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

Twitter

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

Advertisements

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?

Constantine

Constantine

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)

Marcion

Marcion

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.

DID THE CATHOLIC CHURCH ADOPT MITHRAISM? 

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)

Firmicus

Firmicus

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.

DID CONSTANTINE ENFORCE PAGANISM INTO THE CHURCH? 

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

DID CONSTANTINE OUTLAW THE BIBLE? 

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)

Eusebius

Eusebius

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 

Facebook

Twitter

REFERENCES

(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*

 

Death To The Beast Of Indifferentism!

By Theodore Shoebat

Oh Christians, do you not know of the plans of the heretics?

How they wish to destroy the Faith through deception, 

through false doctrine, through sophisms? 

My heart breaks at the sight of your indifferentism

because behind those false facades, of ‘tolerance,’

of ‘equality,’ of ‘free thought’ and of ‘liberty’,

  are wolves frothing at the mouth, just waiting 

for the right moment to make martyrs out of you,

and laugh, and mock, and scoff, at the very Faith 

which you care little for. 

Enough with your boastings, that you are tolerant and open minded,

these are but masks to cover your apathy before the sacred.

If you wish not to partake in this duel to the death, this duel of Faith,

then stay silent, and cease your attempt to hinder the fiery ardour of the zealots.

The heretics plan to destroy us,

and connive false friendships and perceptions of peace,

as Cain did before he slew the first martyr.

 

They dream of the days when we are in the midst of their killing fields, 

and they, with cruel smiles, laugh at us,

declare that Christ never saved us, and that the Cross is nothing.

And as they dream this utopia of hell, the indifferentist choose to live in polite fiction,

and they tell the zealots to cease speaking of fighting,

of this eternal war between the Cross and the Crescent,

before the Mark of God and the Mark of the Beast,

between the Bride of Christ and the harlot of the devil,

and little do they know that they,

despite their diplomacy with the enemy,

 are not exempt from this war,

for they do not know, nor do they realize,

that it will also be between those with zeal and those with out,

and in the end a sword will strike the beast of indifferentism

and  the wound will bleed the monster finally to death. 

Muslims Terrorize Christians, With American Support Of Course

By Theodore Shoebat 

In accordance to what I predicted in 2012, the US, France, and the UK, have accentuated their promise to the rebels, that they will continue to provide support for them.  

The US, being the empire of evil that it has become, is still draining its money (paid by the citizens of course) to help further the cause of heresy. This is because America has become a nation where heretics and heresies have infiltrated and inundated the church and the society. Why should it surprise us that a nation of heretics, ruled by a heretic, is helping heretics, kill the orthodox?

The fight for one of the most ancient Christian sites, Maaloula, is still going on. The Syrian military has managed to take control, but this has not stopped the rebels from continuing their assault to retake the village.

It is quite obvious that there is an Islamic incentive to wipe out Christianity from the village, the jihadists and the American interventionists of course do not want you to know or think this. When the Muslims invaded Maaloula priorly, they took a monastery hostage, and filmed two nuns, asking them if they were harmed to which the women responded that they weren’t.

Here is the video:

Now, by looking at the footage it is apparent that the nuns are terrified and are speaking under duress. This is fully confirmed by the U.S. leader of the Eastern Orthodox Church of Antioch, Metropolitan Philip Saliba, who called the nuns during the hostage situation (if you watch the video, you will hear the phone ringing and one of the nuns answering it and speaking very briefly before hanging up). He recounted the conversation and revealed what really happened in the monastery:

When I spoke to the mother superior, she was surrounded by the rebels. She could not speak very freely. She said oh, oh, we are OK, we are OK, we – everything is all right, and that was not the case. I understood later on that one of the rebels knocked on the door of the convent, and the nuns said who is it, and he wouldn’t answer.

 

He told them to open the door otherwise I will put a bomb underneath the door and walk in. So they opened the door.

Concurrent to what have I said numerous times, Saliba also affirmed the anti-Christian intentions of the revolutionaries, showing that the Muslims see Christians as blasphemers against Islam:

 My hope is that the [Assad] regime stays. The alternative is to have al-Qaida, al-Qaida that destroyed our Twin Towers in New York City and attacked the Pentagon and exploded a plane over Pennsylvania. They have been fighting us all over. They hate us as Americans. They hate the Christians. They have – they call us blasphemers, you know.

When we speak of the Islamic problem, we must understand that Islam was founded with the primary purpose of destroying the Church. While of course there are persecutions done against non-Christians, the fact that the Cross is their main target still remains.

War with Christianity, is Islam’s war, and war with Islam, is Christianity’s war.

 Donate now and save Christian lives  

Get the latest book, For God or For Tyranny

Follow me on Facebook

The Dangers of Secular Conservatism

By Theodore Shoebat 

There is a schism within the Conservative movement, between those who are for God and His laws, and those who are for secularism. Those who uphold the Divine Law, will have a foundation upon which their views will stand sturdy and indefatigable, like the wise man who built his house on the rock.

Those who are for a secular perspective, will not see the diabolical when it is standing right in front of them. If the devil ever appeared to them, they would be less likely to resist him and compel him to flee, and more inclined to bow down to receive the kingdoms of the earth.

There is one man in particular who is a product of conservative secularism, his name is Victor Davis Hanson. In one article he suggested that the The Cordoba Initiative–an Islamic organization which desires to infiltrate the Western world with a facade of multiculturalism–should change its name into the “Constantinople Initiative.”

Constantinople was savagely ransacked and taken by the Muslims in 1453, and Hanson believes that the now conquered city can be used as an example for peace between Islam  and the rest of the world. He writes:

If a Muslim city inside Europe is what the Initiative needs for symbolic purposes, why not the “Constantinople Initiative”? Perhaps the proponents of the new Islamic center could make the argument that 1453, with its symbolic minarets on Hagia Sophia, marks the sort of religious ecumenism that we should again strive for.

Let me remind Mr. Hanson of a history which he already knows but does not care about, of how much of the blood of the saints was spilt in the Hagia Sophia, one of the oldest and most glorious churches in Christendom’s history. When the Turks overran Constantinople in 1453 (a time which Hanson extols), innumerable Christians fled into the church and  locked the gates.

The Muslims broke inside, with swords unsheathed, beholding the defenseless people whom they saw as nothing more than open game. They were but sheep being taken to the slaughter. No man could describe the wailings and the cries of the babes, no chronicler the tearful screams of the mothers, no historian the lamentations of the fathers.

The loveliest maiden was sought out by the most degenerate Turk, and not even the nuns were spared by the rapacious Muslims who indulged themselves in the most wickedest act of rape and kidnapping. The braids of women were tugged and pulled by Turks who competed for them; they ripped through their garments and exposed their breasts and bosoms.

People were driven out of the church and flogged, and within one hour all of the men where bounded together by a cord like the Hebrew slaves in ancient Egypt. They were chained together and were treated as though they were not human, but a herd of beasts. Over sixty thousand people were transported to the Muslim camps and ships, exchanged and sold, and dispersed throughout the provinces of the Ottoman empire. (1)

The Janissaries tore down the crucifix in the Hagia Sofia, placed a Turkish turban on the thorn-pierced head and mockingly paraded through the streets as they scoffingly said, “Behold the God of the Christians.” Ever since then the Hagia Sofia has never been touched by Christian hands; it still remains in Turkey as a great bare slab. (2)

The crosses were ordered to be thrown down, and the beautiful statues and mosaics were all gotten rid of, leaving the place from being a magnificent church to a white washed tomb. (3)  He summoned a vile sheikh to ascend the church’s pulpit, and when he did, he cried the Call to Prayer declaring that Allah is greater and thus expressing the superiority of Islam over Christianity. He then went on top of the great altar and preformed an Islamic prayer.

It is this very place, violently stripped of all its sacredness by the Muslims, which Mr. Hanson describes as a symbol of ecumenism. Hanson also subscribes to the commonly held assertion that the jihadists and Islamic terrorists are “anti-gay.” He writes:

…what we saw on September 11, Madrid, London, Washington, Kabul, and Baghdad is a horrific fascism-anti-woman, anti-gay, anti-modern-that is at war with all the Enlightenment had achieved.

No, Mr. Hanson, the Muslims are anti-Christian; Christianity is their main target. The conquerer of Constantinople, the Sultan Mehmet II, was an inveterate homosexual who had the most sinister liking to young men.

The historian Phranza was amongst the Christians of Constantinople who were sold into slavery, and after four months of being yoked he escaped and ransomed his wife. His daughter was murdered, and his two sons were forced to become the victims of Mehmet’s lusts. One of them, aged fifteen, refused to be raped and so was stabbed to death by the possessed Sultan. (4) Also, it must be stated that many Muslims, specifically the jihadists, are homosexuals, and even in the Koran, heaven is described as being filled with male youths.

Hanson never mentions that Islam is a Christian heresy, descending from Arianism (the denial of Christ’s divinity) and a myriad of other blasphemous doctrines. Its priority is not to destroy the Enlightenment and the gay agenda, but to utterly uproot the Church and orthodoxy from existence.

There are three cities which the Muslims seek to destroy: Jerusalem, because that is the Holy City of God; Rome, because it was, in the time of Muhammad, the center for Christian primacy and influence; and Constantinople, the metropolis built by Constantine with the intention to erect a pure city free from all ideology.

It is no wonder, then, as to why the followers of Lucifer would strive to vanquish these three areas, it was because they desired (and still desire) to establish an empire in which unitarianism is enforced and exalted. The Muslims have already taken Constantinople, and they still plan on taking the other two cities. It is apparent that the Muslims will one day invade Jerusalem, and also predict that they will, in the future, attempt to take Rome. Yusuf al-Qaradawi made this aspiration quite clear when he said:

What remains, then, is to conquer Rome.

All of the destruction that Islam brings, all of its violence and bloodshed, all of its cruelty and oppression, is done for the sake of a heresy. But the secularists refuse to admit this, because to them every discussion must have no talk of God and His laws, and the enemies of God. Yet, while the secularists acknowledge an Islamic problem, they will never speak of this problem’s root, and that is heresy.

Moreover, at the beginning of the Islamic revolutions in Egypt, Syria, Libya, and Tunisia, Hanson made it clear that he was on the side of the revolutionaries, and was hoping that Obama would be on their sides and opposed to the Arabist dictators.

Here is a video I made showing Hanson’s statements on this subject in an interview he did for the Hoover Institute:

As long we keep trumping secularism, and not Christian supremacy, the conservative will continue to have these types of thinkers who, while being filled with knowledge, are absent of foresight and thus unable to see the devil in front of them.

Get the latest book, For God or For Tyranny

Follow me on Facebook

Twitter

(1) *Gibbon, Decline and Fall, vol. v, ch. liviii*

(2) *Carroll, A History of Christendom, vol. iii, ch. xiii, p. 568*

(3) *See Gibbon, Decline and Fall, vol. v, ch. lxviii, p. 1216*

(4) *Gibbon, Decline and Fall, vol. v, ch. lxviii, p. 1213*

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.”

The Best Argument Against Mormonism

By Theodore Shoebat

Here is a good argument I use against Mormons (this argument does away with all of the assertions of Mormons and gets right to the point). If the LDS cannot prove that their church can be linked all the way from the Apostles, they have have no argument for the rest of their heretical beliefs.

If the LDS is the true church, then find me a reminiscent church that existed before Joseph Smith. If they say they can’t think of any, or that the true faith was unknown until Joseph Smith, then that means God allowed the world to be in the dark until the 19th century (1800s)

Now, if they are of the learned sort, they may try to use history, and say that the earliest Christians were anti-Trinity, just like the Mormons are today, and that this remnant of true Christianity was eclipsed by the Council of Nicaea.

The problem with this argument is that the so-called “early Christians” that they associate themselves with are the Arians, a group of heretics founded by Arius in the fourth century, who denied the Trinity.

If you would like to learn more on Arianism, how it persecuted the Church, and how it was condemned by the Council, here is my essay on the history of Arianism:

http://shoebat.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Heresy.pdf

It was this very sect that was condemned by the Council of Nicaea. It is for this reason as to why the LDS condemns the Nicene Creed, which was declared to affirm and define the Trinity.

The official Latter Day Saints website has a condemnation of the Council of Nicaea, as the move which prevailed over the so-called “true Christians” which they have fabricated (when in reality it simply anathematized the Arians):

“The collision between the speculative world of Greek philosophy and the simple, literal faith and practice of the earliest Christians produced sharp contentions that threatened to widen political divisions in the fragmenting Roman empire. This led Emperor Constantine to convene the first churchwide council in A.D. 325. The action of this council of Nicaea remains the most important single event after the death of the Apostles in formulating the modern Christian concept of deity. The Nicene Creed erased the idea of the separate being of Father and Son by defining God the Son as being of “one substance with the Father.”

The Mormons are correct when they say that the Arians denied that the Trinity, and that they are doctrinally in agreement, but they are wrong when they identify them as being of the original church, or the Apostolic Church. Arius dissented, and broke away, from the Church.

The Arians were never a part of a pre-existing church, but were merely schismatics. If the Trinity was some how concocted by the Council of Nicaea, then why was Arius excommunicated before the Council? The only explanation is that belief in the Trinity was already in existence and a part of orthodox teaching before the Arian controversy.

The Trinity was taught in the Gospels.

The divinity of Christ was proclaimed by St. Matthew when he wrote that Christ was Emanuel, or God with us:
Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. (Matthew 1:23)

Christ declared His divinity in the Gospel of John

Philip saith unto him, Lord, show us the Father, and it sufficeth us. Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father? Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works. (John 14: 8-10)
I John 5:7 says:

For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

Not only does the LDS deny the divinity of Christ, they cannot find any prior sect which resembles them.

The Mormon is then put in a corner, either he has to admit that God kept the world in darkness until the 1800s, or that there was a sect in existence long ago.

But they cannot find any historical reference to these ‘underground’ sects without finding mention of them being heresies which broke away from the original church.