[Elievalkyrie]

Don't know how old this site is, it seems to be created in year 2012 but I just saw it and I find it particularly odd that the comments are all in favor of its creator's opinion. Here's the site:

http://examiningthewmscog.co/the-risks-of-examiningthewmscog/

I find it very funny that they would even result to this kind of counter measure. Really, not one negative input about the wmscog out of 23 comments?!? Here, let me correct that one with this 24th comment of mine. LOL. You guys ever seen this site? And looks like the difference of the url between their website and this —is one, itty, bitty letter "M" on the last part. Maybe so that people trying to research about the wmscog would have a chance of going to their website instead of ours? LOL. This people just cracked me up.

[genny]

[genny]

Kim, that's a cool site!  He might be a good resource for some questions, but I saw his "10 second rule" for translations, so I'm not sure he'll do that.  It does have me thinking of some questions to ask though. 🙂

I just noticed that wmscog .org put up another article today.  This time they're targeting my article here and here.  All I can say is they've totally missed the point.  Do they do that on purpose to make themselves sound better and their opponent sound clueless, or do they really have a problem with reading comprehension and logical thinking?

[KF]

Thanks,

Genny we can do team work and each of us here can ask him something different and get that translation going. 

Did you read how he said that they are the real-deal cult.  That really gave me goosebumps!

anyhow ask good questions and keep us posted, I'm still thinking on what to ask :/ I have so many things on my mind.

I'm going to read your article now 🙂 brb

[genny]

Good idea, Kim.

I just thought of something…  Those articles on wmscog .org to counteract "false claims"–they never post a link to where those false claims come from.  I've often wondered at some of those false claims, thinking "where did they get that from?" because sometimes they are not exactly what we have argued against them.  I had thought, "Are there other people out there that we don't know about making these arguments?"  Now I'm thinking, either they don't understand the arguments we have against them, or they are trying to make our arguments sound weird and easily refutable, and with no reference link, the reader can't check for themselves.  (Information control?)

[Simon]

I don't know if you remember my post 6 months ago about strawman arguements: https://www.examiningthewmscog.com/forum/topic.php?id=288  WMSCOG seems to love using them.

[Stained]

Please don't be "EVERYBODY'S FOOL"

<font color=”#1c256a”>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u55fpsbzAfk</font&gt;  

[genny]

Simon wrote:

I don't know if you remember my post 6 months ago about strawman arguements: https://www.examiningthewmscog.com/forum/topic.php?id=288&nbsp; WMSCOG seems to love using them.

You got me started thinking about that strawman argument, but I couldn't remember where that post was.  Thanks!

Now that I realize they don't post links to the "false claims" they are answering, that pretty much confirms it for me.

[donttrustzang]

JOIN US!!!!  go and try to wake up members on their forum.. they havent deleted my comments yet. BUT PLEASE let's kill them with kindness. They are very rude, so lets show them who has the mind of love. Lets try and give them no reason to hate on us ex members.

[Simon]

genny wrote:

Kim, that's a cool site!  He might be a good resource for some questions, but I saw his "10 second rule" for translations, so I'm not sure he'll do that.  It does have me thinking of some questions to ask though. 🙂

I just noticed that wmscog .org put up another article today.  This time they're targeting my article here and here.  All I can say is they've totally missed the point.  Do they do that on purpose to make themselves sound better and their opponent sound clueless, or do they really have a problem with reading comprehension and logical thinking?

That article was so poorly written I am not sure what they are even trying to say o.o

[MountainMom]

I've tried to post on their sites, but can't seem to get in.  They just allow members to some sites, so canned responses and comments are all that you will see if you go there.

[ttr]

Hal,

I appreciate the insights you can provide on the OT as well as the Hebrew language.

The arguments shared above show a misunderstanding of the Christian faith.  As Christians we believe in One God in Three Divine Persons:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity

Sometimes those persons talk about themselves individually and sometimes collectively.  When they speak of themselves as a unique person, it does not negate the fact they are also part of the same Godhead.

Please keep in mind that this a pro-Christian site:  https://www.examiningthewmscog.com/archives/mission/

[Elievalkyrie]

Hal wrote:

My response as to how Elohim does not refer to crazy Korean mama diety:

 

 Our view of the term Elohim is as follows: —

Those who are conversant with the Hebrew language are aware that Elohim relates not merely to the Supreme Being, but also to angels and human authorities. 

If I would accept that God as "Elohim" was talking to angels to show the "plurality". I would have to also accept that the angels also help in creating humans. Isn't that right? "Let US (God, angels) create man in our image and likeness" 

[Elievalkyrie]

This is to put the Trinity view in a simplier analogy. The Trinity concept is like YOU. You have both soul and body. They are one and you cannot separate one from the other or else there wouldn't be a YOU. Yet, you cannot say that the body and soul is made of the same, shall we say, "substance".   

Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.  Each of the persons is distinct from the other, yet identical in essence.  In other words, each is fully divine in nature, but each is not the totality of the other persons of the Trinity.  Each has a will, loves, and says "I" and "You" when speaking.  The Father is not the same person as the Son, who is not the same person as the Holy Spirit, who is not the same person as the Father.  Each is divine, yet there are not three gods, but one God. There are three individual subsistences, or persons.  The word "subsistence" means something that has a real existence.  The word "person" denotes individuality and self awareness.  The Trinity is three of these, though the latter term has become the dominant one used to describe the individual aspects of God known as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. (I just took it from here. http://carm.org/what-trinity …lol)

The Father is Spirit, the Son takes physical form, while the Holy Spirit is (DUH!) a spirit that can reside within us. That is why our body is considered "Holy" and must not be defiled, if you could believe that. So THIS IS WHY I find it hard to believe that this Ahnsanghong was the "Holy Spirit" because it wouldn't be called a Holy SPIRIT if it would take a Physical form. It is not found in any biblical prophecy that another Messiah would come. In fact, Acts 1:11 stated that "This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven." 

Believing Ahnsanghong as our "another" Savior means that Jesus' coming in the first time failed to save us. Or maybe God just like to be redundant *sarcasm*. 

[Elievalkyrie]

Elievalkyrie wrote:

 

Believing Ahnsanghong as our "another" Savior means that Jesus' coming in the first time failed to save us. Or maybe God just like to be redundant *sarcasm*. 

Oh wait, I saw their defense against this topic. They said that people claiming the same statement above "Are ignorant as being unable to distinguish between the death of Jesus as a sin offering and the sacrifice for the gospel ministry. They provided Romans 9:8 "For the Lord will carry out his sentence on earth with speed and finality." as a biblical support which does not even relate to their defense!!! Totally out of context. 

 

[ttr]

Elievalkyrie wrote:

Hal wrote:

My response as to how Elohim does not refer to crazy Korean mama diety:

 

 Our view of the term Elohim is as follows: —

Those who are conversant with the Hebrew language are aware that Elohim relates not merely to the Supreme Being, but also to angels and human authorities. 

If I would accept that God as "Elohim" was talking to angels to show the "plurality". I would have to also accept that the angels also help in creating humans. Isn't that right? "Let US (God, angels) create man in our image and likeness" 

I believe there's actually a tradition in Christianity that interprets the "Let Us" to refer to God and the heavenly court.  (Here is the verse in Hebrew:  http://biblos.com/genesis/1-26.htm )  I don't think this interpretation violates God's sovereignty in the act of creation.  Here's some more good information on Elohim which is a pluralis excellentiae:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elohim

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluralis_excellentiae

[Simon]

it does violate God’s aloneness in creation

[Elievalkyrie]

Simon wrote:

it does violate God's aloneness in creation

Yes it does if God was including the angel's particiption with the creation of man. My view in this "Let US make" issue is that it really shows nature of Triune God, even in the beginning of creation. You can see in Genesis 1:2b, "...and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.  If the "S" letter in the word 'Spirit' was not in capital, I would not have given any second thought but we can see its capital S, could we somehow say that the verse pertains to the Holy Spirit? Even in John 1:1, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." The Word, as I understand, pertains to Jesus. So Jesus does exist even in the beginning, not God as God the Father, but also God as the Son and God as Holy Spirit since we can't ever separate the Three afterall. So…maybe when God said "Let US", He was including the Holy Son and the Holy Ghost, NOT the angels or other heavenly authorities. Hope I'm making sense here.

[Joshua]

They have Hal but once again you refuse to see it. I have shown this to you before. There have been many prayers for you over this. It's your own unwillingness that keep you repeating this over and over again. One day I hope you encounter as Saul did but until that day you will continue to try to hammer on the people who don't share your view. It is sad but there is hope. Egads!

[Elievalkyrie]

Hal wrote:

But Elohim does not any sort of manner refer to any trinity. Where specifically does it state in breshit, that G-d as both a son and father created the heavens and earth. No where. It shows G-d as a Creator that has no bounds or physical attributes.

 

 Thats not the correct Hebrew translation. In the Hebrew translation, the "s" is small. Christian bibles place the "s" as being capitalized:

 וְהָאָרֶץ, הָיְתָה תֹהוּ וָבֹהוּ, וְחֹשֶׁךְ, עַל-פְּנֵי תְהוֹם; וְרוּחַ אֱלֹהִים, מְרַחֶפֶת עַל-פְּנֵי הַמָּיִם. ב         

2 Now the earth was unformed and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God hovered over the face of the waters.  

 

http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0101.htm

Hmmm….Considering that the "Hebrews" do not believe in the Trinity, then they would, ofcourse not put any capital letters in the word "Spirit".

Hal wrote:

And they still have not answered my question…  Egads!

What was your question???

[fromtheotherside]

So did you guys chicken out?? I don't see much of any of your posts, and don't say they didn't allow it, unless it's filled with filth like alot comments on this site, they allow it and don't block anyones email addresses.  I even see hals, and donttrustzhngs.  Not trying to be personal just asking.  If you guys do have something to say why don't you ask and confront instead of being small and chatting about things amongst yourselves like that will get you anywhere.. I see that you guys just have arguments but nothing real.. So why don't you guys go and do it internet face to face? this site it's like gossiping over the internet, be bold and have some courage and go confront.  

[KC]

come on fromtheotherside dont go huffy puffy there, be bold? have courage? issnt it YOUR brethens that have the tendency to deny everything when they got cornered? if you people were THAT bold then why theres the secrecy about most sions? even about their location? unmarked building, converted houses and bogus visas for your mercenaries? oh sorry…….. i mean missionaries.

that dont show that much of a courage no? if i were a courageous person, i would introduce myself directly as "from WMSCOG" not blurred description such as "bible study group" or " elohist" when I introduced myself to somebody.

and when i do a highly documented "social works" i would put a BIG "WMSCOG" in my Tshirt or vest and NOT "We LOVE U".

do not question about something that you yourself is lacking.