Into Thy Hands...

Jesus' last words reflect the fact that the Father had withdrawn His Spirit from Christ whilst he was upon the cross; and that this continued through to His very last breath. The sets "u" and "v" became effectively "empty"; and Christ crucified, unable to minister and facing only His death faced a different disjunction (one freely decidable) only between Ω v e. It could be stated there is nothing positive in Christ continuing crucified; only in freely re-arranging to <e> v ∅ and "giving up the ghost": exemplifying ∅ and therefore the logically necessary complement instead.

Christ then, exemplified everything positive, but that same state also equal to the impossible excluded middle - (quite the gamble for satan to murder God) and could not through any act of liberty do anything more than exemplify "e" (or rather, exemplify less) unless that He WERE crucified (killed) and had died. Out of a complete lack of freedom and facing His certain death; that He was totally unable to minister in that state and that His life were taken, necessarily through some other agency, decided the disjunction Ω v e for Him and the result of ∅ followed.

That is; He freely gave up His life to take it up again: but had "passed through the veil" of that impossible excluded middle and could only have performed the necessary complement. He was certain to be raised as He assures us we all indeed are. Having faith upon Christ for the resurrection is not "vain", it truly permits us to perfect a smaller subset of some Ω0 (to likewise perfect that with which we are blessed in Christ) under the covering of His righteousness to attain our own small necessity, as "one in Him as He is one with the Father" so that when we are finally delivered and Death "defeated" - that we find "death will be swallowed up in victory", for the "last enemy to defeat is death."

Likewise, with Christ truly dead (and absent) for three days then raised, There is then adequate proof that the Father existed to raise Him, and the sets of the octal are certainly not empty; but that Christ Himself is then raised after - show He is not just blameless before God in all things pertaining to the law, but has come "from His Father".

That those "three days" of u, v, and u&v in the octal with (r&s)-1 are effectively empty but for "e", show us something. (Whether or not it is possible to construct u and v over the K4 group in {p, r, s} if (r&s)-1 = e.)

What is e-1? Rather we have to show that (u&v) v p&(u&v)-1 => (r&s)-1 => e makes sense.

But with r&s = <e> as with the disjunction in r maximised to Ω, (r&s)-1 becomes cessation of everything positive. There was "darkness over the land" with Christ dead.

So, as everything positive in r&s ceased, if it is necessary that p&(u&v)-1 => (r&s)-1 => e and (r&s)-1 = e, I have a quandary: for u&v is possibly Ω once more. (The Father is not "empty". Neither are we sure that <e> is the whole Father!)

If u&v were truly empty also, I would have of liberty selected merely "e" from (u&v)-1 which would (at least) be all <e>. Liberty would then "rest" on everything.

Then what becomes necessary is not the rest and limitation to "e". Rather, that u&v is possibly empty in the Father (the octal) or otherwise r&s=(u&v)-1 is become as all <e>=Ω (yet only in the local closure).

Yet u&v may contain any positive property and the result that (r&s)-1 = e simply means that God "rests" on whatever content u&v has over the local closure of {p, r, s}.

Now, p&r&s => u&v may also be "empty", but if r&s = <e> and u&v = e, the only virtue in action must be liberty, and so r v p&r-1 => s must result in "e" on the rhs only, (by necessity). Then as this presence of "e" alone and liberty alone is axiomatic, it is wise to state that if r splits into r&u-1, then not only is the set of u empty, but this of necessity implies r is maximised to all Ω. By symmetry v is also trivially empty.

Then, the local closure of r&s is <e> and u&v empty. Yet, <e> is restricted to the set {p, r, s} and this from before is closed in the octal.

Now, if the disjunction results in p&r&s => u&v then u&v may be equal to r&s. By axiom of virtue r&s is not positively exemplified, so if there exists a positive property in u or v, then there is a virtue in p that will entail that u or v from r&s. Given that r&s or <e> is by construction the "local closure" only, it is not impossible that there also exists such u and v.

So, the closest one may come to finding modal collapse is when {p, r, s} is found closed and r maximised to all <e>.

In every other case when u, v are sets "rested upon" and are non-empty we have an octal. We also have the Holy Spirit which maps the local closure through the octal and if we truly have such a comforter, we are happy indeed in that we dwell with a trinity and not a mono-theistic God crucified, not raised.

So if and when the sets u, v are not empty, the bible states of our God: "My strength is made perfect in weakness". Rearranging the disjunction gives (r&s)-1 v p&r&s=> u&v. With (r&s)-1 then empty; u&v = Ω \ <e> at most from liberty and God (The Father) is also "made perfect" in closure above that of the set <e>.

I.e. (<e>)-1 v (p&<e> => Ω) and Ω properly contains elements not in <e>. (Then under the seven cycle of the Holy Spirit, There is an octal to regenerate every local closure under that cycle. If the Father appears not present or is "inactive", "resting" for three days u-1, v-1, (r&s)-1, then there is at least some content to be found in u&v.)

There is only a difference found in the closure of the indexing set. Here, <e> is closed to {p, r, s} whilst Ω is properly the closure of the octal complete. We either accept the resurrection and that Christ had spoken truth of His Father or we are not Christians.

Return To Section Start

Return To Previous Page