I see you left out the important intervening verses. Notice the phrases underlined. Did any of this happen pre AD 70?:
40. “Therefore, when the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those tenants?”
41 “He will bring those wretches to a wretched end,” they replied, “and he will rent the vineyard to other tenants, who will give him his share of the crop at harvest time.”
42 Jesus said to them, “Have you never read in the Scriptures:
“ ‘The stone the builders rejected
has become the cornerstone;
the Lord has done this,
and it is marvelous in our eyes’ ?
43. “Therefore I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit.
44. Anyone who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces; anyone on whom it falls will be crushed.
The leaders truly saw that all of this was directed to them, not just the letting out. What you cite form Acts does not fit the prophecy. At any rate the vineyard and the vine is closely connected to Jerusalem and the Jewish worship. Many verse can be cited, especially from the OT to support this. I no longer bother doing this, however, when writing to you. You gloss over them.
The "cities of Israel" are not just the ones in Israel. They are the cities wherever the Jews dwell. This is throughout the Empire . And, yes, the witness to all of those cities was completed before the end. Paul seems to have spoken of this goal as having been accomplished in his lifetime (Col 1:23. Note past tense, "was preached"). At any rate it was done in that century.
Your use of Matthew 17:1-8 as the answer for for 16:28 is very lame. You essentially have the Lord Jesus Christ say, "None of you will die in the next six days". That is the ridiculous corollary for that interpretation.
There was very little writing in the next thirty years. Possibly none. The ones who are often cited for this period actually wrote pre-Ad 70. The earliest one whose dates can be even somewhat pinpointed is probably Ignatius. from around the turn of the century. he has written things that can be, in some cases, pro Preterist interpretation and, in other cases, non-Preterist. Anyhow, he already gave clear indication of the other errors creeping into Christendom, so he is not the great source that we might want.
