Did Jesus return around 70 AD?

[Spiritual Israelite]

Luke 13:33: "It is NOT possible that a prophet would perish OUTSIDE of Jerusalem."

So you are saying Jesus was not a prophet?

How many times do I have to explain what that verse means? Other verses like John 19:20 and Hebrews 13:12 say that He was crucified outside of the city of Jerusalem. Do you not accept what those verses indicate? Read the verse after Luke 13:33. When Jesus referred to Jerusalem there He was talking about the people of Jerusalem. The ones who killed the prophets. He was saying that no prophet would perish except at the hands of the people of Jerusalem, whether they killed the prophets themselves or had them killed, such as was the case with the Jewish leaders sentencing Jesus to death and having the Romans actually do it. Jesus was not saying that a prophet could only perish within the city limits of physical Jerusalem. That would be contradictory.

John the Baptist was a prophet.

Luke 7:28 For I say to you, among those born of women there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptist; but he who is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he.”

Yet, John the Baptist was killed outside of Jerusalem. According to the Jewish historian Josephus, John the Baptist was killed at the hilltop palace-fortress of Machaerus (known as Mukawer), which was located east of the Dead Sea in modern-day Jordan.

So, how do you reconcile your understanding of Luke 13:33 with the fact that the prophet John the Baptist perished outside of the city limits of Jerusalem?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

After reading your reply, I can admit that I misunderstood what you were meaning by that. Sorry. My bad then. I then retract everything I argued including the straw man I built in regard to you misrepresenting someone's view, in this particular case. I'm human which means I'm capable of making mistakes. I then have a choice.

It's fine. Thank you for admitting that.

I can either own up to them when it is pointed out that I made a mistake, or I can be prideful and act like I'm above making mistakes, that it is a mistake on your part to think I made a mistake, not on my part. But only meaning when it has been clearly pointed out.

Yeah, it's fine. Don't worry about it.

But don't take that to mean in other cases I'm just too prideful to admit I made a mistake and won't own up to it. In some cases where you accuse me of wrong doing, such as I am misrepresenting Amil, is not what I'm doing, not even remotely.

Yes, you are, but you are ignorant about Amil so you just don't realize what you're doing. As an Amil I know when someone is accurately representing my beliefs or not. Whether you admit it or not, there is a lot about Amil that you just don't understand, so you end up misrepresenting it. I'm not saying you do it on purpose, though.

You just don't grasp how I reason/argue through things at times. I know how my mind operates, you certainty don't.

I know what you actually say and whether it accurately lines up with Amil or not. If you're not saying what you are intending to say, then I can't help that, obviously.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I believe he was hung on the cross outside the wall of Jerusalem in 30AD. I believe Golgotha was inside the third wall of Jerusalem when Revelation 11 was written. Take it for what it’s worth.

The verses which talk about where Jesus was crucified relate to what was the case when He was crucified. That should be obvious. The city boundaries being later extended is irrelevant.

I was just pointing out your inconsistencies in how you interpret the scriptures

LOL. You are imagining these inconsistencies. You have no idea of what you're talking about. I go to great lengths to avoid inconsistencies while making the effort to prevent scripture from contradicting itself. You, on the other hand, are resorting to changing the context of scripture by saying that verses are talking about Jesus being crucified within the city at the time a verse was written when nothing in the context indicates that at all. There's no reason to think it's talking about anything except for what was the case at the time He was crucified. John 19:20 and Hebrews 13:12 are explicitly clear that He was crucified outside of the city of Jerusalem. Because of your false preterist beliefs you have to find a way to somehow make it so that He was crucified within the city of Jerusalem, so you go out of your way to try to make that be the case.

. I see you as a person trying to hold onto your view to the point that you disallow others from using the same interpretation methods you use yourself.

Explain what you're talking about here. Don't make claims like this with no explanation at all of what you mean.

And BTW you’re not the only one, there is another person on this forum that does the very same thing when he over-spiritualizes the Bible.

What "very same thing" would that be exactly?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

My point with Luke 13:33, is that Jesus says he must press on because it is not possible for a prophet to perish “outside Jerusalem” (exō Ierousalēm). That is a locational phrase, but Luke does not apply it at the level of the city walls. The very next verse addresses the city as an agent: “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets.” Jerusalem here stands for its rulers, its institutions, and the people responsible for such deaths.

Okay, so do you think He was saying that a prophet cannot perish outside the physical city of Jerusalem or that He was saying that a prophet cannot perish apart from Jerusalem in relation to "its rulers, its institutions, and the people responsible for such deaths"?

Luke also says the crucifixion happened “in Jerusalem” (Luke 24:18; Acts 10:39) while placing it at “the Skull” (Luke 23:33), so he evidently did not treat Golgotha’s position beyond the walls as a contradiction.

You can compare this to how something can happen in a suburb of a big city, like, for example, Detroit, and someone will say it happened in Detroit even though it actually happened in a suburb of Detroit like, say, Novi or Farmington Hills. Golgotha was not within the city limits of Jerusalem. Otherwise, John 19:20 and Hebrews 13:12 would not be true.

John 19:20 says Jesus was crucified “near the city,” and Hebrews 13:12 says he suffered “outside the gate.” These describe his position relative to the walls. They do not say he died outside Jerusalem in the sense Luke 13:33 uses the word.

Do you think "near the city" means "in the city"? Do you think "outside the gate" means "inside the gate"? Those verses clearly indicate that Jesus was crucified outside of the city of Jerusalem, but you're not willing to accept that because it doesn't agree with your interpretation of Revelation 11:8.

People don't even think about why Jesus was crucified outside of the city of Jerusalem. I believe that happened purposely by God's design.

Look at this text...

Hebrews 13:10 We have an altar from which those who serve the tabernacle have no right to eat. 11 For the bodies of those animals, whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by the high priest for sin, are burned outside the camp. 12 Therefore Jesus also, that He might sanctify the people with His own blood, suffered outside the gate.

If you want to claim that Jesus was not actually crucified outside of the city of Jerusalem, then,, to be consistent, you'd have to also claim that the bodies of sacrificed animals were not actually "burned outside the camp", but were rather burned inside the camp. But, the text explicitly says they were burned outside the camp. Why was that? Because anything associated with sin had to be burned outside of the place that was considered holy. Similarly, Jesus had to be crucified outside of what was at the time the holy city in order to take the sins of the world upon Himself.

BOTH statements can be true at once: Jesus died physically outside the walls and yet died in Jerusalem, in the sense of being condemned and killed by Jerusalem.

Yes, I agree, but what does this have to do with Revelation 11:8 which speaks of WHERE Jesus was crucified, not WHO actually crucified Him?

If you agree both can be true, which you agreed earlier, your nitpicking about the “city walls” in regards to revelation 11:8,
is inconsistent.

No, it's not. You're apparently not looking carefully at what Revelation 11:8 is actually saying.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Why can’t Revelation 11:8 be understood in the same manner as Luke 13:33? In other words, Luke 13:33 says a prophet cannot perish outside Jerusalem. That is a locational phrase, yet Jesus died outside the walls (John 19:20; Heb 13:12), and Luke himself calls the crucifixion something that happened ‘in Jerusalem’ (Luke 24:18; Acts 10:39). So ‘outside the walls’ does not take a death out of Jerusalem. Luke 13:34 then shows the city also carries a representational sense: ‘Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets.’ Luke holds the locational and the representational together without strain.

Revelation 11:8 can work the same way. ‘The city where their Lord was crucified’ is locational, and ‘spiritually called Sodom and Egypt’ is representational, a pattern the prophets already apply to Jerusalem (Isa 1:10; Ezek 16). If the walls don’t disqualify Jerusalem in Luke 13:33, they can’t disqualify it in Revelation.

John the Baptist was a prophet and was not killed in Jerusalem or in a place outside the city walls that anyone would still call Jerusalem, so how do you reconcile that with your understanding of Luke 13:33 and Revelation 11:8?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

The city of Jerusalem was not limited to it's walls. The outer area was still Jerusalem.

Wrong. The walls represented the boundaries of the city of Jerusalem.

You and others here make the verses which say that Jesus was crucified outside of the city meaningless (John 19:20, Hebrews 13:12). He was crucified outside of the city of Jerusalem for a reason. A similar reason to why the dead bodies of sacrificed animals were burned outside the camp (Hebrews 13:10-12) which was because they represented sin and had to be burned outside of the place that was considered holy. Similarly, Jesus had to be crucified outside of Jerusalem because He was taking the sins of the world upon Himself and that has to be done outside of the place that was considered holy at the time.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

This same Google AI then responded to what you posted per this. BTW, I had already rated your post 'Like' bfore I submitted what you wrote, to to this same Google AI.

This same Google AI:

To give you the bigger picture, both perspectives are actually correct because my analysis and the Preterist were answering two entirely different questions. Here is how they harmoniously fit together:

The Two Halves of a Whole Truth

• The Historical/Ritual Perspective (Your Initial Point): You were looking at the literal, physical reality of the event. Jesus was physically cast out. In terms of Jewish ritual law, ancient geography, and Roman custom, the cross was not inside the borders of the city. This literal distinction is what the author of Hebrews relies on to make a point about Jesus being rejected and acting as a sacrifice.

• The Literary/Representational Perspective (The Preterist’s Point): They were looking at how people talk about major events. Even though the execution happened a few hundred yards outside the city gates, it was ordered by Jerusalem's leaders, carried out under Jerusalem's jurisdiction, and permanently tied to Jerusalem's identity.

In short: Jesus was physically crucified outside the city limits, but he was legally and reputationally crucified in Jerusalem.

Why This Matters in Bible Debates

The Preterist brought this up because it solves a puzzle for their specific view of end-times prophecy:

• The Puzzle: Revelation 11:8 speaks of a "great city" where the Lord was crucified.

• The Debate: Some interpreters try to argue, "Well, it can't mean Jerusalem, because Jesus wasn't crucified inside Jerusalem; he was outside the walls!" They use this line of thinking to suggest the "great city" might be Rome (the empire that killed him) or a symbolic global city.

• The Preterist's Solution: By pointing to Luke and Acts, the Preterist successfully proves that the biblical writers themselves didn't let a physical wall get in the way of saying Jesus died in Jerusalem.

The Bottom Line

The initial analysis wasn't "wrong"—it accurately described the physical and ritual mechanics of the crucifixion. The Preterist simply added a necessary layer of literary context, demonstrating that the Bible seamlessly holds both realities together. Jesus suffered outside the gate (Hebrews 13) so that the sin of the city inside the gate (Luke 13) could be dealt with.

None of this takes into account the fact that John the Baptist was a prophet and did not die within the city walls of Jerusalem or in the nearby vicinity of Jerusalem. If Revelation 11:8 was saying that Jesus was crucified within a physical location that can be considered Jerusalem and if Luke 13:33 was saying that a prophet can only die within that physical location, then that would contradict the fact that John the Baptist was killed outside of that physical location.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

God doesn't care about man's legal definition for the city's boundaries.

He does care that His word says that Jesus was crucified outside of the city of Jerusalem (John 19:20, Hebrews 13:12). But, some of you are trying desperately to get around that because of your understanding of the identity of Babylon in Revelation.

 

[claninja]

Okay, so do you think He was saying that a prophet cannot perish outside the physical city of Jerusalem or that He was saying that a prophet cannot perish apart from Jerusalem in relation to "its rulers, its institutions, and the people responsible for such deaths"?


You can compare this to how something can happen in a suburb of a big city, like, for example, Detroit, and someone will say it happened in Detroit even though it actually happened in a suburb of Detroit like, say, Novi or Farmington Hills. Golgotha was not within the city limits of Jerusalem. Otherwise, John 19:20 and Hebrews 13:12 would not be true.


Do you think "near the city" means "in the city"? Do you think "outside the gate" means "inside the gate"? Those verses clearly indicate that Jesus was crucified outside of the city of Jerusalem, but you're not willing to accept that because it doesn't agree with your interpretation of Revelation 11:8.

People don't even think about why Jesus was crucified outside of the city of Jerusalem. I believe that happened purposely by God's design.

Look at this text...

Hebrews 13:10 We have an altar from which those who serve the tabernacle have no right to eat. 11 For the bodies of those animals, whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by the high priest for sin, are burned outside the camp. 12 Therefore Jesus also, that He might sanctify the people with His own blood, suffered outside the gate.

If you want to claim that Jesus was not actually crucified outside of the city of Jerusalem, then,, to be consistent, you'd have to also claim that the bodies of sacrificed animals were not actually "burned outside the camp", but were rather burned inside the camp. But, the text explicitly says they were burned outside the camp. Why was that? Because anything associated with sin had to be burned outside of the place that was considered holy. Similarly, Jesus had to be crucified outside of what was at the time the holy city in order to take the sins of the world upon Himself.


Yes, I agree, but what does this have to do with Revelation 11:8 which speaks of WHERE Jesus was crucified, not WHO actually crucified Him?


No, it's not. You're apparently not looking carefully at what Revelation 11:8 is actually saying.

I understand that Revelation 11:8 is grammatically a locational expression given the word “where.”

But you seem not to be understanding my point that Luke 13:33 is also grammatically a locational expression given the word “outside” — “a prophet cannot die outside Jerusalem.”

I have no problem interpreting Luke 9, 13, or 24 representationally as referring to the people, rulers, and institutions of Jerusalem, or in a manner similar to your “suburbs of Detroit” comparison, considering Jesus died just outside the city walls.

If Luke 13:33, a grammatically locational expression, can be interpreted as representing the people or in a manner similar to your suburbs-of-Detroit analogy, then Revelation 11:8 cannot be ruled out on the same grounds.

While this does not absolutely prove that the great city in Revelation 11:8 is Jerusalem, it undermines your argument that it cannot be Jerusalem simply because Jesus was crucified outside the city walls.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I understand that Revelation 11:8 is grammatically a locational expression given the word “where.”

But you seem not to be understanding my point that Luke 13:33 is also grammatically a locational expression given the word “outside” — “a prophet cannot die outside Jerusalem.”

I have no problem interpreting Luke 9, 13, or 24 representationally as referring to the people, rulers, and institutions of Jerusalem, or in a manner similar to your “suburbs of Detroit” comparison, considering Jesus died just outside the city walls.

If Luke 13:33, a grammatically locational expression, can be interpreted as representing the people or in a manner similar to your suburbs-of-Detroit analogy, then Revelation 11:8 cannot be ruled out on the same grounds.

While this does not absolutely prove that the great city in Revelation 11:8 is Jerusalem, it undermines your argument that it cannot be Jerusalem simply because Jesus was crucified outside the city walls.

Okay, you're making a different argument than the one I was originally arguing against. You are apparently not trying to argue that Jesus was crucified within the physical city limits of Jerusalem or trying to argue that in Luke 13:33 that Jesus was claiming that a prophet could not perish outside of the city limits of Jerusalem. Obviously, it would not make sense for Jesus to claim that when John the Baptist was considered a prophet and perished outside of the city limits of Jerusalem. Someone else was trying to argue that Jesus was saying that no prophet could perish outside of the city limits of Jerusalem and that is what I was arguing against before you chimed in.

So, I would agree that my argument doesn't rule out the possibility of Babylon representing the people of Jerusalem similar to how the references to Jerusalem represent the people who killed the prophets in Luke 13:33-34. It only rules out the possibility that He was crucified within the geographical boundaries of the city of Jerusalem. He was not.

With that said, there are some descriptions of Babylon that simply do not fit first century Jerusalem such as when it says the great city is spiritually called Sodom and Egypt and that the great city Babylon reigns over the kings of the earth and that it is the hold of every foul spirit and so on. So, I just cannot see Babylon as being a reference to the people of first century Jerusalem. The book of Revelation is primarily about Jesus and His church and the enemies of Jesus and His church and covers the time period from His first coming to His future second coming. It's not about first century Israel and Jerusalem. If it was, why wasn't it addressed to churches in Jerusalem or Israel instead of churches in the ancient Roman province of Asia?

 

[claninja]

Okay, you're making a different argument than the one I was originally arguing against. You are apparently not trying to argue that Jesus was crucified within the physical city limits of Jerusalem or trying to argue that in Luke 13:33 that Jesus was claiming that a prophet could not perish outside of the city limits of Jerusalem. Obviously, it would not make sense for Jesus to claim that when John the Baptist was considered a prophet and perished outside of the city limits of Jerusalem. Someone else was trying to argue that Jesus was saying that no prophet could perish outside of the city limits of Jerusalem and that is what I was arguing against before you chimed in.

So, I would agree that my argument doesn't rule out the possibility of Babylon representing the people of Jerusalem similar to how the references to Jerusalem represent the people who killed the prophets in Luke 13:33-34. It only rules out the possibility that He was crucified within the geographical boundaries of the city of Jerusalem. He was not.

With that said, there are some descriptions of Babylon that simply do not fit first century Jerusalem such as when it says the great city is spiritually called Sodom and Egypt and that the great city Babylon reigns over the kings of the earth and that it is the hold of every foul spirit and so on. So, I just cannot see Babylon as being a reference to the people of first century Jerusalem. The book of Revelation is primarily about Jesus and His church and the enemies of Jesus and His church and covers the time period from His first coming to His future second coming. It's not about first century Israel and Jerusalem. If it was, why wasn't it addressed to churches in Jerusalem or Israel instead of churches in the ancient Roman province of Asia?

Yea, my overall point was that the city walls were kind of a pointless hill to die on, as they can be interpreted subjectively.

As to your other points about ruling out Jerusalem:

1.) Revelation 11:8
I’m pretty sure the OT refers to Israel as a harlot and like Sodom. I think it’s in Ezekiel? So I don’t think that type of language in revelation 11:8 rules out the great city being Jerusalem.

2.) Revelation 17-18
The language about “dominion over the kings of the earth”, at least from a contextual standpoint, what do you think is the harlots role in dominion? ANDwho are these kings of the earth? I only ask because, for example, acts 4 defines psalm 2’s “kings of the earth” as Pilate and Herod. So how do we know for certain revelation 17-18 cannot possibly be interpreted as apostate Jerusalems influence over local rulers and figure heads for persecuting the saints?

3.) I think your argument about audience relevance is pretty solid, especially if you consider that most evidence points to 95 ad dating. If pre 70ad dating, it’s not as strong of an argument, as apostate Israelites worked with Roman government to persecute Christians per book of acts. But again, a post 70 ad dating is likely more accurate.

Though, what I find interesting is that Revelation ends with the New Jerusalem, the bride, and the book deliberately sets her against the harlot Babylon, with the same angel introducing each (17:1; 21:9). Paul uses the same contrast in Galatians 4:25-26, setting the ‘present Jerusalem’ against the ‘Jerusalem above.’ If the bride is the new city replacing the old, it makes sense that the harlot she replaces is the old city that rejected her Lord.”

Again, these are not asked in order to prove the harlot is Jerusalem. Just to rule out the argument that it can’t be Jerusalem. Revelation doesn’t actually reveal any identity. So it’s all conjecture honestly.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Yea, my overall point was that the city walls were kind of a pointless hill to die on, as they can be interpreted subjectively.

There are some who think Babylon represents the actual physical city of Jerusalem, so that's what I was arguing against. You can say it's not a hill to die on, but their understanding of Revelation 11:8 is based on that.

As to your other points about ruling out Jerusalem:

1.) Revelation 11:8
I’m pretty sure the OT refers to Israel as a harlot and like Sodom. I think it’s in Ezekiel? So I don’t think that type of language in revelation 11:8 rules out the great city being Jerusalem.

Let me know if you find it. Until then, I remain unconvinced that the people of Jerusalem would be spiritually called Sodom or Egypt. Or Babylon for that matter. People seem to forget that the great city is not only not literally, but only spiritually called Sodom and Egypt, but it's only spiritually called Babylon, also. I can't see Jerusalem as qualifying to be spiritually called Sodom, Egypt and Babylon. That refers to a much larger scope than just Jerusalem.

2.) Revelation 17-18
The language about “dominion over the kings of the earth”, at least from a contextual standpoint, what do you think is the harlots role in dominion? ANDwho are these kings of the earth? I only ask because, for example, acts 4 defines psalm 2’s “kings of the earth” as Pilate and Herod. So how do we know for certain revelation 17-18 cannot possibly be interpreted as apostate Jerusalems influence over local rulers and figure heads for persecuting the saints?

Because the context of Revelation centers around the future global second coming of Christ. The book of Revelation is about Jesus and His church and the enemies of Jesus and His church, not Jerusalem and Israel. So, the context is global rather than local.

3.) I think your argument about audience relevance is pretty solid, especially if you consider that most evidence points to 95 ad dating. If pre 70ad dating, it’s not as strong of an argument, as apostate Israelites worked with Roman government to persecute Christians per book of acts. But again, a post 70 ad dating is likely more accurate.

You're one of the few preterists that I've seen, if not the only one, to acknowledge this.

Though, what I find interesting is that Revelation ends with the New Jerusalem, the bride, and the book deliberately sets her against the harlot Babylon, with the same angel introducing each (17:1; 21:9). Paul uses the same contrast in Galatians 4:25-26, setting the ‘present Jerusalem’ against the ‘Jerusalem above.’ If the bride is the new city replacing the old, it makes sense that the harlot she replaces is the old city that rejected her Lord.”

Again, these are not asked in order to prove the harlot is Jerusalem. Just to rule out the argument that it can’t be Jerusalem. Revelation doesn’t actually reveal any identity. So it’s all conjecture honestly.

You have to look at the overall context of Revelation to determine these things. It's not a book that's about Jerusalem and/or Israel up until 70 AD. It's a book about Jesus Christ and His church and the enemies of Jesus Christ and His church during the time period between His first and second coming. It's crucial to understand this.

 

[claninja]

There are some who think Babylon represents the actual physical city of Jerusalem, so that's what I was arguing against. You can say it's not a hill to die on, but their understanding of Revelation 11:8 is based on that.

Well, Jerusalem is a physical city, and Christ was crucified just outside its gates. Since other NT passages associate Christ’s death with the city of Jerusalem (Luke 9, 13, 24) PLUS revelation doesn’t actually identify the city, it’s not farfetched why someone might use scripture to interpret scripture in order to try to identify the symbolic vision of revelation 11:8.

But I think I can agree that what I just proposed above shouldn’t necessarily be applied prior to first understanding revelations author, context, setting, audience relevance, etc… that’s probably putting the cart before the horse, so to speak. I think you make a good point that revelation’s context, purpose, etc…should be examined first.

Let me know if you find it. Until then, I remain unconvinced that the people of Jerusalem would be spiritually called Sodom or Egypt. Or Babylon for that matter. People seem to forget that the great city is not only not literally, but only spiritually called Sodom and Egypt, but it's only spiritually called Babylon, also. I can't see Jerusalem as qualifying to be spiritually called Sodom, Egypt and Babylon. That refers to a much larger scope than just Jerusalem.

Ezekiel 16. Jerusalem is called both harlot/prostitute and Sodom.

Because the context of Revelation centers around the future global second coming of Christ. The book of Revelation is about Jesus and His church and the enemies of Jesus and His church, not Jerusalem and Israel. So, the context is global rather than local.

Just because Revelation may have a "global" scale, doesn't mean it carries a global scale in every context. Revelation can describe global events while also identifying a particular city or person as the target of a specific judgment. The global language does not, by itself, establish that Jerusalem cannot be the city in Revelation 11:8. So I disagree with that logic.

You're one of the few preterists that I've seen, if not the only one, to acknowledge this.

data over dogma

You have to look at the overall context of Revelation to determine these things. It's not a book that's about Jerusalem and/or Israel up until 70 AD. It's a book about Jesus Christ and His church and the enemies of Jesus Christ and His church during the time period between His first and second coming. It's crucial to understand this.

Author: John (Revelation 1:1, 1:4, 1:9), whether the apostle John or another John.

Date: Traditionally dated around AD 95, though a pre-70 date has also been proposed.

Audience: Seven churches in Asia (1:4, 1:11), instructed to hear and keep what is written (1:3). Whether these churches also represent the church more broadly is a separate interpretive question.

Purpose: To reveal “things which must shortly come to pass,” because “the time is near” (1:1, 1:3; 22:6, 10). Though I would add, it also contains visions about things that occurred in the past (revelation 12:1-5).

I would argue that a more comprehensive understanding of Revelation must account for the fact that it is a letter addressed to seven churches in Asia, containing visions given to John concerning things that “must shortly come to pass” and "because the time is near". These visions concern Jesus Christ, His church, the enemies of Christ and His church, and God's judgment and ultimate victory.

The book's broader themes and any proposed global scope do not rule out a specific first-century interpretation for an individual vision. The identity of a particular city or group of rulers must also be evaluated using the textual, historical, and literary evidence relevant to that passage.

Therefore, I think a better argument for countering the harlot as Jerusalem is focusing on: dating and audience relevance. Was revelation written in 95ad? If yes, was the church facing persecution, at least in part from apostate Jerusalem around 95ad? Maybe (revelation 2:9, revelation 3:9)?

 

[Truth7t7]

Yes, I agree, but what does this have to do with Revelation 11:8 which speaks of WHERE Jesus was crucified, not WHO actually crucified Him?

Jesus Was Crucified In "Jerusalem"

The Lord's crucifixion began when Pilate washed his hands, they strain at a gnat and swallow a camel

The Lord's sentence of death took place in Jerusalem, Jesus was beaten in Jerusalem, his death March began in Jerusalem, the Lord's precious blood filled the streets of Jerusalem

Matthew 23:24KJV
24 Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.

(Jerusalem)

Revelation 11:8KJV
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.

 

[Scott Downey]

Flavius Josephus:
"Besides these, a few days after that feast, on the one and twentieth day of the month Artemisius, [Jyar,] a certain prodigious and incredible phenomenon appeared: I suppose the account of it would seem to be a fable; were it not related by those that saw it; and were not the events that followed it of so considerable a nature as to deserve such signals. For, before sun setting, chariots and troops of soldiers in their armour were seen running about among the clouds, and surrounding of cities."

Not the bodily glorious return of Christ though. A heavenly judgment on the city, certainly, destroying Jerusalem and it's false temple system of worship. There is no more temple of God on earth, all that was fulfilled in Christ and believers are now His temple and Christ is in heaven where He must remain at the right hand of the Father until the time of the restoration of all things, referring to the end of this world.

Acts 3
19 Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, 20 and that He may send [c]Jesus Christ, who was [d]preached to you before, 21 whom heaven must receive until the times of restoration of all things, which God has spoken by the mouth of all His holy prophets since [e]the world began. 22 For Moses truly said to the fathers, ‘The Lord your God will raise up for you a Prophet like me from your brethren. Him you shall hear in all things, whatever He says to you. 23 And it shall be that every soul who will not hear that Prophet shall be utterly destroyed from among the people.’ 24 Yes, and all the prophets, from Samuel and those who follow, as many as have spoken, have also [f]foretold these days. 25 You are sons of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying to Abraham, ‘And in your seed all the families of the earth shall be blessed.’ 26 To you first, God, having raised up His Servant Jesus, sent Him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from your iniquities.”


1 Corinthians 6:19-20
Or do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and you are not your own? For you were bought at a price; therefore glorify God in your body and in your spirit, which are God’s.

 

[Scott Downey]

Bible Gateway passage: John 2 - New King James Version

Water Turned to Wine - On the third day there was a wedding in Cana of Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there. Now both Jesus and His disciples were invited to the wedding. And when they ran out of wine, the mother of Jesus said to Him, “They have no wine.” Jesus said to her, “Woman, what...

classic.biblegateway.com

​

Jesus Cleanses the Temple​

13 Now the Passover of the Jews was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. 14 And He found in the temple those who sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the money changers [b]doing business. 15 When He had made a whip of cords, He drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and the oxen, and poured out the changers’ money and overturned the tables. 16 And He said to those who sold doves, “Take these things away! Do not make My Father’s house a house of merchandise!” 17 Then His disciples remembered that it was written, “Zeal for Your house [c]has eaten Me up.”

18 So the Jews answered and said to Him, “What sign do You show to us, since You do these things?”

19 Jesus answered and said to them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.”

20 Then the Jews said, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?”

21 But He was speaking of the temple of His body. 22 Therefore, when He had risen from the dead, His disciples remembered that He had said this [d]to them; and they believed the Scripture and the word which Jesus had said.

 

[Scott Downey]

Acts 3 speaks to us of the final culmination of the ages at the glorious bodily return of Christ

19 Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, 20 and that He may send [c]Jesus Christ, who was [d]preached to you before, 21 whom heaven must receive until the times of restoration of all things, which God has spoken by the mouth of all His holy prophets since [e]the world began. 22 For Moses truly said to the fathers, ‘The Lord your God will raise up for you a Prophet like me from your brethren. Him you shall hear in all things, whatever He says to you. 23 And it shall be that every soul who will not hear that Prophet shall be utterly destroyed from among the people.’ 24 Yes, and all the prophets, from Samuel and those who follow, as many as have spoken, have also [f]foretold these days. 25 You are sons of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying to Abraham, ‘And in your seed all the families of the earth shall be blessed.’ 26 To you first, God, having raised up His Servant Jesus, sent Him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from your iniquities.”

23 And it shall be that every soul who will not hear that Prophet shall be utterly destroyed from among the people.’

We have not seen that final judgment yet!
That judgment happens with the return of Christ when all those of all people who refused to hear, as in follow and obey the gospel of God shall be utterly destroyed. 'Utterly destroyed' only happens to people who are cast into the fire at the end of the world.

Matthew 25

The Son of Man Will Judge the Nations​

31 “When the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the [c]holy angels with Him, then He will sit on the throne of His glory. 32 All the nations will be gathered before Him, and He will separate them one from another, as a shepherd divides his sheep from the goats. 33 And He will set the sheep on His right hand, but the goats on the left. 34 Then the King will say to those on His right hand, ‘Come, you blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: 35 for I was hungry and you gave Me food; I was thirsty and you gave Me drink; I was a stranger and you took Me in; 36 I was naked and you clothed Me; I was sick and you visited Me; I was in prison and you came to Me.’

37 “Then the righteous will answer Him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry and feed You, or thirsty and give You drink? 38 When did we see You a stranger and take You in, or naked and clothe You? 39 Or when did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?’ 40 And the King will answer and say to them, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me.’

41 “Then He will also say to those on the left hand, ‘Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels: 42 for I was hungry and you gave Me no food; I was thirsty and you gave Me no drink; 43 I was a stranger and you did not take Me in, naked and you did not clothe Me, sick and in prison and you did not visit Me.’

44 “Then they also will answer [d]Him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to You?’ 45 Then He will answer them, saying, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.’

46 And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”