- Topic
This comment was posted by anton on "Problems With New Jerusalem, The Bride, And Women's Veils" by Ahnsahnghong on 11/14/12:
you know, the truth about that UmSoolN, she is a former member of WMSCOG. And that woman stole one of the writings of Father Ahnsanghong. And because of that she saw the writings of Father about the New Jerusalem Mother that will come. And she claims that she is the Heavenly Mother New Jerusalem. That's why, Father Ahnsanghong published the book of "Problems with New Jerusalem, the Bride, and the Woman Veils." to counter the false claim of UmSoolN!!! to tell all the members that she is not the Heavenly Mother in a flesh,.. But Zang Gil Jah is the true Mother and she was 12 years old at that time. And UmSoolN is not the God the Mother. That is the truth… Hope you will be enlighten.^^ God Bless you..
Zahng can’t be mother because God said mother doesn’t exist.
renita.payno wrote:
Zahng can't be mother because God said mother doesn't exist.
that's exactly right. Ahn says Um Soo In can not be mother god because there is no mother god. The WMS has very cleverly distorted this into saying Ahn was only referring to Um Soo In, when he was in fact referring to anyone. This is apparent if people actually bother to read what he wrote. Ahn even uses the same verses to prove that New Jerusalem is a person, not a place, that the WMS tries to use to say it's a person.
I dunno if his book is the best evidence until we have the whole thing, of course we have so much evidence without it, but the book in an incomplete form makes it a lot easier for them to make claims about an inaccurate understanding, making it look like NCPCOG is hiding something, as I was implied to when I attended.
Even if that book isn't the best evidence we have, it still cites the scripture that identifies the new jerusalem. And it's not a person. Like ttr said, it's apparent if people actually bother to read what is written. If what the COG says is true, why then doesn't he say that there IS a heavenly mother, but it's just not UmSooIn? In fact, he calls the very idea of the new jerusalem as a person "delusional." Not just for one woman, but for anyone.
Moved-Comment wrote:
This comment was posted by anton on "Problems With New Jerusalem, The Bride, And Women's Veils" by Ahnsahnghong on 11/14/12:
you know, the truth about that UmSoolN, she is a former member of WMSCOG. And that woman stole one of the writings of Father Ahnsanghong. And because of that she saw the writings of Father about the New Jerusalem Mother that will come. And she claims that she is the Heavenly Mother New Jerusalem. That's why, Father Ahnsanghong published the book of "Problems with New Jerusalem, the Bride, and the Woman Veils." to counter the false claim of UmSoolN!!! to tell all the members that she is not the Heavenly Mother in a flesh,.. But Zang Gil Jah is the true Mother and she was 12 years old at that time. And UmSoolN is not the God the Mother. That is the truth… Hope you will be enlighten.^^ God Bless you..
First of all "Anton" if that is your name, [Um, Soo In] was never a member of the "WMS" for the simple fact that they did not exist at that time. What you said is word for word what they told you to say. I wonder if you sport that fake korean accent when you say this. You could never have come to this conclusion on your own. <period> You have no idea what you're talking about.
ttr wrote:
renita.payno wrote:
Zahng can't be mother because God said mother doesn't exist.
that's exactly right. Ahn says Um Soo In can not be mother god because there is no mother god. The WMS has very cleverly distorted this into saying Ahn was only referring to Um Soo In, when he was in fact referring to anyone. This is apparent if people actually bother to read what he wrote. Ahn even uses the same verses to prove that New Jerusalem is a person, not a place, that the WMS tries to use to say it's a person.
EXACTLY ! Right on TTR.
Stained wrote:
First of all "Anton" if that is your name, [Um, Soo In] was never a member of the "WMS" for the simple fact that they did not exist at that time. What you said is word for word what they told you to say. I wonder if you sport that fake korean accent when you say this. You could never have come to this conclusion on your own. <period> You have no idea what you're talking about.
That's so wierd. At the one service I went to, EVERYONE said ahnsahnghong this way, and there was only one korean in the whole living room. The deaconess I spoke to in particular was really bad about it. Again, she was in no way korean. I couldn't believe it. Don't the korean people feel like they're being patronized hearing that?
That'd be like me saying "fly lice" to a chinese person or "throw anutha shrimp on the baaahhbie, guvna!" to an aussie. They would probably be super pissed, and rightly so.
Cephas' Brother wrote:
Even if that book isn't the best evidence we have, it still cites the scripture that identifies the new jerusalem. And it's not a person. Like ttr said, it's apparent if people actually bother to read what is written. If what the COG says is true, why then doesn't he say that there IS a heavenly mother, but it's just not UmSooIn? In fact, he calls the very idea of the new jerusalem as a person "delusional." Not just for one woman, but for anyone.
Well said, Brother! I rest my case (:
Stained wrote:
ttr wrote:
renita.payno wrote:
Zahng can't be mother because God said mother doesn't exist.
that's exactly right. Ahn says Um Soo In can not be mother god because there is no mother god. The WMS has very cleverly distorted this into saying Ahn was only referring to Um Soo In, when he was in fact referring to anyone. This is apparent if people actually bother to read what he wrote. Ahn even uses the same verses to prove that New Jerusalem is a person, not a place, that the WMS tries to use to say it's a person.
EXACTLY ! Right on TTR.
I think you got the wording backwards here on this under line sentence, it should say …..the new jerusalem is not a person, but a place.
KF wrote:
Ahn even uses the same verses to prove that New Jerusalem is a person, not a place, that the WMS tries to use to say it's a person.
EXACTLY ! Right on TTR.
I think you got the wording backwards here on this under line sentence, it should say …..the new jerusalem is not a person, but a place.
yes, i did make a typo. let me try to state that again as i intented to the first time.
Ahn uses the same verses to say that the New Jerusalem is a place that the WMS uses to say it's a person. This teaching is contradictory. See Chapter 8: https://www.examiningthewmscog.com/archives/chapter-8-the-heavenly-jerusalem-is-an-actual-place/ where Ahn writes:
요한계시록 21장 1-4절의 기록한 새 예루살렘 즉 하나님의 장막이 사람들과 함께 있으매 한 이 장막도 사람이 아닌 신령적 건물입니다. 그러면 왜 우리교회에서 주장하는 바 성도들이 교회요 14만 4천 성도가 새 예루살렘이라고 하였는가? 그 이유는 모든 교회가 생각하기를 건물이 교회요 새 예루살렘이라고 하기 때문에 나는 그것을 좀더 확실하게 알리기 위하여 성도가 모이면 그곳이 교회요 14만 4천이 들어갈 곳이 새 예루살렘이라고 분명하게 증거한 것이다.
Revelation 21:1-4 records that the New Jerusalem or tabernacle of God is with the people, and this tabernacle is not a person but a divine building. So why are we claiming that saints are the church and 144,000 saints are the New Jerusalem? Because every church thinks that a building is church or New Jerusalem but I want to make it clear that church is where saints are gathered and the New Jerusalem is where 144,000 saints will enter.
it's kind of hard when your own founder writes against you.
Simon wrote:
I dunno if his book is the best evidence until we have the whole thing, of course we have so much evidence without it, but the book in an incomplete form makes it a lot easier for them to make claims about an inaccurate understanding, making it look like NCPCOG is hiding something, as I was implied to when I attended.
you're right, it's not one thing, it's everything. did you all see the interview with Ahn Sahng-Hong's own son in which he says his father never believed in a mother god?
https://www.examiningthewmscog.com/archives/interview-with-ahn-sahng-hongs-son/
you're right, it's not one thing, it's everything. did you all see the interview with Ahn Sahng-Hong's own son in which he says his father never believed in a mother god?
TTR, wouldn't his son & family know, he was 2nd coming, then again his tomb says the prophet Elijah, and Jesus was also called the prophet Elijah. ( Malachi 4 )
Question: Did Mary & family know Jesus was God? My friend says no, but then what about the miracles he did in front of them, what about when God spoke to Joseph and told him Mary was concieved from the holy spirit? and what about when he rose, did she not see him? surely they must have known he was different & special (I'am speaking here of his immediate family) how about when mary meet John the Baptist mother and they were 3 months apart & John jumped for joy in his mothers belly. Anyway he says his own family did not believe him & thought he was crazy, he says even his brother James doubted him, but I don't believe that….Mary or Joseph at least should have known he was not just a regular person. Come on the man turned water into wine and you don't notice anything, Mary was the one who asked him to do that. To show me that they did'nt know he pointed out to when Jesus was 12 and they left him behind on another town,went back for him and his parents kind of scolded him and he said Did you not know I would be in my fathers house, so yeah my point of view still stands, why did Jesus answer them like this, it sure seems as if they were suppose to know.
Cephas' Brother wrote:
Even if that book isn't the best evidence we have, it still cites the scripture that identifies the new jerusalem. And it's not a person. Like ttr said, it's apparent if people actually bother to read what is written. If what the COG says is true, why then doesn't he say that there IS a heavenly mother, but it's just not UmSooIn? In fact, he calls the very idea of the new jerusalem as a person "delusional." Not just for one woman, but for anyone.
and here's another "LIGHTBULB" why would another church have a book(s) written by Ahnsahnghong if they did not have the right to it. Why is the wmscog sueing this website, but does not bother to sue the ncpcog, they sue this website, because people are expressing their opinions here, but another church has books that also the wmscog carries, yet they are not affliated, and they do nothing???
I’m so sad! I think I’m going to start preaching again. My target, cog members. I’ve got enough time to build my own evidence book and put studies together to prove against them.
You are God?
Cephas' Brother wrote:
Even if that book isn't the best evidence we have, it still cites the scripture that identifies the new jerusalem. And it's not a person. Like ttr said, it's apparent if people actually bother to read what is written. If what the COG says is true, why then doesn't he say that there IS a heavenly mother, but it's just not UmSooIn? In fact, he calls the very idea of the new jerusalem as a person "delusional." Not just for one woman, but for anyone.
Yes but they can easily and reasonably accuse us of contextanomy. without the full text we don't know any caveats he may have made.
ttr wrote:
you're right, it's not one thing, it's everything. did you all see the interview with Ahn Sahng-Hong's own son in which he says his father never believed in a mother god?
https://www.examiningthewmscog.com/archives/interview-with-ahn-sahng-hongs-son/
Again its easy to bring up the Jesus's own brothers thought he was crazy idea. Hearsay isn't evidence, most especially for people brainwashed to believe his physical son is a child of Satan lying to hinder the gospel work.
Simon wrote:
Cephas' Brother wrote:
Even if that book isn't the best evidence we have, it still cites the scripture that identifies the new jerusalem. And it's not a person. Like ttr said, it's apparent if people actually bother to read what is written. If what the COG says is true, why then doesn't he say that there IS a heavenly mother, but it's just not UmSooIn? In fact, he calls the very idea of the new jerusalem as a person "delusional." Not just for one woman, but for anyone.
Yes but they can easily and reasonably accuse us of contextanomy. without the full text we don't know any caveats he may have made.
ttr wrote:
you're right, it's not one thing, it's everything. did you all see the interview with Ahn Sahng-Hong's own son in which he says his father never believed in a mother god?
https://www.examiningthewmscog.com/archives/interview-with-ahn-sahng-hongs-son/
Again its easy to bring up the Jesus's own brothers thought he was crazy idea. Hearsay isn't evidence, most especially for people brainwashed to believe his physical son is a child of Satan lying to hinder the gospel work.
but he created him both physically & spiritually, so God comes to earth and has an evil kid, does not make sense at all…..everything God does is Good
Kim wrote:
you're right, it's not one thing, it's everything. did you all see the interview with Ahn Sahng-Hong's own son in which he says his father never believed in a mother god?
TTR, wouldn't his son & family know, he was 2nd coming, then again his tomb says the prophet Elijah, and Jesus was also called the prophet Elijah. ( Malachi 4 )
Hi Kim. According to Christians, the prophet Elijah talked about in Malachi 4 was John the Baptist, not Jesus.
Question: Did Mary & family know Jesus was God? My friend says no, but then what about the miracles he did in front of them, what about when God spoke to Joseph and told him Mary was concieved from the holy spirit? and what about when he rose, did she not see him? surely they must have known he was different & special (I'am speaking here of his immediate family) how about when mary meet John the Baptist mother and they were 3 months apart & John jumped for joy in his mothers belly. Anyway he says his own family did not believe him & thought he was crazy, he says even his brother James doubted him, but I don't believe that….Mary or Joseph at least should have known he was not just a regular person. Come on the man turned water into wine and you don't notice anything, Mary was the one who asked him to do that. To show me that they did'nt know he pointed out to when Jesus was 12 and they left him behind on another town,went back for him and his parents kind of scolded him and he said Did you not know I would be in my fathers house, so yeah my point of view still stands, why did Jesus answer them like this, it sure seems as if they were suppose to know.
I agree. Jesus' brothers didn't believe (until later), but Mary definitely would have known.
genny wrote:
Hi Kim. According to Christians, the prophet Elijah talked about in Malachi 4 was John the Baptist, not Jesus.
They point to dual fulfillment and say ASH is the second and true fulfillment cuz Eli=mygod and Jah comes from Jehovah so "my god Jehovah" must come down to be the true fulfillment.
Simon wrote:
They point to dual fulfillment and say ASH is the second and true fulfillment cuz Eli=mygod and Jah comes from Jehovah so "my god Jehovah" must come down to be the true fulfillment.
The wmscog might say that Ahn and Jesus were the fulfillment of Elijah, but according to Christianity it was not Jesus, but John the Baptist. They should not say that the Bible calls Jesus Elijah. (Of course they should not say lots of the things they do.)
Kim wrote:
Cephas' Brother wrote:
Even if that book isn't the best evidence we have, it still cites the scripture that identifies the new jerusalem. And it's not a person. Like ttr said, it's apparent if people actually bother to read what is written. If what the COG says is true, why then doesn't he say that there IS a heavenly mother, but it's just not UmSooIn? In fact, he calls the very idea of the new jerusalem as a person "delusional." Not just for one woman, but for anyone.
Well said, Brother! I rest my case (:
Stained wrote:
ttr wrote:
renita.payno wrote:
Zahng can't be mother because God said mother doesn't exist.
that's exactly right. Ahn says Um Soo In can not be mother god because there is no mother god. The WMS has very cleverly distorted this into saying Ahn was only referring to Um Soo In, when he was in fact referring to anyone. This is apparent if people actually bother to read what he wrote. Ahn even uses the same verses to prove that New Jerusalem is a person, not a place, that the WMS tries to use to say it's a person.
EXACTLY ! Right on TTR.
I think you got the wording backwards here on this under line sentence, it should say …..the new jerusalem is not a person, but a place.
EXACTLY AGAIN KIM. TTR was right on too but he crossed person/place thingy but I know what he was getting at.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.