Not All Philosophies Deserve Freedom

By Theodore Shoebat

I remember reading a story on a certain professor in Michigan who went on a violent tirade, stripped completely naked, and began vociferously blaspheming God. One witness said

“Half way through class, he started screaming at us — swearing left and right. He then started slamming his hands on the window and pressing his face against it, still screaming. Eventually he walked out and down the hallway to the end, all the while screaming.”

He then began screaming

“There is no (expletive) God!”

Now, I am sure that this professor is a fan of Friedrich Nietzsche, and takes delight in perusing books such as “The Antichrist” in which Nietzsche wrote:

It would be an error, however, to assume that there was any lack of understanding in the leaders of the Christian movement:—ah, but they were clever, clever to the point of holiness, these fathers of the church! What they lacked was something quite different. Nature neglected—perhaps forgot—to give them even the most modest endowment of respectable, of upright, of cleanly instincts…. Between ourselves, they are not even men…. If Islam despises Christianity, it has a thousandfold right to do so: Islam at least assumes that it is dealing with men….

I guarantee that the heretic professor is adverse to the Catholic Church, and would find absolute pleasure in reading Nietzsche when he , in expressing his vitriolic contempt for the Catholic Church, praised the heretical king Friedrich II for siding with the Muslims in the 13th century in his hatred toward Christianity:

“War to the knife with Rome! Peace and friendship with Islam!”: this was the feeling, this was the act, of that great free spirit, that genius among German emperors, Frederick II. What! must a German first be a genius, a free spirit, before he can feel decently? I can’t make out how a German could ever feel Christian.

I remember, when I I was in high school, seeing numerous Nietzsche books in the school library. What did I do with them? I dumped them into the trash and broke the rules. I have no tolerance for evil, and neither should any true Christian.

When I read this story of the possessed professor, I cannot  help but question as to why these antichrist philosophies are even allowed to be taught, learned, and propagated, in a civilized society.

The toleration for evil, violent, and heretical philosophies, is a sign that a civilization is crumbling, and is losing its status as a civilization.

Get the book, For God or For Tyranny

Follow me on Facebook


The US Constitution Is Not Inspired By God

By Theodore Shoebat

Don’t get me wrong, some of the best Christians I know are Americans, and some of the best supporters of our Rescue Christians organization, are Americans. With that said, I will show as to why I conclude that the US Constitution is not inspired by God.

Over these recent years I have heard frequently from conservatives (especially those of a secular persuasion) that the US Constitution is a divinely inspired document, as though God wrote it as He wrote the Ten Commandments.

This assertion is also a part of the popularly held pretension that America is an extension of ancient Israel.

One of the main propagators of these ideas, is Glenn Beck. He said that:

It is God’s finger that wrote the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

To make his point, Beck use false historical narrative, which no historian would support, saying ideas in light of his assertion that America is an extension of Israel:

The Israelites, the lost ten tribes, started to scatter the other direction, they went to the coastlines, generally in the area where are pilgrims came from. Judah kept the Torah alive, those who were taken captive by the Assyrians(Caucasians) they started to populate the Western part of Europe. All of Western civilization is based on the laws of Israel.

It would be beyond any formidable historian, to even think of such a fantasy to be regarded as history. Many of his sycophants would benefit reading actual history: before  Christianity came to England, the British were savage heathens, they did not have the Law of Moses;  it was the priests, named Cedd and Chad, who first brought the Faith to the pagan Mercians, who lived in England; and  Christianity first significantly permeated England when the pagan British king, Lucius, was baptized by Pope Eleutherus in 156 AD, many centuries before the Puritans were ever founded. (1)

Before the light of Christ arrived to England, there was no knowledge of the Law of Moses, there was however, the worship of planetary gods, such as Mercury.

It was from Christian England where the Puritans came, and therefore, as trite as this may sound, America is an extension of Protestant Britain, not Israel.  Why anyone, with all of this rich history of the Church, would believe a Mormon who uses Mormon fairy tales, is beyond me.

And this leads me to my next, and primary, point.

While many conservatives in America may subscribe to this belief, that the American Constitution is divinely inspired, they must remember that this is prevalently a Mormon doctrine,  not a Christian one. Thus why Beck keeps repeating it while claiming to be Christian. What he said correlates with the Book of Mormon when it states that the Israelites will come to America:

But behold, thus saith the Lord GodWhen the day cometh that they shall believe in me, that I am Christ, then have I covenanted with their fathers that they shall be restored in the flesh, upon the earth, unto the lands of their inheritance.

And it shall come to pass that they shall be gathered in from their long dispersion, from the isles of the sea, and from the four parts of the earth; and the nations of the Gentiles shall be great in the eyes of me, saith God, in carrying them forth to the lands of their inheritance. (2 Nephi 10:7-8)

In a stunt of pure replacement theology, Joseph Smith stole the Abrahamic Covenant and connivingly reverted it to America.

LDS president President J. Reuben Clark, mentioned the Constitution as “part of my religion,” and Mormon writer, Tim Ballard, on Glenn Beck’s radio show, said

“I believe these ancient prophets [of the Bible], knew of the promise land of America.”

He continued to say that

God led migrations out of Israel and that they — he led them to the promise land of America. This was another exodus of sorts…

Glenn Beck disrupted him to say that the early migrants to America

were completing the journey that Moses started…

Ballard continued on to say that his views on America are in agreement with Jonathan Khan’s book, The Harbinger, which has no historic grounds whatsoever:

…I don’t know if you’ve heard of a book called The Harbinger by Jonathan Khan…[it] says the exact same thing that I’m saying, the covenant has been extended from Israel, from ancient Israel, to America.

It is for this reason that Khan’s fallacious arguments are used by cultists.

The LDS book, Doctrine and Covenant, which Mormons believe to have been communicated to Joseph Smith through spiritual revelation, and which they blasphemously  attribute to the mouth of God, exalts the Constitution as being divinely inspired, and says that God gave to it the belief of religious equality

According to the laws and constitution of the people, which I have suffered to be established, and should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles;

That every man may act in doctrine and principle pertaining to futurity, according to the moral agency which I have given unto him, that every man may be accountable for his own sins in the day of judgment.

Therefore, it is not right that any man should be in bondage one to another. And for this purpose have I established the Constitution of this landby the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose, and redeemed the land by the shedding of blood. (D&C 101:77-80)

The Constitution has great elements of human genius, but it is not divinely inspired, for within it lies the belief in religious equality and liberty, something which contradicts the Bible. Religious liberty or toleration, is not in the Bible, in the first five books of Moses, we have a myriad of examples of religious intolerance and inequality.

Jacob purging his household of false gods (Genesis 35:2-4), Moses’ killing of the golden calf worshippers (Exodus 32:27-28), the Levitical sentencing of capital punishment for anyone who conducts child sacrifice (Leviticus 20:2), God’s command to have hung anyone who worshipped Midianite deities, Phinehas’ slaying of those who worshipped Baal-peor (Numbers 25:4-8), and the injunction of Moses to execute sun and moon worshippers (Deuteronomy 17:2-7), is evidence enough for my point.

Now to be fair, I do not believe in being tyrannical to non-Christians. Numbers 15:14-15  states that foreigners must be treated as being equal before the law. But this does not mean equality of religions, in fact, it states that the stranger, before entering, must make a sacrifice to the Lord, which implies a policy of intolerance for false religion:

 And if a stranger sojourn with you, or whosoever be among you in your generations, and will offer an offering made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the Lord; as ye do, so he shall do.

One ordinance shall be both for you of the congregation, and also for the stranger that sojourneth with you, an ordinance for ever in your generations: as ye are, so shall the stranger be before the Lord. (Numbers 15:14-15)

The very existence of religious intolerance in the Bible, proves that the Constitution cannot be inspired, since it trumps the idea of religious liberty. The notion that the Founding Fathers were inspired, is proven again incorrect, because they as well upheld the Enlightenment concept of religious toleration.

George Washington, when writing on employing workers for Mount Vernon, wrote that “If they be good workmen, they may be from Asia, Africa, or Europe; they may be Mohammedans [Muslims], Jews, or Christians of any sect, or they may be Atheists.”

By this very logic, a Muslim with the spirit of Jamal Malek Hassan (the Fort Hood shooter), or Keith Ellison (the Muslim who swore over the Koran and not the Bible), or an Atheist communist, like Engels or Marx, or Saul Alinsky, would be permitted to enter the United States, under the watch of Washington. In this regard, the Founders were not “wise men,” as the Book of Mormon affirms.

But the LDS, not surprisingly, are pushing for this dangerous idea of religious equality. Glenn Beck told a crowd to “go to your churches, your synagogues, your mosques,” I wonder where he got this from? It is in agreement with Dallin H. Oaks of the LDS, who said in a more recent speech:

The preservation of religious freedom in our nation depends on the value we attach to the teachings of right and wrong in our churches, synagogues, and mosques. It is faith in God, however defined, that translates these religious teachings into the moral behavior that benefits the nation.

“God, however defined,” is what enables evils. The Muslims redefined God, and look at what crimes they are committing for him.  Our liberty does not depend on our tolerance, but our intolerance toward evil.

The belief in religious liberty, established by the Founding Fathers, is what has led to the infiltration of this nation by those of heretical beliefs. Clinton, Obama, Al Gore, all of these people are heretics. America is suffering because of heresy. Islam is a heresy, communism is a heresy, environmentalism is a heresy, the homosexual agenda is a heresy. And yet we still laude ourselves for our tolerance.

We act as though God made the world for America,  that American Christianity is the apple of His eye, and that the Christians of the East are irrelevant in comparison to the Evangelicals of the U.S. The truth is that the Eastern Christians, such as those of Russia, Egypt,  Syria, and Uganda, are exemplifying the Christian spirit more than anyone else.

The Russians are fighting against the sodomite agenda with full exertion, and while there are many good and holy Evangelicals, the Russian Church, justifiably, is weary of the American Evangelical mega church industry, permeating its country

I cannot blame them. Rick Warren, the pope of the American church, has said that “I have many, many gay friends, and have worked around the world with them in gay organizations to try to stop AIDS”.

This is absolutely unbiblical. Any “gay” organization is, inexorably, for the advancement of the sodomite worldview, and thus any so-called Christian who works with them is an enemy of the Church. The false preacher also affirmed, with much confidence and exuberance, that sodomites, if they accept Christ–and remain being sodomites–are “going to Heaven! Without a doubt.” Here is the video:

This is contrary to what Scripture says:

Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. (I Corinthians 6:9, NKJV)

The Egyptians and the Syrians, who are all Orthodox or Catholic, are suffering immense persecution under the Islamic heretics. Why are the Evangelical, or the American Catholic, leaderships, so static in this holy fray against the evils of the Muslims and the Sodomites?

I pray that one day the Church will restore its old and rejected spirit, that of the Siege of Malta, the Conquest of Jerusalem, the Battle of Lepanto, and not this vacillating and devilish manner which it has adopted.

When God spoke of the Church after Christ, He prophesied on the Egyptian and other Orthodox churches, not the modernistic evangelicals today. Isaiah foretold of the Coptic Church in Egypt being persecuted by the Muslims and ultimately saved by Christ:

And it shall be for a sign and for a witness unto the LORD of hosts in the land of Egypt: for they shall cry unto the LORD because of the oppressors, and he shall send them a savior, and a mighty one, and he shall deliver them. (Isaiah 19:20)

Malachi prophesied on the Orthodox Church when he proclaimed:

 For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering: for my name shall be great among the heathen, saith the Lord of hosts. (Malachi 1:11)

Tell me, which denomination today burns incense in church? The only ones are the Catholic and the Eastern Orthodox, not Evangelicals or Protestants. God did not make prophecies on the American Constitution, and neither is that document inspired. Anyone who makes the Constitution scripture or holy writ, had made an idol of it. I am afraid that there is a cult of the Founding Fathers in America.

For the sake of our souls, let us read Scripture, and revere it; let us adhere to the Church Fathers, and not to the Founding Fathers.

Get the latest book, For God or For Tyranny

Follow me on Facebook


(1) *St. Bede, History of the English Church, preface; 1.4*

Constantine Did Not Create The Catholic Church

By Theodore Shoebat 

Out of all the greatest figures in Christian history, one of the most misconstrued and slandered against is Constantine. They say that he founded the Catholic Church, and he bonded it with paganism mixed with Christianity, but is this true?



This assertion has been being used to wrongly deceive countless Christians, and bring false information to Messianics and Evangelicals. It was first originated by anti-Christian writers, such as Franz Cumont.

Franz Cumont

Franz Cumont

What many don’t recognize is that Franz Cumont introduced this theory with an overall anti-Christian intention. He wrote that Christianity

took from its opponents their own weapons, and used them; the better elements of paganism were transferred to the new religion. (1)

With this said, we can agree that the beliefs which try to prove that Constantine configured his own church and mixed it with paganism, was originally produced by haters of the Faith, and has succeeded in causing further division in the Church, with Christians who hate Constantine going against those Christians who they perceive as subscribing to beliefs founded by Constantine.  Such contention is founded on false historicity.

To refute the notion that Constantine invented a new church, and to show that the Church did not change after, or was supplanted by, Constantine, I will almost always use primary source accounts such as Eusebius, Tertullian, St. Ambrose,  St. Irenaeus, Firmicus,  St. Justin Martyr, and St. Augustine.

This is important because it shows that once we look to the original sources of the Church, and not anti-Christian writers or information from the internet, what we find is not Constantine repressing Christians, but heretics who would be rejected by both learned Protestant and Catholic scholars.

One of the most frequent accusations is that Constantine founded, or at least helped establish, an official church of the empire, and then began slaughtering Bible believing Christians who refused to conform, and forced them into an “underground” church.

The evidence presented for this persecution of these obscure believers is an edict of Constantine in which certain sects are listed as being heretical and banned from preaching or assembling religious meetings, it states:

Understand now, by this present statute, ye Novatians, Valentinians, Marcionites, Paulians,  ye who are called Cataphrygians, and all ye who devise and support heresies by means of your private assemblies, with what a tissue of falsehood and vanity, with what destructive and venomous errors, your doctrines are inseparably interwoven, so that through you the healthy soul is stricken with disease, and the living becomes the prey of everlasting death. Ye haters and enemies of truth and life, in league with destruction! All your counsels are opposed to the truth, but familiar with deeds of baseness, fit subjects for the fabulous follies of the stage. …We have directed, accordingly, that you be deprived of all the houses in which you are accustomed to hold your assemblies, and our care in this respect extends as far as to forbid the holding of your superstitious and senseless meetings, not in public merely, but in any private house or place whatsoever.  Let those of you, therefore, who are desirous of embracing the true and pure religion, take the far better course of entering the Catholic Church, and uniting with it in holy fellowship, whereby you will be enabled to arrive at the knowledge of the truth. (2)

Now, I know that such fierce and overly zealous words may set alarms off in your heads. These poor believers are banned from preaching their theologies, and not only that, they are being coerced into joining the Catholic Church which, as many believe, is the Harlot of Babylon.

But, the question that needs to be asked is, what did these named sects believe in, and were they really Christian? To elucidate this, I will describe each of the sects listed in the edict, and what we will realize is that these sects were completely foreign to any Christian denomination (Protestant or Catholic) and more akin to heretical groups such as Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Muslims, and other cults which we would deem false and dangerous.

Firstly, the five sects condemned by Constantine cannot be considered as original Christians, simply for the reason that all of them broke away from the Catholic Church many years before Constantine was ever emperor, and were not pre-existing to Constantine, or the Catholic Church.

1. The Valentinians.  These were founded by one Valentinus, and his doctrine was blatantly heretical. He denied that Christ came in the flesh, (3) *St. Ambrose, Of the Christian Faith, 2.5* coinciding directly with the heresy condemned by St. John when he wrote:

Many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist. (2 John 1:7)

St. Joh

St. John

They believed that the Father was both male and female, and that he impregnated a type of goddess named Silence, and through this intercourse, she gave birth to an “aeon” named Only-Begotten who then emitted Christ and the Holy Spirit. (4)

This bizarre belief is reminiscent to Mormonism, which teaches that the Father had literal sex with the Virgin Mary in order to beget Christ.  For example, Mormon leader Orson Pratt, once said:

But God having created all men and women, had the most perfect right to do with His own creation, according to His holy will and pleasure: He had a lawful right to overshadow the Virgin Mary in the capacity of a husband

Mormon heretic Orson Pratt

Mormon heretic Orson Pratt

The Valentinians were so blasphemous, that they believed that Christ was in a conjugal relationship with the Holy Spirit. (5) The Valentinians were condemned by St. Polycarp, was he then an agent for the Catholic Church pursuing innocent Bible believers? No. It is true that he was a Catholic, but he pursued heretics, and not only that, he was a student of St. John himself, a fact which cannot go ignored. Irenaeus, a student of St. Polycarp, wrote of St. Polycarp’s relation with the Apostles:

And Polycarp, a man who had been instructed by the apostles, and had familiar intercourse with many that had seen Christ, and had also been appointed bishop by the apostles in Asia, in the church at Smyrna. ...He always taught what he had learned from the apostles, what the church had handed down, and what is the only true doctrine. (6) 

St. Polycarp

St. Polycarp

How could the Valentinians be true Christians if they were teaching such false doctrine and were condemned by a man who had been directly appointed  by the Apostles themselves? Either the Apostles lacked discernment when choosing a bishop, or Polycarp was orthodox and the Valentinians were indeed heretical.

This further shows the historical rape which many modern day Christians have done to Church history when condemning Constantine as a repressor of Christians, when he in fact was striving to protect the Church against these very wolves.

2. The Marcionites. These heretics, which are rejected by both Catholic and Protestant scholars, were founded by one Marcion, a native of Pontus, who taught that there was a god greater than the God of the Old Testament, and that, as Islam teaches, God was not the Father of Christ. (7)



They affirmed that the God of the Old Testament was evil and corrupt, while the god who Marcion invented, was good. (8) One of their other beliefs was that Christ did not actually fulfill the Law, but abolished it as the work of evil, and that the prophets were all sinister writers and not of God. (9)

The Marcionites were as well condemned by Polycarp, the student of St. John, and when Marcion said to Polycarp, “Acknowledge us,” the saint wittingly responded: “I acknowledge the first-born of Satan.” (10)

3. The Novatians. These were founded by Novatian, a bishop of Rome, over half a century before Constantine’s conversion in 312 AD, and his emperorship in 306 AD.

They were a controlling and legalistic cult, whose main tenet was that Christ could not forgive Christians who, under pain of death, acknowledged the gods of the Roman state, a belief rejected and condemned by the Catholic Church in the third century, (11)  and which would be indefinitely condemned by any Protestant or Evangelical church.

He was in fact condemned by a pope, Pope Cornelius, which disproves the common accusation that Constantine was the first pope and the founder of the Catholic Church,  and substantiates that the office of pontificate pre-existed the first Christian emperor. Two other popes who reigned in the Church right before Constantine, were Pope Gaius and Pope Marcellinus, who were martyred by the pagans.

Pope Cornelius

Pope Cornelius

Novatus was not only a schismatic, but had to be treated by exorcists on account of demonic possession which lasted for some time. Can a man of Christ’s Way be overtaken by demons, as Muhammad and Joseph Smith were?

He was a violent madman, who robbed money from the Church, taking even charity funds from orphans and widows,  allowed his father to starve to death and did not care to even bury him, and murdered his own son by kicking his pregnant wife in the belly. St. Cyprian described his vicious and evil behavior as such:

Orphans despoiled by him, widows defrauded, moneys moreover of the Church withheld, exact from him those penalties which we behold inflicted in his madness. His father also died of hunger in the street, and afterwards even in death was not buried by him. The womb of his wife was smitten by a blow of his heel; and in the miscarriage that soon followed, the offspring was brought forth, the fruit of a father’s murder. And now does he dare to condemn the hands of those who sacrifice, when he himself is more guilty in his feet, by which the son, who was about to be born, was slain? (12)

St. Cyprian

St. Cyprian

While he refused to accept the lapsed Christians, he himself was terrified of persecution, to the point that when asked to assist the Christians being oppressed by the emperor Decius, he imprisoned himself in fear and even denied that he was a presbyter,  affirming that he was “an admirer of a different philosophy.” (13)

When he gave the communion bread to his followers, he did not bless them in anyway, but forced them to promise not to betray him, telling them: “Swear to me, by the body and blood of our Saviour, Jesus Christ, that you will never desert me, not turn to Cornelius [the Pope].” Instead of the receiver saying “Amen” when accepting the bread, he was compelled to say: “I will no longer return to Cornelius.” (14)

Could you imagine Holy Communion being done like this in your church? It was not done to remember Christ, but to compete with the Catholic Church and gain power over it. Again, this was before Constantine, and it was a cult which broke away from the Church, and did not exist before it. It had no Apostolic succession, but was merely a schism which abused and forced its followers to be loyal to Novatus.

They broke the precept taught by St. Paul,

That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another. (I Corinthians 12:25)

Saint Paul

Saint Paul

4. The Paulians.  Their name did not, as some may think, come from St. Paul, but a deceiver named Paul of Samosata who, like Muhammad, taught that Christ was not the Son of God, (15) and that He was not divine, but a mere man. (16)

Constantine repressed this sect, but again, they were heretical and they broke away from the Church, and never had pre-existing church.

5. The Cataphrygians.  These are more usually known as Montanists, from their second century Phrygian founder Montanus, He founded his cult similarly to how Joseph Smith founded the LDS, or how Muhammad founded Islam, through a demonic vision.

It was said that he was taken away by an evil spirit which compelled him to go into a violent frenzy in which he uttered all sorts of blasphemies. He attracted two women to join his movement, who has well would enter into hysterical and ecstatic states of ecstasy. They were like Muslim Sufis. They soon founded a cult of wild charismatics who broke away from the Church and believed that they were the true prophets foretold by God. (17)

As the Mormons and the Muslims replaced Jerusalem with Salt Lake City and Mecca, the Montantists declared that the two Phrygian cities, Pepuza and Tymium, were a Jerusalem. *Euseb. Eccles. Hist. 5.18* If the Catholic Church rejected Jerusalem and the Holy Land, as many have said, why would they then condemn this heresy?  The Montanists even had a prophet who, like Muhammad, dyed his hair and put on mascara, (18)  which reminds us of a lot of a lot of people in the modern day church.

This sums up the five heresies which Constantine’s edict suppresses. They were not Christian, and thus the allegations that Constantine persecuted the original church, founded the Catholic Church and was the first pope, are false.

Those who use these heresies as examples for the original church, are now compelled to either accepts these cults, or admit that the established Church in the time of Constantine, was the same one before Constantine, and that there was no underground church.

Moreover, the fact that Constantine repressed these groups shows that he had a knowledge on the Scripture, and possessed enough discernment to realize that they were dangerous to the Faith.


Mithra on the left

Mithra on the left

Furthermore, the usual assertion that Constantine introduced Mithraism, or an ancient Persian cult, and Roman paganism, into the Church, is again fallacious.

Mithraism involved the worship of a bull fighter named Mithra, and of fire, and had nothing to do with Christianity. In fact, the cult was repeatedly condemned by Christian authorities before and after the time of Constantine, because the Church never changed its position in regards to the false religion.

For example, the Christian writer Firmicus, who lived during and after the time Constantine,  heavily denounced Mithraism as such:

The male they worship as a cattle rustler, and his cult they relate to the potency of fire, as his prophet handed down the lore to us, saying: … ‘Initiate of cattle-rusting, companion by handclasp of an illustrious father’. Him they call Mithra, and his cult they carry on in hidden caves, so that they may be forever plunged in the gloomy squalor of darkness and thus shun the grace of light resplendent and serene. O true consecration of a divinity! O repulsive inventions of a barbaric code! (19)



Was Firmicus going against the Church when he wrote this? No, if he was, why was he never anathematized as a dissenting heretic?  Firmicus was simply agreeing with the Church’s teaching on Mithraism, which was affirmed and taught centuries before Constantine was ever emperor. There was no new church to go against, when combating Mithraism.

Another frequent claim by anti-Christian writers (and sadly Christians who believe their lies), is that the idea of Holy Communion originated from Mithraism (the Mitraists used bread and water in their rituals, which is radically different to Christianity and is what Mormons actually do) and that the Catholic Church took this ritual for their Communion.

Justin Martyr, writing in between 151 and 155 AD (20) (around 277 years before Constantine’s conversion), not only chastised and condemned Mithraism, but concluded that its bread and water ritual was a demonic plagiarism of Holy Communion:

For we do not receive these things as common bread nor common drink; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Savior having been incarnate by God’s logos took flesh and blood for our salvation, so also we have been taught that the food eucharistized through the word of prayer that is from Him, from which our blood and flesh are nourished by transformation, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who became incarnate. For the Apostles in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, thus handed down what was commanded them: that Jesus took bread and having given thanks said: “Do this for my memorial, this is my body”; and likewise He took the chalice and having given thanks said: “This is my blood”‘ and gave it to them alone. Which also the wicked demons have imitated in the mysteries of Mithra and handed down to be done; for that bread and a cup of water are placed with certain words said over them in the secret rites of initiation, you either know or can learn.  (21)

St. Justin Martyr

St. Justin Martyr

The fact that Holy Communion was observed, and Mithraism was condemned, before and after Constantine, shows a consistent tradition being maintained and protected, and not a new church being created after 312 AD.


Constantine hated paganism and its violent and homosexual practices with such fury, that he passed laws to repress them, and to exterminate the pagan priests of Egypt. Eusebius, one of our major primary writers on Constantine, recounts that:

Consistently with this zeal he [Constantine] issued successive laws and ordinances, forbidding any to offer sacrifice to idols, to consult diviners, to erect images, or to pollute the cities with the sanguinary combats of gladiators. And inasmuch as the Egyptians, especially those of Alexandria, had been accustomed to honor their river through a priesthood composed of effeminate men, a further law was passed commanding the extermination of these as a corrupt and vicious class of persons, that no one might thenceforward be found tainted with the like impurity. (22)

We could reasonably compare these laws to those of Moses, which prescribe the death penalty for paganism and homosexuality. These laws were definitely influenced by Biblical laws, for, according to Eusebius, he would “devote himself to the perusal of the inspired writings.” (23)

Not only that, but Constantine built Constantinople to be a city without the blemish of heathenism and idolatry, without the worship of devils and pagan temples. In the words of St. Augustine, it was to be a city “without any temple or image of the demons.” (23A)

St. Augustine

St. Augustine


A frequent accusation is that Constantine outlawed the Bible from being read privately. The truth is that he respected the Bible to the point that he ordered fifty Bibles to be copied for the churches. This was a very laborious project, because in those days there was no printing machines or internet, books had to be copied down by hand, it was costly and time consuming.

Most people in that age would not have been able to afford purchasing a Bible, and Constantine was charitable enough to give Bibles to churches so that the Scriptures could be read to the congregants.

Constantine issued this order to the bishop Eusebius for this to be done, writing:

Do you, therefore, receive with all readiness my determination on this behalf. I have thought it expedient to instruct your Prudence to order fifty copies of the sacred scriptures (the provisions and use of which you know to be most needful for the instruction of the Church) to be written on prepared parchment in a legible manner, and in a commodious and portable form, by transcribers thoroughly practiced in their art. (24)



After Constantine defeated one of the greatest persecutors of the Church, the pagan emperor Maxentius, the Roman senate erected an arch in honor of the victory, and unlike former emperors, it did not give any praise to Jupiter, Apollo, or Mars. (25)

Before 312 AD, the year of Constantine’s conversion, Roman coins were minted with pagan symbolism, but after 312, the coins are seen with  Christian imagery. (26) All of these indications lead to the conclusion that there was indeed a significant change in the empire after Constantine’s conversion.

Did pagan influence remain in the empire? Yes, but was there a new Church established, made with both Christian and pagan beliefs and rituals? No. The Church was the same as it was prior to Constantine, the only difference was that it was allowed to exist without pagan government despotism.

Because of Constantine, the great persecutors of the church, such as Maxentius, Gallerius, and Licinius, were vanquished,  Christianity was allowed to thrive. Because of Constantine’s liberation of the Church, Christianity spread as it did, and became the dominant Faith in the world, but of course this is not the case today.

Let this essay teach a good lesson, that history has been lacerated and defiled, and that the Church, in antiquity, was a beacon of light destroying the forces of evil and heresy, unlike today, where it has became a circus.

The Church is here to destroy the works of the devil, and let us do so in light of what the early Christians did, and not defile their history, but repeat it.

Get the latest book, For God or For Tyranny 




(1) *Cumont, The Oriental Religions, intro, p. xi*

(2) *Constantine’s Edict Against The Heretics, in Eusebius, Life of Constantine, 3.53, Christian Roman Empire, vol. 8* 

(3) *St. Ambrose, Of the Christian Faith, 2.5*

(4) *St. Irenaeus, Against the Heresies, 1.1-2*

(5) *St. Irenaeus, Against the Heresies, 1.2*

(6)  *St. Irenaeus in Euseb. Eccles. Hist. 4.14* 

(7) *Euseb. Eccles. Hist. 4.11*

(8) *Tertullian, Against Marcion, 1.2*

(9) *St. Irenaeus, Against the Heresies, 1.27*

(10) *Euseb. Eccles. Hist. 4.14*

(11) *Euseb. Eccles. Hist. 6.43*

(12) *St. Cyprian, epistle 48, trans.  Robert Ernest Wallis.*

(13) *Euseb. Eccles. Hist. 6.43*

(14) *Euseb. Eccles. Hist. 6.43, trans. C.F. Cruse, brackets mine*

(15)  *St. Ambrose, Of the Christian Faith, 5.8.104*

(16) *Euseb. Eccles. Hist. 2.27*

(17) *Euseb. Eccles. Hist. 5.16*

(18) *Euseb. Eccles. Hist. 5.18*

(19) *Firmicus, The Error of the Pagan Religions, 5.2, trans. Clarence A. Forbes, ellipses mine* 

(20) *Leslie William Barnard, intro to Justin Martyr’s Apologies, Ancient Christian Writers*

(21) *St. Justin Martyr, I Apology, 66, trans. Leslie William Barnard*   

(22) *Eusebius, Life of Constantine, 4.21, brackets mine* 

(23) *Eusebius, Life of Constantine, 1.32*

(23A) *City of God, 5.25, trans. Marcus Dods*

(24) *Eusebius, Life of Constantine, 4.32* 

(25) *Peter J. Leihart, Defending Constantine, ch. 4, p. 75, 2010*

(26) *Peter J. Leihart, Defending Constantine, ch. 4, p. 77, 2010*


Christians, Stop Trying To Reason With Sodomites

I made this video because I have seen too many Christians say that they don’t want sodomite marriage, but have no problem with allowing the rights for homosexuality. Ban homosexuality, and you end the agenda. Outlaw the sodomite before he outlaws you

Stop Focusing On Gay Marriage, Instead Try To End Tolerance Toward Sodomites

By Theodore Shoebat 

Homosexual marriage is not in the Bible, and the whole subject of it merely is a means for politicians to please both sides, by saying they are against it to conservatives, and that they believe in sodomite rights to leftists. It is all a game.

The Bible has only one solution for the sodomites: to drive them out, utterly. It prescribes no mercy, but only punishment and purging the land of them. I have written on this numerous times, and anyone who keeps track of my writings, knows that I believe explicitly and unapologetically that homosexuality, alongside its evil agenda, should be completely banned, and extinguished from taking part in the church, in government, or in any other component of culture.

I am not so optimistic as to say that the world will listen to the prudence of Scripture, as the psalmist wrote, man “plunges unseeing into the abyss he himself has dug;” I do not expect that we will be gaining any significant foresight against the sodomites in the near future.

We can, in the comfort of retirement, cheer and clap every time the conservatives have some victory in protecting marriage in a particular state, but this will not give rid of the evils of the sodomite, nor does it prevent him from further contriving sinister plans in overrunning this nation and devastating any remnant of civilization left, for the Apostle describes the sodomites as “inventors of evil things” (Romans 1:30).

In other words, one state may squash the potential prospect of homosexual marriage, but that does not end the sodomite agenda. It will still be here, and it is, in the long run, the ultimate enemy in regards to this issue. The pushing of homosexual marriage is merely a symptom to the more significant problem, and that is, tolerance toward sodomites.

Because tolerance enables them to configure and found sodomite groups, and the freedom allowing these groups to thrive and make preponderate influences, is what permits them to be dangerous, and a hinderance to Christian liberty.

Preventing “gay marriage” or ( even more conniving terms) “same sex marriage” or “marriage equality,” should not be our main priority as Christians; instead, our primary focus should be to put an end to tolerance toward sodomites, plain and simple. If you end tolerance toward their agenda, then you get rid of the extra problems: tyrannical anti-discrimination laws, and any deplorable talk and pushing of “marriage equality.”

Intolerance toward homosexuals is easily founded on Scripture, but instead of just quoting the known verses, I will present an interesting deduction. Christ, when asked on divorce, commanded us not to let the institution of marriage ever be altered:

And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. (Matthew 19:4-6) 

I know what you are going to say, this is referring to divorce between a man and a woman, and you are correct. But, for us to let the sodomite agenda cut asunder the marriage system established by God, would be also wicked, and biblically intolerable. Now, add this the words of St. Paul when he wrote that homosexuals “are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.” (Romans 1:32)

Add this to Mosaic Law which says that sodomites “shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.” (Leviticus 20:13) This would not only be applied to those who partake in sodomites acts alone, but also those “have pleasure in them that do them”, that would mean the enablers of homosexuality, their tolerators, and their supporters.

With that said, sodomite marriage should not be our priority, but having the homosexual movement barred from civilization all together, that is the most proficient solution.

And for those who say that we are not a Christian nation, I respond with this: firstly, that abortion was never legalized in this country until the feminists defied the constitution and managed to get it passed. They went against the constitution, and the Declaration of Independence (which guarantees the right to life for all citizens), and they succeeded.

Thus, I don’t see why Christians cannot defy this leftist foreign entity which has infiltrated the nation; for, if we are to push for policies of intolerance, then we would merely be combating this alien enemy, and not the constitution. Furthermore, if the leftists don’t care for the constitution, I don’t see why in the world we cannot strive to have our ideology triumph.

Secondly, America doesn’t need to be a Christian nation to have Christian laws. Babylon was a pagan kingdom, and Nebuchadnezzar, by the influence of the miracle of the three Hebrews surviving the furnace, declared:

 Blessed be the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, who hath sent his angel, and delivered his servants that trusted in him, and have changed the king’s word, and yielded their bodies, that they might not serve nor worship any god, except their own God.

Therefore I make a decree, That every people, nation, and language, which speak any thing amiss against the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, shall be cut in pieces, and their houses shall be made a dunghill: because there is no other God that can deliver after this sort. (Daniel 3:28-29)

Rome was a pagan empire, it was the law of the government to worship the gods of the state, and the Christians, after over 300 years of persecution for breaking this law, succeeded in converting a heathen named Constantine who, in turn, legalized Christianity and allowed the Christians to observe their Faith. It was decreed that the Roman gods must be worshipped, but the Christians did not care for this decree, and in the end, defied the constitution of the empire, and eventually Christianized it.

That is what we must do, and we must do so without any regard for the modern taboo of equality and tolerance, but with complete devotion to advancing the laws of God. Do not forget what Peter told the Jewish authorities when they prohibited him from speaking of Jesus: “We ought to obey God rather than men.” (Acts 5:29)

Get the latest book, For God or For Tyranny



Righteousness Is From God, And Evil Is Of The Devil

Here is a thought that just came to my mind: There are two sides, both immaterial: one of God and the other of Satan; the first results in order, the latter in disorder. Because order is harmonious, God is always in accordance to law, and because disorder is chaos, the devil is in accordance to lawlessness. Because Religious views must either be destructive or beneficial, and since they surpass the corporeal world, they must then be determined by whether or not one chooses God or Satan.

Mormons Believe That God Had Sex With The Virgin Mary

By Theodore Shoebat

I thought this would be interesting to expose, that Mormonism believes that God the Father begat Christ as human beings beget purely human children. Brigham Young stated that the Father came down to earth and begat, through “natural action”, Christ. This signifies that the LDS, affirms that God had sex with the virgin Mary. Here are several statements from Brigham Young to demonstrate this:

“The man Joseph, the husband of Mary, did not, that we know of, have more than one wife, but Mary the wife of Joseph had another husband. On this account infidels have called the Savior a bastard. This is merely a human opinion upon one of the inscrutable doings of the Almighty. That very babe that was cradled in the manger, was begotten, not by Joseph, the husband of Mary, but by another Being. Do you inquire by whom? He was begotten by God our heavenly Father. This answer may suffice you—you need never inquire more upon that point.” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 11, p. 268)

“The Father came down and begat him, the same as we do now…” (The Complete Discourses of Brigham Young, vol. 1, p. 321; February 16, 1849, Salt Lake City)
“I believe the Father came down from heaven, as the Apostles said he did, and begat the Saviour of the world; for he is the only-begotten of the Father, which could not be if the Father did not actuallybeget him in person.” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 1, p. 238)

The birth of the Saviour was as natural as are the births of our children; it was the result of natural action. He partook of flesh and blood – was begotten of his Father, as we were of our fathers.” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 8, p. 115)

“God has made His children like Himself to stand erect, and has endowed them with intelligence and power and dominion over all His works, and given them the same attributes which He himself possesses. He created man, as we create our children; for there is no other process of creation in heaven, on the earth, in the earth, or under the earth, or in all the eternities, that is, that were, or that ever will be.” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 11, pp. 122-123)

Orson Pratt also explained this belief:

But God having created all men and women, had the most perfect right to do with His own creation, according to His holy will and pleasure: He had a lawful right to overshadow the Virgin Mary in the capacity of a husband, and beget a Son, although she was espoused to another; for the law which He gave to govern men and women was not intended to govern Himself, or to prescribe rules for His own conduct. It was also lawful in Him, after having thus dealt with Mary, to give her to Joseph her espoused husband. Whether God the Father gave Mary to Joseph for time only, or for time and eternity, we are not informed. Inasmuch as God was the first husband to her, it may be that He only gave her to be the wife of Joseph while in the mortal state, and that He intended after the resurrection to again take her as one of his own wives to raise up immortal spirits in eternity.”