[genny]

In another thread, fromtheotherside, speaking of the materials presented againt the wmscog, said "none of your evidences speak for itself.  if you have such evidence present it without your explanation."

I presented several 'evidences without explanation' there, but I think it would be a good idea to take each one separately into its own thread.  Here's the first one:

Regarding the teaching of the Catholic Church being the Antichrist: the Ostrogoths were not destroyed in 538, the '10 kingdoms' from the Roman empire were not as the WMSCOG presents, 5 were destroyed not 3, and the destruction or survival of these 'kingdoms' did not depend on their following the Catholic Church.  These are historical, textbook facts.

I originally did not link to my research about it, because fromtheotherside did not want explanation, but if you'd like to see the research, I've collected it here:

http://encountering-ahnsahnghong.blogspot.com/2011/11/daniels-prophecy.html

http://encountering-ahnsahnghong.blogspot.com/2011/08/is-666-pope-part-3.html

fromtheotherside tried to answer this point but so far was unsuccessful.  I'll copy those pieces of the conversation here from the other thread, just to keep everything together.

[Sarah2013]

[Sarah2013]

So by this, you believe in Ahng and zhang’s teaching as truth, right? Since the Sabbath was removed by the Catholics. No offence, but I can’t call them father and mother but by their names since I am not their followers, I hope you understand.

[fromtheotherside]

Not offended. But its not just sabbath from the 10 commandments. many other things too.

[Sarah2013]

Yes, Catholics do say Hail Mary and yes, Wmscog do say Ahang…. Hail Mary is not in the Bible and Ahang is not in the Bible. The Catholics could also claim Galatians 4:26, though they don’t, if they want to. Same way wmscog claims Galatians 4:26. But you will tell me, no they can’t, and point out reasons. Passover, which I’m hearing may be coming to a close, sabbath and so on. It just doesn’t add up.

[emil]

fromtheotherside wrote:

Catholic 10 commandments:

 

 I, the Lord, am your God. You shall not have other gods besides me.

2.     You shall not take the name of the Lord God in vain

3.     Remember to keep holy the Lord's Day

4.     Honor your father and your mother

5.     You shall not kill

6.     You shall not commit adultery

7.     You shall not steal

8.     You shall not bear false witness

9.     You shall not covet your neighbor's wife

10. You shall not covet your neighbor's goods

 

Original OT 10 commandments

1   You shall have no other gods but me.

 

 

2.     You shall not make unto you any graven images

3.     You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain

4.     You shall remember the Sabbath and keep it holy

5.     Honor your mother and father

6.     You shall not murder

 

7.     You shall not commit adultery

 

8.     You shall not steal

9.     You shall not bear false witness

10. You shall not covet anything that belongs to your neighbor

 

Mainly my point of the change is the sabbath, The others are just a matter of Grouping.The catholic church chose to change "sabbath" to "lords day" because they chose to worship on sunday, not saturday and that is why they changed it.

 

Catechism of the catholic church

2191 The Church celebrates the day of Christ's Resurrection on the "eighth day," Sunday, which is rightly called the Lord's Day (cf. SC 106).

 

and you saw those exact words of the 10 commandments in which catholic bible? You are avoiding my question. You made a statement that the catholics changed the bible. Now back up your statement with facts or withdraw it.

[emil]

fromtheotherside wrote:

yea look carefully at 11 and 12 you choose not to answer about that.  How would i be "rejecting verses 13-14? it is out of sequence prove its not. and why would our interpretation "hinge" on only the preceeding verses it "hinges" on all the verses.

Dn 7:11-13 – 

11 I watched then because of the noise of the arrogant words that the horn was speaking. And as I watched, the beast was put to death, and its body destroyed and given over to be burned with fire. 12 As for the rest of the beasts, their dominion was taken away, but their lives were prolonged for a season and a time. 13 As I watched in the night visions, …….

The words indicate a continuity of the narrative which is indicative of a sequence. But even better than that, Daniel pauses the vision narrative AFTER verse 14 and from verse 15 he asks for an interpretation of the dream. I don't know how you can deny this but to me it is a clear indication that something took place sequentially and then Daniel seeks an explanation at the end of the sequence. If it was not a sequence, Daniel would have asked for interpretation before verse 13 and not after verse 14.

But the clincher is this. In the interpretation itself, it explains that the events of verse 13-14 occur after the previous events. see verses 26-27. QED.

And BTW you are misquoting me. I did not say it hinges on the preceeding verses. I said it hinges on the sequence of the preceeding verses.

[fromtheotherside]

So your saying the judgment happens after the devil is thrown in the lake of fire which happens in ver 11 and 12?

[emil]

FTOS brother – you are not open to look at the major fallacies in the interpretation. Genny showed you some and you chose to deny history by twisting the significance of the 538 AD date, forcing the interpretation of the events to match with a date used for pure convenience to make the 1260 years match. Admit it and lets move forward.

 

fromtheotherside wrote:

So your saying the judgment happens after the devil is thrown in the lake of fire which happens in ver 11 and 12?

 

I am not saying anything of the sort. All I am saying is that your interpretation is patently false. Probably so because it is a mere copy/paste from the SDA, used without application of mind by your leaders.

[fromtheotherside]

emil wrote:

fromtheotherside wrote:

Catholic 10 commandments:

 

 I, the Lord, am your God. You shall not have other gods besides me.

2.     You shall not take the name of the Lord God in vain

3.     Remember to keep holy the Lord's Day

4.     Honor your father and your mother

5.     You shall not kill

6.     You shall not commit adultery

7.     You shall not steal

8.     You shall not bear false witness

9.     You shall not covet your neighbor's wife

10. You shall not covet your neighbor's goods

 

Original OT 10 commandments

1   You shall have no other gods but me.

 

 

 

 

 

2.     You shall not make unto you any graven images

 

 

 

3.     You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain

 

 

 

4.     You shall remember the Sabbath and keep it holy

 

 

 

5.     Honor your mother and father

 

 

 

6.     You shall not murder

 

 

 

7.     You shall not commit adultery

 

 

 

 

8.     You shall not steal

 

 

 

9.     You shall not bear false witness

 

 

 

10. You shall not covet anything that belongs to your neighbor

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mainly my point of the change is the sabbath, The others are just a matter of Grouping.The catholic church chose to change "sabbath" to "lords day" because they chose to worship on sunday, not saturday and that is why they changed it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Catechism of the catholic church

 

 

 

2191 The Church celebrates the day of Christ's Resurrection on the "eighth day," Sunday, which is rightly called the Lord's Day (cf. SC 106).

 

 

 

and you saw those exact words of the 10 commandments in which catholic bible? You are avoiding my question. You made a statement that the catholics changed the bible. Now back up your statement with facts or withdraw it.

How the am I avoiding your question, did I not post this to answer your question. Look it up in the internet, just as they have NIV and KJV, it's not hard to Catholic bible on the interent.  So your saying the catholic bibles on the interent are false, cuz that's where I got them, you have a problem with that, then take it up with them for putting up fake catholic bibles. 

[fromtheotherside]

emil wrote:

FTOS brother – you are not open to look at the major fallacies in the interpretation. Genny showed you some and you chose to deny history by twisting the significance of the 538 AD date, forcing the interpretation of the events to match with a date used for pure convenience to make the 1260 years match. Admit it and lets move forward.

How does that have anything to do with your question, there totally two different points, we are talking about verses 13 and 14 andtheir relation to the verse before them. 

[fromtheotherside]

emil wrote:

FTOS brother – you are not open to look at the major fallacies in the interpretation. Genny showed you some and you chose to deny history by twisting the significance of the 538 AD date, forcing the interpretation of the events to match with a date used for pure convenience to make the 1260 years match. Admit it and lets move forward.

 

fromtheotherside wrote:

So your saying the judgment happens after the devil is thrown in the lake of fire which happens in ver 11 and 12?

I am not saying anything of the sort. All I am saying is that your interpretation is patently false. Probably so because it is a mere copy/paste from the SDA, used without application of mind by your leaders.

Yes that is what you are saying becuase you believe them to be events that are to be in order.  11 and 12 are clearly about the judgement and punishment of the beast in the lake of fire, but then how can christ come after that when the earth is already judged.  

[emil]

You continue to lie because you believe it is for good. Specify which catholic bible you found on the internet with that text of the 10 commandments. Give a link. Do not just copy/paste lines from some text on the internet. Point to a bibkle translation. Don't you feel ashamed to lie blatantly?

Your claim was that the catholics changed things in the bible and I challenged you on that. Now you are unable to back it up with a single concrete example. You just keep posting nonsensical stuff without answering the point. Do you even understand what it is you are doing? Do you even understand the point I am making?

You will not find the texts you quote in any catholic bible because it is exactly the same as any other bible except for the 7 books. What you are quoting is not direct text from any bible I have seen.

[fromtheotherside]

a point in time as for the work of god doesn't have to match the thought of man,  to god 538 can certainly become a point in time, with that one arguable point you cannot dismiss tht all the other points add up perfectly and sensably

[Sarah2013]

Well said, Emil. I commend you for that truth.

[emil]

fromtheotherside wrote:

 

I am not saying anything of the sort. All I am saying is that your interpretation is patently false. Probably so because it is a mere copy/paste from the SDA, used without application of mind by your leaders.

Yes that is what you are saying becuase you believe them to be events that are to be in order.  11 and 12 are clearly about the judgement and punishment of the beast in the lake of fire, but then how can christ come after that when the earth is already judged.  

Exactly my point. That is your error.

I believe the events are in order. Verses 11 and 12 are clearly about the judgement of the beast. So I agree about that. However, your next sentence is the question that shows you that your interpretation is wrong. The judgement of the beast is not the same as the judgement of the earth. Because you interpreted it to be so, you are unable to accept that the events are described in sequence. Once you understand that, you will realize your whole interpretation is wrong. You have a preconceived notion and then you try to wrestle the facts to fit in with your notions.

[fromtheotherside]

http://www.catholicbible101.com/thetencommandments.htm

http://www.catholicdoors.com/courses/commandments.htm

http://www.usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/sacraments/penance/upload/Examination-of-Conscience.pdf

[fromtheotherside]

You backed it up for me, Hail marry is a teaching of the catholics yet its not int thebible, how about catholics and holy water, pope and his "authority" the list goes on.  This is all "adding" which is the same as changing the bible. your words are useless no matter how much you want to be right.

[fromtheotherside]

the beast is not punshed untill 1000 years after the saints go to heaven to reign with christ, Hello, read revelations. If the saints are in heaven with God christ had already came. your not even being specific with your arguments but just keep ranting lie lie lie, cuz that's all you can say because you can't back up your own views. 

[Sarah2013]

My dear FTOS, I have to say something here: The Catholic Bible does have the commandments listed as you stated. Likewise, Wmscog has also added to the Bible. I can go on a Catholic site and make some debates there but, how does this prove that what you are being thought at World mission society church of God is accurate. Up until after Ahng died, the teaching that wmscog came up with is unbiblical and contracdicting. God has allowed some to be involved in cult churches so that his Glory be revealed. 50% truth and 50% deceit or confusing doctrines CANNOT BE FROM GOD? He is a consuming fire and also Love but not deceitful.

[Sarah2013]

Lies are an intentional act of deception. Emil hasn’t shown any sign of deceit here. Most people are not aware that the Catholic Bible, not regular bibles, have the commandment slightly different. However, it still doesn’t prove the obvious. I can have a catholic debate with you without prejudice, as a former Catholic, but it still doesn’t show how Wmscog is the true Church, if such exist.

[emil]

fromtheotherside wrote:

http://www.catholicbible101.com/thetencommandments.htm

http://www.catholicdoors.com/courses/commandments.htm

http://www.usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/sacraments/penance/upload/Examination-of-Conscience.pdf

Those links are not of the bible. They are short-form exceprts that highlight the interpretation. The bible text is exactly the same, which is what I have been saying all along.

 

fromtheotherside wrote:

You backed it up for me, Hail marry is a teaching of the catholics yet its not int thebible, how about catholics and holy water, pope and his "authority" the list goes on.  This is all "adding" which is the same as changing the bible. your words are useless no matter how much you want to be right.

You are talking about changing the bible. But you haven't backed it up. Regarding other catholic teachings, catholics believe they are based on the bible. Whether you or anyone else believes the proofs or not is irrelevant. But the bible stands unchanged. The Catholic Douay Rheims bible I refered to online also uses the word "sabbath" in the ten commandments if it makes you happy.

There are many things that the wmscog does that requires a stretch of crdibility to accept as being from the bible. But the point here is that the bible stands unchanged. Which makes your original claim wrong.

One major difference between the Catholic Church and the WMSCOG is this. While the Catholic church publicly exposes its teaching to the whole world (allowing for openness and criticism) the WMSCOG is secretive about its own teaching. Every thing that you can criticize the Catholic church of is openly declared in the CCC along with references to scripture verses and church fathers writings.

Finally, this site is named Examining the WMSCOG. So lets not deflect the issue.