A while back, I dropped a video breaking down why Muhammad isn’t the Paraclete Jesus promised in John 14-16. Fast forward a few months, and now DeenResponds and his buddy are trying to hit me with a rebuttal. Spoiler alert: it’s… well, let’s just say creative is putting it kindly. Let’s take a look at some of his “top-tier” critiques and claims.
Sorry this isn’t a video—edited response videos aren’t really my thing. Maybe I’d do one live, but honestly, I don’t have tons of spare time, so you’re stuck with this for now. For context, here’s Deen’s video and my original breakdown:
Here’s my original video:
The Paraclete would be a Prophet like Moses?
Deen’s video: “I’m going to go ahead and present the Muslim argument for Parakletos in John 14, 15, and 16. Jesus speaks about a figure that comes after him that guides into all truth. He does not speak of his own but only speaks what God commands him to speak. This is closely paralleled with the prophet like Moses in Deuteronomy 18:15-18, where the prophet like Moses, who guides the believers into truth, does not speak of his own but only speaks what God commands him. So we could go ahead and make that connection between the figure that comes after Christ and the figure that is Moses-like.“
Alright, let’s deal with this Moses-like thing. Muslim apologists often claim that Deuteronomy 18:15 can only refer to Muhammad, arguing he was a lawgiver, prophet, and military leader like Moses. They often point to the phrase “from the brothers of the Israelites” as evidence that this refers to the Ishmaelites—Muhammad’s ancestors. But when you take a closer look at the full context, this interpretation quickly crumbles.
- The prophet is an Israelite: Deuteronomy 18:15 specifies that the prophet will come “from among you,” meaning from the Israelites—not the Ishmaelites. This fits Jesus, not Muhammad.
- “Brothers” refers to Israelites: Throughout Deuteronomy, “brothers” consistently refers to fellow Israelites, not Ishmaelites. For example, Deuteronomy 15:7 says, “If among you, one of your brothers should become poor,” clearly referring to Israelites. Deuteronomy 17:15 tells Israel to appoint a king “from among your brothers” and “not a foreigner.” Deuteronomy 18:1-2 uses “brothers” to refer to Levites—again, fellow Israelites. To suddenly claim that “brothers” in Deuteronomy 18:15 refers to the Ishmaelites is a huge stretch.
- The prophet is an Advocate: Deuteronomy 18:16-17 describes a human advocate, someone who can act as a go-between for God and humanity, and this fits Jesus far better than Muhammad. The passage says, “…just as you desired of the Lord your God at Horeb on the day of the assembly, when you said, ‘Let me not hear again the voice of the Lord my God or see this great fire any more, lest I die.’ And the Lord said to me, ‘They are right in what they have spoken.” Jesus perfectly fulfills this role as the ultimate advocate between God and humanity (see 1 John 2:1), where John even refers to Him as the Paraclete—acting as our divine go-between.
- “Like unto Moses” means direct communication with God and miracles: Deuteronomy 34:9-12 describes the prophet “like unto Moses” as someone who speaks directly with God and performs miracles. Jesus checks both boxes. Muhammad, however, claimed to receive revelations through Gabriel and admitted he couldn’t perform miracles (Quran 2:118, 10:20, 13:7, 17:59). Jesus performed miracles (which even the Quran acknowledges) and spoke directly with God, always saying what the Father told Him to say (John 5:19-20, 8:28, 12:49, 14:24).
Now here’s the irony: The video quotes Surah 53:1 to argue that Muhammad didn’t speak his own words, but only what was revealed to him by God—just like Moses. But the same Gospel they’re trying to shoehorn Muhammad into shows that Jesus did the exact same thing.
“Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise. For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth: and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel.” (John 5:19-20)
“Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lift up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things.” (John 8:28)
“For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.” (John 12:49)
“He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which you hear is not mine, but the Father’s which sent me.” (John 14:24)
Again, Deuteronomy also tells us how to interpret Moses’ phrase “like unto me.” Deuteronomy 34:9-12 describes Moses as someone who knew God “face to face” and performed signs and wonders “in the sight of all Israel,” including the miracle of manna. After Jesus fed the 5,000, look at what John records:
“Therefore they gathered them up, and filled twelve baskets with the fragments of the five barley loaves which were left over by those who had eaten. Then those men, when they had seen the sign that Jesus did, said, ‘This is truly the Prophet who is to come into the world.’” (John 6:13-14)
Jesus is clearly recognized as the Prophet whom Moses spoke about.
“Philip found Nathanael and said to him, ‘We have found Him of whom Moses in the law, and also the prophets, wrote—Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.’” (John 1:45)
“For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me.” (John 5:46)
And when Jesus cried out during the feast:
“Now on the last day, the great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried out, saying, “If anyone is thirsty, let him come to Me and drink. He who believes in Me, as the Scripture said, ‘From his innermost being will flow rivers of living water.’” But this He spoke of the Spirit, whom those who believed in Him were to receive; for the Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.” (John 7:37-39)
At this, many in the crowd declared: “Truly, this is the Prophet”, (John 7:40) hearkening back to Deuteronomy 18.
Furthermore, Jesus spoke with the authority of God because He had the Spirit. As John 3:34 says, “For He whom God has sent speaks the words of God, for God does not give the Spirit by measure.”
In John, Jesus is the Prophet Moses spoke about, not the Paraclete. John the Baptist also identified Jesus as the one who had the Spirit and would baptize with the Spirit:
“John testified saying, ‘I have seen the Spirit descending as a dove out of heaven, and He remained upon Him. I did not recognize Him, but He who sent me to baptize in water said to me, “He upon whom you see the Spirit descending and remaining upon Him, this is the One who baptizes in the Holy Spirit.” I myself have seen, and have testified that this is the Son of God.’” (John 1:32-34)
This harmonizes perfectly with what Jesus said in John 15:26: “When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Father”. This leaves little doubt that according to the author of John’s Gospel, it’s Jesus—not the Paraclete (and definitely not Muhammad)—that is the Prophet Moses foretold.
We see this from the other evangelists as well. Deuteronomy 18:19 warns that anyone who does not listen to the Prophet God raises up will face consequences: “I myself will call to account anyone who does not listen to my words that the prophet speaks in my name.” This ties directly to the Mount of Transfiguration, where God’s voice declares, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased. Listen to him!” (Matthew 17:5). Peter, in Acts 3:22-23, affirms that Jesus is the Prophet Moses spoke about, urging the people to heed His words: “For Moses said, ‘The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your own people; you must listen to everything he tells you.’” Peter leaves no doubt that Jesus is the fulfillment of the prophecy in Deuteronomy, and ignoring Him comes with serious consequences.
PARACLETE AND PERIKLUTOS…POtato, Potato?
In another clip, Deen claims, “This prophecy found within John 16 of the Prophet… mentioned as the Paraclete, doesn’t hinge on the fact that the Paraclete has to mean the direct name of the Prophet. This is a possible argument to be made but isn’t a necessary condition on this prophecy to be fulfilled that there has to be a one-for-one translation.”
Okay, but let’s break this down. Surah 61:6 has Jesus supposedly saying that Ahmad is coming. So actually, you do kind of need it to be a mistranslation because Paraclete is Advocate, and in other Johannine literature Jesus is also called the Advocate. (1 John 2:1) It’s about a role, a job title, not just a person. It’s descriptive. Problem is, there’s not a shred of historical evidence for this prophecy from Jesus of someone named Ahmad. So what are our options?
- It’s either lost, which would be a pretty sloppy oversight on Allah’s part for not preserving it.
- Or it was re-revealed through Muhammad, which is a real head-scratcher because that makes it look like Muhammad is basically self-certifying his own prophetic status.
- Or maybe this is the verse Jesus was referring to, but it sounds nothing like what’s in the Quran and is found in a book that’s allegedly corrupt and filled with contradictions to the Quran.
The Quran does not say, “You could connect all sorts of things in the Bible to Muhammad as long as you ignore the context and do crazy eisegesis” The Quran says the People of the Book read about him in their Scriptures, not that their Scriptures can be twisted to fit someone who would come centuries later.
None of this adds up, as I discuss more in this video.
A very big contradiction?
Okay, so next up. In my video, I said: “While some Muslims see Muhammad in John 16, there’s quite a bit of evidence that doesn’t quite fit. For starters, the Greek word in the original text is ‘paracletos,’ not ‘paracletos,’ no matter how much they wish it sounded like Muhammad’s name. Plus, in John 14:26, the text clearly identifies ‘paracletos’ as the Holy Spirit. Christ explicitly identifies this figure as the Holy Spirit.”
Deen says: “There are a few problems with that. The first problem is even if we were to grant that he does identify this figure as the Holy Spirit, we now have a very big contradiction because in John 16:7, Jesus makes a condition for this figure to come. He says, ‘It is for your own good that I go away. If I don’t go away, he will not come, but if I go away, I will send him to you.’ So the condition is Christ must leave first for this figure to come. However, in John 20:22, before Christ leaves, it says he breathed on them and said, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit.’ So Christ gives the Holy Spirit before he leaves, which would contradict the very condition that Christ gives in John 16:7. Therefore, this cannot possibly be the Holy Spirit.”
This objection only holds if you assume that the Spirit’s role in John 16:7 of conviction is limited to regeneration. But the verse could just as easily be talking about a different work of the Spirit that wouldn’t happen until after Jesus ascended. For instance, if Jesus is referring to the Spirit’s empowerment, that lines up perfectly with what happens in Acts—the disciples didn’t receive that kind of power until ten days after Jesus ascended. Notice shortly after Pentecost, Peter preached in a way that convicted people of their sin, (Acts 2:37) which is what Jesus describes in the context of John 16.
A more likely interpretation (to me at least) is that Jesus “went away” temporarily when He died and returned in glory. At that point, He could’ve given them the Spirit, as suggested in John 7:37-39: “If anyone is thirsty, let him come to Me and drink. He who believes in Me, as the Scripture said, ‘From his innermost being will flow rivers of living water.’ But this he said about the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were to receive, for as yet the Spirit had not been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.”
Jesus was talking about the Spirit here, but it hadn’t been given yet because He hadn’t been glorified. His glorification came with the resurrection. He had a glorified body, he had triumphed over death and was ascending to the Father. This is backed up in John 16:16: “In a little while you will no longer see Me, and again after a short while you will see Me.” His “going away” was just for a bit, and they saw Him again before He ascended to the Father. So, the idea that John 16:7 is a contradiction? Nope, not really.
Claiming that the Paraclete and the Holy Spirit are two different things out this? Yeah, that’s a serious stretch, a view that that no non-Muslim biblical scholar holds.
A strange claim: Paul didn’t get his revelations from the Spirit, but Jesus.
OK, let’s look at their next argument: “Secondly, in John 16:12, Jesus acknowledges that there are many things he has yet to say, which the disciples are currently unable to bear. He asserts that the Spirit of truth will guide them into all truth once it arrives. This raises the question of what new revelations the Holy Spirit provided that Christ himself did not disclose. While some might argue that Paul’s new revelations address this, such an argument does not align with John 16:12. Why is that? Because Paul attributes his revelations to Jesus Christ and not the Holy Spirit.”
This is a pretty sloppy reading. Let’s look at 1 Corinthians 2:6-16
“However, we speak wisdom among those who are mature, yet not the wisdom of this age, nor of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing. But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God ordained before the ages for our glory, which none of the rulers of this age knew; for had they known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
But as it is written: “Eye has not seen, nor ear heard, nor have entered into the heart of man the things which God has prepared for those who love Him”.
But God has revealed them to us through His Spirit. For the Spirit searches all things, yes, the deep things of God. For what man knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God.
These things we also speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. But he who is spiritual judges all things, yet he himself is rightly judged by no one. For “who has known the mind of the Lord that he may instruct Him?” But we have the mind of Christ.”
Paul also refers to the Spirit as the “Spirit of Jesus Christ” (Philippians 1:19) and connects the Spirit with Christ’s power (Romans 8:11). So if the Spirit communicates something to Paul, it’s effectively coming from Jesus because the Spirit speaks whatever Jesus speaks. Paul also says He says “Christ in you” is the hope of glory, but then he says believers are “the temples of the Spirit”. (Colossians 1:27, 1 Corinthians 3:16-17) To Paul, this was saying basically the same thing. This is just sloppy exegesis.
The Syriac Sinaiticus to the rescue?
Here’s Deen’s buddy again: “A third issue would be that early manuscripts omit ‘Holy’ from the text. Early manuscripts, such as the Syriac Sinaiticus, do not have ‘Holy.’ Even if we were to grant that ‘Holy’ is authentic to the text, we would have to harmonize this text alongside the other passages. We’ve already demonstrated that the Holy Spirit cannot possibly be the figure.”
I think they realize how insignificant of a point this is, which is why they hedge it so much. Why even bring it up though? This version of the New Testament leaves out a LOT of words and phrases. Just check it out for yourself in the photo believe.
Our earliest manuscripts—P66, P75, Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Vaticanus, Codex Alexandrinus, and Codex Bezae—all include the word “Holy.” See for yourself. These manuscripts date from 125-425 AD. Meanwhile, the Syriac Sinaiticus is from the early 5th century. This is a very flimsy argument.
Absurdly Forced harmonization
Okay, so how are these guys gonna harmonize this mess? Here’s where it gets WILD. Deen’s buddy says: “Even if we were to grant that “Holy” is authentic to the text, we would have to harmonize this text alongside the other passages. We’ve already demonstrated that the Holy Spirit cannot possibly be the figure. So, how do we harmonize this text? Well, the only way to harmonize this is to say that this figure is a Holy Spirit. For example, we have apocryphal texts from the first century, such as the Assumption of Moses, that calls Moses a Holy Spirit. That doesn’t mean that Moses is the Holy Spirit. It just means that he’s a spirit that is holy.”
Oh, so now we’re reaching into apocryphal sources to make this work? Looks like the desperation’s starting to show. But here’s the thing—Moses isn’t necessarily being called the Holy Spirit in that text. If he was God’s anointed and that anointed figure is now gone, it simply suggests that God’s Spirit has departed from their midst. That’s a pretty reasonable take. Deen and his buddy might disagree, but my interpretation carries just as much—if not more—weight. The connection here is far from straightforward, and it’s definitely not something you’d want to base an entire doctrine on. This feels like a last-ditch effort. But wait, there’s more. Spoiler: It’s about to get wild.
Deen’s friend continues: “I want to lay out that it is not ever so clear that this figure, the Paraclete, has to be a non-human individual. If that was the case, then we’re going to have to put into question a lot of what the early church believed. Tertullian, the man who became a heretic for following Montanus, who claimed to be the Paraclete—the same Tertullian that coined the term “Trinity” for you guys—became a heretic for this very thing and following a prophet that was apparently prophesied by Jesus, namely being the Paraclete. We also have Augustine, who for nine years of his life believed in a man named Mani, who claimed to be the Paraclete once again. And finally, we have Origen’s students who believe that the Paraclete here is in reference to Paul of Tarsus.
Oh, dear. So now we’re pulling Tertullian, Origen’s students, and Augustine’s pre-Christian beliefs to try and argue that the Paraclete could be a human? That’s a bold move. But here’s the real question: are they even right about that? Not really.
Tertullian in Against Praxeus, Chapter 13: “We who are followers of the Paraclete, not of human teachers…” Oops. Oh, and by the way, Tertullian also says, “the Father is God, and the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God, and each is God…”
From what we know from history, it looks like the early critics of Montanism really went too far in misunderstanding or misrepresenting Montanus and his followers. In her book on the Montanists, scholar Christine Trevett explains that early sources suggest Montanus wasn’t claiming to be the Paraclete, just that he was speaking as a mouthpiece for the Spirit. The early fathers went overboard with what rumors they were hearing, kind of like how modern Pentecostals or charismatics are often accused of heresy by conservative Christians on YouTube today. (Justin Peters has built his entire career on this.) Trevett points out that some of these accusations—like Montanus saying “I am the Father and I am the Son and I am the Paraclete”—came from later sources.
As a commenter on my channel pointed out, It’s painfully clear that Deenresponds hasn’t done his homework on the Montanists. He’s recycling these historical half-truths—or let’s call them what they are: outright errors. Even after becoming a Montanist, he was crystal clear that the Paraclete wasn’t some human prophet, but the Holy Spirit. In On the Resurrection of the Flesh, Tertullian states that, “It is a shrewd saying which the Paraclete utters about these people through the mouth of the prophetess Prisca: ‘They are carnal, and yet they hate the flesh.’” The Paraclete, the Holy Spirit, was speaking through Prisca, not as a human figure.
And in De Pudicitia, Tertullian drives it home even more: “For the very Church itself is, properly and principally, the Spirit Himself, in whom is the Trinity of the One Divinity—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. (The Spirit) combines that Church which the Lord has made to consist in “three.” . He couldn’t be clearer—the Church is built on the Trinity, and the Paraclete is the Holy Spirit, not a human prophet. This was a text Tertullian wrote after becoming a Montanist.
So, it’s time to stop spreading these historical myths and actually engage with the material. Come on, Deen—if you’re going to make claims about Church history, at least get it right.
Onto Origen. I’m not sure where they’re getting this idea that ‘students of Origen’ thought Paul was the Paraclete. It seems like they’ve got things mixed up with Marcionite heresies! Origen, in fact, pushes back against that exact kind of thinking. In Homilies on Luke, specifically Homily 25.5 on Luke 3:15, Origen clearly dismisses the idea that anyone but the Spirit could be the Comforter. While disputing Marcionism, he says:
“For, some say this, that the passage in Scripture that speaks of ‘sitting at the Savior’s right and left’ applies to Paul and Marcion: Paul sits at his right hand and Marcion at his left. Others read the passage, ‘I shall send you an advocate, the Spirit of Truth,’ and are unwilling to understand a third person besides the Father and the Son, a divine and exalted nature. They take it to mean the apostle Paul. Do not all of these seem to you to have loved more than is fitting and, while they admired the virtue of each, to have lost moderation in love?”
So, Origen, combatting the heresy of Marcionism, is clearly speaking against the idea that Paul could be the Paraclete and is defending the doctrine of the Holy Spirit as a distinct divine person. And he doubles down on this in Homily 12 on Numbers 21:16-23. Here, Origen unmistakably identifies the Holy Spirit as the Paraclete:
“For the Son is different from the Father, and he that is the Father is not also the Son, as he says himself in the Gospels: ‘There is another who speaks testimony about me, the Father.’ And again I think a third well can be seen in the knowledge of the Holy Spirit. For he too is different from the Father and from the Son, as it is said of him no less in the Gospels: ‘The Father shall send you another Paraclete, the Spirit of truth.’ So there is this distinction of three persons in the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, which is recalled in the plural number of the wells. Yet of these wells there is one spring. For the substance and nature of the Trinity is one.”
Clearly, Origen wasn’t confused about who the Paraclete was—and it certainly wasn’t Paul, and it seems like he was correcting heresy, note even his own students. These guys need to cite their sources better.
In On the Trinity, Book I, Augustine makes it pretty clear: the unity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit means that what’s attributed to one is, by nature, attributed to all. Augustine writes:
“But what has been prepared by His Father has also been prepared by the Son Himself, because He Himself and the Father are one… As He also says about the Holy Spirit: ‘When I shall go, I shall send him to you.’ He did not say ‘we shall send’ but spoke thus as if the Son only were going to send Him and not the Father, while He declared in another place: ‘These things I have spoken to you while yet dwelling with you. But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will declare all things to you.’”
Augustine clearly spells out the doctrine of the Trinity here—and in many of his other works. He leaves no room for confusion about the divine nature of the Holy Spirit. Yes Mani had some insane beliefs and claimed to be the Paraclete, but Augustine repented of this gnostic, wacked-out heresy.
Cyril famously called Mani a “veritable garbage bin of all heresy.” He also pointed out the obvious point that the Apostles were filled with the Holy Spirit at Pentecost—long before Mani or any other heretic could come along claiming to be the Paraclete.
So, bottom line: if the best argument that the Paraclete could be human comes from folks who were condemned for their heresy, (and the point about the Montanists is incorrect) it might be time to reconsider your argument. These weren’t beliefs at all held by the early Christian church, just heretics on the fringe. The vast majority of evidence is stacked against Deen and his homeboy. But heck, why not throw Muhammad in the mix? Montantus, Marcion, Mani and Muhammad does roll off the tongue nicely and makes for quite a roster of heretics. I’d love to see those guys all at a lunch table arguing with each other.
The Paraclete is not really in you?
In my video, I said saying Muhammad being “in us” is a pretty wild way to interpret John 14:17. Deen and his bro disagree: “For example, in John Chapter 17:20-22, when Jesus makes a prayer and he asks for the Father to be with the disciples, and he says, “Just as you are in me, and I am in you, let them be in us.” This doesn’t mean that there is a literal indwelling within each other, but rather that this means that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are united in their will and message, and the disciples are supposed to also be united in that same message.
So in the same way, when it says that the Spirit of Truth will be within them, it’s not saying that it’s a literal indwelling, but that they will be united in that same spirit and message that will guide them. Now, let’s go back to John 16:13, where it says the Spirit of Truth will guide you into all truth. If we look at what the Prophet, peace be upon him, did, he came and taught the people, and the message that he brought was guiding the people into all truth. He fulfilled that prophecy, and so it’s very clear that he fits the description of this figure.”
No, Jesus clearly taught about a literal indwelling of the Holy Spirit. In John 7:37-39, He invites the thirsty to come and drink, promising that “from his innermost being will flow rivers of living water.” The text specifies that this refers to the Spirit, which believers would receive once Jesus was glorified.
Now, if Deen is correct, then he’s suggesting that the author of John and 1 John completely misunderstood Jesus’ words about unity in purpose. In 1 John 4:1-6, we read a call to test the spirits, identifying the Spirit of God as one that acknowledges Jesus Christ’s incarnation. He then says believers have overcome these heretics, because “Greater is He who is in you than he who is in the world.” He didn’t see the problem.
In 1 John 2:27, it’s reinforced that the anointing believers receive from Him “abides in you,” referring to the Holy Spirit, meaning you’re taught directly by this indwelling presence and by following the Spirit we abide in Christ, and Christ abides in us. This is fundamental Christian theology: we are one with Christ and the Father, who are present in us through the Holy Spirit.
And let’s not overlook John 14:16-18, where Jesus promises to send the Spirit of truth to abide with us forever. He reassures His followers, saying, “I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you.” This is about a real, personal presence through the Holy Spirit, who embodies the relationship between the Father, the Son, and believers. (John 14:19-23) The notion that the Paraclete could be anything other than the Holy Spirit just doesn’t hold water when you look at these clear teachings. Deen and his guy seem to be ignorant of the well-established Christian doctrine Perichoresis, the mutual indwelling of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Deen continues with saying Muhammad can be “with the disciples” even though he wasn’t physically present and wouldn’t live for another several hundred years. “This is false, for example, if you go to the Gospel of Luke chapter 16. It gives an account where there’s a story between a man named Lazarus who is poor and a rich man. The rich man is burning in the Hellfire while Lazarus is at Abraham’s side. Now the rich man asks Abraham to warn his family that he’s left behind of the torment that is to come, and Abraham replies that they have Moses with them. Abraham explains later on what he means by “they have Moses with them.” What he means by that is the teachings that they left behind and their commandments and warnings.”
Yes, they had Moses with them through his writings, which were a direct testament to his teachings and authority. But Moses didn’t indwell them and again, Muhammad came along six centuries later. That can hardly be called a close presence! If we’re talking logic, it’s way more sensible to think Jesus was referring to receiving the Spirit soon after His resurrection and ascension rather than waiting for an Arabian prophet to show up centuries down the line that would contradict about everything we have recorded of what Jesus said.
Remember that John 14:26 states that the Paraclete will “bring to your remembrance all that I said to you.” So, in what way did Muhammad help the disciples remember Jesus’ teachings? Let’s break it down:
A) By the time Muhammad arrived, the original disciples were long gone. The idea makes more sense if the disciples themselves were inspired by the Holy Spirit to remember and write down Jesus’ words while they were still alive which would be recorded as Scripture.
B) If we consider a broader audience that includes future readers of the Quran, the teachings of Jesus don’t align with much of what’s found in Islamic doctrine. Just think about Jesus’ teachings on marriage and divorce, loving your enemies, let alone His unique identity as God’s Son. Those teachings don’t mesh well with what the Quran presents.
Even Deen admits in his debate with Chris at Speaker’s Corner that the Quran affirms the Gospel, but he struggles to pinpoint how much of it aligns, and indicated it’s likely less than half.
What did I just watch?
To wrap it up: this video is a trainwreck, packed with mental gymnastics, no matter how hard they protest otherwise. The idea that Muhammad—or anyone else—could be the Paraclete (you know, the one Jesus sends in His name, the same name Christians pray to, according to John 14:13-14, 26) just doesn’t fly with any reputable biblical scholar.
But, of course, only in Islam would such claims be taken seriously. Deen’s out here constantly calling Christian apologists coping clowns, but let’s be real—this video is pure copium overload. He’s playing defense attorney, ready to defend his guy no matter what, evidence be damned. Each point he raises is so far-fetched compared to the Christian perspective, it’s almost sad to see this is the best he can offer. But hey, that’s Dawah for you.
Deen, seriously, bro—come to Jesus. Imagine arguing for something that’s actually backed by evidence for a change. Wouldn’t that be refreshing?
Erik is the creative force behind the YouTube channel Testify, which is an educational channel built to help inspire people’s confidence in the text of the New Testament and the truth of the Christian faith.
