Mystery Babylon is a CITY Per God's Word

[Timtofly]

You typically are just saying things to be saying them. Sounds logical right? Nope!

Would you consider Israel's monarchy under the Davidic kings a "government?" Yes?

Then God has *everything to do with government when it comes to the church!* Either that, or God's call on David's life had nothing whatsoever to do with the church.

Certainly it was OT, but the OT was preparation for the NT. Christ was the Son of David!! And Jesus said he would take the government, ie the Kingdom of God, from Israel and give it to a Gentile nation!

Matt 21.43 “Therefore I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit."

What pure baloney. Some of the greatest theologians of the church fought through the period of the Early Church Fathers, fighting for orthodoxy in the face of threats from apostates, heretics, Gnostics, separatists. You need to read a little of their history before you just "say things."

Rome was part of the patriarchate system of church government in the Early Church. It eventually become dominant in the organized Church, but this was quite natural when it is considered that the Church existed within an imperial secular government. It worked quite well, despite the fact that any system will be imperfect.

You saying that because David was King, makes government spiritual, is just to say something as well, no?

Did your forget that the King was supposed to be a seperate entity from the tabernacle? Saul got in trouble because he mixed government with the tabernacle. David killed too many people to even build a stone Temple, instead of a tabernacle.


Solomon mixed religion and pleasure and caused the kingdom to split in half.

All these things point to the fact that human government on man's terms should be seperate from an individual's freedom to have a personal relationship with God.

Your church government is pure baloney, and human derived, not God blessed at all. That is the reason the Reformation had to happen because government corrupted the church with human reasoning. If you think that God needs human government and humans cannot be trusted with their own relationship with God, then you do not think very highly of God, who commanded that the OT kingdom be kept seperate from the priesthood.


Obviously God as Jesus ruling over humans directly and physically on earth is a totally different perspective. During the Millennium there will not be sin nor human nature to contend with. No priests necessary to offer up sacrifices for personal transgressions.

I am not denying Rome was made a "christian" government by Constantine. I am saying that was wrong, and not blessed by God at all. Most religions have a central controlling "governmental" body. That is the nature of humans wanting to be in control of other humans. No different than a civil government. Some nations do not even separate their religion from their government.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

So Jesus was crucified in a spiritual congregation, and not literally in a physical place near a physical city?

The great city is figuratively and spiritually called "Sodom and Egypt" in Revelation 11:8 and called "Mystery Babylon" elsewhere. It is a figurative, spiritual city that has things in common with ancient Sodom, Egypt and Babylon. And based on certain descriptions of it, it has things in common with ancient Jerusalem and Rome as well. Babylon is none of those alone, but is the mother of all of those harlots (Revelation 17:5). It represents the world and its wicked ways that oppose God.

Babylon is the spiritual opposite of the new Jerusalem which is "the bride, the Lamb's wife"" (Rev 21:9), which means it figuratively represents the church.

 

[Randy Kluth]

You saying that because David was King, makes government spiritual, is just to say something as well, no?

My view is equally an opinion, but is it equally just "saying something?" No! I'm coming backed up with receipts--you didn't.

Did your forget that the King was supposed to be a seperate entity from the tabernacle?

Am I supposed to recall this? Why? What possible relevance does it have to recognize that the king and the priesthood are separate ministries?

This is not the modern conception of the separation of church and state, although it may indeed represent the Middle Aged view of the same. The king and the pope operated in distinct spheres, but both were part of the Church.

Saul got in trouble because he mixed government with the tabernacle. David killed too many people to even build a stone Temple, instead of a tabernacle.

Operating outside of the bounds of Mosaic Law is not the same thing as saying the government had no business in spiritual matters. The king was to rule by the prophetic guidance of God in the Hebrew theocracy.

Solomon mixed religion and pleasure and caused the kingdom to split in half.

You're way off topic. Individual corruption has nothing to do with separating government from spiritual and moral matters. The idea was, of course, for both the people and the monarchy to be spiritual and moral. But even the priesthood could fail and lose morality and spirituality.

All these things point to the fact that human government on man's terms should be seperate from an individual's freedom to have a personal relationship with God.

A spiritual government ideally provides cover precisely so that the individual may experience religious freedoms.

Your church government is pure baloney, and human derived, not God blessed at all. That is the reason the Reformation had to happen because government corrupted the church with human reasoning.

Luther did not break with the Catholic Church because the State has no part in religion. Rather, he formed competing Protestant states to defend proper religious authority.

If you think that God needs human government and humans cannot be trusted with their own relationship with God, then you do not think very highly of God, who commanded that the OT kingdom be kept seperate from the priesthood.

God did no such thing! Where did God command that the OT kingdom be kept separate from the priesthood? The priesthood was part of God's representative kingdom on earth. So was the monarchy.

Obviously God as Jesus ruling over humans directly and physically on earth is a totally different perspective. During the Millennium there will not be sin nor human nature to contend with. No priests necessary to offer up sacrifices for personal transgressions.

You don't need priests today, even though Christians still have a sin nature. The absence of the priesthood, therefore, has nothing to do with human sinlessness.

And since we still have human sin, we need both king and priest, though in the NT sense. We need political law to protect the individual in society. And we need the priesthood (or the equivalent) in order to dissuade men from giving liberty to their sensual instincts.

I am not denying Rome was made a "christian" government by Constantine.

The government existed prior to Constantine in ecclesiastical form, apart from the political/secular form.

I am saying that was wrong, and not blessed by God at all. Most religions have a central controlling "governmental" body. That is the nature of humans wanting to be in control of other humans. No different than a civil government. Some nations do not even separate their religion from their government.

There is no church without some form of government. You are still without grounds for making such absurd statements about the Church.

 

[Timtofly]

The great city is figuratively and spiritually called "Sodom and Egypt" in Revelation 11:8 and called "Mystery Babylon" elsewhere. It is a figurative, spiritual city that has things in common with ancient Sodom, Egypt and Babylon. And based on certain descriptions of it, it has things in common with ancient Jerusalem and Rome as well. Babylon is none of those alone, but is the mother of all of those harlots (Revelation 17:5). It represents the world and its wicked ways that oppose God.

Babylon is the spiritual opposite of the new Jerusalem which is "the bride, the Lamb's wife"" (Rev 21:9), which means it figuratively represents the church.

They don't even exist in the same time frame.

That is like saying the Babylon of Nebuchadnezzar was spiritually in opposition to the Catholic church of 1,000 AD.

The physical city of Jerusalem is being described in Revelation 17 and 18 because that will be the seat of Satan's empire for 42 months. The empire described as the Abomination of Desolation.

Once again, you are just throwing out spiritual attributes with no physical context with life on earth. There is still the contrast between earthly Jerusalem and heavenly Jerusalem or Paradise. But the New Jerusalem will not exist, until after this creation has been handed back to God, by Jesus.

John even points out the juxtaposition of Jerusalem as the whore that sits on the "backs", of all these kingdoms from Babylon until today. Babylon has existed as the spiritual term for these historical kingdoms that had affairs with earthly Jerusalem. But Rome as a city was never brought up. You have spiritual Egypt as representing sinful humanity holding people in the bondage of sin, and Sodom as total spiritual depravity and total disregard of God.

But the destruction of the whore is the total removal of religion from human thought. Not the physical destruction of Jerusalem. While Jerusalem is supposed to be the center of Christ's Kingdom, during those 42 months given to Satan, these ten leaders from mankind will work on removing all spiritual and religious thought even pagan religion and eastern religions. Because Satan will deceive the world into thinking God does not exist, even if God can be seen in clear sight sitting on the GWT. All religion is man made, striving to define a relationship with the Creator, Lord God. At this point humanity will be forced to forget God, and be deceived into thinking Satan was the one who created everything.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

They don't even exist in the same time frame.

Once again you have no idea of what you're talking about. You know nothing.

Hebrews 12:18 You have not come to a mountain that can be touched and that is burning with fire; to darkness, gloom and storm; 19 to a trumpet blast or to such a voice speaking words that those who heard it begged that no further word be spoken to them, 20 because they could not bear what was commanded: “If even an animal touches the mountain, it must be stoned to death.”[c] 21 The sight was so terrifying that Moses said, “I am trembling with fear.” 22 But you have come to Mount Zion, to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem. You have come to thousands upon thousands of angels in joyful assembly, 23 to the church of the firstborn, whose names are written in heaven. You have come to God, the Judge of all, to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, 24 to Jesus the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel.

That is like saying the Babylon of Nebuchadnezzar was spiritually in opposition to the Catholic church of 1,000 AD.

You are ignorant of the scripture that speaks of the new heavenly Jerusalem as a current reality, as I showed from Hebrews 12:22 and is mentioned here:

Galatians 4:24 These things are being taken figuratively: The women represent two covenants. One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children who are to be slaves: This is Hagar. 25 Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present city of Jerusalem, because she is in slavery with her children. 26 But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother.

You need to read all of the Bible, not just bits and pieces here and there. You obviously haven't read Galatians or Hebrews. What else haven't you read? It is impossible to take you seriously because of your extreme ignorance.

 

[Timtofly]

The king was to rule by the prophetic guidance of God in the Hebrew theocracy.

Proof of this?

Why are you still turning a spiritual body, the church into a political body?

Just because you think a king ruled by this alleged prophetic guidance, was the king the prophet, or was the prophet not a seperate entity, even seperate from the priesthood?

The whole dynamic changed at the Cross.

We no longer needed a mediary between each individual and God. Everyone has the Holy Spirit as their direct connection to God, and the priesthood of the believer.

If you doubt this relationship with God works, then you have no trust in God on that concept.

A church hierarchy is not necessary past a local congregation. While people like unity and conformity, that is just about as governmental as it should get. Saying people need a governmental structure outside of the civil government is not necessary. There is a separation of church and state that is reasonable from Scripture. The church is supposed to gather the spiritual harvest. The civil authorities in each country dictate a policy that the civilians understand, or the government is dictatorial, because they have way to much power as leadership, and no one can remove that corruption of power, for one reason or another.

 

[Wick Stick]

Yes, it is a city, but it is a SPIRITUAL city, not an earthly one. It is the SPIRITUAL opposite of the New Jerusalem.

This... this right here.

If one reads the Old Testament, and particularly Daniel, you'll find that theseat of the evil empire moves. It was Babylon, then Persia, then Greece, then Seleucia. At the time of the New Testament it was Rome... and it continues to move. More recently it has been centered in Madrid, Lisbon, London, Berlin, and New York City.

It remains recognizable through history. It is always the "city built on many waters" and the seat of world trade and merchandise.

 

[Davy]

You've lost your good character, brother. Perhaps this is how you always act when people can't be forced to agree with you?

Calling me "stupid" only exposes your character as unChristian. If you truly let God have His way you would try to persuade others of what you believe without insulting them. Your approach exposes you as a bad teacher.

I didn't call you 'stupid', I said the statement you said was 'stupid', we all... even YOU... make stupid statements at times. Now if you claim to NEVER make stupid statements, then that points to something else that might be wrong.

Why... was your statement stupid? Because it went DIRECTLY OPPOSITE OF WHAT THE WRITTEN SCRIPTURE STATED. And anyone reading your statement could see that.

So speculation when the Scripture is not definite is one thing, but when the Scripture is CLEAR and PRECISE, there is NO EXCUSE for going against it like you did.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I didn't call you 'stupid', I said the statement you said was 'stupid', we all... even YOU... make stupid statements at times.

You make stupid statements frequently.

Now if you claim to NEVER make stupid statements, then that points to something else that might be wrong.

Why... was your statement stupid? Because it went DIRECTLY OPPOSITE OF WHAT THE WRITTEN SCRIPTURE STATED. And anyone reading your statement could see that.

So speculation when the Scripture is not definite is one thing, but when the Scripture is CLEAR and PRECISE, there is NO EXCUSE for going against it like you did.

You also said he was among "the deceived" even though he is the one of the few on this entire forum who tries to be polite in these discussions and tries to be open minded about things (he doesn't always succeed in that, but he genuinely tries). So, how nice of you to include him in the group of "the deceived", which I would only put people who are closed-minded and stubborn into. What a great example of being a Christian you are with your constant rudeness and your condescending and judgmental attitude.

 

[Davy]

The new Jerusalem is also called "that great city" (Revelation 21:10). So is she a harlot too? Or is the harlot the antithesis of the great city, New Jerusalem?
​

The "great city" description is used 10 times in the Book of Revelation.

9 times Jerusalem is the "great city" under false worship or destruction.

ONLY in Revelation 21:10 is Jerusalem called the "great city" back in TRUE WORSHIP UNDER The Father and The Son Jesus Christ.

And each time the "great city" label is used in Revelation, one should note the 'timeframe' for each case. All 9 times Jerusalem is under captivity by false ones. Only in Rev.21:10 is Jerusalem freed from Satan's captivity by Christ's return and reign, which is the timeframe.


THEREFORE...

It is wrong to point to Rome, or to New York, or to Brussels, or any other city on earth than Jerusalem as the "great city" of Revelation 17:18, and the FACT that the new Jerusalem under Christ when He returns is called the "great city" SHOULD reveal to the serious Bible student that Revelation was pointing to JERUSALEM all along with that "great city" title. And the Rev.11:8 that emphatically tells us the city where Jesus was crucified is the "great city" is another OBVIOUS POINTER to Jerusalem that is beyond all doubt.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

The "great city" description is used 10 times in the Book of Revelation.

9 times Jerusalem is the "great city" under false worship or destruction.

ONLY in Revelation 21:10 is Jerusalem called the "great city" back in TRUE WORSHIP UNDER The Father and The Son Jesus Christ.

And each time the "great city" label is used in Revelation, one should note the 'timeframe' for each case. All 9 times Jerusalem is under captivity by false ones. Only in Rev.21:10 is Jerusalem freed from Satan's captivity by Christ's return and reign, which is the timeframe.


THEREFORE...

It is wrong to point to Rome, or to New York, or to Brussels, or any other city on earth than Jerusalem as the "great city" of Revelation 17:18, and the FACT that the new Jerusalem under Christ when He returns is called the "great city" SHOULD reveal to the serious Bible student that Revelation was pointing to JERUSALEM all along with that "great city" title. And the Rev.11:8 that emphatically tells us the city where Jesus was crucified is the "great city" is another OBVIOUS POINTER to Jerusalem that is beyond all doubt.

A serious Bible student does not ignore the scripture which says Jesus was NOT crucified in Jerusalem.

John 19:20 This title then read many of the Jews: for the place where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city: and it was written in Hebrew, and Greek, and Latin.

Hebrews 13:12 And so Jesus also suffered outside the city gate to make the people holy through his own blood.

A serious Bible student would not try to claim that Jerusalem is "the hold of EVERY foul spirit, and a cage of EVERY unclean and hateful bird" (Rev 18:2).

A serious Bible student would not try to claim that "ALL nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of" Jerusalem's "fornication" (Rev 18:3).

A serious Bible student would not try to claim that Jerusalem "reigneth over the kings of the earth." (Rev 17:18).

You are not a serious Bible student.

 

[Timtofly]

Once again you have no idea of what you're talking about. You know nothing.

Hebrews 12:18 You have not come to a mountain that can be touched and that is burning with fire; to darkness, gloom and storm; 19 to a trumpet blast or to such a voice speaking words that those who heard it begged that no further word be spoken to them, 20 because they could not bear what was commanded: “If even an animal touches the mountain, it must be stoned to death.”[c] 21 The sight was so terrifying that Moses said, “I am trembling with fear.” 22 But you have come to Mount Zion, to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem. You have come to thousands upon thousands of angels in joyful assembly, 23 to the church of the firstborn, whose names are written in heaven. You have come to God, the Judge of all, to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, 24 to Jesus the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel.


You are ignorant of the scripture that speaks of the new heavenly Jerusalem as a current reality, as I showed from Hebrews 12:22 and is mentioned here:

Galatians 4:24 These things are being taken figuratively: The women represent two covenants. One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children who are to be slaves: This is Hagar. 25 Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present city of Jerusalem, because she is in slavery with her children. 26 But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother.

You need to read all of the Bible, not just bits and pieces here and there. You obviously haven't read Galatians or Hebrews. What else haven't you read? It is impossible to take you seriously because of your extreme ignorance.

Not the same. Hebrews and Galatians is not talking about the same reality as Revelation 21.

I have obviously read more than you, of God's Word, because you claim they are still physically dead in Paradise.

You deny that the New Jerusalem is a literal physical city that decends from heaven to the earth with billions of physical humans inside.

You deny the Day of the Lord is a thousand years on earth. I have quoted Hebrews and Genesis, and way more other verses than you have.

 

[Randy Kluth]

I didn't call you 'stupid', I said the statement you said was 'stupid', we all... even YOU...

Why... was your statement stupid? Because it went DIRECTLY OPPOSITE OF WHAT THE WRITTEN SCRIPTURE STATED. And anyone reading your statement could see that.

So speculation when the Scripture is not definite is one thing, but when the Scripture is CLEAR and PRECISE, there is NO EXCUSE for going against it like you did.

The "great city" in Rev 17 is *not* explicitly stated to be Jerusalem. It is not "stupid" to question what the "great city" is, therefore. Your insults reflect an inability to accept any opinion other than your own, in this case. It doesn't make for good conversation. It's a form of judgmentalism.

Even worse, what you say is untrue. You claim the identification is explicit. It isn't. As I said, even if the "great city" appears to be identified with Jerusalem in Rev 11, it doesn't mean the "great city" in Rev 17 is the same city. It is an interpretive fallacy to attach significance to a certain word in different contexts.

If I said there were a couple of "great cities" I'm personally familiar with, and I'm referring, in context, to America, I may be referring to New York and LA--not Jerusalem. It wouldn't be "stupid" to think I wasn't referring to 2 Jerusalem's in the US!

Even more, the context of Rev 17 indicates the "great city" there is cloaked in a cryptic name, "Mystery Babylon," indicating that its identification is not meant to be explicit. Thinking that such things are obvious and do not require thought is not just wrong-headed, but it indicates you wish to use shame to get others to agree with you--not rational thought. That's not the Holy Spirit.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

The "great city" in Rev 17 is *not* explicitly stated to be Jerusalem. It is not "stupid" to question what the "great city" is, therefore. Your insults reflect an inability to accept any opinion other than your own, in this case. It doesn't make for good conversation. It's a form of judgmentalism.

Even worse, what you say is untrue. You claim the identification is explicit. It isn't. As I said, even if the "great city" appears to be identified with Jerusalem in Rev 11, it doesn't mean the "great city" in Rev 17 is the same city. It is an interpretive fallacy to attach significance to a certain word in different contexts.

If I said there were a couple of "great cities" I'm personally familiar with, and I'm referring, in context, to America, I may be referring to New York and LA--not Jerusalem. It wouldn't be "stupid" to think I was referring to 2 Jerusalem's in the US!

Even more, the context of Rev 17 indicates the "great city" there is cloaked in a cryptic name, "Mystery Babylon," indicating that its identification is not meant to be explicit. Thinking that such things are obvious and do not require thought is not just wrong-headed, but it indicates you wish to use shame to get others to agree with you--not rational thought. That's not the Holy Spirit.

If you're read my posts on this subject, then you know I actually agree with Davy (gasp!) that the great city in Revelation 11 is the same great city referred to elsewhere in relation to Babylon and I think it's consistent to see it that way. However, I agree with you that the fact that it is called "Mystery Babylon" strongly suggests that identifying it is not meant to be easy without giving it serious thought and without relying on discernment from the Holy Spirit.

In my opinion, the obvious thing is to relate it to a literal city like Jerusalem or Rome, but I disagree with both of those views and see it instead as being the direct spiritual opposite of the heavenly New Jerusalem. So, I believe literally all believers are spiritual citizens of new Jerusalem (Heb 12:22, Gal 4:26) and all unbelievers are spiritual citizens of Mystery Babylon which is "the hold of EVERY foul spirit, and a cage of EVERY unclean and hateful bird" and "ALL nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication" (Rev 18:2-3).

 

[Randy Kluth]

If you're read my posts on this subject, then you know I actually agree with Davy (gasp!) that the great city in Revelation 11 is the same great city referred to elsewhere in relation to Babylon and I think it's consistent to see it that way. However, I agree with you that the fact that it is called "Mystery Babylon" strongly suggests that identifying it is not meant to be easy without giving it serious thought and without relying on discernment from the Holy Spirit.

It's okay, brother. We've had strong disagreements before, and you have been quite friendly in this thread. And if you knew me, you'd know I can have strong disagreements with friends, and really enjoy friends who hold onto that friendship at any cost! :)

I did recognize you have a different take, but that's just what I'm arguing for--the acceptability of different positions on this. The best way to test your own hypothesis is to look at how others might argue against it. I truly enjoy hearing different perspectives, particularly with subjects I'm not so certain about.

It is entirely reasonable to think that the "great city" mentioned in one place in Revelation is the same "great city" mentioned elsewhere in the same book! My point is that these things are arguable, whether the context is different or is the same, and what the "great city" is.

The "great city" in Rev 11 could be Rome, as well, because Rome presided over Jerusalem at the time of Christ's crucifixion, and it could be said that it is "in this city" that Jesus was crucified. That may or may not be a legitimate perspective, but at least it's arguable and does not warrant insults and hostility.

In my opinion, the obvious thing is to relate it to a literal city like Jerusalem or Rome, but I disagree with both of those views and see it instead as being the direct spiritual opposite of the heavenly New Jerusalem. So, I believe literally all believers are spiritual citizens of new Jerusalem (Heb 12:22, Gal 4:26) and all unbelievers are spiritual citizens of Mystery Babylon which is "the hold of EVERY foul spirit, and a cage of EVERY unclean and hateful bird" and "ALL nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication" (Rev 18:2-3).

I think that's a perfectly reasonable approach. I've approached a number of "symbolic interpretations," in the past, and don't see any particular reason to dismiss them in this case. Thanks for the explanation--I did see you say something to this effect earlier.

 

[Zao is life]

THEREFORE...

It is wrong to point to Rome, or to New York, or to Brussels, or any other city on earth than Jerusalem as the "great city" of Revelation 17:18

Why? New York City sits on many waters and is populated by people from all nations, tribes and tongues and the merchant ships that dock at her shores are more in number and carry more merchandise, than dock at any other city in the world. The merchants and many of the "kings of the earth" would weep and wail at the destruction of New York City.

So while we deny that the Revelation is contrasting New Jerusalem with Babylon the Great by way of a thesis-antithesis comparison and is not talking about literal cities with physical boundaries, and deny that Jesus was not crucified in Jerusalem but outside of it (Revelation 11:8),

let's also call the kings of the earth the literal political rulers of nations whom Christ rules over (Revelation 11:5) and Jerusalem of the Jews rules over (Revelation 17:18) together.

The kings of the earth who committed fornication with the harlot and are seen weeping and wailing over her destruction are hardly the same ten kings of the beast who hated the harlot, ate her flesh and burned her with fire (Revelation 17:16). So why is it that the Revelation only uses the word "fornication" to describe the actions of:

1. Babylon the Great; and
2. The kings of the earth that committed fornication with her; and
3. Jezbel and he followers of the church at Thyatira?

Is an "unmarried woman" ever accused of fornication or adultery in the Bible?

The answer is no.

So you believe that Jerusalem was still God's wife or the bride of Christ after she rejected Christ, despite Paul telling you that all Jews who rejected Christ were broken off from a covenant relationship with God through their unbelief,

and despite the fact that Revelation uses much the same language to describe Babylon the Great and the coming destruction of Babylon the Great that Isaiah uses in reference to the ancient city of Babylon (including it being seated on many waters ruling over people, tribes, nations and tongues), you insist that the Revelation is pointing us to Jerusalem of the Jews - which though it had been destroyed by the time John received the Revelation was apparently so important to Jesus in the Revelation He was giving John, that John has two chapters covering it.​

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

It's okay, brother. We've had strong disagreements before, and you have been quite friendly in this thread. And if you knew me, you'd know I can have strong disagreements with friends, and really enjoy friends who hold onto that friendship at any cost! :)

I did recognize you have a different take, but that's just what I'm arguing for--the acceptability of different positions on this. The best way to test your own hypothesis is to look at how others might argue against it. I truly enjoy hearing different perspectives, particularly with subjects I'm not so certain about.

It is entirely reasonable to think that the "great city" mentioned in one place in Revelation is the same "great city" mentioned elsewhere in the same book! My point is that these things are arguable, whether the context is different or is the same, and what the "great city" is.

The "great city" in Rev 11 could be Rome, as well, because Rome presided over Jerusalem at the time of Christ's crucifixion, and it could be said that it is "in this city" that Jesus was crucified. That may or may not be a legitimate perspective, but at least it's arguable and does not warrant insults and hostility.

I think that's a perfectly reasonable approach. I've approached a number of "symbolic interpretations," in the past, and don't see any particular reason to dismiss them in this case. Thanks for the explanation--I did see you say something to this effect earlier.

I appreciate your point of view and that you acknowledge that my approach is reasonable. I tell ya, just getting people to acknowledge that I'm making reasonable arguments, even if they disagree, is not easy. People tend to just immediately dismiss any arguments that disagree with their view. The closed-mindedness of many on this forum is sad to see.

As for Babylon, Rome definitely resembles it, but I think Babylon is a spiritual entity that is the mother of all harlots, including Rome. Babylon, like the beast, has taken on different forms throughout history, but always represents everything that opposes God at any given time in history. The Roman empire is obviously not still active, so seeing it as Rome would mean that Babylon has already fallen and I don't believe that it has. I believe it will fall when Jesus returns.

 

[Davy]

The "great city" in Rev 17 is *not* explicitly stated to be Jerusalem.

Yes it is stated to be Jerusalem, in the Revelation 11:8 verse for one, where Lord Jesus was crucified.

But there's others that beat your rejection of that Scripture proof, for they try... and claim it was not Jerusalem where Jesus was crucified, because He was crucified outside... the city!

 

[Davy]

Why? New York City sits on many waters and is populated by people from all nations, tribes and tongues and the merchant ships that dock at her shores are more in number and carry more merchandise, than dock at any other city in the world. The merchants and many of the "kings of the earth" would weep and wail at the destruction of New York City.
​

It's because GOD in His Word has SHOWN the "great city" is JERUSALEM at the end of this world.

WHY?

Because JERUSALEM is where Jesus and Apostle Paul revealed where the coming pseudo-Christ/Antichrist is going to appear, working GREAT SIGNS and WONDERS and MIRACLES, to deceive the whole world (except Christ's elect).

That is also WHY God's "two witnesses" are to appear in JERUSALEM with the 6th Trumpet timing, and prophesy against the beast for 1260 days, and then be killed there... IN JERUSALEM, their dead bodies left laying in the street...

Rev 11:8
8 And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.
KJV

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Yes it is stated to be Jerusalem, in the Revelation 11:8 verse for one, where Lord Jesus was crucified.

But there's others that beat your rejection of that Scripture proof, for they try... and claim it was not Jerusalem where Jesus was crucified, because He was crucified outside... the city!

Outside the city of Jerusalem is not Jerusalem. Hello! This is common sense. The great city Babylon is not an earthly city, it is a spiritual city that is the spiritual opposite of the holy city, New Jerusalem. Earthly Jerusalem has never "reigned over the kings of the earth" (Rev 17:18). Earthly Jerusalem is not "the hold of EVERY foul spirit" (Rev 18:2). Not "ALL nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication" (Rev 18:3).

But, go ahead and be stubborn and keep trying to say He was crucified in Jerusalem even though scripture says He was crucified outside of the city gates of Jerusalem (John 19:20, Hebrews 13:12). And keep ignoring the descriptions of Mystery Babylon that do not fit earthly Jerusalem if you insist.