Lloyd - no, I’m not what you call a futurist, but I do see more of the future in Revelation than many so-called preterists, amongst whom there is a spectrum of interpretation of Revelation and of the NT.

Well, you are right: there is a reference to two thrones in Revelation 3:21. What is the significance of this? For you, as I understand it, it is to support the view that Jesus’s second throne, or his kingdom rule, was established at his parousia, which occurred at the same time as judgment on Jerusalem in AD 70 (but the judgment itself, according to you, was not the parousia). Is that correct?

I don’t see things this way; I see Jesus at his ascension being "crowned with glory and honour" - Hebrews 2:9a. The central issue is the reason for this glory and honour. The reason was "the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone" - Hebrews 2:9b.
In other words, the central interpretive issue, when we are looking at Jesus’s glory, his coronation, and therefore his enthronement, is his accomplishment on the cross - which I also take to be universal, and not just for Israel (as in Andrew’s interpretation).

So I take Revelation 3:21 to be emphasizing this accomplishment on the cross, recognised in heaven in terms of a throne. I don’t see the emphasis falling on Jesus literally having a separate throne from God the Father. Rather, it is a way of emphasizing what Jesus brought to heaven which augmented the heavenly rule. I don’t see anywhere else that there is a consistent teaching of two separate thrones, which had the significance which you give to it.

Likewise in Luke 1:32, my understanding of the granting to Jesus of the throne of David is this. Jesus was the heir apparent to the throne of David. He was granted the throne when he ascended to heaven, in recognition of his accomplishment on the cross, as described in Hebrews 2:9. However, we have already moved from the literal and historic sense of a throne to a somewhat removed, metaphorical version of a heavenly throne. Instead of the ‘throne’ implying the kind of worldly reign which would mirror that of King David, we are now seeing the reign of Jesus in a very different light, with different foes whom he overcame - the principal ones being sin and death. His ‘reign’ over "the house of Jacob forever" - Luke 1:33, must now be seen in this light, not in the light of a worldly reign along the lines of an earthly monarch. It is a reign which granted life, where previously there had been sin and death. That reign will reach its completion when resurrected people will inhabit a recreated earth. You are misled by interpreting the throne language too literally in support of a view which takes the focus away from the things God wants us to focus on - namely, the central achievement of Jesus on the cross.

No, I’m not saying that the reception of the Spirit at Pentecost was the resurrection of the dead - though since you mention it, the NT does imply that some of the benefits of resurrection are received before the physical event itself - eg Colossians 3:3. But no - I’m not advocating a preteristically fully realised resurrection from the dead at Pentecost or at any other time before we are physically raised from the dead.

I think the difference between us helps to explain our different understanding of the kingdom of God. My understanding is that the kingdom and the Spirit are closely connected - eg Matthew 12:28. The outpouring of the Spirit at Pentecost showed that there had been a major development of the kingdom of God - as there had: the major development. Jesus had overcome sin on our behalf, and therefore death. In place of death, life was now available, the life of heaven, the Holy Spirit. Jesus’s reign was entirely to do with these realities. Now, the kingdom of God can be expressed on earth, not as the reign of a warrior king like David, or any other earthly king/ruler, but in demonstrations of what God’s rule will be like, inspired and filled by the Spirit.

Jesus’s reign is also a reign of judgment, some of which was to be historically expressed - as it was with the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. The coming of Jesus, as with the coming of the Spirit, had this double-edged effect: it identifed the people of God, but also separated out those who were not the people of God. But the destruction of Jerusalem was not the event of the kingdom - just one amongst many.

I think your interpretation of Revelation 11:15 is attaching significance to it that it simply will not stand, and that it much more straightforwardly expresses the position, from a future standpoint, that the kingdoms of the world have become the kingdom of Jesus - the future time when his reign will be complete over all the earth.

The future parousia is of course both a heavenly and an earthly event - the conjoining of heaven and earth. The history of interpretation of Matthew 24 (and Mark 13, Luke 21) has shown that the passage is not as straightforward to understand as you would like it to be. It might be more honest to acknowledge the different viewpoints there have been over it, and to accept that there are some difficulties in interpreting it.

The ‘esoteric’ consequences of placing an undue eschatological interpretation on the destruction of Jerusalem arise from the subtle but definite shift of emphasis it provides from what is central to Jesus - his accomplishment on the cross for the whole world, his gift of life in the Holy Spirit, the beginning of an eschatological community on earth which one day will have complete expression in a recreated earth. The interpretation you provide displaces the focus, and rearranges the assignation of things from where they should be to where they shouldn’t - principally shifting the focus away from the crowning achievement of Jesus on the cross.

Your comments on Psalm 110:1 seem to be picking up things I said elsewhere in a response to one of Andrew’s comments (N.T.Wright, mission and the big red balloon) - which maybe should be addressed to that thread.