Video Series on Early Christian Schisms

Okay, so the last video series I posted from this group devolved into a lot of bickering and religion bashing, so I'm not so sure about posting this one, but still, I figured it is a very interesting series, so it would be worth it.
Definitely a "pop culture"ish telling of history, but it does make it more consumable. Also, while combined it comes up to three quarters of an hour, it is divided into chunks of about 8 minutes each, so you don't get tired like I do when someone links a huge hour-long video here that purports to EXPOSE THE LIES or whatever. Watch the ones that you think would interest you, then go back and forth!

The series itself (followed by some of my personal thoughts on each "episode"):

Before Imperium
I thought it was quite interesting how these schisms were there even during the birth of the Bible, such that there are passages in the Bible that directly address them. I never thought of it before, but it seems interesting how when someone mentions some early Christian splinter group, and they're then put down because "They are absolutely wrong, since the Bible says XYZ in this passage which contradicts them", not realising that those splinter groups may have existed before the finalised Bible, and that passage may have been a specific rebuttal by the author towards that splinter group (like the repeated mention of Christ in the flesh this video mentions).


The Woes of Constantine
Interesting to see the very start of the "Church and State" combo in Christianity- doubly interesting that throughout here, it seems Constantine, rather than the Church leaders is the voice of tolerance and discussion and understanding . This video also begins the history of one of the major schisms (in my mind) of Arianism vs Trinitarianism. They do give a disclaimer that they're not theologians, but then still have to define what the trinity is, and what the arguments Arius had were. Weirdly to me, however, his argument "Jesus is lesser than the Father" seems obvious to me, especially since it is explicitly mentioned in the Bible, so I'm suspecting there is more to it than that (although again, it could come back to my point in about the previous episode talking about how doctrinal schisms were specifically mentioned in the text itself- maybe John was a proto-Arian ). The later video addresses this stuff in more technicality (was Jesus of the same "stuff" as God, or of similar "stuff", etc), but the way it is presented there makes me wonder if all that was not just theorising after the fact.


The Council of Nicaea
The way I always thought it was was that it was always Arius vs Athanasius with each having their own clique, and the final battle was the Council of Nicaea. But instead, it seems that Athanasius only really went up against Arius at this point, and not before, and most of the other priests were moderate and weren't really strongly on one side or the other. Also something that should've been obvious if I ever thought about it in any great detail, but I guess I never did- the results of this council had more to do with tactics, subterfuge and corralling votes rather than debating theological points on their own merit (kinda reminds me of how politics was represented in House of Cards, to go off on a complete tangent). Finally, another thing I didn't quite realise was how Arianism endured even after the council- the king's deathbed baptism was done by an Arian, his son was a die-hard Arian, and it had spread quite a bit before Trinitarianism won out. The authors of the video even partly blame Arianism for putting the gothic barbarians against Rome, cementing it's final downfall.


Ephesus, the Robber Council, and Chalcedon
Okay, while I know of the fallout from this schism (the nature of Christ being a common topic here in ATS, where the "One Nature, Wholly Divine AND Wholly Human" version seems to have one out, but oddly, it doesn't seem to be the official version- unless people are just phrasing it badly here), and some of the parties (the Nestorians, for example), I didn't really know about the extent of this schism. More of politics with strategy and tactics (and honestly, seems like some kid level gaming) to resolve doctrinal disputes, rather than theological debate.


Early Christian Schisms - Lies
Despite the title, this was more of a summary and a bit of indepthness of stuff that was glossed over in the other videos of the series. A bit longer than the other, and a lot of stuff that isn't directly related to the topic. Still, if you have an issue with some specific point in the other episodes, you might want to check out this video first to see if it was addressed. Anyhow, stuff that struck me, personally was stuff like "The Gnostic movement had a much greater impact on Persia than on Rome". I'd definitely be interested in seeing more about that . Another thing I didn't quite realise was that Sol Invictus was considered a monotheistic god at that time.

Anyhow, I hope this topic doesn't also devolve into petty, off-topic bickering, but I thought it was an interesting series that I figured I'd share.

a reply to: babloyi

I had always wondered about the divisions and wondered what it was so .The first mention of this is Luk 9:46 Later, an argument started among the disciples as to which of them might be the greatest.
Luk 9:47 But Jesus, knowing their inner thoughts, took a little child and had him stand beside him.
Luk 9:48 Then he told them, "Whoever welcomes this little child in my name welcomes me, and whoever welcomes me welcomes the one who sent me, because the one who is least among all of you is the one who is greatest."
Luk 9:49 John said, "Master, we saw someone driving out demons in your name. We tried to stop him, because he wasn't a follower like us."
Luk 9:50 Jesus told him, "Don't stop him! Because whoever is not against you is for you."

The many denominational churches fits into Gods plan ,to build His Kingdom .We find true believers in most all Church denominations as well as members not even associated with them . My guess is that if it were not so then the Church would have been destroyed long time ago . But because its every where it cant be localized and therefore impossible to destroy ......just my opinion ..

ETA Right from the get go the speaker gets it incorrect when he says that Christianity if a off shoot of Judaism . He can be forgiven as most Christians believe that as well but as Micheal Hoffman shows that Judaism derives from oral tradition and was only codified a few centries after the birth of the Church .

a reply to: babloyi

Very interesting! I'll check these out today on my breaks - thanks for posting them!

a reply to: the2ofusr1
I'll get to your video later (a bit hard to invest a solid hour block right now, but if you can summarise the salient points, that'd be helpful), but my understanding is that that is more a semantic issue.
What was the religion of Jesus and his companions and those he preached to? The religion of Abraham and Moses and the Prophets? "Judaism" is a convenient shorthand. That what we have today may not mesh exactly with what was then isn't really the issue.

Looking forward to both your (and others) thoughts!

a reply to: babloyi

Awesomely presented info! Thanks Babs!

The first video in the series reinforced my thoughts on how it really doesn't matter, any more, whether or not Jesus existed in the flesh, because today's Christians worship him in spirit only anyway, and have done for the last 2000 years, give or take a few genocides, here and there.

I hope the info presented in this series spawn many threads and intellectual discussions.

a reply to: babloyi

In short the old testament is a Hebrew Israelite religion . Judaism is a post Christian religion that stems from the Pharisees oral tradition that Jesus said made the Law of God of none effect .The oral tradition was put into writings around 300 ad . They don't do Torah which is something you have to do in order to become a Jew . The NT speaks of those who say they are jews but are not but are of the synagogue of satan .

ETA .. a small point but one that needs pointing out . The first dispute was not about circumcision but was about weather or not the Gentiles were to be part of the Church and the family of God . It was after the gentiles we considered part of Gods plan that the church was approached and told they needed to be circumcised . The rest is history as they say .


ETA ..at this point I will drop a link to Dr.Earnst L Martins book The people who History forgot as it contains good references to the Gnostic elements that arose in the book of Act's with one Simon Magus www.askelm.com...

This is amazing...a real keeper. Just saw the first video and can't wait to watch the rest, probably 100 times.

Thank you for sharing this!

CF

a reply to: the2ofusr1
Thanks for the explanation! As I figured, it DOES seem to simply be a semantic thing where "Judaism" is simpler to say and be understood by a wider audience than "Hebrew Israelite religion". The writer for this series does make a lot of choices like that. In the final explanation/summary video he actually gives an example of how he used the term monophysites to include several groups, even those that may have differed from the monophysites on particulars, simply because that is how history labels them, and thus it would be less confusing.

Also, the series actually addresses what you talk about the initial point of whether or not gentiles should be included at all. This is done in the final summary video again. It seems a messy structure, but as they release videos on youtube, and have people comment and complain about specific things, they then leave the final video to address all these points and admit where they made mistakes.

I'm glad everyone is appreciating these videos, though!

a reply to: babloyi

My quib was about the get go when they said they were going to be very accurate and I thought that saying that circumcision was the first debate was chronology incorrect . Obviously the subject is important to understand correctly but a layperson would be hard pressed to pick out the small details to frame a bigger picture .There were many churches in the first 300 years of the church and those were house churches .Other then the book of acts and some of the early church fathers writings it would seem like the church was none existent .Yet there were many believers and to the point that the Empire after trying to destroy it decided to marry it .

a reply to: the2ofusr1
Oh, I don't think they were even trying to go through every church schism there was in the early days. The entire series is a series about history, not theology, so they're focusing on the big ones- ones that fundamentally changed the course of (Roman/Byzantine) history.

From memory, it was basically:

• Is Christianity its own thing, or is it still Judaism (Hebrew Israelite religion to you)- where the issue of circumcision played a huge part, according to the series.
  
• The Nature of Christ (Man or Spirit etc.)- against the Docetists.
  
• The Doctrine of Penance (should those who clergy had recanted their faith be forgiven)- against the Donatists.
  
• The Nature of Christ (vis a vis the Trinity this time)- against Arians.
  
• The Nature of Christ (AGAIN, this time about what sort of combination of Man and Spirit he was)- against the Monophysites and Nestorians.
  

a reply to: babloyi

There are lots of issues within the broader Christianity that can act as divisive . The subject of God is not a small topic and even Islam or Judaism has their own sects .One subject that gets lots of opinions and can be divided is Israel and or Jews . Micheal Heiser's latest podcast is a very good example of some of the choices that can be made and are made within the Christian community . "

It’s common among Christians to interpret Paul’s statement that “all Israel will be saved” (Rom 11:25-26) to refer to mean that national Israel will be saved by God in the end or that all Jews will eventually turn to the messiah in the end times. But is that what Paul meant? How would we know? This episode discusses Paul’s statement and these questions.

Link to the podcast for anyone wanting to understand the subject . www.nakedbiblepodcast.com... Just as the physical can have divisions so too can theology . I guess it's all about making personal choices and hoping you are making the correct ones ....peace