Deen Responds, I guess

Deen Responds, the same guy who just spent two hours embarrassing himself defending child marriage and his disgusting false prophet in a conversation with my friend Michael Jones from Inspiring Philosophy, took a swing at one of my videos. Looks like Grandpa’s got to take this kid behind the wood shed.

In a previous video, I showed how the Quran claims that Jesus’s disciples were Muslims (Surah 3:52). But what if the apostles actually rejected key Islamic teachings? Let’s break it down:

• Premise 1: If Jesus’s original disciples rejected core Islamic teachings, Islam is false.
• Premise 2: Jesus’s original disciples did reject core Islamic teachings.
• Conclusion: Therefore, Islam is false.

Muslims might try to dodge this by saying the disciples were fooled or corrupted the message later on. But Surah 61:14 says Allah made Jesus’s apostles victorious, meaning their message had His approval. And Surah 3:55 backs this up, showing that the true followers of Jesus were supported by Allah.

So, the Quran itself confirms that the apostles were legit. Paul, though not one of the original disciples, was approved by them. His teachings—often labeled “Pauline Christianity”—are what dominated. And since the Quran says Jesus’s true followers were the ones who prevailed, Paul’s message must’ve been in line with the apostles.

Renowned Muslim scholars and commentors like Al-Qurtubi, Ibn Ishaq, and Al-Tabari all acknowledge Paul’s role and praise him, based on these very verses. So, the Quran inadvertently endorses the very teachings that contradict its core message.

Bottom line? If the Quran is right about Jesus’s disciples, then it’s wrong about Islam.

Here’s the original video:

Here’s Deen Respond’s video in full for context:

So how does Deen try to avoid the conclusion? First, he tries to fuzzify things. He says: “One would need to define things within each premise as it’s quite loaded. It doesn’t clarify many underlying presuppositions located in each one. What are core Islamic teachings? Well, it would be anything that God had revealed through all the prophets that was in continuity—for example, belief in the one true God, prophets, angels, previous books, and so on. These are fundamental teachings and doctrines all prophets conveyed. If the disciples taught what is in opposition to this, then that would be problematic.”

Sorry to repeat myself, it’s weird that this is somehow necessary. Here’s the problem for Islam: The disciples taught that Jesus died and rose from the dead. This is historical bedrock. Deen knows full well that the vast majority of scholars are against him on this, and they’re not just guessing; there’s a mountain of evidence backing it up. These teachings clearly go against what Muhammad taught. So let’s cut the tap dancing. The disciples rejected core Islamic beliefs, plain and simple. To try and generalize that they were all monotheists who believe in angels, prophets, and the Torah is ignoring the elephant in the room.

DR continues: “In the second premise, what needs to be clarified is what we deem to be historical or not, and what are the sources of information we’re going to use. As a Christian, I would presume you hold that the entire New Testament was written by the authors who are attributed to them and gives us accurate historical information based on reliable eyewitness accounts. As a Muslim, I have no reason to hold to that view. What I deem to be an infallible source of historical information is only the Quran and the Sunnah. So if we are going to attain certain knowledge on history, we need to debate whether the Quran or the Bible is a more reliable source. This would basically be reduced to which is true: Islam or Christianity.

Now, there’s a third source both Christians and Muslims may agree upon to some level, where we can work based on induction and limited evidence we have via a critical analysis of the earliest sources. If we look at the earliest sources of what Christians believed, it would give us a better idea of what historically happened, although this would be done using historical methods which don’t exactly give us absolute truths, just approximate truths. So none of these conclusions are necessarily definitive, but at least we can have a third-party perspective based on empirical data and a critical method to work with.”

Sure, I’d love to debate the reliability of the eyewitnesses and their close companions—because let’s be real, their accounts are far more historically grounded than the imaginations of some guy in a cave 700 years later. Let’s have a conversation about the Gospels and Acts! But even if you want to argue that they were somehow mistaken about Jesus being crucified and resurrected, we’re still looking at a heavily lopsided Bayes factor in favor of the idea that Jesus’ disciples taught things that clash directly with the Quran. They taught Jesus was God’s Son. They taught He was crucified. They taught He rose from the dead. And you still have to explain why your God supposedly let the disciples kickstart a “false” religion when your Quran claims that Jesus’ followers were the ones Allah backed, and will continue to back until the day of resurrection.

In my video, I lay out why Paul preached the same message as the disciples. I’ll repeat myself here a bit and add some extra ammo.

• Early church figures like Polycarp, Clement, and Ignatius, who were close to the apostles, spoke highly of Paul’s letters. They wouldn’t have endorsed a rogue.
• The early church never mentions any major beef between Paul and Peter on Christology. In fact, they’re often mentioned together, like old pals—hardly the stuff of fundamental disagreement.
• Paul says in Galatians 2 that he went to Jerusalem to ensure his gospel matched the apostles’. He wouldn’t fabricate this since he also mentions a dispute with Peter in the same chapter.
• In Galatians 1, Paul casually mentions meeting James, Jesus’ brother, with no fanfare. If he were a fraud, you’d expect more showmanship, but this off-the-cuff comment convinces historians it was a real event.
• In 1 Corinthians 15:9-10, Paul calls himself “the least of the apostles” and emphasizes that they all preach the same message. Paul’s essentially saying, “We’re all on the same team,” which strongly suggests he and the apostles were aligned.
• In the book of Acts, Paul is welcomed as a disciple and is encouraged to preach to the Gentiles.
• The letters of 1-2 Peter and 1-3 John clearly contradict the Quran. I’m willing to defend their apostolic authorship.

Bottom line? Paul’s theology is at odds with core Islamic teachings, and it’s clear the disciples were on board with him. Given that the churches were familiar with these apostles, and Paul was already risking his neck for his claims, it’s doubtful that he’s lying here. So how does Deen Responds handle this evidence? He cherry picks scholarship.

Deen: “Okay, so we have to go back to epistemology, or how we know things based on sources of knowledge that we take from. From the Bible, it gives the impression that Paul got the thumbs up from the disciples. Now, whether or not that actually happened historically is another thing. It would obviously be circular if he quoted the Bible to me or if I quoted the Quran to you. So let’s see what critical historical scholars have to say on these Biblical verses you’re quoting.

Here’s Professor James Tabor, a professor in early Christianity. Let’s see what he has to say: “If we have certainty about the disciples proving a poor opinion, as I put forth in this book, Paul actually broke in the end with the Jerusalem Church.” I know forever is just boiling everywhere, and we’ve lost touch with what was going on in Jerusalem except through Acts and through Paul’s letters. But if you think about what’s going on there, clearly, as we’ve said, there are two very distinct streams. One is coming from the historical Jesus—his brother James and the apostles who were with Jesus firsthand. And we don’t have things from them.”

I think Tabor is off on some things and I’m willing to argue why, but even he knows the basics: Jesus died on a cross, and the early church was convinced he rose again, and that in some sense, he was believed to be the Son of God. He readily grants that. So why is Deen Responds deferring to Tabor? This smacks of confirmation bias, plain and simple. He’s gonna cherry pick any scholar he can find to give him a negative verdict on Paul.

Tabor, like other scholars, treats Acts like a propaganda piece, but that’s a big mistake. Scholars like Colin Hemer and Luuk Van De Weghe make it clear Luke had solid sources, likely including Peter. Peter, the rock of the church, preached about Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection (Acts 3:15, 2:22). And he was totally on board with Paul calling Jesus the Son of God (Acts 9:20, Acts 15). Luke, Paul’s traveling companion, was there with Paul in Jerusalem and he says that “James and all the elders were present.” (Acts 21:8) He had ample opportunity to check his facts before writing Acts, which is exactly what he tells us in his prologue. (Luke 1:1-4)

If Deen wants to challenge Acts, then I’d gladly discuss it with him. And again, Peter, the leader of the twelve, gave Paul his stamp of approval. They even trusted him with taking up the money for the poor saints in Jerusalem! (Galatians 2:10) You can’t get much more validated than that.

In fact, let’s pause for a sec and break this down with a bit of detective work that backs this up. First, check out Romans 15:25-26. Paul’s got a collection going in Macedonia, another in Achaia, and he’s planning to deliver this cash to Jerusalem. Now, flip over to Acts 20:2-3. Paul’s on his way back to Palestine, but—surprise!—no mention of this money drop. And in Acts 24:17-19, Paul’s chatting with Felix about helping his fellow Jews, but doesn’t say where the funds came from. It’s like finding breadcrumbs that don’t quite fit the trail of copying or making things up.

Now let’s add a few more pieces to the puzzle. In 1 Corinthians 16:1-4, Paul talks about collecting money in Corinth to support the Jerusalem Christians. But he doesn’t mention Macedonia. Then in 2 Corinthians 8:1-4 and 2 Corinthians 9:2, we see that Macedonia was actually involved in this collection.

So, when you pull all this together, from Romans 15 and the Corinthian letters, it’s like putting together a well-organized jigsaw puzzle. These pieces line up with the timeline towards the end of Paul’s second missionary journey. Some smart folks, like William Paley, call this an “undesigned coincidence”—basically, two different sources that fit together perfectly without any sign of copying. And remember, Paul was told by Peter in Galatians 2:10 to “remember the poor,” and he was all on board with that.

Moving on. In my video, I mentioned how 1 Peter shows us that the disciples were definitely not Muslims. The Deen tries to handwave this away: “1 Peter today, but just because the name Peter is on Peter, don’t assume it’s written by Peter. It actually mentions a companion of Paul, Silvanus, who’s Silas, Paul’s companion in the book of Acts. And 1 Peter is full of Pauline ideas. So whoever wrote it is presenting a version of Paul in Peter’s garb, you might say, in the cloak of Peter’s name.”

Deen, bro….You’re really going to argue that this means the author of 1 Peter was just a Paul copycat? That’s some top-tier circular reasoning right there. Here’s how it goes: you say some Pauline Christian wrote 1 Peter because their teachings are similar. Then you argue that the similarity in their teachings proves Peter must be a Pauline Christian lying about being Peter. It’s a classic case of “I’m right because I said so,” with a side of “Let me just repeat my conclusion as my evidence.”

Seriously, this is reaching a new level of absurdity. Maybe consider that 1 Peter has Pauline ideas, because because Paul and Peter weren’t exactly preaching wildly different messages. Claiming that the similarities prove Peter was just copying Paul is like saying if two chefs cook with the same ingredients, one must be ripping off the other. You call his kind of “logic” destroying me? Come back to earth. In his letter to the Philippians, Polycarp quotes 1 Peter more than any other letter. Irenaeus was connected with the apostle John, so he’d be in a good position to know what he was quoting was legit.

Deen keeps trying to cook: “The only thing that survives in the New Testament that would help us to recover there are two things. If you wanted to say, well, before Paul came along and began to push this other stream, what do we have? We have the letter of James, first of all—huge. The letter of James is significant. If you take out the two times where he mentions Jesus Christ, and if you think Jesus is the Messiah, you don’t even need to take those out. A Muslim could read the letter of James and absolutely say this is one of the greatest ethical treatises I’ve ever read in my life.”

Oh, so you’re okay with James being genuine even though it gets the side-eye from critical scholarship? I see how it is—James sorta fits your doctrinal preferences, so suddenly it’s a gem of apostolic authenticity. But let’s not forget that Paul himself claimed James was on board with his message. They even rubbed elbows at the council of Jerusalem, where James gave Paul the official stamp of approval to spread the gospel to the Gentiles.

Now, let’s really think this through. James 1:17-18 says, “Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows. He chose to give us birth through the word of truth, that we might be a kind of firstfruits of all he created.” Sounds pretty fatherly, right?

Or how about James 1:27? “Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction and to keep oneself unstained by the world.”

Or James 3:9? “…we bless the Lord and Father, and with it we curse men, who are made in the image of God.”

Contrast that with the Quran’s stance in Surah Al-Ikhlas 112:1-4: “Say, ‘He is Allah, [Who is] One, Allah, the Eternal Refuge. He neither begets nor is born, nor is there to Him any equivalent.’”

So Deen, you’re picking and choosing what fits your narrative, aren’t you? And oddly enough, you’re calling someone committing shirk a maestro of moral philosophy. Are you for real right now?

Finally, Deen claims I’m being slippery with my Muslim sources: “Now let’s see the source of the information he’s quoting from. First of all, you didn’t even give us a reference on where to find these sources. It’s massive, so you’re not making it easy for me to refute you. But I got you, bro, don’t worry. In both’s history book, they both take from. So he really just quoted one source, not three. As you can see from Matt’s book, that’s where the chain ends for this information. It actually ends with I. Meaning the source of information is unlearned, which makes this meaning disconnected. It’s more likely from Jewish and Christian tradition that I took from, which in no way is authoritative for us, especially considering the story contradicts with what the Prophet himself said—that there was no Prophet between Jesus and himself (peace be upon them both). Any Islamic scholar who assumed, based on this weak evidence from I, that Paul was a messenger, made a mistake. They aren’t Christian historians or scholars; they most likely saw Paul as someone highly esteemed by Christians at their time and assumed he was a pious follower of Jesus. As I mentioned before, scholars can make mistakes. This isn’t a cut to Islam, as no Hadith or Quran verse explicates Paul’s reference.”

I wasn’t suggesting the sources aren’t connected—here’s the deal: Al-Qurtubi and Al-Tabari end up praising Paul because of those Quranic verses we’ve discussed. And where does it all come from? Yes, Ibn Ishaq’s account.

Ibn Ishaq’s biography of Muhammad is key here since it’s his first extant bio. Sure, it’s not Sunnah, but it’s not pulling things out of thin air either. He talks about early Christian missionaries like Peter and Paul going to Rome—yep, that Paul. It’s all in Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rasul Allah.

Now, Al-Qurtubi’s commentary on Surah 61:14 isn’t some wild guess. He’s reflecting the reality that Pauline Christianity won out. The followers of Paul’s teachings were the victors—something you haven’t convincingly disputed, Deen. It’s not like he’s just making stuff up; the historical reality was glaringly clear. (BTW, when it comes to child marriage, you’re constantly quote-mining ancient Christian writers and acting like their word is Bible, but now here your guys just made a simple mistake. No biggie. Double standard much?)

So, Deen and his fellow Muslims have a dilemma: to accept the Quran is to accept “Pauline” Christianity. But accepting “Pauline” Christianity means rejecting the Quran because it contradicts Paul’s core teachings preserved in the Bible.

Deen Responds might wanna argue that these verses refer to Muhammad and Muslims as the true followers of Christ who will dominate until the Resurrection. But this doesn’t at all solve the issue. The verses don’t limit Christ’s followers’ victory to Muhammad’s time; they say they will prevail from Christ’s ascension to the Day of Resurrection.

Let’s read the texts again: “(And remember) when Allah said: O Jesus! Lo! I am gathering thee and causing thee to ascend unto Me, and am cleansing thee of those who disbelieve and am setting those who follow thee above those who disbelieve until the Day of Resurrection. Then unto Me ye will (all) return, and I shall judge between you as to that wherein ye used to differ.” (Q 3:55)

“O ye who believe! Be Allah’s helpers, even as Jesus son of Mary said unto the disciples: Who are my helpers for Allah? They said: We are Allah’s helpers. And a party of the Children of Israel believed, while a party disbelieved. Then We strengthened those who believed against their foe, and they became the uppermost.” (Q 61:14)

To wrap it up, here’s the scoop on the Islamic evidence:

1. The Quran says Christ’s true followers will dominate over the disbelievers. (Surah 3:55)
2. This domination is supposed to last until the Day of Resurrection. (Surah 61:14)
3. Paul’s message ended up dominating and overshadowing other teachings. (Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rasul Allah, as cited by Al-Qurtubi and Al-Tabari)

So, if the Quran is right, then Paul’s message should be right too, since “Paul’s” message won out…because it was God’s message. Here’s where it gets messy for Muslims:

1. The Quran contradicts Paul’s core teachings and the overall message of the Bible. (Surah 4:157, etc.)
2. Since the Quran and early Muslim commentators validate Paul’s preaching, it means the Quran can’t be the word of God. Instead, it’s the work of fallible humans like Muhammad and others. (Surah 3:52 and 61:14)
3. This also suggests that Muhammad didn’t fully grasp the true message of the Bible or Paul. He might have thought he was aligning with the Bible’s message to support his claims, but if he had known the real message, he wouldn’t have given Paul or the Bible so much credit. And there’s tons of other evidence that the author of the Quran had no clue what the Bible really said, like accusing the Jews of teaching that Ezra was a “son of God” (Surah 9:30) or implying Mary was part of the Trinity (Surah 5:116), or thinking somehow he was prophesied in the Torah and Gospel (Surah 7:157).

Oddly enough, as Deen himself points out, neither the Quran nor the Hadith even mention Paul. If he was the arch-corruptor of the Gospel like Muslims love to claim, wouldn’t he at least get a shoutout? I will eagerly await Deen Responds to DESTROY me once again with his facts and logic. But I think a discussion on the Gospels and Acts would be far more profitable, and Deen can reach out to me anytime.