- Apr 5, 2007
- 144,404
- 27,056
- 56
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Reformed
- Marital Status
- Married
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
According to Calvinisms view of election, the judgment of Jerusalem would have been the good pleasure" of the Father (Ephesians 1:9-10). If that were so, why was it so disturbing to Jesus? Shouldn't Jesus have been pleased with the Father's will for Jerusalem?
Luke 19:41-44
As he approached Jerusalem and saw the city, he wept over it 42 and said, "If you, even you, had only known on this day what would bring you peace-but now it is hidden from your eyes. 43 The days will come upon you when your enemies will build an embankment against you and encircle you and hem you in on every side. 44 They will dash you to the ground, you and the children within your walls. They will not leave one stone on another, because you did not recognize the time of God's coming to you."
What does this have to do with Matthew 23?
It has to do with the OP. Can you answer the question?
Both texts are referring to Jesus and His disposition toward Jerusalem. Both texts deal with Jerusalem. Both texts personify Jerusalem. Both are speaking of the desolation of Jerusalem. Both mention the children of Jerusalem.
Luke sets the Jerusalem, Jerusalem quote before the triumphal entry (Lk 13) and Matthew sets it after (Mt 23). Matthew, however, is not known for its chronological record.
But there's a corresponding passage in Luke that is 6 chapters earlier. And he IS known for his chronological order.
Yup. I stated that (Lk 13).
Both texts are referring to Jesus and His disposition toward Jerusalem. Both texts deal with Jerusalem. Both texts personify Jerusalem. Both are speaking of the desolation of Jerusalem. Both mention the children of Jerusalem.
The Luke passage about Him weeping does not correspond with Matthew 23 not matter how you try and spin it.
It certainly does.
What do you think he was weeping for?
The corresponding passage in Luke is chapter 13. Nine whole chapters later Jesus weeps.
And?
You can't link Luke 19 to Matthew 23 as the OP has done.
Jesus wept over Jerusalem. He was sad because he knew many would reject him. The OP rightly links the two verses.
When the weeping in Luke comes six chapters later? How on earth are they rightly linked?
No, He's addressing the children of the city, which includes all of them. "O Jerusalem...thy children..." Yes or no?griff said,
You're grasping at straws. So are the people Jesus is addressing a different group than the ones he would've gathered? Yes or no?
My argument is that Jesus wept for Jerusalem, which is in no case faulty. Your argument is that Jesus wasn't sad when He uttered those words, isn't it? And quite frankly, my offering that Jesus uttered His words in anger was stated to show you how foolish that argument is. Snippy? Snippy is childishly pointing out to someone what context means when you know very well they already know what it means. Maybe you should pull out your big mod hammer and smack yourself with it....but I doubt it....lolHammster said,
You don't need to get snippy just because a part of your argument was exposed to be faulty.
So........ and?Why would Jesus weep over Jerusalem?
Luke 19:41
As he approached Jerusalem and saw the city, he wept over it.
Matthew 23:37
O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing.
According to Calvinisms view of election, the judgment of Jerusalem would have been the good pleasure" of the Father (Ephesians 1:9-10). If that were so, why was it so disturbing to Jesus? Shouldn't Jesus have been pleased with the Father's will for Jerusalem?
Also, if Jesus was a Calvinist who knew the will of the Father and He really longed for them to be gathered unto Him, wouldnt the Spirit simply have irresistibly drawn them?
Both texts are referring to Jesus and His disposition toward Jerusalem. Both texts deal with Jerusalem. Both texts personify Jerusalem. Both are speaking of the desolation of Jerusalem. Both mention the children of Jerusalem.
No, He's addressing the children of the city, which includes all of them. "O Jerusalem...thy children..." Yes or no?
My argument is that Jesus wept for Jerusalem, which is in no case faulty. Your argument is that Jesus wasn't sad when He uttered those words, isn't it? And quite frankly, my offering that Jesus uttered His words in anger was stated to show you how foolish that argument is. Snippy? Snippy is childishly pointing out to someone what context means when you know very well they already know what it means. Maybe you should pull out your big mod hammer and smack yourself with it....but I doubt it....lol
No, He's addressing the children of the city, which includes all of them. "O Jerusalem...thy children..." Yes or no?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?