The Gospel of Luke:
"
The identification of Luke as the author is primarily based on the "we" passages in Acts (beginning in Acts 16:10), which indicate that Luke was associated with Paul in his ministry and wrote down the account of his activities. (The Amplified Bible, Page 1153)"
The only proof that they have about Luke being the sole author of this gospel
is a weak speculation on "we". This is absurd at best! This speculation shows
The gospel was likely to have been altered or written by others beside Luke
It's place of documentation is unknown.
It's date of documentation is also unknown
It is also worth mentioning that the author of the book of Acts is also unknown as shown above:
"
Although the author does not name himself, evidence outside the Scriptures and inferences from the book itself lead to the
conclusion that the author was Luke. (From the NIV Bible Commentary [1], page 1643)"
So their whole speculation is absurd at best!
There is a serious forgery about Jesus' "resurrection on the third day" claiming that it was foretold in the OT when it wasn't! Let us look at Luke 24:44-48 from the NIV Bible:
Luke 24
44 He said to them, "This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms."
45 Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures.
46 He told them,
"This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day,
47 and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
48 You are witnesses of these things.
Luke 24:44-48 says that it is written in the Law of Moses (i.e., the Torah) that Jesus will die and resurrect on the third day. Where in the entire Old Testament (not just in the 5 books of Moses that make up the Law of Moses or the Torah) do you have that?! Show me one Old Testament verse that prophesized about Jesus' third day resurrection?
Anyway, Let us see what the NIV Bible's theologians said about this book:
"The author's name does not appear in the book, but much unmistakable evidence points to Luke. (From the NIV Bible Commentary [1], page 1529)"
Again, we don't know for sure whether it was Luke or not who wrote the "Gospel of Luke" since his name doesn't appear in the Book. The Gospel itself seems to be a compromising one to the Word of GOD. Let us look at the following:
"Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning,
it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, (Luke 1:3)"
Few problems with this Gospel from the quote above:
1- The author was not inspired, and knew for sure that he was not inspired by GOD Almighty to write the Book since he didn't mention about any divine inspiration, and he said "...since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning..." Where do we see GOD's inspiration in this?
2- The author wrote it for the purpose of "his most excellent Theophilus." Since when we compromise GOD Almighty and document His Holy Words for the purpose of other higher (in rank) human beings?
I say it again, I hope you see the real danger in making these assumptions when you are willing to DIE for the fact that such Gospel is the actual True Word of GOD Almighty!
Also, beside, what evidence are they talking about?!
The New Testament wasn't even documented on paper until 150-300 years (depending on what Christian you talk to) after Jesus.
So unless the Book/Gospel was signed by its author, there is no way we would know for sure that it was indeed his book from the first place, let alone considering as the True Living Word of GOD.
There are four original sources of the biography of Muhammad;-
1.The Sira of Ibn Ishaq
2. The History of Tabari
3. The Book of Raids of al Waqidi and
4.The Books of Classifications (Tabaqat) of Ibn Sa’d.
Sirat Ibn Ishaq, page 72: Ibn Ishaq (pronounced Is-haq, Arabic for Isaac) was a Muslim historian, born in Medina approximately 85 years after Hijra (704. died 768).
(Hijra is Muhammad’s immigration to Medina and the beginning of the Islamic calendar),
He was thefirst biographer of Muhammad and his war expeditions. His collection of stories about
Muhammad was called "Sirat al-Nabi" ("Life of the Prophet"). That book is lost. However, a systematic presentation of Ibn Ishaq's material with a commentary by Ibn Hisham (d. 834) in the form of a recension is available and translated into English. Ibn Hisham, admitted tha HE HAS DELIBERATELY OMITTED SOME OF THE STORIES THAT WERE EMBARASSING TO MUSLIMS.
Part of those embarrassing stories were salvaged by TABARI, (838–923) one of the most prominent and famous Persian historians and a commentator of the Qur’an.
Mecca is in a dry valley where nothing grows and agriculture is not possible. So the
population of the town, who belonged to a tribe called Quraysh, built a temple in the
form of a cube and dedicated it to their god. They called it the Ka’ba, which means the
cube. The major deity of the Quraysh was Hubaal (the Baal), whom they called by his
title, Al Lah (The God). The Jews and Christians also called their god, with His title Al Lah. This made some people believe they were the same. This is like confusing the
president of USA with the president of Mexico because they are both called President.
Let us get see if the following hadith is scientific and acceptable by commonsense.
[emoji116] [emoji116]
Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 54, Number 414
He (Muhammad) said, “First of all, there was nothing but Allah, and (then He created His Throne). His throne was over the water, and He wrote everything in the Book (in the Heaven) and created the Heavens and the Earth.”
How this story can make sense? If there was “nothing”, how could Allah put his throne over the water? Which water? What was holding that water? How could Heavens and Earth be created after the waters? Doesn’t water need an earth to contain it, and doesn’t the earth need a heaven to hold it? Beyond the fact that the whole notion expressed in this Hadith is scientific balderdash, there is an error in the order of things created.
Isn’t the Earth a planet of the solar system, which is an insignificant part of a galaxy that is one of the billions of galaxies of the Universe? Can anyone, including Maurice Bucaille who found a lot of “$cience” in the Quran to fill his bank account (yet refused to convert to Islam), tell us which part of this is scientific?
So we can conclude that the above hadith is a fabrication because is against the dictates of commonsense and contrary to a universal rule. Or can we?
The problem is that this hadith is in conformity with the Quran and as Asif Iftikhar said “a Hadith can be regarded as a source of religious guidance only `if the basis of that Hadith exists in the Quran or the Sunnah.” What if we find something in the Quran that corroborates the above absurdity? There is more than one verse that does that. See the following:
Until, when he reached the setting of the sun, he found it set in a spring of murky water: Near it he found a People: We said: “O Zul-qarnain! (thou hast authority,) either to punish them, or to treat them with kindness.” Then followed he (another) way, until, when he came to the rising of the sun, he found it rising on a people for whom We had provided no covering protection against the sun. (Quran. 18:86, 89, 90)
The Sun rises and sets in ALL places, or to be more precise, in no place at all. One does not have to go “another way” to find it rising. This gives us the clue that Muhammad really believed that the Earth is flat and the Sun moves in the sky rising from one place and setting in another.
How can we be sure this is what Muhammad thought? The answer can be found in another hadith.
Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 54, Number 421
Narrated Abu Dhar:
The Prophet asked me at sunset, “Do you know where the sun goes (at the time of sunset)?” I replied, “Allah and His Apostle know better.” He said, “It goes (i.e. travels) till it prostrates Itself underneath the Throne and takes the permission to rise again, and it is permitted and then (a time will come when) it will be about to prostrate itself but its prostration will not be accepted, and it will ask permission to go on its course but it will not be permitted, but it will be ordered to return whence it has come and so it will rise in the west. And that is the interpretation of the Statement of Allah: “And the sun Runs its fixed course For a term (decreed). That is The Decree of (Allah) The Exalted in Might, The All-Knowing.” (Quran 6: 38)
Here we have a case where a hadith is confirmed by the Quran, which is ratified by another hadith and again reiterated the Quran.
Is this hadith against the science and the commonsense? It sure is. However, it is not against the Quran. The message conveyed by the hadith is wrong, despite the fact that it is an authenticated Hadith.
If we have any doubt about what Muhammad really thought of the shape of the Earth, we can safely put them to rest when we read the following verses.
Have We not made the earth as a wide expanse, and the mountains as pegs? Quran. 78: 6-7
Expanse” gives the idea of something flat. The Arabic word used in the Quran is mehad, (bed). Beds are made flat. They are not spherical. Furthermore, mountains are not like peg keeping the earth from shaking.
Don’t these ahadith, backed by the Quran, clearly describe a flat Earth, with the Sun rising from one end and setting in the muddy waters on the opposite end? Is there a Throne somewhere in the sky that the Sun goes under it to get permission? When and how the Sun prostrates itself? This concept sounds ludicrous. In the ancient times the common folks believed that the earth is, floating on waters, surrounded by high mountains beyond which there an abyss. Muhammad’s depiction of the cosmos made sense to his ignorant followers. But it makes no sense today.
To deny the authenticity of hadith on the ground of their logical absurdity poses a bigger problem. What to do with the equally absurd verses of the Quran? Can we dismiss the Quran because it is just as illogical as the hadith?
This is a line Muslims will never cross. So what do they do when confronted with quranic verses that are illogical? They reinterpret them esoterically. The desire to interpret the Scriptures and assign esoteric meanings to them is born out of the fact that they are crude and lack meaning.
There are two categories of Muslims. The first are those that defend Muhammad and whatever he did, irrespective of any consideration for decency, rightness or justice. They don’t deny his marriage to a 9-year-old child, his assassinations, his massacres of his prisoners of war, his genocides, his rapes, his lewdness, and his other less than admirable deeds. He is to them the perfect man, and it is not up to anyone to question his actions.
The second group, are those that deny part or all of these historic facts about Muhammad and twist the evidence to make him acceptable by the modern morality. These are called moderate Muslims. In a nutshell the moderates are the ones who deny the unsavory truth about their prophet, prefer lies to truth and live with their heads stuck
in the sands.
NB:- Quran was compiled more than 300years later after Mohammad death. And according to his child wife Ayesha and his trustworth writers Ubay et all, NOT ALL all copies of Quran were restored. Some lost in Badr war, Some eaten by Shoats. Some were destroyed by Uthman..
Unabii kuhusu Yesu ulikuwepo ndani ya Sanduku La Agano. Ova.
