Partial Preterism?

Eschatological positions like Partial Preterism have a branding problem in terms of what they are called. It’s very easy for a Full Preterists to just off Vibes convince people that the only true Preterism is Full Preterism and the Partial position is just a fence sitting compromise.

However if you take the Chronology of The Book of Revelation even mildly at face value there is going to be a period of at least a Thousand Years where much of it is already fulfilled but not the very end of it yet.  And with the Help of IP’s explanation of Biblical Time I can argue more time separates the end of the Millennium from the Final Resurrection then you would at first assume. 

The desire of Full Preterists to say you’re a Futurist so long as you believe any Prophecy is still yet future, especially the Parousia itself, sounds reasonable on paper.  But speaking as a former Futurist, what Futurism is as an ideology, what drives the Futurist mind isn’t the Parousia itself, it is about obsessing over everything that’s supposed to happen before the Parousia, before The Millennium starts, and looking for signs of those things preparing to happen in the near future rather than the distant past. 

In a way it’s parallel to the branding issue Mid-Trib has, the Rapture timing position I held when I was a Futurist.  It’s easy to dismiss that as a mere compromise and see the real Debate as between Pre and Post.  But I wasn't’ Mid-Trib' because I desired to compromise on anything, I took that position because of my very strong positive conclusions about what certain Scriptures said.  

Actually a lot of what I’m struggling with while forming my new Post-Millennial Eschatology is how I still see a lot of the language of key Parousia passages outside Revelation happening within Revelation in Chapters 11-14 before the Bowls of Wrath.  The Last Trumpet, the Rapture of the Man-Child and the Son of Man on a Cloud.  The word Parousia doesn’t appear in Revelation at all but those context clues are how we refute Pretibbers on their claims that the Parousia of Matthew 25 and 1 Thessalonians 4 aren’t the same event, I believe Paul was basically quoting the Olivet Discourse in that chapter.

A core aspect of my rejection of Post-Trib is something still important to my new Non-Premillennial Eschatology, and that is how I don't view the actions of the Rider on the White Horse in Revelation 19 as the Parousia.  But when I was a Futurist I was at least still open to that Rider being Jesus because I viewed the Parousia as having happened earlier.  Now I’m firmly viewing him as being the Church and the same White Horseman as Revelation 6.

I’m different from most Partial Preterists in that my view is not focused on AD 70 at all.  I view Revelation 13-19 as having happened over a thousand years ago but the writing of Revelation I place in the time of Hadrian.

Some might say that makes me more Historicist then Preterist.  But I reject the Day=Year theory, so each reference to 1260 Days or 42 Months I believe refers to about 3 and Half years not over a Thousand and that Revelation 13-19 happens over the course of a few decades.  I just haven’t made up my mind exactly when to place them yet.

I do lean towards a very Historicist Understanding of the Four Horsemen and maybe even the rest of the Seals and Trumpets.  And I agree with the Historicist position that the Temple of God in II Thessalonians 2 is The Church, but I generally don’t see that as about just The Pope but all Episcopal Polity and Christian Monarchy.