None:
Polyps:
Strongs:

All Judgment Given To Christ

Carrying over some content from the Revelation areas "The Angel's mechanism of salvation" pages, we noted how the sovereignty of God could be under question and challenged by "the god of this world" or "satan" as Jesus Christ Himself called Him. Essentially we had a symmetrical argument in a disjunction

N(l belongs to God) & D(l) v N(l belongs to satan) & E(l)

Where D(l) is an unforgivable sin, such as the "mark of the beast" or "selling ones soul" and E(l) is equivalent to the hatred of all evil in the eyes of God by l. Here as elsewhere, "l" represents the least in the kingdom of heaven, the right hand of Jesus Christ, the right hand of God.

The above statement reduces to "Curse God (to begin) and Die" v "Curse satan (evil) and Die" for the individual "l". Unless of course, "l" is chosen under Gods liberty to choose His saved (exercising L(G))

It was assumed by symmetry that this argument requires some separation: if l is truly the Lord's right hand then it has effectively caused Christ to sin and must be cut off. That said, if the fault D(l) is redeemable then all such men who have made unforgivable sins such as the mark of the beast and blood oaths to lucifer are likewise loosed if l is or may be saved.

That said, it remains that without the kingdom of God, E(l) is equivalent to the statement that L(G) is held true by redeemed l, although E(l) is coincident with sin and the law of God foremost, and L(G) is not a given proof to choose such an "angel of the church" as saved, unless such an angel were to repent despite the ownership of satan, finally overcoming and proving the Devil's claim blasphemous and false.


So, in comparison we have the content of the red granite obelisk and the second missing obelisk that is represented by the initiate of the mystery schools. Likewise, we have in this argument, not at the end of the bible but in the beginning of Egypt a record of the same argument yet in a "synagogue of satan".

We effectively have:

N(x belongs to G) & D(x) v N(x belongs to satan) & E(G)

Now, x here may be the fulfillment of the covenant of the serpent (satan or lucifer) with Eve, that man would "become as Gods". Now we may place "x" as a "god of this world" - a class that includes satan himself.

Thus if satan belongs to God as well as all x, then they are damned by their allegiances, or otherwise the sovereignty of God to save is challenged by the hatred of God by satan and as under oath by all "x".

In effect the tables have been turned and now L(G) is unobtainable over those that are captive to satan, (as also l is; as the angel of the church) and God is unable to redeem any "x" inclusive of l, and thus God's sovereignty is threatened, being unable to save the least in His kingdom.

Now, either you are starting to salivate or you, like myself have a mint in your mouth to eradicate the foul humour of this dichotomy. For now we have reached an impasse, where both sides of an argument are such as to draw a line in the sand, with a little strength of the other restraining the judgement of Christ.

We have a thesis and antithesis, and we have to identify our oil and wine. The fixed truth is that "l" is chosen and saved, as mightily or as logically as any other. The wine, the argument that holds for all at the table is this structure of the statement in necessity, our disjunction itself.

Then we have to alleviate both sides of our balance of unity and simply unite in synthesis in Christ, to see what the argument of satan therefore is; for we know the conditions of Christ openly from the Revelation text.

Simply put, regardless of the salvation of l by faith on L(G), (for there is no other such kingdom, so we simply reduced to the impasse...)

N(l belongs to God) v N(l belongs to satan).

Then, as l is Christ's right hand and the least in the kingdom, given all men are equal in Christ, then l is the least for all such "x" as well. "l", and you had better believe it, is completely and totally disposable as the greatest lower bound of divine election, whether defining an open or closed set at the lowest bound. (ouch!)

So, the impasse is equivalent to N(l belongs to God) v N(x belongs to satan)

Now, may "l" ever defeat satan? If such a statement is left to an impartial judge then it is given to Christ, whom may save His own with absolute impunity. The least l is either included or not: and Christ it would seem is happy to accept one whom may resist the wiles of satan, through enmity with satan - as much as l" also has charity for all such similar "x", as any saved x formerly of satan are likewise saved if and only if l is saved also.

So, If "l" is not saved neither are any such x. Therefore God is unable to save those whom hate evil as well as a subset of those that have the axiom L(G) of the kingdom of God accurately in their faith. Christ placed no other conditions on grace except for repentance and the correct gospel, thus if "l" may repent and show the evidence of predestination under the Holy Spirit, then l and all repentant x are saved by repentance. Finally, all such saved are predestined and are well known by Christ and are judged as saved.

However, lucifer (satan) has a counter-argument that the liberty to choose L(G) justifies D(l) and therefore D(x) holds for every x chosen by God since l Himself, is irredeemable. Thus the excluded middle of God's argument is then transformed to the excluded middle of satans. (The "oil") Thus these two thesis/antithesis must have some "oil" in common - else the argument is purely a logical disjunction with no excluded middle and God wins; we are done..

We must find a statement that keeps the disjunction N(l belongs to God) v N(x belongs to satan) open without collapse (which is as above implied by L(G)).

Now, we examine "scratch". For we need an excluded middle to imply the equal likelihood of the disjunction. (It need not be the empty set since we are using a dialectical thesis.)

The enmity of E(l) against sin and evil and the enforced E(G) of hatred of God by every x are under scrutiny. The enmity of all x against God is forced as far as the enmity of all evil is, by such an angel l, right to the maximal condition of all the excluded principles of the law (virtue) in L(G) which are found in Jesus Christ. Thus the opening statement by satan would be that E(G) commences with the breaking of the law, and the sustained breaking of the whole of the law. (Yet this is merely sin as testified by Paul) and this is actually without loss of effect, totally redeemable in its entirety. In other words, satan must convince all x that they should "love sin", rather than "hate evil". Yet this is the work of all in the world that are sinners and antichrist. The NT states all sin under the law is forgivable, and grace can make a man perfect unlike the law.

So, to any degree of magnitude, all E(G) is forgivable to those that simply repent. Any punishment by satan is broken with the first to repent, and likewise all are called to repent, this being the acceptable day of salvation. The statement that holds open the disjunction is contradictory, as a statement that the law broken is unforgivable, and E(G) and D(l) are as bad as each other, and in fact only as bad as the sin of Eve eating the fruit, then beguiled by the serpent.

Thus E(G) as supposedly "in satans favour" is unsustainable in that the repentance of one such l or any x is surely given the axiom L(G). If L(G) is excluded, then so is all definition of D(l) and E(G) etc. (No sin remains) Without any law then, the result is far from "do as thou wilt", which is a deception: and it is not the case for any chosen "l"; as was Abraham - who did good works under the Holy Spirit.

Gen 17:1 And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect.

Yet scratch has had the first and female worshiper of "lucifer", (the giver of the enterprise to attain eternal life through his agent "satan" the serpent) removed from posterity (namely Eve) - as this fundamentally gives the whole game away. Without equivocation, the male obelisk is not lost: but by its omission has presence in ritual only: as threat of murder and only valid if one believes in an omnipotent God that saves - clearly no threat if lucifer is the supreme being! (Which he isn't.) To put it bluntly, lucifer is satan. Lucifer is merely an invention of satan to pose a more ultimate justice in which God may be placed in an imaginary dock under power of an imaginary bailiff, to answer for crimes not his own. (See the section "infinte descent" in this "creationism" area of the site.)

The verdict? One asks, "Whose ways are then equal, and whose ways are transient lies?" Show us this enemy, that we might pray for him! There is no compunction to follow any oath made with one who breaks his oath: The giver of eternal life would not break the record that it was given in good faith, would he? Is a woman really so unworthy for her worship? I say rather, God bless the angel of the "church" and all whom follow or go before him - God bless him and all them and magnify Himself over satan in every man's court - in their faith.

Now, know this; that Eve as of the beginning with God had eternal life already; For of a truth; it is true that the promise of that good gift takes God somewhat longer to affirm in scripture than satan took when defacing scratch to hide his lie that "Ye shall not surely die". Eve was beguiled into believing that the serpent could give eternal life also. Yet from God, eternal life is a justified gift with the resurrection of Jesus Christ. There is no ommision from the covenant of God as in or from the beginning; Eve already having eternal life until her husband's disobedience brought the curse of God.

Thus, all such x are judged upon the dialectic: and the angel of the church is judged according to reward as the zero element of the octal. He is "at rest enthroned", and His election ensures the solidity of salvation for all. He will need go no more out - this is a final work. Everyone saved is become as if clothed with Christ's righteousness. Thus by Christ, only the K4 ultrafilter applies at judgement, and the elect, no matter where from are justified by their election in Christ. (as if unity) which is the reward of predestination. The zero element is fixed and will never leave Christ as if it were fleeing away - as does "heaven and earth" in the revelation text. Salvation, is rock beneath one's own soul. Man, (and all) as fearfully and wonderfully made by their creator - (if they be still upright and breathing), have never lost their souls for any reasons.

Addendum
One similar argument remains where we replace G and satan by "t" for "the God of this world". Then both sides evaluate to the same.

Thus N(x belongs to t) & L(t) if the impasse continues. (Since E(l) entails L(G) and is coincident with all virtue in Christ.) And D(l) is "Do as thou wilt shall be the whole of the law" or simply L(t) => L(x), as man "rots" without God for eternity, never attaining eternal life by science. Point made, the serpent lied, he still lies, he intends to lie forever. There is no gift of eternal life coming from satan. (This is why scratch had "Eve's" name removed - to obscure the lie of the serpent - the promise that satan had the ability to gift eternal life.) Satan scratched first and he did so to cover his obvious lie that this was a covenant of eternal life firstly, not the captivity of the soul it is today.

Who or what is "t"? simply satan - for lucifer is an invention, a daydream of the dragon. If you have met lucifer, be aware that satan is transformed into and masquerades as an angel of light. He has no glory as of the Father of Jesus Christ, whose glory he once bore as a cherubim.

Now, given the argument that the following holds:

N(l belongs to G) & D(l),

given E(l) affirms only L(G) as good and permanent and as the opposite of "evil" and D(l) is a consequence of L(G), the axiom which is also entailed from the predicate that "x is an l" , i.e. that "l is saved" implies L(G).

Then it becomes simply a matter of analysis to show that if "l" (the angel of the church) is created lower than all man, and is the least in the kingdom by intent from the beginning and hence less than satan in the eyes of God, then the following statement holds:

N(x belongs to G) & D(x), for all x

...since satan necessarily belongs to God and all are convicted by "l" as God's creations, and all man (any x) and the earth therefore belong to the Most High God also.

Then the result is that; (l is lower than dirt.)

Rev 11:15 And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign forever and ever.

Thus we may assume from now on, that satan as an "x" has D(x) with L(G) intact and in his face. If the angel of the church is the least or the "lowest" being in the creation of God, then satan is defined as the most wretched creation made manifest by God in this world. For, satan can in no way then make a "wretch" of "l" for being the least - since satan must be "over the least" in the kingdom of heaven (at least by contract, i.e. he is wretched by the argument that defeats him.)

If satan is then wretched "under the angel" already then by the argument he must argue himself out as the "least" to escape, as opposed to the most wretched, but not so before God as from the beginning. (The angel is also a wretch, but the "most wretched" identifies satan.) If the angel is identified as the most wretched (and least) instead, then satan has no option, since satan can in no way affirm himself as lesser and break contract and is thus convicted as the angel remains the least,. We posit then that the angel is less of a wretch, being justified in Christ. (satan can wring his hands in prayer for all time on this one). So, satan can not but identify himself as the most wretched. Contradiction is obtained on the wretchedness of satan assuming he has no option - he must out-wretch all. (Since he can not be the least.)

So, satan has no option and is always damned and never saved, and the least in the kingdom (l) was not so much selling his own soul, but Jesus certainly sold Him for the good of the captives that are in the same boat. (For we can imagine him writing Jesus' name on the contract, but by selling satan the least in His kingdom to get him back from such a wretched state with everything as interest is surely very righteous!)

Irony then exists in that the least may be thought of as spiritually convicted for selling his own soul, and signing Jesus' own name instead - (being the right hand himself) but as the angel is the right hand it is a trustworthy fact that Jesus can cut off His hand and put it back on at will. The hand may have once signed "Jehoshua" in gold ink - but the understanding was Christ's, and the virtue and charity was His. If satan scratches this contract - he knows he is a loser.

Present us this contract with Jesus' very own name on, and we will argue against it!, If it can not be produced, then satan has no argument. The Father, (Yahweh) is thus God of this world, and it is here for the satisfaction of Christ Jesus. Amen.

If the contract is unscratched, then the argument to free all captives is solid for all. If the contract is scratched then satan certainly has not changed any of the facts, but has then deceived those in the know to the end that these facts are not now set in stone as they are. As a liar, satan is merely facing the wrath of God butt naked. It will arrive regardless.

Either way, if the least signed as himself he is free, and if Jesus signed there is no sin in it for virtues sake. Let us hear of Christ's sin and blasphemy, for He has none!


Continue To Next Page

Return To Section Start

Return To Previous Page