A Christian Defense of the Gospel to the Muslims.

Rebuttal to Sam Shamoun’s article

A Series of Answers to Common Questions

In this lengthy article of his, Shamoun has put up several Muslim arguments against Christians with his responses to them. I have divided up my rebuttal into 4 parts as it will be too long to read it all in one single part. So for the benefit of the reader i advise you to read one part a day, or finish reading one part and taking a break and continue with the next parts of the rebuttal. I will respond to his responses to the Muslim arguments to show the Muslim arguments still stand.

He wrote:

Throughout the course of this study, the object will be to give a rational and loving defense of the Gospel (1 Peter 3:15; Jude 3; 2 Corinthians 10:5; Acts 9:22, 29; 17:2-3, 19; 18:24-28; Philippians 1:7, 16; Titus 1:6-9). Apologetics is often a neglected aspect of Muslim evangelism, and yet it is perhaps one of the most important.

The general Muslim opinion about Christianity is that it is both irrational and indefensible. Doctrines such as the Trinity, the Deity of Jesus Christ, Original Sin, and Jesus' vicarious death are viewed as illogical and absurd. The idea that God would actually become a man to die for sinners who are under condemnation due mainly to Adam's sin, a sin which they had no part in, is logically inconceivable for Muslims.

This makes it binding on the Christian to first know what he believes and why he believes it, as well as being able to present the biblical evidence to support such beliefs.

We will break down the study in four parts and cover the arguments used by Muslims in relation to each of the four sections. From there we will give a concise reply to the major arguments used against Christianity. This must be done in prayer and sincere Christian love in order that God might grant repentance to those Muslims who are sincerely seeking for the truth. The four sections include:

The nature of God The plan of Salvation

The person of Jesus The authority of the Bible

My response:

Christian doctrine such as trinity, original sin, and God coming down as a man and dying for our sins is illogical and I will show this throughout the rebuttal.

He wrote:

1. THE NATURE OF GOD

Muslim Argument:
Christians believe that God is a Trinity. Yet, nowhere do we find the Trinity taught in the Bible. The clear biblical witness is that God is absolutely one, having no plurality (Cf. Deuteronomy 4:35, 39; 6:4; Psalm 86:10; Isaiah 43:10; 44:6, 8; 45:5-6, 18, 21-22; 46:9).

Christian Response:
In fact, both Jesus and Paul taught that God is absolutely one (Cf. Mark 12:29-30; John 17:3; 1

Corinthians 8:6a; 1 Timothy 2:5).

The Trinity entails the belief in only one God. Christians do not worship three Gods. Therefore biblical references indicating that there is only one God affirms, rather than denying, the Trinitarian belief.

The Bible teaches that although there is only one God, there are three Persons addressed as God: The Father (1 Peter 1:2), the Son (Matthew 1:23; John 20:28; Colossians 2:9; Titus 2:13), and the Holy Spirit (Acts 5:3-4).

(Note: Jesus in John 17:3 refers to the Father as the only true God. This point needs further clarification since it seems to imply that Jesus is denying that he is truly God as well. It must be remembered that Christ at the Incarnation became a real human being without ceasing to be divine. As the God-man, the Father became his God. Therefore, we would expect Jesus to refer to his Father as the true God, since the Father cannot possibly be a false God.)

My response:

I must correct you, you do not believe in one God. Let us look at what you believe, you believe Jesus is God, you believe the Father is God, and you also believe the Holy Spirit is God, so hence we do have three Gods! It does not matter that you say they are three PERSONS, you still state that each person is God. You believe in three persons, and you also believe these three persons are each God, so you still end up with three Gods. You have no way around this, unless you deny that Jesus the person is God, the Father the person is God, and the Holy Spirit the person is God. There is one way around this mess is that if you accept the fact that Jesus is the Father and Holy Spirit, but to you that is blasphemy and wont work. Either way it is your problem to deal with. Let us just give a nice summary to bring things in perspective and keep things single to show that you do believe in three Gods not matter how you try to deny it.

1- you claim the person Jesus is God.

2- you claim the person the Father is God.

3- you claim the person who is the Holy Spirit is God.

You do the math. This just proves how illogical trinity is indeed!

He wrote:

Muslim Argument:
The New Testament contradicts the Old Testament, since in the Old no mention is made of a plurality of Persons who are God.

Christian Response:
The Old Testament does in fact affirm the plurality of the Godhead in several places:

1-It addresses God with plural pronouns. (Cf. Gen.1:26-27, 3:22, 11:7; Isa. 6:8) This cannot simply be a plural of majesty, a majestic form of address, since biblical Hebrew did not have this linguistic feature.

2-It clearly refers to more than one Person in the Godhead (Cf. Gen. 19:24; Proverbs 30:4; Isa. 48:12-16; Zechariah 2:7-11, 3:1-2).

3-It refers to the Angel of Jehovah as being both distinct from God and fully God at the same time. (Cf. Gen. 31:10-13-cf.- 28:10-19; Exodus 3:1-4, 13-14; 23:20-22; Judges 2:1-5).
(Note- The Bible denies the worship of angels and angels never refer to themselves as God [Cf. Col. 2:18; Revelation 19:9-10, 22:8-9]. This strongly supports the fact that this specific Angel was not just simply God's representative, but OT appearances of the preincarnate Christ)

4-It attributes the work of creation to the Spirit of God (Cf. Gen. 1:2; Job 26:13, 33:4; Psalm 104:30)

5-When referring to the unity of God in Deuteronomy 6:4, Moses used the Hebrew echad: Shema Yisrael, Yahweh Elohenu Yahweh Echad- Hear O Israel, the LORD our God the LORD is One.
The term, echad, is used to show a plurality within unity as in Gen. 1:3, 2:24 and Jeremiah 32:38-39. Had Moses wanted to imply the absolute singularity of the Godhead he could have easily used the Hebrew yachid as in Gen. 22:2. There, Isaac is called Abraham's only Son.

My response:

If it was that simple that there is no plural majesty in the Hebrew alphabet, then why is not EVERY SINGLE Jew a Christian and a believer in trinity? You said that there is no plural majesty in their language, so hence if they see a plurality of God this would without a doubt have to lead them to believe in a trinity or a duality of God, and not just a few Jews, every Jew! However so, Jews are not flocking to believe in a trinity or believing in some duality of God. So one must ask Shamoun, why is not every single Jew a believer in the trinity or a duality of God since as you stated there is no plural majesty in the Hebrew language? The answer is simple because the OT teaches anything of the sort.

Now let us quote some of the verses Shamoun posted to point to a duality of God in the OT.

Gen 1:26-27: 26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Now since Shamoun believes 'US' refers to the trinity (Jesus, Father, Holy spirit) then one must ask, how does the holy spirit look like? Since it says in OUR image, so how is the image of the Holy Spirit? Better yet how is the image of the Father? No man has seen the Father at any time, remember that, so hence how would we have some of his physical features? To have the physical features of the Father basically means to be seeing the Father when we look at ourselves in the mirror, yet no man has seen the Father at anytime, so hence we cannot be created even in his image. Now I know several Christians will be jumping around saying the verse does not mean PHYSICAL image but characteristics and personality. That sounds like a reasonable explanation, but sadly that is a false explanation which is refuted in the chapter of Genesis. When God said let us make man in our image he did exactly mean PHYSICAL wise. Here is the proof:

Genesis 3:22: 22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever

This verse and chapter deals with Adam and Eve eating of the forbidden tree and the consequences of doing so. However so, the importance of this verse which proves man was created in God's image meaning physical wise, is when God says 'God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil'

So basically after Adam learned of his mistake he became like God in knowing good and evil, hence he did not have the characteristics of God when he was created but it came later on. Hence when God said let us create man in our image, it did mean physical wise because man did not have the characteristics of God until after he committed his mistake of eating from the tree. So man was not created in the image of God meaning characteristic wise as that verse refutes that claim.

Man was indeed created in God's image physical wise according to the chapter of Genesis. If he was created in God's image characteristic wise then he would have already known good and evil but the fact is he did not. That should do with Shamoun's showing of God being addressed with plural pro-nouns to show some sort of plurality of God, as you can see for yourself Shamoun has no idea of what he is talking about and its implications for himself.

Moving to his second point of there being more than one person in the God-head, let us quote some of the verses he used:

Proverbs 30:4: 4 Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind in his fists? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth? what is his name, and what is his son's name, if thou canst tell?

Where does that show more than one person in the God- head? Does a son of God make him God? Certainly not. However so I shall assume Shamoun is using this as a prophecy for Jesus, however so the prophecy does not mention Jesus being God but just being the son as we see:

Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind in his fists? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth? what is his name, and what is his son's name, if thou canst tell?

The verse is talking about who has created the ends of the earth, and who has gathered the wind in his fists, that person is God. After saying all of that the verse then says AND WHAT IS HIS SONS NAME? What is the son’s name of the one who does all these things? Hence the verse does not show Jesus being God, very badly misread by Shamoun and many Christians who have assumed this verse shows Jesus is God when in fact it is talking about God and then asks you to name who his son is. Let's quote one more verse from what he posted to show more than one being in the God-head.

Isa 48:12-16: 12 Hearken unto me, O Jacob and Israel, my called; I am he; I am the first, I also am the last. 13 Mine hand also hath laid the foundation of the earth, and my right hand hath spanned the heavens: when I call unto them, they stand up together. 14 All ye, assemble yourselves, and hear; which among them hath declared these things? The LORD hath loved him: he will do his pleasure on Babylon, and his arm shall be on the Chaldeans. 15 I, even I, have spoken; yea, I have called him: I have brought him, and he shall make his way prosperous.

16 Come ye near unto me, hear ye this; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, there am I: and now the Lord GOD, and his Spirit, hath sent me.

Shamoun's main usage of those verses is the last one, verse 16 which states the lord God and his spirit. To start off, how does Shamoun know that the spirit of God is another different distinct being? It is Shamoun's assumption that the spirit of God is a different being, yet the verse doesn’t show that. The spirit of God could yet still be God, and not a different being. Shamoun must show from the verse that the spirit of God is a different being yet also is still God. The spirit of God can still be the same God and not a different distinct person. There could also be several meanings of what the spirit of God could mean, and it is not just limited to Shamoun's usage of it meaning a distinct being yet still God.

That should do with his second point of trying to show more than one person within the God-head as we can see from some of the verses he posted give no solid basis for that claim, hence there is no need to quote every single verse he posted since they will also end with the same conclusion.

Moving on to point three in which he claims the angel of Jehovah is distinct from God yet still fully God at the same time. Let us just assume Shamoun is correct, this would still not help him out as a Christian and a Trinitarian. Shamoun believes in a trinity, if what he says is true then all he has managed to do is show there is some what of a duality of God, but not a trinity of God which is what Shamoun believes in. It does Shamoun no good in proving the angel of the lord is God yet being distinct from God, because it leaves us with 2 persons, not 3 and Shamoun believes in 3 persons not 2, so either way the argument does not help his cause as a Christian.

Let us do the same to point 4 as we did to point 3, just say the spirit of God is God, yet being distinct from God this leaves us with 2 persons, not 3 persons and you believe in 3 persons not 2 persons, hence this still does not help your cause as a Christian. For point 5 of his, consult these links which directly refutes his 5th point along with several others:

http://www.messiahtruth.com/trintorah.html

http://www.jdstone.org/cr/files/shemaisplural.html

http://reslight.addr.com/echad.html

http://www.outreachjudaism.org/trinity.html

I suggest all readers go on those sites and read what they have to say. They are responses and articles written by Jews refuting the lies of a plurality of God in the OT.

He wrote:

Muslim Argument:

If the Old Testament does teach the plurality of God, then how is it that the Jews who have studied it for all these centuries never came to the conclusion that God is a Trinity?

Christian Response:

Whether the Jews have come to realize that the Old Testament teaches the fact of the Trinity is irrelevant. What is relevant is if whether the OT supports the Trinity, which we have proven that it does.

Furthermore, it is not entirely true that Jews have not embraced the teaching of the Trinity. Throughout the ages, thousands of Jews have embraced the reality that God is a tri-Personal Being, as opposed to being uni-Personal.

In fact, there are thousands of messianic Jews today, Jews who both believe that Jesus is the Messiah and that God is a Triune Being.

My response:

Whether the fact that Jews have come to realize whether the OT teaches the trinity or not is RELEVANT. If everything was so easy in right in front of them in their own book, then they would surely have all become Christians, but the fact is the majority have not. Once again consult these links to see Jewish responses to plurality lie existing in the OT:

http://www.messiahtruth.com/trintorah.html

http://www.jdstone.org/cr/files/shemaisplural.html

http://reslight.addr.com/echad.html

http://www.outreachjudaism.org/trinity.html

There are many more sites that refute the plurality lie existing in the OT by Jews.

I must also correct you, you have not proven a plurality of God in the OT, you have just given your own interpretations that suit your dogma as any other Christian would. However so, once again let us assume that you have shown a plurality of God in the OT, you have yet to show a trinity of God in the OT, and that is what you believe in, you believe in 3 persons not 2 persons. Just to point out Shamoun's hypocrisy, at the beginning of his response he claims it is irrelevant to whether Jews believe in a plurality of God. However so, he soon goes on to say that thousands of Jews believe in Jesus as the messiah and a triune being. I find that hilarious indeed, when the majority of Jews do not believe in Jesus or a triune being of God he states that it is irrelevant, however so when there are thousands who believe in it, he goes on to mention it as if it is relevant!

He wrote:

2. THE NATURE OF CHRIST

Muslim Argument:
There is no clear biblical reference from the lips of Jesus claiming to be God. In fact, nowhere in the Bible does Jesus teach anyone to worship him. Instead he commands that one should worship God (Cf. Mat. 4:10).

Christian Response:
There is a very good reason why Jesus did not just come out right away and proclaim that he was God. Noted New Testament Scholar and Catholic Theologian, Raymond E. Brown states it best:

The question concerns Jesus a Galilean Jew of the first third of the first century, for whom `God' would have a meaning specified by his background and the theological language of the time. By way of simplification (and perhaps oversimplification) let me say that I think by a Jew of that period `God' would have been thought of as One dwelling in the heavens- among many attributes. Therefore, a question posed to Jesus on earth, `Do you think you are God? would mean did he think he was the One dwelling in heaven. And you can see that would have been an inappropriate question, since Jesus was visibly on earth. As a matter of fact the question was never asked of him; at most he was asked about his relationship to God." (Brown, Responses to 101 Questions on the Bible [Mahwah, N.J.; Paulist Press, 1990], p.98)

Therefore, for Jesus to say that he was God without qualification would have meant that Jesus was claiming to be the same person commonly referred to by both Jews and Christians as the Father. Yet, Jesus was not the same person as the Father, but was distinct from him, sharing the same essence and nature equally. Brown notes:

"... I would say that by that time (i.e. the last decade of the first century), under the impact of their quest to understand Jesus, Christians had in a certain sense expanded the meaning of the word `God.' It no longer for them simply covered the Father in heaven; it covered the Son on earth. They had come to realize that Jesus was so intimately related to God, so filled with God's presence, that the term God was applicable to him as it was to the Father in heaven. May I emphasis that this does not involve a change in Jesus; it involves a change and growth in the Christian perception of who he was." (Op. Cit.)

That Brown does not mean to say that it was Jesus' followers, and not Jesus himself, who came to realize that he was God, is clear from his following statement:

"Did Jesus have an identity which his followers later came to understand in terms of his being God? If he was God (and most Christians do agree on that), did he know who he was? I think the simplest answer to that question is yes." (Ibid., p. 99)

Hence, once Jesus had clearly affirmed the distinction between the Father and himself the term "God" came to be understood as a reference not just to a specific person, but to all the Persons of the Godhead. Once this qualification had been made clear, Jesus went on to make divine claims. Some claims include the following:

Jesus claims to be the Lord of the Sabbath, which to the Jews would have been a claim of being Yahweh God. (Cf. Mat. 12:8; Leviticus 23:3)

Jesus clearly refers to himself as God to the Gadarene demoniac (Cf. Luke 8:38-39)

Jesus claims to be Almighty in Revelation 1:7-8.

Jesus applies titles of God to himself, such as
a. First and the Last. (Cf. Isa. 48:12; Rev. 1:17-18, 22:12-13, 20)
b. I AM. (Cf. Isa. 48:12; John 8:58, 18:4-6)

Jesus forgives sins and heals, something which Yahweh does. (Cf. Mark 2:1-12; Psalm 103:3)

Jesus is the Source of Life and the Resurrection. (Cf. John 5:25, 28-29; 10:27; 11:25-26)

Jesus is to receive the same exact honor that the Father receives, which includes praying to him. In fact, to praise Jesus is to praise Yahweh. (Cf. Mat. 21:14-18-cf.- Ps. 8:2; John 5:22-23, 14:13-14)

Jesus is Omnipresent. (Cf. Mat. 18:20, 28:20; John 1:44-49; 14:21, 23; Ephesians 1:23, 4:10)

Jesus is Omniscient. (Cf. Mat. 11:27; John 16:30, 21:17; Rev. 2:23b- Jer. 17:10)

Jesus will judge all nations. (Cf. Mat. 25:31-33- Ezekiel 34:17; Rev.22:12- Isa. 40:10)

This list conclusively proves that Jesus both knew and claimed that he was God.

(Note: Muslims will often point to the fact that there is no place in the Bible where Jesus says "I am God," or "worship me." When this point is brought out, indicate to the Muslim that by the same token nowhere in the Bible does Jesus ever say "I am not God," or "do not worship me." Nor was Jesus ever commanded to say, much like Muhammad in the Quran, that he was only a human messenger [Cf. S. 3:144; 17:93; 18:110]. Furthermore, neither does the Father ever say "I am God, worship me." Using this logic we would be forced to conclude that the Father is not God as well.)

My response:

To begin with, Jesus did not ever claim to be God! Never did he do so in the entire NT, so much for New Testament Scholar and Catholic Theologian, Raymond E. Brown explanation of to why Jesus did not claim to be God straight away. As to what else Raymond said, he claimed: As a matter of fact the question was never asked of him; at most he was asked about his relationship to God.

By making such a statement, Mr Raymond proves that Jesus is not God! The fact that no one ever asked him if he was God proves that he never was God or did anything to qualify himself as God, which is why no one ever asked him such a silly question because they knew that he was never God. The fact that they always asked what is his relationship to God proves indeed he was a prophet and that is what the people took him for, because they saw all these great things he did, and all these great things he taught and so on, so they were amazed and wanted to know how close to God was he and what type of bond did he have with God. Shamoun then goes on to state:

Jesus claims to be the Lord of the Sabbath, which to the Jews would have been a claim of being Yahweh God. (Cf. Mat. 12:8; Leviticus 23:3) . This has already been refuted here (*)

Jesus clearly refers to himself as God to the Gadarene demoniac (Cf. Luke 8:38-39)

38 Now the man out of whom the devils were departed besought him that he might be with him: but Jesus sent him away, saying, 39 Return to thine own house, and shew how great things God hath done unto thee. And he went his way, and published throughout the whole city how great things Jesus had done unto him.

The verse in no way states that Jesus is God, but it does show obvious abuse of the text by Shamoun. Jesus telling the man to go to his house and to tell the people what great things God has done for him does in no way mean Jesus is God, very funny assumption by Shamoun. Shamoun takes his own book out of context, the entire context of the NT in fact shows Jesus as a prophet, and a man who did great things through the help of God, Jesus himself claimed everything he had and did was from God. So hence Jesus having the power to help a man by removing the devils from his body is in fact God doing the work, and not Jesus as everything Jesus had was from God, this is the same for every prophet. All miracles they perform are from God and given by God, hence it is really God doing the real work not them. However so let us take an example, say I was in a house and it was burning, and the fire department arrived, and a fire man came in the house and managed to help me out. I would be very thankful to be alive and outside the house, and I would definitely say thank you God for saving me! Does this mean the fire man is God? Certainly not! Now also say the fire man came to me and told me to thank God for this, and to go to my family and friends and tell them how God had done something great for me by letting me live, would this make the fire man God? Certainly not! This is the exact situation of Luke 8:38-39.

Jesus applies titles of God to himself, such as
a. First and the Last. (Cf. Isa. 48:12; Rev. 1:17-18, 22:12-13, 20)
b. I AM. (Cf. Isa. 48:12; John 8:58, 18:4-6)

To begin with, just because Jesus said I AM does not make him God at all, everyone says I AM, does that make them God? No it does not so that argument is very funny indeed. As for Jesus referring to himself as the first and the last. Shamoun posts Rev 1:17-18. However so let us post the beginning of the chapter and what it says:

Rev 1:1: 1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John

So in fact the first verse takes any thought of Jesus being God away, as we see it states the revelation of Jesus Christ which GOD GAVE UNTO HIM. From the text we see that Jesus is not God, so therefore if Jesus is indeed claiming to be the first and the last as him being God, then this is a blasphemy indeed! However so if Jesus did say he is the first and the last and this is not an invention or a lie inserted by the church, then we should ask in what sense did Jesus mean he is the first and the last. In what context was Jesus making such a statement? If you say it was him referring to himself as God then this is a blasphemy as the first verse shows he is NOT God, so hence when Jesus claims to be the first and the last he is not saying it in the sense that he is God. The same goes for Rev 22:12-13,20.

Jesus forgives sins and heals, something which Yahweh does. (Cf. Mark 2:1-12; Psalm 103:3)

Shamoun forgets that Jesus was able to do that because he was GIVEN that right, he did not own it, Yahweh does indeed forgive sins, but Yahweh is not given that right, Yahweh owns that right, something totally different. Consult these rebuttals for more information (*)(*)(*)

If verses do literally mean that Jesus should be honoured the exact same way as we honour the Father then this would conflict with the message of Jesus in the NT and with who Jesus really was. Consult all these rebuttals to see so for yourself [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [11.b] [12]. Read all those rebuttals and you will see for yourself that to honour Jesus the same exact way as to honour the Father (God) will leave you as a Christian with a lot of problems.

Jesus is Omnipresent. (Cf. Mat. 18:20, 28:20; John 1:44-49; 14:21, 23; Ephesians 1:23, 4:10)

This has already been dealt with here (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)

Jesus is Omniscient. (Cf. Mat. 11:27; John 16:30, 21:17; Rev. 2:23b- Jer. 17:10)

This has already been dealt with here (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)

Jesus is the Source of Life and the Resurrection. (Cf. John 5:25, 28-29; 10:27; 11:25-26)

This has already been dealt with here (*)

Jesus will judge all nations. (Cf. Mat. 25:31-33- Ezekiel 34:17; Rev.22:12- Isa. 40:10)

Facts that prove Jesus is not God have all been dealt with here [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [11.b] [12]

Shamoun then goes on to say that Jesus never said I am not God, or do not worship me. That logic is a fallacy; the fact is Jesus does not have to go around saying something he did not claim to be. You are making claims on Jesus such him being God and so on, so hence logic would tell us to bring the verse and place where Jesus made this claim which you claim him to be. An example would be is that I am not a killer, so will I have to go around telling everyone 'hey I’m not a killer nor do I kill people' certainly not! To another one of Shamoun points where the Father never said I am God or worship me, well Jesus referred to the Father as God, so that is good enough there, or is Jesus lying? Throughout the entire NT it is clear that the Father is indeed God, he sent Jesus to believe in him, to believe in the one who sent Jesus. Yes the Father did say worship him, when Jesus taught people how and who to pray to, he told them to pray to the Father, and Jesus himself said everything he hears he speaks, so basically it was the Father telling them to worship him. Throughout the entire OT we see God claiming who he is and what he is, why does Jesus never make the same explicit claims over and over again like God did in the OT, was Jesus shy? If Jesus was indeed God then this would mean God was shy to reveal he was God? Very funny indeed to know that God was shy or not ready to reveal to everyone that he was God, this is obviously not the same God of the OT.

He wrote:

Muslim Argument:
According to the Bible, Jesus cannot be the Messiah since Matthew's genealogy lists him as a descendant of cursed Jehoaichin.(Mat. 1:11-16) In Jeremiah 22:24-30, God says of Jehoiachin:

"'As surely as I live,' declares the LORD, `even if you, Jehoiachin, son of Jehoiakim king of Judah, were a signet ring on my right hand, I would still pull you off. I will hand you over to those who seek your life, those you fear- to Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon and to the Babylonians. I will hurl you and the mother who gave you birth into another country, where neither of you was born, and there you both will die. You will never come back to the land you long to return to,'

"Is this man Jehoiachin a despised, broken pot, an object no one wants? Why will he and his children be hurled out, cast into a land they do not know? O land, land, land, hear the word of the LORD! This is what the LORD says: `Record this man as childless, a man who will not prosper in his lifetime, for none of his offspring will prosper, none will sit on the throne of David or rule anymore in Judah.'"

If Matthew's genealogy is correct, then Jesus cannot be a legitimate King of Israel nor the Messiah of God.

Christian Response:

It must be stated that the scriptures clearly teach that God's decree of judgement is not always final since God often allows time for repentance to occur since his desire is for none to perish:

"Say to them, `As surely as I live declares the Sovereign LORD, I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn from their ways and live. Turn! Turn from your evil ways! Why will you die, O house of Israel?'" Ezekiel 33:11

In relation to God reversing a decision he has made due to man's actions we read in Jeremiah 18:7-10:

"If at any time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be uprooted, torn down and destroyed, and if that nation I warn repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned. And if at another time I announce that a nation and kingdom is to be built up and planted, and if it does evil in my sight and does not obey me, then I will reconsider the good I had intended to for it." N.I.V.

An example of God reversing his decision due to a nation or individual's action after hearing the prophetic warning is Ninevah. According to Jonah 3:4 God had declared that the city would be destroyed forty days after the prophet's warning. But according to Jonah 3:10 we are told that after "God saw what they (the Assyrians) did and how they turned from their evil ways, he had compassion and did not bring upon them the destruction he had threatened."

Evidently, we find this to be the case with Jehoiachin who obviously had repented since we find certain aspects of the curse reversed. For instance, one stipulation of the curse was that neither he nor his offspring would prosper and yet we find him prospering at the hands of Evil-Merodach king of Babylon:

"In the thirty-seventh year of the exile of Jehoiachin king of Judah, in the year Evil-Merodach became king of Babylon, he released Jehoiachin king of Judah from prison on the twenty-fifth day of the twelfth month. He spoke kindly to him and gave him a seat of honor higher than those of the other kings who were with him in Babylon. So Jehoiachin put aside his prison clothes and for the rest of his life ate regularly at the king's table. Day by day the king gave Jehoiachin a regular allowance as long as he lived, till the day of his death." Jeremiah 52:31-34

Furthermore, we find his descendant Zerubbabel prospering in the hands of God, being commissioned by the Lord to rebuild his house:

"'On that day,' declares the LORD Almighty, `I will take you, my servant Zerubbabel son of Shealtiel,' declares the LORD, `and I will make you like my signet ring, for I have chosen you,' declares the LORD Almighty.'" Haggai 2:23 N.I.V.

These factors strongly support the fact that Jehoiachin had repented which moved God reversed the curse upon him. This is not simply a Christian view but one endorsed by orthodox rabbinic Judaism as well. Sanhedrin 37b-38a states:

"R. Johanen said: Exile atones for everything, for it is written, `Thus saith the Lord, write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days, for no man of his seed shall prosper sitting upon the throne of David and ruling, anymore in Judah.' Whereas after he[the king] was exiled, it is written, `And the sons of Jeconiah,'- `the same is Asir, Shealtiel his son etc.' (1) [He was called] Asir, because his mother conceived him in prison. Shealtiel, because God did not plant him in the way that others are planted. We know by tradition that a woman cannot conceive in a standing position, [yet she] did conceive standing. Another interpretation: Shealtiel, because God ordained [of the heavenly court] absolution from his oath.(2)"

The Soncino Talmud's footnotes state:

(1) I Chr. III, 17 notwithstanding the curse that he should be childless, and not prosper, after being exiled he was forgiven.

(2) Which he had made (ed.-the oath), to punish Jeconiah with childlessness.

According to Pesikta de-Rab Kahana, God states "I accepted the repentance of Jeconiah: Shall I not accept your repentance?..."

Finally, the Jewish Encyclopedia records:

"Jehoiachin's sad experiences changed his nature entirely, as he repented of the sins which he had committed as king he was pardoned by God, who revoked the decree to the effect that none of his descendants should ever become king... he even became the ancestor of the Messiah (Tan, Toledot, 20 [ed. Buber, I. 140] emphasis ours)

My response:

This will be the easiest argument to respond to. Let me quote something very interesting from Shamoun: It must be stated that the scriptures clearly teach that God's decree of judgement is not always final since God often allows time for repentance to occur since his desire is for none to perish. He also stated: In relation to God reversing a decision he has made due to man's actions we read in Jeremiah 18:7-10:

Not only is that a lie that is a contradiction within the very Bible. As we can see Shamoun is claiming that God can reverse his decision and his decision is not always final, meaning he changes his mind. Shamoun also post some verses to show this:

Ezekiel 33:11

Jeremiah 18:7-10:

However so that is simply not true, and it also leaves us with a contradiction in the Bible, let us look at the contradicting verses:

KJB 1 Sam 15:29: And also the Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent: for he [is] not a man, that he should repent.

Num 23:19 God [is] not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do [it]? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?

So as we see God does not repent, he does not change his mind, however so Shamoun claims God does change his mind and reverse his decision leaving us with a plain contradiction, let us quote the contradicting verses:

Jer 18:8 If that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them.

Jer 18:10 If it do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them.

Jer 26:3 If so be they will hearken, and turn every man from his evil way, that I may repent me of the evil, which I purpose to do unto them because of the evil of their doings.

To repent or not to repent that is the question.

He wrote:

Muslim Argument:
Jesus cannot be God since he made false predictions. In Matthew 10:23 Jesus says to his disciples, "I tell you the truth, you will not finish going through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes." The disciples went through the cities of Israel and Jesus still has not returned.

The second false prediction is found in Matthew 16:28 where Jesus states, "I tell you the truth some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom." The disciples have all died and Jesus has not come into his kingdom.

Finally, Jesus states in Matthew 24:34 his generation would not pass away until the fulfillment of all the prophecies leading to his second coming had occurred.

Christian Response:

There are no false predictions, but a misunderstanding of Jesus' words. Firstly, Jesus' saying "before the Son of Man comes" is not a reference to his second coming, but to his being reunited with his disciples after their evangelistic outreach. This becomes evident from Matthew 11:1 where it states that "after Jesus had finished instructing his twelve disciples, he went on from there to teach and preach in the towns of Galilee."

Hence, Jesus had departed into Galilee while the disciples were traveling throughout the towns of Israel. Afterwards, Jesus met up with the disciples where "they reported to him all they had done and taught." (Mark 6:30)

In regards to Matthew 16:28, Jesus was referring to the visible manifestation of his kingdom, where he would appear in glory and power. Jesus was promising his disciples that some of them would get a foretaste of how Jesus would appear at his return, where his second coming is to be accompanied by the proclamation of the two witnesses which scripture indicates must come before Christ. (Cf. Malachi 4:5; Rev. 11:1-12) This understanding becomes evident from Mark's account:

"And he said to them, `I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God come with power.' " Mark 9:1

The fulfillment of this promise took place shortly afterwards:

"After six days Jesus took with him Peter, James, and John the brother of James, and led them up a high mountain by themselves. There he was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and his clothes became as white light. Just then there appeared before them Moses and Elijah talking with Jesus." Matthew 17:1-3

Hence, Jesus did appear in kingly power and glory alongside the two witnesses, fulfilling his promise to the disciples.

In relation to Matthew 24:34, there are two possible responses. First, the term

"generation" is the Greek geneous, a synonym of genes which means race. Hence, the race of Jews whom Jesus was addressing would not pass away until the culmination of the age. Secondly, Jesus may not have been referring to his generation per se, but the generation that would witness the signs that Christ predicted would occur before his second coming. (Cf. Mat. 24:15-33)

My response:

Let me respond to Shamoun's weak attempt of addressing Matthew 16:28. Shamoun claims that Matthew 17:3 is the fulfilment of Matthew 16:28, however so this is false, let us read the context of Matthew 16:28 starting from 24:

24 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. 25 For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it. 26 For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul? 27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works. 28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

So once reading the context it becomes clearer. Jesus is talking about the last days when he comes in his Father's glory with the angels to judge every man according to his works. Then Jesus tells some of his disciples that some of them will not taste death till they see the son of man coming in his kingdom. As we can see, Jesus is referring to the last days as you can clearly see from the context, so Jesus hence is telling some of the people present that they will be alive when the son of man comes in the glory of his Father with the angels to judge all men according to their works. The context does not support Shamoun's claim that Jesus' words were fulfilled by Matthew 17:1-3. The context is clear about the last days and that some of his disciples will be present when it occurs, an obvious false prophecy.

He wrote:

Muslim Argument:
According to Mark Jesus cursed a fig tree for not having figs on it, even though "it was not the season for figs" (Mark 11:12-14). If Jesus is God, did he not know that it wasn't season for figs, and if so why would he curse it?

Christian Response:
There are three responses. Firstly, Jesus in his divine consciousness knows all things (Cf. John 21:17), and because of this fact he would have known beforehand whether the tree would bare figs or not. Secondly, before fig season something called taqsh sprouts on the tree as an indication of whether it would bear figs or not. Most likely, Jesus saw that there were no taqsh on the tree which would have indicated to him that it was barren.

Finally, Jesus might have been trying to teach a spiritual lesson. Figs are used in the Old Testament as a symbol for Israel:

"I found Israel like grapes in the wilderness; I saw your fathers as the firstfruits on the fig tree in its first season." Hosea 9:10 N.K.J.V.

Therefore, Christ could have been indicating to his disciples that Israel would suffer judgment before the culmination of the age. The following parable solidifies this point.

"Then he told this parable: `A man had a fig tree planted in his vineyard; and he came looking for fruit on it and found none. So he said to the gardener, "See here! For three years I have come looking for fruit on this fig and I still find none, Cut it down! Why should it be wasting soil?" He replied, "Sir, let it alone for one more year, until I dig around it and put manure on it. If it bears fruit next year, well and good; but if not, you can cut it down." ` " Luke 13:6-9 N.R.S.V.

For over three years Jesus ministered to Israel in order that they might come into repentance, but they were unwilling. Hence, God brought judgement upon the nation for their rejection of the Messiah. This judgement was manifested in the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem. (Cf. Mat. 23:37; Luke 19:41-44)

My response:

To begin with let us throw Shamoun's third response out the window because Shamoun himself is not sure as he says: Jesus might have been trying to teach a spiritual lesson

He probably was, or he probably was not, so better not to assume what he was trying to do or what he was not trying to do. As for Shamoun's first response that: Firstly, Jesus in his divine consciousness knows all things (Cf. John 21:17),

This is a lie which is exposed in these rebuttals (*)(*)(*)(*)(*). The fact is the divine Jesus was not all-knowing neither was he all powerful. For proof that even the divine Jesus was not all-powerful and fully independent consult this rebuttal (*).

He wrote:

Muslim Argument:
Jesus uses what seems to be derogatory language. In Matthew 7:6 Jesus calls unbelievers dogs and swine, and in Matthew 15:26 Jesus likens both the Canaanite woman and Gentiles to dogs.

Christian Response:

Jesus was using common Jewish metaphors to illustrate an unbeliever's or pagan's total depravity. (Cf. Proverbs 26:1; 2 Peter 2:22; Rev. 22:14) The crowds would have understood that Jesus was obviously using metaphorical language, and was not literally calling someone a dog or swine.

In regards to Jesus' statement in Matthew 15:26, Christ was trying to illustrate a key point to his disciples. According to first century Jewish thought both Gentiles and women were held in low esteem. Jews regarded themselves as the children of God, whereas Gentiles were nothing more than house pets.

(Note: The Greek word used in this verse for dogs is kynarion, which properly translated means house pet or puppy [Strong's 2952]. Jesus' use of this term implies that just as a house pet has a place in the home of his master, so too do the Gentiles have a place prepared for them in God's kingdom)

Christ was trying to move his Jewish disciples, who had tried earlier to get rid of the Canaanite woman, to envy by the woman's persistence and display of great faith; a faith exemplified by someone who to them was nothing more than a house pet. In similar fashion, Jesus had used a Roman Centurion's faith in contrast to the Israelites' lack of faith:

"Now when Jesus heard this, he marveled, and said to those who were following, `Truly I say to you, I have not found such great faith with anyone in Israel. And I say to you, that many shall come from East and West, and recline at the table with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven; but the sons of the Kingdom shall be cast out into the outer darkness; in that place there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.' " Cf. Matthew 8:5-12

The Jews considered Romans as enemies which God would destroy when Messiah would appear. And yet here was Israel's Messiah commending the faith of such a one. Hence, Jesus was using Gentiles as examples for Israel to emulate, not look down upon.

(Note: The Quran also uses the phrases "dog", "apes", "swine", and "donkey" to refer to unbelievers. [Cf. 5:60; 7:175-177; 62:5])

My response:

Let us quote Matthew chapter 15 from verse 21 to 28. You will see for yourself that Jesus did regard the women who was gentile as a lower class being by calling her a dog, and that he was not trying to teach his disciples anything when in-fact Jesus himself was taught something and was proven wrong and some what of a racist.

21 Then Jesus went thence, and departed into the coasts of Tyre and Sidon. 22 And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil. 23 But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us. 24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. 25 Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me. 26 But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs. 27 And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters' table. 28 Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour.

So the verse starts with Jesus going to the coasts of Tyre and Sidon. When Jesus was in the coasts a women of Canaan came to him and started begging Jesus and pleading with him to have mercy on her and to help her cure her daughter who was possessed by a devil. Jesus remained silent and basically ignored her. Shamoun makes up a lie and says: Christ was trying to move his Jewish disciples, who had tried earlier to get rid of the Canaanite woman.

Shamoun is trying to show Jesus was trying to teach them something, however the reason why the disciples wanted Jesus to get rid of the lady is because she kept crying and pleading with Jesus and HE JUST KEPT SILENT AND IGNORED HER. So obviously it would become annoying after a while and probably draw some attention, so the natural thing the disciples do is ask Jesus to get rid of her. They do this because in fact it is Jesus who is causing the trouble by ignoring her and remaining silent. Finally Jesus answers her by telling her that he is sent only to the lost sheep of Israel, meaning his mission is only to help and guide them. That would have been fair enough and reasonable, however Jesus' racist attitude and ignorance is shown when the lady asked him for help in which Jesus replied: It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs

So basically in a nut shell we see how Jesus felt towards gentiles and those who were not of the lost sheep of Israel, he was no different than the ignorant Jews who held the same racist attitude towards gentiles. The lady then responds back by saying even dogs eat crumbs which fall from their masters table. So not only has the lady now degraded herself by acting like she is a dog, she calls Jesus her master, she lowers herself to the position of a servant and raises the position of a Jew to a master by saying: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters' table.

It is obvious the master refers to the Jews, and the dogs refer to the gentiles and she has lowered herself to being a servant. Then after all this Jesus finally says: O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour.

So after begging and pleading and lowering herself to a servant and calling the Jews the master Jesus finally helps her out.

Secondly Jesus himself is stunned and shocked when he says: O woman, great is thy faith. So Jesus' ignorant and racist view toward the gentile lady is thrown out when he finds out what great faith she has, this proves that Jesus himself believed that all gentiles where faithless lower class people. Very funny to see Shamoun state: The Jews considered Romans as enemies which God would destroy when Messiah would appear. And yet here was Israel's Messiah commending the faith of such a one. Hence, Jesus was using Gentiles as examples for Israel to emulate, not look down upon.

Very funny indeed. Jesus was using the gentiles as an example, very funny indeed. Not only is Shamoun lying, he takes his readers as fools to lie to them when the text and context is very clear. Jesus was not using the gentile as an example, not at all. In fact Jesus was racist and ignorant toward the lady, and he did not help her out till she begged and begged and lowered herself to a servant and calling Jesus and Jews as master to the gentiles. Jesus was then shocked and stunned to find the great faith in the woman, obviously for an ignorant racist to find out such shocking information on a person who you thought had no faith what so ever is hard to take indeed. So Jesus was indeed a racist ignorant person towards non-gentiles.

(Note I do not believe the Jesus of Islam is neither a racist nor an ignorant person to make such comments about any one. I believe the true Jesus was never such a racist as ignorant as the Jesus we see in Matthew 15.)

He wrote:

Muslim Argument:
God is all-knowing. But according to the Bible, Jesus did not even know the day or hour of his second coming. (Cf. Mark 13:32)

Christian Response:

According to the Bible, Jesus was both God and Man at the same time. The one divine Person of Christ took on a real human nature without ceasing to be God. In Christ, both the nature of God and the nature of man were perfectly united in one Person. (Cf. Mat. 1:22-23; John 1:1, 14; Philip. 2:5b-7; Col. 2:9)

Hence, Jesus had both a divine and human consciousness. In his human consciousness, Jesus' knowledge was finite and limited. This is precisely why he had to grow in wisdom and knowledge. (Cf. Luke 2:40, 52)

Yet, Jesus in his divine consciousness was omniscient, having the same incomprehensible knowledge and wisdom that the Father has. (Cf. Mat. 11:27; John 21:17; Rev. 2:23b- cf.- Jer. 17:10)

My response:

This topic has been dealt with in these rebuttals (*)(*)(*)(*)(*). As for Jesus being God and man at the same time limiting Jesus powers and so on, this subject has been dealt with in these rebuttals (*)(*)

He wrote:

Muslim Argument:
God is able to do all that he pleases. But according to John 5:19 Jesus could do nothing of himself.

Christian Response:

The biblical teaching on the Trinity is not that there are three independent gods each having his own will. Rather, the Bible teaches that there are three distinct, yet inseparable Persons of the Godhead who have one perfect will and who work in perfect harmony. They never work independently. When we read the verse in its entire context, we discover that this is precisely what Jesus was telling the Jews in John 5:19:

"Jesus gave them this answer: `I tell you the truth, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because WHATEVER the Father does THE SON ALSO DOES.'" NIV

In order for Christ to be able to do everything that his Father does implies that Jesus is God. Only God can do all that the Father does, since the Father does the things that God alone can do. This passage affirms the perfect unity and equality of the Father and Son, along with the Holy Spirit. (Cf. John 16:13)

(Note- It must be pointed out that at the Incarnation Christ took on both a real human nature and a human will. Therefore the one Person of Jesus had both a divine will alongside a human one while still remaining uni-Personal. [Cf. Matthew 26:42])

My response:

This has already been dealt with in these rebuttals (*)(*)(*)(*)(*).

So that concludes the first part of the rebuttal to Shamoun's article. As you can see yourself, Shamoun's responses are weak and don’t work, and many of what he bringing up has already been refuted in my previous rebuttals.

To continue to part 2 click here.