Double fulfillment for one thing. Very common in scripture.
For another thing, CONTEXT is "end times"....IN THAT DAY.
Every time the term IN THAT DAY is used, it always points to the future judgements leading to the Second Coming.
Furthermore there are HUNDREDS of prophecies of similar nature from Genesis to Deuteronomy to Revelation AND in the NT in massive
quantities that have yet to be fulfilled.
Furthermore (and crucially) Seven Feasts of Moses prophetic pattern HAS NOT yet been fulfilled.
The preterist crowd always has been wrong and always will be. Due to Biblical illiteracy.
You are making several assertions that go beyond what Scripture explicitly says.
First, "double fulfillment" may occur in some prophecies, but you cannot simply invoke double fulfillment whenever a text does not fit your system.
Each case must be demonstrated from the text itself.
Second, your claim that every occurrence of "in that day" always refers to the judgments immediately preceding the Second Coming is simply too broad.
The phrase is used in a variety of prophetic contexts, and the burden is on you to prove that a specific occurrence refers to the end of the age rather than assuming it does.
Third, appealing to "hundreds of prophecies," the Seven Feasts, Ruth, Lot, Rahab, Esther, Enoch, and other patterns does not settle the interpretation of a disputed passage.
Patterns can illustrate truth, but they cannot override the plain meaning of the text.
A doctrine should be established by clear passages first and then illustrated by patterns, not the other way around.
Fourth, notice the inconsistency in your argument: when discussing preterists, you object to them seeing fulfillment where you do not, yet you freely appeal to prophetic patterns and typology that are often not explicitly identified in the text itself.
Finally, your statement that "the preterist crowd always has been wrong and always will be" and your accusation of "Biblical illiteracy" reflect an attitude Scripture warns against.
"The servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient" (2 Tim. 2:24).
"In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves" (2 Tim. 2:25). "Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth" (1 Cor. 8:1).
If your position is biblical, it should be defended from the text itself.
Calling those who disagree illiterate does not prove your interpretation; it only suggests a confidence level that exceeds what Scripture explicitly states.
The issue is not whether futurism may be correct.
The issue is whether you have demonstrated it from clear scriptural statements rather than from theological inferences and prophetic patterns.
Another piece of evidence of the fruit you bare.
