Does Jesus Forgiving Sins Prove Trinitarianism?

 

"When He had come back to Capernaum several days afterward, it was heard that He was at home. And many were gathered together, so that there was no longer room, not even near the door; and He was speaking the word to them. And they came, bringing to Him a paralytic, carried by four men. Being unable to get to Him because of the crowd, they removed the roof above Him; and when they had dug an opening, they let down the pallet on which the paralytic was lying. And Jesus seeing their faith said to the paralytic, " Son, your sins are forgiven." But some of the scribes were sitting there and reasoning in their hearts,

"Why does this man speak that way? He is blaspheming; who can forgive sins but God alone?" Immediately Jesus, aware in His spirit that they were reasoning that way within themselves, said to them,

"Why are you reasoning about these things in your hearts? Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, 'Your sins are forgiven'; or to say, 'Get up, and pick up your pallet and walk'?

But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins" -He said to the paralytic, "I say to you, get up, pick up your pallet and go home."  And he got up and immediately picked up the pallet and went out in the sight of everyone, so that they were all amazed and were glorifying God, saying, "We have never seen anything like this."" (Mk. 2:1-12) NASB 1995

Ilang mga Trinitarians uses the praise na "who can forgive sins but God alone?" to say na Jesus Christ is God in a Trinitarian sense; as they argue na

P1 God only forgives sins
P2 Jesus forgives sins
C. Therefore, Jesus is God (in the Trinitarian sense)

Ang flow ng reasoning is mali for they have misread what the text futher says. the same mindset, I think, is shared with the Pharisees when they misunderstood why Jesus forgave the paralytic man's sins when God only forgives sins. this does not follow up the conclusion at all. if we follow this same flow ng reasoning ay can we assume that the following is true?

P1 Only Yahweh/Jehovah is Savior (מוֹשִׁיעַ - Isa. 43:11)
P2 Othniel is also מוֹשִׁיעַ (Savior - Jdg. 3:9)
C. Othniel is Yahweh/Jehovah

P1 Only Yahweh knows the heart of man
P2 Peter knew the hearts of Ananias and his wife (see. Acts 5)
C. Peter is Yahweh

The reasoning is flawed and it does not represent what the text says and what Jesus meant. sa verses that follow v. 7, Jesus said that "......But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins....." (Mk. 2:10). as we see here how Jesus Christ practices his authority, for he is the agent of God on earth (שליח, αποστολος) and God forgives the sins of that paralytic man through him. Jesus as an agent of God, he will act in behalf of God and will represent God. he represents Him who sent him. kung pinadala ni Pedro si Juan, si Juan ay si Pedro. James F. McGrath wrote on Divine agency:

       " Agency was an important part of every day life in the ancient world.  Individuals such as prophets and angels mentioned in the Jewish Scriptures were thought of as ‘agents’ of God.  And the key idea regarding agency in the ancient world appears to be summarized in the phrase from rabbinic literature so often quoted in these contexts: “The one sent is like the one who sent him.” (James F. McGrath, The Only True God: Early Christian Monotheism in its Jewish Context, [University of Illinois Press, 2009] 14)

The Encyclopedia Of Jewish Religion defines as follows:

      "........The main point of the Jewish law of agency is expressed in the dictum, “a person’s agent is regarded as the person himself.” Therefore, any act committed by a duly appointed agent is regarded as having been committed by the principal…" (Agent”, The Encyclopedia of Jewish Religion, R.J.Z. Werblowsky, G. Wigoder, [New York: Adama Books, 1986], 15.)

When writing to the Hebrews on Jesus Christ, the apostle Paul wrote that :

     "Therefore, holy brothers, you who share in a heavenly calling, consider Jesus, the apostle [Απόστολος] and high priest of our confession," (Heb. 3:1) ESV

Jesus Christ, as the Son of God being sent down here on earth to reveal Heavenly Father (Mt. 11:27; Jn. 1:18), siya ay someone that represents Heavenly Father (Jn. 14:1-14; Heb. 1:1-3); or in other words, Jesus is God's agent. sa Judaism ay ang term for someone that is sent by someone as a representative ay ang "Shaliah" or "Shaliach" (Heb. שָׁלִיחַ - Shaliach) na kung saan ang equivalent na term nito sa New Testament ay isang "apostle" (Grk. Απόστολος - Apostolos). Ang Hebraic term na ito ay naderive mula sa verb na שָׁלַח‎ (shelach) which means "to send", and same does sa Greek word na Απόστολος. Ang titles na ito ay ginagamit to a representative that speaks and acts in behalf of someone kagaya ni Moses at ng mga angels at maging si John the Baptist (Ex. 3:1-10; 4:13-17; 7:1; 23:20-21; Jn. 1:6-7). ang same term na ito ay ginagamit sa coming na Messiah and Redeemer ng Israel, who is Jesus Christ. with the term being used with Jesus Christ ay it shows not na si Jesus Christ ay may equal na authority may Heavenly Father nor siya ay ang parehong being of someone whom he's representing for. as Christ said sa kanyang apostles na He who sent someone has much more greater authority than the one who was sent (Jn. 13:12-20; 14:28). Jesus Christ came in his Father's name, i.e authority (Jn. 5:43) and declares his Father's name (Jn. 17:1-26), and Christ authority came from no one else but from his Father himself (Mt. 28:18-20; Jn. 3:35). kung anong gagawin ni Jesus Christ ay he will do it in his Father's name (Jn. 5:43; 10:25). Jesus as God's agent show co-equality in the Godhead but rather, it shows the subordination ni Jesus Christ kay Heavenly Father. Furthermore, the Subordination of the Son is shown throughout the scriptures at Patristic writings like consider for example ang following na sinulat ni Dr. Daniel McClellan on the Christology ng Gospel Of Mark at ang concept ng Shaliach  :

      " In addition to the facts that the “person/being” distinction is utterly irrelevant to these texts and that the second concern is a difference of degrees, not kind, the passages Bird cites in the earlier quote are cases of interpolation (see here). They didn’t originally refer to the messenger as God. While it’s true the interpolated texts were later incorporated into a broader theology of presencing, this fact rather undermines Bird’s attempt to distance the conceptualization of the messenger of YHWH from the conceptualization of Jesus. The messenger became identified with God and God’s presence and authority in virtue of possessing God’s name, as we see in Exod 23:20–21:

Look, I’m sending a messenger before you to guard you on the way and to bring you to the place that I prepared. Pay attention to him and listen to his voice. Do not rebel against him, because he will not pardon your transgressions, for my name is in him.

Christ’s possession of God’s name, in his own theophoric name as well as his repeated associated with “I am,” is conceptually identical. He has God’s name, therefore he presences God (reifies his presence) and exercises his authority. This notion of the “indwelling” of the name is found also in the Apocalypse of Abraham, where Yahoel is a name given to God, but also to an angel who meets with Abraham. The angel insists he exercises God’s power “in virtue of the ineffable name that is dwelling in me” (think also of the “place where my name will dwell”).

Interestingly enough, the Exodus 23 passage undermines one of the most common assertions that is made about Christ’s unique relationship with God in Mark. When Jesus forgives the man in Mark 2, the rhetorical bad guys wonder, “who can forgive sins but God only?” This is taken by some to be an accurate assertion of theological fact that means Jesus’ forgiveness of the man’s sins proves he is God, but a far more parsimonious reading has Jesus correct their misunderstanding by showing that he exercises that very power despite not being God. The objection that is usually lodged here is that there are no other examples anywhere of someone other than God having the prerogative to forgive sins. While this objection is an argument from silence, it’s also wrong. The messenger in Exodus 23, who’s presencing of God is likely a reflection of those earlier interpolated texts, exercises precisely that prerogative in virtue of having God’s name in him." (https://danielomcclellan.wordpress.com/2016/01/18/markan-christology-and-the-messenger-of-yhwh/)

My friend and fellow Latter Day Saint apologist, Robert Boylan—wrote the following on Heb. 3:1; a passage na na-quote sa simula ng article na ito on the concept ng Divine Agency :

      In Heb 3:1, we read the following description of Jesus:

Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus.

The Greek term translated as "apostle" is αποστολος, referring to a messenger or an emissary. It is the noun form of the verb αποστελλω, "to send out." The Hebrew equivalents of this noun and verb would be שׁליח and שׁלח, respectively. The use of this term for Jesus vis-a-vis His relationship with the Father is further biblical evidence for His subordination to the Father.

In the Bible, the one who sends is greater than the one who is sent/apostle. For instance, note the description of John the Baptist:

There was a man sent (αποστελλω) from God, whose name was John. (John 1:6)

Obviously, John the Baptist is subordinate to God.

This verb is used of the relationship between the Father and the Son as well as the relationship between the Son and the apostles:

For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I come out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send (αποστελλω) me. (John 17:8)

As (καθος) thou hast sent (αποστελλω) me into the world, even so have I also sent (αποστελλω) them into the world. (John 17:18)

That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent (αποστελλω) me . . . I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent (αποστελλω )me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me . . . O righteous father, the world hath not known thee: but I have known thee, and these have known that thou hast sent (αποστελλω )me. (John 17:21, 23, 25).

Such usage underscores (1) the subordination of the apostles to Jesus and, by extension, (2) the subordination of Jesus to the Father. Such is shown, for instance, in the usage of the conjunction καθος in John 17:18 (quoted above) which means “just as,” showing the reciprocal relationship between the Father and the Son with the Son and the apostles.

http://scripturalmormonism.blogspot.com/2015/11/jesus-as-apostle-evidence-for.html?m=1

Craig Evans wrote on the concept ng Shaliach sa Gospel Of John which reads as follows :

       Jesus as Agent of the Father in the Gospel of John:

The Fourth Evangelist has presented Jesus as God’s agent or shaliach (that is, שׁלוח or שׁליח, ‘one who is sent’, from שׁלח), who then commissions his disciples to carry on his ministry. . . the relationship between the sender and agent is so close that in a certain sense the agent can be identified with the sender. We see this in Exod. 7.1 where God tells Moses: ‘I have given you to Pharaoh as god (θεος)’; and perhaps also when Moses and Aaron say to the people: ‘Your murmuring is not against us but against God’ (Exod. 16.8). In the Fourth Gospel the logos is identified as θεος (1.1), while elsewhere the Johannine Jesus says, ‘I and the Father are one’ (10.30); and ‘He who believes in me does not believe in me but in the one who sent me, and he who beholds me holds the one who sent me’ (12.44-45; cf. 14.1). (Craig A. Evans, Word and Glory: On the Exegetical and Theological Background of John’s Prologue [Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 59; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993], 137, 139)

. . . the shaliach was sometimes expected to perform signs confirming his claims that he spoke and acted for God (for examples from the prophets, see Isa. 7.11, 14; Jer. 44.29; Ezek. 4.3). We see this feature in the ministries of Moses and Jesus, with the Fourth Evangelist once again deriving his language from the Old Testament. At the beginning of his ministry Moses ‘did (ποιειν) the signs (σημεια) before the people. And the people believed (ποστευειν)’ (Exod. 4:30b-31). We are reminded of the editorial statement that follows Jesus’ first sign: ‘This, the first of his signs (σημεια), Jesus did (ποιειν) at Cana . . . and his disciples believed (πιστευειν) in him’ (2.11). But at a later time in the ministry of Moses God becomes frustrated with an unbelieving Israel: ‘How long will they not believe (πιστευειν) in me, in spite of all the signs (σημεια) which I have done (ποιειν) among them?’ (Num. 14.11). At the end of his ministry Moses says to Israel: ‘You have seen all that the Lord has done (ποιειν) in the land of Egypt . . . those signs (σημεια) and great wonders. Yet the Lord (κυριος) has not given you a heart to know, and eyes to see, and ears to hear’ (Deut. 29.2-4). Similarly, the Fourth Evangelist summarizes Jesus’ public ministry of signs: ‘Though he had done (ποιειν) so many signs (σημεια) before them, yet they did not believe (πιστευειν) in him, in order that the word of Isaiah the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spoke: “Lord (κυριος), who has believed (πιστευειν) our report?” . . . they were not able to believe (πιστευειν), because again spoke Isaiah: “He has blinded their eyes and hardened their heart . . .”’ (12.37; cf. Isa. 6.10). It is apparent that the Fourth Evangelist’s understanding of faith, or the lack of it, is significantly informed by traditions relating to Moses, especially in reference to God’s mighty works and ‘signs’. (Ibid, 140)

Moses as a Mediator/Agent of God in The Testament of Moses (First Century A.D.)

But he did design and devise me, who (was) prepared from the beginning of the world, to be the mediator of his covenant. (1:14 [Evans, p. 136 notes that “Here creation and covenant are juxtaposed and related to the person of Moses”])

(when) he solemnly called heaven and earth as witnesses against us that we should not transgress God’s commandments of which he had become the mediator for us? (3:12)

In conclusion, this does not prove that Jesus Christ is God in the Trinitarian sense. Jesus Christ has the authority given to him—on him and therefore he was able to do what the Father wants him to do. Jesus Christ is Heavenly Father's representative at hindi someone na of the same being and hindi co-equal to Heavenly Father whom he's representing for. the concept ng Divine Agency sa Bible does won't be consistent with Trinitarianism. the one who is sent is not greater than He who sent.

__________________
Like and support our Facebook page and message us for your questions and get answers on : Facebook.com/ldswarriors2000
Visit our blog at : Ldswarriors2000.blogspot.com
Visit my Quora profile at : Quora.com/Nika0604