Hi.
Ok it seems to me you are more interested arguing than in discussing this. So forget the hypothetical. t did not cut through the higher level objections as i hoped. Just answer the underlying question.
Look at the forum you are in - This is a "debate" forum. You have no reason to expect to be able to make claims here about what is true without being challenged to prove your premises are true.
You are commiting the logical fallacy of "avoiding the issue" and "handwaving".
I identified the premises behind your claim and challenged you to prove your assumptions are true.
Rather than support the truth of your premises with reasoned arguments and facts, you instead try to ignore it and try to act like you don't need to prove the premises that your conclusion depends on.
You dont get to claim something is true and have your claim be accepted if you can't back up your claim with proof. Otherwise it's just an unsupported opinion and will be treated as such.
Non trintirarions for 2000 years have believed that it was a creation that was sent by the Father. All the objections to the "premise" that you raise have been covered ad-nauseum in the agrument that established the trinity doctrine.
You are committing the logical fallacy of "red herring".
The objections I raised to your premise have nothing to do with the doctrine of the trinity itself.
I challenged a specific assumption you had that said the incarnation happened in a way that an angel could duplicate. You are making assumptions about both God and angels with that statement that you can't support.
You have no Biblical basis for believing that.
There are many Biblical reasons to believe what you say would likely be impossible.
We know God's abilities cannot even begin to be compared with an angel. The fact that some things are reserved only for Him and not angels is not Biblically disputable.
We know it would be impossible for the spirit of man to reincarnate because the Bible says they are given to die once and then face judgement, leading to thier eternal fate.
We know angels are also judged and have one of two eternal fates.
Angels and man are both created. God is uncreated.
God imprisons the angels for not keeping their proper place in heaven, and will judge them.
We see demonic possession never involves reincarnation of any sort. But is a demonic spirit acting to enslave a created and born human spirit. Jesus refers to thier activities as unlawful in His parables, and casts them out of people everywhere He goes.
We never see angels even engaged in possession, further confirming that possession is illegal acitivity in terms of God's ways.
There is not the remotest hint anywhere in the Bible that an angel had the physical ability or the moral right to reincarnate as a baby human.
Angels are said to be ministering spirits to man. And angels are always seen performing a task or acivity of some sort. God has created them with a purpose and place in mind just as the Bible tells us the Heavens, animals, and man all have their God ordained place and role.
Everything we see suggests it would grossly violate God's established order, where God clearly creates new life with the intention of letting them grow and play out thier life to it's consequence without reincarnating them to try again. Shoving an spirit of one order of things into another order would also be suggestive violate the intended place and purpose of that spirit.
All these are some reasons why we would doubt the possibility of your claim, as they run counter to what we consistently see in the Bible.
We can state factually what you claim is found no where in the Bible. And that what you claim goes against the trend of how God appears to do things in the Bible.
This makes it all the more damaging for your claim that you cannot provide a single reason why your claim is true. You just have an opinion with no basis for it. The onus is on you as the one making the claim to prove the truth of your claim.
Do i have to re state every nontrinitiarian line of reasoning before you will address the underlying question...
Godls Life or a perfect human life?
You are committing the logical fallacy of "red herring".
Rather than address the logical objections I raised to your premises you try to change the topic.
Your question would only be a logically legitimate rebuttal if you explained why your new topic answers all my points or renders them moot. You haven't established that to be the case. You merely act as though you don't need to address them without giving valid reasons why you don't, which is the logical fallacy of "handwaving".
Even Athanasius was not so obtuse as to say the senario was imposslble.
Logical fallacy, appeal to authority. Whether or not Athanasius agrees with you neither proves nor disproves the truth of your claims.
You seem pretty up on this....isn't that circular logic?
Does the fact that Jesus was the one sent really prove that he is GOD Almighty?
Is what cicular logic? Athanasius's argument? I am not required to defend Athanasius's arguments. I am responsible only for my arguments. You are engaging in a type of logical fallacy known as "strawman" by attempting to make me defend what someone else has said instead of dealing with what I said.
And yes i do ........assume that it's possible for an angel to live sinless in a human body .
Which brings us to back to what I originally challenged you with: You have no basis for your assumption. You claim it's true but you have no proof. If it's not true then your conclusion falls apart. The onus is on you as the one making the claim to prove the truth of it.
And I also gave you several Scriptures which disprove the idea that you can take your assumption for granted, which you haven't attempted to refute.
In this way it is a REAL test and the OBEDIENCE to God shown by the one sent actually establishes something. God being loyal to God proves what?
Your claim is still based on unproven or false assumptions.
1. The assumption that God's plan of salvation needed to involve a pass/fail test.
2. The assumption that a pass/fail test is required to "establish something" (establish what exactly?)
3. The assumption that God needs to prove something to someone.
You don't have a single piece of evidence for why any of those assumptions would be true.
The Bible also directly contradicts you when it is outright stated numerous places why Jesus did what he did, and none of the assumptions you just made are given in there as reasons, nor could they even be reasoned to be true from exegesis of the scripture. If you believe otherwise you are welcome to quote Scripture you think does prove your assumptions to be true.