Islamic Dilemma Confirmed

Quran Confirms the 7th Century Bible? Fact Check
Deen Academy | 22.X.2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TbwT_GoquP0

There is in fact a better reason to think the Quran Aya confirmed a 7th C. Bible, and then you have a Hadith contradicting that.

Mohammed on one occasion said Christians and Jews should judge by what was revealed to them, and when he said so, he was probably overconfident.

Blame Yourself First

@TimeToHeal1028

I respectfully have to disagree with you, you see your Injil is still intact but because Christians refute its authenticity Muslim scholars don't quote it. I actually do it regularly ,

So to say Muhammad was over confident is to say Jesus is god.

Read what Jesus said concerning scriptures

Then answered Andrew: 'Now how shall the truth be known?'

Jesus answered: 'Everything that conformeth to the book of Moses, that receive ye for true; seeing that God is one, the truth is one; whence it followeth that the doctrine is one and the meaning of the doctrine is one; and therefore the faith is one. Verily I say unto you that if the truth had not been erased from the book of Moses, God would not have given to David our father the second. And if the book of David had not been contaminated, God would not have committed the Gospel to me; seeing that the Lord our God is unchangeable, and hath spoken but one message to all men. Wherefore, when the messenger of God shall come, he shall come to cleanse away all wherewith the ungodly have contaminated my book.'

Then answered he who writeth: 'O Master, what shall a man do when the law shall be found contaminated and the false prophet shall speak?'

Jesus answered: 'Great is thy question, wherefore I tell thee that in such a time few are saved, seeing that men do not consider their end, which is God. As God liveth in whose presence my soul standeth, every doctrine that shall turn man aside from his end, which is God, is most evil doctrine. Wherefore there are three things that thou shalt consider in doctrine—namely, love towards God, pity towards one's neighbour, and hatred towards thyself, who hast offended God, and offendest him every day. Wherefore every doctrine that is contrary to these three heads do thou avoid, because it is most evil

Deen Academy

@deenacademyofficial

Check out this video where we addressed the other verses:
https://youtu.be/nKhdqhXaw8Q

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@TimeToHeal1028 You are misquoting:

"Verily I say unto you that if the truth had not been erased from the book of Moses,"

Not in any Gospel.

Pretending this is an Injeel extant in the 7th C. is fraud.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@deenacademyofficial I saw the beginning, from the parallel of two recordings, I suppose your argument is "God gave Tawra and Injeel, then they got corrupted" whereupon he supposedly gave the Quran.

I am sorry, but apart from supporting the kind of fraudulent text given by "Blame Yourself First" / "/@TimeToHeal1028", you have no argument for explaining why Mohammed told Jews and Christians to judge from the Scriptures they already had.

When it came to "ask the Jews and Christians" he was obviously pointing to Jews and Christians who were in his power and afraid or presumed afraid to contradict him.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@TimeToHeal1028 By the way, I do say that Jesus is God.

I also note, what you quoted is the Gospel of Barnabas, you didn't misquote that one, but it misquoted Jesus.

The oldest single manuscript of that text is younger than the Greek manuscripts with the Johannine comma:*

The first known mention of its existence is from 1634. The two earliest known manuscripts are from the 16th century and an Italian document and a partial translation to Spanish. Mentions of an Arabic text are generally agreed to be later translations of this text; no earlier copies have ever been found or even mentioned. (Not to be confused with mentions of other quite different texts involving Barnabas, to be explained under the next heading.)

There is now a pretended exception. A 1500 years old Bible in Turkey, supposed, according to the Government (a highly Islamic biassed entity) to contain the Gospel of Barnabas in Aramaic (which most Turks don't read, so one would in Turkey have to take the word of "experts" for it). User Caleb wrote in this find:

This find is actually old news. If memory serves me it's from 1985 and is supposed to be remarkable for its state of preserve, but it does not include the Gospel of Barnabas or any other texts not considered Canonical by modern Christians so it has no particular implications on the content of "The Bible" or our understanding of history.

In other words, the Government of Turkey has taken images from a find from 1985 and attached a fake story to it.

Blame Yourself First

I’m contemplating whether I should answer you. I’ve read some of your other posts, and it seems that you’re full of knowledge and information, but you lack wisdom. I’ve never won an argument with a Christian who believes a man is God, so I’m not going to try.
My question to you is: have you read the Book? Perhaps you’re not aware that your own scholars say the Book contains between 6 and 32 mistakes. I’d say it has some typos and perhaps a couple of mistranslations — that’s it.
Here’s a very famous verse Christians like to refer to. I want you to tell me what you think Jesus meant. If you answer correctly, I’ll continue to have a dialogue with you.

Read the middle paragraph , this is the number #1 mistakes Christian’s refers to.

The priest answered: 'In the book of Moses it is written that our God must send us the Messiah, who shall come to announce to us that which God willeth, and shall bring to the world the mercy of God. Therefore I pray thee tell us the truth, art thou the Messiah of God whom we expect?'

Jesus answered: 'It is true that God hath so promised, but indeed I am not he, for he is made before me, and shall come after me.'

The priest answered: 'By thy words and signs at any rate we believe thee to be a prophet and an holy one of God, wherefore I pray thee in the name of all Judaea and Israel that thou for love of God shouldst tell us in what wise the Messiah will come.'

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@TimeToHeal1028 I have not read the book, I do not indent to, all I can gather about it is, that it is a fraud.

AND each divergence from canonic Gospels spells out an agreement with an Islam which by the time of the forgery was already well known.

Blame Yourself First

@hglundahl so let me ask if you have read the Quran, and if yes, what do you think of it?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@TimeToHeal1028 I was made to read a passage from Surah 5 in school.

It disagrees with the Gospels. They were written within decades of Jesus' life, the Quran centuries later.

Blame Yourself First

@hglundahl The way you answer gives me the pulse that you're not to my standard of someone that I want to communicate with, sorry i called you a man of knowledge and information, you're quite the opposite.

Have a nice day.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@TimeToHeal1028 Your choice.

Have a nice day of St. Raphael, even if you don't celebrate it!

ibrahim elmasry

@ibrahimelmasry-z3k

As Muslims, we believe in all the prophets, thousands of prophets sent by God to all people, to every nation, a prophet to guide them and lead them to the path of God. But the teachings of the prophets have been distorted by priests. For example, we believe in Moses and Jesus and their books, but we do not believe in the distortion of the teachings of Moses and Jesus. As Muslims, the Quran teaches us: Do not attack others to steal their wealth or land. But Jesus and Moses teach to kill children and cows and burn cities. How can we accept that? The Quran teaches us freedom of belief. Every person believes or disbelieves and apostatizes. There is no punishment for the apostate. But Moses and Jesus legislate the killing of the apostate. The Quran teaches us: There is no stoning for adultery. But Moses and Jesus legislate the killing of adulterers. How can we accept that? The Quran teaches us that humans have dignity, every human being is born free. There is slavery to humans, not slave trading. But the teachings of Moses and Jesus legislate slavery. How do we accept that? Would you accept selling your son into slavery? We, as Muslims, reject that and believe that a just God cannot legislate slavery. We say that the priests changed God’s teachings.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@ibrahimelmasry-z3k "But Jesus and Moses teach to kill children and cows and burn cities."

Not generally, and only Moses and his immediate successor Jesus Nave. Jesus of Nazareth absolutely didn't teach to repeat that.

It was only for a particular set of Canaaneans, it was God doing His punishment on them through the hands of Israelites, just as He had punished the pre-Flood peoples by the waters of the Flood.

So, it's not a teaching, it's not a doctrine, it's an exception to the normal teaching. And an exception that's in the past. It was c. 1470 BC that Jesus Nave burned Jericho, that's nearly 3500 years ago. It was a one time thing, except for Amalechites, where Saul had to repeat it, and that was c. 3000 years ago.

The only doctrine involved is, God can make exceptions to His own law, and God Who is Lord over life and death, can decree how each man is to die.

@ibrahimelmasry-z3k "The Quran teaches us freedom of belief. Every person believes or disbelieves and apostatizes. There is no punishment for the apostate."

I think there is some reading up you have to do, not sure whether it's in the Quran or only the Hadiths.

"But the teachings of Moses and Jesus legislate slavery."

Moses stated slaves had to be treated fairly.

Both Israelites and early Christians were surrounded by people with slavery. For Christians, even within the same society, since they didn't start out as a sovereign nationality with its own territory and army.

Christians, unlike Muslims, have first individually liberated slaves after slaves, and then, among Latin Christians, made slavery illegal in Europe.

When Benjamin Franklin went on an embassy to France, he was advised to bring only an old slave who was devoted to him and couldn't speak French, because if a slave asked for his freedom on French (Metropolitan) soil, he legally got it (France made an exception for Lousiana territories and Haiti and Martinique). When Normans conquered England in 1066, they ended slavery there. A few centuries after Sweden became Christian, slavery ended.

---

6:32 The choice of four Gospels however happened well before the 7th C.**

Deen Academy

ok

Arabianknight

@arabianknight0000

yeah, we know. He didn't say anything about it happening in the 7th century

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@arabianknight0000 The thing is, given it happened before the 7th C, Mohammed can hardly have meant anything other than the four Gospels.

Arabianknight

@hglundahl wrong

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@arabianknight0000 Your wilful ignorance doesn't make it so.

Le Orokamono

@leorokamono

@hglundahl It could be a gospel harmony like the Gospel of the Mixed which was supposedly dominant for centuries within the Syriac-speaking communities. They would have just called it "The Gospel".

The Early Church however called it the Diatessaron when they were actively replacing those in favor of the canonical four separate gospel accounts as pushed by Iraneuous of Lyons. By labelling it the Diatessaron, it serves to validate the four gospels' canonical status.

Early Church didn't use all four canonical gospels. Churches usually use one or two preferred ones. The Gospel According to John for example would be favoured in the region that he ministered. Having said that the more widespread one would be Gospel According to Matthew.

Nonetheless, the point being is that you are wrong to insist that it could only ever be the canonical four separate Gospel accounts. And especially likely to be wrong, considering the Christian communities that Muhammad was speaking to were not only the Syriac-speaking ones but also include the Christian denominations that were in the Arabian Peninsula to escape Church persecution at that time.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@leorokamono "Early Church didn't use all four canonical gospels. Churches usually use one or two preferred ones."

I think bigger cities, like Rome, had all four.

"it could only ever be the canonical four separate Gospel accounts."

I didn't say separate. The Diatesseron is still from the Four Gospels, not including anything from "Gospel of Thomas" or "Gospel of Barnabas" and also not, as far as I can recall what I read about it, substantially omitting any part of any Gospel.

"the Christian denominations that were in the Arabian Peninsula to escape Church persecution at that time."

Like? The fact is, the 7th C. Church wasn't all that into persecution. Imperial persecution, you could have a point.

Le Orokamono

@hglundahl "I think bigger cities like Rome had all four."

That's irrelevant to my point that early churches didn't use all four canonical gospel accounts. I was talking about normative use and not exceptions.

"I didn't say separate. The Diatessaron is still from the Four Gospels..."

Like I mentioned, Tatian's work was referred to as Diatessaron by Early Church. In that way, it is framed as a derivative, lesser work as compared to the separate Gospel accounts that were being canonised. His original work was in Syriac and the point I was making is that "The Gospel" didn't always mean the four gospels, especially outside of the West.

It's also worth noting again that it was called the Gospel of the Mixed, alluding to the various influences.

There were in fact many other gospels as you yourself brought up. The Gospel of Hebrews and Gospel of Peter are a few others to just throw in the mix.

"Like? The fact is the 7th C. Church wasn't all that into persecution."

Nestorian and Ebionites are two I can remember off the top of my head. But pre-Islamic Arabian Peninsula being a safe haven for marginalised groups is an established consensus.

Also, no. By the 7th Century, the Early Church not only were already persecuting pagans but also Christians who held heterodox views.

Regardless, the main point is that you are wrong to insist that "Muhammad can hardly have meant anything other than the four gospels". It is anachronistic and historically negligent.

It is perhaps even more likely that he used it as a general term for people who believed in Jesus.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@leorokamono "That's irrelevant"

Bigger cities were the norm. That's where the Church concentrated its efforts.

"Nestorian and Ebionites are two I can remember off the top of my head."

By 7th C, Ebionites were already no longer a thing.

Nestorians certainly believe the four canonic Gospels, whether they prefer writing them in four separate books or the Diatesseron.

"Also, no. By the 7th Century, the Early Church not only were already persecuting pagans but also Christians who held heterodox views."

The Roman state was, the Church as such, i e the priests, weren't.

The persecution of Nestorians was exile.

"It is anachronistic and historically negligent."

It's so totally not.

Le Orokamono

@hglundahl Again, whether churches in bigger cities had and used all four canonical gospels is irrelevant to the discussion of the normative use. And especially irrelevant since our discussion is focused on Muhammad's audience i.e the Christian communities within the Arabian Peninsula.

I disagree that the Ebionites were already no longer a thing. If we're only talking about them being gone from Byzantine Empire, then that's likely true. But that would still be irrelevant to our discussion about persecuted heterodoxical Christian denominations escaping to the Arabian Peninsula. There are scholarly debates about whether the Ebionites survived much longer within the region.

And The Nestorians, being Syriac-speaking, were very likely using the "Gospel of the Mixed" and not the four canonical gospels. This would be the normative, liturgical text known to Muhammad's audience. Nestorians are considered heretics according to Church, and they were actively replacing the "Gospel of the Mixed". So your insistence that it doesn't matter contradicts with the Church's view. They certainly thought that the "Gospel of the Mixed" was problematic.

And the Church can't be absolved of responsibility for persecution. The relationship between the Church and the State in the Byzantine Empire was highly interwoven. The doctrinal consensus established by the Church and the condemnation of "heretics" was enforced by the State. To claim the priests and bishops were not part of the persecution (whatever form it may be) is just wrong.

In any case, you are still wrong to insist that "Muhammad can hardly have meant anything other than the four gospels". It is anachronistic and historically negligent even if you say "It's so totally not". Your wilful ignorance doesn't make it so.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@leorokamono "irrelevant to the discussion of the normative use."

No, it isn't. Christianity centred around Rome, after Jerusalem and with Antioch in parallel with both.

"our discussion is focused on Muhammad's audience i.e the Christian communities within the Arabian Peninsula."

We don't know all that much about any, except the Ethiopian Church also had faithful in Yemen, which was a greater area than the modern state. We don't know how many there were there in the centuries of the early Church.

"I disagree that the Ebionites were already no longer a thing. If we're only talking about them being gone from Byzantine Empire, then that's likely true."

Thank you. And this is a thing that's knowable and testable.

Après avoir été jugés « orthodoxes » par les hérésiologues puis progressivement marginalisés et suspectés d'hétérodoxie vers la seconde moitié du IVe siècle[24], ils se fondent dans la « Grande Église » à une date indéterminée, ultérieure au Ve siècle[25].

This is a French [wiki] article on Nazoreans, a Judaeo-Christian sect which is not definitely identified or disidentified with late Ebionites.

Now, the thing is, by the 4th C. it is very clear that the entire at least Gentile Church was holding to the four Gospels. This is also before Nestorians break off, so, this is valid for Nestorians too.

There are seven preserved citations of Gospel of the Ebionites, seven verses of Gospel of the Hebrews, 36 citations of Gospel of the Nazoreans or Nazarenes.

The Gospel of the Ebionites includes the Baptism of Jesus and the Last Supper. Muslims don't have Baptism or Communion.

The Gospel of the Hebrews could be a different Gospel harmony than Tatian, but it is thought to be based on the Synoptics, it holds to Jesus' pre-existence, and therefore disagrees with Islam.

The Gospel of the Nazarenes involves a version of the Our Father, and therefore disagrees with Islam.

"There are scholarly debates about whether the Ebionites survived much longer within the region."

Probably based on Muslim references ...

La littérature musulmane médiévale évoque cependant des « nazôréens », « nazaréniens » ou « ébionites »[4], et des chercheurs estiment que certains d'entre eux ont pu rejoindre les disciples de Mahomet[2].

Note 4 refers to the Israeli philosopher Shlomo Pinès who refers to Abd-el-Jabbar.

"Some scholars" (des chercheurs) means basically François Blanchetière and Simon Claude Mimouni. The former seems very eager to reevaluate everything we know about early Christians.

"So your insistence that it doesn't matter contradicts with the Church's view."

The Church condemned Nestorianism for doctrinal reasons, at a time when they had the four Gospels. Nestorius was patriarch in Constantinople.

"The doctrinal consensus established by the Church and the condemnation of "heretics" was enforced by the State."

Indeed. But it was the initiative of the state, not of the church, that this should involve persecution.

"you are still wrong to insist that "Muhammad can hardly have meant anything other than the four gospels"."

Apart from Blanchetière, I see no reason that Muhammed could have meant even The Gospels of the Ebionites, Hebrews or Nazarenes. But even if he did, the Islamic dilemma would still stand. They also contradict the Quran.

As to Abd-el-Jabbar, he may have been about Ebionites and have used the knowledge to invent a fake tradition up to Muhammed. It is clear no one is speaking of Medieval Ebionite literature of the Muslim world, and "Nazarene" in Islamic parlance is simply the word for Christian.

But suppose Muhammed had even met Ebionites. That would involve another Islamic dilemma, because it would mean he was unaware of divisions between these and mainstream Christians or he was taking them for the mainstream.

---

6:47 No, it was not an update in the 16th C., it was a traditional reading in the Latin translations since way earlier, St. Jerome predating Mohammed.

There were however two very old manuscripts that are well preserved (one of them is missing) and the verse isn't there. However, this could be the very reason they were well preserved, i e, they were copied by biassed Arians, when these lost, these copies weren't used. They also weren't burned, just tucked away, hence the excellent preservation: books you never turn the pages of keep better. These have erroneously been taken as indication of the original text.

Of the Sinaiticus and the Vaticanus, I am not sure which one is missing, I think it's Sinaiticus.

Deen Academy

It doesn't exist in any manuscript before the 14th century ( when it was made up )

Fire Soul

@Fire_I_

Arians were not into the wishful and mostly by Greek-inspired mythologues of a Trinity, and so they stood in the stance of rejecting Jesus as being a God so much that even the reformer of the whole Roman empire into believing in Jesus of Nazareth, Constantine the Great, chose Eusebius, the Arian priest, to baptize him. Bias to who were these Arians who didn't see Jesus as the son of god or a God, and were killed by your old church fathers. And btw, why do you believe in a trinity, as it i against the whole Mosaic and Old Testament monotheist dogma?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@deenacademyofficial I think you confuse "any manuscript" with "any Greek manuscript".

I found a site*** where the argument is hashed out, and here is the summary of both sides:

The arguments for the Comma being added are thus:

It doesn’t appear in any early Greek manuscripts (Which you might expect because the Arians were in charge of the Greek manuscripts for a long time)

The arguments for the Comma being written by the Apostle John are thus:

• What’s the motive for adding it because the Trinity was already accepted by at least 260?
• It was quoted or alluded to by a large number of early Church fathers
• It was exactly quoted by Cyprian before 260 Socrates of Constantinople said that “some have corrupted this epistle” of 1 John because they wished to separate Jesus humanity from his deity.
• Jerome specifically said the passage had been removed by “Unfaithful translators” (who we would guess are the Arians)
• Gregory of Nazanzius says the Comma belongs. It is present in 98% of the Latin copies (which were virtually free from Arian influence)
• It was accepted by at least 350 Bishops – many of whom were Arians – at the Council of Carthage.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Fire_I_ "Arians were not into the wishful and mostly by Greek-inspired mythologues of a Trinity,"

I don't know if you know the meaning of mythology.

The Trinity has very little to do with Greek mythology. You could argue it has something more in common with Plato and Plotinus ... whom some Christians, but also Jews before the split between Jews and Christians was very old, praised. Someone, I think it was even Philo, a Jew, not a Christian, he said "Moses spoke Greek through Plato"

I also don't know what you mean by wishful.

I do know, however, that Arians:

• cannot be the true Church because of Matthew 28:20 (Jesus has not been with them from that day to the end of time)
• were heavily Judaising (like the Jews who rejected both Christianity and Philo).

"Bias to who were these Arians who didn't see Jesus as the son of god or a God, and were killed by your old church fathers."

You are writing a mythology about the Arians. Here is some for your position very inconvenient historic truths:

• none of them were killed by the Church Fathers;
• they very much did believe Jesus was "Son of God" they just believed the Son was a creature or emanation, rather than coequal with the Father;
• for decades they were able to persecute Orthodox Fathers, like how St. Athanasius first suffered an internal exile, bc. the Emperor forced the Arian George into the position of Patriarch of Alexandria, then a more full blown exile, when he had to go all the way to Trier in modern Germany, far from Egypt.

Fire Soul

@hglundahl I guess you are ignorant and don't want to see facts. But, I still want to try and clarify this time, and please don't lie, since it's obvious in modern days when we all have quick access to sources.

"Triadism" is a very common theme in Greek mythos, and I specifically wrote "inspired", not "taken from" or "adapted within it".

Yes, Arians indeed rejected Jesus as begotten by the one Creating and All-Powerful, Merciful God, and yes also that a holy Spirit did make us all. So why do you not believe in this instead? Arian Trinity was based on Jesus being guided by God, and comforted by the holy spirit, not that he was one or a real son of our Lord and Maker. Face facts!

Are you serious when you say that Arians are/were not persecuted and not seen as heretics? So, where are they now? If Christians used to persecute followers of all different dogmas, up till recently, not to mention Martin Luther and the reformers, you don't think they did the same to Arians, just wow?

Here is a small list of what those killed by Bishops of the Satanic belief of a human-made thought of a so-called Trinity:

It's believd that Arius himself could have been poisoned, but his opponents removed supporters of this idea and made it look like he died in the toilet to humiliate his legacy and strong belief; Arian Bishops in Egypt and Libya - all 30 of them, Demophilus of Constantinople, Eudoxius of Antioch, and Eunomius of Cyzicus, The Arian clergy in Constantinople - all expelled and murdered, The Arian Vandals, etc., and more and more, and so on and so forth, never ending and allways remembered as those who fought for justice and truth. These are seen as martyrs, yes. Even in Islam, these are among the Ahl Al-fatrah - those before revelations which could not directly be guided and thus shall have a special trial on the Hour, not as others who now have a clear guidance and book by the God - meaning you, me, and all. What is there to deny in my words?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Fire_I_ "I guess you are ignorant and don't want to see facts."

Nice ad hominem.

"and please don't lie,"

I'm not a liar.

"since it's obvious in modern days when we all have quick access to sources."

You might take care, and especially when your claims could come up with nil results, only Muslim results, or a contrary result.

" "Triadism" is a very common theme in Greek mythos, and I specifically wrote "inspired", not "taken from" or "adapted within it"."

If it's very common, how come I can't think of even one example? No, I'm not ignorant of Greek myth, it's actually one of my hobbies. The "triad" of Zeus, Poseidon and Hades is the only one coming to mind, and it's very clear these three are not worshipped together in any temple or in any feast, to the exclusion of the other gods.

You'd have been luckier with Viking age Norse myth, since Odin, Thorr and Frey apparently were worshipped together ... unless the sources are really spoofing people who were Trinitarian Christians like themselves, but didn't accept the Pope as "pagans" ... that's one theory I've read about it.

"Yes, Arians indeed rejected Jesus as begotten by the one Creating and All-Powerful, Merciful God"

As begotten, yes [but see below], as Son, no. Their view was basically like the one of the JW sect: first God creates and accepts as Son the Son, then He creates Creation through the Son. But this is also not original Christianity, since there are more than 1000 years between the last Arians in Spain and the ideas of Charles Taze Russell in the 19th C.

"Are you serious when you say that Arians are/were not persecuted and not seen as heretics?"

You confuse persecution with the condemnation for heresy.

The Church and the State did not go hand in hand on this.

For a brief moment, after Nicaea, Constantine helped to put too open Arians out of office, not to kill them. Then for decades, Arians, heretics, from the death of Constantine to the accession of Julian the Apostate, had the power especially in the East.

They didn't put St. Athanasius to death, but he was a man first hunted and then exiled to Trier (also within Roman Empire, but outside the province of Egypt) for remaining true to the decisions of Nicaea, for calling "bishop George" a heretic rather than accepting George had replaced himself.

When Catholics regain the upper hand again, the state, but not the Church Fathers, decide heretics can be put to death, in reprisal for that persecution. This cracked down in Priscillianists in Spain, on Circumcellion extreme Donatists in North Africa, but if you were an Arian who didn't want to become a Catholic or (synonym at the time) Orthodox, you simply took refuge among the Germanic auxiliary troops who held swathes of the empire and had a sufficiently Roman culture for you to feel at home. Arians later, but this time as Germanics, persecuted Catholics again, before for instance Visigoths converted from Arianism to Catholicism.

"If Christians used to persecute followers of all different dogmas, up till recently, not to mention Martin Luther and the reformers, you don't think they did the same to Arians, just wow?"

Putting heretics to death, with the express approval of the Church only became a thing later than the Arian crisis. The phrase "used to up till recently" like the phrase "in old times" is in fact a way to avoid thinking of when a state of affairs began.

Popes couldn't ask for Arian Romans to be executed in 400, because Popes didn't come to approve of this kind of execution prior to c. 1100, with the Albigensians. They did approve of other punishements, like exile, though.

"It's believd that Arius himself could have been poisoned, but his opponents removed supporters of this idea and made it look like he died in the toilet to humiliate his legacy and strong belief"

Source?

"Arian Bishops in Egypt and Libya - all 30 of them, Demophilus of Constantinople,Eudoxius of Antioch , and Eunomius of Cyzicus, The Arian clergy in Constantinople - all expelled and murdered,"

Expelled, I have no problem of believing you, but murdered? Source?

Demophilus of Constantinople, checking wikipedia°, doesn't seem to die a violent death. He stepped down from Constantinople when required to cease being an Arian from remaining bishop.
Eudoxius of Antioch, who came to rule Constantinople after Antioch and preceded Demophilus, died while Arians were still in power.
Eunomius of Cyzicus was briefly exiled, but not for Arianism, but for showing hospitality to a rebel. He was revoked, and his last 3 years, 383 to 393, on orders of Emperor Theodosius, he was exiled from places of power back to his birth place, Dacora.

Eunomius actually, while an Arian, admitted God the Son was begotten, his confession, point three, reads:

We also believe in 'the Son of God' 'the only begotten God', 'the first born of all creation' ...°°

He didn't suffer any violence either, apart from that exile, and when writing against full Trinitarian Basil getting expelled by the inhabitants.

In other words, as "all expelled and murdered" would include the three ones named by name, the source you quote is lying or ignorant.

"The Arian Vandals, etc., and more and more, and so on and so forth, never ending and allways remembered as those who fought for justice and truth."

The Vandals were invaders, and remembered as being destructive and barbaric. When they were killed, they were killed for being destructive and barbaric.

The "etc." is not a named Arian individual or group.

"These are seen as martyrs, yes. Even in Islam, these are among the Ahl Al-fatrah - those before revelations which could not directly be guided"

OK, in Islam, they are "before revelations" but Mohammed could still ask Jews and Christians to judge from their own writings? That contradicts.

Fire Soul

@hglundahl A am not going to listen to polemics or apologetics when it comes to murdering and persecuting others.

Sources: Fox’s Book of Martyrs – “Persecutions Under the Arian Heretics”, Athanasius – History of the Arians, Ambrose of Milan and the End of the Arian-Nicene Conflicts (Oxford Academic). These almost led to the disappearance of the Arians man. You claim to be reading, and here we are instead seeing you assume much.

@hglundahl The Islamic dilemma has already been refuted. Firstly, it's a challenge to see who judges most accurately with the orders and laws of God. Can Christians do so, with a book which claims, eg.

that in Matthew 27:5 Judas hanged himself; but in Acts 1:18 he fell and burst open;

Or the number and identity of women at Jesus’ tomb vary across the Gospels (Matthew 28, Mark 16, Luke 24, John 20).

Jesus' last words: Luke 23:46: “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit”; John 19:30: “It is finished”; Matthew 27:46: “My God, why have you forsaken me?”

The carrying of the cross: John 19:17 says Jesus carried it; Matthew 27:32 and Luke 23:26 say Simon of Cyrene carried it.

Secondly, the verse in the Quran about the Torah and "New Testament", CLEARLY says that he therefore has brought down the Quran as a measure (Furqan, in Arabic) for those books, and also others - to differentiate the false from facts. As used by some to sort out false Ahadith from true ones, since these are still in dispute and not a revelation from Allah, the God. Cmn man.

@hglundahl Believe or to not believe is up to everyone. I'm not an overseer of anyone. Have a great day, and stop bothering me and other believers.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Fire_I_ "Fox’s Book of Martyrs"

OK, will you quote Lord of the Rings next? Also not remotely historic.

"History of the Arians,"

By whom, published where?

The title is very generic.

"Ambrose of Milan and the End of the Arian-Nicene Conflicts (Oxford Academic)"

Seems to be about Milan, not Constantinople.

What page? I can't check it, but maybe someone else can.

"These almost led to the disappearance of the Arians man."

The Arians very certainly DID disappear, but not from intense killing of Roman citizen Arians.

First Arians disappeared from Roman citizens, as they had appeared mostly, i e by orders from the Caesar. By retirement, like the guy who stepped back from Constantinople.

Left after that? Yes. Persecuted Catholics after that? Yes. Namely as Germanic Arians. Last of them to disappear were the Visigoth people converting from Arianism to Catholicism.

@Fire_I_ "Firstly, it's a challenge to see who judges most accurately with the orders and laws of God."

Can you quote the verse in a good translation, so we can see if that's what it says?

"in Matthew 27:5 Judas hanged himself; but in Acts 1:18 he fell and burst open"

Not incompatible. He hanged himself, was saved, found a field had been bought for him, went to work on it, fell and burst open.

"the number and identity of women at Jesus’ tomb"

Everyone mentioned in any Gospel was there, not all who were there were mentioned in all Gospels.

"Jesus' last words"

The last recorded in a given Gospel need not be the last overall.

"The carrying of the cross"

Jesus and Simon carried it different parts of the Via Dolorosa.

"he therefore has brought down the Quran as a measure"

I accept your interpretation of "measure" but is it about genuine or false VERSES or about genuine or false INTERPRETATIONS?

You could quote a translation by a Muslim scholar which you consider decent.

@Fire_I_ "stop bothering me"

I made three comments yesterday.

Every single comment [I made] since then has been in response to a Muslim.

---

Little extra, look at the pictorial deiction of a Christian preacher:

The general features resemble a young Billy Graham, but the expression is one of wrath and irritation very remote from any I've ever seen him use on any video, and dito for other Evangelical preachers, not to mention Catholic priests.

It seems, some Muslims have an extra trick up their sleeve, a kind of "Psychology" stating belief in the Trinity makes people angry. They will arrange for Christians, not real famous preachers, but Christians they have more access to destroy the lives for, and expose them to very angering situations, and will then take any elicited expression of anger as indicating the supposed veracity of this view. In France, most Christians are immune from this treatment, but homeless and some other marginalised aren't, and if you are vocal about being a Christian, believing the Trinity, calling Jesus God, calling Mary Mother of God ... the set I'm thinking of will find you fair game. I have been less targetted since standing up for Palestine, but I'm giving the overall trend over decades.

---

Notes:

* I'm quoting Caleb's response on a kind of "reddit thread":

Is the 1500-Year-Old Gospel of Barnabas found in Turkey claiming Jesus was never crucified genuine or a hoax?
Asked 11 years, 2 months ago | Modified 11 years ago | Viewed 50k times
https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/13039/is-the-1500-year-old-gospel-of-barnabas-found-in-turkey-claiming-jesus-was-never

** In response to:

And regarding 6:22 the gospels, historically there were 6:24 more than 50 different gospels from 6:26 which the church only chose four and 6:30 disregarded the others. And we still 6:32 don't know the wisdom behind this choice 6:35 till today.

*** Here is the site, or rather page on it:

The Johannine Comma of 1 John 5:7-8: Added or Removed?
Berean Patriot | March 8, 2018
https://www.bereanpatriot.com/the-johannine-comma-of-1-john-57-8-added-or-removed/

° The three articles accessed 23.X.2025

°° Citing the article referred to and linked to.