All literature is based upon the understandings and opinions of the authors and without at least trying to understand the author or authors it leads to an unfair mind set. Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, James, Peter and James are but a few authors of the biblical literature and each author has something to add to the entire understanding of their purpose. If we shun one then we deprive ourselves of that opinion or knowledge and it could lead to a misunderstanding of the entire purpose of all.
Linguistics and etymology – different words which might or might not be in some way related to the meaning of the old Greek noun theos.
Old Greek had the verb theoô, but it was only a derivative of theos, and meant “to make someone a theos”. The thing to find out is what the noun theos really referred to.
The related noun thea (Ionic, theê) meant “a seeing”, “a looking at”, “a view”. Theama meant “that which is seen”, “a sight”, “a show”, “a spectacle”. Thus, theaomai (thaomai) meant “to gaze”, “to contemplate”, “to wonder” and so on. Theaô and theaomai also referred to “being an onlooker”, “watching as a spectator”.
The noun theôria meant such things as “a looking at”, “a viewing”, “a beholding”. (Thence the English word “theory”, originally referring to someone’s view on a matter.) The related verb theôreô meant “to look at”, “to view”, “to behold”. A theatês was “one who sees”. The word theôros meant, among other things, “a spectator”.
The feminine form of theos was thea which in old Greek was used in the meaning “a goddess”. The adjective-type form theôteros meant something like “divine” or “like the gods”. (The ancient Greek had many gods, many theoi.) In old Greek the, word theos was normally used of the Greek gods (idols). But, in the Greek text of the New Testament, that word is for the most part used as a reference to the true God who is in Heaven.
The word theos was not God’s personal name.
One must keep in mind that the word theos which was used in the Greek text of the LXX and the NT, was a mere Greek word. In old Greek, it was not used only of the true God who is in Heaven – rather the opposite: There were many theoi in the Greek idol worship system, and even kings and others were called theoi. (Theoi is a plural form of theos.) Again, the word theos was not in any way a personal name of the true God who is in Heaven. Nor is the Germanic word gott (gut, god) that, and not the Hebrew elohiym either.
The kingdom of Heaven was not given to mankind till after Jesus died and the reason for this is that the new covenant was signed by the blood of Christ Himself. Till that time all spirits of dead souls were kept in the compartments of Sheol (Abraham's Bosom).
reply to post by pthena
Text From this, we see that what is claimed about Reverential Circumlocution is exactly the opposite of what is the reality. If the author of Matthew was intending to "not insult" Judaic readers he would have chosen THEOS as a generic term rather than use OURONOS which is a specific name of a specific primal Greek deity.
Originally posted by pthena
Flashback!I remember the old college days. Every time someone seemed to be loosing an argument, they would end up saying, "Well that's just semantics, we really agree!" Sort of a debate ending trump card. .
Originally posted by pthena
So the prophet's mission seemed to be to yammer away hypnotically until people got tired of hearing anything, so that they would end up utterly ruined and devastated.Contrast that with Jesus:Mark 4 NIV,,,Seems to me that even though Jesus referred to Isaiah, he was not equating his mission to that of Isaiah, probably mentioning the fact that he was speaking to people who had already suffered the effects of Isaiah.
So, then, what was Jesus gathering (verb) disciples for?
He didn't gather disciples to start a religion...he was killing religion.!He was NOT an observant Jew in the least.He broke every tenant of Judaism there was yet DIDN'T sin(fall short of the mark of perfection..THE TRUTH).
I am simply saying to argue whether the Kingdom of God or the Kingdom of Heaven is two different or same things/places is pointless since the prima facie is false.
.If you start from religion you will find zero true answers because they all start from a false premise.
You are surmising a false theory based on blind religion.First you assume what the prophets did then how they did it.Then assumed Yahoshua[sic] did something different and knew what the purpose was.