[CynicalBear]

Preterists run afoul of both scripture and history. One simple one would be where Paul established the church in Ephesus in the mid to late 50s AD. And in 61AD wrote to them commending their faith. Yet Preterists would have us believe that a short 7 years later Christ would say to them that they have "left their first love" and "have fallen" and that He will remove their "lampstand" unless they repent.

You claim it was Nero who banished John to Patmos? Nero had both Peter and Paul executed yet Preterists would have us believe that he only exiled John to Patmos. Preposterous.

In A.D. 60, Laodicea had been almost entirely destroyed by an earthquake. Yet Preterists would have us believe that, as stated in Revelation 3:17, they had in a short 8 years considered themselves "rich and in need of nothing".

One could go on and on with the discrepancies Preterists have with both scripture and history. Preterism is a false teaching and considered "another gospel" and should be considered accursed as Paul said.

[Stingray]

“In A.D. 60, Laodicea had been almost entirely destroyed by an earthquake. Yet Preterists would have us believe that, as stated in Revelation 3:17, they had in a short 8 years considered themselves “rich and in need of nothing”.”

I think you had better research your facts a little more closely. Laodicea rebuilt itself - without any help from Rome - precisely becuae it was “rich and had need of nothing”, owing to its trade in fine, black wool.

“One of the famous cities of Asia, Laodicea, was that same year overthrown by an earthquake, and, without any relief from us, recovered itself by its own resources.”

http://classics.mit.edu/Tacitus/annals.10.xiv.html

This is why John could write:

You say, ‘I am rich; I have acquired wealth and do not need a thing.’ But you do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked. Revelation 3:17 (NIV2011)