The internal and external evidence does not support full preterism nor partial preterism.
With the large use of lexicon replacement of the Greek, failure to address the Hebrew scriptures and yet unfulfilled prophecy, a preterism should just stick with the amil view of prophecy.
A good metric for prophecy fulfillment is to look at the Messianic prophecies. Many were “tucked in” passages with multiple subjects. Not easily seen to the eye. We see this with the religious authorities of Jesus Christ’s time. But what can all Christians agree on? Everyone of the Messianic prophecies were fulfilled literally down to the jot and tittle.
As we know there are Messianic prophecies yet to be fulfilled. Jesus said so. When we look at those TaNaKh passages on His second coming (and verified in the NT) why are we to assume Messiah will turn to allegory or symbol when thus far all have been literal? To make this shift is inconsistent. Either inconsistent or a lack of faith Messiah will do exactly what He said He would do.
So I see a lot of wresting of the Greek, ignoring the Hebrew scriptures (OT) and more wresting of firm external evidence trying to put John’s writing of Revelation prior to 70 AD.
Preterists are better off being amil. At least they are consistent in their approach. They at least look forward to the second coming of Christ.
Eschatology is a great subject to study and discuss. Those passages and books are there for a reason. Let us not kick each other away from the Lord’s Table over it.
.
Since we do know that the elect will be resurrected at the close of the Trib, the only way it could be a past event is if we are all losers!
Polycarp put the writing of the Revelation around AD 91 or 92.
.
Preterism doesn't fit with ANY view.