this is my first time WRITING a comment, rather than the standard thumbs-up (or down). I, for one, appreciate the absolutely unwavering commitment you have to present your material in an unbiased manner. I've devoured your videos, whether watching one episode or 8 hours of episodes. I cannot even deduce your specific religious affiliation. Consider this a blessing to so many of us who just want to know history in a format simple enough for anyone. And one more thing! My 7 yr old granddaughter stays 3-4 nites per week and loves the stories and the beautiful artwork that accompany each lesson. She is considered to be "gifted" and is easily digesting the great material and expounds on what she is learning to the degree that my family and friends are bewildered at her genuine enthusiasm. Two enthusiastic thumbs up!! one teeny tiny suggestion--- you sometimes overuse the word "ethos," without defining exactly what it is. We will wait for your response ;-)

@RyanReevesM

8 жыл бұрын

+Bonnie Cross // Hey there! Very kind of you to give such a wonderful response and I'm flattered by it. I enjoy making them for folks and it sounds like your granddaughter is much like my daughter (also 7, who also loves the art). You're probably right about the word 'ethos'. For me, that word just means an overall tone in the culture, or an overall perspective that may not be expressed over and over because everyone shares the view. So we could say today that America has a certain ethos (individual liberty), while the middle ages has its own (hierarchy and submission to rulers). Nothing more than that, when I say it. :)

@Michelle-tf2td

8 жыл бұрын

+Bonnie Cross I agree with your comment!

"Quakers are officially called "The Society of Friends". The word "quaker" was originally a derogatory term used by King George (I think) to William Penn, who would not take his hat off in deference to his majesty. Penn told the King that instead of worrying about silly thing like hats, he should be "Quaking before the Lord." The King then responded "Get this quaker out of here!" So at first, "Quaker" was actually a slur. Now, although we still are called "Friends," we are also called "Quakers" by many people, including ourselves!"

Very good documentary session! You provide many interesting information which helps us to understand History better. I enjoy your sessions very educative! Thank You for sharing!!

@RyanReevesM

9 жыл бұрын

Glory Dey // Thanks, Glory Dey. Glad you enjoyed them. :)

When will you do a video on the Jehovahs Witnesses and the Mormons?

Thank you for your informative lectures! I really appreciate the time and effort you have put into this educational series.

The more I look into my faith, the more I am unsure about what I identify as.

@RyanReevesM

8 жыл бұрын

+NPHfann // If you're an American (or even from the West as a whole) this is pretty common. A lot of these earlier traditions today are mashed up in various groups. At least in America, there was a 'melting pot' in terms of denominational distinctives as there was ethnic backgrounds.

@michellemassacre999

8 жыл бұрын

I converted to Roman Catholicism recently (from Baptist/Protestant/Other) to at least identify with one of the most ancient historical expressions of the faith. Whether or not I actually agree with everything the Church teaches is another matter altogether. We have the Bible today, more profusely disseminated than at any other time-period in history; I think we ignore that at our own peril. Faith in Christ is what is ultimately required, everything else is secondary. Furthermore, it is my personal belief that all churches (whether they know it or not) are Catholic/Universal (of which the Roman tradition is only one among many). Love your videos Ryan, thanks for making them!

@BrandonLeTourneauTheFirst

7 жыл бұрын

Sounds like you should be Anglican my friend.

@claudermiller

7 жыл бұрын

anglicans believe the king is the head of the church....what on earth does that have to do with scripture?

As a Quaker, this was a great video to see

Salve, Dr. Reeves. As a graduate in Classics and Philosophy from a West Coast school, I find your lectures very interesting and fun. I am glad I ran across, what I believe to be, your online class in church history. I am curious on whether or not you plan to do a lecture on the European Enlightenment period in the late 16th century? If you will, I hope you touch on the Invisible College, and in saying that, you might easily guess where I live. Note: I ask only because this Invisible College believes itself to be promoting Christian mystics, though I have seen Kabbalists and Eastern Hindu/Buddhist influences from within it. Also, do you ever touch on the Amanita Muscaria in European religions, specifically, the "Apples" of the various gardens in Christian and Odinist (Saga of the Volsungs) writings?

thanks for this short yet info filled lecture, I enjoyed it very much.

I'm aware that Marx and Engels referenced Muntzer as a Proto-Socialist, but I don't think their understanding is quite right. Based on the wording of the demands of the German peasantry in the 12 Articles, it does not appear than any of the demands in question seem Socialist or even Proto-Socialist. According to their wording, their demand is to have common access to rivers, streams, meadows and forests. They also demanded not to tax the inheritance of widows and orphans. Additionally, they demanded to be paid a wage and further that they no longer remain as serfs but as day laborers. That doesn't seem very Socialist to me. I think Marx and Engels merely read into the past in order to justify their political ethos. What do you think Dr. Reeves?

this is good. I came out of the IFB "church". scary childhood. glad that's over

Jesus Christ the same yesterday today and forever

Ryan, I have a few friends who are Primitive Baptists (an American counterpart of Strict and Particular Baptists in the UK) . Being of a Reformed persuasion, I share with them a lot as regards the doctrines of grace / Calvnistic soteriology. Yet the Primitive Baptists have a peculiar ecclesiology and historical perspective on their own movement. They claim that the conventional church history is written either by Roman historians or by Protestant historians who came out of the Romish church, and inherited some errors from it, etc. Primitive Baptists insist on their own, alternative church history, which they perceive as an unbroken succession of Baptist / immersionistic churches, which allegedly have held to the doctrines of grace down from the time of the apostles (who they claim, of course were "Primitive Baptists" as well). Have you encountered such view(s)? Do their claims have any validity actual history-wise?

@armymobilityofficer9099

7 жыл бұрын

Churches of Christ are similar. They focus on restoring the New Testament church.

21:15- Is there any instance in the Bible of someone baptizing themselves?

George Fox is one of my ancestors from my biological dad's side...

Dr. Reeves, I find myself as a modern day evangelical that agrees with all 5 of the Anabaptist Marks this makes me very uncomfortable in my current church. The more I grow in my faith and understanding the more I see many Christians around me as compromising especially ones with Government or Military positions. I feel like I need a different church being a radical and odd ball is not fun and most people are not up for the deep intellectual and spiritual growth debate. Any advice on a modern church where I can grow? And it also bothers me when Pastors like David Platt preach being radical yet don't question Christian involvement in war seems like they use the sermon on the mount to pick on worldly Christians but yet don't have a problem with keeping some of that worldly thinking in their own mind comments on that?

@RyanReevesM

7 жыл бұрын

Yes I think the issue is one many feel: on the one hand, some preach non-conformity while conforming on other issues, and the voice of Anabaptists has increased in recent years for this reason. When students ask me this, I do always point out that in Paul's churches (and churches in other NT letters) the lack of pure comfort is pretty obvious. The fact is, we are often a bunch of folks in church who normally would have reason to fight more than agree. We need prophetic voices to call out bias and inconsistency, but I think in the end the real mark of biblical love is being able to do this without breaking fellowship. This is always the goal, at least!

@John3.36

6 жыл бұрын

Independent Baptist or "Bible Churches" have many of the remnants of old Anabaptists in a modern context. Mennonite of course is the closest thing you will find.

Professor Reeves, Excellent video. I noticed you jumped right into the 1689 London Baptist Confession, which is cool; but is there any reason the 1644 London Baptist Confession wasn't mentioned in this video? Thank you in advance!

Muggles?

@michaelwhittaker4246

7 жыл бұрын

I think he misspoke and meant Muggletons. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muggletonianism

Spurgeon said, "History has hitherto been written by our enemies, who never would have kept a single fact about us upon the record if they could have helped it, and yet it leaks out every now and then that certain poor people called Anabaptists (Anabaptist was the name given to Baptists before the 16th century. "Ana" means "again," but the entire name, Anabaptist, was applied to those who believed and practiced what Bible-believing, separatist Baptists do today) were brought up for condemnation. From the days of Henry VIII to those of Elizabeth, we hear of certain unhappy heretics who were hated of all men for the truth's sake that was in them. We read of poor men and women, with their garments cut short, turned out into the fields to perish in the cold, and anon of others who were burnt at Newington for the crime of Anabaptism. Long before your Protestants were known of, those horrible Anabaptists, as they were unjustly called, were protesting for the 'one Lord, one faith, and one baptism.' No sooner did the visible church begin to depart from the Gospel than these m e n arose to keep fast by the good old way The priests and monks wished for peace and slumber, but there was always a Baptist or a Lollard tickling men's ears with Holy Scriptures, and calling their attention to the errors of the times. They were a poor persecuted tribe. The halter was thought to be too good for them. At times, ill-written history would have us think that they died out, so well had the wolf done his work on the sheep. Yet here we are, blessed and multiplied, and Newington sees other scenes from Sunday to Sunday As I think of the multitudes of your numbers and efforts, I can only say in wonder, 'What a growth!' As I think of the multitudes of our brethren in America, I can only say, 'What hath God wrought!' Our history forbids discouragements."

One of these things are not like the others. One of these things just doesn't belong

"Quaker" is technically a derogatory term in which the Friends of the Light eventually began to utilize themselves and even now.

I'm sorry to disturb you, but could tell me simply -What is a unitarian belief. -What does it depend on. -What book is the real root for it. Many thanks.

@ajahnbram1971

7 жыл бұрын

- Allah is God, - Jesus is mesenger, not god - Bibble old version but unitarian cristian dont beliave muhammad, yeah cause we now many propeth is from israel

@SettingTheLowestBarPossible

7 жыл бұрын

You are orders of magnitude wrong on Classical (or Biblical) Unitarianism. -Unitarians believe that our father God (the Jewish Yahweh) is the only God. -They believe that Jesus is the Old Testament messiah the prophets refer to and that he was crucified and resurrected, atoning for the sins of the world. - The most concise statement of faith is found in the Racovian Catechism -The New Testament is their main reference if you actually read thier literature archive.org/details/racoviancatechis00reesuoft en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racovian_Catechism -This website does a really good job of explaining their beliefs in short form. www.biblicalunitarian.com/

Why you included the Baptist denomination as descendent from Anabaptism is beyond me. When you read their Confession, especially the 1677 (published in 1689), none of the five marks you list apply to them. The Baptists, specifically the Particular Baptists, arose out of Anglican Puritanism.

@RyanReevesM

5 жыл бұрын

I don't include them as part of the same heritage, though many assume their stories are connected. The reason to discuss them in the same lecture is, in fact, to point out how different their theology is. Not a few Anabaptist groups threw out traditional doctrines, and there is no personal or theological link between them and later Baptists. What was the issue, though, was that the practice of believers baptism was assumed THEN as a sign of Anabaptist radicalism. One of the first instincts of Baptists in London (as you point out) was to distinguish itself from other Puritans but also to show how their view of baptism was not Anabaptist. In short: I agree with you. :)

I believe what is written in Matthew 23:34 applies to Ryan Reeves, i.e., I believe He IS one of those teachers. Therefore, I am sending you prophets and wise men and teachers of the Torah.........................."

the first dated/recorded believers baptism is written by the Apostle Luke in the book of Acts 80-90 AD . as is often the case, "doctors" who pretend to know baptist history always leave out the scripture in their research and presentation , all the history of baptist's should begin with John " The Baptist"

I am a Jew and respect Quakers and Mennonites...They are the kindest people and righteous gentiles never harming anyone.שלום

@KINGPUTIN

7 жыл бұрын

motorhead Mennonites are notorious in Mexico for running Marijuana clear up to Canada, nice people though. - *TheKP* 🇷🇺

You say "Anti-Tradition, Anti-Hierarchy" like that's a bad thing. ;) "Bapitists"? at 17:40. 26:50 is that supposed to be Deleware (as a period variant) and not Delaware? 28:32 phyiscal--transposed s and i. Same frame: Chicago, APA, and Merriam-Webster all close up "hyper" with the root word it's prefixing; personally I would hyphenate it for the emphasis and parallelism with "anti-physical."

@RyanReevesM

9 жыл бұрын

Jenna Caruthers // Not at all. :) I'm a professor, so I always labor hard to make sure people understand why certain groups were rejected. I sometimes tease certain historical issues (or certain historical people) but that's more me just lightening the mood. In this case, if you hear anything in the tone of my voice it's likely just that I'm stressing how radical they were to these centuries. The others are just typos. Part of the plight of editing the video at 2:00am, I suppose. :) I'll add it to the list of things to polish later. Thanks for noticing them and sending a note, though.

So anabaptists then, remove theism and anarchists now. Yeah, as usual, as bad as religion can get, it's worse even without it. I grew up under communism. Whenever atheists have taken power, the bloodbath exceeds even Islam.

Why were Puritans so intolerant and evil?

This is a slightly different perspective than what I take. I think the weakness and disagreement of the romist theologians rippled with the alteration of popery. A freedom of descent became somewhat tolerated and gave rise to concepts that never was allowed to be spoken out loud before, at least between educated men behind closed doors. We also probably shouldn't ignore the men that was murdered by the 'church' prior to these movements. Did I miss John Hus here? Men that by their deaths and convictions got the topics at least acknowledged, even if their murders were justified by a sadistic cult trying to silence them. We can speak about Luther, but he for all practical reasons was a roman catholic when rome went into a 'new' version of itself. Basically the weakness and the inability of rome to declare a consistent theology probably did help spur new fundamentalism. Luther would have been murdered if it wasn't for disgruntle catholic theologians protecting him. The reformers were almost all educated priests of rome. Disillusioned with the faith that they swore an allegiance to and their life to serve. The question is, can we really even point two twenty or thirty causes? No. The lecturer was correct. It took almost the perfect storm to get us where we are today. I personally think all the faiths went to extremes, leaving exactly what they claimed they were about. But we shouldn't worry, the history books will clean it up.

Psssst.......Ryan.......at 17:50 in this video you have a caption than reads........"Unitarians, BAPITISTS (sic), and Quakers".........(I am your old mean spelling teacher from sixth grade and I am waiting to rap your knuckles for bad spelling!!!) Also you get a lump of coal this Christmas!!!

Dr. Reeves, I must admit I am disappointed you spent next to no time explaining Unitarianism and their heretical dogma... It leaves one thinking they're Christian when in fact they are deniers of Jesus Christ divinity and puts them squarely in the Jehovah Witness camp.

@RyanReevesM

7 жыл бұрын

Good question. Short answer is this is not a theology or apologetics course but a simple survey of history. But not discussing something I would not think is grounds for assuming the views are altogether fine. I get accused of being an apologist for X or Y all the time because I discuss topics historically and try to get their views right on their own terms. But that's jus being an historian I always say. :)

@DaneStolthed

7 жыл бұрын

Ryan Reeves Point taken, I do enjoy your videos nevertheless. Thank you for your response God bless you sir.

@JerryStanaway

7 жыл бұрын

The doctrine of the Trinity is not found in scripture. I am a "heretical" Mennonite who denies the doctrine of the Trinity, kind of like Adam Pastor who was excommunicated by Menno Simons.

Pssst.....HORRORS......Ryan......at 26:55 your have ANOTHER caption that reads....."DELEWARE (sic) Valley".......the bad news is that.......Santa is (now) going to withhold your coal lump since he is also a stickler for good spelling!!! As your old mean spelling teacher, I will give you more raps on your knuckles!!!

I think you've neglected the Mennonites...

@g.thomashart9368

5 жыл бұрын

Great, you're comparing anabaptists to Nazis. May I ask, why? Do you not understand the teachings of the Christ? He did not preach Naziism in any fashion, and DID teach what we now identify as Christianity. Perhaps you should learn how to teach without casting ungrounded aspersion upon a particular group of Christians. Or is that your intention? That is what we call EVIL.

That Baptists' should be grouped with Unitarians and Quakers...

They are not heretics according to Torah....lol. Anabaptists along with us Jews were also persecuted and killed for not following Constantine and Luther's dogma and creeds...

I converted to the religion of the Greek Philosophers...the greatest flowering of human intellect the world has ever seen. Both Plato and Aristotle impacted Christianity.

If God really wanted to save us, then why didn't he make his message more clear? So that there would pretty much only be one church (with maybe a few minor heretical churches).

@VieiraFi

5 жыл бұрын

What if there is one trve chvrch (the Roman Catholic Chvrch), and the other "chvrches" are minor heresies? That would make sense, right? Then we would be able to know exactly what is the message of God.

hi ryan, im a Dutch humanist. that means i believe in the sanctity of humankind. jesus thought we could become gods/immortal before the end of times. this is the Dutch principle: work the truth until its no longer viable. do you agree?

@mariussielcken

7 жыл бұрын

secondly, could you define the difference between speech and action/violence?

Baptist came from John the Baptist.

You blasted Jesuit, your hissing against our forefathers will cost you in the day of the Lord. To deny the biblical revival that God spread across the plains of Europe is to say that papist tyrants Guzman and Tezla are sinless for killing millions of Bible-Believers during Romes countless inquisitions. Mat 12:34 O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh. Mat 12:35 A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things. Mat 12:36 But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. Mat 12:37 For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.