- Topic
According to the WMSCOG, the children of promise mentioned in Gal. 4:28 are the children of heavenly mother. Children of promise – children of mother – children of eternal life. This is the wmscog teaching regarding the children of promise. They explain, that Isaac became the child of promise becuase of who it was that gave birth to him. In other words, to be a child of Sarah(the free woman) is to be a child of promise. The wmscog emphyzise the "mother" aspect of it. The mother is a key part of the promise. Those who are not children of jerusalem mother, are not the children of promise pretty much. This is there insistance. In the studies like "Jerusalem Mother" "Abraham's Family and Mother" as well as the "Children of Promise" all pretty much lead to explain that "mother" is the only source of life and only those who are born through her, recieve the promise. So accoriding to the wmscog, if you are not born of heavenly mother, then you do not have the promise, which means no eternal life for you.
I've only explained some of this, if you know more concerning this study, please explain down below!
Now lets see what Ahn said concerning the children of promise.
This is from Ch. 8 "The Children of Promise" of Ahnsahnghong's book titled "The Law of Moses and the Law of Christ"
"In the bible there are the children of flesh and the children of promise. As it is written:
Romans 9:7-13
7 Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham’s children. On the contrary, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.” 8 In other words, it is not the children by physical descent who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring. 9 For this was how the promise was stated: “At the appointed time I will return, and Sarah will have a son.”
10 Not only that, but Rebekah’s children were conceived at the same time by our father Isaac. 11 Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: not by works but by him who calls—she was told, “The older will serve the younger.”13 Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”
In other words, the children of promise are those to whom the promise was given through the prophecies before their birth, like Isaac or Jacob. If we study the subject of promise, it is as follows: When Abraham was 85 years old and had no son, he began to worry. So, Sarah, Abraham's legal wife, gave her maidservant Hagar to Abraham to be his second wife, and Hagar bore Ishmael without God's promise (Ge 16:1-16). However, it was not God's will to make Ishmael born without His promise, Abraham's heir. Fourteen years later, God promise Abraham:
Genesis 17:21
21 But my covenant I will establish with Isaac, whom Sarah will bear to you by this time next year.”
As God promised, Sarah bore a son, Isaac (Ge 21:1-11)
The Apostle Paul interpreted this history as prophecy to the churches in Galatia (Gal 4:21, 31); he described those whom the promise was given through the prophecies before thier birth, as the children of promise (Gal 4:28-31; Ro 9:7-13). "
He later went on to explain if a church was prophesied by the Old testament prophets, it is a child of promise. If a church is not prophesied by the Old Testament prophets, it is a child of flesh. In other words the church who fulfills all the prophecies of both Old and New Testament prophets about the last church, is a child of promise.
Aside from this, there are many more things he said. Like the last remant being the last church. Ahn uses this chapter to also explain about the restoration of the truth in the last days. To quote him "Therefore, the church, which was foreodained by prophecy, is the child of promise and the one born of the spirit" pg 56 of Ch. 8 The Children of Promise from the book titled "The Law of Moses and the Law of Christ"
We can see that the wmscog do not teach the "children of promise" the same way that Ahn does. Ahn never mentions anything about being born through god the mother or anything regarding the new jerusalem.
I've started this post to start digging in on Ahn's interpretation of the children of promise being the last church as well as the children of promise being the children of mother according to the wmscog. Your thoughts?
According to Stained, it's all worthless useless Bullshit. That's the real "Truth".
At a time when I hardly knew much about the wmscog teaching, my friend who is in the wmscog had told me that Isaac inherited Abraham's wealth because he had both father and mother.
My response to her was that Isaac inherited Abraham's wealth because he was the legitimate son of Abraham, the son from his legal wife, while Ishmael was his illegitimate son through Hagar and hence had no legal rights. Both Isaac and Ishmael had father and mother.
Actually ishmael was a legitimate heir just not who god wanted
Also they do teach we were given the promise before our birth by mother
This is one of the teachings that make the individual think that they are different than the outsiders and draws a very thick line. In other words what they think is “I am a child of God, promise, mother and they are from satan” until they receive the Passover and stay in “Zion” their whole life. Just like I read in this forum the other day how they say things without saying them.
Simon wrote:
Actually ishmael was a legitimate heir just not who god wanted
As per my understanding, Ishmael was a fall back. If no son had been born to Sarah, then the inheritance would have been Ishmaels. But since Abraham did have a son by his wife, he took precedence over the son of the slave woman.
If neither had been born the inheritance would have defaulted to Eliezer, Abraham's faithful servant.
The Bible calls both Hagar and Sarah his wife (and Keturah both shes totally a different topic)
emil wrote:
Simon wrote:
Actually ishmael was a legitimate heir just not who god wanted
As per my understanding, Ishmael was a fall back. If no son had been born to Sarah, then the inheritance would have been Ishmaels. But since Abraham did have a son by his wife, he took precedence over the son of the slave woman.
If neither had been born the inheritance would have defaulted to Eliezer, Abraham's faithful servant.
If Sarah would not have bore Abraham a son then that would make God a liar. I understand you're describing a hypothetical situation but that's not how the bible makes it appear. Had God not promised a son of Sarah then perhaps this trial and error scenario would apply. However, that's not the case.
Shymen brings up a good point. I remember learning that people who rejected Zahng are illegitimate children of God like Ishmael. This was their way of justifying the Scripture where it says we are all children of God. Ishmael was technically a child of Abraham but not his heir. In their eyes, non-elohists are technically children of God but will never see the kingdom of heaven [again].
^ I am not refering to God's promise at all here. I am looking at it from a purely legalistic PoV. Hypothetical if you wish. In temporal matters, Sarah as wife, held the highest position above Hagar. She had the power to make Abraham send Hagar and Ishmael away and she actually exercised this power.
I am not taking away the importance of God's promise and the spiritual stuff. All I am saying is that even without God's promise, if Abraham had been just a normal rich man, his son through Sarah would have inherited his fortune. You may argue that without God's promise, Sarah wouldn't even have a son. Sure.
You must have missed the part where I said I know your speaking hypothetically. Did you skim?
Simon wrote:
Actually ishmael was a legitimate heir just not who god wanted
Actually, poindexter, it's actually all actual Bullshit actually.
renita.payno wrote:
You must have missed the part where I said I know your speaking hypothetically. Did you skim?
I did not miss it but I also saw you saying that is not what the bible says and about making God a liar. If you accepted that what I was saying is hypothetical, there was absolutely no reason for you to make those remarks. I had not said anything against the bible.
emil wrote:
^ I am not refering to God's promise at all here. I am looking at it from a purely legalistic PoV. Hypothetical if you wish. In temporal matters, Sarah as wife, held the highest position above Hagar. She had the power to make Abraham send Hagar and Ishmael away and she actually exercised this power.
I am not taking away the importance of God's promise and the spiritual stuff. All I am saying is that even without God's promise, if Abraham had been just a normal rich man, his son through Sarah would have inherited his fortune. You may argue that without God's promise, Sarah wouldn't even have a son. Sure.
She had the authority because God made Isaac the heir
Simon she told Abraham to get rid of Hagar and he gave her permission to do so. That had nothing to do with Isaac being the heir.
Please read Genesis 16. It was a clear power play between a legal wife and a mistress. Neither Ishmael not Isaac had been born yet.
You could argue that she would have no authority unless God gave it to her which would be correct. However, the fact remains that Sarah would have had the power even in a secular setting without the promise from God of Isaac.
Abram explains it at the beginning of chapter 15 that Eliezer would be his heir by default if he would have no son.
For believers we can say that Isaac was heir because he was the child of God's promise but in secular society, Isaac would still be the heir because he was the legitimate son.
4:24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.
4:25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.
4:26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.
If agar represent mount Sinai in arabia and answereth to Jerusalem then Sara represent to Jerusalem above which ahn Shang hong told it’s actually a place city then, where did Zang Zil Zah came from. Now a days church is creating many wave sites explaing about the truth rumer against the wmscog. Some answer are nice and some fooling people. It’s child play
I have posted this before but it seems to fit with this thread so here it goes again. According to the WMSCOG, father and mother created everything. This group claims to believe in the Trinity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Christians accept this as the one true God. THe WMSCOG also claims that Zahng is the bride of the Lamb and as we all understand the Lamb is Jesus Christ. So here's the huge and obvious problem that this cult still has NO real answer for. God, in the form of the Holy Spirit goes to Mary and makes her with child. Mary is NOT mother god even though she is the mother of God. This means that God would have cheated on god the mother! Would God ever do something like this? Not according to Gods Word! Lets go on. Zahng is supposed to be the bride of Jesus ie the Son of God. The mother marries the son? This is called incest! Again, this is not something that God would ever participate in! This doctrine falls appart on its own without anyones help. I still don't really understand how a person, with the the mind God gave them, would fall for this! This cult spoon feeds them this garbage and they seem unable to see past the deception to the obvious.
@Joshua – "Zahng is supposed to be the bride of Jesus ie the Son of God. The mother marries the son? This is called incest!"Ahn used this exact same argument against Umm Sooin in the New Jerusalem book. Even their "god" calls them out for the false doctrine.
Your post makes me think of another problem. What exactly was the Holy Spirit doing with Mary when his age was not to arrive for another 2000 years?
Joshua wrote:
I have posted this before but it seems to fit with this thread so here it goes again. According to the WMSCOG, father and mother created everything. This group claims to believe in the Trinity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Christians accept this as the one true God. THe WMSCOG also claims that Zahng is the bride of the Lamb and as we all understand the Lamb is Jesus Christ. So here's the huge and obvious problem that this cult still has NO real answer for. God, in the form of the Holy Spirit goes to Mary and makes her with child. Mary is NOT mother god even though she is the mother of God. This means that God would have cheated on god the mother! Would God ever do something like this? Not according to Gods Word! Lets go on. Zahng is supposed to be the bride of Jesus ie the Son of God. The mother marries the son? This is called incest! Again, this is not something that God would ever participate in! This doctrine falls appart on its own without anyones help.
I still don't really understand how a person, with the the mind God gave them, would fall for this! This cult spoon feeds them this garbage and they seem unable to see past the deception to the obvious.
Because: "IT'S NOT A CHURCH, IT'S A CULT, THEY BRAINWASH PEOPLE AND USE THE BIBLE AS A WEAPON"
It's all about mind control, we all know the doctrine is a bunch of bullshit. I know, I know, you guys have to explain all of the the phoney bullshit doctrine step by step to help people wake up and it works, I know it works because I happen to know that plenty of current members are very curious about this site and read it all the time. Of course they don't log on because they are scared shit. I'd be scared shit too if I thought I would burn in hell for reading a web site or talking to someone who doesn't believe what my alleged church does.
I saw a friend of mine yesterday, he's a member but long story. I haven't seen him in about a month. When he walked in the door, I said hey how's it going, where you been? He said, just been busy. I said, oh cause I was afraid you had burned in hell. (i was just kidding) Then he looked at me and said, "you know, I REALLY did think i would burn in hell just for talking to you, that's crazy isn't it"? No that's mind control and it's not your fault. It doesn't mean your weak or pathetic or stupid. The open mind is easier to get into than the closed mind.
@friend: you know something kid, if you really thought you would burn in hell and I believe you did, It really took a lot balls for you to talk to me. That doesn't sound weak or pathetic…..ps. you gave it your best shot, get out now before they slip something in your koolaidemil wrote:
@Joshua – "Zahng is supposed to be the bride of Jesus ie the Son of God. The mother marries the son? This is called incest!"Ahn used this exact same argument against Umm Sooin in the New Jerusalem book. Even their "god" calls them out for the false doctrine.
Your post makes me think of another problem. What exactly was the Holy Spirit doing with Mary when his age was not to arrive for another 2000 years?
They let him out for a couple days and then he had to go to his room until his age. There must be plenty of Kimchi in Heaven.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.