There are so many myths about history out there and so many people with only a vague understanding of the facts, one wonders why they bother to comment without first doing their homework. I hold earned degrees in History, Political Science and Theology and I have been studying Church History for 40 years. I can most definitely state that Dr. Reeves is a true and objective historian based on my own personal research. Once again I thank him for posting these lectures. He does his best to dispel the myths and to present the truth of history. This is something I greatly respect and admire. Some of those making comments below could do well to listen to him. If they will open their minds they might actually learn something. Keep up the good work, Dr. Reeves!Fr. Allen+
+Rev. J. Roger Allen Thank you for speaking up for Dr. Reeves. The ones most vocal in their criticism seem to have brought away from their high school education what their teachers stressed the most -- their self esteem. I blame the public school system (not so much the teachers, as the bureaucrats who seek to silence any teaching of any facts that might reflect well on Judaism or Christianity ) for letting their standards slide.
+Rev. J. Roger Allen I enjoy Ryan Reeves videos a lot and I am a atheist. I think he tackles his subjects without assuming the faith of his audience and so far I have not detected any kind of religious bias in his lectures. This account of Diocletian is much the same as I have heard it from atheist presenters.
Currently independently studying Roman history leading up to the middle ages. May i say that your videos are actually better than Yales Early Middle Ages course!
@@duck4834 Agreed. I began to notice this too while viewing some of his other, more recent "Non-Rome" related stuff. He need to put down the Karl Marx, and dust off the ol' KJV. I blame in large part the parents, then the colleges/universities for this. (Not to mention, the many "Christians" not doing their jobs...) Dear Lord, have mercy on this generation... Amen.
I love how this whole series largely talk about something we arent considering very much in our era because of the illusory stability of the nation state. Sometimes we talk about it in political science, factor/policies or administration techniques that promote centralisation or decentralisation. The same is true for unity and disunity. For example a very vast country or empire got the problem that its people will be very different and may not think alike, the people of the west coast of the U.S.A. or Canada dont necessarily have the same culture or ideology than the people of the East coast, they may share some similarities but also many differences.
Thank you for the insight.This period affirms Revelation 2:10.The Ten days of revelation are the ten years of tribulation.This was a period of martyrdom where Christians sealed their testimony with their own blood.
Great video but one thing I want to clarify. At the end you say this is the last great persecution that Christians in the west would experience, which is true, but just in case it was misunderstood, Christians in both the eastern and western Roman empires were persecuted under Diocletian's reign. In fact, the Christians in the Eastern Roman empire (the eastern half of the tetrarchy) actually experienced a lot more persecutions. This is because it was really up to the governor of a certain region to enforce them, and because Constantine was caesar of the western Roman empire during this time, the western governors were less inclined to do so. In the east however, Gallantius was the caesar and he was fiercely anti-Christian by all accounts. According to some sources, he was key in convincing Diocletian to start the persecutions. In Egypt, the Coptic calendar is dated based on the start of the start of Diocletian's reign (284 AD) because the persecutions were such a significant time for the Copts. We refer to this as the era of the martyrs. The current year 1735. The Coptic church also has a liturgical book called the Synexarium that is read from during liturgies. It is a daily account of the lives of the saints, and the majority of the stories come from this era of Diocletian persecutions.
No one made the sign of the cross in the days of Diocletian. That didn't begin until late 4th century and was very rare even then. Other than that, great video! I enjoyed it.
The Acts of Paul from the 2nd century mentions making the sign of the cross and it's referencing events from the 1st century. Nothing in the church has ever been new, same old stuff.
Excellent, and informative lecture, as usual. I have been jumping around this exceptional and large body of work like a "flappin' geek-a-zoid". How do I get to the beginning, (if there is one) so as to watch the whole series in chronological order?
It is interesting that despite diocletian's persecution of the Christians, there was still 300 bishops that can turn up to the council of Nicea. Plainly diocletian could have done better so to speak!
the tetrarchy created a dangerous situation, it was doomed to failure. it was unstable. you had to know after a while the augusti could go for one another, or the caesar could go after the augustus...this is exactly what happened prior to Constantine eventually making war on two other members of the tetrarchy and taking over the whole of the empire, the tetrarchy caused the collapse of the empire in 303
@Azay Dee sure Cambridge is nice and all but not all DOCTORATES are created equal are they? is Phd in physics or math or biology chemistry or any other science really the same as say a doctorate in THEOLOGY how about phd in gender studies? hope you get my point..
You skipped one of my favorite emperors, Aurelian. Was it because Diocletian would not look so big if you preceded his story with Aurelian already having stitched the empire back together from the Crisis in 5 years, only to be assassinated by traitors?
So Ebionites or Nazarites (that could claim College Judaicus or w/e for legal rights) are all long since gone as far as we know from today's vantage right?
I think some of the 'Germanic' tribes did migrate from the east. The Celts once had a strong presence throughout continental Europe but were pushed out or assimilated by the tribes from the east. People groups are very fluid, particularly when a strong military civilization is not on the way to stop them.
Goths originated in S. Scandinavian area, then on Baltic sea but made their way to the Black Sea. Other Germanic tribes were still in N. Europe. Ostrogoths did occupy the Ukraine area and Visigothic people further west. All according to their own legends but red hair, blondes, etc. are common traits to those areas...
The Christians refused to even give token acknowledgement of the Roman gods. Whatever happened to rendering unto "Caesar that which is Caesars and unto God what is Gods"?
The Jews made a daily sacrifice for Caesar. They were allowed to do this because of their uniqueness, ancientness, and the special circumstances by which they became a part of the empire. The Judean kings were very pro-Roman from the beginning, before the Romans even entered Syria, and were given many special concessions, setting a precedent for all the Jews in every city around the Mediterranean. For the Christians, they had just the opposite circumstances. They didn't make sacrifices. They had no legal precedent to claim an exemption, and Roman law was all about precedent. They were seen as unpatriotic. I'm sure they prayed for the emperor, but that wasn't always good enough.
That verse was about paying taxes to the government, and basically not revolting, which they did. How is making sacrifices to non-existent gods "rendering to Caesar what is Caesar's"?
You messed up near the end where you said that, " Constantine changed the Church ". Constantine did not even fully convert until he was near his death. For a time Constantine was deceived by the heretic Arius. He did reject Arius when he became more educated in the faith. In the council of Nicea several false pastors were weeded out by ordained priests/bishops before the council decided anything. In effect it prevented errors from being introduced alongside of orthodox/traditional teachings or in place of. Constantine had no say in the council because he never had any priestly authority. It is to his credit that the bishops were brought together but other than that. Constantine hand no say in the council. In other words he was subject to them as a new Christian convert whom was not even yet baptized. Constantine recognized that they are representatives of the Lord Jesus Christ Himself Whom has rule over all kings , emperor and earthly rulers.
Poor old Julian. One wonders how ridicule of Julian's beard developed, when in the bible it says "Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard." I guess they didn't bother reading it back then either. :D
Constantine brought back the clean shaved, cropped haired style of the Augustan era. By the time of Julian, he was out of fashion, and extremely pretentious about his beard. He also grew it long and unkempt. He wasn't mocked for it by Christians, but everyone. Julian was pretty unpopular amongst both pagans and Christians.
I'm not so sure this word, 'Princeps', means what you think it means. If you do a search online, all of the online dictionaries, including Britannica, say that it means "first one" or "leader". There is nothing about "among equals" in the definition.
There were many forms of Christianity, all with strong leadership, the communities had self sufficient localized underground economies separate from the imperial economy, and they didn't swear loyalty to emperor and empire. As these communities grew by the third century, the imperial tax base decreased, contributing factors to the crisis of the 3rd century. Diocletian appreciated the efficiency of Christian and Manichean communities, but despised the fact that they were not under imperial control. So his decade persecution of Christians was to eliminate the leadership and intelligentsia, as well as to destroy these economies, via his disastrous price fixing policies. With these resistors gone, the next generation of bishops would be under imperial control. That was accomplished under Constantine with his Edict of Tolerance, and then Christianity was standardized at the Council of Nicaea. Most traditional Christians were eliminated, and the faith was hijacked by the empire creating a new nobility in the form of bishops whose churches had a license to loot and steal all the wealth from those they deemed as pagans and heretics. This was accomplished by the time of Theodosius. I believe it was this new elitist form of Christianity that emperor Julian opposed, rather than the faith itself, and felt that by supporting the temples of many pagan and alternative faiths , the wealth and corruption wouldn't be concentrated within a small elitist group. He didn't live long enough to reverse the tide. Without this new form of corruption disguised as Christianity, the western roman empire may have been able to withstand and survive the barbarian migrations.
So the Church was made up of organized tax evaders?! I have never heard this before. It seems contrary to the New Testament which basically commands people to pay your taxes and be a good citizen. Also, almost all of those bishops that showed up at Nicaea were survivors of Diocletian, were not the ones who compromised and returned, and continued to act as bishops afterwards. There's dramatic change in outlook in early church writers after Constantine, and the pre-Nicene writings continued to be used.
too many damn civil wars. this what held back the Roman empire it should've been alive still if it wasn't those damn greedy civil wars. emperors are something they needed to get rid of.
Hi I am a secular humanist believe that evil done in this world by religions far outweighs the good that it has brought humanity so do not wish to waste any time listening to preaching and proselytizing (unless of course there is a chance of changing someone's mind) with that said here's my question: interested in digging deeper into history of Rome so found this video assumed PhD meant a scholar not a theologian watched first few minutes all looks good professional and all but that's only first few minutes, than I notice lots of comment from reverends and such praising the author which is a red flag for me so here's my question how unbiased and honest is the author, I ask this because I believe Christians have over the ages created the "cult of the martyrs", and exaggerated its barbarity so friends I thing you are mistaken about your idea of god any god really because there is not nor there ever was any reason to believe in anything supernatural much less bearded dude in the sky who created everything and really cares about me and want's to burn me for eternity if I lay with the wrong gender, or eat shellfish or god forbid (no pun intended) wear clothes made from two different fabrics WTF!! damn went into a rant there a bit I apologize with that said though I also believe you believe your religion to be true and are honest people so please tell me truthfully should I watch this considering the number of religious videos that are on M. Reeves channel I'm not so sure is this video really religious baggage free or not? thanks in advance and apologize for such a long comment only meant to write a few words but..
@Stopcoercing... From another secular -agnostic- humanist: watch it with an open, serene mind and judge for yourself. If you don't experience it first hand, you'll never really know enough to have a well founded opinion
If you consider it to be non-objective because a reverend is praising it, then I don't believe you're being objective yourself. It appears that you have a stereotype about Christians/Christian clergy that causes you to believe that none of them could ever be objective or rigorous scholars and maybe that's based in some personal experiences that you had but that hasn't been my own experience. I agree with E Monzon, you should watch something and judge its objectivity for yourself, rather than deciding that it's biased based on the religious beliefs of the person who made it. Otherwise, you really have no place speaking about objectivity.
the caesars in the tetrarchi are getting the poorest and more dangerous provinces if they wouldnt get support from the augusti then they would not been able to even pay the soldiers. let alone protect the border
You are a one of a kind, masterful, storyteller. I listen in marathon sessions.
There are so many myths about history out there and so many people with only a vague understanding of the facts, one wonders why they bother to comment without first doing their homework. I hold earned degrees in History, Political Science and Theology and I have been studying Church History for 40 years. I can most definitely state that Dr. Reeves is a true and objective historian based on my own personal research. Once again I thank him for posting these lectures. He does his best to dispel the myths and to present the truth of history. This is something I greatly respect and admire. Some of those making comments below could do well to listen to him. If they will open their minds they might actually learn something. Keep up the good work, Dr. Reeves!Fr. Allen+
+Rev. J. Roger Allen Thank you for speaking up for Dr. Reeves. The ones most vocal in their criticism seem to have brought away from their high school education what their teachers stressed the most -- their self esteem. I blame the public school system (not so much the teachers, as the bureaucrats who seek to silence any teaching of any facts that might reflect well on Judaism or Christianity ) for letting their standards slide.
Thank you and Amen!
+Rev. J. Roger Allen I enjoy Ryan Reeves videos a lot and I am a atheist. I think he tackles his subjects without assuming the faith of his audience and so far I have not detected any kind of religious bias in his lectures. This account of Diocletian is much the same as I have heard it from atheist presenters.
Nikolaj11 Thank you, Sir.
Bertrum Hurny I appreciate your comments especially about Dr. Reeves for whom I have respect as an historian.
Currently independently studying Roman history leading up to the middle ages. May i say that your videos are actually better than Yales Early Middle Ages course!
Ryan Reeves and Historia Civilis are two of the best and most addictive channels. Come back Ryan... You are missed!
Historia Civilis is too far left
@@duck4834 Agreed. I began to notice this too while viewing some of his other, more recent "Non-Rome" related stuff. He need to put down the Karl Marx, and dust off the ol' KJV. I blame in large part the parents, then the colleges/universities for this. (Not to mention, the many "Christians" not doing their jobs...)
Dear Lord,
have mercy on this generation...
Amen.
Thanks, Dr. Reeves for posting these.
Diocletian palace is in Split Croatia.
Ahha Govono yes, very beautiful city as well!
I love how this whole series largely talk about something we arent considering very much in our era because of the illusory stability of the nation state. Sometimes we talk about it in political science, factor/policies or administration techniques that promote centralisation or decentralisation. The same is true for unity and disunity. For example a very vast country or empire got the problem that its people will be very different and may not think alike, the people of the west coast of the U.S.A. or Canada dont necessarily have the same culture or ideology than the people of the East coast, they may share some similarities but also many differences.
There is an error: Maxentius was the son af Maximian; not Galerius.
Thank you for the insight.This period affirms Revelation 2:10.The Ten days of revelation are the ten years of tribulation.This was a period of martyrdom where Christians sealed their testimony with their own blood.
A very lucid and plausible analysis. Added bonus is the strong Christian context. Thank you!
Map has Trier and Milan in the wrong places - shown where Paris and Genoa actually are.
Whoopsies!
Great video but one thing I want to clarify. At the end you say this is the last great persecution that Christians in the west would experience, which is true, but just in case it was misunderstood, Christians in both the eastern and western Roman empires were persecuted under Diocletian's reign. In fact, the Christians in the Eastern Roman empire (the eastern half of the tetrarchy) actually experienced a lot more persecutions. This is because it was really up to the governor of a certain region to enforce them, and because Constantine was caesar of the western Roman empire during this time, the western governors were less inclined to do so. In the east however, Gallantius was the caesar and he was fiercely anti-Christian by all accounts. According to some sources, he was key in convincing Diocletian to start the persecutions.
In Egypt, the Coptic calendar is dated based on the start of the start of Diocletian's reign (284 AD) because the persecutions were such a significant time for the Copts. We refer to this as the era of the martyrs. The current year 1735. The Coptic church also has a liturgical book called the Synexarium that is read from during liturgies. It is a daily account of the lives of the saints, and the majority of the stories come from this era of Diocletian persecutions.
Constantius father of Constantine was Ceasar in west
Thank you Dr. Reeves!
No one made the sign of the cross in the days of Diocletian. That didn't begin until late 4th century and was very rare even then. Other than that, great video! I enjoyed it.
The Acts of Paul from the 2nd century mentions making the sign of the cross and it's referencing events from the 1st century. Nothing in the church has ever been new, same old stuff.
Maxentius was Maximian's son, but Galerius had a nephew that he squeezed in as Caesar.
Your videos are excellent. Thank you.
Great presentation with great graphics. Fascinating history.
Thanks for doing an outstanding job.
Lloyd Chappell
Lloyd Chappell // Thanks, Lloyd. :)
+Lloyd Chappell Amen!
Excellent, and informative lecture, as usual. I have been jumping around this exceptional and large body of work like a "flappin' geek-a-zoid". How do I get to the beginning, (if there is one) so as to watch the whole series in chronological order?
+Johnnyc drums // Hey man. Just click on 'Playlists'. That's TH-cam's language for where I put them all in chronological order. :)
Another great video! Thank you Dr. Reeves.
Very good lecture! Thanks for sharing
+Felix Walne // Thanks! Glad you enjoyed it. :)
Definitely recommend a visit to the Diocletian palace in Split , Croatia if you have the opportunity…
The spot on the map that indicates Trier is closer to Paris than Trier...
My new favourite channel. Im an atheist too. Thanks for getting me through a difficult time mate :)
Why are you an atheist?
At best, God is a underachiever.
@Pro Semite nipples on men, and don't forget slugs.
Diocletian - a micromanaging control freak in the mold of Augustus himself.
It is interesting that despite diocletian's persecution of the Christians, there was still 300 bishops that can turn up to the council of Nicea.
Plainly diocletian could have done better so to speak!
the tetrarchy created a dangerous situation, it was doomed to failure. it was unstable. you had to know after a while the augusti could go for one another, or the caesar could go after the augustus...this is exactly what happened prior to Constantine eventually making war on two other members of the tetrarchy and taking over the whole of the empire, the tetrarchy caused the collapse of the empire in 303
Diocletian seems to bring "the mind and expectations of a good General" to being an Emerpor.
Very intersting. Just out of curiosity. Do you produce these videos? What is your educational background?
Chris Taylor Read the description! Doh! 😉
@Azay Dee sure Cambridge is nice and all but not all DOCTORATES are created equal are they? is Phd in physics or math or biology chemistry or any other science really the same as say a doctorate in THEOLOGY how about phd in gender studies? hope you get my point..
Thanks much for this video.
Trier is not a Paris suburb, it´s 300km to the west near Luxemburg lol 8:50
Ceasar should be spelled Caesar... Otherwise, excellent work!
One is a cocktail the others a salad.
You skipped one of my favorite emperors, Aurelian. Was it because Diocletian would not look so big if you preceded his story with Aurelian already having stitched the empire back together from the Crisis in 5 years, only to be assassinated by traitors?
9:25 Trier is definitively not where you put it on the map. It's within the territory of nowadays Germany. Not in France
Great video, thanks for sharing!
So Ebionites or Nazarites (that could claim College Judaicus or w/e for legal rights) are all long since gone as far as we know from today's vantage right?
*Galerius,* _the guy that f**ked everything up._
Very informative
Please provide subtitles
Maximianus? LOL! That reminds me of Monty Python's Biggus Dickus. LOL!!!
;)
SouthernPitt ...and what have the Romans ever done for us.....the aquaduct, education....
Oh shut up big nose!
I can hear Beavis and Butthead laughing "maxi mi anus... he he! he he!"
are you really proud of being ignorant?
Does this not mean that nationalism is first seen in the Roman empire?
only thing I contend with was your"location" of the various Germanic tribes. you had the Goths way out on the steppes.
I think some of the 'Germanic' tribes did migrate from the east. The Celts once had a strong presence throughout continental Europe but were pushed out or assimilated by the tribes from the east.
People groups are very fluid, particularly when a strong military civilization is not on the way to stop them.
Goths originated in S. Scandinavian area, then on Baltic sea but made their way to the Black Sea. Other Germanic tribes were still in N. Europe. Ostrogoths did occupy the Ukraine area and Visigothic people further west. All according to their own legends but red hair, blondes, etc. are common traits to those areas...
Amazing how a Christian sees Constantine as a converted Christian.
Hey Dr. Reeves do you still check this youtube?
Thessalonaika?? Have Mercy!
He has some strange pronunciations
Princeps has a hard k sound not an S as does principate.
He butchers sassanid too.
you know, if Diocletian ate a snickers, he would probably tolerate christians more...
The Christians refused to even give token acknowledgement of the Roman gods. Whatever happened to rendering unto "Caesar that which is Caesars and unto God what is Gods"?
The Jews made a daily sacrifice for Caesar. They were allowed to do this because of their uniqueness, ancientness, and the special circumstances by which they became a part of the empire. The Judean kings were very pro-Roman from the beginning, before the Romans even entered Syria, and were given many special concessions, setting a precedent for all the Jews in every city around the Mediterranean.
For the Christians, they had just the opposite circumstances. They didn't make sacrifices. They had no legal precedent to claim an exemption, and Roman law was all about precedent. They were seen as unpatriotic. I'm sure they prayed for the emperor, but that wasn't always good enough.
That verse was about paying taxes to the government, and basically not revolting, which they did. How is making sacrifices to non-existent gods "rendering to Caesar what is Caesar's"?
Small sacrifice...just a pinch of salt on the alter?
You messed up near the end where you said that, " Constantine changed the Church ".
Constantine did not even fully convert until he was near his death.
For a time Constantine was deceived by the heretic Arius. He did reject Arius when he became more educated in the faith.
In the council of Nicea several false pastors were weeded out by ordained priests/bishops before the council decided anything.
In effect it prevented errors from being introduced alongside of orthodox/traditional teachings or in place of.
Constantine had no say in the council because he never had any priestly authority.
It is to his credit that the bishops were brought together but other than that.
Constantine hand no say in the council. In other words he was subject to them as a new Christian convert whom was not even yet baptized.
Constantine recognized that they are representatives of the Lord Jesus Christ Himself Whom has rule over all kings , emperor and earthly rulers.
You know what happened to Valerian, don't you?
Poor old Julian.
One wonders how ridicule of Julian's beard developed, when in the bible it says "Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard."
I guess they didn't bother reading it back then either. :D
Constantine brought back the clean shaved, cropped haired style of the Augustan era. By the time of Julian, he was out of fashion, and extremely pretentious about his beard. He also grew it long and unkempt. He wasn't mocked for it by Christians, but everyone. Julian was pretty unpopular amongst both pagans and Christians.
I'm not so sure this word, 'Princeps', means what you think it means. If you do a search online, all of the online dictionaries, including Britannica, say that it means "first one" or "leader". There is nothing about "among equals" in the definition.
If you're going to talk history at least try to get it right Maxentius was the son of Maximian not Galerius!
I was going to make the same comment, but the rest of what he said was well-researched and accurate, anybody can make a mistake
...umm... how did they KNOW it was "BC" ? lol
There were many forms of Christianity, all with strong leadership, the communities had self sufficient localized underground economies separate from the imperial economy, and they didn't swear loyalty to emperor and empire. As these communities grew by the third century, the imperial tax base decreased, contributing factors to the crisis of the 3rd century. Diocletian appreciated the efficiency of Christian and Manichean communities, but despised the fact that they were not under imperial control. So his decade persecution of Christians was to eliminate the leadership and intelligentsia, as well as to destroy these economies, via his disastrous price fixing policies. With these resistors gone, the next generation of bishops would be under imperial control. That was accomplished under Constantine with his Edict of Tolerance, and then Christianity was standardized at the Council of Nicaea. Most traditional Christians were eliminated, and the faith was hijacked by the empire creating a new nobility in the form of bishops whose churches had a license to loot and steal all the wealth from those they deemed as pagans and heretics. This was accomplished by the time of Theodosius. I believe it was this new elitist form of Christianity that emperor Julian opposed, rather than the faith itself, and felt that by supporting the temples of many pagan and alternative faiths , the wealth and corruption wouldn't be concentrated within a small elitist group. He didn't live long enough to reverse the tide. Without this new form of corruption disguised as Christianity, the western roman empire may have been able to withstand and survive the barbarian migrations.
Your sources?
@@charmingsovery You could just point out what aspects you disagree with.
This is the bower hypothesis in a nutshell, has been refuted.
So the Church was made up of organized tax evaders?! I have never heard this before. It seems contrary to the New Testament which basically commands people to pay your taxes and be a good citizen.
Also, almost all of those bishops that showed up at Nicaea were survivors of Diocletian, were not the ones who compromised and returned, and continued to act as bishops afterwards. There's dramatic change in outlook in early church writers after Constantine, and the pre-Nicene writings continued to be used.
Maximianus.... x3 great vid though for studying! :3
too many damn civil wars. this what held back the Roman empire
it should've been alive still if it wasn't those damn greedy civil wars. emperors are something they needed to get rid of.
Hi I am a secular humanist believe that evil done in this world by religions far outweighs the good that it has brought humanity so do not wish to waste any time listening to preaching and proselytizing (unless of course there is a chance of changing someone's mind) with that said here's my question: interested in digging deeper into history of Rome so found this video assumed PhD meant a scholar not a theologian watched first few minutes all looks good professional and all but that's only first few minutes, than I notice lots of comment from reverends and such praising the author which is a red flag for me so here's my question how unbiased and honest is the author, I ask this because I believe Christians have over the ages created the "cult of the martyrs", and exaggerated its barbarity so friends I thing you are mistaken about your idea of god any god really because there is not nor there ever was any reason to believe in anything supernatural much less bearded dude in the sky who created everything and really cares about me and want's to burn me for eternity if I lay with the wrong gender, or eat shellfish or god forbid (no pun intended) wear clothes made from two different fabrics WTF!! damn went into a rant there a bit I apologize with that said though I also believe you believe your religion to be true and are honest people so please tell me truthfully should I watch this considering the number of religious videos that are on M. Reeves channel I'm not so sure is this video really religious baggage free or not? thanks in advance and apologize for such a long comment only meant to write a few words but..
Bearded dude in the sky? Wants to burn you for eating shellfish? I can assure you, friend, I don't believe in that God either!
@Stopcoercing... From another secular -agnostic- humanist: watch it with an open, serene mind and judge for yourself. If you don't experience it first hand, you'll never really know enough to have a well founded opinion
If you consider it to be non-objective because a reverend is praising it, then I don't believe you're being objective yourself. It appears that you have a stereotype about Christians/Christian clergy that causes you to believe that none of them could ever be objective or rigorous scholars and maybe that's based in some personal experiences that you had but that hasn't been my own experience. I agree with E Monzon, you should watch something and judge its objectivity for yourself, rather than deciding that it's biased based on the religious beliefs of the person who made it. Otherwise, you really have no place speaking about objectivity.
One day you will stop being 14
should be *Caesar* not Ceasar
good lecture nonetheless. Thank you
Caesar
He sounds exactly like Trump except for the splitting the empire bit and Trump would NEVER decrease his authority.
So totally the same except entirely different? :)
Maximianus! 😂 OMGOSH that name would be horrible to go through Basic Training with. Monte Maximus Butticus LOL
the caesars in the tetrarchi are getting the poorest and more dangerous provinces
if they wouldnt get support from the augusti then they would not been able to even pay the soldiers. let alone protect the border
Vercingétorix.
Voilà!
Trump the New Conservative hugging the flag.
Bro spelled his own name wrong lol.
Adios Amigos 👋
This teacher doesn't appear to be favorable to christianity.
Why do you say that?
Except that he is lol
Apocalypse 💥
Lol, 16:48 its ancient Trump!
Poor animals
I hate you commercials! It violates my psychic state. How dare you! You evil mf's.