Is Heaven and the New Jerusalem the same?

New Jerusalem is a CITY in the New Heaven and New Earth, so yes it is heaven, and at the same time no, IT is not heaven. I live in Cleveland, Ohio. Do I live in Cleveland? Yes. Do I live in Ohio? Yes. IS Cleveland the state of Ohio? NO.

For a great study, read Randy Alcorn's "Heaven".

 

If the New Jerusalem is a literal CITY in the New Heavens and the New Earth and which all believers of all times from Adam and Eve to the End of The World (millions?, billions?, trillions?)will reside in it - where are they all going to live and just how big of a city do you need for that???

 

Can you imagine the traffic jams on Sunday mornings? Better go early to get a good seat.

 

New Jerusalem is just A city on the New Earth. I was really confused about this also. Randy Alcorn's book helped me to get rid of the notion we will all be floating on clouds strumming harps all day. I believe where we are right now is where God intended for man to be all along. God created earth, and said it was good. I don't believe earth will be pulverized, rather, like our bodies, it will be made resurrected and made perfect and God will set up His kingdom here on earth. There is a reason it will be called New Earth. It will be our earth, but totally new!

When you buy a 'new' car, do you expect it to look similar to the car you own (4 wheels, windshield, steering wheel, etc.), or something different? New Jerusalem will be just that: a NEW Jerusalem.

One fact to consider about population: I read a study that showed if you took every single person alive today and gave each person a 6' area, EVERY person would fit in the city of Kissimmee Florida!

Here's an interview with Dr. Alcorn http://www.precious-testimonies.com/Exhortations/f-j/heaven.htm

[ April 29, 2005, 05:15 PM: Message edited by: webdog ]

 

That doesn't sound right.

6 billion x 6 square feet = 45602 square miles which is about the size of the state of Ohio.

 

That doesn't sound right.

6 billion x 6 square feet = 45602 square miles which is about the size of the state of Ohio. </font>[/QUOTE]My math is probably wrong, it was something like 3 feet between each person, so I assumed it was 6 feet. My bad (math)

At any rate, even if the whole world could fit into the state of Florida, New Jerusalem will be MUCH bigger than the state of Florida.

 

Where does it say every believer is going to live in the city?

 

Rev 21:27 And there shall in no way enter into it anything that defiles, or any making an abomination or a lie; but only those who are written in the Lamb's Book of Life.

 

You draw a conclusion that ends up adding doctrine to scripture because your thought cannot be supported with scripture.
</font>

• There is absolutely NO indication whatsoever anywhere that even hints as to when they were buried!</font>

</font>

• Secondly, you continue to add to scripture by claiming that people "knew them by sight." Again, nowhere in scripture can that be supported!</font>

Therefore, that "many saints" still leaves open the possibility that they could very easily have been "many" from as far back as Adam and Eve.

What you say here is partially true, but to ensure we're on the same page, the "select few" were only the elect/remnant/church. The risen Christ did not indicate anywhere in scripture that he will manifest himself visibly to those who refuse to believe in the Savior of the world until His next manifestation to the unrepentant from all ages which will be on Judgment Day.

However, you cannot say dogmatically just who the "many saints" appeared to and who they didn't appear to. Yet, since scripture does show that He only appeared to believers, the same conclusion may be allowed for the "many saints."

Again, you have no support for your "belief that these died only after John the Baptist came preaching the need for repentance.
Neither do you have any support for your claim that "He brought those Jews that had died from John the Baptist until His resurrection to be in heaven with Him." We should not go beyond what scripture allows us to draw from those two verses. I do "believe" that John the Baptist was one of those "many" because he did die before the cross. However, what you do is decide "when" by drawing your own timeline as to how far back those "many" could have come from. You see, I can say that "I believe" that John could very well have been one of the "many saints" because there is no time indications and since scripture does use the word "saints" does imply, or alludes to the possibility that they were not recent "saints" - although I do cautiously qualify even that.

Once more, you have no support for knowing what was in the mind of Jesus and what He "could not tell her" and what He "could not tell her!"

There is much more in your post that needs to be corrected but I'm very, very busy for the next 3-4 days. Just had to respond with a short post for now.

 

Well, I'm pretty sure that neither dispensationalism nor covenant theology are infallable frameworks for interpreting scripture. It seems that we could go back and forth all day trying to correct the other side's error and then trying to explain those darn "problem" scriptures that mess with our own theology.

The subject of the world to come is a great topic to discuss and one I think the church is badly in need of teaching about. Most Christians' understanding of the afterlife is sadly simplistic and uninspiring. I belive the scriptures have much light to shed for us.

Randy

 

I don't understand what you mean: Christ's 'bride' will be taken out of His 'body'. Are you implying that the Bride of Jesus Christ does not consist of all true believers?

 

You draw a conclusion that ends up adding doctrine to scripture because your thought cannot be supported with scripture.
</font>

• There is absolutely NO indication whatsoever anywhere that even hints as to when they were buried!</font>

But it fits scripture, when understood.

</font>

• Secondly, you continue to add to scripture by claiming that people "knew them by sight." Again, nowhere in scripture can that be supported!</font>

Matthew 27:53, ”……. appeared unto many.” When they appeared unto many, those many must have known them, else how would they know they had been resurrected. Would you believe someone coming up to you and saying, “Hey Buddy, I just arose from the grave.” They would have had to know the person had died, buried, and arose. I say it is in scripture.

Therefore, that "many saints" still leaves open the possibility that they could very easily have been "many" from as far back as Adam and Eve.

I gave you scripture that David could not have been in the group. Would David be the only one left behind?

What you say here is partially true, but to ensure we're on the same page, the "select few" were only the elect/remnant/church. The risen Christ did not indicate anywhere in scripture that he will manifest himself visibly to those who refuse to believe in the Savior of the world until His next manifestation to the unrepentant from all ages which will be on Judgment Day.

Then you agree.

However, you cannot say dogmatically just who the "many saints" appeared to and who they didn't appear to. Yet, since scripture does show that He only appeared to believers, the same conclusion may be allowed for the "many saints."

I don’t believe you will find I tried to identify any individual who they appeared to, and what good would it do to appear to some stranger?

Again, you have no support for your "belief that these died only after John the Baptist came preaching the need for repentance.

Repentance and water baptism for the remission of sins. This was not the requirement for those before John the Baptist. This is the reason David and the others did not arise. Can you find that Jesus Christ told David this is what he must do? I say scripture proves the above for is this not the message of John the Baptist, and the “great commission”? Show scripture that this is in error.

Neither do you have any support for your claim that "He brought those Jews that had died from John the Baptist until His resurrection to be in heaven with Him." We should not go beyond what scripture allows us to draw from those two verses. I do "believe" that John the Baptist was one of those "many" because he did die before the cross. However, what you do is decide "when" by drawing your own timeline as to how far back those "many" could have come from. You see, I can say that "I believe" that John could very well have been one of the "many saints" because there is no time indications and since scripture does use the word "saints" does imply, or alludes to the possibility that they were not recent "saints" - although I do cautiously qualify even that.

Matthew 11:13-14, ”For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John. 14. And if ye are willing to receive it, this is Elijah, that is to come.” If we are willing we will believe this. Before John the Baptist was a previous age. There is a new gospel now being presented to all Israel. This is straight from the Book.

Once more, you have no support for knowing what was in the mind of Jesus and what He "could not tell her" and what He "could not tell her!"

But you know I have scripture to back up what I say. Romans 16:25, ” Now to him that is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery which hath been kept in silence through times eternal. I get information from scripture, and cannot help that you do not believe his Word. No Body Could Be Told, Until This Dispensation Appeared.

There is much more in your post that needs to be corrected but I'm very, very busy for the next 3-4 days. Just had to respond with a short post for now. </font>[/QUOTE]Don’t work too hard. Christian faith, ituttut

 

May I repeat once more?.....Matt 27:52 "...the tombs were opened, and MANY bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised...." MANY does not mean ALL!

Yet, Acts 2:29 says; "...David both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day."

David "died." David was "buried." David's "tomb" was still there. It does not mean that David's body could not have been raised as one of the "many saints." Verses 29-36 is speaking of David the King vs. Christ the King.

You shouldn't be so confident. I say it isn't. "And behold, two men talked with Him, who were Moses and Elijah, who appeared in glory..." (Luk 9:30-31)

"And let us make three tabernacles, one for You and one for Moses and one for Elijah; not knowing what he said." Luke 9:33

Uh, yes. They did recognize them - and I think Moses died a few years earlier didn't he?

Not yet proven yet, Ituttut!



(Please note; I will not go beyond what scripture says of "many saints" and try to imply that the resurrection of ALL Old Testament believers has occurred. I don't believe that is a wise conclusion for anyone to draw.)

 

I don't understand what you mean: Christ's 'bride' will be taken out of His 'body'. Are you implying that the Bride of Jesus Christ does not consist of all true believers? </font>[/QUOTE]Yes, the bible is clear that there are some conditions placed upon reigning with Jesus during the millennium. While we may positionally be called saints when we are become children of God, we are not saints in a practical sense unless we are living obediently. The righteousness of the saints that adorns the city will be that practical righteousness, not the positional righteousness that is imputed to us as believers. However, at the great white throne, that positional righteousness of Christ will be the only way to be saved.

 

I don't understand what you mean: Christ's 'bride' will be taken out of His 'body'. Are you implying that the Bride of Jesus Christ does not consist of all true believers? </font>[/QUOTE]Yes, the bible is clear that there are some conditions placed upon reigning with Jesus during the millennium. While we may positionally be called saints when we are become children of God, we are not saints in a practical sense unless we are living obediently. The righteousness of the saints that adorns the city will be that practical righteousness, not the positional righteousness that is imputed to us as believers. However, at the great white throne, that positional righteousness of Christ will be the only way to be saved. </font>[/QUOTE]Can you quote Scripture to support these allegations? Sounds more like something the Roman Catholics would dream up than Biblical teaching.

 

2 Timothy 2:12 If we suffer, we shall also reign with him: if we deny him, he also will deny us:

Revelation 3:21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.

James 1:12 Blessed is the man that endureth temptation: for when he is tried, he shall receive the crown of life, which the Lord hath promised to them that love him.

1 Corinthians 9:24-25
24 Know ye not that they which run in a race run all, but one receiveth the prize? So run, that ye may obtain.
25 And every man that striveth for the mastery is temperate in all things. Now they do it to obtain a corruptible crown; but we an incorruptible.

 

The huge difference being that Roman Catholics would never embrace the unconditional positional standing we have in Christ. Their view of salvation is all conditional. The Bible clearly teaches both unconditional and conditional aspects of salvation.

The blood is always first.

*The altar,
*the passover Lamb,
*"It is finished".
*Believe-see the kingdom

This is unconditional. (Other than believing it.)

Then there is blood and water.

*The laver,
*the red sea,
*the pierced side after the "It is finished",
*born of spirit and of water-enter the kingdom.

The water speaks of works after salvation. These promises (perfectly illustrated in the verses James quoted) are conditional.

The Catholics mix the two.

Lacy