You folks can compare some of mine to the greatest!!
1.) loving yourself is loving others, loving others is loving yourself
2.) I won’t tell you what your perfection is of you don’t tell me what my perfection is, let’s sit down and discuss it
This does not sound off the realm of possibility. The conjugations conceived modernly, -ya, -waz, I am skeptical of, but I do not know enough actual bibliography (direct bibliography, not speculative) to say for certain one way or another.
It is still speculation, we have no tradition that can confirm one way or another. But this is not an uncompelling argument. In any case it is clear that there was an older religion, which did eventually get replaced, and we have no way of knowing what was there before or how it got replaced.
If you look at Odinic worship, and you look, for example, at the dress and general demeanor of Bulgarian Orthodox priests, there is definitely something real there, true religion. I do not believe Odin is arbitrary or purely plastic, but there are too many unanswered questions. Even if your theory is true, which does not, as I said, sound implausible, that Zeus was in fact worshiped prior to the Odinic religion we know from Roman contact onward, then why is God used and not Theo? What is Bog? It is something, and it does worry me the unexistent amount of curiosity this causes among any of the comments so far.
This is precisely my point. We have instances of their use. Where is the instance of the use of ‘God?’ We know for certain that the Roman religion they came to adopt and use the word ‘God’ for was not theirs; even if before the time of conquest they did worship Zeus and only later did Odin worship arise, and considering that even in that case the word used is not any form of Theo but Bog. So we know the instance existed. What was it?
Again, if your theory about Zeus among Goths is correct, it is a specific instance of a specific worship, and some cross pollination happened at some juncture, at some juncture the Goths came in contact with Zeus. I am happy that you are at least identifying the significance of the specific tradition, but the information we have, you must see, is severely lacking. Theo can be traced back a very long time through many revolutions. The Tiwaz theory, though plausible, is still to a high degree speculative because little to no information exists. Tiwaz, Tius, Dius, this works. So why God? I would like to know.
What the young man stated, for example, regarding the equivalence of weekdays for specific entities that hold similar characteristics, such as Thor’s day being Jupiter day in Latin, or Freya’s day being Venus’s day, is also not irrelevant and poses some issues. In Latin, it is Mars’s day, but in Gothic it is Zeus’s day? We know substitutions can happen, such as Saturn’s day in Gothic being Shabbath in Latin, or Sun’s day being Dominus’s day, and with Dominus we are left to conjecture if it is Zeus or Jupiter, or even Apollo or just Sol, it is essencially Dominator (the implications are not the same in the more civilized Latin toungue), Lord, Baal. It could even be Yaweh, which might, as we conjectured, be Iovi, Jupiter.
But even the conjectures about Jupiter and Yaweh are based on solid traditions with multiple known instances, they being worshiped by civilized peoples. But in the Gothic case, nothing has been transmitted that we can currently find, or have so far been able to find. In any case, it will be difficult.
god (n.)
also God; Old English god “supreme being, deity; the Christian God; image of a god; godlike person,” from Proto-Germanic *guthan (source also of Old Saxon, Old Frisian, Dutch god, Old High German got, German Gott, Old Norse guð, Gothic guþ), which is of uncertain origin; perhaps from PIE *ghut- “that which is invoked” (source also of Old Church Slavonic zovo “to call,” Sanskrit huta- “invoked,” an epithet of Indra), from root *gheu(e)- “to call, invoke.” The notion could be “divine entity summoned to a sacrifice.”
But some trace it to PIE *ghu-to- “poured,” from root *gheu- “to pour, pour a libation” (source of Greek khein “to pour,” also in the phrase khute gaia “poured earth,” referring to a burial mound; see found (v.2)). “Given the Greek facts, the Germanic form may have referred in the first instance to the spirit immanent in a burial mound” [Watkins]. See also Zeus. In either case, not related to good.
Popular etymology has long derived God from good; but a comparison of the forms … shows this to be an error. Moreover, the notion of goodness is not conspicuous in the heathen conception of deity, and in good itself the ethical sense is comparatively late. [Century Dictionary, 1897]
Originally a neuter noun in Germanic, the gender shifted to masculine after the coming of Christianity. Old English god probably was closer in sense to Latin numen. A better word to translate deus might have been Proto-Germanic *ansuz, but this was used only of the highest deities in the Germanic religion, and not of foreign gods, and it was never used of the Christian God. It survives in English mainly in the personal names beginning in Os-.
It is even possible that there was a religion even before whatever was replaced by the Odinic, what we are hypothesizing might be a Zeusian religion proper, that was indeed the one where God was observed. It would make sense to my humble self that if the Odinic religion was still relatively new, and the transition from the older one to the one being replaced still directly felt, the word for God, if used in that older religion, would still be fresh in the Gothic mind and instinctively used as a placeholder for Zeus in Roman worship, a kind of intuitive authority in their minds, their go-to ‘Dominus.’
Yes, we have been over this, there is much conjecture and speculation based on sounds, but no actual instances or even speculation on the specific meaning in use prior to Roman contact.
But this is all terribly conjectural. Thankfully. For I would dearly like to know the actual truth. What in the world does ‘God’ mean?
Like history itself it’s rooted in time out of mind.
Me again…
Try love crawling and work to fly
I seem to understand you have no interest in pursuing, if I interpret this correctly. ‘Who knows, it could be anything’ type of thing. And, in a practical sense, you are correct, for the moment. The origin is in time “out of mind,” out of historical or traditional record, out of currently retrievable reckoning.
But it is rooted in time, it did occur. And I would dearly like to know what it was. Very much.
Even if, perhaps, you would not. Perhaps this ignorance alows you to continue to read into the word whatever you like. But it does have an origin. Very much so.
I am not unsympathetic to the creativity behind what you are trying to accomplish, however, your aphorisms are of a more directly religious nature, whereas the ones I wrote are of a theological nature, that is, of the nature of a study of religion.
That’s your interpretation of my aphorism? Based on what? Do you know me from somewhere? You rejected the possible clues in the etymology I posted. Why? How do you propose to investigate?
I did not realize it was an aphorism, but yes, it is.
Based on the words you wrote, good sir.
No, I don’t expect I do.
For the same reasons I rejected them when they were brought up the first time, by obsrvr. I did provide a summary to you as well. Which leads me to some confusion as to why you would ask now.
Investigate what, exactly?
I am confused as to why you are rejecting the phonetic explanations given. I have to assume that you mean that you want something different than what we thought you wanted.
So what would stand as creditable evidence for what you say you dearly want to know? - perhaps provide an imaginary example?
The question you presume I have no interest in pursuing. The one that you suppose that ignorance allows me to continue to read into the word whatever I like. How do you propose to investigate it?
Might you be wanting to know the particular conception of construct or methods that they had concerning the initiator or creator of all things? - not merely the basic idea but the particulars involved?
The basic idea seems to have gone from the Ancient Greeks to the Egyptians to the Goths (translated into their language - they seemed to have been making an effective nuisance of themselves to the Romans) then pushed across to the Angles (by the Huns) where a group spoke that gibberish called -“Engle-ish” (the language of the angels). The Angles called it “God” - a little different dialect from the Goths but the same word and meaning.
And Jesus was called the “Son of God” because he exemplified that construct and methodology - “God the Father” being the original creator and Jesus being a human and spiritual example - an offshoot - a son.
This thread is out there. I will try to post something thoughtful later. Thanks for the thoughts.
Looking forward. 
Make it good. 
No, you know what, I am a little out of my depth. I know, like when Einstein talks about God, there is a feeling I get from science and nature generally, that I think you could call religious. But I am an illiterate in the field. I will just continue lurking.
But this is certainly not what you expect to read when you are about to read about religion. It hits home in a weird way. So I wanted to be able to say something. And I will say that everything that dummy Sculptor says sounds like what my elementary school teacher might have said. But for the moment I can’t say anything really meaningful.
Insh’Allah, shalom.
Is that another aphorism? I am just joshing you.
Gentlemen, I already gave you the reasons you are asking for several times. I am sorry if the reasons I gave you do not please you.
To felix da cat, I have gone over that subject as well several times, which makes me wonder if you have read what has been written so far or, indeed, once again, about your honesty. Again, I am sorry if this displeases you, or, if it doesn’t, I am glad. In either case, I invite you to read back and find your answers there.