The following email was sent to both Sam Shamoun and Nadir Ahmed, and permission was given by the author to add it to our section of responses to Nadir Ahmed. This Christian brother sent the below displayed message to clear up Nadir Ahmed's gross misrepresentation of a Biblical text which he propagates in this article on his website.

From: things christian <>
Subject: Copy of Email to Nadirahmedassala
Date: Thu, 19 May 2005 17:24:10 -0500

Copy: Sent to


Re: Your Article - Jesus - Sinless or Not?


You have made a mistake in biblical examination regarding your idea that Jesus was not sinless (the Bible shows that Jesus never sinned, including the passage you have examined on line).

If you are interested in this biblical examination in response to your article, it follows below:

Your statements will be in quotes and the reply will be below your statements.

You wrote:

"Let us ask a question. If you were walking home one day, and out of no where, Satan appeared to you, and said, "Come here and follow me, I want to take you somewhere", would you go? Any true believer in God will immediately rebuke Satan right then and there, and shout NEVER! GO TO HELL SATAN! STAY AWAY FROM ME! Perhaps, they may even pick up a baseball bat and start swinging till the evil spirit runs away. Or run for their lives in the opposite direction."


You have misunderstood the context of this situation Jesus allowed Himself to be placed within.

You have no biblical basis to state what you have stated within this paragraph as being, (what you consider), to have been the "right" response for Jesus to have made to Satan.

The Bible reveals that the situation was a "temptation" that Jesus had to go through.

Matthew 4:1

"Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil."

Your statement that Jesus sinned when He allowed himself to enter into the temptation by Satan is not correct biblically or consistent reasoning within the context of the situation.

Jesus would have sinned IF He would have refused to have allowed Himself to be tempted by Satan.

The Holy Spirit led Jesus into the wilderness "...TO BE TEMPTED BY THE DEVIL."

By allowing Himself to undergo the temptation by Satan, Jesus obeyed God and did not sin by going into the wilderness to be tempted by Satan.

Let's continue:

"But not the Jesus of the Bible. Shockingly, the Bible teaches in Mathew 4:5-8 that the devil appeared to Jesus, and asked him to go (mountain-climbing) with him, and instead of striking out against Satan right then and there, Jesus actually accepted Satan’s invitation, and together, Satan and Jesus went mountain climbing."

Let's stop at this point for a moment:

The Bible does not teach that they went "mountain climbing." Satan has powers on earth and he took Jesus at one point to the pinnacle of the temple and also to a top of a high mountain.

Matthew 4:5

"Then the devil took Him into the holy city; and he had Him stand on the pinnacle of the temple,..."

Matthew 4:8

"Again, the devil took Him to a very high mountain, and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world, and their glory;"

The historical facts are that they did not go mountain climbing. You have misled your readers again (you have changed the context), here at this point.


You wrote:

" Here are the verses in question, or better put, Christianity's Satanic verses, Matthew ch. 4 vs. 8:"

Reply: There is no biblical or rational basis to call anything in the Bible "Satanic verses" as you have here.


You quoted the following verses:


Then the devil took him to the holy city, and set him on the pinnacle of the temple,


and said to him, "If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down; for it is written, 'He will give his angels charge of you,' and 'On their hands they will bear you up, lest you strike your foot against a stone.'"


Jesus said to him, "Again it is written, 'You shall not tempt the Lord your God.'"


Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and the glory of them;

You comment on the verses below:

"The Bible does not say that there was any kind of fight or resistance on the part of Jesus when Satan appeared to him and invited him to follow him, therefore, we will have to assume that Jesus went willingly. "


Of course, Jesus went willingly. The Spirit led Him into the temptation environment. This temptation was a requirement from God that Jesus undergo.

You have no basis - moral or biblical or rational to make a personal decision that Jesus should not have gone willingly. Jesus obeyed God by going.

By making the statement above you have misled your reader and you misunderstand the context of the biblical record.

Now... Continuing with your statement:

"Therefore, we see from this outrageous story in the Bible, that Jesus was clearly "demon--possessed", so much to the point, that he took Satan as a comrade (wali) and a traveling partner. In addition to that, it is clear, that Jesus was NOT sinless. Answering the call of Satan, is a sin. This is simply a irreconcilable contradiction.


There is no biblical basis to suggest, teach or assume a thing never taught or stated within the biblical setting.

You make false statements that Jesus took Satan as a comrade and a traveling partner. Both of which are outside the context of the situation portrayed in the Bible and both of which is denied by the context and statements and actions of Jesus.

Jesus did not sin in allowing himself to be tempted.

In biblical teachings, none of us sin by going through a temptation...sin only takes place when we obey the temptation.

The context shows, Jesus not only, did NOT obey the temptations of Satan; He continually provided the truth to Satan that the only moral Will that Jesus would obey is God's Will.


"You continued: "Notice how Jesus takes direct orders from Satan, as it states in Matthew 4:5 (KJV):

Matthew 4:5

Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple,

In this verse Satan orders Jesus to go sit on the very top of the temple, and Jesus obeys Satan’s commands. "


Your statement is incorrect. Jesus allowed Himself to be tempted by Satan. This wrong idea that you have purposed has already been replied to above. Jesus was required to allow Himself to be tempted by Satan. And as the context shows, He did not listen to Satan but challenged Satan with the Truth. He did not sin, but obeyed God.


"This is simply an outrageous story found within the Bible. The actions of Jesus flatly contradicts God’s Word:

James 4:7

Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil and he will flee from you. "


You again are incorrect. Jesus obeyed James' teaching completely.

The Spirit led Him into the wilderness in order that Jesus would undergo the temptation of Satan.

Jesus obeyed God.

Notice that Jesus fulfilled James' teaching and Satan left Jesus because Jesus had resisted him.

Matthew 4:10 Then Jesus said to him, "Begone, Satan! For it is written, 'YOU SHALL WORSHIP THE LORD YOUR GOD, AND SERVE HIM ONLY.'"

Mat 4:11 Then the devil left Him; and behold, angels came and began to minister to Him."


You wrote:

"What is probably the most shocking aspect of this story, is how can Jesus chose to go mountain climbing with Satan? You have to wonder, what did they talk about on their journey? Can you imagine Jesus saying, "Hey Satan, give me a hand up this cliff…". How can Jesus make a partisanship with Satan? There had to have been some kind of teamwork and unity for the journey to the mountain, or else it would be impossible for Satan and Jesus to ever have left the desert! This also flatly goes against the teachings of God’s Word:"


The (your) paragraph above has nothing to do with the context of the passage you state you are talking about.

There is nothing in this Bible passage that shows Jesus and Satan "mountain climbing" or forming a "partnership" or any kind of "teamwork" or "unity."

The context examines a contest of moral Will. Jesus resisted all temptation to replace Satan's power with God's power.


You brought up this passage:

1 Corinthians 10 :20

"No, I imply that what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be partners with demons. "

"Yet, Jesus took Satan as his traveling partner. There can be no question, that obeying Satan is a terrible sin, and Jesus Christ was NOT sinless, which contradicts numerous Bible verses which teach that Jesus was sinless."


Jesus did not take Satan as His traveling partner.

You have not taught the actual situation. You have distorted and twisted an event that did not take place (as you teach).

An Important teaching to remember:

Peter, taught the consequences of not teaching the truth:

2 Pet 3:16 " also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction."

In the historical "temptation"context, Jesus obeyed God and He was led by the Spirit into the wilderness in order to allow Himself to be tempted by Satan.

He at no time obeyed Satan. Jesus did not sin.


You wrote:

"Therefore, Christianity can not be true."


Christianity is true.

Jesus never sinned. There is not one Bible passage that reveals that He sinned. Jesus is God as every aspect of His life and teachings show.

Jesus entering into human history had been foretold to Adam and Eve.

There are many Messianic passages He fulfilled.

He is Savior of those who accept His sacrifice for their sins. Only Jesus can save people from the moral consequences of their sins as He was the One Person Who did not deserve the penalty for sins, which is death (He did not deserve death because He is morally perfect).

Thus, He willingly stood in our place and took the penalty for all sin in order that when we stand before God, the Father, He will only see that the penalty has already been paid through the blood of His own Son (on our behalf).

If you do not allow Jesus to pay for your sins (Acts 2:38), you will pay for them; as the penalty for all sin, is death...eternal destruction away from the only God there is.

You continued (see below to read my response to Sam's statements):

"Sam "The Sham" Shamoun, a foolish Christian Missionary has attempted to defend his religion, by offering the following pathetic response:

"The question why did Jesus accept Satan’s invitation, well I guess you didn’t hear me, I thought it was clear to the room, the reason why Jesus accepts his invitation is to conquer and overcome and to defeat him… he’s defeating Satan by overcoming every temptation and trial he puts unto.

Now how is that not clear? The very purpose of Jesus going into the desert, and I said in the beginning and everyone heard it.. let me repeat it again.. the very purpose of Jesus going into the desert… the very purpose of Jesus going into the desert, was so that Satan could tempt him and try to cause him to fail. Now does everyone see that?

Put a "1"…. Now this guy is trying to be silly by saying Oh, obeying Satan is a sin.. oh really? So you are saying because Jesus obeyed Satan that is a sin? Or should you see it for what it says, Gods will was ... the fathers will was... that Christ enter the wilderness, and face Satan’s every trial and overcome and destroy him"


Jesus never obeyed Satan. Most of the quote regarding this man's reply is correct. Jesus was obeying God. At no time, did Jesus obey Satan.

Jesus was the Victor! And Satan left, he had failed!

This is exactly what the context shows (that Jesus never obeyed Satan's temptations).

When we are within a situation of temptation, being within that situation, is not a sin, itself.


You wrote:

" When Shamoun says "to over come and defeat him" all he means is that Jesus is going to say, "no" to Satan's offers and Satan will walk away."


This temptation event is an historical event.

You have no moral or rational basis to attempt to re-write that historical event (in other words, you have no moral right to teach a private concept regarding temptation that has nothing to do with the reality of this event).

There is no victory over sin, unless one is tempted and has resisted (in other words, the person has "won over" or "resisted" the temptation).

Jesus was required to undergo this temptation event.

The Spirit led Him into the wilderness for that very reason.

Jesus was obeying God by allowing Himself to be tempted and Jesus won the moral victory with flying colors!

Jesus is our High Priest and the "temptation" event was a necessity to show to us His understanding of our situations in this life):

Heb 2:17 "Therefore, He had to be made like His brethren in all things, that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. For since He Himself was tempted in that which He has suffered, He is able to come to the aid of those who are tempted."

No person has a right to assume he/she understands all that God understands, in order, that His perfect moral Will can become known to men and women during their lifetimes.

The historical event of the temptation of Jesus serves the holy and perfect Will of God; not you nor anyone else has a right to distort this historical event or assume how Jesus "should have" responded to it.

Jesus responded to it within a perfect moral stand.


You wrote:

" Therefore Shamoun is over dramatizing the event in the Bible. But, what is even more shocking, is that according to Shamoun, to defeat Satan, you must first obey Satan take direct orders from Satan, and then agree to travel with Satan as he takes you from place to place, then you can tell Satan "no thank you" and defeat him. Of course this type of reasoning is absolute absurdity, and shows just how desperate Shamoun is. Obeying and taking orders from Satan is not a requirement to defeat him! This is utter foolishness."


I did not read from Mr. Shamoun what you have stated here.

It is a form of lying and deceit to present a position that the person did not present to you (or to re-frame his/her reply).

In my view, you owe this person a public apology.

When you attempt to teach what the Bible has revealed you owe your reader(s) (and/or student) to accept the historical context of the event and not go outside that context, along with the moral responsibility to never invent an environment that is not presented within the context.


Responses to Nadir Ahmed