Barahin-e-Ahmadiyya Part IV — Page 274
BarĀhĪn-e-a H madiyya — Part Four 274 nascent existence, birth, confinement within a physical body, and death. In fact, according to the teachings of the Gospel, the god of the Christians is a new god—or, as it were, He is the same God, who unfor- tunately underwent much suffering, and thus, His final state has totally changed from his earlier state of being Eternal and Everlasting. Having remained All-Sustaining and Immutable since eternity, ultimately, His All-Sustaining powers were completely reduced to dust. Moreover, Christian authorities themselves admit that the entirety of the Gospel was not written down as revealed; rather, Matthew etc. wrote many of their accounts after hearing them from other people. Indeed, in the Gospel of Luke, Luke himself admits that he wrote what he had inquired from those who had seen the Messiah. By mak- ing this statement, Luke has admitted that his Gospel is not revealed; otherwise, what was the need for asking other people after the rev- elation? Similarly, it is not proven that Mark was ever a disciple of the Messiah; then, how could he be an apostle? In any case, all four Gospels are neither preserved in their original form, nor are they—by their own admission—revealed. This is why all kinds of errors have found their way into the accounts of the Gospels, and the original text was written altogether differently. This is why all learned Christian authorities agree that the Gospel is not the pure word of God; rather, like a village of divided ownership, a part of it belongs to God and another to man. It is true that, in their extreme naivety, some ignorant Christians do sometimes claim that, on the basis of its teachings, the Gospel is also unique and matchless. That is to say, that man does not have the power to create its like; and this, they say, proves that its teaching is the word of God. They describe the uniqueness and matchlessness of the Gospel’s teaching by saying that great stress is laid in it on forgive- ness, clemency, goodness, and benevolence; and that on every occa- sion it forbids all confrontation with evil. Instead, it enjoins goodness in response to evil to the extent that having been struck on one cheek, it commands to offer the other cheek as well. Thus, by this argument,