Proof that the World Mission Society Church of God is False

I wrote previously asking World Mission Society Church of God members to share objective proof that their faith is true.  So far, no one has had any objective proof to offer.

Today, I'm turning the idea around to disproof.  What objective information do we have that proves the WMSCOG to be false?

I want to emphasize the word objective.  We're looking for provable facts here, not feelings, opinions and matters of interpretation.  (Click here for an example of why we can't just go by feelings.)

I love analogies.  It really helps me to understand something if I can see how it relates to or corresponds with something else.  Here's an analogy for you...

A popular movie these days at my house is Disney's "Tangled," the story of Rapunzel.  What I really find interesting as I watch it is the relationship between Rapunzel and Mother Gothel.  It follows so closely with the BITE model of destructive mind control.  As viewers, we can see how Mother Gothel manipulates Rapunzel in the relationship, but Rapunzel just sees it as love and care from her 'mother.'

In reality, Mother Gothel is not her mother at all and is using her for selfish means.  There's one moment, closer to the end of the movie, when Rapunzel finally realizes the truth.  One clue leads to everything unraveling.  What is that one clue?  Rapunzel and the lost princess share the same birthday.  Rapunzel combines that clue with everything else she saw when she escaped isolation (the symbol of the kingdom, the picture of the little princess), and the truth is revealed!

Now back to the WMSCOG.  If none of the other common reasons convince you, then please follow these clues, provable facts, to show you where the so-called 'truth' of the WMSCOG starts unraveling.  Thankfully there are many clues to find, not just one, and I'll list some for you here.

These are all matters of fact and logic and cannot be debated.  (1+1 = 2; can you debate that it doesn't?)  Well, if you'd like to try to debate these facts, go ahead, and I look forward to hearing from you about it.

The WMSCOG teaches that God lies

What do you call a 'God' who acts contrary to the nature of God?  A false god.  (Click here for more information.)

Isaac -- The WMSCOG teaches that Abraham's son Isaac was God in the flesh.  However, Isaac lied (Genesis 26).  God does NOT lie (Titus 1:2).

Ahnsahnghong's own book -- In the book "Problems with New Jerusalem, the Bride, and Women's Veils," Ahnsahnghong said that there was NO 'Mother God' and and specifically argued against the same verses the WMSCOG used today to try to prove there is.  The WMSCOG's position is that Ahnsahnghong wrote the book to prevent his followers from believing in the wrong woman as 'Mother God,' and then withdrew the book so he could reveal the right woman.  There are only two conclusions I can draw from this, neither of which is good for the WMSCOG.  Either:

Ahnsahnghong told the truth in his book, and there is no 'Mother God' (which disproves the WMSCOG) or...
Ahnsahnghong lied in his book, which proves he cannot be God (which also disproves the WMSCOG).

The WMSCOG uses false historical facts

I have been told that these are not actually false facts, but simplifications to avoid lengthy discussions of complicated history.  I understand the need to simplify, but even simplifications can (and should) be accurate.  Build doctrine on false simplifications, and you end up with false doctrine.

The 10 Kingdoms -- As part of the Pope-is-Antichrist doctrine, the WMSCOG teaches that the Roman Empire broke up into 10 countries, 3 of which were destroyed by the Catholic Church by 538.  The supposed 10 kingdoms are not accurate, 5 (not 3) were destroyed, and the kingdoms' religious faith was not a consistent factor.  (Click here and here for more information.)

The year 538 -- Again as part of the Pope-is-Antichrist doctrine, the WMSCOG teaches that the last of the three kingdoms to fall was the Ostrogoths, destroyed in AD 538, which began the prophesied 1260 years of the 'Dark Ages.'  However, the Ostrogoths were destroyed must later than 538, and there is no significance of the year 538 in Papal history either.  (Click here and here for more information.)

The WMSCOG has kept the Feasts incorrectly 
(even according to their own regulations!)

This is an obvious clue for me!  If you are uncertain or confused about it, please click on the link provided for more details.

The Feasts of the seventh month -- According to the WMSCOG, keeping the Feasts of God properly is absolutely essential to your salvation.  The Feast of Trumpets, Day of Atonement, and Feast of Tabernacles must take place on the specified days in the seventh month of the 'sacred calendar.'

But if you examine what has actually been done at the WMSCOG, you'll find that in 2005, 2008, and 2010, the seventh month Feasts were kept in the eighth month.  (Click here for the detailed chart.)  The only word I can think of to describe that is incompetence, and that is definitely not a word to describe God (or a church that claims to be lead by a God-in-the-flesh).

If you are a WMSCOG member, I pray that you will follow these clues to find true freedom in the real Jesus Christ.

Christmas -- Responding to WMSCOG comments

I'm back again, still trying to catch up with the many comments posted recently by World Mission Society Church of God members.  Just a reminder, if you would like to have a conversation, you are welcome to email me directly (knowhispeace@gmail.com) or join the forum here.

I have not changed or removed anything in these comments.

On July 31 at 10:40 pm, Anonymous posted on "Mother God -- Responding to WMSCOG comments" in response to my comment --

Genny wrote: Hi again. I assume you are the same person who wrote to ask if I celebrate Christmas and Easter. I think I did not make myself clear. I said nothing about December 25 because that date itself has minimal significance to me. I know full well (as should all Christians) that we do not know the exact date of Jesus' birth.

Anonymous wrote: Genny, so you acknowledged that Dec 25 is not the birthday of Jesus Christ then, and you are making yourself clear that this date has a minimal significance to you, meaning there is still a remaining significance to you so as to say.  

Yes, there is still a remaining significance to me.  If you were going to choose a time of year to celebrate the birth of Jesus, the time of the winter solstice would be meaningful.  The nights get longer and longer, and just when you might lose hope that darkness will win, the season turns.  Daytime begins to lengthen again.  The light triumphs, if you will.

Jesus is the light of the world, and He has triumphed over darkness -- John 8:12 and 12:46; Matthew 4:16.

This was not from a WMSCOG member, but it fits right in with this topic...

On August 6 at 10:47 am, James posted on "Mother God -- Responding to WMSCOG comments" --

The sad thing in all of this is that there is absolutely NO evidence, historically speaking, that December 25 was a pagan holiday before it was a Christian one. This is a bit of sloppy scholarship and old wives tales conflated over the generations.

At most, the Romans had two sun cults. The original, dating back to the centuries before Christ, Sol Indiges, had a feast on December 11 - NOT December 25. The other sun cult was the cult of Sol Invictus, which was actually the importation of Syrian Mythraism into Roman society by the Emperor Aurelian in the late third century AD. December 25 has never been specifically identified as a holiday for Sol Invictus, and the earliest records of a late December celebration of Sol Invictus are no older than the fourth century AD (mid 300's).

So, there's no evidence that there was a holiday for the sun in late December until long after Christ.

What we do have in some evidence, however, is that some Christian groups were celebrating the Nativity in the early to mid-200's. What we also have is the simple reality that December 25 was calculated by the early church by adding 9 months to March 25 - the Annunciation. And March 25 is calculated from Luke's statement in the first chapter of his Gospel that Gabriel came to Mary in "the sixth month" - which in the calendar he most likely observed introduced by Alexander the Great, translates to late March to early April by our Gregorian calendar.

None of this is to say that December 25 is exactly right. It could be off by days, weeks, or months. What's important is that there is no evidence from antiquity that the early church derived its holidays from the pagan calendar.  

Thanks, James.  That was really interesting.  Here is another comment about Christmas...

On July 31 at 10:48 pm, Anonymous posted on "Mother God -- Responding to WMSCOG comments" --

Genny wrote: I happily remember the birth of Jesus all year long. Yes, I sing Christmas hymns with my children even in the summer. I especially celebrate Jesus' birth in December because that's when the world puts a focus on it, and it's especially nice to celebrate in unison.

Anonymous wrote: On this, you clearly remember the birth of Jesus by singing Christmas songs and you believe that celebrating the birth of Jesus with everybody in the whole world because this is the day when the whole world puts their focus on it and it is very nice to celebrate in unison with them. Although you do not know what day is the birthday of Jesus, you simply mean that you can celebrate the birthday of Jesus any day of the year as you want to. So ,do you also mean you can celebrate the birthday of Jesus Christ many times a year as you want too? 

 and (a few minutes later at 10:52 pm) --

Genny wrote: As for the day, though, if you are talking about specific gatherings such as with my family or church, I can honestly say that I celebrate at least 5 or 6 different days. You see, it is the reason for the celebration, not the date of Dec. 25, that is important to me.

Anonymous wrote: So, you acknowledged that you celebrate the birthday of Jesus even 5 or 6x in different days because it is not the date that is important to you but the reason for the celebration. You also know very well that you follow your own thoughts in doing this! 

You believe that it is wrong to celebrate Jesus birth on a date that is not His actual birthday, and that we shouldn't just choose any date.  You also believe it is wrong of me to celebrate Jesus birth on many different days.  Do I understand your objections correctly?

Reflect on this... do you have children?  When do you celebrate their birthdays?  How about the rest of the people in your family?  How about your own birthday?  Do you ever celebrate on a day that is not the actual birthday?

Among my family and friends, we often have birthday celebrations that do not fall on the actual birthday of the person being honored.  This year, my son celebrated his birthday on three different days -- once with friends, and twice with two different parts of the family.  Are you saying that is wrong?  If I can't celebrate my child's birthday with family and friends on his actual birthday, am I prohibited from choosing a different day for us to celebrate in unison?  Would you like to give me a verse from the Bible that forbids my doing this?

I happily remember my children's birthdays all year round too, because I am so thankful to have them a part of my life.  I will gladly tell them stories about their births any time they ask, without making them wait until their actual birthday.  When I hear a particular song or see a particular picture or just have a passing thought about their births, I will praise God once again for the blessings He gave me.  I won't put the thoughts aside simply because it's "not the right day."  It is the same when I think about the birth of Jesus.  You would say this is wrong?

On July 31 at 11:42 pm, Anonymous posted on "Mother God -- Responding to WMSCOG comments" --

Genny, Is this too much for you answer? I understand how you feel! But I will listen to what you say and make a beneficial decision out of it. When you are ready to post all of my comments!! 

No, it's not too much for me to answer.  I'm just limited on time, and working through all the comments as I am able.  If you would put a name on your comments, it would make it easier to know which are yours, and which are from someone else.  You don't have to leave an email address with your name, and I don't mind if you choose a pseudonym.

I hope you'll be back.  There are still many more comments to go.