Theological argument analyzer for social media threads

@ZyghostByChance @X_Arc_ra_x @farmingandJesus • “Yes, God is powerful enough to change the rules for Jesus. However, that would instantly be problematic.” This introduces “rules” that God “changes,” then treats rule-changes as intrinsically theologically suspect. Scripture does not present the incarnation as God anxiously preserving a “rule symmetry.” It presents it as divine freedom: God acts in history to save, and Christ remains sinless without any hint that this violates fairness. • “If you change the rules only for Jesus, then Jesus is not playing by the same rules we are.” This imports a fairness-as-identical-rulebook model. But Christianity already confesses asymmetry: virgin conception, incarnation, sinless obedience, atoning death, resurrection. Christ does not “play by the same rules” in that sense. Scripture’s relevant category is representative obedience (second Adam), not “identical rule constraints at every layer of metaphysics.” These rules you mention are pure fantasy. • “If you change the rules for everybody, then nobody is playing by a rule where salvation from Jesus is even needed.” This assumes the only way God could preserve Jesus from sin would be to preserve everyone from sin. That does not follow biblically or logically. God can sanctify, regenerate, and preserve believers without erasing the need for atonement; Scripture teaches exactly that. • “It was necessary that there be a single set of rules that exactly equally apply to both us and Jesus, yet despite that, Jesus was still preserved from sin.” This claims a necessity the Bible never states: “single set of rules exactly equally apply.” The NT’s insistence is “truly human” and “without sin,” not “metaphysically identical constraints.” The sentence also quietly treats “preserved from sin” as an engineered exemption within a rule system—again an unbiblical framing. • “Shifting that special exception by one step, is the only way to achieve this.” Same “chain” metaphysic. This is basically: inheritance pipeline + exception placement optimization. Scripture does not teach that. • “Not because God is limited in what he can achieve, but because he is working to achieve something in a set of limited constraints. The constraints are limited, not God.” This tries to dodge the implication of constraint-on-God by relocating the constraint into a quasi-platonic system God must respect (“a set of limited constraints”). That is still a constraint story; it just renames it. If those “constraints” come from Catholic dogma (Immaculate Conception mechanics, nature-chain logic, exception shifting), then the argument amounts to: God must respect the metaphysical machinery the system posits. Scripture never says God faced that kind of constraint. You’ve basically said that God could do anything and isn’t constrained, He just has to respect constraints. Um? • “This is not an elevation of Mary. This is a necessary step…” Whether you intend elevation does not matter; the structure does elevate Mary by making her metaphysically exceptional as an input requirement for Christ’s sinlessness. Scripture presents Mary as blessed/favored/obedient. It does not present Mary as a metaphysical precondition that makes the incarnation safe. • “Not a single one of your attacks so far…” Rhetorical posture, not argument. It tries to win by scolding rather than proving the biblical premises. • “And yes, Jesus in his human form absolutely was ‘...less capable and more fragile...’.” Scripture supports real human limitations (hunger, fatigue, suffering, mortality). But the response equivocates: it pretends “less capable than divine mode” (orthodox) hides the problematic “less capable than Mary herself” (absurd). Your argument never justifies ranking Mary as “unconstrained” while Christ’s humanity must stay “constrained.” That ranking comes from your corrupt non-biblical constraint metaphysic.