History vs Dillahunty

Matt Dillahunty Dismisses History
11th April 2021 | The Crusader Pub
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6DiwH2aUJFY

1:16 Hear Matt Dillahunty!

"I'm not a historian, I'm not a historian!"

I think these ten words are the most candid phrase he ever spoke!

So true for when back as Evangelical he believed Baptist Continuity or Landmarkism, I suppose and so true now he is an Atheist.

2:37 "was later identified by Constantine in the fourth century"

By Constantine's mother, St. Helen, perhaps, you mean, the son who was Emperor remaining in Constantinople?

I'd refer to, though I haven't recently reread, How the Holy Cross was Found: from event to Medieval Legend by Stephan Borgehammar, who gives three versions of the legend from within 100 years after the at least purported event, concluding that the legend must have formed soon after the purported event and basically letting people understand it was a deference to Swedish Academia (very atheist) not to conclude even further that the event happened, with the shadow of the midmost Cross raising a dead person, and so on, as the legends portray the event.

Unlike Dillahunty, Stephan Borgehammar actually is a Historian, as at least a Church Historian, subdiscipline of Theology at Lund University.