Clement said:

             Matthew and Mark are different from each other in their writings, but when they agree on a certain point they are preferred to Luke’s account.

           We may be allowed to say that the above statement allows us to deduce two important points. Firstly that Mathew and Mark themselves differ in many places in their accounts of the same event and whenever they agree in their statement their accounts are preferable to Luke. None of them ever agree word for word about any event. Secondly that all three gospels are proved to have been written without inspiration because the preference of the first two gospels over the third would be out of the question had they been inspired.

           Paley, an eminent Protestant scholar, wrote a book concerning the truth of the four gospels. It was printed in 1850. He writes on page 323 of his book to this effect:

           The second thing that has been falsely attributed to the ancient Christians is that they firmly believed in the coming of the Day of Judgment in their own time. I will present an example before any objection to this is raised. Jesus said to Peter, ”If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?” This statement has been taken to mean that John would not die until the Day of Judgment, and this false concept spread among the common people. Now if this report was conveyed to us after it had become a public opinion and the cause which initiated the mistake is not known, and someone comes forward to present it as an argument against the Christian faith this would be absolutely unfair, in view of the facts that we posses.

           Those who say that the gospels lead us to believe that the early Christians truly expected that thc Last Day would come about in their own time should keep this explanation in mind, and it will save them from the blame of deceiving people. Now there comes another question that if, for a moment, we accept the possibility of errors and omissions on the part of the disciples, how then can they be trusted about anything they say? As a reply to this question it would be enough for the supporters of Christianity to say to the disbelievers that what we seek from the disciples is their witness not their personal opinion. The object, in fact, is to achieve the result which, as a consequence of this, is safe.

But in answering this, we must keep two points in mind; to eliminate all the dangers. First, the object intended by the mission of all the disciples should be defined. They helped prove the point which was either strange or mixed with truth. They are not required to say anything about what is obviously not related to the faith, but they would be required to say something to remove ambiguity about something in the text of the divine books which has accidentally got mixed up with the truth. Another example of this is the belief in the possession by devils. In the case of those who hold that this false opinion had become common in their time and also influenced the evangelists and the early Christians, it must be accepted that this opinion does not in anyway damage the truth of the Christian faith, because this is not the matter Jesus was sent for. But something which, having become a public opinion in that country, somehow got mixed with the statement of Jesus.

           It is certainly not a part of their message to rectify their false belief in the spirits, nor has it anything to do with their witness Secondly their message should be separated and distinguished from what they present to support and elucidate that which is inspired. For instance, something in what they say might be inspired, but in addition to that they present personal explanations to strengthen their message. For example, the principle that anyone other than a Jew accepting the Christian faith would not be bound to follow the law of Moses, in spite of its truth having been proved through miracles

           Paul, for example, when speaking of this principle, has mentioned many things in support of it. Therefore the principle in itself is acknowledged by us, but it is not necessary for us to support all their explanatory remarks in order to prove the truth of the Christian faith. This method may be applied to other principles of a simi1ar nature. I am absolutely sure of the truth that any instruction agreed upon by the pious men of God will always be followed as a religious obligation. It is, however, not necessary for us to explain or to accept all those details, unless they have, of course, specified those premise.

           The above passage allows us to advance the following four points:

1.      We have already proved through sufficient arguments and sports, under the heading of Errors no. 64-78, that all the disciples Jesus and other Christians of that time had firm belief in the coming of the Day of Judgment in their own time and that John would not until the Day of Judgment.

We have reproduced their unambiguous and definite statements to this effect. Barnes, making his comments on chapter twenty-one of the Gospel of John, said the words which we reproduce below from the Urdu translation:

         The misconception that John would not die was created by the words of Jesus which can be easily misunderstood. The idea became even stronger with the fact that John survived until after the death of the other disciples.

          The compilers of Henry and Scott remark:

Most probably the purpose of Jesus by this statement was to annoy the Jews, but thc disciples misunderstood it to signify that John would live up to the Last Day or that he would be raised to heaven alive.

          Further they say:

Here we must keep in mind that a report of a certain man may come without proper confirmation. It would, therefore be a folly to base our faith on such reports. This statement, in spite of being a report of the disciples and having become common and established among people, turned out to be untrue. How then could reports which were not even written down and recorded demand our belief. These are our own comments and not a statement made by Jesus.

          Further they say in their marginal notes: 

The disciples misunderstood the words of Jesus, as the evangelist [1] has elucidated, because they had firm belief that the coming of the Lord would be for establishing Justice.

In view of the above statements, there remains no doubt that the disciples misunderstood it. Now, when they had such beliefs regarding the Day of Judgment and John not dying until the day of Judgment, their statement with regard to the occurrence would naturally be taken literally which proves them to have been wrong and to find new explanations for them is of no avail. That would involve an effort to give the words a meaning which was not intended by their speakers. Having been proved to have been other than the truth they obviously cannot be taken as inspirations.

2.      It is clear from the above description of Paley that the scholars have admitted the fact that the matters which are not directly related to the faith, or have been somehow mixed with the principles of faith, do not damage the Christian faith in any way if they are proved erroneous.

3.      They have also admitted that the presence of errors and mistakes in the arguments of the disciples is not damaging to the Christian faith.

4.      They have accepted that the existence of evil spirits and their influence on human beings is not a reality and that belief in them was a product of human imagination and superstition; and that they had found their way in through the statements of the evangelists, and even through Jesus, because they had become a part of common tradition of that period.

Keeping these four conclusions in mind, we must be allowed to claim that more than fifty percent of the gospels are thus precluded from having been the result of inspiration. According to this opinion, only the descriptions directly related to faith or those defining the rituals can be considered as inspired.

However this opinion does not carry any weight because it happens to be against the opinion of Luther, the founder of the Protestant church, who explicitly declared that none of the apostles had any right to issue or define any religious principle on his own account, because only Jesus had the right to issue religious doctrines. The unavoidable conclusion is that the remaining part of the gospels, consisting of the descriptions from the disciples directly related to faith, is likewise deprived of its Divine character.

 

ADMISSIONS OF PROTESTANT SCHOLARS

            Ward reproduced a number of statements from the great scholars of the Protestant faith. We reproduce below nine of them from his book prenticed in 1841.

                   (1)      Zwingli, a Protestant bibliographer, said that all the events described in Paul’s letters cannot be considered sacred, as some events described in these epistles arc incorrect.

                   (2)      Mr. Fulk accused Peter of making false statements and declared him to be ignorant of the Evangel.

                   (3)       Dr. Goad, during a polemic with Father Campion, said that Peter was wrong in his belief about the descent of the Holy Spirit on Jesus.

                   (4)      Brentius, called a learned leader and master by Jewel, said that Peter the chief disciple and Barnabas made erroneous statements after the descent of the Holy Spirit.

                   (5)      John Calvin remarked that Peter spread heresy in thc church and put the independence of Christianity in danger and the Christian grace was led a stray by him.

                   (6)      The Magdeburg Centuries accuses the disciples, and especially Paul, of making false statements.

                   (7)      Whittaker said that the people and dignitaries of the church, and even the disciples of Jesus, made great mistakes in preaching the Christian faith to the gentiles, and that Peter made mistakes in rituals, and that these mistakes were committed by them after the descent of the Holy Spirit.

                   (8)      Zanchius gave an account of some followers of Calvin in his book.   He reported that some of them said that if Paul ever came to Geneva to preach against Calvin, they would listen to Calvin and leave Paul alone.

                     (9)      Lewathrus, a staunch follower of Luther, giving a description of some great scholars has quoted their statements to the effect that it was possible for them to doubt a statement of Paul, but there was no room for any doubt about the statements made by Luther. Similarly it was not possible for them to allow of any doubt in (he book of the church of Augsburg concerning the principles of faith.

          The above statements are from the great scholars of the Protestant faith. They have declared that none of the books of the New Testament were inspired and genuine. They have also admitted that the disciples were erratic in what they wrote.

[1]This refers to John, 21:23. ’Then went this saying abroad among the  brethren, that the disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him , He shall not die.”