If you follow my posts, then you know I disagree with Glenn Beck on matters of faith and the true nature of God. You will also know that I believe this is the reason Beck does not understand Islam. Well, today may have been the last straw for me. Beck continues to tell his audience that those Muslims who are killing in the name of Allah have perverted Islam. OK, Mr. Beck, I have a reply to you. You are not going to get to heaven through your works. You will never become a god. In fact, everything you believe is false. It is just your interpretation of what Joseph Smith said. Now, if we had Mr. beck here, I know he would disagree with this, he would say I am perverting his religion. But this is exactly what Beck is doing to those Muslims who are following Muhammad’s commands. So, if Mr. Beck is going to be a Progressive in terms of religion — especially Islam — then I no longer have reason to trust he can see the difference in any other aspect of this world.
To stay on point with this post, Beck is telling people that the Muslims killing people in the name of Jihad are perverting Islam. According to Beck, they have a perverted interpretation of Islam. To illustrate his point, Beck uses those who think killing homosexuals is obeying the commands of Christ. Unfortunately, Beck is correct when he says this is a perversion of Christ’s Gospel message. It is unfortunate because people will then think this applies to Islam. IT DOES NOT! And this is where Beck becomes culpable. He has a higher responsibility to tell the truth — the real truth. In fact, he has even said he feels such a duty to his audience. But his religious beliefs have blinded him to the truth about Islam, and now, Beck is trying to blind those who listen to him.
I am thinking about starting a series on Islam — for those who want to learn the truth as Muhammad defined it. But, for the moment, I will try to explain something the majority of the West does not understand. I hope it will help you start to see and understand what we are dealing with here.
We are told that the Qur’an does command Muslims to kill unbelievers, but only in self-defense. We are also told the Qur’an prohibits the killing of innocent people. But here is what you are not told.
Muhammad said that all people once belonged to Allah. Islam is the original religion, and the whole world was originally given to Muslims by Allah. The Bible was originally the same as the Qur’an, but Jews and Christians have perverted it. They are in rebellion to Allah; in fact, everyone outside of Islam is in rebellion to Allah.
From this, Muhammad derived the doctrine that Jihad is primarily a defensive war. You see, Muslims are not invading and seizing other nations; it is just defending the land that was originally given to them by Allah. In other words — according to Muhammad — anyone who tries to defend or retake their land from Islam is an aggressor! This is how Muhammad ‘created’ an Islamic claim to Israel and Palestine. So, when you are told the commands to kill only apply to self-defense, understand that — according to Muhammad — Jihad is self-defense.
This same reasoning carries over to the prohibition against killing innocent people. According to Muhammad, those who reject Allah and Islam are not innocent! So the commands we are told prohibiting the killing of innocents do not apply to anyone outside of Islam. But here is an additional catch-22. Even if you claim to be Muslim, if you do not follow Muhammad’s commands 100% to the letter, or you disagree with his commands in any way, then you are in rebellion to Allah. Therefore, you are not innocent. And this is how Islam arrives at the belief that it is a command to kill apostate or ‘hypocrite’ Muslims — it is because Muhammad commanded it!
So, to bring this back to Mr. Beck. Sticking to the Progressive reasoning he applies to Islam, we can say:
If he is trying to follow everything Joseph Smith said he is supposed to do, then Beck is the radical. He is perverting Mormonism. So, by his own admission (through logical extension), Beck is violating the Mormon faith. By his own definition, this means he is an enemy of god. What’s more, by trying to convince you to believe him, Beck is trying to get you to follow him into his rebellion. Now, ask yourself, why should anyone who fears the One True God listen to a man who has demonstrated he thinks he believes he has the power to re-write his god’s commands to suit himself however he pleases?
IN A NUTSHELL
We do not define a religion. The person who creates it defines it. Note I said person. This is because people create religion. the One True God does not. The Creator created faith, and He works through faith. Since Christ is God, and since Yahweh is the Creator of the Judeo/Christian faith, none of what follows applies to Yahweh or the Bible.
So, back to the definition of a religion. Mormonism is defined by what Joseph Smith said are the tenants of his religion. Buddhism is defined by the things Buddha said (incidentally, Buddha said he was no god and not to make a religion of his philosophy). L. Ron Hubbard (I believe) is the man who defined Scientology. And so it is that Muhammad — no one else — defined Islam. Those who read the Qur’an, Hadith and biography of Muhammad will quickly understand that Muhammad was very clear about what he meant. It is hard to ‘interpret’ his commands into a peaceful religion. The Muslims we call ‘radical terrorists’ are actually faithful to Islam — as Muhammad defined it! We had better learn to understand and accept this, or we will have to choose between converting to Islam or losing our heads.
That brings me to something else I want you to consider. Do you know Biblical prophecy? If not, it speaks of a prophet (Muhammad) who will push a world religion that demands you either join it or lose your head. This prophet will help bring a king to power (Allah, the prince who is to come) over the fourth kingdom (Islam and the Caliphate). I know this goes against what the Church currently believes, and I may start another series to explore what I am saying now, but before you dismiss me, consider this: every people group and nation mentioned by Ezekiel in the battle of Gog and Megog is — today — Muslim! And Zechariah foretells what appears to be a nuclear war in the Middle East. If you are spiritually awake, all of this should be striking a chord with you…and I pray it does.
16 thoughts on “I May have to Stop Listening to Beck”
“Since Christ is God” is incorrect. He is God’s (Yahweh) son. He cannot be God’s son, and BE God at the same time. There is no such thing as the Trinity, which Christendom uses to “explain” this “mystery”. When in fact it’s no mystery at all, it’s just not true. False teachings not found in the Bible.
Scripture says Christ is BOTH! The trinity is in the Bible from the first page to the last. It is also in the oldest book of the Bible, Job. So it is NOT a false teaching; it is exactly what the Scriptures say. Jesus even said it: He said “If you have seen me, you have seen the Father.” Then His disciples explained that they — Christ and Yahweh — are one and the same, as well as with the Holy Spirit. I should think John, the Apostle whom Jesus loved, would be in the perfect position to know and understand this, and he clearly says anyone — ANYONE — who denies the Trinity is anti-Christ. I do not argue with Scripture. If I am going to accept it, then I accept ALL of it — which is exactly the point I am trying to get at in this post. If a person is going to accept Islam, then he is commanded to do the things the West calls terrorism. Muhammad commanded his followers to fight non-believers until there is ONLY Islam. The Muslims the West calls terrorists are just being obedient to Muhammad’s commands.
BTW: the Qur’an equates Muhammad to Allah, and even says Allah supplicated himself to Muhammad (i.e. prayed to Muhammad). This is because Satan is a copycat — even when he is trying to lead people astray, he still tries to copy God and God’s plan for himself.
There is a lot here. Will digest and comment more later.
In your last paragraph, by “the Church”……you are referring to the Church of Rome ?
Book, chapter and verse would excellent for the Biblical references to the Trinity in your Comment to Mark, to anchor the Truth of what you are saying.
“Church” — as I meant it in the last paragraph — means the Body of Christ. In short, those who truly believe and trust in Christ. I am NOT referencing a man-made organization, but the Biblical definition of the Church (hence the capital “C”). Hope that helps.
As for referencing Scripture to anchor my claims of the Trinity being in Scripture: my friend, that would require many posts. That is because the ‘proof’ is actually in everything the Bible says — as well as how it says it. For example, the Hebrew clearly and forcefully says there is only one God — Yahweh. Yet — unless they are dealing with a specific aspect of His being — the words used to describe Yahweh are often plural in form. Then there is the assertion that we are made in His image. We have a body (Christ), spirit (Holy Spirit) and soul (God the Father). Later in genesis (I think it is 6:3), God says His Spirit will not always strive with man. Right there we see two parts of the Trinity: God the Father talking about God the Holy Spirit. And these are just a few of the ‘primers’ on the Trinity (starters, if you will). So I hope you will see the difficulty I face.
There is no single passage in the OT. It is an inherent message, almost as though it is assumed. Therefore, it can only be seen and understood in this manner. However, for those people think the NT creates a new religion, I would suggest they look at Paul. Among the many reasons Christ no doubt had for choosing Paul, one of the most important was the fact he was a Pharisee. This means Paul KNEW the OT. So, if Christ were to come to him and explain the Gospel in the OT, if Christ broke with the OT, Paul would know it. But Paul embraced Christ’s Gospel, then went on to explain it to those who would listen. Those who have actually read the OT already realize that the majority of the NT is nothing more than a re-statement of the OT with explanation of how it had been misunderstood. Even Revelation is little more than the same: retelling of prophecy already in place with a few additional details added to help fill out the prophecy. I did not realize it until AFTER I read it all the way through, but there is no break or inconsistency in the Bible. The NT is nothing but a new covenant, much like the new covenant given by Moses. But the faith and Yahweh remain the same.
Doing what you did with Gen 6:3 is what I meant. And from John as you mentioned in your first comment.
Thanks for the clarification on the church versus the Church.
“If you have seen me, you have seen the Father.” in other words, I and my Father are one in thought and purpose, not that they ARE each other. The things I teach are from my Father in other words. Over and over again in the scriptures Christ is called the SON of God. And since “one cannot see God and live” (Exodus 33:20) then he obviously could not BE God. He was God’s representative on Earth at the time. It’s not a mystery at all, only when it becomes convoluted with the doctrine of the Trinity, a word not mentioned in the Bible.
You are changing what Christ actually said to suit your desire.
John 14:8-15New American Standard Bible (NASB)
8 Philip *said to Him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.” 9 Jesus *said to him, “Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? 10 Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on My own initiative, but the Father abiding in Me does His works.
In the original Greek, the word for seen means to see with the eyes. This makes Christ’s meaning clear. If you have seen Him, you have seen the Father.
Now, as for the title, Son of God: Christ also called Himself the Son of Man. Are you going to now tell us that this means Christ thought He was the Son of all men? Yes, Scripture tells us that Christ is God’s only begotten Son, but if you read the prophets — especially Isaiah, you will see that the Son of man is equated with God — Yahweh, the Father. This is a clear assertion that they are one-in-the-same.
As for the Exodus passage. That is not what it actually says. It says no one can see the Father and live. This is why Christ says no one has seen the FATHER! However, Scripture says Moses saw God face-to-face. So who did Moses see? And when Jacob wrestles with God physically (Gen : 22-32), who could that have been? In both cases, Scripture says these were men seeing God face-to-face. You are not allowed to edit Scripture, so the only way to harmonize Exodus as you cite and the rest of Scripture is if Christ and the Father are one but different.
So, as I said before: the Trinity IS in Scripture from the first chapter to the last. If you do not see it, there is a reason for that. I will pray that He will open your eyes and heart.
You were doing it as I typed … :- )).
I understand. I will try to do so in the future — for the sake of those who may not know or who wish to follow behind me to verify what I say. The only problem with that is, if they have not traveled the necessary path, they may still miss the fullness of God’s Truth. Yes, they will be able to grasp the basics, but I did not start to see the complete message until I started to study Hebrew, the Hebrew culture and then Greek. Once I did that, I started to understand that much of what we in the West think is gibberish in Scripture is actually allegory and metaphor. Explaining that will be much more difficult 🙂
Studying Hebrew culture …. hopefully for your sake, Gefilte Fish is not involved… :- )).
Very funny. 🙂 No, seriously: there is a great deal in Scripture that — though it does not change the doctrine — it cannot be properly understood outside the way it relates to ancient Hebrew culture. Studying that culture helps Scripture to come alive and read much richer than it does if you do not know and understand the culture.
I agree 100 % !
I find it interesting how I post about Islam and someone brings up a false doctrine to try and sidetrack the discussion to become about the Bible. I know exactly who it is behind this effort, and I pray God will rebuke him and send him away from this discussion.
Incorrect. I agree with you completely about Islam. I however do not believe in the Trinity, and was ONLY pointing out that ONE particular error. I was not trying to sidetrack anything.
Now as to Scripture, there are many translations, check your verses against other translations and you will see it is not as clear cut as you make it appear. And that is a major reason for many Biblical arguments.
I was using a translation from an original manuscript. The primary differences in the older, ORIGINAL manuscripts is cultural, and deals mostly with the way the three different regions of the Mediterranean basin. For example, some places may have spelled a word “to,” while another would spell it “too.” But, otherwise, the original texts largely agree. There is no way to argue translation of known words that can be traced from now to then, and the word for “seen” has remained the same.
Next, the Trinity HAS been part of the Bible since the start:
The Trinity in the Old Testament
Is the Trinity taught in the Old Testament
Even Messianic Jews understand this, and they are in a unique position to speak with authority on this point:
The Trinity in the Old Testament
Now, this IS a distraction from the point at hand, and there is NO error on this point (i.e. the Trinity). Only in those who reject it (not my opinion, Scripture).