Congratulations! You are now fulfilling the Bible which says "Come now, and let us repeat together."
Be sure to repeat what Walvoord, Lindsey, LaHaye, Ice etc. repeat what their own teachers repeat what their own teachers repeat etc. etc. etc.!
Repeat that Christ's return is imminent because we're told to "watch" (Matt. 24, 25) for it. So is the "day of God" (II Pet. 3:12) - which you admit is at least 1000 years ahead - also imminent because we're told to be "looking for" it?
Also repeat the pretrib myths about the "Jewish wedding stages" and "Jewish feasts" (where's your "church/Israel dichotomy" now?) even though Christ and Paul knew nothing about a "pretrib stage" and neither did any official theological creed or organized church before 1830!
You should read "Pretrib Rapture Dishonesty" on the "Powered by Christ Ministries" site to find out why you shouldn't repeat everything your pretrib teachers repeat.
Do I have to repeat this?

The 'coming' here is a very poor translation. A better translation is 'vindicated,' this is another refernce to the temple's destruction as a symbol of the ending of the covenant.

I would really love to hear how you defend this claim. The Greek word is erchomai: it means "to come, to arrive, to show oneself". It has no meaning that's anything like what you want to give it. The word for "vindicated" would probably be dikaioo, which is not used in these passages.

The 'coming' here is a very poor translation. A better translation is 'vindicated,' this is another refernce to the temple's destruction as a symbol of the ending of the covenant.

Andrew:

I'd like to see a defense of that. Can you name a translation that puts it that way? If not, why not? Why does neither Strong's nor Thayer support "vindicated'?

The 'coming' here is a very poor translation. A better translation is 'vindicated,' this is another refernce to the temple's destruction as a symbol of the ending of the covenant.

Furthermore, the destruction would act as proof that Jesus fullfilled the Deutronomy test for a prophet. If the temple hadnt been destroyed within a generation of his lifetime(as he predicted) the he would have been a liar/fraud.

When did he send his angels to gather the elect from the uttermost parts of the earth, as he said he would (and doesn't that also indicate a global event)?

Interestingly the word 'angel' doesnt necessary suggest a divine being. The Greek aggelos literally translates 'messanger' and was used of both divine beings, but also of humans, including Jesus's Diciples. There's no indication that the 'gathering' has to refer to a physical place. Jesus here is simply re-iterating what he already said earlier, that before the end of the age his 'messangers' would preach the Gospel and gather believers from all over the Roman Empire.

This supposed "covenant with individuals" has little support and is the wishful thinking of those Christians who wish their religion was a "relationship" so they could disassociate themselves from those acts by their religion that their God evidently had no problem with but they do.

Actually the 'its not a religion its a relationship line' makes me gag. But the idea of a covenant with indvidual believers is in fact found throughout the Bible, and is the entire point of most of Paul's letters.

I do love how Christians consistently forget that Jesus himself said that the Law wasn't abrogated (heaven and earth certainly haven't passed, have they? And I missed it?) This supposed "covenant with individuals" has little support and is the wishful thinking of those Christians who wish their religion was a "relationship" so they could disassociate themselves from those acts by their religion that their God evidently had no problem with but they do.

Matthew 24:30 likewise states that "all the tribes of the earth" will be able to see the Son of Man's coming in the clouds when it occurs, which only makes sense if what is being described is a global event

Sorry but 'tribes of the earth' is an idiom for the Jewish people.

Andrew: Even if I grant this, when did anyone see the Son of Man coming in the clouds with great power and glory? When did he send his angels to gather the elect from the uttermost parts of the earth, as he said he would (and doesn't that also indicate a global event)?

Unless of course, hes not refering to the whole world, but Jerusalem and the surrounding area. I think the fact that Jesus starts the Olivet Discorse with the destruction of the temple and never once says he's talking about anything else makes this likely.

Matthew 24:30 likewise states that "all the tribes of the earth" will be able to see the Son of Man's coming in the clouds when it occurs, which only makes sense if what is being described is a global event

Sorry but 'tribes of the earth' is an idiom for the Jewish people. Matthew even uses it as such elsewhere. I imagine the Jewish people(collectivly, not every one of them at once) would notice if the center of their religious life was destroyed.

Argument From Personal Incredulity is nothing to hang your hat on.

Matthew 24:22 states that God has mercifully shortened the tribulation period, and if he had not, "there should no flesh be saved". Obviously, there would be no danger of a local conflict killing everyone on the planet no matter how long it lasted. Matthew 24:30 likewise states that "all the tribes of the earth" will be able to see the Son of Man's coming in the clouds when it occurs, which only makes sense if what is being described is a global event. (source)

*Note that the "Moo ha-ha!" is apocryphal. He really laughs like a little girl. True story.

Yes. Every other interpertaion I'v heard makes no sense to me.

If you accept that Jesus fulfills the old testament prophecies, Revelations foretelling ancient middle-eastern and European politics is a little seems incongruous. The crucifixion and resurrection of Christ was an event of a kind of eternal and infinite spiritual nature: Now and forever he cleansed humanity of all it's sins. Even in the long run, that's a big deal. So why would revelations only go so far as to talk about the end of the roman empire? It's kind of a big deal, but nowhere near the salvation of mankind for all eternity. The scope seems inappropriately small.

Actuall as a partial preterist I think that Revelation does briefly deal with a final ressurection and a new revived earth. But it doesnt give a timestamp for it, so its pointless to worry about trying to predict when it will happen.

in any case, the focus of Revelations(and 'end of times' prophecy in general) is actually NOT on the temporal events, but on the continueing work of Jesus. Specificly on him asscending the throne in Heaven, ending the old covenant and ushering in the New(the destrucion of Temple was a symbol of these things).

Furthermore, it actually makes more sense to me to think that the Bible would focus mostly on things the earliest Christians would have known and care about. To me it seems really bizzarre to think God would go to such lenghs to try and describe events involving technology, nations and political/economic instutions that wouldnt exist for millinia to people who couldnt even begin to comprehend them.