 According to the Quran, Jesus was a prophet of Islam. His followers were Muslims and the gospel is the inspired, preserved, authoritative word of Allah. But when we go to our earliest records, we find Jesus claiming to be the Divine Son of God who would die on the cross for sins and rise from the dead. Jesus' followers proclaimed him as their risen Lord. The gospel that Christians have been reading for nearly 2,000 years tells us that anyone who claims to be a prophet but rejects Jesus' death, resurrection, and deity is a false prophet and an antichrist. So if the Quran is right about Jesus, why does all of the available evidence tell us that the Quran is wrong about Jesus? Well, our Muslim friends have an answer. The reason our earliest evidence so thoroughly contradicts Islam, they insist, is that our earliest evidence was corrupted. But who corrupted it? Notice that their options here are quite limited. Muslims can't blame Jesus for corrupting the evidence since Jesus was a Muslim prophet according to the Quran. Nor can they blame Jesus' original disciples for corrupting the evidence since Jesus' original disciples were devout Muslims according to the Quran. So they need a villain who wasn't Jesus or one of his original disciples but who was still powerful enough to corrupt Christianity in the first century. Who had that kind of power in the first century? The only name that Muslims have been able to come up with here is Paul. So if you've ever wondered why Muslims spend so much time attacking Paul, it's not because Paul is somehow especially untrustworthy or controversial. It's because they have no one else to blame for Muhammad's abundant historical blunders. But there's a problem here. It only makes sense to blame Paul for all of the evidence that contradicts Muhammad's claims if Muhammad is significantly more reliable than Paul. If Muhammad is less reliable than Paul, it makes no sense to point a finger at Paul whenever Muhammad gets something wrong. In other words, if I catch Person A making numerous false statements and I ask him how I can trust him when he's making so many false statements and he says, It's Person B's fault. He corrupted all of the evidence and made my statements seem false. But Person B turns out to be far more trustworthy than Person A. It becomes impossible to take Person A seriously. So the question we should be asking is this, Whose claims about Jesus are more reliable, Paul's or Muhammad's? In this series, I'm going to offer a few reasons to trust what Paul says about Jesus over what Muhammad says about Jesus. And when I say a few reasons, I mean 25 of them. Some of these reasons taken individually wouldn't be enough to reject what Muhammad says. But when we consider all of the reasons together, it's pretty clear that Muhammad's claims about Jesus are about as reliable as a CNN special on the origins of Islamic terrorism. Hi everyone, thanks for watching. In case you stumbled upon this video while browsing or searching, I wanted to let you know that it's part of a series comparing Paul and Muhammad. So if you'd like to see the full series, be sure to click on the playlist. If you're already in the playlist, you're about to see that we have much earlier records for Paul's life than for Muhammad's life. When we try to assess the reliability of two historical figures, one of the first questions that comes up is, How much do we really know about them? And the answer to that question will depend on how early our sources are. Our records of Paul's life are much earlier than our records of Muhammad's life. And here I don't just mean that Paul came centuries before Muhammad, and so we have earlier sources for Paul's life. I mean that when we talk about the teachings and deeds of Paul, the biographical sources we use are much closer to the events they report than the biographical sources we use when we talk about the teachings and deeds of Muhammad. Our earliest biographical sources on Paul were written during the lifetime of Paul. The Book of Acts was written in the early 60s before Paul was martyred, and it was written by a traveling companion of Paul, who was an eyewitness to many of the details he reports. We also have numerous letters written by Paul himself. Our earliest detailed biographical source on Muhammad is Ibn Asaq's Surat Rasul Allah, which was written more than a century after Muhammad's death. And we don't even have what Ibn Asaq actually wrote. We have an abridged version that was sanitized by a later scholar. And we shouldn't forget that many Muslims don't trust Ibn Asaq. When Muslims quote stories about Muhammad, they're usually getting their information from sources like Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim, which were written two centuries after the time of Muhammad. But it gets worse. The main reason for composing works like Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim was that Muslims were composing so many false stories about Muhammad, people didn't know what to believe. Scholars like Bukhari decided that they needed to collect stories they thought were accurate in order to distinguish them from the ever-increasing supply of false narrations. Now, if Muslims during the time of Bukhari were inventing stories about Muhammad, what about the generation before that and the generation before that and the generation before that? Two centuries is a lot of time to make things up. That's why it's always good to have sources written within the lifetime of the person you want to know about or at least within the lifetimes of the eyewitnesses. When we learn about Paul, we learn about him through first generation eyewitness accounts. When we learn about Muhammad, we learn about him through late sources written by people who didn't know him, whose parents didn't know him, and whose grandparents didn't know him, people who were fishing for historical facts in a sea of fabrication and deception. A few years ago, the crumbling historical foundations for the life of Muhammad led the Islamic scholar Muhammad Svan Kalish to conclude that Muhammad probably never existed. I don't agree with Dr. Kalish's conclusion about Muhammad's existence, but when even Muslim scholars are starting to recognize how difficult it's become to take Muslim sources seriously, our confidence in the historical Muhammad vanishes faster than a Muhammad cartoon posted on Facebook in Pakistan. Hi everyone, thanks for watching. In case you stumbled upon this video while browsing or searching, I wanted to let you know that it's part of a series comparing Paul and Muhammad. So if you'd like to see the full series, be sure to click on the playlist. If you're already in the playlist, you're about to see a pretty big difference between Paul and Muhammad in terms of their intellectual ability. Muhammad taught his followers that the testimony of a woman is only half as reliable as the testimony of a man. When he wanted to explain why a woman's testimony is less reliable than a man's, he said that it's due to the deficiency of a woman's intellect. So according to Muhammad, the reliability of a person's testimony is directly proportional to the person's intellectual ability. Good to know, Muhammad. The Apostle Paul was a brilliant scholar who defended his views in Athens, the intellectual capital of the ancient world and in other major cities. He had discussions with the Stoic and Epicurean philosophers of his day, and he could quote their sources to them. Even Antony Flu, one of the 20th century's most impressive critics of Christianity, said that the Apostle Paul possessed a first-class philosophical mind. Muhammad, by contrast, was an illiterate seventh-century caravan trader. Now, being an illiterate seventh-century caravan trader doesn't make you wrong, just as being a brilliant scholar doesn't make you right. But when we're dealing with claims about history and theology and various other topics, having some sort of education helps. Not having an education leaves you open to obviously false revelations because you don't know enough to recognize them as false. This is why we find Muhammad telling his followers that dual car name traveled so far west, he found the place where the sun sets, and that stars are missiles that Allah uses to shoot demons, and that semen is formed between the backbone and the ribs. These are exactly the sort of absurdities we would expect from someone who has no clue what he's talking about and who therefore has no clue whether his revelations line up with reality. So in terms of intellectual prowess, Paul is to Muhammad what a tenured theology professor at Oxford is to an internet troll whose most careful investigations begin and end with a Google search. Hi everyone, thanks for watching. In case you stumbled upon this video while browsing or searching, I wanted to let you know that it's part of a series comparing Paul and Muhammad. So if you'd like to see the full series, be sure to click on the playlist. If you're already in the playlist, you're about to see that while Paul understood the Old Testament, Muhammad certainly didn't. Why is this important? Stay tuned. Both Paul and Muhammad claimed that their revelations were consistent with the Old Testament, but only one of them had actually read the Old Testament. Can you guess who it was? The apostle Paul was a Pharisee who studied under Gamaliel, one of the greatest Jewish rabbis of the first century. Paul knew the Old Testament inside and out, which is why he quotes the Old Testament so frequently in his writings. This is important because Jesus claimed to fulfill a variety of Old Testament prophecies and you can't really examine this claim if you don't know what the Old Testament says. Muhammad was almost completely ignorant of the Old Testament because his knowledge of the Jewish Scriptures was limited to what he heard in conversations. Not surprisingly, despite Muhammad's numerous interactions with Jews in Arabia, the Quran contains very few quotations from the Old Testament. Due to his ignorance of the Scriptures, Muhammad couldn't tell the difference between stories that were in the Torah, and therefore divine revelation, and stories from later Jewish writings and commentaries, some of which were so late and so obviously fabricated they weren't far beyond the level of bedtime stories. Imagine how amusing it must be for someone who specializes in Jewish literature to read the Quran and find so many fables being presented to Muslims as revelation. Cain being taught how to bury the dead by a raven, Solomon listening to a speech by an ant. As a general rule, if you're going to plagiarize history, you don't start with Mother Goose or the brother's grim. But Muhammad just didn't know enough to distinguish Scripture from non-Scripture. Muhammad's ignorance of the Old Testament is also noteworthy because, like Jesus, he claimed to fulfill Old Testament prophecies. If Muhammad had been more knowledgeable of the Torah, he would have known that he couldn't possibly be a prophet for numerous reasons. For instance, Muslim sources report that Muhammad once delivered what are now called the Satanic verses to his followers. These verses promoted prayers to three pagan goddesses, Alat, Alusa and Manat. Muhammad bowed down in honor of these polytheistic verses and his followers bowed down with him. But a little later, Gabriel confronted Muhammad about his sin. Muhammad confessed in the history of October, Volume 6, page 111, I have fabricated things against God and have imputed to him words which he has not spoken. So, Muhammad admitted that he delivered a revelation that didn't really come from God. Why is this important? Well, in Deuteronomy 18, verse 20, God declares, but a prophet who presumes to speak in my name, anything I have not commanded, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, is to be put to death. Muslims claim that they respect Moses. But if Muhammad had delivered the Satanic verses during the time of Moses, Moses would have ordered the people to pick up stones and stone him to death as the most obvious false prophet in history. Muhammad didn't realize this due to his lack of familiarity with the Jewish scriptures, which is why the motto of Islam has always been and always will be, Ignorance is Bliss. Hi everyone, thanks for watching. In case you stumbled upon this video while browsing or searching, I wanted to let you know that it's part of a series comparing Paul and Muhammad. So, if you'd like to see the full series, be sure to click on the playlist. If you're already in the playlist, you're about to see why Paul was in a perfect position to learn the truth about Jesus. As for Muhammad, Paul and Muhammad both told their followers about Jesus. But only one of them was a contemporary of Jesus. Can you guess who was? The apostle Paul was a contemporary of Jesus, and he spent much of his time in 1st century Israel. This put Paul in a perfect position to gain accurate historical information about Jesus. If you want reliable information about a person, it's pretty helpful being a member of the person's own generation. And Paul was right there. Muhammad was born more than half a millennium after Jesus' death in a completely different country. Since he couldn't read, apart from divine revelation, his knowledge of Jesus was limited to whatever stories were popular in 7th century Arabia. This is why when we read the Quran, we find so many stories about Jesus that are known to be forgeries, Mary giving birth under a palm tree, Jesus preaching when he was still a baby, Jesus giving life to clay birds. We know where these stories come from and they don't come from the 1st century. Now don't get me wrong, the Quran is an excellent history book. If you're looking for a history of 2nd through 7th century Middle Eastern forgeries, but if you're looking for historical information about Jesus, the Quran is a few conspiracy theories shy of the Da Vinci Code. Hi everyone, thanks for watching. In case you stumbled upon this video while browsing or searching, I wanted to let you know that it's part of a series comparing Paul and Muhammad. So if you'd like to see the full series, be sure to click on the playlist. If you're already in the playlist, you're about to see how Islam's silly theory of language comes back to haunt Muslims. Muslims claim that a revelation from God can only be understood in its original language. Since Jesus came with revelations from God, we have to ask, who could understand those revelations in the original language? Paul or Muhammad? The apostle Paul was fluent in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. All of the languages necessary for understanding the Old Testament, the claims of Jesus, and the earliest Christian writings. Muhammad couldn't speak any of the relevant languages, so any attempt to understand the Old Testament, the claims of Jesus, or the earliest Christian writings would have required the help of interpreters. I normally wouldn't bring this up as a problem, but since Muslims are obsessed with reading the Quran in the original Arabic, we can only assume that the writings of Moses, the teachings of Jesus, and the writings of Jesus' followers can only be understood in the original languages. Paul could do that. Muhammad couldn't. Muhammad's ignorance of the original languages leads to further problems. For example, the Quran refers to the book revealed through Jesus as the Injeel. But the Arabic word Injeel is ultimately derived from the Greek word Uangelion, meaning good news. So according to the Quran, the book revealed through Jesus was written in Greek. This makes absolutely no sense if Jesus was only sent to his fellow Jews as Islam claims. But it makes perfect sense if Jesus' message was for the rest of the world as well, since Greek was the international language of the time. Interestingly, the New Testament Gospels were written in Greek. Exactly what we would expect given the Quran's use of the term Injeel, but quite unexpected given Muhammad's notion of Jesus' life and mission, not to mention Muhammad's conviction that revelations can't be translated. Welcome to Islam, the religion that shoots its own foot off with its ridiculous view of language. Hi everyone. Thanks for watching. In case you stumbled upon this video while browsing or searching, I wanted to let you know that it's part of a series comparing Paul and Muhammad. So if you'd like to see the full series, be sure to click on the playlist. If you're already in the playlist, you're about to find out who received a stamp of approval from Jesus himself, Paul or Muhammad. Paul and Muhammad both taught their followers about Jesus, but only one of them met Jesus and was sent by Jesus. The other? Not so much. In 1 Corinthians 9-1, Paul writes, Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Paul met the risen Jesus on the road to Damascus where Paul was on his way to hunt down Christians and bring them to Jerusalem to face punishment. As he was riding, he saw a light that was brighter than the sun all around him. He fell to the ground and heard a voice say, Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me? It is hard for you to kick against the goats. Paul cried out, Who are you, Lord? And the voice replied, I am Jesus whom you are persecuting. Now get up and stand on your feet. I have appeared to you to appoint you as a servant and as a witness of what you have seen and will see of me. I will rescue you from your own people and from the Gentiles. I am sending you to them to open their eyes and turn them from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God so that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me. An apostle is one who is sent. Paul was sent by Jesus himself, hence we call him the Apostle Paul. But Jesus warned his followers to beware of people like Muhammad. In Matthew 7, Jesus said, Beware of false prophets who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. No one in history fits this description of a false prophet more perfectly than Muhammad. Muhammad came to Jews and Christians and claimed to be their friends. But when he became powerful enough, he called for their violent subjugation, ravenous wolf. Jesus said that we can recognize false prophets by their fruits. Whether we look at Muhammad's life or the impact he's had on the world, Muhammad's fruits are not good. A 2014 study by the World Economic Forum concluded that 18 of the 20 worst countries in the world, in terms of the gender gap between men and women, were Muslim-majority countries. There have been more than 30,000 deadly Islamic terrorist attacks just since 9-11. Concerning human rights abuses, one of the most pro-Islamic news sites on the planet, the Huffington Post, writes, Of the countries with a high risk of violations, Syria, Egypt, Libya, Mali, and Guinea-Bissau, feel free to look up the religious demographics of those countries, have seen the worst deterioration of their human rights situation. Geographically speaking, nations in the Middle East and North Africa account for the vast majority of the countries in the extreme risk category. Nations in the Middle East and North Africa. Now what could they possibly have in common? Belief in Muhammad is what they have in common. So if we know false prophets by their fruits, as Jesus claimed, we know that Muhammad was a false prophet the same way we know that this is an orange tree. Except that we have far, far more evidence for our conclusion about Muhammad. Hi everyone, thanks for watching. In case you stumbled upon this video while browsing or searching, I wanted to let you know that it's part of a series comparing Paul and Muhammad. So if you'd like to see the full series, be sure to click on the playlist. If you're already in the playlist, you're about to see an interesting difference between Paul and Muhammad, namely that Paul tested his revelations while Muhammad didn't. When a revelation from God can be confirmed or disconfirmed by doing some research, we say that the revelation is testable. Both Paul and Muhammad received revelations that are testable, but only one of them actually tested his revelations to make sure they corresponded to reality. Can you guess who it was? Even though Paul received revelations telling him what to believe about Jesus, he was able to test these revelations by going to the eyewitnesses. Some Muslims actually look down on this. If Paul really believed his revelations, why would he test them? But Paul was smart enough to realize that lots of people think they're getting revelations from God when they aren't. So if you think God is speaking to you one day, and you have an opportunity to verify the message by taking a trip and asking a few questions, why not do it? Intriguingly, Allah invited Muhammad to test his revelations by going to the people of the book, Jews and Christians, in order to make sure that his revelations lined up with our revelations. Muhammad occasionally doubted the divine origin of the Quran, and in Surah 10, verse 94 of the Quran, Allah responded to Muhammad's doubts by saying, But if you are in doubt as to what we have revealed to you, ask those who read the book before you. So Muhammad could go to the people of the book, Jews and Christians, to confirm his revelations. But if Muhammad had actually done that, Jews and Christians would have told him that his revelations contradict what's in the Torah and the Gospel on a fundamental level. This is when Muslims jump in and say, but the Torah and the Gospel have been corrupted. Really? So Allah was inviting Muhammad to confirm his revelations by going to people who've been reading corrupt books? Islam would only line up with corrupt books if Islam itself were a corruption. Thank you, my Muslim friends, for insisting yet again that your religion is a corruption of God's true message. I couldn't agree with you more. Hi everyone, thanks for watching. In case you stumbled upon this video while browsing or searching, I wanted to let you know that it's part of a series comparing Paul and Muhammad. So if you'd like to see the full series, be sure to click on the playlist. If you're already in the playlist, you're about to see that Paul's message and authority were confirmed by Jesus' original apostles, and that Muhammad's weren't. Both Paul and Muhammad claimed that Jesus' original disciples agreed with their revelations, but only one of them actually received a stamp of approval from the disciples themselves. Can you guess who it was? We know from first century sources not only that Paul went to Jesus' original apostles to test his revelations, but also that the apostles confirmed Paul's message and his authority. James, Peter and John recognized that Paul had been sent by God to preach the gospel among the Gentiles, and they gave Paul what he called the right hand of fellowship. In 2 Peter 3, 15-16, the apostle Peter, one of Jesus' closest companions, refers to Paul as our beloved brother, and he puts Paul's letters in the same category as Old Testament scripture. Now, the apostles couldn't explicitly confirm Muhammad's message because Muhammad wasn't born for another five centuries. But since the gospel preached by the apostles of Jesus was a message about his sacrificial death, his resurrection from the dead, and his divine nature, all of which contradict the Quran, it's safe to say that they would have regarded Muhammad as an obvious heretic and a false prophet. According to the apostle John, any preacher or teacher or prophet who denies that Jesus is the Son of God is an anti-Christ, Muhammad denied that Jesus is the Son of God. I hope I don't need to complete the syllogism for you. Hi everyone, thanks for watching. In case you stumbled upon this video while browsing or searching, I wanted to let you know that it's part of a series comparing Paul and Muhammad. So if you'd like to see the full series, be sure to click on the playlist. If you're already in the playlist, you're about to see why Muhammad's other so-called revelations about historical figures destroy his credibility. Paul and Muhammad both talked about historical figures, but one of them was exceptionally careful while the other was extraordinarily sloppy. Care to guess which is which? In Surah 18, Allah tells us that Dhul Karnayn, usually identified as Alexander the Great, traveled so far west, he found the place where the sun sets. Not only can I guarantee that Alexander the Great never found the place where the sun sets, we know that this was a popular story during Muhammad's lifetime. The story was even circulating in a Syriac work titled The Glorious Deeds of Alexander Towards the End of Muhammad's Life. Earlier in Surah 18, we read about the companions of the cave, a group of people who supposedly went to sleep in a cave and woke up 300 years later. This myth goes back to Bishop Stephen of Ephesus around the middle of the 5th century. It seems that Muhammad simply took the stories that were popular during his lifetime, gave them an Islamic twist, and included them in the Quran. What's interesting is that even the pagans of Mecca were better at recognizing fiction than Muhammad was. In Surah 6, verse 25, Allah says to Muhammad, When they come to you to argue with you, the unbelievers say, these are nothing but fables of the men of old. Here we have pagans saying, Muhammad, you don't really believe these stories, do you? So we know that Muhammad was extremely sloppy and gullible when it came to stories about historical figures, which means that there's no way we can accept him as a reliable source of information about Jesus. Paul, by contrast, was far more careful in transmitting stories. As a Pharisee, Paul was obsessed with preserving and passing on authoritative tradition. Paul describes his life as a Pharisee by saying, I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my contemporaries among my countrymen being more extremely zealous for my ancestral traditions. Paul's obsession with tradition doesn't go away when he becomes a Christian. He just changes the source of authority. As a Pharisee, he would have passed on traditions he obtained from respected rabbis. As a Christian, he passed on traditions he obtained from Jesus apostles. When we read what Paul says about Jesus, we're reading the words of a man who was trained all of his life to carefully and zealously preserve and pass on authoritative tradition from respected sources. He's the polar opposite of Muhammad, one of whose contemporaries said of him in Ibn Asaq, page 243, Muhammad is all ears. If anyone tells him anything, he believes it. A guy who has a reputation for believing anything anyone tells him is not the sort of guy you want telling you what to believe about the most important man in history. So if you'd like to see the full series, be sure to click on the playlist. If you're already in the playlist, you're about to see how history supports Paul's view of Jesus, not Muhammad's view of Jesus. Historians have a variety of tools that can help us learn about historical figures. Since Paul and Muhammad both made claims about Jesus, the tools of the historian can help us decide whom to trust. When Muhammad preached in Arabia, there weren't a lot of historians around, and the early Muslim community didn't know much about first-century Christianity. So in this atmosphere of ignorance, Muhammad could say whatever he wanted to say about Jesus and his followers wouldn't know that he was wrong. Muhammad could say, for instance, as he does in Surah 4, verse 157 of the Quran, that Jesus wasn't killed and wasn't crucified. Muhammad could say that Jesus claimed to be nothing but a prophet and that Jesus' disciples were Muslims. Seven-century Arab Muslims wouldn't know any better, and even if they had, it wasn't exactly safe to question Muhammad's teachings. But we're not in that position. We have tons of ancient sources. We have a never-ending supply of historical Jesus scholars, and we have the freedom to go where the evidence points. And when we apply the historical method and the tools of textual criticism to the ancient records, we find that the Muslim view of Jesus, as a man who claimed to be nothing but a prophet, who was never killed, who never rose from the dead, and whose followers were Muslims, this view reflects the historical Jesus about as much as a Huffington Post article claiming that Muhammad was a world-class feminist reflects the historical Muhammad. But Paul's claims about Jesus line up perfectly with everything we can learn about Jesus historically. And because Paul was a contemporary of Jesus and knew Jesus' original apostles, if Paul had preached a non-historical Jesus, he would have been condemned by the early church and exposed as a false teacher. The reason he wasn't condemned and exposed was that the Jesus preached by Paul was the same Jesus who walked along the shores of the Sea of Galilee, who performed miracles, who made claims that no mere prophet should ever make, who died on the cross for sins, and who rose from the dead. The Islamic Jesus is a kind of Frankenstein monster pieced together from 7th century Arabian fables filtered through Muhammad's 7th century Arabian theology, a theology that was only one step removed from its pagan roots. If you've ever wondered why there are Christian historical Jesus scholars, Jewish historical Jesus scholars, atheist historical Jesus scholars, and agnostic historical Jesus scholars, but no Muslim historical Jesus scholars, it's because Muslims are bound by the methods and ideas of Muhammad, the world's greatest authority on how not to do history. Hi everyone, thanks for watching. In case you stumbled upon this video while browsing or searching, I wanted to let you know that it's part of a series comparing Paul and Muhammad. So if you'd like to see the full series, be sure to click on the playlist. If you're already in the playlist, you're about to see how Muhammad's teachings were heavily influenced by paganism. As human beings, we're inevitably influenced by the culture we grow up in. But when someone grows up in a pagan culture and suddenly claims to be receiving revelations from God, we'd better not see the imprint of pagan theology on those revelations. During the time of the judges and the kings of ancient Israel, the Jews often turned to pagan gods and pagan forms of worship. But by the first century AD, the time of Jesus and Paul, the Jews were done flirting with false gods. They had utter contempt for the beliefs and practices of the pagans. The apostle Paul had a strict Jewish upbringing and would have therefore shared the general Jewish view of polytheism. But Paul was no ordinary Jew. Paul was a Pharisee, a member of the most rigid sect. And even among Pharisees, Paul was considered especially zealous. Why is this relevant? Well, there are Muslims who try to explain the origin of Christianity by claiming that Paul was influenced by Greco-Roman polytheists. Paul was so mesmerized by all of the gods of the pagans that he deified Jesus as a form of compromise. And that might make sense to certain people, assuming they know absolutely nothing about the apostle Paul, especially the fact that he would have rather died a hundred thousand horrible bloody deaths than compromise his worship of the one true God. Paul became a Christian because he met Jesus, and his encounter with Jesus caused him to reexamine Old Testament prophecies about the Messiah, ultimately convincing him that the law and the prophets were all looking forward to the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. There's no room in Paul's reasoning for even a hint of pagan influence. But there was no shortage of pagan influence on Muhammad. For instance, one of the five pillars of Islam is the Hajj, the annual pilgrimage to Mecca, which is saturated with paganism and idolatry. Before Muhammad conquered Mecca, the pagans would take a pilgrimage to Mecca where they would visit the Kaaba and walk around it seven times. They walked seven circles around the Kaaba to honor the seven planetary deities which they believed circled the earth. They would kiss the black stone, one of the many stones in the ancient Near East that received worship. They would run back and forth between the hills of Safa and Marwa. Remind me, what do Muslims do when they take the pilgrimage to Mecca? They visit the Kaaba and walk around it seven times, just like the pagans did. They kiss the black stone, just like the pagans did. They run back and forth between the hills of Safa and Marwa, just like the pagans did. But let me guess, if it looks like paganism and walks like paganism and talks like paganism, it must be pure monotheism in disguise, right? Hi everyone, thanks for watching. In case you stumbled upon this video while browsing or searching, I wanted to let you know that it's part of a series comparing Paul and Muhammad. So if you'd like to see the full series, be sure to click on the playlist. If you're already in the playlist, you're about to see that Muhammad's message flowed directly from his surroundings and his psychological state while Paul's message required a radical transformation. Human beings are biased in favor of certain positions and biased against other positions. When a man simply gives in to his bias, this doesn't tell us much, but when a man is hopelessly biased against a position and suddenly changes his course and becomes one of its chief defenders, that's when we have to ask, what just happened? Muslims believe that Muhammad's revelations were sent down from heaven, but we find all of the building blocks of Islam in teachings and practices that were common in Arabia during the 7th century. There was Jewish monotheism in Arabia, along with countless Jewish stories about various prophets. Some of these stories ended up in the Quran. There were heretical Christian groups in Arabia, along with various stories about Jesus, Mary, and others. Some of these stories ended up in the Quran. The Sabians, who are mentioned in the Quran, prayed at all five of the times Muslims prayed during their daily prayers, and they recited a creed, La Ilaha Il Allah. There is no God but Allah. Many of the polytheists of Arabia performed ablutions, these are ceremonial washings. They took an annual pilgrimage to Mecca. They circled the Kaaba. They kissed a black stone that supposedly fell from heaven. What we know as Islam is a collection of beliefs and practices that were already circulating in Arabia when Muhammad was born in Mecca. But not all of the beliefs and practices that were circulating in Arabia became part of Islam, so why did Muhammad accept some beliefs and practices but reject others? What was the selection process? To answer this question, we turn to psychology. Muhammad's father died before he was born. Shortly after his birth, the future prophet of Islam was sent to live with a foster family. When he was around four years old, he was taken away from the foster family and returned to his mother. His mother died when he was six and custody then fell to his grandfather who died when he was eight. Psychological studies show that young children who experience so many broken relationships tend to exhibit certain patterns of behavior later in life. They often rebel against authority and tradition and they frequently have a problem with father figures, especially with viewing God as a heavenly father. So how did Muhammad's psychological framework express itself given the materials available in 7th century Arabia? Not surprisingly, he rebelled against authority and tradition. Muhammad attacked his own people theologically, socially, morally and economically and he violently subjugated his own tribe and his own city. As part of his rebellion against polytheistic Meccan culture, Muhammad initially aligned himself with Jews and Christians. But since Jews and Christians view God as our heavenly father and Christians believe that there's an eternal father-son relationship within the very nature of God, Muhammad's psychological hostility towards father figures compelled him to part ways with the Judeo-Christian concept of God. His revelations mocked Jews and Christians for calling God father and eventually demanded our violent subjugation due to our theological views. All of this is exactly what we would expect given Muhammad's traumatic childhood experiences. So Muhammad's claims about Jesus don't seem to be a matter of divine revelation or even a matter of historical investigation. They're a matter of psychological manifestation. In other words, Muhammad's childhood experiences left him with some psychological predispositions and these predispositions made certain beliefs and practices seem more appealing than others. When the beliefs and practices of 7th century Arabia are filtered through Muhammad's psychological framework, we get Islam. Why is this relevant? Well, it's difficult to trust what Muhammad says about Jesus when his view of Jesus is the product of his childhood trauma scrounging through the materials available in 7th century Arabia to find the beliefs and practices that were most soothing to his damaged psyche. By contrast, Paul's claims about Jesus aren't simply a matter of wishful thinking on Paul's part. In fact, they're just the opposite. Paul at first despised Jesus and his followers and the message they were preaching. Paul was convinced that God would only bless Israel if the religious leaders eradicated heresy and so he set out to destroy what he regarded as the Christian heresy. As he was on one of his journeys to round up Christians, Paul suddenly began preaching the faith that he was trying to destroy and he claimed that he had changed course because Jesus had appeared to him. Paul's conversion is significant because he was initially extremely skeptical of the claims of Christianity to the point of wanting to see it utterly wiped out. He was so utterly confident that Jesus was a false messiah he was willing to kill people who followed Jesus. So we can't accuse Paul of believing in Christianity because he was biased in favor of it and this adds another dimension to the evidence for Jesus' resurrection. Jesus appeared to a lot of people after his death by crucifixion. More than 500 people were witnesses of the risen Jesus. But many of them were followers of Jesus during his earthly ministry. So someone could argue that they can't be fully trusted because they were already loyal to Jesus. Maybe they just saw what they wanted to see. They were grieving after Jesus' death and suddenly he appeared to them. Perhaps they were only experiencing grief hallucinations. It would be extraordinarily odd for so many people to experience the same hallucination but it's still an objection that critics raise. Paul, however, wasn't grieving over Jesus so he wasn't in the frame of mind to experience grief hallucinations and yet he saw the same thing the other witnesses saw. So, Muhammad's message flowed directly from his eclectic religious surroundings and his abnormal psychological state which raises further suspicions about his reliability. Paul's message required a radical transformation something that shook him out of his previous view of Jesus and brought him in saline with what Jesus' followers were already saying. This transformation cries out for explanation and I've never seen a better explanation than that Paul really met the risen Jesus. Hi everyone, thanks for watching. In case you stumbled upon this video while browsing or searching I wanted to let you know that it's part of a series comparing Paul and Muhammad. So, if you'd like to see the full series be sure to click on the playlist. If you're already in the playlist you're about to see that Muhammad lived a morally reprehensible life. Paul didn't. As a general rule if you can't trust a man with your daughter you can't trust him with your salvation. How does this affect our views of Paul and Muhammad? Let's find out. Our Muslim friends assure us that Muhammad was the greatest man who ever lived. I have no clue what sources they're reading when they say this and I strongly suspect that they aren't reading any sources. They simply hear wonderful things about Muhammad from their leaders and they assume that these wonderful things are true without ever bothering to investigate. According to Muslim sources Muhammad had sex with a nine-year-old girl. He would brag to his followers about having sex with nine women and girls in a single day. He allowed his followers to rape their female captives and to beat their rebellious wives into submission. He told his followers that women are stupid and immoral and that their testimony is unreliable. He tortured a man for money. He supported his religion through robbery. He had people assassinated for making fun of him. He ordered his followers to execute anyone who leaves Islam. He bought, owned, sold, and traded black African slaves. He referred to Ethiopians as raisin heads and said that Satan looks like a black man. Not the sort of person you'd want as your next-door neighbor. What about Paul? Well, before Paul became a Christian he was violent. He persecuted Christians and had them put in prison and sentenced to death. But apart from his early affinity for forcing people to obey his interpretation of the Torah Paul just wouldn't do anything wrong. In Philippians 3-6 he says that according to the righteousness under the law he was blameless. This doesn't mean that he was sinless but it does mean that no one could point a finger at him and accuse him of violating God's commands. If you really wanted to criticize Paul for something after he became a Christian you could reasonably say that he was extremely sarcastic at times and that when people challenged his status as an apostle he would boast about his accomplishments and about working harder than any of the other apostles. People who have a problem with sarcasm and boasting, I happen to love them, usually don't like Paul's personality. But let's face it, Paul isn't the sort of person you'd need to hide your 9-year-old daughter from. Now, to be fair, Muhammad did share certain positive characteristics with Paul. They both emphasized helping the poor, for instance. But telling your followers to help the poor doesn't magically erase the centuries of spousal abuse and child marriage and rape and robbery and torture that Muhammad justified through his revelations and example. Adolf Hitler was an excellent painter that doesn't mean he gets a free pass on the millions of lives he destroyed. Likewise, Muhammad abolished female infanticide but that admittedly positive accomplishment can never silence the centuries of blood that's calling out to us from the ground. Do you hear it calling? Hi everyone, thanks for watching. In case you stumbled upon this video while browsing or searching, I wanted to let you know that it's part of a series comparing Paul and Muhammad. So if you'd like to see the full series, be sure to click on the playlist. If you're already in the playlist, you're about to see an important difference between Paul and Muhammad. When Paul sinned, he confessed his sins and repented. Muhammad justified his sins and continued in them. Real men admit when they're wrong. Real servants of God really admit when they're wrong. So what happens when someone claims to be a servant of God but just won't admit that he's done something horribly wrong? Let's find out. We can learn a lot about a man by how he reacts when his worst deeds are exposed. Does he acknowledge his sin and turn away from it? Or does he justify it and continue hurting others and even himself? Muhammad had an adopted son named Zaid who was called Zaid bin Muhammad, Zaid, son of Muhammad. One day, Muhammad went to visit him and was greeted by Zaid's wife, Zainab, who was one of the most beautiful women in Arabia and who was wearing very little clothing at the time. Here's what happened according to the Muslim historian Tabari. She jumped up in haste and excited the admiration of the messenger of God so that he turned away murmuring something that could scarcely be understood. However, he did say overtly, glory be to God the Almighty, glory be to God who causes hearts to turn. When Zaid found out that his wife had excited the admiration of his adopted father and prophet, he decided to divorce her so that Muhammad could have her. Muhammad, however, understood that taking your adopted son's wife was frowned upon by everyone in history, so he told Zaid, no, keep your wife. But by that time, Zainab had found out that Muhammad was attracted to her and seeing the opportunity to move up in the world, she began despising her husband. Zaid, wanting to give his adopted father and prophet whatever he desired, divorced his wife and Muhammad married her. Not surprisingly, people started complaining what sort of man marries a woman who's been having sex with his own adopted son. How did Muhammad respond to the criticism? He started receiving revelations to justify the marriage. Allah revealed Surah 33 verses 4 to 5, abolishing adoption in Islam. From that point on, Zaid was no longer called Muhammad's son. Allah also revealed Surah 33 verse 37, where he explains why he wanted Muhammad to marry Zainab. Allah says, And remember when you, Muhammad, said to him to whom Allah had shown favor and to whom you had shown favor, keep your wife to yourself and be careful of your duty to Allah and you concealed in your soul what Allah would bring to light and you feared men and Allah had a greater right that you should fear Him. But when Zaid had accomplished his want of her, i.e. divorced her, we gave her to you as a wife so that there should be no difficulty for the believers in respect of the wives of their adopted sons when they have accomplished their want of them and Allah's command shall be performed. Muslims defend Muhammad by offering all kinds of explanations for his marriage to Zainab. But in the Quran, we have Allah's explanation. Allah says to Muhammad, We gave her to you as a wife so that there should be no difficulty for the believers in respect of the wives of their adopted sons when they have accomplished their want of them. So Allah gave Zainab to Muhammad so that other Muslim men would know that it's okay to marry the divorced wives of their adopted sons. Three quick problems with Allah's explanation. One, how many men really struggle with whether or not they should be marrying the divorced wives of their own adopted sons? Apart from Muhammad, I've never heard anyone who needed divine guidance on this issue. And yet Allah is convinced that lots of us are sitting around scratching our heads thinking to ourselves, Wow, my adopted son's wife is so hot. I wonder if God wants me to have her. Second, assuming that Allah wants men to know that it's okay to marry the divorced wives of their own adopted sons, does he really need Muhammad to go out and do it? Wouldn't it be enough for Allah to say in the Quran, Hey guys, in case you're wondering, Yes, it's perfectly acceptable in Islam to start lusting after your adopted son's wives until your adopted sons divorce them and then you can marry them. Is this such an incredibly important issue that Allah not only had to reveal a Quran verse about it, but also needed Muhammad to break up a marriage and show us how it's done? Third, Allah abolished adoption in Surah 33 verses 4-5. Muslims are still free to take care of orphans, but they don't adopt them into their families. So if there's no more adoption in Islam, why in the name of common sense is Allah telling Muhammad that he has to marry Zaynab so that other Muslim men will know that it's okay to marry the divorced wives of their adopted sons. There aren't going to be any more adopted sons, so the situation isn't going to exist for Muslims. Why would Allah tell Muhammad to do something in order to set an example for other Muslims facing the same problem when there aren't going to be any other Muslims facing the same problem? The only conclusion to draw is that Muhammad was criticized for doing something really, really bad, having adulterous thoughts about his adopted son's wife causing his adopted son to divorce his wife and then marrying the woman he was lusting after. But instead of admitting that he had done something wrong, he justified what he had done and abolished one of humanity's most humane practices in the process. Worst, adopted, father, ever. How did Paul react when his sin was exposed? Paul was a violent persecutor of the church. When he realized that he was wrong, he confessed his sins, turned away from persecution and blasphemy, acknowledged that he could only be forgiven through God's grace and spent the rest of his life showing people how to live for God once they've been forgiven. Years later, Paul said, I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who has given me strength, He considered me faithful, appointing me to His service. Even though I was once a blasphemer and a persecutor and a violent man, I was shown mercy because I acted in ignorance and unbelief. The grace of our Lord was poured out on me abundantly along with the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus. Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance. Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners whom I am the worst. But for that very reason I was shown mercy so that in me, the worst of sinners, Christ Jesus might display His unlimited patience as an example for those who would believe on Him and receive eternal life. Now to the King, eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen. So with Paul, we have a pattern for people who have committed terrible acts. Turn away from those acts. Seek forgiveness. Don't make excuses. With Muhammad, we have a very different pattern. Justify your terrible acts and continue doing them. Now here's a quick question for our Muslim friends. I was once a violent man and I did some of the worst things a human being can do. But I turned away from violence and followed the pattern laid down by Paul. What sort of person do you think I would be right now if I had instead followed the pattern laid down by Muhammad? Would I be peacefully discussing theological claims on YouTube or would I be slaughtering people in the name of Allah? You know the answer, which means that you understand the real-world impact your prophet's teachings have on people. Hi everyone. Thanks for watching. In case you stumbled upon this video while browsing or searching, I wanted to let you know that it's part of a series comparing Paul and Muhammad. So if you'd like to see the full series, be sure to click on the playlist. If you're already in the playlist, you're about to see that Muhammad's revelations were self-serving. Paul's weren't. One of the classic signs of a false prophet is that his revelations are self-serving. The revelations give the prophet in question special moral privileges. How does this affect our views of Paul and Muhammad? Let's find out. Am I the only one who gets suspicious when a guy who's supposedly receiving revelations ends up getting all kinds of special moral privileges from God? Let's consider three examples that should raise some eyebrows. First, the Quran says in Surah 4 verse 3 that Muslim men can marry up to four women. But according to Sahih al-Bukhari and numerous other Muslim sources, Muhammad had at least nine wives at one time. If Muslims are allowed to have no more than four wives, why did Muhammad get more? Lucky him, Allah decided in Surah 33 verse 50 that Muhammad, and only Muhammad, could have as many wives as he wanted. How convenient. Second, when Muhammad wanted to marry Aisha, who was six years old at the time, he said that Allah had given him dreams about marrying her. Sahih al-Bukhari, 3895. Married Aisha that the prophet said to her, You have been shown to me twice in my dream. I saw you pictured on a piece of silk and someone said to me, This is your wife. When I uncovered the picture, I saw that it was yours. I said if this is from Allah, it will be accomplished. I think I speak for most men. When I say if you have a dream about marrying your best friend's six-year-old daughter, that dream didn't come from God. You're a pervert and you need to go see a psychiatrist. Third, one day after Muhammad got caught having sex with his slave girl in his wife, Hafsa's bed, he swore to his wives that he would stop having sex with his slave girl. But a little later in Surah 66 verses 1 and 2, Allah rebuked Muhammad for making that oath and he gave him permission to break it and to start having sex with his slave girl again. Since most people aren't familiar with this story, let's read about the historical background of Surah 66 verse 1 of the Quran. Sunan An-Nasai 3411. It was narrated from Anas that the messenger of Allah had a female slave with whom he had intercourse. But Aisha and Hafsa would not leave him alone until he said that she was forbidden for him. Then Allah, the mighty and sublime, revealed, oh prophet, why do you forbid for yourself that which Allah has allowed to you? That's Surah 66 verse 1 until the end of the verse. You can read more of the juicy details in Tafsir Jalalaym. Muhammad eventually got the slave girl pregnant. Over the years Aisha picked up on the fact that whenever Muhammad wanted something, he got a special revelation from Allah saying that he could have it. In Sahih al-Bukhari 4788, Muhammad receives one of his morally convenient revelations and Aisha says to him, I feel that your Lord hastens in fulfilling your wishes and desires. Indeed, there are times when Allah seems like he has nothing better to do than to encourage and justify Muhammad's sexual adventures. What about Paul? Well, there's not much to say about Paul's sex life because he was apparently celibate from his birth until his death. Paul knew that his life would be painful and difficult and dangerous and that he would probably be killed for his preaching and he just didn't want to get married and put his wife through all of that. Were there any special moral privileges for apostles? No, God called apostles to a higher moral standard and a more difficult life, not to a lower moral standard and an easier life. Paul describes the life of an apostle in 1 Corinthians 4. To this very hour we go hungry and thirsty. We are in rags. We are brutally treated. We are homeless. We work hard with our own hands. When we are cursed, we bless. When we are persecuted, we endure it. When we are slandered, we answer kindly. We have become the scum of the earth, the garbage of the world, right up to this moment. Become an apostle. It's a great life. And Paul knew what he was getting into from the beginning of his Christian journey when Jesus sent Ananias to Paul shortly after his encounter on the road to Damascus. Jesus said, I will show him how much he must suffer for my name. Now, suppose you meet two different men, both of whom claim to speak for God. One of them says, God told me to preach and that I would be horribly treated for the rest of my life, but that I must remain faithful anyway. The other says, God has spoken to me and he says that he wants me to have lots of women and girls and sex slaves and that I get to rob people and subjugate them and break my oaths. Obviously, there are many other factors to consider in evaluating their reliability, but if you had to choose based solely on the lives their revelations call them to, which of these two men would you trust more? Yeah, me too. I'd trust a revelation from Muhammad about as much as I would have trusted a revelation from Hugh Hefner. Hi everyone, thanks for watching. In case you stumbled upon this video while browsing or searching, I wanted to let you know that it's part of a series comparing Paul and Muhammad. So if you'd like to see the full series, be sure to click on the playlist. If you're already in the playlist, you're about to see how Paul's revelations made him a better person and how Muhammad's revelations made him a worse person. Someone who's chosen by God for some important task may go through difficult times. He may become depressed if people don't listen to him. He may become arrogant. He may even rebel against God. But it would be odd for a person to receive revelations from God that have a corrupting influence on him. Revelations that make him a worse person. How is this relevant to our evaluation of Paul and Muhammad? Let's find out. Paul and Muhammad went through some profound changes during their lifetimes, but they eventually settled into their final views on various topics. We can get to the hearts of their culminating ethical positions by asking each of them a simple question. As far as ethics is concerned, what's the greatest thing in the world? We have Paul's answer in 1 Corinthians 13 where he writes, If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains but have not love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames but have not love, I gain nothing. Love is patient. Love is kind. It does not envy. It does not boast. It is not proud. It is not rude. It is not self-seeking. It is not easily angered. It keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease. Where there are tongues, they will be stilled. Where there is knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part. But when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. When I was a child, I talked like a child. I thought like a child. I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror. Then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part. Then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known. And now these three remain. Faith, hope, and love. But the greatest of these is love. According to Paul, what's the greatest thing you can do? Love. Now from Muhammad's answer to the question, what's the greatest thing in the world? Sahih al-Bukhari, 2795. The prophet said, nobody who dies and finds good from Allah in the hereafter would wish to come back to this world even if he were given the whole world and whatever is in it except the martyr who on seeing the superiority of martyrdom would like to come back to the world and get killed again in Allah's cause. The only thing that would be worth coming back to this world for after seeing paradise is getting killed while waging jihad. Sahih al-Bukhari, 2796. The prophet said, a single endeavor of fighting in Allah's cause in the afternoon or in the forenoon is better than all the world and whatever is in it. A single attack by a jihadi is better than the entire world and everything in it. And we wonder why Muslim mothers send their kids off to join terrorist groups. They're just doing what's best for their children, according to Muhammad. Sahih al-Bukhari, 2797. Muhammad said, by him in whose hands my soul is, I would love to be martyred in Allah's cause and then come back to life and then get martyred and then come back to life again and then get martyred and then come back to life again and then get martyred. According to Muhammad, what's the greatest thing you can do? Die while slaughtering unbelievers in the name of Allah. In John 10, verse 10, Jesus says, the thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy. I have come that they may have life and have it to the full. If the forces of evil come to steal and kill and destroy and the pinnacle of Muhammad's hierarchy of good deeds is getting killed while slaughtering people, but Jesus came so that people would have life to the full and the pinnacle of Paul's hierarchy of good deeds is loving people, whose ethical system would Jesus affirm? Paul's or Muhammad's? Whose ethical system would Jesus condemn? If you Muslims know that Jesus would condemn Muhammad, why do you keep telling us that you respect Jesus? Hi everyone, thanks for watching. In case you stumbled upon this video while browsing or searching, I wanted to let you know that it's part of a series comparing Paul and Muhammad. So if you'd like to see the full series, be sure to click on the playlist. If you're already in the playlist, you're about to see that while Paul won converts through peaceful preaching, Muhammad won converts primarily through bribes and threats. Paul and Muhammad were amazingly effective in their preaching. But what were the messages that made them effective? Let's find out. Muhammad preached in Mecca for more than a decade, at first in private and then publicly. But he didn't win very many converts through preaching submission to Allah. We don't see large numbers of converts to Islam until Muhammad modified his message and his tactics. After years of unconvincing messages about Islam, Muhammad made an enticing guarantee to those who waged jihad for him, a message that resonated with many 7th century Arabs. In Sahih al-Bukhari 2787, Muhammad says, The example of a Mujahid, a jihadi, in Allah's cause, and Allah knows better who really strives in his cause, is like a person who observes psalm, fasting, and offers salat prayer continuously. Allah guarantees that he will admit the Mujahid in his cause into paradise if he is killed, otherwise he will return him to his home safely with rewards and war booty. Muhammad guaranteed that if you waged jihad for him, you'll either die, in which case you'll enter paradise and get your virgins, or you'll survive, in which case you'll return home safely with rewards and war booty, which includes sex slaves. So, either way, whether you live or die, it's to your financial and sexual advantage to fight for Muhammad. Muhammad clearly understood that the quickest way to the hearts of his listeners was through their wallets or their pants. For example, when Muhammad was accused of distributing the spoils of war unevenly, favoring potential converts, he replied, Are you disturbed in mind because of the good things of this life by which I win over a people that they may become Muslims while I entrust you to your Islam? In Sahih al-Bukhari 3344, Muhammad divides a piece of gold among four chiefs of a different tribe. Watch what happens. So, the Quraish and the Ansar became angry and said, He, i.e. the Prophet, gives to the chiefs of Najd and does not give to us. The Prophet said, I give to them so as to attract their hearts to Islam. So, for the early Muslims, the importance of money and captives as a motive for conversion can hardly be overstated. But Muhammad also knew how to convert people who didn't want to accept Islam just to get gold or sex slaves. He would fight them until they converted. In Sahih Muslim 129, Muhammad declares, I have been commanded to fight the people until they bear witness that none has the right to be worshiped but Allah and that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah and they establish the salat and pay the zakat. If they do that, then their blood and wealth are protected from me except for a right that is due and their reckoning will be with Allah. Muhammad made it very clear that if you didn't convert to Islam, you were a target for jihad. Now, think about the alternatives for a 7th century pagan Arab. If you converted and fought for Muhammad, you'd get rewards and war booty. If you didn't convert, he was coming to kill you. Was this method successful? Let's read Abu Bakr's summary of Muhammad's life and work. In the history of At-Tabri, Volume 10, page 55, Abu Bakr declares, Verily God, may he be exalted, sent Muhammad with his truth to his creation as a bearer of good tidings and as a warner and as one calling others to God with his permission and as a light bringing lamp so that he might warn all who live and so that the saying against the unbelievers might be fulfilled. So God guided with the truth whoever responded to him and the apostle of God with his permission struck whoever turned his back to him until he came to Islam willingly or grudgingly. So Muhammad preached, but the secret to his success was intimidation and bribery. The apostle Paul, after his conversion, relied strictly on peaceful preaching rather than on bribes or threats of physical violence. Paul presented his listeners with a simple message. Jesus died on the cross for sins. His crucifixion was a public event, but he didn't stay dead. He rose and appeared to numerous witnesses, both friends and foes. Jesus' resurrection confirms his message, so you need to submit to him as Lord. This was the same message preached by Jesus' original apostles. Indeed, when Paul preached in various cities, he would share the earliest Christian creed, which he had received from the apostles themselves. Paul writes to the Christians of Corinth in 1 Corinthians 15, For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received. This is where the creed starts, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Cephas, i.e. Peter, then to the twelve. After that, He appeared to more than 500 brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep. Then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also. Scholars, even critical scholars, date this creed within just a few years of Jesus' death, which makes it extremely early material. And what does it say? That Jesus died on the cross for sins, that He rose from the dead, that there are lots of witnesses, and that this was all prophesied centuries beforehand. Paul's listeners understood that this message was different from other religious messages. Paul's preaching was grounded in evidence and observation, and people converted to Christianity wherever he went. The evidence for Christianity was so persuasive that within just a few centuries Christianity conquered the most powerful empire the world had ever seen without Christians ever needing to turn to violence or bribery. It seems that when you have a good argument, you don't need to kill and rape until people are forced to agree with you. Hi everyone, thanks for watching. In case you stumbled upon this video while browsing or searching, I wanted to let you know that it's part of a series comparing Paul and Muhammad. So if you'd like to see the full series, be sure to click on the playlist. If you're already in the playlist, you're about to see that Paul endured far, far greater persecution than Muhammad. Anyone can proclaim his views when life is easy, but when the sword is at his throat, that's when we see his true conviction. Paul and Muhammad were both persecuted. Paul was persecuted for preaching the gospel. Muslims think that Muhammad was persecuted for preaching Islam, but that's not what their sources say. Muhammad was persecuted for mocking the gods and goddesses of the pagans of Mecca. We read in the history of Atabari, Volume 6, page 93, the messenger of God proclaimed God's message openly and declared Islam publicly to his fellow tribesmen. When he did so, they did not withdraw from him or reject him in any way, as far as I have heard, until he spoke of their gods and denounced them. When he did this, they took exception to it and united in opposition and hostility to him, except for those of them whom God had protected from error by means of Islam. A few pages later, Muhammad's tribesmen describe Muhammad's general approach towards reaching polytheists with the message of Islam. We have never seen the like of what we have endured from this man. He has derided our traditional values, used our forefathers, reviled our religion, caused division among us and insulted our gods. We have endured a great deal from him. Now that's strange. Muslims in the West tell me that it's wrong and immoral to criticize another person's religious beliefs, and yet their favorite prophet viciously mocked other people's religious beliefs. So the polytheists of Mecca responded by persecuting Muhammad. Muslims tend to exaggerate the level of persecution Muhammad faced, however. The pagans threw pebbles at him, they spit on him, they eventually decided to kill him, but this persecution only lasted a few years until Muhammad moved to Medina. That's when the persecuted Muhammad became Muhammad the persecutor. In comparing the lives of Muhammad and Paul, we quickly realized that the persecution Muhammad suffered was a joke compared to the persecution Paul suffered. Paul gives us a partial overview of his trials in 2 Corinthians 11. I have worked much harder, been imprisoned more frequently, been flogged more severely, and been exposed to death again and again. Five times I received from the Jews the 40 lashes minus one, three times I was beaten with rods, once I was pelted with stones, three times I was shipwrecked, I spent a night and a day in the open sea, I have been constantly on the move, I have been in danger from rivers, in danger from bandits, in danger from my fellow Jews, in danger from Gentiles, in danger in the city, in danger in the country, in danger at sea, and in danger from false believers. I have labored and toiled and have often gone without sleep. I have known hunger and thirst and have often gone without food. I have only been toiled and naked. Paul wrote these words in the mid-50s AD. He still had years of beatings and imprisonments ahead of him, so by the end of his life most of his body would have been covered in scar tissue. The reason this is important is that the more you are persecuted, the more you will be inclined to stop and think, is that really a revelation from God that I received? sure, because it's costing me a lot. We know that Paul had complete confidence in his revelations because he endured outright torture over and over and over again. Muhammad was persecuted, but given the endless supply of wives and sex slaves and money and special moral privileges that only applied to him, we'll just never know how long he would have endured if he had faced anything remotely resembling what Paul faced. On a side note, I'm always amazed at the Muslim reaction to the persecution of Muhammad in Mecca. Muslims look to this period and complain about the intolerant pagans. How could they persecute our beloved prophet? Why were they so bigoted and Islamophobic? But let's be consistent for just a moment. Muhammad preached openly against the religious beliefs of the people of Mecca for about ten years, and he survived. If I went to Mecca today and preached openly against the religious beliefs of the people who live there now, would I last ten years? Would I last ten months? Ten days? Ten hours? If I stood outside the Kaaba and began openly preaching against the religious beliefs of the people of Mecca today, would I last ten minutes? Muslims complain about the intolerance of the pagans who opposed Muhammad, and yet the pagans were far, far more tolerant than the man who subjugated them. Welcome to Islam, where tolerance, much like Muhammad's sexual attraction to his child-bride Aisha, is a one-way street. Hi everyone, thanks for watching. In case you stumbled upon this video while browsing or searching, I wanted to let you know that it's part of a series comparing Paul and Muhammad. So if you'd like to see the full series, be sure to click on the playlist. If you're already in the playlist, you're about to see that Muhammad was spiritually disturbed. Paul wasn't. Both Christianity and Islam teach that there are powerful, dark forces at work, all around us. If someone is clearly being influenced by these dark forces, how can we trust what he tells us about God? According to Muslim sources, when Muhammad received his first revelation in the cave on Mount Hira, he believed that he was possessed by a demon. And if you read what the Muslim sources say about how Muhammad received his revelations, you'll understand why he thought he was possessed. His encounters with Gabriel sound like something out of an exorcist film. His face would turn red, his heart would race, the veins in his neck would swell up, his shoulders would tremble, he would come down with a fever, his lips would move rapidly, he would hear ringing or voices, he would sweat profusely, even in the cold. According to Muslim sources, once Muhammad became convinced that he was demon-possessed, he tried to commit suicide by hurling himself off a cliff. According to Muslim sources, Muhammad delivered revelations to his followers, promoting polytheism, the infamous Satanic verses. After a while, he came back and said that Satan had tricked him into delivering these verses. Apparently, Muhammad just couldn't tell the difference between inspiration from God and inspiration from the devil. According to Muslim sources, Muhammad was the victim of black magic that gave him delusional thoughts and false beliefs. This is crucial because the Qur'an tells us that magic is taught by demons. Since magic was successful over Muhammad, demons had power over Muhammad. I can't imagine someone less reliable on a spiritual level than the prophet of Islam. Paul, by contrast, was not a helpless victim of demonic attacks. Demons were victims of Paul attacks. Paul would cast them out. Paul became so famous for his ability to cast out demons that other people tried to cast out demons by saying, I cast you out in the name of Jesus whom Paul preaches. This didn't work because you have to actually know Jesus in order to have that kind of spiritual authority, but it shows that Paul's power over demons was known even among non-Christians. So Paul had power over demons. Demons had power over Muhammad. Transitive property whom should we be listening to? Hi everyone, thanks for watching. In case you stumbled upon this video while browsing or searching, I wanted to let you know that it's part of a series comparing Paul and Muhammad. So if you'd like to see the full series, be sure to click on the playlist. If you're already in the playlist, you're about to see that while Paul performed numerous miracles, Muhammad performed none. Miracles. Some have them, some don't. The apostle Paul performed numerous miracles during his missionary journeys, including healing a man who was disabled since birth, and even raising a young man named Udikus from the dead. Paul lived such a miraculous life that people would touch him with a cloth, take the cloth to a sick person, and the sick person would be healed. Many Muslims are convinced that Muhammad performed miracles, but it's important to note, one, that stories about Muhammad's miracles were written more than a century after his death, two, that they were written during a time when Muslims were forging stories about their prophet like it was an Olympic sport, and three, that they were written in response to repeated challenges from Jews and Christians who wanted to know why Muhammad couldn't perform miracles. Our earliest Islamic source is the Quran, and the Quran repeatedly admits that Muhammad couldn't perform any miracles other than delivering the Quran. Surah 6, verse 37. And they say, why has not a sign been sent down to him from his Lord? Say, surely Allah is able to send down a sign, but most of them do not know. Surah 10, verse 20. And they say, why is not a sign sent to him from his Lord? Say, the unseen is only for Allah. Therefore wait, surely I too with you am of those who wait. Surah 13, verse 7. And those who disbelieve say, why has not a sign been sent down upon him from his Lord? You are only a warner and there is a guide for every people. Surah 13, verse 27. And those who disbelieve say, why is not a sign sent down upon him by his Lord? Say, surely Allah makes him who will go astray and guides to himself those who turn to him. Surah 17, verse 59. And nothing could have hindered us that we should send signs except that the ancients rejected them. And we gave to Samud a she-camel, a manifest sign, but on her account they did injustice and we do not send signs but to make men fear. Surah 29, verses 50 to 51. And they say, why are not signs sent down upon him from his Lord? Say, the signs are only with Allah and I am only a plain warner. Is it not enough for them that we have revealed to you the book which is recited to them? So Allah makes a variety of excuses for not giving Muhammad any miracles, but embedded in these excuses is an admission that Muhammad couldn't perform miracles. Hence, unless Muslims want us to reject the Quran, we're forced to conclude that the Prophet of Islam was about as miraculous as a can of cheese whiz. As for Muhammad's claim that the Quran itself is a miracle, I give him an award for worst argument ever, but I'm fresh out of blue ribbons. Hi everyone, thanks for watching. In case you stumbled upon this video while browsing or searching, I wanted to let you know that it's part of a series comparing Paul and Muhammad. So if you'd like to see the full series, be sure to click on the playlist. If you're already in the playlist, you're about to see that while Paul died an honorable death as a martyr, Muhammad died a disgraceful death as a false prophet. Bad people sometimes live easy lives. Good people sometimes die tragic deaths. But what happens when a man who claims to speak for God dies in precisely the way God says he'll die if he invents a false revelation? Let's find out. Following his conversion, the apostle Paul spent about three decades preaching the Gospel. During that time, there were numerous plots to kill him, the Romans eventually succeeded in the mid-60s AD. Since Paul was a Roman citizen, he was executed by beheading rather than by crucifixion. Since Paul had been preaching to the Roman soldiers and leaders, his martyrdom served as a witness to the very people who executed him. Our word martyr comes from a Greek word, meaning witness. So Paul died an honorable death as a martyr. How did Muhammad die? Well after Muhammad and his followers had attacked the Jewish settlement at Kaibar, a Jewish woman whose father, uncle, and husband had all been slaughtered by Muhammad's followers offered to cook a meal for Muhammad and his companions. And as we all know, if a woman whose family you've just butchered offers to cook you a delicious meal, you say yes. So Muhammad gladly accepted the invitation. The woman poisoned the roasted lamb she was serving. One of Muhammad's companions died from the poison. Muhammad spit the food out and survived, but the poison did some sort of internal damage that led to ongoing medical problems. A few years later, Muhammad complained to the mother of the man who had died from the poison that he could feel the poison killing him too. In the history of Atabari, Volume 8, page 124, the messenger of God said during the illness from which he died, the mother of Bishor bin Al-Bara had come in to visit him. Um Bishor, at this very moment I feel my aorta being severed because of the food I ate with your son at Kaibar. Muhammad felt his aorta being severed because of the food he ate at Kaibar. He said the same thing to Aisha as he was dying. Sahih al-Bukhari, 4428. The prophet in his ailment in which he died used to say, oh Aisha, I still feel the pain caused by the food I ate at Kaibar and at this time I feel as if my aorta is being cut from that poison. I should point out that the words as if are not in the Arabic. Muhammad doesn't say he feels as if his aorta is being severed. He says that he feels his aorta being severed from the poison. Why are these references to Muhammad feeling his aorta being severed significant if we are examining the manner of his death? Well in the Quran Allah tells us how he would kill Muhammad if Muhammad ever forged a revelation. Let's read 3 translations of Surah 69 verses 44 to 46 to see how Allah would kill Muhammad for inventing revelations. Heleli Khan, and if he, Muhammad, had forged a false saying concerning us, we surely should have seized him by his right hand or with power and might, and then certainly should have cut off his life artery and in parentheses the translators add, aorta. And if he had invented false sayings concerning us, we assuredly had taken him by the right hand and then severed his life artery. And if he had fabricated against us some of the sayings, we would certainly have seized him by the right hand then we would certainly have cut off his aorta. What did Allah say that the penalty would be for fabricating revelations? He said that the penalty would be cutting off Muhammad's aorta. And what did Muhammad himself say that the poison had done to him? He said that it had cut off his aorta. So while Paul died an honorable death as a martyr, Muhammad died a disgraceful death as a false prophet. Given Muhammad's treatment of women, Jews, and followers of Jesus, it's almost poetic that he was killed by a lamb given to him by a Jewish woman, ultimately severing his aorta confirming his status as a false prophet. Humiliations galore. Hi everyone, thanks for watching. In case you stumbled upon this video while browsing or searching, I wanted to let you know that it's part of a series comparing Paul and Muhammad. So if you'd like to see the full series, be sure to click on the playlist. If you're already in the playlist, you're about to see that the Quran affirms the reliability of Paul. But Paul condemns Muhammad. Many Muslims today attack the apostle Paul. Imagine our surprise when we turn to classic Muslim commentators and find them promoting Paul. Imagine our even greater surprise when we realize that the Quran itself affirms the reliability of Paul. Allah confirms the reliability of the apostle Paul. In chapter 61 verse 14 of the Quran, Allah says that he aided the true followers of Jesus until they became uppermost over those who rejected Jesus. Allah says, O you who believe, be helpers in the cause of Allah, as Jesus, son of Mary, said to his disciples, Who are my helpers in the cause of Allah? The disciples said, We are helpers in the cause of Allah. So a party of the children of Israel believed and another party disbelieved. Then we aided those who believed against their enemy and they became uppermost. In his commentary on this verse, Yusuf Ali says that it refers to Allah aiding the Christians until they permeated the Roman Empire. But the Christians who permeated the Roman Empire were what Muslims would call Pauline Christians. They believed in the message and authority of the apostle Paul. So if Allah helped the true Christians rise to power and the Christians who rose to power believed in the message and authority of the apostle Paul, we have Allah's stamp of approval on the apostle Paul. One of the most respected Muslim commentators of all time, court to be, comments on Surah 61, verse 14 as follows. It was said that this verse was revealed about the apostles of Jesus, may peace and blessings be upon him. Ibn Asaq stated that of the apostles and disciples that Jesus sent to preach, there were Peter and Paul who went to Rome. This is a Muslim scholar telling us that Paul was sent by Jesus. The Muslim historian Tabari agrees that Paul was a follower of Jesus. He writes, among the apostles and the followers who came after them were the apostle Peter and Paul who was a follower and not an apostle, they went to Rome. Why would respected Muslim commentators list Paul among the true witnesses of Jesus who preached in Rome? The reason they describe Paul this way is that many classical Muslim commentators, unlike Muslims today, based their views on the Koran. Allah said that he sent the gospel as a guidance for mankind and that he would protect Jesus' followers. So these commentators realized that to say that the apostle Paul corrupted the gospel is to insult Allah. If Allah sent the gospel as a guidance and promised to protect Jesus' followers but was overpowered by the apostle Paul, this would make Paul more powerful than Allah. So when modern Muslims tell us that Allah's plans were foiled by the apostle Paul, they're not making Paul look bad. They're making Paul greater than their God. These Muslims need to change the takbir from Allahu Akbar to Bulusu Akbar. So the Koran affirms the reliability of Paul. We can trust what Paul says according to Allah. And what does Paul say? Galatians 1 verses 8 to 9. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed. As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed. Paul says that anyone who preaches a gospel different from the one he preached to the Galatians is under God's curse. But Muhammad preached a gospel different from the one Paul preached to the Galatians. Hence, Muhammad is under God's curse. The only way for Muslims to avoid this conclusion is to say that Paul was a deceiver who corrupted Jesus' message. But as we've seen, the Koran affirms the reliability of Paul. And since Allah promised to protect Jesus' true followers and claimed that no one can change his words, the only way Paul could have corrupted Jesus' message and led his followers astray was to overpower Allah, which brings Muslims back to their new takbir, Bulusu Akbar. Hi everyone. Thanks for watching. In case you stumbled upon this video while browsing or searching, I wanted to let you know that it's part of a series comparing Paul and Muhammad. So if you'd like to see the full series, be sure to click on the playlist. If you're already in the playlist, you're about to see that while Muhammad's message self-destructs, Paul's doesn't. Rule number one, if you're a false prophet, don't affirm the inspiration, preservation and authority of scriptures that contradict your revelations. You'll only end up destroying your own religion. Paul's message about Jesus and the gospel is the same message we find prophesied in the Old Testament, the same message preached by Jesus and his original followers. You are not good enough to enter the presence of God. All our righteousness is as filthy rags before God. If you think you're good enough to meet God, you have a pretty low view of God, and that's part of the problem. What this means is that, if we want to be accepted by God, we need a righteousness that comes from God, not from ourselves. The gospel is a message about how God gives us this righteousness through Jesus Christ. You might not like the message, but there's nothing incoherent or illogical about it. His message, by contrast, self-destructs because the Quran affirms the inspiration, preservation and authority of scriptures that completely contradict Islam. In Surah 3 verses 3-4, Allah says that He revealed the Torah and the gospel. In Surah 7 verse 157, Allah says that Christians were still reading the gospel during the time of Muhammad. We have copies of the gospel before the time of Muhammad, during the time of Muhammad, and after the time of Muhammad, so we know what the gospel during Muhammad's time said. We've still got it. In Surah 6 verse 115 and Surah 18 verse 27, Allah says that no one can change His words. No one is powerful enough to change Allah's words. All that Allah already said that the Torah and the gospel are His words, which means that the Torah and the gospel cannot be corrupted. Not surprisingly, according to the Quran, the gospel is still authoritative scripture. Allah even commands Christians to judge by what we read in the gospel. He says in Surah 5 verse 47, Let the people of the gospel judge by what Allah hath revealed therein. If any do fail to judge by the light of what Allah hath revealed, they are no better than those who rebel. So Allah says that He revealed the gospel, inspiration. He says that no one can change His words, preservation, and He commands Christians to judge by the gospel, authority. The problem for Islam is that if we judge by the gospel, as Allah commands, we have to reject Islam, because the gospel plainly declares that Jesus is the Divine Son of God who died on the cross for sins and rose from the dead, and that anyone who comes against this message is not from God. There are only two possibilities here, my friends. Either Christians have the inspired, preserved, authoritative Word of God, or we don't. If we have the Word of God, Islam is false. Because Islam contradicts our scriptures. If we don't have the Word of God, Islam is false because Islam affirms our scriptures. If we have the Word of God, Islam is false. And if we don't have the Word of God, Islam is false. Either way, Islam is false. Unlike Paul's message, Muhammad's message self-destructs. In case you're wondering, yes, this would be an excellent time for our Muslim friends to start looking for a new prophet. Hi everyone. Thanks for watching. In case you stumbled upon this video while browsing or searching, I wanted to let you know that it's part of a series comparing Paul and Muhammad. So if you'd like to see the full series, be sure to click on the playlist. If you're already in the playlist, you're about to see how Muhammad's revelations insult Jesus. Paul's don't. If Islam really promotes respect for Jesus, why does it portray him as a total failure? Muslims maintain that Jesus was one of Allah's mightiest prophets, but if we take a closer look at their claims, we can see that if Islam is true, Jesus was the most stupendous failure in the history of the prophets. Since he started preaching Islam at birth, according to the Quran, he had more than 30 years to convince people to submit to Allah. But after his death, the children of Israel were divided into two broad camps. Those who believed his message became Christians, all of whom were guilty of the worst sin imaginable, shirk or associating a partner with Allah, while those who rejected his message were guilty of rejecting one of Allah's mightiest messengers. So whether people believed in Jesus or rejected him, they would all ultimately be condemned and cast into the hellfire. Jesus didn't manage to win a single lasting convert to Islam. His devout Muslim followers were all led astray. Who led them astray? This is where Muslims like to claim that the Apostle Paul deceived the early Christian community. Notice that this would be an admission that, according to Islam, all the work that Jesus did came crashing down due to corruption. But it gets worse, because Islam doesn't actually teach that Paul corrupted Jesus' message. Islam teaches that Allah corrupted Jesus' message, when he tricked people into believing that Jesus died on the cross. According to the Quran, Jesus didn't die by crucifixion. But all four Gospels say that Jesus died by crucifixion. Where did people get the idea that Jesus died by crucifixion? They got it from Allah, who miraculously disguised someone to make him look like Jesus. So who's responsible for corrupting Jesus' message? The poor Islamic Jesus spent his entire life preaching, only to have his life's work sabotaged by the God who promised to protect his followers. So according to Islam, Jesus accomplished absolutely nothing of any lasting significance. We have no record of his Muslim disciples or of Jesus preaching anything similar to Islam. The Islamic Jesus was a total failure, and Muslims claim to respect Jesus. What about Paul? Does Paul also insult and degrade Jesus with his message? Not at all. We have a good summary of Paul's view in Philippians 2, where Paul quotes an early Christian hymn. Paul tells the Philippians, In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus, who, being in very nature, God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage. Rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of the servant being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death, even death on a cross. Therefore, God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God, the Father. Paul certainly isn't insulting Jesus here. Paul says that Jesus, being in very nature, God, didn't consider that equality with the Father something he had to hold on to. He took on human nature and died on the cross. He then returned to his glorified state, and now every knee will bow before him, and every tongue will confess that Jesus is Lord. This means that Adam, and Noah, and Abraham, and Moses, and King David, and yes, especially Muhammad will all bow before their risen Lord. On a related note, since Paul was quoting a first century Christian hymn, we know that the earliest Christians were already singing songs about the deity of Christ and the incarnation. But the hymn also draws a distinction between Jesus, who is God, and the Father, who is God, which means that we can't understand the earliest Christian worship without the doctrine of the Trinity. So for you Muslims who have been told by your scholars that belief in the deity of Christ arose centuries after the time of Jesus, you need some new scholars, preferably some who don't constantly lie to you. Hi everyone, thanks for watching. In case you stumbled upon this video while browsing or searching, I wanted to let you know that it's part of a series comparing Paul and Muhammad. So if you'd like to see the full series, be sure to click on the playlist. If you're already in the playlist, you're about to see how Muhammad's revelations insult God. Paul's don't. In John 844, Jesus calls Satan, the father of lies. If Satan is the father of lies, why does Islam try to convince us that Allah deceives people for no reason and starts false religions? Muslims claim to have an impeccable theology, but they believe in a God who deceives people for no reason as when he tricked people into believing that Jesus died on the cross, starts false religions as when he accidentally helped start Christianity by convincing a bunch of first century Jews that Jesus had died on the cross, and overthrows the work of his prophets, as when he corrupted Jesus' message by turning it into a message about Jesus' work on the cross. Allah deceives people, starts false religions, and overthrows the work of his prophets, even though he calls himself the truth, promises to protect those who follow his prophets and boasts that no one can change his words, although in his defense he does repeatedly call himself the best of deceivers. Allah sent Jesus with the gospel, forgetting that he was just going to corrupt the gospel and allow it to be further corrupted by others, and that he would deceive Jesus' followers and allow them to be further deceived by others. If Islam is true, God is ignorant and deceptive, Jesus was irrelevant and incompetent, and Jesus' followers were weak-willed and unreliable. Islam is one massive insult to God. As with so many of Islam's claims, we find superficial reverence but deep blasphemy. On the surface, Islam sounds like it promotes reverence for God. But as soon as we dig a little deeper, we find blasphemous, incoherent nonsense. This is exactly what we should expect from a false religion. This on the surface, blasphemy below the surface. Superficial reverence, deep blasphemy. Paul, by contrast, honors God. The God of the Bible is perfect in his attributes. According to Christianity, God's justice is perfect, so all sin must be punished. If God let some sin slide, he wouldn't be perfect in his justice. But God's love and mercy are also perfect, which means that he's vastly more loving than we are, so much so that he's willing to take the punishment that we deserve upon himself. God loves sinners so much that he entered into creation in order to pay the price for our sins. As Jesus of Nazareth, he fulfilled his mission perfectly and suffered for our sake so that we could stand before God with the righteousness of Christ. Jesus taught the good news, the gospel, to his followers. He appeared to them as their risen Lord, and he sent the Holy Spirit to fill them and empower them. Those followers endured torture and death to preach the gospel, to people who were lost, and to make sure that the gospel would reach us. So according to Paul, God was completely victorious, Jesus was completely victorious, and Jesus' followers, by God's grace, were completely victorious. Paul doesn't promote superficial reverence, he promotes deep reverence. Jesus warned his followers that false prophets would come. He also commanded us not to believe them. One of the ways we can spot false prophets is by carefully discerning when their teachings insult and demean God and diminish God's perfect attributes. God is truth, and God is love. Islam, when carefully examined, would have us believe otherwise. Alright everyone, thanks for watching. In case you stumbled upon this video while browsing or searching, I wanted to let you know that it's part of a series comparing Paul and Muhammad. So if you'd like to see the full series, be sure to click on the playlist. If you're already in the playlist, you're about to see what happens when we put all of this together. So we have much earlier records for Paul's life than for Muhammad's life. Paul was a brilliant scholar, Muhammad was an illiterate 7th century caravan trader. Paul knew the Old Testament backwards and forwards, Muhammad wouldn't know the Old Testament from a phone book. Paul was a contemporary of Jesus, Muhammad was born more than five centuries later in a different country. Paul spoke all of the relevant languages, Muhammad spoke none of the relevant languages. Jesus sent Paul as an apostle, but condemned Muhammad as a false prophet. Paul tested his revelations, Muhammad didn't test his revelations even when Allah told him to. Paul's message and authority were confirmed by Jesus' original apostles. Jesus' original apostles condemned Muhammad's teachings as the teachings of an Antichrist. Muhammad's other revelations about historical figures destroy his credibility. Paul's don't. The historical method supports Paul's view of Jesus and refutes Muhammad's view of Jesus. Muhammad's teachings were heavily influenced by paganism. Paul's weren't, Muhammad's message flowed directly from his surroundings and his psychological state. Paul's message required a radical transformation. Muhammad lived a morally reprehensible life. Paul didn't. Paul confessed his sins and repented, Muhammad justified his sins and continued in them. Muhammad's revelations were self-serving, Paul's weren't. Paul's revelations made him a better person, Muhammad's revelations made him a worse person. Paul won converts through peaceful preaching, Muhammad won converts primarily through bribes and threats. Paul endured greater persecution than Muhammad. Muhammad was spiritually disturbed, Paul wasn't. Paul performed miracles, Muhammad didn't. Paul died an honorable death as a martyr, Muhammad died a disgraceful death as a false prophet. The Quran affirms the reliability of Paul, but Paul condemns Muhammad, Muhammad's message self-destructs, Paul's doesn't, Muhammad's message insults Jesus, Paul's message honors Jesus, Muhammad's message insults God, Paul's message honors God. Every possible way we can compare these two men in terms of their reliability Paul wins. So we're looking for someone to tell us the truth about Jesus, and on the one hand we have Paul, who may be the most trustworthy human witness of Jesus ever. Other people might be more reliable in particular ways, but when we look at the entire collection of features that make Paul a reliable witness, scholarly training, knowledge of the Old Testament and of various languages, a desire to test his revelations, confirmation by Jesus and his original followers, impenetrable moral fiber, miracles, power over demons, patient endurance in the face of persecution, even to the point of martyrdom, who's more reliable than the apostle Paul? Are you starting to understand why Jesus chose Paul as an apostle? On the other hand we have an illiterate caravan trader from the wrong place at the wrong time, who stands condemned by Jesus, and by his original apostles, and by Paul, who didn't test his revelations, who delivered all sorts of nonsensical revelations about other historical figures, who was influenced by his pagan surroundings and his abnormal psychology, who lived a morally reprehensible life and justified his sins, and received self-serving revelations, who won converts primarily through bribes and intimidation who was spiritually disturbed, admittedly delivering a revelation from Satan and claiming to be a victim of black magic, whose entire message self-destructs because he affirmed books, contradict his own book, whose message insults God, Jesus, and Jesus apostles, and whose death exposes him as a false prophet according to the standard supplied by his own revelations, show me anyone less reliable than Muhammad if we're having a discussion about Jesus. And yet our Muslim friends insist that when the least reliable person in history tells us about Jesus, and the claims of the least reliable person in history contradict known facts about Jesus, we should put the blame on the most reliable person in history and call him a deceiver so that we can go on believing the claims of the least reliable person in history. This is how Islam forces its adherents to think. To call this a ridiculous methodology would be an insult to all other ridiculous methodologies. Paul completely outclasses Muhammad. And guess what, Muslims of the world? Paul's not even our main guy. Jesus is our main guy. Paul, a guy who's not even our main guy, thoroughly embarrasses your only guy. You've only got one guy, Muhammad. You think you've got God, and angels, and prophets, and so on, but it's really just one guy telling you what to believe about everyone else. One guy telling you what to believe about 50 other guys doesn't mean you've got 51 witnesses. It's still just one guy. In Christianity, we don't have to base our beliefs on a single witness. The prophets who came before Jesus confirmed his message. Jesus' disciples confirmed his message. The Father confirmed his message. The Holy Spirit confirmed his message. Angels confirmed his message. We have a cloud of witnesses affirming our beliefs, even without Paul. Paul is simply another witness confirming the gospel, and all of our witnesses, Father, Son, Holy Spirit, angels, prophets, apostles, men, women, Jews, Gentiles, everyone is united in affirming the core of the gospel and in condemning Muhammad as the most obvious false prophet in history. But when Christians follow the example of the Apostle Paul and we show you how many lies you've believed because it never occurred to you to question what your leaders and your parents told you, you get angry at us. You don't get angry at them for filling your heads with nonsense. You get angry at us. And to that I reply in the words of the Apostle Paul, have I now become your enemy by telling you the truth. Hi everyone. Thanks for watching. In case you stumbled upon this video while browsing or searching, I wanted to let you know that it's part of a series comparing Paul and Muhammad. And this is the end. So if you'd like to see the full series, be sure to click on the playlist. If you're already in the playlist, congratulations. It looks like you made it to the end. Let me know what you thought of this series in the description box.