Glenn Beck explains the real reason why you should care about the middle-east - The Bible

[purplechoe]

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/08/07/glenn-beck-explains-the-real-reason-why-you-should-care-about-the-middle-east/


...One of Beck’s main motivations, which he said you may or may not agree with, is the Bible, and how we are “wound in so deeply to Israel.”

“If you disagree with the Bible, that’s fine, whatever, but you have to understand the role [it] played in history, and why this matters,” Beck said.

“We are a nation that is based on Judeo-Christian values and the Bible, period…But there’s no way to deny that the majority of our laws come directly from the scriptures…and the Bible comes from Judah,” Beck continued. “The people of Jerusalem – we owe our existence in many ways. We owe our laws to them…We owe the people of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, we owe our support and our allegiance. Not blind allegiance – and I’m not talking about putting troops down on the ground. We have to be not only on their side, but God’s side...”

[AuH20]

Those people don't live in Israel anymore. Israel is a progressive state for the most part.

[AngryCanadian]

Does the Bible say nuke the world for Israel?

Also Israel is only mentioned once in the bible.

[Sola_Fide]

What a fool. We don't owe "the Jews" for God's laws, they come from God, not Jews. The Jews twisted and rejected God's revelation. Jews are the enemies of God, they do not worship the God of the Scriptures.

As a rule, no should listen to Glenn Beck for any knowledge about Christianity. He is a Mormon cultist. He does not know or understand the Bible.

[Brett85]

Does the Bible say nuke the world for Israel?

Did Glenn Beck say that?

[Dr.3D]

Also Israel is only mentioned once in the bible.

LOL

[purplechoe]

What about the Greeks and Plato in particular for writing The Republic? What about the English, etc, etc... Glenn Beck is a moron...

[paulbot24]

As a rule, no should listen to Glenn Beck for any knowledge about Christianity. He is a Mormon cultist. He does not know or understand the Bible.

I find this fact interesting as well. I'm not interested in getting into a theological throwdown about Mormonism, but it is interesting that most Christian denominations don't regard the Mormon church as being Christian so they wouldn't take his "Christian" advice. Not to mention the fact that is sounds like Jewish advice more than anything, if you even want to call it advice. He is so unpredictably bizarre. Imagine what would come of this man's mouth after several lines of coke. Actually, let's not. :eek:

[Sola_Fide]

"We owe the people of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, we owe our support and our allegiance. Not blind allegiance – and I’m not talking about putting troops down on the ground. We have to be not only on their side, but God’s side...”

Do you see the error here? Paul says in the books of Romans and Galatians that God's people are NOT His people by blood, but they are His people by FAITH. God has always had a remnant whom He has granted the gift of faith.

It is the chosen ones who have been given the gift of faith, it is the ones who believe--the ones out of every tribe toungue and nation--who are on "God's side".

[AuH20]

Does the Bible say nuke the world for Israel?

Also Israel is only mentioned once in the bible.

I'm pretty sure he's referring to the Tribe of Judah & it's descendants. That's the connection he's making.

[enhanced_deficit]

He's a dude of the dudes ranch's dudes, no doubt bout it.



Beck, who headlined the CUFI event in 2011, said it was a “miracle” that Hagee persuaded him to return to Washington, a city he said he likes even less than Las Vegas. “At least in Vegas they admit they’re all hookers and crooks,” he said.

Among other props, Beck brought with him a handmade whip he said was from Auschwitz. Verging on tears, he said it was made from “the handle of a broom or a shovel.”

Also on display: What Beck claimed was the napkin that was next to Hitler when he survived an assassination attempt. And a yellow star.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?423449-Palestinian-Christian-leader-in-Canada-Shoot-Israeli-Jews-if-they-don%E2%80%99t-leave-Jerusalem&p=5160060&viewfull=1#post5160060

[JK/SEA]

Glenn Beck is mentioned in the Bible.........somewhere......let me go find it.

[enhanced_deficit]

Glenn Beck is mentioned in the Bible.........somewhere......let me go find it.

he is cited, his tears flood was reused by god for noah's flood.

[paulbot24]

Glenn Beck is mentioned in the Bible.........somewhere......let me go find it.

Maybe this one?

Matthew 7:15 Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes, nor figs from thistles, are they? Even so, every good tree bears good fruit; but the bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. So then, you will know them by their fruits.

[JK/SEA]

Maybe this one?

Matthew 7:15 Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes, nor figs from thistles, are they? Even so, every good tree bears good fruit; but the bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. So then, you will know them by their fruits.


yeah, thats one...

[otherone]

Do you see the error here? Paul says in the books of Romans and Galatians that God's people are NOT His people by blood, but they are His people by FAITH.

Oh right...yes..."Paul"...Saul of Tarsus....as foretold in the old testament book, "Who the fuck is this guy".

[JCDenton0451]

Glenn Beck explains the real reason why you should care about the middle-east - The Bible

Oh, crap. Can't argue with that.

[Sola_Fide]

Oh right...yes..."Paul"...Saul of Tarsus....as foretold in the old testament book, "Who the fuck is this guy".

What do you mean by that?

[bunklocoempire]

Lotsa law, fear, and false pride but no Jesus, courage, and love.

No mention of Jesus that I heard anyway -I watched way too much of that crap. *barf*

I was curious if JC would get a shout out. Does GB ever mention Jesus? Anyone who touts law and fear over (or even in the same breath of) the greatest commandment and courage is either a fool or evil or both - and certainly no friend to liberty.:mad:

[fr33]

What a fool. We don't owe "the Jews" for God's laws, they come from God, not Jews. The Jews twisted and rejected God's revelation. Jews are the enemies of God, they do not worship the God of the Scriptures.

As a rule, no should listen to Glenn Beck for any knowledge about Christianity. He is a Mormon cultist. He does not know or understand the Bible.

Yet most self-proclaimed Christians that I meet and know pretty much agree with Beck. They'll even use his same type of rhetoric. "We're required to by the Bible." and all that jazz. Sola_Fide where are all the Christian preachers like you? I just haven't met any of them.

[seyferjm]

I can't stand that pseudo-Christian Zio-nuttery he spews

[JCDenton0451]

Yet most self-proclaimed Christians that I meet and know pretty much agree with Beck. They'll even use his same type of rhetoric. "We're required to by the Bible." and all that jazz. Sola_Fide where are all the Christian preachers like you? I just haven't met any of them.

Christians around the world aren't too fond of the Jewish state. Frankly, this Israel worship is uniquely American thing. Makes you wonder if the Lobby was somehow involved.

[erowe1]

Does what he's saying here agree with Mormonism?

[AuH20]

Does what he's saying here agree with Mormonism?

Yes. Joseph Smith, one of the founders of Mormonism, believed the restoration of Israel would herald the Second Coming.

[seyferjm]

Don't some Mormons views themselves as part of the Lost Tribe or something like that? I really don't much of anything about Mormonism.

[AuH20]

Don't some Mormons views themselves as part of the Lost Tribe or something like that? I really don't much of anything about Mormonism.

Yes, kind of....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormon_view_of_the_House_of_Joseph


The House of Joseph (sometimes referred to as the Tribe of Joseph) were the Old Testament tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh. Both of these tribes were descendants of Joseph's two sons, Ephraim and Manasseh, who are both first mentioned in Genesis 41:50-52. In Genesis Ephraim and Manasseh are taken to see a dying Jacob, who blesses Ephraim (the younger son) with his right hand and Manasseh with his left hand (see Genesis 45:14-19 KJV).

The house of Joseph is mentioned in the Bible several times, notably in Numbers 13:11; Deuteronomy 27:12; Judges 1:22-35; and Ezekiel 47:13. There is also an allusion to the house of Joseph in Psalms 80:1.

Both the Samaritan sect and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) claim Joseph as one of their ancient tribal patriarchs. In Latter Day Saint interfaith relations with Jews, the LDS Church sometimes calls its people "Joseph", whilst calling the Jews "Judah", emphasizing beliefs of close kinship and mutual sacred covenant. Latter Day Saints do not believe themselves to be exclusively descended from these specific tribes, but in their use of names they associate themselves most closely with specific dominant tribes. No denomination of Judaism affirms the Samaritan or LDS beliefs, nor similar beliefs adhered to by anyone else.

[erowe1]

Yes. Joseph Smith, one of the founders of Mormonism, believed the restoration of Israel would herald the Second Coming.

Source?

ETA: Also, it needs to be more than that. If the identity of those tribes = Mormons, then how do the present-day non-Mormon Israelites even fit into that?

[fr33]

Christians around the world aren't too fond of the Jewish state. Frankly, this Israel worship is uniquely American thing. Makes you wonder if the Lobby was somehow involved.

I think this particular indoctrination for Israel is mostly through the mainstream media. All of their lives the situations around Israel have been phrased in a way that make them feel guilty and obligated. It's odd though because it's often a real knee-jerk reaction they have for defending Israel and starting wars for them. And it isn't just one sect of Christians, it's all of them in my experiences.

[erowe1]

Here's an interesting article about Mormon views on the regathering of Israel.

http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Israel#Israel:_Gathering_of_Israel

Mormons see themselves as the 10 tribes. But they see modern day Jews as the tribe of Judah, which will first be regathered to its land in unbelief. So Beck's reference to Judah in that quote (which initially struck me as really awkward), was a definite nod to his Mormon understanding of this.

[AuH20]

Source?

ETA: Also, it needs to be more than that. If the identity of those tribes = Mormons, then how do the present-day non-Mormon Israelites even fit into that?

Read about Orson Hyde's mission to the Holy Land:

http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?locale=0&sourceId=1deff48fa2d20110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&vgnextoid=198bf4b13819d110VgnVCM1000003a94610aRCRD


The Prophet Joseph Smith knew that the Holy Land, where Jesus lived when He was on earth, is where the Jewish people would gather in the last days and where a temple would be built. Joseph asked Orson Hyde, one of the Twelve Apostles, to go to the Holy Land. Elder Hyde traveled for over 18 months and thousands of miles to get to Jerusalem. He said a special prayer asking the Lord to bless the land for the gathering of the Jews. He said that God had given this land to Abraham and his children, and he prayed that the land would be fruitful and that a temple would be built. After much time and hardship, Elder Hyde had finally fulfilled his important mission.

[paulbot24]

“The people of Jerusalem – we owe our existence in many ways. We owe our laws to them…"

America owes its existence and its laws to biblical Judah? So was America returning the favor when our leaders created the nation of Israel and removed "the people of Jerusalem" that happened to be living there at the time? They should have been reading the Bible so they would have known that just because they lived in Jerusalem, didn't mean they were OF Jerusalem. :rolleyes: How do we owe our laws to them? Last I checked, eye for an eye city of refuge Judaic justice is very unpopular here in America, but it is popular in some countries.....countries that Glenn Beck probably blames most of America's problems on. Whatever Glenn.

[thoughtomator]

So in other words, when Glenn Beck reveals the core of his true philosophy, there's nothing but theocracy inside.

[AuH20]

The Great Seal holds numerous references to the 13 tribes of Israel, but I'm not too certain if this is a positive prophecy or a negative one.

[Ender]

Here's an interesting article about Mormon views on the regathering of Israel.

http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Israel#Israel:_Gathering_of_Israel

Mormons see themselves as the 10 tribes. But they see modern day Jews as the tribe of Judah, which will first be regathered to its land in unbelief. So Beck's reference to Judah in that quote (which initially struck me as really awkward), was a definite nod to his Mormon understanding of this.

Mormons see themselves as PART of the lost tribes- but they also anticipate the gathering of many good people, non-Mormons as well, as part of the gathering of the lost tribes in the latter days. They do NOT worship Israel but believe that prophets will be eventually be sent to Israel and will be killed, only to rise from the dead and proclaim Christ.

Beck is a State worshiper- I do not see him as a true Mormon.

[Omphfullas Zamboni]

Does anyone know of additional BYU or LDS.org articles that describe the relationship between the Church of Jesus Christ of latter-day Saints and modern Israel? Mr. Beck would not be my go-to source.

As a side note, are there any other LDS people hanging about Liberty Forest? There used to be a few.

[paulbot24]

Mormons see themselves as PART of the lost tribes- but they also anticipate the gathering of many good people, non-Mormons as well, as part of the gathering of the lost tribes in the latter days. They do NOT worship Israel but believe that prophets will be eventually be sent to Israel and will be killed, only to rise from the dead and proclaim Christ.

Beck is a State worshiper- I do not see him as a true Mormon.

Are the Jews aware of this?:rolleyes: Actually, I do have a serious question. Most of the evangelicals I've met believe that the restoration of Israel must be accomplished at some point before Jesus returns. The details vary occasionally, but the gist of it is that Israel will be the place to be during the last days, where people are gathering together awaiting the coming of Christ. Some say believers in Christ will be drawn to Israel and find themselves surrounded by enemies who seek to kill them but are thwarted when Jesus returns and saves them. Many others preach similarly except they say that many will be killed when they arrive, in fact all would be killed, if not for Jesus' return. They all agree that His land is in fact where Israel is, and HIS people are believers in Christ when they talk about this. Yet this is the most confusing part to me because the emphasis is always on literal Israel. Before the second coming of Christ, the thing they look forward to the most, all of these things need to happen for Israel, to restore Israel to its glory, in fact the entire thing will be taking place in Israel. My question is this. Where do the Jews fit into this since they live on His land and they are certainly not believers in Christ, much less awaiting his return? Will they be saved as well when this happens?

[muh_roads]

Did Glenn Beck say that?

To protect Israel, the Neocons would eventually say this if it came down to it. To say otherwise means you don't pay attention to the Israeli cock-sucking that happens on a daily basis.

What makes one human being more important than another? Because old manuscripts where authenticity can't be proven said so?

The Bible is a form of control. But people can put faith in what they wish. The only thing wrong with Christianity is the Christians.

[kcchiefs6465]

Will they be saved as well when this happens?
From what I've heard people feel that Jews must accept Christ to be saved.

They feel this will happen when He returns and that the Jews will be received.

That's the understanding I have of their beliefs, anyways. That Jews will accept Christ when He returns and that they'll be accepted into Heaven. Short of acceptance of Christ they'll be condemned to Hell.

[eduardo89]

What a fool. We don't owe "the Jews" for God's laws, they come from God, not Jews. The Jews twisted and rejected God's revelation. Jews are the enemies of God, they do not worship the God of the Scriptures.

As a rule, no should listen to Glenn Beck for any knowledge about Christianity. He is a Mormon cultist. He does not know or understand the Bible.

I hate agreeing with you.

[paulbot24]

From what I've heard people feel that Jews must accept Christ to be saved.

They feel this will happen when He returns and that the Jews will be received.

That's the understanding I have of their beliefs, anyways. That Jews will accept Christ when He returns and that they'll be accepted into Heaven. Short of acceptance of Christ they'll be condemned to Hell.

Can't the same be said for all? If that is true, then why the overwhelming emphasis on the literal place on earth we now call Israel and the importance of it being re-established and restored to glory? The prophecy is about Christ, according to the evangelicals, so why would it hinge on whether a mostly non-Christian country is restored to glory and gathered in Jerusalem? I hope I'm not offending anyone and I don't want to start a Bible war but the emphasis on literal Israel seems to be strange when talking about a prophecy regarding Jesus.

[kcchiefs6465]

Can't the same be said for all? If that is true, then why the overwhelming emphasis on the literal place on earth we now call Israel and the importance of it being re-established and restored to glory? The prophecy is about Christ, according to the evangelicals, so why would it hinge on whether a mostly non-Christian country is restored to glory and gathered in Jerusalem? I hope I'm not offending anyone and I don't want to start a Bible war but the emphasis on literal Israel seems to be strange when talking about a prophecy regarding Jesus.
I have no idea. It's why some of the religious debating seems sort of absurd or unneeded. Everyone believes with all of their heart and soul that their understanding of the world is correct while it is not provable. I think it divides more than it should and that people in general should take a more humbled approach to their faith. I know many good people who are Christians and I've met a few people that use the Bible as their personal cover for their actions. One of my pet peeves. Aside from that I usually just stay out of the discussion. I'm not a theologian and don't really have any opinions aside from that I generally find the pissing contests of whose God is God to be pointless.

No worries on offending someone. I usually am the one to do so. (unintentionally, mostly) Some of the "Holier than Thou's" really irk me.

[oyarde]

I am a little confused here , the tribes stretched from just Northeast of Tyre to the bottom of the Dead Sea . Asher , Dan , Naphtali , Gad , Ephraim , Manasseh, Rueben , Simeon , Judah , Issacher , Zebulun , Benjamin..... now how many of these peoples are in existance ?

[oyarde]

I am just guessing that the tribes were probably formed , situated around about the time of the end of the period of Judges.

[paulbot24]

I have no idea. It's why some of the religious debating seems sort of absurd or unneeded. Everyone believes with all of their heart and soul that their understanding of the world is correct while it is not provable. I think it divides more than it should and that people in general should take a more humbled approach to their faith. I know many good people who are Christians and I've met a few people that use the Bible as their personal cover for their actions. One of my pet peeves. Aside from that I usually just stay out of the discussion. I'm not a theologian and don't really have any opinions aside from that I generally find the pissing contests of whose God is God to be pointless.


No worries on offending someone. I usually am the one to do so. (unintentionally, mostly) Some of the "Holier than Thou's" really irk me.

Word.:cool:

[COpatriot]

So he says you should care about the middle east because of a book from a religion he isn't a member of? Wow. That is fucking brilliant, Beck.

It just amazes me how easily the rapture freaks are exploited by clowns like this. Did they really get that bored when they stopped making the "Left Behind" books?

[Sola_Fide]

I have no idea. It's why some of the religious debating seems sort of absurd or unneeded. Everyone believes with all of their heart and soul that their understanding of the world is correct while it is not provable.

Yes, atheists do the exact same and it is not provable. Axioms must be taken as true in order to reason. We all have them. That is why we cringe when we hear these atheist morons say "I have facts and you have faith". Just totally cringeworthy. And they say it with a straight face and think they really scored one.

[otherone]

Aggressor states often claim divine authority when they compel their people to slaughter their neighbors. Does anyone remember Son of Sam? It's like that, but on a grander scale.

[BlackTerrel]

“The people of Jerusalem – we owe our existence in many ways. We owe our laws to them…We owe the people of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, we owe our support and our allegiance. Not blind allegiance – and I’m not talking about putting troops down on the ground. We have to be not only on their side, but God’s side...”

Beck specifically states that he doesn't want blind allegiance and that he doesn't support troops on the ground. More of a moral "we stand with you" sort of thing. He likes Jews and he likes Israel.

Is that extreme?

He's basically the opposite of a number of posters here.


What a fool. We don't owe "the Jews" for God's laws, they come from God, not Jews. The Jews twisted and rejected God's revelation. Jews are the enemies of God, they do not worship the God of the Scriptures.

And a few posters agreed with this one. Jews are enemies of God.

This is better?

[BlackTerrel]

I think this particular indoctrination for Israel is mostly through the mainstream media. All of their lives the situations around Israel have been phrased in a way that make them feel guilty and obligated. It's odd though because it's often a real knee-jerk reaction they have for defending Israel and starting wars for them. And it isn't just one sect of Christians, it's all of them in my experiences.

Really? What media do you watch?

Most media mocks evangelical types. Can you show me some MSM links that support this type of Beck theology? I think it's the opposite.

[Sola_Fide]

And a few posters agreed with this one. Jews are enemies of God.

This is better?

What is wrong about that? Men who are not reconciled to God through the sacrifice of Jesus are at enmity with God. They are enemies. They are at war with Him. Jews are not reconciled to God through Jesus, therefore they are enemies.

There is no race of people who have a special relationship to God. Time and time again the Bible makes clear that the real sons of Abraham are sons by faith, not blood.

[BlackTerrel]

What is wrong about that? Men who are not reconciled to God through the sacrifice of Jesus are at enmity with God. They are enemies. They are at war with Him. Jews are not reconciled to God through Jesus, therefore they are enemies.

There is no race of people who have a special relationship to God. Time and time again the Bible makes clear that the real sons of Abraham are sons by faith, not blood.

So Muslims are enemies of God too?

Because I feel if you had said that it would have been before post 49 that someone had an issue with it.

I also think if Glenn Beck had said "Muslims are enemies of God" that wouldn't have gone over well either.

You're free to believe what you want. You might not consider me Christian based on my beliefs. That's cool as long as you believe what you want and let me believe what I want.

Same goes for Beck. I'm not even close to agreeing with Mormon theology.

[Sola_Fide]

So Muslims are enemies of God too?

Yes. Muslims reject that the Son is God, just like the Jews do. They do not worship the God of the Bible.




Because I feel if you had said that it would have been before post 49 that someone had an issue with it.

I also think if Glenn Beck had said "Muslims are enemies of God" that wouldn't have gone over well either.

I don't care what people think of what I say. I speak the truth of God's Word (as imperfectly as I do it)...this is what every Christian is commanded to do.




You're free to believe what you want. You might not consider me Christian based on my beliefs. That's cool as long as you believe what you want and let me believe what I want.

Same goes for Beck. I'm not even close to agreeing with Mormon theology.

I don't know why you would consider yourself a Christian if you believe Muslims and Jews who reject the Son would not be God's enemies. Maybe you think God doesn't have enemies. Maybe you think God doesn't have wrath. In that case, you don't know the God of the Scriptures either.

[Superfly]

Theology like this is a result of a fundamental understanding of just how much Jesus changed....well.....everything. After Jesus, there was no more 'Chose People', there were followers of Christ and deniers of Christ.

Besides that, some of these Armageddon folks seem to think they can control when Christ will return and the world will end. This despite the fact it is specifically stated that man cannot and shall not 'know the day nor the hour'.

It's ignorant and arrogant and has nothing to do with the actual fundamental beliefs that are supposed to be the foundation of Christianity.

Don't even get me started on Revelation probably being an account on the Roman sacking of Israel and NOT a literal tale of the end of the world...

[Antischism]

http://quantumenergyprocess.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/religion-war-cartoon-02.jpg

[AuH20]

The lost tribe of Dan allegedly spurned their covenant with God and took up company with the serpent.

Genesis 49:17

DAN shall judge his people, as one of the tribes of Israel. Dan shall be a serpent by the way, an adder in the path, that biteth the horse heels, so that his rider shall fall backward.

Now the descendants of Dan are certainly a controversial topic.

[erowe1]

Mormons see themselves as PART of the lost tribes- but they also anticipate the gathering of many good people, non-Mormons as well, as part of the gathering of the lost tribes in the latter days. They do NOT worship Israel but believe that prophets will be eventually be sent to Israel and will be killed, only to rise from the dead and proclaim Christ.

Beck is a State worshiper- I do not see him as a true Mormon.

Is there an official Mormon view on where the present-day nation-state of Israel fits into that?

[thoughtomator]

Someone wake me when Sola Fide realizes that 99% of us regard his absolutist theology with the same horror we view any other absolutist theology.

[erowe1]

Someone wake me when Sola Fide realizes that 99% of us regard his absolutist theology with the same horror we view any other absolutist theology.

100% of us have absolutist theology, including you.

[thoughtomator]

100% of us have absolutist theology, including you.

That might be technically true, but only in the most abstract sense, and definitely not when it comes to politics. When someone's political position comes down to "because the Bible said so", there is no rational discussion to be had with them, it simply cannot be done, because they have voluntarily surrendered reason.

[AuH20]

That might be technically true, but only in the most abstract sense, and definitely not when it comes to politics. When someone's political position comes down to "because the Bible said so", there is no rational discussion to be had with them, it simply cannot be done, because they have voluntarily surrendered reason.

I wouldn't go that far. The Bible is a very mysterious book that defies normal human comprehension and I'm speaking as a Deist. It's not hokum, but some sects narrowily emphasize certain parts of the bible as opposed to the entire collective, as in BOTH books, Old and New Testament.

[pcosmar]

Glenn Beck is mentioned in the Bible.........somewhere......let me go find it.

I think it is under false teachers.



1 John 4:1 - Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.



2 Peter 2:1 - But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.



2 Corinthians 11:13-15
13 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.
14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.
15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.

[JCDenton0451]

Someone wake me when Sola Fide realizes that 99% of us regard his absolutist theology with the same horror we view any other absolutist theology.

I would take his theology over Glenn Beck theology. lol

The way I see it, religion can be a powerful tool for social control. In America it means that millions of Christians are being indoctrinated to serve and worship a foreign nation. Sola Fide is not among these sheep, so that encouraging.

[AuH20]

There is a distinct different between Hagee's perspective on Israel and Beck's. Beck desires spritual support, in the form of prayer for Israel, while Hagee goes much much farther than that, based on the interview I saw.

[erowe1]

There is a distinct different between Hagee's perspective on Israel and Beck's. Beck desires spritual support, in the form of prayer for Israel, while Hagee goes much much farther than that, based on the interview I saw.

Beck goes much further than that too.

[Brian4Liberty]

Pastor Beck seems to think that the "Bible" consists of the Old Testament and the books of Revelation and Mormon. Hate to break it to him, but many Christians reject Revelation and Mormon. Even the Catholic Church nearly threw out Revelation.

But this is why the discussion of religion has no place in politics. It can be dissected to such a point that everyone will have a disagreement on some issue. The United States consists of many different Christian denominations, and many other religions entirely. Liberty dictates that one person's religious opinion should not be forced upon others.

[Sola_Fide]

That might be technically true, but only in the most abstract sense, and definitely not when it comes to politics. When someone's political position comes down to "because the Bible said so", there is no rational discussion to be had with them, it simply cannot be done, because they have voluntarily surrendered reason.

I "surrendered reason"? No, everyone reasons. Reasoning is simply making deductions from your axioms. What I haven't done is DEIFIED my reason like you have. I haven't made my naturalistic reasoning my absolute theology like you have.

[Sola_Fide]

From what I've heard people feel that Jews must accept Christ to be saved.

They feel this will happen when He returns and that the Jews will be received.

That's the understanding I have of their beliefs, anyways. That Jews will accept Christ when He returns and that they'll be accepted into Heaven. Short of acceptance of Christ they'll be condemned to Hell.

Yes, and that is a common misreading of Romans 11.

[pcosmar]

From what I've heard people feel that Jews must accept Christ to be saved.

They feel this will happen when He returns and that the Jews will be received.

That's the understanding I have of their beliefs, anyways. That Jews will accept Christ when He returns and that they'll be accepted into Heaven. Short of acceptance of Christ they'll be condemned to Hell.

I believe that there will be a remnant (small percentage) that will be saved.
Christs return is not to save any,, but to deal justice. His return to Jerusalem will be in War and he will be removing the evil that resides there.

He is returning with a Sword.
The first time he came it was as the Lamb,, His return will be as the Lion.
He is not coming to save Jerusalem,, he is coming to cleanse it.

[AuH20]

I believe that there will be a remnant (small percentage) that will be saved.
Christs return is not to save any,, but to deal justice. His return to Jerusalem will be in War and he will be removing the evil that resides there.

He is returning with a Sword.The first time he came it was as the Lamb,, His return will be as the Lion.
He is not coming to save Jerusalem,, he is coming to cleanse it.

To repel the antichirst and his dark followers, likely that of Merovingian blood.

[pcosmar]

To repel the antichirst and his dark followers, likely that of Merovingian blood.

Lucifer's followers are many,, though I do think it seems to be common to various Royal Bloodlines
Perhaps simply the goals shared by Elitists.

[eduardo89]

What is wrong about that? Men who are not reconciled to God through the sacrifice of Jesus are at enmity with God. They are enemies. They are at war with Him. Jews are not reconciled to God through Jesus, therefore they are enemies.

There is no race of people who have a special relationship to God. Time and time again the Bible makes clear that the real sons of Abraham are sons by faith, not blood.

As much as it pains me to admit, I'm in agreement with you yet again.

[erowe1]

That might be technically true, but only in the most abstract sense, and definitely not when it comes to politics. When someone's political position comes down to "because the Bible said so", there is no rational discussion to be had with them, it simply cannot be done, because they have voluntarily surrendered reason.

But isn't it possible that they're right, and that the reason they're right is because the Bible said so?

If you say no, then you have voluntarily surrendered reason.

[eduardo89]

Pastor Beck seems to think that the "Bible" consists of the Old Testament and the books of Revelation and Mormon. Hate to break it to him, but many Christians reject Revelation and Mormon. Even the Catholic Church nearly threw out Revelation.

Every Christian rejects the Book of Mormon which was written around 1830 by fraud Joseph Smith.

The Catholic Church fully recognizes the Book of Revelation as Scripture and has since the Canon was set at the Council of Carthage in 397 AD.

It was Luther who considered it to be "neither apostolic nor prophetic" and stated that "Christ is neither taught nor known in it," and placed it in his Antilegomena (his list of questionable documents), though he retracted this view in later life.

[erowe1]

The Catholic Church fully recognizes the Book of Revelation as Scripture and has since the Canon was set at the Council of Carthage in 397 AD.


The Council of Carthage wasn't an ecumenical council.

Besides, Christians have recognized Revelation as scripture ever since the day it was written. It's not like it was just another book until one day some council made it become inspired by God.

[eduardo89]

The Council of Carthage wasn't an ecumenical council.

Besides, Christians have recognized Revelation as scripture ever since the day it was written. It's not like it was just another book until one day some council made it become inspired by God.

I agree, but there were many in early Christianity who either did not accept or questioned Revelation being Divine Revelation, especially in the Eastern Church. For example, St. Gregory of Nazianzus argued against including it in the canon, and he is one of the most important saints and theologians of the early Church, especially to Eastern Christians. To this day it is not used in the liturgy of the Eastern Orthodox Church.

I never said the council made any book become inspired by God, but it is the earliest record of an authoritative canon being set.

[compromise]

I find this fact interesting as well. I'm not interested in getting into a theological throwdown about Mormonism, but it is interesting that most Christian denominations don't regard the Mormon church as being Christian so they wouldn't take his "Christian" advice. Not to mention the fact that is sounds like Jewish advice more than anything, if you even want to call it advice. He is so unpredictably bizarre. Imagine what would come of this man's mouth after several lines of coke. Actually, let's not. :eek:

Most Christian denominations in the US do regard the Mormon church as being Christian. Sola Fide probably goes to a "patriot" church with views that are out of the mainstream.

[erowe1]

I agree, but there were many in early Christianity who either did not accept or questioned Revelation being Divine Revelation, especially in the Eastern Church. For example, St. Gregory of Nazianzus argued against including it in the canon, and he is one of the most important saints and theologians of the early Church, especially to Eastern Christians. To this day it is not used in the liturgy of the Eastern Orthodox Church.

And it never stopped being questioned. It's still questioned today. There's not some watershed moment in Christian history where, before that moment there was no final list of inspired books, but after that moment there was (at least not until the Council of Trent for Roman Catholics).



I never said the council made any book become inspired by God, but it is the earliest record of an authoritative canon being set.

There are other earlier records than that. They were authoritative for those who respected them as such, just like the Council of Carthage was.

Incidentally, Pope Gregory the Great still accepted the Epistle to the Laodiceans as part of the canon long after the Council of Carthage.

[erowe1]

Most Christian denominations in the US do regard the Mormon church as being Christian.

I'm pretty sure this is completely false.

[eduardo89]

And it never stopped being questioned. It's still questioned today. There's not some watershed moment in Christian history where, before that moment there was no final list of inspired books, but after that moment there was (at least not until the Council of Trent for Roman Catholics).

I never claimed it was some watershed moment, but it is the earliest record of the 27 book NT canon being authoritatively defined by a Church council.

The Council of Trent never modified it (the NT canon), but it did finally establish the OT canon and dogmatically defined it the authoritative canon of the Church.


There are other earlier records than that. They were authoritative for those who respected them as such, just like the Council of Carthage was.

Carthage is the earliest surviving record of a Biblical canon being set.


Incidentally, Pope Gregory the Great still accepted the Epistle to the Laodiceans as part of the canon long after the Council of Carthage.

That letter was commonly included in most early western Bibles, but it does not include any new doctrine or teachings not found in the rest of the NT. John Wycliffe's Bible translation also included it.

[eduardo89]

Most Christian denominations in the US do regard the Mormon church as being Christian. Sola Fide probably goes to a "patriot" church with views that are out of the mainstream.

The vast majority of Christians reject Mormonism as being Christian.

The Catholic Church, the single largest Christian denomination in the US rejects Mormonism as Christian and requires Mormon converts to be baptized as the Mormon baptism is not considered valid (virtually every Protestant baptism is recognized as valid by the Church).

Orthodox Churches also do not recognize the Mormon religion as Christian and requires converts to be baptized. Same with the Presbyterian Church USA, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the United Methodist Church, the Episcopal Church and virtually every other major Protestant religious community.

[Sola_Fide]

Every Christian rejects the Book of Mormon which was written around 1830 by fraud Joseph Smith.

The Catholic Church fully recognizes the Book of Revelation as Scripture and has since the Canon was set at the Council of Carthage in 397 AD.

It was Luther who considered it to be "neither apostolic nor prophetic" and stated that "Christ is neither taught nor known in it," and placed it in his Antilegomena (his list of questionable documents), though he retracted this view in later life.

Since Martin Luther was not infallible, you would expect him to say wrong things. Also, here again we have the Roman Catholic lie that the church created the canon. The church did not create the canon, the church discovered the canon. Also, Rome is not the church. It has murdered and oppressed the true saints of God since the beginning.

[pcosmar]

The vast majority of Christians reject Mormonism as being Christian.


The vast majority reject every other denomination but their own..

I reject them all.. ( I was raised Roman Catholic,, ordained as a Baptist)
I believe there are Christians in all of these sects.. and there are pieces of truth to be found ,, along with all the unsound doctrine.

[Brian4Liberty]

Well, thanks everyone for making my point. ;)

[eduardo89]

The vast majority reject every other denomination but their own..

That's not true. The vast majority of Christians accept other self-proclaimed Christian sects as Christian.

For example, the Catholic Church accepts as valid the Trinitarian baptism of almost every single Protestant religious community. We also accept the Orthodox Churches as true (but schismatic) Churches with valid Sacraments and Priesthood.

Mormonism, however, is not Christian. It is another religion altogether.

[erowe1]

The Council of Trent never modified it (the NT canon), but it did finally establish the OT canon and dogmatically defined it the authoritative canon of the Church.
It didn't modify it because there was nothing to modify. Prior to that moment, the Roman Catholic Church did not have any official version of the canon.



Carthage is the earliest surviving record of a Biblical canon being set.

No it isn't. There are plenty of earlier examples.



That letter was commonly included in most early western Bibles, but it does not include any new doctrine or teachings not found in the rest of the NT. John Wycliffe's Bible translation also included it.

This situation could not have obtained had there ever been some council that had authoritatively established the canon for the whole church prior to that.

[eduardo89]

No it isn't. There are plenty of earlier examples.

Which one? From everything I've read the Council of Carthage is the earliest surviving example. The Synod of Hippo Regius is thought to have established a list of the canon but no records survive.

[erowe1]

Which one? From everything I've read the Council of Carthage is the earliest surviving example. The Synod of Hippo Regius is thought to have established a list of the canon but no records survive.

The Muratorian canon is from the 2nd century. It just doesn't list the same 27 books (though it's pretty close). Marcion's canon was earlier than that. Personally, I think that pretty much all educated Christian leaders had a list of books they trusted or didn't trust going all the way back to the apostles. Carthage is just one link in that continuous chain from then until now.

Athanasius's Easter letter lists the same 27 books decades before Carthage. He was speaking just as authoritatively over those under his local purview as the bishops who were at that local council were. Or is there some reason that a local council is different than a single bishop?

[Brian4Liberty]

I always find ancient historical discussions to be somewhat humorous. Dates, times, origins, and opinions are subject to change by those who write the histories.

I can see a discussion 200 years from now: "I went to Holopedia, and talked to Thomas Jefferson, one of the founders of the American Empire. He told me that some people, even himself, originally thought that individuals had a right to bear arms. But he also admitted that he changed his mind in his old age, after weapons technology had changed."

[undergroundrr]

The declaration that outlines the Latter-Day Saints attitude toward government is Doctrine and Covenant Section 134.

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/134?lang=eng

It's a short informative read. Verse 9 says the following:

"9 We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government, whereby one religious society is fostered and another proscribed in its spiritual privileges, and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied."

And then in Alma 30 -

7 Now there was no law against a man’s belief; for it was strictly contrary to the commands of God that there should be a law which should bring men on to unequal grounds.
8 For thus saith the scripture: Choose ye this day, whom ye will serve.
9 Now if a man desired to serve God, it was his privilege; or rather, if he believed in God it was his privilege to serve him; but if he did not believe in him there was no law to punish him.
10 But if he murdered he was punished unto death; and if he robbed he was also punished; and if he stole he was also punished; and if he committed adultery he was also punished; yea, for all this wickedness they were punished.
11 For there was a law that men should be judged according to their crimes. Nevertheless, there was no law against a man’s belief; therefore, a man was punished only for the crimes which he had done; therefore all men were on equal grounds.

It's hard to reconcile this ideal with government atrocities of any kind.

[Omphfullas Zamboni]

The declaration that outlines the Latter-Day Saints attitude toward government is Doctrine and Covenant Section 134.

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/134?lang=eng

It's a short informative read. Verse 9 says the following:

"9 We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government, whereby one religious society is fostered and another proscribed in its spiritual privileges, and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied."

And then in Alma 30 -

7 Now there was no law against a man’s belief; for it was strictly contrary to the commands of God that there should be a law which should bring men on to unequal grounds.
8 For thus saith the scripture: Choose ye this day, whom ye will serve.
9 Now if a man desired to serve God, it was his privilege; or rather, if he believed in God it was his privilege to serve him; but if he did not believe in him there was no law to punish him.
10 But if he murdered he was punished unto death; and if he robbed he was also punished; and if he stole he was also punished; and if he committed adultery he was also punished; yea, for all this wickedness they were punished.
11 For there was a law that men should be judged according to their crimes. Nevertheless, there was no law against a man’s belief; therefore, a man was punished only for the crimes which he had done; therefore all men were on equal grounds.

It's hard to reconcile this ideal with government atrocities of any kind.

Thanks for the Scripture verses, undergroundrr.

[eduardo89]

The Muratorian canon is from the 2nd century. It just doesn't list the same 27 books (though it's pretty close).

The Muratorian fragment is from the 7th century and is incomplete and badly degraded. It's thought to be a transcription of a list form the 2nd-4th century, but does not include all 27 books of the NT. it is unknown who the author is and to whom he was writing. It also makes no mention of the OT canon.


Marcion's canon was earlier than that.

Marcion was a heretic who wrote his own version of the Gospel of Luke. He was denounced by the Church Fathers and excommunicated for his heresies. Anyway, his canon only included his version of the Gospel of Luke (the Gospel of Marcion) and 10 of Paul's Epistles.


Personally, I think that pretty much all educated Christian leaders had a list of books they trusted or didn't trust going all the way back to the apostles. Carthage is just one link in that continuous chain from then until now.

I agree with that. And I never claimed that Carthage wasn't just one link in a continuos chain, what I said is that it is the earliest record we have of a Church Council setting out a list of what was considered the authoritative canon.


Athanasius's Easter letter lists the same 27 books decades before Carthage. He was speaking just as authoritatively over those under his local purview as the bishops who were at that local council were. Or is there some reason that a local council is different than a single bishop?

Athanasius's letter had a different OT from that of Carthage. He included the Book of Baruch and the Letter of Jeremiah and excluded Esther. But yes, his 27 book NT was the same as that of Carthage's list.

A council is different from just a bishop in that their pronouncements are binding on all this bishops taking part. Obviously a group of bishops speaking together carries more weight than a single bishop. Councils were called to end disputes and call out heretical priests and bishops.

[Sola_Fide]

Thanks for the Scripture verses, undergroundrr.

Those aren't Scripture verses.

[thoughtomator]

I wouldn't go that far. The Bible is a very mysterious book that defies normal human comprehension and I'm speaking as a Deist. It's not hokum, but some sects narrowily emphasize certain parts of the bible as opposed to the entire collective, as in BOTH books, Old and New Testament.

I am very aware of the special nature of contents of the Bible itself, even divorced from religious doctrine or observance.

However, the number of human beings I trust to interpret it correctly is zero. The people who wear the Bible (or their religion) on their sleeve are the ones I mistrust to interpret and properly understand it the most. Has there been a more common sight in the past 2000 years in the Western world than someone using the Bible to justify unjust acts?

[Sola_Fide]

I am very aware of the special nature of contents of the Bible itself, even divorced from religious doctrine or observance.

However, the number of human beings I trust to interpret it correctly is zero. The people who wear the Bible (or their religion) on their sleeve are the ones I mistrust to interpret and properly understand it the most. Has there been a more common sight in the past 2000 years in the Western world than someone using the Bible to justify unjust acts?

Why is it the Bible's fault if evil men misinterpret it or use it to justify their own evil?

[fr33]

Why is it the Bible's fault if evil men misinterpret it or use it to justify their own evil?

It's not. It's the fault of those who wrote it and/or the being who's word it is supposed to be. According to you the majority of his creations are incapable of understanding his word and will suffer for it. For such a being to create such a sick game is disgusting. He could have told us all what he really meant. Language is easy to a god.

[thoughtomator]

Why is it the Bible's fault if evil men misinterpret it or use it to justify their own evil?

It's not. It's the fault of men like yourself who use the Bible to justify what you want.

[fr33]

Really? What media do you watch?

Most media mocks evangelical types. Can you show me some MSM links that support this type of Beck theology? I think it's the opposite.

Mocking evangelicals is one thing but they NEVER criticize Israel. The MSM never reports on the settlement expansions or other forms of aggression the Israelis use on their neighbors.

And like I said, it's not just evangelical christians that have this knee-jerk reaction of "supporting Israel". It's all of them (generally speaking of course).

I include people like Limbaugh and Hannity in the MSM since the demopublicans are the same party. My Catholic dad wasn't raised to worship Israel like he does. He picked it up from something in the media.

[eduardo89]

I include people like Limbaugh and Hannity in the MSM since the demopublicans are the same party. My Catholic dad wasn't raised to worship Israel like he does. He picked it up from something in the media.

Israel worship is not taught anywhere in Catholicism. The Holy See didn't even recognize Israel until 1993.

The Israel worship comes from the media and from Protestants.

[Sola_Fide]

It's not. It's the fault of men like yourself who use the Bible to justify what you want.

What am I justifying though? Freedom of cconscience, private property, sound money? Are those things threatening to you for some reason?

[Omphfullas Zamboni]

Those aren't Scripture verses.

When I go to Church, we use them.

[Sola_Fide]

When I go to Church, we use them.

Do you go to a Mormon church?

[BlackTerrel]

The vast majority of Christians reject Mormonism as being Christian.

According to a couple polls I found it's consistent that about 2/3 of Americans view Mormons as Christians.

[BlackTerrel]

Mocking evangelicals is one thing but they NEVER criticize Israel. The MSM never reports on the settlement expansions or other forms of aggression the Israelis use on their neighbors.

And like I said, it's not just evangelical christians that have this knee-jerk reaction of "supporting Israel". It's all of them (generally speaking of course).

As someone who never even thought of Israel before I started posting here I've seen plenty of links on this forum itself coming from MSM being quite critical of Israel. They probably don't appear that way to you because you're on one side of the issue. I'd guarantee you people on the other side think the media is anti-Israel.

How much does the MSM cover oppression of Christians in Iran? More or less than Israeli settlements?

[eduardo89]

According to a couple polls I found it's consistent that about 2/3 of Americans view Mormons as Christians.

Way less than 2/3rds according to this poll:

http://www.pewforum.org/files/2012/07/mormon-sec1-2.jpg

But that doesn't really mean much, since most likely most Americans polled know nothing about Mormonism. The fact is, though, that the vast majority of Christian denominations do not accept Mormonism as Christian. There is no large Christian denomination in the US that accepts Mormonism as Christian and does not require Mormon converts to be baptized.

[purplechoe]

So the Iranians are called religious fundamentalist fanatics who live in the stone age and are a threat to Israel but Glenn Beck and the Jews are... NOT? People need to look in the mirror sometimes...

[pcosmar]

Israel worship is not taught anywhere in Catholicism. The Holy See didn't even recognize Israel until 1993.

The Israel worship comes from the media and from Protestants.

It comes from Zionists. Not from scripture with an honest reading.
Protestants have been misled just as Catholics have.. It is Error and it is widespread.

[BlackTerrel]

Way less than 2/3rds according to this poll:

http://www.pewforum.org/files/2012/07/mormon-sec1-2.jpg

Different polls. Still the majority in your poll.


But that doesn't really mean much, since most likely most Americans polled know nothing about Mormonism. The fact is, though, that the vast majority of Christian denominations do not accept Mormonism as Christian. There is no large Christian denomination in the US that accepts Mormonism as Christian and does not require Mormon converts to be baptized.

A lot of denominations only believe their denomination are Christians. You're Catholic right? My mom's Church doesn't believe Catholics are Christian.

No real side in this either way - I'm far from Mormons theologically.

I will admit my experience with them as individuals has been better than most other groups. Very awesome, genuine, kind people. Work hard, love their families. A lot to admire.

[JCDenton0451]

So the Iranians are called religious fundamentalist fanatics who live in the stone age and are a threat to Israel but Glenn Beck and the Jews are... NOT? People need to look in the mirror sometimes...

Jewish Zionism is largely a secular ideology and movement. "Christian Zionists" on the other hand...

[BlackTerrel]

So the Iranians are called religious fundamentalist fanatics who live in the stone age and are a threat to Israel but Glenn Beck and the Jews are... NOT? People need to look in the mirror sometimes...

The Iranians sentence people to death for converting to Christianity - that's the law in Iran. Glenn Beck has a radio show and an internet TV show.

[BlackTerrel]

So the Iranians are called religious fundamentalist fanatics who live in the stone age and are a threat to Israel but Glenn Beck and the Jews are... NOT? People need to look in the mirror sometimes...

The Iranians sentence people to death for converting to Christianity - that's the law in Iran. Glenn Beck has a radio show and an internet TV show.

[JCDenton0451]

It comes from Zionists. Not from scripture with an honest reading.
Protestants have been misled just as Catholics have.. It is Error and it is widespread.

How did the Zionists do it? Does that mean Christians can be led to support anything?

[Theocrat]

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/08/07/glenn-beck-explains-the-real-reason-why-you-should-care-about-the-middle-east/

That is a major, recurring problem in many churches today, and I believe it is based on a faulty (and do I dare say racist) view of Biblical covenants mixed with poor eschatology. I disagree with Glenn Beck that our main focus (especially for Christians) should be towards Israel, the Middle Eastern country, for one simple reason: it is because the Bible teaches that the Church is the New Israel. For instance, we read in Galatians 3:26-29,


For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female, for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed and heirs according to the promise.

Only those who are in Jesus Christ are God's chosen people. More importantly, Jesus Himself is the true Israel (cf. Galatians 3:16-22 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians%203:16-22&version=KJV)), not a Middle Eastern nation with that name. Since the Church is Christ's Bride (cf. Ephesians 5:22-30 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians%205:22-30&version=KJV)) and are, therefore, united to Him by the Holy Spirit in faith and by baptism, the Church then is Israel (taking on Christ's name).

The truth of the matter is God is not concerned about one plot of land in the Middle East. God's plan is to spread His Gospel throughout the entire world. In John 3, Jesus tells the Pharisee, Nicodemus, that "God so loved the world (not just the land of Judaea) that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." God's salvation extends to the globe. The Middle East is but a small piece of the puzzle, and the Church needs to understand that. So does Glenn Beck.

[JCDenton0451]

The Iranians sentence people to death for converting to Christianity - that's the law in Iran. Glenn Beck has a radio show and an internet TV show.

It is their right.

[Sola_Fide]

Israel worship is not taught anywhere in Catholicism. The Holy See didn't even recognize Israel until 1993.

The Israel worship comes from the media and from Protestants.

If that was the case, why has the conservative movement in America (which has been dominated by Roman Catholicism for decades) been so accommodating to Zionism? Why is Fox News (which is Vatican central) completely Zionist? Why is Hannity, OReilly, Limbaugh, etc Roman Catholic shills for Israel?

[Sola_Fide]

According to a couple polls I found it's consistent that about 2/3 of Americans view Mormons as Christians.

Who cares what "the majority" thinks. The majority is always wrong. Mormons are polytheists. They believe that more than one god exists. This forever separates them from Christianity. Christianity is monotheistic only.

[JCDenton0451]

If that was the case, why has the conservative movement in America (which has been dominated by Roman Catholicism for decades) been so accommodating to Zionism? Why is Fox News (which is Vatican central) completely Zionist? Why is Hannity, OReilly, Limbaugh, etc Roman Catholic shills for Israel?

It is true that the Catholics are slightly less friendly to Israel. Fox News shouldn't confuse you. It's is a secular institution.

[pcosmar]

How did the Zionists do it? Does that mean Christians can be led to support anything?

Christ warned of false teachings,, as did the apostles later.
There have been a lot of false teachings over the years. this is just one of them.

[Brian4Liberty]

According to a couple polls I found it's consistent that about 2/3 of Americans view Mormons as Christians.

He said Christians (other than Mormon), not Americans.


Way less than 2/3rds according to this poll:

But that doesn't really mean much, since most likely most Americans polled know nothing about Mormonism. The fact is, though, that the vast majority of Christian denominations do not accept Mormonism as Christian. There is no large Christian denomination in the US that accepts Mormonism as Christian and does not require Mormon converts to be baptized.

Yeah, most other Christians don't consider Mormonism to be exactly "Christian".

Anyway, like I said, religion and politics should be two separate subjects, for obvious reasons.

[Sola_Fide]

It is true that the Catholics are slightly less friendly to Israel. Fox News shouldn't confuse you. It's is a secular institution.

No, no my friend. Educate yourself about the religious and political movements in this country:

Conservatism: An Autopsy
http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:ZOPqOrEyVYkJ:www.mmisi.org/ir/06_01_02/robbins.pdf+anatomy+of+fonservwtism+john+robbins&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESj-3q53GbGVWVeeaRhyCkk52SfO-NmiI_Blgf613vFZZ_I9j33gEo5tnZ0WenKbQ325WRjRoUflS_N 5exErd1iIDtIjsM7Aemscw8Ng2BOY1bTP8gaUEFzu2H8Trve_n TiVd9o0&sig=AHIEtbSAIXiVU4SI4Ck37Y5ywvD24bqzLw

[purplechoe]

Jewish Zionism is largely a secular ideology and movement. "Christian Zionists" on the other hand...

The only claim to the land the European Jews (Khazars) have to Palestine is in the Bible by faith. Since most of the ones that came to the land since 1948 don't have any claim by blood to the land that's the only claim they can make.

Don't even get me started on how absurd it becomes when someone says that they don't have any faith but are Jewish because their mother was. How can a person who has no faith in God (secular) be of European descent, claim to be a Jew and the land of Israel? And they call Iranians crazy religious fundamentalists...

[Sola_Fide]

It is true that the Catholics are slightly less friendly to Israel. Fox News shouldn't confuse you. It's is a secular institution.

Fox News has been a pro Judaism and pro Roman Catholic institution from its inception.

[Brian4Liberty]

If that was the case, why has the conservative movement in America (which has been dominated by Roman Catholicism for decades) been so accommodating to Zionism?

Scofield. The creation of the modern State of Israel. Hal Lindsey. Left Behind. Jerry Falwell. Bill Kristol. Pastor Hagee.


Why is Fox News (which is Vatican central) completely Zionist? Why is Hannity, OReilly, Limbaugh, etc Roman Catholic shills for Israel?

Follow the money.

[JCDenton0451]

Fox News has been a pro Judaism and pro Roman Catholic institution from its inception.

Fox News only serves the interests of Rupert Murdoch, who couldn't care less about Catholicism.

[paulbot24]

Imagine how convenient it would be for a country and its leaders if they were able to convince a large portion of the earth's population that in order for their eternal souls to be saved or for their savior to come or return so the whole world can go back to being bliss, that first, there's this country called (pick any country or invent one) that must be made prosperous and protected from all enemies or it won't happen. Just tell them it doesn't matter what they think of the fill-in-the-blank country or why, it has to be set up with the right details in place or none of these amazing things can happen. Period. I don't even want to think about how bad that country, along with all the others that agree to try to help would act or what they would do to make sure they were remembered and rewarded for being "on the right side of history" on that one. When the whole idea leads to massive corruption and tyranny, it doesn't make sense to blame the country, its people, or any of the rest of the people. Neither should it be a shock though.

[eduardo89]

A lot of denominations only believe their denomination are Christians. You're Catholic right? My mom's Church doesn't believe Catholics are Christian.

Catholics believe all those who have received a Trinitarian baptism and believe in Christ are Christians, however those who are not Catholic have put their salvation in extreme jeopardy.

[Christian Liberty]

Catholics believe all those who have received a Trinitarian baptism and believe in Christ are Christians, however those who are not Catholic have put their salvation in extreme jeopardy.

Can you expound on this?


Israel worship is not taught anywhere in Catholicism. The Holy See didn't even recognize Israel until 1993.

The Israel worship comes from the media and from Protestants.

Not all of us, though.


As someone who never even thought of Israel before I started posting here I've seen plenty of links on this forum itself coming from MSM being quite critical of Israel. They probably don't appear that way to you because you're on one side of the issue. I'd guarantee you people on the other side think the media is anti-Israel.

How much does the MSM cover oppression of Christians in Iran? More or less than Israeli settlements?

While I agree with you that it should be covered: Nobody believes that an attack on Iran is an attack on the United States, that an attack by Iran is an attack by the United States, that Iran is God's Chosen Nation, that the United States should give Iran billions of dollars in foreign aid, that God is going to bless those who bless the nation of Iran and curse those who curse the nation of Iran, that Iran is the only free democracy in the Middle East, exc.

I don't think anyone here is supporting sanctions or war against Israel.

I'd say that Iran is worse than Israel in the grand scheme of things, but the bottom line is this, America has a relationship of hatred and isolation from Iran, while having an unhealthily close relationship with Israel. If pointing out Israel's atrocities, minor though they may be in comparison to Iran's, is needed to get Christians to wake up... I'm OK with that.

All that said, I don't have a problem with Israel as such. I really don't care about them at all. I have a problem with the way the US treats Israel, not Israel itself.


Most Christian denominations in the US do regard the Mormon church as being Christian. Sola Fide probably goes to a "patriot" church with views that are out of the mainstream.

What's a Patriot church?

BTW: Although I generally leave who is or isn't a Christian to God, Mormons are pretty seriously out there and deny the gospel of Christ as well as the monotheistic viewpoint of Christianity and other things. I really don't believe the Mormons are Christian. That doesn't mean I say the Presbyterians, say, are not Christian.

[oyarde]

The lost tribe of Dan allegedly spurned their covenant with God and took up company with the serpent.

Genesis 49:17


Now the descendants of Dan are certainly a controversial topic.

Well , Samson was a Danite :), but yeah they were conquered by the Assyrians, I imagine the survivors eventually ended up in Kush. So , if you would like to make an educated guess that there are survivors, that would be Ethiopia, where the Ark of the Covenant would most likely be....

[Omphfullas Zamboni]

Do you go to a Mormon church?

Yes. I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of latter-day Saints. Of late, health issues have made my attendance less frequent than I would like. Every month, the Church leadership puts out a gospel message. The message for August 2013 is titled, "Recognize, Remember, and Give Thanks (https://www.lds.org/liahona/2013/08/recognize-remember-and-give-thanks?lang=eng)." It helped me remember, in my prayers, to express my gratitude for my Savior and some of the good stuff that's going on in my life.

[eduardo89]

Can you expound on this?

Because the Church recognizes that there is only one baptism it means that virtually every Protestant is in a similar situation to a Catholic who was baptized in the Church, but decided to leave the Church before receiving the Sacraments of Confirmation and Holy Eucharist. It means that almost all Protestants (Evangelicals, Baptists, Methodists, Lutherans, etc.) effectively have one foot in the door of the Catholic Church, by virtue of their Trinitarian baptism alone. Their communion with Rome does exist, by virtue of our common baptism, but that communion is imperfect and impaired.

[Christian Liberty]

Because the Church recognizes that there is only one baptism it means that virtually every Protestant is in a similar situation to a Catholic who was baptized in the Church, but decided to leave the Church before receiving the Sacraments of Confirmation and Holy Eucharist. It means that almost all Protestants (Evangelicals, Baptists, Methodists, Lutherans, etc.) effectively have one foot in the door of the Catholic Church, by virtue of their Trinitarian baptism alone. Their communion with Rome does exist, by virtue of our common baptism, but that communion is imperfect and impaired.

So why is our salvation "In serious jeopardy?" How exactly does that work?

I THINK I may know some of these answers, but I've been wrong before so I'll just ask.

[fr33]

If that was the case, why has the conservative movement in America (which has been dominated by Roman Catholicism for decades)
Nobody that is paying attention to reality will allow such a lie to be perpetrated. American Conservatism is based upon Protestant Evangelicalism. To understand American worship of Israel is to understand Evangelicalism. It is evangelicals who are raising the perfect red calf (http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j041502.html) to to be sacrificed. It is evangelicals hoping, praying, and VOTING for the end times to come.

[Christian Liberty]

Nobody that is paying attention to reality will allow such a lie to be perpetrated. American Conservatism is based upon Protestant Evangelicalism. To understand American worship of Israel is to understand Evangelicalism. It it evangelicals who are raising the perfect red calf (http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j041502.html) to to be sacrificed. It is evangelicals hoping, praying, and VOTING for the end times to come.

While there is some truth to this, you've go to remember that most of these people are pretribulational rapture and dispensational premillennialists. Most Amillennialists and historic premillennialists dont agree with them.

[eduardo89]

So why is our salvation "In serious jeopardy?" How exactly does that work?

I THINK I may know some of these answers, but I've been wrong before so I'll just ask.

Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus. Essentially meaning outside the Church there is no salvation.

Lumen Gentium states what that means as this:



Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P29.HTM

[Christian Liberty]

Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus. Essentially meaning outside the Church there is no salvation.

Lumen Gentium states what that means as this:

But, if outside the church there is no salvation, wouldn't that make it impossible to be saved without being Catholic? Which would be more than "Serious jeopardy."

[eduardo89]

While there is some truth to this, you've go to remember that most of these people are pretribulational rapture and dispensational premillennialists. Most Amillennialists and historic premillennialists dont agree with them.

Pretribulational rapture and dispensational premillennialists are morons. The only correct position is amillenialism. The former are completely Protestant heretical teachings from the 19th century, while amillenialism is the traditional Christian teaching.

[eduardo89]

But, if outside the church there is no salvation, wouldn't that make it impossible to be saved without being Catholic? Which would be more than "Serious jeopardy."

Not necessarily:


Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.

Also:


Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.

So no, it would be incorrect to say that the Church teaches that all non-Catholics are damned to hell.

This essay explains it better than I can: http://www.catholicity.com/commentary/shea/00059.html

[Sola_Fide]

Pretribulational rapture and dispensational premillennialists are morons. The only correct position is amillenialism. The former are completely Protestant heretical teachings from the 19th century, while amillenialism is the traditional Christian teaching.

Both preterism and futurism were created by Jesuit priests during the Reformation to attempt to counteract the growing belief that the Pope was the Antichrist. Blame your own Satanic priests for those views.

[Christian Liberty]

Pretribulational rapture and dispensational premillennialists are morons. The only correct position is amillenialism. The former are completely Protestant heretical teachings from the 19th century, while amillenialism is the traditional Christian teaching.


Both preterism and futurism were created by Jesuit priests during the Reformation to attempt to counteract the growing belief that the Pope was the Antichrist. Blame your own Satanic priests for those views.

I'd probably be a historic premillennialist by process of elimination, but I also don't know as much as I'd like to about eschatology.

The way I see it, Satan is the Prince and Power of this world. While God is ultimately in control, he is not physically reigning as of yet, and the Devil is "Prowling about like a roaring lion: (1 Peter 5:8), not physically bound. As such, I don't believe Amillennialism stands up to scripture.

I'm with eduardo, however, on the pretribulational rapture being wrong.

Oh, and I will read your article.

Sola_Fide- What's your take on eschatology?

[eduardo89]

Both preterism and futurism were created by Jesuit priests during the Reformation to attempt to counteract the growing belief that the Pope was the Antichrist. Blame your own Satanic priests for those views.

Lets start off with clarifying that neither preterism nor futurism have ever been taught as official Church doctrine nor been defined as Church dogma.

Secondly, Jesuits do not speak for the Church as a whole, nor do they speak for the Magisterium.

Third, while it would not be consistent with Catholic teaching to hold that ALL the prophecies of Scripture were fulfilled in the first century, it is unlikely that any Catholic claiming to be a preterist actually holds that view. Partial preterists believe in the future Resurrection of the Dead and Judgment. Completed or "full" preterists deny these things. What is NOT compatible with Catholic teaching is any interpretation that Jesus will return in stages, with a secret return just for the saved and a later return that brings the world under judgment.

[Ender]

Lotta nonsense on here about Mormons.

Mormons worship God the Father & His Son Jesus Christ. They DO NOT worship a plethora of other gods. They do believe in a Heavenly Father that loves them enough to want them to have what he has and to live as he does. For them, this means that all have a chance to become like Father and to further His work. But there is only The Father & Jesus who are worshiped. They also believe in the Holy Ghost, but they believe that these beings are separate.

Yes, they are different than a lot of other Christian Churches but they still believe profoundly in Jesus as the Savior.

Many churches disagree with each other- here is a piece about St Francis not being recognized as a saint by the Orthodox Church:


That is the thrust of a major study, “A Comparison: Francis of Assisi and St. Seraphim of Sarov,” by Fr. George Macris, a priest of the Russian Orthodox Church, writing in Synaxis: Orthodox Christian Theology in the 20th Century and also appearing on the Web site of the Orthodox Christian Information Center (link below).

The thesis of the study states: “The Orthodox Church does not include Francis of Assisi among its saints. He was a fanatic papist, lived after the separation of the Roman Catholic Church from Orthodoxy, and practiced a romantic and emotional spirituality foreign to genuine Orthodox spiritual traditions.”

Personally, St Francis is one of my heroes- but the Orthodox Church can think what it wants.

Mormons are Christians; whether you agree with all the doctrine or not does not change that fact. All Christians need to look at their own background and clean it up before slamming other churches.

The Nicene Creed put together chosen books and compiled what we now look at as the OT & NT. They left out books according to what they thought was most "politically correct". Constantine wanted to blend Paganism and Christianity; the whole reason for the Creed was to bring people under one political umbrella.

Even the King James bible has political overtones with things that are not translated correctly. Example: King James hated "witches" so to please him a verse was changed from "Suffer not a murderer to live" to "Suffer not a witch to live".

I believe that if one truly believes in Jesus Christ, they will be too busy getting the beam out of their own eye to bother with the speck of sawdust in someone else's.

[eduardo89]

Lotta nonsense on here about Mormons.

Mormons worship God the Father & His Son Jesus Christ. They DO NOT worship a plethora of other gods. They do believe in a Heavenly Father that loves them enough to want them to have what he has and to live as he does. For them, this means that all have a chance to become like Father and to further His work. But there is only The Father & Jesus who are worshiped. They also believe in the Holy Ghost, but they believe that these beings are separate.

You basically just admitted that Mormons do not worship one god. They are not monotheistic and do not worship the Triune God of Christianity.


The Nicene Creed put together chosen books and compiled what we now look at as the OT & NT. They left out books according to what they thought was most "politically correct". Constantine wanted to blend Paganism and Christianity; the whole reason for the Creed was to bring people under one political umbrella.

The Nicene Creed has nothing to do with the Biblical Canon. This is the Nicene Creed:


The Nicene Creed

I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of Heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible.
And in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God. Born of the Father before all ages. God of God, Light of Light, true God of true God. Begotten, not made: consubstantial with the Father; by Whom all things were made. Who for us men and for our salvation, came down from Heaven: [kneel] and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary: and was made man. [stand] He was crucified also for us, suffered under Pontius Pilate, and was buried. And on the third day He rose again according to the Scriptures. And He ascended into Heaven and sitteth at the right hand of the Father. And He shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead: of Whose kindgom there shall be no end.

And in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life: Who proceedeth from the Father and the Son. Who together with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified: Who spoke through the Prophets.

And in One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. I confess one Baptism for the remission of sins. And I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen

You might be thinking of the first Ecumenical Council which was held in Nicea. But you'd be wrong again, that council did not set the canon. In fact, there is no record of any discussion of the biblical canon at the council at all.

[undergroundrr]

You basically just admitted that Mormons do not worship one god. They are not monotheistic and do not worship the Triune God of Christianity.


Not sure where you've pulled that out of. In the Book of Mormon 3 Nephi 11:36, Christ is quoted as saying:
"for the Father, and I, and the Holy Ghost are one."

If you care about understanding further, the following document might be a good starting place.
http://www.fairlds.org/authors/johnson-cooper/mormons-can-they-be-considered-christians

Who's to say whether Glenn Beck is a good Christian or a good Mormon? LDS Doctrine and Covenants Section 134 makes it clear that force or coercion toward other faiths (in Israel or elsewhere) is a big Mormon no-no.

[The Bavarian]

Why does this sound so familiar...

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_MOG84I6qskU/TNCmzSbOIhI/AAAAAAAAABk/rs-xu-2N05Q/s1600/crusades.png

Oh, right... What are we at, the 10th crusade?

GOD WILLS IT!

[paulbot24]

Why does this sound so familiar...

https://lh3.ggpht.com/_MOG84I6qskU/TNCmzSbOIhI/AAAAAAAAABk/rs-xu-2N05Q/s1600/crusades.png

Oh, right... What are we at, the 10th crusade?

GOD WILLS IT!

I don't think that's what Paul meant when he spoke of putting on the armor of Christ. :rolleyes: Even Jehovah's Witnesses aren't THAT pushy.

[HOLLYWOOD]

Israel worship is not taught anywhere in Catholicism. The Holy See didn't even recognize Israel until 1993.
The Israel worship comes from the media and from Protestants.

So the Iranians are called religious fundamentalist fanatics who live in the stone age and are a threat to Israel but Glenn Beck and the Jews are... NOT? People need to look in the mirror sometimes...

It comes from Zionists. Not from scripture with an honest reading.
Protestants have been misled just as Catholics have.. It is Error and it is widespread.

Glenn Beck winner of the: Defender of Israel Award, Zionist Organization of America (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionist_Organization_of_America) 2011
http://www.jta.org/2011/11/21/news-opinion/politics/at-zoa-dinner-glenn-beck-dishes-out-the-pro-israel-meat
At ZOA dinner, Glenn Beck dishes out the pro-Israel meat
By Ben Harris (http://www.jta.org/author/ben-harris/)November 21, 2011 9:41pm


http://jta-live.alley.ws/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/beckmort-350x232.jpg
Zionist Organization of America President Morton Klein,
right, with Glenn Beck, who was honored by the group on Nov. 20
(Ben Harris)

http://jta-live.alley.ws/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/beckbach-350x232.jpg
Glenn Beck, left, and Republican presidential hopeful
Michele Bachman n both addressed the
Zionist Organization of America’s annual dinner in New York
on Nov. 20. (Ben Harris)

NEW YORK (JTA) – The Zionist Organization of America’s annual dinner is a place where conventional thinking about the liberal proclivities of American Jews goes to die. But never quite like Sunday night — when Tea Party darling and Republican presidential hopeful Michele Bachmann served as the opening act and Glenn Beck was swarmed like a rock star.

Beck, who was on hand to receive the ZOA’s Defender of Israel Award, made his way into the VIP reception at the Grand Hyatt Hotel in Manhattan shortly after 5 p.m. and almost instantly was beset by a crush of admirers. He found himself wedged into a corner as a crowd of well-wishers surged forward to have their photographs taken with him. Bachmann and her fellow Republican congresswoman, Florida’s Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, were there, too — but it was clear who the star was.
“Love, love, love, love, love,” Ros-Lehtinen said, extending her hand to Beck, who responded by clasping hers in both of his. All around her, an expanding mass of people pressed in closer, seemingly eager to express the same sentiment.
“I need everyone to back up please,” a photographer practically yelled as he tried to create a cordon around the VIPs to set up his shot. But despite help from Beck’s two bodyguards, an assistant, and assorted publicists and ZOA personnel, the crowd kept pushing ahead.
Crowd control proved to be a recurring problem at the dinner. After the appetizer was served, seemingly half the room converged on Beck and his wife, Tania, tying up the traffic flow in the center of the ballroom and rendering the area impassable. A succession of ZOA officials implored the crowd to sit down so servers could get dinner on the table, but with little effect.
Grabbing the microphone, ZOA President Morton Klein, raised his voice — the first of several times he would do that over the course of the evening — and commanded those standing around to “sit down — NOW!”


Even for a crowd that’s been known to get weak in the knees for foreign policy hawks — including Rep. Shelley Berkley (D-Nev.,), one-time Republican presidential candidate Gary Bauer and leading Bush administration neocon John Bolton — the euphoria surrounding Beck’s appearance stood out. And even for a ZOA dinner, the night was unusually partisan: Of the six members of Congress in attendance, all were Republicans. Anthony Weiner had been a regular attendee in past years, as were fellow New York Democrats Nita Lowey and Eliot Engel. And though Klein announced that Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) said he would attend, New York’s senior senator was nowhere in evidence.


Schumer’s office did not respond to a request for comment.
The Democratic officeholders didn’t seem to be missed. The polls could be right that nearly 80 percent of American Jews voted for Barack Obama and more than half believe Israel should dismantle at least some settlements as part of a final agreement with the Palestinians. But not in this room.
Bachmann’s cry of “not one inch” brought guests to their feet and prompted screams of “Bachmann for president.” In his remarks, Klein assailed the Anti-Defamation League and the American Jewish Committee – “Yes, I name names” — for their opposition to a bill on foreign funding of nongovernmental organizations. The measure has been decried by liberals, centrists and even some conservatives, in Israel and abroad, as a grave threat to Israeli democracy.
And Ros-Lehtinen, in a freewheeling and often sarcastic speech, singled out two women in the audience from the West Bank settlement of Kedumim, sardonically identifying them as the obstacles to peace.
“They look harmless,” Ros-Lehtinen said, “but you never know.”


Bachmann began her talk, which sounded much like a campaign stump speech tailored to Jewish ears — well, certain Jewish ears — by invoking the line in Genesis promising that those who bless Israel will be blessed. It’s precisely that sort of religiously inflected politicking that gives many American Jews the willies. But the ZOA crowd is not one to get much exercised about the confluence of God and politics. A clear majority of men in the room wore yarmulkes and speakers repeatedly invoked God’s promise of Israel to the Jews.


After a taped message from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu praising Beck went off with only a minor technical glitch, the emcee quipped, “I think that proves that God is on our side because the video actually worked.”


As for Beck, who was introduced by billionaire businessman-philanthropist and Netanyahu-backer Sheldon Adelson, he is arguably the most polarizing media figure in Jewish life. Hundreds of liberal rabbis signed a letter in January asking that he be sanctioned for “completely unacceptable” use of the Holocaust and Nazi imagery. He has urged his listeners to quit their church or synagogue if “social justice” is part of its mission. And in a two-part series that accused left-wing financier and Jewish Holocaust survivor George Soros of collaborating with the Nazis, Beck flirted with what some critics saw as anti-Semitic conspiracies of Jewish control of media and finance.
Occasionally Beck has apologized — as he did after he compared Reform rabbis to Islamists — and then gone on to offend again.
It was in the wake of the Soros spat, when several Jewish groups lined up to express their outrage, that the ZOA bucked the trend. In a news release, Klein said that Beck’s comments were “essentially accurate” and that Soros “merits no defense or sympathy from Jewish leaders.”
“Glenn Beck got in touch with me, thanked me for writing this because no one else in the organized Jewish world was defending him, and he asked if we could get together,” Klein told JTA. “We got together, I asked him if he’d be our honoree, he began to almost cry. Tears welled up in his eyes.”
Asked about the discomfort some feel with Beck’s repeated use of Holocaust analogies, Klein, a child of survivors who was born in a German displaced persons camp, claimed ignorance, saying he didn’t watch Beck’s show often enough to have an opinion.
“I just don’t know,” he said.


That Beck, an unabashed crier, became misty at Klein’s offer is eminently believable. Beck appeared to choke back tears at least four times during his hourlong speech — and that was during his less emotional moments.
When he wasn’t battling the urge to cry, he was issuing a battle cry. With arms flailing wildly and face turning the color of the red caviar served in the VIP room, Beck portrayed the challenges facing Israel and the Jewish people in apocalyptic terms — as the ultimate showdown between good and evil. Beck was the only speaker at the dinner whose voice reached a pitch more feverish than Klein’s.


Beck said he came to the ZOA as a brother. “It’s personal,” he said repeatedly.


And clearly he has not been chastened by the urgings of some Jewish groups to tread lightly with the Holocaust analogies. Again and again he invoked them, saying the world stood on a precipice like the one it faced in 1939 — only this time it’s worse, as not only is the world ignoring rising evil, he said, it is actively helping it along.
“America is not a collective,” Beck thundered. “America is built on the individual. I am a man and I demand to be counted so others are not numbered again.”
The crowd went wild.

[TIMB0B]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1F870vi8VKU

[Contumacious]

...One of Beck’s main motivations, which he said you may or may not agree with, is the Bible, and how we are “wound in so deeply to Israel.”

So much bullshit, so little time.

Explain why ecclesiastical law takes precedence over civil constitutional law?

Explain clearly and succinctly , how the present Jewish State is related to the 12 lost tribes of Israel.

.

[oyarde]

So much bullshit, so little time.

Explain why ecclesiastical law takes precedence over civil constitutional law?

Explain clearly and succinctly , how the present Jewish State is related to the 12 lost tribes of Israel.

. There is no relation to the modern Jewish state to tribes as there are also no longer any Phillistines.The plains of Megiddo are still there :) , maybe one day I can just buy it and make it a vineyard.

[oyarde]

I don't think that's what Paul meant when he spoke of putting on the armor of Christ. :rolleyes: Even Jehovah's Witnesses aren't THAT pushy.

For a minute , I thoght he snagged my shield off the mantle , I do not even let the Grandkids play with it , lol

[enhanced_deficit]

Beck specifically states that he doesn't want blind allegiance and that he doesn't support troops on the ground. More of a moral "we stand with you" sort of thing. He likes Jews and he likes Israel.

Is that extreme?



Maybe not extreme but it would be discrimination and violation of civil rights of Palestinian Christians/Muslims if he says he likes only jews but not arabs among mideast races.

BTW what led you to your conclusion?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-05YVW1NsOk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-05YVW1NsOk

[Anti-Neocon]

Glenn Beck isn't nuts. He knows where the money is.

[pcosmar]

Catholics believe all those who have received a Trinitarian baptism and believe in Christ are Christians, however those who are not Catholic have put their salvation in extreme jeopardy.

Actually,, most Catholics are oblivious to scripture and theology. and read only a little "party line" if anything. They put full trust in the priests to tell them what to think.

I was raised Catholic,, My mother and most of the family still are. They are completely ignorant and have never even read the bible.
they get pieces spoon fed to them,, and bible stories.. Not the full picture.

They don't even know that Catholic Theologians KNOW about the last Pope and the destruction of Rome.
It will come as a surprise to them.

[enhanced_deficit]

Glenn Beck isn't nuts. He knows where the money is.

Exactly, he's just a shameless media prostitute. No offense to prostitues who work the streets.

[S.Shorland]

18 videos debunking Mormonism
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL11CD0EE613306BB5
There's an extensive Catholic debunk playlist there too
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLFFA8D69D1B914715

[undergroundrr]

Maybe I'll check it out when I have 20 free hours. Perhaps in another thread you could boil down the main points?

Points pertinent to this thread would answer whether political/territorial Zionism is inherent in LDS scripture.

[eduardo89]

They don't even know that Catholic Theologians KNOW about the last Pope and the destruction of Rome.
It will come as a surprise to them.

The last pope prophey is not taught as Catholic theology and any true Catholic should stay away from that quackery. This stuff should never be even mentioned among faithful believing Catholics. Period. It is ludicrous, not to mention insulting and disobedient to Our Lord Himself to linger in these kinds of speculations.

God Himself told us that no one knows the hour or the day of His return and for Catholics to engage in these juvenile speculations is beyond the pale. The saints in heaven not even the angels know the time appointed for the return of Our Blessed Lord so speculating about the then end of the world and linking this kind of stuff to the circumstances of the Pope is downright Protestant.

If Our Lord wants people to know when He is returning .. He will make it clear and what He has made clear is that he doesn’t want it known. The Apostles themselves became all enthralled with this very question and Our Blessed Lord told them sharply .. it is not for you to know the times and the seasons.

[willwash]

I was brought up in a southern Protestant family with all the commensurate catholic bashing. But the older I get, the more I come to think the Catholics have it a little more right and are a little less crazy than many southern Protestants.

I've never seen a catholic holding up signs that say god hates ******s.
While I'm not comfortable the the emphasis on routine and ritual, it's better than a lot of the whooping and hollering you see at a lot of Protestant churches.

Also, the concept of purgatory makes a lot more sense than either eternal, insufferable hell or eternally blissful heaven.

Also much catholic bashing emphasizes things Catholics did hundreds of years ago, not today.

[willwash]

I was brought up in a southern Protestant family with all the commensurate catholic bashing. But the older I get, the more I come to think the Catholics have it a little more right and are a little less crazy than many southern Protestants.

I've never seen a catholic holding up signs that say god hates******s.
While I'm not comfortable the the emphasis on routine and ritual, it's better than a lot of the whooping and hollering you see at a lot of Protestant churches.

Also, the concept of purgatory makes a lot more sense than either eternal, insufferable hell or eternally blissful heaven.

Also much catholic bashing emphasizes things Catholics did hundreds of years ago, not today.

Oh, I didn't realize RPF had moved to censorship. That word was the f word people use to bash the gheys. I wasn't using it to insult anyone.

[eduardo89]

Also, the concept of purgatory makes a lot more sense than either eternal, insufferable hell or eternally blissful heaven.

Catholics believe in eternal, insufferable hell and eternally blissful heaven. Those who die in a state of grace go directly to heaven. Those who die with unconfessed mortal sin go directly to hell. The rest, who have no mortal sin, but are not in a state of grace (they die with venial sins) go to purgatory before they can go into Heaven.


"Purgatory Not in Scripture"
Some Fundamentalists also charge, as though it actually proved something, "The word purgatory is nowhere found in Scripture." This is true, and yet it does not disprove the existence of purgatory or the fact that belief in it has always been part of Church teaching. The words Trinity and Incarnation aren’t in Scripture either, yet those doctrines are clearly taught in it. Likewise, Scripture teaches that purgatory exists, even if it doesn’t use that word and even if 1 Peter 3:19 refers to a place other than purgatory.

Christ refers to the sinner who "will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come" (Matt. 12:32), suggesting that one can be freed after death of the consequences of one’s sins. Similarly, Paul tells us that, when we are judged, each man’s work will be tried. And what happens if a righteous man’s work fails the test? "He will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire" (1 Cor 3:15). Now this loss, this penalty, can’t refer to consignment to hell, since no one is saved there; and heaven can’t be meant, since there is no suffering ("fire") there. The Catholic doctrine of purgatory alone explains this passage.

Then, of course, there is the Bible’s approval of prayers for the dead: "In doing this he acted in a very excellent and noble way, inasmuch as he had the resurrection of the dead in view; for if he were not expecting the dead to rise again, it would have been useless and foolish to pray for them in death. But if he did this with a view to the splendid reward that awaits those who had gone to rest in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. Thus he made atonement for the dead that they might be freed from this sin" (2 Macc. 12:43–45). Prayers are not needed by those in heaven, and no one can help those in hell. That means some people must be in a third condition, at least temporarily. This verse so clearly illustrates the existence of purgatory that, at the time of the Reformation, Protestants had to cut the books of the Maccabees out of their Bibles in order to avoid accepting the doctrine.

Prayers for the dead and the consequent doctrine of purgatory have been part of the true religion since before the time of Christ. Not only can we show it was practiced by the Jews of the time of the Maccabees, but it has even been retained by Orthodox Jews today, who recite a prayer known as the Mourner’s Kaddish for eleven months after the death of a loved one so that the loved one may be purified. It was not the Catholic Church that added the doctrine of purgatory. Rather, any change in the original teaching has taken place in the Protestant churches, which rejected a doctrine that had always been believed by Jews and Christians.

Why Go To Purgatory?
Why would anyone go to purgatory? To be cleansed, for "nothing unclean shall enter [heaven]" (Rev. 21:27). Anyone who has not been completely freed of sin and its effects is, to some extent, "unclean." Through repentance he may have gained the grace needed to be worthy of heaven, which is to say, he has been forgiven and his soul is spiritually alive. But that’s not sufficient for gaining entrance into heaven. He needs to be cleansed completely.

Fundamentalists claim, as an article in Jimmy Swaggart’s magazine, The Evangelist, put it, that "Scripture clearly reveals that all the demands of divine justice on the sinner have been completely fulfilled in Jesus Christ. It also reveals that Christ has totally redeemed, or purchased back, that which was lost. The advocates of a purgatory (and the necessity of prayer for the dead) say, in effect, that the redemption of Christ was incomplete. . . . It has all been done for us by Jesus Christ, there is nothing to be added or done by man."

It is entirely correct to say that Christ accomplished all of our salvation for us on the cross. But that does not settle the question of how this redemption is applied to us. Scripture reveals that it is applied to us over the course of time through, among other things, the process of sanctification through which the Christian is made holy. Sanctification involves suffering (Rom. 5:3–5), and purgatory is the final stage of sanctification that some of us need to undergo before we enter heaven. Purgatory is the final phase of Christ’s applying to us the purifying redemption that he accomplished for us by his death on the cross.

No Contradiction
The Fundamentalist resistance to the biblical doctrine of purgatory presumes there is a contradiction between Christ’s redeeming us on the cross and the process by which we are sanctified. There isn’t. And a Fundamentalist cannot say that suffering in the final stage of sanctification conflicts with the sufficiency of Christ’s atonement without saying that suffering in the early stages of sanctification also presents a similar conflict. The Fundamentalist has it backward: Our suffering in sanctification does not take away from the cross. Rather, the cross produces our sanctification, which results in our suffering, because "[f]or the moment all discipline seems painful rather than pleasant; later it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness" (Heb. 12:11).

Nothing Unclean
Purgatory makes sense because there is a requirement that a soul not just be declared to be clean, but actually be clean, before a man may enter into eternal life. After all, if a guilty soul is merely "covered," if its sinful state still exists but is officially ignored, then it is still a guilty soul. It is still unclean.

Catholic theology takes seriously the notion that "nothing unclean shall enter heaven." From this it is inferred that a less than cleansed soul, even if "covered," remains a dirty soul and isn’t fit for heaven. It needs to be cleansed or "purged" of its remaining imperfections. The cleansing occurs in purgatory. Indeed, the necessity of the purging is taught in other passages of Scripture, such as 2 Thessalonians 2:13, which declares that God chose us "to be saved through sanctification by the Spirit." Sanctification is thus not an option, something that may or may not happen before one gets into heaven. It is an absolute requirement, as Hebrews 12:14 states that we must strive "for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord."

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/purgatory

[willwash]

Should've clarified by adding "and nothing in between", but thanks for sharing eduardo!

[pcosmar]

The last pope prophey is not taught as Catholic theology and any true Catholic should stay away from that quackery.

I did not say it was taught. It is not.
And yet it is known and has been discussed by Catholic Theologians.. The Book of Revelation,, The prophecy of the popes,, and prophecy of Fatima. (especially the third prophecy)
It is known,, just not openly discussed,, and certainly not taught.


It is Known.

[BlackTerrel]

I was brought up in a southern Protestant family with all the commensurate catholic bashing. But the older I get, the more I come to think the Catholics have it a little more right and are a little less crazy than many southern Protestants.

I've never seen a catholic holding up signs that say god hates ******s.
While I'm not comfortable the the emphasis on routine and ritual, it's better than a lot of the whooping and hollering you see at a lot of Protestant churches.

Also, the concept of purgatory makes a lot more sense than either eternal, insufferable hell or eternally blissful heaven.

Also much catholic bashing emphasizes things Catholics did hundreds of years ago, not today.

I was brought up in a Church with some of the same shit.

As you grow older you realize most of it is BS. And the reason you're taught it is the same as any organization that preaches fear - which is their own fear of competition.

[eduardo89]

I did not say it was taught. It is not.
And yet it is known and has been discussed by Catholic Theologians.. The Book of Revelation,, The prophecy of the popes,, and prophecy of Fatima. (especially the third prophecy)
It is known,, just not openly discussed,, and certainly not taught.


It is Known.

With regards to the apparitions of Our Lady of Fátima, the official Church position is that private revelations do not form part of the deposit of faith of the Catholic Church, and its members are not bound to believe in any of them.

With regards to the pope prophesy, it is just another example of the infection of Protestant theology that is plaguing the Church. Catholic have no business at all dipping into this kind of occult-tinged babble and secret discussions and then attributing those discussions to things like this mystic over here or this seer over there.

What "Catholic theologians" discuss as their private views has no bearing on the teachings of the Church. If this Pope, or the next, or the one after that is the last Pope we will all know soon enough. If the end of the world is approaching, God will make if abundantly clear and we will know soon enough.

What I do know is that my world is coming to and end soon, and so is yours. We will not soon be standing individually before Our King being judged on whether we discerned correctly ancient or questionable prophecies, but whether we kept His commands and were a fitting home for Him and His Father.

[TIMB0B]

18 videos debunking Mormonism
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL11CD0EE613306BB5
There's an extensive Catholic debunk playlist there too
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLFFA8D69D1B914715

Mormon cartoon at 2:15...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIdkWRNlyUo