Christians..."Trinity"?

[captainbryce]

Yes, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints rejects the Trinity doctrine. As a member of that Church, I also reject the Trinity doctrine. Maybe you misunderstood something in my post.

No I didn't. I just think that this is kind of a "biased" stance since it is essentially just another doctrine that your church taught you. And Mormon theology is very different from the theology of mainstream Christians anyway. Almost all of your doctrines are different from theirs. I guess I'm more interested in how "individuals" interpret scripture. I tend to reject all church doctrines because I believe they do more to create division. Also, I am hesitant to lump in Mormon's with mainstream Christians since it is basically a different religion altogether.

 

[captainbryce]

Not my language.

But of course in such debate steeped in misunderstanding, the language chosen will be more assertive and exclusive.


However, I do think it's funny, that out of all that I added, that is what you decided to comment on.

What about the rest?
This is essentially a 'mechanics guide' to the Trinity, as it's explained.

I surely thought it'd be a helpful read.
Not one you have to accept, of course.

But still.... that is alllllll you have to say about my post?

Or is it because it was just that good, you are stunned


I keed.

I appreciate that you took the time out to copy and paste a particular Church's "mechanics guide" to the trinity. But that's not really what I was asking for. I've heard just about every attempt at a logical explanation that exists and they all remain equally illogical and require a suspension of it altogether to accept. The reason why I singled out the specific line in question is because right off the bat it reveals a fundamental bias in the position. If someone's official position is that ONLY Catholics can be saved, then I'm really not interested in anything else they might have to say (on any subject). At that point, we are at such fundamental disagreement, that arguing over something trivial like "trinity" would seem pointless in comparison.

 

[captainbryce]

The Jews clearly didn't think of Jesus and the Holy Spirit as divine. But the Church, from the earliest point, did.

When you say "The Jews", which Jews are you talking about? His followers, the masses that he converted, the masses who rejected him, or the Rabbis who conspired to have him killed? The term has many meanings.

BTW, it is possible to believe that Jesus is "divine" without believing in Trinity. Do you disagree?

The Jews didn't yet understand the Trinity, since it was fresh revelation, so if Jesus was to walk around saying, "Hey, BTW, I'm God" they would kill Him. And even with Jesus implying His Divinity more subtly, the Jews STILL took the hint, and STILL tried to kill Him. He was able to escape them several times before finally allowing Himself to get arrested and crucified.

This is a big STRETCH scriptural interpretation to me. There are still way too many inconsistent assumptions in this hypothesis.

Also, we Trinitarians don't think of the Trinity as being a "natural extension of divinity," whatever that means.

Well forgive me, but it sounds like you think that in order for Jesus to be "divine" he must also be part of a Triune God. Is that not accurate?

We think it's obvious because God revealed it as such, not because we arrived at it through reasoning and logic. You may understand the Big Bang perfectly, and the formation of the universe, but the formation of life within that same universe could still be a mystery to you.

A) You say all of this after trying to convince me (through reason and logic) why a trinity makes sense.

B) The formation of life is no mystery to me. Nor should it be to anyone else who has read Genesis 1.

If Jesus is not God, then we are not saved, and His incarnation, His death on the Cross and His resurrection from the dead did absolutely nothing for us.

How do you figure ANY of this? Why does Jesus need to be God in order for us to be saved? BTW, the bible says that God CAN'T die. If Jesus was God, and he died, then the bible is lying.

They are distinct Persons, but not separate. The Father is not the Son is not the Holy Spirit. Yet they are all one God.

That's circular reasoning. This is essentially the definition of the trinity doctrine. But when asked to explain the trinity doctrine, this is the equivalent of defining a word using the word in the definition. Trinity means...."trinity". But it didn't make sense the first time this explanation was used, and it still doesn't make sense as an explanation. No matter how many different ways you say it, it still not going to make sense because it's not logical.

They are not separate the way you and I are separate. If the Father, Son and Holy Spirit were, then we would have three gods, not One God.

That's MY point! And yet, the bible clearly establishes a separation between Jesus and God on several occasions. The most obvious of which in Matthew 26:46 (About three in the afternoon Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?" (which means "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?").

Not necessarily. Whenever you have a star, you also have light and heat emanating from the hot gas. There is never a time when you have a star without light and heat.

1) You can't have a star without light and heat? Sure you can! They are called neutron stars (collapsed stars that after cooling emit no light or heat).

2) You CAN have light and heat without stars! Why can't we have a Jesus without a God (being part of him)?

God is above logic. So should our understanding of Him be also.

Negative. Even God must conform to logic (otherwise he doesn't exist). We live in a universe of logic! God cannot make 2 + 2 = 5, nor can he make a square be a triangle (if he does, it is no longer a square)! I believe that God is a logical being that behaves logically. If I were to open myself up to the possibility that any god could be "illogical", then I would immediately reject claims of such a god.

The Father is greater than the Son in that He begot the Son. He is not greater in that the Son is any less God.

A) That is another blatant contradiction. If God is greater, then by definition Jesus must be lesser (because the opposite of greater is lesser). If Jesus is NOT lesser, then God is not greater (as the scripture says). You can't have it both ways!

B) This position is based solely on biased inference. There is no scriptural disclaimer that says that. It says plain and simple, "the father is greater than the son". PERIOD! There are no stipulations about Jesus 'not being lesser' here!

Jesus, in taking on our humanity, limited Himself in His Divine majesty, power and glory to condescend to our humanity. God, Who knew all, had to learn how to walk, use the potty, speak and read. God, Who is invincible and all-powerful, became a helpless infant. God, to Whom is due all honor, glory and worship, became a peasant boy in a backwoods province of the Empire.

And once again, from a logical standpoint NONE of that makes any sense whatsoever. God "knew" everything had to learn something? God who is all-powerful became "helpless"? These ideas are just not consistent with logic. Nor are they consistent with scripture.

So yes, there were some things He did not know in the flesh, because He had limited Himself. He did not know the time or the hour, because He had limited that knowledge for our sake while on Earth. After His Resurrection, His Divinity becomes plain.

Let's just say (for argument's sake) that this is true. The fact remains IF he limits himself in power or knowledge, he is no longer "God" at that point because God is by definition "All knowing" and "all powerful". It is a paradox!

 

[Shiranui117]

When you say "The Jews", which Jews are you talking about?

Forgive me for the ambiguity. I mean the masses who rejected Him and the Pharisees and all those who conspired to have Him killed.

BTW, it is possible to believe that Jesus is "divine" without believing in Trinity. Do you disagree?

Yes, you could take the Mormon position of three Gods.

This is a big STRETCH scriptural interpretation to me. There are still way too many inconsistent assumptions in this hypothesis.

Not really. Just take a look at John 10:
31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone Him. 32 Jesus answered them, “Many good works I have shown you from My Father. For which of those works do you stone Me?”
33 The Jews answered Him, saying, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a Man, make Yourself God.”

Or Matthew 26:
63 But Jesus kept silent. And the high priest answered and said to Him, “I put You under oath by the living God: Tell us if You are the Christ, the Son of God!” 64 Jesus said to him, “It is as you said. Nevertheless, I say to you, hereafter you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven.”
65 Then the high priest tore his clothes, saying, “He has spoken blasphemy! What further need do we have of witnesses? Look, now you have heard His blasphemy!

EDIT: And one more little jewel from John 5:
18 Therefore the Jews sought all the more to kill Him, because He not only broke the Sabbath, but also said that God was His Father, making Himself equal with God.

Well forgive me, but it sounds like you think that in order for Jesus to be "divine" he must also be part of a Triune God. Is that not accurate?

Yes, otherwise the principle of "one God" goes right out the window.

A) You say all of this after trying to convince me (through reason and logic) why a trinity makes sense.

The Trinity is indeed defendable from the Bible and from our experience. But there are plenty of religions *cough*Judaism,Islam*cough* which believe in one God, but do not believe that the Trinity logically follows solely from the axiom of there being one God.

B) The formation of life is no mystery to me.

Aaaand, there goes my point, right over your head. Let's try something else.

EDIT: Lol, and I forget to put in the "something else". Nice job, Shira. Nice job.

Alright, so say you're a little kid who knows how to make a batch of cookie dough. You know how to put all the ingredients together and to mix the dough up, put it on the greased cookie sheet, into the oven. But as a little kid who hasn't learned basic chemistry concepts in science class, you don't know what happens after that to make it go from dough to cookies. Unless you get the extra teaching from your parents or your science teacher, you would never be able to explain or comprehend why that change occurs, even if you understand how to mix all the ingredients into dough and put it all into the oven. It's the same thing with believing in one God vs. believing in, more specifically, a triune God. You wouldn't be able to comprehend a triune God unless it was revealed to you as such, even if you understand that there's one God.

How do you figure ANY of this? Why does Jesus need to be God in order for us to be saved?

By being both God and man, Jesus is uniting within Himself our fallen, broken human nature to God's Divine Nature. Jesus is making of Himself a bridge between Heaven and earth, between God and man. As He takes more of our humanity to Himself, He is healing that humanity. The first Adam separated us from God, bringing spiritual death to all. The Last Adam, Christ, united us back to God in Himself, thus bringing spiritual life to all who agree to be transformed by Him.

BTW, the bible says that God CAN'T die. If Jesus was God, and he died, then the bible is lying.

God died in the flesh, as a human. If He were not human, then no, He would not have died. Death is not a cessation of existence; it is the separation of the soul from the body. God doesn't die because God (ignoring God the Son post-Incarnation) has no body. The Father and the Holy Spirit will never die. The Son only died because He took on our humanity and allowed it--but even then, death could not contain Christ, and He burst asunder the gates of Hades.

That's MY point! And yet, the bible clearly establishes a separation between Jesus and God on several occasions. The most obvious of which in Matthew 26:46 (About three in the afternoon Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?" (which means "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?").

He was quoting Psalm 21. (22 in the KJV) It starts as a Psalm of despair, but over time, it transforms to show God's deliverance and help.
Psalm 22 NKJV - The Suffering, Praise, and Posterity of - Bible Gateway

This shows both the suffering that Christ undergoes, and the salvation that God gives freely to all the world. Additionally, it shows that Jesus, being God, identifies completely with our separation from God and our despair at the hour of death. Jesus' death is where He consummates the assumption of all our human experience. In His earthly life and death, He shares with in our humanity. By His Resurrection, He gives us a turn to share in His Life with God.

Romans 5:10 For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life.

2 Corinthians 5:18-20 Now all things are of God, who has reconciled us to Himself through Jesus Christ, and has given us the ministry of reconciliation, 19 that is, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them, and has committed to us the word of reconciliation. 20 Now then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were pleading through us: we implore you on Christ’s behalf, be reconciled to God. 21 For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

Colossians 1:21-22 21 And you, who once were alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now He has reconciled 22 in the body of His flesh through death, to present you holy, and blameless, and above reproach in His sight

1) You can't have a star without light and heat? Sure you can! They are called neutron stars (collapsed stars that after cooling emit no light or heat).

You still have both heat (about 1 million Kelvin!) and light with neutron stars (alright, it's mostly X-rays, but still technically light), so my example holds.

2) You CAN have light and heat without stars! Why can't we have a Jesus without a God (being part of him)?

Because, again, we would not be saved. We would still be in our sins, and we would not be reconciled to God.

Even God must conform to logic (otherwise he doesn't exist).

If God is above a universe where logic is present, then why is He not above logic? To constrict Him to logic, to say that God is confined to logic and cannot overcome it, is to deny that He is the Almighty.

A) That is another blatant contradiction. If God is greater, then by definition Jesus must be lesser (because the opposite of greater is lesser). If Jesus is NOT lesser, then God is not greater (as the scripture says). You can't have it both ways!

B) This position is based solely on biased inference. There is no scriptural disclaimer that says that. It says plain and simple, "the father is greater than the son". PERIOD! There are no stipulations about Jesus 'not being lesser' here!And once again, from a logical standpoint NONE of that makes any sense whatsoever. God "knew" everything had to learn something? God who is all-powerful became "helpless"? These ideas are just not consistent with logic. Nor are they consistent with scripture.

God the Father is not greater than God the Son in terms of divinity, but He is greater in relational terms. To illustrate this principle, my father is not greater than me in terms of humanity, but he is greater than me in terms of our relationship to each other.

It is consistent with Scripture. Philippians 2:5-8 reads:
Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, 7 but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross.

Even if you think it's illogical, God limiting Himself and "getting on our level," as it were, shows that He is a loving God Who is willing to go to great lengths to bring us home.

Let's just say (for argument's sake) that this is true. The fact remains IF he limits himself in power or knowledge, he is no longer "God" at that point because God is by definition "All knowing" and "all powerful". It is a paradox!

Yes, it is a paradox. At least you have that much figured out. God limiting Himself to not interfere with our free will is in and of itself then, by your argument, would make Him no longer all-powerful. I tell you this: God COULD override our free will, but He chooses not to.

If a champion heavyweight boxer gets into a boxing match with a 4-year-old and holds back so that the 4-year-old easily beats him, is that man no longer a champion heavyweight boxer with great technique, instincts and strength, because he chose to hold back for the kid's sake?

 

[Shermana]

who, being in the form of God

Being in the form of "a god", just like how it says "being in the form of "a slave".

Ernst Haenchen uses this interpretation in his commentary on the Gospel of John:
"It was quite possible in Jewish and Christian monotheism to speak of divine beings that existed alongside and under God but were not identical with him. Phil 2:6-10 proves that. In that passage Paul depicts just such a divine being, who later became man in Jesus Christ" - John 1, translated by R. W. Funk, 1984, pp. 109, 110, Fortress Press.

To show further that the anarthrous genitive theou ("God" or "a god") as found at Phil. 2:6 may be honestly translated "of a god," compare Acts 12:22 in any NT Greek-English interlinear Bible - "the voice of a god."

33 The Jews answered Him, saying, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a Man, make Yourself God.”

As well, should read "make yourself A god".

So, in the NEB it reads:

" 'We are not going to stone you for any good deed, but for your blasphemy. You, a mere man, claim to be a god.' Jesus answered, 'Is it not written in your own Law, "I said: You are gods"? Those are called gods to whom the word of God was delivered - and Scripture cannot be set aside. Then why do you charge me with blasphemy because I, consecrated and sent into the world by the Father, said, "I am God's SON"?' "

The standard "make yourself God" translation would have Jesus dishonestly changing the subject in 10:34, but the "a god" translation fits perfectly with his response in 10:34. Also, the former clashes with his statement that the accusation stems from declaring to be God's son, while the latter fits perfectly with it.

It's very important to recognize that the Anarthrous must be translated correctly when dealing with Theological positions based on the text.

 

[Katzpur]

No I didn't. I just think that this is kind of a "biased" stance since it is essentially just another doctrine that your church taught you.

This makes no sense. You don't believe in the Trinity and neither do I. But my non-belief is "biased" and yours is not. You just don't like the label by which I identify myself. Now that's "biased."

And Mormon theology is very different from the theology of mainstream Christians anyway. Almost all of your doctrines are different from theirs.

Nonsense. Mormons have a huge number of beliefs in common with other Christians, including a belief in everything the Bible has to say about God the Father and Jesus Christ. We believe that Jesus Christ is the Only Begotten Son of God and the only means by which mankind can be redeemed. How much more basic a point of Christian doctrine is there?

Besides, we don't even claim to be "mainstream" or "traditional" Christians. We just claim to be followers of Jesus Christ, which is all a "real" Christian is anyway.

I guess I'm more interested in how "individuals" interpret scripture.

Oh, I see. You only want to hear from Christians whose personal beliefs don't correspond to the doctrines of any specific Christian denomination, people who have come to the "right" interpretation of the scriptures all by themselves and therefore reject denominational Christianity altogether. Why didn't you say so? You run across someone like me who doesn't believe in the Trinity because the Bible doesn't teach such a doctrine, and you choose to write that person's opinions off because of your own religious prejudice.

I am hesitant to lump in Mormon's with mainstream Christians since it is basically a different religion altogether.

And you are basically uninformed about what Mormons actually believe.

 

[Shiranui117]

Being in the form of "a god", just like how it says "being in the form of "a slave".

I'm sorry, but Christians aren't henotheists or monolatrous polytheists, and neither was Paul.

It's very important to recognize that the Anarthrous must be translated correctly when dealing with Theological positions based on the text.

Are you so sure that the Anarthrous automatically means "a god"? See, for example, 2 Corinthians 5:19, which states, "that is, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them, and has committed to us the word of reconciliation."

The Greek for that is, ὡς ὅτι θεὸς ἦν ἐν Χριστῷ κόσμον καταλλάσσων ἑαυτῷ, μὴ λογιζόμενος αὐτοῖς τὰ παραπτώματα αὐτῶν, καὶ θέμενος ἐν ἡμῖν τὸν λόγον τῆς καταλλαγῆς. Anarthrous theos there, but it's still translated as "God" and not "a god," even in the JW's translation.

 

[captainbryce]

Forgive me for the ambiguity. I mean the masses who rejected Him and the Pharisees and all those who conspired to have Him killed.

Then your response is irrelevant and ultimately cancels itself out. Because "the Jews" that followed him and became Christians DID believe he was divine!

Yes, you could take the Mormon position of three Gods.

I don't take the position of three Gods. I take the position that there is only ONE God, and that trinity is a form of polytheism. I'm not a mormon. I believe in the divinity of Christ, I simply contend that he was not God.

Not really. Just take a look at John 10:
31

This is not relevant. The words of those who would demonize the man who spoke God's words are hardly a measuring stick for what is "true".

Or Matthew 26:
63

This does more to prove my point that Jesus is the Son of God, and not God himself.

EDIT: And one more little jewel from John 5:
18 Therefore the Jews sought all the more to kill Him, because He not only broke the Sabbath, but also said that God was His Father, making Himself equal with God.

Look at what it is saying here. The Jews were seeking a reason to kill him. Accusing him of blasphemy (saying that he was God) was an excuse! That is not what Jesus had done. The only thing he did was claim to be the son of God. THEY are the ones who were accusing him of blasphemy (after conspiring against him).

Yes, otherwise the principle of "one God" goes right out the window.

Why? Why can't Jesus be divine without being part of a triune God?

The Trinity is indeed defendable from the Bible and from our experience. But there are plenty of religions *cough*Judaism,Islam*cough* which believe in one God, but do not believe that the Trinity logically follows solely from the axiom of there being one God.

It's not just Jews and Muslims who feel this way. It is also Christians like myself who disagree with you.

Aaaand, there goes my point, right over your head. Let's try something else.

Uh, noooo. I'm pretty sure I got your point very plainly. You just seem to be missing mine!

It's the same thing with believing in one God vs. believing in, more specifically, a triune God. You wouldn't be able to comprehend a triune God unless it was revealed to you as such, even if you understand that there's one God.

Then there is no point in believing something that God has chosen NOT to reveal. Trinity is not true because God hasn't revealed a trinity to us. IF/WHEN he ever does/did, then we can say that it is true. Until then, it's an illogical, man-made, unbiblical fallacy (to me).

By being both God and man, Jesus is uniting within Himself our fallen, broken human nature to God's Divine Nature. Jesus is making of Himself a bridge between Heaven and earth, between God and man. As He takes more of our humanity to Himself, He is healing that humanity. The first Adam separated us from God, bringing spiritual death to all. The Last Adam, Christ, united us back to God in Himself, thus bringing spiritual life to all who agree to be transformed by Him.

I agree with everything you just said, EXCEPT the part about "by being both God and man". I think he can do all of that stuff WITHOUT that!

God died in the flesh, as a human. If He were not human, then no, He would not have died.

God cannot die, nor can he be "human".

Death is not a cessation of existence;

According to the bible, IT IS.

Ecclesiastes 9:5
5 For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten.

it is the separation of the soul from the body.

Again, this is not biblical. When Lazarus died, his "soul" didn't go anywhere. He didn't go to heaven, or "hell", or "purgatory", or "limbo". His soul was simply "sleeping" because that's exactly how Jesus described him before waking him up from death. So death is NOT a separation of body and soul. It is the death of the body and the resting of the soul (whether permanent or temporary). God actually destroys the soul for people who are condemned to a second death.

Matthew 10:28
28 Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.

Revelation 20:14-15
14 Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. 15 Anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire.

You still have both heat (about 1 million Kelvin!) and light with neutron stars (alright, it's mostly X-rays, but still technically light), so my example holds.

Your example does not "hold". X-rays are not "light". X-rays are a radiation wavelength that falls outside of the visible light spectrum. And neutron stars also lose heat the older they get. They start off as hot, then become cool.

Because, again, we would not be saved. We would still be in our sins, and we would not be reconciled to God.

That doesn't answer my question. This is more circular logic. I think that if God gave his only begotton SON to die for our sins, then we ARE saved. Jesus need not be God in order to accomplish this. My question is, why do you think him being God is necessary for this?

If God is above a universe where logic is present, then why is He not above logic? To constrict Him to logic, to say that God is confined to logic and cannot overcome it, is to deny that He is the Almighty.

No it isn't. To suggest that a god can behave illogically is to deny that he is almighty. Logic is not an "object" that can be confined to a certain place or time. It is a concept that permeates reality. It is always consistent and either understood or misunderstood. Math is an example of a logical concept. The fundamentals of mathematics doesn't change under any circumstances. 2+2 ALWAYS equals 4. Just as 1+1+1 ALWAYS equals 3, and never 1. The moment logic is no longer a factor in critical thinking, you have a complete breakdown of all reason and chaos ensues. My God didn't design a universe of chaos, he designed a universe of order, which conforms to logical concepts. And this is what proves that God is a logical being in my opinion. The being that behaves illogically is not God, but an impostor!

God the Father is not greater than God the Son in terms of divinity, but He is greater in relational terms.

Scripture says otherwise!

Matthew 24:36
36 "But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father."

Mark 10:18
18 "Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good--except God alone.

John 5:30
30 By myself I can do nothing; I judge only as I hear, and my judgment is just, for I seek not to please myself but him who sent me.

Jesus makes it clear that he is lesser than God in terms of knowledge, will, and "goodness". Note, he specifically says that only "God" (not the father) is truly good.

To illustrate this principle, my father is not greater than me in terms of humanity, but he is greater than me in terms of our relationship to each other.

Okay, you just illustrated a point about you and your father. But scripture must illustrate such a point between Jesus and his father.

It is consistent with Scripture. Philippians 2:5-8 reads:
Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, 7 but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross.

That's a very awkward translation you are reading from, but regardless, it's all a matter of interpretation. If you concede that Jesus can be (and will be) with God (at his right hand side in heaven), then he cannot also "be" God at the same time. Once again, this would defy logic.

Even if you think it's illogical, God limiting Himself and "getting on our level," as it were, shows that He is a loving God Who is willing to go to great lengths to bring us home.

I think he has shown that WITHOUT all of the illogical extrapolation that trinitarians insist on.

Yes, it is a paradox. At least you have that much figured out. God limiting Himself to not interfere with our free will is in and of itself then, by your argument, would make Him no longer all-powerful.

Yes, and therefore it can't be true. It is impossible for God to no longer be "all-powerful" or "all-knowing". The moment he does either of those things, he is by definition no longer "God". It is likewise impossible for God to die and still be God. And if you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable MUST be the truth. Jesus is not God, but he is God's "son".

Answer this question for me, why would "God" have his own god? And does that even make sense to you?

 

[captainbryce]

This makes no sense. You don't believe in the Trinity and neither do I. But my non-belief is "biased" and yours is not.

No it's not. And it does make sense. You are part of a religious branch that has a doctrine that rejects trinity. I am not. BIG DIFFERENCE.

You just don't like the label by which I identify myself. Now that's "biased."

That's not biased. First of all, I don't care what you choose to label yourself as. My point is, the fact that you do means that you are inherently biased on this issue because it conflicts with your church's doctrines.

Nonsense. Mormons have a huge number of beliefs in common with other Christians, including a belief in everything the Bible has to say about God the Father and Jesus Christ. We believe that Jesus Christ is the Only Begotten Son of God and the only means by which mankind can be redeemed. How much more basic a point of Christian doctrine is there?

With all due respect, the only Christians who consider Mormon's "Christian" are MORMONS themselves. The fact that you have another "testament" that contradicts many of the teachings in the NT hasn't particularly validated your claims. In any case, we can debate the merits of Mormonism as it pertains to Christianity all day long, but that's not really the point of this thread.

Besides, we don't even claim to be "mainstream" or "traditional" Christians. We just claim to be followers of Jesus Christ, which is all a "real" Christian is anyway.

Fair enough.

Oh, I see. You only want to hear from Christians whose personal beliefs don't correspond to the doctrines of any specific Christian denomination, people who have come to the "right" interpretation of the scriptures all by themselves and therefore reject denominational Christianity altogether. Why didn't you say so?

Correct! :yes:

You run across someone like me who doesn't believe in the Trinity because the Bible doesn't teach such a doctrine, and you choose to write that person's opinions off because of your own religious prejudice.

How am I prejudice? You are essentially admitting that your view is influenced by your church's doctrine. Your belief is based on a prejudice. Pointing that fact out is not prejudice, it's just pointing out a fact. I'm sorry if that offends you.

And you are basically uninformed about what Mormons actually believe.

I don't think so. I've read the book of Mormon and I've actually spent quite some time debating Mormon missionaries. For instance, I know that Mormon's believe having dark skin is a "curse" based on what the Book of Mormon says. I also know that your church has a history of racism against African-Americans, again based on extra-biblical teachings. I have several friends who are Mormon, so yeah, I know quite about about you guys!

 

[Katzpur]

No it's not. And it does make sense. You are part of a religious branch that has a doctrine that rejects trinity. I am not. BIG DIFFERENCE.

Well excuse me for affiliating with a Christian denomination that teaches the same thing about the Trinity as you believe.

That's not biased. First of all, I don't care what you choose to label yourself as. My point is, the fact that you do means that you are inherently biased on this issue because it conflicts with your church's doctrines.

You're saying that I believe as a do because I'm a Mormon. I'm saying I'm a Mormon because I believe as I do. BIG DIFFERENCE.

With all due respect, the only Christians who consider Mormon's "Christian" are MORMONS themselves.

Don't use the phrase "with all due respect." Within the context of your post, it's completely hypocritical. There are many, many non-LDS Christians who recognize Mormons as Christians. There are many others who don't. That's their problem.

The fact that you have another "testament" that contradicts many of the teachings in the NT hasn't particularly validated your claims.

The Book of Mormon doesn't contradict anything in the Bible, OT or NT.

In any case, we can debate the merits of Mormonism as it pertains to Christianity all day long, but that's not really the point of this thread.

That's right, it's not. So why did you choose to focus on my denominational affiliation instead of what I actually have to say on the subject? If I hadn't identified as a Mormon, you would have been very interested in my input. You'd have been seeing all kinds of worthwhile points in my comments, and you'd have agreed with pretty much everything I had to say on the subject of why I don't believe in the Trinity. But, because you know I'm LDS, you see me as incapable of thinking for myself.

How am I prejudice? You are essentially admitting that your view is influenced by your church's doctrine. Your belief is based on a prejudice. Pointing that fact out is not prejudice, it's just pointing out a fact. I'm sorry if that offends you.

In the future, please quote me when you are telling me what I am "essentially admitting," instead of attempting to paraphrase me. Your skills at paraphrasing need a lot of work.

I don't think so. I've read the book of Mormon and I've actually spent quite some time debating Mormon missionaries. For instance, I know that Mormon's believe having dark skin is a "curse" based on what the Book of Mormon says. I also know that your church has a history of racism against African-Americans, again based on extra-biblical teachings. I have several friends who are Mormon, so yeah, I know quite about about you guys!

If you think that "the Church's history of racism against African-Americans" is "based on extra-biblical teachings" you don't know anywhere near as much about Mormonism as you think you do. I'm surprised the Mormon missionaries were even interested in "debating" you. They typically don't want to be bothered with people who have already come to the conclusion that you have and who just want to argue. There are generally enough genuinely open-minded enough people wanting to talk to them that they move on to them.

 

[Shiranui117]

Then your response is irrelevant and ultimately cancels itself out. Because "the Jews" that followed him and became Christians DID believe he was divine!

I'm sorry, but how is it irrelevant?

I don't take the position of three Gods. I take the position that there is only ONE God, and that trinity is a form of polytheism. I'm not a mormon. I believe in the divinity of Christ, I simply contend that he was not God.

How can you believe that Jesus is divine, that there is only one God, but that Jesus is not God?

This is not relevant. The words of those who would demonize the man who spoke God's words are hardly a measuring stick for what is "true".

They do tell us exactly what His words meant, otherwise His listeners wouldn't have reacted as such.

This does more to prove my point that Jesus is the Son of God, and not God himself.

I hold both. Problem?

Look at what it is saying here. The Jews were seeking a reason to kill him. Accusing him of blasphemy (saying that he was God) was an excuse! That is not what Jesus had done. The only thing he did was claim to be the son of God. THEY are the ones who were accusing him of blasphemy (after conspiring against him).

Clearly, they saw Him as claiming to be a Son of God in far more than the ordinary sense of us all being "children of God." Otherwise they wouldn't have wanted Him dead on numerous occasions prior.

Why? Why can't Jesus be divine without being part of a triune God?

Because the concept of "one God" then goes right out the window, and we admit that there is more than one God, which is condemned over and over again in the Bible.

Uh, noooo. I'm pretty sure I got your point very plainly. You just seem to be missing mine!

Clearly not, otherwise you wouldn't have given a completely off-topic answer the first time, and wouldn't have ignored my example the second time.

IF/WHEN he ever does/did, then we can say that it is true.

He already has.

I agree with everything you just said, EXCEPT the part about "by being both God and man". I think he can do all of that stuff WITHOUT that!

He could, but He didn't. He purposely chose to go to all that trouble.

God cannot die,

except for in the flesh, voluntarily. God is not subject to death, which is why He destroyed its hold over us when He died in the flesh.

nor can he be "human".

And why not?

According to the bible, IT IS.

Ecclesiastes 9:5

Again, this is not biblical. When Lazarus died, his "soul" didn't go anywhere. He didn't go to heaven, or "hell", or "purgatory", or "limbo". His soul was simply "sleeping" because that's exactly how Jesus described him before waking him up from death.

You might wanna read the Parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man again, keeping in mind what Sheol/Hades is. They are very much alive and very much aware in Sheol, but the Israelites originally didn't believe this, as we see in Ecclesiastes. God revealed it to them over time.

So death is NOT a separation of body and soul. It is the death of the body and the resting of the soul (whether permanent or temporary). God actually destroys the soul for people who are condemned to a second death.

You can also find in the Bible traces of polytheism, henotheism, the belief that there is no afterlife, the belief that there is no resurrection of the dead, and a striking absence of any conception of the Messiah or a Last Judgement, as the beliefs of the Israelites changed over time, as God kept revealing to them more of the truth and correcting their errors. Your point?

Your example does not "hold". X-rays are not "light". X-rays are a radiation wavelength that falls outside of the visible light spectrum.

Note the "VISIBLE" there? Take a basic university astronomy course or physics course. There is light that we can't see, and there's also sound we can't hear, because our vision and hearing both have very limited ranges. X-rays are indeed light by a scientific standard. If you have a problem with this, ask any physics or astronomy professor.

And neutron stars also lose heat the older they get. They start off as hot, then become cool.

But they still always emit heat, no matter how little. There is nothing in the universe that is at Absolute Zero. If your temperature is above 0 Kelvin, you are emitting heat.

That doesn't answer my question. This is more circular logic. I think that if God gave his only begotton SON to die for our sins, then we ARE saved. Jesus need not be God in order to accomplish this. My question is, why do you think him being God is necessary for this?

Because if Jesus was just any old god, then He didn't reconcile us to God Who is the Source of Life. Does anyone aside from God forgive sin? Does anyone aside from God give us life? We became alienated from God. If "a god," or anything that's somehow divine and yet not God comes down and dies on the Cross for us, then our humanity would not be reconciled to God. It's like if Jesus came down in the form of a chimp and God said "Alright, human nature is now reconciled to me." We're not chimps! So if Jesus wasn't God, but was human, then we aren't reconciled to God. We're reconciled to something else. Man and God are not made "at one." In fact, Acts 20:28 says that God purchased His church "with His own blood." What does that tell you about Jesus? That He is God!

 

[Shiranui117]

No it isn't. To suggest that a god can behave illogically is to deny that he is almighty.

Not so. If anything, saying that God can defy logic is to make Him EVEN MORE almighty, not less, because there is nothing to constrain what He can do.

Logic is not an "object" that can be confined to a certain place or time. It is a concept that permeates reality. It is always consistent and either understood or misunderstood.

So's gravity, and Newton's three laws of motion. Your point?

The fundamentals of mathematics doesn't change under any circumstances. 2+2 ALWAYS equals 4.

If you took trigonometry or pre-calculus, you know that this isn't true.

My God didn't design a universe of chaos, he designed a universe of order, which conforms to logical concepts. And this is what proves that God is a logical being in my opinion. The being that behaves illogically is not God, but an impostor!

So because God created a universe subject to logic (which has its own problems if you take any strand of logic too far, mind you; logic isn't a neat and clean thing, and becomes less and less so as we take arguments further and further), God Himself must be subject to logic? That is not an all-powerful God.

Also, you're right: YOUR God isn't like that. But are you so sure that the REAL God is like that?

Scripture says otherwise!

Here we go again.

Matthew 24:36
36 "But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father."

Already explained this one. Strike one!

Mark 10:18
18 "Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good--except God alone.

Jesus is saying here, "Why are you calling Me good? No one's truly good except God alone. Are you trying to flatter me so I teach you something, or are you saying that I am Lord, God and Savior?"

Strike two. You've got one more shot to disprove the Trinitarian position.

John 5:30
30 By myself I can do nothing; I judge only as I hear, and my judgment is just, for I seek not to please myself but him who sent me.

Another translation of John 5:30 (the NIV has a lot of issues with deliberately inserting words and changing things around):
I can of Myself do nothing. As I hear, I judge; and My judgment is righteous, because I do not seek My own will but the will of the Father who sent Me.

The two translations both work, but the latter one better illustrates the point I'm going to make.

Yes, Jesus does have a human will as well, but above all, His human will seeks to do the Divine Will, since He has conformed His human will to His Divine Will. Jesus and the Father share the same Divine Will. What the Father wills, the Son wills also. So no, He doesn't do anything of Himself, because whatever He does is also in conformity with what the Father and the Spirit want.

Strike one, strike two, strike three, you're outta there!

Jesus makes it clear that he is lesser than God in terms of knowledge, will, and "goodness". Note, he specifically says that only "God" (not the father) is truly good.

Goodness? No, He isn't denying that He is good. He questions the young man's motives for calling Him good, since only God is truly good. Jesus never says that He isn't good.

Okay, you just illustrated a point about you and your father. But scripture must illustrate such a point between Jesus and his father.

Why, when Scripture never was the only source of Christian doctrine, and wasn't originally regarded as Scripture in the first place until time hallowed it?

That's a very awkward translation you are reading from, but regardless, it's all a matter of interpretation. If you concede that Jesus can be (and will be) with God (at his right hand side in heaven), then he cannot also "be" God at the same time. Once again, this would defy logic.

Jesus (God the Son) being on the right hand of God (the Father) in Heaven? Sounds logical enough to me.

Yes, and therefore it can't be true. It is impossible for God to no longer be "all-powerful" or "all-knowing". The moment he does either of those things, he is by definition no longer "God".[/quote]
Perhaps you missed this. I meant it originally as a rhetorical question, but now I want you to answer it:

If a champion heavyweight boxer gets into a boxing match with a 4-year-old and holds back so that the 4-year-old easily beats him, is that man no longer a champion heavyweight boxer with great technique, instincts and strength, because he chose to hold back for the kid's sake?

It is likewise impossible for God to die and still be God.

If God became subject to death or ceased to exist, then I would agree. But this is not the case.

And if you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable MUST be the truth. Jesus is not God, but he is God's "son".

Not even in science is this the case. You CAN eliminate all your options. If that happens, then you know that one of your original premises was off.

Answer this question for me, why would "God" have his own god? And does that even make sense to you?

God is Jesus' God, because Jesus is fully human. He is not only fully God, but fully human as well, and as such, because of His humanity, the Father is indeed Jesus' God. Further, if God is the God of the righteous in a way that's different from how He's the God of the wicked, then how much more between the Son and created things?

 

[Shermana]

I'm sorry, but Christians aren't henotheists or monolatrous polytheists, and neither was Paul.

We've been over this plenty of times. Paul was most likely a Henotheist, and the idea of them being "Monotheists" is a more recent concept. Even Josephus acknowledged other beings called "gods". Angels are called "gods" throughout the OT. Thus, there's nothing new or heretical about Jesus being called "a god". Or "a divine being". The very notion that the word "god" only applied to THE god is what's a recent invention. In addition, otherwise there's NO POINT in the articulated form of "THE god". There's nothing wrong with being a Monolatrous Polytheist, it's pretty much what the Ancient Israelites believed.

The very idea of the Trinity, with the ambiguous concept of "3 persons" is very much Polytheistic though. To say that Christians are "Monotheistic" while believing in the Trinity is another example of circular reasoning to explain a blatant contradiction.

Are you so sure that the Anarthrous automatically means "a god"? See, for example, 2 Corinthians 5:19, which states, "that is, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them, and has committed to us the word of reconciliation."

I will look into 2 Co 5:19 but hopefully you can also admit that it CAN and often does mean "a god" such as in Acts 12 and is far from ruled out and in many cases even staunch Trinitarians admit this such as with John 1:1. Besides, there is no such thing as "Form of God". There is only "form of a god". "God" is not a form. "A god" is a form. And like I said, it fully matches Jesus's response in 10:34, but otherwise has him dishonestly changing the subject, regarding 10:33.

The Greek for that is, ὡς ὅτι θεὸς ἦν ἐν Χριστῷ κόσμον καταλλάσσων ἑαυτῷ, μὴ λογιζόμενος αὐτοῖς τὰ παραπτώματα αὐτῶν, καὶ θέμενος ἐν ἡμῖν τὸν λόγον τῆς καταλλαγῆς. Anarthrous theos there, but it's still translated as "God" and not "a god," even in the JW's translation.

 

[SageTree]

ITT: There are some mad long posts.

 

[savagewind]

ITT: There are some mad long posts.

Too......many..........words.......:faint:

 

[SageTree]

There needs to be more summary paragraphs to chucks of messages.

Maybe I just can't keep up, but it does make for a pretty difficult read,
as I do well with an over all point instead of 100 little ones.

 

[Shermana]

Strike one, strike two, strike three, you're outta there!

That would be like the Umpire calling a bunt which leads to a mad fumble among the basemen a strike because he wants to redefine what it means to hit the ball according to his own criteria.

 

[captainbryce]

Well excuse me for affiliating with a Christian denomination that teaches the same thing about the Trinity as you believe.

There is no reason to become emotional about this. I'm not knocking this particular belief of yours. As you pointed out, I happen to agree with it. I am simply looking for neutral (non-biased) perspectives on whether or not this belief disqualifies someone as being a Christian, or even getting the perspective of someone who is biased towards trinity. I already know what people who reject trinity are going to say on this issue.

You're saying that I believe as a do because I'm a Mormon. I'm saying I'm a Mormon because I believe as I do. BIG DIFFERENCE.

So you decided to become a Mormon AFTER realizing that you were a Christian who did not accept the trinity doctrine? Is that what you're trying to get me to believe here?

Don't use the phrase "with all due respect." Within the context of your post, it's completely hypocritical. There are many, many non-LDS Christians who recognize Mormons as Christians.

That's news to me. I've never actually met a non-Mormon Christian who considered the Mormon faith as a part of Christianity. But if you say so...

The Book of Mormon doesn't contradict anything in the Bible, OT or NT.

Agree to disagree!

That's right, it's not. So why did you choose to focus on my denominational affiliation instead of what I actually have to say on the subject?

Because I consider what you have to say to be coming from a biased point of view. Your church teaches you to reject trinity! From that perspective it wouldn't matter what the bible says at all, only what your church's doctrine on it is. Therefore, I consider what you have to say (on this particular topic) rather insignificant. It would be like asking people if they believed that all gun owners should have to go through background checks, then having a member of the NRA respond. If you're a member of a pro-gun organization then your answer on any gun control debate is inherently biased against gun control.

If I hadn't identified as a Mormon, you would have been very interested in my input. You'd have been seeing all kinds of worthwhile points in my comments, and you'd have agreed with pretty much everything I had to say on the subject of why I don't believe in the Trinity. But, because you know I'm LDS, you see me as incapable of thinking for myself.

That is essentially correct!

In the future, please quote me when you are telling me what I am "essentially admitting," instead of attempting to paraphrase me. Your skills at paraphrasing need a lot of work.

Okay, well then let me rephrase...You self identify as a member of a religious organization (that claims Christian affiliation) in which one of their central tenets and doctrines is a rejection of trinity. Therefore, I would naturally expect you to say that it's okay to be against trinity. That carries very little weight. When people address "Christians" it is assumed that they are addressing "mainstream Christianity". Perhaps the fault is mine for not spelling that out earlier in the thread. I am interested in the position of people who are affiliated with churches who's doctrine professes a belief in trinity, or those who are non-denominational.

If you think that "the Church's history of racism against African-Americans" is "based on extra-biblical teachings" you don't know anywhere near as much about Mormonism as you think you do. I'm surprised the Mormon missionaries were even interested in "debating" you. They typically don't want to be bothered with people who have already come to the conclusion that you have and who just want to argue. There are generally enough genuinely open-minded enough people wanting to talk to them that they move on to them.

They weren't interested in debating with me, they were interested in converting me. That's their job! But in order to do that, you have to present your beliefs in a knowledgeable and enticing way. If/when questions come up and you aren't prepared to defend or justify your belief system, that isn't a "debate", that means you are just failing at your job. And this is why it's probably not a good idea (in my opinion) to send a couple of 19-20 year old Mormon "boys", who have a limited knowledge of both the Holy Bible AND the book of Mormon to try to convert a black man in his 30's who's already very familiar with the bible and who's already read significant portions of the Book of Mormon and looked up the history of the LDS church. They knocked on my door to because they wanted to educate me. I cordially invited them in and what ended up happening is that I educated them! There was no "debate"...just sayin!

 

[InChrist]

I am a Christian, but I reject the trinity doctrine. I have been told on more than one occasion by other so-called Christians that I can NOT be a Christian unless I accept the doctrine of trinity. Do you believe this is an accurate/fair stance to take?

From my own personal experience of being saved by Jesus Christ I believe this is an accurate stance to take, although prior to that time I did not think so. I thought of myself as a Christian who did not accept the doctrine of the trinity.

 

[captainbryce]

I'm sorry, but how is it irrelevant?

It's irrelevant because we've just demonstrated that it is not accurate. Again, "the Jews" that followed him and became Christians DID believe he was divine! So the idea that these same people would have murdered him if he taught them trinity is not logical.

How can you believe that Jesus is divine, that there is only one God, but that Jesus is not God?

Very easily. Tell me, what is the definition of the word "divinity". Take a moment to look it up! When you find the definition, I want you to show me how my belief that Jesus was the son of God is in conflict with this definition.

They do tell us exactly what His words meant, otherwise His listeners wouldn't have reacted as such.

That doesn't even make any logical sense because it's a paradox. You're saying that they acted as they did because they tell us what his words meant, and because THEY tell us what his words meant, that is why they acted as they did?

More to the point, they (the crowds) were also being mislead by the corrupt leaders who were LYING to them. Yes, they intentionally LIED (framed him if you will) just to find an excuse to execute him. Their lies don't suddenly become "true" just because an ignorant crowd believes them.

I hold both. Problem?

Yeah, two problems:

A) It's a contradiction that defies logic

B) One is directly supportable through scripture, while the other is not. Jesus (and Paul) consistently say that he is the Son of God. Not one of them EVER says that HE is God, or part of a trinity! That's the problem.

Clearly, they saw Him as claiming to be a Son of God in far more than the ordinary sense of us all being "children of God." Otherwise they wouldn't have wanted Him dead on numerous occasions prior.

Yes, and they would have been correct on that point. He was the Son of God in more than the ordinary sense. Unlike the rest of us, he was not born to a human father. His birth was through God's divine will, therefore he is literally the Son of God.

Because the concept of "one God" then goes right out the window, and we admit that there is more than one God, which is condemned over and over again in the Bible.

Uh no, you're using circular logic here. That is just an explanation for why a trinity doctrine must be invented in order to reconcile the obvious defiance of scripture. That does not explain WHY Jesus cannot be God and still be divine at the same time. Again, look up the definition of that word "divine" please!

He already has.

Okay, well then show me the biblical scripture that discusses "trinity", the "triune God" and/or "three in one". Book, chapter and verse please!

He could, but He didn't. He purposely chose to go to all that trouble.

So you say. But you can't demonstrate this with any scriptural proof support, nor can you justify this in any logical manner. All things being equal, the simplest explanation is correct. If there is no scripture that says God exists as a three in one "trinity", and there is no way to make that case logically, then it's not true. There is no trinity because there is no scripture that says there is, and there is no logical reason (or explanation) for why God would need to have "go to all that trouble".

except for in the flesh, voluntarily. God is not subject to death, which is why He destroyed its hold over us when He died in the flesh.

This thought contradicts even itself!

And why not?

Because the bible says so! Humans are mortal, God is not. God can never die, therefore he can never be mortal.

Habakkuk 1:12
12 Lord, are you not from everlasting? My God, my Holy One, you will never die. - case closed!

You might wanna read the Parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man again, keeping in mind what Sheol/Hades is.

Not necessary. I already know what Sheol/Hades is. I also know that this has nothing to do with the John 11:1-46 which describes the resurrection of Lazarus of Bethany (which was not a parable but a miracle).

They are very much alive and very much aware in Sheol, but the Israelites originally didn't believe this, as we see in Ecclesiastes. God revealed it to them over time.

No he didn't. The literal definition of Sheol is "grave", nothing more, nothing less. It does not imply any "conscious" state, nor has it ever. You are thinking of the figurative "Gehenna" which is completely different!

Note the "VISIBLE" there? Take a basic university astronomy course or physics course. There is light that we can't see,

Yes but "x-rays" is not one of those forms of light. Infrared is sometimes referred to as a type of "light" that we can't see, as is ultraviolet. The reason why these are occasionally referred to as "light" (even though they are invisible to us) is because other animals CAN see them. However, x-rays are NEVER referred to as "light" because it cannot be "seen" by any creature. Perhaps it's now time for you to look up the definition of the word "light". X-Rays do not meet the criteria of that definition. BTW, it is very foolish of you to assume that you know more about astronomy than I do. People that make assumptions like that often end up getting publicly embarrassed. Just sayin...

and there's also sound we can't hear,

We may not be able to hear it, but something can! And if nothing can hear it, then it isn't sound. If it cannot be perceived by the natural senses of an animal, then by definition it is not "sound". Another word you should look up the definition too.

because our vision and hearing both have very limited ranges. X-rays are indeed light by a scientific standard. If you have a problem with this, ask any physics or astronomy professor.

I don't need to ask a physics or astronomy professor. I already know the definition of the words "light" and "x-ray", and I also know that no physics or astronomy professor would refer to an x-ray as a form of "light"

But they still always emit heat, no matter how little. There is nothing in the universe that is at Absolute Zero. If your temperature is above 0 Kelvin, you are emitting heat.

Well then why specify a "star" in your example? By this rationale, you can't have ANYTHING without heat. :areyoucra

Because if Jesus was just any old god, then He didn't reconcile us to God Who is the Source of Life. Does anyone aside from God forgive sin?

Yes. That would be Jesus Christ and ONLY Jesus who forgives sin.

Matthew 9:6; Mark 2:10:11; Luke 5:24
But I want you to know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins.” So he said to the man...

John 5:21-22
21 For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son gives life to whom he is pleased to give it. 22 Moreover, the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son,

John 5:27
27 And he has given him authority to judge because he is the Son of Man.

2 Corinthians 5:10
10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each of us may receive what is due us for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad.

Does anyone aside from God give us life?

Yes. Again, that would be Jesus. This is a power that God has given him (as evidenced by the fact that he raised Lazarus from the dead).

We became alienated from God. If "a god," or anything that's somehow divine and yet not God comes down and dies on the Cross for us, then our humanity would not be reconciled to God.

Per what scripture exactly? This is not biblical! That is merely you adding to scripture. There is nothing in the bible that says that!

It's like if Jesus came down in the form of a chimp and God said "Alright, human nature is now reconciled to me." We're not chimps! So if Jesus wasn't God, but was human, then we aren't reconciled to God.

This is what's called a non-sequitur! It is an analogy that doesn't even logically flow with itself, and even defeats your own logic. Of course if Jesus came as a chimp it wouldn't reconcile us with God (because we're not chimps!). But he DID come as a human, therefore it does reconcile us with God. But none of this is relevant as far as him being "God". If God sent him to redeem us, then we are redeemed. Jesus doesn't need to be God in order for us to be redeemed through him!

Man and God are not made "at one." In fact, Acts 20:28 says that God purchased His church "with His own blood." What does that tell you about Jesus? That He is God!

No, that tells me that he is OF God. Just like your son (or any member of your family really) would be considered your own blood too! It's an expression meant to show the relationship. But it doesn't say that he was God.