The Muslim author begins...[I will mark his text with a line of dots....]

This is an excellent approach. I am always interested in trying to find any particular biases I might have, so hopefully our author will be able to clarify this for me.

Actually, the existence or non-existence of Trypho was irrelevant. I personally do not know anyone who believes there actually WAS a "Trypho"--everyone who writes on the subject matter accepts the fact that he was fictional and a literary foil (as the author points out). And my writing didn't even try to articulate or defend such a position anyway, so I have no clue as to why our author brings this up.

The point of the evidence, however, is not even about Trypho at all. And, in fact, the evidence is not even about Justin's method of argumentation either. It is solely about what positions Justin felt was important to refute. Justin felt it was important to refute this position--and this counts as evidence that such a position was actually held by someone in history, and that it was publicly held (and argued) by some.

This is specifically where the data from Justin is relevant to my argument.

Just a quick comment here. Origen does NOT say (1) that these are Jewish-Christians at all, nor that (2) these two groups comprise ALL of the category of 'Jewish Christians'. For all we know, these groups might be fringe groups outside a more 'Nazarene' majority. Also, we should note that Origen does not call these people 'Christians'--only that they 'boast of being Christians'.

This is an important issue, for it has major methodological import. The point of my phrase in parenthesis ["which always implied the divine sonship in the Fathers"] is to explain the semantic content of the phrase 'virgin birth' as it would have been used by Origen. If "virgin birth" ALWAYS INCLUDED the notion of "divine sonship" in the Fathers (or at least in Origen), then I am NOT 'reading into the text'--I am merely exegeting it or making the implicit into the explicit.

So, can we find any passages in Origen that show a very tight logical link between the deity of Christ and the virgin conception and birth?

Yes. For example, in Against Celsus, Book I.69, we read:

In this passage, Origen is dealing with an objection by the skeptic Celsus. Even Celsus maintains that if the virgin birth had occurred, then the body of Jesus would be more-than-man, even divine(!). Origen does not dispute this, of course, but merely points out that Celsus cannot apply this to Jesus since he doesn't accept the virgin birth. Under any reading, there is a tight link here between virgin birth and deity.

In I.37 we read:

In this passage we see the historical context of Greek thought. Virgin births were used in pagan thought to create legends of 'more than man' figures! The example Origen gives above is specifically of 'divine' elements(!). Origen, again, accepts the link between virgin born and 'more than man'--the two are also tightly intertwined in Christian thought. [He also rejects, in the passage, the pagan virgin birth legends as groundless. He is NOT simply buying into some pagan Greek thought world!]

And in I.34:

In this passage, Origen points out that the prophecy of Isaiah specifically related to a "God with us" (the name "Immanuel"). The link between deity and virgin birth is not just a characteristic of Greek thought; it was also a part of the messianic predictive content. It must also be noted that in some way, Israel literally expected God to dwell on earth with men, and to actually come to His temple and City. So, Malachi 3.1:

And Isaiah 40.3,5:

[Notice how this is echoed by John in 1.14: "And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth."]

Irenaeus illustrates this exegesis of Is 7.14 in Against Heresies, III.21.4:

What these three passages show is that the concepts of 'virgin born' and 'more than man' (even deity in some passages) are very tightly linked. Thus, my point in the parenthetical remark--that this link was present in the very mention of 'virgin birth' in the Fathers--still stands. I am NOT 'reading into the text'--I am merely exegeting/reading out what is present in the phrase itself.

[Needless to say, I have only demonstrated this point for Origen. Strictly speaking, I have not produced the data here for all the Fathers! But it will suffice to reply to the objection by demonstrating that Origen specifically linked the two.]

Now, from what I have shown above, we would have to disagree--the Muslim does NOT believe in the Jewish, Greek, or Christian concept of 'virgin birth'. A Muslim belief that an ordinary human being (e.g. not more-than-man, nor divine) was born via virginal conception finds no significant parallel in history--biblical or otherwise! The Jewish prophetic virgin birth resulted in 'God with us'; all the Greek "virgin births" produced minor deities; and the Judeo-Christian 'virgin birth' produced the Incarnate divine Son of God. Therefore, I have to conclude that the Muslim does NOT believe in 'THE' virgin birth at all, but in some semantically different (and historically anomalous) concept.

I would have to label this paragraph as entirely unwarranted--given the data of the passage. If this group 'accepted Jesus' it would have still been very, very different from the Islamic view of Jesus indeed. Every scrap of data we have about Jewish belief tells us that EVERYONE accepted the reality of the death of Jesus Christ on the Cross, and the bodily resurrection from the dead--no 'appearances' here! And 'belief in Jesus' was not some intellectual assent, but rather "a desperate trust" in the Messiah to secure the believer's salvation. It was not belief in His status as a prophet, or holiness of life (for these are intellectual propositions only), but it was confidence (Heb 11) and abject dependence on the person and work of the exalted Christ. This is a far, far cry from Islamic views of Jesus. For Jewish Christians, Jesus was THE MESSIAH--a much more exalted title than simply another 'messenger only' of God [As consistently maintained in the Qur'an. It calls Jesus 'Messiah' eleven times, but regularly adds the qualification of 'nothing but/only a messenger of God' (4:169/171; 5:79/75). The Messiah was much, much more for the early believers.] And, as I indicated above, it is highly questionable that Islamic acceptance of a virgin conception of Jesus is in any way comparable to early Christian belief.

Now, it is still possible that some groups in the formative years of the Church held to Muslim-like beliefs about Jesus, but my point is that that conclusion cannot even remotely be reached on the basis of Origen's passage! This would be grossly overstepping the data, and definitely 'reading into' the passage.

Let me make a couple of comments about this piece of the argument.

First, it is essentially irrelevant. The fact that Muslims would predict that any people would have any belief-system has very little argumentative force for what the "true believers" would have been. The Judeo-Christian, for example, predicts that heresies of ALL permutations and combinations would arise--but this does not make them all "Christian" in any meaningful sense.

Second, it is highly inconsistent that the Muslim will allow that man triumphed over God so completely by the extermination of the 'true believers' in this way! For the Muslim to say that Jesus was virgin-born, the Messiah (eleven times in the Qur'an, but without explanation), did great healing miracles, raised people from the dead (Sura 5.110-111), a great prophet--even the "Spirit of God" (Ruh Allah), receiver of Gospel and Evidences (or "Clear arguments"), a 'pre-eminent messenger' (2.253/254) sent by Allah, and then still affirm that Jesus was so ineffective that His message was silenced within a decade or two is simply bizarre. To even believe half the wonderful things the Qur'an says about Jesus, and then turn around and believe that he could not even successfully disciple eleven people to stay true to his message longer than 10-15 years at most, borders on the "miraculously bad"! Even the passage in the Qur'an that refers to the disputes within the early church (1) chalks these off to the will of Allah; and (2) nevertheless affirms that significant disagreement would persist. In point of fact, however, these allegedly 'pre-Muslim' folk were late-comers, insignificant, and quickly disappeared. This is not at all what a Muslim would predict.

Third, it should be noted that Eusebius actually provides some evidence for my earlier point about 'virgin birth' CONTAINING the notion of deity. Look at his quote again: "and [they] did not deny that the Lord was born of a virgin and of the Holy Spirit. But nevertheless, inasmuch as they also refused to acknowledge that he pre-existed, being God, Word, and Wisdom..." The very fact that Eusebius has to point out that they didn't accept the deity of Christ--after explaining that they accepted the virgin birth--indicates that the two were assumed to be linked, and that this needed explaining.

Fourth, this group did more than reject the epistles of Paul: they rejected the epistles of James and of Peter and of John and of Hebrews! Remember, the data from Eusebius (and other fathers) indicated that they rejected/ignored everything except the Gospel According to the Hebrews. This means they rejected/ignored the other three gospels, Acts, the epistles of Peter, James, John, Jude, Hebrews, as well as Paul. This is not your basic squabble over a book or two being in the canon--this is more like a major heretical fringe group (a la Marcion, who ONLY accepted some of Paul and Luke). Again, there is very little justification (as I demonstrated in the article) for considering them the true followers of Jesus and the apostles.

What the Muslim would need to produce, in order to substantiate his/her claim, would be evidence that an overwhelming majority of the original Twelve (and their immediate followers) did not believe in the death of Christ, His pre-existence, His deity, His resurrection, His absolutely unique relationship to God. And there simply is not a shred of evidence for this. The earliest literature we have (the NT literature) portrays them as solidly in line with what the Fathers and Councils will later state officially. One cannot read the epistles of Peter and the writings of John, son of Zebedee (i.e. the Gospel of John and the epistles of John), compare these with their words and actions in the Gospels, and come away with any sense that they considered Jesus 'no-more-than-man'. The later NT apocrypha and docetic writings will develop a million different spins on the original story, but they are simply too late to be used by the Muslim. Even the earliest proponents of the 'apparent death' position--the docetics--believed this ONLY BECAUSE they did not believe Jesus had a real body in which to die! No one believed that Jesus was real and yet did not really die. If the Muslim were correct, we should have considerable evidence in literary and historical sources of major Christological disputes--within DECADES of the Cross. And this is simply not present in any form. Even the alleged Paul vs. Peter/James controversies were over ritual law, not the exalted nature of Christ!

Most readers will recognize the problem in this piece: the radical attempt at redefining the words 'death' and 'resurrection.' If a Muslim could go back in time and ask these "Ebionites" if they believed Jesus actually died and bodily rose again, they would unequivocally answer "yes". There is no doubt about this--NO ONE in the early Jewish/Christian movements ever doubted the reality of the death of Jesus Christ; and celebrations of His resurrection were always around the phrase "raised from the dead". For someone to try to smuggle the word "appearance" into the core belief of ALL believers with Jewish roots (as opposed to some of the Greek and Gnostic systems) that Jesus the Messiah was crucified, buried, and bodily resurrected is completely without historical warrant, and contradicted by all known historical and literary data. The Ebionites would be appalled at the thought that the Messiah did not actually "died for their sins" or was not really the sacrificial Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. This places this group well out of reach of Muslim similarities.

Just to illustrate how offensive this would be to even the Ebionites...If I asserted that Mohammed did not actually exist, but that he only appeared to exist, and that all the followers of this apparition were fooled by a 'counterfeited' Mohammed, would they accept that we were "in agreement"? Of course not! Indeed, they would no doubt be highly offended, insulted, and doubt my sanity and intentions. The differences between appearance and reality are quite vivid to believers in the reality!

Additionally, from Eusebius' statements, it might be worthy to note that Eusebius seems to say that this group considered Jesus to be the "Savior". If this term is theirs (as opposed to merely Eusebius') then their view of Jesus is considerably higher that the traditional Muslim view. "Savior" had a long history in Israel, and was much more than simply a messenger or prophet. This also would make their views decidedly unlike Muslim thought.

One must also remember the historical context. At the time being described by Eusebius, one was persecuted and often killed by the local or imperial government for being a Christian. What this means is that this group's view of Christ must have been higher than that of a Muslim--for they were persecuted by Jew and Roman alike, and had to be prepared to die for this Jesus. Would a Muslim today die solely for his belief in Jesus? I may be wrong, but I highly doubt it. (For Muhammad and Qur'an, of course, but not for Moses or Abraham or Jesus.) This will forever separate this early Christian movements' views of Jesus from the Islamic view of Jesus. To argue that they are the same or substantially the same is simply to misunderstand the content of the believer's trust in the Person and work of the Messiah. He came to 'save his people from their sins'. For the Christian--Jewish or otherwise at this time--Jesus was more-than-messenger for them; He was Savior, their hope, their awaited Messiah. A low Christology will simply not be an adequate structure to support such personal risk.

Overall, this celebration of Jesus as Savior, and as resurrected (in reality) DOES conflict with the Qur'an, and attempts to mesh the two, require one to 're-define' or substitute an understanding that was NOT there, in place of one that was. This would be a case of "reading into a text" that the author is concerned about.

This is an unfortunate comment, for most readers will recognize this for what it is--an unsubstantiated slur and assertion without data or argument.

First of all, to dismiss the leading authority on the subject (i.e. Pritz) with a simple accusation of 'bias' (without any evidence as the author promised us up front) is irresponsible. Pritz is cited as credible and leading scholarship by Jew and Christian alike, and to literally accuse me of evading a position 'I do not like' (!) and of 'making excuses to ignore' Eusebius borders on childishness. Where is the data? What is the evidence? I have already demonstrated--even accepting Eusebius uncritically--that it would not support the Muslim position. Why would I need to be evasive?!

But just to demonstrate that Eusebius is somewhat confused and contradictory, let me quote another remark he makes about the Ebionites (EH, 6.17):

[Now, it must be admitted that I did NOT reproduce Pritz' arguments about Eusebius' confusion in detail, but I should not have had to. Those who study the history of this period (and its sources) already KNOW that Eusebius cannot be taken uncritically, especially when he seems dependent on multiple sources as in this passage. Eusebius was a brilliant intellectual and worthy historian, but he was still dependent on sources. In this passage he was primarily dependent on Irenaeus, with verbal links to both Origen ("God, Word, and Wisdom") and Justin ("pre-existent"). Irenaeus was from the West and had no direct knowledge of the Jewish-Christian mixtures, whereas Justin and Origen were from the East and are generally considered to have had some direct contact with the various movements. Pritz, after a long discussion on the sources, tries to net it out [NT:NJC:27-28]:

To be sure, this issue of sources is more complicated than I can deal with here, but suffice it to say that the scholarly community (not just the confessional one!) does not dismiss Pritz' careful analysis so summarily.

This is very mistaken. The Muslim CANNOT ALLOW for the true followers of Jesus to accept the Old and New Testaments (as Epiphanius would have used those terms). By the time of Epiphanius, the OT and NT are essentially the documents we have today. By affirming that this group accepted the OT and NT, he is documenting that they accepted Paul and John and Hebrews and I Peter and Acts. He is affirming that they accept Isaiah 53 and Zech 10-12 and Dan 9-12. The OT documents portray clearly an exalted Messiah who will be rejected and die for the sins of the world, before rising from the grave and returning in splendor and victory. The NT documents we have today are very, very explicit about the deity of Jesus Christ, the reality and importance of His death, and of the criticality of one's response to Him. The NT includes the writings of Paul, and the Gospel of John, the book of Hebrews--books which clearly affirm doctrines that the Muslim cannot allow to have been the beliefs of the Nazarenes or Ebionites (or even early followers of Jesus).

In fact, traditional Muslim belief maintains that the NT we have today is grossly tampered with and not in any way representative of what the followers of Jesus believed. And this NT is what Epiphanius says the Nazarenes accepted. This is simply NOT what the Muslim would "expect" at all.

This issue of Jesus as the "Son of God" will illustrate one of the major issues in such historical passages; the question of exegesis. In other words, out of the range of possible meanings, WHICH ONE makes the most sense in the passage--historically, linguistically, contextually.

Let me make just a couple of minor technical points first about this:

So, going into the lifetime of Jesus we have the possible options (from the OT):

Now, when we get to the NT we will see one addition to this--the 'similarity usage', and one deletion--angels will drop out. [The verse in which Adam is called a 'son of God' in Luke's genealogy (Luke 3.38 in the English) does not have the word 'son' in the Greek.]

Also, we will get the usage of "sons of X", where the issue is likeness or character similarity, not genealogy. Hence, the Pharisees will be called "sons of the devil" (John 8.44), 'thunderous' James and John will be called "sons of thunder" (Mk 3.17), peacemakers will be called 'sons of God' (Mt 5.9), those kind to enemies will be called 'sons of the Most High' [because He causes his goodness to fall upon the unrighteous also] (Luke 6.35), those characterized by kingdom values are called "sons of the kingdom" (Mt 8.12) as those characterized by the values of the present ungodly time as 'sons of this age' (Lk 16.8; 20.34). Those who disobey are the 'sons of disobedience' (Eph 5.6) and those who believe like Abraham without Law as 'sons of Abraham' (Gal 3.7).

And, then, after the resurrection we begin to get the passages from the apostles about 'becoming the sons of God' by trusting Christ (e.g. Paul--Gal 3.26; Hebrews--2.10f; John-I John 3.1; James-1.18; Peter--1.23).

So, at the time of Jesus, when He is called the "son of God" the possible ways his listeners could understand this were:

So, how what does the NT gospel data about responses to Jesus suggest the phrase ACTUALLY was understood by Jesus, his followers, and his enemies? [I have dealt with all the detail data and objections elsewhere, so I only want to mention some highlights here.]

First of all, let's look at one of the more explicit passages (John 10.24ff). First, the set-up:

Notice that Jesus' words/actions make a claim about Messiahship and about his father-son relationship to the Father. (He also claims to be able to grant and ensure eternal life for His followers--can a mere man do this?!) And He ask them as to why they intended to stone Him? And their reply was:

Notice that Jesus does NOT deny the blasphemy charge, but answers back with (1) a technical argument from the OT [a special type of rabbinical argument which we cannot go into here] and (2) appeal to the character of His works as proof of this right to claim sonship. And, even after this response, they still consider His claim to be God as blasphemous. Can it be any clearer as to how the phrase 'son of God' was understood in this event?!

We see this same kind of blasphemy issue show up in John 8.56f:

Notice that Jesus goes even beyond simply saying that He pre-existed ("before Abraham was born, I WAS" would have accomplished this), but He actually uses the Divine NAME ("I AM") to do this! And His content was not lost on his audience; they picked up stones to kill such blasphemous claims to deity!

Secondly, Jesus claimed to be the Son of God in an absolutely unique sense--different than simply 'one member of Israel'. Consider Luke 10.21ff:

He is the only one to know the Father! [Part of this was no doubt due to His pre-existence before time with the Father (John 17.5): ""And now, glorify Thou Me together with Thyself, Father, with the glory which I had with Thee before the world was."]

Thirdly, His sonship was different in kind and status to all the previous prophets. The parable of the Landowner (e.g., Luke 20.10ff):

Notice that Jesus describes Himself as radically different than the 'servants' (the OT prophets). Only HE is the 'beloved Son' and the 'heir'. This is very, very close to the exalted 'Lord' Messiah of David.

Fourth, Jesus is the only one in the Bible called "My son" directly by the Father! This occurred at His baptism (Matt 3.17; Mark 1.11; Luke 3.22; see also Is 42.1 and Matt 12.18): "and behold, a voice out of the heavens, saying, "This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well-pleased." And at the Transfiguration in front of Peter, James, and John (Luke 9.35ff, cf. 2 Peter 1.17): And a voice came out of the cloud, saying, "This is My Son, My Chosen One; listen to Him!" Jesus' sonship was quite unique.

Fifth, his enemies zeroed in on this issue. The trial was about this exalted messianic status. So, Matt 26.63f:

This is clear also--His enemies understood His claims as blasphemy and not just treason or insurrection. Son of God meant more than some messenger or righteous man. Even their remark to Pilate in John 19.7 indicated that His claims were deeply religious in nature--not simply political: "The Jews answered him, "We have a law, and by that law He ought to die because He made Himself out to be the Son of God." This would not have been a blasphemous suggestion if it was only a claim to 'being like God in character'.

Sixth, even the demons recognized Him and His authority by this title. So, in Matt 8.28ff:

Notice that they appeal to Jesus and that somehow Jesus will be their judge at the end of time!

The point of the above brief points (there is much, much more data available) is that:

Could the Muslim agree that Jesus was the "son of God" in this sense? I don't think so.

And I could go on and demonstrate that "Son of God" meant this divine status in the Fathers--it is quite simple to do so. But this should be enough to point out that Nazarene acceptance of Jesus Christ as the "Son of God" is DEFINITELY problematic for the Muslim, since the I Chronicles 17.13 'sonship' turns out to be much more of an exalted, super-human claim that they might assume without a closer look at the history and usage of the term. To be sure, 'sonship' DOES include the royal dynastic aspect of it (cf. John 1.49), but it was NOT used in a dynastic sense of any of David's descendants except Jesus.

This section will allow us to deal with a very specific methodological question--how does one determine what the original groups meant by phrases such as 'son of god', 'suffered under Pontius Pilate', or 'Word of God'?

Let me tell you the wrong answer first--you don't try to find something that harmonizes with your beliefs and then accept that uncritically!

What these groups meant by these phrases can only be determined through historical and literary investigation. In other words, we will have to look at things like:

Let's go down this author's list and make some tentative assessments as to whether or not this group used the phrases in the same way a Muslim would:

The Qur'an calls Jesus "Messiah" (Al-Masih) eleven times, but the term is never explained nor given an etymological connection. For the Jew (and the Jewish Christian), this word was full of meaning for history. Of all the stands of Jewish messianic thought, the one most commonly agreed on by ALL Jewish schools of thought was that the Messiah was the Son of David, the messianic King. The title was one of royalty, and OT/Tanakh prophets proclaimed repeatedly that this Messianic King would rule the world from Jerusalem. Messiah was also the rejected 'stone' (Ps 118.22) and the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 40-66, who was to be 'cut off out of the land of the living' and to be buried 'in the tomb of the rich' (Is 53). He was to be raised from the dead (Ps 16.8-11) and given the nations as His inheritance(Ps 2.8; Amos 9.11f; Is 11.10). [This was part of the reason Paul went to the Gentiles--to bring them into the Kingdom of the Messiah Jesus--as prophesied in the OT. See Rom 1.1-4.] He was so closely identified with YHWH that it was difficult to distinguish the two in passages such as Malachi 3, Isaiah 40, and Zechariah 10-12. He was to usher in world peace in a historical return, in which He would judge ALL nations and governments (Dan 7-12).

How close to the Qur'an is such an exalted notion of "Messiah"? Let me give an extended quote on this from WR:JIQ:31-33, to show how stark the contrast is:

Now, I submit to you that if one of the core characteristics of the Hebrew Messiah was that of His Davidic Kingship--both historical, spiritual, and universal-- and that if Islamic thought has not even YET discussed this aspect of Messiahship(!), then the two concepts cannot be said to be 'in agreement' at all.

I have already gone into this one, showing the fundamental discontinuity between how those two terms are used in Islam and in the early church. At the same time, there is a possibility that there were some professing Christians back then who believed in a virgin conception but a non-divine Jesus. [Although it is not clear to me what they would have thought of Jesus as a Savior and Lord. Some of the other Christological titles are quite large for a 'mere messenger'.]

I have repeatedly shown that there is no way to make this statement into an 'appearance' statement. "Suffered" here is accompanied by "rose again". There can be little doubt that this is a reference to a fully real and effective execution of Jesus by the Romans. It would be difficult, if not impossible, to adduce evidence that these "Ebionites" and "Nazarenes" held the docetic views of their Greek/Gnostic counterparts! And this would be the only way to turn their celebration of the Lord's supper on the Lord's Day ("you show the Lord's death until He comes") into something other than its plain meaning.

This belief in Jesus' death is not just a "Christian" thing. So, Parrinder, in the sympathetic and moderate WR:JIQ:116:

Now, this particular problem actually arises because of interpretive difficulties of the Qur'an. The New Testament uniformly affirms that Christ died on the Cross and rose from the dead--there is no strata within it that (1) denies this; (2) does not teach this; or (3) affirms some 'appearance' theory. Secular historians affirm the death of Jesus of Nazareth as does the Jewish historian Josephus.

Over against this is the Muslim author's acceptance of the 'appearance theory' of the death of Jesus. The data in the Qur'an is not as clear as we would perhaps like. There are some suras that seem to indicate that Jesus died (e.g., 19, 34/33 cf. with 19,15; 3,48/55 with 2,241/240; 5,117; 5, 19/17) and there is the famous verses in 4,154-175/155-159, which state that the Jews did not kill or crucify Jesus, but that he was 'counterfeited' to them. There is a very definite tension here, and one that shows up in the history of Islamic discussion over this issue. [It is important to note that the version of the appearance theory that is based on a 'substitute' (sorta like a body-double) finds absolutely NO support in the Qur'an--the 'counterfeited' word is not definite enough for that. Indeed, it is translated "misunderstood" by some Islamic commentators.] Parrinder surveys the history of interpretation of 4, 154f/155f, but states: "The cumulative effect of the Quranic verses is strongly in favor of a real death..." [WR:JIQ:121]. For those Islamic interpreters who understand the Qur'an to not be arguing for a fake death of Jesus, the tension between Christian and Muslim views of the history of Jesus' death is relieved, but the tension between interpretations of that death are just beginning.

In any event, it should be obvious that under traditional Muslim understandings, there is a very, very wide gap between 'he died for our sins' and 'he only appeared to die for our sins'.

Point four was that Jesus was the 'Son of God', which I discussed above. (And I should point out that it was the Jewish understanding of the term that actually WAS the problem! The Gentiles had a category of "son of God" that would have been quite diluted and even would apply to barely-better-men. But the Jewish notion was way too exalted to be a simple human figure, which obviously Jesus pointed out to them.) I Chronicles 17:13 has nothing to do with being 'close to God' in this general sense--it was an intimate King/Prince relationship that was never achieved by any king or prophet in Israel, although there were very, very many men and women who were quite close to God (e.g., Isaiah, Huldah, Asaph, Daniel)! There is no way that a Muslim could accept this type of Sonship of Jesus.

Our author refers to Qur'an 3.45 as calling Jesus a "Word" from God. Although this is one translation of the word kalima here (so Shakir: "Allah gives you good news with a Word from him"), it is also translated in an instrumentative sense (so M. Zafrulla Khan: "Allah, through his word, gives thee glad tidings of a son named the Messiah"). But there are other passages which call Jesus a "Word" so we just need to understand how close the concept might be to the NT usage.

The Quranic notion is essentially that of message from God, but with a special emphasis on the immediate (virgin) creation of Jesus (4,169/171 with 3,52/59). Sometimes it looks like it means prophecy (3, 34/39). At one point we have a textual problem with the Qur'an that might have a reference to Jesus being a "word of truth". So Parrinder in WR:JIQ:46:

So far this is innocent enough, but the NT affirmations of Jesus as the "Word of God" goes considerably beyond this. The NT agrees wholeheartedly that Jesus was a message from God, but argues further that he was the pre-eminent message from God and exact representation of God on earth. Three passages will illustrate this:

So, whereas the Christian can agree with the Islamic description of Jesus as 'word', the Muslim could not agree with the NT (and the Fathers' and therefore the Nazarenes') understanding of Jesus as the divine and perfect Word.

Where does this leave us?

So far, we have not seen adequate reason to identify Muslim teaching with the characteristics of the Nazarenes at all--the semantic content and doctrinal content are simply miles and miles apart. The overlap seems mainly to be only in the words used, but not the actual meaning of those words. The NT, the Nazarene theology, and most of Ebionite teaching is thus NOT in line with Muslim thought, nor in line with what Muslim thought says should have been the historical case. But let's continue...

Actually, this passage is a little confused about the controversy in Acts. The actual controversy was not about Jews keeping the Law, but about Gentiles keeping the Law. So, in Acts 15, the problem is introduced by Pharisees visiting the Gentiles:

Peter's opinion is clear from the above passage--Gentiles don't have to do the Law. But the Council met anyway, and the passage goes on to describe the decision of the Jerusalem church (almost entirely Jewish-Christians at this point):

So, the issue was that of Gentiles keeping the Law versus Jews keeping the Law.

But even with this understandable mistake, our Muslim author is entirely legitimate to ask the question about 'mixed feelings' about Paul. Although the passages in Acts 15 and 21 give us no indication of any ill will toward Paul from the Jerusalem Church (as opposed to from the anti-Christian Jews!), we know that he was often under attack on his missionary journeys (among the Gentiles!). But these "attacks" were not about his views of Christ or the future or salvation, but apparently about his apostleship. Even the doctrinal disputes in Galatians and Acts 15 were not 'aimed at Paul' but were about a very specific issue--Gentile obedience to the ritual Law of Moses.

But even with this being the case, the Nazarene position is quite a bit stronger than 'did not reject Paul'; they positively endorsed his mission and writings. Remember, Paul is the messenger of the Acts 15 decision ("no Jewish law for Gentiles") and the most explicit preacher of the Crucified Lord of the Universe and Divine Word of God! For the Nazarenes "not to reject Paul"--in light of these HUGE issues--is much stronger evidence of their orthodoxy than simple ambivalence about his personal practice of the Law!!!

Once again, the Muslim cannot allow this to stand. The Nazarenes--to fit the predictions of the traditional Muslim position--MUST explicitly reject Paul and his message. At its core, the Pauline message of the Cross and the Incarnation WOULD HAVE hugely overshadowed any agreement on issues such as ritual law keeping. This, accordingly, cannot be considered an "agreement" with Muslim thought.

I think I have made a strong case that the data leads to the opposite conclusion, but I will have to defer that decision to the reader.

I have pointed out (at another level of detail than in the original post), that Nazarene acceptance in the deity of Jesus Christ is evident from their acceptance of:

I have also tried to explain why the material from Eusebius is somewhat confused, and that the data we have about the Nazarenes is not at all what the Muslim would predict. The reader will have to be the judge.

Perhaps I was unclear in the original piece, or perhaps the author misunderstood. The point was that Filaster, who listed every heresy and departure from orthodox he could find--to the point of minuta!--omitted the Nazarenes. This omission, in the context of his stated purpose of listing ALL heresies, counts as evidence that the Nazarenes were NOT heretics, but held to almost rigidly orthodox beliefs about the deity of Christ, His crucifixion, His resurrection, and His authority over all.

In other words, if the Nazarenes held Muslim-like beliefs, they would have been included in Filaster's work. But they were not, with the obvious implication that they DID NOT hold Muslim-like beliefs.

And, I do NOT want to leave the reader with the impression that the Ebionites were orthodox! Eusebius and Irenaeus DO consider Ebionites heretics, but I have tried to show that they were (1) not even remotely Christian and (2) that they did NOT look like Muslims (esp. with regard to the 'virgin birth' issue).

This still counts as evidence, given the specific literary purpose of Filaster.

Again, this will have to be judged by the reader. I have tried to show that ALL of the many clear passages point in the opposite direction, and that the SINGLE possible contrary data-point is confused.

Let me state this again: all of the passages except one support my thesis (assuming I have exegeted the important phrases and concepts correctly), and only one passage (a questionable one) could count against it. In normal decision situations, the choice would be clear--the decision would be made in favor of my understanding of the historical situation. And, if the data is more supportive of my position, then his last sentence is also incorrect. [This approach does not even consider the issue of dating, which alone would demonstrate their aberrant beliefs to be way too late to be of use for the author.]

This is exactly what I have tried to show. It matters very, very little what Muslims, Jehovah's witnesses, or Glenn Miller means by the title 'Son of God' or the phrase 'virgin birth'. What matters is what did the Nazarenes (and those that used those terms to describe them) mean by those words. The only way to determine this is to see (1)what the foundational, defining events and documents meant (e.g. OT/NT) and (2) to see what the writers describing the Nazarenes meant by that (i.e. the Fathers).

In the cases of the Virgin Birth and Sonship of Jesus, I tried to demonstrate from the OT/NT that these absolutely DID include the beliefs of Jesus' deity/super-human nature. And I tried to demonstrate from the Fathers' writings that they used the terms in the same way as the OT/NT.

If I am correct in my research and analysis of the meanings of these terms, then the "mistakes" are made by those who assume that the historical meaning of a term is the same as a current meaning of a term (as held by some groups within a larger community, and held without consensus of the whole group, I might add!). This is a methodological mistake of reading the present back into the past, as opposed to letting the past speak into the present.

What becomes clear at this point is that the author's original accusation of 'bias' amounts to his belief that Christian are accepting these meanings of the terms/phrases uncritically and without careful and honest investigation. While this has no doubt been the case often, I have endeavored to show that this is NOT the case here. I have tried to show that my belief that these phrases (e.g., "son of God", "virgin birth") do include a high Christology is a grounded and researched belief, not an uncritical assumption. The reader will have to judge my attempt at unbiased thinking.

Of course, these assumptions were what were under discussion all along. Whether they are correct or incorrect will have to be decided by the reader, on the basis of the evidence I have presented.

All I need to reiterate here is that my conclusions were otherwise: that the earliest records we have of Jewish-Christianity indicate that they meant something radically different with these terms than does the traditional Muslim position. The similarities are superficial (at best!), the differences substantial and radical, and the historical context militates against the identification of the two.

There are still many, many more issues that could be advanced here, such as the fact that certain Ebionite sects REJECTED parts of the Law (e.g., sacrifices and related OT passages in the Law) that would not accord well with Muslim expectations, in a different direction than the above. But I will have to stop here...

Our Muslim author is obviously not familiar with the biblical data in much detail (e.g, his mistakes on the Acts controversy, asserting that "many people" were called 'sons of God' in the OT, the ascription of "My Son" to David in I Chron 17), and so some of his assumptions about the meanings of biblical concepts (e.g., "Word of God" and "Messiah") can certainly be understood and forgiven. But his assumption that my beliefs are due to 'bias'--as opposed to historical research--is unwarranted. After all is said and done, the divide between early Christian thought and Muslim beliefs about Jesus' message, identify, and self-understanding still remains.

Glenn Miller