Rebuttal to Sam Shamoun’s article
A Series of Answers to Common Questions
By
http://www.answering-islam.org.uk/Shamoun/defense.htm
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
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
(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,
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
The term, echad, is
used to show a plurality within unity as in Gen. 1:3,
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
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:
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
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.
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
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,
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
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.
Jesus is
Omnipresent. (Cf. Mat. 18:20, 28:20; John
Jesus is
Omniscient. (Cf. Mat. 11:27; John
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
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,
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
1:1: 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
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 (*)(*)(*)
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.
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
This
has already been dealt with here (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)
Jesus is
Omniscient. (Cf. Mat. 11:27; John
This
has already been dealt with here (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)
Jesus is the Source
of Life and the Resurrection. (Cf. John
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.
"'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
"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
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
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
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
"In
the thirty-seventh year of the exile of Jehoiachin king of
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
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
Num
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
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
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
Hence, Jesus had
departed into
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
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
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
Therefore, Christ
could have been indicating to his disciples that
"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
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
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
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.
My Rebuttals, and exposing the lies of the Answering Islam team section.
Rebuttals to Sam Shamoun's Articles section.
Sami Zaatari's Rebuttals section.