Ah, its the old 'generation' argument. First response is that the generation Jesus was referring to was that generation that these signs started to appear infront of (ie the parable of the fig tree), not that specific generation. Here is the response.
Preterism argues that the textual basis for interpreting prophecy as having been fulfilled in the past is Jesus’ use of the phrase “this generation” as only and always having reference to the first-century generation to whom He spoke. Futurism, by contrast, accepts some uses of “this generation” as having reference to those to whom Jesus spoke and other uses as having reference to those about whom Jesus spoke, with context being the determining factor. For example, the use of “this generation” in Matthew 23:36 is applied as an indictment (in context) to the generation of the “scribes and Pharisees” (Matthew 23:29) whose actions against Jesus demonstrate their affinity with previous persecutors of the Prophets (verses 30-35). Jesus’ then pronounces sentence with the words “all these things shall come upon this generation.” The phrase “these things” must also be interpreted in its context. In this case, the next verse (verse 37) describes “these things” as the future experience of Temple deolation. It is important to observe here that even though now historically past, “this generation” in context was a future generation at the time of its being originally spoken by Jesus and being recorded by Matthew. It was future from the perspective of the sins “this generation” (in context) would yet commit (complicity in the crucifixion) and the judgment they would receive (the Roman destruction in AD 70 (Luke 21:20-24).
Further Even though in context Jesus may refer to the future “this generation” as “you,” this is a conventional usage of language with respect to reference and does not have to ultimately apply to a present audience.12 Such usage is found in Old Testament prophetic sections. For example, Moses uses language similar to Jesus when he says “So it will be when all of these things have come upon you ...” (Deuteronomy 30:1a). Even though he is speaking to the present generation (‘you”), it is evident from the context that his words speak about a future generation that will live thousands of years later and into the eschatological period. “This generation” (the “you”) are those who will have already suffered the judgment of exile (verse 1b), captivity (verse 3), been regathered and restored (verses 4-5), and received spiritual regeneration (“circumcision of heart,” verse 6). The future sense of “this generation” in a judgment context sets a precedence for its interpretation in contexts that are both judicial and eschatological. If the desolation experienced by “this generation” in Matthew 23:36 can be understood as a future fulfillment that came some 40 years later, it should not be a problem to understood the Tribulation judgment as a future fulfillment that will come on the generation that will experience it at the end of the age. However, the difference is not simply a span of time, but the nature of that time as eschatological. For the “this generation” of Matthew 24:34, Mark 13:30, and Luke 21:32, “all these things” (Matthew 24:34; Mark 13:30; Luke 21:28) must refer contextually to the events of the “Great Tribulation,” the conclusion of “the times of the Gentiles,” the coming of Christ in glory, and the regathering and redemption of Israel, all of which are not only declared to be future by Jesus at the time of speaking (Mark 13:23), but also cast in typical eschatological language (for example, “end of the age,” “such as not occurred since the beginning of the world until now, nor ever shall,” “powers of the heavens will be shaken”). )Dr. Randall Price)
You see, the last part of this, Jesus' own words “such as not occurred since the beginning of the world until now, nor ever shall,” are played very loosy goosy by your source. While acknowledging WW2, he then discounts it. What part of EVER SHALL BE is that hard to understand?
f futurist interpreters want to insist on taking Jesus' words literally (meaning that a future tribulation is coming that will be by far the worst thing to happen in human history), then they must argue that Ezekiel, Exodus and Daniel were not meant to be taken literally while Jesus' words were.
It amazes me that Mr. Schwertley is so ignorant of dispensation interpretations. Had he honestly evaluated the use of the cited OT prophets, he would have read a different understanding. As is, he reads them through the rose colored glasses of preterism - theology driving scripture interpretation. Again, the simple phrase EVER SHALL BE is trodden under foot, making Jesus out to be a liar and false prophet.
INDEED.
However, 'tis a common REPLACEMENTARIAN et al practice . . . as though God doesn't notice or care. Sigh.