Talk:New Jerusalem/Archive 1

Relationship with Ezekiel's Temple
This section needs other sources or needs to be removed. Adding citations directly to the Bible is original work if you expound on the meaning of it. Bob Pinkle Publishing is a joke, his wife wrote some cookbook and he wrote some obscure home-published book. Bob Pinkle doesn't appear to be an authority on the issue, and Pob Pinkle Publishing doesn't exist as far as scolarly criticism is concerned.

iknama 19:57, 12 October 2007

Relationship with Ezekiel's Temple
This is my first edit.. so if I did something wrong, help me out. I marked this as a OR because the source doesn't appear to be well known or published. Please provide a reliable source. The citation marked does not actually point to a source.

iknama 3:39pm, 1 October 2007 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 20:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Something to add to article if Anon user cleans up and explains
oktober 31 MMV  The New Jerusalem described poetically.

In the book of Revelations the future holy city is mentioned as lying on the banks of a broad river with many pleasant fruit trees around. That is not what old Jerusalem is like since this is a fortified place on a mountaintop. The New Jerusalem ressembles far more......Babylon! Already psalm 46 describes a river pleasing God's city. This in contrast with the cruel sea further on, which often symbolizes death. Research has to be done on the oldest name for Jerusalem Uru Salim to see whether word parts are shared with indo-european like garden (walled place) and waters (s-vowel-l, still recognizable in many river and gulley names up to New Zea(l)land, while different vowels in very ancient times may have been chosen to express characteristics like form of the waterbedding).

Remarkable in religous literature is that God prefers to be present in Jerusalem. When Moses stayed away on the mountain and the Israelites made a golden calf in the desert as a footbank to God (attribute comparable with the crown of a king) that was not appreciated. By the way kind of same tresspassing might be the slogan "Gott mit uns" once on German helmets. Explanation can be sought in the statement that "law will spread from Jerusalem".

The moslim claim on Jerusalem is difficult to justify, for prophet Mohammed on his stopover there during the trip to heaven talked with Moses and Jeso; which means paying respect to the older religions; not driving its adherants into the sea.

Another misunderstanding regards the sacrifice by Abraham. At the time it was custom that what belonged to the gods should be in the fire on the altar. So Abraham had to learn that not he was master of his son. Neither can religous leaders order young people to become suicide terrorists. This story ends with the sacrifice of a goat where now is the mosque with the golden dome. Which place then is more holy: where man offers or where God gives? Presumably the goat did not get stuck on the flat surface of what was later called the Temple Mount, but in the bushes on the steep slope, where now is the Wailing Wall.

So an important item connected with old and present Jerusalem is how things should be arranged in accordance with the will of God or harmony in the world. Many obstacles appear, but these vanish in the New Jerusalem, which fits in a landscape where "the mountains have become flat". Also a much appreciated description of the future holy city is worded in the famous psalm that reports on Babylonians, Palestinians, etc. registered as born in Jerusalem, having become children of Israel.

jitso keizer kantoor ARLEX  geographic research

Yeah... this work has got so manyprobelms that I don't know where to begin. It rambles on into different subjects, it is incoherent in some places and has got a SERIOUS NPOV problem. I doubt it will ever be able to get in in a form that in any way resembles it's current one. I vote No as far as this coming in.Gator(talk) 14:45, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Hats Off to Ecto for a Fine Job Cleaning This Page Up
You took away the math calculations that I so painstakingly made, but you kept and validated my conclusions. :-) Dbabbitt 18:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Communicating Ambiguity
Hi Guys!

I created a table of the foundation stone adornments, but I don't think it expresses the ambiguity of each definition well enough. Certainly better than before though.

Dbabbitt 19:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * A further problem with regards to ambiguity is the use of "layers" in describing the arrangement of things. I think the text is very ambiguous in describing the way the precious stones adorn the foundation stones. All of the twelve precious stones may be on each foundation stone in layers, as the table suggest, but they could also be mixed together on each stone in another way. Another possibility is that each one of the foundation stones might have just one type of precious stone adorning it. From my reading, the text is ambiguous enough to allow for any of these possibilities and perhaps others. Ecto 10:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Jerusalem above
I have suggested that we merge the stub article Jerusalem above into the article New Jerusalem. Any objections? Ecto 22:27, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

The New Jerusalem
After the millenial reign of Jesus Christ, and after the War with Gog and Magog, the New City of Jerusalem is supposed to come out of the sky. Its size will cover an area extending from the eastern bank of the Nile to the western shore of the Euphrates River. This event will coincide with the beginning of God's Great White Throne Judgment, when all the dead, great and small,will be raised (if you're not sure, keep DNA in mind, and how the sins of the fathers are transmitted to the sons) and subsequently judged. With the billions of people who will have lived on the earth, this process will take millions of years, till about the time the galaxy of Andromeda collides with the Milky Way. The New Jerusalem will be like Noah's Ark, because the elements on earth will melt with fervent heat, consuming everything and imprisoning Satan eternally. Then John the beloved apostle of Jesus Christ, sees a new heaven and a new earth, because the old had passed away. I hope I do not have the fate of those who add or take away from the Revelation of Jesus Christ.

Where in the Bible does it say that the Father's sins will be passed down through the generations?
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.201.246.197 (talk) 00:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC).

Relationship with Ezekiel's City
This section could be placed in the section "Other Biblical writings" and perhaps trimmed down and checked for POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.87.18.2 (talk) 23:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

A Tesse-what?
''The wall surrounding the New Jerusalem may also be a 4-dimensional cube, also known as a hypercube or tesseract. This closely resembles the shape of the crucifix or cross, which is a well known and prominent symbol in accounts of resurrection.''

Since there are no Bible verses about the 4th dimension, the above lines do not belong in an article on the New Jerusalem. While Biblical interpretation is basically limitless--the walls of the New Jerusalem might be in 4 dimensions, or 4 billion dimensions--the above lines don't serve someone who wants to find out information on the New Jerusalem: our source is the Bible; the Bible gives us a measurement for the walls; we don't know what the measurement means, exactly. These facts are sufficient for this article. Let's let readers interested in more than 3 dimensions formulate their own ideas from there (and if they want, make a whole separate Wikipedia article on the 4-D Bible!).

Two minor points that are also problematic with these two sentences. 1) If you go to the article on the tesse-what, it's debatable whether it resembles a cross. I see no resemblance. 2) It's an understatement to say that the cross is a "prominent symbol in accounts of resurrection." It's much more than that. It's the most important symbol of Christianity, period.

For these reasons, I'm deleting the sentences. Divespluto (talk) 00:45, 25 November 2007 (UTC)Divespluto


 * Yeah I imagined something like that. Isn't TNJ a cubic planet, that will (hypothetically) land on the surface of Earth and crack the lithosphere by sheer weight. If interpreted literally, that is... And that about transparent gold... Said: Rursus (☻) 14:18, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * By the way, there's nothing about three dimensions in the bible either. Said: Rursus (☻) 15:24, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Scale: 2100x2100x2100 km³ if using the olympic stadia 177.6 m. Considerably larger than Moon, and if it will land on Earth, it will cover an entire continent, such as Europe easily. (And of course destroy completely, but that's obvious, and all, of course presume literal interpretations). Said: Rursus (☻) 21:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)