As a historian enthusiast, I am very impressed. I have read extensively on Constantine and Nicaea but you pointed out several items that I didn't know myself. It was humbling. Thank you!
excellent point that there was far more political pressure and convenience for constantine to pretend to be pagan or at least maintain plausible deniability and maintain certain pagan traditions after a genuine christian conversion, than there was for him to convert or pretend to convert to christianity in the first place.
Dan Brown, a renowned author, began sweating not knowing why... ADD: Joe Rogan? Of all people to be connected to this topic he's... The least expected.
Excellent and measured analysis! Really liked the background to the origin of the Council of Nicea myth elements. Should have known it goes back to Voltaire. He was Hitchensesque.
Thanks for the clarity and accurate/interesting information on Constantine. It was only recently that I learned that he was baptized on his death bed which as you state was common in his day. It does show that his conversion was authentic.
Most Atheists buy into it and never question it because it fits their world view. I'm glad you changed your mind when presented evidence and shown the truth.
@@tecumsehcristero I've been watching the atheists community buy into complete horse shit for well over a decade. I don't play well with most of them. They're borrowers of morality, and exchanged rational skepticism for radical reletivist, marxist horse shit. I only found historian Tom Holland less than a year ago, and discovered he'd come to all of my same conclusions about Christianity, and our traditional culture deriving its moral assumptions from there.
It's almost like Peter Boghossian needs somebody to talk to him on the street and ask him about his epistemology until he realizes that his beliefs are unfounded.
@@shang6158 Many believers are actually sincere about having principles. Boghossian sold his for a paycheck from a prison and proudly put the evidence in his book. (The "dialogue" about pot.) I don't care if it's German ordoliberalism (or "social" liberalism as he calls it,) the line of reasoning he used isn't compatible with any kind of sincere liberalism. It is, however, a quick and dirty way to overawe a less educated opponent who didn't think things through, and is in no position to seriously object without jeopardizing his position anyway. There are liberal arguments for drug prohibition, but he wasn't hired to explain those. He was paid to do this quick and dirty "intervention" not that different from actual brainwashing techniques, and far cry from Socrates, who, for all his faults, only pestered people who could (and did) imprison him, not the other way around. So, unfortunately, no, it won't work on him. Unless he commits a crime and ends up on the other side of the bars, anyway.
As an agnostic I am concerned about hearing as many perspectives on subjects like this as possible. I have found that Hitchins while articulate seems have been driven to a rather extreme perspective on religion in general for reasons not clear to me. His attitude is virtually reactionary given his harsh and sometimes arrogant tone to others that attend debates he engages in. I have heard Hitchins even stoop to insulting a panel member that he was not even debating but lwas merely asking a question. These seemed to exceptions rather a consistent pattern. Regardless your criticism of Hitchins, Dawkins and Rogan were spot on imo. Your video is the most articulate and we'll researched of any that I have heard on this subject. My only question is if you heard Noam Chomski's perspective on the role that Constantine played in the direction that Christianity took. Chomski in an excerpt from a longer video said that Constantine established a policy in Christianity that favored the rich instead of the poor as was the emphasized in the original gospels. This different take was the theme that was carried up the present day. A hundred years or so ago a break out Christian group started the Liberation Theology church which returned to interpreting the gospels as they were originally told that emphasized the poor. LT became very prevalent throughout Latin America. The problem came about that the US intelligence saw a communist link to this group LT and was very invested in eradicating this religious influence because of the hysterical concern of communism becoming entrenched in the western hemisphere which would favor the Soviets. Thus aggressive military conservative governments were propped throughout many Latin American countries so as to subvert this perceived LT group being sympathetic to communism. My own view is that LT adopted some beliefs and traditions that were similar to communism, but many communist elements were not ever adopted. So it seemed like classic over reach by the US government to link LT to communism simply because of similarities. Even if there was a link who are we to go in and subvert a foreign government to fit our agenda??
You can pretty much guarantee that whatever Chomsky says about history is wrong. He has a rigid set of ideological biases on most things, but they include a bias against Christianity. He declared Catherine Nixey's terrible book "The Darkening Age" about how Christianity "caused the Dark Ages" to be a "wonderful book". Actual historians disagree. So I don't know what argument Chomsky is making here, but it sounds like him doing what he often does: imposing anachronistic modern political ideology onto the past. An expert in late Roman history and culture he is not.
Incidentally, I was prescribed Ivermectin for the treatment rosacea over 10 years ago. My rheumatologist did not give me a veterinary dosage - I am human.
This is brilliant. Thanks so much for this. In partial defense of Joe Rogan, I'll just say that the data on the pandemic, and the medical response to it, are pretty highly contested. My parents - both in their 70's, my father with health issues that amount to potential co-morbidities - have been taking the horse paste in monthly prophylactic dose - along with daily supplementation of vits D, C, Zinc, magnesium, selenium, etc. - since last spring, and have remained untouched by the virus, while many in our community who have followed the "official" recommended course of action and taken the vacks have become sick.. I've been taking the veterinary injectable solution orally on the monthly dose schedule, and have also had no issues, despite behaving normally and not masking since about October of 2020.. Hardly anyone here in Florida is masking or locking down this past year, and while I know many people who have been sick with flu symptoms, I know of no one who has died.. Two people close to me have suffered what may be serious vacks injuries, however.. Joe Rogan can be wrong about Christianity and Constantine, but more or less correct about many other things, is what I'm suggesting.. Also, while it is easy to be cynical about public professions of Christian faith by politicians and public figures like Trump, Obama, Bush, Pelosi, Biden.. particularly when their lives and policies depart form what many consider proper Christian ethics .. it is still really beyond our ability to judge them as to their actual sincerity.. The same principle applies to everyone, just as much as it does Constantine. Is someone truly faithful? We cannot see their hearts, and they all have their own consciences that will either justify or inculpate them on the question in the end.. The perennial principle that we cannot judge anyone else as to sincerity in faith always applies, just as much today as it does to those alive in the 4th and 5th centuries. Beautiful scholarship, anyhow. Thanks for sharing it.
@@historyforatheists9363 Well.. I'm not defending Rogan's opinions as such, merely his willingness to talk openly and honestly to "heretics" like Robert Malone. "The Science" is contested, and we have a situation much like that of the debate over canonical orthodoxy in early Christianity on our hands.. Is science a religious canon that is imposed by high clergy like Antoninus Faustus - we English speakers call him Tony Fauci - or is it merely a epistemological tool, in which everything - literally everything - is open to potential radical revision and re-interpretation on the basis of new data that may undermine our current orthodoxies and assumptions? Are we treating the likes of Robert Malone the same way that the Philosophy faculty at Bologna and Roman Inquisition treated Galileo back in the day, for daring to question and contradict received Aristotelean and Ptolemaic cosmology?? I mean, what do you think? Is it possible? Maybe it is..? Just a niggling hunch, that.
@@fitzhamilton Please stop posting comments that aren't on topic. The video is about history, not Rogan and the pandemic. "Are we treating the likes of Robert Malone the same way that the Philosophy faculty at Bologna and Roman Inquisition treated Galileo back in the day, for daring to question and contradict received Aristotelean and Ptolemaic cosmology?? I mean, what do you think?" I think you need to watch my interviews with Thony Christie on Galileo. The Inquisition didn't care about Galileo "daring to question and contradict received Aristotelean and Ptolemaic cosmology". They were happy to leave him to do that to his heart's content. That was until he began dabbling in theology and Biblical interpretation and then got himself entangled in court politics.
@@historyforatheists9363 Thanks for the tip. I'll watch them. I've done a bit of reading of the source material on Galileo, myself. It seems to me that one of the main issues in the debate was in fact that the scholastics were so deeply invested in Aristotle. Wasn't one of the main reasons he ended up in so much trouble, that he insulted and alienated Pope Urban by pseudonymously criticizing his advocacy of Aristotelean cosmology in Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems? I'm speaking as someone who studied all this under Dominicans, which means that my own thought on the Biblical canon, empiricism, authority, sees almost everything through the lens of the ancient theological and philosophical discourse you repeatedly refer to here.. I'm not trying to hijack the discussion, in any case.. I think that Rogan (who you mentioned in the video) and by way of analogy Galileo, Urban VIII, Ptolemy and Aristotle are tangentially, but nevertheless in thematically analogous ways intimately relevant to the issues you're discussing here, as well as to virtually everything else you discuss in your work. Empiricism being in inherent tension with commonly accepted beliefs, especially when used to slaughter sacred cows cherished by the influential and powerful, really is in a way a defining motif of your work, it's makes what you're doing so interesting.. Uncompromising commitment to the historical record even when it contradicts cherished belief is a science.. It all descends from the legacy of ancient and medieval thinkers, which is what the Galileo affair (nominalism/skepticism vs. received platonic idealism you maybe could frame it) really was all essentially about, and maybe the current kerfuffle and controversy over Rogan's schict is in its own way about, too.. Again, I really, really dig what you do. I'll now stop inflicting my observations upon you.
@@fitzhamilton " It seems to me that one of the main issues in the debate was in fact that the scholastics were so deeply invested in Aristotle." Given that Aristotelian physics was the basis of most understanding of how things worked and Galileo wasn't able to provide an alternative that made sense, why is this a problem? "Wasn't one of the main reasons he ended up in so much trouble, that he insulted and alienated Pope Urban" There is no actual evidence to support that. He embarrassed Urban by not presenting a balanced and objective analysis of the various competing systems but instead only examining two of them and clearly favouring the Copernican model, which almost all scientists rejected and which he had promised to only treat as a hypothesis. "I'm not trying to hijack the discussion" I think you are. "I'll now stop inflicting my observations upon you." Okay.
I was about to be convinced by a Canadian Israeli journalist who made a video analysing Constantine's triumphal arch which concluded that this Emperor tolerated Christians for political purposes.
@@historyforatheists9363Thanks for that. But then epistemological certainty is an illusion. I am persuaded by your narrative construction from the same raw archaeological and textual facts.
So appreciate this channel Atheist, but passionate about the Bible, and history, and not happy with people lying about it, and I say lying, because I'm certain that people like Dawkins, know that they are not telling the truth, and so many people see him and his type as paragons of truth and honesty
For a Roman Emperor to all of a sudden turn Christian?? This was a miracle in itself but naturally it had to ease it's way in. From his soldiers to the people. Its undeniable wen we c how he pushed more Christian morality threw out Rome, and his mother was another key to all of this.
I have a video suggestion for you. I was inspired to suggest it when I watched AronRa's video, "How Palaeontology Disproves Noah's Flood". The video I suggest is "The History Of Biblical Literalism". AronRa in his video claims that prior to when evolution was discovered in the early 1800s and the birth of modern palaeontology, all jews, christians and muslims are young earth creationists who believed the entire Bible literally. They believed that the Earth was only a few thousand years old, that God created the world in 7 literal days, and literally believed in stories like Adam and Eve, Noah's Ark and the Tower of Babel, and didn't view them as myths. Can you please do a video on whether this is true or not.
Maybe. In the meantime, there is whole detailed article on that on the History for Atheists site: historyforatheists.com/2021/03/the-great-myths-11-biblical-literalism/
Really appreciate your approach and high regard for the historical facts. Both sides tend to develop their own beliefs about the events of time past, with scant regard to history!
Love the articles even though some are a bit upsetting. I was raised in the non-believing world and the truth of many of these things were taken for granted. Personally I am a bit in-between. I am a classic agnostic with respect to objective knowledge of the existence of God, and yet I would put myself at 1.5 on the Dawkins scale. I am a theist who acknowledges that his belief in God is epistemically very little different that the belief others have in UFOs, psychics, ghosts, healing with crystals, and fairies. I am both a scientist (physicist) and a Christian (evangelical even), often fighting for the acceptance of evolution in the evangelical community. I also frequently defend atheism as a perfectly rational alternative rejecting the validity of all the arguments for the existence of God. I also have connections to the modern pagan community and have advocated celebrating the "so called" pagan roots of Christianity (oh well).
I'm an atheist, and I came to the historian Tom Holland's conclusions on Christianity all on my own, via studying thought control tactics. Idk, if you're familiar with him, but he's accepted Christianity. I'm in no rush, but contemplating his reasons. Those reason might be helpful to you? For one, like Holland, I do believe that all humans are deserving of basic human rights... A leap of faith on my end, no different from yours. Second, we're all so thoroughly saturated in Christian assumptions. And then, atheism, and the enlightenment, are themselves, another sort of Christian renewal, same as Luther was to Catholicism. Here are my own arguments, IF I ever go Christian? I'd take on Luther's original position, that the Bible is for every man to evaluate scriptures for himself. In which case I dump 'eternal hellfire torment' because there are scriptures to the contrary. Not so certain of the trinity either? Point is, I came to my position, and could become Christian, precisely for studying thought control tactics. Which is very hard core, all about thinking for yourself. I'd neither give a rats arse about what Christians thought of my blasphemous views, or what atheists thought of my heresy. Pastors or Church leaders, might be helpful to me, but they'd never be any authority to me. In my case, it's big "what if". Tom Holland imo, is still working through articulating his reasons. Yet he is a Christian, and his unique out of the box perspective might be reasuring to you. Btw, the Dawkins scale is crap. Agnosticism, and gnosticism are related to knowledge. While atheism and theism are related to believe. There is no need to epistemologically justify a belief. If you did that, it'd be knowledge.
@@Andre_Louis_Moreau I don't understand your reference to "thought control tactics." There is some truth to your idea that atheism and such are in some sense a Christian revival. I don't buy into any theological packages and I don't care much about what other people think either. There are at least a couple versions of Dawkins' scale and I agree the ones stated in terms probability are crap. The main point is how well known the scale is, making it useful for conveying some information about where I stand. As for epistemological justification, I handle that by distinguishing the subjective from the objective. The subjective is our basic personal experience of reality and the most compelling reason for personal belief, but it gives us no reasonable expectation that others should agree. The objective is an abstraction to get a handle on what is the same for everyone. And with written procedures giving the same result no matter what you want or believe, science does a good job of getting objective conclusions with such a reasonable expectation.
@@mitchellmckain8373 Ok, some of what I mentioned makes more sense if you were familiar with Tom Holland. I should have explained the thought control tactics reference better. One of the things manipulation tactics do is rewire a persons moral framework. Basic psychology is that we need to feel that our every behavior is "good", if not cognitively dissonance sets in. We'll either stop the behavior, or change our beliefs. Change beliefs, what was "bad" becomes "good". That's the basics of how a high control ideology brainwashes people. But seeing beyond how it works to others detriment, as an atheist, questions arise about how I determine "good" behavior, from "bad"? Where does that come from? Culture was my first answer. Where does my culture get it from? Christianity was the next inescapable answer. So, while other atheists were off nitpicking Christians ethereal beliefs, I was contemplating what works so well about them, and why? And watching most atheists eat up leftism manipulation tactics. Perhaps I had an erroneous sense that you were uncomfortable with your 1.5 Dawkins rating, when maybe you're fine with it? That's why I referred to Tom Holland. His perspective, and reasons are unique, and seemed valid to me. Checking out his perspective seemed like something you might appreciate, as someone who values both science and Christianity.
How utterly ignorant does one have to be to actually believe that the New Testament was entirely made up for a Roman emperors personal gain? All the Saints, Bishops, and families of the Martyrs were just silent and yet no history of their being kept quiet?
I think when a lot of us refer as Constatine's "influence on the Bible" it is largely not Constatine sitting in the dark room rewriting the Bible but the Nicaea Council putting forth the divinity of Jesus and Eusebius and his list of "credible" books to the New Testament. And scholars vary on the credibility and motive of Eusebius. I wouldn't believe that Constantine wasn't involved as Eusebius was a close adviser to him. This with the discussions with the Council which would have involved discussing legitimacy of manuscripts on what was correct and what wasn't (my hypothesis only) on what set the path to the formulation which didn't take a day but to almost to the 4th century. An my understanding was that Christianity wasn't made the official religion of Rome until 380 AD long after the big C.
The Council of Nicea didn't "put forth the divinity of Jesus". His divinity had already been fully accepted by basically everyone for centuries. The Council debated a fine point of how it worked in relation to the rest of the Trinity. All Eusebious did was oversee the production of copies of what had already been accepted as the canonical books of the Bible and essentially his list reflected what had also long since been considered the Biblical texts, with a few minor variants. And no, there is absolutely no evidence Constantine played any part in this. So the only thing you get right is the fact that Constantine didn't make Christianity the state religion and that this was not done until Theodosius' time.
@@Sextus666 Right I'm aware of that. The fine point was the Arian controversy of a minute few bishops in the church of Alexandria I believe and I might be wrong there. There is debate on Eusebius how much he interpolated and attempted manipulation (as well as putting Josephus in a bad light possibly). There isn't direct evidence of "Constantine writing the Bible" but one would think the relationship with Eusebius would make it likely. No one knows for sure.
@@debunkingthefundamentalist "There isn't direct evidence of "Constantine writing the Bible" but one would think the relationship with Eusebius would make it likely." No one would not think that "likely". As I said and as I explain in the video, by the early fourth century the general canon of the Bible had already been well established. There were only a few minor books on which opinion differed, and Eusebius clearly indicates which those were in his writings. Constantine did not have any kind of sophisticated knowledge of these matters, which is precisely why he delegated the oversight of the production of these Bibles to Eusebius. So no, these Bibles did not represent some new formulation of a canon and no there is very low likelihood Constantine was involved in the project in any way at all. This is all garbage.
U know the way Bapizim was practiced then is quite telling and as a Traditional Latin Catholicum, I didn't know this until watching this. Unlike wut protestants would have the unknowing believe that Constantine was such a terrible human, in fact he was quite the contrary. Bravo!
The only part of the video where there is voice over any music is a single minute at the beginning. And the music is very faint in the background, with the monologue perfectly clear over the top of it. Perhaps you need to check your hearing.
Good morning, I really like your channel and I would like to know if you could tell me if the idea that Jesus lived 33 years is serious, in fact a later tradition, because if we organize the time lineage of the 4 gospels it would give 40 or 42 years
The traditional age of "33 years" is arrived at via the reference in Luke 3:23 that Jesus was "about 30" when he began preaching and the fact that the gospel of John has Jesus celebrating three Passovers in Jerusalem. So 30 + 3 = 33. The problem with this is the other three gospels only have Jesus going to Jerusalem once, and most scholars think the extra ones in gJohn are more theological stories than historical memores. gLuke's "about 30" is also a bit vague, though could be based on some kind of memory. But I have no idea where you get the idea that there's any evidence for "40 or 42 years". I don't know what you're referring to there.
@@historyforatheists9363 I think he may refer to Eusebius who held Jesus was over 40 when he died based on John where his enemies say "you are not yet 50" (why not "not yet 40"?). I know John is the gospel least trusted by historians but there are other arguments pointing to a Jesus over 40, even in his late 40s. The idea sometimes links with the idea the Star of Bethlehem was Halley's comet which appeared in 12 BC and the claim Jesus died in 36AD. This latter claim is plausible as John the Baptist died in 35AD so if the Gospels are right in placing Jesus death after John that points to him dying at the last Passover presided over by Pilate in 36AD. I speculate that Luke's "about 30" may derive from him dating Jesus birth to the census of Quirinius in 6AD plus his use Mark's chronology which has Jesus mission lasting less than a year and perhaps just a few months, together with knowledge he died in 36Ad. Thus he would have been, on Luke's assumptions, around 30 at the start and end of his mission. Given the choice of "29 or 30" and "about 30" the latter would likely have been preferred both as a round figure and perhaps (if the gentile author knew this) because 30 was the minimum age for a rabbi and the age David began his reign. This assumes Luke didn't know the exact date of John the Baptists death, otherwise that would have pointed him to an age of 28 or 29 for Jesus age at the start of his mission. There is also the claim in John where the rabbis say "this Temple has been standing for 46 years and Jesus replies "tear it down and I will build it again in three days" which only really makes sense if Jesus was also 46. While this theory dismisses inerrancy (since Luke was wrong about Jesus age) it may assume Matthew was right about the star of Bethlehem and that John accurately reported certain of Jesus conversations. Another possibility is that John got Jesus age wrong instead of (or as well as) Luke. The most plausible part of the theory is the 36AD date for Jesus death. Perhaps the commenter you respond to is using that date plus the conventional 4-6 BC date for Jesus birth and the "not yet 50" saying in John.
This was a fantastic video! I’m afraid to say as an atheist I believed in many of these historical myths and pseudohistory. You helped me to move past believing falsehoods and I really appreciate you for it. Please keep going with this channel! It’s of the utmost importance! Btw, I was wondering what are your thoughts on certain Christian apologists (like William Lane Craig, Gary Habermas, N.T. Wright etc) who claim that the historical evidence is overwhelming in showing that Jesus literally rose from the dead? If this is false, where would you recommend I go to research this in more depth? You could also potentially do some videos addressing this question? Thanks!
I'm glad you liked this video and are finding the channel useful Jimmy. Regarding Craig et. al. and their claim that the evidence is somehow overwhelming that Jesus rose from the dead - if that was true, they have to explain why even many Christian scholars disagree with them on that. There are other Christian scholars who accept that Jesus rose from the dead in some sense, but find the literal interpretation too full of holes. And there are others still who do accept that he physically rose from the dead, but think more conservative scholars like Craig etc. overstate the case for how clear this is. Probably the best place I can recommend for very recent in-depth analysis of the whole issue and its attendant scholarship is Dale C. Allison's new book "The Resurrection of Jesus: Apologetics, Polemics, History" (2021), which has won high praise from scholars of all backgrounds and beliefs for its sensible, careful and balanced analysis. Contrary to Craig, Habermas and Wright, Allison makes it very clear that the question is not easily settled either way and that the idea that he did not rise from the dead physically/literally actually has a very strong and compelling case. My channel is devoted to correcting misconceptions about history made by atheists and bad analysis of the history of religion by them, not by Christians. So the issue of the Resurrection etc is not really within the scope of this channel. I did write a fairly detailed Quora answer on the subject years ago, which you may find useful (though I've change my mind about a few things since then): www.quora.com/What-evidence-is-there-for-Jesus-Christs-death-burial-and-resurrection/answer/Tim-ONeill-1
@@historyforatheists9363 Just out of curiosity, what specific things have you changed your mind on since then? Allison’s book, which you mentioned, seems to argue strongly for the empty tomb (I’m not sure if this is due to some sort of apologetic bias on Allison’s part or if he genuinely does believe that the evidence for the empty tomb is strong). Although I will say that Allison doesn’t come across to me as having these kinds of biases, so probably the latter. What are your thoughts on his arguments (or the general outline of his argument)?
Hi Tim! Have you thought about doing a video on Islam or maybe Evolution/Creation and ID? These topics seem to come up a lot in Atheist circles and usually have tons of bag history associated with them. Best
The history of Islam is not a topic I'm well-read on, and I see far less atheist bad history about it compared to the history of Christianity. I'm not sure what bad history you're referring to regarding "Evolution/Creation and ID". Creationism and ID are simply bad science, but there is already plenty of good online material demonstrating that./
@@historyforatheists9363 Hey Tim! I definitely understand what you’re saying about Islam. In regard to creationism and ID I was referring to the fact that most Atheists fail to realize that early Christians interpreted Genesis and other Biblical texts metaphorically. Also, Darwin himself received support from Christian ministers/scientists (JT Gullick and Asa Gray). We talked about these trends in my class on the History of science and the conflict thesis in particular.
But ! Constantine did not win the battle you showed him in the painting on the bridge . For one there was no bridge to cross and the man he so valiantly killed in battle actually drowned in his armour as he had been thrown from his horse . And , Constantine was not even close by when it occurred. That painting was a consigned painting for Emperor Constantine. Constantine like many Roman military officers worshipped Mythros but his army was mostly comprised of early Christians but did not call themselves that .
One point.. Constantine did commission his victory arch shortly after his becoming a emperor.. Theres only pagen statues and no hint of Christian identifying imagery.. Im not saying your wrong.. I think you're right mainly.. But there are many problems with all historical beginnings.. Especially when Christians scrub allot of history that didn't suit...
You mean the Arch whose iconography I discuss in detail in this video? Perhaps you should actually watch the whole thing before you make comments. I discuss the Arch from 19.30 mins.
When Emperor Constantine declared himself to be the Summus Pontifex, what followed was more than ten centuries of Dark Ages, during which time people who professed Christ rather than Mary or the Popes, people who denied transubstantiation, were fed to lions or burned at the stake. During the Dark Ages, for a common person to read the Bible was a sin for which there was no forgiveness; and so the people were spoon-fed from the papist pulpit. The Bible was said to exist only in the Latin text and the common and largely illiterate people could learn the stories that were in the Bible from paintings and stained glass windows. Those who first made the Bible available in the language of the people were killed for their trouble; but when Martin Luther quoted Paul, of all people, the Protestant Reformation began. Christ died for your sins. There’s no hope in the pope. You need to understand that you’re the sinner for whom Christ died. Have a nice day.
This gets my vote as the dumbest and most hilariously stupid comment on my channel for the year so far. Sure, it's only mid-January, but this one is going to be hard for other ranting loons to beat.
The first known Christian canon dates to the middle of the second century and was the work of the heresiarch Marcion. It was extremely meagre, consisting only of an edited version of Luke and 10 of Paul's letters.
If Constantine wasn't himself Christian, why some sects Christianity(e.g, Catholic and orthodox) would praised him? It is seem so impossible for Christians to praise pagan king.
There is an apocryphal letter where emperor Tiberius castigates Pilate for crucifying Jesus and acknowledges his miraculous nature while still being a pagan from, I think Constantine's or maybe even later time, so it's not _quite_ as impossible as you'd think, but of course, having an example of a Christian emperor might be what made the idea palatable in the first place.
@@1sanitat1 don't be a twat. twats ask leading questions and waste our time. real commenters do what @3dent just did: they explain how it's not impossible.
@@nebufabu There is a Christian tradition, going back at least as early as the African apologist Tertullian (Fl. 200 AD) that Tiberius was friendly to the first Christians.
We know of the Apostolic epistles. The Old Testament spoke of our coming savior the Messiah. Joe is not a good person to say the least and therefore shouldn't b taken seriously of even listened to period...
I think Joe Rogan is on to something but capitalism got him missing the true. What book in the Bible sounds like a king trying to put rules and rule over man? The old testament. God doesn't have to rule by fear the oldest tool on the planet. Man will hence the old testament. The real opposite to love is not hate its fear and that's what Roman Emperor Constantine hide from all of us and that's what the powers that be hide.🙏 And the word became flesh
@@historyforatheists9363 Constantine killed all of em. You would have bent the knee on this genius great man. Choke on Christendom Europe atheist worm.
As a historian enthusiast, I am very impressed. I have read extensively on Constantine and Nicaea but you pointed out several items that I didn't know myself. It was humbling. Thank you!
excellent point that there was far more political pressure and convenience for constantine to pretend to be pagan or at least maintain plausible deniability and maintain certain pagan traditions after a genuine christian conversion, than there was for him to convert or pretend to convert to christianity in the first place.
Really? Would a Christian do that??
@@bonnenaturel6688 some of them would
I'm not in your target audience, but I really enjoy your videos!
I know JESUS ain't real tell ur momma I said hello
I’d be willing to bet you actually are.
Dan Brown, a renowned author, began sweating not knowing why...
ADD: Joe Rogan? Of all people to be connected to this topic he's... The least expected.
Excellent and measured analysis! Really liked the background to the origin of the Council of Nicea myth elements. Should have known it goes back to Voltaire. He was Hitchensesque.
He’s the source of a lot of this kind of thing.
Seen a few of your videos now and just wanted to say thanks for your thorough concise work. Absolutely brilliant!
Thank you for your explanation of how the Bible was totally decided. Good to know and helps in strengthening the faith.
Thanks for your work and efforts to “get it right”! Much appreciated 👍🏿
Thanks for the clarity and accurate/interesting information on Constantine. It was only recently that I learned that he was baptized on his death bed which as you state was common in his day. It does show that his conversion was authentic.
I didn't know what Rogan claims "everybody knows" about the Bible
Thank you. I'm an atheist, and heard this, and bought it for decades. Didn't repeat it, though.
Most Atheists buy into it and never question it because it fits their world view. I'm glad you changed your mind when presented evidence and shown the truth.
@@tecumsehcristero I've been watching the atheists community buy into complete horse shit for well over a decade. I don't play well with most of them. They're borrowers of morality, and exchanged rational skepticism for radical reletivist, marxist horse shit.
I only found historian Tom Holland less than a year ago, and discovered he'd come to all of my same conclusions about Christianity, and our traditional culture deriving its moral assumptions from there.
Wow I've never bothered to check out Joe Rogan and now I'm glad I saved my time - what a boor, and Boghossian is increasingly fanatical it seems.
It's almost like Peter Boghossian needs somebody to talk to him on the street and ask him about his epistemology until he realizes that his beliefs are unfounded.
@@shang6158 Many believers are actually sincere about having principles. Boghossian sold his for a paycheck from a prison and proudly put the evidence in his book. (The "dialogue" about pot.) I don't care if it's German ordoliberalism (or "social" liberalism as he calls it,) the line of reasoning he used isn't compatible with any kind of sincere liberalism. It is, however, a quick and dirty way to overawe a less educated opponent who didn't think things through, and is in no position to seriously object without jeopardizing his position anyway.
There are liberal arguments for drug prohibition, but he wasn't hired to explain those. He was paid to do this quick and dirty "intervention" not that different from actual brainwashing techniques, and far cry from Socrates, who, for all his faults, only pestered people who could (and did) imprison him, not the other way around.
So, unfortunately, no, it won't work on him. Unless he commits a crime and ends up on the other side of the bars, anyway.
As an agnostic I am concerned about hearing as many perspectives on subjects like this as possible. I have found that Hitchins while articulate seems have been driven to a rather extreme perspective on religion in general for reasons not clear to me. His attitude is virtually reactionary given his harsh and sometimes arrogant tone to others that attend debates he engages in. I have heard Hitchins even stoop to insulting a panel member that he was not even debating but lwas merely asking a question. These seemed to exceptions rather a consistent pattern. Regardless your criticism of Hitchins, Dawkins and Rogan were spot on imo. Your video is the most articulate and we'll researched of any that I have heard on this subject.
My only question is if you heard Noam Chomski's perspective on the role that Constantine played in the direction that Christianity took. Chomski in an excerpt from a longer video said that Constantine established a policy in Christianity that favored the rich instead of the poor as was the emphasized in the original gospels. This different take was the theme that was carried up the present day.
A hundred years or so ago a break out Christian group started the Liberation Theology church which returned to interpreting the gospels as they were originally told that emphasized the poor. LT became very prevalent throughout Latin America. The problem came about that the US intelligence saw a communist link to this group LT and was very invested in eradicating this religious influence because of the hysterical concern of communism becoming entrenched in the western hemisphere which would favor the Soviets. Thus aggressive military conservative governments were propped throughout many Latin American countries so as to subvert this perceived LT group being sympathetic to communism.
My own view is that LT adopted some beliefs and traditions that were similar to communism, but many communist elements were not ever adopted. So it seemed like classic over reach by the US government to link LT to communism simply because of similarities. Even if there was a link who are we to go in and subvert a foreign government to fit our agenda??
You can pretty much guarantee that whatever Chomsky says about history is wrong. He has a rigid set of ideological biases on most things, but they include a bias against Christianity. He declared Catherine Nixey's terrible book "The Darkening Age" about how Christianity "caused the Dark Ages" to be a "wonderful book". Actual historians disagree. So I don't know what argument Chomsky is making here, but it sounds like him doing what he often does: imposing anachronistic modern political ideology onto the past. An expert in late Roman history and culture he is not.
Incidentally, I was prescribed Ivermectin for the treatment rosacea over 10 years ago. My rheumatologist did not give me a veterinary dosage - I am human.
It’s a satirical point.
@@historyforatheists9363 I suppose my rosacea has been satirically resolved then! 😆
@@jenaogirl I doubt it. But Ivermectin doesn’t treat Covid and Rogan is an idiot.
And you are an idiot for believing the magic virus existed in the first place.
This is brilliant. Thanks so much for this.
In partial defense of Joe Rogan, I'll just say that the data on the pandemic, and the medical response to it, are pretty highly contested. My parents - both in their 70's, my father with health issues that amount to potential co-morbidities - have been taking the horse paste in monthly prophylactic dose - along with daily supplementation of vits D, C, Zinc, magnesium, selenium, etc. - since last spring, and have remained untouched by the virus, while many in our community who have followed the "official" recommended course of action and taken the vacks have become sick.. I've been taking the veterinary injectable solution orally on the monthly dose schedule, and have also had no issues, despite behaving normally and not masking since about October of 2020.. Hardly anyone here in Florida is masking or locking down this past year, and while I know many people who have been sick with flu symptoms, I know of no one who has died.. Two people close to me have suffered what may be serious vacks injuries, however.. Joe Rogan can be wrong about Christianity and Constantine, but more or less correct about many other things, is what I'm suggesting..
Also, while it is easy to be cynical about public professions of Christian faith by politicians and public figures like Trump, Obama, Bush, Pelosi, Biden.. particularly when their lives and policies depart form what many consider proper Christian ethics .. it is still really beyond our ability to judge them as to their actual sincerity.. The same principle applies to everyone, just as much as it does Constantine. Is someone truly faithful? We cannot see their hearts, and they all have their own consciences that will either justify or inculpate them on the question in the end.. The perennial principle that we cannot judge anyone else as to sincerity in faith always applies, just as much today as it does to those alive in the 4th and 5th centuries.
Beautiful scholarship, anyhow. Thanks for sharing it.
"In partial defense of Joe Rogan ... "
Please don't.
@@historyforatheists9363 Well.. I'm not defending Rogan's opinions as such, merely his willingness to talk openly and honestly to "heretics" like Robert Malone. "The Science" is contested, and we have a situation much like that of the debate over canonical orthodoxy in early Christianity on our hands.. Is science a religious canon that is imposed by high clergy like Antoninus Faustus - we English speakers call him Tony Fauci - or is it merely a epistemological tool, in which everything - literally everything - is open to potential radical revision and re-interpretation on the basis of new data that may undermine our current orthodoxies and assumptions? Are we treating the likes of Robert Malone the same way that the Philosophy faculty at Bologna and Roman Inquisition treated Galileo back in the day, for daring to question and contradict received Aristotelean and Ptolemaic cosmology?? I mean, what do you think? Is it possible? Maybe it is..? Just a niggling hunch, that.
@@fitzhamilton Please stop posting comments that aren't on topic. The video is about history, not Rogan and the pandemic.
"Are we treating the likes of Robert Malone the same way that the Philosophy faculty at Bologna and Roman Inquisition treated Galileo back in the day, for daring to question and contradict received Aristotelean and Ptolemaic cosmology?? I mean, what do you think?"
I think you need to watch my interviews with Thony Christie on Galileo. The Inquisition didn't care about Galileo "daring to question and contradict received Aristotelean and Ptolemaic cosmology". They were happy to leave him to do that to his heart's content. That was until he began dabbling in theology and Biblical interpretation and then got himself entangled in court politics.
@@historyforatheists9363 Thanks for the tip. I'll watch them. I've done a bit of reading of the source material on Galileo, myself. It seems to me that one of the main issues in the debate was in fact that the scholastics were so deeply invested in Aristotle. Wasn't one of the main reasons he ended up in so much trouble, that he insulted and alienated Pope Urban by pseudonymously criticizing his advocacy of Aristotelean cosmology in Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems?
I'm speaking as someone who studied all this under Dominicans, which means that my own thought on the Biblical canon, empiricism, authority, sees almost everything through the lens of the ancient theological and philosophical discourse you repeatedly refer to here..
I'm not trying to hijack the discussion, in any case.. I think that Rogan (who you mentioned in the video) and by way of analogy Galileo, Urban VIII, Ptolemy and Aristotle are tangentially, but nevertheless in thematically analogous ways intimately relevant to the issues you're discussing here, as well as to virtually everything else you discuss in your work.
Empiricism being in inherent tension with commonly accepted beliefs, especially when used to slaughter sacred cows cherished by the influential and powerful, really is in a way a defining motif of your work, it's makes what you're doing so interesting..
Uncompromising commitment to the historical record even when it contradicts cherished belief is a science.. It all descends from the legacy of ancient and medieval thinkers, which is what the Galileo affair (nominalism/skepticism vs. received platonic idealism you maybe could frame it) really was all essentially about, and maybe the current kerfuffle and controversy over Rogan's schict is in its own way about, too..
Again, I really, really dig what you do. I'll now stop inflicting my observations upon you.
@@fitzhamilton " It seems to me that one of the main issues in the debate was in fact that the scholastics were so deeply invested in Aristotle."
Given that Aristotelian physics was the basis of most understanding of how things worked and Galileo wasn't able to provide an alternative that made sense, why is this a problem?
"Wasn't one of the main reasons he ended up in so much trouble, that he insulted and alienated Pope Urban"
There is no actual evidence to support that. He embarrassed Urban by not presenting a balanced and objective analysis of the various competing systems but instead only examining two of them and clearly favouring the Copernican model, which almost all scientists rejected and which he had promised to only treat as a hypothesis.
"I'm not trying to hijack the discussion"
I think you are.
"I'll now stop inflicting my observations upon you."
Okay.
I was about to be convinced by a Canadian Israeli journalist who made a video analysing Constantine's triumphal arch which concluded that this Emperor tolerated Christians for political purposes.
Then I'm glad I've save you from that.
@@historyforatheists9363Thanks for that. But then epistemological certainty is an illusion. I am persuaded by your narrative construction from the same raw archaeological and textual facts.
So appreciate this channel
Atheist, but passionate about the Bible, and history, and not happy with people lying about it, and I say lying, because I'm certain that people like Dawkins, know that they are not telling the truth, and so many people see him and his type as paragons of truth and honesty
For a Roman Emperor to all of a sudden turn Christian?? This was a miracle in itself but naturally it had to ease it's way in. From his soldiers to the people. Its undeniable wen we c how he pushed more Christian morality threw out Rome, and his mother was another key to all of this.
I have a video suggestion for you. I was inspired to suggest it when I watched AronRa's video, "How Palaeontology Disproves Noah's Flood". The video I suggest is "The History Of Biblical Literalism".
AronRa in his video claims that prior to when evolution was discovered in the early 1800s and the birth of modern palaeontology, all jews, christians and muslims are young earth creationists who believed the entire Bible literally. They believed that the Earth was only a few thousand years old, that God created the world in 7 literal days, and literally believed in stories like Adam and Eve, Noah's Ark and the Tower of Babel, and didn't view them as myths. Can you please do a video on whether this is true or not.
Maybe. In the meantime, there is whole detailed article on that on the History for Atheists site: historyforatheists.com/2021/03/the-great-myths-11-biblical-literalism/
Really appreciate your approach and high regard for the historical facts. Both sides tend to develop their own beliefs about the events of time past, with scant regard to history!
Love the articles even though some are a bit upsetting. I was raised in the non-believing world and the truth of many of these things were taken for granted. Personally I am a bit in-between. I am a classic agnostic with respect to objective knowledge of the existence of God, and yet I would put myself at 1.5 on the Dawkins scale. I am a theist who acknowledges that his belief in God is epistemically very little different that the belief others have in UFOs, psychics, ghosts, healing with crystals, and fairies. I am both a scientist (physicist) and a Christian (evangelical even), often fighting for the acceptance of evolution in the evangelical community. I also frequently defend atheism as a perfectly rational alternative rejecting the validity of all the arguments for the existence of God. I also have connections to the modern pagan community and have advocated celebrating the "so called" pagan roots of Christianity (oh well).
I'm an atheist, and I came to the historian Tom Holland's conclusions on Christianity all on my own, via studying thought control tactics.
Idk, if you're familiar with him, but he's accepted Christianity. I'm in no rush, but contemplating his reasons. Those reason might be helpful to you?
For one, like Holland, I do believe that all humans are deserving of basic human rights... A leap of faith on my end, no different from yours.
Second, we're all so thoroughly saturated in Christian assumptions. And then, atheism, and the enlightenment, are themselves, another sort of Christian renewal, same as Luther was to Catholicism.
Here are my own arguments, IF I ever go Christian? I'd take on Luther's original position, that the Bible is for every man to evaluate scriptures for himself. In which case I dump 'eternal hellfire torment' because there are scriptures to the contrary. Not so certain of the trinity either?
Point is, I came to my position, and could become Christian, precisely for studying thought control tactics. Which is very hard core, all about thinking for yourself. I'd neither give a rats arse about what Christians thought of my blasphemous views, or what atheists thought of my heresy. Pastors or Church leaders, might be helpful to me, but they'd never be any authority to me.
In my case, it's big "what if". Tom Holland imo, is still working through articulating his reasons. Yet he is a Christian, and his unique out of the box perspective might be reasuring to you.
Btw, the Dawkins scale is crap. Agnosticism, and gnosticism are related to knowledge. While atheism and theism are related to believe.
There is no need to epistemologically justify a belief. If you did that, it'd be knowledge.
@@Andre_Louis_Moreau I don't understand your reference to "thought control tactics." There is some truth to your idea that atheism and such are in some sense a Christian revival. I don't buy into any theological packages and I don't care much about what other people think either. There are at least a couple versions of Dawkins' scale and I agree the ones stated in terms probability are crap. The main point is how well known the scale is, making it useful for conveying some information about where I stand. As for epistemological justification, I handle that by distinguishing the subjective from the objective. The subjective is our basic personal experience of reality and the most compelling reason for personal belief, but it gives us no reasonable expectation that others should agree. The objective is an abstraction to get a handle on what is the same for everyone. And with written procedures giving the same result no matter what you want or believe, science does a good job of getting objective conclusions with such a reasonable expectation.
@@mitchellmckain8373 Ok, some of what I mentioned makes more sense if you were familiar with Tom Holland.
I should have explained the thought control tactics reference better. One of the things manipulation tactics do is rewire a persons moral framework. Basic psychology is that we need to feel that our every behavior is "good", if not cognitively dissonance sets in. We'll either stop the behavior, or change our beliefs. Change beliefs, what was "bad" becomes "good". That's the basics of how a high control ideology brainwashes people.
But seeing beyond how it works to others detriment, as an atheist, questions arise about how I determine "good" behavior, from "bad"? Where does that come from? Culture was my first answer. Where does my culture get it from? Christianity was the next inescapable answer.
So, while other atheists were off nitpicking Christians ethereal beliefs, I was contemplating what works so well about them, and why? And watching most atheists eat up leftism manipulation tactics.
Perhaps I had an erroneous sense that you were uncomfortable with your 1.5 Dawkins rating, when maybe you're fine with it?
That's why I referred to Tom Holland. His perspective, and reasons are unique, and seemed valid to me. Checking out his perspective seemed like something you might appreciate, as someone who values both science and Christianity.
Fascinating! Brilliant work!
Your honest and thorough lecture is amazing sir.
How utterly ignorant does one have to be to actually believe that the New Testament was entirely made up for a Roman emperors personal gain? All the Saints, Bishops, and families of the Martyrs were just silent and yet no history of their being kept quiet?
I think when a lot of us refer as Constatine's "influence on the Bible" it is largely not Constatine sitting in the dark room rewriting the Bible but the Nicaea Council putting forth the divinity of Jesus and Eusebius and his list of "credible" books to the New Testament. And scholars vary on the credibility and motive of Eusebius. I wouldn't believe that Constantine wasn't involved as Eusebius was a close adviser to him. This with the discussions with the Council which would have involved discussing legitimacy of manuscripts on what was correct and what wasn't (my hypothesis only) on what set the path to the formulation which didn't take a day but to almost to the 4th century. An my understanding was that Christianity wasn't made the official religion of Rome until 380 AD long after the big C.
The Council of Nicea didn't "put forth the divinity of Jesus". His divinity had already been fully accepted by basically everyone for centuries. The Council debated a fine point of how it worked in relation to the rest of the Trinity. All Eusebious did was oversee the production of copies of what had already been accepted as the canonical books of the Bible and essentially his list reflected what had also long since been considered the Biblical texts, with a few minor variants. And no, there is absolutely no evidence Constantine played any part in this. So the only thing you get right is the fact that Constantine didn't make Christianity the state religion and that this was not done until Theodosius' time.
@@Sextus666 Right I'm aware of that. The fine point was the Arian controversy of a minute few bishops in the church of Alexandria I believe and I might be wrong there. There is debate on Eusebius how much he interpolated and attempted manipulation (as well as putting Josephus in a bad light possibly). There isn't direct evidence of "Constantine writing the Bible" but one would think the relationship with Eusebius would make it likely. No one knows for sure.
@@debunkingthefundamentalist "There isn't direct evidence of "Constantine writing the Bible" but one would think the relationship with Eusebius would make it likely."
No one would not think that "likely". As I said and as I explain in the video, by the early fourth century the general canon of the Bible had already been well established. There were only a few minor books on which opinion differed, and Eusebius clearly indicates which those were in his writings. Constantine did not have any kind of sophisticated knowledge of these matters, which is precisely why he delegated the oversight of the production of these Bibles to Eusebius. So no, these Bibles did not represent some new formulation of a canon and no there is very low likelihood Constantine was involved in the project in any way at all. This is all garbage.
@@Sextus666 Fair enough. I am not a historian by trade but will continue to research.
U know the way Bapizim was practiced then is quite telling and as a Traditional Latin Catholicum, I didn't know this until watching this. Unlike wut protestants would have the unknowing believe that Constantine was such a terrible human, in fact he was quite the contrary. Bravo!
¡The most underated Channel ever!
is there a version with fixed audio levels? can't hear him over the music
The only part of the video where there is voice over any music is a single minute at the beginning. And the music is very faint in the background, with the monologue perfectly clear over the top of it. Perhaps you need to check your hearing.
Good stuff as usual, Tim.
Good morning, I really like your channel and I would like to know if you could tell me if the idea that Jesus lived 33 years is serious, in fact a later tradition, because if we organize the time lineage of the 4 gospels it would give 40 or 42 years
The traditional age of "33 years" is arrived at via the reference in Luke 3:23 that Jesus was "about 30" when he began preaching and the fact that the gospel of John has Jesus celebrating three Passovers in Jerusalem. So 30 + 3 = 33. The problem with this is the other three gospels only have Jesus going to Jerusalem once, and most scholars think the extra ones in gJohn are more theological stories than historical memores. gLuke's "about 30" is also a bit vague, though could be based on some kind of memory.
But I have no idea where you get the idea that there's any evidence for "40 or 42 years". I don't know what you're referring to there.
@@historyforatheists9363 I think he may refer to Eusebius who held Jesus was over 40 when he died based on John where his enemies say "you are not yet 50" (why not "not yet 40"?). I know John is the gospel least trusted by historians but there are other arguments pointing to a Jesus over 40, even in his late 40s. The idea sometimes links with the idea the Star of Bethlehem was Halley's comet which appeared in 12 BC and the claim Jesus died in 36AD. This latter claim is plausible as John the Baptist died in 35AD so if the Gospels are right in placing Jesus death after John that points to him dying at the last Passover presided over by Pilate in 36AD. I speculate that Luke's "about 30" may derive from him dating Jesus birth to the census of Quirinius in 6AD plus his use Mark's chronology which has Jesus mission lasting less than a year and perhaps just a few months, together with knowledge he died in 36Ad. Thus he would have been, on Luke's assumptions, around 30 at the start and end of his mission. Given the choice of "29 or 30" and "about 30" the latter would likely have been preferred both as a round figure and perhaps (if the gentile author knew this) because 30 was the minimum age for a rabbi and the age David began his reign. This assumes Luke didn't know the exact date of John the Baptists death, otherwise that would have pointed him to an age of 28 or 29 for Jesus age at the start of his mission. There is also the claim in John where the rabbis say "this Temple has been standing for 46 years and Jesus replies "tear it down and I will build it again in three days" which only really makes sense if Jesus was also 46. While this theory dismisses inerrancy (since Luke was wrong about Jesus age) it may assume Matthew was right about the star of Bethlehem and that John accurately reported certain of Jesus conversations. Another possibility is that John got Jesus age wrong instead of (or as well as) Luke.
The most plausible part of the theory is the 36AD date for Jesus death. Perhaps the commenter you respond to is using that date plus the conventional 4-6 BC date for Jesus birth and the "not yet 50" saying in John.
This was a fantastic video! I’m afraid to say as an atheist I believed in many of these historical myths and pseudohistory. You helped me to move past believing falsehoods and I really appreciate you for it. Please keep going with this channel! It’s of the utmost importance!
Btw, I was wondering what are your thoughts on certain Christian apologists (like William Lane Craig, Gary Habermas, N.T. Wright etc) who claim that the historical evidence is overwhelming in showing that Jesus literally rose from the dead? If this is false, where would you recommend I go to research this in more depth? You could also potentially do some videos addressing this question? Thanks!
I'm glad you liked this video and are finding the channel useful Jimmy.
Regarding Craig et. al. and their claim that the evidence is somehow overwhelming that Jesus rose from the dead - if that was true, they have to explain why even many Christian scholars disagree with them on that. There are other Christian scholars who accept that Jesus rose from the dead in some sense, but find the literal interpretation too full of holes. And there are others still who do accept that he physically rose from the dead, but think more conservative scholars like Craig etc. overstate the case for how clear this is. Probably the best place I can recommend for very recent in-depth analysis of the whole issue and its attendant scholarship is Dale C. Allison's new book "The Resurrection of Jesus: Apologetics, Polemics, History" (2021), which has won high praise from scholars of all backgrounds and beliefs for its sensible, careful and balanced analysis. Contrary to Craig, Habermas and Wright, Allison makes it very clear that the question is not easily settled either way and that the idea that he did not rise from the dead physically/literally actually has a very strong and compelling case.
My channel is devoted to correcting misconceptions about history made by atheists and bad analysis of the history of religion by them, not by Christians. So the issue of the Resurrection etc is not really within the scope of this channel. I did write a fairly detailed Quora answer on the subject years ago, which you may find useful (though I've change my mind about a few things since then): www.quora.com/What-evidence-is-there-for-Jesus-Christs-death-burial-and-resurrection/answer/Tim-ONeill-1
@@historyforatheists9363 Just out of curiosity, what specific things have you changed your mind on since then? Allison’s book, which you mentioned, seems to argue strongly for the empty tomb (I’m not sure if this is due to some sort of apologetic bias on Allison’s part or if he genuinely does believe that the evidence for the empty tomb is strong). Although I will say that Allison doesn’t come across to me as having these kinds of biases, so probably the latter. What are your thoughts on his arguments (or the general outline of his argument)?
Have you thought about a world history channel in general?
Heavily appreciated!
I wish you would not have run down hydrocloqiin. just because Rogan defended it.
Hi Tim! Have you thought about doing a video on Islam or maybe Evolution/Creation and ID? These topics seem to come up a lot in Atheist circles and usually have tons of bag history associated with them. Best
The history of Islam is not a topic I'm well-read on, and I see far less atheist bad history about it compared to the history of Christianity. I'm not sure what bad history you're referring to regarding "Evolution/Creation and ID". Creationism and ID are simply bad science, but there is already plenty of good online material demonstrating that./
@@historyforatheists9363 Hey Tim! I definitely understand what you’re saying about Islam. In regard to creationism and ID I was referring to the fact that most Atheists fail to realize that early Christians interpreted Genesis and other Biblical texts metaphorically. Also, Darwin himself received support from Christian ministers/scientists (JT Gullick and Asa Gray). We talked about these trends in my class on the History of science and the conflict thesis in particular.
@@oliversacks3837 the story of Lot and his daughters was some metaphor
But ! Constantine did not win the battle you showed him in the painting on the bridge . For one there was no bridge to cross and the man he so valiantly killed in battle actually drowned in his armour as he had been thrown from his horse . And , Constantine was not even close by when it occurred.
That painting was a consigned painting for Emperor Constantine.
Constantine like many Roman military officers worshipped Mythros but his army was mostly comprised of early Christians but did not call themselves that .
What are your sources for this? And that would still count as a win for Constantine.
I agree the conversion was genuine but it could also be politically convenient. It doesnt have to be mutually exclusive.
The evidence indicates very clearly that it was NOT " politically convenient". As I explain.
Obviously no one knows anything for sure. Blasphemy is real
Please keep making videos! Love your channel!
One point.. Constantine did commission his victory arch shortly after his becoming a emperor.. Theres only pagen statues and no hint of Christian identifying imagery.. Im not saying your wrong.. I think you're right mainly.. But there are many problems with all historical beginnings.. Especially when Christians scrub allot of history that didn't suit...
You mean the Arch whose iconography I discuss in detail in this video? Perhaps you should actually watch the whole thing before you make comments. I discuss the Arch from 19.30 mins.
When Emperor Constantine declared himself to be the Summus Pontifex, what followed was more than ten centuries of Dark Ages, during which time people who professed Christ rather than Mary or the Popes, people who denied transubstantiation, were fed to lions or burned at the stake.
During the Dark Ages, for a common person to read the Bible was a sin for which there was no forgiveness; and so the people were spoon-fed from the papist pulpit. The Bible was said to exist only in the Latin text and the common and largely illiterate people could learn the stories that were in the Bible from paintings and stained glass windows.
Those who first made the Bible available in the language of the people were killed
for their trouble; but when Martin Luther quoted Paul, of all people, the Protestant Reformation began. Christ died for your sins. There’s no hope in the pope.
You need to understand that you’re the sinner for whom Christ died.
Have a nice day.
This gets my vote as the dumbest and most hilariously stupid comment on my channel for the year so far. Sure, it's only mid-January, but this one is going to be hard for other ranting loons to beat.
Excellent!
I have loved your website for years and am shocked that I am just now coming across your RUclips channel
The first known Christian canon dates to the middle of the second century and was the work of the heresiarch Marcion.
It was extremely meagre, consisting only of an edited version of Luke and 10 of Paul's letters.
Did you watch the video you’re commenting on? Try that.
The refutations of Marcion at the time tell a different story.
If Constantine wasn't himself Christian, why some sects Christianity(e.g, Catholic and orthodox) would praised him? It is seem so impossible for Christians to praise pagan king.
There is an apocryphal letter where emperor Tiberius castigates Pilate for crucifying Jesus and acknowledges his miraculous nature while still being a pagan from, I think Constantine's or maybe even later time, so it's not _quite_ as impossible as you'd think, but of course, having an example of a Christian emperor might be what made the idea palatable in the first place.
Why would it be impossible?.
@@1sanitat1 don't be a twat. twats ask leading questions and waste our time.
real commenters do what @3dent just did: they explain how it's not impossible.
Christians historically have praised many pagan emperors and figures, as far as they were virtuous in character and actions..
@@nebufabu
There is a Christian tradition, going back at least as early as the African apologist Tertullian (Fl. 200 AD) that Tiberius was friendly to the first Christians.
You lost me at ‘horse dewormer’. Shame.
It’s a shame you’re an idiot, yes.
Another great video!
Today I met a Baptist and here I am. 😅😅
Another excellent video, God bless from Texas!
Very good -- thanks for these.
I hope you continue to get 10’s a views
I hope you eventually master simple English.
We know of the Apostolic epistles. The Old Testament spoke of our coming savior the Messiah. Joe is not a good person to say the least and therefore shouldn't b taken seriously of even listened to period...
i guess you dont believe all those books behind you either, do you ?
I have absolutely no idea what this comment even means or what it has to do with a single thing I've said in the video.
i know. @@historyforatheists9363
So, what the hell are you talking about?
I watched until you said Joe Rogan was spreading misinformation about horse dewormed lol.
Rogan is a fucking idiot. As are his dumb fans. So you won’t be missed. Bye.
I did the same and I'm not a Rogan fan, Big thumbs down!
@@historyforatheists9363Are you always this thin skinned?
@@joecurran2811 I’ve been on the internet since 1992 and have a hide like an elephant. WTF are you talking about?
Awsome
Nice!!!
I think Joe Rogan is on to something but capitalism got him missing the true.
What book in the Bible sounds like a king trying to put rules and rule over man? The old testament. God doesn't have to rule by fear the oldest tool on the planet. Man will hence the old testament. The real opposite to love is not hate its fear and that's what Roman Emperor Constantine hide from all of us and that's what the powers that be hide.🙏 And the word became flesh
Constantine the apostate.
hate him all you want Constantine stuffed atheism.
Ummm, what? There wasn’t much atheism around in the fourth century.
@@historyforatheists9363 Constantine killed all of em. You would have bent the knee on this genius great man. Choke on Christendom Europe atheist worm.
If mean polytheism or henotheism you might have a point.