Thanks. Yeah that's a pet peeve of mine, too, and so wildly anachronistic I chose not to even give it much screen time and instead just reasserted what historians have always known to be the truth about Nicea.

Definitely. That stupid assumption of Constantine changing the church significantly has become popular among non-Christians and since the book Davinci code came out. I like how you continue to set the record straight in this video.

+John Kim Constantine was not mentioned in the movie in changing the church. At least as far as I remember. And not in they way you describe. The council of Nicaea was in the movie, and went on to say is was instrumental in choosing which "books" "gospels" would be in the NT, thus leaving some many??? out.

Lets not forget that Protestants started this concept....Also remember that Constantine was a heretic!

Ryan Reeves I have watch a number of you video's and they have all been great.Their is one ingredient that I find puzzling. You seem to skip over the undergroung church. What I mean from under groung is what we call today the bornagain Christians like me who are not part of any real groups.

Protestants explaining the early church provide good historians however they leave out the most important pieces in order to make the early church seem protestant...which it was not.

There isn't much important material left out, and thankfully the rewriting of Church history by the ever present paranoids in the R..C. organization has, thankfully, been left out. Vatican 1 should be all the material any honest person needs to renounce the self serving delusions that the R.C. organization is famous for. Add to this the way it absolutely butchers any reasonable understanding of contextual intent by the authors of the N.T. For example: developing the concept and anti-Gospel teaching of "purgatory" from 1 Cor 3.

WOW talk about lying to a guy!!!! The bishop of Rome has been the center of the Christian faith since Peter. It was most definitely a position held and has never been unheld since the death of Christ. Might want to brush up on your Christian history and quit spreading false information.

Lying? WOW talk about another desperate defense of the R.C. organization. I am always amazed how R.C.'s dispense with Paul and his service to Jesus Christ establishing the Church throughout the Greco/Roman Empire. He is the elephant in the room. Peter deferred to Paul, more than once; Gal 2.1-16, 2Pet 3.15-16. Also, who arrived in Rome first at the behest of the Lord? That would be Paul, Acts 23.11. Did Peter occupy the office of "bishop" when he finally arrived in Rome at the very last days of his life? The office of "bishop" was not a superior position to an apostle. Why would Peter ever want a title of less authority and influence? Also, Matthew 16.16-20 certainly Jesus calls Peter blessed, but the foundation of the true Church is Christ Himself, not any one particular believer. Eph 1.18-23 The revelation of who Jesus Christ is, this is the "Rock" upon which the Church is established and prevails. Romans 9.33 And who exactly is Peter describing as the "Rock" of the Church in 1 Peter 2.6-8? In John 21 Jesus clearly tells Jesus to feed His sheep and re-affirms Peter as an apostle after his betrayal of the Lord three times, but wasn't this the call for all the apostles and church leaders? Especially Paul? Peter was a great leader of the Church and used mightily by our Lord, no question, but to ignore Paul and His obvious establishing and"fathering" of the Church is clarity on the passage of Matt 16, and an unfounded attempt to prop up the notion that the R.C. organization represents the True Church of Jesus Christ. Luther was, and still is right.

A few issues with that stance. First, Peter was a married man: 1 Cor. 9:5; Matthew 8:14. Second, Peter never accepted reverence (Acts 10:25-26). Third, Peter's name in the Greek is Petros (a detached stone, Jn. 1:42) but Jesus said the church would be built upon the "rock" or Petra (a mass of rock) - Mt. 16:18. The Bible never says anything about Peter being "Christ's Vicar on Earth". Peter never talked about any "successors to him". Peter and no other disciple(s) were to be "the greatest in the kingdom" (Mt. 18:1-4; 20:20-28); rather, they were to be equal. Next, Titus (who was not an apostle) apparently was involved in the process of appointing elders. (Titus 1:5-9). Here is a good read on it: www.gotquestions.org/Peter-first-pope.htmlj Hope that helps.

No a slight slip of the tongue using the later name for the church that was there before. He did not have a time machine :)

The Hagia Sophia was built by the later Greek-Byzantine emperor, Justinian, I believe....

Justinian spoke latin, he was from a roman family. From the province of Illyria. An "Illyro-Roman".

"The first church on the site was known as the Μεγάλη Ἐκκλησία (Megálē Ekklēsíā, "Great Church"), or in Latin "Magna Ecclesia",[13][14] because of its larger dimensions in comparison to the contemporary churches in the City.[6] Inaugurated on 15 February 360 (during the reign of Constantius II) by the Arian bishop Eudoxius of Antioch" There is still some anachronism going on.

+Julian De Villiers // Thanks, bruh.

+Nick Libby I agree with this and appreciate this. I'm non-religious and am interested in religious history for itself, without having a bias towards or against certain traditions. Its unfortunate to see most lectures filled with opinion and undisclosed biases. I like this lecturer as he qualifies many of his statements by saying "in the eyes of the church," or ...other statements that recognize that a point of view is being argued. I would guess he studied philosophy. It shows some critical thinking that is pretty lacking today on the internet. Unfortunately many people these days(including atheists, unfortunately) propose that their own beliefs are absolute truths that should be accepted without qualification. But what do I know, I'm just a kittycat

Michelle www.ellethekitty.ca I think that much of Protestant study today is increasingly showing that the Catholic Church is the historic church. I am always interested to see where each person draws the line and says "Here is where the Church strayed" since all Catholic doctrines have either a direct tie to the Apostolic or patristic ages, or can be shown as a development of those doctrines. Newman's "Development of Christian Doctrine" is very enlightening for this reason. Besides, as a cat, you must be superior to humans. Mine seem to think they are. >^^

Nick Libby I guess as an agnostic, I have no "dog" in the fight as to where anyone "strayed." I am interested in how people try to use reason to deal with their experience, and that included their assertions about God and the church and how individuals grapple with ambiguity. I would, by my own personal bias, be reluctant to accept that there is any "knowable" truth in the matter, but I appreciate the process and find it interesting. I appreciate this lecturer approaching the material with an attempt to find out what the historical facts were, rather than to tell a narrative that suits one side or another. In short, as a pussycat, i care about the history and the intellectual history, not the church or the "truth" itself. I live in Canada. where do you and your pussycats live?

Michelle www.ellethekitty.ca I kinda got that from your post, so I was explaining my point of view and saying that history supports my understanding. Without considering the question of faith, it can be clearly shown from history that the Catholic Church has been around since about 33 A.D. with either the same beliefs, or beliefs that can be shown to have been developed from those beliefs, without contradiction. The oldest existing institution on the planet should have the right to explain and defend it's beliefs, and not have them misrepresented by those who dissent. Dr. Reeves seems to do an excellent job of letting the Catholic Church do that, while at the same time objectively explaining why persons in history dissented and why from a Protestant perspective. As far as a rational reason for my belief, that could take nine lives to explain. With the understanding that I am only presenting those reasons, check out this web site: www.strangenotions.com/god-exists/ Good food for thought. Not sure if you're aware, but Thomas Aquinas in the Summa Theologica demonstrates the tie betwen faith and reason, and how they compliment each other. Here's a great description: "Adopting Aristotelian principles and concepts, Aquinas attempts to explain the origin, operation, and purpose of the entire universe and the role that everything in the universe plays in the attainment of that purpose. Aquinas never doubts the truth of the tenets of his faith. Rather, he employs techniques of argument that he learned in the disputatios to state, defend, and elaborate those tenets. The grandiose scope of the Summa Theologica derives from Aquinas’s belief that a very significant portion of theology can be expressed and codified in a comprehensive and rational system." This is heavy hitting philosophy, not for scaredy cats. My wife and I, and our 7 furry friends reside in the wine country near San Francisco. Best

I guess i was responding to your statement "There seems to be no attempt to read history through your own faith tradition, but rather a straightforward presentation of the history of Christianity." As for the rest, I'm sorry, I was not addressing any of that and i don't have much of an opinion. Also, I would not ask anyone to justify their belief and I would not justify my own ambiguity. It might have been sloppy of me not to be specific. I was simply admiring the fact that the lecturer attempts to be fair and factual, and as you put it, straightforward. I wonder, how many cats can dance on the head of the pin? Seven!!!! In Canada I don't think you are allowed to own that many at one residence. ..I sure do love them though.

Possibly, but we can't really know what he heard or in what language. The story is given by two people who were not present a the time, so historians are always suggesting possible missing pieces to the story. Most are skeptical of too strong an answer, though.

Marshall D'Arcy // For two reasons, really. First, and most importantly, the lecture is only on the context of his rise to the throne, and it flows from the previous lectures on Diocletian, the Third Century Crisis, etc. The lecture was certainly meant to tell fo his faith in general, but this section of the course is building the bridge between pagan Rome to Christian Rome, and so more on the structures of the army and government. Secondly, it's because you can't say everything in a 30 minute lecture. Helena deserves more attention than a passing comment. Her role in shaping Constantine's conversion is only conjecture at best: Constantine never tells us of this effect on him, only of his conversion through the vision. So the amazing story of Helena in the historical record (my focus) is her great impact on shaping the new Christian vision during her son's reign. I couldn't possibly tell that story with enough time, so it was left off until a later time when I may cover Great Christian Lives or something.

Ryan Reeves The problem is and it is not just you it is every one that I have read and see on the net. They never present his mother as an influence on his understanding of Christianity. How can one not believe this after his father was forced to put aside his mother because she was a Christian. How could anyone not understand Diocletian's lack of trust of Constantine when he was trying to get rid of all Christians and Constantine's mother was a Christians. Diocletian had to know this. I see real ignorance here.

Marshall D'Arcy // I can't speak to other sites or videos, but you could also take a more charitable view, especially since I agree with you about her overall influence. I'm a professor and have to make all kinds of judgment calls as to what I can work with and not work with. The goals of the course (which is where these videos come from) has a specific set of focal points. Believe me, every one of the videos in a survey course are going to cover things, well, in a survey form. I would think your claim that there is ignorance would carry more weight if the lecture was intended to cover everything on the subject, which this is not. Now, for the historical merit of Helena's influence: again, it's based on proximity and what we believe to be the case. The fact is Constantine never said anything about his mother in the context of his conversion, though he comissioned all kinds of works, coins, and banners to commemorate his vision. I agree there is a connection, and historians agree on this, too, but when doing a history course they have to go with the historical record on things they claim are certain and then cover the rest as what we believe as a consensus was probably an influence on him. It's not a slight on her, just something people do as a professional historian. But again, none of this is due to a lack of respect or concern for the person of Helena. At least that is not where I am coming from.

Dr Reeves Thank you again for your reply and putting up with my ignorance. I must say though that to suggest or infer, as many seem to do, that Constantine converted to Chritianity out of the blue is wrong. He did not just miraculously embrace some small religion of the Roman Empire as some would have us believe.

Marshall D'Arcy // Yeah amen to that. I think historians tend to go there because that's how it's presented and they may have no grasp as to how influences can shape what appears to be a dramatic conversion. And you're right, some want to say Christianity is a tiny, tiny faith that he embraces for unknown reasons. The evidence is clear it wasn't so tiny and obviously he comes from a Christian mother. Too many coincidences there to be non-factors.

No I agree about the sweeping claims about Roman life. Those lectures are mostly due to the fact that beginning students in the course (for which these videos were made) often no nothing about the period. I find I have to resort to generalizations to give them an impression. But impressions are often not any better! :)

He saved "The Way" from going extinct and becoming Christianity which brought God's Light unto the nations. Constantine became Christian but allowed Romans to keep their Pagan Worship if they so deemed, without the Persecution and Murder and Horrific ways they used to torture Christians have ended. Christians were now "EQUAL" under the Law and Saved. His Mother Helena was a fervent follower of Yeshua. It was difficult to understand the Gospels back then. Even now I have trouble. Sans Constantine Christianity as we know it would NOT exist. PBWY

Just prior to his death in 337, which was typical at the time. People would hold off baptism until the end to undergo the sacrament as close to the end as possible.

Ryan Reeves Thank you. I had always been told that Constantine was a pagan who was converted on his deathbed, hence the late baptizm. But that never seemed right, because there is a Greek Orthodox Church in Huntsville (AL) close to where I live which is called Saints Constantine and Helena Greek Orthodox Church. Also, I thought Christians were worshipping in catacombs until the Edict of Milan. I had no Idea the Hagea Sophia was built before then. It's good to know.

Joel Fry // Not Hagia Sophia as it now stands but a church was placed there and they were worshiping there. Hagia Irene went up first. The current Hagia Sophia is built later, then burned down, then built again, then expanded, then so and and so forth to its current state. It has a crazy history. Yeah the bit about Constantine being a pagan until the end is mostly due to people not liking poliitcs and religion mixing and blaming him (weirdly) for the later medieval Catholic issues in the church. The evidence is more that he was a committed Christian in his own mind (and heart, I assume) but that he is enormously flawed and his view of political support for the church obviously is a problem to modern minds. In my experience anti-Constantine comments are misplaced anti-Catholic statements--and maybe with some people it's a politically correct with to hate Catholics. The catacombs worship thing is also a bit overplayed. They certainly worshipped in catacombs a bit, but only during the worst possible times of persecution, which were relatively infrequent. Not a few comments by rulers against Christians, for example, stress that their church property should be confiscated, which is evidence that their places of worship were openly known. If they did have to worship in secret, they often did so in the homes of wealthier church members, which also was common (though not in large numbers). Besides the main place of catacomb church evidence is around Rome, which is expected because that's at times the place of hottest persecution. So the issue is just not over-reading the evidence. It would be like not basing views of average church size in America by surveying only those found in Birmingham, AL (huge and numerous churches everywhere).

Ryan Reeves I hope I'm not taking too much of your time. I was a Christian for about 28 years. When I went away to school my best and closest friend was an atheist (at the time he was the only friend outside my family who accepted me as I was), and I eventually became agnostic, but we would have heated arguments as to whether or not God existed, indicating that maybe I didn't know what it meant to be "agnostic"--though I'm still not sure. I came back to the faith after about six months of that. Then much later I read the passage in Hebrews chapter 10 and started to have a panic attack, because I thought I could not have really re-converted, based on the wording of this passage which seemed to indicate that re-conversion is not possible after apostacy. (Also there is Hebrews 6:6.) So, a few months after that I dropped the Christian faith altogether, this time based on better reasons. I am still, however, a theist, but my current beliefs are more along the lines of pantheism. I find it impossible to believe that I deserve eternal conscious torment. I have various other reasons, but I have debated the matter many times over and would rather not do that here. And I should tell you my age: I am 36. Thanks again for giving me a better glimpse into history.

Joel Fry Do you lean towards a more personal/omniscient form pantheism, or a naturalistic/unconscious form?

There is teleology is Gibbon. Historians are always men of their own times looking backwards and hence are seldom good prophets.

Yeah great questions. I think it's not so much an issue of looking at one feature of his reign--which I admit in the video and will agree with you entirely was disjointed and showed little at times that we would consider redeemable in terms of his personal character. My goal here was not to suggest he was saint but rather to curb some of the language in the popular view of Constantine that he was a mere cynic himself that was using Christianity for his own ends. The reasons why I want to curb this are a few things, but the biggest of them is that there was nothing to gain from siding with the persecuted faith that was, under Diocletian and others, blamed for the failures of the Roman armies in recent decades. Also he funded the hagiography of himself by those who supported his new Christian faith (Eusebius, for example, is a well-paid PR man whose descriptions of Constantine are meant to enforce him as the new Christian emperor). The arch is something that is often mentioned, and you're right to point to that as a reason to suggest that there was something not entirely 'pure' in his expression of his faith. But he also struck coins that had the Chi-Rho on them with the story of his conversion, he funded churches, he pressed bishops to the head of local and regional authorities throughout his realm, and he started the construction of Constantinople which he wanted to be the new Christian Rome, as well as numerous other things that could be read as 'supporting' the faith. I think the best way to put my intention in the video is this: Constantine is a crazy figure and we are right to be cynical of the power he wields over the church. I am not ever going to suggest that was good or even just OK in terms of the church. But we have this tendency to make complex figures monochromatic in terms of their intentions. So Constantine is a complex figure but we tend to want him to always be either to the side of Christianity or entirely to the side of syncretistic paganism. I just want to say that he may be bonkers and I may doubt if he had a good leg to stand on in terms of his faith, but it's one thing to say his faith was bad but another to say that HE didn't think he was living according to the faith. As for Nicea, what you say is certainly what I embrace on one level. Again my goal here was to just curb some of the rhetoric that is out there (e.g. that it was Constantine who decided the canon entirely at Nicea, which is entirely false and supported by virtually no scholars, Christian or 'secular'). But even by Constantine's own admission he was not the one who CHOOSE the language of Nicea but the one who enforced it afterwards. This actually becomes the enternal frustration of those who decided the creed of Nicea: Constantine soon after begins to allow Arius and other Arians back into the church because he believes they fit within his interpretation of the creed. The aftermath of Nicea is very much a story of those who fashioned the creed bellowing that they had already determined orthodoxy and that they wrote the creed, and that they wanted Constantine to enforce THEIR interpretation and not those of the semi-Arians. So I completely agree that the presence of the emperor at the council is strange and problematic. But he merely inaugurated the assembly and then went about political business elsewhere in the city while they worked it out on their own. The problems of Constantine at Nicea really are more pronounced AFTER the bishops created the creed. Maybe what I'm saying here is I agree with your points just that I took a more moderating tone in this video in terms of trying to get people to see the black or white view of Constantine needs more color and nuance.

Thanks so much for your thoughtful reply. It certainly clears up some things. I put the syncretism of Christianity--while influenced by Constantine--squarely on the shoulders of those in the 4th century early church. They did not heed Matthew 7:15-23. You can't and shouldn't simply make it up as you go along; it's been laid out for us from before the foundation of the earth. And coming from a Hebraic Christian point of view, you are correct and I thank you for your efforts; too many of us in this awakening are parroting back--doing little better than these guys on Connie's payroll--what we've been told...about Constantine, about the papacy, about this or that--instead of investigating--being good Bereans. Part of my goal of watching your videos is to try to understand those small degrees of compass error that got Christianity to stadium seating, drum kits behind plexi, Starbucks in the vestibule, and pastors who preach "seeker-friendly" gospels that are not of Yahshua's soon-coming Kingdom.

Jenna Caruthers // 'small degree of compass errors'....love that phrase. That's exactly where I am coming from as an historian: it's not massive leaps but slight changes that can deviate or correct the path. I also like the connection to being good Bereans, too. Amen to that. :)

Constantine's actions at the Melvian bridge is completely logical for a person who believes in many gods and has doubts about his success in the coming battle. For him Christian god is just one more and as he had Christian mother, going under the flag of Christian banner is not so big a deal for him as it would be for a Christian to do in reverse. It was a test for him if his mother's god was better than those of his father's. After his victory, of course, he thinks it was due to this new god. It is still entirely pagan thinking. The battle might have been the start for his conversion, but he most definitely was not converted before it.

Constatine mixed Roman polytheism with Christianity and created Catholic Church. Before the catholic real Christians didn't meet in churches. they met in each others homes. The churches listed in the New Testament was groups of Christians not a church "building..

Faizal Shah Abdul Wahab That is literally Arianism with an Arabic twist. All Mohammed did was take old heresies and refashion them into his own religion.

I think you should stop giving statement without any proof . I suggest you read the Quran first brother then you might have a wiser statement. You are not the first brother and Allah is the all mighty "And if ye are in doubt as to what We have revealed from time to time to Our servant(prophet Muhammed pbuh), then produce a Surah like thereunto; and call your witnesses or helpers (if there are any) besides Allah if your (doubts) are true.” (2:23)

That is a reasonable request my friend, and likewise I invite you to read the Gospels for yourself. The problems of the Quran need not be treated from a theological standpoint, first and foremost they can be said to be historically inaccurate. The Quran claims that Jesus never claimed to be divine, and that he didn’t die on the cross- these are historical claims, made in the 7th century, much after the fact, and they’re contrary to what everyone else says on the matter. The Gospels were written in the 1st century, by people who knew Jesus, and even the Jews who reject the claims that He was the Messiah and God, nevertheless killed him for that very reason. Had Jesus claimed otherwise, He wouldn’t have been killed. As for Mohammed himself, it is questionable that such a man could be a prophet, from the facts of his own life. Unlike Jesus, Mohammed conquered by the sword, and committed many immoralities, including consummating a relationship with a 6-yr old girl, Aisha (sometimes referred to as being 9yr-old). In other instances, he is said to have had revelations from Satan, (the Satanic verses controversy). I imagine if you had read the Quran, you’d be familiar with these events in the life of your prophet. Not to mention, a person who leaves Islam for another religion, is condemned to death, now if Islam was so self-evidently true, why does it command the belief of its people on the basis of a death threat?

If jesus died on the cross then who governs the world and there would not be trinity or should I say twonity ? Jesus never claim he's God or son of god ..not even once in the bible he said I'm god worship me...proof it to me? Not even trinity was mentioned in the bible..I have read the bible and not there. Seriously stop copy and paste from someone else view. Read the Quran..we believe in Jesus pbuh as Allah massenger. If u want to wrong me get to know the book im defending..Quran. 19:88] They said, "The Most Gracious has begotten a son!" [19:89] You have uttered a gross blasphemy. [19:90] The heavens are about to shatter, the earth is about to tear asunder, and the mountains are about to crumble. [19:91] Because they claim that the Most Gracious has begotten a son. [19:92] It is not befitting the Most Gracious that He should beget a son. [19:93] Every single one in the heavens and the earth is a servant of the Most Gracious. [19:94] He has encompassed them, and has counted them one by one. [19:95] All of them will come before Him on the Day of Resurrection as individuals. Qur'an Explain to me Trinity? That u yourself can understand. BTW dont be a western media sheep and please do your own research.

Faisal, Jesus did die on the cross, but obviously the story didn’t end there, as He was resurrected on the third day, and ascended into Heaven. Before He left the Apostles, he gave the commandment that not only affirms His divinity but also that of the Most Holy Trinity: “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matthew, 28: 16-20). As for “having read the Bible”, this is a strange statement, as if you had read it, you’d find there’s plenty of statements on His divinity. For example, in one episode in the Gospel of Matthew, following a miracle the Apostles “worshiped him, saying, ‘Truly you are the Son of God’” (Matthew 14:28-33). Likewise, in the Transfiguration miracle, in the Gospel of Mark, we are told that “a cloud overshadowed them, and a voice came out of the cloud, ‘This is my Beloved Son; listen to him’” (Mark 9:2-9). The question of the divinity of Jesus is also clearly the reason for His condemnation by the Jews, as told in Matthew 26:59-66, Mark 14:53-64, and Luke 22:66-71. We hear in the Gospel of Mark, “Again the high priest asked him, ‘Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?’ And Jesus said, “I am; and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven” (Mark 14:55-64). These are but a few examples, so when you say, “I have read the bible and not there”, I can only conclude that you haven’t read it very well, if of course you’re not lying about this. Yes, the Quran does see Jesus as “Allah’s messenger”, but that is an invention of Mohammed, as neither Jesus, nor the Apostles, describe him as a “messenger’’, but all unanimously describe Him as “The Lord and Savior” (2 Peter 3:18). The verses of the Quran you cite are very interesting however, as they reveal Mohammed’s objection to this claim to be based on what he finds personally “not fitting”. Well to that I can only say that it’s a supreme act of arrogance for Mohammed to say what is or isn’t “fitting” of God to do. As for the Most Holy Trinity, it is a Divine Mystery, I don’t attempt to explain it, is a divine revelation from God Himself- it’s not something attainable by reason alone, or by man’s imagination, but I don’t think man’s imagination or limited powers of reasoning are the measure of truth, unlike Mohammed. Now that I’ve answered you, I expect that you also will answer me, out of courtesy Faisal. You didn’t give me an answer before, so I’ll ask you again, how do you hold Mohammed to be a prophet when in his life he committed atrocities, and even pedophilia? The Quran states that “Indeed in the Messenger of Allah (Muhammad SAW) you have a good example to follow for him who hopes in (the Meeting with) Allah and the Last Day and remembers Allah much.”(Quran , Surah Al-Ahzab, Verse 21). Would you say that the lustful, and violent ways of Mohammed, are worthy of a true prophet, or even a decent person? On a related note, I ask once again, if Islam is so self-evidently true, why does it threaten those who leave with the death penalty?