4 Step Perfect Proof for God of the Bible

[McBell]

Jesus appeared 12 times to different group sizes ranging from just one person to 500 people:

1) Mary Magdalene (Mark 16.9-11; John 20.11-18)
2) the other women at the tomb (Matthew 28.8-10)
3) Peter in Jerusalem (Luke 24.34; 1 Cor. 15.5)
4) The two travelers on the road (Mark 16.12,13)
5) Ten disciples behind closed doors (Mark 16.14; Luke 24.36-43; John 20.19-25)
6) All the disciples, with Thomas (excluding Judas Iscariot) (John 20.26-31; 1 Cor. 15.5)
7) Seven disciples while fishing (John 21.1-14)
8) Eleven disciples on the mountain (Matthew 28.16-20)
9) A crowd of 500 (1 Cor. 15.6)
10) Jesus' brother James (1 Cor. 15.7)
11) Those who watched Jesus ascend to heaven (Luke 24.44-49; Acts 1.3-8)
12) Least of all Paul as though he was not living in the proper time (1 Cor. 15.8-9; Gal. 1.13-16; Acts 9.1-8, 22.9, read all of chapters 22 and 26; 13.30-37; 1 Cor. 15.10-20; Gal. 2.1-10):

• Luke has no problem between Paul's appearance and those made to the disciples in Luke 24, Acts 1.1-11. Luke records both types of appearances of Jesus to the disciples and to Paul.
• "Last of all he was seen of me also" (1 Cor. 15.8).
• "Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord?" (1 Cor. 9.1).
• Others saw the light and heard the voice during Paul seeing Jesus bodily, however because Paul's experience was post-ascension, it may be slightly different.
• Evolution of a resurrection theory actually devolved from the accounts of the 40 days with the disciples to when Paul saw Jesus (Gal. 1.15-16).
• "To reveal His Son in me" (Gal. 1.16,18) took three years following the Damascus road experience.
• "And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man" (Acts 9.7). This presumes that Paul saw the man.

Now if so many people saw Jesus resurrected, is it really so hard to believe the saved will be resurrected at the consummation of the age of the dispensation of grace (the end of the mystery age of the church)?

And yet not a single source did you present outside the Bible.
This is known as Circular Reasoning.

Which in itself is most interesting when one thinks about it.
How is it that there is not a single source outside the Bible that mentions Jesus Christ, the most important man to ever walk the face of the earth?

 

[Troy]

Is that really so unreasonable Jesus did not show Himself to the unsaved? However, we do have a total of 17 non-Christian sources in the first 150 years after His death that speak about Him. 12 of them speak of His death, and 7 speak on his deity. Altogether there are 42 sources within the first 150 of Jesus' death, and amazingly 24 speak on His resurrection. It's quite impressive the comprehensive documentation from all walks of society.

It would be unrighteous of God to show Himself to the unsaved in His bodily appearance in the resurrection. This is not a gift for the unsaved. But it will be a judgment when He returns in Person and steps down on the mount of olives (Zech. 14.4, Acts 1.11, Rev. 1.7).

To you this is circular reasoning, but to God it is His way of doing things (His nature) and His life (His holiness). What man cannot conceive, God has no problem doing.

So do you see how your allegation is false regarding no source outside the Bible mentioning Christ? Some of the most famous non-Christians who mentioned Jesus were Josephus (Jewish historian), Tacitus (Roman historian), Lucian (Satirists), Mara Bar-Serapion (highly regarded in the British Museum, who wrote from prison to his son), and the Talmud is important in mentioning Jesus (a very important Jewish document). The Jews have never denied Jesus lived and died by the cross. After all they know they were the cause of putting him to death and that their own Bible says they would do so. It also says He would be resurrected.

Jesus even said that nothing can convince a person who does not want to believe. No miracle could convince you, not clarity of all truth would be enough for you, because no matter what you have already made up your mind. That is why John 3.18 says you are condemned already. That is what the Bible says. Seems fair.

Hope this helps.

 

[Tiberius]

You'll forgive me if I don't read through the entire thread before responding...

Step 1 is vital. It says, if anyone contends for an eternity of the past of cause and effects (and yes many have proposed this), then you would have had an eternity to be perfected (read the rest of the paragraph for why this is necessarily going to happen if there was an eternity of the past). However, since you still sin, you know there has not been an eternity of the past of cause and effects.

This is assuming that we would get over our sin by ourselves, given enough time. According to the Bible (Genesis Chapter 3), this is not true.

Second step: someone says, ok fine, but what if the universe started all by itself at some point? Look at the cosmos and know it is very complicated. Since nothing in nature happens all by itself, there is always a cause and an effect.

This is only the case at the macroscopic level. When we get down to the subatomic level, dealing with quarks and gluons and other weird things, the normal laws that we are used to do not appear to work. A whole new way of thinking was needed to explain the way things work at the subatomic level - and it is called Quantum mechanics.

I recommend the TV series "The Elegant Universe" for more information. it gives a brief introduction to Quantum mechanics and also goes into String theory.

Step 3, which is misrepresented, does not say what Juliet says it said. Since the person, who can not overturn step 1 or 2, then tries to argue for something else, they try to argue against the attributes of some god, which is not the attributes of God of the Bible. Do you see how this is disingenuous? As the minimal facts approach is concerned, this proof does not care about other gods, but is merely proving God of the Bible, so if you want to put forth an argument, address it against God of the Bible and not trying to dispute some god.

This seems to be trying to prove the God of the Bible simply by saying that it isn't interested in other Gods. This is merely trying to prove God by definition, and is not a valid argument.

This step also seems to exist merely to say that the first two steps are correct. I have already shown that this is not true.

Step 4. They say, well why can't there be gods created gods for an eternity of the past so that your God is created also? This is just an offshoot of step 1, but instead of dealing with things in nature, it proposes gods created gods in the supernatural to explain our existence. This violates the principle proven in step 1 which say if there was an eternity of the past of cause and effects, whomever the constituents are, you still would have had an eternity to be perfected due to our observation today of the exponential progression cited. Try yourself to think of some more examples of exponential progression of our conscience in the saved. Note the unsaved do not want to change so that is why hell is created. In eternity hell takes care of them, and Juliet.

You are contradicting yourself. You say that there cannot be an infinite number of Gods, so there must be an uncaused God. yet you also say that there cannot be anything without a cause. Your own argument shows the second point to be false.

And in any case, you are applying the same restrictions you placed on the universe in point one to God. To say that God does not face the same limitations will invalidate this proof, so you must accept that God is restricted by the same limits that restrict the universe. However, once you do that and also acknowledge that God must be uncaused (to avoid the aforementioned infite series of Gods creating Gods which you said was impossible), then there is nothing stopping the universe from being uncaused in exactly the same way.

Do you see how the proof has remained the same proof since the beginning: not the beginning of my mentioning it, but with Moses recording it on papyrus.

This is assuming that the Bible is correct in order to prove that the Bible is correct. Circular logic, and it does not hold up to scrutiny.

Ultimately the first person this knowledge was acquired by would be Adam since Adam was the first man made in God's image with a spirit of God-consciousness.

Circular logic again, for the same reason.

We are all given the ability to know this, which is why even in a simpler form, it is known by just looking up at the stars and the sky to know that this is vastly intelligently designed.

Argument from incredulity. Just because you cannot imagine how the universe was made unless God exists doesn't mean that God exists. Things are possible even if you can't comprehend them.

Do you see how the proof proves itself, does not make any claims on the inspiration of the Bible, but merely deals with the minimal facts approach?

I've already shown that it doesn't. not once a deeper understanding of things is reached.

It focuses just on the 4 points. Now knowing this is true, that the uncreated created whom we can call God-the uncreated God would be God of the Bible since God is righteous, holy, pure and true.

true to your word earlier, you have assumed that if you can prove the existence of any God, it must be YOUR God. This is not so. Yours is not the only God for whom existence has been argued.

And you still haven't proved anything.

He said He is God and proved it, fulfilling 62 prophecies (probabilities less than 1 in a trillion for any mortal man to get lucky), surrounding 40 writers over 1500 years, in a historical-religio context, showing God's redemptive design, and the apostles died for testifying to His resurrection and ascension.

There is no evidence that Jesus (if he existed, I have never seen any serious evidence that he did) ever fulfilled the prophecies. The prophecies could have been written after the fact to match things that the story of Jesus already said. And the story of Jesus may also have been altered to make it appear that he fulfillhat were written previously. And the prophecies are often vague, allowing a very flexible interpretation. biblical prophecies prove nothing.

The resurrection of Christ is unique and best testified.

No, the ressurection of Jesus is far from unique. Many mythical figures portrayed as demigods have been said to have been killed and resurrected. heck, even E.T. rose from the dead.

No person is more well documented in antiquity. There are 42 writers, both Christian and non-Christian speaking of Jesus in the first 150 years of his death.

Many of those writers were writing merely about the presence and existence of Christians, and there are no known eyewitness accounts that date from the time that Christ is actually said to have lived.

 

[Troy]

This is assuming that we would get over our sin by ourselves, given enough time. According to the Bible (Genesis Chapter 3), this is not true.

Let's start with one point at a time, as I have found if I answer everything, it causes you to just shut your mind down. Remind me to address the other points you made if I forget.

What dictates to you Genesis 3 is enough time? Hardly much time at all passed by since man fell about 6000 years ago to the end of Gen. 3. To prove you wrong, notice since then man still sins, except that the exponential progression in man's conscience has improved by common grace. So you see, this does not demand or assume we would get over our sins by ourselves at all. Therefore, Step 1 still remains in effect. That if there had been an eternity of the past of cause and effect, you would have had an eternity to be without sin, yet you still sin. This shows you were created at some point as was the universe since the dust of your body (Gen. 2.7) is from the universe.

Any questions?

 

[Tiberius]

Let's start with one point at a time, as I have found if I answer everything, it causes you to just shut your mind down. Remind me to address the other points you made if I forget.

Ahem, behold the long post I made that deals with several points at once? Or did my mind shut down then as well?

What dictates to you Genesis 3 is enough time? Hardly much time at all passed by since man fell about 6000 years ago to the end of Gen. 3. To prove you wrong, notice since then man still sins, except that the exponential progression in man's conscience has improved by common grace. So you see, this does not demand or assume we would get over our sins by ourselves at all. Therefore, Step 1 still remains in effect. That if there had been an eternity of the past of cause and effect, you would have had an eternity to be without sin, yet you still sin. This shows you were created at some point as was the universe since the dust of your body (Gen. 2.7) is from the universe.

Any questions?

yes.

On what are you basing the idea that we will get over the sin of Adam and Eve given enough time? The Bible itself says that we are born with the sin of Adam and Eve, does it not? You seem to be assuming that we will get over this sin in time merely to prove your point. Points are not proven on assumptions. Show me where it says that the punishment God gave us will last a finite time, and I will accept the point you made. Otherwise, you are just guessing.

Also, you are assuming that the Bible is true to prove that the Bible is true. You have taken the Biblical definition of Sin, yes?

 

[Quoth The Raven]

Is that really so unreasonable Jesus did not show Himself to the unsaved?

Yes. He might have saved a hell of a lot more if he'd popped Mary Magdalene in a little sequined number and done a proper show like, say, David Copperfield. I saw him cut himself in half. In HALF I tell ya!Then he flew. Bloody impressive. And there were a damn site more than 500 witnesses to that.:yes:
The beauty of all that, is that if you say you don't believe in David Copperfield, there aren't 40 dozen nasty little pieces of work coming out of the woodwork to browbeat you with the contents of a heavy book and threaten you with eternal damnation. You've gotta love that part of the David Copperfield ressurection experience especially.
What I usually find myself asking though, is what does the FSM have planned for my life?:fsm:
Mmmmm,pasta-ey goodness. I think I'll go consecrate a lasagne.:drool:

 

[Troy]

NOthing there to respond to. God can't operate unrighteous and against His holiness.

 

[Mathematician]

Heil Satan!

One question: what was the purpose in posting this?

 

[Mr. Hair]

but with Moses recording it on papyrus.

By the by, there happens to be serious doubts over the existence of Moses and you'd have to go a long way to find a biblical shcolar who believes that such a character ever lived, must less actually wrote anything that ended up in the bible.

That doesn't of course entail that did not live and love and laugh, but it does suggest that such a state of affairs is rather unlikely.

according to ... hundreds of years of prophecy it would happen.

Please feel free to provide examples of such prophercies, if they could be shown to be genuine and authentic I would certainly be interested in knowing more.

I do, however, require certain criteria to be met before gauging any particular potenital prophetic utterance:

• Such prophecies must have held a verifiable and independant existence prior to the formation of the Christian canon.
• There must exist detailed and documented knowledge of what such prophercies entailed before they are held to have happened.
• Such prophecies must deal with statistically improbable phenomena. Predicting that the sun will come up on a certain day doesn't count, predicting another will does.
• Lastly, any persons, actions, incidents or occurences that are believed to have validated such abeyant prophecies must have had demonstratable existence from extra-biblical sources.

If you can provide any such instances that comply with these criteria I'd be happy to peruse them at your leisure.

(Alternatively, you could always try to convince me to embrace the belief of sola scriptura. While I would be more then willing to entertain such a debate with you on this, and practically anything else, it would probably be best suited in another thread)

but you haven't died for your eyewitness account like the apostles did.

Why should that in itself have any bearing on the regard given to one's testimony?

Plus nothing in antiquity is more documented than is Christ. Tiberius died 37 AD the same year as Jesus. There are 42 sources written about Jesus with 150 years of his death.

Interesting, can you provide links or quotations to all or some of these sources to support your claim?

So you lose. Hell is the result the Bible says.

That's okay; the Tao Te Ching and the [FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]Ramayana disagree, so far I'm in the majority.

Unless you can provide significant evidence as to why we should accept a particular scripture to be any more valid then another on such matters simply through it's existence as itself, and that your personal interpretations of it should indeed be considered accurate, then simply quoting scripture won't do much for your argument.[/FONT]

 

[Troy]

There is no serious doubts put forth to doubt the work of Moses. He is the author of most of the 5 books of Moses.

38 Prophecies Fulfilled by Jesus: There is at Least 24 More Not Listed Here​

Messiah was to be rejected by his own people, the Jews (Is. 53.1,3, Ps. 118.22; Matt. 21.1-9, John 1.11, 12.12-16, Luke 23.18)
Messiah was to be hated without reason (Ps. 35.19; John 15.24,25)
Messiah was to be born in Bethlehem (Micah 5.2; Matt. 2.1-6, Luke 2.1-20, specifically vv.4,5,7)
Messiah was to be born of a virgin (Is. 7.14; Mtt. 1.18-25, Luke 1.26-38, specifically vv.26,27,30,31)
Messiah was to be a prophet like Moses (Deut. 18.15,18,19; John 7.40, Acts 3.20,22)
Messiah was to enter Jerusalem in triumph (Zech. 9.9; Matt. 21.1-9, John 12.12-16)
Messiah was to be tried and condemned (Is. 53.8, Matt. 27.1,2; Luke 2.1-25)
Messiah was to be accused by false witnesses (Ps. 35.11; Mark 14.57,58)
Messiah was to be silent before his accusers (Is. 53.7; Matt. 27.1,2, Luke 2.1-25, Mark 15.4,5)
Messiah was to be struck and spat on by his enemies (Is. 50.6; Matt. 26.67, 27.30, Mark 16.65)
Messiah was to mocked and insulted (Psalm 22.7,8; Matt. 26.67, 27.30, Mark 14.65, Luke 23.35)
Messiah was to die by crucifixion (Ps. 22.14,16,17; Matt. 27.31, Mark 15.20,25)
Messiah was to suffer with criminals (malefactors) and pray for his enemies (Is. 53.12, Ps. 109.4; Matt. 27.38, Mark 15.27,28, Luke 23.32-34)
Messiah was to be given vinegar and gall (Ps. 69.21; Matt. 27.34, John 19.28-30)
Others (soldiers) were to cast lots (gambled) for Messiah's garments (coat) (Ps. 22.17,18; Matt. 27.35,36, John 19.23,24)
Messiah's bones were not to be broken (Ex. 12.46, Ps. 34.20; John 19.31-36, specifically vv.32,33,36)
Messiah was to die as a sacrifice for sin, vicarious sacrifice (Is. 53.5,6,8,10,11,12; John 1.29, 11.49-52, Acts 10.43, 13.38,39, Rom. 5.6,8)
Messiah was to be pierced through his hands and feet (Zech. 12.10; John 20.27)
Messiah was to have his side pierced (Zech. 12.10; John 19.34)
Messiah was to be buried with the rich (Is. 53.9; Matt. 27.57-60)
Messiah was to be raised from the dead (resurrected) (Ps. 16.10, 49.15; Mark 16.6,7, Matt. 28.1-10, Acts 2.22-32)
Messiah is now at God's right hand (Ps. 68.18, 110.1; Mark 16.19, Luke 24.50-51, 1 Cor. 15.4, Eph. 4.8)
Slaughter of the innocents (Jer. 31.15; Matt. 2.16-18)
Flight to Egypt (Hos. 11.1; Matt. 2.14,15)
Messiah was to be preceded by a forerunner (Mal. 3.1; Luke 7.24,27)
Messiah was to be declared the Son of God (Ps. 2.7; Matt. 3.17)
Messiah was to have a Galilean ministry (Is. 9.1,2; Matt. 4.13-16)
Messiah was to heal the brokenhearted (Is. 61.1,2; Luke 4.18,19)
Messiah was to be a priest after the order of Melchizedek (Ps. 110.4; Heb. 5.5,6)
Messiah was to be betrayed by a friend (Ps. 41.9; Luke 22.47)
Messiah was to be sold for thirty pieces of silver (Zech. 11.12; Luke 22.47,48)
Messiah was to be the seed of a woman (Gen. 3.15; Gal. 4.4)
Messiah was to be the seed of Abraham (Gen. 12.3; Matt. 1.1)
Messiah was to be the seed of Isaac (Gen. 17.19; Luke 3.34)
Messiah was to be the seed of Jacob (Num. 24.17; Matt. 1.2)
Messiah was to be from the tribe of Judah (Gen. 49.10; Luke 3.33)
Messiah was to be a heir to the throne of David (Is. 9.7; Luke 1.32,33)
The time for the birth of the Messiah was to be 483 years from the proclamation of the building of the temple (Dan. 9.25; Luke 2.1,2)

 

[Troy]

See Case for the Resurrection Jesus by Gary R. Habermas or The Historical Jesus by Gary. R. Habermas or Ancient Evidence fo the Life of Jesus by Gary. R. Habermas for the 42 sources within the first 150 years of His death citing 129 facts of Jesus' life, teaching, death, deity, and resurrection.

All known data is essentially quoted in these 3 books. He numerates all accounts quoted.

The reason why these eyewitness accounts are so credible is because these same people went to their death as Martyrs for the testimony of seeing Jesus resurrected.

I am not sure about these people you mentioned, but did they say they are God or did they see God walking in Person on Earth, and do they have substantial evidence like the 12 different group eyewitness accounts (multiple attestation) of a resurrection of someone who said He is God, walked the walk and talked the talk? If not, then they don't have the backing for one who can compare to Jesus who said He is God and talked about Hell more than anyone else in the Bible. Only Jesus atoned for sin, and we certainly all were born into sin, needing redemption. Only Jesus fulfilled all those prophecies and miracles with teachings so profound.

You see that in all competiting views is usually just one guy who wrote something just like Mohammed wrote a book in a cave all by himself. But the Bible is written over at least 1500 years and covers the first Adamic man as well around 6000 years ago. It takes into account eternity past to eternity future.

It is signed by the Holy Spirit, sealed and delivered. It is the cheapest book in the world, and covers the globe more than any other book. If God has a redemptive design doesn't such easy access to His Word seem like a reasonable thing?

I never even heard of those names you gave me. Let's get real.

 

[Mr. Hair]

He is the author of most of the 5 books of Moses.

As a matter of fact that's incorrect; Genesis, for example, was almost certainly written in the eighth century BCE by two seperate authors whose works were later almagated into one text. The other 'books of Moses' can be likewise traced back to other such scribes.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_tora1.htm (A rather good overview of what has become known as the 'Documentary Hypothesis')

There is simply no evidence for the existence of a person recognisable as 'Moses' outside of biblical scriptures.

38 Prophecies Fulfilled by Jesus

*coughs*

I do, however, require certain criteria to be met before gauging any particular potenital prophetic utterance:

• Such prophecies must have held a verifiable and independant existence prior to the formation of the Christian canon.
• There must exist detailed and documented knowledge of what such prophercies entailed before they are held to have happened.
• Such prophecies must deal with statistically improbable phenomena. Predicting that the sun will come up on a certain day doesn't count, predicting another will does.
• Lastly, any persons, actions, incidents or occurences that are believed to have validated such abeyant prophecies must have had demonstratable existence from extra-biblical sources.

If you can provide any such instances that comply with these criteria I'd be happy to peruse them at your leisure.

None of those 'prophecies' do so and because of that, as well as the more general caveats I hold against the use of prophecy to buttress doctrine, I cannot accept them as authentic, much less as a valid reason to alter my faith.

You are, as always, welcome to challenge any aspects of my posts, including posts of posts. *smiles*

EDIT* My apologies, I wasn't aware that latter post was directed at me.

The reason why these eyewitness accounts are so credible is because these same people went to their death as Martyrs for the testimony of seeing Jesus resurrected.

Why does that suggest that they are any more credible? All it seems to indicate is that those individuals held strong convictions, it does nothing to either support or deny the convictions themselves; which are, after all, inherently subjective.

do they have substantial evidence like the 12 different group eyewitness accounts (multiple attestation) of a resurrection of someone who said He is God, walked the walk and talked the talk?

That in itself is not evidence, as their accounts are not verifiable.

(By the by, I didn't mention anyone previously, hence part of the reason I wasn't sure if I should respond)

Mohammed wrote a book in a cave all by himself

As a matter of fact, Mohammed was illiterate.

I never even heard of those names you gave me

Lack of awareness of an object's existence does not negate that existence. (If you're referring to my post, the Tao Te Ching and the [FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]Ramayana are, for lack of a better term, holy texts for Taoism and Hinduism respectively)[/FONT]

 

[angellous_evangellous]

See Case for the Resurrection Jesus by Gary R. Habermas or The Historical Jesus by Gary. R. Habermas or Ancient Evidence fo the Life of Jesus by Gary. R. Habermas for the 42 sources within the first 150 years of His death citing 129 facts of Jesus' life, teaching, death, deity, and resurrection.

You should carefully read http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=32527&highlight=%22historical+Jesus%22

 

[MaddLlama]

If your strongest argument is "the people who followed Christ wouldn't have died if it were a lie!", then I'm afraid you have little to go on. There have been plenty of faiths that people were willing to die for. If we follow your reasoning, any faith with martyrs must be the true religion. The argument doesn't work just for Christianity, and it doesn't have a monopoly on martyrdom.
So, why is it proof that you're right, but it doesn't count for all those other religions you think are wrong?

 

[McBell]

NOthing there to respond to. God can't operate unrighteous and against His holiness.

Then your God is not all powerful.
This is something that I have not been able to figure out:

Why is it that it is almost always the ones who claim so adamently that God is all powerful the very first ones to limit God?
​

 

[Troy]

Committing evil is not a sign of being all powerful. That's crazy.

 

[Quoth The Raven]

Committing evil is not a sign of being all powerful. That's crazy.

That's a very cardboard cutout approach to take toward a diety. It always amazes me that the people god made in his own image have so much more depth and dimension than the chappy they were supposedly modeled on.

I never even heard of those names you gave me. Let's get real.

Yes, by all means. *Insert reality here*
That you haven't even heard of any religious text outside the Judaic/Christian tradition doesn't negate the fact that they are as valid as anything you may like to toss in our general direction and proclaim as truth. Perhaps you could go have a good read of someone elses stuff, see how unbelievably common the ressurection myth is, find out how many people of other religions have been martyrs for their faith and then come back to us with an argument that the rest of us can't just change the names in and call it proof positive for our own beliefs.

 

[SoyLeche]

If your strongest argument is "the people who followed Christ wouldn't have died if it were a lie!", then I'm afraid you have little to go on. There have been plenty of faiths that people were willing to die for. If we follow your reasoning, any faith with martyrs must be the true religion. The argument doesn't work just for Christianity, and it doesn't have a monopoly on martyrdom.
So, why is it proof that you're right, but it doesn't count for all those other religions you think are wrong?

Hey, but that's my favorite argument that Christians make - cuz then I can point out that Joseph Smith died for claiming to talk to God, and they have to accept that he was a real prophet then, right?

BTW - do you like my new smilie (to the right of the arrow) --->

It's an Invisible Pink Unicorn

 

[SoyLeche]

God can't operate unrighteous and against His holiness and remain God

I fixed your post

 

[Troy]

Since God is holy and righteous, He can't be unholy and unrighteous. It is against His nature.