With regard to the verb
proskyneo I submit that you have errored in going back the meaning of the word in classical Greek usage when what we are reading is a book written in Koine Greek.
In the NT the verb occurs 59 times, of which 24 are in Revelation, 11 in the Gospels of John and 9 in Matthew. The OT sense is taken up and further developed, except that now it denotes exclusively worship addressed to God or to Jesus. In Acts 10:25f; Revelation 19:10; 22:8f it is expressly stated that proskyneo is to be offered to God alone, not to an apostle, or even to an angelic being.
(source: The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, ed. Colin Brown, 1976, p. 877)
As for the specific verses you cite, lets read them with a literal translation of the text leaving only
proskyneo untranslated and see if you end up with it reading as you have argued it should read.
Matthew 2:11 And coming into the house they saw the child with Mary the mother of him, and falling [they]
proskyneoed him and opening the treasures of them they offered to him gift, gold and frankincense and myrrrh.
Matthew 14:33 And the [ones] in the ship
proskyneoed him saying: Truly of God Son thou art.
Matthew 28:9 And suddenly Jesus met them saying: "Greetings!" And they approaching held of him the feet and
proskyneoed him.
Matthew 28:17 And seeing him [they]
proskyneoed, but some doubted.
As for your suggestion that the word should be understood to be "kiss", you must explain why then that
proskeyneo is never actually used by Matthew when speaking of a kiss elsewhere in his gospel (see Matthew 26:48), rather
phileo and its cognates are used.
You assert that the proper understanding is that
proskeyneo should be interpreted as "fell at Jesus' feet" or "knelt before Jesus." This causes you a double problem. First, that when Matthew actually does speak of one person falling at another's feet, he doesn't use the term
proskeyneo, but
peson (see Matthew 18:26 & 29).
Secondly, you assert that because it might be possible to render
proskeyneo as "kneeling before" Jesus that to translate it as "worship" shows a translator's bias. But the type of kneeling implied by the term
prosekyneo implies the type of kneeling which carries with it obeisance shown only to a king or to God. So, are you suggesting that these folks who knelt before Jesus were recognizing him as a king? This fits Matthew who writes to portray Christ as the divine king, because for Matthew the king is a symbolic figure for God. When Matthew wishes to describe kneeling that is just the bending of the knee he uses a different term (
gonupeteo), but when the person is expressing obeisance of a special nature, then, and only then, he uses
prosekyneo. Now, some would suggest that such obeisance is not to be equated with worship, but that would mean we must translate Revelation 22:8-9 thusly: "I, John, am the one who heard and saw these things. And when I had heard and seen them, I fell down to obeisance
prosekyneo at the feet of the angel who had been showing them to me. But he said to me, 'Do not do it! I am a fellow servant with you and with your brothers the prophets and of all who keep the words of this book. Obeisance
prosekyneo God!' " So, no matter what interpretation of
prosekyneo you argue for,
prosekyneo be it "worship", "obeisance", or "kneeling before" is only to be offered to God and yet it is offered to and accepted by Jesus. Seems like Jesus is accepting being treated as God.
Why can't you produce it then if that is clearly mentioned in your scriptures?
The above should be clear. But you have to have it worded exactly your way. That's about as valid as me asking for a tape recording of Jibreel's giving of the Qur'an to Muhammad.
your logic is, well, how shall I put it, interesting?
Well, let's examine your logice skills for a moment.
Do I have a dog? Do I have a cat? I have never mentioned either on here. Can you by logic prove anything with regard to the existence of either a dog or a cat in my house, or lack thereof, based on what I have not said? That is the extent of your "logic". That you think you have proved that Jesus was not God because he didn't say he was in exactly so many words is where the lack of logic lays.
But I did use other passages to show that Jesus behaves in such a way as to be tantamount to the same as making the very statement you are looking for.
You worship jesus as god because jesus never said he is god and he never said to worship him.
How interesting.
Again, that is not what I said.
You consider jesus as god, right?
and jesus never make claim that he is god, right?
Hence, god never make claim that he is god.
See, this is where your syllogism breaks down. God did in fact say that Jesus was God. I gave you the verse, did you look it up? Hebrew 1:8. God is speaking and "about the Son he [God] says, 'Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever, and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom.' " In other words, God does make the claim that the Son [i.e. Jesus] is God.
Since you don't accept the Bible as true, you don't have to accept it as true. But you do have to accept that the Bible declares it to be true.
Case closed.
