2000 Years in 5 Minutes: The History of Christianity in Images

[umaara100]

Brother ,you are a tresure chest of wisdom.So the greek rite is the oldest or should i say the Eastern rite.I still hope that both Eastern and LATIN CHURCHES can come back together

[NicholasMyra]

I'll tell you what, adrenacrumb: If you really want to be an internet polemicist, go read the primary sources yourself, conform them to your pre-conceived notions, then come back here and rant about Big Pray conspiracies. You can even have the same annoying sass you insist on projecting now, I won't stop you.

At least then you'll know about what you're distorting instead of just making stuff up based on the History Channel and Google.

[jovanj777]

You should just put picture of Pope with picture of Hitler.

Why?

Why did pope proclaimed fr Alozije Stepaniac saint? Man who was behind genocide on Orthodox Serbs, whose priests themselves slaughtered Serbian children in cruellest death camp of all times - Jasenovac.

There will be no unity with ones who slaughtered Orthodox for centuries!

[Loiginer]

@jovanj777

I think that he just show things that get part into Christianity History, good or not...

[RevolutionManJP]

brilliant video thought it was well rounded :)( for lack of a better word)

[SAYYOURROSARY]

The history of Eastern Heretics would have been a better title . The East has NO authority to exsist . They reject Catholicism and the Papacy . They have 'leaders"

but no authority . Just because most Catholics followed the heretical Vatican 2

Don't make you any more legit . Your "leader" is fully on board with the NWO

[Loiginer]

@SAYYOURROSARY

Christ is our "leader", not a bishop...

And the "leaders" that you say, are the sucessors of the apostles, so please, more respect...

[BFSmash]

there seems to a theme of those working for the various churches represented in those pictures, always wearing nicer clothes than those kneeling before them, or gathered around them.

nothing new about those draped in silk telling those covered in rags how to live.

[aphidjonesesq]

@BFSmash You're a goof.

[adrenacrumb]

@davidpwithun Yea I know there are a lot of false or embellished myths about it. Picture of people burning must be what you mean, wasn't sure.

[february17able]

Why show the popes?? they were not christian.

[Reazzurro90]

@february17able

Is that a joke?

[Reazzurro90]

@february17able

Is it another one of those nonsensical books that says that Constantine and various popes injected ancient Roman pagan and old Babylonian concepts into Christianity?

Because I wonder then why, nowhere in the history of the Church, do we see anything like modern Evangelicalism.

[february17able]

@Reazzurro90 Answer to your question-yes. Papal worship is worship of Nimrod, Semeramis and Tummuz. The book shows this. Eusebias, was not vocal against the Emperor on his errors. The information collaborated by Alberto Rivera former fourth Vow Jesuit who read the material in the deep volts of the vatican library. Modern Evangelicalism is leading people to the Papacy. The book is not nonsensical.

[davidpwithun]

@february17able That's an awful book; terrible writing, even worse history...

[Reazzurro90]

@davidpwithun

Yeah but if it defines itself as proper history then it MUST be true!

[february17able]

@davidpwithun Your reading revision history. That book is more truthful then the revision history of today. Go read it.

[february17able]

@davidpwithun, again, history is revised, so maybe you are not getting true history. The early church in the East are very good. Just not the papacy who ware the Dagon Fish hats, hahahahahaha

[Reazzurro90]

@february17able

And what does it say?

[february17able]

@Reazzurro90 Go read it. Do your research. I am not going write in this little box that you tube offers. In other words, I do not have enough space.

[Reazzurro90]

@february17able

Dear sir.

I have been reading Church history. And it keeps leading me back to ancient Christianity. The realization of that was very sad for me. But it's true. Evangelicalism doesn't have a leg to stand on.

[ThanksStJoseph]

Who was the man a 4:44?

[davidpwithun]

@ThanksStJoseph That was Haile Selassie I, the last emperor of Ethiopia and the last Christian emperor. It was through his efforts that Ethiopia was able to remain the only African nation not to fall into the hands of a colonial power.

[ThanksStJoseph]

@davidpwithun Thanks!

[Reazzurro90]

@davidpwithun

That's a bit of a stretch. Ethiopia was officially an Italian colony in 1936. It was the British that expelled the Italians, not Haile Selassie.

[davidpwithun]

@Reazzurro90 Ethiopia was occupied by the Italians after the Second Italo-Abyssinian War in 1936; there is a difference, though, between colonization and occupation -- for instance, the United States currently occupies Iraq and Afghanistan but has not colonized either. The Italians had the intent of colonizing and began the process, but this was thwarted by the resistance movement led by Haile Selassie. The resistance movement, with the help of the British, expelled the Italians in 1941.

[Reazzurro90]

@davidpwithun

This is nit-picking.

For all intents and purposes, Italy declared it a colony, and annexed it into Italian East Africa, put infrastructure, governors, built schools, took monuments, thus to me it's a colony. The fact that the hypocrtitical British, French, and Americans said otherwise does little to change the fact.

The resistance movement at any rate would have never been successful without British assistance. It would have been crushed otherwise, like in Libya.

[MapleAnglican]

@Reazzurro90 The problem with your claim is that most nations never recognized Italian *sovereignty* over Ethiopia, while for example with the British Colonies of Kenya, Nigeria, and India, British sovereignty was full recognized. King Victor Emmanuel III did use the title "Emperor of Ethiopia" if I am not mistaken, but very few countries recognized his claim to that title, most notably the Irish Free State.

[Reazzurro90]

@MapleAnglican

I referred to the lack of recognition by major powers. But I believe my point still stands. Worst case scenario, without the war, the British would have officially recognized it. Heaven knows Winston Churchill didn't give a damn about some backwards kingdom in Africa.

[MapleAnglican]

@Reazzurro90 In regards to Churchill, you are most likely right. Had the elections in 1945 gone for the Conservatives and not Labour then India and Pakistan might have not seen there independence for another decade. The British Empire is oddly unique in that it didn't really collapse like many other Empires, but dismantled itself in a fairly organized fashion.

[Reazzurro90]

@MapleAnglican

Yeah but if Churchill won reelection in 1945, he would have probably fought to hang on to the Empire. Labour really wanted to dismantle it. It was probably the wise decision in the end, imperialism ended up costing Britain more than it was worth.

[MapleAnglican]

@Reazzurro90 Probably. His actions after he took office again in 1951 would support that. However, by 1945 the British people really wanted a change. Rarely recognized outside of Britain are the achievements of Clement Atlee's government of 1945-50.

[Reazzurro90]

@MapleAnglican

By the way I hope my response didn't seem as angry as I come to think it did. I certainly didn't intend it so, sorry.

[adrenacrumb]

I didn't see any torture devices, you must have missed about 1000 or so years there. ;)

[davidpwithun]

@adrenacrumb I hope that's a joke and you're not that badly misinformed about Christian history :P

[adrenacrumb]

@davidpwithun Are you saying the Catholic Church never used torture? I'll admit I overshot the timeline but it happened still for quite a long time.

[Loiginer]

@adrenacrumb

And man, remember that Rome did not be part of the Orthodoxy after 1054, so, we ORTHODOXS have nothing with it! we just had been persecuted by muslims, communists and more heretics!

[adrenacrumb]

@Loiginer I'm seeing that the Orthodox Church members seem to have a very strong sense they are the only people on Earth who should be called Christians.

[Loiginer]

@adrenacrumb

There are "christians" who deny the Holy Trinity, there are "christians" who are in favor of abortion and homossexual wedding, there are "christians" who ordain womem as bishops, there are "christians" who still save the Saturday... so yes, I think that we should call ourselves as Christians in a very strong sense...

Great Huge friend ^^

[adrenacrumb]

@Loiginer Trinity is kind of iffy. I understand where you are coming from you think your interpretation is the only right one but so does every other group, so from any sort of outside perspective none of you are any more Christian than the other. The last real Christian died on a cross.

[adrenacrumb]

@Loiginer The only reason your line of 'true' Christianity won out over the others is because yours got military backing and all of the others were disposed of. Yours had to power to destroy 'heretics'.

[NicholasMyra]

@adrenacrumb If that's true, then why did it win out even when the military and imperial throne were backing the heretics? How did the pre-imperial church win out over heresies like proto-Gnosticism, Marcionism, Antinomianism, Circumcellianism, Docetism and Ebionitism?

Why do you have to change history to conform to your tastes? David admits that the inquisition happened. He admits that persecutions happened. He doesn't change history to suit his tastes, but you have no problem flat-out lying.

[adrenacrumb]

@NicholasMyra When was there an imperial throne backing other sects of Christianity? It won out because it had the means to completely annihilate their traditions and enforce it

[NicholasMyra]

1. Arians, Monothelites and Iconoclasts, to name a few.

2. No, stop making silly Gibbonesque statements.

[adrenacrumb]

@NicholasMyra In the future can you do me a favor and read my comments before you say anything? My point was no other sect was given the power to rise up and maliciously shut down other sects. What you commented was blah blah blah I don't like to read.

[NicholasMyra]

@adrenacrumb Orthodoxy triumphed over those other sects before it had imperial power.

That was my point.

[adrenacrumb]

@NicholasMyra Well your point was a straw man to my original argument, so well done there. You still aren't making comments that even remotely address what I said.

[adrenacrumb]

@NicholasMyra As far as I'm aware none of the sects you just mentioned had an army to stamp the others out, it didn't win out so much as stay alive until it had imperial backing and then took the rest out. Constantine could just as well have chosen Arianism over Catholicism, he thought about it.

[NicholasMyra]

@adrenacrumb It did far more than stay alive before the imperial backing, it grew.

[adrenacrumb]

@NicholasMyra That was a poor phrasing but Constantine choose to condemn and exile anyone promoting Arianism after the First Council deemed it heresy.

[adrenacrumb]

@NicholasMyra If Arianism had been selected for protection by Rome then Arianism would be the largest sect and what most people consider 'true' Christianity. I have no clue what you read but it's obvious you are trolling if you disagree with that.

[NicholasMyra]

@adrenacrumb 1. Emperors backed Arianism too. The balance was swayed back to Orthodoxy because of men like St. Athanasius the Great.

2. You seem to view Rome as some arbitrary, purely political entity that just threw its muscle around with no precision. I'll say it again; rather Gibbon-esque.

3. The Church of the East, outside of Rome's dominion, was massive, stretching all the way to China. History can't be shoved into simple little generalizations.

[adrenacrumb]

@NicholasMyra 1. straw man

2. straw man

3. straw man

[adrenacrumb]

@NicholasMyra I'll give you a hint, if you want to address my argument you need to show Rome never discriminated against other sects of Christianity, whether you like it or not that is a major factor to your religions success.

[NicholasMyra]

@adrenacrumb Your argument was that Orthodoxy won out because Rome backed it. I demonstrated that there were clearly other lead factors, and you then changed your position to "a major factor." That's because you're learning the history on the spot as we go along, and have to modify your position to fit the new facts.

[adrenacrumb]

@NicholasMyra All you are doing is playing games with my words.

[adrenacrumb]

@NicholasMyra Is it really worth your time to just argue semantics with me? Surely you didn't think that I meant that was literally the only reason.

[NicholasMyra]

@adrenacrumb Do you acknowledge that the eventual consensus of Bishops had to do with what Rome decided?

[adrenacrumb]

@NicholasMyra There is no way Catholicism stays the course if Arianism was chosen by Rome, I'm sorry. Theodosius completely annihilated any form of religion left in all of Egypt, Asia Minor and Syria. There is no way Catholicism would have recovered, they would have burned all of the Church Fathers works just like the did you Arius.

[adrenacrumb]

@adrenacrumb did to*

[NicholasMyra]

@adrenacrumb Theodosius didn't do that, though not for lack of trying. There was tons of paganism left after Theodosius, as attested to by, for example accounts of St. Cyril's reign in Alexandria. Will you please stop making silly generalizations?

[adrenacrumb]

@NicholasMyra It is in the Catholic Encyclopedia.

[NicholasMyra]

@adrenacrumb So?

[adrenacrumb]

@NicholasMyra So why would the Catholics lie about that?

[NicholasMyra]

@adrenacrumb 1. many Catholic writers didn't like the Eastern Roman Empire very much because it clearly out-competed the Pope for authority in many situations. Undermining the ligitimacy of, and ascribing excessive bloodthirstiness to, Eastern Roman Emperors was a practice of both Catholics and anti-"Rome" Protestants, and Enlightenment scholars, especially during the 19th Century.

2. That said, I think this is just a case of the 1911 Encyclopedia being an outdated, general source; not lying.

[adrenacrumb]

@NicholasMyra Okay so why don't we have a single shred of Arius' writing and why would we have the writings of the Church Fathers if the same thing would have happened to their sect?

[NicholasMyra]

@adrenacrumb Because the Orthodox contended earnestly for the faith once and for all delivered to the saints, and won back Rome.

Also: Catholic Encyclopedia isn't a very good source for Eastern Christian history. It's from an outdated, late 19th Century Western Euro-centric perspective that is very hostile to the East.

[adrenacrumb]

@NicholasMyra They don't get Rome, that is the argument, Rome never helps them.

[NicholasMyra]

@adrenacrumb Rome did help them, but Rome stopped helping them because, each time, the Orthodox won out in Rome. That is not the same as saying "Rome made them win", because Rome has to be on their side in the first place. Sheesh.

[adrenacrumb]

@NicholasMyra What is a good source?

[NicholasMyra]

@adrenacrumb It's always good to read the primary sources, or contemporary histories. I'd recommend checking out Socrates Scholasticus, for example.

[adrenacrumb]

@NicholasMyra Well even that source says Theodosius spent a huge amount of time working to establish Catholicism and dispose of the Arians.

[NicholasMyra]

@adrenacrumb Theodisus did, indeed. Fortunately or unfortunately, depending upon the perspective, he did not succeed.

How did you manage to read Socrates Scholasticus in context in only a few minutes?

[NicholasMyra]

@adrenacrumb This is getting quite redundant; it seems you won't be moved from a reactionary position against the Imperial Church, regardless of how polemical and generalized your position is exposed to be. I do hope you read the primary sources, and come to a more balanced, or at least a more directly informed, view. I also hope, for the sake of your well-roundedness as a person, that you stop engaging in youtube polemics.

I'm ending this discussion. Goodbye for now.

[adrenacrumb]

@NicholasMyra You are the one who messaged me first guy, it seems to have become your forte as well. byebye

[adrenacrumb]

@NicholasMyra Basically what you just said is I shouldn't respond to people like you. Wise advice indeed, I shall consider it.

[NicholasMyra]

@adrenacrumb We actually do have 3 letters Arius wrote... but I already know that you doubt the authenticity of any ancient letter I happen to cite... after our Constantine fiasco. ;)

[adrenacrumb]

@NicholasMyra "During all his reign Theodosius took severe measures against the surviving remnants of paganism. In 388 a prefect was sent around Egypt, Syria, and Asia Minor for the purpose of destroying temples and breaking up pagan associations; it was then that the Serapeum at Alexandria was destroyed."

[NicholasMyra]

@adrenacrumb Yes. Many temples and pagan shrines were destroyed. But Paganism was hardly wiped out.

[adrenacrumb]

@NicholasMyra Your entire tradition would have been wiped clean just as it was with everyone else's heretical writing.

[adrenacrumb]

@NicholasMyra I'm fairly sure the Catholics know what they did.

[adrenacrumb]

@NicholasMyra If you think Catholicism stays after completely removing it from Egypt, Syria and Asia Minor and then burning all of your Church Fathers work to the ground never to be seen again then you are crazy, it's that simple.

[NicholasMyra]

A large chunk of Orthodox material was, in fact, destroyed by Emperors all over the Empire. Why do you think there are so few icons left from before the 8th Century?

[adrenacrumb]

@NicholasMyra Do I need to put that in caps for you? Maybe you should go get your 9 year old sister to read it for you and tell you what I've said because you can't seem to do that yourself.

[NicholasMyra]

@adrenacrumb You don't need to get so frustrated. It's just youtube.

[adrenacrumb]

@NicholasMyra You fall into the category of stupid intellectual quite nicely, if you ever figure out to read what has been said you may be dangerous.

[NicholasMyra]

@adrenacrumb Ooh, sassy. Someone's been reading TIME magazine.

[larkingclogger]

@Loiginer I'm assuming, correct me if I'm wrong, you consider the actions of the Church Fathers under Constantine to be part of your religions foundation. So why did these leaders believe Constantine was given an image of Christ and that he told him to use his name to slaughter his enemies and condone this action? That was where Christianity completely lost contact with the teachings of Jesus.

[Loiginer]

@larkingclogger

People do wrong things, not the Church, not Christianity

And Rome also did very other bad things, theese leaders are sucessors of the apostles, don't matter what they do, they are still sucessors...

A very good example to see is that priest Rasputin that traited the Holy Russian Imperial Family...

Also the Apostles sometimes did not correspond to Jesus teachings, but they are human, and by this the make mistakes, human mistakes....

[NicholasMyra]

@larkingclogger Do you mean "typos of God" when you say "image of Christ"?

[adrenacrumb]

@Loiginer I will also agree with you from what I have found the Orthodox Church itself has no history of violence at all, which I certainly commend it for. It is a shame the nonviolent groups are always the ones attacked, if all sects of religion were like the Orthodox Church the world would be a much better place.

[Loiginer]

@adrenacrumb

Not for our glory, but we follow Christ, the Lord of Peace, we forgive, do not persecute, also if people who say they are orthodox and do bad things, they are not doing ORTHODOXY!

And you are right, there is nothing of violence history at all, but roman catholicism and protestantism made many inquisitions, fights...

Actually, we suffered with the cruzades, at the 4º one, which Rome had invaded Constantinople and attacked Hagia Sophia =/

But we forgive, and may the Lord bless all

[XDragasesX]

Amazing, it had everyone from Justinian, Henry the VIII to Adolph...and everything, well done.