The Day of the Dogma
Once upon a time, over 2,000 years ago, a bunch of extreme radical religious terrorist nut-jobs arose out of the dying embers of the once mighty Roman Empire.
These unhinged loon toon psychopaths had a deep desire for the violent extraction of revenge for past persecutions (mostly imagined) against their kind that the Pagan Roman Empire had inflicted upon them in a few short periods that were to become greatly exaggerated and blown out of all proportion by these seriously deranged funny farm citizens who actually had the moose nuts to call themselves "Christians" (sic).
In time, their Revenge against the Pagans of the bygone era bled over to their peaceful Christian rivals, the Gnostics, and the resulting unmitigated orgy of violence and death against Gnostics and assorted Pagan faiths actually lasted for over 2000 years and was of such sustained cruelty and ferocity that it was hard to believe that they actually had the gall to call themselves ‘Christians’.
Contrary to their alleged beliefs in a loving, forgiving and gentle God and his softer all sin forgiving, tree hugging son, one Aramaic gentleman who went by the name of Jesus Christ, these militant radical terrorists desired an eye for an eye in appeasement for prior transgressions against them, making a total mockery of their fabricated message of Jesus the alleged Messiah.
These militant radical religious terrorists I just described are known to you and I as Catholics.
Catholics did not invent burning at the stake as a punishment for heresy, in fact they got the idea from the Roman Empire’s long tradition of revenge from the days of the slave rebellion of Spartacus and untold depravity since the very first day of the Roman Empire.
This actually set the tone for just about everything the Catholic Church ever did from an innovative point of view.
They somehow seem to have become most confused of the saying of the time, “When in Rome............” deftly failing to remember that they were actually representing Christianity and not the Pagan Psychopaths that preceded them.
They sure did make the old Roman Barbarians seem most juvenile in comparison by the time 2000 years of their unbelievably evil tenure had ticked violently by.
It is in fact quite stunning that Psychopaths still remained in power in Rome after the demise of the Roman Empire.
Somehow, Pagan Psychopath was swapped for Catholic Psychopath and the only difference, apart from the color of their robes, was that the body count was much, much higher than that which even the most murderous Pagan Barbarian could ever have imagined possible!
So began the reign of terror of the Holy Roman Empire with the simple philosophy that if you did not believe their gobbledegook religious bullshit, you had to have a most gruesome death as a reward. How very Christian......
The holy Rollers that besieged many French towns in the crusade in France against Gnostics saw the first show of savage barbarism and one of the first recorded historical recordings of these Crusaders barbecuing live children on barbecue grates for entertainment of the bored and blood thirsty Catholic murderers.
HamASS did not get the idea of atrocities like this by themselves, Catholic crusaders showed them this path over a thousand years ago.
Augustus Caesar, who was in power from 27 BC through 14 AD held many other titles that came with the package of being Caesar, one of which was the position of Pontifex Maximus, which was the title of the ancient high priest of the state religion of Rome.
From emperor to emperor, the religion of the land changed, usually in line with the beliefs of the chief nut-job in Power, no matter what the popular religion of the time happened to be and so the emperor in those days had always held the title of Pontifex Maximus to decree whatever religious beliefs met the needs of his own personal and murderous desires.
Of these desires, just know they were countless in number and held no limits to the depth of the depravity they went to just to stay in power.
This was so that they could always maintain the mandate of heaven in the eyes of the populace and thus it was that the emperor’s stated duties as Pontifex Maximus included protecting the state religion and the punishment of those that attempted to undermine it in any way he saw fit.
At first this did not affect the many creeds who went about their business mostly unaffected and who were broadly tolerated.
However, it did affect the evangelistic religious movements like the Militant Catholic Christians and the Manichaeans, who did offer a perceptible threat to the dominance of the state religion of the time, and thus to the Roman state itself.
It was common in those days for these offenders to be charged with heresy and burnt alive publicly at the stake, in part for appeasement and entertainment of the masses and in part to strike fear in the hearts of those thinking of getting into this line of business.
In 186 BC for example, a group dedicated to the cult of Dionysos was banned in Rome and thousands of its initiates executed.
On another occasion ‘philosophers’ were burnt alive for threatening the proper conduct of religion.
Witnesses of the time recorded that these philosophers went to the stake laughing at the sudden collapse of human destinies and died unmoving in the flames.
A thousand years later when the persecutions began in Languedoc, Cathar Perfecti were seen to do the exact same as these prior philosophers, who had blazed a trail (sic) of inglorious Catholic slaughter before them.
The Roman historian Tacitus recorded a terrible massacre of Christians during the reign of Emperor Nero from 54 through 68 AD, which had less to do with protecting the state religion and more to do with popular hatred of Christians at that time and they were subsequently also wrongly blamed for the great fire that devastated Rome in 64 AD as they seemed a popular scapegoat tailor made for the job of taking blame for the general incompetence of those in power.
It was to be almost another 200 years before there were more systematic persecutions of Christians by the Emperor in his role of Pontifex Maximus.
Decius was the first of these when he punished Christians who failed to offer animal sacrifices to the Pagan Gods in 250 AD.
There were further Martyrdoms under Valerian in 257 AD and again in 303 AD when Diocletian launched separate pogroms against both Christians and Manichaeans, but these were not sustained campaigns.
Diocletian’s Rescript on the Manichees ordered the leaders of that sect burnt at the stake with their most persistent followers when he declared:
"It is indeed highly criminal to discuss doctrines once and for all settled and defined by our forefathers and which have their recognized place and course in our system. We are resolutely determined to punish the stubborn depravity of these worthless people".
In other words, Diocletian was burning the Manichean elect alive because they disagreed with established doctrines and dogmas of the Roman Empire.
This tone is eerily similar to that used by the Papal pronouncements that were made re the Albigensian crusades against the Cathars of Languedoc in the thirteenth century over a thousand years later.
Note that in the entire history of Christianity up to 250 AD, it was only persecuted for a total of five years bar a few incidents here and there between 50 and 250 AD.
However, this is not what is taught to children brought up in western Christian traditions who are led to believe that Christians suffered centuries of sustained persecution.
They are also not taught that the Catholics delivered 2000 years of sustained murderous persecution to other Christian sects making even the most murderous Genocidal maniac in the history of our planet seem like a mere child in comparison.
Our history is absolutely incorrect when it states that men like Stalin, Adolf Hitler, Chairman Mao, Ivan the IV and others are history’s top murderers.
By far and away the runaway winners of this title is the allegedly "Holy" Catholic Church of Rome.
I digress, back to the alleged centuries of Christian Persecution.
These greatly exaggerated centuries of tortures ended for the Christians when their champion, Constantine the (sic) Great defeated his rivals at the battle of the Milvian Bridge in 312 AD, when he became the ruler of Rome’s immensely cruel and radically violent empire.
He promptly extended the state tolerance of religions to the Christians.
This did not put an end to his powers of Pontifex Maximus however, just that in future (with one exception) these powers would not be used against Christians.
It was in fact not until the reign of Emperor Theodosius that the Roman Catholic religion was adopted as the state religion at which time other forms of Christianity were denounced as ‘demented and insane’.
This is also most hilarious indeed, as the winner of the title of ‘most demented and insane’, by quite a large margin is also the Catholic Faith.
Note that Constantine himself allowed carte blanche persecution of heretics by the Roman Catholics way before this came to be de-jure best practice in Rome.
By Roman Emperors standards (double sic) Constantine himself was not a nice man.
For example this scumbag had his eldest son Crispus executed and he even had his own wife Fausta locked in a steam room where she was slowly poached to death.
This specimen did in fact not become a (sic) labeled ‘Christian’ himself until mere hours before his own death, allowing himself considerable latitude for immense cruelty and excess wickedness using the favors of Christianity in the forgiveness of his multitude of sins.
Some argue that he had to qualify to become a Catholic Christian by murdering his fair share of acquaintances and foes including close family members and they finally let him into the club on his deathbed as reward for truly fine acts of depravity.
There is no sane being on our planet who would ever accuse Constantine of being a true ‘Christian’, as the one thing he most certainly was not was ‘Christian’.
In fact, the Pagan religions were most horrified when he actually had the temerity to ask them for expiation of his sins and they had refused him with no hesitation at all on their part out of hand.
There was nothing to think about from their point of view.
Within less than a century after Constantine’s decision, the Catholic Church began to burn heretics at the stake, laying mockery to the very term ‘Christian’.
Thus it was that ‘Militant Radical Christians’ aka terrorists began persecution of other Christian sects that had been tolerated for 300 years in Rome.
Here began a total intolerance for the beliefs of others and was the very reason the Gnostics had become so popular in the first place, as they did not believe that any blind obedience to any form of dogma should be tolerated by the people at all.
By the fourth century AD these Catholic terrorists rejected dualism, allowed zero tolerance of or latitude for personal revelation or inspiration whatsoever and had set about obtaining the complete and unquestioning faith of their congregations, teaching the infallibility of their carefully edited and chosen doctrines that they had so meticulously fabricated, enforcing their fairy tale fantasies with the most violent intolerance and disregard for the beliefs of others not seen since the rise of Radical Islam in the late 20th Century, care of murderous organizations of lunatic radicals called ISIS, Al Qaida, HamASS, Hezbollocks and other such terrorist organizations who took it upon themselves to impose their sheer lunacy on the rest of mankind.
These radical lunatics believe that in God’s name no less, that failure to be a convert meant the total eradication of heretics with the imagined blessing of God/Allah, just like the Catholics managed to do at the time of Constantine the (sic) Great.
The question worth asking is why this militant wing of radical religious terrorism and wild fantasy prevailed the way it did.
Sadly the answer is probably in the question itself, they survived because they were militant and because they were the first to acquire access to the coercive apparatus of the state.
We can see looking back at it that if coercive powers are made available to people who cannot tolerate various beliefs, as was the case in Rome in the 4th century AD, it is inevitable that they will soon enforce uniformity by marginalizing and crushing other religions.
Due to the fact that Constantine was squeamish about persecuting pagans, the first few decades of the Catholic Bishops power base was channeled exclusively at fighting heresy.
This was to culminate in the most radical extreme in the 13th and 14th century when it destroyed the Cathars and into the 17th century when heretics throughout Europe were regularly burnt at the stake.
So here we have a bunch of people calling themselves ‘Christian’, who went about discriminating against, stigmatizing, punishing, terrorizing and physically eliminating rivals within and without the Catholic Church including Gnostics and any other perceived threat to their organization, all the while elucidating and polishing their own beliefs, plugging holes into their lies while they were at it.
The reason why they did this is simple, everything they claimed was a massive fabrication that became wildly interwoven with plot upon plot of endless lies that collapsed upon itself under any sort of cursory examination and scratching a mere 1 mm under the surface.
Eventually, after being made to look seriously stupid by Gnostics in open debates and forums where both sides were subject to questioning, the Catholic lies were openly exposed and the Catholics became a laughing stock.
The only way to deal with this setback was to kill every single person who questioned the Catholic lies and that is exactly what they set about doing.
The ASShams in Gaza City operate exactly the same way as these Catholics did back in 1233 and they also behave like they were born in that era as well, with the same toilet habits I might add.
In short, this was how the crime of Catholic heresy initially came about, it was merely the act of calling out a Catholic liar.
Dogma is always accompanied by heresy and the history of the Catholic Church is merely a very long catalogue of battles against various heresies.
The art of murder and genocide was perfected in its most cruel and inhumane form possible by these Catholic thugs en route to where they are today, all under the cover of the ‘heresy’ umbrella.
That they hid under the veil of ‘love’ projected by the perception of Jesus is actually quite flabbergasting in itself!
They were merely piranhas lurking in the shallows lying in ambush for their next victims, and like packs of piranhas there were hordes of them waiting to shred the flesh of their hapless victims.
Humans are funny with their labels.
For example in the USA there is an organization of murderous terrorist fascists and they call themselves "ANTIFA".
Now if you look at the name ANTIFA you would logically conclude these savages had a beef with Fascists but you would be completely wrong, they ARE the fascists.
In fact if you are looking for the most hardcore fascists known to man to hang with, ANTIFA is your string of savage to vibrate in harmony with.
This ANTIFA bunch of savages was trained in Turkey by a Marxist organization called the MLKP and they happened to train side by side with HamASS terrorist savages using Marxism to replace their Islamic religion as the younger ones have developed the belief that Islam had failed them.
Now they just use it as a tool to manipulate Muslim, Jew and Christians et al with. They consider everybody as game to practice the art of Taqiyya on.
Taqiyya is the art of terrorist deception.
They won't openly admit it to the world but amongst themselves and especially the PLO the ASShams switch to Marxism is a "hot topic" of conversation these days.
Catholics claimed to be "Christians" but they were just psychopathic serial murderers and child rapists hiding under the banner of the church to get away with their vile behaviors which are not very ‘Christian’ at all.
HamASS are in the same boat, they claim they follow Islamic law and to be "peace loving", but all they want is to hack Pieces off of Jews in the most demented manner possible and really mean "Pieces of Jews" loving.
They learnt all this abhorrent behavior from the Catholics.
For the early Catholic murderous sect, the really radical transformation of Constantine’s reign was that it gave the literalists power to impose their views on others, and they had been literally longing for this sort of power for centuries.
If you look at the history of any of the age old Catholic orders like say the Dominican order, that was founded by one Dominic de Guzman (an alleged saint) for example, what you uncover are tales of legion upon legion of murderers, just like this alleged saint specimen.
While Guzman was not an Inquisitor himself, (he died in 1221 and the Inquisition started in 1233), he did take great part in the Albigensian crusades where ‘Divine’ Gnostic cleansing took place and his tour of duty there was 10 years long in this sea of death.
The way the Catholics proudly told the story at the time was that it was ‘God’s work’ to eradicate the Cathars, so there was no sin being committed. Convenient don't you think?
It is alleged that St Dominic did all he could to stop these murders and the roasting of innocent children on spits over open flames, but if this was the case, the 10 years he spent in this environment was probably not because he was sparing lives and singing Kumbaya with the marauding murderers and rapists while they dined on barbecued French infants.
In any event, if this is what he was attempting to do, he was an unmitigated failure, as most incidents like that at Beziers were famous for not a single survivor amongst a population of 20, 000 inflicted by the Catholic armies of Rome.
If you think about this logically you immediately ask yourself, ‘hang on a second, there were Catholics in Beziers at the time as well!!’, and that is absolutely correct.
However, when the leaders of the Catholic army asked the Catholic Bishops for advice on how to sort this problem out and separate the Catholics in the towns and villages from the Gnostics, the reply from the Catholic Pope was ‘Kill them all, God will deal with his own’.
Such awesomely nice chaps these Catholic "Christians" don't you think?
This was, according to the Pope, a sure way for the ‘innocent’ Catholics they condemned to the slaughter to be pardoned by God himself on arrival at the Pearly gates and get a free ticket to a cloud they could perch on in heaven with a harp and a set of wings personally issued to the ‘Martyrs” by the almighty himself with tears of joy rolling down his cheeks....
Unfortunately for Guzman, the Protestants have painted a picture of him as a mass murderer and given the bloody history of the time, it is not a far stretch to put the atrocities of the time together with such acts under the banner of ‘heresy’ and safely conclude he was himself a major participant.
The Pope himself rewarded him with the entire Church of St Sixtus in Rome for his own uses for his ‘Glorious’ activities in Occitania.
This was because the eradication of the Cathars, not their conversion to the ‘Faith’ had been seen as an unmitigated success.
The point is, there are few (actually none at all) orders within the Catholic Church where you will find hands that are not dripping in lakes and seas of blood at some point in their violent past.
Protestants bring up these claims against Catholics because believe me, they have immensely good factual foundation for making them.
Later rabble rousers and disinformation specialists like Heinrich Himmler’s SS or HamASS terrorists did not have far to look in the past for stellar examples of hateful accusations, black propaganda, nasty rhetoric and such in the pages of history books as the shining beacon to be followed.
ASSham Assholes in their ASS Stye
The Catholic Church itself had set the precedent for expected behaviors down the ages in terms of how to persecute and eliminate any sort of rivals, real or imagined.
Constantine’s attempt to appease militant Christians by imposing uniformity on the more heterodox Christian sects was to have unforeseen consequences that still rebound down through the ages.
The body count from this religious genocide does not compute when you sit down and add it all up, and I am throwing in the Crusades against the Moors into the equation here as well.
You’d think when looking at it, that these were bands of barbarian heathens that did all this damage, but when you realize these were people laying claim to Christianity, your response is a mega massive WOW!
Before Constantine there was an eclectic field of Christian sects in which none held sway over the other as they were all persecuted equally.
Constantine changed and polarized this situation and all of a sudden you had Militant radical Bishops who held the literal interpretation of their wholly fabricated scriptures (how did they forget that they fabricated their manufactured crap in the first place?) vs Everybody else who had any belief or preference other than the shit trotted out by these Bishops of Rome.
This is a classic text book example of people believing their own bullshit after a relatively short period of time.
The net effect was that after 326 AD all you had to do to become a heretic was to publicly disagree with the infallible pronouncements of the Psychopaths of the Church of Rome.
It was thus not an accident that by the time the 380’s rolled around, the emperors had renounced the age old responsibility of Pontifex Maximus, leaving this for the subsequent Popes to pick up and promulgate.
To this day, this remains the official title of the butcher seated in Rome we call ‘Pope’.
In the second Century, Irenaeus, one of the greatest scourges of Christian Gnostics was very liberal with rhetoric that stated:
"Let those that blaspheme the creator...as do the Valentinian's and ALL the falsely so-called Gnostics, be recognized as agents of Satan by all who worship God. Through their agency of Satan even now....has been seen to speak against God, that God who has prepared the eternal fire for every kind of apostasy".
One of the Popes also made this Irenaeus serial murderer a saint.
St Irenaeus - Patron Saint of Gaslighting
From the first to the fourth century this sort of rhetoric wound up to a fever pitch and spread to include accusations of cannibalism, sexual promiscuity, infant sacrifice and at least a hundred other things they could leverage that were thrown at their opposition.
Because Gnostic Perfecti were generally vegetarian, the best tried method of identifying and flushing out Gnostics at the time was to make meat eating compulsory once a week.
A great many innocent vegetarian Catholics died as a result of this sort of generalization.
In the second Treatise of the Great Seth, we read:
"After we went forth from our home, and came down to this world, and came into being in the world in bodies, we were hated and persecuted, not only by those who are ignorant pagans, but also by those who think they are advancing the name of Christ, since they were unknowingly empty, not knowing who they are, like dumb animals".
Most insightful......Sounds like current day ASShams to me as well!
Constantine’s edict of 326 AD handed these Militant Catholic terrorists the one thing they had been pining for all along, which was the power of the state to persecute their old opponents the Gnostics.
It is worth noting the particularly violent rhetoric favored by these militant Catholic terrorists.
During the last decade of Constantine’s rule these militants began to use the new powers given to them, tentatively at first but becoming significantly more bold as Constantine’s spawn attempted to outdo each other with the persecution of the Gnostics.
Emperor Theodosius for example managed to pass more than 100 new laws aimed directly at the Gnostics between 379 and 395 AD.
It was at this time that the codices of the Nag Hammadi library were hidden away in upper Egypt to avoid detection and destruction.
Maternus Cynegius, who was Theodosius’s governor in Alexandria between 384 and 388 AD was renowned for his relentless persecution of pagans and heretics, carried out military campaigns against non Catholic religions that had long been tolerated in many hybrid forms in Alexandria for over 700 years.
Three years after the death of Cynegius, state sponsored persecution was very much on the increase and Theophilus the Catholic Archbishop of Alexandria had been deliberately rousing the Christian masses against the Gnostics and pagans and had engineered riots that resulted in the oppressed sects fleeing to the shelter of the Serapeum, the great temple dedicated to Serapis built by Ptolemy 1 Soter in 284 BC.
(Ptolemy was the former general of Alexander the Great who had established a dynasty that ruled Egypt until the time of Cleopatra in 30 BC).
These refugees felt sure that they would be safe in this sacred temple that they felt was beyond any sort of violent action by any party, but they were wrong.
On the instigation of Theophilus a huge ‘Christian’ mob including large numbers of monks first besieged and then attacked the Serapeum.
Unfortunately, the irreplaceable library of ancient books and scrolls was ransacked and burnt and all the defenders were massacred ending with the temple itself being razed to the ground.
On review of this incident, the emperor decreed that the victims were responsible for their own destruction and did not punish the attackers.
As to the library, the loss was not to be lamented as he was not shy in sharing his views that any books contradicting the Catholic message were expected to be burnt to appease God’s anger.
The many Popes that followed all persecuted the Gnostics until finally, at the end of the sixth Century, they felt that they had eradicated Gnosticism entirely.
Garnering special attention in the sixth Century was Manichaeism, which became the primary target of persecution of the Catholic Church at that time to the degree that Manichaeism was a dead force in the Roman world (though it was to last another 1000 years in the East).
The final measures against Manichaeism was the work of Justinian between 527 and 565 AD.
This Justinian specimen ruled the Eastern Roman Empire from Constantinople (The Catholic Church itself had split), and had decreed that heresy was equated with treason and subjected both offenses to an automatic penalty of death.
Manichaeans immediately began disguising their identity and began to pretend to be good Christians (not Catholics).
Justinian’s response was not only to burn them at the stake, but also ALL of their acquaintances, Manichean or not.
Justinian also created the first official investigative agency, the Questiones, which was specifically tasked to root out and destroy the Manichean heresy.
Seven centuries later, Pope Innocent III created a very similar instrument of terror and oppression called the Inquisition which was to become greatly feared and took on a global role in the New World and in Asia.
Innocent established the Inquisition in 1233 to destroy the Cathar heresy which was the resurgence of the ancient heresy of Manichaeism, and he merely picked up the reigns of terror where his predecessor left off in the 6th Century AD.
If you look at the Second Treatise of the Great Seth, you will see that it speaks of the Gnostics experience of persecution at the hands of people who believed themselves to be Christians, and then goes on to allege that the Catholic Church is an impostor - an ‘imitation’ of the true Church that it had displaced.
With that in mind, we are able to better understand the references in the treatise to the ‘empty people’ who ‘think’ they are advancing the name of Christ when they persecute others.
Because the Catholic Church won the power-struggle against the Gnostics it gained victor’s privileges over the way history would be told.
It is hardly surprising therefore that while all other beliefs and doctrines are regarded as aberrations, that Catholic beliefs and doctrines are treated as ‘orthodox’ and authentic of true apostolic descent in almost all historical accounts of the age.
The passing of time, fortunately, gives us a dispassionate view about what is known about the eclectic character of Christian beliefs in the 300 years after Constantine’s reign and we now know that the Catholic claim to primacy is complete balderdash.
There is no doubt whatsoever that the nucleus of the faction that became known as the Catholic Church formed around militants like Irenaeus and Tertullian.
It can also now be seen that after the discovery of the Nag Hammadi texts and the gradual revelation of what they said, that it is absolutely impossible to ignore the Gnostic Churches of the same period.
As the Catholics persecuted the Gnostics and systematically eliminated the evidence, it is clear they did so because the Gnostics were the first and authentic owners of interpretations of ALL of the Gospels, not heavily edited choice selected pieces of a mere 4 of the most timid ones they had fabricated!
After reading the other Gospels, you realize that the ones selected for the New Testament are the most watered down and understated of the lot of them. This was no accident.....
It is clear to me that the Gnostic interpretation of ALL of the Gospels is the correct one as this lines up with the teachings and Gospels of other disciples like Mary Magdalene in the first bloody place.
Now, with the other pieces of the puzzle under the microscope, we start to see a few more pixels of the picture so to speak.
There is no doubt on review of the facts of the last 2000 years that the true fraud in Christianity was that of Militant Catholicism.
The fact that Mary Magdalene, who was THE most important and in fact PRIMARY disciple, was relegated to the background as a deliberate ploy by the Catholic council gathered to examine the evidence at hand in all of the Gospels.
All the other Gospels talk of Mary administering to Jesus, and providing guidance to his teachings, not the other way around, as we are traditionally taught!
Also bear in mind the many documents that survived the Catholic eradication that actually talk of Jesus and Mary being lovers, and this includes several Gospels that describes them kissing each other.
Scholars have known for many years that the Valentinian Gnostics not only accepted the first four gospels chosen by the murderous terrorists in Rome for the New Testament, but in fact ALL of the Gospel documents of which there are a great many, and each of which contain, amongst other things, a piece of the secret teachings of Jesus within them.
The alleged great Christian historian Chadwick, claimed in 1967 that Christianity was happy to accept that such secret teachings did in fact once exist and even suggested they would have been similar to the teachings of The Gospel of Thomas, which were recently recovered from the sands of Egypt.
However, Chadwick was not interested in authenticity and automatically assumed that the Gnostic teachings were totally false.
Chadwick even approvingly commented re Irenaeus that:
... he ingeniously vindicated the fourfold gospel on numerological principles. Four, he urged was a sacred number corresponding to the four winds, or the four faces of the cherubim in Ezekiel.... ( I kid you not!!, Chadwick’s Shroom monger must have been quite a master with the Amarita Muscaria).
The Main Ingredient for Chadwick's daily soup
Chadwick even admits that the Catholic canonical new testament was not even complete in the second century and that an oral tradition was in circulation as the Catholic Christian doctrine was not yet set in stone, being a ‘work in progress’. Exactly the point many of us have been arguing for more than 1800 years!!
As such, recognize that at the time, Irenaeus with others from the proto-Catholic group saw huge advantage of a written document over the oral version, although the Gnostic leader Marcion had in fact prepared his own canon some time before - much to the consternation of the Catholics.
Gnostic sects of the time however, stubbornly refused to accept his work and it swiftly became clear that they never would. This was to have a heavy cost in their blood over the ensuing millennia.
In the proto-Catholic group there was no such hesitation at all and they saw that whoever controlled the written document would effectively have the control of the authentic tradition, wether it was authentic or not (and they knew it was not), and they immediately began the compilation of the New Testament in great haste thanking the gods for the lack of vision of their Gnostic adversaries.
As militant men like Irenaeus regarded their own views as infallible and found themselves in a position to declare and label all other texts as inauthentic, they did exactly that.
And so was born the rule of ‘faith’.
As militants were in charge of the canonical status of documents, circular arguments were destined to have only one outcome.
There is absolutely no doubt that these militants deliberately manipulated the formation of the New Testament to serve them in their forthcoming battles against the Gnostics, reinforcing their own claims to authenticity while they were at it.
Unfortunately, the alleged message and meaning of the teachings of Christ became irrelevant in the process, as the Catholics were too busy having the grandest of grand old times in a murderous orgy of eradication of Gnostics with extreme prejudice to be concerned about what the Catholics were insisting was the message that the Messiah had actually taught (peace, love, tolerance et al).
This brings up the question of whether we can believe anything that is in the New Testament at all.
At the end of the day, noise elimination aside, it is clear that between 50 BC and 50 AD that some mysterious and powerful events occurred in Judea that sparked off the Christian Phenomenon.
What is not certain is what sparked it off.
Whether Christ was the actual son of God or a projection and emanation of God are both articles of faith that can never be proven either way.
Despite what the Catholics claim, there is no superior logic in the Catholic position over the Cathar position.
The choice is a belief that Jesus was the son of God vs the view that he was a very convincing apparition.
In fact the third possibility, that the entire thing was made up, has much to recommend it from my point of view.
Jesus was the son of Joseph. Joseph as far as I am aware was not God.
The historical Jesus, as presented by Barbara Thiering in her book “Jesus the Man”, seems to have been the source of all of this fuss and I wonder how much of this story was invented by supporters of Jesus not happy that his brother James was allegedly Judged the rightful king of the Jews due to some clearly controversial Jewish laws and interpretations thereof that did not go down well with a faction of the Hebrew people of the time.
This seems to be the Genesis of what has become a clearly controversial saga of our history from a Western ‘Christian’ perspective.
It is clear that Jesus himself, was in the eyes of the Roman authorities and Jewish leaders a Judaean Liberation terrorist and heretic, whose sole aim in life was the departure of the Romans back to Rome and his title as he thought was his right.
The difference is that the perception was that he did not go around murdering people, or inciting rebellion against Rome, as he was himself allegedly a peaceful heretic passionately opposed to the laws that had robbed him of what he considered his birthright as the true King of the Jews.
However, the historical Jesus was a Zealot and I am sure that the inscription that Pontius Pilate made on his cross was a message to the Zealots that Rome knew exactly what was going on in Judea and exactly what the Zealots were attempting to do.
There are no records of Jesus himself bearing arms, but there are plenty that have him instigating insurrection and urging other Judeans to bear plenty of them.
We are told that Jesus had ‘issues’ with his situation of being the first born and are led to believe that his brother James, under a bizarre Jewish law, was religiously considered the ‘first born’ under a technicality, even though Jesus was in fact the first born.
Because he had fallen outside of the specified religious guidelines for conception, we are expected to believe that he was bizarrely a bastard child of legitimate and legally wed parents.
If true, a most ridiculous situation that clearly demonstrates what happens to people with way too much time on their hands and way too much exposure to the golden rays of our yellow sun.
According to this spin on the situation, Joseph and Mary were only supposed to ‘sink the sausage’ at specific times dictated by said laws prescribed by a calendar schedule of approved time slots where sausage sinking had everyone’s approval.
It is further alleged that Joseph, having quite the passionate horn from riding around Judea on that donkey all day long could not contain himself and he and Mary engaged in a passionate session of ‘hide the weenie’ outside of the specified times to ‘sink the sausage’. Hence the term ‘Virgin’.
It was not that she was an actual virgin, merely that under the strict Jewish laws she was supposed to be in an untouched state outside of the specified schedule for ‘sinking of the sausage’.
Sausage Games Rule Book
Jesus was supposedly the result of this out of control passion.
There was no doubt he was the first born, the argument the Rabbi’s insisted on was that only offspring conceived during the specified ‘sinking of the sausage’ schedule could lay claim to the title of “King of the Jews” and be considered the ‘proper’ first born.
It is claimed that most common people thought that this sort of sick gamesmanship was ridiculous adherence to truly bizarre old fashioned rules on a level of quite shady hocus-pocus type shenanigans that was not only unreasonable but utterly ridiculous as it gave Jews and Jewish pragmatism itself a real bad rap.
Nonetheless, after the embarrassment for Joseph and Mary of the birth of Jesus outside of these rules, they made very sure that their next bout of the ‘sausage games’ would be according to the strict letter of the stated Jewish law with regards to the rightful title of ‘King of the Jews’.
It is said that Jesus was the descendant of the line of David, and so it was under those circumstances that he was recognized as a valuable asset to the Zealots with an eye to fulfilling the prophecy of Isaiah and the Messiah that he had foretold which made those of the line of David quite the asset to those interested in some serious political manipulation.
Unfortunately for the Zealots the prediction was actually referring to a Future Emperor of Rome, not Jesus, and Vespasian it was who after the murder of Nero and a further two Emperors himself became Emperor of Rome, fulfilling that part of the prophecy.
Now we see Romans manipulating the prophecy of Isaiah, with Vespasian ‘curing’ blind and crippled specimens sent to him by his Chief of Staff, a Jew by the name of Tiberius Alexander.
This was done with Tiberius full knowledge of the star prophecy that foretold of the coming of the Messiah, which he knew well, being a Jew and fully aware of the writings in Isaiah.
Vespasian himself, being acutely aware he had no blood of the line of David coursing through his veins set about the immediate elimination of all descendants of the line of David to overcome this ‘slight’ issue and be seen to be the one fulfilling the Prophecy of Isaiah.
Sadly, he missed quite a few of those he sought to eliminate, who sought refuge in some interesting places around the known world.
They did eventually whack James (The brother of Jesus) in 44 AD though.
It is in fact quite possible that the alleged words of Christ were simply invented some time during the first Century AD, possibly by some Zealot aware of the tale of Jesus and James who saw some great potential with the added tale of a Messiah which was foretold by Jewish prophecy thrown in to the mix for added good effect.
This tale was then passed into oral tradition in the form of eyewitness accounts of events that had supposedly taken place a couple of generations prior.
Extensive editing by the clowns in Rome of Oral traditions that became the beginnings of the canonical New Testament is where all sorts of questions arise surrounding the whole shebang of Christianity.
As by the time the Catholics set about catching up to the Gnostic canon, there was nobody alive who could claim to have witnessed, or known anyone who had witnessed or even have known anyone else who had witnessed the events surrounding Christ’s life and death.
What remains is a somewhat dubious oral urban legend that became to be taken as fact.
The Catholics in any event much preferred this situation, as nobody being alive to question their ‘rule of Faith’ was just what the doctor ordered from their perspective.
I have no doubt that had there been live witnesses, that their fate would have been the most grisly one that the Catholics could have come up with.
The thing to bear in mind here is that the Roman Empire considered Jesus a Zealot (terrorist) and he was crucified in 36 AD, not with two thieves as is incorrectly reported, but with two fellow Zealots, one of whom was a leader of the Sicarii, a band of four thousand Zealot assassins that had gathered around Jesus and I seriously doubt it was to hold hands and sing Kumbaya.
Judas Iscariot was also Sicarii and Simon was a Zealot military commander, it was no accident that three Zealots were crucified by the Romans that day.
When they transported Peter to Rome years later, where he was allegedly executed was also a usual thing that the Romans did with their trophy’s to show the people of the Empire what it did to its enemies in the most public manner possible.
In this context you can understand Luke’s Gospel when Jesus says ‘He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one’, and when the disciples reported back to him that all ‘Liberators’ had two weapons his reply was: ‘It is enough’.
Here you understand clearly the strong Judean desire for liberation from Roman rule and that a rebellion of sorts was afoot.
Jesus was not arming his followers with flowery words of love and forgiveness, they were bearing two weapons apiece!!
Remember too that after Herod had captured Jerusalem in 37 BC he had subsequently had 45 of the Sanhedrin executed along with Antigonus (the last of the Jewish kings) and he had lost no time starting a program of executing all remaining members of the royal dynasty of Israel that he could possibly lay his murderous paws on.
Bear in mind that one man’s terrorist is another man’s patriot, it depends from which perspective you are looking at it from.
Remember too (from one of my previous blogs) my statement that there are no impartial and neutral observers, everyone has their agenda.
If you test this in the true light of day with all the bullshit stripped away you can find even those that appear the most neutral on issues are not doing so because they are neutral (there is no such thing), rather it is a useful cloak to distance yourself from conflict knowing that such is inevitable once their views are known and out in the open.
The world we live in is a world of perception and some take great care to not shatter any such nurtured perception.
It has taken me 40 years to learn the wisdom of perception.
Back in the days of the Roman Empire a perception could be created that would have the same result as a man wielding a sword, only far more subtle.
Judea at the time of Jesus was fraught with such land-mines requiring astute awareness lest one find oneself being ignited in a pile of wood or being nailed to a wooden cross or worse by a thoughtless slip of the tongue.
Way too much data of the intended liberation of Judea from the Romans of that time by militant Zealots is unknown to us today and the detail of what was going on seems to have been subject to the agendas of various parties for different goals manipulating the shit out of situations left right and center.
The Catholic Council for example manipulated the historical texts of Josephus to fit their canon to the point that the writings of Josephus are to be called into question at best.
They simply altered and added what they felt was needed and murdered the monks who had made said changes and later claimed them as authentic.
Jesus somehow became a Martyr to causes he had not intended to be the Martyr of in any way.
Also bear in mind that we have a many faced Jesus to deal with here, Jesus the Prophet, Jesus the Soldier, Jesus the lover of Peace, Jesus the miracle man, Jesus the teacher, Jesus the forgiver of all sins, Jesus the healer et al.
As such it is clear that the teachings of Jesus as told in the Gospels is of Jesus the Savior with the goal of fulfilling the Jewish Messiah prophecy of Isaiah for obvious reasons.
It is most likely therefore, on contemplating the many faces of Jesus that someone was writing stuff that made him all things to all parties present.
Some serious manipulation was taking place in fact.
In the beginning of Christianity, somehow, both it’s Catholic and Gnostic versions evolved in parallel and both claimed primacy.
It is only with the meddling of Constantine that the literal version gained the upper hand and the interpretive and revelatory form of Christianity lost out, was declared heresy and was persecuted out of existence in the 6th century but somehow emerged once more in the 10th century AD.
The ‘organization’ referred to in the Nag Hammadi scriptures is very intriguing indeed in the light of all of these claims and counter claims, as is the cryptic references to this secret organization charged with a mission to protect, restore and re-promulgate Gnosticism after times of trouble.
This would all seem like a lot of ancient wishful thinking were it not for the fact that this is what more or less happened at the end of the first millennium.
The sudden appearance of Bogomilism in Bulgaria in the last decades of the 10th century was not some isolated heresy and it marked the first step in the resurgence of a fully fledged Christian-Gnostic religion after being absent from the scene for some 400 years.
The next Gnostic step was a rapid westwards expansion under the guise of Catharism during the 12th century.
By the turn of the 13th Century it had become a genuine pan-European faith and the only serious rival that the Catholic Church had faced in over 1000 years.
We know that the Roman Catholic Church did not identify this threat as a new one, but as an old one that had somehow returned from the dead.
The response at being drawn back into the old conflict that challenged their legitimacy explains the terrible events that followed.
The Pope was not very impressed with this development and was overheard in a rabid exchange as he shouted at the Cardinal tasked with Genocide and Heretical eradication, all the while foaming rabidly at the mouth :
“Jesus Christ!! I thought we killed all of these bastards over 400 years ago?!”, muttering something like “Jesus!, if you want the job done properly, you just HAVE to do it yourself...”,
while he ranted and raved like a wide eyed murderous lunatic all over the Vatican courtyard encompassed in the ‘mother of all rages’.
All wars are terrible - no matter in what epoch they are fought or with what weapons.
Medieval wars were particularly nasty affairs.
The Albigensian Crusades were the most repulsive, brutal and merciless conflicts in human history, and that includes modern times.
The Cathars are innocent in these matters, by any sane standard of justice.
All they did was reject the authority of the Pope and give loyalty to another religion that sought to correct what it saw as the false doctrines of Catholicism.
The irony is that the Catholics themselves knew their doctrine was false, they had openly convened several councils to make it up as they went and the Gnostics knew it and the Catholics knew that the Gnostics knew it.
The question of the ‘right’ doctrine I will not cover here in great depth as this is also a subjective question of what one cares to personally believe, and which resonates more with each individuals preference.
I myself have more resonance from a logical and spiritual view with that of the Gnostics for reasons already stated, but there are way to many questions for it to be a basis for a bona fide cult to the degree that Churches and worshipers blindly follow proclaiming a new found religion sparked by the alleged and hotly disputed Jewish Messiah.
For me this is all very interesting but from a historical knowledge point of view, not that of cult religious status where one believes one or the other alleged rendition of such wild claim.
The Gnostic rendition of the Jesus phenomena has more data, is far more likely, and further, the peaceful message of something not forced down your throat at the penalty of death makes it far more palatable in my considered opinion.
That the Gnostics were not talking about the historical Jesus of Nazareth but a character much like Buddha in concept means they were in fact not talking about the same entity.
To their credit, Gnostics did not go around murdering people who failed to believe their teachings, they did not go about separating themselves from society or disassociating themselves from those that were not believers of their faith.
It is important to note that the Gnostic insistence that the Christ was not a physical person as stated by their beliefs, makes the Gnostic canon and belief system a whole different kettle of fish completely to that which the Catholics claim.
That anybody deserved the reaction delivered by the Catholic Church at this challenge to their legitimacy is beyond belief, even accounting for the brutality of the age.
The persecution of the Cathars carried out by the Bishops of Rome went so far beyond normal, even for that bloodstained period of our history, that it has to raise disturbing questions about the beliefs of the perpetrators.
Look at completely insane acts that the Army of the Pope carried out in this Christians only Crusade, such as the common practice by routiers, ribauds and bands of scavengers called ‘holy rollers’ who, not satisfied with just rape and pillage added roasting Cathar children alive on spits and cutting the bodies of their vanquished foe to hundreds of little pieces just for the sport of it to their repertoire of daily activities.
In light of all of these events, all heartily encouraged by the sword wielding Princes of Rome, it does not take much for anybody to understand that there was in fact absolutely ZERO belief in the alleged words of Jesus the Savior from the Catholic contingent executing this bloody affair.
The Cathars must have truly believed Satan and his legions had manifested from a portal opened from the deepest depths of hell itself.
Catholics were most definitely not taking the alleged word of Jesus literally at all in fact. For a literal organization, this is deeply ironic.
This lends credence to the Cathar allegations that Catholicism was the work of Satan himself, as one cannot possibly align this sort of treatment of fellow human beings meted out by Catholics as ‘Christian’ in any way whatsoever.
In fact, you can see the gentle word of Jesus that pervaded the new testament they invented did in fact not align with the Catholic faith in any form whatsoever when they inflicted their armies upon Occitania in the 13th century AD.
Could it be that none of the Catholics was literate, or were they in fact emulating the literal acts of Jesus the Zealot?
Maybe they had secret teachings of Jesus the Sicarii?
I think the truth is much simpler, if you invented the story of Pinnochio, you would not be likely to believe it were true.
As the Catholics knew fine well the Jesus they had invented was mere fallacy, why in the hell would they ever believe in the myth that they had invented?
One can go so far as to say that unless the lessons of humility, non-violence, forgiveness and unconditional love that is so plain to read in the new testament have been turned upside down, inside out and and back to bloody front, there is no way that anyone seeking the mythical Christ in this world is going to find him by following Simon de Montefort’s bloody path laid out by the Catholic Church.
Thousands of years later, it is clear that the entire Catholic onslaught against the Cathars was just one thing, fundamentally very un-Christian and incredibly demonic in nature.
All because the Cathars knew fine well who the real Jesus of Nazareth was, but the idea of the Messiah, similar to Buddha was a pretty pure idea with good intentions that struck a chord with them.
They agreed with the concept, not with the fallacy the Catholics had invented.
There is no doubt whatsoever in my mind, that people who proudly boast that they are God fearing Catholics do in fact not know what it is that they are saying, which is basically “I am a member of a clan of people that murdered children and innocents with no regard for the loving teachings of Jesus Christ, and we continued murdering hundreds of millions of people for over 2000 years in a wild orgy of torture, death and unimagined depravity, and by the way, I am mighty proud to call myself a Catholic”.
These are people like Joseph Herbert et al in all their uneducated modern glory who seem incapable of investigating before opening their upper and lower mandibles to argue about shit they know nothing about at all...
This history is actually what being a Catholic is all about.
Though times have changed, as well as the politics and the various agendas on the global political stage, the Catholic Church has since the passing of 2000 years of out of control murder et al, focused its aim on a new and equally defenseless target with an old Catholic weapon, namely the legion of Pedophiles that lurk protected by the Church within their ranks, preying on young boys with sexual depravity passed on from the times when Cathar boys were tortured and roasted alive for the amusement of the Princes of Rome.
I would be careful, in light of this less than ‘stellar’ record of the Catholic Church of associating myself with such people, it is certainly nothing to ever be proud of if you are serious about claims to sanity and reason.
Unless of course, murder of innocents and the buggery of little boys is exactly what makes your boat float and would give you cause to brag about it to others.
The history of the Catholic Church cannot be undone, their acts through the ages are historical fact.
That they tried to force people to believe their bollocks under penalty of death and the millions of people that they murdered is all you ever need to know when assessing for yourself if such an organization is good or evil.
By the way, if you think the Inquisition ended in the 17th Century, think again.
Catholics were murdering innocents in their private institutions for heresy up to 1910 and there are today still at least three Cardinals tasked with duties of the Inquisition they are even today, in 2023, charged with furthering!! Sound like Science Fiction?
The truth is shocking.
Ask the Cardinal of San Francisco what his real job in the Church is.
Another thing that is worthy of your consideration is this, according to the Catholics, Jesus was teaching the Gospels as he went from place to place in Judea, which is rather interesting as the Gospels were not written at that time by the disciples.
What they did write were notes that were later turned into Gospels.
As Jesus was a Jew, the teachings he taught were from the Torah and his take on the contents thereof as a practicing Jew.
The Gospels were basically notes or the autobiographic notes of the various Disciples taken for the glorious day when they succeeded in pushing the Romans out of Judea.
Sadly this failed to transpire. The notes proved useful though......
Ask a Catholic Cardinal or Bishop to explain the Gospel of the Egyptians and when it was written and then ask him when the other Gospels were written and et viola! er... Faux Pax de la Pontifex Maximus.....
Either Jesus had a time machine or someone was telling truly stunningly massive porkies.......
Catholic Bishops and Cardinals should have noses that wrap around the planet several Billion times.......
The Gospel According to John was penned between 85-90 AD, and John was not the Author, anonymous Catholic Bishops were.
Given this fact, how did he teach something that was not fabricated till after he died????????!!
The rest of the New Testament was not finalized until the council of Catharge in 397 AD as it took over 300 years of internal spin doctoring to finish the fallacy they were engineering.
Think about that fact for a moment and let that sink in to your synapses.....
I think the correct title for the New Testament is better served with the following title, ‘The Gospels According to Pinocchio and Geppetto’.
That way, we can all place them in their correct context and nervously laugh that we are so very easily manipulated.
If I were into such violent Catholic succor for my soul, I do believe I would prefer plain old Satanic Cults, as they are far less violent and far more subtle than the last 2000 odd years of Catholic behaviors, and they do not pretend to be a representative of something it never was and could never be.
They at least, know exactly what they are.
The other thing about Satanists is their bullshit index is relatively non-existent in comparison to that of the Roman Catholic Church.
Actually, on balance, Satanists seem rather tame compared to Catholics.....
Surprisingly, few people know that Nazi extermination camps in World War II were by no means the only ones in Europe at the time.
In the time period between 1942 to 1943 in Croatia for example, numerous Catholic run extermination camps were in business as well.
These were run by the Catholic Ustasha under their dictator Ante Paveli, a practicing Catholic and regular visitor to the then pope.
They even had concentration camps exclusively for children!
In these camps – the most notorious was Jasenovac, headed by a Franciscan friar – orthodox-Christian Serbians (and a substantial number of Jews) were regularly murdered there.
Like the Nazis, the Catholic Ustasha burned their victims alive in kilns, (the Nazis were decent enough to have their victims gassed first).
Most of the Ustasha victims were simply stabbed, slain by hand or shot to death, the number of them being estimated between 300,000 and 600,000, in a very tiny country.
Many of these killers were actual Franciscan friars (I jest not)!
The atrocities were appalling enough to induce watching bystanders of the Nazi “Sicherheitsdient der SS”, to complain about them to Hitler (who obviously did not listen).
The Pope at the time knew about these atrocities by the way and did zilch about preventing further acts of Catholic depravity.
Next time you hold a copy of the New Testament, take a moments silence to mourn the hundreds of millions of souls that were murdered because of it under the most unpleasant of circumstances.
I know who's forgiveness I pray to the creator for, and it is not any Catholic Soul, I can assure you of that!
I think Constantine may be a tad pissed that he was conned by these murderous clowns!! What a sucker!!!!
Amen.
Ancient and current references
Apologia conta Arianos (Defence against the Arians) ca. 349.
Atkinson, M., and Archibald Robertson, trans. Apologia Contra Arianos. From Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 4. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1892. Revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight. Online at New Advent. Retrieved 14 August 2009.
Epistola de Decretis Nicaenae Synodi (Letter on the Decrees of the Council of Nicaea) ca. 352.
Newman, John Henry, trans. De Decretis. From Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 4. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1892. Revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight. Online at New Advent. Retrieved 28 September 2009.
Historia Arianorum (History of the Arians) ca. 357.
Atkinson, M., and Archibald Robertson, trans. Historia Arianorum. From Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 4. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1892. Revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight. Online at New Advent. Retrieved 14 August 2009.
Sextus Aurelius Victor, Liber de Caesaribus (Book on the Caesars) ca. 361.
Codex Theodosianus (Theodosian Code) 439.
Mommsen, T. and Paul M. Meyer, eds. Theodosiani libri XVI cum Constitutionibus Sirmondianis et Leges novellae ad Theodosianum pertinentes2 (in Latin). Berlin: Weidmann, [1905] 1954. Complied by Nicholas Palmer, revised by Tony Honoré for Oxford Text Archive, 1984. Prepared for online use by R.W.B. Salway, 1999. Preface, books 1–8. Online at University College London and the University of Grenoble. Retrieved 25 August 2009.
Unknown edition (in Latin). Online at AncientRome.ru. Retrieved 15 August 2009.
Codex Justinianus (Justinianic Code or Code of Justinian).
Scott, Samuel P., trans. The Code of Justinian, in The Civil Law. 17 vols. 1932. Online at the Constitution Society. Retrieved 14 August 2009.
Krueger, Paul, ed. Codex Justinianus (in Latin). 2 vols. Berlin, 1954. Online at the University of Grenoble. Retrieved 28 September 2009.
Epitome de Caesaribus (Epitome on the Caesars) ca. 395.
Banchich, Thomas M., trans. A Booklet About the Style of Life and the Manners of the Imperatores. Canisius College Translated Texts 1. Buffalo, NY: Canisius College, 2009. Online at De Imperatoribus Romanis. Retrieved 15 August 2009.
De Rebus Bellicis (On Military Matters) fourth/fifth century.
Eunapius, History from Dexippus first edition ca. 390, second edition ca. 415. [Fragmentary]
Historia Ecclesiastica (Church History) first seven books ca. 300, eighth and ninth book ca. 313, tenth book ca. 315, epilogue ca. 325.
Williamson, G.A., trans. Church History. London: Penguin, 1989. ISBN 0-14-044535-8
McGiffert, Arthur Cushman, trans. Church History. From Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 1. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1890. Revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight. Online at New Advent. Retrieved 28 September 2009.
Oratio de Laudibus Constantini (Oration in Praise of Constantine, sometimes the Tricennial Oration) 336.
Richardson, Ernest Cushing, trans. Oration in Praise of Constantine. From Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 1. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1890. Revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight. Online at New Advent. Retrieved 16 August 2009.
Vita Constantini (The Life of the Blessed Emperor Constantine) ca. 336–39.
Richardson, Ernest Cushing, trans. Life of Constantine. From Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 1. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1890. Revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight. Online at New Advent. Retrieved 9 June 2009.
Life of the Blessed Emperor Constantine. 2009. Reprint of Bagster edition [1845]. Evolution Publishing.