Christian Origins & Early Schisms 

That's wholly subjective, but would've started the top of this theological genealogy tree with the ancient Canaanite religion as culprit, rather than ancient Israelite religion (which stage of said religion: ancient Canaanite Pagan-J&daism, which is just basically the syncretic Egypto-Canaanite religion but with some emphasis on El-Elyon and not building any temples or shrines in the fashion of the ancient Amorites and nomadic Aramean tribes, as well as of some pastoral Canaanite tribes used to-- Abraham style?? Yahveism?? Post-Ahab reformed Yahveism, meant to distinguish the national religion of the overrulers from the influence of ancient Idumean religion and their very similar Yahveh-like chief deity, while removing polytheistic influence from the Canaanites/Phoenicians and Phillistines??? Or rather _Post-Exilic/Second Temple period ancient Israelite Religion_ , which was heavily influenced by the international sway of proto-Hermeticism/hidden Wisdom of Thoth, pre-Hellenistic period, Babylonian religion and Zoroastrism???) . Added ancient Egypto-Kushite religion as a peripheral influence all over said culprit down to the first schism in ancient J%daism. As well as Buddhism, Dharmic religions, Egypto-Hellenistic Gymnosophism and Gnosticism to the Essenes, Gnosticism again all over varying branchs of early Christianity to post-Nicean Christianity, Arianism, medieval to modern Christian esoterism, Kabbalistic J&daism, Bahaism, and pre-schism Islam; then Egypto-Hellenistic religion, ancient Persian religions and Platonicism as influences all over early Christianity. Mithraism, Hermeticism, Neo-Platonicism, Egypto-Hellenistic Soterianism (of all religions: most any traditional portrayals of Jesus in history from late Antiquity to present times are all LITERALLY based upon the portrayal of the Egypto-Hellenistic syncretic god Soterus: young, lean face of a man in his thirties with Eastern Mediterranean features, long flowing mane of hair and beard, a certain air of virile androgenity, divine figure of the Sun, basically the Son of God) and the Sol Invictus cult upon post-Nicean Christianity, influences from Greek-Roman and other pagan religions from all over the Old World on both Christianity and early Islam, then at last Egypto-Hellenistic religion, Neo-Platonicism, Sophism, Gnoticism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Yogism, Kabbalism, Hermeticism, medieval "proto-Masonism" , Arabian polytheism and Iranian religions upon Sufism and Islamic esoterism.

@@ptolemeeselenion1542 - I think you dived a little too deeply into the details here. None of it made one lick of sense. This is RU-vid, not post-graduate religious studies.

@@wickedcabinboy If you say so. I think this matters.

Does Ma Baker from Chicago also belong to house Atrastehuele? 😂

I know that you discontinued the lineage of Arian Christians, but id posit to say Jehovah's Witnesses have trace Arianistic views.

Couple of simple Penguin Books on The Early Christian Church, and The Early Christian Martyrs.

Yes, I am also irreligious, but I really like this video and also the earlier video(s) - originally several parts but later published as a single long "omnibus" video - about the Bible. It's interesting from a historical point of view, even though I don't care about religious doctrine.

Same here....

Hi Matt, I hope you are going to include European Old Catholic church (Union off Utrecht). This is a Catholic alternative in Europe that is schismatic within the Catholic stream of Christianity and is significantly more liberal than those around the bishop of Rome.

Same. I got interested in early Christianity when my history of science lecturer (himself atheist, fwiw) pointed out that its theological arguments about the non-physical realm were key to developing and promoting logic, and therefore mathematics, as a legitimate means of knowing.

I was a protestant and am now Orthodox, I pray that God guides you wherever you may go ☦️❤️

@@randomguy1453 but Protestantism is also Good we should respect eachother✝️❤️☦️

@christianity2052 yes, but that respect shouldn't mean we pretend there are no differences between us, it is important to realize that, it does not mean that we should hate eachother though, in fact, it should cause us to seek further information about eachother, and therefore, about God and His Church.

You would probably love the channel religion for breakfast! He is a religious scholar who breaks down various religious histories

My public school taught the basic outlines of different denominations to explain the reasons behind various migrations, wars, social changes etc. I can't imagine European history without it!

This video is extremely in accurate and wrong. If you want to learn it's best to hear people talk about the early church fathers because in the 1st-3rd century there was only one church, the others were heretics and weren't seen as Christian.

That's such a great idea!

Do you mean the Writing Systems of the World chart?

I didn't know Matt had a language family tree. Do you mean the alphabet one?

What a waste if maybe you could gift her a nice dress

Yeah, only problem was he used the Creed with the Filioque in the example of the Creed, which was a little annoying given it was definitely not the original, and he also called them Patriarchies, not Patriarchates. Not really a big deal though. I can't wait to see what he does with the next part

@@nicoallison9228 I would not characterize this as "unbiased". The secular bias here is evident.

@@lorinpartain3548 that’s fair for sure. I mean to be fair he’s a Jew so it’s not like it’s coming from an Atheist’s perspective, but he didn’t say anything wrong or leave out any major details. It could have been better and you can very much tell he is not a Christian, but he didn’t do anything wrong or malicious it seems like. My one major gripe was labeling the Father as God while trying to depict the Trinity. I thought it was really misleading especially for those who don’t understand Trinitarian theology and could easily make it appear as though the Son and the Holy Spirit are not God and are not of the exact same essence of the Father. Especially when discussing Nicene Christianity in opposition to Arianism, it’s important to stress the Divinity of the Son and the Spirit as that was kind of the whole point of the council

@@lorinpartain3548 secular bias how? Because he isn't picking a side? I'm not sure I get the criticism.

@@hcct The secularists never see their own bias. It's staring you right in the face just from the graphic. And things he said about early Christianity are obviously from a secular perspective. C.E. anyone? lol

Run away from that organization. Become a Christian.

Do study how the Catholics mass-murdered their opponents because they believed they had the authority to determine what is heresy and what is not. Also, study how Catholics adapted doctrines from pagan religions as a political strategy to win more followers. That begs the question, is Catholic a pure Christian church or a political organization.

One thing about all this is that the Religion of following Messiah was called The Way in ACTS. It is and SHOULD ALWAYS be considered the True Israel of God and not Judaism or the daughters who moved Chrisitianity away form Christ and the Apostles teaching who taught obedience to God's Law by FAITH> Not to be exploited by men to accept all the traditions of Judaism that oppose God which is called being of the Circumcision as a proselyte. Jews in Jesus day stopped following the traditions that broke God's Law that is all to follow Christ who is called Gods Word made flesh by John and they did that by faith that God forgives when they trust and repent towards the TRUTH. Most of modern Christianity actually oppose Christ's teachings. Justyn Matyr made up an early bible and taught the God of the Old Tetament was harsh and evil instead of men's hearts were hard and deceptive and didn't love God. Yeshua said the Jewish leadership made the Word of God of none effect. If you believed Moses you would believe in ME. The New Covenant was given to Israel alone by God in Ezekiel 36 : 36 -37. Gentiles who turn to God actually are grafted into Messiah to become the Israel of God to be the children promised to Abraham & also receive the fullness of the New Covenant that avails adoption into the True Root Messiah. Mat 5:17-22 tells us the law of Moses remains but has a change to the Priesthood being Melchizedek ( Christ ) whose blood offering was done in heaven and is so perfect is enabled to cleanse the conscience of a faithful person to no longer desire to SIN not that the Law of God is removed and we make up our own righteousness. Blessings.

As an Orthodox leaning christian, I believe everything about Catholics are valid except two things. The Papacy and the Filoque. During the first 1000 years there was no Papal supremacy; meaning the Patriarch of Rome (Now the pope) had no extra ordinary rights over the other Patriarchs. So why after 1000 years of functioning did the Pope, first among equals, suddenly become infalliable and change the Nicene Creed without council? This change to the creed is the Filioque, meaning "and the Son." in Latin, referring to the Holy spirit being begotten from the Father "and the Son." To me, this is a rather trivial difference but I do see how it places less importance on the Holy Spirit and makes the Son, and the Father dominant. Even if the Filioque is right, what gave the Pope extraordinary rights to change the Creed without a council first when the Pope always had particiapated in every other council before? Lastly, the Catholic Church through the various Eastern Catholic groups it controls, venerates and Canonised a few Eastern Orthodox Saints, that were born after the Schism. One of these Saints is Gregory Palamas who was vehemently opposed to the Filioque and Papal supremacy. So how then, does an Eastern Orthodox Saint, that was against the very fibre of Catholicism become venerated and Canonised by this Church unless it accepts every other Eastern Orthodox member? To me, all these contradictions can be answered by simply answering, no, they're heretical. So why would the Patriarch of Rome do such things? Because of jealousy and Geopolitical factors. I don't know too much about the details, but from what I know, due to there being only one Patriarch in Western Europe, which represented more kingdoms and people than what the east had, and four in the east, as the population of Western Christians grew and the amount of Eastern Christians stagnated, Western European kings started to feel jealous they urged the Pope to have more power.

@nuphhrffe875 you're right. There were better ways to go about the filioque. While I do believe in the filioque and the seat of Peter, I can agree to this. Pope leo(I don't remember what number) did try to avoid using the filioque, but ig it stuck. But, the filioque is true because in scripture, the Holy Spirit is also referred to as the Spirit of Christ. It does not make the Holy Spirit any lesser. And I think you forget that the pentarchy of antioch and alexandria are actually disputed between the Orientals and the Eastern. With the orientals actually being the majority in the regions. And then the eastern Catholics as well. So don't exactly think the EO owns the remaining 4 pentarchies.

*Ignatius of Antioch* “Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop or by one whom he ordains [i.e., a presbyter]. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church” _(Letter to the Smyrneans_ 8:2 [A.D. 110]). *The Martyrdom of Polycarp* “And of the elect, he was one indeed, the wonderful martyr Polycarp, who in our days was an apostolic and prophetic teacher, bishop of the Catholic Church in Smyrna. For every word which came forth from his mouth was fulfilled and will be fulfilled” _(Martyrdom of Polycarp_ 16:2 [A.D. 155]). *The Muratorian Canon* “Besides these [letters of Paul] there is one to Philemon, and one to Titus, and two to Timothy, in affection and love, but nevertheless regarded as holy in the Catholic Church, in the ordering of churchly discipline. There is also one [letter] to the Laodiceans and another to the Alexandrians, forged under the name of Paul, in regard to the heresy of Marcion, and there are several others which cannot be received by the Church, for it is not suitable that gall be mixed with honey. The epistle of Jude, indeed, and the two ascribed to John are received by the Catholic Church (Muratorian fragment [A.D. 177]). *Tertullian* “Where was [the heretic] Marcion, that shipmaster of Pontus, the zealous student of Stoicism? Where was Valentinus, the disciple of Platonism? For it is evident that those men lived not so long ago-in the reign of Antonius for the most part-and that they at first were believers in the doctrine of the Catholic Church, in the church of Rome under the episcopate of the blessed Eleutherius, until on account of their ever restless curiosity, with which they even infected the brethren, they were more than once expelled” _(Demurrer Against the Heretics_ 30 [A.D. 200]). *Cyprian of Carthage* “You ought to know, then, that the bishop is in the Church and the Church in the bishops; and if someone is not with the bishop, he is not in the Church. They vainly flatter themselves who creep up, not having peace with the priest of God, believing that they are secretly in communion with certain individuals. For the Church, which is one and catholic, is not split or divided, but is indeed united and joined by the cement of priests who adhere to one another” _(Letters_ 66[67]:8 [A.D. 253]). *Council of Nicaea I* “But those who say: ‘There was [a time] when he [the Son] was not,’ and ‘before he was born, he was not,’ and ‘because he was made from non-existing matter, he is either of another substance or essence,’ and those who call ‘God the Son of God changeable and mutable,’ these the Catholic Church anathematizes” _(Appendix to the Creed of Nicaea_ [A.D. 325]). “Concerning those who call themselves Cathari [Novatians], that is, ‘the Clean,’ if at any time they come to the Catholic Church, it has been decided by the holy and great council that, provided they receive the imposition of hands, they remain among the clergy. However, because they are accepting and following the doctrines of the catholic and apostolic Church, it is fitting that they acknowledge this in writing before all; that is, both that they communicate with the twice married and with those who have lapsed during a persecution” (Canon 8). *Cyril of Jerusalem* “[The Church] is called catholic, then, because it extends over the whole world, from end to end of the earth, and because it teaches universally and infallibly each and every doctrine which must come to the knowledge of men, concerning things visible and invisible, heavenly and earthly, and because it brings every race of men into subjection to godliness, governors and governed, learned and unlearned, and because it universally treats and heals every class of sins, those committed with the soul and those with the body, and it possesses within itself every conceivable form of virtue, in deeds and in words and in the spiritual gifts of every description” _(Catechetical Lectures_ 18:23 [A.D. 350]). “And if you ever are visiting in cities, do not inquire simply where the house of the Lord is-for the others, sects of the impious, attempt to call their dens ‘houses of the Lord’-nor ask merely where the Church is, but where is the Catholic Church. For this is the name peculiar to this holy Church, the mother of us all, which is the spouse of our Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God” (ibid., 18:26). *The Apostles’ Creed* “I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting. Amen” _(Apostles’ Creed_ [A.D. 360 version, the first to include the term “Catholic”] *Council of Constantinople I* “I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father, who together with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified, who spoke through the prophets; in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church” _(Nicene Creed_ [A.D. 381]). “Those who embrace orthodoxy and join the number of those who are being saved from the heretics, we receive in the following regular and customary manner: Arians, Macedonians, Sabbatians, Novatians, those who call themselves Cathars and Aristeri, Quartodecimians or Tetradites, Apollinarians- these we receive when they hand in statements and anathematize every heresy which is not of the same mind as the holy, catholic, and apostolic Church of God” (Canon 7). *Augustine* “We must hold to the Christian religion and to communication in her Church, which is catholic and which is called catholic not only by her own members but even by all her enemies. For when heretics or the adherents of schisms talk about her, not among themselves but with strangers, willy-nilly they call her nothing else but Catholic. For they will not be understood unless they distinguish her by this name which the whole world employs in her regard” _(The True Religion_ 7:12 [A.D. 390]). “We believe in the holy Church, that is, the Catholic Church; for heretics and schismatics call their own congregations churches. But heretics violate the faith itself by a false opinion about God; schismatics, however, withdraw from fraternal love by hostile separations, although they believe the same things we do. Consequently, neither heretics nor schismatics belong to the Catholic Church; not heretics, because the Church loves God, and not schismatics, because the Church loves neighbor” _(Faith and Creed_ 10:21 [A.D. 393]). “If you should find someone who does not yet believe in the gospel, what would you [Mani] answer him when he says, ‘I do not believe’? Indeed, I would not believe in the gospel myself if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so” (ibid., 5:6). “[T]here are many other things which most properly can keep me in her [the Catholic Church’s] bosom. The unanimity of peoples and nations keeps me here. Her authority, inaugurated in miracles, nourished by hope, augmented by love, and confirmed by her age, keeps me here. The succession of priests, from the very see of the apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after his resurrection, gave the charge of feeding his sheep [John 21:15-17], up to the present episcopate, keeps me here. And last, the very name Catholic, which, not without reason, belongs to this Church alone, in the face of so many heretics, so much so that, although all heretics want to be called ‘Catholic,’ when a stranger inquires where the Catholic Church meets, none of the heretics would dare to point out his own basilica or house” _(Against the Letter of Mani Called “The Foundation”_ 4:5 [A.D. 397]). *Vincent of Lerins* “I have often then inquired earnestly and attentively of very many men eminent for sanctity and learning, how and by what sure and so to speak universal rule I may be able to distinguish the truth of Catholic faith from the falsehood of heretical depravity; and I have always, and in almost every instance, received an answer to this effect: that whether I or anyone else should wish to detect the frauds and avoid the snares of heretics as they arise, and to continue sound and complete in the Catholic faith, we must, the Lord helping, fortify our own belief in two ways: first, by the authority of the divine law [Scripture], and then by the tradition of the Catholic Church. But here some one perhaps will ask, ‘Since the canon of Scripture is complete, and sufficient of itself for everything, and more than sufficient, what need is there to join with it the authority of the Church’s interpretation?’ For this reason: Because, owing to the depth of holy Scripture, all do not accept it in one and the same sense, but one understands its words in one way, another in another, so that it seems to be capable of as many interpretations as there are men. . . . Therefore, it is very necessary, on account of so great intricacies of such various errors, that the rule for the right understanding of the prophets and apostles should be framed in accordance with the standard of ecclesiastical and catholic interpretation” _(The Notebooks_ 2:1-2 [A.D. 434]). *Council of Chalcedon* “Since in certain provinces readers and cantors have been allowed to marry, this sacred synod decrees that none of them is permitted to marry a wife of heterodox views. If those thus married have already had children, and if they have already had the children baptized among heretics, they are to bring them into the communion of the Catholic Church” (Canon 14 [A.D. 451]).

The Catholic Church has some other branches that are not within the purview of this video ("Eastern Catholic Churches") that are in full communion but are not "Roman", however together they are the one Church, the same one founded on the Apostles by Jesus and continuing in Apostolic Succession. Catholic is from a Greek word meaning universal, Jesus founded one Church for the whole world, a visible unity, to bear witness to the one Truth. The Church is Jesus' Body and He has one Body only. There CANNOT be more than one Body of Christ. But a correlate of all this is that the various divisions cleaving us apart really matter. Jesus prayed after the the Last Supper that we may all be one. We have to love those we are separated from and seek unity in Christ.

@@ElizabethDMadison 🎯

The Catholic Church can show a historical succession of bishops in Rome since the times of Simon Peter. In fact that St Peter's Cathedral was built right on top of Peter's tomb and archeological excavations showed this in the 40s but especially in 1965 when the bones of St Peter were identified. None of this video's other so-called "branches" can claim this.

​@@hanamaluhasafacts

Like you I am half and half. Although I am baptized catholic, I am just as proud to be Jewish. I always tell folks I have guilt on both sides of the family :)

@@TheRicsilver48 are you religiously Jewish?

@@christophersalinas2722 no, to the extent I practice anything, it's as catholic. My Jewishness is more cultural.

@@TheRicsilver48 Can you explain cultural Judaism is to me?

@@christophersalinas2722 Judaism is more of a culture and way of life ( and identity) than it is a religion per se. I am Ashkenazi and born to Jews on both sides of my family ie Jewish by birth.

just a note: you comment on how "Tewahedo" means "unified" in Ge'ez; the use of this in the name of the Ethiopian church is actually a direct statement of faith _against_ rival competing doctrines which developed (in Ethiopia) during the 17 and 1800s - namely the _Qebat_ and _Şäga Lejoč_ interpretations. Maybe something to consider mentioning in the future; Ethiopian Christianity, while de jure under the Coptic church, has been functionally independent for many centuries and thus the host of a number of... interesting, even if relatively isolated, schisms and controversies. Actually, maybe that's something for me to get into aswell, haha.

You should totally do a video on it! I'd definitely point people your way.

@@hiddenhist Is it "better" that Relgion shoudl transcend national borders, or be established in countries ( but not to the extent of backing a specific regieme in war just because they are the leadership of that country against brother/comrade christians) where the church can have influence hopefully to the good within the structure of that country ?

@@hiddenhist Are these the group that preserved the book of Enoch? I was trying to figure out where that line goes in this chart.

100% agree with this - I also live in the general area, and want to know more about the Amish & Mennonites.

Agree. Anabaptist. Please include Quakers too.

I was raised southern Baptist, and I remember being taught that they don't consider themselves to be "protestants" because they supposedly trace the church's lineage all the way back to the early christians, before there was a Catholic Church.

@Jet Tison what does that even mean

From what I have read, Baptists are an off-shoot of Congregationalists, who themselves were/are a branch of Anglican, all originating in Britain. Two of my ancestors, Obadiah Holmes and Chad Browne, were among the founders of the Baptist Church in America, back when it was relatively Progressive. Holmes was, by the Puritans, publicly whipped in the stocks for ministering to an ill church member, who lived in Puritan held MA. Coincidentally, of his daughters, one my ancestress, the other is ancestress to Abe Lincoln, making him my 6th cousin, 6x removed. American genealogy and Religious Studies often end up being a deeper education on how things really were back in their day.

If you are curious about the history of the Baptist movement my suggestion is to read the Baptist Story by Hayken. But suffice to say Baptists see there Genesis in the early 17th century when two Congregationalist ministers who were living in Exile in the Netherlands by the name of John Smyth and Thomas Helwys became convinced of believers baptism over and opposed to infant Baptism. That being said there is a lot more that can be said. Interestingly the Congregationalist group that they formerly were associated with was what we know as the Pilgrims of Thanksgiving game.

@@injunsun And where do they all lead to?

Was axed after the tang dynasty was defeated, the church was seen as a western religion.

More like persecutions by Mongol Islam converts and the Tang Dynasty. Islam also took over some of the churches they used.

The Coptics quote themselves as beliving in the Catholic (as in Universal) Church ( effectively identify that all Christians are equal before God , even if Christian leadership is split)

100%! I want to see a timeline of the branching and rejoining between the Orthodox and Catholic churches, especially where the naming is not obvious. I was born Antiochian Orthodox, and my family became Catholic when I was 12. I have attended Roman Catholic churches since then, but I still feel a connection to my Eastern roots.

Isn't that crookedness on the part of the Latin church of Rome to split the Eastern churches and steal their faithfuls in a clandestine way when they were vulnerable under the Islamic rule and the heavy oppression. Out of the 24 independent churches which together form the Roman catholic church, 23 are formed like that ! I wish the Latin church gave them all their freedom and allow them to go back and join with their parent churches during the 3rd Vatican council at least if not earlier !

Well, catholicism, as a real and "codified" separate denomination, occured later down the road, so I bet they will appear when the part includes the late 11th century and foward, which I guess it would be the second or third part.

Go Maronites. In full Communion with Rome.

calling it weird is disrespectful, take notes out of useful charts vocabulary book.

So true. The example of the monophysites really highlights this. They didn't so much disagree about Christ's nature as the wording of it. Is Christ fully human and fully divine, or is he fully human and divine? Monophysites were essentially saying you can't have more than 100% of a nature and the Chalcedonian wording was illogical. Meanwhile, the Chalcedonians were saying that the Monophysite wording downplayed Christ's paradoxical nature and thus made him either less human, less divine, or both.

Also a lot would be in respect of money and finance, as buildings and control structures became (necessary) as well as general teaching.

It is as much geopolitical as theological.

@@Stephen-uz8dm Yes, a lot of the schisms had their roots in people fighting for political and economic control. That's why the doctrinal differences sometimes seem so ridiculous; they're more like legal loopholes to justify a schism to gain control than they are actual differences in belief.

The theological debates of the first few centuries centered on the Nature of Christ. It seems to me that if you are going to have something called "Christianity" it would very important to understand who/what Christ is. these are hardly "so small now" and are just as "huge a deal" as they once were. the difference that the matter is settle now theologically

There are no denominations of Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy in the way there are denominations of Protestantism.

How does the money thing work?

@@EnthusiastCarHangar its a "thanks". If you're on your phone go right about the comments where the like bottom is. It's the button with a heart that says thanks. You might have to scroll to the right.

Thank you so much!

When clicking the button a message pops up about a contract. Rather intimidating. Especially as there is no way to see the contract. I like to support the channel but not this way. Somebody has more info?

@@bewew8156 Super thanks are basically just RU-vid's built-in mechanism of making one-time donations to a RU-vid channel, as well as making your comment with the thanks more visible. It'll probably need your credit card info and whatnot in order for the transaction to work, but it's just RU-vid. Nothing shady. Or at least nothing shadier than what's already been happening on RU-vid, depending on your view of the platform lol

By definition 🧐

Yeah. Will definitely point that out when covering the great schism.

I think they are 400 million now

I wouldn't say I like the fact it is the product of imperialism.

@@MrJMB122 oh yeah I'm not saying it's a positive. I'm agnostic and deconstructed now. I just think it's an interesting story

I tend to feel that Pentecostal and related charismatic churches have evolved into their own branch of Christianity that is distinct and largely separate from Protestantism. As an interested observer who is not terribly religious, I'm curious about how theologians see that concept.

@@Dave_Sisson It is also interesting how the "Revival" was about the same kind of time as the likes of the Welsh Revival/s (mainly , but not exclusively Methodism / Ebenezer Baptist ) and a lot of "Christian Mission" outworking to the urban and rural "poor masses" that the established churches had excluded

Yeah! I'll watch an every-version-of- Baptist episode too.

@@ju_aych39 I'll give him extra props if he mentions Baptist successionism and "The Trail of Blood."

You might like the channel Ready To Harvest. He also does a great job of remaining unbiased and objective in his videos about different Christian sects

@@kaiudall2583 I already follow him on TikTok and somehow missed that he also had a RU-vid channel! Thanks!

I want to know more about the Baptists as well. I used to be one. I was led to believe they came from Anabaptists, but I've since been told they came from the Puritans, which makes sense tbh... I'd like to get clarification on that.

Same! Eagerly waiting for part two💀

@@jasminewang5514 same here..I keep checking👀

Just dropped

Patience is a virtue!

The other guy was being too naughty 🤣

It's okay to punch an Arian!

@@greatwolf5372 Yes and i guess that it's okay to punch an Chalcedonian too just like the Arian one ?

I too would be interested in seeing this.

I hope not the Hindu ones... those are overcomplicated.

@@arta.xshaca Hinduism might be a bit too fluid to visualize like this, but Buddhism and its development is pretty well-demarcated and documented from c. 200 BCE onwards.

For the sake of honesty and brevity, if I were him, I would just refer to them as the Great Apostacy referred to in 2 Thessalonica 2: 1 - 12. Where does one even begin to give an overview of the heresies, false teachings, insanity, and glorification of man and self as taught in these movements?

@@stephanterblanche4597 The problem is, _all_ denominations label _the other_ denominations as heretical. Also, the point of this tree is not about "which denomination exists," but rather, is meant to be a genetic tree for denominations: where did each denomination come from, and why?

@angelmendez-rivera351 every denomination starts out because it deviates, through reinterpretation of, adding to or removing from the original teaching (orthodoxy). That deviation is referred to as a heresy. This tree is exactly about which denominations exist, where they come from and why they exist. 😂

@@stephanterblanche4597 That doesn't address my point at all in the slightest, but I don't care enough to try to have a conversation with you, since it's clearly that you lack the capacity to overcome your bias and be objective here. Bye.

@@stephanterblanche4597 It's really interesting considering what I think you might be getting at. If we accept your principle that only the original teaching is valid and adding or removing from it is deviation and heresy, I am assuming you are Jewish? You wrote that deviation and heresy "starts out because it deviates, through reinterpretation of, adding to or removing from the original teaching...". This does appear to be what Christianity is compared to its roots in Judaism, similar to how Islam appears to be compared to Christianity, etc. I'm curious how you think of this. Thoughts?