One of my favourite stories from the Council of Nicea concerns the time Arius was giving a speech propounding his views and a fellow bishop, Nicholas of Myra, walked up and punched him in the face. So poor Arius had the unfortunate distinction of being the first (and probably only) person ever punched in the mouth by Santa Claus. No presents for him!
I've heard of and repeated this story before (as I originally heard of it in a college course). However, after doing some Googling, it looks like there's a likelihood that this never happened. I guess there's evidence to indicate that St. Nicholas wasn't even there at the Council of Nicea. But it's still fun to tell the story of Santa Claus punching a guy in the face for Jesus.
I just discovered your channel by accident today, and have already watched three. I am IMPRESSED. It is rare to have presentations about religious history that don’t get sidetracked by doctrinal debates and sectarian assertions. You have managed to stick to the historical facts, even if it leaves some questions unanswered (for now). Your work is a refreshing change - thank you.
Excellent! I've been a church pastor for many years and sense a current need in the "church" at large for a teaching such as this.Thank you for your words of truth. They were most refreshing. Blessings!
@@TheCandiceWang As someone discerning for ordained ministry in the Episcopal Church, I find this channel to be extremely solid and to support my own studies on the topic. This is a great resource for anyone interested in learning more about religion - Dr. Henry has my deepest respect.
Just found this channel and panicked that since this video was so old you might not be producing new stuff - happy to see you just posted a new video of hitting 500k subs . Loving the content as I started studying history and then wanted to study religion
Is there any way you'd consider doing a video on Zoroastrianism and how it impacted Judaism and other Abraham faiths? Specifically in regards to Gnostic Christianity, as I've found several very interesting parallels between Zoroastrianism and Gnosticism. Please and thank you!
I'll try to do a video on Zoroastrianism next year. It'll come up a little bit in a video I'm planning for late January on the Cult of Mithras. Great idea though!
ReligionForBreakfast Too cool! That was one of the other questions I thought of asking, was if you planned on going into any mystery religions of the Roman empire. Haha. on the note of Zoroastrianism and Gnostic Christianity, can you correct me if I'm wrong in assuming there's a connection between the duotheism of Zoroastrianism and the Duotheism of Gnostic Christianity? From what I've been reading, there are some pretty clear indication that Judaism was influenced heavily from Zoroastrianism, specifically the monotheism on the broad strokes, and even finer points like incredibly similar language between Zoroastrian texts, and Leviticus 20-13. Given that, I find it interesting that Gnostic Christianity had that duotheistic nature, almost as if it inherited it from Zoroastrianism, but it skipped a generation. haha.
Cody. Gnostics indeed made syncretism (on the contrary of the main church). Maniceans were kind of mix between zoroastrian and chirstian views. Mani considered himself as the paraclet (last prophet) as Muhammad did but much later. Maniceans had quite a lot of sucess and survived a lot of time. They probably are the roots of cathars also (even if the cathars are a mix of maniceanss and other gnostics).
Hep Hopa That's really informative and interesting. I don't know much about the Cathars, I'll have to look them up now. :) Thanks a ton for the reply!,
Cody Mintz-Thibault You welcome. They had the same doctrine than the bogomils from Bulgaria, but they were mainly located in south of France. Inquisition was invented ... for them. They were the last large and structured gnostic church. After them some gnostic church of France was made in the 18th -19th century but nothing big... Cathars are the last important gnostics...
Wiki on Heresy (didn't have the nasty connotations that it does now): The term heresy is from Greek αἵρεσις *originally meant "choice" or "thing chosen",[6]* but it came to mean the "party or school of a man's choice"[7] and also referred to that process whereby a young person would examine various philosophies to determine how to live.
You're right. The Greek term didn't have the pejorative sense that it later gained from early Christian elites. I think it is even used in the NT without that pejorative sense.
@@ReligionForBreakfast Actually, the pejorative for the Christian is rooted in Ephesians 4, for example. It was implied that by "taking sides" you would have to create another side that was invalidated by the Truth. As a translation of what Paul penned goes, "4There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; 5one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all." Heresy was creating another "body" to choose to be in, and hence there would be two bodies. Or as a translation of the Apostle John's writing goes, "19They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us. 20But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and you know all things. 21I have not written to you because you do not know the truth, but because you know it, and that no lie is of the truth." So you already see the concept of heresy spelled out, even without the word being mentioned here.
ReligionForBreakfast ReligionForBreakfast I was going to ask if there was, perhaps, an interactive nova model, or a detailed graphic, for those of us interesting in learning more about other-than-nicean Christianity. I've read a bit about the Gnostics, and a few others, but I'm very interested in reading more. I'm hoping to go to school for religious studies soon, your videos have been absolutely fantastic, and I can't wait for more!
As Arianism was a huge player in post Nicene European Christianity and could have easily become the dominant strain until about 500CE it would be interesting to hear your take on it and the history behind this movement
Thank you for challenging the assumption that the early church was unified. And thank you for the supernova illustration - really helped me understand the phenomenon better!
I thought that when I would try to reconnect with my faith, I would just read the Bible and go to church and that would be it. Turns out there's more going on than I thought... 😳 🕳🐇
You Sir deserve more subscribers. I enjoy this channel, it is very scholar, but at the same time, it's entertaining and it makes us want to know more about these "exotic" topics. Just a remark : at 04:19, the names are at too little a size, it's not possible to read them with without enlarging the screen. I'm waiting for the next episode now :D
+John Smith Glad you're enjoying the channel! Spread the word! I've been getting more subscribers every month. (Thanks for the tip on the small names...I'll keep that in mind going forward with other videos).
Didnt Ireneus get his authority from Polycarp, a diciple of John? Wouldnt that come with some authority? Wouldnt Ireneus therefore hold more authority on Christian thought then some non apostolic ly asocciated heritic?
Dont try to argue with him, he is convinced that the best way to understand religion, is to be blind to its theological truth claims in the name of “objectivity”. Every proof becomes redirect, every argument conjecture, every sect just has an opinion. Every version of christianty has an equally valid truth claim because in religious studies you cant investigate truth claims. In the name of objectivty they just created a new biast which gives them the greater disadvantage to understanding the religion.
@Intoxicated Gray Hulk aka Mr. Fixit What apostolic succession did Valentinus or Marcion claim? Can you give some examples of apostolic succession claimed by folks in early Christianity eventually labeled heretics?
@Intoxicated Gray Hulk aka Mr. Fixit I was aware of the fact that the canonical gospels are not considered to have been authored by those to whom they're ascribed but I was not aware of who some of the so-called "heretics" claimed to get their apostolic succession from. Thanks for the response. I will follow up on some of the info.
Great video. I think the imagery of a spiritual being exploding into a super nova of different forms of Christianity is beautiful. It makes perfect sense since every human has a slightly different perspective to each other.
I really like this analytical and precise style! Also the videos are long enough and still pleasingly short for general browsing. I didn't find a spesific video on the "forgeries" of the early christianities; texts that were seen as heretic (by the mainstreamers). What does a forgery mean? Why on Earth would anyone in those times spend countless hours of writing "imaginary stories", collection of sayings that were never said by anyone, stories of events which never happened? What would have been the motivation for that? And if it happened, how common was that kind of activity in the religious movements? And lastly, if it happened commonly...are the canonical gospels the end products of the same process? For me it is really difficult to understand that anyone would have a real motivation to forge religious texts in those times. I do understand why some would do it now in the modern times (money) though. But in the early phase of christianities that surely wasn't the case. So, according to my reasoning all these early texts are fruits from the same tree. All the conflicting sayings, memories what happened, what he said, what he did and where etc. All of them were built on revelations, dreams, old jewish texts and imaginative writing. And this means that there never was the man, he was just later decided, put in his place.
I have 2 issues about the branching assumed in this video: 1) Does it refer to institutional splitting or faith diversification among Nicaean Christians? Institutionally, Nicaean Creed itself recognized 3 separate church institutions in Rome, Antioch and Alexandria. They had their own Patriarchs and traditions. Their theologies were not identical. They had bigger separations in each of the Councils, but they were already separate from the beginning. As far as I know theological differences which later solidified as Dyophysitism, Miaphysism and Monophysism always existed among these denominations. Cyril of Alexandria did not wake up 1 morning and decide to choose a new Theology out of the blue. Theological conflicts due to Dyophysitism Monophysitism and Miaphysitism was just a theological manifestation of the institutional conflicts. Cyril who was a Miaphysite could lead the Council of Ephesus and even excommunicate Nestorius. However, this difference could lead to big riots in Alexandria later. 2) Interestingly the Holy See of Alexandria is not shown as a branching in the diagram. It is probably assumed to be covered by Miaphysites, but even that is unfair. You don't name all Western denominations as Dyophysites. I am not even Christian, but even I know that Church of St. Mark is 1 of the 3 Holy Sees recognized in Cannon 6 of Council of Nicaea. It is an Apostolic Church and claims to be started by St. Mark. None of the branches shown by name, other than Catholicism (Holy See of Rome) and Assyrian Church (I guess it is supposed to mean Holy See of Antioch), did not even exist at the time. When Church of St. Mark was accepted as a Holy See in Nicaean Council, even city of Constantinople did not exist. There was the tiny little Byzantion at the site. Naturally, there was no Church of Constantinople. Thus, Holy See of Alexandria is way older than Easthern Orthodoxy. It is definitely older than 5 Protestant Churches mentioned by name.
I know this video is 2 years old but I've only just stumbled upon your channel and am enjoying the content. Something about the supernova model doesn't quite sit right with me, however. I think it may lie in the fact that I have trouble reconciling the 1st century Palestinian Judaism of Jesus with the some of the more "radical" discursive tendencies held by some of the gnostic groups (Basilidians, Sethians, etc.) concerning the position of the Jewish God - usually an inferior demiurge or an archon, either evil or ignorant, sometimes both - and the nature of the Torah. Whether or not these groups were ever 'orthodox' to begin with, I feel that the supernova model might be ignoring the fact that not everyone of those Christian sects "develop" at a static rate. Whether it be branches of the evolutionary tree of life or those of language families, the various branches of species or languages maintain, in different ways and to different degrees, certain conservative and archaic elements which other branches do not. The supernova model seems to depict that all sects are equally developing their doctrines away from the theoretical, historical body of Jesus' oral teachings at the same rate so as to produce a variety of different sects with different doctrines. According to the model, each of these are equally a variety of Christianity and each of them is equally as removed from the original body of Jesus' oral teachings. But I'm not convinced this is the case when some 'Christian' groups appear to be taking liberties with seemingly so central a doctrine as monotheism. A glance through one of my textbooks reminds me that some of the gnostic cosmologies are quite fantastic and and the Greek names for the various emanations of beings seem worlds away from the books of the Hebrew bible, regardless of the genre. Whereas the proto-orthodox groups end up producing a New Testament and a body of doctrine, which, though it bears the marks of Christians taking up and expanding on themes that were only nascent or inchoate in the Old Testament (or inter-testamental literature) it is still quite clearly intertextual with it and remains close to it in worldview and in poetic expression. It's easy to believe that a group of first century Palestinian Jews would start calling Jesus a Messiah (certainly he wasn't the first candidate) or the Logos (for the Hellenised ones). But it's more difficult to see why Gnostic Christians might start assigning these titles, Christos and Logos, to separate archons. It's also difficult to imagine why Hellenistic cosmological emanation schemes would be so central to the message of an apocalyptic exorcist who dealt mostly with rural or townsfolk Galileans, that is, if these elements of gnosticism go back to an apostolic foundation or to Jesus' very own oral teachings. While I'm not advocating the secular academy magically and unanimously strip these groups of the category "Christian" and I agree that the older model of heresy and orthodoxy was inadequate and problematic, it did allow for the possibility of expressing the idea that, unlike branches of species or language families, religious groups can valorise traditionalism and attempt to be conservative (like, perhaps, the two Pauline churches being addressed in 1 Corinthians 11:2 and 2 Thessalonians 2:15) and they may be successful to various degrees. Perhaps in oral societies they can even be extraordinarily successful in preserving and conserving older beliefs, practices, worldviews, etc. Anyways, my education was in the generative grammar school of linguistics so I'm a total laymen to academic religious studies but I couldn't help but offer some of my thoughts on the matter.
Exactly! If there is a truly orthodox Christianity, it would be found in the very centre of the supernova, not having moved from the heart of the original teachings at all -- the heart of what Jesus himself meant. Maybe there never was such thing as truly orthodox christianity in practice, and maybe it isn't even Nicean Christianity, but a truly orthodox teaching must have existed, if only in the mind of Christ himself. The tree diagram that he showed and the supernova diagram are also not comparable because one has time as one of the axis and the other doesn't (unless he's saying that a bunch of the Christian groups were time travellers)
I see this term 'heresy' pretty often when I'm researching various sects in religions, and I likely most commonly see this term associated with Christian sects, but whenever I read the term, I ask, "Heretical by whose estimation?" Of course the answer to this is the positions of the general ecumenical body of mainstream Christianity, which are commonly understood by pretty much everyone, at least here in the US. When used in a formal definition concerning an 'ism,' using the term 'heresy' or 'heretical' is subtly, or perhaps not so subtly, pejorative. Orthodoxy and heresy are terms that are relational and should only be used as such. Plus, history shows an ever repeating trend of yesterday's heresy being today's orthodoxy, with the current orthodoxy being overthrown at some point in the future.
"That appear wrong only in retrospect" -- not really... it was due to the squabbling between these early Christianities that caused the Council of Nicea to have to take place, "Nicene Christianity" wasn't a place of birth of a version of Christianity, it was meant as the place of death of all others... each of the points it states ("one god", "three forms") were the concluding judgements for each point of contention between different ideas. So, (assuming) there was no statement that "We believe his name was Jesus" because that wasn't a point of contention - nobody was asserting "his real name was McSquibble", as hilarious as that would have been :-)
annoloki Excellent response. I came to the same conclusion in my thoughts but you put it into words in a far better way than I could. This video was good, being very informative yet I feel is incomplete cause it failed to state this very important fact. This is actually one of the truths which separate Christianity from all of the other religions of that time, which were all experiencing the same forms of division that came with growth.
A very good point that actually undermines the modern idea that all religious "opinions" (heresies) and sects are equally valid, or among Marxist influenced academics, equally invalid. The modern idea of avoiding the word heresy is also a way for modern academics to promote certain "pet" concepts. It is trying to give an "air of antiquity" to totally modern concepts like the "divine feminine". .
@@pravolub8 "Marxist influenced academics" "If you don't uncritically accept this ancient text filled with unfalsifiable claims as absolute fact then you are a communist!" Get a grip my dude.
"Nicene Christianity" wasn't a place of birth of a version of Christianity, it was meant as the place of death of all others." ...but if you accept that the NT is historically reliable then you can get the creeds from scripture itself, scripture written down by eye witnesses who were followers of Jesus.... the nicene creed does not seem to teach anything that is not in scripture... we also have the letters of the early church fathers (ad70-300) from which scripture can be reconstructed... it shows that what they believed was in line with scripture...
According to scriptures the bishops have the authority to bind and loose Therefore, a majority of the bishops in council determines Orthodoxy. Therefore, It is easy to identify Orthodoxy after the beginning of the 4th century. It is therefore not that difficult to identify the doctrines which resembled what became Orthodoxy. There is no problem with calling heterodox doctrine heretical. This exercise is only engaged in to try to try to cast doubt on the status of Orthodoxy.
The problem with the supernova model is that it commits the same fallacy as the early paleontologists did. Every new fossil was assigned a new taxon. We had hundreds and hundreds of “new dinosaurs” that were actually all just differently preserved instances of the same species. Syriac Christians had their own traditions, yes, but the Syriac Catholic Church still has its own traditions today. The Latin Catholic Church has its own traditions. That is irrelevant to whether or not they are the same orthodox faith. We should be looking for communions, not traditions. The Syriac-speaking Church was by and large in full communion with the Latin-speaking church of Irenaeus, for example. We have several copies of his Against Heresies found in Syriac. The super nova model fails to recognize this nuance.
Cool video! I think between being differentiated from the original meaning "choice" and acquiring the meaning "sect", *_Hairesis_* had the meaning of "philosophical school", which was 'value-neutral'. I'd propose that it acquired pejorative connotations in contemporaneously with its use by early christian theologians.
Your teachings are vary good Andrew! In John Jesus prayed that we would be one in Him. I feel my heart sadden sometimes when i see all these different sects of Christianity. Anyway, keep up the good work!
The only thing that makes Nicene Christianity Nicene is the claim canons were added to it right then and there to clarify its Orthodox/Catholic type. Without the canons its more Evangelical, as the gospel that saves if its there is 1 Cor 15:1-4 not sacerdotalist or of works, its only the canons that are said to add that bunk.
The first time I watched this it seemed legit for me, but after thinking it a little bit, I don't think this is an accurate way to see it, specially on the graph depicted on 4:17, like showing proto-orthodoxy as and Gnostic Christianity at the same distance to the original Christianity but just in opposite sides. Just by reading the letters of the apostles it's easy to reach the conclusion that Gnostic Christianity was very far away from original Christianity and proto-orthodoxy at least was doing its best to try to remain truthful to original Christianity, so at least that makes me think that there was people who wanted to stick with the teachings of the apostles(yes, they didn't agree in every single belief, but at least they were trying to agree) and people who tried to do something completely different (probably motivated by trying to fit Jesus into other religions that they felt more self-identified with). So, I think the branching figure is more accurate than the other one, the Christians who wanted to stick with the teachings of the apostles eventually converged to the Nicean creed. If "heretic" is an incorrect word for historical purposes, I think a "dissident" or "schismatic" could do the job.
So I'm a bit late, but few things to point out. Firstly Gnostic christology is much more similair to early christology than Trinitarianism is. There were two early christologies. Adoptionism, the idea that Jesus was a man until the resurrection whereafter he became divine and high Christology that Jesus was a pre-created divine being but subordinate to and different from god. The former would go on to inspire Islamic views on Jesus and the latter Gnosticism and proto-Orthodoxy. The Gnostic concept of Jesus being an Aeon is very much in line with high Christology. As for the notions that Gnostics tried to make the bible fit with other religions it doesn't make much sense considering most of their early adherents were Jewish Christians albeit influenced heavily by Platonic philosophy. That argument would make more sense for the proto-Orthodox who operated mainly amongst the previously Pagan gentiles. In fact these are the kinds of people more likely to be open to the idea of Jesus being god as opposed to the strictly monothiestic Jews. The explosion model in my view is the most accurate one. There was incredible diversity in those early years specifically about the nature of Christ.
@Perry Malcom Hello, I do not know if you have received an answer, so,... if you will please excuse me, I'll take the liberty to reply with a short answer; no. And with a extremely measured explanation, as to why I believe the above. I believe your question to be an oxymoron/impossible. 1 Corinthians 15 For since by man came death, [Adam/sin] by man {Jesus/sinless} came also the resurrection of the dead. [Romans 3:23 For all (except Jesus) have sinned, and come short of the glory of God] Jesus was not born with the Adamic sin nature. He was as Peter said; The Christ the son of the living God. For Jesus to have had an impure thought,...such as himself being 3 persons...? no. Jesus was born after the flesh of the seed of David---A Monotheistic Jew. Colossians 2:9 As it is written in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead i.e. God bodily; Until the time of Justin Martyr the trinity wasn't mentioned. The formula of Baptism was always in the Name Of > the Lord Jesus until the time of Justin Martyr when triune formula was used. The Catholic Encyclopedia, II, page 263: "The baptismal formula was Changed from the [Name] of Jesus Christ to the Words/Titles father, son, and holy spirit by the Catholic Church in the second century." Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord One Lord, One faith, One baptism The Gospel of Jesus Christ as it was preached by Jesus Christ and by his Apostles Please bear with me; In the following order. Matthew 28:19=John 3:1-7 = Matthew 16:19=Acts 2:38 =Acts 4:12=Philippians 2:9-11 I hope you receive the above, in the same Spirit as I have written this to you. The words are not mine. mark, a servant - by the grace of God I am what I am.
Yes. St. Clement of Rome, St. Polycarp the martyr, St. Ignatius of Antioch, St. Papias, The Didache, Second century: St Justin Martyr, St Irenaeus, St Theophilus of Antioch
People always assume that those who came before them were so different. Maybe because we're in a Hegelian dialectic society where the new is a countermovement to the old, which is the only other time we come into contact with?
Isn't 'atheist' the same kind of insider's term for non-believers? It seems to have inherited the ignostic position of proactively denying any/all deistic concepts, as opposed to the rejection of one concept.
I get what you're saying, but the difference is atheists often give themselves the title. It was originally given by theists, but today it's accepted by those who don't believe in a god.
Personally, I like the plural. There is an excellent text on Buddhism that goes the same route: Buddhist Religions. (-s). In both cases there are beliefs under the name of the religion that are mutually exclusive of others.
Some would say that looking at Christianity through a purely historical lens is itself a heresy. As a Christian I think that understanding the historical development of the earthly Church only deepens my faith. This was like a spring in the desert for both my intellect and my spirit.
The problem with the word Trinity is the different variations of the meaning of that term. I believe the Bible clearly teaches there are 3 persons. But early trinitarianism seemed to be an answer the Alexandrian school that promoted the neoplatonist view of modalism or Syballlanism (the Christian version). I (and of course, I'm the most balanced thinker of all time lol) see three persons...but they aren't one in the sense of what I think the Nicean Chrisitans believed and taught. They aren't a banana or an apple with three parts making one body or a God with three personalities or faces. They are clearly three individuals! The Son prays to the Father. (John 17, etc) The Son asks the Father to send the Spirit. (John 14:16-18) The Spirit can be grieved and be lied to according to Ephesians and Acts. So the Spirit is also a person. When spoken of by Jesus He uses the word for another that implies another of the same nature αλλος instead of ἐτρος which implies another of a different nature. So they are three persons, same nature...but not the same person! But how are the One? I dont' have perfect answer but I think we find a clue in humans who were made in the image of God. A husband and wife become "One" when married. From that point on in a perfect setting, they have one purpose, one mission and one love shared. So, I think the word Trinity is some muddy waters. I use it at times, but it is nothing like it is used in the idea that its One God with three faces or manifestations. I understand them to be individuals....else how could they love? If they were one Person, they'd be loving themself. Just food for thought from the most balanced Christian of all time that changes his views as he continues to research :) P.S. , I think things the Bible doesn't make some things clear because they either aren't important or are too much for our minds to grasp, so they are best left as mysteries or matters put on hold till further light appears on the subject or are made clear in the earth made new.
I wouldn´t take the verse Gal 2:11 to demonstrate that the church was not united from the beginning. If you look at the context of this passage, it´s about paul rebuking peter for an hypocritical action. It is something like"constructive critique" which brings more unitiy. The bible doesn´t tell us, how peter repsonded to this rebuke, but we know that peter speaks well of paul in 2 peter 3:15-16. In Acts 9:26-27 you can see how paul is seeking even for unitiy among the the apostles.
I'm interested to know what terminology scholars use instead of "heresy" and "orthodoxy." Having come from within Nicene Christianity, it's all I know. The idea is directly or indirectly drilled into you from the very beginning.
I am so glad you raised Docetism. It is my favourite heresy. The fact that it is the first official "heresy" and the first Nicean Council was called to reject the doctrine. I am always amused by the fact that Docetism is OLDER than the alleged historical Jesus, and maintains that Jesus was never incarnated as a human. Good work ! :)
+Soylent Green I'll have a video on Docetism later. But it is not so much an official heresy as a vague category of belief about Jesus. Any theology that says Jesus didn't have a flesh and bone body could be called "docetic." It's different from other varieties of Christianity that were lead by a charismatic founder like Marcionism or Montanism.
ReligionForBreakfast Well as far as Christian heresies go Docetism has a fine and ancient pedigree, being rejected by the Orthodox and the Catholic before they even split and became separate institutions. BTW here is an interesting half-joking heuristic I have developed that seems to hold strangely true in all cases I am heretofore aware of: "The difference between a cult and a religion is that religions contain at least two schisms."
Soylent. The first Nicean council was mainly abou arians. Several gnostic denominations were decetists as by definition incarnating in matter is bad for gnostics. There is no proof that docetism was there before the historical approach (in the Acts which is kind of first scriptures) the historical perspective is very clear. And docetism and mythism are different. The first one does not say that there was no Jesus, but just as he was an appearance or he was replaced by other guys on the cross. But actually he was historic. Mythism says that Jesus never existed and is a myth. This latter thesis is only there from the 18th century. Very different.
I just discovered your channel for the first time yesterday, and I have very much appreciated it. This series in particular has taught me a lot and given me a lot to think about. Thank you so much! A small thing I did want to ask though: when you refer to the different branches of present day Christianity, you typically only mention Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Protestantism, disregarding the Oriental Orthodox and the Assyrian church. You mentioned the latter briefly when looking at the "major branches..." chart, but still did not mention the OO there. Is this an intentional time saving thing, or an oversight? If it's the latter, I was just hoping to politely bring it to your attention. Again, this is a wonderful channel and I hope that you continue to produce informative and thought producing content! Thank you!
Glad you like the channel! As for your other question, it is for time saving. I am aware of the other Orthodox groups, though I mention the biggest branches. I have an "Intro to Christianity" video coming out soon where I talk about the full plurality of Christianity (as best as I can in a 15 minute video).
What I do not understand and for which I cannot find an answer is, how and why did so many different groups adopt Jesus, the apostles and Mary Magdalene as figureheads for differing belief systems? If we consider James and the Ebionites anchored in Jerusalem and Paul running around preaching, and apostles going wherever, it does not seem to be enough, centuries before mass media, to spread the fame of Jesus. Some researchers go to great lengths to try to prove that Jesus of Nazareth never existed and that Christianity is all fable. Yet whether we look at "orthodox" Christianity or the many other varieties once in existence, it seems inescapable that SOMETHING happened early in the first century that captured the attention and imagination of a wide swath of the populace. Whatever the scientific basis or not, I believe a fairly large number of people in Palestine must have had experiences that caused them to believe that Jesus was a miracle maker and that he was resurrected, however we interpret the latter. Even in considering Pontius Pilate's treatment of Jesus, if we accept other contemporary descriptions of Pilate as a vicious, cruel ruler, the basics of the Jesus story seem to indicate his case was handled differently. There is indication that Jesus accepted martyrdom in order to spare his followers, a plea bargain of sorts. It would make more sense if Pilate had rooted out as many followers as possible and crucified or otherwise killed the whole lot. History indicates Pilate would not have been influenced by the goodness of Jesus but is it possible that Jesus demonstrated such extreme attributes that Pilate for once chose a quiet way to stop something that he feared would spread and become a larger threat? Did Pilate believe that Jesus' message and life were so powerful that only by destroying Jesus could Pilate regain control? Did Pilate fear that Jesus' message was so strong that wholesale slaughter of his followers would lead to a major rebellion?
Good question, friend. Others will surely have differing opinions, as always, but my answer is that Mohammad was a pagan... a product of the world around him, in that time and place... but who tried to align himself with the Abrahamic traditions of the Jews and Christians, but didn't know very much about such things because he could only go by hearsay. This is why the Quran gets almost every fact from the Bible wrong in one way or another.
Paul opposed Peter for hypocrisy, not for a disagreement. I don’t believe you’re right for that reference. Sounded more like a result you got from a google search than from reading the book of acts and galatians
Heresy is only heresy because orthodoxy says so. The quintessential question is, "what is truth?" We know Jesus was a Jewish teacher. The man, Rabbi Yeshua who became known as the icon Jesus Christ, probably was a mystic. He did not establish a belief structure based upon doctrines which became Christianity... others did that over the successive centuries. He probably initiated his select disciples into an "experience of God" which he described as "Abba Father"... metaphorically, new wine (spirit) in old wineskins (formal religion). After his death, his immediate followers remained within the existing Judaism of that time... but, they believed him to be the Messiah (akin the Ebionites). They faithfully held onto the experience of his remaining presence within their believing community. As the message spread it morphed into diversity. The diverse forms of Christianity (so called) with their varying interpretations were an attempt to capture the ethereal quality of this "Christ experience". This became like trying to catch the wind... virtually impossible!
just noticed the tattoine poster quick question: Ever considered doing a video on Dune and the real life religious inspirations of its narrative? (Star Wars is based on Dune)
hmmm...yes and no. I feel like some of what you said could be misread. I appreciate a certain relativism that historical sciences adopt and treat various phenomena as equally valid, but so called orthodoxy does have some currency in establishing its legitimacy in relation to the historical Jesus. Heresy, as I'm sure you know means choice (haeresis). St Paul's claim to speak with authority and specifically referring to the Church as the "pillar and foundation of the truth" does suggest that truth was thought, already in the Apostolic age, to be associated with a or some traditions and not others (majority or no majority is irrelevant). Just because doctrines were developing and so were the mechanisms by which authority could be exercised, doesn't mean the Jesus tradition didn't have Apostles speaking in an internal forum and proclaiming to the outside world their doctrine with authority at the exclusion of other varieties. And this is all way before Nicea comes in. So I say yes and no because early Christianity was indeed quite atomized as you say very well here, but that doesn't mean each "atom" was equally relating to the core apostolic branch which had a direct contact with Jesus. The fight between Peter and Paul was very significant but it doesn't mean we can expand from this a different Jesus tradition between one and the other. If so, the "Jesus tradition" starts to really lose any relevant meaning. Peter and Paul can have set different styles and even theologies (though that's not really the case but maybe more evident with other apostles) but belong to a common group identity. History, religious or non, is filled to the brim with examples societies or institutions which are a cohesive body that nevertheless suffer internal struggles, politics and as in the case of Peter and Paul what was likely a personal fight of sorts. I'm going on and on here but I understand that historians have to have a certain healthy skepticism to concepts of claims to legitimacy. However, maybe we shouldn't be so ready in dismissing legitimacy as an explorable and even falsifiable concept? A rhetorical question meant as food for thought for all of us.
@ReligionForBreakfast, I would love to openly debate you on the issue of "proto-orthodoxy", For one thing you mention Paul was constantly redirecting Christians and for that mater churches to Christs teachings, well that's probably because he was an apostle, btw Apostle means chief disciple if you didn't know. I was a convert to the Orthodox Christian church, and I know for a fact that there is archaeological proof and historical proof to back it up as being the original church, there is a reason why the apostles corrected Christians who did not have "correct doctrine", or "right faith" hence Orthodoxy, Also another fact that 2 of the earliest churches, are still around to this day and both are Orthodox doesn't come across to you as a bit interesting? The Apostles also claim successors, The bible supports apostolic succession, The Orthodox Church is "Apostolic". The Orthodox Church is Catholic meaning universal, This term gets some of it's original connotations from some of the most earliest evangelist, and how the word of God spread through the world. Christ said Romans 1:16 (For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.) The Greeks did spread the message, hence Greek orthodox, I know this may seem like shallow reasoning at first glance, but we can talk this over GOd bless
Would you consider the later deviation, once the canon was stablish at Nicea, like arrianism as heresy from the historical point of view? I think yes...
I would think even that is up for grabs at least for a few more centuries. Arianism was very popular among the Germanic tribes that eventually overran the Western Roman Empire and came to be its rulers. It would be quite a long time before Arianism would cease to be a widely followed alternative version of Christianity.
The earliest, most authentic version of Christianity were a Jewish Messianic sect that observed the Law of Moses to the letter and who called their religion "the Way". They lived a strict aesthetic lifestyle in the caves around Qumran. They believed that the world was going to end soon. Their leader was called "The Teacher of Righteousness". They were opposed to Rome and also to Paul, who started a different sect of Christianity that included the Gentiles and which did not follow the laws of Moses. James the Just was the brother of the Teacher of Righteousness. James the Just appears near the end of Acts in the Bible. The Jesus of history is the Teacher of Righteousness mentioned in the Dead Sea Scrolls,
That Nicene Christianity won out over various forms of the faith from popularity and power is a seldom discussed view. Pagels covers it, but it's not talked about enough in general or even academic discussions.
BeauJames59 Not true. There were times that Emperors (Constantine included, even at the time of his death) supported heretical "factions", and they had the "upper hand". It's a miracle that the Orthodox position eventually won.
Exodus 24:10 [10]And they saw the God of Israel: and there was under his feet as it were a paved work of a sapphire stone, and as it were the body of heaven in his clearness. Exodus 24:10-11 [10]And they saw the God of Israel: and there was under his feet as it were a paved work of a sapphire stone, and as it were the body of heaven in his clearness. [11]And upon the nobles of the children of Israel he laid not his hand: also they saw God, and did eat and drink. Exodus 33:18 [18]And he said, I beseech thee, shew me thy glory. Exodus 33:18-19 [18]And he said, I beseech thee, shew me thy glory. [19]And he said, I will make all my goodness pass before thee, and I will proclaim the name of the LORD before thee; and will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will shew mercy on whom I will shew mercy. Exodus 33:20 [20]And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live. Etcetera SO who was the God of Israel that moses and 70 elders could see and eat while looking upon, and who is this YHWH moses couldn't see anything but the backside of or he would die. Monotheism debunked people, the ancient hebrews were there own polytheism just like the rest of Mesopotamia, They just had a pantheon of different Gods, Elohim is plural, Majestic plural is a b.s linguistic falsification created by die hard monotheistic theologians and wahhabism. This is why YHWH is not mentioned in genesis 1, Many people dont notice these verses because how far apart they are, but it is clear The God of Israel and YHWH are not the same person, Who are they, El adoni(genesis),El Elion(genisis), YHWH Andoni(Ezekiel, exclusively), EL YHWH Tsabaoth (everywhere), Elohe Israel (Exodus), El shadday (everywhere), ancient of days, one like the son of man, Ehyeh esher ehyeh, many of these refer to one being or another but there are at least two beings referred to here.
It’s easy to believe this narrative that the early church was not unified by only citing part of the verse in Galatians 2:11 and out of its context. Galatians 2:11 When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. I encourage everyone to not take anyone’s word on anything scholarly or religiously and see for themselves.
When they did get their power though they were allowed to confiscate property and the like, not all persecution starts with the sword sometimes all they needed was a law.
Could Islam, in some way, be seen as a veriety of early Christianity? Muhammed considered Jesus a prophet, like the Arians, but created his religion more strict like Judaism.
I suggest you read this book The Heresy of Orthodoxy: How Contemporary Culture's Fascination with Diversity Has Reshaped Our Understanding of Early Christianity By DR MICHAEL KRUGER
Howdy, I just want to point out that the nova is accurate to a point but should really incorporate some aspects of the linear model. Early Judeo Christians primarily held to either a Pauline or Jame/Peter based theology. These two schools of thought are what spurs Christianity into the wider world with Pauls ideas allowing primarily "pagan" peoples to enter Christianity. This initial linear split leads to the supernova effect as the various "heresies" develop in non Jewish christian communities. The issues between peter and paul (really between Paul and James) come to there head at the Council or Jerusalem and are primarily resolved there. Of cpurse by then the debate had drug on long enough to spark firther debates.
I would say there were more varieties of Christianity than just Paul and James/Peter. Paul alludes to other Christians that disagree with him (more than just Peter in Galatians). Also I don't know if we can neatly place the rest of our early Christian literature into those two categories (Where does Revelation fit? 2 Peter and Jude? Hebrews?)
ReligionForBreakfast fair enough, though isnt 2nd peter traditional ascribed to peter? Dont most scholars attribute quite a bit of the new testament to Pauls authorship or people directly related to his trips? Which would put those "in his camp" so to speak? As for otheres disagreeing with Paul in galations... could you point me to those verses? I would quite like to see them.
2 Peter is traditionally ascribed to Peter, but it is almost certainly not by Peter. Jude and 2 Peter seem to riff off each other...one copying the other. As for Pauline authorship...Scholars generally agree that 7 epistles should be attributed to Paul. Some of the other epistles are disputed with varying degrees of certainty (2 Thess, Ephesians, Col, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus). Other books do seem to be influenced by Paul's thinking. I'm not doubting that he was a huge influence on early Christianity. He definitely was. But his own writings imply that he wasn't accepted everywhere. He is constantly defending his own apostleship and claim to authority (apparently because so many people were doubting his authority). Paul attacks Peter in Galatians 1 and 2 I believe (i'd need to double-check). They must have had a major dispute before the epistle was written.
ReligionForBreakfast there dispute is primarily (as I understand it) over circumsision and adherence to the letter of mosaic law. Both things Peter knows he doesnt have to do because of his vision in Acts. Why he argues with Paul is largely due to James being the head of the church at jerusalem and not wanting to appear unjewish. This is why a comment is made about how peter used to eat with gentiles but later withdraws from them. Later on however, works attributed to Peter refer to Pauls writings positively and the outcome of the jerusalem council is to tell people only to abstain from blood, things strangled, and sexual impurity (essentially a compromise). As for Paul arguing his own authority this has to do entirely withthe events in acts. The other believers simply do not trust Paul and find it insulting that he wants equality with them since they spent 2 or 3 years with Jesus and Paul "saw" a vision and went ok now I am an authority. Which is true, in as much as Paul being a religious authority is concerned. Compared to Peter specifically Paul was literate, knew many languages, and had an actual position in the hierarchy of Judaism. All things that might miff the unlearned Peter and other Christians.
Paul & peter were disagreeing over practice not theology... Peter had allowed himself to be cowered into going against his conscience... so i dont agree with that point... they didnt disagree over theology....
"Orthodoxy" is about not about "I'm right you wrong", it's about consistency. "Heresy", by definition; is a choice of aspects of orthodoxy, one allow the other to exist, not the other way around
Based on the video content, i would have to disagree on the assertion that there were many variants of Christianity in the beginning. Could you post the timelines of the herasies mentioned as they are not all of the same time frame?
Ha ha, I am called a heretic by orthodoxy because I no longer believe God refuses to forgive his enemies and burns them in pain, suffering, agony and torment throughout all eternity. I became unorthodox when I figured Jesus read the same Old Testament but only saw a perfectly law-full loving all-forgiving God who not only forgave his enemies but would die rather than lift a finger against them. If Jesus didn’t see a God like this and saw only the God modern orthodoxy sees then he was a liar when he claimed to be the exact image of him. Was Jesus a heretic?
True , before the first council of nicaea in 325 AD , there was no true consensus on heresy . Though very interesting , and full of gnostic concepts , the apocryphal writings died on the cutting room floor because history and bibles are written by the victors.
"a weapon against" can just as be said, from a strictly HISTORICAL point of view, "a defense against". the first one does have its own assumptions as the second; historians work with assumptions as well, and there is a tendency to excoriate "orthodoxy" and paint them in violent terms just so a certain supposed "neutrality" that historians think they must uphold in their scholarship. thus the employment of terms like "insiders" and "outsiders," terms which were NOT used by the people of those times but concocted by historians given their own current prejudices. Religion for Breakfast must do a better job of surfacing its own "prejudices" (employed in its Gadamerian sense). Certainly, many of these come from the "social sciences" and their desire to emulate the supposed objectivity of the natural sciences. This is a pipe dream. Religious Science or Religious Studies is very often presented in opposition to Theology. The question to ask is: why then did the Docetists not survive? The conventional answer given is: because "Orthodoxy" violently extirpated them. Easy. And cheap. And totally disregards the capacity of human beings to see that Docetism in fact DEVIATES from the core message of Christianity. Now historians question whether there was such a thing as a "core message". But this totally disregards TRADITION as a process of handing on, of the message received, develop and spread, but with clearly identifying marks. The Docetists failed these identifying marks. The "regula fidei" came about to precisely provide some kind of measure about difference, similarity, change, etc. This is not an invention of "orthodoxy" but already there: what constitutes acceptable belief and practice? Docetists deny that there is a true "incarnation"; that is a defining identity mark. Christianity was also seen as in continuity with Judaism in some fundamental ways; the schema "promise and fulfilment" was one such way; Marcion totally dismisses the Hebrew Bible. Docetists do not see Jesus of Nazareth in Johannine and Pauline framework. To call them "Christianities" or "varieties of Christianity" may help one to exalt one's position as "neutral" and "objective" and "impartial", but how then do historians adjudicate claims that are competing, contradictory, and conflictive? Ancient people did ask: was there a true incarnation or was there not. or are historians saying the question was not posed at all???
Mmmmmm. I am not totally convinced on this. Clearly, the major Christian leaders, the bishop, were around really from the start and kept in pretty good communication. Even appealing to the Bishop of Rome at times. So there really was a nascent orthodoxy from the beginning of Christianity.
Heretic and orthodox are also a moral judgment. That's why there are churches called "orthodox" but no churches are called "heretic". In fact, I'm sure this is a tradition that started with theologians clearly taking sides. It has no place in academia.
ReligionForBreakfast But there is proof, that new cults were created that claimed different things from Jesus. Logically as a historian you should be able to compare what Jesus and his disciples actually claimed and what these Gnostic cults aka heretics claimed. Both were biased but as you have admitted we can see their actual beliefs in the early Christian texts. It's not about who was right about God or if their religion is right about who God is, but which version of Christianity is closest to what Jesus and his disciples taught. Looking at Gnostic texts we can definitely see that their version of Christianity is modified from what Jesus taught. Considering that thousands of people actually saw Jesus and heard him speak, it makes sense that Gnosticism didn't gain much popularity, even 200 years later people would still remember stories of their great grandparents and there would be much more information alive compared to today. Claiming that Gnostic cults actually might have been right about Christianity is a stretch. That's why they're called Gnostics, not Christians, even by historians, because there is a big difference between the two.
DohMkay The kind of comparison you're talking about belongs in the realm of theology. The scholars who study theology and make those comparisons are called theologians. ReligionForBreakfast is a religious studies channel. The job of religious studies as a field of study is to look at religion purely in its role as a human institution, how it influences/is influenced by societies and cultures. So it's the job of a religious studies scholar to, say, work out how exactly all the different sects of Christianity arose and interacted with each other, while said scholar would leave it to theologians to debate the value or correctness of beliefs. In the context of religious studies, asking whether Gnosticism is right or wrong makes as much sense as asking an astronomer whether it's good or bad that the planets have the orbits that they do.
What books do you recommend to get the slightest knowlegde you have??? I am interested in religion, but not that smart in the subject What books you recommend??
A History of Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years by Diarmaid McCullough covers all of these groups and more. It's a very satisfying read and a great overview ox Christian history.
Okay, I shouldn't be thinking this, but... This guy is extremely, uh, "fetching" [just trying to keep it as clean and respectful as possible; he is a religion scholar, after all].
Your quotes were '... historians don't like using the term Heretic' 'A good historian needs to be able to step back and see that 'heresy' was being used as a weapon to differentiate between two different groups' *Cites title 'Orthodoxy & Heresy in Earliest Christianity' It just seemed that if a historian used the term 'heretic' in the title of his book then at least some historians would be ok with using the term. Is it that historians do not like using the term in a certain way, i.e a label? Or have they actively argued against the general use of the word, even if it is just used to mean 'non-orthodox'? Edit: Or, since this book was written in 1971, is this more of a recent trend which this author helped develop?
The book is even older than that, 1934. The 1971 is a reprint. It is considered a foundational study in early Christian scholarship, but there definitely are some arguments in the book that have been developed/improved over the course of the 20th century. But yes, historians don't use the term "in a certain way." That "certain way" is using it as a descriptive category instead of recognizing it as an "insider's" term. Better descriptive categories would be "non-Chalcedonian," "Marcionites," "Arians," etc. The general use of the term is fine and appears in scholarly works all the time, but most careful historians I've read know its baggage and use the term appropriately.
Thanks for clarifying. Just realized how old this video was. One of my history courses was 'barbarian history' and the distinction was 'Arian' & 'Catholic' but that was in the centuries following the Council of Nicaea. Will subscribe
Even nowadays, I think there's some utility in using terms like "Christianities". Look at a Roman Catholic, Coptic Orthodox, Southern Baptist, and Jehovah's Witness side by side. You can't tell me that's all really one religion. More like different religions with a shared overarching label and shared influences.
Blepbloop Bleeplop overarching canon and major shared beliefs, which the various Christian sects all (mostly) share. And it’s not just Christianity. Most of the large world religions are just as fractured. Regardless religion isn’t really a thing, and the idea of it as we think of it only appeared in the early modern era.
@@baneofbanes well I agree with that (that all major religions are fractured). My only point was that we have a tendency to generalize Christians and Christianity (and Jews and Judaism, and Muslims and Islam) etc and using the plural could help mitigate that
the thing is and maybe im being over simplistic, if you believe that the NT is historically reliable, the writers actually were eye witnesses and apostles of jesus so they knew what he taught then you are going to call the likes of Marcion someone who deviates from what Jesus taught as he wasnt one of his apostles... What was in line with his new religion (or fullfilment of judaism) and what wasnt.. The word heretic is just a word... which i can see atheistic historians getting twitchy about....
One of my favourite stories from the Council of Nicea concerns the time Arius was giving a speech propounding his views and a fellow bishop, Nicholas of Myra, walked up and punched him in the face. So poor Arius had the unfortunate distinction of being the first (and probably only) person ever punched in the mouth by Santa Claus. No presents for him!
I post that story on my facebook every Christmas.
Arius also shat himself to death in a public toilet. There are frescoes/icons of the event. Change my mind
I've heard of and repeated this story before (as I originally heard of it in a college course). However, after doing some Googling, it looks like there's a likelihood that this never happened. I guess there's evidence to indicate that St. Nicholas wasn't even there at the Council of Nicea.
But it's still fun to tell the story of Santa Claus punching a guy in the face for Jesus.
Arius was the first to make the naughty list 😂
@@J.F.331 Underrated comment
Thanks for sharing about your early paper with all the teacher's red ink on it. Reminds me of my own seminary days :)
I just discovered your channel by accident today, and have already watched three. I am IMPRESSED. It is rare to have presentations about religious history that don’t get sidetracked by doctrinal debates and sectarian assertions. You have managed to stick to the historical facts, even if it leaves some questions unanswered (for now). Your work is a refreshing change - thank you.
The guy's a Religious Studies scholar. He's just doing things the way one ought to do in Religious Studies
Excellent! I've been a church pastor for many years and sense a current need in the "church" at large for a teaching such as this.Thank you for your words of truth. They were most refreshing. Blessings!
Do you find this secular channel to present accurate information, pastor?
@@TheCandiceWang As someone discerning for ordained ministry in the Episcopal Church, I find this channel to be extremely solid and to support my own studies on the topic. This is a great resource for anyone interested in learning more about religion - Dr. Henry has my deepest respect.
Just found this channel and panicked that since this video was so old you might not be producing new stuff - happy to see you just posted a new video of hitting 500k subs . Loving the content as I started studying history and then wanted to study religion
Is there any way you'd consider doing a video on Zoroastrianism and how it impacted Judaism and other Abraham faiths? Specifically in regards to Gnostic Christianity, as I've found several very interesting parallels between Zoroastrianism and Gnosticism.
Please and thank you!
I'll try to do a video on Zoroastrianism next year. It'll come up a little bit in a video I'm planning for late January on the Cult of Mithras. Great idea though!
ReligionForBreakfast Too cool! That was one of the other questions I thought of asking, was if you planned on going into any mystery religions of the Roman empire. Haha.
on the note of Zoroastrianism and Gnostic Christianity, can you correct me if I'm wrong in assuming there's a connection between the duotheism of Zoroastrianism and the Duotheism of Gnostic Christianity?
From what I've been reading, there are some pretty clear indication that Judaism was influenced heavily from Zoroastrianism, specifically the monotheism on the broad strokes, and even finer points like incredibly similar language between Zoroastrian texts, and Leviticus 20-13.
Given that, I find it interesting that Gnostic Christianity had that duotheistic nature, almost as if it inherited it from Zoroastrianism, but it skipped a generation. haha.
Cody.
Gnostics indeed made syncretism (on the contrary of the main church). Maniceans were kind of mix between zoroastrian and chirstian views. Mani considered himself as the paraclet (last prophet) as Muhammad did but much later. Maniceans had quite a lot of sucess and survived a lot of time. They probably are the roots of cathars also (even if the cathars are a mix of maniceanss and other gnostics).
Hep Hopa That's really informative and interesting. I don't know much about the Cathars, I'll have to look them up now. :)
Thanks a ton for the reply!,
Cody Mintz-Thibault
You welcome. They had the same doctrine than the bogomils from Bulgaria, but they were mainly located in south of France. Inquisition was invented ... for them.
They were the last large and structured gnostic church.
After them some gnostic church of France was made in the 18th -19th century but nothing big... Cathars are the last important gnostics...
Wiki on Heresy (didn't have the nasty connotations that it does now):
The term heresy is from Greek αἵρεσις *originally meant "choice" or "thing chosen",[6]* but it came to mean the "party or school of a man's choice"[7] and also referred to that process whereby a young person would examine various philosophies to determine how to live.
You're right. The Greek term didn't have the pejorative sense that it later gained from early Christian elites. I think it is even used in the NT without that pejorative sense.
I didn't know that. Thank you!
@@ReligionForBreakfast Actually, the pejorative for the Christian is rooted in Ephesians 4, for example. It was implied that by "taking sides" you would have to create another side that was invalidated by the Truth. As a translation of what Paul penned goes, "4There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; 5one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all." Heresy was creating another "body" to choose to be in, and hence there would be two bodies. Or as a translation of the Apostle John's writing goes, "19They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us. 20But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and you know all things. 21I have not written to you because you do not know the truth, but because you know it, and that no lie is of the truth." So you already see the concept of heresy spelled out, even without the word being mentioned here.
The nova model is so GOOD
Very informative, keep up the excellent work!
+Juan Garcia Glad you liked the nova model! I'm hoping to develop the idea into an even better/clearer graphic.
ReligionForBreakfast Interesting to see the evolution from linear to dynamic models! keep us posted on your progress. Good luck!
ReligionForBreakfast
ReligionForBreakfast
I was going to ask if there was, perhaps, an interactive nova model, or a detailed graphic, for those of us interesting in learning more about other-than-nicean Christianity.
I've read a bit about the Gnostics, and a few others, but I'm very interested in reading more.
I'm hoping to go to school for religious studies soon, your videos have been absolutely fantastic, and I can't wait for more!
As Arianism was a huge player in post Nicene European Christianity and could have easily become the dominant strain until about 500CE it would be interesting to hear your take on it and the history behind this movement
I am so glad I found this. I have been looking for this information for years. Thank you. I am a new Patreon and love your videos.
Thank you for challenging the assumption that the early church was unified. And thank you for the supernova illustration - really helped me understand the phenomenon better!
I thought that when I would try to reconnect with my faith, I would just read the Bible and go to church and that would be it. Turns out there's more going on than I thought... 😳 🕳🐇
You and me both
Reconnecting is a big mistake
I really really love this series. It's very interesting and informative.
You Sir deserve more subscribers. I enjoy this channel, it is very scholar, but at the same time, it's entertaining and it makes us want to know more about these "exotic" topics.
Just a remark : at 04:19, the names are at too little a size, it's not possible to read them with without enlarging the screen.
I'm waiting for the next episode now :D
+John Smith Glad you're enjoying the channel! Spread the word! I've been getting more subscribers every month.
(Thanks for the tip on the small names...I'll keep that in mind going forward with other videos).
Allah'u'Abha
@@ReligionForBreakfast where is the complete animated web of Christianity?
Didnt Ireneus get his authority from Polycarp, a diciple of John? Wouldnt that come with some authority? Wouldnt Ireneus therefore hold more authority on Christian thought then some non apostolic ly asocciated heritic?
Dont try to argue with him, he is convinced that the best way to understand religion, is to be blind to its theological truth claims in the name of “objectivity”. Every proof becomes redirect, every argument conjecture, every sect just has an opinion. Every version of christianty has an equally valid truth claim because in religious studies you cant investigate truth claims. In the name of objectivty they just created a new biast which gives them the greater disadvantage to understanding the religion.
@@zekidan8284 well, that's because religious faith can't be measured objectively but just as opinions.
@Intoxicated Gray Hulk aka Mr. Fixit
What apostolic succession did Valentinus or Marcion claim? Can you give some examples of apostolic succession claimed by folks in early Christianity eventually labeled heretics?
@Intoxicated Gray Hulk aka Mr. Fixit I was aware of the fact that the canonical gospels are not considered to have been authored by those to whom they're ascribed but I was not aware of who some of the so-called "heretics" claimed to get their apostolic succession from.
Thanks for the response. I will follow up on some of the info.
@@zekidan8284 i highly doubt you genuinely believe every version of Christianity has a valid truth claim.
This channel is such à gift!
My new favorite channel, thanks for the amazing videos, very inspiring!
Great video. I think the imagery of a spiritual being exploding into a super nova of different forms of Christianity is beautiful. It makes perfect sense since every human has a slightly different perspective to each other.
I really like this analytical and precise style! Also the videos are long enough and still pleasingly short for general browsing.
I didn't find a spesific video on the "forgeries" of the early christianities; texts that were seen as heretic (by the mainstreamers). What does a forgery mean? Why on Earth would anyone in those times spend countless hours of writing "imaginary stories", collection of sayings that were never said by anyone, stories of events which never happened? What would have been the motivation for that? And if it happened, how common was that kind of activity in the religious movements? And lastly, if it happened commonly...are the canonical gospels the end products of the same process?
For me it is really difficult to understand that anyone would have a real motivation to forge religious texts in those times. I do understand why some would do it now in the modern times (money) though. But in the early phase of christianities that surely wasn't the case. So, according to my reasoning all these early texts are fruits from the same tree. All the conflicting sayings, memories what happened, what he said, what he did and where etc. All of them were built on revelations, dreams, old jewish texts and imaginative writing. And this means that there never was the man, he was just later decided, put in his place.
Another great video Andrew. I really enjoyed it. You explained the problem and various solutions extremely well.
I have 2 issues about the branching assumed in this video:
1) Does it refer to institutional splitting or faith diversification among Nicaean Christians? Institutionally, Nicaean Creed itself recognized 3 separate church institutions in Rome, Antioch and Alexandria. They had their own Patriarchs and traditions. Their theologies were not identical.
They had bigger separations in each of the Councils, but they were already separate from the beginning. As far as I know theological differences which later solidified as Dyophysitism, Miaphysism and Monophysism always existed among these denominations. Cyril of Alexandria did not wake up 1 morning and decide to choose a new Theology out of the blue. Theological conflicts due to Dyophysitism Monophysitism and Miaphysitism was just a theological manifestation of the institutional conflicts. Cyril who was a Miaphysite could lead the Council of Ephesus and even excommunicate Nestorius. However, this difference could lead to big riots in Alexandria later.
2) Interestingly the Holy See of Alexandria is not shown as a branching in the diagram. It is probably assumed to be covered by Miaphysites, but even that is unfair. You don't name all Western denominations as Dyophysites.
I am not even Christian, but even I know that Church of St. Mark is 1 of the 3 Holy Sees recognized in Cannon 6 of Council of Nicaea. It is an Apostolic Church and claims to be started by St. Mark. None of the branches shown by name, other than Catholicism (Holy See of Rome) and Assyrian Church (I guess it is supposed to mean Holy See of Antioch), did not even exist at the time.
When Church of St. Mark was accepted as a Holy See in Nicaean Council, even city of Constantinople did not exist. There was the tiny little Byzantion at the site. Naturally, there was no Church of Constantinople. Thus, Holy See of Alexandria is way older than Easthern Orthodoxy. It is definitely older than 5 Protestant Churches mentioned by name.
What a brilliant channel. Thank you so much for these videos, I think I know what I want to study at uni now thanks to you :)
I know this video is 2 years old but I've only just stumbled upon your channel and am enjoying the content. Something about the supernova model doesn't quite sit right with me, however. I think it may lie in the fact that I have trouble reconciling the 1st century Palestinian Judaism of Jesus with the some of the more "radical" discursive tendencies held by some of the gnostic groups (Basilidians, Sethians, etc.) concerning the position of the Jewish God - usually an inferior demiurge or an archon, either evil or ignorant, sometimes both - and the nature of the Torah. Whether or not these groups were ever 'orthodox' to begin with, I feel that the supernova model might be ignoring the fact that not everyone of those Christian sects "develop" at a static rate.
Whether it be branches of the evolutionary tree of life or those of language families, the various branches of species or languages maintain, in different ways and to different degrees, certain conservative and archaic elements which other branches do not. The supernova model seems to depict that all sects are equally developing their doctrines away from the theoretical, historical body of Jesus' oral teachings at the same rate so as to produce a variety of different sects with different doctrines. According to the model, each of these are equally a variety of Christianity and each of them is equally as removed from the original body of Jesus' oral teachings. But I'm not convinced this is the case when some 'Christian' groups appear to be taking liberties with seemingly so central a doctrine as monotheism.
A glance through one of my textbooks reminds me that some of the gnostic cosmologies are quite fantastic and and the Greek names for the various emanations of beings seem worlds away from the books of the Hebrew bible, regardless of the genre. Whereas the proto-orthodox groups end up producing a New Testament and a body of doctrine, which, though it bears the marks of Christians taking up and expanding on themes that were only nascent or inchoate in the Old Testament (or inter-testamental literature) it is still quite clearly intertextual with it and remains close to it in worldview and in poetic expression. It's easy to believe that a group of first century Palestinian Jews would start calling Jesus a Messiah (certainly he wasn't the first candidate) or the Logos (for the Hellenised ones). But it's more difficult to see why Gnostic Christians might start assigning these titles, Christos and Logos, to separate archons. It's also difficult to imagine why Hellenistic cosmological emanation schemes would be so central to the message of an apocalyptic exorcist who dealt mostly with rural or townsfolk Galileans, that is, if these elements of gnosticism go back to an apostolic foundation or to Jesus' very own oral teachings.
While I'm not advocating the secular academy magically and unanimously strip these groups of the category "Christian" and I agree that the older model of heresy and orthodoxy was inadequate and problematic, it did allow for the possibility of expressing the idea that, unlike branches of species or language families, religious groups can valorise traditionalism and attempt to be conservative (like, perhaps, the two Pauline churches being addressed in 1 Corinthians 11:2 and 2 Thessalonians 2:15) and they may be successful to various degrees. Perhaps in oral societies they can even be extraordinarily successful in preserving and conserving older beliefs, practices, worldviews, etc.
Anyways, my education was in the generative grammar school of linguistics so I'm a total laymen to academic religious studies but I couldn't help but offer some of my thoughts on the matter.
John Andres thank you for this.
Very good point
Exactly! If there is a truly orthodox Christianity, it would be found in the very centre of the supernova, not having moved from the heart of the original teachings at all -- the heart of what Jesus himself meant. Maybe there never was such thing as truly orthodox christianity in practice, and maybe it isn't even Nicean Christianity, but a truly orthodox teaching must have existed, if only in the mind of Christ himself. The tree diagram that he showed and the supernova diagram are also not comparable because one has time as one of the axis and the other doesn't (unless he's saying that a bunch of the Christian groups were time travellers)
Good comment!
I see this term 'heresy' pretty often when I'm researching various sects in religions, and I likely most commonly see this term associated with Christian sects, but whenever I read the term, I ask, "Heretical by whose estimation?" Of course the answer to this is the positions of the general ecumenical body of mainstream Christianity, which are commonly understood by pretty much everyone, at least here in the US. When used in a formal definition concerning an 'ism,' using the term 'heresy' or 'heretical' is subtly, or perhaps not so subtly, pejorative. Orthodoxy and heresy are terms that are relational and should only be used as such. Plus, history shows an ever repeating trend of yesterday's heresy being today's orthodoxy, with the current orthodoxy being overthrown at some point in the future.
"That appear wrong only in retrospect" -- not really... it was due to the squabbling between these early Christianities that caused the Council of Nicea to have to take place, "Nicene Christianity" wasn't a place of birth of a version of Christianity, it was meant as the place of death of all others... each of the points it states ("one god", "three forms") were the concluding judgements for each point of contention between different ideas. So, (assuming) there was no statement that "We believe his name was Jesus" because that wasn't a point of contention - nobody was asserting "his real name was McSquibble", as hilarious as that would have been :-)
annoloki
Excellent response. I came to the same conclusion in my thoughts but you put it into words in a far better way than I could. This video was good, being very informative yet I feel is incomplete cause it failed to state this very important fact. This is actually one of the truths which separate Christianity from all of the other religions of that time, which were all experiencing the same forms of division that came with growth.
Good point. Thank you for sharing!
A very good point that actually undermines the modern idea that all religious "opinions" (heresies) and sects are equally valid, or among Marxist influenced academics, equally invalid. The modern idea of avoiding the word heresy is also a way for modern academics to promote certain "pet" concepts. It is trying to give an "air of antiquity" to totally modern concepts like the "divine feminine".
.
@@pravolub8 "Marxist influenced academics"
"If you don't uncritically accept this ancient text filled with unfalsifiable claims as absolute fact then you are a communist!"
Get a grip my dude.
"Nicene Christianity" wasn't a place of birth of a version of Christianity, it was meant as the place of death of all others."
...but if you accept that the NT is historically reliable then you can get the creeds from scripture itself, scripture written down by eye witnesses who were followers of Jesus....
the nicene creed does not seem to teach anything that is not in scripture...
we also have the letters of the early church fathers (ad70-300) from which scripture can be reconstructed... it shows that what they believed was in line with scripture...
According to scriptures the bishops have the authority to bind and loose Therefore, a majority of the bishops in council determines Orthodoxy. Therefore, It is easy to identify Orthodoxy after the beginning of the 4th century. It is therefore not that difficult to identify the doctrines which resembled what became Orthodoxy. There is no problem with calling heterodox doctrine heretical. This exercise is only engaged in to try to try to cast doubt on the status of Orthodoxy.
The problem with the supernova model is that it commits the same fallacy as the early paleontologists did. Every new fossil was assigned a new taxon. We had hundreds and hundreds of “new dinosaurs” that were actually all just differently preserved instances of the same species.
Syriac Christians had their own traditions, yes, but the Syriac Catholic Church still has its own traditions today. The Latin Catholic Church has its own traditions. That is irrelevant to whether or not they are the same orthodox faith.
We should be looking for communions, not traditions. The Syriac-speaking Church was by and large in full communion with the Latin-speaking church of Irenaeus, for example. We have several copies of his Against Heresies found in Syriac.
The super nova model fails to recognize this nuance.
Excellent! Good work mate.
Thanks!
Cool video! I think between being differentiated from the original meaning "choice" and acquiring the meaning "sect", *_Hairesis_* had the meaning of "philosophical school", which was 'value-neutral'. I'd propose that it acquired pejorative connotations in contemporaneously with its use by early christian theologians.
Thank you. I enjoyed your presentation and find it truthful and accurate. Again, thanks.
Your teachings are vary good Andrew! In John Jesus prayed that we would be one in Him. I feel my heart sadden sometimes when i see all these different sects of Christianity. Anyway, keep up the good work!
The only thing that makes Nicene Christianity Nicene is the claim canons were added to it right then and there to clarify its Orthodox/Catholic type. Without the canons its more Evangelical, as the gospel that saves if its there is 1 Cor 15:1-4 not sacerdotalist or of works, its only the canons that are said to add that bunk.
Wow, interesting stuff, have you done a video on icons and if not would you be willing to?
I wish to learn everything you've learned in regards to early Christianity. Also would like to know more about your personal beliefs.
I wonder what it would be like if all of those early divisions survived to the modern day? Would it cause more religious wars?
The first time I watched this it seemed legit for me, but after thinking it a little bit, I don't think this is an accurate way to see it, specially on the graph depicted on 4:17, like showing proto-orthodoxy as and Gnostic Christianity at the same distance to the original Christianity but just in opposite sides.
Just by reading the letters of the apostles it's easy to reach the conclusion that Gnostic Christianity was very far away from original Christianity and proto-orthodoxy at least was doing its best to try to remain truthful to original Christianity, so at least that makes me think that there was people who wanted to stick with the teachings of the apostles(yes, they didn't agree in every single belief, but at least they were trying to agree) and people who tried to do something completely different (probably motivated by trying to fit Jesus into other religions that they felt more self-identified with).
So, I think the branching figure is more accurate than the other one, the Christians who wanted to stick with the teachings of the apostles eventually converged to the Nicean creed. If "heretic" is an incorrect word for historical purposes, I think a "dissident" or "schismatic" could do the job.
See John Andres above (7 months before you) for a lengthy text of it. :)
So I'm a bit late, but few things to point out. Firstly Gnostic christology is much more similair to early christology than Trinitarianism is. There were two early christologies. Adoptionism, the idea that Jesus was a man until the resurrection whereafter he became divine and high Christology that Jesus was a pre-created divine being but subordinate to and different from god. The former would go on to inspire Islamic views on Jesus and the latter Gnosticism and proto-Orthodoxy. The Gnostic concept of Jesus being an Aeon is very much in line with high Christology. As for the notions that Gnostics tried to make the bible fit with other religions it doesn't make much sense considering most of their early adherents were Jewish Christians albeit influenced heavily by Platonic philosophy. That argument would make more sense for the proto-Orthodox who operated mainly amongst the previously Pagan gentiles. In fact these are the kinds of people more likely to be open to the idea of Jesus being god as opposed to the strictly monothiestic Jews. The explosion model in my view is the most accurate one. There was incredible diversity in those early years specifically about the nature of Christ.
Was modern “trinitarianism” really around in the first century? Would appreciate your take on that
@Perry Malcom Hello,
I do not know if you have received an answer, so,... if you will please excuse me, I'll take the liberty to reply with a short answer; no.
And with a extremely measured explanation, as to why I believe the above.
I believe your question to be an oxymoron/impossible.
1 Corinthians 15
For since by man came death, [Adam/sin] by man {Jesus/sinless} came also the resurrection of the dead. [Romans 3:23 For all (except Jesus) have sinned, and come short of the glory of God]
Jesus was not born with the Adamic sin nature. He was as Peter said; The Christ the son of the living God.
For Jesus to have had an impure thought,...such as himself being 3 persons...?
no.
Jesus was born after the flesh of the seed of David---A Monotheistic Jew.
Colossians 2:9 As it is written in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead i.e. God bodily;
Until the time of Justin Martyr the trinity wasn't mentioned.
The formula of Baptism was always in the Name Of > the Lord Jesus until the time of Justin Martyr when triune formula was used.
The Catholic Encyclopedia, II, page 263:
"The baptismal formula was Changed from the [Name] of Jesus Christ
to the Words/Titles father, son, and holy spirit
by the Catholic Church
in the second century."
Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord
One Lord, One faith, One baptism
The Gospel of Jesus Christ as it was preached by Jesus Christ and by his Apostles
Please bear with me; In the following order.
Matthew 28:19=John 3:1-7 = Matthew 16:19=Acts 2:38 =Acts 4:12=Philippians 2:9-11
I hope you receive the above, in the same Spirit as I have written this to you.
The words are not mine.
mark, a servant - by the grace of God I am what I am.
Yes.
St. Clement of Rome,
St. Polycarp the martyr,
St. Ignatius of Antioch,
St. Papias,
The Didache,
Second century:
St Justin Martyr,
St Irenaeus,
St Theophilus of Antioch
People always assume that those who came before them were so different. Maybe because we're in a Hegelian dialectic society where the new is a countermovement to the old, which is the only other time we come into contact with?
Isn't 'atheist' the same kind of insider's term for non-believers?
It seems to have inherited the ignostic position of proactively denying any/all deistic concepts, as opposed to the rejection of one concept.
I get what you're saying, but the difference is atheists often give themselves the title. It was originally given by theists, but today it's accepted by those who don't believe in a god.
Can you talk about the book of enoch ?
Do a video on how the city of Petra is the original Mecca.
Personally, I like the plural. There is an excellent text on Buddhism that goes the same route: Buddhist Religions. (-s). In both cases there are beliefs under the name of the religion that are mutually exclusive of others.
Some would say that looking at Christianity through a purely historical lens is itself a heresy. As a Christian I think that understanding the historical development of the earthly Church only deepens my faith. This was like a spring in the desert for both my intellect and my spirit.
Eh, Bauer's thesis in Orthodoxy and Heresy is largely refuted now, with just the bare bones intact.
This really reminds me of paleontology, because of the emergence and disappearance of unique and distinct lineages.
The problem with the word Trinity is the different variations of the meaning of that term. I believe the Bible clearly teaches there are 3 persons. But early trinitarianism seemed to be an answer the Alexandrian school that promoted the neoplatonist view of modalism or Syballlanism (the Christian version).
I (and of course, I'm the most balanced thinker of all time lol) see three persons...but they aren't one in the sense of what I think the Nicean Chrisitans believed and taught. They aren't a banana or an apple with three parts making one body or a God with three personalities or faces. They are clearly three individuals! The Son prays to the Father. (John 17, etc) The Son asks the Father to send the Spirit. (John 14:16-18) The Spirit can be grieved and be lied to according to Ephesians and Acts. So the Spirit is also a person. When spoken of by Jesus He uses the word for another that implies another of the same nature αλλος instead of ἐτρος which implies another of a different nature. So they are three persons, same nature...but not the same person! But how are the One? I dont' have perfect answer but I think we find a clue in humans who were made in the image of God. A husband and wife become "One" when married. From that point on in a perfect setting, they have one purpose, one mission and one love shared. So, I think the word Trinity is some muddy waters. I use it at times, but it is nothing like it is used in the idea that its One God with three faces or manifestations. I understand them to be individuals....else how could they love? If they were one Person, they'd be loving themself. Just food for thought from the most balanced Christian of all time that changes his views as he continues to research :)
P.S. , I think things the Bible doesn't make some things clear because they either aren't important or are too much for our minds to grasp, so they are best left as mysteries or matters put on hold till further light appears on the subject or are made clear in the earth made new.
Personally as a new Christian I agree with you
This makes the most sense
I wouldn´t take the verse Gal 2:11 to demonstrate that the church was not united from the beginning. If you look at the context of this passage, it´s about paul rebuking peter for an hypocritical action. It is something like"constructive critique" which brings more unitiy. The bible doesn´t tell us, how peter repsonded to this rebuke, but we know that peter speaks well of paul in 2 peter 3:15-16. In Acts 9:26-27 you can see how paul is seeking even for unitiy among the the apostles.
Imagine hymns today if the Doceitists had won out; “God you wear three masks, god you wear three masks, it’s how you reveal yourself in history....”
I teach theology and enjoyed this. Thanks.
5:17 hey, what's that script with all the circles above the image of the crucifixion?
I'm interested to know what terminology scholars use instead of "heresy" and "orthodoxy." Having come from within Nicene Christianity, it's all I know. The idea is directly or indirectly drilled into you from the very beginning.
love your work
im curious to know where your references are from
who wrote your books
where are you finding this information
thanks
He has sources in the text under the video on some other videos - check out the ones where he details one sect for example; it should have them. :)
I am so glad you raised Docetism. It is my favourite heresy. The fact that it is the first official "heresy" and the first Nicean Council was called to reject the doctrine. I am always amused by the fact that Docetism is OLDER than the alleged historical Jesus, and maintains that Jesus was never incarnated as a human. Good work ! :)
+Soylent Green I'll have a video on Docetism later. But it is not so much an official heresy as a vague category of belief about Jesus. Any theology that says Jesus didn't have a flesh and bone body could be called "docetic." It's different from other varieties of Christianity that were lead by a charismatic founder like Marcionism or Montanism.
ReligionForBreakfast Well as far as Christian heresies go Docetism has a fine and ancient pedigree, being rejected by the Orthodox and the Catholic before they even split and became separate institutions.
BTW here is an interesting half-joking heuristic I have developed that seems to hold strangely true in all cases I am heretofore aware of: "The difference between a cult and a religion is that religions contain at least two schisms."
Soylent.
The first Nicean council was mainly abou arians. Several gnostic denominations were decetists as by definition incarnating in matter is bad for gnostics.
There is no proof that docetism was there before the historical approach (in the Acts which is kind of first scriptures) the historical perspective is very clear.
And docetism and mythism are different. The first one does not say that there was no Jesus, but just as he was an appearance or he was replaced by other guys on the cross. But actually he was historic. Mythism says that Jesus never existed and is a myth. This latter thesis is only there from the 18th century. Very different.
Good work👍
I just discovered your channel for the first time yesterday, and I have very much appreciated it. This series in particular has taught me a lot and given me a lot to think about. Thank you so much!
A small thing I did want to ask though: when you refer to the different branches of present day Christianity, you typically only mention Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Protestantism, disregarding the Oriental Orthodox and the Assyrian church. You mentioned the latter briefly when looking at the "major branches..." chart, but still did not mention the OO there. Is this an intentional time saving thing, or an oversight? If it's the latter, I was just hoping to politely bring it to your attention.
Again, this is a wonderful channel and I hope that you continue to produce informative and thought producing content! Thank you!
Glad you like the channel! As for your other question, it is for time saving. I am aware of the other Orthodox groups, though I mention the biggest branches. I have an "Intro to Christianity" video coming out soon where I talk about the full plurality of Christianity (as best as I can in a 15 minute video).
Excellent but what do you say instead of heresy
What I do not understand and for which I cannot find an answer is, how and why did so many different groups adopt Jesus, the apostles and Mary Magdalene as figureheads for differing belief systems? If we consider James and the Ebionites anchored in Jerusalem and Paul running around preaching, and apostles going wherever, it does not seem to be enough, centuries before mass media, to spread the fame of Jesus.
Some researchers go to great lengths to try to prove that Jesus of Nazareth never existed and that Christianity is all fable. Yet whether we look at "orthodox" Christianity or the many other varieties once in existence, it seems inescapable that SOMETHING happened early in the first century that captured the attention and imagination of a wide swath of the populace. Whatever the scientific basis or not, I believe a fairly large number of people in Palestine must have had experiences that caused them to believe that Jesus was a miracle maker and that he was resurrected, however we interpret the latter.
Even in considering Pontius Pilate's treatment of Jesus, if we accept other contemporary descriptions of Pilate as a vicious, cruel ruler, the basics of the Jesus story seem to indicate his case was handled differently. There is indication that Jesus accepted martyrdom in order to spare his followers, a plea bargain of sorts. It would make more sense if Pilate had rooted out as many followers as possible and crucified or otherwise killed the whole lot. History indicates Pilate would not have been influenced by the goodness of Jesus but is it possible that Jesus demonstrated such extreme attributes that Pilate for once chose a quiet way to stop something that he feared would spread and become a larger threat? Did Pilate believe that Jesus' message and life were so powerful that only by destroying Jesus could Pilate regain control? Did Pilate fear that Jesus' message was so strong that wholesale slaughter of his followers would lead to a major rebellion?
why did roman catholic develope iconygraphy?
I have a question: Was Mohammed, the founder of Islam, a type of Christian or was he a pagan?
Good question, friend. Others will surely have differing opinions, as always, but my answer is that Mohammad was a pagan... a product of the world around him, in that time and place... but who tried to align himself with the Abrahamic traditions of the Jews and Christians, but didn't know very much about such things because he could only go by hearsay. This is why the Quran gets almost every fact from the Bible wrong in one way or another.
He was from pagan society but he himself was monotheist.
Paul opposed Peter for hypocrisy, not for a disagreement. I don’t believe you’re right for that reference. Sounded more like a result you got from a google search than from reading the book of acts and galatians
Heresy is only heresy because orthodoxy says so. The quintessential question is, "what is truth?" We know Jesus was a Jewish teacher. The man, Rabbi Yeshua who became known as the icon Jesus Christ, probably was a mystic. He did not establish a belief structure based upon doctrines which became Christianity... others did that over the successive centuries. He probably initiated his select disciples into an "experience of God" which he described as "Abba Father"... metaphorically, new wine (spirit) in old wineskins (formal religion). After his death, his immediate followers remained within the existing Judaism of that time... but, they believed him to be the Messiah (akin the Ebionites). They faithfully held onto the experience of his remaining presence within their believing community. As the message spread it morphed into diversity. The diverse forms of Christianity (so called) with their varying interpretations were an attempt to capture the ethereal quality of this "Christ experience". This became like trying to catch the wind... virtually impossible!
just noticed the tattoine poster
quick question: Ever considered doing a video on Dune and the real life religious inspirations of its narrative? (Star Wars is based on Dune)
hmmm...yes and no. I feel like some of what you said could be misread. I appreciate a certain relativism that historical sciences adopt and treat various phenomena as equally valid, but so called orthodoxy does have some currency in establishing its legitimacy in relation to the historical Jesus.
Heresy, as I'm sure you know means choice (haeresis). St Paul's claim to speak with authority and specifically referring to the Church as the "pillar and foundation of the truth" does suggest that truth was thought, already in the Apostolic age, to be associated with a or some traditions and not others (majority or no majority is irrelevant).
Just because doctrines were developing and so were the mechanisms by which authority could be exercised, doesn't mean the Jesus tradition didn't have Apostles speaking in an internal forum and proclaiming to the outside world their doctrine with authority at the exclusion of other varieties. And this is all way before Nicea comes in.
So I say yes and no because early Christianity was indeed quite atomized as you say very well here, but that doesn't mean each "atom" was equally relating to the core apostolic branch which had a direct contact with Jesus.
The fight between Peter and Paul was very significant but it doesn't mean we can expand from this a different Jesus tradition between one and the other. If so, the "Jesus tradition" starts to really lose any relevant meaning. Peter and Paul can have set different styles and even theologies (though that's not really the case but maybe more evident with other apostles) but belong to a common group identity. History, religious or non, is filled to the brim with examples societies or institutions which are a cohesive body that nevertheless suffer internal struggles, politics and as in the case of Peter and Paul what was likely a personal fight of sorts.
I'm going on and on here but I understand that historians have to have a certain healthy skepticism to concepts of claims to legitimacy. However, maybe we shouldn't be so ready in dismissing legitimacy as an explorable and even falsifiable concept? A rhetorical question meant as food for thought for all of us.
@ReligionForBreakfast, I would love to openly debate you on the issue of "proto-orthodoxy", For one thing you mention Paul was constantly redirecting Christians and for that mater churches to Christs teachings, well that's probably because he was an apostle, btw Apostle means chief disciple if you didn't know. I was a convert to the Orthodox Christian church, and I know for a fact that there is archaeological proof and historical proof to back it up as being the original church, there is a reason why the apostles corrected Christians who did not have "correct doctrine", or "right faith" hence Orthodoxy, Also another fact that 2 of the earliest churches, are still around to this day and both are Orthodox doesn't come across to you as a bit interesting? The Apostles also claim successors, The bible supports apostolic succession, The Orthodox Church is "Apostolic". The Orthodox Church is Catholic meaning universal, This term gets some of it's original connotations from some of the most earliest evangelist, and how the word of God spread through the world. Christ said Romans 1:16 (For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.) The Greeks did spread the message, hence Greek orthodox, I know this may seem like shallow reasoning at first glance, but we can talk this over GOd bless
Would love to see a video on pentecostalism (oneness) and connection to early Christian "heresey" (sorry) modalism.
Some early Christians were oneness.
Would you consider the later deviation, once the canon was stablish at Nicea, like arrianism as heresy from the historical point of view? I think yes...
I would think even that is up for grabs at least for a few more centuries. Arianism was very popular among the Germanic tribes that eventually overran the Western Roman Empire and came to be its rulers. It would be quite a long time before Arianism would cease to be a widely followed alternative version of Christianity.
The earliest, most authentic version of Christianity were a Jewish Messianic sect that observed the Law of Moses to the letter and who called their religion "the Way". They lived a strict aesthetic lifestyle in the caves around Qumran. They believed that the world was going to end soon. Their leader was called "The Teacher of Righteousness". They were opposed to Rome and also to Paul, who started a different sect of Christianity that included the Gentiles and which did not follow the laws of Moses. James the Just was the brother of the Teacher of Righteousness. James the Just appears near the end of Acts in the Bible. The Jesus of history is the Teacher of Righteousness mentioned in the Dead Sea Scrolls,
That Nicene Christianity won out over various forms of the faith from popularity and power is a seldom discussed view. Pagels covers it, but it's not talked about enough in general or even academic discussions.
BeauJames59
Not true. There were times that Emperors (Constantine included, even at the time of his death) supported heretical "factions", and they had the "upper hand". It's a miracle that the Orthodox position eventually won.
Exodus 24:10
[10]And they saw the God of Israel: and there was under his feet as it were a paved work of a sapphire stone, and as it were the body of heaven in his clearness.
Exodus 24:10-11
[10]And they saw the God of Israel: and there was under his feet as it were a paved work of a sapphire stone, and as it were the body of heaven in his clearness.
[11]And upon the nobles of the children of Israel he laid not his hand: also they saw God, and did eat and drink.
Exodus 33:18
[18]And he said, I beseech thee, shew me thy glory.
Exodus 33:18-19
[18]And he said, I beseech thee, shew me thy glory.
[19]And he said, I will make all my goodness pass before thee, and I will proclaim the name of the LORD before thee; and will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will shew mercy on whom I will shew mercy.
Exodus 33:20
[20]And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live. Etcetera
SO who was the God of Israel that moses and 70 elders could see and eat while looking upon, and who is this YHWH moses couldn't see anything but the backside of or he would die. Monotheism debunked people, the ancient hebrews were there own polytheism just like the rest of Mesopotamia, They just had a pantheon of different Gods, Elohim is plural, Majestic plural is a b.s linguistic falsification created by die hard monotheistic theologians and wahhabism. This is why YHWH is not mentioned in genesis 1, Many people dont notice these verses because how far apart they are, but it is clear The God of Israel and YHWH are not the same person, Who are they, El adoni(genesis),El Elion(genisis), YHWH Andoni(Ezekiel, exclusively), EL YHWH Tsabaoth (everywhere), Elohe Israel (Exodus), El shadday (everywhere), ancient of days, one like the son of man, Ehyeh esher ehyeh, many of these refer to one being or another but there are at least two beings referred to here.
Which modern christians hold the Docetist view as far as Jesus and his body?
It’s easy to believe this narrative that the early church was not unified by only citing part of the verse in Galatians 2:11 and out of its context.
Galatians 2:11 When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.
I encourage everyone to not take anyone’s word on anything scholarly or religiously and see for themselves.
When they did get their power though they were allowed to confiscate property and the like, not all persecution starts with the sword sometimes all they needed was a law.
Could Islam, in some way, be seen as a veriety of early Christianity?
Muhammed considered Jesus a prophet, like the Arians, but created his religion more strict like Judaism.
I suggest you read this book
The Heresy of Orthodoxy: How Contemporary Culture's Fascination with Diversity Has Reshaped Our Understanding of Early Christianity
By DR MICHAEL KRUGER
Howdy, I just want to point out that the nova is accurate to a point but should really incorporate some aspects of the linear model. Early Judeo Christians primarily held to either a Pauline or Jame/Peter based theology. These two schools of thought are what spurs Christianity into the wider world with Pauls ideas allowing primarily "pagan" peoples to enter Christianity. This initial linear split leads to the supernova effect as the various "heresies" develop in non Jewish christian communities. The issues between peter and paul (really between Paul and James) come to there head at the Council or Jerusalem and are primarily resolved there. Of cpurse by then the debate had drug on long enough to spark firther debates.
I would say there were more varieties of Christianity than just Paul and James/Peter. Paul alludes to other Christians that disagree with him (more than just Peter in Galatians). Also I don't know if we can neatly place the rest of our early Christian literature into those two categories (Where does Revelation fit? 2 Peter and Jude? Hebrews?)
ReligionForBreakfast fair enough, though isnt 2nd peter traditional ascribed to peter? Dont most scholars attribute quite a bit of the new testament to Pauls authorship or people directly related to his trips? Which would put those "in his camp" so to speak? As for otheres disagreeing with Paul in galations... could you point me to those verses? I would quite like to see them.
2 Peter is traditionally ascribed to Peter, but it is almost certainly not by Peter. Jude and 2 Peter seem to riff off each other...one copying the other.
As for Pauline authorship...Scholars generally agree that 7 epistles should be attributed to Paul. Some of the other epistles are disputed with varying degrees of certainty (2 Thess, Ephesians, Col, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus). Other books do seem to be influenced by Paul's thinking. I'm not doubting that he was a huge influence on early Christianity. He definitely was. But his own writings imply that he wasn't accepted everywhere. He is constantly defending his own apostleship and claim to authority (apparently because so many people were doubting his authority).
Paul attacks Peter in Galatians 1 and 2 I believe (i'd need to double-check). They must have had a major dispute before the epistle was written.
ReligionForBreakfast there dispute is primarily (as I understand it) over circumsision and adherence to the letter of mosaic law. Both things Peter knows he doesnt have to do because of his vision in Acts. Why he argues with Paul is largely due to James being the head of the church at jerusalem and not wanting to appear unjewish. This is why a comment is made about how peter used to eat with gentiles but later withdraws from them. Later on however, works attributed to Peter refer to Pauls writings positively and the outcome of the jerusalem council is to tell people only to abstain from blood, things strangled, and sexual impurity (essentially a compromise). As for Paul arguing his own authority this has to do entirely withthe events in acts. The other believers simply do not trust Paul and find it insulting that he wants equality with them since they spent 2 or 3 years with Jesus and Paul "saw" a vision and went ok now I am an authority. Which is true, in as much as Paul being a religious authority is concerned. Compared to Peter specifically Paul was literate, knew many languages, and had an actual position in the hierarchy of Judaism. All things that might miff the unlearned Peter and other Christians.
Paul & peter were disagreeing over practice not theology... Peter had allowed himself to be cowered into going against his conscience... so i dont agree with that point... they didnt disagree over theology....
"Orthodoxy" is about not about "I'm right you wrong", it's about consistency. "Heresy", by definition; is a choice of aspects of orthodoxy, one allow the other to exist, not the other way around
"Orthodoxy" literally means "being right"
Based on the video content, i would have to disagree on the assertion that there were many variants of Christianity in the beginning. Could you post the timelines of the herasies mentioned as they are not all of the same time frame?
He can't
I swear every time l see that poster l want to get in and retitle it 'Arakkis"
Ha ha, I am called a heretic by orthodoxy because I no longer believe God refuses to forgive his enemies and burns them in pain, suffering, agony and torment throughout all eternity. I became unorthodox when I figured Jesus read the same Old Testament but only saw a perfectly law-full loving all-forgiving God who not only forgave his enemies but would die rather than lift a finger against them. If Jesus didn’t see a God like this and saw only the God modern orthodoxy sees then he was a liar when he claimed to be the exact image of him. Was Jesus a heretic?
Very informative.
But about Nestorianism, Messialiah?
True , before the first council of nicaea in 325 AD , there was no true consensus on heresy . Though very interesting , and full of gnostic concepts , the apocryphal writings died on the cutting room floor because history and bibles are written by the victors.
Even after the council there was still not a total agreement. There were still other Christian groups unaware of the view.
@@yosh3058 true
"a weapon against" can just as be said, from a strictly HISTORICAL point of view, "a defense against". the first one does have its own assumptions as the second; historians work with assumptions as well, and there is a tendency to excoriate "orthodoxy" and paint them in violent terms just so a certain supposed "neutrality" that historians think they must uphold in their scholarship. thus the employment of terms like "insiders" and "outsiders," terms which were NOT used by the people of those times but concocted by historians given their own current prejudices. Religion for Breakfast must do a better job of surfacing its own "prejudices" (employed in its Gadamerian sense). Certainly, many of these come from the "social sciences" and their desire to emulate the supposed objectivity of the natural sciences. This is a pipe dream. Religious Science or Religious Studies is very often presented in opposition to Theology. The question to ask is: why then did the Docetists not survive? The conventional answer given is: because "Orthodoxy" violently extirpated them. Easy. And cheap. And totally disregards the capacity of human beings to see that Docetism in fact DEVIATES from the core message of Christianity. Now historians question whether there was such a thing as a "core message". But this totally disregards TRADITION as a process of handing on, of the message received, develop and spread, but with clearly identifying marks. The Docetists failed these identifying marks. The "regula fidei" came about to precisely provide some kind of measure about difference, similarity, change, etc. This is not an invention of "orthodoxy" but already there: what constitutes acceptable belief and practice? Docetists deny that there is a true "incarnation"; that is a defining identity mark. Christianity was also seen as in continuity with Judaism in some fundamental ways; the schema "promise and fulfilment" was one such way; Marcion totally dismisses the Hebrew Bible. Docetists do not see Jesus of Nazareth in Johannine and Pauline framework. To call them "Christianities" or "varieties of Christianity" may help one to exalt one's position as "neutral" and "objective" and "impartial", but how then do historians adjudicate claims that are competing, contradictory, and conflictive? Ancient people did ask: was there a true incarnation or was there not. or are historians saying the question was not posed at all???
An example of early Christian schism is best exemplified in Monty Python's "Life of Brian".
That movie is surprisingly helpful for illustrating historical ideas like multiple, competing prophets.
Also for examples of the miracles seen by supporters like the miracle of the juniper bushes.
Do a video on how the Jews developed their Canon of Scripture in response to the Christians Canon of Scripture.
N.B. HERESY = from the Greek "Heresis", meaning simply to CHOOSE.
Imagine that huh? Actual Religious FREEDOM.
Mmmmmm. I am not totally convinced on this. Clearly, the major Christian leaders, the bishop, were around really from the start and kept in pretty good communication. Even appealing to the Bishop of Rome at times. So there really was a nascent orthodoxy from the beginning of Christianity.
There were those who help orthadox views at the beginning, but they were not alone. There was a variety of other views developing.
I think it would be an improvement if the presenter could speak a little more slowly...
Heretic and orthodox are also a moral judgment. That's why there are churches called "orthodox" but no churches are called "heretic". In fact, I'm sure this is a tradition that started with theologians clearly taking sides. It has no place in academia.
Hi Andrew! Quick question. I was reading an article on early christianity the other day by Vexen Crabtree. Is he a reputable religious scholar?
Historians don't like to use the word heresy because they prefer to look at early Christianity as one big popularity competition? Sigh
Did not say that. They don't use the word because it is a theological category: "Right belief versus wrong belief."
ReligionForBreakfast But there is proof, that new cults were created that claimed different things from Jesus. Logically as a historian you should be able to compare what Jesus and his disciples actually claimed and what these Gnostic cults aka heretics claimed. Both were biased but as you have admitted we can see their actual beliefs in the early Christian texts. It's not about who was right about God or if their religion is right about who God is, but which version of Christianity is closest to what Jesus and his disciples taught. Looking at Gnostic texts we can definitely see that their version of Christianity is modified from what Jesus taught. Considering that thousands of people actually saw Jesus and heard him speak, it makes sense that Gnosticism didn't gain much popularity, even 200 years later people would still remember stories of their great grandparents and there would be much more information alive compared to today. Claiming that Gnostic cults actually might have been right about Christianity is a stretch. That's why they're called Gnostics, not Christians, even by historians, because there is a big difference between the two.
DohMkay The kind of comparison you're talking about belongs in the realm of theology. The scholars who study theology and make those comparisons are called theologians. ReligionForBreakfast is a religious studies channel. The job of religious studies as a field of study is to look at religion purely in its role as a human institution, how it influences/is influenced by societies and cultures.
So it's the job of a religious studies scholar to, say, work out how exactly all the different sects of Christianity arose and interacted with each other, while said scholar would leave it to theologians to debate the value or correctness of beliefs. In the context of religious studies, asking whether Gnosticism is right or wrong makes as much sense as asking an astronomer whether it's good or bad that the planets have the orbits that they do.
@@DohMkay actualy, it's harder than that. Is the Gospel of Thomas authentic? We say no. Could a 3rd or 4th century christian say so?
What books do you recommend to get the slightest knowlegde you have???
I am interested in religion, but not that smart in the subject What books you recommend??
A History of Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years by Diarmaid McCullough covers all of these groups and more. It's a very satisfying read and a great overview ox Christian history.
Okay, I shouldn't be thinking this, but... This guy is extremely, uh, "fetching" [just trying to keep it as clean and respectful as possible; he is a religion scholar, after all].
'A 'good' historian does not refer to christian groups as heretics'
*Cites book called Orthodoxy & Heresy in Earliest Christianity
The entire book is about critiquing the term "heresy." Hence why its in the title.
Your quotes were
'... historians don't like using the term Heretic'
'A good historian needs to be able to step back and see that 'heresy' was being used as a weapon to differentiate between two different groups'
*Cites title 'Orthodoxy & Heresy in Earliest Christianity'
It just seemed that if a historian used the term 'heretic' in the title of his book then at least some historians would be ok with using the term. Is it that historians do not like using the term in a certain way, i.e a label? Or have they actively argued against the general use of the word, even if it is just used to mean 'non-orthodox'? Edit: Or, since this book was written in 1971, is this more of a recent trend which this author helped develop?
The book is even older than that, 1934. The 1971 is a reprint. It is considered a foundational study in early Christian scholarship, but there definitely are some arguments in the book that have been developed/improved over the course of the 20th century. But yes, historians don't use the term "in a certain way." That "certain way" is using it as a descriptive category instead of recognizing it as an "insider's" term. Better descriptive categories would be "non-Chalcedonian," "Marcionites," "Arians," etc. The general use of the term is fine and appears in scholarly works all the time, but most careful historians I've read know its baggage and use the term appropriately.
Thanks for clarifying. Just realized how old this video was. One of my history courses was 'barbarian history' and the distinction was 'Arian' & 'Catholic' but that was in the centuries following the Council of Nicaea. Will subscribe
Even nowadays, I think there's some utility in using terms like "Christianities". Look at a Roman Catholic, Coptic Orthodox, Southern Baptist, and Jehovah's Witness side by side. You can't tell me that's all really one religion. More like different religions with a shared overarching label and shared influences.
>You can’t tell me that’s all really one religion.
Sure I can.
And why stop with Christianity?
@@baneofbanes what's your definition of religion? The belief sets, cosmologies, means of exegesis all vary wildly. Making it hard to generalize.
Blepbloop Bleeplop overarching canon and major shared beliefs, which the various Christian sects all (mostly) share.
And it’s not just Christianity. Most of the large world religions are just as fractured.
Regardless religion isn’t really a thing, and the idea of it as we think of it only appeared in the early modern era.
@@baneofbanes well I agree with that (that all major religions are fractured). My only point was that we have a tendency to generalize Christians and Christianity (and Jews and Judaism, and Muslims and Islam) etc and using the plural could help mitigate that
Make a video on LDSchurch the pearl of great price.
the thing is and maybe im being over simplistic, if you believe that the NT is historically reliable, the writers actually were eye witnesses and apostles of jesus so they knew what he taught then you are going to call the likes of Marcion someone who deviates from what Jesus taught as he wasnt one of his apostles...
What was in line with his new religion (or fullfilment of judaism) and what wasnt..
The word heretic is just a word... which i can see atheistic historians getting twitchy about....