Hardly. Since Peter was the only recorder of the Olivet Discorse to actually be there for it, Mark's record of Peter's teaching is the most direct word-for-word record. Matthew's follows Mark's, with the only distinctions being that he did not repeat certain warnings that he had already recorded in chapter 10 (propbably a repeated refrain in Yeshua's teachings) and the addition of a couple of parables (chapter 25).
The point of all that is that "Abomination of Desolation"--a clear prophetic and historical allusion to the desecration, not destruction, of the Temple--is the original, and the "armies surrounding Jerusalem" was either a deliberate paraphrase or from an earlier, but parallel, prophecy Yeshua had made in the Temple.
Since "Abomination of Desolation" is understood by all to refer to a false god being set up in the very Holy of Holies, it's very obvious to anyone who bothers to cross-reference Scripture-to-Scripture that that's what Paul refers to in 2Thess.
Augustine is not even really wrong per se--he's just incomplete due to his biases and separation from a Jewish perspective. If the question is, "Was Yeshua referring to the destruction of the Second Temple or the defilement of the Third in the Olivet Discourse?" the answer is, "Yes."
Ergo, I'm not the one with a problem here; you are. I can readily admit that the destruction of the Temple is within the scope of the prophecy while expecting a future, more perfect fulfillment at the time of the Second Coming. I can do so the same way I can admit that Isaiah's son Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz was within the scope of the prophecy of Isa. 7:14, but still believe that it looked past Maher to Immannuel.
In short, I don't reject preterism as the only interpretation of eschatological prophecy because of "literalism." I reject it because if we took preterism's hermeneutic and applied it to the prophecies of the First Coming the way you do to the prophecies of the Second, we'd have to conclude that the Apostles misused the prophetic Scriptures and Yeshua isn't really the Messiah.
Shalom.
Thank you for the thoughtful reply. I'll answer in a day or two.
Iron Man 2 was great, Mrs. C_C enjoyed it very much. I've heard it described as "a Sequel that knows it's a Sequel, and so does a good job at being one"; I'd say that's about right. Other than the fact that Don Cheadle just does NOT carry the role of Rhodey nearly as well as Terrence Howard did (he hardly even seems like the same character), the movie rates at least three stars, maybe three-and-a-half; just a solid follow-up to the original four-star Iron Man, which is what I think it was trying to be.