Meet The Devil’s Virgin Daughter

Post 311

If we now understand that the presentation of Christianity (not Christianity itself) comes in many complex flavors such as: true, confused, treasonous, and Identity-Theft, we must also comprehend that the presentation of anti-Christianity must also come in complex flavors in a similar way, and while the Devil loves to present himself as a sinister creep surrounded with flames and demons to judge you by accusations of breaching the law (Colossians 2:16-17, Revelation 12:10, Titus 2:3), he also presents himself as a very beautiful ministering angel of God to beguile you from obedience (Genesis 3:13, Colossians 2:4,18-19, II Corinthians 11:3, Numbers 25:18 per 25:3 [see Post 306 note *4] http://when-did-reason-die.blogspot.com/2013/11/two-replies.html):

“For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers (1249) of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works” II Corinthians 11:13-15.

Minister 1249 diakonos; probably from an obsolete diako (to run on errands; compare 1377); an attendant, i.e. (genitive case) a waiter (at table or in other menial duties); specifically, a Christian teacher and pastor (technically, a deacon or deaconess):-- deacon, minister, servant.

While this is a passage familiar even to most careless Christians, few ever take the time to actually understand what it is saying, not even beyond; “Satan can fool us if we are not careful,” yet in our last Post we heard Paul tell us that while it was he who laid the foundation of Christ in the Corinthians, there were other instructors-- including deceitful-- that would help them build on that foundation. But what we didn’t cover is specifically how many:
* * *

Ten thousand instructors:
“For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through (laying the foundation of) the gospel. Wherefore I beseech you, be followers of me” I Corinthians 4:15-16.

Why ten thousand; is this just an arbitrary number to suggest “plethora”? I don’t think so.
Where else in scripture have we heard the number of specifically ten thousand ministers?

“And five of you shall chase an hundred, and an hundred of you shall put ten thousand to flight…” Leviticus 26:8a.

and if this ratio is so, then how about the thousands led by those ministering hundreds as in Exodus 18:21-23 (oddly enough, a wisdom from Jethro (3499) the Arab Midianite-- not Ishmaelite, but son of Abraham nonetheless *1), and Deuteronomy 1:15-17, (regarding not respecting the face of the person), and how about the thousands themselves (I Samuel 13:2-3)? Throughout scripture the number of ten thousand is referenced often, so what significance are we to glean from Paul’s use?

“…The LORD came from Sinai, and rose up from Seir unto them; he shined forth from mount Paran, and he came with ten thousands of saints: from his right hand went a fiery law for them. Yea, he loved the people…” Deuteronomy 33:2-3a. (Very prophetic but we won’t cover that yet).

“And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, to execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him (*2)” Jude 1:14-15. (Again, Very prophetic as it relates to the above verse but we are only discussing the identity of the numbered here).

“Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach (2727) others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue. Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men” I Corinthians 14:19-20.

Teach 2727 katecheo; from 2596 and 2279; to sound down in the ears, i.e. (by implication) to indoctrinate (“catechize”) or (genitive case) to appraise of:-- inform, instruct, teach.

It is clear by scripture that there are ten thousand on each side of the contention, but that the strength of the Lord’s true members, even in few, are far stronger than the strength of the enemies in mass (Judges 7:2[-]7, I Samuel 14:6) but that unbalanced strength turns when the Lord’s members are untrue to the Lord and his agenda (Deuteronomy 32:29-34, Leviticus 26:7-9 vs. 14-17).
I am proposing that, in our study passage, Paul was speaking of spirits that move men to instruct, and by this understanding we discover that many instructors, though preaching the gospel of Christ-- even in supernatural power, but not of God--, are using it to further their own less-than-Christian agenda (Acts 8:20-21: Post 227). So now we have to ask; “Just what is Christian?” in order to discover “What is the Christian’s agenda?” as it relates to the illusion of Christianity as opposed to true Christianity.
Many Christians today have never really asked these questions, assuming that they already know, and most the world uses these uninformed “Christians” as their example for judging Christianity. I ask you; “Is this a just judgment, or is it rather simply a useful means to a pre-desired end of condemnation?” I do not judge Islam for its radical “instructors”; I judge its radicals for Islam’s foundational doctrine that drives them: The unmerciful law without a redeemer; using the law as the ends themselves and not simply a tool to advance liberty in a self-controlled absence of the law, though that is what they claim in their indiscriminate bloodshed toward “peace” by fear through oppression.

So getting back to our above II Corinthians 11:13-15 topic of the Devil’s ten thousand angelic, and human, false ministers pretending to be God’s ministers:
Paul was not suggesting that he was their only instructor to follow, but that all following instructors must conform to the foundational doctrine he had already lain: The gospel of Christ Jesus Alone.
And while we contemplate what that eventual end-fruit “according to their righteous works” might be-- regarding such disseminations (*3) of righteousness (being deceitful) (Post 298), we need to be more interested in identifying this “brand” of righteousness in the here-and-now, before that end comes, in order to avoid possible infection by such cancerous leprosy that might cause us to be ejected from the kingdom to live alone in the darkness outside the camp after having been given the promise of citizenship like Matthew’s Ten Virgins going to meet the Groom.

“But ye are forgers of lies, ye are all physicians of no value… Will ye speak wickedly for God? and talk deceitfully for him?” Job 13:4,7.

“For thou art not a God that hath pleasure in wickedness: neither shall evil dwell with thee…Thou shalt destroy them that speak leasing (3577; falsehood): the LORD will abhor the bloody and deceitful man” Psalm 5:4,6.

We like to conclusively imagine this error is in the “flames and demons” presentation of falsehood that we can all recognize as demonic, such as in “The Exorcist,” and Islam, but beware; by the complex deception of the three-part Yin, the exponentially far greater danger is in the unquestionable righteous truth of the Yang, presented by beautiful devils and Satan’s human children in beautiful transformations of feminine love and tolerance and a big-heart of yearning compassion to save the suffering.
Do you think you understand? I don’t think you yet do. Let’s try it out to see:
* * *

Let’s Bic-Test another virgin:
The beginning of “Malala,” shot in the head by the Taliban at 15 years of age and becoming; “the daughter of the world.”
• ABC (http://abcnews.go.com/International/malala-yousafzai-death-kill/story?id=20489800), a must see.

Malala Yousafzai is as wonderful a creature as one could ask for! It is immediately evident that her heart is as pure as the driven snow, her bold but demure bravery (*4) is captivating, her selfless motive is inspiring, her public speaking is stunning, and her earnest and honorable desire to free women from educational oppression is both motivating and world-changing. This is very possibly the girl the world has been waiting for, as another “shot heard round the world.”

• Malala Yousafzai with Jon Stewart (http://www.upworthy.com/watch-this-incredible-young-woman-render-jon-stewart-speechless?c=ufb1) - Condensed from the interview, an absolute must-see.
• [The full unedited 3-part Jon Daily Show interview video (http://www.thedailyshow.com/videos/tag/Malala%20Yousafzai), October 8, 2013].

I wish I could include here a transcript of her entire interview before it disappears from the internet, and for the first time I am really sorry that I cannot make these links clickable in my book; you really must take the time to listen to more than her words; but rather her loving, forgiving, beseeching, humble, self-sacrificing, "Christian spirit" as she speaks them:

Malala 10/8/2013:
Jon Stewart:“…you’re sixteen, where did your love for education come from?”
Malala: “We are human beings, and this is a part of our human nature; that we don’t learn the importance of anything until it’s snatched from our hands. And when, in Pakistan when we were stopped from going to school, at that time, I realized that education is very important. And education is a power for women, and that’s why the terrorists are afraid of education. They do not want women to get education because then women would become more powerful.”
Jon Stewart: “When did the Taliban come to Swat Valley, because before then you describe it as a paradise of sorts.”
Malala: “The Taliban came in 2004, but at that time they were quite good; they did not show their terrorism and they did not blast any school at that time, but they started the Jihad terrorism in 2007; they have blasted more than 400 schools in Swat, They have slaughtered people, and in the month of January 2009, they used to slaughter two and three people every night and they have flogged women. We have seen the barbaric situation of the 21st Century, and we have seen, like the- the- the- cruelty, and we have seen harsh days in our life, and we regard it as the darkest days of our life. So, it was, it was really hard for us at that time.”…

…[Oh! so-very informative material that, for brevity sake, we cannot cover here, we must move on]…

Regarding the rumors that she was targeted at 14 years of age for speaking out:
“…in 2012…we thought that the Taliban are not that much cruel that they would kill a child… but later on [after seeing threats on Google and such]… I started thinking about that, and I used to think that the Tali would come and he would just kill me, but then I said; If he come, what would you do Malala? Then I would reply [to] myself; Malala, just take a shoe and hit him, but then I said; (interrupted by pleasant laughter of American-ignorance of its less than cute meaning) but then I said; If you hit a Talib with your shoe, then there would be no difference between you and the Talib; you must not treat others that much with cruelty, and that much harshly; you must fight others; but through peace and through dialogue and through education. Then I said; I would tell him how important education is, and that I even want education for your children as well, and, I would tell him; That’s what I want to tell you, now do what you want.”

Almost as a rabbit-trail:
“United Nations Special Envoy for Global Education Gordon Brown launched a UN petition in Yousafzai's name, using the slogan ‘I am Malala’" - (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malala_Yousafzai).
It’s not only Christians who are “merchandised” (II Peter 2:3, John 2:16): but gold and silver and precious stones; wherever they are found (Revelation 18:12a, Daniel 2:31-32 becomes 5:22-23). That’s what merchandisers do, but is the nature of merchandising completely wrong, as in; Deuteronomy 24:7 and Ezekiel 26:18, John 2:16, II Peter 2:3, etc.? I think not:

“Happy is the man that findeth wisdom, and the man that getteth understanding. For the merchandise of it is better than the merchandise of silver, and the gain thereof than fine gold. She is more precious than rubies: and all the things that canst desire are not to be compared unto her” Proverbs 3:13-15. (See also Proverbs 31:18).

So while merchandising-- like emotion-- is as an open flame at a gasoline refinery; it aught to be highly confined (regulated) to appropriate parameters, but left to burn explosively within them lest the value of the energy be diminished. The question is not only the merchandizing but also the product merchandised.

The Malala Fund slogan:
“I think of it often and imagine the scene clearly. Even if they come to kill me, I will tell them what they are trying to do is wrong, that education is our basic right.” – Malala Yousafzai (http://www.malalafund.org/).

This merchandized instructing-spirit is young, yet already maturing, but of course it is far too early to be uprooting tares lest we also loose immature wheat because of it. Let’s just watch this grow for a time until it reaches its full maturity.

But while we watch, science today has the ability to actually read the DNA-strand left behind, and use it both in identifying genetic pedigree (traits) as well as positively identifying unknown persons involved in previous crimes. So how might this advancement in current-science reflect in our Typed spiritual parallel of today as human history likewise evolves toward its final maturity? (The Grand Tapestry completed).
We know her spiritual father: his present alias is Allah, and she is a self-declared Sunni Muslim, that’s quite a strand of patriarchal DNA we can use to identify her fundamental nature and accurately predict a specific outcome even though the manifestations have not manifested yet. By the fact of her pedigree she cannot help but carry her father’s DNA that drives who she is, even though, like every teenager, she is her own individual yearning to break free:

“Ye are of your father the devil, and the lust of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not” John 8:44-45.

That is a very harsh pre-judgment that bears no “option” of being wrong or “turning out differently,” it is a declaration of fact, by the Maker himself, of what will in fact be, because Jesus “rightly read” their DNA that reveals the cancer that has not yet materialized. It may be painful to both deliver and to hear, but it’s not cruel of Angelina Jolie’s doctor to tell her so, and she gratefully took steps to avoid a genetic tragedy that plagued her genetic matriarchs, if all is as merchandised (*5). Likewise it is not a Judgment or cruelty to identify a dangerous spiritual DNA trait that will not allow this young girl’s intentions to turn out well in the long run… as long as the hope of a cure also comes with the dooming identification.
While her motives and conduct appear flawless, Malala does not confess with her mouth (proclaim) the Lord Jesus Christ (Romans 10:10), and so we know that her “Christian” spirit is not Christian at all, but a very, very good transformation that appears Christian by her conduct and near miraculous recovery that seems to confirm it (*6). But it simply doesn’t matter what the “appearance” shows; the nature is found somewhere else inside, on a level of “inside” even beyond the hidden “innards” that seem to make her function. DNA is a readable strand of foundationally creative information, that, though accurately predictable like the movements of the stars, is nonetheless a two-fold mystery as to how the Maker puts it together and then makes it work. It’s a question of information.
But remember, as a man of God the Father and Jesus Christ our Lord, I don’t just not stand against her; I applaud and support her, though she be the Sunni Muslim daughter of the Devil himself!... as long as her motives and mission remain “virginally” righteous and the merchandizing of her does not reach extortion, even while knowing it must eventually result in great and glorious destruction on a scale previously unprecedented. It’s the same reason why I can applaud Glenn Beck yet warn of the dangerous DNA elements.

Christians need to come fully awake to understand the very great difference between salvation and righteousness.
God does not stand against righteousness, but neither does he honor the face of a person-- which can be either righteous or deceitful, or change from one face to another for advantage. God respects righteousness in any nation, but regarding the person of individual or nation; that righteousness must come in the fear of God to count as acceptable when applied; i.e. Saved.

“Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: but in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is acceptable with him” Acts 10:34-35.

“For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?” Mark 8:36.

Using our calibrated two-part spirit test: Malala shows the generic outward signs of the required “working-righteousness confession” -- even better than most Christians-- but does she fear the Lord God in her performance? Not in the least; by her mouth she fears her god Allah, and attributes her righteousness to him. Which she has every right to do and not be condemned by us.
But just as we don’t respect the wicked person who is a “Christian,” neither do we respect the “righteous” person who is not. Therefore, while we might respect and applaud the righteousness that she works, we do not respect the face of the Godless person who does it even admirably.
“But Why not?”
* * *

Daughters have Fathers:
Like Jon Stewart in the above interview; we just want to adopt her and take this girl home to have the privilege of gracing her with every care and gift that might aid her efforts and make us proud for having supported her. What a breath of fresh air in a world of smog. She is the very image of pure and innocent hope for a better world with the guts and humility to actually pull it off!
If there is still a chance in your mind that you might think I stand against her, you can chuck that thought right now; I do not: I wish this girl every success in her declared ambitions of female liberation from oppression as could be imagined. But how is this possible? Didn’t I just state by the DNA evidence, that, regardless of conduct, she is positively the daughter of The Devil? I did.

You see, Christians aren’t the only ones who have virgin daughters: Strangely enough, no matter how wicked or twisted an individual or society is, their children are nonetheless always born virgins. And unlike our five “Christian” examples-- who we don’t accuse of not being Christian-- this one just happened to retain that purity of virtue as a confession of life… unto Christless righteousness (Romans 10:2-4).

In Post 271 “The Violence of Peace” (http://when-did-reason-die.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-violence-of-peace.html Preparing The Way Of The Lord p.364), we asked the question why I would vote for Romney; a less than acceptable candidate for U.S. President, and, “How can I choose the Babylonian Harlot?” (p.365 of the same Post). And in Post 274 “The Why, The How, and the What Now?” (http://when-did-reason-die.blogspot.com/2012/11/the-why-how-and-what-now.html) I suggested that to avoid the beast’s violent destruction you might “escape” for a time in Mystery Babylon (p.383), which is the answer that Nobel Prize winner Jimmy Carter suggested in ignorance as I showed in Post 253 “Who Is The Beast?” (http://when-did-reason-die.blogspot.com/2012/07/who-is-beast.html) under the topic heading of The Beast’s Whore (pp.112-117). I am now fulfilling that promise to address this complex idea, but don’t mistake me to have proclaimed the virginal Malala as that Whore.
I am sorry that it has taken so long to get to these answers, and I urge you to refresh those Posts to this conclusion. Heavy lifting doesn’t come without effort, and we’re picking up quite a stack in this one lift. So put your spiritual back into it, we’ve been training for this increase of ability to apply wisdom and understanding to knowledge! (I Timothy 4:7-8, Hebrews 5:14, 12:11).

But while you might accept the spiritual angle of my proposal; what makes this young, pure, innocent, righteous, virgin, the practical daughter of Satan?
It’s because Jimmy Carter’s “Global Peace in the name of-- yet without-- God, is the end result” - (Post 263 “Seed of Angels” (http://when-did-reason-die.blogspot.com/2012/09/seed-of-angels_2131.html pp.211,207) referencing his oration in the above Post 253).
Remember we just conclusively concluded that the very real salvation comes only through proclamation and belief in Jesus Christ, irrelevant of works. And this girl with her own lips, though having wonderfully righteous works, is the servant of Allah as she disseminates Christ’s righteousness to the world in Allah’s name as God.

“…And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed (3345) into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed (3345) as the ministers of righteousness…” II Corinthians 11:14-15.

Transformed 3345 metaschematizo; from 3326 and a derivative of 4976; to transfigure or disguise; figuratively, to apply (by accommodation):-- transfer, transform (self); to change.
3326 meta; a primary preposition (often used adverbially); properly, denoting accompaniment; “amid” (local or casual)…Often used in composition, in substantially the same relations of participation or proximity, and transfer or sequence.
4976 schema; from the alternate of 2192; a figure (as a mode or circumstance), i.e. (by implication) external condition:-- fashion. [Note the root of our modern word scheme].
2192 echo; (including an alternate form scheo; used in certain tenses only); a primary verb; to hold (used in very various applications, literally or figuratively, direct or remote; such as possession, ability, contiguity, relation or condition):--…

Did you see this coming or did it catch you flat-footed?! Most Christians see this girl as the darling of Christian dissemination and worthy of yoking ourselves to her cause of world peace, contrary to the scriptures:

“Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? And what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? Or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? For ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people” II Corinthians 6:14-16.

(Please review Posts 194 and 195: “Peace” (http://when-did-reason-die.blogspot.com/2011/05/peace.html) to understand that “peace at any price” is not Christ’s Christian agenda).

Even in a meat-eating environment it’s hard to identify the darkness of Malala’s light, or the unrighteousness of this brand of deceitful righteousness, how much less in a nursery of adult infants sucking toxic milk from such bottles hand-delivered to them ignorantly by gentle and beautiful virgin ministers cooing their genuine love and comforting good-will?

But here is the harder part: What then are we to do by conduct as Christians? Are we to oppose her as the delivering nursemaid? NO! It’s the tainted milk that we must reject, and see her as an innocent victim of her deceitful father who set this up by his “flames and demons” approach while knowing that she, his daughter, would therefore chose the “love and gentle” approach to contend it. It’s all a part of the Devil’s twisting of God’s big picture of Law and Grace. And while we contemplated the complexity of the three-part Yin did you forget that we never covered the Yang until now? This is the intended “set up” of the complexity, that in great relief simply chooses the Yang as “right” without question and would stone those who decry its righteousness.
Yet like God as our example; Christians do not oppose the works of righteousness from others, anymore than we support the works of wickedness from our own. Of all the world’s peace-lovers, we love peace and rejoice when even our enemies find it and share it! (Matthew 5:44-45, Luke 6:35-38, I Chronicles 12:17, Proverbs 16:7).

But here is the hardest part: Although we can and should applaud their effort to bring world peace in an age which so desperately needs it, we cannot be their servants in solidarity as they follow another god:

“Ye are bought with a price; be not the servants of men” I Corinthians 7:[22-]23.

(Also: Deuteronomy 17:2-5 regarding specifically God’s people, as relating to v1, and also: 28:14 regarding even the “right” as opposed to the obvious “left”. Also: Exodus 23:32-33 regarding covenants with them, which now begins to dawn a comprehension of how the OT Hebrews could be deceived into such a thing as they entered and occupied the Promised Land: Deuteronomy 4:26-28, pre-culminating in the simple: Deuteronomy 6:13-14 of “Just don’t”).

By the lain foundation of Jesus Christ we are the temple of God unto righteousness (Ephesians 2:10), but on what foundation is Malala’s beautifully crafted building of gold, silver, and precious stones built? While her building might not burn in the testing fire because she used wise materials, she has no foundation plotted in the kingdom of Christ, so where will that building eternally reside (end up in the long run)? and what is that building’s foundational constraining function? It’s clearly not a temple of God but may be a temple of a god, though it seems even more probably a temple of humanity itself as God. Is Malala a humanist Muslim like the Catholic Mother Teresa was Hindu? It seems by the mass rejection of her in her own nation, that whatever her foundation is, Islam stands against it because its not Islamic. But does that then automatically make it “Western” (i.e. Christian), as they claim? It is Western, but it’s Christianity’s "Democracy," not Christianity, that is her foundation... just as Jimmy Carter offered that it would be, and Netanyahu also puts his confidence in. (Post 194 “Peace” (http://when-did-reason-die.blogspot.com/2011/05/peace.html). Its seems that everybody but true Christians think Democracy is Christianity, just as simple Christians tend to think that Righteousness is Salvation.

Deuteronomy 6:24-25 identifies that God’s intent behind doing the righteousness commanded by God is simply a tool to sustain the fear of the LORD our God. So what is the result of doing the same righteousness but in another’s name (cause)? Whatever it is, it isn’t the fear of Jehovah.
We MUST get over our blind perceptions that righteousness=Salvation as if only God’s people act righteously and if you “are” God’s then whatever you do is obviously righteous. This is simply not true, as evidenced by the fact that many godless people do far better in marriage and family and business than many “committed Christians.” Adultery is not forbidden because it’s something that nobody has a draw to; it is forbidden because many “somebody else’s wifes” have very strong draws by their appealing righteous character and demeanor… but she is not your wife… who unfortunately for you, may be far less appealingly so. This is not a topic of conduct but of marriage.
Christianity is only Christianity because we have made a commitment to Christ. If Allah’s people can find social peace, the world will be a better place socially, which we approve wholeheartedly, but we still don’t climb in the sack with our neighbor’s wife because we get along socially and have so much in common.

“Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? And what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? Or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel” II Corinthians 6:14-15. (See I Corinthians 10:19-21).

Doesn’t it strike you strange that Islam, who sees US as the infidel, comprehends this command of Christ while we don’t? It’s not a matter of conduct but of whose God we are.

“I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators: yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the word (and must stop shopping at every store for their Godless stands *7)” I Corinthians 5:11.

So if it is permissible to company with the world’s fornicators and idolaters, how much more permissible is it to company with the likes of Malala! but that does not imply that we are then free to become unequally yoked with the children of Allah. This is the breach of liberty that permeates the discussion of this work and the topic of today’s push to finding world peace: This is the nature of the Babylonian Whore; “Compromise the essentials for peace,” “Fundamentally transform the Christian nation for the purpose of Globalism.”
While not confusing the virgin daughter of the Devil as being this Whore, we are getting closer to identifying the Isaiah 47:1 virgin daughter of Babylon, as opposed to her mother the Babylonian whore. There are actually quite a lot of women Types in prophecy, but hang on; it should begin to get clearer soon.
* * *

The hopeful Cure:
I suggested that a declaration of genuine hope for a cure should accompany the proclamations of doom that do not have doom as the end motive. (With the incurable, they should be honestly told, in the effort to promote a worthy and timely preparation of their soon demise).
I have identified Malala’s DNA as fathered by the corrupter himself, with the sure nature of catastrophic ends, though not yet presenting with significant sighs of the corruption. “I feel fine” is the reply of the one who just heard the news of their immanent death at the end of a routine physical. “Is this it then? Is there nothing that can be done?” And of course there is the long list of “things to try,” including: Chemotherapy, herbs, diets, Alternative Medicines, “magic,” and “faith.” Most of these are but illusions of hope that have very little supporting evidence of being anything but “filler” while the body does what the body is going to do. But since the Maker is the one of true authority who has declared this disease, the Maker is also the one who has declared the cure. And if the disease is believed, the cure is just as believable! This is not filler.
But what real hope is there for the daughter of the Devil himself? Because, as we saw above in John 8:44-45, and others; his DNA is not just “slightly off,” it’s incurably corrupt at its foundation. So, How do you do an entire DNA transplant? What possible Typology or parallel might the scripture use to show us the truth of this question and answer?

When Jesus said we must eat his flesh and drink his blood in order to obtain life in our natural lifelessness, he was speaking of our natural eternal state without the Spirit of God dwelling within us as the life-force that motivates our humanity to eternal ends. Without that life-force we are like robots, which just mimic life in an ever-better illusion of what it can never be, in spite of Data’s quest on Star Trek that sells us the idea.
Getting the Holy Spirit DNA of God into man, is as observable-- but as mysteriously unknown-- as reading the collective information found in humanity’s DNA to discover what makes it perform as Life. All we can do is observe the mysterious results and go “Wow!”
Life is a mystery.
But while this Salvation of our souls, by the body and blood of Christ, describes how God’s DNA gets in, how do we get Satan’s DNA out without destroying the patient? Are you ready for this?
You don’t.

Now I don’t mean that you don’t get Satan’s DNA out, I mean that you don’t save the patient while you do it!

“Then said Jesus unto his disciples, if any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it” Matthew 16:24-25.

“And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross” Philippians 2:8.

“Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life…Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. For he that is dead is freed from sin.”… Romans 6:4-7.

“Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new” II Corinthians 5:17. (See also: Ephesians 4:22-24).

“I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service” Romans 12:1.

The scriptures give us other calibrations to make sure we comprehend this truth correctly.
• A woman is lawfully bound to her husband while he lives, but she is freed from the law at his death, to lawfully become the wife of another man, (new messenger RNA as it were), (Luke 16:18+Romans 7:3-4). [from Allah to Jehovah].
• A seed must fall into the ground and die so abundant new life can spring from it (John 12:24).

Death to self in order to come alive unto Christ is a very real death of a person and his face. Nobody likes to die. When I came face to face with this truth it was very hard to accept that the person I had always known as “Me,” had to die in order for God to create in me a new person. I didn’t want to be somebody else, I wanted to be a fixed “Me.” But this is not possible, nor acceptable (Mark 2:21-22); There are no “alternative options,” if you want the Devil’s DNA gone that DNA has to die, and it’s “Your” DNA!
So we die, with Christ, physically metaphorical by representing something spiritually very real, and the risen Christ then blows in his Holy Spirit as at the beginning, and creates an entirely new man from the dead seed, with the additional new DNA to live as an adopted son transformed, with full family standing and privileges as a genuine son, just as a woman leaves her paternal family to take up a new name and new life with her new husband and his family, having full power of that name that is now hers too.
My old man didn’t want to be somebody else, but my new man is sorry it took me so long to implement that option.
The only cost was the life of the old man, to which I now say, “Good riddance!”

Even Muslim Malala, or any other Muslim child of the Devil, has been gifted with this same option. It simply takes a conscious and full change of loyalties from the oppressor to the liberator.

“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved” John 3:16-17.

I offer you the blood of Jesus Christ as the physical death in your stead, which has granted you this gift option in your spirit to complete the job.
A new creature?
A new creature indeed! (II Corinthians 5:17 above).
* * * * * * *

(*1) Jethro [Exodus 18:1]: 3503 Yithrow; from 3499 with pronoun suffix; his excellence; Jethro, Moses’ father-in-law:-- Jethro.
3499 yether; from 3498; properly, an overhanging, i.e. (by implication) an excess, superiority, remainder; also a small rope (as hanging free):-- + abundant, cord, exceeding, excellancy(-ent), what they leave, that hath left, plentifully, remnant, residue, rest, string, with.

I only bring this up here-- almost as an out of place rabbit trail-- to trigger your memory of relative things we covered in several earlier Posts, because we are about to need this important material knowledge in our conclusions. We will cover this in depth at that time but you need to be comprehending this conceptually rather than simply intellectually; you need to have metabolized what you may have even intellectually forgotten. If not, go chew it again, as a clean animal chews an old cud and rightly divides the hoof (Leviticus 11:3 + II Timothy 2:15).

(*2) Is God a Socialist?
We asked this unanswered question earlier but this is still a rabbit trail for another time, yet applicable to a short contemplation here: See Judges 3:29-30, and then 20:10-12 before contemplating the socialistically powerful nature of a choir, and how, like Achan at Ai (Joshua 7), one self-focused member can tarnish the entire performance of the many (I Corinthians 5:6, Galatians 5:9), yet one socialistic solo only enhances it (I Samuel 18:7, II Samuel 18:3).
This is a concept that will become important in our upcoming Posts.

(*3) “Disseminate: to cause (something, such as information) to go to many people. 1. To spread abroad as though sowing seed 2. To disperse throughout” - (Merriam-Webster online dictionary).

(*4) “Demure: To disagree politely with another person’s statement or suggestion: to politely refuse to accept a request or suggestion” - Merriam-Webster online dictionary.
“Demur: … 1. To delay; hesitate. 2. To scruple or object; to take exception. 3. Law. To interpose a demurrer” - Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary 5th Edition 1948.
“Demurrer: noun [Old French inf. Demorer, used as a noun. See DEMUR, v.] 1. Law. A pleading which, assuming the truth of the matter alleged by the opposite party, sets up that it is insufficient in law, or that there is some other defect on the face of the pleadings constituting a legal reason why the opposing party should not be allowed to proceed further. 2. An objection, or demur” - Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 5th Edition 1948.

And now we see clearly why the female gender, historically submissive to the God-ordained authority of their husbands, have been intimately connected to this word as they make their rightful appeal in humble presentation that powerfully draws an earnest hearing from he whose authority does not feel threatened: “That is what I want to tell you, now do what you want.” (See I Peter 3:1-4).

(*5) “Angelina Jolie’s decision to tell the world about her preventive double mastectomy may have raised some awareness — but has also generated plenty of confusion. Most people who heard of Jolie's story still aren't clear on how gene mutations affect the risk of breast cancer, according to a new study by the University of Maryland School of Public Health. … Of the national sample — which included 48% men and a range of ethnic and socioeconomic backgrounds and ages — 75% had heard Jolie's story, but fewer than 10% could correctly answer questions on BRCA gene mutations and breast cancer risk.
… In her op-ed (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/14/opinion/my-medical-choice.html?_r=0), Jolie wrote that she underwent genetic testing and found she had a "faulty" gene which, combined with her family history, put her at an 87% risk of developing breast cancer. Mutations of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes can exponentially increase a woman's lifetime risk of breast cancer, and can also raise her risk of ovarian cancer. While roughly 12% of women in the general population will develop breast cancer at some point in their lives, an estimated 55% to 65% of women with a BRCA1 mutation and 45% of those with a BRCA2 mutation will develop cancer by the time they're 70, according to Cancer.gov.
… But people do not realize the genetic mutations are quite rare, said Dina L.G. Borzekowski, a professor of behavioral and community health at UMD, who led the study. ‘In the general population, one in 300 to one in 500 women have (the mutations),’ Borzekowski told the Daily News. ‘I think people were also not understanding that breast cancer is relatively common, and that the mutation only contributes to some of the cases that are out there.’" - (http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/health/confused-breast-cancer-risk-angelina-jolie-mastectomy-story-study-article-1.1553352).

(*6) Is your emotional compassion drawn to her righteous cause because of how she selflessly responded to being shot in the head? There is another, who is yet to come, who will also revive from a mortal headwound (Revelation 13:3), is that reason to follow his cause? It will be for many. The apparent “miracle” gives credit to the righteous face of the person, without contemplating the rules of the Bic-Test.

(*7) American Christians today seem to be caught up in the “righteous” boycott of every store that makes an unrighteous stand. The end result is a legalistic bondage that finds they can’t shop anywhere or buy any product. Such a “righteous boycott” would not be a problem of question to them in a Pagan nation, but being that this is “Christian America” they feel duty bound to preserve the Godliness of their homeland, which would be a good idea… IF this were actually still a Christian nation. But it’s not, and never really has been for this application.
It’s the people of the nation that are supposed to be Christian and rule the “intentionally not” Christian nation by their conduct rather than by law that always only supported their Christian efforts. In that early day, if a wicked man used his store in a community to publicly promoting his wicked views, the community would shun the wicked stand (and store) and so evil was not sustainable in the land though there was not a law against his store or his stand. But today, our community is literally filled with lepers; nearly every shop is owned by a leper, “'Leprosy' is the community motto," and it is now the few confused legalistic Christians running around still trying to make the masses cry, “Unclean, unclean!” for their sake. But the right response changes with the changing environment of the times.

“Therefore the prudent shall keep silence in that time; for it is an evil time” Amos 5:13, as it applies to our NT verse that tells us to worry about the mote in our own eye, in an ever shrinking definition of “own.”

“For they are a nation void of counsel, neither is there any understanding in them. O that they were wise, that they understood this, that they would consider their latter end!
How should one chase a thousand, and two put ten thousand to flight (as Israel did in the birth of their new nation) except their Rock had sold them (as to Rome), and the LORD had shut them up? For their (Islam’s) rock is not as our Rock, even our enemies themselves being judges” Deuteronomy 32:28-31.

As the faithful Muslims today are dumbfounded at their utter inability to destroy tiny Israel, they question Allah, “Why?”

“To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory:” Colossians 1:27.

IF you would be faithful in love.
*

The Deceitful Confession

- (Identity Theft) -
Post 310

(I John 4:1-3)

If even the very-rebellious Jewish nation has been destroyed but not abandoned by God (as proven by their miraculous 1948 return after nearly two thousand years, and Typed by the second generation’s success where the first generation failed 40 years earlier), are we now sufficiently convinced-- not only by very clear scattered verses but by the whole message of scripture-- that a person’s salvation is contingent only upon a laid foundation in God through the blood sacrifice of His Son Jesus Christ that fulfills the Type of the animal sacrifices no longer in effect (Hebrews 9:12-14), and that through an Abrahamic faith alone, regardless of the condition of the temple that is thereafter built on that foundation and the resulting revelation by fire; anywhere from ashes to glorious (even with the actual location and condition of the ash-builder’s eternal habitation still undiscovered), while knowing that as Moses-- Typed by continued leading of the failed people in the wilderness until their death-- Jesus remains true to his people even after their failure to enter into his promised rest? (I know that’s a mouthful).
In short: How much support do you have for your faith in Jesus as the only element for your salvation?

I understand that without more than a casual reading of all that I have shown from the first Posts until now, you cannot possibly have retained more than a smattering of my detailed evidences to this indisputable conclusion that literally permeates my entire message, that is disputable in ignorance without such knowledge. But the sad fact is, that if you cannot digest the goods you eat, the nutrients are not yours to metabolize (*1) and they drop out in the waste, unused. If milk is all that you can digest after years of feeding, and that, fed to you one bottle at a time by someone less than infantile in faith, then rejoice, because at least by your juvenile faith in Christ Jesus your savior, you have a place in God’s kingdom… somewhere. My concern is that the Apostle Paul; the wise master-builder and foundation layer, was himself concerned about being castaway if he let his faith slip even while preaching to others (I Timothy 1:19+I Corinthians 9:27), and Paul of all people should know just what that means! (II Corinthians 11:25). So, apparently Paul was not content with having rightly possessed salvation alone (Philippians 3:10-14), and perhaps you shouldn’t be either (Philippians 3:15, II Peter 3:17) lest you find even your foundation destroyed before it counts (*2) (II Peter 3:16). But we have already sufficiently covered this concept before, and now we must move on with those who have protein-fed energy to use for heavy lifting.
* * *

The Deceitful Confession:
Before we finally bring all our many studied parts dramatically together into a grand picture of a recognizable, though unfinished, tapestry, I feel it is important to make one last notation of distinction; and that is regarding illusion.
Just as the common simple Christian struggles with the dual sovereignty of man and God-- seemingly defying the definition of sovereignty itself (John 13:27: who’s sovereign here; Jesus, Satan, or Judas?)--, and the simplicity of an undisputable declaration of faith as a guaranteed ticket to heaven regardless of conduct, against the warning of falling short; so the common simple Christian panics when we seem to question the unquestionable scripture that protects any confession of Christ as unquestionably legitimate:

“Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: and every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God:…” I John 4:2-3a.

Pretty hard to argue with that.
But what does it really mean, in a “beyond milk” kind of way? That same passage begins with:

“Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God:…” I John 4:1.

In a juvenile faith we can clearly see that if we question or doubt the validity of a spirit, all we have to do is ask the question, and if the spirit replies in the affirmative we can be sure this is a spirit of God… even if its wicked… a lot like our five foolish virgins… apparently.
But let’s do a little cross-examination of this “proof positive test” just to be sure we have it calibrated right. What might we use as a baseline for our calibration? How about circumcision?

Every Christian knows that the Apostle Paul eliminated circumcision as a proof-positive evidence of being right with God, even though circumcision was God’s proof positive sign given that they were in fact God’s:

God says; “This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised…And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant” Genesis 17:10,14.

But the Apostle Paul, after the coming of the Messiah, says; “For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision” Romans 2:25. (The two are reconciled by Romans 4:10-13, [which actually doesn’t eliminate God’s intent for circumcision, that came after Abraham’s faith!]).

Paul goes on to say by comparison that physical circumcision is completely ineffective regarding spiritual salvation…

“For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God” Romans 2:28-29 (regarding Revelation 3:9).

…and that a person called to be a follower of Christ need not concern himself whether he is already circumcised or not circumcised at the time he is converted. It simply doesn’t matter to Christ because he looks at the heart to find the circumcision:

“Is any man called being circumcised? Let him not become uncircumcised. Is any called in uncircumcision? let him not be circumcised. Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God (circumcised or not). Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called (: in circumcision or in uncircumcision)” I Corinthians 7:18-20.

So now, applying this calibration to our “spirit of God test,” What if a wicked spirit confirms that Jesus came in the flesh? I John 4:1 warns us that some spirits will indeed tell us things that we shouldn’t believe:

“Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God:…” I John 4:1.

So how do you test a spirit that tells you things you shouldn’t believe? You ask them? That doesn’t seem to be a very good test. So what was Paul actually recommending as positive proof that a spirit is of God?
We can use circumcision as an example: does he keep the commandments of God regardless of what he “looks like” on the outside: i.e. Is his heart circumcised?
Am I stretching this scriptural concept beyond its intent? You judge:

“And when he was come to the other side into the country of the Gergesenes, there met him two possessed with devils, coming out of the tombs, exceeding fierce, so that no man might pass by that way. And, behold, they cried out, saying, What have we to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God? art thou come hither to torment us before the time?” Matthew 8:28-29.

Need another example?”

“And the evil spirit answered and said, Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are you?” Acts 19:15.

These spirits, declared to be evil, seemed to have no problem confessing that Jesus came in the flesh, and openly confessed that this Jesus was in fact the Son of God.

So we know then that a spirit’s confession, as used in the scriptural test to distinguish “good vs. evil” spirits, is not something specifically verbal-- like a secret password into a club-- but a confession by nature motivated by a specific truth: The question “Did Jesus Christ the Son of God come in the flesh for the redemption of all who would serve him?” is a concept of Lordship no different than our Bic-Test of people claiming to be Christians, such as Catholics and Mormons and Pop Stars, who all confess Jesus is the Son of God come in the flesh but act or believe contrary to that confession. The question: “Are you clean or unclean?” is the exploratory test that is asked rhetorically (*3) while we try (1381) the spirits as told to do in I John 4:1.

Try 1381 dokimazo; from 1384; to test (literally or figuratively); by implication, to approve:-- allow, discern, examine, X like, (ap-)prove, try.

So now if a person, or spirit, confesses the Lord Jesus Christ with his mouth, is that a foolproof guarantee that he is of God as Romans 10:9 seems to promise without argument? Let’s look at it to be quite sure of what it says:

“That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation” Romans 10:9-10.

Hmmm, along with verbal confession that Jesus is Lord, which leads to salvation by “a committed public course,” we are also told he must believe in his heart that God raised him from the dead, which leads to righteousness by a committed private course. So we see that salvation comes in a set of factors, which both must be in effect for success. In America we use the phrase, “Put your money where your mouth is,” even if it is applied in the reverse, such as in this case:

“Nevertheless among the chief rulers also many believed on him; but because of the Pharisees they did not confess him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue: For they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God” John 12:42-43.

Another American idiom; “Show me the money!” describes the concept that backing up the claim is necessary.
Again, this Romans 10:9-10 concept is so clear that it cannot be argued otherwise: Confession and belief result in salvation. Period.
But.
This is a passage of milk, designed for the nourishment of new life. Babies are utterly innocent of false motives, deception, subterfuge, and the like, so this clean verse for babies is absolutely pure and true without flaw. If/Then. It’s guaranteed. You can bank on it. "Do you want to be saved? Here’s how."
But now in a world of meat-eaters, this verse is not suggesting that someone who is intentionally deceitful is incapable of uttering these words or claiming these beliefs, or at least lead you to think they claim it (*4). The words are not a magic incantation. This is not witchcraft. Any actor on a stage can perform these lines and really give the impression that it comes from his heart. It doesn’t mean he’s saved... or of God.
So now that we understand that there is no magic in the magic words, the second half of the verse, like circumcision, and like the confession of spirits, comes into play:

“…and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead…”

Now we have to ask; How do we know if this individual actually believes this in his heart? We ask him? That doesn’t seem to be a very good test. So what was Paul actually recommending as positive proof that a person believes his claim? “Show me the money!”; is your heart circumcised?
Are you seeing how this “cross-calibration within scripture itself” works? Good. Because we are now in an age of professional identity-theft where a deceitful confession is extremely hard to detect, but it’s very important that we do, as evidenced by finishing the last of our three study verses:

“And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world” I John 4:3.

Knowing what this “unchristian spirit” is-- that might even verbally confess Jesus came in the flesh,-- doesn’t really change our judgment, it only establishes how important it is that we not fail to perform the test, in spite of the pseudo-biblically supported cries of “Don’t Judge!”

Not everybody whose temple burns will find a foundation under the ashes, even though they confessed its existence. Not every pigeon is a homer and the only sure proof is where they end up, but for the sake of interaction we can get an early good-idea by how they fly:

“They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them. We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error” I John 4:5-6.

This is the meaning of the “confession test,” very much like a young woman trying to figure out if a young man means it when he says he loves her from the back seat of a car (John 6:28,34-37=John 6:26 as the evaluation’s negative conclusion that knew the right answer from the beginning, just as did the girl).
* * *

The Deceitful Covenant:
There is another Deceitful Confession of a slightly different presentation, which is important regarding those openly non-believers who we make covenants with for mutual advantage (I Corinthians 5:12-13). Like the man pretending to be our President, they can have all the right words and meaning if they were one with us as declared, but deceive us as to who they really are and therefore their words and meaning have a hidden, different, context that we would not have agreed to if we had known their true nature.

Joshua chapter 9 provides an example of some really smart people in the target land, who, because of their incorrigible wickedness like the rest in the land, God had told Joshua to utterly destroy and possess the land as their own. So because of their location of habitation in the path of sure destruction, they knew they would be killed, and therefore in careful preparation came to Joshua (the type of the returning Christ) pretending to be foreigners from a far away land, desiring to make a peace treaty of submission with the confessed people of God (defraud). And because God had not given any moratorium on peace with foreigners not in the land, Joshua, as Christ, shockingly made the covenant according to the terms provided in the deception, but the failure was in not counseling God in what seemed to be a no-brainer.
In otherwords: this is a false-identity problem not a covenant problem. The foundational lie affects everything above it, regardless of how good and pure those elements are. (I really encourage you to read chapter 9).
I don’t wish to take this curious last-end-time prophecy any further at this time because we need to stay on track. This is a topic that needs to be addressed in-depth at a later time for a later fulfillment, but for now, our application is in counseling the wisdom of the Lord (Holy Spirit) in even the most obvious issues. We simply don’t have the luxury of running on our own outside of the Lord’s protection even while following the letter of the Scriptures. Without declaration, this should automatically apply in the hearts of women in reference to their husband’s perspective rather than his law, as well as to Christian’s intimate relationship with God as opposed to simply living under the same roof. It’s not a rule thing; it’s a relationship thing, and the complex consequences of the wife’s emotional decisions must now be dealt with as a family matter (chapter 10:1-14). More will have to wait, but not as long as you think.
* * *

Identity Theft:
I have stated more than once that every issue in our temporal reality is simply a reflection of a spiritual issue in the far-more important reality. Scriptural history is simply an early example for us to apply in our own period soon to be history too.
Today we have a huge problem with identity theft; this is many times more troublesome than having your house robbed, and God has made very plain that his blood boils hot at identity theft:

“Behold, I will (eventually) make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee” Revelation 3:9.

“For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness... Who changed the truth of God into a lie…” Romans 1:18,25.

In an age when people have learned by intentional creativity to deceive, and people actually love to be deceived intentionally: (CGI and special affects in Movies that are so good it cannot be distinguished from real, Tricks of illusion so good they “must be actually demonic magic,” women so cosmetically beautiful she "must be a goddess," GMOs passed as “natural,” etc.), the art of identity-theft, on every front, is now of the highest quality, and actually praised for its skill, as companies and governments pay huge salaries to employ these criminals, such as in the autobiography: “Catch Me IF You Can” (*5), long before the computer-age of crime on a new level.
In future Posts I hope to present relative current information in science and technology that only a decade ago would be utterly rejected as too fantastic to even be acceptable in sci-fi stories, but today it is just the next curious advancement. These “normal advances” are quickly bringing us to the fulfillment of scripture’s end-time prophesies as the whore of Revelation establishes herself as a player in the world’s field of powers, even before she mounts the beast.
By many previous Posts we are now quite confident that the Beast is in fact Islam, but “Who is the Whore?” that is the question we are answering. And by now, through our discussions, the disturbing answer should already be dawning in your subconscious mind.
* * *

What does it take to be saved?
Having said all that, are you still with me? By milk or by meat, are you still completely confident in the undisputable fact that salvation comes ONLY via a confession of heart and mouth that Jesus is indeed the Messiah and savior of your soul by the sacrifice of his own blood to pay your death penalty for sin, and this is completely independent of any conduct; virtuous or otherwise? No magic scissors to snip bits of your flesh, no magic passwords to gain access, no bath in oil or water, no cracker or juice, no saint or virgin, no funds paid in the plate, no magic underwear or doily on your head; Just Jesus and only Jesus! (Colossians 2:8-9…-14…-17). All else are but symbolic expressions of what is real (Matthew 22:36-39=40); we call this Faith (Romans 4:9,13…-16…-18 oh just read to the end of the chapter!).
I say these things cautiously because people need such physical manifestations in order to make their faith feel real enough to trust. And in truth, faith without works is dead; meaning you must put tangible act to belief or it’s all just imagination, an illusion. My point is that the acts are simply manifestations-- or forgeries-- of something real…

“…And Jesus lifted up his eyes, and said, Father, I thank thee that thou hast heard me. And I knew that thou hearest me always: but because of the people which stand by I said it, that they may believe that thou hast sent me” John 11:41b-42.

…and are only useful as long as what they represent is not forgotten by replacing the belief with the act that represents it. And like words without the act; the act without faith is an illusion too. Have you metabolized the life force of God, or only eaten the Catholic magic cracker? (*6).
This question of salvation by Christ alone is not casual. It must be answered in the affirmative as surely as you need air to breath. And it needs to be as confident as the panic that sets in when that air is denied. I am about to show you why.
* * * * * * *

(*1) metabolize: biology: to change (food) into a form that can be used by your body: to process and use (substances brought into your body) by metabolism - Merriam-Webster online dictionary.
Metabolism: biology: the chemical process by which a plant or an animal uses food, water, etc., to grow and heal and to make energy - Merriam-Webster online dictionary.
[See Psalm 119:11, Colossians 3:16, Psalm 1:2, vs. Isaiah 59:12-13].

(*2) Foundation destroyed before it counts:
(Philippians 3:16-19+ Psalm 11:3,
Post 063 “So What Happens If America Falls?” (http://when-did-reason-die.blogspot.com/2010/06/so-what-happens-if-america-falls.html),
Post 194 “Peace” (http://when-did-reason-die.blogspot.com/2011/05/peace.html), etc.

(*3) The exploratory test that is asked rhetorically:
The number of rabbit-trails seems to never diminish, and it seems important to keep the reader from taking them in the effort to stay on target: The spirits are indeed constrained to speak truthfully when honestly adjured (1844; to exact an oath) by God in proxy (Matthew 26:63, Mark 5:7), but not when adjured without valid authority (Acts 19:13). In this way the spirits are indeed obligated to answer in truth and the simple verse interpretation remains intact (Mark 1:27, Luke 10:17). We are exploring the depths that are not simple in an age of professionalized Identity-Theft… by both the asked and the asker.

(*4) See Post 272 “The Witchcraft of Uganda” (http://when-did-reason-die.blogspot.com/2012/11/the-witchcraft-of-uganda.html).

(*5) “Catch Me if You Can is the autobiography of Frank Abagnale, a former con artist who, as a young man, cashed $2.5 million worth of bad checks while impersonating a Pan Am pilot, a doctor, a teacher, and an attorney. The book is co-written by Stan Redding, and was adapted into a 2002 film of the same name by director Steven Spielberg, starring Leonardo DiCaprio as Abagnale and Tom Hanks as the FBI agent who pursued him. … The [pre-movie, pre-2002] book ends with an epilogue telling the story of Frank Abagnale's final capture and the story of his rehabilitation which resulted in the creation of his security firm.” - (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catch_Me_if_You_Can_%28book%29).

(*6) Catholic magic cracker of gore, or are we talking something else?
“Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things. But the flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat” Genesis 9:3-4.

“For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul. Therefore I said unto the children of Israel, No soul of you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger that sojourneth among you eat blood”… Leviticus 17:11-12.

…“For it is the life of all flesh; the blood of it is for the life thereof: therefore I said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall eat the blood of no manner of flesh…” Leviticus 17:14, (also Deuteronomy :22-24).

“…Man shall not live by bread alone, but every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God” Matthew 4:4 (also Luke 4:5).

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God…In him was life…and the Word was made flesh” John 1:1-14.

“…as many as received him, to them gave he the power to become the sons of God, even to them that believed on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God" John 1:12-13.

“Jesus answered…if thou knewest the gift of God…thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water” John 4:10.

“For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world…And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst” John 6:32-35 (and vv.48,51).

“Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eatheth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever” John 6:53-58.

“And Jesus answering them said, Have ye not read so much as this…how he (David) went into the house of God, and did take and eat the shewbread, and gave also to them that were with him; which it is not lawful to eat but for the priest alone?” Luke 6:3-4.

If this historical Type of something more important works with bread/flesh as the simple and complex sustenance of life, is it not the same with the water/blood; the very life force of that life?
“Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.”
Bread/flesh, water/blood, milk/meat, juvenile/mature… are we seeing this yet?
*

The Early Bic-Test

in a world that screams “FIRE!”
Post 309

(I Corinthians 3)

So after all the meaty information compiled through this entire work under the title: When Did Reason Die?-- precept upon precept, precept upon precept, line upon line, line upon line, here a little and there a little, to this point-- including the 1st generation Hebrews that failed to cross the Jordan (Post 238 “Nine Times Forgiven” The Uncommon Christian Walk p.88), and at the very least, since Post 303 “A Woman’s World Now”, let’s finally risk an early evaluation to see if we have learned anything functionally useful beyond the milk of salvation through the regenerating Power of the Holy Ghost (I Corinthians 2:4-6+3:2+3:10a+Titus 3:5):

We asked the question: Are all, some, or any, of these five young women actually Christian?

If you had assumed I would finally provide a short, direct, “Yes” or “No” answer, even one by one, then you haven’t been learning much that will do you any good. And if you have fallen back onto your familiar doctrine of Calvinism to confidently answer the question “Yes,” then you too have not learned anything useful, but if you cling to your comfortably solid Armenian doctrine to boldly declare “NO,” then you are no better.
Calvin and Arminius (*1) were but men, and the Apostle Paul, in the inspired scriptures (I Peter 1:21), has already made clear that to set up the isolated teachings of a single man (including himself), as the sum knowledge and doctrine of the Faith, is to make a serious mistake:

“Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment (1106; resolve). For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them of the house of Chloe (*2,3), that there are contentions among you.
Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?”… I Corinthians 1:10-13.

…“For ye are carnal: for whereas there is among you envying (*4), and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men (444; in the likeness of humanity as opposed to children of God)? For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal? Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos (Acts 19:1), but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man?...” I Corinthians 3:3-5, (see v.21).

Clearly these carnal-minded Corinthian Christians, that had been prematurely attempting to digest spiritual meat, had found intellectual distinctions between the teachings of Paul and that of Apollos or there couldn’t have been any divisions by following “different doctrines" ascribed to their emotionally favorite teachers. But notice the cause that Paul himself references as the source of the distinctions:

“I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase. So then neither is he that planteth anything, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase.”… I Corinthians 3:6.

Paul is identifying that at different stages of the multi-member Corinthian church development, there were different perspectives to address along the process of maturity-- like milk before meat and meat after milk (I Corinthians 3:2)-- and not different approaches to the same end or even “one way” better than “the other.” But does this mean that we change or morph our original doctrines as we develop, like some religions do with secrets that only come with “degrees”? Let’s hear Paul out:

…“Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one: and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labor. For we are labourers together with God: ye are God’s husbandry, ye are God’s building.
According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon…” I Corinthians 3:7-10a.

Paul is making clear that all the “various” works of God’s ministers in the power of His Holy Spirit is for the purpose of creating a single structure called elsewhere the collective Body of Christ (I Corinthians 12:27, 10:16-18, 12:12-14, Romans 12:4-5). This collective structure is built one stone upon another, precept upon precept, line upon line, taken from here and taken from there, each stone prepared and polished (Psalm 144:12, Revelation 21:11) to be placed upon the foundation (Ephesians 2:20-21, Revelation 21:14) resulting in a gloriously unified city where each stone is built almost as it’s own city of the same construction process, much like the trillions of complexly-constructed cells make up the many complexly-constructed parts of a single-unified human body of complexity. Precepts and lines, though importantly made of the same stuff (stem-cells if you will) are all different, or one could not be built upon another, which is why Isaiah 28:10 repeats precepts, and repeats lines, and indicates they are a Holy composite like the scriptures themselves having 40 authors over thousands of years by a single-Spirit to a single-end of perfect unification without error or schism (example: Matthew 5:17). [IF there is a schism then something of that structure is not of the Holy Spirit, whether the builder, the material, or the motive (I John 4:1[-3]), and like with the plague of leprosy it is ours to first cast it out, then work on figuring out the cause]. The temples of human-life in Christ always begin with the only foundation possible; Jesus Christ (I Corinthians 3:11), such as was built by Paul’s “milk-teachings” to them, and then always gets a structure built upon that foundation; such as by Apollos’ and/or Cephas’ “meat-teachings.” Their teachings, though somewhat different, are not in conflict in any way; the building must fit the constraints of the design (foundation); like measured aspirated-liquid gasoline in a solid engine cylinder for the intended purpose of useful power when pressure and ignition-source are applied:

“…But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon”… I Corinthians 3:10b.

From explaining that he (the Apostle Paul), and Apollos (the non-apostle-- Cephas by absence is compatriot with Apollos in this relational context of foundation and structure), were both laborers of the same construction project, Paul immediately goes on to warn that the structure on the foundation he laid, while being creatively unique, must fit the foundation and should be built only from worthy materials according the master-plan of God, or it is doomed to destruction because it will not successfully serve its intended purpose for which the foundation was laid; he didn’t lay the foundation for a dance hall but a temple:

“Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; Every man’s work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man’s work of what sort it is”… I Corinthians 3:12-13, continuing until resulting in;

“Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are” I Corinthians 3:16-17.

We see that the value of the structure, that we build on the temple’s foundation, is a composite result of the materials we chose to use in its construction-- all material choices are made by the project manager (you) and the builder (you-- and anybody you let on the job)-- and that done, without condemnation or rebuke from God for those choices. “Go for it; make it as pretty, as strong, as useful, or ugly, or useless, or flamboyant as you want.” In the effort to allow the builder “full control” to come up with a creation that represents the passions of his-or-her heart, the structure is not rejected for any reason between now and the test; Rather, Paul’s early-warning Apostolic- informative advice- as a master-builder and scriptural foundation layer, is that the structure must withstand the evaluating trial by fire that is guaranteed to come in the appointed day and for an appointed reason of testing the structures purpose, much like a factory pre-testing an engine before it ships out. Until that “test day” before the grand opening of its actual use, the building under construction seems to have no apparent flaws; in that the builder rightly builds as he wishes according to the desires of his own heart; “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder” as they say… until the day of fire, when many structures will be reduced to piles of ash beside the street. Then the beholder has a new perspective regarding beauty. But by then it’s too late for anything but templeless existence as they dwell in the open sky of poverty, happily camping on their remaining foundations that grant them their place in the kingdom’s realm as Down’s Syndrome Christians. (Don’t bother; we will cover this in future Posts!).

Today, in specific application to our Gender Typology study, we might rightly suggest switching the example-materials of cosmetics, fabrics, and silicone, in place of wood, hay, and stubble, and not damage the actual meaning for our specific use. And we might likewise substitute godliness, character, and grace, for the materials of gold, silver, and precious stones (Proverbs 11:22), but in such a specific gender application we would diminish the reach of the far larger multi-layered application that the scriptures intend by the metaphoric materials exampled.

But staying on topic; Shouldn’t you have the right to determine what your own building/body should be used for, and therefore what building materials would be appropriate? No, not after the foundation has been laid:

“What? Know ye not that…ye are not your own? For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God’s” I Corinthians 6:19-20.

“Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are” I Corinthians 3:16-17.

“For which of you, intending to build a tower, sitteth not down first, and counteth the cost, whether he have sufficient to finish it? Lest haply, after he hath laid the foundation, and is not able to finish it, all that behold it begin to mock him, Saying, This man began to build, and was not able to finish” Luke 14:28-30. (See Haggai 1:6 regarding the funds to finish).

Again, here in I Corinthians, Paul is not addressing foundationless Pagans but Christians. Carnal Christians. God the Creator has already told us that once this foundation is laid by our “Yes” to Christ’s proposal that guarantees our Salvation as we saw above, and the Holy Spirit moves in to make ready for that great day (i.e. advising our construction), the building is the temple of God, therefore, contrary to the popular idea of “a woman’s rights over her own body,” our only “rights” is in choosing the construction materials that make up God’s temple’s structure (I Corinthians 7:4).
Even created-beautiful Silicone “gargoyles,” while perhaps visually appealing from the outside, have little but a detracting/distracting/defiling value to the holiness purpose of the temple, but nobody said the temple was doomed to burn because they were added. The potential to burn is found in the motive focus of adding such things onto a structure that is weakened by such glorious but burnable stubble being installed instead of structurally necessary silver girders of virtue and such (I Peter 3:3-4, I Peter chapter 1).

So now, back to the question regarding these young women:
We know that faith in Jesus Christ is the only way to salvation, and that comes uncomplicatedly by a simple belief, as is made clear by several passages along that line:

“That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved” Romans 10:9 (see also Galatians 2:16, Acts 16:31, etc.).

So IF the foundation is laid in Christ Jesus by an uncomplicated belief and verbal confession-- as these young women have most apparently made in their youth-- what happens when the entire building burns to ashes because of foolish construction? The short answer is found clearly enough in our same study passage:

“If any man’s work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire” I Corinthians 3:15.

So that’s it then. The wicked girls are Christians.

This verse indeed seems to confirm that these young foolish Christian women are “good to go”-- perhaps with a bit of spiritual smoke damage, but still “OK for eternal heaven.” But what does it really mean, beyond milk, in a functionally practical way as they arrive in that eternal kingdom looking for their place of habitation? Especially, in light of the verses that follow the above “one-line theology,” regarding God himself destroying the builder-and-defiler of that temple as if the builder and the temple were somehow different but declared to be one in the same:

“Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? (present tense.) If any man (*5) defile (5351) the temple of God, him shall God destroy (5351); for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are” I Corinthians 3:16-17. (See also II Corinthians 6:16-17).

defile/destroy 5351 phtheiro; probably strengthened from phthio (to pine or waste); probably, to shrivel or wither, i.e. to spoil (by any process) or (generally) to ruin (especially figuratively, by moral influences, to deprave):-- corrupt (self), defile, destroy.

By understanding the words of the very accurately articulate Greek language that has been translated into our less accurate English, we discover that by being our own destroyer via a wasting defilement, God himself, in a “light or particle?” kind of way (*6), brings that destruction because our body is his house. You are in fact one-in-the-same; body and spirit, builder and building, “You are what you eat.” Since the Church is Christ’s body: If you defile your body from a lack of self-respect, God likewise destroys his body from the same lack (*7).

So how then can the whole; “saved by grace alone, without works,” (an undeniable principle of scripture), actually apply if our conduct is accountable?

In essence, what we are asking is; How do the 1st generation Hebrews fail to get into the Promised Land but not find themselves in Hell? (Post 247 “Are They In Hell?”). I strongly recommend re-familiarizing yourself with that keystone cipher Post as we are now beginning to address what I said would not come until a much later study (Preparing The Way Of The Lord p.33).
* * *

The Lepers:
…“And the leper in whom the plague is, his clothes shall be rent, and his head bare, and he shall put a covering upon his upper lip, and shall cry, Unclean, unclean. All the days wherein the plague shall be in him he shall be defiled; he is unclean: he shall dwell alone; without the camp shall his habitation be” Leviticus 13:45-46.

Why do you suppose that God the Creator-- who apparently could have made our temporal reality any way he wanted-- designed it so that the nation of His people, even in the holy Promised Land… should have lepers?
It’s because it answers our question!
Were these unfortunate Hebrews that had contracted leprosy, somehow no longer Jews? Were they somehow not God’s Promised people anymore? Of course they still were. But by their pitiful and exclusionary existence you could hardly prove it. So how is it that a Jew; a member of God’s promised people, a possessor of the land promised, should then be thrust out of the kingdom and forbidden reentry? (in Type for 70 years!) It’s because their disease is contagious, and especially by what comes out of their mouth, which is why they covered their upper lip like we do when we cough (*8). Their cry of “Unclean, unclean” was not for their own good but for the good of those not leprous (I Corinthians 15:33).
It is curious that although the scriptures lay out the care of cleansing and eradicating the disease from the camp, as well as periodically checking the diseased for possible recovery, it leaves the discovery of what causes the disease to our scientifically intellectual maturity. And although leprosy is a very real disease, the general principle of handling contagious diseases can be applied to many various layers in type... If we so choose to do:

“Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall here thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it to unto the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican (*9)” Matthew 18:15-17.

It is a rabbit trail from our topic but Leviticus 13:1-43 resulting in v.44 is a simile to this progression of discovering the degree of uncleanness, and looking for the evidence of cure or need for thrusting out as incurable, from a perspective of public health.
The leper represents, in yet another Type, the 1st generation Hebrews that failed to cross the Jordan because of their “disease” of fear (Numbers 13:28-14:10), which I Corinthians 11:6 independent-"uncovered head"-failure, is the topic of warning in the Posts of The Uncommon Christian Walk. The scriptures are surprisingly full of numerous Types of this unacceptable condition among God’s people:

The Unclean Priest:
“Now Joshua was clothed with filthy garments, and stood before the angel. And he answered and spake unto those that stood before him, saying, Take away the filthy garments from him. And unto him he said, Behold, I have caused thine iniquity to pass from thee, and I will clothe thee with change of raiment” Zechariah 3:3-4. (Don’t forget v.7 as the job and purpose after he is made clean, but beyond our present point).

The Unclean People:
“Then said Haggai, if one that is unclean by a dead body touch any of these, shall it be unclean? And the priests answered and said, It shall be unclean. Then answered Haggai, and said, So is this people, and so is every work of their hands; and that which they offer there is unclean. And now, I pray you, consider from this day and upward…” Haggai 2:13-15a, (and Haggai goes on to discuss a cleansing).

The Unclean City:
“And the LORD said unto Satan, The LORD rebuke thee, O Satan; even the LORD that hath chosen Jerusalem rebuke thee: is not this a (scorched) brand plucked out of the (testing) fire?” Zechariah 3:2.

The Five Foolish Virgins are the leprous, who, for the protection of the clean, go away into outer darkness without lighted lamps... Not into Hell, but not into the kingdom of heaven either. So WHERE ARE THEY?!

The answer is so intriguing, and so complex, and apparently not included in any of our expositions of scriptural doctrine, that I have brought you here one principle and one line at a time in the attempt to wean you from a pure diet of milk so that you can properly digest the protein of meat. We are about to break open these doors wide, but have patience even a little longer; there are some loose ends yet to draw in because of the plethora of confusion that has nearly successfully destroyed our numerous ciphers: such as motivated by emotional compassion that won’t thrust out those diseased by AIDS or whorish conduct (I Corinthians 11:29-30) in fear of offending the emotionally sensitive who cry, “Discrimination!”
So instead of thrusting them out, our society has set them up, as not just role models but actual idols. We even apply the labels idol and Stars to make sure our kids get the idea: “Worship these! Pattern your life after them! These are our gods!” Just as Rome did with their game champions.
* * *

Screaming, “FIRE!”
The “Bic-Test” is the use of a socially-recognized pocket lighter (*10), to hold a tiny familiar flame to the corner of an element and see how flammable it is without trying to do damage. This is not “the day of test” that we are warned is still coming, but a pre-test test among ourselves to discover anything we might need to fix before that day comes. The Bic-Test is not intended to do harm but to be a beneficial discovery if any harm is done. It is an early shaking awake of the Ten Virgins to check their lamps, much as Jesus did to the disciples:

“And he cometh unto the disciples, and findeth them asleep, and saith unto Peter, What, could ye not watch with me one hour? Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak” Matthew 26:40-41. (Spirit and flesh, foundation and structure, one in the same temple, but not the same: I Corinthians 6:19-20).

It is only a foolish virgin that will complain they were “cruelly” awakened and “embarrassingly” shown that their lamp had gone out, or is about to. Yet today, that is the most common reaction from anyone who is shown a Bic-Test flaw in their doctrine of faith, be it Christian, Catholic, Mormon, or Muslim, etc. The common instant “scriptural” ½ verse theology reaction is, “DON’T JUDGE!” (Matthew 7:1a). But contrary to popular belief; Jesus actually counsels otherwise. The distinction is in the kind and motive of the test/judgment performed (Matthew 7:1b-2=Psalm 139:23-24).

“…judge (2919; decide, try, condemn) nothing before the time…” (I Corinthians 4:3-5),
but that does not suggest there is no present time for any judgment whatsoever:

“…If then ye have judgments (2922; tribunals) of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church. I speak to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you? No, not one that shall be able to judge (1252; separate thoroughly, discriminate) between his brethren?” I Corinthians 6:1-5. (See also Matthew 7:5b, often lost behind v.5a as with the Matthew 7:1a half-verse theology).

“For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. But when we are judged (of others from our lack) we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world (on test day)” I Corinthians 11:31-32.

“I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators: Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world. But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat. For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within? But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person” I Corinthians 9-13.

Clearly, in spite of milk-sucking foolish adult Christians screaming “FIRE!” at our simple Bic-Test among family members, it is scripturally confirmed that it is indeed ours to judge those among ourselves, for the purpose of bringing correcting chastisement of the Lord in the effort to fix dangerously burnable issues before the Day of Judgment.
So, are these foolish “Christian” girls actually Christians at all, in spite of any confession of faith that might claim they are? A simple Bic-Test as we have done, confirms that their temple, as built, will burn quite successfully. And because of the dangers of a San Francisco kind of fire in the kingdom, without prematurely casting them into the fire of condemning judgment by declaring “No,” we simply thrust them out of the church to dwell by themselves as leprous “Christians” in hopes that it will motivate a desire to become clean and rejoin the community, which we would gladly allow; (II Corinthians 2:5-9).
By the act of thrusting them out, we have accepted their claim to be Christian; it is their conduct that has been found leprous. Not long ago, America, as a Christian nation (family), had such standards of law that reflected this kind of non-hateful wisdom in internal judgment while we left the world to rule their own families.
* * *

Try it:
Can you rightly apply this passage?

“Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment: thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honour the person of the mighty: but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbor”… Leviticus 19:15+, (see in relation; Job 34:17-19).

Clearly judgment is a part of our righteous duty, here-and-now, but only when we are mature enough to metabolize the meat of useful wisdom. Just Google “Disabled Models” to find a long-list of a growing industry that glamorizes the “person of the poor” in a twisted respect that defiles our perceptions of what's naturally “right and wrong.”
Does this passage say don’t respect the poor? No, it doesn’t!

Respect 5375 nasa’; or nacah; (Psalm 4:6[7]); a primitive root; to lift, in a great variety of applications, literal and figurative, absolutely and relatively (as follows):-- accept, advance, arise, (able to, (armor), suffer to) bear(-er), up) bring (forth), burn, carry (away), cast, contain, desire, ease, exact, exalt (self), extol, fetch, forgive, furnish, further, give, go on, help, high, hold up, honorable (+man), lade, lay, lift (self) up, lofty, marry, magnify, X needs, obtain, pardon, raise (up), receive, regard, respect, set (up), spare, stir up, + swear, take (away, up), X utterly, wear, yield.

Person 6440 paniym; plural (but always as singular) of an unused noun (paneah; from 6437); the face (as the part that turns); used in a great variety of applications (literally and figuratively); also (with prepositional prefix) as a preposition (before, etc.):-- + accept, a-(be-)fore(-time), against, anger, X as (long as), at, + battle, + because (of), + beseech, countenance… [See Ezekiel 1:6&9-10 for the alternative of consistent and predictable variation of perspective].

Poor 1800 dal; from 1809; properly, dangling, i.e. (by implication) weak or thin:-- lean, needy, poor (man), weaker. [See Psalm 106:15].

In otherwords: Do not raise up by respect the condition that makes a person weaker than what God designed humanity to be naturally. This is my judgment regarding such social confusion as these industries and organizations, which compassionately but inappropriately, promote the less fortunate condition as a cause for rejoicing and praise-worthy (*11).

“And ye are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from among you” I Corinthians 5:2.

Such a mindframe of wrong focused honor does not raise up the less fortunate, but only brings us all down by re-determining what is “normal, and good” and in so doing eliminates our ability see when God removes his blessing on our nation (Exodus 23:25-26). It is the physical representation of making Sodomy socially acceptable as an “alternate lifestyle” with equal respect, or more accurately; electing them to office because they are Sodomites.
To cry “foul!’ at this judgment is not to refrain from judging, but to do unrighteousness in judgment, because it is God who determined what is normal and what is not, for a reason:

“Neither shalt thou countenance (1921) a poor man in his cause” Exodus 23:3.

Countenance 1921 hadar; a primitive root; to swell up (literally or figuratively, active or passive); by implication, to favor or honour, be high or proud:-- countenance, crooked place, glorious, honour, put forth.

So why would the word "countenance" mean; to swell up? Isn’t "countenance" the word we use that reveals a persons demeanor?

Countenance: 1. Bearing or conduct. 2. The expression of the face, especially as indicative of mental composure. 3. The face; visage. 4. Approving bearing or facial aspect; hence, favor; aid. - Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary 5th Edition 1948.

Do not approve the mental composure that causes a person to diminish, [see I Corinthians 4:6,18-19, 13:4, Colossians 2:18, as opposed to James 1:17 as they relate to our definition discoveries].

Applying this concept to the second example in the study verse regarding "the person of the mighty," we see that it is unrighteous judgment to honor a person because of their station. This is what we do when we praise and approve the unsavory conduct of someone just because they are rich, powerful or famous, such as our five girls in question. To honor the station may be righteous, to honor the person may be righteous (Romans 13:7), but to honor the person of the station is not, such as honoring a corrupt politician because he’s a politician… or a Christian (Acts 10:34, I Corinthians 11:29-30 in effect principally to our context).
* * *

So let’s just cut to the chase:
While we don’t argue that these foolish virgins might or might not be Christians, we can sure examine their health and declare them conclusively, “leprous.” (See Post 256 “On The Olympics” note: *1 http://when-did-reason-die.blogspot.com/2012/08/on-olympics.html). Thrust them out, and do it decisively! Let them be “Christians” somewhere else where they cannot damage the healthy body of Christ; let them dwell alone, much as we used to socially shun fallen women while giving them compassionate aid in their difficult plight; We have young daughters to protect!
But since we don’t care to cast them from us, if they had any shame or regard for the living, they themselves would self-reproachingly confess publicly and loudly that they are unclean (while covering the “upper-lip” details of their shame), in the effort to keep others from contracting what they have. In otherwords; they would give all their wickedly acquired goods to the poor and commit to speaking engagements to discourage young girls from following their fallen ways.

But somewhere along the path of continued acceptance of what was once abominable, eventually, like Lot, it may be the healthy that might have to go around crying, “Clean, clean!” among a community of lepers living in palaces of honor:

“And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues” Revelation 18:4.

With the high volume of sexualized teen-idol-worshipers, Gay-Rights activists and Cause worship, it's not looking like that day is too far off (*12).
* * * * * * *

(*1) “John Calvin (French: Jean Calvin, born Jehan Cauvin: 10 July 1509 – 27 May 1564) was an influential French theologian and pastor during the Protestant Reformation. He was a principal figure in the development of the system of Christian theology later called Calvinism. Originally trained as a humanist lawyer, he broke from the Roman Catholic Church around 1530. After religious tensions provoked a violent uprising against Protestants in France, Calvin fled to Basel, Switzerland, where he published the first edition of his seminal work Institutes of the Christian Religion in 1536” - (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Calvin).

“Jacobus Arminius (October 10, 1560 – October 19, 1609), the Latinized name of the Dutch theologian Jakob Hermanszoon from the Protestant Reformation period, served from 1603 as professor in theology at the University of Leiden. He wrote many books and treatises on theology, and his views became the basis of Arminianism and the Dutch Remonstrant movement. Following his death, his challenge to the Reformed standard, the Belgic Confession, provoked ample discussion at the Synod of Dort, which crafted the five points of Calvinism in response to Arminius's teaching” - (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobus_Arminius).

(*2) House of (no actual word) idium; therapeia; noun; household.
“In I Cor. 1:11, “they which are of the household (A.V., house) of Chloe” is, literally, ‘the…of Chloe,’ the English translation being necessary to express the idiom - (Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, W.E. Vines, 17th impression 1966, p.237).

Idiom: noun [French and Latin; French idiome, from Latin idioma, from Greek idioma, from idioun to make a person’s own, from idios one’s own proper.] 1. The language peculiar to a people, (a tongue) or to district, community, or class (a dialect). 2. The structural form peculiar to any language. 3. An expression in the usage of a language, that is peculiar to itself either in grammatical construction or in having a meaning which cannot be derived as a whole from the conjoined meanings of its elements. 4. A form of expression characteristic of an author.

(*3) Chloe 5514 Chloe; feminine of apparently a primary word; “green”; Chloe, a Christian female:-- Chloe.

Green is the notorious color of feminine envy, akin to jealousy (see *4). It is also the color of the 4th destroying horse of Revelation 6:8 interpreted as:

Pale (5515) chloros; from the same as 5514; greenish, i.e. verdant, dun-colored:-- green, pale.

Chloros is the foundation of our word Chlorine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chlorine) to describe chemical element no. 17 on the periodic table, which is, oddly enough, a yellow-green color like the pale of death. It is among the strongest of all the reactive elements and therefore is a strong oxidizing agent for both good and bad uses, which means the Pale Horse of Revelation does its deadly work by corrosively affecting what it touches via chemical reaction. All this is very significant to the Prophecy of scripture but will have to wait for a collection of works I hope to publish under the title Beyond Alchemy.
But lest you think chlorine has no good purpose, I offer you this tiny morsel as we contemplate the house of Chloe as referenced by Paul for a reason:
• 85% of medicines are made using chlorine chemistry.
• 96% of crop protection used by farmers are based on chlorine chemistry.
• 98% of Western Europe’s drinking water is made safe with the help of chlorine.

God himself claims to be a jealous (7065) God (Deuteronomy 6:14-15), but not envious as we know it (Ezekiel 35:11). The difference may be found in rightful possession of what is desired; jealousy wants to retain, while envy wants to obtain. Why then was Paul informed by the House of Chloe? (Philippians 1:15+ James 4:5).

(*4) Envy 2205 zelos; from 2204; properly, heat, i.e. (figuratively) “Zeal” (in a favorable sense, ardor; in an unfavorable one, jealously, as of a husband [figuratively, of God], or an enemy, malice):-- emulation, envy(-ing), fervent mind, indignation, jealousy, zeal.
2204 zeo; a primary verb; to be hot (boil, of liquids; or glow, of solids), i.e. (figuratively) be fervid (earnest):-- be fervent.

Jealous 7065 qana’; a primitive root; to be (causatively, make) zealous, i.e. (in a bad sense) jealous or envious:-- (be) envy(-ious), be (move to, provoke to) jealous(-y), X very, (be) zeal(-ous).

God, through the Apostle Paul, would not have included this house-but-not-house "of Chloe” tidbit into the scriptures if it didn’t have significance to our understanding. Therefore, the house of Chloe is apparently referencing a spirit of caustic zeal typed by the spirit of Green who came running to Paul perhaps for the zealous purpose of “straightening out” the others regarding the beloved faith. We know the Corinthian Church was divided according to well-intended envious doctrines of contention for the faith. This is what I believe Paul was addressing, but more will have to wait.

(*5) “if any man” 1536 ei tis; from 1487 and 5100; if any:-- he that, if a(-ny) man(‘s thing, from any, ought), whether any, whosoever.
1487 ei; a primary particle of conditionality; if, whether, that, etc.:-- foreasmuch as, if, that…
5100 tis; an enclitic indefinite pronoun; some or any person or object:-- a (kind of), any (man, thing, thing at all)…

This phrase would be more easily understood in our vernacular as “if anyone.” I bring this up for two reasons:
1. Because of the potential to read this as meaning only a man attacking a woman to defile her.
2. To show that while it clearly identifies the person defiling their own body as the primary intent, it also allows any other who would defile that body as well.

(*6) Light or Particle?: see Post 277 “The Young Double-Slit Experiment” (http://when-did-reason-die.blogspot.com/2012/11/particle-or-wave.html).

(*7) If you defile your body from a lack of self-respect, God also destroys his body from the same lack (Matthew 10:32-33, Luke 12:8-9), much like cutting out cancer.

“For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones” Ephesians 5:30 (+31).

But God’s purposes are not as “destroying” as one might think; mirrored much like our example’s confused actions as they “cry out” for help by destroying themselves (as expressed in Ephesians 5:29), yet God is not likewise confused:

“Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed (2673), that henceforth we should not serve sin” Romans 6:6.

Destroyed 2673 katargeo; from 2596 and 691; to be (rendered) entirely idle (useless), literally or figuratively:-- abolish, cease, cumber, deliver, destroy, do away, become (make) of no (none, without) effect, fail, loose, bring (come) to nought, put away (down), vanish away, make void.

“For the Son of man is not come to destroy (622) men’s lives, but to save them…” Luke 9:56.

Destroy 622 apollumi; from 575 and the base of 3639; to destroy fully (reflexively, to perish, or lose), literally or figuratively:-- destroy, die, lose, mar, perish.

“Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with the same mind: for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin; that he no longer should live the rest of his time in the flesh to the lust of men (444 humanity), but to the will of God” I Peter 4:1-2.

Ephesians 5:25-27 concludes with: “So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself” Ephesians 5:28 (as Christ loved the Church; Ephesians 5:32). But love is not to be construed as blanketly permissive, as the scriptures make abundantly clear.

Regarding the “light or particle?” question of “Who destroys your temple; You or God?” The answer is, “Yes.”

(*8) “and especially by what comes out of their mouth” has a double-meaning application as God’s people can speak unwisely, and even blasphemously, thereby infecting others (Matthew 12:34+Hebrews 12:15, Job 21:5, 29:9-10, Proverbs 30:32, Ecclesiastes 5:6, James 3:8, Romans 3:13, Exodus 20:7=Deuteronomy 5:11).

(*9) Publican:
5057 telones; from 5056 and 5608; a tax-farmer, i.e. collector of public revenue:-- publican.
5056 telos; from a primary tello (to set out for a definite point or goal); properly, the point aimed at as a limit, i.e. (by implication) the conclusion of an act or state (termination [literally, figuratively, or indefinite], result…
5608 oneomai; middle voice from an apparently primary onos (a sum or price); to purchase…

What we might miss, being distanced from the reality of life for those Jesus was addressing, is that a State empowered Publican was able to seriously trouble your life if you didn’t pay what they figured you could. Publicans were notoriously corrupt extortioners. Luke 19:2+8 gives us a hint into the past life of a converted Publican, and gives greater understanding to II Samuel 12:6 centering on a lack of pity toward the poor man legally but immorally robbed by the man with power; i.e. the king.

(*10) “Société Bic (commonly referred to as just Bic) is a company based in Clichy, France. It was founded in 1945 by Baron Marcel Bich and has become known for making disposable consumer products... The brand's lighters have changed little since 1972. They, as well as the Bic Cristal ballpoint pen, are easily recognizable as a result of their importance in pop culture. As such, they are represented in the design collection of the Museum Of Modern Art in New York” - (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soci%C3%A9t%C3%A9_Bic).

(*11) Am I suggesting that a black man cannot be President, or a handicap girl be a model? I am not. This passage is instructing us not to make the man President because he is black, or make her a model because she is handicapped. As long as they can do the job what do I care?… until an issue is made of it. (Acts 15:29+I Corinthians 8:4-9+I Corinthians 10:27= I Corinthians 10:28), something like Clinton’s miss-applied “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” military policy in a Christian nation (*11a). We rejoiced with Olympian Oscar Pistorius (*11b) not because he was crippled but because of his amazing triumph to rise above his handicap. When he fell morally we cast him off, not as a handicap but as an immoral man. We did not respect the Handicapped man, we respected the man, that was handicapped. This is the same issue brought up some time ago regarding the difference between a Mexican American and an American of Mexican descent (*11c).

(*11a) "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT), byname for the former official U.S. policy (1993–2011) regarding the service of homosexuals in the military. The term was coined after Pres. Bill Clinton in 1993 signed a law (consisting of statute, regulations, and policy memoranda) directing that military personnel “don’t ask, don’t tell, don’t pursue, and don’t harass.” When it went into effect on October 1, 1993, the policy theoretically lifted a ban on homosexual service that had been instituted during World War II [the law], though in effect it continued a statutory ban [the grace]. In December 2010 both the House of Representatives and the Senate voted to repeal the policy [the issue made], and Pres. Barack Obama signed the legislation on December 22. The policy officially ended on September 20, 2011” - (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/1553878/Dont-Ask-Dont-Tell-DADT).
A very crafty two-step means of sidestepping the WWII law entirely but making it look like an honorable thing to do, much as “Christians” wrongly apply grace to completely undermine the law’s original intent of eliminating uncleanness in the camp for the sake of public health. Don’t let this subversive misapplication of a good principle derail our concept.

(*11b) See Post 260 “The Nephil Consideration” Note: *2 (http://when-did-reason-die.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-nephil-consideration.html).

(*11c) “If they want to be here; come lawfully, with the mind to be Americans of Mexican decent. Not Mexican Americans.” - (Post 070 “The Bloodthirsty Moose” http://when-did-reason-die.blogspot.com/2010/06/blood-thirsty-moose.html).
See also Post 078 “ Parable of Illegal Mexicans” (http://when-did-reason-die.blogspot.com/2010/07/parable-of-illegal-mexicans.html).
This really is not as “off topic” as you might think.

(*12)
“They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate” Titus 1:16. (See also vv.12-16).
*