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 #62]

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.

No. Not with lust, but only with trials of life common to all flesh.

If "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23), then all the saints have sinned.

All have sinned. Not all are now sinning.

Same sloppy out of context error, as saying God is never a man...

To have sinned they must have been tempted with sin, thus for Jesus to be tempted as they were, he must have been tempted with sin as well.

Fine example of false teaching from an out of context sloppy reading.

Uh yes, He would have sinned, if He had bowed down to the devil. He didn't, so He didn't sin. Are you saying He did bow down??

Are you saying that he wasn't there to be tempted to bow down? If Jesus just sat there bored while Satan was trying to tempt him, he deserves no praise for resisting because there was no struggle for him.

Jesus was bored? I suppose so, if Jesus was bored without any suffering by trial. Self-starvation during trials among wild beasts in the wilderness, is not boring.

And the trial was willing, not unwillingly forced.

To employ a Tolkien analogy, you have Jesus going through his earthly life as Tom Bombadil----blithely immune to the call everyone else feels to put on the Ring and use its power.

Hence the problem of comparing Tolkien fantasy with Jesus Christ on earth.

Your effort to deny the difference between trials of the righteous, vs temptations of the wicked, now forces you to say Jesus Christ the righteous wasn't even tried on earth. At least not with any suffering...He was just bored with it all, and so walked on water just to show off and break the monotony.

Only self-justifying sinners think and act like everyone feels the same lust for evil, that they do. Or, they must be bored. As an all-out sinner, I used to think the righteous must be bored to tears also. But I never thought, nor tried to accuse Jesus Christ as being so.

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 never sinned, nor lusted for sin, which was the divine nature of God in Him, that never changes, whether on the throne in heaven, or in the flesh on earth.

Then he couldn't have had the temptable nature of man, which means that he couldn't be fully man.

He didn't have the temptable nature of lust and sinful man, which means that He couldn't be a lusting sinful man at all.

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.

Earlier, you said:

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

Here again, if no one is ever beyond temptation to sin in this life, then the saints were never beyond temptation to sin in this life, which means that for Jesus to be tempted as the saints were, Jesus could not be beyond temptation to sin in this life.

Based upon a false reading of Scripture, sure, anything can be made up to find fault with it. Whether to accuse Scripture of being self-contradicting, and/or of teaching something, that it never says.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #70]

For instance, the Scripture could have accurately said at the time, that God was not yet a man, which would prophecy Jesus Christ coming in the flesh. But, it was honest to simply say at the time, God is not a man, that He should lie... Anyone then taking it out of context, in order to say that God is never a man, is easily ensnared in their own erroneous reading.

Could Malachi 3:6 have accurately said, "I am the Lord. I do not change now, but I will change later"?

The temptation during trial of life was not with lust to do evil. Else He'd done evil by lust with the temptation.

This is a point at which Christian theology goes off the rails. Mosaic law directs its followers to resist temptation to sin; Christian theology makes the temptation itself into sin.

“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart."
(Matthew 5:27-28)

The commandment is, "You shall not commit adultery." It isn't, "You shall not be tempted to commit adultery." Jesus' declaration, "But I tell you..." is one of the instances in which he changes the law by adding to it.

"Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul and with all your strength."
(Deuteronomy 6:5)

In Matthew 22:37, Jesus misquotes Deut. 6:5 as: "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul and with all your mind." It's plausible that the author of Matthew concocted this misquote to make it seem impossible to keep the commandments, thus making belief in Jesus seem necessary.

The temptation to disobey a command during trials of hardship, is not the temptation with lust to do evil.

To disobey the command would be to do evil.

Adam and Eve lusted from an evil heart.

If everything created was good, where did Adam and Eve get evil hearts?

Jesus Christ was tempted with willingness to use His own power for His own life.

That's just another way of saying that he was tempted with the willingness to do evil.

Preserving life on earth is not a sin, nor is saving life a lust to do evil

Doing so by bread alone is sin when the command is not to live by bread alone.

Incapable of receiving lust unto oneself, is only with God in heaven. On earth, Jesus Christ and the righteous are unmoved to lust after sin:

1Co 15:58
Therefore, my beloved brethren, be ye stedfast, unmoveable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labour is not in vain in the Lord.

If they were unmovable on their own, Paul wouldn't have to exhort them to be unmovable.

Free will is being created in the image of God on earth, with power to create one's own lust to do evil. Free will unmoved by trials to create one's own lust, is the power of Jesus Christ

Free will is the ability to make autonomous conscious decisions to to good or to do evil. That ability is universal among men----including Jesus of Nazareth, if he was a man.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #71]

If "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23), then all the saints have sinned.

All have sinned. Not all are now sinning.

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

To have sinned they must have been tempted with sin, thus for Jesus to be tempted as they were, he must have been tempted with sin as well.

Fine example of false teaching from an out of context sloppy reading.

Lousy example of a rebuttal.

Jesus was bored? I suppose so, if Jesus was bored without any suffering by trial. Self-starvation during trials among wild beasts in the wilderness, is not boring.

And the trial was willing, not unwillingly forced.

So Jesus exercised his free will to be tempted by sin.

Your effort to deny the difference between trials of the righteous, vs temptations of the wicked, now forces you to say Jesus Christ the righteous wasn't even tried on earth. At least not with any suffering...He was just bored with it all, and so walked on water just to show off and break the monotony.

Only self-justifying sinners think and act like everyone feels the same lust for evil, that they do. Or, they must be bored. As an all-out sinner, I used to think the righteous must be bored to tears also. But I never thought, nor tried to accuse Jesus Christ as being so.

Your effort to draw a snooty distinction between the "righteous" and the "wicked" suggests a deep existential discomfort with the notion that the Son of God might actually have to endure human temptation in order to be truly human. Perhaps what bothers you even more is the notion that he would do so.

No one can be fully human without the fullness of the human experience. If Jesus never experienced the pull of temptation and never went on to overcome that temptation with strength, then he has no such strength to give to others. You can call them "trials" or whatever other fancy euphemism you want to use, but poor, weak, wretched, tempted sinners have no appeal to find in an untouchable "savior" who walks snobbishly over their heads on a glass ceiling, never deigning to make himself as humanly vulnerable as they are.

Any "savior" who comes to redeem humans from sin by living a sinless human life but doesn't have to live the same human struggle against sin is taking an easy out and isn't up to the job.

He didn't have the temptable nature of lust and sinful man, which means that He couldn't be a lusting sinful man at all.

Then he couldn't be human, lacking the human free will it takes to choose good over evil.


Here again, if no one is ever beyond temptation to sin in this life, then the saints were never beyond temptation to sin in this life, which means that for Jesus to be tempted as the saints were, Jesus could not be beyond temptation to sin in this life.

Based upon a false reading of Scripture, sure, anything can be made up to find fault with it. Whether to accuse Scripture of being self-contradicting, and/or of teaching something, that it never says.

I'm simply taking your position to its logical conclusion.

[RBD]

What men call shows, God calls daily power over nature.

What, no power over other "laws", such as logic, morality, or mathematics?

Every person created in the image of God has power over logic, morality, and math. It's not using that power to corrupt logic, morality, and math, that is the sound mind and righteousness of God.

We are clearly talking about differing things here. When I refer to 'power over', I instead mean 'not limited by' such immutable law.

If law has limit, then it's not immutable law. Natural law limited by the Spirit is therefore not immutable.

Try again.

Allow me to "try again", as you are not tracking here. Was the ONLY way for Jesus to fulfill THIS particular situation, was for Jesus to 'walk on water'?

I suppose He could have swam, and then stood up next to the ship. But then they might mistake Him for Poseidon. Or, the lesser god Nereus.

Or, he could have swam, climbed aboard, and then stilled the wind and waves. But then, they might have mistaken Him for Odysseus deified.

I.e. if you want to think He did it for show, then go ahead. But it did work for the need of the moment...

In any case, the conclusion is that it's impossible to speak of immutable laws being 'broken', since not obeying them proves they are not immutable.

Then the Bible is lying, as the law of buoyancy is an immutable law.

So says the natural disbeliever in the Spirit, who wants to believe the natural universe is all there is. Natural death will sort all that out once for all...

In any case, so long as the Bible remains inerrant, then the spiritual things can be unerring, and the natural universe is not all there is, nor is natural law immutable.

If you wish to contribute to peer review, to the contrary of this established immutable law, please make sure you tell me how this goes for you. So, either:

a) Jesus walked on water, which violates immutable law. Or...
b) The Bible told an untrue story.

I've answered many of your questions, Now I ask you one, and then I'll answer again:

If Jesus walked on water, is natural law immutable?

He does change natural things, which proves natural principles, are not immutable laws. Such as walking on water...

This is my point. You are inducing special pleading for the "laws of nature", as Jesus is said to clearly break many immutable "natural law(s)".

You are inducing special pleading for the natural universe to be all there is. By pleading everyone else to agree with you. Especially me...

[POI]

If law has limit, then it's not immutable law. Natural law limited by the Spirit is therefore not immutable.

You are arguing yourself right out of this debate RBD. Are you now claiming your god is not supernatural? The word "supernatural" comes from the Latin "supernaturalis," which means "above" or "beyond" nature. Is your god "above" or "beyond" nature, or not? If so, then the Bible god is not bound by 'natural law'. The law of buoyancy is an immutable law in nature. If you disagree, then as I asked prior, please take this up with peer review and tell me how it goes. But since I already know you can't or won't do this, because you already know the stated natural law is immutable, Jesus is claimed to break "natural law" here.

Are you also claiming that Jesus did not perform 'miracles', as a miracle(s) would include breaking immutable law(s) and/or defying what is deemed impossible - as it relates to the "natural world"?

if you want to think He did it for show, then go ahead. But it did work for the need of the moment...

You have demonstrated my point. He broke an immutable natural law to show he was god. So why restrain his violations of the immutable laws to nature alone? Or, maybe he doesn't, as I expressed in the OP?

So says the natural disbeliever in the Spirit, who wants to believe the natural universe is all there is. Natural death will sort all that out once for all...

Ignoring the red herring and also baseless claim....

In any case, so 1) long as the Bible remains inerrant, then the spiritual things can be unerring, and the natural universe is not all there is, 2) nor is natural law immutable.

1) I already disproved this claim in another thread.
2) Disproven above and also in the prior response.

If you wish to contribute to peer review, to the contrary of this established immutable law, please make sure you tell me how this goes for you. So, either:

a) Jesus walked on water, which violates immutable law. Or...
b) The Bible told an untrue story.

I've answered many of your questions, Now I ask you one, and then I'll answer again:

If Jesus walked on water, is natural law immutable?

I answered at the beginning of this post. Now please answer my above question(s).

You are inducing special pleading for the natural universe to be all there is. By pleading everyone else to agree with you. Especially me...

The onus is on YOU to demonstrate anything above and beyond the immutable laws we have and know regarding "science", "mathematics", and "logic". Can you do that, or does your baseless assertions just all boil down to "faith"?

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #70]

For instance, the Scripture could have accurately said at the time, that God was not yet a man, which would prophecy Jesus Christ coming in the flesh. But, it was honest to simply say at the time, God is not a man, that He should lie... Anyone then taking it out of context, in order to say that God is never a man, is easily ensnared in their own erroneous reading.

Could Malachi 3:6 have accurately said, "I am the Lord. I do not change now, but I will change later"?

Certainly, if He were prophecying His own downfall of perverting His own divine nature with lust for evil. But, of course He didn't. He only prophesied coming in the flesh, in order to be tried with suffering for righteousness sake.

1Pe 4:13
But rejoice, inasmuch as ye are partakers of Christ's sufferings; that, when his glory shall be revealed, ye may be glad also with exceeding joy.

If ye be reproached for the name of Christ, happy are ye; for the spirit of glory and of God resteth upon you: on their part he is evil spoken of, but on your part he is glorified.

But let none of you suffer as a murderer, or as a thief, or as an evildoer, or as a busybody in other men's matters. Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf.

The temptation during trial of life was not with lust to do evil. Else He'd done evil by lust with the temptation.

This is a point at which Christian theology goes off the rails. Mosaic law directs its followers to resist temptation to sin; Christian theology makes the temptation itself into sin.

Being a disbeliever is not an excuse for quoting a Book wrong, and changing it.

The law does not say, Thou shalt not be tempted, but rather Thou shalt not covet they neighbor's wife.

Rom 7:7
What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.

The law was always holy and spiritual, to resist covetousness, which is lust by which man is tempted with evil.

Trials of this life cannot be resisted, but must be endured:

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.

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: But rejoice, inasmuch as ye are partakers of Christ's sufferings; that, when his glory shall be revealed, ye may be glad also with exceeding joy.

“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart."
(Matthew 5:27-28)

The commandment is, "You shall not commit adultery." It isn't, "You shall not be tempted to commit adultery." Jesus' declaration, "But I tell you..." is one of the instances in which he changes the law by adding to it.

Exo 20:17
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.

He is confirming the spiritual holiness of the law, not just the letter:

Rom 7:12
Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.


The law of the Spirit always begins with the heart, not just the outward deed.

Mat 23:25
Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess…Cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also.

Mat 15:18
But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man. For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies: These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.

"Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul and with all your strength."
(Deuteronomy 6:5)

In Matthew 22:37, Jesus misquotes Deut. 6:5 as: "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul and with all your mind." It's plausible that the author of Matthew concocted this misquote to make it seem impossible to keep the commandments, thus making belief in Jesus seem necessary.

It's a fact that fault-finding is a lust, and as with all lust, uncontrollable.

Pro 3:30
Strive not with a man without cause, if he have done thee no harm.

Jhn 15:24
But this cometh to pass, that the word might be fulfilled that is written in their law, They hated me without a cause.

The temptation to disobey a command during trials of hardship, is not the temptation with lust to do evil.

To disobey the command would be to do evil.

So, it would have been evil for Jesus Christ not to lay down His life for you.

It's another fact that arguing a wrong cause is also a lust, that ends in arguing against one's own cause.

Adam and Eve lusted from an evil heart.

If everything created was good, where did Adam and Eve get evil hearts?

The same as the first angel that sin by creating his own lust to do evil, rather than keep the divine nature of God:

Isa 14:12
How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God:

Being created in the image of God, we also have power to create our own lust against God. And every man and woman on earth has done so; Except for the man Jesus Christ, who kept His divine nature through every trial of suffering on earth.

Jesus Christ was tempted with willingness to use His own power for His own life.

That's just another way of saying that he was tempted with the willingness to do evil.

There is no commandment that, "Thou shalt not preserve thy life and thy health..." Especially when having done no harm. Not laying down one's life for another, is not unlawful.

And so, since it's not the law that would have condemned Jesus for not laying down His life for you, then once again, it would have been evil for Him not to do so for you...

He was accused of evil for laying down His life, and He is accused of evil, if He had not. Some people can never be pleased...

Preserving life on earth is not a sin, nor is saving life a lust to do evil

Doing so by bread alone is sin when the command is not to live by bread alone.

Neither does the law say, "Thou shalt starve thyself to death..." Trusting in the Lord to provide, is not a suicide mission.

Incapable of receiving lust unto oneself, is only with God in heaven. On earth, Jesus Christ and the righteous are unmoved to lust after sin:

1Co 15:58
Therefore, my beloved brethren, be ye stedfast, unmoveable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labour is not in vain in the Lord.

If they were unmovable on their own, Paul wouldn't have to exhort them to be unmovable.

Now exhortation of the righteous to do righteously, is evil...

Isa 5:20
Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

Even the wicked exhort to do wickedly:

Pro 1:11
If they say, Come with us, let us lay wait for blood, let us lurk privily for the innocent without cause: Let us swallow them up alive as the grave; and whole, as those that go down into the pit: We shall find all precious substance, we shall fill our houses with spoil: Cast in thy lot among us; let us all have one purse:

Free will is being created in the image of God on earth, with power to create one's own lust to do evil. Free will unmoved by trials to create one's own lust, is the power of Jesus Christ

Free will is the ability to make autonomous conscious decisions to to good or to do evil. That ability is universal among men----including Jesus of Nazareth, if he was a man.

Exactly. And Jesus was the only man on earth to never use His free will to create lust for Himself. He kept His heavenly nature, that He had on the throne, enduring all trials of this life unto the end. Including unto death on the cross...

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #76]

Could Malachi 3:6 have accurately said, "I am the Lord. I do not change now, but I will change later"?

Certainly, if He were prophecying His own downfall of perverting His own divine nature with lust for evil. But, of course He didn't. He only prophesied coming in the flesh, in order to be tried with suffering for righteousness sake.

Where is the prophecy, "God is not a man, but he will be a man in the future"?

Blessed is the man that endureth temptation

The man who endures temptation----not the man who isn't tempted.

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.

The command is not to covet what your neighbor has.

It's a fact that fault-finding is a lust, and as with all lust, uncontrollable.

Fault-finding is a fact.

Is fact-finding a fault?


To disobey the command would be to do evil.

So, it would have been evil for Jesus Christ not to lay down His life for you.

Even if he was tempted not to?

How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God

"Lucifer" is a nickname for Nebuchadnezzar.

Being created in the image of God, we also have power to create our own lust against God. And every man and woman on earth has done so; Except for the man Jesus Christ, who kept His divine nature through every trial of suffering on earth.

Then all the "saints" have created their own lust, which puts them on the same level as the rest of temptable humankind, as whom Jesus himself was tempted.

There is no commandment that, "Thou shalt not preserve thy life and thy health..." Especially when having done no harm. Not laying down one's life for another, is not unlawful.

And so, since it's not the law that would have condemned Jesus for not laying down His life for you, then once again, it would have been evil for Him not to do so for you...

Then if he was fully human, he must have had the human free-will choice to do that evil or not to.

He was accused of evil for laying down His life, and He is accused of evil, if He had not. Some people can never be pleased...

He's supposed to have had the full nature of God, which can't be tempted by evil, and the full nature of man, which can be tempted by evil. Some people want it both ways.


Doing so by bread alone is sin when the command is not to live by bread alone.

Neither does the law say, "Thou shalt starve thyself to death..." Trusting in the Lord to provide, is not a suicide mission.

So he wouldn't have been disobeying God by turning the stones into bread?


If they were unmovable on their own, Paul wouldn't have to exhort them to be unmovable.

Now exhortation of the righteous to do righteously, is evil...

Only exhortation of the unrighteous to do righteously would be necessary, wouldn't you say?


Free will is the ability to make autonomous conscious decisions to to good or to do evil. That ability is universal among men----including Jesus of Nazareth, if he was a man.

Exactly. And Jesus was the only man on earth to never use His free will to create lust for Himself.

If you're saying that he used his free will to be untemptable by sin, then you're saying that he used his free will never to have free will.

[RBD]

Jesus was bored? I suppose so, if Jesus was bored without any suffering by trial. Self-starvation during trials among wild beasts in the wilderness, is not boring.

And the trial was willing, not unwillingly forced.

So Jesus exercised his free will to be tempted by sin.

Freely underwent temptations of trials on earth, not tempted with sin.

The good soldier freely endures the hard trials of the battlefield. The traitor is tempted with the sin of betrayal. The temptations of Jesus Christ were not the temptations of Judas Iscariot.

Your effort to deny the difference between trials of the righteous, vs temptations of the wicked, now forces you to say Jesus Christ the righteous wasn't even tried on earth. At least not with any suffering...He was just bored with it all, and so walked on water just to show off and break the monotony.

Only self-justifying sinners think and act like everyone feels the same lust for evil, that they do. Or, they must be bored. As an all-out sinner, I used to think the righteous must be bored to tears also. But I never thought, nor tried to accuse Jesus Christ as being so.

Your effort to draw a snooty distinction between the "righteous" and the "wicked"

The saints accused by the ungodly of living boring lives, is common. I used to do the same. I just never heard anyone accuse Jesus Christ of being bored on earth.

Maybe He allowed Himself to crucified on a cross for excitement?

suggests a deep existential discomfort with the notion that the Son of God might actually have to endure human temptation in order to be truly human.

No one has to be enticed with their own lust, in order to be fully human.

However, as one of the ungodly, I believed getting drunk and laid, is necessary to be a real man.

Perhaps what bothers you even more is the notion that he would do so.

Not at all, because He didn't do so. Another christ would do so, but then he would be just another lusting sinner on earth.

No one can be fully human without the fullness of the human experience.

So says the ungodly.

If Jesus never experienced the pull of temptation and never went on to overcome that temptation with strength, then he has no such strength to give to others.

Since Jesus never recieved lust for Himself, then He was never tempted with lust. Neither God in heaven, nor does Jesus on earth have any lust to give to others.

Mark 13:22
For false Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall shew signs and wonders, to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect.


There is however a certain Christian christ, that does allow his believers to keep their own lust and sin on earth, while promising glory in heaven.

2 Peter{2:19}
While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage.

Rom 16:18
For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple. But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.

His gospel is called 'OSAS' Christianity.

You can call them "trials" or whatever other fancy euphemism you want to use, but poor, weak, wretched, tempted sinners

So, that's what you are? A poor, weak, and wretchedly tempted sinner? That's what being fully human is with the full human experience? That's what you say every person must be like? Including any christ acceptable to you? Is this the misery loves company gospel?

Let's compare these euphemistic trials of the saints, with your miserable temptations for sinners:

Jas 1:2
My brethren, count it all joy when ye fall into divers temptations; Knowing this, that the trying of your faith worketh patience. But let patience have her perfect work, that ye may be perfect and entire, wanting nothing.

Blessed 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.

1. If all temptations are the same for all people, then why are your sinful temptations so poor, weak, and wretched, when the trials of the righteous are counted as joy and blessed?

2. If all temptations are the same, then aren't you also a blessed saint, when tempted with your lust. Or, are you a poor, weak, wretched sinner?

You have successfully defined the difference between temptations and trials of the righteous, vs the temptations and lusts of sinners.

But poor, weak, wretched, tempted sinners have no appeal to find in an untouchable "savior" who walks snobbishly over their heads on a glass ceiling, never deigning to make himself as humanly vulnerable as they are.

So Jesus was not just boring, but snobbishly so. He was boorish? And He didn't just walk on the water, but on a glass ceiling above it all. Not deigning to tip so much as a pinky finger into the lusts of the flesh and the world, that true humans miserably know all too well.

Maybe the OSAS christ is for you. They give lip service to their christ being sinless without lust on earth, but they do preach continuing to have their own lust and sin cake on earth, and then eating it in heaven too.

Any "savior" who comes to redeem humans from sin by living a sinless human life but doesn't have to live the same human struggle against sin is taking an easy out and isn't up to the job.

Right. The cross was just ending a boorish life with a little human excitement at the end.

'Struggle against sin' is an OSAS favorite. Were you an OSAS Christian at one time?

He didn't have the temptable nature of lust and sinful man, which means that He couldn't be a lusting sinful man at all.

Then he couldn't be human, lacking the human free will it takes to choose good over evil.

Then He certainly couldn't be your kind of human, with the full human experience of lust and ungodliness. Which is the freedom to be a real man.

Here again, if no one is ever beyond temptation to sin in this life, then the saints were never beyond temptation to sin in this life, which means that for Jesus to be tempted as the saints were, Jesus could not be beyond temptation to sin in this life.

Based upon a false reading of Scripture, sure, anything can be made up to find fault with it. Whether to accuse Scripture of being self-contradicting, and/or of teaching something, that it never says.

I'm simply taking your position to its logical conclusion.

You've certainly taken your own position to it's most extreme conclusion: All people must lust for ungodly sin, in order to be fully human. Doing unrighteousness is the full human experience. Anyone refusing to lust and sin with the ungodly, is not human. Including any christ for the ungodly.

He only comes to join the miserable company of poor, weak, tempted sinners, not to deliver them from their evil temptation for sin. Afterall, if any Christ does deliver anyone from lusting for sin, then they also would become less than human like Himself. Correct?

Sounds more and more like the OSAS christ. A savior with lust, not from sinning...

[RBD]

If law has limit, then it's not immutable law. Natural law limited by the Spirit is therefore not immutable.

You are arguing yourself right out of this debate RBD.

I'm arguing myself away from your natural view of all things.

Are you now claiming your god is not supernatural?

The Spirit not limited to natural principles, is the definition of supernatural.

because you already know the stated natural law is immutable,

What you know naturally, is for yourself alone.

Jesus is claimed to break "natural law" here.

Anything that can be overruled, is not immutable.

as a miracle(s) would include breaking immutable law(s) and/or defying what is deemed impossible - as it relates to the "natural world"?

What your natural mind deems impossible, the Spirit makes possible.

Mat 19:26
But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.

So says the natural disbeliever in the Spirit, who wants to believe the natural universe is all there is. Natural death will sort all that out once for all...

Ignoring the red herring and also baseless claim....

Ignoring the grave only lasts until the grave.

Are you a god that knows all things on earth, and beyond the grave? Do you now declare by personal immutable law, that the natural universe is all there is?

I've answered many of your questions, Now I ask you one, and then I'll answer again:

If Jesus walked on water, is natural law immutable?

I answered at the beginning of this post.

False. You only state natural law as immutable fact.

If Jesus walked on water, is natural law immutable?

Answer this one question, and I'll return to answering your many questions.

You are inducing special pleading for the natural universe to be all there is. By pleading everyone else to agree with you. Especially me...

The onus is on YOU to demonstrate anything above and beyond the immutable laws we have and know regarding "science", "mathematics", and "logic". Can you do that, or does your baseless assertions just all boil down to "faith"?

The onus on you is to demonstrate natural law is immutable, with the natural universe being all there is. Else, your assertions are just your own natural faith.

If Jesus did walk on water, is natural law immutable?

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #76]

Could Malachi 3:6 have accurately said, "I am the Lord. I do not change now, but I will change later"?

Certainly, if He were prophecying His own downfall of perverting His own divine nature with lust for evil. But, of course He didn't. He only prophesied coming in the flesh, in order to be tried with suffering for righteousness sake.

Where is the prophecy, "God is not a man, but he will be a man in the future"?

Psa 2:6
Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion. I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee. Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.

Isa 7:14
Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good.

A man that refuses to lust for evil on earth, and chooses only to do good all the days of His life.

Blessed is the man that endureth temptation

The man who endures temptation----not the man who isn't tempted.

So, blessed is the man that endures your temptation with lust for sin? Not a poor, weak, wretched tempted sinner?

So, when you are tempted with your own lust, then you are a blessed saint counting it joy? Or, just another unblessed tempted fully human sinner?

To disobey the command would be to do evil.

So, it would have been evil for Jesus Christ not to lay down His life for you.

Even if he was tempted not to?

Is preserving one's self, evil?

So, to you it's evil for Jesus Christ not to lay down His life for you?

Being created in the image of God, we also have power to create our own lust against God. And every man and woman on earth has done so; Except for the man Jesus Christ, who kept His divine nature through every trial of suffering on earth.

Then all the "saints" have created their own lust, which puts them on the same level as the rest of temptable humankind, as whom Jesus himself was tempted.

All the saints were lusting sinners on earth, but no more in Christ Jesus. As Whom they are not tried in righteousness, not tempted with sin.

2Co 5:17
Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ,


2Pe 1:3
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.

There is no commandment that, "Thou shalt not preserve thy life and thy health..." Especially when having done no harm. Not laying down one's life for another, is not unlawful.

And so, since it's not the law that would have condemned Jesus for not laying down His life for you, then once again, it would have been evil for Him not to do so for you...

Then if he was fully human, he must have had the human free-will choice to do that evil or not to.

Exactly. Being human is power of free will to choose to do good, or lust for evil. All people that lust for evil, are now slaves to their own evil lust.

Choosing to lust for evil is being fully human and evil. Doing only the good without lusting for evil, is being fully human and good.

3Jo 1:11
Beloved, follow not that which is evil, but that which is good. He that doeth good is of God: but he that doeth evil hath not seen God.

He's supposed to have had the full nature of God, which can't be tempted by evil,

Correct.

and the full nature of man, which can be tempted by evil.

The full nature of sinful man, which is tempted with evil.

The full nature of the good man, is not tempted with evil.

Doing so by bread alone is sin when the command is not to live by bread alone.

Neither does the law say, "Thou shalt starve thyself to death..." Trusting in the Lord to provide, is not a suicide mission.

So he wouldn't have been disobeying God by turning the stones into bread?

Of course not. There is no such commandment forbidding bread to eat. Neither would He have sinned by calling upon His angels to preserve His life on earth.

Do you say it would have been evil for Him to do so, and not lay down His life for you?

If they were unmovable on their own, Paul wouldn't have to exhort them to be unmovable.

Now exhortation of the righteous to do righteously, is evil...

Only exhortation of the unrighteous to do righteously would be necessary, wouldn't you say?

Only to the unrighteous finding fault with any exhortation to do righteously.

The evil man is blind to the pure of heart, and the unrighteous man is blind to exhorting righteous with a pure heart:

1 Peter
{1:21} Who by him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God. {1:22} Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, [see that ye] love one another with a pure heart fervently:

2Ti 2:22
Flee also youthful lusts: but follow righteousness, faith, charity, peace, with them that call on the Lord out of a pure heart.

Free will is the ability to make autonomous conscious decisions to to good or to do evil. That ability is universal among men----including Jesus of Nazareth, if he was a man.

Exactly. And Jesus was the only man on earth to never use His free will to create lust for Himself.

If you're saying that he used his free will to be untemptable by sin, then you're saying that he used his free will never to have free will.

Only to the lusting sinner, that believes lusting for sin is full human freedom.