The UFO Deception Explosion of December 2023—Tucker Carlson, Joe Rogan, David Grusch, & Much More
(www.youtube.com)
🗣️ DISCUSSION 💬
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (151)
sorted by:
Yes it is, since the Council of Nicaea in fact removed the Book of Enoch from the Bible. If they hadn’t removed any books, the Apocrypha Books, then it wouldn’t be a fact now would it.
Do some research and stop thinking the modern day Bible is 100% factual, and not edited and contextualized for control by the Vatican.
Any biblical scholar worth their weight knows the Book of Enoch is an original Book of the Bible. Oh and the Dead Sea Scrolls say so as well, as does the non-Vatican-edited Ethiopian Bible; which happens to factually include all of the Apocrypha and additional, original gospels/books, that the Councils of Nicaea had removed/edited out.
It is 100% factual. I trust God, not the cabal. To believe God allowed the cabal to corrupt the Bible is to trust their ability to corrupt more than God's ability to preserve.
Faith in God must reign supreme over worldly distrust.
And the Dead Sea Scrolls aren't the Bible. That's like saying a library is all one book. It was a collection of manuscripts and in fact did a great job proving the Bible hasn't changed in 2000 years.
I am curious about the Book of Enoch though, and intend to get around to reading it, but it is not the Word of God. Doesn't mean it doesn't have valuable information, but it's not the Word of God and any claims that it is are at this point pulled out of thin air.
And the Vatican edited nothing. God wouldn't allow this. Instead, God guided His Church to ensure they included the right books in the Bible, and not just every work that any random sect decided they liked the sound of. It was authoritative, as scripture must be. It was perfect and infallible, as God ensures. And it was by a council guided by the Holy Spirit, as is evidently needed for authoritative truth.
Remember, before the declaration of what was canon, everyone had their own disjointed collection of books with no authoritative position on what was the Word of God and what was not. If that WAS how it was meant to work, well that's just another argument for the necessity of the recognition of the authority of the Church.
Most "biblical scholars" are far more interested in their secular scholarship than in the Bible. As a result, they are frequently wrong because they discount the obvious, but miraculous, explanations for things.
Finally, from a brief look at the Ethiopian Bible, well, it doesn't exist. Now, I admit this was just a brief look at the shit source that is Wikipedia, but the claim is that they don't even have a compiled version of their own canon.
From the article:
"It is not known to exist at this time as one published compilation. Some books, though considered canonical, are nonetheless difficult to locate and are not even widely available in the churches' home countries of Ethiopia and Eritrea."
If true, that's hardly a good look. They considered it so inspired that they don't even have any copies. Maybe they're all locked up in the Vatican Library and that is why they are hard to find? Alternatively, God didn't preserve those extra-biblical books because they aren't His, and instead preserved the version that became the best-selling book in all of the history of Mankind. I suspect you'll take the former, but I'm obviously going to settle in with the latter.
And I'd appreciate it if you didn't hit me with the "you're just brainwashed by the Vatican" or "do more research" or "you just don't want to accept the truth because it would contradict your beliefs". I don't even agree with the basic logical premises that are required to come to such a conclusion as the Bible being corrupted. This isn't a research issue or an "accept the truth". It just doesn't make sense to me for God to give us a scripture that can be corrupted. It's either all His, or it's all made up.
Excellent reply.
Their argument is tantamount to saying “God can give us a message, but can’t preserve it.”
Doesn’t make sense.
Another thing that doesn’t make sense with their argument is that they would have no way of knowing something has been “corrupted” unless they knew what the “uncorrupted” version was.
Questioning corruption implies a standard of purity or correctness. If someone claims corruption, they implicitly acknowledge a presumed unaltered state. The assertion that the Bible has been corrupted is self defeating.
Thanks, fren.
Also,
Really like this argument. Might just start using it myself :)
The silly thing is, you’re arguing against solid facts. I’m not saying anything that isn’t researchable and false. You really don’t understand the Vatican, the Council of Nicaea which was FACTUAL, or Constantine’s power grift and Biblical Control, or post-Constantine Roman emperors, towards the Bible and Christianity. Why was the group that created the Dead Sea Scrolls obliterated by the Romans? You need to dig deeper than covering for the Vatican my friend. They’ve done much more damage than good for the whole world, and are still in cahoots with the Cabal, like me saying so or not. And the truth is coming soon, and the Vatican will burn for all it as an institution has done.
We'll see, fren.
And the thing is, I think all the same things are true from my perspective.
I think everything I've said is solid fact.
I think you can research the history and come to the same exact conclusion I have.
I think the logical backing of my argument is perfectly solid.
And I 100% categorically believe that the truth is coming soon, and the Deep Church will burn and God will keep His Church preserved through the machinations of the Devil.
God will preserve His Church as he clearly always has, evidenced by the fact that no institution so incompetently run could have stood for 2000 years. This is further proven by the fact that no other institution does. At least not publicly, which is very unlike the cabal. They love renaming their institutions and even themselves every so often so no one can track them down.
“The Catholic Church is an institution I am bound to hold divine – but for unbelievers a proof of its divinity might be found in the fact that no merely human institution conducted with such knavish imbecility would have lasted a fortnight” ― Hilaire Belloc
Yep good points. Christ did encourage that the whole Earth was a church. Christ himself rarely if hardly mentioned holding his services in buildings at all. He just gathered people around him…. or actually they just gathered around him, and he taught open air style. Christ was also very straight forward. His recorded words don’t waver idea to idea. Each one is it’s own and solid. And if he repeats anything it’s identical except when he talks parables, when the Apostles weren’t fully paying attention. That’s when I laugh with Jesus. He’s actually funny, and only told parables when people heard him but weren’t listening. So he repeats his lesson in a story that takes more time to think through and sink in haha like duuhh!
Jesus has a great sense of humor.
The Council of Nicaea, convened in AD 325, primarily addressed theological issues, such as the nature of Christ, and didn't have a specific mandate on the canon of Scripture. Canonical discussions evolved over subsequent councils and centuries.
The claim that the Book of Enoch was removed by the Council of Nicaea oversimplifies the canonization process. The Book of Enoch was influential in some early Christian circles but wasn't universally accepted due to theological divergences.
The assertion that the modern Bible is edited and contextualized for control by the Vatican oversimplifies the diverse history of biblical translations and interpretations. While translations have evolved, the core biblical texts have maintained substantial consistency across various Christian traditions.
The inclusion of unique books in the Ethiopian Bible reflects a localized canonization process that considered specific cultural and theological factors, as is common in different Christian traditions globally.
The Dead Sea Scrolls provide valuable insights into Second Temple Judaism and its textual landscape. However, they don't uniformly endorse or reject specific books but offer a broader understanding of the diversity of texts in circulation during that era.
See, proves my point except I was incorrect on date. It was earlier in the early 300’s than late 700’s. Thank you Late sir.