- Topic
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
ใ. . . The LORD will create a new thing on earth—a woman will surround a man.ใ
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 ใ"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."ใ
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.
Yes it's here. on this earth right now it's happening.
So you think
1.the Jerusalem in Zech and rev are different.
2. the Jerusalem in Zech is the Jerusalem in Palistine. the physical one.(so then what proof do you have it is the jerusalem in Palistine?)
Physical, spiritual, earthly. Jerusalem is Jerusalem. There is a reason that name is used.
emil wrote:
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.
(So you are saying they are different )
a. The Jerusalem of Zech is first plundered. Not so with Rev.
b. The Jerusalem of Zech is raised up. So you are saying it is the Jerusalem in Palistine. 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?
You said it in your post your post says this is what you believe! You said they are different, so how are they different?
When has wmscog ever claimed to be Jerusalem
Genny have you an answer?
fromtheotherside wrote:
Genny have you an answer?
Hi FTOS. There has been so much posting in the last day, and I kept getting interrupted trying to read it all. I'm still trying to catch up on the conversations. I'll get back to you… ๐
Ugh, time's up again, and I didn't get to the Christmas thread or this one thoroughly yet. I'll try again tomorrow. You're question was about Zechariah 14, right?
Yes Zechariah and Rev. Take you time Genny. will be waiting.
Hal, coming from a stand point of a non Jesus believer, yes John plagerized, coming from a christian, how can God plagerize his own words.
Hi FTOS. So were you asking whether Zech. 14 occurs during the end times or after the end?
Is there a reason it can't be speaking of more than one time period? Many prophecies have a dual fulfillment, something near and something greater later.
Here are some commentaries about Zech. 14 you may find interesting:
(Calvin) http://www.studylight.org/com/cal/view.cgi?bk=zec&ch=14
(Barnes) http://www.studylight.org/com/bnb/view.cgi?bk=zec&ch=14&vs=16#16
(Clarke) http://www.studylight.org/com/acc/view.cgi?bk=zec&ch=14
If you were asking about the water flowing from Jerusalem (Zech 14:8), and wish to point out that the source of the living water is Jerusalem, and "the Heavenly Jerusalem above is our Mother" and "Mother is the wife of the Lamb and therefore the Bride" …
Rev. 22:1-2 points out that while the water of life flows out of Jerusalem, it's source is "the throne of God and of the Lamb" and it flows through the city. Whether you want to see it as physical or spiritual doesn't really matter for that, I think.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.