The deception goes all the way back to the Council of Nicaea. Don’t let the polished language of “ecumenical unity” fool you. That council wasn’t just about affirming Christ's divinity—it was about consolidating Roman power and sanitizing the narrative.
They didn’t keep the Book of Enoch out of the Bible because it “wasn’t biblical.” They kept it out because it was too biblical—too raw, too revealing, too dangerous to the empire they were building in Christ’s name.
Let’s get real: How can any Christian with a straight face say it’s acceptable to remove the firsthand account of Adam & Eve’s great-great-grandson—a man who is also Noah’s great-grandfather? A man who WALKED WITH GOD. Not symbolically. Not in dreams. He physically walked with the Most High.
Moses didn’t even get that. Moses saw God’s back and got a burning bush. Enoch walked with God and was taken because he was too pure for the world. And we’re supposed to believe that his testimony doesn’t belong in the Book?
Nah. That’s not divine discernment—that’s a cover-up.
Why? Because Enoch exposes what really happened after Eden—the Watchers, the Nephilim, the corruption of bloodlines, the origin of evil systems that still rule the world today. The Book of Enoch rips the mask off the principalities and powers that Rome baptized and called “Church.”
And if the Church had told the truth back then? If the masses had known the real story of how the world was corrupted—and what spiritual war we’re truly in—we wouldn’t be staring down the barrel of WWIII right now. We wouldn’t have spiritually blind nations bowing to false chosen ones, building a Third Temple for the Antichrist with Church money.
God doesn’t want this.
This isn’t “just how prophecy goes.” This is the result of a 1700-year deception that began with silencing the prophets, erasing the Watchers, and replacing divine truth with imperial theology.
Jesus Christ is absolutely the only Savior. But the Church councils that followed Constantine didn’t protect that truth—they wrapped it in chains.
The war for truth didn’t end at Nicaea. It started there.
Bet your house that the Vatican knows that every word you just read is true.
I’d bet the Vatican’s priceless library—vaulted under 50 feet of Roman concrete—that every word of this is true.
The elites know why Enoch was banned. They know what the Watchers did. They know the real meaning of Revelation 2:9. They’ve built empires on that suppression.
And they laugh while modern churches clap for the Third Temple.
God help us. Because the people leading the charge in this insanity… know exactly what they’re doing.
Let us divide our discussion into three key parts to clearly respond to your assertions and clarify my position. I hope this will help avoid misunderstandings.
1. Theological Aspect
At the First Council of Nicaea (325) and subsequent councils, such as the Council of Chalcedon (451), the Church affirmed the fundamental dogmatic principle: salvation is possible only through Jesus Christ. Any statement contrary to this is and remains heresy. This decision is based on Sacred Scripture, in particular, such texts as the Gospel of John (14:6) — “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” — and the Acts of the Apostles (4:12) — “And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.” These councils, guided by the Holy Spirit and Tradition, established orthodox teaching, which remains unchanged for the Orthodox Church.
2. Regarding the Political Motives of These Councils
Your claim that the Councils of Nicaea and Chalcedon were motivated solely by the political interests of Rome and served to consolidate power is your personal interpretation. However, such an interpretation cannot refute or negate the theological dogmas established by these councils. Their decisions were aimed at protecting the truth about the nature of Christ and His role as the sole Savior, not at political manipulation, as you suggest. Discussing the political context of the 4th and 5th centuries (325 and 451) is possible, but it does not change the essence of the theological conclusions, which are based on Sacred Scripture and Tradition, not on the temporary interests of the empire. Thus, the assertion that “Jesus Christ is the sole Savior and that no other paths or figures can replace His role” remains a theological principle, independent of political circumstances.
3. On the Book of Enoch and the Canon of Sacred Scripture
Regarding the Book of Enoch, you express concern about its exclusion from the biblical canon, accusing the Church of concealing the truth. However, it is important to understand the differences between the Orthodox and Protestant traditions. Unlike Protestants, the Orthodox Church does not have such a strict separation between Scripture and Tradition. We view them as inseparably linked and mutually complementary elements of divine revelation.
The Orthodox Bible includes 77 books, while the Protestant Bible includes only 66. The difference lies in the fact that the Orthodox Church accepts the so-called deuterocanonical (or second-canon) books, which Protestants consider apocrypha and excluded from their canon. These books, such as Tobit, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, Baruch (including the Letter of Jeremiah), 1 and 2 Maccabees, additions to Esther (additional chapters to the Book of Esther), and additions to Daniel (for example, the story of Susanna, the Song of the Three Young Men, Bel and the Dragon), were part of the Septuagint — the Greek translation of the Old Testament used by the early Church and preserved in Orthodoxy.
Protestants, starting with the Reformation (Martin Luther and other reformers), adopted the Jewish canon of the Tanakh (39 books of the Old Testament), which was finalized by the end of the 1st century A.D. and did not include these deuterocanonical texts. The Orthodox and Catholic Churches, however, retained them as part of the canon, albeit with some differences in status.
Unlike Protestants, we Orthodox Christians did not adopt the Jewish canon and did not remove these 11 books from the Old Testament. Moreover, although the Book of Enoch was not included in the canon of Sacred Books, the Orthodox Church perceives it as part of Tradition, not rejecting it outright. We do not follow the Protestant logic, which, in an effort to align with the Jewish canon, excluded not only the Book of Enoch but also the deuterocanonical texts. For us, Tradition includes a wide range of texts, such as the lives of saints, interpretations by the Church Fathers, and apocrypha, including the Book of Enoch, which can be useful for spiritual enrichment but do not have the same dogmatic authority as canonical books.
Thus, I find your objections to me completely incomprehensible. We Orthodox Christians not only preserved a broader canon of the Bible but also honor Tradition, in which the Book of Enoch has its place, even if not as part of Scripture. Your accusations of “concealment” or “deception” fail to account for this important feature of our tradition, which differs from both the Protestant approach and your interpretation.