[Jo S]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I agree it needs to be large. I disagree that it needs to be as per the stated dimensions. I disagree that it's needed at all actually, if the new earth is a safe place to live. "all directions"? 1400 miles high? If the new Earth is of the same size as the current one, do you realize that 95 % of the building will be in space? Unlike Noah's ark (whose dimensions is a ship-building marvel), this is not a city built for practically housing God's people. It's a city built for symbolism, it's a monument. I think a city built for practicality would be much longer and wider than it is high, so it can take advantage of the Earth's space.

It also makes little sense to restrict the dimensions of the city to cover only part of the Earth and contain God's people to only one area. It would be better to spread God's people out over the whole earth to cover as much as possible.

Well, there is the outer darkness that Christ talks about in Matthew 8:12, 22:13, and 25:30. Perhaps the walls act as a veil that separate Christ's kingdom from hell until it is given over to God after 1000 years and Satan is destroyed for good.

People meet for worship on a Sunday. They also practice baptism of adults by full immersion. These things are not taught in scripture either, but they are principles, and we follow them. So by the standards of current Christian practice, it is biblical. One church per city is a biblical and historical fact. That's how the early church was arranged by God.

I would call adult water baptisms and Sunday meetings traditions rather then fundamental Christian principles. I don't view the LC's one city one church doctrine as either.

Not doctrine? Doesn't this view contradict 2 Timothy 3:16 that all scripture is useful for doctrine?

That's not only what Paul says in Timothy. He says scripture is useful for many things, one being doctrine, but others being; rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness.

Based on 2 Corinthians 11:21, the reason why he says he is being foolish is because of his boasting. Not because he intends what he says to not be taken as doctrine.

Paul is prefacing his following statement as a type of foolish analogy. It has nothing to do with his boasting here.

Remember that the KJV is the Church of England's bible. They believe that the Church is the Bride of Christ. So the unwritten assumption in these translations is that the church is the bride of Christ. That is also a factor in the choice of words used.

This would be believable if not for the fact that the Greek word that the KJV translates from has nothing to do with matrimony.

What you say about Gnosticism sounds too much like conspiracy theory to me. God referred to His people Israel as a woman, in the female gender. And I doubt that the Old Testament was influenced by Gnosticism. The church being referred to in the female gender comes from Judaism, not gnosticism.

Gnosticism is documented history, it's not a theory.

God does not refer to the people of Israel as a "she" in the Old Testament however he does refer to the city of Jerusalem as a woman in the Old Testament which further supports the view that the New Jerusalem is the bride.

Look at the language in Lamentations 1:1;

How doth the city sit solitary, that was full of people! how is she become as a widow! she that was great among the nations, and princess among the provinces, how is she become tributary!

and also Ezekiel 16;

1 "And the word of the Lord came to me: 2 “Son of man, confront Jerusalem with her detestable practices 3 and say,....'