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...?

[POI]

[Replying to RBD in post #43]

Aren't all of these created "laws" absolute?

Not if there are exceptions. Speaking of a 2nd law of thermodynamics, is only referring to observable nature. By definition is rules out any creation.

If there is any creation, then it's only a law of nature, not absolute. Those who believe it is absolute law, are only those who believe the natural universe is eternal without creation, beginning, nor end. I.e. the observable universe is as they say, 'all there is'....

If not, why call them 'laws' at all?

Laws for natural things alone...

Maybe instead call them a 'suggestion(s).'

Natural principles.

Again, humans are trying to discover these 'laws', which are already in existence.

Keep up the good work.

And any believer in creation, who doesn't believe the natural universe is all there is, call them laws for natural things alone, or natural principles, that can be overruled by spiritual power:

Jos 10:13
And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.

And furthermore, they aren't 'broken' as with absolute law of good and evil. Overriding natural law makes them mutable principles, not immutable law. And, let's agree beforehand, that the 2nd law of thermodynamics is not being rejected here, but only renamed to allow for creation.

And while we're at it, exactly what 'law' is being broken by resurrection from the dead?

I still do not see you tracking with this exchange.

1) All "natural law", "mathematics", "moral law", "laws of logic", and other, are absolute. Humans have either discovered the absolute boundaries in all cases, or not.

2) To your last question... The 'law' states that the decomposition process cannot be reversed. Anoxic brain injury is also not reversable. Welp, Jesus certainly broke 'natural law', unless you are going to now go on record to suggest that levels of decomposition and anoxia can be reversed without breaking 'law'?

Again, my point is Jesus has no problem breaking some "laws", and not others. Why?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #50]

When speaking of temptation, there's an obvious difference in the kind of temptation, one blessed the same as Jesus the righteous, and the other cursed the same as for all the unrighteous.

The only difference in temptation is whether or not you resist it. You're relying on a distinction which doesn't exist.

Jesus Christ was never tempted with lust, but only with trials in life. He did not suffer from lusting after sin, but from the trials upon His heart and body.

Name a temptation to do evil which doesn't involve either the heart or the body.

The Scripture does not say Jesus was tempted the same as all men, including with lust as the ungodly, but only tried the same as His faithful saints; Whose hearts have now been purged of lust, envy, and covetousness, to become the same as the man Jesus in the days of His own flesh on earth.

Are you arguing that his faithful saints were themselves beyond temptation to sin? If they were, why did they need him? If they weren't, then he must have been tempted with sin as they were.

"For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin."

Hebrews 4:15 says that Jesus resisted the temptation to sin. It doesn't say that he wasn't tempted.


If Jesus was incapable of being tempted with sin, would it not have been sinful for him to bow to Satan for worldly power during his "temptation" in the wilderness?

If Jesus could be tempted with evil, he couldn't be fully God. If he couldn't be tempted with evil, he couldn't be fully man.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #49]

"God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?"
(Numbers 23:19)

1. The Scripture is spoken in the present. Nor saying, Never a man.

"God is not a man" is scripture (Numbers 23:19).

".....and scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:35).

Where after the coming of Jesus Christ, is there any Scripture saying God is not a man?

Where after the coming of Jesus is there any Scripture saying that God can be tempted?

2. Also, the reference is not centered on being a man, but on not being a man that lies...

....because it's men who lie, not God.

but He cannot change His own divine eternal nature

"God cannot be tempted with evil"
(James 1:13)

Already argued.

Are you arguing that untemptability (James 1:13) isn't part of God's own divine eternal nature?

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #43]

Aren't all of these created "laws" absolute?

Not if there are exceptions. Speaking of a 2nd law of thermodynamics, is only referring to observable nature. By definition is rules out any creation.

If there is any creation, then it's only a law of nature, not absolute. Those who believe it is absolute law, are only those who believe the natural universe is eternal without creation, beginning, nor end. I.e. the observable universe is as they say, 'all there is'....

If not, why call them 'laws' at all?

Laws for natural things alone...

Maybe instead call them a 'suggestion(s).'

Natural principles.

Again, humans are trying to discover these 'laws', which are already in existence.

Keep up the good work.

And any believer in creation, who doesn't believe the natural universe is all there is, call them laws for natural things alone, or natural principles, that can be overruled by spiritual power:

Jos 10:13
And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.

And furthermore, they aren't 'broken' as with absolute law of good and evil. Overriding natural law makes them mutable principles, not immutable law. And, let's agree beforehand, that the 2nd law of thermodynamics is not being rejected here, but only renamed to allow for creation.

And while we're at it, exactly what 'law' is being broken by resurrection from the dead?

I still do not see you tracking with this exchange.

1) All "natural law", "mathematics", "moral law", "laws of logic", and other, are absolute.

I don't see you tracking with my responses. Try taking one response of mine, that you disagree with.

2) To your last question... The 'law' states that the decomposition process cannot be reversed. Anoxic brain injury is also not reversable.

What you call law of nature, any exceptions make it only natural principle. To you and other natural men, who deny the spiritual things apart from nature, it's immutable law. However, if their are exceptions made by the spiritual, then they are not immutable law, but only natural principles.

1Co 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Welp, Jesus certainly broke 'natural law', unless you are going to now go on record to suggest that levels of decomposition and anoxia can be reversed without breaking 'law'?

Once again, it's nonsense to accuse anyone of breaking a law, that supposedly is immutable, and so can't be broken.

The accusatory argument is self-defeating. The only argument of the natural man is first, that the natural universe is all there is, which is an argument of belief. And that natural law is therefore immutable, and so can't be broken. Therefore, the argument is not accusatory of anyone breaking what can't be broken, since it's not possible. Rather it's only an argument of unbelief in the spiritual things being greater in power than the natural.

If natural law is immutable, then it can't be broken. If natural things are reversed, then there is no immutable natural law, but only changeable natural principles.

I.e. the spiritual things changing natural things, is not breaking any law, but only proving natural principles are not law at all...

Trying to accuse someone of 'breaking' natural immutable law, is only confessing that nature has no immutable law, but only changeable principle.

Again, my point is Jesus has no problem breaking some "laws", and not others. Why?

Again, my point is that immutable law can't be broken, such as anyone breaking mathematical absolutes, like 2 + 2=4.

Nor did Jesus break any absolute law of good and evil. Though others accused Him of doing so.

Now we have someone trying to accuse Him of breaking a law, that supposedly can't be broken. Which is a self-contradictory impossibility. If you want to accuse someone of breaking a natural law, that you naturally believe is immutable, then you're only admitting your own unbelief, that it's immutable law.

On earth and now in heaven, Jesus changes natural principles according the power of His own Spirit and will...

[POI]

[Replying to RBD in post #54]

Humans cannot walk on water because their large mass, low speed, and body density create downward forces that overcome water's surface tension and buoyant force, which are insufficient to support their weight. This seems pretty immutable to me?

Jesus walking on water is actually not violating an immutable law in reality?

And regardless of your response here, why did he do this in the first place? Didn't he do it to demonstrate his divinity? Wasn't his purpose for breaking such "law" to prove to his followers he is NOT beholden to 'law'. If so, why violate some immutable law, and not other(s), if they are ALL ultimately immutable?

Are you then instead saying it IS possible to walk on top of room temperature water without violating "natural law"? If so, I would like to know how, other than the blank assertion that God changes the rules. And even if this IS your assertion, then why not change the rules for ANY OTHER law, for which he is apparently responsible for?

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #50]

When speaking of temptation, there's an obvious difference in the kind of temptation, one blessed the same as Jesus the righteous, and the other cursed the same as for all the unrighteous.

The only difference in temptation is whether or not you resist it. You're relying on a distinction which doesn't exist.

A personal opinion about Bible teaching is irrelevant, and does not bind the Bible to someone's own ideology. Especially then someone openly declares against the Bible itself.

In any case, the teaching difference is well-known in practical life to the faithful: Good professionals that endure trials to continue doing well and succeeding, are not disobedient children, who only await their next temptation of lust to be enticed with.

2Ti 2:3 Thou therefore endure hardness, as a good soldier of Jesus Christ.

2Ti 2:25
In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will.

The trials of the faithfully obedient that endure hardships, such as rain, sleet, snow, and sleep deprivation, are not the temptations of thieves and fornicators enticed to steal and have sex. Anyone not knowing this, is either still a child never having faced hardships for the good, or is the fornicator and thief, who assumes everyone else is tempted the same as themselves:

Tit 1:15 Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled.

Jesus Christ was never tempted with lust, but only with trials in life. He did not suffer from lusting after sin, but from the trials upon His heart and body.

Name a temptation to do evil which doesn't involve either the heart or the body.

Name a temptation to endure obediently, vs a temptation to do evil: A trial of the righteous, vs enticement of the unrighteous:

1Pe 1:6
Wherein ye greatly rejoice, though now for a season, if need be, ye are in heaviness through manifold temptations: That the trial of your faith, being much more precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ:

1Pe 4:12
Beloved, think it not strange concerning the fiery trial which is to try you, as though some strange thing happened unto you:


If all someone knows in life is temptation to do evil, then they don't know what the trials of the righteous are, and what the righteous must endure in this life...

Rom 1:32Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

The Scripture does not say Jesus was tempted the same as all men, including with lust as the ungodly, but only tried the same as His faithful saints; Whose hearts have now been purged of lust, envy, and covetousness, to become the same as the man Jesus in the days of His own flesh on earth.

Are you arguing that his faithful saints were themselves beyond temptation to sin?

Not beyond, but presently without, the same as Jesus, if we keep His faith and abide in His light:

2 Pet 1:10 Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall: For so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

Wherefore I will not be negligent to put you always in remembrance of these things, though ye know them, and be established in the present truth.

Jas 1:27Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.

1 John 5:18We 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.

Rev 2:25But that which ye have already hold fast till I come. And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations:

Beyond even the possibility to become once again tempted with sin, is only in the resurrection unto life in His likeness. Jesus was tried unto death of the cross, to learn all manner of endurance of keeping His heart pure and free from lust of the world:

1 Pe 2:22 Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth. Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously:

And so shall His faithful servants be tested unto the end likewise:

Matth 10:24 The disciple is not above his master, nor the servant above his lord. It is enough for the disciple that he be as his master, and the servant as his lord.

Jas 1:3Blessed is the man that endureth temptation: for when he is tried, he shall receive the crown of life, which the Lord hath promised to them that love him.

Anyone believing and saying they are 'beyond' temptation to sin, where they cannot possibly allow themselves to lust again, is deceiving themselves in this life, and ready for a fall by temptation with lust:

Pro 16:18 Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall.

Phl 3:13 Brethren, I count not myself to have arrived: but this one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before, I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.


Keeping the heart pure from lust of the world, is only unto the grave, and only by grace. Only in the resurrection of the blessed, is there no more trials to remain free from temptation with lust:

Eph 6:16
Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked.

If they were, why did they need him?

The saints aren't, because they do need Him.

If they weren't, then he must have been tempted with sin as they were.

Only those tempted with lust don't need Him. Indeed, don't want anything to do with Him, like He doesn't even exist...

That's why the gospel message begins with repent:

Acts 2:37 Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?...Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord;

"For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin."

Hebrews 4:15 says that Jesus resisted the temptation to sin. It doesn't say that he wasn't tempted.

Heb 4:15 does not say that Jesus resisted the temptation to sin, and failed, and was tempted with sin.

Jas 4:6 But he giveth more grace. Wherefore he saith, God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble. Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you. Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you.


Resisting until the devil flees, is not resisting until the devil wins.

If Jesus was incapable of being tempted with sin, would it not have been sinful for him to bow to Satan for worldly power during his "temptation" in the wilderness?

Uh, yes?

Mat 4:8
Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me. Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

If Jesus could be tempted with evil, he couldn't be fully God. If he couldn't be tempted with evil, he couldn't be fully man.

Sounds rehearsed. Pithy is only wise, when it's true.

Only a man full of lust to be tempted with evil, would assume temptation with lust and doing evil makes someone fully man.

Once again, I teach Bible. Someone's personal ideology apart from the Bible, is irrelevant to what the Bible teaches.

Patton said no one's a real soldier, unless they fornicate. Great general, lousy Bible teacher.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #56]

Are you arguing that his faithful saints were themselves beyond temptation to sin?

Not beyond, but presently without, the same as Jesus, if we keep His faith and abide in His light

I assume that "presently without" means temporarily without.

Beyond even the possibility to become once again tempted with sin, is only in the resurrection unto life in His likeness.

....

Anyone believing and saying they are 'beyond' temptation to sin, where they cannot possibly allow themselves to lust again, is deceiving themselves in this life, and ready for a fall by temptation with lust

Then his "faithful saints" would have been temptable with sin throughout their mortal lives, thus Jesus would have had to share that temptability in order to be tempted as they were.

Only those tempted with lust don't need Him.

Only those tempted with lust don't need Him? Wouldn't those tempted with lust need him most of all?

"They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick. I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.”
(Mark 2:17)


Hebrews 4:15 says that Jesus resisted the temptation to sin. It doesn't say that he wasn't tempted.

Heb 4:15 does not say that Jesus resisted the temptation to sin, and failed, and was tempted with sin.

You have to be tempted in order to resist temptation. If there's no temptation, there's nothing to resist and, thus, no merit in resisting.


If Jesus was incapable of being tempted with sin, would it not have been sinful for him to bow to Satan for worldly power during his "temptation" in the wilderness?

Uh, yes?

"Yes, what? "Yes", it would have been sinful....or "yes", it wouldn't have?


"For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities"

If our infirmities don't include our temptability, then the Jesus you describe has nothing to offer the vast majority of humankind outside of his "faithful saints". But Mark 2:17 says that sinners [who are definitely temptable] are the ones he came to call. If he could not "be touched with the feeling" of those who were temptable by being temptable himself, then how does he deserve any praise for having lived a sinless life?

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #49]

"God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?"
(Numbers 23:19)

1. The Scripture is spoken in the present. Nor saying, Never a man.

"God is not a man" is scripture (Numbers 23:19).

".....and scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:35).

The Scripture is only broken, if it says God is never a man.

2. Also, the reference is not centered on being a man, but on not being a man that lies...

....because it's men who lie, not God.

Not all men, and never God. Not with the man Jesus on earth, nor now being the resurrected man Christ Jesus.

Already argued.

Are you arguing that untemptability (James 1:13) isn't part of God's own divine eternal nature?

The divine nature is untemptable with lust. The divine nature in natural flesh is temptable with the common trials of all people on earth, hunger, thirst, pain, suffering...

1Co 10:13
There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.

2Ti 2:3
Thou therefore endure hardness, as a good soldier of Jesus Christ.

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #54]

Humans cannot walk on water because their large mass, low speed, and body density create downward forces that overcome water's surface tension and buoyant force, which are insufficient to support their weight. This seems pretty immutable to me?

I don't argue with the natural-minded unbelief in spiritual power over nature and the flesh.

Nor, do I need a natural sciences lecture on the principles of physical nature.

Wasn't his purpose for breaking such "law" to prove to his followers he is NOT beholden to 'law'. If so, why violate some immutable law, and not other(s), if they are ALL ultimately immutable?

After making a response correcting an argument, I don't then continue to argue with someone, who only keeps arguing from their own faulty argument. I'm not interested in people musing with themselves and their own ideas.

If you can show any error in my correction, then I'd be glad to look at it.

And regardless of your response here, why did he do this in the first place? Didn't he do it to demonstrate his divinity?

He does so because He loves the whole world.

Jhn 3:16
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

The Lord doesn't put on shows.

Mat 16:4
A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas. And he left them, and departed.

[POI]

[Replying to RBD in post #54]

Humans cannot walk on water because their large mass, low speed, and body density create downward forces that overcome water's surface tension and buoyant force, which are insufficient to support their weight. This seems pretty immutable to me?

I don't argue with the natural-minded unbelief in spiritual power over nature and the flesh.

How convenient... This is because you have no argument... What I just explained above is every bit as immutable of a 'law' as the laws of logic or mathematics.

Nor, do I need a natural sciences lecture on the principles of physical nature.

Great. I think we have now come full circle here. Since we agree that all 'laws' have their immutable boundaries, then it's curious how Jesus only breaks 'natural law', but no other immutable category of 'law(s)'? As expressed in the OP, and now rephrased here, when asked if God can do anything, believers may say things like... "God can only do what is logically possible," or, "God can only do what is in his moral nature." Well, does God not break these other "laws" of either a) logic and b) morality because he (can't or he won't)?

It seems God has no problem with violating immutable laws, as long as is it only relates to the laws of nature alone.?.?.? Curious...?

He does so because He loves the whole world.

He only breaks immutable natural laws (alone), and not any other 'law(s)' because he loved the whole world? How does this make sense? Before you respond here, see my answers below.

The Lord doesn't put on shows.

Yes, he did. He walked on water. How would this show love? Or how about the "wedding at Cana"? One of the reasons Jesus turned water into wine was to demonstrate a sign of his glory, or put on a show, as indicated in (John 2:1–11). John's Gospel states that this miracle "manifested his glory, and his disciples believed in him".

I think you are just making excuses here.

And again, I smell complete 'bologna' when apologists state things like.. ""God can only do what is logically possible," or "God can only do what is in his moral nature", as I'm sure either one of us can think of instances where breaking other deemed immutable 'laws' would demonstrate love for the entire world.