I hinted at one already. The second coming of Christ is a global event ... every eye will see Him ... point me to any historical source which describes the second coming of Christ as occurring in 70 AD.
There would have to be at least three things in any citation:
1. Recognition of the visible Christ coming in the clouds of heaven. (Rev 19, Matt 24, Acts 1). The best sources would be from outside Jerusalem as these would verify that the second coming was indeed a global event.
2. Recollection of the killing of all the kings of the earth who arrayed themselves against Christ (Rev 19)
3. Witness to the casting of the beast and false prophet into the lake of fire (Rev 19).
4. Repentance of the nation of Israel. (Rev 1, Matt 23, Zech 12) This event still hasn't happened.
Further, the vision in Daniel 2 shows that the kingdom of God will not co-exist with any earthly kingdoms (wind blew away the dust, then the stone became a mountain). Since there is at least one nation on earth that still calls itself a kingdom, this "church age" that you object to is NOT the kingdom of God.
And if this present age IS the kingdom of God ... I am sorely disappointed. I see no righteous king ruling over the earth. I see corrupt nations under the control of the god of this age, which would certainly be in contradiction to Rev 20:1-3.
I'll let you search for that citation ...
Point to me any Christian eye-witness source for the destruction of Jerusalem. They are strangely silent on that horrific event! One would think there would be all sorts of "We told you so," "You were warned," or other post war messages from the Christians. Not even "John," who supposedly lived to about 100 AD, wrote anything? That was the same man who was supposed to do this:
"And he said unto me, Thou must prophesy again before many peoples, and nations, and tongues, and kings." (Rev 10:11 KJV)
Besides the fact that such traveling would be a pretty neat trick for a 95 year-old man, where are those prophecies? I guess they were all verbal, because I haven't read a word about them.
You think "every eye" is a literal term, yet you have, to this point, ignored my question from #148?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3125911/posts?page=148#148
Answer that question, in literal terms, and we will proceed from there.
Philip