Jesus the Prophet of Islam


Part 2


Sami Zaatari




We resume the second part of Sam Shamoun's supposed refutations:


The missionary writes:


As if he couldn't get anymore confused Zaatari went on to say:

"And secondly, you act like there were no Jews who converted to Jesus. History shows us that there were several early Jewish Christians who believed that Jesus was simply a prophet [sic] and a Messiah. You seem to act like every single Jew denies him when that's not the case."

Does Zaatari mean Jews like Peter and John, both of whom preached that Christ is the exalted Lord of all, who died on the cross and rose again on the third day, all of which the Quran denies? The same ones who taught that Christ is the Author of Life and that forgiveness of sins comes through believing in his name?



Does Shamoun mean supposed Jews like Peter and John, disciples who had a lack of faith, and who continued to infuriate Jesus due to their lack of faith and belief? Does Shamoun mean the supposed Jew Peter who lied to Jesus' face when he said he would stand by him even in times of distress? The same Peter whom Jesus called satan? The Same Peter whom Paul condemned as well?

Also notice how Shamoun quotes me then starts twisting what I say. Notice I said there were early Christian Jews who believed in Jesus as a Messiah and prophet FULL STOP, not that he was God or a divine being. From where does Shamoun get Peter and John when I was obviously not referring to them?

Obviously this is a nice cheap evasive tactic by the missionary to run away from the point, and to bring a red herring.

Quite frankly if I am honest I could care less about what these disciples taught, the very Gospels show that these 12 men are a bunch of unreliable faithless men, who never properly understood Jesus, hence what they taught means nothing in a real court.

The missionary then proves what a liar Peter is, as well as how faithless he is:

Zaatari went to attack the character of Peter for telling Jesus he would never deny him but ended up doing so anyway in order to reject his testimony concerning Paul's letters in 2 Peter 3:15-16. But wasn't this the same Peter who confessed that Jesus is the Christ in a passage which Zaatari sourced to prove that Jesus did claim to be the Messiah (cf. Matt. 16:15-20)? That same Peter?(1)


Wow! Talk about hitting the nail on the head! Thank you Sam! Exactly, Peter confessed that Jesus is the Messiah, and he told Jesus he would follow him wherever he goes, through the good and bad, yet when the actual time came HE FLED AND FORSOOK JESUS! So this shows what weak faith this supposed apostle had, so yes Sam, it is this Peter I am referring to and you simply strengthen my case, thanks buddy.

The missionary then writes:

As if he couldn't get any more desperate and dishonest, when Ruggiero in his closing statements noted that Peter in Matthew 16:15-20 testified that Jesus is the Son of the Living God Zaatari started singing a different tune and sought to discredit Matthew's testimony by appealing to Mark 8 to prove that Peter didn't say that Jesus is God's Son, but only confessed that he was the Messiah!

"Okay, something which I find a bit nice is that when you quote Jesus said, ?I am the Son of the Living God etc.,' you quote from Matthew. Why don't you quote from Mark which came before Matthew? Do you know why Christians don't quote Mark? Because when we read Mark 8:29, the same story, this is what Mark says, and Mark came before Matthew: ?And Jesus said unto them, "But who do you say I am?" And Peter said, "Thou art the Christ,"' full stop. No term called the Son of the Living God! Why is that? I don't know why, why do Christians quote Matthew but not Mark who came before Matthew where there's no mention of the Son of the Living God? That brings more question marks."

In the first place, Zaatari must suffer from amnesia since he was the one who sourced Matthew 16:15-20 in his opening statements! It is obvious that this deceiver will say anything in order to save face and win a debate.


Since Shamoun is generally stupid he often misunderstands several things I do. The reason why I quoted Matthew instead of Mark is because CHRISTIANS are the ones who are always going to Matthew instead of Mark, hence I used the Christian's favorite version of the story.

What makes this interesting is that the bankrupt missionary does no refute me! He admits that in Mark's version there is nothing about Jesus being called the son of the living God:

The foregoing makes it abundantly clear that there is nothing sinister going on with Matthew providing additional details in his version of the pericope that Mark, for whatever reason, omitted or didn't record.

I really have to chuckle at such stupidity. Mark came before Matthew, it wouldn't be hard at all to simply add son of the living God, it is not like adding an entire paragraph, but just a few words. Is it a coincidence that Mark leaves such a thing out? No, it isn't, the fact that it is left out is because it was never said. Then the Missionary ADMITS Matthew ADDS additional things, but says there is nothing sinister about it! If Jesus wasn't called the son of God in this incident, and Matthew adds that in it makes him a liar, and twisting what really happened. This is pretty much like what Shamoun does, like disciple like missionary, both like to twist and add things into people's mouths to preach their false lies.

The missionary then writes:

"Now, are you telling me Peter would lie directly to God's face? Would Peter run away from God? That's a huge difference between Moses killing a man and a man directly lying to God. If God was in front of you today would you run away from him when he is being attacked? So you can't compare those two. those incidents with Peter. So obviously it also proves another point that Peter didn't believe Jesus is God because who would lie directly to God's face when he's sitting beside you? Who would tell God, ?I'd die for you,' and then run away from him? Who would run away from God? That's what you have to think about. Does Peter really believe that Jesus is God? If he did why did he run away from him? So therefore even if he endorsed Paul for believing Jesus is God it means nothing because he himself didn't believe Jesus is God. It's ironic, we're assuming Paul teaches Jesus is God, Peter endorses Paul, and yet Peter runs away from God. It doesn't add up. Peter obviously didn't believe Jesus is God. If Paul taught that Jesus is God and Peter endorses Paul then obviously something doesn't make sense."

If the logic of this amateur apologist were sound then this means that Yahweh cannot be God since Sarah lied to his face


And Jonah thought he could actually run away from God


The thug quotes me and yet again I don't really have to say anything as my quote refutes him!

Peter was with Jesus for a long time, yet he still LIED to Jesus' face, and it doesn't end there, he also ran away from Jesus! So these are two things to take in. How could Peter run away from God and not protect him? This is God! Obviously Peter had no faith so he ran for his life, on top of this he lied to Jesus, more proof that he didn't believe that Jesus was God.

Jonah running away from God was a completely different story, he was running away from God, Peter was ABANDONING GOD and running away because he was scared for his life and didn't stay to protect Jesus! Secondly Sarah did not lie to God's face, as in physical face to face, let Shamoun go learn how to read the story properly, Sarah was IN THE TENT, while God was supposedly outside near a tree.

Shamoun then does something lovely and proves that Jesus is not God when he writes:

Finally, Zaatari's argument assumes that if Jesus claimed to be God then the apostles like Peter would have necessarily been able to accept or fully comprehend such a claim. He forgets to mention that Jesus' followers were seeing a flesh-and-blood human being standing before their very eyes, which would have made it quite difficult for them to believe that he is God


It is amazing how this missionary will twist and lie! Shamoun claims it would have been too difficult for the disciples to believe that a man in flesh and blood would be God. Why is that? It seems Christians often forget that they always like to rant that the Old Testament Prophesized that the Messiah would be God in flesh! Shamoun has written several articles trying to show that the Old Testament teaches that the Messiah is God:

In each of these articles Shamoun argues that the OT teaches that the Messiah will be God himself. So if the OT did teach that the Messiah would be God then why would it be hard for the disciples to comprehend if they already believed such a doctrine?!

So Shamoun proves that the Jews NEVER believed in such nonsense that God would come in flesh and blood, and would be a full man needing human needs.

Incase Shamoun has a hard time in understanding the point then I will make it easy for him:

-You claim Jesus is the Messiah

-You claim that Jesus the Messiah is God in the flesh

-You claim the Old Testament prophesized about this, that the Messiah would be God himself

-Therefore the Jews and the disciples would have believed that Jesus the Messiah was God would no problems

-Yet you claim that the disciples would have a hard time comprehending Jesus as God because he was man with flesh and blood

-Therefore this proves the Old Testament actually never taught such a thing

-If the OT did teach such a thing the disciples would not have a hard time to comprehend it as they were waiting for it!

Hopefully this makes things easy for Shamoun, and hopefully Christians will now see the truth and accept the fact that the reason as to why the disciples had a hard time in comprehending a man God is because there is no such thing as a man God!

So in conclusion Shamoun has refuted nothing, all he has shown is that he isn't qualified to refute no one, and should change his line of work and go deliver pizza's as that is more suitable for him.

And Allah Knows Best!