Virgil (and this could go on ad infinitum!) - my biggest problem with a completely fulfilled ‘coming’ of Christ in the past is not the lack of recreation of the physical universe. That idea is connected with the disciples’ mistaken perception that the destruction of the temple would accompany the end of creation.

The past ‘coming’ of the Son of Man was not a return of Christ in the way that it is commonly understood. It was a ‘coming’ into the presence of God. One outcome of this was the outpouring of the Spirit. (I take the ascension, and the outpouring of the Spirit, as a primary fulfilment of Daniel 7:13). Another outcome, some time later, was the destruction of Jerusalem. (Judgement follows the blessing of the Spirit - the fire of the Spirit which Jesus poured out has both renewing and destructive characteristics, as John the Baptist predicted). The actual outcome of events in the history of Jesus has to be taken into consideration in interpreting both his own predictions and those of the OT which are interpreted in the light of the events.

My simple observation is that ‘coming’ is a somewhat flexible term, and its interpretation depends on the context. A 1 Thessalonians ‘coming’ seems to me to apply to events which have not yet occurred. It also seems to me that a 2 Thessalonians ‘coming’ must have some 1st century application, but there is more than a hint of events which have not yet occurred, and it seems obvious to link these with the theme of the ‘coming’ passage in 1 Thessalonians. The Revelation 22 ‘coming’ clearly had not occurred at the time it was written, and it seems not unreasonable to link it with the future aspects of the rest of Revelation 22, which most commentators agree are future - along with Revelation 21, and arguably much of Revelation 15-21. (In other words, future beyond AD 70 or a judgement on Rome).

I am ‘coming’ to the tentative conclusion that the ‘coming of the Son of Man’ in Matthew 24, which is clearly linked to 1st century events, was not a term exclusively linked to those events. This is not to irritate Andrew or annoy yourself; it’s just trying to take in all the relevant data on the subject, and this, or something like it, seems to be the considered response of the faith community through the ages. It’s the ‘double perspective’ idea - which preterists, not totally unreasonably, tend to want to dismiss.

You don’t have to agree with this; I know what your position on the subject is. I have a copy of your notes on the subject, which are reasonable, coherent, but - to my mind - distort evidence which we have from both the bible and experience. We can probably agree to differ, disagreeing agreeably, as it were.