The Epistles of Peter
You can't help but love Peter. He was the most loveable of the disciples; bold, candid, human. His impulsive devotion is frequently portrayed. As Peter's protestations of loyalty are the loudest, so his rejection of the Lord is the most explicit.
NEW BRIEFING PACK by Chuck Missler
Inheritance and Rewards
Inheritance and Rewards is the next briefing pack in Chuck's The Kingdom, Power and Glory series.
Inheritance came to the firstborn son by virtue of his birth. Whether he actually secured it depended upon his obedience and the father's choice. Inheritance was subject to condition and obedience. The Abrahamic Inheritance was based on Divine Oath, conditioned on obedience. Inheritances could be forfeited. The Exodus Generation was promised an inheritance, but failed to obtain it at Kadesh-Barnea. Israel was God's "firstborn son", yet only 2 of over 2 million took possession of their inheritance. Even Moses was excluded due to his disobedience. Esau, sold his inheritance for a bowl of pottage.
We have been promised an inheritance in the Kingdom to come. But is there more that is required of us than just our acceptance? Does behavior in this life really influence our future?
Available in these formats:
This offer will expire in 7 days.
THE UN'S RIGHTS OF THE CHILD CALLS TO OBAMA - (Print)
The Obama Administration has resurrected the debate over the UN Convention on
the Rights of the Child, and is pushing for the United States to
finally join the treaty. Yet, while ratifying the treaty sounds like
a great effort to protect children, it would instead offer the UN inroads
to dictate to American parents how best to raise their kids. According to
the US Constitution, treaties are binding laws that must be followed by judges,
even if those treaties conflict with the laws of the individual states.
Except for the United States and war-torn Somalia, every single country in the
world has ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. US ambassador
to the United Nations, Susan Rice, said Monday that the Obama Administration
wants to find out "when and how it might be possible to join."
Horrible things are done to children every day around the world. In Uganda last
week, children marched through the streets of the capital to raise awareness
about the existence of child sacrifice in the country and to urge the
government to outlaw the practice. In South Africa, men are selling their
younger sisters and nieces into prostitution, and in Afghanistan, 12-year-old
girls are forced to marry grown men. And across the world, millions of children
lack basic food, water, sanitation, medical and dental care and educational
opportunities.
Obviously, the protection of the young and helpless should be of highest
priority in any country. The United States has long appreciated the importance
of defending children from violence and exploitation, and the US already has
excellent laws in place to defend children. Even the poorest children
in America can have access to food and medical care. And that's the point.
The US has no need to ratify an international treaty in order to protect its
children. Not to mention that in South Asia and Africa,
ratification hasn't stopped children from exploitation.
Secretary of State Madeline Albright signed the UNCRC in 1995, but the US did
not ratify the treaty, and for good reason. According to Article 6 of the
US Constitution, international treaties are binding, and the UNCRC
would officially supercede state laws. While the UNCRC might not
change things much in lawless nations, US judges would be required to follow
the dictates of all 54 articles of this international law.
The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child is a nice idea. It declares that
children have basic rights that should be recognized – like the rights to
survival, to protection from harmful influences and abuse. The Convention has
four core principles which, according to the UNICEF, are
"non-discrimination; devotion to the best interests of the child; the
right to life, survival and development; and respect for the views of the
child."
It's perhaps that last one that most frightens US lawmakers and parents. What
does "respect for the views of the child" mean and, since the treaty
is a binding legal document, what would its ratification mean for parents'
rights in America? If a 10-year-old says, "I don't want to go to church
with my parents," does he have the "right" to
refuse? If a teen girl says, "I want to go to work as a
prostitute in Las Vegas," could her parents legally stop her?
After all, prostitution is legal in Nevada, and the UN has been willing to
promote the rights of prostitutes.
There is concern that the UN would attempt to dictate to US parents how to
raise their kids. The UN agenda is not conservative and family-friendly. To get
an idea of how the UN interprets the treaty, here are some of the
recommendations that have been made to various countries:
To Austria: "Austrian Law and regulations do not provide a legal minimum age for medical counseling and treatment without parental consent. [The UN] is concerned that the requirement of a referral to the courts will dissuade children from seeking medical attention and be prejudicial to the best interests of the child." [italics added]
To Barbados: "In spite of efforts to increase attention to early childhood education, the Committee remains concerned that the number of child-care centers is not enough to serve all children concerned. . . "
To Macedonia: "promote adolescent health policies and strengthen reproductive health education and counseling services, including with regard to … pregnancy among girls and abortion."
To the United Kingdom: "…the Committee is concerned that insufficient attention has been given to the right of the child to express his/her opinion, including in cases where parents in England and Wales have the possibility of withdrawing their children from parts of the sex education programmes in school. In this as in other decisions, including exclusion from school, the child is not systematically invited to express his/her opinion and those opinions many not be given due weight, as required under article 12 of the Convention."
In many of the cases, the UN is promoting contraception, sex ed, and
abortion as "rights" that minors have, while denying parents' rights
to decide what is appropriate for their children. The UN wants children to be
able to get medical treatment without their parents' consent, and considers
child care centers better places for children than their own homes. (The UN has
consistently urged countries to create more child care centers in the interest
of "women's rights" as well, while frowning on cultures that promote
motherhood.)
The net result is that the state becomes the de facto parent,
shouldering its way into the family and usurping the parents' authority.
Children need to be protected from abuse and starvation and exploitation, and
they need to be able to receive a decent education, but the US can do many
things to promote the welfare of children around the world without submitting
itself to the United Nations.
• How U.N. Conventions On Women's and Children's Rights Undermine Family, Religion, and Sovereignty: - The Heritage Foundation
• Concerns Raised by the Convention - Home Education Magazine
• Uganda: Children Cry, 'Stop Child Sacrifice' - All Africa
• Childhood Ends At 11 For Some Afghan Girls; For Others, An Education Begins - The Canadian Press
• Obama Administration Seeks To Join U.N. Rights Of The Child Convention - The Huffington Post
• Statistics by Area / Child Protection - Child Info
• Children Sold to Crime Gangs - Daily Dispatch (South Africa)
• The Incredible Shrinking Parent - Koinonia House
• Strategic Trend: Global Government - Koinonia House
• Constitution of the United States (See Article 6) - National Archives
NEW INITIATIVE WOULD BUILD TEMPLE NEXT TO DOME OF THE ROCK - (Print)
An Israeli official made a visit to the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem on
Tuesday, sparking anger among Muslims. Yet, while the Dome of the Rock is the
third most holy site in Islam, it is the holiest spot on earth in
Judaism as the site of the once and future Temple. Most recently, a Jewish
scholar has argued that the Third Temple could be built on the Temple Mount
without tearing down the Dome of the Rock. Of course, that idea has faced
opposition from both Jews and Muslims.
"God's Holy Mountain Vision" project was launched last week, a new
Jewish initiative to build the Third Temple on the Temple Mount beside the Dome
of the Rock without tearing it down. Director of the initiative Yoav Frankel
argues that a prophet could, by divine revelation, determine the precise site
of the Temple and could have it rebuilt without the need to destroy the Muslim
shrine.
"This vision of religious shrines in peaceful proximity can transform the
Temple Mount from a place of contention to its original sacred role as a place
of worship shared by Jews, Muslims and Christians," said Frankel.
Of course, both Jews and Muslims oppose the proposal. Many Jews do not believe
that the Temple should be built until the Messiah comes. Muslims agree that no
Jewish temple should be built near their shrine.
Sheikh Abdulla Nimar Darwish, founder of the Islamic Movement in Israel, argues
that it's pointless to discuss rebuilding the Temple until the "mahdi"
– the Muslim messiah comes. "Why are we taking upon ourselves the
responsibility to decide such things?" Darwish said in a telephone
interview with The Jerusalem Post. "Even Jews believe that it is
prohibited to rebuild the Temple until the messiah comes. So what is there to
talk about."
Darwish warned that attempts to rebuild the Temple before the Messiah would
only result in mayhem. "As long as there is a Muslim alive, no Jewish
Temple will be built on Al-Haram Al-Sharif. The status quo must be maintained,
otherwise there will be bloodshed."
The Dome of the Rock, which dominates the skyline of Jerusalem, was erected on
the Temple Mount in the late 7th century. Muslims believe that the dome is
built over the spot where Mohammad allegedly ascended into heaven to
receive his Islamic commission, making it a very holy site in Islam. In 1967
Israel regained control of the Temple Mount, but shortly after gave the Muslim
Waqf (religious trust) the authority to manage the mount in order to keep
peace. Since 2006, visitors have been allowed to enter the compound at
restricted times. Non-Muslim worshipers are still not permitted to enter the
area.
Jewish authorities do not approve of entering the compound anyway, primarily
because the site of the ancient Temple is still holy and there is no
purification system in place to make worshipers ritually clean. There is also
concern that people might accidentally tread across the site of the Holy of
Holies. The Chief Rabbinate of Israel has placed signs outside the Temple Mount
that state in Hebrew and English:
"ANNOUNCEMENT AND WARNING: According to the Torah it is forbidden for any
person to enter the area of the Temple Mount due to its sacredness."
On Tuesday June 23, Internal Security Minister Yitzhak Aharonovitch visited the
Temple Mount to review how police would deploy in case of an emergency.
Aharonovitch's spokesman said that the visit was coordinated with the Waqf, who
accompanied the minister around the site. However, a visit by Ariel Sharon
in 2000 sparked the bloody Al-Aqsa Intifada, and the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem,
Mohammed Hussein, called Aharonovitch's recent visit, "an assault on an
Islamic place."
When a simple visit by an Israeli official causes violent anger among Muslims,
the possibility of another Jewish Temple seems impossible. Still, the Bible
speaks of a future Temple, one that stands in Jerusalem when the Man of Sin
arrives to sit in the Temple and pretend to be God (2 Thess 2:3-4). For nearly
2000 years, the Jews have been without a Temple, and they long for its presence
once again in Jerusalem. Despite the current existence of the Dome of the Rock,
members of the Temple Mount Faithful movement have been preparing the necessary
articles and priests necessary to resume ritual worship.
According to the Bible, both in the Old Testament and the New, the Temple will be rebuilt. The question is just when.
• Israeli Minister's Visit To Mosque Sparks Anger - Reuters
• Can Third Temple Be Built Without Destroying Dome Of The Rock? - The Jerusalem Post
• Temple Mount Update: Excavations Trigger Protests - Koinonia House
67 YEARS LATER, RUSSIA STILL FEARS INVASION - (Print)
On June 22, 1941, Germany invaded Russia. While the Red Army eventually did
win the war, that initial invasion of Russia was a horrible massacre. A total
of 3,050,000 men, 7184 artillery pieces, 3,350 tanks, 2,770 aircraft, 600,000
vehicles, and 625,000 German horses swept across the Soviet countryside on
three different fronts. The Russians were paralyzed by surprise as well by fear
of Stalin. Crushed by his purges, Russia's military leaders feared making
any decisions on their own, and their poor equipment and morale was hardly a
match for the invading Germans. June 22 is a tragic day in Russian history.
Sixty-seven years later, things have changed a little. ICBMs have replaced
horses. Stalin and Hitler are both resigned to being bad tastes in the
mouth of history, the Cold War is over, and the Soviet Union has been gone for
nearly two decades. Most importantly, Russia has improved its ability to
defend itself. Still, Russia struggles to maintain good relations with
the West while securing a comfortable level of security for itself.
NATO:
On the one hand, Russia is again working to cooperate with NATO.
Barring any major catastrophes, talks between NATO foreign ministers and
Russia's Sergey Lavrov will take place on the Greek island of Corfu on
Saturday. Relations between Russia and NATO, the EU, and US went south during
Russia's 2008 war with Georgia. Contracts and military cooperation with Russia
were frozen, and relations with the US were just beginning to improve by the
time President Obama took office in January.
Russia and NATO have common interests in fighting the Taliban and keeping
Afghanistan and Central Asia stable. There is also a need to cooperate against
Somali pirates off the coast of Africa.
OSCE:
On the other hand, Russia on Tuesday defended last year's suggestion
that Europe develop a new "security architecture" to overhaul Cold
War organizations (like NATO). The US and NATO did not appreciate the proposal
when it was made by Russian President Dmitry Medvedev last year. Russia has
also balked at renewing the mandate of the Organization for Security and
Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) to monitor Georgia in the interest of security and
human rights.
On Tuesday Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov told a conference at the
OSCE, "We're not attempting to undermine NATO or any other organization
active in the security field. Quite the contrary, we are in favor of
coordination and synergies between existing international structures to ensure
that no single government (or) organization in the Euro-Atlantic area work
against each other."
Israeli Drones:
Russia has been buying unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) from Israel in order to
study them and reproduce the designs on their own. After hearing of these plans
to "borrow" their technology, Israeli officials said it would not be
selling Russia its most advanced drones. Russian defense companies have not
produced advanced systems on their own. "We have a responsibility to
safeguard our ingenious technology," one Israeli official said. "We
were aware of this possibility, even though it was not said explicitly until
now."
US Missile Defense:
Russia has butted heads with the United States over US plans to build a missile
defense shield in Poland and the Czech Republic. The Bush Administration planned
to build a small system in Eastern Europe in order to halt missiles from Iran.
Eastern Europe promised to benefit from the missile shield, which would have
protected its citizens as well. NATO leaders endorsed the plan in 2008, but
Russia wants the US to drop the idea. Russia simply does not want a US-placed
missile defense system anywhere near its borders. While the US has been
prepared to join with Russia in mutual slashing of nuclear arms, Russia has
hinged its arms reduction on the US' willingness to scrap its plans for the
missile defense shield.
It may be that Russia doesn't want the West to be protected from Iran.
Russia's trade relations with Iran are no secret, and Russia is one
country actually backing Iran's recent election results. In the
not-too-far-back of their minds, though, the Russians are suspicious
of the West. The Cold War has only been over two decades,
and old fears persist. The Russians also learned well not
to be too trusting. They have not forgotten the broken promises of
Hitler, and the surprise invasion of 1941.
• NATO-Russia Military Ties Set to Resume - AP
• Israel Rethinks Uav Sale To Russia - Defence India
• Russia Defends Idea Of New Security Plan For Europe - Reuters
• US: Missile Spat With Russia Will Be Worked Out - AP
• Missile Defense Czech Republic - 33 Minutes
• 66/40 The Magog Invasion - Koinonia House
• Strategic Trends: The Magog Invasion - Koinonia House
• The Invasion of Russia June 22, 1941 - World War II Database
Israeli Experts Divided Over Iran's Mousavi - June 24, 2009
Israeli experts disagree on whether the Jewish state is better off with Mahmoud
Ahmadinjad as Iran's president, or with his challenger Mir-Hossein Mousavi.
While Mousavi is seen as more moderate than the incumbent, many experts think
this actually makes him a greater threat – because the danger he poses is
harder to see.
Mossad director Meir Dagan told the Knesset's Foreign Affairs and Defense
Committee last week that "if the reformist candidate Mousavi had won, Israel
would have had a more serious problem because it would need to explain to the
world the danger of the Iranian threat."
Arutz Sheva
Iran On The Way To Revolution - June 23, 2009
A week after hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was declared the winner of
the June 12 election, protestors continue to reject the results. Protests
continue in Iran, despite the vicious backlash by the Iranian authorities.
According to freelance journalist Kayvon Biouki: "By the look of things, it
doesn't seem that the conservatives are going to back down. And at the same
time it doesn't seem that people, Mousavi supporters, and all those who oppose
the Iranian system in one way or another, those are not going to back down from
this either. In a way, it's a revolution in progress." Fox News
New Book Offers DNA Evidence For Intelligent Design - June 23, 2009
The digital code in DNA reveals new evidence of intelligent design, Stephen C.
Meyer shows in his authoritative new book. Signature in the Cell shows that
Darwin did not refute the argument from design, as New Atheists such as Richard
Dawkins claim. Instead, using the same scientific method that Darwin himself
pioneered, Meyer shows that modern discoveries about DNA have revived the
design hypothesis, thereby providing modern scientific support for religious
belief.
The Discovery Institute
Universal is Expensive: Health Care Debate Warms Up - June 23, 2009
"A preliminary estimate of the Senate Finance Committee's draft bill put the
price tag of universal coverage at $1.6 trillion over 10 years. That was
considerably more than anyone anticipated and forced the committee to delay
work on the bill. The cost of the incomplete plan drafted by the Senate Health,
Education, Labor and Pensions Committee was pegged at about $1 trillion over 10
years, but the CBO said that would still leave 30 million (rather than the
current 46 million) people without coverage."
There are several plans for legislators to consider.
Medical News Today
A Step Closer To Teleportation - June 22, 2009
Australian scientists have developed a new method for transmitting data with
light that may lead to super-fast quantum computers and teleportation
technology. The research team from the Australian National University
developed a new approach to generating quantum entanglement in beams of light
using only two parts.
AAP
UN Treaty Jeopardizes UK's Homeschoolers - June 16, 2009
On June 11, 2009 a report on home education in England by Graham Badman, a
former Managing Director of Children, Families and Education in the County of
Kent, was accepted in full by the British Secretary of State for Children,
Schools and Families. The report makes the case that homeschooling should be
extensively regulated in England.
Aside from registering with the state and mandating reports by homeschoolers,
the Badman report makes references to balancing the rights of parents with the
rights of children. This idea is expressed in the UNCRC.
Home School Legal Defense Association
We solicit your prayers and support of this ministry. God Bless.
This eNews is a reader supported ministry. If you would like to help support this effort, you can make your contribution here.
If you received this email from a friend, you can get a FREE subscription by signing up at the K-House web site.
Note to readers using AOL 9.0: Images and links will show up and work if you click “Add Address” and select “Save” when the dialog box pops up. Once this is done, the newsletter will be available to you each week with workable links and graphics without clicking “Enable links and images.”
You received this email by request from Koinonia House.
Web site: http://www.khouse.org/
Online Store: http://store.khouse.org/
Email: http://www.khouse.org/email/eNews_Subscription/
Manage Your Subscription: http://www.khouse.org/lists/