I can't decide whether he's just freestyling and saying whatever comes into his head or has somehow got all his info from completely inaccurate sources.
It's pretty wild! I mean, I'm used to people interpreting things in different ways to suit their preconceived beliefs, but this was more like an old _SNL_ skit where a director decides he needs to punch up the gospel story by adding a character named Barry who Jesus betrays. The one thing that I think he shockingly got right (for the wrong reasons, of course) is the idea that most Americans suffer from the heresy of arianism.
Hey Dan, I think it might be productive if you did a series of short videos about the various councils and arguments in early Christianity. Like, the Council of Nicea, The Council of Chalcedon, the Arian Controversy, the Johannine Comma, etc. Just a suggestion.
A great idea for a Data > Dogma episode. Because Beecher's contributions to this conversation are going to be epic! I love their conversations and commentaries on these issues.
@@KaiHenningsen I have heard of that, but this is the first time I've seen someone lecture about something he knew nothing about -- actually, it's worse than that: this was the inverse of knowledge.
Roy Casagranda seems to be a government professor for a community college in Austin (God help his students) who is up there bullshitting his way through a Church history lecture. I’m an ethics professor in a medical school, and Roy’s performance reminds me of watching physicians try and teach ethics classes: so, so confident in their ignorance.
Actually... I don't know about that. The channel "The Austin School" seems to be where most of the videos of him come from and... well they call themselves an LLC, so, 🤷♀️
I genuinely had a jaw drop moment when he attempted to describe Arius' ideas. 'Cause hoo boy, a late and unsubstantiated retelling of this lecture is going to include Saint Nicholas slapping this guy for that.
Why is it that some people, when they receive a doctorate, think they are qualified to speak authoritatively on any subject? Dr Roy Casagranda is a doctor of government & politics, not religion. As everything he utters is wrong to such an astounding degree, we might question whether it is arrogant ignorance or a deliberate agenda.
He certainly seems to be a mixed bag...mind you, he's got a good one on fb (I looked him up): referring, I assume, to the endless shootings in the US, he remarks "if the flags are always going to be at half mast, why don't we save money by buying shorter flag poles?". Quite witty, I thought.
Yep. I work in a nuclear physics department. One guy thinks he is an expert in biology and other subjects. My education is in Photonics and I worked for years with a company that is #3 photonics corporation in the world. I do not have a PhD. Shortly after he started, he started talking to me about lasers. (I was looking for a new laser for our linear accelerator that feeds our free electron laser.) He was getting things wrong about lasers, how they function, and their operation. I gently trying to correct him and he just stood his ground. So, I just walked away. I was literally hired for the position because of my experience and expertise in lasers and electronics.
Finding it strange that a professor of government is giving a lecture (and confidently so) on a very specific event in religious history. Most professors I know do not dare to stray from their lane.
I noticed he was a doctor, so I looked up his academic qualifications. His thesis was related to Germanic culture. My suspicion is this was meant as sort of a "familiar touchpoint" from US culture for his students. His likely thinking being people in his class probably "knew" much of this because it is the DaVinci Code's version of "history" and thus could prompt an easy segue into his actual area of knowledge, which he touches with his last sentence. That said, impressive to see so many factually incorrect statements in such a short period. 🤣 Also, thank you Sir, for your content! I have learned a ton watching you and you have helped clarify other points I have learned from other scholars like Dr. Erhman. So just very grateful to you for sharing your knowledge here. 🙏
It is not uncommon that an academic trying to contextualize their position will reach out to another tradition to explain the context. In their haste to gather a lot of information quickly, rather than confront the original material they may look at a textbook written for freshmen. And that textbook will be wrong. I am not even vaguely an expert in Kant, but I am surprised at the number of ethicists who reach out to Kant to support their position and haven't even read the first sentence of his Groundwork (Grundlegung): The only thing good in and of itself is a good will. The categorical imperative... well I don't need to get didactic here. I'm just suggesting that you're being too generous. Since he's not going to seriously talk about the council and Christianity except as context for his discussion of Germanic culture lecture, he just accumulated a freshman's understanding in the material, a "C" freshman at that
@@Matt_The_Hugenot not having seen the rest of the video or knowing what he is actually lecturing on, the rest of his talk might be right up his alley, but I agree what he says to this point is clearly beyond his knowledge base
Today I learned how to pronounced Chalcedon. I never stopped to think that's a 'chi' (X) in front. Thanks, Dan. Everything else I already knew, and this was basic stuff taught in a state university 300 level class. The "Dr" here teaches government at a community college in Austin, Texas. His PhD is one of the most convoluted I've ever seen, and the fact it's from a respected research university is mind boggling. How did that get through? Just to make him go away? The fact that he's at a community college makes perfect sense, though.
I'd disagree with your last part. There are some great teachers who care at community colleges. And students who attend community colleges don't deserve to be taught by misinformed narcissistic blowhards any more than anyone else does.
I absolutely love and appreciate your work on the destruction of this misinformation, along with any other misinformation you come across on the internet. We need more critical Biblical scholars like yourself.
Have you posted a video yet on the Apocrypha? If not it would be most helpful. I just purchased a "complete" Apocrypha book and it would be helpful to understand what the H I'm reading 🙂.
Is it published by Covenant Christian Coalition? I can't speak for the quality of their translation but going based on that list: - Tobit, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, 1-3 Maccabees, 1 Esdras (an alt version of Ezra). These are Jewish books from before the time of Jesus that were included as supplements to the Greek translation of the Old Testament. - Baruch is a supplement to the Greek edition of Jeremiah - Susanna, Prayer of Azariah, and Bel and the Dragon are supplements to the Greek editions of Daniel. The Greek translation of Esther also includes supplements. Most of the above are considered canon by Catholics and all are accepted by Orthodox Christians. - Prayer of Manasseh: an ancient prayer written to complement the story of King Manasseh in Chronicles. - "4 Maccabees": a Greco-Jewish philosophical treatise, once thought to be written by Josephus. - 2 Esdras: a hodgepodge of early Christian prophecies (1-2 and 15-16) and a Jewish apocalypse written in AD 100 (ch. 3-14) in response to the Second Temple destruction. Was known to medieval Christians through Latin translation. - Enoch: the book quoted by Jude, also called 1 Enoch. - Jubilees: a rewrite of Genesis and Exodus, dating before the NT. These last two are considered canon by Ethiopian Jews and Christians, and both were present in the Dead Sea Scrolls. - Book of Jasher: a 19th century forgery that still for some reason gets printed with genuine ancient Apocrypha. The real "book of Jasher" (Scroll of the Upright) is lost to time.
I hope (against all hope) no one wasted money on that “lecturer.” This clip reminds us that hacks with intellectual pretensions also use lecture halls to expound tales with no regard to historical facts.
How did he manage to get every single detail wrong? Like, by sheer chance you’d have expected at least one significant truth to have founts way in. But seemingly not. Remarkable
I'm not an expert in any field, especially religion or government which I believe is this speaker's field. So I'm mostly postulating here. I feel like alot of ancient understandings for some people falls down to people of today taking what they know, and trying to apply it to people of the past, wether or not it's even in applicable fields, or cultures. Certainly religion was used to control the masses, but the way so many people today word it is as if the people in charge actively went, "Alright, how can we deceive people with the religion." Which just doesn't seem like a mentality people in the past had, and is more so a thing you'd expect today. Maybe it was common in the ancient world, but I feel like whether deceptive, wrong, or self benefiting, most people were more earnest in their claims than we give them credit, even if those claims were wrong.
@@nilslindqvist8825as a dentist, I am offended by being compared to this dunce. I challenge you to a duel, sir. I’ll have to think about what kind. Or maybe I’ll just threaten you with a root canal? Yeah, that should do it. 😜
I’m afraid to think where this is being taught. In the very first clip I (an atheist and layman) recognized that everything the guy said was wrong before Dan replied. Some of us still remember what actually happened with The Last Temptation of Christ movie and why. Who even is this guy?
Other commenters have pointed out that he hasa legitimate Ph.D. that relates to medieval German politics, and has no relationship whatsoever to the topics he's discussing here.
so apparently this guy’s a professor of government in Austin..also this talk looks to be from “how Islam saved western civilization”..I have no qualms about Islam but do with that as you will
@@cougar1234c my guess is it's referring to the notion that western civilization was birthed in ancient Greece, and the ideas of Plato et al archived in the Near East during the Islamic Golden age, so that it be rediscovered by Europe after the Dark Ages. (I don't necessarily agree with this notion, but that's what's behind the provocative title of the class/lecture)
However, just because someone doesn't have a degree in a field, doesn't mean they shouldn't be heard out. Thinking otherwise is just an appeal to authority. It's fair that Dan listened to the lunatic's ravings before dismissing them
Genuinely, is someone who is this confidently wrong just misinformed or does he know he's lying? It seems like 98% of this could be corrected in the first nine seconds of a basic google search.
I'll give him this: Because Jesus' subordination to the father is more intuitive than the eventual formulation of the trinity, I bet you could get many if not most mainstream American Christians to admit to beliefs that would have been considered Arian. This is just a hunch but most mainstream Christians aren't particularly concerned with the nuances of doctrine so you could just point out a verse that implies subordination and they'd shrug and say "Sure, that sounds about right." Outside of that one point I can't believe a guy with the honorific Dr. in front of his name could be so consistently wrong. Like he had to be racking up serious combo points.
The split between Arian Christians and trinitarian Christians, like most religious disputes, fell entirely along ethnic lines, with gothic barbarian peoples in the Baltic sea region becoming Arian Christians and Romans being trinitarian. This was seen and observed at the time. Visigoths became especially zealous Arians as a display of ethnic pride. The council of nicaea was a Roman gathering so obviously only their faction ever had fair representation. Later schism between east and west as well as the protestant reformation were also ethnic in nature.
I think that was all later though. The Nicaean council rejected Arianism, but it survived and flourished. Often, as you say, along ethnic lines. Arius himself was from what we now call Libya and had nothing to do with gothic barbarians of the Baltics. Nor as far as I can tell did his early supporters.
I think what is truly sad is that people go to lectures to learn from an alleged expert , who then takes advantage of their ignorance on the subject, and rather than teach and inform them becomes an actor and a "hustler" to spread more fraud and confusion.
It's pretty scary that a guy like him can gain enough prominence and respect to be in a position like that where he is unbelievably spreading complete misinformation. I don't know if he's doing it on purpose, or if he is really that uneducated on the thing he's talking about. I'm flabbergasted! I don't know how one man can have every sentence he says be so wrong and be treated as if he's some kind of expert.
Dr. Casagranda's presentation was absurdly bizarre. I'm quite baffled that someone supposedly trained in how to study and present hostorical topics could be so irresponsible.
It is so annoying that people who have PhD's in one field use that legitimacy to lecture about fields they know very little about, leading to the spread of misinformation.
O.K. I'm not sure I'd dismiss Constantine capacity for the devious and the outright vicious. Dude was an Emperor after all. And a Roman one too. Eusebius's fawning sycophantic bio fails to hide the nasty piece of work Constantine was. It's no wonder both Constans and Constantinus turned off their heads too... Athanasius... Another not very nice power hungry dude... Tried starving the Arian's out in Egypt... And he was on some kind of purge there when the Nag Hammadi Scrolls were likely buried. From his role with Arius and establishing the supposed text of the Johnanine comma in the dispute with Arius. A If Eusebius is Constantine's propagandist/pamphleteer, Athanasius is his heavy hand. Redeemed back into Constantine's circle after a spell in exile for that heavy handedness. That said... I agree Constantine wanted an easy path through Nicea. The couple of legions stationed not too far away were... Just ... You know, 'insurance'. Athanasius there to bring the others into line. I find it pretty hard to imagine he was not using the intimidatory effect of imperial power, though I agree it was for an outcome more mundane and believable than the supposed divinity of Christ. Yup managing the Christians was likely only one of Constantine's many day to day agendas, though he does seem to have pose as somewhat pious, whilst presenting as somewhat pompous... Following Eusebius. *Eusebius 'pamphillus' if memory serves...50 bibles and all that.
The speaker is also completely wrong when he says the Orthodox think that Jesus “the man” was tempted. That is the opposite of what Orthodox believe. Just because a Greek wrote a work of fiction, whith a twist of Nestorianism, doesn’t make it Orthodox.
I think it may be all downhill from here for these "let's see it" takedowns. Surely no one will put anything this spectacularly ignorant on the internet again. Perhaps this was an elaborate parody of the post-Dan Brown bump in people who think they have the inside track on Christian history. It *has* to be parody, doesn't it?
Just to quibble a little with Rome being only about 10% Christian. From what I can find, that's an estimate for around 300AD and Christianity was growing fast during this time, so it would have been higher even by the start of Constantine's reign and much higher by the end. Still well below the majority this speaker claims of course.
One would hope that when giving a public talk on a given topic, the presenter would take the time and care to research and fact-check their materials and data. Sadly, this is not the first, nor the last time someone will get up in front of an audience and present unsupported and easily falsifiable information. Were I to engage in this deceptive, no, dishonest, behaviour in my field, sociology, I'd be laughed out of the lecture hall, and I'd deserve it for being intellectually dishonest.
Who is this guy? Lol the man does not have a great relationships with the facts, let alone truth 😂 Apparently hes a professor of Government at Austin Community College. To be this wrong on a subject that's not in his purview, I'd hate to hear his thoughts on the stuff he's SUPPOSED to know about.
I can't decide whether he's just freestyling and saying whatever comes into his head or has somehow got all his info from completely inaccurate sources.
It's pretty wild! I mean, I'm used to people interpreting things in different ways to suit their preconceived beliefs, but this was more like an old _SNL_ skit where a director decides he needs to punch up the gospel story by adding a character named Barry who Jesus betrays.
The one thing that I think he shockingly got right (for the wrong reasons, of course) is the idea that most Americans suffer from the heresy of arianism.
Ikr??!?! Good lord I’m laughing so hard. Where the hell did he get these credentials ???
Hey Dan, I think it might be productive if you did a series of short videos about the various councils and arguments in early Christianity. Like, the Council of Nicea, The Council of Chalcedon, the Arian Controversy, the Johannine Comma, etc. Just a suggestion.
Oh yeah, that would be an awesome series, Dan! I’d love to keep a playlist for reference.
would love that series.
@dan , I would love to see this too.
yeah cool idea!
A great idea for a Data > Dogma episode. Because Beecher's contributions to this conversation are going to be epic! I love their conversations and commentaries on these issues.
Imagine showing up to this, taking notes, and years later stumbling across this video
I laughed several times watching this. How can someone be so wrong and yet so confident?
‘How can someone be so wrong and yet so confident’. Haven’t you just described all Christian apologists?
at least his suit fits /s
_How can someone be so wrong and yet so confident?_ You should probably look into the Dunning-Kruger effect and related observations.
@@KaiHenningsen I have heard of that, but this is the first time I've seen someone lecture about something he knew nothing about -- actually, it's worse than that: this was the inverse of knowledge.
conditioning
Roy Casagranda seems to be a government professor for a community college in Austin (God help his students) who is up there bullshitting his way through a Church history lecture. I’m an ethics professor in a medical school, and Roy’s performance reminds me of watching physicians try and teach ethics classes: so, so confident in their ignorance.
A Southern version of Jordan Peterson, perhaps? I get the same energy.
Actually... I don't know about that.
The channel "The Austin School" seems to be where most of the videos of him come from and... well they call themselves an LLC, so, 🤷♀️
I genuinely had a jaw drop moment when he attempted to describe Arius' ideas. 'Cause hoo boy, a late and unsubstantiated retelling of this lecture is going to include Saint Nicholas slapping this guy for that.
This is impressive content. I have not seen anything so completely and comprehensively wrong in a long time.
I'm in no way close to an academic and I caught every wild fabrication he made. He was stunning in his ability to out-wrong himself.
Why is it that some people, when they receive a doctorate, think they are qualified to speak authoritatively on any subject? Dr Roy Casagranda is a doctor of government & politics, not religion. As everything he utters is wrong to such an astounding degree, we might question whether it is arrogant ignorance or a deliberate agenda.
He certainly seems to be a mixed bag...mind you, he's got a good one on fb (I looked him up): referring, I assume, to the endless shootings in the US, he remarks "if the flags are always going to be at half mast, why don't we save money by buying shorter flag poles?". Quite witty, I thought.
he should stick with that
Yep. I work in a nuclear physics department. One guy thinks he is an expert in biology and other subjects. My education is in Photonics and I worked for years with a company that is #3 photonics corporation in the world. I do not have a PhD. Shortly after he started, he started talking to me about lasers. (I was looking for a new laser for our linear accelerator that feeds our free electron laser.) He was getting things wrong about lasers, how they function, and their operation. I gently trying to correct him and he just stood his ground. So, I just walked away. I was literally hired for the position because of my experience and expertise in lasers and electronics.
@@DaveCM Thank you for that. I'm afraid there is no reaching someone who is so arrogant and self-opinionated.
@@theoutspokenhumanist There isn't.
7:29 when you laugh and no one laughs with you, you may have lost the room. If you ever had it to begin with.
Hey Dan, I really enjoy your videos. I learn a lot. Thanks for making them.
His lecture makes total sense if it was held on Opposite Day
My Catholic soul is hurting from the pure inaccuracies
Finding it strange that a professor of government is giving a lecture (and confidently so) on a very specific event in religious history. Most professors I know do not dare to stray from their lane.
He's a Community College professor, which means that he at times gets wrangled into teaching basic freshman level classes in related fields.
I noticed he was a doctor, so I looked up his academic qualifications. His thesis was related to Germanic culture.
My suspicion is this was meant as sort of a "familiar touchpoint" from US culture for his students. His likely thinking being people in his class probably "knew" much of this because it is the DaVinci Code's version of "history" and thus could prompt an easy segue into his actual area of knowledge, which he touches with his last sentence. That said, impressive to see so many factually incorrect statements in such a short period. 🤣
Also, thank you Sir, for your content! I have learned a ton watching you and you have helped clarify other points I have learned from other scholars like Dr. Erhman. So just very grateful to you for sharing your knowledge here. 🙏
It is not uncommon that an academic trying to contextualize their position will reach out to another tradition to explain the context. In their haste to gather a lot of information quickly, rather than confront the original material they may look at a textbook written for freshmen. And that textbook will be wrong. I am not even vaguely an expert in Kant, but I am surprised at the number of ethicists who reach out to Kant to support their position and haven't even read the first sentence of his Groundwork (Grundlegung): The only thing good in and of itself is a good will. The categorical imperative... well I don't need to get didactic here. I'm just suggesting that you're being too generous. Since he's not going to seriously talk about the council and Christianity except as context for his discussion of Germanic culture lecture, he just accumulated a freshman's understanding in the material, a "C" freshman at that
I think it's a reach to assume he's lecturing within his subject.
@@Matt_The_Hugenot not having seen the rest of the video or knowing what he is actually lecturing on, the rest of his talk might be right up his alley, but I agree what he says to this point is clearly beyond his knowledge base
@@jaradams It's from a lecture titled How Islam saved Western civilization.
@@Matt_The_Hugenot but it sounds like he is well in over his head
Terima kasih.
I had to pause the video at the outtake to maintain my own composure lol.
My favorite videos are when Dan has to give a “Billy Madison quote” to reply.
Today I learned how to pronounced Chalcedon. I never stopped to think that's a 'chi' (X) in front. Thanks, Dan. Everything else I already knew, and this was basic stuff taught in a state university 300 level class. The "Dr" here teaches government at a community college in Austin, Texas. His PhD is one of the most convoluted I've ever seen, and the fact it's from a respected research university is mind boggling. How did that get through? Just to make him go away? The fact that he's at a community college makes perfect sense, though.
I'd disagree with your last part. There are some great teachers who care at community colleges. And students who attend community colleges don't deserve to be taught by misinformed narcissistic blowhards any more than anyone else does.
If you asked me to write an incorrect history of Christianity, I don't think I could have done better than this speaker in the video.
I love the inclusion of that "failed" take at 6:41.
I absolutely love and appreciate your work on the destruction of this misinformation, along with any other misinformation you come across on the internet. We need more critical Biblical scholars like yourself.
Have you posted a video yet on the Apocrypha? If not it would be most helpful. I just purchased a "complete" Apocrypha book and it would be helpful to understand what the H I'm reading 🙂.
Is it published by Covenant Christian Coalition? I can't speak for the quality of their translation but going based on that list:
- Tobit, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, 1-3 Maccabees, 1 Esdras (an alt version of Ezra). These are Jewish books from before the time of Jesus that were included as supplements to the Greek translation of the Old Testament.
- Baruch is a supplement to the Greek edition of Jeremiah
- Susanna, Prayer of Azariah, and Bel and the Dragon are supplements to the Greek editions of Daniel. The Greek translation of Esther also includes supplements.
Most of the above are considered canon by Catholics and all are accepted by Orthodox Christians.
- Prayer of Manasseh: an ancient prayer written to complement the story of King Manasseh in Chronicles.
- "4 Maccabees": a Greco-Jewish philosophical treatise, once thought to be written by Josephus.
- 2 Esdras: a hodgepodge of early Christian prophecies (1-2 and 15-16) and a Jewish apocalypse written in AD 100 (ch. 3-14) in response to the Second Temple destruction. Was known to medieval Christians through Latin translation.
- Enoch: the book quoted by Jude, also called 1 Enoch.
- Jubilees: a rewrite of Genesis and Exodus, dating before the NT.
These last two are considered canon by Ethiopian Jews and Christians, and both were present in the Dead Sea Scrolls.
- Book of Jasher: a 19th century forgery that still for some reason gets printed with genuine ancient Apocrypha. The real "book of Jasher" (Scroll of the Upright) is lost to time.
Goodness that was painful. Lol Love that you do these videos.
Honestly, this is so bad that just reading the wikipedia article on the Council of Nicea would be infinitely better.
I hope (against all hope) no one wasted money on that “lecturer.”
This clip reminds us that hacks with intellectual pretensions also use lecture halls to expound tales with no regard to historical facts.
How did he manage to get every single detail wrong? Like, by sheer chance you’d have expected at least one significant truth to have founts way in. But seemingly not. Remarkable
Constantine: Do you believe in your master Arius, O Berber?
This demonstrates bold confidence on pure made up stuff. A grown up man in front of an audience and he was just lying and lying.
Just like trump does.
So confident, so authoritative, so glib, so wrong.
I'm not an expert in any field, especially religion or government which I believe is this speaker's field. So I'm mostly postulating here.
I feel like alot of ancient understandings for some people falls down to people of today taking what they know, and trying to apply it to people of the past, wether or not it's even in applicable fields, or cultures. Certainly religion was used to control the masses, but the way so many people today word it is as if the people in charge actively went, "Alright, how can we deceive people with the religion." Which just doesn't seem like a mentality people in the past had, and is more so a thing you'd expect today. Maybe it was common in the ancient world, but I feel like whether deceptive, wrong, or self benefiting, most people were more earnest in their claims than we give them credit, even if those claims were wrong.
Thanks Dan!!!
Such great confidence in his make believe world. Guess it pays the rent.
perfect example on how knowledge has got mixed up and mis appropriated
OMG, this guy is a professor somewhere???
Maybe he’s a dentist? Professor of teeth? Clinched ones…
@@nilslindqvist8825 You're slandering dentist.
@@nilslindqvist8825as a dentist, I am offended by being compared to this dunce. I challenge you to a duel, sir. I’ll have to think about what kind. Or maybe I’ll just threaten you with a root canal? Yeah, that should do it. 😜
A quick google shows him to have a doctorate in political science. He seems rather far adrift from his expertise
@iNfestedGuyTypeThing I have a Ph.d in PolSci and Statistics. Now I feel bad.
Betting that speaker looked up the Wikipedia version 15 minutes before.
I’m afraid to think where this is being taught. In the very first clip I (an atheist and layman) recognized that everything the guy said was wrong before Dan replied. Some of us still remember what actually happened with The Last Temptation of Christ movie and why. Who even is this guy?
Who is that person? Where is he talking?
Hmm...I'm starting to think that guy's "Dr." prefix might be an honorary title.
Other commenters have pointed out that he hasa legitimate Ph.D. that relates to medieval German politics, and has no relationship whatsoever to the topics he's discussing here.
Dr who of what ?
so apparently this guy’s a professor of government in Austin..also this talk looks to be from “how Islam saved western civilization”..I have no qualms about Islam but do with that as you will
@@cougar1234c my guess is it's referring to the notion that western civilization was birthed in ancient Greece, and the ideas of Plato et al archived in the Near East during the Islamic Golden age, so that it be rediscovered by Europe after the Dark Ages. (I don't necessarily agree with this notion, but that's what's behind the provocative title of the class/lecture)
I think he's projecting onto Constantine his own desire to manipulate the masses, which is what most professors of government do
However, just because someone doesn't have a degree in a field, doesn't mean they shouldn't be heard out. Thinking otherwise is just an appeal to authority. It's fair that Dan listened to the lunatic's ravings before dismissing them
Genuinely, is someone who is this confidently wrong just misinformed or does he know he's lying? It seems like 98% of this could be corrected in the first nine seconds of a basic google search.
What are his credentials and where is he speaking?
I'll give him this: Because Jesus' subordination to the father is more intuitive than the eventual formulation of the trinity, I bet you could get many if not most mainstream American Christians to admit to beliefs that would have been considered Arian. This is just a hunch but most mainstream Christians aren't particularly concerned with the nuances of doctrine so you could just point out a verse that implies subordination and they'd shrug and say "Sure, that sounds about right."
Outside of that one point I can't believe a guy with the honorific Dr. in front of his name could be so consistently wrong. Like he had to be racking up serious combo points.
Why oh why, in any and all religions and teachings, don't we just tell the truth? So sad.
The split between Arian Christians and trinitarian Christians, like most religious disputes, fell entirely along ethnic lines, with gothic barbarian peoples in the Baltic sea region becoming Arian Christians and Romans being trinitarian. This was seen and observed at the time. Visigoths became especially zealous Arians as a display of ethnic pride. The council of nicaea was a Roman gathering so obviously only their faction ever had fair representation. Later schism between east and west as well as the protestant reformation were also ethnic in nature.
I've also read that it was the start of anti-gay legislation within the church.
I think that was all later though. The Nicaean council rejected Arianism, but it survived and flourished. Often, as you say, along ethnic lines. Arius himself was from what we now call Libya and had nothing to do with gothic barbarians of the Baltics. Nor as far as I can tell did his early supporters.
@@jeffmacdonald9863 Exactly. Lots of North African and Near East believers were Arian.
This is the most valuable type of debunking. Students are trusting this guy to teach them, and he doesn't know anything about the subject!
I think what is truly sad is that people go to lectures to learn from an alleged expert , who then takes advantage of their ignorance on the subject, and rather than teach and inform them becomes an actor and a "hustler" to spread more fraud and confusion.
It's pretty scary that a guy like him can gain enough prominence and respect to be in a position like that where he is unbelievably spreading complete misinformation. I don't know if he's doing it on purpose, or if he is really that uneducated on the thing he's talking about. I'm flabbergasted! I don't know how one man can have every sentence he says be so wrong and be treated as if he's some kind of expert.
Ah, the sheer delight that comes with the data!
Dr. Casagranda's presentation was absurdly bizarre. I'm quite baffled that someone supposedly trained in how to study and present hostorical topics could be so irresponsible.
That was... Frightening.
Ooooh! Talk about a smackdown! ❤
It is so annoying that people who have PhD's in one field use that legitimacy to lecture about fields they know very little about, leading to the spread of misinformation.
O.K. I'm not sure I'd dismiss Constantine capacity for the devious and the outright vicious. Dude was an Emperor after all. And a Roman one too. Eusebius's fawning sycophantic bio fails to hide the nasty piece of work Constantine was. It's no wonder both Constans and Constantinus turned off their heads too... Athanasius... Another not very nice power hungry dude... Tried starving the Arian's out in Egypt... And he was on some kind of purge there when the Nag Hammadi Scrolls were likely buried. From his role with Arius and establishing the supposed text of the Johnanine comma in the dispute with Arius. A
If Eusebius is Constantine's propagandist/pamphleteer, Athanasius is his heavy hand. Redeemed back into Constantine's circle after a spell in exile for that heavy handedness.
That said... I agree Constantine wanted an easy path through Nicea. The couple of legions stationed not too far away were... Just ... You know, 'insurance'. Athanasius there to bring the others into line. I find it pretty hard to imagine he was not using the intimidatory effect of imperial power, though I agree it was for an outcome more mundane and believable than the supposed divinity of Christ.
Yup managing the Christians was likely only one of Constantine's many day to day agendas, though he does seem to have pose as somewhat pious, whilst presenting as somewhat pompous... Following Eusebius.
*Eusebius 'pamphillus' if memory serves...50 bibles and all that.
How is this guy speaking in front of a room of students.
Is he trolling that audience? Lol
How can these people be so blatantly wrong with a straight face?
6:41 hahaha hilarious!🤣
The speaker is also completely wrong when he says the Orthodox think that Jesus “the man” was tempted. That is the opposite of what Orthodox believe. Just because a Greek wrote a work of fiction, whith a twist of Nestorianism, doesn’t make it Orthodox.
I think it may be all downhill from here for these "let's see it" takedowns. Surely no one will put anything this spectacularly ignorant on the internet again. Perhaps this was an elaborate parody of the post-Dan Brown bump in people who think they have the inside track on Christian history. It *has* to be parody, doesn't it?
But do you agree that Constantine used Christianity to further his control?
He didn't get EVERYTHING wrong. He got the correct year for Nicea and that Constantine was emperor. Other than that, though...
Sheesh, people just make up things that they prefer and speak as if they have authority. If only there was an "industry standard" based on accuracy.
Can you do an exposure on Jehovah`s Witnesses on thier claims
Just to quibble a little with Rome being only about 10% Christian. From what I can find, that's an estimate for around 300AD and Christianity was growing fast during this time, so it would have been higher even by the start of Constantine's reign and much higher by the end. Still well below the majority this speaker claims of course.
Ouch!
can you do an exposure of the Mormon church and thier claims ~~
Lol.. It seems He just went to the Bar right before... 😅
But he speaks so confidently! Isnt that all you need to be factual??
"Dr."
Read Constantine's Easter letter cursed Hebrew calendar and Jews..evil
Excellent channel accurate on this subject 👍
I wonder how much he was paid for his "expert" opinions?
One would hope that when giving a public talk on a given topic, the presenter would take the time and care to research and fact-check their materials and data. Sadly, this is not the first, nor the last time someone will get up in front of an audience and present unsupported and easily falsifiable information. Were I to engage in this deceptive, no, dishonest, behaviour in my field, sociology, I'd be laughed out of the lecture hall, and I'd deserve it for being intellectually dishonest.
note to self: never trust anything that comes out of the mouth of Roy Casagranda. whoever he is.
Good job Dan… I just wish you were Orthodox. Lol. At least you understand the history.
Dan you come across a polymath sometimes.
A professor in political science is basically just trying to mash his model of political discourse by just making stuff up. :/
Who is this guy? Lol the man does not have a great relationships with the facts, let alone truth 😂
Apparently hes a professor of Government at Austin Community College. To be this wrong on a subject that's not in his purview, I'd hate to hear his thoughts on the stuff he's SUPPOSED to know about.
Dan I think you need to cultivate a dry sense of humor 😀