Historicity of Jesus Confirms Paul Resulting In Problems For Islam

Muslims often ask:

Where is the original Gospel of Jesus? I want the Gospel of Jesus! Show me the authentic gospel and teachings of Jesus!

This is because as they allege Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were not the only gospels in existance in early Christianity, in fact there was a whole bunch more gospels uncovered known as the Nag Hammadi Gospels. They found a Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Mary, Gospel of Philip, Gospel of Judas and more. Muslims then like to sweep all these Gospels in one group and claim them as equally invalid sources of the life of Jesus unless the Quran could be used as a criterion to determine which sayings are true or false or we could discover the original gospel of Jesus himself as the only legitimate source from Jesus!

The problem of course is the four canonical gospels ought not to be equated in authority and credibility with every other gospel since this is fallacious to any rational standards. First we have a hasty generalization, then we have a fallacy of equivocation. The second problem is the Quran and Sunnah never actually explictly teach Jesus wrote down his gospel, and thus Muslims begg the question (another logical fallacy) when they assume a Gospel of Jesus once existed in written form whether penned by Jesus or a companion.

What I would like to do in this post is investigate what are the most earliest and credible sources and arguments that can actually lead us to learn whether

1. Jesus existed, but does his existance contradict Islam unless Allah deceived those disciples of Jesus who he claims possessed the truth?
2. What his relatives and earliest disiples believed about him and
3. Whether there was a consensus or diversity of early sects of Christians  
4. Was Paul one of these sects among many and a perverter of the original apostles and Jesus?
5. If Muslim hopes of history are true originally according to the Quran, there was an early group of helpers(ansar) or disciples of Issa that originally followed the teachings of Jesus. Thus we should have atleast one group of Muslim followers of Jesus in the first century among the "sects" that existed.

To begin with Muslims need to make a more cogent argument. As simply stating there is a bunch of second, third and forth century gospels that make alsorts of wild, cooky, bizaare ridiculous claims about Jesus does not mean these sources are valid sources of history or taken seriously in scholarship or orthodox Christianity. A more better chain of reasoning for Muslims might be this:

1. From the earliest period of Christiandom multiple sects of Christianity existed with multiple gospels
2. None of these gospels are the Gospel of Jesus
3. None of these gospels come from a companion of Jesus or represent a companion of Jesus.
4. Paul (and other false apostles who did not know Jesus or his companions) changed the message from the Gospel of Jesus and had their own gospels and spread them
5. The Quran is the only valid criterion that can determine the truth in each othese gospels.

Here I have attempted to formulate a better line of reasoning for Muslim argumentation.

The problem is firstly there is no common ground. Neither Christians or Historians and Scholars of this period have ever advocated Jesus wrote down a gospel or got his disciples to write down a Gospel on behalf of him. Thus all of us here reject the very notion of a Gospel of Jesus as defined by Muslims, in fact it's called a logical fallacy known as an anachronism. Furthermore premise 3 maybe true in liberal circles, but the fact that a person who never met Jesus or a companion of Jesus wrote a gospel about Jesus does not categorically mean there is no history of Jesus contained in these Gospels (see below for why).

Secondly Liberal and Conveservative Scholarship all unanmiously assert the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) were all written in the first century and these Gospels are the earliest and closet to the events and person of Jesus out of all the gospels ever written. This again rules out the Gospel of Jesus and leaves us with three Gospels as the earliest and closest materials as represented in the New Testament.

Third, Historians and Scholars do not take these Gospels to be "infallible" and "inerrant", they take these gospels as historical sources which have errors, contradictions, true information, false information and mistakes.

Fourth while some more conservative Orthodox/Cahtolic/Protestant Christians take the view that two of the gospels were written by eye-witnesses and two of them were companions writing on behalf of an apostle, today this is virtually rejected in liberal scholarship. Today strictly speaking the Synoptic Gospel authors are all annyomous. However consertatives still maintain their is solid evidence for the authorship of these gospels through historical and church tradition (that will not be the focus here today, I grant the liberalistic assumption here).

What are we left with then? We are left with three Gospels, which are closest to the source (Jesus), no body knows for certain who is the author of any one. What is clear about these gospels however is they are written by followers of Jesus for Christian communities and they are distinct in genre and category as opposed to all other gospels. All other gospels maybe considered late and filled with theological underpinnings and have almost nothing to do with the time period or nature of the time of Jesus at hand. But the Synoptic Gospels are classified in the historical genre as biographies thus while they may have errors and other problems, they certainly do have history to be discovered by critical, rigorous standards of scholarship employeed through the historical method.

Sometimes these Synoptic Gospels are used as evidence (even between themselves) as a comparison to the Gospel of John and Gnostic Gospels to show an evolving Christology within early Christianity. A prevalant opinion in Scholarship is Jesus was only thought of by his original followers at the very least as a Man, an Apocalpytic Prophet or Son of God (in the created, adopted sense). Again I will not be disputing this premise in this post, though I think it's easily contestable. As a supplement to this argument it is pointed out that each Synoptic Gospel was written to a different community and a different audience, beginning with Mark the first written at maybe 75 A.D and later Matthew and Luke (before 90 A.D) who borrowed many aspects from Mark and some unknown oral tradition and source of Jesus teaching in scholarship enttiled "Q".

Q so far is merely a hypothetical composition of oral teachings of Jesus, but since Matthew and Luke both supposedly took from this source, the teachings of Q are preserved through the writings of the authors of  Matthew and Luke.

So while many Muslims wish to undermine the Synoptic Gospels, scholars have never used this reasoning to throw them under the bus. These are still historical sources with important information, while not completely perfect, no historical or even judeo source is reckoned perfect in this time period, not even Philo or Joesphus!

Now that you as a Muslim know more about these three gospels, you know other gospels are not even comparable in terms of historical value.

Going back to the Muslim argument then:

1. From the earliest period of Christianendom multiple sects of Christianity existed with multiple gospels
2. None of these gospels are the Gospel of Jesus
3. None of these gospels come from a companion of Jesus or represent a companion of Jesus.
4. Paul (and other false apostles who did not know Jesus or his companions) changed the message of the Gospel of Jesus and had his own gospel and spread it (along with other false apostles who did the same)
5. The Quran is the only valid criterion that can determine the truth in each othese gospels.

We now see 2, 3 and 5 are rejected as invalid reasons by all historians, scholarship and Christians to reject the Synoptic Gospels as having historical value. That leaves us with 1 and 4. Premise 1 is actually defended in many circles of Scholarship, Premise 4 is utterly rejected and only exclusive to Muslims.

So now lets look at 1 and 4. First were there multiple gospels and sects of Christians all conflicting with each other from the very earliest stages of Christianity? As I've already pointed out the earliest Gospels are Matthew, Mark and Luke, these are the only gospels dated to the first century. Hence the charge of "multiple Christians having multiple gospels" is false in the sense that the theology was so far apart like gnosticism, marcionism, but true in the sense that proto-orthodox communities had gospels of very simliar content. But so what? Just because people didn't write their own versions of the gospels in written form doesn't mean that they didn't have an oral teaching or gospel that contradict one another on a large scale! Lets have a look then. Taken from Wikipedia:

Diversity in early Christian theology

 

Traditionally, orthodoxy and heresy have been viewed in relation to the "orthodoxy" as an authentic lineage of tradition. Other forms of Christianity were viewed as deviant streams of thought and therefore "heterodox", or heretical. This view was dominant until the publication of Walter Bauer's Rechtgläubigkeit und Ketzerei im ältesten Christentum ("Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity") in 1934. Bauer endeavored to rethink Early Christianity historically, independent from the views of the current church. He stated that the 2nd century church was very diverse and included many "heretical" groups that had an equal claim to apostolic tradition. Bauer interpreted the struggle between the orthodox and heterodox to be the "mainstream" Church of Rome struggling to attain dominance. He presented Edessa and Egypt as places where the "orthodoxy" of Rome had little influence during the 2nd century. As he saw it, the theological thought of the "Orient" (in this case the Eastern Roman Empire) at the time would later be labeled "heresy". The response by modern scholars has been mixed. Some scholars clearly support Bauer's conclusions and others express concerns about his "attacking [of] orthodox sources with inquisitional zeal and exploiting to a nearly absurd extent the argument from silence."[1] However, modern scholars have critiqued and updated Bauer's model.[2] For example, subsequent analysis of Bauer's geographical model have generally fallen against Bauer such as in Egypt.[3]

 

Divisions

 

Perhaps one of the most important discussions among scholars of early Christianity in the past century is to what extent it is appropriate to speak of "orthodoxy" and "heresy". Higher criticism drastically altered the previous perception that heresy was a very rare exception to the orthodoxy. Bauer was particularly influential in the reconsideration of the historical model. During the 1970s, increasing focus on the effect of social, political and economic circumstances on the formation of early Christianity occurred as Bauer's work found a wider audience. Some scholars argue against the increasing focus on heresies. A movement away from presuming the correctness or dominance of the orthodoxy is seen as understandable, in light of modern approaches. However, they feel that instead of an even and neutral approach to historical analysis that the heterodox sects are given an assumption of superiority over the orthodox (or Proto-orthodox) movement. The current debate is vigorous and broad. While it is difficult to summarize all current views, general statements may be made, remembering that such broad strokes will have exceptions in specific cases.[4]

 

^ Ehrman, Bart (2003). Lost Christianities. New York: Oxford University Press. p. 173.

^ Hunt (2003). Pp 10-11.

^ Roberts, Manuscript, Society and Belief in Early Christian Egypt pp.51-52

^ Esler (2004). Pp 893-894.

Today this methodology is still corrborated by top scholars like Dr Bart Erhman:

Further more Scholars today not only apply this new methodology to the second century based on geographical indicators but rather use the New Testament as a basis to provide a religious identity and biography for the religious enemies of the authors of the New Testament:

It is therfore clear thas ever since the beginning multiple sects of Christianity have co-existed contemporarily and simetaneously each claiming to represent Jesus or each trying to attempt to appeal to an apostle or relative of the Lord Jesus for some kind of validation of their beliefs and/or writings.

Since all of these sects represent Jesus identity differently, it maybe historically difficult to pin point exactly who Jesus is. For starters, was he a real flesh and blood human? was he divine person appearing as a human? was he a human with no divinity? was he a pre-existant angel who became a human, was he God and Human? was he the adopted Son of God? was he a very real apocalptic prophet? was he a false prophet? was he a teacher passing on secret teachings of knowledge to a select group of students?

All of these ideas in some way or another have been represented various sects and their opinions of Jesus while many of them claim to have a lineage and represent a close associate or apostle of Jesus.

Many scholars deem all variant sects of Christianity as "Christian" and anyone claiming to be a Christian in the first and second century is deemed a Christian no matter how diverse their beliefs.

The argument originally began by Bauer has now extended to a very early period after the death of Jesus, meaning they advocate a wide range of diverse Christian sects existed from the beginning each representing their own views. Scholars argue this and as their basis use the epistles of Paul (specifically seven authentic epistles), and the Johanine corpus. Scholars thus appeal to the New Testament to substantiate the claim there was a wide range of diverse Christian opinion about Jesus from the beginning.

However if we reject the assumption that all Christianity began as diverse and multiplicity of sects and accept the assumption that Christianity began as a single orthodox sect that eventually sprang into various heterodox sects we can still clearly find evidence in the New Testament for the latter.

To begin with John's epistles are usually dated between 90-110 A.D. Thus any sects the Johanine epistles attempt to offer an anti-docetist polemic against come much later, and we must ask why no other epistle addresses these docetists if they were a sect existing as early as 50 A.D.? What we have here then is not an argument from silence, but the argument that we would expect authors of epistles to attack docetists with polemics earlier if indeed these sects existed just like the author of John has!

What about the Pauline Corpus? Firstly Paul seems to have contentious issues with James and Peter according to his own writings. Paul also refers to people in his epistles like 1st Corinthians that seem to have severe disagreements. Is it quite clear then that Paul was one brand of Christianity among a host of Christians proposing different ideas including the very relatives and disciples and all kinds of churches themselves of which none could agree upon?

This again seems to be a problematic intepretation of the data as it does not take all of the data into account and fails to provide the best explanation of everything. If the New Testament can be used to show Paul had opposition and multiple sects existed, it can also be shown to point out how Christianity was really Orthodox and Monolithic in general with very little exception except in minor disputes. It can also be shown there were no severe theological disagreements enough to form multiple branches of Christianity and complete diversity and chaos as is often suggested.

If we look at the Pauline epistles the best explanation of all the data is there was minor disputes, but not theological departings or inventions of new gospels or religions, indeed there was no great schism. Furthermore we have indisputable evidence that contradicts the view that Paul was an abomination corrupting the religion of Jesus and perverting it and inventing his own Gospel. In addition we have evidence Paul even knew the relatives and companions (apostles) of Jesus, not only did he know them, he was extended the right hand of fellowship.

Lets begin:

(Galations 2:11-16) But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. For BEFORE CERTAIN men came from James, he was eating with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party. And the rest of the Jews acted HYPOCRITICALLY  along with him, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy. But when I saw that their conduct was not in step with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, "If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you force the Gentiles to live like Jews?" We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners; yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.

In early Christianity then there was a division. James the brother of Jesus was the head of the group of Jewish believers in Jerusalem who behaved like they were superior to Gentiles. Gentiles who converted to the religion had to be circumcised to belong to the covenant, and Jews were not to eat with Gentiles.

 

What can we learn from this?

1) Paul knew Cephas (Apostle Peter)

 

2) Paul knew James (brother and relative of Jesus)

 

3) Paul pubically opposed Peter and condemned him for adhereing to false tradition. Paul therefore had enough apostilic authority to rebuke Peter in public which pressuposes his apostlic authority

 

4) Peter and Barnabus both originally had no problem eating with Gentiles. (familiarity)

 

5) Paul knew the rest of the Jews (acting along with Peter)

 

6) Paul had no problem addressing Peter infront of these Jews (showing he is pressuposing his apostleship and authority, otherwise he would fear them as a lesser servant or gospel perverter)

Later at the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15) a commandment was ratified by the apostles John, James, Peter, Paul etc where they reckoned Gentiles to be free from circumcision, since they were part of the body of Messiah through spiritual circumcision, a proccess not documented by Paul but the book of Acts, a first century unknown author reporting the history of the Church.

 

The problem is if as Muslims suggest Paul was a perverter and corrupter of the Gospel we have several possible options

 

1) The story is made up (fabricated by Paul)

2) The story was modified (Paul changed the information)

 

Unfortunately for Muslims it was impossible for Paul to make up the story as Cephas (Peter) was a contemporary who could easily expose Paul as having lied in his epistles, an in fact the very churches Paul set up and wrote to, (who also knew Cephas) could have exposed Paul to Peter. If the story was modified by Paul, the same reasons can be used to notify Peter of Paul's deception, especially if Paul was overbearing his mark.

 

Another question is there any bias theological motive for making up this story? For starters these verses merely assert no one is justified by the works of the Law, they never state not to observe the law, hence this charge cannot be made. Paul clearly observes as much of the Law as possible when charged with doing the opposite (Acts 15). Paul clearly rebukes Peter for taking part in an oral tradition (to seperate themselves from Gentiles), something Islam and the Quran agree with. Allah in the Quran constantly rebukes Rabbi's for placing their own commands over that of his own. Furthermore there is no wild elements, or legendary tales to the story, and the story is compatible with all of the other contemporary sources. Thus there is nothing inherently in this narrative that seems implausible.

 

Moving on:

(1 Corinthians 9:1-5) Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are not you my workmanship in the Lord? If to others I am not an apostle, at least I am to you, for you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord. This is my defense to those who would examine me. Do we not have the right to eat and drink? Do we not have the right to take along a believing wife, as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?

Here we see at the Church of Corinth the congregation was selectively choosing which Apostles to follow, some followed Cephas, Apollo or Paul, each came up with different reasoning and justification. Yet Paul in his apostlic authority who appeals to his own conversion testimony and his own place as founder of the Church as a source of authentication then reasons with the congregation that all the Apostles, Peter and Jesus have the rights, and obviously the Apostles are not super-human, they are allowed to eat, drink and be married. Paul thus uses his apostolic authority, testimony and status and appeal to the contemporary apostles and the Lord as a basis to have these rights. Again we see Paul knew the disciple posse and exerting his own authority as rebuke enough. Of course if Paul was an evil perverter and rejected by all contemporaries , companions and relatives of Jesus this would be impossible.

(1 Corinthians 1:1-16) Paul, called by the will of God to be an apostle of Christ Jesus, and our brother Sosthenes, To the church of God that is in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints together with all those who in every place call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, both their Lord and ours: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. I give thanks to my God always for you because of the grace of God that was given you in Christ Jesus, that in every way you were enriched in him in all speech and all knowledge—even as the testimony about Christ was confirmed among you—so that you are not lacking in any gift, as you wait for the revealing of our Lord Jesus Christ, who will sustain you to the end, guiltless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ. God is faithful, by whom you were called into the fellowship of his Son, Jesus Christ our Lord. I appeal to you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment. For it has been reported to me by Chloe's people that there is quarreling among you, MY BROTHERS. What I mean is that each one of you says, "I follow Paul," or "I follow Apollos," or "I follow Cephas," or "I follow Christ." Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius,so that no one may say that you were baptized in my name. (I did baptize also the household of Stephanas. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized anyone else.)

Paul here first appeals to the supernatural confirmation of Christ providing gifts to the Church, then Paul appeals to the Lord Jesus to cease division and argument. Of course how could Paul do this if these people who had encountered Apollo and Cephas had been told Paul was an imposter? Further more the division here is not enough to cause Paul to refer this as an emergency or stop calling them his brothers. Hence the division is false by orthodox standards, and represents nothing like gnosticism, docetism which would provide them an entirely different world view. Liberal scholars are therefore exageratting and going further than the text itself.

 

Finally: 

(1 Corinthians 15:1-8) Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.

Notice if there was a multiplicity of heretrodox views and denominations why does Paul affirm his congregation is standing fast and being saved if they continue to believe? Furthermore if Paul was a false apostle why does he say "last of all he appealed to me" when any member of the Congregation could easily check up on Paul's claim to the apostles themselves, they could also appeal to a wide variety of contemporaries (over 500) to falsify Paul's lies according to Paul's own testimony! Further more Paul clearly appeals to tradition of what he had received as authorative, again demonstrating Paul's connection to many early contemporaries who knew Jesus who could expose him if he was lying.

For these reasons and more, liberal agnostic scholars like Bart Erhman have suggested Paul's testimony is authentic. Not only that Erhman suggests that Paul did experience a vision of Jesus and was attested to and approved of by Peter, John and Paul. Note his comments about Jesus and Paul in these videos and the beliefs of the earliest companions of Jesus:

The only point Liberal Scholars and Muslims agree on here is premise 1 that idea that multiple sects existed each having perverse and radically different theologies. However Liberals unlike Muslims do not advocate a single true sect (e.g. Muslims or Unitarians). Liberal scholarship utterly contradicts Muslims when it comes to the Apostle Paul and Apostles of Jesus all who belonged to one big family who like every other family went through some disputes. Further more the Quran only appears to be aware of two groups Jesus followers, and Jesus enemies (3:55;61:7) which contradicts the Liberal view.

This however proposes huge problems for Muslims.

Both liberal and consertative scholarship agree Paul lived, breathed, knew the apostles of Jesus, was accepted by the Apostles of Jesus. Paul was faithful to the message of the Apostles of Jesus and in his Apostleship often appealed to them, his own testimony, the Lord Jesus, tradition and other sources as authorative. Both Liberals and Conservatives believe the best sources on the life of Jesus are the Synoptic Gospels and Authentic Pauline Corpus.

Secondly Liberals and Conservative scholars both agree the most earliest beliefs of the "family of Jesus" (by that I include everyone who knew him or a companion of those who knew him), believed in the death, burial and ressurection of Jesus. Bart Erhman (why even Richard Carrier!) while not accepting the Ressurection for personal reasons, are atleast honest enough to admit this was the earliest belief about Jesus in known history. Thus the historical reality is this 1) Jesus died by crucifixion 2) His family and companions believe he rose from the dead. Of course this destroys any intepretation of Quran Chapter 4:157-159 that is incompatible with the Ressurection, unless Muslims admit Allah deceived the very helpers of Jesus himself even though he claimed they possessed the truth and then promised them to be superior over their enemies until judgement (3:55).

Statements and Questions for Muslims

Please prove Issa(Jesus) existed without appealing to the Pauline corpus or the Synoptic Gospels. As all these texts and intepretations of these texts by liberal and conservative scholarship all pressupose the earliest beliefs of Jesus include his death, burial and ressurection.

If you argue Allah made it appear like Jesus died (and then his family and followers belived he was alive later), how is it possible Allah could deceive the very sahaba of Jesus into believe Jesus rose from the dead? when they possessed the truth and supremacy according to the Quran? Also why did Allah wait nearly 600 years to repair this mistake?

How do you demonstrate the existance of Jesus without Paul? How do you demonstrate the existance of Jesus without using the Synoptics? These sources all pressupose the crucifixion and ressurection as the earliest beliefs, yet if Muslims refuse to appeal to these sources to validate the existance of Jesus, there is no historical basis for believing Issa existed!

Lastly say you disregard the Synoptics and Epistles and appeal to secular history. Is it not true Joesphus, Tactics, Pliny the Younger all report a Jesus that was crucified and even worshipped as a God or Ressurected Man? Hence if you appeal to non-Biblical historical sources, you still cannot validate the claim that Issa existed.

Note the dilemma folks.

1. In order to have any knowledge and evidence Jesus actually existed and was a real living human being, according to all scholarship the only way is to either accept a) The synoptic sources b) The epistle Sources c) The secular historical sources
2. All these sources teach the death, crucifixion and ressurection of Jesus
3. Islam denies the death, crucifixion and ressurection of Jesus
4. Islam contradicts these sources and cannot accept these sources
5. Islam cannot accept Jesus existed as a historical person
6. Contradiction: Islam claims Jesus existed as a historical person

Lets say a Muslim claims they know Jesus existed because the Quran tells them. Please provide us with a biography of Issa, so we can know: Where he lived, who his parents were, was he adopted? where was he raised? where did he go to school? what was his profession? who were his companions? who were his enemies? where did he receive revelations from Allah? etc

If you admit Issa is not Jesus, then please give your reasoning for why you reject the ressurection of Jesus, since he's not even the same character. Furthermore if Issa is not Jesus who did Allah trick into think Issa was on the cross? Meaning Who were Issa's enemies and why did Allah deceive them specifically, give details.

The truth is Jesus existed, but does his existance contradict Islam unless Allah deceived those disciples of Jesus who he claims possessed the truth?

Finally note in history not even a single shred of evidence exists that comports with the Islamic view that an original group of Muslim unitarian monotheists who were students of the great Prophet Issa, were the true possessors of truth and their religion prevailed over all others. This is contradicted by both conservative and liberal scholarship and is quite obviously a blantant anachronism imposed by the Quran.

Note also all four premises of the original Muslim argument are shattered and contradict known and ascertainable history:

1. From the earliest period of Christiandom multiple sects of Christianity existed with multiple gospels --- Not all scholars agree, I've shown you why
2. None of these gospels are the Gospel of Jesus ---Imaginary
3. None of these gospels come from a companion of Jesus or represent a companion of Jesus. -- Irrelevant since we can still attain important historical information through historical research and methodology
4. Paul (and other false apostles who did not know Jesus or his companions) changed the message from the Gospel of Jesus and had their own gospels and spread them -- Utterly false even in liberal scholarship
5. The Quran is the only valid criterion that can determine the truth in each othese gospels. -- The Quran never even suggests the Gospel is corrupt or that there are multiple gospels that need evaluating.

And that's all for now folks!

Buddha Akbar!

Watch below for more historical evidence regarding Paul life, his validty and relationship with the apostles: