While he could reveal his majesty at times, and did on the Mount of Transfiguration, I don't see the miracles as revealing his divine majesty; but as revelations of his complete trust in his Father's power to work through him. I believe that it did not serve Jesus' purpose to be truly human, nor would it please him, for him to use supernatural knowledge. To do so would mean that he would be something other than truly human. [emphasis added]
Congratulations, Brian. Not only are you denying the hypostatic union. At least twice you’ve denied Christ’s divinity, that He is true God.
“We, therefore, hold and teach, in conformity with the ancient orthodox Church, as it has explained this doctrine from the Scriptures, that the human nature in Christ has received this majesty according to the manner of the personal union, namely, because the entire fulness of the divinity dwells in Christ, not as in other holy men or angels, but bodily, as in its own body, so that it shines forth with all its majesty, power, glory, and efficacy in the assumed human nature, voluntarily when and as He [Christ] wills, and in, with, and through the same manifests, exercises, and executes His divine power, glory, and efficacy, as the soul does in the body and fire in glowing iron (for by means of these illustrations, as was also mentioned above, the entire ancient Church has explained this doctrine).” [FC, SD, 64]
Mark 2:1-12 was quoted above and embraced by Brian. In TLSB, a footnote to verse 8 states:
Jesus’ knowledge of his opponents’ inner thoughts reveals His supernatural perception and shows His divinity. Ironically, that is the very thing being called into question (v. 7.)
A footnote to verses 11-12 includes:
Jesus’ miracles were live illustrations that He was the Messiah.
Not only is Brianism not Lutheran. You’ve shown us that it’s not even Christian.
This is a waste of time. I’m done.
I have never said that Jesus is not divine. I have never said that Jesus is not God. I have been careful to talk about Jesus, the Son, as a different person than the Father. That is orthodoxy.
TLSB is not scriptures. Just because they interpret something one way, doesn't make it the only way; nor necessarily the right way.
Consider the translation of Mark 2:6-8 from CEB:
Some legal experts were sitting there, muttering among themselves, "Why does he speak this way? He's insulting God. Only the one God can forgive sins."
Jesus immediately recognized what they were discussing, and he said to them, "Why do you fill your minds with these questions?"
Nothing supernatural is required in the way they translate the words. Jesus overheard them talking among themselves.
In contrast, the NIV's translation would require supernatural knowledge by Jesus. (See also ESV's translation.)
Now some teachers of the law were sitting there, thinking to themselves, "Why does this fellow talk like that? He's blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?"
Immediately Jesus knew in his spirit that this what they were thinking in their hearts, and he said to them, "Why are you thinking these things?"
Both are ways the words can be understood and translated.
Greek:ἦσαν δέ τινες τῶν γραμματέων ἐκεῖ καθήμενοι καὶ διαλογιζόμενοι ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις αὐτῶν,
Τί οὗτος οὕτως λαλεῖ; βλασφημεῖ: τίς δύναται ἀφιέναι ἁμαρτίας εἰ μὴ εἷς ὁ θεός;
καὶ εὐθὺς ἐπιγνοὺς ὁ Ἰησοῦς τῷ πνεύματι αὐτοῦ
ὅτι οὕτως διαλογίζονται ἐν ἑαυτοῖς
λέγει αὐτοῖς, Τί ταῦτα διαλογίζεσθε ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις ὑμῶν;
Let's suppose that you are correct, when the prophets and disciples performed miracles, were they illustrations that they are also messiahs? (I also note that there is nothing in the Old Testament that would lead people to believe that the Messiah was to be divine. Cyrus is called "messiah" (translated "anointed one"). He was not divine. Priests are called messiah (anointed ones). They are not divine. Illustrating that Jesus is the "Messiah," is not a statement that he is divine.