Originally Posted by Dreamliner
To the contrary. Hold-on-to-heaven types like yourself CANNOT make arguments from scripture. You can only make arguments AGAINST scripture. Ex: Jesus clearly informs his disciples that he will return before some of them die. Futurists like yourself then proceed to argue, in effect, that Jesus is not to be taken at his word because they are deeply unhappy with what he delivered. In this they are very much like the Pharisees they love to disparage.
Y'know what? I think your Scriptural argument is pants, too, I think you cherrypicked your favorite and ignore a bunch of others. But you are missing my point. The Gospel is an account of Jesus' first coming. By definition, EVERY scriptural argument about his Second Coming is an argument about the nature of a future event, something that had not yet happened.
But, your belief is that the Second Coming is now a past event. Logically, it should no longer be necessary to make a Scriptural, i.e. predictive argument to prove it. In fact, the Gospel should be moot, because you believe that we have been getting a new and steady stream of good news for the better part of two millennia.
So where is it? All your best evidence would be the evidence of history to confirm that what you say the Gospel predicted actually came to pass. Why not use it? On his first visit, we have reams of historical evidence and argument, for and against Jesus, His nature, and the events of His life. Where is any of that for the second visit? I mean, surely some Jews of the day would have been vocal about denouncing His return as a sham, and by which at least lending credence to the claim it happened?