The Trinty Transforms Perfectly

We noted before the presence of a G v p statement went against the character of God. However for a perfect being the statement G v p is done with all genuine reason and there is the case that if G & p is perceived to be greater than G, i.e. there is a super(G), a state above perfection that is more pleasing to God, then we would write G&p ≥ super(G).

Alternatively we need our operator '~' again.

if H ~ (G&p ≥ super(G)) then H perfectly conceives that for H, G&p is understood to be better for H.
or G&p ~ H Then G finds He better understands H if He resolves to p.

So we would assume that (H~G&p) & (G&p~H) ≥ super(H~G & G~H)

or, that G & p > G ie G&p v G&¬p => G&p

But we require a little more here, for he difference between G&p ~ H and H ~ G&p is somewhat missing.

If "p" is considered to be better by H and is communicated in a manner by U where U reasons so perfectly that he "convinces G" of every such p in a continuous fashion, then dynamically U transforms H from a change of state of G from ¬p to p (whether p or ¬p is positive) we should transform to a positive, so then U reasons to convince G of p in order that H "move into" G&p.

Likewise this assumes that L(H) and L(U) are in agreement with L(G). For in some sense if L(G) withstood, then L(G) would be pleased with whatever perfections or "p" of His current state.

For Christ in humbling Himself for us, in keeping His virtues "p" constant to fulfill all the law, it was the case that L(H) and L(U) constrained perfectly L(G). L(G) was such as to submit to the will of L(H) and L(U). But not so as to a lack of virtue not pleasing also to G.

Continue To Next Page

Return To Section Start

Return To Previous Page