This broadcaster has 144 podcast archives available on-demand.
Keep up-to-date with this broadcaster on social media and their website.
August 3, 2020 8:00 am
Steve Greg and we are live for an hour each week. The afternoon we take your calls and questions about the Bible and the Christian faith. Glad to talk to about that with your to call in other number to call is 844-484-5737 that's 844-484-5737 our first college today is Mark calling from Vancouver, British Columbia Mark, welcome to the neuropathic for: I believe most of the Bible is probably the word of God and inspired by God. Obviously, we also believe that there are some parts of the Bible which are frankly you are not the word of God and the evil described into nonsensical narrative. One example would be in Deuteronomy where it says that the two men are struggling and the wife of one of man that puts her hand below the belt of the opponent of her husband in order to save them there hand should be cut off to me that is pure nonsense.
What is your take a mess when I don't believe that Moses gave a pure nonsense. And Paul said the law is perfect and just and good, and that was part of you think that you think that Megan said better without something that was put in by some nutcase is recorded that Moses said it, I don't have any way of saying that Moses didn't say anything to that. He's recorded the same and I don't see anything really wrong because basically it basically says your women.
If your husband is under attack and some guys beat them up.
You may resist the garbage can grab his genitals. Okay now whenever there's a severe penalty to ever handcuff or some like that to me that's those kinds of penalties frankly sometimes were not carried out. We know this because a lot of crimes were committed against the law in Israel's history and were not carried out but the purpose of the penalty is to inhibit that behavior is sometimes people think it's a little too severe to say that a child who curses his father or mother or strikes his father motion be put to death. Maybe that's what you think it's strange to but in a society where that is the law. First of all we have to realize that nobody has to do the thing that the penalty is attached, so there's nothing there's nothing too severe about putting a penalty on something that nobody has to do so. Nobody ever never have to have the penalty and if you're in a society where child for example, would be put to death if he cursed his parents instructed. I'll bet you have very few children who would ever curse their parents or strike them and I would think that in a land where you know such a strange action might be taken by what money I would be very rare situations we should be be tempted to do it but it's just for didn't know you do that'll cost your hand.
So don't do it and I didn't get to do the will likely work. It says that if a servant loses it direct to you shall go free for the loss of desire to know. It seems to me that is to immediately to strikingly nonsensical things about nothing and that is first of all, if you could be equating denying the truth is me the same thing and also to if you have your eye out. Why would you be fired from your job as compensation as opposed to being given light duty for the rest of your life. While the assumption I think is probably several rather be free under the law.
If the server was offered is freedom. He could always turn it down.
We know that because the law states that if a man is offered to serve freedom. After seven years, the seven site but I want to stay and then he can and do I mean unless master has no use for him. Of course, if the if the Masters can say this never was very good servant. Anyways, not worth my money to support webby, like any employer saying this guys not worth employing but most in most cases, servant would probably want his freedom and therefore he's been rewarded because in the course of serving his master. He he sustained disability and earning if he says like now I have this disability can't make a living out there anymore. Well, then I would submit suggest that there be a different option for him to just continue to work for his master.
I would imagine the master lot. This is actually this is actually a law given for the benefit of the slave, not for the benefit of master I'm in the master could discharge a slave anytime he wants to whether the man's injured or not, but the slave can't just walk away.
For every reason, but if he is injured in this way, then he would be as far as the law, suggesting that the loss of and I am loss of tooth are of equal concern. It doesn't suggest any such thing at all, but he's making the suggestions of things it could actually happen. People sometimes do lose this in the course of various kinds of work or to the face by something kicked by horse or something is not saying that the loss of tooth is the same thing as the loss is no suggestion that it also saying that when a person has sustained an irreparable damage whether it's loss of tooth loss when I and I would suppose, of the two most people would rather lose a tooth than I that that's it doesn't matter whether to deny or even only of tooth the servant and has the liberty to go out on his own and that he doesn't have to stay in that servitude sets of laws. Same. Okay, let's talk to Dustin and for retention welcome to the neuropathic I have but I think you be able to cover pretty quick sandstorms somewhat. I'm selling it on his millennial's right yet you said that he believes in a in the like late 90s writing of Revelation.
I just wanted to know. I know you believe in a pre-70 A.D. writing Revelation here what your response would be to a person thinking. I think Revelation was written in 1980 well, frankly, he's taken the majority view selects a person like myself who believes it's written before 780 has got to be aware of the fact that the majority of modern scholars would prefer to say it was written around 96 A.D. which is a different theory of the time of writing.
Sorry, I've got plenty to say, but if one thing I'm not selling my books. But if you happen to have my book on Revelation 4 views I the whole section in the introduction talking about the evidence for early date as opposed to the evidence in the later date, and I think there is some there are arguments for both of course because there would be scholars of both sides if they were not. And there have been times when other more scholars on the side of the pre-70 A.D. date saw me the scholarship has its has its Vogue's letter say right now if you take a view like mine. You're going to be going against the majority view. And that's true even if you take a something other than a pretrip.
Most people seem to believe pretrip. But you either have to just go along with the majority or seek the truth and not worry about the majority now as far as my what I would say to somebody who believes in a date of writing of Revelation in the 90s is that I personally don't think the evidence is good for there are there is one bit of good evidence for to be sure and that is that Irenaeus had made a famous statement which seems to have influence later church fathers.
To hold this view and that is that that John, it sounds like you saying John saw the vision on on Patmos late in donations rain which would be in the 90s and it's on the basis of Irenaeus statement largely that scholars assume the street and other church fathers who followed him on and said that now, that's fine. You know, church fathers of so many things I disagreed with, including the he was. Uranus is premillennial and I'm not premillennial either. Neither sandstorms it's interesting sandstorms would base his doctrine of the time of the resurrection.
I'm tired of the writing arose of Revelation to on what really comes down to the testimony of Irenaeus when he would feel comfortable rejecting the theology of the premillennialism of Irenaeus now Irenaeus is a great guy, very important church father very orthodox but his views were not the only ones around and there are many who hold my view about the date of writing Revelation who feel that perhaps his urine is statement have been misunderstood and that is not saying that John saw the vision during the time of donation, but rather that some people saw John that late and that Irenaeus is not telling us when John saw the vision buddy's house. When John was last seen.
I don't have time to go into analyzing that quote from Irenaeus right here to show that some would think that way but I do have it in my book. Of course you can find in the introduction and go into detail, or if you don't want to buy my book.
I have lectures on Revelation online that are free and you can listen to those and I in the introduction I would talk at some length about the evidence for the early data. Suppose that is for the late date to the others. Many evidences brought by both sides. I do I deal with all of them both in my book and with my lectures but to put it briefly, I believe the internal evidence within the book of Revelation strongly suggests a pre-70 A.D. date and that the evidence for the later date is primarily external evidence.
What I mean by that is when your when you're trying to find out something about a book of the Bible, the internal evidence to answer your query is what it is potentially written in the book itself. The evidence given by the author wants what we find in the book is the internal evidence for but then you have also the consideration of extra lettuce. What did early church fathers think about what did the Jews think about the early Christians think about some books that external evidence, so in my opinion the internal evidence of Revelation is almost act entirely on the side of the early date of writing were as external evidence goes both ways, but is probably slightly more weighted toward the late date, church fathers and their writings do more often speak of it as the late date, but not all, you have certain things in early and early writings that would suggest an earlier date, not the least of which is the moratorium Canon which actually was put together about the same time as the dates of Irenaeus and moratorium Canon is from the same era as Irenaeus and whoever wrote that no one knows who it is. But someone had put together a list of the books that Christians accepted at that time the full Canada New Testament is not yet completed yet but but somebody put together a Canon of New Testament books, with an introduction written about each book and what's interesting about that is that he says about Paul's epistles.
Whoever whoever the author is what is an early Christian of the same time as Irenaeus. He said that Paul following the example of his predecessor, John wrote seven letters to seven churches. That's the exact statement from moratorium Canon that Paul following the example of his predecessor, John wrote to seven, wrote letters to seven churches that he did. Paul wrote more than seven letters but he wrote only 27 churches that we have letters for, and he wrote some of the church is more than one letter and some letters were written to individuals, but the point here is that he's saying that in writing seven letters to writing in writing letters to seven churches Paul was following the example which pre-would suggest the previous example before Paul of John writing to seven churches. Now the moratorium Canon.
Therefore, suggesting that John's letters to the seven churches which of the book of Revelation were before.
Paul's letters were all, all finished being written up always writing letters probably on the rep to about 67 A.D. and that's probably the year he died, but the interesting thing is that if the if there were early Christians contemporary with Irenaeus who believe that Paul's decision to to write the seven churches was following the example of John's book of Revelation, which was addressed to seven churches that would suggest that the Christians believed that John wrote Revelation before Paul's letters were all written. Therefore before 70 A.D. that's an expense also external evidence when you get to internal evidence.
It's almost all in favor early date in my opinion. Now there is internal evidence appealed to by those who hold the later date but to my mind it's it's tremendously stretched the take something in the book and dealt well assume certain things about the thing that says and then build a force that to somehow fit into their late date, I don't believe that they do so well that I've read. Believe me when I was right. My commentary Revelation actually read 50 commentaries on Revelation and summarize what was in that manner and in doing so of course I wrote. I read probably more than 30 that defended that late date, so I sent another argument signing and I'd dealt with arguments in my book so if you're really interested in that my book you know answers it pretty thoroughly if if you can't afford it. I want to buy my book. I don't sell books and try to sell books.
You can get the same information for my lectures on email@example.com under the verse by verse.
Yes I will get your your lectures on Revelation so it does include dating dating Revelation and that I would imagine the beginning several chapters but not the beginning. Yeah, allowing the first couple lectures at least are about the introduction to the book and and you can't really introduce a book about discussing the time of its running sound that's refined within the first and the first two lectures it, it may be near the end of the first lecture in a positive right you are at a presurgical collection. I okay let's talk next to a Canon luck Kenyatta California hi Ken, welcome to the narrow calling is when the hell are you, appreciate your time and appreciate you show I wanted to share with you that regarding the third Temple in Ezekiel that it would be as significant as the meeting of Jesus with the Samaritan woman there in the well and is parallel and I would kinda like to point out some of that and get your feedback okay well quickly go ahead as we brought this third Temple in Ezekiel numerous times unite and I'm not sure we have a lot more to say about the grant okay because in this.
You see, what is the heart of God's you see what his heart is and you see the proper way to worship. He shared that with the Samaritan woman seated and also in the third Temple. He told Samaritan woman at the proper place, not a physical place. But if it is in spirit and truth was, and then in the third Temple. He said that in the holy of holies that's where his throne is right that established on righteousness.
According to But He Said That's What He Wants to Do Well Forever, but He Said He Only Once the Sons of the Attic.
He Only Allows the Sons of the Attic to Come in Their Right and Another Which They Have To Come in at the Right Angle and Zantac Means Righteous Right so They Have To Come in As a Knock Was an Actual Priest in David's Time yet Is a Very Famous Priest in David's Time to Go Ahead Right and and and so Would Basically God Is Saying Is That If You Don't Come in at the Right Angle, You Can't Get in in the Proper Way to Get in Is to Have the Proper Not Only Heart but Also yet the Living with All Your Heart, with All Your Soul and with All Your Might.
Therefore, You Have To Spiritualize the Circumcision of the Heart in the Flesh Because What He Talking about Their Spiritual Reality and Not a Physical One, to the Samaritan Woman. She Was Caught up in All the Physical Aspects, but He Wasn't. He Wasn't Even Referring to See Them Saying. Well Let Me Just Say This, the Things You're Saying about True Worship Are Correct and You Can Find Them in Many Places and in the Bible the Old and the New Testament. Both Make Reference to the Spiritual Aspects of Worship to God Requires Those Facts. Being True, Are Not the Same Thing. I Mean I Go to Section of the Same Thing As Saying That This Temple Vision Is Is a Symbolic Vision to to Get across Is That It Could Be National. My Understanding of the Temple Vision in Ezekiel Is That It's the Temple That Would Have Been a Physical Temple. If These Rights Had Been Fully Repentant of the Paper Sense and If They Had Been Zealous for God's Work in and so Forth. They Would've Had This Temple and They Didn't so That It Never, Never Materialized. Now in Our Previous Conversations.
I Mentioned That the Temple When It Is Built by Solomon or Whether Talk about the Tabernacle Built by Moses. Sorry for This Temple That Had Been Built Would Have Spiritual Lessons in Its Design.
We Know That's True, the Tabernacle and We Have Every Reason to Believe That's True of the Temple of Solomon Built and of This One As Well and Therefore What You're Saying Are the Spiritual Truths and I Agree with Those Spiritual Truths. I Don't Think We Need to Go to the Ezekiel Temple to Get Those to Reside and If They Are There. I Think You're Very Obscure That Much More Obscure There Than in Many Other Places for Me to Have To Say Well It's Only Sons of the Neck Can Come in and That Means They Have a Coming from the Right Angle. I Don't Understand How That That's Not a Connection.
I Would Actually Make Effective When Told, I Don't Messily See It but but the Point I'm Making Here Is That If the Things You Say Are True and I Think They Are at with in General about the Need for Spiritual Worship That to My Mind Does Not Mean That This Is the Primary Meaning of That Vision. It Would Be Possible and Instantly One View I Know Three or Four Views of That Vision. I Happen to Take a Slightly Different One Which Is Okay but Some Is Okay for Me to Do That If You Take a Slight Difference so but I'm I'm Saying That the Point You're Making or Not. To Me They're Not Really Addressing the Questions Would Have To Answer to What Was This Temple Primarily Referring to. If We Can If We Assume That Is Primarily Referring to the Spiritual Temple. Then of Course We Set about to Find All These Parallels and and It's Fine to Do.
It's Probably Very Edifying to Do One of My Favorite Commentaries on the Ezekiel Is the One That's in the in the Tyndale Old Testament Counters and That Author Takes a View from a Cyclic Talking Very Much Spiritualize View of the Temple and You Know I I Can See the Point.
But I Also See from the Is Retirement Earlier the Internal Evidence That It Looks like It's Got That It's Actually a Template Would Have Been If They Had Repented and Come Back En Masse from from Battling but I Mean the Fact That You See This Way Is Not a Problem to Me Is Just Can Have To Be Not a Problem to You That I Sit Somewhat Differently Right Can Make One Quick Point Well Recording Because I Break to Get so Significant Is Because It Shows the Shekinah Glory Coming Back in and Left on the on the Other Vision and It Comes Back in Here. That's Why It's Important Because the Shekinah Glory Just Read Because of That Patient & Kevin Okay Dairy in Las Vegas. Welcome to the Narrow Path. Thanks for Calling. Oh Yeah Hi Steve, I Appreciate Your Shallow Question about Openness Theology, I Believe That Means That God Doesn't Know the Answer Future I Ran into a Guy Last Summer at a Men's Retreat, He Believed That He Gave Me a Nephew Scripture That I since Found out There Their Usual Arguments about Some Places Where God Says Why He Didn't Know or like When Adam and Eve Were Hiding in the Garden and Where Are You in and in Those Type Ones They Did Good. They Still Arguments Don't Seem to Hold Much Water.
But My Question Is, Your Lectures on Isaiah and like Chapter 40 to 49. One of God's Arguments against Idolatry Is That He Does He Can Predict the Future Any Notes for Future and I Was Wondering If That Type of Argumentation. If That's the Reputation of Openness, Theology, Well It's It's a Start. I Don't Think It Goes Far Enough Because They Can Live with That.
It's True That God Spends a Great Deal of Time in That Section of Isaiah Affirming That He Knows the Future Which the False Gods Do Not. And That Makes It Okay God, but Here's the Thing, in That Section Also Is Saying That He's the One Who's Decreeing It to Happen and He's Gonna Bring It to Pass. Now, Rather It's One Could Take His Words to Mean Not That She Just Passively Knows All Future Things, but He Has a Proactive Plan and He's Good to Tell You in Advance for You to Do and Then You Could Do It in the Fact That He Can Tell in Advance Something and Then Do It Which No Other Gods Can Do Is What He's Saying Is so Impressive Now Is True That Isaiah Does Make That Point and the People Who Believe in Openness Theology Do Believe That God Knows Whatever Future Things He Is Going to Do Okay Date They Just Say That He Doesn't Know What Things We Necessarily Will Do with Our Free Will. Now I Do Think There's a Similar Issue Though Where I Think Openness Doesn't Answer Very Well and That Is Jesus.
Jesus Predicted That Peter Would Deny Him Three Times before the Cockroaches Now We Know That Jesus Didn't Make Peter Do That Because I Don't Doesn't Tempt God Doesn't Tempt Anyone to Sin Doesn't Make Us a Sin so so It Was Certainly Some That Peter Was Good with His Free Will and Jesus Knew about It and He Know How Many Times He Knew How May Times He Betray Him. He Knew He'd Repent Efforts.
He Says When Your Parent Do This and so in a Sense That's That's Serves Better I Think More Unanswerable, He to Say That God Knows the Future Then Than Those Great Examples in Isaiah Because Isaiah Okay If You Can IRA It Is What God It God Is Predicting the Future That He Not Going to Do the Other One Is Human Action against a Faded… Know It Because Humans Have Free Will and Have Not Done It yet.
Yes, You Grasp the Situation Perfectly. I Think Okay Very Good Appreciate.
Thanks All Right Appreciate Your Call.
Thank You. Okay Bye-Bye Now Bind Well. We Have Talked to Mary from New Jersey Next but We've a Break and If so, Mary Holland Just for about a Minute or Two and We Will Then Take Your Call.
We Also Have Lines Open for You If You like to Be on the Program. The Number Is 844-484-5737 and You Can Call What You Have a Question or Even If You Have a Disagreement with Those Who like to Talk about the Number 844-484-5737 Now. We Do Have Another Half-Hour Coming at This Point We Take a Break to Let You Know That the Neuropathic Is Listener Supported and the Reason You Want to Know. That Is Because We Spend A Lot Of Money Paying Radio Stations. This Is Not Necessary to Get Reluctant to Take a Ride.
It's Just That That's How Stations Were Accelerated to a Noise so Pay Radio Stations Many Tens of Thousands of Dollars Every Month.
We Don't Have Anything for Sale, Raise Money, and We Don't Have a Mailing List. We Don't Have Sponsors Commercial Breaks.
We Just Let Our Listeners Know Where Listener Supported. If You'd like to Help Us down There You Can by Writing to the Narrow PO Box 1732 Macula CA 92593 One by Going to Our Website.
The Narrow.com under the Donations Link Operetta Again to Nearly Is the Path That Leads to Life to the Narrow Steve Greg Has Nothing to Me Today That Everything to Give You the Radio Show Is over. Go to the Narrow Path.com You Can Study and Enjoy the Three Topical Audio Teachings Blog Article Teachings and Archives of the Narrow Path Radiation. Thank You for Supporting the Listeners.
The Narrow Path Steve Greg When the Narrow Path.com Steve Greg and Where Live for Another Half-Hour Taking Your Calls If You Have Questions about the Bible and the Christian Faith. We Welcome You to Call and We'll Talk about Those Things with You the Number Is 844-484-5737 Our Lines of Just Filled up and so If You Call You Will Get a Busy Signal. But Honestly, If You Call in A Few Minutes. You Probably Will Find a Line Has Opened up. Not Everyone Who's Online Right Now. Will Wait the Whole Time It Takes to Get Online so Lines Open up and You May Be Able to Get If You Call in A Few Minutes.
Mary from New Jersey and Mary X for Calling Today and the Question Everywhere at One Time and Created and Angels Are Created Now and One Third Is Angels after? I Said Satan Can Only Be in One Place at One Time It Created, and He Said You Can Print It to Me.
Where Is Not Written in the Bible I Just Only Finally Now It but I Don't Know How to Print It Can Pull Something out and Learn. Show Him.
Job Chapters 1 and Two, Where God Says to Satan, Where Have You Been These Women Wandering To And Fro in the Earth Walking up and down in It Now. You Don't Really Have To Wander around If You Everywhere at Once. In Fact, If Satan Was Everywhere at Once, God Would Have To Ask Him Where He Spent Everywhere Certainly Speaks to Satan As If He Is Somebody Who Is One Place at a Time, and Satan Answers As If That's True Also. Now, of Course, If Somebody Says, Well, since Only One Place of Time Than He Probably Won't Get around to Noticing Mirrored Bothering Me Well She He's Personally That Radial. He Is Personally Only One Place, a Time, but He Commands Legions of Demonic Forces.
Apparently, and They of Course Can Be All over the Place Because of so Many Things like Having an Occupational Army in Several Different Countries at the Same Time so Satan Has His Network As I Would Tend to Think of It throughout the World and That We Don't Know How Many Demons He Has Been on the Angels That We Don't Know Any of That Stuff, Although Christian Revelation Touch the Angels of Tarts Were Innumerable Companies of Angels Billions Billions, but in Any Case, If Satan Has Enough Demons, They May Certainly They Certainly Make You Come in Contact with You on a Regular Basis.
Some of Them and so What Is Done through a Demon at the Behest of Satan, We Could Say Is Satan Doing It and from If Somebody Says Will the Devil Was Tempting Me. I'm Inclined to Think They They May or May Not Know, but It's Probably Not Satan. Personally, Tempting Him, but He Does Have an Organization and His Agents Are around and There May Be Very Well Some of His Agents Assigned to Tempting That Person That Way and What Is Done by One's Agents Is Said to Be Done by That One Whenever You Assign Somebody to Do Something As Your Agent. The Thing They Do Is You Doing It and If You're Doing and Therefore It's Been Done through You Know a Network and That's What Satan Has, As Far As the Question of St. Being Created Be. Maybe That's What the Pastors Asked. Maybe He Was and He Didn't Think That Satan Is a Created Being Well If He Is Not Created Then He and God Are the Only Two Beings That Are Not Created and That Means If Satan Was Not Created.
Then He Existed Forever like God Did, and Therefore He Has Equal Rights, to Exist As God Has. Because Both of Them Are Self Existent. In Fact, Satan Would Have Equal Right to Be Viewed As God If He Always Existed Because He Self Existent God Is All Is by Nature the Self Existent, 1 Teaspoon Is the First Cause He's the Unmoved Mover. Everything Else Had to Come from Him. And If If He Isn't That Then Whatever's behind Him Because It Is God Because That's the Only Only One Thing Can Exist Forever in a Christian Worldview That You See. The Only Reason That God Can Judge Satan Is Because God Owns Satan He Created Him and That's the Same Reason God Can Judge People Is Because He Created Us What God Has Created He Can Has Every Right to to Subdue and to Expect Obedience from and to Penalize for Disobeying Something Because It God Made God Didn't Make Satan, Then He Might Still Be Bigger Than the Devil, He Might Still Be Able to Beat up the Devil Is Thrown in the Lake of Fire, but He Wouldn't Have Any Intrinsic Right to Do so Because Satan's Existences That Are Independent of God. God Has No Intrinsic Right to Mess with Things That He Didn't Make but Disarming What If the Pastor Suggest That Satan Was Not a Created Being That He Is Basically Toying with the Zoroastrian Kind of a View of Dualism Where There Is an Equal Good and Bad Almost a Unity Gang Kind of an Idea Personified into Divine Beings over Eastern Ideas and Not Biblical Ideas? The Bible Itself Is a Middle Eastern Book, but Nonetheless It Doesn't Follow the Philosophies That Are Common in the Eastern Hemisphere Today so You Know, a Pastor May Believe That Buddies Moving Away from Christian Theology. If He Believes That There's Anything besides God. That Is Uncreated, Son of the Pastor Is Challenging You in Your Statement That Sings a Created Being Made.
That's What He Wanted to See Proof or Fuse Challenge You to Challenge You on Your Assertion That Satan Can't Be Everywhere at Once. I Think in Either Case Is a Good Answer to That and I Think You're Right and I Believe the Pastor Was Mistaken.
All Right, As by the Way, Pastors Can Easily Be and Often Are All Right. Let's Talk to Brandon and Edmonds, Washington Brandon, Welcome to the Narrow Extra Calling That and about in the Where There by an Empty the Rain That Anybody That Look Back upon the Image Would Be Healed and Then It Was Interesting That You Said That When the Thimble of Me and I Think like in the Catholic Church That the Really Bizarre Statuette You like the Darn I Do Not Often Affect Their Dragon That's with Satan and You Think That You Yeah That One Thing at a Rate That the Healing in That Regard Range Symbol.
Well It Is, It Is Perplexing and Many People Wonder, and I Have Had My Times. I Wondered Why It Would Be If God Intended for That Serpent on the Pole to Represent Jesus on the Cross and That Is Certainly What Jesus Implied That Why Would He Make It an Image of a Serpent or Not.
The Image of Sacrifice, Lamb, or of Some Other Things like Why an Image of That Which Is Almost Always Symbolic of the Devil. Is There Some Suggestion That Jesus Is Making on the Devil. I'm Secretly Devil until I Went Course, Not Jesus of How It Is Not Even Embarrassed to Compare Himself with the Serpent on the Pulse of It Must Be Some Thought behind It That Agrees Well with God's Overall Purpose and Viewpoint, and Jesus Was Right.
You Know on on Target with the Two There's a Couple of Ways to Look at That to Say That Jesus on the Cross Was Prefigured by the Serpent on the Cross There Is. There Are Two Ways That You Can Look at It and Make It Not As Strange to Our Minds Vis-Ŕ-Vis Christian Teaching One Would Be That When Jesus Died, He Appeared to Be the One Defeated, but in Fact It Was the Devil Is Defeated like Our Sins Were Crucified, Very Nailed to the Cross Pulses and the Likes It's It's As If Satan Himself and His Claim of Rights Was Nailed to the Cross, Jesus Appeared to Be the One Dying and He Did Die and He Rose from the Dead, but the One Who Really Was Permanently Harmed by the Cross Was the Devil Himself, and It May Well Be That Jesus Is Implying by Certainly Not Say Plainly That My Death on the Cross Will Be the Defeat of Satan, Just As Moses Lifted up Serpent on a Pole, Perhaps Depicting Satan Defeated Two Possibly Now There's Another Way Is There's Couple We Can Go with It. Another Way Is That the Bible Seems to Teach That When Jesus Took Our Sins upon Himself, Which He Did like a Sacrificial Victim in the Old Testament, Day of Atonement.
They Would Lay Their Hands on a Lamb and and It Would Be in a Course That Not Only in the Day of Atonement Than in All the Sacrifices All the Sin Offerings over. They Lay Their Hands on the Head of the Victim, a Lamb or Something and Then That Lamb Would Be Considered to Be Now Guilty and Corrupted and in and Standing in the Place of the Sinful Person Whose Own Sins Condemn Them, but That Condemnation That Sin and That Guilt Is Symbolically Transferred to the Animal and Then When It Is Killed, It Is Being Killed As a Substitute for the Person Who Really Deserved It to Strange Concept to Us, Perhaps, but It's Not Strange throughout History. For the Idea of a Innocent Victim to Make Atonement for the Guilty in Almost Any Religion Including Judaism.
In Fact That's True in Christianity to Jesus Is the Lamb of God Takes with since Robert How Does He Do so While He Who Knew No Sin Became Sin for Us. It Says in Second Cricket Step Five in Isaiah 53 Verse Six It Says All We like Sheep Have Gone Astray. We've Turned Everyone to His Own Way, but the Lord Laid on Him the Iniquity of Us All, and Likewise Peter Tells Us That Christ I Can't Think of the Exact Wording There at the End of Chapter 2 First Peter, I Know It, but It's Just a Senior Moment Member Starts but Is Talking of the Same Way about That. He Bore Our Sins in His Own Body on the Tree, That We Been Dead to Sin, Should Live unto Righteousness. Now in Others. The Bible Seems to Teach That in Becoming the Sin Substitute for Us in the Atoning Sacrifice for Our Sins Were Imputed to Him so That He Was Treated As If He Was the Corrupt One He Suffered As the One Who Owned Our Evil Because It He Accepted It on Himself and Took It from Us, Just like a Sacrificial Victim and so He Could Be Suggesting, Though I Think This Would Be a Little More Esoteric Than the First Suggestion. Frankly, He Could Be Suggesting That in His Death He Would Be Taking on the Evil of the World, so He Be at No He Be Being Treated More like like the Devil Himself or like Us, Sinful and Therefore the Serpent on the Pole Could Represent Them, but I I Tend to Favor the First Suggestion over the Second and If Neither of Those Really Work for You Then I'm Not Sure What to Do, but It Can Still Be Worked on and Maybe We Will Know Something All Right. I Appreciate Your Calling Today a Ron in Brentwood, California. Welcome to the Narrow Path Extra Calling Oh Hello Couple of Verses.
Okay Yeah Nine Chapter of Ecclesiastes and the Third Verse, Solomon Said That the Hearts of Men Are Evil and I Can't Get You You Talk Is Do You Know You're on the Radio Talk to Thousands of People Wanted to Call Back When You Can Have Your Material Ready Okay Because There Are Lots of People Waiting Appreciate Your Call. Okay, Let's Talk to Don in Sacramento, California.
Thanks for Calling My Call. I Have a Question Kind of Reconcile in Regards to First Corinthians 75 Starts to Defraud You Not Marriage. Now When That Is a Long Term Defrauding. Let's Say You Know the Marriage Is Considered a Divorce Is a Considered Separation of Some Kind, Spiritually or Physically. It Is Considered a Sin against One Spouse Dear You're Talking about Where He Says in Verse Five. Do Not Deprive One Another except Bike with Consent for Time That You May Yourself, Give Yourselves to Fasting and Prayer, and Then Come Together Again. Let so That Satan Not Tempt You Because of Your Lack of Self-Control.
It Certainly Is Saying That If Either the Husband or the Wife Deprives Their Spouse of Reasonable Sexual Access and Behavior That They Are Different, Depriving Their Spouse of What One of the Things Agreed to When They Got Married and Others Are Breaking the Contract or Covenant. In a Sense It Also Is Saying That They Are Setting That Person up for Failure and for Possible Sentences That You Don't Want to Deprive One Another, Less the Devil Tempt Them and You and Invasive Succumb to Their Incontinent so It's It's Obvious That He's Saying It Is a Great Sin for a Man or Woman to Deprive Their Spouse of Sexual Access to Each Other. Now I Will Say This There Are Situations Where It's Just Impossible.
I Mean Sometimes the Medical Condition of the Woman or or Maybe the Age of the Man That He Can't Perform in the Same Way.
There's Different Things That Can Come up There Are Separations Because of so You Know Somebody's in Prison or Overseas on Business or in at That and Battling.
There Are Separations That Cause Both Parties Have To Have Self-Control and Therefore a Christian Who Is Being Deprived Has Got to Be Prepared. Of Course, Have Self-Control, Even under Temptation Is Not Saying If Your Spouse Is Not Warm toward You and You Not Having Regular Intimacy with Your Spouse Then You Know It's Understandable If You Going Commit Adultery Is Not Saying That He's Just Saying That If You Did Your Spouse Have To Realize That They Contributed to That It Wouldn't Remove Your Guilt for Doing It, but It Would Also Spread the Guilt out Little Bit to the One Who Increased the Temptation for You and Make Put a Stumbling Block That You Know but I Don't Consider That It's I Have To Say I Don't Consider This Grounds for Divorce but I Wills I Will Say Because I Only Have My Opinion to Go on with This. There Are Some Who Think Otherwise Because Some Have Thought That If If the Couple Are Certainly Not in and Prevented by Physical Separation or Physical Health or Those Kinds of Things. If Both Are Capable of Having Intimate Relations but Want to Say Now and I Can Give You Intimate Relations with Me Anymore.
Some Have Felt That That Is Something of a Ground for Divorce and and One of the Christian Authors on This Was Using Something. It's in the Law of Moses. Now of Course Were Not under the Law, but the Law of Moses Does Layout Moral Issues and from God's Point of View and in This Case It Was a Case in a Time Where People Might Have a Wife Who Is, for Whatever Reason Are Not Satisfying, but Maybe They Can't Have Children or Whatever, but the Guy Takes Another Wife Back in the Day When People Would Have Multiple Wives like Abraham Pattern.
Jacob Had and He Said If He Takes Another Wife.
He Says about the First Wife, He Shall Not Diminish Her Food. Her Clothing or Her Marriage Right Section. Exodus 2110. Then It Says Giving Verse 11. If He Does Not Do These Three Things for Her, Then She Should Go out Free without Paying Money.
Now There Is There Is a Subtext of This of This Woman Was Ace a Servant Actually a Slave Who Didn't Have the Liberty to Gottfried before She Married Him and Then He Married One of His Slave Girls so but Then He Then for Whatever Reason, He Took a Different Wife. Now This Guy Is Not a Good Guy. Okay, so Not the Bible Is Not Justifying What He's Doing but It's Telling What Her Rights Are. If He Doesn't. If He Has a Servant Slave He's Married Her Any Decisiveness. Somebody Else and in Marrying Somebody Else.
He Takes Another Wife Friend Doesn't Give the Same Food and Clothing, and Marriage Rights.
I Think All Commenters Regret Would Refer to Sexual Access to the Wife to the Earlier Wife When She's Free to Go on a Course in This Case a Species Freed from Slavery but Also of Siegfried from Being Married to She Can Go so It Would Seem in under the Law That a Man Who Failed to Support to Feed Her Close or Have Relations with His Wife Would Give Her Grounds to Go and There's No Reason to Believe That That This Would Not Be Necessarily the Same Thing If It Was a If the Roles Were Reversed Sexually except That of Course It Wouldn't Be Because There's Never a Case in the Bible Permitted That a Woman Would Have Multiple Husbands and This Is Its Cultural Setting upon Polygamy but Some of Felt As a Principal There Marriage Partners Are They Are Covenanted to Each Other to, among Other Things, Have Sexual Relations, and If They Break Their Covenant by Denying Each Other of Them Broke the Covenant, Which Is Another Way That Be Another Way of Breaking the Covenant. Besides Committing Adultery.
Now I Am Saying That I've Heard That, Given I Have Never Argued That This Is the Case, but I Can't Be Sure That It Isn't Because There Is That Those Ethics Would Have To Be Wrestled with. I Will Say This, That If a Man… A Man's Wife Will Not Respond to Him That He Would Probably Be Very He Deftly Gives His Rights Not to Sleep with Her. Maybe Even Not to Live with Her, but I Think You Should Just Support. I Don't Think Should Divorce. Thank You All Right, Thank You for Your Call by All Right, Let's Talk to Danny in San Diego, California Danny, Welcome to the Narrow Path Calling Revelation and Bickley Way That the Locust Will Be Will Be Fit in There to Come off the Not Not Harm the Earth and Not Harm the People That Had God Marked on the on the Four Head Is Not Referring to the Hundred and 44,000. Yes, the Remnant Treatment Does Have the Mark of God's Seal on Their Forehead Had Mentioned to Chapters Earlier When Revelation 7 God Have the Seal from the Four Heads of Those That Were His People and That Was the People That Were Identified As the Hundred 44,000. So Just to Chapters Later When the Plague Is At Least It Is Those Who Are Who Have That Seal on Their Forehead, Which We Already Saw 143,000 Who Are Spared and Now I Want to Just Say This, That You May or May Not Know My Views of Revelation Are Somewhat Different Than Some Popular Views. I Am, I Don't Believe the Hundred 44,000 Refers to a Future Jewish Remnant in the End Times and That's of Course a Very Strange Suggestion to Make for Many People. My View of Revelation Is That It's Primarily about Things That Happened in the First Century and That James Use Language Describing Himself Another First Century Jews That Is Reminiscent of What Revelation Says about the Hundred 44,000 Expression. Revelation 14 so I I'm Thinking Probably Differently Than Than Many Listeners and Props Differently Than You Think. Also, I'm Not Looking at This As a Future Thing and Think of This Is Something Fulfilled the First Century, but the Revelation Is an Apocalyptic Drama Made up of Four Apocalyptic Symbolic Visions and Therefore I'm Not Suggesting That All Literal Locusts with Tails like Scorpions and Faces like Men and Hair-Like Women and Breastplates of Iron, and Wings. You Know, like, Sound like Rushing Water so I Don't Believe Locusts Have Ever Appeared like This but I Do Believe That This Is Describing Symbolically, Something Did Happen and so but That Your Question Is, Is It the Same People Who Have the Seal on the Forehead. In Chapter 9 Where the Locusts Are Found As the Hundred 40,000 Chapter 7 Answer Yes All Going with What You Were to Stand. Can You Identify the Event in History That Would Interest Fulfilled That Revelation, Yes I Can. I Believe Most of Revelation Is Concerned with the Fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. during the Siege of Jerusalem Demonic Powers Invaded the Land As Jesus Predicted They Would Jesus and the 12th Chapter of Matthew Said That the Generation He Was Living in the Jewish Generation of His Time Would Be like a Man Out Of Whom a Demon Had Been Cast, but Because Their House Was Empty and Swept Seven Worse Demons Would Come Back and What He Saying Is That Israel, When Jesus Came Was Delivered of the Darkness and the Demonic Powers That Had Ruled Them so Much but Now That He When He Left Because They Rejected Him.
These Varied Become Infested with Demons. Now, If You Read This, the Actual Account of the Siege of Jerusalem in the End History of Josephus Who Was Actually Present. Then You'll Find It, There Is Every Evidence That the People Were Fully Overwhelmed with Demons, You Know, When You Watch TV Today Much Going in Our Cities and You See People Doing Crazy Things, and Politicians Who Seem like Normal People Are Saying Crazy Things like Relish the Police and so I Think Has Has There Been Demonic Line.
This Unleashed on Our Society, and There's a Good Chance That Has Been, but This Definitely Happened in 8070 and Other Things Surrounding This Vision in Revelation Are What Put the Timeframe in Place for Me. But Obviously I Mean I'm Almost off the Air Here Today, but I Anyone Who Is Curious How Anyone Who Knows the Bible Well Could Ever Suggest Such Things As I'm Suggesting Is Free to Go to My Website Where You Can for Free. Listen to All My Verse by Verse Lectures to Revelation. And Then You'll Instantly so I Think and Why May Not Interest Rate May Not Persuade You, but It'll You'll Know Why Think It Now That Was Done on the Website and Everything Is on My Website yet. We Got 1500 Lectures a Minor Online and That Would Include Verse by Verse Teaching in Detail on Every Book of the Bible. And of Course the Revelation Is One of the Books about so You Can Find Very Detailed Teaching of the Book of Revelation There and It's All Free Earnings Free.
The Narrow Path to Thank You Very Much Okay Thank You for Your Call, but Rather Time Waiting on Their This Is Only Monday Is We Got Two More Days This Week Run Monday through Friday at the Same Time and Not a Regular List. Maybe You Could Become One and a Caller and Decides the Radio Show Is Discolored.
We Have Hundreds of Lectures from the Time I Ran about for Years and They Are Online, Free to Listen firstname.lastname@example.org.
We are listener supported. So you may want to consider helping us down there you can do that also.
From the website.
The narrow.com have a great day. Let's talk again tomorrow –