Voted "Other". I'm an Amillennialist with Idealist and Partial-Preterist views. Though in many ways I am also agnostic on certain things, especially as it pertains to the Revelation of St. John. I mostly consider the Revelation to be a work for its time, thus I understand the Beast as a likely reference to Nero specifically, but to Roman imperial power more broadly; but also that in a sense that same anti-Christian power exists in many forms throughout times and places. I don't try and identify every detail in the Revelation with either a historical event or with a future event, but rather understand a lot of it within an idealist framework. On the other hand, I'm pretty convinced that the Olivet Discourse is, chiefly, about the destruction of the Temple, to which Jesus also adds that as it pertains to His coming and the end of the age, no one knows, and that it will come without warning, as the flood came without warning in Noah's day. It will be life as usual, people working, getting married, having children, when Christ returns in glory and judgment.
Actually, I'd go so far as to say that the Book of the Revelation features very little in my eschatological views. Which I think is pretty normative within more traditional Christian faith and practice; the Revelation has always been a controversial and enigmatic text in the Biblical Canon. It was one of the last books to gain widespread acceptance, and its significance has often been its liturgical influence moreso than eschatological. Martin Luther initially considered it as being undeserving of a place within the New Testament, though over time came to appreciate it more--keeping in mind that Luther engaged with a very old and longstanding discussion and debate about the Canon that included certain disputed books like the Revelation in the NT as well as the Deuterocaonical books in the OT.
-CryptoLutheran
