Christ made Sin?

But there is a difference with the double accusative, which is present in 2 Corinthians 5:21, but not the Luke passage. And, one instance our of 568 occurrences of a word does not lend itself to favor your position.

The Archangel

 

I already addressed the something treated as something requirement of the double acc.
Greek grammar never requires false doctrine.

 

I found Luke 2:48 where the NASB and nine other versions translate the word as treated. So I do not think I am guilty of ends driven translation. I looked at how the word was used, and the lexicon meaning, and saw appointed and dealt with, so I hit upon treated. Then I found treated widely used for the word. (10 versions).

Now their may be a valid reason why treated cannot be the meaning in 2 Cor. 5:21, but so far no one in my opinion has made a viable argument.

 

That's funny. It is a logical fallacy to claim what you've claimed here. Actually you didn't address this. Never the less, I'm not sure you understand what the double accusative does, especially when the word ἐποίησεν is concerned.

The NASB and nine other translations may translate Luke 2:48 as "treated," but they likely don't translate 2 Corinthians 5:21 as "treated." Just because one context allows it, doesn't mean all contexts do.

On your current line of reasoning, you will never be right about this.

The Archangel