Does "Only God forgive sins" necessitate that Jesus be God?

[mattrose]

and He forgave sins with an authority that didn't come across as delegated

But at the end of Matthew he said "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me" which i interpret as "delegated" although that does not mean he is not divine, simply this job had been exclusive to the Father.

Fair point, thanks

[darinhouston]

(And I would hold that Son of God = the same nature as God. And if you are of the same nature as God, you are = God)

This logic is curious. First, on what basis do you make that first equality? And how do you define "same nature" (and on what basis?). Seeing as "Son of God" has been held to declare really a non-earthly origin/conception and not necessarily an existential reality, that seems to be conjecture. Also, don't we all partake of His nature? We share in His nature. That doesn't make us God. So why make that assumption as to Him? Is it just a matter of degree?

[Paidion]

This logic is curious. First, on what basis do you make that first equality? And how do you define "same nature" (and on what basis?). Seeing as "Son of God" has been held to declare really a non-earthly origin/conception and not necessarily an existential reality, that seems to be conjecture.

Actually, I agree that being the unique son of God implies that Jesus is divine, just as being the son of man implies that He is human. I think that being divine implies that Jesus is "God" in the sense of divinity, but not in the sense of being the same divine Individual as the Father. Thus it is proper to call Jesus "God" in a generic sense, for He is the stamp of the Father's essence (Hebrews 1:3). You and I are not divine; we are human, and each of us may be called "man". In this sense the one and only son of God can be called "God".

Also, don't we all partake of His nature? We share in His nature. That doesn't make us God. So why make that assumption as to Him? Is it just a matter of degree?

None of us partake of God's nature in the sense that Jesus did. He was the ONLY begotten Son of God. God begat no other sons, and so none of us qualify.

[mattrose]

This logic is curious. First, on what basis do you make that first equality? And how do you define "same nature" (and on what basis?). Seeing as "Son of God" has been held to declare really a non-earthly origin/conception and not necessarily an existential reality, that seems to be conjecture.

Actually, I agree that being the unique son of God implies that Jesus is divine, just as being the son of man implies that He is human. I think that being divine implies that Jesus is "God" in the sense of divinity, but not in the sense of being the same divine Individual as the Father. Thus it is proper to call Jesus "God" in a generic sense, for He is the stamp of the Father's essence (Hebrews 1:3). You and I are not divine; we are human, and each of us may be called "man". In this sense the one and only son of God can be called "God".

Also, don't we all partake of His nature? We share in His nature. That doesn't make us God. So why make that assumption as to Him? Is it just a matter of degree?

None of us partake of God's nature in the sense that Jesus did. He was the ONLY begotten Son of God. God begat no other sons, and so none of us qualify.

I appreciate this post Paidion.

[darinhouston]

This logic is curious. First, on what basis do you make that first equality? And how do you define "same nature" (and on what basis?). Seeing as "Son of God" has been held to declare really a non-earthly origin/conception and not necessarily an existential reality, that seems to be conjecture.

Actually, I agree that being the unique son of God implies that Jesus is divine, just as being the son of man implies that He is human. I think that being divine implies that Jesus is "God" in the sense of divinity, but not in the sense of being the same divine Individual as the Father. Thus it is proper to call Jesus "God" in a generic sense, for He is the stamp of the Father's essence (Hebrews 1:3). You and I are not divine; we are human, and each of us may be called "man". In this sense the one and only son of God can be called "God".

Also, don't we all partake of His nature? We share in His nature. That doesn't make us God. So why make that assumption as to Him? Is it just a matter of degree?

None of us partake of God's nature in the sense that Jesus did. He was the ONLY begotten Son of God. God begat no other sons, and so none of us qualify.

I appreciate this post Paidion.

I appreciate it also -- but, as I deconstruct this doctrine, I don't see it following necessarily, logically from Scripture alone. It's loaded with assumptions and presuppositions though they may be perfectly reasonable and true.

[jriccitelli]

There was a theologian who had a perfectly good working car until he started working on it, then after not being able to put it back together, he declared the car never worked in the first place.

There was an Existentialist who had a wonderful car, then after taking it apart piece by piece declared ‘see there never was a car!’

There was a evolutionist scientist who had a beautiful car, and then…

[morbo3000]

And I would agree with Matt’s post, noting that none of the Gospels were understood in a vacuum.

How can you know that? It's impossible.

I believe the Gospels were all written minutes of the ‘most common sermons’ and the ‘repeated week to week’ testimonies of the 12 (or 11) disciples, which they must have developed into a loop after awhile as I'm sure they were asked to repeat the stories every week, maybe every day. Some saying more, writing more, some less.

Or this?

If you say that you know it because the Bible says that, you are being recursive. And the Bible doesn't even say that.

[darinhouston]

There was a theologian who had a perfectly good working car until he started working on it, then after not being able to put it back together, he declared the car never worked in the first place.

There was an Existentialist who had a wonderful car, then after taking it apart piece by piece declared ‘see there never was a car!’

There was a evolutionist scientist who had a beautiful car, and then…

That's funny, but what if we started with a pile of parts everyone agreed was beautiful and I felt there was a car in there somewhere?

[jriccitelli]

What if we started with a pile of parts everyone agreed was beautiful and I felt there was a car in there somewhere?

I have had a losing battle in getting neighbors to see the beauty in the pile of parts I have in my driveway over the years (I’m one of those people who look for my next car in wrecking yards, and in boxes of parts)
Thanks for putting up with my creative writing and humor; I finished the following;

There was an evolutionist scientist who had a beautiful car that came with a full lifetime warranty, a complete owners manual, and a toll-free number for the dealership and the number of the man who designed it but one day it broke down. And instead of calling the dealership, or calling the numbers, or reading the manual, the scientist decided to wait and see if the car would fix itself. So after waiting one million years…

[jriccitelli]

And I would agree with Matt’s post, noting that none of the Gospels were understood in a vacuum

Hello Morbo, I would say 'I do know this' because they would not even have had any idea what Jesus was talking about, or who He was if they there had not been a history of Israel and a body of existing scripture or knowledge. And as in the days of Christ;
"Are You the only one visiting Jerusalem and unaware of the things which have happened here in these days?" (Luke 24:18)

If you say that you know it because the Bible says that, you are being recursive. And the Bible doesn't even say that.

I did not say I ‘know’ it, It is my deduction. And it would be the natural way we write about something, from memory, and the gospels contain abit of personal style and reflection that would not come from just copying from an existing ‘text’. Chronicles and Kings reflect this in part but they mirror more so than do the gospels in exactness and they are century’s older.
People often repeat the same stories abit verbatim, often even having others written texts in mind, but the style and prose of the gospels feels like they came from the writers own heart and not copied from someone’s else’s text.
The texts that are similar most often use different orders and composition (unlike Chronicles and Kings) and the ones that do are separated by blocks of different narrative, I do not think the writer would purposefully try to scramble the texts (like Joseph Smith did) in order to hide that he was copying someone else’s text, as in a Q document source. I think it is much more likely than a supposed Q.
It also says; They were continually devoting themselves to the apostles' teaching and to fellowship... Acts 2...