Let me clarify something about the Greek words ομοούσιος, ομοιούσιος, ανόμοιος. (Homoousios, homoiousios, anomoios). I am going to use the Greek lettering for the words , that's why I wrote them in the same order in English in the bracket. Now, ομοούσιος means "the same essence, substance (or material). So, in the theological context , ομοούσιος means that the Son is of exactly the same essence as the Father. Ομοιούσιος is a compound word from the words όμοιος that means similar ( in an attribute) and the word ουσία that means substance, essence. So, the word ομοιούσιος means that someone or something is of a similar (but not the same necessarily) substance or essence with something or someone else. Ομοιούσιος thus, means that something has a similar attribute(s) with something else, close enough to be the same but not the same. In a theological context it means that the Son is of similar substance as the Father but not the same. As you can see, that's bordering polytheism because it makes Jesus a different Divine being than the Father. Ανόμοιος means that something or someone is not similar with something or someone, that is different. Όμοιος κατ' ουσιαν (homoios kat' ousian) means similar in essence. Όμοιος κατ' ενέργειαν means similar in energy (or energies). So, by using the word όμοιος , it is implied that we are talking about two similar but different persons and in effect, essentially 2 deities. I hope I helped.

All are full of such interesting timelines/background links. Thank you, fascinating so much is unknown and thus misconceptions have been handed down as truths.

@priscillajervey6134

7 жыл бұрын

Edna Harper This is so true!

hello Ryan, what is the difference between the nicene creed and the apostle creed? They are similar in verbage.

Thanks

Ryan, one thing that I would dearly like more information about, whether it be another of your great lectures or a push in the right direction as to where to get some good information, is the issue of the persecution of heretics. At a popular level I hear a lot of people say that after Nicea there began a great persecution of heretics starting with Arians. It is spoken about as if thousands upon thousands were killed. I've struggled to find any source that I can trust for these claims. It certainly seems that some form of persecution existed in the form on banishment and confiscation of property, etc but I just can't get a feel for how much killing was involved.

@RyanReevesM

7 жыл бұрын

Not killed, no. Suppression is not a good thing but it's different than persecution. Most of the claims about major persecution of Arians or other heretics, of course, comes from the medieval period where such things did happen. Mostly what happens here after Nicaea is that both sides (Nicene and Arian) gain political advantage and deprive the other side of their churches. That's not me ignoring serious problems of persecution or violence, but when viewed as a whole it's not a slaughter of any one side.

@snoopster77

7 жыл бұрын

Thanks Ryan. There is so much misinformation surrounding Nicaea that it can take a while to wade through to the truth.

You should do some lectures on The Crusades and on The Knights Templar, would be interesting!

@RyanReevesM

9 жыл бұрын

They're in the works now, actually. :) I'll have two full videos on the Crusades alone and their aftermath. I'm essentially going through and fleshing out the playlist for Early and Medieval Church History, and that was one of the gaps I never completed last year. There is some stuff on the downfall of the Templars, btw, in the video on the Avignon Papacy (starting around 19 minute mark). But that's how they get destroyed by Philip, essentially.

@jamiegordon7413

9 жыл бұрын

I've always been interested in that specific time period, but unfortunately the state which I live in doesn't support history before the Renaissance in high-school. Would have really liked to take that course. Also Roman history and Catholic Church history, the span of 266 different popes over the course of 2000 + years keeps you going for a while eh?

@RyanReevesM

9 жыл бұрын

Jamie Gordon // Absolutely. I came to these fields mostly for the same reasons. I found that people either consider everything before 1400 'the dark ages', or those who enjoy serious history avoid the areas since there are so many misconceptions about it they would rather stick to more familiar eras.

@jamiegordon7413

9 жыл бұрын

On the contrary, I think the most interesting part of history is guessing and calculating possible scenarios which match the possible outcome / comparing it with what we actually DO know. Speaking of The Dark Ages, would be awesome if you did a kind of special series which debunk / theorize on things we don't actually know or just give your opinion on the situation, I would find that interesting since that is one of (in my own mind) the most interesting part of history.

It didn't end well for Arius. The emperor permitted Arius (who had taken refuge in Palestine) and many of his adherents to return to their homes, once Arius had reformulated his Christology to mute the ideas found most objectionable by his critics. The Synod of Jerusalem the following year restored Arius to communion. The emperor directed Alexander of Constantinople to receive Arius, despite the bishop's objections; Bishop Alexander responded by earnestly praying that Arius might perish before this could happen. He possibly died poisoned shortly after and his books were burn.

@RyanReevesM

8 жыл бұрын

+Aner Lucero // Thanks Aner. Great points to bring up (and ones I do hit on a bit in the videos that come after this). The story of Arianism is an interesting one because Arius and the two others who were exiled come back quickly. Arius then dies almost immediately (Constantine, too). What follows is not so much Arianism, as the textbooks always say, but rather a hybrid. There are people who felt Arius had good points though they didn't want to be associated with him directly. So the debate carries on, though the word 'Arian' was always used by pro-Nicaea folks to reject even the later adaptations of his views. Needless to say, this is the kind of messy history I like. :) Something about the humanity of these issues--flaws and all--makes it far more interesting than the saintly stories we sometimes tell of certain heroes.

@robertrecchia2642

8 жыл бұрын

Read my post

@paul_is_theantichrist5398

7 жыл бұрын

Jesus had said "Those who LOVES Me Follow my teachings" John 14:24 "I was sent ONLY to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." ....." It is not right to take the children's bread and toss it to THEIR DOGS(gentiles }Matthew15:22-28 .. Bible says these words come from mouth of Jesus himself! To my knowledge, the Biblical silence on the gentile’s salvation parallels its silence concerning the issue of the ‘trinity’, and your alleged divinity of Jesus . I have not come across a single Biblical passage where Jesus is explicitly reported to have claimed to be God; but he had instead repeatedly announced the complete antithesis of this (c.f. Matthew 24:36, 26:39, 23:10-11 Mark 12:28-34, John 17:3, 20:16 (“ …. I ascend to my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God”) etc.).

@davidfrisken1617

6 жыл бұрын

The author of John has him saying "I am". But, considering it is the youngest and wackiest of all gospels, it is unlikely to have been part of an earlier tradition.

It is at this point in Church history that I tend to think of it as a man-made institution and cease to see the glory and wonder that began with Jesus. I find early history utterly fascinating, and history after this point to be just the words of man. I, of course want to know more and more. To me, the layman, this all seems like political discussions over the semantics. It seems "un-Christian" to completely ostracize or ex-communicate an entire group of worshipers because they do not agree with others on such a point. A point that is so easily chalked up to , "That is how it is. It defies definition in human language." So it reads like the church version of a power struggle among men, which is why I tend to look less favorably on the church after this point. To a Christian, I imagine this opinion is seen as blasphemous. But it is, none-the-less, the way things go in my mind. I really, REALLY appreciate your lecture for causing me to give more critical thought to these things. Great show! Thanks!

@davidfrisken1617

6 жыл бұрын

Jesus was a strict Jew, who referred to gentiles as dogs. His part in the story disappeared with Paul and the associated forgeries.

Quantum Theory here . All is one .

Antioch was a very agitated city. and very rebellious.

The impression could arise that the Trinitarian dogma is in the last analysis a late 4th-century invention. In a sense, this is true . . . The formulation ‘one God in three Persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century.“The Council of Nicaea met on May 20, 325 [C.E.]. Constantine himself presided, actively guiding the discussions, and personally proposed . . . the crucial formula expressing the relation of Christ to God in the creed issued by the council, ‘of one substance with the Father.’ . . . Overawed by the emperor, the bishops, with two exceptions only, signed the creed, many of them much against their inclination.”“Stephen, filled with the Holy Spirit, gazed into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at God’s right hand. ‘Look! I can see heaven thrown open,’ he said, ‘and the Son of man standing at the right hand of God.’”Acts 7:55,56. What did this vision reveal? Filled with God’s active force, Stephen saw Jesus “standing at God’s right hand.” Clearly, then, Jesus did not become God again after his resurrection to heaven but, rather, a distinct spiritual being. There is no mention of a third person next to God in this account. Despite attempts to find passages of Scripture to support the Trinity dogma, Dominican priest Marie-Émile Boismard wrote in his book À l’aube du christianisme-La naissance des dogmes (At the Dawn of Christianity-The Birth of Dogmas): “The statement that there are three persons in the one God . . . cannot be read anywhere in the New Testament.”The dogma that Constantine championed was intended to put an end to dissensions within the fourth-century Church. However, it actually raised another issue: Was Mary, the woman who bore Jesus, “the Mother of God”?Veneration of the mother of God received its impetus when . . . the pagan masses streamed into the church. . . . Their piety and religious consciousness [that of pagans converted to Christianity] had been formed for millennia through the cult of the ‘great mother’ goddess and the ‘divine virgin.’”“You are to conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you must name him Jesus. He will be great and will be called Son of the Most High. . . . And so the child will be holy and will be called Son of God.”-Italics ours; Luke 1:31-35,That passage of Scripture clearly states that Mary was the mother of the “Son of God,” not of God himself. Could she have carried within her the One whom ‘the heavens themselves cannot contain’? (1 Kings 8:27) She never made such a claim. It is the teaching about the Trinity that has sown confusion over the identity of Mary. By proclaiming her Theotokos (a Greek word meaning “God-bearer”), or “Mother of God,” the Council of Ephesus, in 431 C.E., set the stage for Mary worship. The city of Ephesus where this church council was held had for centuries been at the heart of idol worship celebrating the fertility goddess Artemis.So it was that many aspects of the worship of the image of Artemis that “fell from heaven,” such as processions, were integrated into Mary worship. (Acts 19:35) Another practice that crept into Christian teaching was the use of images of Mary and others in worship.Images were unknown in the worship of the primitive Christians . . . The admission of images into the church in the 4th and 5th centuries was justified on the theory that the ignorant people could learn the facts of Christianity from them better than from sermons or books.”“You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them.” (Exodus 20:4, 5, The Holy Bible-New International Version) The apostle John wrote to first-century Christians: “Little children, guard yourselves from idols.”Are images, as the churches claim, simply a means of approaching and honoring what they represent? “At first,” states The Encyclopedia of Religion, “images may have served primarily didactic [teaching] and decorative purposes; at least, they were defended on such grounds. But soon they came to fill admittedly devotional functions. This was especially true of the icons that became a prominent feature of Eastern Orthodoxy.” However, the prophet Isaiah rightly asked: “To whom can you compare God? What image can you contrive of him?”-Isaiah 40:18.

I find this very interesting. I was raised a Jehovah’s Witness, which is basically the modern-day Ariens. So I understand their arguments on that side of it. And after several well really many years out, I’ve studied the other side of the argument in where the idea of the Trinity actually came from. It is in the wranglings of the church as you’re describing here, using the Scriptures as a basis for discussion, just as the Aryans did by the way. When I come away with is the fact that no one really knows the truth on the subject. You state that only God can come down and save. And my answer to that is why do you say that? Are you saying God cannot send a representative or create a representative in his name and that that is sufficient if he decides that that is how he will save you been kind? Isn’t God the one setting up the justice system in the first place? We’re not the angels that came down and represented him or Moses or anybody else that represented in his legal name literally his authority if you gave it to them? Of course God could save through just a human man. He doesn’t need to appear in a body himself. The Aryans could be right. Jesus could’ve been a perfect supernaturally designed sinless human, the provided the sacrifice to replace Adams lost position, as Paul described. Jesus did not have to be the Almighty Creator to see if human kind. That is an idea of the church. Or he could’ve been. That is also an idea of the church, one that was lost apparently in the debate This going back-and-forth and arguing and banishing people and killing people and calling people on Christian and all of this crazy corruptive junk that you were describing is why the Jehovah’s Witnesses exist. It’s why the Mormons exist. It’s why many people myself included look at the Catholic Church in the Orthodox Church as a prostate. We are not supposed to be arguing about this. Understanding God‘s relationship between the sun and the father is not essential nor really discussed as part of salvation. Yet the church would have you believe that you must agree to their dogmatic findings, or they will banish you. Or worse, back in the day. It turns my stomach to see this kind of dogmatic nonsense being portrayed as Christianity and it’s why will be no part of the churches of today, as they come from the church as of yesterday. Like the Jehovah’s Witnesses who demand agreement with their air in stand, the orthodox and Catholic churches demand agreement with just the opposite stand. I think the truth is that when Jesus returns all those people will be wrong. I do appreciate the video though and your knowledge and discussion of the historical aspects of this, I find it interesting and actually very sensual to know how the church was formed why it works the way it does, and where these doctrines come from. In my Pinyan they do not come from the Bible. They come from people trying to figure out what the Bible was saying and then arrogantly, almost narcissistically, forcing a dogmatic. Well I for one don’t agree with any of it. Not a person on this planet since the time of Jesus and his death, really knows his relationship with the father. I must I assume that is intentional on God’s part, if you really wanted us to know it would be very clear and it would’ve been part of the gospel and salvation. Of course none of those things are true when you read the Bible itself

I thought Arius taught that jesus was not even real but a false god represented as Serapis and that's why they called him a heretic

Let's be clear of one thing. Athanasius was equivilent to a mob boss that employed mafia style, street thug tactics to win his cause. He was a fugitive on the run for his life on 5 different occasions. He was also a master manipulator obsessed with his own ambition.If you really want to pull back the curtains & discover the historic details that took place between 318 & 381 A.D., I would highly recommend the book "When Jesus Became God" by RIchard Rubenstein.At least you'll be able to cut through the pro-Nicean bias & get a balanced take on much that will surprise you.That said, I'm enjoying this video series very much. It's the best church history lesson of come across & I've seen quite a few.

@Johnnycdrums

8 жыл бұрын

+Robert Recchia ; I wouldn't rely on one author alone, especially one that has such negative views for such a revered Saint of the Eastern Orthodox, Eastern Catholic, and Western (Latin) Catholic Church.

god who?

WHY should you care about an ancient Roman emperor? If you are interested in Christianity, you should know that Constantine’s political and religious maneuvers have affected the beliefs and practices of many churches right down to this day. 313 C.E., Constantine ruled over the Western Roman Empire, while Licinius and Maximinus ruled over the East. Constantine and Licinius granted freedom of worship to all, including Christians. Constantine protected Christianity, believing that the religion could unify his empire. * Constantine was thus appalled to find that the churches were divided by disputes. Eager for consensus, he sought to establish, and then enforce, “correct” doctrine. To win his favor, bishops had to make religious compromises, and those who did received tax exemptions and generous patronage. “Getting the ‘right’ version of Christian doctrine,” said historian Charles Freeman, “gave access not only to heaven but to vast resources on earth.” The clergy thus became powerful figures in worldly affairs. A result of Constantine’s alliance with the bishops was a religion with tenets that were part Christian, part pagan. It could hardly have been otherwise, since the emperor’s goal was religious pluralism, not the pursuit of religious truth. He was, after all, the ruler of a pagan empire. To please both religious camps, he adopted a stance of “conscious ambiguity in his acts and government in general,” wrote one historian. While professing to champion Christianity, Constantine kept one foot in paganism. For example, he practiced astrology and divination-occult activities that the Bible condemns.On the Arch of Constantine in Rome, he is shown sacrificing to pagan deities. He continued to honor the sun-god by featuring the deity on coins and promoting the sun-god cult. Late in life, Constantine even permitted a small town in Umbria, Italy, to construct a temple to his family and himself and to appoint priests to serve there.Constantine postponed his “Christian” baptism until a few days before his death in 337 C.E. Many scholars believe that he held back in order to retain the political support of both Christian and pagan elements within the empire. To be sure, his life record and the lateness of his baptism raise questions about the sincerity of his professed faith in Christ. However, one thing is certain: The church Constantine legitimized became a powerful political and religious entity, one that thus turned its back on Christ and embraced the world. Jesus said of his followers: “They are no part of the world, just as I am no part of the world.” (John 17:14) From this church-that was now worldly-sprang countless denominations.

@priscillajervey6134

7 жыл бұрын

Victoria merydiaz Vey very good! It ia always sooo refreshing to read informed and educated comments such as yours. I applaud you !

@davidfrisken1617

6 жыл бұрын

The church advised Constantine to leave his Baptism to late in life, because he had lots of evil to do as Emperor. That is he was still to ordain lots of murders, rapes, and other imaginable acts of sin.

I guess god could have cleared all this up by explaining that he was one god but really three gods or whatever. But because god doesn't exist, or thinks it's funny to watch dumb fanatics argue about how many fairies can dance on the head of a pin, he stayed totally silent on the matter--almost as if he was just a figment of your imagination.

@priscillajervey6134

7 жыл бұрын

Hanky Dubs Not a bad theory etc, really.

I think the Bible clearly states that Jesus is God's Word made flesh. Not God made flesh. Our school systems are failing on how to read. To simple.

@RyanReevesM

7 жыл бұрын

'...and the Word was God.' (John 1). Assuming the other perspective are foolish is not always the best opening to a conversation.

@mybuckhead

7 жыл бұрын

You could be right, but if we say the Bible is correct then we need to go by it, or trash it. You make your living from teaching, so your prospective is biased..

@ryan82scott

7 жыл бұрын

Proverbs 3:5.

@priscillajervey6134

7 жыл бұрын

Litte Stinker You are absolutly correct. To a discerning listner it obvious!

Arius was from Libya and he challenged the Catholic Church about the Father, son and the Holy Spirit. Arius was saying that the Father, the Son and the woman were three were not the same. However, the Catholic Church made the woman into a spirit. The Catholic Church lock up Arius, burn up his books. During this Nicea event is when the Church made Jesus into the Christ. When I was in College as a history major I ask one of my professors in Religion, did a Jesus exist. He said, the most knowledgeable historian cannot concretely say a Jesus did exist. Remember people the English didn’t have a letter J in their alphabet up until the1600s if a Jesus died for our sin, when we sinned and if a Jesus saves up. The question is from what? Jesus is the Sun because on Dec. 21 the Sun is at its lower in the sky and the Sun sit there for three days and guess what on Dec. 25 Jesus birthday. Or the Sun rise on the Third day, or the Sun rises and we in the north hemisphere start to get more daylight, right.

@RyanReevesM

8 жыл бұрын

fwrinkledsoles // If these are the things you learned in college, then you may be entitled to a refund. This is a mash-up of internet memes, random conspiracy theories, and bad information. Getting history from social media tends to lead you down the wrong path....