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...."
Sorry, I got carried away.
“No, you posted scriptures CONDEMNING hand striking, and tried to pretend that they didn’t.”
First, those Scriptures are condemning more than just hand striking, since there is always an additional connection to some other activity which reveals the reason for the condemnation. Also, even if the striking is condemned in that context, the fact that it is so many times associated with business transactions demonstrates that it WAS a practice of the time, which you keep trying to deny.
As for your citations about blood covenants, there is no description in those verses that matches what you previously claimed, that of cutting fingers and mingling blood. Given the Old Covenant’s strict laws concerning blood and ritual purity, I’d say the burden is pretty high for you to prove that is what was being done. In fact, all the verses you cite have to do with the very specific covenants between God and man, and not with business transactions or daily affairs. On top of that, the covenants weren’t sealed by the method you specify, but rather by the blood of a sacrifice, which is an entirely different thing.
Where is the evidence that the practice you asserted (similar to childish “blood brother” rituals), was the standard practice of that day and place for sealing deals or contracts?
>> “Where is the evidence that the practice you asserted (similar to childish “blood brother” rituals), was the standard practice of that day and place for sealing deals or contracts?” <<
.
TRy reading Talmud occasionally.
.
>> “First, those Scriptures are condemning more than just hand striking, since there is always an additional connection to some other activity which reveals the reason for the condemnation.” <<
.
Wow you must be really slow!
The hand strike carries with it the very sacrifice of one’s life if the privilidge of favor is denied. Look up and read the many oaths of the kabbalist societies. They’re pretty grim.
Whether is was a ‘business’ transaction, or a turning of the law in a supposed court of justice, or the promised taking of another’s life, yes it surely was a practice of the time, as it remains to this day, and will continue until “Mystery, Babylon” is crushed by the Lord. That is the reason for the condemnation.
“TRy reading Talmud occasionally.”
This from a guy concerned about Kabbalists? Sorry, I’ll take my evidence from the Scriptures, not from the scribes and Pharissees, thank you very much.
“The hand strike carries with it the very sacrifice of one’s life if the privilidge of favor is denied. Look up and read the many oaths of the kabbalist societies. They’re pretty grim.”
Only if your assertion that the hand striking referred to is somehow connected to the blasphemous oaths of the esoterics, which I don’t think you’ve shown anything to demonstrate. That’s quite a leap to make, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
This is Beck’s major drawback. He’s in the mormon Cult. Major divide. So very sad.
Why don't you all just settle down and do what the Apostle Paul did. Preach Christ crucified.
Yet they can all pretty much agree on the nature of God and Jesus, that the Bible is the Word of God.
Mormonism tears them down, makes them common men who gained godhood (were polygamists) and claims that Christianity was TOTALLY lost from the earth (in direct contravention to Christ’s own words) and that the Bible is mistranslated (yet cannot point to where).
That’s much more than a simple disagreement over something like communion or how to pray to God, etc.
The mormons aren’t a “Christian” denomination. Please do your homework. They are a cult. And you mentioned Catholics? Beck used to be one. They are the one true Church. He left it. And so it goes....
Okay. Here we go. If the Catholic Church is the one true church, I guess that must mean the Baptist Church, Lutheran Church, Methodist Church, etc. are all cults, too. Right? False religions at least.
If? The Catholic Church is the one true Church. The others - Baptist, Lutheran, Methodist all came along (good people) 1500+ years later. Just sayin'......
>> “Sorry, I’ll take my evidence from the Scriptures, not from the scribes and Pharissees, thank you very much.” <<
.
If you want to understand the traditions of Israel, you have to read the people that recorded their history.
Actually, that is so for every culture or nation, and in every case you will be reading the Kabbalists.
Your La, la, la denial is making you look foolish!
“If you want to understand the traditions of Israel, you have to read the people that recorded their history.”
I’m much more concerned about the teachings of God than the traditions of Israel. Those teachings are pretty clear that it is the spirit of a thing which determines whether it is holy or not holy. So, I’m afraid you’re never going to get anywhere trying to tell me that outward things are inherently unholy. Some activities simply can’t be done in a good spirit (fornication, murder, idolatry, etc), and God has told us all about these, many times. A handshake, however, is not one of these things. It can be done in a good spirit, or representative of something unholy, but the act itself is not the issue.
“Your La, la, la denial is making you look foolish!”
I really don’t mind looking foolish. I’m not that proud that I can’t suffer a little ridicule. If it makes you feel better, have at it.
The traditions are in most cases based on the word of God.
All of the English translations are weak on the facts that are necessary to truly understand the complete word of God. That is why a critical reading of Talnud is profitable.
Even the KJV and Geneva are short on telling the fullness of the word. The so-called “modern” translations almost completely veil it. The word of God is hidden in plain sight.
“The traditions are in most cases based on the word of God.”
Men have created a great many traditions which are based to some degree on the Word of God, however most of them are not very informative, unless you want to learn how best to point out their errors to them. Christ denounced the authors of the Talmud as liars and hypocrites, so that is good enough evidence for me to not put much stock in their writings, especially for use in interpreting the Word of God.
“All of the English translations are weak on the facts that are necessary to truly understand the complete word of God. That is why a critical reading of Talnud is profitable.”
There’s some truth to this statement, but fortunately we have many translations available to compare, along with concordances and a plethora of Christian scholarly analysis if one wants to delve into the deeper meanings of Scripture. When it comes to the basic Gospel message, I think most English translations, excepting of course the ones which have been done in bad faith, convey the necessary truth well enough.
>> “There’s some truth to this statement, but fortunately we have many translations available to compare” <<
.
False!
We basically have two translations:
> Those based on the Textus Receptus, which are the most reliable, but still incomplete.
> Those based on the ever useless Wescott/Hort greek manipulation founded on codex vaticanus, which was considered for a millenium by vatican scolars as completely corrupted, and is now somehow to be considered reliable, and the septuagint OT, which lacks the authority of the carefully copied Masoretic texts.
.
>> “Men have created a great many traditions which are based to some degree on the Word of God, however most of them are not very informative, unless you want to learn how best to point out their errors to them” <<
.
You’re just squirming on this. Talmud has never been questioned as to historic accuracy.
.
>> “Christ denounced the authors of the Talmud as liars and hypocrites” <<
.
Christ denounced their manipulation of the Law for their own purpose; perhaps you didn’t understand that?
I’m still waiting for the passages that authorize Godly men to strike hands...
“False! We basically have two translations:”
Ok, I was specifically responding to YOUR comment:
“All of the English translations... the KJV and Geneva... The so-called “modern” translations...”
So don’t try to change the subject on me to the source translations that those English translations were based on. You’re asking me to argue with a moving target, and I refuse to engage in that.
“You’re just squirming on this. Talmud has never been questioned as to historic accuracy.”
Never? I just questioned it :P
The Talmud surely has some historic truth, but it also has folklore, myths, legends, and contradictory opinions and explanations of events. So what truth is in there is undeniably mixed with the leaven of falsehood. It would be quite an undertaking to attempt to sift the truth back out, if it were even possible, and that’s not a chore that I feel any need to devote myself to. If you do, go for it, I’m not stopping you.
“Christ denounced their manipulation of the Law for their own purpose; perhaps you didn’t understand that?”
You don’t see any relation between the manipulation of the law and their man-made traditions, of which the Talmud is the primary repository? Mark chapter 7 makes my point better than I can:
“6He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.
7Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
10For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
11But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
12And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
13Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.”
To me that is very clear, especially the last verse. Man delivered the Talmud, not God, and through the Talmud, they have made the word of God to no effect.
“I’m still waiting for the passages that authorize Godly men to strike hands...”
I don’t need to provide a verse to authorize it. Do I need a verse to authorize me to wear a hat, or one to authorize me to wave to someone in greeting, or to authorize me to plant flowers in my yard? Why should I need a verse to authorize “striking of hands”? If somehow I do need a verse, this should suffice:
“All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.” 1 Cor. 6:12
Obviously, this verse is dangerous when not read in context, but properly understood, it clearly gives believers the responsiblity to choose freely those things which are not unhelpful or those things which do not overpower us. God’s law is a law of exclusion, excluding things which are unrighteous from us, not a law of specification, which specifies all the things we are allowed to do. Otherwise, the Bible would have to fill many more volumes than it does.
>> “Never? I just questioned it” <<
.
But who are you but one with zero knowledge thereof, thus what do you even think you’re questioning?
.
>> “The Talmud surely has some historic truth, but it also has folklore, myths, legends, and contradictory opinions and explanations of events. So what truth is in there is undeniably mixed with the leaven of falsehood.” <<
You have no idea what you’re addressing!
Talmud was written over a period of centuries by hundreds of authors in different locations, and was later pieced together for the purpose of preserving and unifying Jewish culture. That is the value of it. It defines what the culture was and was becoming.
.
>> “To me that is very clear, especially the last verse. Man delivered the Talmud, not God, and through the Talmud, they have made the word of God to no effect.” <<
.
Nonsequitur!
The passage that you reference has little to nothing to do with Talmud, and was written long before it coalesced. There may have been dozens of comments entered into Talmud on that particular subject, and probably all of them would differ, since they would come from different authors, but together they would give an accurate picture of the evolution of the culture, and the changes in the oral tradition.
.
>> “I don’t need to provide a verse to authorize it.” <<
.
Yes, you do, because God’s word condemns it. Any agreement sealed by that process is in conflict with the word.
I would like to comment on this:
There are many misconceptions in regard to Kabbalah. The word in Hebrew means “to receive knowledge”. The Kabbalah is the most center-most part of the 72 layers of understanding in the Torah.
There are no “oaths of the Kabbalistic societies” because there are no “Kabbalistic societies”.
Kabbalah is the teachings of the more mystical and esoteric areas of Judaism and it is something every Torah observant Jew, and every Rabbi of the Orthodox sects studies and “immerses in”. It teaches us about the our relationship HaShem (G-D), to the world of Creation and HaShems attributes. There is nothing grim about it. If anything, it is incredibly joyous and affirming, and wholly about the Divinity of HaShem.
What you may be referring to is a rite performed called the “Pulsa Denura” (Lashes of Fire) which calls upon the Angels of Destruction to block the forgiveness of the sins of someone of extreme evil, or one who brings harm among the Jewish people, so that all the curses of the 10 plagues falls upon him. This requires a judgement, and if that judgement is wrongly given, then those who take part in it are punished, rather than the subject of the ritual.
It was performed upon Ariel Sharon for the sin of removing the Jews from Gush Katif, and upon Rabin- who worked to bring the Muslims into being a part of Israel.
However, this is not Kabbalah. Although, a Kabbalist would know it exists. It is among the ancient Hebrew magical manuals of antiquity, such as Sefer ha-Razim and the Harba de-Moshe.
“Talmud was written over a period of centuries by hundreds of authors in different locations, and was later pieced together for the purpose of preserving and unifying Jewish culture. That is the value of it. It defines what the culture was and was becoming.”
This is correct.
The Talmud was written over 350 years time. It is a wonderful study in critical thinking, and is the “conversations” of many Rabbis discussion Halakah- Jewish Law, and other Torah topics.
.
Been following Glenn since 2003. he seems to worried about an impending War in the Middle east which attack Israeli and also attack the USA. he also thinks it will lead to World war Three. That and he has been saying Iran will want to take over the world as Iran claims the Mahdi( Anti-Christ) is ready to arrive. he highlighted this in two movies Rumors of War: Iran and Rumors of War 2: End Times.
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.