Do Two Jerusalems kill the Premill doctrine?

[sovereigngrace]

I don't need to do all of those things, I'm already proving Premil left and right already. If you are too blind to see it, that's not my fault. It might be those Amil glasses that you maybe need to remove first.

BABerean2, who is also Amil, argues Zechariah 14 a bit differently than you do. He admits some of it involves the end of the age and the 2nd coming. That logically places Zechariah 14:16-19 during/after the 2nd coming, then. He then argues there are no unsaved survivors after the 2nd coming though, therefore all of the ones in Zechariah 14:16-19 meet their demise at the 2nd coming. What about the part in Zechariah 14:16 where these in this verse are supposed to go up from year to year, or else? How can they be expected to do that if they were all destroyed at the 2nd coming? Where is the logic in that? How can they be expected to do that if there are no years remaining after the 2nd coming in order to do that? Where is the logic in that?

Zechariah 14:2-3 does not match the events having to do with what happened in 70 AD. If it can't be meaning that, how can that not mean it must involve events in the close of this present age instead?


Zechariah 14:2 For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled(shacac), and the women ravished(shakab); and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city.
3 Then shall the LORD go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle.

Zechariah 14:2 should be making one think of Isaiah 13:15-16, for one.

Isaiah 13:15 Every one that is found shall be thrust through; and every one that is joined unto them shall fall by the sword.
16 Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled(shacac), and their wives ravished(shakab).

Does any of the following look like it's meaning anything having to do with 70 AD?

Isaiah 13:9 Behold, the day of the LORD cometh , cruel both with wrath and fierce anger, to lay the land desolate: and he shall destroy the sinners thereof out of it.
10 For the stars of heaven and the constellations thereof shall not give their light: the sun shall be darkened in his going forth, and the moon shall not cause her light to shine.
11 And I will punish the world for their evil, and the wicked for their iniquity; and I will cause the arrogancy of the proud to cease, and will lay low the haughtiness of the terrible.

Zechariah 14:1 Behold, the day of the LORD cometh , and thy spoil shall be divided in the midst of thee.


Matthew 24:29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:

There is no logic on the side of Premil.

You bundle Zechariah 14:2 in with clear climactic second coming passages that forbid Premil. You need to first start by correlating Zechariah 14 with Revelation 20, before you try dumping other unrelated all-consummating passages together with it. Of course, the reality is, you, or no Premil, can. It doesn't remotely fit. It will never correlate because Premil is a false doctrine.

The second thing you need to do is address the multiple OT and NT Scripture that show the second coming to be the end. It might give your efforts more credibility if you would actually start by addressing what BABerean and myself are submitting to you instead of constantly ducking around them. This shows your argument is lacking and pushes others towards Amil.

Thread after thread sit as testimony to your avoidance. Argument after argument remains avoided. Scripture after Scripture stands in defiance of your beliefs.

 

[DavidPT]

There is no logic on the side of Premil.

You bundle Zechariah 14:2 in with clear climactic second coming passages that forbid Premil. You need to first start by correlating Zechariah 14 with Revelation 20, before you try dumping other unrelated all-consummating passages together with it. Of course, the reality is, you, or no Premil, can. It doesn't remotely fit. It will never correlate because Premil is a false doctrine.

The second thing you need to do is address the multiple OT and NT Scripture that show the second coming to be the end. It might give your efforts more credibility if you would actually start by addressing what BABerean and myself are submitting to you instead of constantly ducking around them. This shows your argument is lacking and pushes others towards Amil.

Thread after thread sit as testimony to your avoidance. Argument after argument remains avoided. Scripture after Scripture stands in defiance of your beliefs.

I am addressing things, but in my own way. In my mind, prophecies, in general, have to do with chronology of events. As to Zechariah 14, chronologically verses 16-19 can't precede verses 2-3. And if verses 2-3 haven't even been fulfilled yet, and that we are almost at the end of this age already, what do we do with verses 16-19? Ignore them and act like they are not even in the chapter? What do we do about the part that they must go up from year to year? Ignore that as well? Or maybe try to illogically make that go away by claiming that there are no mortal survivors remaining after the 2nd coming, though there would clearly have to be if verses 16-19 haven't even been fulfilled yet, and that those verses claim there are survivors and that they must go up from year to year, or else?


In order for Zechariah 14:16-19 to even come to pass, keeping in mind, it clearly says it shall come to pass, it requires at least 2 major things. 1) that there has to be someone to fulfill what they will be required to do. 2) that there have to be years remaining in order for them to go up from year to year during, or else.

IMO, since some of Isaiah 60 is clearly involving the time of the new heavens and new earth, and that right smack dab within that same context there is verse 12.

Isaiah 60:12 For the nation and kingdom that will not serve thee shall perish; yea, those nations shall be utterly wasted.

This is yet another reason that I conclude that the Jerusalem they are to go up to year to year, it is meaning the new Jerusalem since the timing of Zechariah 14:16-19 would be during the time of the new heavens and new earth. And that it would have to be during the thousand years, where the little season after the thousand years further explains Isaiah 60:12, while Isaiah 60:12 is also explaining why some might refuse to go up in Zechariah 14:16-19, because they are not wanting to serve the thee meant in Isaiah 60:12. And when the thousand years are up, satan is loosed, they are then deceived in thinking they can overtake Christ and His one world government, thus what is recorded in Isaiah 60:12 is their fate---they perish, they are utterly wasted.

You of course reject all of this, so no big surprise there. But as to BAB, since he too would have Zechariah 14:16-19 being fulfilled in the end of this age, at least I can explain to some degree the logic in Zechariah 14:16-19, and that he can't.

 

[sovereigngrace]

I am addressing things, but in my own way. In my mind, prophecies, in general, have to do with chronology of events. As to Zechariah 14, chronologically verses 16-19 can't precede verses 2-3. And if verses 2-3 haven't even been fulfilled yet, and that we are almost at the end of this age already, what do we do with verses 16-19? Ignore them and act like they are not even in the chapter? What do we do about the part that they must go up from year to year? Ignore that as well? Or maybe try to illogically make that go away by claiming that there are no mortal survivors remaining after the 2nd coming, though there would clearly have to be if verses 16-19 haven't even been fulfilled yet, and that those verses claim there are survivors and that they must go up from year to year, or else?

Scholars have typically took verse 2-3 to relate to AD70. I agree with them. Re 16-19, how can this millennium Premils imagine have “every one that is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall even go up from year to year to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, and to keep the feast of tabernacles" (Zechariah 14:16-17) yet at the same time because Jerusalem is "holy" place a prohibition that "there shall no strangers pass through her any more" (Joel 3:17) and “No stranger, uncircumcised in heart, nor uncircumcised in flesh, shall enter into my sanctuary, of any stranger that is among the children of Israel” (Ezekiel 44:9)? This doesn't make sense.

Premil contradicts itself at every angle. It doesn't add up. You are avoiding the contradictions existing within Premil in regard to these 2 proof-text passages.

It is talking about salvation coming to Israel "in Christ" 2,000 years ago. It is in turn talking about the spiritual and natural blessings that would come to the Gentiles who embraced Christ. The prophets looked through a glass darkly and described things in terms their listeners could understand.

We have moved from natural Jerusalem in the OT to the heavenly Jerusalem in the NT. Christ was always redirecting our eyes away from the natural to the spiritual, from the earthly to the heavenly, from the temporal to the eternal and from the visible to the invisible. Now that the shadow has been abolished, the fulfillment has superseded it.

In order for Zechariah 14:16-19 to even come to pass, keeping in mind, it clearly says it shall come to pass, it requires at least 2 major things. 1) that there has to be someone to fulfill what they will be required to do. 2) that there have to be years remaining in order for them to go up from year to year during, or else.

IMO, since some of Isaiah 60 is clearly involving the time of the new heavens and new earth, and that right smack dab within that same context there is verse 12.

Isaiah 60:12 For the nation and kingdom that will not serve thee shall perish; yea, those nations shall be utterly wasted.

This is yet another reason that I conclude that the Jerusalem they are to go up to year to year, it is meaning the new Jerusalem since the timing of Zechariah 14:16-19 would be during the time of the new heavens and new earth. And that it would have to be during the thousand years, where the little season after the thousand years further explains Isaiah 60:12, while Isaiah 60:12 is also explaining why some might refuse to go up in Zechariah 14:16-19, because they are not wanting to serve the thee meant in Isaiah 60:12. And when the thousand years are up, satan is loosed, they are then deceived in thinking they can overtake Christ and His one world government, thus what is recorded in Isaiah 60:12 is their fate---they perish, they are utterly wasted.

You of course reject all of this, so no big surprise there. But as to BAB, since he too would have Zechariah 14:16-19 being fulfilled in the end of this age, at least I can explain to some degree the logic in Zechariah 14:16-19, and that he can't.

Because to do not see the seismic change that happened with the coming of Christ 2000 years ago, the abolition of the old covenant, the introduction of a new covenant, and the change that took us from the seen to the unseen, the imperfect to the perfect, the physical to the spiritual, the natural to the supernatural, the earthly to the heavenly, you cannot grasp what is actually being taught by the OT prophet. What is more, your fixation with the old abolished system when the NT shows it is wholesale removed blurs your understanding of the text. Also, your perception of the existence of another future sin-cursed, goat-infest death-blighted age in between this age and the age to come, causes you to dump passage after passage (that makes no mention of a future millennium) into it. Finally, you are unable to correlate this passage with the only millennial passage in Scripture - Revelation 20. That totally nullifies your whole argument.

 

[nolidad]

Jesus is reigning over those who belong to Him.

At the present time, Satan rules over the rest of man-kind.

Can you show us any sources outside of the Bible which prove Peter was part of a church in Babylon?

.

I will have to look. But I don't know if he became part of the church or just wrote from there before moving o to other Jewish settlements outside of Israel.

 

[nolidad]

Because we know Jerusalem is the city in which our Lord was crucified (you've agreed with that).

So the reference to Babylon must be figurative just as Jerusalem was also figuratively called Sodom and Egypt (as the passage refers to).

MUst be???????????????? Says who! and on what Authority do they mandate Babylon being figurative when it is not said to be? At least we have biblical authority to say Jerusalem is figuratively called Sodom and Egypt. We do not have biblical authority to call Jerusalem Babylon figuratively! So Mystery Babylon the Mother of all Harlots is Judaism seeing as Judaism is centered around Jerusalem?

We know Mystery Babylon is a religion- so if Babylon is figuratively Jerusalem, then MHYstery Babylon should be Judaism. But Judaism is not even close to the Mother of all Harlots and Abominations on the earth!

The woman is called a great city, but Jerusalem has never ruled nor will rule over the kings of the earth!

Revelation 18 shows Babylon a city that carries on great global commerce. Jerusalem is incapable of that! Even when the Antichrist reigns from there in the middle of the Tribulation period. For the bowls are about to be poured out and the antichrist will be to busy chasing down Jews and Christians.

 

[nolidad]

Scholars have typically took verse 2-3 to relate to AD70. I agree with them. Re 16-19, how can this millennium Premils imagine have “every one that is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall even go up from year to year to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, and to keep the feast of tabernacles" (Zechariah 14:16-17) yet at the same time because Jerusalem is "holy" place a prohibition that "there shall no strangers pass through her any more" (Joel 3:17) and “No stranger, uncircumcised in heart, nor uncircumcised in flesh, shall enter into my sanctuary, of any stranger that is among the children of Israel” (Ezekiel 44:9)? This doesn't make sense.

Maybe preterists typically took verses 2-3 to relate to 70AD. But if one takes the words as written , then we know it is not true!

2 For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled,

This did not happen in 70 AD. Only Rome besieged Jerusalem! They did not carry away half the citizenry either in 70 AD (135 AD is a different story)

But Most scholars of eschatology recognize this is part and parcel of teh tribulation period ot come.

 

[sovereigngrace]

Maybe preterists typically took verses 2-3 to relate to 70AD. But if one takes the words as written , then we know it is not true!

2 For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled,

This did not happen in 70 AD. Only Rome besieged Jerusalem! They did not carry away half the citizenry either in 70 AD (135 AD is a different story)

But Most scholars of eschatology recognize this is part and parcel of teh tribulation period ot come.

Historists, Idealists, and Partial Preterists, see this passage for what it is. Futurists try and make it to fit what they have been taught.

 

[BABerean2]

We know Mystery Babylon is a religion- so if Babylon is figuratively Jerusalem, then MHYstery Babylon should be Judaism. But Judaism is not even close to the Mother of all Harlots and Abominations on the earth!

The Babylonian Talmud is made up of the writings of the rabbis who lived after 70 AD. Many of those writings explain how to get around what is written in the Old Testament. The Babylonian Talmud also says Jesus is the illegitimate son of Mary, and a Roman soldier named Pantera.

One side of Jacob Prasch's family is Roman Catholic, and the other side is made up of Orthodox Jews. Here he gives an interesting viewpoint of modern Orthodox Judaism.

.

 

[nolidad]

Historists, Idealists, and Partial Preterists, see this passage for what it is. Futurists try and make it to fit what they have been taught.

See we look at what is written and compare it to history. as there were no NATIONS that sacked Jerusalem from the time of Jesus till today- we know it has yet to happen! That comes from taking God at His Word!

It is actually the preterists who take the word all nations and squeeze it into 70AD.

But Antichrist will attack Jerusalem on eday with all th enations armies gathered!

 

[DavidPT]

See we look at what is written and compare it to history. as there were no NATIONS that sacked Jerusalem from the time of Jesus till today-

And not only that, verse 3 in Zechariah 14 makes it undeniably clear, that at some point during the events recorded in verse 2, the LORD will then go and fight those nations on the behalf of the ones being surrounded. In 70 AD, who was being surrounded in Jerusalem? Was it not unbelieving Jews still living in the city? Did the LORD fight the Romans on their behalf? If He did, like I pointed out in a prior post, this would make Him one of the biggest failures in history since He didn't even manage to defeat the Romans on their behalf.

If Amils, such as SG are correct, that Zechariah 14:2-3 is past history, then he/they should have an answer for all of the following. But if he/they don't, what should that be telling anyone with a brain?
It would clearly mean they should flat out reject what they are proposing if they can't even prove what they are proposing.

and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city.

Explain these parts and how that this is exactly what happened in 70 AD. IN 70 AD, in what way did half of the city go forth into captivity? In 70 AD, in what way were the residue of the people not cut off from the city?

Then shall the LORD go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle.


In 70 AD, in what way did the LORD go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle?

 

[DavidPT]

Historists, Idealists, and Partial Preterists, see this passage for what it is.

IOW, you not capable of reasoning things yourself, and since these others have concluded these things, and because they have, I choose to conclude what they conclude.

 

[sovereigngrace]

See we look at what is written and compare it to history. as there were no NATIONS that sacked Jerusalem from the time of Jesus till today- we know it has yet to happen! That comes from taking God at His Word!

It is actually the preterists who take the word all nations and squeeze it into 70AD.

But Antichrist will attack Jerusalem on eday with all th enations armies gathered!

I think you need to study history better. The Roman Empire represented the Gentile nations of the known world at that time. It came against Jerusalem a long time ago.

 

[sovereigngrace]

IOW, you not capable of reasoning things yourself, and since these others have concluded these things, and because they have, I choose to conclude what they conclude.

No. I choose to side with the facts, not a man-made extra-biblical doctrine.

 

[sovereigngrace]

And not only that, verse 3 in Zechariah 14 makes it undeniably clear, that at some point during the events recorded in verse 2, the LORD will then go and fight those nations on the behalf of the ones being surrounded. In 70 AD, who was being surrounded in Jerusalem? Was it not unbelieving Jews still living in the city? Did the LORD fight the Romans on their behalf? If He did, like I pointed out in a prior post, this would make Him one of the biggest failures in history since He didn't even manage to defeat the Romans on their behalf.

If Amils, such as SG are correct, that Zechariah 14:2-3 is past history, then he/they should have an answer for all of the following. But if he/they don't, what should that be telling anyone with a brain?
It would clearly mean they should flat out reject what they are proposing if they can't even prove what they are proposing.

and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city.

Explain these parts and how that this is exactly what happened in 70 AD. IN 70 AD, in what way did half of the city go forth into captivity? In 70 AD, in what way were the residue of the people not cut off from the city?

Then shall the LORD go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle.


In 70 AD, in what way did the LORD go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle?

I think this is rich coming from any Premillennialist. Where does the detail of Zechariah 14 correlate with Revelation 20? You have furnished us with nothing at the moment. Again, all we are getting is opinion. But that counts for nothing.

Remember these are the two most quoted chapters by Premils, yet no Premil can correlate them. That is because there is no correlation. Think about this: Premillennialism's 2 main chapters don't equate to each other. This is more evidence that it is a false doctrine.

There is rarely a theological argument presented by Premils explaining their position on Revelation 20 that does not submit Zechariah 14 as supporting evidence for their position. Premils talk as if these two texts fit together neatly to support their viewpoint. The only problem is, careful study of both will find there is no correlation between the detail in Zechariah 14 and that in Revelation 20. Trying to associate one with the other is like putting a square peg into a round whole. The detail is completely different.

First of all, Zechariah 14 makes absolutely no allusion to a future 1,000 years after the second coming, or does Zechariah 14 compare with any of the detail outlined in Revelation 20 (start, middle or finish). The detail occurring at the end of Revelation 20 only compares with the many passages relating to Christ’s one final future all-consummating Second Advent – there we see the destruction of every enemy of Christ and righteousness.

A helpful pointer that should aid the open-minded reader dissect the book of Zechariah is the phrase “in that day.” It connects the whole book together. It is mentioned 20 times in this Old Testament prophecy. It is extremely notable that reference after reference to “in that day” actually refers to the 1st Advent. Zechariah 14 also describes AD 70 and the spread of the Gospel to the darkened nations.

AD 70 is referenced in Zechariah 13 and 14 but generally it is a symbolic looking at Christ's ministry. There are a mixture of events relating to the life and ministry of Christ, Jerusalem's judgment (AD 70), the going out of the Gospel to the Gentiles. Notwithstanding, these are all tied together in Christ – and cannot be divorced one from another. Jerusalem was destroyed because of their rejection of Christ. The Gentiles came against the city, but the Gospel in turn went out among the Gentiles with great success.

Second, as you study the NT you see that the wicked are all destroyed when Jesus comes, this disallows the placing of this after the second coming. There will be no mortals or no sinners to populate the new earth, what is more, they are prohibited from inheriting it (Matthew 25:34 &25:46, 1 Corinthians 6:9, and 1 Corinthians 15:50).

Thirdly, the keeping of the Judaic sacrificial system has been eternally abolished (see Galatians 4:9-10, Colossians 2:14, 16, 20-22 ). Many of the place names in Jerusalem don't exist anymore. Localized worship in a brick temple in Jerusalem has gone forever. We now worship God in spirit and in truth John 4:21).

 

[BABerean2]

But Antichrist will attack Jerusalem on eday with all th enations armies gathered!

What is the spiritual condition of earthly Jerusalem near the time of the return of Christ, described in the passage below?

Rev 11:1 And there was given me a reed like unto a rod: and the angel stood, saying, Rise, and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship therein.
Rev 11:2 But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months.
Rev 11:3 And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth.
Rev 11:4 These are the two olive trees, and the two candlesticks standing before the God of the earth. (See Revelation 1:20 to find the symbolic representation of the "candlesticks", and see Romans 11 to find the symbolic representation of the "olive trees". Or, are these two men made of wood, and metal?)
Rev 11:5 And if any man will hurt them, fire proceedeth out of their mouth, and devoureth their enemies: and if any man will hurt them, he must in this manner be killed.
Rev 11:6 These have power to shut heaven, that it rain not in the days of their prophecy: and have power over waters to turn them to blood, and to smite the earth with all plagues, as often as they will.
Rev 11:7 And when they shall have finished their testimony, the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit shall make war against them, and shall overcome them, and kill them.
Rev 11:8 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.
Rev 11:9 And they of the people and kindreds and tongues and nations shall see their dead bodies three days and an half, and shall not suffer their dead bodies to be put in graves.
Rev 11:10 And they that dwell upon the earth shall rejoice over them, and make merry, and shall send gifts one to another; because these two prophets tormented them that dwelt on the earth.
Rev 11:11 And after three days and an half the Spirit of life from God entered into them, and they stood upon their feet; and great fear fell upon them which saw them. (See John 5:27-30.)
Rev 11:12 And they heard a great voice from heaven saying unto them, Come up hither. And they ascended up to heaven in a cloud; and their enemies beheld them. (See 1 Thessalonians 4, and 5.)
Rev 11:13 And the same hour was there a great earthquake, and the tenth part of the city fell, and in the earthquake were slain of men seven thousand: and the remnant were affrighted, and gave glory to the God of heaven.
Rev 11:14 The second woe is past; and, behold, the third woe cometh quickly.
Rev 11:15 And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever.
(Why do the kingdoms of this world become the kingdoms of God, and Christ, "forever" at the 7th trumpet, which is the last trumpet in the Bible? How long is "forever"?)
Rev 11:16 And the four and twenty elders, which sat before God on their seats, fell upon their faces, and worshipped God,
Rev 11:17 Saying, We give thee thanks, O Lord God Almighty, which art, and wast, and art to come; because thou hast taken to thee thy great power, and hast reigned.
Rev 11:18 And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest give reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear thy name, small and great; and shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth.
(See Matthew 25:31-46, and John 5:27-30, and 2 Timothy 4:1, for the judgment of the living and the dead.)
Rev 11:19 And the temple of God was opened in heaven, and there was seen in his temple the ark of his testament: and there were lightnings, and voices, and thunderings, and an earthquake, and great hail.


Why is the time of the judgment of the dead in verse 18 above, with reward for some, and destruction for others, if the book of Revelation is in chronological order?

.

 

[mkgal1]

MUst be???????????????? Says who! and on what Authority do they mandate Babylon being figurative when it is not said to be?

This passage is identifying ONE city. You've already agreed that one city is Jerusalem. It doesn't make any sense to me to try to interpret a second city (especially one that had been long destroyed by the time John wrote this). That Babylon was destroyed for her idolatrous ways, I believe, is John's reason for figuratively calling Jerusalem by her name.

One city:

Revelation 11:8 ~ And their bodies will lie in the main street of Jerusalem, the city that is figuratively called “Sodom” and “Egypt,” the city where their Lord was crucified.

Descriptions used for that one city:

• City where their Lord was crucified
• City figuratively called "Sodom" and "Egypt "

 

[jgr]

.

 

[mkgal1]

So Mystery Babylon the Mother of all Harlots is Judaism seeing as Judaism is centered around Jerusalem?

Not modern-day Judaism, though, because it wasn't in existence when John authored Revelation.

Soon after John wrote Revelation, Mosaic Judaism came to an end (along with her whole Temple system) as was prophesied by the prophets and Jesus.

Rabbinic Jewish Period of Talmud Development (70-500 CE) came much later - 500 CE Babylonian Talmud recorded

 

[DavidPT]

This passage is identifying ONE city. You've already agreed that one city in Jerusalem. It doesn't make any sense to me to try to interpret a second city (especially one that had been long destroyed by the time John wrote this). That Babylon was destroyed for her idolatrous ways, I believe, is John's reason for figuratively calling Jerusalem by her name.

One city:

Revelation 11:8 ~ And their bodies will lie in the main street of Jerusalem, the city that is figuratively called “Sodom” and “Egypt,” the city where their Lord was crucified.

Descriptions used for that one city:

• City where their Lord was crucified
• City figuratively called "Sodom" and "Egypt "

If Babylon is meaning Jerusalem, in any sense, and maybe it is, it wouldn't be meaning Jerusalem in the first century, though. And since there will be a new Jerusalem descending out of heaven at some point, it only makes sense that the old Jerusalem has to go first, in order to make room for the new Jerusalem that replaces it. What's recorded in Revelation 21-22 is future still, and not, that it has already been fulfilled.

 

[mkgal1]

If Babylon is meaning Jerusalem, in any sense, and maybe it is, it wouldn't be meaning Jerusalem in the first century, though

And why do you say that?

I believe New Jerusalem = New Covenant