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:
Well…… and then there is that possibility. We don’t know exactly for sure how he is “physically” going to arrive. Last time he was born here. So since he is still alive what will the physical view look like of Christ arriving…
The book of Enoch of course has some amazing descriptions of how things “could” happen or look like, vs Revelations. This guy in the video does not discuss the book of Enoch much, and I think because it in itself would have a strong argument against a lot of what he presents, and the book of Enoch is factually one of the original Old Testament Books, before the 2nd Council of Nicaea had it and 16 other “gospels” removed in the late 700s.
Of course there is the Anti-Christ as well, that could “officially” arrive (show his face) by UFO. So there is that too. Though I think most believe the Anti-Christ is already here. Klaus, Soros, Gates, and/or Harari all make evil candidates.
This is in no way a definite fact.
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.
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.