Thank you, Scott & Geneva, for carefully reasoned posts to explain your understanding of the passage.
Like Geneva, I find it strange that you do not see the temple timing destruction in the Lord's answer. If we read Mat. 23 before 24 . . .
With this posting I do not intend to deliver my response to the substance of your posting. I do yet intend to do so; however, I will require a certain amount of time in order to present that response in the manner that I am presently considering. On the other hand, I am making this posting in order to present a defense of my approach in my first posting and in order to present an acknowledgement of fault on my own part.
First, my defense of self -- In my first posting, I was seeking first to answer the question of the original posting directly according to the context of Matthew 24. That the direct audience for our Lord's teaching in Matthew 23 was both the multitudes (including the religious leaders of Judea) and Christ's disciples is to be acknowledges according to the Biblical record, as per Matthew 23:1. However, that there is a change in direct the audience for our Lord's teaching from Matthew 23 to Matthew 24 should also be acknowledged according to the Biblical record, as per Matthew 24:3. Furthermore, in my first posting I was seeking to present the focus of our Lord's answer unto the disciples' question (in Matthew 24:3) as it is recorded in Matthew 24:4-31. That there are parallel passages to be considered in both Mark and Luke is to be acknowledged. However, dealing with those parallel passages was the thrust of my posting. Indeed, in the opening line of my second paragraph concerning Matthew 24:4-31, I did make the statement, "What then do we find in our Lord's answer as presented in Matthew 24:4-31. To me, it is worthy of note that throughout this passage . . . ."
Second, my acknowledgement of fault -- In presenting my first posting concerning Matthew 24;1-21, I did recognize that there was a parallel passage in Mark 13; and I did take it into some small amount of consideration (since a significant amount of consideration thereto was not my primary purpose). However, I did not at all recognize that there was a parallel passage in Luke 21. This was a fault on my part, and I do acknowledge it as such. In a future posting (as time will permit), I do intend to remedy this fault on my part.