I've read "Last Days Madness" and appreciate Gary DeMar's arguments about the prophecies of Mat. 24 being fulfulled by 70 AD. I agree much WAS fulfilled then, especially if you compare Mat. 24 to the parallel passages in Luke, but I can't entirely agree with his reasoning or believe that those were complete fulfillments. His arguments do seem weak in places.
Here are a couple questions. First of all, the "Didache" (an early Christian writing) is dated early, usually before 130 AD. (Some date it later, but the internal evidence is strong for an early date.) So how do you explain that the Early Christians' endtime views, toward the end of the first century AD, instead of saying that everything was fulfilled in 70 AD, sound like this:
"The Didache" - CHAPTER 16
16:1 Watch concerning your life; let not your lamps be quenched or your loins be loosed, but be ye ready, for ye know not the hour at which our Lord cometh.
16:2 But be ye gathered together frequently, seeking what is suitable for your souls; for the whole time of your faith shall profit you not, unless ye be found perfect in the last time.
16:3 For in the last days false prophets and seducers shall be multiplied, and the sheep shall be turned into wolves, and love shall be turned into hate;
16:4 and because iniquity aboundeth they shall hate each other, and persecute each other, and deliver each other up; and then shall the Deceiver of the world appear as the Son of God, and shall do signs and wonders, and the earth shall be delivered into his hands; and he shall do unlawful things, such as have never happened since the beginning of the world.
16:5 Then shall the creation of man come to the fiery trial of proof, and many shall be offended and shall perish; but they who remain in their faith shall be saved by the rock of offence itself.
16:6 And then shall appear the signs of the truth; first the sign of the appearance in heaven, then the sign of the sound of the trumpet, and thirdly the resurrection of the dead
16:7 -- not of all, but as it has been said, The Lord shall come and all his saints with him;
16:8 then shall the world behold the Lord coming on the clouds of heaven.
The Didache even clearly outlines a pre-Tribulation rapture theory, and it's dated almost first century.
My second question is this: If it was so obvious and clear to the Early Christians that Mat. 24 was fulfilled in 70 AD, why did St. Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 130-202) in his document, "Adversus haereses" (Against Heresies), written before A.D. 199), in book V, Chapters 25 - 33 lay out a highly detailed Endtime scenario in which he described the coming ten horns of kingdoms, the rise of the Antichrist, his rule for 3 1/2 years, and the AC sitting in the Temple, the Millennium, etc. Instead of laying out how all of this was obviously fulfilled in 70 AD, Irenaeus expected the Antichrist was yet to arise, and expected him to shortly after 200 AD.
From what I can understand from both the Didache and 'Against Heresies', the Christians of post-70 AD had a well-thought-out and developed Endtime theology that stated the Antichrist and his reign, which would happen just before the 1,000-year Millennium, was YET to come.
And The 'Epistle of Barnabas,' also dated before 130 AD, not only describes the Jewish war of 70 AD and the destruction of the Temple at that time, but states the belief that the Jewish Temple would be REBUILT soon. As you probably know, the Jews had the same hope. It nearly happened during the reign of the Apostate Emperor Julian (AD 331-363). One of the promises he made was to rebuild the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem. Only his death prevented that from happening.
My big question is, if all that prophecy was so obviously fulfilled by 70 AD, then why do the early Christians, AFTER 70 AD, still expect all those events to YET happen? Why didn't they simply look back and write volumes about how it was all fulfilled, instead of writing lengthy studies like Ireaeus about how it was YET to happen in his day, about 200 AD?
Not trying to put you on the spot here, as you know I value your input, but these are questions which to me seem to be large obstacles to the preterist position, and which argue strongly for the early church's Futurist theology, including a post-Tribulation rapture followed by the Millennium.