The invisible war

The whole point of the drive to undermine the AB has been to redirect mans faith in man by raising up so-called trained teachers.  This being assisted spiritually with the help of unseen forces, who are out to destroy the Bible and keep mankind in darkness and doomed for eternity.

Yes, there are deceiving seducing spirits out there ( 2 Chr. 18:21; 1 Tim. 4:1).  However, what if we have already been seduced?  What if we have already been deceived like I were for many years of my pilgrim walk?

If one is to wage war effectively against a stronger foe because he has superior firepower and numerically outnumbers your own forces, then the most effective way is to fight deceptive battles without a natural borderline.  Because, when a definite line is used, like a military front, the enemy is easily distinguished by being confined behind his lines of defence and can be detected and defeated by straight-out overwhelming odds.  However, if the enemy is hidden within, with many covers and disguises, without a common front between "us" and "them", the superior side is on the back-foot from day one.  Because, although he is aware there is an enemy out there, he is confused into not knowing who, or where, or how, to combat him.

Remember, the delusion of the Vietnam War?  Who was the enemy?  The allusive VC?  The peasants in the paddy fields?  The children in the market place?  The North?  China?  Russia? International Communism?  The National Liberation Front?  The PYM (Progressive Youth Movement)?  Or the GI's own government at home?  Or, all or most of these?

Through the 60's the media was fed the lie (so they could pass it onto the public) the enemy was being eradicated "out there" by highly exaggerated body counts.  While the bulk of the enemy was alive and well within the paddy fields, the villages, the towns, the capital city, infiltrating the South Vietnamese Army, the 'fire bases', even controlling the American Embassy (at one time).  Not always were the Vietcong or the North Vietnamese the opposition, but the Protest Movement at home, American celebrities visiting Hanoi, and the corrupt, propped up, puppet regime of the South.  A war that was lost from day one because of the lack of front lines being established and the problem of not being able to discern who your enemy was.  The Soviets found similar problems later in Afghanistan.  Furthermore, in updating this article first written a few years before the War in Iraq ...  need I say more?

Israel ...  from the late forties to the seventies!  During this era they could fight a decisive war, with victory on their side, because of a visible, defined, enemy on the other side of the boarder. Even though the Israelis were out numbered by about twenty to one, they could pre-empt an effective strike against their Moslem foe, as they had common borders to monitor, keep under surveillance, and eventually send over daring, accomplished, lightening raids.  Because by a common border they knew all along where their enemy was, who their enemy was, and who they were fighting.

However, since the early eighties, because the IDF were not allowed to capture their entrapped enemy in Beirut, but instead allowed a safe passage of escape for him, through political interference, they now incongruously have him armed and lodged within; coupled with an impossible locked in, no-win conflict, without a common front to pinpoint your enemy.

Just as in the Garden of Eden, because the enemy is in the minority (looking at God's overall big picture) and because of his defeat at Calvary, we have a spiritual enemy who will not fight on defined fronts, but by cunning and craft he is a master of covering up his traces and using disguises and smokescreens in order to infiltrate, cause havoc, and wear down the saints of God.  These devices are also used in order to make the Lord's church ineffective in setting the captures free, and finding the liberty there is in their Maker.  Also, diverting worship away from the true God to craftily be redirected towards himself.  The only way for success in these areas of course is for this hidden enemy to undermine the believers trust in the holy scriptures, found in the Holy Bible we call the Authorized "King James".

The hidden enemy

I think most of us are very familiar with the following scripture mainly used today to disarm any criticism pointing at self, or what we hold dear, or are connected to, irrespective of whether it's of constructive or pulling down content:

Matt. 7:3.  "And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?"

Suppose, beyond a common metaphor, in this passage Jesus was referring to our spiritual eye in how we understand Jesus to be residing in our spiritual heart?  Like when Jesus was referring to the spiritual temple when He spoke about His body.  Or Him being the spiritual bread, the spiritual table and door, and so on.  Isn't it clear, scripture is talking about spiritual eyes when it is referring to receiving revelation or discernment (seeing things spiritually)?  This puts us in a different seat of judgement when we come to exposing the enemy outside our own comfort zone; in relation to error, deception, the apostasy, or just plain "going off the rails".  It may also mean we can no longer justify our well primed and refined religious stance.  Because it may mean looking at the beam in our own eye first.  Then the responsibility of having to deal with it, before, when and if, we redirect our artillery towards others "out there".

Easy to expose a movement, or group, or doctrine, independent of our own home base, than see an enemy alive and well at home, or in our own life or sphere of interest, because it has outwitted us by learning to coexist on equal "friendly" terms, over a long period of time, undetected, duplicating our very aspirations, habits, and personality.  Obscuring our vision to the real full situation, because we have been trained and sensitized to see the more obvious outward conditions and manifestations.

Luke 12:56.  "Ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky and of the earth; but how is it that ye do not discern this time?"

Spiritual things are only spiritually discerned of course, and this comes about by real life experience and looking past reliosity and traditonal misconseptions.

Heb. 5:14.  "But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil."

How many are crusading against the rot down the road, or "over there" but whattabout the disguised rot in our own life?  How many pray against the evil in a community, or warfare against the principalities and powers over a certain place, or bring down the strongman in another domain, or are busy binding this or binding that, casting out this and casting out that, in or over others, and places, but refuse to see the undetected nonsense within the heart?  Always seeing the enemy at a distance, but never in the midst.  Always overlooking the real threat, the most dangerous elusive enemy ...  within!

Better to apply the word of God to our own lives first, before we apply it to our "competitors".  Better to try the spirits in our own midst, before pointing at the wicked ones over yonder.

However, this can be quite awkward for some to see.  First, we have those who actually use the Greek to undermine our English Bible.  Now these people must be extremely clever as they are more apt at knowing the Greek than Jesus, Paul or the rest of the apostles (who spoke Greek by the way) as they claim to know what the originals said, which have all since perished through centuries of time.  What they fail to understand is Jesus, Paul and the rest of the apostles did not use the originals.  In fact, it would be highly unlikely if they ever knew where the original, penned, God breathed, autographs could be found.  You see, Jesus, Paul, and the rest of the apostles used copies of copies of the originals, just as we still do today.  So claiming to convey or know the originals is as absurd as claiming to know the precise amount of fish in the sea.  Yet they still have an audience (amazing what charisma and the gift of the gab can do) and believe they are really doing the Lord a service by undermining (through naivety, ignorance or straight out self conceit) what He inspired to be written, and what He has preserved, and what He has kept, as the written scriptures, in the universal language of our day, in His book of life.

What if antichrist was not only a man but a spirit?  F'instance, are you aware the word antichrist only appears four times in scripture and is never spelt with a capital A?  Three times in the epistle of 1st John and once in the epistle of 2nd John.  The only place it clearly refers to a 'coming man' in scripture is 1 John 2:18.  But it also says there are, and implies there will be, many antichrists. From the other three verses we clearly learn antichrist is a spirit.  Why has there been such an emphasis on the antichrist as a future man only revealed at a given time, when there has been little said about the spirit of antichrist coexisting on planet earth (present tense), which denies the Lord Jesus was a man as well as being God.  This opens up a can of worms and is why many are now denying, questioning, or undermining Jesus' divinity, His shed blood, and His complete finished work on the cross.  The modern bibles are leading the way.  For if the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?

Then we still have others who only see movements, cults, and others as being 'out there', without a devil being pinpointed.  Easy targets to throw stones at or take cheap shots.  But what if man was not our enemy, but deceiving seducing spirits, as the New Testament clearly shows?   What if the "hath God said" club was more than a movement but a spirit?  What if the Alexandrian Cult (using credentials and academic ability as an excuse to qualify in knowing truth above the so-called laity) was more than just a cult but a spirit?  What if much we put down to as deception, false doctrine, and apostasy, is just the result of a deceiving spirit (not just a another "school of thought") masquerading in many forms, to infiltrate into our own circle if possible, even lives, by coming as another or better guise?

F'instance, let's be ruthlessly honest!  Is there any intellectual pride, spiritual ambition, self conceit, a competitive attitude, another agenda, guile, hidden ulterior motives, religious subterfuge, political cover-ups, fear of letting go of tradition because of repercussion from friends or family, or fear of losing financial support; residing deep in our own personal lives because we can't stomach everything the truth stands for?  Inconvenient truth that is!  Truth that's in the face!  What the enemy could use as a loophole, and intrude into our "sanctuary" without being detected.  Even with the appearance of angelic innocence.

Lucifer - the counterfeit light

Lucifer is omitted in most modern translations and renamed Day Star.  This is incredible as Lucifer is replaced with a reference to Jesus, making them both one and the same.  Can you see how the god of this age, Lucifer, corresponding with the Christ or the Spirit Jesus (the other Jesus mentioned in scripture), working through the lodges and secret societies, eastern mysticism and the New Age Movement, paves the way for the Man of Sin to manifest himself.  This is because the new versions are always gathering momentum as they digress into a universal one world bible, suiting all, except 'born again' Bible believers, who are termed by the world with the tainted name as fundamentalists.  (Dum de dum dum!!)  The Day Star, the "Christ", the "Jesus", the One, these groups are referring to, is non other than antichrist.  A replacement for Jesus in other words, going further in subterfuge and stealth by using and hiding behind our Lord's name.  The reason this verse Ps. 138:2 has been changed in the modern version and placed on a par with, or the same as "thy name".  Here's how the  word of God goes:

 ...  "for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name"

To have a clear understanding of this today, we first need to get away from the New World concept of the word anti.  You see we have been conditioned, one way or another, into having a 'positive/negative' thought system entrenched into us.  We have been subtly programmed by the media, places of employment, and the education system, into a buying, selling, pitch, mode.  A 'pros and cons', 'pluses and minus's', frame of mind.   A form of opportunism ...  "what's in it for me!?"  Adding up the "pluses" hoping they out weigh the "negatives" (type of speech), before we make a baneful decision base on "its about Me".  Subconsciously, without considering whether it has any virtue or moral substance to its content.  After all the words 'positive' and 'negative' are to do with science and mathematics, not moral or social values.  Nothing to do with consulting the Lord first, or finding His will.  Nothing to do with the Kingdom of God.  But everything to do with the self-improvement industry, the prevalent demeanour of self-importance, marketing ploys and empire building.

Therefore, when we hear the word "anti" we automatically think upon it in terms of "being against" which is only half of the story.  This keeps things clear-cut into two categories, like' good and evil', 'for and against', and as mentioned, 'positive and negative', and so forth.  Therefore, we see things as either 'stark grotesque evil' or 'nice and attractive', with the absence of a Trojan horse, a 'fifth columnist' element, a questionable angle of light, or an infiltrating look-alike.

What if the Devil appeared as an angel of light and promoted light?  Even goodness?  This would put things in a totally different perspective and this is precisely the meaning of his original name Lucifer ...  bearer of light.  Meaning, an evil dark being called Satan, the Devil, masquerading behind the appearance of "good".  Also, renaming his fallen darkened hosts in the new versions as demons (meaning lesser gods under himself, the chief god of this world) questioning the connection between Lucifer and devils (our arch-enemies), both only rendered in the AB.

This is more than just "interesting stuff" by the way, but stuff we need to be aware of.  Vital stuff!!  It also means we would have to be more cautious and discerning for what would appear good than what appears evil, as evil would be much more obvious.  Also, we would have to be aware at all times that what is 'good and perfect' is inspired and comes directly from God, whereas what is 'good and evil' is inspired and influenced from Satan, whether it comes directly from him, or indirectly.

Beware of the overly good

Satan means one who opposes.  Our enemy.  Our adversary.  Our opposition.  But if Satan had of entered the Garden in a blatant threatening way; let's say undisguised, with a plundering army of caricatured angelic hoards, the first thing Adam and Eve would've done would've been to cry out to the Lord for help.  Then no doubt Satan would've promptly found himself in the minority, up against the multitude of armies of Heaven.

However, to be out in the open like this would mean blowing his cover.  Therefore, through cunning and craft, Satan needed to come under another guise, an appearance that could match the bona fide.  As a replacement, to take God's place.  This brings us back to a true and original meaning of the word anti ... to replace, to substitute.

The Devil had to enter a physically up-right (erect) creature similar to man, like the Serpent, who was different from all other creatures, who could talk, have human like intelligence, stood above the beasts like man, and come as a replacement for the Lord walking in the cool of the day, seducing man through "good intentions".

Infiltration is the name of the game.  Then divide and conquer.  What better way than by using good and evil together.  Always playing one off against the other.  Then, appearing from the centre with the solution (an excuse to offer the poison)  ... "Hath God said??"  "Is God's word perfect??"  "Can it be trusted??"   "You need a higher opinion!!"  "Another school of thought!!"  "Another version of the truth!!"

So Eve took the bait and Adam wimpishly followed.  Furthermore, how many are taking the bait today, in the name of Jesus, without going to the word?  If the Devil can appear as an angel of light, then so too can his ministers appear as ministers of light.  This means the flattering, well groomed, polished bloke in the pulpit.  Or the sensitive, sincere, well meaning, cool Youth Pastor.  Or your caring, veeery concerned friend, who would never want to see you lead up the garden path.  Would (s)he?  How do you handle such genuine milk of human kindness?  This how Jesus handled it with His mate Peter:

"Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men."

Over the recent years we have been hearing horror stories of people coming out of the closet, with their reports of child abuse at its worst, committed by people (in a lot of cases) who have been close "trusted" relatives, or have appeared as role models and pillars in the community.  Even mass rapists and mass murderers have shocked us by their well presented, well mannered, well educated, aura, being the least expected in the community to commit such crimes.  Not to mention well meaning devoted people in society, whether as humanistic or religious role-models, promoting the good and well being of mankind.  Sadly, outside the word of God, offering no eternal security whatsoever.  Because outside of Christ the scriptures say all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags.  Even sincerity or good intentions is not enough.

The issue therefore is the scriptural one ... "What shall I do then with Jesus which is called Christ?"  We can either ignore Him in our good deeds and acts of human kindness, or we can call out to Him by falling on our faces and, realizing  ...  "the heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked."

There are many nuns, monks and humanitarians who excel and are devoted to good, but the Lord without guile (meaning possessing no ulterior agendas) weighs the motives.  We mustn't say anything negative about saintly people, while Mother Teresa would let Hindus die as Hindus, without eternal security, and pray to the Queen of Heaven.  And Princess Di had no hesitation contacting clairvoyance's or admitting adultery on the occation she got caught out.  Then again, even "the plowing of the wicked, is sin" according to scripture.  Which means, a man going about his business, not apparently hurting anyone, is still considered sin by God, when he is not honouring or acknowledging his Maker through His Son in his comings and goings and everyday affairs.

The great tragedy is multitudes will buy into this end time lie about a replacement for God, a substitute for the Son of God, an antichrist, and be snared.  Simply because it will appear good, plausible, appropriate, and beneficial for all mankind.

Which brings us to the "Man of Peace", clothed in white, ruling from the city built on seven hills, in a palace adorned in scarlet and gold, promoting unity of all nations and all religions, riding on the emerging Beast of the New Europe ...  the Pope of Rome himself (or maybe his predecessor?).  For upon his mitre above his forehead is written in Latin (and adding up to 666), translated ... "substitute for the Son of God".  Antichrist in other words.

The written word of God makes a distinction ...  Lucifer, the pseudo light, or Jesus, the true light!  Remove Lucifer from the Bible, and you remove a very vital link in scripture, while the Beast walks in.

Now let's not get too carried away with a more obvious enemy out there (although multitudes still cannot see it).  Let's take a look a little closer to home and deal with the enemy within.

Another spirit in the midst

Acts 16:17.  "The same followed Paul and us, and cried, saying, These men are the servants of the most high God, which shew unto us the way of salvation."

In this passage of scripture we find a young unmarried woman (damsel) making a bit of commotion, deliberately drawing attention to someone for a specific reason.  At first it appears this "someone" is Paul and Silas ally, or even assistant, as everything this girl proclaimed in regards to these men was true, and factually speaking ...  could not be faulted.

"These men (Paul and Silas)are the servants of the most high God"! she would cry.  Like preparing the ground before them, as John the Baptist did for Jesus.  How kind and thoughtful of her!  How commendable!

"These men (Paul and Silas) are the servants of the most high God"!

Yes, a true statement indeed!  As it was with Melchizedek (Gen. 14:18), as was with Abraham (14:19), as were with Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego (Dan. 3:26), as it was also in this New Testament where Paul and Silas were "servants of the most high God".

 Quoting the rest of the verse:

 ...  "which shew unto us (the unsaved populace) the way of salvation"!

Another true statement!  Paul and Silas were indeed the servants of the most high God, pointing people to Christ, who is the way unto salvation.

Surely this gifted girl was a blessing as she was assisting the cause of Christ by giving Paul and Silas a helping hand to their ministry, encouraging people to hear and to respond to their message?  A big plus for the kingdom of God would not one think?

Because, in essence, what this spirit was really saying was "fortune telling is compatible along side preaching the gospel!"  Made clear, this spirit was using the credibility of two genuine Bible preachers of the gospel to get the approval towards someone who was actually promoting the occult.  This way Satan could remain camouflaged by two apparently "naive" preachers who were out to win people to the gospel, hopefully at any expense, even if it meant at the expense of truth.  This would create a mixture where Satan could function freely as a fake servant of righteousness, in the midst of the company of believers, sowing seeds of deception and confusion, with no definition to the truth, therefore keeping folk bound and still in their darkness.

However, Paul being a man of conviction, and in touch with his Lord, who was not going to preach the gospel at the expense of truth (or in pretence like many today), because he might offend some. After a period of time Paul was realizing this spirit was not actually promoting them on the same level, but through commotion and drawing attention, it was placing the girl and her message in the centre of the public arena.  She was actually drawing attention to her own supernatural gifting and the effectiveness of the occult.  The end result would've been a profit for her pimps as well as a deceived audience, if a discerning man of God had not intervened.

Enough was enough, so Paul cast out of this girl the deceiving spirit, to the profiteers hurt, who then nastily turned on Paul and Silas.  A picture of when true believers don't tolerate Jezebel in their midst whatsoever, and wont waver from declaring a clear scriptural message of salvation, which in the end bears much fruit.  It is also a picture of what happens to believers persecution wise, when they refuse to compromise, but instead make a stand for the scriptures.

Today, because of scriptural ignorance and a lack of spiritual discernment, Christians fail to see parallels, and believe when someone is promoting Christianity irrespective of a scriptural base or bearing right fruit, it is a good thing (the old "end justifies the means" concept!).  Therefore the counterfeit runs riot going largely unchecked.  Hence, the enemy within hiding himself through propagating the following errors:

• The usage of Christianized pagan days as a platform for the gospel.
  
• False signs and wonders in "Christian" meetings going unquestioned.
• Personalities being reverenced and adhered to instead of the Lord.
  
• Hypnosis and witchcraft practised in the name of Jesus, bringing congregations under a mass deluding spirit.
  
• Hidden soothsaying and fortune telling techniques masquerading as 'words of knowledge' and 'prophecy' spoken over people for individual guidance.
  
• Invented visions and dreams incorporating scripture to make it look biblical.
  
• Meetings ending in complete bedlam because the Holy Spirit and the name of Jesus are made reference to during excess and fanatic behaviour.
  
• False predictions made by so-called men of God when adjustments can be made at a later date when they don't come to pass (e.g. Y2K or the predictions of a region being wiped out by an earthquake before a certain date).
  
• Leaders having free access to women at home while their husbands work, as their "ordained" right.
• Leaders and "spiritual" mentors finding excuse to get inside peoples heads, learning to exploit and manipulate their weakness for compliance sake ...  and on and on the list goes!
  

Ps. 138:2 again ...  "for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name".

Jer. 14:14.  "Then the LORD said unto me, The prophets prophesy lies in my name: I sent them not, neither have I commanded them, neither spake unto them: they prophesy unto you a false vision and divination, and a thing of nought, and the deceit of their heart."

Jer. 23:25. " I have heard what the prophets said, that prophesy lies in my name, saying, I have dreamed, I have dreamed."

Jer. 23:26.  "How long shall this be in the heart of the prophets that prophesy lies? yea, they are prophets of the deceit of their own heart".

Matt. 7:21-24.  "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

"Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?  And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.  Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them (being a doer of the word), I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock".

Mark 8:12.  "And he sighed deeply in his spirit, and saith, Why doth this generation seek after a sign? verily I say unto you, There shall no sign be given unto this generation."

We have the scriptures ("Seek ye out of the book of the LORD, and read").  We have the Holy Ghost (who will fill us if we ask) who is in agreement with the word and will lead us into all truth.  As well as endowing us with divine power to overcome our weaknesses and to have boldness in being witnesses.  Brothers encouraging each other in the word is encouraged.  A sign is not necessary. Neither is a human go-between.  The Lord has given us the bare essentials.  Anything else is a substitute and needs to be exposed and given the (personal) heave-ho treatment.

The enemy may be out there and driving or deceiving religious "competitors".  Let's save our stones!  What about the enemy within?

Church or Ekklesia (Ecclesia)?

We can be very sincere but very sincerely wrong nevertheless.  I had to come to terms with this years ago as the word "church" had a traditional, religious, churchie ring about it, due to my traditional and cultural upbringing.  This could have easily put me off the word of God, or given me the excuse to throw out the word 'church' as unbiblical.  Because to me the word "church" only meant the religious organization down the road, along with it's building, routine, stain glassed windows, on-duty piety, and special day ornamentation.  I had to struggle with all this until I had to come to terms with and accept the word church in the the light of New Testament preservation.  As well as being under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost.  After all, it was not God's fault if man hijacked a biblical term or name for his own end.

Should the word ekklesia replace the word church?

Definitely not as the word church is broader than the Greek word ekklesia as it gives more impetus.  The word ekklesia is more confined to the meaning called out, which is a good and true description of the church as it is indeed a people called out of the world's system and set apart for God.  The argument used in favour of ekklesia is the notion 'the word church means a building and is therefore a wrong translation'.

Oh yeah, by whose authority ...  the precepts of men or the precepts of God?

Firstly, the reason the word church is a correct rendering is because the word of God in English (the Holy Bible/AB) calls it so.  As the word of God has been kept and preserved for today and forever, according to scripture, then it should be our final authority in all things; outside the realm of what's just a good idea, or what appears humanly plausible, or because it fits in better to suit private interpretation.

Getting back to the church being a building ...  Yes, it indeed is!  Again, according to scripture!  The confusion has not come about by the translation but by the modern translators, who have distorted the meaning by saying it means a physical building when in actual fact the NT is clear referring the church to a spiritual building.  Just because one party of man has misinterpreted the scripture it does not give another party of man the licence to tamper with it.  What needs to be applied is rightly dividing the word, not redefining it or changing it.

Pr. 8:9.  "They (the scriptures) are all plain to him that understandeth, and right to them that find knowledge."

The word church (biblically) is God ordained whether we like it or not.  It may have been hijacked by the religious world like the word "faith", or "Christian", or "bishop", or "presbytery", or "baptized, or "born again" etc.  It may also have been traditionalized.  This of course does not cancel out the word but it does blur it's meaning (which is deliberately intended) in order to complicate something the Lord has made simple and plain.  As well as justify demoninalization (I mean denominalization) and institutionalized Christendom in general.

The word church is broader than ekklesia as it does not only mean a people called out, but a building made up of living stones ...  people!  This is why the AB refers to the sojourning children of Israel as the church in the wilderness (Acts 7:38)!  In the NT it also means (as the words Paneguris, Plethos, Sunagoge are used - if the Greek makes your wheels smoke!) an 'assembly' ...  simply where two or more are gathered in His name.

Moreover, giving it also a wider meaning and fatter content, the word church also means a 'body'.  This is His body on earth, with Him being the head of this body (His people) also referred to as the 'Bride' of Christ.  This body of people can represent a homechurch situation, or church locally, or as an expressed company of professed believers universally, both in the present tense or historically from Pentecost until the great translation (the rapture).

Now see the difference ...  scripturally!:

Ecclesia ...  a called out company!

Church ...  a called out company!  A spiritual building!  An (organic) body ...  His Body interchangeably with His body of people!

A bit broader, more spiritually comprehensive and meatier don't you think?

We could also debate the use of the word "temple" if we are into the "hath God said" club.  Does this word not have religious connotations too because of its wrong post-cross applications? However, the word of God says:

"What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost".

Also, whattabout the word "tabernacle" or "sanctuary" for that matter?  Have these biblical titles not been traditionalized as well, meaning they need revamping or redefined?  Of course these Old Testament terms were only shadows pointing to the reality of a better covenant.  It is the way Christendom has applied them in shadow form, which has obscured the real NT meaning.  Let's not get confused with shadows, types, and misrepresentations, and miss discerning the true meaning of scripture.  I'll stick to what my Bible says in de English, which would line up with the true original Greek in its day anyway.

Where two or more are gathered in His name ...  that's His church!  There should be no problem or doubt!

Separation - a principle of God

Separation has always been the will of God and is always His first principle.  As it was in the beginning; light from darkness, day from night, so it is today.  As it was with Abraham and Israel, coming out to be a separate people unto God, so it is with the Bride of Christ today.  By consecrating Christ in our hearts we are separating ourselves from the world and living in the kingdom of God, now, present tense.

Now by separation I am not referring to 'segregation' ...  the monastery scenario.  Nor geographical isolation.  Please don't confuse the two.  One is a spiritual separation ...  consecration, circumcision of the heart.  The other a geographical/physical avoidance of anything you don't agree with ...  breeding sectarianism.  In the world, but not of it, is God's way.  The religious way is finding your niche in a religious club called a "church", or a denomination, cosily tucked away from the lures of the world, to be nurtured and spoiled inside a "spiritual" hothouse.  Biblical separation is a heart thing.  Like keeping the world, along with its frolics, out of our lives by setting our affections on the eternal things above, where Christ lives.

As a people in general (meaning the functioning Body of Christ on earth, or in a local setting) we also have an everyday responsibility to keep aloof from every "spiritual" brat, loafer, or opportunist, who may hide behind the gospel.  This may mean giving things 'the chop' treatment.  Unfortunately, there are times when we have to apply 1st Corinthians Chapter Five and ask some folk to pack their bags.  This is because God does not tolerate sin within the (wilderness) camp.  The sin God appears to detest the most is not the sin "self righteous" "you" or  "me" or Mr/Mzzz  Do Gooder would frown upon, from smoking to lusting that is.  The worst type of sin God hates is how we use truth to manipulate others.  The domineering control thing.  What we are putting others under.  Being a control freak.  From micro managing, power tripping, to being a straight out religious Jezebel.  Once again this is where the modern versions pull the plug and confuse being cut off with a load of old codswallop.  Read on!

Now if you happen to be reading down this passage in its right context you shouldn't have much difficulty in knowing what Paul was referring to.  Especially if you have no problem in understanding a principle in God.  His first principle in scripture.  The principle of separation.  This is all to do with God being a holy God, who shuns sin in any shape or form, especially the one of putting others under a yoke.  Paul in Chapter Five was wishing these trouble making "control freaks" would be cut off.  That is ... separated from the flock of God so his brethren would be hassle free, and free to serve God without religious redtape or human interference.  Fair enough!?

What does the Holy Bible say within this context?

Now what does the new age versions say in regards to these law makers being cut off from the Body in Gal. 5:12:

Now isn't that amazing?  Here is a book masquerading as God's word saying a man of God would wish someone to mutilate himself.  No wonder Dr. Frank Logsdon co-founder of the NASB has renounced every attachment to this book.