The Bible God, the Law Breaker

[POI]

God is claimed to break "natural law" all the time, by walking on water, turning water into wine, raising the rotting dead, turning humans into salt, etc...

For Debate: Does God break all "law", or just some "law"? And if only some, why only some, and not all? Further, what is the point of breaking some "law", and not others? Or maybe, God breaks all "laws", which is why the Bible is illogical, immoral, and defies later human discovery?

Before you answer, a running theme is expressed among many theists... When a skeptic asks a theist, 'can God do anything?", the theist might respond with, "God can only do what is logically possible and/or what is in his moral nature". In essence, God strictly abides by some "law", but not others? By "law", I'm referencing natural law, the laws of logic, moral law, mathematics, and any others I may have missed. I trust you get the gist...?

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #93]

To some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everyone else, Jesus told this parable: “Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee stood by himself and prayed: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other people—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.’ "But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, ‘God, have mercy on me, a sinner.’
(Luke 18:9-13)

Which of these is you?

You were an OSAS Christian, right? Or, you have learned the Bible the same as they. You're efforts to justify continued lusting for evil, by accusing the righteous, is exactly the same.

Which of those is you?

I'm not OSAS Christian, that's for sure. Were you at one time? You surely have listened to them enough. I don't believe you came up with your own OSAS Christianity arguments on your own.

Well, were you an OSAS Christian at one time, or not? I never was.

I was Catholic, or thought I was. And if you know Catholicism, you know that it is definitely not OSAS Christianity.

True. But you certainly know the OSAS argument, and use it against the righteous.

If you're not the Pharisee, then aren't you the tax collector?

I definitely was a Pharisee. Now I am simply an ex-tax-collector sheep of Jesus.

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #101]

Then how can the child in Isaiah 7 have had the untemptable nature of God if he ate butter and honey to know to refuse the evil and choose the good?

Diet matters for healthy living and judgment. But, it's not the source.

Then let's put the butter and honey into context with a better translation:

Therefore, the Lord, of His own, shall give you a sign; behold, the young woman is with child, and she shall bear a son, and she shall call his name Immanuel.
Butter and honey he shall eat when he knows to reject bad and choose good. For when the lad does not yet know to reject bad and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread, shall be abandoned.
(Isaiah 7:14-16)

Ok, let's:
Therefore, the Lord, of His own, shall give you a sign; behold, the virgin young woman is with child, and she shall bear a son, and she shall call his name Immanuel.
Butter and honey he shall eat when he knows to reject bad and choose good. For when the lad does not yet know to reject bad and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread, shall be abandoned.

The babe had the divine nature entering into the world.

Heb 1:5
For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?

Like all babes, he became a young child when knowing to do good or evil. By divine nature, He always chose to do good, and reject evil. From a child He kept his heart pure from lust of the world:

Luk 2:40
And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom: and the grace of God was upon him.

The two kings mentioned are Pekah and Rezin, the kings of Israel and Syria, and Isaiah is assuring King Ahaz of Judah that his enemies will fall during the early life of the child soon to be born. So the passage has nothing to do with Jesus, who wasn't born until centuries later.

There's no other Bible record of a son born of a virgin young woman.

In any case, by moving on to the usual denials of Jesus the Messiah, the argument about two different kinds of temptation, one in righteousness, and the other with lust, is conceded.

1 John 5:18
We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not.

How do you square this with your non-OSAS stance?

Because the OSAS stance is:

We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not as much as before; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself more than before, and that wicked one toucheth him not as much as before...

OSAS Christianity is continued lusting sinners saved by grace through faith alone, apart from what their doing. Some say no change in life is needed, but most expect some change in life for the better. And most do, but only while learning to be a better wretched, poor, weak, and fully human sinner. But now they have an all-victorious idea of going to heaven with their lust, unlike the other wretched, poor, weak fully human and honest sinners, that don't believe that lie.

So far as religions go, OSAS Christianity on the whole is a pretty good one for this life. The Better Homes and Gardens Christian variety. But then there are plenty of Muslims, Buddhists, Jews, etc...that put them to shame.

In any case, it's not the gospel of the pure religion of Jesus Christ, with the lust of the world taken away, and all things are now new and of God, with nothing of the lust, sin, and corruption of the world in the soul nor the life:

Rom 11:27
For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.

Jhn 1:29
The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world

2Pe 1:3
According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue.Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.

1Jo 3:5
And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin.


You however, appear to be entirely different from either. You preach being a wretched, poor, weak and fully human sinner, but only for others, not for yourself. And you're certainly not the righteous born of God, whose temptations in righteousness are not the same as sinners.

So, where do you fit in? A successful, rich, strong and fully human sinner? There's plenty of them in the world too, that would certainly object to your loser characterization for being fully human...

[RBD]

Accusing someone of breaking a law, only confirms the law is mutable. The accusation itself is a confession of mutability.

1) This goes directly back to what I asked, in which you skipped. Is your god A) all powerful or B) maximally powerful?

Gen 17:1
And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect.

Rev 1:8
I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

2) Breaking an immutable law would also be 'miraculous',

No, it's impossible to change, alter, or break immutable law. Only mutable natural law can be changed by miraculous power of the Spirit.

A maximally powerful god would not or could not break any immutable laws.

Zeus the Max perhaps.

But the Almighty God would not, because He cannot do evil and break His own eternal law of holiness and true righteousness.

Jas 1:13
Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:

Seems you are in the B) camp, thus far, as you are desperate for the "laws" Jesus broke not be immutable in reality.

Only atheists rejecting the only True God and Creator, are desperate for the natural universe to be without beginning, ending, and all there is.

Pagans are at least desperate for the universal natural deity, especially to try and save mother Gaia...

[OneJack]

1) This goes directly back to what I asked, in which you skipped. Is your god A) all powerful or B) maximally powerful?

The Almighty God, whose name is Jesus, is all powerful.

2) Breaking an immutable law would also be 'miraculous',

It’s really miraculous, but I would choose to say that the law of buoyancy was held in abeyance instead of Jesus did break the law of buoyancy, so was when the sun stood still and the moon stopped as Joshua and his men were fighting with the Amorites, and also when Jesus penetrated through the wall to enter the room where the apostles gathered.

A maximally powerful god would not or could not break any immutable laws.

There is no such thing as maximally powerful god because all powers and authorities emanate only from the Almighty God alone, who is able to break all the immutable laws in this context, so to speak.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #112]

Therefore, the Lord, of His own, shall give you a sign; behold, the virgin young woman is with child, and she shall bear a son, and she shall call his name Immanuel.
Butter and honey he shall eat when he knows to reject bad and choose good. For when the lad does not yet know to reject bad and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread, shall be abandoned.

You can't just stick the word "virgin" into a text which doesn't have it.

Like all babes, he became a young child when knowing to do good or evil. By divine nature, He always chose to do good, and reject evil.

The text says that Rezin and Pekah will fall "when the lad does not yet know to reject bad and choose good". That's not a description of someone who always knew to choose good and reject evil.


The two kings mentioned are Pekah and Rezin, the kings of Israel and Syria, and Isaiah is assuring King Ahaz of Judah that his enemies will fall during the early life of the child soon to be born. So the passage has nothing to do with Jesus, who wasn't born until centuries later.

There's no other Bible record of a son born of a virgin young woman.

There's no Bible record of a son born of a virgin young woman period. You can't strip the Tanakh of its historical context when it's inconvenient.

In any case, by moving on to the usual denials of Jesus the Messiah, the argument about two different kinds of temptation, one in righteousness, and the other with lust, is conceded.

What's being conceded is that temptation in the wilderness would be of no merit to a Jesus incapable of being tempted. Being offered all the kingdoms of the world in exchange for one's worship isn't just enduring a hardship.

"No temptation has overtaken you except such as is common to man; but God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will also make the way of escape, that you may be able to bear it."
(1Corinthians 10:13)

Thus, there is temptation "common to man".

Why would someone need a "way of escape" from a mere hardship or trial?

[POI]

[Replying to RBD in post #113]

There is nothing new to address here. See post 110.

[POI]

[Replying to OneJack in post #114]

Then why does god break some law(s), but not others?

[OneJack]

[Replying to OneJack in post #114]

Then why does god break some law(s), but not others?

How many laws do you want God to hold in abeyance, and for what purpose? With various miracles that God did only prove to us that with God, nothing is impossible.

[POI]

[Replying to OneJack in post #114]

Then why does god break some law(s), but not others?

How many laws do you want God to hold in abeyance, and for what purpose? With various miracles that God did only prove to us that with God, nothing is impossible.

This wasn't my question. Please try again.

[OneJack]

[Replying to OneJack in post #114]

Then why does god break some law(s), but not others?

How many laws do you want God to hold in abeyance, and for what purpose? With various miracles that God did only prove to us that with God, nothing is impossible.

This wasn't my question. Please try again.

I know that was not your question, which no one can answer definitively, except God Himself. Why can't you address it directly to the Almighty God? Do you intuit that since God breaks some laws, there is a possibility that He is not able to break all laws hence my question to my previous post?