William Branham

[Richard Amiel McGough]

By the preeminent preachers I do mean the seven angels to the seven church ages of the gentiles, which is one of the mysteries of God. Another mystery is of who God is, the mystery of Godliness or of the Godhead. Let me add another verse concerning the importance of revelation afterwhich which I will give my understanding of the seven church ages.
So you are saying that the "Seven Angels" are seven human beings that have been preeminent in Church History, like Paul, and Peter, and James and John? If so, do you have an opinion about the historical identity of each messenger?

At this point, God stopped dealing with the Jews and started to deal with the gentiles. A dispensation of the gospel was given unto Paul (1Co 9:17), but was only the first of many dispensations.I think the idea that God started and stopped "dealing" with the Gentiles and Jews to be a poor way to characterize the story of the Bible. The Jewish age ended when Christ fulfilled Daniel 9 when He brought in everlasting righteousness through His death on the cross, and so ended the sacrifices and ultimately used the Romans to destroy the Temple and disperse the Jews from Israel. The real problem with the "starting" and "stopping" language is that it is based on the persistent error that believes there is still a distinction between "Jew and Gentile." There is not.

After the gentile ages are fulfilled, God will again turn to the Jews.

This has really gotten far from the original thread, but that just shows the deep integration of all theological topics. It seems to me there is only one verse that can be made to suggest the idea that God is going to "start" dealing with the Jews "again" after the fulness of the Gentiles comes in. And if that is true, then we can not build a doctrine on it - especially one as fundamental as this huge story of dispensation deaings with separate groups of people - because it would violate the fundamental principle of two or three witnesses.

Paul, the angel to the first church age, Ephesus, sets the pattern for the other angels.

Geoffrey
Who are the other six? And how do you know?

Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hi Richard.

Yes. Even today we have apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers, which God have placed in the church to build her up through the seven church ages.
That's interesting. Who are a few of the folks you think are "Apostles" today?

The fivefold ministry is given (verse 13) till we come to the measure of the stature of of the fullness of Christ, which will be when the fullness of the Gentiles have come in (Rom 11:25).

Geoffrey
You emphasis on the word "till" is important, but you misapplied it. God gave Apostles and Prophets to lay the foundation so that the evangelists, pastors, and teachers can build up the body of Christ. But since the foundation was finished, there can be no more Apostles or Prophets. Their time passed long ago.

Richard

[Geoffrey]

So you are saying that the "Seven Angels" are seven human beings that have been preeminent in Church History, like Paul, and Peter, and James and John? If so, do you have an opinion about the historical identity of each messenger?
Who are the other six? And how do you know?

The duration of the church ages are found by a study of history and the messengers by comparison with Paul. The messengers in each age who came closest to Paul are the messengers for their respective ages.

The church ages have a 4-3 division. The message started powerfully with Paul, but faded and finally died after the fourth age. Then God started its restoration in the fifth age and brought it back to its former glory in the seventh. That is why God said: "I am Alpha and Omega, the First and the Last."

Paul - Ephesus - 53 to 170 AD
Irenaeus - Smyrna - 170 to 312 AD
Saint Martin - Pergamos - 312 to 606 AD
Coulomba - Thyatira - 606 to 1520 AD
Martin Luther - Sardis - 1520 to 1750 AD
John Wesley - Philadelphia - 1750 to 1906
William Marrion Branham (1909 - 1965) - Laodicea - 1906 to present dayI hesitated to give my opinion of the identity of the seventh messenger, because it is in recent history and I might be seen as promoting a man. Normally what God is doing presently is rejected out of hand without due consideration.

Let us see how the description of the church of Philadelphia match history.



Revelation 3:7-8 And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write; These things saith he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth; (8) I know thy works: behold, I have set before thee an open door, and no man can shut it: for thou hast a little strength, and hast kept my word, and hast not denied my name.


The open door in verse 8 refers to missionary work as Paul mentioned in:



Colossians 4:3 Withal praying also for us, that God would open unto us a door of utterance, to speak the mystery of Christ, for which I am also in bonds:


And in:



2 Corinthians 2:12 Furthermore, when I came to Troas to preach Christ's gospel, and a door was opened unto me of the Lord,


This lines up the great missionary work of John Wesley's era.

Geoffrey

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Paul - Ephesus - 53 to 170 AD
Irenaeus - Smyrna - 170 to 312 AD
Saint Martin - Pergamos - 312 to 606 AD
Coulomba - Thyatira - 606 to 1520 AD
Martin Luther - Sardis - 1520 to 1750 AD
John Wesley - Philadelphia - 1750 to 1906
William Marrion Branham (1909 - 1965) - Laodicea - 1906 to present dayGeoffrey

Thanks Geoffrey! A clear and explicit answer really helps the conversation move along.

Now I have a very important question. I don't understand how those seven men could all be "angels" or "messengers" of the same God, since the first six explicitly confessed their orthodox belief in the Doctrine of Trinity, whereas the "seventh angel" explicitly denied the Doctrine of the Trinity and even called it a "doctrine of demons." Here is a link to a site that lists many quotes in which he denies the Trinity: http://www.letusreason.org/Latrain4.htm

Could you explain why the message of the seventh angel so strongly contradicts the message of the previous six? How can they all be speaking for the same God?

Thanks!

Richard

[Geoffrey]

Thanks Geoffrey! A clear and explicit answer really helps the conversation move along.

Now I have a very important question. I don't understand how those seven men could all be "angels" or "messengers" of the same God, since the first six explicitly confessed their orthodox belief in the Doctrine of Trinity, whereas the "seventh angel" explicitly denied the Doctrine of the Trinity and even called it a "doctrine of demons." Here is a link to a site that lists many quotes in which he denies the Trinity: http://www.letusreason.org/Latrain4.htm

Could you explain why the message of the seventh angel so strongly contradicts the message of the previous six? How can they all be speaking for the same God?

Thanks!

Richard

The doctrine of the Godhead is the greatest of all mysteries as everything else hinges on it.

William Branham denied both the Trinity and Oneness doctrines. The vast majority of those who claim to believe his message do not understand it.

The Bible including Paul's epistles does not explicitly state the doctrine of the Trinity, for one because the word trinity does not appear therein, and neither does it teach Oneness, because the Bible states clearly that the Father and the Son are different persons. The doctrine of Christ is that there is one God and He has a Son and the Son is not God. He is the first born among many brethren.


2 John 1:9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.

No mention is made of a third person (Trinity) and the Father and the Son are spoken of as two persons: "both the Father and the Son" (Oneness). Only the Father is God and not the Son who issued from the Father.


1 John 1:1-3 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life; (2) (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and show unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us (3) That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.

So the fellowship is with the Father, the only true God and with his Son. Let us see how Paul opened his epistles.


Romans 1:7 To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.


1 Corinthians 1:3 Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.


2 Corinthians 1:2-3 Grace be to you and peace from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ. (3) Blessed be God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies, and the God of all comfort;


Galatians 1:1-3 Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead (2) And all the brethren which are with me, unto the churches of Galatia: (3) Grace be to you and peace from God the Father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ,

Everytime: Father and Son, Father and Son, Father and Son. God is a Spirit. God is Holy. God is the Holy Spirit and the Father of Jesus.


Matthew 1:20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife; for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.



Luke 1:34-35 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? (35) And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.


The Son of God was conceived of the Holy Spirit. The doctrine of Christ was pure in the first age, but there was a falling away, because some doctrines dissappeared, some were perverted and others were added until at the end of the fourth age, the faith died. Then God restored it in three phases:

Justification by faith through Martin Luther
Sanctification through John Wesley
Restoration of the spiritual gifts through the Pentacostal era and at the end of the Pentacostal era, the correction of all the doctrines or the finishing of the mystery of God through William Branham.The doctrine was only pure at the beginning and at the end of the church ages. That is why God said: "I am Alpha and Omega". There is more to the doctrine, but I might continue later.

Geoffrey

[Richard Amiel McGough]

The doctrine of the Godhead is the greatest of all mysteries as everything else hinges on it.

William Branham denied both the Trinity and Oneness doctrines. The vast majority of those who claim to believe his message do not understand it.
Thanks for clearly stating you beliefs Geoffrey. Again, it is very helpful when folks are upfront about such things.

I would be happy to discuss the doctrine of the Trinity and the various teachings of Branham (which actually would make for two other threads), but first I would like an answer to my initial question if you would be so kind. Let me simplify it to something more specific:

How can Luther and Branham both be "angels" or "messengers" of the One True God if they differed so radically on the Doctrine of the Trinity?

My question has nothing to do with the validity of the Doctrine itself. As I see it, Branham has gored himself on both horns of this dilemma. If the Doctrine of the Trinity as taught by Luther is true, then Branham is a false prophet. But if the Doctrine of the Trinity as taught by Luther is false, then Luther most certainly was not a prophet of God nor one of the "angels" mentioned in Revelation, in which case Branham again is proven to be a false prophet.

Could you clear this up for me?

Thanks!

Richard

[Geoffrey]

Thanks for clearly stating you beliefs Geoffrey. Again, it is very helpful when folks are upfront about such things.

I would be happy to discuss the doctrine of the Trinity and the various teachings of Branham (which actually would make for two other threads), but first I would like an answer to my initial question if you would be so kind. Let me simplify it to something more specific:

How can Luther and Branham both be "angels" or "messengers" of the One True God if they differed so radically on the Doctrine of the Trinity?

Sorry Richard. I thought I had explained it. I will try my best to be more clear. Luther did not receive all of the restored doctrine, but only a part, primarily justification by faith. He did not receive the revelation of the Godhead. Wesley added another part. Pentecost added another part until with William Branham the fullness of the Gentiles has come including the true Godhead doctrine.

The prophet Joel spoke of the falling away in the first four ages.


Joel 1:4 That which the palmerworm hath left hath the locust eaten; and that which the locust hath left hath the cankerworm eaten; and that which the cankerworm hath left hath the caterpillar eaten.

Then he spoke of the restoration.


Joel 2:25 And I will restore to you the years that the locust hath eaten, the cankerworm, and the caterpillar, and the palmerworm, my great army which I sent among you.

Jesus also spoke about the manner of the falling away and of the stages of restoration.


Mark 4:26-29 And he said, So is the kingdom of God, as if a man should cast seed into the ground; (27) And should sleep, and rise night and day, and the seed should spring and grow up, he knoweth not how. (28) For the earth bringeth forth fruit of herself; first the blade, then the ear, after that the full corn in the ear. (29) But when the fruit is brought forth, immediately he putteth in the sickle, because the harvest is come.

When the seed, the Word of God, is in the ground it is in darkness, which means the light of interpretation or revelation is not there. Then when the life in the seed starts to come forth, we do not immediately have seed again but first the blade (Luther), then the ear (Wesley) and then the full corn (Branham), the seed that was in the beginning, the Word that Paul preached.

That is the best I can do for now.

Geoffrey

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Sorry Richard. I thought I had explained it. I will try my best to be more clear. Luther did not receive all of the restored doctrine, but only a part, primarily justification by faith. He did not receive the revelation of the Godhead. Wesley added another part. Pentecost added another part until with William Branham the fullness of the Gentiles has come including the true Godhead doctrine.
Thanks Geoffrey. I appreciate your efforts to answer my questions.

It is interesting that I had anticipated the precise answer you gave.

So if the six angels previous to Branham erred on a doctrine as fundamental as the Trinity, what other doctrines did they get wrong?

Why should I believe anything any of them said? Especially Branham since it sounds like he made up a doctrine that "just happened" to put him at the most elevated position as the "seventh angel" and the "revealer of the final mystery of God." You must admit that it "smells rather fishy" when a fleshly creature elevates himself like that, right? I mean, you and I would be in perfect agreement in our denunciation of all the cult leaders that elevate themselves like Jim Jones or Joseph Smith, right? So what makes Branham different?

Richard

[Geoffrey]

So if the six angels previous to Branham erred on a doctrine as fundamental as the Trinity, what other doctrines did they get wrong?

Hi Richard,

I believe Paul had the complete revelation and that he did not err on the Godhead. If you read the writings of Irenaeus, you will see he did not mention the trinity. I do not know about Saint Martin or Coulomba.


I mean, you and I would be in perfect agreement in our denunciation of all the cult leaders that elevate themselves like Jim Jones or Joseph Smith, right? So what makes Branham different?

The difference lies in vindication by signs and wonders. Tonight I will attach some verses that I have compiled that show the difference between true and false prophets.

Geoffrey

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hi Richard,

I believe Paul had the complete revelation and that he did not err on the Godhead. If you read the writings of Irenaeus, you will see he did not mention the trinity. I do not know about Saint Martin or Coulomba.
Hi Geoffrey,

You are correct (as far as I know) that Irenaeus did not use the term "Trinity" but he did speak of the Divinity of Jesus Christ which implies the Trinity since the Father is not the Son and God is one. I also anticipated that you would challenge the earlier "angels" stance on the Trinity, which is why I focused on Luther since there is no question about his teaching on that topic.


The difference lies in vindication by signs and wonders. Tonight I will attach some verses that I have compiled that show the difference between true and false prophets.

Geoffrey
How then do you discern between lying signs and wonders?


Matthew 24:24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.
God never told us to believe in some man who claims to be a prophet just because he showed some "signs and wonders." NO! We are to test all such claims by the Word of God, not a fleshly flash of smoke and mirrors!


Deuteronomy 18:21-22 And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the LORD hath not spoken? 22 When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him. Though I have not studied Branham's prophecies, a quick internet search brings up a long list of his prophecies that have failed.

I am curious how you came to believe that Branham was prophet. Were you raised in a family that believed in him, or did you come to this faith later in life?

Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions, my friend.

Richard

[Geoffrey]

Here are verses that I put together (in MS Word originally) to show the difference between true and false prophets. I'll post it in three or four parts. This is the first.


Vindication


True Prophets and False Prophets
True Prophets
Miracles and Wonders and Signs
These verses show that signs and wonders are given to confirm the message of a preacher and to establish him as a prophet.

Exodus 4:1-9 And Moses answered and said, But, behold, they will not believe me, nor hearken unto my voice: for they will say, The LORD hath not appeared unto thee. (2) And the LORD said unto him, What is that in thine hand? And he said, A rod. (3) And he said, Cast it on the ground. And he cast it on the ground, and it became a serpent; and Moses fled from before it. (4) And the LORD said unto Moses, Put forth thine hand, and take it by the tail. And he put forth his hand, and caught it, and it became a rod in his hand: (5) That they may believe that the LORD God of their fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath appeared unto thee. (6) And the LORD said furthermore unto him, Put now thine hand into thy bosom. And he put his hand into his bosom: and when he took it out, behold, his hand was leprous as snow. (7) And he said, Put thine hand into thy bosom again. And he put his hand into his bosom again; and plucked it out of his bosom, and, behold, it was turned again as his other flesh. (8) And it shall come to pass, if they will not believe thee, neither hearken to the voice of the first sign, that they will believe the voice of the latter sign. (9) And it shall come to pass, if they will not believe also these two signs, neither hearken unto thy voice, that thou shalt take of the water of the river, and pour it upon the dry land: and the water which thou takest out of the river shall become blood upon the dry land.

God instituted the office of a prophet when the Israelites did not want God to speak to them directly, but through Moses, and said that a prophet will be identified by a sign.

Deuteronomy 18:18-22 I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him. (19) And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him. (20) But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die. (21) And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the LORD hath not spoken? (22) When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.
Jeremiah 28:9 The prophet which prophesieth of peace, when the word of the prophet shall come to pass, then shall the prophet be known, that the LORD hath truly sent him.

Samuel was vindicated to be a prophet, because when he spoke something in God's name, it happened everytime.

1 Samuel 3:19-20 And Samuel grew, and the LORD was with him, and did let none of his words fall to the ground. (20) And all Israel from Dan even to Beer-sheba knew that Samuel was established to be a prophet of the LORD.

God vindicated Elijah by raising the dead by him.

1 Kings 17:17-24 And it came to pass after these things, that the son of the woman, the mistress of the house, fell sick; and his sickness was so sore, that there was no breath left in him. (18) And she said unto Elijah, What have I to do with thee, O thou man of God? art thou come unto me to call my sin to remembrance, and to slay my son? (19) And he said unto her, Give me thy son. And he took him out of her bosom, and carried him up into a loft, where he abode, and laid him upon his own bed. (20) And he cried unto the LORD, and said, O LORD my God, hast thou also brought evil upon the widow with whom I sojourn, by slaying her son? (21) And he stretched himself upon the child three times, and cried unto the LORD, and said, O LORD my God, I pray thee, let this child's soul come into him again. (22) And the LORD heard the voice of Elijah; and the soul of the child came into him again, and he revived. (23) And Elijah took the child, and brought him down out of the chamber into the house, and delivered him unto his mother: and Elijah said, See, thy son liveth. (24) And the woman said to Elijah, Now by this I know that thou art a man of God, and that the word of the LORD in thy mouth is truth.

In Acts 2:22, the phrase a man approved of God among you refers to the vindication of Jesus by miracles and wonders and signs.

Acts 2:22 Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:
John 4:48 Then said Jesus unto him, Except ye see signs and wonders, ye will not believe.
John 14:11 Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake.
John 3:1-2 There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews: (2) The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.

Jesus met a Samaritan woman at the well of Jacob. The two of them had never met before in their lives, yet Jesus could tell her about her life and by that the woman knew that He was a prophet.

John 4:15-19 The woman saith unto him, Sir, give me this water, that I thirst not, neither come hither to draw. (16) Jesus saith unto her, Go, call thy husband, and come hither. (17) The woman answered and said, I have no husband. Jesus said unto her, Thou hast well said, I have no husband: (18) For thou hast had five husbands; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband: in that saidst thou truly. (19) The woman saith unto him, Sir, I perceive that thou art a prophet.

By the same sign, Nathanael recognised Jesus as the Messiah.

John 1:45-50 Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph. (46) And Nathanael said unto him, Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth? Philip saith unto him, Come and see. (47) Jesus saw Nathanael coming to him, and saith of him, Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile! (48) Nathanael saith unto him, Whence knowest thou me? Jesus answered and said unto him, Before that Philip called thee, when thou wast under the fig tree, I saw thee. (49) Nathanael answered and saith unto him, Rabbi, thou art the Son of God; thou art the King of Israel. (50) Jesus answered and said unto him, Because I said unto thee, I saw thee under the fig tree, believest thou? thou shalt see greater things than these.

The apostles with Paul their chief were vindicated by signs and wonders.

Mark 16:20 And they went forth, and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.
Romans 15:19 Through mighty signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God; so that from Jerusalem, and round about unto Illyricum, I have fully preached the gospel of Christ.
1 Corinthians 2:4-5 And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power: (5) That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.
2 Corinthians 12:11-12 I am become a fool in glorying; ye have compelled me: for I ought to have been commended of you: for in nothing am I behind the very chiefest apostles, though I be nothing. (12) Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds.

[Geoffrey]

Here are verses that I put together (in MS Word originally) to show the difference between true and false prophets. I'll post it in three or four parts. This is the second.

Vindication
True Prophets and False Prophets
True Prophets
Doctrine

Signs and wonders are only significant insofar as they indicate the man to whom we should listen that we might know God our Father and by that knowledge be saved from our sins and receive eternal life.

Hebrews 2:3-4 How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him; (4) God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will?
1 Timothy 2:3-7 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior; (4) Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. (5) For thereis one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; (6) Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time. (7) Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity.
1 Timothy 4:16 Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee.
Romans 10:13-15 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. (14) How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? (15) And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!

God reveals Himself to us, makes Himself known to us in and by His Word.

1 Samuel 3:21 And the LORD appeared again in Shiloh: for the LORD revealed himself to Samuel in Shiloh by the word of the LORD.
Amos 3:7-8 Surely the Lord GOD will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets. (8) The lion hath roared, who will not fear? the Lord GOD hath spoken, who can but prophesy?
Hebrews 1:1-2 God who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, (2) Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
John 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

The word declared in the above verse, John 1:18, has as one of its meanings lead forth by words. All of God's Word has already been given and written down in the Bible. The Bible is difficult for natural men to understand and can be interpreted in many different ways, but we are not allowed to come up with our own ideas.

2 Peter 3:15-16 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; (16) As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as theydo also the other Scriptures, unto their own destruction.
2 Peter 1:20-21 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation. (21) For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake astheywere moved by the Holy Ghost.

The holy men of God are prophets. For the prophecy came... Because the prophecy came by prophets, it will be interpreted by prophets. Peter wrote that God is His own interpreter of the Bible through holy prophets. The reason there are so many different denominations is that people came up with their own interpretations and the reason for that was that there has not been a prophet to teach them.

Judges 21:25 In those days therewas no king in Israel: every man did thatwhichwas right in his own eyes.

Before there could be a king, there had to be a prophet to anoint him king, like Samuel anointed Saul and later David, and before there could be a kingdom, there had to be a prophet to tell how the kingdom will operate like Samuel told the Israelites. A prophet tells us how the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ operates.

After the crucifixion and death of the Lord Jesus, His disciples were dejected; yet everything that had happened was prophesied in the Old Testament, which they have read. They did not understand the Old Testament, because they did not know how to interpret it. After His resurrection, Jesus, being a prophet, interpreted the Scriptures to them.

Luke 24:13-27 And, behold, two of them went that same day to a village called Emmaus, which was from Jerusalem about threescore furlongs. (14) And they talked together of all these things which had happened. (15) And it came to pass, that, while they communed together and reasoned, Jesus himself drew near, and went with them. (16) But their eyes were holden that they should not know him. (17) And he said unto them, What manner of communications are these that ye have one to another,as ye walk,and are sad?(18) And the one of them, whose name was Cleopas, answering said unto him, Art thou only a stranger in Jerusalem, and hast not known the things which are come to pass there in these days? (19) And he said unto them, What things? And they said unto him, Concerning Jesus of Nazareth, which was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people: (20) And how the chief priests and our rulers delivered him to be condemned to death, and have crucified him. (21) But we trusted that it had been he which should have redeemed Israel: and beside all this, today is the third day since these things were done. (22) Yea, and certain women also of our company made us astonished, which were early at the sepulcher; (23) And when they found not his body, they came, saying, that they had also seen a vision of angels, which said that he was alive. (24) And certain of them which were with us went to the sepulcher, and found it even so as the women had said: but him they saw not. (25) Then he said unto them, O fools,and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken:(26)Ought not Christ to have suffered these things,andtoenterintohisglory?(27) And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.

[Geoffrey]

Here are verses that I put together (in MS Word originally) to show the difference between true and false prophets. I'll post it in three or four parts. This is the third.


Vindication
True Prophets and False Prophets
True Prophets
Doctrine (continued)

After the sermon, Jesus confirmed the message with a sign: the blessing and the breaking of the bread. He did something that they knew only He could do whereby they recognised Him. He also blessed and broke the bread to feed the five thousand.

Luke 24:28-35 And they drew nigh unto the village, whither they went: and he made as though he would have gone further. (29) But they constrained him, saying, Abide with us: for it is toward evening, and the day is far spent. And he went in to tarry with them. (30) And it came to pass, as he sat at meat with them, he took bread, and blessed it, and broke, and gave to them. (31) And their eyes were opened, and they knew him; and he vanished out of their sight. (32) And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the Scriptures? (33) And they rose up the same hour, and returned to Jerusalem, and found the eleven gathered together, and them that were with them, (34) Saying, The Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon. (35) And they told what things were done in the way, and how he was known of them in breaking of bread.

Like any true prophet, Jesus did not show the sign of the Messiah to the Samaritan women just to aggrandize Himself, but so that He could get her attention to straighten out the doctrine. At that time there were several denominations, e.g. Pharisees and Sadducees, Jews and Samaritans, who disagreed as to how and where God should be worshipped even though they all had the same Bible, the Old Testament.

John 4:20-24 Our fathers worshiped in this mountain; and ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship. (21) Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me,the hour cometh,when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father.(22)Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.(23)But the hour cometh, and now is,when the true worshipers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.(24)God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

Jesus said we know what we worship, for salvation is of the Jews, with the emphasis on for. Because we know whom we worship, we are saved. Today there is confusion as to who God is. According to the trinitarians, God consists of three persons and according to the Jesus Only's, God and His Son are one and the same person. If we are not absolutely sure about our doctrine concerning the Godhead, we cannot worship God.

Matthew 15:9 But in vain they do worship me,teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

We must worship God in truth, which is His Word written in the Bible; in truth as to exactly who He is. True prophets reveal God to us in His Bible that we might receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit and worship Him.

Titus 3:3-7 For we ourselves also were sometimes foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving divers lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful, and hating one another. (4) But after that the kindness and love of God our Savior toward man appeared, (5) Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; (6) Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Savior; (7) That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

[Geoffrey]

Here are verses that I put together (in MS Word originally) to show the difference between true and false prophets. I'll post it in three or four parts. This is the fourth.

Vindication
True Prophets and False Prophets

False Prophets
False prophets always appear after the true prophet has come on the scene. They too show signs and wonders, but the message they preach contradicts the message of the true prophet who precedes them.

Deuteronomy 13:1-3 If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder, (2) And the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spoke unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them; (3) Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for the LORD your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul.

The other gods would be gods other than the true God whom Moses had already preached to the Israelites with signs and wonders.

The first true prophet, Adam, and the first false prophet, the serpent, appear in Genesis the first book of the Bible. Adam taught his wife what to eat and what not to eat according to what God had told him. Afterward, the serpent approached her with the doctrine of the devil, which was true except for one little word: not.

Genesis 3:1-7 Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? (2) And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: (3) But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. (4) And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: (5) For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. (6) And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat. (7) And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.

The serpent told the truth when he said their eyes would be opened, knowing good and evil, but he lied when he said that they would not die. According to Deuteronomy 13, false prophets lead the people to worship false gods; thus, the serpent, by perverting the teaching of Jehovah ever so slightly, drew the woman away to the worship of satan. The false doctrine is so close to the true doctrine, that it could deceive the very elect if it were possible.

[Geoffrey]

I apologise for the deluge. :)

Here are verses that I put together (in MS Word originally) to show the difference between true and false prophets. I'll post it in three or four parts. This is the fifth.


Vindication
True Prophets and False Prophets

False Prophets (continued)
Moses was the first to show signs and wonders in Egypt and only afterwards did the magicians mimic him.

Exodus 7:10-12 And Moses and Aaron went in unto Pharaoh, and they did so as the LORD had commanded: and Aaron cast down his rod before Pharaoh, and before his servants, and it became a serpent. (11) Then Pharaoh also called the wise men and the sorcerers: now the magicians of Egypt, they also did in like manner with their enchantments. (12) For they cast down every man his rod, and they became serpents: but Aaron's rod swallowed up their rods.

Exodus 8:5-7 And the LORD spoke unto Moses, Say unto Aaron, Stretch forth thine hand with thy rod over the streams, over the rivers, and over the ponds, and cause frogs to come up upon the land of Egypt. (6) And Aaron stretched out his hand over the waters of Egypt; and the frogs came up, and covered the land of Egypt. (7) And the magicians did so with their enchantments, and brought up frogs upon the land of Egypt.

Paul was the first to preach the gospel and, after him, even when he was still around, false prophets started to preach a false gospel and a false Jesus. This is how Paul said we identify false prophets in spite of their signs and wonders:

1 Corinthians 14:36-37 What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only? (37) If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.

Galatians 1:6-9 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: (7) Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. (8) But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. (9) As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

Even Paul could not change what he had already taught.

Malachi 3:6 For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.

This is illustrated by the story in 1 Kings 13:1-34. Paul said false prophets pervert the gospel. They can only pervert what is already there.

John also explains how to identify false prophets.

1 John 4:1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.

1 John 4:6 We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error.

The apostles were the first to preach the gospel. If anyone does not agree with what they preach, they have not God’s Spirit. Peter wrote that the truth is made known first, and then the heresies sneak in.

2 Peter 3:17-18 Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own steadfastness. (18) But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and forever. Amen.

Jude 1:3-4 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. (4) For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.

The faith was once (already) delivered before the men crept in unawares to pretend to preach the same gospel. Jesus called them wolves in sheep’s clothing.

Matthew 7:15-20 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. (16) Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? (17) Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. (18) A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. (19) Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. (20) Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

In the next passage, Jesus explains that the fruit of a prophet is the word that he preaches.

Matthew 12:33-37 Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit. (34) O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh. (35) A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things. (36) But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. (37) For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.

We eat fruit literally and we eat words figuratively. The work of preachers is to feed the children of God. Jesus said we must drink His blood and eat His flesh. We drink His blood when we believe that His blood was shed for our salvation and we eat His flesh when we believe His doctrine.

John 6:51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live forever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

John 6:61-63 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you? (62) What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? (63) It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

Firstly, the Son of man sowed, afterwards the enemy, the devil.

Matthew 13:24-25 Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field: (25) But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way.

Matthew 13:37-39 He answered and said unto them, He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man; (38) The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one; (39) The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels.

Matthew 24:24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.

The false christs are false anointed ones. They are anointed with the true Holy Spirit to perform miracles, but they are false, because the message they teach is false. The wheat and the tares are in the same field. They live by the same rain and by the same sun.

Matthew 5:44-45 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; (45) That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

Hebrews 6:7-8 For the earth which drinketh in the rain that cometh oft upon it, and bringeth forth herbs meet for them by whom it is dressed, receiveth blessing from God: (8) But that which beareth thorns and briars is rejected, and is nigh unto cursing; whose end is to be burned.

True prophets and false prophets perform signs and wonders by the same power of God, but wheat seed produces wheat and tare seed produces tares. Every seed brings forth fruit after its kind.

Genesis 1:11-12 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. (12) And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

As Jesus explained, the fruit of a prophet is what he teaches. Ungodly men, even though they are anointed with the Holy Ghost, will spread lies, because that is what they are to begin with. Tares are tares to begin with.

Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hi Geoffrey!

You now have your own thread in which to discuss Branham.

I skimmed over you "deluge" but didn't notice anything that answered my question concerning why anyone should believe Branham. So I used the "search this thread" function, and it didn't find even one mention of Branham in your deluge.

So what's up? A dissertation makes for stilted conversation. Don't get me wrong, its OK that you posted your four-part presentation, but I was actually hoping for a simple straightforward discussion.

I think it would be most helpful if you just told me why you believe Branham was a true prophet, and why others should believe it.

Thanks!

Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Ungodly men, even though they are anointed with the Holy Ghost, will spread lies, because that is what they are to begin with. Tares are tares to begin with.
:eek: Did you really mean to write that "Ungodly men" can "spread lies" and be "anointed with the Holy Ghost" at the same time?

[Richard Amiel McGough]

God instituted the office of a prophet when the Israelites did not want God to speak to them directly, but through Moses, and said that a prophet will be identified by a sign.

Deuteronomy 18:18-22 I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him. (19) And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him. (20) But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die. (21) And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the LORD hath not spoken? (22) When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that isbut the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him. the thing which the LORD hath not spoken,

Jeremiah 28:9 The prophet which prophesieth of peace, when the word of the prophet shall come to pass, then shall the prophet be known, that the LORD hath truly sent him.

Correct. We are in perfect agreement. So now all you need to do is to give us a list of the five best documented fulfilled prophecies that Branham uttered.

Perhaps you could start by explaining why the "prophet" got everything wrong about what was supposed to happing in 1977 (found here: http://www.letusreason.org/Latrain4.htm).


Branham--”So I repeat, I sincerely believe and maintain as a private student of the Word, along with Divine inspiration that 1977 ought to terminate the world systems and usher in the millennium (Ages, p. 322).

And, remember, I predict that before the great total annihilation, which I don't say the Lord told me this, but I believe there'll be something happen either between now or at that time in '77. It may come...?... at this hour. But between now and '77, I predict that either a great destruction or a total annihilation of the entire earth, between now and '77; I predicted it in 1933( TEACHING. ON.MOSES JEFF.IN V-14 N-4 SUNDAY 56-0513)


“That this age will, end around 1977. I base this prediction on seven major continuous visions that came to me one Sunday morning in June, 1933. The Lord Jesus spoke to me and said that the coming of the Lord was drawing nigh, but that before He came, seven major events would transpire.” (The Message To The Laodicean Age).1977 was THIRTY YEARS AGO! If Branham was TOTALLY WRONG about that, why should I believe him about anything? Please don't bother using that old dodge "He wasn't speaking as a prophet when he screwed up." That's the oldest trick in the False Prophets' Handbook. It is a hackneyed tactic that the Catholics use every time the Pope screws up. They say "But he wasn't speaking ex cathedra!" I'm not interested in such meaningless sophistry. You follow every word of Branham as if he were the incarnation of Word of God, except when he is proven false. Are you really asking me to follow you in this error?

Unfortunately, the stuff about 1977 is just the tip of th iceberg ... so let me be very frank with you Geoffrey. Let me tell you exactly what I think and why, so you know where I am coming from.

To me, EVERYTHING about William Branham screams FALSE PROPHET. And I do mean absolutely everything. He elevated himself to the highest level, claiming to be the Seventh Angel and Prophet Elijah who was to come before the Second Coming of Christ. But that was 30 years ago, so it is obviously false. Christ did NOT come as Branham predicted throughout his career. And worse, Branham set himself and his idiosyncratic private interpretations of the Bible above all the teachers that God had sent throughout the Church history. He made up weird doctrines that flatly contradict the Bible, such as the "Serpent Seed" doctrine where he denies that Adam was the father of Cain, despite the plain teaching of Genesis 4:1! I could go on and on.

What do you think of this Branham quote:

"I was with John the Baptist and before them critics. I seen the Spirit of God descending; I heard the voice of God say, “This is My beloved Son in Whom I'm pleased to dwell in.” Yes, sir! I sure was Identified with him. That's exactly right.”
Do you really believe that Branham was "with John the Baptist"? If so, I must ask, what are your standards of belief?


Samuel was vindicated to be a prophet, because when he spoke something in God's name, it happened everytime.
Fine. So where are Branham's fulfilled prophecies?


In Acts 2:22, the phrase a man approved of God among you refers to the vindication of Jesus by miracles and wonders and signs.
Fine. But you never answered my question about how you discern between true "signs and wonders" and the lying signs and wonders that the Bible warns about.

Sorry if this seems "harsh" - but there is not a "nice" way to tell you that you have been hoodwinked by a false prophet who denies the truth of God. You yourself said that "If we are not absolutely sure about our doctrine concerning the Godhead, we cannot worship God." That's why the early Christians devoted centuries to the discussion about how to understand the Godhead, and then along comes a self-appointed "prophet" who simply declares they were all wrong?

I don't think that's very believable. Its not how God works. God works through the Body of Christ - the Church. Satan, on the other hand, typically raises up a single individual and rewards him with all the desires of the flesh. Witness Joseph Smith who elevated himself to prophethood, stole other men's wives just like Mohammad. And also like Mohammad, the whole "new revelation" was produced through one man. Smith produced the Book of Mormon, and Mohammad the Koran. But look at how God's Bible is so very different. It was produced by the supernaturally coordinated work of dozens of men over a span of centuries. The difference between God's Bible and false prophets like Smith, Mohammad, and Branham is the difference between light and darkness, Day and Night.

So anyway, I still would find it very interesting if you could tell me about how you came to put your trust in the man Branham. Were you raised this way, or did some event happen that convinced you? Have you ever had any doubts about him? If not, do you not feel a little uncomfortable trusting a man - who you must admit said many things that were wrong (like his predictions about 1977) - as if he were speaking for God Himself?

Richard

[Geoffrey]

Hi Geoffrey!

You now have your own thread in which to discuss Branham.

Hi Richard.

It was not my intention to discuss William Branham. The seven eyes lead to the seven angels of the church ages and that inevitably to William Branham. If I had left out his name, quite possibly someone would have asked me why anyway and any answer other than a name would have been frustrating to the asker. Since we now have this thread, let us continue.


I skimmed over you "deluge" but didn't notice anything that answered my question concerning why anyone should believe Branham. So I used the "search this thread" function, and it didn't find even one mention of Branham in your deluge.

So what's up? A dissertation makes for stilted conversation. Don't get me wrong, its OK that you posted your four-part presentation, but I was actually hoping for a simple straightforward discussion.

The purpose of my dissertation was to set a scriptural basis for discerning between true and false prophets. I wanted to attach it, but it was larger than 9.5 kb.


I think it would be most helpful if you just told me why you believe Branham was a true prophet, and why others should believe it.

Thanks!

Richard

I believe that William Branham was the seventh angel, because of the miracles, wonders and signs that accompanied his ministry like they accompanied the ministry of Jesus Christ. Like Nicodemus said I say that no man can do those things except God be with him. I first heard about William Branham when I was about 16. My family does not believe him. At one point my father wanted to disown me as his son.

I will answer the questions concerning the prophesies from your post in another branch of this thread.

Geoffrey

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hi Richard.

It was not my intention to discuss William Branham. The seven eyes lead to the seven angels of the church ages and that inevitably to William Branham. If I had left out his name, quite possibly someone would have asked me why anyway and any answer other than a name would have been frustrating to the asker. Since we now have this thread, let us continue.
Yes, let us continue, especially since your participation in pretty much any discussion would eventually lead to Branham since you believe he revealed fundamental truths of the Bible that have been lost to almost everyone before him, correct?


The purpose of my dissertation was to set a scriptural basis for discerning between true and false prophets. I wanted to attach it, but it was larger than 9.5 kb.
Well, its probably better as a post, since then people can easily respond to it.


I believe that William Branham was the seventh angel, because of the miracles, wonders and signs that accompanied his ministry like they accompanied the ministry of Jesus Christ. Like Nicodemus said I say that no man can do those things except God be with him. I first heard about William Branham when I was about 16. My family does not believe him. At one point my father wanted to disown me as his son.

I will answer the questions concerning the prophesies from your post in another branch of this thread.

Geoffrey
Again, I want to thank you for your straight-forward answer. It really makes the conversation flow very well.

So you think that Branham did miracles like Jesus Christ? Wow. I suppose you also have a reason why God did not confirm any of the other "angels" with similar miracles?

It would really help very much if you would please tell me precisely what miracles you believe Branham performed, and how you have confirmed them.

You say you have believed in him since you were 16 - how did it happen? And if you don't mind my asking, how old are you now? I just turned 48 three days ago.

Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

The false christs are false anointed ones. They are anointed with the true Holy Spirit to perform miracles, but they are false, because the message they teach is false. The wheat and the tares are in the same field. They live by the same rain and by the same sun.
Yikes! :eek: That really blows my mind. The Bible teaches that the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Truth:


John 16:13 Howbeit when He [the Holy Spirit], the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
So Branham taught that men anointed with the Holy Spirit could teach lies, and that the false prophets were really anointed with God's own Spirit? Wow. It sounds like he must have taught that when he was under the same "anointing."

Richard

[Geoffrey]

Correct. We are in perfect agreement. So now all you need to do is to give us a list of the five best documented fulfilled prophecies that Branham uttered.

Perhaps you could start by explaining why the "prophet" got everything wrong about what was supposed to happing in 1977 (found here: http://www.letusreason.org/Latrain4.htm).

1977 was THIRTY YEARS AGO! If Branham was TOTALLY WRONG about that, why should I believe him about anything? Please don't bother using that old dodge "He wasn't speaking as a prophet when he screwed up." That's the oldest trick in the False Prophets' Handbook. It is a hackneyed tactic that the Catholics use every time the Pope screws up. They say "But he wasn't speaking ex cathedra!" I'm not interested in such meaningless sophistry. You follow every word of Branham as if he were the incarnation of Word of God, except when he is proven false. Are you really asking me to follow you in this error?

The Catholics say it after the fact. A few sentences before your quotation from the Seven Church Ages book, he wrote: " I PREDICT (I do not prophesy)" and in the second quotation he said: "which I don't say the Lord told me this." He said that before 1977 and not after the fact like the Catholics do. Thrust! Not parry.:fencing:

I will quote William Branham from the Seven Church Ages book about the first five of seven visions he has in June 1933.



The first vision was that Mussolini would invade Ethiopia and that nation would "fall at his steps". That vision surely did cause some repercussions, and some were very angry when I said it and would not believe it. But it happened that way. He just walked in there with his modern arms and took over. The natives didn't have a chance. But the vision also said that Mussolini would come to a horrible end with his own people turning on him. That came to pass just exactly as it was said.

The next vision foretold that an Austrian by the name of Adolph Hitler would rise up as dictator over Germany, and that he would draw the world into war. It showed the Siegfried line and how our troops would have a terrible time to overcome it. Then it showed that Hitler would come to a mysterious end.

The third vision was in the realm of world politics for it showed me that there would be three great ISMS, Facism, Nazism, Communism, but that the first two would be swallowed up into the third. The voice admonished, "WATCH RUSSIA, WATCH RUSSIA. Keep your eye on the King of the North."

The fourth vision showed the great advances in science that would come after the second world war. It was headed up in the vision of a plastic bubble-topped car that was running down beautiful highways under remote control so that people appeared seated in this car without a steering wheel and they were playing some sort of a game to amuse themselves.

The fifth vision had to do with the moral problem of our age, centering mostly around women. God showed me that women began to be out of their place with the granting of the vote. Then they cut off their hair, which signified that they were no longer under the authority of a man but insisted on either equal rights, or in most cases, more than equal rights. She adopted men's clothing and went into a state of undress, until the last picture I saw was a woman naked except for a little fig leaf type apron. With this vision I saw the terrible perversion and moral plight of the whole world.



Concerning the fullfilment of the prophesies:




Now let me say this. Can anyone prove any of those visions wrong? Were they not all fulfilled? Yes, each one has been fulfilled, or is in the process right now. Mussolini invaded Ethiopia successfully, then fell and lost it all. Hitler started a war he could not finish and died mysteriously. Communism took over both the other two ISMS. The plastic bubble car has been built and is awaiting only a better network of roads. Women are all but naked, and are even now wearing topless bathing suits. And just the other day I saw in a magazine the very dress that I saw in my vision (if you can call it a dress). It was a plastic transparent type of cloth with three darkened spots that covered both breasts in a small area, and then there was a dark place like a small apron below. The Catholic Church is on the rise. We have had one Catholic president and will no doubt have another.

What is left? Nothing except Hebrews 12:26. "Whose voice then shook the earth: but now He hath promised, saying, Yet once more I shake not the earth only, but also heaven." Once more God will shake the earth and with it shake everything loose that can be shaken. Then He will renovate it. Just last March, 1964, that Good Friday earthquake of Alaska shook the whole world though it did not unbalance it. But God was warning by a world tremor what He will soon do on a greater scale. He is going to blast and rock this sin-cursed world, my brother, my sister, and there is only one place that can stand that shock, and that is in the fold of the Lord Jesus. And I would beseech you while God's mercy is still available to you, that you give your whole life, unreservedly to Jesus Christ, Who as the faithful Shepherd will save you and care for you and present you faultless in glory with exceeding great joy.


I will get the other questions in my next posts.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

The Catholics say it after the fact. A few sentences before your quotation from the Seven Church Ages book, he wrote: " I PREDICT (I do not prophesy)" and in the second quotation he said: "which I don't say the Lord told me this." He said that before 1977 and not after the fact like the Catholics do. Thrust! Not parry.:fencing:

I like the way you take handle the discourse Geoffrey! You are a fine swordsman.

I was very aware that he was careful not to call his date setting a "prophecy" but does that really make any difference? I mean, he did use the word "predict" and he was so very wrong in his "prediction" and he did say that he based it on the "seven visions" that the "the Lord Jesus Christ" had revealed to him. I'll pick more on this theme after doing a little research.


I will quote William Branham from the Seven Church Ages book about the first five of seven visions he has in June 1933.
Well, that's nice. The words you quoted were spoken by Branham in 1960 - a decade or two after the events. That's not much of a "prophecy" now is it? Do you have any evidence of him predicting those things before they happened?


Concerning the fullfilment of the prophesies:


Just last March, 1964, that Good Friday earthquake of Alaska shook the whole world though it did not unbalance it. But God was warning by a world tremor what He will soon do on a greater scale.
OK - So here the "prophet" is talking in a time context of March 1964. I remember that earthquake, it hit my home town Seattle pretty hard and broke my grandma's chimney. That was 43 years ago!

So exactly what does "soon" mean to Branham? We are already into 4.3% of a millennium past the time he said "soon".

I will get the other questions in my next posts.
Great! I'll be happy to discuss your answers.

Richard

[Geoffrey]

What do you think of this Branham quote:


"I was with John the Baptist and before them critics. I seen the Spirit of God descending; I heard the voice of God say, “This is My beloved Son in Whom I'm pleased to dwell in.” Yes, sir! I sure was Identified with him. That's exactly right.”

Do you really believe that Branham was "with John the Baptist"? If so, I must ask, what are your standards of belief?

I am petrified, mortified, mystified, stupefied, horrified! This deserves nothing but contempt. Whoever came up with it sure missed a few lessons in literature. Is it so difficult to distinguish between literal and figurative speech?


Luke 13:32 And he said unto them, Go ye, and tell that fox, Behold, I cast out devils, and I do cures today and tomorrow, and the third day I shall be perfected.

Hmm. Jesus thought that Herod was a furry animal of the Vulpes variety! :eek:Foxes are most subtle of all the beasts of the field and Herod was one that ruled men.


John 6:53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.

:eek:A cannibal by his own confession?!

John Gill had the knack when he commented on Paul’s Galatians 2:20: “I am crucified with Christ…”


Gal 2:20 - I am crucified with Christ,.... Not literally, for so only the two thieves were crucified with him, but mystically; Christ was crucified for him in his room and stead, and so he was crucified with him, and in him, as his head and representative. Christ sustained the persons of all his people, and what he did and suffered was in their name, and on their account, and so they were crucified and suffered with him, as they are said to be buried with him, and to be risen with him, and to sit together in heavenly places in him.

Paul, prince of apostles:


1 Corinthians 5:3 For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this deed.



Absent in body, present in spirit. This way of speaking is fairly common.


William Branham, poet of poets, said a few sentences earlier during the sermon quoted above.



We're identified with Him in Acts 2. We're identified with them, with the same baptism, same thing. All He was then and all He is, all He was and all He is, we are. Exactly it.
Just like if I want to be a true American, I've got to be identified with everything she was, everything she is. I've got to be identified with it, if I am a true American.
If I am a true American, then I landed on Plymouth Rock. Amen. I did, if I'm an American. So did you; you landed on Plymouth Rock with the pilgrim fathers. On Plymouth Rock, when they landed out there, I was with them; so was you, everybody.
I rode with Paul Revere, right down the road, to warn every danger. That's exactly right.
I'm a real American. Amen. All She is, I am, and proud of it. Yes, indeed. All America has been, all She is, I'm still that, to be American. Everything She was, I have to be, because I'm identified with her.

Same thing, by being a true Christian, you have to be identified with it.


In primary school, I learned how to use the dictionary.



iden·ti·fy \ī-'den-tə-"fī, ə-\ vb, -fied -fy·ing
vt(1644)
1 a : to cause to be or become identical b : to conceive as united (as in spirit, outlook, or principle) ‹groups that are identified with conservation›
2 a : to establish the identity of b : to determine the taxonomic position of (a biological specimen)
vi
1 : to be or become the same
2 : to practice psychological identification ‹~ with the hero of a novel›
— iden·ti·fi·able \-"den-tə-'fī-ə-bəl\ adj
— iden·ti·fi·ably \-blē\ adv


Yes! To conceive as united (as in spirit, outlook, or principle). To practice psychological identification with the hero of a novel. Did that many a times myself.

To anyone ignorant of figurative speech, reading the Bible must be like chewing on gravel.

Petrified, mortified, mystified, stupefied, horrified!

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I am petrified, mortified, mystified, stupefied, horrified! This deserves nothing but contempt. Whoever came up with it sure missed a few lessons in literature. Is it so difficult to distinguish between literal and figurative speech?
:lol: You are fun to talk to Geoffrey. You make me smile and laugh.

OK, let me see if I understand what you are saying. Branham was not claiming anything specially about himself, correct? He was simply saying that all true Christians must identify with every attribute of every other true Christian. So if I am a true Christian I should go around telling people that I saw the burning bush because Moses saw the burning bush, and that I felt the stripes when Paul was whipped, and I died when James was beheaded, and I that my name is Geoffrey because your name is Geoffrey, right?

Thanks for clearing that up!

But seriously .... your argument that he was using "figurative language" seems to be quite a stretch given the fact that he stated the literal, physical depth of the Red Sea that he "figuratively" viewed!


I was at the Red Sea when I seen the Spirit of God move down and part the water from one side, not through a bunch of reeds, that they're trying to say today, but through about a ninety foot sea.Branham stated that he "seen" specific things including 1) how the "Spirit of God" moved "from one side," 2) that there were not a "bunch of reeds" there, and 3) the actual, physical, literal, depth of the sea.

So that's all "figurative" right?

The thing that amazes me most about people who put their faith in fallible humans is that they will continue to believe in them even when they don't believe in what they say! As far as I can tell, you do not believe Branham's claim that he "seen" the literal, physical depth of the Red Sea when he "was there with Moses," correct? Yet it seems to be a fact that he claimed exactly that.

To anyone ignorant of figurative speech, reading the Bible must be like chewing on gravel.
Truer words have rarely been spoken. But they don't apply to understanding Branham. His teachings are gravel no matter how you read them

Richard

[Geoffrey]

OK, let me see if I understand what you are saying.

No, Richard, you do not understand and it appears to me that your misunderstanding is willful. Amazing! The Biblewheel fades in comparison!

[David]

Hi Geoffrey and Richard, I hope you pardon my interruption in the conversation which I found interesting. I read a couple of the pages about Branham out of curiosity.

Personally, I don't find his thoughts regarding the Trinity to be at all offensive. It seems to me a genuinely complicated subject and one could easily come away from reading certain passages and think that way. Certain subjects in Scripture are just difficult to understand (such as faith/works, free will, etc.) and I figure if God wanted it to be easy to understand ... he would have been clear! So I actually think it's possible that God prefers the issue to have some mystery.

Actually, I found myself quite agreeing with some of Branham's sentiments. For instance, he noted that words like Trinity (or Godhead or Oneness) aren't used in Scripture. I've always felt that way that the word Trinity feels very academic and intellectual to me.

What I take issue with is that Branham assumes he is such an authority on the subject that with little research he can dismiss a concept as being doctrine of devils. As far as most the other quotes and anecdotes I read about him, honestly he seems all too human to me, to put it very mildly.

I think of him as a case of many other religious leaders: having some good ideas worth considering and some very fleshly ideas, and in his case much more the latter. :p

[Richard Amiel McGough]

No, Richard, you do not understand and it appears to me that your misunderstanding is willful. Amazing!
No, I assure my misunderstanding is not willful at all. I'm sorry if it appeared that way. Please be patient with me.

I don't even know what you think I "willfully" misunderstood. Could you please tell me what it was?

Here's the thing. When I read Branham's sermon I get confused. It starts off with the idea that we are supposed to identify with everything every Christian ever felt. That's a rather mystical idea that probably is not true, but at least I can understand it. But then he started talking in the first person and claimed to see literal aspects of things when he "seen" the Red Sea parted. So now the figurative language has changed to literal. How am I supposed to understand it?

Is not my question reasonable? Is there something about it that makes you think I am "willfully" trying to misunderstand you?

Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hi Geoffrey and Richard, I hope you pardon my interruption in the conversation which I found interesting. I read a couple of the pages about Branham out of curiosity.
Hi David,

Welcome to our conversation! Its good to have another voice here.


Personally, I don't find his thoughts regarding the Trinity to be at all offensive.
To which thoughts of his are you referring? As for me, I found his statement that the Trinity is a "doctrine of demons" to be quite offensive.


It seems to me a genuinely complicated subject and one could easily come away from reading certain passages and think that way.
Which way?


Certain subjects in Scripture are just difficult to understand (such as faith/works, free will, etc.) and I figure if God wanted it to be easy to understand ... he would have been clear! So I actually think it's possible that God prefers the issue to have some mystery.
Yes, I agree very much with your sentiments. But Branham didn't offer an intelligent response to the ten thousands of words written on the Doctrine of the Trinity by sincere, devout, and well-informed Christians during the two millennia that preceded him. He rejected it ex cathedra when he spoke in his vaulted position as the Prophet Elijah and the Seventh Angel of Revelation.


Actually, I found myself quite agreeing with some of Branham's sentiments. For instance, he noted that words like Trinity (or Godhead or Oneness) aren't used in Scripture. I've always felt that way that the word Trinity feels very academic and intellectual to me.
I think its very important to note both agreements and disagreements.


What I take issue with is that Branham assumes he is such an authority on the subject that with little research he can dismiss a concept as being doctrine of devils. As far as most the other quotes and anecdotes I read about him, honestly he seems all too human to me, to put it very mildly.

I think of him as a case of many other religious leaders: having some good ideas worth considering and some very fleshly ideas, and in his case much more the latter. :p

Well said!

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hi Geoffrey,

I offer you my sincere apologies on two points.

First, my comment that Branham's "teachings are gravel no matter how you read them" was rude and uncalled for, regardless of its validity. I am sorry, but I'm just a man and things like that slip out sometimes.

Second, I am sorry that I let the conversation be distracted onto a non-essential tangent. What Branham meant when he was teaching about "being with Moses at the Red Sea" and all that is not going to prove or disprove the question about whether he was a true prophet of God or not. Therefore, I will concede your point that he was merely talking figuratively, so that we can move on to the truly substantive issues.

Let me explain why Branhamism seems so very bad. You believe that he was speaking as a Prophet of Almighty God, correct? So you believe that the words he spoke "under inspiration" are the very Words of God, correct? So your rejection of the Biblical doctrine of the Trinity is NOT based on your interpretation of the Bible, but on what a fallible man told you to believe.

And how do I know this? The proof is very simple. Branham used the same flawed human arguments that have been used throughout history to argue against the Trinity. He didn't get any "new insight" from God that "restored" the doctrine of the Godhead! He just repeated the same old heresies that have been refuted for well over a thousand years! He taught a modalistic view of God: I quote:

"Father, Son, and Holy Ghost is offices of one God. He was the Father; He was the Son; He is the Holy Ghost. It's three offices or three dispensations,..." (William Branham, Conduct, Order, Doctrine Q and A, p. 392). [Found here (http://www.cephasministry.com/william_branham.html).]

The reason all Christians reject that view is because it contradicts the plain teaching of the Bible. Jesus spoke to His Father, Jesus was with His Father in Heaven. In John 5, Jesus and His Father are two different witnesses. The Bible is perfectly clear - Jesus and the Father are not "two offices" in "two dispensations" - they are two Persons of the Divine Godhead. And it is here that Branham made a blunder of incredible magnitude. He asserted that the orthodox Doctrine of the Trinity teaches that there are "three Gods." See the article on the Trinity here: http://www.williambranham.com. That one statement alone proves that not only was he a false prophet, but that he was a very poorly informed false prophet.

What more proof do we need? Branham erred significantly in his understanding of both the Bible and the History of Theology. He was no prophet of God.

I would be delighted to read your refutation of these points Geoffrey.

Richard

[Geoffrey]

Hi Geoffrey,

I offer you my sincere apologies on two points.

First, my comment that Branham's "teachings are gravel no matter how you read them" was rude and uncalled for, regardless of its validity. I am sorry, but I'm just a man and things like that slip out sometimes.

Second, I am sorry that I let the conversation be distracted onto a non-essential tangent. What Branham meant when he was teaching about "being with Moses at the Red Sea" and all that is not going to prove or disprove the question about whether he was a true prophet of God or not. Therefore, I will concede your point that he was merely talking figuratively, so that we can move on to the truly substantive issues.

Hallo Richard!

I also apologise for being rude. I felt very bad today. Thank you for conceding on the literal/figurative question.

When somebody speaks against Brother Branham, it does not hurt me. I only fear for the speaker. What really hurts me is being rejected for what I believe.


Let me explain why Branhamism seems so very bad. You believe that he was speaking as a Prophet of Almighty God, correct?

Yes.



So you believe that the words he spoke "under inspiration" are the very Words of God, correct?


No, that is not necessarily so. The teaching, what the words amount to, is of God. In the days of Elijah, God had kept a remnant of seven thousand (1Ki 19:18). When Brother Branham quoted seven hundred, clearly those were not the very words of God. The next evening he apologised and corrected it as he did many times. Sometimes God would speak directly, though. Let me insert this quotation.



How did Mr. Upshaw... I never seen him in my life. I knowed nothing of him. How'd I know he was a congressman and who he was? But the Holy Spirit revealed it here at the platform. See? He revealed it. His... Makes His secrets known... Now, that's nothing to do with me. See? I... Just happened to be that I was born for that purpose. See?
Just like the pool and the water of Bethesda. It couldn't say, "Look what a great water I am." For when the Angel went off of the water, it was just water. Is that right? That's right.
Now, I'm just your brother, by the grace of God. But when the Angel of the Lord moves down, It becomes then a Voice of God to you. Maybe it...
If I offended you by saying that, forgive me. But I felt that might been resented. But I am God's Voice to you. See? I say that again. That time was under inspiration. See? And I--I felt bad about the first time, but It repeated it.
Now see, I can say nothing in myself. But what He shows me, I say it. You believe it and watch what happens. See, He did. After setting in great meetings... – William Marrion Branham, My Commission LA, CA, Saturday 5 May 1951


I think that is Scriptural, a prophet being God's voice, because God says He puts His words into the mouth of a prophet. When a prophet says: "Thus saith the Lord:...", what follows must come word for word from God, but a prophet also has conversations in which he speaks as a man.


So your rejection of the Biblical doctrine of the Trinity is NOT based on your interpretation of the Bible, but on what a fallible man told you to believe.

No, it is based on the Bible. Ministers just point things out to us in the Bible.


And it is here that Branham made a blunder of incredible magnitude. He asserted that the orthodox Doctrine of the Trinity teaches that there are "three Gods." See the article on the Trinity here: http://www.williambranham.com (http://www.williambranham.com/). That one statement alone proves that not only was he a false prophet, but that he was a very poorly informed false prophet.

When I say the trinitarians serve three gods, I do not say that they state that explicitly, but that the teaching implies it. One person is one god by himself. Three persons are three gods.


He taught a modalistic view of God: I quote:


"Father, Son, and Holy Ghost is offices of one God. He was the Father; He was the Son; He is the Holy Ghost. It's three offices or three dispensations,..." (William Branham, Conduct, Order, Doctrine Q and A, p. 392). [Found here (http://www.cephasministry.com/william_branham.html).]

The reason all Christians reject that view is because it contradicts the plain teaching of the Bible. Jesus spoke to His Father, Jesus was with His Father in Heaven. In John 5, Jesus and His Father are two different witnesses.

Exactly right! Try telling that to the majority of the Branhamites! The Bible does not contain the oneness doctrine, I do not believe it and Brother Branham did not teach it. The Father and the Son are two distinct individuals. The Father fulfilled the office of Sonhood when He dwelled in the body of His Son, the man Jesus. God is one spirit. The Father is a spirit, the Holy Spirit is a spirit; therefore, the Father and the Holy Spirit is one and the same person.

I really enjoy this conversation!:yo:

Geoffrey

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hallo Richard!

I also apologise for being rude. I felt very bad today. Thank you for conceding on the literal/figurative question.
Hallo to you my friend!

I praise God that we are on talking terms again. I will do my best to speak the truth plainly, but always with respect.


When somebody speaks against Brother Branham, it does not hurt me. I only fear for the speaker. What really hurts me is being rejected for what I believe.
Well, first, I'll never reject you because of what you believe. You have found a place that is truly devoted to open discussion. We all come from different backgrounds, and we have reasons for what we believe, and many of our differences are born of misunderstandings, and it is one of the greatest blessings to be a peacemaker.

So there's nothing to worry about here!

As for speaking against Branham. I never met the man! But I've heard people liked him, and had good things to say about him personally. I'm not interested in speaking for or against him .... but I am very interested in testing his teachings against the Word of God as revealed in the Bible. And there's nothing to fear there, since that is what the Bible commands we do ... test all things!




So you believe that the words he spoke "under inspiration" are the very Words of God, correct?


No, that is not necessarily so. The teaching, what the words amount to, is of God. In the days of Elijah, God had kept a remnant of seven thousand (1Ki 19:18). When Brother Branham quoted seven hundred, clearly those were not the very words of God. The next evening he apologised and corrected it as he did many times. Sometimes God would speak directly, though. Let me insert this quotation.
I think this is a point we should focus on. You believe Branham erred on matters of detail, but not doctrine? That God allowed him to make mistakes on little things but not big things? If he sometimes erred, how do you know which part of his teachings are true and which are false? What's your standard?

And how do you determine "what the words amount to"? It wouldn't be a problem if Branham were just a teacher, but if he is a prophet and his teachings have the authority of God "almost" like the Bible, then what do you do when you find real errors? Why not just stick to the Bible?

Thanks for posting the quote where he said "But I am God's Voice to you. See? I say that again. That time was under inspiration." That hits my spiritual gut like a cold stone. You fear for people that don't believe Branham. I fear for people who do. Unfortunately, that is as far as the symmetry between our two positions goes. If I am wrong about Branham, it means nothing, because salvation is not "of Branham." But if you are wrong about Branham, then you are wrong about everything because Branham claimed to be speaking for Almighty God, and you base your beliefs on his teachings.


I think that is Scriptural, a prophet being God's voice, because God says He puts His words into the mouth of a prophet. When a prophet says: "Thus saith the Lord:...", what follows must come word for word from God, but a prophet also has conversations in which he speaks as a man.
Sure, when a prophet speaks for the Lord, he says "Thus saith the Lord!" But does he ever bring attention to himself and say I AM GOD'S VOICE TO YOU? I am not certain, but I think I would have a hard time finding God's Prophets in the Bible talking like that.

It also seems that you have contradicted yourself. You told me that Branham's words, even when spoken under inspiration, were "not necessarily" the "very Words of God." But then you compared him with Moses and Jeremiah, in whose mouths God placed His very Words so when the True Prophets of God spoke under inspiration, their words were the "very Words of God." So which is it, my friend? Do you believe Branham was a true prophet like Moses and Jeremiah, or not?




So your rejection of the Biblical doctrine of the Trinity is NOT based on your interpretation of the Bible, but on what a fallible man told you to believe.
No, it is based on the Bible. Ministers just point things out to us in the Bible.

If Branham were merely a minister or teacher, people could agree or disagree in accordance with the teaching of the Bible. But if Branham is received as a Prophet of Almighty God, you then must conform the Bible to Branham's teachings. It seems that you are forced to submit yourself and the Bible to Branham's teachings. It also seems like you must believe that Branham is the only perfect Bible teacher that has ever lived, correct? I ask that because he MUST have been a PERFECT Bible teacher, or he would have erred somewhere, and then you would have to choose to believe the Bible over him. But you would never do that, right? But then again, you know he erred on "minor" points ... so now you admit error in a perfect teacher. See how difficult everything gets if we try to make a mere man out to be perfect?


When I say the trinitarians serve three gods, I do not say that they state that explicitly, but that the teaching implies it. One person is one god by himself. Three persons are three gods.
And that is why I said Branham was ignorant of basic biblical theology. The word "person" does not mean what he thought it meant. It is a technical theological term used in the discourse on the nature of the Godhead since the early fourth century. It makes me think of a child saying that negative numbers can't exist because they are smaller than zero Do you really think that any well-informed Trinitarian Christian every would agree with your assessment of their teachings? What about Luther, the "Fifth Angel" - he would have considered the accusation of "three gods" as puerile. It just does not apply to the real discussion that mature Christians have had over the nature of God.


Exactly right! Try telling that to the majority of the Branhamites! The Bible does not contain the oneness doctrine, I do not believe it and Brother Branham did not teach it. The Father and the Son are two distinct individuals. The Father fulfilled the office of Sonhood when He dwelled in the body of His Son, the man Jesus. God is one spirit. The Father is a spirit, the Holy Spirit is a spirit; therefore, the Father and the Holy Spirit is one and the same person.
Then who was Jesus talking to when He said "Father, not my will, but thine" etc. I would very much like an answer to this question.


I really enjoy this conversation!:yo:

Geoffrey

Me too! Lets keep it going.

Richard

[Geoffrey]

As for speaking against Branham. I never met the man! But I've heard people liked him, and had good things to say about him personally. I'm not interested in speaking for or against him .... but I am very interested in testing his teachings against the Word of God as revealed in the Bible. And there's nothing to fear there, since that is what the Bible commands we do ... test all things!

To test all things in the Scripture is noble!:thumb:



Acts 17:10-12 And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews. (11) These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the Scriptures daily, whether those things were so. (12) Therefore many of them believed; also of honorable women which were Greeks, and of men, not a few.

I think this is a point we should focus on. You believe Branham erred on matters of detail, but not doctrine? That God allowed him to make mistakes on little things but not big things? If he sometimes erred, how do you know which part of his teachings are true and which are false? What's your standard?
And how do you determine "what the words amount to"? It wouldn't be a problem if Branham were just a teacher, but if he is a prophet and his teachings have the authority of God "almost" like the Bible, then what do you do when you find real errors? Why not just stick to the Bible?

The written Word alone is not enough. It contains things hard to understand, but it is not up to us to contrive private interpretations (2Pe 1:20-21). Cleopas and his friend and the other apostles had read or had heard the prophesies concerning the Messiah, but did not recognise their fulfillment. It took a prophet, Jesus Christ, to interpret the Scriptures for them.

The standard is that Brother Branham's doctrine is 100 % and I know that because he is vindicated. When John the Baptist was doubting about Jesus, Jesus pointed him to the miracles, wonders and signs. God always corrected any mistakes Brother Branham made. I would not say his authority is almost like the Bible, but exactly like the Bible.

How do I know what the words amount to? It is just the same way you know what the words I am posting amount to.:)


Sure, when a prophet speaks for the Lord, he says "Thus saith the Lord!" But does he ever bring attention to himself and say I AM GOD'S VOICE TO YOU? I am not certain, but I think I would have a hard time finding God's Prophets in the Bible talking like that.

Here are examples of prophets who spoke similarly:
·Elijah the Tishbite, 1 Kings 17:1: 'And Elijah the Tishbite, who was of the inhabitants of Gilead, said unto Ahab, ‘As the LORD God of Israel liveth, before whom I stand, there shall not be dew nor rain these years, but according to my word.’'
·John the Baptist, John 1:22-23: 'Then said they unto him, Who art thou? that we may give an answer to them that sent us. What sayest thou of thyself? (23) He said, I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Isaiah.'
·Jesus the Christ, John 4:25-26: 'The woman saith unto him, I know that Messiah cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come, he will tell us all things. (26) Jesus saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am he.'
·Paul the Apostle, 1 Corinthians 14:37: ' If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.' And Romans 2:16: 'In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.'
·John the Beloved, 1 John 4:6: 'We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error.'


It also seems that you have contradicted yourself. You told me that Branham's words, even when spoken under inspiration, were "not necessarily" the "very Words of God." But then you compared him with Moses and Jeremiah, in whose mouths God placed His very Words so when the True Prophets of God spoke under inspiration, their words were the "very Words of God." So which is it, my friend? Do you believe Branham was a true prophet like Moses and Jeremiah, or not?


When we say a man speaks under inspiration, we mean that either

the Spirit has taken control of the man’s faculties of speech and is uttering the Spirit's thoughts directly. The man is then not taking any thought, but merely listening to himself speaking or he may not even be aware of what he is saying. In this case the words are word for word those of the Spirit.
Or, the Spirit is steering the man’s thoughts in the direction that the Spirit pleases, giving the man insights which he then promptly articulates in his own manner. In this case, the words would not be word for word the words of the Spirit, but the ideas conveyed by the words would be the ideas of the Spirit. This is when the man might say seven hundred in stead of seven thousand.I believe that all of Brother Branham's sermons were inspired by God. The prophets of old did not always speak under inspiration. Abraham lied that Sarah was not his wife (Gen 20:1-7). Moses spoke to the rock in anger and struck it the second time (Num 20:7-12). John the Baptist doubted whether Jesus was the Messiah (Mat 11:2-3). Jesus was the only perfect prophet. In spite of their mistakes, God always upholds His prophets. Just read what Jesus said of John the Baptist after his monumental failure (Mat 11:7-14).


And that is why I said Branham was ignorant of basic biblical theology. The word "person" does not mean what he thought it meant. It is a technical theological term used in the discourse on the nature of the Godhead since the early fourth century. It makes me think of a child saying that negative numbers can't exist because they are smaller than zero Do you really think that any well-informed Trinitarian Christian every would agree with your assessment of their teachings? What about Luther, the "Fifth Angel" - he would have considered the accusation of "three gods" as puerile. It just does not apply to the real discussion that mature Christians have had over the nature of God.

So, did the theologians change the meaning of the word person when they realised their doctrine does not make sense? Neither the trinity doctrine nor the oneness octrine make sense to me.


Then who was Jesus talking to when He said "Father, not my will, but thine" etc. I would very much like an answer to this question.

He was speaking to His Father. He and the Father are two different persons. The Son in Father, Son and Holy Ghost does not refer to Jesus the firstborn, but to God. God assumed the title of Son when He dwelled in the body of His Son from the baptism in the river Jordan to the prayer in Gethsemane. Two persons shared one body (Joh 14:10). The firstborn is not God. He is the firstborn among many brethren (Rom 8:29).

God's name is also Jesus. The firstborn came in the name of his Father (Joh 5:43). He inherited the name (Heb 1:4). The person Paul met on his road to Damascus was God, not the firstborn.

Jesus the Son came into being before the worlds were created (Joh 17:5). He issued from Jesus the Father (Joh 8:42). Then God also dwelled in Him, speaking with His lips, etc. That is how God created through Jesus Christ the Son (Heb 1:2).

Geoffrey

[Geoffrey]

Hallo Richard.

I thought you might find it interesting to know what Brother Branham had to say on numerology! Here are some quotations.



THE.END.TIME.SIGN.SEED_ TIFTON.GA MONDAY_ 62-0319
E-77 Three is the number of perfection. We all know that. Three is God's number in His numerology. God is known by His numbers. Three is perfection, and seven is worship; twenty-four is worship; forty is temptation; fifty is Pentecost, jubilee (See?), so forth. All of His numbers, His numerals of God is perfected, is in perfection.




THE.JUNCTION.OF.TIME_ JEFF.IN SUNDAY_ 56-0115
E-5 And I believe that the church is now standing on the threshold of the greatest vindication of omnipotence that the world has ever known. There has been in my searching of the Scripture for quite awhile, I have found seven great junctions in God's Word. And seven is God's complete number. We... He--He completes in seven. He worked six days and the seventh rested. The world exists in its reign over the earth here, the church labors for six thousand years, the seventh is the millennium. And all these mathematics and--of the Bible are perfect.
And God always is on time. Sometimes that we are a little bit late or a little--thinking a little different, but that's always done for a purpose. But God is always on time with His message.




HEBREWS.CHAPTER.FOUR_ JEFF.IN HEB SUNDAY_ 57-0901E
102 Now, the 7th verse. Oh, my! I say, the Scripture is mathematically inspired. I say, the Scripture is, and in every way, inspired. The mathematics of the Bible are perfect.




HEBREWS.CHAPTER.THREE_ JEFF.IN HEB SUNDAY_ 57-0901M
15 There's not another piece of literature written anywhere that can do that. And mathematically, and geographically, in every way, there's not a Book in the Bible wrote like the Bible... There's not a book in the world, I mean, wrote like the Bible. There's nothing. The pneumatics of the Bible is perfectly in harmony; just even chapters, and punctuations, and everything, is perfect. Not another book; you couldn't read a chapter out of it without crossing itself back. But there's not one cross-up in the entire Bible. And was wrote by many, many, many people; and hundreds, and hundreds, and hundreds of years apart. Not knowing one piece; one wrote It here, and one wrote It here, and one wrote It over here. When It was all formed together, It made God's Bible. And not one contradicts the other one, and, no, not mathematics, geographics. Anything else of the Bible, everything, pneumatic, everything runs perfectly together. That isn't inspired, I don't know, what will you call inspiration? I'm so glad for the blessed, old Bible.
16 Some of them said, "Are you a Catholic? Protestant?"
I said, "Neither one. I believe the Bible." That's right. I believe the Bible, and I'm glad that we still have the freedom to preach It in this nation. Oh, It's wonderful.




.PARADOX_ TAMPA.FL SATURDAY_ 64-0418B
27 The mathematics of the Bible is perfect. If you keep them mathematics right, you can keep your story right. See? But if you get off the mathematics, you'll have, in your picture, a cow picking grass in top of a tree. So, it won't--it won't look right. See? Stay in the mathematics, you see, of the Bible, then you place it out right.




MODERN.EVENTS.ARE.MADE.CLEAR.BY.PROPHECY_ SBD.CA V-7 N-6 MONDAY_ 65-1206
254 Now don't miss It, while we sketch the rest of this Scripture! Quickly now, cause I'm holding you too long. Call... Looky here. And according to the prophet, he came just exactly to the Word, just exactly to the time.
255 Now look at the age now where we're living. Aren't we living right in that Sodom time? Watch the messenger to Abraham's group. Watch the numbers, letters, and the numerology of his name. You say, "There's nothing in a name." Don't you never let anybody tell you that. Why did He change Abram's name, to Abraham, Sarra to Sarah? Why did He change Simon to Peter, and all those other? See? Sure there is. Exactly!

Geoffrey

[Richard Amiel McGough]

To test all things in the Scripture is noble!:thumb:
We have total agreement there.


The written Word alone is not enough. It contains things hard to understand, but it is not up to us to contrive private interpretations (2Pe 1:20-21). Cleopas and his friend and the other apostles had read or had heard the prophesies concerning the Messiah, but did not recognise their fulfillment. It took a prophet, Jesus Christ, to interpret the Scriptures for them.
That's why God gave us the Holy Spirit, and promised that He would teach us all things. I have an absolute, total, and complete aversion to following any fallible man, especially one who elevates his own teachings to the level of God's Word.

Let's ignore Branham for a moment. Your logic, that I need to be told what to believe by some human authority, is the essence of the cults. The Jehovah Witnesses explicitly use that argument, as do the Mormons. Furthermore, it is the fundamental claim of both the Catholic and the Eastern Orthodox Churches (though I'm not necessarily saying they are cults). I am sure you recognize this, right? But now you tell me that Branham is different because he was "vindicated" by signs and wonders. I think it would be interesting to examine those signs and wonders more closely to see the reality of what you base your faith on.


The standard is that Brother Branham's doctrine is 100 % and I know that because he is vindicated. When John the Baptist was doubting about Jesus, Jesus pointed him to the miracles, wonders and signs. God always corrected any mistakes Brother Branham made. I would not say his authority is almost like the Bible, but exactly like the Bible.

How do I know what the words amount to? It is just the same way you know what the words I am posting amount to.:)

I think that is a glib answer, and you are plenty smart to know that (I speak as a friend). If Branham's teachings have anything to do with the Bible, then they will generate just as much debate and difference of opinion as the Bible itself. This forum is a very good example of how people who believe the Bible to be the Word of God still differ on its meaning. The same thing will inevitably happen with Branham's teachings. This leads to the ultimate question:

Who now will interpret Branham's Teachings for you?

If you tell me that Branham's teachings are so very clear that they don't need an interpreter, then I must ask you "Why did God keep us all in the dark with that lousy Bible no one can understand until He finally gave His Perfect Word through the Prophet Branham?"


Here are examples of prophets who spoke similarly:
·Elijah the Tishbite, 1 Kings 17:1: “And Elijah the Tishbite, who was of the inhabitants of Gilead, said unto Ahab, ‘As the LORD God of Israel liveth, before whom I stand, there shall not be dew nor rain these years, but according to my word.’”
·John the Baptist, John 1:22-23: “Then said they unto him, Who art thou? that we may give an answer to them that sent us. What sayest thou of thyself? (23) He said, I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Isaiah.”
·Jesus the Christ, John 4:25-26: “The woman saith unto him, I know that Messiah cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come, he will tell us all things. (26) Jesus saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am he.”
·Paul the Apostle, 1 Corinthians 14:37: “ If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.” And Romans 2:16: “In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.”
·John the Beloved, 1 John 4:6: “We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error.”

Thanks for trying. That helps make my point. Not one of those quotes include anything like "I AM THE VOICE OF GOD." The closest was John the Baptist, but he only said I AM THE VOICE OF ONE CRYING. Do you sense the difference? Branham's phrase strikes me as a self-exaltation.


So, did the theologians change the meaning of the word person when they realised their doctrine does not make sense? Neither the trinity doctrine nor the oneness octrine make sense to me.
I understand it doesn't make sense to you, but that does not necessarily imply that it doesn't make sense in and of itself, correct? Perhaps there is something you need to learn. Let's start with Websters (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/person):


1 : HUMAN (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/human), INDIVIDUAL (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/individual) -- sometimes used in combination especially by those who prefer to avoid man in compounds applicable to both sexes <chairperson> <spokesperson>
2 : a character or part in or as if in a play : GUISE (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/guise)
3 a : one of the three modes of being in the Trinitarian Godhead as understood by Christians b : the unitary personality (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/personality) of Christ that unites the divine and human natures
4 a archaic : bodily appearance b : the body of a human being; also : the body and clothing <unlawful search of the person>
5 : the personality (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/personality) of a human being : SELF (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/self)
6 : one (as a human being, a partnership, or a corporation) that is recognized by law as the subject of rights and duties
7 : reference of a segment of discourse to the speaker, to one spoken to, or to one spoken of as indicated by means of certain pronouns or in many languages by verb inflection

Now the first thing to note is that Webster's got it wrong. The use of the word "mode" in the definition is not technically or theologically correct. But it is interesting that Webster's definition fits fine with Branham's modalistic view of the Trinity. How ironic. He could have used Webster's definition of "person" and Trinity and had no problems.

Here's the deal. Do you know the meaning of hypostasis? If not, you have not done sufficient homework to have a meaningful opinion on the Trinity. And that was my point about Branham. He added no new light to the discussion. As far as I know, he was completely ignorant of the meaning of the words that Christians used when they defined the Doctrine of the Trinity. If this is true, it means that he was rejecting something of which he was ignorant. No amount of "signs and wonders" is going to vindicate demonstrable ignorance of fundamentals like the Doctrine of the Trinity.


He was speaking to His Father. He and the Father are two different persons. The Son in Father, Son and Holy Ghost does not refer to Jesus the firstborn, but to God. God assumed the title of Son when He dwelled in the body of His Son from the baptism in the river Jordan to the prayer in Gethsemane. Two persons shared one body (Joh 14:10). The firstborn is not God. He is the firstborn among many brethren (Rom 8:29).
I'm sorry, but that doesn't make any sense to me at all. Please explain what it meant when Jesus (God the Son) spoke to the God the Father and said "Not my will, but thine be done." How would Branham explain that in terms of the "One God" in three offices?

Two persons sharing one body! Wow ... what happened to your definition of "person" there?

So who are the two "persons"? What are their names? When were they born? How did the one person get inside the other person's body? I am stunned by this doctrine. I've never heard it before.


Jesus the Son came into being before the worlds were created (Joh 17:5). He issued from Jesus the Father (Joh 8:42). Then God also dwelled in Him, speaking with His lips, etc. That is how God created through Jesus Christ the Son (Heb 1:2).

Geoffrey

Are these your ideas, or can point me to the original material where Branham taught this stuff?

Thanks buddy. I really appreciate you taking the time to explain these things.

Richard

[Geoffrey]

Your logic, that I need to be told what to believe by some human authority, is the essence of the cults. The Jehovah Witnesses explicitly use that argument, as do the Mormons. Furthermore, it is the fundamental claim of both the Catholic and the Eastern Orthodox Churches (though I'm not necessarily saying they are cults). I am sure you recognize this, right? But now you tell me that Branham is different because he was "vindicated" by signs and wonders. I think it would be interesting to examine those signs and wonders more closely to see the reality of what you base your faith on.

Paul was a human authority and he pointed to signs and wonders as the basis of that authority.


Romans 15:19 Through mighty signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God; so that from Jerusalem, and round about unto Illyricum, I have fully preached the gospel of Christ.


1 Corinthians 2:4-5 And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power: (5) That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.



I think that is a glib answer, and you are plenty smart to know that (I speak as a friend).

Sorry. To me it sounded like you were asking: "If someone is talking to you, how do you know what he is saying?"



If Branham's teachings have anything to do with the Bible, then they will generate just as much debate and difference of opinion as the Bible itself. This forum is a very good example of how people who believe the Bible to be the Word of God still differ on its meaning. The same thing will inevitably happen with Branham's teachings.

Correct. It has already happened.


This leads to the ultimate question:

Who now will interpret Branham's Teachings for you?

Lee Vayle. Here is some of what Brother Branham said about him.





JESUS CHRIST THE SAME 58-0323 P:0022 And if there's anything you lack of understanding, something that you do not understand, my associate Brother Vayle here, is available at all times to explain anything that seems mysterious to you ministering brethren, or wherever you are, or any lay member, anything. If there's a question, if we ever preach anything, or do anything, that's not a promise of God in this Bible, you got a right to come to us and ask us like brethren. And we ask you to do that. We ask you as our brothers and sisters to come to us. We want to be servants of Christ. That's what we represent the world around



Second seal the 63-0319 P:6 I got a friend here somewhere in the building. 'Course you are all my friends. This brother is Brother Lee Vayle. He's a precious brother and a real student of the Scripture. Dr. Vayle is a Baptist with the Holy Ghost, and he's a... I don't say this complimentary; I just say it because I believe it. I think he is one of the best versed students that I know of among our ranks.

Brother Vayle did not attend any seminary. Brother Branham called him doctor out of respect for his learning.


If you tell me that Branham's teachings are so very clear that they don't need an interpreter, then I must ask you "Why did God keep us all in the dark with that lousy Bible no one can understand until He finally gave His Perfect Word through the Prophet Branham?"

That God keeps His secrets for ages is clear (Rom 16:25) and that He then reveals it through one man is also clear (Eph 3:1-9). Paul said that he was the sole revelator to the gentiles of the mystery of Christ that had been kept secret by God.


Thanks for trying. That helps make my point. Not one of those quotes include anything like "I AM THE VOICE OF GOD." The closest was John the Baptist, but he only said I AM THE VOICE OF ONE CRYING. Do you sense the difference? Branham's phrase strikes me as a self-exaltation.

Do they have to use the exact phrase to exalt themselves?


I'm sorry, but that doesn't make any sense to me at all. Please explain what it meant when Jesus (God the Son) spoke to the God the Father and said "Not my will, but thine be done." How would Branham explain that in terms of the "One God" in three offices?

Jesus is not God the Son, but the Son of God. That is what He is called in the Bible. Father, Son and Holy Ghost are titles of one and the same person, who is distinct from the Son of God. The son born of the virgin Mary was not God. He was a man and God was His father.


Two persons sharing one body! Wow ... what happened to your definition of "person" there?

How about nine?


Matthew 12:43-45 When the unclean spirit is gone out of a man, he walketh through dry places, seeking rest, and findeth none. (44) Then he saith, I will return into my house from whence I came out; and when he is come, he findeth it empty, swept, and garnished. (45) Then goeth he, and taketh with himself seven other spirits more wicked than himself, and they enter in and dwell there: and the last state of that man is worse than the first. Even so shall it be also unto this wicked generation.

Remember Legion? A person is a spirit. I can break up person like this: p-e-r-s-on. The root is pr, the same as in spirit: s-p-i-r-it. A person is self-aware, speaks, hears, sees, acts, reacts, knows, wills, etc.


So who are the two "persons"? What are their names? When were they born? How did the one person get inside the other person's body? I am stunned by this doctrine. I've never heard it before.

That question sounds like:


Proverbs 30:4 Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind in his fists? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth? what is his name, and what is his son's name, if if thou canst tell?

God's name is Lord Jesus Christ. His Son's name is Lord Jesus Christ. God entered the body of His Son after John baptised Him in the Jordan and John saw the Father descend like a Dove onto the Lamb.


Are these your ideas, or can point me to the original material where Branham taught this stuff?

Here are some quotations.



SIR WE WOULD SEE JESUS 54-1205 E-12 Now, here comes Jesus, God Himself, incarnate in His Son, Christ Jesus, tabernacled to take away sin.




We would see Jesus 58-0612 P:55 he said, “Look. When He was here on earth, how many knows that that was the Pillar of Fire that followed the children of Israel in the wilderness, that It was Christ, the Angel of the covenant? All right. And how many knows that that was Jesus in Jesus, that same Spirit?”




CURTAIN OF TIME 55-0302 E-22 They couldn't understand Him. He was a mystery, even to the Apostles. No one could understand Him, because there was two people talking all the time. The Person Jesus Christ was talking, and God was talking in Him, also. Sometimes it was Christ himself; sometimes it was the Father that dwelt in Him. You see it? He--they couldn't understand some things He would say; He talked in riddles to them.



Thanks buddy. I really appreciate you taking the time to explain these things.

Richard

Pleasure.

Geoffrey

[Geoffrey]

That's interesting. Who are a few of the folks you think are "Apostles" today?

The modern day missionaries are apostles. A missionary is one that is sent, the same as an apostle.


You emphasis on the word "till" is important, but you misapplied it. God gave Apostles and Prophets to lay the foundation so that the evangelists, pastors, and teachers can build up the body of Christ. But since the foundation was finished, there can be no more Apostles or Prophets. Their time passed long ago.

Who do you think was the last apostle and who was the last prophet?

[Richard Amiel McGough]

The modern day missionaries are apostles. A missionary is one that is sent, the same as an apostle.
Gidday Geoffrey!

I agree that the root meaning of the word "apostle" is "one who is sent." But that doesn't mean that every person who is a missionary should be called an apostle. Otherwise my faith would be built on the foundation of the "wide variety of opinions of all the missionaries who preached the gospel in the last 2000 years" and the prophets, etc. (Eph 2.20) If there are modern apostles then my faith would rest on a constantly shifting foundation. Case in point: Branham's teachings are completely out of harmony (in my estimation) with the teachings of the Bible.

The bottom line is this: there is a specific meaning to the use of that term in the Bible, and modern self-appointed apostles don't match it.


Who do you think was the last apostle and who was the last prophet?
I think Paul was probably the last apostle to be appointed by Christ. And John the Elder, the author of Revelation, was probably the last Prophet to receive the Word of God. But it is important to remember that all believers are "prophets" in as much as we "show forth" the Word of God - the Bible. But I believe it is a great error to elevate any modern man to the status of a "Prophet" who has authority equal to the Bible people.

BTW - did Branham ever state that his teachings were equivalent to the Bible, or was that idea added by his followers?

Richard

[Geoffrey]

Hallo Richard,

The foundation is the teachings written in the Bible. Any other minister has to point to that.

Because the foundation was laid by apostles and prophets, does it follow that apostles and prophets will not join in the rest of the building? Is that how the Bible reads?

Some think that the twelve apostles were the only apostles. Did they forget about Barnabas (Acts 14:14)? There were many prophets beside Paul and John (Acts 11:27) and who knows how long they continued after John? The foundation was laid by the prophet Paul. Most assuredly, the capstone will be placed by a prophet, because the Lord does nothing except He reveals His secrets unto His servants the prophets.

Brother Branham's teaching is the Bible, because God brought His interpretation through Brother Branham.



And think of It! The same Pillar of Fire that come upon those man that wrote the Bible, is the same Pillar of Fire here, today, interpreting the Bible. Amen! How we thank Him for that! Same! What a comfort! What identification! I'm so glad to be identified in that, I don't know what to do! I'd rather be identified in That than all the Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, Lutheran, and all the rest of them. Identified in that Word where that Shekinah Glory and Revelation lays! - William Marrion Branham, The Unveiling God, Jeffersonville, Indiana, 14 June 1964




Now, I want you to know this is sure, and you that listen to this tape. You might have thought today that I was trying to say that about myself, being that I was packing this Message. I have no more to do with It than nothing, no more than just a voice. And, my voice, even against my better judgment; I wanted to be a trapper. But it's the will of my Father that I declare to do, and determined to do.
I wasn't the One that appeared down on the river; I was only standing there when He appeared. I'm not the One that performs these things and foretells these things that happens as perfect they are; I'm only one that's near when He does it. I was only a voice that He used, to say It. It wasn't what I knew; it's what I just surrendered myself to, that He spoke through. It isn't me, it wasn't the seventh angel, oh, no; it was the manifestation of the Son of man. It wasn't the angel, his message; it was the mystery that God unfolded. It's not a man; it's God. The angel was not the Son of man; he was the messenger from the Son of man. The Son of man is Christ; He is the One that you're feeding on. You're not feeding on a man; a man, his words will fail. But you're feeding on the unfailing Body-Word of the Son of man.
If you haven't fed fully on every Word, to give yourself strength to fly above all these denominations and things of the world, will you at this time do it, while we pray? - William Marrion Branham, The Anointed Ones at the End Time, Jeffersonville, Indiana, 25 July 1965

[Geoffrey]

Originally Posted by Geoffrey http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?p=1246#post1246)
The false christs are false anointed ones. They are anointed with the true Holy Spirit to perform miracles, but they are false, because the message they teach is false. The wheat and the tares are in the same field. They live by the same rain and by the same sun.

Yikes! :eek: That really blows my mind. The Bible teaches that the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Truth:

Why did you leave out this very important phrase:"to perform miracles"? I write again: They are anointed with the Holy Spirit to perform micacles. The miracles are genuine if God does it. But God does not anoint them to teach. The devil does that. That is why the delusion that God sends is so strong (2 Thessalonians 2:11).

Here is an example of how God sends delusion.



2 Chronicles 18:18-22 Again he said, Therefore hear the word of the LORD; I saw the LORD sitting upon his throne, and all the host of heaven standing on his right hand and on his left. (19) And the LORD said, Who shall entice Ahab king of Israel, that he may go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead? And one spoke saying after this manner, and another saying after that manner. (20) Then there came out a spirit, and stood before the LORD, and said, I will entice him. And the LORD said unto him, Wherewith? (21) And he said, I will go out, and be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And the LORD said, Thou shalt entice him, and thou shalt also prevail: go out, and do even so. (22) Now therefore, behold, the LORD hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets, and the LORD hath spoken evil against thee.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Why did you leave out this very important phrase:"to perform miracles"? I write again: They are anointed with the Holy Spirit to perform micacles. The miracles are genuine if God does it. But God does not anoint them to teach. The devil does that. That is why the delusion that God sends is so strong (2 Thessalonians 2:11).
Good afternoon Geoffrey!

I left out that phrase because I didn't realize it was important. And now I am now really confused. You seem to be saying that God anoints liars with His Holy Spirit so they can perform real miracles. How then do miracles help you discern between the true and the false teachers?

You told me that you believe in Branham because of the "signs and wonders." Now you tell me that false prophets also perform real miracles, which I presume means that they perform real "signs and wonders."

How then can signs and wonders vindicate doctrine?

Richard

[Geoffrey]

Hallo Richard!


You seem to be saying that God anoints liars with His Holy Spirit so they can perform real miracles.

We can take the example of Judas who was anointed by God to heal the sick and cast out devils (Matthew 10:1), but who later was anointed by the devil to betray Jesus (John 13:27). Consider those of whom Jesus spoke in Matthew 7:22, who will work miracles, but will yet be cast into hell.


How then do miracles help you discern between the true and the false teachers? You told me that you believe in Branham because of the "signs and wonders." Now you tell me that false prophets also perform real miracles, which I presume means that they perform real "signs and wonders." How then can signs and wonders vindicate doctrine?

True prophets appear first. False prophets appear after the true prophets. We recognise the true prophets by signs and wonders. We recognise the false prophets when they contradict the doctrine of the true prophets. That signs and wonders vindicate true prophets are clear as I have set out in post #11 of this thread as well as posts #12 to #15. I have not found any Scripture that teaches us to discern between true and false signs. Remember Deuteronomy 13.

Historians will testify that there has never been a ministry like that of William Marrion Branham since the days of Jesus Christ. He is called the father of the healing revival of the 40's, 50's and 60's. The miracles, signs and wonders worked by God in his ministry are not in dispute, not even by those who at first supported him, but later rejected his doctrine. F. F. Bosworth said that he prayed for years for the ministry of Jesus Christ to return to the earth and said that he saw it in the ministry of William Branham. Personally, I do not need proof of the veracity of the miracles, but the proof is on record. I have no proof of the miracles wrought by God through Jesus Christ either, but I have believed the report and have experienced the power of God in my own life.

It should not be surprising that God worked miracles through William Branham like he did through Jesus Christ in the light of:



John 14:12 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

True prophets appear first. False prophets appear after the true prophets. We recognise the true prophets by signs and wonders. We recognise the false prophets when they contradict the doctrine of the true prophets. That signs and wonders vindicate true prophets are clear as I have set out in post #11 of this thread as well as posts #12 to #15. I have not found any Scripture that teaches us to discern between true and false signs. Remember Deuteronomy 13.
Where does the Bible say that the "true prophets appear first"?

Jesus said "All that ever came before me are thieves and robbers: but the sheep did not hear them."

Furthermore, you said that Luther was the Fifth Angel of Revelation, so he must have been a true prophet. Now he preached centuries before Branham, but Branham contradicted him on the doctrine of the Trinity. So you said that Luther was wrong, and that I can not even believe the other "Angels" supposedly sent by God! Your doctrine seems to reduce to "I believe in Branham, and Branham alone."

I judge truth by the Bible alone, lit by the Spirit of God. Though I test all things against what others say, I need no man to tell me what to believe. For indeed, "It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man."

Richard

[Stephen]

I've followed this thread a little bit, cringing every time Geoffrey posts his latest. I've resisted jumping in till now for Geoffrey's sake, but time's up.

Richard nailed the point, Geoffrey. Your Jesus Christ is billy branham. I kinda knew you were building towards this cultic worship of a man way back with your spiel on the seven preachers of the church age. What would it take to wean you off of this guy? Richard's going out of his way to try, for which you should be thankful.

I have no words of encouragement for you, Geoffrey. If you think you need billy branham to tell you what to do and what to believe, fair enough.

Stephen

[Geoffrey]

Your Jesus Christ is billy branham. I kinda knew you were building towards this cultic worship of a man...

My Jesus Christ is Billy Branham?? Cultic worship of a man?? Mercy!!

Where did I write such?!