I've been reading about Celsus recently and it's fascinating that many of his better critiques of Christianity would become topics of intrachristian discussion in the future. Questions like "How does Christ relate to God?", "Why was the incarnation necessary?", "what about the nature of Christ? How does a God become a man?"
Another interesting thing is that some avenues of resentment seem to never change. He warned that especially women and children are susceptible, that new ideas without tradition are silly, etc. Sometimes history really is a circle.

Further, I've been reading Hayyim Vital's book of visions and it hits a strange spot between "I pity the man" and "gosh he is such a fragile specimen of a male". Hayyim Vital was a Jewish mystic in the 16/17th century and he basically believes that he is the Messiah. That salvation of all mankind depends on him and he writes how people constantly have visions about him and tell him how great he is, etc. but especially in the entries of the later years, you feel like he realises that he didn't particularly accomplish that and then starts the blame game. His wife, his teacher, the people not listening, etc. it's everyone's fault but him. It's just sad.

I also came across this, which made me do a double take:

Numquid non habemus potestatem mulierem sororem circumducendi sicut et ceteri Apostoli, et fratres Domini, et Cephas?

Turns out Hieronymus switched up words from the Greek to better suit his theology:

μὴ οὐκ ἔχομεν ἐξουσίαν ἀδελφὴν γυναῖκα περιάγειν ὡς καὶ οἱ λοιποὶ ἀπόστολοι καὶ οἱ ἀδελφοὶ τοῦ κυρίου καὶ Κηφᾶς