Sorry for taking so long with my response! I’m going to briefly address your main points, then bring up something I think we should have discussed before this engaging exchange:

1. Mother of Harlots:

   • You argue that Babylon, being the "mother of harlots," is the source of harlotry that Jerusalem later adopted. This interpretation is valid, but it does not exclude Jerusalem from being identified as a harlot in Revelation 17. The term "mother of harlots" can indicate that Babylon was the original source of idolatry, but it doesn't negate Jerusalem's role in perpetuating these practices and being judged for them in Revelation.

2. Essence of Babylon:

   • It is true that Babylon symbolizes a mixture of customs and religious practices that were against God's ways. However, the Bible explicitly portrays Jerusalem as having adopted these practices and being judged for them. For instance, Ezekiel 16 and 23 describe Jerusalem’s extensive involvement in idolatry and foreign alliances, likening her to a harlot.

3. Compulsory Worship of Political/Religious Leaders:

   • While Rome and Babylon are associated with the worship of political leaders, Jerusalem's history also includes elements of political and religious syncretism. The Jewish leadership's complicity with Roman authorities during the time of Jesus and the early church reflects this.

4. Origin of Political and Religious Power:

   • I’ll acknowledge your argument that Babylon was the first organized political and religious power and that Jerusalem adopted its ways. However, Revelation 17's focus is on the current state of corruption and apostasy, which Jerusalem exemplified in the first century through its rejection of the Messiah and persecution of Christians.

5. Jerusalem's Relative Greatness:

   • The greatness of Jerusalem in Revelation is not necessarily about its political or military power but its spiritual significance. Jerusalem was the center of God's covenant people and worship, making its apostasy particularly grievous. The term "great city" can thus refer to its importance in the divine narrative, not its political clout.

6. Papacy and Rome's Historical Influence:

   • While Rome and the Papacy have had significant influence over centuries, Revelation's focus on Jerusalem as the harlot pertains to its first-century context and spiritual infidelity. The text can apply the harlot imagery to multiple entities representing apostasy, including Rome, but Jerusalem is clearly in view given its role in biblical prophecy and history.

7. Scriptural Support:

   • The Old Testament passages (Isaiah 1:21, Hosea 9:1, Jeremiah 3:3, Jeremiah 2:20, Jeremiah 3:1-11) explicitly depict Jerusalem as an unfaithful wife or harlot. These descriptions align with the portrayal of the harlot in Revelation and support the identification of Jerusalem as the harlot judged in the book.

Given the significance of Jerusalem's role in biblical prophecy and its depiction in Revelation, it's important to consider when Revelation was written. The dating of Revelation is crucial because it affects the interpretation of its prophecies.

• Early Date (Pre-70 A.D.):

  • If Revelation was written before 70 A.D., it likely addresses events leading up to the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple. This view aligns with your (preterist) interpretation, which sees Revelation as largely fulfilled in the first century.

• Late Date (Post-70 A.D.):

  • If Revelation was written after 70 A.D., it might focus on future events beyond the first century, including the eventual fall of Rome and eschatological events. This view supports a futurist interpretation, which sees many of Revelation's prophecies as still awaiting fulfillment.

Best Arguments for an Early Date:

• Internal evidence suggesting the Temple was still standing (Revelation 11:1-2).
• The persecution mentioned aligns with Nero's reign (54-68 A.D.).
• Some early Christian writers, such as Irenaeus, suggested an early date.

Best Arguments for a Later Date:

• Persecution under Domitian (81-96 A.D.) fits the context of Revelation's themes.
• Literary and historical context suggests a response to late first-century developments.
• Earliest extant manuscripts and patristic testimony lean towards a late date.

Before we delve further into specific passages in Revelation, I believe it's crucial to discuss the dating of the book first. The timing of its writing is fundamental because it shapes how we interpret its purpose and fulfillment.

Would you agree?