If it is “orthodox” to believe the following:
1) The resurrection and glorification of the Church in Daniel 12:2-3 happened in AD 70 – corporately, covenantally and Daniel was raised out of Abraham’s Bosom or Hades into God’s presence at that time and according to Revelation 20 (Partial Preterism).
2) The end of the age in Matthew 13:39-43 and Matthew 24 is describing the end of the OC age in AD 70 not the end of history (Partial Preterism).
3) The end of the age eschatological gathering or resurrection/glorification into the kingdom of Daniel 12:2-3/Matthew 13:39-43/Matt. 24:31 takes place at the same time at Christ’ ONE Second Coming (Classic Amillennialism).
4) Christ’s coming in Matthew 24:27-31–25:31ff. took place spiritually in AD 70 and involves a spiritual resurrection (Partial Preterism).
5) Christ’s coming in Matthew 24:27-31–25:31 describes Christ’s ONE Second Coming (Classic Amillennialism).
6) Christ’s coming in Matthew 24-25 is the same coming and resurrection event described for us in 1 Thessalonians 4-5 (Classic Amillennialism).
Then why are Full Preterists deemed as “unorthodox” for making these “orthodox” observations straighter and more exegetically consistent?
7) Daniel 12:2-3/Matthew 13:39-43/Matthew 24:27-31 –25:31ff./1 Thessalonians 4-5 describe Christ’s spiritual ONE Second Coming event to raise the dead or gather God’s people (dead or alive) into His Kingdom in AD 70.
* What is not orthodox/straight within futurism is its contradictions without Full Preterism being present to solve the problem.