You are on page 1of 5

Only God Can Die For Sin: Part Two

Trinity Deception Part 65

In Part One we looked at a conversation with a trinitarian believer. We got a bird's eye view of
the conundrum that is Christ's humanity vs. his deity. Christians teach that Christ "came to the
Earth to be a sacrifice that pays the penalty for their sins." They regard this as the gospel.
While, when confronted with Christ's clear statements of powerlessness and dependence upon
his "God" the Father, they plead his humanity, and when confronted with the idea that they are
preaching human sacrifice they plead to his Deity.

When you question his Deity they say "he must be God, because only God could die for sins."
They point at what they perceive as clear claims on his part that he is Deity, offer up the Jews'
numerous attempts to stone Christ for what they say was his "clear statements to the Jews that
he is God" or "equal with God." Then, when you show how Christ said "the Father is greater
than I" they want to say that Christ "laid down his Deity" and they deny that he EVER "claimed to
be God." They do all of this without explaining how a God who lays down his Deity and does not
exercise it, is able to die for sins, when ONLY GOD can die for sins.

Only a deity can die for sins, yet Christ did not lay claim, nor did he utilize his deity, and yet, still
managed to die for sins.

Amazing isn't it?

Yet as we proceed into this series the contrast between what scripture says and what the
Christian claims about their God/Man will become so stark that you will begin to marvel how
they can possible even READ the Bible and not notice.

Let us begin with some testimony from the Lord's own disciples.

The question before us is, if Jesus was a sacrificial offering for sin, how is it not "human
sacrifice?" Especially when the Apostles taught that a "man" died for sin.

But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through
the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God,
and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath
abounded unto many.
Romans 5: 15

The "gift of grace" is "by one MAN," says Paul, and he names the man, "Jesus Christ." Paul does
not say that a GOD died to bring us this gift of grace, he clearly states that a man did. Christians
love to conveniently ignore this when they are debating with you about whether or not they are
preaching "human sacrifice."

Let's examine how Paul characterizes this death in the same chapter:

For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died
for the ungodly.
Romans 5: 6

For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure
for a good man some would even dare to die.
Romans 5: 7

But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we

were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
Romans 5: 8

Paul says it twice in the above verses. "Christ died..." not "Christ was killed," not "Christ was
sacrificed" but Christ DIED! Does a sacrificial goat or bullock come to the altar willingly and give
himself to the knife? Of course not! A "sin offering" of blood is taken by force, against the will of
the offering. So, when I say that Christ "sacrificed himself" or "Christ died" for me, am I saying
he's a "human sacrifice?" Not at all, yet, Christians will beg to differ (as we saw in Part One)
because their religion clearly teaches that Christ was a "sacrificial beast" who was literally
"created" and "prepared" as an offering for sin.

22 Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a

man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and
signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye
yourselves also know:
Acts 2: 22

23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and

foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands
have crucified and slain:
Acts 2: 23

Yet another scripture where it does not say that God came down to earth, inhabited a body that
was "prepared" as a sacrifice. When a sin offering is offered by a Priest, that Priest must be
RIGHTEOUS. He must be cleansed of all sin himself, which is why in the atonement sacrifice the
Priest makes an atonement offering for himself and for his house BEFORE he offers up a Ram for
the people!

Yet, in Acts 2 it says that Christ wasn't slain by a "righteous priest" as a sweet smelling savor of
repentance unto God. (This would be the only way a sin offering would be received by God).
Acts 2: 23 says that the Christ was "slain by wicked hands."

I challenge you all to find a place anywhere in scripture where God accepts a sacrifice from the
wicked. The reason Cain slew Able was because Cain's sacrifice was rejected because of his
wicked heart! God does NOT accept sacrifices from wicked hands!

Furthermore, read in the law, how the sin offering has to be "without spot or blemish." Then,
examine the Christian's gospel. They teach that the sins of the world were "placed on Christ"
when he went to the cross. Our sins were "imputed" unto Christ according to them. They can
never explain, however, how it is Christ can be "the lamb without spot or blemish" if he's the
"imputed embodiment of all sin." Do they not understand what "imputation" means?

It would mean OUR SINS (the sins of the whole world) are counted as HIS SINS. Clearly they
don't believe that the sins are REALLY counted to his credit for then how would they say that
Christ was "the innocent lamb without spot or blemish?"

They can't seem to make up their minds. If our sins are "imputed to Christ" and in the same way
that Christ's righteousness is "imputed to them" then Christ was a sinner when he died just as
assuredly as they claim to be righteous when they die!

If Christ was not a sinner when he died, having our sins imputed to him, then are they really "the
righteousness of Christ" when they die? If the one imputation is not real, then niether is the

So they nullify their own teachings with their teachings.

They preach that the punishment for sin is "eternal separation" from God, then preach Christ
"paid the punishment for their sins" but yet Christ was not eternally separated from God,
because Christ, being God the Son can NEVER BE SEPARATED from God according to their

How did Christ, therefore pay the penalty for their sins? Christ would have to be "eternally
separated" from God to pay their penalty.
Christians never ask these questions for if they did their entire religion would tumble like a
house of cards in the wind.

Yet, the Christian is clever, or so he thinks. He has an answer: "Christ was eternally separated
from God at death, but then restored." So his separation was not "eternally," yet they call it so.
In the same way they argue that "eternal life" must mean that you've been alive "eternally"
(never ending). Eternally means "temporarily" when it's convenient for them. Yes, they say
Christ was only for a short moment separated from God, but then in their doctrines we read that
Christ, being the eternal co-existent God the son "cannot be separated" from God the Father, not

What kind of game is the Christian playing and how long did he think he'd get away with it
before someone noticed?

So we must keep up the pressure on the poor Christian because we love him and we want to
rescue him from himself.

Scripture says that a "man" died for the sins of the world. This is not a "sacrifice" in which he
was "prepared" and "delivered up" to death! This was a man putting himself to the fire to save
us! This was a man subjecting himself to the hands of wicked men and "bearing" their sins long
enough to win the right to SEND US THE POWER!

Christians do not preach "deliverance" from sin, they preach perpetual captivity to it and say
that Christ only bought "atonement" for the sin (so while they remain forever captive to it, God
doesn't hold it to their account).

When you read the TRUE GOSPEL in the scriptures, and compare it to their weak and watered
down mess, you almost want to PUKE!

Yet, the Christian is undaubted. He insists that it was only Christ's BODY who died and that God
the Son is "eternal" and, like the living God his Father, does not die. So, they preach that God
the Son didn't really DIE for their sins and then have the unmitigated gall to accuse ME of
"denying the Gospel."

For you see, if Christ did not die for sins only an empty "husk" of flesh died, then Christ was not
raised from the dead and if Christ is not raised we are all yet "in our sins."

And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.
1 Corinthians 15: 17
Their Christ didn't really die only an empty husk of flesh that was "prepared" for the God the Son
Deity to "dwell in" and use as a sacrificial BEAST died! This they straight faced teach while at the
same time say that "the Word" (which was God) "became flesh." It never occurs to them the
quandary they are in, for if the Word "became flesh" then that empty HUSK of a body IS the
Word. It doesn't say "the Word dwelled IN FLESH" it says the Word "became" flesh!

This being clearly taught as literal by the Christian, means that Christ's body was God, the WORD
(which was God) in "fleshly form."

How do they then teach that God did not die?

The Catholics understand this, they will tell you openly that "God died" because they honestly
believe their own hype. You have to respect that.

But the Protestant and the Evangelical will tell you that only Jesus' body died, that God the Son
did not die.

Then, you turn the pages of the Catechism and learn that God the Son is "co-eternal" with the
Father (and therefore NEVER DIES).

It's mind boggling in the extreme.

How does "God the Son" die for anyone being that he is the "living God" who is "Alpha and
Omega" and "has no beginning and no ending."

From there the Christian gospel just turns into a never ending parade of smoke and mirrors and
sleight of hand.