The argument for Mother God

  • Creator
    Topic
  • #7266
    emil
    Participant

    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.

  • #58970

    fromtheotherside
    Participant

    You guys said in rev Jerusalem comes down after the new heaven and the new earth, but in zech it says that those who do not go up to Jerusalem will be destroyed. So that means Jerusalem has to be here on the earth for us to go up to it.  

    #58971

    fromtheotherside
    Participant

    Harry do you need help shoveling there seems to be to much crap that came of out of your mouth for you to handle. 

    #58972

    fromtheotherside
    Participant

    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

    Don't you know what "if" means.  If emil is a homo that goes out in his wife's panties then I will be shocked.  Does that mean I'm stating that you are a homo? 

    #58973

    fromtheotherside
    Participant

    If emil went out last night in wearing a thong, then we should be able to find a thong in his panty drawers, Do you agree?  Then let's go to his house and see.  (here you left out my words that I made below)  So does this seem like I'm saying you are a trans? or a pervert?

    #58974

    fromtheotherside
    Participant

    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.  

    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.

    You deliberately left out the point I was making! Are an idiot are you are trying to act like a smart ass?

    #58975

    Harry
    Participant

    fromtheotherside wrote:

     

    Don't you know what "if" means.  If emil is a homo that goes out in his wife's panties then I will be shocked.  Does that mean I'm stating that you are a homo? 

    Wow, FT, a little angry are we? Mama must have given you quite the lashing today.

    If the fact that you are "probably" gay really bothers you why don't you go down the hall to the brainwashing department and they can wipe out all your memories, give you new ones and make you think your happy………It's NOT a church!

    #58976

    fromtheotherside
    Participant

    Harry didn't I tell you to keep shoveling? Get going.

    #58977

    KF
    Participant

    FTOS don't waste space here with your uncalled for, stupid remarks, you are no comedian so don't quit your day job.

    #58978

    fromtheotherside
    Participant

    But that is my day job.  Hey kim have we met? Is kim your first name or last name?

    #58979

    KF
    Participant

    yes, no, no,

    #58980

    emil
    Participant

    fromtheotherside wrote:

    You guys said in rev Jerusalem comes down after the new heaven and the new earth, but in zech it says that those who do not go up to Jerusalem will be destroyed. So that means Jerusalem has to be here on the earth for us to go up to it.  

    There are several things wrong with your argument.

    1. You need to prove that the Jerusalem of Rev is the same as the Jerusalem of Zechariah.

         a. The Jerusalem of Zech is first plundered. Not so with Rev.

         b. The Jerusalem of Zech is raised up. The Jerusalem of Rev is lowered down.

         c. If your contention is turue that Zech and Rev is the same Jerusalem and it is already among us, then you have to claim that the bible is wrong in speaking about the 1000 years. Take your pick.

    2. Zechariah describes many things happenning. You have to show where these things are happenning today. That is what I had already answered earlier.

    3. You have to show how you can claim WMSCOG to be Jerusalem other than by just calling it Zion Ministries.

    4. How is "So that means Jerusalem has to be here on the earth for us to go up to it." the only logical conclusion?

    #58981

    fromtheotherside
    Participant

    4. Because it says "Many nations will go to jerusalem to celebrate the feast of Tabernacles."  So how are we to get there if it's not here? 

    #58982

    fromtheotherside
    Participant

    Kim you said Yes, no, no.  ?  I asked 1. have we met? 2. is kim your first name 3. last name?   

    So we've met??? Hmm where from?  

    #58983

    Stained
    Participant

    fromtheotherside wrote:

    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.

     Oooooooo, wobble wobble.  Me likey. Now fall and come back to reality Sailorboy.   Watch or they'll put your ass out too.   

    #58984

    fromtheotherside
    Participant

    Thanks stained,  wobble wobble?  Stained … you make it too easy.  You are a funny kid. 

    #58985

    emil
    Participant

    fromtheotherside wrote:

    4. Because it says "Many nations will go to jerusalem to celebrate the feast of Tabernacles."  So how are we to get there if it's not here? 

    Why do we jump to the conclusion that Zech is talking about our lifetime? There is nothing in Zech to say that FTOS will go to Jerusalem. Maybe a few generations later some FTOS may go. You are concluding something that is not in evidence. And that by the way is only the 4th point there are several before that.

    #58986

    fromtheotherside
    Participant

    So how can you say it is not in our generation?  There is no evidence to say it can't be our generation atleast non that you provided.

    #58987

    emil
    Participant

    fromtheotherside wrote:

    So how can you say it is not in our generation?  There is no evidence to say it can't be our generation atleast non that you provided.

    Because it is not here. At least you haven't shown it is here. So obviously your own statements have proved it by saying "how are we to go there if it is not here?" Now again you'll bring out your "if" and say you said "if".

    Your arguments need to be a lot more logical. If it is not here, I don't have to prove it. If you say it is here, you have to prove it and then I can agree or disagree. Try to understand basic logic.

    And lets not forget all the other points I made.

    #58988

    fromtheotherside
    Participant

    I have shown it is here because nations are supposed to go to it so it is supposed to be on this earth!

    #58989

    fromtheotherside
    Participant

    Who said it's not here, You said it's not  on this earth, then I said If (like you said is not on this earth) then how are we (nations) supposed to go there?

Viewing 20 replies - 41 through 60 (of 75 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.