Oeste
Well-Known Member
God can not sin.
Correct.
Man can sin.
Correct.
It is impossible to be able to sin and at the same not able to sin.
Great start but wrong deduction. If you are fully God then no, you do not sin. But if you are fully man then yes, you can sin.
Remember, Christ didn’t come here to live the life of “a God”, he came here to live the life of “a man”. He was able to do everything a man was able to do. He could thirst, he could get hungry, and he could be tempted to sin.
God doesn’t get hungry, thirsty, or tempted to sin, but Jesus didn’t arrive on earth in his pre-incarnate state. He arrived on earth as a man.
God can not die.
Correct.
Man can die.
Correct.
It is impossible to be able to die and at the same time not able to die.
Jesus the man died on the cross. It wasn’t the pre-incarnate Christ on the cross. If it were, they wouldn’t have been able to look upon him, let alone nail him to a cross!
You forget that Jesus emptied himself…that is, he did not take advantage of his Divine attributes.
There’s a lot more to it then this but it would get us off topic. I suspect that when you say “die” you’re somehow inferring Jesus “ceased to exist”. As men, we die in the flesh but we do not cease to exist.
It is a pagan idea that someone can be a not man and God.
I don’t see why. The Father is not man and God at the same time. And as for God, the pagans had their own. That doesn't mean Deity is a "pagan idea".
That is exactly the same lie told Eve. He said she could become a god (Gen 3:5) and she fell for it. Same damnable lie dominating Christian doctrine today.
Correct. Neither man nor woman can become God, but God can become man.
As yourself pointed out, Jesus did not fall for the same lie (Phil 2:6-8).
Jesus was not a man that became God.
Man is created, God is not.
By the way, had Phil 2:6 read, "who being god..." I'd say you might have something. But it says he was in the form of God.
The word you're looking for here is morphē (μορφή) which means form, appearance or shape. I don’t think there is anyone or anything in heaven that would have the audacity to take on the form, shape or appearance of God except God.
Think about it Rrobs. Do you honestly believe there was another, separate entity running around in heaven taking on the shape or form of God? Let’s forget the brazen audacity. How would a created entity even have the capacity to do such a thing in the first place?
Every word in the scriptures is important. You are in effect dropping the words "in the form of." I do believe there is something in the book of Revelation about changing God's word.
There is also something about changing established doctrines. What you have just espoused has nothing to do with the Trinity. We don’t believe man became God but that God became a man. We also believe you may not be man and God at the same time and I see nothing “pagan” about the concept. Lastly, you’ll read nothing about God dying, or by wrong implication “ceasing to exist” in any doctrine concerning the Trinity unless the supposed doctrine was written by a skeptic or Unitarian.
If you read Genesis carefully, you will see that Eve's answer to the devil omitted words that God told her. She also added words as well as changed words. That is pretty much what is required to promote the trinity.
Nah, Changing, adding, and/or omitting words are what’s required to promote a distortion of the Trinity. As it is, it appears to be the only "effective" way Unitarians can argue against it.
There is no point in trying to explain the trinity. Even the staunchest trinitarian scholars readily admit it can not be explained.
God cannot be explained and the Trinity doctrine makes no attempt to do so. He is above our reason. In fact, if you have a God you can explain and understand, then your God is not the God of scripture. I could ask an amoeba to explain humans to his buddies and I wouldn’t come close to how difficult it is for a human being to explain God.
As for the Trinity doctrine it’s not all that difficult. If "Trinitarian scholars" had stated that the Trinity doctrine could not be explained they would not have written an explanation of the doctrine. There are plenty of Trinitarians on this forum that understand the doctrine in its entirety, but none of them, as far as I know, make an attempt to explain God. For that you have to go to the Unitarians, and for some reason they appear to explain a God in their own image which looks suspiciously like Zeus or Thor.
The problem is that no matter how often Trinitarians point to a horse Unitarians will enthusiastically paint a zebra.