[emil]

I am taking the wmscog argument from their own website under the head "Truth of Life -> Elohim God" and would love for someone from their side to come here and debate it.

The article first lists Gen 1:26-27. The plural form used here cannot only be interpreted as Father and Mother. It can also refer to the trinitarian aspect of 3 persons in one God, which off course the wmscog cannot accept because it makes nonsense of the 3 ages. In fact the Trinity can work in all places where the plural form is used. By itself, the "us" in this verse does not prove their point. As regards the creation of male and female, one must understand that these verses are the short account. The detailed account is in Genesis chapter 2 which shows that the male was created first and the female was created much later. Taking Gen 2 by itself, one might easily conclude that the creation of woman was an afterthought. This kind of destroys their logic that male and female were created in the image of a male and female God. If there was a female god, God would have created male and female at the same time. Cautionary note: This part of the argument is purely for the members of the wmscog.

Then they use Gen 11:1-7 to show the plural form. Read this passage carefully. Does it indicate there were multiple Gods? Hardly. When He says, "Let US go down….," a more logical interpretation would be the Lord calling His angels to come and confuse their language. There is no reason to believe there was a mother god.

Next is Is 6:8 "who will go for us?" The wmscog ignores what Isaiah says in verse 1 and 5, using the singular male pronoun in the former and saying , "The King, the Lord Almighty" in the latter. The scene described by Isaiah has a host of angles present. So the "us" used here refers to God and the heavenly hosts.

Next is Jer. 31:22

『. . . The LORD will create a new thing on earth—a woman will surround a man.』

And the paragraph following it:

God said that He would create a new thing: a woman would surround a man. Spiritually, this verse has a very profound meaning. The woman, Eve, had once been inside the man. If God had not made the woman with the ribs He had taken out of the man, how could the woman have been able to surround the man? The new thing, that God said He would bring to the earth, would be the revealing of Mother, who has been within God the Father since the beginning. The new thing would be created at the time God established the new covenant.

Can anyone follow this logic as to how a woman surrounding a man means mother god? They explain that first mother was within father. Do they mean that now father is within mother? I fail to follow the logic. Hope FTOS can explain.

The next one is a sleight of hand trick. Jer 31:31-34 is partially quoted. Here is the quote from their website.

Jer. 31:31-34 『"The time is coming," declares the LORD, "when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah . . . "I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. No longer will a man teach his neighbor, or a man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest."』

Read that passage from the bible and you will see they have left out verse 32. Wonder why? Here is verse 32: "It will not be like the covenant I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they broke my covenant, though I was a husband to them,” declares the Lord."

It is trickery to deliberately leaving out the verse that shows God as a singular male.

Finally, they ask, "let us see in what form he will appear" and quote Rev 22:17. How can that even remotely show how He will appear? How He will appear is quite clearly spelt out in the gospels. I believe once again the trick here is the twist in intrpretation of the word "come". Does the word in that verse convey how He will come? Not at all. The word is a call to the people to come.

I'm sorry for the long post. I tried to keep it as short as I possibly could. I hope some members from the other side debate this post.

[Simon]

[Simon]

In revelation 22 they aren’t twisting the word come at all they are referring ti the concept of mouth and speaking means in flesh but that the word come is in the verse

So far as jeremiah 31 that would make sense if the word god were used but sering as they wouldn’t debate jehovah is a single male

God has no after thoughts no plan b

genesis 11 and isaiah 6 are pretty wonderful points as far as who us is

[emil]

Simon wrote:

In revelation 22 they aren't twisting the word come at all they are referring ti the concept of mouth and speaking means in flesh but that the word come is in the verse

Could you please explain that?

So far as jeremiah 31 that would make sense if the word god were used but sering as they wouldn't debate jehovah is a single male

I'm not sure what you mean. The passage does have the word "God" and they use the "elohim" word in Hebrew to claim dual deity.

God has no after thoughts no plan b

I agree. See what I have written. I had put that note of caution for that purpose. I mentioned what conclusion may be reached by reading that passage in isolation, which is the kind of thing they do all the time.

[Simon]

Jeremiah 31:32 doesn’t have elohim in it

As far as revelation 22 they point to the fact they are speaking which means they must have mouths and the spirit is the holy spirit so if the holy spirit has a mouth he’s in flesh

The bride is also speaking also has a mouth also must be in flesh

Along with WaterOf life can only be given by god so the ones in flesh are god in flesh

Yes it’s twisting but they are demonstrating speech = body not the word come

[emil]

Simon wrote:

Jeremiah 31:32 doesn't have elohim in it

They quote Jer 31:31-34 and claim it has Elohim in it. I guess it must be the word "God" in verse 33.

As far as revelation 22 they point to the fact they are speaking which means they must have mouths and the spirit is the holy spirit so if the holy spirit has a mouth he's in flesh

The bride is also speaking also has a mouth also must be in flesh

Along with WaterOf life can only be given by god so the ones in flesh are god in flesh

Yes it's twisting but they are demonstrating speech = body not the word come

What about Jehovah? The bible tells of him speaking numerous times. Is He in flesh? If we use the argument that He came in the flesh as Jesus, there is no reason why we can't say that Rev 22:17 is also talking about Jesus who is in flesh.

The bride is the church, the people of God and is in flesh.

Rev 22:17 says "The Spirit and the bride say, “Come!” And let the one who hears say, “Come!” Let the one who is thirsty come; and let the one who wishes take the free gift of the water of life."

Who is the one who hears? It is the people; not God. Therefore the same verse allows those who are not god also to invite the thirsty.

The logic fails on all counts.

[Simon]

jerusalem is giving not inviting per zechariah 14:8

also if the church is whoever hears how can the church be the bride too?

[emil]

Simon wrote:

jerusalem is giving not inviting per zechariah 14:8

we were discussing Rev 22:17 not Zech 14:8. Come is inviting.

also if the church is whoever hears how can the church be the bride too?

Not sure. Looking at that verse again, if the bride is the church (which we know from elsewhere in scripture) then "the one who hears" must refer to those who hear the call of the church. They too can invite. Personally how would you interpret it Simon?

[Anonymous]

Just seeing "mother god" written out infuriates me. What awful blasphemy. 

[Simon]

emil wrote:

Simon wrote:

jerusalem is giving not inviting per zechariah 14:8

we were discussing Rev 22:17 not Zech 14:8.

you cannot seperate from scipture from scripture, I was also explaning why you are twisting their twisting so even if you could that is still twisting their twisting

also if the church is whoever hears how can the church be the bride too?

Not sure. Looking at that verse again, if the bride is the church (which we know from elsewhere in scripture) then "the one who hears" must refer to those who hear the call of the church. They too can invite. Personally how would you interpret it Simon?

The one who hears is the church The Spirit is God and no idea on the bride

[KF]

Jer. 31:22

. . The LORD will create a new thing on earth—a woman will surround a man

Emil according to them does not the woman represent the “church“, so a woman will surround a man, could mean the “church” will surround a man, if so could the man be “Jesus” son of man

Meaning the church will evolve around Christ. The new thing would be the gospel of Jesus, the new covenant. The woman, the holy city Jerusalem, When the new heaven and new earth is formed. (just my thoughts)

Revelation

21 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.

2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.

. 3 And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.

God will dwell among us after he creates the new heaven and new earth, not before that

When He says, "Let US go down….," a more logical interpretation would be the Lord calling His angels to come and confuse their language. There is no reason to believe there was a mother god.

I agree, God always walked with his Angels

The bride is the church, the people of God and is in flesh.

Rev 22:17 says "The Spirit and the bride say, “Come!” And let the one who hears say, “Come!” Let the one who is thirsty come; and let the one who wishes take the free gift of the water of life."

Who is the one who hears? It is the people; not God. Therefore the same verse allows those who are not god also to invite the thirsty.

I agree! God did say he was a husband to us, Jer 31:32, and Although we can not give the water of life (only God can give life) but God can authorize the church/us to do it, and whatever his will is it will be. Did he not give power to the Apostles to cure and drive out demons in his name. ( who alone has the power to do that) God, but he gave the apostles the power to do it

Let the one who is thirsty come; and let the one who wishes take the free gift of the water of life."

Who ever believes in Jesus Christ will live. Jesus said

“I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. John 14:6

The water that I will give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life'” (John 4:7-14). Jesus is the Living Water.

Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your householdActs 16:31

[emil]

Simon wrote:

emil wrote:

Simon wrote:

jerusalem is giving not inviting per zechariah 14:8

we were discussing Rev 22:17 not Zech 14:8.

you cannot seperate from scipture from scripture, I was also explaning why you are twisting their twisting so even if you could that is still twisting their twisting

I still don't understand what you mean by giving. Please explain what is the wmscog teaching about Rev 22:17

 

Kim wrote:

Jer. 31:22

. . The LORD will create a new thing on earth—a woman will surround a man

Emil according to them does not the woman represent the “church“, so a woman will surround a man, could mean the “church” will surround a man, if so could the man be “Jesus” son of man

Meaning the church will evolve around Christ. The new thing would be the gospel of Jesus, the new covenant. The woman, the holy city Jerusalem, When the new heaven and new earth is formed. (just my thoughts)

Look at that piece of text I copied from their website. They say the new thing is the revealing of mother.

[Simon]

emil wrote:

Simon wrote:

emil wrote:

Simon wrote:

jerusalem is giving not inviting per zechariah 14:8

we were discussing Rev 22:17 not Zech 14:8.

you cannot seperate from scipture from scripture, I was also explaning why you are twisting their twisting so even if you could that is still twisting their twisting

I still don't understand what you mean by giving. Please explain what is the wmscog teaching about Rev 22:17

There is giving and inviting

The Spirit and the Bride are giving the Water of Life away

The Church is telling people to come to the Spirit and the Bride to receive it from them.

 

maybe a good, but very corny, analogy would be like.

A bakery is selling cake on a good special and I know you like cake. So I tell you "Hey Emil you should really go to Han's Bakery they have a really good deal on cake right now"

 

I have invited you to buy the cake but I haven't sold it to you.

 

In the same way members of WMSCOG ALLEGEDLY know where to go to receive eternal life so they tell you "Hey Emil, you should go to WMSCOG God the Father and God the Mother are there!! They are giving eternal life away please come receive it."

 

So although they tell you where to get it, they do not in fact give it to you. God does give it though; so God is giving the Church is inviting.

 

The proof they use to say the bride is giving not inviting is that the Bride is Jerusalem (Revelation 21:3,9-10) and Jerusalem is prophesied to give living water/water of life in the last days (more exactly it is to flow from Jerusalem)

 

 

Kim wrote:

Jer. 31:22

. . The LORD will create a new thing on earth—a woman will surround a man

Emil according to them does not the woman represent the “church“, so a woman will surround a man, could mean the “church” will surround a man, if so could the man be “Jesus” son of man

Meaning the church will evolve around Christ. The new thing would be the gospel of Jesus, the new covenant. The woman, the holy city Jerusalem, When the new heaven and new earth is formed. (just my thoughts)

Look at that piece of text I copied from their website. They say the new thing is the revealing of mother.

They point to how it is even shown in the physical with more and more women in authority.

[Simon]

I have another POSSIBLE interpretation for the verse I don't know.. but if it is about eternal life flowing east and west from Jerusalem in the last days. The last days has been demonstrated to also refer to the time of Jesus (such as in Acts 2 when Peter says a last days prophecy is being fulfilled)

 

The Church was established in Jerusalem and spread from there which could be called the spread of living water from Jerusalem, just an idea. Not sure of course just a possible counter to their claim…

[KF]

Maybe Simon,it's a possiability, but, Question…. why is not the water flowing North & South?

[Simon]

The same reason it doesn't flow in autumn and spring.. its figurative for all directions all year

[emil]

If you look at my original post, you will notice that the quote Rev 22:17 appears as a confirmation to "what for he will appear". The quote appears to say that the sign of the appearance is a couple inviting people to come (to receive the water of life if you like). My main rebuttal was about why this verse must be used literally to describe the sign when there are far more explicit signs in the bible. Regarding the word "come", it is only my conjecture because the word can be very powerful if you believe it is coming from God.

In connection with this verse, I can picture in my mind situations where Ahn alone offered this water long before mum came on the scene and then I can picture mum offering said water. Since I have never been a member, I would like to ask Simon or other members/former members if they are aware of any situation where Ahn and Zahng offered this water together as a couple as depicted in Rev 22:17.

[emil]

I was looking at their website to see what else they had on Rev 22:17 and I came across the sermon "God, Wonderful Counselor" in which they have a section entitled "God has come as the Spirt and the bride" in which there is this sentence:

This earth is a city of refuge—a prison where the souls who sinned are gathered together. Jesus came to this earth in the flesh to inspect the sinners from heaven—to see if they were truly living a life of self-reflection and repentance.

Any comments on this? I was not aware Jesus came as an inspector. I thought he came as a Saviour to redeem me.

Edit: I'm sorry that is off topic.

[emil]

FTOS, I would love for you to comment on the original post of this thread. Did you miss it?

[fromtheotherside]

The important part is the spirit AND the bride is giving the water of life(eternal life).  The bride is not the Church because it says it clearly in Rev 21:9-10 " I will show you the BRIDE … Holy Jerusalem coming down out of heaven from God."  If you can't accept that then you are clearly just in deniel its in plain English.  

Part 1: Rev clearly says that the bride is giving eternal life and so is the Holy spirit.  There is some points you should ponder about, which is in the OT Jehovah said he is the one that is to give the WOL.  Then in the NT Jesus said the same to come to him to receive it.  But now it says who are the ones to give it?  I think you should think about this and not dismiss it.  I don't know how serious you take the bible but, it does say the Holy Spirit.  If you believe in the trinity there is father and son and holy spirit.  So unless you can prove that the holy spirit is Jesus who came 2000 years ago then… you have a problem.  But you can just dismiss it but if you do we have no reason to debate because that's all you are doing is dissmissing.  Also I would like to point out is you believe in the trinity which in christian beliefs mean the father and son and holy spirit are 3 distinct eternal entities sharing the same nature of being God, so in your beliefs the son and the holy spirit are not the same.  Also John 15:26 states Jesus will send the holy spirit that implies they are two seperate beings.

Part 2:  Jerusalem is from heaven not on this earth so it is not the physical city Jerusalem.

Part 3: You guys bring up point Jerusalem is to come down out of heaven from god after the new heaven and new earth.  Think about this.  If Jersualem comes down out of heaven from God after the new heaven and new earth then that means we are in heaven not on this present earth as sinners.  Do you agree?   Then let me share with you a verse. 

Zech 14:16-21 If any of the peoples of the earth do not go up to Jerusalem to worship the King the Lord Almighty, they will have no rain… The lord will bring on them the plague he inflicts on the nations that do not go up to celebrate the Feast of Tabernacles.  

Zech clearly prophecied that Jerusalem is a place on earth where the nations (all people not just Jews) must go to worship God.  Or he will inflict a plague.  Clearly Zech is talking about the last days.  And not the physical city Jerusalem in Palestine.  Then this Jerusalem is a place on this earth not a place on the New heaven and nNew earth because that is in heaven and would we be inflicted with plagues in heaven??? that's not the heaven I imagined.   So why don't you think about these facts and give me a reply.

[fromtheotherside]

Btw I'm not debating on whether the bride or Jersualem is Mother but Just about the bride and Jerusalem whom or whatever it maybe.

[fromtheotherside]

IrenaeusFTW wrote:

Just seeing "mother god" written out infuriates me. What awful blasphemy. 

Yeah so is praying to Mary, what a blasphemous deed, makes me wanna throw up