Это видео недоступно.
Сожалеем об этом.
Ancient Rome in 20 minutes - Reaction
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 13 фев 2021
- Original Video: • Ancient Rome in 20 min...
My reaction to Ancient Rome in 20 Minutes!
#ancientrome
#historyofrome
#reaction
#history
#romanempire
Fun fact Cleopatra is a Greek name and she had greek heritage. She is a Decendent of Ptolomy Soter, who was one of Alexander the great best generals. He took over Egypt when he died.
Alexander's sister was also named Cleopatra
Constantinus made christianity legal mainly for political reasons, in fact he was baptized only on his deathbed. He made this decision because the empire was unstable and christians had become so numerous that simply killing them became impossible, moreover the christians themselves were fighting among themselves over the true nature of the message of jesus christ making roman society even more unstable. Then Constantinus convened a council in Nicaea to discuss with the bishops the christian doctrine and the human or divine nature of jesus and after a vote it was decided that jesus was the son of god and the other interpretations of christianity and all the gospels that described jesus as human being were banned and declared heretics
"Then Constantinus convened a council in Nicaea to discuss with the bishops the christian doctrine and the human or divine nature of jesus and after a vote it was decided that jesus was the son of god and the other interpretations of christianity and all the gospels that described jesus as human being were banned and declared heretics"
I think you need to read more about the Council of Nicaea. The belief that Jesus was *only* human or *only* divine were already considered heresies, the Council of Nicaea was about the Arian controversy, named after Arius. Contrary to what you seem to believe, Arius actually did believe that Jesus was the divine Son of God, the first created being and the divine Logos, what he had rejected was Jesus being equal in nature with God the Father, whereas Arius' contemporaries believed Jesus shared the same essence with the Father and had always existed eternally with the Father and was not created. This had nothing to do with Jesus being human, both Arians and Trinitarians believed Jesus took on a human nature. This council was regarding whether or not Christ was equal with the Father, not whether or not Jesus was human or divine.
"all the gospels that described jesus as human being were banned and declared heretics"
Please inform me, which Gospels were these, exactly? I hope you don't mean the Gnostic Gospels, Gnostic tended to *emphasize* the divine origin of Jesus, groups like the Docetists believed Jesus had no human nature and had come to Earth as a projection, as in he only appeared to be human. The Church Fathers, or the Proto-Orthodox, considered the various Gnostic sects to be dangerous heretics and already had not accepted the Gnostic Gospels, it was well known they were composed much later than the four canonical Gospels in the New Testament.
@@ArdensSedVirens1 When I wrote about the council of nicaea I was referring to Arius and, as the council of nicaea was not just about Arianism, it was also about all interpretations of Christianity that did not identify jesus with god (whether he was only human or not divine than god himself). To say that they were already heresies makes no sense because there was no official doctrine, so they were "heresies" only in their opinion. Regarding the gospels, I may have written badly (English is not my mother tongue), but you are right, I am wrong, I have confused the Gnostic gospels with Jewish and Muslim interpretations that have nothing to do with the council of Nicaea.
The point of my comment was to explain that Christianity today has been interpreted and changed several times over the centuries and therefore is very different from the actual message of Jesus Christ (including whether Jesus was divine or not, as many sages were deified by their disciples, like Pythagoras)
However, referring to your other comment, I never said that constantinus was not Christian
@@gheddafiduck8239 No, you are again wrong, the Council of Nicaea was specifically about the Arian controversy. Both the Arians and Trinitarians agreed that Jesus was divine, what they did not agree on was whether Jesus equal with the Father. There was very little else the Council of Nicaea actually addressed, the date for Easter for example.
"To say that they were already heresies makes no sense because there was no official doctrine"
The Church Fathers wrote extensively about heresies....Irenaeus has a famous work titled "Against Heresies"...
@@ArdensSedVirens1 They discussed much more than what you say, you can easily check on your own, including also the division of the church into diocese and the assignment of greater authority to the bishop of rome, creating an ecclesiastical structure that did not exist before the council. Even if the church fathers spoke of heresies they did not have the authority to declare them heretics, otherwise the council of Nicaea itself would not have been convened. It should also be considered that the same concept of "church fathers" was introduced long after the council, in fact the same title of church father was assigned to writers conforming to the decisions of the council of nicea
@@gheddafiduck8239 "you can easily check on your own"
I have and I know more about this than you do. You're again saying things that are just not true: "the assignment of greater authority to the bishop of rome. Honestly, where did you get this? The Bishop of Rome was not even present, nor was the idea of Papal Primacy even formulated yet.
"creating an ecclesiastical structure that did not exist before the council"
not exactly true; Christians had their own little hierarchies in their social sphere with Bishops at the top even before Christianity was allowed to be legally practiced.
"Even if the church fathers spoke of heresies they did not have the authority to declare them heretics"
I'm not sure what you mean by this, proto-Orthodoxy was the dominant view, so yes, they actually could successfully brand people such as gnostic as heretics. By the time of Constantine it wasn't even a question that various gnostics and other groups that believed in doctrines like adoptionism were heretics. Also I don't know if you know this or not, but many of these early heresies do not have official condemnations, they are considered heresies on the basis that certain early Fathers dealt with them as such. Sometimes the early Church did have somewhat-official condemnations, such as excommunicating individuals the early Church deemed heretics, or declaring certain views heresies during a synod, all prior to the Council of Nicaea.
" It should also be considered that the same concept of "church fathers" was introduced long after the counci"
..... yes, obviously. You're missing the point, the Church Fathers as we identify them, were practitioners of a proto-Orthodoxy, they were very concerned with orthodoxy (right belief) and heterodoxy (other belief), as well as formulating the idea of apostolic succession.
I agree. Roman history is as simple as fascinating to watch. I look out for more Roman history subjects from you)
22:44 In ancient rome toilets were mostly public. Only the rich and the nobility could afford private toilets in thier estates. The urin from these public toilets was collected as it was an important part of lether production. So before Vespasian, these collectors got the urin for free and sold it to lether manufacturers. Vespasian taxed them later and is quoted as "Money doesn't smell" because of the urin's smell ;)
25:51 The movie "Gladiator" is losely based around the story of Commodus. Him and his father appear in name, but the movie isn't historicaly accurate at all.
The problem with commudus besides him being just a bad ruler in general was, that he wanted to be a Gladiator. Now what you have to understand is that Gladiators were slaves. Now imagine the picture portraed to the public when the ruler of your state, your emperor takes the role of a slave. That certaily won't benefit your credentials
The Etruscans were so advanced, even the Greeks were in awe. Both Rome & Greece detested them immensely. And both smeared them in their literature. 🥃🔥👍
React to ancient greece in 20 minutes by Arzamas too.
And then Alexander the Great Part 1-4.
They had legal wills, contracts, trials, courts and an entire judicial system. Wills specifically (of the important families) were kept safely under the eyes of the Vestal Virgins, priestesses of the Goddess Vesta. Some of these wills shaped Rome's history. For one thing they expanded because a few of them. King Attalus III of Pergamum (modern day Turkey) left his entire kingdom to Rome in his will...which was specifically delivered to the Gracchi brothers, which fueled the Senate's murderous intent 'cause they thought the will was direct to The Gracchi. Rome controlled Egypt by Caesar's time because Cleopatra's father needed Roman help to take his throne back from his brother...and to get that help he had to leave Egypt in his will to Rome. Rome held that will over Egypt's head until Cleopatra died and they acted on it. Cleopatra herself drove her own fall with Antony because she convinced him to leave their children ALL OF THE EASTERN PROVINCES to their children in their will. As for Jesus, yeah, in his own time he was a nobody who got killed for causing unrest in Jerusalem. He was considered in his own time in the same way we today consider anyone who starts a new and radically different religious movement...a bloody lunatic.
28:07 THATS MY CITY SIRMIUM :D
They use urine for toothpaste 🤣
If you visit Rome, you can still see the catacombs where first Christians lived. Poor souls
I wrote another comment elsewhere about Constantine's conversion to Christianity that I will post here as well:
Concerning how sincere Constantine actually was is a complicated question and it's hard to know for sure because we can't exactly pop into his brain and know his sincere thoughts. But personally, I lean towards "yes", he was a Christian. Technically he was a catechumen for most of his life, as he was not baptized until he was on his deathbed, which some try to point as evidence that he wasn't sincere, but deathbed baptisms were actually very common during this time period.
A couple of things we've to consider: Christianity was unpopular among the Roman aristocracy and while there were Christians in the military, the majority were not, so again Christianity wasn't particularly popular here either. Christianity in general wasn't very popular, Christians made up about 10%-15% of the population at the time. Were he concerned only with power it seems odd that he would pick a religion so deeply unpopular among the senatorial and equestrian classes. Thus, Constantine's sympathy towards Christians is actually very unique among the Roman aristocracy. The later accounts of Constantine seeing a cross before the battle of the Milvian bridge in 312 is clearly a legend, but we do know that after the battle he did attribute his victory to Christ, and like any good Roman he decided to repay that victory for devotion. His new city, Constantinople, was to have no pagan temples whatsoever and he began surrounding himself with Christians.
Constantine's conversion was also a gradual process and his understanding of Christianity changed over the course of his life, he was a practitioner of the cult of Sol Invictus and after his victory in 312 when he attributed his victory to the god of the Christians, he began to conflate Sol and Christ as being the same deity, but later he would develop a more sophisticated and orthodox understanding of his faith (I highly recommend reading the 26 chapter Orations to the Assembly of the Saints).
Another thing worth pointing out that might help us understand why Constantine was a Christian sympathizer is his family. His father Constantius was a pagan and part of the Tetrarchy as a junior Emperor and later Augustus in the West, but did not follow along with Diocletian's official policy of persecution against Christians. But not only that, his mother Helena was apparently a life long Christian and his sisters were also Christians. If that is the case, I think it is much more likely that his conversion did indeed have a lot of emotional attachment and his sympathy towards Christians is explained by his fathers tolerance of Christians and that some of his family were already Christians before he was.
* Also another thing I want to point out is that Constantine did not make Christianity the state religion, he had instead allowed freedom of religion, though he personally was a Christian. Theodosius is the one who made Christianity the official state sanctioned religion.