Shamed

[Rella]

Rella, the Christians did NOT STAY around Judea and Jerusalem to witness the bodily  return of Christ to the Mount of Olives because THEY OBEYED JESUS' WARNING TO DEPART (Luke 21:20-22) once they saw Jerusalem surrounded by the armies of the Zealots and Cestius Gallus squaring off against each other in AD 66. 

And when did THIS happen? Which also came from Jesus' mouth.. same chapter?
33 Heaven and earth shall pass away:

This destruction of the temple was not what Jesus was referring to.....

You are talking of the First Jewish -Roman War...  66-73 ... a 7 year war.

To save you from checking the link I have copied and pasted most here:

The First Jewish–Roman War (66–73 CE), sometimes called the Great Revolt (Hebrew: המרד הגדול‎ ha-Mered Ha-Gadol), or The Jewish War, was the first of three major rebellions by the Jews against the Roman Empire, fought in Roman-controlled Judea, resulting in the destruction of Jewish towns, the displacement of its people and the appropriation of land for Roman military use, besides the destruction of the Jewish Temple and polity.

The Great Revolt began in the year 66 CE, during the twelfth year of the reign of Nero, originating in Roman and Jewish religious tensions.[3] The crisis escalated due to anti-taxation protests and attacks upon Roman citizens by the Jews.[4] The Roman governor, Gessius Florus, responded by plundering the Second Temple, claiming the money was for the Emperor, and the next day launching a raid on the city, arresting numerous senior Jewish figures. This prompted a wider, large-scale rebellion and the Roman military garrison of Judaea was quickly overrun by the rebels, while the pro-Roman king Herod Agrippa II, together with Roman officials, fled Jerusalem. As it became clear the rebellion was getting out of control, Cestius Gallus, the legate of Syria, brought in the Syrian army, based on Legion XII Fulminata and reinforced by auxiliary troops, to restore order and quell the revolt. Despite initial advances and the conquest of Jaffa, the Syrian Legion was ambushed and defeated by Jewish rebels at the Battle of Beth Horon with 6,000 Romans massacred and the Legion's aquila lost. During 66, the Judean provisional government was formed in Jerusalem including former High Priest Ananus ben Ananus, Joseph ben Gurion and Joshua ben Gamla elected as leaders. Yosef ben Matityahu (Josephus) was appointed the rebel commander in Galilee and Eleazar ben Hanania as the commander in Edom. Later, in Jerusalem, an attempt by Menahem ben Yehuda, leader of the Sicarii, to take control of the city failed. He was executed and the remaining Sicarii were ejected from the city. Simon bar Giora, a peasant leader, was also expelled by the new government.

The experienced and unassuming general Vespasian was given the task, by Nero, of crushing the rebellion in Judaea province. Vespasian's son Titus was appointed as second-in-command. Given four legions and assisted by forces of King Agrippa II, Vespasian invaded Galilee in 67. Avoiding a direct attack on the reinforced city of Jerusalem, which was defended by the main rebel force, the Romans launched a persistent campaign to eradicate rebel strongholds and punish the population. Within several months Vespasian and Titus took over the major Jewish strongholds of Galilee and finally overran Jodapatha, which was under the command of Yosef ben Matityahu, as well as subdued Tarichaea, which brought an end to the war in Galilee.[5] Driven from Galilee, Zealot rebels and thousands of refugees arrived in Jerusalem, creating political turmoil. Confrontation between the mainly Sadducee Jerusalemites and the mainly Zealot factions of the Northern Revolt under the command of John of Giscala and Eleazar ben Simon, erupted into bloody violence. With Idumeans entering the city and fighting by the side of the Zealots, the former high priest, Ananus ben Ananus, was killed and his faction suffered severe casualties. Simon bar Giora, commanding 15,000 militiamen, was then invited into Jerusalem by the Sadducee leaders to stand against the Zealots, and quickly took control over much of the city. Bitter infighting between factions of Simon, John and Eleazar followed through the year 69.

After a lull in the military operations, owing to civil war and political turmoil in Rome, Vespasian was called to Rome and appointed as Emperor in 69. With Vespasian's departure, Titus moved to besiege the center of rebel resistance in Jerusalem in early 70. The first two walls of Jerusalem were breached within three weeks, but a stubborn rebel standoff prevented the Roman Army from breaking the third and thickest wall. Following a brutal seven-month siege, during which Zealot infighting resulted in the burning of the entire food supplies of the city, the Romans finally succeeded in breaching the defenses of the weakened Jewish forces in the summer of 70. Following the fall of Jerusalem, in the year 71 Titus left for Rome, leaving Legion X Fretensis to defeat the remaining Jewish strongholds including Herodium and Machaerus, finalizing the Roman campaign in Masada in 73–74.

As the Second Temple in Jerusalem was destroyed, one of the events commemorated on Tisha B'Av, Judaism fell into crisis with the Sadducee movement falling into obscurity. However, one of the Pharisaic sages Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai was smuggled away from Jerusalem in a coffin by his students during the Titus siege. The rabbi obtained permission to establish a Judaic school at Yavne, which became a major center of Talmudic study. This became the crucial mark in the development of Rabbinic Judaism, which would allow Jews to continue their culture and religion without the Temple and essentially even in the diaspora. The defeat of the Jewish revolt altered Jewish demographics, as many of the Jewish rebels were scattered or sold into slavery. The demolition of the Temple, Jerusalem, and the farming lifestyle of the economy and land of Israel did not stop the Jews from succeeding in Judea. After a few generations of existing within the Roman systems, the Jewish–Roman tensions resulted in the Bar Kokhba revolt in 132–136 CE.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Jewish%E2%80%93Roman_War


Historians record that many of them fled to Pella in the Decapolis and other distant locations to wait out the war.  Therefore, besides the eye-witness of Josephus and some other contemporary historians, there was no CHRISTIAN eye-witness of Christ's bodily return that could be recorded for your convenient inspection.  You are going to have to take Christ, the Apostles, and the scripture's word for this that it did happen when and where they foretold it would happen.  "Be not faithless, but believing."

I am believing... I am believing you got it wrong.

And I have already proved that Satan's "short time" and "little season" of being loosed had ALREADY BEGUN when John was writing Rev. 12:12.  The simple present tense of the verb in that verse proves that Satan was THEN PRESENTLY LOOSED on the earth and the sea to perform massive deception of the nations of Israel and of the world.  Many of the NT epistles also agree with this, for example, by mentioning that Satan was THEN walking about as roaring lion, seeking those he could devour with that deception during that "little season" (which by scripture's own terms of definition should not exceed 40 years which constitutes a "long season" in God's terms).

This it NOT proof.

Not when considering it is at the end of VS 1-11.

Those verses tell a story of what it will be .... Even though it is a rather non chronological order in the telling.

VS 1 Talks of a great sign
Talks of a sign in heaven, mentions a woman clothed  clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a garland of twelve stars, and is pregnant.


VS 2 Tells us of another sign.
The woman is in labor. Painful labor.

Vs 3 Talks of the dragon. (Satan)

Vs 4 Talks of how he threw 1/3 of the stars to earth. (His fallen angels)

and continues on with how the dragon (Satan) wanted to devour ( destroy)
the child (Jesus) when He was born.

Vs 5 The child was born... and it says caught up to God and His throne.

Vs 6 Then tells us the woman fled into the wilderness

Basically to this point we have the recounting of the woman...(Mary? )
who was pregnant, with Jesus... and she gave birth. Then she fled.
( As Joseph was warned of in a dream to do) All true

We also have an accounting of the dragon (Satan) who threw 1/3
of his followers out of heaven and are told that he wants to devour,
as in destroy the child... Destruction of anything that is God's starting
with the child.

It is a little disjointed when we see John talking about the angels being
thrown from heaven in the same breath as we see the woman giving
birth.

But knowing that this is a prophetic vision it should not be written in the
same way one would read a chronological history book.

Vs 7 8, and 9  Now we get the actual accounting about Michael fighting
Satan and the angels and they were cast to earth.

Two things are apparent here.... the first accounting in Vs 4 of the dragon (Satan)
using his tail to throw 1/3 of his angels to earth is misleading as a. the angels
were not thrown out of heaven before he was and b. it is wriiten a if they
were thrown out just before Jesus was born.

While Vs 7-9  gives a more accurat portrayal of what we have been told
it would indicate that this tossing out of heaven happened after Jesus was born..
but that cannot be, now can it.

Vs 10 Basically we are told our salvation , and the Kingdom of God has come because " the accuser" (Satan) has been cast down.

specifically: Then I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, "Now salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of His Christ have come, for the accuser of our brethren, who accused them before our God day and night, has been cast down.

Vs 11 Basically says And they overcame him ( Satan) by the blood of the Lamb (Jesus)

VS 12 says Woe to the inhabitants of the earth. Because the devil has come down to you, having great wrath, because he knows that he has a short time.

Vs 11 and 12 would seemingly make more sense if they were reversed instead of sounding like Jesus blood overcame him and then warning the inhabitants of earth
because it did not take...

[/color]

[lea]

Here are the words of Jesus warning His followers of a time when they would need to flee:

"Therefore when you see the 'abomination of desolation,' spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (whoever reads, let him understand), then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains... For then there will be great tribulation..." (Matthew 24:15-16, 21).

"But when you see the 'abomination of desolation,' spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not (let the reader understand), then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains... For in those days there will be tribulation..." (Mark 13:14, 19).

"But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation is near. Then let those in Judea flee to the mountains, let those who are in the midst of her depart, and let not those who are in the country enter her... For there will be great distress in the land and wrath upon this people" (Luke 21:20-21, 23).

So Luke equates the abomination of desolation with Jerusalem being surrounded by armies. When this happened, Christians were instructed to leave not only Jerusalem, but all of Judea, and not to go back in. The following are the earliest testimonies I'm aware of concerning Christians heeding this warning and fleeing to Pella and elsewhere (source: Preterist Archive):

Eusebius (263 – 339 AD)

[1] "But the people of the church in Jerusalem had been commanded by a revelation, vouchsafed to approved men there before the war, to leave the city and to dwell in a certain town of Perea called Pella. And when those that believed in Christ had come there from Jerusalem, then, as if the royal city of the Jews and the whole land of Judea were entirely destitute of holy men, the judgment of God at length overtook those who had committed such outrages against Christ and his apostles, and totally destroyed that generation of impious men" (Ecclesiastical History 3.5.3, 290's AD).

[2] "After all those who believed in Christ had generally come to live in Perea, in a city called Pella of the Decapolis of which it is written in the Gospel and which is situated in the neighborhood of the region of Batanaea and Basanitis, Ebion's preaching originated here after they had moved to this place and had lived there" (Panarion 30:2).

[3] "For when the city was about to be captured and sacked by the Romans, all the disciples were warned beforehand by an angel to remove from the city, doomed as it was to utter destruction. On migrating from it they settled at Pella, the town already indicated, across the Jordan. It is said to belong to Decapolis" (de Mens. et Pond., 15).

[4] "Now this sect of Nazarenes exists in Beroea in Coele-Syria, and in Decapolis in the district of Pella, and in Kochaba of Basanitis– called Kohoraba in Hebrew. For thence it originated after the migration from Jerusalem of all the disciples who resided at Pella, Christ having instructed them to leave Jerusalem and retire from it on account of the impending siege. It was owing to this counsel that they went away, as I have said, to reside for a while at Pella" (Haer 29:7).

[dpr]

  I'm not exactly a preterist !

  I have repeatedly asked, on many sites, for a pret to present HISTORICAL PROOF that the events they SAY have occurred, HAVE already occurred, & so far they're batting ZERO. They try to cover their lack of proof by adding new meanings to certain Scriptures, and/or trying to re-write history.

  I've had a pleasant, rancor-free dialogue with "# Resurrections" here, but he, too, has failed to provide any HISTORICAL PROOF. Why ? There simply ISN'T ANY !

Preterism is just another man-made false doctrine.

Exactly, just another man-made doctrine.

[DanielConway]

Just curious, are there any late date Rome as the great city partial preterists out there?  Or should I be catagorizing myself as a historicist?

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

Just curious, are there any late date Rome as the great city partial preterists out there?  Or should I be categorizing myself as a historicist?

I think so?  People seem to be split on whether Jerusalem or Rome is that "great city."  We haven't had a lot of partial preterists here, to my knowledge.  Mostly full preterists, and a few post-mil people who don't identify as preterist-anything.

[DanielConway]

My understanding of full preterist ideology is that the identification of the great city of the apocalypse as Jerusalem is what drives their entire construct.  It forces them to date Revelation before 70 AD, which requires a great of suppression of external evidence, and they really have to perform logical contortions over the scriptural description of the great city as the city that sits on seven hills, an overt reference to ancient Rome.  On the other hand, they have an argument when they claim that the bible states that the words of this prophesy must soon take place.  I assert that my construct, the identification of the apocalypse as a metaphor for the conflict between the Roman empire and the early church until the fall of Rome, falls within the scope of "soon" (300 years ain't much in God's perspective) while allowing for a late date for the authorship of Revelation and the identification of the great city as ancient Rome, the most natural reading of the text.  It also avoids the dispensationalist distortion of stretching "soon" more than 1900 years into the future, or beyond if their timeline doesn't start manifesting.  Actually this method of interpretation was quite common in the church in the late 19th century, as evinced by the commentaries of the period.

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

My understanding of full preterist ideology is that the identification of the great city of the apocalypse as Jerusalem is what drives their entire construct.  It forces them to date Revelation before 70 AD, which requires a great of suppression of external evidence, and they really have to perform logical contortions over the scriptural description of the great city as the city that sits on seven hills, an overt reference to ancient Rome.  On the other hand, they have an argument when they claim that the bible states that the words of this prophesy must soon take place.  I assert that my construct, the identification of the apocalypse as a metaphor for the conflict between the Roman empire and the early church until the fall of Rome, falls within the scope of "soon" (300 years ain't much in God's perspective) while allowing for a late date for the authorship of Revelation and the identification of the great city as ancient Rome, the most natural reading of the text.  It also avoids the dispensationalist distortion of stretching "soon" more than 1900 years into the future, or beyond if their timeline doesn't start manifesting.  Actually this method of interpretation was quite common in the church in the late 19th century, as evinced by the commentaries of the period.

I find that Revelation is a work of multiple authorship, such that much of the book was written at an earlier date, and some portion of it at a later date.

[DanielConway]

Marginally possible, I suppose, as the earliest copy of the book we have is a fragment from the third century.  The external evidence does not seem to support this, however, as the church fathers all attest to a single authorship by John.

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

More than marginal, I think.  There are some number of apocryphons and apocalypses written, and they all work the same way:

Someone writes an apocryphon first.  The text is obfuscated by symbolic language, and framed as a dream or vision.  Often the teaching therein is not meant for public distribution, but only for some select few who hold the key to unlocking the language there.  Apocryphon means hidden.

Later someone comes along, and offers up an interpretation of that apocryphon - a revelation, if you will.  Apocalypse means revealed.

I do not think THE Apocalypse is different in this respect from other apocalypses.  At some point an apocryphon was written, and what we have now is the apocalypse explaining it.

Jarrod

[DanielConway]

Very well, lets accept your hypothesis for the sake of argument.  How do you read the apocalypse?  What are the identities of the first and second beasts of Revelation?  Which city is the great city meant to stand for?  I don't mean to pin you down, but if an initial symbolism by an initial author has been interpreted by a later author, shouldn't we be able to understand the metaphor?

[3 Resurrections]

DanielConway, the "great city" is "where our Lord was crucified".  This is NOT Rome, and it is NOT a "logical contortion" as you phrase it, to understand this great city as being Jerusalem "where our Lord was crucified", according to Rev. 11:8.

"And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the GREAT CITY, which is spiritually called Sodom and Egypt, WHERE ALSO OUR LORD WAS CRUCIFIED."

Rome was never spiritually called Sodom and Egypt in scripture, but Jerusalem was (Isaiah 1:9-10, for one example).

But there is no need to abandon your interpretation of Rome being a city on seven hills, because there are TWO DIFFERENT BEASTS that are described in Rev. 13 and later on in Rev. 17, with both of these beasts featuring two different sets of seven hills.  (Meaning there is then a total of no less than 3 different beasts spoken of in Revelation.)

The first beast from the sea without any doubt is definitely connected with Rome, because Rev. 13:2 says that Satan gave his seat (in the city of Pergamos - Rev. 2:13) to that beast from the sea.  This happened in 133 BC, when the dying king ATTALUS I over the Pergamon kingdom bequeathed it entirely, along with its capital city of Pergamos, to the Roman Republic, since he had no heir.

But the scarlet beast found in the wilderness in Rev. 17 is strictly Judean in character.  Rome has never been described as featuring a wilderness setting, but the physical landscape of Judea most definitely does in scripture. 

Moreover, the Israelites were birthed as a nation in the wilderness during their Exodus wanderings.  Deuteronomy 32:10 says of God that "He found him (Jacob His people) in a desert land, and in the waste howling WILDERNESS; He led him about, He instructed him, He kept him as the apple of His eye."   The wilderness setting of Rev. 17:3 is inextricably linked with the identity of Israel - both the land and the people. 

And from ancient times, there are hills encircling the city of Jerusalem - 7 of them.  That's why every scriptural description of someone traveling to Jerusalem from ANY direction of the compass was said to be "going UP to Jerusalem".

[DanielConway]

You are completely ignoring the external evidence of the church fathers dating Revelation after the destruction of Jerusalem and the end of the Jewish nation.  It makes no sense to try to tie any beast of the apocalypse to the Jewish nation because it was gone, God had given the vineyard to a new set of keepers, at the time of the writing.  I am only adopting the position of the vast majority of commentators when I assert that the focus of the Apocalypse and the church in general had moved on at the time of the writing of the book to the difficulty of the church under a hostile Roman state.  I don't feel the need to repeat the arguments of the church scholarship when it available in any orthodox commentary.  But, for the sake of some readers who might not be aware of this body of work...  The term Babylon is used in the apocalypse to refer to the Great city, the same term Peter uses to refer to Rome.  Given the spiritual and physical perversions practiced in Rome at the time of the writing the intended audience would have no problem making the connection to Rome when he refers to Sodom.  Again, Jerusalem and the entire Jewish state was gone.   It doesn't matter that scripture speaks of going up to Jerusalem,  Rome was the only city in ancient times to have been referred to as the city that city that sits on seven hills.  You have somewhat more of an argument when you point out that the Revelation refers to the Great city as "where our lord was crucified".  I will adopt the classic position that this is a reference to the place of the authority for the execution, as the Jewish nation did not have authority to conduct an execution, it had to come from Rome.  Much in the same sense that scripture speaks of Pergemos as the place where Satan has his throne.  He was not literally enthroned there, but that is where his authority rested.   And while we are on the subject of that city, why in the world do you restrict the beast that came up out of the sea to the kingdom of Pergamos?  John is not concerned with events that happened 200 years before the writing of his apocalypse.  The beast that came up out of the sea has been recognized as a reference to the Roman empire by every responsible scholar since medieval times!

[3 Resurrections]

Hey DanielConway,

You've got a bit of misunderstanding of my position on the identity of the Sea Beast.  I never said the Sea Beast was the kingdom of Pergamos.  The kingdom of Pergamos was given to the Roman Republic in 133 BC, which identifies the Roman Republic as being connected with that Sea Beast (since Satan's seat in Pergamos was given to the Sea Beast in Rev. 2:13).

But that 133 BC date is NOT when the Sea Beast came into being.  It was much earlier than that, since the Sea Beast (which included identities of leopard, bear, and lion features of those 3 former kingdoms) was 666 years old as John was writing Revelation.  The Sea Beast was birthed with the 607 BC assault on Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar, when the 70 years of exile for Daniel and his people began.  The Roman phase was only the then-current face of that Sea Beast as John was writing.

Not all of Revelation speaks prophetically of the future; some describes a then-present reality, and some was ancient history given as a biographical backdrop to help identify the symbols and characters John spoke of.  As Rev. 1:19 says, "Write the things which thou hast seen" (in the past), "and the things which are" (in John's days), "and the things which are about to be hereafter." (in the NEAR future for John's readers).

You ASSUME that the church fathers universally agreed to a late date for Revelation from external evidence.  I believe their statements are misunderstood by those who are INSERTING that opinion into their writings.  It is impossible for Revelation to be written in the AD 90's; a fact based strictly on the INTERNAL evidence in scripture.  This internal evidence is what I stand on, rather than the so-called "orthodox" commentaries which are not inspired.  While I respect scholarship, it is a sin to worship at a shrine for it, especially when disregarding scripture's own testimony to the contrary.

Oh, and the "place of authority for Christ's execution" was not located in the city of Rome; that authority structure for Rome's power was physically-positioned in the city of Jerusalem itself, with the power of the Roman governor and the Roman troops stationed in the Antonia fortress adjacent to the Temple grounds. 

Remember, the second beast from the land in Rev. 13 performed its signs "before the face of" the Sea Beast (enopion - in the literal eyesight of that Sea Beast).  Those signs involved the actions of the high priesthood officiating over the "fire from heaven" on the temple's altar - in plain view of the Antonia fortress.  There is no way this could have been done in the city of Rome across the Mediterranean Sea, far from Jerusalem's temple altar.

This Sea Beast in John's days had Roman features at the time, but the Land Beast of Rev.13 and the Scarlet Beast of Rev. 17 found in the wilderness setting were both Judean in character and origin.  Both of these two Judean beasts were destroyed in Jerusalem's Lake of Fire by the end of AD 70, as John predicted in Rev. 19:19-20.  And God used the Sea Beast to assist in this outcome.

[DanielConway]

OK.  A few things.  To claim that the authority for Christ's execution lay with the local authorities is a strawman.  That authority existed because Judea had been conquered by Roman power and was delegated to it from Rome.  And I do not worship prior scholarship.  I acknowledge it when it is rooted in Biblical interpretive technique.  In fact citing your sources is basic scholarly practice.  I do break with tradition when I believe a better, more Biblical interpretation better fits that apocalyptic symbolism.  In fact I identify the earth beast of Revelation as the later Roman empire, an approach that I have yet to find in any existing commentary, although a related idea, the identification of the earth beast as the Roman Catholic Church has been proposed, by Mathew Henry if memory serves.  You can read my paper on this hypothesis by googling "The Two Beasts of Revelation Identified scribd" for more detail.  And if I may add claiming that an AD 95 dating of Revelation is impossible based on internal evidence is a VERY strong claim, impossible to support given that the language of Revelation is so symbolic in nature and thus subject to a wide range of interpretive techniques.  I also find the identification of the Sea beast of Revelation as some sort of generic persecuting power that arose with the conquest of Jerusalem by Babylon untenable.  Daniel's apocalypse explicitly acknowledges the rise of two successive conquering powers (the bear beast and the leopard beast) before his terrible beast arises.  All these powers are treated as distinct from one another in successive passages and are thus very powerful evidence against the treatment of John's sea beast as a single overarching oppressing power. 

[DanielConway]

Bye the bye, I took the trouble to re-read your post and noticed that you equate the burning of Jerusalem in AD 70 with the lake of fire. No No NO.  The bible clearly teaches that the lake of fire is a place of everlasting torment for the Devil, his demons, and all of reprobate humanity.  To claim that the burning of Jerusalem, a local, brief and closely bounded event qualifies as a fulfillment of this prophesy is beyond ludicrous, it is heretical.  I don't know what your beliefs are about the ultimate fate of humanity, but the Bible clearly teaches that one of two things happens to us, either Christ covers our sins with his blood and we enter into an eternal paradise with him and the church, or we spend eternity enduring the just wrath of God in an eternal fire.  Unless you believe in two lakes of fire,  one bounded in space and time and the other enormous and eternal, you have got to rethink your cosmology, for your own sake and for the sake of whoever you are teaching this to.

[3 Resurrections]

Hey again DanielConway,

You mentioned "a single overarching oppressive power" as the description of the Sea Beast.  YES.  YES, and YES.  That "single power" of oppression was the demonic realm operating WITHIN ALL THOSE 4 KINGDOMS of Babylon, Medo-Persian, Greek, and Roman.  This Satanic realm had different "princes" that acted in opposition to the righteous angelic messenger in Daniel 10 (called the "prince of Persia" and the "prince of Grecia", for example). 

These demonic "princes" would no longer be in existence in post-AD 70 times.  The world would no longer be in subjection to evil angelic oppression after that (as Hebrews 2:5 foretold of the conditions in the world that was soon to come for them at that time).   This is why the ENTIRE statue made of metals and clay representing those different kingdoms was "broken to pieces TOGETHER", ALL AT ONE TIME in Daniel 2:35.  It's not those empires themselves that were crushed to dust simultaneously; it's the powers of the entire demonic realm which had been acting BEHIND THE SCENES in those various kingdoms over history that were going to be reduced to dust by Christ's single blow to the feet of that statue. 

Ezekiel 28:18-19 long ago predicted this fate of being burned and brought to ashes upon the earth for the anointed cherub - Satan - who was called the "prince of Tyre" at that point in history.  And Romans 16:20 gave the timing for this destruction of Satan.  God was going to crush Satan under the feet of the saints "SHORTLY" in their future.

Rome was merely the last, superficial face of the 666-year old Sea Beast in John's days.  All the national powers of those former kingdoms of lion, bear, and leopard had been "left to other people" (Dan. 2:44).  These former kingdoms were all subsumed over time into the final guise of the terrible Sea Beast (equal to Daniel's 4th beast) which was led superficially by Rome in John's days, but in a very real sense was led by Satan and his angels operating deceptively behind the scenes, trying to thwart Gods plans.  A desperate but futile endeavor.

I believe the critical difference between your view and mine DanielConway, is that I acknowledge God's detailed definition of Revelation's "AT HAND" prophecies as laid out long ago in Ezekiel 12:21-28.  An "AT HAND"prophecy cannot possibly be "prolonged" into "times that are far off", but MUST be fulfilled "in YOUR DAYS" to the ones who are first receiving those prophecies.  For an "AT HAND" prophecy, God not only SAYS the prophetic words, but He PERFORMS them during the same time period for the ones receiving those prophetic words.

As yet, there is not a single person on this GCF website that has been willing to take up this Ezekiel 12:21-28 challenge that defines ALL of Revelation's unsealed "AT HAND" prophecies of their near future between the first chapter and the last.  Anything related to those unsealed, "AT HAND" prophecies for their near future was ALL included in God's "AT HAND" definition.  They are all ancient history by now, fulfilled "in your days" before that first-century generation had passed, with the single "sealed up" exception of Revelation 10:4.  Any other interpretations of Revelation's "AT HAND" prophecies involving time periods subsequent to that first century are irrelevant and a moot point.  God's definition of this term has the last word, always.

As for what you assume is a heretical teaching about the "Lake of Fire" being a local event in AD 66-70 Jerusalem, this is based on Christ's and God's words about it.  God said His "FIRE is in Zion and His FURNACE in JERUSALEM" in Jeremiah 31:9.  This "Furnace of Fire" in Jerusalem is where the rejected ones were tormented while protesting that Christ had eaten and drunk in their presence, and taught in their streets (Luke 13:25-28 compared with Matt. 13:41-42).

I've written a post before called "Defining the Lake of Fire", using scripture's terms for it.  The Lake of Fire cannot possibly be Hell itself, because Hell (or the grave) is emptied INTO the Lake of Fire, which was the "Second Death" (of Jerusalem, ever since its first death in 586 BC at the hands of the Babylonians).  AD 66-70 Jerusalem was literally "Hell on earth", combined with the presence of every unclean spirit imprisoned within its walls (Rev.18:2) before the destruction of the entire demonic realm.

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

Very well, lets accept your hypothesis for the sake of argument.  How do you read the apocalypse?

Sparingly.    I don't claim to have Revelation figured out.

What are the identities of the first and second beasts of Revelation?

First one looks to me like it's the Pharisee faction of the Jewish government of the New Testament period.  The House of Annas.

Second one appears to be Simon bar Kochba and/or Rabbi Akiva.

Which city is the great city meant to stand for?

The Bible says "Babylon," but since it's signified as a "mystery," literal Babylon is probably not intended.  I tend to think of it in terms of the book of Daniel - first there was the Babylonian empire, then the Persians, then Alexander's hellenized world, and yes, the Roman empire.  I don't think it necessarily has to be Rome itself, but the empire.

I don't mean to pin you down, but if an initial symbolism by an initial author has been interpreted by a later author, shouldn't we be able to understand the metaphor?

Only the ones that are explained.  Which is less than a third in this case.