اﻟﺮﺣﯿﻢ اﻟﺮﺣﻤﻦ ﷲ ﺑﺴﻢ
We begin by praising our Lord and sending the best benedictions and peace upon all of the Prophets and
Messengers sent by God to guide their people. To proceed:
Approaching Your Answer –
On The Question of The Gospel
As the title entails, this is meant to be a response to the brief explanation offered regarding your
understanding and usage of the term “Gospel”. My intention is to come as close to its brevity to the best
of my ability. Yet, despite this, it will naturally be longer because it will contain the original as part of its
content. My methodology is to present your statements and then respond to each point I believe is most
important to address within brackets. I don’t want to abridge the original because I don’t want to
mistakenly change any meanings, misrepresent the original message or to seem as though I am creating a
straw man. I also do not want to create any confusion between the original and this response. To avoid
this I thought of alternating between fonts or sizes or boldness but, I feared that that may add to confusion
while also removing the aesthetics of the overall paper. Instead, I have decided to present your words
boldly initially, followed by my words within brackets. I am hopeful that that will offer clarity while also
retaining the aesthetics of this work.
If I continue to add anything more by introduction we run the risk of this becoming even more
cumbersome. With that said, let’s get to it.
—-
The request you made was “Please text me the meaning of the term “Gospel” as you understand
and use it – of course, specifically in relation to the Gospel of Jesus”
When I use the term ‘Gospel’ it refers to the good news of God’s plan of salvation through Jesus. To
understand the summarized details of this plan I’ll use Jesus’ words in the Gospel according to
Mark. This is a brief summary so it does not include detailed Bible quotes, explanation or a full
unpacking of biblical prophecy.
[[ I appreciate this succinct answer, “the good news of God’s plan of salvation through Jesus.” As for my
own usage, I would agree with this with a slight modification – “the Good News of God’s Path of
Salvation as revealed to and taught by Christ Jesus ملسو هيلع هللا ىلص .” Of course, it is clear that this slight modification
changes the entire understanding but, it is closer to my own understanding and usage.
With that said, this response is also intended to be brief and so, I also will not burden it with scriptural
quotes, although there may be a few that I do bring as they may be necessary. ]]
Mark says:
…Jesus came into Galilee, proclaiming the gospel of God and saying “The time is fulfilled, and the
kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe the gospel.” (Mark 1:14-15)
[[ Because you break the verse down and deal with the three main points, I do not feel a need to comment
on it here. However, I do want to speak on the source material as this is a lingering question between us.
1
The Gospel attributed to Mark is the first of the canonized gospels to be written, it is the oldest of them
and the shortest. Despite this fact, it still comes after the death of Paul (d.65 CE), and hence, after his
teachings were circulated. It is thus a fair assessment to say that his writings were influenced by Paul but,
according to all historical Biblical scholarship, the Gospel also relied upon an earlier written account
termed Q (short for Quelle – source). All four canonical gospels were pseudonymously attributed in the
mid-second century, with the first explicit attribution being from the Bishop of Lyons, Irenaeus (130-202
CE). This particular gospel is attributed to John Mark, a student of Peter (d.64 or 67 CE) and yet, there is
no way at all to know who actually authored it. This does not detract from what is being said within it, it
is simply a statement of historical fact.
It was written after Nero’s reprisals against the Christians began (64 CE); most likely leading up to the
destruction of the Temple in the year 70 CE by General Titus. Because of this, many consider it a “war
time” gospel intended to fortify the Hellenistic Christians – its target audience. However, the oldest piece
of any manuscript we have of this gospel only dates back to mid-to-late second century (some say as early
as 135 CE).
Like the other two synoptic gospels, it only covers approximately one year of the life of the Messiah ملسو هيلع هللا ىلص,
approximately 51 weeks in Galilee and 1 week in Judea. But unlike the other gospels, it begins with the
Baptism, offering no mention of the nativity. It also offers no information regarding his physical
description or the first thirty years of life.
These are all factual statements well known to those who study the Bible as a historical document, as
opposed to studying it as liturgy. And while it seems I have gone into unnecessary details here for a paper
meant to be brief, it offers an introduction showing that the same sources verifying all of this also attest
that the gospel has undergone alteration over time. This starts at the very beginning of the book where we
read, “The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ (the Son of God)” (1:1) we find the words “the Son of
God” now bracketed or omitted in most translations due to being recognized as a later addition. The book
also ends with later multiple later editions. According to many biblical scholars, the original ending of the
book is Chapter 16:8 and everything beyond that was added by later, unknown persons.
This becomes vitally important if we use this book (or any book of the NT) as our reference material. You
use it because you believe it to be the truth from God. I use it because I see it as a historical record written
by men like any other. You asked, “how can you be intellectually honest and say that Jesus taught
repentance, faith and obedience but did not also teach about his death and resurrection and that the
content of faith was to be him?” I have gone on at length here for the sole intent of addressing that.
Because I do not view the books of the Bible as the preserved word of God but rather, as historical
documents, I will take into consideration provenance (authorship/style/date), the purported purposes
(intended audiences/themes), perspectives (language/class/culture/ideology), the history of the texts
(including its transmission) and, most importantly, corroboration (external and/or internal evidences). To
claim that I comb through every verse of the Bible with each of these in mind would be dishonest.
However, when asked about a specific verse or claim or belief, I will do my best to bring as many of these
matters to mind as I can. Do I claim to get it right all the time? Absolutely not. Do I claim to be free from
error? Of course not. However, as I would hope you know by now, I exercise due diligence and strive to
be not only fair but intellectually honest…even if I may fall short in my outcomes at times.
When it comes to the gospels canonized in the Bible, one thing that always stands out at the forefront of
my mind is that they were written after the deaths of the disciples, after the destruction of the Church of
Jerusalem, the killing of Jesus’s appointed successor, James, and, the spreading of the Pauline teachings in
opposition to other Christian groups such as the Church of Jerusalem, the Ebionites and others. In fact,
this suggests that they were written in direct contrast to other teachings that were widely circulated by
other Christians at that time as we see from the introduction to the Gospel attributed to Luke. This is
2
important because what was written is not “the teachings of Jesus ملسو هيلع هللا ىلص”, such as found in the Gospel of
Thomas, but “narratives written about Jesus ملسو هيلع هللا ىلص”. The narratives are built upon what was circulating
amongst the Hellenistic Christians of the Pauline Church and chosen for canonization by the Church
because they supported the Athanasian Creed (of course can certainly proffer the Nicene Creed instead).
This historical backdrop remains critical when examining any claims made therein.
While I think I have already spent too much time on this already, I would be remiss (and perhaps
disingenuous) if I didn’t mention that I also view any claims about Jesus ملسو هيلع هللا ىلص, his mission, his teachings
and the beliefs he espoused, in light of the teachings of the Qur’an specifically. While the claim is made,
“how can you trust a book that came nearly 600 years later to falsify books written in the first century?”,
my response is simple – I believe the Qur’an to be the inerrant Word of God. As such, it is not from
someone who came centuries later but rather, it is from the knowledge of the Ever Living Who never dies.
In examining the Bible in this way, it is seldom necessary to point out what was added later or what was
distorted or the like. Most often, it is simply a matter of contextualizing what was actually said in light of
the universal prophetic message that has not changed since the time of Abraham ملسو هيلع هللا ىلص. While this is a faith
based analysis, it is still a criterion by which we can approach what has been canonized by the Church.
With this very lengthy “introduction”, I hope that my response and position regarding your question has
been made clear. What follows from here will be a much briefer response to what. you have shared with
me. ]]
I’ll break this down into three parts:
1) Prophecy and Promises → “The time is fulfilled.”
The gospel is the fulfillment of ancient Jewish promises describing God’s victory over the tyranny
of evil, sin, death, Satan and all spiritual forces of darkness. Jesus saw his Gospel ministry as the
inauguration of that victory which includes forgiveness of sins, gathering a people for himself from
all families of the earth, overthrowing the sinful kingdoms of man and restoring his creation to its
rightful glory.
[[ The very first matter of importance here is the separation between the first and second statements,
taking one single statement and dividing it into two. One can just as easily read this (and no less
accurately), “The time is fulfilled, the Kingdom of God is at hand.” This may seem like nitpicking but it
isn’t. It is pointing out that by dividing it, there is much more read into what could be a simple, self
explanatory statement.
However, my problem with this is the Christian claim, “the fulfillment of ancient Jewish promises
describing God’s victory over the tyranny of evil, sin, death, Satan and all spiritual forces of darkness.”
This is something that is very easy to disprove by stating the obvious – over the last century (let alone the
previous two millennia) the world has seen some of the greatest tyranny, evil and sin. It has seen more
deaths (perhaps) than any other century in the history of man. Mankind has wandered far from faith and
seemingly clings to the footsteps of Satan in our day and age and the spiritual forces of darkness have
become as a cloud over the hearts and minds around the world. I do not know how anyone could deny
that which is as clear as the sun on a cloudless day.
3
As for the claim that Jesus ملسو هيلع هللا ىلص saw his Gospel ministry as the inauguration of that victory – I would agree.
I believe he understood that his mission was certainly part of God’s promises of victory and of salvation.
I would even agree with your saying, “that victory which includes forgiveness of sins”, as he is recorded
as having taught everywhere the means to attain the forgiveness of God…as we have discussed many
times now – 1.) firm and sincere belief in the Oneness of God and the Messiah of Jesus who was sent by
God, 2.) adherence to the commandments, 3.) repentance when one falls short.
However, I would argue that the idea of “gathering a people for himself from all families of the earth”
was not something necessarily understood in his lifetime and was something introduced later based on the
conversion of the gentiles and the spread of the Pauline Church amongst them. Jesus ملسو هيلع هللا ىلص on the other
hand, working within his own tradition, spoke of the nations – which would have referred specifically to
the twelve tribes which is why, in the beginning, a gentile had to become a Jew before being accepted into
Christianity.
And, finally, similar to my first objection, we can easily point to the fact that the “overthrowing the sinful
kingdoms of man and restoring his creation to its rightful glory” has not occurred on a wide scale at any
period, from the life of Christ until our day.
Due to all of this, I maintain the simpler understanding that this first line, “the time if fulfilled”, is
explained by the second line, “the Kingdom of God is at hand”. ]]
2) Power → “The kingdom of God is at hand.”
In the Gospel, God takes back his good world by force. This is why Jesus would preach the Gospel
and forgive sins, cast out demons, heal diseases and raise the dead to life. Jesus’ miracles are a
declaration that God was reestablishing his visible reign. God’s power in the Gospel is also seen by
the coming of the Holy Spirit, who overcomes the depravity of the sinful human condition and gives
spiritual life, bringing repentance, saving faith in Jesus, joy and many other benefits. This is called
the new birth (or being born again or born again from above).
[[ I think that it is critical to look at this in light of the Essenes. As opposed to the Pharisees and
Sadducees, the Essenes were very ascetic in practice and apocalyptic in beliefs. While unmentioned in the
NT, many historians believe that Jesus ملسو هيلع هللا ىلص, like John the Baptist ملسو هيلع هللا ىلص, came from amongst this group. The
Jesus of the synoptic gospels was very much apocalyptic and I feel forced to question, was this because
he was Essene, simply because this was his teachings or, because the authors of the synoptic gospels were
influenced by Paul’s teachings which are very clearly apocalyptic in nature. Whatever the historic reality,
the early Church was certainly apocalyptic in beliefs and this was a source of their asceticism and
resilience in the face of tyranny – they believed that the worldly order was to soon come to an end and a
new kingdom would be brought about in their lifetime. Two thousand years later…
Still, you said, “This is why Jesus would preach the Gospel and forgive sins, cast out demons, heal
diseases and raise the dead to life.” Perhaps my most important response to this is, according to the NT, so
did the disciples. According to the NT, the disciples of Jesus ملسو هيلع هللا ىلص were able to do each and every one of
these things…and much of it before the crucifixion…hence, it was not unique to Jesus ملسو هيلع هللا ىلص, nor was it a
result of the events of the Pentecost or the like.
4
You said, “Jesus’ miracles are a declaration that God was reestablishing his visible reign.” And I would
ask, what about the miracles of those before him or the disciples after him, or the earliest church fathers,
or even the Prophet Muhammad ملسو هيلع هللا ىلص?
As you know, we Muslims also verify the miracles of Jesus ملسو هيلع هللا ىلص, and in some cases, even greater miracles.
However, we see this as a sign from God, as Jesus ملسو هيلع هللا ىلص himself taught. More specifically, it was a
validation of Jesus’ ملسو هيلع هللا ىلص mission, supporting him as having been sent by God.
You added that “God’s power in the Gospel is also seen by the coming of the Holy Spirit, who overcomes
the depravity of the sinful human condition and gives spiritual life, bringing repentance, saving faith in
Jesus, joy and many other benefits.”
While there is a lot to unpack in this, I will do my utmost to condense. 1.) the Holy Spirit did not come
after Jesus ملسو هيلع هللا ىلص but was present long before him. 2.) the Depravity of the sinful human condition has not
been overcome…even by the most spiritual and devout believers of any faith. 3.) repentance is a door that
has ever been opened and has not been closed. It was known, taught and utilized by the Prophets of old
and their communities and was not brought by either Jesus ملسو هيلع هللا ىلص or the Holy Spirit. 4.) I think a topic worth
exploring is this concept that the Holy Spirit brought about the “saving faith in Jesus” … but it is enough
to mark this here for future discussions.
Perhaps my greatest opposition to this is the claim that, “In the Gospel, God takes back his good world by
force.” It has an implicit assumption that God’s good world was somehow not under His authority and so,
He had to take it back…by force. I do not accept the notion that anyone has power alongside of God and
that everything that occurs at every moment of time, in every aspect of creation, happens only by the
knowledge, will and power of God Almighty. And yet, even if we were to agree on this premise you’ve
stated, the history of the very first century CE would seem to fly in the face of this…not to mention the
many centuries which have followed.
I believe that what Jesus ملسو هيلع هللا ىلص taught was true and I believe that he will return and fight against the
antichrist before establishing a Kingdom of God upon the earth in the Last Days. This is something I have
certainty in. But how imminent it is, God alone knows. What we can know is, given your explanation of
what you have explained here, I would contend, we are not witnesses to this claim.
As for the final statement, “This is called the new birth”, this is not a concept I am unfamiliar with or
reject. While we do not call it “being born again”, the meanings are very close to the Islamic concept of
Hijra. ]]
3) Personal Response → “Repent and believe the gospel.”
Embedded in the gospel Jesus preached was a call to turn from sin and put your trust in him as
Savior. You must turn from sin to obedience to Christ as Lord. Because the kingdom is at hand the
call to repentance is urgent.
[[ A good place for me to begin is to state that I read this as a call to action. Jesus ملسو هيلع هللا ىلص just told the people,
“the time is fulfilled, the Kingdom of God is at hand” … the question then would be, “so what?”. If that is
the case, what should we be doing? This is good information, but how is it “actionable”? Jesus ملسو هيلع هللا ىلص then
directs them with exactly what this means to us – “repent!!!” Repent and believe. Believe in what? The
Good News of God regarding Salvation.
5
As for repentance, as stated earlier, this was not a new concept. It was established long before Jesus ملسو هيلع هللا ىلص
(and the world over) by other prophets sent by God. This is a call to turn away from sins, turn towards
righteousness and devote one’s self to God and obedience to His guidance. In Islam, this entails that one
regret the wrongs they did, ceases doing them and intend to never return to them again.
I find it important to point out that, according to 1 John, repentance totally purifies one of wrongs as we
read, “If we repent of our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all
unrighteousness.” (1:9) as well as Acts 3:19, “Now repent and turn to God, so that your sins may be
wiped out.” This is also echoed in the Qur’an as well read, “say:‘O My servants who have wronged
yourselves, Never despair of God’s mercy! Indeed, God forgives all sins – indeed, He is the All-Forgiving,
Merciful” (39:53)
The difference between us comes in when you say, “and put your trust in him as Savior.” I believe that
Jesus ملسو هيلع هللا ىلص was indeed a means of Salvation. As many Bible scholars explain in commenting upon Luke,
Sawtayr – a savior – was understood as a means of salvation and, Judaism, the understanding of this was
one who would teach about sin and repentance,, one who would lead people to salvation …NOT someone
or something that would serve as a vicarious atonement. The “Martyr Prophet” was seen as someone who
would serve and sacrifice in order to show others how to live. He was a means by which God showed
people how to distance themselves from sin and how to deal with sin when they fall into it. Many of the
parables in Luke allude to this very fact. This is how I understand the verses that deal with Jesus ملسو هيلع هللا ىلص
speaking of sacrificing himself for others…not as one who removes the sins of others via vicarious
atonement but as one who taught, exemplified and sacrificed that they may be guided.
I’ll add to this, regarding your words, “obedience to Christ as Lord”, it depends on what you mean by
“Lord”. If you mean by that a master or a leader or a comforting caregiver … even one invested with
authority … I absolutely agree with you. This would be what he taught. If, however, you mean by “Lord”
“God”, then I vehemently disagree. I maintain that there is no indication in the Gospels that Jesus ملسو هيلع هللا ىلص
even insinuates that he is God. To the contrary, he tells us repeatedly that he is sent by God and that he is
powerless but for the help of God. The very fact that we call him the Messiah (Christ) entails that he is
NOT God but rather, one anointed by God.
And lest it be lost on us, this particular verse that you have shared is said to have been spoken by the
Messiah Jesus ملسو هيلع هللا ىلص after he was baptized by John and after Jesus ملسو هيلع هللا ىلص was tempted by Satan. Understanding
that God does not need a ritual cleansing from sin, many early Christians understood that it was at the
baptism that the “Logos” entered into Jesus ملسو هيلع هللا ىلص, while the gnostics preferred to erase the baptism from
their writings altogether (as we see in the Gospel attributed to John). Add to this, we have the successor
Jesus ملسو هيلع هللا ىلص appointed as head of the Church, James, telling us that “God cannot be tempted” (James 1:13).
So, just looking at the background of this proclamation by Jesus ملسو هيلع هللا ىلص makes its contextual understanding
all the more relevant. ]]
Jesus preached that these things were accomplished by his sacrificial death, victorious resurrection
and the coming of the Holy Spirit in power for people. This is what the Gospel of Jesus means.
This is why the Gospel is more than news or information but an invitation that requires a response.
God calls you, me and all people everywhere to repent and believe the gospel. Turn from sin. Agree
with God that you need a Savior. I agreed with God and repented 18 years ago.
6
[[ You said that Jesus preached this but I would contend that no where do we find Jesus ملسو هيلع هللا ىلص saying any of
these things, let alone all of them. In every single sermon we have recorded from him, he speaks of the
Kingdom of God, of love and ethics, of discipleship and the cost thereof and of judgement and
salvation…and in every case it is based on three – believe in God, upholding the commands and
repentance – all done by responding to and following him. (I already spoke about the idea of a Martyr
Prophet above.)
I fully appreciate you sharing this foundational verse and understanding of “The Gospel” according to not
just you but, most Christians around the world. I would argue that this understanding is not only
influenced by but created by the Pauline Church and later by the Imperial Church of Rome which set
about systematically destroying all opposition and their writings. As for myself, I believe that Jesus ملسو هيلع هللا ىلص
came with the revelation of God which was certainly more than news or information – it was indeed an
invitation … and one that certainly warrants a response!
We are in agreement with your assessment that it was an invitation “all people everywhere to repent and
believe the gospel”. The disagreement is in regards to what “The Gospel” to be believed in is…which is
the subject of this paper. While for the Christian it was to believe as you have shared in your response, for
the Muslim it is to heed his actual words and follow his example – to repent and turn away from sin,
worship the One he worshipped and treat others as he treated them. This was the universal message of
every Prophet sent by God (peace be upon them all). ]]
Other comments –
In our conversation back in October I asked, “What is the Injil (Gospel)?” You responded, “It is
the revelation revealed to Jesus. There is no written copy of that anywhere. No writing happened
during his lifetime. It was never written down.”
[[ I agree with this fully. But I also never claimed it to be a “book” written down..in his lifetime or
thereafter. I absolutely believe that the Injeel (Gospel/Good News) was a revelation given to Jesus ملسو هيلع هللا ىلص
which he conveyed during his lifetime. Many memorized portions of his teachings and communicated
them orally and later, some of this was written by those who remembered (such as the Gospel of Thomas)
and still later, entire narratives were spun around those teachings. To confuse the narrative stories written
about one year of Jesus’ life ملسو هيلع هللا ىلص with “The Gospel”, I believe is erroneous. If one wishes to know what the
Good News was, it is wiser (in my estimation) to look at the sermons and preaching of Jesus ملسو هيلع هللا ىلص – what he
actually taught to all people, not just those recorded as his inner circle while traveling (albeit, I am NOT
saying this did not contain those teachings also). If his mission was to proclaim the Good News of God to
all people, surely this is what would be the central focus of his public discourses.
Of course, the question you have asked repeatedly will come up again here – “Well, what source do you
have other than the Bible?” I think I answered my approach to this at the beginning of this paper,
however, I should add that we have many, many books that were hidden away to be protected from the
destruction of the Church…and some that were preserved in the writings of the Church itself. Amongst
them are the Didache, the Gospel of Thomas, The Epistle of Diognetus, the Epistle of Barnabas (even if
one rejects the Gospel of Barnabas, the Epistle of Barnabas and The Shepherd of Hermes were both
included in the Codex Sinaiticus as “scriptures” used by the earliest Churches along with what is now
considered canon), and many other gospels, epistles, as well as accounts of Jesus’ ملسو هيلع هللا ىلص teachings and
miracles such as the writings of Papias and Quadratus. I mention this to say that, while we must rely on
the writings of the earliest Christian communities for written documentation of his teachings, this is not
7
limited to the Bible and it is certainly not limited to the Churches understandings and interpretations. As
for my criterion regarding any and all of these works, I have already mentioned this earlier. ]]
This response carries Islamic assumptions that Jesus is merely a prophet with a message from God
for a people, similar to Moses, Isaiah or David. But the Bible treats the Gospel as the unfolding of
God’s planned victory in Christ and that Christ is more than a prophet, but the suffering Savior
and divine Son of God with all authority in heaven and on earth. This is why the new testament
narratives record the works of Jesus (Gospels) and the Spirit (Acts) and not simply his teaching. It
is in the life, death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus and coming of the Spirit that you find the
Gospel! This is the Gospel of God and this is what Jesus’ disciples intended to preserve in their
writings.
[[ I agree that my response carries assumptions…and I would hope that you would agree that your’s does
as well. What I don’t agree on, however, is the assessment that Islam estimates Jesus ملسو هيلع هللا ىلص as “merely a
prophet with a message from God for a people, similar to Moses, Isaiah or David.” Rather, in Islam there
is no difference of opinion (as it is firmly established in the Qur’an and strenuously verified Prophetic
Narrations) that Jesus ملسو هيلع هللا ىلص was the Word of God and a Spirit from Him, he was born of the virgin birth and
strengthened with the Holy Spirit. He ملسو هيلع هللا ىلص is the Messiah, taken up into the heavens alive and he will
return in the Last Days to fight and defeat the anti-christ before establishing the Kingdom of God upon
the earth. This, while also acknowledging that he was a Prophet and a Messenger according to the Islamic
understanding of these terms.
You said, “the Bible treats the Gospel as the unfolding of God’s planned victory in Christ…” to which I
would contend the Bible truly is open to interpretation and your conclusion depends on a reading based
solely upon the teachings of the Pauline Church (or an understanding rooted in that world view).
As for your words, “the suffering Savior and divine Son of God with all authority in heaven and on
earth”, I have already addressed another understanding of “suffering savior” accepted in some Christian
circles. As for “Son of God”, we have discussed this as well. While in Islam this term is not used due to
the misuse of it in history, the original meaning as was used throughout Jewish tradition is not
problematic in Islam. To say Jesus ملسو هيلع هللا ىلص was the Son of God would not be a problem but for the very real
pagan implications. To understand that he ملسو هيلع هللا ىلص was a pious, righteous and learned servant of God of the
highest order … there is no difference of opinion in that. To believe that God begets or can be begotten, or
that God in-dwells in creation, can be impure and imperfect, that He can be made to suffer, let alone be
killed, that he may be hungry or ignorant or weep tears or pray … these ideas are absolutely incompatible
not just with the Islamic concept of God but with reason. So, if one means by “Son of God” that God
actually has offspring that share in His nature – this is completed rejected by the Pharisees, the Sadducees,
the Essenes and the Muslims…and I would contend is in direct opposition to the beliefs, teachings and
practices of Christ Jesus himself ملسو هيلع هللا ىلص. As it is a violation of the first commandments themselves, I feel I
must state this in the strongest of terms.
You then went on, “This is why the new testament narratives record the works of Jesus (Gospels) and the
Spirit (Acts) and not simply his teaching. It is in the life, death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus and
coming of the Spirit that you find the Gospel!” My only real response here is to say that this is conjecture
and a reading into. I would argue that the Gospels (each written, not as part of a collection but, as singular
books) were written for the purposes they state – as a historic account and a narrative of events.
8
You ended with, “This is the Gospel of God and this is what Jesus’ disciples intended to preserve in their
writings.” I want to thank you again for taking your time to clarify what you mean by the usage of the
word Gospel. I truly do appreciate it. I believe I have shown through this that I do not necessarily agree
with you, why and what I do actually believe the Gospel to be.
I believe that I have also, at the very beginning, pointed out that the claim that the disciples of Jesus ملسو هيلع هللا ىلص
wrote any surviving account of Jesus’ time on earth is not accurate. Of the four canonical Gospels, two
are named for disciples, one for the student of a disciple and one for the student of Paul (who, while
Christians view him as an Apostle, was more akin to an Apostolic Father. When we look at the Gospel
attributed to Matthew, not only does he refer to the disciples Mathew in the third person, he also is very
dependent upon the Gospel attributed to Mark. If he was an eye witness, surely he would not need to
utilize other sources for his own accounting. What is more, why did he wait over four decades to write it?
And why wasn’t it attributed to him until the mid second century?
Similarly, if we look at the Gospel attributed to John we would be forced to ask, how did this Hebrew
fisherman who was a simple, common fisher who spoke Aramaic, write in high level rhetorical Greek?
Why did he wait for seventy years before writing, why does he angle to make the disciple John’s status so
important and why was this text originally assumed to be from and for the gnostic Church rather than the
Pauline Church? And again, it wouldn’t be for several more decades that this text would be
pseudepigraphically attributed to the disciple.
I only wish that the teachings of Jesus ملسو هيلع هللا ىلص were better recorded and preserved by his disciples…but man
plans and God plans and God’s plan will be done. ]]
The Gospel can be referred to colloquially as a book. I believe this is how the Quran refers to it.
By the 7th century, when the Quran was being written, the writings of the Jews and Christians were
already well established and static. Many Muslims read the Quran and expect that the Injil is a
book revealed to Jesus and written down by him or his disciples or scribes. It is disorienting for
many Muslims to read the Gospels with these Islamic assumptions. The Gospels as written texts are
best analyzed on their own terms: God offers men forgiveness and a place in his eternal kingdom
through faith in Christ’s atoning death and victorious resurrection. These events are recorded by
trustworthy eyewitness testimony.
[[ You said, “The Gospel can be referred to colloquially as a book. I believe this is how the Quran refers
to it.” I would agree with this statement. It is only colloquially referred to as a book. If I had to define its
terms in the most broad and loose of terms, I believe that “revelation” would suffice. It was a revelation to
Jesus ملسو هيلع هللا ىلص which he taught to the people. Some was remembered, some was written, some was lost. But to
mistake the colloquial term with an actual “book” … just to be clear, bound books didn’t even exist in the
Levant until around the second century and didn’t become common until around the fourth century. If I
am not mistaken, there was no such thing as bound books in the entire world until the very last decades of
the first century.
You went on, “Many Muslims read the Quran and expect that the Injil is a book revealed to Jesus and
written down by him or his disciples or scribes”, to which I must respond that this is grossly false.
Perhaps there are some Muslims who, in their ignorance assume that the Gospels in the Bible are
somehow “The Injeel” that was revealed to Jesus ملسو هيلع هللا ىلص, but I have never met a Muslim who thought the
Gospel was an actual physical book written by Jesus ملسو هيلع هللا ىلص. (And, for the record, Christians believe it was
written by his disciples, as you’ve noted in your response.) I think you are making assumptions based on
propaganda you have heard rather than from actual experiences you have had, which is unfortunate given
9
your background. Still, let me say that if “many” do, it is only because there are “many” people who
never seem to take the time to learn…and this is a universal statement aimed at humanity as a whole.
Despite that, I believe that the vast majority of Muslims, especially those who are educated even a small
amount, understand the Gospel to be a specific revelation revealed upon Jesus ملسو هيلع هللا ىلص meant as a “Scripture”
and a “Teaching”. Like those revelations before it, while the Messengers and their circumstances certainly
do inform the context of the Message, the Message and the Messenger are not the same.
There are only two more statements which I really want to point out. You said, “The Gospels as written
texts are best analyzed on their own terms…” and, “These events are recorded by trustworthy eyewitness
testimony”. As I begin to conclude this work, I want to say that I agree with your first statement here and
disagree with your second. I hope that I have demonstrated a willingness and a sincere effort with regard
to the first and demonstrated grounds for reasonable doubt regarding the second. What is more, I would
encourage you to do the same – analyze the four canonical Gospels on their own terms, isolated, one from
another, and more importantly, isolated from the theology that brought them together. Analyze them based
on their historical backdrop and the lands, people, traditions and circumstances in which they were each
written. What is more, I invite you to simply acknowledge the fact (and it is a fact) that no one at all
knows who wrote these four books. We don’t even know if they were students of eyewitnesses (and in
one case, that of Luke, we know he wasn’t).
As I said in the beginning, this is not to deny that the authors were Christians, almost certainly sincere,
and writing for a Christian audience what they believed to be true. It is also not to deny that the scribes
who came later, those who made mistakes and those who intentionally altered texts, were also sincere and
did not intend any “malice”. None of this, however, negates that no one can be certain with regard to the
authorship or preservation of these text and to claim about them what they do not claim for themselves,
that they are the truthful, inerrant word of God, is betraying the statement that they should be analyzed on
their own terms. ]]
There is more to say. But I’ll stop here and look forward to your response.
[[ There is always much more to be said. I intended a simple two to four page response and here I am on
page ten (and this is without being academic or using abundant references). To be fair, at least three of
these pages are just the presentation of your words but still, a lot longer than my intention. I apologize for
my verbosity.
I am aware that you said you don’t have much time for writing and so, I do not expect a written response
to this (although it would be enjoyed). I do, however, look forward to our discussing some points herein
in our conversations in the coming weeks.
Thank you again for sharing and thank you for giving me an opportunity to sit and detail my thoughts on
this matter.
This has been completed on Friday, January 16, 2026/the 27 Rajab 1447 AH – in Baltimore Md. By Wm.
Halim Breiannis.
We thank and praise God for this and we pray that He accepts this effort and makes it a means of good in
this life and the Hereafter – and in the end, all success is with Him alone. ]]
10