>..It would have really been easy to say “Nero” if it was about Nero. I know... it was written in code that only the church of that time would understand... whatever.<<<
You are right about that. It would have been much easier for us. It would have also been a death wish in the days of Nero to carry around a scroll criticizing Nero. It was equally dangerous, if not more, to criticize the apostate Jewish leadership, or say anything contrary to their traditional interpretations. Thus, the imagery.
As far as interpretation is concerned, that was the purpose of this thread. There are many clues in the Revelation that pointed to Jerusalem and Nero as the two main characters. One of the most compelling are the “blood” arguments. I cannot imagine Babylon the Great being any other city than old Jerusalem, based on the “punishment for the shedding of blood”, alone. Add to that all the historical similarities in the writings of Josephus and Tacitus, and the clear reference to Jerusalem as the death place of the two witnesses, and I believe there is a compelling case to be made.
Philip
I don't buy your argument. Sorry. If it was Nero.. they would have said Nero. If it was Jerusalem, they would have said Jerusalem. That was their mode of operation. That is the way the rest of the text reads. Now we're suppose to believe that while in exile on Patmos John lacked the courage to say Nero, or Jerusalem? No way.