Friday, March 20, 2009

A Pharisee by any other name...

I think we've all been called a Pharisee by the COG simply because we refuse to drink the koolaid that they are offering. It's obvious by reading the posts by the COG that they are a very legalistic oriented group. This is funny because when you look at what a Pharisee is you'll see it's not the mercy and forgiving christian, but the legalist.

Below is an interesting site that analyzes the Pharisees. See if you come to the the same conclusion that I have that when the COG talk about the Pharisees they are really referring to themselves.

Friday, June 20, 2008


The WMSCOG touts that Ahnsahnghong is the second coming of Christ and they point to the scripture that says the Christ will return in a new name:

REV 3:12 - Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.

However, from Ahnsahnghongs own book, “The Mystery of God and the Spring of the Water of Life”, in chapter 12 he writes:

“But only “Jesus” can be the Savior’s name, not only at his first coming, but even in the last days”.

This is huge and completely breaks down their entire doctrine in one sentence by the very man who they claim is the the second coming.

Thursday, June 12, 2008

Question: When is a Cloud not a Cloud?

Answer: When is suits the teaching of the WMSCOG Cult!

Here is an extract from World Mission Society Church of God Guide book:

The cloud
Situation3 : When they look up the blue sky and clouds in Daegu.

Guide : Look at that blue and high sky and those white clouds.
Player: It is so clear.
Guide : Whenever I look at clouds in the sky, I think of the prophecy about the 2nd coming Jesus in the Bible.
Player: What is it?
Guide : In the Bible, Jesus said. "I am coming on the clouds."However, the cloud is not actual one in the sky. It is symbolic.
Player: Really?
Guide : The cloud represents the flesh. He must come again as a human being just as he was born as a baby in Bethlehem 2000 years ago.
Player: How can you be sure of it?
Guide : If you want to study about that, I will introduce you a very famous Bible teacher in Korea.
Player: Okay. When can I meet him?Guide : Hold on a second. I will call him, right now. He is available now, Can you go now?
Player: Sure. Let's go.

Can we said "BS"? Clouds means clouds. Jesus is not talking in a Parabole. Nor is clouds anywhere in the bible meaning flesh. That is made up to help support the falseness of the teachings of the WMSCOG.

Wednesday, June 4, 2008

Could there be more than one true Church of God?

Here is the website the Church of God:

Excpet this Chuch of God understands it's ok to worship on Sunday.

In fact this brings up a good point. The WMSCOG claims to never add anything to the bible. Yet when I read the bible no where in it lists “World Mission Society Church of God” as the one true church. So, it’s easily deduced that they’ve added to the bilbe to fit thier own agenda. The church website above may then be the true church of God…unless you believe the true church of god is a collective effort of all the churches that follow the core essence of God word.

Friday, May 30, 2008

Ahnsahnghong...just a mere mortal.

So for those who think Ahnsahnghong is God... here is a picture of his grave in Korea.

**ghostly image added to grave picture for fun

Yes, I know this is a bit morbid, but there is a very valid reason for showing it.

Buddah....has a grave and resides in it.

Muhammad...has a grave and resides in it.

Ahnsahnghong...has a grave and resides in it.

Only Jesus Christ has risen from the dead and is no longer in his grave/tomb.

Need we say more???

Monday, May 26, 2008

Does Genesis Testify of a Mother Jerusalem?

Genesis 1:26: “And God said, Let US make man in OUR image after our likeness.”

The Church of God uses this verse in Genesis to rationalise the divinity of Mother Jerusalem.
According to the cult, in Genesis, God is speaking to a female incarnation of God (aka Mother Jerusalem). They therefore believe that God makes man in his image, and woman in the image of Mother.
Trinitarians and others claim that the Hebrew noun ‘Elohim’ (rendered ‘God’ in the first clause of Genesis 1:26) denotes more than one God Person (ie “3 in 1” or “2 in 1” or 2 separate entities). In support they point to the second clause of verse 26, “Let us make man in our image”, being plural.
It is true that in both English and Hebrew this second clause contains the plural subject ‘us’ and that this governs the plural verb ‘make’- But these are not governed by ‘Elohim’ (God) of the first clause. What is not realized, or otherwise mentioned in this issue is that in the first clause, “And God said”, the word ‘Elohim’ governs the singular Hebrew verb ‘’amer’, which is rendered ‘said’ in English. So linguistically there is no basis for claiming that ‘Elohim’ denotes, represents, or contains more than one God Person (entity).
It is also claimed that the Hebrew ‘Elohim’ is a uniplural or collective noun and that such nouns (e.g. the English noun ‘crowd’) often govern singular verbs. This claim contradicts leading Hebrew grammars, which claim that throughout the Old Testament and when referring to God, the Hebrew noun ‘Elohim’ behaves as a singular noun, and governs only singular verbs, singular adjectives and singular pronouns. And only when ‘elohim’ refers to a number of pagan gods or humans (e.g. judges), that it behaves as a plural noun; and then governs plural verbs, plural adjectives and plural pronouns. So grammatically ‘Elohim’ is never a collective (uniplural) noun. That in reference to the true God, the noun ‘Elohim’ is singular, is well illustrated in Genesis 1:29, where this noun governs the singular pronoun ‘I’.
Here are a selection of Hebrew grammars from which these claims may be further verified:
Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar edited and enlarged by E. Kautzsch, 2nd English edition by A.E. Cowley, paragraph 124 (g); Weingreen’s Hebrew Grammar under ‘God’ in its English-Hebrew vocabulary; C.L Seow’s A Grammar for Biblical Hebrew, 1992 printing, the vocabulary on page 19; James D Martin’s Davidson’s Introductory Grammar, 27th edition, 1995 reprint, page 52.
So grammatically, too, all theologians and scholars agree that there is no justification for claiming that in Genesis 1:26 ‘God’ (Elohim) denotes more than one God Person. Indeed throughout the Old Testament, ‘Elohim’ always denotes just one God Person.
Let’s now examine the claim that in Genesis 1:26 ‘Elohim’ denotes more than one God Person from a biblical basis.
From the Hebrew for verse 27 it may be seen that the Hebrew noun ‘Elohim’ (God) again governs a singular Hebrew verb (’created’). But even more importantly, ‘Elohim’ also governs the Hebrew singular pronouns ‘His’ and ‘He’. Note that verse 27 does not say that ‘they’ created Adam in ‘their’ image, but that ‘He’ created Adam in His image! So verse 27 declares that one God created Adam and that He did so in His image. Not two or more Gods but only one God created Adam.
Verse 27, through the two singular clauses, “So God created man in His own image” and “in the image of God created He him”, twice states that one God created Adam. From Genesis 41:32 it may be inferred that this repetition emphasizes certainty.
That only one God Person spoke in verse 26 and created Adam in verse 27, is further confirmed by verse 29. In verse 29 ‘God’ (Elohim) uses the first person singular personal pronoun “I”, in the phrase, “And God said, ‘Behold, I have given you every herb…’ “.
Had two or more God Persons created Adam, they might have said: “We have given you every herb”. Ignoring the necessities of language rules of grammar some still say that this “God” is a family of two and that as such only “one” of the two Gods actually did the hands on creating, but at the bequest of the other. Therefore, it is reasoned, the use of a singular pronoun simply reflects the overall view that there is still only “one” God, but with two distinct entities within the one (aka Mother Jerusalem and Ahnsahnghong).
The tragedy of this is the denial of the proper use of the language- and specifically here in Genesis, along with the assumption that everything else in scripture that does not lend itself to this premise must somehow bend and be forced into compliance with this premise. There is no grammatical basis that can be produced to support this premise, which nevertheless seems to flourish in the minds of the adherents to this tenet of which I was once one, too. Without scriptural basis, other than- that is the way it must be for this premise to exist, the very premise is left to be nothing more than conjecture.
If the premise is true, then the “proof” must come from elsewhere, as nothing in Genesis can provide this “proof.” Equivocation may be the most culpable in the creation of this tenet, and yet be the least recognized as such.
It has now been established through the rules of language that just one God Person spoke in Gen 1:26, and that this one God Person created Adam in His own image in verse 27 and that this one God Person then spoke to Adam using the singular pronoun “I” in verse 29.
So why does it say, “us” and “our”?
The Cohortative Mood of Genesis 1:26.
From Gesenius’ ‘Hebrew Grammar’ and from Owens’ ‘Analytical Key to the Old Testament’ with James D. Martin’s ‘Davidson’s Introductory Hebrew Grammar’ page 76, it may be seen that the Genesis 1:26 verbal phrase, “Let us make” is, in both Hebrew and English, the Cohortative or Voluntative mood.
This mood appears not understood by commentators to Genesis 1:26; and readers unfamiliar with the grammatical concept of the Cohortative Mood, are referred to the explanation given at the end of this paper. (Could this be due to preconceived notions in the minds of the translators, commentators, and the affected readers?)
Suffice to say that the Cohortative mood is a verbal mood for expressing a command from the 1st person (the speaker) to the 1st person singular or plural. It is a mood related to the Imperative mood, which is the more common command mood for expressing commands from the 1st person to the 2nd person singular or plural – as in Sit down!, or Present arms!.
In the Cohortative mood found in Genesis 1:26, the singular speaker, God, addresses Himself jointly with those present at the time. Therefore in Genesis 1:26 God, and those present with Him, jointly make up the plurality expressed by the pronoun ‘us’ in, “Let us make”.
In particular the plurality of ‘us’ may not be taken to infer plurality to the speaker God, or even to those God spoke to.
It has now been shown in several different ways that linguistically there is no justification for inferring from “And God said, Let us make…”, that the plurality of ‘us’ extends back to God. Rather the Cohortative mood demands that God, as the speaker issuing a command, is singular. This is also attested to by the singular Hebrew verb for ‘said’ (And God said) and the singular pronouns and singular verbs in subsequent verses, which refer back to God of Genesis 1:26.
This should help clarify past confusion resulting from ungrammatical and unbiblical claims that the Hebrew ‘Elohim’ of Genesis 1:26 is a uniplural or is a collective noun or in some other way points to there existing or not existing more than one God Person. In truth nothing may be concluded from Genesis 1:26 regarding the existence of multiple God Persons.
The book of Genesis does not support the existence of Mother Jerusalem. Using verse 1:26 to suggest that “us” and “our” refers to Mother is a distortion of the truth and displays a complete lack of Biblical knowledge.
Cults favour simplistic explanations and simple minded doctrines because they are easier to teach. Accessible beliefs can be quickly and efficiently explained to the uneducated recruit, but upon close inspection these beliefs all disintegrate.
End note - Explanation of Cohortative Verb Mood
The reader needs to be first familiar with the grammatical terms: 1st person, 2nd person and 3rd person. The 1st person refers to the speaker(s) (I, we). The 2nd person refers to the person(s) spoken to (you singular, you plural) by the 1st person. And the 3rd person refers to the person(s) spoken about (he, she, it, and they) by the 1st person to the 2nd person. As an example: I (1st person) tell you (2nd person.) that he (3rd person) is tall.
The 1st, 2nd and 3rd person may be singular (I, you, he) or plural (we, you, they). The 1st person can only speak to the 2nd person. In particular the 1st person can not speak to the 3rd person: but can only speak about the 3rd person to the 2nd person. This last point is important for understanding the Jussive command mood. The 1st person can speak to the 1st person singular, namely, when he speaks to himself. But when the 1st person speaks to the 1st person plural, he addresses himself and the one(s) with him. This last point is important for understanding the Cohortative mood.
There are three verbal moods for expressing commands or strongly held wishes or intentions. The Imperative mood is the most commonly-used of the three command moods. All three command moods are used by the 1st person (speaker); but he may address them: (a) to the 1st person by using the Cohortative mood; or (b) to the 2nd person by using the Imperative mood; and (c) to the 3rd person(s) by using the Jussive mood.
The Imperative mood is usually used by a superior to an subordinate; as in: Stand!, and Present arms! In the Jussive mood the 1st person gives a command for the 3rd person to the 2nd person; as in: Don’t let him go!, and Make him stay! Note that grammatically it is impossible for the 1st person to address directly the 3rd person; because the 3rd person is the one spoken about to the 2nd person.
In the Cohortative mood the 1st person commands the 1st person singular or plural. When the 1st person commands the 1st person singular, the command is to self, as in I shall guard. But when the 1st person commands the 1st person plural, the commands (1) himself and (2) the one(s) with him, as in Let us make…. . For this last case note in particular that the subject is singular. That is the plurality of the ones commanded (us) does not transfer backwards to the subject. This point is generally overlooked by commentators to Genesis 1:26, “Ánd God (singular) said, Let us (plural) make man in our image…”
Note that the English Jussive and Cohortative moods require auxiliary verbs (e.g. shall, make and let). Also that in neither the Imperative, nor the Jussive mood, nor the Cohortative mood a subject (speaker) is expressed. So these commands are usually brief, as in: Sit!, Don’t let him go!, and Let us make. The Subject is simply understood.

Author Unknown, but much appreciated!!!