Thursday, October 17, 2013

Mark 2:5-7 "Is Jesus God because he can forgive sins ?"


Matthew 9:1-8

(1) Jesus stepped into a boat, crossed over and came to his own town.
(2) Some men brought to him a paralytic, lying on a mat. When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, “Take heart, son; your sins are forgiven.”
(3) At this, some of the teachers of the law said to themselves, “This fellow is blaspheming!”
(4) Knowing their thoughts, Jesus said, “Why do you entertain evil thoughts in your hearts?
(5) Which is easier: to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Get up and walk’?
(6) But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins….” Then he said to the paralytic, “Get up, take your mat and go home.”
(7) And the man got up and went home.
(8) When the crowd saw this, they were filled with awe; and they praised God, who had given such authority to men.


Trinitarians often used this texts to prove Jesus is God. But they failed to read the context. Is he really God because he can forgive sins? The answer is no. The writer explicitly says Jesus has "given" such "authority". He didn't have that authority before he took a flesh. The Jews claimed he was a blasphemer not because he was God, but because he was making himself equal with God in "authority" the same reason in John 5. They already knew that a man can only forgive sins unless if God gives him authority. As we can read Jesus answered them that he has authority to forgive sins. He showed to them that he was not making himself equal with God. The only thing that Trinitarians can do is to assume that he already had the authority to forgive sins. We know that there is no proof for that. I found that in the Old Testament the Psalmist wrote that God "alone does wondrous things" but in the New Testament I also found Jah used men when he performed wondrous things. (Psalms 72:18; 136:4; Acts 19:11) Hence, the fact is, these men were not Jah. If we try to follow the fallacious reasoning of the Trinitarians, it will lead us in erroneous conclusion.

No comments:

Post a Comment