[topcat54]

One said A occurs and then B. Another wrote B occurs before A.

Sorry. They do not.

[af_vet_1981]

One said A occurs and then B. Another wrote B occurs before A. Sorry. They do not.

Matthew/Mark/Luke
• Let A = Matt 24:4,5; Mark 13:5,6; Luke 21:8
• Let B = Matt 24:6; Mark 13:7; Luke 21:9
• Let C = Matt 24:7,8; Mark 13:8; Luke 21:10,11
• Let D = Matt 24:9a; Mark 13:9,11; Luke 21:12,13,14,15
• Let E = Matt 24:9b, 10, Mark 13:12,13; Luke 21:16-17

Let A, B, C, D, E, F, G, and H be defined as above.
1. Matthew lists A, B, and C in order and then has these are the beginnings of sorrows (these come first) followed by then and and then separating A, B, C from D and E.
2. Mark lists A, B, and C in order and also then has these are the beginnings of sorrows (these come first) followed by but and but separating A, B, C from D and E. This is a different conjunction but also seems congruent with an order and thus does not contradict Matthew so I hold these in harmony, notwithstanding that G is out of place and inserted in the middle of D.
3. Luke, on the other hand, is not congruent. Luke lists A, B, and C in order and then has But before all these (these now come after what follows in Luke's version) followed by and separating A, B, C from D and E. This is a different order. It is not the same. Matthew/Mark both have A, B, C as the beginnings of sorrows followed by D and E. Luke has D, E, and who knows what else followed by A, B, and C. Luke has the persecution preceding someone coming in Jesus' name, wars and rumors of wars, nations rising against nation, etc. Now it is true that only Luke has the word first inserted in the common phrase found in all the B versions, for these things must first come to pass. Perhaps you might try to explain the discrepancy as a textural error in the Textus Receptus, or you may say that Luke recorded what he heard and someone relayed the account differently than Matthew and Mark.
4. In either case of B's version, Luke explicity separated D from C with an order of D, C while Matthew/Mark definitely have C preceding D. This is problematic for your preterist view from a consistency point. Of course you may also say it doesn't matter again, as you previously wrote that we should not take Jesus' words literally, which is how you try to reconcile his prophecies not having literal historical fulfillment.
5. Now back to the matter of genocide. Your interpretation of these words belonging to 70AD (For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be. And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened. ) has almost all the Jewish people living in the land at that time being killed as a fulfillment of prophecy. So it is this preterist viewpoint that ties God and/or Jesus to the attempted genocide of the Jews in 70AD as divine retribution. In your view, they all would have been killed but for it being shortened. Afterward, your viewpoint strips the children of Israel of any further national relationship, relevance, or future. You essentially commit theological genocide against them, all the time offering praise and thanksgiving.
6. Considerest thou not what this people have spoken, saying, The two families which the LORD hath chosen, he hath even cast them off? thus they have despised my people, that they should be no more a nation before them. Thus saith the LORD; If my covenant be not with day and night, and if I have not appointed the ordinances of heaven and earth; Then will I cast away the seed of Jacob, and David my servant, so that I will not take any of his seed to be rulers over the seed of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob: for I will cause their captivity to return, and have mercy on them.