Do Theistic Christians think that Heaven is The Kingdom?

O'Coonassa

Do Theistic Christians think that Heaven is The Kingdom I'm wondering or do these represent two different concepts? I was raised Catholic and so far as I took it I always was given to understand them as one and the same thing but I'd be interested in what other denominations think.

(Just so as you know about me and you don't think i'm trying and testing you and trying to catch you out with trick questions like a Dawkinsite would; I'm a Deist and I suppose about the closest Christian denomination to my heart would be the Unitarians in that I'm into "the religion of Jesus, not a religion about Jesus.")

Seaneh

O'Coonassa wrote: »

I'm into "the religion of Jesus, not a religion about Jesus.")

Well I, and a lof of other christians, would argue that religion is a major problem as its just a set of rituals and that really, rather than focusing on "religion" we should be focusing on a relationship with God.

If you asked me what Religion I was I'd tell you I don't have one, if you asked me what my faith was, I'd have a completely differaint answer.

Jesus himself thought about the pitfalls of religion (wihc most Irish "Catholics" have fallen into in the last 60 years).

As for your first question, I'm undecided as of yet, give me another 20 years to study and I might have the beginings of an answer (or be living such an answer).

O'Coonassa

Seaneh wrote: »

Well I, and a lof of other christians, would argue that religion is a major problem as its just a set of rituals and that really, rather than focusing on "religion" we should be focusing on a relationship with God.

By "religion" of Jesus I mean what the historical man Jesus actually said and did. His actual teachings and the path he walked against the Romans and those in charge of the temple. No sets of rituals at all and nothing to do with the ones in charge of corrupting teachings and corrupting the temple. He said to beware of those types and not go for the leaven that they plump up and corrupt the teachings with.

Personally I don't think that The Kingdom has got anything at all to do with heaven but has to do with the current spacetime. I was curious if other Christians felt that way really. That's why I was asking, but there's no way I'm waiting 20 years for you to make your mind up

philologos

O'Coonasa: The Kingdom of God refers to a state of being that is also in the current world. Jesus speaks openly about this in the Gospel of Luke claiming that the Kingdom of God is within.

Luke 17:20-21 explains this if you want to look it up

O'Coonassa

Jakkass wrote: »

O'Coonasa: The Kingdom of God refers to a state of being that is also in the current world. Jesus speaks openly about this in the Gospel of Luke claiming that the Kingdom of God is within.

Luke 17:20-21 explains this if you want to look it up

Yes it's kind of Zen. I once asked a Catholic priest about that. He seemed to think it was something of an aberration. It didn't compute with him. There's a similar logoi in the Gospel of Thomas. I like Luke, the teacings in the synoptics have less redactions than the rest of the NT IMO.

philologos

Do you mind me asking you what do you mean by "Theistic Christian", I would have thought that all Christians believe in a personal God?

The Mad Hatter

Jakkass wrote: »

Do you mind me asking you what do you mean by "Theistic Christian", I would have thought that all Christians believe in a personal God?

Got there before me.

PDN

The Kingdom of God is where God is. That can be in a church service, or when a couple of friends chat about their faith together.

I don't believe heaven exists as a location - but is rather like another dimension and so can be all around us.

Najimco

I Believe in God in a strange way... but would have nothing to do with the Church due to its short falls over the last 1000 years and counting

O'Coonassa

Jakkass wrote: »

Do you mind me asking you what do you mean by "Theistic Christian", I would have thought that all Christians believe in a personal God?

I don't think the Unitarians do so far as I can tell but I could be wrong. Anyway there are definitely Deist Christians so the title Theistic Christian serves to distinguish between the two types.

philologos

O'Coonassa wrote: »

I don't think the Unitarians do so far as I can tell but I could be wrong.

I think most would consider Unitarian Universalism to be rather different from Christianity in that it is basically more of a meeting ground for philosophical discussion. People of many different religious beliefs meet there. Not much concerning Christ and Christ's role as the only way to salvation seems to be discussed there if at all.

O'Coonassa

Jakkass wrote: »

I think most would consider Unitarian Universalism to be rather different from Christianity in that it is basically more of a meeting ground for philosophical discussion. People of many different religious beliefs meet there. Not much concerning Christ and Christ's role as the only way to salvation seems to be discussed there if at all.

Yes it's the religion of Jesus rather than a religion about Jesus.

Fanny Cradock

PDN wrote: »

The Kingdom of God is where God is. That can be in a church service, or when a couple of friends chat about their faith together.

I don't believe heaven exists as a location - but is rather like another dimension and so can be all around us.

Interesting! I would have thought that it was a physical location in so far as a person (Jesus) can exist in it. I'm not saying it's like this dimension, but surely it has to be compatible with a type of physical existence.

philologos

O'Coonassa wrote: »

Yes it's the religion of Jesus rather than a religion about Jesus.

You claim this. However Jesus did say that He was the only way to the Father (John 14:6). How is this compatible with a religion that says that there are multiple paths to God?

O'Coonassa

Jakkass wrote: »

You claim this. However Jesus did say that He was the only way to the Father (John 14:6). How is this compatible with a religion that says that there are multiple paths to God?

Ah..John..basically I don't take that as Gospel and consider it to be leaven. It is too different from the synoptics and the hypothetical Quelle document for me to trust it.

philologos

Right, but O'Coonassa why did Jesus ask us to pray to a God who doesn't have an active involvement in our lives (Matthew 6), also why did Jesus ask us to spread the Gospel if it is not God's plan for their lives? (Matthew 28). Even with purely the Synoptic Gospels, deism is utterly incompatible with them surely?

O'Coonassa

Jakkass wrote: »

Right, but O'Coonassa why did Jesus ask us to pray to a God who doesn't have an active involvement in our lives (Matthew 6), also why did Jesus ask us to spread the Gospel if it is not God's plan for their lives? (Matthew 28). Even with purely the Synoptic Gospels, deism is utterly incompatible with them surely?

AFAIK the one and only few lines long prayer that he left behind had to be dragged out of him. Preaching the Kingdom and spreading that gospel of poverty and sacrifice to bring it about are how I see it. I don't belive that the synoptics are incompatible with Deism really, they're the closest thing we have to the words of the historical Jesus and it is his words that are most important to me.

Seaneh

O'Coonassa wrote: »

I see it. I don't belive that the synoptics are incompatible with Deism really, they're the closest thing we have to the words of the historical Jesus and it is his words that are most important to me.

so you're a deistic "red Letter" Christian?

You say it's "about" preaching the kingdom, if God were a Deistic God why would he care about us preaching the kingdom, we're of no importance to him.

O'Coonassa

Seaneh wrote: »

so you're a deistic "red Letter" Christian?

You say it's "about" preaching the kingdom, if God were a Deistic God why would he care about us preaching the kingdom, we're of no importance to him.

Excuse my ignorance but I don't actually know what a red letter Christian is. Also I don't think God is a he but an It. I don't have it anthropomorphised in that way. I think we have the potential to become important but our evolution is far from complete and our consciousness little better than what the other apes have. I say our consciousness but really it isn't ours at all, it's just emerging from It as it will in other species across the universe. To me the Kingdom of God is a potential Utopia. If everybody had followed the path Jesus walked, as individuals like Francis of Assisi or Mahatma Ghandi have, then the Kingdom would already have arrived. I hope that makes sense and you can understand where I'm coming from a little better.

Fanny Cradock

O'Coonassa wrote: »

Excuse my ignorance but I don't actually know what a red letter Christian is. Also I don't think God is a he but an It. I don't have it anthropomorphised in that way.

I wouldn't necessarily think that God is a he either. Certainly not in the biological terms we would use to determine the sex of something.

antiskeptic

O'Coonassa wrote: »

Ah..John..basically I don't take that as Gospel and consider it to be leaven. It is too different from the synoptics and the hypothetical Quelle document for me to trust it.

So why don't you trust John and not the 3 synoptics (or rather the supposed Q from whence they are purported to derive)?

antiskeptic

Excuse my ignorance but I don't actually know what a red letter Christian is.

It's a term used of folk who hold to the words of Jesus (as reported in the Bible and often highlighted in red therein) but little, if anything else of the Bible.

O'Coonassa wrote: »

To me the Kingdom of God is a potential Utopia. If everybody had followed the path Jesus walked, as individuals like Francis of Assisi or Mahatma Ghandi have, then the Kingdom would already have arrived. I hope that makes sense and you can understand where I'm coming from a little better.

No only are characters like Jesus, Ghandi as rare as hens teeth, the history of the world indicates to us that the earth will be long-exhausted of it's resources before the evolutionary changes necessary to render our realm a utopia can be expected to occur. From whence the solution?

O'Coonassa

antiskeptic wrote: »

So why don't you trust John and not the 3 synoptics (or rather the supposed Q from whence they are purported to derive)?

Because it came later and contradicts them to a degree, embellishes them to a large extent, and it's a case of 3 against 1.

philologos

How does it contradict or embellish the rest? Just curious.

O'Coonassa

antiskeptic wrote: »

It's a term used of folk who hold to the words of Jesus (as reported in the Bible and often highlighted in red therein) but little, if anything else of the Bible.

Thanks for that. Yes I'd be one of those pretty much although I admit things that aren't in the NT canon such as the Gospel of Thomas without it's Alexandrian Gnostic redactions.

antiskeptic wrote: »

No only are characters like Jesus, Ghandi as rare as hens teeth, the history of the world indicates to us that the earth will be long-exhausted of it's resources before the evolutionary changes necessary to render our realm a utopia can be expected to occur. From whence the solution?

I believe the Jesus was trying to create a movement where what is as common as hens teeth became much more common. The early Christians were doing really good in that regard IMO and then Constantine happened.

O'Coonassa

Jakkass wrote: »

How does it contradict or embellish the rest? Just curious.

Well the ministry of Jesus is much longer for one thing and he is implicitly an older man whilst the whole Gnosis thing about the logos as well as other content including words attributed to him are not present in the synoptics or quelle.

Gingganggooley

O'Coonassa wrote: »

Do Theistic Christians think that Heaven is The Kingdom I'm wondering or do these represent two different concepts?

The Kingdom of Heaven and the Kingdom of God are synonymous terms. They refer to the reign, rule or dominion of God. Citizenship into this realm is the apex of Christ's work on our behalf. Peter was given the keys and opened up the gates to those of the house of Israel in Acts 2, and, in Acts 10, for those who came from a gentile background.

antiskeptic

O'Coonassa wrote: »

Because it came later and contradicts them to a degree, embellishes them to a large extent, and it's a case of 3 against 1.

3 vs 1? How so?

Where the 3 synoptics contain the same material you have the issue of apparent copying (or derivation) which means one (or Q) is the 'accurate' source in regard to the common material and other two are potential drones meaning:

The 'accurate' source (say Mark or Q) vs. John. How to decide?


Where the 3 synoptics contain unique-to-themselves material we have

each synoptic vs. the other two synoptics vs. John. How to decide?


Where two synoptics share material with each other you again have the issue of copying (or derivation) and a single 'accurate' source of the material + a potential drone, meaning;

The 'accurate' source vs. the non-conforming synoptic vs. John. How to decide?


We can see that for each category of material there is a straightforward contest between a synoptic vs. John vs. one of the other synoptics. If you can't be certain of a "winner" for any category of material, how do you make the leap to (more) certainly by bundling all the material into one bucket (called the synoptics)


And what has later to do with anything? Is it a case of first up best dressed?

antiskeptic

O'Coonassa wrote: »

Thanks for that. Yes I'd be one of those pretty much although I admit things that aren't in the NT canon such as the Gospel of Thomas without it's Alexandrian Gnostic redactions.

What is it that has you decide to accept the red letters (although you mentioned earlier that you considered such to be the (iirc) best record of Jesus words meaning, presumably, that you're not sure which, if any of the words in red letters are actually his) - and not the rest of the letters in the gospel accounts/epistles?

I believe the Jesus was trying to create a movement where what is as common as hens teeth became much more common. The early Christians were doing really good in that regard IMO and then Constantine happened.

Proof positive if proof were necessary that there is (as per Ecclesiastes) nothing new under the sun. There has never been a time when the likes of Jesus was other than a rarity. What makes you think there ever will be? Are you betting against enthropy (the universal tendency towards decay)

O'Coonassa

antiskeptic wrote: »

What is it that has you decide to accept the red letters (although you mentioned earlier that you considered such to be the (iirc) best record of Jesus words meaning, presumably, that you're not sure which, if any of the words in red letters are actually his) - and not the rest of the letters in the gospel accounts/epistles?

Indeed I'm not 100% certain and it's largely a matter of faith what I take as genuine and what I take as redaction. I try to educate myself as best I can on the critical exegesis that has been undertaken by the likes of Loisy et al. Q and early Thomas are mostly logoi, I consider that they indicate that to the earliest followers what Jesus said was of more significance than anything about the nativity or what happened post cruxifixion. Other than the synoptics the only other writing in the NT I set any store by is Acts. I take acts to be an attempt by the early non-hebrew Pauline orthodoxy to give an account of the transition from what had gone before in Jerusalem to their own brand of 'Christianity'.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Proof positive if proof were necessary that there is (as per Ecclesiastes) nothing new under the sun. There has never been a time when the likes of Jesus was other than a rarity. What makes you think there ever will be? Are you betting against enthropy (the universal tendency towards decay)

Jesus was just a man. Anybody can follow the path he walked. People are caught up in Babylon IMO. Jesus tried to persuade them out of it and it was working. This is why Babylon took hold of his religion and embraced it. People were rather being put to death than join in but after Constantine that stopped.

As for entropy I acknowledge it but do not see it as an issue. For us now with our limited ape consciousness we percieve the world one way but when the consciousness of God arrives fully in the universe, when the Kingdom is here, the limits that we percieve here and now will be long gone. That's how I see it anyway.