Jesus the prophet of Islam


Not the Son of the Living God


Sami Zaatari




Some time ago I had a live public debate with Christian apologist Louis Ruggerio, the owner of The debate was a very good debate on all levels, for starters it was respectful, and the debate was purely on the topic without side disturbances of tension between the two debaters. The debate can be accessed on this link:


As I said Louis was very respectful, and was a good example of how Christians should conduct themselves in a debate. The Christian I am about to refute in this article is the complete opposite though, and that is the thug known as Sam Shamoun.


The bankrupt missionary thug recently decided to publish a 2 part article trying to ?refute' my points during the debate. For starters I want everyone to visit these links so they can see why this vile missionary Shamoun is nothing more than a street thug:


The above article just exposes the very few of this thug's insults and bad behavior. I advise Shamoun to learn from his Christian Brother Louis in how to behave during a debate, and in the field of apologetics in general.


With that said let us see if this missionary has actually refuted any of what I said during the 2 hour debate. The missionary's comments will be green.


However, we do agree with Zaatari that Jesus was agreeing with the disciples' confession concerning his OWN Person and relationship with God, a confession which conclusively proves that Muhammad was a false prophet. Here is the context to see the problem Zaatari now faces and the hole that he has dug for himself:

"When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, ?Who do people say the Son of Man is?' They replied, ?Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.'  ?But what about you?' he asked. ?Who do you say I am?' Simon Peter answered, ?You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.' Jesus replied, ?Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by MY FATHER in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.' Then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ." Matthew 16:13-20

Peter confesses that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, a confession that Jesus says was revealed directly by his Father. Nor is this the only time where someone testified that Jesus is God's Son:

"When he arrived at the other side in the region of the Gadarenes, two demon-possessed men coming from the tombs met him. They were so violent that no one could pass that way. ?What do you want with us, Son of God?' they shouted. ?Have you come here to torture us before the appointed time?'" Matthew 8:28-29

"Jesus said to her, ?Your brother will rise again.' Martha answered, ?I know he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day.' Jesus said to her, ?I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; and whoever lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?' ?Yes, Lord,' she told him, ?I believe that you are the Christ, the Son of God, who was to come into the world.'" John 11:23-27

Interestingly, Zaatari himself admits in his first rebuttal period that,

"So either way Jesus claimed to be the Messiah, the Son of God, and the Son of man - never to be God, or being man and God in dual natures. There is none of that. There is none of that, and this is found throughout the Bible."

Zaatari has placed himself in a bit of a jam. According to his false prophet Allah has no sons and is not a father to anyone, especially to Christ. In fact, the highest relationship a person can have with Allah is that of a slave:

The Jews call 'Uzair a son of God, and the Christians call Christ the son of God. That is a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. God's curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth! S. 9:30 Y. Ali

They say: "(God) Most Gracious has begotten a son!" Indeed ye have put forth a thing most monstrous! At it the skies are ready to burst, the earth to split asunder, and the mountains to fall down in utter ruin, That they should invoke a son for (God) Most Gracious. For it is not consonant with the majesty of (God) Most Gracious that He should beget a son. Not one of the beings in the heavens and the earth but must come to (God) Most Gracious as a servant. S. 19:88-93 Y. Ali

And they say: "(God) Most Gracious has begotten offspring." Glory to Him! they are (but) servants raised to honour. S. 21:26 Y. Ali

Since Zaatari admits that Jesus did claim to be God's Son he must therefore accept that Muhammad is a false prophet for denying that he was



So basically Shamoun is arguing this:

-Jesus identified himself as the son of God

-Jesus called God his Father

-The disciples believed that Jesus was the son of God

-The Quran denies that Jesus is the son of God

So how can the two go together? People need to understand something very important, and this importance was that Jesus was preaching to an Israelite audience, as he himself said:

Mat 15:24  But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.


So Jesus was preaching to an Israelite and Jewish audience. Therefore we must understand terms and concepts as to how the culture and the people understood it. What Trinitarians such as Sam Shamoun do is they twist the meanings of phrases and terms which were understood by the Jews, and then they come add a new meaning to it.

To the Israelites and the Jews being called the son of God, and calling God your Father was something normal. This did not denote any divine attribute of the person, nor did it literally mean that God had a literal son, and that God was a literal Father. It was all metaphorical language, by son of God they were essentially referring to themselves as servants of God.


When the Quran attacks the Christians for calling Jesus the son of God the Quran is attacking the Christians who have made this term into something LITERAL.


 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.


This is from John 3:16. As you can see Jesus is called the BEGOTTEN son of God, the word begotten in Greek is called mongenes, and this word is used in reference to children begotten by their parents through an act of sexual intercourse!


On top of this in the Gospel of Luke we get a genealogy of Jesus which lists all of father, going all the way back to God!


23Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph,
      the son of Heli, 24the son of Matthat,
      the son of Levi, the son of Melki,
      the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph,
    25the son of Mattathias, the son of Amos,
      the son of Nahum, the son of Esli,
      the son of Naggai, 26the son of Maath,
      the son of Mattathias, the son of Semein,
      the son of Josech, the son of Joda,
    27the son of Joanan, the son of Rhesa,
      the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel,
      the son of Neri, 28the son of Melki,
      the son of Addi, the son of Cosam,
      the son of Elmadam, the son of Er,
    29the son of Joshua, the son of Eliezer,
      the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat,
      the son of Levi, 30the son of Simeon,
      the son of Judah, the son of Joseph,
      the son of Jonam, the son of Eliakim,
    31the son of Melea, the son of Menna,
      the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan,
      the son of David, 32the son of Jesse,
      the son of Obed, the son of Boaz,
      the son of Salmon,[d] the son of Nahshon,
    33the son of Amminadab, the son of Ram,[e]
      the son of Hezron, the son of Perez,
      the son of Judah, 34the son of Jacob,
      the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham,
      the son of Terah, the son of Nahor,
    35the son of Serug, the son of Reu,
      the son of Peleg, the son of Eber,
      the son of Shelah, 36the son of Cainan,
      the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem,
      the son of Noah, the son of Lamech,
    37the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch,
      the son of Jared, the son of Mahalalel,
      the son of Kenan, 38the son of Enosh,
      the son of Seth, the son of Adam,
      the son of God.


How can God be in a genealogy?! Notice this is a very literal connection being made to the term son of God; it is no longer being used as something metaphorical. We see all the fathers of Jesus being listed right till he goes back to the Father, as a literal descendent of God.


So it is this that the Quran is attacking, this literal meaning that the Christians have attached to the terms of son of God and Father. It is also this reason why Allah doesn't call himself a Father to us, but rather he calls himself Lord, so as to not leave any chance for any literal meanings to be attached. So from now on we call Allah our RAB, meaning our Lord, not our ABA, meaning our Father.


In fact it is a well known common fact that millions of Christians also call Mary the mother of God! Yet again this is showing literal meanings, which makes us ask, if Mary is the mother of God, and Jesus is the begotten son of God, then this means God is married to Mary! Whether Christians disagree to this is IRRELEVENT because when


you put what their own mouths say with their Bible, we are left with this conclusion!


The missionary continues to write:

by agreeing that Jesus claimed to be the Son of Man Zaatari has only compounded matters since Christ was identifying himself with the figure that the prophet Daniel saw:

"In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed." Daniel 7:13-14

Now compare this with Jesus' own words:

"Then the high priest stood up before them and asked Jesus, ?Are you not going to answer? What is this testimony that these men are bringing against you?' But Jesus remained silent and gave no answer. Again the high priest asked him, ?Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?' ?I am,' said Jesus. ?And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.' The high priest tore his clothes. ?Why do we need any more witnesses?' he asked. ?You have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?'" Mark 14:60-64

It is evident that, by identifying himself as the Son of Man who rides the clouds and sits on God's right hand, Jesus was claiming to be the One who rules forever and receives worship from every nation, all of which Muhammad denied.



It is ironic that Shamoun doesn't see that the verses he quotes, plus the statements he makes disprove the fact that Jesus is the divine son of God!

Let us read Daniel 7:13-14 again:

13 "In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. 14 He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.

Notice it says that the son of Man who comes will be GIVEN AUTHORITY, he will be GIVEN his kingdom, he does not OWN it. This shows the son of Man is not all powerful, but rather he is subservient and under God's authority and power.

Secondly, the word worshipped that is put here is called Pelach in the Hebrew language. The word Pelach does not have to mean worship, but could mean to serve, as someone would serve a person in authority and power. As the Jews believed the Messiah would be their king, and he would have his kingdom, all of which would be given to him BY GOD, logically since he is a king and would have his kingdom, he would also have his people and the people would serve him.

This is the problem with Trinitarians, they are so biased any time they find such words they like to claim it means worship, just like how you worship God. Yet the words do not mean that, and the Jews didn't even understand it to mean like that.

Also do not forget, Jesus was preaching to the Israelites, to the Jews. Hence he preached according to their understanding. So when Jesus identified himself as the son of Man in Mark 14:60-64 he was referring to himself as the son of Man understood according to Jewish understanding. The Jews never believed that the Messiah would be God, nor did they believe he would be worshipped as God.

Hence in Daniel 7:14 when it says the people will make Pelach to the Messiah, it means they will serve him, as he is a king, and person in authority.

Shamoun then tries to appeal to the Jews b writing:

The first problem that Zaatari faces is that the Jews of Jesus' day understood from Christ's claim to being God's Son that he was in fact making himself out to be God:

"So, because Jesus was doing these things on the Sabbath, the Jews persecuted him. Jesus said to them, ?My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I, too, am working.' For this reason the Jews tried all the harder to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God." John 5:16-18

"?My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand. I and the Father are one.' Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus said to them, ?I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?' ?We are not stoning you for any of these,' replied the Jews, ?but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.' Jesus answered them, ?Is it not written in your Law, "I have said you are gods"? If he called them "gods," to whom the word of God came?and the Scripture cannot be broken? what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, "I am God's Son"?'" John 10:27-36

"The Jews insisted, ?We have a law, and according to that law he must die, because he claimed to be the Son of God.'" John 19:7

And even though the Jews were often wrong in their understanding, the NT shows that they were not mistaken at this point but were actually correct for assuming that Jesus was making himself out to be God



Actually Shamoun should change his wording; SOME JEWS believed that Jesus was referring to himself as God. Not all the Jews who saw Jesus believed he was God. What makes this interesting is that Shamoun has to appeal to the evil Jews whom Jesus himself condemned as liars and hypocrites who did not know God:


Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands? He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. (Mark 7:5-6)


 Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels. (Mark 8:38)


But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves. Woe unto you, ye blind guides, which say, Whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing; but whosoever shall swear by the gold of the temple, he is a debtor! Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifieth the gold? And, Whosoever shall swear by the altar, it is nothing; but whosoever sweareth by the gift that is upon it, he is guilty. Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gift, or the altar that sanctifieth the gift? Whoso therefore shall swear by the altar, sweareth by it, and by all things thereon. And whoso shall swear by the temple, sweareth by it, and by him that dwelleth therein. And he that shall swear by heaven, sweareth by the throne of God, and by him that sitteth thereon. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone. Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess. Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness. Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous, And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets. Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets. Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers. Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell? (Matthew 23:13-33)


So notice how Jesus condemned his Jewish accusers, he called them hypocrites, liars, and snakes. And this is the people Shamoun turns to!


Not only were these accusers liars, they also accused and killed other prophets:


Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city: That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar. Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation. O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! (Matthew 23:34-37)


So these very same Jewish accusers killed other prophets as well! These evil people would attack and want to kill prophets like Jesus NOT because he claimed to be God; rather he came to destroy their corrupt, and evil ideologies they had made, as well as breaking their power and rule. Hence prophets like Jesus were a major threat to them, so they had to get rid of men such as Jesus. So a perfect way to do this is by accusing the innocent prophet of claiming to be God and making blasphemous statements.


The missionary continues:

Secondly, Jesus' own words refute Zaatari's lie that Son of God merely refers to a righteous servant or judge:

"Jesus replied, ?I tell you the truth, everyone who sins is a slave to sin. Now a slave has no permanent place in the family, but a son belongs to it forever. So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.'" John 8:34-36


No where in this verse does it show that the son of God means anything more than a servant and a righteous one as well.

Indeed it only the Son of God, who is the servant of God who can free someone from sin by preaching the word of God to that sinner, whereby the sinner will learn of his mistakes and then repent of his sin!

The prophets of God were sent as helpers to their people, to free them from the evils that they were indulging themselves in, whether it be polytheism, or outright corruption and the rejection of God's word.

Shamoun further adds:

Christ also set himself apart as God's beloved Son from the prophets who were servants:

"He then began to speak to them in parables: ?A man planted a vineyard. He put a wall around it, dug a pit for the winepress and built a watchtower. Then he rented the vineyard to some farmers and went away on a journey. At harvest time he sent a servant to the tenants to collect from them some of the fruit of the vineyard. But they seized him, beat him and sent him away empty-handed. Then he sent another servant to them; they struck this man on the head and treated him shamefully. He sent still another, and that one they killed. He sent many others; some of them they beat, others they killed. He had one left to send, a son, whom he loved. He sent him last of all, saying, "They will respect my son." But the tenants said to one another, "This is the heir. Come, let's kill him, and the inheritance will be ours." So they took him and killed him, and threw him out of the vineyard.'" Mark 12:1-8


Shamoun proves that Jesus is merely a servant and prophet of God by these verses. Notice Jesus is called the heir, which means he doesn't own anything at all. Notice further that it is the OWNER of the vineyard that sends the son, who is the heir, which also means that the son is under the command and orders of the Father, which means all power belongs to the Father, and not to Son. Hence Jesus did not show he was special, rather he showed he was completely under God's will, authority, and showed there is no equality between the Father and the Son as it is the Father who sends the son and owns everything!

Another point to notice is that in this parable OTHER servants were killed as well! So this further shows that these evil Jews were killing other prophets, and that the fact they wanted to kill Jesus was not something unique.

Shamoun now tries to appeal to the Quran:

Third, it seems that the Jews whom Zaatari consulted knew considerably more than Muhammad since the latter assumed that if God did have a Son then he would be the first to worship and serve him:

Say: "If (God) Most Gracious had a son, I would be the first to worship." S. 43:81 Y. Ali

Say: ?If the All-merciful has a son, then I am the first to serve him.' Arberry

One commentary explains,

Say: ?If the Compassionate One had a son, hypothetically [speaking], I would have been first among the worshippers, of that son; but it is established that He, exalted be He, does not have a child and thus there can be no worshipping of such [a child]. (Tafsir al-Jalalayn; source)

Muhammad seemed to be aware that if God had a Son he would be worthy of worship since Zaatari's false messenger evidently realized that to be a Son meant that the person in question would be more than just a mere servant/slave of God.


It is amazing how the missionary will distort meanings to suit his false dogma! When the Quran refers to Allah hypothetically having a son it is referring to a LITERAL son.

So does Shamoun agree with the Quran then? That Jesus is the LITERAL Son of God? It seems he does or else why would he bring up Quranic passages about a son of God and try to relate it with Jesus! Hence Shamoun has just proven how absurd his beliefs are as he believes that God literally has a son! Now I ask Shamoun, if God literally has a son as you believe, then who is his wife? Is it Mary?!

Talk about digging a hole for yourself.

The missionary continues:

Muhammad was in good company in his understanding since the disciples of Christ reacted in the very manner that Zaatari's false prophet said he would if God had a Son:

"During the fourth watch of the night Jesus went out to them, walking on the lake. When the disciples saw him walking on the lake, they were terrified. ?It's a ghost,' they said, and cried out in fear. But Jesus immediately said to them: ?Take courage! I AM (ego eimi). Don't be afraid.' ?Lord, if it's you,' Peter replied, ?tell me to come to you on the water.' ?Come,' he said. Then Peter got down out of the boat, walked on the water and came toward Jesus. But when he saw the wind, he was afraid and, beginning to sink, cried out, ?Lord, save me!' Immediately Jesus reached out his hand and caught him. ?You of little faith,' he said, ?why did you doubt?' And when they climbed into the boat, the wind died down. Then those who were in the boat WORSHIPED him, saying, ?Truly you are the Son of God.'" Matthew 14:25-33


So just because Jesus said ego eimi he must be God? Then I guess the blind man, as well as Paul should be God as well for saying the exact same thing!

Paul replied, "Short time or long?I pray God that not only you but all who are listening to me today may become what I am(EGO EIMI), except for these chains." (Acts 26:29)


So using Sam's logic we should all worship Paul because he said EGO EIMI.


When Jesus said I AM, it meant that he was the one, the Messiah, the person whom the people were expecting to come for them, and the person they should look to for guidance and help. Hence when Jesus says I AM, Peter gets curious and wants to see if it really is the Messiah, the one whom he has been waiting for. Peter would never believe that Jesus was God for several reasons, for one no Jew believed that God would be born out of a woman, or God would NEED to eat, and that God would be circumcised, as well as baptized!


Also when the text says that Peter worshiped Jesus, again the word the Trinitarians translate as worship here does not have to be worship, rather it could and does mean a sign of respect, a sign of respect for a higher authority, and since Jesus was both a prophet and the Messiah, he was a higher authority to Peter and was his leader.

Shamoun continues:

Fourth, Zaatari deliberately distorts the point of Jesus that he was sent to Israel since the Lord clearly says that these Israelites were lost:

"He answered, ?I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.'" Matthew 15:24

According to the Holy Bible being lost means that one does not know the path of salvation and is on a road leading to destruction.


If I did distort anything (which I didn't) then I would have learned such a tactic from yourself, as you are a great distorter of the truth, in fact just a few paragraphs ago you distorted the Quranic meaning when it refers to the son of God!

Since Shamoun knows he is in a hole, and knows that according to Jewish understanding the term Son of God doesn't mean divine. He now has to play the game that the Jews were actually people who had no understanding, and didn't properly understand their scripture.

Shamoun is doing two things here, is attacking straw man for one, and for two he is being a liar as well.

Indeed there were many Jews who were lost, and were ignorant people, who knew not the Book. Yet does that mean ALL Jews were lost? Here is a challenge for Shamoun as well, when did I ever say that ALL JEWS were guided people who knew the Book? So as you can see he attacks straw man, and lies against the entire Jewish nation! What an ignorant missionary Nazi.

The very verse he quotes refutes him as well! Read it again:

"He answered, ?I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.'" Matthew 15:24

Notice Jesus says he is only sent to the lost sheep of Israel, obviously one who knows how to properly read will be able to see from this that not ALL Israelites were lost, and that Jesus was specifically sent for the lost people alone.

The missionary continues his Nazi rant against the Jews:

Fifth, Christ himself chided the Jewish authorities of his day for perverting the Word of God by their traditions and for failing to understand it properly


Since Muhammad likened the Jews to assess who do not understand the Torah why is Zaatari appealing to them to refute the Christian position concerning the nature and Person of Christ? Is he indirectly admitting that Muhammad was wrong about the Jews since they do know their Scriptures and can be consulted for a proper understanding of the Hebrew Bible? If so then why is Zaatari still a Muslim?


Talk about a distorter of the truth! It is amazing as to how the missionary will TWIST and DISTORT the Islamic position regarding the Jews knowledge of the Torah. Indeed I agree with Shamoun that many Jews did corrupt their teachings, and made their own man made traditions. Yet is this the case for ALL Jews? Off course not, and the Quran refutes this Nazi liar:

YUSUFALI: Those who believe (in the Qur'an), those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Sabians and the Christians,- any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness,- on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.

Not all of them are alike: Of the People of the Book are a portion that stand (For the right): They rehearse the Signs of Allah all night long, and they prostrate themselves in adoration. They believe in Allah and the Last Day; they enjoin what is right, and forbid what is wrong; and they hasten (in emulation) in (all) good works: They are in the ranks of the righteous.  Of the good that they do, nothing will be rejected of them; for Allah knoweth well those that do right. (3:113-115)


So the Quran refutes this Nazi liar, and it proves what a distorter of truth he is by trying to lie upon the prophet Muhammad as well!


When Jesus condemned specific Jewish people, he was condemning the RULERS and LEADERS amongst them, Shamoun himself wrote that Jesus chided JEWISH AUTHORITIES.


Jesus was not condemning an entire race of people! What a Nazi this missionary truly is!


Shamoun has to show us and prove to us where the ENTIRE Jewish nation were a lost people, and that NONE of them understood scripture, sadly for him he will never do so. Hence my contention that Jesus preached to a Jewish audience, according to their understanding still stands. What a desperate and lousy attempt by Shamoun to get rid of this contention.


Shamoun then attacks straw man while he quotes me:

And here is how this amateur apologist responded to Ruggiero chiding him for turning to disbelieving Jews who reject Jesus as a false Christ for information concerning the nature of the Messiah:

"Indeed it doesn't make any sense. Never once did I say I went to Jews asking them their opinion about Jesus [nor did Ruggiero said that he did, so this is nothing more than a red herring and straw man]. I asked them a opinion about what they believe the Messiah, who. if he is Divine or not. That's it. I didn't . so it doesn't matter if they believe he is the Messiah or not. What does matter is that he was preaching to a Jewish audience, and according to a Jewish audience the term Messiah doesn't mean Divine. So again, when I went to Jewish opinion it was not what they think about Jesus, but what they thought, or if they think who the Messiah is coming, if he is going to be Divine. And yes their Messiah has come. They reject their Messiah, but that doesn't matter [sic] because they believe the Messiah isn't Divine in the first place. That's what matters. And as Jesus said. Jesus, what did he say? ?I come preaching to the lost sheep of Israel.' And I ask the sheep of Israel, the Jews, the Israelites, did they believe the Messiah was going to be God? Yes or no? No! And this is according to who? Jesus said I came to them. So I am using Jesus' teaching."

Zaatari keeps digging himself further into the hole. If it matters what these Jews believe concerning the Messiah then surely their belief that the Messiah is an eternal King who rules forever and that at his advent all prophecy shall cease must also matter. The Jews further deny that the Messiah will be born to a virgin supernaturally, without a human father. And yet Muhammad denied that the Messiah Jesus is an eternal king and that his coming heralded the consummation of all prophecies and visions, while claiming that he was born to the virgin Mary. Thus, if the Jews are correct regarding the Messiah then Muhammad is a false prophet whom Zaatari must condemn.



Notice this lousy missionary QUOTES ME and still attacks straw man. I will quote myself again so you can see the main parts the lousy missionary ignored:

"Indeed it doesn't make any sense. Never once did I say I went to Jews asking them their opinion about Jesus I asked them a opinion about what they believe the Messiah, who. if he is Divine or not. That's it. I didn't . so it doesn't matter if they believe he is the Messiah or not. What does matter is that he was preaching to a Jewish audience, and according to a Jewish audience the term Messiah doesn't mean Divine. So again, when I went to Jewish opinion it was not what they think about Jesus, but what they thought, or if they think who the Messiah is coming, if he is going to be Divine. And yes their Messiah has come. They reject their Messiah, but that doesn't matter [sic] because they believe the Messiah isn't Divine in the first place. That's what matters. And as Jesus said. Jesus, what did he say? ?I come preaching to the lost sheep of Israel.' And I ask the sheep of Israel, the Jews, the Israelites, did they believe the Messiah was going to be God? Yes or no? No! And this is according to who? Jesus said I came to them. So I am using Jesus' teaching."

So what in the world is Shamoun talking about? Cant he properly listen to me, and cant he properly read what he quotes!


That was my main point! Off course this point went completely passed Shamoun's head and he somehow missed it although I kept repeating myself to emphasize this point!

Notice even in my quotes I refute Shamoun, I even say EVEN THOUGH JEWS DO REJECT JESUS, IT DOESN'T MATTER, BECAUSE THEY STILL DON'T BELIEVE THE MESSIAH WOULD BE DIVINE! And that is what really matters! As you can also clearly see in my statements, I was interested in WHAT the Messiah is, not WHO the Messiah was. I even said I didn't go to Jews for their opinion on Jesus! I

The missionary becomes more bankrupt when he writes:


The second problem with this assertion is that Zaatari erroneously assumes that the Jews during Jesus' time were united concerning their understanding of the Messiah. The facts, however, indicate otherwise since differing Jewish sects held to various views regarding the nature of the Messiah. For instance, doesn't Zaatari know that certain Jews not only believed that the Messiah was God's Son but that he was also a heavenly preexistent figure,




Irrelevant red herring that doesn't disprove my case that the Jews did NOT believe the Messiah was divine, nor

did the term son of God make you God himself.


In fact Shamoun says something nice, that the Jews were not united on the understanding of the Messiah, his exact nature. Yet the Jews were united in one understanding, that the Messiah was NOT GOD! And that is the most important understanding of all.


This concludes part one.


And Allah Knows Best!