- Topic
As wmscog says Ahnshahnhong preached for 37 years from 1948 when he was baptized in SDA(Seventh day adventist) till his death in 1985 +3 years of Jesus Christ’s preaching = 40 years reign of King David (the reason for his qualification of 2nd coming/ the root of david). I want to ask wmscog –
Q1- why then he left SDA and opened a new church?
Q1a-Was SDA doctrine wrong? If yes :Then why he got baptized in a wrong doctrine? Didn’t he know it already being 2nd christ? (Possible Answer)-May be he had no other way because no “true” church existed.
Q1b-So why he took 16 years to open a new church? (Possible Answer)-Maybe because he had to do hard work (Stone carrying as shown in wmscog videos) for a living during the day and had little time in the night to write his books (why din’t Jesus write any book?).
Q1c-So why did God put so much burden on his shoulders? (Not fair. 1st coming christ had only 1 assignment. Poor 2nd coming.)
Q2- Was SDA right? Then why open a new doctrine?
Q3-As Ahnshahnhong started a new church in 1964 and stared preaching new ways of Gospel, then he only scored 1964 to 1985 =21 years. So he comes short 16 years to be eligible for Christship. Oooops!! (Christship is a new word I discovered due to the need on the “new age”). (Possible Solution)-May be they can add sweet 16 years of ‘mother’ who must not be a mother at that age i guess and must be beautiful to qualify to be the bride of the Lamb/Ahnshahnhong/….(somebody please write here the name of Mother’s fist husband)!!
fromtheotherside wrote:
And yes they can take advice because hello they are KOREAN and can't speak English, and don't know our customs or culture!
They aren't NEW Koreans [been in America for years, maybe a decade] and they ought to know better than to listen to a brother about what's pagan and not without 1st researching and consulting Zahng. As I was told by my Korean Missionary, nothing is passed down unless it's been approved by Mother to avoid misinformation and confusion. We weren't even allowed to use a different yet similar verse in the bible to preach a subject if it wasn't "approved by Mother".. Don't talk to me like I'm an ignorant child. I am a well learned 23 year old American bitch and game recognize game. Unless the pastor is an idiot, he's not going to take what a brother says and run with it.
Answer my PM damn it..
The Unknown wrote:
Hello Warrior, I will kindly point out your error and the fact that you don't truly know or understand the scriptures.
Both verses are correct. Especially the book of John, was written by Apostle John who had great understanding. You quoted John 19:14-16 however this is not a testimony that Jesus was crucified on the Passover day(meaning the 14th day of the 1st month at twilight) If you insist that, you clearly testify that you don't know the scriptures. First of all there was no new testament written in the time when Jesus was on the earth, so you must understand the Passover according to the Old Testament, because that was the Passover the Jews and Chief priest wanted to be able to keep. So what is written in Ezekiel 45:21:.. the Passover a feast lasting 7 days…
The Passover was called a feast lasting 7 days. So that was what the people of Isreal called it. Anytime within that "7day period" at that time of year was known as "Passover". John;s testimony is no different than the other Apostles. You just have to have good knowledge and understanding of the Bible to understand his testimony. Scripture can not contradict Scripture in any way, shape or form. If it did, then the bible wouldnt be true. If you testify that John's testimony contradicts the other Apostles or that any of their testimony isn't valid, then you testify that the bible, which is the Word of God is not flawless, which would defeat the purpose of believing in God. Also to further confirm that Jesus ate the Passover on the 14th day of the 1st month, according to the appointed time in the bible, is as follows
Mark 14:12 it is written… when it was customary to sacrifice the Passover lamb, Jesus sent disciples to make preparations to keep the passover
Luke 22:7-8 Then came the day of Unleavened Bread, on which the Passover Lamb had to be sacrificed . Jesus sent Peter and JOHN, saying, go, and make preparations for us to eat the Passover.
Luke 22:14-15 When the hour came, Jesus and his apostles reclined at the table. And he said to them, "I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer".
Matthew 26:17-19 also confirms this fact. The same testimony was given by 3 different witnesses. So what did Jesus say in John 8:17: In your law it is written that the testimony of 2 witnesses is true
However this testimony that Jesus and the disciples kept the Passover is recorded by 3 witnesses.
sorry you are greatly mistaken.
May I ask you a simple question? Do you believe that Jesus was the final passover lamb? That he took the place of the sacrificial lamb to pay once and for all for our sins? A simple YES or NO should suffice.
144000 wrote:
Indeed such is testified by the urgent insistance of Apostle Paul: Acts. 18:21 "But bade them farewell, saying, I must by all means keep this feast that cometh in Jerusalem: but I will return to you, if God will. And he sailed from Ephesus."
Oh nice. I'm not sure why exactly you put this verse in your post. In what way was it related?
My guess is that the verse was put there to make all of us believe that Paul kept your feasts. Asw usual, I find that with all wmscog arguments, we don't need to dig too much. The answer is found within the same chapter.
First I found that the part that is in bold is missing from most translations. Searching around a bit, it appears that this part of the senetence is missing from most of the early manuscripts. It is not certain whether Paul actually said that.
Even if he did:
1. The majority opinion is that it would have been the feast of Pentecost. Hope you know that we celebrate Pentecost as the day when the Holy Spirit came down upon the apostles.
2. The motive behind him wanting to go was to preach the gospel to the large gathering that he would get there.
3. Verses 11 tells of how Paul had previously spent one and a half year in Corinth and verse 18 tells of the long time he tarried, which commentators say was even more than one and half years of verse 11. So obviously it was not his cusom to go and celebrate those feasts in Jerusalem.
Your attempt to subliminally make us believe that Paul kept the 7 feasts falls flat.
Jesus was the passover lamb yes.
"Your attempt to subliminally make us believe that Paul kept the 7 feasts falls flat."
But emil, didn't you just say:
"The majority opinion is that it would have been the feast of Pentecost. Hope you know that we celebrate Pentecost"
I sure am stretching the truth here by implying that he kept the feasts, huh?
There are denominations which preach about the Passover, the WMSCOG says this is true.
There are denominations which preach about the Pentecostal feast, the WMSCOG says this is true.
There are denominations which preach about the Day of Atonement, the WMSCOG says this is true.
There are denominaions which keep the Tabernacle assembly, the WMSCOG says this is true.
Individually there are separate churches which each testify to the truth about theese single things. The full truth is in putting them all together. There is evidence which supports each of them individually, enough to found entire denominations, because all of the feasts were kept! Or you can argue with this, and deny all theese Christian denominations.
Now Tertullian says that those feasts of God which were acceptable to God were being replaced by pagan customs including Christmas.
What do you think about that? What do you think about the 3rd century ban, what do you think of the puritans banning Christmas?
Maybe, do you think, they have realized something you don't?
But I am sure you are much smarter and wiser than all those people. Who is to say whether or not God is pleased when you make up a man-made worship for him and then pretend it is in honor of Christ? Who is to say whether or not God is pleased with fake holy days which take his name in vain.
Why, I am sure they are never any examples in the bible where people are cursed for attempting to worship God in their own way.
But sarcasm aside, I do worship the Christ according to how the Christ has told me to worship them, both in the bible and in rela life. Not according to my own man-made opinions.
144000 wrote:
Jesus was the passover lamb yes.
"Your attempt to subliminally make us believe that Paul kept the 7 feasts falls flat."
But emil, didn't you just say:
"The majority opinion is that it would have been the feast of Pentecost. Hope you know that we celebrate Pentecost"
I sure am stretching the truth here by implying that he kept the feasts, huh?
There are denominations which preach about the Passover, the WMSCOG says this is true.
There are denominations which preach about the Pentecostal feast, the WMSCOG says this is true.
There are denominations which preach about the Day of Atonement, the WMSCOG says this is true.
There are denominaions which keep the Tabernacle assembly, the WMSCOG says this is true.
Individually there are separate churches which each testify to the truth about theese single things. The full truth is in putting them all together. There is evidence which supports each of them individually, enough to found entire denominations, because all of the feasts were kept! Or you can argue with this, and deny all theese Christian denominations.
Red herring. You were trying to imply that Paul was particular about wanting to celebrate the feast. I was merely pointing out the context of Paul's statement, even if he did make it.
Regarding Pentecost, we do celebrate Pentecost but we celebrate the NT event that happened on that day. Not the OT feast.
Now Tertullian says that those feasts of God which were acceptable to God were being replaced by pagan customs including Christmas.
You quote Hislop quoting Tertullian. Hislop's history has been totally discredited but for you Hislop's book is the bible. That is why you keep on using him as a source for all your Babylon stuff. Please provide the link to Tertullian's original quote to see what he actually said and whether he said Christmas was wrong or those practices were wrong.
BTW I do not care about those pagan customs myself because we don't have any religious significance for them. They are not done in church in any case. If some people do these things at home, I am not to judge what is in their hearts. God did not make me judge.
What do you think about that? What do you think about the 3rd century ban, what do you think of the puritans banning Christmas?
Maybe, do you think, they have realized something you don't?
Maybe and maybe not.
But I am sure you are much smarter and wiser than all those people. Who is to say whether or not God is pleased when you make up a man-made worship for him and then pretend it is in honor of Christ? Who is to say whether or not God is pleased with fake holy days which take his name in vain.
And who is to say that God is pleased with worshiping a man and a goddess?
Why, I am sure they are never any examples in the bible where people are cursed for attempting to worship God in their own way.
But sarcasm aside, I do worship the Christ according to how the Christ has told me to worship them, both in the bible and in rela life. Not according to my own man-made opinions.
Oh you do worship the Christ do you? And you do it how the Christ has told you to worship THEM? Which christ told you to worship THEM?
Would be so kind as to tell us what will happen at the end? Will ZGJ be taking you guys all along with her to heaven for faithfully worshipping her?
You are seriously confused if you think we keep the OT pentecost. We keep the NT pentecost for the Holy Spirit.
I never mentioned judging or condemning people you guys asked about Christmas and so I answered, if you don’t like the answers you shouldn’t have asked.
We believe in the truth that they are the Spirit and the Bride through the bible. You believe what you believe because it is aman-made festival which is not in the bible. It is the difference between Abel and Cain.
How many times must we explain what will happen in the end? Honestly you people are so forgetful it is no wonder you are so easily decieved. But have faith in Christ who will ressurect us at the end, the spirit and the Bride say come, go to that church. +ion says “here is our God and we trusted in Him” go to that church.
It remains that I am satisfied with heavenly Father’s 37 year ministry, and the more you try to argue it the more ridiculous everyone can see your logic; for if it were true, if you applied that same logic to Jesus, he should not have waited 3 years to give the Passover.
But The Unknown said that back on page 1, so since I’m tired of repeating for my dear brothers I’m done with this thread for now.
Why do people keep saying the WMSCOG keeps the OT Feasts???? Isn't it obvious that they're not? That's friggin' annoying.. Just because it has the same name doesn't mean it's the same exact thing.
ATTENTION THE UNKNOWN
The Unknown said on page 2 of this thread
The Unknown
First of all, Do any of you know how to study the bible? If you insist Christ Ahnsahnghong didn't preach 37 years, so "the math doesn't add up" or he didn't fulfill the "Prophecy of King David's throne" then you must also insist that Jesus, whom you claim to believe in, is a false christ because it is written that Jesus had to be in the grave for 3 days and 3 nights. (Matthew ) however, was Jesus in the grave for 3 days and 3 nights? No he wasn't. According to the Bible's explanation, Jesus wasn't in the grave for 72 hours(3 days and 3 nights) he was in the grave for a total of 36 hours. Do the math. So according to "the math" Jesus was a false Christ because he wasn't in the grave for 72 hours, 3 days and 3 nights. I would love to hear anyone's explanation of how this is incorrect. But no one will because you're all in error because you don't the scripture. So moving along…
It is clear that they finished right before the Sabbath Day was about to begin, which is sunrise. So If Jesus was put in the ground at 6pm, then, 6pm Friday night until Dawn, 6pm, Sunday morning is only 36 hours. This is assuming that he was put in the ground exactly at 6pm on Friday night however, looking at the facts of his burial, there is no way he was put in the ground at 6pm on friday night because, His body wasn't even taken off the cross until evening, which at the earliest could have been 6pm.
I would love to hear you prove this wrong. But you can't because you can't deny any of this. So the according to your insistance, the Jesus, you claim to believe in, is a false christ, because he wasn't in the grave 3 days and 3 night, totaling 72 hours.
Storm Unknown you are in error, Jesus did not die on a Friday, with that being said your whole statement goes out the window. Here we go….
(long post see page 2)
The Unknown LOL, Storm, you couldn't be more wrong. Day doesn't begin on when the sun goes down. You sound like an SDA. Genesis chapter 1 verse 3 says God said Let their be light…. God called the light day. The very first thing God created was Light(sunlight) and he called it day. Then God worked duing the day, then evening came then morning came.
Storm
UNKNOWN, Your question was the following:
was Jesus in the grave for 3 days and 3 nights? No he wasn't. According to the
Bible's explanation, Jesus wasn't in the grave for 72 hours(3 days and 3 nights) he was in the grave for a total of 36 hours. Do the math. So according to "the math" Jesus was a false Christ because he wasn't in the grave for 72 hours, 3 days and 3 nights. I would love to hear anyone's explanation of how this is incorrect. But no one will because you're all in error because you don't the scripture. So moving along…
So why are you debating day & night with me? I clearly gave you the explanation to your question and you turn it around into another topic
We were not discussing day & night can you please stick to the topic
that was not the original question! Come on move it along……(whistling)
The Unknown What’s your point please explain. Please finish the conversation you started. Show me why you say I’m wrong with the explanation I gave you on page 2. REGARDING how many days Jesus was in the tomb.
Genesis 1
3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was
good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the
darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first
Day.
8 God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.
13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.
19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.
23 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.
31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.
I think the point is that a day consist of evening and night. I would like someone to explain how Jesus fulfilled the 3 days and 3 nights.. Right now I must believe Jesus was a false Christ.
I’m not signed off on that study so it would be better to go to Zion and ask a deacon to explain it to you.
Off the top of my head I can imagine that it is related to a day being like a year and Jesus preached for three years, but don’t quote me on that.
renita.payno wrote:
I think the point is that a day consist of evening and night. I would like someone to explain how Jesus fulfilled the 3 days and 3 nights.. Right now I must believe Jesus was a false Christ.
Valid question. From what I have learned about Jewish culture in Biblical times, any part of a day counted as a whole day, and also "a day and a night" was a way of saying a day, which could also count just part of a day.
You can see it in Esther 4:16 – 5:1. Esther says that she will go to the king after "three days" but then she goes "on the third day."
Also, the Bible frequently mentions Jesus rising "on the third day." For us, if He rose after 72 hours, then it would technically be on the fourth day. It's a difference in cultures.
Here's a resource that might help (written by a Sabbatarian, by the way) : http://www.biblicalperspectives.com/books/crucifixion/
144000 wrote:
"Ahnsahnghong was raised Buddhist" -ttr
Logical Fallacy: Poisoning the well
Logical Fallacy: Strawman
Anything that happened prior to beginning the prophesied ministry of Christ, has no bearing on prophecy. AhnSahngHong was not Buddhist during the time of the restoration of the Church, indeed I have never heard any compelling proof concerning that rumor, and in addition even if it were true, I would not care. You are attacking irrelevant things in order to judge our church concerning events prior to actually founding the church.
Do you believe Ahn was always God? I mean, was he God from birth? Or was he a regular human until he was baptised and then became God? This is an important question, and I hope you won't ignore it.
The Unknown
1004
We do not possess infinite love and patience like Mother, and we should not strain ourselves here to the point where we loose our cool, please brothers, if we cannot set a good example to them, then we should let them be. We should try -harder- to be more loving and patient, not wear ourselves down so that we are irritable.
In fact, pray kindly about them, and wish them well, for in so doing they may turn to God. But if they do not, then by so doing you may pour burning coals upon their heads.
Thanks, 144000. I hope more people take this advice about being kind and patient. It's never good when one's demeanor gets in the way of their thoughts being heard.
144000 wrote:
While the harvest festival you are criticizing regards food, of which, food is never unclean. No WMSCOG members prepared such food in front of idols or in prayer to idols. You seem to enjoy that picture of a family bowing down to their wall of ancestors, but such a thing we did not do no matter how hard you want to project it. So now it should be abundantly clear that the food is clean, but the Pagan Rituals of physical Christmas idols (holly, wreaths, yule trees) are heresy.
So if I celebrated the birth of Jesus at Christmas without any trees, holly, wreaths, presents, Santa Claus, red and green decorations, etc., but just a special meal, would you still accuse me of paganism?
144000 wrote:
How many times must we explain what will happen in the end? Honestly you people are so forgetful it is no wonder you are so easily decieved. But have faith in Christ who will ressurect us at the end, the spirit and the Bride say come, go to that church. +ion says "here is our God and we trusted in Him" go to that church.
I think this was in response to the question about whether or not Zahng would die. I have not seen a member explain that here at all. If I've missed it, please, direct me to where the explanation was given. If it has been explained so many times, as you say, it shouldn't be too hard for you to point me to it. I would appreciate it.
Having spoken with them since then I’m inclined to agree with 1004’s words. There comes a certain point where this place is truley pearls before swine.
I would not accuse you of paganism. Its kosher to have a Christmas dinner with your family IF YOU DO NOT dedicate the food in prayer as if it were a “special” holy day. Just pray in thanks for the food and thanks for a day you can enjoy with your whole family. You can even say thanks for God using the very-not-holy-day Christmas event as an opportunity for you to be with your family. Just avoid idolizing it by pretending it is “holy” and don’t pretend it honors Jesus in a “special” way. If an elder disagrees here I defer to their judgement, because it is EVEN BETTER to avoid it altogether. But I would not call you a pagan just for the Christmas meal.
Who knows at exactly which point Christ becomes Christ? Maybe one of the Pastors who walked with Father and preached with Father know, ask them. Probably from birth but I think I see where you are going with this: and it was prophesied to happen that way.
I know for a fact the end was explained to you look up FTOS and WMS Brother key words “great multitude”. Both of them explained it. I’m on my phone and out of town, so if your memory is poor it may do you good to look it up yourself.
I agree with your 2nd paragraph.
When does Christ become Christ? When He's born. Jesus was born God. He wasn't born a regular human being then became God. He was God from jump street.
LOL…maybe Ash became “Christ” after he stop practicing Buddism and left the SDA church.
144000 wrote:
Having spoken with them since then I'm inclined to agree with 1004's words. There comes a certain point where this place is truley pearls before swine.
I would not accuse you of paganism. Its kosher to have a Christmas dinner with your family IF YOU DO NOT dedicate the food in prayer as if it were a "special" holy day. Just pray in thanks for the food and thanks for a day you can enjoy with your whole family. You can even say thanks for God using the very-not-holy-day Christmas event as an opportunity for you to be with your family. Just avoid idolizing it by pretending it is "holy" and don't pretend it honors Jesus in a "special" way. If an elder disagrees here I defer to their judgement, because it is EVEN BETTER to avoid it altogether. But I would not call you a pagan just for the Christmas meal.
Who knows at exactly which point Christ becomes Christ? Maybe one of the Pastors who walked with Father and preached with Father know, ask them. Probably from birth but I think I see where you are going with this: and it was prophesied to happen that way.
I know for a fact the end was explained to you look up FTOS and WMS Brother key words "great multitude". Both of them explained it. I'm on my phone and out of town, so if your memory is poor it may do you good to look it up yourself.
Thanks for the polite response. 🙂
I looked up "great multitude" and found one post from WMS Brother who said, "Whether that bible verse implies that we will die immediately before, or soon after, the death of Mother, is unclear. It is popular -opinion- that we will die before Mother. But the possiblity exists that the prophecy could still be fulfilled over a series of catastrophes which begins with Mother, and -then- gradually moves on to eradicating everyone else, in what could be technically one event." (https://www.examiningthewmscog.com/forum/topic.php?id=4647#post-17170)
Which is a little different than what Simon explained (while he was still a member) after saying that the living 144000 go with "Mother" alive to heaven, "The others die before the last day even now and alledgedly ressurect with the rest of the great multitude. They are transformed and go to heaven at the same time as the 144,000 the 144,000 just don't taste the sting of death like the Great Multitude does but they do not precede those who have fallen died into the Kingdom of Heaven." (https://www.examiningthewmscog.com/forum/topic.php?id=263#post-3040)
In any case, WMS Brother said that his explanation was "popular opinion," "unclear," and an implication.
So do you know what the church teaches officially about this?
And isn't there an official church teaching about whether Ahn was God from birth or only from his baptism? You answer with a "probably," but don't you want to know for sure?
(And by the way, your "pearls before swine" comment can just as easily be used in the other direction. So how about if we just help everyone towards mutual understanding instead of calling each other 'swine'?)
Sorry Genny. I don't want to hijack this but I just want to cull one part of WMS brother's reponse so we may understand it properly.
WMS Brother wrote:
Whether that bible verse implies that we will die immediately before, or soon after, the death of Mother, is unclear. It is popular -opinion- that we will die before Mother. But the possiblity exists that the prophecy could still be fulfilled over a series of catastrophes which begins with Mother, and -then- gradually moves on to eradicating everyone else, in what could be technically one event.
@ 144000 – The implication I get from that is that if Mother dies before the members, she will die in a catastrophe. So if she dies in some way other than a catastrophe, the WMSCOG members will know for certain that she is not mother god?
Off course that also directly contradicts what Simon says because that would require Mother to be alive to take the 144000 to heaven.
No problem, Emil. 🙂 I'd really like to get a clear answer on this. If mother died in a catastrophe, then how could she take the 144000 to heaven alive with her.
If I were a member, I'd want to know the answer and not be guessing about it.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.