The Olivet Discourse found in Mathew 24, (Mark 13, Luke 21) becomes Christ own prediction of the Judgment soon to come upon Jerusalem which is did in A.D. 70. The Early Church Father's all believed these prophecies came true yet also believed in a future coming of Christ. The Modern Church today has fallen into a quandary. They all believe the Olivet speaks of a Second Coming of Christ, therefore the prophecies must all be future. The Preterist also looks at the timing statement made by Jesus that "all these prophecies must be fulfilled in the "generation". To them all these prophecies then are in the past, which includes the idea Jesus returned a second time in that Generation, ie: The events of A.D. 70 was also the second coming. Now since Revelation also talks about the Second Coming therefore all of the Revelation events must also come to pass at the same time, in A.D. 70. What I argue in my book is why all these events listed in the Olivet are all past.
The Book of Revelation begins with an introduction to what is contained in the pages, warnings to the seven churches of what needs change, and a series of events that are to happen in the last days. Yes we believe these Revelations are all about our future and not the past. When many details are presented of what is to happen they simply cannot be reconciled with the events of A.D. 70. In A.D. 70 the Roman army came and besieged Jerusalem and the destroyed it and the temple. In Revelation Christ returns with his army of saints in defense of the City. It is not logical to claim God sent an army to Judge and destroy Jerusalem then at the same time say that Jesus comes with his army to defend Jerusalem from the very army sent by God? Of Course the Preterist has to literalize the coming of the Roman army but spiritualize the second coming of Christ, which means it never happened literally but spiritually. It all happened in the "spiritual" realm and no one saw it or observed this "coming". This is one of the major reasons Preterism s to rejected. They spiritualize the literal events in saying they came when they did not.
In Revelation 1 John tells us he was on the Island of Patmos when he received the Revelation and was able to write it all down once he was released and returned to his home church in Ephesus. The Early Church Fathers testify that John was on the island during the reign of Domitian until his death in A.D. 68. When he was released, John soon died between 98 and 100 A.D. So we have a problem. If Revelation was written after A.D. 70 about events to happen then those events could not have happened in A.D. 70. So it becomes a Preterists conundrum. Their answer is to assert the late date is in error by "uninspired" people who were too apostate to not know Jesus returned in A.D. 70, which of course would have included John, so now the Preterist does everything to prove John died, as did all the apostles, before A.D. 70. Yet we have Barnabus writing about the destruction and still looking forward to the second coming. The Preterist answer is again to call the letter fake. The desperation employed by Preterist to prove all church historical accounts wrong is driven by the need to prove Jesus retuned in A.D. 70. Instead of answering the problem they simple create more.