viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2584&start=10#p58191...or as I am beginning to argue, Jesus was the second God of the traditional Jewish godhead WHO NEEDED TO BE MADE SUBORINATE TO THE FATHER through a process of Incarnation, Death, Resurrection and ultimately Enthronement.
That scheme doesn't work clearly in Mark 2:10 :
If the ''Son of Man'' in that passage is, in that specific view, ''the second God of the traditional Jewish godhead WHO NEEDED TO BE MADE SUBORDINATE TO THE FATHER'', then that view has clearly the logical contradiction of a ''Son of Man'' who is, as ''Son of Man'', the exact opposite of someone ''who needed to be made subordinate to the father.'' Having the power to forgive the sins, he is supremely independent as well as God. But then where is the presumed ''needed subordination to the Father''? It would disappear with the same accuse of blasphemy.But that you may know that the Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins ...
The passage makes sense only if Jesus isn't saying deliberately the truth about himself: in other terms, he is lying when he proclaims himself to be the ''son of man'', so that he can be accused of blasphemy and be crucified by Romans.
The paralytic is an insider because he is at center of the house, near to Jesus more than all the others. The scribes around become virtually outsiders.
Therefore the scribes, when suspecting Jesus of blasphemy, are assuming wrongly that Jesus is a merely son of man.
And Jesus, in order to lead them on the way of ignorance (so that they are not forgiven: Mark 4:11-12), helps deliberately them to confirm their suspect of blasphemy: ''the Son of Man is posing as God'' in a blasphemous way.
The scribes believe to know now that Jesus is a blasphemous.
The insider, the paralytic, knows the truth: Jesus is not a mere son of man, he is the Son of God possessing a mere son of man (and alas the subordination!).
In other words, you have really the subordination of the son of man to the Son of God ONLY if you assume that Jesus is lying deliberately when he proclaims the authority of the son of man to forgive the sins: in other terms, only if ''son of man'' doesn't mean ''the second God of the traditional Jewish godhead'' or any other celestial being in Mark, but only ''mere man'', ''earthly Israel'' and only that.
The scheme is perfect:
| In Allegory | in History |
| a son of man posing as God is blasphemy | Israel does blasphemy |
| The scribes have reason to accuse the son of man of blasphemy | Israel deserves divine punishment for blasphemy |
| The scribes condemn the son of man to death for blasphemy on a Roman cross (!). | Israel is condemned to death in 70 CE |
| the son of man has expiated his sin of blasphemy and now he rises again in the Galilee of Gentiles | Israel rises again in the Diaspora in the form of pauline Christianity |
Now it's clear why Jesus has absolute need to confirm the suspects of blasphemy felt by the scribes about the son of man ''Jesus Nazarene'': only by confirming them in their suspects about the blaspheme son of man, the Son of God succeeds in leading the son of man on the Roman cross.