It's possible to sin against one brother without sinning against others just as it is possible to sin against Christ without sinning against the Father. It's because Jesus and the Father aren't God together. Jesus is a completely separate person independent of God. He's God's son, servant, etc. You already made this discussion super easy for me.
Luke 17:3
I agree with that. Jesus' theology about the resurrection and other topics was absolutely compatible with Pharisaical theology as opposed to Sadducaical theology because they did not believe in the resurrection.
It's not about formal worship as God, but rather about bowing to Jesus because he's a king. It also only applied to angels when Jesus was born and was not a general commandment to anyone else. There are also no commandments to worship Jesus in all of Scripture. The only teaching about who to worship is to the Father because the Father alone is God Almighty.
Let's talk about this. Have you ever read Psalm 45:6 before? The whole chapter is about the very same person who was called ’ĕ·lō·hîm. Can ’ĕ·lō·hîm be used of humans who are not themselves God Almighty? Yes absolutely. For example, the context of Psalm 45:6 is about a king who had a queen. We know from Scripture that God nor Jesus were married nor have a queen. So the original context of Psalm 45, when the author of Hebrews quoted it, doesn't transfer deity to Jesus. Anyway, the point is that ’ĕ·lō·hîm can refer to humans. Hebrews 1:8 is not a proof-text for the deity of Jesus. Here's another example:
Okay so the power Jesus had to forgive sins, despite it saying God gave the power immediately after it was mentioned, didn't come actually come from God? Please explain how God didn't give the men that power. Did Matthew record it wrong in your view?
Everyone has beliefs. Belief does not require facts or proof to exist. Anyone can believe anything they wish because belief is not dependent on facts. If you want to believe in something that Bible does not support, then it's your choice. I know that, fundamentally, it's your religion and you're sticking with it. That's what everyone else does.
You keep showing errors. Verse 14 shows Christ is given dominion.
you are partially right that the saints were to reign with Christ. So you get a few point for that.
You just do not learn anything and spew out the same nonsense. What men did the multitudes say had this authority from God to forgive sins on his behalf. It shows how far off track you have gotten. BUt maybe you were gone and have not caught up on posts the last several days. All you have done is some proof texting without checking the parallel passages. Usually you seem better than that.
Try going back to Sunday school. Again the multitude's view is represented here. They only knew the humanity aspect of God incarnate. I cannot believe you keep pushing this passage.
The people, the very saints of the Most High, and the son of man both have the exact same dominion. The son of man is one from among the people and a ruler with the people, but is not himself the Most High. There's no error. Ruling with Christ from the same exact throne as Christ (the son of man) is a very common Biblical doctrine. It's all over Daniel 7, but there are others. I'll show some examples.
You show great disdain for the Bible with the way you talk about what Matthew said. It says what it says. If you don't believe it then just say so.
Maybe it means Jesus isn't God since he didn't inherently possess the divine attribute of God to forgive sins? Even more than that, the other men also had the power to forgive sins too. I think the reason you are arguing against this particular passage is because it's incompatible with your religion. Your religion's teachings regarding Jesus being able to forgive sins as a sign that he is God cannot co-exist with Matthew 9:6-8.
You just do not make any logical sense with what your share. I have pointed out the errors of your interpretation. You treat the opinions of the multitude/audience more than the message of Christ. I do not know how you see that as convincing.
Those in Christ reign through him (or, as it were, in him). Unusual concept. but we cannot be in some man. Your proof texts are far from giving any of us reason to deny the deity of Christ
Maybe if you can make a legit argument to your view ... we'll wait and see. But remember that the multitude also did not follow Christ. They were judged. You should judge better whom you will trust.
you did not answer the question of which men the multitude figured could forgive sins on God's authority. Maybe you mean the Roman Catholic priests.
That must be an interesting argument you make of sinning against Christ without sinning against the Father. That would not even apply when David repents of killing Uriah.
It matches the concept of the kingdom and rulership belonging to the people. It's not exclusive to Jesus.
I follow conventional reason and logic in which words mean what they say they do. You have, and probably always will, impose your theology onto the scripture, thus overriding a consistent reading of the Bible. For example, for you I am sure that because since Jesus is the son of God then that means he's God. For me, Jesus being the son of God does not mean he's God because there are billions of other sons of God.
Matthew 9:6-8 doesn't drop names, but it's most likely Jesus and the disciples.
The below is proof one can sin against Christ without sinning against the Father.
