What is the reason for the strange transition in Matthew 10?

[David in NJ]

Mt 10:1-16 starts out with Jesus sending the disciples out two by two on a mission in their time. He tells them to heal the sick, raise the dead ect..
However, there is a strange transition to what looks like the end times in vs 17-33. What is your view on this?

SIMPLE

They were sent-out in the Name Above all names = GOSPEL

Matt 10:17-20 is a precursor, a 'warm-up', to Matt ch24 and Revelation

Every word Spoken by the LORD and the HOLY SPIRIT is the Final Practice before SuperBowl XXX3.5 = MoB vs Saints

 

[Davy]

No, I most certainly have *not* disregarded Rev 1.20 and Rev 11.3-4! Determining that the "Great Tribulation" refers to the Jewish Diaspora throughout history, and not a proper noun applying to the final 3.5 years of this age is precisely what we read in Luke 21...

I am not interested in your false rhetoric of men's doctrines that are not written in God's Word.

The events of Revelation 11 are 6th Trumpet - 6th Woe timing, and Jesus is shown coming on the 7th Trumpet - 3rd Woe. That reveals those events are for the END, not some stupid false Preterism doctrine of men designed by the devil to deceive people.

 

[Randy Kluth]

I am not interested in your false rhetoric of men's doctrines that are not written in God's Word.

The events of Revelation 11 are 6th Trumpet - 6th Woe timing, and Jesus is shown coming on the 7th Trumpet - 3rd Woe. That reveals those events are for the END, not some stupid false Preterism doctrine of men designed by the devil to deceive people.

I'm not a Preterist. And what I shared from Luke 21 was *not the "false rhetoric of men's doctrines." It was a direct quote from Jesus. If you don't want to believe Jesus that's on you.

I agree with the Preterists, however, that the Olivet Discourse focuses on the fall of the Temple in 70 AD. The Church Fathers also believed this, and were not Preterists. Jesus explicitly indicated his focus was on the complete razing of the Temple buildings. How you can ignore that and call it "men's doctrines" is amazing to me. You seem to have a hard heart--it would be much simpler to "agree to disagree" as opposed to name calling, insulting, etc.

Such an attitude as you convey suggests to me you are not open to correction--not even from the Lord. Why on earth would you argue for biblical truth if you haven't learned from it in your own conduct?

I've not been arguing against eschatological truth, nor against the idea that the book of Revelation addresses endtime events. I believe the Antichrist is coming, and will be destroyed at the 2nd Advent. Where we disagree, apparently, is on the idea that Jesus addressed the destruction of Herod's Temple. If so, then I suppose our arguing about it must end. This is, for me, a matter of accepting Scriptural truth.

 

[Davy]

I'm not a Preterist. And what I shared from Luke 21 was *not the "false rhetoric of men's doctrines." It was a direct quote from Jesus. If you don't want to believe Jesus that's on you.

Yes YOU ARE A PRESTERIST. Those on that false Preterist doctrine believe what you believe about the 70 A.D. destruction of Jerusalem and the 2nd temple, that it signaled that Christ's Kingdom had literally manifested on earth, even though Lord Jesus was still sitting on the right hand of The Father's throne in Heaven, and not here on earth to reign yet.

John 18:36
36 Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not of this world: if My kingdom were of this world, then would My servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is My kingdom not from hence."
KJV

I was raised in a Preterist Church, so no need to try and play games with me.

 

[Davy]

I agree with the Preterists, however, that the Olivet Discourse focuses on the fall of the Temple in 70 AD. The Church Fathers also believed this, and were not Preterists. Jesus explicitly indicated his focus was on the complete razing of the Temple buildings. How you can ignore that and call it "men's doctrines" is amazing to me. You seem to have a hard heart--it would be much simpler to "agree to disagree" as opposed to name calling, insulting, etc.

So now, because I'm telling you the truth about men's false doctrines of Preterism, it means I am hard-hearted?

No... it is called BOLDNESS IN THE SCRIPTURES. And it is a TYPE OF REBUKE to those who have STRAYED AWAY FROM THE BIBLE SCRIPTURES. The Holy Spirit makes me do it. Why do you think? Only reason I can think why is because that's the ONLY way to get the attention of knuckleheads who are rebellious against God's written Word.

Doesn't matter when the term 'Preterism' started, because in the 1st century A.D. the early Christian Church believed Christ's Kingdom had literally come at the cross, and especially with the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 A.D. That became a POPULAR DOCTRINE with the early Church, even though the label Preterism wasn't attached to it until later centuries.

What Lord Jesus brought at His cross was His Kingdom of THE SPIRIT. That is why He said the Kingdom of God is "within you," meaning being "born again" of The HOLY SPIRIT through FAITH on Jesus Christ (See Luke 17:21; John 3). It is why He said in John 18:36 that His Kingdom is NOT... of this world, meaning not of this PRESENT WORLD TIME.

And why... is the doctrine of men called Preterism so dangerous to the believing Christian? Simple...

It is because it DOES NOT PREPARE the Christian for the coming time of "great tribulation" which Jesus gave the Church SIGNS for so as to not be deceived by the 1st SUPERNATURAL MESSIAH that shows up in JERUSALEM claiming to be GOD, with the power of great signs, wonders, and miracles. The Pre-trib Rapture school will jump in that false one's boat right off the bat, and so will YOU too if you remain on that false Preterist doctrine. How's that??? and I'm only going to say this to you once...

Those who will bow to that 1st supernatural Messiah that comes first to Jerusalem, will NOT be able to tell the difference between him and our True Lord Jesus Christ when He does return afterwards! Thus the majority WILL... believe that 1st one, who will be false, has got to be Lord Jesus, because Lord Jesus is exactly Who that false-Messiah is coming to mimic. Because YOU, et al, do not STUDY this from actual Bible Scripture as Written, but instead blindly follow MEN'S DOCTRINES, you won't know that difference, even as you do not know it right now.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Yes YOU ARE A PRESTERIST. Those on that false Preterist doctrine believe what you believe about the 70 A.D. destruction of Jerusalem and the 2nd temple, that it signaled that Christ's Kingdom had literally manifested on earth, even though Lord Jesus was still sitting on the right hand of The Father's throne in Heaven, and not here on earth to reign yet.

John 18:36
36 Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not of this world: if My kingdom were of this world, then would My servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is My kingdom not from hence."
KJV

I was raised in a Preterist Church, so no need to try and play games with me.

I'm not playing games with you. You're wrong--I'm not a Preterist. I know what a Preterist is, and I'm not a Preterist.

Do you realize that you're a Mormon, Davy? Mormons believe in Jesus. You believe in Jesus. Therefore, you're a Mormon.

You're also a Hindu. Hindus believe in God. In fact they believe in many gods. You believe in God. Therefore, you're a Hindu.

I believe that Jesus spoke of the literal Temple that was destroyed in 70 AD. Preterists also believe that. So do the Church Fathers.

But Preterists also believe that most all of biblical prophecy was complete in the early Church. I don't believe that. I believe the judgment that began in 70 AD continued throughout the age for the Jewish People. It's called the Jewish Diaspora. Preterists don't believe that.

I believe in a future Antichrist. Most Preterists do not believe that. Most Preterists believe that the book of Revelation was fulfilled in the Early Church. I don't believe that. I believe that the book of Revelation focuses, in particular, on the final 3.5 years of this age, followed by the coming of Christ.

Some Preterists may have believed that the Kingdom in some sense came in 70 AD. I don't believe that at all. I'm not a Preterist. Get your facts and your accusations right, brother. And clean up your spiritual act--it's not there.

 

[Davy]

I'm not playing games with you. You're wrong--I'm not a Preterist. I know what a Preterist is, and I'm not a Preterist.

Do you realize that you're a Mormon, Davy? Mormons believe in Jesus. You believe in Jesus. Therefore, you're a Mormon.

You're also a Hindu. Hindus believe in God. In fact they believe in many gods. You believe in God. Therefore, you're a Hindu.

So now YOUR LYING has reverted to stupid name calling, when all I did was pointed out how YOU INDEED ARE FOLLOWING MEN'S DOCTRINES OF PRETERISM. Heck, you even admitted it yourself?

You said:
"I agree with the Preterists, however, that the Olivet Discourse focuses on the fall of the Temple in 70 AD."


So I don't know what's wrong with your mind, you are obviously terribly confused.

The SIGNS Lord Jesus gave in His Olivet discourse are about the very END of this world leading up to His future return, NOT 70 A.D., regardless of what the early Church believed. The early Church was WRONG about that, just as YOU ARE. And that very doctrine about Christ's Olivet discourse is PART OF THE DOCTRINE OF MAN'S PRETERISM IDEAS.

Because YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT TIMELINE Christ's Olivet discourse is for, it also means YOU DO NOT KNOW THE SIGNS OF THE END LEADING UP TO CHRIST'S RETURN given in the SEALS of Revelation 6! The SEALS parallel the SIGNS Jesus taught in His Olivet discourse. And the fact that you IMMEDIATELY WENT TO THE LUKE 21 VERSION of Christ's Olivet discourse, instead of the Matthew 24 and Mark 13 versions, means you are TRYING to use Luke 21 as your EXCUSE for it all being about 70 A.D.

I SEE right through you!

Let's see, what are some of the SIGNS Lord Jesus gave in His Olivet discourse to show He was pointing to the time of the END?

1. all wars will have stopped - Matt.24:6

2. Jesus' disciples asked Him what would be the sign of His future coming, AND the end of the world - Matt.24:3.

3. The Gospel must be preached to all... nations, and then the END will come - Matt.24:14.

4. the "abomination of desolation" IDOL to be setup in Jerusalem in a Jewish stone temple per the Book of Daniel in the latter 1260 day part of the symbolic "one week" of Daniel 9:27, HAS NEVER HAPPENED YET TO THIS DAY. The Romans in 70 A.D. did not do it, because the 2nd temple burned down before the Romans could get possession of it (per Jewish historian Josephus).

5. then with that placing of that "abomination of desolation" IDOL in JERUSALEM at the end of this world will come the "great tribulation" Jesus warned of there also, which is set for the very end of this world, and will terminate with Jesus' future 2nd coming. THAT... has NEVER happened yet to this day either!

6. in that time also a pseudo-Christ will appear in JERUSALEM, working "great signs and wonders", that IF IT WERE POSSIBLE, would deceive even Christ's "very elect" (Matt.24:23-26). That coming "man of sin" Paul showed will sit in the "temple of God" in JERUSALEM, and Hippolytus of the 1st century interpreted that to mean a FUTURE JEWISH STONE TEMPLE IN JERUSALEM.

7. a group of today's Orthodox unbelieving Jews in JERUSALEM now have the materials ready to build their 3rd temple in JERUSALEM. That 3rd temple is REQUIRED to fulfill the Daniel prophecy about the "abomination of desolation."

8. then immediately AFTER... the tribulation, Jesus showed about His 2nd coming and gathering of His faithful Church, which STILL is yet to happen to this day!


Those are all SIGNS that Jesus gave in His Olivet discourse. So to wrongly assume Christ's Olivet discourse meant all those things happened in 70 A.D. is ludicrous and foolishness.

 

[Randy Kluth]

You said:
"I agree with the Preterists, however, that the Olivet Discourse focuses on the fall of the Temple in 70 AD."

I agree with one point with the Preterists, with respect to the focus on Jesus' generation in the Olivet Discourse. As I've clearly pointed out to you, *that does not make me a Preterist.* If it does in your mind, then you must admit that you're a Mormon and a Hindu, as well, because you share points of agreement with them, as well?

The SIGNS Lord Jesus gave in His Olivet discourse are about the very END of this world leading up to His future return, NOT 70 A.D.

As I said, some signs had to do with the entirety of the age, including the end of the age, and some had to do exclusively with Jesus' generation. Since the focus of the Discourse was on Jesus' own generation he referred only to the signs of his own generation when he said "all these things will take place in this generation."

Jesus didn't say, "everything I've talked about or mentioned will happen in this generation." Rather, he said "all these things--namely the things that presage the coming destruction of Jerusalem--will take place in this generation."

regardless of what the early Church believed. The early Church was WRONG about that, just as YOU ARE. And that very doctrine about Christ's Olivet discourse is PART OF THE DOCTRINE OF MAN'S PRETERISM IDEAS.

No, you are at odds with the universal definition of Preterism. As such, you're going rogue to act in a belligerent manner. Sory, I've had enough. Clearly, you're not going to get it.

 

[Davy]

I agree with one point with the Preterists, with respect to the focus on Jesus' generation in the Olivet Discourse. As I've clearly pointed out to you, *that does not make me a Preterist.* If it does in your mind, then you must admit that you're a Mormon and a Hindu, as well, because you share points of agreement with them, as well?

Your reasoning is idiotic. It's like you are saying, "if you don't agree with me that all dogs have tails, and thus all animals that have tails are dogs, then you must not be a human."

What makes a Preterist is the FALSE treating of Christ's Olivet discourse SIGNS as PAST HISTORY, which is what you are doing with claiming 70 A.D. fulfilled those SIGNS. And don't try to tell me the early Church after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. did not see Christ's Olivet discourse as having been fulfilled then.

The meaning of the word Preterism comes from the word 'preter', which means 'what is past'.

There is even a major RADICAL version of Preterist theory; they go a step farther with false claims that Jesus' Olivet discourse was fulfilled in 70 A.D. by claiming that Lord Jesus' 2nd COMING also happened back then when He appeared to His Apostles. They claim Jesus' 2nd coming was a 'spiritual coming', and not a literal physical bodily coming. Their form of Preterism they call "Full Preterism."

As I said, some signs had to do with the entirety of the age, including the end of the age, and some had to do exclusively with Jesus' generation. Since the focus of the Discourse was on Jesus' own generation he referred only to the signs of his own generation when he said "all these things will take place in this generation."

The only... possible SIGN that Jesus gave in His Olivet discourse that could connect with the destruction of Jerusalem and the 2nd temple in 70 A.D. is where He told His disciples there would come a time when there would not be one stone atop another on that temple mount they were pointing to. And then His disciples asked Him what would be the SIGN of His coming, and of the end of the world (Matthew 24:1-4).

But what do Preterists do to confuse the time when His disciples understood He was talking about? You PRETERISTS SUPPLANT the KJV word "world" in that Matt.24:3 verse instead as "age" just because it is the Greek word 'aion' in the manuscripts. And then you try as much as you can to use that idea of an 'age' to point back to 70 A.D. instead of the future time Christ's disciples understood Jesus was referring to, i.e., about the day of His future return on the "day of the Lord," meaning the literal END of this world.

YOU even used that word "age" in your post above, AGAIN PROVING YOU ARE HERE PUSHING THE FALSE DOCTRINE OF MEN CALLED PRETERISM.

Matt 24:1-3
24 And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and His disciples came to Him for to shew Him the buildings of the temple.

2 And Jesus said unto them, "See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down."

3 And as He sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto Him privately, saying, "Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of Thy coming, and of the end of the world?"
KJV

Let's see, what timing is that "the sign of Thy coming", and "of the end of the world"? Lord Jesus certainly DID NOT... come a 2nd time in the days of His Apostles. And the Zechariah 9:9-10 prophecy points ONLY to 2 comings by Lord Jesus Christ. Understanding that is so easy a 1st grader can figure that out. But you PRETERISTS have your own agenda, so you don't care what The Bible actually says as written.

 

[Randy Kluth]

What makes a Preterist is the FALSE treating of Christ's Olivet discourse SIGNS as PAST HISTORY, which is what you are doing with claiming 70 A.D. fulfilled those SIGNS.

No, that is *not* the definition of Preterism. It is not just believing that some biblical prophecies are in the past. And I already explained this to you. It is the belief that *most* biblical prophecies are in the past, that many normally viewed eschatological prophecies were fulfilled in the 1st generation.

The Olivet Discourse, however, is not necessarily an eschatologically-viewed prophecy. That is the whole point. You're treating it as if it *must be* eschatological, when the early Church Fathers did not see it that way.

They certainly viewed the 2nd Coming as eschatological. But they did not view the main gist of the Discourse as escahtological, but rather, focused on the imminent judgment upon Jerusalem in 70 AD.

The 2nd Coming was a side note, designed to promote immediate and continuous obedience. Therefore, the 2nd Coming was not given a date or even expectation of a date. We are to make Christ's 2nd Coming our end-goal, our motivation, without any necessity of knowing when that event will take place--not even if it was a long ways off.

Since you are unable to define Preterism properly, our discussion here can have no agreement.

The only... possible SIGN that Jesus gave in His Olivet discourse that could connect with the destruction of Jerusalem and the 2nd temple in 70 A.D. is where He told His disciples there would come a time when there would not be one stone atop another on that temple mount they were pointing to. And then His disciples asked Him what would be the SIGN of His coming, and of the end of the world (Matthew 24:1-4).

Jesus did not say he was coming at a time when there would not be one stone atop another! ;) He said "all these things," ie the things leading up to the destruction of the Temple would take place in his generation.

And this was the leading statement--the leading questions leading to Jesus' answers. It was the Main Subject, indicating that most of the Discourse was about this imminent, important event. Saying this is the *only thing* that could be about Jesus' time is therefore disingenuous to the extreme. The whole Discourse began with this point!

But adding to this something that Jesus did *not* say makes it over the top. Where did Jesus say he was coming at the time of the Temple's destruction? He didn't!

 

[Davy]

No, that is *not* the definition of Preterism. It is not just believing that some biblical prophecies are in the past. And I already explained this to you. It is the belief that *most* biblical prophecies are in the past, that many normally viewed eschatological prophecies were fulfilled in the 1st generation.

The Olivet Discourse, however, is not necessarily an eschatologically-viewed prophecy. That is the whole point. You're treating it as if it *must be* eschatological, when the early Church Fathers did not see it that way.

I have part Cherokee heritage (just a little), and we call the above rhetoric 'speaking with fork-ed tongue'. Another way to say it is, speaking out of both sides of one's mouth.

I'm not going to use words like 'eschatological'. That's just canon fodder.


And make sure... you HEAR ME on this - Christ's SIGNS He gave in His Olivet discourse ARE BIBLE PROPHECIES. And they were NOT fulfilled in the past, which is what men's false theory of Preterism believes.

Anyone claiming they are not Bible prophecies show they don't know what the word 'prophecy' even means! And you claim I don't know what the word Preterism from the word preter means, when I told you that too??

By your rhetoric, you've already exposed that you believe man's false theories of Preterism. No backing out now. You've also shown you have a propensity towards telling LIES.

 

[rebuilder 454]

Jesus said "Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom."

The only one that saw him coming in power was John in his vision, when he went to heaven while on patmos.
...and he was, most likely, standing there.

If you look up "some" in the greek, it also translates "a man",many times, and "a" many times.

 

[Randy Kluth]

I have part Cherokee heritage (just a little), and we call the above rhetoric 'speaking with fork-ed tongue'. Another way to say it is, speaking out of both sides of one's mouth.

I'm not going to use words like 'eschatological'. That's just canon fodder.


And make sure... you HEAR ME on this - Christ's SIGNS He gave in His Olivet discourse ARE BIBLE PROPHECIES. And they were NOT fulfilled in the past, which is what men's false theory of Preterism believes.

Anyone claiming they are not Bible prophecies show they don't know what the word 'prophecy' even means! And you claim I don't know what the word Preterism from the word preter means, when I told you that too??

By your rhetoric, you've already exposed that you believe man's false theories of Preterism. No backing out now. You've also shown you have a propensity towards telling LIES.

Not interested.