Question 4 (BM2) - The Trinity and other issues

Click on headings to expand them, or links to go to specific articles.

The following are a series of questions and answers between one of our editors (referred to as BTS Editor 2 or BTS 2 in the discussions) and a message minister from the progressive revelation sect of the message (referred to as BM2 - Branham Minister #2). Click on the link to go to the specific question and answer. You are currently on the topic that is in bold:

Background to the Q&A

Question 1 - What is a prophet?

Question 2 - Was William Branham a prophet?

Question 3 - Moving on to other issues... like the Bible

Question 4 - The Trinity and other issues

This is the second in our series of questions and answers with ministers of the message. Please click here to go to the first in our Q&A series.

Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 5:42 PM

Dear ABM2, Your latest email was sort of a shotgun blast of ideas, sort of like a BB bouncing around in a box car. And your response was so replete with misstatements and mischaracterizations, I wanted to be sure I addressed each and every one. I realize it’s easy to lose track when we engage in this sort of discussion in this format, so my assumption is that your mischaracterizations and misstatements are not intended to minimize this discussion or to be condescending to anyone engaged in it (at least I hope). I was thinking about how to respond, and I think the best way to respond is to address each point in line with your original email so there is no confusion about that which we speak. So, you will see YOUR comments, and then you will see my response. My deepest apologies for the length of this email… there was just SO MUCH to correct.

What is a prophet from a biblical perspective?

You said >>>>>“Since you are having difficulty telling us how a prophet of God qualifies scripturally, could you please enlighten us… tell us how these people scripturally do not? Remember, they each have a congregation which will tell you that they have a “revelation” that these people ARE true prophets sent by God. Many in their assemblies knew these prophets personally and saw many great works and wonders. Maybe if we could understand how these people ARE NOT prophets, it would help us understand how Branham IS one.” Despite your attempts NO to identify the scriptural definition of a prophet of God, there is one.

I say.....The difficulty in my humble opinion.....is that no matter what Scriptural examples are plainly shown to you....you don't seem to have the ability to grasp the content. The FACTS are...that in real time and in actual circumstances.....GOD leads/brings His Prophets through their human errors and into further understanding...with GRACE and MERCY. It's called PROGRESSIVE REVELATION by Bible scholars. I will use one specific example...to keep the subject matter from being diverted by your habitual jumping subjects.

In this particular setting of Scripture...Abraham had already erred in the Hagar/Ishmael incident and GOD visited him again. Read it carefully Brother....there is a great lesson in it.

Genesis 17:16 And I will bless her, and give thee a son also of her: yea, I will bless her, and she shall be a mother of nations; kings of people shall be of her. 17 Then Abraham fell upon his face, and laughed, and said in his heart, Shall a child be born unto him that is an hundred years old? and shall Sarah, that is ninety years old, bear? 18 And Abraham said unto God, O that Ishmael might live before thee! 19 And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him.

1. 1....Did Abraham DISBELIEVE GOD's direct WORD OF PROMISE and later change his mind?????

1. 2......Did Abraham actually laugh in the face of GOD and live????

1. 3.....Did Abraham's error...DISQUALIFY him from being a TRUE PROPHET????

Let’s speak about “Progressive Revelation”. Your example is interesting, and revealing.

Let’s use another example of what YOU showed. Here is the case of Gideon:

Judges 6:34-40 (HCSB) 34 The Spirit of the LORD took control of Gideon, and he blew the ram’s horn and the Abiezrites rallied behind him. 35 He sent messengers throughout all of Manasseh, who rallied behind him. He also sent messengers throughout Asher, Zebulun, and Naphtali, who ⌊also⌋ came to meet him. 36 Then Gideon said to God, “If You will deliver Israel by my hand, as You said, 37 I will put a fleece of wool here on the threshing floor. If dew is only on the fleece, and all the ground is dry, I will know that You will deliver Israel by my strength, as You said.” 38 And that is what happened. When he got up early in the morning, he squeezed the fleece and wrung dew out of it, filling a bowl with water. 39 Gideon then said to God, “Don’t be angry with me; let me speak one more time. Please allow me to make one more test with the fleece. Let it remain dry, and the dew be all over the ground.” 40 That night God did ⌊as Gideon requested⌋: only the fleece was dry, and dew was all over the ground.

In this example, we see Gideon, a mighty man of God, seeking the guidance of God. In Gideon’s human understanding, he needed God’s confirmation that God was indeed with him and would bless his efforts. In fact, we see in this example that Gideon tested God not once, but twice! This is a moment of confirmation, a moment of Gideon attempting to get his mind around God’s promise, something which looks impossible on the human level but which God has ordained and spoken. This is not progressive revelation, but it is a human man of God, a true warrior for God, getting his mind around God’s promise. Just as Abraham was not confident in God’s promise, so here Gideon also needed confirmation. This is not “Progressive Revelation” as Biblical scholars have defined it. I am positive you see the difference, you are after all a minister of the Word of God and know these things.

Here we see another case of the same thing. This is the case of the Apostle Thomas:

John 20:24-29 (HCSB) 24 But one of the Twelve, Thomas (called “Twin”), was not with them when Jesus came. 25 So the other disciples kept telling him, “We have seen the Lord!” But he said to them, “If I don’t see the mark of the nails in His hands, put my finger into the mark of the nails, and put my hand into His side, I will never believe!” 26 After eight days His disciples were indoors again, and Thomas was with them. Even though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them. He said, “Peace to you!” 27 Then He said to Thomas, “Put your finger here and observe My hands. Reach out your hand and put it into My side. Don’t be an unbeliever, but a believer.” 28 Thomas responded to Him, “My Lord and my God!” 29 Jesus said, “Because you have seen Me, you have believed. Those who believe without seeing are blessed.”

This again, while not “Progressive Revelation” is the same issue which Abraham faced when God revealed that Sarah was to have a child. Thomas in his human understanding needed confirmation because his human sense could not understand that which the Lord was revealing. Again, not “Progressive Revelation” just a true Apostle trying their best to get their human mind around God’s wonders.

We see here clearly that these men, great men of God as was Abraham, had moments where they doubted God. Or to put it in a different perspective, where they struggled in their human minds with what God had told them. In other words, they had difficulty translating God’s reality and possibility into their human understanding. SPOLIER ALERT: This isn’t “Progressive Revelation”. Nor was the instance of Abraham’s moment of disbelief “Progressive Revelation”. At least, not as compared to William Branham’s teaching about, for instance, the TRINITY. These examples are nothing more than men struggling to grasp what God is telling them because it is outside of what these men know form a human perspective. That’s not “Progressive Revelation”, that’s human nature and common sense. But, let’s return to my example, and I’ll demonstrate.

Quotes of William Branham

"And now, there are those sitting here who are feeble this afternoon, that's in need of physical healing. And we have chosen these few words to read from Thine. And may the Holy Spirit, the third Person of the Trinity, come in now, the Promise, the Comforter, that You said You would send." 51-0729A THE.RESURRECTION.OF.LAZARUS

"God is perfect in three. He's perfect. [Brother Branham clears his throat--Ed.] Pardon me. He's perfect in Father, Son, Holy Spirit. He's perfect in justification, sanctification, baptism of the Holy Spirit. He's perfected in His threes." 53-0403 THE.CRUELTY.OF.SIN

“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?” 53-0829, The Testimony Of Jesus Christ

"God's in a trinity, God's powers is in a trinity; and the devil's in a trinity, and his powers is in trinity. I can prove it by the Bible. And that Urim Thummim was only the crystal ball that the devil uses today; and the false prophet back here today, the one that we have now, was the witch; or, the fortuneteller out yonder took the place of the prophet on the devil's side. See what I mean?" 53-0609A DEMONOLOGY.RELIGIOUS.REALM

“God does everything in threes. He wrote three Bibles. He had three comings of Christ. 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?” 54-1006, Law Or Grace

But he must have gotten correction from God...

“Anyone that knows God, and knows His Bible, know that those three are One. Not three gods, one God, manifested in three persons.” 56-1207, Gifts

“And you Oneness brethren, many of you get off the wrong track when you try to think that God is one like your finger is one. He can't be His Own Father. He can't be.” 59-0823, Palmerworm, Locust, Cankerworm, Caterpillar

"You say, "The blessed holy trinity." Find me the word "trinity" anywhere in the pages of God's Bible. It's a man-made scheme, an old dirty church rag wrapped around to take the place of the sap Line of God's Holy Spirit. There's no such a thing. There's no such a thing. You find it and come to me. You're duty bound to do it as a Christian, if you find it. It's not in God's holy Writings. And the "Father, Son, and Holy Ghost" is hatched out of hell." 59-0823 PALMERWORM.LOCUST.CANKERWORM.CATERPILLAR

"Where do you get that triune, pagan doctrine? Out of a catechism, not out of the Bible. The word "trinity" is not even mentioned in the whole Scriptures from Genesis to Revelation. There's no such a thing. There is no such a thing as a trinitarian god." 60-0925 THAT.DAY.ON.CALVARY

"Now, my precious brother, I know this is a tape also. Now, don't get excited. Let me say this with godly love, the hour has approached where I can't hold still on these things no more, too close to the Coming. See? "Trinitarianism is of the devil!" I say that THUS SAITH THE LORD! Look where it come from. It come from the Nicene Council when the Catholic church become in rulership. The word "trinity" is not even mentioned in the entire Book of the Bible." 61-0108 REVELATION.CHAPTER.FOUR.3

Now, based upon these instances of where Branham changes his teaching, you might make the case for true progressive revelation. Progressive revelation is not a momentary disbelief of someone while God reveals His intent and His power through the manifestation of God’s reality. Progressive revelation as is described by Bible Scholars is not what you described in your email.

But wait… OOOPS… what happens here??

“But here, remember, there was a Gethsemane conference come one time, when God and His Son had to get together. After all, there was no one else could die for the sins of the world. There was nobody worthy to die, no man.” William Branham, 63-0608, Sermon: Conferences

And then he got corrected AGAIN???

Why didn’t the FIRST correction solve the problem?

“Jesus said, "Except you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins." He is the revelation of God, the Spirit of God revealed in human form. If you can't believe that, you're lost. You put Him a third person, second person, or any other person besides God, you're lost. "Except you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins." A revelation!” 65-0725M, The Anointed Ones At The End Time

Then did he get corrected again?

Notice the dates here… this one is AFTER his teaching where God and His Son conference at Gethsemane.

“That's God. God in a trinity is One, and without a trinity He's not God. He can't be manifested any other way.” 65-0815, And Knoweth It Not

Did William Branham use (or misuse) the word Trinity here as you suggest there are multiple meanings of the word TRINITY???

We see this example of “Progressive Revelation” being a confused mess of teaching. Imagine you are a believer in the message of William Branham, and you listen to him declare himself as a prophet of God as early as 1951. You’re faithful, and you follow his teaching because you believe that he IS indeed a prophet of God… what’s to doubt? He said he was, right? And you sit in a service where he teaches about the Trinity as he did. Now, you continue to follow Branham, and lo and behold, in later years, Branham teaches the EXACT OPPOSITE of what he taught earlier, let’s just say in 1956. And you continue to follow Branham believing that God has corrected his teaching.

Oh, but wait… in 1963, Branham teaches that God and His son are two separate entities once again… two of the three entities of the Trinity which Branham JUST TOLD YOU NOT TWO YEARS EARLIER WAS OF THE DEVIL!!

But, wait there’s more. In 1965, Branham goes back to the “corrected” version of teaching about the Trinity… NOT SO FAST!!! Because also in 1965, Branham teaches that “without a trinity He’s not God.”

At this point, my head is on a swivel and I am unsure if I am going or coming!! What if I missed the SECOND teaching in 1965, and I just learned the FIRST teaching in 1965 which Branham teaches that the trinity is again not good? Am I believing something which is NOT OF GOD? After all, Branham taught later that without the trinity He’s not God. What am I to believe in? How is it that God’s Prophet as he proclaimed himself, and who you proclaim as such, doesn’t teach what God corrected him to teach? What an absolute confused mess! As a believer of the message of William Branham, where am I supposed to land? If you believe his LAST message and ignore earlier messages, then you would say that WITHOUT A TRINITY HE’S NOT GOD!!! So there you have it, a Trinitarian.

Remember that RED-LETTER edition of the message that we spoke about?

So, if you wouldn’t mind, show me where the word which was used meant other than what is plainly taught. And show us WHICH SERMON WAS THE CORRECTED, PROPHET AND GOD APPROVED SERMON so we know what to believe! What utter confusion.

THIS is why we can honestly say that Branham doesn’t qualify for “Progressive Revelation” as Biblical scholars identify it throughout time. THIS qualifies as TOTAL CONFUSION, The UNCERTAIN SOUND of a false prophet.

We didn’t make up the dates. They are easily verifiable. We didn’t create the confusion. We didn’t preach the sermons. And we certainly didn’t proclaim Branham a prophet of God.

Let's follow through with rightly dividing Scripture....instead of gerrymandering Scriptural reality.... to fit your personal agenda. The TRUE Prophets were killed by their own people...by JESUS' own Words and were accused of being false prophets...just as you are doing with William Branham. Obviously those judged in that day.... found some perceived fault in the TRUE Prophets...or they wouldn't have killed them...right?

You misstate this very badly… we don’t accuse anyone. What we do is look at what is said by someone who proclaimed over 400 times in over 1100 sermons that he was a prophet of God. We didn’t say it, Branham himself said it. We are exhorted in scripture by Jesus Christ Himself, and his Apostles, to examine what a man who proclaims to be a prophet of God says against the very Word of God.

Acts 17:11 (HCSB) 11 The people here were more open-minded than those in Thessalonica, since they welcomed the message with eagerness and examined the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.

1 John 4:1 (HCSB) 1 Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to determine if they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.

Matthew 24:23-28 (HCSB) 23 “If anyone tells you then, ‘Look, here is the Messiah!’ or, ‘Over here!’ do not believe it! 24 False messiahs and false prophets will arise and perform great signs and wonders to lead astray, if possible, even the elect. 25 Take note: I have told you in advance. 26 So if they tell you, ‘Look, He’s in the wilderness!’ don’t go out; ‘Look, He’s in the inner rooms!’ do not believe it. 27 For as the lightning comes from the east and flashes as far as the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. 28 Wherever the carcass is, there the vultures will gather.

It isn’t us who tell you he isn’t a prophet of God. It is Branham’s own words that tell us this. Don’t miss this point… you continue to intimate that we are Branham’s problem. We didn’t say what Branham said… he did. Unless you place the responsibility for Branham’s words firmly where it belongs, then you will continue to transfer blame for his confusing teaching and total blunders to everyone else except Branham which is where the responsibility should reside.

The issue of makeup

You said >>>> You can see through history that makeup was developed for immoral purposes? Can you please show me in scripture where this is true? If you judge people (an interesting concept wince scripture teaches against that) based on their outward appearance, then I would suggest to you that you should produce the scriptural basis for your condemnation (notice I didn’t say conviction).

I say......There you go again....twisting what I said! I attempted to get my point across to you...when I suggested that you could wear a dress and paint your face. Of course..... that..... in your stated view....wouldn't have any bearing on identifying yourself as a perverted cross dresser...since you aren't supposed to judge on/by...the outward appearance. I think you inserted both of your feet in your mouth on that one...since New Testament Scripture..... commands women to dress in modest apparel and compares that explicit commandment with/to women of old....who loved GOD. Historical pictures just CONFIRM in a visual.....what the words of the commandment states. Scripture sets the standard..... for not fixing the hair in a flashy manner....wearing of flashy jewelry etc. Amazing how people will go around their elbow to get to their thumb...to justify unholy dress....along with heathen based use of makeup. No Brother....the makeup wasn't created by GOD to be immoral...but using those things to take on heathen practices...certainly is making something in creation.....evil. To make it simple Brother....when Cain killed Abel....the instrument used.... wasn't evil of itself...until it was used to kill. Besides Scripture does give the rights to JUDGE evil and good...to the Believer.

Judging evil and good is great!! We are for that. You will notice by the way that this is what we do when we speak of Branham versus scripture. It is Branham and you who draw the conclusion that makeup is for evil purposes. We truly believe in modest dress and decorum. We strongly suggest that modesty is an important aspect of Christian walk. But what is “modesty”? Can modesty mean long skirts or dresses? Can modesty be pants for women? My wife enjoys wearing her wedding ring which is a mix of stones. She doesn’t wear it when she gardens, and there are other times, like washing up or painting things when she doesn’t wear it.

But she likes to wear it. She has earrings that match. They aren’t huge, but they are nice and they match her ring. My wife had surgery on her neck, and she wears a double strand of pearls when we go out. The pearls cover the scar on her neck, and she feels more comfortable with them on as she feels people don’t stare at her scar. Can her pearls be modest? Of course they can. My wife also had surgery on her spine starting at the base of her skull and extending down to the middle of her shoulder blades. The hair cannot grow back on her scar. She has her hair cut so that it is fairly short, and avoids looking obtrusive against her scar with missing gaps of hair.

Can she be considered modest with her hair cut? Sure she can, and she does. In fact, and I might sound biased here, but she is not only modest, she is beautiful in her short hair. And because of my wife’s previous health issues, we know quite a few women who have had surgeries in places which are visible like my wife. Some of these women wear makeup to cover their scars, or at least to minimize their scars so they have a better image of themselves in public. Can this makeup be modest?

What about women who have birth marks on their faces or their necks? Can they wear makeup to cover these issues modestly? Certainly! There are many who have suffered burns in areas which are visible. There is a new makeup developed to cover their burn scars, and it is miraculous in its affect. Many women that I know can and do wear makeup modestly. Is there an extreme? No question. Can makeup look cheap and make someone appear “over done” in their appearance? Of course. Many do. Does this reflect a non-Christian spirit? I would strongly suggest that there are some who just don’t know any better, but it can certainly be a symptom of other issues.

In my professional life, I am constantly amazed at young women who interview for positions in companies. The clothes they wear to the interview are usually the best they have, and many times I think we would all agree that the clothes may not be entirely appropriate for a business or professional environment. Sometimes, their attire could best (and most kindly) be described as “evening wear”. But they don’t know any better, until someone pulls them aside and helps them understand that if they get the position, the clothing may need to be “enhanced” to better fit a professional environment. Most of these women are embarrassed, but happy for the gentle guidance that they can be given by someone who has their professional image or “brand” in mind.

The fact is while it CAN be symptomatic of other issues, it MAY NOT BE… and when you judge EVERYONE who YOU determine to be immodest, then you risk excluding people who want to seek God with all their hearts, but just don’t have a full understanding of God. Are YOU going to be the judge of their hearts? Was Branham that judge? I don’t want to hit this too hard, but God’s Word tells us that HE is the One to do that:

Hebrews 4:12-13 (HCSB) 12 For the word of God is living and effective and sharper than any double-edged sword, penetrating as far as the separation of soul and spirit, joints and marrow. It is able to judge the ideas and thoughts of the heart. 13 No creature is hidden from Him, but all things are naked and exposed to the eyes of Him to whom we must give an account.

Matthew 7:1-5 (HCSB) 1 “Do not judge, so that you won’t be judged. 2 For with the judgment you use, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. 3 Why do you look at the speck in your brother’s eye but don’t notice the log in your own eye? 4 Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ and look, there’s a log in your eye? 5 Hypocrite! First take the log out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.

The point of my exploration is this; who is to judge the motives and the intent of people when they wear makeup? Is that judge you? Are you the person who will tell people what is enough, or what is too much? Aren’t you the same person who is going to write the RED-LETTER addition of the message of William Branham?

The fact is, Branham didn’t like women very much and he told us this himself:

"My, I seen how they come when my daddy run that bootleg place. And I'd see women come there, young women, with somebody else's husband. And the way they would carry on…The only respect I had for any woman was my mother. And that's right. And I knowed she was a lady. I seen her set on the doorstep with the babies in her arms, and cry, and cry, and cry because she was locked out of the house. When my dad, which was a real man when he was sober." (William Branham, July 20, 1952)

"When I was a little, bitty, ol' boy, up there, I'd see them women come up there on the road, and their… know their husband was out working, them up there with some guy, drunk; on the side of the road, and they'd walk them up and down the road, sober them up enough to get them home, cook their husband's supper. I said they ain't worth a clean bullet to go through them. That's right. I said they're lower than animals, would do a thing like that. And I… When I was seventeen, eighteen years old, I'd see a—a girl coming down the street, I'd cross over on the other side, I said, "That stinking viper." See? And I would have been a real hater, but when I received God in my heart, God let me know that He's got some jewels out there, He's got some real ladies. They'll not all defile themselves like that; thank God for that." 60-1209 - The Sardisean Church Age, para. 1537

"Notice, there is nothing designed to stoop so low, or be filthy, but a woman." 65-0221

Based on Branham’s history and life story (that is, what of it you can believe), you may consider that he has reasons for some of his attitudes.

But reality is that people come to Christ from different distances spiritually. I am constantly amazed when a minister or a deacon says that they won’t admit someone in their church if they aren’t wearing what the minister or deacons judges to be appropriate dress. And yet, if you feel like someone needs to hear from Christ, isn’t church the best place for them to be no matter how they are dressed? Some people are short on the conviction (notice I used the word conviction and not condemnation) of the Holy Spirit when they begin to come to church. The Holy Spirit will guide them and over time, even you would have to admit that their appearance changes as their hearts for God change. And this is a great thing to be witness to. But to emphatically and prematurely impose strict non-flexible standards for people’s dress and appearance based on the sermons of William Branham is not the gentle guidance of the Holy Spirit. Usually it is the unqualified condemnation towards unscriptural requirements. Telling all women that makeup is unholy, that jewelry is unholy, and that certain dress disqualifies them from being considered Christian is a ridiculous charade which often illuminates the issues of judgment and condemnation from a leadership who takes it upon themselves to act as a surrogate for what they believe the Holy Spirit would say or do. Most of the time, they are far from correct. And that is a shame.

You said >>>>Your defense of William Branham as a prophet of God falls back on signs and wonders, and there is significant proof that Branham’s discernment failed multiple times, as we showed you in an earlier email.

I say.....Mark 16....By the LORD JESUS' own Words....is the base threshold upon which to identify a true Believer. We well understand that the judging and deception ascends up from that point.....actually to the point that it would deceive the very Elect if it was possible. That does eliminate the churches that do not have the demonstration of the Supernatural. I'm not defending the human element...but I will defend the Word based teachings of William Branham...that far...far superceed anything..... that any church of the present time has.

Again, I find it interesting that you discriminate between “layers” of Christianity which do not exist. Where in scripture does it tell us that there is another “formula” for salvation other than the one prescribed here?

John 14:6 (HCSB) 6 Jesus told him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.

Acts 16:29-32 (HCSB) 29 Then the jailer called for lights, rushed in, and fell down trembling before Paul and Silas. 30 Then he escorted them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” 31 So they said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household.” 32 Then they spoke the message of the Lord to him along with everyone in his house.

Romans 10:9 (HCSB) 9 If you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.

Are we now judging people’s salvation by the building that they choose to sit in once or twice every week? It is my impression that scripture tells us that salvation is a “personal” matter, not a “corporate” matter.

==The Attributes of a False Prophet

You said >>>> We certainly understand that ONE SINGLE ATTRIBUTE of a false prophet is that he adds to scripture. Most of the people on the list which we provided added to scripture in one form or another. Branham did that lots. We see where what Branham taught in many cases was at best extra-scriptural, and at worst anti-scriptural.

I say.....You have a right to your opinion....just as Judas and the 70 developed over time. Paul was persecuted...as was the LORD HIMSELF...for the very reason you attempt to condemn William Branham for. Peter even addresses Paul's teaching as hard to understand...but Peter refused to speak against Paul's Revelations. As I have pointed out before...you nor your organization meet the criteria requirement...to even judge a Prophet..true or false.

2 Peter 3:15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; 16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

Here again, I must take a moment and correct your misunderstanding. Judging whether a man who proclaims to be a prophet of God is not only our right, it is our obligation according to scripture. This is true because salvation IS a very personal issue and not a corporate issue. We, each of us, is responsible to ensure that what we hear and choose to follow IS ACTUALLY FROM GOD (from earlier in this email):

Acts 17:11 (HCSB) 11 The people here were more open-minded than those in Thessalonica, since they welcomed the message with eagerness and examined the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.

1 John 4:1 (HCSB) 1 Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to determine if they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.

Matthew 24:23-28 (HCSB) 23 “If anyone tells you then, ‘Look, here is the Messiah!’ or, ‘Over here!’ do not believe it! 24 False messiahs and false prophets will arise and perform great signs and wonders to lead astray, if possible, even the elect. 25 Take note: I have told you in advance. 26 So if they tell you, ‘Look, He’s in the wilderness!’ don’t go out; ‘Look, He’s in the inner rooms!’ do not believe it. 27 For as the lightning comes from the east and flashes as far as the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. 28 Wherever the carcass is, there the vultures will gather.

It is when we don’t take the responsibility to make sure as the Bereans did that what we hear is actually FROM GOD that we get into trouble. What I find utterly incredulous is that as a Minister of the Gospel, you refuse to follow the guidance of the Word of God concerning examination of a man who proclaims to be a prophet of God, just as these scriptures exhort us to do, be comparing what Branham said to the Word of God!

The reason that I asked you about the other prophets recently is to point out that they too have assemblies who believe that they are prophets of God.

Their assemblies, just like those of message churches, are told NOT TO QUESTION the divine inspiration given to those prophets. We know (for different reasons than you seem to articulate by the way) that none of these people are true prophets of God. It is interesting that we know it… if we read their literature and their writings, we would assume that because they tell us so, they ARE prophets of God. But in order to finalize how we know they are not, we go further than just to say that we have no personal experience with them, but we do with this guy over here. No, instead we lean once again on scripture. We see in most cases that the extra-scriptural nonsense that they teach immediately disqualifies them as a prophet of God. In some cases, these self-proclaimed prophets ADD SGINIFICANTLY to scripture. In this way, we know they aren’t prophets of God as well. But in every case, they teach that which is directly opposed to God’s Word, just as Branham did. And we can find no support scripturally for their self-declared vindications, such is the way with Branham as well.

So you see, when we hear the UNCERTAIN SOUND OF A TRUMPET, it is not only a good idea, it is REQUIRED for each of us to judge whether what we hear is scriptural. If we didn’t do that, then like many many Branham churches, we would follow unscriptural teaching from a false prophet. And because salvation is a “personal” not a “corporate” matter, we take making sure of our salvation very seriously indeed.

You said >>>> Your defense of Branham that Jonah’s prophecy did not come to pass shows a markedly shallow understanding of God’s use of prophets.

I say.....Are you afraid to face the FACTS of the incident of Jonah???? GOD never told Jonah that the people had repented....before or during the time of his Prophecy.....only after the fact! As I see it....you would have accused Jonah of being a false prophet...since all you would have had/heard.... was Jonah's words...that within 40 days Nineveh would be destroyed. The very reason that your agenda is attempting to destroy a ministry....is...that you don't know the thinking of the man....much less the thinking of GOD....that might be behind the words. We have given a few explicit examples..... of HOW GOD uses HIS PROPHETS and in LOVE and MERCY..... corrected their sometimes grievous errors...to bring HIS PURPOSE to pass... in its time and season.

Get this through your carnal filter Brother. GOD doesn't throw away HIS CHOSEN because of their human ignorance....but LEADS them in time.... to HIS will and purpose. The false prophets were never GOD's to begin with!

As to the Africa Vision.... as well as several other Visions yet unfulfilled.....they will happen exactly as GOD showed them. In the Africa Vision....the blacks and the whites were unsegregated. That couldn't have happened in 57 or 65...when Brother Branham tried to set up meetings for it to be fulfilled. As with Jonah....GOD didn't tell him everything. That doesn't change one thing of GOD's thinking .....when He gave the Vision. It will happen just as GOD said and the unbeliever will just miss the blessing. It took several hundred years for a virgin to conceive after the Prophecy...but it happened!

Let’s be sure we focus on the correct issue in the Jonah story. God’s forbearance of judgment is not the issue here… never was. The issue with your analogy of Jonah as compared to Branham is faulty because unlike Jonah, Branham was never permitted to go where God instructed him to go. Jonah was instructed to go to Nineveh and did what he could to avoid it. God made sure He moved heaven and earth, great fishes, storms, etc etc, and finally Jonah, without it being his intention, ended up in Nineveh to deliver God’s message. What God does after that is God’s business.

In Branham case, he tells us repeatedly (THUS SAITH THE LORD) that God told him to go to South Africa to preach. And something on this earth stopped Branham, as willing as he was, from getting to South Africa to preach?

That’s why your comparison of Branham to Jonah is absolutely without merit. We see attributes of God in the Jonah story. like moving heaven and earth for His true Prophet to get where he instructed him to go. We see no such attributes in the Branham instance where South Africa is concerned. Branham told us 30 times that God told him to go to South Africa. In the end, we discover that it didn’t happen. I believe that you aren’t that thick… I would choose to believe that you just aren’t willing to admit that Branham’s vision failed. But EVEN BRANHAM tells us that it failed.

“I had planned on, so hard, coming back; burdened in the heart. I just returned from Africa, as you all know. And when I got over there, I had a restricted visa, and wouldn't let me, wouldn't let me preach because it gathers too many together. They're expecting an uprise there at any time, and--and they--they wouldn't let me preach because of that gathering too many people together. The only way I could, would to have some organization that's represented by the government, in the government, to invite me over, then that would automatically let the government send out a militia for protection. See, they're just... There is just going to be an uprise, and that's all there is to it. It's just right in hand, see. That government man said, "The last time he was here, he had about a quarter of a million people together." And he said, "Then, you see, that would just be the very thing that communism is looking for, for an uprise." So, I couldn't preach.” ASHAMED JEFF.IN 65-0711

To suggest that Branham’s South Africa vision WILL come to pass, some later time in the future is to suggest that William Branham will raise from the dead and fulfill this prophecy. Is that what you are suggesting? That’s an interesting idea, and there have been those in the message who believe this. For instance, I point to the airplane which sat packed for the South Africa trip on the airport ramp in Arizona because those who purchased the aircraft and packed it with equipment and supplies KNEW that Branham was going to be raised for the dead. That airplane by the way eventually fell into disrepair, became un-airworthy, and was past the point of restoration or reconditioning while the owners wait for Branham to resurrect from the dead. There were those who were convinced that Branham was going to return in 1977 to usher in the rapture of the church who waited anxiously and expectantly for his “Returned Ministry”. There are STILL those who stand by his graveside every year around Easter waiting to greet Branham as he raises from the dead. Of course, we have no scriptural basis for a prophet of God ever to have done that… no scriptural foundation for this absurdity at all. But there you have it… standing next to the grave in rapt anticipation each Easter morning is a group of message believers waiting for Branham’s resurrection.

Branham admitted that the vision of the Brown Bear which he was going to kill (THUS SAITH THE LORD) the YEAR AFTER his hunting trip did not come to pass. Are you suggesting that Branham will return, and then warp time to go back to the year after his first hunting trip to kill the bear he didn’t kill in the contemporaneous time frame? The former would be as stated earlier beyond scriptural foundation. The latter would be beyond belief as well, and absolutely devoid of scriptural foundation.

We have now seen that you claim to be of the “Progressive Revelation” denomination of the message AND the “Returned Ministry” denomination of the message. It’s a mix of beliefs that bends time and space and totally and utterly defies scripture.

Failed Discernment

You said >>>> So, we have serious issues with testimonies which tell us that Branham’s discernments often failed,

I say.....You weren't there and you haven't provided one credible witness who was there...who can nor will give the date and meeting...where Brother Branham by vision..... misdiagnosed their case. I have many witnesses....some in my own family..... other than Gordon Lindsay and Ern Baxter's written testimonies...from the early 50's. They declare in their own personal testimonies....that not one time did they ever see the Visions fail.

When Brother Branham began to stand for the Oneness of the Godhead and Apostolic water baptism....many of them turned on him...including Lindsay and Baxter. I was told many years ago...how that Lindsay sold Brother Branham's tent and equipment out from under him and gave the money to a Trinitarian organization.

After Brother Branham's death...I read an article stating that Mrs. Lindsay said..... that GOD told her...that Brother Branham was taken because he taught against the 3 person Trinity . Kind of reminds me of a Scriptural incident/setting....where the Sons of the Prophets in Elisha's time...knew that Elijah was going away....but made poison food for themselves to eat. As we well understand...Gifts and Callings are without repentance.

Kenneth Hagin's book....where you evidently took some of your info. from....stood up in the midst of Brother Branham's 65 meeting and prophesied that Florence Shakarian would live and not die from her terminal cancer....after Brother Branham had told her and her family..... the very hour she would die. She died exactly at the hour that Brother Branham saw by Vision. Wonder why Hagin didn't put that in his book?

You speak again as if signs and wonders defined a prophet of God when scripture clearly tells us that false prophet will show great signs and wonders:

Matthew 24:23-28 (HCSB) 23 “If anyone tells you then, ‘Look, here is the Messiah!’ or, ‘Over here!’ do not believe it! 24 False messiahs and false prophets will arise and perform great signs and wonders to lead astray, if possible, even the elect. 25 Take note: I have told you in advance. 26 So if they tell you, ‘Look, He’s in the wilderness!’ don’t go out; ‘Look, He’s in the inner rooms!’ do not believe it. 27 For as the lightning comes from the east and flashes as far as the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. 28 Wherever the carcass is, there the vultures will gather.

Forgive my repetition, but it seems like this scripture more than others is one which you choose to turn a blind eye and deaf ear to. Denial is ONE approach, certainly a technique which I am not willing to pursue. But you have the liberty to ignore the Word of God should you choose, although I’m not sure how that squares with you being a Minister of the Gospel.

And what’s more important that both Ern Baxter and Gordon Lindsay agree that Branham was outside of his calling. Remember when we said if he had only presented himself as a minister of God, then we wouldn’t be having this discussion? Baxter and Lindsay agree. They tell us that Branham made statements with which they could not agree. They tell us in their own words that Branham was outside of his calling. And the sister who spoke of Branham’s death tells us that Branham was going the “way of Dowie”. Now, if you aren’t sure of who Dowie is, he was a false prophet who proclaimed that HE TOO was the Elijah spirit prior to Branham being a minister. In fact, many believe that Alexander Dowie is where Branham got a lot of his ideas concerning ministry. So, we see here that those whom you stated were witnesses to him as a prophet of god actually tell us that he was outside of his calling as a minister. And it’s revealing that your best witnesses tell us that he was nothing of the kind, he only said he was, and this was outside of God’s calling for Branham’s life.

The use of words not in the Bible

You said >>>>An example of a linguistic adaptation that Branham obviously approved and participated in would be the term “rapture.” The most literal meaning of that word is “an ecstatic transporting,” and as such it is a very apt term to use to denote what is laid out in passages like Matthew 14, 1 Corinthians 15 and 1 Thessalonians 4. Yet the word “rapture” is never used in Scripture.

I say......I'm not sure why you are wasting time on this one. The word Rapture....as we all understand.... is a simply condensed word...supplemented for the TERMINOLOGY in Scripture....of " being caught up to meet the LORD in the air". So what.... if Brother Branham used it. It was well comprehended by almost all that came to his meetings.

Again, I choose to believe you aren’t thick, you are just obstinate. The issue concerning the word “Rapture” not being in scripture was a discussion of Branham’s quote concerning “Trinity” not being in scripture:

“The word "trinity" is not even mentioned in the entire Book of the Bible." 61-0108 REVELATION.CHAPTER.FOUR.3

Branham’s issue with the word “Trinity” was that it didn’t appear in the bible as you see here. Well, were his argument valid, then words like “Rapture” would not be permitted in what you correctly point out is the modern liturgical lexicon as it is also not in the Bible.

Now, I want to believe you know that… let’s just pretend that you did know that and you are being contrarian. I like that better than assuming you have no grasp of dialog and rhetoric.

Wisdom and Reason

You said >>>>Next, we should speak about knowledge and wisdom in the Lord, and reasoning. In several sermons, Branham speaks about these topics. For instance, here are some examples:

“And their mind will never bring them to God. Your mind is reasonings. And God has no reasonings.” THE.UNCERTAIN.SOUND_ JEFF.IN V-26 N-19 SUNDAY_ 55-0731

“There is a far great difference between intellectual faith and real God-sent faith. Intellectual faith reasons. And the Bible said that we should cast down reasoning. Don't have nothing to do… Don't try to reason it. Just believe it.” William Branham, 58-0325 - Faith By Experience, para. 14

I say.....It's somewhat difficult to believe..... that you would go to such absurd extremes...in an attempt to criticize. Anyone who has the basic ability...of how to apply specifics...it would be applied here. If the doctor tells you or anyone else.....that all the evidence provided by tests....say that you will die in a couple of weeks or months....in order to attain DIVINE healing...that person would of necessity.... have to cast down all human reasoning attributed to/by the diagnosis...and reach up to that which is above reason....called FAITH! Surely you are not so ignorant.... as to accuse Brother Branham.....of not living as a human by good common sense reasoning!!!! He was an expert hunter and that by human reasoning. Cmon Brother...you can do better than that!!!!

I really can agree that Branham SHOULD speak that way about reason and intellect.

Unfortunately, we hear all too often, and we heard it from you, that reason and study is contrary to “ONLY BELIEVE” and that this is bad. And it is, in some regard, for the message of William Branham. When you reason and study, just as scripture exhorts us to do, then you discover very quickly that Branham does not qualify as a prophet of God. Just as the Bible tells us we must, we will continue to gather wisdom and knowledge of the Word of God. In this way, we can share it so others will have the chance to compare Branham’s sermons to God’s Word just as we have. Without wisdom, reason, knowledge, and intellect, we would blindly follow those who proclaim to be a prophet of God without considering that their words are contrary to scripture. In fact, we might follow any of the people on the list which I provided to you if we didn’t know any better. Knowing is an understanding of God’s word and what it tells us about how a prophet actually qualifies as a true prophet of God. And when we know, we can say with confidence that Branham was a liar, a fraud, and a false prophet.

Having gotten through your last email, I hope that you will reflect on my response, but previous exchanges have shown me that you tend to ignore what I put forth. More importantly, it is clear that you choose to ignore the Word of God. But we can but present God’s Word and compare it here to what Branham stated. Let’s continue for a moment to look at the Bible and where Branham teaches that which is not consistent with it.

How about the Book of Isaiah?

Branham taught that there are three Bibles including one based on the mystery of the pyramids and one based on the zodiac. Don’t confuse astronomy with astrology. Astronomy is the science of the movement of the stars, and we are certain that God orders the movement of the stars in all things. On the other hand, Astrology is the zodiac, the divining further events by the zodiac. Branham said this:

“God's wrote three Bibles: one, the Zodiac, one in the pyramids, one on paper. Now, He's writing His first, the Zodiac. It starts off with a virgin, ends up with Leo the lion: Jesus' first coming and His second coming. If we had time to run down through it, you'd see it.” 53-0509, The Pillar Of Fire

Here’s what the Book of Isaiah says about astrology and the zodiac:

Isaiah 47:12-14 (HCSB) 12 So take your stand with your spells and your many sorceries, which you have wearied yourself with from your youth. Perhaps you will be able to succeed; perhaps you will inspire terror! 13 You are worn out with your many consultations. So let them stand and save you— the astrologers, who observe the stars, who predict monthly what will happen to you. 14 Look, they are like stubble; fire burns them up. They cannot deliver themselves from the power of the flame. This is not a coal for warming themselves, or a fire to sit beside!

That’s not what Branham said, so this book is also unreliable. Take this book out immediately.

Again, my deepest apologies for the delay in getting this back to you. My travel schedule was difficult this week trying to get out of the Midwest in this weather, and I appreciate your patience. I also apologize again about the length of this email. But I felt there were so many mischaracterizations that I wanted to be sure we addressed them all.

I look forward to hearing back from you.

BTS2

Sun, Feb 24, 2019 at 9:30 PM

Dear ABM2,

I will respond in line with your questions.

Shotgunning

You said >>>> Your latest email was sort of a shotgun blast of ideas, sort of like a BB bouncing around in a box car. And your response was so replete with misstatements and mischaracterizations, I wanted to be sure I addressed each and every one.

I say.....My responses were based directly on your statements...which also were filled with misstatements along with mischaracterizations. I will base this response on your statements...so it could also be lengthy.

To begin with...you didn't directly address the questions I posed concerning Abraham....a noted Prophet of GOD and his grievous errors.....progressively followed by GOD's gentle correction and reassertion of the promise.

You sidestep to Gideon...who is not in the line of Prophets and then ramble about the fleecing incident. That my friend....has no connection with Abraham losing his Prophet of GOD position...status or place for disobeying..... denying and laughing in the Face of GOD. Gideon did none of those things...so I don't think comparing camels to spaceships is relevant to the subject. Besides..... even Gideon's position as a Judge was progressive.... in every sense of the word! He was guided by progressive instructions to his ultimate victories.....PERIOD! The point of the subject had to do with what constitutes a Prophet of GOD and whether his errors.... disqualify him from being GOD's Prophet.

Progressive Revelation

You said >>>> We see here clearly that these men, great men of God as was Abraham, had moments where they doubted God. Or to put it in a different perspective, where they struggled in their human minds with what God had told them. In other words, they had difficulty translating God’s reality and possibility into their human understanding. SPOLIER ALERT: This isn’t “Progressive Revelation”. Nor was the instance of Abraham’s moment of disbelief “Progressive Revelation”.

I say.....C'mon Brother....Abraham was corrected from his position of not knowing something ......to a supernaturally positive change from his previous position of error. That is PROGRESSIVE and since the furtherance of that understanding came from GOD...it was a REVELATION....PROGRESSIVE REVELATION to be succinct! I don't think mind games with semantics on your part....though possibly sincere....makes Scriptural sense....or even a valid point. I DID NOT SAY...that Abraham's disbelief was progressive anything.... as you spin my example to say.

Progressive Revelation is defined as follows:

Progressive revelation is the doctrine in Christianity that the sections of the Bible that were written later contain a fuller revelation of God than the earlier sections. For instance, the theologian Charles Hodge wrote:

"The progressive character of divine revelation is recognized in relation to all the great doctrines of the Bible... What at first is only obscurely intimated is gradually unfolded in subsequent parts of the sacred volume, until the truth is revealed in its fulness.” Hodge, Charles (2003), Systematic Theology, 1, Peabody: Hendrickson, p. 446, ISBN 1-56563-459-4 (also available as Hodge, Gross, Edward N, ed., Systematic Theology (abridged ed.), ISBN 0-87552-224-6)

As you can see by this definition, this definition by the way is commonly accepted as the scholarly definition of Progressive Revelation, the revelation which is progressive does not occur in one instance of God’s work. Instead the revelation of which the progression takes place starts early in the Bible with revelation which is not yet complete, and builds throughout the books of the Bible to the revelation of Jesus Christ, His disciples, and the culmination in Christ as Lord and Savior and salvation through profession of faith in Jesus Christ as Lord of our lives.

As you speak about terms which are used in scholarly biblical study, it is helpful to have a clear definition of those terms, and at least a fundamental understanding of that to which they refer.

The example which you presented regarding Abraham and the two subsequent instances which I provided mirroring your example were not progressive revelation. All three of those examples, as I stated, were men who were faced with God’s wonders and in their human minds had moments of disbelief. There is no dispute that men of might in the Word of God as they men obviously were have moments of unbelief.

When we discuss terms and concepts such as Progressive Revelation, it is well to have a good understanding of the term. It is NOT acceptable for you to define them for yourself in a way which is not appropriate to any scholarly study, and what you called Progressive Revelation concerning Abraham was nothing of the sort.

As it relates to Branham, the terms as defined by biblical scholars would imply that the Word of God IS NOT REVEALED (hence the term revelation) in early texts, that the texts are built upon by other subsequent revelation, and that the ultimate conclusion is the fullest revelation of Christ in His Word. We agree and accept THIS definition, and we submit that there is NO WHERE in scripture where a prophet teaches THUS SAITH THE LORD, gets a correction from God, and then reteaches what he has previously taught… NO WHERE. Branham seems to do this frequently, as were examples which I showed to you. For you to assert that Branham qualifies for a special dispensation of the Word of God in allowing him to teach something in the Name of the Lord which directly opposes God’s Word. It isn’t done in scripture, not anywhere.

You said concerning Brother Branham's teaching on Godhead.>>>>> Now, based upon these instances of where Branham changes his teaching, you might make the case for true progressive revelation. Progressive revelation is not a momentary disbelief of someone while God reveals His intent and His power through the manifestation of God’s reality. Progressive revelation as is described by Bible Scholars is not what you described in your email.

I say......After his ministry started.....Brother Branham never changed his personal belief/Revelation.... on the ONENESS of the Godhead. Later in his ministry..... when he began teaching on the Godhead....he taught as he did all the way through...that GOD...being Triune in nature/attributes.... manifested HIMSELF in 3 major ways....Father....Son and Holy Ghost. NEVER did he teach that there are 3 PERSONS making one GOD....as the Nominal Trinity churches taught and teach.

We have been around his ministry long enough to know....that even after going onto the field....that early on....he stayed away from teaching on those particular doctrinal issues. He did..... from a desire to unify the different groups... use terminology familiar with his audiences. He called it covering the hook with the bait and we called it using wisdom. Through that approach...he was able to win thousands .....that were made accessible through that wise approach. The Apostle Paul..... used the same wisdom in his ministry.

1 Corinthians 9:19 For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more. 20 And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; 21 To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law. 22 To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. 23 And this I do for the gospel's sake, that I might be partaker thereof with you.

Wait, WHAT?!?!?!? Clearly you didn’t read what was emailed to you. Branham said these very words:

"Where do you get that triune, pagan doctrine? Out of a catechism, not out of the Bible. The word "trinity" is not even mentioned in the whole Scriptures from Genesis to Revelation. There's no such a thing. There is no such a thing as a trinitarian god." 60-0925 THAT.DAY.ON.CALVARY

Are you suggesting that Branham didn’t speak these words??? He tells us here that a TRIUNE doctrine is “hatched out of hell”, as he suggests here:

"You say, "The blessed holy trinity." Find me the word "trinity" anywhere in the pages of God's Bible. It's a man-made scheme, an old dirty church rag wrapped around to take the place of the sap Line of God's Holy Spirit. There's no such a thing. There's no such a thing. You find it and come to me. You're duty bound to do it as a Christian, if you find it. It's not in God's holy Writings. And the "Father, Son, and Holy Ghost" is hatched out of hell." 59-0823 PALMERWORM.LOCUST.CANKERWORM.CATERPILLAR

WE didn’t say those things, Branham did. You have a difficult time reading what Branham said except through the lenses of Branham goggles. You are so loathe to admit that he contradicted himself that you can’t see the distinctions in his writing? That’s very sad.

My understanding of being a Minister of the Gospel of Jesus Christ is to seek scriptural truth. How is it that you can reasonably say with a straight face that you seek scriptural truth when you can’t even read what Branham said and understand that there are contradictions? And if there are contradictions in his teaching, then Branham as we have been asserting has no Godly Authority to speak using God’s Name (THUS SAITH THE LORD). Branham’s confusion concerning his own stance on doctrine is almost as puzzling as your refusal to see the most straight forward discrepancies in Branham’s teaching in Branham’s own words.

You use it in your attempt to destroy....we call it wisdom...because we understand how to catch fish!!!! His home church..... was the main place that he did teach on the specifics of Godhead....water baptism and other major doctrinal points and withheld no punches in his belief.

You use his statements and then put your spin on them and I read the same statements and understand exactly what he meant. Not one place can you show us a teaching...where he taught the Denominational TRINITARIAN version of the Godhead....with 3 separate persons making one god.

If I said....depending on the audience being dealt with..... that GOD the Father was the 1st...2nd and 3rd Person of the Godhead...it would be totally correct....if the person listening knew what I meant by the statement. To another filled with the spirit of criticism....it would be confusion.  It's just a matter of placing the attributes of the one person GOD...... in the correct manifestation and/or timeframe.  Personally.....I think you are somewhat void concerning the Revelation of Godhead.... as taught all the way through by Brother Branham. Otherwise you wouldn't use your spin on his wording...trying to make him say something that he didn't believe.

Can you please show us where what we showed you wasn’t in what Branham taught? He taught those things, right?? Unbelievable.

The doctrine of the Trinity

You said >>>> *** How is it that God can have a conference with His Son if they are not two separate entities?

I say.....Since the FULLNESS of GODHEAD ......dwelt in the body of flesh and the LORD JESUS always knew His purpose..... long before gethsemane....correct? It should then also be obvious..... that whoever wrote the words in recorded Scripture that we read...were present to hear them. It should be common understanding to the Believer.... in consideration of the life of JESUS during His ministry.....that He was the LIVING example to His followers of all time. His words were a teaching lesson..... to those who read and hear them. He brought His human nature into submission to the will of the Holy Ghost .....that was indwelling that body. He...while acting out His Predestinated purpose...demonstrated what is meant in the Book of Revelation by being an OVERCOMER. It wasn't another person...but the singular person of GOD....giving a perfect Word lesson for us.....in and through His created body...the Son.

Wait, WHAT?!?!?!?!? Are you suggesting that the Holy Spirit was there in the Garden of Gethsemane?? Really? WOW!!! It was Jesus who was there, Jesus who was God manifest on earth as a human being. The Holy Spirit which was promised by Jesus Christ came later…

John 14:15-18 (HCSB) 15 “If you love Me, you will keep My commands. 16 And I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Counselor to be with you forever. 17 He is the Spirit of truth. The world is unable to receive Him because it doesn’t see Him or know Him. But you do know Him, because He remains with you and will be in you. 18 I will not leave you as orphans; I am coming to you.

Notice here, Jesus tells his disciples that HE WILL (future tense) give another Counselor.

We also know the time of the Holy Spirit’s arrival as is revealed here:

Acts 1:4-8 (HCSB) 4 While He was together with them, He commanded them not to leave Jerusalem, but to wait for the Father’s promise. “This,” ⌊He said, “is what⌋ you heard from Me; 5 for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.” 6 So when they had come together, they asked Him, “Lord, are You restoring the kingdom to Israel at this time?” 7 He said to them, “It is not for you to know times or periods that the Father has set by His own authority. 8 But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come on you, and you will be My witnesses in Jerusalem, in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.”

After Jesus told His disciples these things, they were gathered in an upper room, scared and frightened, not sure of their future or their fate. This, by the way, is ANOTHER moment of humans not understanding God’s plan for the next moment in time. And then THIS happened:

Acts 2:1-4 (HCSB) 1 When the day of Pentecost had arrived, they were all together in one place. 2 Suddenly a sound like that of a violent rushing wind came from heaven, and it filled the whole house where they were staying. 3 And tongues, like flames of fire that were divided, appeared to them and rested on each one of them. 4 Then they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in different languages, as the Spirit gave them ability for speech.

Do you actually teach that the Holy Spirit arrived on earth SOONER than what Jesus tells us here? How is it that you call yourself a Minister of the Gospel and teach this nonsense?? Was the Spirit of God present? Certainly… but the Spirit of God manifest as the Holy Spirit defined as these scriptures tell us was a later arrival, AFTER JESUS WAS RESURRECTED AND ASCENDED TO HEAVEN!

I might ask a simple question of/to you. Where did the Spirit that was in JESUS come from....before it came to the earth???? If you think He was a separate person....co-equal with GOD the Father...another person.....why did the Father person and the Holy Ghost person...vote to make the Son person leave His position of eternal co-equality and be the one to die? Wouldn't He in His Eternal state of being with the other 2 persons....know without question...the detailed outcome of His future passion???? Again...your understanding of a triune Godhead...... being one person in 3 major dispensational manifestations..... is severely lacking!

Where did you get the idea that we hold ANY doctrinal position concerning the Trinity? Certainly nothing we have discussed leads you to that. Or any, conclusion concerning what we believe. We speak in terms of what Branham taught, not what we believe.

You said >>>>At this point, my head is on a swivel and I am unsure if I am going or coming!! What if I missed the SECOND teaching in 1965, and I just learned the FIRST teaching in 1965 which Branham teaches that the trinity is again not good? Am I believing something which is NOT OF GOD? After all, Branham taught later that without the trinity He’s not God. What am I to believe in? How is it that God’s Prophet as he proclaimed himself, and who you proclaim as such, doesn’t teach what God corrected him to teach? What an absolute confused mess! As a believer of the message of William Branham, where am I supposed to land? If you believe his LAST message and ignore earlier messages, then you would say that WITHOUT A TRINITY HE’S NOT GOD!!! So there you have it, a Trinitarian.

I say......I do agree that your head is on a swivel and it is understandable why. You just are not able to grasp the Godhead as taught by Scripture and by William Branham....plus.... may I add myself as a teacher of the same thing.!!! Not an iota of swivel heads over here :)

Luke 10:21 In that hour Jesus rejoiced in spirit, and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes: even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight.

We expect more from you. From time to time, your vitriol is obvious. You defend that which is indefensible, and you ignore things which are obvious. But, really, sir… to suggest that you are as thick as you pretend is either obstinance or perhaps reality… I would hesitate to suggest it is reality, but you confirm it frequently. When I used the term “my head is on a swivel”, I was as you well know to the example that I used of the believer of William Branham who doesn’t know where to turn for truth. Please, sir, could you try not to be so objectionably in your characterizations? And your assertion that wisdom and prudence as used in this scripture refers to me personal is offensive. We do nothing but defend the Gospel of Jesus Christ against false prophets such as William Branham. We use Branham’s own words. I do everything I can to break down into the most simplistic terms where we can demonstrate Branham’s faults. It is you who obfuscate and manipulate God’s Word and ideas such as Progressive Revelation” in a weak attempt to defend that which is not worthy of defense.

Accusations?

You said >>>>> You misstate this very badly… we don’t accuse anyone.

I say......It's not a mis-statement at all Brother. I have had others read your accusations...wherein it is explicitly obvious....that every one of them .....says the same thing. You accuse William Branham of being a false prophet by agenda and it is so blatantly obvious....that you don't even have an inkling in many of your accusations....of what he really taught. I don't deny that you use his words...but with your little twist...in an attempt to make them fit your agenda...by spin.

Our agenda is simple, as has been explained before. We show Branham’s own words and compare them to the Word of God. We have asked this before, and we have received NO explanation from you… perhaps you may now reveal YOUR AGENDA. Can you please demonstrate by God’s Word the attributes and characteristics of a prophet, according to scripture, and show us how Branham qualifies?

What is Modesty?

You said >>>> But what is “modesty”? Can modesty mean long skirts or dresses? Can modesty be pants for women?........................................................

She has her hair cut so that it is fairly short, and avoids looking obtrusive against her scar with missing gaps of hair. Can she be considered modest with her hair cut? Sure she can, and she does. In fact, and I might sound biased here, but she is not only modest, she is beautiful in her short hair.

I say.....Well Brother....you can spin any disobedience to GOD's Word.... to fit the easy way of the world. Modesty is described Scripturally.... as we have already covered. The LORD JESUS taught it strictly..... in saying that if a man LUSTED after a woman...he is guilty of Adultery. If she presents herself in a way that incites the nature of a male...she is setting the stage of that human incitement. If she dresses in such a way as to cover her form..... as is shown in the historical record....LONG DRESSES and no makeup.....at least she has done her part Scripturally. I would think the deduction would be obvious to anyone who wanted to see it and specifically..... to a Born Again Believer. Holiness in dress was around long before William Branham came on the scene and the only ones who pervert it...are those who want an excuse to do so.

As to the cutting of the hair....there are medical circumstances that force the hair to be shaved for surgery or from medicine....but that is usually temporary and understandable. It is also Scripturally explicit..... that GOD gave a woman an identification of/by physical expression.....to show/demonstrate her HONOR to/for her head. If she cuts it purposely...to be like the world...she DISHONORS her head...PERIOD! If she is married it DISHONORS her husband which in turn DISHONORS his head .....which is JESUS CHRIST.

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

1 cor.11:4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. 5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.

1Cor.11:14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? 15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her : for her hair is given her for a covering.

Context is a wonderful thing. We should speak to exactly what the Apostle Paul addresses in his letter to the church at Corinth.

In ancient Greek society, it was the custom of men to keep their heads uncovered during worship. It was the custom of women to keep their heads covered to show reverence to God as they serve.

The Apostle Paul, in his letter to the Corinthian church, was dealing with a specific issue. The issue that Apostle Paul discusses here is that women were subverting authority from men in their worship. Notice in scripture that men are not to cover their heads while praying or prophesying. Women, however, were told to wear a covering over their heads. Women were given different roles in the ministry then. Women in the church at Corinth were subverting the authority that the Apostle Paul gave to those men in a way which was unpleasing to God. The Apostle Paul tells us that women are NOT TO UNCOVER THEIR HEADS. Notice in the scripture which you submitted for consideration:

1 Corinthians 11:4-10 (HCSB) 4 Every man who prays or prophesies with something on his head dishonors his head. 5 But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, since that is one and the same as having her head shaved. 6 So if a woman’s head is not covered, her hair should be cut off. But if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, she should be covered. 7 A man, in fact, should not cover his head, because he is God’s image and glory, but woman is man’s glory. 8 For man did not come from woman, but woman came from man. 9 And man was not created for woman, but woman for man. 10 This is why a woman should have ⌊a symbol of⌋ authority on her head, because of the angels.

In plain language, the Apostle Paul suggests that women who uncovered their heads while in service were outside of their authority unless their heads were covered as was their custom. The Apostle Paul equates removing this covering, this symbol of God’s Authority while she serves which is different than that of a man who is praying or prophesying, to shaving her head.

The Apostle Paul does not suggest that women should never cut their hair. Again, context is a wonderful thing. Paul is not suggesting that women should not serve in ministry, he is telling the church at Corinth that there is an order and a method for women to serve, to pray, and to give prophesy, that is to have a covering on their head. He is scolding the women for their efforts to usurp authority of the man whom the Apostle Paul himself put in positions of authority in that church.

Your lack of depth in terms of what the Bible says in context is alarming for one who calls themselves a minister of God, it really is. Now, I understand why Branham has to teach this. You do too, right? I mean you really aren’t that thick, are you?

I say.....Paul is explicit in stating that the HAIR is the covering referred to in this setting of Scripture. Of course...you base all of your agenda to destroy William Branham's ministry.... on one Scripture in Deut.....so let's see if you will take the new Testament Scriptural COMMANDMENT concerning hair.... as seriously!

My wife used to do the hair of some of the women of the church...who had hair that was so long...that they would step on it if it were let down. Some suffered with headaches because of the weight. She would fix each ladies hair in such a manner.... that the problems were solved or alleviated. Those who still had problems..... chose to suffer the discomfort in order to be pleasing to GOD.

I certainly don’t suggest that women who feel led to grow their hair long shouldn’t if they feel like it is their calling. But, really… to suggest that scripture tells a woman never to cut her hair is just plain silly. Scripture in context has no such codicil.

Motivation of Women Wearing Makeup

You said >>>>The point of my exploration is this; who is to judge the motives and the intent of people when they wear makeup? Is that judge you? Are you the person who will tell people what is enough, or what is too much? Aren’t you the same person who is going to write the RED-LETTER addition of the message of William Branham?

I say......Any Born again Believer that desires to lead someone to Christ....would by necessity..... know the difference between good and evil...worldly or Christian. There is a judgment call made on some level to recognize sin or a sinner. I don't need a red letter edition of the message to recognize the attributes of sin. My absolute is the Word of GOD. We have women and men....that come into our Assembly quite often....that look like they emerged from the weeds of sin. I only present the Word of GOD and the decision is theirs .....as to whether they are convicted of their sinful lives. Scripture is again explicit in stating..... that GOD's sheep will hear His Voice and that no man came come to GOD...unless the Holy Ghost draws him or her.

I will tell you that what I have seen in your out of context, Branham-centric personal interpretation of the scripture is not only judgmental, it is ridiculously off the Word of God, in as much as William Branham’s teaching is off the Word of God. And we have demonstrated time and again where this is absolutely true. I would suggest that you ignore scripture and the warning of Jesus Christ concerning judgement towards others which I provided to you. And I suggest that inviting people to come to better understanding of the Biblical Jesus Christ requires that we understand and accept where people start before they arrive at the understanding of Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. Judgement and condemnation of people’s appearance cannot in any way be supported in scripture when people are earnestly seeking to know Christ more personally. Remember, the Holy Spirit doesn’t need our help. Not accepting people in their current condition but ONLY allowing people with a specific appearance to come to church is to cast people out contrary to what Jesus Himself suggested:

John 8:15-16 (HCSB) 15 You judge by human standards. I judge no one. 16 And if I do judge, My judgment is true, because I am not alone, but I and the Father who sent Me ⌊judge together⌋.

Notice here, Jesus tells us that it is HE AND HIS FATHER which shall judge TOGETHER. They also don’t need our help. The Apostle Paul also reiterates this principle in his letter to the Roman church:

Romans 2:1 (HCSB) 1 Therefore, any one of you who judges is without excuse. For when you judge another, you condemn yourself, since you, the judge, do the same things.

Romans 14:13 (HCSB) 13 Therefore, let us no longer criticize one another. Instead decide never to put a stumbling block or pitfall in your brother’s way.

But we stray from the last portion of the email which I sent to you. The last email that I sent included information about a book of the Bible which Branham taught against. I repeat it here so you may remember it:

How about the Book of Isaiah?

Branham taught that there are three Bibles including one based on the mystery of the pyramids and one based on the zodiac. Don’t confuse astronomy with astrology. Astronomy is the science of the movement of the stars, and we are certain that God orders the movement of the stars in all things. On the other hand, Astrology is the zodiac, the divining further events by the zodiac. Branham said this:

“God's wrote three Bibles: one, the Zodiac, one in the pyramids, one on paper. Now, He's writing His first, the Zodiac. It starts off with a virgin, ends up with Leo the lion: Jesus' first coming and His second coming. If we had time to run down through it, you'd see it.” 53-0509, The Pillar Of Fire

Here’s what the Book of Isaiah says about astrology and the zodiac:

Isaiah 47:12-14 (HCSB) 12 So take your stand with your spells and your many sorceries, which you have wearied yourself with from your youth. Perhaps you will be able to succeed; perhaps you will inspire terror! 13 You are worn out with your many consultations. So let them stand and save you— the astrologers, who observe the stars, who predict monthly what will happen to you. 14 Look, they are like stubble; fire burns them up. They cannot deliver themselves from the power of the flame. This is not a coal for warming themselves, or a fire to sit beside!

That’s not what Branham said, so this book is also unreliable. Take this book out immediately.

Perhaps in your next email you could address Branham’s teaching here instead of wandering far afield in areas where you clearly have no foundational knowledge of scripture.

Your next reply is awaited.

ABM2

Thursday, February 28, 2019 5:48 PM

Brother BTS2,

The Doctrine of the Trinity

You said concerning the quote below >>>> Wait, WHAT?!?!?!? Clearly you didn’t read what was emailed to you. Branham said these very words: Are you suggesting that Branham didn’t speak these words??? He tells us here that a TRIUNE doctrine is “hatched out of hell”, as he suggests here:

60-0925 THAT.DAY.ON.CALVARY "Where do you get that triune, pagan doctrine? Out of a catechism, not out of the Bible. The word "trinity" is not even mentioned in the whole Scriptures from Genesis to Revelation. There's no such a thing. There is no such a thing as a trinitarian god."

I say.......If you had the least bit of the ability to understand what he is referring to in specificity....we wouldn't be having this exchange based on this simple to understand subject matter. He...in the above quote.... is specifically referring to the use of the DOCTRINAL ASPECT.... of the terminology "TRIUNE"....as applied (taught).... by the Trinitarian/Triune concept of 3 separate PERSONS in Godhead! I thought we covered that simple to understand use of a word..... in my previous exchange. Don't you remember that we explained that the word "TRINITY"...... can be applied either to GOD being three attributes of ONE PERSON ......or as a "TRINITY" concept .....of 3 separate persons.

Again...if I may repeat myself to anchor the point. Brother Branham is SPECIFICALLY REFERRING TO THE WORD "TRIUNE".... AS IS TAUGHT (BASTARDIZED)..... BY THE TRINITARIAN CONCEPT OF 3 PERSONS!!!!!! Why that is so hard for you to grasp...is beyond me! 1st grade Example.....a TRICYCLE is one bike...with a distinction of having 3 wheels. It IS NOT 3 different bikes....get it. Someone could use the same word "TRICYCLE and say it had a "TRINITY" of wheels...or "TRIUNE" wheels and then say because the word "TRIUNE" or "TRINITY" was used to describe the TRICYCLE....insist that "TRIUNE" meant 3 separate bikes. The same word or words....used in different applications of concept. One is bastardized and the other is perfectly correct.

Just like Scripture.....to some it is not given..... to understand the original intent contained in the Words. That's why there are so many interpretations to any given sets of words.....written in Scripture. Without DIVINELY given eyesight.....most will read and study and never come to the KNOWLEDGE of the TRUTH!

What did William Branham teach?

You said >>>> Can you please show us where what we showed you wasn’t in what Branham taught? He taught those things, right?? Unbelievable.

I say.....You used the words he said and then put your interpretation/spin to them...no differently than the serpent did in the garden to Eve.....or the Pharisees did in JESUS' day. The serpent used GOD's words and then reinterpreted them to Eve...twisting the original intent.... away from its true original meaning. When satan confronted the LORD JESUS....he used Scripture..... in an attempt to trap Him. Every quote you used..... in the context of what I know Brother Branham believed and taught....is perfectly correct. You are twisting it out of context!!!!

Referring to what I said previously.....the Triune being that we call GOD....is MODALIST (MONOTHEIST).... IN BEING and MANIFOLD IN MANIFESTATIONS. One Spirit....One being...one LORD. The terminology of TRIUNE or TRINITY..... used within the applied limits of ONE PERSON with 3 major attributes/objectives..... is exactly correct. Using the same words and applying them to describe 3 separate Persons in Godhead .....is a doctrine out of the pit of hell. If you don't have the ability to see the difference....I really feel sorry for you as a claimed minister.

You said >>>> Wait, WHAT?!?!?!?!? Are you suggesting that the Holy Spirit was there in the Garden of Gethsemane?? Really? WOW!!! It was Jesus who was there, Jesus who was God manifest on earth as a human being. The Holy Spirit which was promised by Jesus Christ came later…

I say.....Even the Prophets of the Old Testament had the Holy Ghost. I am concerned about your limited conclusions.... in searching for Scriptural Truth..... Brother.

2 Peter 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

The Holy Ghost was given in the Old Testament to those whom GOD chose to give it to. John the Baptist ......was baptized with the Holy Ghost....in his mother's womb.

When JESUS..... in Spirit form.... came back on the day of Pentecost....He made the Holy Ghost available to all that seek Him....even to those who are not true believers. The rain falls on both the Just and the unjust....but only abides.... IN THE ELECT SEED! As to stating that the Holy Ghost was only given at Pentecost...is a misnomer.

As to the Holy Ghost being with JESUS in the garden....I think I will take the Word of GOD..... over your obvious lack of Scriptural knowledge!

John 16:32 Behold, the hour cometh, yea, is now come, that ye shall be scattered, every man to his own, and shall leave me alone: and yet I am not alone, because the Father is with me.

I say....When the life of GOD....the fullness of the Godhead...left the body called the Son.....on the Cross the body (SON) died. The Spirit of LIFE IN JESUS....the Holy Ghost...after tasting of death.....went to hell and preached to the spirits in prison..... for rejecting the messages of the Prophets. The Holy Ghost....non other than the Spirit of JESUS CHRIST.....then took the keys of death hell and the grave away from the devil....then crossed over to a place referred to as Paradise.... and brought the Elect of the ages in a return ministry....out of their graves..... in a Resurrection. Only ALMIGHTY GOD has that power....The same ALMIGHTY that JESUS asserts/proclaims Himself to be....in the Book of the Revelation. Do note that He didn't say WE.....but I and NOT Lords ....but Lord!

Revelation 1:8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

Revelation 4:8 And the four beasts had each of them six wings about him; and they were full of eyes within: and they rest not day and night, saying, Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come.

You said >>>>>Where did you get the idea that we hold ANY doctrinal position concerning the Trinity? Certainly nothing we have discussed leads you to that. Or any, conclusion concerning what we believe. We speak in terms of what Branham taught, not what we believe.

I say.....Are you really that detached from the things we have been communicating on?

Your previous statement >>>>*** How is it that God can have a conference with His Son if they are not two separate entities?

Gethsemane

Another from this exchange >>>>>Are you suggesting that the Holy Spirit was there in the Garden of Gethsemane?? Really? WOW!!! It was Jesus who was there, Jesus who was God manifest on earth as a human being. The Holy Spirit which was promised by Jesus Christ came later…

I say....It is rather evident in the areas that you attack William Branham's teachings....that you also betray your own doctrines.

Astrology

You said >>>>> Branham taught that there are three Bibles including one based on the mystery of the pyramids and one based on the zodiac. Don’t confuse astronomy with astrology. Astronomy is the science of the movement of the stars, and we are certain that God orders the movement of the stars in all things. On the other hand, Astrology is the zodiac, the divining further events by the zodiac. Branham said this:

53-0509, The Pillar Of Fire..... “God's wrote three Bibles: one, the Zodiac, one in the pyramids, one on paper. Now, He's writing His first, the Zodiac. It starts off with a virgin, ends up with Leo the lion: Jesus' first coming and His second coming. If we had time to run down through it, you'd see it.”

I say......In the 1st place of TRUTH....Scripture declares that the heavenly bodies were created by GOD...for SIGNS....TIMES and SEASONS. In the book of Job....GOD taught that the constellations have an influence on the earth. In the below THUS SAITH THE LORD....GOD speaks to Job concerning the MAZZAROTH...(Zodiac) and the influences of other heavenly constellations. We can't help what the devil has done to GOD's original prophetic sign giver....by twisting it into astrology. GOD has also given us the Bible and the devil and his seed..... has done the same thing to the Bible ....with the scores of interpretations supposedly based on it. Again...sorry for your previous ignorance of Scripture....now you know something you can grow in understanding by ......seeing :)

Job 38:31 Canst thou bind the sweet influences of Pleiades, or loose the bands of Orion? 32 Canst thou bring forth Mazzaroth in his season? or canst thou guide Arcturus with his sons? 33 Knowest thou the ordinances of heaven? canst thou set the dominion thereof in the earth?

Brother ABM2

Navigation

Home Our Podcast The List of Problems Life Story Prophecies & Visions Seven Seals Was William Branham Honest? Doctrines

Church Ages Jesus Languages Videos Print Resources Help! Facebook Contact Us