What are your thoughts on Jesus’ Kingdom of Heaven? And is eternal life a metaphor, a literal meaning, or something else? — Noah Te Stroete

I think it was representative of the apocalyptic Judaism of some sects of Judaism of that time (like the Dead Sea Scroll sect and apparently the one started by John the Baptist). Kingdom of Heaven was supposed to be the messianic age. A cosmic battle would ensue, and the elect/good Jews would triumph over the ones who were not following Torah in the correct fashion, and unrighteous gentiles would also be defeated. There would be a general resurrection of the dead too somewhere in there.

I believe the whole idea of inward notion of the Kingdom within, was more of a modern new age version of it. Although I agree, the inward new age notion is way more nuanced and ethically more interesting, if you want to be true to the scholarship of the what was going on in 1st century Judea, most likely it was a Kingdom of God that they thought was going to be near at hand (any minute now..) at the time they were saying it. The evil empire that ruled Israel at the time would be overthrown (at that time it was Rome), and anyone who were complicit with Rome (the Temple Establishment of priests/sanhedrin for example) would be abolished establishing a true kingdom with someone descended from the lineage of the mythic and revered King David whose lineage was broken with the Babylonian Conquest of 586 BCE and was hoped to be restored at the right time in history when a figure would emerge as a hero and usher in the Kingdom. Don't worry, after the cosmic battle of good and bad, there is supposed to be an age of peace.. It's all kind of ridiculous but just explaining the actual beliefs of that time/place.

I think he was referring to a tangible afterlife.

People in the old world firmly believed in the concept of an afterlife (so far as I can tell), and at the time of proto-christianity (in the pagan kingdom of of Rome) salvation and the favor of the gods was more or less purchased directly through deed or donation. Superstition derived power being so heavily commoditized at the time, the growing peasant class simply didn't have access to established religious favor.

In this environment, Christ's cheap version of salvation became the favorite religion of the lower classes. It's certain that early interpretations of Christ's salvation were not metaphorical, at least from the perspective of laymen.

In this environment, Christ's cheap version of salvation became the favorite religion of the lower classes. It's certain that early interpretations of Christ's salvation were not metaphorical, at least from the perspective of laymen. — VagabondSpectre

But these would be converts to a form of Pauline Christianity who wouldn't even understand the original conception of Kingdom of God from the original Jesus movement- which would be more like that conceived in the Dead Sea Scrolls than it would be by let's say, some poor Latin farmer somewhere in the Italian peninsula being converted by adherents to a Pauline ideology.

This raises an ontic question:

Is religious meaning what is inscribed (by authors), what is interpreted (by clergy), or what is believed (by parishioners?)

My answer to this is that the original or authorial meaning of a concept or text is up-stream from the clergical/expert interpretations, as well as the lay-interpretations, but I would not say that the clergical interpretation is completely upstream from those of laymen. Given that trends of the masses (masses upon which the existence of religious establishment/institutions depends) can cause changes in the behavior of clergy, I'm not uncomfortable with putting the two on an equal footing.

The beliefs of the historical masses are much easier to access than the cloistered and occulted beliefs of the bygone clergy; the intended meanings of the original authors are perhaps inaccessible entirely.

the intended meanings of the original authors are perhaps inaccessible entirely. — VagabondSpectre

I think that is relativizing the whole historical project as it applies to a religious setting. History has its historiographical methods and there is much nuance to Biblical/Jewish/New Testament scholarship that you are basically shrugging off by saying that it is entirely inaccessible. If anything, we are finding how much more we know about the origins of Christianity than we previously thought.

By taking the beliefs of later adherents after its original cultural-religio ideas were heavily changed by certain well-known and not so well-known interpreters, as what were the original ideas, you are just ignoring all scholarship for the idea that anything goes in this realm.

Whether we focus on the letters of Paul or defer to older writings, or oral traditions, there will usually be dilemmas of ambiguous meaning and questions regarding their influences.

Suppose we can get at exactly what Paul believed and intended to transmit into his writing: In what ways might he have modified preexisting theology, and why?

Suppose we could access the mind of Jesus (setting aside hypothetical divinity): does the exact meaning of his sermons not depend on the social context in which they were delivered, and on the preexisting beliefs which they sought to modify?

I'm loathe to assign the origin of any ancient religion to any one person or cannon because in my view they are continuously and usually slowly evolving beings, where at any time the most change one entity can effect is to add or subtract individual elements and attributes from the body of ideas already in religious practice.

I realize religious scholarship that responds to inquiries about historical interpretations and authorial intentions can have merit, but zooming in to a single identifiable point instead of assessing the trends and change over time just seems less than fully descriptive. When it comes to Jesus (I gather you find Paul to be an unacceptable source) I'm not aware of any single piece of scholarship which contains archeological evidence pertaining to his sermons. There are no surviving first hand accounts, and Paul is the closest we can actually get.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but given the overall lack of evidence, it's entirely possible that Jesus was just another victim of Rome, whose particularly gruesome death became legend and was later embellished by people like Paul. I do disregard scholarship claiming to have access to the mind of Jesus, both the man and the God. (If any direct evidence contextualizing the existence, life, or beliefs of Jesus does exist, I might change my mind)

Suppose we could access the mind of Jesus (setting aside hypothetical divinity): does the exact meaning of his sermons not depend on the social context in which they were delivered, and on the preexisting beliefs which they sought to modify? — VagabondSpectre

Yes of course they depend on the context they were delivered and the preexisting beliefs they sought to modify. That’s exactly the sort of thing I’m trying to show if you look at my recent posts on the trinity thread.

I'm loathe to assign the origin of any ancient religion to any one person or cannon because in my view they are continuously and usually slowly evolving beings, where at any time the most change one entity can effect is to add or subtract individual elements and attributes from the body of ideas already in religious practice. — VagabondSpectre

]

Well yes and no. Paul is widely considered the most influential thinker in early Christianity, shaping it to its gentle version. There were certainly influences in Paul which I’ve given a theory in the trinity thread (Gnosticism and Mystery cult practices). There were also other non-original sources as well including the Johannite idea of Logis clearly parallel with Diasporan ideas of logos already found d in Philo of Alexandria.

I realize religious scholarship that responds to inquiries about historical interpretations and authorial intentions can have merit, but zooming in to a single identifiable point instead of assessing the trends and change over time just seems less than fully descriptive. When it comes to Jesus (I gather you find Paul to be an unacceptable source) I'm not aware of any single piece of scholarship which contains archeological evidence pertaining to his sermons. There are no surviving first hand accounts, and Paul is the closest we can actually get. — VagabondSpectre

You really haven’t read any of my posts in the trinity thread where I do indeed draw from a wide variety of sources. You are really pulling the rhetorical arguments by misrepersting my view which calls for a nuanced look at the historical evidence of 1st century Judaism of Jesus time. It’s like you are using my own ideas against me to make the opposite point. So weird.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but given the overall lack of evidence, it's entirely possible that Jesus was just another victim of Rome, whose particularly gruesome death became legend and was later embellished by people like Paul. I do disregard scholarship claiming to have access to the mind of Jesus, both the man and the God. (If any direct evidence contextualizing the existence, life, or beliefs of Jesus does exist, I might change my mind) — VagabondSpectre

Well, yes I agree he was another victim of a Rome in a particular place and time. Please see my posts in the trinity thread.

I don’t think he is speaking of a celestial realm — Noah Te Stroete

I don't think so either. On the other hand, I don't think he was suggesting that the kingdom of God was interior. Jesus was prophesying the coming of a terrestrial kingdom, in the flesh, in this world. Just to connect current creeds with Jesus, "I believe in the resurrection of the body" the three creeds of the church declares. Christians (according to the creeds) believe in bodily resurrection

I'm not personally expecting resurrection of any kind, but that's my story and I'm sticking with it.

I think the resurrection refers to a metaphorical "second birth". Something akin to ego shattering and the possibility for a new orientation to life in which the Kingdom of God is now immanent (both interiorly and exteriorly). The self expands to incorporate the possibility of all beings as oneself (interchangeable with oneself). This doesn't mean things are all awesome, just that you're closer to recognizing the value of what the Buddha might term "right action" for the good of all beings.

Jesus' resurrection of course necessitated his death. For what are any of us willing to die? Of course we'd say we'd be more willing to make small sacrifices as a means to some end (for others for ourselves) but that isn't sufficient by Jesus' comparison given the degree to which we cling to our own lives (ie. we're all painfully attached to the world in its various manifestations).

A study of the notion of "sacrifice" through the ages might be an interesting pursuit to help shed light on the crucifixion/resurrection. Also I think the Buddha is in some way equivalent to Jesus, different historical manifestations of a similar root insight.

Yes of course they depend on the context they were delivered and the preexisting beliefs they sought to modify. That’s exactly the sort of thing I’m trying to show if you look at my recent posts on the trinity thread. — schopenhauer1

I'm not positive where we differ. I'm trying to say that a mere through-point or ideological bottleneck is both not wholly representative, and not wholly accessible (in the case of Jesus).

We can reconstruct and corroborate the likely interpretations and specifics of Jesus' message by getting a handle on how beliefs were changing/evolving over-time, but I'm left unsatisfied given the hard limits on what we actually have access to, and given that the expansion of religion depends more on common interpretations and beliefs rather than clergical or authorial ones.

Well yes and no. Paul is widely considered the most influential thinker in early Christianity, shaping it to its gentle version. There were certainly influences in Paul which I’ve given a theory in the trinity thread (Gnosticism and Mystery cult practices). There were also other non-original sources as well including the Johannite idea of Logis clearly parallel with Diasporan ideas of logos already found d in Philo of Alexandria. — schopenhauer1

Paul may be the exception that proves the rule for Christianity (ironically having more direct influence than Jesus himself, whoever he may have been), but given the long theological history he drew from, and given the long series of subsequent reinterpretations that have taken place, it doesn't make much sense to assign a majority of Christian authorial credit to Paul or any other singular entity. Generations of Jewish oral tradition seems to have shaped Abraham (almost certainly an archetypal myth) and the old testament, and radical re-adaptation under novel social pressures (not just in the time of Paul) slowly turned it into something new.

When I rank the authors and influences of Christianity in my own mind, the circumstances which originally gave rise to "The Jealous God" among pagan proto-Jews (a kind of corporate dedication to a single god in an open poly-theistic market was a powerful strategy). Equal or next on the list are the social circumstances which caused "original" Christian ideas to popularize in the first place: commoditized salvation/afterlife/blessings just wasn't competitive/accessible enough for the masses of the Roman empire, where the message of Jesus was cheap, easy, and generous. In a world where social inequality would have been eminently visible (leading to discontent) at least as a peasant you could now believe that you would get the best possible afterlife instead of whatever meager afterlife prior tradition/culture dictates you can afford.

The original intended meaning of Jesus' (or Paul's) message could be any number of things, but unless it got interpreted as it did (a set of practical instructions which cut out the expense of prevalent and competing superstitions, and offered psychological salvation/happiness at a massively competitive discount) it would never have spread among the masses and never have become Rome's state religion. This is why I kind of scoff at the presumed value of authorial meaning; ideas become popular and are therefore presumed valuable because of how they are interpreted, not because of how they were intended. Why are the original beliefs of Jesus or Paul really any more interesting or relevant than the original beliefs of Pontius Pilate or historical or contemporary Jews?

You really haven’t read any of my posts in the trinity thread where I do indeed draw from a wide variety of sources. You are really pulling the rhetorical arguments by misrepersting my view which calls for a nuanced look at the historical evidence of 1st century Judaism of Jesus time. It’s like you are using my own ideas against me to make the opposite point. So weird. — schopenhauer1

I don't see where we necessarily disagree; we both view the evolution of religion as continuous change emerging from complex and dynamic social and environmental forces (notably Judiasm and economic/social conditions widespread in the empire re: Christianity). I don't think you would object to my description to Paul as opportunist, nor to my description of Jesus as not directly accessible.

Where we might differ, I think, regards how well we can reconstruct the timeline and series of causes/developments (specific to individuals) to actually pin down the likely authorial meanings associated with original Christian founders.

Well, yes I agree he was another victim of a Rome in a particular place and time. Please see my posts in the trinity thread. — schopenhauer1

I will check them out.

it doesn't make much sense to assign a majority of Christian authorial credit to Paul or any other singular entity. — VagabondSpectre

Why not ALL the Church Fathers (those who wrote doctrine a generations later than Paul), attest to his influence, and there are at least 7 epistles that are almost definitely attributed to him or someone very close to his time. It is probably true that Timothy and some others were not his writings.

Generations of Jewish oral tradition seems to have shaped Abraham (almost certainly an archetypal myth) and the old testament, and radical re-adaptation under novel social pressures (not just in the time of Paul) slowly turned it into something new. — VagabondSpectre

This is a false analogy. Almost all scholars would agree that the further back you go in the Biblical narrative, the more mythological the story becomes. Thus Abraham, may or may not have been a real person, but the stories surrounding him were meant to summarize the migrations of the ancient Hebrews embedded in wisdom stories and mythological-narratives that provided ideas on how traditions started.

commoditized salvation/afterlife/blessings just wasn't competitive/accessible enough for the masses of the Roman empire, where the message of Jesus was cheap, easy, and generous. In a world where social inequality would have been eminently visible (leading to discontent) at least as a peasant you could now believe that you would get the best possible afterlife instead of whatever meager afterlife prior tradition/culture dictates you can afford. — VagabondSpectre

I agree with you here, but by the time we get to gentile (non-Jewish) Romans being converted by the masses, the Kingdom of Heaven had become something different from its original meaning in the context of an Essene/Pharisaic/am-haaretz Jew in the Galilee region.

The original intended meaning of Jesus' (or Paul's) message could be any number of things, but unless it got interpreted as it did (a set of practical instructions which cut out the expense of prevalent and competing superstitions, and offered psychological salvation/happiness at a massively competitive discount) it would never have spread among the masses and never have become Rome's state religion. — VagabondSpectre

I agree that the message changed to fit the pagan masses of the 100s-400s in the Mediterranean world.

This is why I kind of scoff at the presumed value of authorial meaning; ideas become popular and are therefore presumed valuable because of how they are interpreted, not because of how they were intended. Why are the original beliefs of Jesus or Paul really any more interesting or relevant than the original beliefs of Pontius Pilate or historical or contemporary Jews? — VagabondSpectre

Why is it important? The OP asked what Jesus meant by the Kingdom of God. You have to understand who the historical Jesus was in his cultural/political context rather than the layers of theological layerings that were put on it by people who had their own agendas (Paul, Church Fathers, and the sort who mainly turned it from a Jewish movement in the Galilea/Judean region to a one that with more appeal to the pagan masses).

don't see where we necessarily disagree; we both view the evolution of religion as continuous change emerging from complex and dynamic social and environmental forces (notably Judiasm and economic/social conditions widespread in the empire re: Christianity). I don't think you would object to my description to Paul as opportunist, nor to my description of Jesus as not directly accessible. — VagabondSpectre

I would agree that Paul was an opportunist, I would agree to an extent Jesus is not completely accessible but that we can get an idea/ a rough picture of what his movement would be like based of the Judaism of his time period/region.

Where we might differ, I think, regards how well we can reconstruct the timeline and series of causes/developments (specific to individuals) to actually pin down the likely authorial meanings associated with original Christian founders. — VagabondSpectre

Yes this seems to be true. Well, it seems you don't even think it can be reconstructed meaningfully where I think we can at least get a rough picture based on his culture and region.

I will check them out. — VagabondSpectre

Cool.

What is Jesus referring to here when He says, “The Kingdom of Heaven (or God)”? — Noah Te Stroete

To the OP:

One thing you have to decide is which historical version of Jesus you want to provide the answer. St. Thomas is quite clear on the answer right at the beginning of his gospel, verse 1.3:

Jesus said, "If your leaders say to you, 'Look, the (Father's) kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, 'It is in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the (Father's) kingdom is within you and it is outside you.

Of course, although few now challenge the gospel's authenticity, the majority of the church challenges its veracity.

Thank you for sharing! I’ve felt for a long time that it is within all of us, provided we are given God’s grace or are willing to accept it.

Just a site process observation. You can respond to a particular comment by clicking on the swoopy arrow thing that appears when the cursor hovers over the body of a comment.

I like the way Gnostic Christianity looks at heaven and reality as science seems to prove their concept.

I wrote this to refute the false notion that Gnostic Christians do not like matter and reality that the inquisitors propagated to justify their many murders of my religions originators. It shows that Christians should actually hate matter and not Gnostic Christians.

The Christian reality.
1 John 2:15Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. 16For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.
Gen 3; 17 Thou shalt not eat of it; cursed is the ground for thy sake; in toil shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life.
-----------

The Gnostic Christian reality.

Gnostic Christian Jesus said, "Those who seek should not stop seeking until they find. When they find, they will be disturbed. When they are disturbed, they will marvel, and will reign over all. [And after they have reigned they will rest.]"
"If those who attract you say, 'See, the Kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you.
If they say to you, 'It is under the earth,' then the fish of the sea will precede you.
Rather, the Kingdom of God is inside of you, and it is outside of you.
[Those who] become acquainted with [themselves] will find it; [and when you] become acquainted with yourselves, [you will understand that] it is you who are the sons of the living Father.
But if you will not know yourselves, you dwell in poverty and it is you who are that poverty."

As you can see from that quote, if we see God's kingdom all around us and inside of us, we cannot think that the world is anything but evolving perfection. Most just don't see it and live in poverty. Let me try to make you see the world the way I do.

Here is a mind exercise. Tell me what you see when you look around. The best that can possibly be, given our past history, or an ugly and imperfect world?

Candide.
"It is demonstrable that things cannot be otherwise than as they are; for as all things have been created for some end, they must necessarily be created for the best end.”

That means that we live in the best of all possible worlds, because it is the only possible world, given all the conditions at hand and the history that got us here. That is an irrefutable statement given entropy and the anthropic principle.

You will never die may refer to your mental condition on earth and means that your ideas will never be bested and what you think is true reality. True reality never dies.

Regards
DL