section1: gospel writers: Quran vs. Bible from the book Islam and Christianity by Dr. Muhammad Ali Alkhuli you have to read IT!!

Matthew is Jesus' disciple. But he wrote his gospel in Hebrew, the original of which is lost forever. What is available is the translation of that lost original. Thus no one can prove that Matthews's gospel of today is identical with what Matthews wrote, because no original is available.

Mark is not Jesus' disciple. He is Peter's disciple. Thus mark gospel cannot be considered as first hand narration. Mark did not see what Jesus did, nor did he hear what Jesus said. No one can prove the truth of
Mark's reporting about Jesus. Jesus' disciples are more reliable reports about Jesus than disciples of a disciple.

Similarly, Luke is not Jesus' disciple. He never saw or heard him. Luke is not even a disciple f a disciple, Luke s a disciple of Paul, who was never a disciple of Jesus. How can we accept Luke's reporting if he never saw or heard Jesus?
What authentic value do his reports have when they are merely third-hand reports?

As for the evangelist John, scholars assert that he is not john the disciple of Jesus. The content of the gospel of John and its wording, as analysis tells, cannot be written by John, the disciple of Jesus. Someone wrote it and attributed it to John the disciple to give it more reliability. Scholars confirm that it was written about 97 A.D, i.e. sixty four years after Jesus disappearance. John would be at least eighty-four years by then, assuming that he was only twenty years at Jesus disappearance.

Why should John the disciple wait until he was 84 years to write the gospel? Why did he wait 64 years to begin his work? This confirms the conclusion that John's gospel was not written by John the disciple.

What we have in brief are four strongly –doubted gospels. Matthew's original manuscript is lost for ever and none can prove the authenticity of the present translated version. Mark's gospel cannot be highly trusted because Mark was not a disciple of Jesus and thus he was not a first-hand reporter. The same defect applies to Luke, and even more clearly, because Luke was a disciple of Jesus. Luke's gospel is third hand writer, and not by John the disciple, who's his name was simply used as a cover.

In contrast, the Quran is one version. We don’t have different versions of the Quran.
Q: Which do you choose to be God's pure word: the gospel with its four different contradictory versions and lost originals and second-hand and third-hand reporting OR the Quran with its one single version?