Saw video called search for jesus..In that documentary historical experts claimed that kingdom of god is political term...what r ur views on this?
Sorry pal but there will be no politics played by God.
The word "Kingdom" suggests a political structure, but we are incapable of gleaning the true structural form, so the word "Kingdom" is used because that is a term that people of that time could relate to.
@dave where did i mentioned god played politics?...i mentioned movements during jesus days and one such movement was led by john and succeeded by jesus...it was one of many movements during those days which had slogan like no rule other than god and such stuffs..
Religion and politics is exactly the same in the way they operate. They appeal to the masses which gives them their comfort.
Though they are separate kingdoms by themselves they are united by the same purpose.
So the epitome of any religion is to be a political empire. This was the expectation of the Jews concerning their messiah.
Jesus did not fulfill their wishes as per their religion neither their political aspirations...but actually challenged it to the extent that resorted to killing him.
Spirituality always appeal to the remnants....
John, Jesus and I preach the kingdom of God is come........IN YOU. No need of any other thing except you and you alone.
@kess so u r in lines with john and jesus?
@kess then u r lucky to be born in this era rather than 2k yrs back...
If we lived in those biblical times, you, me & kess most likely be dead at our age, Jesus was a very old man when he dead, you would think most people living today would be wiser than the prophet living in the holy lands period.
Then the next step is a leap of blind faith, living everyday for the rest of your life for one way group thinking. Mean while most people on earth are not even aware of your Kingdom group or it's afterlife promises.
Like Jesus said, the kingdom of heaven is within, what ever you choose with your good conscientiousness in hand is acceptable, healthy and wise.
40 may have been the average age that people died at, but statistically speaking that means that there had to be a large group of people who died younger and a large group of people who died older, sometimes much, much older. There are plenty of cases of people who lived into their 60's, 70's or 80's.
How did "The average life expectancy was about 40," become "Almost everyone was dead by 40?" They're not the same thing at all.
I thought some of those OT dudes lived for several hundred years. Surely that would bring the "average" age way up (?)
Yes, way, way back when. But the time frame under discussion is the 1st Centuries BC/AD. Depending on the source, the average life expentency was 40-50. And the assumption that the Gospel writers never met Jesus (which 3 of the 4 either claimed it for themselves or it was claimed for them that they had) would be more plausible IF the maximum lifespan of almost everybody back then was 40. If the average lifespan was 40, then a lot of people lived longer and the assumption loses some traction.
Yes and no. The kingdom of God was understood by Jews of the day as pushing the Romans out of Israel and establishing a literal earthly kingdom like in the days of David. They expected the Messiah to gather an army and start the rebellion.
Jesus was talking about a kingdom of the Spirit, where those who would follow the true God would form His kingdom, but not as an armed rebellion.
@chris ok...but historians argue that jesus was not person who dubbed kingdom of god terminology...jesus was one of many young men who wanted romans to go...No rule but that of god was popular slogan during those days according to historians and in those days religion , politics went hand in hand...what r ur views on such claims?
I hope I'm understanding you correctly, I feel badly because I don't think English is your first language and I really want to make sure I'm answering what you're asking.
If you're asking about what I think of those days, then Jesus may have been "one of many young men who wanted romans to go," but He did not preach violent insurrection the way many of them did.
If you're asking do I think that politics and religion should go hand in hand in 21st Century America they way they did in 1st Century Israel, or 21st Century Iran or Saudi Arabia, then my answer is...
Yes and no. I've said before and repeat here, America is not a theocracy and is not going to be. A big part of the beauty of America is its ability to accomodate so many people from so many backgrounds. So in that sense, no. But as a committed Christian, of course I think it would be better for everyone if everyone were a Christian and acted politically in that way. But Jesus did not teach that any particular religious group should take over the government. It's not the job of the government to force people to be Christian, if that were even possible. Christians should absolutely work to influence the public square, as other groups do, but we are not supposed to impose our views by fiat on the public.
I hope I explained what I think well enough.
And yet, gay people are still being denied the right to marry. Many of the fundamentalists in this country would very much like it to be a Theocracy. One reason I believe that is that it's basically impossible for a candidate that is not a Christian to become president of the US. If America was so "open" and the land of the free and what not, why would an Atheist or Agnostic candidate be so looked down upon in this day and age?
Maybe because it seems the vast majority of Americans are professing the Christian faith and therefore view atheists with some suspicion?
Because obviously anyone who holds a position difference to one's own is suspicious?
More the fact that atheists are militantly pursuing a program to destroy all and any discussion or debate on anything spiritual for the obvious reason that if any atheist ever once experienced a truly spiritual event, their premise would be destroyed.
Unless they could ignore it by calling it a mental aberration that they got over.
But I guess it's just that folk trust more those they can relate to.
... Based on what evidence? That's the problem. Coming to conclusions with no real evidence to back it up. To judge someone before even getting to know them, because you think they're ridiculous for not believing in God. Discrimination based on lack of religion is ridiculous. When a candidate who could show upstanding "morale" in the eyes of anyone, is intelligent, kind, and whatever else, but then admits that he is an Atheist, would basically be forced out of the running, to say that this country didn't smell like the on start of a theocracy, I don't know what else would be a sign. They were giving one candidate a hard time because he was Mormon. An Atheist doesn't stand a chance. That's hardly 'land of the free" mentality.
No one understands the separation of church and state anymore. It's important not because we want to steal your "precious" religion from you, but because everyone in America isn't a Christian, and as such, to attempt to constantly push religious rules on the population is unfair, and unbiblical, for the Christian willing to get his head out of his butt long enough to discover that Jesus had no interest in changing the law of the land, and in fact commanded that people "give to Caesar what is due to Caesar." Nowhere do I remember in reading the Bible a passage where Jesus is commanding His listeners/followers to tell Romans how to live their lives, and the ones today would do well to follow.
Hmmm. but the Romans had the majority and ruled....maybe that is why nobody tried to tell them to do what the minority wanted them to do?
I am all for separation of church and state, the more the better, for that would allow believers to see the differences and decide which 'kingdom' they wanted to live in.
Because so many people in America claim to be Christian. When the majority of Americans claim agnosticism or atheism, then an atheist will have a better shot. Same for Islam, Buddhism or Jainism. (Romney the Mormon seems be gaming the system in a way by focusing in economic issues and attempting to keep his faith out of the spotlight. Besides, in a country where Donny and Marie are still stars, it's not quite as big a stretch.)
And just because America is not a theocracy does not mean that Christians should not try to influence the public square. When the majority of Americans reject Christianity, then the Biblical definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman will also be rejected by the majority.
I would say give it time. I'm old enough to remember when (outside of Greenwich Village and San Francisco) being gay was something you kept quiet about. And the rise in acceptance of polyamorous relationships means that it's just a matter of time.
... In an ideal society, religion or lack of religion should be irrelevant when choosing a candidate if we are to continue practicing the separation of Church and State, which would be beneficial for non-believers and believers alike (believers for the reason Aquasilver put about them "seeing the differences and choosing which 'kingdom' they want to take part in"). For non-believers because they won't be forced to live according to "values" that have nothing to do with them. If Christians are afraid of gay people using the term "marriage," which is quite ridiculous, then they don't have to marry a member of the same sex and use it! That is their own "conviction," not everyone else's. The term marriage isn't going to somehow damage Christians. The idea is ludicrous. If gay people want to get married, get over it! According to what many Christians believe, they're going to go to Hell whether they're allowed to get "married" or not!
Also, there is no need for you to "influence" the public square. Forcing non-believers to live according to your laws and standards won't "save" them. Conservatives seem to forget that it's supposedly not actions that "save" you, but a "relationship" with Jesus. So, you let us live how we see fit, and live your lives how YOU see fit and according to your OWN standards. We're all "sinners" going to "Hell" anyway. Leave politics alone if you can't keep your religious bias out of it. OR, become politicians without religious agenda. What's "best" and equal for everyone is what's important. Not how you "feel" about gays and their "abomination..."
So by your own definition an ideal society would be one where people live in little boxes, never interacting with anyone else and feeling perfectly content and happy with their own beliefs.
The idea that we Christians should simply "live and let live" is unworkable for one reason, because nobody else does! Do you really think that if we withdrew from the public square, the world would leave us alone and not attempt to force us to say things are okay that we don't believe are okay? So the Bible says that marriage is between one man and one woman. If we just shut up, the world will keep it that way for us right? What, out of gratitude? And that bridge in Brooklyn I used to cross every day costs how much?
You're right, it is a relationship with Jesus that saves us, not the government. I've written that often. But that is not the same as saying we shouldn't make any effort to influence the public square.
Separation of church and state, as originally put forth by Thomas Jefferson (who used public money to send missionaries to the Native Americans) meant that the government would not tell the church how to run its business. The constitution said that as well, although it also said there will be no state religion. And state religion is not what I'm after.
And that thing about not marrying someone of the same sex? Come on, do you really think it's that simplistic and glib?
Yes, that is exactly what would happen, keep your religious beliefs out of the public square and you will be left alone to believe whatever you want.
Yes, if you shut up about that which is of no concern to you, you'll be left alone to believe whatever you want.
Then, you will only accomplish fighting and wars, just like your religion has these past many centuries.
Yes, we already know what you're after, but that only causes fighting.
It doesn't matter, it is of no concern of yours whatsoever.
@chirs no i am not talking about current era...
i am talking about jesus and his era...yes jesus didnt preach violent revolution against roman...there where many different groups working against romans...and many believed in violence while many didnt ....jesus was in john's group which didnt preach in violence...they believed god is going to intervene...now coming to point...Historians claim that 'kingdom of god' was term in this context...that god would intervene against romans and there would be kingdom of god after god's intervention...obviously that didnt happen and john as well jesus died for their conviction...
so what do you think about this?
As both a practicing Christian and an amateur theologian I believe that those things had to happen in order for the prophecies in the Old Testament to be fulfilled.
@chris ok...but jews believe christ never fulfilled prophecy...romans continued to rule . They demolished the temple ...Jews had tough time and messiah which OT predicted was much different ...
what is ur view on this?
@pisean - The Jews expected the Messiah (and still do, I've asked and researched on the Internet) to:
"Be an observant Jewish man descended from the house of King David
Be an ordinary human being (as opposed to the Son of God)
Bring peace to the world
Gather all Jews back into Israel
Rebuild the ancient Temple in Jerusalem
Unite humanity in the worship of the Jewish God and Torah observance "
(http://judaism.about.com/od/judaismbasi … Jesus.htm, among others.)
And from the expectations about Messiah at that time, the timeline laid out in the Gospels of Jesus' political rise, fall and execution was inveitable.
From a Christian perspective, the destruction of the Temple (which Jesus predicted) was a necessary symbol that since the Son had come, fulfilling the role of Messiah although only partially at that time, the ritual sacrifices were no longer necessary.
The book of Revelation does help point out that Jesus will fulfill all the predicted roles of Messiah, but some had to be done at that time in history, and the others will have to be fulfilled when He comes back.
I know this is a skimpy overview, but it does give a basic idea.
Kingdom in reference to kingdom og God, is simply a projection of our own perception of reality and our need to relate it to what we call God. Same with Army of God or Face of God, these words are words we can conceptualize and they serve as substitutes for concepts we probably couldn't understand.
I would want to know what specific context they made the claim in. I am sure it has been used politically at various periods in history and they were probably referring to a specific case when this happened.
Living in Gods Kingdom is not a political thing, like Dave stated politics have no place in the Kingdom.
We are born into the kingdom of the world, we belong to the world, the world has authority over us and controls what we do, with legal right and ability to do so.
Scripture tells us that Lucifer/Satan call him what you will, I call him simply 'the enemy', has dominion over the world kingdom and by default all those born into his domain (the world).
When one comes to Christ and accepts His authority over your life, then you leave the kingdom of the world and change your spiritual address to the Kingdom of God, and as such the world has no authority over you, unless you give it to the world by your avarice, gluttony, pride, lust, envy, and anger, or by your self esteem taking over your life (ego).
Leaving the kingdom of the world for the Kingdom of God is simple to do, but staying in the kingdom of the world is often seen as easier, especially if the pursuit of world knowledge has blinded ones consciousness in favour of false intellect.
You have to choose to leave the kingdom of the world, and elect to come into the Kingdom of God, and as such one gains 'citizenship' by agreeing to obey the rules of the new Kingdom.
That all happens here on earth in real time, and when we die, we go to our chosen kingdoms, either that ruled by the ruler of the world, or the Kingdom of God, ruled by God.
It's a destiny thing... and we get to choose it by our active choice or our continued acceptance of the default world membership.
Just get rid of 8 of your commandment and boil it down to
:Don't harm: something simply like that Or
All your doing is showing how to imprison the World like the USA dose
Where 4% of USA is the world population and carries 26% of the world's prisons and half of the Wars offensive War budget
Most of the world is not aware of the Bible,
Give the world a break and free will. Face it, most people do not want your kind of Kingdom of big Guns and God which lacks freedom
OK, you are obviously having a flashback to the sixties, enjoy and stay away from windows.
Well, if we get rid of 8 of the commandments, the two that would remain would be: Love the Lord God with all you heart, mind and soul, and: Love your neighbor as yourself.
Everything else you said we should have would flow naturally out of those.
Obviously, the Kingdom of God is a Theocracy. Whosoever will may come. Others refuse to enter the Kingdom
i know plenty of christians who are for gay marriage and gay ordination.
I wish most Christians would turn gay, that way we would not kill the planet by over populating it.
I thought that phrase about "Religious breeders groups" was both interesting and telling!
Very interesting indeed!
I knew what the term "breeders" meant, although I wasn't aware until now that it was also used by people who believe the earth is overpopulated.
Kingdom,Government -The Rule of Christ The King
According to http://www.thefreedictionary.com/kingdom means:
king·dom n.1. A political or territorial unit ruled by a sovereign.2.a. The eternal spiritual sovereignty of God or Christ.b. The realm of this sovereignty.
And according to http://www.yourdictionary.com/kingdom it means:
Kingdom is a country or location ruled by a monarch, the authority of God, or the highest category used when classifying animals and people into different categories. (noun)
An example of a kingdom is a country that has a king for a ruler.
With these definitons and putting it into reference to the Kingdom of God, I would say 1st that those in the Kingdom of God would be required to submit thereselves to God, to be ruled by God, lead by God,In all Kingdoms their has to be a King.
God has made Jesus the King of the Kingdom of God.
Jesus is the one who gives us life- He has the keys to the Kingdom of God!
And I (Jesus) will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Matthew 16:19
Jesus always quote :Kingdom of Heaven is Within: there is endless double meanings and morals in the Bible, it's no wonder why Christian groups creates more wars and prisons for themselves and others.
by Disappearinghead5 years ago
For the very many years I was in Church attendance, the Kingdom of God was always equated with Heaven. It was a future event that only those who believed in Jesus would see either when they died or were raptured, whilst...
by Charles James7 years ago
Jesus overturned the moneychangers tables, but was he really a socialist?
by Debra Allen9 years ago
I brought up the verse that God's Kingdom was WITHIN you. Some person whom thinks they are a Bible Schalor told me that I didn't know what I was talking about and I didn't think I knew who Jesus was talking...
by lovetherain4 months ago
"The kingdom of God is within you"What does this mean?
by notloc277 years ago
Does the way people view religion often get in the way of a relationship with Jesus??
by Amani Placide8 years ago
Biblically and theologically, what can be said about the black church can also be said about the vision of its religious leadership. The black community’s most effective leaders have been nurtured in the...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.