I realize that the point of your question was not to force my comments into a particular box - that’s why I said don’t take it personally.

I suppose there are two ways of responding. We could look at the detailed differences between any account we may put forward and accounts that identify themselves as preterist (preterism in wikipedia). In this case we would probably find quite a high degree of overlap, but also some differences arising from divergent readings of particular texts. For example, I suspect (I also don’t know enough about the various camps) that too much emphasis is placed on AD 70 and not enough on the church’s later conflict with Rome. But is this sort of exercise really worth it?

Or we could ask some prior questions about context and methodology. Where is preterism positioned ecclesiologically - in relation to evangelicalism, for example? What sort of hermeneutical principles have shaped the preterist position? To what extent have the conclusions and the presentation of these conclusions been shaped by the polemic against dispensationalism? Why make our temporal relation to the prophecies the key to interpretation? From the point of view of exegesis it shouldn’t make any difference whether these events have happened or not. Suppose we knew the Old Testament and Jewish apocalyptic traditions, suppose we could locate ourselves imaginatively in the first century, suppose we could forget everything that has happened since - how would we then read the texts? I feel that there may be a difference of approach here that is worth understanding - though I may be doing a disservice to the preterist camp.