This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Here's the "New Jerusalem" geometric diagram of author John Michell, which has achieved some moderate degree of fame among "sacred geometry" enthusiasts. Probably won't make it into the article, but thought I'd throw it here for comment, if anyone is interested... AnonMoos (talk) 00:30, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
It seems to smack of astrological derivation, which could be an encrypted reference set of the John work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 03:07, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Not sure that astrology is too relevant; the diagram was partly based on astronomy, partly on the isopsephy of ancient Greek words, partly on supposed ancient units of measurement, and partly on abstract geometry... AnonMoos (talk) 08:07, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
The twelve Chakra systems, which include the standard seven plus five additional centers (one above the head, plus two at hands and two at feet) could be a clue to the "gates" spoken of at this celestial city, thus freeing New Jerusalem from geography, but not personal location. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 22:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, try them some time when you have matured. (126.96.36.199 (talk) 18:01, 31 October 2010 (UTC))
Well, obviously, the Church of Scientology's treatment of Lisa McPherson was mature. As was Operation Snow White. There's a website, theunfunnytruth.ytmnd.com/ which really shows how amazing the Church of Scientology really is. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:40, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps their botched treatments of her were only slightly less erroneous than some of your toxic & gnostic opinions; now there's a website which speaks about POV and editorial, personally negative opinions, within Wikipedia? 188.8.131.52 (talk) 01:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC)