Page 1 of 1

Luke 13:33

Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2018 6:42 am
by Christian2
Luke 13:33: “… it cannot be that a prophet should perish outside of Jerusalem.”

Jesus died just outside of Jerusalem.

So what do you think Jesus meant when He said: "it cannot be that a prophet should perish outside of Jerusalem?"

Thank you.

Re: Luke 13:33

Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2018 7:48 am
by RickD
Christian2 wrote:Luke 13:33: “… it cannot be that a prophet should perish outside of Jerusalem.”

Jesus died just outside of Jerusalem.

So what do you think Jesus meant when He said: "it cannot be that a prophet should perish outside of Jerusalem?"

Thank you.

Jesus died in Jerusalem, just outside its walls.

Re: Luke 13:33

Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2018 8:31 am
by Christian2
RickD wrote:
Christian2 wrote:Luke 13:33: “… it cannot be that a prophet should perish outside of Jerusalem.”

Jesus died just outside of Jerusalem.

So what do you think Jesus meant when He said: "it cannot be that a prophet should perish outside of Jerusalem?"

Thank you.

Jesus died in Jerusalem, just outside its walls.


So Golgotha is outside of Jerusalem, so why would it still be considered Jerusalem?

Re: Luke 13:33

Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2018 8:36 am
by DBowling
I think the context, especially verse 34, makes it clear what Jesus is referring to.

Luke 13:31-35
31 Just at that time some Pharisees approached, saying to Him, “Go away, leave here, for Herod wants to kill You.” 32 And He said to them, “Go and tell that fox, ‘Behold, I cast out demons and perform cures today and tomorrow, and the third day I reach My goal.’ 33 Nevertheless I must journey on today and tomorrow and the next day; for it cannot be that a prophet would perish outside of Jerusalem. 34 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, just as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not have it! 35 Behold, your house is left to you desolate; and I say to you, you will not see Me until the time comes when you say, ‘Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord!’”

The Pharisees are telling Jesus to leave because Herod wants to kill him.
Jesus tells the Pharisees that even though Jerusalem has a history of stoning and killing prophets that he is going to continue his work.
Jesus then laments Jerusalem's rejection of him and its upcoming destruction by the Romans which would take place in 40 years.

Re: Luke 13:33

Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2018 9:33 am
by Christian2
Thanks for your answers.

This verse was brought up by a Muslim, saying that it is proof Jesus did not die.

I found this same discussion on an Islamic board just now and a Christian answered this way:

"What did Jesus mean when he said that “it is not admissible for a prophet to be destroyed outside of Jerusalem”?—J. B., U.S.A.

Some time after Passover of 32 C.E. “Jesus Christ commenced showing his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things from the older men and chief priests and scribes, and be killed.” (Matt. 16:21) He knew ahead of time that he was to be sentenced to death and killed in and around Jerusalem, not in Corinth, Rome, Samaria or any other city. He had been sent to the house of Israel, and he would die at the capital city of the Jews.—Matt. 15:24.

Later in that same Jewish lunar year Christ referred again to his approaching death at Jerusalem and said: “It is not admissible for a prophet to be destroyed outside of Jerusalem [or “away from Jerusalem,” RS]. Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the killer of the prophets and stoner of those sent forth to her—how often I wanted to gather your children together . . . , but you people did not want it! Look! Your house is abandoned to you.”—Luke 13:33-35.

Even though Jerusalem could be called the “killer of the prophets,” in saying that it was not admissible for a prophet to be killed outside of Jerusalem, Jesus could not have meant that no Jewish prophet had ever been killed elsewhere. According to Josephus, John the Baptist was beheaded in Machaerus, on the Perean side of the Dead Sea. Evidently, the point that Jesus was making was that it was appropriate and to be expected that if the Jews were to kill a prophet, and especially the Messiah, it would be in Jerusalem.

One reason for this was that Jerusalem was the location of the seventy-one member Sanhedrin or high court. According to God’s law, a false prophet was to die. (Deut. 18:20) The Jewish Mishna explains: “He was not condemned to death either by the court that was in his own city or by the court that was in Jabneh, but he was brought up to the Great Court [Sanhedrin] that was in Jerusalem.” (Sanhedrin, sec. 11, par. 4) So, since the Sanhedrin met only at Jerusalem, and it was before this body that “false” prophets would be tried, condemned and killed, Jesus could make the comment he did, knowing that the Jewish religious leaders did not accept him as a true prophet of God.

Further, Isaiah foretold that the Messiah would be brought just like a sheep to the slaughtering. (Isa. 53:7) John the Baptist called Jesus “the Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world.” (John 1:29) Where, then, would be the appropriate place for Jesus to be sacrificed just like a lamb, like the Passover lamb? (1 Cor. 5:7) Would it not be in Jerusalem where the regular sacrifices were offered to God and where the Passover lamb was slaughtered? Yes, and this gives us another logical reason for Jesus to point to Jerusalem as the location of his death.

As things worked out, what Jesus said came true. He was taken before the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem and condemned. And it was there at Jerusalem, just beyond the city walls, that he died."

Does this make sense to you all?

Re: Luke 13:33

Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2018 9:55 am
by RickD
Christian2 wrote:Thanks for your answers.

This verse was brought up by a Muslim, saying that it is proof Jesus did not die.

I found this same discussion on an Islamic board just now and a Christian answered this way:

"What did Jesus mean when he said that “it is not admissible for a prophet to be destroyed outside of Jerusalem”?—J. B., U.S.A.

Some time after Passover of 32 C.E. “Jesus Christ commenced showing his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things from the older men and chief priests and scribes, and be killed.” (Matt. 16:21) He knew ahead of time that he was to be sentenced to death and killed in and around Jerusalem, not in Corinth, Rome, Samaria or any other city. He had been sent to the house of Israel, and he would die at the capital city of the Jews.—Matt. 15:24.

Later in that same Jewish lunar year Christ referred again to his approaching death at Jerusalem and said: “It is not admissible for a prophet to be destroyed outside of Jerusalem [or “away from Jerusalem,” RS]. Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the killer of the prophets and stoner of those sent forth to her—how often I wanted to gather your children together . . . , but you people did not want it! Look! Your house is abandoned to you.”—Luke 13:33-35.

Even though Jerusalem could be called the “killer of the prophets,” in saying that it was not admissible for a prophet to be killed outside of Jerusalem, Jesus could not have meant that no Jewish prophet had ever been killed elsewhere. According to Josephus, John the Baptist was beheaded in Machaerus, on the Perean side of the Dead Sea. Evidently, the point that Jesus was making was that it was appropriate and to be expected that if the Jews were to kill a prophet, and especially the Messiah, it would be in Jerusalem.

One reason for this was that Jerusalem was the location of the seventy-one member Sanhedrin or high court. According to God’s law, a false prophet was to die. (Deut. 18:20) The Jewish Mishna explains: “He was not condemned to death either by the court that was in his own city or by the court that was in Jabneh, but he was brought up to the Great Court [Sanhedrin] that was in Jerusalem.” (Sanhedrin, sec. 11, par. 4) So, since the Sanhedrin met only at Jerusalem, and it was before this body that “false” prophets would be tried, condemned and killed, Jesus could make the comment he did, knowing that the Jewish religious leaders did not accept him as a true prophet of God.

Further, Isaiah foretold that the Messiah would be brought just like a sheep to the slaughtering. (Isa. 53:7) John the Baptist called Jesus “the Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world.” (John 1:29) Where, then, would be the appropriate place for Jesus to be sacrificed just like a lamb, like the Passover lamb? (1 Cor. 5:7) Would it not be in Jerusalem where the regular sacrifices were offered to God and where the Passover lamb was slaughtered? Yes, and this gives us another logical reason for Jesus to point to Jerusalem as the location of his death.

As things worked out, what Jesus said came true. He was taken before the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem and condemned. And it was there at Jerusalem, just beyond the city walls, that he died."

Does this make sense to you all?

Seems pretty reasonable to me.

Re: Luke 13:33

Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2018 11:30 am
by Christian2
RickD wrote:
Christian2 wrote:Thanks for your answers.

This verse was brought up by a Muslim, saying that it is proof Jesus did not die.

I found this same discussion on an Islamic board just now and a Christian answered this way:

"What did Jesus mean when he said that “it is not admissible for a prophet to be destroyed outside of Jerusalem”?—J. B., U.S.A.

Some time after Passover of 32 C.E. “Jesus Christ commenced showing his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things from the older men and chief priests and scribes, and be killed.” (Matt. 16:21) He knew ahead of time that he was to be sentenced to death and killed in and around Jerusalem, not in Corinth, Rome, Samaria or any other city. He had been sent to the house of Israel, and he would die at the capital city of the Jews.—Matt. 15:24.

Later in that same Jewish lunar year Christ referred again to his approaching death at Jerusalem and said: “It is not admissible for a prophet to be destroyed outside of Jerusalem [or “away from Jerusalem,” RS]. Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the killer of the prophets and stoner of those sent forth to her—how often I wanted to gather your children together . . . , but you people did not want it! Look! Your house is abandoned to you.”—Luke 13:33-35.

Even though Jerusalem could be called the “killer of the prophets,” in saying that it was not admissible for a prophet to be killed outside of Jerusalem, Jesus could not have meant that no Jewish prophet had ever been killed elsewhere. According to Josephus, John the Baptist was beheaded in Machaerus, on the Perean side of the Dead Sea. Evidently, the point that Jesus was making was that it was appropriate and to be expected that if the Jews were to kill a prophet, and especially the Messiah, it would be in Jerusalem.

One reason for this was that Jerusalem was the location of the seventy-one member Sanhedrin or high court. According to God’s law, a false prophet was to die. (Deut. 18:20) The Jewish Mishna explains: “He was not condemned to death either by the court that was in his own city or by the court that was in Jabneh, but he was brought up to the Great Court [Sanhedrin] that was in Jerusalem.” (Sanhedrin, sec. 11, par. 4) So, since the Sanhedrin met only at Jerusalem, and it was before this body that “false” prophets would be tried, condemned and killed, Jesus could make the comment he did, knowing that the Jewish religious leaders did not accept him as a true prophet of God.

Further, Isaiah foretold that the Messiah would be brought just like a sheep to the slaughtering. (Isa. 53:7) John the Baptist called Jesus “the Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world.” (John 1:29) Where, then, would be the appropriate place for Jesus to be sacrificed just like a lamb, like the Passover lamb? (1 Cor. 5:7) Would it not be in Jerusalem where the regular sacrifices were offered to God and where the Passover lamb was slaughtered? Yes, and this gives us another logical reason for Jesus to point to Jerusalem as the location of his death.

As things worked out, what Jesus said came true. He was taken before the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem and condemned. And it was there at Jerusalem, just beyond the city walls, that he died."

Does this make sense to you all?

Seems pretty reasonable to me.


It does to me as well. Thanks.

Re: Luke 13:33

Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2018 11:42 am
by RickD
Just a word of caution...

Usually people deny Christ's deity, not that he was actually a historical person who lived and died around 2000 years ago.

Speaking with someone who denies history, you will probably have a hard time reasoning with him.

Re: Luke 13:33

Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2018 1:49 pm
by Christian2
RickD wrote:Just a word of caution...

Usually people deny Christ's deity, not that he was actually a historical person who lived and died around 2000 years ago.

Speaking with someone who denies history, you will probably have a hard time reasoning with him.


Indeed, it is like trying to have a meaningful dialog with a box of rocks.

Re: Luke 13:33

Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2018 11:58 pm
by B. W.
Christian2 wrote:
RickD wrote:Just a word of caution...

Usually people deny Christ's deity, not that he was actually a historical person who lived and died around 2000 years ago.

Speaking with someone who denies history, you will probably have a hard time reasoning with him.


Indeed, it is like trying to have a meaningful dialog with a box of rocks.


But you know, rocks are smarter ...
















+
They smart when the hit you!
-
-
-