If not polytheism, this concept is kind of confusing and self contradictory.
You say that it's,
"kind of confusing," meaning that you secretly believe that it isn't confusing and that you think you know better, right? But please, try not to think that I'm trying to be hyper-crit here, I have very little information to go on and I'm trying to get to know you, is why.
Feel free to tell us what you really think.
Did Jesus sacrifice himself to God?
You say Jesus is god. If that is true, then he sacrificed himself to himself?
Hmm.
That's a good question. Knowing that Jesus is God is something that is revealed over time. Just look at "Thomas the Confirmer". I think little Timmy would like my name for him better than that
"Thomas the Doubter" designation he is so well known for. But Not even He (and He's one of the Saved mentioned by name in the Bible) but not even he understood nor grasped that truth until after the ascension and after he put his fingers in the wound
(or should I say his finger in the wounds? Sometimes things as simple as plurals in English can stumble me) .... But the point is that he had to confirm to his own satisfaction and that was okay, right? So it's okay if you don't yet have the FULL REVELATION OF GOD yet. Nobody does. Not even our friend
Free -->Not even one single solitary person (except that man, named Jesus, the son of the carpenter and Son of the Most High God(!). He's the only one who sees His Father (correctly). But our time is coming. We get to see Him even as we are seen.
I personally believe that the Bride company (whatever that is) will do this in the sight of others, but that's a pearl we can't dare trample around with... (or so I hope).
Also notice Peter. He really struggle with the concept too. He was asked three times and we can almost hear his vexation with his Savior when he tried to honestly answer,
Who do you say I am? -- and Jesus asked,
"Peter? Do you love me?" also. And of course he didn't use English so I can't quote directly and also, Peter had no clue that Jesus was preparing him for the real battle that was to come (with Satan himself, no less). But He too confessed,
"My Lord -and- my God," or the equivalent to and about Jesus. And that too was not brought out of him on first meeting. It may have been love at first sight but it takes time to communication stuffs. Peter knew Jesus for three years before he could even conceive of
(let that idea be born in his inner parts) ... before he could conceive of ... that marvelous truth.
Jesus develops our adoration for us. It takes time to do that, it's not dropped in like a nutshow, or even in a nutshell... and that's His job anyway, not mine and it is by His Spirit, the Spirit of Christ and by the very mind of Christ in us that our hearts hear Him and swell in joy and love...
So again, it's okay if some here do not (yet) share in that particular glory and understanding. Just trust in his NAME is enough. Who cares why that works. It does.
If a man could be made with free will, with temptation and emotion, and not commit sin, what happened when god made us?
It seems he did not make us to be sinless.
You sure do have some interesting thoughts. It's your conclusions that are not being straight-lined from point 'A' to point 'B'. They are convoluted. That's okay too. Many of mine are messed up beyond tracing even if I had that kind of patience. I like saying that I'm a non-linear thinker. Maybe you know what I mean? But when you observe,
"God could have made man with free will, but He didn't," (my paraphrase of what you said, the quote marks are a lie) I am here to ask if you are doing that on purpose because it's fun to show off how smart you are by confounding Christians (so called) or is there a legitimate question about the difference between making man from dust and the immaculate conception
(can you conceive of that one?!? You can? Good. Water that thought, and allow God to cultivate it) of that man known as Jesus whose very NAME is, and has always been, and will always be, elevated beyond all others?
Did you know [name omitted - deleted by Sparrow] that there are two set of laws, delivered from two different mountains. Why are you always called back to Egypt. Haven't you been called to the mountains of the North?