A History of Christianity
Professor Diarmaid MacCulloch - one of the world's leading historians - reveals the origins of Christianity and explores what it means to be a Christian. When Diarmaid MacCulloch was a small boy, his parents used to drive him round historic churches. Little did they know that they had created a monster, with the history of the Christian Church becoming his life's work. In a series sweeping across four continents, Professor MacCulloch goes in search of Christianity's forgotten origins.
1. The First Christianity. He overturns the familiar story that it all began when the apostle Paul took Christianity from Jerusalem to Rome. Instead, he shows that the true origins of Christianity lie further east, and that at one point it was poised to triumph in Asia, maybe even in China. The headquarters of Christianity might well have been Baghdad not Rome, and if that had happened then Western Christianity would have been very different.
2. Catholicism: The Unpredictable Rise of Rome. Over one billion Christians look to Rome, more than half of all Christians on the planet. But how did a small Jewish sect from the backwoods of 1st-century Palestine, which preached humility and the virtue of poverty, become the established religion of western Europe - wealthy, powerful and expecting unfailing obedience from the faithful?
3. Orthodoxy - From Empire to Empire. Today, Eastern Orthodox Christianity flourishes in the Balkans and Russia, with over 150 million members worldwide. It is unlike Catholicism or Protestantism - worship is carefully choreographed, icons pull the faithful into a mystical union with Christ, and everywhere there is a symbol of a fierce-looking bird, the double-headed eagle.
4. Reformation: The Individual Before God. The Amish today are peaceable folk, but five centuries ago their ancestors were seen as some of the most dangerous people in Europe. They were radicals - Protestants - who tore apart the Catholic Church. In the fourth part of the series, Diarmaid MacCulloch makes sense of the Reformation, and of how a faith based on obedience and authority gave birth to one based on individual conscience.
5. Protestantism - The Evangelical Explosion. Diarmaid MacCulloch traces the growth of an exuberant expression of faith that has spread across the globe - Evangelical Protestantism. Today, it is associated with conservative politics, but the whole story is distinctly more unexpected. It is easily forgotten that the evangelical explosion has been driven by a concern for social justice and the claim that one could stand in a direct emotional relationship with God.
6. God in the Dock. Diarmaid MacCulloch's own life story makes him a symbol of a distinctive feature about Western Christianity - scepticism, a tendency to doubt which has transformed both Western culture and Christianity. In the final programme in the series, he asks where that change came from. He challenges the simplistic notion that faith in Christianity has steadily ebbed away before the relentless advance of science, reason and progress, and shows instead how the tide of faith perversely flows back in.
It is a long documentary that takes you to time and places. He avoids religious conflicts by not adding his opinions and letting the audience hear direct interviews. Do not blame him. It is hard work. I suppose we need to encourage his work in progress. For sure viewers would pick up new things from this, and congratulate him to opening doors since much all kinds of religions are enclosed in a mindset that resist change and understanding of others. If you are too religious, this video series will definitely conflict with what has been taught as sacred and fundamental.
Everyone clap for Thomas & William! Tom you're clearly an extremist and even though you have good grammar you're either a weak minded sheeple or a m****. If anyone who knows even a drop about space or the cosmos or even just spends a 1/2 hr looking into space somewhere that light pollution isn't an issue and still believes that those evil and hilarious stories the Romans wrote like 1800 years ago in the bible are real they need help!! Seriously, how can anyone that's not a brain dead chimp come to the conclusion that some fairy tale being created planets and stars and whatnot billions and trillions of light years away? And since the religious believe we're all alone, WTF would be the point?! That's almost as bad as those who believe we co-existed with dinosaurs!
Eg, the worlds biggest dumb ass and liar ken ham in Kentucky who has a saddle and human riding a t-rex. Now to the guy who was ranting about Protestants, the catholic church is the worst of them all. The fact that 80% of the priests are gay and have been caught multiple times on film in gay clubs or in gay clubs are still claiming they're evil which is getting them killed all over the world. Then there's the fact that those loving people used to burn people to death for owning certain Swiss clocks or by stating the earth revolves around the sun or for a dozen other pointless and stupid reasons. Could also go on and on about the same priests, bishops and even popes who are condemning others are themselves busy raping and molesting children or committing all the same crimes they're killing others for.
I've seen some stupid comments from the obvious religees in here but some of the worst are saying atheists are the bigots and the mass murdering bastards of the past. WRONG! More people have been killed in the name of religion than all wars and disease combined. Guess who's at the top? Yep good old loving Christians. To answer the other stupid statement, you can see this best and most often in the u.s where the so called religious want the right to take away everyone else's rights that don't fit the model of what those ignorant half-wits inbreds think they see in the bible. The hypochristians can break every rule and commandment in that holy book they hold dear but if anyone else does well they need to be punished especially dem queers!
If it wasn't so disgusting to see you'd have to laugh. Eg; denying marriage licenses to gays or denying services to them like at restaurants or at that hugely important store for the whole country, Hobby Lobby! Ha. The one thing that always puzzles me is where is your god/imaginary friend in all of this? If jebus is so against so many things that'll send you straight to a cookout down below why doesn't it ever show up to stop any of these actions? It's so powerful but yet needs humans to do all its work, really? The jews are supposed to be gods peeps yet that all loving being stood by letting 6 million get massacred, ya sounds great!
Now to the person claiming that millions have met, felt and talked to god, odd then that there's such differences and contradictions about it. Weird too that the 3 biggest religions all share the same imaginary being yet each thinks they're the special ones and the others are all wrong and going to hell. The one common thing is they're all copied from bits and pieces of older religions and each other. There is factual proof of some of this if you actually think it's even needed.
Take the hilarious story of Noah's ark, they found the tablet with the original story some 1000 years or more talking about the floods which happened all the time back then and told them to build a boat big enough to fit as many of the people and livestock as possible and then someone got ahold of it and twisted the story adding in things like building the boat so big it would take every tree in Iraq to make them just snap in half the second it got floating, and then the funny part of taking 2 of every animal on the planet. Priceless! I wonder how he traveled the planet gathering all those animals with so little notice? How did the 800yr old or whatever it was manage to get the special feed for each or separate them all, build the boat and catch the animals without a tranquilizer gun? I guess these are all minor details the religious don't want to hear about, after all they're not known for dealing with facts.
I could go on and on for days about that pro rape, pro slavery, pro roman/anti-Jew, mass killing loving book called the bible and that's only 1 of the religions but I've got a true fairy tale to watch with my niece, Snow White. For all you others with common sense and intelligence on here, I wish you the best of luck trying to get through to the sheeple who still think the Stone Age peeps knew more than we do now in 2016.
Read the Book... Most disappointing book ever...
Mr. MacCulloch considers himself "immensely privileged to have been trained as a professional historian" and that he has "enjoyed the precious opportunity of research, teaching and discussing" things pertaining to his profession.
However, the Author does not even mention the persecution of the early Church by the Roman Emperors. He does not detail Emperor Nero’s persecution of the early Church and during which persecution, the apostles Peter and Paul were put to death. He does not mention the fires that engulfed and destroyed much of Rome. No mention of Trajan the Roman historian, etc. What kind of 'historian' is Mr. MacCulloch ? In my opinion, a very poor historian, with no signs at all of a 'professional'.
Besides, his 'interpretation' of history and historical facts is simply not true; they are horribly 'skewed' - to say the least. Obviously, no historian is absolutely 'objective'; there always will be the 'subjective' element of all our understandings of historical facts and evidences. However, the mark of a good historian is that he or she is well able to 'sift' through the available data and make a sensible and sane judgement. If however, the acclaimed 'historian' is not even aware of the data or simply ignores the available data, how on earth is he or she going to be able to make this sane judgement. And in my judgement, Mr. MacCulloch has either 'repressed' the facts and/or simply ignored them. Again, a very poor thing for a 'historian' to do.
Mr. MacCulloch is obviously not a Christian and therefore does not even accept the Bible as God's Word. He therefore does not 'believe' in the Lord Jesus Christ as His Lord and Saviour. This one fact alone should 'caution' people who read his works. All said and done, only a true believer who accepts the Bible as the Inspired, Inerrant Word of God can and will have a true understanding of the Scriptures and of History - which really is His-Story; The Story of God and His dealings with humanity.
Mr. MacCulloch himself admits, "I would now describe myself as a candid friend of Christianity" He goes on to say that he still 'appreciates' all that is happening in 'Christianity'; although calling it all "something so apparently crazy".
Mr. MacCulloch then has the temerity to call upon his readers (he means those who know better...) to accept with charity "this (book) as an apophatic form of the Christian Faith". No. We cannot do so and we make no apologies for saying so. God and His Word cannot be known in any apophatic way - never is God known by negation, only by His Own Revelation in and through the Lord Jesus Christ, His Only Begotten Son.
Mr. MacCulloch himself further admits that "the book is self-evidently not a work of primary-source research; ..." However, he goes on to tell us that his "aim is to tell as clearly as possible ... (a) tale, in ways which others will enjoy and find plausible." Plausible - did he say? Now what kind of true historian would even want to do such a thing. Why ever should any true and good historian ever have to write down anything other than the truth. And if it is the truth that he is passing on to his readers, then he need not worry about putting it across in any 'plausible' way. This simply need not be done - at least ought not to be done by any 'professional historian'.
And no wonder then Mr. MacCulloch does not accept the Bible as God's Word. For obviously, since he does not even believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, he cannot read any part of the Bible as being 'plausible'. Indeed, he says so in as many words.
Listen to what Mr. MacCulloch himself says in describing what he believes the Bible contains - "It describes ancient encounters with God which are far from straightforward." Now, whatever did he ever mean by that.
"It tells stories which it does not pretend ever happened, in order to express profound truths, such as we read in the books of Jonah and Job" It is very obvious that Mr. MacCulloch has not taken the pains to familiarize himself with good sound literature that is readily available out there today that has not only affirmed the historical validity of all 66 books of the Bible (both the Old Testament and the New Testament), but is pathetically ignorant of even the kind of literature he is talking about. No judicious historian has ever questioned the historicity of the Books of the Bible. Now, if one does indeed question the meaning, that is, the interpretation of any particular book, that is a very different thing. However, a historian need not worry about the interpretation of any piece of literature, where facts are concerned. And interestingly the book of Jonah is just that – a very unique experience of the Prophet Jonah and God’s dealings with him. Like I say, obviously Mr. MacCulloch has a hard time ‘swallowing’ the story of Jonah than that the great fish had swallowing Jonah. Hasn’t Mr. MacCulloch read of plenty of other stories of people who were swallowed by huge fish and lived to tell the tale! Very poor research, I must say. The only other explanation is that Mr. MacCulloch is very biased in his judgement - again, not a very good sign of a ‘professional historian’. I pity the students who have to listen to him daily!
And yet Mr. MacCulloch tells us later within 2 pages, "Maybe the Bible can be taken seriously rather than literally." This is no doubt just an 'antic' of his, however it terribly fails in whatever purpose it might have had. Just how does Mr. MacCulloch imagine or wish his readers to take the Bible 'seriously' and yet not literally? I'm beginning to wonder, in what other areas Mr. MacCulloch needs help.
Mr. MacCulloch does even worse - he actually has the audacity to pronounce (as if his own sentiments and opinions were inspired and therefore absolutely correct...!) "Judaism, Christianity and Islam have all discovered that the text between the covers cannot provide all the answers." Obviously, Mr. MacCulloch has taken the liberty of 'pronouncing' his own opinion as Dogma and established truth. Whereas the fact of the matter is that (speaking only of the Bible, of course...) the Bible alone claims to have all the answers that mankind ever or will ever need - for life and eternity.
Again, it is obvious that Mr. MacCulloch is either ignorant of what Christians have all along affirmed about the Bible and how they have always and ever found complete satisfaction and comfort (which of course includes serious answers to fundamental questions about man, God and His universe, etc....) in and through the Bible, God's Revelation to mankind. I suspect that Mr. MacCulloch has probably found it most frustrating that 'Christians' have found their answers in the Bible, however, he has failed to do so. And of course I can understand that this is very frustrating. But then, however frustrated a 'professional historian' is, that grants him no license to make unsound and unwarranted judgements about something he does not even understand! Again, signs of a very poor historian.
Mr. MacCulloch is fond of using words rather lightly, besides not doing through research, things which a good historian should be careful about. In fact if one does not even research and study, he cannot be even a historian, leave alone the desire to be a professional one. Take for example these words of Mr. MacCulloch - "Jesus seems to have maintained that the trumpet would sound for the end of time very soon, and in a major break with the culture around him, he told his followers to leave the dead to bury their own dead." Funny, that Mr. MacCulloch should have criticized the Book of Jonah because he could not take it 'literally' and yet he here takes the words of the Lord Jesus 'literally'. Did he ever ask himself how dead people could bury their own dead!!!
Obviously, Mr. MacCulloch has not done his homework, and shamefully, it shows. Everyone who has even a basic understanding of the times of Near Eastern People (not to mention that authors has written about this very phrase and explained it all very well...) would know that the expression let the dead bury their own dead was a proverbial expression. When a prospective 'disciple' once informed the Lord Jesus to allow him first to go and bury his father, the Lord responded by saying, "Follow me; and let the dead bury their dead". It is obvious that his father had not yet died. When asked leave to 'first go bury my father', all he meant was that he wished to complete his responsibility of caring for his (probably now) aged father. However, the message of Christ about the Coming of the Kingdom was urgent enough to allow filial obligations to be suspended for a while. And that was all that Christ meant. I would have supposed any 'historian' should have known this. But obviously, Mr. MacCulloch could not have known this - he has not done any research, nor could he bother himself to do so. Very poor on his part.
But the entire book is full of such nonsense. Mr. MacCulloch would perhaps have been better off writing fictional novels. Poor fellow. I wonder no one ever told him to get a proper education. The least he could have done was to at least read for himself, rather than go ahead and write things and make a fool of himself. I wonder too, that his 'students' did not do any research either. Personally, I do not know. Perhaps students and others did tell him these things. In which case, Mr. MacCulloch is without any excuse. I'd rather believe that Mr. MacCulloch is sincerely unaware of his blunders.
However, that simply makes him a very ignorant person. In this age of internet access and such a wide array of learned and scholarly articles and books, one cannot be justly excused for being ignorant. Not at least when one purports to be a 'professional historian' and even lectures regularly. What is this world coming to. What a shame that people do not even search and research things for themselves. Even worse, publishers are apparently only interested in making money - even if it means publishing and printing books that contain error and/or worthless junk.
I realize I'm using rather strong words and expressions here. However, I firmly believe that everyone has a basic right to at least be sure that reputed publishers take up writings of competent men and women, not those of ignorant ones.
I would readily have excused Mr. MacCulloch's ignorance. However, I cannot and will not excuse his irreverent words against the Lord Jesus Christ. This book blasphemously speaks against the Lord, making His Words (the words of the Lord Jesus) and His actions to be ridiculous.
For instance, Mr. MacCulloch writes, "He made crowds laugh." Now, from where ever did Mr. MacCulloch gather this information. Nowhere in the Bible does it inform us that the Lord made anyone laugh. Some became angry with the Lord - this is true. But there is no record of the Lord making anyone laugh. Perhaps Mr. MacCulloch gets this idea from modern movie depictions of the Lord Jesus, which are all wrong. He further writes, "He shocked or excited them with irreverent comments on authority;..." Again, speaking about allowing the dead to bury their dead, Mr. MacCulloch writes, "He produced outrageous inversions of normality". But there is no such evidence that those who heard such words were 'outraged'. Yes, it is true that the Pharisees, Scribes and Sadducees were often offended and outraged. But not because the Lord Jesus spoke 'irreverently' or said anything that was untrue. No. Even the very enemies of the Lord Jesus admitted that He did no wrong. And finally the only reason they crucified Him was because He (according to their knowledge) being a mere man, claimed to be God Himself (calling Himself the Son of God, an equivalent term).
For the above mentioned reasons, I cannot and will not recommend Mr. MacCulloch's writings on history. He fails to be even an average historian, leave alone a 'professional' -most disappointing.
The very fact that 'satan' is apparently roaming this earth, having free reign to do whatever he desires with no intervention from 'god' highlights how ludicrous this belief is. 'Casting' satan down to the very planet where 'god' meant to create humans instead of the billions of planets out in the universe smacks of a religious conspiracy. Any deity who messes up 'his creation' so badly that he has to drown them all to start again with a naked drunk is not worthy of the title of 'god'. How any sane, thinking individual can subscribe to such a belief is beyond belief.
Professor Diarmaid MacCulloch can't be much of an academic grouping all of the heretical non-Christian sects into the one word CHRISTIANITY. So-called religious offshoot claiming to be sects of Christianity are not Christian because they deny the CATHOLIC CHURCH or Eastern Orthodoxy Church and they deny absolutely the SYMBOLISM of the Holy Scriptures: WORD OF GOD.
It is very much like a Jew after declaring himself an atheist STILL CLAIMING that he is a Jew: that is an oxymoron; because, a Jew is a religious distinction not an ethnic distinction. That atheist has ostracized himself: he is a man without a country.
This is the same mentality of Protestants STILL CLAIMING to be CHRISTIANS when they have deserted Christ like Judas Iscariot. What else can you say about a Protestant other than that he is a traitor: Protestants would be more truthful if they declared themselves to be FOLLOWERS OF JUDAS ISCARIOT.
This is what people that claim themselves to be Protestants are. They are no longer followers of Christ no matter what they claim their literal interpretation of the texts are. Protestants are not followers of Christ; rather, they literally declare themselves Antichrist(ian).
This is what Protestants do: they hate the WORD OF GOD (symbolism = Word of God; because, God can't be talked about directly only indirectly on an abstract level) but Anti-Christians love to be grouped into that "most important of words" CHRISTIAN because they know it will confuse people into their literal way of thought.
Professor Diarmaid MacCulloch wants to join the Muppet caravan on their way to HOLLYWOOD so that he can also be eligible, along with Miss Piggy, Kermit and the Muppet Company, to obtain THAT RICH and FAMOUS CONTRACT.
To H: Just a clarification: Christians began to be called as such because of the Greek-speaking believers in Antioch who referred to Jesus as the Christos (Messiah). The Acts of the Apostles records this in chapter 11 verse 26, but the sect became only a legal religion when it became a state religion in 380 CE when emperor Theodosius declared it as such...
I agree with everything that you said, and to reinforce that I have given these clarificatory details because until 200 CE, The Way (as Christianity was known in its primitive stages) did not see itself outside Judaism but as a renewal of it from the inside. However, with the council of Jamnia, the birkat haMinim of the rabbis made it clear that Christianity is now cast off the whole of the Jewish way of life. But by then, the faith of the community had grown to see itself outside of Judaism as well mainly due to the composition of its members as more Gentile, and that tensions were then too high for both sides at this point...
However, it's ironic that while the Jews "cursed" us then, we never cursed them back, yet almost 2000 years later, we kill them in the Nazi Holocaust (something we will never be proud of from a faith perspective). It only goes to show that even in institutions who purport themselves to be of divine in origin, still we make the most (in)human of mistakes of which history has witnessed and preserved...
Only goes to show, no one is above everyone else for we are equal in humanity and death...
if any of you guys had ever attempted or have taken a class in university on the origins of chiristianity you'd know that originally christianity was a jewish sect because jesus was jewish... it only became "christianity" and survived until today because of the emperor constantine who converted the whole roman empire into christianity because of a dream he had and then died a non christian himself. there was 4 councils (nicaea, contantinople, ephesus and chalcedon) that took place where bishops and other important people met and decided upon which will become the foundation of christianity one of which was the trinity .
Paul who was the first to spread the news was a jew and believed in remaining with the judaic laws unless you were a gentile.. paul boasts of not having ever met jesus but that god had spoken to him in a dream and asked him to spread the news to gentiles. and he only started writing 60 years after jesus's death
as for the men that wrote the gospels their is no proof of knowing that the author of the Gospel of John was in fact john or the author of Mark was infact mark and so on and so forth.. each gospel shows the author's point view and gives us a glimpse into the political and social times that these people lived in...
my theology teacher himself said that today christianity as a whole is equivalent to a cult... now everything stated above is historical fact.. it is impossible that jesus never existed but what we do know is almost every person that has writen about jesus had never met him...
I am not allowed to comment in this thread but i really want to discuss my unicorn, has anyone seen him?
i think the goblins took him and sold him to pixies who bargained him with Jesus for mohammed (peas be upon his chin) winged horse.
If i dont get him back im calling in the virgin mary and the seven wise smurfs to sort it all out..
Jesus (peace be upon him) is a messenger of the one almighty god like adam,noah,ibrahim and moses
This doc is mostly correct, but could use some advice.
i was always a seeker and an explorer and i love to find out the truth about what i believe in.. i was looking for answers and thank God He leads me in this site. i was enlightened by the facts that I've learned. its not about religion science or philosophy.. its about facts, evidence that time has produced that is emerging in our present times.. it's up to us now what to believe and how you will stand on your belief..
it is fascinating how "the-thinking-atheist" has no pricetag, and this does
Science is the root of evil. I mean think about it, why could Jesus walk on water? Heal the sick? How did he get resurrected. How did he ascend into heaven?
Simple! Think about it, all those things. It's gravity! When Newton made gravity, he made all these things impossible. Jesus wasn't the only guy to walk on water, everyone could do it. He didn't get killed by the Romans, it was simple punishment for him not to float up so they nailed him. Once they released and even put him in a cave he escaped and floated. Then people said "No uh! Jesus was the only one who could do that". Not true! We need to turn off gravity!
Now, there might be some holes in my theory but I can explain them. OH NO THE CIA! I need to run!!!
And no word said about The Armenian Apostolic Church that was founded in 301...
This is a fantastic documentary! I would say every Christian should watch this with openness and should be challenged! Thanks for posting the documentary.
The Church of the East was created as an independent ecclestiastical organization before the council of Ephesus( 431) it was established in 424 A.D. in Seleucia-Ctesiphon. it was not because of christology that they split but because of politics between christian byzantium and the zorastrian sassanian persian empire. they lived near the borders between these 2 empires and there loyalty towards persia was put to the test and ended in massacres during the time of Shapur, Shapur II (39 or 40 years of persecution)m, Bahram V etc. Christianity was seen as a Roman religion from a persian zoroastrian perspective. so the patriarch of Antioch (on roman terrotory could no longer be their patriarch) but the katholicos of the East instead (the church of the east did not use the term patriarch for the katholicos formally until 498 AD)
The Church of the East was created as an independent ecclestiastical organization before the council of Ephesus( 431) it was established in 424 A.D. in Seleucia-Ctesiphon. it was not because of christology that they split but because of politics between christian byzantium and the zorastrian sassanian persian empire. they lived near the borders between these 2 empires and there loyalty towards persia was put to the test and ended in massacres during the time of Shapur, Shapur II (39 or 40 years of persecution)m, Bahram V etc. Christianity was seen as a Roman religion from a persian zoroastrian perspective. so the patriarch of Antioch (on roman terrotory could no longer be their patriarch) but the katholicos of the East instead (the church of the east did not use the term patriarch for the katholicos formally until 498 AD)
Mankind invented evil, and make it absolute. For example, devils make people sin, and etc. Having invented absolute evil, they move on to invent absolute God.
A question for the faithful:
Do gods cease to exist when people stop believing in them?
Some say that god created man....i think man created god.
Mankind is at its most evil, when it believes that it is fighting evil.
faith is a beautiful thing but religion is the most dangerous and destructive thing we have ever invented. having faith in a higher purpose is accepting that there might be something more important and magnificent than you. which is a good thing. keeps you from getting too full of yourself. but religion is a means of control. a tool for staying on top. a tool for staying in charge. it inevitably only corrupts and distorts the very thing it pretends to be.
Here's a hyp0thetical; if all traces 0f religi0n c0uld be wiped 0ut and n0 menti0n made, w0uld G0d reappear in 100 years time?
dnt worry ill pray for u wcb
i plan to save peoples lives before i go to heaven