Paul Corupted the Message of Jesus | What Message?

Added: 2026-05-12

[00:00:00]You said that again. Now I'm going have to probably remind this because you said just now again that the Bible obviously.

[00:00:05]You said obviously of course obviously the Bible contains the message of Jesus.

[00:00:09]That's what you just said. So don't backtrack on that later. So since the Bible creeds collision.

[00:00:16]>> In this powerful debate exchange, a Muslim speaker attempts to argue that the Apostle Paul corrupted the original message of Jesus. But when God logic asks a simple question, e, what exact message did Paul corrupt? The conversation quickly becomes difficult to defend. As the discussion goes back and forth, the Muslim man appeals to the Quran as the standard for determining truth, yet struggles to reconcile that with the biblical passages he quoted himself. God logic then exposes the inconsistency headon, pressing him to identify the original preserved message of Jesus from the very scriptures he claims were altered. Watch the full debate and judge for yourself. And if you enjoy content defending the gospel of Jesus Christ, make sure to subscribe to Creed's Collision, like this video, and leave a comment below. every interaction helps push the gospel of Christ forward to more people around the world.

[00:01:15]>> Okay. So, I wouldn't say I wouldn't say that it's um the the like God's message was actually corrupted, but what Paul did is he added to it and from Allah.

[00:01:26]>> What message what message did he try to corrupt or did he add to? What was that message?

[00:01:32]>> So, so for instance, there was uh well, Jesus said to follow all of what the Pharisees teach and nothing at what they do. Um and then Paul said that um you you you can you can eat anything um etc. So that's just one example.

[00:01:48]>> Got you. So so wait so specifically let's do it one at a time. So specifically the message that Paul tried to corrupt we can find it in what Matthew wrote.

[00:01:57]>> Say that again.

[00:01:57]>> So the message that you said that Paul tried to corrupt and add to we can find that message of Jesus in Matthew's writing. So, so the the the general way of way of looking at this is if something uh if you can cross reference it with the Quran and the Quran agrees, then we know that it's from Allah, right?

[00:02:18]>> Okay. So, >> so the so the Quran agrees to do what everything the Pharisees say.

[00:02:22]>> Listen, no, I didn't say that.

[00:02:23]>> I didn't I didn't say that.

[00:02:24]>> Oh, that cuz that's what that's what you that's what you quoted. So, >> that's what you said. The Muslim speaker's main error in this debate was failing to clearly identify the original message of Jesus that Paul supposedly corrupted. He made the accusation, but when pressed for specifics, he relied on selective quotations without establishing a consistent standard.

[00:02:46]Another major contradiction appeared when he claimed the Quran is the filter for determining truth while simultaneously quoting the Bible as evidence. If the biblical text is corrupted, then appealing to it becomes problematic. And if parts of it are reliable, he must explain how he determines which parts are authentic without arguing in a circle. He also misapplied Jesus' statement about the Pharisees. Because when God logic followed the logic of his quotation, the Muslim speaker immediately backed away from its implications. The debate exposed a position built more on assumption than on a coherent historical or textual argument. That's what you said, Mr. Logic. That's not what I said.

[00:03:27]>> You said that. I didn't.

[00:03:28]>> So, look, for example, I asked you, what is the message that Paul tried to corrupt and add to the first thing you did was quote Matthew 23 where Jesus says to listen to all the Pharisees, what all the Pharisees say, just not what they do. Um, and then you alluded to and then you alluded to Hold on, hold on a second. And then you alluded to that being, you know, teaching the law and stuff. So I'm asking you, so when you when you give me that answer, that implies that you're saying that the message of Jesus can be found in what Matthew wrote. So is that correct?

[00:03:58]>> The me the message that that Jesus as in within Matthew there there'll be some truths of what Jesus taught. Is that what you're asking?

[00:04:05]>> No, I'm asking is the message of Jesus in what Matthew wrote? Because that's where you went.

[00:04:11]>> Yeah. So there there are there are obviously truths in in the Bible.

[00:04:14]>> Not if there's not if there's truth. So my my question isn't are there truths in the Bible? or they're not. That's not my question. My question is very very clear. Is the message of Jesus found in what Matthew wrote?

[00:04:26]>> Yeah, it can be. Yeah.

[00:04:28]>> Awesome. And one example of what Jesus taught the message of Jesus is in Matthew 23 where he mentions to listen to what the Pharisees say, not as they do. Correct.

[00:04:38]>> No, it says it says uh do everything they say.

[00:04:41]>> So is that so so that so that's a teaching that's part of the message of Jesus. Is that correct?

[00:04:46]>> That's a teaching. So just just to be clear, um >> the Muslim speaker's argument completely unraveled because it was built on a self-defeating foundation. He began by claiming that Paul corrupted the message of Jesus. Yet when God logic asked him to identify that original message, he immediately ran to the Gospel of Matthew to define it. That is the first fatal contradiction. If the biblical record is corrupted, then Matthew cannot be trusted as a reliable witness to Jesus teachings. Uh but if Matthew can reliably preserve the words of Jesus, then the blanket corruption narrative collapses. The second major problem was his inconsistent standard of truth. He argued that the Quran is the filter used to determine which parts of the Bible are true, but that creates circular reasoning. The Quran confirms previous revelation while simultaneously depending on the Bible's preservation to validate Muhammad's claims. Yet, whenever the Bible says something incompatible with Islam, the Muslim position suddenly shifts to that part was corrupted. This is not a historical method. It is selective acceptance driven by theology. The argument was not being guided by the actual wording of scripture, but by the need to force the text into an Islamic framework. In the end, the critique against Paul never became a demonstrated historical case.

[00:06:08]It remained an assumption repeated without evidence. Paul Paul isn't in the Quran. This is an internal critique of the of the Bible, just to let you know.

[00:06:17]So, you can't conflate the two here.

[00:06:19]You're doing an internal critique of the Bible, right?

[00:06:22]>> It's not an internal critique of the Bible.

[00:06:24]>> Okay. So, is Paul found anywhere else other than the Bible?

[00:06:27]>> Yeah, he's found in your Islamic scholars and their sources. Yeah. He's found he's found in a shock. So where where is he where is he uh like an authority in in the Quran?

[00:06:36]>> The according to Ishak it says that Paul is a messenger that Jesus sent along with the other disciples.

[00:06:41]>> Who who said that? He said that he said that Paul's a messenger of of God.

[00:06:46]>> Yeah. Yeah. Of God. You got it right.

[00:06:48]>> A messenger of Jesus.

[00:06:49]>> Yep.

[00:06:49]>> And he's a Muslim.

[00:06:51]>> Yeah. It been a shock. You never heard of him?

[00:06:52]>> That that sounds that sounds a bit kufar to me. I don't know how uh how uh so a man can be a messenger of a man. Well, if a man sends people with his message, they're his messengers, right?

[00:07:03]>> Well, no. I I don't believe that. You'd have to you'd have to get me that that um evidence. You're saying he's a he's a he's he's a Muslim scholar. You said >> I Yes, I wrote the earliest biography on Muhammad's life, the life of the prophet, the life of Prophet Muhammad.

[00:07:15]>> Well, well, I can flat out say that that sounds that sounds very Shia to me.

[00:07:20]>> He's a Sunni. He's a Sunni.

[00:07:22]>> A man a man a man can't be a messenger of a man. That's as well as uh Jesus was uh not not on earth when Paul said that he saw him. Right.

[00:07:33]>> Well, that's according to the biblical standard, but according to what I shock says, it demonstrates is that Paul and he's he's apparently quoting Muhammad, by the way, >> but that Paul is a messenger of Jesus that Jesus sent. He's one of the people Jesus sent out to spread his message.

[00:07:49]>> Nah, no. I don't I don't I don't hold to that. I don't know what I don't know where you've got it from.

[00:07:52]>> I got it from the earliest source on Muhammad's life, which is Ibnashak.

[00:07:56]Ibnak's biography of of the prophet.

[00:07:58]>> I don't have to I don't know. I don't believe that. You have to show me that, mate.

[00:08:00]>> Oh, I'll show you it.

[00:08:01]>> The Muslim speaker's position became deeply inconsistent once early Islamic sources were brought into the discussion. He confidently attacked Paul until God logic cited Ibnishak, the earliest major biographer of Muhammad, who reportedly identified Paul as one of the messengers Jesus sent out. Ishach writes concerning the disciples sent by Jesus. Among those messengers and disciples was Bulis Paul. Instead of addressing the evidence, the Muslim speaker immediately dismissed it as Kufur and even tried to label it Shia despite being a foundational Sunni source. That exposed the real issue. The standard changed the moment Islamic history contradicted modern antipal arguments. The debate revealed a selective approach to scholarship, accepting Islamic sources when convenient, but rejecting them the moment they validate Paul and undermine the corruption narrative.

[00:08:54]>> In the meantime, in the meantime, in regards to Jesus's message, when you you quoted you quoted Oh, I I know I'm I'm going to show you that in a second. I I promise you I'm going to show you in a second. But the first I want to make sure we solidify the first point that when you quoted Matthew 23 when I asked you what is the message of Jesus and you quoted Matthew 23 where Jesus says do everything I'm sorry uh do everything that the uh the Pharisees say but don't do as they do that that is part of the message of Jesus. Is that correct >> according according to the Bible? Yeah.

[00:09:22]If we're doing an internal critique, we're doing >> I'll ask I'll ask it again, brother, because it sounds like you're backtracking on your words again because I asked you what is the message that Paul tried to add to or corrupt and you quoted Matthew 23.

[00:09:37]>> So that leads me to believe that you believe that you're pointing to that as part of Jesus's message. Correct.

[00:09:43]>> According to the Bible, if we're doing an internal, >> is that is that correct though? Is that Jesus's message?

[00:09:48]>> According to the Bible, yes, it is Jesus's message. Yes.

[00:09:50]>> Okay. So, is that objective or like is that a fact? Is the Bible correct when it's saying that this is part of Jesus's message?

[00:09:56]>> So, so what what I'm saying is you're asking what message did Paul corrupt?

[00:10:00]Right. Yes.

[00:10:00]>> And what I'm what I'm answering is there's teachings within the Bible that uh Jesus said according to the Bible and then Paul goes against that.

[00:10:09]>> Are those are those are those Jesus's actual teachings?

[00:10:11]>> Okay. So, yes.

[00:10:14]>> So, yes, those are Jesus's actual teachings. So, you believe that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John contain the actual real teachings of Jesus, right? I >> I I I think you're I think you're trying to um straw man my position.

[00:10:26]>> Straw man or or repeat your words.

[00:10:28]>> This exchange exposed one of the biggest internal problems in the Islamic critique of Christianity. The Muslim speaker wanted to use the Bible as reliable evidence against Paul while refusing to admit that the same Bible reliably preserves the teachings of Jesus. God logic kept pressing a simple point we if Matthew accurately records Jesus words in Matthew 23 then the gospel writers are preserving genuine teachings of Christ. But every time the Muslim speaker admitted that he immediately tried to retreat behind the phrase according to the Bible to avoid the implication that the gospels are historically trustworthy. That created a clear inconsistency. You cannot claim Paul corrupted Jesus' message unless you first know what Jesus' original message was. But the only source the Muslim speaker kept appealing to for that original message was the very New Testament he simultaneously questioned.

[00:11:21]In other words, his argument depended entirely on the reliability of the biblical record while also trying to undermine it. The debate also revealed a deeper issue in many Islamic pmics.

[00:11:33]Selective skepticism. Passages that appear useful against Paul are treated as authentic teachings of Jesus. But passages that challenge Islam suddenly become corrupted or uncertain. That is not a consistent historical method and it is a theological filter imposed on the text after the fact. By the end of the exchange, the Muslim speaker could not escape the fact that his critique of Paul relied on trusting the very gospel tradition he was attempting to discredit.

[00:12:02]>> You said that again. Now, I'm going have to probably remind this because you said just now again that the Bible obviously.

[00:12:07]You said obviously, of course.

[00:12:08]Obviously, the Bible contains the message of Jesus. That's what you just said. So, don't backtrack on that later.

[00:12:15]So, since the Bible has Jesus's message, then we look at what Jesus taught in the Bible. We taught We see that Jesus taught that he's the son of God. We see that he taught that he's supposed to be crucified and that he's supposed to suffer and rise again on the third day.

[00:12:28]So, that's the message of Jesus that we find in the Bible, right?

[00:12:32]>> So, so n no, no, no, you can't say the whole Bible does that.

[00:12:35]>> So, you just said, >> "Oh, man. I'm I'm getting lost, man. I'm I'm honestly getting I I'm getting lost.

[00:12:39]I don't know what I don't know what your position is.

[00:12:40]>> All right, let me let me let me let me explain. Yeah. So, some of the Bible uh I think it's like the what's it? The synoptic gospels or whatever they're called, right? They uh depict Jesus as a messenger of God, a prophet, someone who believed in one God, montheist. And then there's there's other other books uh that Paul wrote that um have very high christologology. I think also drum as well.

[00:13:01]>> Can I read you something can I read you something from the synoptics? And um and what what what I'm saying I wish you'd let me land my point. Maybe you'd understand what I'm saying.

[00:13:08]>> I understand what you're saying. You're backtracking.

[00:13:10]>> And basically the teach the teachings of Jesus that are found in the earliest gospels >> like Matthew and Mark and Luke Paul goes against those things.

[00:13:18]>> Okay.

[00:13:18]>> So for instance like I'll give you Hold on. Hold on. No, hold on. I wanted to read something from the synoptics as you're appealing to the synoptics.

[00:13:24]>> Like Jesus being sent to the >> Hey limbs. Limbs limbs. Hello limbs.

[00:13:28]Don't go in bot mode.

[00:13:30]>> Don't go in robot mode. Don't go in robot mode. I want to I want to quote you something from the synoptic gospels.

[00:13:36]>> Here it is. This is what Jesus says in the synoptics. This is Matthewap 11.

[00:13:41]This is verse number 27. He says, "All things have been handed over to me by my father. And no one knows the son except the father. And no one knows the father except the son and anyone to whom the son chooses to reveal him." Does that sound like low or highristologology to you?

[00:13:59]>> Low christologology.

[00:14:00]>> All right. So it's low christologology for Jesus to say that everything that the father owns he owns as well. That's low christologology.

[00:14:08]>> Yeah. So it >> notice the trickish approach being used in this debate. The Muslim speaker keeps appealing to the synoptic gospels as authentic whenever they appear to present Jesus as merely a prophet. But the moment those same gospels reveal Jesus' divine authority, unique sunship or exalted status, the standard suddenly changes. God logic quoted directly from Matthew, one of the very synoptic gospels, the Muslim speaker said, preserved Jesus teachings where Jesus declares that all things have been handed over to him by the father and that no one truly knows the father except the son and those to whom the son reveals him. Think that is an extraordinary claim. Yet instead of honestly engaging the implications of the text, the Muslim speaker simply dismissed it as low christologology without explanation. This exposes the deeper issue with the Islamic approach here. The conclusion is already decided before the text is read. Any verse compatible with Islamic theology is accepted as authentic. While verses pointing to Christ's divine identity are minimized, reinterpreted or ignored.

[00:15:12]That is not consistent textual analysis.

[00:15:14]It is selective theology imposed onto the Bible. The the problem that you have here is that it was given to him. Now, can the can the most high God have any authority given to him?

[00:15:24]>> Yes. Yes. It humbles himself. Now, you're not answering the question, Linds.

[00:15:28]>> You're not answering the question, L.

[00:15:30]>> Listen, I am answering. I'm answering directly. You said you said is it high Christology or lowristology? It's literally very lowristologology, right?

[00:15:36]>> Okay. So, so, so basically a creature, so it's lowristologology to believe that somebody else other than the father owns all things. Everything that's in existence, he owns. So, so if you read the verse again, it says, >> "All things have been handed over to me by my father." So, does the son own everything the father owns according to this?

[00:15:50]>> So, the question is you're saying Jesus is God, right?

[00:15:53]>> Does the son own everything the father owns according to this?

[00:15:56]>> According to this, he owns everything uh but it was given to him.

[00:16:00]>> No worries. So, everything the universe, all of creation, prophets, demons, everyone, everything belongs to the son the same way it belongs to the father, right?

[00:16:08]>> No, not the same way.

[00:16:09]>> Really? So it says all things have been handed over to me by my father. So does Jesus also own all things?

[00:16:15]>> No, but you the problem is you said he owns he own >> Does Jesus also own all things like the father does?

[00:16:21]>> Hey hey logic logic. Let me answer.

[00:16:23]>> Straight for straight answer. How about let me answer.

[00:16:25]>> Straight answer then.

[00:16:26]>> How about let me answer. Go ahead. Don't waffle.

[00:16:27]>> So he he owns he owns all things but not in the same way as the father.

[00:16:32]>> Okay. Because so if you own all things if the father owns all things and the son owns all things. Oh, but he doesn't own it just like the father. What are you talking about?

[00:16:39]>> No.

[00:16:40]>> How can you be >> logic?

[00:16:41]>> You're too dishonest. What is this >> logic? If you let me finish, you would have understood my my point, mate, right? But you you jumped in, didn't you?

[00:16:46]>> Do you believe that a creature can own everything Allah owns?

[00:16:48]>> No. No, no, no.

[00:16:49]>> So, would this be would this be blasphemy?

[00:16:51]>> This would this would be this would be uh this is in the Bible and yeah, it is blasphemy.

[00:16:54]>> Why is it blasphemy?

[00:16:55]>> Because you're you're saying that you're basically uh saying there's a partner with God. So, >> so according to the synoptic gospels, Jesus is a partner, makes himself a partner with the father.

[00:17:03]>> Yeah.

[00:17:04]>> Is that low or high christologology?

[00:17:05]>> So, it's low christologology. The reason being so if you if you never finish and I think you get my the thing is logic I think you actually get my point you're you're you're purposely you're purposely cutting in right at the end where I'm saying my point right so yes according to this he owns all things but the problem is he was given it by something else the same answer this question now answer this question answer this question is is the father is the father you need to answer >> notice how the Muslim speaker repeatedly struggles to maintain a consistent interpretive standard when pressed directly on the text God logic isolates a clear statement from the synoptic tradition Matthew 11:27 and asks a simple question about its implication whether the son sharing in all things handed over by the father implies high or low christologology instead of engaging the logic of the passage the response shifts into hesitation redefinition and qualification not in the same way it was given but those additions are not derived from the text itself they are interpreted ative safeguards introduced to avoid the theological implication of the verse.

[00:18:12]That is where the difficulty becomes visible and the core issue is not lack of intelligence but theological constraint. The Muslim speaker is working within a framework that cannot allow any notion of divine sharing, authority or exaltation of Christ. So even straightforward readings of the passage must be reinterpreted. This produces inconsistency. The same verse is acknowledged as scripture. Yet, its plain meaning is resisted when it conflicts with prior commitments. As a result, the exchange becomes less about the text and more about managing its implications. The questions are answered only partially and always with qualification because a direct yes or no would disrupt the underlying theological boundaries already assumed before the discussion began.

[00:19:01]>> Is the father given authority by >> answer this? Yeah. So the answer to that is no because the father is not the one who humbles himself. The son humbled himself. So because the son set aside his divine privileges for a time and humbled himself, he can then be exalted back to that status when he's done with his mission or so on and so forth. So that is why Jesus can say that all things have been handed over to me by my father because he's humbled himself. He came down and then is being elevated back up. However, this is the issue with you limbs. According to according to you, that's exactly what it says. That's exactly what it says. So according to you all limbs now you're cutting me off.

[00:19:33]According to you limbs Jesus making himself a partner with the father is blasphemous. However it's low christologology. I I don't understand how there can be blasphemy.

[00:19:44]>> Christologology is the study of Christ.

[00:19:45]The study of Christ in this person. So so you can you can either you can either have a high view of Christ meaning that he's equal with the father or a partner with the father or divine in some way.

[00:19:54]Or you can have a low view of Christ or you have a low view of Christ where he's just a mere good prophet a mere man. So, which is this teaching? Is this teaching that Jesus is just a mere man, a mere son? I'm sorry, a mere man, a mere prophet, mere messenger of God, or is he a partner with the Which one is it teaching?

[00:20:10]>> I wouldn't say I wouldn't say it's is as low as it could be, but I wouldn't say it's I definitely wouldn't say it's high. The reason being is because your definition of it being high was that he's equal to the father. And if he's equal to the father, right, then nothing has to be given to him cuz he's already got it, right? He's the highest authority. Doesn't need anything given to him, right? Just like the father, he doesn't have anything given. You agree that this you agree this is blasphemous, right? Limbs, >> you you inserted that um he humbled himself and he was being brought back.

[00:20:34]>> Limbs, you you agree that this is blasphemous, right? I'm asking you on last time. You agree this is blasphemous?

[00:20:39]>> What?

[00:20:39]>> You said what?

[00:20:40]>> What? What's blasphemous? As in him him having him owning everything?

[00:20:43]>> Yeah. Is this blasphemous?

[00:20:44]>> Wait, when you say him owning everything, you mean he owns the profits? As in he's been given like >> all things, bro. Is that is that difficult to to know to understand?

[00:20:54]>> Yeah. Yeah. That's that's um that goes that goes against uh that goes against everything I believe. Yeah. Exactly. So going against everything you believe.

[00:21:00]However, this is where you said I can find the message of Jesus in the synoptic gospels in Matthew especially earlier you said and you you know this is before we start the stream but earlier you said in specifically the Q gospel the theoretical gospel that says that Matthew and Mark's sayings of Jesus that they record that Mark doesn't that is the Q gospel and that's the message of Jesus. That's the so according to what you say >> I didn't say it was the I didn't say it was the verbatim message of Jesus. I said it was the the closest thing to it was >> take care. You're you're a liar. You're absolute liar. I can't do this. If you're going to lie, you can't have a conversation with a liar. If you're going to continue to just lie on what you say, we can't talk. Take care of yourself, man. Goodness gracious. Right in the beginning of this live, you literally said the you're going to say the NGO is Q source. That's what you said. And then I had to explain to you what Q source was. And you was like, okay, yeah, that's right. That's right.

[00:21:47]Now you're lying. Now you saying you never said that. Like get out of here, bro. This debate centered on a clash of interpretive consistency versus theological filtering. God logic pressed a straightforward question. If the synoptic gospels are accepted as a source for Jesus teachings, then statements like Matthew 11:27 must be read in their plain sense where Jesus speaks of unique authority and relationship with the father. Throughout the exchange, the Muslim speaker attempted to maintain a lowristologology reading by stressing distinction and limitation. But this required repeated reinterpretation of the same text whenever its wording suggested a higher view of Christ. The result was a shifting standard. Passages were accepted or reclassified depending on whether they aligned with a pre-existing theological conclusion. The broader issue exposed is methodological. Once a fixed theological framework is placed over the text, interpretation becomes selective rather than consistent and the argument moves away from what the passage states to what it is allowed to mean within that framework. Big shout out to Avery God Logic for the defense of the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.

[00:22:55]If you enjoyed this debate breakdown, make sure to subscribe to Creed's Collision, like the video, and leave a comment. See you at the next broadcast.

[00:23:02]God bless you.