Muhammadans are notorious in appealing to heretical Christian groups, which began to flourish from the second century AD onwards, for the purpose of confirming the Quran’s assertion that Jesus’ original followers were all Muslims. Conveniently, these polemicists fail to note that these groups actually prove that Muhammad is a false prophet and that Islam is a false religion.
One such sect that Muslims will try to pass off as a proto-Islamic sect of Jesus is the Ebionites, an early Jewish Christian sect from the early 2nd century. And yet the Muhammadans do not bother mentioning the fact that the Ebionites were vegetarians who denied Jesus’ virginal conception and birth that read a Gospel, which was clearly dependent upon the Synoptic Gospels, in particular the Gospel of Matthew.
As one scholarly source explains:
4. Character: in literary character the GE is a Gospel of the synoptic type. It may be especially related to Mt. (No. 6 has a parallel in Mt. alone), but it also assumes the two other Synoptics. The chronological and biographical statements in the account of the Baptist, the statement about the age of Jesus and the saying No. 7 come from Lk. (cf. the notes to the fragments). In the story of the baptism of Jesus all three synoptic accounts are utilised: it gives the voice from heaven three times, according to Mk. 1:11, Lk. 3:22 D it and Mt. 3:17… Rather is the GE to be described, with Bertrand, as a ‘gospel harmony’ … since in it the Synoptic Gospels find an additive application. In contrast to the Diatessaron of Tatian there is admittedly no use in it of John; nor is there any indication that the differences between the Gospels are consciously suppressed. So far as a harmonising tendency is present, it serves rather a novelistic interest, which takes up the concrete features of the synoptic gospel tradition or amplifies them independently. Thus the food of the Baptist (‘wild honey’ according to Mk. 1:6 par. Mt. 3:4) is elucidated by the addition mentioned above (p. 167) from Num. 11:8, ‘whose taste was that of manna’; or, linking up with Lk. 1:5, Herod becomes ‘king of Judea’.
The deletion of the nativity story (Mt. 1 and 2) goes back to a dogmatic tendency. The Ebionites DENIED the virgin birth of Jesus; according to their Christology the divine sonship of Jesus rests not on his divine begetting and wonderful birth, but on the union of the Holy Spirit with him at the time of his baptism (No. 3). That this ‘entry’ of the Holy Spirit is something other than his descent upon Jesus (Mk. 1:10; Mt. 3:16; Lk. 3:22), and thus NO ADOPTION or inspiration BUT THE UNION OF A HEAVENLY BEING WITH THE MAN JESUS, RESULTING in the Christ, the Son of God, so that in this trait there is to be discerned a gnostic characteristic of Ebionite Christology (so Dibelius, Geschichte, p. 56; Vielhauer, Geschichte, p. 655), is improbable. The strong dependence on the synoptic tradition leads one rather to think of the Marcan or Lucan conception of the baptism of Jesus. By setting the different synoptic passages about the baptism of Jesus side by side, it is brought about that Jesus is ‘PRESENTED’ before the Baptist as the Son of God, and through his homage is ‘ACCLAIMED’ as such… Jesus’ task is to do away with the ‘sacrifices’ (No. 6); in this saying the hostility of the Ebionites against the Temple cult is documented. No. 7 and probably also the account of the food of the Baptist (deletion of the locusts) point to vegetarianism. (New Testament Apocrypha – Volume One: Gospel and Related Writings Revised Edition, edited by William Schneemelcher, English translation edited by R. McL. Wilson [Paperback edition published by Westminster John Knox Press, 2003], A. Gospels: Non-Biblical Material About Jesus, IV. Jewish-Christian Gospels, 2. The Gospel of the Ebionites, pp. 167-168; capital emphasis mine)
Even the agnostic/atheist liberal critical NT scholar Bart D. Ehrman acknowledges that,
The Ebionites were a group of Jewish Christians located in different regions of the Mediterranean from at least the SECOND TO THE FOURTH CENTURIES. What distinguished this group of Christians from many others was their attempt to combine Jewish views and lifestyles with the belief that Jesus was the messiah. In particular, they were said to have emphasized belief in only one God to such an extent that they denied, as a consequence, Jesus’ own divinity. At the same time, the Ebionites differed from non-Christian Jews in asserting that Jesus was the sacrifice for the sins of the world and that all other sacrifices had therefore become meaningless. Among other things this belief led them to embrace a vegetarian diet, since most meat was procured, in the ancient world, through the religious act of sacrificing an animal… Some of the Ebionites’ distinctive concerns are embodied in their Gospel. This is shown, for example, in the reference to the diet of John the Baptist, in which the canonical statement that he ate locusts (i.e. meat) and wild honey was modified by the change of simply one letter, so that now the Baptist, in anticipation of the Ebionites themselves, maintains a vegetarian cuisine: here he is said have eaten pancakes and wild honey.
It is difficult to assign a date to the Gospel, but since it betrays a knowledge of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, and presupposes a thriving community of Jewish Christians. It is perhaps best to locate it sometime EARLY IN THE SECOND CENTURY… (Ehrman, Lost Scriptures – Books that Did Not Make It into the New Testament [Oxford University Press, Inc. 2003], Non-Canonical Gospels, The Gospel of the Ebionites, 12-13; bold emphasis mine)
I now present some citations from the so-called Gospel of the Ebionites which helps to put this in perspective. All emphasis is mine:
4 And after a good deal more, it says: “When the people were baptized, Jesus also came and was baptized by John. When he came up out of the water, the heavens opened and he saw the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove, descending and entering him. And a voice came from heaven, ‘You are my beloved Son, in you I am well pleased.’ Then it said, ‘Today I have given you birth.’ Immediately a great light enlightened the place. When John saw this,” it says, “he said to him, ‘Who are you Lord?’ Yet again a voice came from heaven to him, ‘This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.’ And then,” it says, “John fell before him and said, ‘I beg you, Lord– you baptize me!’ But Jesus restrained him by saying, ‘Let it be, for it is fitting that all things be fulfilled in this way.’” (Epiphanius, Panarion, 30, 13, 3–4) (Ehrman, p. 13)
6 Again they deny that he was a man, even basing their view on the word the Savior spoke when it was reported to him, “See, your mother and brothers are standing outside.” “Who,” he asked, “is my mother and brothers?” Stretching out his hand to his disciples he said, “These are my brothers and mother and sisters–those who do the will of my Father.” (Epiphanius, Panarion, 30, 14, 5)
7 They do not allege that he was born from God the Father, but that he was created as one of the archangels, yet was made greater than they, since he rules over the angels and all things made by the Almighty. And, as found in the Gospel, they say that when he came he taught, “I have come to destroy the sacrifices. And if you do not stop making sacrifice, God’s wrath will not stop afflicting you.” (Epiphanius, Panarion, 30, 16, 4–5) (Ehrman, p. 14)
In light of the foregoing, do Muhammadans really want us to believe that these Jews represent the views of Jesus and his followers? Are they trying to convince folks that the Ebionites are the faithful Muslims that the Quran mentions were the true believers who followed Christ (cf. Q. 3:52; 5:110)? If so, are they then willing to accept the implications that such an assertion has on their Islamic beliefs?
As we noted these Jews were vegetarians who denied the virgin birth, and yet Muslims make it seem that they were the faithful followers of Jesus or at least those who preserved the true teachings of Christ. In light of this, are these Muhammadans willing to admit that Muhammad was a false prophet since he affirmed the virgin birth and allowed his followers to eat various kinds of meats?
Moreover, the Ebionites believed that God was a spiritual Father who had spiritual offspring whom he adopted into his family such as Christ. Again, will these Muslims be honest enough to say that Muhammad’s Allah is a false god, or at least not the same God worshiped by the Ebionites, since the Islamic deity has no offspring and is not a father to anyone (Q. 5:18; 9:30; 19:88-93; 21:26)?
The Muhammadans cannot have their cake and eat it too. They cannot appeal to Christian heretics of the second-fourth centuries when such groups held to beliefs that were diametrically opposed to the teachings of Islam.
FURTHER READING
Nazarenes/Ebionites the only true Christians?
Answering Islam Blog 
One thought on “EBIONITES TO THE RESCUE?”