Muslim article about Jesus


Hey, yes, I haven’t posted in a looong time, a couple months, but I came across this and thought I’d share it. Not that it’s just a great thing to share, but some may be interested in reading something from the “other side.”

It’s a muslim article comparing and contrasting the Islamic and Christian views on Jesus. More of a “popular” article, to use that term, you won’t find any harsh non-ecumenical language in it I don’t think.

BTW, here’s a post in the bottom of the page dedicated to the discussion on the article I linked:

esmeralda Mohamed, Long Island, NY.USA - wrote on 1/22/2005 7:11:12 PM
**Comment: **I was raised a catholic, until my marraige to a muslim, I should say he Never tried to convert me to his beliefs, his actions and convictions made me to read about Islam, I was very shocked to see Jesus, Peace be upon him. mentioned in the Koran, at the end it all made sense to me. I recently embrased islam.Thank you God! for showing me the light. You site is Excellent,A must read for every one.

So, uh, yeah…marry a nice Muslim, find Jesus in the Quran, and consider a reasonable case for Islam, and you too can be a Muslim!!

That’s a pretty sad “conversion story.” Take heed lest ye fall and shrink back to destruction! - I Cor. 10:12 / Heb. 10:39



A useful goal of this thread could be to offer a refutation of the following claim in the linked article:

The Gospel of Barnabas was accepted as a Canonical Gospel in the Churches of Alexandria till 325 CE Iranaeus (130-200) wrote in support of pure monotheism and opposed Paul for injecting into Christianity doctrines of the pagan Roman religion and Platonic philosophy. He quoted extensively from the Gospel of Barnabas in support of his views. This indicates that the Gospel of Barnabas was in circulation in the first and second centuries of Christianity.

So let’s get our heads together and see if we can see where they get that Irenaeus opposed Paul for teaching that Christ was God and man (that’s the context in the article) and that Irenaeus opposed what would be the future teaching of the Nicene Council. We could also, hopefully, find statements by Irenaeus that are “pro-Trinity” type statements.

Of course, even if the Muslim claims were true or had some truth, that doesn’t discount Christianity and the Trinity, it just shows that Irenaeus was wrong on that, and maybe Barnabus too. No harm done.


This might be to the point…
“Against Heresies” 2,28,2

If, however, we are not able to find explanations for all those passages of Scripture which are investigated, we ought not on that account seek for another God besides Him who exists. This would indeed be the greatest impiety. Things of that kind we must leave to God, the One who made us, knowing full well that the Scriptures are certainly perfect, since they were spoken by the Word of God and His Holy Spirit.

See also 2,13,8…

In what manner then, would the Word of God - indeed, the great God Himself, since He is the Word - …

Sound’s Trinitarian to me…


Actually, his first quotation in my Jergens EF (1,10,1) reads like a Creed, and specifies the Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit.

Muslims, of course, contend that we have (and/or beileve in) three gods, so any mention by Irenaeus of Monotheism, which is what we believe, would be seen as a contradiction by them.


The article states

Today, anyone who calls him or herself a Muslim believes in the complete authenticity of the Quran as the original revealed guidance from God.

Yet the Quran states in 17,2

We gave Moses the Book, and made it a Guide to the Children of Israel, (commanding): “Do not take other than Me as Disposer of (your) affairs”.

So the Quran itself states that there is a pre-existing revealed guidance from God.

Overall, the aticle is a good attempt at presenting the Christian view from an Islamic perspective, but is lacking in reference listings. We have no idea where this Irenaeus against Paul information is from.


Yeah, JToes,

I wanted to comment on just that, ie. post a reply on that site to that effect, but when I tried, it said there was no URL supplied. Maybe no posts can be made now??

The little bit (I’ve just started on this) of research I’ve done, on-line, regarding Irenaeus and the Trinity seems to have yielded arguments on both sides of the issue.

Whatever, I’ll post some of the more reasonable ones soon, hopefully. I’m interested now. I’m sure Irenaeus will be found on the side of the Orthodox in this matter.



Ok, here’s a start that will help setting the record straight on Irenaeus:

This article has a good summary of some things that JW’s use from a Watchtower article.

Some writings they reference are:

Against Heresies Book 3:6

And again, referring to the destruction of the Sodomites, the Scripture says, "Then the Lord rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah fire and brimstone from the Lord out of heaven."23 For it here points out that the Son, who had also been talking with Abraham, had received power to judge the Sodomites for their wickedness. And this [text following] does declare the same truth: "Thy throne, O God; is for ever and ever; the sceptre of Thy kingdom is a right sceptre. Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity: therefore God, Thy God, hath anointed Thee."24 For the Spirit designates both [of them] by the name, of God-both Him who is anointed as Son, and Him who does anoint, that is, the Father. And again: "God stood in the congregation of the gods, He judges among the gods."25 He [here] refers to the Father and the Son, and those who have received the adoption; but these are the Church. For she is the synagogue of God, which God-that is, the Son Himself-has gathered by Himself

And another quote from the Against Heresies Book 4: Ch. 5, Par 2

Again did he say, “I will adore the Lord my God, because He is the living God.” He, then, who was adored by the prophets as the living God, He is the God of the living; and His Word is He who also spake to Moses, who also put the Sadducees to silence, who also bestowed the gift of resurrection, thus revealing [both] truths to those who are blind, that is, the resurrection and God [in His true character]. For if He be not the God of the dead, but of the living, yet was called the God of the fathers who were sleeping, they do indubitably live to God, and have not passed out of existence, since they are children of the resurrection. But our Lord is Himself the resurrection, as He does Himself declare, "I am the resurrection and the life."52 But the fathers are His children; for it is said by the prophet: "Instead of thy fathers, thy children have been made to thee."53 Christ Himself, therefore, together with the Father, is the God of the living, who spake to Moses, and who was also manifested to the fathers.

Well, I don’t know what else needs to be said. I suppose there could be some intricate matters of dispute in Irenaeus’ writings, but if you go too far in that, then what he believed would become unintelligible, and therefore not beneficial to either side.


The gospel of Barnabas is a late medieval forgery. It is not an early document. A Muslim wrote it. I suggest visiting the answering islam website. It is evangelical, but has a wealth of info on refuting Muslim claims. The Jesus of Islam is not the Jesus we worship. The real Jesus is God, the second person of the Holy Trinity.


Let me add that it is a common Islamic tactic to try and contrast Paul with the gospels. Paul’s letters often predate the gospels. Paul was an apostle and the others didn’t say he got off track. Do NOT allow Muslims to play this game and try to denigrate Paul.


Ohh CE . . you mean AD? Because that “pc” BCE abd CE garbage just irks me the wrong way.


[quote=A.Pelliccio]Ohh CE . . you mean AD? Because that “pc” BCE abd CE garbage just irks me the wrong way.

Yeah, well that’s what you’ve got to be able to tolerate in writings like that. Hey, if it means the same thing, then why are you upset? After all, if Muslims worship the same God but call Him Allah, then why get upset?

That’s a leading question, I know. I happen to not be on the side that says they worship Him rightly. There’s a huge difference in the mis-perception of God that the Muslim has, compared to the divinely revealed perception that the Christian has. But am I assuming too much? Well, I’m assuming the Christian worldview…

If they don’t worship the Trinity, then do they even worship the same God, or do they just worship Him in vain? Well, I suppose it would be important to settle the question about the OT Patriarchs’ perception of God. At least they understood Him insofar as He had revealed Himself. But by the advent of Islam, God had fully revealed Himself in His Son, and that had been articulated even more by several Church Councils. So the Muslims are w/o excuse if they worship God amiss.

Perhaps we should say, with the Apostle Paul, that *the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils *(I Cor. 10:20). But, alas, St. Paul could not have explicitly included the Muslims, (though yes, the Spirit, in anticipation of all future non-Christian religions, could have), for the Muslim people would not have been numbered among “Gentiles” at that time in history.

What do you think? Do the Muslims worship the true God, or not? John Paul II had his opinion on those matters, but that was just an opinion or attitude. Seems to me that if they don’t honor Jesus Christ as very God of very God, then they don’t worship God, for God is One, and** Muslims divide the Oneness of God wrongly!** Shame on them.

But then, would that mean that all non-Trinitarians, or modern Arians, don’t worship God, if the Muslims don’t? Hmmm…



Muslims worship the same God and call him “Allah” because that’s simply the Arabic word for “God”, just as “Dios” is in Spanish, or “Deus” in Latin.

But on another note, I don’t like all that pc “BCE” and “CE” stuff either.


[quote=Rand Al’Thor]Muslims worship the same God and call him “Allah” because that’s simply the Arabic word for “God”, just as “Dios” is in Spanish, or “Deus” in Latin.

But on another note, I don’t like all that pc “BCE” and “CE” stuff either.

So any concept of God one may have, as long as it’s a valid name, then it’s God? The One True God?

I realize so many of this boils down semantics, and it’s easy for attitudes and opinions to get in the way.

I know there’s been at least one thread on this, a few months ago I believe. No need to go through this again. But maybe briefly…

So here’s a meaningful line of reasoning:

Muslims worship a God Who does not have a Son.
The Christian God does have a Son.
Therefore, the Muslims do not worship the Christian God.

Personally, I would not want to be going around saying “I worship the same God as the Muslims do.” Because that would mean that you worship a God who does not have a son.

But the response to that is that they’re simply ignorant of the truth/facts.

I suppose a valid response would be:

Muslims worship a God Who does have a Son
Muslims do not believe that He has a Son.
Therefore, the Muslims worship the same God as Christians, but believe differently about Him than Christians do.

I know, that one leaves out a little about the Christian God that would make it more comprehensive, but you get the point.
So, which side will you choose?


[quote=A.Pelliccio]Ohh CE . . you mean AD? Because that “pc” BCE abd CE garbage just irks me the wrong way.


Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!

I often fantasize that I am a college history professor and in my fantasy I automatically give each and every student who uses CE an automatic failing grade.


Glad to see you back Reformed Rob,

God bless,

UN-reformed Malachi4U.:wink:

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit