Byzantine Heresies | A (Brief) History
Вставка
- Опубліковано 27 лип 2024
- A short video covering the Arian, Monophysite and Iconoclast heresies that rocked Byzantium during its earlier centuries.
Music used: (In Chronological Order)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rites by Kevin MacLeod
Cylinder Two by Chris Zabriskie
Tabuk by Kevin MacLeod
What Does Anybody Know About Anything? by Chris Zabriskie
Early Christianity was one of the most fascinating period of the history Church. Among the most notable heresies, which still have since presence to this day, are Gnosticism and Marcionism. An interesting though exercise is to ask what the modern Church would look like of any of these heresies gained enough popularity to compete against or become generally adopted by the Orthodox Church.
Unlikely, they are incompatible with Biblical canon, which is why they never reached enough popularity.
I did my master's degree on Byzantine Heresies. Really happy to see a video on it here!
I think it's fun learning
I do too :)
It's interesting how much Christianity was influenced by the byzantines even when they were limited to just Anatolia and the Balkans
They had the important sees of Constantinople and Antioch. Not surprising at all, if this is considered.
The emperor was the head of the Church just as he had been pontifex maximus before Rome became Christian. Also at one point the empire controlled every Apostolic See so if definitely had a reach beyond Anatolia and the Balkans.
It is a great video overall, but if you don't mind I would to correct in only one thing. In 451 was the Counsil of Chalkedon, not of Ephesus. The Counsil of Ephesus happened in 431, which both factions (the ones believing in one nature of Christ and the others in the two natures of Christ) condemn Nestorianism. But overall, it was a great video and sorry for any nuisance.
You missed Nestorianism.
Gibbon cited two opposing groups who had the same name. Neither of them have any records of their beliefs.
It would be ironic if, in the distant future, Scientology was considered important because there was a lot of surviving literature about them.
Could the Bogomilite heresy be counted as a Eastern Roman heresy?
Great video as always!
Loved the video! Well done
slight correction , ephesus was in 431 , ephesus 2 was in 449 and chalcedon was in 451 ( minute 3:08 )
Interesting video! I think Nestorianism, Myaphisitism , Monothelitism, and the Paulicians would have been worth mentioning too. There were just so many "heresies" at the time.
New Eastern Roman Serapeum video to start my day? Let’s goooo
Thanks for this
more byzantine lore please!
byzantine... lore... my god, the internet raised this one.
@@nicholasmaniccia1005What are you talking about? The Byzantine Empire is my favorite anime!
I think that the description of the heresy of Monophysitism, at least the form that prevailed in Egypt and became the Coptic church, is inaccurate. They did not believe that Christ had only the divine nature, but a composite nature that combines both the divine and human natures, preserving them perfectly in the union. They claimed that it is heretical to speak of Christ as having two natures because that would imply that he also was 2 persons, as Nestorius taught (according to them). They defended the "one nature" terminology by making a parallel with the human nature which is regarded as one nature although humans in a way are also composed of two natures, the body and the soul. So from what I've read their actual views were not that far from those of their opponents. It's like splitting hairs. So, why did the controversy arise? I suspect that it is politics, and specifically a rivalry between the schools of Alexandria and Antioch. Alexandria was used to having the primacy when it comes to theological matters, and had managed some victories like the deposition and exile of John Chrysostom and Nestorius, but in this case Antioch took their revenge. I guess that Alexandria was too proud to accept the decisions of the council of Chalkedon, which included theology that did not originate in them. It's sad that things evolved this way.
Hey! Great Video! I do have a small correction though. Whilst yes, Egypt had a strong Monophysite influence, Copts no longer believe in that. The dispute between the Greek and Coptic church is slightly different now.
Interesting - what do the Copts believe now?
It's not something I've thought much about, in truth, but I guess many people forget that East Africa has a very long Christian tradition too, probably longer than Europe's by a small amount.
@@Serapeum Well, we believe that God is wholly man and wholly God, perfect in every way. However, for Copts, the pertinent spilt between the two occurred during the Council of Chalcedon.
Greeks argued that Christ is two spirits (God and man) combined into one spirit that is 100% God and man. Copts believe that Christ is one spirt that is 100% man and God. So, it’s an argument on formation rather than nature per se.
I’m sure I didn’t do the best job explaining it, but at the end of the day the Copts didn’t really schism over small Christological disputes. Copts left due to political issues and shifting alliances between Constantinople and Alexandria. A spilt that still exists today. The Eastern Orthodox world is still in schism between the ‘Eastern’ and ‘Oriental’ spheres.
The coptic church is miaphysite, not monophysite.
How is the divinity of the Son of God a "Trivial detail?" It is a cornerstone to the entire structure of Christian theology.
what do you mean by learning about this is "about as fun as wiping your ass with sandpaper"?! i come to youtube for this extremely specific subjects, there are enough productions about the battle of cannae
Just British humour; I find these subjects incredibly interesting myself
@@Serapeum i also like when history videos relate to sources and compare them, so if you feel like being more anal about this i would be even more hooked
fallow up? idk man i would rather hear someone that has a bit of respect for the subject before making a informatory video regarding it. It is like telling someone that hates history to make one of your other videos and making a comment regarding his dislike of the subject in every turn.
point being: Do only what you have a passion for and stay to it.
The Arian heresy is not small. It is basically Islam
Yes, but in this context, we're talking about Arian Christians
I'm horribly simplifying this (obviously) but I think the analogy is still valid. Basically the schisms within religion equate to "Who was the best Batman?". The audience for Batman changes over time and one generation's Batman isn't the same as the next, but he's essentially the same guy doing the same thing, it's just the perspective has changed. Ultimately, however, he's still just a fictional hero, and we just project our fantasies or righteousness onto him. We don't need heroes to guide us, we just need to think for ourselves and be decent to each other. No gods, no masters.
Noice mate, if only this wasn’t discussed in much further detail by hundreds of scholars. I understand where you’re coming from, but Ironically, imposing the will of there being no god onto people is just as bad as forcing religion onto other people. (My hottake)
@@Pan-demic Did you notice the part at the start where I said "I'm horribly simplifying this"? It was literally the first thing I said. I'm not sure, either, that anyone actively imposes an absence of god onto anyone. That would be like me actively trying not to give you £500 which I'm doing right now. Have you noticed me not trying to give you £500 yet? No? Because it's a redundancy. You can't force people not to believe in god or gods or whatever the hell they believe in. We can only come to some summation based on available evidence.
No this is total dogshit. The canon of Christianity does not change after the 4th century, if you follow the Orthodox Church and Catholic church pre-filioque. The canon stays the same, just the understanding of it by fallible humans changes.
@@rbarnett3200 What evidence do you have to disprove the Christian God, that you just compared to fictional Batman?
Using such a comparison at all shows that ath*ists are nothing but godless consumers that worship idols like consumption and liberalism, that have no conception of a higher power beyond human limits.
Using Aristotelian theology and Thomas Aquinas's summa theologica, most if not all objections to his existence can be disproven.
Big error at the start of the video. Replace your reference of "Catholic" with Orthodox.