Okay, very good.
The reason I asked you, was because in T7t7's Post #1249 (which was a response to my original point in Post #1243 [pg63]), where he had started out by saying to me,
"Your "Preterist" claims are false"...
your "[emoji-]reaction" (whatever they are called) was the "Happy"-face one, as though perhaps you AGREED with his thought that I had been presenting the "Preterist" viewpoint (which I certainly was NOT). Just wanted to be sure to clear that up.
Yes, the passages I presented clearly show that certain aspects of the Olivet Discourse WERE INDEED referring to the events surrounding 70ad; whereas the majority of it is "far-future" (in the future "Trib years" / 7 years).
Pretty much, yes!
Correct!
Right on!
Yes, that's it!
____________
T7t7 is simply applying things "willy-nilly," while giving little regard to what the text/texts is/are actually conveying.
The passages I supplied (spelled out) in Post #1262/1271 provide the info necessary to conclude that those certain things indeed took place in the very "near future" (to them, i.e. 70ad); rather than "far-future" as the OTHER aspects will occur (<--esp how Lk21:32 expresses, "TILL ALL be fulfilled" necessarily must INCLUDE the TWO very lengthy items that v.24a had already JUST spoken of)...
...and that is a matter of grasping the "chronology" and paying close attention to what the text is actually conveying.
Glad you also see it similarly to how I was showing in those Posts... I'm relieved your "Happy"-face reaction (on T7t7's Post #1249) was not a show of "agreement" with T7t7 that you thought I was presenting "Preterist" views, when I wasn't. Thanks for clarifying! = )