1.2.7 Christianity's true founder, Paul, admits fabrication
Muslims do not claim that Jesus' true disciples tampered with the Bible, but that others claiming to act in their names did so later on. This is attested to by the fact that the Trinitarian church felt it necessary to totally obliterate all Gospel manuscripts written before 325 AD when they officially introduced the "Trinity" to the world. This is why we find such serious contradictions in even the most basic of its teachings. For example, we are told that Saul of Tarsus (St. Paul) is the author of the majority of the books of the New Testament. He is claimed to be the author of Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Phillippians, Colossians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, and Hebrews. We would expect such a pivotal character in the Bible and the author of the majority of the New Testament books to be able to keep his stories straight at least in such fundamental matters as how he became a Christian and was "saved." However, we can find in the Bible a sworn affidavit by Paul that he is guilty of fabrication. Sound incredible? Let us have a look:
If we read Acts 9:19-29 and Acts 26:19-21, we will find that Paul was busy persecuting the followers of Jesus in Jerusalem and dragging them from their homes to be tortured, killed or converted, when suddenly one day he decided to branch out and persecute them in Damascus. For this reason, he goes to the High Priest asking for letters sanctioning such actions in Damascus. Why he would do this since the High Priest of Jerusalem had no authority over Damascus remains a mystery to many, however, let us continue.
Shortly after setting out to continue his evil work in Damascus, Paul is supposed to have "seen the Lord in the way" and accepted Christianity after being a staunch enemy of Christians and having become famous for his severe persecution of them. Barnabas (one of the apostles of Jesus) then supposedly vouched for him with the other apostles and convinced them to accept him. Paul then went with all of the apostles on a preaching campaign in and out of Jerusalem and all of Judaea preaching boldly to its people. Paul then appointed himself the twelfth apostle of Jesus (in place of Judas who had the devil in him) as seen in his own books Romans 1:1, 1 Corinthians 1:1 ..etc..
The verses mentioned are:
"And when he (Paul) had received meat, he was strengthened. Then was Saul (Paul) certain days with the disciples which were at Damascus. And straightway he preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God. But all that heard him were amazed, and said; Is not this he that destroyed them which called on this name in Jerusalem, and came hither for that intent, that he might bring them bound unto the chief priests? But Saul increased the more in strength, and confounded the Jews which dwelt at Damascus, proving that this is very Christ. And after that many days were fulfilled, the Jews took counsel to kill him: But their laying await was known of Saul. And they watched the gates day and night to kill him. Then the disciples took him by night, and let him down by the wall in a basket. And when Saul was come to Jerusalem, he assayed to join himself to the disciples: but they were all afraid of him, and believed not that he was a disciple. But Barnabas took him, and brought him to the apostles, and declared unto them how he had seen the Lord in the way, and that he had spoken to him, and how he had preached boldly at Damascus in the name of Jesus. And he was with them coming in and going out at Jerusalem. And he spake boldly in the name of the Lord Jesus, and disputed against the Grecians: but they went about to slay him."
"Whereupon, O king Agrippa, I was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision: But shewed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judaea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance. For these causes the Jews caught me in the temple, and went about to kill me."
"But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace, To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood: Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus. Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother. Now the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not. Afterwards I came into the regions of Syria and Cilicia; And was unknown by face unto the churches of Judaea which were in Christ: But they had heard only, That he which persecuted us in times past now preacheth the faith which once he destroyed."
With regard to the first two passages, Reverend Dr. Davies in "The First Christian," says: "These assertions are not inconsistent with each other, but are damaging for another reason,: they are contradicted by Paul himself in his letter to the Galatians (Chapters 1 and 2)." Rev. Davies draws attention to Paul's oath: "Now concerning the things which I write to you, indeed, before God I do not lie," which makes his account a sworn affidavit. He goes on to say:
"To the story in Acts, this contradiction is disastrous. There never was a teaching campaign at Jerusalem and through all of the county of Judea (Acts 26:20). If Paul was unknown to the Judean communities as he says, then he had undertaken no mission among them. In fact he had never joined the Judean movement or even attempted to join it. He only saw Cephas, and Jesus' brother James. Even of the other apostles, not to mention more ordinary believers, 'I saw none' he admits. Instead of his having gone 'in and out of Jerusalem, preaching boldly in the name of the Lord' the Jerusalem community had not even known that he was there. 'They only heard' he tells us 'that he who once persecuted us now makes the faith of which he made havoc'; but they never heard him preach it in Judea."
Rev. Davies concludes that
"..if there is any portion of the New Testament that is authentic, it is Paul's letter to the Galatians. If we cannot rely upon this letter, we can rely upon nothing and may as well close our inquiry. But the fact is that we can rely upon it. The letter to the Galatians is from Paul himself and by every test is genuine."
"The First Christian," A Powell Davies, Farrar Straus & Cudahy, pp. 30-31
According to the narration in Acts, Paul saw his alleged vision. "Straightway" he began preaching in the synagogues of Damascus. He built up a reputation through his bold preaching that amazed the masses. He confounded the Jews of Damascus. Many days later, the Jews tried to kill him so he escaped to Jerusalem. He met Barnabas who introduced him to the apostles for the first time. They were all terrified of Paul, but Barnabas convinced them to accept him. Now Paul and all of the apostles went on a preaching campaign in and out of Jerusalem speaking boldly in the name of Jesus.
However, according to the narration in Galatians, Paul saw his alleged vision. "Immediately" he did NOT confer with "flesh and blood" nor did he go to Jerusalem to see the apostles, but rather he traveled to Arabia then back to Damascus. He mentions no preaching in any of these places. After at least three years he goes to Jerusalem for the first time and meets only Peter and James and no other apostles. He stays with them for fifteen days but, once again, he mentions no preaching campaign either with all of the apostles, with some of them, or alone. He also has never been here in the past nor performed a preaching campaign here in the past since he is unknown by face to them and they have "heard only" of his claimed conversion.
Some of the contradictions are:
1) Galatians claims that after his alleged vision, Paul "Immediately" spoke to "no flesh and blood" but rather traveled to Arabia and then to Damascus. So he did not "straightway," if at all, preach boldly in Damascus as claimed by Acts (How long would it take to travel from Damascus to Arabia to Damascus? Could he go and come back "straightway"?).
2) According to Galatians, Paul did not go to Jerusalem where the apostles were. Rather, he went to Arabia then to Damascus. Now, after at least THREE YEARS (not many days), he goes to Jerusalem. It explicitly states that "Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles." So this is claimed to be his FIRST visit to Jerusalem after his claimed vision. This FIRST visit is claimed to have occurred at least THREE YEARS after Paul's alleged vision. However, Acts claims that MANY DAYS after his vision he traveled to Jerusalem and performed a bold preaching campaign with all the apostles. Acts also mentions no intermediate journey to Arabia.
3) According to Galatians, upon Paul's arrival in Jerusalem he met Peter and James and no other apostles. He can not have met any apostles in Jerusalem before this because he claims that immediately after his vision "Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles" Rather, it claims that he FIRST went to Jerusalem at least "three years" after his claimed vision. On the other hand, Acts claims that the first time he met the apostles was many days after his claimed vision at which time he met ALL of the apostles. This too is obviously his first meeting with them since they all feared him. Notice the words "they were ALL afraid of him." This would not be the case if Peter and James had already met him since even if they had never mentioned him to the other apostles, still, at the very least they themselves (Peter and James) would not fear him. Also notice that it was only Barnabas who stood up for him and not Barnabas, Peter, and James.
4) Galatians claims that after Paul's first visit to Jerusalem all the apostles feared him but then Barnabas convinced them to accept him and they ALL went hand in hand "in and out of Jerusalem" preaching "boldly" to the Jews. However, Acts claims that his first visit to Jerusalem was after THREE YEARS and upon this FIRST visit he met ONLY Peter and James. He is not claimed to have gone with Peter and James on a preaching campaign in and out of Jerusalem, nor could he have done so in the past with ALL of the apostles since if he had done so he would not have been "unknown by face to the churches of Judea," they would also not have "heard only" of his conversion but would have eye-witnessed his bold campaign with all of the apostles with their own eyes.
If the author of the majority of the books of the New Testament can not even keep the narration of his own "salvation" straight then how are we expected to believe him in such critical matters as the "true" meanings of Jesus' words, or other matters?
The fact that Paul never actually met Jesus during his lifetime, never traveled with him, ate with him, or learned directly from him would obviously make the apostles of Jesus the first source of guidance for those followers of Jesus who wished to know what Jesus taught. Jesus' apostles also did not have a previous history of persecuting his followers. The only reason why anyone might want to bypass the apostles to speak to Paul is if Paul began to receive a series of holy visions from Jesus. The apostles did not claim to be receiving visions from Jesus, so obviously, Paul's claims that he was receiving divine visions from Jesus would go a long way towards drawing the followers of Jesus away from them and to his interpretation of the message of Jesus. Paul himself proudly proclaims that he has no need of learning from any human being, not even the apostles, he is completely independent of their knowledge and all he needs is his visions:
"But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught [it], but by the revelation of Jesus Christ."
As we shall soon see, a direct result of this unwillingness to receive anything from the apostles or to learn from them resulted in Paul following the sad trend of never being able to verify his claims through words of Jesus. It is next to impossible to find Paul quoting Jesus when attempting to spread his doctrine, rather, he always refers to his own personal philosophy based upon "visions" he claims to be receiving and inspirations from the Holy Ghost. When he would differ with an apostle on a given matter, he could not claim to have first hand knowledge of the teachings of Jesus since he had never met him. Therefore, he found it necessary to always resort to extensive philosophization and then claim that Jesus and the Holy Ghost were "inspiring" this philosophy. As we shall see below, he claimed to have been singled out from among all of mankind to receive visions denied all of the apostles, and to have been allowed through this inspiration to gain new converts "by all means." He also would claim that "All things are lawful unto me."
The careful reader will notice many other holes in the story of Paul's alleged "conversion." For instance, in Acts 22:9 Paul claims that when he spoke to Jesus (pbuh), those traveling with him "saw the light," but "they heard not the voice." While in Acts 9:7 those who were with Paul are claimed to have "stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man." Don't take my word for it, by all means "prove all things." The teachings of Christianity as they are known today are built upon the claims of Paul, the author of the majority of the books of the New Testament. He is trusted blindly because he claims to have seen Jesus (pbuh) in a heavenly vision, to have been vouched for by the apostle Barnabas, to have met and been accepted by all of the apostles, to have preached with all the apostles boldly in the name of Jesus throughout the land of Judaea, and as a result of this to have endured severe hardship and persecution. However, anyone who would simply read their Bible will find that Paul himself swears in the name of God Almighty that this is a fabrication because Judaea had never even seen his face and had "heard only" of his alleged conversion. Further, he never met any of the apostles save Peter and James. Even with all of this the church insists that we interpret the words of Jesus within the context of Paul's teachings.
Rev. Davies is not the only person to ever notice this glaring problem. The former Christian minister Dan Barker has also written a very detailed study of the problems within Paul's narrations. This article can be found in "The Skeptical Review," 1994, Number 1. This article is titled "Did Paul's men hear a voice?." I highly recommend any and all truth seekers to get a copy and read it. Mr. Barker studies the texts from both an English as well as a Greek perspective in order to exhibit the stark degree of contradiction between the verses.
There are other examples of even more fundamental problems with the chronological sequence of events found in the NT. One of the most glaring is that presented by "The Skeptical Review" of Canton, IL. The Skeptical Review has offered a $2000 reward to anyone who can present them with a complete chronological narration of the "resurrection of Jesus" which includes all verses of the Bible and leaves out none. The challenge is as follows:
"And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not."
I Corinthians 15:14-15
The conditions of the challenge are simple and reasonable. In each of the four Gospels, begin at Easter morning and read to the end of the book: (Matthew 28, Mark 16, Luke 24, and John 20-21. Also read Acts 1:3-12 and Paul's tiny version of the story in I Corinthians 15:3-8). These 165 verses can be read in a few moments. Then, without omitting a single detail from these separate accounts, write a simple, chronological narrative of the events between the resurrection and the ascension: what happened first, second, and so on; who said what, when; and where these things happened. Send them to "The Skeptical Review" at P.O. Box 717, Canton, IL 61520-0717. If anyone is able to do this then they shall receive $2000 dollars.
There are so many more similar examples of how Paul openly and blatantly made major changes to the religion of Jesus that flagrantly contradicted both the teachings of Jesus and his apostles. Another example can be seen in the following analysis: God Almighty commands in the OT:
"This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised. And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you. And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed. He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant."
So, according to the OT, God himself is telling us that His covenant can only be had through circumcision. The significance of circumcision was also noted by Biblical scholars as being not merely an external act:
"This was His own sign and seal that Israel was a chosen people. Through it a man's life was linked with great fellowship whose dignity was its high consciousness that it must fulfill the purpose of God"
Interpreter's Bible, p. 613
Circumcision was considered of such critical importance to Jewish faith that they would even violate the Sabbath to circumcise their children if the eighth day fell on the Sabbath.
"and ye on the Sabbath day circumcise a man. If a man on the Sabbath day receive circumcision, that the law of Moses should not be broken; are ye angry at me, because I have made a man every whit whole on the Sabbath day?"
Jesus himself was circumcised on the eighth day just like all faithful Jews:
"And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child, his name was called JESUS."
John the Baptist was also circumcised (Luke 1:59). After the departure of Jesus, circumcision became an issue of personal conflict between the apostle Peter who insisted upon it (preach to Jews only) and Paul who wanted to do away with it (preach to non-Jews also).
"I had been entrusted with the gospel for the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel for the circumcised."
Paul then goes into great details about how the apostles were wrong and he was right and how even Barnabas followed in their "hypocrisy" and it was necessary for him to show the apostles the truth (in the King James Version, the actual word used by Paul in Galatians 2:13 is diplomatically translated as "dissimulation.." However, in the Revised Standard Version of the Bible which was compiled from more ancient manuscripts than the KJV, the word Paul used is honestly translated as "hypocrisy").
Paul now mentions James (James the Son of Thunder, James the Just), Peter (the Rock), and Barnabas (Paul's teacher and protector) in the following manner:
"I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel."
So now it becomes apparent from Paul's words that, in addition to all the above, the apostles were also misguided. It would have been interesting to have heard for instance Barnabas' version of these matters had he been chosen as the "majority author" of the Bible rather than Paul. According to many similar passages, it seems that the apostles were constantly in need of Paul's guidance to recognize the truth. To get Barnabas' version of these matters, his opinion of Paul, as well as what really happened at the cross look for "The Gospel of Barnabas," ISBN 0089295-133-1, at your local library, or obtain your copy from one of the addresses listed at the back of this book.
It is interesting to note that Paul himself was not even sure about his own "visions." We read:
"It is expedient for me to boast; nothing is to be gained by it, but I will go on to visions and revelations of the Lord. I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth; such an one caught up to the third heaven. And I knew such a man, whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth; How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter. Of such an one will I glory: yet of myself I will not glory, but in mine infirmities.."
2 Corinthians 12:1-5
So Paul did not know if the man in his "visions" was "in the body" or "out of the body." Paul's vision also contained "unspeakable words" which were "not lawful for a man to utter."
If I told you that I had seen someone in a "vision," had heard "unspeakable words that are not lawful to utter" in this vision, and had been commanded by this person to nullify the commandments which Jesus (pbuh) had upheld his whole life and had commanded mankind to uphold till the end of time, who would you say this described? Who had I seen?
God Almighty says in the Qur'an:
"And if it be said unto them: Follow that which Allah has revealed, they say: Nay, but we follow that wherein we found our fathers. What! Even though the devil was inviting them to the torture of the fire?"
The noble Qur'an, Lukman(31):21.
What is wrong with this picture? Even if we were to disregard Paul's sworn admission of fabrication and were to accept the established beliefs of Paul's inspiration and infallibility (a very big "if"), then we are still left with the following picture:
Paul, a man who according to his own admission "beyond measure" severely persecuted countless Christians "slaughtered" them, and also "wasted" the church (Galatians 1:13-15, Acts 8:1-3, Acts 9:1-2, Acts 9:41, Acts 6:5.. etc.), a man who never met Jesus face to face, underwent a miraculous conversion from a persecutor and killer of Christians into a more perfect teacher of Christianity than the apostles themselves. He was singled out by Jesus' ghost to receive "visions" which were denied the apostles who had accompanied Jesus (pbuh) during his lifetime (Galatians 1:10-12). Paul had acquired such a terrible reputation as a persecutor of Christians that no one was willing to accept his claims of conversion. It was only the intervention of the apostle Barnabas, who's words obviously carried a great deal of weight with the rest of the apostles, which allowed the apostles to grudgingly accept him. Barnabas then traveled extensively with Paul building up his reputation among the Jews as a true convert. Once Paul acquired a reputation of his own, he had a falling out with Barnabas (Acts 15:39, Galatians 2:13). They parted company. Paul now claimed that Jesus (pbuh) wanted him to "relax" the law in order to make it a little more palatable for new converts, and this is when Paul began to make drastic changes to the law of Jesus (pbuh).
Paul decided that his visions were sufficient authority to contradict the teachings of the apostles and consider them hypocrites. Even Barnabas, the apostle who traveled with Paul teaching him and preaching to the Jews, who was willing to accept this persecutor of Christians claims of conversion at face value, and the man who single handedly convinced all of the apostles to accept this same persecutor of Christians is now considered by Paul a hypocrite and less able to understand the religion of Jesus (pbuh) than himself. Paul also believed that
"...I labored more abundantly than they (the apostles) all"
1 Corinthians 15:10.
So, the apostles of Jesus were such lazy layabouts that Paul was doing more work than all eleven of them put together. All of this even though the apostles spent countless years with Jesus (pbuh) learning directly from him while Paul, who has never met Jesus in person, practically overnight transforms from a persecutor and killer of Christians and the apostles to a more perfect teacher of Christianity than the apostles themselves. It is quite lucky for us that Paul received these "visions," otherwise we might have been lead astray by the lazy, misguided, hypocritical apostles. For Barnabas' version of these matters, read "The Gospel of Barnabas."
Let us time out for a quick analyses of the above verses:
1)Jesus (pbuh), during his lifetime on earth, commands mankind to strictly and uncompromisingly observe the religion of Moses till the end of time (Matthew 5:18). He tells them that observing the religion of Moses and selling their belongings shall make them "prefect." (Luke 18:18-22).
2)After the departure of Jesus, Paul, according to his own admission "beyond measure" severely persecuted countless Christians, strove to "slaughter" them, and also "wasted" the church (Galatians 1:13-15, Acts 8:1-3, Acts 9:1-2, Acts 9:41, Acts 6:5, Acts 22:4,.. etc.). Paul also looked on with satisfaction as the apostle Stephen was stoned to death (Acts 22:20).
3)Paul receives "visions" and is saved (Acts 22:9, Acts 9:7...etc.)
4)Paul is not sure exactly what he saw in his visions. His visions also contained "unspeakable words that it is unlawful to utter." (2 Corinthians 12:1-5)
5)Paul tells us that the person in his visions was Jesus (pbuh). He declares that he received his teachings of "Christianity" from these visions and from no one else, not even the apostles (Galatians 1:12). In other words, he has no need of learning from the apostles. His visions are higher in authority than anything they might have to say. He then goes on to show everyone how the apostles of Jesus are constantly in need of his guidance to recognize the truth (e.g. Galatians 2:11-13)
6)Paul claims that all things are made lawful to him and he shall not follow anyone (1 Corinthians 6:12). He also claims that he shall do whatever it takes to get people to follow him, no matter what that might entail (1 Corinthians 9:20-22).
7)The apostles differ with Paul regarding the "truth" of the circumcision ordained by God and other matters.(1 Corinthians 7:19, Galatians 2:7...etc.).
8)The apostles, according to Paul, did not walk "uprightly" according to the "truth of the Gospel" and were lazy, misguided, hypocrites (1 Corinthians 15:10, Galatians 2:14, Galatians 2:13).
9)Most of the books of the New Testament are written by Paul himself. In them, Paul himself gives an unblushing pronouncement of how he was a vastly superior apostle of Jesus (pbuh) than the apostles who accompanied Jesus (pbuh) during his ministry and they all needed his guidance to see the "truth" of Jesus' message and how Jesus (pbuh) and the apostles eagerly appointed him the twelfth apostle.
Summary: If the apostles who lived, preached, ate, and drank with Jesus for so many years are all, according to Paul, lazy, misguided, hypocrites, who were not able to see the "truth" of Jesus' message as clearly as himself, and if Paul, who never met Jesus in the flesh but is the author of the majority of our New Testament, is more truly guided than all of the apostles combined because of his claimed "visions" even though he never quotes Jesus nor needs to learn from the apostles, but is, according to his own gospel, more truly guided than all of them despite all of this, then why did Jesus need to preach the law of Moses to mankind at all? Why did he himself observe it so strictly? According to Paul, Jesus' only use is as a body to be hung on the cross. Jesus (pbuh) felt it necessary to command his followers to strictly and uncompromisingly observe the law of Moses. He even felt it necessary to live his life in strict observance of this law as a supreme example for us. He never once explicitly mentioned an original sin, an atonement, a crucifixion, a redemption, or a nullification of the law of Moses. However, no sooner does Jesus depart this earth than Paul uses his claimed visions to completely nullify everything Jesus ever taught and practiced. He does not need to learn from the apostles, all he needs is his visions. That is indeed why he almost never quotes Jesus himself. He always resorts to his own philosophization rather than quoting Jesus. Why then did Jesus not simply come to earth right after Adam sinned, not say a single word, quickly anger some enemies of God, let them crucify him, and have it over with quickly? Even if Jesus decided to wait hundreds of thousands of years and only come 2000 years ago, then why preach a law that is going to be thrown out the window in only a couple of years? Why observe this law so devoutly himself? Why command everyone to strictly observe this law "till heaven and earth pass"? Why threaten them that anyone who would forsake a single commandment would be called "the least in the kingdom of heaven"? Is he not going to die for everyone's sins and then come back in exclusive visions to Paul and command him to nullify the law of Moses? Is he not going to come back in visions to Paul and command him to tell everyone that "a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law."? Why not preach such a doctrine himself while he is still among his apostles instead of waiting to first mention it to Paul in a vision after his death?
These apostles that Paul looked down upon as lazy misguided hypocrites are the selfsame apostles who had accompanied Jesus (pbuh) during his lifetime, who taught all of mankind (including Paul himself) the teachings of Jesus (pbuh), and who endured the persecution of many (including Paul himself) to convey this message without compromise, as Jesus had directly taught it to them. The Pauline Church (the Roman Catholic church which later gave birth to other churches such as the Protestant church) was to later go on and officially adopt the doctrine of the Trinity a couple of centuries after the departure of Jesus, to severely condemn, persecute, and kill any Christians who did not convert to their own personal brand of Christianity, to have presided over the death of millions of Christians who did not adopt this belief. To have presided over the destruction of many hundreds of "unacceptable" gospels, issued a public ban that they not be read either publicly or privately, and to have established very severe penalties for all those found concealing them. Such men as Athanasius (died 373C.E.) and Rufinus (died 410C.E.) used the word "apocrypha" to describe all such books not accepted by them.
Even with all of this, the Gospel of Barnabas (see chapter seven) has managed to escape this campaign of destruction of the Gospels and is available today. It confirms all that we have said and what the Qur'an has been saying for centuries. It also presents Barnabas' response to Paul's claims and his account of what truly happened at the cross and how Jesus (pbuh) was not forsaken by God to the Jews, but was raised by God, and Judas the traitor was made to look like Jesus (pbuh) and was taken in his place. Barnabas, of course, accompanied Jesus (pbuh) and was an eye-witness to his mission. Paul was not.
Getting back to our story... Paul had a falling out with the apostles and decided that "Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God" 1 Corinthians 7:19. Even though circumcision was held in an even higher regard than the Sabbath itself in the law of Moses and the "commandments of God," still, Paul taught that it is possible to keep the commandments even if, contrary to the teachings of Jesus and the apostles, this foremost commandment of circumcision was abandoned.
In the end, Paul decided that all the commandments of God through Moses (pbuh) which Jesus (pbuh) had kept faithfully till the crucifixion and which the apostles had also kept were all worthless decaying and ready to vanish away and faith was all that was required, thereby completely nullifying everything his "Lord" Jesus had taught and practiced during his lifetime.
"Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law."
Can Paul's Authority Really Be Trusted ?