Friday, May 15, 2015

Ten Reasons Why We Must Reject the Gospel of John.

John Rejected
Ask a Trinitarian for evidence of the divinity of Jesus and they will undoubtedly direct you to Gospel of John. In a previous article we saw how any such evidence put forward from this Gospel is ambiguous at best and often taken out of context or misinterpreted. Remove the Gospel of John from the New Testament equation and there is very little left in the Trinitarian’s armoury to appeal to for evidence of the divinity of Jesus. If you take away this Gospel, any Biblical foundation for the Trinity, ambiguous or otherwise, comes crashing down. So from a Trinitarian’s perspective the stakes for the Gospel of John are very high. This article is going to show that the Gospel of John is not a reliable historical account of the life and teachings of Jesus:

1. Lack of early evidence.
Dating the Gospel of John is no easy task. For a time, particularly in the early part of the 20th century, scholars believed that John was written in the mid-second century. The discovery and publication in the 1930s of a papyrus fragment known as P52 changed everything:
P52 is a small scrap about the size of a credit card and represents the earliest physical evidence that exists for the Gospel of John. Initial dating of P52 placed it at around 125 CE. This initial dating has played a large part in dating the original writing of John to 80 – 95 CE. The theory is that for the Gospel of John to have been copied and made its way to Egypt, where P52 was found, a date no later than the first decade of the 2nd century must be presumed for the original writing of the Gospel. However, recent re-examinations of P52 suggest that this date is too early [1], by approximately 80-100 years. This would place the fragment well in the 3rd century, nearly 200 years after Jesus.
All of the dates discussed so far have been obtained by comparing the handwriting of P52 to datable scripts, a technique known as palaeographic dating. As you can imagine, paleography is not the most effective method for dating texts as this type of dating method gives a relative, not absolute, date. Thus, P52 cannot be used as the sole basis for settling the question of when the Gospel was originally written. We can look into the citations from the gospels, as found in the writings of the earliest Fathers of the Church, to establish a lower limit of when the Gospel was originally written.
Based on this, the Gospel does not emerge clearly in the historical record until the end of the 2nd century. Justin Martyr (100 – 165 CE) was an early Christian apologist and is regarded as the foremost interpreter of the theory of the Logos, a theology that is also found in John’s Gospel. In the 2nd century Justin Martyr advocated a logos Christology without citing John’s Gospel explicitly. Such an omission by Justin would seem strange if the Gospel of John had already been written and was in circulation. Neither was John’s Gospel known to the bishop Polycarp. The letter of Polycarp to the Philippians, generally thought to be from around 135 CE, never quotes from John, and never even alludes to it. Yet other New Testament writings are quoted abundantly in his letter. According to church history, Polycarp studied under the disciple John and yet doesn’t once quote the Gospel of John in his writings, even though he quotes the Gospels of Mark, Matthew and Luke. This is incredible, the one person whose Gospel he should have written about and he didn’t. There’s really no explicit attestation for John until the bishop Irenaeus, late in the 2nd century.
In conclusion, the manuscript and historical evidence for the Gospel of John taken together points us to a late 2nd century date for when the Gospel was first written. This would mean that it’s impossible that a disciple of Jesus was the author as the disciples of Jesus would have long since passed away. Rather it is the work of a much later writer, and for this reason we must reject it.

2. The fabricated story of the adulteress.
John 8:2-11 is the story of a woman that is about to be stoned on the accusation of adultery. In these verses Jesus, when questioned about her punishment, utters the famous words “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone”:
At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.
But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.
At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”
“No one, sir,” she said.
“Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”
This story is unique to John, it is absent from the Gospels of Mark, Matthew and Luke. It turns out that it is a later addition as the earliest New Testament manuscripts do not contain it. In fact the story does not even exist in any manuscripts before the 5th century, and the vast majority of those prior to the 8th century lack the story [2]. Here is a footnote regarding the story from the New International Version of the Bible:
The earliest manuscripts and many other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53—8:11. A few manuscripts include these verses, wholly or in part, after John 7:36, John 21:25, Luke 21:38 or Luke 24:53.
Christians may claim that these verses have no theological implications, and therefore it doesn’t matter that they are a fabrication. However this is not the case, because these verses are one of the few places in the New Testament that suggest Jesus sought to end the Mosaic laws dealing with crime and punishment. Given this strong evidence of tampering in John’s Gospel, we must reject it as the pure word of God and take it for what it is: the corrupted word of man.
For more information on fabrications in the New Testament, see this article here.

3. Very different to Synoptic Gospels.
Of the four New Testament Gospels, the Gospel of John is in a class by itself. The Gospels of Mark, Matthew and Luke include many of the same stories, often in the same sequence, and similar wording, hence scholars classify these gospels as Synoptic, meaning “giving an account of the events from the same point of view or under the same general aspect” because they have a large degree of overlap. They stand in contrast to John, whose content is comparatively distinct – in fact over 90% of its material cannot be found in the Synoptics. Here are some examples:
i. The spear piercing the side of Jesus.
“Instead, one of the soldiers pierced Jesus’ side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water.” [John 19:34]
Scholars generally believe today that the spear thrust that pierced Jesus, a story found only in John’s Gospel, is not historical. It is an embellishment introduced by John for his own theological reasons, possibly to make sure that everyone would know that Jesus died on the cross. Take away the spear thrust and there is nothing in the Gospels that would have resulted in the death of Jesus. Crucifixion doesn’t actually kill a person by itself, what kills a person is the shock and exhaustion resulting from prolonged hanging on the cross, sometimes a few days. According to the Gospel records Jesus was only on the cross for a few hours.
ii. The guards prostrating to Jesus.
The Synoptics paint the picture of Jesus that is reluctant to be crucified. For example they all mention Jesus begging God to be saved from death when he is in the Garden of Gethsemane. Luke even has Jesus sweating drops of blood just before his arrest. All of this is in stark contrast to John, who portrays Jesus as willingly handing himself over to the authorities:
So Judas came to the garden, guiding a detachment of soldiers and some officials from the chief priests and the Pharisees. They were carrying torches, lanterns and weapons.
Jesus, knowing all that was going to happen to him, went out and asked them, “Who is it you want?”
“Jesus of Nazareth,” they replied.
“I am he,” Jesus said. (And Judas the traitor was standing there with them.) When Jesus said, “I am he,” they drew back and fell to the ground.
[John 18:3-6]
Remarkably in John’s portrayal of the Garden of Gethsemane there is no mention of any of these incidents from the Synoptics. John seems to be concerned with magnifying the power of Jesus: from the outset Jesus is in charge, just his voice is enough to cause the soldiers to retreat and fall prostrate on the ground.
It is strange to think that the authors of the Synoptics would not have been aware of incidents such as the spear piercing the side of Jesus and the soldiers prostrating to him in the Garden of Gethsemane, had they really taken place. It is even more inconceivable that they would have intentionally omitted such remarkable accounts from the Synoptics. One must therefore conclude that such stories are later embellishments by whoever authored John.

4. Contradicts other Gospels.
The various Gospel accounts of the resurrection are so different that it’s hard to know what to focus on, but the visit of Mary Magdalene to the tomb of Jesus is central. Here is Matthew’s account of the tomb visit:
“Now after the Sabbath, toward the dawn of the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to see the tomb. And behold, there was a great earthquake, for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled back the stone and sat on it” [Matthew 28:1-2]
But the angel said to the women, “Do not be afraid, for I know that you seek Jesus who was crucified. He is not here, for he has risen, as he said. Come, see the place where he lay. Then go quickly and tell his disciples that he has risen from the dead, and behold, he is going before you to Galilee; there you will see him. See, I have told you” [Matthew 28:5-7]
So they departed quickly from the tomb with fear and great joy, and ran to tell his disciples. And behold, Jesus met them and said, “Greetings!” And they came up and took hold of his feet and worshiped him. [Matthew 28:8-9]
So, in Matthew’s account Mary Magdalene is presented as having seen an angel at the tomb and heard the angel announce the resurrection of Jesus. After which she actually encountered Jesus as she was running away from the tomb in order to inform the disciples about what had happened.
Now here is John’s account of the tomb visit:
Now on the first day of the week Mary Magdalene came to the tomb early, while it was still dark, and saw that the stone had been taken away from the tomb. So she ran and went to Simon, Peter and the other disciple, the one whom Jesus loved, and said to them, “They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid him” [John 20:1-2]
In John’s Gospel, however, Mary Magdalene is presented as having found the tomb empty, after which she ran to the disciples and told them that the body of Jesus had been stolen.
The problem is obvious: if Mary Magdalene met Jesus at the tomb, as Matthew says, then why does she report that the body had been stolen according to John?
Since it’s important to have a firm grasp of the chronological sequence of events as described in Matthew and John, I have summarised the key information in a diagram (please click on picture to enlarge):
Why is it that when it comes to a relatively trivial matter like Jesus riding into Jerusalem on a donkey, all four Gospels corroborate one another (“On a donkey and a colt” [Matthew 21:5-7], “on a colt” [Mark 11:7]; [Luke 19:35], “on a young donkey” [John 12:14]); but the bedrock of the Christian faith, the resurrection, contains contradictions?
Some Christians may argue that these differences in the Gospel accounts are the expected result of reports from a variety of witnesses, but all testifying to the same essential fact—Jesus was raised from the dead. Sometimes the analogy of an automobile accident is suggested. When eyewitnesses report what they saw each reflects a particular perspective, and there are always differences as to details, but the essential facts related to the accident are clear. Such an analogy fails in the case of the Gospels, as Christians make the claim that these are inspired writers. If the author of John’s Gospel can’t even get the basic details right about the most important aspect of the life of Jesus, his resurrection according to the New Testament, then it casts serious doubt on the author being an inspired eyewitness of the life of Jesus.
For more information on this contradiction, see this article here.

5. Rejected as a historical account by conservative Christian scholarship.
According to Mark, Matthew and Luke, the Last Supper appears to have been the Passover meal. On the other hand, John’s Gospel seems to tell us that Jesus died before the Passover meal. It’s necessary to quote Mark at some length to show that, for him, the Last Supper was the Passover:
And on the first day of Unleavened Bread, when they sacrificed the Passover lamb, his disciples said to him, “Where will you have us go and prepare for you to eat the Passover?” And he sent two of his disciples and said to them, “Go into the city, and a man carrying a jar of water will meet you. Follow him, and wherever he enters, say to the master of the house, ‘The Teacher says, Where is my guest room, where I may eat the Passover with my disciples?’ And he will show you a large upper room furnished and ready; there prepare for us.” And the disciples set out and went to the city and found it just as he had told them, and they prepared the Passover. And when it was evening, he came with the twelve. And as they were reclining at table and eating, Jesus said, “Truly, I say to you, one of you will betray me, one who is eating with me” [Mark 14:12-18]
These verses certainly give the impression that the meal being eaten is the Passover meal. The disciples ask where the Passover meal is to be eaten; they go there; they prepare; later Jesus arrives; and they do indeed eat a meal. Luke is even more explicit that Jesus fully expected to eat the Passover meal:
So Jesus sent Peter and John, saying, “Go and prepare the Passover for us, that we may eat it” [Luke 22:8]
Now, John also indicates that Jesus had a last meal with his disciples. But, oddly, we’re told his final meal took place before the festival of Passover:
“It was just before the Passover Festival. Jesus knew that the hour had come for him to leave this world and go to the Father. Having loved his own who were in the world, he loved them to the end. The evening meal was in progress…” [John 13:1-2]
John also says that, as the Last Supper was getting started, Jesus sent Judas Iscariot away:
Then after he had taken the morsel, Satan entered into him. Jesus said to him, “What you are going to do, do quickly.” Now no one at the table knew why he said this to him. Some thought that, because Judas had the moneybag, Jesus was telling him, “Buy what we need for the feast,” or that he should give something to the poor. So, after receiving the morsel of bread, he immediately went out. And it was night. [John 13:27-30]
This indicates that the group did not yet have what they needed for the Passover feast, which would mean the feast was yet to come. Further evidence for this is provided by John 18:28, where Jesus’ accusers were delivering him to Pilate:
Then they led Jesus from the house of Caiaphas to the governor’s headquarters. It was early morning. They themselves did not enter the governor’s headquarters, so that they would not be defiled, but could eat the Passover.
Finally, John explicitly states that Jesus was crucified on the day of preparation for the Passover:
Now it was the day of Preparation of the Passover. It was about the sixth hour. He said to the Jews, “Behold your King!” They cried out, “Away with him, away with him, crucify him!” Pilate said to them, “Shall I crucify your King?” The chief priests answered, “We have no king but Caesar.” [John 19:14-15]
Remember that in the other Gospels, Jesus actually eats the Passover with his disciples before his arrest. John’s timing of the story is different. Why did John alter the story? We find a clue in John’s writings when he refers to Jesus as the “Lamb of God”:
The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, “Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!” [John 1:29]
It’s crucial to note that John is the only Gospel that identifies Jesus as the “Lamb of God”. John’s Gospel thus portrays Jesus as the Passover lamb, slaughtered on the day of preparation of Passover, whose shed blood somehow brings salvation, just as the blood of the Passover lamb brought salvation to the children of Israel so many centuries before. For John, Jesus was the Lamb of God – he died at the same time, in the same place (Jerusalem), and at the hands of the same people (the Jewish priests) as the Passover lambs. In other words, John has told a story that is not historically accurate, but is, in his judgement, theologically true.
Thus we can see that the Gospel of John is not writing about the historical Jesus. John alters the day of the Crucifixion to portray Jesus as the Passover lamb, he alters the story to make a theological point. This is one of the many reasons why New Testament scholars conclude that the Gospel of John is not historically accurate. In fact if you read the works of New Testament scholars you will notice that they hardly ever cite the Gospel of John in their research on the historical Jesus. It’s not just liberal scholars saying this  – even conservative, Bible-believing Christian scholars no longer believe that Jesus actually said the words attributed to him in John. Sadly, most Christians are unaware of the findings of their own scholars.
Here I will cite some top New Testament scholars and their assessment of this problem of John. These academics are not particularly ‘liberal’ and they are representative of the broad consensus of biblical scholarship:
i. British biblical scholar and Anglican priest Christopher Tuckett, in his book “Christology and the New Testament”, has this to say:
“In terms simply of historical reliability or ‘authenticity’, it seems impossible to maintain that both John and the synoptics [Mark, Matthew and Luke] can be presenting us with equally ‘authentic’ accounts of Jesus‘ own life. By ‘authentic’ accounts I mean here historically accurate representations of what Jesus himself actually said and did. The theological ‘authenticity’ of John’s account is quite another matter. The differences between the two are too deep seated and wide ranging for such a position to be sustainable. If there is a choice, it is almost certainly to be made in favour of the synoptic picture, at least in broadly general terms. The picture John then presents us with is a view of the Jesus tradition which has been heavily coloured and influenced by John and his own situation.” [3]
ii. Evangelical scholar Professor Richard Bauckham in his recent book “Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony” argues that the fourth Gospel stems from an eyewitness to the ministry of Jesus, namely, the disciple John. At the same time, however, Bauckham also acknowledges the differences between the fourth gospel and the Synoptics and argues that John is a more reflective and a highly interpreted account of the life and ministry of Jesus. He concludes:
“All scholars, whatever their views of the redactional work of the Synoptic Evangelists and of the historical reliability of the Gospel of John, agree that the latter presents a much more thoroughly and extensively interpreted version of the story of Jesus.” [4]
iii. Here in a debate the evangelical apologist and New Testament scholar Mike Licona concedes that John is not a historical account of Jesus:

6. The disciple John is said to be illiterate and uneducated.
The Book of Acts has this to say about some of the disciples, including John:
When they saw the courage of Peter and John and realized that they were unschooled, ordinary men, they were astonished and they took note that these men had been with Jesus. [Acts 4:13]
Note how the New Testament describes some of the disciples, including John, as “unschooled” and “ordinary”. That is the New International Version (NIV), other versions of the Bible are far less flattering:
Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned (agrammatos) and ignorant (idiōtēs) men, they marvelled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus. [KJV]
If we look to the original Greek, we will see that the actual meaning is far worse (the following is taken from Strong’s Bible Dictionary):
Agrammatos – illiterate, without learning.
Idiōtēs – an unlearned, illiterate, man as opposed to the learned and educated: one who is unskilled in any art.
These Greek words are where we derive the English words ‘agrammatism’ (meaning “the inability to form sentences by virtue of a brain disorder”) and ‘idiot’ (meaning “a foolish or senseless person“).
Please note that it is not the intention of the author of this article to offend the reader. If the disciples of Jesus really were unschooled and ordinary, to take the more respectful rendering of the Greek, then this is nothing to be ashamed of. Very few people at the time of Jesus could read and write, with the typical literacy rate of first century Palestine being about 3%, according to Professor of Jewish studies Catherine Hezser who did the most thorough examination of literacy in Palestine. This was even still the case all the way into the 9th century at the time of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). But to make the claim that this same disciple is the author of the Gospel of John, a text that is written in highly eloquent Greek and tackles complex theological issues such as the nature of the Logos, is unreasonable. It is clear that the Gospel was not written by the disciple John, who would be incapable of doing so, but rather a later unknown author who was highly skilled in Greek philosophy, rhetoric and literature.

7. Multiple authorship.
The single authorship of the John’s Gospel is highly doubtful. Firstly, there is a questionable switch between John chapters 20 and 21. Chapter 20 seems to come to an abrupt halt, as the author declares his reasoning for the composition of the Gospel. Notice the statement that not all of the miracles which Jesus performed are recorded:
“Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name” [John 20:30-31]
These last verses of chapter 20 seem to wrap up the Gospel in an abrupt, yet reasonable manner. Oddly, the very next chapter contains an account of yet another miracle:
Early in the morning, Jesus stood on the shore, but the disciples did not realize that it was Jesus. He called out to them, “Friends, haven’t you any fish?” “No,” they answered. He said, “Throw your net on the right side of the boat and you will find some.” When they did, they were unable to haul the net in because of the large number of fish. [John 21:4-6]
So, the addition of chapter 21 seems to come at an odd time. Perhaps the original author did not finish the Gospel of John? The single authorship of the John’s Gospel is also questionable when we analyse the use of language in chapter 21. Toward the end of chapter 21, two verses seem to close the Gospel once again:
“This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true. Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written” [John 21:24-25]
Compare those two closing verses with the closing verses 30-31 of the previous chapter – the Gospel effectively has two endings, which are both very similar. This makes it seem that one of them is redundant.
Finally, note the use of the third person narrative in verse 24 below:
“This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true.”
This leads the reader to believe that the author himself did not write this particular statement. Further confusion comes when the use of the word “we” comes into play, which indicates that the author is no longer one person. Perhaps a community of believers finished the book for John. Scholars have added the language and word choice to their argument that chapter 21 of the Gospel of John came from an outside source. The problem is that the identity of these multiple authors, and the date when they added to the Gospel, is unknown.

8. Jesus is portrayed as a Greek.
The figure of Jesus presented in John is different, and indeed irreconcilable, with that presented in the Synoptic Gospels: in the Synoptic Gospel accounts Jesus is a recognisably Jewish figure. Yet the figure of Jesus presented in John seems to have ‘lost’ his Jewishness. For example when addressing the Jews he speaks of the Mosaic Law as “your Law” and “their Law” as though it wasn’t his on numerous occasions:
“In your own Law it is written that the testimony of two witnesses is true.” [John 8:17]
Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are gods’” [John 10:34]
But this is to fulfill what is written in their Law: ‘They hated me without reason.’ [John 15:25]
His style of preaching is also different: whereas in the Synoptic Gospels he preaches in narrative parables and in short compact sayings, in John the method is with long discourses – Jesus has effectively become a Greek. If the Gospel of John were read in isolation then one would never guess that the parable was a common teaching method of his (John 15:1-8 being a rare example of a parable). It’s interesting to note that none of the parables in the other Gospels are found in John; they are omitted.

9. Third person narrative.
None of the Gospel authors make the claim of being firsthand eyewitnesses of the life of Jesus. However if the Gospel of John is to be considered an eyewitness account, then one would expect it to be written from a first person perspective. Yet the author employs a third person narrative throughout the Gospel, indicating that it was not them who experienced the events they are writing about, but rather is relating events they heard from someone else.
Another important point is that John the Evangelist has been named consistently in the writings of early church fathers to be the person referred to as the one whom “Jesus loves”. This phrase is used six times throughout the Gospel of John. What we find is that the Gospel of John refers to this disciple who “Jesus loves” in the third person so the author obviously can’t be John:
One of them, the disciple whom Jesus loved, was reclining next to him. [John 13:23]
Christians may argue that this was just the style of ancient literature and therefore it was perfectly normal for people to write about themselves in the third person. But this is not the case, as the author of the Gospel of Luke (dated by scholars to have been written in the same time frame as John) writes in the first person narrative:
“Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.” [Luke 1:1-4]
Moreover the author of the Epistles of John, claimed by Christians to be the same author of the Gospel of John, also writes in the first person:
“That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched—this we proclaim concerning the Word of life.” [1 John 1]
Clearly, the Gospel of John was not written by a firsthand witness of Jesus, but rather a later author who had no connection with the events it narrates, hence the detached third person narrative – much like that of a history book – employed throughout the Gospel.

10. It has Gnostic tendencies.
The Gospel of Thomas is a well-preserved early Christian, non-canonical sayings-gospel which many scholars believe provides insight into the oral gospel traditions. It was discovered near Nag Hammadi, Egypt, in December 1945, in one of a group of books known as the Nag Hammadi library. One of the key things that set this Gospel part from the canonical Gospels is that it does not mention the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus.
This is obviously disturbing for mainstream Christianity as without these stories the very foundation for Paulian Christianity comes crashing down. Hence Christians are inclined towards attempting to discredit Thomas by writing it off as a later Gnostic text, a group they say is heretical. Now you may be wondering what the Gospel of Thomas has to with the subject of this article, the Gospel of John. The answer is that it reveals a double standard, as the very reasons that Christians use to reject the Gospel of Thomas also apply to the Gospel of John:
i. The claim that the Gospel of Thomas is a heretical Gnostic text.
Arguably the best known and most influential passage dealing with Christology in the New Testament is the Prologue of the Gospel of John, 1:1-18. The first eighteen verses of John are typically called the “Prologue” because they are clearly set apart from the rest of the Gospel. The first thing to note is that we are not dealing with a prose narrative here, but with something that looks like a poem. The passage is written in a highly poetic style that’s not found in the rest of the Gospel of John. These verses also contain key concepts not found in the rest of the Gospel, such as Jesus being “the Word” made flesh. Jesus is called the “logos” twice in the prologue and never anywhere else in the Gospel of John (or even the entire New Testament for that matter). These are some of the reasons why scholars widely believe that the author of the John’s Gospel appended these verses as a Prologue, possibly after the rest of the book was written.
The reason why it’s important to highlight this is that the ideas contained in the prologue to John are Gnostic in nature, the very thing that Christians use to reject the Gospel of Thomas. It’s quite telling that the early Gnostics assigned profound significance to the Gospel of John – especially to the prologue. An historic eye-witness who reported on this was the early Church Father Irenaeus. In his book “Against Heresies” Irenaeus quotes from a lengthy Gnostic commentary on the prologue of John [5]. According to this source the Gnostics believed the opening verses explicitly mentioned the names of several primeval entities or “Aions” which emanated forth in succession from the Father. These Aions have the following names in Greek and they are important figures in Gnostic myth: Monogenes (also called Arche), and Aletheia, Logos, Zoe, Anthropos and Charis. These are common names in Gnostic myth as reported by Irenaeus. It just so happens that these very names are also mentioned in the opening verses of John:
In John 1:1–18 the following Aions are revealed by name: (as translated from the ancient Greek text of John):
a) the “Beginning” or Arche, in which was
b) the Word (Logos), in which was
c) Life (Zoe), which was the “light” of
d) Man (Anthropon), which also signified and included
e) the Church (Ecclesia), and also
f) Grace (Charis), and
g) Truth (Aletheia)
Arche was also known as the Only-begotten Son (Monogenes), being the first and only-begotten Son of
h) the unknown Father (Jn. 1:18, 17:25).
Stated simply, the theology in John is anything but “orthodox”; the unorthodox themes in John indicate that, in its original form, the Gospel of John may well have been the earliest of the Gnostic Gospels. The case can actually be made that John has a dual theology. There is one part of John that echoes the Jewish tradition, and then there is another part that really resembles some form of Gnosticism, possibly adopted from a popular Mandaean Gnostic dualism.
ii. The claim that the Gospel of Thomas is a much later text.
The argument here is that the Gospel of Thomas is a much later writing which came after the canonical Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Scholars differ on when the Gospel of Thomas was written. The early camp dates the manuscripts to the second half of the 1st century, making it contemporary to the canonical Gospels, and the late camp dates Thomas to sometime after 100 CE, generally in the mid-2nd century. Even if we assume this later dating, it still makes it earlier than John’s Gospel, which as we covered in a previous section is dated to the late 2nd century. So the reality is that the Gospel of Thomas has a textual history that is on par with, or in some cases superior than, the canonical Gospels.
In summary, if Christians want to insist on rejecting the Gospel of Thomas by writing it off as a later Gnostic work, then they have to be consistent and reject the Gospel of John for the exact same reason as it too has Gnostic tendencies.

All the evidence that can be examined about the Gospel of John points to the same conclusion: it cannot be taken as a reliable historical account of Jesus. Since the Gospel of John is the bedrock for Trinitarians, often their go to book of the Bible in trying to find support for the divinity of Jesus, this represents yet another damning blow to the doctrine of the Trinity. Readers are encouraged to learn about the true historical Jesus, who can only be found in the pure, undistorted words of the Qur’an, God’s last and final revelation to mankind:
1 – The Use and Abuse of P52: Papyrological Pitfalls in the Dating of the Fourth Gospel, Brent Nongbri, Harvard Theological Review, 2005.
2 – Bruce Metzger, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, 4th ed. (2005), p. 320.
3 – Christopher Tuckett, Christology and the New Testament, chapter 9: ‘The Gospel of John’, pp.151-152.
4 – Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony, p. 410.
5 – Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 1.8.5; J. Donaldson, Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1, p. 328.

Sunday, January 25, 2015

Abu Dawud (2126) hadeeth !

(704)Chapter: A Man That Marries A Woman And Finds Her Pregnant
A man from the Ansar called Basrah said:
I married a virgin woman in her veil. When I entered upon her, I found her pregnant. (I mentioned this to the Prophet). The Prophet (ﷺ) said: She will get the dower, for you made her vagina lawful for you. The child will be your slave. When she has begotten (a child), flog her (according to the version of al-Hasan). The version of Ibn AbusSari has: You people, flog her, or said: inflict hard punishment on her. 

عَنْ رَجُلٍ، مِنَ الأَنْصَارِ - قَالَ ابْنُ أَبِي السَّرِيِّ مِنْ أَصْحَابِ النَّبِيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم وَلَمْ يَقُلْ مِنَ الأَنْصَارِ ثُمَّ اتَّفَقُوا - يُقَالُ لَهُ بَصْرَةُ قَالَ تَزَوَّجْتُ امْرَأَةً بِكْرًا فِي سِتْرِهَا فَدَخَلْتُ عَلَيْهَا فَإِذَا هِيَ حُبْلَى فَقَالَ النَّبِيُّ صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏"‏ لَهَا الصَّدَاقُ بِمَا اسْتَحْلَلْتَ مِنْ فَرْجِهَا وَالْوَلَدُ عَبْدٌ لَكَ فَإِذَا وَلَدَتْ ‏"‏ ‏.‏ قَالَ الْحَسَنُ ‏"‏ فَاجْلِدْهَا ‏"‏ ‏.‏ وَقَالَ ابْنُ أَبِي السَّرِيِّ ‏"‏ فَاجْلِدُوهَا ‏"‏ ‏.‏ أَوْ قَالَ ‏"‏ فَحُدُّوهَا ‏"‏ ‏.
GradeDa'if  (Al-Albani)  ضعيف   (الألباني) حكم     :
Reference : Sunan Abi Dawud 2131
In-book reference : Book 12, Hadith 86
English translation : Book 11, Hadith 2126
The hadeeth is unauthentic

Da`if -weak hadeeth:

A hadith which fails to reach the status of Hasan is Da`if. Usually, the weakness is one of discontinuity in the isnad, in which case the hadith could be Mursal, Mu`allaq, Mudallas, Munqati` or Mu`dal, according to the precise nature of the discontinuity, or one of a reporter having a disparaged character, such as due to his telling lies, excessive mistakes, opposition to the narration of more reliable sources, involvement in innovation, or ambiguity surrounding his person.
The smaller the number and importance of defects, the less severe the weakness. The more the defects in number and severity, the closer the hadith will be to being Maudu` (fabricated).76
Some ahadith, according to the variation in the nature of the weakness associated with its reporters, rank at the bottom of the Hasan grade or at the top of the Da`if grade. Reporters such as `Abdullah b. Lahi'ah (a famous judge from Egypt), `Abd al-Rahman b. Zaid b. Aslam, Abu Bakr b. Abi Maryam al-Himsi, Faraj b. Fadalah, and Rishdin b. Sa'd attract such types of varying ranks as they are neither extremely good preservers nor totally abandoned by the traditionists.

More on Islamic concepts of mutual respect and understanding between wives & husbands:

The Divine code of living takes human nature into consideration, as well as the natural abilities given to both man and woman to enable them to discharge the duties assigned to each of them. It maintains justice in the distribution of duties, giving to each of them only the type of duties to which they are suited.
Needless to say, both man and woman are the creation of God, who does not wish to do injustice to anyone He has created. Indeed, He gives each of His creatures the abilities and talents that befit the duties assigned to them.

Comparative Religion: Take care of your wife
Women In Islam :

Tuesday, November 4, 2014

Why Muhammad Didn't Die for Muslims' Sins?

First, Islam, unlike Christianity, does not teach a concept of “original sin”. Adam’s sin was his and his alone; and, according to the Qur’an (for the Qur’anic narration of the story of Adam and Eve, see: the Qur’an: 2: 30-39; 7; 19; 17: 61; 18: 50; 20: 116-17, etc.), God forgave both Adam and Eve when they turned to God in repentance; accordingly they were once again restored to divine mercy. Hence there is no concept of Adam passing on to his progeny an original sin, and therefore no need for stipulating a redeemer for such sins.

Second, as there is no original sin, every one is born into a state of fitrah, a state of natural innocence; sin is acquired later by our own conscious and willful actions. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said, “Every child is born into a state of fitrah or natural state of innocence.”

Third, Islam teaches that God is All-Compassionate and All-Merciful; He is not bound by the rule of a blood sacrifice in order to forgive His servants. To assume that God can forgive only by accepting a blood sacrifice and therefore to state that Jesus or Muhammad died for our sins is not acceptable in Islam. Allah says: “O My servants who have wronged against their souls! Do not despair of Allah’s mercy! For Allah forgives all sins; for He is indeed Forgiving, Compassionate. Turn to your Lord repentant, and submit to Him before the torment overtakes you when you shall not be helped.” (Az-Zumar: 53-54)

Fourth, Islam teaches that every individual is responsible for his/her own salvation. Not Abraham, or Moses, or Jesus, or Muhammad can save us; they are only capable of saving themselves through God’s grace. In the words of the Qur’an: “Whoever commits a sin commits it only against himself. Allah is Knowing, Wise.” (An-Nisa': 111); “Allah does not charge a soul with more than it can bear. It shall be requited for whatever good and whatever it has done.” (Al-Baqarah: 286); “Each soul earns only on its own account, nor does any laden (soul) bear another’s load.” (Al-An`am: 164) “He who is rightly guided, it is for himself; and he who goes astray, it is to his own detriment. No soul can bear another’s burden.” (Al-Isra': 15)

Fifth, everyone, male or female, can directly approach God without any intermediary of a prophet, saint or priest. God is closer to us than our own jugular veins. Almighty Allah says in the Qur’an: “We created man, and We know the promptings of his soul, and We are nearer to him than his own jugular vein.” (Qaf: 16) “When My servants ask you about Me, tell them I am nigh, ready to answer the prayer of the suppliant when he/she prays to Me; therefore let them respond to Me and believe in Me, that they may be rightly guided.” (Al-Baqarah: 186)

So the entire concept of someone dying for our sins is inimical to the Islamic world-view or understanding of the natures of man and God. Islam beckons us all to respond to God’s message and receive His grace and salvation through faith, good works and leading a responsible moral and ethical life."

Peace be upon you all.

Saturday, October 4, 2014

Forgery and Counterforgery: The Use of Literary Deceit in Early Christian Polemics

Muslims too will be shocked to learn just how much of the New Testament is forged. Leading experts in the field of ancient forgery have given the book highly favourable reviews as you can discover below (follow the link).
Few books have so effectively challenged the basis of scriptural authority in Christianity. (London Review of Books)
Arguably the most distinctive feature of the early Christian literature,” writes Bart Ehrman, “is the degree to which it was forged.” The Homilies and Recognitions of Clement; Paul’s letters to and from Seneca; Gospels by Peter, Thomas, and Philip; Jesus’ correspondence with Abgar, letters by Peter and Paul in the New Testament – all forgeries. To cite just a few examples.
Forgery and Counterforgery is the first comprehensive study of early Christian pseudepigrapha ever produced in English. In it, Ehrman argues that ancient critics–pagan, Jewish, and Christian–understood false authorial claims to be a form of literary deceit, and thus forgeries. Ehrman considers the extent of the phenomenon, the “intention” and motivations of ancient Greek, Roman, and Jewish forgers, and reactions to their work once detected. He also assesses the criteria ancient critics applied to expose forgeries and the techniques forgers used to avoid detection. With the wider practices of the ancient world as backdrop, Ehrman then focuses on early Christian polemics, as various Christian authors forged documents in order to lend their ideas a veneer of authority in literary battles waged with pagans, Jews, and, most importantly, with one another in internecine disputes over doctrine and practice. In some instances a forger directed his work against views found in another forgery, creating thereby a “counter-forgery.” Ehrman’s evaluation of polemical forgeries starts with those of the New Testament (nearly half of whose books make a false authorial claim) up through the Pseudo-Ignatian epistles and the Apostolic Constitutions at the end of the fourth century.
Shining light on an important but overlooked feature of the early Christian world, Forgery and Counterforgery explores the possible motivations of the deceivers who produced these writings, situating their practice within ancient Christian discourses on lying and deceit.
See academic reviews here 

Sunday, June 23, 2013

Quran on previous scriptures.

Are the old and new testament corrupted? and what is the nature of that corruption ?is it tahreef -Lafthi ( adding,omitting, substituting words ) or false Interpretations or both?

The bible (both old and new testaments) , according to the Quran, is partially corrupted:

We can get such fact through both direct accusation and inference :

1- Any time the Quran mentions something biblical yet contradicts,denies it ,then we can safely infer that the Quran accuses the bible indirectly to be tampered with ...

Jesus was crucified ,according to the bible yet wasn't crucified ,according to the Quran etc.... a huge list of such disagreements between both the books showing the Quran affirms a biblical corruption....

Is there a rational person who would believe that Mohamed believed that Jesus wasn't crucified ,and believed that the new testament is FULLY the word of God ?!!!!

2- Though I think the previous inference should be, and alone, a proof of a Quranic accusation of biblical tampering,yet the Quran talks even directly and accuses the human tampering with the word of God in several ways:

1- attacking the false claims of inspiration:

Holy Quran :

6:21 Who doth more wrong than he who inventeth a lie against God.

6:93 Who can be more wicked than one who inventeth a lie against God, or saith, "I have received inspiration," when he hath received none.

[003:078] Among them(the Jews) are those who twist their tongues to imitate the scripture, that you may think it is from the scripture, when it is not from the scripture, and they claim that it is from GOD, when it is not from GOD. Thus, they utter lies and attribute them to GOD, knowingly.

[002:079] Woe, then, to those who write the book with their hands and then say: This is from Allah, so that they may take for it a small price; therefore woe to them for what their hands have written and woe to them for what they earn.

In that category we can include Paul who claimed to be inspired 1 Thessalonians 2:13when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men

also the writer of 2 Peter 1:21...

not only with the bible ,the verse could be applied safely with any human being who falsely claimed to be inspired ..

eg; The mormon founder ,the Qadiany sect and their founder who claimed in his book to be receiving inspiration,also the radical Sufi sects and their claims of divine inspiration ...... etc etc etc..

2- Attacking the textual corruption ( adding,omitting, substituting words ) :

[002:075] Do you ( believers) covet that they will believe in your religion inspite of the fact that a party of them (Jewish religious figures) used to hear the Word of Allah (the Taurat), then they used to change it knowingly after they understood it .

the previous verse could be applied to the textual corruption and the interpretation(comes later) as well..

[004:046] Of the Jews there are some who pervert words from their times and places; and say, we have heard, and have disobeyed.

but the Jews referred to are those Jews living the time of Muhammad or ?

[005:013] But because of their breach of their covenant(the Jews before Islam), We cursed them, and made their hearts grow hard; they change the words from their (right) places and forget a good part of the message that was sent them, nor wilt thou cease to find them- barring a few - ever bent on (new) deceits: but forgive them, and overlook (their misdeeds): for God loveth those who are kind.

3- attacking false interpretations:

What is that, changing the words from their right times and places? it is to misquote, misinterpret, twist, distort, pervert, misapply , and concoct an existing text..

It is the third category of corruption after 1-providing a text from nowhere divine ,2-altering,adding,omitting the text

Wednesday, May 1, 2013

Was Jesus God, a son of god , a man, a servant,or a prophet ?

Was Jesus God, a son of god , a man, a servant,or a prophet ?

1) Was Jesus a servant ?

Yes, the Bible says that :
1 ) "Behold my servant, whom I have chosen." (Matthew 12:18)
2) "The God of Abraham, and of Isaac,.... hath glorified his servant Jesus." (Acts 3:13(RSV)
3) "For of a truth against thy holy servant Jesus, whom thou hast anointed...." ( Acts 4:27(RSV)
The exact same word "pias" is attributed to Jacob (Israel) in Luke 1:54 and translated as "servant "(( Can any father call his son "servant " . Can a servant equal his master ? .Who is supreme in rank ? Who orders who and who obeys who ? ))

2) Was Jesus a man or a son of man?

Yes, the Bible says that :
1)ye men of Israel , hear these word; Jesus of Nazareth, was a MAN approved of God among you by miracles, wonders, and signs.(Acts 2:22)
2) the son of MAN came eating and drinking. (Matthew 11:19)
3)  this MAN is really the prophet. (John 7:40)
3) Now ye seek to kill me, a MAN that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God .(John 8:40 KJV)
4) “…so will the son of man be…” Matthew 12:40
5) “For the son of man is going to come…” Matthew 16:27
6) “…until they see the son of man coming in His kingdom.” Matthew 28
7) “But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority…” Mark 2:10
       “…because He is the son of man.” John 5:27
9) “Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know.” (Acts 2:22)
10) “He will judge the world in righteousness through a man whom He has appointed” Acts 17:31
(( Jesus testified himself that he is " a man" why didn`t he clearly and openly say: "Now you seek to kill me, God incarnate, who has told you the truth." Is it possible that he was hiding the truth? He denied any divinity to himself .Can a man be god ? The bible says strongly : “God is not a man...nor a son of man…” Numbers 23:19 . ))

3) Was Jesus a prophet or a messenger ?

Yes, the Bible says that :
These are just some of the many Biblical verses which point out that Jesus was a prophet and a messenger of the one true God :
1) this is Jesus the prophet of Nazareth. (Matthew 21:11)
2)  Jesus said, "A prophet is never accepted in his home town." (Luke 4:24)
3)  I tell you the truth, no servant is greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than
the one who sent him. (John 13:16)
4)  Surely this is the prophet who is to come into the word. (John 24:19)
5) "'What things?' he asked. 'About Jesus of Nazareth,' they replied. 'He was a prophet, powerful in word and deed before God and all the people.'" (Luke 24:19)

4) Was Jesus a god or a son of god ?

Jesus never said he is a god or a son of god Let us see what Jesus himself said :
1) "For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak." (John 12:49)
2) I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.(John 5:30)
3) Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord" ((and this was the message of all prophets sent by Allah from Adam to Muhammad (peace be upon them all ) "There is no God but God" and if Jesus (peace be upon him) was a god or a son of god he would declare that strongly ))
4) My father is greater than I (Jesus) (John 14:28)
5) My father, who gave them to me, is greater than all. (John 10:29)
6) What I teach is not my own teaching, but it comes from God,who sent me. (John 5:30) ((In these verses Jesus (peace be upon him) declares his complete submission and surrender to the will of our unique God and didn't impute any power or any strength to himself and that was the matter of all prophets before him ))
7) "And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is, God." (Mark 10:18) ((Jesus refused to be called "good" although we humanbeings describe ourselves "good" and this was the top of humbleness of Juses. Jesus emphatically corrects any notion that he was God; he does not like to be called even good, as genuine goodness is a quality of God alone. If Jesus were God, his words do not make sense; because, it does not befit God to humble Himself before His creatures.Then we don't believe that he claimed or accepted to be god or a son of god ))

8) No one knows, however, when that day or hour will come neither the angels in heaven, nor the son; only the Father Knows. (mark 13:32) (( If he was god he should have known the time of that day but he said the truth and that does not belittle of his rank as one of the greatest prophets that God sent to the human beings . In fact a sincere seeker of the truth should accept what Jesus says about himself and not make Him God or the equal of God!))

9) *Anyone who says something against the son of man can be forgiven, but whoever says something against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven-now or ever.(Matthew 12:32)
10) I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God. (John 20:17) (( Then The father is the father of Jesus and all people ))
11) Jesus said to him, "Away from me, Satan! For it is written: 'Worship the Lord your God, and him only.'" (Matthew 4:10)
12) "Well said, teacher," the man replied. "You are right in saying that God is one and there is no other but him." (Mark 12:32)
13) "The Lord our God is Lord alone! Therefore, you shall adore the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength." (Deuteronomy 6:4-5, Mark 12:29-30)

5) Was Jesus the only one who was called the son of God in the Bible ?

No,the Bible doesn't say that :
1) Adam is the son of God. (Luke 3:38)
2) Israel is my first-born son.(Exodus 4:22)
3) The Lord has said unto me, thou art my son; this day have I begotten thee." (Psalms 2:7,KJM).
,4) David is another begotten Son
  *Blessed are the peacemaker, for they will be called sons of God. (Matthew 5:9)

((Tracing this title : son of God" in the Bible, we can find many "sons of God" and that Jesus is not the only son.It can be concluded that the Bible uses this title" son of God" figuratively to mean Righteous, pious, selected, or God-conscious.))

6) Can God be a man ?

((Can God be a man,eat as man,feel hungry ,go to toilet ,is crucified,tortured and be seen and be heard ,cry on the cross and be spit on his face and doesn't have the power to destroy his enemies and pray to his god.What god is that ?))

1) “God is not a man...nor a son of man…” (Numbers 23:19)
2) “...For I am God, and not man...” (Hosea 11:9)
3) Matthew 26:39: "And he went a little farther, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt."
4) in John 5:32 Jesus told his followers that they have never seen GOD at anytime nor ever heard his voice?
5) "Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape." (John 5:37)
6) "Eli, Eli, lama sabachtani (My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?)

(( Finally after discussing evidence from the Bible . In fact that God is one, NOT THREE, that
Jesus is not God or part of God, that he is not equal with God, and that He is not the son of God in the literal sense .The son of god is common in the Bible and it is not underage on Jesus only (peace be upon him )) Please be logical and be rational and don't say what Jesus (peace be upon him) didn't say about himself .He was a model in his faith and in his submission to the will of the only unique God (praise be to him ) . Saying Jesus is a god or a son of god is the biggest sin which God never forgive and Jesus himself prophesied that people would worship him uselessly and believe in doctrines made by men (Matthew 15:9). "But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men." Jesus (peace be upon him) in this verse warns his followers from being worshippers to him .He ordered his people not to exaggerate in their love to him .
Thank you .

Re: Don't Make Fun of Muhammad - Refuted, Anti-islamists deception exposed

Commonly repeated lies based on misunderstanding and/or misrepresentation of Islam are exposed below:
Qur’an 9:29

Qur’an 9:123
Yusus Ali commented: "When conflict becomes inevitable, the first thing is to clear our surroundings of all evil, for it is only evil that we can rightly fight. To evil we must put up a stout and stiff resistance. Mealy-mouthed compromises are not right for soldiers of truth and righteousness. They are often a compound of cowardice, weariness, greed, and corruptibility."
This is because fighting is essentially carried out in their interest and for their well being, therefore, when it comes to care and concern, kinsfolk have precedence - similar to the command given to the Holy Prophet : (And warn your near relatives against the punishment of Allah - 26:214). He carried out the command by assembling people from his family and conveyed to them the Word of Allah as revealed to him. The circle then became larger. In the second sentence of verse 123: (and let them find severity in you), the word: (ghilzah) means severity or toughness. The sense is that the disbelievers must be confronted in a manner that would not allow them to take their adversary to be weak.
Quran (48:29)

Qur’an 98:6
Qur’an 3:32
The Worst People are Those Who turn away from the evident Truth after being reminded

Sahih Muslim " I have been ordered to fight.."

Qur’an 5:51
 Don't take Jews and the Christians as friends ?!

Sahih Muslim 4366

Qur’an 4:34—Men are in charge of women,

Sahih Muslim 2127

Qur’an 2:223
The verse uses tilth as a metaphor for pregnancy. That metaphor has been used by all cultures throughout the ages.
To this day, medical clinics that help women get pregnant are called fertility clinics. So, that islamophobes should start their attack by protesting in front of a fertility clinic demanding they change their name !

Qur’an 2:282
Nicole Woods, a young American sister who recently embraced Islam; may Allah Almighty always be pleased with her, regarding Noble Verse : "Because women have always been considered inferior and not capable of good testimonies, maybe Allah was concerned that the courts would doubt their integrity. By having two witnesses instead of one, He has assured that we will always be listened to and believed. Maybe one woman can be refuted, but not two!! :) In fact, the more witnesses, the better, but for the sake of convenience, Allah has assured us that two is enough. In a world where we are the losers because of our gender, Islam always provides a way to force others to see us as equals. Sabhunallah [Good Lord]."

Sahih al-Bukhari 4200

Sahih al-Bukhari 6982

Sahih al-Bukhari 5158  The Prophet wrote the (marriage contract) with Aisha while she was six years old and consummated his marriage with her while she was nine years old and she remained with him for nine years (i.e. till his death).

Al-Tabari, Ibn Ishaq -Are they Reliable ?

Read more about Prophet Muhammad:

And Praise be to Allah, The Lord of the worlds.