Amedeo

It is possible that Jesus uses either term and that different evangelists prefer one term to the other.

It is also possible that Jesus always used one term. As Jesus seems to have been an apocalytic prophet, in line with the Essenes (whose writings never became part of the Judeaean Bible), consult the Dead Sea Scrolls for the Aramaic or Hebrew term.

At any rate, given the many anecdotes of Jesus' life (probably collected into a "proto-Gospel"), the evangelists -- who composed their gospels (biographies of Jesus) in Greek -- made their own translations from the original Aramaic and Hebrew anecdotes.

The Greek for"god" was and is "theos." The Greek for "heavens" or "sky" is "ouranos" [uranus, in Latin]. And, of course, Ouranos was the supreme god which/who together with Earth had generated all the minor gods as well as mortal things. (That was central Greek mythology before they either became philosophers or adopted Jesus through the teachings of Paul, who knew Greek.) Of course, those Greek evangelists never knew Jesus personally or head him.

According to the Bible, either El (the Elohim) or Yahweh is a creator anterior to sky and earth. So, it's unlikely that the Essenes or Jesus ever used the term "kingdom of heaven". It's true that Jesus teacher how to pray to "our father, who art in heaven," but the Father or God is not identified with heaven.

So, my view is that "kingdom of heaven" is an evangelist's translation of "kingdom of EL" or something to that effect. (The Greek translated EL/Elohim as "god", and YAHWEH as "lord," the way it was done in English later on.)

The Kingdom of God is the kingdom to come after the cosmic cataclysm Jesus was teaching as imminent (within the then-present generation). It is not the kingdom-to-come of Yahweh, who is not the God of the Essenes and of Jesus. Fortunately some evangelists quoted the original words [Eli, Eli; or Eloi, Eloi] from their non-Greek source. The Bible, written down or edited of Judaeans, would have spoken of the Kingdom of the Yahweh. (The apocalypse, the resurrection of the dead, the kingdom to come, the very resurrection of Jesus, the "primitive communism" of the early Christian told in the Acts, the advocacy for a celibate or manastic life, etc., belong to the literature of Jesus of Nazareth (the Galilean) and of the Essenes. The strongest argument for the celibacy of Jesus is that he was basically an Essene.)

Clivedurdle

How certain is it that the three witches said what Shakespeare says they said?

stuart shepherd

I think that it is very important.
Did Jesus say ''God"" or did he say ""heaven""?
Obviously one or more of the Gospel writers took liberties in reporting the actual words that Jesus spoke.
If Jesus was misquoted once, he may have been misquoted again many times. Christians believe that the Bible is ""inerrant"", without errors. Obviously there is an error if Jesus has been misquoted.
If there is an error, then the Bible is not inerrant and the possibility exists that there are many more errors. We may have no idea what Jesus really said. We may only have a fictionalized rendition of what may have happened.

stuart shepherd

BALDUCCI

I fail to understand why the resurrection of Jesus provides the basis for any faith at all, because it was not unique. Jesus raised people from the dead, and his disciples went around raising people from the dead. There is the famous story of the man sitting in the window listening to Peter, who became so bored he fell out of the window and died, and Peter rushed downstairs and raised him from the dead. I am sure that far more knowledgeable scholars than I can quote tons of accounts from the Old Testament of people rising from the dead.

Seems to me that the enthusiasm that accompanied the disciples joy when they saw that Jesus hadnt died (or imagined that Jesus hadnt died) took on such fervour that it was translated into a theological principle that conveniently echoed many of the mystery religions and mythologies at that time in circulation, and so took root. Later, Christian apologists elevated it into a mystery of unique significance, as the basis for their faith, but this was very obviously a device.

stuart shepherd

[QUOTE=BALDUCCI;4617282][QUOTE=BALDUCCI;4617282]In my opinion, there isn't enough credible evidence to believe that anyone was resurrected from the dead.
As for the story about the man who fell out the window and died......well you almost had it right.
Acts 20:7-12 (King James Version)
7And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.

8And there were many lights in the upper chamber, where they were gathered together.

9And there sat in a window a certain young man named Eutychus, being fallen into a deep sleep: and as Paul was long preaching, he sunk down with sleep, and fell down from the third loft, and was taken up dead.

10And Paul went down, and fell on him, and embracing him said, Trouble not yourselves; for his life is in him.

11When he therefore was come up again, and had broken bread, and eaten, and talked a long while, even till break of day, so he departed.

12And they brought the young man alive, and were not a little comforted.

It was Paul and not Peter who raised him from the dead.



[QUOTE=BALDUCCI;4617282]Christianity needed some fabulous events to make the story of Jesus believable and attract followers. The resurrection story was their big marketing ploy.

stuart shepherd

BALDUCCI

I agree it was Paul. Shabby of me

Boro Nut

If you drove a Cadillac, wouldn't you want to know what was in the back seat?

Boro Nut

Johnny Skeptic

Well sure, the Resurrection was a big story, but even if it occurred, without credible accompanying evidence regarding what Jesus said, the Resurrection on its own is not nearly enough evidence for anyone to become a Christian. Rising from the dead deals only with power, nothing else. If Elvis Presley rose from the dead, Christians certainly would not worship him.

Matthew 1:20 says "And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins." If it cannot reasonably be proven that Jesus said that his primary purpose was to save people from their sins, Christianity is not a valid religion. How good is the evidence in the Gospels that Jesus said that his primary purpose was to save peole from their sins?

Doug Shaver

Assuming his real existence, I think there can be no certainty at all about any statement attributed to him. He might have said some of it. More than that we cannot say.

Johnny Skeptic

I agree. Now where does this leave fundamentalist Christians even if a man called Jesus did rise from the dead? They still need to reasonably prove WHY he rose from the dead, and they can't do that unless they can reasonably prove what he said about himself and his intentions.