Topcat, we've basically reached the point of arguing in circles. At this point, I think it would be wise to take one of two courses: Either we participate in discussing and developing a futurist model rather than spending all of our time defending it piecemail, or you provide an article that presents your POV so that we can discuss it on its merits, and see if it stands up to Scripture as well as the views I and others of like mind have understood it here.
It's not the circles that bother me so much as having to repeatedly correct your inaccurate rendering of my views.
Where we find ourselves is that among the futurists in this thread there is a presupposition of extreme literalism that I do not believe is warranted in Scripture. Based on that presupposition you point to a verse and, because any interpretation that does not fit with your literalist model is immediately suspect, we find ourselves constantly at an impasse.
You could point to a prophecy regarding the temple, say Ezekiel 40-48, and ask for my interpretation. I would go to the New Testament and adequately, at least by my reasoning, demonstrate how it is a picture of Christ's work on our behalf. For example, how Jesus' words in John 4:13-15 is a direct fulfillment of the imagery in Ezekiel 47:1ff. Or how the sacrifice of Jesus is pictured in the sacrifices in Ezekiel 44.
But I suspect you would not be satisfied with that interpretation because it does not fit with your preconception of how the prophecies ought to be interpreted.
On the other hand, what you are insisting with me is that all these things must still be future because you have not witnessed them literally fulfilled at any time in the past. But what argument is there against your position other than to point out that such an interpretation is not required by the New Testament, nor did Jesus or His disciples paint those prophecies in literal terms? Rather they went to great lengths to show how Jesus -- not Israel or Jerusalem or the Temple -- were the focal point of the prophecies.
So there we have it. I could offer papers and commentaries to support my views (like the commentaries of John Calvin), but you would reject them for "spiritualizing", "allegorizing" or any other -izing you can think of. You may even argue that Calvin wasn't thinking like a Hebrew. Perhaps you might even think the same of Alfred Edershiem and his similar views.
The problem with building a futurist model, as opposed to a model of future things, is that I think you've decided what the furniture should look like before the foundation is laid.