It’s a little difficult to follow your arguments Lloyd, because the comment is all one paragraph. I think the central difference between us (and between myself and other contributors to this site) is that I see the death and resurrection of Jesus as pivotal and central. Having an extra eschatological development in a parousia which was reflected on earth in the destruction of Jerusalem (and maybe Rome, depending on whose version we are looking at) produces all kinds of esoteric consequences which should make us seriously question whether it actually was the case. A major esoteric consequence is that a 1st century parousia, reflected in the judgments mentioned above, encourages us to think of Jesus’s significance as being primarily one of a heavenly version of a warrior king - like King David. That sets us on a course in which the more obviously central events of his death and resurrection are radically marginalised (which I perceive to be the case from your own central preoccupations).

However, to attempt to answer some of your questions. Preterism has various forms, and the best description of these which I have found is in R.C.Sproul’s ‘The Last Days According to Jesus’. I am not a futurist, in the sense that I see the life, death, resurrection, ascension and outpoured Spirit of Jesus to be the major eschatological focus of the NT, with only the parousia, general resurrection, final judgment, new heaven and new earth to come. Hovering over the things completed and things yet to come is the figure of ‘the man of lawlessness’, the beast, and maybe the antichrist, and a small season of general persecution, which may be future, or may have already been fulfilled. I don’t attach such eschatological weight to these latter issues as most futurists. I hope that gives some idea of how I see things.

Just to comment on one or two things: Hebrews 2:9a does describe the ascension - which was the direct consequence of Jesus’s death on the cross, and subsequent resurrection. Jesus’s crowning ‘with glory and honour’ was his ascension, the reason for that being that "by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone." - Hebrews 2:9b. Psalm 110:1-2 supports this view, as it does whenever it is quoted in the NT. The until refers to all the enemies, in this case, of Jesus. Nothing happened in the 1st century which brought, literally and physically, all the enemies of Jesus in subjection to him. That event is still future, as it is in Philippians 2:9-11. These ‘enemies’ are not simply world rulers. "The last enemy to be destoyed is death" - 1 Corinthians 15:26. The perspective is towards a future when all these things will finally be accomplished. In the meantime, the authority of Jesus can effectively be used within a system in which one age ("this evil age") overlaps with another age ("the age to come") - as I have already suggested.

Your interpretation of "waiting" - Hebrews 10:13 - is speculation. The word is simply another way of saying that at some point in the future, we will see the subjection of all the enemies of Jesus to him, in a way that we do not yet see. That is to say something that accords with reality - we do not yet see that complete subjection, but we have total confidence, on the basis of what Jesus has already done, that it will come. To "reign in the midst of your enemies" - Psalm 110:2 - is another way of saying the same thing: that is precisely what Jesus now does, but there will come a time when (the "until" of Psalm 110:1) those enemies are brought in complete subjection to Jesus.

You seem to be quite muddled in your comments on crosses, thrones, and precisely who sits where on which throne. I am saying that what is represented by Jesus’s throne (ie his glory and power) is directly related to what he accomplished through his suffering in the cross. In John 12:27-33, that ‘glory’ is also spoken of as the Father’s glory, but ‘glory’ and ‘the cross’ are as closely related here as anywhere in the NT. The ‘lifting up’ of the Son of Man is clearly, here, the lifting up of Jesus on the cross, with perhaps a secondary suggestion of a ‘lifting up’ in glory which would ensue.

Where does the NT speak of the parousia being future? Almost universally! The only place where it might speak differently is in Matthew 24:3 - where the ambiguity is, to my mind, intentional. There is no difference between us concerning the description of the parousia as a heavenly event with earthly consequences - it would be if Jesus was returning to earth at his parousia. Conjoining heaven and earth - Revelation 21:3. Also, it was on the cross where Jesus bore the sins of the world - not in his resurrection. Interesting how you, and others on the site, shy away from the cross as the place which nobody can avoid who wishes to enter into relationship with God. I think this is the heart of the issue.

We can be both a resurrection community and an immortal community if you like - but in my view we would still be an eschatological community, because the NT encourages us to look at the events in Jesus’s life and death as eschatological. That’s the sense in which I am not a futurist - and in which theology has a special section on ‘eschatology’ at the back of the book, which to my mind is very misleading. Eschatology should be viewed from the perspective of what Jesus did on earth and immediately following (barring the events to which I have already referred) - whatever your dictionary says.

Jesus is, in himself, ho eschatos. Preterists build part of their case on the apparent inconsistency that an eschatology which marks the ‘last days’ as beginning in the time of Jesus and continuing until today seems contradictory in the light of ’days’ which have extended to over 2000 years. I’m surprised you didn’t make that point, instead of making a less impressive conclusion built on comments taken from a dictionary definition.