Important detail, people: The Eusebius who turned Constantine was *not* the Eusebius who wrote the Ecclesiastical History, from where we get a lot of information about the early Church. The politician Eusebius in the video is Eusebius of Nicomedia, and the historian Eusebius is Eusebius of Caesarea.
@@roflcopterprods I'm legititamitly giggling at myself; that is weirdly funny to me. Now knowing that good ol' Saint Nick, pretty much known for being a very peaceful fella, got so fed up with Arius' view of Christ that he straight up punched him! XD
@@roflcopterprods I went on the deep dive on this several years ago. From what I remember, I think that story only came about much later (in the 8th century if I'm not mistaken), so it's probably not historical. It's a darn shame though, because Santa Claus hitting a heretic is something I'd pay money to see.
As a Christian, I really appreciate this nuanced view you all have taken to this series. I've met too many Christians who don't understand the contentious beginnings of our faith. This works as a wonderful primer to that.
You'll actually find the beginnings of the Christian faith in the clay tablets that were found in ancient Mesopotamia in the mid-1800s, which are thousands of years older than the Bible. I think you'll find many of their creation stories quite familiar....
This is a very imbecilic display of what St Constantine really thought. its obvious that he supported the Nicaeans. His words verbatim: “In addition, if any writing composed by Arius should be found, it should be handed over to the flames, so that not only will the wickedness of his teaching be obliterated, but nothing will be left even to remind anyone of him. And I hereby make a public order, that if someone should be discovered to have hidden a writing composed by Arius, and not to have immediately brought it forward and destroyed it by fire” St Constantine later goes on to say that if arius was seen making his heretical writings again while in exile, He would be put to death. This is a serious issue. not some “meme”.
+Chaos Herald Hence the ancient Christian image of Santa, with his jolly red cheeks and reindeer sleigh and coca-cola bottle and necklace of heretics' incisors.
I would have LOVED to see a bunch of bishops duke it out with each other in a brawl. (Plus, these were ancient bishops--a lot of them were pretty badass.)
According to tradition St Nicholas, he who inspired the myths of Santa Claus, punched Bishop Arius right in the face because he hated Arianism so much. He is one of the bishops at the council of Nicaea. Also, 4:49 it's the Nicene Creed, not the Nicean Creed.
+Crusader1089 You better watch out You better not cry Better not pout And most important of all: you better don't lean towards Arianism,. I'm telling you why Santa Claus is coming to town
Or those who think a religion can be defined as one monolithic faith, (*cough* *cough* Islam *cough*), instead of an absolute mess of doctrines, denominations, churches and cultures.
+Extra Credits In the end, the Council of Nicea worked, in a different way. It did unite the majority of the church's bishops against Arianism and find a lot of agreement on various issues. The problem was, it did not stop Arianism, nor convince them to come into the fold. The church seems to have overestimated their bishops' influence over the people, as well. I would say it was a success at accomplishing the wrong objective. I looked at this carefully, but there was no inaccuracy or misleading note to comment on. You've been doing a marvelous job making these interesting and accurate. And now we're trekking back into Justinian's reign! Bravo! It's a pity there wasn't a chance to mention two of Constantine's most prominent laws, which were a major part of Christianity's development in Rome. One was the law of tolerance I mentioned earlier, forbidding persecution on grounds of religion, which caused Christianity to go from about 10% to almost 100% of the cities' populations (all in a generation!). The other, when Christianity became massively popular in the cities, was that Constantine declared it the official religion of the empire, and everyone had to convert more or less. This wasn't good for anyone, Pagan or Christian. Thank you for covering this so well. I'm glad to see this part of history be covered.
+Extra Credits Wow! This sounded intense! I really want to go check out whatever sources James is using to write this stuff. I’d love to hear what reasoning they were using at the council. Do we have any records of the Nicene debates or arguments online? Or can anyone recommend any particular (re)sources that I could consult to study this further? The most I’ve had were the books “Know the Creeds and Councils” and “Know the Heresies”, but I haven’t had a lot of systematic presentation of what went down at the councils beyond those. Also, was that the supposed St. Nicholas who was punching a guy? I saw people commenting on that last week. Loving these episodes. Very well thought-out and spoken. Looking forward to each week.
+Extra Credits You guys should really do a series on Ambrose, the 4th Century bishop of Milan. Very influential figure both in his own time and through wider history!
+Hans Smirnov I think that it was Theodosius I that made cristianity the official religion of the empire in the year 380, almost 50 years after the death of Constantine.
the separation of church and state was probably one of the best things to ever happen to christianity since the lack of political power struggle meant that not every single religious difference had to end in a schism or the damnation and/or persecution of one or the other in a religious debate
+Cyan Cat That's why it was introduced actually, due to these issues that existed in the reformation. America is a good example of this: with no solid agreement on which protestant denomination to follow, seperation of church and state was done to protect the churches from each other. The seperation was done not so much to protect state from the church, but church from state (as in state religion)
+Andy Z I totally agree. "The persecution of Quakers in North America began in 1656 when English Quaker missionaries Mary Fisher and Ann Austin began preaching in Boston. They were considered heretics because of their insistence on individual obedience to the Inner Light. They were imprisoned and banished by the Massachusetts Bay Colony. Their books were burned, and most of their property was confiscated. They were imprisoned in terrible conditions, then deported.[27] In 1660, English Quaker Mary Dyer was hanged on Boston Common for repeatedly defying a Puritan law banning Quakers from the colony.[28] She was one of the four executed Quakers known as the Boston martyrs. In 1661, King Charles II forbade Massachusetts from executing anyone for professing Quakerism.[29] In 1684, England revoked the Massachusetts charter, sent over a royal governor to enforce English laws in 1686 and, in 1689, passed a broad Toleration Act."
+Cyan Cat The problem as I see it is not the union of church and state per se. You can have a confessional state where the state recognizes the church and its beliefs, modifies its conduct accordingly, and even prohibits certain problematic forms of public practice of other religions. Where true problems arise is where recognition and basic protection are warped into opression and forced conversion. No true Christian could approve of that both because it is immoral and counter productive since accepting Christ means nothing if not done freely. It is a good thing that the Church clarified this in Vatican II's Dignitatis Humanae
I can understand why. This stuff is very difficult to figure out due to the hair splitting. It is easy to tell Catholics and Protestants apart once you get to know both of them. This contrast is made even more clear with radical Protestants, like Babtists and Amish. However the early splits of the church were much smaller, and so they are a lot harder to figure out. A major part was Eastern Orthodox splitting off from Catholics. These two groups are really similar and hard to tell apart. It comes off as petty. One of the biggest things to split the church was the filioque. That is a real difficult headscratcher of a concept. I am reluctant to explain here, because I am bound to screw up. I just know it has something to do with the trinity and the phrase"And the Son". Whatever that means.
@@sylviadailey9126 The 1054 schism had 2 main issues, the Papacy & the introduction of the filioque into the Creed by Rome. Neither issue is minor or hair splitting. The theology of the Orthodox & Roman churches is very different in many aspects & the filioque is at the heart of one of those differences.
@@sylviadailey9126 Got the order of who split from who wrong. The filioque is in reference to the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father "and the Son", which was added, not because of any actual theological issue, but because of the way the latin language works. They added it because if they didn't have it, the latin translation of the Nicene creed would have been heretical. Some other things that caused the split were purgatory, papal supremacy (just imagine you live in the USA and the governed of California or Texas just declared themselves king of the USA, and demanded that every other governor recognise his supremacy. That's what the Pope in Rome did), and not to mention that the Latin church is always changing their doctrine. Another thing, the are very obvious difference between the Orthodox and Latin churches, saying they are "the same" betrays your ignorance on the matter. Still, setting all the Latin churches mistakes aside, I pray that one day we will reunite. Sadly I don't see that ever happening, the Popes enjoy their little monopoly on truth they have going, and I can't see them giving that up.
+MarcianusImperator Sadistic lunatic? I dunno. He was young and fell into a lot of the problems young people find when you give them money, power and no supervision. Just look at modern celebrities.
I feel it's important to note that most of these bishops were going to have to live the rest of their lives in Nicea; due to their age, how far away their homes were, and the poor transportation at the time. Also, as a side note, St. Nicholas of Myra (the one that eventually inspired Santa) was present at the Council, and even received jail time for slapping Arias in the middle of the discussions.
So let me get this straight....when they were hammering out the rules for christianity, santa clause was there, got in a fight with a priest and went to jail?
Athanasius was very clever. With the use of a single phrase he managed to make himself looks reasonable while making his opponent look increasingly unreasonable by compromising more and more. His opponent would always reject so long as that phrase was used which make him seem unpleasable and stubborn even though Athanasius was just as unrelenting.
No, It's the time The Emperor of Mankind's favoured son betrayed him and turned to the forces of Chaos, all but slaying his father and leading him to be interred in a giant psychic powered stasis chamber for 20 thousand years. tl;DR WH40K, dude
I looked at this carefully, but there was no inaccuracy or misleading note to comment on. You've been doing a marvelous job making these interesting and accurate. And now we're trekking back into Justinian's reign! Bravo! It's a pity there wasn't a chance to mention two of Constantine's most prominent laws, which were a major part of Christianity's development in Rome. One was the law of tolerance I mentioned earlier, forbidding persecution on grounds of religion, which caused Christianity to go from about 10% to almost 100% of the cities' populations (all in a generation!). The other, when Christianity became massively popular in the cities, was that Constantine declared it the official religion of the empire, and everyone had to convert more or less. This wasn't good for anyone, Pagan or Christian. Thank you for covering this so well. I'm glad to see this part of history be covered.
+Hans Smirnov "forbidding persecution on grounds of religion" Really, I am pretty sure the pagans would have to strongly disagree with you. What with him banning new temples to be built, and then later in life ordering looting and pillaging of those temples. It was under Constintine the 1st that started the Persecution of Religio Romana and other polytheistic faiths in the empire. Though his successors would take the pagan persecutions to a further level, banning sacrifice, doing more pillaging, disbanding the orders, declaring the death penetly for those that went to pagan temples, going after the various priests and priestesses.
+herkles1 The law of tolerance was not an eternal law. It was reinstated at one point by another emperor who wanted to cause trouble for the Christians, but was mostly repealed in favour of favouritism.
+Xbuttx Z It's one of my favorite stories about Saint Nicholas. "Santa decked a guy for insulting Jesus" has a nice ring to it. Also, according to the story, Constantine had him arrested and stripped of his position, but when they went to his cell the next morning, they found his chains broken and the door flung off its hinges, but Nicholas still sitting there in the cell. Constantine, seeing his humility and obedience, reinstated Nicholas the next day.
Just wanted to say thank you for these amazing videos. Finally a non-biased history channel dealing in such interesting topics. Thank you for all the hard work!
I love how these keep going back to Justinian, I've said it before and I'll say it again, that was my favorite Extra History, and every time I hear and see Justinian now I think back to those videos, can't wait for the next episode.
It did not bring down Rome alright. Don't go tell your friends the Christianity brought down Rome because it's not true. Rome outsourcing it's military to outside of the citizenry played a much larger part than Christian devisions ever could.
Wow! I grew up reading the Nicene Creed every other Sunday, and the words always produced a powerful air of spirituality. Learning that it's more akin to a constitutional legislation than a hymn of adoration is blowing my mind. Thank you; very cool
The young Athanasius was the deacon of Bishop Alexandros during the Council of Nicea. Arius' main opponent and debate partner was not Athanasius, but Alexander at that time. Only after Alexander's death did Athanasius become the defender of the nicaean faith.
He is debatable.Like Alexander. Valliant and passionate warrior and protector of Christianity,or a cold and manipulative absolutist and calculator of power. It's up to you.
@@richtersundeen6105 He was manipulated by Crispus' stepmother, who said he defiled her. So he was executed. However he was told that he was lied to, and made the stepmother suffocate.
+Aaron Haskins Wasn't it just the last series about the Ottomans that departed a bit from the facts? I'm not a historian but the series so far always seemed well founded.
DeepDuh I'm close to Orthodox in my faith and have read the Counsels. We still have their writings and notes of the Bishops who were there. I'm actually impressed with extra credits on their video.
I am a Muslim If this doesn't offend anybody or not bother you .. I would like to ask .. if Jesus was not of same nature what did they believe he was? A prophet? A man of God? And could you explain why you call yourself closer to the Orthodox teachings?
You mean to say that “don’t castrate yourself with a blunt rusty knife” needed to be a rule? That really says a lot about the people you are dealing with.
The whole thing, and Eusebius in particular, remind me of a Borges short story I dearly recommend: _The Theologians._ Not strictly historic, but rather twisting into some soul-punching general points, as he does.
People like to think of this as ancient history but it really isn't. I was returning from a used book run where I had picked up a few different books on Catholic philosophers and Theologians and ended up talking to a woman while stopping for a beverage. This woman had been raised in a small Protestant town and had no experience outside her denomination. After she asked about the books and I explained what they were she then asked me "why would Catholics be writing about Jesus". I quickly found out that she had been taught that a Catholic was more or less a pagan with no concept of morality that once almost destroyed the Christians. Glad I didn't meet her when I had found a haul of Esoteric books.
I do have a question, What of the Masses in all of this, what were the demographics of Christians during these schisms. You said there were riots but by whom? and against whom? What effect did these schisms and their resolutions have on the masses.
We are being taught about these Councils in high school in Greece. Its not called a council though, but a Synod (Σύνοδος). Which is the same thing basically. I do recall reading about Arianism, the Monophysites and the Nestorians, hope these subjects weren't removed form the curriculum.
Something that's hard for someone not very familiar with the doctrines to recognize is that there really is no middle ground between Arianism and Trinitarianism. The principle tenets of each are inherently at odds, they cannot coexist or have compromise.
From a doctrinal point of view, they can't, no. However, it would have been perfectly possible to find a way of making the two doctrines coexist within the empire, and it seems to me that that was Constantine's aim. Not necessarily to get everyone to agree about everything, but to make people capable of seeing eye-to-eye.
It's such a small difference. And for most people, it's largely an academic question. And it sounds like no one even asked the question "can we even know what Their relationship is like?" I mean, we're talking about the God of the universe. Certainly there's going to be a number of things about Him that we don't understand. As a Christian, I don't know that I've ever had a doctrinal conversation about this. Personally, I've always sort of assumed they had a sort of hierarchical structure, just from the names "Father" and "Son." The Holy Ghost often goes unaccredited and fills a Servant's role. And Christ does what the Father tells Him to. I don't see why this would keep them from being the same. I have a dominant hand, but that doesn't mean my left hand is any less than it, or not a part of me. It just fills a different role. Besides, Christ was a servant to MEN. The God of the universe washed a man's dirty feet. That certainly doesn't make mankind any greater than Him. And it doesn't make Him any less. I feel like a lot of denominational "doctrine" is really just a difference of opinion, and the important thing is if a person's heart is in the right place. It's not an unforgivable sin to misunderstand something. But there's certainly a difference between failing to understand despite trying to and trying to rationalize away an understanding that you know to be true.
As an atheist with secular Jewish and discreet Catholic family, thank you for popularizing some very arcane concepts. No matter your personal beliefs, as students of history, it’s important to understand a belief system that structured the lives of so many people for 2,000 years.
Great episode, I just have two questions. Firstly, are you going to double back to do Gnosticism, you mentioned you would in the first episode but we are past that point now. Secondly, doesn't the Nissian Creed have "not one Iodio of difference"?
+Non Yah Well doesn't one Iota mean effectively that the Trinitary version that the is not the father is not the holy ghost is "wrong" according to the Nisseian Creed?
+Fafnd For the sake of clarity what exactly are you saying is insane? Are you saying debate due to disagreement is insane? If that is the case we should turn off our brains, stop seeking truth, and abandon all knowledge, philosophy, and science. Or are you saying that violently oppressing others and forcing them to believe as you do is insane? Christians in general and this Roman Catholic in particular would agree with you there. Certain Christians and segments of the Church did evil things in the past but we recognize and repent of it for the sins that they always were. Atheists can scarcely throw stones at this insanity however since their Nazi and Communist ilk did infinitely more more of it than the erroneous Christians of the past ever did. As Dostoevsky so aptly put it, "If God does not exist, everything is permitted." If you are saying religion itself is insane because it is somehow contrary to reason, I would invite you to research Augustine, Aquinas, Scholasticism, the five proofs for the existence of God along the Aristotelian metaphysics that underlie them, and Pope St. John Paul II's encyclical of Faith and Reason.
+scarfacemperor Perhaps getting a bunch of people who hate each other more than lions to shout loudly about how the opposite side are heathens going a place of eternal damnation, is not the idea for diplomacy.
Ehhh by his time the empire was already declining with the Germanic tribes on the borders, disease, economic crisis and constant civil war is more to blame the instability
Is this series going to cover all schisms? The later split with the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox ideologies and the breaking away of the Protestants from Catholicism? How about the latter day gnostics such as the Cathars?
Ah, but who coaxed Eusebius into supporting Arius? What clever fiend conspired, behind the scenes, to drive a wedge between the Christians in order to frustrate Constantine's efforts to - it was Walpole.
My father's an Arianist. This is slightly awkward, considering I'm Orthodox and we literally have a day every year celebrating the Council of Nicea and the defeat of Arianism.
I think the reason why there's so many eyepatches in this video is the following: Christ himself said "If your eye causes to sin, pluck it out." (He essentially meant to get rid of anything that causes you to sin) Anyways, seeing the bishops with missing eyes (perhaps plucked-out) makes us remember that no matter how high-ranking in the church, no matter how wise or qualified, we're all sinners...even the bishops. ("For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God") It indicates that we shouldn't merely trust other people when determining what it means to follow Christ. But rather, you should go and research (read scripture) for yourselves and see Christ's words, instead of the words of sinful bishops that caused all of the chaos.
+SirSaxamaphone While I'm not sure that's what EC was going for here, I can see your point. While it is quite useful to read the thoughts of other men, we must always judge them against the Bible.
That part about the Gothic tribes is quite interesting. So not only was the Roman Empire orderly and cohesive enough, for how strongly diverse the various populations making it up were, before the spread of Christianity, but it ended up atomizing itself partially *because* of internal Christian strife. ...This is fun.
I really enjoyed your perspective on the early Christian Church. Specifically in this episode I was wondering why you didn’t mention the formation of the the canon at the Council of Nicaea, where they also determined which books were considered to be “hypocryphal gospels”?
+Myriokephalon At what point _does_ a group of heretics become a schism? Is it just numbers, or does it require a certain amount of power on both sides? Is it how long they struggle for dominance? Does it need to reach a certain level of violence?
MPythonGirl From what I've read, it's not so much that Docetism was a subset of Gnosticism as it was a feature of Gnosticism. All Gnostics were Docetists, but there's more to Gnosticism than Docetism.
Sometimes I get the impression that you really like putting Justinian into these videos every chance you get. Not that I'm complaining, that was the best installment of EH so far. :P
Hmm, so I know it's difficult digging into this kind of history and be fair, and also when you're not a "theologian", but I feel like the mark was missed several times here. It was Bart Ehrman's thesis that "orthodoxy" is just whoever wins, but it seems hard to support that when the belief in Christ's divinity was almost universally implicitly taught for centuries prior (Vermes' thesis is completely untenable in my opinion and betrays a re-imagining of history that is more or less undocumented speculation). It wasn't until Arius that anyone really challenged it, and Arius did so with lots of subtlety, using the same wording as others had, but with different meanings. That's why it was so hard to convince the bishops at the council that he meant something different. It was this to counteract this that caused the phraseology of "homoousian" to come about because until then, I don't think most understood what the big deal was. I don't know what your sources are, but it's hard to see how there could be any middle ground between "Christ is the same in substance as the Father" and "Christ is not the same in substance as the Father". What is this "middle ground" possibility? A vague wording that didn't really specify one way or another? And by the way, Arius had been declared a heretic before the council, so it's not like Athanasius just finally persuaded everyone to "his" views, it was more like preventing Arius from persuading everyone to his views. Also, the Eusebius you talked about was not the same as the historian Eusebius. That might have been pointed out. I do really appreciate this series though, something like this is good to have but I'm afraid your sources may be fairly speculative. There's been a trend in recent historical scholarship to come up with new ideas that challenge the views of the past, but most of these ideas are fairly unique, unsubstantiated, and not widely accepted.
+Logan West Not only that but during the reprieve Arianism got there was a point where most bishops were Arians. Only St. Atanasius, Pope Liberius, and some others refused to formally teach Arianism and held firmly to the council. Orthodoxy literally snatched victory from the jaws of almost certain defeat in this case. From the Catholic point of view this is not surprising since the Holy Spirit will always gaurentee the infalibility of the Church in its highest concilliar and papal teachings.
the problem is there's even more divide and contradictions in the history of those...it would be really time consuming to go over each piece and show all sides...it would be cool too see but it just might be too time consuming.
+Dallen Malna There's also a lot less historical record. The nice part about the schisms is they all happened within the Roman sphere. Almost everything is in writing and has survived. Even though Islam is more modern, there is almost no primary written sources to go on (except a koran from about 100 years after the prophet found in an attic in Yemen that after about a month it was decided no one outside a select handful were allowed to look at it.).
+Henry T I mean sometimes it is...I think it's good to try and meet people where they are and to not intentionally provoke people but I wouldn't say all religions are equally complex. I mean look at JUST christianity. Some sects require a lot of additions and such but C.S. Lewis talks about "Mere Christianity" and goes on to discuss that while seeking more specific learning and denominations are well and good. to be a Christian was as simple as asking forgiveness from Jesus and acknowledging him as lord. Sure there are complex issues that are worth dealing with around that faith but very often the core is quite simple if you dig in.
Henry T Nobody said anything about displaying Muhammad. However, what could be done is an illustration as done by Siyer-i Nebi, who effectively produces Muhammad as a negative space with a halo. Throw in the calligrapy of Muhammad's name and keep most of him off-panel and I think that it could be pulled off.
Another inaccuracy mentioned here…. Although goths did not want to assimilate or recreate roman structure/culture in their early existence, they had adopted much of roman culture once they settled in their lands.
Well done video. All accurate, except one detail. While Athanasius was at the Council of Nicea, he wasn't one of the main guys directing the discussion. Rather, Alexander of Alexandria, his predecessor was.
"And his son? His son would be a hard Arrian through his life" I've heard as "half Aryan" and suddenly I imagined Constantius II talking about Thule and the Elders of Zion on the Byzantine equivalent of 4chan (the Hippodrome probably) while listening to "Erika" in the background.
Hence why self-righteousness became a largely pejorative term. For many, even at this early date in the history of Church, it was all about power and influence, thereby undermining any sincerity its followers might have had. And was it necessary? Hardly...
Yeah but Abraham's God was abstract before the advent of Christ. Being a man, Christ was a material presence in history and a knowledgeable phenomenon, and him being God meant that also God became knowledgeable.
+Davide Battistini Jesus was tangible, maybe (some Jews/Christians apparently believed he was a spirit), but the crux of this conflict was his status in the Trinity. . . which is unknowable.
+KeyofEden7 Well, saying "we don't really know so let's stop arguing about it" had already been tried, before the council. It didn't work. People still argued. Intensely. Later, when a different heresy almost tore the Church apart 150 years later (coming soon in a future episode, I'm sure), the emperor Zeno was so sick of it that he actually issued an imperial decree _simply banning all discussion of the issue._ It STILL didn't work. People kept arguing anyway.
I've been listening to these for the past couple hours while playing video games, and I thought my computer froze when the next video didn't start playing XD more please!
Important detail, people: The Eusebius who turned Constantine was *not* the Eusebius who wrote the Ecclesiastical History, from where we get a lot of information about the early Church. The politician Eusebius in the video is Eusebius of Nicomedia, and the historian Eusebius is Eusebius of Caesarea.
Important detail, people: it's all made up little buddy
jo smith Oh? By whom, do you figure?
+jo smith You're a real assbag, you know that? Did anyone even teach you proper history?
Thanks, I wondered about that Klaus.
Oh
Can't believe you skipped over Santa Claus punching Arius in the face
"Punch some Arians in the face (2X)"
Hold on a moment; is that true are you just making that up? I'm asking because I never heard of that *once* before now.
@@tommyfox854 Historic St Nicholas was so offended by the heresy of arianism that he allegedly got up in the middle of Arius' argument and clocked him
@@roflcopterprods I'm legititamitly giggling at myself; that is weirdly funny to me. Now knowing that good ol' Saint Nick, pretty much known for being a very peaceful fella, got so fed up with Arius' view of Christ that he straight up punched him! XD
@@roflcopterprods I went on the deep dive on this several years ago. From what I remember, I think that story only came about much later (in the 8th century if I'm not mistaken), so it's probably not historical. It's a darn shame though, because Santa Claus hitting a heretic is something I'd pay money to see.
As a Christian, I really appreciate this nuanced view you all have taken to this series. I've met too many Christians who don't understand the contentious beginnings of our faith. This works as a wonderful primer to that.
I completely agree bro, this video helped me understand a lot about christianity growing up catholic
You'll actually find the beginnings of the Christian faith in the clay tablets that were found in ancient Mesopotamia in the mid-1800s, which are thousands of years older than the Bible. I think you'll find many of their creation stories quite familiar....
Constantine: Why can't we be friends~? Why can't we be friends~?
+Zenith Wills Makes amending the tax code seem like beer and skittles.
I swear,Constantine is trying so hard. I feel bad for him(；д；)
Well you did.kill.all my friends Constantine remember the lions and stakes
“WE ALL THE SAME RELIGION, PLEASE JUST AGREE ON SOMETHING!!! (;W;)”
-Emperator Costantine (maybe)
This is a very imbecilic display of what St Constantine really thought. its obvious that he supported the Nicaeans.
His words verbatim: “In addition, if any writing composed by Arius should be found, it should be handed over to the flames, so that not only will the wickedness of his teaching be obliterated, but nothing will be left even to remind anyone of him. And I hereby make a public order, that if someone should be discovered to have hidden a writing composed by Arius, and not to have immediately brought it forward and destroyed it by fire” St Constantine later goes on to say that if arius was seen making his heretical writings again while in exile, He would be put to death. This is a serious issue. not some “meme”.
"Bishops, assemble!" that is one awesome mental image.
+morthasa Or a really boring chess game.
morthasa Extreme communion accident!
Form Bishoptron!
And then they fight each other.
Or form Catholic Voltron
you forgot the part where Santa Claus ( St. Nick) punched a guy and was put in time out.
+feenyx blue. The guy he punched was Arius himself, I believe. Knocked out one of his teeth too.
+Chaos Herald
Hence the ancient Christian image of Santa, with his jolly red cheeks and reindeer sleigh and coca-cola bottle and necklace of heretics' incisors.
Feenyx blu, totally one of the coolest parts of the council. He also "went to jail".
Also, yes I finally set it up so I can comment. :-D
+feenyx blue. That explains a lot about Nick's persona in the Harry Dresden books. I always wondered where the brawler in him came from.
'You're on the naughty list, now get a big pile of fist!' - St Nicholas
I would have LOVED to see a bunch of bishops duke it out with each other in a brawl. (Plus, these were ancient bishops--a lot of them were pretty badass.)
+Gracielo Barteza It was saint Nicolas the one that Santa Clause is based one gave another bishop a black eye over this :D
Go to Jerusalem and you still might get to see a brawl between the rabbis, priests and imams, not quite the same but similar!
definitely more interesting than the modern clergy.
Some of them may have fought lions
I had no idea there was Full Contact Theology before the Crusades.
According to tradition St Nicholas, he who inspired the myths of Santa Claus, punched Bishop Arius right in the face because he hated Arianism so much. He is one of the bishops at the council of Nicaea.
Also, 4:49 it's the Nicene Creed, not the Nicean Creed.
+Crusader1089 Except Nicholas wasn't a Bishop and so wouldn't have been allowed to attend the Council of Nicaea
Yes he was. From 317 he was bishop of Myra which is in southern Anatolia.
Santa punching someone. Wonder why it is not commercialized?
+Crusader1089
You better watch out
You better not cry
Better not pout
And most important of all: you better don't lean towards Arianism,.
I'm telling you why
Santa Claus is coming to town
Arius got his halls decked
Like many things in life, Religion is never that simple.
so true, so true
Madness.. Never simple..
mestre12 seems like the personal power struggles of men hidden behind the justification of religion
Or those who think a religion can be defined as one monolithic faith, (*cough* *cough* Islam *cough*), instead of an absolute mess of doctrines, denominations, churches and cultures.
Can't some things be the answer to "How" and not be assumed as an answer to "Why?"
The leading bishops gather at the Council of Nicaea to discuss the theological schisms in the Church. Surely that will resolve everything!
+Extra Credits In the end, the Council of Nicea worked, in a different way. It did unite the majority of the church's bishops against Arianism and find a lot of agreement on various issues. The problem was, it did not stop Arianism, nor convince them to come into the fold. The church seems to have overestimated their bishops' influence over the people, as well. I would say it was a success at accomplishing the wrong objective.
I looked at this carefully, but there was no inaccuracy or misleading note to comment on. You've been doing a marvelous job making these interesting and accurate. And now we're trekking back into Justinian's reign! Bravo!
It's a pity there wasn't a chance to mention two of Constantine's most prominent laws, which were a major part of Christianity's development in Rome. One was the law of tolerance I mentioned earlier, forbidding persecution on grounds of religion, which caused Christianity to go from about 10% to almost 100% of the cities' populations (all in a generation!). The other, when Christianity became massively popular in the cities, was that Constantine declared it the official religion of the empire, and everyone had to convert more or less. This wasn't good for anyone, Pagan or Christian.
Thank you for covering this so well. I'm glad to see this part of history be covered.
Hey howdy hey guys. Love the videos. Keep it going.
+Extra Credits
Wow! This sounded intense! I really want to go check out whatever sources James is using to write this stuff. I’d love to hear what reasoning they were using at the council.
Do we have any records of the Nicene debates or arguments online? Or can anyone recommend any particular (re)sources that I could consult to study this further? The most I’ve had were the books “Know the Creeds and Councils” and “Know the Heresies”, but I haven’t had a lot of systematic presentation of what went down at the councils beyond those.
Also, was that the supposed St. Nicholas who was punching a guy? I saw people commenting on that last week.
Loving these episodes. Very well thought-out and spoken. Looking forward to each week.
+Extra Credits You guys should really do a series on Ambrose, the 4th Century bishop of Milan. Very influential figure both in his own time and through wider history!
+Hans Smirnov I think that it was Theodosius I that made cristianity the official religion of the empire in the year 380, almost 50 years after the death of Constantine.
the separation of church and state was probably one of the best things to ever happen to christianity since the lack of political power struggle meant that not every single religious difference had to end in a schism or the damnation and/or persecution of one or the other in a religious debate
+Cyan Cat If only more people shared that view.
+Cyan Cat That's why it was introduced actually, due to these issues that existed in the reformation. America is a good example of this: with no solid agreement on which protestant denomination to follow, seperation of church and state was done to protect the churches from each other. The seperation was done not so much to protect state from the church, but church from state (as in state religion)
+Andy Z I totally agree. "The persecution of Quakers in North America began in 1656 when English Quaker missionaries Mary Fisher and Ann Austin began preaching in Boston. They were considered heretics because of their insistence on individual obedience to the Inner Light. They were imprisoned and banished by the Massachusetts Bay Colony.
Their books were burned, and most of their property was confiscated.
They were imprisoned in terrible conditions, then deported.[27]
In 1660, English Quaker Mary Dyer was hanged on Boston Common for repeatedly defying a Puritan law banning Quakers from the colony.[28] She was one of the four executed Quakers known as the Boston martyrs. In 1661, King Charles II forbade Massachusetts from executing anyone for professing Quakerism.[29] In 1684, England revoked the Massachusetts charter, sent over a royal governor to enforce English laws in 1686 and, in 1689, passed a broad Toleration Act."
+Andy Z I am so glad to have finally encountered someone who understands what the separation of church and state is really for.
+Cyan Cat The problem as I see it is not the union of church and state per se. You can have a confessional state where the state recognizes the church and its beliefs, modifies its conduct accordingly, and even prohibits certain problematic forms of public practice of other religions. Where true problems arise is where recognition and basic protection are warped into opression and forced conversion. No true Christian could approve of that both because it is immoral and counter productive since accepting Christ means nothing if not done freely. It is a good thing that the Church clarified this in Vatican II's Dignitatis Humanae
I grew up entirely in a Christian school and I was never taught anything about early Christianity. This was so entertaining and eye opening!
Yea they don't want you to know all the ugly splits
I can understand why. This stuff is very difficult to figure out due to the hair splitting. It is easy to tell Catholics and Protestants apart once you get to know both of them. This contrast is made even more clear with radical Protestants, like Babtists and Amish. However the early splits of the church were much smaller, and so they are a lot harder to figure out. A major part was Eastern Orthodox splitting off from Catholics. These two groups are really similar and hard to tell apart. It comes off as petty. One of the biggest things to split the church was the filioque. That is a real difficult headscratcher of a concept. I am reluctant to explain here, because I am bound to screw up. I just know it has something to do with the trinity and the phrase"And the Son". Whatever that means.
@@sylviadailey9126 The 1054 schism had 2 main issues, the Papacy & the introduction of the filioque into the Creed by Rome. Neither issue is minor or hair splitting. The theology of the Orthodox & Roman churches is very different in many aspects & the filioque is at the heart of one of those differences.
we had to get through cavemen times to about 1500 so we darted through everything
@@sylviadailey9126 Got the order of who split from who wrong. The filioque is in reference to the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father "and the Son", which was added, not because of any actual theological issue, but because of the way the latin language works. They added it because if they didn't have it, the latin translation of the Nicene creed would have been heretical. Some other things that caused the split were purgatory, papal supremacy (just imagine you live in the USA and the governed of California or Texas just declared themselves king of the USA, and demanded that every other governor recognise his supremacy. That's what the Pope in Rome did), and not to mention that the Latin church is always changing their doctrine.
Another thing, the are very obvious difference between the Orthodox and Latin churches, saying they are "the same" betrays your ignorance on the matter.
Still, setting all the Latin churches mistakes aside, I pray that one day we will reunite. Sadly I don't see that ever happening, the Popes enjoy their little monopoly on truth they have going, and I can't see them giving that up.
Constantine needs his own series. so does nero and Augustus caesar
+kwadwo baidoo Nero? He was a sadistic lunatic and a mediocre emperor. I'd rather see a series about Marcus Aurelius, Trajan or Aurelian.
+MarcianusImperator Sadistic lunatic? I dunno. He was young and fell into a lot of the problems young people find when you give them money, power and no supervision. Just look at modern celebrities.
I think nero would be interesting. Or septimius severus-the African emperor of Rome
Better still do Diocletian, the Tetrachy, and Constantine. This might take ten episodes. But it would be worth it.
Vespatian.
But the God Emperor wasn't able to make Magnus stop using sorcery!
...Wait
this. all day.
+The Bellman Yes, you're right, the council of Nikea from 40K was a direct reference to this little event in the history of 325.M1
+The Bellman This is history not Warhammer 40K
Patrick Desjardins
Report to the nearest Imperial Reeducation camp for humour adjustment surgery. For the glory of the Emperor.
*MAAAAAAAAAAAAGNUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUS!!!!!*
Why all the eye patches? So I can talk about it in Lies ; )
-JP
Wait, a rule specifically for self castration existed, that was something priests just did?
+Extra Credits WhoDafuqIsJP?
+jem due James Portnow.
+Extra Credits I'm pretty sure that's just Big Boss in disguise.
Why no Eastern Bishops? Why only the Western style?+Extra Credits
I feel it's important to note that most of these bishops were going to have to live the rest of their lives in Nicea; due to their age, how far away their homes were, and the poor transportation at the time.
Also, as a side note, St. Nicholas of Myra (the one that eventually inspired Santa) was present at the Council, and even received jail time for slapping Arias in the middle of the discussions.
+Fli Bingsu Good ol' St. Nick.
+Fli Bingsu Sort of like the Italian Parliament; open with a prayer, close with a brawl, while the PM sits there and says "Why me Lord?"
Maybe but he very apologetic and sorry for a long time for letting his temper get out of hand.
@@observationsfromthebunker9639 😂 i feel like pm moderators is my spirt animal.
So let me get this straight....when they were hammering out the rules for christianity, santa clause was there, got in a fight with a priest and went to jail?
Athanasius was very clever. With the use of a single phrase he managed to make himself looks reasonable while making his opponent look increasingly unreasonable by compromising more and more. His opponent would always reject so long as that phrase was used which make him seem unpleasable and stubborn even though Athanasius was just as unrelenting.
Hello again, Justinian, old friend.
There needs to be a series just like this, but covering a different Heresy altogether.
The Horus Heresy.
Is this a reference to "Horus Reads the Internet", and "Horus Ruins Christmas"?
No, It's the time The Emperor of Mankind's favoured son betrayed him and turned to the forces of Chaos, all but slaying his father and leading him to be interred in a giant psychic powered stasis chamber for 20 thousand years.
tl;DR WH40K, dude
Just made my freaking day.
Andar Broment Ten thousand.....
Heretic. How dare you mention the foul deeds of hat Arch Traitor! May those foul spawn perish in the eye of terror.
“They were there to deal with one thing...”
“THE HORUS HERES-No wait. Wrong heresy.”
I looked at this carefully, but there was no inaccuracy or misleading note to comment on. You've been doing a marvelous job making these interesting and accurate. And now we're trekking back into Justinian's reign! Bravo!
It's a pity there wasn't a chance to mention two of Constantine's most prominent laws, which were a major part of Christianity's development in Rome. One was the law of tolerance I mentioned earlier, forbidding persecution on grounds of religion, which caused Christianity to go from about 10% to almost 100% of the cities' populations (all in a generation!). The other, when Christianity became massively popular in the cities, was that Constantine declared it the official religion of the empire, and everyone had to convert more or less. This wasn't good for anyone, Pagan or Christian.
Thank you for covering this so well. I'm glad to see this part of history be covered.
+Hans Smirnov "forbidding persecution on grounds of religion" Really, I am pretty sure the pagans would have to strongly disagree with you. What with him banning new temples to be built, and then later in life ordering looting and pillaging of those temples. It was under Constintine the 1st that started the Persecution of Religio Romana and other polytheistic faiths in the empire.
Though his successors would take the pagan persecutions to a further level, banning sacrifice, doing more pillaging, disbanding the orders, declaring the death penetly for those that went to pagan temples, going after the various priests and priestesses.
+herkles1 The law of tolerance was not an eternal law. It was reinstated at one point by another emperor who wanted to cause trouble for the Christians, but was mostly repealed in favour of favouritism.
Will we ever get a series on Constantine himself? I hope so.He's easily my favorite emperor
+Darkgeasss But St. Justinian. :/
The Pagan emperor
I find it odd just how excited I get whenever these episodes are released.
There was a legend that Saint Nicholas of Myra punched Arius in the face during the Council of Nicea
I bet there are many people currently alive who'd pay good money to be punched by a saint. :p
+Robert Faber Especially punched by Santa!
+Robert Faber Quick, get into a fist fight with the pope!
Crusader1089 He'd likely have his Swiss guards knock you out before you could even try. lol
+Xbuttx Z It's one of my favorite stories about Saint Nicholas. "Santa decked a guy for insulting Jesus" has a nice ring to it.
Also, according to the story, Constantine had him arrested and stripped of his position, but when they went to his cell the next morning, they found his chains broken and the door flung off its hinges, but Nicholas still sitting there in the cell. Constantine, seeing his humility and obedience, reinstated Nicholas the next day.
Watching this series always makes me want to play more Civilization.
+R443D "the holy trinity works" in this context being?
CK2 would be way better for the level of detail and stuff seen in these videos.
Just wanted to say thank you for these amazing videos. Finally a non-biased history channel dealing in such interesting topics. Thank you for all the hard work!
I love how these keep going back to Justinian, I've said it before and I'll say it again, that was my favorite Extra History, and every time I hear and see Justinian now I think back to those videos, can't wait for the next episode.
Amazing how a small event or even one man can change things and bring down an empire.
+Colton Byrd More like the culmination of thousands of small events.
In b4 the history debate. Haha
It did not bring down Rome alright. Don't go tell your friends the Christianity brought down Rome because it's not true.
Rome outsourcing it's military to outside of the citizenry played a much larger part than Christian devisions ever could.
Kind of wish a breakdown of the Nicene Creed and how each line reflects the arguments of the council was included.
The Nicene Creed didn't happen until AS381. That is another story.
"Even a *little* difference, a difference the size of an acorn head can split Christianity."
-My Christan Mother
Wow! I grew up reading the Nicene Creed every other Sunday, and the words always produced a powerful air of spirituality. Learning that it's more akin to a constitutional legislation than a hymn of adoration is blowing my mind. Thank you; very cool
1:45
“Plz. This is a Christian Minecraft server, no fighting or swearing”
Wow, this is Epic! I'm on the edge of my seat wondering what's going to happen next. Once again, Extra Credits knocks it out of the park!
At last! The Council of Nicea, this is a part of the history that always catch my attention. Thanks EC team, I love you a lot
The young Athanasius was the deacon of Bishop Alexandros during the Council of Nicea. Arius' main opponent and debate partner was not Athanasius, but Alexander at that time. Only after Alexander's death did Athanasius become the defender of the nicaean faith.
Ty for this, Im really enjoying this series :)
The past continue to hunt Justinian...
I discovered Constantine thanks to this serie.
No man has earned my respect so quickly since Yi-sun Chin.
He wasn't that great. If you disregard godly intervention in his life then he's a little crazy.
He is debatable.Like Alexander.
Valliant and passionate warrior and protector of Christianity,or a cold and manipulative absolutist and calculator of power.
It's up to you.
Try murderer...
Just so you know, Constantine had his eldest son Crispus executed for no good reason.
@@richtersundeen6105 He was manipulated by Crispus' stepmother, who said he defiled her. So he was executed. However he was told that he was lied to, and made the stepmother suffocate.
So... Justinian and Theodora part 11 next time?
Just wanted to thank you for making this series, it's very helpful and interesting.
You know.. this was actually .... pretty accurate.
+Aaron Haskins Wasn't it just the last series about the Ottomans that departed a bit from the facts? I'm not a historian but the series so far always seemed well founded.
DeepDuh
I'm close to Orthodox in my faith and have read the Counsels. We still have their writings and notes of the Bishops who were there. I'm actually impressed with extra credits on their video.
I am a Muslim If this doesn't offend anybody or not bother you .. I would like to ask .. if Jesus was not of same nature what did they believe he was? A prophet? A man of God?
And could you explain why you call yourself closer to the Orthodox teachings?
For a non-theologian, i think he is doing an okay job of portraying our faith.
Justinian's coming back for the next one?! :D
"Next time, for the first time ever on Extra History . . . an Emperor rises from the grave." *DBZ music*
nice one.
I love that the difference between the two factions literally came down to one iota.
R.I.P Arius, A true believer among polythiests
I never expected a video on a topic as esoteric and nerdy as 'Early Christian schisms' to be this riveting.
Leave poor Justinian alone! I don't want anymore images of him being sad or crying over this.
Loving this series on the early Christian Schisms
Can we have a "Can we just agree" T-Shirt please?
You mean to say that “don’t castrate yourself with a blunt rusty knife” needed to be a rule? That really says a lot about the people you are dealing with.
You should make an entire series on the different Gnostic sects:Valentinians, Sethians, Marcionites (my favorites) etc.etc.etc.
I just found these videos. They are excellent. I appreciate your disclaimers on these too! Thanks.
The whole thing, and Eusebius in particular, remind me of a Borges short story I dearly recommend: _The Theologians._ Not strictly historic, but rather twisting into some soul-punching general points, as he does.
Absolutely brilliant and approachable.
Can't believe I hadn't watched this series after years of following EH!
here we are again,justinian appear again in the serie
+Emilio Garcia Carrillo Justinian is the Stan Lee of Extra Credit's history
i am tierd of his shit
#downwithjustinian
+Emilio Garcia Carrillo Yeah but he's still no Walpole.
+Emilio Garcia Carrillo Are you one of those secret Belasarius supporters? #b4e
NAIN
#WALPOLETEAM
People like to think of this as ancient history but it really isn't.
I was returning from a used book run where I had picked up a few different books on Catholic philosophers and Theologians and ended up talking to a woman while stopping for a beverage.
This woman had been raised in a small Protestant town and had no experience outside her denomination.
After she asked about the books and I explained what they were she then asked me "why would Catholics be writing about Jesus".
I quickly found out that she had been taught that a Catholic was more or less a pagan with no concept of morality that once almost destroyed the Christians.
Glad I didn't meet her when I had found a haul of Esoteric books.
I do have a question, What of the Masses in all of this, what were the demographics of Christians during these schisms. You said there were riots but by whom? and against whom? What effect did these schisms and their resolutions have on the masses.
Im loving this series! keep up the good work!
So the council of Nicea eventually boiled down to:
"I love God and I love Jesus... no homo"
We are being taught about these Councils in high school in Greece. Its not called a council though, but a Synod (Σύνοδος). Which is the same thing basically. I do recall reading about Arianism, the Monophysites and the Nestorians, hope these subjects weren't removed form the curriculum.
you guys just love to draw Justinian XD
+christian ventez abadia Who doesn't?
Now excuse me, I need to... examine the picture in more detail.
Please do a series on the Caliphates.
Ty, this helped me for my religion essay
Something that's hard for someone not very familiar with the doctrines to recognize is that there really is no middle ground between Arianism and Trinitarianism. The principle tenets of each are inherently at odds, they cannot coexist or have compromise.
From a doctrinal point of view, they can't, no. However, it would have been perfectly possible to find a way of making the two doctrines coexist within the empire, and it seems to me that that was Constantine's aim. Not necessarily to get everyone to agree about everything, but to make people capable of seeing eye-to-eye.
gotta love that Actraiser(sp?) theme. Great game.
It's such a small difference. And for most people, it's largely an academic question.
And it sounds like no one even asked the question "can we even know what Their relationship is like?" I mean, we're talking about the God of the universe. Certainly there's going to be a number of things about Him that we don't understand.
As a Christian, I don't know that I've ever had a doctrinal conversation about this. Personally, I've always sort of assumed they had a sort of hierarchical structure, just from the names "Father" and "Son." The Holy Ghost often goes unaccredited and fills a Servant's role. And Christ does what the Father tells Him to. I don't see why this would keep them from being the same. I have a dominant hand, but that doesn't mean my left hand is any less than it, or not a part of me. It just fills a different role.
Besides, Christ was a servant to MEN. The God of the universe washed a man's dirty feet. That certainly doesn't make mankind any greater than Him. And it doesn't make Him any less.
I feel like a lot of denominational "doctrine" is really just a difference of opinion, and the important thing is if a person's heart is in the right place. It's not an unforgivable sin to misunderstand something. But there's certainly a difference between failing to understand despite trying to and trying to rationalize away an understanding that you know to be true.
I'm confused. When does Walpole show up?
+orangeapples In Lies.
+orangeapples He is always there.
He is always there. Watching... learning...
I got a brief overview of this stuff in a lecture course I listened to on Gnosticism, but it's great to get a bit more detail on it. Thanks guys!
That's Arian with an "i" people!
As an atheist with secular Jewish and discreet Catholic family, thank you for popularizing some very arcane concepts. No matter your personal beliefs, as students of history, it’s important to understand a belief system that structured the lives of so many people for 2,000 years.
40k had Magnus, reality had Arius...
Both screwed things up. x)
nice summary of the creed of nicea. love it and it explains alot about my instincts about this issue...
WOLOLO!
You present a good argument. Maybe I'll convert after all.
+Wry Naught i am a Hussar, i tell you that Wololo maybe not a sufficient proof of our existence, let alone the existence of god.
+Wry Naught
*buys holy grail for 1000 gold...dies instead of being converted*
03nj and its a Hussar !!!
Monk! I need a monk!
You missed the part when Arius gets hit in the face bye Santa clause in the middle of the council, classic Saint Nick shenanigans. 👊
Great episode, I just have two questions. Firstly, are you going to double back to do Gnosticism, you mentioned you would in the first episode but we are past that point now. Secondly, doesn't the Nissian Creed have "not one Iodio of difference"?
+Gnomelord0 What do you mean by difference?
+Non Yah Well doesn't one Iota mean effectively that the Trinitary version that the is not the father is not the holy ghost is "wrong" according to the Nisseian Creed?
I would like a redo on this series with the more info out there
Also it would’ve been cool to see how theologically speaking their arguments went
Hooray for freedom of religion!
+PINGPONGROCKSBRAH And freedom from religion cause this stuff is INSANE.
+Fafnd For the sake of clarity what exactly are you saying is insane? Are you saying debate due to disagreement is insane? If that is the case we should turn off our brains, stop seeking truth, and abandon all knowledge, philosophy, and science. Or are you saying that violently oppressing others and forcing them to believe as you do is insane? Christians in general and this Roman Catholic in particular would agree with you there. Certain Christians and segments of the Church did evil things in the past but we recognize and repent of it for the sins that they always were. Atheists can scarcely throw stones at this insanity however since their Nazi and Communist ilk did infinitely more more of it than the erroneous Christians of the past ever did. As Dostoevsky so aptly put it, "If God does not exist, everything is permitted." If you are saying religion itself is insane because it is somehow contrary to reason, I would invite you to research Augustine, Aquinas, Scholasticism, the five proofs for the existence of God along the Aristotelian metaphysics that underlie them, and Pope St. John Paul II's encyclical of Faith and Reason.
And now, Constantine realises the Empire was much stable on a religious point when everyone was polytheistic.
+scarfacemperor Perhaps getting a bunch of people who hate each other more than lions to shout loudly about how the opposite side are heathens going a place of eternal damnation, is not the idea for diplomacy.
Ehhh by his time the empire was already declining with the Germanic tribes on the borders, disease, economic crisis and constant civil war is more to blame the instability
+scarfacemperor The Roman Empire being stable, what a joke
That's why I said "on a religious point".
+scarfacemperor No, there was also infighting among the cults.
Is this series going to cover all schisms? The later split with the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox ideologies and the breaking away of the Protestants from Catholicism? How about the latter day gnostics such as the Cathars?
+Seamus McFlanery () The title say "early Christian".
RubberyCat Yeah I kinda derped on that but I hope they cover all of them at some point in EH.
Seamus McFlanery
Yeah, I have no idea how far they will go, even with the definition "early".
Wow! Really impressive and original work. Well done.
Ah, but who coaxed Eusebius into supporting Arius? What clever fiend conspired, behind the scenes, to drive a wedge between the Christians in order to frustrate Constantine's efforts to - it was Walpole.
+Sam D Its always Walpole! That bastard!
My father's an Arianist. This is slightly awkward, considering I'm Orthodox and we literally have a day every year celebrating the Council of Nicea and the defeat of Arianism.
I think the reason why there's so many eyepatches in this video is the following:
Christ himself said "If your eye causes to sin, pluck it out."
(He essentially meant to get rid of anything that causes you to sin)
Anyways, seeing the bishops with missing eyes (perhaps plucked-out) makes us remember that no matter how high-ranking in the church, no matter how wise or qualified, we're all sinners...even the bishops. ("For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God")
It indicates that we shouldn't merely trust other people when determining what it means to follow Christ. But rather, you should go and research (read scripture) for yourselves and see Christ's words, instead of the words of sinful bishops that caused all of the chaos.
No self castration
+SirSaxamaphone In short... Human beings are flawed, and no one should be discriminated or executed because of it.
+SirSaxamaphone While I'm not sure that's what EC was going for here, I can see your point. While it is quite useful to read the thoughts of other men, we must always judge them against the Bible.
I read the scripture, are you sure I should sell my daughter to her rapist?
+Maximalian Kaiser That's just a given. I'm more confused about the “Eat shrimp- Go to hell“part.
That part about the Gothic tribes is quite interesting. So not only was the Roman Empire orderly and cohesive enough, for how strongly diverse the various populations making it up were, before the spread of Christianity, but it ended up atomizing itself partially *because* of internal Christian strife. ...This is fun.
God i hope after Early Christian Schism will be Vlad Tepes of Wallachia !!!
I really enjoyed your perspective on the early Christian Church. Specifically in this episode I was wondering why you didn’t mention the formation of the the canon at the Council of Nicaea, where they also determined which books were considered to be “hypocryphal gospels”?
We're already all the way to Constantine. Are you going to be covering the Gnostics at all, especially the Valentinians?
+Myriokephalon At what point _does_ a group of heretics become a schism? Is it just numbers, or does it require a certain amount of power on both sides? Is it how long they struggle for dominance? Does it need to reach a certain level of violence?
+Myriokephalon They were kind-of sort-of covered in the first episode (Gnostics were Docetists)
Jared Boanerge
Were Gnostics a subset of Docetists, or Docetists a subset of Gnostics?
MPythonGirl From what I've read, it's not so much that Docetism was a subset of Gnosticism as it was a feature of Gnosticism. All Gnostics were Docetists, but there's more to Gnosticism than Docetism.
Sometimes I get the impression that you really like putting Justinian into these videos every chance you get.
Not that I'm complaining, that was the best installment of EH so far. :P
+SaltpeterTaffy Well things do connect with each other, one way or another. ;)
+Fox D #ItWasWalpole
Robert Walpole It wasn't necessary to draw it this time, though. >.> Again, not complaining.
SaltpeterTaffy Me neither.
Hmm, so I know it's difficult digging into this kind of history and be fair, and also when you're not a "theologian", but I feel like the mark was missed several times here. It was Bart Ehrman's thesis that "orthodoxy" is just whoever wins, but it seems hard to support that when the belief in Christ's divinity was almost universally implicitly taught for centuries prior (Vermes' thesis is completely untenable in my opinion and betrays a re-imagining of history that is more or less undocumented speculation). It wasn't until Arius that anyone really challenged it, and Arius did so with lots of subtlety, using the same wording as others had, but with different meanings. That's why it was so hard to convince the bishops at the council that he meant something different. It was this to counteract this that caused the phraseology of "homoousian" to come about because until then, I don't think most understood what the big deal was.
I don't know what your sources are, but it's hard to see how there could be any middle ground between "Christ is the same in substance as the Father" and "Christ is not the same in substance as the Father". What is this "middle ground" possibility? A vague wording that didn't really specify one way or another? And by the way, Arius had been declared a heretic before the council, so it's not like Athanasius just finally persuaded everyone to "his" views, it was more like preventing Arius from persuading everyone to his views.
Also, the Eusebius you talked about was not the same as the historian Eusebius. That might have been pointed out.
I do really appreciate this series though, something like this is good to have but I'm afraid your sources may be fairly speculative. There's been a trend in recent historical scholarship to come up with new ideas that challenge the views of the past, but most of these ideas are fairly unique, unsubstantiated, and not widely accepted.
+Logan West Not only that but during the reprieve Arianism got there was a point where most bishops were Arians. Only St. Atanasius, Pope Liberius, and some others refused to formally teach Arianism and held firmly to the council. Orthodoxy literally snatched victory from the jaws of almost certain defeat in this case. From the Catholic point of view this is not surprising since the Holy Spirit will always gaurentee the infalibility of the Church in its highest concilliar and papal teachings.
Thanks for providing a bit more context to the nicene creed. The church I am in used both the nicene and the apostles creed depending on the week.
I would love to see this continue with the Muslim texts, given how much history we have on that.
the problem is there's even more divide and contradictions in the history of those...it would be really time consuming to go over each piece and show all sides...it would be cool too see but it just might be too time consuming.
+Dallen Malna There's also a lot less historical record. The nice part about the schisms is they all happened within the Roman sphere. Almost everything is in writing and has survived. Even though Islam is more modern, there is almost no primary written sources to go on (except a koran from about 100 years after the prophet found in an attic in Yemen that after about a month it was decided no one outside a select handful were allowed to look at it.).
+Alderick van Klaveren Also, you can't represent Mohammed on anything or else the muslims will feel offended.
Religion is never that simple.
+Henry T
I mean sometimes it is...I think it's good to try and meet people where they are and to not intentionally provoke people but I wouldn't say all religions are equally complex. I mean look at JUST christianity. Some sects require a lot of additions and such but C.S. Lewis talks about "Mere Christianity" and goes on to discuss that while seeking more specific learning and denominations are well and good. to be a Christian was as simple as asking forgiveness from Jesus and acknowledging him as lord. Sure there are complex issues that are worth dealing with around that faith but very often the core is quite simple if you dig in.
Henry T Nobody said anything about displaying Muhammad. However, what could be done is an illustration as done by Siyer-i Nebi, who effectively produces Muhammad as a negative space with a halo. Throw in the calligrapy of Muhammad's name and keep most of him off-panel and I think that it could be pulled off.
Another inaccuracy mentioned here…. Although goths did not want to assimilate or recreate roman structure/culture in their early existence, they had adopted much of roman culture once they settled in their lands.
Consider doing the Northern and Southern Courts Period in Japanese history
Well done video. All accurate, except one detail. While Athanasius was at the Council of Nicea, he wasn't one of the main guys directing the discussion. Rather, Alexander of Alexandria, his predecessor was.
you're missing an "s" in the title ...
"And his son? His son would be a hard Arrian through his life" I've heard as "half Aryan" and suddenly I imagined Constantius II talking about Thule and the Elders of Zion on the Byzantine equivalent of 4chan (the Hippodrome probably) while listening to "Erika" in the background.
I love how the absurdity of determining the nature of Abraham's unknowable God in a committee never occurred to any of them.
Hence why self-righteousness became a largely pejorative term. For many, even at this early date in the history of Church, it was all about power and influence, thereby undermining any sincerity its followers might have had. And was it necessary? Hardly...
Yeah but Abraham's God was abstract before the advent of Christ. Being a man, Christ was a material presence in history and a knowledgeable phenomenon, and him being God meant that also God became knowledgeable.
I mean, what else are you going to do? Go to war over it? That would be even more absurd.
+Davide Battistini Jesus was tangible, maybe (some Jews/Christians apparently believed he was a spirit), but the crux of this conflict was his status in the Trinity. . . which is unknowable.
+KeyofEden7 Well, saying "we don't really know so let's stop arguing about it" had already been tried, before the council. It didn't work. People still argued. Intensely.
Later, when a different heresy almost tore the Church apart 150 years later (coming soon in a future episode, I'm sure), the emperor Zeno was so sick of it that he actually issued an imperial decree _simply banning all discussion of the issue._ It STILL didn't work. People kept arguing anyway.
This is such a fascinating series!
Fisher of men at 4:11 lol
+Jay Reed It would be a sign of the Illuminati if that pic appeared at 4:19, for Matthew 4:19
I've been listening to these for the past couple hours while playing video games, and I thought my computer froze when the next video didn't start playing XD more please!