An old friend and fellow dedicated watcher of current events and how they may relate to Biblical prophecy is my radio guest tomorrow. That is Pastor Irvin Baxter. While we do not necessarily agree on all areas of Biblical interpretation, we both respect each other as dedicated students and watchers. I am happy and proud that he is joining us in the morning. He is just recently back from Israel and has MANY important developments to share with us. We are live at 7 a.m. Pacific Time (10 a.m. Eastern Standard Time; 9 a.m. Central Time; 8:00 a.m. Mountain Time). Please join us in the chatroom at TMERadio.com and/or www.themicroeffect.com. You can call in live with your questions for Pastor Baxter by calling 888-747-1968.Friday, June 13, 2014
End Time Ministries' Pastor Irvin Baxter is my radio guest tomorrow!
An old friend and fellow dedicated watcher of current events and how they may relate to Biblical prophecy is my radio guest tomorrow. That is Pastor Irvin Baxter. While we do not necessarily agree on all areas of Biblical interpretation, we both respect each other as dedicated students and watchers. I am happy and proud that he is joining us in the morning. He is just recently back from Israel and has MANY important developments to share with us. We are live at 7 a.m. Pacific Time (10 a.m. Eastern Standard Time; 9 a.m. Central Time; 8:00 a.m. Mountain Time). Please join us in the chatroom at TMERadio.com and/or www.themicroeffect.com. You can call in live with your questions for Pastor Baxter by calling 888-747-1968.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
231 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 231 of 231And the entire rail and road infrastructure was the produce of cooperation between govt. and business in the 1800s (as regards USA which of course had some roads and very little rail but what we have NOW is the result of a symphony between govt. and business, and the interstate system updating the US highway system was modelled on the German autobahn with a view to its possible use in moving troops and materiel in wartime. I am not going to dig up for you references anyone
not a grade school dropout should have learned in school or picked up on the Internet or in libraries or TV history and documentaries.)
Susanna
Does meeting with Kenneth Copeland, Joel Osteen and the Arnotts fall under Mark 9:38-41?
I can't speak for Susanna, but while The Pope may be thinking in this sense, or more likely on a mission to convert anyone he can to RC,
the reason these people need to spend such time driving out demons is because their mental practices and blasphemous heresies attract them in the first place.
also, all this getting prayed over, passing on anointings by laying on of hands and so forth, the whole originating from dubious or outright demonic persons many decades ago, means that at best a warped kind of energy that affects the soul body interface is transmitted, with God knows what kind of information in it,
or at worst, an actual demon.
"Nothing to do with population increase. The Temple was always intended to be the one and only place in ancient Israel where sacrifices to God were to be enacted. It was not intended to be an administrative centre of government.
2:47 PM"
I SAID NOTHING ABOUT SACRIFICES.
https://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome-psyapi2&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8&q=tithes%20into%20the%20temple
will show you a bunch of articles about tithing mentioning that the part
of the tithe that supported the priests was taken to the Temple, I haven't read these, but
Mal 3:10 says "Bring all the tithes into the storehouse, That there may be food in My house, And try Me now in this,” Says the LORD of hosts,..." so if ALL tithes were to go to the storehouse that there be food in God's house i.e., the Temple, this has to include the poor tithe.
This would point to some centralization by that time.
Anonymous 4:37
Re: Does meeting with Kenneth Copeland, Joel Osteen and the Arnotts fall under Mark 9:38-41?
You mean the Pope's meeting with Kenneth Copeland, Joel Osteen and the Arnotts I presume?
I would say that since none of these non-Catholic Christians, to my knowledge, passes the test of the antichrist, yes it does.
The spirit of the antichrist is spelled out in 1John 4:1-6
1Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world. 2By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, 3and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world. 4You are of God, little children, and have overcome them, because He who is in you is greater than he who is in the world. 5They are of the world. Therefore they speak as of the world, and the world hears them. 6 We are of God. He who knows God hears us; he who is not of God does not hear us. By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error.
your problem in your thinking is that govt. can do no right, and family and city can do no wrong (unless influenced by the govt.)
Romans 13 (abuseable yes) says that govt. is not of by and for the people, but of and by the people FOR GOD. It is an institution created by God in order to punish evil, and as an after thought almost, Paul added that it will reward good.
Obviously this is its divine purpose, which it does not always accomplish or even try to accomplish.
Paul wrote this when pagan Rome ruled the known world.
One can also note a place in THe Prophets where God says something about setting up kings but not by Him and princes that He has not known.
illegitimate regimes can exist.
When I read that line in Romans, the first thing that crossed my mind (I forget how old I was but much younger) was the income tax code, by penalizing some economic actions and rewarding others (tax breaks especially for charity) it was doing exactly that.
OF course the same capability could be used to promote evil and punish good, but that is a perversion of its purpose.
"I SAID NOTHING ABOUT SACRIFICES."
No need to shout, I know you didn't, I was explaining that while the Temple was obviously the center of ancient Israel it was not a seat of earthly power.
"I did not grudgingly do anything. Two of three posts were the SAME links I put up already AND IF YOU READ THE ARTICLES YOU WOULD HAVE FOUND THE SOURCES USED BY THE WRITERS."
It is a common courtesy to ask somebody making a claim (in your case, that historians say something) for references, rather than references to references. If you prefer to appear discourteous, I don't mind.
"your problem in your thinking is that govt. can do no right, and family and city can do no wrong (unless influenced by the govt.)"
That is an extrapolation which you will be unable to demonstrate from what I said and which I don't believe. Government has some legitimate tasks, including organising national defense and enforcing the law. But even those tasks were as decentralised as possible in ancient Israel. In that society God was into dispersion of power, because He knows that man is not to be trusted with it. The men who drafted the US constitution understood the same which is why they divided power between executive, legislature and judiciary and knew that the three would fight each other for power in a hopefully perpetual stalemate that would be the best for the people. That might sound cynical but I regard it as realism in a fallen world. Jesus isn't back yet to act as benevolent dictator and human dictators are seldom benevolent, certainly by the end of their reign. What is happening today is that a faceless State is turning into a non-benevolent dictator, and people like you appear to want it.
a full breakdown of titles and authors and pages is not usually presented here or other forums, a link is given to an article, which will either have sources cited or link to articles that do.
Christine at 4.33pm, you do not have adequate knowledge of education in 19th century Britain to make any reliable judgement about whether I am employing "spin". I gave the stats (to three decimal places in one case) justifying the world "explosion" of schooling in part of that century at 3.42pm.
"educating people beyond the few who were rich would qualify as an "explosion of education" I suppose, but the real explosion was later."
And to give that same statistic, 95.5% of children in the working-class town of Newcastle were being educated nine years before the government made education mandatory. So just when was the "real explosion"?
Newcastle is ONE city and the results of the education is probably what got govt. attention as being important, to improve work production and health and other things.
Govt. intervention dictated that ALL CITIES AND VILLAGES had to have a school in each one of them, read the quote and link for source on my post.
you do not mandate something that is already there.
Newcastle was apparently a leader in the new development, and the govt. took it and ran with it and empowered those who couldn't do it like Newcastle.
the real explosion would be after, when Newcastle started being imitated by order.
Christine I've just read my sources more closely and guess what? The "Newcastle Commission" that reported in 1861 was nothing to do with edducation in the town of Newcastle but was a report into the situation throughout England, to which that stat of 95.5% applies. I presume the Commission was named after its chairman. So you are wrong that that stat was exceptional within that country, and wrong that there was not an explosion of schooling BEFORE the State set up its own schools, while your comments about Newcastle stand exposed as guesswork based on prejudice.
"while your comments about Newcastle stand exposed as guesswork based on prejudice."
Post after post after post, all to be concluded as guesswork based on prejudice. A waste of time. A waste of space...all the while Christine is telling us @4:33 p.m.:
"What you are doing is selectively presenting facts with SPIN."
And not like it is a once in a while thing-------the blog is covered up in this type of "stuff".
How about taking your circus and all of your monkeys back to your blog Christine?
Pope Francis sermon June 25th in Rome
"No one becomes Christian on his or her own! Is that clear? No one becomes Christian by him or herself. Christians are not made in a laboratory. A Christian is part of a people who comes from afar. The Christian belongs to a people called the Church and this Church is what makes him or her Christian, on the day of Baptism, and then in the course of catechesis, and so on. But no one,no one becomes Christian on his or her own. If we believe, if we know how to pray,if we acknowledge the Lord and can listen to his Word,if we feel him close to us and recognize him in our brothers and sisters, it is because others,before us,lived the faith and then transmitted it to us. We have received the faith from our fathers,from our ancestors, and they instructed us in it"
"Dear friends, let us ask the Lord,through the intercession of the Virgin Mary,Mother of the Church,for the grace to never fall into temptation of thinking we can make it without others,that we can get along without the Church,that we can save ourselves alone,of being Christians of the laboratory. On the contrary,you can not love God without loving your brothers,you cannot love God outside of the Church; you cannot be in communion with God without being so in the Church"
Constance,,,,
Is this salvation, becoming "Christian", spoken here by the pope the same as taught in the bible?
Is the " Virgin Mary, Mother of the Church"???????
Does this Church make us Christian, "on the day of Baptism,and then in the course of catechesis, and so on"?
Several of us have repeatedly asked what you think?
Is this pope preaching the gosphel,,, or is he selling religion????
Dear 8:32
Your post about the popes' words about being a christian affirms something to me again (and again)..
The virgin mary is apparently necessary to him, church membership gets notice as key in this matter, but not my blessed Savior Jesus. No reliance upon the Blood of Jesus coming from his mouth.
Going to his 'church' makes me no more a christian than standing in my garage makes me a car.
I am a christian because I was washed by the Blood of the Lamb God's Perfect and Complete Sacrifice Jesus Christ the Lord. His Spirit convicted my hell-bound (and hell-deserving) soul and led me to repentance and faith in His Atoning Work on the Cross. Born again just like Jesus said in John 3:3-7. That is it, fini! That is how one becomes a christian.
The pope is steeped in 'his doctrine' but obviously left out the very most important part of what the word of God said...you must be born again.
How tragic to leave out the Lord of Glory....out of the very Salvation He paid for in His Own Blood.
The watered-down, bloodless, new age steeped, social engineering form of gospel he preaches will save not one soul.
I repeat, you do not have a govt. order, a law, that you have to have schools in every city and village, unless a lot of them don't have them.
and the govt. subsidy made free education possible while before this education explosion was limited to those who could pay tuition.
give me a link to that Newcastle Commission report, which you should have done at the start like I usually do.
I am sure I will find the impression you are gleaning is not the entire picture.
http://www.educationengland.org.uk/history/chapter03.html
well, here's something that draws heavily on the Newcastle Commission Report, and definitely shows a very different picture than you were showing.
yes, a huge number were in elementary school, but not so much in what we now call junior high and high school, and the kids in elementary school which were for lower classes were not getting a good education.
spinmeister or victim of a spinmeister (easily victimized if you prefer a certain conclusion to be drawn) which is it?
First off Christine, I wrote of the Newcastle Commission report of 1861 and wrongly presumed from the relevant sentence in my source that 95.5% of children got an education that it referred to schooling in the British town of Newcastle, when in fact that statistic referred to the whole of England. You picked up that ball and ran with it, as follows: "Newcastle was apparently a leader in the new development, and the govt. took it and ran with it and empowered those who couldn't do it like Newcastle." Obviously this was wholesale guesswork based on prejudice rather than evidence. It says much about your mode of argumentation here, and readers will be reminded of it in further posts about the subject.
You asked for my sources so here they are: two books, "The welfare state we're in" by James Bartholomew, chapter 4, and "The economic laws of scientific research" by Terence Kealey, which includes a section on the history of education in England.
"the govt. subsidy made free education possible"
There is no such thing as free education. The government subsidy came from taxes. One should think very carefully indeed before forcibly taking people's money to do something that charities were already doing.
Proponents of schools funded principally by government compare the system that existed previously with perfection, but no system is perfect including government schools. The only meaningful comparison is between the situations before and after government intervention.
In 1861 more than 95% of children were already getting schooling. The stated aim of the 1870 Forster scheme that set up taxpayer funded schools throughout England was to ensure that the other 5% got an education, and to improve the standard of education of the rest, which the Newcastle Commission claimed was poor in many of the private schools. But the new government schools made many more places available than corresponded to that 5%, and most people could not afford to pay twice for their children's education - once in taxes to fund the government schools and then again for private education - so the latter dwindled from 95% to the wealthy few. As a result, people who do not know their history properly rant about elitism.
Although the Newcastle Commission expressed concern about the standard of education in those private schools, there is no doubt that they taught every child to read, write and do basic arithmetic. Today in Britain and the USA, the proportion of school leavers from State schools who do not have even those basic skills is alarming. A report by Sir Claus Moser in 2002 found that Britain had a high rate of adult illiteracy, third worst in Europe. The UK "Campaign for Real Education" found in 1990 that Zulu children in Africa could spell English better than children in England, even though English was their second language. And your own grammar skills, Christine, severely impede comprehension of your writing.
1. no free education because it is from taxes is a red herring.
"free education" or free anything, means FREE TO THE RECIPIENT.
2. you cite writers not the Newcastle Report itself, so you are relying on the spin they put on it.
I posted a link to excerpts from the Newcastle Report ITSELF, which you obviously didn't pursue, or else you are hoping no one else did.
The issue is not reading and writing only. the 95% you keep repeating is about ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATION.
Would you consider the USA children and teens adequately educated if they had nothing but an elementary school education?
(erg, given the illiterates being graduated from high school, that may not be far off the reality now, but that is still inadequate is it not?)
The explosion in education therefore referred not to basic reading writing and maybe some arithmetic, MY ERROR IN INTERPRETATION ALSO, I APOLOGIZE
But refers to what we call junior high and high school education.
http://www.educationengland.org.uk/history/chapter03.html
I would post the whole page but that would take several posts as only 4,000 plus characters incl. spaces and punctuation are allowed here per post.
"free education" or free anything, means FREE TO THE RECIPIENT"
YOUR definition of "free education" is free to the recipient. Happily you cannot enforce your warped definitions on me. The phrase is propaganda as it is not free if it costs taxpayers.
What do you mean by saying that I cite writers not the Newcastle report itself? You would never have heard of the Newcastle report if I had not mentioned it - you followed my initial error in thinking it was about Newcastle, and made a ludicrous presumption as a result based on your prejudices. Kindly consider my mention of it, as a dated report commissioned by the British government, as a citation; I gave all of the customary scholastic details needed for you to look it up yourself. Whereas you merely cited a website that gave quotes from it and analyzed it - just like the books I mentioned that gave quotes from it and analyzed it. I freely admit that I have not been to the British Library and inspected an original copy, but the website that you yourself quoted gave the figures from which that 95.5% figure was calculated.
"Would you consider the USA children and teens adequately educated if they had nothing but an elementary school education?"
You might be surprised how much was learned how young in Victorian schools. Have you checked what was taught?
And in response to your question, adequately educated for what? In the late 19th century most people either worked in factories or tilled the fields. They could read, write and do arithmetic. Once you can read, you can learn anything for yourself and the Victorians were big on libraries.
"erg, given the illiterates being graduated from high school, that may not be far off the reality now"
You concede my point! Quite possibly it is WORSE now.
higher education in the sense of high school is the issue, and most people aren't interested in educating themselves especially when working 16 hour days.
you need more skills, history, and so forth than you get in elementary school,
and the illiterates being graduated are not the fault of govt. education per se, but of values of not disappointing anyone or making them feel they are less than someone else, not as smart etc.,
and that was NOT part of govt. education until the past 30 years.
I don't concede ANY of your points.
you are blindly pushing an agenda not interested in truth.
and the truth is, that most accomplishments of civilization, at least in their mass public effects, have been the result of govt. involvement to some extent.
for instance, we had roads before govt. funded and aided infrastructure, we had bridges and dams, but fewer, smaller, not so well maintained.
ALL ALONG MANY SUCH FOR CENTURIES WERE ALSO GOVT. RELATED, ever hear of the CA highway 82 El Camino Real?
It means The King's Highway and for a reason. The Spanish king ordered this built probably at the request of some priests, to link the Spanish missions (never mind if they did good or bad or both) throughout California.
And it was built up on, improved, and made longer over centuries until you have the modern asphalt highway El Camino Real (for some reason some people decided to give the same name to at least one other historically unrelated highway in some other state).
The Interstate Freeway system much of what we depend on when not buying local, across which runs all those trucks and even a lot of commuter traffic, was entirely a govt. project begun in the 1950s with I-80.
Viewing things as socialist or capitalist obscures a lot of stuff that are not properly either.
and that not properly either format is ancient beyond marx and anything similar.
"YOUR definition of "free education" is free to the recipient. Happily you cannot enforce your warped definitions on me. The phrase is propaganda as it is not free if it costs taxpayers."
Idiot, use language like most people use it. "free" means FREE TO THE RECIPIENT, "free education" means NO TUITION charged to parents.
get it?
YOUR definition is warped, and modern. "My" definition which is not mine but the normal useage of the term, is what it has always meant.
When someone yells "free food" they mean the people who eat it do not pay for it.
(and whatever taxes went into it only a tiny amount far less than the value of the thing received, came out of any one pocket, and mostly not the pockets of the recipients.)
If I the user do not pay for it, it is free.
That is what is meant any time you see a sign saying "free" anything.
If I do not pay out of pocket for something I receive, then I have received it for free.
"I don't concede ANY of your points."
I don't doubt it. Doesn't mean you are right though. I'm happy to let readers decide.
"Idiot, use language like most people use it. "free" means FREE TO THE RECIPIENT, "free education" means NO TUITION charged to parents."
That's YOUR definition, and if it is a majority definition today (prove it!) then it is only because of several generations of Statist propaganda. It certainly isn't free to the taxpayer, is it?
More importantly, you should not call me or anybody else an idiot. Matthew 5:22. I do actually hope that you will end up in heaven.
I don't understand what all the theological posturing brings to the table. The court incident is maddening and is as if the Sodomites brought Lot and the angels to court putting the burden of proof on them to justify their morality. All religions should unite on the matter.
"That's YOUR definition, and if it is a majority definition today (prove it!) then it is only because of several generations of Statist propaganda. It certainly isn't free to the taxpayer, is it?"
you can prove it yourself by looking at any sign or ad and has nothing to do with statist propaganda.
BUY ONE GET ONE FREE the store says and it wasn't free to them when they paid for it, but it is taking up space or reaching expiration date.
It isn't free to the taxpayer or whoever pays for it, OBVIOUSLY.
BUT THE TAXPAYER OR WHOEVER PAID FOR IT ISN'T THE ONE GETTING IT FREE I.E., WITHOUT PAYING FOR IT!
(if they do pay taxes, only a smidgen of their money went into it, a few cents worth maybe, for the specific thing, but they don't pay in order to receive it there is no price tag.
FREE FOOD! when you see that, what do you think? that you do not pay to get fed.
"Free" always means FREE TO THE RECIPIENT.
It is your mind shaped by propaganda that you can't see it, which renders you mentally retarded in spots of your brain.
The technical definition of idiot might be more extreme than appropriate. But its on the right track on your blind spots.
Jesus didn't hesitate to call people a generation of vipers or whitened sepulchres that look nice outside but full of rotting corpse material (check medical facts on that to know how awful it is) on the inside when it was appropriate.
""Free" always means FREE TO THE RECIPIENT."
Ever heard the phrase "There aint no such thing as a free lunch"?
"It is your mind shaped by propaganda that you can't see it, which renders you mentally retarded in spots of your brain. The technical definition of idiot might be more extreme than appropriate. But its on the right track on your blind spots."
I consider that these comments say more about you than about me.
chenlina20150711
jordan retro 11
chanel outlet online
abercrombie
burberry outlet
coach outlet
tods outlet store
jordan 5
oakley sunglasses
air max 90
abercrombie and fitch
lululemon
longchamp soldes
oakley sunglasses
michael kors handbags
true religion sale
ray ban sunglasses
michael kors outlet online sale
abercrombie fitch
beats by dr dre
michael kors outlet online
abercrombie
christian louboutin outlet
ed hardy clothing
louis vuitton uk outlet
michael kors handbags
cheap chi straighteners
chi flat iron
chanel outlet
lululemon outlet
adidas outlet
celine bags
louis vuitton outlet
hollister clothing
birkin bags
polo ralph lauren
true religion outlet
cheap jerseys wholesale
ray ban sunglasses
louis vuitton handbags
air max shoes
"toms outlet"
"michael kors outlet online"
"michael kors outlet"
"cheap oakley sunglasses"
"nfl jerseys wholesale"
"michael kors outlet clearance"
"adidas originals"
"timberland outlet"
"christian louboutin shoes"
"nike roshe run"
"hollister clothing"
"ray ban sunglasses outlet"
"coach outlet store online clearances"
"toms shoes"
"jeremy scott shoes"
"jordan retro 3"
"michael kors outlet clearance"
"adidas originals shoes"
"jordans"
"nike air max"
"kate spade handbags"
"cheap oakley sunglasses"
"michael kors handbags"
"timberland boots"
"jordan retro"
"tory burch handbags"
"supra shoes"
"air max 90"
"coach outlet store online"
"christian louboutin sale"
"adidas yeezy"
"tory burch outlet"
"polo ralph lauren"
"jordan 4"
"oakley sunglasses"
"nike uk"
"christian louboutin outlet"
"michael kors outlet"
"kobe shoes 11"
"oakley sunglasses"
20167.6chenjinyan
nike air max 2015
ray ban sunglasses
nike soccer shoes
coach outlet
michael kors handbags
coach outlet
cheap nfl jersey
michael kors handbags clearance
oakley sunglasses wholesale
fred perry polo
prada shoes
coach outlet
uggs on sale
rolex watches
louis vuitton outlet
ugg boots
true religion sale
true religion outlet
hermes bags
ferragamo outlet
ugg boots
mlb jerseys
true religion jeans
swarovski outlet
tiffany outlet
true religion jeans
police sunglasses for men
nike free run
ugg australia
nike roshe run
uggs outlet
michael kors outlet
nike air huarache
hollister clothing
michael kors outlet clearance
czq20160824
Post a Comment