Posted on 03/21/2011 7:56:54 AM PDT by fishtank
Beck's Bogus Beliefs
March 2011
by T. A. McMahon
"Glenn Beck, the television and radio talk show host who is best known for his conservative political views, isn't someone whom we would normally address in our newsletter. Our concerns are usually directed at individuals, programs, or organizations that promote spiritual or theological views contrary to the Word of God. Beck, of late, seems to be making himself at home in that realm, and he's attracting many who call themselves Bible-believing Christians. ...
First of all, Glenn Beck is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. He may refer to himself as a Christian, but he's certainly not a biblical Christian. The distinction is as wide as hell is from heaven: "Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God" (2 John:9). Mormon doctrine is "another gospel" that exalts "another Jesus." Both false beliefs came out of the deceived and deceiving mind of Joseph Smith. Secondly, "our country" doesn't have "Christian roots," even though some are claiming that our founding fathers were true Christians. Many were not biblical Christians but Christians in name only, who followed the faith of Deism, Masonry, and the philosophy of the Enlightenment. Any early influence in America's history of a biblical nature very likely came from the Pilgrims and the Puritans...."
“Where is Jesus? That’s the point.”
Exactly. I came into this thread not knowing anything about Roy Masters, but some of the comments of his fans are distressing. If someone’s writing helps you come to Jesus or understand His teachings better, great. Just don’t try to tell me that Jesus Himself is not sufficient, or that I NEED to go through someone else to find Him. Especially if that someone seems to be making up his own system of beliefs, rather than basing them on the Bible.
Handshakes are inherently evil now? Is this a joke?
If you had quoted the verse from Proverbs in context, the actual meaning would be apparent:
” 26Be not thou one of them that strike hands, or of them that are sureties for debts.
27If thou hast nothing to pay, why should he take away thy bed from under thee?”
So, clearly, the proverb is saying to not to take a debt upon yourself with only your handshake as collateral. For, if you can’t repay it, then the debtor will make you destitute.
It’s disturbing to me that you could even try to make something like a handshake, which is an outward expression, into something evil in and of itself. Our righteousness is based on inward things, not on outward things.
>> “Handshakes are inherently evil now?” <<
Nice try!
The grip that came with a blood oath, ie the one that Beck does, and Palin appears to be doing in the photograph, is the one being refered to in the scriptural verses.
Save you tricks for your foolish ‘brothers.’
Uh, I’m not a Mason or anything of that sort. I’ll condemn them too, but not for a handshake.
Now, show me where in the verse it mentions a Masonic grip, or some form of secret handshake, or even where it condemns a hand shake of any kind. I’ll guarantee that you can’t, since no such verse exists in Scripture, and in fact, there are verses to refute such silliness in abundance.
Go back and read proverbs again.
There is a comma followed by an ‘or’ separating two different situations. Stop trying to make them one. The hand striking is an ancient sign (4000 years) of an obligation under a ‘brotherhood.’ That obligation is binding even unto death. “Mystery, Babylon”
Or not. You can remain ignorant in denial.
“Go back and read proverbs again.”
Go back and learn the basic facts about Scripture again. There are no punctuation marks in Hebrew, so no, there is not a comma between the situations, except where it has been inserted by translators. Clearly, they are clauses of one statement, since neither phrase makes any sense if taken by itself.
Now, you continue to assert this nonsense that the Bible is talking about some secret handshake, but you still haven’t shown any evidence from Scripture for it. Got any evidence from outside Scripture to back up your assertions that “hand striking” generally meant a secret handshake of an esoteric order, and not the much more obvious interpretation of a regular handshake?
I mean, in the context of getting a loan, and providing a surety, a regular handshake makes immediates sense, since it is a traditional way to signify the completion of a transaction, or the giving of your word. In the pre-literate world, I imagine it was much more commonly used for that purpose than today, since most people couldn’t read, write, or sign a contract with more than their “mark”.
Your interpretation, of some secret sign, doesn’t fit in the context at all. What does a secret society handshake have to do with taking a debt or proving surety of such? For the life of me, I can’t figure it out.
>> “Clearly, they are clauses of one statement, since neither phrase makes any sense if taken by itself.” <<
.
No, they only make sense taken separately, otherwise they generate confusion, and God’s word is not confusion (no matter how much confusion fits your world view)
A “regular” handshake is modern nonsense. Only Kabbalists struck hands.
>> “I mean, in the context of getting a loan, and providing a surety, a regular handshake makes immediates sense, since it is a traditional way to signify the completion of a transaction” <<
.
No again, the traditional way was to cut the fingers and mix blood. Striking of hands has never been the way of Godly men.
bttt
“No, they only make sense taken separately, otherwise they generate confusion, and God’s word is not confusion”
Alright, then if they are separate thoughts, then what about the parallel cross-references to this verse, which also link the “striking of hands” with taking on a debt, or making a pledge in regards to a debt? Is this coincidence that God talks about these things three different times in close succession?
Proverbs 11:15 He who puts up security for another will surely suffer, but whoever refuses to strike hands in pledge is safe.
Proverbs 17:18 A man lacking in judgment strikes hands in pledge and puts up security for his neighbor
“A “regular” handshake is modern nonsense. Only Kabbalists struck hands.”
Well, now you are just making stuff up. The handshake has been around since prehistory, so it’s far from modern. Secondly, if only “Kabbalists” struck hands, then explain Isaiah 2:6, where the condemnation is for clasping hands with foreigners. The clasping of hands is not what is condemned, but rather, the fact that it signifies: the children of Israel allying themselves with pagans, and corrupting themselves with pagan practices thereby.
“No again, the traditional way was to cut the fingers and mix blood. Striking of hands has never been the way of Godly men.”
Got any evidence for this? Or any of your other assertions? So far, I haven’t seen any, and if you don’t have any to present, then I don’t see any point to continuing this argument.
>> “Well, now you are just making stuff up. The handshake has been around since prehistory” <<
.
No, the occultic striking of hands has been around for about 4000 years, but hand shaking started in the early 19th century.
The word of God speaks only of making blood covenants to establish obligations.
good grief - place marker
Like I said, if you can’t produce any evidence, I’m done here.
You’re done because your idea fell through the hole.
Every covenant in the Bible was created by the mixing of blood, and only forbidden covenants by the striking of hands.
Ditto
“You’re done because your idea fell through the hole.”
No, I’m done because I’ve asked you to support your unorthodox contentions with evidence, and every time you have refused. That is not debate; it would be more productive for me to talk to a potted plant.
It is your scheme that is unorthodox!
All that I posted has massive support of the whole of the scriptures.
You posted not one single reference in support of your bizzare contention of handshake covenants being supported by the word, while the topic of blood covenanting is thick throughout the OT.
Enjoy your confusion.
“All that I posted has massive support of the whole of the scriptures.”
Then why is so hard for you to cite a few verses?
“You posted not one single reference in support of your bizzare contention of handshake covenants being supported by the word”
That’s a lie, I posted multiple scriptures which connect “hand striking” with the taking of a debt or making a surety, which you apparently ignored.
Words such as "false" "wrong" "error" do not attribute motive.
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
No, you posted scriptures CONDEMNING hand striking, and tried to pretend that they didn’t.
You are being an agent of confusion here.
Every verse that mentions hand striking condemns it.
Exd 24:8 And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled [it] on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the LORD hath made with you concerning all these words.
.
Zec 9:11 As for thee also, by the blood of thy covenant I have sent forth thy prisoners out of the pit wherein [is] no water.
.
Hebr 12:24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than [that of] Abel.
.
Hebr 13:20 Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant
.
Mat 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
.
Mar 14:24 And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many.
.
1Cr 11:25 After the same manner also [he took] the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink [it], in remembrance of me.
.
Hebr 9:18 Whereupon neither the first [testament] was dedicated without blood.
.
Hebr 9:20 Saying, This [is] the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you.
.
Getting the picture yet?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.