New Jerusalem

[paul6150]

I came across an intersting discussion item in my Book of Mormon studies when compared to the Bible. It is interesting but it raises more questions. Can someone answer these things I found?

3Nephi 20:22 states that “this people will I establish in this land…a New Jerusalem…I will be in the midst of you.” This passage states that the New Jerusalem will be in America. If one examines the many teachings of Joseph Smith and others on this subject, they will find a prominent mention of the New Jerusalem in the America. Their teaching was that the New Zion would be centered at Independence, Missouri. Which the RLDS claim to own the ground that was to be the place for the temple in the middle of this New Jerusalem.

The Bible, however, does not describe the location of the New Jerusalem nor is it said whether it is even on the new earth. It comes down from heaven according to the Bible.

3Nephi 21:23 further states that those who belong to the church will help build this city called New Jerusalem. If this city comes down from heaven how can they help build it? Also in reading the Bible’s description of what the New Jerusalem is made of one has to ask how anyone but God can build such a city, for example:

a. The New Jerusalem will come from heaven when there is a new heaven and new earth. (Revelation 21:1).

b. The New Jerusalem will be prepared “as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband.” (Revelation 21:2).

c. “It shone with the glory of God” (Revelation 21:11)

d. “It had a great high wall with twelve gates” (Revelation 21:12).

e. The wall of the city had 12 foundations (Revelation 21:14).

f. The measurements were that of a square cube about 1400 miles on each side (2,744,000,000 cubic miles in total volume) (Revelation 21:16) so how is it going to be centered on Independence, Missouri?.

g. The wall at its base measured approximately 200 feet thick and was made of jasper and pure gold. The foundations made of 12 different types of precious stones. (Revelation 21:17-20).

h. Each of the 12 gates were hewn out of single large pearls. The city had pure gold streets that were “like transparent glass.” (Revelation 21:21-22).

Can anyone help to understand these issues and answer these questions.

[Guest Member_Deleted]

a. the new Jerusalem will have the city of Enoch decend from Heaven and be part of the zion.

b. the new Jerusalem will be celestial kind of people only.... those who are willing to live the highest covenants given...

c. shone with the glory of the Lord...the glory of the God is intelligence and intelligence is charity or love of the highest nature...so those within this city will have to have been born again... and living the highest level of charity...

d. This wall could be both physical and spiritual... with entrances for the 12 tribes of israel...

e. the foundations would be the 12 aposles or the foundation of the church through priesthood authority...

f. Missouri was where it was to be before the people proved they were not ready or worthy... it has changed....

g. This will happen when we are a people ready... which may not be as far in the distance as some believe... sometime before the next 50 years.... of massive destruction... causing people to become totally humble ...

h. Pearls are a representation of priesthood..... or other precious elements of the gospel... and these will also come when the time comes that the people are ready... and know it won'tbe the whole church... only those who are the 'remnant' willing and worthy of living the highest laws...and covenants...

[Eric]

If you look at the Articles of Faith you will clearly see that Mormons believe in two Zions, two Jerusalems, and a coming City of Enoch.

As far as your question about the Jerusalem coming from the sky I do know that the city of Enoch is to return from the sky. I also would like to hear some more comments regarding this issue.

Good questions!

-eric

[Guest Member_Deleted]

Originally posted by Eric@Oct 1 2005, 12:27 PM

If you look at the Articles of Faith you will clearly see that Mormons believe in two Zions, two Jerusalems, and a coming City of Enoch.

  As far as your question about the Jerusalem coming from the sky I do know that the city of Enoch is to return from the sky. I also would like to hear some more comments regarding this issue.

Good questions!

  -eric

←

There is a cool book that has lots of prophecies... It is called Prohecy by Crothers... He comes up with his own ideas as to how the prophecies are to be accomplished... and he isn't always right... but it is great to see some of the things prophecied... like..

Joseph Smith would be the one to lead us into Zion as a resurrected being...

Remember that when the New Jerusalem comes... it will be the living and the resurrected and even those children who died young and are given again to their parents to be raised... it will be an awesome thing...

[Eric]

Joseph is among us.

-eric

[Guest Member_Deleted]

Originally posted by Eric@Oct 2 2005, 12:37 AM

Joseph is among us.

-eric

←

Hey we need to talk... I agree totally...

[Snow]

Originally posted by Eric@Oct 1 2005, 10:27 AM

If you look at the Articles of Faith you will clearly see that Mormons believe in two Zions, two Jerusalems, and a coming City of Enoch.

  -eric

←

Not exactly. Talmage's book, Articles of Faith, is not a survey of LDS beliefs. Rather it is Talmage's understanding of LDS doctrine. Since the book was commissioned by the First Presidency and subjected to a review committee that included educators and General Authorities it is a safe bet that what's in the book reflects beliefs that the Brethern felt were orthodox.

Still, in Mormonism, there is no sytematic theology and doctrine, no catech to which Mormons must adhere in order to be Mormon. Certainly there are Mormons that don't believe in two Zions, and two Jerusalems and a coming City of Enoch, either they believe something different or have no specific beliefs on the matter.

[Guest Member_Deleted]

Originally posted by Snow@Oct 2 2005, 12:21 PM

Not exactly. Talmage's book, Articles of Faith, is not a survey of LDS beliefs. Rather it is Talmage's understanding of LDS doctrine. Since the book was commissioned by the First Presidency and subjected to a review committee that included educators and General Authorities it is a safe bet that what's in the book reflects beliefs that the Brethern felt were orthodox.

Still, in Mormonism, there is no sytematic theology and doctrine, no catech to which Mormons must adhere in order to be Mormon. Certainly there are Mormons that don't believe in two Zions, and two Jerusalems and a coming City of Enoch, either they believe something different or have no specific beliefs on the matter.

←

HUH?

[Snow]

Originally posted by Please+Oct 2 2005, 10:36 AM-->

<!--QuoteBegin-Snow@Oct 2 2005, 12:21 PM

Not exactly. Talmage's book, Articles of Faith, is not a survey of LDS beliefs. Rather it is Talmage's understanding of LDS doctrine. Since the book was commissioned by the First Presidency and subjected to a review committee that included educators and General Authorities it is a safe bet that what's in the book reflects beliefs that the Brethern felt were orthodox.

Still, in Mormonism, there is no sytematic theology and doctrine, no catech to which Mormons must adhere in order to be Mormon. Certainly there are Mormons that don't believe in two Zions, and two Jerusalems and a coming City of Enoch, either they believe something different or have no specific beliefs on the matter.

←

HUH?

←

Eric said that by looking at Articles of Faith you could see what Mormons believe. The problem with that is that Articles of Faith is not a survey of what Mormons believe. Talmage wrote the book and it contains what he and the review committee felt were orthodox views and since the book is so influential, you can be sure that a good many Mormons now believe what he wrote.

However, it would be incorrect to say that Mormons, as a unified group, believe what Talmage wrote. We are a diverse group with lot's of different beliefs. The Church could systematize our beliefs by writing a catechism or official publication of exactly what we as official Church policy, believe - and in fact has done a bit of that already with the Spencer Kimball directed Quad set of cross-referenced and annotated scriptures. But, the Church still does not have a mandatory set of doctrines.

What Talmage's book has to say about New Jerusalem is that Zion and Jerusalem are often used interchangeably and sometimes have distinct meanings. The prophet Micah talked about both Zion and New Jerusalem as being geographically established in the tops of the mountains. To some that might sound like Salt Lake City. Book of Mormon prophets were more specific than Micah and pinned the location down to the American continent. Early LDS Church leaders specifically said that the location of the City of Zion, New Jerusalem would be centered around the town of Independence Missouri. Of course that's not in the tops of the mountains or even close so just as Mormons might have different understandings of New Jerusalem, so might have the prophets of God.

I think it is fair to say that a generally prevailing thought among the LDS people is that Zion is not always or not just physical location but it is also a state of mind and a unity among God's people and whether the saints are gathering to the mountains in Salt Lake or maybe later to New Jerusalem in Missouri, when we are united in faith, there is Zion.

[paul6150]

"What Talmage's book has to say about New Jerusalem is that Zion and Jerusalem are often used interchangeably and sometimes have distinct meanings. The prophet Micah talked about both Zion and New Jerusalem as being geographically established in the tops of the mountains. To some that might sound like Salt Lake City. Book of Mormon prophets were more specific than Micah and pinned the location down to the American continent. Early LDS Church leaders specifically said that the location of the City of Zion, New Jerusalem would be centered around the town of Independence Missouri. Of course that's not in the tops of the mountains or even close so just as Mormons might have different understandings of New Jerusalem, so might have the prophets of God.

I think it is fair to say that a generally prevailing thought among the LDS people is that Zion is not always or not just physical location but it is also a state of mind and a unity among God's people and whether the saints are gathering to the mountains in Salt Lake or maybe later to New Jerusalem in Missouri, when we are united in faith, there is Zion."

paul6150 says the following:

All of this discussion of where the New Jerusalem is to be located or that some of it must be taken as an allegory still doesn't address the fact that in J Smith's day they talked and preached about a physical New Jerusalem that they would build first at Kirtland Ohio and then Independence Missouri and I don't know where else. They talked and preached about it and some still do talk about building this New Jerusalem. I remember reading some newspaper articles when they were building the RLDS Temple and even then they were saying that the New Jerusalem was coming. The Zionic kingdom was to encompass an area 1400 miles by 1400 miles centered around Independence Missouri. How does this compare with the fact that the Bible describes the New Jerusalem as something real yet not man-made. All the attempts of man to build something spiritual kingdom have utterly failed. Only God could build something like the New Jerusalem no one else. He is the author and finisher of our faith Hebrews 12:2 look to Him and not to our own abilities to live a just life Isaiah 64:6.

Maybe there needs to be a better understanding of what the Bible text says about the New Jerusalem. I will spend some time reviewing some commentaries.

[Jason]

Originally posted by Snow@Oct 2 2005, 02:29 PM

The prophet Micah talked about both Zion and New Jerusalem as being geographically established in the tops of the mountains. To some that might sound like Salt Lake City. Book of Mormon prophets were more specific than Micah and pinned the location down to the American continent. Early LDS Church leaders specifically said that the location of the City of Zion, New Jerusalem would be centered around the town of Independence Missouri. Of course that's not in the tops of the mountains or even close so just as Mormons might have different understandings of New Jerusalem, so might have the prophets of God.

Seems to me that if "zion" were to be in the "tops of the mountains" then that would place it somewhere in Tibet, the roof of the world.

[Guest Member_Deleted]

Originally posted by Jason+Oct 2 2005, 08:15 PM-->

<!--QuoteBegin-Snow@Oct 2 2005, 02:29 PM

The prophet Micah talked about both Zion and New Jerusalem as being geographically established in the tops of the mountains. To some that might sound like Salt Lake City. Book of Mormon prophets were more specific than Micah and pinned the location down to the American continent. Early LDS Church leaders specifically said that the location of the City of Zion, New Jerusalem would be centered around the town of Independence Missouri. Of course that's not in the tops of the mountains or even close so just as Mormons might have different understandings of New Jerusalem, so might have the prophets of God.

Seems to me that if "zion" were to be in the "tops of the mountains" then that would place it somewhere in Tibet, the roof of the world.

←

Hey Jason... Have you ever heard of the 'ever lasting hills?'... the rocky mountain range... is considered the longest mountain range in the world... called the ever lasting hills by some ancient tribe...

and.. it didn't say it was at the top of the highest mountains.... just the tops of

THE mountains..

[Jason]

Originally posted by Please+Oct 2 2005, 10:06 PM-->

Originally posted by Jason@Oct 2 2005, 08:15 PM

<!--QuoteBegin-Snow@Oct 2 2005, 02:29 PM

The prophet Micah talked about both Zion and New Jerusalem as being geographically established in the tops of the mountains. To some that might sound like Salt Lake City. Book of Mormon prophets were more specific than Micah and pinned the location down to the American continent. Early LDS Church leaders specifically said that the location of the City of Zion, New Jerusalem would be centered around the town of Independence Missouri. Of course that's not in the tops of the mountains or even close so just as Mormons might have different understandings of New Jerusalem, so might have the prophets of God.

Seems to me that if "zion" were to be in the "tops of the mountains" then that would place it somewhere in Tibet, the roof of the world.

←

Hey Jason... Have you ever heard of the 'ever lasting hills?'... the rocky mountain range... is considered the longest mountain range in the world... called the ever lasting hills by some ancient tribe...

and.. it didn't say it was at the top of the highest mountains.... just the tops of

THE mountains..

←

Have you ever considered that you're grossly misinterpreting that passage in the first place? Have you ever actually dissected the passage?

Isaiah 2:2

"And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the LORD's house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it." (KJV)

It's not talking about a Temple, but the Mountain.

"It shall come to pass in the latter days

that the mountain of the house of the LORD

shall be established as the highest of the mountains,

and shall be lifted up above the hills;

and all the nations shall flow to it, " (ESV)

Course, for that to happen, this "mountain" of Yahweh would have to rise up above Mt. Everest!

How about a literal reading of the Isaiah passage?

"And it hath come to pass, In the latter end of the days, Established is the mount of Jehovah's house, Above the top of the mounts, And it hath been lifted up above the heights, And flowed unto it have all the nations. " (Young's Literal)

Put's a whole new flavor to it, doesn't it?

Any way you look at it, it has nothing to do with a man-made building, nor could it be in the Rocky Mountains, much less in Jackson County Missouri.

[Snow]

Originally posted by Jason@Oct 3 2005, 04:20 PM

Have you ever considered that you're grossly misinterpreting that passage in the first place?  Have you ever actually dissected the passage?

Isaiah 2:2

"And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the LORD's house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it." (KJV)

It's not talking about a Temple, but the Mountain. 

"It shall come to pass in the latter days

  that the mountain of the house of the LORD

shall be established as the highest of the mountains,

  and shall be lifted up above the hills;

and all the nations shall flow to it, " (ESV)

Course, for that to happen, this "mountain" of Yahweh would have to rise up above Mt. Everest! 

How about a literal reading of the Isaiah passage? 

"And it hath come to pass, In the latter end of the days, Established is the mount of Jehovah's house, Above the top of the mounts, And it hath been lifted up above the heights, And flowed unto it have all the nations. " (Young's Literal)

Put's a whole new flavor to it, doesn't it? 

Any way you look at it, it has nothing to do with a man-made building, nor could it be in the Rocky Mountains, much less in Jackson County Missouri. 

←

I dunno Jason. Check some other translations. This is from the NLT:

In the last days, the Temple of the LORD in Jerusalem will become the most important place on earth. People from all over the world will go there to worship.

[Jason]

Originally posted by Snow@Oct 3 2005, 08:17 PM

I dunno Jason. Check some other translations. This is from the NLT:

In the last days, the Temple of the LORD in Jerusalem will become the most important place on earth. People from all over the world will go there to worship.

←

Im fairly confident that it is a Mountain, not a building. This coincides with the ancient worship of rocks by the primitive Hebrews. Look at Jacob, who anointed a rock and called it "beth'el" or the "house of El".

Ask yourself why rocks hewn by man were abominable, but unhewn stones are divine?

Just a few things to think about.

[Guest Member_Deleted]

Have you ever considered that you're grossly misinterpreting that passage in the first place?  Have you ever actually dissected the passage?

Isaiah 2:2

"And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the LORD's house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it." (KJV)

It's not talking about a Temple, but the Mountain. 

"It shall come to pass in the latter days

  that the mountain of the house of the LORD

shall be established as the highest of the mountains,

  and shall be lifted up above the hills;

and all the nations shall flow to it, " (ESV)

Course, for that to happen, this "mountain" of Yahweh would have to rise up above Mt. Everest! 

How about a literal reading of the Isaiah passage? 

"And it hath come to pass, In the latter end of the days, Established is the mount of Jehovah's house, Above the top of the mounts, And it hath been lifted up above the heights, And flowed unto it have all the nations. " (Young's Literal)

Put's a whole new flavor to it, doesn't it? 

Any way you look at it, it has nothing to do with a man-made building, nor could it be in the Rocky Mountains, much less in Jackson County Missouri. 

←

Did you know that MOUNTAIN of the Lord is only referring to the PRIESTHOOD POWER AND AUTHORITY? ..

[Traveler]

Originally posted by Jason@Oct 2 2005, 07:15 PM

Seems to me that if "zion" were to be in the "tops of the mountains" then that would place it somewhere in Tibet, the roof of the world.

←

We can all speculate as to how symbolism is used in scripture and how prophesy is fulfilled. The Ute word “Utah” literally means “Top of the Mountain”. I fine this a rather interesting literal fulfillment of ancient scripture.

The Traveler

[Jason]

Originally posted by Please+Oct 3 2005, 09:31 PM-->

Originally posted by Jason@Oct 3 2005, 06:20 PM

Originally posted by Please@Oct 2 2005, 10:06 PM

Originally posted by Jason@Oct 2 2005, 08:15 PM

<!--QuoteBegin-Snow@Oct 2 2005, 02:29 PM

The prophet Micah talked about both Zion and New Jerusalem as being geographically established in the tops of the mountains. To some that might sound like Salt Lake City. Book of Mormon prophets were more specific than Micah and pinned the location down to the American continent. Early LDS Church leaders specifically said that the location of the City of Zion, New Jerusalem would be centered around the town of Independence Missouri. Of course that's not in the tops of the mountains or even close so just as Mormons might have different understandings of New Jerusalem, so might have the prophets of God.

Seems to me that if "zion" were to be in the "tops of the mountains" then that would place it somewhere in Tibet, the roof of the world.

←

Hey Jason... Have you ever heard of the 'ever lasting hills?'... the rocky mountain range... is considered the longest mountain range in the world... called the ever lasting hills by some ancient tribe...

and.. it didn't say it was at the top of the highest mountains.... just the tops of

THE mountains..

←

Have you ever considered that you're grossly misinterpreting that passage in the first place? Have you ever actually dissected the passage?

Isaiah 2:2

"And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the LORD's house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it." (KJV)

It's not talking about a Temple, but the Mountain.

"It shall come to pass in the latter days

that the mountain of the house of the LORD

shall be established as the highest of the mountains,

and shall be lifted up above the hills;

and all the nations shall flow to it, " (ESV)

Course, for that to happen, this "mountain" of Yahweh would have to rise up above Mt. Everest!

How about a literal reading of the Isaiah passage?

"And it hath come to pass, In the latter end of the days, Established is the mount of Jehovah's house, Above the top of the mounts, And it hath been lifted up above the heights, And flowed unto it have all the nations. " (Young's Literal)

Put's a whole new flavor to it, doesn't it?

Any way you look at it, it has nothing to do with a man-made building, nor could it be in the Rocky Mountains, much less in Jackson County Missouri.

←

Did you know that MOUNTAIN of the Lord is only referring to the PRIESTHOOD POWER AND AUTHORITY? ..

←

So you're changing your story now? Do you ever admit that you're wrong?

Based on what evidence do you state that the Mountain of Yahweh is Priesthood power/authority?

[Jason]

Originally posted by Traveler+Oct 3 2005, 09:56 PM-->

<!--QuoteBegin-Jason@Oct 2 2005, 07:15 PM

Seems to me that if "zion" were to be in the "tops of the mountains" then that would place it somewhere in Tibet, the roof of the world.

←

We can all speculate as to how symbolism is used in scripture and how prophesy is fulfilled. The Ute word “Utah” literally means “Top of the Mountain”. I fine this a rather interesting literal fulfillment of ancient scripture.

The Traveler

←

Course, there's absolutely no reason to even begin to suggest that the Top of the Mountain is anywhere but in Palestine.

[Traveler]

The progressive thoughts of Zion and Jerusalem according to ancient Hebrew has some rather interesting connections. In the days of Enoch a covenant of “peace” was established in the city “Zion”. This city state and government established by covenant was also a type and shadow of things to come when the Kingdom of G-d comes to earth.

When G-d commanded Noah to build an ark there was a promise of a covenant of “peace” that would be established with his seed. Patterned after the city of Zion or city of Enoch, Salem was established by Melchizedek. The word Salem means “peace” or covenant of peace. The city of Salem was said to be built on a mountain which also has great symbolism both in regard to physical and spiritual topography as well as worldly (kingship) and priesthood (G-dly) authority. As the city Salem grew and expanded the expansion was build on a second mountain. In the Hebrew language, Salem (or city of covenant of peace) built on two mountains becomes Jerusalem.

To many the symbolism of two mountains in the term Jerusalem is an unmistakable prophesy in itself. Add to that the additional reference to a New Jerusalem and we had a dual references to another nested dual reference all coming together as the center place of government for the Kingdom of G-d. That this kingdom will subject all other governments of earth is symbolized in the statement “Top of the mountains”. That is - mountain is also symbolic of government.

The idea of a dual kingdom is also prophesied in Ezekiel 37 beginning with verse 15. Here we learn that the dual kingdoms are to become one kingdom which will be united with the Kingdom of Heaven and the Kingdom of G-d and all shall be one kingdom. For as man was split off from the Kingdom of Heaven and fell to earth, Israel was split and fell into the kingdoms of the earth or the kingdoms of the Gentiles. And here we learn that all shall come together in a repair of what was divided in the hand of a prophet and leader descended from Joseph through his son Ehpraim. For all that I have studied I know of only the LDS that believe this prophesy will come to pass through their covenant and call to build Zion.

The Traveler

[Jason]

Originally posted by Traveler@Oct 3 2005, 10:43 PM

Patterned after the city of Zion or city of Enoch, Salem was established by Melchizedek. 

Where did you get your information from? Nothing I've ever read states that the Pagan High Priest Melchizedek was the founder of the city of Salem.

The word Salem means “peace” or covenant of peace.  The city of Salem was said to be built on a mountain which also has great symbolism both in regard to physical and spiritual topography as well as worldly (kingship) and priesthood (G-dly) authority.  As the city Salem grew and expanded the expansion was build on a second mountain.  In the Hebrew language, Salem (or city of covenant of peace) built on two mountains becomes Jerusalem. 

To many the symbolism of two mountains in the term Jerusalem is an unmistakable prophesy in itself.  Add to that the additional reference to a New Jerusalem and we had a dual references to another nested dual reference all coming together as the center place of government for the Kingdom of G-d.  That this kingdom will subject all other governments of earth is symbolized in the statement “Top of the mountains”.  That is - mountain is also symbolic of government.

The idea of a dual kingdom is also prophesied in Ezekiel 37 beginning with verse 15.  Here we learn that the dual kingdoms are to become one kingdom which will be united with the Kingdom of Heaven and the Kingdom of G-d and all shall be one kingdom.  For as man was split off from the Kingdom of Heaven and fell to earth, Israel was split and fell into the kingdoms of the earth or the kingdoms of the Gentiles.  And here we learn that all shall come together in a repair of what was divided in the hand of a prophet and leader descended from Joseph through his son Ehpraim.  For all that I have studied I know of only the LDS that believe this prophesy will come to pass through their covenant and call to build Zion.

The Traveler

←

All Biblical scriptures indicate that the "new Jerusalem" is to be where the old Jerusalem now stands.

You forgot to mention that little bit of info.

[Traveler]

Originally posted by Jason+Oct 3 2005, 09:41 PM-->

Originally posted by Traveler@Oct 3 2005, 09:56 PM

<!--QuoteBegin-Jason@Oct 2 2005, 07:15 PM

Seems to me that if "zion" were to be in the "tops of the mountains" then that would place it somewhere in Tibet, the roof of the world.

←

We can all speculate as to how symbolism is used in scripture and how prophesy is fulfilled. The Ute word “Utah” literally means “Top of the Mountain”. I fine this a rather interesting literal fulfillment of ancient scripture.

The Traveler

←

Course, there's absolutely no reason to even begin to suggest that the Top of the Mountain is anywhere but in Palestine.

←

Except that Palestine (Jerusalem) is of the capitol of the house of Juda - In my previous post we learn that the power to unite the world will come from Ephraim which means that it will begin some were else. In reality "there's absolutely no reason to even begin to suggest" (to quote someone) that the top of the Mountain has reference to only to Palestine. -- Not from history or Christian thinking.

The Traveler

[Traveler]

Originally posted by Jason@Oct 3 2005, 09:52 PM

Where did you get your information from?  Nothing I've ever read states that the Pagan High Priest Melchizedek was the founder of the city of Salem. 

My information on Salem and Jerusalem came from a Jewish Rabbi. Since Jesus was ordained a high priest after the order of Melchizedek I guess that Jesus was also a Pagan??? You just wiped out any credibility you may have had.

The Traveler

[Jason]

Originally posted by Traveler+Oct 3 2005, 11:01 PM-->

<!--QuoteBegin-Jason@Oct 3 2005, 09:52 PM

Where did you get your information from?  Nothing I've ever read states that the Pagan High Priest Melchizedek was the founder of the city of Salem. 

My information on Salem and Jerusalem came from a Jewish Rabbi. Since Jesus was ordained a high priest after the order of Melchizedek I guess that Jesus was also a Pagan??? You just wiped out any credibility you may have had.

The Traveler

←

Jesus never spoke of Melcihzedek. Unless you have something the rest of the world doesn't have.

As for your Rabbi, it seems he is ill informed.

Paul may indeed have been a pagan, considering the distorted views he held.

[Traveler]

Originally posted by Jason+Oct 3 2005, 10:22 PM-->

Originally posted by Traveler@Oct 3 2005, 11:01 PM

<!--QuoteBegin-Jason@Oct 3 2005, 09:52 PM

Where did you get your information from?  Nothing I've ever read states that the Pagan High Priest Melchizedek was the founder of the city of Salem. 

My information on Salem and Jerusalem came from a Jewish Rabbi. Since Jesus was ordained a high priest after the order of Melchizedek I guess that Jesus was also a Pagan??? You just wiped out any credibility you may have had.

The Traveler

←

Jesus never spoke of Melcihzedek. Unless you have something the rest of the world doesn't have.

As for your Rabbi, it seems he is ill informed.

Paul may indeed have been a pagan, considering the distorted views he held.

←

Since the record of the Bible covers about 3 weeks in the life of Jesus your presumption that he never spoke of Melcihzedek would indicate that you know more than those of his time that recorded what they did. There is a great deal in Hebrew tradition to reference Melcihzedek. We have historical records such as the Dead Sea Scrolls, Nag Hammadi manuscripts, Apocrypha, Pseudepgrapha, Josephus and rabbinical writings.

For you to call a rabbi that is a professor of Hebrew at the university of Jerusalem ill informed on the history of Jerusalem indicates that it is you my friend is MOST ill informed.

Now you claim Paul was pagan??? Paul was Jewish - As was Jesus. Please my friend I beg you - become informed before you convince us all you have nothing what-so-ever to offer.

The Traveler