Share This Episode
The Narrow Path Steve Gregg Logo

The Narrow Path 9/24

The Narrow Path / Steve Gregg
The Truth Network Radio
September 24, 2020 8:00 am

The Narrow Path 9/24

The Narrow Path / Steve Gregg

On-Demand Podcasts NEW!

This broadcaster has 144 podcast archives available on-demand.

Broadcaster's Links

Keep up-to-date with this broadcaster on social media and their website.

September 24, 2020 8:00 am

Enjoy this program from Steve Gregg and The Narrow Path Radio.

COVERED TOPICS / TAGS (Click to Search)
The Narrow Path Steve Gregg
The Narrow Path
Steve Gregg
The Narrow Path
Steve Gregg
The Narrow Path
Steve Gregg
The Narrow Path
Steve Gregg
The Narrow Path
Steve Gregg
The Narrow Path
Steve Gregg

Good afternoon and welcome to the radio broadcast. My name is Steve Greg and were live for an hour each week.

The afternoon taking your calls.

If you have questions about the Bible or the Christian faith and you can call in if you have questions like that hour. You have a different viewpoint for the host. The number to call is 844-484-5737 now our lives are full so don't call right now but call in a few minutes and you may find a line is opened up at this number again it's 844-484-5737 and we will of course go to line very quickly because they are full. I just will make a couple of announcements.

One of them is that many of you have been to the website called Matthew We've mentioned a number of times on the air here it's actually not a website that I have any control over. But some volunteers put it together are a couple years ago and they been posting individual calls from this program on different topics under topical index you go there and look up the topic and it'll take you directly to a causal hyperlink you to call from past programs about that subject effectors on many subjects to be a lot of different choices and I was just told by one of the brothers who does his website that this is the second year. This the second year anniversary from him, beginning to work on this and that there are now 10,000 calls logged on the index so it is no small database. If you're interested in any biblical question that whatever been targeted on the show in the past, the number of calls on there is now up to 10,000, and I would also say that that doesn't even bring it up to date. I think they're still working on more years in our archive so it'll it'll grow beyond that considerably.

But if you're interested is the website is the Matthew and anyone just say as I get letters from time to time to and from prisoners and one prisoner general Corolla in no signal Hill, Texas actually said that he has a quite a few prisoners there listening to this program and he said he knew of at least 10 others besides himself and the prisoner we course, the prisoners can call into the show, so we sometimes get letters from them is good to know that we have the program reaching people in prisons as well as out in the world at large general just want to greet you and the 10 or so that if there God bless you and I know your figure pointed out March. I hope all goes well, alright, let's talk to Louis got a call from Australia or we did. I guess he had to hang up I notice before the room on the air that there's a but it's it that color has hung up now so I guess we don't have a color' instead will go to a caller from peach tree city Georgia okay and that's could be Paul hi Paul I speak with Jen about job in heaven with a man who Mormon and Christian. And now he is turning candy or have fabricated toward them and one of his objections about the fact and a bit in the payment for their own plan that she could Madden the atonement okay break that terribly. I did hear your question, but several were dropped out that I think I did it so go ahead and hang up and balance your question okay.

All right. Thank you for your call. So I Mormon friend came out of Mormonism into Christianity then is moving toward Judaism and the objection that he has to Christianity is that the crusade teaches that Jesus died as an atoning sacrifice in our place and in Ezekiel 18 it says that a man will die for his own sins, not for the sins of his father or for the sins of his son, but for his own sins, and he figures that that somehow cancels out the possibility of an atonement being made for since now it's interesting is moving toward Judaism because Judaism is a religion, at least in the Bible to religion about atonement every year there's the day of atonement for animal sacrifices are taken into the holy of holies to atone for the sins of the nation are likewise ongoing regular sacrifices week to week and day by day in the Jewish faith were about the very same thing transferring guilt at least figuratively from the center to an innocent victim, and then the innocent victim dying in place of the center paying the price now course Judaism today doesn't practice sacrifices, but that's because they've they can't only place they can do that is in their temple. Their temple in Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 A.D. it is never been rebuilt, and therefore they don't have a sacrificial system anymore but that is the central part of the Jewish religion.

So in other words, the modern Jewish religion doesn't have what in the Bible is the central part of it doesn't have a sacrifice of atonement is never temple in any of that stuff now.

That would mean that Judaism today is not biblical.

You know if if you can't practice biblical Judaism. You don't just make it up as you go along the reason that God did away with the temple system is because it was no longer needed because Christ did come but Jews who don't receive Christ. They must just abandon the religion altogether because the main part of it in the Bible is the sacrificial system and God is taking them take that away from them because he's finished that system and an efficient with Christ offering the final sacrifice so I'm going to Judaism is just going to a man-made religion now that biblical Judaism doesn't exist anymore.

So I do know I do want to do that. But the interesting thing is why Judaism because I mean Judaism is where we are first introduced the idea of sacrificial atoning substitution and it's a it's a picture and a shadow of Christ in his death doing the same for us. So it's a strange move to make eye note.

Judaism doesn't have that anymore, but that's because it's a man-made religion when Judaism was a God ordained religion it the central issue was atoning sacrifice and that's of course a very important thing in the New Testament to now, the idea that someone can die for somebody else doesn't cancel out the idea in Ezekiel 18 that says a man shall not die for his father sense of responses so essential die in that context.

Ezekiel is talking about the people of his time were facing the destruction of the other country by the Babylonians and the prophet predicts bloodshed. Your high body count a lot of people dying because of the wickedness of the nation and there were some who were saying that they were suffering not because of their own sins, but because their fathers and ancestors had sent and got to say no that's not true. You die for your own sins, and not dying for your father's sentence or for your son since you died for your own sins. That doesn't mean that that God can't allow a substitute to die in place with a different issue.

He's talking about. The reason that the Babylonian invasion is coming.

It's only people to die and pointing out that it they can't blame it on the sins of somebody else, it's their own sins, but that's a different issue entirely in the question of whether a life can be atoned for.

Because the entire Old Testament system affect the system that was going to be destroyed by the Babylonians from these, he was running presupposed that animals can die in place of humans as atonement and the New Testament simply tells us that God has sent has come himself in a living form in human form to die in our place is just finishing up of that whole system now to say that a man can't die for another person sins is to say that God can't work things out as he wishes to do. Jesus said that he came to give his life a ransom for many. Now this man was a Mormon at one time so he believed in Jesus in some form that he was a Christian so he believed in Jesus and some form as a Jew, he will not believe in Jesus but we better make sure that we don't give up on Jesus because of the misunderstanding we have, because if he is who he claims to be that he's only got he's the only mediator between God and man. He is the is the only salvation available to man.

And so it sums as well. I I don't like this about Chrissy and the thing they don't like us and may misunderstand, it's a very tragic thing for them to give up on their only hope. Just because they misunderstood something what the Bible teaches that God can do what he wants to.

If he wants to take the sins of the world upon himself and die in the place of sinners instead of an animal doing, which is a member of John the Baptist referred to Jesus as the Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world. In other words, he is taking the place of a lamb in the sacrificial system now into sacrificial system. Do a person who is a human center would lay hands on an animal, suggesting a transferral of guilt to the animal and then he and I will be killed on the altar.

Now of course the animal didn't really take on the guilt of the person. The Bible makes very clear it's impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins says in Hebrews chapter 9 so obviously this was not really what was saving them but it was a typo shadow that God had ordained. It was a symbolic action to portray the idea of a guilty person. Sin being transferred in God's sight to an innocent victim in that victim being sacrificed instead. All of this was pointing forward to Christ, so the Bible teaches very clearly that Jesus died in our place and died for our sins, and that we can be saved because he did so. If that concept is difficult for your friend.

Then he probably will never become a Christian. In fact, I doubt that he did ever.

If if a person was a Mormon and Transition through Christianity toward Judaism. He's not a Christian, he probably never was.

He's probably a person who's just searching through different religious options in his his sojourn in the realm of the Christian church was probably just as experimental for him is his Mormonism and in his next step will be a people are not saved by experimenting with Jesus people are saved by completely surrendering to Jesus Christ, their whole lives and following him with all their lives in and trusting him.

And obviously, if a person trusts Jesus and he says I'm giving my life as a ransom for many. Then they can't turn around say, but you but you can't do that. They are known to give their life as a ransom for someone else. Well, if God says you can. Jesus, as you can and you say that he can't believe God is who are you, how do you know everything about what was your expertise come from is he I think that part of your Christians you believe Jesus and you don't say well he can't be right about that. So I think your friend was not a Christian.

He was in the Christian camp but he was not a believer obviously and he still was not but certainly his objection based on Ezekiel 18 carries no weight at all okay another Paul in Sacramento, California. Welcome to the neuropathic for calling years is the one show I really make a point to listen to a thank you. Appreciate it. I do question about Isaiah 714.

We all know about that first my question how the verse related at the time it was given it was fine for Ahaz that he will be victorious over Syria and that his wife or concubine.

Whoever would give a give birth to a son named Emmanuel and that what you proved to be victorious. My question is whatever happened about a manual seems like that should've been a pretty significant person in history and you don't hear anything about it. Well, for those who are familiar with the passage.

It's a passage usually quoted around Christmas time because as the virgin shall conceive bring forth a son, and shall call his name Immanuel and and of course it's quoted in Matthew chapter 1 is being fulfilled in Christ being born of a virgin, but you're right in the context of Isaiah's seven it's not at all clear reference to Christ, but rather to a child that would be born almost immediately after the prophecy was given because he said it was a sign that would be given to Ahaz the King had it had to do with the two kings that were presently threatening him. The king of Syria and the king of Israel. Ahaz, of course, was the king of Judah and Israel in cerebral threatening him and and so I say come sit on your God can give you sign this sign will guarantee that these kings will not defeat you.

In fact, they will be destroyed within a very very short time, and the prophecy was a child is to be born and and before that child reaches an age of being able to know to choose good and refuse the evil these kings and then we gone to be done. God can remove them and so this is obviously had to do the child to be born soon after this, and the very next chapter Isaiah chapter 8, Isaiah is instructed to go into this prophetess who apparently was his wife and have a child with her, and when the child was born.

The child is actually referred to as Emmanuel, although that's not his real name that's not his real name any more than is Jesus is running with his name shall be called Emmanuel. It doesn't mean that's really what to have on his birth certificate anymore than what it says about Jesus's name shall be called wonderful Counselor, mighty God, the everlasting father, the Prince of peace.

None of those names are Jesus birth certificate, his name is Jesus and and Isaiah's child was named Mahesh LL hotspots as you find in the first verse of chapter 8 right, but yeah so both of them.

Isaiah's child and Jesus were both referred to as a mere Emmanuel is as a basically saying the word means God with us or some translations for God is with us. It could go either way. The idea is that the birth of Isaiah's child was a signal assigned to Ahaz that God was with Judah and that before this child would reach an age capable of choosing right from wrong and others in its very young age. In a chapter 8 of exes before the child shall notice a mind we can say, my mother, my father. So what is a very young infant.

These kings will be destroyed and they were within three years. All of those those armies that were courteous and the kings are commanded them were either killed or taken in captivity. So you have a fulfillment of it in Isaiah's own time and you say what happened that child, then I do know maybe he probably just went on living just like every veil since it wasn't that he was so important, except in the sense that his birth would signal the countdown of a very few years before these kings were destroyed. So it's not like Isaiah's child is going to have play an important role in anything, just that his birth was a sign and a number of course were so how does this then applied to Jesus and if it is referring Isaiah's child, how could it say as it does the virgin will conceive and bring forth a child, how could it be that Isaiah's son is referred to as being born of the virgin and we know Jesus was born of a virgin, because Mary had never known a man but Isaiah's son is specifically said to have been conceived as a result of Isaiah's union with this with this woman now. I can explain that one photo of well maybe two possible ways one of them would be that the woman that Isaiah married was a virgin at the time of the prophecy and then Isaiah married her and she conceived so he might be saying a virgin.

That is, which can also mean a young girl in Hebrew. Although the Greek translation of it in the Septuagint means a literal virgin, but I young woman, a virgin will get pregnant. Now she's wasn't perhaps she was perhaps a virgin at the time is predicted and you can put out this virgin right here she's going to get pregnant have a baby. The fact that she's a virgin and she wasn't already pregnant but but she could get pregnant like any woman could be an and therefore Isaiah went into her and she had a child in and fulfilled that prophecy. Another way of looking at it though is that what is it doesn't say a virgin will conceive. Veritas is the virgin specifically is the virgin shall conceive, and it's very possible to my mind that he's using the terms of virgin is a term referring to the nation of Judah or the city of Jerusalem and the reason I say so is because later on in Isaiah Isaiah 37 in verse 22.

It says this is the word which the Lord has spoken concerning so negative, king of Assyria. He says the virgin, the daughter of Zion has despised you laughed you to scorn the daughter of Jerusalem, has shaken her head behind her back. Now the daughter just means the people Jerusalem the virgin, the daughter of Zion is the city of Jerusalem. And he calls her the virgin. I will have to say this in all full disclosure. The Hebrew word here is different in in Isaiah chapter 37 verse 22. The word virgin is a different Hebrew word than the one in Isaiah 714, that simply because there are words that are synonyms of each other in Hebrew as it is in English. The point is that the nation or the capital city of Judah Jerusalem was actually referred to as the virgin and in the prediction of Isaiah's child being born in Isaiah 714, it says the virgin will conceive and bear child so he could be talking about a woman who was a virgin but who didn't remain a virgin in Isaiah married her and her baby with her or could be referring simply to affect the child to be born in Jerusalem.

Jerusalem my child who would be born, and it happened to be Isaiah's child, but it was the virgin. The city of Jerusalem that is was where he came from, just like Jesus in Revelation 12 is described as being born from a woman that John sees who is labored and paid for childbirth but it's not Mary it's referring to the Jews.

Israel is referred to as the pregnant woman and chapter 12 of Revelation and so note it's figurative it could be figurative could be figuratively speaking of Jerusalem, having producing a child in this we Isaiah's child, but the child would not do anything. There's nothing the child is said to do is just to the earth as a sign that in Matthew when it quoted were talking about the significant person in the universe and Isaiah like kind of a nobody against what I believe that the child of Isaiah is considered to be a type of Christ and in many things mealtimes are types of Christ.

Some of them were all all of them are less significant to Jesus and some of them are not regularly significant at all just things that serve as a type and shadow of Christ appreciated okay Paul, thanks for your call – mechanics collar is Ian in Tallahassee, Florida and welcome to the neuropathic for calling you today I'm fine thank you cool. But I think Alaska Miller doing today. I recently saw fundamentalist say in a blog all eternal condemnation with motivation yesterday for coming to Christ. The first pressure he gave evil man, not a single distal passage. I think something that is not the opposite of Paul's approach seems like in the 200+ times I've read the letter. I haven't noticed him to first approach is the wrath of God and eternal condemnation is the first motivation I was curious about your thoughts.

Yeah, I think that preacher who said that may be speaking from his own motivations, and assuming Paul had the same ones.

A lot of times we assume people in the Bible were just like us. And many Christians no doubt are serving God primarily out of fear of hell, which is unfortunate because the that's not the reason we should be serving those who serve in God because we love God because he's worthy of it. And if there is no heaven or hell. We should still be eager to serve him because of who he is but I don't I don't think Paul was highly motivated by that of course in first Curran second Corinthians 5. He does say knowing. Therefore, the terror of the Lord we persuade men, which in other words, he's afraid for other men.

And he does want them to. He wants to persuade them to escape the wrath to come. Like John the Baptist tried to juice Paul is aware that there is a horrible consequence for being opposed to Christ and knowing that terror of Lord he persuades me as best he can to avoid it, but we don't we don't actually see him saying that he used this fear to convert it motivated him to convert them but we never read any of the sermons of Paul in the book of acts even mentioning heaven or hell. So when he is preaching to sinners as far as the record shows he never mentioned eternal judgment or any other particular judgment.

He did say next 17 to the people of Mars Hill that God is appointed today where he'll judge the world, but he didn't say what the judgment would be certainly is no reference in any of Paul's writings to eternal torment. And frankly, the word hell. None. None. The Greek word for hell appear in any of Paul's writings either. So not sure that preacher is getting it right. I know when I wrote my book on the three views of hell reading the books by those who hold the traditional view. They often just assumed that this was a major concern for the people in the first century because that's the way they themselves preach the gospel and perhaps that's the way themselves are motivated to serve God. There are some people say if there's no hell.

The why would even serve God's whole motivation for them, which means they don't love God because no one has to tell me you know if the why would I be faithful to my wife if I know that being unfaithful won't get me killed while because I'm nuts. Unfaithful to my wife in order to avoid getting killed my phase of my life out of love. Same thing with God. I should love God, whether I have any fear of tormentor not and we don't find Paul discussing it. Paul mentioned judgment in tribulation torment. In Romans chapter 2 when he also mentioned people suffering eternal destruction, which is not the same thing as torment in second Thessalonians 1. But Paul never did mention eternal torment anywhere and we know it.

We never suggested that I can think of a place where he said that he was personally motivated by fear of judgment to in his own Christian life in his own service of God. He said the love of Christ constrains us for.

Thus, we judge that if one died for all, that all were dead and he says, and that we who live should live for him who died and rose again so he said he's constrained not by fear but by the love of God, who, who died for us and he felt like the way I see it if you died for me to live for him. So this is how Paul talked about the situation very differently than the man you just quoted all okay. I appreciate your call. I got a break coming up here okay governorship yeah I should be hearing the music and I hear the music but I know that we have a break here at this point, so I need to take some time out to say the narrow path is a listener supported ministry and we are. We pay for the time on the radio. That's where the money goes with no staff, no paid staff with no payroll is I'm a volunteer everybody's a volunteer but we we do have to pay for time on the radio stations so that's how we stay on the airfield like help us down there. You can write to the narrow path, PO Box 1732 macula CA 92593 even though it sounds like were signing off or not we have another half hours about go away. You can also go to our website. The narrow if you stay tuned, I'll be back in 30 seconds to take more of your calls the book of Hebrews tells that do not forget to do good and to share with others and share their near family and friends. When the show is over today and one in the narrow they can learn and enjoy your teaching articles very diverse teaching and archive them on the narrow path radio show and be sure to tell them to tune into the show here on the radio chairlift noted the narrow path and do good radio broadcast regular life for another half hour taking your calls.

If you have questions you'd like to call and with talk about questions about the Bible, Christianity objections you may have to the Bible to the Christian faith.

If you disagree with the host about anything. Give me a call talk about the number is 844-484-5737 that number again is 844-484-5737 all right our next collar is Mike from Colorado Mike, thanks for waiting. Welcome to the narrow path good afternoon Keith.thank you so much for teaching my college agreed to talk to you again on my Mike Yellen 24 from Colorado a comment off real quick.

I'm so happy to hear that dates show is receiving proteins and AAA Canadians you know so many of the people in the prison system went through a lot of the same troubles that you and me went through growing up, but they didn't have the same court system. You know it's interesting because the United States has 5% of the world population but has 25% of the world cranking population.

You know, I definitely think that we we need to do more about this but you know the Bible says faith come by hearing and hearing by the word of God, and I think that they shall release helping a lot of people in that aspect. So I want to personally thank you on service you do speak on okay? But I had a comment today on so the witch of Endor, actually. So in the Hebrew Bible.

I'm a comment in a question so which vendors a woman's soul consulted to summon the spirit of Samuel the 20th chapter of the book of Samuel in order to receive advice against the Philistines in battle against his prior attempts to consult God through secret marching profits on the field know it's kind of interesting. Steve, when we talk about which of Endor being summoned by Samuel in the Old Testament. I need to kind of get a better understanding of what Turkish Samuel summoned right right self funding scandal using the witch of Endor it helped because you know the Bible does specifically warn against that and you know what that be considered kind of a stain in the Bible, I saw many are absolutely in fact it says in Chronicles. I believe that at the end of second Chronicles that no I'm sorry it's it's in its either in the second Samuel or else it's in first Chronicles that it mentioned specifically that Saul died because of this, you're going to the witch because he summoned Samuel up it's actually forbidden in the Old Testament to go to the séance summon the dead in any way, whether solve fully understood the sudden I don't know because he might not have read the law very much.

Remember to very much but it was of diverse something of his first Chronicles 1013 talk to her house.

Saul was killed because he went to the witch of Endor. So it's obviously a judgment that came upon them for that crime of going to séance why he did so well. We have to remember that he was quite far from God at this time, he was tormented by an evil spirit himself and he was Samuel who had been his counselor in the early years of his reign had been dead for some time now, and he was try to get some idea of what the future held. The Philistines were closing in upon Israel and Saul either wanted to find out how things are turn out, or as you say, perhaps to get advice about how to attack the Philistines effectively, but since God was speaking to he the Bible says he tried he didn't hear from God through dreams, through the room or through the prophets, which are some of the made major ways that God spoke in the Old Testament to give the king guidance but he did the wrong thing when he decide if God wasn't speaking that way. I'm going to go to the witch not by way if God wanted to speak to him. He could've done through dreams are marred or prophets. But God was given him the silent treatment because he rejected God. God had rejected him. And so God wasn't interested in speaking to, and because God wasn't doing what he wanted them to do that is speaking he's given go around God's back and go to an occultist to get a hold of spirit of Samuel and so I think he was hoping that Sandy might give them some advice like he had before, but Samuel came up and simply rebuked him for a departing from from God's ways. So yeah, that was what is one of the reasons given his primary reason I think that's given for him, having been killed. The next day interesting.

I think so.

You, Samuel.

When in their time on earth. And you know soul wont teach you contact Samuel Q kind.

As you say more about the future and you know what case a profiteer what his future was in no I think that that's no very interesting correlation you make about that and on no just getting your point of view means a lot to me on the subject. Keep.

So thank you okay Michael thanks for calling collection.

Okay, let's talk to looks like this this name is off the screen for maybe Ron or Tom can't tell who that is in. I'm so I can tell where this control is Ron al-Assad Toronto from Washington state.

Go ahead, I got a question I'd love to find out the truth about this thing called the unpardonable sin and what I want to know is people go to the extreme related keep denying the Holy Spirit and then they can never be reached again. Probably so that's that may or may not be what the one what people call the imparted sin, but that it is the case in Scripture.

The Bible says that he that hardens his heart being often reproved, will suddenly be destroyed, and that without remedy and cut off without remedy, right click on the Internet. That said, Billy Graham said well it's if you don't take these the only sacrifice of the cross for your sins and you just die that way apparently them, then that would be the unpardonable sin that sounds right to me, but I thought there was some point, you know were there. People are walking around nobody will ever be able to reach them. They're gone. It's like the Holy Spirit.

The tent pegs and split. You know you cannot get this person you believe. I think there are people like that. Sherman Paul talks about that in Romans one God gives people over to a reprobate mind which means something that's incapable of making moral judgments. They become sort of sociopathy don't have a conscience and therefore if you watch and soon you knocking to be convicted and get and repent their gonna see the discussion was somebody on a bus and they should well know anybody can be reached and asked my brother.

It's a little bit knowledgeable in the gospel only he can embrace it.

Anybody can be reached, and I thought I'd turn on the line just like you said you could cut off the metal without remedy. Nobody but nobody but nobody will ever get sued there because they're caught up in the world and they're not going to ever accept Jesus. Well if somebody says there are people instances everybody can be reached.

Probably what they're referring to is the fact that God is not willing that any should perish with us also come to repentance and that there is not some elect subgroup in human race that that God wants saved and the others unsaved as the Calvinists would suggest, and therefore that they would say not everyone can be reached because everyone's not elect. Now I believe everyone can be reached at some point in their life, but you can do things in your life that hardened against God. So you no longer really responsive and that's not because God is not interested in your salvation. So because you did some so bad that God is to sing out. I hate you knows I won't save you is because your heart is become so hard you're not at all inclined to embrace to be embraced to be true and as I did speak to the narrow path narrow path states the best news in the can be figured.

There are people walking on two legs with two lattes and two arms, and there is nobody, but nobody nobody ever reaches Firstmerit totally gone was a narrow path and Steve Greg are not the final authorities on notes now past that this doesn't doesn't carry much weight, but boggled no assistance in the discussion that die did reach out to somebody is very knowledgeable and said that that there seem to embrace what I am Plaisted heard that somewhere along the line I just always break into be a truth that it is even if we acknowledge that people do sometimes get to the point where they can't come back to Christ. We don't know who's got that parent has not just because somebody is very evil doesn't mean that they've gotten to that point. Only God would know that it's more or less it's more or less a which we say a theoretical point that's it's not a point of practicality to know who that some people can reach that point because we don't know who they are but I believe that you can get to somebody that no mass murder or something. They actually did make it a conversion that you know on a hard and fast knowledge that they may write in brooding legislature, knowing that Jesus that's annoying that there are some people like that does not become an argument for giving up on anyone. Although I suppose not God might reveal to you. This person's gone too far that you don't keep trying with him as he said to Jeremiah. He said that to Jeremiah that the people of Jerusalem don't even pray for these people are not to return.

I appreciate your call, should okay Ronald in Sacramento, California.

Welcome to the narrow path. Thanks for calling.

I guess I think would take Michael I just wondering what your one day Jesus was crucified. Some say Wednesday due to some in Matthew 1240 but at most mainstream Christianity teach that it was Friday crucifixion, wondering what your thoughts are.

I have no problem with Friday. I mean, some people have problems with it because Jesus said that the Son of Man must be three days and three nights in the heart of the grave are the heart of the earth, and from Friday to Sunday morning doesn't give you three whole days and nights and therefore they say he must've been crucified earlier because we have no doubts that he was alive on Sunday when the women came to the tomb so they try to find three days and three nights. Prior to that have been crucified then and some have it on Wednesday. Some heaven on Thursday and I've read long and persuasive treatments on both of those days. There's people who've argued that because the Sabbath he was curbside today before the Sabbath. That's not the regular Saturday Sabbath that's that's a hide holy day.

As you know, it's a special Sabbath in the Passover week and then they do calculations as to what year was and what you that Sabbath would be date would be and so forth. But to me, all of this is of no value at all because the expression three days three nights is not necessarily to be taken literally.

It's if it's a he. Some which every Jew listening to that expression in his day would've understood. That means there's to be parts of three days to say three days and three nights doesn't mean literally in the Jewish idiom complete three days and has made parts of three days so whether it was literally three days. Minutes are not is not an important point. The interesting thing is that Jesus three times predict his own death and said that he would rise on the third day. Now if you think about it Friday if he was crucified on Friday that that's the first day Saturday be the second day and Sunday. Be the third day. So from Friday to Sunday does make Sunday the third day and there were three times that Jesus said he'd be raised on the third day, there's only one time he mentioned three days and three nights, which is a said use of the Jewish idiom and he was quoting from the book of Jonah is the statements found in Matthew 1240 is quoting Jonah where it says that Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the fish and suggested as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly for sections of the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. And so he's kind of taking Jonah as his verbal cue to say three days and three nights. But again, that's a keeper is a mitzvah it's an idiom that doesn't require that he means literally three days and three nights, especially since if he was in the tomb three days and three nights and then rose to the fourth day.

If he spends three 24-hour days buried and then rises that's can be the fourth day, Rasmussen three times. He said it'll be 30 more than that, even later when Paul spoke with Jesus resurrection. He said he rose on the third day in first gradients. 15. I think Trevor's for five probably, he said that Jesus rose on the third day, so to me if the traditional date of his death is Friday.

Sunday would be the third day, and that works for me. For some people they want to make it to more than they wanted they want to make the three days and three nights more literal, which I see as totally unnecessary, given the Jewish idiom appreciate your question. Your call to talk to Jason from Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.

Jason, welcome to the neuropathic for writing his question was alone on the question okay.

Is there any way to objectively determine whether one person at being reasonable and another person is being unreasonable. Well everything so grand that would be simply by knowing reason knowing logic.

I'm not sure what the context is for this question remarry target reasonable in someone you're talking to about Christ or just if someone you have a relationship with you trying to and if they seem reasonably what what are you really referring to what will you say that you think it is possible or of course your reasonableness is an objective reality based on are you following recent logic on this is also objectively discern by someone who's not following recent logic, but will on me that is the context your question what the context is. I called up to the radio show. I really don't.

I'm really not interested in liking a God who sent people to hell forever and punishes them forever in a black hole forever because that's not proportional is any sort and cause owner and this person that well. Somehow we got the point where I don't work that I don't think the Bible is the word of God, and he gave me a few reason and and and I think what held the pilot work.they believe that there is an important and he said, well, a reasonable person would look at the prudent day of the Bible is the inerrant word of the one true God and I thought about her and I thought well I don't barter me and I doubt some of these other atheist and to be quite honest at the point where I would.

I'm at the point where I would reasonable person would say the Bible is not the inspired God.

So if a person is being reasonable, then there's starting with the premise and their reasoning logically from that premise to conclusion. To start with the wrong premise will will leave even a reasonable person the wrong conclusion because their starting with the wrong assumptions and their reasoning from their off-base. If a person has the right premise, but reasons poorly will also reach the wrong conclusion, but if a person is a true and valid premise and reasons and with a valid logic. They'll never reach wrong conclusion. Now Bart Herman and many atheists no doubt are in many respects reasonable about many things, but it's unreasonable to bring a prejudice and to allow that prejudice to prevent you from letting recent take you to its objective conclusion.

Many people, including Christians have a pre-judged idea of what you know what the solution should be, and they will manipulate the evidence to make it reasonable for them to want to take that that conclusion and so I think some people do that people who seem reasonable, but for example I've read Bart Herman and heard him speak and so forth and and he says he used to be a Christian believer in the Bible but then when he tells me the things that he found which made him become an unbeliever. I think that struck me as reasonable because the things he found don't prove the point and saw me and I thought I have a feeling he wasn't very committed to the truth of the matter. He's more committed to look at things through a jaundiced eye because frankly everything Bart.

Herman brings up in his books is talk every evangelical Christian knows those things.

I've known most of them since I was about 18 years old. I'm surprised it took him so long to see him.

He didn't even learn about employment at Wheaton College is graduate work but most things he brings up her stuff that I knew when I was quite young and it's never had it.

You I've never seen any reasonable connection between those things and unbelief.

Now if I saying he doesn't leave the Bible the word of God. If that means that he doesn't leave the King James Bible is the word of God, or that the English Bible in its present form.

Reason preserves everything that was in the original documents that I would agree with him.

There, I agree. I mean that we no one should claim that any English Bible is exactly like the original because as Bart Herman points out, there are differences and interests. The differences are much less significant than he would suggest and anyone who's a real Texan scholar will know that I'm sorry. I think he knows that too, but he doesn't seem to let on.

But other Christian view is not that the English Bible as we have it is in every word inspired, but the Christian view is that God spoke through prophets and through Jesus and through the apostles, and some of what they said was written down and and some of them wrote things and that they were speaking on the authority God gave them and by the revelations.

I got it. Now that would impact.

Of course what they wrote down in Hebrew and Greek.

It doesn't nationally tell us anything about the English versions of these things, or how well the manuscript to be preserved, but because of the number men scripts that are there and because of scholarship that come into it. It we can become reasonably assured that most of what was written in the original documents in the original languages by the authors has also shown up in our modern translations.

That would mean that would mean that the Bible was God's word. From the beginning it doesn't mean that anyone who makes a translation of it will be inspired or anyone who makes a copy of it will be inspired and therefore I meant to say that God inspired certain writers doesn't make any predictions at all about how well people copy it down over the centuries, or how Wilson will translate into another language.

So there are problems. Some in and some of the manuscripts that we have and even some of the translations we have, but that doesn't really impact that what the real claim of the Bible is kind of the Bible is that the prophets were inspired by God, that Jesus came from God and spoke from God that Paul and Peter and those guys wrote what they learn from Christ. God so those things can all be true and we could still have a very flawed English Bible but the flaws in the English Bible are not very great.

It's not greatly flawed. No major doctrine of the Christian faith is depends on any passage in the Greek or Hebrew men scripts about which there is serious doubt. There are some doubts there are some scholars know that the some passages we don't know because one manuscript reads this way. One mentor reads another way, but but what they read differently about is on something that doesn't matter very much all the things that do matter have the support of all the manuscripts so this is a science skull text rechristened that that's actually what Bart Herman does. He's a textual critic. He's just in my opinion, not a very objectively and you know because I feel that I'm objective because I wouldn't want to be Christian. It's not true. You know, why would I want to spend my life. I'm not making you charge for this. I don't know. It's not like it's make me rich or anything like that. Why would I want to teach something that I had any doubts about being true. I can't think of any reason to do that so I get on that he can. He can see he can make a lot of money selling best-selling books and art in a climate where people are looking for books that down, put down the bottle. This is where the bestsellers really come from is from people who are debunking the Bible even if they don't do it very honestly sorry. I just have to say I actually the lecturer Bart Herman feeling of my website. The narrow it's under the tablets as topical lectures, then you have to find the tablets as individual lectures you find my lecturer Bart Herman. Anyway, I appreciate your call and thanks for joining us. Okay, let's talk to Mark from Vancouver BC mark welcome to the neuropathic for coming very quickly here considering the time limit.

If angels have free will, like man has and we know that angels did effect in the past. It's possible that angels could be detected on a daily basis. Correct.

I don't think it's likely, but I don't know that it's impossible right right legacy okay I did, I might say little more but I thought he was in the same way I wanted to give them the time to do it but the Angels if some angels defected and the Bible indicates that there are angels have defected. We have some reasonably this Mabel happened at one time and others that there's not just been a trickle of backsliding angels defecting from God deserting, but rather that there was an event in the past in which a number of angels defected and have their waiting in chains under darkness, waiting the judgment a great day.

Both chewed and second Peter chapter 2 tells but we don't have any angels necessarily continuing to defecting. I would think they wouldn't because I would think the ones that stay loyal would've learned from the mistakes of those who did the effect of the Angels that are loyal to go below for thousands of years and I don't know that I don't know if there have an inclination to defecting. Why would I not even sure why any would've in the first place. But there's no suggestion that there is a likelihood of any other angels defecting. They would probably know that the same thing would happen to them that happened the ones that did it for anyway.

That's about all I can say about that particular question. We might get a minute here. I don't know if you have a minute hope we do Allen from Hayden, Idaho. Welcome conversation about the three days of Daniel 927 says in the middle of the week. He will call sacrifice to seize and so a lot of people didn't know he was crucified in the middle of the 49er. And in the middle of the final seven years of the Daniel 70 weeks and in the middle of the actual we got is verified that in 31 A.D. happen on appreciate that, but I have to say this time crucified in the middle of the week in the middle of a seven day week in Daniel nine weeks or seven years long each of the middle he could be three and half years into that. It wouldn't seining at the middle of the seven day week.

That's not even in the passage but appreciate your call listening to the narrow path biting Steve Greg you can write to us. If you help us down there at the narrow path, PO Box 1732 macula CA 92593 or go to our website. The narrow makes for joining us.

Let's talk again tomorrow

Get The Truth Mobile App and Listen to your Favorite Station Anytime