Oh, the pieces assuredly DO NOT fit. Like relativism, preterism is a self-defeating position. If prophecy is really "saying" what the "consistent preterists" say it is saying, then the Bible says NOTHING. All Scripture becomes a slave of the interpreter's notions, with no controls and no inherent meaning. Might as well go straight back to Rome, where at least irrational interpretations must be held "just because the Church says so." At least that's a reason. It's not a
good reason, but it's a reason.
Or really, more to the point and more logically, just bail on the whole thing. Because if prophetic passages don't mean what they say, there is no guarantee that soteriological or Christological passages do, either. (I used to do this when I was a cultist.)
Dan
I respectfully recommend that you forget about whether this thing is preteristic or that thing is preteristic--and focus on what the 1000 years in Revelation 20 really is. That means that we need to figure out what the "first resurrection" in Revelation 20 really is.
(And I would not trust an RC priest to present it, RnMom.)
After I became convinced concerning the first resurrection, a lot of other things fell into place for me. I am now a partial preterist.