1. You are admitting to playing fast and loose with your proof text
OR
2. You believe that Jesus returned in 70 AD.
Which is it?
I've already told you I believe He returned "in a fashion" in 70 AD, but I have also said plainly that there is a future coming of Christ. If you actually understood preterism you would know why I say this, but the interest doesn't seem to be in understanding it but rather in telling me what I believe and painting a distorted of picture of it. Why is it that you dismiss out of hand the notion that the things spoken of were fulfilled yet Christ will still come again in the full and final consumation of His Kingdom and the judgement of all men?
If I say that Christ has come in some fashion in 70AD and will yet come again in full consumation of His Kingdom, why is it to hard for you to accept that maybe...just MAYBE...I actually believe what I say I do and that I believe it is what Scripture teaches?
We could certainly spend the time actually examining the Olivet Discourse and other passages, but that doesn't seem to be your goal here. So far all you've done is lump partial preterists in with full preterists no matter how many times we speak to the clear and important differences between them, and then force us into the false dilemma you've presented.
As my mother used to say, "They need to clean the wax out of their ears before they start talking."
I asked what you meant by returned in a fashion, but I don’t recall that you answered it. Perhaps I missed it.
In what fashion did Jesus return?
Hmm . . . so as a partial preterist, you believe that there must be a future Coming of the Lord, which will be preceded by a time in which Satan personally deceives the whole world, per Rev. 20:8?
So other than a (relatively minor) argument over whether the Millennium is yet future and a (major) argument over whether God is actually going to keep His promises to Israel, what exactly differentiates you from a futurist?