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...?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #148]

I explained why it's meaningless, even though you don't include my explanation here.

Explained like any natural man without God.

More deflection.


Then Genesis 4:7 and Deuteronomy 30:14 are right and anyone can overcome sin on their own.

Why do natural unbelievers in God even try to interpret God's Book on the things of the spirit? By trying to explain away the spiritual things, the natural man shows his doubts that only the natural things exist.

So, you can't refute my point.

Deu 30:14
But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it."

Deut 30 is promising deliverance from lust and sin by the heart turning to God through faith in Him.

Verse 14 is promising that one is capable of keeping all of the law.


Isaiah's nickname for Nebuchadnezzar has nothing to do with the Bible's teaching on sin.

There are so-called believers that also try to write their own symbolized version of the Bible. I call it the Symbol-Man's Bible.

There are those who read the Bible in context. It doesn't matter what you call that.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #149]

7:16 tells what is to happen to those two kings with other two kings of Syria and Egypt. Which did not happen for all of 4 of them, until the first century B.C. by the Roman Republic.

7:16 says nothing of Egypt. It refers only to "the land of the two kings you dread". The two kings Ahaz dreads are Rezin [of Syria] and Pekah [of Israel], and they are to fall within the early life of Immanuel, whose pregnant mother Isaiah points out to Ahaz.

Immanuel's land is the LORD's Messiah.

Then why does the text identify the land as a possession of Immanuel?

Because Immanuel is the LORD's Messiah born of a virgin, who was the LORD God of the children of Israel.

You don't seem able to make up your mind whether the Messiah is Imannuel or Immanuel's land.

And Immanuel is still born to an almah [young woman of matrimonial age], not to a betulah [virgin].

The LORD's Messiah was the LORD come in the flesh, Jesus Christ called Emmanuel, God with us.

And Emmanuel still means "God is with us". It's a statement, not a title.

[Revelations won]

Der POI,

I quote your OP and respond as follows:

Post #1
Post
by POI » Fri Aug 29, 2025 11:13 am
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...

My response: You failed to state who are those who make the above claims.

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?

My response: I could more accurately respond if you can state clearly what laws you think he broke.

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…?

My response: Can you identify what natural laws he has broken?

[RBD]

Deut 30 is promising deliverance from lust and sin by the heart turning to God through faith in Him.

Verse 14 is promising that one is capable of keeping all of the law.

Correct, which is implied within the promises for keeping the law blameless. Which no man did, nor can do, without faith toward God:

Rom 4:3
For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.

Gen{26:5}
Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #149]

7:16 tells what is to happen to those two kings with other two kings of Syria and Egypt. Which did not happen for all of 4 of them, until the first century B.C. by the Roman Republic.

7:16 says nothing of Egypt. It refers only to "the land of the two kings you dread". The two kings Ahaz dreads are Rezin [of Syria] and Pekah [of Israel], and they are to fall within the early life of Immanuel, whose pregnant mother Isaiah points out to Ahaz.

Immanuel's land is the LORD's Messiah.

Then why does the text identify the land as a possession of Immanuel?

Because Immanuel is the LORD's Messiah born of a virgin, who was the LORD God of the children of Israel.

You don't seem able to make up your mind whether the Messiah is Imannuel or Immanuel's land.

And Immanuel is still born to an almah [young woman of matrimonial age], not to a betulah [virgin].

The LORD's Messiah was the LORD come in the flesh, Jesus Christ called Emmanuel, God with us.

And Emmanuel still means "God is with us". It's a statement, not a title.

Unless you have something new to answer, then this argument is done. Adios.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #155]

Unless you have something new to answer, then this argument is done. Adios.

If that's all you have left to offer, I guess it is done.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #154]

Verse 14 is promising that one is capable of keeping all of the law.

Correct, which is implied within the promises for keeping the law blameless. Which no man did, nor can do, without faith toward God:

Rom 4:3
For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.

Gen{26:5}
Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.

None of which changes the fact that Deut. 30:14 means it's not beyond human ability to keep all the law.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to Athetotheist in post #157]

I've been revisiting this exchange and notice that there's another point to add to my position:

"For surely it is not angels he helps, but Abraham’s descendants. For this reason he had to be made like them, fully human in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people. Because he himself suffered when he was tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted."
(Hebrews 2:16-18)

If the children of Abraham were temptable by sin before Jesus came and he had to be made like them in every way, then he had to be made temptable by sin.

[1213]

...
If the children of Abraham were temptable by sin before Jesus came and he had to be made like them in every way, then he had to be made temptable by sin.

Temptable means one has freedom to choose. Should people have been made without freedom?