William Branham's Top Ten Heresies Part 2

Hello and welcome to another episode. Of the William Brannum Historical Research Podcast, I'm your host, John Collins, the author and founder of William Brannum Historical Research at www.William-brannum.org And with me I have my co-host, researcher, minister, and friend Charles Paisley, the founder of ChristianGospelChurch.org And together we are examining the history and the intersections in history between William Brannum and other key figures that either influenced or were influenced by the post-World War II healing revivals.

Well Charles, we tried to get through 10 examples of William Brannum's greatest heresies and we prefaced last week with these, you know, what's the greatest to one person may not be the greatest to another.

We just chose what, in our opinion, these are the greatest heresies that he introduced into the church and we didn't make it very far. Yeah, John, I think we got through four, we were aiming for ten, but I think we are going to pick up here. Now, some of these are doozy, some of them did kind of go far and wide, some of them were very niche to the message.

So I think the next one we'll talk about is outside of the message as well, and it is actually serpent seed Christian identity. And that is definitely a terrible, the terrible implications to the things that William Brannum taught, you know, was we went through in the podcast series.

I think we did probably three or four episodes of been total in a whole arc there, kind of bringing out the history of where it came from, how it got to William Brannum, and then what it meant.

And within the message, certainly here among old timers in the message, and in this area in Jeffersonville, it's very racial. It is a racial doctrine that targets non-white people and it turns them into something inferior. That is definitely what the teaching does.

In some other parts of the Latter-Rain movement, we know George Houghton taught it in that way, at Sharon Orphanage even, we know the same things being taught in other Latter-Rain churches where he went, we know it was taught in West Coast churches, we know it was taught up in, for example, Broadway Tabernacle, which was a Latter-Rain church in Seattle where Derek Prince was passed or even back in the 60s.

We know that this thing was taught in a, lots of places, it predated William Brannum, and even in the message, even if you don't believe the racial version of it, it's still a very destructive doctrine because it causes you to have to believe that some segment of the population, probably the majority of them that aren't in your church, are descended from an animal and are really not even fully human. And so it enables really vicious things to be thought about the people on the outside because they're not even really people, right? They're surfacing, they're surfacing.

This is one topic that it is a big mess of rabbit holes if you dive into this because William Brannum was very deceptive in the way that he brought it. He took the words of black and the words Jew out when he brought forth his alleged mystery of the serpent seed.

He didn't tell you that, no, this was a mystery that he learned back in a church that was led by the second and command of the 1915 Ku Klux Klan. He doesn't tell you that part, but he alleges that this is a mystery that he brought. And he takes the word black and the word Jew out. And he teaches the same exact doctrine that you'll find Wesley Swift preaching. And Swift is revered by some as the father of Christian identity, although it wasn't specifically him that invented this. But this is this one subject, this one question

could, this one topic could actually be broken out into an entire podcast series that I can probably think of 200 episodes just right off the bat. This could go on forever. It's such a big topic. And if you go back in time to the area that my research focuses on, which is I try to stay within, you know, around 1890, maybe slightly before, up until the laterane revivals. And then I keep going back and forth, trying to flesh all of that out into what, what did this actually look like? And why, why have they covered it up? If

you go back to the earlier phases of this, this was initially the British Israel doctrine, which we also described in our podcast. But the water gets very muddied whenever it begins to transition into the, you know, from the British Israel doctrine to the Christian identity.

And there's a third doctrine, which I'm just in the very infant stages of researching. And that's the Anglo-Saxon doctrine, which apparently was not quite the same, but very similar in Europe to the white supremacy doctrines of the states. You had the Anglo-Saxon, and they, you know, the Saxons were the supreme race. So you had all of this, these things combining, this gets to be very, very complicated question. But for the purpose of this podcast. We're talking about the heresy of it. And the heresy can be found, which will Charles and I get into a bit, but the heresy can be found in the fact that if you follow

the serpent seed teaching all the way out to its logical conclusion, not even logical, William Brown openly says this in some cases, the seed line, in other words, your lineage, your historical, you know, the lineage of your family actually plays a bearing on your salvation.

In which case the serpent seed doctrine, he has lifted it up, even though it was birth and white supremacy, he has lifted it up into maybe not equal to, but something very closely related to the salvation through the gospel of Jesus Christ. And if you take anything and lift it up and try to replace it, it becomes a new gospel. And we all know what the Bible says about those who introduce a new and false gospel. Right, John. And you know, this topic and probably all the rest of them we're going to talk about here on out. I have on my website

ChristianGospelChurch.org on the main page, I have kind of a William Brannum series of articles and recordings where I have went through all of these topics in significant detail and kind of gave them a comparison and description. You know, if someone wants to deep dive any of them and, you know, far more than I'm going to try and go into here. But, you know, as it relates to serpent seed, I mean, the really the terrible thing about it is the what it allows

people who believe it to do, right, what it justifies for them. And obviously in the extreme sides of it, you know, people like the Aryan nations, I mean, it justifies the worst sorts of racism. It justifies the oppression and, you know, forced subservience of non-whites. I mean, it's terrible. And in the message what it does is it allows, even the people who maybe don't take it to its racial conclusions, it allows them to totally suspend any sort of even basic, extending basic dignity towards people on the outside. Like, you take you and I, John, for example.

We are nothing but serpent seed to these people, right, because we've left. And because we're serpent seed, they can justify the total suspension of even common human dignity, you know, to be extended. I mean, you listen to some of the preachers in this movement and the way, you know, they talk about people like you and I. We're not even human to them, right? And that really is how they're able to get away with some of the stuff that they do, right? You know, you're just, you're really just an animal at that point. And they truly believe your destiny is to be slaughtered.

like an animal. And they can treat you like that in this life because of this serpent seed doctrine. This enables them to look at you as nothing, right? You are really little better than an animal because you are descended from an animal in their minds. Because to them, the serpent was, you know, in William Brown's work and the serpent was an animal in the Garden of Eden, a caveman, more or less, who was possessed by the devil, right? Who then, you know, progenerated the serpent seed. And, yeah, I mean, that really is just the absolute

worst thing about it is the way that it allows them to suspend even common decency because you're not even a person. You have no claim to even basic respect, basic dignity, you're just an animal, right? And that's very sadly how they treat a lot of people who leave.

Exactly. And what's really odd, Charles, is the fact that William Brown introduced this as a physical seed, the two seed bloodline. If you go back and just look at the dual seed or the two seed doctrine, you'll find it relates all the way back to white supremacy. William Brannum taught that it was a literal seed that the serpent from the Garden of Eden literally impregnated Eve and created Cain and Cain's offspring, his lineage, the seed of Cain, the seed of the serpent. We're all evil according to this doctrine. And then, you know, towards the flood, the waters got muddy. They were mixing between good seed and bad seed. And he

does give like a trail of the pure bloodline in some of his teachings. But this is a very physical thing that he's talking about. But the ministers today, they weaponize it further by claiming that somebody like you or I, who questions the human, William Brannum, who they've deified, that we can now become the serpent seed. And they'll even use this label on us. They'll call us serpent seed, Charles and John are serpent seed because we question William Brannum. So they've actually taken a step further than William Brannum. And, you know, what William Brannum taught was evil. Don't get me wrong. But what they've done with

it now is so far even worse because think of the prodigal son, you know, or any of the Bible passages about somebody who went astray and you lead him back with love and kindness and bring them back into the gospel, into the loving arms of Jesus Christ. There are many verses talking about this. There's no allowance for that. In other words, the gospel has lost power with every single minister in the message who has adopted this. You can become the serpent seed or we can curse you. Usually it's the curse. We can curse you by calling you serpent

seed. And now we've doomed you to hell. And the Bible speaks very, very clearly about people who use curses to, you know, for spiritual authority. or whatever is the purpose they're doing. It's purposes of evil, basically.

This is an evil thing that they're doing when they weaponize the serpent seed. Yeah, so serpent seed is terrible. Not necessarily in the magnitude of its complication or, you know, disagreement with scripture, but it's really just a couple of passages that they twist, but it's the ramifications of it are really bad.

It's really bad, it's very sad, very unfortunate, and it's kind of like, and I think Doug Weber actually says something along this line in his book about it. It's like William Brannum has this double predestination, and so then it kind of comes this hyper Calvinist concept where you're predestinated to salvation doubly, both genetically, you know, so your genetic parentage is now has to, you know, be predestinated just the right way for you to be safe, and then your salvation somewhat is then based on this, you know, physical literal parentage that you have had, and this also John kind of

leans towards how, you know, entire families get purged out when, truth is, entire families get purged out when they find one bad person in the family, right? They've seen this in the church purgings, you know, this person did this, and before you know it, their whole family and everybody out of everyone along that line is purged out.

I really think Serpentsy has a role to play in that because they can, they do think it's inherited. You know, and I've seen terrible things happen with people in, and they end up blaming the parents.

Well, your children did this. Well, but your parents, right? And then they end up drummed out as well. So Serpentsy is a very, very problematic doctrine in that way. So I guess kind of the next item on the list, so, heresies, serious heresies of William Brannum taught.

And this one is, there's flavors of this throughout actually cares about Christianity. And in our specific implementation in the message or adaptation, it's that William Brannum was the return of Elijah. He was the Elijah of Malachi 4, 5, and 6.

And that was one of the very first things that William Brannum rolled out kind of privately, not too publicly, that brought together his original cult following in the mid and early 50s was that he was the return of Elijah.

This is what the message grew out of was the people who accepted those Elijah claims that he made. And I think that, you know, in the sense that you see that move out into broader Christianity.

So I will say that also came from British Edwards, right? The concept of Elijah returning to the church was born out of British nationalism. It got imported into early Pentecostalism from the British Israelite ministers who joined early Pentecostalism.

John Alexander Dowley, Charles Parham, John Lake, you know, on down, Gordon Lindsay was of that faction, FF Bosworth was, and of course all these can lead straight to William Bramham, right? And where you see it move beyond the message and out into the other lateral range factions and then even broader charismatic Christianity is, you'll hear them talk about the Elijah generation, you know, or you know, we're waiting for the Elijah spirit, you know, in these last days, there is this concept that somehow this Elijah thing still has to happen right before the end.

And this actually within lateral range was tied closely to the manifested sons of God because they believed, you know, the power that Elijah showed to call fire down from heaven and all of this and even to take the, you know, all the priests of Braille down to the brethren and kill them all, execute them all, they tie all of this to this manifestation of power in Elijah that they see being carried out in the last days by this either generation of Elijah's or, you know, the Elijah joining coming on a particular person.

And that, that flows very much out of, out of this stuff and it, it, it ends up creating this, for the individual figures who claim it, it allows them to create cults of personality around themselves.

And then for the, you know, the whole, the generation of Elijah, things it, it sets them chasing this manifested sons of God type idea where all these people are going to be empowered to bring in the last days.

And it just leads to craziness, it just, everywhere, it only leads to craziness and it don't lead to anything but craziness. For me, this one is very complicated. If you were never in any of this weird mess that we were in or anything similar to it, you would be asking yourself, well, how does that heresy that he claimed to be Elijah?

How can you say that's heresy? And what I have come to understand through my research and largely thanks to you because I was not aware that it was tied to British Israelism. I understood that and understood what that meant.

This became the framework for creating heresy. So if we were to rank this one, I would rank this one really high because it's not specifically that this is heretical, it's just false teaching. But the fact that you build so much heresy on top of it, that is really the problem.

Manifested sons of God obviously is a heresy that William Brennan taught. That's built on the top of this framework that he claimed to be Elijah. For the historians that are interested, if you go back and you look at John Alexander Dauy was obviously claimed to be Elijah.

He was like the most famous Elijah that America has ever had. He was all over the newspapers as the Elijah. And in fact, he was more of an Elijah. than William Brannum, because you find very few newspapers mentioning Brannum and his Elijah claims, but Daly was, I can't remember how many tens of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of newspapers where he is labeled that. If you go back to Frank Sanford, Frank Sanford was a British's Relight, who openly taught C.A.L. Tottenham in his Shiloh Bible school, and Charles Fox Parham, the founder of modern Pentecostalism, caught wind of this, and he came and he was trained in this,

and low and behold, he suddenly becomes a British's Relight, and he later claims to be Elijah when he tries to take Daly's throne later in the 1906 or 1907, but like Charles said, you carry this forward and you can find this all throughout early Pentecostalism, etc. But the framework that I'm talking about, that you have to understand, is that they have specifically taken the passage from the fourth chapter of Malachi, where it is talking about, you know, Malachi four, five, and six are the ones that they use specifically. It is literally talking about the second,

the first coming of Jesus Christ, and I think in the Gospel of Luke, I think it even says specifically, this is the Elijah that was said to come. What these guys do is they try to take verses out of context and apply it to the British Israel theory that the people with white skin of the British Isles are the lost 10 tribes of Israel, and as such, we can take specific verses out of context from all throughout the Old Testament, and they're applicable to our day and age, well, their day and age back then. It is so heretical because whenever you open the door to this, in other words, take

something that the Bible never intended to say, and then twist it to say whatever is your current agenda, they're doing this with Old Testament passages, they're doing it with New Testament passages, they go so far in the manifested sons of God framework that they're taking verses that were specifically applicable to Jesus Christ, and they're applying it to men who are these quote unquote manifested sons of God. None of that is possible if you take away this Elijah framework that was created, and again, it's layers upon layers of false doctrine, some heretical doctrines, but it's British Israel, compounded with Christian identity, compounded with the Elijah

claim, manifested sons of God. All of this is like a witch's brew, man, it's all these false doctrines and heretical doctrines, and then they spread it on this cookie sheet and make this thing that they're going to build a cake on top.

of, that's how weird this is. It is the framework that allowed all of this to be created. Right, John. And like I mentioned with Serpent Seed, back on my website, you know, I've got a fairly detailed analysis comparison of those things, just for peers if someone wants to be deeper dive into that. But it's definitely one of the fundamental heresies that William Brantam taught upon, which he based his cult, right? I mean, it is, it's a foundational claim to the cult. And part of part of what it is is they use the last part of Malachi

4, you know, where he's supposed to turn the hearts of the children back to the fathers. They take that as a restoration claim that this anointing is going to restore the church back to a pure apostolic faith, a pure book of acts sort of format. And that is a fuel on their restoration views, right? And what you, what you have, and I'll just tack this on restorationism in general. What you see with these movements is they never get done restoring. You know, they, they restore, but the end don't come. So there must be more to restore, right? And then they restore that and more don't come. And so you end up

with this revival after revival, after revival, and they're constantly chasing the next big revival, it's going to finally do it. And then it don't do it either, right? And so you, and what it does over time, it just keeps compounding, compounding, compounding.

And instead of, you know, instead of restoring the church back to its original form, what they have actually done is create a whole array of horrendous cults that, molest children, rape people, kill people, it's something else. And it does not look like the book of acts.

I can tell you that there weren't no child molesters in the upper room. You know, it does not look like the book of acts. You got to be kidding me, right? There was no gene in Leo's in the upper room, John, right? I mean, was there a gene in Leo in the upper room?

No, I mean, give me a break, give me a break. So yeah, so I'll kind of drop that one at that. And for those who aren't aware of the gene in Leo, we talked about this earlier in the podcast, William Brandham had these two, he called them his tape boys that go back and look at the episodes on Deborah Tibado. She was in this, William Brandham compound called the park. And there were some, I won't go into details. There were some very horrific things that happened in the park. And they were the two closest men to William Brandham.

This was his inner circle. These were very, very bad men. And people in the message knew what was going on. That's really the crux of this. So when you think about the upper room, think about if Paul had his, Charles, call him his gene in Leo, but you know, picture any two guys who are in the upper room, that the Other elders in the room knew we're molesting children.

That's, it's really, really bad. Can't say enough bad about that, but yeah, this, the Elijah claimed for me, like I said, it is the framework for very bad doctrine. And I wish we had another time for another 20 episodes because we could talk about all of the things that stacked on top of that.

Because people, you know, I've heard it simply put, William Brannum was a quote unquote profit who went astray by claiming to be Elijah. That's how they simplify this. And at its surface, that may be true, but if you open what's under the covers of this thing and you start to understand what all is associated with that Elijah claim, you start to realize that this is not a good person that did this.

This is a very evil mind that did this. Good men don't do this thing that he did. And so if you are a researcher and you're researching the NAR profits claims that William Brannum was this good guy when astray.

And so therefore send me your money because I'm a good guy who is just like William Brannum. Go look at as Elijah claim and look at all that was stacked on top of that.

And the framework had existed and you'll start to realize that maybe these guys might be the same way. And William Brannum was not a good man. I think then the next item, maybe the chat about John, is that William Brannum inserted himself into Matthew chapter 25.

He claimed that there's the parable of the wise and foolish virgins. And at midnight a cry went forth that the bridegroom cometh go, you have to meet him. I'm sure you're liking me John, you've got all these things are memorized, we heard.

You're triggering me, man. At midnight the cry went forth. So we believe that that was William Brannum. He was the one who made this cry at midnight go you forth and meet the bridegroom.

And that his message was the midnight cry. And so he inserted himself in there. And now this is again, probably niche to the message. Where did William Brannum get this? He adapted this out of your whole witness teachings where it came from.

But he set himself up that his message was the midnight cry.

And you needed to listen to that message in order to then go out and meet the Lord at a second coming. And so again, I put this into the important heresies because it is again foundational to the message.

People will tell you the message is the midnight cry, right? The message is the midnight cry. No, it is. And William Brannum was not the midnight cry, Matthew 25, right? And so it's very problematic what William Brannum did with that parable.

And again, he used that to create... in us versus them mentality. He used that to divide and separate his followers from the rest of Christianity. You know, you people that have heard my midnight cry and have come follow me, you are the wise virgins. Now you understand. And those people out there, they are all foolish and they are all going to burn up and die. And so I think that that definitely is some from its worth making the top 10 list. Both from the aspect of the course of absolute heresy for him to insert himself into Matthew 25. And then second, because of the way it allows message believers to look down

their nose at real Christians. Yeah, all of you who have left the message and are listening to or watching this podcast, you can all feel sorry for me because I know that you're going through it and if you're going to a new church, you'll hear preacher say something and it's one of those trigger words that just trigger you and suddenly you come unglued. It's more problematic for me than a lot of people because towards the end of my years in the message, I was struggling deeply with depression. And one of my main trigger points was that I struggled whenever I was

taught that I had to believe that these other people who I loved, who weren't in the message, that they were cannon fodder, that they were serpent seed, that they were all of these insulting phrases that we were taught and manipulated to call them. I had a I had severe issue with this, this was problematic to me. And to think that they use this doctrine to sever the body of Christ, you know, I know that there are people who were never in the message that they look at all message people as, you know, they've not accepted the gospel and they're doomed to hell. I look at them

like they're, if you're in the message, there are people who actually want to and try to and believe that they do believe in Jesus Christ in the message. And I have to look at them like they're just blinded Christians. If they were actually given the true gospel, they would believe it.

They've been manipulated in their heads not to, unfortunately. Those Christians have been severed from the main body of Christians and they've been isolated. And even though there's no physical walls around them, they have these mental barriers between them and all other Christians.

And the Gestapo ministers that are in these cults are manipulating them to hate the people on the outside while saying that you love them and you feel sorry for them and their cannon fodder and cannon fodder means that they're the ones who are expendable and should die. It's that bad.

So when you think of levels of heresy, the blast radius of this one is massive because you've got ministers who are literally severing the body of Christ with this doctrine. And like I said, for me, this was so problematic that when I am in a service and they mention any phrase, That is associated with this doctrine. It has been so badly Taught in the message that I actually cannot sit through a sermon with it and I don't know when that when I'll be able to it Maybe I may never in my life be able to sit through a sermon where they mention any of these phrases. It's that bad. That's how

Heretical this is. That's how evil this is and it serves no other purpose. I've studied it backwards and forwards left and right I find no other purpose than to sever the body of Christ. I think you are exactly right John and I think that You know the way you describe message people there is good too because You're right. I mean a lot of the people in there are genuine authentic Christians who really do believe on Christ as their Savior, right and Somehow that has been hijacked in them and with a lot of them They're this this parable of the foolish virgins is one of the main ways in which they've done that because they've they've convinced the people that

Jesus Christ is just about to come any minute now for 60 years in a row And you can't and you need this midnight cry or you will not make it. You will be left behind and burned up If you get away from this midnight cry because this you got to be here to meet him, right?

And they keep the people trapped with that But you know just from a very basic sense John and again I on on my website I've walked through a lot of these things in detail if you want to go look again. I got an article on this specifically, but You can't this is an example of William Brannum interpreting symbols and telling us what the symbols mean, right?

So William Brannum in that parable is one who tells us what all the symbols mean, right? That parable does not say there's going to be an elite group of Christians who are going to hear a last-day message From a certain prophet and then those people are going to be eligible for the rapture and everyone else is going to burn up That is not what that parable says by a mile, right?

We only believe that because that is what William Brannum told us all those symbols mean And you know you can go back and you can look at those things and you can ask yourself now that you know William Brannum was absolutely had no authority whatsoever from God to interpret those symbols and you can ask yourself Does that Interpretation align with the plain reading or scripture, right? I mean does it does that?

Does that interpretation of those symbols? You know fit with you know what Paul said for example be justified by his blood. We shall be saved from all wrath I mean does that fit with it? You know and and when you do that very simple analysis, right having you know Let go of William Brannum as a source of authority You know you just have to come back to the conclusion that William Brannum

Interpreted those symbols in a terribly wrong way and let me let me point out one light parable Just one really terrible contradiction in that. So, you know, in that parable, right, John, they all hear the midnight cry.

The foolish virgin say, we don't got no oil. We need oil, right? And then they go out to buy and sell, and of course, we believe that meant they went to oral roberts revival or something, right?

They're so crazy. But, okay, so they heard the midnight cry. They didn't have no oil, so they went to oral roberts revival to get oil. But, you know, oil represents then getting the Holy Spirit.

But the evidence of believing the Holy Spirit is believing the message, right? Yeah. Why did they send them to oral roberts to get the message? Like, when you just take a logical analysis of it, it don't even make sense, right?

Why would you send them, you know, to the denominations for oil when the evidence of the Holy Spirit is believing the message? Why don't you give them the message? And here's the... You listen to that parable.

Obviously, the foolish virgins heard the message, right? They heard the midnight cry, and they woke up. But they... What? They... They obviously believe the message, right? As they said, we need oil. So why didn't the message save them, right?

Didn't they believe the sublieve and the message can't be the evidence of Holy Spirit? I mean, it all just... The message is nonsense when you... When you, you know, take away William Brannum's, um, as the authority.

It just does not... It is not coherent, right? And anybody with even half a lick of sense that can take William Brannum's craziness and set it aside. But just child-like logic can go through that and say, this does not make sense.

This does not make sense. I can't think of a single message believer today that if oral robberts were alive, that they would even go to a meeting. They've been... They've been taught that he's the serpent seed.

He's the false prophet. He's the... Yeah, there's so many different names that they give him. But you're right. It doesn't make sense when you think of it from a religious standpoint. I think of these things from a business standpoint, because this was not a religion, unfortunately.

This was a political cult, not a religious cult. And these were businessmen. They even called themselves full gospel businessmen. Well, I am in the IT business, and I have companies who are competitors, but they're also partners in a way.

They have their things that they're niche, that they're good at. And I have my thing, and sometimes I'll cross advertise, and that's what this is. He was literally cross-advertising with oral robberts. I'm sure oral robberts was doing the same thing back to him.

They were feeding each other business. That's all this comes out to. And I hate to use it because it's so overused, but the money tables Jesus coming in and turning over the money tables.

Think of what Jesus would do if he came back today, and he saw what we... going on here. Here's a man who's, you know, Jesus comes back to earth, here's a man who's claiming that his words are equal to mine, Jesus. Here's guys that are making money off of me and cross advertising with each other, and they're both claiming that they have this manifestation of God or whatever. It's just so incredibly wrong, man. And who ran William Random's merchandise booth at the revivals? Jean and Leo, what do you mean Jesus would do when he came to Jean

and Leo's merchandise booth selling William Random in their bill yet? I mean, come on. I mean, it's, it's something else. And it's just so crazy, John. At the end of the day, it is just so crazy, you know, the, the, the parable of the 10 virgins cannot possibly be what, what William Random said. And here's the thing, William Random has been dead for 60 years, right? Almost everybody who heard the midnight cry is dead. And probably, you know, in a few more years, they will all be dead. There will be none left. And so then how does that make any sense, right? I mean,

the people who heard the midnight cry go get ready for the rapture and then they all die. Like, how does that make sense? And that literally is just about where the message is. It, it just sees as to make sense, you know, with the, with the time lapse that has happened in it. And most of the message preachers out there today never met William Random. I mean, you know, the, the nut down and happy valley, he never met William Random. Those people were not been the message back then.

There was maybe 12 message churches when William Random died, maybe 12, roughly 12. There were no more than two or three thousand people in the message when he died. And a good chunk of them quit when he died, right? I mean, they, they're, they're almost all gone. They are almost all gone.

There are very few left. And given a few more years, there will be none left. And then that parable again, just ceases to make sense from a mere matter of time, right? It, it, it really is something else. Hey, on that front, let me throw in one more tidbit, John. So this is the sidetrack.

So in my research since I've been left and you know, I have said I was the assistant pastor of the second continuously, or the second oldest continuously operating message church. So I've been researching, you know, message history. And there's two churches that are now defunct that I thought was older than our church, but I was mistaken. So I was actually the assistant pastor of the second oldest message church overall in the entire message. We were the original sister church to the Brannum Tabernacle that I was pastor. We are the second oldest message church that I

come from. So hey, I got upgraded since we've been pet before. So that's really funny because we in the main sect wouldn't have considered you guys quote unquote message people. You, you had gone astray, right? And on that note, what's really funny is I, because of James's research, I am more aware than I even want to be of what I'll of these message churches are doing.

And the version of the message that exists today, even in the sect that I came from, is nothing like the message when I was in it. It is a night and day difference. It is two different messages.

There are two different cults, and they're nowhere near, close to what it was whenever I left it. And I was not alive when William Branham was. So I can only assume that it's even further night and day difference between when I was in it when William Branham was alive.

So when it really comes right down to it, even though we considered you not to be part of the message because you didn't quote unquote believe the message, I would now argue based on James's research and what you're telling me now, that there is not a single minister who is in any of the cult or the splinter groups, who is actually a message believer.

At least with William Branham's message, now Branham himself had different versions of the message, but they don't believe any of the versions that existed during his lifespan. I would agree with that, John. And you know, on that same front, we would look at the tabernacle when we say you don't believe the message, right?

And we would say we are actually the original tabernacle congregation who all exited when the deity people moved in and took over, right? And every sect of the message is like that. We're the original, we're the only believers of the message.

And I would say and all the rest of you churches out there eat your hearts out. I mean, the only two churches that had any claim to actually be the original message would be my church and your church, John.

We were the original people who were sitting there with William Branham from the beginning, not any of the rest of them, right? And the hubris, it's the hubris of all of these out of town nuts that think that they know more about all this than I mean, it blows your mind.

It's so funny. It's so funny. I think it was James that sent it to me, but one minister after I had first started my research and began publishing critical information to William Branham, they actually said that the reason that I did is because I came from the main sect and those people are crazy.

And now I look back and I think, wait a minute, man, you're a reason, the reason you exist is because of the main sect. You are a grandchild of this thing, right? But even still, they do not believe William Branham's message by far they're not even close to it.

Based on just simply the transitions that's happened since I've left. They have no idea. And they were not in direct line of succession like your church and our church were to William Branham have the secret revelations passed down to them from the prophet, right?

Well, I mean, how do they even claim, right? That's why they don't know the secret of the serpent's seed from William Branham, right? Because you were not in direct line of the prophet like my church and your church was, Johnson.

Anyway, moving on to the next question. If you're in one of those churches, just simply ask them, what is the mystery of the seven seals and the seven thunders that William Branham taught? Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha.

it really is. There are very few preachers. This is the truth. There are very few preachers that can claim an unbroken line of succession back to William Brown. Very few, and most of them are either from my sect, John, or you're the sect that you came from, and there's really not many, you know, Bleeveil could, Bleeveil could, but there's not many others that can, not in any meaningful way. None of them were central in any way to the message during William Brown's lifetime, you know, the Cloverdale people. I could just go down the list. Perry Green, I'll say he's dead. He was a joke for goodness' sake. I mean,

nobody liked Perry Green. I mean, and he basically kind of hostile takeover after William Brown, him died, you know, with all of that stuff. Anyway, we won't get into all of that. Let's move on to the next heresy. Okay. How about that? All right. Next one. William Brown, him claim that his shout, or his message was the shout. The first Thessalonians 4.9, so, you know, the Lord descends from heaven with a shout. So he claimed that happened in 1963, right? That was what the cloud was supposed to be, the Lord descending from heaven, and then his message was the shout. So again, he's inserting himself into scripture. He's

setting that up as a foundation of that turns into the message. And once again, you know, the Bible does not say the shout will be a last-day message that, you know, will appear from the face of Jesus in the sky and delivered to you by, you know, God's humble prophet.

The Bible does not interpret the symbolism at all the way that William Brown and did, and the only way the message arrived that their beliefs about that is that that's what William Brown and said. And once again, that's adapted out of old school Jehovah-wetness literatures where that stuff comes from. It's not even original to William Brown. I mean, it's stolen from Charles David Russell who pointed it all to himself, right? It's, again, I would put that into one of the major heresies because it is so foundational to the message. And that is how we arrive at the belief that most sects of the message believe that Jesus Christ

returned in some fashion or another in 1963. We believe a second coming already happened generally in the message in one shape or another spiritually, angelically. We had different mystically different words depending on the sect, the perusia, different sects, the brides coming, right? There's different language to describe it, but the message almost universally believes that Jesus Christ returned in some way in 1963, which is in absolute heresy. Jesus Christ has not returned. Jesus Christ, the second coming, has not happened in any shape or form. It is not in progress. It has not started. It has not occurred.

Heresy, it's a hoax. I didn't realize that you had added this, but I'm actually glad you added this because I was trying while I was explaining the framework of the Elijah ministry, how that allows heresy to be built on top of it. This is one, because as I mentioned, they can take passages of the Bible and then rip them out of context and say, this applies to me who is your central figure.

And in this particular example, this is one of the better examples because they ripped out not even a single verse. They ripped out part of a verse. Verse 16 says, for the Lord Himself shall descend from heaven with a shout and the voice of the Archangel.

In every minister who says this thing that I have ever heard, and I've been to churches from coast to coast, they will repeat this over and over. You hear it sermon after sermon after sermon, but that's not the full verse. It says, and the dead in Christ shall rise first at the end of that verse. I think we've mentioned this before. They claim that this applies to William the first half of this verse. And it's really, really heretical when you think about it, because they're saying that William Brannum is the Lord Himself who descended. And one of the reasons

they say this is because the part before they stop is they say, with the voice of the Archangel, they, in the message, this is a common thing. William Brannum had a spirit guide who he said was an Archangel. And sometimes he said this angel was Jesus Christ, which is another heresy built on top of this thing. But because William Brannum claimed that he had this alleged angel, which he, we've examined this, he never is consistent on what this angel looks like or when he met him or any of the details. It was all fiction. But because he claimed this, they claimed that that phrase

with the voice of the Archangel, he claims that that is applicable to William Brannum. And it's heretical because it's the Lord Himself. But we all know that the dead in Christ have not risen, so this cannot be. And it is so badly ripped out of context that they've left off the second half of that verse. Something else, John. Something else. And once again, I've just been kind of shooting off the hip here with all of these as we've been going through. So if you can't tell.

But again, I have a, I have a detailed article on this on my website. If you want the full, my full analysis of this shout issue, there are hundreds of heresy's, man. That's the other problem I had. I said I was having trouble responding to this email. Well, how many hundreds of them are there, man? And, and how do you rank the hundred? How do you say that this is in the top 10?

You, you could literally grab any 10 and say, this is the most heretical thing ever. And you're going to find 10 more that are just as equally heretical. And if it's an every version of the message has its own terminology to explain it and its own nuanced way and, you know, depending on which sect you come at, you got to talk about it entirely different way. If I'm going to talk to leave ale sect about it, I'm going to talk about the perusion.

Right? I want to talk to the, I won't say some of their names, I'm going to have to talk about the brides coming. You know, if I'm going to, it's different in every sector terminology, they have a slightly different twist on how to apply it, what it means, you know, if you're talking to Fred Sockman, you're going to talk about how William Brandon became God in Carnot, you know, with the second coming, but it's, each one of them has their own skin and it's very complex to try and generalize and you really can't, you can't generalize message teachings because

it is so new ones. And William Brandon himself was so contradictory, it's hard to even say which heat, which is the official version because there isn't, there's like 10 versions and everybody gets their own combination of it.

So all right, so moving on to the next one. So I think this is number nine out of our top 10. So William Brandon also claimed that he or his message, so this goes to the conflicts here, his message, was the revealing of the Son of Man in Luke 1730, right, and this also connects with the, you know, with the Lord standing from heaven in 1963, William Brandon taught that either he, if you're in the baby side or his message, if you're most everybody else, was the revealing of the Son of Man.

And so William Brandon has taught that Luke 1730 is fulfilled. The Son of Man has been revealed, revealed in him or his ministry somewhere or the other in every sect of the message has maybe a unique spin on how that happened.

My sect definitely believed that that was fulfilled in William Brandon's ministry in a non-deity kind of way. But everyone in the message, and if you don't believe this, you don't believe the message believes that Jesus, the revealing of the Son of Man in Luke 1730, has already happened.

As it was in the days of Noah's social, a bee in the day when the Son of Man shall be revealed. When I first started my website, I think it was on the old YouTube site that the Cole brought down.

I went into a deep dive of this because I was so upset that they had manipulated me to believe that William Brandon was the fulfillment of this passage which every Christian is aware was supposed to point to Jesus.

I was angry that they did this to me. And I went through, I can't tell you how many different days. I used to do these 45 minute examinations of what he said and what the Bible said.

To the extent people actually told me that I was preaching, which I'm not a preacher. I was not preaching. I was just studying and I was trying to understand it. And I got a lot of things wrong, but it was my way of processing this and it's very embarrassing.

You can actually find a lot of it on my blog if you I'm embarrassed to have it out there, but you can see a progression of my mindset if you see it. study the entire blog, but I was pretty crazy back then. I believe some crazy things.

This tops one of the most craziest that to believe that William Brannum was the fulfillment of this passage, which was clearly pointing to Jesus, and the thing that struck me as the funniest, at the end of this passage, they are talking, I think, as the disciples, they say, where, Lord? And he says, in the King James Version, it says, where the carcasses the eagles will gather. Well, this became such loaded language because he tried to say that that passage when the word eagles was mentioned, that was actually mentioning our little group of believers in the message. And he tried to phrase it such that it was

a good thing. And I was even more angry when I found out how wrong that was, because we were taught that the eagles was this holy bird. And ironically, eagles is one of the birds that was detested by God, if you go study the old covenant. But the word there can, it's also the same word that's used for vultures. It's basically a bird of prey who can eat a dead rotting carcass. And what he's referring to here is these birds who don't care that they're eating something excessively nasty. Where you find this dead rotting carcass, you're going to find these birds of prey that are eating the rotting carcass.

And the irony of all of this Charles is, he said that that rotting carcass was his message. And when I found that, I'm like, no way, man, this, you can't make this stuff up. This is one, this is some funny thing, man. And he, he approached it, you know, the eagle will only eat a fresh kill. Therefore, this is the fresh revelation, the fresh word, the present fruit that they're eating, right? Therefore, that I can't, I mean, the shock, the first time I ever saw an eagle eating road kill, John. The first time I saw, like, what? Eagles only eat fresh meat. No, you have been

fooled. Eagles eat road kill. Yeah, they sure do. I've seen it with my own eyes. I don't even know where William Brown came up with that stuff. But, you know, again, the Luke 1730, that is terrible here, see, right? Because no matter how the message people do it, they are making William Brannum or his message in some shape or form a fulfiller of the revealing of the Son of Man, the revealing of Jesus Christ, the second coming of Jesus Christ. And again, we've talked about how the message in some shape or form everywhere has put Jesus to put William Brannum into the role

of Jesus Christ. And that is a- exactly what they're doing with Luke 1730. They're taking something that is Jesus Christ and they're giving it to William Brannum. Absolute heresy, absolute heresy, right? There is absolutely no excuse for that, right?

And those sort of things, I just, I look back now and it takes my breath away how we went along with those things and I don't care wherever you're at, if you're from the churches I come from, if you're in the funders, if you're in the third exodus, if you're in the main sect, you're with the brides, come people, wherever you are.

You're with Ewald Frank, you all believe that William Brannum had a role to play with the revealing of the Son of Man in Luke 1730. That is terrible heresy. Don't tell me you haven't taken the things of Jesus Christ and given it to William Brannum.

I mean, of course you have. Of course you have. Right, and then it's just dishonesty. So again, on my website, I've got a lengthy article where I examine that piece as well, John, if people want my detailed analysis more than I've said right here, but I think we covered the gist of that one.

It is unbelievable. And like I say, I was shocked to the first time I saw an eagle eating roadkill, man. I'll never forget, I was in a restaurant and it was actually here in Jeffersonville and I was a little surprised because I did not realize that eagles came all the way this far south and I was in a restaurant in Jeffersonville and suddenly I watched this, I actually saw the animal get killed as I can't remember a squirrel or something got ran over by a car.

And suddenly this eagle swoops down and I look out, no way, that's not an eagle. And it's, you know, to an average normal person who is never in this, you're gonna think, oh, that's a pretty stupid subject to talk about.

But if you're in the message and you see an eagle eating roadkill, I can't describe to you what this does to your head because that was one of the primary doctrines in the message.

There are even songs out there that's saying, we are the eagles and it's referring to this verse where there's a dead rotting carcass, which oh, by the way, is Brannum's message and these birds of prey are eating the rotting nasty carcass that should be thrown in the trash.

Something else, John. So coming down to the last thing, the last thing that, you know, would make my top 10 list anyway of heresies of William Brown. This is kind of a double hitter.

So William Brown, I'm taught that he was the angel of Revelation 107 and that he was the angel to the church of Leo to see it. And of course in the message we would summarize that.

He said he was the seventh church age messenger. And once again, you know, we have an incredible heresy there where William Brown was setting himself up and inserting himself into scripture and just doing something that is so far outside the realm of what is even appropriate for him to have done.

And once again, not original to him. He copied those things of verbatim from old school, Jehovah Witness literature, Charles Stager, also again. These are not ideas that he came up with, not divine revelation, just copied it from other people.

And he basically set himself up there that he was the final messenger to set the formula of salvation for the final age, right? And in so doing that, you have to accept his message to be saved.

And then in Revelation 107, he sets himself up as the voice there that unveils the final mysteries, which then, and again, he adds them to give the church the rapturing faith so that they can go on the rapture.

Now again, once again, those things are in the Bible, but what those symbols mean is not interpreted by the Bible. The Bible doesn't say that Revelation 107 is a last-day prophet who will appear, revealed to you final mysteries, which will then give you the power to go on the rapture, right?

It doesn't say that. He does not say that, right? You only, we only are able to take that because William Brannum, we thought, had divine power to interpret what those symbols mean to us, right?

Alone behold, he was just copying what Charles Tase Russell said those symbols, man. But, absolutely. We thought that he put himself into a spot there where he now has the special message of special revelations of hidden mysteries that you need in order to be saved and make it out at the end of days.

And so, again, on my website, John, again, I have another link to the article. These are all linked on the main page, all the ones I've talked about where I walk through this and give you my own personal, deep, detailed analysis of it.

You might find it helpful if you want to check that out more than we've talked about here. But at any rate, John, that would be my top 10 list. Yeah, and it is pretty bad heresy because he's literally saying that his words, his sermons are the mystery of God.

And if you go back and you just do a search and in his sermon transcripts for the word mystery, and you find some of the nonsensical things that he say wasn't actually revealed. And we have examined many of those in our historical podcast, but I still go back to, you know, take any two people who are in this group, this body that has severed themselves from all other Christians who believe that they're the only ones.

And even within the churches of the only ones, they have no idea what is this alleged mystery of God that has been revealed. You'll get no two consistent answers from any two ministers. And if it was truly the mystery of God that was revealed in the last days, you would think that the ministers would at least be consistent in what this mystery actually was.

And it's even specifically, it says the mystery of God should be finished. So it's not like it's this mystery that they... is the word progressive revelation, right? William Brannum gave us this thing that it's like if I were to take my glasses and just scrub them in the mud and I'm looking through squinting because he didn't reveal it very clearly but we, the ministers of today who are, by the way, give us your tithe while we're doing it, we're going to explain what the mystery actually was that you can't see through your muddy glasses because we're gonna give you the water to clean them.

Doesn't say that. And this Bible verse says the mystery of God should be finished and he died. I mean, it's that simple and he died. So there's no way possible that this could even be even remotely related to William Brannum or anything similar to William Brannum.

Yeah, you know, the message has crazy gymnastics, mental gymnastics, they jump through to explain how he died yet the mystery was not finished.

How it could be, you know, how did he die? And there's, you know, we didn't get the rapturing fate. I'm cap, how can that be? You know, how did he die? And that's the thing, right?

And if you, if one question I have, just a very simple question, if William Brannum came to restore the church back to a perfect state so it could go in the rapture,

then why didn't it happen? Yeah. He died, right? Well, why is the church still here? Like why didn't the rapture happen? What is the whole of, what do you wait for? Where is the perfect church that looks like the book of Acts that he was supposed to restore?

It's not there. It, I mean, it doesn't exist. And the Bible says he, if he, if he was a lie, did it, right? The Malachi four, he was supposed to be the one to do it, not his successors.

It just, the message internal has so many internal contradictions that I think any person that starts just to think logically even within the realms of the message can start to wake themselves up. And so, you know, I don't know that anything we've said here is gonna help anybody in the message, but maybe it'll help some of the people on the outside realize just how crazy some of the stuff we believe was.

That's so wrong, man. You know, and I have my opinion of why this thing still exists. You're welcome to your opinion, but I have mine and it has to do with the tithe plates that they pass every Sunday.

But in normal reality, if something was this badly wrong and the person who brought the badly wrong thing died, in a normal scenario, most people are just gonna walk away. And so, yeah, we're done with this.

But unfortunately, there were some very devious minds who in my opinion had some nice thick offering plates and this thing has continued. So, it is what it is. Like Charles said, I'm not trying to drag anybody out of the message.

I'm talking to believe nonsense. If you wanna believe it, in my opinion, it is nonsense. But, you know, you're welcome to believe it. It's definitely, tell us the minute. Tell us the mystery. If you've got some questions and you want us to answer them, we're still taking questions. We're not doing podcasts weekly like we were, but we are collecting questions and we hope to address anything that's very pressing. And if you've enjoyed this show and you want more information, you can check us out on the web. You can find us at William-Branum.org and Christian Gospel Church.org. For an overview of the historical

research of William-Branum in the Healing Revivals, read preacher behind the white hoods a critical examination of William-Branum and his message, available on Amazon, Kindle, and Audible.