Proposition # 2: If Jesus Christ is not literally God, then his death could not save us; no mere human can provide atonement for the sins of another. Also Acts 20:28 speaks of “the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.” (KJV)
Response: It needs to be noted that Jesus was no “mere” human. Luke 1:35 records that an angel told Mary, “Holy spirit will come upon you, and power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore, the holy one being born will be called Son of God.”
With his conception being caused by God’s holy spirit, with no human father being involved, Jesus is the only-begotten Son of God. Because of this miraculous conception [1] Jesus was born without the taint of sin, even as Adam was created without sin. Therefore, God could interact with him in a way that He could not do with any other human, endowing him with holy spirit “without measure.” — John 3:34.
Paul drew a correspondence between Adam and Jesus at 1 Corinthians 15:21,
“For as by a man came death, by a man has come the resurrection of the dead.”
Concerning the resurrected and ascended Christ, note what Paul wrote at 1Timothy 2:5,
“For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, a man Christ Jesus.”
Hebrews 2:14, 17 says,
“Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same nature, that through death he might destroy him who has the power of death, that is, the devil. / Therefore, he had to be made like his brethren in every respect … to make expiation for the sins of the people.”
These verses show that the value of Christ’s sacrifice lay in his human nature. So to insist that Jesus had to be God [2] for his sacrifice to have value flies in the face of Paul’s writings. Isaiah 55:8, 9 tells us, “‘For My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways My ways,’ declares Yahweh. [3] ‘For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways, and My thoughts than your thoughts.’” If it is within the purposes of God to provide salvation by His human Son, how can we whose thoughts are beneath His thoughts question and challenge His way of doing things?
Trinitarian translators differ in their rendering of Acts 20:28. The main text of the Revised Standard Version reads, “the church of God which he obtained with the blood of his own Son.” Admittedly, the word Son is interpolated by the translators. But the footnote reads, “with the blood of his Own, or, with his own blood.” Should one ignore clear statements of Scripture on the basis of passages where even trinitarian translators acknowledge ambiguous translation possibilities?
[1] A note to our Muslim readers, according to the Bible and the Quran Jesus’ conception was a miracle of God; and it is in this way He became Jesus’ literal father.
A question for our trinitarian readers, according to this verse the “Holy spirit will come upon” Mary, causing her pregnancy. So who is Jesus’ father, the first person of the trinity (the Father) or the third person of the trinity (the Holy Spirit)? [Prop # 2]
[2] God is inherently immortal, which means He cannot die. Therefore, if Jesus were 100% God and 100% human as trinitarians teach, only the human part of him would have died on the cross. Thus, trinitarian theology, according to their argument, would also offer insufficient atonement. [Prop # 2]
[3] Translation of the Divine Name יהוה, commonly rendered Jehovah or the LORD (written in all capital letters).