Bismika Alllahuma

在这篇文章，我在前三摘要福音书、马修，标记和卢克比较了一个事件帐户如所描述。 读者应该在比较以后意识到福音书通过口头传统最初被传送了。 在文字过程中，福音书的作家根据他们的异想天开和花梢改变了传统。

比较文本

以下讨论也许证明，福音书的作者依靠了口头传统。 ，当它被写了，改变了这传统。

在标记福音书，一个人报告要求耶稣，

“好老师，什么必须我做继承来世？”

耶稣(p)简单地回复，

“为什么您告诉我好？ 没人是单独好，但上帝。 您知道指令： 您不会谋杀的`; 您不会做通奸; 您不会窃取; 您不会负担伪证; 您不会欺诈; 尊敬您的父母’。 ”

这个事件在马修福音书也报告。 卢克同意标记，但在马修交谈完全地被改变。 在马修，人对耶稣(p)演讲作为“老师”，和而不是“好老师”在标记和卢克，在我们看“好行为的马修”。 在马修，人报告说：

“老师，什么好行为必须我做有来世？”

这在从耶稣(P)的善良的耶稣改变问题’回复到行为的善良：

“为什么您询问我关于什么是好？ 只有一个谁是好。 …” (马修· 19:16 - 17)

标记和卢克给与上帝和耶稣一致的伊斯兰教的概念的描述，单独那上帝是好，并且耶稣是他的信使。 但，马修不可能认为耶稣(P)告诉上帝“好”，并且，他修改更早的传统。

立刻，这也表示，标记使用更早的传统哪些没有认可耶稣作为是神的。

所有三本摘要福音书同意耶稣(p)去约翰将施洗，因此耶稣’罪孽将被原谅。 这是与什么意见的一致我们看见了以上： 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.