Reexamining the Trinity “proof” texts

We should consider whether the traditional trinity proof texts actually prove the trinity. I believe they do not.
Here is one of the most famous. 1 John 5:7, “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.”
This text is the closest thing to a statement of a trinity in the Bible. But it bears no authority because the earliest Greek New Testament to contain it only dates to the 16th century. Absolutely none of the ancient Greek texts contain it. Scholars generally agree that it is a corruption that was added in. As such, it should not form the basis of doctrine.
Another major text is Matthew 28:19, "Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." People usually point to the fact that the word “name” is in the singular. However, it does not clearly define them all as God. To do something in someone’s name means to do something through their authority. For example, if the President, Congress and the Supreme Court each granted you authority to do something, you would say that you do it in the name (not names, that would make no sense, grammatically) of the President, Congress and the Supreme Court. While they are each important to the government of this country, they are distinct and of three different natures. They are not all three the President, Congress or the Supreme Court.
Many people argue that people have to be baptized according to this formula. One of the reasons it is important to use this formula is that it allows them to say that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are one indivisible unit. Consequently, if you only baptized into the name of one of them, then they would be divisible. The big problem for this view is that the apostles are never, even once, recorded as using this formula. They did not attach the same significance to it that modern Trinitarians do.
Acts 2:38, "And Peter said unto them, Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."
Acts 8:16, "for as yet it was fallen upon none of them: only they had been baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus."
Acts 10:48, "And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days."
Acts 11:16, "And I remembered the word of the Lord, how he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized in the Holy Spirit."
Acts 19:5, "And when they heard this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus."
Does baptizing in the name of Jesus make him God? 1 Corinthians 10:1-2, "For I would not, brethren, have you ignorant, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; and were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea."
Another popular proof text for the Trinity is Genesis 1:1, “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” They say this implies the Trinity because the word for “God” here is “אלהים” (pronounced Elohim), אלהים is a plural form.
But they forget Exodus 7:1, “And the LORD said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh: and
Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.” The word here translated as “god” is also אלהים (Elohim). Logically, it is impossible to say אלהים (Elohim) always means Trinity, unless you believe Moses was a Trinity.
Following this text is Genesis 1:26, “And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.” Genesis 11: 7 is similar, “Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.” Hebrew scholars have always understood this as the majestic plural or royal we. This means that someone in great authority is often referenced using the plural.
I just gave an undeniable, Biblical example of this in the paragraph above where Moses is referred to as Elohim, a plural form, even though Moses is only one person. Royal proclamations have often used this. For another example in Semitic language religious texts, look in the Quran. Believing in multiple gods is the worst sin in Islam, but the Quran constantly uses “We” when quoting God.
Another text is John 1:1, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” This text provides ambiguous evidence for the trinity at best. The phrase that is translated as “the Word was with God” uses τον Θεον (ton theon) for God. This is the definite form. The phrase that is translated as “the Word was God” uses Θεος (theos) for God. This is the indefinite form. When a noun is in the indefinite form, it can be translated as an adjective. In fact, the actual phrase is “καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος (kai theos en ho logos)”. Word for word, in English, this is, “and god was the word.” This allows it to also be translated as “the Word was Godlike”. For example, the Revised English Bible renders it, “In the beginning the Word already was. The Word was in God's presence, and what God was, the Word was.”
One scholar explained it this way.
In a case like this we cannot do other than go to the Greek, which is theos en ho logos. Ho is the definite article, the, and it can be seen that there is a definite article with logos, but not with theos. When in Greek two nouns are joined by the verb “to be,” and when both have the definite article, then the one is fully intended to be identified with the other; but when one of them is without the article, it becomes more an adjective than a noun, and describes rather the class or sphere to which the other belongs.
An illustration from English will make this clear. If I say, “The preacher is the man,” I use the definite article before both preacher and man, and I thereby identify the preacher with some quite definite individual man whom I have in mind. But, if I say, “The preacher is man,” I have omitted the definite article before man, and what I mean is that the preacher must be classified as a man, he is in the sphere of manhood, he is a human being.
[In the last clause of John 1:1] John has no article before theos, God. The logos, therefore, is not identified as God or with God; the word theos has become adjectival and describes the sphere to which the logos belongs. We would, therefore, have to say that this means that the logos belongs to the same sphere as God; without being identified with God, the logos has the same kind of life and being as God. Here the NEB [New English Bible] finds the perfect translation: “What God was, the Word was.”
(William Barclay, Jesus as They Knew Him (Harper and Row, N.Y., 1962), pp. 21 and 22.)
Remember, Satan is the theos of this world. 2 Corinthians 4:4, "In whom the god (theos) of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them." However, Satan is not ton theon.
Another one is John 8:58-59, “Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am (εγὠ ειμί̓). Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.”
Look at how the key word is translated in John 14:9, "Jesus saith unto him, Have I been(ειμί̓) so long time with you...." In fact Jesus uses the phrase εγὠ ειμί̓ several times earlier in the same passage. John 8:12, "Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am(εγὼ̓ ειμί̓) the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life." John 8:28, "Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he(εγὠ ειμί̓), and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things."
The Hebrew word in Exodus 3: 14 is אהיה (hayah), which literally translates as “to be”. The word ειμί̓ (emi) can be translated in the present or past tense, as in John 14: 9. The Hebrew translation of the New Testament uses אני הייתי (I was) because it more closely fits the context of the passage, which is simply stating that Jesus existed before Abraham. To see why this would cause the Jews to stone him, let us look at the context.
John 8:39-44, "They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham. But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham. Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God. Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me. Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word. Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it."
Here the Jews claim to be sons of Abraham and sons of God. Jesus said that, if they were sons of God, they would love him. Instead, they are the sons of the Devil.
John 8:52-58, "Then said the Jews unto him, Now we know that thou hast a devil. Abraham is dead, and the prophets; and thou sayest, If a man keep my saying, he shall never taste of death. Art thou greater than our father Abraham, which is dead? and the prophets are dead: whom makest thou thyself? Jesus answered, If I honour myself, my honour is nothing: it is my Father that honoureth me; of whom ye say, that he is your God: Yet ye have not known him; but I know him: and if I should say, I know him not, I shall be a liar like unto you: but I know him, and keep his saying. Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad. Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am."
Here the Jews felt further insulted by Jesus because Jesus said that he was greater than Abraham.
This closely parallels John 10:30-31, “I and my Father are one. Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.”
Most people stop there, but Jesus himself explains himself. The Jews claimed that Jesus was claiming to be God, but Jesus gives a different explanation. He defends the right of a person to be called the Son of God. John 10:32-36, “Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?”
If Jesus wanted people to know he was God, this would have been a perfect opportunity. But, Jesus did not defend himself by claiming to actually be God. Instead, Jesus merely defended the concept that people can be one with God. Let’s examine the phrase, Son of God.
Hebrews 1:8, “But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.” This is a quote from Psalms 45:6-7, "Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre. Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest wickedness: therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows." Here, the word for “God” in the Hebrew in Psalms is Elohim. Since this is the exact word God calls Moses in Exodus 7:1, this does not necessarily refer to the one true God.
Also, the larger context in Psalms says that the subject of the text was anointed to his position by God. Does this hold true for the way Hebrews discussed the Son?
Hebrews 1:1-9, "God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high; Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they. For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son? And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him. And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire. But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom. Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows."
In the larger context, you can see that the topic of the text is God giving power to the Son, and anointing him to his position.
Notice what it says about Jesus being the Son, “I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son”.
Compare this to 1 Chronicles 28:6, "And he said unto me, Solomon thy son, he shall build my house and my courts: for I have chosen him to be my son, and I will be his father." In addition, 2 Samuel 7:13-14, "He shall build an house for my name, and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever. I will be his father, and he shall be my son. If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men:"
This passage also provides some insight to the meaning of the phrase, “Son of God,” in passages like Matthew 16:15-16, “He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.” In Hebrews, quoted above, it says, “For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?”
In this conversation, in Matthew, we have a Jew speaking to another Jew and it is recorded in a book written by a Jew. Therefore, a Jewish understanding of this phrase is imperative. If one looks up the phrase “Son of God” in the Jewish Encyclopedia, one finds that it refers to a follower or representative of God. It never implies deity. You can look this up at http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/13912-son-of-god.
Now let us look at Matthew 26:63-68, "But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God. Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven. Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy. What think ye? They answered and said, He is guilty of death. Then did they spit in his face, and buffeted him; and others smote him with the palms of their hands, Saying, Prophesy unto us, thou Christ, Who is he that smote thee?"
There are a few key features I wish to point out. First, the word translated “blasphemy” is βλασφημίαν. Strong’s defines it as “slander, detraction, speech injurious, to another's good name, impious and reproachful speech injurious to divine majesty.” In addition, the people mocked Jesus by saying, “thou Christ”, not thou God. This indicates that it was simply claiming to be the Messiah that angered them. In addition, Jesus referred to himself as the Son of man.
Numbers 23:19, “God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?”
Daniel 7:13-14, "I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed."
John 17:1-3, "These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee: As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him. And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent."
Another text commonly used to prove the Trinity is Matthew 9:2-7, "And, behold, they brought to him a man sick of the palsy, lying on a bed: and Jesus seeing their faith said unto the sick of the palsy; Son, be of good cheer; thy sins be forgiven thee. And, behold, certain of the scribes said within themselves, This man blasphemeth. And Jesus knowing their thoughts said, Wherefore think ye evil in your hearts? For whether is easier, to say, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and walk? But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (then saith he to the sick of the palsy,) Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thine house. And he arose, and departed to his house."
This particular text can have many ramifications, if Jesus is not God, which are way beyond the scope of this work. So, let us just look at a couple of facts and ask a question.
The first fact is that it is the scribes who claim that only God can forgive sins. Jesus doesn’t claim or confirm this. He only asserts that he has the right to tell the man that his sins are forgiven.
The second fact is John 20:21-23, "Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you. And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained."
When we examine the scriptures, are they necessarily saying that Jesus is God simply because he tells a man that his sins are forgiven? If that is so, then, logically, wouldn’t that make the disciples gods, according to John 20: 21-23?
Another one of the strongest Trinitarian texts is Isaiah 9:6, "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace."
The key phrases here are “mighty God” and “everlasting Father.” The Hebrew for “mighty God” is אל גבור (el gibbor). This is a very interesting phrase in that Trinitarians translate it as “mighty God”, but the Jews and non-Trinitarians translate it more along the lines of “mighty hero” or “mighty heroes.” This phrase also appears in the original Hebrew of Ezekiel 32:21, "The strong among the mighty shall speak to him out of the midst of hell with them that help him: they are gone down, they lie uncircumcised, slain by the sword." The Hebrew that is translated here as “strong among the mighty” is אלי גבורים(eli gibbowrim), which is the plural form of el gibbor. Obviously, you cannot claim that Ezekiel 32: 21 should read “mighty gods,” since that would be pure pagan pantheism.
Another verse I will discuss here is 1 Timothy 3:16, "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory."
The phrase, “God was manifested in the flesh”, appears in the King James translation because of the Greek manuscripts they used. Many of the other translations recognize the fact that this is most likely a late corruption. Many of the oldest texts have the word “who”, not “God”. For example, the Codex Sinaiticus reads, “And confessedly great is the mystery of godliness: He who was manifested in flesh, was justified in spirit, seen by angels, preached among the Gentiles, believed on in the world, taken up in glory”. I specifically mention the Codex Sinaiticus because it is the oldest Bible in existence and you can read it for yourself at http://codexsinaiticus.org/.
Many Trinitarians try to argue that the New Testament authors referred to Jesus as Lord, a term used in the Old Testament for God.
Let’s examine something that Jesus said once.
John 10:34-36, "Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, 'I said, you are gods'? If he called them gods to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be broken—do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, 'You are blaspheming,' because I said, 'I am the Son of God'?" Why does Jesus say that God said to those who received the word of God, “You are gods”?
Let’s look at another text. Exodus 7:1, "And the LORD said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet." Did God actually make Moses into a divinity? Of course not. Was God revealing that Moses had always been a divinity? Of course not. However, God imbued Moses with divine authority and said, “I make thee a god.” By the way, the word translated as “god” is Elohim in the Masoretic text and theos in the Septuagint, so it is correct to translate this verse as, “I have made thee a god.” Since we do not want to say that God actually transformed Moses into a divinity, or that Moses was always a divinity, we must form the principle that when God makes someone a god in Scripture, it does not mean that they become a divinity, or were always a divinity. It merely means that God has imbued them with divine authority. Moses functioned as God, but was not actually God. This brings harmony between this text and Isaiah 45, which says there is no other god besides God.
Angels, who represent God, are often referred to as God in the Old Testament. Here are examples.
Genesis 32:30, "And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved."
Hosea 12:4, "Yea, he had power over the angel, and prevailed: he wept, and made supplication unto him: he found him in Bethel, and there he spake with us."
Judges 13:21-22, "The angel of the LORD appeared no more to Manoah and to his wife. Then Manoah knew that he was the angel of the LORD. And Manoah said to his wife, "We shall surely die, for we have seen God.""
Here we get a glimpse into the Old Testament mindset. Someone who was God’s representative could be referred to as God. And this is the background the apostles came from.
Acts 2:36, "Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ." Here, Peter explicitly states that God made Jesus Lord, just as God made Moses a god. After this, we begin to see the apostles, mostly Paul, refer to Jesus as Lord.
The question is, did this mean that God imbued Jesus with the authority of Lord, or was Jesus really Lord all the time?
Fortunately, we have a couple of checks that we can use. The first is the fact that Peter said that God made Jesus Lord and Christ. If we examine the history of Jesus as Christ, then we can get some information on the history of Jesus as Lord.
Was Jesus always Christ, or did God make Jesus Christ? According to the 70 week prophecy in Daniel chapter 9, the Messiah would come around AD 27. Either Jesus was born in this year, or he became the Messiah in this year. The exact year of his birth is debatable, but all of the scholars put it approximately 30 years before AD 27. AD 27 was the year that Jesus was baptized and the Holy Spirit descended on him in the form of a dove. Since the word Messiah means “anointed” and the Messiah came the year that Jesus was baptized, we can safely say that God made Jesus the Messiah at his baptism, when he was anointed with the Holy Spirit. Jesus did not actually become the Messiah until this point. Since Jesus did not become the Messiah until God made him the Messiah, and Peter said that God made Jesus “both Lord and Christ”, this does provide strong evidence that Jesus did not become Lord until God made him Lord. This would make it a functional position, rather than ontological.
Clearly, Jesus did not become the Messiah until God made him the Messiah at the baptism. However, this doesn’t completely rule out the possibility that we should interpret God making Jesus Lord in a different light. If God did indeed make Jesus Lord, like He made Moses a god (a functional position, rather than ontological), then we should see the apostles speaking of the Lord Jesus separate from God. If Jesus was always Lord, then Jesus and God would be one and the same.
Did Paul actually see Jesus’s position of Lord as separate from being God, just as Moses’s position as god to
Pharaoh was separate from being God? 1 Corinthians 8:6, " But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him." Here Paul explicitly states that there is one God, the Father, the source of all things. The Lord Jesus Christ is God’s servant, through whom God accomplishes His will.
Since Jesus was made Christ at a certain time and the apostles still referred to the Lord Jesus separately from God, it would seem that the most straightforward way to understand Peter’s statement that “God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ” is the way with the most direct Scriptural support, namely, in a similar manner to God’s statement to Moses that “I have made thee a god.”
It is said that Jesus received worship from people. Here are some of those instances.
Matthew 2:2, "Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him."
Matthew 8:2, "And, behold, there came a leper and worshipped him, saying, Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean."
Matthew 9:18, "While he spake these things unto them, behold, there came a certain ruler, and worshipped him, saying, My daughter is even now dead: but come and lay thy hand upon her, and she shall live."
Matthew 28:9, "And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him."
In each of the above texts the Greek word translated as worship is proskuneo. Can proskuneo be used in a way that should be used for God? Yes.
Revelation 22:8-9, "And I John saw these things, and heard them. And when I had heard and seen, I fell down to worship (proskuneo) before the feet of the angel which shewed me these things. Then saith he unto me, See thou do it not: for I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book: worship (proskuneo) God."
However, we should look at what proskuneo actually means. It literally means to prostrate, bow down or make obeisance. The Septuagint was quoted numerous times by the New Testament authors and was heavily used by the early Christians. This provides us with a good opportunity to look at how Greek words used in the New Testament were understood by the early Christians for whom the New Testament was written. Here are some of the appearances of proskuneo in the Septuagint. The Hebrew word shachah, in the Masoretic text for each of these verses, also means the same thing.
Genesis 19:1, "And there came two angels to Sodom at even; and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom: and Lot seeing them rose up to meet them; and he bowed (proskuneo)(shachah) himself with his face toward the ground." Notice the same word is used to describe what Lot did as John did in Revelation, indicating that it was something more than simple proskuneo that the angel found objectionable.
Genesis 23:7, "And Abraham stood up, and bowed (proskuneo)(shachah) himself to the people of the land, even to the children of Heth."
Genesis 33:1,3, "And Jacob lifted up his eyes, and looked, and, behold, Esau came, and with him four hundred men. And he divided the children unto Leah, and unto Rachel, and unto the two handmaids.... And he passed over before them, and bowed (proskuneo)(shachah) himself to the ground seven times, until he came near to his brother."
Genesis 37:9-10, "And he dreamed yet another dream, and told it his brethren, and said, Behold, I have dreamed a dream more; and, behold, the sun and the moon and the eleven stars made obeisance (proskuneo)(shachah) to me. And he told it to his father, and to his brethren: and his father rebuked him, and said unto him, What is this dream that thou hast dreamed? Shall I and thy mother and thy brethren indeed come to bow down (proskuneo)(shachah) ourselves to thee to the earth?"
Joshua 5:14, "And he said, Nay; but as captain of the host of the LORD am I now come. And Joshua fell on his face to the earth, and did worship (proskuneo)(shachah), and said unto him, What saith my lord unto his servant?"
The reason people say that Jesus accepted worship is that any time the original texts use proskuneo or shachah in connection with God, Jesus or a possible pre-existing Jesus the translator chose to use the word worship. The translators believed that Jesus was God, so they translated proskuneo as “worship” when it referred to Jesus, and bowed most of the time. Then people use those verses to prove that Jesus was worshipped.
The primary exception to the above is John 20:28, "And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God." The word translated as God is theos. Theos is sometimes used for someone who wields authority, but is not actually God. 2 Corinthians 4:4, "In whom the god (theos) of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them." And remember that the Old Testament mindset made it acceptable to call God’s representatives God. And Thomas, only a few minutes before, doubted Jesus completely. To say that Thomas suddenly saw the living Messiah as God’s representative is very reasonable. To say that he was suddenly aware of the Trinity (which had never been discussed before) is more of a stretch.
There are three titles that are given to Jesus that are often used as indirect evidence that Jesus is God. These are Messiah, Son of God and King of Kings. Jesus is the only one that bears all three of these titles, however, he is not the only one to bear them.
Isaiah 45:1, "Thus saith the LORD to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have holden, to subdue nations before him; and I will loose the loins of kings, to open before him the two leaved gates; and the gates shall not be shut."
Here, the Iranian leader, Cyrus, is called the LORD’s anointed. The Hebrew in the Masoretic text is mashiyach. The Greek word in the Septuagint is christos. This means that the Iranian leader, Cyrus, is actually called the LORD’s messiah, or the LORD’s christ.
Daniel 2:37, "Thou, O king, art a king of kings: for the God of heaven hath given thee a kingdom, power, and strength, and glory."
Here, the Iraqi leader, Nebuchadnezzar, is called king of kings because God gave him a kingdom, just as God gives Jesus the kingdom. Daniel 7:13-14, "I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him. And to him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed."
Psalm 2:5-7, "Then he will speak to them in his wrath, and terrify them in his fury, saying, “As for me, I have set my King on Zion, my holy hill." I will tell of the decree: The LORD said to me, "You are my Son; today I have begotten you."
2 Samuel 7:13-14, "He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son."
These verses refer to the Jewish kings as sons of God. The author of Hebrews used these verses in establishing Jesus’s role as the Son of God.
Hebrews 1:5, "For to which of the angels did God ever say, "You are my Son, today I have begotten you"? Or again, "I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son"?"
Much has been said about the complete uniqueness of Jesus’s position as Son of God, giving him a divine nature. Does the scripture really support this position if the New Testament authors had to quote previous references to Israeli kings in order to explain Jesus’s role as Son of God?
And, for any Muslims reading this, it is also clear that none of these texts state that God produced Jesus through procreation. Jesus was never a “walad” to God. The pagan religions were filled with tales of gods procreating. And some Christians have been known to see Jesus in a similar light. The Quran was right to say that it is an offence to God to suggest that Jesus was a “walad” to God. However, the Bible clearly explains his role as a son more like Solomon was a son to God in the quotations above. This is completely different from a “walad”, which the Quran condemns calling Jesus.