The Narrow Path 5/18

Gluten welcome to the narrow path radio broadcast by the Steve Greg adware live for an hour each week afternoon taking phone calls. If you have questions about the Bible or about the Christian faith.

You may feel free to call and asked those questions will talk about them here. The number to call is 844-484-5737 that's 844-484-5737. You know, to share little insight with yet I could hide it because we get started on time but I almost forgot the program. I don't usually do so, but I had another radio program just about an hour ago for an hours on Bob Duco's program out of the Detroit Michigan and he was having the answer callers just like I do here.

I did an hour in his show this morning I decided it was actually from noon to one my time and so it is in my mind I had already done the show and I was just looking at my watch, like a minute ago. Two minutes ago. I thought when it's 2 o'clock I'm on the air site.

I hooked up the managed just in time so I could've concealed that because we I got to the microphone before the music ended but I was pretty close call. I've done it a couple of other times not always because I done another show earlier in the day, all those that does tend to confuse me when I do, but sometimes when I'm like been away. I'm trying to get back home in time to broadcast my broadcast from a home and hit bad traffic I'm stuck in somewhere and I think I just get into my home like one minute before the music stops by to get hooked up and had that happen. Probably three or four times in the last 22 years.

This is one of those times but little little different reason for it anyway. The number to call if you'd like to be on the program is 844-484-5737 that's 844-484-5737 and our first caller today is not from Michigan and that is Eddie from Skippy from something Heights submission, but the lettering is.

On my screen I can hardly read it any welcome to the narrow path extra calling but yes you know you're done before following your logic about Daniel 926. I agree with it. I'm having a hard time with the people of the prince who is to come depends you have said using antecedent now is Jesus Christ.

So the people of the print that is the people of the Messiah, Jesus Christ. Christians shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. My understanding that correctly.

No, that's not what I said all the prince was to come that the people of the prince was to come. The Romans and the prince himself is Titus or or it could be the principality of Rome because Daniel in the next chapter.

It's revealed him that there is a Prince of Persia in the prince of Greece and of course would be principality of Rome to and that could be the prince was to come. But in any case the princes to come is not a good guy. It's not Jesus.

Now what I what I say. The antecedent Joe or Jesus comes in as antecedent incomes when we come to verse 27 when he says he shall confirm a covenant with many for one week dispensation is believed that he is referring back to the prince who is to come, which was the Roman prints are actually dispensations believe it's the future Antichrist. I say the 27 is 925 926. The print is changed, different, and is a different prince that he goes back to the print that is mentioned in 925 doesn't answer prince in verse 27 yes yes it does. But the one who comes will be cut off.

I might so this is a print print print and now just been changed from Jesus to now being eight different print princes and princesses in Daniel 10.

There's a Prince of Persia there's a prince of Greece and there's another prince coming after that Chapter 11 there's kings of the North and Kings in the South and another king of the North and there's lots of kings and lots of princes in these narrations but there's only two in this passage, one is the princes can destroy Jerusalem, which is the Roman prints and the other is the prince that God is sending was the Messiah. And that's the Messiah is the subject of the prophecy. Here's how it goes. Just start in verse 25 know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the command to restore and build Jerusalem until Messiah the Prince, there shall be seven weeks and 62 weeks in the street shall be built again in the wall even trouble sometimes he mentions that the Messiah the Prince is coming then says, and after that time. After that Messiah that 62 weeks Messiah will be cut off, but not for himself and the people of the prince was to come shall destroy the city and the sectors so Jesus is killed and the Romans, destroy this city of Jerusalem and the Temple and the enemy shall be with a flooded center that says in verse 27 and he shall confirm a covenant with many for a week now. There's not a new there's not 1/3 prince here just there's only the two there's Messiah the Prince, and then there's the princes going to come and destroy Jerusalem, but when it comes to the he in verse 27 the real controversy is is that he refer back to Messiah the Prince is a refer back to the princes can become a destroy Jerusalem. That's the only controversy in my my statement is that it most likely refers back to the Messiah because he's really the main subject of the prophecy, the prince was to come is only a passing reference.

It's not.

He's not even the subject of a sentence. It's the people of the prince who is come, who will destroy the city.

So it's even the Roman people not there prince who is seen as the main subject of the sentence to the princes simply that Prince is simply the object of a prepositional phrase, but the Messiah is the focus of the whole process.

I think that he is more like the Messiah and and certainly it fits the truth. Jesus did bring an end to the sacrificial system in no way about him using the example of Matthew 722 where the landowner sent his army.

I'm also thinking of back a point where God himself is using the Egyptians and the Babylonians to judge Jerusalem and the Jews or the Jewish people. So there is no possibility that it could be the people of Jesus that is the one whom he allowed to judge the nation of Israel for rejecting him rather than saying there's no possibility answer is not very very likely because we know that the people who destroyed this inspector with the Romans.

Now the question is are the Romans being called the Prince of the people of Messiah because the Messiah has sent them because they are the agents of God and of the Messiah to bring judgment on Jerusalem. I think that a question and I think that is I would say I wouldn't say there's no possibility that I would say it doesn't strike me as flowing very naturally in the narrative, so that I would not I would not favor that position thank you very much. How can I give you what you do. I believe, financially helping those that I am being sent from and I am being sent from you spiritually, so how can I give or help others. There's a number of ways, but at the end of the half-hour program I give the address twice and most people just send checks it's possible to donate from the website. If you look@thenarrowpath.com there's good donations link. Thank you all right. Thank you.

Good to hear from you all right. Our next call or see the lawyers looks like it's me Marty from Spokane, Washington Marty, welcome to the narrow path. Thanks for calling in light of the statements from a local legislator made in Washington state after our wallowing mandate from the state to when they can hold weddings when they can host service, communion, etc., by definition, there date church was he saying that in order to suggest that the churches can only operate with the with the governor's approval or something or what you know he was being old saying that they were not subject to the government right right I agree I don't think the pastor I don't think he is the servant of the state. He's a servant of God and the people of God are not the people of the United States. Although they belong. They are citizens, there's this if you happen to be here and were born here, but they have a higher citizenship. There citizenship is in heaven and now they're ours there is an awful lot of admixture of church and state that I think is inappropriate. For one thing, many, many Christians are critical of the fact that churches are usually 501(c)(3) corporations for the purpose of tax exemption.

Now I'm not I'm not critical of that as long as they don't let the state tell them what to do. The churches really not a state entity so I don't know why the state would have to license now I will say this, the narrow path is a 501(c)(3), but I'll call it a church were radio program program and so were not really the church but some have said that even by our having a 501(c)(3) word compromising with the government, but I haven't compromising government anyway. They say well, but the government can tell you what you can say and what you can't say why don't they cannot. They've never lived never to forget that we have said so far. If they do, I can tell them where to take it but I don't and I don't have to collect them something to say. As far as Christians gathering. Of course that's in this country or constitutional right for people to gather for the sake of expression of the religion.

That's the Constitution is that which says that the government has no power to forbid that so that's the state is not made, the Lord of the church. But the opposite.

The state has no power to restrict religious expression.

According to the Constitution so you know I think the church of course by licensing marriages through the state that could be seen as a compromise to their there may be some advantages to a state marriage license. But the Bible doesn't ever recommend one and it is true that if you get your wedding in your marriage through the courthouse that courthouse thinks they own the marriage on the on the children and and anytime one person wants out that the courthouse can grant them a divorce as if the as if the court has any jurisdiction over marriage. It may have jurisdiction over marriage as a social contract but it doesn't have jurisdiction over marriage as an institution of God. So I think that the church has allowed the state to be involved in too many ways I think marriage licenses. I have just been taken for granted is to be a godly thing and and perhaps it was godly enough.

Back in the days when the state was influenced in its view of marriage by Christianity, but now the state doesn't have any idea what marriages they make it up as they go along, so I don't really see why the church should care what the state thinks about any about our meetings about our marriages about our gospel and you know having a 501(c)(3) allows an organization to have tax exemptions. That is, the donors can have Texas actions.

That's why we have one, but a church which is not with the narrow path is the path's radio show that the church actually already has tax exemption without 501(c)(3) from what I understand, I don't think the state can tax the church, whether or not they have 501(c)(3). It's more the charitable organizations and non-church ministries Leica like this that would not have that tax exemption without 501(c)(3). But even with it. I don't believe any organization should any religious or Christian organization should ever submit to the state in terms of what they're allowed to say or not certain. I think that if it comes to having them yank away your tax exemption. You should be willing to let it go. All right, I appreciate that. I think that churches that are struggling with attendance and working toward heaven, and that they were just to announce that their opening that they do have plenty of right now. Yeah, people want to come out. Being that it's worth it or if anyway thank you so much Steve. Okay, good to talk to Marty, thank you for calling collection okay.

Our next caller is Viviana from Summerlin, California Viviana, welcome to the narrow path. I'm well, thank you. I'm cleaning the body on and how when we die, I will go till I come back by coming. That's when I body got Dale though. I wanted a kind, the cream and baking burial not well there are Christians who feel very strongly against cremation. I'm not one of them and I'm not really sure what argument they can really use. I had a friend who is a pastor. When I lived in Idaho and real godly man that he had a very strong opinion against cremation. I know that Hank had a graft book of the Bible answer book he he comes out against cremation. I've heard a number of Christians take that stand, but I can't think of any biblical reasons. Take that stand.

Usually, the argument is that in the Bible. People wanted to be buried and often bodies that were burned were the bodies of people who were your enemies that you had wanted to defile their bodies and wanted to do them or do you dishonor like burning a body so that so that having the body burned was a dishonor and every wanted be. You know intact. Well maybe they did but that's the that's a very different thing than saying there's any sin in one of the other affected in a certain culture people prefer to be buried does not translate into moral obligation or into you know a word from God. Now, the idea of resurrection. Sometimes in the Christian theology has militated in some people's minds against cremation because they say well if you burn the body into ashes house got generated from the dead don't really to me that's kind of silly question. I mean, whether you're burned to ashes are not even for bodies buried it's can be ashes within a few years enough.

God can't raise ashes from the dead, then the resurrections simply not happen you know if I'm buried, and 50 years now my body is completely and ashes. Or if they burned me just speeds up what natures going to do to me anyway.

God has to be able to build us out of ashes. If he wants to and he built that he felt Adam's body out of dust and also I don't really see that that's an issue that some people see it as simply a destruction of the temple of God, because Paul said your you are the temple of God, and whoever destroys the temple of God, God will destroy, but our bodies are the temple of God, while while he lives in us and what that's when were alive that if you dig up at the corpse of the Christian whose dead pull out his grave. The Holy Spirit is not living in their Holy Spirit doesn't stay in the temple. Instead what it what the Bible means is that we are the embodiments of Christ's body and the temple of the Holy Spirit. While we are operating in this world when we die. Certainly the Holy Spirit doesn't just stay in us and go to the grave with this site. I totally I totally just don't see any arguments against cremation now. Maybe it's maybe it's not to be preferred and sometimes when I give my position.

I've hadn't morticians go more than once morticians of contacted me after after showing said all you don't know how gross it is for the morticians have to burn these bodies after burning the NAFTA region with like a sticker, some break up the bones and burning some more, and it's really gross.

Maybe it is really gross and maybe that's the reason for morticians to get into different business or not to do cremations, but I think embalming about his progress to I don't I don't just speak to the issue on the basis of whether it's seems proper or offensive.

But whether it's something that is sinful or not and I can't find any biblical basis for saying sinful well how great I'm glad there's why when they sent someone a lie land on updating down well you I got there I thought there the line of business on eating tonight. Thank you God bless you. All right. Our next caller is David from Eugene, Oregon David, welcome to the narrow path. Thanks for calling Chapter 11 how we come to the Tower of Babel and of course people are building a great one to build a large power in the right way, you click is not known. Mortar facilities. God come down to look at the calendar and one language and working together since it there's nothing that they wouldn't be able to do in their language. What that thing that we might do that. Need Gartner that while some people think that what God is saying when he says if we allow this.

You know than anything will be possible for is nothing will be withheld from this how it is the way God says that indeed the people are one in there all have one language, and this is what they begin to do now, nothing will be nothing that they propose to do will be withheld from them now. Some people think that means that God sees infinite potential in concerted human effort, that man is made in God's image and there does seem to be.

We haven't yet found the limits of what man can do, especially with the advent of modern science and so forth. It's just amazing thing.

What humans have been able to do, and that God is simply expressing that if people work together, they can really get anything done.

So he's good in this case he doesn't want him to finish this project so he confuse their language so they can work together. I don't think though that that's what he's saying, myself. I think that what he saying is I have already given them instructions in verse one of chapter 11 and two while actually actually it's a earlier time in chapter 9 verse one after the flood. He says so God blessed Noah and his sons and said to them, be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth the same instructions he'd given to Adam and Eve. So after the flood. The people were supposed to scatter out and fill the earth as populated for the people in chapter 11 verse three said they said to one another, let us make bricks and bake them thoroughly.

Etc. etc. this is so that we might not be scattered abroad over the face of the whole earth that slightly verse four.

So God wanted them to spread out and fill the earth. They didn't want to.

And so they are in disobedience already. After the flood innovation. People should learn the lesson when God wiped out all the rebels and other started to rebel again. And when God says if if they get away with this. What can't they get away with. In other words, if I don't put my foot down here if I don't intervene and judge here. I will set a precedent that you know what can I forget if the if I can't forget this.

What can I forget what he says nothing will be withheld from them.

I don't know. That means that there's nothing they can't do. Although I don't like that I don't think we found the limits of what people can do yet, but I don't know that that's what the thought is thank God thing is if I let them get away with this. What can't I let them get away with you and I'll be setting a precedent of letting them disobey me without consequences.

So I can't withhold anything from the men to settle live with their disobedience and never intervene.

I think the I think that's more the meaning of the statement that is a great way to look at it and bring it back to nine. I just turn there and of course that makes a lot now going comparing Genesis 9 211. I really could see that you have a great day.

Thank you talk to David. Okay our next caller is Mike from Hillsboro, Oregon Mike, welcome to the narrow path. Thanks for calling today. I'm well, thank you. I have been off and on the EN you and I'm going to be out well that what they I got to watch and a guy on TV who did a whole series on the attached basically have a lot of the same pain points that you made okay about Rome. And so on so forth. I okay once it may be I can learn well the question because it seems to me, one of the main arguments about that. When John voted eroded early, then your positions and an AP eroded in his old age on Patmos that my positions began at the moment lay in their flight. Then it didn't have anything to really it was more of the world wide.

The book of Revelation is more of a worldwide not Israeli prophecy, although it has a lot to do with his horse, but it has more to do with worldwide and that the cogent point. This to me still are. I think you did write it in his old age and eroded news all day. Then then one would earth the great earthquake hasn't happened yet. The one that really gets me though about that in this case comes over at the didn't even touch that hundred and 44,000 that is so 12,000 version young man and retry that or did go out minister.

That hasn't happened absolutely has not happened so I manage challenging you on that. It if you want to pick one of the issues. Please give me your take on just what the world are the hundred and 44,000 version young man from the tribe of Bengal known now to better when the sidebar okay I will do that I will do that and obviously the music thing means I have to take a break here. I'll hold you on until after the break so we can come back to your question since I didn't get a chance to say anything about it. So, please state stay on the phone and I'll come back to in about 60 seconds, listening to the narrow radio broadcast, we are only halfway through the show don't go away. We got a whole hour.

Another half-hour coming up the narrow path is a listener supported ministry if you'd like to help us pay the radio bills. That's where the donations go in the coming you can write to the narrow path, PO Box 1732 macula CA 92593 website is the narrow path.com. I'll be right back in 30 seconds. Please stay tuned the gate and narrow is the path that leads to life continue nearing Pat everything in today's media show is over and enjoyed my visit in the narrow path.com find free topical audio teaching blog article writers teachings and narrow path video shows we think you for supporting the listeners supported narrow path that Steve Greg member the narrow.com radio broadcast Steve Greg and we are live for another half-hour taking your calls your questions. If you have questions about the Bible you have a different viewpoint from the host want to bring that up.

I like the color that we held over from the previous half-hour will be talking to his subpoints immediately, but we will have room for your calls to. Although our lines are full. That doesn't mean you can't get in. If you call in a few minutes.

You may find that allowing his opened up the number to call is 844-484-5737 that's 844-484-5737 now Mike from Hillsboro, Oregon is on the line and he called out, let me just restate your question Mike.

I think I can maybe do it.

Perhaps a little quicker than you did. You take you take a futurist view of the book of Revelation, which means you believe that most of it is going to be fulfilled in the future.

I take a partial progress view, which means I believe that much of it. Probably most of it was fulfilled in the past, especially in the destruction of Jerusalem. Now your your .2 points. One was the date of writing of the book of Revelation.

A great many evangelical scholars believe Revelation was written during the reign of deletion around 96 A.D. and that's what your position to and and if that's true of course that's like 2526 years after the fall of Jerusalem and a book written that late would not be predicting the fall of Jerusalem, so that would entirely rule out the partial progress view. If the date of writing is that late. There are many evangelical scholars who believe was written earlier in the reign of Nero and since Nero committed suicide, and 68 or 69 A.D. it was written during his reign.

It was written before 70 A.D. and could easily be talking about A.D. 70. Now I want to say this before.

Take your point about the hundred 44,000 you did state something that wasn't quite accurate. You said that if the book was written early. It supports my view and if it was written later support your view. I would say it's not now.

Okay let me just clarify what issues you are partly right, but not entirely.

Your right insane that if it was written late in the first century was written and 96 A.D. that would eliminate my view, that's for sure. But even if was written early.

It was written in Nero's time before 70 D that wouldn't prove my view is correct because any there are four views of Revelation. Any of them could be true if was written in the reign of Nero.

In fact, it was written 96 A.D. as you think.

Then three of the four could still be true only. Only the predators you could not so the view I hold is very vulnerable to being wrong. If the book was written later and therefore predators do have an interest in knowing whether the book was written before 78 are not in an predators believe there's good evidence that was but still controversial and there scholars on both sides of that so no one can say for sure, but if it was written late then of course it's the idea is predicting 87 is impossible.

Now you are saying that certain things of the Revelation certainly not happened. You named a few the two witnesses. The electorate with the other was with her several things a great earthquake, and so forth. But you wanted.

Specifically for me to address the hundred 44,000 because you said that certainly hasn't happened. Let me clarify that the hundred 44,000. They only mentioned twice in the Bible are mentioned in Revelation 7 in the first half of the chapter and they are mentioned again in the first few verses of chapter 14 and that's all we have. So what do we know about them. Well, in chapter 7 we read that judgments are about to come but that God is going to preserve somebody. The hundred 44,000 from those judgments and it actually says in the opening of chapter 7 after these things I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth, or could be of the land because the word earth and landed the same and the Greeks out to be the land of Israel could be the earth pending on what's been discussed holding the four winds of the earth or the land and the wind that the wind should not blow on the earth or the land or on the sea or on any tree until until the seal of God is put on the on the servants of God so God's goodness and judgment. It says, but first he wants put a seal on the four heads of his servants.

And when the judgments come then the servants will be spared those judgments select that's the first thing we know then we go through your verses five through eight.

It talks with his 12,000 from each of the 12 tribes of Israel totaling hundred 44,000 then were told nothing more about them were not told, they preached were not told that they did anything just told that they were sealed and nothing nothing of their activities is hinted at. We just have their number. We have their tribal identities and we have the fact that God has sealed them to be protected from the dangers coming now. The predators view holds that the danger is coming is coming on Jerusalem and that and that's the Jews who were in danger in Jerusalem, but that these are the church, the body of Christ in Jerusalem the Jewish Christians that they in fact were spared before the Romans came in besiege the city they left Jesus had told him to Jesus told him when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies. You are in Judea flee to the mountains and they did so that when the siege took place.

All the believers all the all the Jews who believe in Christ were gone from Jerusalem and they did not suffer from this they were protected from it.

Just as this suggests that when I point out is that this ceiling of them before the disaster is mirrored by Ezekiel 9, which was also predicting the destruction of Jerusalem and Ezekiel saw a vision of God's people being sealed on their foreheads their mark on their foreheads. And then he told these slaughter Angels is angels slaughter weapons to God slaughter everyone in Jerusalem.

Starting at the temple except for those who had the mark on therefore and so this is exactly the same thing. Jerusalem was destroyed twice under the judgment of God. Once 586 BC once in 70 A.D., but before each time God isolated and identified his own people for protection and Ezekiel sees this mark been placed on their on the remnants of the faithful remnants for head in chapter 9 of Ezekiel just before the Babylonians comes for Jerusalem and according the predators view. John sees the same thing happening with the faithful remnant in Jerusalem that is the believers in Christ, just before the Romans, and that actually did happen. Now, you did mention some other features of them which are found in chapter 14 and again we don't read anything about them being preachers or something like that line and singular about what he said about them number one, they have to come out of that stateside number two that versions that I need to talk a little bit because I know what you're saying and I want say something about it if I could. You did call me asking her for so this business would be virgins is not found in chapter 7, but that's part of the material in chapter 14. They are the first five verses of Revelation 14 also describes them, and it tells us this about them several things it says these are the ones who were not defiled with women for they are virgins. This verse for Revelation 14 for these are the ones who follow the Lamb wherever he goes.

These were redeemed from among men being firstfruits to God and to the Lamb and in their mouth was found no guile, for they are without fault before the throne of God. Okay, this describes them as uncompromised godly people. It says they are virgins. But this I take it is somewhat symbolic. It says it explains what makes them not defiled themselves with women, now a virgin. Technically has hasn't even had sex a virgin is not even a married person. But a married person may still be spiritually virginal because being married does not defile it says in Hebrews chapter 12 that earned 13 it says that the marriage is honorable among all and the bed undefiled.

These people not defile themselves with women that does me. They've never been married. It means that they have not participated in the harlot and her activities in this in the book of Revelation.

The harlot is the one who seduces the world. She's the mother of harlots.

She's she's a spiritual entity who brings about spiritual corruption.

These I believe are simply the Jews who have not participated with that while the rest have and there is pure is virgins in that respect.

They don't have to physical virgins are yet you can hold that they are that's your business, you're entitled to your wondering how I would explain this.

I would, I believe they have not compromised with the harlot and their vesting is virgins in that sense says they are the ones who follow the Lamb wherever he goes.

That's what was the Lamb Jesus of the followers of Jesus. The Christians okay there uncompromised Christians.

It says they were redeemed from among men. Okay, that's true of all Christians. We've all been reading from environment. It says in verse five in their mouths was found no guile, for they are without fault before the throne of God. That's true all Christians to remember when Nathaniel was seen by Jesus in John chapter 1, Jesus said there's an Israelite indeed in whom is no guile and he said a true Israel like a true Jew was one who had no guile in that which is hypocrisy. He's genuine is not fake like the Pharisees.

Okay so these are the Jews who were not like the Pharisees. They were not compromised with the harlot system they were redeemed. As we all are. They were without fault before God is not but there's another line here at the universe for it says they were the first fruits to God and to the Lamb. Firstfruits firstfruits is the first grain brought in at harvest time is not the last. Now the whole church has been a harvest time and these are not said to be the last fruits of the end of the world. These are the firstfruits of the church which would be in the first century and James if you look at James chapter 1 he addresses Christian Jews of his time, like himself in James 11.

He says James a servant of God to the 12 tribes who were scattered abroad limited hundred 44,000 from the 12 tribes.

More than that.

They follow the Lamb and so also heat it very clear when you read through the book of James is writing to Christian Jews, not just Jews but once who are followers of Christ, for example, he says in verse seven of chapter 2 speak of the rich aren't. Do they not blaspheme that noble name by which you are called and in chapter 2 verse 20 says brother do not hold the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ Lord of glory, with partiality, he assumes they hold the faith of Christ, but they're not supposed to partiality, since these are believing Jews in the first century that James by the way, who wrote the third died before 70 A.D. and he was like the Bishop of Jerusalem, so he's writing to. He's a Jew in the first century in Jerusalem before his fall, and he's writing to other Christian Jews. And here's what he says them in verse 18 of chapter 1 James 118 of his own will he brought us forth by the word of truth, that we might be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures at a first century Jewish Christian writing to other first century Jewish Christian says God chose us to be the firstfruits with that mean when the first people converted the first people harvested into the kingdom of God were Jewish believers. That's before any Gentiles were offered, so he said he sees himself and his readers Jewish Christians of her century as the firstfruits that God is chosen as firstfruits, for that's exact term that describes the hundred 44,000, it says and to first convince our meeting had security turnover Revelation again. Revelation 14 for he says they are firstfruits to God and to the Lamb so my understanding is that when James refers to the firstfruits and when Revelation does that the most sensible thing is that some to refer to the same one since they both speaking of Jewish believers in the first century before 70 A.D. and both are said to be firstfruits and the fact that Ezekiel had a vision where the, the faithful interest were marked for preservation before the Babylonians destroyed Jerusalem. The fact that Revelation would have a similar vision making a similar point that before the Romans destroyed Jerusalem. God first finds his firstfruits and safe amounts of that's what I would say about the hundred 44,000 is nothing in there that suggest they live in the last days. I appreciate your call. Though certainly we gave you a lot of time. We have a lot of people waiting so our next caller is looks like it's going to be Joe joy to be from BellSouth are covered. If you want to find something of my the lettering on my screen is so tiny. I ask him holding up a magnifying glass like Sherlock Holmes to my computer screen so I can read the names but joy from Bellflower, California. Welcome to the narrow my call.

I really appreciate your ministry. You wanted to get your opinion on current events that are taking right now regarding the quarantine and all this I have like a few questions that I wanted your opinion on that one of the most and ones that have been heavy on my heart lately is the fact that here in California and the Gov. pretty much has the church is in the call-in entertainment saying that they are nonessential on meaning that they can't open at until I think they're saying November something like.and I know that there's a group that is on some churches that are planning to open at on May 31 get going along with all the Jan precautions and sanitary guidelines so forth.

I wanted you I'm I'm a law-abiding godly one then Christian. 30 years and I don't normally go around breaking laws, however, and I kind of don't feel like I would be breaking the law because I feel like Pres. Tromp said we should we we could open up and down. I don't like this governors kinda going along with that jump in here present Tromp is quite correct about this matter that constitutionally we have the right to free assembly and however Tromp doesn't have jurisdiction over the states. The government didn't see the governors do, but the governors don't have the power to make laws and certainly no law that goes against the Constitution can be considered to be a valid law in this country sometimes it has been challenged in Supreme Court before can be declared to be against the Constitution.

But some of them are quite obviously against the cost of showing there's the Bill of Rights that says that the government shall not in any way inhibit the exercise of free religion since Christian is not just a private faith.

It's a it's a social faith.

It's congregational faith that the Constitution basically says that no government official can command us not to meet and so and you know you don't even need a special Supreme Court decreed to see that that's as plain as the nose on your face now is… But that but it's an emergency, it's that's that's wearing awfully thin. It may have seemed, it may have seemed like an emergency. Six. Seven weeks ago will know better than that. Now we all know that the current coronavirus doesn't kill hardly anybody under 70 years old and you know and it doesn't kill children or young people at all and I mean the statistical mortality of it among people who are under 18 is statistically almost 0. I mean, this is not a crisis, such as they describe and they're just plain it up because frankly I say what I think is going on because you asked me. I think that there's a certain element of certain political element in that's been in our country for long time, which was in power for a while held the presidency and so forth and were looking forward to a total government control over the lives of all people in all areas and it was moving that direction and then they got voted out of office and in the presidency and and now they're doing their taken advantage of. Very vague powers that they can claim to have because of the alleged crisis well again.

You know that if the governor makes a law he sees not acting as a governor because governors don't make laws legislatures to just like Trump can't make a law either is not a good is not legislator legislators make laws.

I'm afraid that there's so many people who been educated poorly in this country over the past generation or two that most people don't even know what the Constitution says and they don't know it's the supreme law of the land.

They don't know that the purpose the Constitution is to say what the government cannot tell you to do and not to do about certain things. It can, it can, it can set speed limits. It can, it can do it you can tell you not to avoid taxes, but it can't tell you how to worship or when to worship or not to worship that's that's one of those areas that is very specifically and unambiguously written into the Constitution, the government has no power and no right to dictate about that.

So it doesn't matter.

Even if the legislatures of the states say were working in the governor the right to make you look into to all, as it were, legislate well-placed. Still no legislation against the Constitution is legal so yeah but but we have so few people in the country even know about the Constitution, believes, I think some of them don't even know what it is and if they do they don't know what it says because we've gotten used to, like a frog in the cattle that's been boiled slowly live and doesn't know it. We got used to the removal of constitutional rights. Now I'm not here, but on a political program but Christians do have to ask when God says to obey the authorities will help Fard with obey them. That certainly is a Christian question. Well, we have to obey them in so far as their operating within their own divine right of authority, but even in this car. Even if you even if there is no God. This kind of restriction be illegal in this country because the Constitution but of course God has never given permission to governments to tell Christians when to meet her not to meet God is never given that kind of authority, member of the Supreme Court of Israel told the apostles don't do this anymore. Don't preach in Jesus name anymore and Peter said with obey God, not you, and he was talking Supreme Court justices of his country in the Bible nowhere says that the government has the right to do whatever it wants to do. The Bible does say that God is given the government instrumentality of executing criminals. That's what God ordained the state for to keep justices over not to provide everything to protect everyone from every danger in the world. I mean if God gave the government the right to tell Christians they can't worship together because the coronavirus will then maybe they can't worship together in any place that they could have tried cars because the government might think that's going to hurt the environment.

I mean, it simply is not within the competence of the government to make laws about forbidding Christians to to meet will plan everything he said was completely might opinion as well and going along with that as well.

There's some people that are gonna lose their businesses if they don't open them soon, and I even have the happy conviction. I think this is someone (business go support their business course business nicely slows down specially specially small businesses because the big corporations benefit the government doesn't interfere with Costco and Walmart and big corporations because frankly there's a lot of money there and money is what makes the political wheels go round, but the small businesses that don't make a major dent in the politicians economic issues. They don't care how many small businesses out of business because they they don't care for people they really don't. They don't care about people they care only about power and the proven I wouldn't of been able to say that I would've been able since six or seven weeks ago when there really look like there might be a crisis and maybe they were trying to protect people but everybody's pay attention including the rulers they know there's no crisis. They know that for their handling list like the handle. No other disease. Although it's really very much like most diseases around slightly to me they're just overstepping their overreaching and I and at least in terms of making a living feeding your family. The Bible actually does say whoever doesn't work should need. So I would say that a person opens his business against aversive dismantle. They God, not you. Having having my children go hungry and go without because for nothing is simply not something I can do with good conscience. Anyway, those are my thoughts on it like your opinion. I created percent think it got bless you and thank you very much Greg from Orange, California. Welcome to the narrow path. Thanks for calling thinker taken my call very quickly. I just like to get your thoughts on what you feel are the best nutshell evidences for the resurrection and the reason I'm asking is, I'm trying to get better at defending my faith with atheists and agnostics and a little better at living in conformity with first Peter 315 which language tells me that I need to give an account for the hope that lies within me so I just like to hear you're not your nutshell explanations for the evidences of the resurrection of the resurrection of Jesus.

Yes yes okay well there's two primarily in there and they're pretty much unbeatable. One is the empty tomb and the other is the fact that hundreds of people after Jesus had died, claimed that they'd seen him alive with the holes in his hands and all.

Afterward and and they were willing to die for the test. Right now the empty tomb. That's not even disputed. If the tomb had not been empty.

Then the Jews or the Romans or something would quickly gone to the tomb and found the body and presented it in there be no Christianity assumes the jute misses the Christian start preaching that Jesus rose from the dead. If his body was still in the tomb. In fact what they could of got away with it because somebody who is an enemy of Christian there were more enemies than friends would've gone to the tomb of Jesus.

Look here… Dead body. This guy you say rose from the dead, you're full of it and they would have maybe no Christianity after that but they couldn't.

The fact they couldn't manage the body was not there.

Now why it was not there. Is disputed, and some people say that the disciples stole the body, but why would they want to do that they had no interest in starting a religion date since Jesus died.

They went back to fishing start religions only because Jesus appeared to them again and commissioned them that they actually got back to work preaching the gospel.

He had no motivation.

They didn't make money at it.

There was no power in it. There is only the power to be singled out by the Romans to be fed to the lions. I mean why would anyone choose that the disciple had no motive for stealing the body, nor were they have the ability.

The body was guarded by soldiers and the disciples were not military men and even if they had been even if they don't overcome the soldiers, which is impossible to imagine there be evidence that that it happened because when you overcome soldiers. That means the soldiers that you overcame got wounded or killed. And yet there were no wounded soldiers no killed soldier so obviously disciples didn't fight them so I'm either simply no no reasonable explanation for the tomb was empty except the one that's given unanimously by the four Gospels, and then of course the fact that the disciples and many others beside them claim to see him after his resurrection, and many of them, all the apostles and many others were willing to go to their death to be tortured to be to die horribly rather than to recant on their story because they knew it was true and they were gaining nothing by it in Everett's if it wasn't true. The other are people will live, but they won't lie when won't benefit them anything and especially sin to kill him to live on it, so we simply have the facts of history that no one disputes, even atheist historians know that the tomb was empty. They might have their own theories about how crediting may not include the resurrection of Jesus.

But when you survey the various options. Only one makes sense, and frankly no historian doubts that the early Christians believe that they saw Jesus after raising the dead. They may have their next donations for that none of makes sense except the one God has so set this thing up that only the truth makes sense. All other series are just ridiculous.

The nutshell case for the resurrection is the empty tomb, and the testimony of the witnesses who saw him afterwards and we could go. It is far more if we had the time, but that's can have to be at appreciate your call. Well, we thank you for joining us human listing to the narrow path radio broadcast. We are listener supported. If you'd like to write to us the address is the narrow PO Box 1732 macula CA 92593.

You can also donate from the website. If you wish to add the narrow.com thanks for joining us.

Let's talk again tomorrow