None:
Polyps:
Strongs:

The Limit Of Contradiction

The fourth state of the dialectic that contradicts the previous three requires that it become the first balance in a new series of three. Whether this is done by exporting the process to a new setting or by virtue of mental somersaults is besides the point: The one doing the exporting or gymnastics must be in full knowledge of this.

Such an individual is a liar, patterned after the lies of satan and is described in scripture well.

-- Click To Expand/Collapse Bible Verses -- 2Th ch2:v2-4
2Th 2:2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.
2Th 2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
2Th 2:4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshiped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.

With regard to the temptation of Christ, that satan assumes that Jesus would consider whether He was the Christ or not, Jesus immediately responded with the fact that if a man is hungry then that hunger has no relationship to being the Son of God or no. Jesus was here to fulfill the law as any other man should. Likewise if a man can not live by God's word then he must live on bread alone.

Being God did not permit Jesus in His ministry to live as a God, rather for God to live as a man. Jesus lived by God's word regardless of being hungry or not: In fact He and all men should live by God's word - and hunger for bread does not change the fact that obeying the word of God is a universal requirement. (Indeed hunger is universal) Hunger then does not imply to men that they could be "as gods".

Satan attempted to move logic from something clearly not implied, (divinity from hunger) to move Jesus into showing Himself God. Satan was attempting to manipulate Jesus, whom stood fast on scripture.

If we equate

You are the son of God with d = {e,f,g}
You are not the Son of God with e = {d,f,g}

What is the fact satan attempts to tempt Jesus to fail on? Clearly Jesus was hungry as any other man would be. In order to prevent substitution (as say, from 'd' into 'e'={d,f,g}) The synthesis would be the result that Jesus would make bread from stones; or we could consider that if common hunger is 'f' then the result is {d,e,g} = 'f', and the synthesis has dropped out the hunger as common to all as an irrelevance. What remains is 'g' in the synthesis and we have the outcome that satan, or 'g' has now moved into the role of facilitator, and attempts to gain a position as the judge of Jesus' own divinity.

Likewise the obvious logical answer from Jesus that being hungry does not make someone the Son of God (or not), immediately points out the logical error - as well as the fixed paradigm of "My Father says..."

Satan shifts the identity then to weigh the opposite set of the initial thesis and antithesis. This time he attempts to form a synthesis with 'g' dropped out and 'f' reintroduced, as if the hunger, or rather that Jesus was as good an example of man as could be found, is itself now relevant; yet the fact in dispute is satans attempt to force Jesus to acknowledge his position.

-- Click To Expand/Collapse Bible Verses -- Mat ch4:v1-11
Mat 4:1 Then was Jesus led up of the spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil.
Mat 4:2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward hungry.
Mat 4:3 And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread.
Mat 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
Mat 4:5 Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple,
Mat 4:6 And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.
Mat 4:7 Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.
Mat 4:8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and showeth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;
Mat 4:9 And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.
Mat 4:10 Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.
Mat 4:11 Then the devil leaveth him, and, behold, angels came and ministered unto him.

Satan attempts to state to Christ that if Jesus is indeed as common as any man (rather than purely when it comes to bread and His hunger) then were Jesus to live by God's words (as any man could), Jesus would need to be "outed" as the Son of God - Satan puts to Jesus that any man could be Christ if Jesus would not show it openly, requiring His Father to intervene.

Now satan has taken himself as tempter off the table, and attempted to get Jesus to demonstrate His divinity to show that the scripture indeed indicated He is Christ. Satan has constructed an example of cross substitution - Whereas Jesus pointed out that being a good example of a (hungry) man does not make someone the Son of God or not, satan uses the same case in point, where the scripture quoted is fulfilled by the Son of God, and the "quote" takes the place of "bread" that Jesus would supposedly live on or by. If the same logical method Jesus had put forth in rejecting His first temptation is twisted by satan in the second, satan attempts to manipulate Jesus into a relationship: That Jesus' divinity could be back on the table and agreed upon if the meeting could be "scheduled later".

In fact, these two opposites give birth to a "chicken and the egg" system, 'g' or satan has now dropped out - satan has clearly made the case that else 'f' any man (commonly) could be Christ unless Jesus outs Himself. 'f' is in view as "wine" here. 'g' or satan has dropped out of the balance in the form of the statement that 'g' (oil) is agreed upon - that satan is a tempter: satan has moved that off the table and attempted to set up the "red horse" of cross substitution, the chicken and the egg.

If satan again synthesizes d = {e,f,g} and e = {d,f,g} in cross substitution, considering the two sets of balances together, 'g' drops out and we are left with 'g'={d,e,f}, and 'f' is now the common assumption that Jesus is just a man and not God; unless of course if Jesus shows Himself to be the Christ. In order for the cross substitution to hold, {f,g} must be taken out of the equation synthesizing 'd' and 'e'.

The substitution takes the following form: If Christ is just as common as everyone else then any man could be Christ, i.e. if any man could live by the word of God. Likewise, If Jesus could not show He would live solely by prophesies made of Christ, then they could apply to any man.

{f,g} as the principles that Jesus is as a common man, and that satan is the enemy are taken completely out of the equation, and satan is putting Jesus to the test as much as the word of God as to whether Jesus is the Christ or not. (our 'd' vs. 'e').

Jesus flatly replies that satan not tempt the Lord God. (He will not have His own words twisted against Him.) Jesus answers satan that God (He Himself included) is not to be tempted to employ the dialectic process as in the role of the facilitator (taking the place of 'f' as wine) in order to show His divinity - He will not be at the meeting, and does not schedule one.


The third temptation once more puts to Christ the possibility that was present in the second temptation: that of Jesus being as a common man, and able to show Himself Christ, but with satan now in the role of facilitator. Instead of cross substituting 'd' and 'e' into each other, satan places the synthesis of his theoretical future role in the centre.

We now place this third dialectic balance, once more on the basis of "you are the Son of God" vs. "you are not the Son of God", but with the previous two answers now facilitated by a new middle position, if Jesus would permit satan to take control.

Satan attempts to synthesize the outcome that satan can choose a "christ" from amongst all men, and Jesus could be this man, as long as satan can continue on in his role as the facilitator.

The second balance was formed by switching from the synthesis of d and e with 'g' as wine to its dialectic opposite of 'f' as wine. So the synthesis (in its third stage) altered in its fourth parts from g = {d,e,f} to f = {d,e,g}.

The third temptation, based on the contradiction of these two triples is satan's last effort: He attempts to form d = {e,f,g} as a fourth of a third set of balances, formed by {d,e,g} => {d,f,g} <= {d,e,f} (i.e. the statement that Jesus is not the Christ may be taken off the table if the result is the acceptance of satan as "god of this world" (as on the left) and Jesus' human nature is elevated by satan's approval to the status of an approved "christ". (on the right) would make satan's choice the Christ (the synthesis in the centre).)

In attempting to get Jesus to contradict the fourth part of d = {e,f,g} using this balance (making the statement 'e' the correct case) The balances applied in the third temptation clearly contradict the fact that Jesus is 'oil' in the sense that 'd' is the true case and not 'e'}. And 'd' is not the wine that facilitates the continuance of satans kingdom, if there indeed be one.

Clearly the dialectic opposite (with the same thesis-antithesis) of {e,f,g} would to place at the table the wine of 'Jesus is not the Son of God' and keep 'd' as off the table: Jesus would not be so easy to deceive, but were Jesus stuck in the dialectic paradigm, contradicting this latter triple in its synthesis would find its dialectic opposite in the worship of satan to be an approved "christ" as above.

Likewise the possibilities for synthesis that result in 'd' as wine at the table are

{d,e,g} => {d,f,g} <= {d,e,f} (e is oil) (third temptation)
{d,f,g} => {d,e,f} <= {d,e,g} (g is oil) (second temptation)
{d,e,f} => {d,e,g} <= {d,f,g} (f is oil) (first temptation)

The fourth balance of 'd' as oil with d = {e,f,g} is incompatible. (e,f,g can not simultaneously be 'oil')

Were Jesus to be tempted with a fourth balance, He would simply state "The Lord rebuke you satan". The taking of 'd' off the table would be the statement that there is no Christ at all, and the only result is {e,f,g} - the synthesis of {d,e,f} and {d,e,g} - that satan asserts the agreement that there is no Christ in Jesus, all agree He is not the Son of God, and all men are compatible with satan as "god of this world".

The temptation of Christ was to also tempt Him to take part in the process: (Jesus stuck to the didactic use of scripture) If Jesus had taken part, He would have denied Himself with the same method that results in the assertion that He is not the Christ. Jesus was not brought off from the absolute, and in three stages was tempted to the very limit of satan's ability.


Continue To Next Page

Return To Section Start

Return To Previous Page