Chapter II

+ Larger Font | + Smaller Font

Refuting The Quadiani Pretender, The Enemy Of Jesus And Mary, And Islam


Its synopsis is the same as that of the above two Gospels. He made use of the lost document 'Q'; he also added some material peculiar to himself known as 'L'. H.A. Guy in his book The Study of the Gospels (p. 23) wrote:

"There are also passages in the Acts where the writer uses the first person plural and these tell us that he accompanied Paul on journeys in Greece and later on the voyage to Rome. If, as some think, Luke first wrote a book or draft of a book from material from Q and L, the date of this might be about A.D. 58. Later he incorporated Markan matter to complete the book. The ususal date assigned to the Gospel as we have it now is A.D. 75-85."

Luke wrote this Gospel with Pauline point of view. It was penned together with the Acts of the Apostles, for a Roman official named Theophilus.


It was probably written between 95 to 105 C.E. Professor H.A. Guy in his book The Study of the Gospels' (p. 54), writes:

"The author was referring to himself as Jesus' 'beloved disciple' is seriously to be doubted. It would not be a sign of modesty or Christian humility to speak of himself as 'Jesus' favourite disciple', as Moffat translates the phrase. It is more likely that the writer was a disciple of this man. He sought to honour his master by giving him such a position." This writer of doubtful validity was first to deify Jesus. He said:

"The Word dwelt with God, and what God was, the Word was. (John 1,1)

"So the Word became flesh; he came to dwell among us, we saw his glory, such glory as befits the Father's only Son, full of grace and truth. (John 1, 14).

I have proved that Jesus was only a man, and not God the Son, in part I of this book under the heading 'Islam repudiates deification'. This Gospel was not written by John son of Zebedee, as few doubt, because according to R.H. Charles, Alferd Loisy, Robert Eisler, and other scholars he was beheaded by Agrippa I in the year 44 C.E., whereas the Gospel was written more than half a century after his death. This Gospel, therefore, cannot be attributed to him. If we look into the Gospel we find its writer was a Jew Scribe, and in the words of H.A. Guy: "The style of writing and the thoughts in the book suggest a Hellenistic Jew as the author, not a Palestinian, one acquainted with the ideas of contemporary Jewish philosophy." (The Study of the Gospels, p. 54). But John Zebedee was an ignorant and among untrained laymen. (Acts 4, 13).

The fourth Gospel is so opposed and so different than the Synoptic Gospels that one has to say either the Synoptic Gospels are untrue or the fourth Gospel is totally a faked affair. This view is supported by H.A. Guy in his book 'The Study of the Gospels, (p. 54), he says:

"It is doubtful, too, if an eye-witness of Jesus' ministry would so seriously deviate from the accepted view, as given in the Synoptic, which was considered to be based on the authority of Peter, who was behind Mark's Gospel."

Few who thought that the fourth Gospel was written by John Zebedee, among them was IrenaSus, but trenaeus evidence was not considered trustworthy. H.A. Guy in hi? Book'The Study of the Gospels'(p. 54), wrote:

"There are some who think that he was confused over Polycarps words about John. Papias mentions two Johns-the apostle and John the Elder. Men of the same name were often confused by earlier writers. (Irenaeus confuses James the son of Zebedee with James the brother of Jesus, and other writers some time confused Philip the apostle and the Philip of Acts, the 'Evangelist')."

Few scholar think that this Gospel was written by John the Elder, if so, in view of his claim of being the most favourable disciple of Jesus, we have to consider the following: a) Being the most favourable disciple of Jesus his name should have been mentioned by the authors of the Synoptic Gospels but no reference is found about him. b) The activities of the apostles for the cause of Christianity have fully been written in the Acts of Apostles but there too we don't find any man by the name of John the Elder. The very authority of the 4th Gospel is in question on account of its unknown author. H.A. Guy writes: "No completely satisfactory solution of the problem appears to be possible and no name can be assigned to the author." In the same para he wrote further: "In one way we may say this uncertainty is a gain. We can study the book for its own sake and try to understand its teaching, heedless of who it was who put forth this interpretation of the work of Jesus." (The Study of the Gospels p. 55 1973 edition).

Dr. C.J. Cadoux in his book the life of Jesus p. 16 mentions the unreliability of the 4th Gospel in the following words:

"The speeches in the fourth Gospel (even apart from the early messainic claim) are so different from those in the Synoptics, and so like the comments of the Fourth Evangelist himself, that both cannot be equally reliable as records of what Jesus said: Literary veracity in ancient times did not forbid, as it does now, the assignment of fictitious speeches to historical characters: the best ancient historians made a practice of composing and assigning such speeches in this way."

In about fifty years after the so called crucifixion of Jesus, the early Christians had become divided into various factions; each school wanted to propagate his teachings, and, therefore, the authors of Gospels did not hesitate in tampering with the earlier documents and other traditional material regarding the teaching of Jesus, in order to bring them in line with the views of their schools. Rev. T.G. Tucker observing this fact wrote:

"Thus Gospels were produced which cleraly reflected the conception of the practical needs of the community for which they were written. In them the traditional material was used, but there was no hesitation in altering it or making additions to it, or in leaving out what did not suit the writer's purpose. "*1 Over and above the Gospels in question there were others, 'The Gospel according to Hebrews,' an Aramaic work used by the Nazarenes (the early disciples of Jesus). They denied the divinity of Jesus and believed in him as a great prophet.


It was written by Barnabas an eminent apostle*2 of Jesus. It was accepted as a canonical Gospel in the churches of Alexanderia till 325 A.D. It preached monotheism and that Jesus was only a prophet of God and His servant. It contains glad tidings of the advent of Muhammad (sallallho alaihi wasallam).

In 325 A.D., the Nicene council ordered that all original Gospels in Hebrew Script should be destroyed. An edict was issued that any one found in possession of these Gospels will be put to death.

In 383 A.D., the Pope secured a copy of the Gospel of Barnabas and kept it on his private library.

In the fourth year of Emperor Zeno (478 A.D.), the remains of Barnabas were discovered and there was found on his breast a copy of the Gospel of Barnabas written by his own hand. (Acia Sanctorum Bolan Junii Tom II, pages 422 and 450. Antwerp 1698). The famous Vulgate Bible appears to be based on this Gospel.

Pope Sixtus (1585-90) had a friend Fra Marino. He found the Gospel of Barnabas in the private library of the Pope. Fra Marino was deeply interested in the aforesaid Gospel because he had the writings of Iranaeus wherein Barnabas had been profusely quoted. The Italian Script passed through different hands till it reached a person of 9) The document 'Q' and the material known as 'M' and 'L' all were irretrievably lost. It is also not known who were the authors of 'Q', 'M', and 'L' and how they had produced that material, and if it was the verbatim of Jesus' sayings or was written in their own style.

10) The presence of 'Q', 'M' and 'L' is only a guess work. It is not certain if any material as Q, M, and L ever existed.

11) The original such manuscripts of the Synoptic Gospels were also and the copies which were found as mentioned above belonged to 4th and 5th century. Lot of differences were found between the manuscripts of the 4th and 5th century. Due to this reason nobody knows how much changes had been done between 1st to 4th century. None can, therefore, claim these Gospels as real ones.

12) Although the original manuscript of these three Gospels were lost, even then we don't find the dogma of Trinity in these changed versions. If the Evangelists had the faintest idea of the aforesaid dogma, they would never have failed to record it.

13) Paul was first to deify Jesus. This belief of Paul was taken by the writer of the 4th Gospel from his epistles. But this writer too was unaware of the dogma of Triune God otherwise when he could incarnate Jesus, there was no reason why he should omit to mention Trinity in his Gospel.

14) The belief of Trinity is not found in the teaching of Jesus. As already said that no prophet ever failed in proclaiming the truth, otherwise the very belief in him would shatter to pieces. Nor it is found in the Acts of Apostles, but according to the research of the Biblical Scholars it was conceived in the end of 4th century. The above chain of evidence proves that Christianity is the religion conceived by the Christian fathers which has no relation whatsoever with the teaching of Jesus Christ and the real Christian Religion had died long before the advent of Islam.

However the Prophet Muhammad (sallallaho alaihi wasallam) did upheld the 'truth' brought by Jesus, as the Quran states:

"He hath ordained for you that religion which He commended unto Noah, and that which We inspire in thee (Muhammad), and that which We commended unto

Abraham and Moses and Jesus saying:

Establish the religion, great name and authority in Amsterdam, who during his life time was often heard to put a great value to this piece. After his death it came in the possession of J.A. Cramer a Councillor of the King of Prussia. In 1713 Cramer presented this manuscript to the famous connoisseur of books. Prince Eugene of Savoy. In 1738 it found its way into Hof-bibliothek along with the library of the Prince in Vienna. There it now rests.

Toland in his "Miscellaneous Works" (published posthumously in 1747), in Vol. I, page 380, mentions that the Gospel of Barnabas was still extant. In chapter XV he refers to the Glasian Decree of 496 A.D., where "Evangelium Barnabe" is included in the list of forbidden books. Prior to that it had been forbidden by Pope Innocent in 465 A.D., and by the decree of Western Churches in 382 A.D. The Latin text was translated by MR. and MRS., Ragg and was printed at the Clarendon Press in Oxford. It was published by Oxford University Press in 1907. This English translation was mysteriously disappeared from the market. Two copies of this translation are known to exist, one in the British Museum and the other in the Library of the Congress Washington. The first edition was the micro film copy of the book in the 'Library' of the Congress Washington, which was obtained, printed, and circulated by the Quran Council of Pakistan, Karachi.

We may learn from the above history that how Jesus' teaching of monotheism was destroyed to upeld the self styled dogma of Trinity by church Fathers, to coordinate Christianity with Greek Paganism.


He was a true Christian who wrote in support of pure monotheism and opposed Paul for instilling into Christianity the doctrines of the Pagan Roman Religion and Platonic philosophy. He had quoted extensively from the Gospel of Barnabas in support of his convictions. This also proved that Gospel of Barnabas was in currency during the first and second centuries of the Christian Era. And since it was an obstacle in upholding the dogma of Triune God and, therefore, this Gospel along with similar others were ordered to be destroyed by the Nicene Council as we have learnt from the above history.

Among the various extant manuscripts of the fourth and fifth century. Dr. C.J. Cadoux Professor of Church History at Oxford in his book life of Jesus, pp. 16, 17 summarises the unreliability of the four Gospels in the following words:

"In the four Gospels, therefore, the main documents to which we must go if we are to fill-out at all that bare sketch which we can put together from other sources, we find material of widely differing quality as regards credibility. So far-reaching is the element of uncertainty that it is tempting to 'down tools' at once, and to declare the task hopeless. The historical inconsistencies and improbablities in parts of the Gospels form some of the arguments advanced in favour of the Christ-myth theory. These are, however, entirely outweighed-as we have shown-by other considerations. Still, the discrepancies and uncertainties that remain are serious-and consequently many moderns, who have no doubt whatever of Jesus' real existence, regard as hopless any attempt to dissolve out the historically-true from the legendry or mythical matter which the Gospels contain, and to reconstruct the story of Jesus' out of the more historical residue."

The above facts make us to draw the following conclusions:-

1) The biblical scholars themselves admit that the Gospels had been continuously changed.

2) They also admit that none of the Evangelists of the four Gospels had seen or heard Jesus.

3) They also admit that the contradictory narrations are present in all the four Gospels.

4) The Evangelists included the acts of the apostles in the Bible which can never be the part of Divine Book.

5) By Divine Book we mean that which contain the Divine Revelations of God to His Prophet, excluding the traditions of the Prophet or his sayings, all the four Gospels are devoid of any such theme.

6) The chain of evidence of all the narrations attributed to Jesus is broken, and not a single narrative befits on the principles of traditions i.e. Hadith. Please see the heading The National evidence on Hadith' of this book. In other words everyone can venture to say that all the sayings attributed to Jesus are totally unreliable.

7) The original text of the sayings of Jesus, if ever copied were irretrievably lost.

8) The language of Jesus Christ was Aramaic, where as all the four Gospels were written in Greek.


It was a faction among the Christians which existed upto 4th century. They refused to worship God as Father. They revered Him as an Almighty Ruler of the world. To them He was the Highest of all and no one was equal to Him.

PAUL OF SAMASATA was a Bishop of Antioch. He was of the view that Christ was not God but a man and a prophet. He differed only in degree from prophets who came before him and that God could not have become man substantially, i.e. he opposed deification of Christ.


He was the famous disciple of Lucian, and was a libyan by birth. Peter the Bishop of Alexandria ordained him a Deacon but later excommunicated him. ACHILLES the successor of Peter again ordained Arius as priest. Alexander the next Bishop of Alexandria once again excommunicated him. Arius had, however, gathered such a large gathering that he had become a headache for the Church. He preached Unity and Simplicity of Eternal God. He believed that Christ was not of the same substance as God. He was a human being as any other man. The teaching of Arius became so popular among the masses that it shook the very foundation of the Pauline Church. The controversy that was simmering since the end of the first century suddenly became a conflagration. No man dared to oppose the organized Church but Arius did. During this time two events changed the history of Europe.

Emperor Constantine's rule extended to a great part of Europe, and he also extended his support to the Christians without embracing their religion. But he was very confused on the division of Christianity into different factions. Even within his palace the Queen Mother was inclined towards Pauline faith, while his sister Princess Constantina was devoted to Arius. For administrative reasons the Emperor intended to unite the Christians within one church. During this crucial time a serious conflict between Arius and Bishop Alexander developed, and it endangered the peace. Therefore, the Emperor, to maintain law and order in the unified Europe under his rule had to intervene.

In 325 A.D. a meeting of all denominations of Christianity was called at Nicea (now Isnik, a village). Bishop Alexander was not able to attend the conference and he deputed his lieutenant Athanasius, who subsequently succeeded Alexander as Bishop of Alexandria. The conference had many prolonged sessions. Emperor Constantine could not grasp the full implications of ecclesiastical confrotation, but he wanted the support of church. He threw his weight behind Athanasius and banished Arius from his realm. Thus the belief of Trinity became the official religion of the Empire. Fearful massacre of the Christians who resisted the self conceived dogma of Trinity followed. It was announced that any one found in possession of a Bible unauthorised by the church will be put to death. It is said that 270 versions of the Bible were burnt. Princess Constantina was most unhappy on the turn of events. The Emperor ultimately was persuaded to accept the faith preached by Arius. He was called back. The day Arius was scheduled to visit the Cathedral of Constantinople in triumph, he was said to have been died suddenly. The Church called the death of Arius a miracle. The Emperor came to know that it was murder. So he banished Athanasius and two other Bishops. The Emperor then formally accepted Christianity and was baptised by an Arian Bisop. Thus monotheism became the official religion.

Constantine died in 337. The next Emperor Constantanius also accepted the faith of Unitarian Arius and monotheism was accepted as the correct interpretation of the Christian faith. This was decided in a conference held in 341 at Antioch. This view was again confirmed by another Council in Sirmium in 351. As a result the Unitarian faith of Arius was accepted by overwhelming majority of Christians. St. Jerome wrote in 359 that 'the whole world groaned and marvelled to find itself Arian.'


However, the tussle continued between the Unitarians the real followers of Jesus and the believers of self conceived dogma of Triune God. In the end of sixth century A.D. we found another figure who upheld the real faith of Jesus i.e. monotheism. He was Pope Honorius who also found the time of the Prophet Muhammad (sallallaho alaihi wasallam). In his letters he supported the doctrine of 'one mind', i.e. belief in One God without a co-partner. This doctrine was not challenged about a half century. Pope Honorius died in October 638. After 42 years of his death in 680 a Council was held in Constantinople where Pope Honorius was anathematised. This event is unique in the history of Papacy when a Pope was denounced by a succeeding Pope and the Church.


I have already mentioned in part II of this book already published that Hercules had full knowledge about the advent of the Prophet Muhammad (sallallaho alaihi wasallam). The way he questioned Abu Sufyan and received the Muslim envoy proved that he was monotheist and he was a follower of Pope Honorius of his time.

L.F.M. SOZZINI (1525-1565) & F.P. SOZZINI (1539-1604) AND OTHERS

L.F.M. SOZZINI was a native of Siena. In 1547 he came under the influence of Camillo a Sicilian mystic. His fame spread in Switzerland. He challenged Calvin on the doctrine of Trinity. He amplified the doctrine of Arius, denied the divinity of Christ and repudiated the doctrine of original sin and atonement. The object of adoration according to him could be the one and only one God. He was followed by his nephew F.P. SOZZINI. In 1562 he published a work on The Gospel of John' denying the divinity of Jesus. In 1578 he went to Klausenburg in Transylvania whose ruler John Sigisumud was against the doctrine of Trinity. Here Bishop Francis David (1510-1579) was fiercely anti-Trinitarian. This led to formation of a sect known as Racovian Catechism. It derives its name from Racov in Poland. This city became the stronghold of the faith of Arius.


Before and even after the recognition of the four Gospels (Mark, Matthew, Luke and John), there were continuous additions and alterations. Professor J.R. Dummelow of Cambridge reporting this fact in his book "Commentry on the Holy Bible," p. 16, mentions: "A copyist would some times put in not what was in the text, but what he thought ought to be in it. He would trust a fickle memory, or he would make the text accord with the views of the school to which he belonged. In addition to the versions and quotations from the Christian Fathers, nearly four thousand Greek MSS of the Testament, were known to exist. As a result the variety of reading is considerable.

The earliest extant manuscripts of the Gospels-Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Vaticanus, and Codex Alexandrinus belong to the fourth and fifth century, and no one knows how much the Gospels had been changed since the second half of the first century A.D. to the 4th and 5th century, as considerable differences exist at many places even and be not divided therein. (42/13).

All the previous religions became obsolete as the people could not preserve the truth taught to them. The only true religion on the face of earth is now Islam and the deliverance of mankind lies only in becoming a Muslim, believing in God the Unique and His Prophet Muhammad and following the right path shown by Muhammad (peace be on him).

  1. The angels are also God's creation. They are Holy, pure and emotionless. They are given power from God. They don't have any choice or will in any matter and they flinch not from executing the Commands they receive from God. Islam strongly condemns the dogma of Trinity' where they held the Holy Ghost as third person in Godhead. Please see part I of this book.
  2. The Prophet in his journey by night was taken from Grand Mosque to Aqsa Mosque (Jerusalem), and from there to his miraculous bodily ascension to seven heavens etc (Hadith).
  3. Covenant Please see the Book 'the Chief of the Prophet' part II p.94
  4. The Anti-Christ would show many miracles, but that would not be acknowledged, as Muhammad (peace be on him) was the very last of the Prophets, and he prophesied that the Antichrist would come and claim prophet-hood and then Godhood. He would have supreme powers as God would so will, to test the faithfuls.
  5. Supplement of 'Anjam-i-Atham by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, p. 7.
  6. Sarid is the bread soaked in meat soup and cooked. The Prophet liked it. It is not only delicious but digestive. This narration has been related by all except Abu Dawood,
  7. This revelation I have already discussed in part I of this Book under the heading 'Islam repudiates deification'
  8. Christ preached monotheism. Please see part I one of this book
  9. The worship of Mary became the practice in the Roman Catholic Church, which calls Mary the mother of God. This seems to have been endorsed by the council of Ephesus in 431 C.E. to sweep away the corruptions of the Church of Christ.
  10. Roberts and Donaldson (editors). The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. I, pp. 154,155.
  11. C.J. Cadoux: The life of Jesus, Penguin Books, p. 13.
  12. T.G. Tucker. "The History of the Christians in the Light of Modern Knowledge." p.320.
  13. We find Barnabas mentioned on many places in the Acts of Apostles i.e. Acts 4:36, 9:26, 27, 11:22, 30, 12:25, 13:1, 2, 14:11 to 15.