🎥 Join our UA-cam members and patrons to unlock exclusive content! Our community is currently enjoying deep dives into the First Punic War, Pacific War, history of Prussia, Italian Unification Wars, Russo-Japanese War, Albigensian Crusade, and Xenophon’s Anabasis. Become a part of this exclusive circle: ua-cam.com/channels/MmaBzfCCwZ2KqaBJjkj0fw.htmljoin or patron: www.patreon.com/kingsandgenerals and Paypal www.paypal.com/paypalme/kingsandgenerals as well!
Saying this as a not exactly religious person, these debates actually had a huge impact on history and our resulting world today. Perspectives like the humanity or divinity of Jesus have shaped the worldview of generations in ways that are difficult to understand without examining this aspect of history. Great addition, thanks!
@@TalleyrandsPuppet I do not think this is true. I am speaking as a Catholic but the early Church cared a lot for the truth. Christology and ecclesiology was largely a matter of truth.
I thought the controversy was over what the number of counting shall be before deploying this divine weapon as the text says clear as day "Three shall be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, neither count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out."
As a religious Christian man: I think this was a pretty good and simplified introduction to the history of Ecumenical Councils for those who are unfamiliar with much of Church history. Thank you for this video :)
The religion became about power within a single lifetime… ->The first “schism” occurred when Paul added his own followers to Peter’s cult, overwhelming the Jews with the sheer numbers of Gentiles (the 7 authentic Paul’s letters date to about 50-70AD). ->The second “schism” occurred when the dwindling cult members begun insisting the Jesus was not a celestial angel (as described in prior Jewish angiology) but a real Jewish preacher. Paul clearly states that he only knew of Jesus from revelations and the scriptures. No one ever told him there was a real Jesus… (The Jewish anti-temple cults were reading the scriptures for messages from god and waiting for a saviour). Jesus was only revealed to his followers after his death and the resurrection, and this actually occurred in the heavens about the earth (where Adam’s body is buried… similar to what’s written in ‘The ascension of Isaiah’… where Jesus tricked Satan to kill him and this atones for the sins of Israel) ->The religion begun just like Mormonism or Islam… via revelations from an angel to Peter and Paul. ->The cult really took off when people begun to preach a Jesus that really did walk around Judea and was crucified there by romans instead of the cult that Paul and Peter founded… Around 100AD the gospels were written placing him on earth (like with all other mystery cults in the Hellenic world… Osiris, Romulus, Mithras… about a dozen). Believing in a real Jesus was far easier to sell then some celestial deity… The church also had to insist that Jesus was real to fend off and competing sects and maintain legitimacy… (as for example stated in Peter II)… it’s difficult to have anyone able to get messages from god and maintain power. If you want an in-depth and concise explanation look up the work of Dr Richard Carrier…
@@jamesnincross Treat religion as more of a philosophy. We don't know whose ideas (or denomination) is true exactly but if it explains our worldview better, then most likely we follow that sect.
@@darnit1944exactly, to me God & religion are separate but both important, much of religion is a philosophy that can help guide your life, much like stoicism (matter of fact Christianity & stoicism have a lot in common).
The divisions of the Early Church shaped not only the modern beliefs of Christianity but also how the secular world would approach the subject of religion. These debates were some of the most important in Western History.
The religion became about power within a single lifetime… ->The first “schism” occurred when Paul added his own followers to Peter’s cult, overwhelming the Jews with the sheer numbers of Gentiles (the 7 authentic Paul’s letters date to about 50-70AD). ->The second “schism” occurred when the dwindling cult members begun insisting the Jesus was not a celestial angel (as described in prior Jewish angiology) but a real Jewish preacher. Paul clearly states that he only knew of Jesus from revelations and the scriptures. No one ever told him there was a real Jesus… (The Jewish anti-temple cults were reading the scriptures for messages from god and waiting for a saviour). Jesus was only revealed to his followers after his death and the resurrection, and this actually occurred in the heavens about the earth (where Adam’s body is buried… similar to what’s written in ‘The ascension of Isaiah’… where Jesus tricked Satan to kill him and this atones for the sins of Israel) ->The religion begun just like Mormonism or Islam… via revelations from an angel to Peter and Paul. ->The cult really took off when people begun to preach a Jesus that really did walk around Judea and was crucified there by romans instead of the cult that Paul and Peter founded… Around 100AD the gospels were written placing him on earth (like with all other mystery cults in the Hellenic world… Osiris, Romulus, Mithras… about a dozen). Believing in a real Jesus was far easier to sell then some celestial deity… The church also had to insist that Jesus was real to fend off and competing sects and maintain legitimacy… (as for example stated in Peter II)… it’s difficult to have anyone able to get messages from god and maintain power. If you want an in-depth and concise explanation look up the work of Dr Richard Carrier…
Not sure what you mean by "these ideas"... but these denomination differences where as much about power within the church and control of the followers as they were about theology. No better way to discredit your rivals then to call them a heritic. Just arguing about complete fiction to gain power.
@@lukin4u265 I meant to say "are there any denominations today who follow the idea of Jesus being a celestial being" ? Or has it all been pushed away to heresy ? If so then who is even looking into this ?
@Dazzlefisher they have been well scrubbed from history, but clues remain... for example... 2 peters has a passage asking people not to listen to other Christians that claim that stories about Jesus are cleverly written myths.
As an orthodox christian i found this video extremely accurate except for the mentioning of Jerusalem as the birthplace of christ. He was born in Bethlehem which is adjacent to Jerusalem but not part of the city. Jerusalem is however the birthplace of the church because it was there that pentecost happened.
The religion became about power within a single lifetime… ->The first “schism” occurred when Paul added his own followers to Peter’s cult, overwhelming the Jews with the sheer numbers of Gentiles (the 7 authentic Paul’s letters date to about 50-70AD). ->The second “schism” occurred when the dwindling cult members begun insisting the Jesus was not a celestial angel (as described in prior Jewish angiology) but a real Jewish preacher. Paul clearly states that he only knew of Jesus from revelations and the scriptures. No one ever told him there was a real Jesus… (The Jewish anti-temple cults were reading the scriptures for messages from god and waiting for a saviour). Jesus was only revealed to his followers after his death and the resurrection, and this actually occurred in the heavens about the earth (where Adam’s body is buried… similar to what’s written in ‘The ascension of Isaiah’… where Jesus tricked Satan to kill him and this atones for the sins of Israel) ->The religion begun just like Mormonism or Islam… via revelations from an angel to Peter and Paul. ->The cult really took off when people begun to preach a Jesus that really did walk around Judea and was crucified there by romans instead of the cult that Paul and Peter founded… Around 100AD the gospels were written placing him on earth (like with all other mystery cults in the Hellenic world… Osiris, Romulus, Mithras… about a dozen). Believing in a real Jesus was far easier to sell then some celestial deity… The church also had to insist that Jesus was real to fend off and competing sects and maintain legitimacy… (as for example stated in Peter II)… it’s difficult to have anyone able to get messages from god and maintain power. If you want an in-depth and concise explanation look up the work of Dr Richard Carrier…
The religious context of the era (pretty wild stuff) is difficult to explain in a short time. The religion became about power within a single lifetime… ->The first “schism” occurred when Paul added his own followers to Peter’s cult, overwhelming the Jews with the sheer numbers of Gentiles (the 7 authentic Paul’s letters date to about 50-70AD). ->The second “schism” occurred when the dwindling cult members begun insisting the Jesus was not a celestial angel (as described in prior Jewish angiology) but a real Jewish preacher. Paul clearly states that he only knew of Jesus from revelations and the scriptures. No one ever told him there was a real Jesus… (The Jewish anti-temple cults were reading the scriptures for messages from god and waiting for a saviour). Jesus was only revealed to his followers after his death and the resurrection, and this actually occurred in the heavens about the earth (where Adam’s body is buried… similar to what’s written in ‘The ascension of Isaiah’… where Jesus tricked Satan to kill him and this atones for the sins of Israel) ->The religion begun just like Mormonism or Islam… via revelations from an angel to Peter and Paul. ->The cult really took off when people begun to preach a Jesus that really did walk around Judea and was crucified there by romans instead of the cult that Paul and Peter founded… Around 100AD the gospels were written placing him on earth (like with all other mystery cults in the Hellenic world… Osiris, Romulus, Mithras… about a dozen). Believing in a real Jesus was far easier to sell then some celestial deity… The church also had to insist that Jesus was real to fend off and competing sects and maintain legitimacy… (as for example stated in Peter II)… it’s difficult to have anyone able to get messages from god and maintain power. If you want an in-depth and concise explanation look up the work of Dr Richard Carrier…
@@lukin4u265 I understand why you hold this worldview but the other side of the coin is that the churches tradition is accurate and properly done. Ive had miracles happen in my life that no normal explanation can account for. Ultimately the choice to believe in God and ask for his help is up to each person and i dont expect my personal experiances to be of any validity to changing your world view but what i will say is that paul didnt cause schism. He rebuked peters judaizing beliefs and peter repented of this belief and was reconciled with Paul for the unity of the church and in order so that she might grow to encompass all nations and peoples as Christ intended.
@@lukin4u265another reason i dont think this could be acvurate is due to the churches survival in ethiopia and india and that these christian communities explicitly claim their ecclesial descent from specific apostles and apostolic age figures who were known to have spread into these regions. If christianities founding was purely this spiritual revelation to Peter and Paul then.It wouldn’t make sense that the the thomisitc and aksum branches of christianty would exist independent of the mainstream with their own biblical canons essentially from the get go
@@Imperiumhibernum I see multiple logical fallacies in your statement… For example, believing in miracles or God doesn’t mean Jesus was a real person. But I will leave you faith in God to one side… I just want you to realize that your church can be tell statements such as “He rebuked peters judaizing beliefs and peter repented of this belief and was reconciled with Paul for the unity of the church” without any evidence for them being actually true.
Augustine of Hippo is from my city, Annaba (ancient hippo), Algeria, and his mother Monica too, and Donatus is from modern day Tebessa, he is considered a national hero in Algeria, since donatism is viewed as a Numidian uprising against Roman authority.
Yeah Numidian donatists would march into Latin towns and plunder them in the name of opposing the 'traditores'. Fascinating period of history. Monica is one of the greatest women of history in my view.
National hero!?! I know him but I am certain that 99.99% of Algerians do not. Nothing non-Islamic is considering as a hero in this state (the state of muhamed "pbuh")
@@DemainIronfalcon Augustine’s mother, girlfriend/wife. His father was a pagan, whereas, his mother was a Christian…brave for those times, as she was both a woman and a strong, forthright woman, who tried to raise Augustine and his siblings with the teachings of Christianity. Cheers🇨🇦
Can you guys do one on Zoroastrianism, its origin, early interaction with various polytheistic Iranic and Semitic religions, it’s spread and later how it influenced other religions of the near east.
@@OptimusWombat yes But it's not the father of Abrahamic religions Nothing in common from its inception but did influence Judaism Christianity Islam In many ways I can give many solid examples I have studied extensively all the major religions Women aren't interested in me so.i had nothing else to do.🤣
As a Devout Evangelical Protestant, this explanation of early schisms makes more sense than any attempts at explanation I have ever heard. Watching this seems to mirror Christian differences that persist in denominations today. I especially understand how Christianity became too popular to ignore, yet persecution just fueled the spread even more (still does). So secular and pagan governments like Emperors had no choice but to get involved (like establishing holidays) to settle disputes and uprisings. This also makes sense for Epistles and books of the Bible taking so long to be written, organized and eventually Canonized. Also, good reason for some perceived contradictions in some passages, with all of these books being written in different regions by different sects and over a large period of time.
Very glad that the debate between whether or not Free Will can shape our actions or if we are only moral due to Divine Grace would be solved by the end of the 5th century. What a thorny issue that could have been! I'm sure that British Bishop who debated with Augustine didn't bring his resentment back home at all.
Funny how the Great Schism is always remembered as a turning point of Christianity while there had been several important schims before it. Once again, it is important to see who is telling the story.
The reason for that is orthodox and catholic church continue to be the most influential and powerful churches and from the Catholic Church came out protestant church the 3 most powerful churches in and these 3 became mainstream Christianity in modern time. While the older churches that separated many of them either cease to exist to tell their story or exist in very fringe circles in a few countries that had no major impact in later centuries and don't hold much influence now
@@truthseeker-nv6ny Well, Ethiophian church is still the majority religion in Ethiophia and 10% of Egyptians are part of Coptic church. And Coptic church still has a lot of influence in Egypt, so you really can't say that they "had no major impact in later centuries and don't hold much influence now".
@@vault13dweller15 Of course he can, what influence on the world stage do Ethiopia or Egypt have? Of course both have potential but for now they're not big players, maybe not even on the African stage. Ethiopia has huge internal issues, Egypt seems to always come close to bankruptcy...
There is kinda of a truth to that. It really does depend on who’s telling the story to a degree. History is always fun to argue over. However, it can easily be an oversimplification of the issues and the many challenges the Church has had even for the first 1000 years. Learning why that schism happened in the first place is pretty important. Contrary to what's been said there have been times when Orthodox Trinitarian Christians were very small in number compared to the Arians. Yet we see the emerging victory of the doctrine of the Trinity and it being defined at the council of Nicea and argued for why the doctrine of the Trinity is true over Arianism. That said, in my research, it’s clear to me that the preschism Orthodox Catholic Christianity is the true Church despite all its hardships and trials and not those others that schism before the great schism which in their pride would not let go of heresy.
I can not tell you how impressed I am with your coverage of this important matter. The complexity of the spiritually, political, and practicality of these debates is examined w/o getting bogged down in the endless nuances many others seem unable to avoid. New found and elevated respect for all involved in bringing this to the masses! Thank you! ✌️
Having attended a Greek Orthodox academy, I had a wish of researching the various Oriental sects of early Christianity and the split that emerged from it before the schism of 1054, just for research though. Kings and Generals does a great job in simplying the events leading to the creation of the sects that would shape the very modern Christian nations of the Middle-East. And just to be clear, I don't have intentions of picking sides. Just doing research purposes.
As an Orthodox Christian I love this video explaining in some detail the controversies. I wished you could added the slapping of Arian by Saint Nicholas and how he got thrown in the jail. On account of this, Constantine revoked Nicholas's miter and pallium but in the cell that night he got dressed back by the Virgin and given a book by Christ if I recall correctly. Which is an important event in the eastern church.
@@Truth21a619 We don't have a record mentioning a slap but Ithere are certain accounts which mention the imprisonment of a certain Nicholaus of Myra at the dungeons of Nicaea for having commited an repelling and unconventional act within the direct presence of Emperor Constantine during one of the council's theological debates.
@@rennor3498Sooo... the person that responded to you was correct and you just made up the slapping part for whatever dumb reason while knowing that the actual text never mentioned specifically what occurred.
The religious context of the era (pretty wild stuff) is difficult to explain in a short time. The religion became about power within a single lifetime… ->The first “schism” occurred when Paul added his own followers to Peter’s cult, overwhelming the Jews with the sheer numbers of Gentiles (the 7 authentic Paul’s letters date to about 50-70AD). ->The second “schism” occurred when the dwindling cult members begun insisting the Jesus was not a celestial angel (as described in prior Jewish angiology) but a real Jewish preacher. Paul clearly states that he only knew of Jesus from revelations and the scriptures. No one ever told him there was a real Jesus… (The Jewish anti-temple cults were reading the scriptures for messages from god and waiting for a saviour). Jesus was only revealed to his followers after his death and the resurrection, and this actually occurred in the heavens about the earth (where Adam’s body is buried… similar to what’s written in ‘The ascension of Isaiah’… where Jesus tricked Satan to kill him and this atones for the sins of Israel) ->The religion begun just like Mormonism or Islam… via revelations from an angel to Peter and Paul. ->The cult really took off when people begun to preach a Jesus that really did walk around Judea and was crucified there by romans instead of the cult that Paul and Peter founded… Around 100AD the gospels were written placing him on earth (like with all other mystery cults in the Hellenic world… Osiris, Romulus, Mithras… about a dozen). Believing in a real Jesus was far easier to sell then some celestial deity… The church also had to insist that Jesus was real to fend off and competing sects and maintain legitimacy… (as for example stated in Peter II)… it’s difficult to have anyone able to get messages from god and maintain power. If you want an in-depth and concise explanation look up the work of Dr Richard Carrier…
@@Wasteland88they didn't make it up, its a widely believed part of the meeting between St Nicolas and Arius. I personally would much prefer Santa to have slapped some fool, makes him giving naughty kids a lump of coal more understandable.
Love this idea for a video. A bit different from the battle/ political videos and most people don't have this stuff explained to them in a simple and interesting way
Well done! I really enjoy these explanations of very complex, but vital, parts of history. I look forward to examinations of other theological (and potentially political?) debates!
18:38 "The Churches of the East continue to exist to this day, having profound impacts on the Middle-East's cultural tapestry". Me also watching Bishop Emmanuel Yoship/Mar Mari Manuel's videos on UA-cam at the same time: It surely does.
I watched a comment in one of the UA-cam videos were someone called Bishop mari mari a heritic. Fascinating that those ancient debates and political division still have impact on people's perspectives
Mar Mari isn't a bishop, he was excommunicated from his Church, he's also a Nestorian which is heresy. He’s a smooth talker, and very good at gaslighting the masses into believing him.
8:39 I am a bit confused. The Nicene creed in its original Greek states that the father and son ARE homoousioi. I think this part of the video is backwards. Nicene side was arguing that they were of the same essence (homoousioi) because the son did not come after the father while the Arians said they were not of the same essence because the son came after the father and was not fully divine. Unless I am missing something…
Kings and Generals is one of the best channels on UA-cam. This channel (among other channels) inspired me to create my own channel (a month ago)! Wish you all the best!
I shall subscribe. I just started producing shorts last weekend. I wish you luck and I look forward to seeing what you have. And yes kings and generals is a legend.
Eastern Catholic here: A note about "Nestorianism". The video shows a very Western understanding of what happened. "Nestorianism" as shown on the map actually depicts the jurisdiction of the Church of the East. The West viewed them as Nestorian because they did not affirm the Council of Ephesos. i.e. they didn't condemn Nestorius. They view him as a saint and a Church father, but they also view Cyril in the same way. They basically didn't take a side. (The Pope and Patriarch of the Church or the East actually acknowledged this misunderstanding in 1994, taking steps toward communion). However, a similar thing happened with Monophysitism and the video gets it right in this case. The West viewed the Syriac and Coptic churches as Monophysites, but in reality they were Miaphysite. That's because they also just didn't take a side, and Miaphysitism is the orginal view, prior to the debates between Chalcedonism and Monophysitism. Today, both the (Assyrian) Church of the East and the Oriental Orthdox Churches (Syriac, Coptic, Armenian) view these early debates as most of us do today: something very much tied to the philosophical debates of that specific time. They ignore these councils, viewing them as debates between men, and harken back to Jesus himself primarily, with the Nicene creed as doctrine. The diverse views that came up at the councils are all part of the history, but these churches didn't see them as heresies but simply as different views, focusing on what divides us rather than the multitude that unites us. That is the essence of Christianity: to come together despite differences, not taking sides on temporary issues. (It does take sides on non-temporary issues, but that's a different discussion).
This is also how the Catholic Church views it as seen in the Second Vatican council (1965). It affirms Eastern catholic tradition even though in the past they would've been seen as heretical.
Augustine of Hippo, along with his mother Monica, is from my hometown of Annaba (ancient Hippo), Algeria. Donatus, on the other hand, hails from modern-day Tebessa and is revered as a national hero in Algeria due to the widespread belief that donatism represented a Numidian rebellion against Roman rule.
I would love to see you guys cover the eastern churches of Christianity in more detail, shedding light on the church histories of regions like Ethiopia or Kerala because the western eurocentric history often gets more attention. Love the quality work you guys produce!
Timestamp 11:56 --->According to tradition, the See of Rome was founded by Peter, not Paul; Jesus was born in Bethlehem, not Jerusalem. Timestamp 15:43 ---> "Nestorianism" still exists among the native Iraqi Christians to this day. The Christians you call "Monophysites" exist in Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq as well. Both terms you use are considered pejorative by these communities.
16:50 Regarding miaphysitism, miaphysites believe that Christ has ONE nature 100% Human and 100% Divine without confusion, while Orthodox Christianity believes Christ has twi natures, one 100% human and one 100% divine without confusion, with only the divine one being part of the trinity
Yes, but this itself was a massively contrested point, with many accusing some Chalcedonians of taking dyophitism too far and falling into Manichean-style dualism. It was a massive row between Alexandrian and Antiochene christians.
Really? Because during my Orthodox Catechism (in a church under the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople) no one ever mentioned that Jesus' human nature is seperate from the Trinity. In fact I was taught that God's human nature being brought into union with his divine nature (though the person of Jesus) is an important aspect of the salvation he provides.
I understand the importance of these debates and councils to my own faith, but man, some of these debates sound very, very esoteric. Thank you for another informative video. God be with you out there, everybody. ✝️ :)
@@KingsandGenerals It is amazing how thorough, well research and produced this videos are, you known every single detail of the story. The narrative and art are great and beautiful. Greetings from Colombia, it is always a good day when you release content.
Basically, and I am simplifying, more inclusive Judaism with the ideas of Messiah, holy spirit and miracles added to it and with the disciples of Jesus and the disciples of the disciples leading communities in various cities. It is very likely that every community had its own distinct version and these councils somewhat standardized it into one religion.
@@KingsandGenerals I would like to notice the proto-orthodox classified the other groups (gnostics and judaizers, and later modalists and novatians) as heretics. So this diversity wasn't harmonious, with the proto-orthodox not having so much theological diversity as the gnostics because of their greater rigidity.
@@KingsandGenerals You are correct, the Church was run by local synods, headed by a Bishop. The Catholicity of the Churches began early in the first and second centuries, with figures like Ignatius of Antioch referring to the Church as Catholic, meaning universal, in his letters. Over time, the Church’s governance evolved, eventually forming a pentarchy consisting of Rome, Antioch, Constantinople, Jerusalem, and Alexandria as a result of the religion spreading all over the Roman Empire and beyond. The Church’s traditions emerged from Temple Judaism rather than modern rabbinic Judaism, which developed in response to Christianity, the scattering of the Jewish people, and the destruction of the Temple. The liturgical practices of the ancient Church were influenced by the liturgical rituals of the Temple and Synagogue. Christianity can truly be seen in continuity with Temple Judaism.
Is there a video detailing the various councils response to the emergence of Islam and the Prophet Mohammed? It seems so fascinating that shortly after that the Umayyad empire gains so much control of the Middle East and Northern Africa
it was a bit of the reason for the rapid spread of the Muslims, the Miaphysites/Copts of Egypt and middle east did not put up much resistance, since they dislike the orthodox imperial armies as much as the Arab Muslims. And Muslims often would not persecute the Copts, just tax them. BTW, did you know the Copts were the majority pop of Egypt until the 1500s? Even in the 1950s they were 1/5 of Egyptians. only recent persecutions have reduced them sharply.
In their series covering early Islamic conquests, one of the points they highlight was that regions such as Egypt and North Africa often sided with the Muslims to escape persecution by Roman Chaledonians.
@tommy-er6hh I met a coptic woman on a flight once. She told me that the Egyptian government purposely under-counts the coptic population and they are more numerous than what official stats say
It's also interesting that the schisms that produced the currently existing pre-Protestant churches (ie the Roman Catholic church, the Eastern Orthodox church, the Oriental Orthodox church, and the Church of the East) have all basically been overcome by todays theologians, and most theologians in those churches agree that the historical schisms were mistakes. The divide between that produced the OOC came first, on one side the Chalcedonian dyophysites who said Jesus has two natures: a divine one and a human one, on the other side the miaphysites who said Jesus has one nature: a divino-human one. OOC theologians have already had agreements with EOC and RCC theologians that they share the exact same view of Jesus, but just phrase it differently. The next divide is the one that produces the CotE, on one side the Ephesus side who said Jesus is one person, on the other side the Nestorian side which said that Jesus is two persons. CotE already has an official joint statement with the RCC that actually they believe the same things about Jesus, but that the Ephesus side had a mistranslation of what Nestorius believed and what they believe. The final divide, between RCC and EOC, was based on the two issues of filioque and papal primacy. For the first thing, almost all RCC and most EOC theologians agree that they have the same view of Trinity, that the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, they historically fought about how to phrase that, but today RCC is ok with people not using the filioque (as the Easter Catholics mostly dont), and many EOC theologians say theyre ok with people using it to express the doctrine they all agree on. For the second thing, the historical divide was the RCC said papal primacy is primacy of power, and EOC said the pope only ever had and can have primacy of honor, and be 'first among equals'. The thing is that in the modern era where the church and its leaders no longer have worldly power, and within the RCC Eastern Catholic churches have the same autonomy that the individual churches have within the EOC - this issue has become obsolete, the RCC view of 'papal supremacy of power' and the EOC view of 'first among equals primacy of honor' are two descriptions for one and the same way of doing things. So in terms of what theologically separated them historically, there isnt really an obstacle to these four churches all rejoining with one another into a one single big church. The obstacle is basically just the theologically less nuanced fundie elements in each of those groups who keep insisting that theyre the only true church and that unity with those other groups cant be achieve by uniting with them, but only by them repenting and joining this one true group.
Except it's not a mistake of phrasing it differently, if you studying it the Copts and their belief they make Jesus into basically a Demi-God by their belief. They make the nature of Christ into something that's both not Human and not God and that's a huge problem. If it was a mistake of phrasing it differently why don't they just agree with the Eastern Orthodox and the Roman Catholics, why be so prideful in their phrasing? There are many other issues aside from this as well with the OO.
Youre just saying random wrong stuff. All of those groups believe the exact same thing about Christ - that he is one eternal divine hypostasis who is after incarnation fully human and fully divine, his humanity and divinity being unmixed, unconfused, undivided and inseparable. EOC and OOC had official theological agreements on this in 1989 in Egypt, and in the Chambesy conference in 1990. There they also agreed that both wordings are ok. BTW the OOC wording comes directly from Cyril of Alexandria, and is the reason why the OOC fundies will turn that silly question around to you and ask why are you being so prideful in your phrasing. RCC and OOC also agreed on the above, not only the theologians, but there was an official joint statement by Roman and Coptic popes in 1973 that they have the same Christology, of Christ who is fully human and fully divine, his humanity and divinity united without mingling, without mixing, without confusion, without alteration, without division, without separation. Maybe actually learn stuff, and dont accept silly misinformation about what others believe that are coming from uneducated hostile motivated places. Charitability and letting go of the desire to be antagonistic (which should be Christian values) will help here.
I don’t think you are correct about the catholics and eastern orthodox, as the issues of the filioque and papal supremacy are still very much relevant and can’t be brushed aside. My understanding is that the orthodox still think the filioque is anti-trinitarian and papal supremacy vs first among equals are two mutually exclusive ideas, certainly in the wake of the vatican councils. Unity between these two churches would necessitate that one gives up on what they believe.
That is not true. Most of the prominent Eastern Orthodox theologians say there is no theological problem with the filioque, people like Kallistos Ware, Lossky, Zizioulas, Pomazansky, Romanides, etc, and there was a joint theological statement of Catholic and Orthodox theologians in 2003 reaching the same conclusion. Both sides hold the same theology, that the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, and when they clarify what is meant by the Greek text vs the Latin text (with the filioque) they see it's the same thing. Sure, there are some theologically unlettered fundies on both sides who think that the other side are heretics, but that is not the view of the theologians on either side. As far as Papal primacy is concerned, Catholic church has already "given up" the view of supremacy it once had, look at things such as the Ravenna declaration in 2007 and some other sessions of "Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue Between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church". The Catholic church already understands and practices papal primacy in basically the same way the Orthodox church understands and practices the primacy of the Patriarch of Constantinople (also called the Ecumenical Patriarch, due to that primacy), and sui iurus autonomy of the Eastern Catholic churches within the Catholic church is equivalent to the autonomy different patriarchates have within the EO church. Neither the filioque not papal primacy have been seen for a while by theologians on both sides as obstacles for unity. The issues of jurisdiction a bit of a problem (tho different EO churches co-existing in USA can be a model for that), the historical differences and differences in practice are a small problem too (tho Easter Catholic churches are proof that it can easily work). But basically the main obstacles are the institutional inertia and the fundies on both sides who are resisting unity. Which is weird, like why wouldnt you want the unity Christ prayed for, and why would you resist theological experts from your own camp telling you that actually there are no obstacles to unity, that resistance to unity and to theological facts is kinda suspicious.
Another fantastic Thursday, when Kings and Generals drops a video. This was a hella hella interesting one you guys. Learned a lot. I knew that there was tons of sects, but learning the history and the reason for their split adds so much more depth. 👌❤
Great video. Hope to see more on this topic. How both the theology of the Church as well as its power were important influences if this world for millennia.
I can't tell if I'm watching a Warhammer 40k lore video or early Christian history, the language is so similar to each other and especially so with the more well written and narrated 40k channels. I always like seeing how 40k and any sci-fi/fantasy borrows from actual history
dude, warhammer 40k is part of the christian canon... Some dude got blasted back in time in some warp-rift-storm, to bestow on us the gift of warhammer 40k lore, which is actually history(or contains at least as much fantasy as our 'victor writes the hystory' history, where victor is just a vicar, when Brits pronounce it it sounds exactly the same)... I'm also pretty sure he narator of these history vids and the warhammer lore vids are the same dude, he might have even had a part in re-re-re-re-rewriting history in another endless cover-up operation to keep the masses stupid ;-) You know, the last re-editing and re-writing of history was right after WW2, I'm pretty sure they needed an anno Y2K version of it by now "You know nothing, John Snow"... because all we've told you are lies, hihihi
The religion became about power within a single lifetime… ->The first “schism” occurred when Paul added his own followers to Peter’s cult, overwhelming the Jews with the sheer numbers of Gentiles (the 7 authentic Paul’s letters date to about 50-70AD). ->The second “schism” occurred when the dwindling cult members begun insisting the Jesus was not a celestial angel (as described in prior Jewish angiology) but a real Jewish preacher. Paul clearly states that he only knew of Jesus from revelations and the scriptures. No one ever told him there was a real Jesus… (The Jewish anti-temple cults were reading the scriptures for messages from god and waiting for a saviour). Jesus was only revealed to his followers after his death and the resurrection, and this actually occurred in the heavens about the earth (where Adam’s body is buried… similar to what’s written in ‘The ascension of Isaiah’… where Jesus tricked Satan to kill him and this atones for the sins of Israel) ->The religion begun just like Mormonism or Islam… via revelations from an angel to Peter and Paul. ->The cult really took off when people begun to preach a Jesus that really did walk around Judea and was crucified there by romans instead of the cult that Paul and Peter founded… Around 100AD the gospels were written placing him on earth (like with all other mystery cults in the Hellenic world… Osiris, Romulus, Mithras… about a dozen). Believing in a real Jesus was far easier to sell then some celestial deity… The church also had to insist that Jesus was real to fend off and competing sects and maintain legitimacy… (as for example stated in Peter II)… it’s difficult to have anyone able to get messages from god and maintain power. If you want an in-depth and concise explanation look up the work of Dr Richard Carrier…
Many of these disputes were also about ethnic & cultural divides. In many cases, adherence to non-Nicaean or non-Chalcedonian doctrines was a rebellion by local populations against the forced Hellenism from Constantinople
Excellent content work.I hope on your Albengensian Crusade study you can bring the focus down onto the issue of saturday worship and sundy worship and if Saturday Saabbath worship was particularly held against the Piedmont Waldensians and pivotal in the papal athourities hunting them down and killing them.I don't believe the particular day of worship was considered a heretical offense at the top of the Catholic churches list.I think money,power,and control were the prime instigators on both sides of dissent.In truth mabey the lions share of slaughtered heriticks kept Sunday worship over Saturday worship.YOUR podcasts are highly invigorating.
Do the three natures of Christ that these bishops spent centuries arguing about mean more than just an abstract theological difference? Does choosing one of these beliefs like Arianism implicitly trickle down to changing how the common people live their lives? Sometimes I wonder if modern philosophers are still having the same debates but using words ending in ~ism in place of the religious versions of the same ideas.
I'd like to say that regard to the question presented in 3:12, it was answer in the bible, Paul said that the mosaic law don't bring us salvation and that basically we don't have to follow them anymore, and every christian nowadays don't follow the mosaic law
Outstanding video. A terrific intro to the Early Church which can be daunting to people who want to learn more but have no idea how/where to start. The only nitpick I have is I wish you would've added either pop up or a sentence on the origins of Donatism; since you show it when it first appeared but did not speak of it until much later in the timeline. Still though. Great video!
Donatism - the effectiveness of the sacraments depends on the moral character of the minister, whether he renounced under persecution. This started in north Africa with the intense persecutions of Diocletian in 300 AD.
@@tommy-er6hh Oh I know... sorry I meant it more the average viewer who would not. Because I think it was important how down the line it came to a head because Donatists refused to recognize appointed ministers because they had been ordained or blessed by those who "betrayed" the church by giving in to the Roman officials. Or who themselves had been ordained by someone who had been and so all the sacraments they performed were considered null and void.
@@chronikhiles I watched their video. It talked about different theological beliefs and practices of the schools. What I was specifically looking for were the historical developments and how which school spread in certain parts of India their political patronages debates. Like how kings and generals is describing the history of Christian sects in this video
Most important,to understand the modern church,you must know how the early church began, starting off with the 12 disciples who later became CHRISTs apostles,who started the 7 churches of Asia.Psul and his followers started the 7 churches.Thanks for the video.
A clear explanation of a complex issue - thank you. I find it so sad that so much ink - and even blood - was spilt over matters of "doctrinal correctness", when the true call was - and is - to follow in the footsteps of Jesus: “In everything, do to others what you would have them do to you" as the 'Golden Rule' states Jesus explained.
Adoptionism - Jesus was not born the Son of God, but was adopted variously at his baptism, resurrection or his ascension, Adoptionism was in 2nd to 3rd century. Similar to later Indian heresy of Avatarism (Jesus was an avatar of higher God).
@@tommy-er6hh Thanks for the explanation but what I wanted to know is what caused the other Christian sects to view Adoptionism as heretical? In my view, I think it will be a good compromise. And I am not even a Christian here.
@@lerneanlionIf Jesus was not totally God and man, how is he like man, sin excepted? If Jesus was previously a sinful man, how can his death pay for our sins? That is the problem with adoptionism to my knowledge.
@@tommy-er6hh Thank you for this explanation. And my solution here is simple for those who still believed in Adoptionism, think of the Original Sin as nothing real. In fact, Original Sin is something exclusive just to Christianity. But Judaism and Islam do not have such a concept to begin with. But of course, this is just my view, who is not even a Christian to begin with but simply someone who also believed in God.
@@lerneanlion So, if Jesus was adopted, at a later age, then how do you deal with Christmas in the gospels? They would have to be torn out, much like Pres. Jefferson did all the miracles in his "bible".
Christianity: No, Constantine! You can't solve the divisions within the church all by holding hands and singing Kumbaya. You'll just make the church a tool of the empire! Constine: Don't worry guys, I got this! Narrator: But he didn't, in fact, "got this".
@@KingsandGenerals yes I mean as state not the first man or people because nobody can prove it. But in video you might show that Armenia was the first state that officialy confirmed christianity. Its very important
The religion became about power within a single lifetime… ->The first “schism” occurred when Paul added his own followers to Peter’s cult, overwhelming the Jews with the sheer numbers of Gentiles (the 7 authentic Paul’s letters date to about 50-70AD). ->The second “schism” occurred when the dwindling cult members begun insisting the Jesus was not a celestial angel (as described in prior Jewish angiology) but a real Jewish preacher. Paul clearly states that he only knew of Jesus from revelations and the scriptures. No one ever told him there was a real Jesus… (The Jewish anti-temple cults were reading the scriptures for messages from god and waiting for a saviour). Jesus was only revealed to his followers after his death and the resurrection, and this actually occurred in the heavens about the earth (where Adam’s body is buried… similar to what’s written in ‘The ascension of Isaiah’… where Jesus tricked Satan to kill him and this atones for the sins of Israel) ->The religion begun just like Mormonism or Islam… via revelations from an angel to Peter and Paul. ->The cult really took off when people begun to preach a Jesus that really did walk around Judea and was crucified there by romans instead of the cult that Paul and Peter founded… Around 100AD the gospels were written placing him on earth (like with all other mystery cults in the Hellenic world… Osiris, Romulus, Mithras… about a dozen). Believing in a real Jesus was far easier to sell then some celestial deity… The church also had to insist that Jesus was real to fend off and competing sects and maintain legitimacy… (as for example stated in Peter II)… it’s difficult to have anyone able to get messages from god and maintain power. If you want an in-depth and concise explanation look up the work of Dr Richard Carrier…
I liked the depth of the topic covered in this context, I hope the series continues not only talking about the main religions, but those less frequently seen such as Taoism, Confucianism, Manichaeism that brought together Iranian, Christian and Buddhist elements and also, for example, a video about the divisions in Buddhism such as Mahayna, Theravada and Tibetan
Taoism info up to about 1500 AD: 1600-1000 BC Chinese polytheism reduced, as idol/gods like Shangdi, Guanyin (an adopted Indian goddess of mercy) and Xiwangmu or Xi-Wang-Mu tend to fall in favor to ancestor worship. However nature spirit such as the Tudi Gong, Kuei-Shen, and human ghost worship such as guei/kuei continued, and later Taoist worship would raise new pantheon of gods Baxian/Pa Hsien. 600-400 BC Fragmented Chinese states have 100 schools of thought later combined into major schools including: Taoism(later merging with Naturalists/Yin-yang and Yangism), Confucianism (later merging with Scholars), Legalism, Mohism(merging with Names/Logicians), Militarism, Agriculturalism, Medicalism, and many more philosophies/religions. Many writings were combined into these few schools, and not all are known/survived. 600-400 BC Possible time of Naturalists vs Yin-yang , legendary LaoZi in fragmented China, author of the Tao Te Ching, considered the founding work of philosophical Taoism. Taoism is a philosophical, ethical, and religious tradition of Chinese origin that emphasizes living in harmony with the Tao (Dao) under moral Te guidance. The term Tao means "way", "path" or "principle" of "naturalness", simplicity, spontaneity, and the Three Treasures: compassion, moderation, and humility. It is syncretic in that Taoism absorbs many other philosophies and religions often changing over the centuries. Many groups/views (Cheng-i, Ch'üan-chen, Golden Elixir, Clarified Tenuity, Heart of Heaven, Divine Empyrean, Youthful Incipience, and others) develop after 200 AD. By that time it has spread to Korea and Vietnam and changed there, and by 500 AD to Japan - where it changed into Onmyōdō, which will last until the 19th cent. [Note: Although may have started it, many, many other writers changed or added to Taoism. It has changed greatly from the original thought.] 300 BC earliest copy of Tao-Te-Ching scripture of Taoism in China known to survive. 213-212 BC Qin Shi Huang, first emperor of China, started persecution “burning of books and burying of scholars” of all different religions/philosophies except Legalism. Some of the major schools and writings are recovered or hidden, like Taoism and Confucianism - but many others die out or are lost. 65 AD Liu Ling, a relative of the Taoist Han Emperor in China, converts to Buddhism. c. 400 First Daozang - a compendium of 1200 scrolls about Taoism. At that time Taoism emphasized 3 “baskets/grottoes” of authenticity/meditation, mystery/ritual and spirit/exorcism. By 500 they added the 4 supplements: Great mystery - alchemy and meditation Great peace - charms and ritualism Great purity - revelation, alchemy , and theology/cosmography Great Unity - way of heavenly masters c. 400 AD The north African elephants go extinct. c. 500 AD Elements of Taoism enter Japan and change into Onmyōdō magic system run by government. 748 AD Second Daozang - a compendium of 3700 scrolls about Taoism. 755 -753 AD An Lushan Rebellion in China killed many (70%?), led to less Buddhism and Taoism turning to more Confucianism. World pop significantly reduced. 840 AD - Taoist Chinese Emperor Wuzong had severe persecution of Buddhists & the Assyrian Church of the East ("luminous religion") for a while, and destroyed the Zoroastrians and Manicheans - although they later came back. Korea did similarly. “Assimilated Chinese” trader Jews were missed. By 878 Jews are mentioned as being killed in riots in Canton where they had spread to. 1016 AD Third Daozang - a compendium of now 4300 scrolls about Taoism. 1183 AD Japanese Onmyōdō magic system originated in Taoism faded away. c.1300 AD Buddhist and Tengri Mongol Yuan burned many of the Taoist scrolls of Daozang - from about 5000+ scrolls about Taoism at the time. 1359 AD the Mahayana Buddhist, Taoist and Confucianist Ming in China persecuted and expelled many non-Chinese “luminous/nestorian” Assyrian Church of the East Christians and Roman Catholics, as they were allies of the Yuan/Mongol emperors who were overthrown. Vajrayāna Lama Buddhists were also expelled as allies of the Yuan/Mongols. Chinese Jews are forced to intermarry Chinese and soon appear to be assimilated. 1370 AD the Mahayana(mostly Zen) Buddhist, Taoist and Confusianist Ming outlaw and persecute Manichæans. But the Sunni Muslims are tolerated and adopt Chinese dress and manners, and the Ming tried to integrate Muslims, forcing them to marry Chinese. 1444 AD Fourth and last Daozang - a compendium of now 5300 scrolls about Taoism. 1512 AD Syncretic Jews in China continue to try to blend Judaism with Taoism.
these bishops were worse than than the real housewives ! in my head cannon Emperor Constantine was sitting in the middle like Andy Cohen when he hosts one of the reunion episodes. soaking in all the drama, giggles and all
Fights within, and between, religions are never really about religion. They're about power. Theological differences are just the pretexts for engaging in struggles for temporal power.
It's like you're reading my mind. I was looking for a video to explain these early divisions while teaching the Reformation. Too bad we already covered it last week 🥲 next year's material I guess
@tatarcavalry2342 My guess is that it's ALL based on common sense, but when common sense is broken down and cut up into more and more (and more) sects of belief and perspectives, each of the products of those divisions get further and further away from the actual thing that was learned originally. It's what we people do; nitpick and argue over this and that in order to put our own special sauce in it. But when the dish is 99.9% sauce and .1% substance, what do we have now?
@@ADPax10nop buddy it's not %99 common sense in bible universe and organisms made in days by god lmao ever heard of evolution quran is better but it has a lot of non sense things too
@@ADPax10 nop it's not 99% common sense ever heard of evolution lol quran is better than bible in common sense but it's not good enough too I mean you live by it it has to be good
@tatarcavalry2342 That isn't what I said. It sounds like English isn't your first written language, and if that's the case, I understand. I always try to communicate as clearly and succinctly as I can so there is as little misunderstanding as possible (especially when it comes to online communication where we can't signal each other body or voice-wise). Try to re-read it and piece it together a little more slowly, and you'll understand 🙏🏼
@@Karabulut96 "We choose to go to the Moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard." - John F. Kennedy
*Its interesting to see how paul was so influential in Christianity when he barely even met jesus* *Although i don't think the Unitarianists llke the arianism would've liked him*
The Arians liked Paul, so do the unitarians. Paul constantly makes a distinction between Jesus and God "He is the image of the invisible God, the FIRST-BORN of all creation; for in him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or authorities -- all things were created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together." Paul is very clear. Even though Jesus made the world he was born. He is the first born son of God. It is also a misconception that Arians did not believe Jesus was God. They believed he was in some sense God but that the father was greater (John 14:28 “You heard me say, ‘I am going away and I am coming back to you.’ If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I") and that there was a time where Jesus didnt exist. The church made this "eternally begotten" nonsense. Most "trinitarians" i talk to are really Arians. They believe the father is greater and existed before the son. Unitarians don't have a problem with Paul though they would interpret Christ's pre existence with his pre existing power. Paul and John do not seem to say that Jesus is God but if you read Philo of Alexandria about the concept of the Logos that is probably what they had in mind. Philo believed God was too holy to interact with the world so he had to make an interceory being to create the world and interact with the world on his behalf. There was tons of jewish literature on intercessory angels that are made to interact with creation and are given God's authority but are not God, like the angel of the lord, metatron, Michael, Enoch, malkizedek, the name bearing angels, and loads and loads of stuff on the 'two powers in heaven' "heresies".
@@truthseeker-nv6nyPeter literally was the one who first suggested Halakhah wasn't binding anymore, James came to an agreement with Peter and Paul at the Council of Jerusalem where four restrictions were established to avoid scandalizing the jews
There were also debates on are father and son equal or the father is greater than the son. They also debated whether the holy spirit should be included in divinity with the father and son or not and is the holy spirit co equal and co eternal with the father and son. Each group claiming other to be heretics
The religious context of the era (pretty wild stuff) is difficult to explain in a short time. The religion became about power within a single lifetime… ->The first “schism” occurred when Paul added his own followers to Peter’s cult, overwhelming the Jews with the sheer numbers of Gentiles (the 7 authentic Paul’s letters date to about 50-70AD). ->The second “schism” occurred when the dwindling cult members begun insisting the Jesus was not a celestial angel (as described in prior Jewish angiology) but a real Jewish preacher. Paul clearly states that he only knew of Jesus from revelations and the scriptures. No one ever told him there was a real Jesus… (The Jewish anti-temple cults were reading the scriptures for messages from god and waiting for a saviour). Jesus was only revealed to his followers after his death and the resurrection, and this actually occurred in the heavens about the earth (where Adam’s body is buried… similar to what’s written in ‘The ascension of Isaiah’… where Jesus tricked Satan to kill him and this atones for the sins of Israel) ->The religion begun just like Mormonism or Islam… via revelations from an angel to Peter and Paul. ->The cult really took off when people begun to preach a Jesus that really did walk around Judea and was crucified there by romans instead of the cult that Paul and Peter founded… Around 100AD the gospels were written placing him on earth (like with all other mystery cults in the Hellenic world… Osiris, Romulus, Mithras… about a dozen). Believing in a real Jesus was far easier to sell then some celestial deity… The church also had to insist that Jesus was real to fend off and competing sects and maintain legitimacy… (as for example stated in Peter II)… it’s difficult to have anyone able to get messages from god and maintain power. If you want an in-depth and concise explanation look up the work of Dr Richard Carrier…
While there wasn't a commonly accepted cannon of which books were inspired by God and which ones were not, it was not quite as open ended as one might think. While various groups may disagree on which letters were real or which texts were authentically from the apostles or whether that was a necessary criteria or not, their were some texts that had almost universal acceptance, being the 4 gospels (with the notable exception of the Ebionites who only accepted a variation of the Gospel of Mathew). In fact many of the apocryphal gospels, being written substantially after the 4 canonical gospels, make literary references to the 4 gospels. Essentially the concept of holy books given by inspiration of God (2 peter 1:20) was present among early believers, and many books were generally held in common, the gospels and many of the epistles while others continued to be debated and evaluated. Also some books were known to be of a lesser import while being nonetheless highly influential such as the shepherd of hermas which was known to have come after the first century and was widely regarded as being both beloved while not being considered scripture like the writings attributed to the apostles(those commissioned by Christ).
🎥 Join our UA-cam members and patrons to unlock exclusive content! Our community is currently enjoying deep dives into the First Punic War, Pacific War, history of Prussia, Italian Unification Wars, Russo-Japanese War, Albigensian Crusade, and Xenophon’s Anabasis. Become a part of this exclusive circle: ua-cam.com/channels/MmaBzfCCwZ2KqaBJjkj0fw.htmljoin or patron: www.patreon.com/kingsandgenerals and Paypal www.paypal.com/paypalme/kingsandgenerals as well!
P
Why does it says 11 has ago if the video came out 2 has ago
@@Harry-tm3ck early access for the patrons/UA-cam members
@@KingsandGenerals okay
@@KingsandGeneralsQuestion. When will you release videos of the Punic Wars for people who are not members of the channel???
Saying this as a not exactly religious person, these debates actually had a huge impact on history and our resulting world today. Perspectives like the humanity or divinity of Jesus have shaped the worldview of generations in ways that are difficult to understand without examining this aspect of history. Great addition, thanks!
I'm an atheist, but I find history of religions extremely fascinating.
Exactly. These conflicts are political. The participants largely didn’t care about the details only who would gain power.
@@TalleyrandsPuppet I think almost the same as you, this conflicts sprung from religion but manifested as political.
@@TalleyrandsPuppet I do not think this is true. I am speaking as a Catholic but the early Church cared a lot for the truth. Christology and ecclesiology was largely a matter of truth.
@@winstonvontoast6163 right, but who gets to say what the truth is?
Soooo....you are just NOT going to talk about the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch and its divisive nature at the Council of Nicaea?
Nevaaaaa
Look if the people hadn't feasted on the flesh of orangutans and fruit bats, then there would not have been a controversy over the Hand Grenade.
I thought the controversy was over what the number of counting shall be before deploying this divine weapon as the text says clear as day
"Three shall be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, neither count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out."
@@KingsandGenerals😂😂😂
Holy Hand Grenade… Thou shall rest in splinters
As a religious Christian man: I think this was a pretty good and simplified introduction to the history of Ecumenical Councils for those who are unfamiliar with much of Church history. Thank you for this video :)
The religion became about power within a single lifetime…
->The first “schism” occurred when Paul added his own followers to Peter’s cult, overwhelming the Jews with the sheer numbers of Gentiles (the 7 authentic Paul’s letters date to about 50-70AD).
->The second “schism” occurred when the dwindling cult members begun insisting the Jesus was not a celestial angel (as described in prior Jewish angiology) but a real Jewish preacher.
Paul clearly states that he only knew of Jesus from revelations and the scriptures. No one ever told him there was a real Jesus… (The Jewish anti-temple cults were reading the scriptures for messages from god and waiting for a saviour).
Jesus was only revealed to his followers after his death and the resurrection, and this actually occurred in the heavens about the earth (where Adam’s body is buried… similar to what’s written in ‘The ascension of Isaiah’… where Jesus tricked Satan to kill him and this atones for the sins of Israel)
->The religion begun just like Mormonism or Islam… via revelations from an angel to Peter and Paul.
->The cult really took off when people begun to preach a Jesus that really did walk around Judea and was crucified there by romans instead of the cult that Paul and Peter founded…
Around 100AD the gospels were written placing him on earth (like with all other mystery cults in the Hellenic world… Osiris, Romulus, Mithras… about a dozen).
Believing in a real Jesus was far easier to sell then some celestial deity…
The church also had to insist that Jesus was real to fend off and competing sects and maintain legitimacy… (as for example stated in Peter II)… it’s difficult to have anyone able to get messages from god and maintain power.
If you want an in-depth and concise explanation look up the work of Dr Richard Carrier…
@@lukin4u265nobody’s gonna read this bs
How do you manage to keep believing when there's so many schisms and debates? If you can't tell what's true how can any of it be true?
@@jamesnincross Treat religion as more of a philosophy. We don't know whose ideas (or denomination) is true exactly but if it explains our worldview better, then most likely we follow that sect.
@@darnit1944exactly, to me God & religion are separate but both important, much of religion is a philosophy that can help guide your life, much like stoicism (matter of fact Christianity & stoicism have a lot in common).
The divisions of the Early Church shaped not only the modern beliefs of Christianity but also how the secular world would approach the subject of religion. These debates were some of the most important in Western History.
The religion became about power within a single lifetime…
->The first “schism” occurred when Paul added his own followers to Peter’s cult, overwhelming the Jews with the sheer numbers of Gentiles (the 7 authentic Paul’s letters date to about 50-70AD).
->The second “schism” occurred when the dwindling cult members begun insisting the Jesus was not a celestial angel (as described in prior Jewish angiology) but a real Jewish preacher.
Paul clearly states that he only knew of Jesus from revelations and the scriptures. No one ever told him there was a real Jesus… (The Jewish anti-temple cults were reading the scriptures for messages from god and waiting for a saviour).
Jesus was only revealed to his followers after his death and the resurrection, and this actually occurred in the heavens about the earth (where Adam’s body is buried… similar to what’s written in ‘The ascension of Isaiah’… where Jesus tricked Satan to kill him and this atones for the sins of Israel)
->The religion begun just like Mormonism or Islam… via revelations from an angel to Peter and Paul.
->The cult really took off when people begun to preach a Jesus that really did walk around Judea and was crucified there by romans instead of the cult that Paul and Peter founded…
Around 100AD the gospels were written placing him on earth (like with all other mystery cults in the Hellenic world… Osiris, Romulus, Mithras… about a dozen).
Believing in a real Jesus was far easier to sell then some celestial deity…
The church also had to insist that Jesus was real to fend off and competing sects and maintain legitimacy… (as for example stated in Peter II)… it’s difficult to have anyone able to get messages from god and maintain power.
If you want an in-depth and concise explanation look up the work of Dr Richard Carrier…
@@lukin4u265that's very interesting, what denomination would these ideas fall under ?
Not sure what you mean by "these ideas"...
but these denomination differences where as much about power within the church and control of the followers as they were about theology.
No better way to discredit your rivals then to call them a heritic.
Just arguing about complete fiction to gain power.
@@lukin4u265 I meant to say "are there any denominations today who follow the idea of Jesus being a celestial being" ? Or has it all been pushed away to heresy ? If so then who is even looking into this ?
@Dazzlefisher they have been well scrubbed from history, but clues remain... for example... 2 peters has a passage asking people not to listen to other Christians that claim that stories about Jesus are cleverly written myths.
As an orthodox christian i found this video extremely accurate except for the mentioning of Jerusalem as the birthplace of christ. He was born in Bethlehem which is adjacent to Jerusalem but not part of the city. Jerusalem is however the birthplace of the church because it was there that pentecost happened.
The religion became about power within a single lifetime…
->The first “schism” occurred when Paul added his own followers to Peter’s cult, overwhelming the Jews with the sheer numbers of Gentiles (the 7 authentic Paul’s letters date to about 50-70AD).
->The second “schism” occurred when the dwindling cult members begun insisting the Jesus was not a celestial angel (as described in prior Jewish angiology) but a real Jewish preacher.
Paul clearly states that he only knew of Jesus from revelations and the scriptures. No one ever told him there was a real Jesus… (The Jewish anti-temple cults were reading the scriptures for messages from god and waiting for a saviour).
Jesus was only revealed to his followers after his death and the resurrection, and this actually occurred in the heavens about the earth (where Adam’s body is buried… similar to what’s written in ‘The ascension of Isaiah’… where Jesus tricked Satan to kill him and this atones for the sins of Israel)
->The religion begun just like Mormonism or Islam… via revelations from an angel to Peter and Paul.
->The cult really took off when people begun to preach a Jesus that really did walk around Judea and was crucified there by romans instead of the cult that Paul and Peter founded…
Around 100AD the gospels were written placing him on earth (like with all other mystery cults in the Hellenic world… Osiris, Romulus, Mithras… about a dozen).
Believing in a real Jesus was far easier to sell then some celestial deity…
The church also had to insist that Jesus was real to fend off and competing sects and maintain legitimacy… (as for example stated in Peter II)… it’s difficult to have anyone able to get messages from god and maintain power.
If you want an in-depth and concise explanation look up the work of Dr Richard Carrier…
The religious context of the era (pretty wild stuff) is difficult to explain in a short time.
The religion became about power within a single lifetime…
->The first “schism” occurred when Paul added his own followers to Peter’s cult, overwhelming the Jews with the sheer numbers of Gentiles (the 7 authentic Paul’s letters date to about 50-70AD).
->The second “schism” occurred when the dwindling cult members begun insisting the Jesus was not a celestial angel (as described in prior Jewish angiology) but a real Jewish preacher.
Paul clearly states that he only knew of Jesus from revelations and the scriptures. No one ever told him there was a real Jesus… (The Jewish anti-temple cults were reading the scriptures for messages from god and waiting for a saviour).
Jesus was only revealed to his followers after his death and the resurrection, and this actually occurred in the heavens about the earth (where Adam’s body is buried… similar to what’s written in ‘The ascension of Isaiah’… where Jesus tricked Satan to kill him and this atones for the sins of Israel)
->The religion begun just like Mormonism or Islam… via revelations from an angel to Peter and Paul.
->The cult really took off when people begun to preach a Jesus that really did walk around Judea and was crucified there by romans instead of the cult that Paul and Peter founded…
Around 100AD the gospels were written placing him on earth (like with all other mystery cults in the Hellenic world… Osiris, Romulus, Mithras… about a dozen).
Believing in a real Jesus was far easier to sell then some celestial deity…
The church also had to insist that Jesus was real to fend off and competing sects and maintain legitimacy… (as for example stated in Peter II)… it’s difficult to have anyone able to get messages from god and maintain power.
If you want an in-depth and concise explanation look up the work of Dr Richard Carrier…
@@lukin4u265 I understand why you hold this worldview but the other side of the coin is that the churches tradition is accurate and properly done. Ive had miracles happen in my life that no normal explanation can account for. Ultimately the choice to believe in God and ask for his help is up to each person and i dont expect my personal experiances to be of any validity to changing your world view but what i will say is that paul didnt cause schism. He rebuked peters judaizing beliefs and peter repented of this belief and was reconciled with Paul for the unity of the church and in order so that she might grow to encompass all nations and peoples as Christ intended.
@@lukin4u265another reason i dont think this could be acvurate is due to the churches survival in ethiopia and india and that these christian communities explicitly claim their ecclesial descent from specific apostles and apostolic age figures who were known to have spread into these regions. If christianities founding was purely this spiritual revelation to Peter and Paul then.It wouldn’t make sense that the the thomisitc and aksum branches of christianty would exist independent of the mainstream with their own biblical canons essentially from the get go
@@Imperiumhibernum I see multiple logical fallacies in your statement…
For example, believing in miracles or God doesn’t mean Jesus was a real person.
But I will leave you faith in God to one side…
I just want you to realize that your church can be tell statements such as “He rebuked peters judaizing beliefs and peter repented of this belief and was reconciled with Paul for the unity of the church” without any evidence for them being actually true.
Augustine of Hippo is from my city, Annaba (ancient hippo), Algeria, and his mother Monica too, and Donatus is from modern day Tebessa, he is considered a national hero in Algeria, since donatism is viewed as a Numidian uprising against Roman authority.
Yeah Numidian donatists would march into Latin towns and plunder them in the name of opposing the 'traditores'. Fascinating period of history. Monica is one of the greatest women of history in my view.
@@iratepirate3896 yeah she’s a saint i believe
Who is this historical women?
National hero!?!
I know him but I am certain that 99.99% of Algerians do not.
Nothing non-Islamic is considering as a hero in this state
(the state of muhamed "pbuh")
@@DemainIronfalcon Augustine’s mother, girlfriend/wife. His father was a pagan, whereas, his mother was a Christian…brave for those times, as she was both a woman and a strong, forthright woman, who tried to raise Augustine and his siblings with the teachings of Christianity.
Cheers🇨🇦
Can you guys do one on Zoroastrianism, its origin, early interaction with various polytheistic Iranic and Semitic religions, it’s spread and later how it influenced other religions of the near east.
Zoroastrianism is basically the Grandfather of the Abrahamic faiths, a video about it and the ideas that introduce would be very interesting.
Ushta te
Zoroastrian has entered the chat
Ask me Anything 😊
@@joebidet2050is it true that Zoroastrianism was the first monotheistic religion?
@@OptimusWombat yes
But it's not the father of Abrahamic religions
Nothing in common from its inception but did influence
Judaism Christianity Islam
In many ways
I can give many solid examples
I have studied extensively all the major religions
Women aren't interested in me so.i had nothing else to do.🤣
@@joebidet2050 so it's more like a great-uncle ....
Kings and generals are always brilliant. We always appreciate your time and hard work to make these videos. Love from Sri Lanka ❤
As a Devout Evangelical Protestant, this explanation of early schisms makes more sense than any attempts at explanation I have ever heard. Watching this seems to mirror Christian differences that persist in denominations today. I especially understand how Christianity became too popular to ignore, yet persecution just fueled the spread even more (still does). So secular and pagan governments like Emperors had no choice but to get involved (like establishing holidays) to settle disputes and uprisings. This also makes sense for Epistles and books of the Bible taking so long to be written, organized and eventually Canonized. Also, good reason for some perceived contradictions in some passages, with all of these books being written in different regions by different sects and over a large period of time.
Very glad that the debate between whether or not Free Will can shape our actions or if we are only moral due to Divine Grace would be solved by the end of the 5th century. What a thorny issue that could have been! I'm sure that British Bishop who debated with Augustine didn't bring his resentment back home at all.
As a Christian who loves watching Calvinists and Arminians debate (and not yet decided which camp i belong in), this comment made me laugh 😂
Funny how the Great Schism is always remembered as a turning point of Christianity while there had been several important schims before it. Once again, it is important to see who is telling the story.
The reason for that is orthodox and catholic church continue to be the most influential and powerful churches and from the Catholic Church came out protestant church the 3 most powerful churches in and these 3 became mainstream Christianity in modern time. While the older churches that separated many of them either cease to exist to tell their story or exist in very fringe circles in a few countries that had no major impact in later centuries and don't hold much influence now
@@truthseeker-nv6ny Well, Ethiophian church is still the majority religion in Ethiophia and 10% of Egyptians are part of Coptic church. And Coptic church still has a lot of influence in Egypt, so you really can't say that they "had no major impact in later centuries and don't hold much influence now".
@@vault13dweller15 Of course he can, what influence on the world stage do Ethiopia or Egypt have? Of course both have potential but for now they're not big players, maybe not even on the African stage. Ethiopia has huge internal issues, Egypt seems to always come close to bankruptcy...
The early schism sects submitted and remained within the church after the councils
There is kinda of a truth to that. It really does depend on who’s telling the story to a degree. History is always fun to argue over. However, it can easily be an oversimplification of the issues and the many challenges the Church has had even for the first 1000 years. Learning why that schism happened in the first place is pretty important.
Contrary to what's been said there have been times when Orthodox Trinitarian Christians were very small in number compared to the Arians. Yet we see the emerging victory of the doctrine of the Trinity and it being defined at the council of Nicea and argued for why the doctrine of the Trinity is true over Arianism.
That said, in my research, it’s clear to me that the preschism Orthodox Catholic Christianity is the true Church despite all its hardships and trials and not those others that schism before the great schism which in their pride would not let go of heresy.
Thanks!
I can not tell you how impressed I am with your coverage of this important matter. The complexity of the spiritually, political, and practicality of these debates is examined w/o getting bogged down in the endless nuances many others seem unable to avoid.
New found and elevated respect for all involved in bringing this to the masses!
Thank you!
✌️
Having attended a Greek Orthodox academy, I had a wish of researching the various Oriental sects of early Christianity and the split that emerged from it before the schism of 1054, just for research though. Kings and Generals does a great job in simplying the events leading to the creation of the sects that would shape the very modern Christian nations of the Middle-East.
And just to be clear, I don't have intentions of picking sides. Just doing research purposes.
As an Orthodox Christian I love this video explaining in some detail the controversies. I wished you could added the slapping of Arian by Saint Nicholas and how he got thrown in the jail. On account of this, Constantine revoked Nicholas's miter and pallium but in the cell that night he got dressed back by the Virgin and given a book by Christ if I recall correctly. Which is an important event in the eastern church.
@@Truth21a619
We don't have a record mentioning a slap but Ithere are certain accounts which mention the imprisonment of a certain Nicholaus of Myra at the dungeons of Nicaea for having commited an repelling and unconventional act within the direct presence of Emperor Constantine during one of the council's theological debates.
@@rennor3498Sooo... the person that responded to you was correct and you just made up the slapping part for whatever dumb reason while knowing that the actual text never mentioned specifically what occurred.
As an Evangelical Christian, I appreciate this video explaining the history of Christianity and its many schools of thought.
The religious context of the era (pretty wild stuff) is difficult to explain in a short time.
The religion became about power within a single lifetime…
->The first “schism” occurred when Paul added his own followers to Peter’s cult, overwhelming the Jews with the sheer numbers of Gentiles (the 7 authentic Paul’s letters date to about 50-70AD).
->The second “schism” occurred when the dwindling cult members begun insisting the Jesus was not a celestial angel (as described in prior Jewish angiology) but a real Jewish preacher.
Paul clearly states that he only knew of Jesus from revelations and the scriptures. No one ever told him there was a real Jesus… (The Jewish anti-temple cults were reading the scriptures for messages from god and waiting for a saviour).
Jesus was only revealed to his followers after his death and the resurrection, and this actually occurred in the heavens about the earth (where Adam’s body is buried… similar to what’s written in ‘The ascension of Isaiah’… where Jesus tricked Satan to kill him and this atones for the sins of Israel)
->The religion begun just like Mormonism or Islam… via revelations from an angel to Peter and Paul.
->The cult really took off when people begun to preach a Jesus that really did walk around Judea and was crucified there by romans instead of the cult that Paul and Peter founded…
Around 100AD the gospels were written placing him on earth (like with all other mystery cults in the Hellenic world… Osiris, Romulus, Mithras… about a dozen).
Believing in a real Jesus was far easier to sell then some celestial deity…
The church also had to insist that Jesus was real to fend off and competing sects and maintain legitimacy… (as for example stated in Peter II)… it’s difficult to have anyone able to get messages from god and maintain power.
If you want an in-depth and concise explanation look up the work of Dr Richard Carrier…
@@Wasteland88they didn't make it up, its a widely believed part of the meeting between St Nicolas and Arius.
I personally would much prefer Santa to have slapped some fool, makes him giving naughty kids a lump of coal more understandable.
Good overview of some really complicated stuff. I have some superficial understanding of the topics and this helped make some things clear.
Love this idea for a video. A bit different from the battle/ political videos and most people don't have this stuff explained to them in a simple and interesting way
Well done! I really enjoy these explanations of very complex, but vital, parts of history. I look forward to examinations of other theological (and potentially political?) debates!
18:38 "The Churches of the East continue to exist to this day, having profound impacts on the Middle-East's cultural tapestry".
Me also watching Bishop Emmanuel Yoship/Mar Mari Manuel's videos on UA-cam at the same time: It surely does.
I watched a comment in one of the UA-cam videos were someone called Bishop mari mari a heritic. Fascinating that those ancient debates and political division still have impact on people's perspectives
Edit: sorry I don't think it was just a comment but someone made an entire video explaining that he was a heretic
He is a heretic bro, he s a nestorian
@@constantine2687Jesus: Shall I not renew you, O barbarians, who were once Christians?
Mar Mari isn't a bishop, he was excommunicated from his Church, he's also a Nestorian which is heresy. He’s a smooth talker, and very good at gaslighting the masses into believing him.
Appreciated you tackled this.
8:39 I am a bit confused. The Nicene creed in its original Greek states that the father and son ARE homoousioi. I think this part of the video is backwards. Nicene side was arguing that they were of the same essence (homoousioi) because the son did not come after the father while the Arians said they were not of the same essence because the son came after the father and was not fully divine. Unless I am missing something…
Yup, they screwed this up
Yeah the text in the video is correct but he said homoousios for the arians instead of homoiousios
Yes he made a mistake, a big one lol.
Amazing. Can't wait for more videos on the ecumenical councils, Nicaea 2 would be interesting to dive deeper into.
Kings and Generals is one of the best channels on UA-cam.
This channel (among other channels) inspired me to create my own channel (a month ago)!
Wish you all the best!
I shall subscribe. I just started producing shorts last weekend. I wish you luck and I look forward to seeing what you have. And yes kings and generals is a legend.
Eastern Catholic here: A note about "Nestorianism". The video shows a very Western understanding of what happened. "Nestorianism" as shown on the map actually depicts the jurisdiction of the Church of the East. The West viewed them as Nestorian because they did not affirm the Council of Ephesos. i.e. they didn't condemn Nestorius. They view him as a saint and a Church father, but they also view Cyril in the same way. They basically didn't take a side. (The Pope and Patriarch of the Church or the East actually acknowledged this misunderstanding in 1994, taking steps toward communion).
However, a similar thing happened with Monophysitism and the video gets it right in this case. The West viewed the Syriac and Coptic churches as Monophysites, but in reality they were Miaphysite. That's because they also just didn't take a side, and Miaphysitism is the orginal view, prior to the debates between Chalcedonism and Monophysitism.
Today, both the (Assyrian) Church of the East and the Oriental Orthdox Churches (Syriac, Coptic, Armenian) view these early debates as most of us do today: something very much tied to the philosophical debates of that specific time. They ignore these councils, viewing them as debates between men, and harken back to Jesus himself primarily, with the Nicene creed as doctrine. The diverse views that came up at the councils are all part of the history, but these churches didn't see them as heresies but simply as different views, focusing on what divides us rather than the multitude that unites us. That is the essence of Christianity: to come together despite differences, not taking sides on temporary issues. (It does take sides on non-temporary issues, but that's a different discussion).
This is also how the Catholic Church views it as seen in the Second Vatican council (1965). It affirms Eastern catholic tradition even though in the past they would've been seen as heretical.
Augustine of Hippo, along with his mother Monica, is from my hometown of Annaba (ancient Hippo), Algeria. Donatus, on the other hand, hails from modern-day Tebessa and is revered as a national hero in Algeria due to the widespread belief that donatism represented a Numidian rebellion against Roman rule.
FASCINATING. More political/ church/ economic history please
I would love to see you guys cover the eastern churches of Christianity in more detail, shedding light on the church histories of regions like Ethiopia or Kerala because the western eurocentric history often gets more attention. Love the quality work you guys produce!
A video on Bogomilism and how Alexios komnenos dealt with it would be interesting
Kings and Generals I have been watching you since I was 9 years old and I'm 13 years old
Thanks!
Judging by your taste of UA-cam channels you follow is have to say you stay a good chance of growing into a very intelligent adult.
Been waiting for a video to cover these topics for a while. Great job!
Amazing video 😊 though long and complex still great elaboration
Timestamp 11:56 --->According to tradition, the See of Rome was founded by Peter, not Paul; Jesus was born in Bethlehem, not Jerusalem.
Timestamp 15:43 ---> "Nestorianism" still exists among the native Iraqi Christians to this day. The Christians you call "Monophysites" exist in Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq as well. Both terms you use are considered pejorative by these communities.
16:50 Regarding miaphysitism, miaphysites believe that Christ has ONE nature 100% Human and 100% Divine without confusion, while Orthodox Christianity believes Christ has twi natures, one 100% human and one 100% divine without confusion, with only the divine one being part of the trinity
Yes, but this itself was a massively contrested point, with many accusing some Chalcedonians of taking dyophitism too far and falling into Manichean-style dualism. It was a massive row between Alexandrian and Antiochene christians.
can you be 200% something : p
Really? Because during my Orthodox Catechism (in a church under the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople) no one ever mentioned that Jesus' human nature is seperate from the Trinity. In fact I was taught that God's human nature being brought into union with his divine nature (though the person of Jesus) is an important aspect of the salvation he provides.
Really nice video explaining early Church schisms.
I understand the importance of these debates and councils to my own faith, but man, some of these debates sound very, very esoteric. Thank you for another informative video.
God be with you out there, everybody. ✝️ :)
Why do you guys always release banger content?
at 02:24 in the map, there is a region named "Celts", which Celts were they?
Thank you very much for your content, I hope I can become a member soon.
Boii, last remnants of them. Thanks for considering!
@@KingsandGenerals It is amazing how thorough, well research and produced this videos are, you known every single detail of the story. The narrative and art are great and beautiful. Greetings from Colombia, it is always a good day when you release content.
This is a surprisingly even handed treatment of the subject. And yes, we still fiercely debate all these matters in the Church today. 😊😊
I am surprised you don’t mention the quartodeciman controversy at all
Okay, so before the all this, say before 200CE, what did the sects have in common that made them christian? What was there conversion schtick?
Basically, and I am simplifying, more inclusive Judaism with the ideas of Messiah, holy spirit and miracles added to it and with the disciples of Jesus and the disciples of the disciples leading communities in various cities. It is very likely that every community had its own distinct version and these councils somewhat standardized it into one religion.
Being baptized in the father son and holy spirit and taking communion.
@@KingsandGenerals I would like to notice the proto-orthodox classified the other groups (gnostics and judaizers, and later modalists and novatians) as heretics. So this diversity wasn't harmonious, with the proto-orthodox not having so much theological diversity as the gnostics because of their greater rigidity.
@@Cup0Coffeethank you for that, especially the 'descendents' of the Apostles.
@@KingsandGenerals You are correct, the Church was run by local synods, headed by a Bishop. The Catholicity of the Churches began early in the first and second centuries, with figures like Ignatius of Antioch referring to the Church as Catholic, meaning universal, in his letters. Over time, the Church’s governance evolved, eventually forming a pentarchy consisting of Rome, Antioch, Constantinople, Jerusalem, and Alexandria as a result of the religion spreading all over the Roman Empire and beyond.
The Church’s traditions emerged from Temple Judaism rather than modern rabbinic Judaism, which developed in response to Christianity, the scattering of the Jewish people, and the destruction of the Temple. The liturgical practices of the ancient Church were influenced by the liturgical rituals of the Temple and Synagogue. Christianity can truly be seen in continuity with Temple Judaism.
Is there a video detailing the various councils response to the emergence of Islam and the Prophet Mohammed? It seems so fascinating that shortly after that the Umayyad empire gains so much control of the Middle East and Northern Africa
it was a bit of the reason for the rapid spread of the Muslims, the Miaphysites/Copts of Egypt and middle east did not put up much resistance, since they dislike the orthodox imperial armies as much as the Arab Muslims. And Muslims often would not persecute the Copts, just tax them.
BTW, did you know the Copts were the majority pop of Egypt until the 1500s? Even in the 1950s they were 1/5 of Egyptians. only recent persecutions have reduced them sharply.
In their series covering early Islamic conquests, one of the points they highlight was that regions such as Egypt and North Africa often sided with the Muslims to escape persecution by Roman Chaledonians.
@tommy-er6hh I met a coptic woman on a flight once. She told me that the Egyptian government purposely under-counts the coptic population and they are more numerous than what official stats say
It's also interesting that the schisms that produced the currently existing pre-Protestant churches (ie the Roman Catholic church, the Eastern Orthodox church, the Oriental Orthodox church, and the Church of the East) have all basically been overcome by todays theologians, and most theologians in those churches agree that the historical schisms were mistakes.
The divide between that produced the OOC came first, on one side the Chalcedonian dyophysites who said Jesus has two natures: a divine one and a human one, on the other side the miaphysites who said Jesus has one nature: a divino-human one. OOC theologians have already had agreements with EOC and RCC theologians that they share the exact same view of Jesus, but just phrase it differently.
The next divide is the one that produces the CotE, on one side the Ephesus side who said Jesus is one person, on the other side the Nestorian side which said that Jesus is two persons. CotE already has an official joint statement with the RCC that actually they believe the same things about Jesus, but that the Ephesus side had a mistranslation of what Nestorius believed and what they believe.
The final divide, between RCC and EOC, was based on the two issues of filioque and papal primacy. For the first thing, almost all RCC and most EOC theologians agree that they have the same view of Trinity, that the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, they historically fought about how to phrase that, but today RCC is ok with people not using the filioque (as the Easter Catholics mostly dont), and many EOC theologians say theyre ok with people using it to express the doctrine they all agree on. For the second thing, the historical divide was the RCC said papal primacy is primacy of power, and EOC said the pope only ever had and can have primacy of honor, and be 'first among equals'. The thing is that in the modern era where the church and its leaders no longer have worldly power, and within the RCC Eastern Catholic churches have the same autonomy that the individual churches have within the EOC - this issue has become obsolete, the RCC view of 'papal supremacy of power' and the EOC view of 'first among equals primacy of honor' are two descriptions for one and the same way of doing things.
So in terms of what theologically separated them historically, there isnt really an obstacle to these four churches all rejoining with one another into a one single big church. The obstacle is basically just the theologically less nuanced fundie elements in each of those groups who keep insisting that theyre the only true church and that unity with those other groups cant be achieve by uniting with them, but only by them repenting and joining this one true group.
Excellent info, thank you.
Except it's not a mistake of phrasing it differently, if you studying it the Copts and their belief they make Jesus into basically a Demi-God by their belief. They make the nature of Christ into something that's both not Human and not God and that's a huge problem.
If it was a mistake of phrasing it differently why don't they just agree with the Eastern Orthodox and the Roman Catholics, why be so prideful in their phrasing?
There are many other issues aside from this as well with the OO.
Youre just saying random wrong stuff. All of those groups believe the exact same thing about Christ - that he is one eternal divine hypostasis who is after incarnation fully human and fully divine, his humanity and divinity being unmixed, unconfused, undivided and inseparable. EOC and OOC had official theological agreements on this in 1989 in Egypt, and in the Chambesy conference in 1990. There they also agreed that both wordings are ok.
BTW the OOC wording comes directly from Cyril of Alexandria, and is the reason why the OOC fundies will turn that silly question around to you and ask why are you being so prideful in your phrasing.
RCC and OOC also agreed on the above, not only the theologians, but there was an official joint statement by Roman and Coptic popes in 1973 that they have the same Christology, of Christ who is fully human and fully divine, his humanity and divinity united without mingling, without mixing, without confusion, without alteration, without division, without separation.
Maybe actually learn stuff, and dont accept silly misinformation about what others believe that are coming from uneducated hostile motivated places. Charitability and letting go of the desire to be antagonistic (which should be Christian values) will help here.
I don’t think you are correct about the catholics and eastern orthodox, as the issues of the filioque and papal supremacy are still very much relevant and can’t be brushed aside. My understanding is that the orthodox still think the filioque is anti-trinitarian and papal supremacy vs first among equals are two mutually exclusive ideas, certainly in the wake of the vatican councils. Unity between these two churches would necessitate that one gives up on what they believe.
That is not true. Most of the prominent Eastern Orthodox theologians say there is no theological problem with the filioque, people like Kallistos Ware, Lossky, Zizioulas, Pomazansky, Romanides, etc, and there was a joint theological statement of Catholic and Orthodox theologians in 2003 reaching the same conclusion. Both sides hold the same theology, that the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, and when they clarify what is meant by the Greek text vs the Latin text (with the filioque) they see it's the same thing. Sure, there are some theologically unlettered fundies on both sides who think that the other side are heretics, but that is not the view of the theologians on either side. As far as Papal primacy is concerned, Catholic church has already "given up" the view of supremacy it once had, look at things such as the Ravenna declaration in 2007 and some other sessions of "Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue Between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church". The Catholic church already understands and practices papal primacy in basically the same way the Orthodox church understands and practices the primacy of the Patriarch of Constantinople (also called the Ecumenical Patriarch, due to that primacy), and sui iurus autonomy of the Eastern Catholic churches within the Catholic church is equivalent to the autonomy different patriarchates have within the EO church. Neither the filioque not papal primacy have been seen for a while by theologians on both sides as obstacles for unity. The issues of jurisdiction a bit of a problem (tho different EO churches co-existing in USA can be a model for that), the historical differences and differences in practice are a small problem too (tho Easter Catholic churches are proof that it can easily work). But basically the main obstacles are the institutional inertia and the fundies on both sides who are resisting unity. Which is weird, like why wouldnt you want the unity Christ prayed for, and why would you resist theological experts from your own camp telling you that actually there are no obstacles to unity, that resistance to unity and to theological facts is kinda suspicious.
Will you also be going over the Council of Nicaea?
Another fantastic Thursday, when Kings and Generals drops a video.
This was a hella hella interesting one you guys. Learned a lot. I knew that there was tons of sects, but learning the history and the reason for their split adds so much more depth. 👌❤
Great video. Hope to see more on this topic. How both the theology of the Church as well as its power were important influences if this world for millennia.
How do y’all’s animations keep getting even better 😭
thanks again 😊😊😊😊
I can't tell if I'm watching a Warhammer 40k lore video or early Christian history, the language is so similar to each other and especially so with the more well written and narrated 40k channels.
I always like seeing how 40k and any sci-fi/fantasy borrows from actual history
dude, warhammer 40k is part of the christian canon... Some dude got blasted back in time in some warp-rift-storm, to bestow on us the gift of warhammer 40k lore, which is actually history(or contains at least as much fantasy as our 'victor writes the hystory' history, where victor is just a vicar, when Brits pronounce it it sounds exactly the same)...
I'm also pretty sure he narator of these history vids and the warhammer lore vids are the same dude, he might have even had a part in re-re-re-re-rewriting history in another endless cover-up operation to keep the masses stupid ;-) You know, the last re-editing and re-writing of history was right after WW2, I'm pretty sure they needed an anno Y2K version of it by now
"You know nothing, John Snow"... because all we've told you are lies, hihihi
i am surprise and glad that you made this video, its simple to understand
As a Catholic Christian I think that was a fair and objective take on the early church.
Great content more church history would be awesome
Me, dabbling in theology for the past year looking at this with interest.
The religion became about power within a single lifetime…
->The first “schism” occurred when Paul added his own followers to Peter’s cult, overwhelming the Jews with the sheer numbers of Gentiles (the 7 authentic Paul’s letters date to about 50-70AD).
->The second “schism” occurred when the dwindling cult members begun insisting the Jesus was not a celestial angel (as described in prior Jewish angiology) but a real Jewish preacher.
Paul clearly states that he only knew of Jesus from revelations and the scriptures. No one ever told him there was a real Jesus… (The Jewish anti-temple cults were reading the scriptures for messages from god and waiting for a saviour).
Jesus was only revealed to his followers after his death and the resurrection, and this actually occurred in the heavens about the earth (where Adam’s body is buried… similar to what’s written in ‘The ascension of Isaiah’… where Jesus tricked Satan to kill him and this atones for the sins of Israel)
->The religion begun just like Mormonism or Islam… via revelations from an angel to Peter and Paul.
->The cult really took off when people begun to preach a Jesus that really did walk around Judea and was crucified there by romans instead of the cult that Paul and Peter founded…
Around 100AD the gospels were written placing him on earth (like with all other mystery cults in the Hellenic world… Osiris, Romulus, Mithras… about a dozen).
Believing in a real Jesus was far easier to sell then some celestial deity…
The church also had to insist that Jesus was real to fend off and competing sects and maintain legitimacy… (as for example stated in Peter II)… it’s difficult to have anyone able to get messages from god and maintain power.
If you want an in-depth and concise explanation look up the work of Dr Richard Carrier…
Great Topic 🎉🎉
Excellent. Thank you
Many of these disputes were also about ethnic & cultural divides. In many cases, adherence to non-Nicaean or non-Chalcedonian doctrines was a rebellion by local populations against the forced Hellenism from Constantinople
I appreciate the video thanks
Excellent content work.I hope on your Albengensian Crusade study you can bring the focus down onto the issue of saturday worship and sundy worship and if Saturday Saabbath worship was particularly held against the Piedmont Waldensians and pivotal in the papal athourities hunting them down and killing them.I don't believe the particular day of worship was considered a heretical offense at the top of the Catholic churches list.I think money,power,and control were the prime instigators on both sides of dissent.In truth mabey the lions share of slaughtered heriticks kept Sunday worship over Saturday worship.YOUR podcasts are highly invigorating.
When are you guys gonna release another pacific campaign video to the folks who who don’t pay for subscription
At some point over the next months
Ordination of Eunuchs
That must have been a lively debate
😂
😂😂
Do the three natures of Christ that these bishops spent centuries arguing about mean more than just an abstract theological difference? Does choosing one of these beliefs like Arianism implicitly trickle down to changing how the common people live their lives? Sometimes I wonder if modern philosophers are still having the same debates but using words ending in ~ism in place of the religious versions of the same ideas.
I like how you kept to facts and did not fall into the Roman narative of the 2000 years old Papal Church
You could raise a child on these videos 🙏🙏🙏
You shouldn't.
Church of the East
Oriental Orthodoxy
The Split between Latin/Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy
Protestantism
For the Kings and Generals! For the algorithm!
This brings me back to the Extra History video
Very complicated topic!
I'd like to say that regard to the question presented in 3:12, it was answer in the bible, Paul said that the mosaic law don't bring us salvation and that basically we don't have to follow them anymore, and every christian nowadays don't follow the mosaic law
Outstanding video. A terrific intro to the Early Church which can be daunting to people who want to learn more but have no idea how/where to start.
The only nitpick I have is I wish you would've added either pop up or a sentence on the origins of Donatism; since you show it when it first appeared but did not speak of it until much later in the timeline. Still though. Great video!
Donatism - the effectiveness of the sacraments depends on the moral character of the minister, whether he renounced under persecution. This started in north Africa with the intense persecutions of Diocletian in 300 AD.
@@tommy-er6hh Oh I know... sorry I meant it more the average viewer who would not. Because I think it was important how down the line it came to a head because Donatists refused to recognize appointed ministers because they had been ordained or blessed by those who "betrayed" the church by giving in to the Roman officials. Or who themselves had been ordained by someone who had been and so all the sacraments they performed were considered null and void.
Make a video on different Hindu schools of thought like vaishnavism shaivism shaktism and smartaism
Check out Let's Talk Religion.
@@chronikhiles I watched their video. It talked about different theological beliefs and practices of the schools. What I was specifically looking for were the historical developments and how which school spread in certain parts of India their political patronages debates. Like how kings and generals is describing the history of Christian sects in this video
Most important,to understand the modern church,you must know how the early church began, starting off with the 12 disciples who later became CHRISTs apostles,who started the 7 churches of Asia.Psul and his followers started the 7 churches.Thanks for the video.
A clear explanation of a complex issue - thank you. I find it so sad that so much ink - and even blood - was spilt over matters of "doctrinal correctness", when the true call was - and is - to follow in the footsteps of Jesus: “In everything, do to others what you would have them do to you" as the 'Golden Rule' states Jesus explained.
As an Orthodox Georgian, i Thank you
Make a Video about leader Adem Jashari and his 3 day fight against serbian military.
Thank you.
I don't always go to the Danger Zone but when I do, Kenny and I take the Highway to the Danger Zone!
My favorite story is how Arius shit himself to death in the streets and therefore was seen as divine intervention that he was wrong 😂
What about the one called Adoptionism? The one that preached that Christ is adopted by God as his Son?
Adoptionism - Jesus was not born the Son of God, but was adopted variously at his baptism, resurrection or his ascension, Adoptionism was in 2nd to 3rd century. Similar to later Indian heresy of Avatarism (Jesus was an avatar of higher God).
@@tommy-er6hh Thanks for the explanation but what I wanted to know is what caused the other Christian sects to view Adoptionism as heretical? In my view, I think it will be a good compromise.
And I am not even a Christian here.
@@lerneanlionIf Jesus was not totally God and man, how is he like man, sin excepted? If Jesus was previously a sinful man, how can his death pay for our sins?
That is the problem with adoptionism to my knowledge.
@@tommy-er6hh Thank you for this explanation. And my solution here is simple for those who still believed in Adoptionism, think of the Original Sin as nothing real. In fact, Original Sin is something exclusive just to Christianity. But Judaism and Islam do not have such a concept to begin with. But of course, this is just my view, who is not even a Christian to begin with but simply someone who also believed in God.
@@lerneanlion So, if Jesus was adopted, at a later age, then how do you deal with Christmas in the gospels? They would have to be torn out, much like Pres. Jefferson did all the miracles in his "bible".
So interesting so the origins of my faith explored like this. There were a lotta schisms lmao.
Christianity: No, Constantine! You can't solve the divisions within the church all by holding hands and singing Kumbaya. You'll just make the church a tool of the empire!
Constine: Don't worry guys, I got this!
Narrator: But he didn't, in fact, "got this".
Vote by Shouting, is it like what we do when teacher asks if a test should be conducted today or next week
I think the Copts are miaphysites, not monophysites.
true
Arius had a theological clash with Alexander of Alexandria not Athanasius ( the secretary/notarius of Alexander).
What country first officialy confirmed christianity ? Can you tell me?
Claims range from Armenia to Egypt. Problem is "country" is a very weird word to use in this case. If we mean "state", it was likely Armenia.
@@KingsandGenerals yes I mean as state not the first man or people because nobody can prove it. But in video you might show that Armenia was the first state that officialy confirmed christianity. Its very important
I am muslim and i respect very muchh this relegen
Crictian good pepal❤
You should do a video on 19th century Mormonism!
The religion became about power within a single lifetime…
->The first “schism” occurred when Paul added his own followers to Peter’s cult, overwhelming the Jews with the sheer numbers of Gentiles (the 7 authentic Paul’s letters date to about 50-70AD).
->The second “schism” occurred when the dwindling cult members begun insisting the Jesus was not a celestial angel (as described in prior Jewish angiology) but a real Jewish preacher.
Paul clearly states that he only knew of Jesus from revelations and the scriptures. No one ever told him there was a real Jesus… (The Jewish anti-temple cults were reading the scriptures for messages from god and waiting for a saviour).
Jesus was only revealed to his followers after his death and the resurrection, and this actually occurred in the heavens about the earth (where Adam’s body is buried… similar to what’s written in ‘The ascension of Isaiah’… where Jesus tricked Satan to kill him and this atones for the sins of Israel)
->The religion begun just like Mormonism or Islam… via revelations from an angel to Peter and Paul.
->The cult really took off when people begun to preach a Jesus that really did walk around Judea and was crucified there by romans instead of the cult that Paul and Peter founded…
Around 100AD the gospels were written placing him on earth (like with all other mystery cults in the Hellenic world… Osiris, Romulus, Mithras… about a dozen).
Believing in a real Jesus was far easier to sell then some celestial deity…
The church also had to insist that Jesus was real to fend off and competing sects and maintain legitimacy… (as for example stated in Peter II)… it’s difficult to have anyone able to get messages from god and maintain power.
If you want an in-depth and concise explanation look up the work of Dr Richard Carrier…
Nothing says "infallible religious doctrine " more than religious wars
I liked the depth of the topic covered in this context, I hope the series continues not only talking about the main religions, but those less frequently seen such as Taoism, Confucianism, Manichaeism that brought together Iranian, Christian and Buddhist elements and also, for example, a video about the divisions in Buddhism such as Mahayna, Theravada and Tibetan
Taoism info up to about 1500 AD:
1600-1000 BC Chinese polytheism reduced, as idol/gods like Shangdi, Guanyin (an adopted Indian goddess of mercy) and Xiwangmu or Xi-Wang-Mu tend to fall in favor to ancestor worship. However nature spirit such as the Tudi Gong, Kuei-Shen, and human ghost worship such as guei/kuei continued, and later Taoist worship would raise new pantheon of gods Baxian/Pa Hsien.
600-400 BC Fragmented Chinese states have 100 schools of thought later combined into major schools including: Taoism(later merging with Naturalists/Yin-yang and Yangism), Confucianism (later merging with Scholars), Legalism, Mohism(merging with Names/Logicians), Militarism, Agriculturalism, Medicalism, and many more philosophies/religions. Many writings were combined into these few schools, and not all are known/survived.
600-400 BC Possible time of Naturalists vs Yin-yang , legendary LaoZi in fragmented China, author of the Tao Te Ching, considered the founding work of philosophical Taoism.
Taoism is a philosophical, ethical, and religious tradition of Chinese origin that emphasizes living in harmony with the Tao (Dao) under moral Te guidance. The term Tao means "way", "path" or "principle" of "naturalness", simplicity, spontaneity, and the Three Treasures: compassion, moderation, and humility. It is syncretic in that Taoism absorbs many other philosophies and religions often changing over the centuries. Many groups/views (Cheng-i, Ch'üan-chen, Golden Elixir, Clarified Tenuity, Heart of Heaven, Divine Empyrean, Youthful Incipience, and others) develop after 200 AD. By that time it has spread to Korea and Vietnam and changed there, and by 500 AD to Japan - where it changed into Onmyōdō, which will last until the 19th cent.
[Note: Although may have started it, many, many other writers changed or added to Taoism. It has changed greatly from the original thought.]
300 BC earliest copy of Tao-Te-Ching scripture of Taoism in China known to survive.
213-212 BC Qin Shi Huang, first emperor of China, started persecution “burning of books and burying of scholars” of all different religions/philosophies except Legalism. Some of the major schools and writings are recovered or hidden, like Taoism and Confucianism - but many others die out or are lost.
65 AD Liu Ling, a relative of the Taoist Han Emperor in China, converts to Buddhism.
c. 400 First Daozang - a compendium of 1200 scrolls about Taoism. At that time Taoism emphasized 3 “baskets/grottoes” of authenticity/meditation, mystery/ritual and spirit/exorcism. By 500 they added the 4 supplements:
Great mystery - alchemy and meditation
Great peace - charms and ritualism
Great purity - revelation, alchemy , and theology/cosmography
Great Unity - way of heavenly masters
c. 400 AD The north African elephants go extinct.
c. 500 AD Elements of Taoism enter Japan and change into Onmyōdō magic system run by government.
748 AD Second Daozang - a compendium of 3700 scrolls about Taoism.
755 -753 AD An Lushan Rebellion in China killed many (70%?), led to less Buddhism and Taoism turning to more Confucianism. World pop significantly reduced.
840 AD - Taoist Chinese Emperor Wuzong had severe persecution of Buddhists & the Assyrian Church of the East ("luminous religion") for a while, and destroyed the Zoroastrians and Manicheans - although they later came back. Korea did similarly. “Assimilated Chinese” trader Jews were missed. By 878 Jews are mentioned as being killed in riots in Canton where they had spread to.
1016 AD Third Daozang - a compendium of now 4300 scrolls about Taoism.
1183 AD Japanese Onmyōdō magic system originated in Taoism faded away.
c.1300 AD Buddhist and Tengri Mongol Yuan burned many of the Taoist scrolls of Daozang - from about 5000+ scrolls about Taoism at the time.
1359 AD the Mahayana Buddhist, Taoist and Confucianist Ming in China persecuted and expelled many non-Chinese “luminous/nestorian” Assyrian Church of the East Christians and Roman Catholics, as they were allies of the Yuan/Mongol emperors who were overthrown. Vajrayāna Lama Buddhists were also expelled as allies of the Yuan/Mongols. Chinese Jews are forced to intermarry Chinese and soon appear to be assimilated.
1370 AD the Mahayana(mostly Zen) Buddhist, Taoist and Confusianist Ming outlaw and persecute Manichæans. But the Sunni Muslims are tolerated and adopt Chinese dress and manners, and the Ming tried to integrate Muslims, forcing them to marry Chinese.
1444 AD Fourth and last Daozang - a compendium of now 5300 scrolls about Taoism.
1512 AD Syncretic Jews in China continue to try to blend Judaism with Taoism.
these bishops were worse than than the real housewives !
in my head cannon Emperor Constantine was sitting in the middle like Andy Cohen when he hosts one of the reunion episodes. soaking in all the drama, giggles and all
Fights within, and between, religions are never really about religion.
They're about power. Theological differences are just the pretexts for engaging in struggles for temporal power.
It's like you're reading my mind. I was looking for a video to explain these early divisions while teaching the Reformation. Too bad we already covered it last week 🥲 next year's material I guess
He is the messiah! I say you are my lord and I should know I’ve followed a few!!
10:04 why is there Albania?
Caucasian Albania
There are 2 geographical Albania. one next to Greece, and one next to Armenia in Caucasus,
The Waldensians have a interesting history involving Religion and battles with the Catholic church
It would be cool to cover the origin of the Ancient Hebrews to explain the Israel-Palestine conflict.
And it would only fragment even further...
because none abrahamic religion is universal and based on common sense lol
@tatarcavalry2342 My guess is that it's ALL based on common sense, but when common sense is broken down and cut up into more and more (and more) sects of belief and perspectives, each of the products of those divisions get further and further away from the actual thing that was learned originally.
It's what we people do; nitpick and argue over this and that in order to put our own special sauce in it. But when the dish is 99.9% sauce and .1% substance, what do we have now?
@@ADPax10nop buddy it's not %99 common sense in bible universe and organisms made in days by god lmao ever heard of evolution quran is better but it has a lot of non sense things too
@@ADPax10 nop it's not 99% common sense ever heard of evolution lol quran is better than bible in common sense but it's not good enough too I mean you live by it it has to be good
@tatarcavalry2342 That isn't what I said. It sounds like English isn't your first written language, and if that's the case, I understand. I always try to communicate as clearly and succinctly as I can so there is as little misunderstanding as possible (especially when it comes to online communication where we can't signal each other body or voice-wise).
Try to re-read it and piece it together a little more slowly, and you'll understand 🙏🏼
Can you make a video about the Greco-Turkish war of 1919-1922?
Why
@@Scorpionwincheater88why not?
@@OptimusWombatIt's hard to be objective when discussing this topic
@@Karabulut96 and just because it's difficult means it shouldn't be done?
@@Karabulut96 "We choose to go to the Moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard."
- John F. Kennedy
*Its interesting to see how paul was so influential in Christianity when he barely even met jesus*
*Although i don't think the Unitarianists llke the arianism would've liked him*
Paul had differences with Peter (the disciple of Jesus) and James (the brorher of christ) too
You sure know nothing about arianism , they are not unitarian as you might think
The Arians liked Paul, so do the unitarians. Paul constantly makes a distinction between Jesus and God
"He is the image of the invisible God, the FIRST-BORN of all creation; for in him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or authorities -- all things were created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together."
Paul is very clear. Even though Jesus made the world he was born. He is the first born son of God. It is also a misconception that Arians did not believe Jesus was God. They believed he was in some sense God but that the father was greater (John 14:28 “You heard me say, ‘I am going away and I am coming back to you.’ If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I") and that there was a time where Jesus didnt exist. The church made this "eternally begotten" nonsense.
Most "trinitarians" i talk to are really Arians. They believe the father is greater and existed before the son. Unitarians don't have a problem with Paul though they would interpret Christ's pre existence with his pre existing power. Paul and John do not seem to say that Jesus is God but if you read Philo of Alexandria about the concept of the Logos that is probably what they had in mind. Philo believed God was too holy to interact with the world so he had to make an interceory being to create the world and interact with the world on his behalf. There was tons of jewish literature on intercessory angels that are made to interact with creation and are given God's authority but are not God, like the angel of the lord, metatron, Michael, Enoch, malkizedek, the name bearing angels, and loads and loads of stuff on the 'two powers in heaven' "heresies".
The arians literally accepted his writtings as Holy Scripture, the whole paulinism thing is without any basis
@@truthseeker-nv6nyPeter literally was the one who first suggested Halakhah wasn't binding anymore, James came to an agreement with Peter and Paul at the Council of Jerusalem where four restrictions were established to avoid scandalizing the jews
There were also debates on are father and son equal or the father is greater than the son. They also debated whether the holy spirit should be included in divinity with the father and son or not and is the holy spirit co equal and co eternal with the father and son. Each group claiming other to be heretics
Angels have become divine and they have no free will 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
The religious context of the era (pretty wild stuff) is difficult to explain in a short time.
The religion became about power within a single lifetime…
->The first “schism” occurred when Paul added his own followers to Peter’s cult, overwhelming the Jews with the sheer numbers of Gentiles (the 7 authentic Paul’s letters date to about 50-70AD).
->The second “schism” occurred when the dwindling cult members begun insisting the Jesus was not a celestial angel (as described in prior Jewish angiology) but a real Jewish preacher.
Paul clearly states that he only knew of Jesus from revelations and the scriptures. No one ever told him there was a real Jesus… (The Jewish anti-temple cults were reading the scriptures for messages from god and waiting for a saviour).
Jesus was only revealed to his followers after his death and the resurrection, and this actually occurred in the heavens about the earth (where Adam’s body is buried… similar to what’s written in ‘The ascension of Isaiah’… where Jesus tricked Satan to kill him and this atones for the sins of Israel)
->The religion begun just like Mormonism or Islam… via revelations from an angel to Peter and Paul.
->The cult really took off when people begun to preach a Jesus that really did walk around Judea and was crucified there by romans instead of the cult that Paul and Peter founded…
Around 100AD the gospels were written placing him on earth (like with all other mystery cults in the Hellenic world… Osiris, Romulus, Mithras… about a dozen).
Believing in a real Jesus was far easier to sell then some celestial deity…
The church also had to insist that Jesus was real to fend off and competing sects and maintain legitimacy… (as for example stated in Peter II)… it’s difficult to have anyone able to get messages from god and maintain power.
If you want an in-depth and concise explanation look up the work of Dr Richard Carrier…
While there wasn't a commonly accepted cannon of which books were inspired by God and which ones were not, it was not quite as open ended as one might think. While various groups may disagree on which letters were real or which texts were authentically from the apostles or whether that was a necessary criteria or not, their were some texts that had almost universal acceptance, being the 4 gospels (with the notable exception of the Ebionites who only accepted a variation of the Gospel of Mathew). In fact many of the apocryphal gospels, being written substantially after the 4 canonical gospels, make literary references to the 4 gospels.
Essentially the concept of holy books given by inspiration of God (2 peter 1:20) was present among early believers, and many books were generally held in common, the gospels and many of the epistles while others continued to be debated and evaluated.
Also some books were known to be of a lesser import while being nonetheless highly influential such as the shepherd of hermas which was known to have come after the first century and was widely regarded as being both beloved while not being considered scripture like the writings attributed to the apostles(those commissioned by Christ).