- Topic
So take it court Joshua, without proof, even testimony does not hold up. Don't compare yours or others word to that of the apostles and God, the bible is testimony from prophets moved by the holy spirit so don't even think their words are the same, as we can see with Dianes testimony PEOPLE lie. Go back and watch her "testimony" if even I can see the faults in it a lawyer would rip it apart throw it right back in her face.
48:40 Daine sounds pretty upset no one called her after she left "Not one person" Almost looks like she was really upset about it.
Diane even says the pastor called looking for her.After service hmm she was sick for four days. Guess who else Call her, the one we call Mother herself? hmm even to mock her, I wonder which is no one or some called.
So is this another one of those testimonies your talking about Joshua?
By your logic a person can claim you physically assaulted them and get a court to convict you with just their testimony, but with out the scratches and bruises there testimony is pointless, just same you need physical evidence.
LOL! I don't think so.You never know though.
Smurf wrote:
renita.payno wrote:
which all of us should do from time to time.
ahahhaha .. I almost thought you were serious there. Good joke 😀
I was serious.. We should seperate ourselves from this site from time to time. I come here often because I like to talk and all of my friends carry out a good portion of their lives online or with significant others. I come here because I'm bored but some of the posts here get me a little worked up. So, from time to time, I step away for a while.
MountainMom wrote:
No, that's not it. But I do agree that all of us should take a break. (You and I are ones to talk, aren't we Renita? We are always on here!)
I think it's time I take my own advice. =)
fromtheotherside wrote:
Jesus of Nazareth wrote:
I'm going to ask you this again: Fromtheotherside,
Who wrote this:
The time that the tabernacle (New Jerusalem) see (21:3, 9-10) comes down is 1000 years after the end of the world. It is written, “Then I saw‘a new heaven and a new earth,’ for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea.” (Revelation 21:1).
and
Question (from those of us who "need to study more") Has the world ended and if so, has 1000 years passed already ?
How could the world end already, what kinda question is that? If it had ended I would be in heaven! ^^.
According to the wmscog, your Mother God is the New Jerusalem. According to Ahn, the New Jerusalem comes down 1000 years after the end of the world. If you say the world has not yet ended, and I totally agree with you, then either Ahn's statement is wrong or Zahng is not the New Jerusalem. Take your pick.
fromtheotherside wrote:
I chose number 3 Father's statement is correct and Mother is the New Jerusalem.
Aren't we building the heavenly temple? Was that not our objective for preaching and bearing fruit:? Well we built it in heaven, so yes it will come down after the 1000 year reign in heaven with God. So, there is no contradictions. The temple in heaven we are building is the Heavenly Jerusalem. Named after its builder (also in Father's book) Mother!
Isn't the heavenly temple supposed to be completed now? (According to what I've heard from the wmscog)
Nice try. According to what wmscog members say, mother is the New Jerusalem that has already come down.
In the sermon "The Holy City, Jerusalem", in the section, "The children of Jerusalem coming from all nations", there is this sentence:
We should realize the plan of God and share in the salvation which is provided by Jerusalem our Mother in this age.
emphasis mine.
And yes, as Genny said, you guys claim that the temple was to be completed in 2012, it wasn't the end of the world.
That is quite confusing. I am not talking about father's appearance at all. Poof or otherwise. Lets not divert the issue.
You use the Rev verse to say that the New Jerusalem, which is descending from heaven in Rev 21:10 is mother. You say the bride of Rev 22:17 is mother whom father introduced. WMSCOG does not claim these as future events. It is clear that wmscog claims that the new jerusalem has already come down since mother is here with us. In fact I quoted the sentence from the sermon to show this. I even emphasized the text.
Now are you saying mother is the new jerusalem; the new jerusalem is still in heaven and mother is on earth? Very confusing. I wonder how you manage to understand the logic of that set of sentences.
fromtheotherside wrote:
I think Emil confused, MOther is the new Jerusalem, and yes she came down if she didn't how could she be here? Duh! J/K But Father is talking about the Temple the heavenly tabernacle which is named after the builder (New Jerusalem as father even said in his books!) that has been built in heaven (i'm still used to saying building in a present tense manner!) But just because it's built does not automatically mean Father poof and comes. Understand Emil? Because… Of the prophecies of the bible. understand???
You can try your best to obfuscate the issue but I can read plain English. Your own website has a major page on Heavenly Mother. Here is what it says under the subheading "The Wedding of the Lamb"
In the book of Revelation, chapter 21, the Bride the wife of the Lamb is described as "Jerusalem."
It then goes on to quote Rev. 21:9-10. Elsewhere, the WMSCOG claims that Rev 22:17 the bride is mother. So the WMSCOG at least claims that the Jerusalem in Rev 21 is the same mother. You are now trying to defend by saying the city and the woman are independent of each other. Now you try to understand FTOS how your mind has been clouded. No pun intended.
fromtheotherside wrote:
I think Emil confused, MOther is the new Jerusalem, and yes she came down if she didn't how could she be here? Duh! J/K But Father is talking about the Temple the heavenly tabernacle which is named after the builder (New Jerusalem as father even said in his books!) that has been built in heaven (i'm still used to saying building in a present tense manner!) But just because it's built does not automatically mean Father poof and comes. Understand Emil? Because… Of the prophecies of the bible. understand???
emil does have a point, but just so you can't somersault your way out of it I'm going to make it really simple:
if Rev 21:2 I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God
refers to Zhang, then why is there still a sea???:
"for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea"
Ooo…. nice. I would like to know the answer to that too. The sea is probably representing something.. But who? or what?
Pastor wouldn't tell us what it meant said it wasn't literal though
I always thought maybe it meant the people.. the waters were people. I'll research it.
Rev 21:1-5 『Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea. . . ." . . . He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away."』
Rev 22:1-5 『Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life, as clear as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb down the middle of the great street of the city. . . . There will be no more night. They will not need the light of a lamp or the light of the sun, for the Lord God will give them light. And they will reign for ever and ever.』
"A new heaven and a new earth," which Apostle John saw in a vision, refers to the kingdom of heaven. When the eternal kingdom of heaven comes, there will be no more death or pain or sorrow and God will let us lay down all our burdens which have given us hard times on this earth and will give us eternal joy and happiness that will never wither away and everything else we desire.
From http://usa.watv.org/truth/sermon/content.asp?idx=1430&page=1 Rev21:2 shouldn't happen until the eternal kingdom of heaven comes.
Water isn’t always people
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.