) was not telling the truth on the cross to the bandit?

In Mark, the last words of Jesus (P) are: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (Mark 15:34)

Matthew agrees with Mark. But once again, Luke could not even think of Jesus (P) saying such words. Therefore, he completely changes Jesus’ last words, and made him say:

“Father, into your hands I commend my spirit.” (Luke 23:46)

All the three synoptic gospels tell the story of Jesus(P) going to his own hometown and preaching in the synagogue there. The people reject him, to which Jesus(P) reacts by saying that no prophet is honored or accepted except in his own hometown.

Mark says that:

“And he could do no deed of power [miracle] there, except that he laid his hand on a few sick people and cured them. And he was amazed at their unbelief” (Mark 6:5-6)

Mark is clear, Jesus(P) could not do a miracle alone. But now, let’s see how both Matthew and Luke do not accept this. They could not even think that Jesus, “the son of God,” could not do any miracle. Therefore, Matthew changes “could not” to:

“And he did not do any deeds of power there, because of their unbelief” (Matthew 13:58)

Please note, “could not” has been changed to “did not.” And Luke once again fabricates words and attributes them to Jesus(P):

“But the truth is, there were many widows in Israel [during famine] in the time of Elijah; yet Elijah was sent to none of them except to a widow at Zarephath in Sidon. There were many lepers in Israel in the time of the prophet Elisha, and none of them were cleansed except Namaan the Syrian.” (Luke 4:25-27)

Thus, both Matthew and Luke had clearly changed “could not” to “did not.”

Conclusions

After the above discussion, does it mean that Mark’s gospel is the most authentic? Most assuredly not, because if it was highly authentic, then Matthew and Luke would not have needed to change the earlier tradition. These are examples of the corruption of Scriptures. The above discussion is enough to prove that the gospels is clearly of doubtful origin. Should we then place our very “salvation” on these texts?

And only God knows best.