- 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)!!
@The Unknown…where are translated (English version) of the two books you mentioned? I have “heard” about Unsealing the Secrets of the 7 Thunders but have not had a chance to read it for myself. Have you? What about Letter to the Church in Laodicea? I haven’t read that one either. We cannot firmly or boldly testify as to what these books said because we have not read them for ourselves. In other words it is hearsay.
The majority of people in this forum believe in Jesus Christ according to the bible. No one is spreading lies about Ansahnghong except WMSCOG. The church teaches that he was born and raised in a Bhuddism family. Have you studied about Melchizedek? I preached it many times and that was one of the points that allegedly confirmed him as the 2nd Coming. He had to be born of unbelieving parents. How many children do you know, especially of Asian decent, would have a different religion than their parents? Usually whatever your parents are, that’s what you are until you are of age to disagree.
He was baptized in the SDA church in 1948. Why on earth would anyone think he wasn’t a member until he started his own church in 1964. From my understanding many of the teachings of WMSCOG are from SDA. Do you think it’s a coincidence that they also know the prophecy of Daniel & Revelation?
Use the common sense that God gave you. God doesn’t need to worry about anyone “slandering” His church yet WMSCOG worries about it a lot. God doesn’t need to make counter measures against “slanders” about the church. Maybe God doesn’t dwell in WMSCOG.
Jeremiah 44 says worshipping the queen of heaven is detestable to God. So what you are doing (and I previously was too) is detestable to God worshipping a false god (god the mother). Please open your eyes and see what is going on in there!
Amen to that, Disturbed. Well said.
Amen to that, Disturbed. Well said.
The Unknown wrote:
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 12:40) 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…
2nd, Christ Ahnsahnghong wasn't a member of the SDA church. He was baptized by the SDA. If you insist he was a member of the SDA church then you should also insist that Jesus was a disciple of John the Baptist. John the Baptist baptized Jesus however, did Jesus follow John the Baptist? NO! He did not. He began to preach the new covenant. In the same way, at his second coming, someone had to play the role of John the Baptist and baptize him. Jesus clearly testified that he had to be baptized again after his first baptism. In Luke 3:21-23 Jesus was baptized and in Luke 12:49-50 He says he has a baptism to undergo, or in otherwords, he should be baptized again. Was Jesus baptized twice at his 1st Coming? No he wasn't. So he had to be baptized again at his 2nd coming. That's the only way Luke 12:49-50 could be fulfilled. Anyone want to try to prove this explanation is false? Please be my guest. You will see you are decieving yourself and others.
Third, If Christ Ahnsahnghong was a member of the SDA church, then He should have been influenced in some way by their doctrine or teaching. However, as soon as they baptized him he began to preach to them and exposed all the falicies in their doctrine. He wrote the book Unsealing the Secret of the Seven Thunders in 1955, and Letter to the church in Laodecia in 1960, which anyone who studies the bible knows that Laodecia is the SDA church, even they admit that. In those books he boldly testifies that the SDA are not the true church as they claim they are. And he testified about the new covenant that He established at his 1st coming. So just because he didn't put up a sign "Church of God" until 1964, that means he wasn't preching? If you insist that, then you should also insist that Jesus only preached the New Covenant, on the night of the Passover, right before he was crucified. Because according to the scriptures, Jesus proclaimed the new covenant on the night of the Passover, right before he was crucified, at the end of his preaching for 3 years. According to your insistance, Jesus, whom you claim to believe in, didn't preach for 3years. He preached only one night. LOL, I would love to hear you prove this wrong.
Lastly, If anyone of you know the history of Korea and that they were colonized by the Japanese from the year 1919, you will be able to see there was no way that he could have grown up buddist. I'll let you research that yourself.
You better band me now from this sight, if you don't want to look foolish. All of your false insistance and nonsense opinions will get destroyed by the truth. Stop mis informing the public about the true WMSCOG.
Show us where in the bible it says that. Please back up your claims with scriptures not just words.
You are saying Jesus was not in the tomb for 72 hours but 36 you must have lost your mind!
The Unknown wrote:
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 12:40) 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…
2nd, Christ Ahnsahnghong wasn't a member of the SDA church. He was baptized by the SDA. If you insist he was a member of the SDA church then you should also insist that Jesus was a disciple of John the Baptist. John the Baptist baptized Jesus however, did Jesus follow John the Baptist? NO! He did not. He began to preach the new covenant. In the same way, at his second coming, someone had to play the role of John the Baptist and baptize him. Jesus clearly testified that he had to be baptized again after his first baptism. In Luke 3:21-23 Jesus was baptized and in Luke 12:49-50 He says he has a baptism to undergo, or in otherwords, he should be baptized again. Was Jesus baptized twice at his 1st Coming? No he wasn't. So he had to be baptized again at his 2nd coming. That's the only way Luke 12:49-50 could be fulfilled. Anyone want to try to prove this explanation is false? Please be my guest. You will see you are decieving yourself and others.
Third, If Christ Ahnsahnghong was a member of the SDA church, then He should have been influenced in some way by their doctrine or teaching. However, as soon as they baptized him he began to preach to them and exposed all the falicies in their doctrine. He wrote the book Unsealing the Secret of the Seven Thunders in 1955, and Letter to the church in Laodecia in 1960, which anyone who studies the bible knows that Laodecia is the SDA church, even they admit that. In those books he boldly testifies that the SDA are not the true church as they claim they are. And he testified about the new covenant that He established at his 1st coming. So just because he didn't put up a sign "Church of God" until 1964, that means he wasn't preching? If you insist that, then you should also insist that Jesus only preached the New Covenant, on the night of the Passover, right before he was crucified. Because according to the scriptures, Jesus proclaimed the new covenant on the night of the Passover, right before he was crucified, at the end of his preaching for 3 years. According to your insistance, Jesus, whom you claim to believe in, didn't preach for 3years. He preached only one night. LOL, I would love to hear you prove this wrong.
Lastly, If anyone of you know the history of Korea and that they were colonized by the Japanese from the year 1919, you will be able to see there was no way that he could have grown up buddist. I'll let you research that yourself.
You better band me now from this sight, if you don't want to look foolish. All of your false insistance and nonsense opinions will get destroyed by the truth. Stop mis informing the public about the true WMSCOG.
Show us where in the bible it says that. Please back up your claims with scriptures not just words.
You are saying Jesus was not in the tomb for 72 hours but 36 you must have lost your mind!
First of all I would like to welcome you and thank you for coming to share on this forum.
The Unknown wrote:
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 12:40) 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…
Good point. Let us assume that we do not know scripture for arguments sake. I would love to hear your explanation for the 72 hour /36 hour discrepancy.
2nd, Christ Ahnsahnghong wasn't a member of the SDA church. He was baptized by the SDA. If you insist he was a member of the SDA church then you should also insist that Jesus was a disciple of John the Baptist. John the Baptist baptized Jesus however, did Jesus follow John the Baptist? NO! He did not. He began to preach the new covenant. In the same way, at his second coming, someone had to play the role of John the Baptist and baptize him. Jesus clearly testified that he had to be baptized again after his first baptism. In Luke 3:21-23 Jesus was baptized and in Luke 12:49-50 He says he has a baptism to undergo, or in otherwords, he should be baptized again. Was Jesus baptized twice at his 1st Coming? No he wasn't. So he had to be baptized again at his 2nd coming. That's the only way Luke 12:49-50 could be fulfilled. Anyone want to try to prove this explanation is false? Please be my guest. You will see you are decieving yourself and others.
Can you see Mk 10:38-39? What is Jesus talking about as his baptism? It is not John's baptism because his apostles, having previously been disciples of John the baptist, had already received that baptism. Here Jesus is talking about his death as his baptism. It was done 2000 years ago. That is when Lk 12:49-50 was fulfilled.
Third, If Christ Ahnsahnghong was a member of the SDA church, then He should have been influenced in some way by their doctrine or teaching.
He certainly was. All the interpretation of the apocalyptic texts is a direct copy/paste. The insistence on Saturday sabbath is a copy/paste.
However, as soon as they baptized him he began to preach to them and exposed all the falicies in their doctrine. He wrote the book Unsealing the Secret of the Seven Thunders in 1955, and Letter to the church in Laodecia in 1960, which anyone who studies the bible knows that Laodecia is the SDA church, even they admit that. In those books he boldly testifies that the SDA are not the true church as they claim they are.
Anybody who studies the bible does not "know" that the SDA is the church of Laodecia. Let me assure you, there was a church in Laodecia when John wrote Rev. I can understand if he says the SDA is not the true church in 1960 because, by then he was already preparing to go solo.
Isn't it also true that he claimed that the final true church will be the last generation and the end will come within 40 years?
And he testified about the new covenant that He established at his 1st coming. So just because he didn't put up a sign "Church of God" until 1964, that means he wasn't preching? If you insist that, then you should also insist that Jesus only preached the New Covenant, on the night of the Passover, right before he was crucified. Because according to the scriptures, Jesus proclaimed the new covenant on the night of the Passover, right before he was crucified, at the end of his preaching for 3 years.
According to your insistance, Jesus, whom you claim to believe in, didn't preach for 3years. He preached only one night. LOL, I would love to hear you prove this wrong.
Jesus "instituted" the new covenant at the "Last Supper" right before he was crucified. Scripture is not unanimous about it being the night of the passover. Perhaps we can discuss more about this in the "celebrating the passover" thread. The preaching of the new covenant was left to the church of the apostles.
You better band me now from this sight, if you don't want to look foolish. All of your false insistance and nonsense opinions will get destroyed by the truth. Stop mis informing the public about the true WMSCOG.
I don't believe Admin will ban you for expressing your opinion here. We are fine with disagreement. Feel free to disagree as long as you don't become disagreeable. We welcome your presence here so that the truth can prevail.
First of all I would like to welcome you and thank you for coming to share on this forum.
The Unknown wrote:
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 12:40) 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…
Good point. Let us assume that we do not know scripture for arguments sake. I would love to hear your explanation for the 72 hour /36 hour discrepancy.
2nd, Christ Ahnsahnghong wasn't a member of the SDA church. He was baptized by the SDA. If you insist he was a member of the SDA church then you should also insist that Jesus was a disciple of John the Baptist. John the Baptist baptized Jesus however, did Jesus follow John the Baptist? NO! He did not. He began to preach the new covenant. In the same way, at his second coming, someone had to play the role of John the Baptist and baptize him. Jesus clearly testified that he had to be baptized again after his first baptism. In Luke 3:21-23 Jesus was baptized and in Luke 12:49-50 He says he has a baptism to undergo, or in otherwords, he should be baptized again. Was Jesus baptized twice at his 1st Coming? No he wasn't. So he had to be baptized again at his 2nd coming. That's the only way Luke 12:49-50 could be fulfilled. Anyone want to try to prove this explanation is false? Please be my guest. You will see you are decieving yourself and others.
Can you see Mk 10:38-39? What is Jesus talking about as his baptism? It is not John's baptism because his apostles, having previously been disciples of John the baptist, had already received that baptism. Here Jesus is talking about his death as his baptism. It was done 2000 years ago. That is when Lk 12:49-50 was fulfilled.
Third, If Christ Ahnsahnghong was a member of the SDA church, then He should have been influenced in some way by their doctrine or teaching.
He certainly was. All the interpretation of the apocalyptic texts is a direct copy/paste. The insistence on Saturday sabbath is a copy/paste.
However, as soon as they baptized him he began to preach to them and exposed all the falicies in their doctrine. He wrote the book Unsealing the Secret of the Seven Thunders in 1955, and Letter to the church in Laodecia in 1960, which anyone who studies the bible knows that Laodecia is the SDA church, even they admit that. In those books he boldly testifies that the SDA are not the true church as they claim they are.
Anybody who studies the bible does not "know" that the SDA is the church of Laodecia. Let me assure you, there was a church in Laodecia when John wrote Rev. I can understand if he says the SDA is not the true church in 1960 because, by then he was already preparing to go solo.
Isn't it also true that he claimed that the final true church will be the last generation and the end will come within 40 years?
And he testified about the new covenant that He established at his 1st coming. So just because he didn't put up a sign "Church of God" until 1964, that means he wasn't preching? If you insist that, then you should also insist that Jesus only preached the New Covenant, on the night of the Passover, right before he was crucified. Because according to the scriptures, Jesus proclaimed the new covenant on the night of the Passover, right before he was crucified, at the end of his preaching for 3 years.
According to your insistance, Jesus, whom you claim to believe in, didn't preach for 3years. He preached only one night. LOL, I would love to hear you prove this wrong.
Jesus "instituted" the new covenant at the "Last Supper" right before he was crucified. Scripture is not unanimous about it being the night of the passover. Perhaps we can discuss more about this in the "celebrating the passover" thread. The preaching of the new covenant was left to the church of the apostles.
You better band me now from this sight, if you don't want to look foolish. All of your false insistance and nonsense opinions will get destroyed by the truth. Stop mis informing the public about the true WMSCOG.
I don't believe Admin will ban you for expressing your opinion here. We are fine with disagreement. Feel free to disagree as long as you don't become disagreeable. We welcome your presence here so that the truth can prevail.
Not sure Sabbath is a copy paste they don’t keep sunrise or sunset they keep like mid afternoon. theory
Not sure Sabbath is a copy paste they don’t keep sunrise or sunset they keep like mid afternoon. theory
The concept that Christians in the new covenant are required to keep the Sabbath of the old covenant is a copy/paste. That was the USP of the SDA but the wmscog went one better by "restoring the passover" for their own USP.
The concept that Christians in the new covenant are required to keep the Sabbath of the old covenant is a copy/paste. That was the USP of the SDA but the wmscog went one better by "restoring the passover" for their own USP.
Except many non sdas believe you must/should keep Sabbath
Except many non sdas believe you must/should keep Sabbath
So OK it could be a copy/paste from elsewhere. But since Ahn was in the SDA, it seems the obvious source.
So OK it could be a copy/paste from elsewhere. But since Ahn was in the SDA, it seems the obvious source.
maybe it was a legitimate belief he had
maybe it was a legitimate belief he had
I think it was a legitament belief. I mean, hypothetically speaking, would he have taught about the Sabbath if no one ever told him about it? If he read the bible alone with no other religious influence would he have seen the Sabbath as something important? Idk.. it's hard to say. But I think when he learned about the Sabbath in the SDA and then researched it and kept reading his bible, he honestly believed it was important. Not as important as PO though. Doesn't the SDA teach that the Sabbath is the seal? Ash said otherwise..
I think it was a legitament belief. I mean, hypothetically speaking, would he have taught about the Sabbath if no one ever told him about it? If he read the bible alone with no other religious influence would he have seen the Sabbath as something important? Idk.. it's hard to say. But I think when he learned about the Sabbath in the SDA and then researched it and kept reading his bible, he honestly believed it was important. Not as important as PO though. Doesn't the SDA teach that the Sabbath is the seal? Ash said otherwise..
yes they do teach Sabbath is the seal (funnily Ahn points out where EGW implies it isnt)
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.