- Topic
Every now and then I flip through some of my wms literature and come across something that stands out to me and I ask myself: Where did they get that from? or Where does it say that in the Bible? I started this thread so that we can discuss quotes that are found in wms official literature or websites. Here are some examples of what I have come across lately.
"Without putting on Mother's love, none of us can enter the kingdom of heaven; we are expelled from heaven, we can never enter by ourselves." God The Father And God The Mother p.159
It is simply analogy of comparison. Clouds without rain can mean a lot of things.
Here is that verse again: Jude verse 12 . These are the men who are [a]hidden reefs in your love feasts when they feast with you without fear, caring for themselves; clouds without water, carried along by winds; autumn trees without fruit, doubly dead, uprooted;
See how Jude uses many different words to describe these people: “autumn trees without fruit, doubly dead, uprooted.” We have to read in context always for better understanding. Wmscog do not implement that.
That makes a lot of sense. Because when referring to large group of people, the Scripture didn't say 'in the cloud' or 'like a cloud'. It said a cloud of people. I see we have shifted topics. I guess we are done talking about the Ages?
They say a cloud without rain is a man [cloud] without the Spirit [rain, water]. A tree with no fruit is Israel [tree] without repentance [fruit]
So with what you just posted, can you see how cloud doesn’t mean flesh as they teach.
That will be correct there, in that, the cloud mentioned Is referencing man. It is clearly used hear to show character – type. I can say of a particular breed of horses that they are clouds without rain. I’m characterising something about them that is different, and in this case without rain it would be bad.
I posted that cloud means flesh. A cloud with no rain is a man [cloud] without the Spirit [rain, water]. Man is flesh. There are only 2 forms of existence, physically and spiritually. To come in flesh is to come as a man [regardless of gender]. They also teach that cloud means cloud. They say that the definition of cloud is different in certain parts of the bible. How they prove it doesn't make sense. But what I said shows that cloud means flesh.
Yes. I see your point. However, I don’t necessarily view it as flesh (i see it more as description) because the same symbolic analogy (clouds without rain) could be used to described trees. My point is simply this, say your flesh concept is right as they preach, how does that juxtapose into Jesus second coming. It specifically says in Acts 1:9-11, how Jesus would come back the second time. Why have they chosen that to be symbolic? Especially, being that you agree they teach clouds as both symbolic and literal.
On a side note, that section of Jude to me, undoubtedly, describes Wmscog and not Israel as they say. That is Wmscog and others like them and so on.
Sorry for shifting topic. I will leave it whatever your response is so we can go back to the ages discussion.
jesus will return by the same way he went into heaven.. In flesh? Levitating?
Also if clouds are literal how are we to see him?
And if he’s going to appear in the sky why did the angel question and rebuke iwatching the sky in the same sentence
Simon, here is that verse again: Acts 1:9-11
9 And after He had said these things, He was lifted up while they were looking on, and a cloud received Him out of their sight. 10 And as they were gazing intently into [a]the sky while He was going, behold, two men in white clothing stood beside them. 11 They also said, “Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into the sky? This Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven, will come in just the same way as you have watched Him go into heaven.”
So yes, that is literal to me – the statement, that is. As far as seeing him, we have no idea what our new bodies will be like, and secondly, we cannot begin to understand the wisdom of God. Our wisdom is limited and we can only see as far as our minds will go. All things are possible to God, save he cannot lie.
As far as flesh, the dead in christ is said to rise first and the rest of believers follow. so whatever our glorified body will look like that’s what we’ll be wearing. Why is it not possible that we can all be levitating with him.? Why is it impossible If God wills to see and hear him all at once all over the world?
I feel we see it as impossible because of our limited minds. Who would have thought God could split an ocean; raise the dead; or better yet, the creation of the universe. Earth sits on nothing. So yes, it is very possible and Acts 1-9:11 is what I’m backing that up with.
I’d rather stick with this mindset than that of Ahang having come as Christ.
If you want to delve more into this, perhaps we should start another thread. At least out of respect for the other discussion going on here.
Joshua wrote:
I had an idea about the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The Trinity might be better understood by thinking about water. Water has three forms: Solid, Liquid, and Vapor or Gas. Obviously Jesus (God in the flesh) would be viewed as the solid form. The Holy Spirit would be the vapor or gas form. God the Father is the liquid. All of the forms are water but they each have their own characteristics. Just as God is in everything so is water. Even in the hardest rock there are trace amounts of water. This is just a random thought I had. Feel free to comment or correct me if you want to.
That is a dangerously inaccurate analogy about the Trinity. I have read that before but I disagree. This plays directly into the hands of the wmscog to compare the Trinity to H2O in 3 states at different time. The bible shows us the 3; Father, Son and Holy Spirit existing at the same moment in time, not one person switching roles.
renita.payno wrote:
Does anyone have any idea what the new name in Rev 3 and Rev 2 mean? They use these verses to say that in the Age of the HS, God will come with a New Name.
Here's my 2 cents.
These chapters are not meant to be prophecy in the sense that we think. The common thinking about prophecy is that it foretells the future. That is a rather narrow view of prophecy. More often, prophecy is to strengthen the people of God. That is what the bulk of the apocalyptic work is about. Some part of it could very well be foretelling the future. But the interpretation would be accurate only after it happens.
Coming back to the early chapters of Rev, when I read them, I see John making specific remarks about the issues faced by the 7 churches. He praises them for their good points and hauls them over the coals for their weaknesses. These are not general statements but targetted to the situation in those churches. That is why I don't think of them as the narrow kind of prophecy. Instead, I think of it as instruction to the church of that time, with lessons for us to learn because many of the issues he brings up have parallels in our churches today.
Coming to the two verses in Rev 2 and 3, I cannot say much about the one in 3 but Rev 2:17 is easier to handle. John is addressing these words to the church in Pergamum. He is telling them to be wary of the false teachers around them. Then he makes a promise to the victor. Who is the victor? The one who has managed to remain unspoilt despite the false teachings. Not so sure exactly what the hidden manna means. Regarding the white stone, I understand that at the ancient olympics, the winners were only awarded laurel wreathes. But when they got home they got a rousing reception, which included a white stone with their name written on it as a memento. I believe John is using this symbolism. On careful reading, it appears the verse is talking about giving the victor a new name for himself. That culture was big on names having meanings. Like Abram becoming Abraham and Jacob becoming Israel. So the name on the stone is not of a new messiah but a reward for the person who emerged victorious. It is known only to the one who receives it. It is something personal. Why would that be if it was the name of the messiah?
The above is a hypothesis. I don't claim to be an interpreter for the public. It is my personal interpretation. Evaluate it yourselves whether it makes sense.
I think we humans are so obsessed with knowing our future that we frighten ourselves out of our wits. Live each day as Jesus would want you to live and don't bother when the world will end. Don't complicate the bible. KISS – Keep It Simple Stupid.
Coming in the Cloud has been moved to another thread…. Please continue there to allow the intended discussion to continue here. Thanks.
Hmm.. that seems plausable emil. =) As far as your question of why would it be the Messiah, the white stone is interpreted as Jesus in the WMSCOG.
Ever seen these?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJG698U2Mvo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JONMYxaZ_s
This is why I've been stressing post hoc methodology lately.
Questioninginla wrote:
Ever seen these?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJG698U2Mvo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JONMYxaZ_s
This is why I've been stressing post hoc methodology lately.
Those are some pretty amazing videos. Now I'm going to doubt what I remember more often than I already do. Lol.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.