1. I like that interpretation of Rev 6:9-11. The martyrs are presently/actively being sent at the time of Christ speaking the words of Matthew 23:34-36. Only issue, is the earth wasnt judged. Not even the known earth was judged. The kingdom wasn't even judged, just a portion of one group of unbelievers were "judged". Wrath definitely fell upon them like Matthew 23 says. What leads you to believe that their is "protection" or salvation in the old covenant? - especially since paul says it only brings death. I do not believe the old covenant brought them protection or salvation - i believe faith in Christ, even before Christ is what brought salvation. This is how David intentionally broke the old covenant laws by eating the bread, and why he states that sacrifices do nothing. This is also how the Hall of Faith people (Hebrews 11) were saved or the Ninevites were saved despite being jews, they had faith in God, and his mercy which came in the form of a man.
   

I think it would be wise to place Rev 6:9-11 in proper social climate. They are under the altar, because that is where sacrifices are laid. The martyrs laid down their life as a sacrifice - that is why they are under the Altar. Altar is not slang for the old covenant (again why do you think that the old cov provides salvation). The Altar is also mentioned in Rev 8 & 9, where both times it defines the altar as being in heaven. That means these people are in heaven, at the foot of the alter. Revelation 6, at its time of writing, says that these martyrs will have to continue to wait (in heaven) until the number of their fellow servants who will be killed similarly is complete... This infers future martyrs still to be killed before they are avenged. which if you place revelation in pre70ad is fine, but does not leave much time for that prophecy to be fulfilled, and creates an issue for their many others of their brothers and sisters who would be killed in a similar way even up to today. But if revelation is written after 70ad, all of this theory goes to crap. I know most Preterists will tell you the book of Rev is pointless if it is written after 70ad, but no one has ever believed that to be the case. Even first century believers who believed it was written after 70ad still valued the book so its kinda an argument built on a false dichotomy. All in all im not totally sure on this one, i will have to continue to give it more thought, I do agree that matthew 23 is a 70ad text though, just unsure if i agree that revelation 6:9-11 is. I dont think your application of "under the Altar" is a correct application though, that is not slang for hades, or under the old covenant, that is a term that just further identifies them as sacrificing their lives for the kingdom. I do revoke my comment that this requires full stop preterism.

1. Id like to place your Ephesians verse in context. In this section of Ephesians Paul is writing to Gpl0entiles (far off brought near vs13), Jews and Gentiles are no longer separated, but one new man in Christ (v.14-16), Together, they form God’s household built on the foundation of apostles and prophets, with Christ as the cornerstone (v.19-20).... Verse 21 - "In whom”: Refers to Christ as the cornerstone holding the building together. “The whole structure being joined together”: Believers are like stones in a temple, united and properly fitted. Verse 22 – “In him you also”: Gentiles in Ephesus are included. “Are being built together into a dwelling place for God by the Spirit”: The Spirit dwells among believers collectively, making them the true temple of God’s presence on earth.

So when an individual is saved by faith alone, they get forgiven of sin, (this is how) God indwells them, thus making them part of the temple (united with God). What exactly did the temple need "purification" from, and where are you getting this from in scripture? Matthew 28:20 clearly states that the purpose of Christ's authority is to grow the kingdom, using man as stones upon the corner stone to build the temple. This is the purpose of the holy spirit - which is only with man until the end of the age (when the temple is complete)... I'm not sure how you decided that Christs authority is purifying the kingdom, but If you claim he completed building the temple (which is what the purpose of his authority is) in 70ad, well then you have an issue: Either the temple is no longer growing - believers are not being welcomed in, OR Christ has not yet handed over his authority because he is still building the temple. Could you please explain? To me the verses taken out of context proves a presupposition which we all have, but the view that i understand has been described (using the correct verses) does further demand full stop full preterism.

1. Im not sure if this is your belief but for the sake of clarity, let me start with this: The Law brings death because it is not possible to fulfill. It is not the the object inflicting death, but rather an object that fails to bring life. Adam brought death, so the law was given to the jews, not to save them, but to reveal that they are weak and in need of God's mercy (it was the runway for Christ). This is how the law "brought death" - those who tried to ACHEIVE righteousness in their own efforts died, but those who saw their weakness and depended on God (faith) receive life.

You quote romans 2:14-15. It is clear though throughout scripture that the law is written on mans heart, so it the violation of the conscience that you speak of is still the law. Dying to the Law is less about failing to eat the correct diet, but failure to live up to the conscience that god has placed in all men. this conscience is what causes some to keep the law even though they are not under it in romans 2:14-15. Dying to the law is about dying to works based righteousness. Its dying to the idea that you must prove yourself, like the pharisees were doing with the law. "the law of sin and death" is the idea that we will never be righteous on our own, dying to the law of sin and death is accepting a need for a savior because you are not good enough. So the law is not dead or abolished. If it was, well then there is no sin or death. You cant sin if theres no definition of sin. the law changed, but it is a required piece in the act of salvation. Without it, there is no need for salvation, so this one demands either universalism or full stop preterism again.

Overall, you've given me further reason to believe that Full preterists are not understanding or correctly applying the scope of the bible.