Preterism forms a growing segment of eschatalogical study. In its various forms, it can usually be divided up into three types, as some have summarized it.
Extreme: Full Preterism, Hyper Preterism, or Consistent Preterism
This school of thought holds that the entirety of Scripture is completely fulfilled. As this would include such events as the Second coming, this position has always been historically considered heresy. It’s adherents generally refer to it as “consistent preterism”.
Because this view does indeed take an allegorical view of much Scripture, and deviates from a plain reading of the text of Revelation, plus the fact that it is historically heretical, it is not as of interest in discussion as the other forms. Only a high view of Scripture, believing that the text means what it says, is worthwhile for discussion (Isaiah 5:20). Once you can interpret the Word to mean whatever you want it to say, it loses its ability to be the sword and bring division, dividing bone from marrow, joint from sinew, and soul from spirit. Because this is traditionally heretical, it is outside the bounds of research and discussion.
Moderate: Partial Preterism
This position holds that the events of Revelation and much of prophecy was fulfilled in 70 AD. It often holds out a belief of a future Second Coming of Christ bodily, although, generally, it holds such concepts as the Millennium as symbolic of the church’s reign through history since 33 AD.
Most modern Preterists take this approach, often relying on texts such as Matthew 24:34’s word “genea” to indicate that it was the generation Jesus spoke to that would see the signs.
Mild:
This view looks at much of prophecy in Revelation and elsewhere as fulfilled in the 70 AD and the centuries thereafter. This is not as common a viewpoint as other perspectives under the Preterist idea. It, too, is often post-millennial, seeing Christ’s coming as after the Millennium, often holds a non-literal Millennium, but quite often adheres to a literal, bodily, and future Second Coming of Jesus.
While under technical means, the view presented here could in some regards be classified under the heading of this form of mild preterism, the label of Preterist often brings forth images of the first two groups of thought, and the arguments herein are disregarded. In that regard, the label Preterist, while perhaps in some degrees applicable, it is not an association that is fitting.