I certainly appreciate you taking a look at what I proposed in earlier comments, but right from the get go, I see a problem.  You are solely focused on the metaphorical aspects of language rather than the wholesome of any given first-century interaction of Jesus.  There is more to language than metaphors alone, and we are ignoring a whole host of other facets here by only discussing metaphorical language.  How about the cultural aspects of the first century, where Gehena was a literal place where trash was burning non-stop outside the city of Jerusalem? Jesus is taking a contemporary reality and is using it as an example of a higher spiritual example, unless you expect "hell" to be a physical place where the thermostat is on high.Or language descriptive of specific situations in Jewish life, such as Edersheim’s description of the "eye of the needle" which was the smaller door carved in the gate of the city through which camels could not fit unless unloaded of their loads and riches, thus Jesus’ example "it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of the needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God" is a piece of a Jew’s daily life, not a westerner’s rich imaginative picture of a sewing needle.

I could go on with these examples, and they would only maginfy the disconnect you (and I) experience with Scripture because of our social, cultural and theological paradigms.

The dynamic in Preterism is in fact quite straightforward: there is little concern with speculation — i.e. "first-century Jews would have known a good metaphor when they heard one" — rather there is concern with the audience being predisposed to metaphorical language readily used in the Old Testament, language which their forefathers still misunderstood often.  Thus, by the same token I can argue that just as metaphorical language was often not understood before Christ, there is no reason to believe that it would suddenly be understood by Christ’s audience. See Nicodemus, Peter, Paul, et all.