Most amillennials read Mt 24 and teach that Jesus’ changes the subject abruptly from Jerusalem to the end of the planet right around verse 36 (some back up a little earlier). The problem with teaching that Jesus changed the subject is that He didn’t: Mt 24 (and 25) is all one discourse on one subject: the destruction of Jerusalem. The context really begins in chapter 23 where Jesus pronounces woes upon the city for their treatment of the prophets, and then laments at her unwillingness to be gathered to Him, and as a result their house would be left desolate. Moving then into chapter 24, the disciples are marveling at the temple and Jesus very plainly states that it will be destroyed, not one stone will be left upon another (1-2). This is the context; plain and simple. The disciples then asked what when that would take place, and what would be the sign. They equated the fall of the temple as His coming, which was also the end (consummation) of the age. (NOTE: they were not asking about the end of the world, the physical planet). Jesus then proceeds to answer their questions by saying that the coming (Parousia) of the Son of Man would be in that generation (34).