The Narrow Path 8/5

Welcome to the narrow path radio broadcast, Steve, Greg and more live for an hour each weekday afternoon with an open phone line for you to call if you have the desire to ask him and discuss any question about the Bible of the Christian faith that's on your mind or any difference of opinion that you might have with the host to discuss that with me.

Feel free to call, except in the lightest of the lines are busy so let me just say what I always say take this number down call in a few minutes.

You may find that line has opened up the number is 844-484-5737 that's 844-484-5737 and without further ado will go directly to the phones and talk to Troy from Geneva, New York and Detroit. Welcome to the narrow preference for calling Mikulski sure I yeah I listen to your teaching series when Shelby be hot and also going through revelations series which you have and you basically come to the conclusion that you have with regards to the millennial reign of Christ and us from chapter 20 obviously and there's one thing that bugs me.

Hoping that you could maybe speak to it is a good answer for the in the chapter 19 in verse 20 women talking about the beast being captured while both of them are thrown into the lake of fire and okay that's all good and then not… Chapter 20 talks about the millennium and and as I understand it is sort of coming back and talking about the church age. First-timers 10 yeah and talks about the devil being thrown into the lake of fire, and it makes the statement that that's where the beast and the false prophet and I have the work are italicized in so don't think that was in the original question I have is if someone reads this UC the beast and the false prophet being thrown in chapter 19 seems to be like a progression in the mistake I sent to them in the back 19 and half on the devil herself. I understand the problem. Sure yeah so what you're for those who don't know the problem. The millennial view, which is the view that I hold is that the second coming of Christ is apparently at the end of chapter 19 of Revelation, but that the events of chapter 20 do not follow the events of chapter 19 chronologically and this is because not everything in revelation is reported chronologically. He reports a series of visions, summaries, visions, look for and some look forward to earlier times. Forward amended vid become a jump all over the place and for example in chapter 11. I believe we find the end chapter 11 the second coming of Christ.

But in chapter 12. The very next chapter we see the birth of Christ. So it's obviously circles back and starts over again with another vision with another angle.

Now I believe that that happens in chapters 19 and 20th Inc. with the second coming of Christ. In chapter 19, but chapter 20 is a whole new vision and and it goes back and talks about the beginning and the whole of the church age. Now the problem with this, as you have pointed out is that at the end of chapter 19. Apparently, the second coming of Christ. The beast and the false prophet are thrown into the lake of fire and when we get to chapter 20 we read of the devil thrown into the lake of fire and incense where the beast and the false prophet are now the impression we get perhaps at first blush is that in chapter 20 verse 10, when this is where the beast and the false prophet are is saying. Remember they were earlier thrown their you know they were thrown there back in chapter 19 verse 20 and now added to them is the devil being thrown in there and so he's in there where they are. As you already know because you read about in chapter 19 well, certainly if one reads this with the assumption that it is chronologically following that reads very smoothly. We got the beast and the false prophet thrown into the lake of fire.

At the beginning of the millennium, and the devil himself and his wife are at the end of the millennium. They all end up together on the other hand, if the time that Satan is thrown into the lake of fire in chapter 20 verse 10 is in fact at the second coming of Christ. As I think it is most millennial's would say then it's telling us that the beast and false prophet and the devil are thrown into the lake of fire at the time of the second of Christ.

I understand the end of chapter 19 and and you know them from the middle to the end of Revelation 20, both to be about the second coming of Christ and one tells us the beast and false prophet are cast in the lake of fire.

At that time. This one tells us the devil is now the reference to where the beast and the false prophet are, as you pointed out the word are is in in italics. It's not really in the Greek so you know we don't know exactly how he intended in that phrase for the beast and false prophet will also be or are also thrown at the same time kind of idea.

We don't know the truth is that we we do know that the beast and false prophet are thrown in life and that the devil is. It does not say necessarily that the devil discernibly far subsequently to the beast and false prophet of the late it reads for the beast and false prophet are in Revelation 20 verse 10. It may sound like they're already there waiting for him. He's thrown in with them where they've already been waiting, but that's not necessarily as we read in fact, even if we take it the way it reads the translation where the beast, false prophet are, we could extend that to me where the beast and false prophet are also thrown as well.

That is, regarding told that they'll be from now were told the devil be thrown thereto along with them so I don't see any necessity of this phrase at the end of her Revelation 20 verse 10 stumbling me in terms of my general interpretation of the passage, but I do understand the awkwardness of it that you that you mention I've certainly had to face it and wrestle with myself, but the more I look at it the less I'm bothered by Frank. "Great, and you were talking was thinking about the gospel writers when the talk about Mary.

Was it to when they say several women with became yeah not contradictory. It seems to me this is needed along the same lines will exactly. In other words, we are to assume that when Jesus comes back to beast, the false prophet and Satan will all be in the lake of fire were told about the beast and false prophet being sent there in one vision a different vision tells us of the devil being thrown there and and connects it to the previous vision same and you know where as you know the visa false prophet are thrown thereto. The policeman appreciate your thoughts. All right, try appreciate your call very much – he did by Grant in Livermore, California. Welcome to the neuropathic for calling a base these days predicament. All my question today is in regards to Philippians chapter 2 verse 12, I heard it cited by some people that try to use it as justification for leaving the church that we should work out our own salvation with fear and trembling. Now I've lifted out of thin in the NKJV and exp of both those that we should work out our own while the NIV and the NASD set to work out your salvation interpretation that I got from basically reading the context around that the end of chapter 1 in the beginning of chapter 2 is that Paul is imprisoning trying to exhort the church in Philippi to remain thoughtlessly unified and accident so I see it is more of a command to the whole church in Philippi and I was wondering your thoughts on that is my interpretation completely inaccurate well know, it's entirely possible the epistles unless they say otherwise are addressed to the church as a whole and using this a to the church in Philippi or in Thessalonica or somewhere like that, or to the saints. All the saints there, but it's speaking to the collected or the idea of the unified church and to say, work out your own salvation with me that you guys all of your own. That is the churches, the church has the role of working out its salvation in the world because God has worked in them too willing to do of his good pleasure now has he worked in each individual, perhaps so, but that's not the point. That has to be emphasized. His target Christians in general you Christians need to work out your salvation, your own, you can't get somebody else's and nobody else can work out yours. But as a church you need to work out the salvation God has worked in you. He's worked in you to will and do of his good pleasure.

You work that out.

You manifest that your behavior you if somebody takes all the expectations in the epistles as to individuals alone. Then when he says your own.

I might be thinking in a highly individual as we won't. That's me doing my thing. My own you know even if I took it that way wouldn't be a problem because he's not saying, work out your own salvation without any assistance from the church if somebody says well Paul says I'm supposed to be radically solitary and individualistic in working on my salvation says anything of the sort. There's plenty of things that we are required to do, but were not initially told that will do them without the assistance of daughter without the assistance of other brethren, and a great number of things are normally worked out in the company in the context of the of the congregation where we you know speak to one another insert homes in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs and submit to one another in the fear of God and so forth.

It's in the context of community living in the church that most of these things worked out, but that doesn't mean that I don't have personal responsibility while in the church so his work out your own could be. I mean, you could take it as an individual or collectively, in all likelihood he means it collectively. The whole church needs to work out their own salvation, but but in doing so, that would involve, of course, individuals can out their own salvation to but but to say that I have to do this myself or I have to do this for myself would not mean that I do it without the aids that God gives me in the body of Christ you know I need to get my own heart right but that doesn't mean I can't do it in the context of a prayer meeting with other people or in a worship service or while listening to a sermon it entered in the meeting, you know, in other words, what I have to do in my own Christian life is his mind to do, it's my duty.

I'm told to do it. I should do it but I'm never told to do something without using the resources that God has given me to help me accomplish this in the body of Christ is one of the principal resources we have.

Thanks. I also had a like a pillow question about that. I was kind of doing some research and he heard Anthony told me that enough is entirely accurate. You know if the verbs in the original. In those verses are aerobic that her they are well I'm I'm not looking at in the Greek and I'm not an expert enough to know off the top my head, but I would say that be worth looking into Mike. My guess would be they are because to tell you the truth I think they would be whether he means it as an individual response rate or the corporate because if he needs as an individual response.

We still all of the individuals so be still speaking to more than one person.

I would be surprised if the verbs were in the singular form as if he speaking to only one individual's even if he means it to be our individual responsibility to work out our salvation and he means it as an individual duty. He still speaking to everyone in the church. And so, in speaking to that many individuals, even about their own individual duties. He'd still be expected use of portal verb okay well thanks Steve. I really appreciate your ministry and I just came across to you during during this whole coded things so allow a blessing to you and thank you so much. Thank you Greg, good to hear from you right, but okay John in Winters California.

Welcome to the narrow path hi John hey Steve how you doing fine thanks you so Steve every morning when I go on my walk I listen to your lectures on Revelation and I teach a class at church and so what I was wondering is it do you have blessed like no outline or something that I could download to assist with the format with going through revelation and teaching. This well.

As you probably know my verse by verse divisions through revelation are pretty much in us are very similar to my verse by verse teaches to all the other books in the Bible and in general and I think I think without exception, my verse by verse teaching through the different books the Bible do not.

I don't have digital notes of notes for the verse by verse I have notes for the introductions to books. Now, as you know, the Revelation series has what a couple lectures of introduction and and there are notes of that because I'm following notes in my introduction.

Also, the same notes expanded in my own, in my book. Revelation 4 views the basically the 50 page introduction in the book follows those notes only fills fills in a more so I don't really have notes of the verse by verse portion and the reason is concerned to surrender on a claim doing it extreme extemporaneously, and I do have some notes like cross-references, things have jotted in the margin of my Bible, but generally speaking, just kind of teaching off the top my head okay yeah I then started taking notes as I go through it so I I'll just continue with that but I just want you to know I've been a Christian now for almost 40 years and was totally frustrated with Revelation because the dispensational view you know certain things I didn't see in the Bible.

It didn't make sense to me. This is really the first time that everything is coming together with the defendant. Revelation does not have to be a book that that is avoided. I remember one point wishing that just wasn't even in the Bible and I sometimes wish that makes sense now.

It really does on methane every you know that there's never any question you have the it really makes sense and I got you pregnant, that by the way, my notes on the introduction to Revelation can be found online. I don't know if you're aware of a website called Matthew 713.com it's okay. I saw that on their yeah Matthew 713.com it's got all kinds of stuff that's not my own website, but it's all nice. My kind of stuff. My resources so among them is all the book introductions to the different books of the Bible to notes for them and that you'll find Revelation so introduction to in the freq. Of course, okay I will check that out. Thank you so much and God bless you. I got bless you John, great talking to you.

Thanks for joining you to write Barbara in Roseville, Michigan hi welcome to the narrow path how you well. Thank you content on preventing and acquainting them with Nancy yesterday and it remained exactly how he phrased it had to deal with the devil and drowned in the church and at Huntington that because I have quite a hit manager and banding on intron with first evolved from Genesis to Revelation. Terms are not mentioned in the Bible and is not an oversight and drowned tidy instrument teaches using Bluetooth ear money.

I share and demonic. He pointed terms that it invite Gratian and I'll know when the evil spirit combat with upon slot beneath a plate cunningly on the heart. The Lord prepares to string instruments, negative preference and make the anointing and a string instrument you can see the power of God move but now in the church is you mixing string instrument and drowned indicated towns like Natalie are destroyed. Yeah well I yeah I gave my my opinion yesterday and it's not quite the same as yours.

I will say that maybe will read about drums in the Bible we don't read about microphones either, but our pastors often use them when they have a large group to speak to the drums even if food and the occult are known to use them, and we do know that you know Native American shamans and so forth. You use drumbeats and things like that to. Just because they use them doesn't mean they invented them or that they're the only ones who can use them, or that anyone else who use them is practicing Bluetooth to say that I don't prefer really loud music and I'm very happy to have worship music without drums. I also say this, the drums have been a part of the music that I not only have listen to, but that I have played in a band. I don't play drums, but we had a drummer years ago and and this was true of bands that were secular and evil is also true of bands that were God honoring through whom many people were saved and I don't think the drums had any impact negatively or Norton or distinctive constantly, probably, but the point is, I think that music musical interests are themselves neutral and that they can be used for evil is that everybody everybody had a preference for music without God and the devil has to pack people like Jan impolite rock 'n' roll God handed preference to it is not an accident. He did not put drowned and found out that it is preferred instrument. He knows where it pleaded when he plate that string.

We know that can drive out demonic spirit and that's what we want we want something that was always my skinny David and using symbols. But the Bible recommends the use of them saw just me. David was not a one-man band like Dick Van Dyke in Mary Poppins. He can play all the incidents at once he did, he was a string different player if he had played a trumpet or clarinet. I wouldn't be surprised if you have the same effect because he was an anointed musician and there are certainly many kinds of instruments and complete beautiful music and glorify God and finally the fact that the Bible doesn't mention a flute or clarinet adjustment doesn't mean that it's evil to have clarinets playing in the church or an organized work channel. The Bible does mention panels or organs either.

So I you certainly welcome to your certainly welcome to your opinion and I'm glad you got a chance to share it – okay, let's talk to Abraham in Spokane, Washington, and welcome to the narrow path. Thanks for calling the owners money questions will you degrade and the question is probably the easiest answer right Mr.… Enigmatic acts 29. Is there any evidence that the ThinkPad went to Great Britain. That's first question that some questions Dan 927 where he is to generally take that pronoun to mean reference to the future Antichrist figure, whereas other interpreters they could refer back to verse 24 Messiah the Prince you have any idea as to who might have been the first expositor to represent that pronoun as representing the future Antichrist in the history of Christendom second urgent question. Revelation chapter 20 evangelicals like to present Revelation 20 as some sort of future semi golden era after the second coming of Christ a thousand years of peace and humans living alongside glorified church people. Jesus writing from the legal template you think or if you know among the first expositors to present Revelation 20.

As this future semi settled in a range when neither the apostles nor the Lord Jesus himself, nor the Apocalypse Apocalypse of John makes any such reference makes any kind of hint that we can juxtaposition passages I did 65 and 66 and insert them into Revelation 20 to come up with this semi golden era, and I know that's a lot of material but I trust the Lord and your your mind hereto. To address these questions. Thank you very much okay thank you very much.

Thank you for your call okay.

Did Paul ever go to Britain. There are some traditions that say he did seems to me that most commentators evangelical counters seem to doubt it, but I'm not sure on what basis they would doubt it. It's probably on the basis that he was still apparently imprisoned in Rome in 62 A.D. that he is thought not to have been killed any later than 67 so from the time acts ends to the time of Paul's death is probably no more than five years. Now he we know he wanted to go to Spain and he might've done so that we don't record.

It is not recorded in second Timothy chapter 2 second Timothy the whole book, Paul makes reference to several trips he made and places he was, that are not recorded in acts and are not in the direction of Spain or Britain. In fact, he tells Titus in the book of Titus that he left them in Crete, which is of course the east of Rome, and therefore if the if Paul went to Crete after his Roman imprisonment and before his death. Obviously then it would seem that he went east. I uncovered some of the same ground he'd been in before but not the same cities. Now that doesn't mean he didn't also go to to Spain and Britain. However, that's a long way to go if he was done doing any significant amount of work east of Rome during those perhaps five years or less then that he wouldn't have very much time to just to evangelize in Spain or in Britain, so it may be that the time available for it seems to little but on the other hand, there are some traditions I don't think their dominant ones that he may have gone to Britain so I don't have a strong opinion about. I would like to think you did it just because it be fun to think that but I don't know that there's any real evidence for it. Certainly none is in the Bible and and I don't think there's real strong traditions.

But as far as who was the first to identify key in the Daniel nine I tell you what I got a break from the parent you got two other questions.

I do want to give some time to all. Why don't we widely hold this these answers over the break and I'll come back to them and just about a minute and half your listening to the narrow path, we had another half hour coming up every day at this time we take a break, partly because some stations only broadcast half the program so we have to kind of break up a little bit for the sake of stations and maybe joining us or leaving us at this point the narrow path is a listener supported ministry and if you like help us tailor radial bills. You may be glad to allow you to do that if you want to you can write to us at the narrow path, PO Box 1732 macula CA 92593. That's the narrow path, PO Box 1732 macula CA 92593 or go to the website, which is the narrow path.com. You can donate from there. If you'd like, I'll be back in 30 seconds to take more calls. Tell your family. Tell your friends tell everyone you know about the Bible radio show that has nothing to do everything to give you the narrow path with Grant when today's radio show with them for your social and send a link to the narrow path.com, one can find free time on your teaching blog article teachings and archives of the narrow path radio shows and tell them to listen live right here on the radio.

Thank you for sharing. Listener supported the narrow path.

Greg will come back to the narrow path radio broadcast.

My name is Steve Greg and we have another half hour to together to take your calls and discuss the questions you may raise about the Bible of the Christian faith and the point you may raise perhaps indiscriminate with the house you're welcome to that the number to call and at this moment, we do have lights open the number is 844-484-5737 that's 844-484-5737 all right and just before the break, I was talking to a caller who had three questions and he wanted know the origin we we answered one of his questions were two of them remain with the origin of the idea that Daniel 927 talks about a future antichrist and his other questions. What is the origin of the idea of a future millennium that some of my same on the latter.

It's easy because it's in Revelation 20 future millennium yacht with the millennium is in Revelation 20.

But it has not always been believed that it was a future millennium. Some believe it is symbolic of the church age. In fact that's been the dominant view throughout church history.

The fact that the idea of future millennium is more of a minority position, historically speaking, although it's very popular today.

Now.

So who was the first to suggest a future millennium in their interpretation of Revelation 20 is his second question is last question he first asked about Daniel 927 which is the prophecy of the 70 weeks and in chapter 27 it says that he wears in order for Present targets. Chapter 9 verse 27. I misspoke it says he shall confirm a covenant with many for one week, but in the middle of the week he shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering.

Now, of course, many people have heard that this is a reference to the future antichrist. He's going to make a covenant with many for a week in the language of the prophecy a week means seven years and in the middle of the week he'll bring an end to the sacrifices and offerings not the way this is most popularly understood, at least dispensationalism, maybe some who aren't dispensations. I don't know of any who are to see it this way, but maybe he is the antichrist and that is saying that a future antichrist who is not yet been revealed, will be revealed at some point and they hope it will be after the rapture the church and he will make a covenant that is a peace treaty.

They say between himself and the powers of course, that he command switch is going to be most Western world. They believe and that Israel and inserted a protection tree that he'll allow them to be free from molestation from other countries will protect them so that they can rebuild the temple, and he'll make this agreement as a seven year compact but then in the middle of that time. That is after three and half years he the antichrist will cause the sacrifices and offerings to see snout dispensations believe this means that he will once the temple was rebuilt. He will place an image of himself in the temple, thus defiling the temple in the same manner that Antiochus epiphanies defiled the temple by sacrificing a pig to Zeus in the Jewish Temple so the émigrés put an image of himself in the Jewish Temple requiring that people worship him and this will defile the temple the same as the work as Antiochus epiphanies it done. This will be as they say, the abomination of desolation and as a result of that the offerings and side festival cease in the middle of the tribulation the middle of the seven years. This is the class not the classic but it's the popular interpretation of Daniel 927 by dispensational commentators now, you mentioned some people believe that the he and the passage is not a reference to the antichrist but is a reference to Christ and the Christ himself in the middle of the week. That is, if the seven years began at his baptism, which is what many believe, then 3 1/2 years later, half a week later he died and that put an end to the sacrifices and offerings.

That is, it ended the sacrificial system as far as God is concerned it's true.

The Jews still did it for a while more, but that doesn't matter. They're still pagans who offer sectors they don't mean anything.

The Jewish side faces meant nothing.

God put an Internet system when Jesus died, and therefore Jesus brought an end to the sacrifice and offerings in the midst of week and as far as making a covenant. He came to offer the new covenant that Jeremiah spoke of due to house of Israel in the house of Judah, and he came to confirm the covenant and that covenant would've lasted one more set the period of seven years and added to the 69 periods of the sword that had occurred before he can now to make a long story short, he who makes the covenant, then who confirms the covenant is Jesus and he who ends the sacrificial system is Jesus. And this happened not at the end of the world in a future tribulation.

It happened when he was here. That's what he did what he accomplished. Now that is the other view. I'm asked who was the first to suggest the antichrist now. I do know that there were church fathers who held some view like this that the antichrist will will be in a Jewish Temple. I forget which one said it doesn't really matter to me. The question is whether this is the dominant view of the church that history. That's not even the main question request may question is whether to the Bible teaches. I know that Darby in the 1830s certainly promoted this idea, but how far back it goes or what what predecessors he may have had for holding the view that he and Daniel 927 is the antichrist. I am afraid I don't know.

I would have to know all the church fathers to know which one was the first to suggest something like this. My own position is that it's reference to Christ because Christ is mentioned previously in the passage in the antichrist is not that's a good reason not to see he is antichrist. Since he is a pronoun and has to have a noun is an antecedent and there is no antecedent antichrist in the whole passage.

There is only the antecedent of the Messiah, and since Jesus did the very things that are said he would do.

There's no reason to possibly some additional person as a he who is elsewhere and identified in the passage so I think all things being equal, we have to go with Jesus being the one but this both use have been held at different times and pretty and pretty sure that the view I disagree with me, was held by some prior to Darby but I don't know who and I don't who was the first but I believe they were mistaken.

Now the only question is who was the first to believe in a future millennium. Once again, I'm not sure some early church fathers definitely did the belief in a future millennium is today called premillennialism in the early church is called Shealy awesome which it's basically the same words millennialism only based on the Greek word for thousand years in the Latin is millennium number 4000 years in Greek is Julius so this is it. They were chillier tests may recall that we call the literalists today, many church fathers believed in a future millennium including Pappy us, who is quite early, around the turn of the first century Pappy as Irenaeus to Tulia and were among those who did Justin Martyr did Hippel I just did. And these are some pretty important church fathers that did believe the future millennium, but they were not the only view in town. We know this because Justin Martyr, who himself believed in the future millennium said that he knew of very many godly Christians who didn't agree with that.

Now we don't have the names and we don't have the writings of any of those many Christians who may have believe differently than the premillennial view. We do know that although sometimes premillennialists will say that Augustine in the fourth century invented the millennial view that simply not true. At least hundred 50 or more years before August of this millennial position was taken by the church in Alexandria by Clement in origin to collect that so it will again we don't know who was the first course. My opinion will be the first person to take all millennial view is probably Paul or perhaps Jesus we could say because Jesus did not apparently know about any millennium.

Why do I say that because he talked to a general resurrection. If we take the millennium, and Revelation 20 as a literal thousand years separating two different resurrections the first resurrection at the beginning in the second resurrection at the end of the millennium, and that is what premillennialism teaches, and that the first resurrection is the resurrection of Christians, when Jesus returns, and the second resurrection is the resurrection of non-Christians, a thousand years later at the end of the millennium. If that's how we take it then we have to say Jesus was not aware of that doctrine because Jesus said in John five verse 20 and 29 he says do not marvel at this, but for the time is coming, in which all who were in their graves will hear his voice and come forth some, to resurrection of life and sent to resurrection of condemnation size an hour is coming when all the graves were empty. The good and the bad B1 resurrection of the righteous and that a thousand years later another resurrection of the wicked G snow that started happening when our the same hour all that's good happen Jesus also didn't warning about a millennium because he said that when the Son of Man returns its glory.

And he said that in Matthew 2531 and sits on the throne of his glory's gonna call all the nations before him, and then it says to divide them like the sheep and the goats and the sheep. He's going to send into everlasting life, not a thousand year millennium to go away into everlasting life, the eternal state and the wicked to eternal punishment. So Jesus said that when he comes. He's just sort of went out and some will go to eternal life, some to eternal punishment.

None of them are going into a thousand year intermediate rain on such as the millennium.

So Jesus didn't know that any gaps needed Paul or Peter is actually nobody in the Bible that said anything about a thousand year gap between the second coming of Christ and the final end of the world you would have no information about that whatsoever. If we did not have Revelation 22 perplexes, but if you took all the other passages which are nowhere near as symbolic as Revelation were Jesus, Paul, Peter spoke we find is a general resurrection of the good and the bad same time and you know the final judgment occurs when Jesus comes not a thousand years, and so forth. This is this is a standard teaching of Paul Jesus and the rest know who the first was to come up with the idea of a thousand year reign at the end of the world. When Jesus comes back. We do not know but we have a church historian named Eusebius who thought he knew.

Eusebius wrote church history from the from the time of Jesus to his own time in the around 325 A.D. so hit about three centuries to cover of history is pretty close to the times he believed the idea of a future millennium was a heresy whether he's the first church historian in history that we know of. Besides that, the book of acts and his view was that Shealy has some of premillennialism was a heresy he called at that and he said it was originated from Gnostics rent. This rent this.

We know from Irenaeus and some other source insert. This was a founder of one of the branches of Gnosticism and Eusebius. The historian said that Sorrento's was the author of the idea of a future millennium now I don't know that Eusebius is correct, but we have no other historians earlier than him or or or other than later.

You who give us alternative origins. So it's very possible that the first believer in the future millennium was Sorrento's the Gnostic heretic. This would make it difficult for us to explain how it is that people like Pappy us, Justin Martyr and Irenaeus very notable church scholars in the very early days how they came to believe is true. So in a work or coming puzzled over this.

We don't know who really started it but as far as is for the all millennial view or the view that when Jesus comes back that's the final judgment of restoration but at the same time that was founded by Jesus and the apostles. That's what they taught all right, let's talk to Louis from San Bernardino, California Louis, welcome to the narrow path. Thanks for calling. I had a caller who bring forth a question about the mortality of the soul, but kept at 322 24 have any bearing on the well after Adam's sin in that chapter, God forbade them to eat of the tree of the of life, lest they should eat it and live forever versus you think an I think they may have some bearing on say I don't believe that the Bible teaches that there is an immortal soul. I do think that the Bible leaves open the possibility that there is a soul that survives death somewhat, but there's no indication that Lou lives forever so I don't I don't really know much about what the Bible doesn't say.

But the Bible does say that humans are not naturally immortal. It says that God alone possesses immortality in first Timothy 616 so if God alone possesses. That means people don't not intrinsically but the Bible says that we can be conditionally immortal. We can receive eternal life in Christ.

Christ is immortal and we can be in him and have eternal life in him, so it's conditional. Whosoever believes in him shall not perish but have everlasting life. So believing in Christ conditionally allows us to become immortal, but I don't believe the Bible teaches that humans are naturally immortal and you're right. I think the Genesis 3 would have a strong bearing was able to put particular tree they would have life and that it would take over, they went out like you I think that's exactly what it same you remember remember God told them in the data either that they will not die or is it reads in the Hebrew and in the day you eat of it dying. You shall die.

So the they are dying.

But if the eat of the tree of life dying.

They will not die dying. They will live.

Dying but if you eat of the tree. If you do through the knowledge of good and evil. You'll have no access to the tree of life and therefore your dying process will simply go on until you die and so when Jesus I believe Jesus is the tree of life, so to speak to me.

I believe in a literal tree of life in the economy but I think it's a type of Christ, that we must eat of him to live forever.

Jesus said whoever eats my flesh and drink my blood has eternal life. They had to eat of the tree of life to have eternal life. But they weren't naturally immortal and that's very clear. Because God said if the eat of the tree of life to live forever but clearly he was suggesting they would have to eat of the tree of life to live forever, so they wouldn't naturally without doing so.

Be immortal.

I appreciate your call.

Linda from Northern California Senate scholar. By the way, we have a line open for you if you like to call in a few minutes left, but we could take another call probably after Linda if you'd like to most of our lines of cleared. The number is 844-484-5737 listening to the narrow path and my name is Steve Greg Linda, welcome to the neuropathic for calling here a little bit.

I asked Paul Alfaro and I think Jane will strain that and now your life that Walcott found Olcott that he Right meeting and maturation around the character that can't check out cold, how much Lancelot that's a lot to cover them all, but I will try okay living through ministries yeah those ministries that you mentioned are founded by witness Lee witness Lee himself was a disciple in China of watchmen the now watchmen is a guy that a lot of evangelicals really respect including me. Is he was a martyr. He spent 20 years in communist prison being tortured and even dismembered slowly for 20 years until he finally died in the 70s and he was a true man of God are true martyr. Not everything he believed is correct what watchmen the that is a witness. Lee was one of his disciples and brought and came over to America and started a movement in Anaheim, California that they usually call the local church and it has other names to include instruments, respect, they do publish the recovery Bible which have witness these teachings and it and and they do believe the Catholic Church is the apostate church.

Of course, but they also believe the Protestant churches are pretty much apostate to at least they used to let her know if they do now because they've softened their position on something since he since his past, but witness Lee. I think represented himself is carrying on the work of watchmen, though he taught a number of things.

I don't recall finding in any of the volume, volume us writings witness of watchmen the watchmen the was not right on on everything he is.

This was an eclectic theology watchmen the martyr in China that I mentioned he got some of his a lot of his ideas from dispensationalism and he got some of them from Roman Catholicism, of all things, because he believed in purgatory, which he got from contact with Catholics and so forth and he had a number of interesting ideas but here's eclectic and most of what watchmen the route that I have read has been very edifying, though, as with every human author I would never recommend everything he says there's no human authority to say I read him and justly represents know you should read and believe whatever. The Bible says that there are human authors, myself included, who can kinda give you some ideas of things you can study out in the Bible, and you may but.

Same with him.

I think that he would get to keep stir up your godly mind now witness Lee. I have not had quite the respect for witness Lee that have for watchmen knee not because I think witness Lee as a heretic for many years it was thought that he was not Trinitarian that he was oneness or mode list, but there are Christians who are oneness believers, and so that would mean he can be a Christian but it turned out years after being labeled with this that further research was done to his interest work by the Christian research Journal, they came out and said that they were wrong and labeling him non-Trinitarian that his teachings have been misunderstood by them so I don't really know you. His his teachers a little hard to understand sometimes. I've heard on the radio a few times actually to Herman Anaheim. Once back in the 70s and 70s actually went with some friends who had left his movement, but they wanted to go here and one medium so I went outside five heard them speak.

I'm not a fan but I'm not condemning but I do remember in the 70s early 70s. Witness Lee's position was that there movement under his leadership was the only true and pure church and they were called the recovery they believe that the pure church had been lost in after the time the apostles sort of what Joseph Smith said Mr. Mormonism, and that by the way, what Darby said we start dispensationalism well all these guys indicate that the true truth of the bottles lost at the apostle died and they got it back. They rediscovered and witness Lee saw his movement as the recovery that is the recovery of the true church from its Babylonian captivity that that link captivity was the course the descent into Roman Catholicism, and even Protestantism, had retained too much of the Roman Catholic doctrines in his mind so everything that wasn't his movement was actually babbling. I remember the local church in Santa Cruz California where I lived. Members going in front of churches and and and protesting calling them babbling.

It wasn't Catholic Church's Arctic Lutherans mothers, but that was their position. They were the only true church and witness Lee was the first person in the recovery now actually I met people in the 70s who told me that they were number 375 number 283.

In the recovery. They have their own numbers that his current status. If your loan number. Let me join the first people that got reclaimed to the true church that whole attitude is cultic out whether the doctrines he teaches about Christ or God or whatever are heretical. I cannot say for sure but I think that most cult watching groups, including Hank paragraphs group Christian research Institute have given him a pass on some of their controversial passage thing so I would say I don't know of any dangerous heresies they teach.

I don't I don't think the scream in front of churches, babbling anymore leaders. They seem to of tone that down and so the movement has mellowed but the recovery Bible of course is there addition of the Bible with notes that support witness Lee's ideas. How do I greet him, probably a lot of them but but I disagree on some to. I don't really recommend study Bibles that are put out there to promote the beliefs of a particular teacher coming you can buy commentary by a guy get his views. If you want to but I don't think the Bible should be cluttered with opinions of men.

Frankly, I'd prefer not to use a public that, especially from a man who served my mind still some controversy. I don't say is not a brother. I don't say he's a heretic, but he's some controversy all night. I'm not interested enough to study about frankly because I found it sent me to answer my phone a little boring 500 mL number of times in these is not engaging at least to me. He doesn't say anything of deep. I know a lot of what he says is regarded as deep by his followers, but the things that he says are regarded as department entirely speculative stuff, which if they are true hit again by special revelation which might be exactly what is claiming I'm not sure but I don't naturally respect his ministry as those who follow it to suggest the most I could say about I don't have much time, but you did ask what I think of the Eucharist. I don't believe in the Eucharist. I don't believe that the bread and the wine turn into the body and the blood of Christ. I think the bottle anywhere suggests that it does. It's a very old tradition goes back. Home to the first some sometime in the first several centuries the church people began to talk that way. Like the bread actually becomes the body of Christ.

Now church fathers like Jesus himself did use language should the bread is the body of Christ and the cup is the blood of Christ Jesus about to but of course would you said that he meant that the same way as David meant it when he poured out the water that his friends brought about great peril to the lives and says I can't because this is the blood of the men who hazarded their lives, David Waterman said this is there blood.

He doesn't mean that it had turned in the means that it represents and in the ritual of the Passover to say this is my body would be understood by everyone present. This represents my body so there's nothing in the Bible says that change takes place in the bread or the wine and therefore I don't believe in it thanks for your call listening to the narrow path, we are listener supported you like to help us down here you can write to the narrow path PO Box 1730 macula CA 92593 or go to our website. The narrow path.com. Let's talk again tomorrow –