However, I can’t find any Scriptural justification for an “end of the world”/bodily return of Christ. As for 1 Cor 15:27-28, look at the larger context, verses 22 through 27:

For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. But each in his own turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death. For he “has put everything under his feet…”

So if you believe that we are alive in Christ and/or that the Resurrection of the Dead has occurred, or if you believe that Death is already defeated, you believe that whatever Paul’s talking about here with the “all in all” comment, it occurred at the same time.

Furthermore, down a few more verses, Paul ties the Christ’s defeat of death via the Resurrection to the passing of the Old Covenant (verses 54-56):

When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true:
“Death has been swallowed up in victory.”   “Where, O death, is your victory? Where, O death, is your sting?” The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law.

Has the power of sin and death been broken or not? Is the Law still in operation?

Well, anyway, that’s the full preterist take on the issue.

I too believe this way however I’m not so certain about some things (such as whether or not Christ will come again in bodily or if their will be some consummate “end of the world”. See I Cor. 15:27-28). Also I’m not sure what to do with the Millenium of Revelation 20. These two factors keep me from being a “full preterist”. I guess I’m a pretty-much-preterist. Or perhaps I could be called a Might-be-ammillenialist.

Oh who needs labels anyway!

I’ve looked hard and seriously at preterist idealism, based on what Todd Dennis has at the Preterist Archive and what I read at Nate’s site as well. The distinction between pret idealism and full preterism is somewhat nuanced: inasmuch as they recognize certain prophecies as specific and time-bound, they agree that those were fulfilled in AD 70, but would deny that the events of AD 70 are the ultimate fulfillments of biblical prophecy. From what I gather, the chief contention is over the universality of God’s covenant with Israel, and specifically how particular covenants are tied to history.

Full preterists per se believe that the Mosaic covenant was the first major covenant God made with humanity: we believe that Jesus was the focal point of this covenant, but because of Law-breakers and apostate leadership, the curses of Deuteronomy were brought upon them. Moses presented the Jewish people with the choice of life or death based on whether they would follow it through. Yet, to quote the Guardian of the Grail, they “chose poorly.” Jesus stands now as the focal point of the covenant He established.

In contrast, in a view named after Platonic thought but in measure shared by Paul and the author of Hebrews, idealists see the AD 70 fulfillment of prophecy as simply one of many realizations of noumenal reality with no real-world implication for those not historically involved with the Jewish system of the first century. Since the Old Covenant properly observed was only ever with Jesus, the destruction of the Jewish system in AD 70 was only an end for some individuals, and not a beginning for all. The Old Covenant was merely representative of all the other occasions in history, including today, in which God offers conciliation through Jesus. As I understand it, they view the recurrence of the “Day of the Lord” prophecies referring to things such as the judgments on Nineveh, Babylon, and the Old Covenant Law-breakers as evidence that there was never a single day of judgment for all humanity, whereas full preterists believe that the implication of God’s judgment on the signatories of the Old Covenant system manifested in the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 had implications for the rest of humanity subsequently.

This is how I understand it. Scott, or any other idealist, please tell me if this is essentially correct.