Talk:Kingship and kingdom of God/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Kingship and kingdom of God. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Ambiguous sentences

In the section "The Kingdom in Islam", I see the sentences:

Islam holds a great estimation as the location of many events associated with the life of Jesus. From that day, Jerusalem has had a very important spiritual meaning for Muslims, not only being the first Qibla but also the mystical experience of the Islamic prophet Muhammad's ascension to heaven (Isra).

I can't make out a clear meaning here. "estimation" seems to be being used in a form that could be replaced more readably with "esteem", but I thought Islam was a religion, not a location in the sense used here. "From that day" is also ambiguous: from what day? These should be clarified.

Also, regarding this sentence:

Muslims believe that by name Jerusalem suggests "a place of peace" […]

I replaced "by" with "the", which seems to me to keep the semantics the same while aiding readability: a place suggesting something by name I interpret to be the same as the name suggesting it. If this is wrong, revert it and tell me why.

--Drake Wilson 00:01, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

M'lakoth HaShmyim

Never heard this phrase in my life - please sir it not rabbinical or biblical Mike33 23:28, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

You have actually written Many Kings of the Heavens. In Judaism no need to worry about whether king or not. He is always - L-rd of Heaven and Earth.

Please cut the hebrew words unless you can prove that you have heard them before. Regards Mike33 23:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I cut the hebrew because it was never substantiated... Glenn4pr 04:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

What is?

What is "The True Kingdom of Heavens-Union Spirist"? looks like an item for deletion? Glenn4pr 05:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Areas of unevenness

The article seems a little uneven -on the one hand very basic information that the gospels were written in Greek -is that neccesary here? On the otherhand reference to the Quests for Jesus without an explanation -would it be better to summarise here or simply link to the Quest for the historical Jesus article. Incidently -Schweitzer is end of 1st quest -second/new quest is post Bultmann. (Be Dave 22:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC))

Next point -the article says that The Kingdom of God is explained only in the parables of Jesus. That seems disputable to me -are the parables offering definitions/explanations any more or less than say the teaching of the beattitudes or the actions/miracles of Jesus NT Wright and EP Sanders would argue a wide reading to gain an understanding (Be Dave 22:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC))

Finally for now! The section on Evangelical Scholarship -I'm not sure the dispute there is neccessarily an Evangelical distinctive -per se. Depends I guess whether you think that Evangelical is appropriate and fundamental in describing Dodd, Perrin etc? (Be Dave 22:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC))

premillenialists

I've made some significant but imho still incomplete changes to the section previously entitled other viewpoints. They seem -especially with the Christadelphian bit added to be views that emphasise a premillenial return of Christ to rule over Israel and the nations. This would then include with further editing dispensationalists -e.g Lehaye, Christian Brethren with further editing. I alos thing we could have one paragraph stating the essential views and then a list of groups holding them with minor comment on any significant variation. In my very humble opinion you coudl just end up with a "me too" if we tried to describe in detail every variation on the theme. -let me know what you think ta (Be Dave 19:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)) Can we have a go at rewording the Jehovah's witness bit -it doesn't seem to read right to me. Also the phrase that they extend it beyond being a state of mind seems to apply wider than JWS and seems redundant to me (Be Dave 16:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC))

+++++++++++

The writer gives close attention to the differences twixt Catholics, Evangelicals, etc. in their interpretations of what "the kingdom of heaven" means? But shouldn't there be some examination of how Eastern Orthodox Christians interpret this here concept? Tom129.93.17.135 00:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Jerusalem in Arabic

From the article: "Muslims believe that the name Jerusalem suggests 'a place of peace'." AFAIK Jerusalem is called Al-Quds (ألقدص) in Arabic, meaning "the holy", based on the root q-d-s (ق د ص), meaning "holy". (أ ل) is the definite article "the". ِ

At least that is what was written on road signs and what the minibusdrivers always said (AlQuds AlQuds AlQuds). Even though I know Arabic I am not firm with my knowledge of the Christian or Muslim religion, so may be I am missing something? --Soylentyellow 07:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Other Viewpoint edit

I removed the JW's views from the "Other Viewpoints" section as their views were already mentioned in the "Pre-millennial Approaches" section Wintrlnd (talk) 00:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Viewpoint of Evangelical Christian Scholars

Since Glenn4pr put a SectOR tag on here with the comment "trying to get help from those who can verify that this section is not original analysis and cite sources in evangelical movement who say these things", I thought I'd start up the talk on it.

Reading the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research link, my interpretation of a Primary source would include the Bible, just as it includes "historical documents sucn as a diary" and "research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged". Taking a statement at face value from the Bible does not constitute Original research although where it conflicts with other interpretations, those conflicts should be called out.

This is why I disagree with Glenn4pr's original change from "Christian View of the Kingdom of God" to "Evangelical Christian Scholars" because there is a face value interpretation of what is written in the Bible and then there is a interpreted "scholarly" interpretation that should be called out distinctly. If this is not the case, then no historical document could be represented in Wikipedia at all unless a scholar had published a paper on it... and even then how could we interpret that paper unless another scholar published a paper on it, and so on.

The key phrase is "collecting and organizing information" -- I'm all for that. In fact to the organization scheme suggested above it would be very useful to have a topic or sub article that enumerates all of the New Testament referece to Kingdom of God and Kingdom of Heaven. No interpretation, just a summary statement and a link.

The problem with the current attempt, and I applaud the thought that has gone into this, is that it involves interpretation and interpretation is either original or needs to be cited. For example, the statement that the kingdom of God is to be entered with "humility." This is based on the enter as a little child passage. Does it mean humility? That is an interpretation. It could mean, "unquestioningly" or "naively" or "without sin" or any number of reasonable interpretations. I don't have a problem with the interpretation offered here, but it is an interpretation and it is original to someone. Neither the word humility nor the concept are explicitly in the biblical text cited. Glenn4pr 06:56, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

The summary at the beginning of this article gives no hint as to the definition of the Kingdom of God other than that it is "defined almost entirely by parable". This is a disservice to the reader who is forced to wade through the various perspectives even though there are concrete things which can be said about Jesus' recorded use of the term. This is why I am moving the definition up. As to interpretation: simply quoting all of the verses would be an acceptably minimal amount of interpretation but not follow the guidelines for a summary, so honing the verses down to a non-interprative summary is desirable. The point that Glenn4pr makes about the interpretation on humility is well taken, so to remove interpretation, the word-for-word phrase "like a little child" can be used. While this still leaves the summary a bit vague, the reader may dig inot the sub-articles for more specific interpretations. Heptazane 08:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't have time to work on this at the moment although I'd like to return to this subject. However, there are some great books by evangelical scholars that do a good job of explaining these concepts. The classic is John Bright's "The Kingdom of God" (ISBN 0687209080). Other good references are "The Gospel of the Kingdom" by George Eldon Ladd (ISBN 9780802812803); "Announcing the Kingdom" by Arthur Glasser (ISBN 0801026261); "The Good News of the Kingdom" edited by Charles Van Engen (ISBN 1579102786); "Coming of the Kingdom" by H.R. Ridderbos (ISBN 0875524087); and "The Mission of God" by Christopher Wright (ISBN 9780830825714). CarverM (talk) 04:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Clean up

I did a bit of clean up including removing unsourced statements with one year old citation requests. No offense intended.--Nowa (talk) 23:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Misdirected

I believe the redirect "Kingdom of Heaven" is erroneous. Can this be fixed. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Eucharist

The article should maybe add some perspectives from eucharistic theology. In many cirumstances, Jesus is refered to as the King of the Eucharist and King of the Church, which suggests that the Eucharist and Church are one and the same, in close harmony with the Sacred Heart of Christ. 69.157.229.14 (talk) 02:15, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Summary of the Kingdom in Christianity

Kingdom is a spiritual kingdom

Luke 17:21 the kingdom of God is within [or among] you. In its present aspect, "The kingdom of God does not come with observation" was Jesus's reply to the Pharisees who asked Him when the kingdom of God would come.

Kingdom is entered through understanding, acceptance with humility, spiritual rebirth, and doing the will of God

Mark 12:34 When Jesus saw that he had answered wisely, he said to him "You are not far from the kingdom of God."
Mark 10:15 I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.
John 3:5 no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit
Matthew 7:21 Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.

Kingdom is peopled by the righteous

1 Corinthians 6:9 Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God?

Since the Biblical prophesy in its entirety has yet to be fulfilled to its last day, the righteous will be resurrected during the end times and inherit the kingdom of God, which is the new earth and the new heaven; which God will reside. God will make all things new. Every creature who have heard the gospel and believe in Jesus will be saved and be with God. On the new earth will be the new Jerusalem "coming down out of heaven from God." The New Jerusalem is the tabernacle of God, as prophesied in the book of Revelation. "Behold the tabernacle of God is with men, and He will dwell with them, and they shall be His people. God Himself will be with them and be their God."

There is a fair amount of speculation in what you write, but it is a fair point that it is unclear whether the inheritance is currently active or a future state. I'll look at the wording. Heptazane (talk) 22:10, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Kingdom contrasts the kingdom of Satan

Luke 11:18 If Satan is divided against himself, how can his kingdom stand?

Note that this is not hell since hell is not the domain of Satan, but the dungeon for him.

2 Peter 2:4 For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell, putting them into gloomy dungeons to be held for judgement

--Heptazane

As I read the synoptic gospels I get the impression that "the Kingdom of God" was Jesus' slogan, like John Kennedy's "New Frontier". Like "New Frontier" it does not refer to a particular place but is just a convenient way of summing up his message.

basileia

The article has nothing regarding the use of the word "basileia" in other documents that were written at the time. Hackwrench 05:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The real question is about the Aramaic "malkutha d'alatha", not the Greek translation, as Crossan clearly explains. See also The Words of Jesus in the Original Aramaic by Stephen Andrew Missick. Also, at one time in Judaism, Israel was the Kingdom of God (although that literal phrase was not used), and at a later time, down to the present, the Cosmos throughout all time was and is. What Jesus said about a kingdom of the spirit within (or among) you (plural) was clearly different, yet subject to a multitude of interpretations from the mystical to the Dominionist.--Cherlin (talk) 23:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Some say the term, as used in the New Testament, was original to Jesus, so there isn't a great deal in contemporary Jewish literature that can help us.

This article may be a good source for those contributing to this page: http://www.beginningwithmoses.org/articles/leithartkingdomofgod.htm

I've seen the review of basileia / basileia tou theou use in other texts, but I can't put my hands on it at the moment. Not sure if it was Crossan, or another source. Glenn4pr 07:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

It's Jewish, see http://jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=225&letter=K

And so was Jesus. We wouldn't expect it to be a complete break. But I guess the point is that the theme is nowhere else developed as thoroughly as in the synoptic gospels. And no one prior to Jesus used it as the anthem, the cause, around which all the lessons centered. Right? By the way, the article in the Jewish Encyclopedia is rated 2.77 out of 5, if that means anything. Glenn4pr 15:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

John the Baptist: "In those days John the Baptist came, preaching in the Desert of Judea and saying, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near." Matt 3 See also Essenes. See also Zealots.

Jesus did not invent the term basileia. Here's a quote from Plato, Critias 115c, as part of his description of Atlantis:

hiera kai tas basilikas oikêseis kai tous limenas kai ta neôria kai sumpasan tên allên chôran, toiaid' en taxei+ diakosmountes.

tous tês thalattês trochous, hoi peri tên archaian êsan mêtropolin, prôton men egephurôsan, hodon exô kai epi ta basileia poioumenoi. ta de basileia en tautêi têi tou theou kai tôn progonôn katoikêsei kat' archas epoiêsanto euthus, heteros de par' heterou dechomenos, kekosmêmena kosmôn,

And here's the same passage as translated by W.R.M. Lamb (Harvard, 1925):

"their temples and royal dwellings, their harbors and their docks, and all the rest of their country, ordering all in the fashion following.

"First of all they bridged over the circles of sea which surrounded the ancient metropolis, making thereby a road towards and from the royal palace. And they had built the palace at the very beginning where the settlement was first made by their God and their ancestors; and as each king received it from his predecessor, he added to its adornment"

It seems that the term "kingdom" is a little misleading. As used in Greek, the term meant some sort of physical structure. A royal palace, no less. I suggest a disambiguation page, because currently basileia leads right here, which is surely wrong. TharkunColl 15:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Tharkun, I'm not sure I understand your comment -Kingdom is the normal New Testament translation and seems to be widely accepted. (Be Dave 22:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC))

The word in Greek has definite conotations of some sort of physical structure or building (inhabited by royalty or rulers). The traditional Biblical translation is incorrect. TharkunColl 23:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that "basileia" is correctly translated as "kingdom." I checked several Greek dictionaries to be sure, and they all suggest a translation of "kingdom," "dominion," or at the outside a "hereditary monarchy." Perhaps, Tharkun, you are thinking of the related word "basileion," which could mean "a palace" or "a kingly dwelling"; another related word is "basilikos," which has a secondary definition of "colonnade." However, "basileia" is correctly translated as "kingdom." SU Linguist 04:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

In his Atlantis narrative, Plato uses basileia to refer to the citadel of the rulers of Atlantis, not the whole kingdom. Conceivably, of course, the word could have changed its meanining between the 4rd century BC and the 1st century AD, but do we have any evidence for this outside the Bible? In short, are modern translations of the word influenced by Christian tradition, rather than the other way round? Perhaps the idea of a physical palace didn't sit too well with evolving theological doctrine - yet isn't the New Jerusalem of Revelation precisely this? (And quite big as well - a huge cube of about the same volume as the moon sitting on the earth.) TharkunColl 08:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I have a degree in Classics and three years of Greek and Tharkie is right. In Ancient Greek to basileion typically refers to a local King's residence.[1] I wouldn't know about what it means in the NT, maybe just put a brief sentence in the effect that the meaning changed from the earlier meaning.Merkinsmum 12:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Basileia is a queen, [2] but then I only know Ancient, not NT Greek. Maybe it is related to the concept of the church/kingdom of God being wedded to him? If someone could find sources for the derivation/etymology of this word as meaning kingdom of god in the NT I for one would really like a brief sentence or two explaining it in the articleMerkinsmum 12:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I've readded my comments below -for some reason they were removed??? (Be Dave 19:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC))

You would have to look at the translation of the word in the LXX you then have a language to compare it against -the Hebrew-you would also have to allow for the range a word may have at any time so any one word may have more than one meaning. Kingdom in the LXX is Basileia (Gen 10:10, 2 Sam 3:10). All of this is incidental as the constant translation of the word by Greek scholars for many years has been Kingdom, reign... so to change it would count as original research unless someone can quote someone -then it might be worth footnoting as a minority opinion. Otherwise this seems to be a fruitless conversation that wont change the article (193.63.62.252 14:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC))

I'm not suggesting that, just that if there were a sentence in the article explaining the etymology/derivation of the word used in this way it would be really good.Merkinsmum 00:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

There are two words in Ancient Greek which are transliterated basileia. One has a short final alpha and an acute accent on the first iota and means 'queen'. The other has a long final alpha and an acute accent on the second iota and means 'kingdom'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.73.31.50 (talk) 19:59, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Presenting Multiple Viewpoints

This article treads on belief issues, so it seems we need to try to present both viewpoints in a balanced way. My edit attempts that, however, I believe the intro still needs work to maintain NPOV. Glenn4pr

As the heading says, there are not only two viewpoints, but a multitude of viewpoints.--Cherlin (talk) 23:53, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, I think I've improved the NPOV from my earlier edit. Now the only question is the order of the major sections. I'm not going to fret over that. I could be persuaded that the evangelical viewpoint has roots in restorationist and millenialist thought -- any experts aware of the historical roots of these concepts in fundamental and evangelical movements? Glenn4pr

The section "Viewpoint of Biblical Scholars and Liberal Theologians" is a mishmash of different non-mainstream viewpoints that grew over time as a place for people to toss stuff. It barely reads in a coherent manner. Elevating it by implying that this is what "scholars" think and moving it to the beginning of the page seems inappropriate from any point of view. Heptazane

I've edited the flow of the passage to hopefully bring more clarity. I don't think there was any attempt to imply the thinking of scholars, the scholars are cited and named. The order of the material pretty clearly follows its chronological development within the historical/liberation context. The positions are presented matter of factly and without advocacy or authoritative voice. In the section that follows, tentatively collected under the "evangelical" label, most of the material is without citation. If you could cite the ideas to their original authors, and give some sense of how these evangelical concepts developed and when, that would be useful. I also think the mainstream Catholic point of view needs attention and seperation from the evangelical interpretation. Like you say, it is a mishmash. Greater distinction to the millenialist and pre-millenialist viewpoints on the Kingdom of God would be enormously helpful. Also, it seems that Restorationist and Mormon thought has a lot to say on this subject, and that is overlooked here. Based on the historical development of the concepts involved, perhaps the ordering of the material should be:

Eusebius>Augustine>(Aquinas)>Modern Mainstream Catholic viewpoint

Reimarus>Schweitzer>Jesus Seminar>Liberation Theology

Restorationist>Mormonism

Pre-Millenialist>Christian Evangelical Glenn4pr 08:44, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Reverting Intro edit

I replaced the following paragraph with the original.

According to Jesus, the Kingdom of God is both a spiritual and physical kingdom[3] with a government in which he will reign as King,[4] with twelve appointed apostles who will rule with him.[5] Jesus' statements reiterate the hundreds of passages made by the Jewish prophets of a literal kingdom of God on earth.[6]

The existing introduction paragraph contains as little interpretation as possible while still conveying the information. Your paragraph does not. For example: "the kingdom of God is with (or among) you": "Among" could mean that it is the relationships that they share, it could mean a presence in their group, "within" could mean within their bodies, part of their sprit, etc. Your paragraph is almost entirely written with a conclusion in mind rather than simply presenting what is said. Furthermore the article is on the Kingdom of *God*, which may or may not be the Kingdom of *Jesus* (see Luke 22:29 "And I confer on you a kingdom, just as my Father conferred one on me") so without speculating which is which, the introduction focuses on the Kingdom of God.

Wikipedia is not a place for original research hence the NPOV policy. I have no doubt that you care about your point of view, but consider the policies. Heptazane (talk) 03:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Reverting the introduction.

The introduction was changed to include the following:

According to Jesus, he is the king of the kingdom, and the kingdom is a heavenly one, not literally visible on Earth: *ref* "The kingdom of God does not come with observation; nor will they say, ‘See here!’ or ‘See there!’ For indeed, the kingdom of God is within [or among] you." The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible observes: “Although frequently cited as an example of Jesus’ ‘mysticism’ or ‘inwardness,’ this interpretation rests chiefly upon the old translation, ‘within you,’ [KJ, Dy] understood in the unfortunate modern sense of ‘you’ as singular; the ‘you’ ([hy·mon′]) is plural (Jesus is addressing the Pharisees—vs. 20) . . . The theory that the kingdom of God is an inner state of mind, or of personal salvation, runs counter to the context of this verse, and also to the whole NT presentation of the idea.” (Edited by G. A. Buttrick, 1962, Vol. 2, p. 883)

I reverted it because the introduciton is not the place for interpretation, but the objective stating of what is said with further study to follow in the individual sections. The general statement "within people" captures what is said (and plurality that is mentioned above) without speculating on what it means. It is also not entirely accurate to say "he is the king" as there are multiple kingdoms involved as indicated by Luke 22:29 "And I confer on you a kingdom, just as my Father conferred one on me". Whether the "Kingdom of God" refers to the kingdom governed by Jesus or a greater kingdom by God the Father is also not a discussion for the introduction. Heptazane 18:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The introduction may not be the place for interpretation but if that is so then the statement above needs to be removed also for it is just as much an "interpretation" as what follows. While Jesus stated the above but he also made other statements about the kingdom. In these, he taught that the kingdom of God would be visible on the earth. Throughout Israel's history, God had revealed through the prophets that the kingdom of God would be on the earth. Every Jew knew this. As such, Jesus taught that the kingdom would be seen (Mark 9:1). Jesus' teaching is therefore consistent with what the prophets had revealed. The angel had told Mary, his mother, before Jesus' birth, "the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever" (Luke 1:31-33 cf. Isaiah 9:7). The throne of David was on earth. The house of Jacob was on earth. There is no heavenly language here and to say there would be a real interpretive leap. In the whole history of the Jews they never looked for a heavenly kingdom; they looked for an earthly kingdom. Jesus, as a Jew, understood and taught this. Furthermore, Jesus promised his twelve apostles that they would sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel (Luke 22:29-30). This is all earthly language. Therefore, it is not "interpretation" to state that the kingdom of God is visible and earthly when the source of that information is Jesus himself. Doctrine 30 October 2009

Wikipedia depends on secondary sources. From Wikipedia's No original research policy:

"Wikipedia articles should rely mainly on published reliable secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors."

The current form of the article is pretty bad in using direct primary sources, let's not make it any worse. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 00:31, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

To paste from elsewhere in the talk page: 'Reading the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research link, my interpretation of a Primary source would include the Bible, just as it includes "historical documents sucn as a diary" and "research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged". Taking a statement at face value from the Bible does not constitute Original research although where it conflicts with other interpretations, those conflicts should be called out.' So my sense is that if the intro were to add "there are some that stood with Jesus that would not taste of death till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power" would be non-interpretive. To say "the kingdom of God is visible and earthly" requires the kind of interpretation that should be done by secondary sources (since it could be also interpreted as "some of the disciples saw the Holy Spirit descend in power on the day of Pentecost and it is this power that comprises the Kingdom of God" and possibly other ways). Heptazane (talk) 04:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Not only would it need a secondary source, but it would have to be in line with WP:NPOV which states that it must not be a minority view. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 07:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

John

Should there be some mention of the fact that the book of John refers to the kingdom much less (only in two conversations, and only explicitly in one) than the other gospels?--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:23, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Notes

Pasted all of the talk from "Kingdom of Heaven" which was moved to "Kingdom of God".

Hello? Is anyone going to actually explain what this is? Something like "The Kingdom of Heaven is..." and an explanation of what exactly we're talking about. It seems to be a random collection of Bible quotes. I'll wait a while to see whether anyone wants to discuss it, then list it for cleanup. Dr Zen 06:16, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Is the phrase "Kingdom of Heaven" or "Kingdom of God" actually used in Jewish eschatology as a term for the Messianic age, or is this merely a projection of Christian terminology onto a similar Jewish concept? Shimmin 04:07, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

The Kingdom of God article also needs a Preterism view point, which I can help you with.

im pretty sure jesus said "my kingdom is not of this world" and the emphasis on "not of this world". what is this but a confusion of a concept of well-being? when did jesus say anything about ruling over people?

What an amazing mess!

It is just gut wrenching to even try to read this article. I think they invented the word inconsistent for this. This is not article, it is a rummage sale. I will not address the other parts, but the Christianity section is so inconsistent it just needs a total rewrite. It will probably be the end of 2011 before I can try to rewrite that, but before then any knowledgeable help with solid WP:RS references will be appreciated. But please do not keep any of the inconsistent material therein - it needs a total clean up. History2007 (talk) 23:47, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi History2007, it's a disaster. I'll add in Hellenistic, Dead Sea scrolls and Targums material. If you do the Christian material.In ictu oculi (talk) 01:40, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Kingdom of heaven is within

I would like to know who keeps adding [among] as an alternate translation of "within". Clearly, if Jesus said that the "Kingdom of Heaven is within", and not "among" then this changes everything. —Viriditas | Talk 01:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The NIV translation defaults to within but footnotes "among" as a possible alternate translation. See http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=luke%2017:20-17:21&version=31. The NET translation goes with "in your midst" with the explanation "This is a far better translation than “in you.” Jesus would never tell the hostile Pharisees that the kingdom was inside them. The reference is to Jesus present in their midst. He brings the kingdom. Another possible translation would be “in your grasp.” For further discussion and options, see D. L. Bock, Luke (BECNT), 2:1414-19." (see http://net.bible.org/bible.php?book=Luk&chapter=17#n64) Heptazane (talk) 17:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The Ryrie Study Bible (NASB) says of Luke 17:21 "the kingdom of God is in your midst." The necessary elements of the kingdom were present and needed only to be recognized. It cannot mean "within you" for the kingdom certainly was completely unconnected with the Pharisees to whom Jesus was speaking (v. 20). CarverM (talk) 19:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Where is entos (εντός) ever used to mean "among" or "in your midst"? It is always used to mean "inside" and "within". —Viriditas | Talk 10:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a Greek scholar, but in English you could say "Bob is within your group" meaning he is amongst you. 67.168.53.48 (talk) 03:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The argument is not with the translation of entos, but with the fact that 'you' here is plural, which does not come through if you say 'within you', but does if you say 'among you'. But that does not settle the matter. We could read it as 'within each of you'. It is better within Wikipedia to quote our sources' opinions and identify them by name rather than to attempt original research.----Cherlin (talk) 23:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I think in the context it is quite obvious that he is saying "Among" and not "Inside of" or "Within". How could a Kingdom be inside of a person?

(Daniel 2:44) says that the Kingdom will crush other Kingdoms.

(Acts 1:6) Has the Apostles asking if the Kingdom would be "Restored" to Israel. They were not asking about some inner peace thing, but Israel's Governmental Rule....

Jesus was also talking to wicked Pharasees that he said were like White Washed Graves full of Dead mens bones, and also clean on the outside but filthy on the inside..... He clearly was not saying God's Kingdom was inside of them, was he?

Thanks

David42718 (talk) 02:50, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

It's a moot point to argue that it 'can't' mean within, as the original word used means within. Of course, it may be metaphorical, just as many things in the Bible are. It might mean it's deep down inside a person even if on the surface they're not nice people (or really really deep down, if they're particularly unpleasant). It might mean people with a united cause (i.e. people power). It might mean any number of things. The main point is that this is not a forum. The article needs to present all notable views, with primary attention given to the most common view. Other notable interpretations, e.g. those of notable minor religious groups, should also be provided (and sourced), but should not receive undue weight.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:04, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

In any case, linguistically, for it to mean among, and for it to refer to Jesus, Jesus would need to have said, "the kingdom of god is among us." (This is the only sense in which entos can mean 'among', as being a unit within a particular group.) Otherwise, Jesus (or rather, the writer of Luke) should have said "μέσος" (mesos) if he really meant for among to include Jesus.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:13, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Wow Jeffro.... I had no Idea that you were so informed that you know what the inspired writer of the Gosple of Luke "Should" have used..... Lol

Perhaps you should also find God and let him know too.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.242.219.196 (talk) 03:35, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Basically your sarcastic contention here is that the word that was used is really the one that should indeed have been used, while at the same time contending that the intended meaning was something entirely different to the actual meaning of the word used. How very sad. Either present something relevant to the article, or say nothing.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:15, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Entos hymon dispute

This needs to be covered in the article in depth. Northrop Frye and Jay Macpherson in Biblical and Classical Myths: The Mythological Framework of Western Culture point the finger at the translator responsible for the New English Bible and examine the issue from a secular POV. —Viriditas | Talk 12:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

If every mention of the Kingdom, except this one Cleary mistranslated verse, is of an actual Govenrment/Kingdom then where does this huge "Inner Kingdom" philosophy come from?

Jesus was not a Philosopher. He claimed to be an Actual King of and Actual Kingdom and that there were those who would rule with him.

Other then this over quoted and mistranslated verse, where else in the Bible does the idea of some inner nirvana philosophy come from?

David42718 (talk) 02:58, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Lead

This should summarise the article, and neither it nor the body of the article should be based on primary sources but on what reliable third party sources say about the subject. Til, do you really disagree with this? Dougweller (talk) 17:49, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Ya after looking over the article then reading the lead, i would have to agree with dougweller. The lead is by no means a summary, its just a random snidbit of how the area was possible named. It does not explain what it its, where it is, or anything.Beefcake6412 (talk) 17:52, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

By removing the description in the lead, you've left the summary with nothing but "a foundational concept" which doesn't say anything. The sentance that you removed was the least interpretive way of providing at least attributes of the concept to get people started. This was done following Wikipedia's guidelines on Primary sources. Heptazane (talk) 02:55, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

How did it follow our guidelines on primary sources? Maybe the lead can be improved, but that didn't do it. And there are already too many references in it. References are supposed to be in the main body of the article unless there is a very good reason for them not to be. Dougweller (talk) 06:26, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:NOR states "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." Hence the numerous rounds of interpretation removal in the quotes. There is a good reason for the references to be in the lead, and that is that providing a summary of this topic can't be done without interpretation or simply quoting a primary source. Heptazane (talk) 18:18, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

The Kingdom of God or the kingdom of God?

Please see Wikipedia talk: WikiProject Christianity#Application of MOS guidelines on capitalization in articles on Christianity. Joja lozzo 19:14, 13 January 2012 (UTC)