Correct. And not once did I say those words had nothing to do with Jerusalem. You completely misread what I wrote. Adding your own words, or highlighting some of my words to change the context, will not make them my words. It make them your words.
I admit that was pretty slick how you highlighted "Rev 18" in yellow, and left out the previous words, "primarily in," and then pretended that I said "all was in Rev 18." That was slick! You might qualify for a job in the Obama administration.
>>>Then you stated the birds were feeding off the 1.1 million Jews in Jerusalem.<<<
That is what I believe to be correct. It was somewhat of a "tradition," if you will, that enemies slain on battle in those days were left on the battlefield for the birds and beasts.
>>Then you told me the Roman legions were fighting for the will of God against Jerusalem<<<
Correct.
>>>but in Revelation 19 those armies are arrayed against Christ.<<<
It doesn't say those are the same armies. You assume it is saying that. Even if it meant what you say, which is far from clear; it would most likely mean that the armies were being "bought under control of Christ," much like the 10 kings were brought under his control in Rev 17.
In Rev 17, the 10 kings, at first, made "war" with the lamb. The only way they could have done that would have been spiritual, since Christ was in heaven, and they were on the earth. Christ overcomes them (as if there was any doubt) and they become servants of Christ who destroy Jerusalem and make her desolate (I explained that as well.)
That part was easy to understand. I am still not in the clear on the last part of Rev 19, since it shifts directions so quickly. In particular, the "sword" is a spiritual one. No mention is made of the beast and false prophet, nor the kings and their armies, in any kind of battle--we can only imagine it. And suddenly the remnant pops up and is "slain" by the sword of the Lord, which is the Word of God. And then, out of the blue, are fowls feasting on their flesh. It is one strange riddle from verses 17 to 21.
There is a "remnant" mentioned in the Parable of the Wedding Feast in Matthew 22; but I have yet to figure out how to tie that to Rev 19. There is also this in Hosea:
"O Ephraim, what shall I do unto thee? O Judah, what shall I do unto thee? for your goodness is as a morning cloud, and as the early dew it goeth away. Therefore have I hewed them by the prophets; I have slain them by the words of my mouth: and thy judgments are as the light that goeth forth." (Hos 6:4-5 KJV)
In that passage the Lord seems to be correcting their ways with his Word.
>>>From where in chapter 18 do you derive a Roman army or any army at all is destroying Babylon (aka Jerusalem for your interpretation)?<<<
Chapter 18 is the summary, for lack of a better word. Chapter 17 is where the armies defeat Jerusalem. I posted that earlier where I tied the two chapters together. Maybe it was not clear to you.
>>>When was first century AD Jerusalem "abundance of her luxury?" What merchants wept upon the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70? The bread and goat industry?<<<
You certainly don't know very much about Jerusalem of those days. It was a "hub" of business activity: a commercial center. Pliny, said it was “by far the most famous city of the ancient Orient.” Tacitus said it “was famous beyond all other works of men.” Appian called it “the great city Jerusalem” (how appropriate.) But if you look carefully at the list of "dainty and goodly" items found in her, you will find mostly temple goods and materials. It is as if the Lord was defining the city by the materials and appearences of, and within, the temple.
From what I have read so far, I believe you are trying to judge Jerusalem and the language of that day by today's standards. For example, did you know that Herod and Pilate were considered Kings by Peter and John, even though they were merely governors, or "a client king" in the case of Herod? (Acts 4:26-27.) That can only mean that the word "king" could also mean leader, or ruler. Caesar did not go by the title of king; but the Jews claimed he was (John 19:15.)
Of course you know that Paul, on multiple occasions, indicated the Gospel was preached in all the world, and in one case, "to every creature." Why do you think many Christians of today believe the gospel has to be preached in, say, Bora Bora before Matthew 24 can be fulfilled? Do they not believe Paul? Of have they spiritualized those verses, as well.
Philip
So you see two earthly armies in Revelation 19? One arrayed against Christ and one doing His Will? But the remnants of the army of the kings and beast are not bird food but the inhabitants of Jerusalem? Please point out the modifiers for each. Still quite foggy.
Here is some help with the modifiers:
Revelation 19:17-18 KJV
And I saw an angel standing in the sun; and he cried with a loud voice, saying to all the fowls that fly in the midst of heaven, Come and gather yourselves together unto the supper of the great God; That ye may eat the flesh of kings, and the flesh of captains, and the flesh of mighty men, and the flesh of horses, and of them that sit on them, and the flesh of all men, both free and bond, both small and great.(KJV)
Ok above tells us who will be bird food. It is not the inhabitants of Jerusalem. Then we have this:
Revelation 19:19-21 KJV
And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against him that sat on the horse, and against his army. And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image.
These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone. And the remnant were slain with the sword of him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out of his mouth: and all the fowls were filled with their flesh.(KJV)
So this has nothing to do with Jews and Jerusalem. The entire passage is telling us the Beast, the kings of the earth and THEIR armies are arrayed against Christ. These armies are defeated. If these armies are Roman and the beast are a series of Roman emperor beasties then they were to meet their demise and not be a victorious army as history clearly records.