Ahnsahnghong, in his book “Problem’s With The New Jerusalem, The Bride And Women’s Veils” clearly and directly displayed that he did not believe in the existence of a “mother god.” He wrote this book to refute a woman named “Um Sooin,” who had begun to make assertions that she was a female deity (mother god). In this book Ahnsahnghong gave his interpretations of passages from Revelation 21, 22 and Galatians 4, which were being used by Um Sooin to purport her false views. These passages of scripture are foundational to the WMSCOG doctrine of mother god and stand as some of their most commonly used passages to support this doctrine. The problem for the WMSCOG arises from the fact that Ahnsahnghong’s interpretation and views of these passages do not at all line up with theirs but rather his views contradict and oppose them.
A commonly used argument by the WMCOG to defend against Ahnsahnghong’s book is to appeal to the event in Matthew 16:23 where Jesus calls Peter “Satan.” They argue that since we don’t insist today on Jesus’ words that Peter is actually Satan, then in the same way we shouldn’t insist today on Ahnsahnghong’s words that mother god does not exist. If you have even a basic understanding of philosophical reasoning and logical argumentation then there is a good chance you are appalled at the lack of logic in this argument.
This argument of the WMSCOG is a faulty comparison or a “false analogy,” and it represents a common tendency of the WMSCOG to resort to fallacious and illogical forms of arguing to defend their doctrines.
The fact that the WMSCOG uses the event between Jesus and Peter in Matthew 16 as a defense of Ahnsahonghong’s book displays an ignorance about what was actually taking place in this exchange between Jesus and Peter. It is a faulty analogy to compare Jesus calling Peter Satan to Ahnsahonghong’s refutation of mother god. The two situations are absolutely different and to compare them in the way the WMSCOG does is to grossly misrepresent the text of Matthew 16:23 as well as to misunderstand the purpose of Ahnsahnghong’s writings.
WHY MATTHEW 16:23 IS INCOMPARABLY DIFFERENT THAN AHNSAHNGHONG’S BOOK
In Matthew 16:23 Jesus was not making a theological argument about Peter “actually” being Satan. He was simply recognizing that Peter’s mind in that moment was set on the “things of the men” and not the “things of God”, and therefore in that moment Peter was in a sense serving as Satan’s mouthpiece to distract Jesus from his mission. Jesus recognized that Peter’s words were in opposition to God’s will and so he rejected Peter’s words as if they had come from the mouth of Satan himself. Although in that moment Jesus called Peter Satan, he was not making a theological assertion that Peter was “literally” Satan. This should be obvious to anyone who simply reads through the text of Matthew 16:23 and examines it honestly.
In contrast, when we examine Ahnsahnghong’s book and the arguments he presents, it is clear he was making “theological” assertions and presenting “doctrinal” positions. This is absolutely different than what Jesus was doing in Matthew 16. Um Sooin was using texts like Revelation 22 and Galatians 4 and interpreting them as teaching the existence of a female deity of God and was then subsequently applying them to herself. Ahnsahnghong specifically addressed these texts and made clear that in his view they did not reveal a teaching about a female deity. The WMSCOG may commonly use passages like Galatians 4:22-26 and Revelation 21:1-4 to prove the existence of mother god, but in doing so, they display that their views of these scriptures stand in direct opposition to the views of Ahnsahnghong.
WHAT WOULD AN “ACTUAL” COMPARISON LOOK LIKE
Now I want to show you what an actual legitimate and logical argument for the WMSCOG would need to look like in order to have any credibility.
Let’s say that during this moment in Matthew 16:23, Jesus had taken out the scriptures and began to examine all of the commonly used passages that Christians use to prove the existence of Satan. What if Jesus had taken the scriptures from Genesis 2-3 and Job 1-3, where Satan is directly referred to, and he began to refute the commonly held view that Satan is a literal being who exists? What if Jesus argued that the passages about Satan in the books of Genesis and Job actually did not teach that Satan literally exists, but instead they teach something entirely different? If that was the case, then this would stand as a legitimate correlation between what Ahnsahnghong did in his book when he refuted the existence of mother god.
Now, let’s say that after Jesus had made his case (that the commonly used passages from Genesis and Job do not actually teach the existence of Satan) he later on began to teach that Satan does actually exist and then the apostles began to use the passages from Genesis and Job to prove Satan’s existence. If this had happened, then this would stand as very good analogy or comparison for the WMSCOG to use in defense of their views about Ahnsahnghong and his book.
However, the situation described above did not happen and was simply presented to display the difference between “logically sound” argumentation and the “fallacious argumentation” of the WMSCOG.
CONCLUSION
When we examine the WMSCOG’s usage of Matthew 16 as a defense of Ahnsahngong’s book, it becomes clear that this defense simply does not work. Ahnsahnghong’s book still stands as a significant problem to the WMSCOG doctrine of mother god and further solidifies the mounting evidence against them that they are a dangerous cult.
