- Topic
In an online sermon, “The Sabbath and God the Creator” the WMSCOG claims that Ahnsahnghong is the last Adam. http://english.watv.org/truth/sermon/content.asp?idx=1291
However, Ahnsahnghong writes in his book “Visitors From the Angelic World” (p.55), “Thus, Jesus is the last Adam, and the saints who are redeemed can be called the last Eve.”
If Ahnsahnghong didn’t believe that he was the last Adam, but instead believed that the last Adam is Jesus, like the Bible clearly states in Romans 5:14-15, then why does the WMSCOG teach something different? If the WMSCOG believes that Ahnsahnghong is not just the founder of their church, but the “Father” (see the sermon above), why would they go against his own writings? Will a current WMSCOG member please clarify if I am incorrect in any way?
The purpose of, the book was um sue young wasn’t God it was exposed and the book served its purpose
The book proves that there is no god the mother and anyone that claims to be god the mother is delusional. Ahn was very clear about this.
shimon wrote:
Ahnsahnghong personally recalled that book that must be taken into account
Also the bride isn't God for saying come the bride however is summarily not the church because the church is the hearers
Unless you wanna argue
The spirit and the church say come and let the church say come whoever is thirsty let him come and whoever wishes let him take the free gift of the water of life.
The purpose of, the book was um sue young wasn't God it was exposed and the book served its purpose
First, not everyone in the world is part of the church. The hearers are those who hear the Spirit and the church, then become part of the church and join in the call of 'come.'
About the book, why would 'God' need to recall his book? Did you actually read what Ahnsahnghong wrote in the book? Some of it has been translated and posted on this website. If you ask someone who speaks Korean they can verify the translation for you. Or have you only heard what the wmscog has to tell you about the book?
Ahn says that to interpret Gal. 4:24 as speaking of a 'mother god' then you end up with a mother married to her son which is disgraceful. This is from chapter 7 (https://www.examiningthewmscog.com/archives/chapter-7-jerusalem-that-is-above-is-our-mother/):
"However, UhmSooIn claims she is the Jerusalem from above that came down to earth. If the verses from Galatians 4:22-24 speak of a prophesy where Sarah is the Jerusalem from above and that Jerusalem is UhmSooIn then UhmSooIn must be married to her son. Because Isaac is Sarah’s son and Isaac is also said to be Christ. (Galatians 3:16) UhmSooIn became the mother of Christ as well as the bride (wife) of Christ. UhmSooIn referred me as the blind Isaac and herself as the Jerusalem from above or Sarah and is saying to live with Isaac or her son after all so where will you find this kind of extremely disgraceful thing?"
Ahn says that the New Jerusalem is a place, not a person, and that it will not come down from heaven until after the 1000 years of Rev. 20. This is from chapter 8 (https://www.examiningthewmscog.com/archives/chapter-8-the-heavenly-jerusalem-is-an-actual-place/):
"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. … This tabernacle built by the Lord will come down from heaven after one thousand years after the completion of earthly missions."
Ahn also wrote that the bride is the saints (church), and the saints are also the New Jerusalem (since that is where they live), and that the New Jerusalem will not come down from heaven until 1000 years after the world is destroyed by fire. This is from chapter 16 (https://www.examiningthewmscog.com/archives/chapter-16-claiming-that-shes-the-only-bride/):
"It is written, “The Spirit and the bride said,” (Revelation 22:17) where the bride is the same bride in Revelation 21:9-10. It is written “I will show you the bride, the wife of the Lamb,” and the wife of the Lamb are the saints. … Therefore, according to the prophecy in Revelation 21:9-10, the bride is the heavenly Jerusalem and the New Jerusalem is 144,000 saints. 144,000 saints are all bride and the bride is the New Jerusalem. In other words, the New Jerusalem is God’s tabernacle (see Revelation 21:3) and this tabernacle was provided by the Lord 1900 years ago (see Hebrews 8:1-2). The time that the tabernacle (New Jerusalem see Revelation 21:3, 9-10) comes down is 1000 years after the end of the world. It is written, “Then I saw ‘a new heaven and a new earth,’ for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea.” (Revelation 21:1). If we take a closer look at Revelation 20:1-15, it is a prophecy about 1000 years after the end of the world. … Therefore, the new heaven and earth in Revelation 21:1 will happen after the world is destroyed by fire and after 1000 years."
If you want to say that this is not valid because Ahn only wrote this to stop Um Soo In, and then he withdrew the book so he could show the true bride (Zahng Gil Jah), then you are saying that Ahn had to LIE in order to stop Um Soo In, and then cover up his lie in order to teach the 'truth.'
God does NOT lie. (Titus 1:2) Who lies? (John 8:44)
If your 'god' lied about this, how can you trust anything he said?
There are two possibilities here:
1. Ahn was telling the truth in the book about what he believed, in which case, his teachings contradict what the wmscog currently teaches, or
2. Ahn was lying in order to protect his future revelation of Zahng, in which case Ahn cannot be God because God does not lie.
Either way, it's bad news for the wmscog, which makes it no wonder they are trying so hard to come up with an explanation.
shimon wrote:
Ahnsahnghong personally recalled that book that must be taken into account
where's your proof he recalled the book?
Jesus called Peter Satan didn't He? Peter isn't Satan did Jesus lie?
Further unless we can see the whole text of the book in english how can I know, or even how can you know, what is in context and what is not in context.
shimon wrote:
Jesus called Peter Satan didn't He? Peter isn't Satan did Jesus lie?
God does not lie. What is another explanation? In Mark 5, Jesus spoke directly to the demons who had taken possession of a man. Not that Peter was in posssession of Satan in the same way, but if Jesus recognized that Peter had been influenced or tempted by Satan to say such a thing, then He would be right to speak to Satan and Peter at the same time in His rebuke.
Another explanation is that the literal translation of Matt. 16:23 is, "Get behind me, adversary." And Peter's comment was against what Jesus came to do. And the word for "Satan" was used by Jews to mean 'depravity and the corruption of nature' (loocpoc, is this correct?), and Peter was speaking from a worldly viewpoint instead of a spiritual viewpoint.
Further unless we can see the whole text of the book in english how can I know, or even how can you know, what is in context and what is not in context.
Yes, it would be nice to read the entire book in English. But with all the verses of the Bible that the wmscog takes out of context (purposely, I might add, since I was told by a deaconess that context did not matter), now it's important to see the context? We have several full chapters to read, and the meaning looks pretty clear from what we've got.
genny wrote:
shimon wrote:
Jesus called Peter Satan didn't He? Peter isn't Satan did Jesus lie?
God does not lie. What is another explanation? In Mark 5, Jesus spoke directly to the demons who had taken possession of a man. Not that Peter was in posssession of Satan in the same way, but if Jesus recognized that Peter had been influenced or tempted by Satan to say such a thing, then He would be right to speak to Satan and Peter at the same time in His rebuke.
Another explanation is that the literal translation of Matt. 16:23 is, "Get behind me, adversary." And Peter's comment was against what Jesus came to do. And the word for "Satan" was used by Jews to mean 'depravity and the corruption of nature' (loocpoc, is this correct?), and Peter was speaking from a worldly viewpoint instead of a spiritual viewpoint.
Further unless we can see the whole text of the book in english how can I know, or even how can you know, what is in context and what is not in context.
Yes, it would be nice to read the entire book in English. But with all the verses of the Bible that the wmscog takes out of context (purposely, I might add, since I was told by a deaconess that context did not matter), now it's important to see the context? We have several full chapters to read, and the meaning looks pretty clear from what we've got.
Despite the fact it constantly says This is to expose the false prophetess Um Sue Young? I would say that proves the intention of the book is about Um Sue Young's being God the Mother and about Um Sue Young's claim sisters do not need to wear veils in the Church.
I do not know anything about what the deaconess said I'd need to know the… context… to respond to that. (btw there are false prophets at WMC as well according to the Ahnsahnghong the biggest false prophets are in the true church.)
I am surprised you would quote apocryphal works
So, who did Ahn say was the last Adam?
shimon wrote:
I am surprised you would quote apocryphal works
Sorry, I don't understand. Who is quoting which apocryphal works?
Joshua wrote:
So, who did Ahn say was the last Adam?
Ahnsahnghong writes in his book "Visitors From the Angelic World" (p.55), "Thus, Jesus is the last Adam, and the saints who are redeemed can be called the last Eve."
I agree Emily I was just hoping Shimon could as well. He’s really good at taking a rabbit trail away from the topic.
shimon wrote:
genny wrote:
shimon wrote:
I am surprised you would quote apocryphal works
Sorry, I don't understand. Who is quoting which apocryphal works?
Loocpoc well not quoting but referring to them
I'm not surprised. Loocpoc is Jewish, so it makes sense that he would refer to them. And remember that Jesus was Jewish, even if He disagreeed with the Pharisees.
loocpoc wrote:
genny wrote:
shimon wrote:
genny wrote:
shimon wrote:
I am surprised you would quote apocryphal works
Sorry, I don't understand. Who is quoting which apocryphal works?
Loocpoc well not quoting but referring to them
I'm not surprised. Loocpoc is Jewish, so it makes sense that he would refer to them. And remember that Jesus was Jewish, even if He disagreeed with the Pharisees.
He means by me qutoing from the Talmud. Again Pharisees were a school of thought much like the Essens (whom John The Baptist was) and the Sadducees.
I actually forgot those angels being in anything but Aprocryphal works because I generally do not think about the talmuds content because I do not appreciate it myself.
By the way Genny the Jewish Canon and the Christian Old Testament is almost the same divided different in a different order and the Christians split some of the books into more than one but the Jews don't really have any scripture we do not. Only the Catholics and Orthodox use any of the apocryphal scriptures.
Gen 1:26 says in the image of God; male and female.
If wmscog believes that the father, Jesus and the Spirit are one that played different roles according to different age, then if <span style=”color: #000000; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;”>Ahnsahnghong</span><span style=”color: #000000; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;”> is Jesus second coming and he says Jesus is the last Adam, then what is the problem? </span>
The reason why wmscog teaches this because on the 6th day God (Elohim) created man (male and female). For Eve to be born, Adam was put to sleep (death) Eve came from Adam’s own body. Adam named Eve in Genesis. So in the last days, the last Adam will show us who is the last Eve.
The question I get asked a lot is, how can Jehovah and Jesus which were the male image give water of life, which is something the wmscog say only mothers (females) can do and something males cannot do? What is your response to that question?
Hi genny, Haven’t heard from you in a while, how are you? Are you busy? Do you want to continue this conversation?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.