There is the historical reality that people fled Jerusalem when they saw it being surrounded by armies. In post #203 you say “This is not about Jews fleeing physical Judaea here!” It sure seems like you’re attempting to cancel reality to me.
You are confusing
historical events with the spiritual fulfillment of biblical prophecy. Just because people historically fled Jerusalem when Roman armies approached does NOT automatically prove that Christ's Olivet Discourse was fulfilled by those events.
History does not interpret Scripture. Scripture interprets Biblical history!
You are overlooking something fundamental:
To whom was Christ speaking, and what was the ultimate purpose of His warning?
Christ was speaking to His disciples, who would become the foundation of the
New Testament congregation, not merely giving evacuation instructions to ethnic Jews living in Judaea.
Consider the Scriptures:
1. Matthew 24:3 — The disciples asked Christ about the sign of His coming and
the end of the world (age). The discourse extends beyond the destruction of an earthly city to the period right prior consummation of the age.
2. Matthew 24:15 — Christ warned about the abomination of desolation standing in the holy place, adding,
"whoso readeth, let him understand." Why emphasize understanding? Because His people must spiritually discern the abomination, not merely observe Roman soldiers marching toward Jerusalem.
3. 2 Thessalonians 2:3–4 — Paul warned that the falling away would come and the man of sin would sit
"in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God." Compare this with
1 Corinthians 3:16–17, where Paul identifies God's temple as His congregation. This reveals the spiritual danger of apostasy within the unfaithful congregation. Not unholy temple in Jersualem.
4. Luke 21:20–21 — Jerusalem surrounded by armies must also be understood in light of the prophetic language of Scripture. Compare
Revelation 20:9, where the enemies of God compass
"the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city." The spiritual congregation of God's people is likewise pictured as a city under siege. And the armies are the false prophets and christs, not roman soldiers.
5. Matthew 24:24 — Christ warned that false christs and false prophets would arise and, if possible, deceive the very elect. That is a warning concerning
spiritual deception, not simply a military invasion.
6. Matthew 24:13–14 — Christ spoke of enduring unto the end and the Gospel being preached throughout the world before the end comes. His warning concerns the perseverance of His people, not merely the survival of first-century Jews.
Therefore, when Christ commands His people to flee, it is spiritually as a warning to
separate from an apostate congregation when the abomination is discerned, rather than remain among those who have forsaken the truth. Compare
2 Corinthians 6:17 and
Revelation 18:4.
And here is the point you keep missing:
I am not denying that Jerusalem was historically surrounded by Roman armies or that people fled. I am denying your assumption that those historical events exhaust the prophetic meaning of Christ's warning.
You cannot simply point to AD 70 and declare the entire Olivet Discourse fulfilled. You must demonstrate that interpretation from the
whole counsel of Scripture.
The Olivet Discourse concerns Christ's people, the preservation of His elect, the danger of apostasy, and His coming at the end of the age. It must be spiritually discerned, not reduced to a first-century Jewish evacuation story.
Selah!
It’s called common sense. You yourself say the Bible prophecies that the church will go apostate. How are you going to know if that gets fulfilled unless you hear and see what’s going on in the church? The Bible doesn’t give us the video of the sermon that took place in XYZ church on Main Street on 10/11/2026. That would be something you have to observe and compare to scripture. Comparing scripture with scripture doesn’t work to determine what’s fulfilled after the Canon is complete. You have to hear and see then compare to scripture. It’s common sense.
Ahhh, so now your authority is
“common sense” rather than Scripture? That explains the problem with your entire argument!
I asked you a straightforward question:
Where does Scripture teach that Scripture interprets Scripture for doctrine but NOT for prophetic fulfillment? Instead of providing biblical evidence, you appeal to your own reasoning and call it "common sense." LOL! aThat is not biblical exegesis. That is
human assumption masquerading as biblical authority.
Of course, we can observe events happening around us. Nobody is denying that! But
observing an event and correctly identifying it as the fulfillment of prophecy are TWO DIFFERENT THINGS!
1 Corinthians 2:13 — Paul speaks of
"comparing spiritual things with spiritual."
1 Corinthians 2:14 —
"The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God... because they are spiritually discerned."
2 Peter 1:20–21 —
"No prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation." Prophecy originated through the Holy Spirit, not the imagination of men.
Luke 24:25–27 — Christ rebuked those who were slow to believe the prophets and explained the fulfillment of His suffering through the Scriptures themselves.
And consider
Acts 17:11. The Bereans examined the Scriptures daily to determine whether Paul's teaching was true. They did not simply accept someone's interpretation because it sounded like "common sense."
Now, concerning your example of apostasy in the church:
How would you even recognize apostasy without FIRST understanding from Scripture what constitutes apostasy? You cannot identify the fulfillment correctly unless you understand what God actually prophesied!
You are reversing the proper order. You begin with what
your natural eyes see,
assume it fulfills prophecy, and then
force Scripture to fit your observations.
I begin with Scripture to establish what the prophecy means, and THEN examine events in light of that biblical understanding.
That is the difference!
Furthermore,
where does the Bible say that the completion of the canon changed the rules of biblical interpretation? You have introduced another assumption without providing a single verse to support it.
So I will ask you AGAIN:
Where does Scripture teach your rule that Scripture interprets Scripture for doctrine but not for prophetic fulfillment after the canon was completed?
If you cannot establish that rule from Scripture, then stop presenting your personal assumptions as though they were biblical truth. It isn't!
Common sense is NOT a substitute for spiritual discernment, and human observation is NOT the final authority for interpreting God's Word.
Selah!
