What is the New Jerusalem?

[Butch5]

I'm not assuming anything. I believe (2 Peter 3:10-11) "But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved...."

Current Jerusalem will not survive this.

The earth is delivered from bondage during the Millennium. We are not talking about the Millennium. We are talking about what occurs after the Millennium.

I asked you....is Jesus 2nd Coming when He comes down from Heaven also a symbol? And I gave you the Scripture. Don't in turn not answer my question and then ask one of your own...with no Scripture reference.

Remember too, (2 Peter) is not the book of (Revelation). So, are you telling me it is all symbolic also?

Just because there are symbols used in (Revelation) doesn't mean it is to be interpreted symbolically. And (2 Peter 3:10-11) is not symbolic. Meaning it is in agreement with (Rev. 21:1)

Irregardless whether you see the New Heaven and New Earth as completely destroyed or just renovated by fire, the Scripture is clear that the current Jerusalem will not survive either.

And, the Scripture is clear that the New Jerusalem is the Church. (Rev. 21:2) (21:9-10)

Quantrill

The Scripture is clear that it will survive. I gave it to you. Crying and weeping will be heard in her no more. That's speaking of the New Jerusalem.
17 For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind
18 But be ye glad and rejoice for ever in that which I create: for, behold, I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy. 19 And I will rejoice in Jerusalem, and joy in my people: and the voice of weeping shall be no more heard in her, nor the voice of crying. (Isa. 65:17-19 KJV)

If crying and weeping will be heard in her no more, it implies that crying and weeping are heard in her prior to this.

Jesus spoke of His return in Mathew, so we don't need to learn that from Revelation. Are you saying that symbolism doesn't need to be understood symbolically? The book is full of symbolism. I don't think Jesus looks like a lamb that was slain that has seven horns and seven eyes. I don't think the city of Babylon is literally a whore. I don't think death will be riding a horse. I don't think Hades will be riding a horse. I don't think dead people will be talking. What reason can you give that we should believe that New Jerusalem coming down out of Heaven is literal?

Regarding 2 Peter. I gave you the literal rendering. The earth will be loosed. What's it going to be loosed from if not the curse?

Even in the context of the passage we see all things being made new.

Revelation 21:1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.
2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.
3 And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.
4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.
5 And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful. (Rev. 21:1-5 KJV)

Notice, no more crying and weeping. It's the same thing Isaiah said. The difference is Isaiah said they wouldn't be heard in her anymore. But, in the context of the New Jerusalem look at what God said, "Behold, I make all things new". He didn't say I make all new things. He said "I make all things new". Making all things new is restoration. That's exactly what Peter said in Acts 3, that Jesus would be in Heaven until the restoration of all things.

2 Peter 3 doesn't mean that God is going to destroy or obliterate the heavens and the earth. There's going to be a purging of the creation, but the creation itself will be delivered. The creation is Christ's inheritance, and as Christians our inheritance.

5 Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure.
6 Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion.
7 I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.
8 Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession. (Ps. 2:5-8 KJV)

God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; (Heb. 1:1-2 KJV)

The Creation is Christ's inheritance. How will He inherit it if it is destroyed? It will be changed.

10 And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands:
11 They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment;
12 And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail.(Heb. 1:10-12 KJV)

Paul says the earth and the heavens shall perish. What does he mean by that? He tells us, "they shall be changed".

 

[Quantrill]

The Scripture is clear that it will survive. I gave it to you. Crying and weeping will be heard in her no more. That's speaking of the New Jerusalem.
17 For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind
18 But be ye glad and rejoice for ever in that which I create: for, behold, I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy. 19 And I will rejoice in Jerusalem, and joy in my people: and the voice of weeping shall be no more heard in her, nor the voice of crying. (Isa. 65:17-19 KJV)

If crying and weeping will be heard in her no more, it implies that crying and weeping are heard in her prior to this.

Jesus spoke of His return in Mathew, so we don't need to learn that from Revelation. Are you saying that symbolism doesn't need to be understood symbolically? The book is full of symbolism. I don't think Jesus looks like a lamb that was slain that has seven horns and seven eyes. I don't think the city of Babylon is literally a whore. I don't think death will be riding a horse. I don't think Hades will be riding a horse. I don't think dead people will be talking. What reason can you give that we should believe that New Jerusalem coming down out of Heaven is literal?

Regarding 2 Peter. I gave you the literal rendering. The earth will be loosed. What's it going to be loosed from if not the curse?

Even in the context of the passage we see all things being made new.

Revelation 21:1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.
2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.
3 And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.
4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.
5 And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful. (Rev. 21:1-5 KJV)

Notice, no more crying and weeping. It's the same thing Isaiah said. The difference is Isaiah said they wouldn't be heard in her anymore. But, in the context of the New Jerusalem look at what God said, "Behold, I make all things new". He didn't say I make all new things. He said "I make all things new". Making all things new is restoration. That's exactly what Peter said in Acts 3, that Jesus would be in Heaven until the restoration of all things.

2 Peter 3 doesn't mean that God is going to destroy or obliterate the heavens and the earth. There's going to be a purging of the creation, but the creation itself will be delivered. The creation is Christ's inheritance, and as Christians our inheritance.

5 Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure.
6 Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion.
7 I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.
8 Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession. (Ps. 2:5-8 KJV)

God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; (Heb. 1:1-2 KJV)

The Creation is Christ's inheritance. How will He inherit it if it is destroyed? It will be changed.

10 And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands:
11 They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment;
12 And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail.(Heb. 1:10-12 KJV)

Paul says the earth and the heavens shall perish. What does he mean by that? He tells us, "they shall be changed".

Again, (Is. 65:18-25) speaks to the Millennial reign. The destruction of the Earth and Heaven come after that.

Again, it doesn't matter if the Heaven and Earth are completely destroyed and a brand New Heaven and earth are made, or just renovated. The current Jerusalem will not survive either.

So, if you believe Jesus will literally come down from Heaven, why is Jerusalem coming down from Heaven unbelievable or symbolic? There is nothing in (Rev. 21) that demands a symbolic interpretation. Other than you just don't want to believe it.

There are symbols in the book of (Revelation). When used, you can find the interpretation of them in the Bible. It doesn't mean you symbolically interpret the book of (Revelation). It doesn't mean the interpreter is left to his imagination. What do you mean 'dead people talking'?

I believe the New Jerusalem is coming down from Heaven because it says so.

Again, concerning the lifting of the curse upon the earth, that is the Millennium. You're confusing the Millennium with the New Heaven and New Earth. Do you see the distinction between the two?

(2 Peter 3:10) is clear. Everything is burned up. Everything. That includes the current city of Jerusalem.

Quantrill

 

[Randy]

The debate is not on a City created by God but where that city was created and whether it is a city that will come down out of heaven.

The testimony given twice about that city of God in revelation is that it will come down from heaven.

The one who is victorious I will make a pillar in the temple of my God. Never again will they leave it. I will write on them the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which is coming down out of heaven from my God; and I will also write on him my new name."

Its clear to me that city was created in heaven and at a appointed time will come down to earth and the Fathers place will be with man at that time. It seems to me that the something that is new is that God merges heaven and earth together as opposed to heaven is my throne and the earth is my footstool. The city is 12000 stadia in height for the height, width and length are the same. A cube.

The measurement given is 1380 miles as a cube. That currently goes into space.

 

[Butch5]

Again, (Is. 65:18-25) speaks to the Millennial reign. The destruction of the Earth and Heaven come after that.

Yeah, you said that. You didn't give any evidence, but you did say it. However, as I pointed out.

For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind. 18 But be ye glad and rejoice for ever in that which I create: for, behold, I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy. 19 And I will rejoice in Jerusalem, and joy in my people: and the voice of weeping shall be no more heard in her, nor the voice of crying. (Isa. 65:1 KJV)

And

And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.
2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.
3 And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.
4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.
5 And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful. (Rev. 21:1-5 KJV)

Both passages speak of new heavens and new earth. Both speak of a place Jerusalem where there is no crying and weeping. Is it your contention that there will be multiple new heavens and new earths? If these are not the same then there will be multiple new heavens and earths. I don't see that in Scripture.

Again, it doesn't matter if the Heaven and Earth are completely destroyed and a brand New Heaven and earth are made, or just renovated. The current Jerusalem will not survive either.

That's an opinion

So, if you believe Jesus will literally come down from Heaven, why is Jerusalem coming down from Heaven unbelievable or symbolic? There is nothing in (Rev. 21) that demands a symbolic interpretation. Other than you just don't want to believe it.

Because He says so in Mathew. No, there's nothing that demands it. However, logic would suggest that it's symbolic since the book is full of symbolism. What reason would there be for a city to literally descend from sky? God didn't do that with the original Jerusalem. He didn't do that with any city in the history of the Bible.

I believe the New Jerusalem is comathing down from Heaven because it says so.

It does. It also says that death and Hades will be riding a horse. Death is a state of being. It's not a physical thing. How does a state of being ride a horse? Hades is the grave, a location. How can the grave ride a horse? Jesus is depicted as a lamb that had been slain having seven horns and seven eyes. Do you think that's what He looks like? In chapter 1 He's describe much differently. We have the heads of beasts described as mountains, Kings as horns, a city as a woman. The book is full of symbolism. I asked for a reason why we should understand that one verse, a city descending out of the sky, literally. You didn't give one.

Again, concerning the lifting of the curse upon the earth, that is the Millennium. You're confusing the Millennium with the New Heaven and New Earth. Do you see the distinction between the two?

And again you gave no evidence.

(2 Peter 3:10) is clear. Everything is burned up. Everything. That includes the current city of Jerusalem.

Quantrill

That's what you said. However, you gave nothing other than your understanding of the passage. I pointed out that the passage says the earth shall be loosed. How does that fit into your understanding of the passage?

 

[Quantrill]

Yeah, you said that. You didn't give any evidence, but you did say it. However, as I pointed out.

For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind. 18 But be ye glad and rejoice for ever in that which I create: for, behold, I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy. 19 And I will rejoice in Jerusalem, and joy in my people: and the voice of weeping shall be no more heard in her, nor the voice of crying. (Isa. 65:1 KJV)

And

And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.
2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.
3 And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.
4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.
5 And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful. (Rev. 21:1-5 KJV)

Both passages speak of new heavens and new earth. Both speak of a place Jerusalem where there is no crying and weeping. Is it your contention that there will be multiple new heavens and new earths? If these are not the same then there will be multiple new heavens and earths. I don't see that in Scripture.

That's an opinion

Because He says so in Mathew. No, there's nothing that demands it. However, logic would suggest that it's symbolic since the book is full of symbolism. What reason would there be for a city to literally descend from sky? God didn't do that with the original Jerusalem. He didn't do that with any city in the history of the Bible.

It does. It also says that death and Hades will be riding a horse. Death is a state of being. It's not a physical thing. How does a state of being ride a horse? Hades is the grave, a location. How can the grave ride a horse? Jesus is depicted as a lamb that had been slain having seven horns and seven eyes. Do you think that's what He looks like? In chapter 1 He's describe much differently. We have the heads of beasts described as mountains, Kings as horns, a city as a woman. The book is full of symbolism. I asked for a reason why we should understand that one verse, a city descending out of the sky, literally. You didn't give one.

And again you gave no evidence.

That's what you said. However, you gave nothing other than your understanding of the passage. I pointed out that the passage says the earth shall be loosed. How does that fit into your understanding of the passage?

I asked you a simple question. Do you see distinction between the Millennium and the Eternal State after the New Heaven and New Earth are created?

Please answer?

Quantrill

 

[Butch5]

I asked you a simple question. Do you see distinction between the Millennium and the Eternal State after the New Heaven and New Earth are created?

Please answer?

Quantrill

I've asked you several questions which you haven't answered

 

[Quantrill]

I've asked you several questions which you haven't answered

No problem. Your no answer is an answer.

Quantrill

 

[Butch5]

No problem. Your no answer is an answer.

Quantrill

As you continue to ignore my questions.

 

[Quantrill]

As you continue to ignore my questions.

Give me the questions and the posts where I ignored them.

Quantrill