Heavenly Mother - Conversation with Paul

In my post about Galatians 4:26, "Paul Francis" wanted to discuss the meaning of "Jerusalem."  (It's an important question for the World Mission Society Church of God, or WMSCOG.)  For ease of discussion, and so others can follow along, we'll continue that conversation here in the comment section (similar to my previous conversation with Cyrus).

Because this is specifically a conversation with Paul, to avoid confusion and complication, I respectfully request that anyone else refrain from adding questions and comments here.  You are welcome to email me, though, and I will save your responses for a later post (similar to the responses to Cyrus).

Ok, Paul.  First of all, some guidelines for us both:

• Each comment should be made in two parts, a response to the previous point and the raising of a question.
• Response -- We should respond to the question that was last put forth, keeping in mind the purpose of explaining and encouraging understanding and not simply fighting.  Also, please avoid using phrases such as "You don't understand because you are not one of God's chosen" (more examples here).  We can also respond to the previous response, as long as it doesn't include an additional question that needs an answer.
• Question -- We should ask a question, either to further pursue the issue, or raise a different point.  For the ease of following the conversation, please limit the question to one point.  Do not ask a question related to your response and ask a new question as well.  Though it is understandable to ask a couple questions if they are all very closely related.
• If we think the other's response is incomplete, inadequate, or needs to be clarified, first we should answer their question (give our response), then our question should concern the previous response.  In other words, don't avoid their question in order to focus on their response.  In this way, we should never be talking about more than two topics at once.
• Timeliness is nice, but life is busy.  A delay in answering should not be taken negatively or cause concern, unless there has been silence for more than two weeks.

I hope that is all clear.  Thank you for your cooperation, and now let's get started.  First I'll recap the last part of conversation on the Galatians 4:26 page:

Paul:  
Yes it is highly figurative. The apostle when it came to explain the new covenant did not mention Sarah or new law but just mentioned about the heavenly Jerusalem. To get a better understanding about the heavenly Jerusalem we must find related verses in the bible and read them together to understand and not in parts.

Genny:
He didn't say much about it probably because this passage was focused on showing how we are free from slavery to the law, and not focused on the "heavenly Jerusalem."

If you were wanting a "better understanding about the heavenly Jerusalem" as you say, I would not start with this verse at all. I would look first (and mainly) at Heb. 12:22-24 and Rev. 21.

Paul:
Understanding the heavenly Jerusalem properly does include the verse Gal 4:26. And the apostle did focus a lot and thereby described Jerusalem as our Mother.

And now I'll take the first turn here in the response/question format:

Genny:
If you read the whole passage (Galatians 4:21-31), there are 10 verses.  Only two of them mention Jerusalem.  Six of them directly mention Sarah and/or Hagar (two more if you count verses 26-27).  Five of them directly mention the sons Isaac and/or Ishmael (who was not named, but we know who he was).  Therefore, I would say his metaphors were focused on the women and the sons, not on Jerusalem.  That's why, if you were wondering about a "heavenly Jerusalem" I would not start with those verses.

My question for you... You had asked me before what I thought of when I heard the word "Jerusalem."  You agreed with my response that it was a city.  When you think of Jerusalem the city, what specifically do you think of?  Do you include all the people (inhabitants) in that thought picture, just see the buildings (like empty shells), or maybe just the physical location (as a dot on the map), or...?

Now it's your turn.  Please remember the two parts, response and question.

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.

The Power of God -- Responding to WMSCOG comments

I'm here today to address  a couple more of the comments from World Mission Society Church of God member(s) that have come through in the last several days.  Again, I'll copy the comments exactly as they were written, without adding, removing, or editing anything

On July 28 at 5:55 am, Anonymous posted on "Mother God -- Responding to WMSCOG comments" --

You quoted: ROM 6:9 - Christ cannot die again. Ahnsahnghong is dead.
Who is Christ to you? Isn't He God Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth? In the first place, does God need the flesh to wear? What is the flesh to God. God has no limitations. He can do whatever God wants to do. The flesh, he used in the body of Jesus Christ God does not need. But He used it during His 1st Coming because God CAN. It does not mean that He cannot use any other flesh, it is because GOD CAN!I believe you do not understand the POWER of GOD> 

 On July 29 at 6:34 pm, Anonymous posted on "The name of Jesus," in response to bigcedbeatz's comment --

Bigcedbiatz, You are foolish because of your little faith. Does God needs the flesh? NO!! When God made the heavens and the earth, He was in Spirit. He needs no flesh at all. But it does not mean that he will not use the flesh for his purpose. Do you know why? It is because God CAN! If God plans it, He will do it, and He CAN!!The flesh He used in the body of Jesus Christ is only a flesh. He used it for His purpose and left it. Will God forever use that same flesh again? God will do whatever He plans to do and nobody can stop God in fulfilling HIS plan! If He wants to reveal himself again in the flesh as an American, Russian, African, HE can do it because HE CAN!!!! Why do you question the power of GOD????? Foolish Christian!! 

Your basic point seems to be that it is within God's power to appear (be born) in the flesh again if He wanted to, and in any physical appearance.  You think I do not understand or believe in the power of God to do such a thing.

Yes, I do believe in the great power of God.  I believe He is able to do things that I can't even imagine.  But there are somethings that God will NOT do -- He will not do anything that is contrary to His character, His nature.  He will not lie.  He will not be unjust.  He will not contradict Himself.  (Here is a more detailed summary of what God cannot do.)

God said that He would not die again (Romans 6:9).  God said, multiple times, that there is only one God (see those verses here, here, and here.)  Did God lie when He said those things?

The WMSCOG teaches that Isaac was also God in the flesh.  Yet Isaac lied (Genesis 26), and Isaac was deceived (Genesis 27).

The Bible says God will not lie (Titus 1:2), and that He cannot be deceived by anyone (Hebrews 4:13).  The WMSCOG teaches that God lies and can be deceived.

Are you saying that God is so "powerful" that He can act contrary to His nature?

What do you call a "God" who acts contrary to God's unchanging nature?  A false god!

Who was Isaac really?

The more I learn of the WMSCOG's interpretations of the Bible, the more I see how deep the differences are compared to mainstream Christianity.  I just finished reading (again) Ahnsahnghong's book, The Mystery of God and the Spring of the Water of Life.

Noticed what he said on page 171 (Chapter 12), regarding Genesis 18:14, in which the Lord appeared to Abraham:

Then Abraham made some bread and took a tender calf, and he brought some curds and milk and the calf which he had prepared, and set them before God, who ate and said: "I will surely return to you about this time next year, and Sarah your wife will have a son" (Gen. 18:10).  By these words God meant that He would be born as Isaac.  [emphasis mine]

And then on page 185 (Chapter 12), regarding Genesis 18:1-10, Galatians 3:16, and John 8:56, he says:

The above passages show that Abraham, who firmly believed in God's promise that He would return to him at the appointed time and be born as his [Abraham's] son through the body of Sarah, rejoiced at the thought of seeing the birth of Isaac, and he saw it and was glad.  [emphasis mine]

So we see that Ahnsahnghong believed that Isaac was God born in the flesh through Sarah.

Now think about this... How could it be possible for Isaac to be God incarnate?

Isaac was afraid and lied, saying Rebekah was his sister instead of his wife (Genesis 26).
Isaac was deceived by his son Jacob (Genesis 27--see how distressed he is at being tricked in verse 33). 

Is God ever afraid?  Does God ever lie?  Can anyone deceive God?  No.

When God said that He would return in a year and Sarah would have a son, He did not mean that He (God) would be that son.

Jesus said, in John 8:56, "Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad."  He did not mean "my day" was "the day of Isaac's birth."  

Jesus meant that Abraham rejoiced at the thought of God's promise being fulfilled, that all people on earth would be blessed through him (Gen. 12:2-3).  "My day" refers to the time of Jesus, for all people on earth are blessed because of Him.

Ahnsahnghong was mistaken.  Isaac was not God.
God does not make mistakes.  Ahnsahnghong was not God either.

Galatians 4:26 -- Part 5

Well, I hope my internet browser is going to work today long enough to get this posted.  Now where were we?....  Ah, yes...

Galatians 4:26  "But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother."
So we've seen already some of the WMSCOG's misinterpretations regarding how Abraham repsresents God and how Isaac was chosen as heir.  The WMSCOG then goes on to explain how since Isaac was born from the free mother, so must we become a child of the "Heavenly Mother Jerusalem" (aka "Mother God") so that we can have the inheritance of eternal life.

But what is the message Paul really has for us in this verse?
I suggested it earlier, but if you haven't already read the book of Galatians, go ahead and read it, the whole thing.  It's not that long.  Then focus in again on the passage in question, chapter 4, verses 21-31.

First of all, Paul says in verse 24, "These things are to be taken figuratively...."  That means he's speaking in symbolism and allegory.  He's already warned us not to take the example literally--it's a metaphor.  "The women represent two covenants."  He tells us directly that he's going to use this metaphor to compare two covenants.

"One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children who are to be slaves: This is Hagar.  Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present city of Jerusalem, because she is in slavery with her children." (Gal. 4:24-25) 

He is using Hagar and the present city of Jerusalem to represent the Law, the covenant with Moses.  Those who trust that following the law will save them are slaves to that law.

Ishmael was born to the slave woman, Hagar.  Abraham and Sarah knew God had promised them a son, but it wasn't happening.  So they used their own efforts to make it happen, through Hagar.  There was nothing special about Ishmael's birth.  It's not unusual for elderly men to father children.

Those who trust in following the law, are also trusting in their own efforts to save them, just like Abraham and Sarah, through Hagar, used their own efforts to get a son.  But Ishmael was not the son that God had promised them...

But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother....  Now you, brothers and sisters, like Isaac, are children of promise....  Therefore, brothers and sisters, we are not children of the slave woman, but of the free woman. (Gal. 4:26, 28, 31)

Sarah was the free woman, and Isaac, her son, was not born in the ordinary way.  Sarah was 90 years old when Isaac was born.  How can a 90 year old woman become pregnant and bear a son?  Only by a miracle of God.  When God promised them a son, it was Isaac he had in mind.  Isaac was born to fulfill that promise, and it was Isaac, not Ishmael, who became the heir of God's special covenant. (Gen. 17:19-21)

The descendants born to Abraham through Isaac were children of that promise.  By our faith, we Christians are considered the "spiritual seed" of Abraham, and we are heirs and children of God's promise too. (Gal. 3:26-29)

But what does Scripture say? “Get rid of the slave woman and her son, for the slave woman’s son will never share in the inheritance with the free woman’s son.” (Gal. 4:30)

The one who strives to accomplish salvation through their own efforts by following the law ("the slave woman's son") will not be able to share the inheritance of God that is only available to the one who has accepted God's gracious gift of salvation, by faith and not because of their own efforts ("the free woman's son").

Hagar and the "present city of Jerusalem" stand for the Jewish church at the time, which relied on following the law (think of the Pharisees), and likewise for all the current churches which teach that salvation must be earned by following the law.

Sarah and the "Jerusalem that is above" stand for the true church (not talking denomination here, but the general body of believers), which is in a state of freedom (see also Col. 2:14).

This fits with the theme of the book of Galatians.  By faith we are set free from slavery to the law.

It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery. (Gal. 5:1)

Galatians 4:26 -- Part 4

Still working on...
Galatians 4:26  But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother.

I'll be quoting again from the WMSCOG page about "Heavenly Mother."

They say that "through the history of Abraham's family, God has revealed to us how we can inherit the kingdom of heaven."  And that the "reason why Isaac was chosen as Abraham's heir was that Isaac was the son of Sarah, who was free.  This history shows us that the heavenly inheritance will be given to those who are born of the heavenly Mother, who is free."

I've already examnined how Abraham represents himself (not God), and how God established His covenant with Isaac because he was the promised child, born miraculously to Abraham and Sarah.

The WMSCOG says that God chose Isaac to become God's heir because his mother (Sarah) was a free woman, not a slave.  They say that Eliezer was a servant, so both his parents were slaves, thereby disqualifying him to be Abraham's heir.  And Ishmael's mother (Hagar) was also a slave, and "this is why God could not allow Ishmael to become Abraham's heir," even though his father (Abraham) was free.  They say that "the key factor in deciding an heir is 'Mother.'"

Is it true that the status of a child's mother (slave or free) determined whether or not that child could become an heir?  Let's think about this now...

Was Eliezer disqualified as an heir because his mother was a slave?  No, Abraham said, "You have given me no children; so a servant in my household will be my heir.” (Gen. 15:3)
Eliezer would have been Abraham's heir if Abraham had no children of his own when he died, despite the status of his mother.  (By the way, it's interesting to wonder why Abraham didn't mention his nephew Lot as his heir.  Makes me wonder exactly who Eliezer was to Abraham....)

How about Ishmael?  Was he disqualified because his mother was a slave?  God's special covenant was not passed to Ishmael, that's true, but God did promise to bless him and make him into a great nation.  (Gen. 17:20).

What about when Sarah said to Abraham, "Get rid of that slave woman and her son, for that woman’s son will never share in the inheritance with my son Isaac.”  (Gen. 21:10)  Can you understand Sarah's animosity toward Ishmael?  Ever since she offered her maidservant to her husband she had regretted it and had problems getting along with Hagar.  Finally she had a son of her own, and she "saw that the son whom Hagar the Egyptian had borne to Abraham was mocking." (Gen. 21:9)  It is no wonder she wanted him gone.

If you read further in Genesis 21, you see that God told Abraham not to worry about Ishmael.  Even though Ishmael would not receive Abraham's earthly inheritance or be a part of the covenant God made with Abraham, He told Abraham He would still "make the son of the slave into a nation also, because he is your offspring.” (Gen. 21:13)

Another question is... Are there other cases in the Bible that would show us if a mother's status (slave or free) did indeed influence someone's inheritance?

There are three that come to mind.
#1 -- After Sarah died, Abraham married again, a woman named Keturah, and she bore him sons.  (Gen. 25:1-2)  We don't know anything about Keturah, but it's likely that she was not a slave, isn't it?  Yet, "Abraham left everything he owned to Isaac." (Gen. 25:5)  But with Ishmael gone, Isaac was the firstborn son, with all the privileges associated with that birthright.

#2 -- Isaac married Rebekah and had twin sons, Esau and Jacob.  Esau and Jacob had the same mother, a free woman, and yet Jacob (the second born) got the birthright and the blessing of the firstborn instead of his brother.  (Gen. 25:19-34 and chapter 27)  There wasn't even a blessing left for Esau. (Gen. 27:38-40)  At least Ishmael got a blessing.

#3 -- The 12 sons of Jacob came from 4 different women.  (Gen. 29:31-35; 30:1-24 and 35:16-18)  Leah and Rachel, his two wives were free women, and they gave him 6 and 2 sons respectively.  Rachel's servant Bilhah bore Jacob 2 sons, and Leah's servant Zilpah also bore Jacob 2 sons.  The mothers of those 4 sons were slaves.  Were they excluded from the inheritance of their father, Jacob?  NO.  God blessed ALL 12 sons of Jacob and grew them into the 12 tribes of Israel.

So the WMSCOG's logic chain to interpret Galatians 4:26 is flawed.  Next time we can examine what that passage from Galatians really means.

Click here to go on to Part 5.

Galatians 4:26 -- Part 3

Galatians 4:26  But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother.

So to prove that this verse is speaking about a "Mother God," the WMSCOG first tries to show (through the parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man) that Abraham represents God in the Bible.  But we've just seen that Abraham in fact represents...himself, the physical father of the Jewish nation.  But let's get past that, just for the sake of argument, and see if the rest of their interpretation makes sense...

Their next step is to show that Isaac, the son God promised to Abraham, was Abraham's heir.

Yes, that is true, though not quite through the way the WMSCOG explains on their webpage about the "Heavenly Mother."  The quotes I use from the WMSCOG in this post are from there.

They compare three people who could have possibly been Abraham's heir.  The first is Eliezer, Abraham's servant.  Here's Genesis 15:2-4...
But Abram said, “Sovereign LORD, what can you give me since I remain childless and the one who will inherit my estate is Eliezer of Damascus?”  And Abram said, “You have given me no children; so a servant in my household will be my heir.”  Then the word of the LORD came to him: “This man will not be your heir, but a son who is your own flesh and blood will be your heir.”

The WMSCOG says, "When Abraham was an old man and had not yet borne a son, he asked God to allow his servant Eliezer to be his heir."
 
If you read what Abraham said, you'll see that he was NOT asking God to let Eliezer be his heir.  In Genesis 15:1 (ESV), God tells Abraham, ""Fear not, Abram, I am your shield; your reward shall be very great."
 
Abraham remembers God's promise to him from Genesis 12 that God would make him into a great nation and give his offspring the land of Canaan.  Abraham does not want Eliezer to become his heir.  He wants God to fulfill His promise.  "What can you give me since I remain childless?" he asks.  No "reward" would mean as much to him as having a child of his own.
 
The next possibility is Ishmael, the son born to Abraham through Hagar, Sarah's maidservant.
Genesis 16:1-2  Now Sarai, Abram’s wife, had borne him no children. But she had an Egyptian slave named Hagar; so she said to Abram, “The LORD has kept me from having children. Go, sleep with my slave; perhaps I can build a family through her.”  Abram agreed to what Sarai said.

God had promised Abraham a son (Gen. 15:4), but his wife was not able to give him any children, and they were getting old.  So Sarah and Abraham think perhaps this promised son is going to come from another woman, and they try out their idea.  Finally Abraham (at 86 years old) has a son, Ishmael.  Can you imagine the joy Abraham felt, even though this son was not from Sarah?

The WMSCOG says, "When Abraham said to God, 'If only Ishmael might live under your blessing,' God did not allow Ishmael to become his heir.  Instead, God promised Abraham that he would have a son through his wife, Sarah."

God did speak to Abraham again when he was 99 years old in Genesis 16.  He DID promise Abraham that Sarah would give him a son, and that it would be through this son, Isaac, that God would establish His covenant to make him into a great nation.
But can you imagine Abraham's thoughts about Ishmael, his first and long-awaited child?  Ishmael (about 13 years old by now) would have been special to Abraham, and so Abraham would have hoped God had a special blessing for Ishmael.

Did God refuse to make Ishmael Abraham's heir?  God did say that it would be through Isaac that Abraham's covenant would be fulfilled, but what happened to Ishmael?  Was he kicked to the side?

No, God said, "And as for Ishmael, I have heard you: I will surely bless him; I will make him fruitful and will greatly increase his numbers. He will be the father of twelve rulers, and I will make him into a great nation." (Gen. 17:20)

God heard Abraham's request for Ishmael and blessed him!

So, yes, Isaac was the heir of the covenant promised to Abraham.  He was the son God promised to Abraham--born by a miracle of God, and not through the ordinary way.  But it's not quite the way the WMSCOG tries to explain it.

Click here to go on to Part 4.