Elijah Prophesy

[Geoffrey]

Malachi 4:5-6
(5) Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD:
(6) And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.


Elijah would have a twofold ministry. He was to:

turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and
turn the heart of the children to their fathers.The first fold was fulfilled by John the Baptist as we read what Gabriel said to his father.



Luke 1:17
(17) And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just; to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.


Therefore, the second fold would remain to be accomplished.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Elijah would have a twofold ministry. He was to:
turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and
turn the heart of the children to their fathers.The first fold was fulfilled by John the Baptist as we read what Gabriel said to his father.

Therefore, the second fold would remain to be accomplished.

Hi Geoffrey,

Thanks for introducing a new topic for discussion. But I think you made an error in logic here. You seem to have presented an "Argument from Silence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_silence)." The fact that Gabriel did not mention the fulfillment of the second part does not mean it was not fulfilled. So if you want to make your case, you will have to prove from the Bible that John did not "turn the heart of the children to the fathers."

Also, I think something else is actually going on in the text. Gabriel did mention the idea of "turning the children" only it was not to the fathers, but to God:


Luke 1:15-17 For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb. 16 And many of the children of Israel shall he turn to the Lord their God. 17 And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just; to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.
Thus we see that Gabriel actually did mention both "parts" of prophecy. There are other examples of this kind of "fulfillment with variation." I think this is much closer to God's real intent.

Richard

[Geoffrey]

Argument from silence: oops! I did not realise that. I think I have refuted some arguments based on lack of evidence before, but I never knew it was called that.

If And many of the children of Israel shall he turn to the Lord their God is a variation of turning the hearts of the children to their fathers, then we might ask why the two folds were not stated reflexively in Luke as they were in Malachi.

Who are the fathers and who are the children? The fathers are the apostles and their children are the people that their teaching converts to Christ. This is evident in the following verses.



1 Thessalonians 2:11 As ye know how we exhorted and comforted and charged every one of you, as a father doth his children,



1 John 2:1 My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:



Galatians 4:19 My little children, of whom I travail in birth again until Christ be formed in you,


John the Baptist prepared the hearts of the men who would be the apostolic fathers, for the teaching of the gospel that they would later undertake.

[Geoffrey]

Here is another indication that the Elijah prophecy is twofold.

After Peter, James and John witnessed Jesus transfigured on the mount, they asked the following.



Matthew 17:10-13
(10) And his disciples asked him, saying, Why then say the scribes that Elijah must first come
(11) And Jesus answered and said unto them, Elijah truly shall first come, and restore all things.
(12) But I say unto you, That Elijah is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them.
(13) Then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John the Baptist.


In verse 11, Jesus said that Elijah would come to restore all things. John the Baptist did not restore all things, because later Peter spoke of it as a future event.



Acts 3:19-21
(19) Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord;
(20) And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you:
(21) Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Argument from silence: oops! I did not realise that. I think I have refuted some arguments based on lack of evidence before, but I never knew it was called that.
We learn something every day! That's what I love about this forum.


If And many of the children of Israel shall he turn to the Lord their God is a variation of turning the hearts of the children to their fathers, then we might ask why the two folds were not stated reflexively in Luke as they were in Malachi.
I don't know, but since both elements from Malachi's prophecy were mentioned, it seems impossible to deny that Gabriel meant us to understand that he was making a variation on the prophecy. Commentators have made guesses, but that's all they can do because the Bible is silent on this point.


Who are the fathers and who are the children? The fathers are the apostles and their children are the people that their teaching converts to Christ. This is evident in the following verses.
I agree that the Apostles were like "Fathers" - indeed, scholars refer to the writers of the first two centuries as the "Apostolic Fathers." So your point is well made.


John the Baptist prepared the hearts of the men who would be the apostolic fathers, for the teaching of the gospel that they would later undertake.
Yes, he prepared the hearts of those who would be "fathers" - but also those who would be "children" who would learn from the fathers.

There may be a future fulfillment of aspects of the Elijah prophecy, but I think it is artificial to divide it the way you did between the turning of the fathers' hearts and the children's hearts.

Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Here is another indication that the Elijah prophecy is twofold.

After Peter, James and John witnessed Jesus transfigured on the mount, they asked the following.


Matthew 17:10-13
(10) And his disciples asked him, saying, Why then say the scribes that Elijah must first come
(11) And Jesus answered and said unto them, Elijah truly shall first come, and restore all things.
(12) But I say unto you, That Elijah is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them.
(13) Then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John the Baptist.
In verse 11, Jesus said that Elijah would come to restore all things. John the Baptist did not restore all things, because later Peter spoke of it as a future event.

Hey Geoffrey!

I want to thank you again for brining up this issue. It highlights a classic error so common amongst prophecy teachers who don't have a deep knowledge of the Bible. The phrase "restore all things" that Jesus applied to John has nothing to do with the "restitution of all things" that Peter spoke about in Acts 3:19-21. Is it not obvious that John the Baptist was never meant to "restore all things" in an unqualified sense? So what then is the proper understanding of "restore all things?" The answer is simple, and painfully obvious to anyone who can read Greek, or even to those who can use a concordance for that matter. When the original prophecy in Malachi 4:6 was translated into the LXX, the word "turn" in the phrase "turn the hearts" was translated as "restore." The exact Greek word written in that verse is

αποκαταστησει (apokatastesei)

This is the exact word - letter for letter - that appears in Matthew 17:11, and it appears no where else in the entire New Testament! There is no doubt whatsoever in my mind that Jesus intended us to recognize that He was using the same word as in the prophecy. The "all things" in the phrase "restore all things" is therefore implicitly qualified by the context, and we recognize it as meaning that John would "restore all things" that the prophecy in Malachi said he would restore.

Richard

[joel]

As I am predisposed to the literal fulfillment of prophecy, meaning to me that when God speaks through a prophet, the literal fulfillment of that prophecy is what to expect, the words of the prophet Malachi, being the last words of the Old Testament, were clear to the nation Israel.

Elijah the prophet would come back. And, in coming back, he would perform a function.

Geoffrey's new thread is an interesting new addition to our varied discussions on the forum. And, Geoffrey, don't let your young age get in the way, here. You may not have a deep understanding of the Greek, and/or other things (whether you do, or you don't, doesn't matter, especially if Knowledge puffs up), as has been asserted, but, you are being led by God's spirit, as far as I am concerned,as I was studying those exact scriptures yesterday, and was pondering on their meaning.

Here are some of the things that I thought of;
* God would send Elijah, the prophet,
* He would come before the great and dreadful day of the Lord
* He would turn the heart of the fathers to the children
* and, He would turn the heart of the children to the fathers,

(the last words of the prophecy conerning Elijah are most vague, and worthy of considerable thought..)
* lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.

When John the Baptist came, he came in the spirit of Elijah the prophet. John fulfilled part of the role of Elijah. But, what must be considered, is that John was not literally Elijah the prophet. Elijah would come, and his arrival would be linked directly with the "great and dreadful day of the Lord".

So, we learn something here about prophecy that is helpful. A partial fulfillment can occur, such as that of John fulfilling a role of Elijah, but we are to look for the literal fulfillment to still remain in the future.

Elijah was taken by God in a supernatural removal from the earth. Upon his return, his very presence will be to "turn the hearts"........first, the father's heart back to their children.....and then the children's heart back to their fathers........
and why is this the emphasis?

The land may provide a clue as to the reason........the earth (land) represents the inheritance of the promise given to Abraham.....they were to tenant the land....as a precursor of obtaining the inheritance of the earth....as a fulfillment of the promise given to Abraham.

The inheritance of God's children, Abraham's seed, lies at the heart of the prophecies of the Old Testament.

The great and terrible day of the Lord will cleanse the land for the Lord's arrival.

When the rejection of the Messiah occurred, and Jesus was crucified, the promised land was overrun of the Gentiles and their inheritance was taken from them.

Elijah will return. He will fulfill his chosen role. He will help turn the hearts. And the great and terrible day of the Lord will come. But, that is not the end of the world. There is still much to occur after that day begins.

Joel

Joel

[Richard Amiel McGough]

As I am predisposed to the literal fulfillment of prophecy, meaning to me that when God speaks through a prophet, the literal fulfillment of that prophecy is what to expect, the words of the prophet Malachi, being the last words of the Old Testament, were clear to the nation Israel.
Hello my friend!

I am glad you found time to enter into this conversation. I am surprised that you continue to assert a belief in the "literal fulfillment of prophecy" since our previous conversations have pretty much proven (or so I thought) that that is a meaningless phrase.

The problem is that the "principle" of the "literal fulfillment of prophecy" forces people into one of two camps: 1) Absurdity, or 2) Inconsistency. For example, Charles Ryrie, perhaps the most prominent dispensationalist of the 20th century, asserted that the future war of Gog and Magog would be fought with literal bows and arrows and a literal cavalry of horses, because that is what the text literally declares! Other dispensationalists, appalled by such rigid and obviously absurd adherence to the principle of literalism, dropped their "principle" like a hot potato and moved immediately into the "symbolic" camp, asserting that the ancient accouterments of war mentioned by Ezekiel actually represented modern weapons like ballistic missiles and tanks.

But there is another error generated by the "principle of literal interpretation" that is worse than its absurdity and inconsistency. The principle contradicts the way that God Almighty intended us to interpret the Bible. We know this with absolute certainty, because God Himself used figures of speech and symbolic language throughout His Book. For example, the "literal interpretation" of the prophecy of Christ as the Lamb of God in Genesis 22 would assert that He had fleece and four legs! It is an utterly useless and absurd "principle" that has no place in valid hermeneutics. The principle can not even be stated in a logically consistent fashion, and is, therefore, literally meaningless.


Elijah the prophet would come back. And, in coming back, he would perform a function.

Geoffrey's new thread is an interesting new addition to our varied discussions on the forum. And, Geoffrey, don't let your young age get in the way, here. You may not have a deep understanding of the Greek, and/or other things (whether you do, or you don't, doesn't matter, especially if Knowledge puffs up), as has been asserted, but, you are being led by God's spirit, as far as I am concerned,as I was studying those exact scriptures yesterday, and was pondering on their meaning.
First, Paul was not talking about knowledge of how to properly interpret God's Word when he said that "knowledge puffs up." If that were the case, then we should all close our Bibles and aspire to ignorance. Frankly, I am astounded that you would suggest that a deep understanding of God's Word was some sort of sin, or that proving the correct interpretation of a verse by looking at the Greek was an act of pride.

Second, I was not talking about Geoffrey's knowledge or lack thereof - I specifically aimed my criticism at "a classic error so common amongst prophecy teachers who don't have a deep knowledge of the Bible." It is those teachers - puffed up in the vanity of their ignorant imaginations - that the Bible warns would be subject to the greater judgment. Those fake prophecy teachers make up their own ideas about God's Word, and teach others to follow them in their errors. It would be a grave sin if I failed to warn the sheep.

Third, I agree, the Lord could be leading Geoffrey to study this prophecy, but that does not mean that his interpretation is correct. On the contrary, perhaps God wanted this subject brought up so He could enlighten us as to it true meaning.


Here are some of the things that I thought of;
* God would send Elijah, the prophet,
* He would come before the great and dreadful day of the Lord
* He would turn the heart of the fathers to the children
* and, He would turn the heart of the children to the fathers,

(the last words of the prophecy conerning Elijah are most vague, and worthy of considerable thought..)
* lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.

When John the Baptist came, he came in the spirit of Elijah the prophet. John fulfilled part of the role of Elijah. But, what must be considered, is that John was not literally Elijah the prophet. Elijah would come, and his arrival would be linked directly with the "great and dreadful day of the Lord".
This proves my point in spades. The Lord Jesus Christ declared that "Elijah has come already." (Matt 17:12) The literal meaning of those words is that "Elijah has come already." But that's NOT how you interpret it Joel! Think about it! Right here, immediately after articulating your "principle" of literalism, you violate it and say that Jesus was not speaking literally about Elijah.


So, we learn something here about prophecy that is helpful. A partial fulfillment can occur, such as that of John fulfilling a role of Elijah, but we are to look for the literal fulfillment to still remain in the future.
If you don't take the words of the Lord Jesus Christ literally when He said that "Elijah has already come" then why do you insist on a "literal" interpretation of Malachi?


Elijah was taken by God in a supernatural removal from the earth. Upon his return, his very presence will be to "turn the hearts"........first, the father's heart back to their children.....and then the children's heart back to their fathers........
and why is this the emphasis?
The Angel Gabriel said that John the Baptist fulfilled those words. Why insist on another future fulfillment?


The inheritance of God's children, Abraham's seed, lies at the heart of the prophecies of the Old Testament.
Amen! And what is the inheritance?

CHRIST.

Christ is our all in all. He is the inheritance. What greater gift could God give Israel than Jesus Christ our Lord?

There is no justification whatsoever to assert that Israel has any other "inheritance" than Christ. The future promise for ethnic Israel is that they can be grafted back into the Olive Tree and partake of all the blessings of Christ if they no longer abide in unbelief. There is nothing in the Bible that suggests any other promise for them.

Richard

[Geoffrey]

Hallo Richard!



This is the exact word - letter for letter - that appears in Matthew 17:11, and it appears no where else in the entire New Testament! There is no doubt whatsoever in my mind that Jesus intended us to recognize that He was using the same word as in the prophecy. The "all things" in the phrase "restore all things" is therefore implicitly qualified by the context, and we recognize it as meaning that John would "restore all things" that the prophecy in Malachi said he would restore.


I do not get your point:confused2:. I already knew that shûb in Malachi 4:6 could be translated as restore, because I checked Strong's Concordance exactly for to find out why the Lord said that Elijah would restore all things. I did not need to go via the Septuagint.

What were the all things that were to be restored? It is qualified at least these three times. Firstly, again:



Acts 3:21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.


All things are the Word of God.



Matthew 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.


All things are the commandments of the Lord.



John 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

All things are the teachings or doctrines of Christ.

In what way were the hearts of the Christian children to be turned again to their apostolic fathers? They were to be restored to the doctrines concerning the Word of God as they were once delivered to the saints.

Why the hearts? Because:



Psalms 119:11 Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hallo Richard!

I do not get your point:confused2:. I already knew that shûb in Malachi 4:6 could be translated as restore, because I checked Strong's Concordance exactly for to find out why the Lord said that Elijah would restore all things. I did not need to go via the Septuagint.
Hey Geoffrey!

That's great that you knew that. But I don't think you understand the reason I referred to the Septuagint. It was not just any old form of apokatastasei that appeared in Malachi 4:6 and Matthew 17:12. There are many forms of that word depending on inflection and mood. My point was that the exact form of apokatastasei appears in both verses, and that Jesus was quoting Malachi which means that the "resoration of all things" was qualified by that context. Therefore, the "all things" referred to everything that was prophesied about him, not "everything under the sun."

Also, I think it important to repeat that I wasn't talking about any knowledge you did or did not have. I was talking about prophecy teachers who (I presumed) were the ones who told you that the "restore all things" was connected to the "restitution of all things" in Acts. Your response seems to confirm that you were taught a "special meaning" of the phrase "all things" as we shall see by your response below.


What were the all things that were to be restored? It is qualified at least these three times. Firstly, again:

All things are the Word of God.

All things are the commandments of the Lord.

All things are the teachings or doctrines of Christ.

Two problems.

First, the verses you chose were taken entirely out of context of Matthew 17. You could just as well have chosen any other verses where the phrase "all things" occurs, such as


Genesis 9:3 Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.
Using your method of exegesis, this proves that "all things" are the plants God gave Adam for food. Such does not a valid exegesis make. The First, Second, and Third rules of hermeneutics are:

1) Context.
2) Context!
3) CONTEXT!!!

But even if I allowed your point to pass, I am then confronted with the assertion that John the Baptist was supposed to restore all the doctrines of God in first century Israel. There is no evidence for that in the Bible.

And so you say that John's failure to "restore all things" proves that another Elijah would have to come in the future to "restore" all the doctrines. All I can say to that is that it strikes me as a most amazing sequence of non-sequitors masquerading as Biblical exegesis!

And of course, we both know what you are really trying to do, my friend! You are seeking to lay the foundations for your assertion that William Branham was Elijah who came and "restored" all the doctrines of God that had been lost soon after the close of the first century. And to that I must say ... if Branham is the one who taught you exegesis, then Branham most definitely was not a prophet of God.

Forgive me for speaking so sharply, but extreme errors sometimes require a rather pointed clarity of response.

Richard

[Geoffrey]

And of course, we both know what you are really trying to do, my friend! You are seeking to lay the foundations for your assertion that William Branham was Elijah who came and "restored" all the doctrines of God that had been lost soon after the close of the first century.


Most perceptive!



Forgive me for speaking so sharply, but extreme errors sometimes require a rather pointed clarity of response.


Don't worry. I'm very sharp myself.

[shalag]

Interesting to look at Malachi and Matthew by comparative gematria. It makes an interesting picture when you look at the progression of the thoughts.

Malachi 4:5 1661


Deuteronomy 32:29 O that they were wise, [that] they understood this, [that] they would consider their latter end!

Psalm 140:12 I know that the LORD will maintain the cause of the afflicted, [and] the right of the poor.

Ecclesiastes 4:13 Better [is] a poor and a wise child than an old and foolish king, who will no more be admonished.

Songs 8:14 Make haste, my beloved, and be thou like to a roe or to a young hart upon the mountains of spices.

Malachi 4:5 Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD:And continuing with Matthew 17:11 by the gematria.


All the Verses in the Bible with Sum = 7027 TR Scriv
Matthew 17:11 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Elias truly shall first come, and restore all things.

Luke 9:20 He said unto them, But whom say ye that I am? Peter answering said, The Christ of God.

John 15:21 But all these things will they do unto you for my name's sake, because they know not him that sent me.

Romans 11:5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Most perceptive!
Thanks for the straight talk my friend! That's why I love talking with you.


Don't worry. I'm very sharp myself.

Excellent. Sharp talk is most welcome here because it has a wonderful clarifying effect.

Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Interesting to look at Malachi and Matthew by comparative gematria. It makes an interesting picture when you look at the progression of the thoughts.

Malachi 4:5 1661

And continuing with Matthew 17:11 by the gematria.
Hi Shalag,

Unfortunately, that verse has a number of variations which makes its gematria uncertain.


KJV And Jesus answered and said unto them, Elias truly shall first come, and restore all things.
Scrivener's TR (and many other Greek texts, such as the Greek NT used by the Greek orthodox church) has the three words highlighted, which is why they appear in the KJV. But the modern critical edition removes them, as seen in the NASB for example:


NASB Mat 17:11 And He answered and said, "Elijah is coming and will restore all things;
This is why Gematria requires a lot of research ....

But the gematria seems to confirm the TR reading. The exact words attributed to Jesus break down as follows:

Elias truly shall first come = 2765 = 5 x 7 x 79
and restore all things ......= 1659 = 3 x 7 x 79

This kind of reiteration of a common factor (7 x 79 = 553) is the primary hallmark of design. The modulation by 3 and 5 is the same as we see in the name and title of Christ:

Jesus .= .888 = 3 x 276
Christ = 1480 = 5 x 276

I also am intrigued by the value of the last three words, which differs only by two from the value 1661:

and restore all things = 1659 = 1661 - 2

Richard

[Geoffrey]

As I am predisposed to the literal fulfillment of prophecy, meaning to me that when God speaks through a prophet, the literal fulfillment of that prophecy is what to expect, the words of the prophet Malachi, being the last words of the Old Testament, were clear to the nation Israel.

An observation: Malachi means angel. The last words of the Old Testament were brought by an angel, in two senses:

Malachi was a prophet and, therefore, an angel
His name means angel.The last words of the New Testament were brought to John by an angel from Jesus Christ (Rev 1:1). Of course, every book of the Bible was brought by an angel, but in Malachi and Revelation the idea of angels seems a bit more explicit. Revelation is full of angels. Just an observation.


Geoffrey's new thread is an interesting new addition to our varied discussions on the forum. And, Geoffrey, don't let your young age get in the way, here. You may not have a deep understanding of the Greek, and/or other things (whether you do, or you don't, doesn't matter, especially if Knowledge puffs up), as has been asserted, but, you are being led by God's spirit, as far as I am concerned,as I was studying those exact scriptures yesterday, and was pondering on their meaning.

Thanks for the encouraging words, Joel!


Here are some of the things that I thought of;
* God would send Elijah, the prophet,
* He would come before the great and dreadful day of the Lord
* He would turn the heart of the fathers to the children
* and, He would turn the heart of the children to the fathers,

(the last words of the prophecy conerning Elijah are most vague, and worthy of considerable thought..)
* lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.

Lest. In other words, if Elijah does not come, the Lord will come and smite. But the Lord said that He will come and smite anyway, because the wicked will be burned up. It seems to me that He will not come and smite those who fear His name, those who have allowed Elijah to turn their hearts to righteousness.:pop2:


When John the Baptist came, he came in the spirit of Elijah the prophet. John fulfilled part of the role of Elijah. But, what must be considered, is that John was not literally Elijah the prophet. Elijah would come, and his arrival would be linked directly with the "great and dreadful day of the Lord".

So, we learn something here about prophecy that is helpful. A partial fulfillment can occur, such as that of John fulfilling a role of Elijah, but we are to look for the literal fulfillment to still remain in the future.

Elijah was taken by God in a supernatural removal from the earth. Upon his return, his very presence will be to "turn the hearts"........

I think the second part of the prophesy does not involve Elijah the Tishbite either, but also a prophet in the spirit and power of Elijah as was John the Baptist.


first, the father's heart back to their children.....and then the children's heart back to their fathers........
and why is this the emphasis?

This emphasis causes me to believe in the twofold nature of the prophesy.


The land may provide a clue as to the reason........the earth (land) represents the inheritance of the promise given to Abraham.....they were to tenant the land....as a precursor of obtaining the inheritance of the earth....as a fulfillment of the promise given to Abraham. The inheritance of God's children, Abraham's seed, lies at the heart of the prophecies of the Old Testament.

I agree. The disciples thought that Jesus would restore the physical kingdom of Israel at that time. With His first advent, He established only the spiritual kingdom, not only for the Israelites, but also for the Gentiles. The physical and literally everlasting restoration is still future.

[Geoffrey]

First, the verses you chose were taken entirely out of context of Matthew 17. You could just as well have chosen any other verses where the phrase "all things" occurs, such as


Genesis 9:3 Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.
Using your method of exegesis, this proves that "all things" are the plants God gave Adam for food. Such does not a valid exegesis make.

At least, I showed that there are many places in the Bible where all things refered to the Word of God. You should have chosen another verse, because:


Genesis 9:3 Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.

coheres marvelously with:


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 6:55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.



John 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.


In any case, all things were made by Him by His Word, so that all things are the manifestation of His Word. Here is an interesting identity:

all things (πας) = 281 = (διδασκαλια) doctrines


The First, Second, and Third rules of hermeneutics are:

1) Context.
2) Context!
3) CONTEXT!!!


When we examine Matthew 17:11 in the context of Malachi 4, our attention is drawn to:


Malachi 4:4 Remember ye the law of Moses my servant, which I commanded unto him in Horeb for all Israel, with the statutes and judgments.

which verse we will seek to understand in the context of Deuteronomy. As the Israelites were about to enter the Promised Land, Moses brought to their remembrance the law that he once delivered unto them at Horeb. The words turn and heart provide a thematic link between Malachi 4:6 and the following.


Deuteronomy 30:10-17
(10) If thou shalt hearken unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to keep his commandments and his statutes which are written in this book of the law, and if thou turn unto the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul.
(11) For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not hidden from thee, neither is it far off.
(12) It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it?
(13) Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it?
(14) But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it.
(15) See, I have set before thee this day life and good, and death and evil;
(16) In that I command thee this day to love the LORD thy God, to walk in his ways, and to keep his commandments and his statutes and his judgments, that thou mayest live and multiply: and the LORD thy God shall bless thee in the land whither thou goest to possess it.
(17) But if thine heart turn away, so that thou wilt not hear, but shalt be drawn away, and worship other gods, and serve them;

At the risk of being found hermeneutically challenged:lol:, I would dare to contend that in verse 10 the keeping of the commandments and the statutes is in apposition to turning the heart toward the Lord. In verse 17, turning the heart away, is equated to not hearing God’s Word. Therefore, after thoroughly studying context, we conclude that:

Turning the hearts in Malachi 4 refers to turning people to God's Word as it does in Deuteronomy 30 and that
Restoring all things in Matthew 17 refer to turning the hearts to God's Word as it does in Malachi 4, with restore equating with turn (as we have seen already) and all things with God's Word. The restoration is not of the actual Word, which is incorruptible, but of the understanding we have of it in our hearts and minds.(Observe that the pair, turn and heart, appear only in the zeroeth and the seventh verses of the passage as quoted and that the turning is toward in the zeroeth verse and away in the seventh verse. A little more in another post.)

The law was to the Old Testament as the gospel is to the New.


Hebrews 10:1 For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.
John the Baptist, the first Elijah in terms of Malachi 4:5, turned (not restored, but turned) the heart of the apostolic fathers to deliver the gospel at the first unto the Christian children as Moses delivered the law initially at Horeb unto the children of Israel.


Jude 1:3-4
(3) 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.

As the Israelites turned their hearts away from the law, so the Christians would fall away from the true gospel because of heresies. The second Elijah would have to restore their hearts to their fathers by bringing to their remembrance all things that their fathers once taught them.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

How marvelously

coheres with:

When we examine Matthew 17:11 in the context of Malachi 4, our attention is drawn to:

In Deuteronomy, as the Israelites were about to enter the Promised Land, Moses brought to their remembrance the law that he once delivered unto them at Horeb. The words turn and heart provide a thematic link between Malachi 4:6 and the following.

Hey Geoffrey,

I anticipated that you might make that link. I don't have any problem with such associations - they add depth and flavor and color to Scripture. But they are not a valid means of establishing the meaning of phrases like "all things" in Matt 17:12.


At the risk of being found hermeneutically challenged, I would dare to contend that in verse 10 the keeping of the commandments and the statutes is in apposition to turning the heart toward the Lord. In verse 17, turning the heart away, is equated to not hearing God’s Word. Observe that the pair, turn and heart, appear only in the zeroeth and the seventh verses of the passage as quoted and that the turning is toward in the zeroeth verse and away in the seventh verse.
I think you are correct about the relation between turning the heart and hearing God's Word. I don't know why you thought I would take that as a sign you were "hermeneutically challenged." I hope you are not getting "skittish" with my demand for proper hermeneutics. As far as I know, all my challenges to heremeutical errors have been correct, since no one has tried to prove them wrong.


John the Baptist, the first Elijah in terms of Malachi 4:5, turned (not restored, but turned) the heart of the apostolic fathers to deliver the gospel at the first unto the Christian children as Moses delivered the law initially at Horeb unto the children of Israel.
You have not yet established from the Bible that there are "two Elijah's." I refuted your initial arguments, and you did not challenge my refutation, so it still stands.

Also, you admitted that the word "shub" was translated as "restore" so why now are you suggesting that the "restore" of Matthew 17:12 does not refer to the "shub" of Malachi 4:6? It seems like you are not actually engaging the arguments I am presenting. If you answer my points, I will have to admit you are correct, and then you can convert me to whatever are the necessary implications of the Bible. But if you act like you didn't even hear my points, our conversation will go nowhere. Please note that I interact directly with the words you write. I would be delighted if you did me the same honour.


As the Israelites turned their hearts away from the law, so the Christians would fall away from the true gospel because of heresies. The second Elijah would have to restore their hearts to their fathers by bringing to their remembrance all things that their fathers once taught them.

When you say "Chirstians" it sounds like you are talking about "all Christians." If not, please specify what subgroups you are talking about. If, on the other hand, you do mean that all Christians became heretics and that there have been no true Christians until Branham showed up on the scene, then I must tell you that is an incredible assertion, and you will need to prove that point before attempting to build anything upon it. OK?

Richard

[kenod]

You have not yet established from the Bible that there are "two Elijah's." I refuted your initial arguments, and you did not challenge my refutation, so it still stands.


This is my first post in your forum, so I will declare my hand right away - I believe William Branham was a prophet and a messenger sent to the Church. (BTW, I do not know Geoffrey!).

I have briefly outlined some of my reasons for believing this. Of course I know there are different interpretations for all of the Scriptures quoted, but taken together, I think they should cause one to at least pause and reflect on the possibilities. We all believe the Bible is infallible, but I don’t think any of us claim that our understanding is infallible.

I would be particularly interested to hear your views on the 'day of the Lord' aspect of Malachi’s prophecy.



1. Day of the Lord:
An 'Elijah' is to come before the 'great and dreadful day of the Lord'. This was not fulfilled in John the Baptist’s ministry.
Malachi 4:5
Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet
before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD:

2. John’s denial:
Jesus called John 'Elijah', but John denied it. Why … because he was not the 'Elijah' to forerun the coming of the Messiah in power, which is what the Jews were expecting. John’s role was to introduce the 'Lamb of God'.
John 1:21
And they asked him, What then?
Art thou Elias? And he saith, I am not.
Art thou that prophet? And he answered, No.
Mat 11:14-15
And if ye will receive [it], this is Elias, which was for to come.
He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.


3. 'Future tense'
After John’s death, Jesus still speaks of an Elijah to come who 'will restore' (future tense).
Mat 17:11
And Jesus answered and said unto them, Elias truly shall first come,
and restore (apokatasthsei) all things.
NASB: And He answered and said,
"Elijah is coming and will restore all things;

Jesus is speaking of the 'spirit' of Elijah (anointing for a ministry) not a person. In the OT we see it prefigured in Elijah and Elisha who received the same 'spirit' - the second greater than the first.


4. The 'fathers' and the 'children'
Malachi prophesies a dual task for Elijah:
Malachi 4:6
And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children,
and the heart of the children to their fathers,

In the spirit of Elijah, John only fulfilled the first part of Malachi’s prophecy.
His ministry was to prepare, not to 'restore'.
Luke 1:17
And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias,
to turn (epistreyai) the hearts of the fathers to the children,
and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just;
to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.
Mark 1:2-3
As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face,
which shall prepare thy way before thee.
The voice of one crying in the wilderness,
Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.

5. The 'times of restitution'
Acts 3:21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things,
which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.

6. The Seventh Angel
The seven churches of Revelation 2 & 3 represent seven church ages. Each age has a messenger (angel). The seventh angel (the messenger to the Laodicea church age) is to finish the 'mystery of God' - explain those things necessary for the Church to know before the rapture (restore all things)
Rev 10:7
But in the days of the voice of the seventh angel,
when he shall begin to sound, the mystery of God should be finished,
as he hath declared to his servants the prophets.

7. William Branham’s ministry
A ministry of discernment is foreshadowed in the 'days of Lot' prophecy (Genesis 18:1-15 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Gen/Gen018.html#top); Luke 17:28-30 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Luk/Luk017.html#28))
William Branham’s ministry of discernment is outstanding because of the accuracy, detail, frequency, and scrutiny. It can be heard on hundreds of online audio recordings and also can be seen in a few online videos. Signs alone can mislead, but Scriptural signs supported by God's Word, are supernatural identification 2 Cor 12:12 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/2Cr/2Cr012.html#12); Hebrews 2:4 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Hbr/Hbr002.html#top)..
Luke 17:28-30
Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded; But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed [them] all. Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.
John 4:18-19
For thou hast had five husbands; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband: in that saidst thou truly.
The woman saith unto him, Sir, I perceive that thou art a prophet.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

This is my first post in your forum, so I will declare my hand right away - I believe William Branham was a prophet and a messenger sent to the Church. (BTW, I do not know Geoffrey!).

Hi kenod,

Glad you laid down your cards. It makes for good, direct conversation.

Most of your "reasons" have been answered in my discussion with Geoffrey here and in the Branham thread. If you read that, you will get a pretty good idea of my objections to him.

My first questions to you are these: If Branham was the "Seventh Angel of Revelation" why do his teachings contradict those of the previous six Angels? Specifically, why does his teaching on the Trinity contradict that of Luther (the Fifth Angel)? And if the teachings of God's Angels can contradict each other on such essentials as the Nature of God, how am I supposed to trust anything they say? And finally, why didn't any of the previous angels exalt themselves like Branham, claiming to be the very "Voice of God"?

Richard

[kenod]

I must have missed the post where you addressed "Elijah" and the "day of the Lord". I'll look through again and see if I can find it.

God speaks to us through the ministries He placed in the Church ... if you are an anointed teacher, and you are telling me the Truth, then you too can be "God's voice" to me. (In fact I find that many people I meet in discussion forums feel they are just that!)

If William Branham was a prophet as he said, then he knew his ministry, and his place in the Church.

I think most Protestant Christians today believe that Martin Luther was a man greatly used of God to restore truth to the Church, but I'm sure that most of us also believe that he did not have the complete truth. (The letter to the the angel of the church in Sardis says: "I have not found your deeds completed in the sight of My God." Rev 3:2 NASB). Since the Reformation, God has gradually restored greater truth to the Church.

Edit: I looked up William Branham's comment "I am God's voice to you" to see the context (here (http://nt.scbbs.com/cgi-bin/om_isapi.dll?clientID=262792216&advquery=%22God%27s%20voice%22&infobase=message2006.nfo&record={C49}&softpage=Browse_Frame_Pg42)). It is a reference to him declaring that William Upshaw was healed - a truly amazing testimony (Congressman Upshaw (http://www.godsgenerals.com/pdf/1951_APRIL-MAY.pdf)).

[Rose]

Hi Kenode :yo:

If William Branham was a prophet as he said, then he knew his ministry, and his place in the Church.

I think most Protestant Christians today believe that Martin Luther was a man greatly used of God to restore truth to the Church, but I'm sure that most of us also believe that he did not have the complete truth. (The letter to the the angel of the church in Sardis says: "I have not found your deeds completed in the sight of My God." Rev 3:2 NASB). Since the Reformation, God has gradually restored greater truth to the Church.

My comment is: A true prophet of God may not have the whole truth, but what he says will not contradict another prophets words, if they are both anointed from God.

May we all strive to seek the truth :pray:

Rose

[kenod]

Hi Kenode :yo:


My comment is: A true prophet of God may not have the whole truth, but what he says will not contradict another prophets words, if they are both anointed from God.

May we all strive to seek the truth :pray:

Rose

Hi Rose

Do you think Martin Luther was a prophet?

Do you think he was right about all his teaching?

I believe Martin Luther was a messenger sent to the Church with the message of "justification by faith".
God raised up other men, such as John Wesley, to build on that foundation.

It is my conviction that William Branham was the seventh and final messenger sent to the Church, and it was his role to "restore all things" (Mat 17:11 (http://cf.blb.org/search/translationResults.cfm?Criteria=restore+all+things&Version=KJV&sf=3); Rev 10:7 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Rev/Rev010.html#7)) ... building on the foundation established by other godly men.

That Wiliam Branham was a prophet (seer), is vindicated by his ministry. His "gift of discernment" has been demonstrated on 1,000s of occasions, and worked through visions (cf John 1:48 (http://cf.blb.org/search/translationResults.cfm?Criteria=%22I+saw+thee+unde r+the+fig+tree%27&Version=KJV&sf=2)) ... sometimes he had to spell the name of a person that he saw in the vision because he could not pronounce it. All of this evidence is available on hundreds of recorded meetings, as well as on video. Even most critics do not deny the supernatural nature of his ministry.

Walter Hollenweger (a well known theological writer, and executive secretary of WCC) translated for William Branham's meetings in Switzerland and commented concerning his discernment ministry that he was "not aware of any case in which he was mistaken in the often detailed statements he made". ("The Pentecostals", Hendickson, 1972, p354)

Our faith should not stand on signs alone ... supernatural signs must be in accordance with the Word of God.

[Rose]

Hi Rose

Do you think Martin Luther was a prophet?

Do you think he was right about all his teaching?

I believe Martin Luther was a messenger sent to the Church with the message of "justification by faith".
God raised up other men, such as John Wesley, to build on that foundation.

It is my conviction that William Branham was the seventh and final messenger sent to the Church, and it was his role to "restore all things" (Mat 17:11 (http://cf.blb.org/search/translationResults.cfm?Criteria=restore+all+things&Version=KJV&sf=3); Rev 10:7 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Rev/Rev010.html#7)) ... building on the foundation established by other godly men.

No, I do not think that Martin Luther was a prophet or the 5th Angel sent to the churches, neither do I think that William Branham was the 7th Angel, or a prophet sent from God. Branham was just a man with his own message to preach.

The point in my earlier post was: whether God sends Angels or prophets with a message they must agree and not contradict each other in the message they are delivering, even though they don't have the full understanding of its meaning.

Rose

[kenod]

The point in my earlier post was: whether God sends Angels or prophets with a message they must agree and not contradict each other in the message they are delivering, even though they don't have the full understanding of its meaning.

Rose

Then we agree! :)

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Then we agree! :)
Hi Kenod,

I don't undestand how you can agree with Rose, since Luther and the other "angels" taught the Biblical doctrine of the Trinity, whereas Branham vehemently denied that doctrine, even calling it a "doctrine of demons."

Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Do you think Martin Luther was a prophet?
Not in the sense of the word as you are using it. He was a teacher that God raised up. His authority came only from his knowledge of the Bible, not from "signs and wonders" which can be lied about by men or faked by demons.

I have one and only one Authority. GOD'S WORD IS SUFFICIENT.


Do you think he was right about all his teaching?
Nope. I have never found a human teacher to be 100% without error. And amongst all the teachers I have read, I believe Branham has much more error than most. I am not aware of a single doctrine that he "restored" and I am aware of a number of errors that he (re)introduced. Could you list the top five restored docrines?


It is my conviction that William Branham was the seventh and final messenger sent to the Church, and it was his role to "restore all things" (Mat 17:11 (http://cf.blb.org/search/translationResults.cfm?Criteria=restore+all+things&Version=KJV&sf=3); Rev 10:7 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Rev/Rev010.html#7)) ... building on the foundation established by other godly men.
The teaching based on the phrase "restore all things" is false. The phrase "restore all things" refers to "all things" that were prophesied about him, not "all things" in general (which would be absurd), much less "all Bible doctrines" which is totally obviously NOT the meaning of the prophesy.

Also, I still wonder why the other six "angels" didn't even know they were "angels" and didn't ever exalt themselves like Branham who claimed himself to the very "Voice of God" and Seventh Angel and Final Prophet, and the Elijah preceeding Christ, etc., etc., etc., ad infinitum, ad naseum.

And another thing I'd really like to know is how wrong does Branham have to be before you recognize him as a false prophet? He claimed to be the Elijah preceding Jesus Christ - such pride! - and he's been dead for thirty years, so we know he was false because the real Elijah (John the Baptist) saw Jesus Christ come before he died.

So how long before you conclude Branham was false? Another ten years? Twenty? Thirty? Hundred?

Sorry for the blunt talk. No offense intended. I just think the conversation goes better if we speak plainly.

Richard

[Stephen]

Hello kenod, Rose and Richard!

Is it true that william branham vaunted himself in the manner of proclaiming himself all these things that Richard objected to in the last post? I know nothing about the guy branham (and wouldn't want to), but I'm pretty sure the devil was the chief trumpet-blower (by self-decree) way back when the angels were rockin' along. I find you can always sniff out the beguiler when it comes to doctrine. The stench of self-appointment gives him away.

The great thing about guys who go around proclaiming "I am he" is that they make rich fodder for the house of mirth. Every time I'm lucky enough to go back home to NZ I spend grand hours with my bros choking back the cosmic giggles because of jokers like branham who gloat in their self-appointment. I mean, who could take them seriously! Praise God he sends characters like that along to give us something to laugh about. Elijah himself would be chortling down at the Mount Carmel bull pit about that one (1 Kings 18:27). The sheer funniness is great. :lol::lol::lol:

So, any news on the eighth angel yet?

Stephen

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I have spent the last couple hours reading the glorious revelations from Almighty God that restored fundamental Christian doctrines through His most humble servant, the Prophet William Branham.

Of first importance is that we understand the heavenly glory that awaits William Branham. According to the Prophet's own testimony, God has promised to give him a "huge portion of heaven" because of the "glorious decision" he made when he chose the "hard way" and the "narrow path." Here is Branham's humble testimony of the great things God has planned for him because he made the "correct and precise decision." I wish I did that. All I did was choose Jesus. I didn't know I could get a bigger chunk of heaven if I made a more "correct and precise decision." That's why its so important to have Prophets to reveal things like this. Note that God gave this supernatural word in French to a boy ignorant of that language, so the word is confirmed by signs and wonders:


BIRTH.PAINS_ PHOENIX.AZ V-3 N-4 SUNDAY_ 65-0124 (http://nt.scbbs.com/cgi-bin/om_isapi.dll?clientID=104468787&advquery=correct%20precise%20decision&infobase=message2006.nfo&record={17CEA}&softpage=Document42)
14 And I would like to read this note. This is the original note of one of them, and it was from this man that had interpreted. I may not be able to call his name just right. Le Doux, Victor Le Doux, he's a full-blooded Frenchman. Now, here's the message.
http://nt.scbbs.com/sd42images/tab.gifhttp://nt.scbbs.com/sd42images/tab.gif
Because thou has chosen the narrow path, the harder way, thou has walked of your own choosing, thou has picked the correct and precise decision, and it is My Way. Because of this momentous decision, a huge portion of Heaven awaits thee. What a glorious decision thou has made! This, in itself, is that which will give, and make come to pass, the tremendous victory in Love Divine.15 When I got that... You know, when I first heard people speak in tongues, I--I wouldn't criticize nothing, see, because I've seen it genuine. But, always wondered. But when that happened, and knowing what the commission was, behind it, I--I knew it come from God.
OK - now that we know God Himself gave supernatural proof of the validity and divine inspiration of every word uttered by His Prophet William Branham through this (and many similar) signs and wonders, let us drink deep from this fountain of divine Wisdom.

I begin with his restored doctrine of the Trinity.



AT.THY.WORD_ LA.CA SUNDAY_ 51-0506E
E-32 See, Jesus could do nothing except the people believed Him. Is that right? You ha... You ha... See, you believe in God;
you believe in the Son, believe in the Holy Ghost; that's the Trinity. We believe in that. See? But then, in order for this to
operate, you must believe me, not as Them, but They sent me here for this. You understand? Yes, sir. You understand.
My dear brother, I--I... You can tell now that something's taking place, can't you? I feel it. Yes, sir.

"You understand? Yes, sir. You understand." That's what I like about having a Prophet to explain the Bible for me. I don't have to worry about misunderstanding something. The Prophet makes the Bible so much clearer. I was so confused until I read the writings of God's Prophet.



THE.TESTIMONY.OF.JESUS.CHRIST_ CHICAGO.IL SATURDAY_ 53-0829
E-48 Now, there's many superstitions, and things, and--and little psychic moves and so forth that doesn't build on the foundation. But the... This is Scripturally, my dear friend, on the Word of God: "Jesus Christ the same yesterday, today, and forever." See? All right.
Now, I am not He. He is in the building. He is in every individual here. How many seen that picture in that book? Let's see your hands. There's a picture of the Angel of the Lord. Now, it's... Well, I'll have to give you the story of it some night and maybe bring some of the pictures in.

To my opinion, the same Pillar of Fire that led the children of Israel from Egypt to Canaan: "Jesus Christ the same yesterday, today, and forever," both Father, Son and Holy Spirit. He's just the same. God isn't three people. It's a--it's a three foot rule that you let out. The same God the Father was made manifest in flesh, and now in the Holy Spirit. That's the reason the baptism is in the Name of Father, Son, Holy Ghost (See?) the trinity--the trinity, not three gods, but three persons in one God, one... three gods... One person in three dispensations. See?


OK - the light is begining to dawn. The Prophet has infallibly declared that we believe in the Trinity, and that the Trinity is not "three gods" but "three persons in one God." Excellent. These words of the Prophet Branham seem to cohere with the orthodox Doctrine of the Trinity.

Everything was looking so clear and bright, but then I read more of the inspired words of our Prophet Branham:



QUESTIONS.AND.ANSWERS_ JEFF.IN SATURDAY_ 54-0515
182-203 First thing is to straighten out you on your trinity: Father, Son, Holy Spirit. Now, in the first place, not one place in the Bible was trinity ever mentioned. You find it and show it to me. There's no such a thing. It's Catholic error, and you Protestants bow to it. Notice. Now, what is this? I said this is Who? Father. This is Who? Son. And this is Who? [Congregation says, "Holy Ghost."--Ed.] Now, the Father is the father of Who? The Son. Is that right? Now, this is Jesus' Father. Don't get them mixed up, now. This here is the Father; this is the Son, and this is the Holy Ghost. Is that right? Now, the people put it, "Three different people, three different Gods, three different personalities." No wonder the Jews can't understand it. All right.


All right. I obviously need more explanation from our Prophet.


THE.KINSMAN.REDEEMER_ JEFF.IN V-6 N-8 SUNDAY_ 60-1002
162 I different with Billy Graham on three individual persons in the Godhead, or any other trinitarian teacher on that. I believe in a trinity, of course, but not in that manner: them being three persons. They're One. That story there alone, if I had nothing else but that, would prove it.

Well now ... let's review: We believe in the Trinity as "three persons" and we don't believe in the Trinity as "three persons."

"You understand? Yes, sir. You understand." That's what I like about having a Prophet to explain the Bible for me.

Now just to make sure there is no lingering confusion about what the exact nature of the Doctrine of the Trinity that Almighty God restored through the incomparable lucidity of His mighty Prophet William Branham, lets us drink in more of His Inspired Word:


THE.RESURRECTION.OF.LAZARUS_ ERIE.PA SUNDAY_ 51-0729A
E-31 Now, God in His great universe... Could you just imagine just... Let me give you a small picture of what I think God is, what the trinity of God is. There is different arguments in the world concerning the trinity of the Godhead. If they would just... they... All of them believe the same thing, but the devil's just got between them and got them all broke up. That's all.
God is just like the air. He fills all the universe... ... His Son. [B]Son has to be borned of. So the Logos, which was the Son of God that went out of God, that brood over the earth...

Now, let's just picture that as being a white halo coming out of that space. That was the Son of God, the Logos. And there It was
in space moving around, like a little child playing before the door of its parent. And He drawed in His mind what should be.

E-32 And I can hear Him look around and say, there was nothing nowhere no--just vastness of space. The Father covered all the
space. And then this God become bodilized down to the Logos. I can hear Him say, "Let there be light." And an atom bursted yonder
and the sun come into existence, Deity.

She begin to whirl. Millions of years rolled by. And after while a piece flew off it. [Brother Branham illustrates--Ed.]... star. And He stood out there and watched it. And it went all down; He stopped it over here after it fell a few million years. [Brother Branham illustrates--Ed.]... off went another one. He let it fall near a certain place, and He stopped it. What's He doing? He's got in His mind now that someday there will be an earth. There'll be mankind on earth.

E-33 God is from above. He's writing the zodiac in the sky. Zodiac starts with the Virgin, the first coming of Christ, ends up with the Leo, the Lion, the second coming. And He's writing His first Bible. There's three of them. One of them was written in the skies, one in the pyramids, one on this. Everything in God is in a trinity, like a man's in a trinity. All right.

All right indeed. Yes sir! There is many arguments. All right. You understand now. The Son was borned of God. Hallelujah! But the devil went and got us all broke up. I am so glad God became bodilized in Jesus. You understand now. Praise God! I seen the light.

RAM

[shalag]

Now just hang in there a minute while I run out and get my bathing suit on. The dripping sarcasm is just about past my knees.

Actually I believe Branham was sincere in his belief in Christ and for that I know God is no respecter of persons. As for his misunderstanding of doctrine, we all stumble in that area. Unfortunately his was spoken and written and was taken for gospel by some rather than being measured by the Word for the edification of the believer.

Because Jesus Christ is the same today, yesterday and forever I wouldn't discount signs and wonders and speaking in tongues lest we sell short what God has for us in His gifts of salvation as well as the weapons for warfare.


John 9:38 Now John answered Him, saying, "Teacher, we saw someone who does not follow us casting out demons in Your name, and we forbade him because he does not follow us." 39 But Jesus said, "Do not forbid him, for no one who works a miracle in My name can soon afterward speak evil of Me. 40 "For he who is not against us is on our side .

[Stephen]

Hi Richard!

Yeah, you got what I meant when I described how mirthful these self-appointed gurus can be. Of course you're gonna get rotten tomatoes thrown at you if you blow your own trumpet all the time. This branham joker deserves what he gets, vaunting himself above the flock. But seriously - or as serious as one can be when it comes to this kinda thing - we have a few brothers on this forum who have been suckered by this deceiver, and it is only right that they get the opportunity to learn why he is a deceiver. I've found a few websites for kenod and Geoffrey to check out to see why branham is no prophet of God.

http://www.forgottenword.org/branham.html

http://jesus-messiah.com/html/branham.html

http://www.letusreason.org/Latrain4.htm

http://people.delphiforums.com/JohnK63/home.htm

There's plenty of reading there, many Bible references with which to compare branham's words to the word of God, and a testimony of an ex-follower.

I always find it ridiculous when someone proclaims themselves a follower of a man. God needs no man to interpret His word for us. That is the Holy Spirit's job (1 John 2:27). Paul also gave counsel against people like branham (Galatians 1:8; 2 Corinthians 11:12-15). To let branham or anyone like him interpret God's word for you is just plain lazy. It also displays an utter lack of discernment, one which can prove very costly if allowed to fester.

The mormons, the muslims and the jay dubs have their own versions of branham. Blokes who raise the trumpet to their lips, claim divine revelation, and aggrandise themselves. Nothing but fodder for the house of mirth, the lot of them.

Stephen

[kenod]

Not in the sense of the word as you are using it. He was a teacher that God raised up. His authority came only from his knowledge of the Bible, not from "signs and wonders" which can be lied about by men or faked by demons.

You have obviously not seriously looked at William Branham's ministry in the supernatural. I wonder if you even glanced at the Congressman Upshaw article. And I'd like you to show me one place in the Bible where demons healed a person.


I have one and only one Authority. GOD'S WORD IS SUFFICIENT. We all believe the Bible is infallible ... are you also saying that your personal understanding of the Bible is infallible?



The teaching based on the phrase "restore all things" is false. The phrase "restore all things" refers to "all things" that were prophesied about him, not "all things" in general (which would be absurd), much less "all Bible doctrines" which is totally obviously NOT the meaning of the prophesy.

It does not refer to Bible doctrine because you say so? (Now who seems to be claiming to be the "voice of God"!) It is obviously a POSSIBLE interpretation of the reference.


Also, I still wonder why the other six "angels" didn't even know they were "angels" and didn't ever exalt themselves like Branham who claimed himself to the very "Voice of God" and Seventh Angel and Final Prophet, and the Elijah preceeding Christ, etc., etc., etc., ad infinitum, ad naseum.

Did you read the context of the "God's voice" comment? If you are going to make those sort of claims you need to be able to back them up.


And another thing I'd really like to know is how wrong does Branham have to be before you recognize him as a false prophet? He claimed to be the Elijah preceding Jesus Christ - such pride! - and he's been dead for thirty years, so we know he was false because the real Elijah (John the Baptist) saw Jesus Christ come before he died.

So how long before you conclude Branham was false? Another ten years? Twenty? Thirty? Hundred?

Sorry for the blunt talk. No offense intended. I just think the conversation goes better if we speak plainly.

Richard

I don't mind blunt talk, but let's be careful we do not descend into ridicule. You are making some false statements which you have probably gleaned from some apologist website. Here's a challenge - find me one statement by William Branham where he claimed to be Elijah!

I wonder how you expect a world wide ministry to impact people - certainly not in person. Last I heard, there were materials presenting William Branham's ministry available in 51 languages. It is the VOICE of the seventh angel that revealed the mysteries of God (Rev 10:7).

Just for my own clarification - do you believe any supernatural events take place in the Church today? And are you a cessationist?

[kenod]

I've found a few websites for kenod and Geoffrey to check out to see why branham is no prophet of God.

http://www.forgottenword.org/branham.html

http://jesus-messiah.com/html/branham.html

http://www.letusreason.org/Latrain4.htm

http://people.delphiforums.com/JohnK63/home.htm

There's plenty of reading there, many Bible references with which to compare branham's words to the word of God, and a testimony of an ex-follower.

I've been around a long time Stephen, and with a couple of uni degrees under my belt, I can tell bias from factual commentary. You really ought to know that these types of sites cannot be relied upon to report the facts faithfully, simply because their knowledge is so superficial. There's nothing on the internet concerning William Branham that I have not looked at closely in the last five years.

The site http://www.apologeticsindex.org/b05.html is every bit as critical as the others but even here the admission is made:


'William Branham was another evangelist mid-way through last century who was mightily used of God for a number of years. In fact, there can be little doubt that he was endued with power to a degree that has rarely been seen since the days of the apostles."

You will find a more objective source of information on William Branham in the academic accounts that refer to his life and ministry:

Dictionary of Christianity In America (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1990) p182.

Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1988) p372.

Anderson, A., An Introduction to Pentecostalism (Cambridge University Press, 2004)

Harrell, D.E., All Things Are Possible: The Healing and Charismatic Revivals in Modern America (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1978)

Weaver, C.D., The Healer-Prophet: William Marrion Branham (A study of the Prophetic in American Pentecostalism) (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 2000)

Hollenweger, W.J., The Pentecostals (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1972)


I always find it ridiculous when someone proclaims themselves a follower of a man. God needs no man to interpret His word for us. That is the Holy Spirit's job (1 John 2:27).

Does the Holy Spirit interpret the Word of God for Lutheran Christians, Presbyterian Christians, Methodist Christians, Baptist Christians, and Pentecostal Christians?

The Bible tells us that God placed teachers in the Church (Eph 4:11). Would you like to name me some in the Church today.

[kenod]

God became bodilized in Jesus.

God was manifest in the flesh (1 Tim 3:16)

I wonder if an uneducated audience would relate better to the word "manifest" than to the word William Branham coined.

I was a school teacher for many years, and I know that a good teacher is one who can speak to everyone, not just the elite few.

If you want to quote William Branham, perhaps you should stick to "An Exposition of the Seven Church Ages" (http://nt.scbbs.com/cgi-bin/om_isapi.dll?clientID=220571907&infobase=message2006.nfo&softpage=Browse_Frame_Pg42) which he said he had especially "grammarized" for folks like you :) It contains an explanation of all the major doctrines he taught.

[Stephen]

Hi kenod!

You appear to be deeply indoctrinated by this bloke branham. I've never heard of him before. And now that I've had a brief look on the internet I have to give the guy the big 'so what!'
Who cares what he said. He adds nothing to God's glory or the gospel. The word of God has always been enough. While people might encourage us as pastors or teachers, to put them on a pedestal is downright stupid.
Now you might like to pay homage to him, but you should really be asking yourself why you need to defend him. What is it about folk like you that get stuck on a man and can't get over him? Very weird stuff!

The bottom line is this, mate. If you need to stick to this bloke, you're in the same boat as the mormons and the muslims who also need to defend the name of a man for whom they depend on for doctrine. You are creating a false Christ for yourself. I strongly recommend you go back and read those links that I posted for your sake. This geezer you worship called branham is just another deceiver sent to lead you away from worshiping the true God. I, like more than 99% of all believers, couldn't give a fig for this blustering bombast of branham. We are working out our own salvation with fear and trembling. Now read those links for your own sake! Or are you too afraid to face the truth that branham is a beguiler!

Stephen

[Geoffrey]

And another thing I'd really like to know is how wrong does Branham have to be before you recognize him as a false prophet? He claimed to be the Elijah preceding Jesus Christ - such pride! - and he's been dead for thirty years, so we know he was false because the real Elijah (John the Baptist) saw Jesus Christ come before he died.


Was Jesus proud to claim that He was the Messiah?
Was John the Baptist proud to claim that he was the "voice of one crying in the wilderness"?
Was Paul proud to claim that he was a light to the Gentiles?Then:

Am I proud to claim that I am a son of God, a brother of Jesus Christ?
Am I proud to claim that I am righteous and holy?
Am I proud to claim that I will judge the world?It surely takes a lot of pride to ridicule a vindicated prophet.

[kenod]

I strongly recommend you go back and read those links that I posted for your sake.
Stephen

I know them all ... and more ... far better than you friend. If you can't see the trademarks of bias, then you haven't read any objective criticism. All the books I mentioned criticise William Branham, but they try to do it with some objectivity.

You can pick and choose the teachers (and websites) that suit your personal taste, Stephen, but to me that sounds like those who "heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears". I would prefer to listen to a man that God has demonstrated is teaching His Word.

Why don't you start by doing a genuine investigation of the supernatural in William Branham's ministry ... that is, if you believe God still does the supernatural today.

Then you should do what William Branham always reinforced - check it up in the Bible.

BTW, you overlooked my question: "Does the Holy Spirit interpret the Word of God for Lutheran Christians, Presbyterian Christians, Methodist Christians, Baptist Christians, and Pentecostal Christians?"

If He does, why are they all different - and if He doesn't, which one is right?

[kenod]

Geoffrey

If a prophet doesn't know he is a prophet, then he isn't a prophet.



Jer 38:20
But Jeremiah said, They shall not deliver [thee].
Obey, I beseech thee, the voice of the LORD, which I speak unto thee:
so it shall be well unto thee, and thy soul shall live.

I don't think it is William Branham himself, that people are so opposed to - it is the thought that God could send someone to tell them they are wrong.

Pride is saying I don't need the God given ministries - I can work it all out by myself, because the Holy Spirit teaches me. This is not called the "Laodicean" (people's rights) church age for nothing!

[Stephen]

Touche kenod!

Indeed, how's the old ear scratching going there down under! I sincerely hope you scratch hard enough to dislodge the serious buildup of earwax afflicting your belief system.

I know you are more elderly than I, so I will try to respect that. However, when you come in with this sales of pitch of yours on behalf of old billy branham, you know you deserve nothing but short shrift. It still doesn't appear to have pierced through your spiritual myopia, but you are advertising a man. Now, I couldn't give a brass wazoo for branham, Luther, or whosoever. They've been and gone and the word of God survives with or without their contribution. So stop paying homage to them, and get back to the real focus, which is Jesus Christ.

You and Geoffrey are like a pair of blind men on the path as the Lord passes by. You cry out to Him and He heals you of your blindness. But then you struggle to follow after Him, tapping away with your canes as if you were still blind. Perhaps, like the blind, you never knew what a ditch looked like. Well, you're in one now if you think this guy branham was in any sense an angel or a prophet of God. Ditch the stick and ask Jesus to pull you out of this hole that your faith is in, mate.

Stephen

[Geoffrey]

Hallo Kenod,






Jer 38:20
But Jeremiah said, They shall not deliver [thee].
Obey, I beseech thee, the voice of the LORD, which I speak unto thee:
so it shall be well unto thee, and thy soul shall live. That verse is brilliant! I did not know about it. Now, Richard has to agree that Jeremiah exalted himself as, so says Richard, Brother Branham did!

[Richard Amiel McGough]

You have obviously not seriously looked at William Branham's ministry in the supernatural. I wonder if you even glanced at the Congressman Upshaw article. And I'd like you to show me one place in the Bible where demons healed a person.
Hey there kenod,

The link you posted to "prove" that Congressman Upshaw was healed pointed Branham's OWN magazine! He was just blowing his own horn again, bearing witness to himself. That doesn't help anyone prove anything. You know the drill. If you want to convince anyone but the gullible that Upshaw was supernaturally healed, you need to provide independent evidence and witnesses, preferably from doctors.

Now I have been able to confirm from independent sources that Upshaw did indeed claim to be healed at Branham's meeting. But it looks to me that it could be just another "Benny Hinn" style "miracle" that involved nothing more than a psychological change in the "cripple." You see, Upshaw had been walking around for years with crutches. Sure, he habitually used crutches, but I have not seen any evidence that the crutches were physically necessary. I've watched hundreds of similar "healings" on the stage of arch-huckster and false prophet Benny Hinn. And the fact is that after thousands of phony healings, Benny Hinn has not been able to prove one of them to the satisfaction of objective observers (according to Hank Hannegraaph).

But none of that matters, because the "healing ministries" like Branham and Hinn prove absolutely nothing concerning the validity of their doctrines they teach.

Let me repeat, one man claiming to walk without crutches after walking with crutches proves NOTHING about the validity of Branham's teachings. And I mean NOTHING. That is not how we do theology or Bible study. We test everything in light of God's Word, and that's it.


We all believe the Bible is infallible ... are you also saying that your personal understanding of the Bible is infallible?
Of course not! But I do know with absolute certainty that Branham consistently and flagrantly erred in many of his teachings.



The teaching based on the phrase "restore all things" is false. The phrase "restore all things" refers to "all things" that were prophesied about him, not "all things" in general (which would be absurd), much less "all Bible doctrines" which is totally obviously NOT the meaning of the prophesy.It does not refer to Bible doctrine because you say so? (Now who seems to be claiming to be the "voice of God"!) It is obviously a POSSIBLE interpretation of the reference.
No, not "because I said so!" Unlike the false prophets, I NEVER claim anything based on any personal authority! When I said that the Branhamite interpretation of "restore all things" was false, I was speaking of the conclusion I arrived at by studying the Bible. I provided the reasons earlier in this thread. If you want to challenge my interpretation, please identify the specific error in what I wrote.


I don't mind blunt talk, but let's be careful we do not descend into ridicule. You are making some false statements which you have probably gleaned from some apologist website. Here's a challenge - find me one statement by William Branham where he claimed to be Elijah!
Yes, let us avoid ridicule. Sorry it sounded like that, but you will note I just quoted Branham's own words and called him a "mighty prophet." The absurdity came from the juxtaposition of those two contrary realities, not from any "ridicule" in what I wrote.

As for your challenge, it appears I may have confused the claims that Branham's followers made for claims that Branham made. Thanks for the correction. It is very helpful. I'll do more research and follow up on the claims that he himself made.


I wonder how you expect a world wide ministry to impact people - certainly not in person. Last I heard, there were materials presenting William Branham's ministry available in 51 languages. It is the VOICE of the seventh angel that revealed the mysteries of God (Rev 10:7).
I expect the ministries to impact through TRUE TEACHING of the BIBLE. The sensationalist "healings" are 99% flesh, as has been proven by the fact that there are rarely if ever any confirmed supernatural healings. Upshaw was walking around before he dropped his crutches - I have yet to see any proof that he was supernaturally healed of anything. And even if he was, it is totally wrong to suggest that we therefore must drop all judgment and blindly follow the leader! That is NOT the way of God! He wants us to use our minds and test all things. What purpose then are the "signs"? Just to "draw attention" to Branham, so then we will listen more intently to his teachings? That's not the way of God. When God wants to raise up a Bible teacher, He doesn't need to use all the methods of the hucksters who have been fleecing His Sheep for thousands of years! Don't you see that? The methods Branham used are indistinguishable from those used by the lying thieving false prophets like Benny Hinn. Now I'm not saying that Branham was a liar or a thief, but I am saying that his "shtick" of "miraculous healings" and mysterious "words of knowledge" and claims of "supernatural lights and beings" guiding him all conspire to make me - a diligent student of God's Word - doubt anything and everything he says! Its all just too typical of the works of the flesh that I have seen a thousand times, and so untypical of the Ways of God that I have learned from His Word.


Just for my own clarification - do you believe any supernatural events take place in the Church today? And are you a cessationist?
Absolutely not. I believe God heals yesterday, today, and forever. But I am also not a gullible fool that believes every John Doe with the pop pentecostal miraculous healer shtick. I've been watching this kind of stuff for years, and have sat stunned as the likes of Benny Hinn, Rodney Howard Browne, and a host of similar hucksters and heretics have fed raw sewage to God's flock.

Richard

[Geoffrey]

Hallo Richard.


Note that God gave this supernatural word in French to a boy ignorant of that language, so the word is confirmed by signs and wonders:
What was the basis of Paul's authority?

OK - the light is begining to dawn. The Prophet has infallibly declared that we believe in the Trinity, and that the Trinity is not "three gods" but "three persons in one God." Excellent. These words of the Prophet Branham seem to cohere with the orthodox Doctrine of the Trinity.If you read the quote again, you will see that Brother Branham corrected himself. He said: "One person in three dispensations."

[Richard Amiel McGough]

God was manifest in the flesh (1 Tim 3:16)

I wonder if an uneducated audience would relate better to the word "manifest" than to the word William Branham coined.
If that were the only example of his atrocious use of the English language, you may have a point. But the sad fact is that Branham frequently failed even to match the number of the verb with the subject!

There is many examples of his errors. I would listed them, but I fear it would appears to be ridicule.

Now you need to think about how Branham compares with the qualities and abilities of the other "angels" - they were all highly skilled in the Bible! Luther himself translated the Bible from the original Hebrew and Greek, and his translation played a major role in the development of the German language (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luther_Bible), whereas Branham seems barely able to speak proper English! To lift a line (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senator,_you_are_no_Jack_Kennedy) from Senator Bentsen, "Brother Branham, I have read Martin Luther: I know Martin Luther; Martin Luther is a friend of mine. Brother Branham, you are no Martin Luther." And I would add, he was no "restorer of lost Bible doctrines" and no "seventh angel of Revelation" and no "Elijah" who was supposed to be preceding the IMMEDIATE return of Jesus Christ.

Again, I must ask, how wrong must Branham be before you acknowledge he was a false prophet?

RAM

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hallo Richard.
What was the basis of Paul's authority?
Hey there Geoffrey,

Is it hot today? :lol:

The basis of Paul's Authority was the Call of Almighty God.


If you read the quote again, you will see that Brother Branham corrected himself. He said: "One person in three dispensations."

He seems rather confused on this point. He said almost exactly the same thing a year later:


LAW.OR.GRACE_ JEFF.IN V-26 N-7 WEDNESDAY_ 54-1006
There is three dispensations of grace. There's three persons in the Godhead, three manifestations of the one Person in the Godhead, rather. And all those things. See?
Note the powerful use of language: "This is three dispensations of grace." I don't see how anyone could imagine Branham standing in the shadow of the truly great and powerful and brilliant Bible teacher and translator Martin Luther.

Here is another example of his confusion on the "three persons" issue:


GIFTS_ BROOKLYN.NY FRIDAY_ 56-1207
E-23 There's no such thing. See? And then when they... Then, that upsets the Jew. He says, "Which one of them is your God. Is God the Father your God, or is God the Son, or is God the Holy Ghost?" Anyone that knows God, and knows His Bible, know that those three are One. Not three gods, one God, manifested in three persons. In otherwise so that the one maybe who doesn't understand too well, would know. It's three offices of the selfsame God. God the Father is in a form of Light. No man could touch Him. He's come right down, condescending and come into the Son. It was God the Son, the same God: "My Father's in Me; it's Him that doeth the works.In as much as Branham's words can be understood at all, they are heretical. If he "restored" anything, it was the ancient heresy of modalism (http://www.carm.org/heresy/modalism.htm). Here's the definition:


Modalism is probably the most common theological error concerning the nature of God. It is a denial of the Trinity which states that God is a single person who, throughout biblical history, has revealed Himself in three modes, or forms. Thus, God is a single person who first manifested himself in the mode of the Father in Old Testament times. At the incarnation, the mode was the Son. After Jesus' ascension, the mode is the Holy Spirit. These modes are consecutive and never simultaneous. In other words, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit never all exist at the same time, only one after another. Modalism denies the distinctiveness of the three persons in the Trinity even though it retains the divinity of Christ.
Present day groups that hold to forms of this error are the United Pentecostal and United Apostolic Churches. They deny the Trinity, teach that the name of God is Jesus, and require baptism for salvation. These modalist churches often accuse Trinitarians of teaching three gods. This is not what the Trinity is. The correct teaching of the Trinity is one God in three eternal coexistent persons: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
I think we should pursue this in the "Trinity" thread recently started by kenod.

See ya there!

Richard

[Geoffrey]

The basis of Paul's Authority was the Call of Almighty God.

How do we know God called him?

[Richard Amiel McGough]

How do we know God called him?
He's in the Bible.

[Geoffrey]

He's in the Bible.

If you were his contemporary, how would you have known that his call was of God.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

If you were his contemporary, how would you have known that his call was of God.
From the testimony of the Apostles that walked with Christ. They confirmed his word.

So tell me, how would you have known that John the Baptist had a call from God? He didn't do any signs or wonders.

And most importantly, how do you discern between the true signs and wonders and the "the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders"? I asked this before but you never answered.

Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I've been around a long time Stephen, and with a couple of uni degrees under my belt, I can tell bias from factual commentary. You really ought to know that these types of sites cannot be relied upon to report the facts faithfully, simply because their knowledge is so superficial. There's nothing on the internet concerning William Branham that I have not looked at closely in the last five years.

The site http://www.apologeticsindex.org/b05.html is every bit as critical as the others but even here the admission is made:
'William Branham was another evangelist mid-way through last century who was mightily used of God for a number of years. In fact, there can be little doubt that he was endued with power to a degree that has rarely been seen since the days of the apostles."
Hey Kenod,

Very interesting link! Thanks. I tried to find the quote you said was on that page, but I couldn't find it. But I did find something similar (underlined):


An example of the fallacy that signs and miracles validate one's teaching is William Branham, one of the original and greatests evangelists of the post-World War II Healing Revival. Branham worked astounding miracles of healing in his crusades. To this day his gifts of supernatural knowledge of those to whom he ministered remains unparalleled, even among modern healing evangelists. Despite all of his gifts, however, Branham's doctrine was always marginal at best, and towards to the end of his ministry, it became outright heretical. He denied the doctrine of the Trinity, teaching instead the "Jesus only" doctrine. He taught that he was the prophet Elijah, whose ministry would result in the return of Jesus. There were pockets of his followers who believed that he was not just a prophet, but also the incarnation of Jesus himself. Although Branham's is an extreme example, it illustrates that a ministry of miracles and healing in no way proves soundness of doctrine.
D.R. McConnell, A Different Gospel (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1565631323/christianministr)http://www.apologeticsindex.org/graphics/out4.gif, Hendrickson Publishers Inc., Peabody, MA, 1988. p. 166
Do you really believe that God confirms His prophets through signs and wonders? If so, please list the signs and wonders that confirmed the writings of Luther, and how that would have helped me discern between his teaching on the truth of the Trinity against the heretics who denied theat doctrine ..... OH MY! :eek: Ooops ... I'm so sorry, you reject that part of the message given by that "confirmed prophet" because it directly contradicts the message of your favorite "confirmed prophet." It seems to me that the only thing "confirmed" here is that God does not confirm doctrine through "signs and wonders."

That article also reports that "Branham's popularity was due mainly to his ability to discern people's illnesses." Well guess what? That is exactly the same occult power that made Edgar Casey so famous! There are volumes and volumes and volumes of folks testifying to his supernatural powers. I would hazard to guess there's lots more of that kind of occult evidence for Casey the Occultist than Branham the Prophet. How am I supposed to understand that?

I just went back to that article you cited again, and noticed that they documented the connection between Branham and the occult. I recommend folks read that whole article. Its very enlightening. Thanks again for sharing it.

Richard

[kenod]

Hey Kenod,

Very interesting link! Thanks. I tried to find the quote you said was on that page, but I couldn't find it. ):

Sorry, the quote comes from Andrew Strom's article "The Enigma of William Branham" - the article, but not the quote, is referred to on the link I gave.

Andrew Strom summarises his opinion of William Branham thusly:


It is clear that he had been anointed and commissioned by God to have a prophetic / evangelistic ministry, but never one of teaching. And as soon as he got into this area of teaching doctrine, he began to trespass into realms to which God had never called him, thus opening himself up to ever-increasing deception. It has been reported that towards the end, some of his teachings almost bordered on the occult. However, the original sign-giftings that God had given him never left him, right up until the time of his death in 1965.

One of the often quoted "occult" references is WB's comment about the zodiac. His statements that horoscopes and fortune telling are of the devil are usually ignored.


"A Paradox" (1964)
I believe God wrote three Bibles. He wrote one in the skies, which is the zodiac. Anybody knows that. Job spoke of it. What? Look at the zodiac. It starts off with the virgin. It ends up with Leo the lion. That's how He come, first with a virgin. His last, next coming, will be Leo the lion, see, coming as the Lion of the tribe of Judah. And all, then, the crossed fishes, of what we're in now, the cancer age, and everything, it all speaks. But, forget it. See? That ain't your Bible.


Do you really believe that God confirms His prophets through signs and wonders? If so, please list the signs and wonders that confirmed the writings of Luther, and how that would have helped me discern between his teaching on the truth of the Trinity against the heretics who denied theat doctrine ..... OH MY! :eek: Ooops ... I'm so sorry, you reject that part of the message given by that "confirmed prophet" because it directly contradicts the message of your favorite "confirmed prophet." It seems to me that the only thing "confirmed" here is that God does not confirm doctrine through "signs and wonders."


Mark 16:20
And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with [them], and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.

Hebrews 2:4
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?

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.

I don't see where the Bible says Luther was a prophet - he was a messenger, and his message was justification by faith.

I do see where a prophet would be sent to the Church at the end time:

Malachi 4:5 Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD:


That article also reports that "Branham's popularity was due mainly to his ability to discern people's illnesses." Well guess what? That is exactly the same occult power that made Edgar Casey so famous! There are volumes and volumes and volumes of folks testifying to his supernatural powers. I would hazard to guess there's lots more of that kind of occult evidence for Casey the Occultist than Branham the Prophet. How am I supposed to understand that?


Exodus 7:11-12
Then Pharaoh also called the wise men and the sorcerers: now the magicians of Egypt, they also did in like manner with their enchantments. For they cast down every man his rod, and they became serpents: but Aaron's rod swallowed up their rods.

2 Timothy 3:8
Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith.

Acts 16:16
And it came to pass, as we went to prayer, a certain damsel possessed with a spirit of divination met us, which brought her masters much gain by soothsaying:

Did Edgar Casey teach the divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ, and that the only way of salvation is through faith in the atoning death of Christ on the cross? And was Casey "never wrong" as has been testified about William Branham's gift. (eg Walter Hollenweger)

I would urge you to be cautious when commenting on the supernatural manifestations in William Branham's ministry. It could be that the works are the work of the Holy Spirit, even though you disagree with their significance and the doctrine.

[kenod]

I know you are more elderly than I, so I will try to respect that. However, when you come in with this sales of pitch of yours on behalf of old billy branham, you know you deserve nothing but short shrift. It still doesn't appear to have pierced through your spiritual myopia, but you are advertising a man. Now, I couldn't give a brass wazoo for branham, Luther, or whosoever. They've been and gone and the word of God survives with or without their contribution. So stop paying homage to them, and get back to the real focus, which is Jesus Christ.

A "sales pitch" eh? Well, I don't mind that so much since the sleeping virgins were told to go and buy oil (Mat 25:9) and the Laodiceans were told to buy some eyesalve so they might see (Rev 3:18). :)

In other forums I have gone into bat for a number of God's servants, including Billy Graham, Mike Bickle, and T D Jakes (although I do not agree fully with any of them) simply because factually incorrect information was being presented.
My main interest is to try to help people get the correct information then let them make up their own mind. There is an awful lot of misinformation on the internet about William Branham, as there is about other ministers of God.

This thread is focused on the 'Elijah prophecy' - which we all agree is Bible truth, but we disagree about its meaning. I also like to talk about the fulfilment of prophecy in Israel today - does that mean that I have taken my focus off Jesus Christ? I think we should focus everything in the Word of God - for it all exalts our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ.

[kenod]

The link you posted to "prove" that Congressman Upshaw was healed pointed Branham's OWN magazine! He was just blowing his own horn again, bearing witness to himself. That doesn't help anyone prove anything. You know the drill. If you want to convince anyone but the gullible that Upshaw was supernaturally healed, you need to provide independent evidence and witnesses, preferably from doctors.

I'd like to try to correct a few wrong impressions, if I may. The Voice of Healing magazine was run by Gordon Lindsay, and the article was written and submitted by William Upshaw himself. William Branham was one of 15 associate editors at the time this edition was published.
The main reason I referred to the article was not the healing itself, but to point out the context in which William Branham said "I am God's voice to you". God showed him a vision of how Mr Upshaw was injured, and then showed him walking without crutches. He said "The Congressman is healed". He didn't pray for him.


"My Commission" (1951)
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. Makes His secrets known... Now, that's nothing to do with me. See? 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. 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 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.

With many of the things we are witnessing in the church world today, I think you are right to be skeptical, but at least you believe God still does heal, which puts you way ahead of some others.

The reason I believe William Branham's ministry was from God is because I have thoroughly researched it over a number of years, including studying a lot of negative material. I see nothing in his ministry which is not recorded in Scripture.

Over the years, I also have had extended experience in a variety of churches, and the doctrine they teach: liturgical, evangelical, and pentecostal.

As a school teacher for many years, I am not unfamiliar with textual analysis. The written text of the Bible has one true meaning, but it can be interpreted intellectually in a variety of ways. If we deny this then we are certainly open to the accusation of bigotry and blindness.

Mat 17:11 says 'Elijah' will "restore all things". Any cross-reference Bible will take you straight to Malachi 4:6 and "turn the hearts". And the cross-reference here will take you to Luke 1:17 and "make ready a people prepared for the Lord". People were prepared for the Lord by believing the Word of the Lord that was preached to them.

A number of Bible scholars (eg C I Scofield) recognize the future reference to 'Elijah', but most place him in the Great Tribulation (Rev 11) as one of the two witnesses.

Just one closing thought ... there can only be fake dollar because there is a genuine dollar :)

[Geoffrey]

Hallo Richard.

As you can see, I'm trying to steer you in the right direction wth my 20 questions.:)


From the testimony of the Apostles that walked with Christ. They confirmed his word.


I don't think so, because:
1. He said that he needed no man's commendation.
2 Corinthians 3:1 Do we begin again to commend ourselves? or need we, as some others, epistles of commendation to you, or letters of commendation from you?
2. The signs and wonders that he worked were sufficient evidence of his apostleship.
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.Besides, how many of his followers knew the other apostles when they believed Paul?

So tell me, how would you have known that John the Baptist had a call from God? He didn't do any signs or wonders.
That's right, he did not. John's message was of repentance. He reminded the people of what is right and wrong and stirred up their consciences. For such an evangelistic message, vindication does not appear necessary. I have repented several times after hearing evangelists without signs and wonders. The prophetic part of John's ministry was to indicate the Messiah; however, we do not accept that Jesus was the Messiah because of John's commendation, do we?

How would you have known that Jesus was the Messiah if you were His contemporary?

And most importantly, how do you discern between the true signs and wonders and the "the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders"? I asked this before but you never answered.
Actually, I have.

I have not found any Scripture that teaches us to discern between true and false signs.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hallo Richard.

As you can see, I'm trying to steer you in the right direction wth my 20 questions.:)
Yes indeed, my friend! We both know to what you are up. ;)

It is a pleasure to wrestle with you on this issue. You are a worthy opponent! :fencing:


I don't think so, because:
1. He said that he needed no man's commendation.
2. The signs and wonders that he worked were sufficient evidence of his apostleship.Besides, how many of his followers knew the other apostles when they believed Paul?
Well, as for #1, Paul did not say that he "needed no man's commendation" in general, but that he needed no man's commendation to the Corinthians because they were supernaturally saved by God Almighty through the Gospel he preached to them. There's no mention of "signs and wonders" here, is there?

But as for #2, you are correct that God occasionally confirmed Paul's Apostleship with signs and wonders. But I think you are wrong to apply that to Branham, or any of the dubious reports of his signs and wonders. You are confused about a fundamental point here. Did anybody believe Paul's Gospel because they heard secondhand reports of the "signs and wonders"? Or did they believe because God quickened the Gospel that Paul preached? Sure, God may have used signs and wonders to quicken their spirits to believe the Gospel Paul preached, but how could secondhand reports of those "signs and wonders" confirm something to someone who didn't see them? Does God desire that we be credulous and gullible? Does he want us to believe every wind of doctrine? Secondhand reports can be falsified or made up out of whole cloth or generated by rumor, and so they provide little or no evidence to people who did not see them with their own eyes.


That's right, he did not. John's message was of repentance. He reminded the people of what is right and wrong and stirred up their consciences. For such an evangelistic message, vindication does not appear necessary. I have repented several times after hearing evangelists without signs and wonders. The prophetic part of John's ministry was to indicate the Messiah; however, we do not accept that Jesus was the Messiah because of John's commendation, do we?
Vindication does not "appear" necessary in this case because it "appears" to contradict your entire thesis. Your response is known as "ad hoc" or in the vulgar language, a "dodge." You made up something because your doctrine does not match the plain teaching of the Bible.

The fact is the Bible never says that supernatural "vindication" is necessary to confirm anything. It only says that God did occasionally confirm things that way. But it was not normative nor necessary. And it certainly has not been "necessary" for preaching the Gospel in the 2000 years since. Think about the thousands upon thousands of people that have preached the Gospel from the Bible without any "signs and wonders" to "vindicate" their message. Your emphasis on signs and wonders is entirely skewed.

I must admit that there seems to be a total breakdown in the consistency of your argument here. You believe Branham is the forerunner of Jesus' Second Coming just like John the Baptist was for His First, and you make all sorts of connections with him and his ministry, saying both came in the "spirit and power" of Elijah, and now you deny the fundamental point of your message, which is that God confirmed his "Elijah" with signs and wonders.



And most importantly, how do you discern between the true signs and wonders and the "the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders"? I asked this before but you never answered.
Actually, I have.

I have not found any Scripture that teaches us to discern between true and false signs.


How then will you avoid being deceived by Satan's lying signs and wonders?

Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I'd like to try to correct a few wrong impressions, if I may. The Voice of Healing magazine was run by Gordon Lindsay, and the article was written and submitted by William Upshaw himself. William Branham was one of 15 associate editors at the time this edition was published.
Yes, but he founded the magazine, correct? So it was originally his voice, and he expanded it. But none of that matters, does it. The real point is that you have provided no medical testimony that proves his "healing" could not have been entirely psychological, agreed?


The main reason I referred to the article was not the healing itself, but to point out the context in which William Branham said "I am God's voice to you". God showed him a vision of how Mr Upshaw was injured, and then showed him walking without crutches. He said "The Congressman is healed". He didn't pray for him.


"My Commission" (1951)
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. Makes His secrets known... Now, that's nothing to do with me. See? 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. 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 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.
Well, the context still has Branham repeatedly identifying HIMSELF as the VOICE OF GOD. No Biblical prophet ever did that. The closest any of them came (that I've seen so far, anyway) was found in Jeremiah 38:20:


Jeremiah 38:20 But Jeremiah said, They shall not deliver thee. Obey, I beseech thee, the voice of the LORD, which I speak unto thee: so it shall be well unto thee, and thy soul shall live.
To me, there seems to be a world of difference between saying "I speak the voice of the Lord" and "I AM the voice of God." You see, I can pick up the Bible right now, read a passage, and declare "Obey, I beseech thee, the Voice of the Lord which I speak to you," whereas it would be blasphemy for me to say "I AM the Voice of the Lord to you." And besides all that, there are the fundamental Biblical overtones associated with the words "I AM" - coupled with the overwhelming errors of Branham's doctrines and the excess of pride that characterized his ministry - that all combine to make his statement unacceptable to my ears.

You also might want to ask yourself why Branham "felt bad" when he first declared himself to be the "VOICE OF GOD." Was it the last remnant of an unseared conscience, perhaps?



With many of the things we are witnessing in the church world today, I think you are right to be skeptical, but at least you believe God still does heal, which puts you way ahead of some others.
It is not only in the current times that skepticism is necessary. It is a fundamental teaching of Scripture from the beginning that we "test all things" and that exercise our minds to the full extent lest we be gullible fools.

But yes, I do really believe that God does miracles yesterday, today, and forever. But I also am fairly certain that God did not confirm Branham with any real miracles.


Just one closing thought ... there can only be fake dollar because there is a genuine dollar :)

Exactly correct. But that two-edged sword cuts both ways. I believe Branham is an example of the fake.

Well, gotta go get some exercise on my bicycle. Talk more when I get back.

Richard

[Geoffrey]

ה Richard!


I think you are correct about the relation between turning the heart and hearing God's Word.

Great stuff! So what about Matthew 17:11 being in the context of Malachi 4:6? Wouldn't all things then have to be God's Word?


I don't know why you thought I would take that as a sign you were "hermeneutically challenged."

I thought it was quite funny!


I hope you are not getting "skittish" with my demand for proper hermeneutics. As far as I know, all my challenges to heremeutical errors have been correct, since no one has tried to prove them wrong.

As you know, I rely on God teaching through a prophet and then teachers to understand doctrine. I do not know much about hermeneutics and fear that too much of it might make it harder for me to understand the Word. THUS SAITH THE LORD is the only criterion for the validity of an exegesis; nevertheless, I believe that it can be demonstrated by sound hermeneutics.


You have not yet established from the Bible that there are "two Elijah's." I refuted your initial arguments, and you did not challenge my refutation, so it still stands.

I actually did challenge your proposal of a variation of a prophesy statement, when I asked about the reflexivity not being found in Luke 1:17. You did not prove that it was a variation, did you? You should rather have offered and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just. That would have made more sense, because it is in the position in which turning the hearts of the children to their fathers would have been. Look how and the children of Israel to their God is misplaced in the previous verse. You have acknowledged that the fathers and the children are Christians and, therefore, both Israelites and Gentiles. John only dealt with Israelites.

In answer to my claim about the restoration of all things, you simply stated that it has nothing to do with Acts 3:21. I would not call that a refutation. You say that the fact that the word restore appears in a certain form only in Malachi 4:6 and Matthew 17:11 in the Septuagint means that Matthew 17:11 has nothing to do with Acts 3:21. I cannot see the logic in that.:confused:

According to Malachi 4:6, what were the things which John the Baptist would restore?


Also, you admitted that the word "shub" was translated as "restore" so why now are you suggesting that the "restore" of Matthew 17:12 does not refer to the "shub" of Malachi 4:6?

I do say that the restore of Matthew 17 refers to shub. Restore is one of the meanings of shub and so is turn. John prepared the apostles for preaching the Gospel for the first time in a way that would look back to the crucifixion and ressurrection, in contrast to the Law that looked forward. In this sense, John did not restore, which implies turning back. He turned them forward. The second Elijah turns them back or restores.


It seems like you are not actually engaging the arguments I am presenting. If you answer my points, I will have to admit you are correct, and then you can convert me to whatever are the necessary implications of the Bible. But if you act like you didn't even hear my points, our conversation will go nowhere. Please note that I interact directly with the words you write. I would be delighted if you did me the same honour.

I'm sorry if you feel that way, but I thought I was answering your points. Perhaps, because I did not quote you in my Marvelous! post (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?p=1870#poststop):lol:, you thought I ignored your words. I have updated it with quotations from your post that I replied to and have made some modifications and additions, including an identity, which might interest you.


When you say "Chirstians" it sounds like you are talking about "all Christians." If not, please specify what subgroups you are talking about. If, on the other hand, you do mean that all Christians became heretics and that there have been no true Christians until Branham showed up on the scene, then I must tell you that is an incredible assertion, and you will need to prove that point before attempting to build anything upon it. OK?

I mean all Christians. They fell away in the sense that the doctrine that they believed was not perfect; nevertheless, they were true Christians, as long as they accepted that part of the Word revealed for their aion.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

ה Richard!
ה ה Geoffrey. Nice use of unicode!


Great stuff! So what about Matthew 17:11 being in the context of Malachi 4:6? Wouldn't all things then have to be God's Word?
Absolutely not. I already explained all that.


I thought it was quite funny!
Me too! Well done. :lol:


As you know, I rely on God teaching through a prophet and then teachers to understand doctrine. I do not know much about hermeneutics and fear that too much of it might make it harder for me to understand the Word. THUS SAITH THE LORD is the only criterion for the validity of an exegesis; nevertheless, I believe that it can be demonstrated by sound hermeneutics.
OK - you can do what you want ... by how did you decide between all the choices out there? I mean, if you want to "rely on a prophet" why not the Pope, or Joseph Smith? You must have used your own mind when you evaluated all the possible "prophets" out there, right? Why turn it off now?


I actually did challenge your proposal of a variation of a prophesy statement, when I asked about the reflexivity not being found in Luke 1:17. You did not prove that it was a variation, did you? You should rather have offered and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just. That would have made more sense, because it is in the position in which turning the hearts of the children to their fathers would have been. Look how and the children of Israel to their God is misplaced in the previous verse. You have acknowledged that the fathers and the children are Christians and, therefore, both Israelites and Gentiles. John only dealt with Israelites.
I thought about that possibility. But none of this matters for many reasons:
Gabriel mentioned both aspects of the prophecy, with variations that may involve turning the disobedient, or the children, or both.
Even if Gabriel didn't mention both aspects, it doesn't mean they weren't fulfilled (that would be an argument from silence).
Even if they weren't fulfilled, it doesn't prove that we are to expect a "future" Elijah.
Even if we were expecting a future Elijah, we KNOW it can't be Branham because was WRONG on multiple issues. Whether he spoke "ex cathedra" about Christ's Second Coming matters not a bit, because he really did teach and believe that Christ would return sometime in the last century, and he was wrong, wrong, wrong.Here's a gem from 1955:


THE.SEAL.OF.THE.ANTICHRIST_ LA.CA FRIDAY_ 55-0311
E-81 Seven or eight's raised their hand. Would there be another one, just raise up now, while the church is praying? Just raise your hand to God. God bless you. God bless the young fellow over here, yes. Someone else? Now, just keep your heads bowed and praying. Say, "Lord, what must I do?"
Oh, just think, your name may hanging on that bomb. You remember, the death angel may be at your door. You say, "Well, I will sometime." You may not have no other time. I hope you do, but you may not. You say, "Brother Branham, what's happened to you?" Oh, I see the end time, friends. I see the end is here.

And I've went across the nation; I've tried. I trust that God has give me favor with you. And see Him working, and seen how infallible, that God has confirmed that I've told you the truth. Now, I say with my hand before God, if I've ever told you the truth in my life, by anything, it's the truth right now, I tell you.

THE.SEAL.OF.THE.ANTICHRIST_ LA.CA FRIDAY_ 55-0311
E-82 Don't let Satan deceive you. The first thing you know, you'll be marked outside the Kingdom, you can't come in. "My Spirit will not always strive with man." If you're not positive, sure, that a deep settled love for everybody, deep settled peace that passes all understanding, if that's not in your heart tonight, if I was setting in your seat, I'd raise my hand to God, and say, "God, place that in my heart tonight for me. I--I want to make a surrender. I'm wanting to come now. I really want it. I want to reconsecrate myself to You. And make my--make--you make me what I ought to be."

Will you raise your hand? God bless you, sir. That's a real man. God will have mercy on you, my brother. Just this--God bless you, boy, with your--a young man there with your head bowed. Won't you come? There is a fountain filled with Blood. God bless you, sir. That's the way. God bless you, sir; I see you. That's the way to do it. You know you're not hid before God. God bless you, sir. Someone else?

THE.SEAL.OF.THE.ANTICHRIST_ LA.CA FRIDAY_ 55-0311
E-83 Over in that day... Now, I want to tell you something. You've seen the working of the Holy Spirit. And you see that whatever--I don't say this to--for bragging to myself; I'm not saying in that manner. But I come forth for one purpose to bring a message to this country before the end comes. I'm beginning in California, going towards the east coast.

Listen, let me tell you friends, the time is at hand. I believe with all my heart. And that's the reason I must preach this a way. I must, because God's going to hold me responsible. If you believe me to be a servant of God, if you believe me to be truly from God, then you believe me tonight. I've told you the truth.
I could multiply quotes like this if you like:


WHY.CRY.SPEAK_ CLARKSVILLE.IN SUNDAY_ 59-1004E
E-56 But now it's come a time, the evening lights have come. Civilization's come over and now the sun's a setting upon civilization. The end is here; the end of the world is here; the end of time is here; the end of the Church is here; all things have come to an end. And just as the sun sets, the same sun that rises in the east sets in the west. God promised it shall be light in the evening time, by the prophet. The same Son that rose and showed the Holy Ghost through Jesus Christ back in the early days on the eastern horizon, has shining in the western horizon in the last days showing the same signs as Jesus prophesied would be. It's just--it's the Scriptures, friends. But you--it's up to you what you think of it. You see?
Sure has been a LOT going on in the HALF CENTURY since "ALL THINGS CAME TO AN END!

I seen the light now Geoffrey. How could I possibly think to understand the Bible without the guidance from genuine real-life prophets like Branham? What was I thinking? :lol:

Hey now! What's this? I just found the absolute FINAL NAIL in the coffin of Branham's claim to be a true prophet of God. As it turns out, he actually did predict the end of the world by 1977 with "THUS SAITH THE LORD." Here it is:


CONDEMNATION.BY.REPRESENTATION_ JEFF.IN V-2 N-13 SUNDAY_ 60-1113
5-2 We will be in war with Germany. Watch Russia. (Now, that's...) Communism, Nazism, and Fascism... Watch Russia. But that is not the main one to watch. It shall--also has been an evil thing done in this country; they have permitted women to vote. This is a woman's nation, and she will pollute this nation as Eve did Eden.

Now, you see why I'm hammering the way I do. I got, THUS SAITH THE LORD.

In her voting she will elect the wrong person. The Americans will take a great beating at a place that Germany will build, which will be a great wall built of concrete (The Maginot Line, eleven years before it was ever built.) But finally they will be victors.Then when these women help elect the wrong person, then I seen a great woman rise up in the United States, well-dressed and beautiful, but cruel in heart. She will either guide or lead this nation to ruination. (I've got in parenthesis "perhaps Catholic church.")
Also, science will progress, especially in the mechanical world. Automobiles will continue to get like egg shape. Finally they will build one that won't need a steering wheel. (They've got it now.) It will be controlled by some other power.

Then I seen the United States as one smoldering, burnt-over place. It will be near the end. (Then I've got in parenthesis: "I predict that this will take place." Now, remember, the Lord ne... That's what the Lord showed, but "I predict this will take place before 1977.") Upon this prediction, I base, because of the onrushing slaught that's coming now, how fast that it was moving, how long it'll take till this nation meets its place.

CONFERENCE_ SHREVEPORT.LA FRIDAY_ 60-1125
E-7 Then I turned to look and I seen the United States was a smoldering something had burned it up.And down beneath there I said, not in the trance, but, "I predict..." (remember this, I guess this is taped too), "I predict that these things will take place between now, 1933 and 1977." Which will give us sixteen more years if my prediction strikes right.
Now, there was seven things spoke of that would happen. Five of them has already happened. There's two left to take place. It'll be that way. That's in the Name of the Lord it shall be that way. See?

It is very interesting the Branham tried to discount his predictions and say they weren't given by the Lord. It was all recorded. We have it right here. Two different times he said the same thing, once declaring inspiration before he said it, and once right after saying it. So he BRACKETED his false prediction both before and after with a claim of DIVINE INSPIRATION:



Now, you see why I'm hammering the way I do. I got, THUS SAITH THE LORD.

... I predict that these things will take place between now, 1933 and 1977. ...

That's in the Name of the Lord is shall be that way.
BRANHAM IS A CONFIRMED FALSE PROPHET. QED.

Now before you bother trying to explain away his error by his later attempt to backtrack, when he denied he was speaking "THUS SAITH THE LORD" - (by the way, doesn't that make him a liar too?) - you need to realize that it doesn't matter ONE WHIT if he wasn't claiming to be speaking under inspiration at that moment. His teaching on this point was SOOOO WRONG and he taught it over and over and over again! There is no way to take him seriously even as a fallible but good Bible teacher, let alone as a Prophet inspired by God!

Think of what you are asking me to do. You are inviting me to take his words as if they were all inspired of God. Unless, of course, he is proven wrong. Then you say he was just a fallible man.

Exactly what are you asking me to believe, anyway?

Richard

[Geoffrey]

Hey now! What's this? I just found the absolute FINAL NAIL in the coffin of Branham's claim to be a true prophet of God. As it turns out, he actually did predict the end of the world by 1977 with "THUS SAITH THE LORD." Here it is:

It is very interesting the Branham tried to discount his predictions and say they weren't given by the Lord. It was all recorded. We have it right here. Two different times he said the same thing, once declaring inspiration before he said it, and once right after saying it. So he BRACKETED his false prediction both before and after with a claim of DIVINE INSPIRATION:


Richard, like they say in Afrikaans, Jy moet jouself nou nie in die voet skiet nie, Don't shoot yourself in the foot now.

Please read the quotation again. OBJECTIVELY, this time. If not, ask somebody else who is objective. Let them tell you what they read. Maybe, just maybe, that will help:dontknow:.

Brother Branham said: "Now, remember, the Lord ne... " What's that? The Lord ne..? What, what, what?

Brother Branham said: "That's what the Lord showed, but I.." That's? The seven visions.

"That's what the Lord showed, but I.." But is a conjunction;).

"That's what the Lord showed, but I.." Not the Lord.

Brother Branham said: "And down beneath there I said, not in the trance, but, I predict..." Not in the trance? What in the world does that mean?:confused2:

Brother Branham said: "Now, there was seven things spoke of that would happen. Five of them has already happened. There's two left to take place. It'll be that way. That's in the Name of the Lord it shall be that way. See?" What's in the name of the Lord? The seven things spoke of, of course! See?

Admit defeat, Richard.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Richard, like they say in Afrikaans, Jy moet jouself nou nie in die voet skiet nie, Don't shoot yourself in the foot now.

Please read the quotation again. OBJECTIVELY, this time. If not, ask somebody else who is objective. Let them tell you what they read. Maybe, just maybe, that will help:dontknow:.

Brother Branham said: "Now, remember, the Lord ne... " What's that? The Lord ne..? What, what, what?

Brother Branham said: "That's what the Lord showed, but I.." That's? The seven visions.

"That's what the Lord showed, but I.." But is a conjunction;).

"That's what the Lord showed, but I.." Not the Lord.

Brother Branham said: "And down beneath there I said, not in the trance, but, I predict..." Not in the trance? What in the world does that mean?:confused2:

Brother Branham said: "Now, there was seven things spoke of that would happen. Five of them has already happened. There's two left to take place. It'll be that way. That's in the Name of the Lord it shall be that way. See?" What's in the name of the Lord? The seven things spoke of, of course! See?

Admit defeat, Richard.
Sure, I'll admit defeat concerning my statement of "proof" in the absolute logical sense. Truth is all that matters. I agree that his statement has enough ambiguity to allow you to parse his words as you did. But if that's how we are supposed to understand your "prophet" then you can keep him. I would never follow an obviosly fallible man who declares "I HAVE "THUS SAITH THE LORD" ... (and here let me toss in a little bit of my private totally false date prediction) ... "THAT'S IN THE NAME OF THE LORD!"

So let me get this straight. Are you now saying that all of Branham's teachings are to be received as the fallible opinions of a mere man except those that are clearly and unambigously declared to be "THUS SAITH THE LORD"? Doesn't that eliminate about 90% of his writings and recordings?

And finally, do you admit that Branham was more than just little bit wrong about his predictions of the end of the world? I mean come on Geoffrey! Its been THIRTY YEARS since his failed prediction! How wrong does he have to be before you would accept it as proof?

Richard

[Geoffrey]

Sure, I'll admit defeat concerning my statement of "proof" in the absolute logical sense. Truth is all that matters. I agree that his statement has enough ambiguity to allow you to parse his words as you did. But if that's how we are supposed to understand your "prophet" then you can keep him. I would never follow an obviosly fallible man who declares "I HAVE "THUS SAITH THE LORD" ... (and here let me toss in a little bit of my private totally false date prediction) ... "THAT'S IN THE NAME OF THE LORD!"
Thanks for admitting at least that:thumb:. But I don't think it was ambiguous.


So let me get this straight. Are you now saying that all of Branham's teachings are to be received as the fallible opinions of a mere man except those that are clearly and unambigously declared to be "THUS SAITH THE LORD"? Doesn't that eliminate about 90% of his writings and recordings?
No. Brother Branham's teachings are to be received as infallible except those that are clearly indicated to be his own opinion.


And finally, do you admit that Branham was more than just little bit wrong about his predictions of the end of the world? I mean come on Geoffrey! Its been THIRTY YEARS since his failed prediction! How wrong does he have to be before you would accept it as proof?
Yes, Brother Branham's prediction was wrong, obviously. But God's Word through Brother Branham that the end is nigh is true.This is where that passage from Peter comes in.


2 Peter 3:8-9 KJVR But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. (9) The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Thanks for admitting at least that:thumb:. But I don't think it was ambiguous.
Its a joy to be able to discuss things with someone who disagrees strongly but is willing to admit the truth, isn't Geoffrey? That's all I want from others, so I am compelled to lead by example.


No. Brother Branham's teachings are to be received as infallible except those that are clearly indicated to be his own opinion.
So the default position is that all of Branham's sermons, given day after day and week after week, are to be interpreted as inspired by God and equal to the Holy Bible unless he says something was his own opinion? Upon what do you base that principle? And what about the Bible? I believe that Paul's letters are entirely inspired of God, even the parts in which he clearly states "But to the rest speak I, not the Lord" (1 Cor 7:12). Why is Branham different?

And my biggest question is this - why should anyone believe Branham was inspired in any way at all? I know your answer - signs and wonders - by my God has warned me that the false prophets would display "great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect." I don't want to be deceived by lying signs and wonders. I take this as a specific and direct warning straignt from the mouth of the Lord Jesus Christ to watch out for and avoid folks who tell me to follow "prophets" based on "signs and wonders." This warning is greatly amplified when the "prophet" directly contradicts the Holy Bible on a dozen points. Everything I see cries out against Branham as a false prophet.


Yes, Brother Branham's prediction was wrong, obviously. But God's Word through Brother Branham that the end is nigh is true.This is where that passage from Peter comes in.
Why do you think Peter's passage should suddenly be applied now? He wrote it to his first century Christian brothers and sisters. What evidence do you have that it has anything to do with Branham's failed predictions?

And so my question remains. Since Branham was totally wrong about his ministry - he beleived he would herald the return of Christ in his lifetime, did he not? - then why beleive anything he said?

BTW - thanks for keeping a level head and cool attitude while discussing these "hot" topics. It makes the conversation worthwhile, and hopefully beneficial to others.

Richard