[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.

[emil]

[emil]

fromtheotherside wrote:

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.  

Let us see who is in denial. Why do you stop reading at verse 10? Go on to read till verse 14. It gives a description of the Holy Jerusalem. How does that description fit a woman? ASH himslelf said of this verse that it refers to a place and not a woman. You want to contradict him?

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. 

Your interpretation of the bride is literal. If you want to take the literal interpretation for Rev 22:17, you ought to go all the way. Literally, none of the entities mentioned is "giving" the water. They are just saying "come", which is basically an invitation to take the water. In a visualization of the words used, the scene is that there is the Spirit, the bride and the listeners. Each of these entities say "come". Each of them invite. So literally speaking, none of them is giving but just pointing to the source of the water. None of those entities say "receive the water" or "we give you the water". So then if we have to agree that the interpretation cannot be literal, then it throws the "bride is a woman" idea out of the debate. Besides, even we accept it for the sake of argument, why ASH and ZGJ and not any other pair of people?

 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.

I take the bible seriously in its entirety and not just isolated verses. You are right, I believe Jesus and the Holy Spirit are not the same. I could debate you for this if you want. I don't see why that is a problem. Kindly explain.

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

Agree.

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. 

Now you are getting the point. I agree completely. The difference in our belief lies in the fact that the New Jerusalem has not yet come down. That is why as you can see, we are obviously not in heaven. Nice that you are realizing it.

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.

A few questions spring to mind.

1. Where exactly have you seen all those events happening in the present time?

2. On what basis do you make the statements in bold above?

3. So where exactly is this place on earth that you speak of and how does the bible testify it?

[emil]

fromtheotherside wrote:

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

From your "Yeah" it appears that you are agreeing that worshiping mother god is blasphemy. The WMSCOG worships ZGJ. On the other hand the catholic church teaches that worship is due to God alone and none else. Mary is never worshipped. This is a red herring.

[fromtheotherside]

Emil did you read all my posts??? I said Im not debating jerusalem is Mother that is not the point of my post. If you are not going to read everything then dont respond! So annoying.

[fromtheotherside]

Now do you understand why I dont take you seriously?

[emil]

1. Did you see what this thread is about? It is about the wmscog justification for ZGJ as mother god. The information is taken from the wmscog official website.

2. Did you read my reply? I have just responded to each of your points about Jerusalem. In only one sentence have I referred to the wmscog claim of ZGJ in particular. Though that is very much a part of my original post, please feel free to ignore that one senetnce and respond to the rest.

If you don't take me seriously then it can possibly be because you afraid you are unable to debate logically. When you get into debating trouble, you start getting abusive.

[fromtheotherside]

Part three you completely missed the point please go back and read again.

[fromtheotherside]

Emil I understand that your post is about Mother but Im getting to that. I didnt mean to go off on you okay emil

[Joshua]

Just some possible clarification for a couple of points on the previous page.

How can a woman surround a man and why does the water flow to the east and west and not the north and south as well.

Everyone is aware of this and I am a little surprised that it has not been mentioned. Women will always surround the men just as man once surrounded the woman. Who bears the children? For approx. 40 weeks everyone is surrounded by the woman. Human beings are defined as mankind and as such woman will surround the man. What happens after this? A new thing is brought forth. Something that no one has witnessed before. The woman gives birth to a newborn baby and each of us is distinctly different. There are no two people that are exactly the same.

As for the water flowing to the east and the west. This is an example of how far the message of Jesus Christ will reach. How far is the east from the west?

[Simon]

That would be a pretty pointless prophecy

[emil]

fromtheotherside wrote:

Part three you completely missed the point please go back and read again.

You please go back and read. I have answered Part 3 as well.

[fromtheotherside]

Emil I'm waiting for you to go back and read again, the point of zech and rev.  The correlation? 

[emil]

If you refuse to read my response to your Part 3 back there, then here, let me paste it for you:

 

A few questions spring to mind.

 

1. Where exactly have you seen all those events happening in the present time?

 

2. On what basis do you make the statements in bold above?

 

3. So where exactly is this place on earth that you speak of and how does the bible testify it?

[fromtheotherside]

That's not a responce it's questions, responce means answer, not more questions.  Please tell me your thoughts.

[emil]

You are applying those scripture passages to the present day. You make statements and you expect us to accept them as fact. I am questioning your statements. Prove them to be facts that those events are happening now even as we speak. If you cannot show that, the scripture is not talking about the present time and your interpretation of Jerusalem.

Let me clarify what my questions are about. I am not challenging scripture. I am challenging your interpretation. Go ahead and prove it.

I know you will tell me to prove your interpretation is wrong. That is what my questions are about. They prove that you are wrong.

[fromtheotherside]

emil emil emil, so can you be so kind as to tell me your thoughts to my point.  It's not a prove your point debate but a sharing of ones thoughts! So go ahead I'm waiting for your reply!

[emil]

emil wrote:

fromtheotherside wrote:

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. 

Now you are getting the point. I agree completely. The difference in our belief lies in the fact that the New Jerusalem has not yet come down. That is why as you can see, we are obviously not in heaven. Nice that you are realizing it.

I already told you my view. Your own post says it. Zahng cannot be the Jerusalem

[fromtheotherside]

Do you not see "if" in front of it.  And I also said "you guys bring up the point"! And I'm comparing it with Zech which I gave many points for it not to be happining in heaven.  so can you be an adult and give me your reply.

[emil]

I cannot see what is the point you are trying to make through that verse. Hence my questions. Can you elaborate?

[fromtheotherside]

okay i will write it again tomorow.  

[Harry]

emil wrote:

emil wrote:

fromtheotherside wrote:

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. 

Now you are getting the point. I agree completely. The difference in our belief lies in the fact that the New Jerusalem has not yet come down. That is why as you can see, we are obviously not in heaven. Nice that you are realizing it.

I already told you my view. Your own post says it. Zahng cannot be the Jerusalem

 

Hey FT. Emil has you there man, you better hope Mama doesn't come here, if she see's that blunder you will be looking for a new job. Could you imagine getting fired by GOD? That would suck!! Oh, wait, I forgot, she's not God, she's just a human being playing God for a living! Because it's MIND CONTROL, you brainwash people for a living! You do realize your sick, right!