They are? How do you think that 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17 supports the idea of Jesus returning in 70 AD? And Matthew 16:28 doesn't support it, either. That verse is related to Christ's transfiguration that is described immediately after that verse.
From a grammatical standpoint, in 1 Thessalonians 4:15 and 17 Paul writes “
we who are alive, who are left.” Compare that with how he refers to the dead: “those who have fallen asleep” (vv. 13-14). Paul never says “those of ‘
us‘ who have fallen asleep.” He keeps the dead in the third person and the living in the first person. Nothing in the passage signals that “we” is merely generic. There is no hypothetical marker (“if some of us are alive”), no reference to a later generation, and no mention of his own death. The setting reinforces this: this is likely Paul’s earliest letter, written to believers shocked that some among them had already died, which assumes that being alive at Christ’s return was the expected norm. The most natural reading is that Paul included himself among those who might be alive at the Lord’s coming, while leaving the exact timing open. In other words, he believed it would happen in his lifetime.
As to Matthew 16:28, I would argue its best read as the completion of v. 27, not as a forecast of the transfiguration. Verse 28 opens with “Truly I say to you,” and it continues the same subject, the Son of Man
coming, using the same verb (
erchomai) that v. 27 uses for his coming in glory with his angels. Verse 28 simply narrows the timeframe: “some of those standing here will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.” The transfiguration reading has a real problem with the partitive “some of those standing here,” because that phrase implies a window long enough for some to die and others to survive. Six days is not likely that window, and the three disciples who went up the mountain were not “some” in any meaningful contrast with the rest, since all of them would have survived a week. Nor does the transfiguration show the Son of Man “coming” in any sense Matthew uses elsewhere. He is transfigured, not arriving, and Matthew never calls it a coming. In contrast, Matthew uses “Son of Man coming” for within-generation events in 10:23, 24:30-34, and 26:64, where the audience is told they will
see it.
You mean the second coming of Christ? It presents that He will come in like manner from heaven as He ascended there, which was visibly and bodily (Acts 1:9-11). That did not happen in 70 AD. It presents His coming as being from heaven to "the air" where He will meet His people who are gathered to Him, including the resurrected dead in Christ (1 Thessalonians 4:14-17). That most certainly did not happen in 70 AD. It presents it as Jesus destroying the heavens and the earth when He returns (Matthew 24:35-39, 2 Peter 3:7,10-12) which certainly did not happen in 70 AD.
I think acts 1:9-11 is the strongest contender for a physical, bodily descension. And I would also agree that a physical body descension did not happen in 70ad.
However, that does not negate that Christ taught it would happen within his generation, nor does it negate that the disciples believed it would happen within their lifetime.