If we disagree on when Daniel was written doubt we'll agree on anything else about it!
That is fine. We disagree. The question is whose view is more reasonable and consistent with what is known. Did you notice how ludofl3x avoids the discussion? He doesn't want to see the evidence nor its logical consistency. He never answered my questions in my first post. This is the tactic I get every time I go into any attempt in proving my position - the opposition feigns irrelevancy without the evidence even being presented. So he sets up a thread and then puts up all kinds of roadblocks to prevent me from giving evidence.
I've been looking into it,and there is no shortage of interpretations of Daniel's prophecy even amongst the faithful.
Granted, yet how consistent to the prophecy are they? I believe that only the two scenarios I gave in the challenge are consistent. I will go along with disproving the others as logically inconsistent. The two I hold to as reasonable and logical (which no one seems interested in hearing because they keep shutting down the dialogue) are taken either from a literal Philip Mauro explanation or from rounding off of the seventy sevens, as can be demonstrated as happening from many other Scriptures. Either way, I believe they are both reasonable and logical explanations, whereas I have not found another view as being able to demonstrate this (including the Orthodox Jewish views I have looked at).
it's not easy to put myself in the position of a 1stC BC Jew so I can't be sure what it's intended audience would make of it. I doubt many ordinary Jews read it for themselves, not only because of illiteracy but the lack of copies - no printing in those days! How it was presnted to them would matter alot, but we can't know anything about it.
1. What is your evidence for this illiteracy theory?
2. Many, possibly most, Jews in the 1st-century would know their Scriptures. They would be versed in them. Here comes a Man, claiming to be sent from God, accepting the notion by those closest to Him that He was their Messiah, telling them of judgment within their generation.
3. This Messianic figure is cut off or killed, according to their own Scripture, and there are many reports that He has risen from the dead and many Jews come to faith in Him after His resurrection under intense persecution.
4. This teaching of the risen Christ changed the course of history.
 I imagine most ordinary Jews of the time accepted that a man could predict events 500 or more years in his future. I don't!  Nor do I accept your interpretation of the significance of 70 AD.  Theologially, it is a visible sign of the transition from the old covenant to the new, essentially a symbol of God breaking with the Jews and transferring his patronage to the gentile world.
 No, you don't because, IMO, you are a skeptic who makes excuses to not believe. Why would you believe in Someone you don't want to believe in?
 Whether you accept the significance of AD 70 or not, the whole system of worship, what their whole economy and faith rested upon was destroyed. After AD 70 they could no longer worship God as they had agreed to in their Mosaic Covenant. I find this is indisputable, but if you wish I can demonstrate that they can no longer meet the Mosaic covenant regulations after AD 70. The priesthood is gone, the genealogical records that trace the lineage of the priesthood and Messiah are destroyed, the temple is destroyed, the animal sacrifices cannot be performed as required for the atonement of sin and a right relationship with God, the feast days can no longer be honored in the manner required, and the prophesied Messiah who was to come to these covenant people is no longer possible since the covenant is destroyed.
 AD 70 is a completion of the transition of the old to the new. Every prophecy of the OT that I am familiar with, IMO, can be demonstrated to be fulfilled reasonably. I don't see how you can understand some of these prophecies in the application after AD 70 because they deal with an OT people, their Messiah, and judgment or curses (per Deuteronomy 28:15 onwards).
I don't dispute the relevant events of AD70 happened
Thanks for that!
- but I think Preterism forces its interpretation of Daniel, not the other way round.
Show me how it forces its interpretation rather than bringing it to light. You acknowledge Jerusalem was destroyed and this was prophesied before AD70 since you acknowledge Daniel was written around 150 BCE.
1. Show me, from the OT where a coming judgment is not prophesied.
2. Show me where countless OT prophets and teachers (their writings) do not warn these Old Covenant warnings of impending judgment and a coming Messiah that does not fit after AD 70.
3. Show me how the Mosaic Law
can be met after AD 70.
4. Show me how the resurrection and judgment do not fit the AD 70 deadline, per Scripture.
5. Show me how the Messiah does not apply to the Mosaic Covenant people.
Show me how any of this is forced from Scripture.