Jump to content

Vaylism: Difference between revisions

Vaylism (view source)

Revision as of 19:21, 23 August 2017

18,967 bytes added ,  6 years ago
no edit summary
No edit summary
No edit summary
(28 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
Lee Vayle taught a number of heretical doctrines including the ''Parousia doctrine'', a view of the Godhead that some refer to as the "Twinity" (the denial of the deity of Jesus Christ and espousing [[Jesus Christ#Some of Branham's followers carry his teaching into Adoptionism|Adoptionism]] (also referred to as [[Dynamic Monarchianism]]).  These doctrines are remarkably similar to some of the foundational beliefs of the Jehovah's Witnesses.
{{Top of Page}}
{{Message sects}}
[[Image:Lee Vayle.png|thumb|right|250px]]
Lee Vayle (September 28, 1914 - June 23, 2012) was a close personal friend and acolyte of William Branham.  He assisted in the editing (what William Branham referred to as "grammarizing") of the Church Age Book.  Lee Vayle was a message preacher and over the years taught a number of heretical doctrines including the ''Parousia doctrine'', the denial of the deity of Jesus Christ and the espousing of bizarre hybrid of [[Nestorianism]], [[Arianism]] and [[Adoptionism]].  Some of these doctrines are remarkably similar to certain of the foundational beliefs of the Jehovah's Witnesses.


=Did Lee Vayle have a Ph.D?=
=Did Lee Vayle have a Ph.D?=
William Branham gave the impression that Lee Vayle had a doctorate:
:''Now, this may go a little deep unless it's some of you '''theologians, Dr. Vayle''', probably Brother here, and some of these ministers here from Arkansas, and the—my good friends around, they'd probably know.<ref> William Branham, 64-0823E - Questions And Answers #2, para. 105</ref>
:''Dr. Reidhead came in. ...And I think Dr. Vayle here is a...  You know Dr. Reidhead, well know him.  ...He said then when he had his other degrees give to him, he said, "I thought maybe that in each of these degree I would find Christ."<ref> William Branham, 57-0126B - India Trip Report, para. 16</ref>


One of our colleagues wrote to Lee Vayle a number of years ago, and got this reply from his assistant:
One of our colleagues wrote to Lee Vayle a number of years ago, and got this reply from his assistant:


:Brother Vayle only attended post high school for about 6 weeks at the age of 18 years old. He attended a Baptist Bible college and proceeded to get kicked out for teaching the young men to speak in tongues. He received his doctor tag from Brother Branham who said Br. Vayle was an profound teacher and began introducing him as Doctor Lee Vayle. Who better to give him the title of Doctor, than the prophet of our day?"
:''Brother Vayle only attended post high school for about 6 weeks at the age of 18 years old. He attended a Baptist Bible college and proceeded to get kicked out for teaching the young men to speak in tongues. He received his doctor tag from Brother Branham who said Br. Vayle was a profound teacher and began introducing him as Doctor Lee Vayle. Who better to give him the title of Doctor, than the prophet of our day?"
 
Of course, this makes absolutely no sense and is, at best, deception... making someone appear to be more than they actually are.


=Marriage and divorce=
=Marriage and divorce=
Line 21: Line 32:
=Lee Vayle's Teaching=
=Lee Vayle's Teaching=


Lee Vayle became widely known in message circles for preaching heretical doctrines and destroying what little unity there was in the message by creating a special group within the message (who already thought that they were a special group).
We have shown clear examples where William Branham [[Plagiarism|plagiarized]] many of his key doctrines.  It shouldn't be surprising therefore that Lee Vayle did the same thing.  What is of great interest is that Lee Vayle used a number of pre-existing heresies to build on the teaching of William Branham.
 
Lee Vayle became widely known in message circles for preaching heretical doctrines and destroying what little unity there was in the message by creating a special group within the message (most of whom already thought they were part of a special group).
 
Here is a summary of his teaching from a former Vaylite:
 
:''I grew up in a church that followed Lee Vayle in _________ from being a young kid through to adulthood. I remember Godhead being taught as the Father God being very separate and distinct from Jesus the son. We believed that God the Father came to indwell Jesus his son when he was baptised on the river making him the Christ , the anointed one. The Father and the Holy Spirit were seen as being one and the same. The Father was the Holy Spirit.
 
:''William Branham's ministry was seen as being a repeat of Jesus Christ's ministry in that the Holy Spirit (God himself) came down and indwelt William Branham when he was on the platform; making God himself present in the body of the bride. Only William Branham, being the eyes of the body, could reveal the Holy Spirit himself.
 
:''Every member of the bride had a baptism (or small measure) of the Holy Spirit but not the Holy Spirit himself, which was God the father. The Holy Spirit appearing on the platform through William branham was the 'parousia' or appearing of God before the physical return of the man Jesus.  Anyone not recognising the presence of God himself on the platform did not have "rapturing faith" and was locked out of the rapture. It was likened to Abraham having to see Melchizedek before Sarah's body was changed. So the bride had to see God himself appearing amongst them to have a body change.
 
:''Ugh. Thinking of all this nonsense has wound me up!  What a lot of rubbish. So glad to be free!


As an individual, he could become extremely vulgar, to the point where he encouraged men to rape a woman rather than to use seduction.   
Lee Vayle was also known for his extremely vulgarity, to the point where he stated that it was better for a man to rape a woman than to seduce her.   


==The Parousia==
==The Parousia==


Now in '''2 Thessalonians 1:7''', It says, "Those who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels." ('''That has taken place already in 1963'''.) <ref>Lee Vayle, Rapture, #10 Rapture, November 16th, 1983</ref>
William Branham stated:
 
:''As a minister of the Gospel, I can't see one thing left but the going of the Bride.<ref>William Branham, 64-0726M, Recognizing Your Day And Its Message, para, 66</ref>
 
:''It's at the end time. There is not another thing that I know to happen but the Rapture, the Coming of the Lord Jesus Christ. It's all ready.<ref>William Branham, 65-0427, Does God Change His Mind?, para, 124</ref>
 
These quotes present a problem for people in the message and it certainly did for Lee Vayle.  With William Branham gone, why had the rapture not happened?  To explain this, Lee Vayle borrowed a heretical teaching straight from the Watchtower Society, the Jehovah's Witnesses - the parousia doctrine.
 
One of the more remarkable phenomena of human religious behavior generally is the apparent willingness with which religious movements shake off the disappointment of failed prophecies. Indeed, some of the more vibrant religious movements, such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses,  have their roots in end-time predictions that went unfulfilled.<ref>David Fergusson and Marcel Sarot, The Future as God’s Gift: Explorations in Christian Eschatology (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2000), 81.</ref>
 
According to Jehovah’s Witnesses, the Lord has already returned.  A fundamental tenet of Watchtower theology is the claim that Christ returned invisibly around October 4 or 5 in the year 1914. Instead of the early disciples asking Christ “''when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming...?''” the '''New World Translation''' has them asking, “''When will these things be, and what will be the sign of your presence...?''” (Matthew 24:3) The Watchtower Society interprets this alternative rendering as meaning an invisible return.<ref>David A. Reed, Answering Jehovah’s Witnesses: Subject by Subject, electronic ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1997).</ref>


Lee Vayle "borrowed" this false teaching from the JW's and applied it to William Branham.  Vayle even quotes the New World Translation, the Jehovah's Witness terribly flawed translation of the Bible.  Lee Vayle clearly taught that Jesus Christ returned in 1933. 


Which so many people don't understand where we stand here in this ministry of Bro. Branham's, on the Presence, which is the Appearing. Every single one of those words has started, and is moving, and moving, and moving--as '''Christ started to appear, and move into His Church, in 1933'''! But it was in 1963, that we saw Rev 10:1 join with Rev 10:7, you see, bringing forth the Seals and all. And at that time Bro. Branham said he had to decrease, so that Christ would come more and more, and God would take Headship--God in the form of the Holy Spirit in a Pillar of Fire.
Here are some excerpts from Lee Vayle's sermons on the subject of the Parousia:


Now this running of the... looking as though the Millennium and the New Jerusalem are run together, so you can't differentiate--you can. This only appears so, because time and eternity have blended. And New Jerusalem is, actually, only a continuation of what we are about to enter into by way of the Resurrection and Rapture, as '''Christ started coming into the church, through His Appearing in June 11, 1933, and finally took Headship, in about 1963''', right when He came down. See? That's the idea. He's got to come down to take Headship in order to raise the dead, finish off that Shout.<ref>Future Home, #2 One Plan For All, May 1st, 1988</ref>
:''Now in '''2 Thessalonians 1:7''', It says, "Those who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels." ('''That has taken place already in 1963'''.) <ref>Lee Vayle, Rapture, #10 Rapture, November 16th, 1983</ref>




Now God left him. The body was raised up and put behind the throne on the mercy seat. But '''in March 1963, He left the mercy seat''', went to the Father's throne, took the Book of Redemption out of the Father's hand, ripped off the Seals, put the Book back in the Father's hands, the Father vacated the throne, and that one climbed upon the throne. Now that's what the Bible teaches according to Bro. Branham. And that's "THUS SAITH THE LORD", because he is a vindicated prophet. All right. <ref>Lee Vayle, Shalom, #10 Peace: Revelation Of God, April 9th, 1989</ref>
:''Which so many people don't understand where we stand here in this ministry of Bro. Branham's, on the Presence, which is the Appearing. Every single one of those words has started, and is moving, and moving, and moving--as '''Christ started to appear, and move into His Church, in 1933! But it was in 1963, that we saw Rev 10:1 join with Rev 10:7, you see, bringing forth the Seals and all.''' And at that time Bro. Branham said he had to decrease, so that Christ would come more and more, and God would take Headship--God in the form of the Holy Spirit in a Pillar of Fire.


:''Now this running of the... looking as though the Millennium and the New Jerusalem are run together, so you can't differentiate--you can. This only appears so, because time and eternity have blended. And New Jerusalem is, actually, only a continuation of what we are about to enter into by way of the Resurrection and Rapture, as '''Christ started coming into the church, through His Appearing in June 11, 1933, and finally took Headship, in about 1963''', right when He came down. See? That's the idea. He's got to come down to take Headship in order to raise the dead, finish off that Shout.<ref>Future Home, #2 One Plan For All, May 1st, 1988</ref>


In these places '''the New World Translation''' renders Paramia as ‘be present’ or ‘present himself’ from the contrast that is made between the presence and the absence of Paul, both in 2 Cor 10:10, 11 and Phil 2:12.
...
The terms Paramia and Parousia are never used for the coming of Christ in the flesh. And Parousia never has the sense of ‘return’. I think it’s the word ‘Parousia.’ Because its put in the Greek there. Let me see if it does? Yeah. I’m not a Greek student. The idea of more than one Parousia is first found only in the latter church not before Justin a basic prerequisite for understanding the world of thought of primitive Christianity is that we should fully free ourselves from the notion of more than one Parousia. I tell you; it’s just one and that’s it.<ref>Lee Vayle, Does God Change His Mind, #11 Complete and Perfect Revelation, 5 Jan 1992</ref>


:''Now God left him. The body was raised up and put behind the throne on the mercy seat. But '''in March 1963, He left the mercy seat''', went to the Father's throne, took the Book of Redemption out of the Father's hand, ripped off the Seals, put the Book back in the Father's hands, the Father vacated the throne, and that one climbed upon the throne. Now that's what the Bible teaches according to Bro. Branham. And that's "THUS SAITH THE LORD", because he is a vindicated prophet. All right. <ref>Lee Vayle, Shalom, #10 Peace: Revelation Of God, April 9th, 1989</ref>


I found within the Message today there appears to be a split in some of the fundamental teaching, most of you predict the fact that some feel 1963 mark the dispensation of change which precipitated the coming the Parousia of the Lord.  
 
...
:''In these places '''the New World Translation''' renders Paramia as ‘be present’ or ‘present himself’ from the contrast that is made between the presence and the absence of Paul, both in 2 Cor 10:10, 11 and Phil 2:12.
That's not true. What '''1963 was Rev 22:10''', and it's not so much a dispensation, it's a winding up of all the mysteries and those things; which started under the Seven Seals, back in the Garden of Eden. Adam could not go to the Tree of Life and live forever.
:''...
...
:''The terms Paramia and Parousia are never used for the coming of Christ in the flesh. And Parousia never has the sense of ‘return’. I think it’s the word ‘Parousia.’ Because its put in the Greek there. Let me see if it does? Yeah. I’m not a Greek student. The idea of more than one Parousia is first found only in the latter church not before Justin a basic prerequisite for understanding the world of thought of primitive Christianity is that we should fully free ourselves from the notion of more than one Parousia. I tell you; it’s just one and that’s it.<ref>Lee Vayle, Does God Change His Mind, #11 Complete and Perfect Revelation, 5 Jan 1992</ref>
So therefore, He's coming quickly at this particular time when the Word divides the people from the non Word. Matthew 24, into those who are now in the Rapture of Luke 17. So therefore this is not of something concerning the Parousia, '''He's already here. He came in 1933.''' But he never set Himself the head of the church until the church was set in order by the Word; coming more and more into the church. No problem, just the same as you're going from Israel. If they would of gone on and on, the kingdom... God that was in the holy temple that left the tabernacle, would have been right there to go to the Millennium and right to the New Jerusalem. The coming God, the becoming God, moving on, moving on.<ref>Lee Vayle, Questions and Answers, #11 The Seventh Seal and Third Pull, August 1st, 1992</ref>
 
 
:''Let’s read you some more about this presence here. The Greek parousia, means ‘along side’. The expression being drawn from the preposition power along side and ...?... a being. Cursed twenty four times in the New Testament, rendered presence in the '''New World translation'''. The verb paramya (??) literally means being along side, cursed twenty four times. And then it tells you the place that it’s all found. It means presence or Himself present or present Himself.
 
:''It quotes Mt 24:37-39, “As it was in the days of Noah,” see? That word is a literal presence. The word parousia, presence is different from the Greek word, ‘il-li-ci-ous’(??) meaning coming, which occurs in the Greet text, that’s what Rotherham said. The words parousia and illicious are not used interchangeably, they mustn’t be. For the terms ‘paramya’ and parousia are never used for the coming of Christ in the flesh, parousia never has the sense of return, never has the sense of return. So whenever it happens it’s over with. See? That’s according to the Scripture here.<ref>Lee Vayle, Questions and Answers, #4 Declaration on the Parousia, 17 May 1992</ref>
 
 
:''I found within the Message today there appears to be a split in some of the fundamental teaching, most of you predict the fact that some feel 1963 mark the dispensation of change which precipitated the coming the Parousia of the Lord.  
:''...
:''That's not true. What '''1963 was Rev 22:10''', and it's not so much a dispensation, it's a winding up of all the mysteries and those things; which started under the Seven Seals, back in the Garden of Eden. Adam could not go to the Tree of Life and live forever.
:''...
:''So therefore, He's coming quickly at this particular time when the Word divides the people from the non Word. Matthew 24, into those who are now in the Rapture of Luke 17. So therefore this is not of something concerning the Parousia, '''He's already here. He came in 1933.''' But he never set Himself the head of the church until the church was set in order by the Word; coming more and more into the church. No problem, just the same as you're going from Israel. If they would of gone on and on, the kingdom... God that was in the holy temple that left the tabernacle, would have been right there to go to the Millennium and right to the New Jerusalem. The coming God, the becoming God, moving on, moving on.<ref>Lee Vayle, Questions and Answers, #11 The Seventh Seal and Third Pull, August 1st, 1992</ref>


==Denial of the Deity of Christ==
==Denial of the Deity of Christ==


Lee Vayle denied the deity of Jesus Christ and preached Arianism, a heresy first taught by Arius (ca. AD 250–336) in Alexandria, Egypt.  Arius and Vayle both asserted that the Son of God was a subordinate entity to God the Father.  Similar doctrine is also taught by Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons.
Lee Vayle denied the deity of Jesus Christ and preached what we would view as a mashup of Nestorianism, Arianism and Adoptionism.  Lee Vayle's teaching on the Godhead is convoluted and complicated, primarily as he is trying to teach all of what William Branham taught on the subject.  Given that William Branham's view of the Godhead was muddy and confused, it is not surprising that any attempt to make sense of all he taught would produce something that is unclear and messy.
 
Here is a brief description of the primary heresies that make up Lee Vayle's teaching on the Godhead:
 
:'''[[Arianism]]''' was a heresy first taught by Arius (ca. AD 250–336) in Alexandria, Egypt.  Arius asserted that the Son of God was a subordinate entity to God the Father.  Similar doctrine is also taught by Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons.
 
:[[Nestorianism]] is the heretical doctrine that Jesus existed as two persons, the man Jesus and the divine Son of God, rather than as a unified person.
 
:Adoptionism is a heresy that Jesus Christ, as to his human nature, was the Son of God only by adoption or by name.  The doctrine of Adoptionism is closely allied in spirit to the Nestorian heresy; but it concerns not so much the constitution of Christ’s person, as simply the relation of his humanity to the Fatherhood of God.<ref>Philip Schaff, “Adoptionists,” ed. William Smith and Henry Wace, A Dictionary of Christian Biography, Literature, Sects and Doctrines (London: John Murray, 1877–1887), 45.</ref>
 
What we do know is that Lee Vayle and his followers deny the deity of Jesus Christ and believe that Jesus Christ was a man who was simply possessed by God from his baptism until just prior to the crucifixion.  As a result, they also deny the incarnation.
 
Here are a few quotes by Lee Vayle that clearly demonstrate the heretical nature of his teaching:
 
:''Well, let's just talk about this then, and go back two thousand years at the time of the Lord Jesus Christ when He was upon earth here, the Father indwelling the Son. "This is My beloved Son, and I the Father am pleased to dwell in him." '''Now neither the Father nor the Son were impersonating each other, or someone or something else, as to their individuality and separateness. In other words, the Father was the Father and the Son was the Son. We're talking of individuals.'''
 
:''...Now, yet the Father indwelt the Son, and yet they had a separateness, and though '''the two roles were there simultaneously as were the two persons''', they still were not one like my finger's one. There is a oneness that you and I can apprehend by scripture, which simply says, "He that is joined to the Lord is one spirit."
 
:''...Now, the Son was the physical body and manifested himself, but the Father also manifested Himself through the Son. You say, "Hey just a minute now, we've got this... this is really bad. We've got dual personalities here." Yup. Don't you know the Father actually spoke through the mouth of Jesus? True. "Thy words were altogether in my tongue. You moved my tongue and I heard myself talk." Oh you talk about a dilly! How many heard that tape, where that strange kind of voice speaks through Bro. Branham on the tape, and says, "This is not Bro. Branham speaking, this is the Lord Jesus Christ." How many heard that? Let's get that tape and play it. Find the place and play it. So everybody hears it.
 
:''...So, '''again we have a duality.''' We have a prophet in whom this Spirit is, which is Almighty God. Giving him the works, which everybody knows has to be of God, vindicating the man is of God, pointing to the words, which that people have to have to get them ready!
 
:''...God, His Own prophet, with the man of His choosing, also called a prophet, and '''William Branham had his role, and God had His role, and they're absolutely individual and separate, and yet one met within the other.'''
 
:''...Now, where is He? On the throne. See, '''you're looking today at our elder brother''', we're looking at Him in every aspect of God in life, that's the family of God, and we're seeing here that He is the author and the finisher. And notice what it says, He sat down at the right hand of God. That's been changed. He's on the throne of God! Waiting for us. That's why Bro. Branham said, "When He died, I was there paying for my sins on Calvary. When He rose, I rose with Him." '''And the truth is, when He climbed on His Father's throne, then we had to climb on with Him!'''<ref>Lee Vayle, Leadership #11, Accepting The Person Christ, 21 Aug 1994</ref>
 
 
:''All right, now. He's putting the two together; and remember, Bro. Branham said, "'''Jesus was a dual personality'''." And we know that the Father indwelt him.
 
:''...Now, '''when we're looking at Jesus, we're looking at duality''', and the big thing is this: what if we find that '''God merely made a body for him, and this Son of God was allowed to inhabit this body and come down here.''' Could he then do for us what is necessary to be done? No! By no means, no! Because Jesus, the Son, is not Jehovah-Shepherd, although he is the Shepherd, that's conferred upon him. '''He is not even Jehovah-Savior''', although that is also part of it, and conferred upon him. He is not the Supplier; '''He is not the Healer''', though every one of those things are in him on the grounds of him being the Son of God and God Himself operating as all of those nine tremendous characteristics and qualities of grace that God has toward us, were actually poured into Christ, because the fullness of the Godhead was in him bodily.
 
:''...God indwelling that body, God was amongst us. And yet It says, "Thou shalt call His name, the born one, Jesus, for he shall save us from our sins." And God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto him. '''It's a duality, the Father and the Son, but the Son is not God!''' The Son is the Son of God. He had a beginning. Essentially he is like God, but he's not God. God does not have the value and virtue of being able to make a decision.
 
:''...Now right in there you can see this body born, was born with a personality, the man, we call 'Christ Jesus', and at that time, God came in to his very being, and now, as Bro. Branham said, "You have a duality."
 
:''...So what we're looking at now is the supreme Deity of Jesus, not as the Trinitarians, not as the Oneness, but we're seeing the supreme Deity of Jesus. '''God has now invaded him and taken over so that Jesus has now sublet his body to God''': God in perfect supremacy, complete Dictator in this body, completely running it, "He that has seen me has seen the Father. You're looking at me, aren't you?" So what is it? he says, "It's not William Branham does these things ever so perfectly, tells these things and they come to pass," nor was it Jesus, the man. It was God. And that was the body of God. Even though it was the body of Jesus, it was the body of God.
 
:''...There's more than one place where the Father and Son are a complete unit, '''a duality: two people dwelling in one flesh''', that evidently God Himself prepared for Jesus. And then It says, "God was in Christ reconciling the world."<ref>Lee Vayle, Godhead - #2, 3 Oct 1999</ref>
 


:''...the church has made '''the great mistake in making Jesus equal to God''' — which he is in a certain way — '''but he’s not God. He’s not Deity'''. I’m sorry, but he’s not, because God is not in him. No way. What God was in him is not Deity, same as what God is in you is not Deity, concerning Deity Himself, which is Sovereign God and Creator and Maintainer.''<ref>Lee Vayle, Godhead Q&A #4: Tangibility of God, 11-05-2000 </ref>
:''...the church has made '''the great mistake in making Jesus equal to God''' — which he is in a certain way — '''but he’s not God. He’s not Deity'''. I’m sorry, but he’s not, because God is not in him. No way. What God was in him is not Deity, same as what God is in you is not Deity, concerning Deity Himself, which is Sovereign God and Creator and Maintainer.''<ref>Lee Vayle, Godhead Q&A #4: Tangibility of God, 11-05-2000 </ref>
Line 82: Line 164:


:''And It places it right there that '''Jesus is not God'''. See? I’ll tell you: I believe calling Jesus ‘Deity’, which we’ve had people here do that, is an entire misunderstanding or no understanding of Seed: that God is the Father, the Progenitor, the Author, the All in all of a race of His Own children, genetically, legitimately, spiritually, physically, every single way. God is not our Creator; He is our Father; He is our Source; He is our Progenitor. Call it what you want. Out of the Great Fountain, God, came every one of His sons, and nothing else came from that Lifeline, because the Bible says, “In him was life.”<ref>Lee Vayle, Godhead #14: The Man, Jesus Christ, Is Not Deity, August 6, 2000</ref>
:''And It places it right there that '''Jesus is not God'''. See? I’ll tell you: I believe calling Jesus ‘Deity’, which we’ve had people here do that, is an entire misunderstanding or no understanding of Seed: that God is the Father, the Progenitor, the Author, the All in all of a race of His Own children, genetically, legitimately, spiritually, physically, every single way. God is not our Creator; He is our Father; He is our Source; He is our Progenitor. Call it what you want. Out of the Great Fountain, God, came every one of His sons, and nothing else came from that Lifeline, because the Bible says, “In him was life.”<ref>Lee Vayle, Godhead #14: The Man, Jesus Christ, Is Not Deity, August 6, 2000</ref>
:'''''Jesus is not deity''', but He was the fullness of the Godhead as deity, which is godhead was within Him, which is a person, '''two persons in one body of flesh'''.<ref>Lee Vayle, Godhead (#12), July 2nd, 2000</ref>
===Nestorianism in Vayle's followers===
Brian Kocourek, one of Vayle's acolytes,  states the following:
:''There are some of you who believe that Jesus is the Son of God. There are some of you who believe that He is the only Saviour who can save any sinner. You believe that, then why not believe all? Why not believe in Him for yourself?
:''God’s prophet said Jesus could not be his own Father, can you say it?
:''God’s prophet said Jesus and his Father were not one like you finger is one, Can you say it?
:''God’s prophet said '''God indwelt Jesus at the river Jordan''', can you say it?
:''God’s prophet said '''God left Jesus in Gethsemane''', can you say it?
:''God’s prophet said I am not a Oneness, can you say it?
:''God’s prophet said '''Jesus was a dual being''', can you say it?<ref>Brian Kocourek, The Spoken Word Is The Original Seed, #51 - O Fools And Slow Of Heart To Believe All, October 25th, 2008</ref>
:''FACT #1) Branham never claimed to be a Oneness. In fact he outright denies being Oneness.
:''FACT #2) Brother Branham said that God is not ONE like your finger is ONE.
:''FACT #3) Brother Branham said that Jesus could not be His Own Father.
:''FACT #4) Brother Branham tells us the only difference between the Father and the Son is that '''Sons have beginnings'''.
:''FACT #5) Brother Branham speaks of '''God not even being in Jesus until He was baptized in the Jordan river. And then God leaves Him in Gethsemane to die as a mortal.'''
:''FACT #6) Brother Branham tells us the Body was not deity but Deity dwelt in the Body.
:''FACT #7) Brother Branham tells us that '''when God birthed forth Jesus, there were two beings involved. One who is God and One who is the Son of God.'''
:''FACT #8) Brother Branham tells us that '''Jesus was a dual being''', because God was living in Him.
:''...John is very specific and tells us that if you do not have the doctrine of Christ you do not have God, and then He tells us what the doctrine of Christ is, He says, you must have BOTH the Father and Son. And the word BOTH means TWO, not three, not four, not one, but TWO. And if you do not have TWO in reference to the doctrine of Christ you have not God. '''TWO beings, but only One is God and that One Who is God dwelt in the One who was not God, for He was the Son of God, not God the Son'''.
:''..I do not claim to be an authority. '''There was only one Vindicated in this hour. I believe that one, and rest my soul on what he said''', (I hope that you will do the same.) I will do my best to say only what God has already said either in His Word or through His vindicated Prophet. All I ask you to do is to read it, and pray that God will reveal to you the wisdom and understanding that lays within the Message of William Branham concerning the Godhead.<ref>Brian Kocourek, Doctrinal Studies, Godhood - Preface, July 4th, 1994</ref>
:''Now, Brother Branham is letting us know that God and Jesus were one in that '''God was indwelling the Body of His Son'''. But I also want to show you that this Oneness between God and His Son was more than just God indwelling His Son, the fact is that Jesus and God were one because God is the Word and '''Jesus manifested that Word in the same sense that God was One with His Own Word'''.
:''...And that is how God and Jesus are one. The Father is the Word, and when he is doing in His Word, '''He shows the son what he is doing, and the son sees God in vision doing''' (whatever it may be), and he then steps into the vision so to speak (the hat has to be on the chair for him to do it, if you recall how brother Branham told us that all the pieces have to be set up in order for him to step into the vision. You just can’t go do until all the pieces are ready) then he would step into the scene and act out in this dimension what he had seen in that other dimension.
:''...'''it really comes right down to not believing in incarnation'''. And I think it is strange that both the Jew and Moslem can believe that a man can be inhabited by evil spirits, or the devil himself, but they deny that God inhabited a man called Jesus His son. And to me they give more power to the devil than they give to God when they believe like that.<reF>Brian Kocourek, #4 How Jesus And God Are One, August 7th, 2011</ref>


==General vulgarity==
==General vulgarity==
Line 89: Line 207:
:''Let me tell you something: a woman seduced or raped has been taken regardless of how it was done. And '''I would sooner know that a woman was raped than seduced, because it shows she didn't put her mind to it.''' She was forced to it. Yes, let's get that flat, you women sitting here, and young people... '''And men had better rape than seduce''', also. Yeah...  
:''Let me tell you something: a woman seduced or raped has been taken regardless of how it was done. And '''I would sooner know that a woman was raped than seduced, because it shows she didn't put her mind to it.''' She was forced to it. Yes, let's get that flat, you women sitting here, and young people... '''And men had better rape than seduce''', also. Yeah...  


:''People come from around the world. They come over here, and they say, "Vayle's got the worst spirit in the world. Terry Sproule's got the worst spirit in the world. Roger Smith's got the worst spirit in the world. Mike Hunt's got the worst spirit." Why? Because our foreheads are strong. We've not got whore foreheads. Whore foreheads; they can have their whore foreheads. I've got as strong a forehead as the whore any day of the week. Yes, sir. The same ones like the whore, they partake of their miserable, rotten intercourse. And It says, "She commits her intercourse; she charges money for it."  
:''People come from around the world. They come over here, and they say, "Vayle's got the worst spirit in the world. Terry Sproule's got the worst spirit in the world. Roger Smith's got the worst spirit in the world. Mike Hunt's got the worst spirit." Why? Because our foreheads are strong. '''We've not got whore foreheads. Whore foreheads; they can have their whore foreheads. I've got as strong a forehead as the whore any day of the week. Yes, sir. The same ones like the whore, they partake of their miserable, rotten intercourse.''' And It says, "She commits her intercourse; she charges money for it."  


:''"Join our church. Give so much. We'll pray... We'll pray and get you out of purgatory."  
:''"Join our church. Give so much. We'll pray... We'll pray and get you out of purgatory."  
Line 103: Line 221:
:''"Oh," they say, "I don't believe that."  
:''"Oh," they say, "I don't believe that."  


:''Then you don't believe Logos. Whore's forehead. Jesus set His face like a flint! How did William Branham feel, knowing he's going down that road that day to be killed in that wreck? You say, "It tore his guts up." You bet it tore his guts up.  
:''Then you don't believe Logos. '''Whore's forehead.''' Jesus set His face like a flint! How did William Branham feel, knowing he's going down that road that day to be killed in that wreck? You say, "It tore his guts up." You bet it tore his guts up.  


:''"Oh, but Jesus didn't have any guts."  
:''"'''Oh, but Jesus didn't have any guts.'''"  


:''Didn't he? "Let this cup pass, but nevertheless let it be Thy will." And he sweat, as it were, drops of blood. He didn't have any whore's forehead. Why didn't he say, "Oh, great Caiaphas, I'll acquiesce. I'll accede the Word!"?  
:''Didn't he? "Let this cup pass, but nevertheless let it be Thy will." And he sweat, as it were, drops of blood. He didn't have any whore's forehead. Why didn't he say, "Oh, great Caiaphas, I'll acquiesce. I'll accede the Word!"?  
Line 114: Line 232:


:''Christ came on with the same story. Let them know they circumnavigated the whole globe with their dirty, rotten, filthy lies and tricks to make them more two-fold child of hell than themselves. Let me tell you: this age goes down with a seven-more-fold child of hell than the first age, because the cup of iniquity is full, you see. I'm not mad. I'm just telling you. I'm no judgment teacher. I'm just preaching the Word of God. You do what you want with it.<ref>Lee Vayle, Rapture, September 25th, 1983</ref>
:''Christ came on with the same story. Let them know they circumnavigated the whole globe with their dirty, rotten, filthy lies and tricks to make them more two-fold child of hell than themselves. Let me tell you: this age goes down with a seven-more-fold child of hell than the first age, because the cup of iniquity is full, you see. I'm not mad. I'm just telling you. I'm no judgment teacher. I'm just preaching the Word of God. You do what you want with it.<ref>Lee Vayle, Rapture, September 25th, 1983</ref>
:''Listen, I'm going to tell you something: It's hard enough to even believe a vindicated prophet without listening to the brains of the '''scrapings of an ass-head. You're just getting the scrapings of an ass-head today, not even the ass-head.'''  As Bro. Branham said, The theology's so poor it's made out of the soup of the shadow of a chicken that starved to death. '''If my sarcasm is not biting enough, stick around awhile.'''<ref>Lee Vayle, Future Home, #11 Ritual Of Peace; Constant Manifestation, 1 Jun 1988</ref>
:''Ewald Frank said, “I can show you where Bro. Branham made seventeen mistakes.” Did he make a mistake when he declares positively God positively told him he could have a young woman as a virgin for his wife, having divorced his own and slept with a lot of others? '''Any duddle-headed idiot in this church believe that crap and that nonsense?''' You men, you women; I’m talking to you this morning. Oh, these voices aren’t just gross; they’ll let you know that you know something. Phttt! <ref>Lee Vayle, Satans Eden, #3 Ticket for Survival - Study With Eyes of God, 21 Jan 1990</ref>


==Followed William Branham's racist teachings==
==Followed William Branham's racist teachings==
Line 159: Line 283:
Some churches that initially started off as followers of Lee Vayle have gone off on a separate tangent, such as the followers of Terry Sproule in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Some churches that initially started off as followers of Lee Vayle have gone off on a separate tangent, such as the followers of Terry Sproule in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.


=References=
{{Bottom of Page}}
 
[[Category:Associates of William Branham]]
<References/>
[[Category:Doctrines]]
[[Category:Legalism]]
[[Category:The Message]]
Retrieved from "http:///index.php?title=Special:MobileDiff/20210...22851"