The explanation is as easy as it is sad: conspiracy theories are not built on data. They are simply new dogmas, which we get to watch being created live.
I thought he was using the blues at the top of the shirt to match the blue of the speaker's clothing and his map of the Mediterranean that flashed on screen.
When a video begins with mentioning Constantine you know there's a 99.99% chance you are about to hear the wildest garbage you've ever heard. This guy is in front of that audience just freestyling bs
@@TheFranchiseCA I don’t know of any economists that lecture on 4th Century development of Christianity or the discovery of ancient texts. I’m not aware of any political scientists that delve into the history of biblical texts, but to the degree that they touch on political history, I can believe it’s possible. I’d like to know which economists and political scientists you have in mind. Or perhaps you’re just an anti-intellectual, anti-academic, or generally anti-expertise? Are there a handful of academics that stray from their lanes, get way over their skis, and go too far out on limbs of trees? Yes, there are. Sometimes they are downright obnoxious and sometimes they are harmful. It’s a small but notable minority. But you seem to be using a broad brush to damn the vast majority of academics and experts that stick to their specialties and beaver away year in and year out to advance human knowledge. I don’t even think it’s a bad thing when academics and experts speak on topics outside their expertise when they apply the same rigor expected in their disciplines. In doing so, they should acknowledge what they are doing. I don’t know who the guy is in the video who speaks with such an air of authority. And I appreciate Dan taking apart his mistaken claims and disinformation because I’m not an expert in Bible history nor the historical development of Christianity.
When Dan says the original discoverers of the codices burned some as fuel for a fire I feel a legitimate pain in my guts like I’ve been punched in my side
@@boxsterman77 Yeah I know, the first time I saw him was his lecture on Khalid ibn al-Walid. And even before talking about that guy, he said that the bubonic plague comes consistently every 800 years because of its biological properties, and it's happened 4 or 5 times already. It seemed obviously nonsensical to me (if this was actual biological reality it would've been studied very extensively and be very well known), but it turned out even the claim that it has come every 800 years historically was absolute nonsense. So... yeah, I suspect it's mostly him being stupid, lacking critical thinking, and having no self-awareness but he shouldn't be teaching.
This teacher is all ove rmy TikTok. He has surface level knowledge of stuff, but much is misinformation and it's being paraded around on TikTok als Gospel.
It is amazing all the “facts” taught to pastors who then teach to their congregants. One of my favorites is the ice canopy over the earth that, when broken, caused Noah’s flood. So much nonsense taught with an equal amount of authority. WRONG🔔WRONG🔔WRONG🔔
It's amazing all the "facts" that are spouted by people who want to try to debunk Christianity. How about you provide a source for your claim? You can't, because there isn't one other than your imagination. No "ice dome" is mentioned in either flood story . In one, it rained and in the other, the water came up out of the ground. I can't imagine any biblical literalist making any other claim.
@@byrondickens they are trained to despise the tradition by the purveyors of filth (however you like to define that). They prefer rumor to knowledge because they feel judged by their own conscience.
@@byrondickens No one has to TRY to debunk Christianity. The Bible does it for us! Which creation story is the correct one Genesis chapter one or chapter two? Very different. Where was Jesus born Bethlehem or Nazareth? Both are claimed. Where did Joseph take Jesus after he was born, Egypt or Galilee? Both are claimed. Who went to Jesus’ tomb, just Mary or three women? Several different versions exist. Was the stone already rolled away at the tomb or not? Both versions exist. Just read the Bible and you will no longer believe it is truth. Hundreds of historic, scientific errors as well as many inconsistencies. The Pentateuch is based on Plato. Mark is ripped off from Homer’s Odyssey. None of it is real, none of it is true. It is historic fiction at best and folklore at worst. Again - just read it!
While it may well be that the texts were discovered in a graveyard, which is what Jean Doresse reported in the 1940s, the presenter is in good company in relaying the James Robinson farmer-looking-for-fertilizer version because no less that Bart Ehrman and and Elaine Pagels have repeated it. To his credit, Ehrman changed his mind after considering Mark Goodacre's analysis of the various versions of the scrolls' discovery.
Dan, could you do some digging on Canon 82, as defined in the Council of Trullo please? ...of Quinisext Council Canon 82 that prohibited the symbolic depiction of Christ as a lamb, stating that the only canonical representation of Him is in human form Canon 82 is also applicable to the representations of Theotokos, and of any saint, who should be depicted in human form.
Going through some old books at my in-laws yesterday I found a copy of “The Forbidden Book” published in 1910 as a supposed reprint of a book by “Archbishop Wake” where it clearly states that said “Forbidden Book” contains “The suppressed Gospels and Epistles […] forbidden by the bishops of the Nicene Council”. Is this not one source where this might be coming from
Yeah Nicea seems to be a focal point for all sorts of claims to grow out of. Like beginning with an historical event gives you legitimacy to make up anything you want about it after that.
If the earliest Christians believed Jesus was a legitimate owner of the NAME YHWH (as Paul & the Gospel of Matthew especially make abundantly & explicitly clear)-it is then not necessarily accurate to claim that lack of co-eternality & even consubtantiality with God was the consensus view before the Nicene council. In fact, actual scholars of the NICENE PERIOD (which biblical scholars are NOT) regularly present Arianism as the relative novelty, chronologically speaking. The Gospel of John does not necessarily seem aware of a time when Jesus was not existing/uncreated. Critical scholar Jason Staples has conclusively demonstrated that the DOUBLED use of the vocative case of the Greek word for Lord - "Kyrie! Kyrie!", as found in the Gospels of Luke & Matthew, has absolutely no other uses in all of Hellenistic literature EXCEPT as a Jewish code-name for the Tetragrammaton The Athanasian creed, despite its use of the word "equality"-which Paul himself uses in Phillipians 2-still definitely subordinated Christ to God (in reality, there has rarely been any form of trinitarianism that did not). The use of the word "equality" in the creed is frequently taken out of its historical 4th century context by those who want to make the exaggerated claim that trinitarian creeds are irreconcilably contradicted by New testament literature
"consensus view in earlier centuries [i.e. Arius' view]" Well I wouldn't take it that far. Some writings in the N.T. present Jesus in far more trinitarian terms, that is to say, as equal with God even IF he was "raised" to that position rather than being eternally co-equal with the Father, such as the book of Hebrews and Revelation, with peak high-Christology. John has a few apparently contradictory Christologies so let's jettison that. Ehrman himself (page 198 of his recent book 'Armageddon') briefly alludes to the fact, sadly without much further development, that Revelation gradually climbed into the canon due to pressure from the Arian controversy because it could be used to argue AGAINST Arius' christology and for the orthodox camp.
I think it is counterintuitive to say that a literary work has contradictory christology - maybe it is your categories you are imposing onto its interpretation & your frame of reference that should be re-examined. That books was certainly not contradictory in the eyes of those whose wrote it
@@tsemayekekema2918 Why not? People have cognitive dissonance all the time why shouldnt that spill over into some of their works. Besides a lot of these have been redacted and re-redacted. Although John I think only the last chapter has some major scholarly consensus of other authorship
@@nonomnismoriar9051 it is unreasonable special pleading to find "cognitive dissonance" so commonly - when the obviously more reasonable explanation is that the author, and ancient people in general, certainly did not share your cognitive & theological assumptions/framework based on which you claim their christology to be contradictory. You are simply imposing your 21st century either/or theological framework, or the reductionist framework you heard from some modern western Christians in their description of christology
Who is this person, who thinks he can lecture people by lying about absolutely everything? I know Dan doesn't give names but in this instance i think the world should know and be warned. If anyone knows his identity, please share it and spread the word about him.
The whole thing about "26 gospels" is nonsense too, right? There was no known list of 26 Gospels rejected by the Church, which was then found in Nag Hammadi. I don't think we know of 26 Gospels from the first few centuries. Probably more than 26 books, but not that many gospels. The Nag Hammadi library also contains more than 26 texts, but again not all gospels. 26 here seems to be pulled out of thin air.
It's insane. 🤣 So I decided to ask Gemini when Constantine was first petitioned by Christians to get involved in one of their disputes. Here goes the discussion... Gemini answers... Constantine wasn't actually petitioned to settle a Christian dispute. Here's the breakdown: Constantine wasn't a Christian when he first came to power (306 AD). Christianity was still a growing religion facing persecution. However, Constantine did play a significant role in Christian history by convening the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD. This council, not a petition, aimed to address a major Christian dispute about the nature of Christ. So, while Constantine wasn't petitioned, he took a proactive step to address a major Christian theological disagreement. So of course, I have to help Gemini out.... I think Constantine was petitioned to get involved in a dispute between bishops in North Africa because some didn't think those who gave into a persecution should be bishops? Gemini's answer... You're absolutely right! I apologize for the mistake in my previous response. Constantine was indeed petitioned to intervene in a dispute between Christian factions in North Africa. This specific disagreement arose from the earlier Diocletianic Persecution, the last major empire-wide persecution of Christians. The dispute centered around the Donatist movement. The Donatists believed that any bishop who had yielded under persecution and surrendered religious texts was unfit to hold office. They argued for a pure church led by untainted clergy. Their opponents, often referred to simply as the "Catholic" party (not to be confused with the modern Catholic Church), disagreed. Constantine received appeals from both sides around 316 AD. This marked the first instance of a Roman emperor being drawn into a Christian internal conflict. The misinformation is so deeply embedded in our civilization, AI has to be taught to look for the truth. Let's just say Dan has his hands full.
Cannon, The Trinity, The Apocrypha, The Divinity of Christ, Long ago the 4 nations Lived in harmony, Then everything changed when Emperor CONSTANTINE attacked
I've seen this guy talk so much shit on so many subjects, that I've come to the conclusion that he's a well rehearsed troll, out to prank the entire world.
The only thing I disagree with is his part about religion being used as a tool. This general idea goes back to Plato's Republic and the concept of the noble lie!
That's not his field. So that's an immediate red flag. Even inside the fields there's minority views. And to make it worse, sometimes minority views are right like the plate tectonics guy. That's just the human (scholarly) condition.
I have only one criticism here - a slight lack of charity towards your interpretation of the phrase, 'like the Trinity....how does this work - he's what?". It seems to me that this phrase is an adequate, if simplistict abbreviation of the Arian controversy, and the controversy would count, at least colloquially, as a contradiction (or at least a battle between two contradictory views of Jesus' status within the Trinity).
There was no religion in Rome. Offering to the gods weren't seen as separate from being a Roman. Christians weren't persecuted for being Christians, but for not, to put it simple, not acting like Romans. The Europeans, if I remember, were surprised that China could be a high culture being that it wasn't Christian. Hence Ruism/Confucianism became viewed a religion. I argue that it's not. But also complicated. Ruism, Buddhism and traditional folk religions/beliefs (known as Daoism) can easily live together. The filial piety and ancestral worship of Ruism don't contradict anything in those other religions/philosophies. People accuse Mao Zedong of being an atheist. Well, the whole communist thing. Mao was a Buddhist and many Chinese people have him as a lucky charm. They see him as a Buddha. My response is to point at Hong Kong. Mao and the communists never got there. Hong Kong still use traditional Chinese writing. Southern (Cantonese speaking) China has always been more conservative and traditionalist than the north. I then ask, what's the religion of Hong Kong? People usually don't know, but somehow still know they have religion. Buddhism? Buddhism was so big that Jackie Chan heard of it for the first time in the movies. The Shaolin martial arts movies popular in the 1970s. Buddhism is primarily popular among celebrities. I believe primarily in generations that came after Jackie Chan's. Running on Karma (2003), to quote Wikipedia, "is ultimately a Buddhist parable about the nature of karma." This was made by filmmakers younger than Jackie. Christianity is rather big in Hong Kong. But that's not what people refer to when they insist Hong Kong has (a) religion. Hong Kongers practice a concoction of Ruism, Buddhism and folk religions. One tradition is to burn offerings. Typically in the form of fake money. Prosperity is big in China. They can also burn paper cars. In one 1980s Hong Kong comedy, a ghost comes driving in a paper car, proudly saying "latest model." Even Hong Kongers know it's silly. Chinese horror movies don't have (Western) vampires, but gong-si. Western vampires don't fit into traditional Chinese (superstitious) beliefs. "Hopping vampires" do. Most people in Sweden don't believe in an afterlife, but also think it's nice to think there is. I guess not that different from Hong Kongers. The point being that belief isn't the same as religion. Sorry for the rant.
If Rome had no native religion, how do you explain the phrase "religio Romana?" You are clearly painfully unfamiliar with the concept of religion as part of a cultural matrix instead of imposed upon it. This pattern was common to many pre-Christian religions in those times on several continents. A Celt would not have a formal name for their religion. It was just what they did, taught and directed by the druids with the King as the bridegroom of the land. It was their culture and custom. It was still religion unless you re-define the word to make it do what you want. Also, it's not that the Christians wouldn't act like Romans so much as they refused to make arrangements similar to the Jewish people under Roman rule and basically pay to pray the way they saw fit. They wouldn't render unto Caesar that which was Caesar's, in other words.
Not exactly sure how I feel about you going after professor Roy. I legitimately have you guys categorically in my head at the same level. Roy doesn't have a dog in this fight. However the council of nicea is outside of Roy's main expertise. Yes the council of nicea absolutely had something to do with the trinity/pre-trinity Granted it may have been the performing of the Trinity. Calling it The Aryan dilemma or whatever you want to call it is fine. Nevertheless the council was directly determining the Divinity of Jesus. The Apocrypha I've always heard of as "doubtful" so neither of you hit the uniform answer that I've gotten from Protestants. This might only be held by Protestants however that is around 50% of the Christian religion.
Every conspiracy theorist uses the Council of Nicea to spout their nonsense, despite the vast amounts of literature on the subject. Go buy a Eusebius, study church history, not Reddit and get an education and stop talking nonsense. Thanks for this video, Dan.
So too many moving parts is the same thing as resolving controversies so the first part isn't really wrong maybe over hyped in your view but hype or lack there of isn't true or false
I heard this guy (not Dan) claim that the reason why the modern country of Romania has that name is because the Ancient Romans massacred every one in that region ( 3 Million). Is that true? where did he get that?
the crumb of truth is that the romans did conquer it. like a lot of other places. and for complex historical reasons, the inhabitnts speak a romance language. like a lot of other places the romans conquered.
@@tsemayekekema2918 it became a lingua franca in many conquered territories, yes. i'm not sure how your explanation is simpler. it's the same explanation, only with some seeming need to erase the territorial conquest aspect.
@@joshridinger3407 I don't share any moral or political aversion towards conquest by massacre. Latin's adoption as lingua franca was largely unrelated to conquest - as for the first 600 years after conquest, Latin remained relegated to a localised & aristocratic language - Greek was the main lingua franca until Latin gained prominence too many centuries after conquest. I don't get the obsession with making everything a genocide-related conspiracy theory
Your précise of the Arian heresy does orthodoxy a disservice, by your saying that, “there was a time Jesus did not exist”, paraphrase of Arius’ famous doggerel rhyme which upside ‘He’ instead of your Ιησούς. In fact orthodox views agree, since Jesus did come into existence as a human person born of the Virgin at a specific point in time. Who is eternal is Christ the eternal Logos who condescends to be incarnate as Jesus.
The more ignorant the speaker is, the more confidently he (or she ... but its nearly always he) spouts their nonsense. Mr Dunning and Mr Kruger would be impressed.
Someone hasn't read Plato's Republic which was a wide spread text among the elites. Sorry Dan you are wrong about this one. While what is being said is simplified for consumption he is correct is the broad strokes. Please read Plato's Republic and educate yourself
Plates republic. Written 375 BCE Council of nicaea was 325 CE 700 years apart. Greek philosophy had a huge impact on Christianity, but none of Platos writings were ever considered scripture by the Christians.
@@langreeves6419 "none of Plato's writings were considering scripture" this is what is known as a non sequitur. No one has said or even implied that the workers of Plato were considered scripture. I suggest that you actually contemplate what is being said before commenting.
@@nw42 Plato's Republic is Machiavelli's "The Prince" before Machiavelli. It openly advocates for using religion to control the population. As one commenter has already pointed out Plato (in particular Neo-Platonism) was a strong influence on early Christianity. Honestly it always has been (just to various degrees). The early church fathers openly acknowledge and supported Plato's advocacy of using religion to manipulate the populous. Attempting to deny it is folly.
@@ricksamericana749woke political scientists. At least Dr Dan tries to be tethered to realistic and rarely ever allows wokeness interfere with description of historical reality
@@jhake67 he's definitely woke-but I was complimenting him-not a woke professor, just a scholar who coincidentally happens to be woke, unlike that political scientist who can't be bothered to fact check
Why do so many people feel the need to lie about the Council of Nicea when the actual information is so readily available?
Yeah, it isn't like we can't read the records they kept.
@@velocibadgery But you can.
The explanation is as easy as it is sad: conspiracy theories are not built on data. They are simply new dogmas, which we get to watch being created live.
@@PhilSophia-ox7ep that's literally what he said, you missed the double negative 😛
In addition to PerryW: it makes them feel special and it's a way to get attention.
The look on Dan's face right at the start . . . . 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Wearing a Dipper Pines shirt while dealing with a conspiracy video is very choice and I commend you for it.
I thought he was using the blues at the top of the shirt to match the blue of the speaker's clothing and his map of the Mediterranean that flashed on screen.
It is extremely disturbing that the guy in the video was "teaching" kids.
I was thinking the same thing. Then I thought about Sunday school teachers and divinity school instructors, and it made me sad. 🤣
These are the same people who call secular education ‘indoctrination’.
Yay! it's disappointed Dan! I think you need play lists called "no they haven't", "no they didn't" and "Pure and utter nonsense."
Well..every video would qualify so why have a playlist?
@@robsaxepga All but one: A response to a tik-toker who agrees with him that in Genesis 2, "MaYbE gOd LiEd!"
Anytime you hear "the year 325" or "Nicea" you kinda know what's coming.
"The twin towers" or "9/11", "the moon landings" ...
That deep sigh after "At the Council of Nicea..."
I felt that! 😂
Dan's introductory heavy sigh says it all . . . .
my exact thoughts
When a video begins with mentioning Constantine you know there's a 99.99% chance you are about to hear the wildest garbage you've ever heard. This guy is in front of that audience just freestyling bs
My parish’s patron saints are… guess who?
This guy is what happens when political scientists think they're historians
He's all over TikTok, it's so annoying.
@@MCAPrince He's way too popular there for saying nothing.
Who is he?
Political scientists and economists are infamous for this nonsense.
@@TheFranchiseCA I don’t know of any economists that lecture on 4th Century development of Christianity or the discovery of ancient texts. I’m not aware of any political scientists that delve into the history of biblical texts, but to the degree that they touch on political history, I can believe it’s possible.
I’d like to know which economists and political scientists you have in mind. Or perhaps you’re just an anti-intellectual, anti-academic, or generally anti-expertise?
Are there a handful of academics that stray from their lanes, get way over their skis, and go too far out on limbs of trees? Yes, there are. Sometimes they are downright obnoxious and sometimes they are harmful. It’s a small but notable minority. But you seem to be using a broad brush to damn the vast majority of academics and experts that stick to their specialties and beaver away year in and year out to advance human knowledge.
I don’t even think it’s a bad thing when academics and experts speak on topics outside their expertise when they apply the same rigor expected in their disciplines. In doing so, they should acknowledge what they are doing.
I don’t know who the guy is in the video who speaks with such an air of authority. And I appreciate Dan taking apart his mistaken claims and disinformation because I’m not an expert in Bible history nor the historical development of Christianity.
Dear Dan. Where, where, where do you get the patience to constantly deal with this type of BS day after day after day?
Dr. Roy Casagranda doesn't seem to be very concerned with accuracy, only clicks.
When Dan says the original discoverers of the codices burned some as fuel for a fire I feel a legitimate pain in my guts like I’ve been punched in my side
My jaw dropped at that. It hurts!!
That look of disgust at the very beginning of the video: Priceless. 😁
Wow. Dude walked out on stage and lied right from “hello”.
The sigh was all I needed to know 🤣🤣🤣
This is disgraceful misinformation being told with certainty and authority. Dan, I wish you could send this short video to that "creator".
Ha! The sigh at the beginning. Also, does that guy have NO IDEA how to look up simple facts??
Roy Casagranda is a real professor in a real university but it seems a good chunk of his lecture material comes from posts on random internet forums.
Casagranda is a doctor of political science but he teaches at a community college.
I see he lecture about other topics and a called BS. He’s a charlatan
@@boxsterman77 Yeah I know, the first time I saw him was his lecture on Khalid ibn al-Walid. And even before talking about that guy, he said that the bubonic plague comes consistently every 800 years because of its biological properties, and it's happened 4 or 5 times already. It seemed obviously nonsensical to me (if this was actual biological reality it would've been studied very extensively and be very well known), but it turned out even the claim that it has come every 800 years historically was absolute nonsense.
So... yeah, I suspect it's mostly him being stupid, lacking critical thinking, and having no self-awareness but he shouldn't be teaching.
Even I was screaming “NO” throughout this clip. Holy shit this prof is full of it. Keep on with the Great work Doctah Dan!
This teacher is all ove rmy TikTok. He has surface level knowledge of stuff, but much is misinformation and it's being paraded around on TikTok als Gospel.
31 Gospels then!! 😂
It is amazing all the “facts” taught to pastors who then teach to their congregants. One of my favorites is the ice canopy over the earth that, when broken, caused Noah’s flood. So much nonsense taught with an equal amount of authority. WRONG🔔WRONG🔔WRONG🔔
It’s irrelevant to speak about mythifying preachers when we have a pseudo-academic spouting trash to take apart here. Stick to the point.
It's amazing all the "facts" that are spouted by people who want to try to debunk Christianity. How about you provide a source for your claim? You can't, because there isn't one other than your imagination.
No "ice dome" is mentioned in either flood story . In one, it rained and in the other, the water came up out of the ground. I can't imagine any biblical literalist making any other claim.
@@byrondickens they are trained to despise the tradition by the purveyors of filth (however you like to define that). They prefer rumor to knowledge because they feel judged by their own conscience.
@@byrondickens No one has to TRY to debunk Christianity. The Bible does it for us! Which creation story is the correct one Genesis chapter one or chapter two? Very different. Where was Jesus born Bethlehem or Nazareth? Both are claimed. Where did Joseph take Jesus after he was born, Egypt or Galilee? Both are claimed. Who went to Jesus’ tomb, just Mary or three women? Several different versions exist. Was the stone already rolled away at the tomb or not? Both versions exist. Just read the Bible and you will no longer believe it is truth. Hundreds of historic, scientific errors as well as many inconsistencies. The Pentateuch is based on Plato. Mark is ripped off from Homer’s Odyssey. None of it is real, none of it is true. It is historic fiction at best and folklore at worst. Again - just read it!
@@26beegee Red Herring. What does your cute little rant have to do with your ice dome claim?
You’re so great. Your vids are soooo satisfying. 😊
While it may well be that the texts were discovered in a graveyard, which is what Jean Doresse reported in the 1940s, the presenter is in good company in relaying the James Robinson farmer-looking-for-fertilizer version because no less that Bart Ehrman and and Elaine Pagels have repeated it. To his credit, Ehrman changed his mind after considering Mark Goodacre's analysis of the various versions of the scrolls' discovery.
3:22 That isn’t even one of the Nag Hammadi codices, it’s one of the Garima Gospels. I’d recognize that illumination anywhere.
WTF. I hope that dude is not a professional. AKA not being paid to spouse those falsehoods.
Dan, could you do some digging on Canon 82, as defined in the Council of Trullo please? ...of Quinisext Council
Canon 82 that prohibited the
symbolic depiction of Christ as a lamb, stating that the only canonical
representation of Him is in human form
Canon 82 is also applicable to the representations of
Theotokos, and of any saint, who should be depicted in human form.
"Remarkable, every word out of your mouth was wrong."
Amazing how they just make stuff up and then confidently assert it.
Arius was almost not completely stupid for an early Christian theologian.
❤❤❤❤❤ thanks Dan!!
Don’t pretend to know things you do not know. Thanks Dan!
Gravity Falls!! Nice fit!
I'm not religious or spiritual. But my heart broke a little to hear some of the texts were burned for fuel
Thanks for the history lesson.
Thanks for holding him to account.
It's shocking how much effort and imagination go into creating these stories.
in face of such misinformation, isn't it a calming thought to know that the universe is a hologram and that we just need to buy gold?
Ok, but, why you gotta say Dipper Pines with so much gravity?
Is that a new shirt? 😮
Going through some old books at my in-laws yesterday I found a copy of “The Forbidden Book” published in 1910 as a supposed reprint of a book by “Archbishop Wake” where it clearly states that said “Forbidden Book” contains “The suppressed Gospels and Epistles […] forbidden by the bishops of the Nicene Council”. Is this not one source where this might be coming from
The sigh at the beginning got me....
That sigh at the start.
Yeah Nicea seems to be a focal point for all sorts of claims to grow out of. Like beginning with an historical event gives you legitimacy to make up anything you want about it after that.
If the earliest Christians believed Jesus was a legitimate owner of the NAME YHWH (as Paul & the Gospel of Matthew especially make abundantly & explicitly clear)-it is then not necessarily accurate to claim that lack of co-eternality & even consubtantiality with God was the consensus view before the Nicene council. In fact, actual scholars of the NICENE PERIOD (which biblical scholars are NOT) regularly present Arianism as the relative novelty, chronologically speaking.
The Gospel of John does not necessarily seem aware of a time when Jesus was not existing/uncreated.
Critical scholar Jason Staples has conclusively demonstrated that the DOUBLED use of the vocative case of the Greek word for Lord - "Kyrie! Kyrie!", as found in the Gospels of Luke & Matthew, has absolutely no other uses in all of Hellenistic literature EXCEPT as a Jewish code-name for the Tetragrammaton
The Athanasian creed, despite its use of the word "equality"-which Paul himself uses in Phillipians 2-still definitely subordinated Christ to God (in reality, there has rarely been any form of trinitarianism that did not). The use of the word "equality" in the creed is frequently taken out of its historical 4th century context by those who want to make the exaggerated claim that trinitarian creeds are irreconcilably contradicted by New testament literature
"consensus view in earlier centuries [i.e. Arius' view]" Well I wouldn't take it that far. Some writings in the N.T. present Jesus in far more trinitarian terms, that is to say, as equal with God even IF he was "raised" to that position rather than being eternally co-equal with the Father, such as the book of Hebrews and Revelation, with peak high-Christology. John has a few apparently contradictory Christologies so let's jettison that. Ehrman himself (page 198 of his recent book 'Armageddon') briefly alludes to the fact, sadly without much further development, that Revelation gradually climbed into the canon due to pressure from the Arian controversy because it could be used to argue AGAINST Arius' christology and for the orthodox camp.
I think it is counterintuitive to say that a literary work has contradictory christology - maybe it is your categories you are imposing onto its interpretation & your frame of reference that should be re-examined. That books was certainly not contradictory in the eyes of those whose wrote it
@@tsemayekekema2918 Why not? People have cognitive dissonance all the time why shouldnt that spill over into some of their works. Besides a lot of these have been redacted and re-redacted. Although John I think only the last chapter has some major scholarly consensus of other authorship
@@nonomnismoriar9051 it is unreasonable special pleading to find "cognitive dissonance" so commonly - when the obviously more reasonable explanation is that the author, and ancient people in general, certainly did not share your cognitive & theological assumptions/framework based on which you claim their christology to be contradictory. You are simply imposing your 21st century either/or theological framework, or the reductionist framework you heard from some modern western Christians in their description of christology
@@tsemayekekema2918ancient people didn't care about consistency or coherence. most of them were schizophrenics.
That lecturer is very knowledgeable about history and politics. He was giving information in a general way.
every time he pops up on my feed he's spouting near dan brown level bullshit.
This is so trite and ridiculous that it doesn't even deserve an "Alright, let's see it" XD
That guy always manages to completely fabricate his lectures
He lies with such confidence. They always do.
Who is this person, who thinks he can lecture people by lying about absolutely everything? I know Dan doesn't give names but in this instance i think the world should know and be warned.
If anyone knows his identity, please share it and spread the word about him.
Cairo didn't get all the texts "as some were burnt."
Wow. Did this guy get *anything* right?
Thank You!
The whole thing about "26 gospels" is nonsense too, right? There was no known list of 26 Gospels rejected by the Church, which was then found in Nag Hammadi. I don't think we know of 26 Gospels from the first few centuries. Probably more than 26 books, but not that many gospels. The Nag Hammadi library also contains more than 26 texts, but again not all gospels.
26 here seems to be pulled out of thin air.
Can you do a video on trinity
Can't wait till they find the lost gospels of bill Cypher
So, virtually none of that is accurate. I'm actually confused how he could be so wrong.
It's insane. 🤣 So I decided to ask Gemini when Constantine was first petitioned by Christians to get involved in one of their disputes.
Here goes the discussion...
Gemini answers...
Constantine wasn't actually petitioned to settle a Christian dispute.
Here's the breakdown:
Constantine wasn't a Christian when he first came to power (306 AD).
Christianity was still a growing religion facing persecution.
However, Constantine did play a significant role in Christian history by convening the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD.
This council, not a petition, aimed to address a major Christian dispute about the nature of Christ. So, while Constantine wasn't petitioned, he took a proactive step to address a major Christian theological disagreement.
So of course, I have to help Gemini out....
I think Constantine was petitioned to get involved in a dispute between bishops in North Africa because some didn't think those who gave into a persecution should be bishops?
Gemini's answer...
You're absolutely right!
I apologize for the mistake in my previous response.
Constantine was indeed petitioned to intervene in a dispute between Christian factions in North Africa. This specific disagreement arose from the earlier Diocletianic Persecution, the last major empire-wide persecution of Christians.
The dispute centered around the Donatist movement. The Donatists believed that any bishop who had yielded under persecution and surrendered religious texts was unfit to hold office. They argued for a pure church led by untainted clergy. Their opponents, often referred to simply as the "Catholic" party (not to be confused with the modern Catholic Church), disagreed.
Constantine received appeals from both sides around 316 AD. This marked the first instance of a Roman emperor being drawn into a Christian internal conflict.
The misinformation is so deeply embedded in our civilization, AI has to be taught to look for the truth.
Let's just say Dan has his hands full.
So no one else noticed the "letter bomb" at 3:49?
So a Muslim takes these to a church and the priest recognizes them? Curiouser and curiouser!
Cannon, The Trinity, The Apocrypha, The Divinity of Christ,
Long ago the 4 nations Lived in harmony,
Then everything changed when Emperor CONSTANTINE attacked
Does... does this mean Paul was an Avatar?
Wow, this guy is way too ignorant to be talking about this. I’m not a scholar by any stretch, but I could’ve debunked his crap in minutes. Who is he?
Who is this guy? Hope he isn’t actually teaching a class in an accredited academic environment.
❤
I've seen this guy talk so much shit on so many subjects, that I've come to the conclusion that he's a well rehearsed troll, out to prank the entire world.
The only thing I disagree with is his part about religion being used as a tool. This general idea goes back to Plato's Republic and the concept of the noble lie!
christianity was still smaller than judaism in constantine's day. using it as a tool is an unlikely explanation for anything he did.
Who is that guy I've seen him somewhere?
Dipper is as flabberghasted by this guy's ignorance as everybody else 😂😂😂😂😂😂
Isn't the guy in the video a professor? If so how is there confusion & misinformation even in academia?
That's not his field. So that's an immediate red flag. Even inside the fields there's minority views. And to make it worse, sometimes minority views are right like the plate tectonics guy. That's just the human (scholarly) condition.
be's a professor of political 'science'
Who is this guy? Not Dan, the other guy.
I have only one criticism here - a slight lack of charity towards your interpretation of the phrase, 'like the Trinity....how does this work - he's what?". It seems to me that this phrase is an adequate, if simplistict abbreviation of the Arian controversy, and the controversy would count, at least colloquially, as a contradiction (or at least a battle between two contradictory views of Jesus' status within the Trinity).
There was no religion in Rome. Offering to the gods weren't seen as separate from being a Roman. Christians weren't persecuted for being Christians, but for not, to put it simple, not acting like Romans.
The Europeans, if I remember, were surprised that China could be a high culture being that it wasn't Christian. Hence Ruism/Confucianism became viewed a religion. I argue that it's not. But also complicated. Ruism, Buddhism and traditional folk religions/beliefs (known as Daoism) can easily live together. The filial piety and ancestral worship of Ruism don't contradict anything in those other religions/philosophies.
People accuse Mao Zedong of being an atheist. Well, the whole communist thing. Mao was a Buddhist and many Chinese people have him as a lucky charm. They see him as a Buddha. My response is to point at Hong Kong. Mao and the communists never got there. Hong Kong still use traditional Chinese writing. Southern (Cantonese speaking) China has always been more conservative and traditionalist than the north. I then ask, what's the religion of Hong Kong? People usually don't know, but somehow still know they have religion.
Buddhism? Buddhism was so big that Jackie Chan heard of it for the first time in the movies. The Shaolin martial arts movies popular in the 1970s. Buddhism is primarily popular among celebrities. I believe primarily in generations that came after Jackie Chan's. Running on Karma (2003), to quote Wikipedia, "is ultimately a Buddhist parable about the nature of karma." This was made by filmmakers younger than Jackie.
Christianity is rather big in Hong Kong. But that's not what people refer to when they insist Hong Kong has (a) religion.
Hong Kongers practice a concoction of Ruism, Buddhism and folk religions. One tradition is to burn offerings. Typically in the form of fake money. Prosperity is big in China. They can also burn paper cars. In one 1980s Hong Kong comedy, a ghost comes driving in a paper car, proudly saying "latest model." Even Hong Kongers know it's silly. Chinese horror movies don't have (Western) vampires, but gong-si. Western vampires don't fit into traditional Chinese (superstitious) beliefs. "Hopping vampires" do.
Most people in Sweden don't believe in an afterlife, but also think it's nice to think there is. I guess not that different from Hong Kongers. The point being that belief isn't the same as religion.
Sorry for the rant.
If Rome had no native religion, how do you explain the phrase "religio Romana?" You are clearly painfully unfamiliar with the concept of religion as part of a cultural matrix instead of imposed upon it. This pattern was common to many pre-Christian religions in those times on several continents. A Celt would not have a formal name for their religion. It was just what they did, taught and directed by the druids with the King as the bridegroom of the land. It was their culture and custom. It was still religion unless you re-define the word to make it do what you want.
Also, it's not that the Christians wouldn't act like Romans so much as they refused to make arrangements similar to the Jewish people under Roman rule and basically pay to pray the way they saw fit. They wouldn't render unto Caesar that which was Caesar's, in other words.
I have seen this same person spout nonsense on a variety of topics. It's depressing when one considers how much misinformation he is spreading.
Who is this clown. Thanks for debunking him. I see thus happening both to the Bible & U.S. history in Oklahoma
Just Lies...all of it☝️😮...the truth is.... Religion is here to take your land, your money, and your kids,...... In that order..
So he is a professor 😅
Not exactly sure how I feel about you going after professor Roy.
I legitimately have you guys categorically in my head at the same level.
Roy doesn't have a dog in this fight.
However the council of nicea is outside of Roy's main expertise.
Yes the council of nicea absolutely had something to do with the trinity/pre-trinity Granted it may have been the performing of the Trinity. Calling it The Aryan dilemma or whatever you want to call it is fine. Nevertheless the council was directly determining the Divinity of Jesus.
The Apocrypha I've always heard of as "doubtful" so neither of you hit the uniform answer that I've gotten from Protestants. This might only be held by Protestants however that is around 50% of the Christian religion.
protestants are over 1,000 years too late to be relevant to any discussion of early or proto-christianity, or constantine, or anything discussed here.
I caught this guy lecturing on other topics and I thought he was a quack then too.
Every conspiracy theorist uses the Council of Nicea to spout their nonsense, despite the vast amounts of literature on the subject. Go buy a Eusebius, study church history, not Reddit and get an education and stop talking nonsense. Thanks for this video, Dan.
So too many moving parts is the same thing as resolving controversies so the first part isn't really wrong maybe over hyped in your view but hype or lack there of isn't true or false
I heard this guy (not Dan) claim that the reason why the modern country of Romania has that name is because the Ancient Romans massacred every one in that region ( 3 Million).
Is that true? where did he get that?
This is beyond nonsensical 😂
the crumb of truth is that the romans did conquer it. like a lot of other places.
and for complex historical reasons, the inhabitnts speak a romance language. like a lot of other places the romans conquered.
@@joshridinger3407 simpler explanation is that Latin became a global lingua Franca that independently evolved into different Romance languages
@@tsemayekekema2918 it became a lingua franca in many conquered territories, yes. i'm not sure how your explanation is simpler. it's the same explanation, only with some seeming need to erase the territorial conquest aspect.
@@joshridinger3407 I don't share any moral or political aversion towards conquest by massacre. Latin's adoption as lingua franca was largely unrelated to conquest - as for the first 600 years after conquest, Latin remained relegated to a localised & aristocratic language - Greek was the main lingua franca until Latin gained prominence too many centuries after conquest.
I don't get the obsession with making everything a genocide-related conspiracy theory
He is a professor and a scholar. Respect his authority.
a professor of political "science" which might be the only field more pseudoscientific than psychology
DIPPER PINES!
Your précise of the Arian heresy does orthodoxy a disservice, by your saying that, “there was a time Jesus did not exist”, paraphrase of Arius’ famous doggerel rhyme which upside ‘He’ instead of your Ιησούς. In fact orthodox views agree, since Jesus did come into existence as a human person born of the Virgin at a specific point in time. Who is eternal is Christ the eternal Logos who condescends to be incarnate as Jesus.
Tyrone!!!
Nicea - rinse repeat.
They are quite creative in their blatant mistepresentation though.
Yep
The more ignorant the speaker is, the more confidently he (or she ... but its nearly always he) spouts their nonsense. Mr Dunning and Mr Kruger would be impressed.
That was just bad
Who is this guy and why is he getting this so wrong?
Just found out he is Dr. Roy Casagranda. He teaches political science, is not a Bible historian nor a historian of the early Christian church.
@@OldMotherLogo Or a historian of anything.
dipper!
Someone hasn't read Plato's Republic which was a wide spread text among the elites. Sorry Dan you are wrong about this one. While what is being said is simplified for consumption he is correct is the broad strokes.
Please read Plato's Republic and educate yourself
I’m sure I’m going to regret asking this, but: what does Plato’s Republic have to do with this?
LOL😂😂😂
Plates republic.
Written 375 BCE
Council of nicaea was 325 CE
700 years apart.
Greek philosophy had a huge impact on Christianity, but none of Platos writings were ever considered scripture by the Christians.
@@langreeves6419 "none of Plato's writings were considering scripture" this is what is known as a non sequitur. No one has said or even implied that the workers of Plato were considered scripture. I suggest that you actually contemplate what is being said before commenting.
@@nw42 Plato's Republic is Machiavelli's "The Prince" before Machiavelli. It openly advocates for using religion to control the population. As one commenter has already pointed out Plato (in particular Neo-Platonism) was a strong influence on early Christianity. Honestly it always has been (just to various degrees).
The early church fathers openly acknowledge and supported Plato's advocacy of using religion to manipulate the populous. Attempting to deny it is folly.
These woke professors…
"Woke professors" like Dan McClellan?
@@ricksamericana749woke political scientists.
At least Dr Dan tries to be tethered to realistic and rarely ever allows wokeness interfere with description of historical reality
@@ricksamericana749
Nope.. dan is not a woke professor
He is a legend🤔😘
@@jhake67 he's definitely woke-but I was complimenting him-not a woke professor, just a scholar who coincidentally happens to be woke, unlike that political scientist who can't be bothered to fact check
@@tsemayekekema2918 Wokeness is not translated as "spreading bullshit" unless your graven idols include a convicted felon.
When in doubt:
*Blame it on Constantine*