The Holy Gospel did not evolve!

 

In listening to a Christian-Muslim debate between Sam Shamoun and Shabir Ally on the internet, I heard a Muslim assertion about the corruption of the Holy Bible that was not addressed, but for which I know the answer, being Catholic and all.  I want to share this with you all so that there will be no doubt about whether or not the Holy Bible has been corrupted.

 

Mr. Ally asserted that the earliest of the four Gospels in the Holy Bible do not make the same claim as the oldest written by the Apostle John. Those claims are as follows:

 

1  "I and the Father are one."

2  "Whoever has seen me has seen the Father."
3  "God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believs in him shall not parish but have everlasting life."

 

Mr. Ally from these asked why these assertions were not included in the earliest of the 4 Gospels.  One would think that if Jesus had said them, they would have been preached since the beginning.  But in fact (says Mr. Ally) the story of Jesus was evolving, rolling around like a snowball, growing and changing as it passed from mouth to mouth untill Jesus was made out to be God himself.

 

I listened to this assertion of Mr. Ally and had to laugh.  I know for certain that at the time of Jesus it was not uncommon to make a statement in part and trust that all listeners would know the full statement automatically.  When Jesus was crucified on the cross, for example, he said, "My God, My God, why has thou forsaken me."  These words have been claimed by Muslims to be evidence that Jesus and the Father are not the same God.  But the truth is that the statement is actually the first line of Psalm 22, and that Jesus was not speaking as one seperate from the Father, but rather was letting all Jews attending his crucifixion know that his life was fullfilling Psalm 22.

 

In the same way, the first Gospels of the Life of Jesus were written to communities that already knew that Jesus was the Son of God, and was in fact God Himself.  It was only some 70 years after the death of Jesus on the Cross that new Christians from throughout the world who had not known Jesus first hand were not getting the full story of Jesus and his message due to the full message not having been written down yet. Thus St. John the Apostle saw the need to write down what the first hand witnesses knew and took for granted that all believers in the first decades also knew.  This is the Gospel of John, not the Gospel of Luke written by a convert doctor who collected stories, but a Gospel written by the very hand of an Apostle carefully taught and trained by Jesus himself.  This paragraph which I have just written is not conjecture but is truth, the historic reason that the Gospel of John was written as it was.  This fact is reflected in the letters of the Christian bishops and preachers of the Apostel John's lifetime.

 

The idea that the Gospels of the life of Jesus and the beliefs about Jesus evolved in the way that a snow ball grows is an attempt by non-Christians to explain the differences between a Holy book written 600 years after the life of Jesus and a Holy book written by the teachers trained by Jesus himself.  The idea is an attempt to discredit those trained teachers and so justify the inaccuracies in the Holy Book written 600 years late.

 

I respectfully challange my non-Christian brothers to disproove my assertion here.  Please do not take offense at my provocative attempt to challange My Muslim brothers.  I am not wanting to disrepsect their Islamic faith or my wonderful Muslim Brothers themselves, but I am challanging a widly held missunderstanding of the Holy Bible regarding what appears to be changes over time.

 

Thanks in advance for responding to my challange.

 

Asalaam Alekum