On July 14th, 2005 the Northern Seoul Regional Court ruled against the WMSCOG in WMSCOG vs Ji Won Tak.  We obtained a copy of the court case from Korea and have made a translation available for you below:

Download the court case in English

Download the court case in Korean

There are many interesting points documented by the court, including:

• The WMSCOG predicted the end of the world in 1988, 1999, and 2012.  p. 5-6
• Um Soo In was kicked out of Ahnsahnghong’s church for claiming to be the “spiritual mother” (and, by the way, Ahnsahnghong said that “the idea of a mother god was delusional” in response to Um Soo In).  p. 6-7
• Ahnsahnghong’s original church was indeed divided between the NCPCOG and the WMSCOG, which was the result of these two sects’ argument over making Zhang Gil Jah the “spiritual mother.”  p. 7
• The WMSCOG changed their name from “Church of God Ahnsahnghong Witness Association” to the WMSCOG in 1997.  p. 6
• Some 300 WMSCOG members disrupted a business, with some members engaging in an altercation.  p 7-8
• The WMSCOG says (direct quote) — “we would like to be understood and accepted as a new religion and not as another denomination of the existing Protestant church.”  p. 5

You can download the court case in English (pdf), Korean, or read it below:

Update on Jan 23, 2012 – Some WMSCOG members claim that this court case is one in a series of court cases involving the WMSCOG and Ji Won Tak.  WMSCOG members claim that a later court overturned this court’s ruling.  When I have obtained the additional court cases, I will post them here.

English Translation of WMSCOG vs Ji Won Tak – July 14, 2005

Translated from Korean

Northern Seoul Regional Court
Civil Section Number 11
Judgment

Case 2003 Gahap 6020 Damage Compensation (Gi)

Plaintiff
Church of God World Gospel Association
395-67 Sindaebang-dong, Dongjak-gu, Seoul
Chairman Joo Cheol Kim
Legal Counsel, Kyung Yong Park, esq.
Co-counsel, Yong Gi Ryu, esq.

Defendant
Ji Won Tak
115-1401 Jugong APT., Sanggye-6dong, Nowon-gu, Seoul
Legal Counsel, Gi Joon Park, esq.
Defense Ending Date June 24, 2005

Judgment Date July 8, 2005

Main Decision
1. The claims by plaintiff are all dismissed.
2. Plaintiff shall pay for all legal costs.

Page 1 of 11

Claims Plaintiff seeks defendant to pay plaintiff 20,000,000 won and interest calculated by 5% a year for the period from the day after this copy of lawsuit was delivered and until the judgment date and 20% a year from the following day until entire amount is paid.  Plaintiff seeks defendant to designate a newspaper among the papers published and distributed nationwide within ten days of the final decision and post a correction at the bottom of the page with 38 font size in gothic font with a title of correction and an article underneath with a 14 font size in (myungjo) font at the expense of defendant.

Reasons
1. Basic Facts
The following facts are undisputed by the parties, or can be acknowledged as facts by concluding from all of the intentions in the arguments listed in the evidence (Article) numbers 1 through 3.
A. Plaintiff is the church Sang Hong Ahn (deceased) established in 1948 (referred as
“plaintiff church” hereinafter), and defendant is the publisher and editor of the monthly magazine (Hyudae Jongyo).
B. Defendant has published about 2,000 copies of a book titled “Researches on the New
Religions of Korea 2002, Collection I (subtitled, Self-Claimed Reborn Jesus Christ of Korea) and distributed about 500 copies to the Christian bookstores nationwide. On pages 145 to 168 of the book, the following text is listed about the plaintiff church: Under the title of “The Church of God (World Gospel Association)”, and underneath it, it describes, “The Church of God is an organization that stemmed from the Adventist Church. But unlike the Adventist church which acknowledges general Christian beliefs of judgment, ethical salvation, as well as resurrection, eternal life, trinity, atonement of the cross, and Jesus Christ’s redemption, this organization believes that Sang Hong Ahn who died

Page 2 of 11

in 1985 is God, and as they have proclaimed that they are not Christians, they are actually not part of Christianity”. It goes on to say, “Aware that the continuing failures of the many end of the world theories that continued in 1988 and 1994 as well as the critical views of the society, as they all came to be not true, they have changed their name to the Church of God World Gospel Association to continue their activities. In 1999, particularly, they again came up with another end of the world theory by jumping on the wagon of the Y2K phenomenon, which they insisted to their believers, but it too also backfired and along with reports of the Church of God Sang Hong Ahn Witness Association, what went on in their organization was reported by the media. In 1988, they were reported to have proclaimed an end of the world theory, and after this year, they have continued to claim these theories every year to their believers, some of which resulted in some of their believers leaving their families, which resulted in the family members making petitions each year. They then changed their name to Sang Hong Ahn Witness Association, but after it caused troubles in their missionary work, they changed their name to the Church of God. According to the teachings of Sang Hong Ahn Witness Association, the end of the world would come in 1988 at which time the world will disappear without a trace and except for 144,000 people who have been granted with God’s special protection, everything will be destroyed. It was believed that the first wife of Sang Hong Ahn, who was his so called spiritual wife, was Soo In Um. Um divorced her former husband before she began seeing Ahn, and she was the one who proclaimed that Ahn was Jesus Christ in 1978. After Ahn died, the Sang Hong Ahn Witness Association was divided into a sect called New Covenant Passover Church of God that worshipped Um as the wife of God and another sect that chose Gil Ja Chang as the wife of God in 1981 and believed the second spiritual wife as Mother. They wore white clothes that Ahn always wore when he was alive and insisted on living in shacks in the slums of Haewoondae. At worship meetings, they could not get into the building while wearing shoes, and women were required to wear veils on their head just like the Roman Catholic Church, all of which were some of their major

Page 3 of 11

doctrines. The Sang Hong Ahn Witness Association interpreted some of the Bible verses on their own in discretion in order to match with their claims, some of which were that in Psalms 132:10-18, there is a prophecy that David will grow horns. They insisted that the seven horns in the verse symbolize seven seasonal periods, and Ahn insisted after finding a doctrine about the periods that he was the little lamb in the last period. We must know that cults and heresies always target and approach people who are not satisfied and complain about their lives. What they are insisting are clearly pseudo-religious heresies that can only be accepted by someone with little knowledge about Christian beliefs, but they do not focus on Ahn being God to other people when they start missionary work. In February 29, 2000, a former member of the association named Chung left the organization and disclosed the truth about it after which he was surrounded by some 400 members and assaulted.”
C. As such, the plaintiff church claimed that the defendant published untruthful facts about the plaintiff church which resulted in damage to their reputation and honor by which it filed an injunction on producing, selling, and distributing published materials, followed by a libel and slander by publication lawsuit against the defendant around June, 2002.
2. Decision on the Claims of Plaintiff
A. Claims
All of the contents of the book about the plaintiff church describe untruthful facts, by which the plaintiff church’s reputation has been damaged due to such illegal acts committed by the defendant against the plaintiff, therefore the defendant must pay for the damages and is obligated to publish an appropriate correction in a newspaper in order to recover the damaged reputation as listed in the attachment.
B. Decision

Page 4 of 11

(1) First of all, we shall take a look at the book (referred to as “the book in this case” hereinafter) about the plaintiff, published by the defendant, and decide if the contents were describing all untruthful facts.
(A) In looking at page 145 of the book in this case in which the defendant states that the, “church rejects the Christian doctrines,” and proclaims, “they are not Christians,” according to the combined arguments made in the evidence documents 1 and 2 of (Article) number 3, (Article) numbers 4 and 5, 4 of (Article) number 7, and 1 and 2 of (Article) number 19, the plaintiff church does indicate the church leader Sang Hong Ahn as the holy God or the reborn Jesus Christ in their doctrines, dogma and in one of their hymns, “New Song”, and Gil Ja Chang as the Mother God. Also as described later, they did insist on their end of the world theories, not to mention the church officials having described their religion as “God’s church different from the Catholic church and with different characteristics from many protestant churches as well.” They also stated, “we would like to be understood and accepted as a new religion and not as another denomination of the existing protestant church.” Considering these acknowledged facts and statements, it can be interpreted that they in fact were rejecting the basic Christian doctrines from the point of Christianity, therefore, it can only be said that these were not untruthful facts.
(B) In looking at the parts where the book described how the plaintiff church first proclaimed its end of the world theory in 1988, by which the members of the families of some of the believers who left their families pleaded every year, according to the combined arguments made in the documents 7 of (Article) number 7 and (Article) numbers 8 through 13 (including serial numbers), the plaintiff church did make a missionary paper which stated that the world will end in 1988, which was three years after the death of Sang Hong Ahn, and in 1999, it also conducted a survey about their prophecy of the end of the world in 1999 on their believers. Also within the church, there is another claim being proposed that the world will end in 2012. Additionally, the broadcasting stations KBS, SBS and MBC have collected information and tried to broadcast about the plaintiff church’s end of the world theory

Page 5 of 11

in their programs of “60 Minutes America”, “Cases and People”, and “PD Memos” respectively, and there is now an organization formed by husbands of the victims who have said that they were victimized by the plaintiff church’s end of the world theory. Considering all these acknowledged facts, it cannot be conclusively said that the book’s descriptions are untruthful facts even if there may be some incorrect or a little excessive expressions about how the end of the world theory was described.
(C) In looking at the parts where it said the plaintiff church changed its name to the Church of God World Gospel Association because of how their end of the world theory did not materialize or the critical opinion from the society, and it changed its name to the Church of God from Sang Hong Ahn Witness Association because its name didn’t fit well with their missionary attempts, according to the combined arguments made in the documents and videos of (Article) numbers 5 and 7 (including serial numbers), the plaintiff church in fact has been using its title of Sang Hong Ahn Witness Association or the Church of God short for the Church of God Sang Hong Ahn Witness Association since the death of Sang Hong Ahn in 1985, and around 1997, it established a non-profit organization titled the Church of God World Gospel Association for the purpose of registering and managing the organization’s assets. Additionally, as described earlier, it did in fact proclaim the end of the world theory which resulted in critical opinion from the society – which was all true, and it seems that the plaintiff church does most of its external activities in the name of Church of God World Gospel Association, not to mention the fact that it almost does not use the Sang Hong Ahn Witness Association name when it does missionary work. Therefore considering all of these actual facts, it cannot be concluded that what the defendant described about these parts are all not true.
(D) In looking at the parts where the book described the spiritual wife Soo In Um and the divided sects of the plaintiff church, according to the combined arguments made in the documents 1 and 2 of (Article) number 14, Soo Im Un was expelled from the church after she did missionary work and claimed that

Page 6 of 11

she was spiritual mother, and after the death of Sang Hong Ahn, the church was indeed divided into the New Covenant Passover Church of God based in Busan and the plaintiff church based in Seoul which was the result of these two sects’ argument over making Gil Ja Chang the spiritual mother. Therefore, the book’s descriptions about these parts cannot be concluded as untruthful facts.
(E) In looking at the parts about the life of Sang Hong Ahn and worship rituals such as requiring to take off shoes, according to the combined arguments made in documents 4 of (Article) number 20 and (Article) numbers 5 and 15, these descriptions were based on an article published in the December 1985 issue of (Hyundae Jongyo) which was written by the magazine’s reporter, Chung Kim, who actually visited the plaintiff church to experience the church and did interviews. Therefore it cannot be concluded that these were untrue, or that the defendant wrote it thinking it was all untrue, and furthermore, it cannot be concluded that the descriptions about the life of Sang Hong Ahn and the worship rituals damaged the plaintiff church’s social reputation.
(F) In looking at the church’s own interpretation about the doctrines, according to the arguments made in documents 1 and 2 of (Article) number 17, it is true that there is no mention of seven horns symbolizing seven seasonal periods in the book Sang Hon Ahn wrote titled, “The Mystery of God and the Spring of the Water of Life”, but the book indeed mentions about “David’s horns” and “the little lamb during the last period”, and additionally, the above descriptions are based on the July and August 1994 issues of the Seventh Day Adventist Church’s magazine (Mokyangja). Therefore, the above parts about the doctrine and the following mentioning of cult and heresy seem to be opinions by defendant on the plaintiff church’s doctrines, cults and heresies from the defendant’s point of view. Considering these points, it cannot be concluded that these descriptions are untruthful facts either.
(G) In looking at the parts about Chung who was a member of the plaintiff church and suffered assault after he left the church, according to the combined arguments made in the documents 1, 2, and 3 of (Article) number 16, these parts were written by the defendant based on the March 8, 2000 issue of

Page 7 of 11

Gidok Sinmun (Christian Newspaper) and testimony by In Ja Chung. Even though the newspaper later replied to the article, it was only a reply made by the newspaper and cannot be interpreted as the newspaper admitting the article as untrue or having errors, and furthermore, in the summary order related to the above article (Seoul Regional Court Northern Branch 2000 Goyak No. 22814), it was acknowledged that some 300 members of the plaintiff church disrupted business in front of In Ja Chung’s video rental store and some of the members and In Ja Chung engaged in altercations which resulted in an indictment. Therefore these parts also cannot be concluded as describing truthful facts.
(H) In so far it has been looked into, the contents of the book in this case, published by the defendant, may have some parts where its expressions were not entirely correct or a little excessive, and it can be said especially from the plaintiff church’s point of view that there are parts where misunderstanding can result from how one interprets them, but in looking at the overall picture of the book, the main contents of the book do match with actual objective facts, therefore it is hard to determine that the contents are untrue, and furthermore, even if some of the details do not match with the objective facts, the defendant wrote the book based on the combination of studying the various doctrines and books published by the plaintiff church, the research data of the defendant’s father, Myung Hwan Tak (deceased), articles written by the reporters of the publishing house that the defendant operates who visited the plaintiff church and collected data, reports of various newspapers and broadcasting stations, testimonies by pastors and members who were once members of the plaintiff church and later left, as well as individual tips the plaintiff church and outcome of consultations with victims of the church, and considering all of how the book in this case was written, it is reasonably believed that the defendant believed what he found out to be true and there is no evidence that proves the defendant otherwise recognized them to be untrue.
(2) In addition, Article 20, Paraphrase 1 of Constitution states, “All people have the rights to religious freedom,” which means religious freedom includes the freedom to promote the religion one believes in

Page 8 of 11

and do missionary work in order to recruit new members, and the freedom of missionary work includes criticizing other religions and recommending that members of another religion convert to one’s own religion, therefore the rights to promote a religion and criticize other religions are subject to protection as rights to free expression at the same time as well. In such a case, it is interpreted that Article 20, Paraphrase 1 of Constitution about religious freedom has special aspect on Article 21, Paraphrase 1 of Constitution about freedom of expression, therefore, press and publication for the purposes of religion should be protected even more than other general press and publication. As such, in protecting the rights to criticize other religions or religious organizations to the maximum extent, in cases where another’s reputation or honor are damaged and as to how to decide over the two conflicting interests of protecting one’s right to religious freedom and one’s reputation, it must be decided by considering the general conditions on the act of criticizing itself such as benefits by the act of criticizing, the breadth of range of value and publication, and its ways of expression, and at the same time, comparing and considering the degree to which how such criticizing has damaged or may damage another’s reputation (Supreme Court September 6, 1996 decision, 96Da19246.) According to the combined arguments made in the evidence document number 18, the facts are that the book in this case was published as a collection of research based on the results of the outsourced research on Korea’s religious organization sponsored by the Ministry of Tourism, the main contents of the book criticizes the problems of the plaintiff church’s faith and doctrines from the point of view of traditional Christianity, the purpose of which the defendant published this book was to provide information about the doctrines of traditional Christianity and religious organizations that have different doctrines than the traditional Christian churches and their members so that they can be prevented from joining the different organizations (refer to the foreword of the book), and the book in this case was mainly distributed and sold to the members of traditional Christian churches through traditional Christian bookstores, therefore, considering the purpose, the steps taken to publish the

Page 9 of 11

books, contents, characteristics, expressions and methods, and the range of audience for the publication, it can be said that the plaintiff church was attacked for its characteristics of being a cult by the defendant in terms of its doctrines, therefore its degree of libel and slander is not comparatively significant. Moreover, considering how cults in today’s society have so many negative effects, the way how the defendant inappropriately and excessively described and severely and harshly criticized the plaintiff church in the book cannot be said as out of the range of expressing religious criticism in principle. Therefore, it is concluded that there is no ground for any illegality by the defendant and the defendant is not liable for committing any illegal acts to the plaintiff. In conclusion, the claims made by the plaintiff based on accusations against the defendant’s illegal acts against the plaintiff church, have no ground to be sustained.
3. Conclusion
Therefore, the claims by the plaintiff are hereby all dismissed and the decision is made as stated in the main decision.
Presiding Judge
Judge Han Sik Hwang_______________
Judge Dong Wook Lee______________
Judge Yu Kyung Kim_______________

Page 10 of 11

This is an original copy.
July 14, 2005
Northern Seoul Regional Court
Court Clerk
Byung Il Min [seal]
Information on Appeals
If you do not agree with the decision, you must submit an appeal form
within two weeks of receiving this original copy to the Northern Seoul
Regional Court (civil cases department).
Civil Litigation Article 162 (3)
2-139

Page 11 of 11

I’ve heard a lot of World Mission Society Church Of God members claim that “Ahn Sahng Hong had to preach the gospel for 37 years in order to fulfill the Prophecy of King David’s throne“.  Let’s take a closer look at this claim.

Ahn Sahng Hong’s History

After being raised Buddhist, the WMSCOG claims that Ahn Sahng Hong was baptized into the Seventh Day Adventist Church in 1948.  Baptism documents have proved his baptism date to be a complete fabrication by the WMSCOG.  Ahn Sahng Hong’s real baptism date was October 9, 1954.  After remaining a member of the Seventh Day Adventists for 10 years,  Ahn Sahng Hong was kicked out in 1962.  The World Mission Society Church of God claims they were founded by Ahn Sahng Hong in 1964.  In actuality, Ahn Sahng Hong established his own church, the Witnesses of Jesus Church of God, on April 28, 1964.

WMSCOG members have claimed that Ahn Sahng Hong had to have been baptized into the SDA church originally because they were the only ones worshiping on Saturday.  However, Jesus was not baptized into another religion, despite having been raised a Jew.  This begs the question, why did he not start his own church in 1948 or 1954 (Ahn Sahng Hong’s real baptism date)?

To break down the math though, according to Ahn Sahng-Hong’s tombstone he lived from 1918 – 1985.

Let’s say for the sake of argument that Ahn Sahng Hong was baptized in 1948 as the WMSCOG claims.

If he preached for 37 years as the WMSCOG claims, then he would have had to start preaching in 1985-37=1948, supposedly the year he entered the SDA church.  This still does not work.

Jesus began his ministry and started his own church at the point of his baptism.  Ahn Sahng Hong, on the other hand, did not begin to preach the “new covenant Passover” until he established his own church in 1964.  A fact that the World Mission Society Church of God admits on their own website.  This is a full 16 years later than the supposed 1948 baptism date.  (Completely ignoring for a moment that Herbert Armstrong “restored the Passover” in his Worldwide Church of God about 30 years before Ahn Sahng Hong supposedly did).

The WMSCOG Contradicts Themselves on Ahn Sahng Hong’s 37 Year Ministry

In an article titled, All the members of the Church of God over 70 nations Celebrated 2003 Passover of the New Covenant on April 16, 2003, the WMSCOG admits that:

Therefore, he did not preach his “new covenant Passover” for 37 years as they claim here, but for only 21 years!  This proves that he did not fulfill the “prophecy of King David” as the WMSCOG claims.

Thus, even according to the WMSCOG’s own manufactured prophesies, Ahn Sahng Hong was not God.

When speaking to World Mission Society Church of God (WMSCOG) members, I often ask if they believe that they have to work for God to earn their salvation.  The answer usually goes something like this:

“We have to realize the sacrifice our father and mother have made for us.  They didn’t have to come to earth to save us, but because they want to save their children and bring them back to the kingdom of heaven, they returned to give us salvation through the Passover.  Without believing in them and realizing the sacrifice they made for us, we cannot be saved and return to heaven.”

In an online sermon titled “God Will Come On A Day When You Do Not Expect Him“, the WMSCOG states:

(Incidentally, elsewhere they say it is not 37 years).  Is preaching “the gospel” a sacrifice that makes Ahn Sahng Hong unique from many other people who devote their lives to the same?  That doesn’t seem like much of a sacrifice.  Regardless, this answer leaves me with some questions:

1.  Does the Bible say that Christ would return and be sacrificed a second time?

The Bible does not support the idea that Jesus Christ would return to sacrifice a second time.  The Bible clearly states that Jesus Christ was sacrificed once for all.  The supposed “sacrifice” that Ahnsahnghong endured according to the WMSCOG, bears little in comparison to the great sacrifice that Jesus Christ made for us when he suffered on the cross for our sins.  Ahnsahnghong died of a massive stroke which is a painless death in comparison to being nailed alive to a cross.

2.  Does the Bible support the idea of Christ being sacrificed a third time?

In an article titled “The Most Happiest Time When Our Souls Are Breathing Alive“, the WMSCOG writes:

That is a disgusting attempt by this cult to use guilt as a way to control its members.

If the WMSCOG believes that Zahng Gil Jah is “god” and Christ was to return to be sacrificed a second time, where is the scriptural basis for God returning to earth and being sacrificed a third time (in the case of Zahng)?  Interestingly, the verses the WMSCOG references in an attempt to substantiate their claims that the bride represents a “female god” and not the church, do not mention the bride being sacrificed either.

Conclusion

Since there is no Biblical support to the WMSCOG’s claims that Christ would return to sacrifice a second, or third time for that matter, what does the WMSCOG gain by teaching this to its members?

As discussed in the conclusion to a previous article, some groups use guilt to control their members.  In the quote from the above referenced WMSCOG article, they claim that Zahng Gil Jah forgets to sleep or rest.  In my opinion, this is a form of suggestion that the WMSCOG uses to manipulate their members into doing the same.  In the same article, the WMSCOG goes on to say:

Does that mean that since Zahng Gil Jah forgets to sleep or rest, then so should WMSCOG members?  From the WMSCOG members’ point of view, their “god” is “sacrificing” for them.  Why stop recruiting just because they are tired and need to sleep?

The World Mission Society Church of God claims that Ahn Sahng Hong was baptized into the Seventh Day Adventist Church in 1948.  Baptism documents have proved his baptism date to be a complete fabrication by the WMSCOG.  Ahn Sahng Hong’s real baptism date was October 9, 1954.  After having been a Seventh Day Adventist for 10 years, Ahn Sahng Hong later established his own church, known as the Witnesses of Jesus Church of God, in 1964.

Who Was Ellen G. White?

William Miller and Ellen G. White were early pioneers of the Seventh Day Adventist movement.  William Miller unsuccessfully predicted the return of Jesus Christ in 1844.  This historical event is known as The Great Disappointment.  Ellen G. White was purported to have had her first “vision” soon after The Great Disappointment in 1844.  White was considered a controversial figure who wrote approximately 50,000 manuscripts, of which there are 100 available titles in English.  White’s writings continue to be an important part of study in the Seventh Day Adventist church, where she is viewed as a “prophetess”.  However, Ellen G. White, preached many things contradictory to Scripture.  Here are some of her stranger claims:

Of course, this clearly contradicts John 10:30 which says:  “I and the Father are one.”

This clearly contradicts Ephesians 1:13-14 which says:  “And you also were included in Christ when you heard the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation. When you believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance…“

This clearly contradicts Hebrews 10:18 which says:  “And where these have been forgiven, sacrifice for sin is no longer necessary.”

This clearly contradicts Matthew 24:36 which says:  “But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.”

This clearly contradicts Hebrews 13:12 which says:  “And so Jesus also suffered outside the city gate to make the people holy through his own blood.”

And also, Romans 3:28 which says:  “For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law.”

This clearly contradicts Romans 5:10-11 which says:  “For if, while we were God’s enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life! Not only is this so, but we also boast in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.”

This clearly contradicts Hebrews 7:18-19 which says:  “The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless (for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God.“

And Ephesians 1:4-6 which says:  “For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love he predestined us for adoption to sonshipthrough Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will—to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves.”

500 copies were printed by S.A. Nagel, Sr. and subsequently recalled and destroyed by the General Conference. One copy remains.

Just in case you missed that, Ellen G. White, the prophetess of the Seventh Day Adventist church, just said that the devil “controls [all] children”.  I am not sure we need any Scriptural proof to refute that, but just in case you have never read the Bible, this clearly contradicts Mark 10:13-16 which says:

Why Is This Information Significant?

Ellen G. White is a false prophet.  The fact that her writings contradict the Bible proves it (Ezekiel 22:28).  Now why would Jesus return to the earth and be baptized into Seventh Day Adventism, whose prophetess preached things contrary to Scripture?  Would Jesus follow the teachings of a false prophet?  Ellen G. White even goes as far as to commit blasphemy and deny that Jesus is God!  Why would Jesus be part of an organization that denied His divinity?  It makes absolutely no sense.

Did Ahn Sahng Hong Have to be Baptized into the SDA Church?

(Ahn Sahng Hong was not baptized in 1948).  Despite all of this, WMSCOG members I’ve spoken with claim that Ahn Sahng Hong was prophesied to be baptized in the Seventh Day Adventist church.  I was once told by a WMSCOG member that this was the only church he could have been baptized into because it was the only church observing the Sabbath on Saturday.

However, there was no need for Ahn Sahng Hong to be baptized into the SDA church just because they were the only ones worshiping on Saturday.  Jesus was not baptized into another religion, despite having been raised a Jew.

Jesus began his ministry and started his own church at the point of his baptism.  Ahn Sahng Hong, on the other hand, did not begin to preach the “new covenant Passover” until he established his own church in 1964.

The WMSCOG Contradicts Themselves on Ahn Sahng Hong’s 37 Year Ministry

In an article titled, All the members of the Church of God over 70 nations Celebrated 2003 Passover of the New Covenant on April 16, 2003, the WMSCOG admits that:

Therefore, he did not preach his “new covenant Passover” for 37 years as they claim here, but for only 21 years!  This proves that he did not fulfill the “prophecy of King David” as the WMSCOG claims.

Thus, even according to the WMSCOG’s own manufactured prophesies, Ahn Sahng Hong was not God.

According to the WMCOG’s website, the second coming of Christ is prophesied to come from the east.  

Let’s examine the Scripture that the World Mission Society Church of God (WMSCOG) uses to support this claim.

When you read this verse ask yourself, who is “the one” with great power?  It clearly says, that “the one” hands nations over and subdues kings.  Therefore it can only be God that has the power and the one who is doing the work here.

But the WMSCOG argues:

According to the WMSCOG God “has stirred up” Himself?  In Isaiah 41:4, the Lord is clearly stating that He is the one with the almighty power to accomplish the work that He has done.  Therefore this does not prove that Ahn Sahng Hong was the one that God stirred from the east nor does it prove that Ahn Sahng Hong fulfilled this prophecy.

The next verse that the WMSCOG points to is Isaiah 46:11:

When references are made to birds of prey in Scripture, they are described as feeding on carcasses (Genesis 15:11), a falcon (Job 28:7), feeding on wild animals (Isaiah 18:6) and birds that attack and devour (Jeremiah 12:9).  Despite numerous accounts in the Bible where birds of prey are represented as animals that attack and devour, the WMSCOG claims that a bird of prey and an eagle are synonymous in representing God.

Deuteronomy 32:10-11 uses the eagle as a simile to describe the Lord’s protection of His people.

Exodus 19:4 does not describe a bird of prey either.  This is clearly a metaphor for how the Lord delivered the Israelites out of slavery in Egypt.

Then Who Did Fulfill The Prophecy?  Who Was The Bird Of Prey From The East?

The prophesy of the “bird of prey from the east” in Isaiah chapter 46 was fulfilled by King Cyrus.  The Lord summoned Cyrus, a pagan king, to deliver his people out of Babylon and rebuild the Lord’s temple (Isaiah 45:1-13, 44:28, Ezra 1:1-2, 5:13). King Cyrus was depicted as a bird with large wings in statues as in the picture seen here on the left.  The WMSCOG interestingly makes no mention of this in their argument.  They seem to misinterpret Isaiah, in order to claim that their founder Ahn Sahng Hong fulfilled this prophecy concerning King Cyrus.

Conclusion

1.  In the Bible, a bird of prey never refers to God.

2.  The prophecy in Isaiah 46 was fulfilled by King Cyrus as mentioned in Isaiah 45:1-13, 44:28, Ezra 1:1-2, 5:13.

Since a bird of prey never refers to God and the prophecy was already fulfilled by King Cyrus, the WMSCOG does not have any basis for their claim that the above scriptures prove anything concerning their founder Ahn Sahng Hong.

Ahn Sahng Hong died on February 25, 1985.  The World Mission Society Church of God claims that Ahn Sahng Hong was Jesus Christ, but what does Romans 6:9 say about that?

Romans 6:9 says Christ “cannot die again“, but Ahn Sahng Hong died. (Note that Zahng Gil Jah, who the WMSCOG claims was Ahn Sahng Hong’s “spiritual wife” is not in the above photo). There you have it, evidence that Ahn Sahng Hong was not Jesus Christ.