+Marleena Ulry ”That Paul knowing that Christianity needed to grow and would need to abandon some of the harder laws in Judaism” Circumcision was a sign of a person entering the old covenant that Jews had with YHWH and now that the old covenant was fulfilled with Christ’s sacrifice the new covenant began. The new covenant did does not require circumcision to enter. The point of the book of Galations is not that ”we need to make a religion more accessible to the world,” but to say ”the old covenant is practices are over and we they are no longer required as Christ has completed the work.” The error that they fall in is the Marcionism heresy, that there is no connection between the old and new covenants and that Paul did not actually believe that Christ had anything to do with the old law. They need to realize that Paul actually believed his religion; and would not encourage practitioners to compromise just to make try and make more converts.
MrHogarth45 I will admit, the way they had worded that part did bug me a bit too. I do hope that they will cover that in the "lies" video. But I remember them saying in one video, that James is still searching for what to believe in. So I can see how he can a mistake like that. But what I'm really been referring to is that so far when it comes to religion, they are quite honest about it. They show how the beliefs that people had, had a big impact on history. And yet they've never called any religion wrong or bad. When they did the crusade series, I was afraid that they would make it sound like Christians are a brunch of hateful hypocrites, blindly following a "loving" message. But instead, they showed that the crusade itself really had more to do with politics and Christianity was more of an excuse to justify it.
MrHogarth45 Except those books weren't diaries. They were messages to other believers of the faith, of such a grade that they weren't unlike political messages, to stay "true" to what HE thought was best. So, I dare say that those scriptures are not proof of what he actually believed in when it comes to Jesus and God, they merely show what he thought was best that _others_ did, and perhaps believed in.
A thing to notice about John and the docetist: John was the youngest of the apostles (he was at least 16-18 years old) and wrote his letters and evangely when he was an old man, Imagine that a group of people started to say that the person you followed, eated with and saw suffer in a cross, wasn't real... I'm pretty sure John was very angry at the docetist or at least insulted by them.
+Adam Johnson Those things bothered me a bit too, and if you hadn't brought them up I likely would have. Still, all things considered, if that is the worst that can be said I think they did a pretty good job for telling it from a secular perspective. It was quite well done for a video of it's type.
The importance of circumcision in Rome's decision is pretty funny, but not quite as funny as the roll alcohol played in the conversion of Kieven Rus from Norse Paganism. In the 900s AD the Muslims were in their Golden Age and had greater military might, science, medicine, and artistic culture than the Christians. The Rus were leaning Islam, but the second they heard alcohol was banned, they threw out the Islamic missionaries and declared for East Orthodox Christianity of the Byzantine Empire.
The Eastern Roman Empire were argueable to be equals of the Islamic caliphate of that era. They had are resurging during the Armenian dynasty and even nearly took Jerusalem. A clear indicator that Islam was not of greater military might, two centuries ago they failed to bring down the Empire at its darkest hour . Not to mention both culturally and scientifically the Romans and Muslims were on par with the former being culturally focused than the latter who was more scientific. Alchol plays a role but not to that extent. The Romans have more influence and were already well known than the muslims and the fact pork and alchol were banned pushed Vladimir to go to the Romans.
Infantry tactics I was partially trying to get some laughs, but you are correct that the actual history is more complex than the Primary Chronicles make it out, which is one of many reasons that the accuracy of the Rus Primary Chronicles is debated by modern historians. Ancient historians were at least as concerned in telling a good story as actually being accurate. There is NO WAY that the Greco-Persian War went down exactly like Herodotus stated because the logistics would make it impossible for the Persian Army to have been half as large as he said. He also flat out made shit up on a regular basis like people in Africa with faces on their stomachs.
gantzisballs I agree. History is always skewered one way or another; Herodotus to Procopius, etc are all clear examples. In fact as you said they twist what happened in order to get their point across.
Also, Islamic Culture was advanced, but don't think that means that they were way superior to the west. Europe was better than the East at some things, and the East was better than Europe at other things.
As a Catholic and lover of history, I have to say this seems like it is going to be my favorite so far. And please do more like this concerning the other major religions of the world.
When I saw "Disclaimer" I expected some warning about how the comments to this video might appear. Actually, after scrolling down, I'm pretty impressed with how tame these are, nearly a week after this video was released. I wonder if this can be recognized as a miracle.
I think that's because the content of extra credits is more about the essence of a good games which attracted a more mature gamer, specially those that are interested in game mechanics and such, which eventually lead into extra history where some of those mature gamers wanted to learn more about the history that is involve in some of their favorite games (Civilization, Europa universalis, crusader kingdom)... of maybe it's just a miracle
I've got an observation. This channels is just starting to be popular. hence imo only those with the interest of the said subjects will search out these videos for the academic purposes. That is until it gets more popular and the less, let's say "Educated/Intelligent" people start rolling in and starting their shit.
Great videos. As a Muslim I have always been intrigued by Christianity's early theological debates in comparison to our faith but always found it hard to concentrate due to the lets face it dense nature of the topic. These extra credit videos really make complicated matters so much easier to understand. Thanks guys!
It honestly just reminds me of how many pagan rituals were added and how Isa's revelation was changed in order to bring in new followers. alhamdullilah, i thank god for Islam and for his reminder "the Quran"
Brother we believe they have such core problems early on is because the new testament is corrupted because we don't know who wrote them, and the contradictions that happened due to Paul ideas. When we see Islam the core beliefs are understood and secured but when foreign knowledge have appeared and translated the new ideas have started to conflict with the schoolers, unlike Christianity where a lot of change the theology based on their understanding.
Have you been introduced to the taqiya, to lie if it benefits your religion? I believe in a God of truth, that to lie is to go against Him. And the truth is that multiple scholars, christians and otherwise studied not only the books from the Bible, but the evidences regarding the resurrection of Christ. Islam was the one who had multiple versions burned because there were so many. You can deny this as much as you want, but if you listen to your own imams, they'll admit this.
+Extra Credits Yes! Thank you for making this series, it is going to be an interesting ride. On the note of understanding this subject, I would like to add something that should be considered in the matters covered: Circumcision wasn't really the main concern. It's the popular modern one because, "ah! Pain!" and so you seem to have overemphasized it. People are terrified to go to the dentist these days. But this is a world where you might sell yourself to a gladiator school to get famous or pay off debts, where a trip to the dentist did not have anesthetics fancier than alcohol and (sometimes) recreational drugs. The real issue, is circumcision is part of following the Law of Moses. Many Christians were willing to do that, but it has an unfortunate implication. Failing to keep the whole Law was damning, it was a system of relying on your own righteousness. It's the reason the Christ had to be sacrificed so others could be spared from the Law. This is what the Christians preaching circumcision were teaching, that you had to keep the Law of Moses to get into heaven. To say Paul wanted to convert the gentiles to get a large church is entirely backwards. Paul's primary interest was converting the Jews. He went to the gentiles because the Jews refused to listen to him. His goal was never for importance or power, but to save everyone he could, because he felt guilty for killing and imprisoning Christians before his conversion. Even when he was sentenced to be beheaded, he preached to the Roman soldiers guarding him, and talked about himself feeling blessed in his letters to the rest of the church (where he was comforting them, when it should've been the other way around). Nor did Paul take issue with circumcision. He had one of his gentile followers circumcised just so it would be easier for him to help him preach to the Jews. He preached that people should instead circumcise their hearts for God, worshipping him with their spirits and not just their bodies. One thing I'm disappointed got missed out (or might get mentioned later), was Constantine's law of tolerance was not mentioned. It was a law that forbade mistreating each other on the basis of religion, and it was before he came to absolute power--which is notable, as his opponent could've easily blocked the law. Under this law of tolerance, that is when Christianity boomed, until the cities were almost entirely Christian. An unfortunate mistake that came later was when a law was declared that everyone in the empire must be Christian. This wasn't good for Pagans or Christians. The last point I will make, is that saying the Christians argued about the nature of Christ, "because they wanted someone they could sympathize with," is a hindsight reflection and injection of practicalism, rather than a reflection of the feelings at the time. The early Christians were willing to put up with persecution because they honestly believed this was the truth, and so it was important to them that they preached the actual truth and not just a convenient truth. If they wanted a convenient truth, they would've picked something with less persecution. Thank you for making this episode! I look forward to watching more of these.
+Extra Credits Turns out there were some practical reasons for Christians being so picky about parts of their faith, as opposed to simply being obsessive over minor details.
For anyone wondering 'ΙΧΘΥΣ' (read as 'Ihthis' in Greek) translates to fish in Greek. However every letter of the word, 'ΙΧΘΥΣ' is a word and if u analyze it, it reads 'Ιησούς Χριστός Θεού Υιός Σωτήρ' which in Greek means 'Jesus Christ God's son savior' . It was a way of identifying Christian communities. Similar but in a more subtle way was the symbol of the cartwheel carved nearby harbors. The word ΙΧΘΥΣ is hidden in this symbol too! I fancy the timing with holy Saturday for the orthodox Easter today! Looking forward to watching the rest of the series :D
+projecta3halkida all correct except for the pronunciation. the pronunciation of Koine Greek at the time is more like Ich-Thus ("ich" is like the word Ich in German, the "th" at the time actually sounded like a "t" with a puff of air kinda like the word "tin" in American English, and the "u" is a long u and sounded like the French long u or like a German umlaut).
You know I found this series to be far more interesting than I thought I would. Religious history usually occupies the lower tiers of my list of historical interests, but what can I say, this group is just good enough to make anything engaging.
>Lots of details about the early Christian church. Yes. >Schisms in schools of thought and doctrine. YES. >The ripple effects felt in today's culture. YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAS.
+feyzinator An interesting idea. I support this! Especially because Western misunderstanding of the ethnic and cultural ways of the Middle East, where is Islam is strongest, led to the Sykes-Picot agreement post-WWI that is responsible for much of the chaos in that region today.
+feyzinator Definately - More thumbs up needed. However, not just the two main sects. It would be nice to know about the Asian cultures that led to the writings of "The Prophet" and why people felt the need to follow this branch so strongly, instead of the other existing Judeo-Christian branches and their established teachings.
+feyzinator That would be really quite awesome. Maybe with a little bit of discussion about islamic mysticism (Sufism) and the Ibadi school as well? :D
Maxwell Sacra perhaps, but the msot problems come from sunni and shia conflicts and those 2 are the biggest parts in islam, sufism and ibadi makes less than 1%
:D I know, but I love those little details too, and I'm interested to see other people's perspectives on these little known, yet still historically important sects, orders and schools of Islam.
joaov2 I though the story was that Buddha wanted people to follow the middle ground because he saw people starving themselves and tried it and came to the conclusion that it's no better than living in luxury?
+Randygandalf95 Great idea. Extra Credits could tie that in with the Sengoku Jidai series as religion also played a role in that period. Thanks for that.
Absolutely awesome. While the big schism between Catholicism and Protestantism is important, the early, relatively smaller schisms really show how christian theologians were trying to define what made a christian a christian. Loving this topic already.
+DracoDragon117 Both the Avignon Schism and the East-West-Schism are called the "Great Schism" in different books and websites, as far as I remember, never the Reformation though. It's always the frame of reference that defines "Great" and "Big", and the former two definitely were the biggest schisms in the history of Catholic / Chalcedonian Christianity until then (as of the time the first people started to record them). If you find it strange that they would have named two such different events (in time and location at least) the same, and the Reformation as well, apparently, consider this: If you asked random people in history when "The Great War" happened, you might find all kinds of different answers spanning from the Egyptian pharaos to WW I.
+Shaun McMillan Have you read Irenaeus's Against Heresies (sometimes published as Scandal of the Incarnation)? It's about Gnosticism, and can be a little dense at times, but man if it's not powerful stuff.
+PrimroseFrost gnosticism thats a new one im looking that up. being agnostic maybe it will hold some significance for me or maybe not meh fun either way.
Thank you for adding Spanish subtitles. I love history and love talking about it with my mother who is a Theologist but she only speaks Spanish. I have been wanting to share this video series with her for months so that we can discuss it more.
A fairly good episode, and it gets a lot of stuff spot on from a mostly neutral standpoint. But I definitely take issue with your assertion that Paul wrote about circumcision no longer being needed because he wanted to 'make the faith more accessible' and increase its numbers. The idea that he wanted to 'water down the harder parts to make it more acceptable' absolutely flies in the face of everything Paul wrote and stood for.
+Link0304 Exactly! That was my only real complaint about the video. It was overall a very well done video. However, as you pointed out, Paul most assuredly didn't say those things simply to garner more converts. Paul's main contention with the Judaizers was that the whole notion that salvation came by following the mosaic law was a fiction: the law brings wrath (Romans 4:15). Paul was saying what Jesus maintained: the dominant Jewish/rabbinic interpretation of law was incorrect. This was vastly more radical than 'making faith more accessible': there was a reason why the ruling Jewish leaders wanted to kill off Jesus and squash his following. And this is what makes Paul so special: he had been one of those who endeavored to stop the Christian message, going so far as to oversee the martyrdom of Stephen (an early christian convert). So when Paul became a Christian he understood the opposition but now agreed with Jesus so what became Christianity is the continuation of true Judaism (for the prophesied messiah talked about in the Torah/prophets was Jesus)
The only other quibble, really, is that they use "C.E" for Common Era rather than A.D. The only reason BCE and CE exist is because weirdos can't accept that our calendar hinges on the historical person Jesus and BC/AD triggers them and removes them from their safe place :)
+The Basement Or maybe because no solid evidence exists of a living person in history known as Jesus Christ. Basing something as important as a dating system on the unrecorded birth of a possibly nonexistent person doesn't make much sense to me. C.E. and B.C.E. both make far more sense as one can state the year, keeping to the previous method as to reduce hassle, while not having to worry about being incorrect about the birth or death of a possibly fictional character.
Arainn Daley The historical Jesus would be known as Jesus of Nazareth, not Jesus Christ. "Christ" is a title, and it's a far different case to accept that a guy named Jesus from the town of Nazareth existed at the time the bible says - there are many sources outside of the bible that support this, including (but not limited to) Thallus, Tacitus and Mara Bar-Serapion. These are pagan historians who deny the deity of Jesus. The most famous non-biblical account of Jesus is Josephus' writings. Josephus was Jewish and denied that Jesus was the messiah fortold by the Old Testament. He goes into great detail about Jesus. The position that "Jesus did not exist" (regardless of how you feel about him) is practically non-existent and not taken seriously in academic studies of history.
+The Basement I said solid evidence. In other words reliable, authentic evidence from the time of Jesus' supposed life and from a reliable source. If you have unquestionable proof that a Jesus of Nazareth lived circa 0 C.E. then I will take your claim that Jesus existed seriously and retract my previous statement saying that it is possible that he didn't.
+GreyWolfLeaderTW But Shintoism as it is today may be argued to be a different religion from the State Shinto enforced by the government at the time. Yeah, it's not the same as adopting an entirely different religion in name as well as faith, but I reckon it's a pretty good modern approximate. Nation-wide shift in a belief system within a decade, at least.
+Jude Pelaez Ha! Not all the time buddy! I've seen these guys nearly crucified for accidentally leaving out the smallest details, I wish intelligence translated over to civility, then we'd already be living in utopia.
+NetherWalker Na, intelligence increases sorcery catalyst and crystal weapon scaling, as well as being a prerequisite for everything from Soul Spear to Soul Stream and adjusting the power of Dark magic and pyromancies (along with Faith).
@Extra Credits As a Christian I appreciate the tone you are taking with this. Personally, I don't agree with all of your explanations but I suppose that is to be expected haha If I may offer a counter point to the idea that Circumcision was removed due to it being too big of a barrier to entry and so was removed. The issue with circumcision was that in the old Jewish law circumcision was an outward sign of the covenant that Israel (not none-Jews) had with God. When Christ died he fulfilled the old law rendering the need for circumcision in that capacity. The point of the death of Christ was that HE was paying for our sins and one of the results was that it ended the Jewish need of paying for sins through animal sacrifice. Requiring gentile christian to be circumcised was attacking the foundation of Christianity (If you take Christianity to be what Jesus taught and what was recorded in the four gospels) which is that faith in Christ alone is what saves us, not any act that we ourselves practice or do, e.g. circumcision. If anyone has questions regarding this series for an honest to God Christian, feel free to ask. I will do my best to answer them.
The Gentiles were also forced to do Jewish festivals which Paul wrote were unnecessary since Christ died on the law and a new better covenant was established with humanity and not just the jews
+Ian MacInnis I feel this ultimately is an answer very coloured by the Reformation and Protestant movement (I would be interested to know what denomination if any you do regard yourself). The early Church did and indeed the Catholic Church do regard acts as being possible routes to salvation and priests as crucial mediators between oneself and God/Scripture. This was partly for practical and partly theological reasons. Quite simply Catholics regard repentance through confession; partaking of the Communion, which through the doctrine of transubstantiation, is the literal partaking of the flesh and blood of Christ; and baptism as key to salvation. All these are indispensible and, of course, the Catholics regard their specific versions of these practises as the true way to assure salvation. All of these doctrines can be supported by NT passages. While Catholics acknowledge someone might manage to meet these criteria in spirit without membership of the Church, they regard it as deeply unlikely and thus it is their mission to preserve the Catholic Church and convert new members to the Church in order to assure their salvation. Anyone who willfully turns away from these doctrines or other key Catholic doctrines is, at least traditionally, put beyond salvation short of earnest repentance, penitence and returning to the Church fold. Thus to say that for all Christians faith in Christ alone is all that is required for salvation is simply not true and in the early church one could see why circumcision could have been regarded as a necessary article of faith for Christians too, especially ones who were Israelites/Jews. No-one had really developed ossified doctrines of salvation yet so who could say what was necessary for salvation or for professing one's faith to God. That's what the whole argument was about. While Paul could draw upon theological justifications for not requiring circumcision as doctrine, it would certainly be an incomplete explanation to exclude the practical concerns (probable practical concerns) of Church Fathers such as Paul. Paul is developing the theological arguments you just used to counter the EC explanation! So it seems a little invalid, at least from a historical perspective, to turn around and say they are wrong using the very arguments Paul helped to write and that were later including in the NT because the doctrine of not requiring circumsion of the gentiles won out. NB: I do not say this to offend and am an atheist who studies religion not a practising Catholic and certainly not a Catholic priest. This is a rough repetition of Catholic doctrine regarding salvaltion as I remember it and any mistakes are errors due to ignorance or poor memory not malice. I do not assert this doctrine as true or false except insofar as I believe it is the erstwhile belief of many traditional Catholics across the globe and remains Church doctrine, though the Church is softening its stance regarding baptisms of desire and ways of possibly being saved outside of the Church through ernest but naive faith in God (that is to say faith in one Christian God without all Catholic doctrine and living in rough accordance with core Catholic morality).
+George Laidlaw the early church believed in both faith and works as stated in the epistle of James works alone could not save which according to Paul is just plain legalism as did Jesus when he did that the Pharisees followed the Law but inside were white dry tombs
Todd Crane Obviously you require faith. A central tenent of every single religion is faith and part of the Catholic faith includes the obligation to perform certain acts from attending Mass to confessions (ideally weekly) and baptism. My point was there are many Christian denominations that requires acts in addition to faith. I was pointing out that requiring acts as part of faith and salvation is not attacking the foundation of Christianity, rather it is attacking the foundation of most Protestant and Reformist denominations, which is not the same. In other words, what exactly is your point sir? :P
*about to criticize, since there's 35,000+ denominations of Christianity, but sees the disclaimer symbol popping up again and again* You win this round Extra Credits...
+abloogywoogywoo I am confused. How would the fact that Christianity has many denominations and sects currently undermine a video exploring the conflicts between the major sects of the early Christian faith which laid the groundwork for many of the later splits that lead to the many denominations we have today? Well that and the Reformation which started its own new branch and I suppose Henry VIII with the Anglican Church all because he wanted a younger, prettier, hopefully more fertile wife.
+GreyWolfLeaderTW I'd say there are millions of permutations of it, given most people pick and choose what to believe in and disregard. Otherwise, A large portion of the world population wouldn't wear mixed fabric clothing, eat pork or shellfish, or work on the Sabbath. There would be a lot more stonings, too.
Prospoful Psst... Hey, buddy. Have you hear of the internet? Yeah, you cans search stuff on there. See for yourself, there are thousands of established denominations of Christianity alone.
Those two are hard to compare. Being fed to lions would have been seen as martyrdom and anyone who is willing to die such death must have a lot of faith and must be inspiring to any nonchristian. While being circumcised was seen as more of another stupid rule that "had" to be followed.
Well think of it like the difference between facing a firing squad or having your arms amputated and then left there. One is certain death but at least it's all over then. The other you have to keep on living with.
+David Lev I think the fact that you didn't actually have to commit *yourself* to martyrdom, just respect others that did had a part to play. In addition, "death before dishonour" is a pretty common theme. While circumcision.....you did.
LensMega You know when you just said it got me thinking, isn't it funny how many times "dying for the cause" is seen as noble in many ideologies across the world or time? I guess it makes some sense as what's more declarative of commitment and that you're not doing this strictly for personal gain than to offer up your life. Still, it's an interesting commonality.
This is your best episode yet. I love that your talking about Christianity fairly on your channel. I love all the research you put in this video. Please continue to make more on Christianity and Jesus. I really enjoyed this.
2:20 incorrect. Paul wrote this because the point he was trying to make was that faith alone causes salvation, not Jewish law. It was also in response to disciples criticizing and discriminating against gentiles.
This is fascinating to see a short secular summary of the early Christian church. And well done, too! Once again, Extra History does not disappoint. It's a very difficult subject to tackle for anyone wanting to avoid mass hysteria in the comments. But I can tell you guys tried very hard to remain both objective and also very respectful, and I really admire that.
@@Ami-jc2oo politics of the Christian churches, and how, as this video shows, it's pretty baked it almost from the beginning. I lean more into spirituality, education, self care, and nature. Not tied specifically to any one religion.
Interesting video, once again! As a theology student though, I have to correct one thing: circumcision wasn't made not a part of Christianity so that gentiles could join... Circumcision was a symbol of the covenant between God and the Israëlites. (specifically, all descendants of Abraham, Isaak and Jacob.) There were gentiles that got themselves circumcised in order to enter Judaïsm, but really, it was quite typically a Jewish symbol. Baptism (as stated in the Bible several times) was the symbol of Christ that came in the stead of circumcision. It's simply a case of a different covenant. Better yet - since being baptised is a sign of being born again, it doesn't matter if you're circumcised before being baptised. To better understand the position of Jews and Christians, I highly recommend reading Romans 11, since it describes the situation very well and in a very understandable yet complete way. (I recommend reading it through a couple of times, since it's quite nuanced, and you really have to kinda take it in to get the whole picture...)
+Bacon Muffin Baptism is just taken from the Jewish ritual cleansing at the mikvah, its not a symbol of Christ originally. One then wonders why you decided to up the importance of the easier ritual and pushed aside the harder one. Anyhow, the concept of being "born again" is very Protestant, so you may be letting that colour your understanding of early Christianity.
Maxben L Actually, I have to give it to Matthew Chenault for referencing John the Baptist. It's true that Christian baptism has similarities to the Jewish ritual cleansing of mikvah, but the baptism of John the Baptist was obviously one - not primarily of cleansing - but of devotion. And about the importance of baptism in early Christianity - let's not forget that, technically, Christ's first action as Messiah was His baptism... Let's also not forget that - as opposed to Judaïsm where circumcision is the first step towards joining - traditionally, baptism is the first step towards becoming a Christian in the early church... We see this happening among the Apostles. (for instance, the baptism of the ambassador and the creation of the first European church with Lydia) Besides that, if you read Romans 11 (which is partially why I recommended James to read it) the Messiah (Yeshua) was originally meant for the Jews, but with their rejection of Christ came salvation for the gentiles. This doesn't mean that God has forsaken the Jews, but rather, has blessed the gentiles and given them the Gospel so that the Jews will recieve the gospel through them. (it's a bit more complicated than how I'm phrasing it right now, but then again, I'll let Paul do the talking for me in Romans 11)
Broockle Circumcision began with Abraham, and when the Israëlites moved to Egypt for about 300 years, they took it with them... So it's actually the other way around. The Egyptians got it from the Jews.
Broockle Well it's only the last few generations that were enslaved... don't forget: the Jews moved to Egypt because Joseph had become the king of Egypt (yaknow, the person directly beneath the Pharaoh, the one that actually leads the country) after saving Egypt from hunger that threatened to kill most of the populace. Also, the Jews - after having conquered Canaan, adopted much of the gods that the Canaanites worshipped... even though they had witnessed their own God... that kinda stuff happens under any circumstances somehow.
+Semt Oyunda Bismark should have gone all Julius Cesar on the King's ass when he got fired. If I were Bismark I'd respond to getting fired by abolishing the whole monarchy .
+greenghost2008 You can't do that in a system where your position is entirely dependent on the monarch, notwithstanding the fact that Bismarck was a self-avowed diehard monarchist.
+Semt Oyunda Genghis Khan would be interesting. He mangaed to do so many things. Things that were impossible at that time, unless you were, wait for it, the mongols.
+Semt Oyunda For Ghengis Khan, I can only suggest searching for "Hardcore Histroy" and "Wrath of the Khans". That guy makes podcasts about all kinds of historic subjects that are quite pleasant to listen to (in the "grandpa tells war stories" kind of way). Fair warning, though: They are long. Usually several hours per episode. You also might need to be quick. He only puts the latest episodes up for free - if you want older ones, you have to buy them. And the Khans will be the next ones to get paywalled.
3:06 Question that would pop up again and again, you say? From my personal experience as a practicing Christian (specifically Methodist if that is important to you, not so much to me) with family members in the clergy I can confirm that question STILL comes up to this very day and we STILL have not really settled the issue.
Isn't Christology, like, the whole separate discipline that's the actual biggest dilemma between scholars and priests, like, all the time? Unless I am confusing something.
Not sure if this was mentioned anywhere earlier, but the reason Paul tells one not to be circumcised isn't because it hurts and he was trying to propagate, or 'sell' the faith, in fact he doesn't even say the physical act of circumcision in of itself is bad, he simply says its of 'no value'... Meaning it's of no value to your being in Christ. This is the absolute heart of the gospel and Christian faith, are we in Christ, are our sins forgiven because we have done something or because Christ has done everything? So the reason Paul railed on the judiasers is because he was defending free grace, to 'die to ones self', let go of everything and take Christ and God alone as your true life-- to 'live to Christ'. But thank you again James and... I don't know the other writer, for doing your best to be honest with historical material. I pray that you one day too will find yourself dead and Christ to be your life, freely with nothing you do, but him having done all. May we rely on you God and know you. Amen
Aaron Carroll No, Circumcision isn't bad at all, it helped more or less the ancient Hebrews to survive in these harsh environments. Calling it bad is just stupid on you and Paul's behalf, all because of ignorance.
I'm an Orthodox Christian, and overall this is a great introduction! When it comes to determining doctrine of the Church, I don't think it would right to portray all the decisions (like the Docetists) as if the Church Fathers were only thinking about maximizing numbers; some decisions were very unpopular, but also had to do with belief in a God of loving sacrifice. Can't wait for more videos!
+Michael Tkaczevski That is extra credit histories one flaw, when they are discussing Christians they always assume that the worst possible motive for their every action was the only one Christians cared about.
+Michael Tkaczevski That was my thought too. But, from a secular viewpoint, I can see how it would be difficult to for someone to simply accept "God said it wasn't necessary any more." I look forward to the rest of the series as well! +brendan coulter You sound like you're playing the victim here. You seem to have some preconceived ideas on how Extra Credit handles talking about Christianity, and then you watched this? I think you were looking to be offended.
Victim? no. embittered fan who noticed a flaw in some thing he likes and now cant unnoticed it, absolutely. I'm not asking extra credit to pull on the kid gloves with Christianity, I'm just asking for the same impartiality they use when talking about other subjects, or at least an nonalignment that they address it differently because they do. when they are discussing historical figures with non christian back rounds they try to soften the blow of the acts of cruelty they commit, but not so when they talk about Christians. Watch the first crusades and then watch suliman the Magnificent and see how differently they treat the two subjects. This is not unique to extra credit by any means, but I always hoped a small passionate team like this would be down to earth enough to be genuinely impartial, or at least admit their own biases. It is still a good show but it is flawed, in a way it does not have to be.
John most likely wasn't taking shots at the Docetists in his epistles. His epistles were written between 85-100, while Docetism appeared as late as 197 (about 100 years later).
Paul didn't get rid of Circumcision in order to grow the religion. You're thinking about this the wrong way. Christianity isn't a business (Or rather it shouldn't be, modern practices non-withstanding). Christ brought a change in how man related to God and how sin was atoned for. Circumcision was an old physical way of showing ownership by God, when Christ was sacrificed on the cross for man's sin, circumcision was no longer necessary. Requiring gentiles to be circumcised would have undermined what Christ did and maintained the Jewish status queue which had become more about self-righteousness than any kind of godliness. Paul's interest wasn't just to gain more converts, his interest was in making sure that people understood what Christ's sacrifice actually meant and that it accomplished the goal of saving as many people as possible form judgment.
Yeah, pretty much what I was thinking. When the church first began, it was mostly made up of Jews, so Paul wanted to clarify that Gentiles were also welcome in the church, and that many of the old laws didn't apply anymore. He also wanted to make sure Jewish *traditions* (not laws, but man-made traditions) were also not misunderstood as vital.
Agreed, I think it's a common misconception for non-Christians to approach members of the faith as though they don't actually believe in what they state. Like as non-Christians view Christianity as an intellectual concept they assume we do so as well. Thus producing statements like "why can't you just change the bible". If you believe in something it has to shape your perception otherwise you don't really believe in it.
I agree that the reason behind Paul's motivation given in this video can be misleading. I've always had the impression that Paul's motivation was also honest (though being pragmatically and honestly motivated aren't mutually exclusive). I don't think there was any ill intent from the EC guys behind it, however. Good video!
Yes. I mean Christianity now leads to spiritual absolutism and perfections with God (Mathew 5:48). Circumstances and all of the material, earthly stuff was no more essential.
Wasn't expecting Extra Religious Studies today, and honestly as somebody who went to a Catholic High School, this is actually quite easy for me to digest. Keep it up guys!
I love how you talk about history. Showing it from different perspective then it's normally done in schools, talking about people behind it and their plans and emotions. Considering huge spectrum of factors. I would love to see your take on Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, "Golden Liberty", liberum veto and nobles democracy. At a time when most European countries were headed toward centralization, absolute monarchy and religious and dynastic warfare, the Commonwealth experimented with decentralization, democracy and religious tolerance.
This sort of stuff is absolutely fascinating to me for a couple of reasons. 1) Esoteric doctrinal disputes make for fun worldbuilding, so it's always nice to have more to pull from. 2) I'm UU, aka Unitarian-Universalist, which is a branch of christianity* that doesn't believe in the trinity. So seeing debates abt it is especially wild to me. *asterisk here bc I've seen some compelling arguments that Unitarian-Universalism should maybe be counted as its own religion at this point. Considering how hard it would be to find either a bible or a cross in my church, I'm somewhat inclined to agree. To make matters even more complicated, Unitarian Universalism is a non-creedal religion, meaning there's not really a set of rules about what you have to believe, other than some basic values and ideas about how to treat other people. So while many UUs don't believe in Jesus as anything other than an important human philosopher and spiritual leader, there are plenty who might believe in him in a more traditional christian sense.
+CommissarWallace As a Christian myself, I wouldn't use those exact words, but I do agree. I'm also hoping they talk about Arius getting smacked upside the head by Saint Nick.
I'm talkin' the guy who drops presents down chimneys and goes "ho ho ho" alright. And yes, he punched Arius in the face after he began spouting heresies about Christ's divinity. Think about that next time you see a Mall Santa.
I do apologize for adding to any flame war that may be going on in the comments, but the reason for Paul not advocating for circumcision was because circumcision was (and is) part of the laws which had to be kept in order to be considered Jewish. But once Christ came, there was no longer any need for separation between Jew and Gentile, because "We are all one in Christ Jesus" (Gal. 3:28). Again I do apologize, thank you for your videos, they are always very informative and engaging. Thank you for the information concerning the Docetists, and I eagerly await your next video on this subject. God bless you!
+David Morton I have talked about this a bit in another comment. Paul had no problem with circumcision itself, he even had one of his followers circumcised so they could better preach to the Jews. And that was his main interest, converting the Jewish people. He always went to the Jews first when he went to preach, and preached to the gentiles because the Jews wouldn't listen. He was a man who, inbetween preaching, made his living mending fishing nets, despite once being a wealthy and important priest in Judaism.
I am not really Christian (I am a muslim), I like learning about Christian as ot helps me understand about Christ (Isa A.S), while also following my own religion way
I found this channel years ago and i just liked the idea of getting in the mind of a game developer. Now im learning about ancient cities and wars of the past. Man i love it.
The History of Rome Podcast is a great place to pickup the details on the state of the Roman state that are clearly going to need to be glossed over to focus on Christianity's issues.
This video is amazing. I love when people are able to talk about what happens in a faith without having to say “I am ___” or “I’m not ___” I love the concept of theology, the historical aspects that went in to making the religions what they are today fascinated me.
2:16 no, Paul was not cherry picking some Jewish law and some not for the sake of growing a religion and making Gentiles join to make it a powerful force, he was showing that the message of the gospel was for everyone and therefore did not rely on the Jewish family rites God set them apart with but rather enabled everyone into the kingdom through Jesus. It's a subtle difference but the point is that he was telling the truth, not just making tactical decisions.
+SmokeySmudgeStudio That viewpoint requires a belief in a "kingdom" to be welcomed to. While that may have been his intent, it was also a clever move that appealed to the Gentiles.
YAY cool stuff! I appreciate your efforts to make an educational video on the basics of this and keep it as unbiased as possible. Love your history stuff keep it up!
Galatians 5 is actuality talking about the fact that faith is only required to be a Christian - you don't need to follow the Jewish laws. Basically grace(death&resurrection of Jesus) replaces the law(salvation is works based). Beleave it or not the Judaizers where sitting in the middle of both faiths which is problematic because they were still trying to hold onto the Jewish laws - which where made redundant because of grace. Paul uses the imagery of being circumcised as flowing Jewish laws - if you following the Jewish laws you can't be a Christian and your not saved by grace. Remembering that circumcision was what visually separated Jews and non Jews and the gentiles and Jews; who had switched to Christianity, would have known that. Paul is not trying to remove circumcision so that Christianity is more appealing to people. Paul had the same problem with the church in Corinth with the Sophists - which were adding to 'saved by faith'. In a nut shell they were saying Paul was only ~80% right what you relay need is faith and... insert things you must do as well to be a Christian. Remember don't just quote lines from the bible - sounding content is insanely important when understanding passages. If you read ch5v1 'It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.' you would have got the content of v2. Their is a reason the heading of ch5:v1-12 is titled Freedom in Christ.
Demosthenes6666 mate you missed the point I was getting at completely. The point was that what they said '' 28 00:01:53,530 --> 00:01:57,60 judaism christians the Christians who wanted to follow the Mosaic law is 28 00:01:53,530 --> 00:01:57,60 judaism christians the Christians who wanted to follow the Mosaic law is 30 00:02:00,259 --> 00:02:03,950 anesthetic when you're asking grown men to have their foreskin cut off as the 31 00:02:03,950 --> 00:02:07,360 entry fee for joining your religion you're just not gonna get as many takers 32 00:02:07,360 --> 00:02:11,870 and this is why Paul rails against circumcision in the book of Galatians he 33 00:02:11,870 --> 00:02:15,330 like many of those we now consider Church Fathers knew that for the 34 00:02:15,330 --> 00:02:19,129 religion to really grow for it to really be a force they would have to convert 35 00:02:19,129 --> 00:02:23,18 the Gentiles the people of the Roman Empire and the only way to do that was 36 00:02:23,19 --> 00:02:26,530 to abandon some of the Jewish practices those people would find the hardest to " The reasoning for no circumcision is not: make as Christianity more appealing to non Jews. Instead it should be: you don't need to be circumcised/ the Jewish law because its unnecessary when your a Christian and has no effect on your salvation. This result in being saved by grace and not grace and your 'good works' or just your 'good works'.
Great video, guys! Consider perhaps backtracking sometime to talk about Marcion and his impact on doctrine. The only thing I would endeavor to correct is the motivation you give for Paul railing against the observance of Mosaic Law (including circumcision) required by Judaizers. You make it out to be a utilitarian calculation: 'Well, we can't grow with a high bar of entry like dick-chopping; gotta make things simpler!' This was one of the accusations made against Paul by the Judaizers, namely, that he had watered down the gospel to appeal to Gentiles. But we do not have any record of Paul thinking in such bare, pragmatic terms, and he clearly gives his reason for eschewing gentile circumcision several times (over and again in his letters to the churches in Rome, Galatia). He understanding was that if one could be saved by observing the law, then Jesus' death was needless; that the law was given to reveal sin (i.e. the hopelessness of the human condition and consequent need for a savior); that salvation is only by grace made available by Jesus, the sacrificial lamb foretold by the Mosaic law's requirements of sacrifice, through his redeeming death on the cross; and that the New Covenant of grace was superior to and the fulfillment of the Abrahamic and Mosaic Covenants, for by grace, in Christ, they have received deliverance from sin and power to "live by the Spirit" and no longer according to the sinful nature. The Law was to the Cross as a shadow to the real thing. Paul was Pharisee, and was, therefore, trained to value purity of convert over number--but he was encountered by Christ and it was the gospel theology, not pragmatism and a desire for converts by any means, that led him to combat the Judaizers and suggest that they castrate themselves. Other than that, thanks for the video guys! I look forward to the next.
Hey guys! Love your EH videos, and it looks like you're approaching this topic with the sensitivity it deserves, as you did with the treatment of nazi symbols in previous series. My one complaint is what I might call a slight mis-representation of Paul's "motivations" for the removal of circumcision. I think what you guys say here presents an absolutely valid *theory* about what could *potentially* be a "motivation" for this, but I think it's really hard to nail down this as "the motivation" for circumcision's removal. I would just prefer something far more interpretive like this to be presented as just that: an interpretation. But I do know you guys keep these short and simplified, but I hope you address this in the "lies" video, or just take a less hard line stance on what is essentially unknowable history. Looking forward to the rest!
This is a great video, and I'm glad you made it. However, one criticism I have is the way you portray the motives of the early Christians. Intentionally or not, you make their desire to spread the gospel of Christ sound like a business venture instead of a truth they were so convinced of that they were willing to die for it. For example, John wasn't arguing for Christ "in the flesh" because he felt the story needed to have real sacrifice in order to tug at people's heart strings and get them to sign up. It's because he LITERALLY KNEW Christ. He was squashing rumors.
+David Rutledge This comment sums up the entire comment section perfectly. It isn't pro or anti Christian, it's just truth (unless you are against "Historial Jesus"). Thank you.
+David Rutledge The idea they Jesus was a spirit does not imply he was a ghost, just that it was God in human shape all along. And it was paul that argued this line the most and he lived long after Jesus.
+Carewolf Paul didn't live "long after" Jesus. It was the same century. Regardless, I'm still trying to figure out if you're arguing that Christ was a spirit.
This is my third time watching this because I am studying Byzantine history and this is still hard to remember. Edit:Fourth-Studying Byzantium needs this
I’m glad to see this history covered! One issue: Is there much to suggest that Paul was primarily thinking about the faith’s accessibility to gentiles in the circumcision question? His letters seem to indicate a well-thought-out, earnest argument from faith that is consistent with Gospel accounts in which Jesus was questioned about Mosaic law. Similar to dietary restrictions, and other Pharisee complaints. Cheers and thank you for a solid, historical video!
Yaaaaas, thank you EH! It is so frustrating that so few people in our society really understand that what religion was in other times wasn't necessarily thought about the same way as we in the Western world take for granted that religion must be today. Please, keep doing more of this.
OK I would just like to say that this was actually really interesting and great to watch! I was assigned this to watch from my teacher for an essay, and I expected another boring slow video that I didn't understand. Thanks for helping me!!
The very first Extra History episode voted on was the South Seas bubble. Nitty-gritty details aren't going to bother us. Though the importance of such details might well amuse us...
funny thing is that different racial groups depict Jesus as different races. Early Chinese Christians had painted scrolls of an Asian Jesus and Christian Africans depicted him as black. So it's not so much a "white supremacist" thing and more of just a human thing.
Something new to look forward to! This a pretty good presentation of the time and place. Still, there were a few errors and misconceptions I would like to cover on the points you made. Circumcision wasn't really the main concern. It's the popular modern one because, "ah! Pain!" and so you seem to have overemphasized it. People are terrified to go to the dentist these days. But this is a world where you might sell yourself to a gladiator school to get famous or pay off debts, where a trip to the dentist did not have anesthetics fancier than alcohol and (sometimes) recreational drugs. The real issue, is circumcision is part of following the Law of Moses. Many Christians were willing to do that, but it has an unfortunate implication. Failing to keep the whole Law was damning, it was a system of relying on your own righteousness. It's the reason the Christ had to be sacrificed so others could be spared from the Law. This is what the Christians preaching circumcision were teaching, that you had to keep the Law of Moses to get into heaven. To say Paul wanted to convert the gentiles to get a large church is entirely backwards. Paul's primary interest was converting the Jews. He went to the gentiles because the Jews refused to listen to him. His goal was never for importance or power, but to save everyone he could, because he felt guilty for killing and imprisoning Christians before his conversion. Even when he was sentenced to be beheaded, he preached to the Roman soldiers guarding him, and talked about himself feeling blessed in his letters to the rest of the church (where he was comforting them, when it should've been the other way around). Nor did Paul take issue with circumcision. He had one of his gentile followers circumcised just so it would be easier for him to help him preach to the Jews. He preached that people should instead circumcise their hearts for God, worshiping him with their spirits and not just their bodies. One thing I'm disappointed got missed out (or might get mentioned later), was Constantine's law of tolerance was not mentioned. It was a law that forbade mistreating each other on the basis of religion, and it was before he came to absolute power--which is notable, as his opponent could've easily blocked the law. Under this law of tolerance, that is when Christianity boomed, until the cities were almost entirely Christian. An unfortunate mistake that came later was when a law was declared that everyone in the empire must be Christian. This wasn't good for Pagans or Christians. The last point I will make, is that saying the Christians argued about the nature of Christ, "because they wanted someone they could sympathize with," is a hindsight reflection and injection of practicalism, rather than a reflection of the feelings at the time. The early Christians were willing to put up with persecution because they honestly believed this was the truth, and so it was important to them that they preached the actual truth and not just a convenient truth. If they wanted a convenient truth, they would've picked something with less persecution. I hope you found this interesting to read and educational on the subject. Thanks again to Extra History for making this episode in a too ignored part of Roman history.
I couldn't read the whole thing because the lines being so close hurts my eye's, but you seem pretty knowledgeable. Are you one of Jehovah's Witnesses by any chance?
+Hans Smirnov Realy intresting and educational.By any chance do you know why Catholic and Orthodox Easters are on diffrent days,becouse ours is tomorow and the Catholics had it a while ago.
+Hans Smirnov "If they wanted a convenient truth, they would've picked something with less persecution." Very well put. When discussions of religion come up, people seem to forget that the followers actually believed it, and tend to reduce it to politics and power grabs. Thank you for the addition to the conversation!
I'm sorry, but circumcision was not "abandoned" just to convert Gentiles. Gentiles were following Jesus before that question EVER came up, as seen in acts, with the Spirit coming upon several Gentiles according to witness from times before the meeting in Jerusalem discussing circumcision and mosaic law
This is great that you're covering The Christian Church and its history; its long and so enrolled in our culture we gloss over it so easily. Thanks for the extra history series!!!! I love the animations and your topics!! -from a Catholic History Geek 🇻🇦😊
Ohhh so that's why. It creeped me the fuck out to be told I needed to eat the body of Christ as a kid. Metaphor and hyperbole always went over my head then.
+Minihood31770 Transubstantiation is a Catholic teaching that the bread and wine consumed during eucharist (communion is mostly used by Protestants, but many Catholics use the term since it is easier to say, lol) transforms into the actual body and blood of Jesus.
+Krebons1200 See, kids don't understand things like complex metaphors, certainly not abstract platonic notions like "essences"when you're teaching them about communion--just tell them that we do it in remembrance of Christ's sacrifice. As they get older, their faith will mature.
+The Ethannator yup. thats part of what pushed me away from the faith. The association of christianity and cannibalism was tattooed into my brain, and when we moved to a place where there was no church, I went nope, I ain't doin that shit no more. I like not eating people.
+volk551 I dunno but somehow the Horus Heresy is awfully similiar like the fate of our real rome An upcoming religion destroying the biggest empire in the world/galaxy
All good. Only the part about Judaizers. Apostle Paul didn't preach against circumcision to gain followers who would otherwise fear the pain. He preached against it because Mosaic Law cannot justify men. It is superfluous. By baptism are men justified. That's the point.
I am so happy you guys have the guts to do a series on this stuff. I'm not a practicing Christian anymore, but I studied this stuff in college. To me, the history of early Christianity is the biggest most fascinating era of European history that people dismiss out of hand. God and theology aren't trendy these days, but c'mon. This era consisted of a few centuries' worth of philosophy wars whose consequences would be reverberate for a millennium. That's objectively interesting. Really looking forward to the rest of this series!
Dude, thanks a lot! For me, this was one of a kind among all the other sources when it comes to clarifying and explaining about early church history in animated features. Again, thank you!
I think Constantine should have his own extra history series
definitely
100%
hell ya
+The Garden of E sim 117 Constantine, master of the Roman Empire. And of ye olde bowl cut.
+The Garden of E sim 117 Totally agree, he is hands down my favorite DC/Vertigo character.
One thing that I love about the Extra Credits team, is how fair and respectful they are to other's beliefs. Not to mention really well researched too.
+Marleena Ulry
”That Paul knowing that Christianity needed to grow and would need to abandon some of the harder laws in Judaism”
Circumcision was a sign of a person entering the old covenant that Jews had with YHWH and now that the old covenant was fulfilled with Christ’s sacrifice the new covenant began.
The new covenant did does not require circumcision to enter.
The point of the book of Galations is not that ”we need to make a religion more accessible to the world,” but to say ”the old covenant is practices are over and we they are no longer required as Christ has completed the work.”
The error that they fall in is the Marcionism heresy, that there is no connection between the old and new covenants and that Paul did not actually believe that Christ had anything to do with the old law.
They need to realize that Paul actually believed his religion; and would not encourage practitioners to compromise just to make try and make more converts.
+MrHogarth45 () We don't know what Paul truly believed, so they take the more probable route instead of the belief-bound one.
MrHogarth45 I will admit, the way they had worded that part did bug me a bit too. I do hope that they will cover that in the "lies" video. But I remember them saying in one video, that James is still searching for what to believe in. So I can see how he can a mistake like that. But what I'm really been referring to is that so far when it comes to religion, they are quite honest about it. They show how the beliefs that people had, had a big impact on history. And yet they've never called any religion wrong or bad. When they did the crusade series, I was afraid that they would make it sound like Christians are a brunch of hateful hypocrites, blindly following a "loving" message. But instead, they showed that the crusade itself really had more to do with politics and Christianity was more of an excuse to justify it.
RubberyCat
If only he left a series of letters and books explaining what it was he believed.
MrHogarth45
Except those books weren't diaries.
They were messages to other believers of the faith, of such a grade that they weren't unlike political messages, to stay "true" to what HE thought was best.
So, I dare say that those scriptures are not proof of what he actually believed in when it comes to Jesus and God, they merely show what he thought was best that _others_ did, and perhaps believed in.
A thing to notice about John and the docetist: John was the youngest of the apostles (he was at least 16-18 years old) and wrote his letters and evangely when he was an old man, Imagine that a group of people started to say that the person you followed, eated with and saw suffer in a cross, wasn't real... I'm pretty sure John was very angry at the docetist or at least insulted by them.
Not to mention Paul who was alive during the time of Jesus. I'm sure he would go to his death for someone he knew did not exist.
@Zed You're thinking of John the Baptist, not the same person as John the Apostle.
The gospels were not written by the people they were named after. The gospels were written anonymously and the names were added years later.
@@TBrewer64 Author of Gospel of John kinda identifies as the Beloved Disciple, though scholars still argue about the authorship.
@@KasumiRINA One thing scholars agree on is that the gospel was not written by a single hand... And John's hands directly is not one of those hands
For the first time in youtube history, the comment section is actually decent in a religion video.
+Dark Digidragon - Indeed. I'm finding that amazing as well. **hoping this comment doesn't suddenly become ironic**
the storm is yet to come.😐😐😐
+Dark Digidragon Can't wait for the extra history series on it.
+Dark Digidragon I the time since this comment, the trolls have begun to circle. And it has only been three hours.
*Drops cherry bomb
As a Catholic and a passionate lover of history, I am going to enjoy watching this series on something I know very little of.
+HuntingTheEnd V. The irony of some of us Christians huh? Either way it's gonna be a fun series
I agree. Sure it's not the most pleasant topic to look at, but the more you know I guess.
Peace Ribbon Yeah, everybody loves good ol' fashion mauled Christians *sarcasm sarcasm*
Adam Johnson I agree but I find it important to view this in a historic and factual fashion
+Adam Johnson Those things bothered me a bit too, and if you hadn't brought them up I likely would have. Still, all things considered, if that is the worst that can be said I think they did a pretty good job for telling it from a secular perspective. It was quite well done for a video of it's type.
You mean... They didn't just research Theology, Civil Service, Guilds or Metal Casting?
+GamingDriveIn or got Humanity Ideas over Quality Ideas? Heresy I say!!
+W.A.R humanity ideas!? WHAT ARE YOU, LITHUANIA!?
no, what you need is religious ideas so that expanding into Asia won't shatter your empire
+W.A.R No no you need to increase stability and get a theologian to pass Sunday school.
+W.A.R I got both...
Old faithful No, no you need 20 martial skill to beat a Aztec invasion.
The importance of circumcision in Rome's decision is pretty funny, but not quite as funny as the roll alcohol played in the conversion of Kieven Rus from Norse Paganism. In the 900s AD the Muslims were in their Golden Age and had greater military might, science, medicine, and artistic culture than the Christians. The Rus were leaning Islam, but the second they heard alcohol was banned, they threw out the Islamic missionaries and declared for East Orthodox Christianity of the Byzantine Empire.
The Eastern Roman Empire were argueable to be equals of the Islamic caliphate of that era. They had are resurging during the Armenian dynasty and even nearly took Jerusalem. A clear indicator that Islam was not of greater military might, two centuries ago they failed to bring down the Empire at its darkest hour .
Not to mention both culturally and scientifically the Romans and Muslims were on par with the former being culturally focused than the latter who was more scientific.
Alchol plays a role but not to that extent. The Romans have more influence and were already well known than the muslims and the fact pork and alchol were banned pushed Vladimir to go to the Romans.
Infantry tactics I was partially trying to get some laughs, but you are correct that the actual history is more complex than the Primary Chronicles make it out, which is one of many reasons that the accuracy of the Rus Primary Chronicles is debated by modern historians. Ancient historians were at least as concerned in telling a good story as actually being accurate. There is NO WAY that the Greco-Persian War went down exactly like Herodotus stated because the logistics would make it impossible for the Persian Army to have been half as large as he said. He also flat out made shit up on a regular basis like people in Africa with faces on their stomachs.
gantzisballs I agree. History is always skewered one way or another; Herodotus to Procopius, etc are all clear examples. In fact as you said they twist what happened in order to get their point across.
Also, Islamic Culture was advanced, but don't think that means that they were way superior to the west. Europe was better than the East at some things, and the East was better than Europe at other things.
That and the Muslim ban on eating pork, because the Kieven Rus love them their bacon almost as much as their booze.
As a Catholic and lover of history, I have to say this seems like it is going to be my favorite so far. And please do more like this concerning the other major religions of the world.
When I saw "Disclaimer" I expected some warning about how the comments to this video might appear. Actually, after scrolling down, I'm pretty impressed with how tame these are, nearly a week after this video was released.
I wonder if this can be recognized as a miracle.
I think that's because the content of extra credits is more about the essence of a good games which attracted a more mature gamer, specially those that are interested in game mechanics and such, which eventually lead into extra history where some of those mature gamers wanted to learn more about the history that is involve in some of their favorite games (Civilization, Europa universalis, crusader kingdom)... of maybe it's just a miracle
I've got an observation. This channels is just starting to be popular. hence imo only those with the interest of the said subjects will search out these videos for the academic purposes. That is until it gets more popular and the less, let's say "Educated/Intelligent" people start rolling in and starting their shit.
shh, the trolls haven't found us yet.
Saar Korren And still tame a year later.
WOW INTERNET. GOOD JOB.
This must be Walpoles doing!
Great videos. As a Muslim I have always been intrigued by Christianity's early theological debates in comparison to our faith but always found it hard to concentrate due to the lets face it dense nature of the topic. These extra credit videos really make complicated matters so much easier to understand. Thanks guys!
It honestly just reminds me of how many pagan rituals were added and how Isa's revelation was changed in order to bring in new followers. alhamdullilah, i thank god for Islam and for his reminder "the Quran"
Brother we believe they have such core problems early on is because the new testament is corrupted because we don't know who wrote them, and the contradictions that happened due to Paul ideas.
When we see Islam the core beliefs are understood and secured but when foreign knowledge have appeared and translated the new ideas have started to conflict with the schoolers, unlike Christianity where a lot of change the theology based on their understanding.
Have you been introduced to the taqiya, to lie if it benefits your religion?
I believe in a God of truth, that to lie is to go against Him. And the truth is that multiple scholars, christians and otherwise studied not only the books from the Bible, but the evidences regarding the resurrection of Christ.
Islam was the one who had multiple versions burned because there were so many. You can deny this as much as you want, but if you listen to your own imams, they'll admit this.
@@JoshuaLTDSYou don't know how Islam works or how it started. So stop. Where is this info coming from? Where are your sources?
@@JoshuaLTDSExplain why there's more earthquakes and violence now n days?
Understanding the theological struggles of the early Christian church is vital to understanding history, especially in the Roman world.
+Extra Credits Yes! Thank you for making this series, it is going to be an interesting ride. On the note of understanding this subject, I would like to add something that should be considered in the matters covered:
Circumcision wasn't really the main concern. It's the popular modern one because, "ah! Pain!" and so you seem to have overemphasized it. People are terrified to go to the dentist these days. But this is a world where you might sell yourself to a gladiator school to get famous or pay off debts, where a trip to the dentist did not have anesthetics fancier than alcohol and (sometimes) recreational drugs. The real issue, is circumcision is part of following the Law of Moses. Many Christians were willing to do that, but it has an unfortunate implication. Failing to keep the whole Law was damning, it was a system of relying on your own righteousness. It's the reason the Christ had to be sacrificed so others could be spared from the Law.
This is what the Christians preaching circumcision were teaching, that you had to keep the Law of Moses to get into heaven.
To say Paul wanted to convert the gentiles to get a large church is entirely backwards. Paul's primary interest was converting the Jews. He went to the gentiles because the Jews refused to listen to him. His goal was never for importance or power, but to save everyone he could, because he felt guilty for killing and imprisoning Christians before his conversion. Even when he was sentenced to be beheaded, he preached to the Roman soldiers guarding him, and talked about himself feeling blessed in his letters to the rest of the church (where he was comforting them, when it should've been the other way around).
Nor did Paul take issue with circumcision. He had one of his gentile followers circumcised just so it would be easier for him to help him preach to the Jews. He preached that people should instead circumcise their hearts for God, worshipping him with their spirits and not just their bodies.
One thing I'm disappointed got missed out (or might get mentioned later), was Constantine's law of tolerance was not mentioned. It was a law that forbade mistreating each other on the basis of religion, and it was before he came to absolute power--which is notable, as his opponent could've easily blocked the law. Under this law of tolerance, that is when Christianity boomed, until the cities were almost entirely Christian. An unfortunate mistake that came later was when a law was declared that everyone in the empire must be Christian. This wasn't good for Pagans or Christians.
The last point I will make, is that saying the Christians argued about the nature of Christ, "because they wanted someone they could sympathize with," is a hindsight reflection and injection of practicalism, rather than a reflection of the feelings at the time. The early Christians were willing to put up with persecution because they honestly believed this was the truth, and so it was important to them that they preached the actual truth and not just a convenient truth. If they wanted a convenient truth, they would've picked something with less persecution.
Thank you for making this episode! I look forward to watching more of these.
+Hans Smirnov Well said.
+Extra Credits Turns out there were some practical reasons for Christians being so picky about parts of their faith, as opposed to simply being obsessive over minor details.
+MagnuMagnus Just goes to show that every minor detail is a HUGE deal breaker to someone else. Good to remember. :)
+Extra Credits Did you guys pillage The Great War Channel's page and stole his Chair of Wisdom?
For anyone wondering 'ΙΧΘΥΣ' (read as 'Ihthis' in Greek) translates to fish in Greek. However every letter of the word, 'ΙΧΘΥΣ' is a word and if u analyze it, it reads 'Ιησούς Χριστός Θεού Υιός Σωτήρ' which in Greek means 'Jesus Christ God's son savior' . It was a way of identifying Christian communities. Similar but in a more subtle way was the symbol of the cartwheel carved nearby harbors. The word ΙΧΘΥΣ is hidden in this symbol too! I fancy the timing with holy Saturday for the orthodox Easter today! Looking forward to watching the rest of the series :D
+613 The Evil έκανα κήρυγμα και δεν το κατάλαβα; XD
+projecta3halkida εχει ελληνικο κοινό το extra credits?? μου δινει ελπίδα ;)
+projecta3halkida good to know cause we coptics use this symbol alot although we are not greeks :D
+ZettaGale Τι λέει?
+projecta3halkida all correct except for the pronunciation. the pronunciation of Koine Greek at the time is more like Ich-Thus ("ich" is like the word Ich in German, the "th" at the time actually sounded like a "t" with a puff of air kinda like the word "tin" in American English, and the "u" is a long u and sounded like the French long u or like a German umlaut).
You know I found this series to be far more interesting than I thought I would. Religious history usually occupies the lower tiers of my list of historical interests, but what can I say, this group is just good enough to make anything engaging.
>Lots of details about the early Christian church.
Yes.
>Schisms in schools of thought and doctrine.
YES.
>The ripple effects felt in today's culture.
YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAS.
'Yaaas' should be prohibited by law.
@@korppi164 extontable
@@korppi164 yes.
the doctrinal stuff is pointless now
this will be a nice series ,would love to see the schism between the sunni's and shia's too, might help people understand about current conflicts
+feyzinator An interesting idea. I support this! Especially because Western misunderstanding of the ethnic and cultural ways of the Middle East, where is Islam is strongest, led to the Sykes-Picot agreement post-WWI that is responsible for much of the chaos in that region today.
+feyzinator Definately - More thumbs up needed.
However, not just the two main sects. It would be nice to know about the Asian cultures that led to the writings of "The Prophet" and why people felt the need to follow this branch so strongly, instead of the other existing Judeo-Christian branches and their established teachings.
+feyzinator That would be really quite awesome. Maybe with a little bit of discussion about islamic mysticism (Sufism) and the Ibadi school as well? :D
Maxwell Sacra perhaps, but the msot problems come from sunni and shia conflicts and those 2 are the biggest parts in islam, sufism and ibadi makes less than 1%
:D I know, but I love those little details too, and I'm interested to see other people's perspectives on these little known, yet still historically important sects, orders and schools of Islam.
I'd love to see a future series on how the Buddhist faith was spread and how it split.
As Catholic, I would love to see this as well along with the splits in Islam that are still so prevalent today
Agreed, I'd love to see that.
joaov2 I though the story was that Buddha wanted people to follow the middle ground because he saw people starving themselves and tried it and came to the conclusion that it's no better than living in luxury?
+Randygandalf95 Great idea. Extra Credits could tie that in with the Sengoku Jidai series as religion also played a role in that period. Thanks for that.
+Randygandalf95 Yes this please!
Absolutely awesome. While the big schism between Catholicism and Protestantism is important, the early, relatively smaller schisms really show how christian theologians were trying to define what made a christian a christian. Loving this topic already.
+DracoDragon117 Don't the "Great Schism" that separated the Catholic West and Eastern Orthodox East.
+Vigil I've always been taught that the "Great Schism" was actually the one with the Pope and the Antipope in Avignon.
+Maxben L That event is called the Babylonian Captivity, not the Great Schism.
+DracoDragon117 "smaller"
+DracoDragon117 Both the Avignon Schism and the East-West-Schism are called the "Great Schism" in different books and websites, as far as I remember, never the Reformation though. It's always the frame of reference that defines "Great" and "Big", and the former two definitely were the biggest schisms in the history of Catholic / Chalcedonian Christianity until then (as of the time the first people started to record them).
If you find it strange that they would have named two such different events (in time and location at least) the same, and the Reformation as well, apparently, consider this: If you asked random people in history when "The Great War" happened, you might find all kinds of different answers spanning from the Egyptian pharaos to WW I.
Wow! I've been teaching this in my bible study but now have a great illustrated video to go with it. Thank you Extra Credits!
+Shaun McMillan cool jazz man
bible study? Need to know more please
+Shaun McMillan Have you read Irenaeus's Against Heresies (sometimes published as Scandal of the Incarnation)? It's about Gnosticism, and can be a little dense at times, but man if it's not powerful stuff.
+H. Leo mind explaining what a "cancer stop" is
+PrimroseFrost gnosticism thats a new one im looking that up. being agnostic maybe it will hold some significance for me or maybe not meh fun either way.
Thank you for adding Spanish subtitles. I love history and love talking about it with my mother who is a Theologist but she only speaks Spanish. I have been wanting to share this video series with her for months so that we can discuss it more.
A fairly good episode, and it gets a lot of stuff spot on from a mostly neutral standpoint. But I definitely take issue with your assertion that Paul wrote about circumcision no longer being needed because he wanted to 'make the faith more accessible' and increase its numbers. The idea that he wanted to 'water down the harder parts to make it more acceptable' absolutely flies in the face of everything Paul wrote and stood for.
+Link0304 Exactly! That was my only real complaint about the video. It was overall a very well done video. However, as you pointed out, Paul most assuredly didn't say those things simply to garner more converts. Paul's main contention with the Judaizers was that the whole notion that salvation came by following the mosaic law was a fiction: the law brings wrath (Romans 4:15). Paul was saying what Jesus maintained: the dominant Jewish/rabbinic interpretation of law was incorrect. This was vastly more radical than 'making faith more accessible': there was a reason why the ruling Jewish leaders wanted to kill off Jesus and squash his following. And this is what makes Paul so special: he had been one of those who endeavored to stop the Christian message, going so far as to oversee the martyrdom of Stephen (an early christian convert). So when Paul became a Christian he understood the opposition but now agreed with Jesus so what became Christianity is the continuation of true Judaism (for the prophesied messiah talked about in the Torah/prophets was Jesus)
The only other quibble, really, is that they use "C.E" for Common Era rather than A.D.
The only reason BCE and CE exist is because weirdos can't accept that our calendar hinges on the historical person Jesus and BC/AD triggers them and removes them from their safe place :)
+The Basement Or maybe because no solid evidence exists of a living person in history known as Jesus Christ. Basing something as important as a dating system on the unrecorded birth of a possibly nonexistent person doesn't make much sense to me.
C.E. and B.C.E. both make far more sense as one can state the year, keeping to the previous method as to reduce hassle, while not having to worry about being incorrect about the birth or death of a possibly fictional character.
Arainn Daley The historical Jesus would be known as Jesus of Nazareth, not Jesus Christ. "Christ" is a title, and it's a far different case to accept that a guy named Jesus from the town of Nazareth existed at the time the bible says - there are many sources outside of the bible that support this, including (but not limited to) Thallus, Tacitus and Mara Bar-Serapion. These are pagan historians who deny the deity of Jesus.
The most famous non-biblical account of Jesus is Josephus' writings. Josephus was Jewish and denied that Jesus was the messiah fortold by the Old Testament. He goes into great detail about Jesus.
The position that "Jesus did not exist" (regardless of how you feel about him) is practically non-existent and not taken seriously in academic studies of history.
+The Basement I said solid evidence. In other words reliable, authentic evidence from the time of Jesus' supposed life and from a reliable source. If you have unquestionable proof that a Jesus of Nazareth lived circa 0 C.E. then I will take your claim that Jesus existed seriously and retract my previous statement saying that it is possible that he didn't.
Dang, imagine if almost half the people within one modern day country changed their religion in such short a time.
+Maz H Or pretended to.
+doombybbr What's the difference?
Gentel Noober
A lot as far as the church is concerned
+Maz H Japan post-WWII is probably the first example I can think of, where the transition was even faster.
+GreyWolfLeaderTW But Shintoism as it is today may be argued to be a different religion from the State Shinto enforced by the government at the time. Yeah, it's not the same as adopting an entirely different religion in name as well as faith, but I reckon it's a pretty good modern approximate. Nation-wide shift in a belief system within a decade, at least.
I expected the comment section to be much worse.
Me too
Here on Extra History, the commenters tend to be intelligent and civilized. It's nice, isn't it?
+Jude Pelaez Ha! Not all the time buddy! I've seen these guys nearly crucified for accidentally leaving out the smallest details, I wish intelligence translated over to civility, then we'd already be living in utopia.
+NetherWalker Na, intelligence increases sorcery catalyst and crystal weapon scaling, as well as being a prerequisite for everything from Soul Spear to Soul Stream and adjusting the power of Dark magic and pyromancies (along with Faith).
+Jude Pelaez it seems like you haven't seen the comment section in the Suleiman and WWII videos then
@Extra Credits As a Christian I appreciate the tone you are taking with this. Personally, I don't agree with all of your explanations but I suppose that is to be expected haha
If I may offer a counter point to the idea that Circumcision was removed due to it being too big of a barrier to entry and so was removed.
The issue with circumcision was that in the old Jewish law circumcision was an outward sign of the covenant that Israel (not none-Jews) had with God. When Christ died he fulfilled the old law rendering the need for circumcision in that capacity. The point of the death of Christ was that HE was paying for our sins and one of the results was that it ended the Jewish need of paying for sins through animal sacrifice.
Requiring gentile christian to be circumcised was attacking the foundation of Christianity (If you take Christianity to be what Jesus taught and what was recorded in the four gospels) which is that faith in Christ alone is what saves us, not any act that we ourselves practice or do, e.g. circumcision.
If anyone has questions regarding this series for an honest to God Christian, feel free to ask. I will do my best to answer them.
The Gentiles were also forced to do Jewish festivals which Paul wrote were unnecessary since Christ died on the law and a new better covenant was established with humanity and not just the jews
+Ian MacInnis I feel this ultimately is an answer very coloured by the Reformation and Protestant movement (I would be interested to know what denomination if any you do regard yourself). The early Church did and indeed the Catholic Church do regard acts as being possible routes to salvation and priests as crucial mediators between oneself and God/Scripture. This was partly for practical and partly theological reasons. Quite simply Catholics regard repentance through confession; partaking of the Communion, which through the doctrine of transubstantiation, is the literal partaking of the flesh and blood of Christ; and baptism as key to salvation. All these are indispensible and, of course, the Catholics regard their specific versions of these practises as the true way to assure salvation. All of these doctrines can be supported by NT passages. While Catholics acknowledge someone might manage to meet these criteria in spirit without membership of the Church, they regard it as deeply unlikely and thus it is their mission to preserve the Catholic Church and convert new members to the Church in order to assure their salvation. Anyone who willfully turns away from these doctrines or other key Catholic doctrines is, at least traditionally, put beyond salvation short of earnest repentance, penitence and returning to the Church fold.
Thus to say that for all Christians faith in Christ alone is all that is required for salvation is simply not true and in the early church one could see why circumcision could have been regarded as a necessary article of faith for Christians too, especially ones who were Israelites/Jews. No-one had really developed ossified doctrines of salvation yet so who could say what was necessary for salvation or for professing one's faith to God. That's what the whole argument was about. While Paul could draw upon theological justifications for not requiring circumcision as doctrine, it would certainly be an incomplete explanation to exclude the practical concerns (probable practical concerns) of Church Fathers such as Paul. Paul is developing the theological arguments you just used to counter the EC explanation! So it seems a little invalid, at least from a historical perspective, to turn around and say they are wrong using the very arguments Paul helped to write and that were later including in the NT because the doctrine of not requiring circumsion of the gentiles won out.
NB: I do not say this to offend and am an atheist who studies religion not a practising Catholic and certainly not a Catholic priest. This is a rough repetition of Catholic doctrine regarding salvaltion as I remember it and any mistakes are errors due to ignorance or poor memory not malice. I do not assert this doctrine as true or false except insofar as I believe it is the erstwhile belief of many traditional Catholics across the globe and remains Church doctrine, though the Church is softening its stance regarding baptisms of desire and ways of possibly being saved outside of the Church through ernest but naive faith in God (that is to say faith in one Christian God without all Catholic doctrine and living in rough accordance with core Catholic morality).
+George Laidlaw the early church believed in both faith and works as stated in the epistle of James works alone could not save which according to Paul is just plain legalism as did Jesus when he did that the Pharisees followed the Law but inside were white dry tombs
Todd Crane
Obviously you require faith. A central tenent of every single religion is faith and part of the Catholic faith includes the obligation to perform certain acts from attending Mass to confessions (ideally weekly) and baptism. My point was there are many Christian denominations that requires acts in addition to faith. I was pointing out that requiring acts as part of faith and salvation is not attacking the foundation of Christianity, rather it is attacking the foundation of most Protestant and Reformist denominations, which is not the same.
In other words, what exactly is your point sir? :P
+George Laidlaw I like that you're actually giving a proper argument instead of the usual "Christianity sucks" spiel I see so often. :3
I've got my Master's in Theology. This is legit.
*about to criticize, since there's 35,000+ denominations of Christianity, but sees the disclaimer symbol popping up again and again*
You win this round Extra Credits...
+abloogywoogywoo I am confused. How would the fact that Christianity has many denominations and sects currently undermine a video exploring the conflicts between the major sects of the early Christian faith which laid the groundwork for many of the later splits that lead to the many denominations we have today? Well that and the Reformation which started its own new branch and I suppose Henry VIII with the Anglican Church all because he wanted a younger, prettier, hopefully more fertile wife.
+GreyWolfLeaderTW I'd say there are millions of permutations of it, given most people pick and choose what to believe in and disregard. Otherwise, A large portion of the world population wouldn't wear mixed fabric clothing, eat pork or shellfish, or work on the Sabbath. There would be a lot more stonings, too.
+abloogywoogywoo *citation needed
Prospoful Psst... Hey, buddy. Have you hear of the internet? Yeah, you cans search stuff on there. See for yourself, there are thousands of established denominations of Christianity alone.
+Crispy Bacon Nope, maybe five major branches. An argument could be made for a few hundred. Definitely not 35,000 though, not a chance.
I find it slightly amusing that apparently being fed to lions was considered to be less alienating that circumcision to early converts
Those two are hard to compare. Being fed to lions would have been seen as martyrdom and anyone who is willing to die such death must have a lot of faith and must be inspiring to any nonchristian. While being circumcised was seen as more of another stupid rule that "had" to be followed.
Well think of it like the difference between facing a firing squad or having your arms amputated and then left there.
One is certain death but at least it's all over then. The other you have to keep on living with.
+David Lev I think the fact that you didn't actually have to commit *yourself* to martyrdom, just respect others that did had a part to play. In addition, "death before dishonour" is a pretty common theme. While circumcision.....you did.
LensMega You know when you just said it got me thinking, isn't it funny how many times "dying for the cause" is seen as noble in many ideologies across the world or time? I guess it makes some sense as what's more declarative of commitment and that you're not doing this strictly for personal gain than to offer up your life. Still, it's an interesting commonality.
OnceUponATimeThereWasAPersonWithALongUsername.TheElongationOfThatUsernameWasPlainlyLegendary Find what so alienating?
This is your best episode yet. I love that your talking about Christianity fairly on your channel. I love all the research you put in this video. Please continue to make more on Christianity and Jesus. I really enjoyed this.
2:20 incorrect. Paul wrote this because the point he was trying to make was that faith alone causes salvation, not Jewish law. It was also in response to disciples criticizing and discriminating against gentiles.
I concur. It's not that circumcision is abandoned, it's that Jesus the Christ is the fulfillment of the law.
But I'll carry on with the video now...
By grace through faith alone
This is fascinating to see a short secular summary of the early Christian church. And well done, too! Once again, Extra History does not disappoint. It's a very difficult subject to tackle for anyone wanting to avoid mass hysteria in the comments. But I can tell you guys tried very hard to remain both objective and also very respectful, and I really admire that.
I'm no longer a student, nor a Christian, but this time period is fascinating none the less! Can't wait for more!
Are you Muslim or atheist? Just a question.
@@Ami-jc2oo neither. I'm an ex-catholic.
@@displacerkatsidhe Ah. Okay....I was interested :) IS it okay if I ask why? Or is that too personal? You don't need to say.
@@Ami-jc2oo politics of the Christian churches, and how, as this video shows, it's pretty baked it almost from the beginning.
I lean more into spirituality, education, self care, and nature. Not tied specifically to any one religion.
Interesting video, once again!
As a theology student though, I have to correct one thing: circumcision wasn't made not a part of Christianity so that gentiles could join... Circumcision was a symbol of the covenant between God and the Israëlites. (specifically, all descendants of Abraham, Isaak and Jacob.)
There were gentiles that got themselves circumcised in order to enter Judaïsm, but really, it was quite typically a Jewish symbol.
Baptism (as stated in the Bible several times) was the symbol of Christ that came in the stead of circumcision. It's simply a case of a different covenant. Better yet - since being baptised is a sign of being born again, it doesn't matter if you're circumcised before being baptised.
To better understand the position of Jews and Christians, I highly recommend reading Romans 11, since it describes the situation very well and in a very understandable yet complete way. (I recommend reading it through a couple of times, since it's quite nuanced, and you really have to kinda take it in to get the whole picture...)
+Bacon Muffin Baptism is just taken from the Jewish ritual cleansing at the mikvah, its not a symbol of Christ originally. One then wonders why you decided to up the importance of the easier ritual and pushed aside the harder one. Anyhow, the concept of being "born again" is very Protestant, so you may be letting that colour your understanding of early Christianity.
Maxben L Actually, I have to give it to Matthew Chenault for referencing John the Baptist. It's true that Christian baptism has similarities to the Jewish ritual cleansing of mikvah, but the baptism of John the Baptist was obviously one - not primarily of cleansing - but of devotion. And about the importance of baptism in early Christianity - let's not forget that, technically, Christ's first action as Messiah was His baptism...
Let's also not forget that - as opposed to Judaïsm where circumcision is the first step towards joining - traditionally, baptism is the first step towards becoming a Christian in the early church... We see this happening among the Apostles. (for instance, the baptism of the ambassador and the creation of the first European church with Lydia)
Besides that, if you read Romans 11 (which is partially why I recommended James to read it) the Messiah (Yeshua) was originally meant for the Jews, but with their rejection of Christ came salvation for the gentiles. This doesn't mean that God has forsaken the Jews, but rather, has blessed the gentiles and given them the Gospel so that the Jews will recieve the gospel through them. (it's a bit more complicated than how I'm phrasing it right now, but then again, I'll let Paul do the talking for me in Romans 11)
+Bacon Muffin
In the Ancient Egyptian Faith Circumcision was already a thing wasn't it? Didn't the Jews just get it from there?
Broockle Circumcision began with Abraham, and when the Israëlites moved to Egypt for about 300 years, they took it with them...
So it's actually the other way around. The Egyptians got it from the Jews.
Broockle Well it's only the last few generations that were enslaved... don't forget: the Jews moved to Egypt because Joseph had become the king of Egypt (yaknow, the person directly beneath the Pharaoh, the one that actually leads the country) after saving Egypt from hunger that threatened to kill most of the populace.
Also, the Jews - after having conquered Canaan, adopted much of the gods that the Canaanites worshipped... even though they had witnessed their own God... that kinda stuff happens under any circumstances somehow.
I might have to show this to my religion teacher when this series is done.
As a Theologian/Christian, you did a really good job! I was looking for a review. Thank You!
this help me much
im 15 years old boy whose aim in life is to become a pastor
extra history does help me a lot. thanks EC
A return to the extra history I'm a fan of. Away from the needless drama and giving me the information devoid of emotion. Very happy.
I hope you do the stories of Bismarck or Genghis Khan.
+Semt Oyunda Bismark should have gone all Julius Cesar on the King's ass when he got fired. If I were Bismark I'd respond to getting fired by abolishing the whole monarchy .
I'd actually like to see one on Swedish history during the 30 years war and the great northern war.
+greenghost2008 You can't do that in a system where your position is entirely dependent on the monarch, notwithstanding the fact that Bismarck was a self-avowed diehard monarchist.
+Semt Oyunda
Genghis Khan would be interesting. He mangaed to do so many things. Things that were impossible at that time, unless you were, wait for it, the mongols.
+Semt Oyunda For Ghengis Khan, I can only suggest searching for "Hardcore Histroy" and "Wrath of the Khans". That guy makes podcasts about all kinds of historic subjects that are quite pleasant to listen to (in the "grandpa tells war stories" kind of way). Fair warning, though: They are long. Usually several hours per episode.
You also might need to be quick. He only puts the latest episodes up for free - if you want older ones, you have to buy them. And the Khans will be the next ones to get paywalled.
3:06
Question that would pop up again and again, you say? From my personal experience as a practicing Christian (specifically Methodist if that is important to you, not so much to me) with family members in the clergy I can confirm that question STILL comes up to this very day and we STILL have not really settled the issue.
Isn't Christology, like, the whole separate discipline that's the actual biggest dilemma between scholars and priests, like, all the time? Unless I am confusing something.
Fantastic coverage of a fascinating part of history. I'm looking forward to the next episodes!
I'm so excited you guys are doing this. I've studied this period for years and there's just SO much to cover, it's incredibly interesting.
Thank you very much for being willing to talk about this subject. I'm looking forward to getting a peek at this part of history.
Not sure if this was mentioned anywhere earlier, but the reason Paul tells one not to be circumcised isn't because it hurts and he was trying to propagate, or 'sell' the faith, in fact he doesn't even say the physical act of circumcision in of itself is bad, he simply says its of 'no value'... Meaning it's of no value to your being in Christ. This is the absolute heart of the gospel and Christian faith, are we in Christ, are our sins forgiven because we have done something or because Christ has done everything? So the reason Paul railed on the judiasers is because he was defending free grace, to 'die to ones self', let go of everything and take Christ and God alone as your true life-- to 'live to Christ'.
But thank you again James and... I don't know the other writer, for doing your best to be honest with historical material. I pray that you one day too will find yourself dead and Christ to be your life, freely with nothing you do, but him having done all. May we rely on you God and know you. Amen
Aaron Carroll No, Circumcision isn't bad at all, it helped more or less the ancient Hebrews to survive in these harsh environments. Calling it bad is just stupid on you and Paul's behalf, all because of ignorance.
Oooo, this is a _really_ good topic to cover. I've always found it pretty fascinating. Thanks!
I just finished reading Eusebius's Church History and now I've found this! This is great!
I'm an Orthodox Christian, and overall this is a great introduction! When it comes to determining doctrine of the Church, I don't think it would right to portray all the decisions (like the Docetists) as if the Church Fathers were only thinking about maximizing numbers; some decisions were very unpopular, but also had to do with belief in a God of loving sacrifice. Can't wait for more videos!
+Michael Tkaczevski That is extra credit histories one flaw, when they are discussing Christians they always assume that the worst possible motive for their every action was the only one Christians cared about.
+Michael Tkaczevski That was my thought too. But, from a secular viewpoint, I can see how it would be difficult to for someone to simply accept "God said it wasn't necessary any more." I look forward to the rest of the series as well!
+brendan coulter You sound like you're playing the victim here. You seem to have some preconceived ideas on how Extra Credit handles talking about Christianity, and then you watched this? I think you were looking to be offended.
Victim? no. embittered fan who noticed a flaw in some thing he likes and now cant unnoticed it, absolutely. I'm not asking extra credit to pull on the kid gloves with Christianity, I'm just asking for the same impartiality they use when talking about other subjects, or at least an nonalignment that they address it differently because they do. when they are discussing historical figures with non christian back rounds they try to soften the blow of the acts of cruelty they commit, but not so when they talk about Christians. Watch the first crusades and then watch suliman the Magnificent and see how differently they treat the two subjects. This is not unique to extra credit by any means, but I always hoped a small passionate team like this would be down to earth enough to be genuinely impartial, or at least admit their own biases.
It is still a good show but it is flawed, in a way it does not have to be.
@@brendancoulter8996 I noticed that too
This appeared in my UA-cam frontpage today, and I literally cheered out loud when I heard Dan's voice
...i'm getting old
John most likely wasn't taking shots at the Docetists in his epistles. His epistles were written between 85-100, while Docetism appeared as late as 197 (about 100 years later).
Paul didn't get rid of Circumcision in order to grow the religion. You're thinking about this the wrong way. Christianity isn't a business (Or rather it shouldn't be, modern practices non-withstanding). Christ brought a change in how man related to God and how sin was atoned for. Circumcision was an old physical way of showing ownership by God, when Christ was sacrificed on the cross for man's sin, circumcision was no longer necessary. Requiring gentiles to be circumcised would have undermined what Christ did and maintained the Jewish status queue which had become more about self-righteousness than any kind of godliness. Paul's interest wasn't just to gain more converts, his interest was in making sure that people understood what Christ's sacrifice actually meant and that it accomplished the goal of saving as many people as possible form judgment.
Yeah, pretty much what I was thinking. When the church first began, it was mostly made up of Jews, so Paul wanted to clarify that Gentiles were also welcome in the church, and that many of the old laws didn't apply anymore. He also wanted to make sure Jewish *traditions* (not laws, but man-made traditions) were also not misunderstood as vital.
Agreed, I think it's a common misconception for non-Christians to approach members of the faith as though they don't actually believe in what they state. Like as non-Christians view Christianity as an intellectual concept they assume we do so as well. Thus producing statements like "why can't you just change the bible". If you believe in something it has to shape your perception otherwise you don't really believe in it.
I agree that the reason behind Paul's motivation given in this video can be misleading. I've always had the impression that Paul's motivation was also honest (though being pragmatically and honestly motivated aren't mutually exclusive). I don't think there was any ill intent from the EC guys behind it, however. Good video!
Yes. I mean Christianity now leads to spiritual absolutism and perfections with God (Mathew 5:48). Circumstances and all of the material, earthly stuff was no more essential.
I cannot wait for you guys to explain the Council of Nicea it still confuses me and I hope you guys do a great job explaining it.
It helped establish the Catholic Church and basically outlawed Arianism well this is a very dumbed down version the real story is way more complicated
+Francisco Flores It was the making of Roman Christianity by the Roman Emperor, it actually left most Christians of the world as Heretics.
Wasn't expecting Extra Religious Studies today, and honestly as somebody who went to a Catholic High School, this is actually quite easy for me to digest. Keep it up guys!
I love how you talk about history. Showing it from different perspective then it's normally done in schools, talking about people behind it and their plans and emotions. Considering huge spectrum of factors. I would love to see your take on Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, "Golden Liberty", liberum veto and nobles democracy. At a time when most European countries were headed toward centralization, absolute monarchy and religious and dynastic warfare, the Commonwealth experimented with decentralization, democracy and religious tolerance.
This sort of stuff is absolutely fascinating to me for a couple of reasons. 1) Esoteric doctrinal disputes make for fun worldbuilding, so it's always nice to have more to pull from. 2) I'm UU, aka Unitarian-Universalist, which is a branch of christianity* that doesn't believe in the trinity. So seeing debates abt it is especially wild to me.
*asterisk here bc I've seen some compelling arguments that Unitarian-Universalism should maybe be counted as its own religion at this point. Considering how hard it would be to find either a bible or a cross in my church, I'm somewhat inclined to agree. To make matters even more complicated, Unitarian Universalism is a non-creedal religion, meaning there's not really a set of rules about what you have to believe, other than some basic values and ideas about how to treat other people. So while many UUs don't believe in Jesus as anything other than an important human philosopher and spiritual leader, there are plenty who might believe in him in a more traditional christian sense.
I'm just waiting for Arius and the absolute mindfuck that comes with it.
+CommissarWallace As a Christian myself, I wouldn't use those exact words, but I do agree. I'm also hoping they talk about Arius getting smacked upside the head by Saint Nick.
+Ethan Ceroja Saint Nick? Wait...is this the name St. Nicholas whom we usually associate with Santa Claus? Or is this a different one altogether?
I'm talkin' the guy who drops presents down chimneys and goes "ho ho ho" alright. And yes, he punched Arius in the face after he began spouting heresies about Christ's divinity. Think about that next time you see a Mall Santa.
Ethan Ceroja Well, damn. XD Santa's a badass.
Just another reason why Christmas is my favorite holiday (though Easter is more important strictly speaking).
I do apologize for adding to any flame war that may be going on in the comments, but the reason for Paul not advocating for circumcision was because circumcision was (and is) part of the laws which had to be kept in order to be considered Jewish. But once Christ came, there was no longer any need for separation between Jew and Gentile, because "We are all one in Christ Jesus" (Gal. 3:28).
Again I do apologize, thank you for your videos, they are always very informative and engaging. Thank you for the information concerning the Docetists, and I eagerly await your next video on this subject.
God bless you!
How do you mean?
+David Morton I have talked about this a bit in another comment. Paul had no problem with circumcision itself, he even had one of his followers circumcised so they could better preach to the Jews. And that was his main interest, converting the Jewish people. He always went to the Jews first when he went to preach, and preached to the gentiles because the Jews wouldn't listen. He was a man who, inbetween preaching, made his living mending fishing nets, despite once being a wealthy and important priest in Judaism.
Amen to that!
I am not really Christian (I am a muslim), I like learning about Christian as ot helps me understand about Christ (Isa A.S), while also following my own religion way
I really appreciate the grace and care EC uses to treat this subject.
I found this channel years ago and i just liked the idea of getting in the mind of a game developer. Now im learning about ancient cities and wars of the past. Man i love it.
As a minister, I am pumped to see this! Brings back memories of Church History class!
Good job so far. This could very easily have been disastrous, but you seem to have managed to be objective so far. Looking forward to seeing the rest.
I'm surprised how tame the comments section is
Jacob Aragon Cruz islam is truth
Maybe a calm historical video doesn't attract too much toxicity
The History of Rome Podcast is a great place to pickup the details on the state of the Roman state that are clearly going to need to be glossed over to focus on Christianity's issues.
This video is amazing. I love when people are able to talk about what happens in a faith without having to say “I am ___” or “I’m not ___” I love the concept of theology, the historical aspects that went in to making the religions what they are today fascinated me.
Liked and subscribed.
3:15 Love the pagan just dancing minding her own business
Perfect timing. It's Greek Easter. Thank you.
2:16 no, Paul was not cherry picking some Jewish law and some not for the sake of growing a religion and making Gentiles join to make it a powerful force, he was showing that the message of the gospel was for everyone and therefore did not rely on the Jewish family rites God set them apart with but rather enabled everyone into the kingdom through Jesus. It's a subtle difference but the point is that he was telling the truth, not just making tactical decisions.
+SmokeySmudgeStudio It's not a subtle difference, it's a subjective assignment of intent.
+SmokeySmudgeStudio That viewpoint requires a belief in a "kingdom" to be welcomed to. While that may have been his intent, it was also a clever move that appealed to the Gentiles.
I was going to write something similar, however I don't think the point is subtle as the consequences have large theological affects.
alaskadrifter Subtle difference of wording I meant, the meaning and ramifications very significant
+SmokeySmudgeStudio Gotcha
YAY cool stuff! I appreciate your efforts to make an educational video on the basics of this and keep it as unbiased as possible. Love your history stuff keep it up!
My favorite sub-series of "Extra History.
Fantastic.
As a Christian, I think it's very important to know the history of the Church. Thanks for covering this topic, guys!
Galatians 5 is actuality talking about the fact that faith is only required to be a Christian - you don't need to follow the Jewish laws. Basically grace(death&resurrection of Jesus) replaces the law(salvation is works based). Beleave it or not the Judaizers where sitting in the middle of both faiths which is problematic because they were still trying to hold onto the Jewish laws - which where made redundant because of grace. Paul uses the imagery of being circumcised as flowing Jewish laws - if you following the Jewish laws you can't be a Christian and your not saved by grace. Remembering that circumcision was what visually separated Jews and non Jews and the gentiles and Jews; who had switched to Christianity, would have known that.
Paul is not trying to remove circumcision so that Christianity is more appealing to people.
Paul had the same problem with the church in Corinth with the Sophists - which were adding to 'saved by faith'. In a nut shell they were saying Paul was only ~80% right what you relay need is faith and... insert things you must do as well to be a Christian.
Remember don't just quote lines from the bible - sounding content is insanely important when understanding passages. If you read ch5v1 'It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.' you would have got the content of v2. Their is a reason the heading of ch5:v1-12 is titled Freedom in Christ.
+JOUE BIEN TECH Following the letter of the law vs. the spirit of the law, you mean?
Demosthenes6666
mate you missed the point I was getting at completely. The point was that what they said ''
28
00:01:53,530 --> 00:01:57,60
judaism christians the Christians who
wanted to follow the Mosaic law is
28
00:01:53,530 --> 00:01:57,60
judaism christians the Christians who
wanted to follow the Mosaic law is
30
00:02:00,259 --> 00:02:03,950
anesthetic when you're asking grown men
to have their foreskin cut off as the
31
00:02:03,950 --> 00:02:07,360
entry fee for joining your religion
you're just not gonna get as many takers
32
00:02:07,360 --> 00:02:11,870
and this is why Paul rails against
circumcision in the book of Galatians he
33
00:02:11,870 --> 00:02:15,330
like many of those we now consider
Church Fathers knew that for the
34
00:02:15,330 --> 00:02:19,129
religion to really grow for it to really
be a force they would have to convert
35
00:02:19,129 --> 00:02:23,18
the Gentiles the people of the Roman
Empire and the only way to do that was
36
00:02:23,19 --> 00:02:26,530
to abandon some of the Jewish practices
those people would find the hardest to
"
The reasoning for no circumcision is not: make as Christianity more appealing to non Jews.
Instead it should be: you don't need to be circumcised/ the Jewish law because its unnecessary when your a Christian and has no effect on your salvation.
This result in being saved by grace and not grace and your 'good works' or just your 'good works'.
+JOUE BIEN TECH AFAIK the "good works" doctrine has nothing to do with Judaic laws.
Great video, guys! Consider perhaps backtracking sometime to talk about Marcion and his impact on doctrine.
The only thing I would endeavor to correct is the motivation you give for Paul railing against the observance of Mosaic Law (including circumcision) required by Judaizers. You make it out to be a utilitarian calculation: 'Well, we can't grow with a high bar of entry like dick-chopping; gotta make things simpler!' This was one of the accusations made against Paul by the Judaizers, namely, that he had watered down the gospel to appeal to Gentiles. But we do not have any record of Paul thinking in such bare, pragmatic terms, and he clearly gives his reason for eschewing gentile circumcision several times (over and again in his letters to the churches in Rome, Galatia).
He understanding was that if one could be saved by observing the law, then Jesus' death was needless; that the law was given to reveal sin (i.e. the hopelessness of the human condition and consequent need for a savior); that salvation is only by grace made available by Jesus, the sacrificial lamb foretold by the Mosaic law's requirements of sacrifice, through his redeeming death on the cross; and that the New Covenant of grace was superior to and the fulfillment of the Abrahamic and Mosaic Covenants, for by grace, in Christ, they have received deliverance from sin and power to "live by the Spirit" and no longer according to the sinful nature. The Law was to the Cross as a shadow to the real thing.
Paul was Pharisee, and was, therefore, trained to value purity of convert over number--but he was encountered by Christ and it was the gospel theology, not pragmatism and a desire for converts by any means, that led him to combat the Judaizers and suggest that they castrate themselves.
Other than that, thanks for the video guys! I look forward to the next.
Hey guys! Love your EH videos, and it looks like you're approaching this topic with the sensitivity it deserves, as you did with the treatment of nazi symbols in previous series. My one complaint is what I might call a slight mis-representation of Paul's "motivations" for the removal of circumcision. I think what you guys say here presents an absolutely valid *theory* about what could *potentially* be a "motivation" for this, but I think it's really hard to nail down this as "the motivation" for circumcision's removal. I would just prefer something far more interpretive like this to be presented as just that: an interpretation. But I do know you guys keep these short and simplified, but I hope you address this in the "lies" video, or just take a less hard line stance on what is essentially unknowable history. Looking forward to the rest!
I learnt so much in 8 minutes. Perhaps my favourite extra history yet.
This is a great video, and I'm glad you made it. However, one criticism I have is the way you portray the motives of the early Christians. Intentionally or not, you make their desire to spread the gospel of Christ sound like a business venture instead of a truth they were so convinced of that they were willing to die for it. For example, John wasn't arguing for Christ "in the flesh" because he felt the story needed to have real sacrifice in order to tug at people's heart strings and get them to sign up. It's because he LITERALLY KNEW Christ. He was squashing rumors.
+David Rutledge This comment sums up the entire comment section perfectly. It isn't pro or anti Christian, it's just truth (unless you are against "Historial Jesus"). Thank you.
+David Rutledge Or at least he wanted to believe, and this is what he wanted to believe.
+Carewolf Not sure what you're saying. You think Jesus was a ghost and John just wanted to believe that his friend was a human being?
+David Rutledge The idea they Jesus was a spirit does not imply he was a ghost, just that it was God in human shape all along. And it was paul that argued this line the most and he lived long after Jesus.
+Carewolf Paul didn't live "long after" Jesus. It was the same century. Regardless, I'm still trying to figure out if you're arguing that Christ was a spirit.
This is my third time watching this because I am studying Byzantine history and this is still hard to remember.
Edit:Fourth-Studying Byzantium needs this
I’m glad to see this history covered!
One issue: Is there much to suggest that Paul was primarily thinking about the faith’s accessibility to gentiles in the circumcision question? His letters seem to indicate a well-thought-out, earnest argument from faith that is consistent with Gospel accounts in which Jesus was questioned about Mosaic law. Similar to dietary restrictions, and other Pharisee complaints.
Cheers and thank you for a solid, historical video!
Just wanted to say, I really like what you guys are doing here. You're the right type to handle this subject
Yaaaaas, thank you EH! It is so frustrating that so few people in our society really understand that what religion was in other times wasn't necessarily thought about the same way as we in the Western world take for granted that religion must be today. Please, keep doing more of this.
That lion about to eat Ignatius seemed so cute. He was probably just misunderstood.
as an orthodox Jew, this is fascinating to me. I really appreciate the detail you put into your work.
Thank you guys so much! I was just confused at Arians and about to read some books! Now I'm just going to learn from you guys' research :D
OK I would just like to say that this was actually really interesting and great to watch! I was assigned this to watch from my teacher for an essay, and I expected another boring slow video that I didn't understand. Thanks for helping me!!
The very first Extra History episode voted on was the South Seas bubble. Nitty-gritty details aren't going to bother us.
Though the importance of such details might well amuse us...
Come on Extra Credits. You guys are too good with representation to use a white Itallian Renaissance Jesus in this video. B - see me after class
In all fairness, EH has a history of bad communication between James and the artists. Remember Bohemond?
Um, that's obviously Jeff Bridges
Derek Schmidt the lord abides, man.
funny thing is that different racial groups depict Jesus as different races. Early Chinese Christians had painted scrolls of an Asian Jesus and Christian Africans depicted him as black. So it's not so much a "white supremacist" thing and more of just a human thing.
Something new to look forward to! This a pretty good presentation of the time and place. Still, there were a few errors and misconceptions I would like to cover on the points you made.
Circumcision wasn't really the main concern. It's the popular modern one because, "ah! Pain!" and so you seem to have overemphasized it. People are terrified to go to the dentist these days. But this is a world where you might sell yourself to a gladiator school to get famous or pay off debts, where a trip to the dentist did not have anesthetics fancier than alcohol and (sometimes) recreational drugs. The real issue, is circumcision is part of following the Law of Moses. Many Christians were willing to do that, but it has an unfortunate implication. Failing to keep the whole Law was damning, it was a system of relying on your own righteousness. It's the reason the Christ had to be sacrificed so others could be spared from the Law.
This is what the Christians preaching circumcision were teaching, that you had to keep the Law of Moses to get into heaven.
To say Paul wanted to convert the gentiles to get a large church is entirely backwards. Paul's primary interest was converting the Jews. He went to the gentiles because the Jews refused to listen to him. His goal was never for importance or power, but to save everyone he could, because he felt guilty for killing and imprisoning Christians before his conversion. Even when he was sentenced to be beheaded, he preached to the Roman soldiers guarding him, and talked about himself feeling blessed in his letters to the rest of the church (where he was comforting them, when it should've been the other way around).
Nor did Paul take issue with circumcision. He had one of his gentile followers circumcised just so it would be easier for him to help him preach to the Jews. He preached that people should instead circumcise their hearts for God, worshiping him with their spirits and not just their bodies.
One thing I'm disappointed got missed out (or might get mentioned later), was Constantine's law of tolerance was not mentioned. It was a law that forbade mistreating each other on the basis of religion, and it was before he came to absolute power--which is notable, as his opponent could've easily blocked the law. Under this law of tolerance, that is when Christianity boomed, until the cities were almost entirely Christian. An unfortunate mistake that came later was when a law was declared that everyone in the empire must be Christian. This wasn't good for Pagans or Christians.
The last point I will make, is that saying the Christians argued about the nature of Christ, "because they wanted someone they could sympathize with," is a hindsight reflection and injection of practicalism, rather than a reflection of the feelings at the time. The early Christians were willing to put up with persecution because they honestly believed this was the truth, and so it was important to them that they preached the actual truth and not just a convenient truth. If they wanted a convenient truth, they would've picked something with less persecution.
I hope you found this interesting to read and educational on the subject. Thanks again to Extra History for making this episode in a too ignored part of Roman history.
I couldn't read the whole thing because the lines being so close hurts my eye's, but you seem pretty knowledgeable. Are you one of Jehovah's Witnesses by any chance?
+Hans Smirnov Realy intresting and educational.By any chance do you know why Catholic and Orthodox Easters are on diffrent days,becouse ours is tomorow and the Catholics had it a while ago.
Wasn't it also for personal Hygiene matters?
Not your main point, but I've always thought that if I lived then, I would volunteer to become a gladiator. X)
+Hans Smirnov "If they wanted a convenient truth, they would've picked something with less persecution." Very well put. When discussions of religion come up, people seem to forget that the followers actually believed it, and tend to reduce it to politics and power grabs. Thank you for the addition to the conversation!
I know a lot about the bible and history. but I thought you did a great job in distilling the key points. I am impressed. I'm off to see part 2!
This is such an informative video! Good job! Came back after several months to remind myself of what I learnt from you;)) Thanks again.
I'm sorry, but circumcision was not "abandoned" just to convert Gentiles. Gentiles were following Jesus before that question EVER came up, as seen in acts, with the Spirit coming upon several Gentiles according to witness from times before the meeting in Jerusalem discussing circumcision and mosaic law
This is great that you're covering The Christian Church and its history; its long and so enrolled in our culture we gloss over it so easily. Thanks for the extra history series!!!! I love the animations and your topics!!
-from a Catholic History Geek 🇻🇦😊
Ohhh so that's why. It creeped me the fuck out to be told I needed to eat the body of Christ as a kid. Metaphor and hyperbole always went over my head then.
+Krebons1200 To be honest it is still creepy when it is metaphor or hyperbole.
+Krebons1200 There are some who still believe that it literally transforms into Christs blood and flesh in communion.
+Minihood31770 Transubstantiation is a Catholic teaching that the bread and wine consumed during eucharist (communion is mostly used by Protestants, but many Catholics use the term since it is easier to say, lol) transforms into the actual body and blood of Jesus.
+Krebons1200 See, kids don't understand things like complex metaphors, certainly not abstract platonic notions like "essences"when you're teaching them about communion--just tell them that we do it in remembrance of Christ's sacrifice. As they get older, their faith will mature.
+The Ethannator yup. thats part of what pushed me away from the faith. The association of christianity and cannibalism was tattooed into my brain, and when we moved to a place where there was no church, I went nope, I ain't doin that shit no more. I like not eating people.
Ah, one of my favorite topics! I'm really looking forward to the rest of the series!
Finding out about this series absolutely made my day.
Que the warhammer 40k Heresy jokes
+volk551 All hail the martyrs! On their blood is our Imperium founded, in their remembrance do we honour ourselves.
+volk551 HERESY!! BLAM
+volk551 According to my algebra textbook with the words Frogs are Holy scribbled with red ink on the back, you're a heretic
+volk551 BY THE EMPRAH YOU ARE A HERETIC!
DROP IT!
'Tune plays while Inquisitor bashes head into Exterminatus Button repeatedly.'
+volk551 I dunno but somehow the Horus Heresy is awfully similiar like the fate of our real rome
An upcoming religion destroying the biggest empire in the world/galaxy
The reason Paul was against circumcision was not because lack of converts.
All good. Only the part about Judaizers. Apostle Paul didn't preach against circumcision to gain followers who would otherwise fear the pain. He preached against it because Mosaic Law cannot justify men. It is superfluous. By baptism are men justified. That's the point.
I am impressed by every single video you publish. If there were more high school (!) students like you, the world would be a marvelous place.
Seriously, most Master's graduates couldn't deliver an analytical methodology like yours if their life depended on it.
I am so happy you guys have the guts to do a series on this stuff. I'm not a practicing Christian anymore, but I studied this stuff in college. To me, the history of early Christianity is the biggest most fascinating era of European history that people dismiss out of hand.
God and theology aren't trendy these days, but c'mon. This era consisted of a few centuries' worth of philosophy wars whose consequences would be reverberate for a millennium. That's objectively interesting.
Really looking forward to the rest of this series!
Oh well Ignatius is my Family saint , and every second January (Gregorian calendar ) my family celebrate his sacrifice for Christianity .
6:52 Oh no, a civil war? Between Romans? How unforeseen!
I'm so glad to hear that one of the voice actors from Veggie Tales has gotten the chance to move on to do more serious work.
I love this series so much. You guys are so great.
Dude, thanks a lot! For me, this was one of a kind among all the other sources when it comes to clarifying and explaining about early church history in animated features. Again, thank you!
Came here for video games enthralled in the Christian Schism... how?
Science! Theological science.
+Jevon James Walpole.
Some kind of Christian magic
+Shawn Hoffman That legitimately made me laugh harder than it should have. Well played, sir.
+TheRezro the doceans thought they did...