Error No. 84:

The Ascension of Christ

It is said in John:

“And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the son of man which is in heaven.” [John 3:13]

This is also incorrect, as is evident from the fifth chapter of Genesis [Gen. 5:24] and 2 Kings Chapter 2. [2 Kings 2:11]

Error No. 85

We find this statement in the gospel of Mark:

“For verily I say unto you, That whosoever shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; and shall not doubt in his heart, but shall believe that those things which he saith shall come to pass; he shall have whatsoever saith.” [Mark 1:23]

We find another similar statement in the same book:

“And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;

They shall take up serpents, and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.” [Mark 16:17-18]

And in the gospel of John we read the following statement:

“Verily, verily I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do, shall he do also, and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.” [John 14:12]

The prophetic promise made in the above texts is a general statement that does not particularise any man or people, particularly the phrase, ”Whosoever shall say unto this mountain” which is totally unconditional and can be applied to any people of any time. Similarly the statement, ”He that believeth on me,” can include any believer in Christ of any time. There is no argument to support the claim that the above predictions were particularly made in respect of the early Christians. It is therefore, necessary for a mountain to move and be cast into the sea, if a believer says so to it, of course, with firm belief in Christ. Everyone knows that nothing like this has even happened in history. We would like very much to know if any Christian, in or after the time of Jesus, did perform “works greater than Christ” as the evangelist has made Jesus say this in the above prediction.

The Protestants have more than admitted that after the time of Jesus the occurrence of miracles and marvels has never been proved in history. We have seen many priests in India, who, in spite of making strenuous efforts for many years are not able to speak correctly in Urdu, let alone take up serpents, drink poison and heal the sick.

FALLIBITY OF LUTHER AND CALVIN

Perhaps we might be allowed at this juncture, for the interest of the readers, to reproduce two incidents directly related to Luther and Calvin, the founders of the Protestant faith. We quote this from the book entitled Mira’atus Sidq that was translated into Urdu by a Catholic scholar and priest Thomas Inglus and printed in 1857. He relates the following incidents on pages 105-107:

“In 1543 Luther tried to cast out the devil from the son of Messina with a result similar to the Jews who once tried to cast out devil as is described by the Book of Acts in Chapter 19. Satan, in the same way attacked Luther and wounded him and his companions. Stiffels seeing that his spiritual leader, Luther was being choked and strangled by Satan, tried to run away but being in great terror was not able to open the latch of the door and had to break down the door with a hammer which was thrown to him from the outside by his servant through a ventilator.

Another incident is related of Calvin, the great leader of the Protestants, by another historian. Calvin once hired a man called Bromius and told him to lie down in front of the people and pretend to be dead. He arranged with him that when he heard Calvin say the words, ”Bromius, rise from the dead and be alive,” he should rise from the bed as though he had been dead and had just risen, having been miraculously brought to life. The wife of Bromius was also told to cry and lament over the body of her husband.

Bromius and his wife acted accordingly and people, hearing her cries and lamentation, gathered there for her consolation. Calvin came and said to the weeping woman, ”Do not cry. I will raise him from the dead.”

He began to recite some prayers and then holding the hand of Bromius, said, ”Rise in the name of God.” But his design of deceiving people in the name of God was not a success as Bromius really had died. God had avenged Calvin for his deception and iniquity. Bromius’ wife, seeing that her husband had died in reality started crying and blaming Calvin.

Both these leaders were considered to be the greatest spiritual leaders of their time. If they can be blamed for such acts what remains to be said of the generality of the people.

Pope Alexander VI, the head of the Roman church and the representative of the Lord on the earth, according to the Catholic faith, had prepared some poison for some other persons, but drinking it himself by mistake he died. One cannot avoid coming to the conclusion that the leaders of both the rival sects do not possess any of the qualities mentioned in the prediction under discussion.

Error No. 86

The gospel of Luke states:

“Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri.” [Luke 3:27]

This genealogical description of the Christ contains three errors:

1. The sons of Zorobabel or Zerubbabel are described very clearly in 1 Chronicles Chapter 3 and none of them has this name. We have already discussed this earlier and besides this, it is against the description of Matthew.

2. Zerubbabel is the son of Pedaiah, not Salathiel. He is, however, his nephew.

3. Salathiel is the son of Jeconias, not of Neri. Matthew has also agrees with this.

Error No. 87

In his account of the genealogy of Jesus, Luke states:

“...which was the son of Sala, which was the son Cainan which was the son of Arphaxad...” [Luke 3:35,36]

This statement is also not correct as Sala was the son of Arphaxad, and not his grandson, which is clear from the book of Genesis [Gen. 11:12] and from I Chronicles. [1Chr. 1:24]

The Hebrew version has always preference over any translation according to the Protestants. No translation can be preferred to the original Hebrew version simply because it corresponds with the description of Luke. On the contrary, such a translation would be considered unacceptable on the grounds that it has been modified.

Error No. 88

We read the following statement in Luke:

“And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed,

(And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria).” [Luke 2:1]

This, too, is incorrect because the phrase ”all the world” includes the total population of the Roman empire. No historian prior to, or contemporary with Luke ever mentioned this tax before the birth of Jesus in his history.

Later historians, when describing it, only do so using Luke as their source which is unacceptable. Apart from this, it seems impossible that Cyrenius, who was governor of Syria fifteen years after the birth of Jesus, could have done the taxing which was accomplished fifteen years prior to the birth of Jesus. Equally unbelievable is the notion that Jesus was born during the time of his governorship, because in this case we are required to believe that Mary remained in the state of pregnancy for as long as fifteen years. It is so because Luke has admitted in the second chapter that the wife of Zacharias conceived in the reign of Herod and that Mary conceived Jesus six month later. Realizing this ”difficulty” some Christian scholars have declared that verse 2 is a later addition and not written by Luke.

Error No. 89

Luke states:

“Now in the fifteenth year of the Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judaea, and Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip, tetrarch of Ituraea and of the region of Trachonitis, and Lysanias the tetrarch of Abilene.” [Luke 3:1]

This is incorrect as the historians have denied of there being any ruler of Abilene named Lysaneas in the time of Herod and Pontius Pilate.

Error No. 90

In the same chapter of Luke we find this statement:

“But Herod the tetrarch, being reproved by him for Herodias, his brother Philip’s wife, and for all the evils which Herod had done.” [Luke 3:19]

This is absolutely wrong, as we have shown under Error No. 56 and as will be discussed later in the book. The mistake was made by Luke and not by the copier, as has been said by some exegetes admitting the presence of the mistake in the text.

Error No. 91

We find in Mark:

“For Herod himself had sent forth and laid hold upon John, and bound him in prison for Herodias’ sake, his brother Philip’s wife...” [Mark 6:17]

This statement too, is erroneous, as we have already discussed. All the three evangelists are equally responsible for this error. The translator of the Arabic versions printed 1821 and 1844 has manipulated the texts of Matthew and Luke and deleted the word Philip, while other translators have not followed his example.

Errors No. 92 - 94:

Did David Eat Shewbread?

It appears in Mark:

“Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was an hungred, he, and they that were with him?

How he went into the house of God, in the days of Abiathar, the high priest, and did eat the shewbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him?” [Mark 2:25,26]

Earlier in the book we showed that this statement is also incorrect, since David at that time was alone, therefore the phrase ”they that were with him” is a mis-statement. Besides, it is incorrect to say the high priest at that time was Abiathar, whereas, in fact, Ahimelech was the high priest. The falsity of this statement can also be understood from the beginning of 1 Samuel 21 and 22.

There are three errors in two verses of Mark. The third error will also be discussed later. The Christian scholars have plainly admitted that Mark has made a mistake in this text.

Errors No. 95 - 96

The Gospel of Luke also describes the same event with words signifying that David was accompanied at that time, when, as we have just shown, he was alone.

Error No. 97

The First Epistle to Corinthians contains the following sentence:

“And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve.” [1 Cor. 15:5]

This statement is quite obviously wrong, since one of the twelve, Judas Iscariot had died prior to this event, reducing the number of the disciples to eleven. Mark, therefore, says in Chapter 16:

“He appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat.” [Mark 16:14]

Errors No. 98-100

Matthew says:

“But when they deliver you up, take no thought how or what ye shall speak: for it shall be given you in that same hour what ye shall speak.

For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you.” [Matt. 10:19,20]

Luke also reports this in the following words:

“And when they bring you unto the synagogues, and unto magistrates, and powers, take ye no thought, how or what thing shall ye answer, or what ye shall say:

For the Holy Ghost shall teach you in the same hour what ye ought to say.” [Luke 12:11,12]

A similar statement is also given in Mark in chapter 13. The implication of the texts contained in the three gospels is that Jesus promised his disciples that whatever they said to the officers would be inspired to them by the Holy Ghost, which in turn signified that their words would not be their own words but the word of the Holy Ghost.

This statement is shown to be incorrect in the light of the following passage of the Book of Acts:

“And Paul, earnestly beholding the council, said, Men and brethren, I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day.

And the high priest Ananias commanded them that stood by him to smite him on the mouth.

Then said Paul unto him, God shall smite thee, thou whited wall: For sittest thou to judge me after the law and commandest me to be smitten contrary to the law?

And they that stood by said, Revilest thou God’s high priest?

Then said Paul, I wist not, brethern, that he was the high priest: for it is written, Thou shall not speak evil of the ruler of thy people.” [Acts 23:1-5]

Had the statement of Matthew and Luke been true, their spiritual leader Paul, who is considered equal in status with the disciples and who himself claims to be equal to Peter, the greatest of all disciples, could have not said anything erroneous before the council. Paul’s admission to his fault is enough to prove the text incorrect. We shall later on show that the Christian scholars have admitted the presence of error in this text. Since this text has appeared in the three gospels, this makes three errors in the text.

Errors No. 101 & 102

In Luke we find:

“...in the days of Elias, when the heaven was shut up three years and six months...” [Luke4:25]

and in the Epistle of James:

“...and it rained not on earth by the space of three years and six months.” [James 5:17]

This also seems incorrect as it is understood from I Kings that there was rain in the third year. [1 Kings 18:1]

Since this statement has appears in Luke as being said by Jesus, while in the Epistle of James, as the statement of James himself, this, in fact, makes it two mistakes.

Error No. 103:

Jesus and the Throne of David

The Gospel of Luke says in chapter 1:

“And Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:

And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever, and of his Kingdom there shall be no end.” [Luke1:32,33]

This is incorrect for the following two reasons:

1. Because Jesus, according to the genealogy given by Matthew, is a descendant of Jehoiakim, and none of his descendants can sit on the throne of David according to the statement of the Prophet Jeremiah. [Jer. 36:30]

2. Secondly because historically we know that Jesus never sat on the throne of David even for a single minute; nor did he ever rule over the house of Jacob. On the contrary, the Jews became hostile to him to the extent that they arrested him and took him to Pilate, who reviled him and then handed him over to the Jews to crucify.

Besides, it is clear from the Gospel of John that Jesus hated the idea of being a king [John 6:15], and, moreover, it is unbelievable that Jesus would hate something for which he was sent by God.

Error No. 104

We find the following passage in Mark:

“Jesus answered, and said, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands for my sake, and the gospel’s,

But he shall receive hundred-fold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world to come eternal life.” [Mark 10:29,30]

And Luke reports these words in the same context:

“...who shall not receive manifold more in this present time, and in the world to come, life everlasting.” [Luke 18:30]

This cannot be true because, according to their law the Christians are not allowed to marry more than one woman. It would therefore, not be possible for a man leaving his wife for the sake of Jesus, to receive ”hundred-fold or at least manifold wives in this present life.”

Besides the phrase, ”lands with persecutions”, is out of place here as Jesus is speaking of the reward that would be given to them by God, hence the phrase ”with persecutions” is not relevant, and does not fit the context.

Error No. 105:

Jesus Healing the One Possessed by Devils

The Gospel of Mark describes the event of a man possessed by evil spirits and being healed by Jesus, saying:

“And all the devils besought him saying, Send us into the swine that we may enter into them.

And forthwith Jesus gave them leave. And the unclean spirits went out, and entered into the swine; and the herd ran violently down a steep place into the sea.” [Mark 5:12,13]

This is incorrect, for the reason that the Jews were not allowed to keep swine, being inadmissible for them under the law.

Error No. 106

Matthew reports Jesus saying to the Jews:

“I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.” [Matt. 26:64]

It is wrong because the Jews have never seen Christ coming in the clouds of heaven before or after his death.

Error No. 107

Luke has reported in chapter 6:

“The disciple is not above his master, but every man that is perfect shall be as his master.” [Luke 6:40]

This appears to be wrong as there are many personalities who have had greater perfection than their teacher.

Error No. 108:

Parents: Honour or Hate Them?

The following statement of Jesus has been reported by Luke:

“If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.” [Luke 14:26]

It is, all the more, incredible to think that such a remark could have been made by Jesus, when he had said, reproaching the Jews:

“For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother, and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.” [Matt. 15:4]

We cannot see how Jesus could have said this.

Error No.109

The Gospel of John says:

“And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year said unto them, Ye know nothing at all.

Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.

And this spake he not of himself, but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation;

And not for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad.” [John 11:49-52]

This statement cannot be accepted as true for the following inconsistencies in the text.

Firstly, because this statement implies that the high priest should necessarily be a prophet which is certainly not correct.

Secondly, if the statement of the high priest is accepted as prophetic, it necessitates that the death of Jesus should be an atonement only for the Jews and not for the whole world, which is obviously against the established beliefs and claims of the Christians. And the phrase, ”not only for this nation” becomes an absurd statement and against the prophethood of Jesus.

Thirdly, according to the evangelist, this high priest who enjoys the status of a prophet happens to be the same man who was the high priest at the time of the ’crucifixion’ of Jesus and the one who passed the religious decree against Jesus accusing him of being a liar, a disbeliever and being liable to be killed. And he was the one who was pleased at the smiting and insulting of Jesus. This is witnessed to by Matthew who says:

“And they that had laid hold on Jesus led him away to Caiaphas the high priest, where the scribes and the elders were assembled.” [Matt. 26:57]

And further in the same chapter we find the following details:

“But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the son of God.

Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

Then the high priest rent his clothes saying, He has spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? Behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy.

What think ye? They answered and said, He is guilty of death.

Then did they spit in his face, and buffeted him; and others smote him with the palms of their hands,

Saying, Prophesy unto us, thou Christ, Who is he that smote thee?” [Matt 26:63-68]

The fourth gospel, John, is even more explicit, saying:

“And led him away to Annas first: for he was father in law of Caiaphas, which was the high priest that same year.

Now Caiaphas was he, which gave counsel to the Jews, that it was expedient that one should die for the people.” [John 18:13,14]

We may now be allowed to say that if this statement of the high priest was made by him as a prophet why did he gave his judgement to kill Jesus? He declared him blasphemous and was happy at the humiliation of Jesus in his court. Is it in any way credible that a prophet should command people to kill his God?

We declare our utter disbelief in such prophet who remains a prophet even after committing such profane and sacrilegious acts. From this situation it logically deduced that Jesus was a prophet of God but having gone astray (may God forbid) he claimed of being God incarnate and put a false blame on God. In short, the innocence of Christ, in this case, becomes doubtful. In fact, the evangelist John is also innocent, as is Jesus Christ, of making such incredible statements. The responsibility for all such statements lies totally on the shoulders of the Trinitarians.

If, for a moment, we suppose that Caiaphas’s statement is true, even then the significance of his statement would be that when the disciples and the followers of Jesus confirmed that Jesus was, in fact, the Promised Messiah or Christ, since it was generally believed by the people that it was necessary for the Messiah to be a great king of the Jews, Caiaphas and his elders, were afraid that having come to know this fact, the Caesar of Rome would be angry and might make trouble for them, he proposed, ”one should die for the people”

This was the real and natural significance of that statement and not that the people of the world would be redeemed and saved from their ’original sin’, as they call it, which was committed by Adam thousands of years prior to the birth of the Christ, which is a whimsical and, of course, illogical interpretation of the statement. The Jews also do not believe in this whimsical conception of the Trinitarians.

Perhaps this evangelist, later on, realised the mistake and he replaced the phrase ’he prophesied’ with the words ’he gave counsel’, in Chapter 18, because to give counsel is very different from making a prophesy as a prophet. Though by making this change he has opened himself to the charge of contradicting his own statement.

Error No. 110

Paul’s letter to Hebrews contains this statement:

“For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book and all the people,

Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you.

Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry.” [Heb. 9:19-21]

The above statement is incorrect for the following three reasons:

Firstly because the blood was not of calves and goats, but was only of oxen, at that occasion.

Secondly because, the water, the scarlet wool and hyssop were not present; at that moment only the blood was sprinkled.

Thirdly, because Moses himself did not sprinkle on the book and on the vessels as described by Paul, rather half the blood was sprinkled on the altar and half of it on the people.

These three mistakes are clear from the following description given by the book of Exodus. It reads:

“And Moses came and told the people all the words of the Lord, and all the judgements: and all the people answered with one voice, and said, All the words which the Lord hath said will we do.

And Moses wrote all the words of the Lord, and rose up early in the morning, and builded an altar under the hill, and twelve pillars, according to the twelve tribes of the Israel...

...which offered burnt offerings and sacrificed peace offerings of oxen unto the Lord.

And Moses took half of the blood and put it in basons; and half of the blood he sprinkled on the altar.

And he took the book of the covenant, and read in the audience of the people: and they said, All that the Lord hath said will we do, and be obedient.

And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the Lord hath made with you concerning all these words.” [Ex. 24:3-8]

In view of the textual defects and inconsistencies present in the Bible, pointed out to the readers so far, the Roman Catholic Church prohibited the study and reading of these books for common people. They rightly said that the damage caused by the reading of them would be greater than the benefit to be expected from them. They were certainly right in having this opinion. In fact, the contradictions, errors and inconsistencies of the biblical texts were not known to the people until the appearance of the Protestant movement. They discovered and dug into these books and the secrets were disclosed, causing the strong reaction which is well known to the world today.

The book entitled, Kitabu’th-Thalathu-Ashrah (The Thirteen Books) printed in Beirut in 1849, contains the following on pages 417, 418 of the Thirteenth Book. We give its faithful translation from Urdu:

“Let us now look at the law passed by the Council of Trent and duly stamped by the Pope. It said that the experience of the past showed that such words when read by common people would produce greater evil than good. It was therefore the responsibility of the priest or of the judge that, according to his description, or in consultation with the teacher of confession, he should allow the reading of the words in these books only to those who, in their opinion, might be benefited by them, and it was of great importance that the book must have been previously checked by a Catholic teacher, and it had to bear the signature of the teacher who allowed it to be read. Anyone who dared read it without permission, was not to be excused unless he was sent to the proper authorities.”