They were discussing the end of the age of the Jewish Sacrificial System, and the end of the age of Roman oppression. They were asking Him when He would return to kick some butts, destroy those people, and make them (the disciples) become free men in this world.
If you don't mind, I am moving our discussion about preterism over to this thread. I want to preserve my debate with "PreTrib" futurists and not have to deal with interjections from preterists.
When I want to have a debate between two competing views on futurism and non-futurists keep interrupting with
"there is no futurism!"...it's messed up. It's poor form. It amounts to a cheap shot.
Anyway...your above comment makes no sense, as it directly contradicts the Olivet Discourse text:
The disciples asked Jesus
"what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?". They were interested, not in
"the end of the sacrificial system" but rather in Jesus' (the Messiah's) return AND the
"end of the age".
I don't know how it is you think you can directly contradict the text. (?)
To discuss the "end of the age" is to discuss "end times". Where is there any counter-argument??
What is it you don't understand about the fact that in the Jewish mind, when the Messiah would appear, it would be the "end of the age"? In the Jewish mind, there are two ages -- the age of man and the eternal endless "age of God". The eternal "age of the Messiah".
Obviously, the disciples were
in on the fact that there was going to be a surprising 'twist in the plot' -- their Messiah had indeed arrived BUT they now knew He was going to depart and then return a second time. THUS, they asked Him when He was going to return (for this second time).
Again, I don't even know where you think there's an argument.