Did Jesus ever actually forgive anyone's sins — or did He just announce what God had already decided, and we've been worshipping the messenger?

• N

  Noah4w ago

  End of the day, if you strip away the divinity, you don't have a more humble or credible Jesus. You have a man who accepted praise that belonged to God alone. That's not a better Jesus. That's a worse one. The only version of Jesus that makes sense is the one who was actually who He claimed to be.

  174Reply
• ML

  Marco L.1mo ago

  My grandmother never read a single word of theology in her life. She just knew Jesus forgave her. She died with a peace on her face I've never seen anywhere else. I don't know what to do with these debates sometimes.

  167Reply
• I

  Iris1mo ago

  nobody here is going to solve what Nicea couldn't solve in comment section. y'all know that right

  155Reply
• F

  Feli4w ago

  Bottom line: Jesus accepted worship. Multiple times. Angels in Revelation refuse worship and redirect it to God. Jesus never once redirected it. If He was just a prophetic messenger, that's the single most catastrophic failure of integrity in all of human history. I choose not to believe the founder of a movement about truth was THAT confused about His own identity.

  152Reply
• T

  Taylor1mo ago

  This is not even a hard question. He said 'the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins' — authority. That's not a messenger passing along a note. That's the principal acting. Full stop.

  147Reply
• A

  Avery1mo ago

  Can I be honest? I came into this post thinking it was going to be a dumb gotcha question. It's actually making me think about why I believe what I believe about Jesus instead of just what I believe. That's rare on the internet.

  143Reply
• NM

  Noah M.1mo ago

  ^ This is probably the strongest argument in this entire thread and it's only 16 words. First century Jewish reaction to Jesus's claims tells us more about what He was claiming than any modern interpretation.

  136Reply
• E

  Elena1mo ago

  I've had three pastors. First one told me questioning Jesus's divinity made me unsaved. Second one said honest doubt is part of faith. Third one told me to read more and talk less. I think number three was right.

  131Reply
• JR

  Jordan R.1mo ago

  lol 'epistemological grounds' brother this is a facebook-style comment section not a philosophy dissertation. just talk like a normal person

  129Reply
• N

  Noah1mo ago

  No, the mechanism matters enormously. If Jesus was just a prophet, you have Judaism. If Jesus is God forgiving in person, you have Christianity. Those aren't the same religion. The mechanism IS the whole thing.

  119Reply
• K9

  Kofi 921mo ago

  The crowd picks up stones immediately after He says it. They knew what He meant. You don't stone someone for claiming to be a prophet.

  118Reply
• A

  Alex1mo ago

  The Nathan comparison drives me crazy because Nathan explicitly said 'The LORD has taken away your sin' — third person. Jesus says 'I forgive you.' First person. That gap is not nothing. That gap is the entire Christian faith.

  112Reply
• J

  Jordan1mo ago

  If you disagree that Jesus actually claimed to be God in some meaningful sense, I genuinely want you to explain what you think He meant when He said 'before Abraham was, I AM.' Because 'I AM' in a Jewish context is not accidentally chosen phrasing.

  109Reply
• KR

  Kofi R.1mo ago

  Wow. Just wow. Not everything needs to be won.

  104Reply
• A9

  Avery 921mo ago

  Mark 2 is the key text and everyone skips the detail that Jesus forgives the paralyzed man BEFORE healing him. The healing is the secondary thing, offered specifically to prove He had the authority to do the primary thing. Why would a mere prophetic messenger need a miracle to prove God had decided something? That sequence is doing a lot of theological heavy lifting.

  98Reply
• YS

  Yuki S.1mo ago

  The woman caught in adultery — Jesus forgives her without ever invoking God, without saying 'God has forgiven you,' without any prophetic formula. He just says 'neither do I condemn you.' First person. No intermediary. Either He's overstepping enormously or He's not an intermediary at all.

  97Reply
• R

  Reese1mo ago

  If Jesus was just announcing what God decided, then the cross is a martyr story not an atonement story. I cannot worship a martyr. I can admire one. Big difference. Anyone who thinks that's a fine substitution hasn't really thought about what atonement means.

  96Reply
• R

  Reese1mo ago

  I want to push back on the premise of this whole question. Whether Jesus was 'just announcing' or 'actually forgiving' matters less than the fact that forgiveness was EXTENDED and RECEIVED. The woman who washed His feet went away clean. That's the point. We're sitting here arguing about the mechanism while she's already home.

  93Reply
• M

  Morgan1mo ago

  2,000 years of consensus also said the earth was the center of the universe. Longevity of a belief is not the same thing as the belief being correct.

  91Reply
• R2

  Ravi 211mo ago

  I'm a pastor and I'll say this carefully: the question in this post is one my most thoughtful church members have asked me privately. And my answer is always the same — the question itself is Jesus working on you. The fact that you're wrestling with who He actually is means He already has your attention.

  89Reply
• M_

  Marco _x1mo ago

  Theologically interpreted doesn't mean historically inaccurate. Every eyewitness account of anything is interpreted. This is not a radical position. This is basic historiography.

  88Reply
• F

  Feli1mo ago

  Not obvious at first?? Read John 1:1. 'In the beginning was the Word.' That's not subtle. That's not development. That's declaration.

  88Reply
• ZS

  Zara S.1mo ago

  okay so the comment above this one actually made me pause. like i never thought about it that way. the difference between prophet-Jesus and divine-Jesus isn't a minor theological nuance, it's literally the difference between two different faiths. that's real.

  87Reply
• A

  Alex1mo ago

  When Jesus says to the paralytic 'your sins are forgiven,' the scribes correctly identify that only God can do that — and Jesus's response isn't 'well technically I'm just relaying a message.' He doubles down and heals the man as proof of His authority. If He were just a prophet-messenger He would have said 'God has forgiven you.' He didn't. That choice of words is intentional.

  85Reply
• N

  Nina1mo ago

  Colossians 2:13 says God 'forgave us ALL our sins' — and the context makes clear this is accomplished through Christ, not alongside Him. Paul doesn't distinguish between 'Christ announcing' and 'God deciding.' For Paul they're one action. If you trust Paul at all, the messenger theory falls apart.

  84Reply
• N

  Nina1mo ago

  okay but hear me out. prophets in the OT spoke for God all the time. 'Thus says the LORD, your sin is forgiven' — Nathan says something pretty close to that to David in 2 Samuel 12. Does that make Nathan divine? nobody argues that.

  83Reply
• RM

  Riley M.1mo ago

  This. The 'early sources are more primitive/human' assumption bakes in an evolutionary theology where later texts 'inflate' Jesus. But that assumes the conclusion. Paul knew Peter. Paul knew James the brother of Jesus. Paul's high Christology is almost embarrassingly early.

  82Reply
• D

  Drew1mo ago

  Hot take nobody wants to hear: the reason this question makes so many people uncomfortable is that the Gospels are genuinely complex documents written for communities that already believed Jesus was Lord, so they layer interpretation onto history in ways that are hard to disentangle. That doesn't mean Jesus isn't divine. It means reading the Gospels as straightforward biography is naive.

  79Reply
• D

  Drew1mo ago

  I grew up in a very conservative Baptist household where questioning anything about Jesus's divinity made you practically a heretic. When I went to seminary and actually read the text carefully in Greek, I had a genuine crisis of faith — not because I stopped believing, but because I realized how much I had assumed instead of actually READ. The honest answer is: the Synoptic Gospels are more ambiguous than John. And that ambiguity should make us humble, not defensive.

  76Reply
• LR

  Liam R.1mo ago

  Luke 7:49 — the other guests at Simon's table say 'who is this that even forgives sins?' They're not asking about his legal credentials. They're asking about his nature. First century Jewish people knew exactly what that question meant.

  74Reply
• NS

  Nina S.1mo ago

  Anyone citing the Jehovah's Witnesses 'a god' translation in this conversation should know that's been demolished by every legitimate Greek scholar for decades. That rendering requires ignoring definite article rules that even first-year Greek students learn.

  73Reply
• M

  Morgan1mo ago

  What I find interesting is that Jesus never EXPLAINS the mechanism. He doesn't say 'I'm forgiving you because I'm God' OR 'I'm announcing what God decided.' He just forgives and then dares anyone to challenge it. The silence on the mechanism might be intentional. Maybe He was leaving people to conclude on their own.

  72Reply
• T2

  Theo 211mo ago

  Nicea didn't 'solve' it either, it voted on it. There were bishops who walked out. That's worth knowing.

  71Reply
• T

  Theo1mo ago

  Interesting how 'earlier = more reliable' gets applied selectively. Paul's letters predate all four Gospels and Philippians 2 has one of the clearest divine-Christ passages in the NT. Earlier doesn't win the argument for you.

  69Reply
• HM

  Hana M.1mo ago

  This framing of the question is subtly Arian and I don't think most people even realize it. The question presupposes Jesus and God are separate enough that Jesus could be 'just a messenger.' Classical Trinitarianism says the Son IS God, just not the Father. So asking 'did Jesus forgive or did God' is like asking 'did your right hand punch someone or did you.' It's the same actor.

  67Reply
• Q

  Quinn1mo ago

  This is exactly the kind of creative historical revisionism that sounds smart at a coffee shop and collapses under scrutiny. If Jesus just had messianic-legal authority, He would have invoked that precedent. Instead He accepts the implied accusation of blasphemy by proving He can do what only God can do. That's not an accident.

  66Reply
• K

  Kofi1mo ago

  Or maybe the Gospel authors didn't feel the need to explain it because their communities already understood it. We're asking second century questions of a first century text.

  64Reply
• Y

  Yuki4w ago

  The angel comparison is genuinely underrated as an argument. That's not something I'd heard put that way before. Borrowing this.

  63Reply
• J

  Jamie1mo ago

  John 1:1 is also the most theologically loaded passage in the entire NT and scholars have argued for centuries about what 'the Word was God' vs 'the Word was a god' means in the Greek. Don't act like it settles everything in a sentence.

  61Reply
• P

  Priya1mo ago

  Some of the greatest Christians in history — Tolstoy, certain Quakers — essentially held a 'Jesus as supreme moral teacher and prophet' view and lived lives of radical faithfulness that put most Trinitarian Christians to shame. So maybe pump the brakes on 'cannot worship.'

  61Reply
• DT

  Drew T.1mo ago

  The bishops who 'walked out' at Nicea were the Arians who lost the theological argument and then threw a fit. Framing it like it was a close vote when the final tally was something like 300 to 2 is misleading at best.

  58Reply
• L

  Liam1mo ago

  With all due respect that's a nice pastoral non-answer. 'The question is Jesus working on you' sidesteps the actual theological content. People deserve a real answer not a spiritual redirection.

  57Reply
• S

  Sam1mo ago

  Can we acknowledge that John's Gospel comes several decades after the Synoptics and is doing something theologically distinct? Using John to interpret Mark is an interesting hermeneutical choice that isn't as neutral as people think.

  56Reply
• I

  Iris1mo ago

  Technically that passage (John 7:53–8:11) isn't in the earliest manuscripts so some people will argue it proves nothing. But honestly even if you bracket that story, the rest of the Gospel evidence points the same direction.

  55Reply
• Z

  Zara1mo ago

  I actually think the Arian reading is more honest to the early Gospel sources before John. I'm not saying I'm Arian. I'm saying the development of Trinitarian doctrine took centuries for a reason — it wasn't obvious at first.

  54Reply
• D

  Diego1mo ago

  Living ethically is not the same as being theologically correct. Tolstoy was excommunicated from the Orthodox church for a reason. Admirable life, genuinely problematic theology. Those two things coexist.

  53Reply
• N

  Nina1mo ago

  Or maybe Jesus is claiming messianic authority that the scribes misread as a divine claim? Messianic figures had enormous delegated authority in Second Temple Jewish thought. The scribes' objection might be about legal authority to pronounce, not ontological divinity.

  52Reply
• N_

  Nina _x1mo ago

  ^ That's beautiful and I mean that. But 'my grandmother felt peace' can't be the argument we use to settle what the text actually says. Lots of people die peacefully with wrong beliefs. Peace isn't a theological argument.

  49Reply
• T

  Taylor1mo ago

  Of course the textual criticism guy shows up. Look, even scholars who note the manuscript issue acknowledge the story reflects authentic early tradition about Jesus. You don't get to just delete uncomfortable texts because they have a footnote.

  48Reply
• P

  Priya1mo ago

  Ha. Number three sounds like my kind of pastor.

  47Reply
• LS

  Liam S.1mo ago

  Humble. Sure. Or maybe it should make you trust 2,000 years of church consensus over your one semester of Greek.

  44Reply
• EB

  Elena B.1mo ago

  Layer interpretation onto history — okay so basically you're saying the Gospels might not be historically accurate. Just say that plainly if that's what you mean instead of hiding it in academic language.

  42Reply
• M

  Morgan1mo ago

  He's a pastor, not a debate coach. Give it a rest.

  41Reply
• A

  Alex1mo ago

  The geocentrism comparison is so tired. Scientific consensus and theological tradition operate on completely different epistemological grounds. You can't just swap them like they're interchangeable.

  38Reply

More debates people can't stop arguing about