Jehovah's Witnesses and the Trinity Part 1

[SiNcE_1985]

.

No excuses, Jesus is God.

We are gonna deal with these Trinity-Proof texts, one by one....using Jehovah's Witnesses (JW's) own New World's Translation, while I use the New King James Version (NKJV)...and we are gonna expose their faulty NWT, as needed.

For this thread, we will examine the following three books and verses..

Isa 40:3 – Mark 1:1-8 – Malachi 3:1

Lets begin with Isa 40:3..

Isa 40:3
NKJV Isa 40:3 ”The voice of one crying in the wilderness: “Prepare the way of the Lord; Make straight in the desert A highway for our God.
NWT Isa 40:3 A voice of one calling out in the wilderness: “Clear up* the way of Jehovah! Make a straight highway through the desert for our God.

Now, as you can see, in comparison, both the NKJV and the NWT reads the same.

It is commanded that a clear path is made for God (Lord, Jehovah), because he is coming through!!

Ok, now, lets look at Malachi 3:1..

NKJV Mal 3:1 “Behold, I send My messenger, And he will prepare the way before Me.
And the Lord, whom you seek, Will suddenly come to His temple, Even the Messenger of the covenant, In whom you delight. Behold, He is coming,” Says the Lord of hosts.

NWT Mal 3:1  “Look! I am sending my messenger, and he will clear up* a way before me. And suddenly the true Lord, whom you are seeking, will come to his temple; and the messenger of the covenant will come, in whom you take delight. Look! He will certainly come,” says Jehovah of armies.

Virtually the same message, the Lord is coming...and the path is being cleared for him.

The significance? This is a prophecy of the coming of Jesus....and this messenger who clears the path for him, is John the Baptist.

How do we know?

Because, in Mark 1:1-8...

1 The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. 2 As it is written in [a]the Prophets:

“Behold, I send My messenger before Your face,
Who will prepare Your way before You.”
3 “The voice of one crying in the wilderness:
‘Prepare the way of the Lord;
Make His paths straight.’ ”

4 John came baptizing in the wilderness and preaching a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. 7 And he preached, saying, “There comes One after me who is mightier than I, whose sandal strap I am not worthy to stoop down and loose. 8 I indeed baptized you with water, but He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.”

The implication is simple, Jesus is God.

Even in JW's own NWT Bible, it is said that the path (Isa 40:3) is being made clear for Jehovah/God.

The author of Mark connects the subject of the cleared path in the book of Isaiah (who is identified as Jehovah/God), to the subject of the path in his own book (who is identified as Jesus).

This is irrefutable evidence of the fact that; Jesus is God.

Anyone who has beef with this, let me know.

[Capbook]

[Replying to Capbook in post #26]

More on John 1:18

An analysis of the manuscript evidence makes it challenging to determine which reading should be preferred. However, regardless of the chosen reading, the theological implications remain largely the same. Moses, as God's agent in delivering the law, was not granted direct intimacy with God. The Unique One, however, exists in a completely different category. This one is described as being in the "bosom" (kolpon, meaning "at the heart" or "side") of the Father, and he as revealed the very character of God to the world. In doing so, he has left no doubt about his ability to provide us with a deep and intimate understanding of the Father.

Yes, more on John 1:18, I find a more conclusive validation that Jesus is God, note N7 in Updated ASV+ supported by (papyri) P66, P75 and etc., which states that the original wording were "μονογενὴς θεός or ο μονογενης θεος “only-begotten God” or “the only-begotten God.” We would be concerned how Christians will experience eternal life if we don't know who Jesus really is. (John 17:3)

Jhn 1:18 No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God N7  who is in the bosom of the Father, N8  that one has made him fully known.(Updated ASV+).

N7 John 1:18 (UASV+)
The original words were μονογενὴς θεός or ο μονογενης θεος “only-begotten God” or “the only-begotten God” (P66 P75 א B C* L 33 syrhmp 33 copbo) A variant reading is ο μονογενης υιος “the only begotten Son” A C3 (Ws) Θ Ψ f1, Maj syrc).

[face2face]

[Replying to Capbook in post #26]

More on John 1:18

An analysis of the manuscript evidence makes it challenging to determine which reading should be preferred. However, regardless of the chosen reading, the theological implications remain largely the same. Moses, as God's agent in delivering the law, was not granted direct intimacy with God. The Unique One, however, exists in a completely different category. This one is described as being in the "bosom" (kolpon, meaning "at the heart" or "side") of the Father, and he as revealed the very character of God to the world. In doing so, he has left no doubt about his ability to provide us with a deep and intimate understanding of the Father.

Yes, more on John 1:18, I find a more conclusive validation that Jesus is God, note N7 in Updated ASV+ supported by (papyri) P66, P75 and etc., which states that the original wording were "μονογενὴς θεός or ο μονογενης θεος “only-begotten God” or “the only-begotten God.” We would be concerned how Christians will experience eternal life if we don't know who Jesus really is. (John 17:3)

Jhn 1:18 No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God N7  who is in the bosom of the Father, N8  that one has made him fully known.(Updated ASV+).

N7 John 1:18 (UASV+)
The original words were μονογενὴς θεός or ο μονογενης θεος “only-begotten God” or “the only-begotten God” (P66 P75 א B C* L 33 syrhmp 33 copbo) A variant reading is ο μονογενης υιος “the only begotten Son” A C3 (Ws) Θ Ψ f1, Maj syrc).

Since the Trinitarian understanding of Jesus holds that he is God, everything in Scripture that applies to God must, by necessity, also apply to him. However, this leads to apparent contradictions:

Visible yet invisible (Colossians 1:15)

Seen but "never seen" (John 1:18, 1 Timothy 6:16)

Tempted even though God cannot be tempted (Matthew 4:1–11; compare James 1:13)

“Made like His brothers and sisters in every respect” (Hebrews 2:17), yet not truly like them, as he is God and does not have a "fallen nature"

“Died” on the cross, even though He is eternal (1 Timothy 1:17)

“Raised from the dead” (Matthew 28:7) and “released from the pains of death” by the Father (Acts 2:24), even though he never truly died

Omnipotent, yet dependent on the Father’s power for His miraculous works (John 14:10)

Omniscient, yet lacking knowledge (Matthew 24:36)

Simultaneously “God” and “not-God”

Can I suggest you use your critical thinking skills to address the contradictions rather than twisting Scripture to fit your paradigm.

Otherwise, you have taken on the impossible task of reconciling man-made wisdom with the Word of God.

F2F

[face2face]

[Replying to Capbook in post #26]

More on John 1:18

An analysis of the manuscript evidence makes it challenging to determine which reading should be preferred. However, regardless of the chosen reading, the theological implications remain largely the same. Moses, as God's agent in delivering the law, was not granted direct intimacy with God. The Unique One, however, exists in a completely different category. This one is described as being in the "bosom" (kolpon, meaning "at the heart" or "side") of the Father, and he as revealed the very character of God to the world. In doing so, he has left no doubt about his ability to provide us with a deep and intimate understanding of the Father.

Yes, more on John 1:18, I find a more conclusive validation that Jesus is God, note N7 in Updated ASV+ supported by (papyri) P66, P75 and etc., which states that the original wording were "μονογενὴς θεός or ο μονογενης θεος “only-begotten God” or “the only-begotten God.” We would be concerned how Christians will experience eternal life if we don't know who Jesus really is. (John 17:3)

Jhn 1:18 No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God N7  who is in the bosom of the Father, N8  that one has made him fully known.(Updated ASV+).

N7 John 1:18 (UASV+)
The original words were μονογενὴς θεός or ο μονογενης θεος “only-begotten God” or “the only-begotten God” (P66 P75 א B C* L 33 syrhmp 33 copbo) A variant reading is ο μονογενης υιος “the only begotten Son” A C3 (Ws) Θ Ψ f1, Maj syrc).

When you find yourself responding in this way, it often indicates that your theology is not focused on making the truth accessible to everyone, but rather caters only to those who believe that only self-proclaimed experts or Greek scholars can truly understand and be saved.

It also reflects a mindset that has placed its faith in the wisdom of this world, which only serves to demonstrate that the message of the Crucifixion is seen as foolishness. As the contradictions mentioned earlier show, they are all reconcilable once the true nature of Christ is understood.

F2F

[Capbook]

[Replying to Capbook in post #26]

More on John 1:18

An analysis of the manuscript evidence makes it challenging to determine which reading should be preferred. However, regardless of the chosen reading, the theological implications remain largely the same. Moses, as God's agent in delivering the law, was not granted direct intimacy with God. The Unique One, however, exists in a completely different category. This one is described as being in the "bosom" (kolpon, meaning "at the heart" or "side") of the Father, and he as revealed the very character of God to the world. In doing so, he has left no doubt about his ability to provide us with a deep and intimate understanding of the Father.

Yes, more on John 1:18, I find a more conclusive validation that Jesus is God, note N7 in Updated ASV+ supported by (papyri) P66, P75 and etc., which states that the original wording were "μονογενὴς θεός or ο μονογενης θεος “only-begotten God” or “the only-begotten God.” We would be concerned how Christians will experience eternal life if we don't know who Jesus really is. (John 17:3)

Jhn 1:18 No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God N7  who is in the bosom of the Father, N8  that one has made him fully known.(Updated ASV+).

N7 John 1:18 (UASV+)
The original words were μονογενὴς θεός or ο μονογενης θεος “only-begotten God” or “the only-begotten God” (P66 P75 א B C* L 33 syrhmp 33 copbo) A variant reading is ο μονογενης υιος “the only begotten Son” A C3 (Ws) Θ Ψ f1, Maj syrc).

When you find yourself responding in this way, it often indicates that your theology is not focused on making the truth accessible to everyone, but rather caters only to those who believe that only self-proclaimed experts or Greek scholars can truly understand and be saved.

It also reflects a mindset that has placed its faith in the wisdom of this world, which only serves to demonstrate that the message of the Crucifixion is seen as foolishness. As the contradictions mentioned earlier show, they are all reconcilable once the true nature of Christ is understood.

F2F

I think assertions are to be supported by evidence, and I believe they dig deeper than us, they are credentialed Bible translators that aims to maintain the highest degree of accuracy to the Bible original languages.
Papyrus 66 (P66), are the manuscript that contains John 1:1–6:11, 6:35b–14:26, 29–30; 15:2–26; 16:2–4, 6–7; 16:10–20:20, 22–23; 20:25–21:9, 12, 17. It is one of the oldest well-preserved New Testament manuscripts known to exist. Its original editor assigned the codex to the early third century, or around AD 200, on the basis of its style of handwriting. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus_66
Papyrus 75 (P75) an early Greek New Testament manuscript written on papyrus containing text from the Gospel of Luke 3:18–24:53, and John 1:1–15:8.[1]: 101 . It is generally described as "the most significant" papyrus of the New Testament to be discovered so far. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus_75.
These two ancient manuscripts supports John1:18 and provides truth that Jesus is God.

I never did mention that Jesus' sacrifice was a foolishness, you just did. Did Jesus not prayed to the Father for how Christians would experience eternal life?

John 17:3
3 "This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.
NASU

[face2face]

[Replying to Capbook in post #26]

More on John 1:18

An analysis of the manuscript evidence makes it challenging to determine which reading should be preferred. However, regardless of the chosen reading, the theological implications remain largely the same. Moses, as God's agent in delivering the law, was not granted direct intimacy with God. The Unique One, however, exists in a completely different category. This one is described as being in the "bosom" (kolpon, meaning "at the heart" or "side") of the Father, and he as revealed the very character of God to the world. In doing so, he has left no doubt about his ability to provide us with a deep and intimate understanding of the Father.

Yes, more on John 1:18, I find a more conclusive validation that Jesus is God, note N7 in Updated ASV+ supported by (papyri) P66, P75 and etc., which states that the original wording were "μονογενὴς θεός or ο μονογενης θεος “only-begotten God” or “the only-begotten God.” We would be concerned how Christians will experience eternal life if we don't know who Jesus really is. (John 17:3)

Jhn 1:18 No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God N7  who is in the bosom of the Father, N8  that one has made him fully known.(Updated ASV+).

N7 John 1:18 (UASV+)
The original words were μονογενὴς θεός or ο μονογενης θεος “only-begotten God” or “the only-begotten God” (P66 P75 א B C* L 33 syrhmp 33 copbo) A variant reading is ο μονογενης υιος “the only begotten Son” A C3 (Ws) Θ Ψ f1, Maj syrc).

When you find yourself responding in this way, it often indicates that your theology is not focused on making the truth accessible to everyone, but rather caters only to those who believe that only self-proclaimed experts or Greek scholars can truly understand and be saved.

It also reflects a mindset that has placed its faith in the wisdom of this world, which only serves to demonstrate that the message of the Crucifixion is seen as foolishness. As the contradictions mentioned earlier show, they are all reconcilable once the true nature of Christ is understood.

F2F

I think assertions are to be supported by evidence, and I believe they dig deeper than us, they are credentialed Bible translators that aims to maintain the highest degree of accuracy to the Bible original languages.
Papyrus 66 (P66), are the manuscript that contains John 1:1–6:11, 6:35b–14:26, 29–30; 15:2–26; 16:2–4, 6–7; 16:10–20:20, 22–23; 20:25–21:9, 12, 17. It is one of the oldest well-preserved New Testament manuscripts known to exist. Its original editor assigned the codex to the early third century, or around AD 200, on the basis of its style of handwriting. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus_66
Papyrus 75 (P75) an early Greek New Testament manuscript written on papyrus containing text from the Gospel of Luke 3:18–24:53, and John 1:1–15:8.[1]: 101 . It is generally described as "the most significant" papyrus of the New Testament to be discovered so far. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus_75.
These two ancient manuscripts supports John1:18 and provides truth that Jesus is God.

I never did mention that Jesus' sacrifice was a foolishness, you just did. Did Jesus not prayed to the Father for how Christians would experience eternal life?

John 17:3
3 "This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.
NASU

A few things questions...

Are you relying on John 1:18 to prove the entire trinitarian formula?

What part of the formula do you believe John 1:18 proves?

I've asked you clearly for evidence and I'm yet to see it.

I've noted your appeal (pleading) to a Trinitarian‐friendly translation of John 1:18. These verses have long since been abandoned as “proof texts” by professional Trinitarian scholars.

Would you like me to provide evidence of this above statement?

Let me know

F2F

[face2face]

These two ancient manuscripts supports John1:18 and provides truth that Jesus is God.

Should God the One and Only … has made him known or “the only Son … has made him known” be read; that is, should we read “God” or “Son?”

Context reads Son has made God known!

Out of interest, if it was made known to you that "Son" was implied, how would this change your view?

I never did mention that Jesus' sacrifice was a foolishness, you just did. Did Jesus not prayed to the Father for how Christians would experience eternal life?

I never claimed you mentioned that! What I actually said is that your interpretation of the Gospel makes Christ's crucifixion seem foolish, as you're expecting people to not only read Greek, but also analyze texts and make determinations on passages that have known issues.

You understand or do I need to explain it futher?

F2F

[Capbook]

These two ancient manuscripts supports John1:18 and provides truth that Jesus is God.

Should God the One and Only … has made him known or “the only Son … has made him known” be read; that is, should we read “God” or “Son?”

Context reads Son has made God known!

Out of interest, if it was made known to you that "Son" was implied, how would this change your view?

I believe my view is insignificant than the evidence presented. The note N7 of the UASV had stated clearly that the original word were "the only-begotten God" and variant reading (not original wording) as "Son."

Jhn 1:18 No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God N7  who is in the bosom of the Father, N8  that one has made him fully known.(Updated ASV+).

N7 John 1:18 (UASV+)
The original words were μονογενὴς θεός or ο μονογενης θεος “only-begotten God” or “the only-begotten God” (P66 P75 א B C* L 33 syrhmp 33 copbo) A variant reading is ο μονογενης υιος “the only begotten Son” A C3 (Ws) Θ Ψ f1, Maj syrc).

I never did mention that Jesus' sacrifice was a foolishness, you just did. Did Jesus not prayed to the Father for how Christians would experience eternal life?

I never claimed you mentioned that! What I actually said is that your interpretation of the Gospel makes Christ's crucifixion seem foolish, as you're expecting people to not only read Greek, but also analyze texts and make determinations on passages that have known issues.

You understand or do I need to explain it futher?

This response is to prove the Divinity of Jesus through evidence from original languages. And where did I interpret that Jesus sacrifice seems foolish? I just quote John 17:3, is that Bible text wrong to you? And I believe John 1:18 passage have no known issues., if there is for you, then present evidence that refute P66 and P75 manuscripts.

[face2face]

These two ancient manuscripts supports John1:18 and provides truth that Jesus is God.

Should God the One and Only … has made him known or “the only Son … has made him known” be read; that is, should we read “God” or “Son?”

Context reads Son has made God known!

Out of interest, if it was made known to you that "Son" was implied, how would this change your view?

I believe my view is insignificant than the evidence presented. The note N7 of the UASV had stated clearly that the original word were "the only-begotten God" and variant reading (not original wording) as "Son."

Jhn 1:18 No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God N7  who is in the bosom of the Father, N8  that one has made him fully known.(Updated ASV+).

N7 John 1:18 (UASV+)
The original words were μονογενὴς θεός or ο μονογενης θεος “only-begotten God” or “the only-begotten God” (P66 P75 א B C* L 33 syrhmp 33 copbo) A variant reading is ο μονογενης υιος “the only begotten Son” A C3 (Ws) Θ Ψ f1, Maj syrc).

I never did mention that Jesus' sacrifice was a foolishness, you just did. Did Jesus not prayed to the Father for how Christians would experience eternal life?

I never claimed you mentioned that! What I actually said is that your interpretation of the Gospel makes Christ's crucifixion seem foolish, as you're expecting people to not only read Greek, but also analyze texts and make determinations on passages that have known issues.

You understand or do I need to explain it futher?

This response is to prove the Divinity of Jesus through evidence from original languages. And where did I interpret that Jesus sacrifice seems foolish? I just quote John 17:3, is that Bible text wrong to you? And I believe John 1:18 passage have no known issues., if there is for you, then present evidence that refute P66 and P75 manuscripts.

So what you are really saying is you cannot provide evidence to support your beliefs. John 1:18 neither proves the divinity or pre-existence of Jesus.

The Biblical Unitarian view of Jesus teaches that he was truly born of the Virgin Mary through the miraculous conception by the Holy Spirit (Matthew 1:20), making him the literal Son of God (Luke 1:35). He grew up as a normal human child (Luke 2:52), faced temptations like any other person (Matthew 4:1-11), but, with the strength of his will (Matthew 16:23) and his close relationship with the Father, he overcame sin (Hebrews 4:15). Like us, he depended on the Father for his existence (John 6:57). Although capable of sin, he led a sinless life (1 Peter 2:21-22), died on the cross as the perfect sacrifice for sin (Hebrews 7:26-27), and was raised by the Father to immortality (Acts 2:22-24, Galatians 1:1).

Note: Some assertive Trinitarians argue that Jesus could neither sin nor be tempted to sin. This represents a key point of divergence between the Biblical truth and the flawed doctrine of the Trinity.

In contrast, the Trinitarian view of Jesus presents a theological paradox and logical contradiction. He is described as visible while being invisible (Colossians 1:15), seen but also “never seen” (John 1:18, 1 Timothy 6:16). He is tempted, even though God cannot be tempted (Matthew 4:1-11; cp. James 1:13). He is “made like his brothers and sisters in every respect,” but in Trinitarian theology, this means he is not truly like them at all. He "dies" on the cross while remaining eternal (1 Timothy 1:17).

Readers should reflect on which Christology is more consistent with the Biblical evidence. If the Trinitarian Jesus pre-existed, then he could not be the “son of David,” the “Son of Man,” or the “Son of God.” If he is God, then he was never tempted, cannot be seen, did not truly die, and therefore was not a real sacrifice for sin. And if his nature was simultaneously human and divine, he was not truly made like his brothers and sisters in every way.

What you've done is rely on an outdated proof text in John 1:18, which has known issues, and twisted it to support a point it cannot make. Meanwhile, you've ignored the weight of evidence in these responses, leaving you with creed-based language and no Scriptural support for your views.

Was Jesus genuinely tempted? Was he capable of sin? Trinitarianism is hopelessly divided on this issue.

You're cornered in a dilemma—if you say "Jesus could sin," then he cannot be God. However, if you say "Jesus couldn't sin," you unknowingly undermine the victory that was achieved through Christ. Either way, it's a self-made trap that only the Trinitarian can fall into.

[face2face]

[Replying to Capbook in post #37]

Also Capbook, this is what I requested for evidence:

- Biblical proof that Jesus is God and the Holy Spirit is God
- Biblical proof that God consists of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit; three persons in one
being (“three hypostases in one ousia”, for those who prefer the classical formula)
- Biblical proof of the co‐eternity, co‐equality and consubstantiality of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit

If you cannot provide the evidence, there is no shame in acknowledging that or in admitting that you hold beliefs which were introduced to the Word of God more than 300 years after the truth was originally given.

In our discussions you have attempted to prove the first half of the first point without success.

F2F

[Capbook]

So what you are really saying is you cannot provide evidence to support your beliefs. John 1:18 neither proves the divinity or pre-existence of Jesus.

My beliefs are based on the presented evidence from papyri P66 and P75, that prove Jesus as the only-begotten God but you have not post any evidence to refute it. Regarding Jesus pre-existence, John 1:1,3 proves it. In the beginning He was with God, and not anything being created or come into existence, as without him was not anything made that was made.
John 1:3 John 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

The Biblical Unitarian view of Jesus teaches that he was truly born of the Virgin Mary through the miraculous conception by the Holy Spirit (Matthew 1:20), making him the literal Son of God (Luke 1:35). He grew up as a normal human child (Luke 2:52), faced temptations like any other person (Matthew 4:1-11), but, with the strength of his will (Matthew 16:23) and his close relationship with the Father, he overcame sin (Hebrews 4:15). Like us, he depended on the Father for his existence (John 6:57). Although capable of sin, he led a sinless life (1 Peter 2:21-22), died on the cross as the perfect sacrifice for sin (Hebrews 7:26-27), and was raised by the Father to immortality (Acts 2:22-24, Galatians 1:1).

Though I am not a Unitarian, I agree with this.

Note: Some assertive Trinitarians argue that Jesus could neither sin nor be tempted to sin. This represents a key point of divergence between the Biblical truth and the flawed doctrine of the Trinity.

Jesus was tempted by Satan after baptism but did not fell to it.

In contrast, the Trinitarian view of Jesus presents a theological paradox and logical contradiction. He is described as visible while being invisible (Colossians 1:15), seen but also “never seen” (John 1:18, 1 Timothy 6:16). He is tempted, even though God cannot be tempted (Matthew 4:1-11; cp. James 1:13). He is “made like his brothers and sisters in every respect,” but in Trinitarian theology, this means he is not truly like them at all. He "dies" on the cross while remaining eternal (1 Timothy 1:17).

Jesus is the image of the invisible Father (Col 1:15), He was tempted in His human nature. For me Jesus is 100% human and 100%. Though in the form of God, He emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men,
humbled himself, obedient even unto death, yea, the death of the cross. (Phil 2:6-8)

Readers should reflect on which Christology is more consistent with the Biblical evidence. If the Trinitarian Jesus pre-existed, then he could not be the “son of David,” the “Son of Man,” or the “Son of God.” If he is God, then he was never tempted, cannot be seen, did not truly die, and therefore was not a real sacrifice for sin. And if his nature was simultaneously human and divine, he was not truly made like his brothers and sisters in every way.

Jesus was sent by the Father to give us hope of eternal life. (John 3:16) In human sinful nature, Jesus was tempted but overcame. What died was His flesh not His divine Spirit.

What you've done is rely on an outdated proof text in John 1:18, which has known issues, and twisted it to support a point it cannot make. Meanwhile, you've ignored the weight of evidence in these responses, leaving you with creed-based language and no Scriptural support for your views.

Well, I quoted it from Updated American Standard Version+. You have presented subjective evidence based on person's opinion and perspective, while I've presented objective evidence, facts that are verifiable.

Was Jesus genuinely tempted? Was he capable of sin? Trinitarianism is hopelessly divided on this issue.

Jesus was tempted but chose not to sin, remaining sinless throughout his earthly life, a crucial aspect of his role as the savior and the perfect sacrifice for humanity's sins.

You're cornered in a dilemma—if you say "Jesus could sin," then he cannot be God. However, if you say "Jesus couldn't sin," you unknowingly undermine the victory that was achieved through Christ. Either way, it's a self-made trap that only the Trinitarian can fall into.

Already answered, but again I'll explain, Jesus in his sinful human flesh, obtained from His mother,
was tempted in every way that we are, yet without sin. A perfect Lamb of God without blemish.