That Old Kingdom of "Heaven" Canard

the errors are meaningless....just grammar and spelling....plus one on purpose in soloman ( the scent of her navel)and a couple on purpose in the last verses of mark...

reply to post by Seede

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.

I had been meaning to post a page about the Greek word THEOS, but the webpage I was using for source material was down for a few days (probably updating) so I'll go ahead and put it here.
Some notes regarding the ancient Greek word theos, including its eventual origin and meaning

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.

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.

from your previous post:

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).

As you have stated, Theology is Theorizing (two words derived from theos). I am theorizing that the actual teaching ministry of Jesus is significant in and of itself, rather than a passing the time while waiting to be killed. The teaching itself was planting the seeds (see the soils parable in Mark 4 and the following about the plants growing whether the sower was paying attention or not.)

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.

reply to post by pthena


@ pthena

That was a very interesting post and I thank you for your input. Even at age ninety I learn each day, Thank you --

reply to post by Seede

@Seede,

You're welcome. At least I should be able to escape the accusation of "corrupting the youth".

As to what Matthew meant by having Jesus saying, "Kingdom of Heave" is like I said earlier on this thread, which is that there is a differentiation being made between the apparently very human system spelled out in the Torah (nominally by Moses), and the heavenly system which the ancients thought of as being well ordered and harmonious.

You see the same thing in Hebrews 12,
You have not come to a mountain that can be touched and that is burning with fire; to darkness, gloom and storm; to a trumpet blast or to such a voice speaking words that those who heard it begged that no further word be spoken to them . . .
. . . But you have come to Mount Zion, to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem. You have come to thousands upon thousands of angels in joyful assembly . . .

reply to post by jmdewey60

As time goes by, I'm seeing more and more what the non-Christian readers of the Gospels mean when they say things like "Christianity hijacked Jesus".

The problem as I see it:

During the pre-exile period, Hezekiah to Jeconiah, many monotheistic "reforms" occurred.

Then during partial exile period of Jeconiah, prophets in Jerusalem were hurling curses at the exiles, and the refugees to Egypt and at every country they could name while the exiled prophets were hurling curses back at Jerusalem.

After the exile, prophets popped up proclaiming a restoration to Jerusalem and David's line and punishment to all the nations. And somehow all this large mass of curses and promises and wrath got totally disconnected from its historical context and ended up tossed into the Psalms and at the backs of prophet scrolls like Isaiah, Jeremiah, Zechariah, etc. This mess is the source material for the Messianic Zionism mish mash sausage.

Christianity comes along and affirms the validity of the post exile sausage and proclaims that Jesus took it to heaven with him and sometime in the future it's going to come back to Earth. That's Christianity. It has totally lost Jesus the teacher and turned him into the sausage king sitting on a throne in heaven and he's going to return and do for real all the nasty curses on the nations.

That may have been an expeditious quick fix for the first century and a half, but that's as far as it got. It's high time that John the Baptist returns to "lay the ax to the root". Recall all the post-exile mentions of stumps left and branches growing from the stumps. Lay the ax to the root ie. no more stump or branch.

And then Jesus can be the teacher.

I think that Gospel of John comes closest to being a correction. Only mention of David is as a negative. Jerusalem: irrelevant etc.


That's my big rant for the day, since I'm feeling a little depressed over a mini rant I did elsewhere.

I'm already planning another thread that I'll probably call "Taps for Jerusalem" which will most likely deal with the "elevation of Zionism to heavenly status". Probably take me a few days.

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. .

That may be your experience it isn't mine.I am not playing a trump card.I am not playing anything.We are definitely NOT saying the same thing.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.You can search the scriptures,the dictionary, concordances,lexicons,leprechauns whatever..for eternity and it will continue to be futility.That is the crux of my point.If you start from religion you will find zero true answers because they all start from a false premise.

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.

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 did something different and knew what the purpose was.The prophets were prophesying.That doesn't mean predicting.It means acting as the mouthpiece of God.The religious then assumed what the prophets said meant ..as they still do today even though it reads like talk soup..anyone trying to "apply" the "word of God" to their life will be hopping down the bunny trail with a red herring in hand going nowhere and finding nothing.
Yahoshua very clearly stated the reason he TAUGHT in parables is so the Blind would BE blind and the DEAF would BE deaf and NOT perceive.If you think he is a great teacher why do you not DO(listen)to what he says.The fact is he a great teacher for those that HAVE EARS(that do perceive).BUT teachings are NOT like the religious think.They think you "study" the scriptures and apply them to life like a manual and that's how you "know" (commune)God..FALSE!Yahoshua NEVER taught that nor did the apostles.Yahoshua NEVER compelled ANYONE to study the scriptures to "know" the Father.Yet "the many" billions through history have extrapolated that as his teachings and look what it got them..empty religion worshiping a false God.
The parable of the seed is the key parable NOT to study and apply to life in the "billions" of different false teachings about it.Yahoshua wasn't teaching the secret formulas for successful life he was making declarations of WHAT things where(LET THERE BE!).I AM the WAY THE TRUTH and the LIFE!.good luck trying to apply that to your life!!
The core of the parable of the soils is equating how it(life) all works..the genesis.The seed is sown(the living word of God which is "spirit"..LIFE..God is "spirit" not "a" spirit) into the soil(adamah..which means red clay or dirt..the root word for Adam..MAN!).There are different types of soil but the seed only "prospers" to produce fruit(spirit) in the good soil.When it is sown in good soil it grows to a tree producing good fruit that multiples it's fruit 30,60 100 fold(which is a Fibonacci sequence..they aren't false BS religious nonsense numbers).
The parable was axiomatic.Unless the seed is sown in good soil and producing fruit you can't understand ANY of Yahoshuas teachings (including and especially that one because it is the "key")which are really just declarations "signifying" what is.John stated "For THIS is the love of God, that we keep his commandments[will]: and his commandments are not burdensome."
Again it is stated we don't know we "know God by studying.We know it as an after fact as what IS.It is a "beingness" not a religious doingness.Yes all this is poetic metaphor because words can't adequately explain it...they are babel..Babylon..confusion!Again in poetry..God "writes on our hearts(spirit)..that is communion with God. Not studying the scriptures and the letter of the law and trying to pin the "exact" meaning of Yahoshua was teaching through semantics..that is the guaranteed futility built into ALL he said.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).

No one will EVER find communion with Yahoshua(Yahweh is salvation) "through" the scriptures...the letter of the law...religion is DEATH not life. Paul found this out the hard way when God repented (changed) him from a religious pharisee of the highest order of religion..we can't repent ourselves through religious acts of piety and studying a teacher.The seed must be sown in "good" soil not dead religious soil.

This has all gone unheeded.John the Baptist IS here preaching as Elijah and just as the 1st time no one will hear (perceive)him.Their ears are full of religion.Their religious minds are full of all forms of crap like thinking a majestic Jesus is coming back riding on a white horse to slay the evil doers and destroy the world in a cataclysmic apocalypse!! ..pure drivel..deluded religious fantasy of bad soil.

I've got news for them...Yahoshua isn't coming back..He is already here!..and The AXE IS being laid to the root of all religion(everything is religion).If they seek a dude with long hair and a beard and blue doe eyes spouting maxims no one understands or a man at all they will never see him.The kingdom of God COMES WITHOUT observation.It is neither here nor there but it is IN your midst..it IS as the basis of quantum Physics IS. As soon as it it is observed it is only a particle of nearly empty matter.

The Kingdom of God..The Kingdom Of Heaven..call it whatever floats your ark... it doesn't matter it's just religious semantics at it's worse.. meaningless.Whatever it "IS" it IS and human definitions doesn't effectThe Truth at all.The more hung up(observance) on the semantics of it ALL the more it is empty particles doomed to die and decay and return to dust they came from.

reply to post by Rex282

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).

So, then, what was Jesus gathering (verb) disciples for?
The obvious reason was to make a gathering (noun).
That was what he called his church, which is a congregation of people.
That would be his analog to Moses' congregation at Sinai.
How a congregation conducts itself is a religion.
His teachings are the bases for that code of conduct.
So Jesus was creating a religion.

I think you may have fallen for one of these popular fads of believing that you can have Jesus without "religion".
Well, it doesn't work.
For example Mark Driscoll who was one of the proponents of this sort of sloganing, and you see that he had to go with reality and now he has a book for sale on religion, just his own version, Doctrine: What Christians Should Believe.

reply to post by Rex282

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.

The prima facie is the fact that we have a document known as the Gospel of Matthew.

The subject of the thread is not whether the terms Heaven and God are interchangeable. Rather, the topic of the thread is the fact that people repeat a certain statement about why the author of the Gospel of Matthew would use the term Heaven so widely rather than God

.If you start from religion you will find zero true answers because they all start from a false premise.

It wasn't a matter of religion but rather etymology which I used to expose the disingenuous nature of the Reverential Circumlocution explanation.

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.

So I strayed off topic in my desire to contrast Jesus to Isaiah. Sorry about that. Whether my religion is blind or not, the assumption is that there is value in reading written words. I don't think I'm about to abandon reading, after all, I read your post.

Thank you for writing it.