Can any of you link or share a good argument against FULL preterism?

[claninja]

Good grief yourself. What do you not understand about what I said? You are the one making blanket statements that all OT scriptures are fulfilled while using verses to support that which only refer to certain OT scriptures and not all of them. Do you or do you not believe that all OT prophecies are fulfilled?

My argument was directed at JBL's Zechariah 14 argument. What part about that do you not understand?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I never said, that you said, there was no real extra biblical evidence for a global flood.

I understand you personally believe there is extra biblical evidence of a global flood, despite the broader scientific community disagreeing pretty unanimously.

Where do you get the idea that "the broader scientific community" disagrees "pretty unanimously" from? You act like you've done research studies on this and have interviewed every scientist in the world. I highly doubt that your claim is accurate.

I’m not aware of any mainline preterist belief that Jesus came literally and visibly in the first century?

There are a few full preterists here who have indicated they believe that. Scripture clearly teaches He would come again literally and visibly, so why would you no think there would be any full preterists who believe that already occurred? That was the belief that I was refuting.

So, I guess it would also seem arbitrary to ask a preterist for extra biblical evidence that Jesus came literally and visibly in the first century, when they don’t believe that happened.

Again, there are full preterists here who believe that.

But for arguments sake, Let's say a fringe full preterist believes Jesus did come literally and visibly in the first century near the destruction of Jerusalem. This preterist cites Josephus and Tacitus as extra biblical evidence to support their belief that the "bible says Jesus would return in the first century, literally and visibly" - A sword shaped star, and armies in the sky above Jerusalem during the destruction of jerusalem.

I'm assuming you would disagree that this is serious, extra biblical evidence that Jesus returned literally and visibly in the first century?

Yeah. What is your point here?

And so similarly, there are those who would disagree with your evidence of a global flood, especially since the scientific consensus disagrees with a global flood occurred.

So, the majority is right, eh? That's how you determine truth?

Again, its arbitrary for someone to argue that there was "a global flood" because they think "the bible says so", while being unable to provide any serious, peer reviewed extra biblical evidence of a global flood,

LOL. You put your trust in biased scientists over the Bible.

I know you will juts immediately dismiss it, but here is scientific evidence for a global flood: Global Evidences of the Genesis Flood

all while at the same time, demanding a fringe full preterist, that believes "Jesus returned literally and visibly in the first century" because they think "the Bible says so", provide serious, extra biblical evidence of jesus returning literally and visibly.

There is extra biblical evidence for Jerusalem and its temple being destroyed in 70 AD along with many people being killed and many taken captive, so if Jesus returned at that time, it's reasonable to think that would have been documented, also.

The ASA and ACG are two of the largest professional Christian geologist affiliations, and most of their members hold that Noah’s Flood was likely a regional event based on the geological evidence.

Why do you act as if the majority rules? The majority of people in the world are not Christians, so does that mean Christianity is false? The flood of Noah's day is not presented as a regional event in scripture. Scripture clearly teaches that the flood killed everyone in the world except Noah and his family. I've seen the argument that people only lived in a certain region in the world at that time so that is where the flood occurred and they acknowledge that it did kill everyone alive on the earth at that time except for Noah and his family. Is that what you believe, also? Or do you deny that the flood killed all people in the world except for Noah and his family?

The point is, if the authors of the Bible didn’t believe in a cosmology consistent with the ANE, then why does the Bible use language to describe the world consistent with ANE cosmology - firmament, circle of the earth, pillars of the earth, waters below, waters above, the abyss, etc…..? What’s your explanation for these ANE cosmological terms being found throughout scripture.

Of course the Bible would be written using the terminology used at that time that people would understand. So what? I am not seeing your point here at all.

I guess, I should probably ask, since you believe in a literal global flood, do you believe there is a literal firmament in the sky? Do you believe the earth is held up by literal pillars? Do you believe there is a literal abyss underneath the earth? Do you believe the earth is a flat disc with rounded dome structure on top of it, where God's throne is literally located on the other side?

My answer is no to all of those questions. And that disproves a literal global flood how? The Bible is clear that the flood killed all people and all land animals on the earth except for Noah, his family and the animals on the ark. How is that not evidence for a global flood? Do you think anything in the Bible is meant to be taken literally? If so, how doe showing that the Bible describes some things figuratively proof that the flood was not a literal global flood?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

My argument was directed at JBL's Zechariah 14 argument. What part about that do you not understand?

You apparently have forgotten what you said that I was responding to, so I'll show you.

The author of Luke/Acts presents that the OT scriptures - Law of Moses, psalms, AND PROPHETS - find their fulfillment in:

1.) The destruction of Jerusalem in the first century
Luke 21:22 22for these are days of vengeance, to fulfill all that is written.

2.) The ministry, death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ in the first century
Luke 24:44 44Then he said to them, “These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.”

3.) The days of the apostles in the first century
Acts 3:24 24And all the prophets who have spoken, from Samuel and those who came after him, also proclaimed these days.

You are trying to claim that you were only making comments in relation to Zechariah 14 here and not to any other OT scriptures even though you said "The author of Luke/Acts presents that the OT scriptures - Law of Moses, psalms, AND PROPHETS - find their fulfillment in" events of the first century? That comment does not come across as if you were only refuting the future fulfillment of Zechariah 14, but also of the law of Moses, the Psalms and all of the OT prophets (not just Zechariah). So, that is what I was questioning, regardless of JBL's Zechariah 14 argument.

 

[claninja]

Where do you get the idea that "the broader scientific community" disagrees "pretty unanimously" from? You act like you've done research studies on this and have interviewed every scientist in the world. I highly doubt that your claim is accurate.

Because “flood geology” is known as pseudoscience amongst the broader scientific community, including Christian geologists.

There are a few full preterists here who have indicated they believe that. Scripture clearly teaches He would come again literally and visibly, so why would you no think there would be any full preterists who believe that already occurred? That was the belief that I was refuting.

Ok, so you are refuting a fringe/minority full preterist position, not majority.

Yeah. What is your point here?

That it’s completely ironic to demand a fringe full preterist, that believes “the Bible says so” in regards to Christ returning literally and visibly in the first century, produce serious extra biblical evidence, WHILE AT THE SAME TIME, you believe “the Bible says so”, in regards to the global flood, but cant produce any serious, peer reviewed, extra biblical evidence to support such belief.

So, the majority is right, eh? That's how you determine truth?

Peer review in regards to scientific consensus. Not majority in general.

LOL. You put your trust in biased scientists over the Bible.

I know you will juts immediately dismiss it, but here is scientific evidence for a global flood: Global Evidences of the Genesis Flood

The Bible is not a science book.

You’ve provided a link to a non peer reviewed, pseudosciences article.

There is extra biblical evidence for Jerusalem and its temple being destroyed in 70 AD along with many people being killed and many taken captive, so if Jesus returned at that time, it's reasonable to think that would have been documented, also.

Agreed, but only if the phrase “son of man coming on the clouds” it meant to be taken absolutely literally.

Why do you act as if the majority rules? The majority of people in the world are not Christians, so does that mean Christianity is false? The flood of Noah's day is not presented as a regional event in scripture. Scripture clearly teaches that the flood killed everyone in the world except Noah and his family. I've seen the argument that people only lived in a certain region in the world at that time so that is where the flood occurred and they acknowledge that it did kill everyone alive on the earth at that time except for Noah and his family. Is that what you believe, also? Or do you deny that the flood killed all people in the world except for Noah and his family?

Not majority in general. Peer reviewed in regards to scientific consensus.

I think the deluge flooded “the world” according to the cosmological view held by the people of the ANE. I don’t think the deluge flooded “the world” according to our modern cosmological view.

Of course the Bible would be written using the terminology used at that time that people would understand. So what? I am not seeing your point here at all.

Right, so the biblical flood, as written by those of the ANE, should be understood in the context of those ANE terms and how they were understood via the cosmological world view of that time.

My answer is no to all of those questions. And that disproves a literal global flood how? The Bible is clear that the flood killed all people and all land animals on the earth except for Noah, his family and the animals on the ark. How is that not evidence for a global flood? Do you think anything in the Bible is meant to be taken literally? If so, how doe showing that the Bible describes some things figuratively proof that the flood was not a literal global flood?

Ok, so just to be clear, even though “the Bible says” God created a firmament which is defined as a solid structure according to ancient Hebrew understanding, You don’t believe the firmament is literal solid dome like structure supporting the waters above?

Brown-Driver-Briggs
“2 the vault of heaven, or 'firmament,' regarded by Hebrews as solid, and supporting 'waters' above it, Genesis 1:6,7 (3 t. in verse); Genesis 1:8 (called שָׁמַיַם; all P), Psalm 19:2 ("" הַשָּׁמַיַם), ׳זֹהַר הָרDaniel 12:3; also ׳ר הַשָּׁמִיִם Genesis 1:14,15,17, ׳הַשּׁ ׳עַלמְּֿנֵי ר Genesis 1:20(all P). **רְקִיעַ עֻזּוֺ Psalm 150:1 (suffix reference to ׳י).”

LXX (Greek word used for firmament)
STRONGS G4733:
“στερέωμα στερεώματος, τό (στερεόω), that which has been made firm;
a. (Vulg.firmamentum) the firmament; so the Sept. for רָקִיעַ, the arch of the sky, which in early times was thought to be solid, Genesis 1:6-8; Ezekiel 1:22-26; Sir. 43:1 (cf. B. D. (especially American edition) under the word ); a fortified place, 1 Esdr. 8:78 (80).”

 

[claninja]

You apparently have forgotten what you said that I was responding to, so I'll show you.

You are trying to claim that you were only making comments in relation to Zechariah 14 here and not to any other OT scriptures even though you said "The author of Luke/Acts presents that the OT scriptures - Law of Moses, psalms, AND PROPHETS - find their fulfillment in" events of the first century? That comment does not come across as if you were only refuting the future fulfillment of Zechariah 14, but also of the law of Moses, the Psalms and all of the OT prophets (not just Zechariah). So, that is what I was questioning, regardless of JBL's Zechariah 14 argument.

Right, that's from my post 582, WHICH IS A RESPONSE TO POST 577 BY JBL.

I can't help that you, personally, are applying my argument beyond zechariah 14, despite that not being my original intent, since zechariah 14 contains:

Elements about the destruction of jerusalem

• The destruction of Jerusalem in the first century Luke 21:22 22for these are days of vengeance, to fulfill all that is written.

Elements possibly about the days of the apostles (living waters)

• The ministry, death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ in the first century
  Luke 24:44 44Then he said to them, “These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.”
  
  The days of the apostles in the first century
  Acts 3:24 24And all the prophets who have spoken, from Samuel and those who came after him, also proclaimed these days.

 

[3 Resurrections]

There is extra biblical evidence for Jerusalem and its temple being destroyed in 70 AD along with many people being killed and many taken captive, so if Jesus returned at that time, it's reasonable to think that would have been documented, also.

Ordinarily, it would be reasonable to expect some kind of documentation for Christ's bodily return - unless all of those eye-witnesses of Christ's bodily return to Jerusalem's Mount of Olives (per Zech. 14:4-5) died shortly afterward during the Roman siege of AD 70, or were taken captive to die in Roman arenas or under slavery conditions. Dead people and captives aren't really equipped to make a physical document testifying of seeing Christ bodily return, or to have such a document preserved by their enemies, if they were even capable of making such a record at the time.

We have enough archeological evidence as well as Christ's and the NT writers' unified testimony that Christ's bodily return would take place before that first-century generation had passed away. One can be a "doubting Thomas", or one can believe Christ's statements.

 

[HealthyShape]

Ordinarily, it would be reasonable to expect some kind of documentation for Christ's bodily return - unless all of those eye-witnesses of Christ's bodily return to Jerusalem's Mount of Olives (per Zech. 14:4-5) died shortly afterward during the Roman siege of AD 70, or were taken captive to die in Roman arenas or under slavery conditions. Dead people and captives aren't really equipped to make a physical document testifying of seeing Christ bodily return, or to have such a document preserved by their enemies, if they were even capable of making such a record at the time.

We have enough archeological evidence as well as Christ's and the NT writers' unified testimony that Christ's bodily return would take place before that first-century generation had passed away. One can be a "doubting Thomas", or one can believe Christ's statements.

If I remember correctly, the 5th and the 10th legion built their encampments on the Mount of Olives, before the siege.

 

[3 Resurrections]

If I remember correctly, the 5th and the 10th legion built their encampments on the Mount of Olives, before the siege.

Actually, the Roman soldiers built a wall of circumvallation around the entire city of Jerusalem in AD 70, in a matter of just a few days. But whether this Roman wall of circumvallation was constructed either before or after Christ's bodily return, this would have no bearing on preventing Christ's returning to stand on the Mount of Olives. This return was for Christ to gather all the resurrected saints to Himself and return to heaven with them all on that 1,335th day which Daniel 12:11-13 predicted for this resurrection event. That return which was "known to the Lord", according to Zechariah 14:6-7 would take place between day and night, at evening time.

 

[HealthyShape]

Actually, the Roman soldiers built a wall of circumvallation around the entire city of Jerusalem in AD 70, in a matter of just a few days. But whether this Roman wall of circumvallation was constructed either before or after Christ's bodily return, this would have no bearing on preventing Christ's returning to stand on the Mount of Olives. This return was for Christ to gather all the resurrected saints to Himself and return to heaven with them all on that 1,335th day which Daniel 12:11-13 predicted for this resurrection event. That return which was "known to the Lord", according to Zechariah 14:6-7 would take place between day and night, at evening time.

My point was rather that because the Mount of Olives was under the Roman control, I do not know how many Jews or "left-behind" Christians would see Jesus to literally descend on that mountain and record that in writings.

 

[3 Resurrections]

My point was rather that because the Mount of Olives was under the Roman control, I do not know how many Jews or "left-behind" Christians would see Jesus to literally descend on that mountain and record that in writings.

There were no Christians remaining in the besieged city of Jerusalem to be eyewitnesses of Christ's bodily return in AD 70. Remember, Christ had forewarned them in Luke 21:20-21 to flee to the mountains from both Judea and Jerusalem when they first saw Jerusalem surrounded by armies (which was in AD 66 under Cestius Gallus). They did flee, in numbers around 1-1/4 million, if we compare the casualty lists from AD 66-70 with the census record in Jerusalem taken at Passover AD 66 just before the war started.

As for the Jews, Scripture in Zech. 12:10-11 as well as Rev. 1:7 tells us that every eye of the Israelite tribes of those who pierced Christ would be greatly mourning "in Jerusalem" when they saw Him return. From their position inside the besieged city of Jerusalem, Christ's bodily return to the crest of the Mount of Olives was visible to these Jewish tribal members from across the Kidron Valley. This was a sight which caused them to wail and mourn greatly, since they were not to be included in the resurrected group of saints all returning to heaven with Christ to sit down in the kingdom of heaven with the patriarchs and all the prophets, but with themselves being "thrust out" (Luke 13:25-30).

Those of the Jewish tribes who were eye-witnesses of Christ's bodily return were either dead of disease, starvation, or the sword, or they were taken captive by the Romans to die in Roman arenas or in slavery in AD 70. Conditions that were not conducive to making a record of what they saw in AD 70 with Christ's bodily return to the Mount of Olives.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Because “flood geology” is known as pseudoscience amongst the broader scientific community, including Christian geologists.

This didn't answer my question. You are clearly just making claims about what most scientists believe without doing any research on that.

Ok, so you are refuting a fringe/minority full preterist position, not majority.

So what? Is that not allowed in your world? You didn't have to butt in when I was doing that. Just ignore it if you think it's not worth the time to do that.

That it’s completely ironic to demand a fringe full preterist, that believes “the Bible says so” in regards to Christ returning literally and visibly in the first century, produce serious extra biblical evidence, WHILE AT THE SAME TIME, you believe “the Bible says so”, in regards to the global flood, but cant produce any serious, peer reviewed, extra biblical evidence to support such belief.

I don't care about your opinion relating to what extra biblical evidence is valid or not. There is scientific evidence supporting a global flood whether you acknowledge it or not.

The Bible is not a science book.

LOL. Not primarily, but it does contain some scientific insights that were ahead of its time, such as the earth being suspended in space (Job 26:7, a description of the water cycle (Eccl 1:7, Job 36:27-28, Isaiah 55:10-11, etc.), proper medical and sanitation procedures, and that blood is the life source of the body (Lev 17:11).

You’ve provided a link to a non peer reviewed, pseudosciences article.

So what? Read the evidence instead of being obsessed with whether it's peer reviewed or not. The evidence is valid regardless.

Agreed, but only if the phrase “son of man coming on the clouds” it meant to be taken absolutely literally.

Of course.

Not majority in general. Peer reviewed in regards to scientific consensus.

I think the deluge flooded “the world” according to the cosmological view held by the people of the ANE. I don’t think the deluge flooded “the world” according to our modern cosmological view.

Do you believe that the flood killed all people who were alive on the earth at that time except for Noah and his family?

Right, so the biblical flood, as written by those of the ANE, should be understood in the context of those ANE terms and how they were understood via the cosmological world view of that time.

It's not as if Genesis is the only place that speaks about the flood. Other scripture confirms that the flood was global. Peter compared a future event of destruction by fire directly with the flood in Noah's day in 2 Peter 3:5-7 and he indicated that future event will be global.

Ok, so just to be clear, even though “the Bible says” God created a firmament which is defined as a solid structure according to ancient Hebrew understanding, You don’t believe the firmament is literal solid dome like structure supporting the waters above?

Brown-Driver-Briggs
“2 the vault of heaven, or 'firmament,' regarded by Hebrews as solid, and supporting 'waters' above it, Genesis 1:6,7 (3 t. in verse); Genesis 1:8 (called שָׁמַיַם; all P), Psalm 19:2 ("" הַשָּׁמַיַם), ׳זֹהַר הָרDaniel 12:3; also ׳ר הַשָּׁמִיִם Genesis 1:14,15,17, ׳הַשּׁ ׳עַלמְּֿנֵי ר Genesis 1:20(all P). **רְקִיעַ עֻזּוֺ Psalm 150:1 (suffix reference to ׳י).”

LXX (Greek word used for firmament)
STRONGS G4733:
“στερέωμα στερεώματος, τό (στερεόω), that which has been made firm;
a. (Vulg.firmamentum) the firmament; so the Sept. for רָקִיעַ, the arch of the sky, which in early times was thought to be solid, Genesis 1:6-8; Ezekiel 1:22-26; Sir. 43:1 (cf. B. D. (especially American edition) under the word ); a fortified place, 1 Esdr. 8:78 (80).”

Not really seeing your point here. Can a firmament only be a solid structure? And what does this have to do with whether the flood was global or not? Do you think the heavens and earth that God created were the literal heavens and literal earth? Where are you even going with this?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Right, that's from my post 582, WHICH IS A RESPONSE TO POST 577 BY JBL.

I can't help that you, personally, are applying my argument beyond zechariah 14, despite that not being my original intent, since zechariah 14 contains:

Elements about the destruction of jerusalem

• The destruction of Jerusalem in the first century Luke 21:22 22for these are days of vengeance, to fulfill all that is written.

Elements possibly about the days of the apostles (living waters)

• The ministry, death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ in the first century
  Luke 24:44 44Then he said to them, “These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.”
  
  The days of the apostles in the first century
  Acts 3:24 24And all the prophets who have spoken, from Samuel and those who came after him, also proclaimed these days.

So, you can't help it that you made a blanket statement about "the OT scriptures - Law of Moses, psalms, AND PROPHETS" without making it clear that you were only intending to make that statement about Zechariah 14?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Ordinarily, it would be reasonable to expect some kind of documentation for Christ's bodily return - unless all of those eye-witnesses of Christ's bodily return to Jerusalem's Mount of Olives (per Zech. 14:4-5) died shortly afterward during the Roman siege of AD 70, or were taken captive to die in Roman arenas or under slavery conditions. Dead people and captives aren't really equipped to make a physical document testifying of seeing Christ bodily return, or to have such a document preserved by their enemies, if they were even capable of making such a record at the time.

We have enough archeological evidence as well as Christ's and the NT writers' unified testimony that Christ's bodily return would take place before that first-century generation had passed away. One can be a "doubting Thomas", or one can believe Christ's statements.

LOL. So, Jesus returned bodily only to not be seen by anyone? And you expect me to believe that? Why would He have done that? Scripture says that He will come back in like manner as He was seen ascending to heaven (Acts 1:9-11). So, that means when He comes back from heaven He will be seen. But, you're trying to say He came back unseen in the first century. No, He did not and scripture never teaches that.

 

[3 Resurrections]

LOL. So, Jesus returned bodily only to not be seen by anyone? And you expect me to believe that? Why would He have done that? Scripture says that He will come back in like manner as He was seen ascending to heaven (Acts 1:9-11). So, that means when He comes back from heaven He will be seen. But, you're trying to say He came back unseen in the first century. No, He did not and scripture never teaches that.

You aren't reading what I wrote carefully enough. I never said there were no eye-witnesses of Christ's AD 70 bodily return. There were. Zechariah 12:11 tells us that it would be Jewish tribal members "IN JERUSALEM" who would see the returning Christ and who would be greatly mourning when they looked on Him whom they had pierced.

Of course Christ returned "in like manner" to the way in which He left - bodily and visibly. But remember, it was not all of humanity which saw Christ leave this planet and ascend to the Father. It was only a select group who were witnesses of that event in Acts 1, just like it was only a select group of eye-witnesses specifically chosen to view the newly-risen Christ (Acts 10:40-41). So, "in like manner", it was not all of humanity who saw His return to the Mount of Olives in AD 70.

You seem to think that a universal view of this event is taught in Scripture. It isn't. Revelation 1:7 tells us that it was going to be "every eye" of "those who pierced Him" who saw His return. This was a blood-guilt charge which only first-century Jewish people claimed for themselves - not all of humanity. You remember, I'm sure - "His blood be on us and on our children" was the curse the Jewish leadership called down on themselves and their own offspring of that time. THEY were going to be the eye-witnesses of Christ's return to the Mount of Olives, and with great mourning, they saw it from their position inside the besieged city of Jerusalem. And it was these Jewish eye-witnesses who either died by various means by the end of the siege, or were taken captive to serve in slavery or to die soon after in Roman arenas for Rome's entertainment.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

You aren't reading what I wrote carefully enough.

Or maybe you are not being careful enough to be clear about what you're intending to say? Yeah, I think so.

I never said there were no eye-witnesses of Christ's AD 70 bodily return. There were. Zechariah 12:11 tells us that it would be Jewish tribal members "IN JERUSALEM" who would see the returning Christ and who would be greatly mourning when they looked on Him whom they had pierced.

So, just as there is documentation about the events that happened in Judea and in Jerusalem around 70 AD, I would expect that someone would have written about seeing Jesus come back in 70 AD. Yet, no such documents exist.

Of course Christ returned "in like manner" to the way in which He left - bodily and visibly. But remember, it was not all of humanity which saw Christ leave this planet and ascend to the Father. It was only a select group who were witnesses of that event in Acts 1, just like it was only a select group of eye-witnesses specifically chosen to view the newly-risen Christ (Acts 10:40-41). So, "in like manner", it was not all of humanity who saw His return to the Mount of Olives in AD 70.

You seem to think that a universal view of this event is taught in Scripture. It isn't. Revelation 1:7 tells us that it was going to be "every eye" of "those who pierced Him" who saw His return. This was a blood-guilt charge which only first-century Jewish people claimed for themselves - not all of humanity. You remember, I'm sure - "His blood be on us and on our children" was the curse the Jewish leadership called down on themselves and their own offspring of that time. THEY were going to be the eye-witnesses of Christ's return to the Mount of Olives, and with great mourning, they saw it from their position inside the besieged city of Jerusalem. And it was these Jewish eye-witnesses who either died by various means by the end of the siege, or were taken captive to serve in slavery or to die soon after in Roman arenas for Rome's entertainment.

You are sadly mistaken, but you already knew I believe that. You do believe in a future visible, bodily return of Jesus, though, right? If so, I'm not too concerned about your false beliefs. I'm much more concerned about anyone not believing in the future blessed hope of the appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ when we will see Him as He is.

 

[3 Resurrections]

So, just as there is documentation about the events that happened in Judea and in Jerusalem around 70 AD, I would expect that someone would have written about seeing Jesus come back in 70 AD. Yet, no such documents exist.

You are making a broad assumption that no such document exists to prove Christ's AD 70 return. To make such an assumption, you would have to know without exception what historical relics are in every location on earth. Archaeology is an ongoing process, with new discoveries constantly coming to light. To make such a sweeping assumption that no documents exist concerning Christ's AD 70 coming is to claim knowledge that no one can possibly possess.

Also, you are presuming that Jews which were hostile to the faith in that period would not have destroyed such a document if they had come across it. Such a humiliating crushing of their nation which the returning Christ had once predicted for them (and whom they had rejected) would have been a record that they would not have cared to preserve in document form.

You do believe in a future visible, bodily return of Jesus, though, right?

Of course I do, and have stated so frequently. But it will not be His second coming (which already occurred in AD 70) but a third coming to conclude fallen mankind's history on this planet in a final judgment and resurrection. What Christ has already done, He will repeat once more. It is indeed a "blessed hope" for us to anticipate.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

You are making a broad assumption that no such document exists to prove Christ's AD 70 return.

It's a good assumption. Are you aware of any? I'm sure you're not. If such a thing existed we would all know about it by now.

To make such an assumption, you would have to know without exception what historical relics are in every location on earth. Archaeology is an ongoing process, with new discoveries constantly coming to light. To make such a sweeping assumption that no documents exist concerning Christ's AD 70 coming is to claim knowledge that no one can possibly possess.

How about this. Currently, no known documents exist. Is that better for you? Just don't get your hopes up that any such documents will ever turn up.

Also, you are presuming that Jews which were hostile to the faith in that period would not have destroyed such a document if they had come across it. Such a humiliating crushing of their nation which the returning Christ had once predicted for them (and whom they had rejected) would have been a record that they would not have cared to preserve in document form.

You think if they saw Jesus in the sky coming back to earth that they would all have continued being hostile to the faith? I highly doubt that.

Of course I do, and have stated so frequently.

Well, good. I'll just be satisfied with that and not waste any more time arguing with you about the things we disagree with since I know it serves no purpose.

But it will not be His second coming (which already occurred in AD 70) but a third coming to conclude fallen mankind's history on this planet in a final judgment and resurrection. What Christ has already done, He will repeat once more. It is indeed a "blessed hope" for us to anticipate.

LOL at "a third coming", but, yes, I agree that His future coming is a blessed hope for us to anticipate.

 

[claninja]

This didn't answer my question. You are clearly just making claims about what most scientists believe without doing any research on that.

I didn’t make this up out of thin air. The biggest geologist affiliations (GSA, AGU, USGS, IUGS, EGU, AAPG) don’t endorse a global flood, nor flood geology.

So what? Is that not allowed in your world? You didn't have to butt in when I was doing that. Just ignore it if you think it's not worth the time to do that.

ignore what? I simply responded to grafted branch’s observation, stating it was interesting. You are the one initially who responded to my post…..not the other way around…..

I don't care about your opinion relating to what extra biblical evidence is valid or not. There is scientific evidence supporting a global flood whether you acknowledge it or not.

There is not. The pseudoscience of flood geology doesn’t provide anything new in terms of discovery. They simply attempt to reinterpret the data that already exists, against peer review consensus, to make it fit their biblical interpretative framework. That is not science. The article you provided is pseudoscience, inconsistent with scientific consensus on sedimentary layers and fossil records.

what? Read the evidence instead of being obsessed with whether it's peer reviewed or not. The evidence is valid regardless.

Peer review is an important process. It doesn’t seem that you are aware of the importance of peer review, when it comes to the scientific community.

LOL. Not primarily, but it does contain some scientific insights that were ahead of its time, such as the earth being suspended in space (Job 26:7, a description of the water cycle (Eccl 1:7, Job 36:27-28, Isaiah 55:10-11, etc.), proper medical and sanitation procedures, and that blood is the life source of the body (Lev 17:11).

Job 26:7 - not sure how you are getting outer space with that one…..

Your other examples are simply observations consistent with the surrounding cultures in that time frame. Interestingly enough, you can find laws and writings about proper medical and sanitation, and “blood = life” in extrabiblical writings around that time. These are not exclusive to the Bible.

Do you believe that the flood killed all people who were alive on the earth at that time except for Noah and his family?

I don’t believe that all people or animals across the entire globe literally died in the flood, as there is no geological or archaeological evidence supporting such an event. Rather, the deluge was likely a catastrophic regional flood, interpreted and described through the lens of ancient Near Eastern cosmology.

Expressions such as “all flesh was destroyed” should be understood as idiomatic hyperbole within that ancient worldview, not as literal global statements. This is consistent with other biblical uses of similar idioms — for example, when Jesus says that “if those days had not been shortened, no flesh would be saved” in reference to the destruction of Jerusalem (Matthew 24:22). In both cases, “all flesh” reflects total devastation within a specific covenantal or regional context, not worldwide extinction.

It's not as if Genesis is the only place that speaks about the flood. Other scripture confirms that the flood was global. Peter compared a future event of destruction by fire directly with the flood in Noah's day in 2 Peter 3:5-7 and he indicated that future event will be global.

Peter would have had an ANE cosmological worldview.

Not really seeing your point here. Can a firmament only be a solid structure? And what does this have to do with whether the flood was global or not? Do you think the heavens and earth that God created were the literal heavens and literal earth? Where are you even going with this?

According to the lexical definitions of the word firmament — Hebrew rāqîaʿ (רָקִ֫יעַ) and Greek stereōma (στερέωμα) — the ancient Hebrews understood it as a solid dome that held up the “waters above.”

In the flood narrative, the event is described as occurring when the “windows of heaven” were opened, allowing the upper waters to pour down (Genesis 7:11).

This language aligns perfectly with ancient Near Eastern cosmology, in which the sky was viewed as a solid barrier or vault separating the cosmic waters above from the inhabited world below.

The story of the flood, therefore, is presented from within that ancient cosmological framework. It reflects how people of that era conceptualized the universe — with a flat earth, solid firmament, and heavenly ocean above — rather than a modern scientific description of the physical world.

Consequently, when someone insists on reading the flood account as literally global, but interprets the firmament figuratively, they are cherry-picking which ancient descriptions they take literally.

If one accepts that “the Bible says” God created a firmament (which, by the text’s own cultural context, meant a solid dome), but then dismisses that cosmology as metaphorical, it is inconsistent to demand that “the Bible says” all flesh perished in a literally global flood be taken with modern literalism. That’s the point.

 

[claninja]

So, you can't help it that you made a blanket statement about "the OT scriptures - Law of Moses, psalms, AND PROPHETS" without making it clear that you were only intending to make that statement about Zechariah 14?

There are no NT passages that specifically claim Zechariah 14 fulfilled, so the argument relies on blanket statements made by the NT about the fulfillment of the OT scriptures: Luke 24:44, acts 3:24, Luke 21:22.

 

[JLB]

My argument was directed at JBL's Zechariah 14 argument. What part about that do you not understand?

Behold, the day of the LORD is coming,
And your spoil will be divided in your midst.
For I will gather all the nations to battle against Jerusalem;
The city shall be taken,
The houses rifled,
And the women ravished.
Half of the city shall go into captivity,
But the remnant of the people shall not be cut off from the city.
Then the LORD will go forth
And fight against those nations,
As He fights in the day of battle.
And in that day His feet will stand on the Mount of Olives,
Which faces Jerusalem on the east.
And the Mount of Olives shall be split in two,
From east to west,
Making a very large valley;
Half of the mountain shall move toward the north
And half of it toward the south.
Then you shall flee through My mountain valley,
For the mountain valley shall reach to Azal.
Yes, you shall flee
As you fled from the earthquake
In the days of Uzziah king of Judah.
Thus the LORD my God will come,
And all the saints with You.
Zechariah 14:1-5


Do you believe this prophesy has come to pass?


That Jesus has returned and fought against those nation that surrounded Jerusalem.

That His feet have stood on the mount of Olives.

That He destroyed the armies that fought against Jerusalem.


That the resurrection is past?