By December 1, 2006 4 Comments Read More →

Free Course: Muslim Apologetics 001

Muslim Apologetics Free Course, Lesson 001


This short document responds to Muslim criticisms against the biblical teachings. The response is not exhaustive. Ahmad Deedat who died recently in South Africa was one of the strong defender of Islam and launched criticisms which I responded in this document.

His criticisms outlined here have been written a book mentioned below and secondly, some of the criticisms were spoken to Swaggart in the debate which was recorded in the video.


In several texts of the Bible Jesus is called as the Son of David (Matt. 20:30-31; 21:9). The meaning of the word “son” in English is not the same with the Bible’s definition. Many of the people who think “son” has the English definition have serious difficulties to understand the term when it is applied to Jesus.

Son in the Hebrew definition means a descendant. For example, Daniel calls Belshazzar as the son of Nebuchadnezzar (Dan. 5:2). Historical sources say Belshazzar was the son of Nabonidus not Nebuchadnezzar. “But “son” and “father” had an even broader usage in ancient times, referring to a line of authority, not necessarily a bloodline. The most notable example of that happening in biblical times involved Jehu, king of Israel, who was known in Assyrian records as “Jehu, son of Omri.” Both Jehu and Omri were kings of Israel, but there was no blood tie between them” (Thompson 1991:231).

The term “father” used in Matthew 1 relating to Joseph and God do not have the same meanings. Ahmed Deedat in his book entitled “A Comparative of religion booklets” (pp. 168- 169 compares two genealogies of Jesus. He says, “Matthew and Luke are over-zelous in making David the king, the prime ancestor of Jesus, because of the false notion that Jesus was to sit on “THRONE OF HIS FATHER DAVID” (Acts 2:30). The Gospels belie this prophecy, for they tell us that instead of Jesus sitting on his father’s David’s throne, it was Pontious Pilatem a Roman Governor, a pagan who sat on that very throne and condemn its rightful (?) heir (Jesus) to death.” Pilate was a governor; he was not a king. Jesus was announced as king by the angels not a governor (Luke 2:11). There is no scripture which says Jesus was destined according to prophecy to be a governor of Israel. Jesus did not come to sit on the throne of the governor but a king.

At this juncture it is necessary to point out that the Bible describes three major offices of Jesus in His Ministry. He is described as king (2 Sam. 7:14), Prophet (Deut. 18:15-16) and the servant (Isa. 42; 50 and 53; Mark 10:45). Jesus told Pilate that His kingdom was not of this world (Matt. 26:64). Many passages in the NT show how Jesus fulfilled the servant role which included the priestly role to die for sinful mankind. He had come to serve not to be Lord (Mark 10:45). He taught God’s word as the fulfillment of the prophetic role.

The kingly has two major aspects which are to destroy the kingdom of the devil. In His first sermon He said the kingdom of God had come (Matt. 4:17). He described this kingdom that it was His duty to destroy the kingdom of the devil not Rome. The destruction of the devil’s kingdom was demonstrated firstly by the healing ministry and lastly, by the death on the cross (John 12:27-32). This is the very reason Jesus said before He died that it was finished (John 19:30). What had finished was the destruction of the devil’s kingdom.

The first genealogy of Jesus is Matthew 1:6-16 and the second 1 is Luke 3:23-31. The names which appear on the two passages are different. Deedat challenged Jimmy Swaggart in the debate recorded in the video that one of the two authors is a liar. To respond to this debate I begin by asking whether the two authors had the same theme which they address in their books? The authors selected names which had to do with the themes they addressed in their books.

Secondly, names mentioned in the books do not refer to direct names of their fathers. There are many names which have been omitted by both of them on their lists. Matthew has 13 names on his list while as Luke has 23 names. Luke used a list which connects to his theme in the book that Jesus is the Savior of the world. Matthew uses names in his list to connect Jesus as the king of Israel. Matthew mentions David and Abraham first on his genealogy list because they were both given a promise of the seed or king (2 Sam. 7:16; Gen. 17:6). The two purposes distinguish the choice of names used on the genealogical list (Thompson 1991:230).

Thirdly, most of the Jews had two names one in Hebrew while the other was in Greek. Peter had one name in Greek, the second Simon as a transliteration from Simeon and lastly he had a Latin name Cephas (Gal. 2:9, 11, 14). Joseph was also called Barnabas (Acts 4: 36). Saul was a Hebrew name while as the second name Paul was a Latin name. They chose to write the name they preferred and this automatically made names to differ on the genealogical list.

Brethren Assembly | Free Bible College | Biblical Archeology

Free Courses | Free Apologetics Courses | Free Seminary Degrees

 Free Coruses

About the Author:

4 Comments on "Free Course: Muslim Apologetics 001"

Trackback | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Jacob Lucas says:

    Sence Allah said in the quran to look to the those book of the jews and christians. Sura 5:46 – And We sent after them in their footsteps Isa, son of Marium, verifying what was before him of the Taurat (Jewish Torah) and We gave him the Injeel (Christian Gospels) in which was guidance and light, and verifying what was before it of Taurat and a guidance and an admonition for those who guard (against evil).

    7:157. “Those who follow the apostle, the unlettered Prophet, whom they find mentioned in their own (scriptures),- in the law and the Gospel;-

    SO all muslims have to do is say they must of been corrupted, But finding a hard time doing so. And I say Gods word never comes back void. A other exsample is the quran teaches agianst the trinity saying it is the Father,Son,and Mary? If God wrote the quran don’t you think he would of known what Christians beleived on the trinity 600 years before Mohammad had these revelations.Of course not because God did not write it. Jesus said I am the way the truth and the life no man cometh unto the Father but by me john 14:6.

  2. God the father is for everyone.He hears prayers.

  3. Jesus have no power when he dead on the cross.
    It was love.He came to earth to help people.
    We got to do that to.He was the son off Maria.
    A mother take care of his son,it was not a easy
    time.Now God dont left us,he give His love for
    every they and say sometimes,listen to me,
    i got to gif you more and when you trust me
    you shall feal in your hart what weel
    freedom is and happyness.

  4. Raymond Hebert says:

    I have some disagreement with some of the statements in this lesson. Talking about the geneologies: First you have to have a complete understanding of Isaiah 9:6a, first talking about a birth and second talking about an adoption, knowledge of Jewish culture is helpful. Secondly, in Matthew we see the geneology of Joesph (adotion) and an interesting fact a female, Mary (birth) is mentioned. This is not done in Jewish cultural, geneology is through the male, but there is a reason. Third Luke shows the geneology of Mary. Important fact Joesph’s line is through Solomon and Mary’s line is through Nathan both are David’s sons. Remember that Solomon’s line was cursed and the Messiah would not come through it and since Joesph was from Solomon’s line and the Jews thought Joesph to be Jesus father, thus he could not be the Messiah. But since Jesus was the Son of God and Mary, by the Holy Spirit, He came from David’s line through Nathan and could be the Messiah. And David would be on the his throne forever.

Post a Comment

Trinity School (this website) offers totally tuition-free programs. You pay only a small one-time registration fees!! Please go to the horizontal menu-bar at top and use it it to check our programs, application procedure, etc.