Art Chance: Covid fear rhetoric has taken us back to the Dark Ages

176

By ART CHANCE

I was raised in Baptist confinement; the “God said it, I believe it, and that settles it” variety. 

There were three kinds of Baptists in the rural South; the Missionary Baptists, the Progressive Primitive Baptists, and the “Old Line” Primitive Baptists. The Missionary Baptists are the ones you might recognize; they had a nice church with a steeple in town and there were nice cars parked around the church on Sunday morning. They’re the ones you’d associate with the Southern Baptist Convention and what passes for mainstream Protestantism these days. I was brought up to think of them as snobs, though not so much as Methodists and Presbyterians, but they did have some pretty girls, so I went to church there from time to time. I’ll always have a warm spot for them for the night we beat a nearby rival, a rivalry so intense the game had to be played on a neutral field, in football for the first time in 28 years, and when the team and band buses arrived back in town in the middle of the night, somebody opened the church and played “Alma Mater” on the carillon for the whole town, whether they wanted to hear it or not.

I sprang from the more déclassé sector of Baptist dogma and I had a divided family. My Father’s side were “progressive” Primitive Baptists. My grandfather and grandmother were charter members of the church, and my grandfather and later my father were deacons. We gave the land for the parsonage to the church.   

I was something of a disappointment.   

My mother’s side were “Old Line” Primitive Baptists. Union Primitive Baptist church was out in the country and didn’t have running water or modern facilities. It didn’t have stained glass windows or art work on the walls. It didn’t have a piano or other musical instrument. My grandfather was a deacon and the singing leader and most of the singing was “call and repeat.” Most of you don’t know what that is, but most of you have heard Joan Baez’ version of “Amazing Grace” on “From Every Stage,” the only Christian song you can sing or play in polite company these days. She does a lot of it in “call and repeat,” in which she sings out the words of the next verse for the audience. 

Other than at Union Church, I remember it most from field hands working in cotton and tobacco fields. Someone was the song leader, maybe the foreman, maybe a pastor among the group; he; always he, led the singing. Most of you have no idea what chopping cotton or cropping tobacco in the 100 degree Georgia heat is like, but singing Gospel songs as you did it seemed to help.

That was the state of the World 50 or 60 years ago. Two hundred years earlier, you could have a trial by water (or worse) to see if your beliefs adequately conformed to “community standards.”  A couple of hundred years before that, you would be offered a choice of the hot fire if you could afford it, or the slow fire if you couldn’t, as your soul was tried by fire. 

You have to really be a student of history to know about Arianism, Catharism, Nestorianism, Appolarianism, Gnosticism and all the other “isms” that could get you tortured, flayed, blinded, burned at the stake or boiled in oil for the first 1,500 years or so of Christianity’s development. Only some of the notorious Inquisition was about testing just which flavor of Christian you might be, though it got pretty tough in places, but if you were a Muslim or a Jew trying to “pass” as a Christian, your life might well be forfeit.

The Left never had a Council of Nicaea or a Stalin. Constantine had a convocation of Christian bishops in 325 AD who were tasked with setting out what it meant to be a Christian.   They produced the Nicene Creed. The assembled bishops were mostly from the Eastern Empire. The great losers were the Arian Christians, but they remained a force in the church for centuries, albeit a persecuted force. The most evident result was that the creed defined heresy, and the church, particularly the Eastern church, set out to extirpate heresy.   

There is a good argument that Byzantine losses to the Persians and later to the Muslims among the Jews and other Semitic residents of the empire were in large measure attributable to persecution by the Orthodox Church. As the Muslims became ascendant, many Orthodox but heretical Christians chose conversion or dhimmitude over Orthodox persecution.

Fast forward 1,500 years; communism was little more established in Europe in the mid-1800s than Christianity had been in the 300s, perhaps less so. Various cells, cadres, and communes had tried to establish socialist/communist/communal governments throughout Europe and even to some extent in the U.S. all through the 19th Century.   

You can trace most of the “isms” that bedeviled the U.S. in the 19th and early 20thCenturies to the Seneca Falls Convention in Seneca Falls, N.Y. in 1848. Marx’ “Das Kapital” wasn’t far behind in 1867. By 1871 proto-communists established the Paris Commune and rejected the authority of the French Government.   It only took a couple of months for the French Army to reject the authority of the Paris Commune, but revolutionary groups were here to stay.

World War One proved too much for the tottering Romanov Dynasty in Russia and it succumbed first to a social Democrat democracy and ultimately to the communist Bolsheviks, thus establishing the first communist national government, led first by Vladimir Lenin. Autocracy is the only form of government Russia had ever known, and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was even more autocratic than the Romanovs, but different people got to be the autocrats. Anastasia screamed in vain!

The aborning U.S.S.R. faced a civil war with revanchist elements, the “White Russians,” and various schisms between factions inside the nominally communist ranks. Bolshevik means something like majority, but they were anything but; they were just loud and violent.  

Lenin kept the unholy alliance together until his death in 1928.  Among the many ideological schisms, the most consequential was that between Lenin and another Bolshevik, Leon Trotsky.   To use today’s words, Lenin was a bureaucratic communist; his intent was to harness the bureaucratic power of the state to the Communist Party. 

Trotsky believed in ongoing revolution; he was more anarchist than communist.   Lenin’s successor, Stalin, was cut from different cloth and had nothing of Trotsky’s dissidence; he threw him out of the U.S.S.R. Then, when Trotsky, ensconced in Mexico, continued to try to influence events in the U.S.S.R., Stalin simply had someone put an ice axe through his skull.   

That was the communist version of the Council of Nicaea; adhere to the ruling dogma or get an ice axe in your head.   To be fair, the Christians weren’t any more gentle; burned at the stake or an ice axe in your head: you pick it.

Through World War II, American communists were doctrinaire Stalinists. After WWII, the U.S. rigorously suppressed doctrinaire communism. The net result, however, was not really the suppression of communism, but its dispersion.   In the 1950s and 1960s we saw the rise of the New Left in the US. The epicenter was Chicago and a Trotsky disciple named Saul Alinsky. Chinese Maoism was a derivative of Trotskyism, and lots of American young people spent the 1960s with a copy of Mao’s “Little Red Book” in the pocket of their ragged Levis. It quietened a bit in the Reagan-Bush years, but returned in new bespoke clothes with Bill Clinton.

Bill and Hillary Clinton raised a fist and yelled “Vinceremos.” They meant to restart the revolution. Fortunately, it cost Bill the Congress and he tucked his communist tail between his legs and made nice with Newt Gingrich. Hillary, who wrote her master’s thesis about Saul Alinsky, remains resentful and tries to remain relevant. Bill seems to content himself with finding comfort with women who aren’t Hillary.

The Left did not rest after the Clinton retrenchment; they took your children, if you were foolish enough to send them to college. In scenes reminiscent of a Tom Jones concert in the 1970s, college girls were throwing their panties at the stage at Obama rallies in the ‘00s. Donald Trump was an unanticipated interlude that caused the Left a fit of apoplexy. I won’t discuss how the Left “defeated” him.

To bring this to today, the communists, excuse me, Democrats, control the Congress and the Presidency; they can do pretty much whatever they want subject to their ability to cow the courts. Their tool of manipulation is the Covid scamdemic. Covid has become a messianic religion. You either accept the gospel of St. Anthony Fauci and his ilk, or you are a heretic. 

I don’t look or act like a sensitive new-age guy; the Karens don’t even have to know, they couldn’t tell anyway, whether I’m carrying Covid or not; one look at me without a mask and they bustle off in the opposite direction with a distraught look on their faces. They are genuinely afraid, and St. Anthony and the “Jab Inquisition” have done that. St. Anthony doesn’t have to be Slo Joe’s Torquemada, there are millions of Karens out there to do it for him.

We have some “doctor” screeching at the medical board about “misinformation.” Who gave her the power to determine what constitutes misinformation? She doesn’t work for Facebook, which reserves that right for itself.   

This doctor and her soy boy disciples would like nothing more than putting the dissenting doctors, most of whom are more qualified than their accusers, to the stake; what better place than in front of Loussac Library, the leftists’ holy temple in Anchorage.    

We have exceeded even a medieval level of ignorance and superstition; we’ve made it all the way back to the Dark Ages.

Art Chance is a retired Director of Labor Relations for the State of Alaska, formerly of Juneau and now living in Anchorage. He is the author of the book, “Red on Blue, Establishing a Republican Governance,” available at Amazon. 

176 COMMENTS

  1. We gave away our freedoms and abdicated common sense due to fear and laziness.

    Conservatives couldn’t be bothered to care. Liberals went to work. Make common sense comparisons to Europe in the 30s and high minded people get offended.

    America is literally burning. And almost nobody gives a damn. Yet.

  2. Art, we might well agree on many things, but your understanding of Church history is a sad caricature populated with hints of truth surrounded by dingy propaganda. It doesn’t help sell your point at all to those that actually have a deep knowledge and understanding of Church history.

    • Point out the factual inaccuracy. I grew up having jackass preachers for my Sunday dinner; I just love arguing religious dogma.

        • Where to start?
          First of all, your vague conflations of partial truths, vague dates, and dime store propaganda is hard to nail down.
          These conflations are so mishmash and ethereal, I don’t know exactly how to counter other than to say that they are confused crap and ask for a reference as a starting point.
          The same would go for all of the wild eyed claims of the horrible church of the first 1500 years (just seeking to unfairly smear the Church from before the Protestant Revolution as it appears). You can’t just get all of your ‘history’ from one trip through a European propaganda museum and also conflate that into some vague accusation thrust backwards into the centuries before. All you have really done is make anti-historical rambling a mediocre art form. As for your vague references to “the notorious inquisition“ of which most of these seem to refer to and also apply them to different times, your starting point is fairly flawed as well.
          Firstly, there in no such thing as a monolithic “the notorious inquisition”. Inquisitions were local ecclesiastical courts usually assigned by Rome and were plenty varied and diverse. The most notorious (because they were the most maligned) are more and more discoverable today than ever. Among Inquisition scholars, this is known as the golden age of Inquisition studies. Rooms full of first source documents (The Clerics running the inquisition courts were usually well educated Franciscans and they kept meticulous and voluminous notes and records.) are being catalogued and computerized. They are now accessible by scores of universities and are cross reference-able and word and name searches can also be performed. Some inquisition propagandists (not historians) that sold books on the subject claimed 60,000,000 dead Europeans as a result of “the notorious inquisition”. This is an obvious problem that could’ve been solved by looking at an encyclopedia as there were not yet 60 million Europeans yet. But now the number when looking at actual records is between 5,000 to 8,000. This is probably less than the blood spilled at the hands of Calvin and his henchmen, but that doesn’t get as much press.
          Also, when the Inquisition courts found someone guilty of heresy and they would not recant (another thing that so many seem unwilling to recognize is that only a Catholic could be tried for heresy), they would be handed over to the state almost always with a plea for mercy. The state (and before historical snobbery applying our such advanced morals backwards takes over, remember that an attack on Church doctrine was seen as an attack on monarchy itself and therefore treason also amplified in Spain by the fear of the recent 700 years of brutal Muslim rule), would almost never apply mercy. Another thing to temper the judgement of “the notorious inquisition” is to realize that this was happening before Rome sent adjudicators in a much more unjust, hasty, and bloody manor. Most don’t realize that many of the facets of justice that we take for granted were brought into being by ecclesiastical courts largely through Spanish Inquisition courts. In fact there are many cases of local people purposefully getting accused of heresy on purpose so that, once easily cleared of heresy they had a chance of getting their civil lawsuit heard by a more fair and just court than they normally had access to.
          Ah, the glories of actual, methodical and scholarly study.
          There are some decent talks given by Professor Madden (Thomas F, if I recall? Not the football guy that doesn’t like flying) on the subject and even the BBC had a special a few years ago to correct much of the false inquisition ‘history’ in light of recent scholarship.
          Now to ‘Arian Christians’. Any fair study of anteNicene Church Fathers (and/or the Sacred Scriptures) show the obvious flaw of Arius. Christianity was always Trinitarian. The Apostle’s Creed was Trinitarian. Putting oneself outside of Doctrine doesn’t mean that you’re an “Arian Christian” otherwise the term Christian no longer is useful as a distinction and means nothing. Arius believed that Jesus the Christ was a creature. That is not Christian. Now we’re there those that were well meaning and were only ignorant of what was Christianity? Undoubtedly. At the time of the Council of Nicaea, roughly 80% of the Christian world was Arian including Priests and Bishops (and yes, I would say that most could be called Arian Christians and most of them had no trouble dropping the heresy after learning what the Church has always taught) which makes it all the more miraculous that this matter was decided correctly against 4 to 1 public pressure. It was not the Eastern Church (calling it the Eastern Church so blithely as if it were a monolith is somewhat anachronistic before the split and even to today given the East’s fractured nature even to today) that pushed this for some nefarious motive. It was merely a reemphasis of what the Church had always taught, albeit more specific.
          Now to those who “chose conversion or dhimmitude”.
          Give me a break. Coerced or threatened conversion or paying a tax (and other more onerous social pressures) is not a choice. It is force. That is Islam. It is quite evident in simply the way that mohammedan tradition sees the entire world. To a mohammedan, the world exists only in two ways. The Dar al Islam and the Dar al Harb.
          The former is the abode of islam while the latter is the abode of war. That’s it. That’s the two choices.
          Look, if your experience of Christianity has left you all angry and you want to be your own god, go ahead. Just do it. Make your own stuff up and follow yourself. What say that you refrain from distorting history to do so?

          • Thank you, Mathew.
            The history of Christianity is rich and varied. So much of history, in general, seems cherry picked to make a point. The point and the cherries offered in support change from time to time.
            I do think Art makes a valid point in that the cruelty of man is rearing its ugly head, swinging the clubs of Division and Superiority; concepts anathema to Jesus Christ, by my understanding.

          • “Christianity was always Trinitarian. The Apostle’s Creed was Trinitarian. Putting oneself outside of Doctrine doesn’t mean that you’re an “Arian Christian” … Arius believed that Jesus the Christ was a creature. That is not Christian.”

            Dualistic believers hold that “begotten” doesn’t indicate that there was a time when Jesus didn’t exist. The Father and the Son have always existed together.
            They are self-existent “light”. This light is much greater than the light we see by. “Light” is the closest word we have to describe something beyond human comprehension. They don’t exist in some heavenly realm. They are that realm. They are the Seventh Heavens, and what everything that was created exists within,

            Your God is too small Matthew. Your god is descended from superstition and ignorance. You speak mighty words, but your words lack any understanding of who and what Yahweh Yahweh Elohim really are.

          • Not really, JJD. You completely missed the point. The Catholic understanding of God is that God is existence Itself.
            As St. Thomas Aquinas put it – ipsum esse subsistens
            – the very act of ‘to be’ itself.
            I still wonder (as often happens with those [ I won’t say cowardly, but ] hesitant to admit the roots of from whence they take their beliefs) if some of your background influence is Jehovahs (sic.) Witness, Mormon, 7th day Adv., or oneness Pentecostals. I don’t feel the need to hide my background. This is a safe enough space. You can tell us.

          • Bravo, Matthew. I and my history degree came here to say something to this effect.

            Being a “student of history” does not mean consuming a great deal of secondhand opinions about times and people in the past. It also implies that you are learning how to understand the thinking of the past and not impose your worldview lens on those who thought that way. Being a good student of history is not about regurgitating a large variety of carelessly assembled factoids (such as throwing out big words like Nestorianism and Docetism or whatever) and saying “aha, I know the big picture.” You must have enough respect for those in the past to suspend your modern judgement, think with logical distinctions (let’s just start with being able to distinguish between millennia, for one!), and refrain from the temptation to crunch all these humans, vast ideas, and epochs into tidy little teaching moments that serve our preconceptions.

            The “Dark Ages” is a simplistic notion for simple minds and is not used in serious historical pursuit. If you spend any time reading the patristics or, gasp, the scholastics, you will find your modern thinking equipment grossly underpowered for the task.

            I for one am extremely weary of people like Mr. Chance delivering their historical manifestos (or whatever this was intended to be). This all comes of using sociology and politics as a substitute for actual historianship.

      • We’ll have to get together sometime… I’ve never tried jackass – does it taste good? I hope it’s better than jackrabbit – which is hard to digest since it moves so fast. More seriously, you sound like a jaded pastor’s kid who was teased enough to always have to be right but not having enough information or peace to be certain of it. “This is how they will know you are my disciples, if you love one another.”

      • Well, for one thing your major emphasis is on ‘ religion’ certainly not on ‘Christianity’. Secondly you take way to much liberty as you swing thru church history like a kid running thru a turnstile.. It’s just not as simplistic as you make it out to be!!

    • The Trinity doctrine is the same as Jewish monotheism, only under a different label. The real “God” is a duality. The Father and the Son. If you don’t have the Father, you don’t have the Son. If you don’t have the Son, you don’t have the Father.
      Many pagan doctrines were incorporated into the Christian religion, such as Easter Sunrise Services and Easter Eggs (A symbol of Ishtar, the fertility goddess). The Christmas tree is a symbol of old Norse mythology. Changing the Sabbath to Sunday. Changing Yahshua’s name to Jesus (He is after all an Israelite). Claiming that the English King James translation has more authority than the original Hebrew/Aramaic Scriptures. “Name it and claim it”, and “Standing on the promises” are attempts to control your god. And etc.

      As far as “…those that actually have a deep knowledge and understanding of Church history.” they’re few and far between.

      Art was being generous. As measured by the words in the Bible, the Christian religion is apostate.

      • The “duality” issue is the basis for the controversy between the Church, both Latin and Orthodox, and Arianism.

        If you have that sort of faith, the deliberations of 300 or so clerics and bureaucrats were divinely inspired and their product produced the word of God. If you’re of a more secular bent, it was just religious ideology by committee; there is still a lot of controversy over what went in The Bible and what didn’t.

          • To refresh your memory:

            Greg Forkner / April 5, 2020
            “Jesus wasn’t the creator. Remember on the cross, he asks the creator why he has forsaken him. Things happen in this world. Keep the faith.”

            josephdj / April 5, 2020
            “Jesus was the Creator. “Without Him was not anything made that was made”. (John 1:3)
            “Of the Father, Jesus said, “You have neither heard His voice at any time, or seen His shape.”
            ( John 5:37 )

            You keep tossing these little one liners, which lack substance and relevance.

          • Jdj, your lack of Scriptural understanding is monumental. All of Scripture is context for all the rest. You tend to take a Scriptural both/and to turn it into an either/or. All heretics do this. All heretics claim the high ground and plant that hill with the flag of their ignorance. You could learn much better reading the early Church Fathers, but it seems that you already know more than all of them.
            I still am wondering (but don’t expect you to fess up) where most of this idealogical ignorance stems from – Mormon? Jehovas witnesses, or 7th Day Adventist?
            Perhaps all 3?

      • We will start here to dismantle your love of your own ideas pasted onto a Church (that I’m guessing you hate a caricature of?)
        Any fair study of anteNicene Church Fathers (and/or the Sacred Scriptures) show the obvious flaw of Arius. Christianity was always Trinitarian. The Apostle’s Creed was Trinitarian. Putting oneself outside of Doctrine doesn’t mean that you’re an “Arian Christian” otherwise the term Christian no longer is useful as a distinction and means nothing. Arius believed that Jesus the Christ was a creature. That is not Christian. Now we’re there those that were well meaning and were only ignorant of what was Christianity? Undoubtedly. At the time of the Council of Nicaea, roughly 80% of the Christian world was Arian including Priests and Bishops (and yes, I would say that most could be called Arian Christians and most of them had no trouble dropping the heresy after learning what the Church has always taught) which makes it all the more miraculous that this matter was decided correctly against 4 to 1 public pressure. It was not the Eastern Church (calling it the Eastern Church so blithely as if it were a monolith is somewhat anachronistic before the split and even to today given the East’s fractured nature even to today) that pushed this for some nefarious motive. It was merely a reemphasis of what the Church had always taught, albeit more specific.

      • As for the Easter crap, that is easily debunked dime store novel ‘history’ probably started by the silly ‘scholarship’ of Jehovahs (no such word until it was made up as a bad translation from 1530) Witnesses. Has Christianity ‘baptized’ or supplanted pagan practices before? Yes. If you can stop pearl clutching for a moment, it’s not a problem. But the Easter thing falls flat and is suppository research. With the date of Christmas set to supplant the very popular Saturnalia? That actually happened – pretty successfully too, I might add.
        The origin of the Christmas tree is not in the Norse. Nice try. Again. Suppository research and confirmation bias. As for the Lord’s Day being Sunday? It says so I’m the New Testament. Christianity is post-Messianic Judaism. POST. Christianity is not bound by jot and tittle of all Mosaic Law. It is bound by the Doctrine and authority of the Church. Christians celebrate on the day of the Resurrection – prophecies fulfilled. New Covenant.
        As for an English name of Jesus? So what? Should we still call Peter Cephas? Don’t be silly. More pearl clutching.
        As for claiming that the King James has more authority? The Church never accepted it as a good translation. Although the translators did go back to the eldest various manuscripts that they could find. Translators still do. This contradicts another nonsense claim.
        Saying that the Cjlhristian religion is apostate based on yhis fluff that you bring? Purest of silliness.
        I hope this all helps. It probably doesn’t to someone like you, but I wasted too much time already.
        So do you align with LDS? JW? 7th day?
        Or do you just like the freedom also of being your own god?
        Go ahead, just learn something of what you attack first. And it’s not necessary to be your own god. Just go away and do that. You don’t have to blister it by attacking something that you know so VERY LITTLE about.

          • Funny. I could say the same about you. At least mine is based in scholarly history and not the writings of a pathetic antiCatholic that no decent modern historian would respect.

        • The human brain has a natural need to “filter” input. When a baby is first born, they see only colors, shadows, movement, but nothing recognizable. Their brain has to start learning how to filter the “everything” they see, into distinguishable objects.
          The incoherent sounds, plus the reverberations bouncing off the walls, which assail them from all directions, also need to start being filtered.
          This necessary and natural filtering process has its drawbacks though. In our older years, tween and later, our brain takes a “set”, establishes a pattern, a sequence, and by default tends to reject never before seen unrecognizable objects, and sounds, turning them into something “more comfortable”.
          So wheels within wheels, and beings with many faces, eyes all over them, may not be what someone’s eyes and ears actually saw, or heard. They may have seen and heard something so foreign that their brain simply couldn’t resist filtering it into something which “made sense”.

          When you read the scriptures, your brain filters it, arriving at whatever “makes sense”. The Trinity doctrine seems to make sense to you, so you support it.
          However, true believers have an additional filter, which overrides their natural one. “You have no need for any man to teach you, for the Spirit teaches you all things.”
          Your writings reflect the wisdom of mankind, and not the wisdom which comes from Yahweh Yahweh Elohim. Otherwise you would recognize both the Father and the Son, the duality.
          Which one do you deny? The Father? The Son? Which is it? You certainly are denying one or the other. God in three offices is monotheism.
          In the garden; did Jesus pray to himself? Or was Jesus just a man, and not God? Are you Gnostic?

          • What a poppycock mishmash of more than one heresy. It is not Christianity.
            All of Scripture is context for all the rest. You tend to take a Scriptural both/and to turn it into an either/or. All heretics do this. All heretics claim the high ground and plant that hill with the flag of their ignorance. You could learn much better reading the early Church Fathers, but it seems that you already know more than all of them.
            I still am wondering (but don’t expect you to fess up) where most of this idealogical ignorance stems from – Mormon? Jehovas witnesses, or 7th Day Adventist? Oneness Pentecostal?
            Perhaps all 4?
            And your tortured explanation of ‘a priori’ vs. ‘a posteriori’ – ouch.

          • I was talking about the book of Enoch that didn’t make the Canon of the Bible. Surely you remember Enoch, Methuselah’s dad, great grandpa of Noah. If not you probably need to read about his interaction with aliens and as such, the priest that put the Bible together probably thought it wasn’t appropriate. The priests wanted to maintain control when establishing a new religion. Sometimes I make the mistake of assuming that everyone knows as much as I do about ancient religion.

          • “What a poppycock mishmash of more than one heresy.”
            Let us wager on the odds of my being burned at the stake.

          • My replies aren’t meant to counter your positions. Rather, to act as a counterweight to your humanistic rendering of the Scriptures.
            Your Wikipedia knowledge is in stark contrast to my speaking out of my heart. You quote, and I make original statements.Review my comments here and as “my2cents” in the ADN. You will not find me parroting any denomination’s creed or dogma.
            I have spent 59 years working out my own salvation. reasoning, pondering, and deciding for myself, if and what I believe.

          • You’re not important enough to be burned at the stake. Maybe take your traditions of men and start your own cult? But even then, it would never amount to anything, so I think you’re safe. Besides, most of today’s bishops probably worry more about how they can get a twink in and out of their room without getting caught to worry about someone that thinks that they understand Scriptures because they really like their own ideas (don’t we all?).
            As for the book of Enoch, the reason that the Jews don’t include it in their Canon and neither does the Church is because of several reasons. Mostly that it claims to be what it is not. Not written by or from the tradition of Enoch. It did not exist nor was any of it known or referenced elsewhere until about 300 BC and probably later. “Enoch’s” volumes were not finished until possibly after the death of the Christ.
            False provenance.
            Secondly, it contradicts Scripture with solid and ancient bona fides.
            No grand conspiracy. Just no need to include a dime store novel in the Sacred Canon.

      • No, less Roman Catholic propaganda. If all you know of Western History is the teachings of the Latin Church and Gibbons, pretty much everything you know is wrong.

        • Wrong.
          And do you mean Edward Gibbon?
          He was a seriously committed and rabid antiCatholic. His ‘scholarship’ is often at serious odds with a fair sampling of first source documents (besides that fact that Gibbon largely stole from Voltaire). You might as well get US History from Howard Zinn. I now understand why you believe this anti historical silliness and nonsense.
          You really should read some scholarly historians.

      • Generic, non-specific comments that evade cogent rebuttal. Say something definitive. Point out the propaganda and correct Art’s history.

    • Here’s another one liner for you, why do angels need wings to fly? Why does God need a spaceship to get around on? Of course I’m talking about a chariot of fire. Jesus may have been a hybrid from aliens. That may be who he was speaking to on the cross.

      • More likely than not the claim that Jesus is only an alien hybrid, returning in a space ship, will be the lie that the anti-Christ tells the people. Otherwise, the world wouldn’t dare fight their creator.
        “Technology far enough advanced, will look like magic.” The lie will be that Jesus simply has technology so advanced that He can appear to be god like.

        • Isn’t it possible that Mary was artificially inseminated by an alien and remained a virgin? Moses had his magical staff and so did Aaron. Jesus raised people from the dead and walked on water and turned water into wine. He even killed a boy when he was young and brought him back to life. So he’s got some Powers no doubt. When they took Ezekiel up in a ship, and also Enoch, that must have really happened. Unless they were doing some really good mushrooms or something back then. My God doesn’t need a spaceship to get around in and his angels don’t need wings to fly. This whole thing about good Angels fighting bad angels and the bad ones getting thrown into hell. Kind of sounds like a Star wars kind of deal to me.

          • You guys could really learn something from those studying these topics systematically for 2000 years. Your caricature and misunderstanding of what the Church actually teaches means that you are really only fighting straw men.

    • My understanding is not something they print in Wikipedia for teaching Sunday School classes because it doesn’t follow the lines of the ordinary Canon. It’s actually true history. It’s hard to argue with the truth. The Bible is a history book. That’s it in a nutshell. Do you really believe Methuselah lived to be 900 years old? I do but people lived older back then until the changing after the flood.

      • The Bible is riddled with error, and emendations. Jesus quoted some passages, not to authenticate them, but simply to throw the religious leaders politically correct, but false interpretations in their faces.
        The Father allowed error and emendations for the specific purpose of keeping His true believers from worshiping the Book, and not the Author. Also as a caution to beware of man’s interpretations.
        The natural man cannot understand the Scriptures. They must be guided by the Father, to understand what He meant by what He said.
        The Trinity doctrine didn’t exist for the first three hundred years of Christianity. It was invented as a political expedient.

        • Absolutely wrong. You seeing error in Scripture is your total lack of understanding on how to interpret Sacred Scripture. Your willingness to put your ignorance above it and trust your ignorance is very telling.
          As for you false claim of the trinity being a new idea 300 years in? You completely misunderstand the New Testament and seemingly have studied absolutely zero of the anteNicene Fathers.