- Topic
The WMSCOG claim that Zahng Gil-Jah is the "mother" that Galatians 4:26 speaks of as well as the Jerusalem the bride that is coming down from heaven in Rev.21. Now there are inconsistancies to this claim. In this post, I will go over one of them.
We know the Jerusalem above and the earthly Jerusalem represent 2 covenants. Earthy Jerusalem(Hagar)= Where physical Jews are from. Represents Old Covenant given on Mount Sinai. Heavenly Jerusalem(Sarah)= Where spiritual Jews are from. Represents New Convenant established by Jesus Christ.
The WMSCOG claim Zahng is the mother in Gal. 4:26. We know Issac, Sarah's son, represents Christ. And Sarah is represented as the Heavenly Jerusalem whom again they believe to be Zahng. But wait a minute, Sarah is the mother of Issac. Then that would mean Zahng who the WMSCOG claim is Sarah in Gal. 4:26 would be the mother of Jesus Christ? That doesn't make sense. Another point, the bride of Christ in Rev. 21 is also claimed to be Zahng by the WMSCOG. How can Zahng be the mother and the bride of Christ? Makes no sense.
I will continue posting other inconsistancies as well as go further on this one later…Just something I thought you guys would want look into…
Serg, it's all [removed for rules]. /; V )
serg, we do not have to make too much of an effort on this one. Their own so-called God has debated this point very well and proved that the very idea of a mother god is delusional. He has taken every single scripture quote the wmscog uses (second hand- re-cycled from Umm Soo In) and shown how it does not prove the existence of a mother god.
But then those people teach both Abraham and Isaac represent Christ
Even ahn wrote that the father IS the son so its a matter of interpretation
Simon wrote:
But then those people teach both Abraham and Isaac represent Christ
Even ahn wrote that the father IS the son so its a matter of interpretation
You may be right there. I do not know.
But regarding Gal 4:26 and using it to prove mother god, Ahn specifically brought up this same criticism which serg has stated. That this interpretation makes Sarah both wife and mother to Isaac.
But was he saying that’s an issue with a mother or with eoms way of claiming it.
Ahn is a lot more general about the problem in other places there he is more specific.
Here is Chapter 7 directly from his book that can be found in English here.
Um Sooin speaks as if she is out of her mind when she claims that the New Jerusalem is herself. They use the following verses to support their claims:
[Galatians 4:22-26] (verses omitted to save space).
Note that the WMS uses the same verses and the same interpretation to say that Zhang is the "new jerusalem". Ahn then writes:
They use this passage to assert that Um Sooin is our mother who has come down from Heaven. Um Sooin truly believe that Hagar is the earthly Jerusalem while Sarah is the Heavenly Jerusalem. The only reason that the Apostle Paul wrote Galatians 4:22-26 is to clarify that the history of the family of Abraham is a prophecy.
[Galatians 4:24]「These things may be taken figuratively, for the women represent two covenants. One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children who are to be slaves: This is Hagar. (emphasis added).
Ahn then writes:
The Apostle Paul is speaking of the Heavenly Jerusalem.
Nevertheless, Um Sooin claims that she is the Heavenly Jerusalem and that she has come down to earth. According to the prophecy of Galatians 4:22-24, Sarah is the Heavenly Jerusalem. However, if the New Jerusalem is Um Sooin, she has then married her son. The reason for this is that Isaac is the son of Sarah, and it is said that Isaac is also Christ. (Gal. 3:16)
Um Sooin has then become the mother of Christ as well as the bride (wife) of Christ. (emphasis added).
So it seems that Ahn would agree that anyone who claimed to be the New Jerusalem from heaven would be wrong.
This is my favorite part…
Um Sooin states that I am Isaac with weakness of sight while claiming that she is Sarah, who is the Heavenly Jerusalem. She is then saying that she will live with Isaac who is her son. How extremely scandalous is this? With this type of misguided delusion, she has become a false prophet and has attempted to gain power. Please think of what will become of her sin and the sin of those who follow after her. (Isa. 9:16)
One could easily substitute Um for Zhang in the above text. What reason would there be for his interpretation of the Bible (whether you agree with it or not) to change just because the woman who claimed to be the "new jerusalem" changed? It's like Ahn saying "oh yeah you were totally wrong and delusional before when your interpretation was referring to Um, but now that you are talking about Zhang you are right, and also the true church I might add".
That's why the wms's bogus story about Ahn writing this book just because Um stole his notes does not and will never make sense.
without knowing what eom wrote it could alter that ONE section, Ahn did write that the Father=Son=Holy Spirit in two books, that explanation only works with Father+Son+Holy Spirit
Simon wrote:
without knowing what eom wrote it could alter that ONE section, Ahn did write that the Father=Son=Holy Spirit in two books, that explanation only works with Father+Son+Holy Spirit
Does what Eom wrote matter? Isn't his argument appropriate enough for Zahng's claim as well? He is after all, arguing against the concept itself. The same concept that the WMSCOG uses.
In this one chapter it does seeing as his rebuttal contradicts his other writings and the rest of the book does not
Simon wrote:
In this one chapter it does seeing as his rebuttal contradicts his other writings and the rest of the book does not
Can you elaborate with specifics?
Not sure what is lacking
You said this one chapter alone contradicts his other writings and the rest of the book does not.
I am given to understand that there are several chapters of this book that have been devoted to counter the claim of Umm Soo In. In fact, starting with the preface itself, this book is devoted to this one subject only.
This chapter relies on an interpretation of a Trinity of three persons as understood by mainstream Christian teaching but ahn wrote an entire book on the Trinity and a chapter in the green book refuting that it is three people but in fact one person
Eom apparently wrote a few books herself and those are what he is refuting
Simon wrote:
Eom apparently wrote a few books herself and those are what he is refuting
The New Jerusalem book he wrote, which is the subject of this thread, refutes Eom's claims from whatever source. The important point is that the arguments he uses, refute the WMSCOG claim of Zahng being mother god as well. The scripture verses used by the wmscog for this are the exact same verses used by Eom originally. Ahn refutes the interpretation of those verses.
Really Serg, it’s a bunch of bananas.
I didn’t say the book doesn’t I said this specific chapter doesn’t
Anyone can claim to be God, you know.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.