[oliverlog]

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)!!

[Questioninginla]

[Questioninginla]

144000 wrote:

Questioninginla

You sure do like to make a lot of assumptions about people, are all of your arguments based on such wild guesses?

Or do you just call everyone you don't agree with brainwashed?

just the ones that exhibit the symptoms.  (Disclaimer:  I didn't use the word.  You did.)

[emil]

@144000 and FTOS – I am not sure which question of yours is pending an answer. The post you refered to had questions about my leaving "babylon". You choose to ignore the answer I have given already. I have already told you that your entire interpretation has been debunked by Genny, me and IrenaeusFTW in another thread. Just by your keeping on calling other churches babylon doesn't make them so. Is there any other question you wanted me to answer?

If you think you have any proof about this accusation, please open a new thread or reopen an existing one to state your case. Let us not mix topics unless you thrive on confusion. In this thread we are discussing the 37 year claim and I asked you one question about where Ahn made such a claim and the bottom line is that you have no proof to offer.

Why should I come to hell to seek the answer when it clearly seems that you have no answer? Why should I subject myself to that mind control environment that you guys have set up?

If you cannot state your argument here but need people to come to Zion, it shows that your arguments can not stand for themselves out of the mind-control environment.

[Questioninginla]

emil wrote:

Just by your keeping on calling other churches babylon doesn't make them so.

adding to what emil wrote:

Mankind, in its history of totalistic control groups, almost ALWAYS destroy all other forms of religion/morality.  With this newly created moral cavity, the group (political, religious, macro, micro, doesn't matter) seeking control has a monopoly on the moral compass of its followers.

"BUT I MADE MY OWN DECISIONS"!

if that were true, try having a conversation about a dissenting opinion without shutting it down either externally or internally.

[emil]

144000 wrote:

Emil will still probably say we never answered, in the hopes that they can decieve someone new who has not heard these replies of ours.

Emil has a track record of doing this with other debates if you read the archives. It doesn't matter if you have 5+, 10+ or even 15+ pages in a thread already attempting to explain things.

Many days have passed and you still haven't found the place where Ahn said he would reign for exactly 37 years. You have just gone beating about the bush but never given a straight answer. The obvious conclusion is that you guys don't have an answer.

We have offered a solution to Emil's suggestions, and we have not run away, they simply just don't like our answer.

And you guys only have the answer that I must come to Zion and study. Are people reading this that stupid that they cannot understand what that means?

FTOS is right. Don't say we didn't invite you. Don't imply we are the ones who are running away, it is you who does not want to come.

I will not say you guys didn't invite me. Why would I want to come to your church? You have not given me a reasonable cause to believe there is any truth there. You guys are funny. You have a different standard for yourselves and for others. You proclaim that you and your members should not visit any other church. Yet you find your demand reasonable? Debate your belief here and convince us you have the truth first. That way, all of us would flock to your church. Your failure to debate logically is tantamount to running away.