- Topic
emil wrote:
Awaiting your response to this as well:
emil wrote:
If you dare, try to dispute the points rather than taking selective phrases or rearranging my comment to make it look stupid.
Here are my points:
Your post compared the treatment of Jesus by his contemporaries to the treatment of Sahnghong. This is inappropriate because –
1. the only sins Jesus was accused of was a) blasphemy for claiming to be God when he actually was and b)not keeping the sabbath correctly
2. Sahnghong sinned when he worshipped as a Buddhist, he lied about heavenly mother in the New Jerusalem book and he took a second wife while his first was still living.
And I would like to add with emil this question, directed to 144000, … Acts 4: 12 directly tells us and I quote the bible, "Salvation is found in NO ONE ELSE, for there is NO OTHER NAME under heaven given to men by which we must be saved." Does that not sum it all up in a nutshell that God directly tells us NOT to believe in ANY OTHER NAME under heaven, INCLUDING, moon, ahnsunghong and zhang jil jah and skippy the dog and tony the tiger!! The bible says it all right there and if wmscog believes in what the bible says, it should not be believing in a MAN, whom by the way was not conceived of THE HOLY SPIRIT or born of a VIRGIN ! @144000,then, can you explain the wmscog believing in a man named ahnsunghong whos name is CLEARLY not in the bible.?
Also, Acts 2:23-24 God frees Jesus from death, because it was impossible for death to keep its hold on him…(then why is Ahnsunghung dead in the ground with a headstone right now?). again.. Acts 2:31-33 say that Christ was not abandoned to the grave nor did his body see decay!! (then why is ahnsunghong dead in the grave and if you dug it up there would be decay for sure, dont you think?) Jesus's body never decayed and is sitting at the right hand of the Father in heaven right this minute, not in the grave, decayed flesh like ahusunghong is right this minute.
Also, in Jesus's own words and I quote the same bible that the wmscog believes in, right?, Matt 17:23 "They will kill him, and on the thrid day he will be raised to life." RAISED TO LIFE, not dead in the ground like your god ahnsunghong….how can you put your faith in some MAN that is dead, decayed in the ground, and even remotely compare him to CHRIST JESUS?
please answer each in its own.
emil wrote:
In the 9th post of this thread, I had written, "From his words addressed to Umm Sooin in his infamous book, it is also entirely likely he had a relationship with her"
I will post below, an extract from the 7th chapter of his book.
Nevertheless, Um Sooin claims that she is the Heavenly Jerusalem and that she has come down to earth. According to the prophecy of Galatians 4:22-24, Sarah is the Heavenly Jerusalem. However, if the New Jerusalem is Um Sooin, she has then married her son. The reason for this is that Isaac is the son of Sarah, and it is said that Isaac is also Christ. (Gal. 3:16)
Um Sooin has then become the mother of Christ as well as the bride (wife) of Christ.
Um Sooin states that I am Isaac with weakness of sight while claiming that she is Sarah, who is the Heavenly Jerusalem. She is then saying that she will live with Isaac who is her son. How extremely scandalous is this? With this type of misguided delusion, she has become a false prophet and has attempted to gain power. Please think of what will become of her sin and the sin of those who follow after her. (Isa. 9:16)
What do you make of that? Although he uses future tense in the last paragraph, in the first paragraph he uses the past continuous tense (Genny please correct me if I'm wrong) as if it is a matter of prevailing fact at the time of writing.
I see the differences in verb tense, now that you've pointed it out. I'm not sure I would read anything into it, though, regarding Ahn's relationship with UmSooIn.
If he was indicating in the first sentence that he had an intimate relationship with her, then he would also be indicating that he considered himself to be Isaac, the Christ. We know he thought of himself as Elijah, but I don't remember anywhere else where he thought of himself as Isaac.
Oh snap! No other name! That means no other name. like…. None. Not even Ash.
@ Emil: I believe WMSCOG considers it a sin, same as some other non or so called Christian beliefs.
@ Yomma: I believe fornication is what happens outside of marriage. 🙂 It’s normal to be intimately involved with someone but I believe Biblically it isn’t. At the end of the day we have the freedom to or not to depending on our understanding of the Bible.
@ Simon: what are the things you consider to be Biblically a sin? Maybe that can help me understand your view.
genny wrote:
emil wrote:
Nevertheless, Um Sooin claims that she is the Heavenly Jerusalem and that she has come down to earth. According to the prophecy of Galatians 4:22-24, Sarah is the Heavenly Jerusalem. However, if the New Jerusalem is Um Sooin, she has then married her son. The reason for this is that Isaac is the son of Sarah, and it is said that Isaac is also Christ. (Gal. 3:16)
Um Sooin has then become the mother of Christ as well as the bride (wife) of Christ.
Um Sooin states that I am Isaac with weakness of sight while claiming that she is Sarah, who is the Heavenly Jerusalem. She is then saying that she will live with Isaac who is her son. How extremely scandalous is this? With this type of misguided delusion, she has become a false prophet and has attempted to gain power. Please think of what will become of her sin and the sin of those who follow after her. (Isa. 9:16)
I see the differences in verb tense, now that you've pointed it out. I'm not sure I would read anything into it, though, regarding Ahn's relationship with UmSooIn.
If he was indicating in the first sentence that he had an intimate relationship with her, then he would also be indicating that he considered himself to be Isaac, the Christ. We know he thought of himself as Elijah, but I don't remember anywhere else where he thought of himself as Isaac.
Genny, he was not claiming to be Isaac but refering to Umm Sooin's claim that he was.
@sre – I get you but the wmscog doesn't. They will dispute the "no other name" bit by saying that historically there was another name "Jehovah" and at that time (Is 43) it was the only name. In fact they will use it to support their notion of a god with a different name in each of the 3 ages. Their contention is that Sahnghong and Jesus is one and the same entity.What they cannot deal with and always avoid, is the various times in the bible where all 3 or at least two persons of the Trinity are shown as simultaneously existing. The baptism of Jesus, the Transfiguration, the number of times Jesus is praying to His Father, the times when John mentions Father and Son in his letters, etc.
@Simon – I am trying to understand what the Jews believed at the time of Jesus. Was premarital sex a sin or not. I look at the behaviour of Jospeh in the gospel of Matthew when he found that Mary was pregnant. This is inconsistent with the idea that the Jews considered pre-marital sex OK. What do you think?
Emil, they point out in the OT where it says salvation only comes from Jehovah. They ask, how can salvation be found in the name Jesus when it only comes from Jehovah? The point is that Jesus and Jehovah are the same entity with different names.
Ok. Makes sense (I guess). If the OT said “no other name” then we shouldn’t believe in Jesus. But it doesn’t say that. However, the NT does. It says no other name explicitly. That means, Jesus is the name we must be saved by no matter how long it’s been after his death.
I did some research and remembered the Greek word for name can also mean authority. So, Peter could be saying no one else has the authority to save us but Jesus. If I were a member, that’s what I would say.
Emil: by that definition no they don’t consider it a sin
Sarah, thats a pretty long list
Emil again: they disapprove but thats not the same as viewing as a sin
YoMomma SoFat wrote:
Emil, they point out in the OT where it says salvation only comes from Jehovah. They ask, how can salvation be found in the name Jesus when it only comes from Jehovah? The point is that Jesus and Jehovah are the same entity with different names.
Ok. Makes sense (I guess). If the OT said "no other name" then we shouldn't believe in Jesus. But it doesn't say that. However, the NT does. It says no other name explicitly. That means, Jesus is the name we must be saved by no matter how long it's been after his death.
I did some research and remembered the Greek word for name can also mean authority. So, Peter could be saying no one else has the authority to save us but Jesus. If I were a member, that's what I would say.
Exactly. This is what Jesus was saying to baptize "in the NAME of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit." Notice that the word is used in singular. It is used just once. But everytime the wmscog says it, they paraphrase to use the word thrice; once before each of the three persons. There are no 3 names for the 3 ages. What Jesus said actually means, "baptize with the authority of the Father, Son and HS"
Simon wrote:
Emil: by that definition no they don't consider it a sin
Emil again: they disapprove but thats not the same as viewing as a sin
I agree that scripture is not explicit in declaring pre-marital sex as sin. In the NT, the term is ambiguously "sexual immorality." So we appeal to the OT for the definition of "sexual immorality." However, was pre-marital sex even an issue at the time of the OT?
My understanding is that boys and girls were betrothed as soon as they reached the age of puberty. Any sex outside of marriage would have been defined as adultery rather than pre-marital sex since there was virtually no chance of pre-marital sex as we know it today apart from having intercourse with a prostitute which is certainly defined as immorality.
I gave the example of Mary and Joseph. She was what 14-15 at the time. I understand this the was typical age for a girl to be betrothed. It is commonly understood that she would have been stoned to death as an adulteress if Joseph had exposed her. Was her betrothal considered equivalent to marriage? If yes, girls would be considered married well before they had a chance of pre-marital sex in that period and society. If not so, then we must concede that the term adultery covered pre-marital sex.
What do you think Simon? In context of the above, I believe that pre-marital sex, though not explicitly called a sin in the letter of the law, is certainly one in the spirit of the law.
Finally, for the purpose of the debate central to this thread, the important thing is whether the wmscog considers pre-marital sex a sin or not and that seems to have been firmly established here.
Pre betrothal sex is referenced in parts of torah without any real punishment
And as I said I was officially told by pastor daniel park it wasn’t sin
Simon wrote:
Pre betrothal sex is referenced in parts of torah without any real punishment
Can you point out the relevant OT verses? I haven't been able to find any instance. At least not in the period after the law was given.
Simon wrote:
And as I said I was officially told by pastor daniel park it wasn't sin
Sarah's and Renita's experiences don't match with yours. I wonder if this is one more instance of your Zion being different?
I think he said his church didn’t have Koreans.
In my experience we were taught that premarital sex was sexual immorality and that it wasn't just a sin, but that it was an unforgivable sin. Now, when I joined the WMS it was for any premarital sex, after a couple years "mother" herself allowed people who were living together before joining the church or that had children together to be considered as married, meaning, they wouldn't count as premarital sex.
As soon as you got baptized in my branch church, after they write your name in the book of life they show this verse:
Acts 15:29 – " You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things. Farewell."
So there we are taught that we can't eat food sacrificed to idol, we can't drink blood and we cant commit sexual immorality. Sexual immorality is explained as spiritual and physical.
Physical sexual immorality is to have sex before marriage.
Spiritual sexual immorality is to go to a church that doesn't keep Sabbath or Passover, because you would be cheating on God with other gods.
That verse is shown every single time.
The experiences of everybody are different, but I think that just shows how the wmscog is not the absolute truth.
A humble advice, just say your experience and move on. We don't have to prove that other people's experience is not true. I believe simon is saying the truth when he talks about his experience because I got to meet members that were taught things completely opposite than what I was taught, that's one of the reasons why we are recommended not to talk much with other members when we go to korea nor to exchange phone numbers..
ExMember wrote:
As soon as you got baptized in my branch church, after they write your name in the book of life they show this verse:
Acts 15:29 – " You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things. Farewell."
So there we are taught that we can't eat food sacrificed to idol, we can't drink blood and we cant commit sexual immorality. Sexual immorality is explained as spiritual and physical.
Ditto.
It's so weird that they would emphasise the aspect of spiritual sexual immorality when it was said in Matt 21:31 "…Jesus said to them, “Truly I tell you, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God ahead of you." Because the prostitutes represents the babylonian according to their explanation.
Exactly! There are some branches who don’t know about the book Ash wrote saying there is no mother. Today..
I know right!
@ExMember – I have no doubt that Simon is truthful. I have never doubted his sincerity. In fact, I have often asked him to clarify some of my doubts.I get it that sexual immorality is sin. However, the point Simon is making is that pre-marital sex has never actually been listed among the sexually immoral acts. We await his OT references about where people have indulged in pre-marital sex and it has not been considered a sin.
I have the opposite reference which I shall study in more detail and post in a short while.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.