Give Us Today Our Daily Bread

Jesus referred to Himself as the "bread of heaven". Whilst we pray that the Lord sustain us - we note that those that have dedicated their lives to ministry rely purely on God and the goodwill of others for their sustenance, those whom do not buy or sell doctrine but as freely receiving, freely give. Yet Jesus is spiritual bread and the seven cycle of the GF(8) field is analogous to a "week". In every day of that week there are 24 arrangements of the same octal group, so that there are 8 possible multiplications that each have three automorphisms.

Our daily bread in Jesus is then for ourselves to be comforted with the knowledge we are sealed in Christ, and that as one part of 144, we may sit in heavenly places as the 24 elders do before the throne of God.

Jesus also spoke to His followers "You must eat my flesh and drink my blood." There is then the statement that those that would follow Christ from then onwards would be expected to sustain their ministry on nothing but the words of Christ and His sacrifice on the cross. To be a Christian would mean that being a disciple would require more than simply following the saviour about - it would require that there would be no alternative except such disciples should be able to sustain the ministry Christ would leave behind Him, with nothing but the gospel and the death and resurrection of Christ to preach.

Our daily bread then is more than simply sustenance, it also encompasses the comfort of the Holy Ghost; that the Spirit ministers grace to us continually so that we may increase (in virtue) as well as knowledge of the truth. We have a perspective as Jesus was humbled to have, and a subset of His virtue - to be continually ministered to by the Spirit is then to accumulate virtue on the correctness of L(G). Because L(G) is maximally generative as the only correct essence of faith, as Christ's perfection in virtue is maximal and unchanging, there is a simple argument that transformation amongst the 144+24 states of unity in GF(8) is increasing in virtue: And this was shown in the "ultraproduct" pages in the metaphysics section.

Then our daily bread is more generally taken that the Father ministers not just fleshly sustenance but also virtue as well as our continuing lives in Christ. If the simple axiom L(G) eventually entails that the truth of life in Christ is freedom - not just the freedom of God but the very last virtue to be added upon all human virtue - our own freedom itself! Freedom from condemnation of the law and the freedom to choose between alternatives that may both be positive, Then the "truth" L(G) implies without any condemnation of the law freedom to live guiltless.

We may transform the rotations of a 3D coordinate system with a K4 group under seven cycles if the Father holds the power over time I assert, and likewise time is a measure by which those in Christ come to acceptable virtue - for those that do not or can not accept L(G) are stated to "not live until after the thousand years were ended." Thus the measure of grace is for 1000 cycles of the field GF(8) and results in 144,000 rather than merely 144.

So we should equate "bread" to the K4 subgroups multiplied through the octal - and our daily bread given us by God is for us to be found to have a fixed position in Christ (as the lamb slain before the throne, with two parts cut off - our floating unity.) The unity element is likewise transformed by multiplication - our daily bread is then that the virtue in Christ is always isomorphic or in steady state regardless of the action of seven cycles, as the life in Christ is ministered to and in us throughout.

The example of Christ is fixed - our daily bread is that the shift of static subgroup pairs with the shift of unity to isomorphism, that we have a life filled with virtue fixed on those in Christ. We should note that Christ's virtue is maximal, and the own variance we find in our virtues with other positive properties is transformed back to the proper subset of virtue we hold in Christ by the action of a seven cycle on the K4 group over virtues. This is the action of the Holy Spirit refining us to predestinated salvation.

So the simple argument referenced above, that the states of the saved are increasing in virtue:

Given a man "close enough" to the set of virtues entailed by L(G), we may assume that some positive property p is excluded by another r to the detriment of a virtue q.

Then as there is in this case a set of virtues without p that contains q, we may choose the system of three states, One with the set of remaining virtues excluding q, one with a similar set of virtues including the virtue L(G) and another with the same set of virtues with L(p v r), the liberty to choose between p and r.

Now, if q entailed that pos(p) => ¬pos(r): L(p v r) would entail what? If L(p v r) is actually the statement that either choice may be positive to the exclusion of the other (say p to r) without fault, then L(p v r) is nearly equal to q.

If L(G) implies there is freedom to choose between q and r, according to the law then L(G) would entail L(p v r).

If L(G) does not entail ¬pos(p) or ¬pos(r), pos(p) does not entail ¬L(G)

However L(p v r) <=> L(¬pos(p) v ¬pos(r)),.. yet these though disjunctive do not imply ¬L(p v r)

We need to assert that there is a transformation from the state of the man to a proper subset of virtue in Christ.

Given a maximal set of virtue as unity, with another element as before, with p excluding r and q, and a third with r excluding p and q we have in Christ such a K4 operation on the ultrafilter of positive properties.

Now, if we may state then that this is also true for any subset of those positive properties we are done. There is the caveat then, that the maximal set of virtues are truly positive. Holding the truth of L(G) as exampled by Christ will ensure that by God's own definition of virtue, we do not hold that a particular N(pos(p)) to the exclusion of any virtue 'q'.

For any subset of positive properties, we also assert that (A v B)c makes the same operation as on the whole ultrafilter. In choosing the three states as before we would assert that we have a maximal set of virtue: Yet if we only begin with a subset of that virtue, we know no virtue excludes any other positive property. Crucially it is the potential for virtue that increases virtue itself.

If we now substitute L(p v r) for q, is there any decrease in the set of positive properties in the complement of A v B? No, indeed there is not!

Given then L(G), we require that the division between correct and incorrect is made, properly dividing right and wrong. L(G) in every case likewise entails L(p v r) as above. There is no exception with respect to the law of God.

Then if there are no positive properties diminished by substituting L(p v r) for q, given also that choosing pos(p) or pos(r) is to form our disjunction A v B, we now have that that liberty L(p v r) entails both A and B , and in the set of all positive properties the product A v B requires the exclusion of L(p v r). Thus in the filter, (A v B)c contains both L(p v r) as well as q.

So, excluding q then excludes L(p v r) and as prior, excluding L(p v r) likewise excludes q (though in Christ as maximised).

Then these are equivalences given L(G), and we are almost done!

L(G) then implies every virtue no matter the subset held. There is upon all that hold L(X) for any X the ability to be trained toward a more appropriate L(H) (where H approaches G.)

If L(G) is rejected we safely assume that there is no divine authority present to correct such faith. However In all cases that approach L(G) we have a proper subset of virtue in Christ that is able to be refined towards a greater set of virtues. This subset of virtue found in Christ L(H) may be simply be entailed by the statement L(L(G) v L(H)). With the love of the gospel, the statement is simply the axiom of choice, to choose the truth in Christ over any other.

Continue To Next Page

Return To Section Start

Return To Previous Page