Every once in a while, someone will come along with some great historical inaccuracy that bothers me enough that I want to write about it. In this case, we have something apparently off of Glenn Beck's radio show (originally found here). My comments will be in red.
Glenn: So here’s what happened. When Constantine decided that he was going to cobble together an army, he did the Council of Nicea, right, Pat? Most people I know wouldn't consider it "cobbling together an army", but whatever...
Pat: Yea.
Glenn: The Council of Nicea, and what they did is brought all of the religious figures together, all the Christians and then they said, “Ok, let’s put together the Apostles’ Creed, let’s you know, you guys do it.” The Apostles Creed? Really? You're sure? Not the Nicene Creed? You know, the one named for the Council? So they brought all their religious scripture together, that’s when the Bible was first bound and everything else. Incorrect--as I recall, the actual declaration of the Biblical Canon was at the Council of Trent. Before that, the New Testament canon had been approved by the Synod of Hippo, then by both Councils of Carthage, and again by the Council of Rome. And then they said, “Anybody that disagrees with this is a heretic and off with their head!” Ah, so charitable! No, actually, Mr. Beck, heresy would be disagreeing with a set teaching--i.e the Canon--not just "this". Like, you know, leaving the Church for Mormonism. That's apostasy, born out of heresy. Well, that’s what the Dead Sea Scrolls are. The Dead Sea Scrolls are those scriptures that people had at the time that they said, “They are destroying all of this truth.” Whether it’s truth or not is up to the individual, no, it isn't. There is such a thing as objective truth, which is not decided by anyone. but at that time those people thought that this was something that needed to be preserved and so they rolled up the scrolls and put them in clay pots and they put them in the back of caves where no one could find them. They were hidden scripture because everything was being destroyed that disagreed with the Council of Nicea and Constantine. Bad Constantine! Bad! That’s what those things are.”
Now, let's be honest here...if he wanted to talk about this, he could've at least done a google search and gotten the dang creed right. It's not hard to come up with, you know--"Nicene"..."Nicaea"...yes?
I'm not sure what the point of this was. Amusingly, a few of the Scrolls were...drum roll...copies of books already in the Bible!...ah...haa...ha...ha.
Furthermore, I would really like to know how he knows that these were post-Nicaea. Really. The theory that these were cobbled, as he said, by early Christians is one of many. The more popular ones include the Qumran-Essene theory, the Qumran-Sectarian theory, the Qumran-Sadducean theory, and the Jerusalem Origin theory. Interesting, isn't it, that he would choose the one theory that can be connected with Catholicism explicitly?
Oh, that's right. Mormonism teaches that Catholicism is the church of Satan, among other things. Right...
3 comments:
Good job, Celestine. Beck (as you say) is a Mormon, so that has alot to do with his distortions and ignorance of Church history. However, he is a baptized Catholic (I'm pretty sure of this).
TH2, you are correct; he is a baptized Catholic, which makes his apostasy all the worse.
Although he is certainly an entertaining fellow, I cannot abide by him, as he seems to become almost a god to a segment of people who hang on to his every word. Anyone with that kind of popularity is mostly likely dangerous.
This is PERSONAL to me; one of my close friends threatened to leave the Church because of one of his urgings/on-air-rants.
Thank you, TH2!
As the Choir-Mistress said--yes, he is baptized. Which, in part, is why I'm especially annoyed as to these historical errors. When typing this up, it took me all of five minutes to verify what I knew (about the Biblical canon, etc.).
Since it only took me a few minutes, I can't believe that he couldn't have had anyone do a fact-check, especially since he's broadcasting this as the absolute truth. (and, additionally, has a producer and lots of underlings who could've at least done a fact-check for him) So, IMO, either a fact-check was done and ignored, or the entire thing was pulled out of SOMEWHERE and deliberately left unchecked.
That, itself, is somewhat worrisome. If, in fact, he deliberately did not do any sort of fact-checking, then it hints of a certain amount of dishonesty. I can't speak as to his intentions, honest or no, but I can say that I find it unsettling that a radio personality as renowned as he would say something this historically inaccurate, knowing that people will believe it.
Post a Comment