So I had to answer a question for my sister and it was a rather lengthy response on preterism and its hermeneutics in regards to Jesus' return and, even more specifically, his judgment on the works that each person has done. I hope this helps.
My understanding of Preterism is that it teaches that all of biblical prophesy has already been fulfilled. To put it another way, all of the events predicted in scripture were fulfilled in the 1st and 2nd century. The idea behind this view is that the prophetic message of the authors of scripture was never meant to be understood as something which would take place hundreds or thousands of years later.
The hermeneutics of a preterist will not allow them to accept that a futuristic prediction in the NT could have direct implications to future generations. Since they believe the futuristic message is for the generation of the author/ prophet, all of what the NT writers said would take place has already taken place, much of which took place during the reign of Nero.
In my opinion, it's not a good idea to lump all of Biblical Prophecy into one category and say that it's already taken place because there are somethings which we're told to look for that haven't taken place yet, such as the second coming of the Lord, the everlasting reign of the son of David, the judgment of the wicked, the restoration of creation, etc.
When you get into more specific forth-tellings, like the temple being destroyed and the stones being turned over, you can read about the destruction of the temple in 70 AD and make a connection between the text and the event. The question we have to ask is, "Is that the event the text was speaking of, or just something that matches up with what was being spoken of in the text."
I would suggest looking at what is spoken of in each specific text and try to make sense of it textually. It’s very easy to misinterpret the scripture when we take historical events and try to impose them on the text. When the text is silent on an issue, it is better to leave it as such, so that the intended meaning is not clouded by historical matters that may or may not be connected with what is spoken of in the Scriptures
Let’s look at Matthew 16-20 and see what the text at large is saying, so that we can see how v24-28 contribute to what the author is trying to say.
Chapters 16:13-20:34 is talking about the church. In 16:13-20 we see Jesus bringing the church and its foundation into view and access “the keys” into the kingdom of heaven will come through the church.16:21-23 Jesus foretells about how He will build his church: it will be through his death and resurrection. 17 connects Jesus to the Prophets and it places priority on his message rather than Moses or Elijah’s and give direction for the life of the Church (speaking about those who make up the Church). 18 continues that thought but it also speaks about Church Discipline.
The way 16:24-28 fits into the picture is by illustrating what a follower of Jesus’ lifestyle will look like. “The son of Man coming with his angles to judge each person for what they have done”, may simply be referring to a specific time when Jesus will comes back to repay each person according to what they have done. No time period is given, but it doesn’t seem like Nero of the Romans are the ones to perform this judgment, for they would be one of the recipients of the Judgment. Nor is there anything in this text that would allude to the destruction of the Temple. For reference, the next time the “son of Man” is discussed in Matt is in 25:31, wherein it appears to be talking about the “final judgment” not the judgment of the Jews in the destruction of the Temple. It seems to be something that has not yet happened.
The part about some not tasting death before they see the Son of Man coming in his Kingdom, could be referring to all of the things you mentioned, but it could also be an allusion to martyrs like Steven who saw Jesus standing at the right hand of the Father (Acts 7)
