None:
Polyps:
Strongs:

Who Owns What?

Verses on the new name of God are few and far between, unless they are hidden everywhere! For instance:

1Co 15:27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith, all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.
1Co 15:28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all. (KJV)

Now, if this is, as commonly thought, a reference to the Father putting all things under the feet of Christ: that would not make everything "all in all" unless The Father did do just that with His own right hand, the least in the kingdom. In that fashion, all in Christ are made heirs with Him, by Christ being subject to the least who has overcome in the place of God, God's new name written on Him in His circuit.

Then, once Christ is subject to the will of His Father, and to His right hand (whose crown is the "marriage of the lamb" - "a crown of life") every God-like set containing the least in the kingdom in both the old and new names are become subject to this work of the least, as being the vessel of the Father, and that His Christ, is to be subject to the working of that one crown, the union of the kingdom of God, that of old and new (saints and angels for instance) and this is made certain for all time.

Then at this "manifestation of the Sons of God", all in the old creation is moved through the agency of the least into the possession of Christ in the new, and every God-like set (with the least) in the new name is subject to Christ's judgement, and to inherit their eternal rewards.

Then the scripture would appear to indicate that the least in the whole creation (as it were) is actually in God's own eyes, the owner of that whole creation which Christ is certain to inherit, and that His least, as His angel is the sole minister to God in this regard. (For the least is put to the test, and not God who is ever shown at rest in a minimal fashion: albeit closures are still found broken!)

So, how can this be shown?

God's sovereignty is under question in the sense that He apparently cannot forgive those that blaspheme the Holy Spirit deliberately and are found subject to a "second death" or an invention of Satan, exclusion from the first resurrection, an impossibility under grace that requires further justified forgiveness from an act of charity of the least.

Then the difference is made up from justifying that grace, rather than inventing more grace upon another gospel.

God, justifies that grace by sending the least in the kingdom, a-priori victorious as a vessel from the new creation: the only vessel not God which is principal and necessarily in both the new and old creations.

Then, God simply has to choose any candidate from the old creation to then freely save, and His free choice (sovereignty) is justified over all. (There is no proof other than those that are also chosen are as the least, present in the new creation and therefore in the join of both old and new.)

Then being so chosen makes you always forgivable, as long as the condition holds that the least is principal in the new and therefore the old as well.

So, given that the least has the new name of God written upon him and him alone, who owns the difference?

By the circuit of the least, no positive property excludes the election of the least, as the least is principal. I.e. N¬(x=>¬l) for all Pos(x).

Also, if nothing positive excludes the election of the least, the least is found principal. (For these proofs, see the book).

Note also, that in modal collapse the octal entails all Ω from the set of virtue, and once the circuit is complete and the least is already proven principal, only creation remains as a candidate for virtue in a filter: then it is certainly true that any positive reason in creation for excluding the sovereignty of God over the least is entailed from the least as virtue in creation, rather than in the name(s) of God.

So, effectively, ¬l v (l => Ω) and I will use this as a small lemma.

If we assume Pos(x) in creation, where x => ¬l, that Satan claims a positive property (authority) in creation to exclude the least from the Kingdom of God, then I immediately find l v (x&l-1 => ex) or, rearranging, ¬gx v (x&gx => Ω)

But the circuit of the least proves that l => ¬x is a virtue, and l is an essence and is also as such in creation. Therefore, ¬x is found a positive property in Ω and I may state ¬l v (l => Ω&¬x) in creation with the small lemma.

Yet properly, l&ex <=> gx so as ex is principal in the old creation I find upon breaking all seven closures in ∧gx that l is also proven principal in the old name now become as the new, therefore l v (x&l-1 => ex => l) or indeed ¬l v (x&l => Ω).

Yet then this is true for l only in creation itself, for all l => Pos(¬x) that exclude that complete sovereignty of God (those "x" to which l has become identified in charity) are, since Pos(x) => ¬l in each l v (x&l-1 => ex), are found contrary to the principal element in the kingdom of God. The only set remaining for such a Pos(x) is of creation, all other closures broken.

Then the little lemma holds and ¬l v (l => Ω&¬x) in creation.

Yet by the miraculous "small" strength of the least I find again that of that charity, l => (c=>¬x). Then, ¬x becomes the "name" of the least as if it were also equal to some gx, that extra authority outside the gx found in l is ¬x (found only in the new creation). The "least" may easily "rest" on ¬x, he shall "go no more out", having obtained forgiveness for His own.

Equivalently, the "least" l is also the axiom of God's sovereignty (Pos(¬x)). There are no exclusions, there are none found within the old or the new creation not under God's sovereignty. (Christ, could not forgive such blasphemy in Pos(x) Himself, this of necessity requires the ministry of the least in the kingdom, for justifying a new name a closure above that justified already.)

Now, it remains that l is not God himself, and must have sovereignty over himself as a creation (albeit a necessary one). Then Christ must also accept that sovereignty because the charity shown was not of God, it is of the least instead. The smallest God-like set would then be of the least l himself alone, and Christ must recognise that same sovereignty as also equal to His Fathers own (it is principal). Christ will not attain His own new name in full until the least is accepted as capable of works greater than that of His own, as of the charity of the Father, being His right hand. That right hand (also Christ's own) is in the new name, superior to the old name, so that by Christ it may be made subject to the new name's sovereignty now found superior in the least in the kingdom.

Then Christ, by bringing the old name under the authority of the least attains His new name with the least as equal to the Father. All is then all in all.

Then for a moment, the least truly owns everything in creation (as does the Father) and inherits all with all others in Christ.

I.e. the least already has sovereignty over more than does Christ, being an heir elect already to the old name with all others in Christ, and is now found as having more also in the (his) new name l <=> ¬x as new on top of the old, he then owns more than Christ whilst that sovereignty is yet to be recognised.


Continue To Next Page

Return To Section Start

Return To Previous Page


'