It seems to me that that line of argument is still very tenuous, since it rests entirely on the supposition that Revelation was written prior to 70 AD, when Herod’s temple was still standing. The text itself still doesn’t say the temple in the vision is Herod’s temple, you are just assuming that based on other assumptions which are convenient for the preterist view, aren’t you?
I think your argument that there is only one “Temple of God” in 70 AD is pretty weak also. The Christian church already existed in 70 AD, and the church is a “Temple of God” as well. In fact, one could argue that the temple in Jerusalem no longer served any special purpose for God at that time.
But the purpose of Revelation was to outline prophetically the imminent judgment upon Jerusalem. Thus “the temple of God” makes most sense if understood to be the literal temple that was about to be destroyed so that “not one stone shall be left here upon another” when Jerusalem was trampled underfoot by the gentiles. (Matt. 24:2; Luke 21:24)
There is only one temple that was to be the object of judgment, that the physical temple. You’re correct that the new spiritual temple is the people of God.
This points out a similar contrast in Revelation, that of the “great harlot/great city” and the “bride/new Jerusalem.” The harlot is old Jerusalem and the bride is the new Jerusalem.
True. And neither does it say it is the temple of futurism. So, I have to make a decision. Which view best fits the facts? Do I adopt a preterist view and see Revelation (and the Olivet Discourse) as pertaining to events in the first century, or do I adopt a futurist view and say it's all about some unknown future, some non existent temple. (I realize there are other options.)
Now, I could flip a coin. That would be easy.
Or I could turn to tradition and accept by faith that Eusebius' copy of Irenaeus' statement is accurate. And then when I read it I take by faith that it must be talking about John seeing the vision of Revelation in the mid 90s. And so then by faith I believe it cannot be about the events of AD70. (Although I still have not established that it is about events in our future.)
Or I could do some hard exegetical work and try to make sense of all the statements, especially considering the important time texts (“things which must shortly take place,” “for the time is near,” “for the time is at hand” (Rev. 1:1; 1:3; 22:10). I apply the analog of faith, comparing Scripture with Scripture.
I've become convinced by personal study of Scripture over decades that the best fit solution is AD70.