Early Christian Schisms - I: Before Imperium - Extra History
Added 2016-04-29 17:01:27 +0000 UTCUnderstanding the theological struggles of the early Christian church is vital to understanding history, especially in the Roman world.
Comments
So I was rewatching this with a friend who can read Greek, and apparently, the man in the icon isn't Arius, but another saint?
Edward James Lehar
2016-05-25 23:49:25 +0000 UTCI think you definitely did a good job introducing the concept of martyrdom, I was just wondering if you were going to expand upon it. Looking back, it probably is more a tangential thing to the early heresies than being directly related. Though if you ever do a series on the Spanish Inquisition it might be a good starting off point, as its concept leads to St. Francis throwing away his wealth and founding a new monastic order. On the subject of St. Augustine, I am sad to hear he isn't in this series, but I definitely hope he gets a series of his own. Maybe next raffle I'll put that in and see if it gets pulled. That all said, I can't wait for the next episode in the series!
Tsp1721
2016-05-04 19:20:15 +0000 UTCI think St. Augustine deserves a series of his own one day! But no, he isn't in this one. And related note: my mentor in college was a classics and medieval professor who specialized in St. Augustine, so if we ever do get to do that series I am going to send him the most excited email ever. But yeah, he's not in this one, and martyrdom is not going to be a focal point either. I hope the description of Ignatius and how he hoped his martyrdom would unite the community through his faith did at least something to introduce people to the concept and why it was effective in those early days. Finally - I seem to be going through your points in reverse - it was David who thought up using the fish symbol! I think we've sent him down so many rabbit holes looking up Christian symbols for other series that he picked up on that symbol's history and got to use it here in the best way.
Extra History
2016-05-04 19:10:02 +0000 UTCWe are definitely trying to tread carefully with this one, and glad you're enjoying it so far! I am going to pass along your (and Mask's) feedback regarding Paul and his teachings re: circumcision.
Extra History
2016-05-04 19:01:29 +0000 UTCMost of the doctrinal disputes are going to be summarized in the most basic and broad of ways, with the intention being to give people a reference point for what that legalistic dispute was about rather than giving them a comprehensive study of it. So if you're looking for in-depth analysis of those arguments, I'm afraid you're going to be disppointed. :( What we are going to do is go over a big arch of divisive moments within the development of Christianity as a faith, with events like the Council of Nicea and folks like Arian serving as touchstones.
Extra History
2016-05-04 18:58:06 +0000 UTCThis is a good start to the a series I have been waiting a long time to happen. I am currently a grad student focusing on Military history, but during my undergrad I was mentored by a historian who specialized in the Spanish Inquisition. To say that least I had class after class about heresies, and of course it all started with the earliest ones. OVerall I think this was a good introductory episode, setting the basis for the beginning of the splits in the Christian Faith and how the Church dealt with defending and/or modifying its doctrine over time. One thing I especially loved was the inclusion of the fish symbol throughout the episode. The symbol was used as a communicative mark for early Christians who wished to practice their faith, and you guys did a great job placing them in points of the episode which focus on Roman persecution. Really splendid detail._____________ There are two things I do hope you cover throughout the series: 1) I hope you guys talk more about martyrdom (even if it is in the Lies episode). I think you guys touched on it a little, but I would love for you to expand upon it. The concept is, in my opinion, incredibly important to understanding how the early faith survived very harsh persecutions. The concept of rescinding faith was unspeakable, even for survival purposes, for those who believed the most. While you might think it would kill a faith, it many ways it strengthened the resolve of it's believers, knowing that they would sacrifice themselves like Christ, and thus guarantee a spot in Heaven. This would become important later after persecutions cease, as many true believers still wanted to attain that level of sacrifice, but instead looked to sacrifices of material instead of life (For those interested, search Red versus White Martyrdom.) __________ 2) I really hope you at least touch on St. Augustine. He is one of THE foundational philosophers who deal with the early splits and heresies that appear. He laid a lot of foundation doctrine for the later Catholics, and even contributed to Just War Theory (which could be linked all the way to the Crusades!).
Tsp1721
2016-05-01 13:43:28 +0000 UTCI'd love to be able to tell you, but it depends on a complex web of art grants, progress on a related project and time he spends juggling the things that put food on the table on an everyday basis. It will probably be a couple of years more before it all works out and a translated version is available, but I'll try checking to see what I can find to say.
Christina Maria Jessen
2016-05-01 10:32:48 +0000 UTCGood video :) Religions (particularly disagreements between religions) are always going to be difficulty subjects to do well and you *are* doing it well. (Edit because I accidentally submitted the comment before I was finished.): Mask already pretty much said what I had to say about it but the only part of the video I found particularly off was ascribing those motivations to Paul in preaching against the need for circumcision. Not requiring circumcision likely would have have made Christianity more appealing to gentiles and it is certainly possible that Paul chose to talk about circumcision more than other parts of the law in part because of this. But the core of the Christian message he was preaching was that Christ's sacrifice was sufficient and necessary and that only by accepting him as our saviour we would be saved. By saying that you had to be circumcised to be saved (or by requiring any other part of the old law) the people espousing it were saying that Christ's death *wasn't* sufficient and in doing so were undermining the very core of the gospel Paul was preaching.
Claincy
2016-05-01 06:45:44 +0000 UTCGlad I could be of service. And thanks for mentioning Purcell, that piece is beautiful!
Mask
2016-05-01 03:00:22 +0000 UTCGreat video! I'm curious if you'll go into more details about the more doctrine-based arguments at the heart of these religious disputes. I think from our modern perspective we are comfortable with people's stated reasons and arguments being distinct from their underlying motivations and incentives. And while you present the intuitive motivations very well, I'm curious if you'll present the intensive, more legalistic arguments they made in their favor during lies. For example, you present Paul of Tarsus' rejection of circumcision and mosaic law as motivated and almost political; he wanted to bring Gentiles into the church, and mosaic law in general and circumcision in particular presented a major barrier to entry. I think that explanation is perfectly reasonable and valid, but Paul's stated argument in his Epistles is very different. To summarize, Paul asserted that while the Mosaic covenant was one of law, the Christian covenant was one of faith, and faith in Christ would bring salvation. Moreover, the Mosaic covenant was temporary and exclusively between God and the Jewish people, whereas the Christian covenant was eternal and belonged to all mankind. So instead being "circumcised in flesh" and depending on worldly actions for redemption, Paul called on followers to be "circumcised in spirit" and have their faith mark their covenant. His assertion that the character of Christianity and Judaism were fundamentally different, particularly in their treatment of Mosaic law, was perhaps the most important influence he had on the development of Christianity. Whether or not he had 'political' motivations is a matter of inference, but he always wrote in terms of theological reasoning.
Connor Raikes
2016-04-30 20:16:33 +0000 UTC"Man that is born of a woman, hath but a short time to live and is full of misery." I know this one because of Purcell's music. :-) Thank you for the detailed answer, Mask !
Matt Lakits doesn't have the mental energy to update their Patreon name anymore, but still listens to every episode avidly!
2016-04-30 19:09:14 +0000 UTCDid not think I could want that book any more than I already did. Was wrong! Christina, could you let me know when it comes out? I'd really love to pick it up!
Extra History
2016-04-30 17:16:21 +0000 UTCPlease do, Mask! And I'm really looking forward to the next Q&A session now. :)
Extra History
2016-04-30 17:12:49 +0000 UTCYOU stay awesome! <3
Extra History
2016-04-30 17:09:38 +0000 UTCHad not thought of these episodes serving as an introduction for folks who don't normally deal with Christianity. That's going to be an interesting take! Would love to hear what they think.
Extra History
2016-04-30 17:09:29 +0000 UTCHey, that's the whole point of Lies! Everyone makes mistakes, and even when they don't there are different opinions on various matters, so we should always 1) double-check each other and 2) be humble enough to admit when we're wrong.
Extra History
2016-04-30 17:08:57 +0000 UTCMask has brought up some really good points explaining Paul's view on Mosaic Law in more detail, which I'm going to pass along to James along with your note that he's an Apostle rather than a Church Father.
Extra History
2016-04-30 17:07:53 +0000 UTCHi Avery, thank you for weighing in on the subject of the differing viewpoints of the flesh between Christianity, Judaism, and later Christianity. ____________Christianity does emphasize this aspect more strongly than Judaism, especially in later times after the early church. In both religions, the flesh has become sinful; that is part of Judaism's doctrine. This is the very essence of the bible, that the decision of Adam and Eve brought sin into the world and separated it from God's holiness, that God made the world and humans good, but human actions made the world and humans evil. This theme is present throughout the Tanakh. Job is the book that laments on this most directly, that humans are doomed to be born unclean and die. _________________________________________________"Mortals, born of woman, are of few days and full of trouble. They spring up like flowers and wither away; like fleeting shadows, they do not endure. Do you fix your eye on them? Will you bring them before you for judgment? Who can bring what is pure from the impure? No one!" _____________________________________You are correct there isn't a specific law against overindulgence. In both the Christian bible and the Tanakh, overindulgence is frowned upon. Drunkards are constantly used as examples of negative people throughout the books, and the proverbs include advise to avoid gluttons and drunkards. __________________________________________________"Do not join those who drink too much wine or gorge themselves on meat, for drunkards and gluttons become poor, and drowsiness clothes them in rags." ___________________________________________________Overindulgence isn't forbidden expressly, but is noted to be an unworthy thing. Indulgence in strictly sinful activities is not allowed under any circumstances.
Mask
2016-04-30 13:04:58 +0000 UTCI'm afraid I have to add my own little Lies episode, and I hope you see it, Soraya. I mistakenly wrote that Paul was boiled to death. This is incorrect. Paul was a Roman citizen, this protected him against tortures Christians were normally sentenced to. Paul was beheaded. I'm sorry for this mistake, I should have been more careful.
Mask
2016-04-30 12:30:49 +0000 UTCHey good job so far. I just wanted to mention one thing that you might want to include in the lies episode (just in case you didn't notice it). Paul isn't a Church Father. He's an Apostle. Though when exactly the period of the Fathers begins is very debated, I've only heard it referred to people who are post-bible. Also, I do take some issue with the notion that the early Christians changed what they believe about circumcision or communion or corporeality of Christ in order to win converts. But I'm willing to give you guys the benefit of the doubt since I know you're coming at this from a more secular point of view. Keep up the good work. I look forward to the next episode.
Todd Carter
2016-04-30 11:59:57 +0000 UTCThe idea that flesh "became bad" is Christian. In Jewish culture the body is still a good thing and physical pleasure is not something to be avoided. Overindulgence is not a religious law problem.
Avery
2016-04-30 11:31:10 +0000 UTCI was thinking more along those lines, yes. Because like I said, it's a really minor thing and just something that stood out. The grim reaper is quite an interesting figure in European theology and art history in general. He's able to be used for virtually any cause from religious devotion and political propaganda to goofy margin pictures and disguising porn as art to avoid censorship.
Christina Maria Jessen
2016-04-30 10:13:57 +0000 UTCWell, EH mostly covered that. They said the human actions and descriptions of Christ were basically a mirage created by his spirit. He never had a human body, he never needed to eat, he just made people think he was eating and had a body and was wounded, etc.. In reality, he was just a spirit the whole time, making people think they saw him in flesh. Docetism actually comes from the word, "phantom," or, "apparition." These views don't really fit with the statements of the bible, and are refuted in letters by John, Paul, and I think Peter.
Mask
2016-04-30 08:50:42 +0000 UTCOk, thanks! That makes sense indeed. But that's the general context, how did Docetists interpret Jesus' story within this context? What was the significance of the Passion for them, for example? Or did they downplay the life-story part of the gospels, focusing instead on Jesus' teachings, as if he were a philosopher (albeit a divine one)?
Matt Lakits doesn't have the mental energy to update their Patreon name anymore, but still listens to every episode avidly!
2016-04-30 07:25:21 +0000 UTCAwesome, Thanks EC Team!! Stay Awesome!
Andreas
2016-04-30 06:25:55 +0000 UTCMostly due to Greek culture. In Greek thinking, spirit is good and flesh is generally bad. In Hebrew thinking, flesh and spirit are (were, in the case of flesh) both good. And while Rome was the dominant power, Greek culture was still strong throughout the empire, particularly in the areas the Docetism took root.
Mask
2016-04-30 00:37:08 +0000 UTCI live in Japan and most people here have only a vague understanding of Christianity. Like, the concept of circumcision is probably lost on most, and the name Constantine will only be known to those who studied hard for college entrance exams. For that kind of audience, this episode makes a good starting point! Also, can't wait for the Gnostics! Those weirdos.
Avery
2016-04-30 00:34:19 +0000 UTCThank you, Soraya. I don't often speak with authority on history, because I know enough to know I don't know enough. This is one of the obscure subjects I've studied. I'm glad these points are helpful, and that they may even reach the Lies episode. If there's any questions for the Lies episode I can help with, please go ahead and send them to me. If I can't field them, I know some experts who probably can. I'll continue to leave feedback on the episodes for anything I notice.
Mask
2016-04-30 00:27:51 +0000 UTCWere you predicting us or were we predicting you! It's so meta.
Extra History
2016-04-29 23:37:28 +0000 UTC"Poor" Constantine just wanted people to agree on things so he could rule an empire that wasn't being torn apart by religious disagreement. James will probably have a lot of fun with this in Lies. We get off this particular roller coaster at Chalcedon.
Extra History
2016-04-29 23:37:10 +0000 UTC0:26 Yes, please, more nitty-gritty details! :-) Btw, the title change from heresy to schism: well done! A little sidenote, when you discuss the Docetists and their vision of a "spiritual Christ" versus the importance of believing in Christ "in the flesh" (in order for his suffering and sacrifice to be meaningful, etc), I feel like you presented the Docetists' side from the point of view of their adversaries. Obviously, we as viewers (if we're Christian or familiar with Christianity, of course) get why it "makes sense" to believe in the flesh, because that's the doctrine that prevailed enventually, but I would like to learn more about the Docetists' idea: why did it make sense for them to believe in a spiritual Christ ?
Matt Lakits doesn't have the mental energy to update their Patreon name anymore, but still listens to every episode avidly!
2016-04-29 23:36:42 +0000 UTCMask, may I just say how nice it is to see you stretching your wings and showing off your historical knowledge? You are so often the asker of good questions, and now you are... the raiser of good points! I loved reading this, as it's a perspective I (a layman in these particular matters) was not familiar with but will happily pass on to James for consideration in the Lies episode. So thank you for the thorough review, and I hope others get to read it as well!
Extra History
2016-04-29 23:29:18 +0000 UTCJust read the Galatians book the other day. Amazing timing!
Feltyr
2016-04-29 22:11:49 +0000 UTCConstantine was a fascinating character for his (by all accounts completely honest) belief that he could just get everyone believing the same thing, no matter what it was. He would go back and forth between Arianism and Trinitarism based on popular support. Christology is a complex subject pretty much up until Chalcedon, and there are large communities today which reject Chalcedon, the Coptic Church of Alexandria being the one that comes immediately to mind, but there are plenty of communities who so rejected the Nestorian teachings that they came to reject Chalcedon's decision as too Nestorian. Question: Are you going all the way up to the split between Catholicism and Eastern Orthodox, or stopping before then, at Chalcedon or close thereabouts?
Jim McGeehin
2016-04-29 22:02:48 +0000 UTCEH, you are doing an excellent job! I love it! I especially liked David dancing on a barrel juggling torches, and the mention of Ignatius. I'm really looking forward to the other episodes! I do have a few footnotes I would like to add to the episode. _____ For those reading, a couple of points on the episode: ___________________________________________________________ Circumcision wasn't really the main concern. It's the popular modern one because, "ah! Pain!" and so EH seems to have overemphasized it. People are terrified to go to the dentist these days. But this is a world where you might sell yourself to a gladiator school to get famous or pay off debts, where a trip to the dentist did not have anesthetics fancier than alcohol and (sometimes) recreational drugs. The real issue, is circumcision is part of following the Law of Moses. Many Christians were willing to do that, but it has an unfortunate implication. Failing to keep the whole Law was damning, it was a system of relying on your own righteousness. It's the reason the Christ had to be sacrificed so others could be spared from the Law. __________ This is what the Christians preaching circumcision were teaching, that you had to keep the Law of Moses to get into heaven. _________________________________________________________________ To say Paul wanted to convert the gentiles to get a large church is entirely backwards. Paul's primary interest was converting the Jews. He went to the gentiles because the Jews refused to listen to him. His goal was never for importance or power, but to save everyone he could, because he felt guilty for killing and imprisoning Christians before his conversion. Even when he was sentenced to be beheaded, he preached to the Roman soldiers guarding him, and talked about himself feeling blessed in his letters to the rest of the church (where he was comforting them, when it should've been the other way around).____________________ Nor did Paul take issue with circumcision. He had one of his gentile followers circumcised just so it would be easier for him to help him preach to the Jews. He preached that people should instead circumcise their hearts for God, worshipping him with their spirits and not just their bodies. ______________________________________________________ One thing I'm disappointed got missed out (or might get mentioned later), was Constantine's law of tolerance was not mentioned. It was a law that forbade mistreating each other on the basis of religion, and it was before he came to absolute power--which is notable, as his opponent could've easily blocked the law. Under this law of tolerance, that is when Christianity boomed, until the cities were almost entirely Christian. An unfortunate mistake that came later was when a law was declared that everyone in the empire must be Christian. This wasn't good for Pagans or Christians. ____________________________________________ The last point I will make, is that saying the Christians argued about the nature of Christ, "because they wanted someone they could sympathize with," is a hindsight reflection and injection of practicalism, rather than a reflection of the feelings at the time. The early Christians were willing to put up with persecution because they honestly believed this was the truth, and so it was important to them that they preached the actual truth and not just a convenient truth. If they wanted a convenient truth, they would've picked something with less persecution. ______________ Thanks for doing an episode on this, Extra History!
Mask
2016-04-29 21:13:53 +0000 UTCI'm not Christian, but in general I tend to that frame of mind myself... certainly it's why I like Batman better than Superman. 8-) On the other hand, though, I can see why the Docetic theologians might view the idea of Christ (being, in essence, God) being reduced to mere mortal proportions rather shocking. And so you see how this "nature of Christ" question very quickly becomes a spiraling whirlpool of dissent.
Extra History
2016-04-29 20:57:44 +0000 UTCCouncil of Nicaea confirmed - it'll be here! And it's amazing how many references and allusions you find in various texts once you start understanding the history behind them.
Extra History
2016-04-29 20:55:06 +0000 UTCScript for Lies hasn't been written yet, but I know James added a whole bunch of notes to the script about Constantine. He has a love affair with the Eastern Empire in general so I expect he'll want to go into more depth about a lot of things he glossed over here... at least until we can do a full series on them. :) But thank you for providing the background on Sol Invictus, as that was another critical component in Christianity's adoption within the Roman world!
Extra History
2016-04-29 20:45:21 +0000 UTCWe often use modern references to get an idea across, so I generally only consider it an error if the art or narration implies this was a thing that people literally saw or believed at the time. (So if we said, the Grim Reaper stalked the streets, I'd consider that an error). That being said, I totally didn't know when the Grim Reaper came into iconography and I think that's a really interesting note that I'll be passing along to James. If we have time in this Lies episode, it'd be a cool inclusion as one of the "neat stories" he likes to tell.
Extra History
2016-04-29 20:40:51 +0000 UTCThat sounds like it'll be a very neat book.
Mask
2016-04-29 20:37:33 +0000 UTCA lot of medical practice that should be safe are dangerous in the poorer parts of the world. A lot of them just have really sloppy practice. I've heard of them using the same razor blades to operate on several persons without washing them. Jews have performed billions of circumcisions by this point in history, and the incidence rate has never been concerning by the standards of medical procedures. The disease prevention would've outweighed the risk (the reason circumcision became so popular that over 70% of Americans are still circumcised).
Mask
2016-04-29 20:36:34 +0000 UTCI hope we get to see the Council of Nikea. It was around this time they mentioned in the episode that it happened.
Sean Sarff
2016-04-29 20:30:20 +0000 UTCSome background info to the political situation: - Aurelian, Unconquered Restorer of the World, who stitched the empire back together after the nadir of Valerian's capture, may have inadvertently helped Christianity's prominence rise. See, Aurelian believed in an overarching Solar god called Sol Invictus, of which the traditional gods of Jupiter and Apollo were considered lesser aspects or alternate incarnations. Along with his military success, he championed Sol Invictus, and the credibility from his runaway success meant others took to celebrating Sol Invictus. As other gods were aspects of him, Sol Invictus was generally considered one of the Monotheist religions coming from the east, and as its prominence grew, there was also recognition of other Monotheist religions, and followers of Sol in turn saw Jesus Christ as a kindred faith, even if Christians did not reciprocate. This association helped make it easier for Christianity to be accepted in the wider backdrop of rising Monotheism. - This is a little more nitpicky, and may be a lies point, but the Milvian Bridge did not give Constantine mastery of the Empire, just the western half. Diocletian had institutionalised the division of imperial duties, and any solo emperors after him were the exception rather than the rule. The East was in the hands of Maximinus Daia, a staunch Olympian who continued the persecutions of Diocletian and Galerius. Constantine had an alliance with Licinius, onetime emperor of the west, who co-opted Constantine's championing of Christianity to wage war against Maximinus, which he succeeded at. This alliance was one of convenience though, and both strived to gain the whole empire. The final battle would not be until 324, which Constantine emerged the victor.
RMS Oceanic
2016-04-29 20:24:25 +0000 UTCThere is a lot to circumcision beyond the "ow, eugh!". Accepting that is essentially accepting all the Laws of Moses. No work on the Sabbath, regular sacrifices, etc.. Now, sacrifices were common, but it isn't an easy law to keep. Most importantly, failing to keep the whole Law was damning. That is why the Christ's sacrifice was important in the first place, he allowed people who failed to keep the whole law to be given mercy from judgement, requiring them only to ask for it and to turn themselves away from sin. Paul actually had no problem with circumcision, he had one of his followers circumcised so they could better preach to the Jews.
Mask
2016-04-29 20:15:15 +0000 UTCOh, hey, the grim reaper more than a millennium before he actually shows up in art history and almost a millennium before a personification of death looking like an ordinary human shows up. Not really important, it's clearly symbolism meant to be understandable to all of us, but given that my dad is working on an art book that is going to be the only unified work on the grim reaper in the world, I couldn't help but notice it. Might be worth bringing up in Lies, I guess, since the grim reaper and the vision of the apocalypse he represents is very much a medieval and renaissance concept, not an early Christian one. Early Christian ideas of the apocalypse were markedly different in a lot of ways.
Christina Maria Jessen
2016-04-29 19:24:25 +0000 UTCThe Christ as a spirit belief was also one I never really liked it kind of reminds me of Superman (now here me out), say a fireman rescues someone from a burning building this is pretty much universally considered to be heroic because he is putting his life on the line for no significant personal gain to save another person or persons, but what if superman does it? it is definitely appreciated but he risked nothing in this, a burning building is at most a minor inconvenience, more than anything else it would be quite a douchey thing to let people die because you couldn't be bothered to lift your kriptonian finger. so yeah without risk or sacrifice there can be no heroism or in this case divinity.
paul staber
2016-04-29 19:10:08 +0000 UTCIt's very interesting. The bible is full of references that we today just have no understanding of without a lot of research. Add to that the both the old and the new testament have been translated from language to language to language by many different people who colored it through their own lens of understanding. Some people taking on themselves to omit entire passages or add different things. It's amazing when you think of the Bible as the world's most popular book, and the arguments surrounding it as the most heartfelt and militarized book club of all time. Of course the issues of the book run much deeper and end up being much much more dire than that but in my mind I lightly of it as Book Clubs.
Robbie the Gnome
2016-04-29 19:00:06 +0000 UTCCircumcision is also more that a mere painful procedure, even today far to many men lose there penis due to a poorly performed circumcision (often by people with no medical training) and even can sometimes cause death due to blood loss or infection. While these things are rare in the "first world" today they are still pretty common in the poorer parts of the world, and I imagine it had to be significantly worse in the pre-antibiotic era. Point is mutilating somebody's genitals is rarely a good idea especially if there are no doctors involved.
paul staber
2016-04-29 18:53:01 +0000 UTCi never really picked apart the meaning of the words in the bible. Like the whole of flesh thing. And why the last supper is such a central concept of Catholocism.
Sean Sarff
2016-04-29 18:34:28 +0000 UTCAnd this is the "light" version!
Extra History
2016-04-29 18:31:34 +0000 UTCThat's some pretty heavy stuff. I'd never even heard of some of these people before today. I look forward to learning more.
Aaron hutchinson
2016-04-29 18:12:38 +0000 UTCIf you want to send them to a family member early, feel free! Just make sure your uncle understands not to share them elsewhere before they're available to the public on Saturday. :)
Extra History
2016-04-29 17:56:32 +0000 UTCTopic for further reading, I hope!
Extra History
2016-04-29 17:55:47 +0000 UTCThis series should be really interesting! I think I might send them to my priest uncle and see what he thinks of them (well, once they're released on Saturdays :) )
Emily Pendergraft
2016-04-29 17:50:54 +0000 UTCThis one's a four week set, but yeah, it's gonna be... interesting. ;)
Extra History
2016-04-29 17:23:33 +0000 UTCInteresting episode, although it's unfortunate that the issue of circumcision received a purely instrumental analysis rather than a nuanced one like the nature of Christ did.
Ryan Rowekamp
2016-04-29 17:18:02 +0000 UTCOh man, this is going to be a fun 6 weeks :D
Tiberia Prima
2016-04-29 17:07:07 +0000 UTC
