In this lunatic political environment, conservatives who refuse to support the authoritarian progressive Donald Trump for reasons of principle are often accused of supporting his fellow authoritarian progressive Hillary Clinton and even — bizarrely — of being liberals. If this accusation has merit, then orthodox Jew Ben Shapiro must be a neo-Nazi:
Conservative commentator Ben Shapiro held a lecture at California State University, Los Angeles, in February. One week ago, university President William Covino hosted a “healing space” meeting to brainstorm ways CSULA can block speakers like Shapiro from visiting the school in the future.
As readers might recall, Shapiro’s views so threaten CSULA leftists that they resorted to pulling fire alarms in an attempt to prevent anyone from hearing him speak.
When asked by a student how he plans to block events like Shapiro’s from happening again, Covino didn’t offer a clear answer, only telling the student he believes — “very tragically and unfortunately” — the issue of hosting a conservative talker will arise again.
During the same session, professor Melinda Abdullah, chair of the college’s Pan-African Studies department, told Covino that she found Shapiro to be an advocate of “anti-blackness,” even calling him a “neo-Nazi,” which she said is “ironic” because she knows he’s Jewish.
I found this frail example of a woman (Professor Melina Abdullah) tearing up about racism a bit incredulous… and… frankly, ironic. Mmm, sorry, moronic. She actually associates with a REAL racist cult leader — Louise Farrakhan.
But, before getting into her connection with Louise Farrkhan, however, let us intimate why this even matters… why bring up Louise Farrakhan at all?
Here is why.
In a hypothetical using “Dubya” [George W. Bush] next to the realityof Farrakhan ~ I educated an “old school Democrat” with my memorized “bio” of Farrakhan in a conversation I had on vacation:
Another was a montage of faces – black leaders, past and present, with the title “The legacy lives on” – that included Wright, Farrakhan, Nation of Islam founder Elijah Muhammad, Rosa Parks and even O.J. Simpson attorney Johnny Cochran. (Weekly Standard, Newsmax, and WND)
Obama’s pastor not only was a minister in The Nation of Islam, an anti-Semitic/racist group, but the church’s book store sells sermons by Louise Farrakhan, who teaches that the white man was created on the Island of Cyprus by a mad scientist, Yakub. (Mr. Farrakhan also believes he was taken up on a UFO to meet God, and was told he was a little messiah, take note also that he was directly involved in the deaths of police officers as well.) Louise Farrakhan was featured twice on the church’s magazine which reach 20,000[plus] homes in the Chicago area. Even placing on the cover with Louise Farrakhan a third time the founder of the Nation of Islam, Elijah Muhammad. Elijah Muhammad likewise taught that the white man was created by Yakub 6,600 years ago. Walter, Louise Farrakhan teaches that the Jews in Israel do not belong there, and that the true Jews are the black people. Louise Farrakhan was invited into Obama’s church, to the pulpit and given a “lifetime achievement award.” In fact, the New Black Panthers and members of the Nation of Islam often times sat in the pews for sermons by Rev. Wright, whom Obama called a mentor. Not to mention Obama’s wife pictured with racist, anti-Semetic, UFO cult members…..
…in other words…
…Farrakhan is not merely a “black Archie Bunker”…
…he is much-much worse…
BUT WAIT !
…we aren’t done yet…
Farrakhan recently spoke about how black gods will return to earth and destroy white people in his now infamous (more than famous) UFO speech — actually one of many bat-shit-crazy, RACIST, black supremacist speeches he has given over the years:
What does an anti-racist professor who cannot be around “racists” at all doing around one of the worst offenders of racist nationalism known in recent cult history? [We are assuming for argument sake that Ben Shapiro is racist, BTW, which he is not.]
LOS ANGELES – The Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan met with L.A.’s community leaders during his “Justice…or Else!” national tour to promote the 20th Anniversary of the Million Man March, slated for October 10 in Washington, D.C.
The June 17 meeting, held at Holman United Methodist Church, was hosted as part of a special Urban Issues Breakfast Forum founded by author and professor Dr. Anthony Asadullah Samad. NOI Western Region Representative Tony Muhammad, Holman’s Senior Pastor Kevin Sauls, Dr. Melina Abdullah (California State L.A. Black Studies Professor), Dr. Maulana Karenga (Chair, Us Organization and Professor-Africana Studies California State University Long Beach) and Danny Bakewell (Los Angeles Sentinelpublisher) fired up the audience before Minister Farrakhan arrived.
A diverse coalition of clergy, grassroots activists, street organization leaders, educators, gang interventionists, homeless activists and entertainers were among the more than 1,500 present.
“This is not a Million Man March. That’s what was! This is a movement of human beings for justice or else,” Minister Farrakhan declared….
Some of the others on stage were none other than the murderous, racist, torturer of women Maulana Karenga, which you can read more about HERE.
Here is Dr. Abdullah praising the racist, anti-Semitic, UFO new age cult leader:
And she thinks she is able to speak to the offense of racism????
Maybe she is tearing up because her conscience is eating her alive?
Does Galatians 4:26 Prove That God The Mother Is Real? What was Paul’s point when he mentioned the “Jerusalem above is free”? Is this another God called the Heavenly Jerusalem? The wife of Jesus/Ahnsahnghong? The World Mission Society Church of God (WMSCOG) believes so. But when we test this interpretation very carefully, (with the context and with what the same writer says in other places), does their interpretation still have truth? Let’s see. Is the “mother” in Galatians 4:26 called “God”?
Did the apostle Paul really worship two different Gods? Father and Mother? It’s important for us to start reading from verse 21, or the whole chapter or even the whole book to know the truth.
…When recruiting in shopping malls, heavily populated areas, or on college campuses, WMSCOG recruiters approach people and ask, “have you ever heard of god the mother in the Bible?” Regardless of what the person says, as long as they are not immediately shunned away, recruiters quickly open the Bible and begin to explain how they arrive at their conclusion that there is a “female god”. (When I was a member, I was taught to recruit this way). The WMSCOG “logic” goes something like this:
Revelation 22:17 – WMSCOG recruiters point out that the “Spirit” is capitalized and therefore refers to the Holy Spirit. The bride has to be “god” because no one else can give us eternal life (as in water of life). Then, who is the bride?
Revelation 21:2 – The holy city, new Jerusalem coming down out of heaven prepared as a bride for her husband. Who is the bride’s husband?
John 1:29 – The Lamb is Jesus. Then who is mother in the bible?
Galatians 4:26 – The Jerusalem that is above is our mother. (I know it’s confusing, hang in there):
So, according to the WMSCOG formula:
mother in the Bible (Galatians 4:26) = Jerusalem above (Galatians 4:26) = Jerusalem bride (Revelation 21:2) = bride wife of Jesus (Revelation 21:9) = bride gives water of life (Revelation 22:17, just like Jesus in John 4:14) = Therefore, bride is mother god
Clear as mud right? Anyone can clearly see that this does grave violence to the original meaning of the Scriptures. If you skip around in the Bible this way doing a keyword search, you can make it say anything you want to. Unfortunately for the WMSCOG, this interpretation easily fails when we read the verses in their proper context (and by the way, if you thought you could make sense of any book by jumping around all over it, grabbing a line from this chapter and another line from another chapter, you should try this with some other book in your library you’ve read before and see how it very poorly communicates the underlying story)….
While I am taking a large swath of the article… it should be read and visited as in context it is well worth the read. But here is the meat of the refutation of the misuse of the verse:
Galatians 4:26 Grossly Misinterpreted
The WMSCOG continues their pattern of misinterpreting Scripture by completely ignoring the context surrounding their cherry-picked verses. A person can be seriously mislead by this sort of thinking if the context surrounding Galatians 4:26 is not examined. Considering the context ofGalatians 4 in its entirety, it becomes clear that the apostle Paul was not referring to a “female god”. Let us read the text as it is written.
Paul begins the chapter by comparing Christians to heirs of their father’s estate (Galatians 4:1-2). In continuing with this analogy, Paul goes on to explain how we were slaves under the law until Jesus, also born under the law, came to redeem us and adopt us as God’s children, making us heirs of our Father’s Kingdom.
But when the set time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, 5 to redeem those under the law, that we might receive adoption to sonship.[b]6 Because you are his sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, “Abba,[c] Father.” 7So you are no longer a slave, but God’s child; and since you are his child, God has made you also an heir. (Galatians 4:4-7)
Paul goes on to express his concern for the Galatians because they had turned back to observing “special days and months and seasons and years” (Galatians 4:9-10). It is clear that Paul is quite disturbed by the behavior of the Galatians when he says “I fear for you, that somehow I have wasted my efforts on you” (Galatians 4:11) and “I am perplexed about you!” (Galatians 4:20). The Galatians seemed to have turned back to observing the ceremonial law of Moses, (“Tell me, you who want to be under the law” Galatians 4:21) despite having learned about redemption through Jesus Christ.
Paul uses the story of Abraham and his two sons to illustrate his point. Abraham had two sons, one by a slave woman (Hagar) and one by a free woman (Sarah). As we read on in Galatians 4, Paul tells us that what he is about to say should be taken figuratively (aka metaphorically, allegorically, NOT literally).
These things are being taken figuratively: The women representtwo covenants. One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children who are to be slaves: This is Hagar. 25 Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present city of Jerusalem, because she is in slavery with her children. 26 But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother. (Galatians 4:24-26)
When interpreting the above verses figuratively as Paul intended (and flat out says), the following becomes clear:
Hagar represents the present city Jerusalem, the old covenant, and therefore her children are slaves
Sarah represents the heavenly city Jerusalem, the new covenant, and therefore her children are free
Therefore, in Galatians 4:26, it is clear that when Paul says that the “new Jerusalem is our mother” he is referring to the heavenly country Jerusalem as our motherland. In order to illustrate this more clearly, here are some additional Biblical examples of the word “mother” being used to refer to a country.
We are the peaceful and faithful in Israel. You are trying to destroy a city that is a mother in Israel…2 Samuel 20:19 (In this verse, mother represents a city in Israel.)
You stumble day and night, and the prophets stumble with you. So I will destroy your mother…Hosea 4:5 (It is clear, after reading the entire chapter, that mother in this verse refers to Israel as well.)
Hermeneutics – (interpretation) Branch of theology dealing with the principles governing Biblical interpretation. It is concerned with various types of interpretation, as allegorical and literal, multiple meanings and senses, is hyperbole used? Is the reader noting the genres involved: historical narrative, law, parables, poetry, and the like. Are there language gaps? Likewise, are there cultural, geographical, and historical gaps involved that would pollute the original authors meaning?
Exegesis – (explanation) Critical exposition or explanation of the meaning of a scriptural passage in the context of the whole Bible. The reader of Scripture studies the word meanings and grammar of the text to discern what… was communicated, drawing the meaning out of the text rather than reading what he wants into the text (eisegesis).
If we do not approach Scripture well, then I could easily point out that God has feather and a very big-nose:
Read Exodus 15:8 and Psalm 91:4
The heretic, Brigham Young, one of the main prophets of Mormonism, says, “Some would have us believe that God is present everywhere. It is not so,” (Journal of Discourses 6:345). Joseph Smith, Mormonism’s founder says, “The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s…” (Doctrine and Covenants, 130:22).
Exodus 15:8 says God parted the Red Sea with a blast of his nostrils. So, God has a nose. It must be an awfully big nose since the Red Sea is quite large. There are Scriptures that show God has an “outstretched arm” and that he “sits” on a throne. Exodus 7:5, “And the Egyptians shall know that I am the Lord, when I stretch out My hand on Egypt and bring out the sons of Israel from their midst.” Numbers 6:24, The Lord make His face shine on you, and be gracious to you.” Psalm 33:6, “By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, and by the breath of His mouth all their host.” Psalm 34:15, The eyes of the Lord are toward the righteous, and His cars are open to their cry.” Psalm 89:10, “Thou Thyself didst crush Rahab like one who is slain; Thou didst scatter Thine enemies with Thy mighty arm.” That is why heretical sects often see God as the one with the big white beard sitting in golden lights on a big throne in some humanized form. It seems he is like a man who has bodily parts. However, at the same time, Scripture says that God has feathers. Now God is a chicken. Psalm 57:1, “Be gracious to me, 0 God, be gracious to me, for my soul takes refuge in Thee; and in the shadow of Thy wings I will take refuge, until destruction passes by.”
In belaboring this, think about the manner in which God communicates to us. Why does God use human terms to communicate with us? Does God really have feathers? or a big nose?
C. Matthew McMahon [author] and Therese B. McMahon [editor], The Reformed Apprentice Volume 3: A Workbook On the Doctrine of God (Crossville, TN: Puritan Publications, 2015), 20-21.
Analogy by the use of metaphor. This is the second aspect of accommodation. For example Jesus calls Himself a door (John 10:9), a shepherd (John 10:11), a vine (John 15:1), a roadway (John 14:6), a loaf of bread (John 6:51). God is said to have wings and feathers (Psalm 17:8; 36:7; 91:4). These are all to be under-stood metaphorically, not literally.
Words should be understood in their literal sense unless such interpretation involves a manifest contradiction (as seen above) or absurdity. For example, it would be absurd to say that Jesus was made out of bread or that He was a loaf of bread. If God cannot be seen, and another passage seems to indicate that He was seen, then there must be figurative language taking place—other-wise there is an outright contradiction. Charnock’s explanation is appropriate here as well:
Therefore, we must not conceive of the visible Deity according to the letter of such expressions, but the true intent of them. Though the Scripture speaks of his eye and arm, yet it denies them to be “arms of flesh” (Job 10:4; 2 Chron 32:8). We must not conceive of God according to the letter, but the design of the metaphor. When we hear things described by metaphorical expressions, for the clearing them up to our fancy, we conceive not of them that garb, but remove the veil by an act of our reason. When Christ is called a sun, a vine, bread, is any so stupid as to conceive him to be a vine with material branches, and clusters, or be of the same nature with a loaf? But the things designed by such metaphors are obvious to the conception of a mean understanding. If we would conceive God to have a body like man, because he describes himself so, we may conceit him to be like a bird, because he is mentioned with wings (Psalm 36:7); or like a lion, or leopard, because he likens himself to them in the acts of his strength and fury (Hos 13:7, 8). He is called a rock, a horn, fire, to note his strength and wrath; if any be so stupid as to think God to be really such, they would make him not only a man but worse than a monster. ~ Stephen Charnock, The Existence and Attributes of God (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1996), 190.
This is a post dealing with the many aspects of the Korean cult known as World Mission Society Church of God (as well as: The Church of God, WMSCOG, COGWMS, The Church of Ahnsahnghong, Elohists). CARM has some helpfully concise information on the cult…
WMSCOG: The Church claims a man called Ahnsahnghong is the Second Coming of Christ. According to this church, Ahnsahnghong is Jesus.
Bible: The Bible teaches clearly that Jesus Christ will return as a Jew visibly, not in a secret coming.
“For false Christs and false prophets will arise and will show great signs and wonders, so as to mislead, if possible, even the elect. Behold, I have told you in advance. So if they say to you, ‘Behold, He is in the wilderness,’ do not go out, or, ‘Behold, He is in the inner rooms,’ do not believe them. For just as the lightning comes from the east and flashes even to the west, so will the coming of the Son of Man be,” (Mt. 24:23-27).
Ahnsahnghong made false prophecies by predicting the end of the world in 1967 and 1988. This is a sin. Since Jesus never sinned and/or ever make a mistake, He and Ahnsahnghong are not the same person.
WMSCOG: Believe Mother Jerusalem to be the female incarnation of God.
This is definitely unbiblical since the Bible clearly teaches that Jesus is the unique incarnation of God as the one and only begotten Son of God who is God and man. Since Jesus is the unique incarnation of God, there are not other incarnations of God who are female.
Jesus is God: John 1:1, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being . . . 14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.” Jesus also created all things (Col. 1:16-17), is called God (Rom. 9:5, Heb. 1:8), and is worshipped (Mt. 2:2, 14:33), and prayed to (1 Cor. 1:2, Acts 7:55-60).
Jesus is Man: Jesus rose from the dead as a physical man (Lk. 24:39, Jn. 20:19-20), ascended into Heaven as that same man (Acts 1:11), and is still a man right now since He is our Mediator as man (1 Tim. 2:5) and eternal High Priest as a man after the order of Melchizedek (Heb. 6:20, 7:25). Scripture also speaks of Him presently dwelling in bodily form (Col. 2:9).
There is only one God: There is only one God in all existence (Is. 43:10, 44:6, 8). Therefore, there are not other gods who incarnate. Jesus is the only one.
The following video is a great (albeit badly filmed) introduction to some of the concerns of WMSCOG presented by Professor Ji-il Tark via Steven Hassan’s “Freedom of Mind” YouTube Channel: Here is the video description followed by the video:
“The World Mission Society Church of God (Korean: 하나님의교회 세계복음선교협회) was founded by Ahn Sahng-hong (안상홍) in 1964. The church believes that he is the second coming of Christ. Ahn Sahng-Hong was baptized in 1948 and died in 1985 and the current leader of the church is Ahn’s spiritual wife, Zang Gil-Jah (장길자), known in the church as “the Heavenly Mother”, and the General Pastor is Kim Joo-Cheol.”
I shot this video in July 2010 of Professor Tark at a conference where many former members of a wide variety of destructive, totalitarian groups met. I had never heard of Professor Tark, but came to learn that his father was the most famous anti-cult minister in Korea. He was unfortunately assassinated by a cult member (not someone from WMSCOG). He is professor of Religion at Busan Presbyterian University.
There is another video testimony by a 12 year ex-member/missionary for WMSCOG on Steve Hassan’s YouTube Channel HERE.
A partial — quick — dealing with WMSCOG can be found at Got Questions:
Question: “What is the World Mission Society Church of God, and what do they believe?”
Answer: The World Mission Society Church of God (WMSCOG) was founded by a man named Ahn Sahng-Hong in South Korea in 1964. He was born in 1918 to Buddhist parents and spent many years with the Seventh-day Adventists. He claimed to have rebuilt the Church of God—the same Church that Jesus established and with the same truths of the Early Church. Ahn Sahng-Hong died in 1985.
The WMSCOG believes in God the Father and God the Mother, who came to earth in the flesh. Ahn Sahng-Hong’s spiritual wife, Zahng Gil-Jah, is known as “the Heavenly Mother.” According the WMSCOG, “God the Mother is the core of our faith and the figure that guides us. . . . God the Mother stands by and prays for us whenever we face hardships.” The Bible does not teach the existence of a “heavenly mother.” God is consistently referred to as our Father. Revelation 21:2 describes the New Jerusalem as a beautifully adorned bride. But verses 9–10 show that the “wife of the Lamb” and the “New Jerusalem” are synonymous terms. Obviously, the New Jerusalem is a city, not a person. In this case, the city is the church, the redeemed of the Lord living in God’s heavenly city. The Lamb’s “wife,” then, is figurative, not literal.
Ahn Sahng-Hong was a false prophet. He predicted Christ would return in 1967, then changed the date to 1988. The WMSCOG believed the world would end in 1967, then 1988, and then at the end of 2012. History has proved Ahn Sahng-Hong wrong. It is noteworthy that one of the signs of the end times is the increase in false prophets and false messiahs. Ahn Sahng-Hong clearly falls into the category of false prophet and false messiah.
And here I wish to shift gears a bit and discuss a few of their false prophecies. Dueteronomy 18:20-22 reads thusly from a few different versions:
One commentator notes the following about the above verse:
False prophets could be detected in various ways. We have previously learned that they were false if they sought to lead the people away from the worship of the true God (13:1–5). Here is another means of detection: If a prediction failed to come to pass, that prophet should be put to death, and no one need fear any curse he might pronounce.
William MacDonald, Believer’s Bible Commentary: Old and New Testaments, ed. Arthur Farstad (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1995), 217.
So one-way to see a false prophet is by their fruits. Matthew 7:15-20 reads:
“Beware of false prophets who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravaging wolves. You’ll recognize them by their fruit. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes or figs from thistles?In the same way, every good tree produces good fruit, but a bad tree produces bad fruit.A good tree can’t produce bad fruit; neither can a bad tree produce good fruit. Every tree that doesn’t produce good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. So you’ll recognize them by their fruit.“
So here Jesus is analogizing “bad fruit” with false prophecies. How does this relate to WMSCOG? Because they made 3-major false prohecies. This came out in a court case where the cult lost hands down… here are some of the key portions, I will highlight them:
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 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 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.”
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 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.
There was also a false prophecy about the end of the world in 1967. But above we see also 1988; 1999, and 2012 were dates set for the end of the world as well.
When we compare the Green Book in 1993 to the Green Book in 2010, we find some curious changes.
The “Second Coming Jesus” Writes About the Future “Second Coming Jesus”?
Just to be clear, Ahn Sahng-Hong never claimed anywhere in his writings to be Jesus Christ. Rather, it is the WMSCOG which claims he was the Second Coming of Jesus. Yet, we find that Ahn Sahng-Hong in his own writings in 1993 speaks about the future Second Coming of Jesus:
See the video description below (also, here is the Urban Dictionary definition of DINDU):
Michael Brown was a man, who robbed a liquor store and at the same time assaulted its clerk. He then went on to attack a police officer and attempted to hijack his weapon and was shot in the ensuing scuffle.
And to top it all off, Black Lives Matter (BLM) got its start and first martyr. Also many in his community and then nationwide tried to claim him to be an innocent “gentle giant.”
The term “dindu,” became popular in the aftermath of Michael Brown’s death and the Ferguson, Missouri riots to describe a certain class of criminal. The term is a pejorative for criminals and gang members (and their families) who feign innocence and never take responsibility for their actions (when caught in the commission of a crime by the police). It is used, in the title to explain the rise of criminals and their supporters who believe they are not required to be responsible for their actions and now have movements like BLM who will support them against “the system” no matter what they do.
The media / government and those that fund them: The corporations. The well funded (George Soros) along with academia is pushing to divide peoples everywhere. They use events like this to enrage people. Resist with knowledge.
This whole video was inspired by someone who sent me the article on the former Marine being assaulted by BLM supporters.
Oberlin College professor Joy Karega, a social justice writing instructor at the Ohio-based liberal arts college, has published a series of posts on social media that largely blames the 9/11 attacks and the rise of the Islamic State and Charlie Hebdo attacks on Israel, according to a report in the campus newspaper that included numerous screenshots of the scholar’s comments.
The Tower campus newspaper reports that inflammatory remarks on the professor’s Facebook page have been published in various posts since 2015. After the Hebdo shooting last year, she posted “an ISIS terrorist pulling off a mask resembling Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu,” it reported. Last year, she threw up a Louis Farrakhan Nation of Islam video that suggested “’Israeli and Zionist Jews’ were behind the attacks on the World Trade Center,” it added.
The Tower report, published Feb. 25, comes just a few weeks after some 225 Oberlin College alums signed an open letter calling on the university to address what they contend is rampant anti-Semitism on campus, with the alums’ spokeswoman tellingThe College Fix last month: “For the last few years, I have been hearing reports about the Oberlin campus becoming increasingly hostile for students who express their Jewish identities by supporting Israel.”
Religion News Blog has the above video with the below commentary:
In 1981 this spiritual leader from India spent $5.75 million on a remote piece of property in Oregon and invested millions more to build Rajneeshpuram as a spiritual retreat for thousands of his red-frocked followers.
In news clips from the 1980s, Rajneeshees line the road for the Bhagwan’s daily drive-by in a vehicle from his fleet of more than 90 Rolls Royce automobiles. Rancho Rajneesh, as some called it, had its own newspaper, fire department, night club and mall.
The Rajneeshees clashed with locals over land use. The utopian desert commune collapsed after Rajneeshees were convicted of infecting four salad bars with salmonella in The Dalles, the Wasco county seat, in order to hamper voter turnout and swing an election. Other crimes included attempted murder, arson, election fraud and wiretapping. About 10 followers were imprisoned. The Bhagwan was deported for immigration violations.
751 people were poisoned in the 1984 bioterror attack. According to Wikipedia, “The incident was the first and single largest bioterrorist attack in United States history. The attack is one of only two confirmed terrorist uses of biological weapons to harm humans since 1945.”
The Rajneesh had hoped to incapacitate the voting population of the city so that their own candidates would win the local election.
The Rajneesh actually did gain political control of the nearby city of Antelope.
Take note I do not endorse everything noted in this documentary or the articles, but the similarity between alien encounters, spiritism (like mediums), ghosts, the occult, and the like, is the important issue here ~ NOT “government conspiracies” or the like.
While this documentary is dated, the DVD for purchase (I did edit it a bit), and here.
Two decent articles on the issue of UFOs and the Christian worldview, are as follows:
A note from my Facebook about this and my other post:
I posted two older documentaries (they are from the 80’s, so expect the pat narrator and eerie music) and some links of my own thoughts on the matter.
These two posts give a theistic-Christian interpretation to UFOs, ghosts, spirit mediums, and the like. You can break the world’s 10,000 religious beliefs down to a handful of worldviews and each worldview has a distinct interpretation of the evidence. So if you are a Christian, you cannot believe a ghost is a departed love one or a soul lost and wandering the earth (Hebrews 9:27[note]).
So what is the explanation for these apparent metaphysical encounters?
Well, you will have to see and watch for yourself:
[Note] Mind you, it seems clear that before their real conversion to the idea of who Jesus was (God Almighty), the Disciple also believed in ghosts (https://carm.org/did-the-disciples-of-Jesus-believe-in-ghosts).
So I am not saying the person who does believe in these things are retarded or dumb. All I am saying is in the Christian worldview these interpretations do not fit the evidence. I would challenge the believer to mature in their understanding of what their view says and how believing in ghosts being departed people, ETs that posses people, etc,…
…are borrowing from other worldviews and cutting-n-tapping it into the worldview of Christianity.
Due to the length of the original file, which is worth watching in total, I will split a couple topics up for ease of watching and to continue to call the watchers attention both to the importance of the subject and to these excellent type of films.
I myself have written a bit on the topic. In fact, the longest chapter in my book deals with the topic:
Witnesses from the Kingdom Hall are often zealous and sincere… but sincerity without truth is sincerely wrong. Watch carefully and see if they really believe the Bible or just the teachings of the Watchtower Society. Remember the Bible says: “A wise man will hear and will increase learning…” Proverbs 1:5
What a great evangelistic conversation. One thing I like is the thunder affect giving Scripture the eminence we sometimes neglect.
I realized — after posting on an encounter with a Jehovah’s Witness at Starbucks — that I do not have a lot posted on Jehovah’s Witnesses. I do on Mormonism, but not J-Dubs. (During the Iraq War Democrats called President George W. Bush, “Dubya.” I liked this shortening of his name for conversation ease. I transferred this ease over to Jehovah’s Witnesses as “J-Dub.”). So I will post some information via discussions I have had (on-line) over the years. The one I will clean up and post here deals with a quick presentation I give when a J-Dub is in front of a doughnut or coffee shop. All you have to do is memorize John 17:3, John 1:1… and where to go to enforce your point if conversation continues… but still have to get to work.
…The best way to dial in a cult is to see who they say Jesus is. In Orthodox Christian theology, Christ is eternal. Jesus is best reflected by this statement: He always was, He always is, and He always will be… Unmoved, Unchanged, Undefeated, and never Undone!
But in LDS (Mormon) theology, Jesus was born in heaven via sexual relations between Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother; Lucifer is Jesus’ brother, born also via sexual relations between Heavenly Father and one of his many wives. So, in fact he is not eternal. Heavenly Father, e.g., God, was once a man as well. Prior to Heavenly Father being a man, he was born in a heaven to parents as well (he was born via sexual relations in a heaven and a earth). Therefore, in LDS theology, even Heavenly Father isn’t eternal. Nor is he unchanging – physically or spiritually – because he was once a man who had to follow a path to becoming his own God. Also, if Heavenly Father was born to parents, who were themselves born to parents, etc., etc.. Who were the first parents? How did they get here?
Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that the first creative act by God – Jehovah – was to create Michael the Archangel. It was Michael who came to earth as Jesus, and after went back to heaven as Michael. Both Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses do not believe that Jesus’ death on the cross was for their sins. His death was merely for Adam’s original sin, therefore, the Mormon or Jehovah’s Witness must earn their own salvation by doing good works to attain entrance into heaven. Christianity teaches that nothing man can do can please God. He is infinitely good, we are not. This is why Jesus’ sacrifice is so important to Christians: he lived the life we never could.
Okay, let me give you a quick refutation to share with the Jehovah’s Witness when they are at your door. Jehovah’s Witnesses are very adamant that they are monotheists, that is, they believe in one God. We do also, but we understand this one God as a trinity… do not get into the Trinity with them, this is the one subject they study the most. It takes a trained professional like me to refute their attacks on this doctrine.
You can ask them to turn to one of their favorite verses in their own bible (New World Translation), which is John 17:3:
This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you [Greek: that they may know you], the only true God, and of the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ (NWT).
At this point you can ask them if Jehovah is the only true God. Make the point that any other God would be a false God, ask them: so people who believe in a God other than Jehovah believe in a false God?
At this point, when you get them to agree with you that there is only one true God, ask them to turn to John 1:1, which reads:
In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a God (NWT).
This is the clincher. Ask them if Jesus is a false God or a true God. Our Bible doesn’t put the athat I underlined; the Greek literally calls Jesus God Almighty. They may want to change the subject, or the like. Just keep pressing the issue – politely – that according to their own Bible they are polytheists (a person who believes in multiple gods), and are not monotheists…
Here is a conversion by an evangelist at a Jehovah’s Witness convention where the idea of John 1:1 and 17:3 are fleshed out:
Remember, J-Dubs consider themselves rabidly monotheistic, but as one scholar says below, “…It must be stated quite frankly that, if the Jehovah’s Witnesses take this translation seriously, they are polytheists.” Here is another conversation where the J-Dubs “multiple gods” view is applied to creation (from the 5:12 mark). And of course a CLASSIC presentation by the late/great Walter Martin.
The verses that one should be familiar with are used in the conversation on John 8:58-59. Both verses are worth memorizing defenses of, but the area I want to focus on are the Old Testament verses used in this discussion:
Gordon, Jesus clearly states He is God in John 8:58-59. It doesn’t need any explaining to a first century Jew. But to a 21st century honky (western-Caucasian man / a white boy / cracker), it does need explaining. And as you can see, the first century Jews tried to stone Jesus for claiming such (John 8:59 and John 10:31-33). The first century Jew could not stone a man for claiming to be “in one mind,” or in “the same step” as God. They could only stone him for the blasphemy of claiming to be God, not a god.
John 8:58 needs no explaining if you are familiar with the Bible. But if you are not, and do not understand Exodus 3:14, then you would have to have an explanation. But since you apparently understand Exodus 3:14, then you understand Jesus clear claim to be God. So you have corrected yourself.
In fact, this is what the ENTIRE trial of Jesus was about?! He was on trial for claiming to be God, and this claim eventually led to His crucifixion (Zechariah 12:10).
The talk of who God is should be consolidated as to create more room on the board for the other members.
“See now that I, I am He, and there is no God besides Me” (Deuteronomy 32:39 NASB)
“Before Me there was no God formed, and there will be none after me” (Isaiah 43:10 NASB)
“Is there any God besides Me, or is there any other Rock? I know of none” (Isaiah 44:8 NASB)
“I am the Lord, and there is no other; besides Me there is no God” (Isaiah 45:5 NASB)
So it seems quite clear that when Jesus is called God, or even “a God” in John 1:1 (which John 17:3 says there is only One true God) – and is worshipped like God (which Matthew 4:10 reserves only for the One true God) – one must scratch his head in perplexity.
Are Jehovah’s Witnesses polytheists? They claim not to be, they claim to be monotheists. Mormons are polytheists, or more precisely – henotheists, they admit such (another example of why they are considered outside the “pale of orthodoxy”). The dilemma is (referencing John 17:3) that Jehovah Witnesses have two gods, and this cannot be reconciled with Deuteronomy 32:39 that “there is no God besides me;” or, John 17:3 which states “that they might know thee the only true God;” as well as God almighty calling Jesus God almighty in Hebrews 1:8-10. Alternatively Jesus clear statement to his deity (Godship) in John 8:58 and Matthew 22:41-46 (Jesus Himself making the comparison to Psalm 110:1).
When I talk to JW’s or LDS I drive the point home that Jesus would be a false god if he weren’t “God.” But this is something they can’t accept either… so the Bible must be wrong? But contrary to what Gordon says, Jesus clearly defined himself as – not a God – but thee God of the Shema.
And from Let Us Reason’s site, we find a list of leading and well-respected Greek language scholars ~ some even being quoted at one time as supporting the J-Dubs version in their own publications. I will embolden their names:
WHAT DO GREEK SCHOLARS THINK ABOUT JEHOVAH’S WITNESS TRANSLATION OF JOHN 1:1?
Dr. J. J. Griesback: “So numerous and clear are the arguments and testimonies of Scriptures in favor of the true Deity of Christ, that I can hardly imagine how, upon the admission of the Divine authority of Scripture, and with regard to fair rules of interpretation, this doctrine can by any man be called in doubt. Especially the passage John 1:1 is so clear and so superior to all exception, that by no daring efforts of either commentators or critics can it be snatched out of the hands of the defenders of the truth.”
Dr. Eugene A. Nida (Head of the Translation Department of the American Bible Society Translators of the GOOD NEWS BIBLE): “With regard to John 1:1 there is, of course, a complication simply because the NEW WORLD TRANSLATION was apparently done by persons who did not take seriously the syntax of the Greek”. (Bill and Joan Cetnar Questions for Jehovah’s Witnesses “who love the truth” p..55
Dr. William Barclay (University of Glasgow, Scotland): “The deliberate distortion of truth by this sect is seen in their New Testament translations. John 1:1 translated:’. . . the Word was a god’.a translation which is grammatically impossible. It is abundantly clear that a sect which can translate the New Testament like that is intellectually dishonest. THE EXPOSITORY TIMES Nov, 1985
Dr. B. F. Westcott (Whose Greek text [pictured on the left of the graphic which is to the right] is used in JW KINGDOM INTERLINEAR [the NWT text is to the right of Westcott’s Greek text…click to enlarge]): “The predicate (God) stands emphatically first, as in 4:24. It is necessarily without the article… No idea of inferiority of nature is suggested by the form of expression, which simply affirms the true Deity of the Word… in the third clause `the Word’ is declared to be `God’ and so included in the unity of the Godhead.”
The Gospel According to St. John (Eerdmans,1953- reprint) p. 3, (The Bible Collector, July-December, 1971, p. 12.).
“Numerous scholars with true credentials in the Biblical languages have condemned the Watchtower’s New World Translation as a fatal distortion of God’s written Word. For example, see The Bible Collector (July-December, 1971) issue which devotes three articles evaluating the Watchtower scripture.” ~ UK Apologetics
Dr. Anthony Hoekema, commented: Their New World Translation of the Bible is by no means an objective rendering of the sacred text into Modern English, but is a biased translation in which many of the peculiar teachings of the Watchtower Society are smuggled into the text of the Bible itself (The Four Major Cults, pp. 238, 239].
Dr. Ernest C. Colwell (University of Chicago): “A definite predicate nominative has the article when it follows the verb; it does not have the article when it precedes the verb; . . .this statement cannot be regarded as strange in the prologue of the gospel which reaches its climax in the confession of Thomas. `My Lord and my God.’ ” John 20:28
Dr. F. F. Bruce (University of Manchester, England): “Much is made by Arian amateur grammarians of the omission of the definite article with `God’ in the phrase `And the Word was God’. Such an omission is common with nouns in a predicate construction. `a god’ would be totally indefensible.”
Dr. Paul L. Kaufman (Portland OR.): “The Jehovah’s Witness people evidence an abysmal ignorance of the basic tenets of Greek grammar in their mistranslation of John 1:1.”
Dr. Charles L. Feinberg (La Mirada CA.): “I can assure you that the rendering which the Jehovah’s Witnesses give John 1:1 is not held by any reputable Greek scholar.”
Dr. Robert Countess, who wrote a doctoral dissertation on the Greek text of the New World Translation, concluded that the The Christ of the New World Translation “has been sharply unsuccessful in keeping doctrinal considerations from influencing the actual translation …. It must be viewed as a radically biased piece of work. At some points it is actually dishonest. At others it is neither modern nor scholarly “78 No wonder British scholar H.H. Rowley asserted, “From beginning to end this volume is a shining example of how the Bible should not be translated.”79 Indeed, Rowley said, this translation is “an insult to the Word of God.”
Dr. Harry A. Sturz: (Dr. Sturz is Chairman of the Language Department and Professor of Greek at Biola College) “Therefore, the NWT rendering: “the Word was a god” is not a “literal” but an ungrammatical and tendential translation. A literal translation in English can be nothing other than: “the word was God.” THE BIBLE COLLECTOR July – December, 1971 p. 12
Dr. J. Johnson of California State University, Long Beach. When asked to comment on the Greek, said, “No justification whatsoever for translating theos en ho logos as ‘the Word was a god’. There is no syntactical parallel to Acts 23:6 where there is a statement in indirect discourse. Jn.1:1 is direct.. I am neither a Christian nor a Trinitarian.
DO ANY REPUTABLE GREEK SCHOLARS AGREE WITH THE NEW WORLD TRANSLATION OF JOHN 1:1?
A. T. Robertson: “So in John 1:1 theos en ho logos the meaning has to be the Logos was God, -not God was the Logos.” A New short Grammar of the Greek Testament, AT. Robertson and W. Hersey Davis (Baker Book House, p. 279.
E. M. Sidebottom:”…the tendency to write ‘the Word was divine’ for theos en ho Iogos springs from a reticence to attribute the full Christian position to john. The Christ of the Fourth Gospel (S.P.C.K., 1961), p. 461.
C. K. Barrett: “The absence of the article indicates that the Word is God, but is not the only being of whom this is true; if ho theos had been written it would have implied that no divine being existed outside the second person of the Trinity.” The Gospel According to St. John (S.P.C.K., 1955), p. 76.
C. H. Dodd: “On this analogy, the meaning of _theos en ho logos will be that the ousia of ho logos, that which it truly is, is rightly denominated theos… That is the ousia of ho theos (the personal God of Abraham,) the Father goes without saying. In fact, the Nicene homoousios to patri is a perfect paraphrase.” “New Testament Translation Problems the bible Translator, 28, 1 (Jan. 1977), P. 104.
Randolph 0. Yeager: “Only sophomores in Greek grammar are going to translate ..and the Word was a God.’ The article with logos, shows that to logos is thesubject of the verb en and the fact that theos is without the article designates it as the predicate nominative. The emphatic position of theos demands that we translate ‘…and the Word was God.’ John is not saying as Jehovah’s Witnesses are fond of teaching that Jesus was only one of many Gods. He is saying precisely the opposite.” The Renaissance New Testament, Vol. 4 (Renaissance Press, 1980), P. 4.
Henry Alford: “Theos must then be taken as implying God, in substance and essence,–not ho theos, ‘the Father,’ in person. It noes not = theios; nor is it to be rendered a God–but, as in sarx engeneto, sarx expresses that state into which the Divine Word entered by a-definite act, so in theos en, theos expresses that essence which was His en arche:–that He was very God . So that this first verse must be connected thus: the Logos was from eternity,–was with God (the Father),–and was Himself God.” (Alford’s Greek Testament: An Exegetical and Critical Commentary, Vol. I, Part II Guardian ‘press 1976 ; originally published 1871). p. 681.
Donald Guthrie: “The absence of the article with Theos has misled some into t inking teat the correct understanding of the statement would be that ‘the word was a God’ (or divine), but this is grammatically indefensible since Theos is a predicate.” New Testament Theology (InterVarsity Press, 1981), p. 327.
Bruce M. Metzger, Professor of New Testament Language and literature at Princeton Theological Seminary said: “Far more pernicious in this same verse is the rendering, . . . `and the Word was a god,’ with the following footnotes: ” `A god,’ In contrast with `the God’ “. It must be stated quite frankly that, if the Jehovah’s Witnesses take this translation seriously, they are polytheists. In view of the additional light which is available during this age of Grace, such a representation is even more reprehensible than were the heathenish, polytheistic errors into which ancient Israel was so prone to fall. As a matter of solid fact, however, such a rendering is a frightful mistranslation.” “The Jehovah’s Witnesses and Jesus Christ,” Theology Today (April 1953), p. 75.
James Moffatt: “‘The Word was God . . .And the Word became flesh,’ simply means he Word was divine . . . . And the Word became human.’ The Nicene faith, in the Chalcedon definition, was intended to conserve both of these truths against theories that failed to present Jesus as truly God and truly man ….” Jesus Christ the Same (Abingdon-Cokesbury, 1945), p. 61.
E. C. Colwell: “…predicate nouns preceding the verb cannot be regarded as indefinite -or qualitative simply because they lack the article; it could be regarded as indefinite or qualitative only if this is demanded by the context,and in the case of John l:l this is not so.” A Definite Rule for the Use of the Article in the Greek New Testament,” Journal of Biblical Literature, 52 (1933), p. 20.
Philip B. Harner: “Perhaps the clause could be translated, ‘the Word had the same nature as God.’ This would be one way of representing John’s thought, which is, as I understand it,”that ho logos, no less than ho theos, had the nature of theos.””(Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns Mark 15:39 and John 1:1,” journal of Biblical Literature, 92, 1 (March 1973), p. 87.
Philip Harner states in the Journal of Biblical Literature, 92, 1 (March 1973) on Jn.1:1 “In vs. 1c the Johannine hymn is bordering on the usage of ‘God’ for the Son, but by omitting the article it avoids any suggestion of personal identification of the Word with the Father. And for Gentile readers the line also avoids any suggestion that the Word was a second God in any Hellenistic sense.” (pg. 86. Harner notes the source of this quote: Brown, John I-XII, 24)
Julius R. Mantey; “Since Colwell’s and Harner’s article in JBL, especially that of Harner, it is neither scholarly nor reasonable to translate John 1:1 ‘The Word was a god.’ Word-order has made obsolete and incorrect such a rendering …. In view of the preceding facts, especially because you have been quoting me out of context, I herewith request you not to quote the Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament again, which you have been doing for 24 years.” Letter from Mantey to the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. “A Grossly Misleading Translation …. John 1:1, which reads ‘In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God,’ is shockingly mistranslated, ‘Originally the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god,’ in a New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, published under the auspices o Jehovah’s Witnesses.” Statement JR Mantey, published in various sources.