Since nobody's tackled that one
Less complicated sentence I think I get what you are saying but I'd have to ask "why" (I agree with you 'cause I've read all of Fort's symbolism stuff). I ask why because I'd like to have a easy anwer to give those who may not agree such as to the Asyncrituses..
As a side note it is worth saying that using these quotations as strict references to the same historical contexts in which they are found does not work
OK, I thought we might get some tangents.
The two classic examples I like to use where the original historical context is discarded but the type grasped hold of and transported forwards are Revelation 2:20 and 8:2. They mention Jezebel and seven trumpets respectively, with the former context being obvious and the latter being that of the detruction of Jericho.
With both of these things you cannot use the historical context as descriptive of what is going on in Revelation except
to use it as a type. The Jezebel in Thyatira is not the original Jezebel but her spirit is certainly there. Likewise the destruction of the city in the context of Revelation 8 is the not the destruction of Jericho again but that original destruction is used as a type of a new destruction.
This is how Scripture is written. Paul says in 1 Cor 10 that everything that happened to Israel in the wilderness happened to them as types for us to learn from. Revelation does the same. It goes back to the Old Testament, grabs a lesson, and applies it in a new context.
And with the introduction to the book being thoroughly Christian in its context we are left with no option than to say that Israel throughout the book is not being used to describe Israel but what Israel is a type of - the ecclesia. Quickly it falls into apostasy in chapters 2 and 3 and we end up with the ecclesia and the church at odds with each other.