The Deity of Christ vs. Branham’s Arianism

Music Hello and welcome to another episode of the William Brandham Historical Research Podcast. I'm your host, John Collins, the author and founder of William Brandham Historical Research at William-Brandom.org, and with me I have my co-host, researcher, and friend, John McKinnon, author of the persuasive preacher, the gifted prophet, and the noble politician.

John, it's good to be back and to talk about the little gods. You know, I just yesterday had this conversation with Chinno, he was talking about Hobart Freeman's version of the little gods doctrine, and we were tracing some of its theology and some of its roots and talking through how just destructive this theology is. It's horrific.

And this one, it's odd because I've had the conversation with multiple other hosts in various ways, the biggest of which is Stephen Montgomery when he's talking about the converging apostasy, and I think the reason for this is when you consider what Brandham was bringing to the table as far as this theology about the little gods and how it, you know, the deity of Christ, he changed the deity of Christ so that we could become as part of the bride, this manifested son of God nonsense.

But whenever you think about the apostasy that he introduced into the church, this is really the heart of it. This is the heart of the matter because what he's teaching is a modified form of arianism, which is a heresy that was deemed heresy long, long ago.

But he discovered it somehow and he tried to reinvent it, put his little span and twist on it, and people began to adopt it. So in the forms of apostasy that is starting to grow within the church because of Brandham, this is probably one of the biggest ones.

And I had some trouble for a long time really, you know, even calling it apostasy. Number one, I had a hard time calling it a cult, and it wasn't until I began working with Dr. Stephen Hassan, and we began to talk through the nature of a destructive cult, and what it means to be a destructive cult, it wasn't until long after that, I began to realize, no, this cult following a William Brandham was very destructive, it was a destructive cult by nature, but even still it had a hard time saying that the people in it weren't Christian.

And I would have conversations with other people who would say these aren't Christians, these are, they're following a different God, you know, and I just, I really had a hard time accepting that because I...

knew a lot of people who I truly believed at that time were solid Christians. And I think there are still some who maybe are. But the problem for me is this, Brannum did not teach the same version of Jesus.

He taught multiple versions, plural of Jesus. And so can you really say that they're Christian whenever Christians are followers of Jesus Christ and specifically followers of Jesus Christ of the Bible? And Brannum is teaching multiple versions of what Jesus Christ is.

Some of them slightly matching the Bible and may edge closer towards a biblical version. But other versions of it, they go so far into heresy, like this we're talking today. It's edging into arianism and some very destructive theologies.

So by calling them Christian, which Christian are you following? Are you following the one of the Bible or are you following one that he taught that was not the Christ of the Bible? So that's where I began to understand, no, you can't really say that people in the movement are Christian in mass because there's no way to understand which version of Christ that they're following.

And sadly, I want to say of all the people that I know most of them follow the one of apostasy. So I have come to terms with the fact that many people that I grew up with just simply were not Christian, though they used the name Jesus Christ in their worship.

So I'd like to break that down with you and you've done a lot of research in this. So it would be good to talk to your research and I'll try to add some points of value where I can throw them in.

So John, I discovered while preparing for this episode in part five of our series, as we speak, our message is being thoroughly vindicated here. I see what's happening right now in the ranks of the message of William Brannum and everything you in Charles and other guests and myself has come out and said, it's coming to pass.

I'm going to start this one by continuing on with the subject that I was on last time, but this time I'm taking the gloves off. I'm going to do battle today with my bare hands.

Is this subject is coming to a climax? I got a couple more episodes to go with it, but we're going to learn a lot that the secret mystery hidden through all the church ages is that Jesus has not really got himself and not really deity, or at least that's how the message of William Brannum teaches who Jesus is.

Now we know that's not correct and we know that's heresy, but people won't get that on the surface, sitting in these churches most of the time. You really have to dig deep in the message and it's deceptive teachings, but it's their plane's day.

I'll even quote a minister that says all this. Of course, over and over the message minister had managed congregations that William Brannum had the truth of the day and you must believe every word, but we're going to see in a minute more of what we saw last time that A young minister is going to battle with the mainstream and calling them even false brethren, so it's going to be a fight back and forth there.

I want to start with this quote from the same minister I'll be quoting today. He's known as maybe the theologian of the message, but he said this and one of his series on Godhead, he says, but I know this one thing, the evidence of being an elect child of God is to stand with William Brannum, vindicated like Moses with the presence of God, the pillar of fire here and we learn in every word believing because it's vindicated.

I'm preaching gospel. My God, what are you being saved from? You always were saved if you're a child of God. It's the flesh that has to be redeemed, of course. So really what he's saying there is what I've been saying all along too, this the message of William Brannum builds up pride in the believers of this message.

And then he even says, you know, you always were saved. Well, that goes very contrary to scriptures that says we were living in a dead condition. So we weren't always saved. We weren't always righteous and had a righteous seed in us.

You know, we were very unrighteous and even we needed the grace of God. We needed to be regenerated. You know, there was nothing in us good. You know, Paul said there's none good, no not one, and everybody's come under the judgment.

So we're all on the same playing field here, but the message tends to elevate those who want to believe in the message of William Brannum. But we said all along that there's hundreds of splinter groups of William Brannum's message and there are.

So we want to ask this question. Well, which one of those is really the bride? You know, within the ranks, there's just infighting, accusing one another. You know, we find there's no love, no one taking correction because young masters coming up today have really no theological training or Bible training.

And they've gone off into many paths of false doctrine. Even this mystery I'm going to quote here now has said they're in false doctrine, even in the main group. Yet the group he's criticizing is only saying what the tapes are saying. He even gives one glaring example where William Brannum said Hill was eternal and then said Hill was not eternal.

And I think y'all've gone through that before. You know, he's brother Brannum really spoke on both sides of the subject. I think there's where the problem lies is because he spoke so many things differently and spoke it the way both sides believe it that where do you draw the line and where do you take the find the truth of what he's really speaking at all. But this this minister here says in this message he put out he said in this tape boy went through all this mental gymnastics of using different definitions of eternal and everlasting

to try to prove you the first quote was true that Jesus saved brother Brannum from eternity and Hill. Now why can't he just have an of logic and enough humility to say, brother Adam grew in his revelation and his understanding.

And the first quote was not this, say, of the Lord. Jesus didn't save anybody from eternity in hell because there's no hell that lasts eternity, eternally. And again, this group that I listened to, they're called the open book group and they're the ones that call themselves the greatest of all time.

But we know this one fact, pride goes before the fall. And that's what I showed you in my broad pride video a couple of years ago, season message ministers. Well, walk into youth meetings and say, you're the greatest youth of all time.

The worshiping tapes and happy about it and shouting about it and rejoicing about it. And this proves this brother's not a teacher. If he was a teacher, he would take all the scriptures back to the book of Acts, where it really talked about searching the scriptures daily where these things be so.

You know, I don't always agree with this brother that was speaking here, but I would wholeheartedly agree with the fact that everybody needs to be like the Bereans. I believe this shows he's gotten a sense to realize, you know, that Brandon taught some error.

And I'm sure he has his doubts about Williams' brother's message and he's seen the chinks in the armor now. The Achilles heel, the house of cards is coming down. But to other ministers' point, he's just saying, you know, the younger minister, they're preaching that he's criticizing.

He's just saying what Williams' brother said to do. And that was stayed with the tapes. And so he's just preaching message doctrine really. But here's an example of infighting where the minister in this service is lashing out other message preachers for not believing the tapes.

And this young minister said, I'm sorry I'm done playing with these devils. I don't care how fancy. Stay with it. What's on the tapes? There's no confusion. There's no misunderstanding. It's a sealed book, saying's unsealed.

If he's saying what's on the tapes, he's an Einstein in my book. And so then the minister is making his video comes back, says, friends, any honest person would admit that the tapes are not infallible.

Now, I know where they get this from. I looked it up and say in the adoption series in 1960. And also in a blind butter mayus a couple of months later in July 1960.

Now let's rate a couple of quotes here where brother Brams actually saying he's not infallible. He said, somebody said I have to recall my tapes because I had preached to be in baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.

He said, I ain't recalling them. I'm making more. That's right, making more. That is the Bible. If they don't like what we did yesterday, just watch what we're going to do tomorrow. That's the thing to do.

See, keep on going. There's no end of it because it's out of the Lord. It's God. And then he says in blind barred mayus, he says, I don't know what it was. The tapes there has got it.

That's what we keep. These tapes, everything was said. There's never been one thing ever said, but what the Lord confirmed it to be true. And of course, that's on the tapes. So one brother's saying, believe the tapes and the other brother's saying, well, you can't believe everything on the tapes.

So where do they draw the line out? Here's another one. In Patmos vision, 1960, he said, brother, random said this. Now remember, I have said at the... First, where you hear these tapes, these things are just according to the way I believe them to be right, see.

Now, if they're wrong, I don't know that they are. I can only say what I believe. So he actually believed the things he was saying on tapes. Otherwise, he wouldn't set them. He says, sometimes you hear me cutting, I really go home and sit down, and sometimes I pick up one of those tapes and say, surely I didn't say that.

Surely I couldn't have said that. And then I think, well, what I have said, I have said, and it was, it was under inspiration, as far as I know, inspiration, I'm never ashamed of it.

And that was in 1961 of the menist men in town, sermon. Here's another one in God in simplicity. He said, they want to put their own interpretation to it. It don't mean this, it don't mean that.

See, it does mean that. Listen, may I say this right quick now, even the visions that God gives me here at this place, it's so misunderstood. That's the reason you hear me say it on the tapes.

Say what the tapes say, say what the visions say. Now, if you're wide awake, you'll see something. So William Brannum was backing his tapes here. And so that's why this young minister backs the tapes.

But then you got these other ministers that are seeing that beginning to see the errors in the tapes and trying to explain it away like, well, he just progressed in his revelation. Well, being a true prophet of God, you would think that God would have given the true revelation to begin with, not to have to progress and learn, you know what the truth really is.

So otherwise you would keep your mouth shut before you have the truth. So, and him being a mouthpiece of God, I think that's what a true prophet would do, correct. So here's an element.

And this is where they conflict here. And I'll show this a little later too. The young preacher in the video that this other minister was watching said, you know, God's not in heaven, the preacher's preaching here.

And here's the exact quote, deity is not in heaven. Deity is in this city state in a youth camp tonight in the redeemed flesh of the new generation of the open book. And they've got a word confession.

And that's the end quote. Now here's the minister's response to that. He said, now friends, there are two quotes where brother Ram says, deity is not in heaven. But he never majored on it.

He never said does say at the Lord. So, but I would say the young preacher is only recognizing his day in his message. You know, when he said deity is not in heaven. That's exactly what William Brantham taught.

William Brantham taught, deity is now in the bride. So, I'll even show this. And here's another quote from the minister, I quoted the last two services, our last two podcasts we did. And at same sermons on the Godhead, he said, when Jesus ascended on high, Christ, which is the Logos, had finished his work in that form.

The body had paid the price for our sins. He said, and so that form was no longer needed. Now it was going to become a mini-member body. So, that same life now departs out of that body.

So, we see that this minister here has said, well, life that was in Christ is departed out of it. God new lower needs that body. So now deity is not in heaven because it's going to be in a many member body. And I get to this in a little bit, but I'm going to show you where William Brenham actually believed that God is not omnipresent.

So he has to dwell in one place or another. And that's where these whole quotes for deities no longer in heaven come from because of what William Brenham taught and believed about God not being omnipresent. And I'm going to give you a couple of quotes of that if we have time here a little later on. So John, we can see that no one really agrees on what the message of William Brenham really is because some will take it face value. Some will take it well you have to discern one way or the other what he's really preaching. And some will cut it off in 1963.

But every church preaches it differently and everyone doesn't think that they have the exclusive truth. And it's William Brenham's message has brought all this confusion to the gospel and confusion to the church in general, John. It is confusing. And you know, that's one of the other things that I wrestled with. Whenever I was in the message, I did read my Bible and there were passages that very clearly said that God is not the author of confusion. Yet at the same time, I also knew that there were different doctrines that William Brenham taught that also were in conflict

with each other. They changed over time. They began to morph into something else. I knew this, but through cognitive dissonance, I just tried to reconcile it. And I think that's really the problem with the ministers who are in it. I think truly they want to believe. They want it to be real.

And their minds, they know that what he taught was in direct conflict with itself. The message was internally in conflict. And the only way to reconcile this is to say, well, it was wrong to begin with, but he changed it over time. We must believe the latter version. That's what progressive revelation is. The problem is the latter version is the one that's further into apostasy.

The earlier versions weren't so badly into apostasy. He was trying to appeal to the itching ears and he was getting all kinds of different doctrines from different people that were just fully in conflict with the Bible. And Brenham was like a sponge. He would just absorb whatever doctrine somebody told him and then regurgitate that through the microphone. And so what you end up with is if you compare this to the Bible, to the Old Testament, you don't have a single Old Testament prophet who has what they're calling progressive revelation. If they're a prophet, God is speaking through their mouths and the message is consistent. With William Brenham,

he's claiming God is speaking through his mouth and yet God is the one who is inconsistent if God is the one speaking through his mouth. So in effect, what the ministers are actually doing, they're trying to say that God has progressive revelation, not William Brenham, but God, because Brenham was the mouthpiece that was spewing all of this mess, this heresy.

And so for me, I had a real problem with that. But when you think of the confusion and how it developed, look at the bigger picture. You have all of these ministries who are also building upon the confusion.

Each one of them doing just like the message ministers trying to reconcile, well, this movement was, they claimed the movement was of God. If it's of God and there are all these internal conflicts, what do we do with this?

And so they come up with their own revelations and they try to add to the stack new revelations to try to fix the old revelations and you can't fix something that is so fully broken that it's beyond repair.

For me, that's where I ended up with. It is so confusing, such a mess that it's broken beyond repair. I tell you, we just, we got so much confusion here in the message that I just wonder how they keep it all straight and keep preaching it.

But I want to leave all of that now and get what I wanted to present for the last three or so episodes. And here's where we can see what William Brandham really believed about Jesus.

This comes to what is known as the maybe the theologian of the message, the one that really understood things that William Brandham taught, that also put together the church-aged books. I won't call his name.

I'm sure any message believer would know who I'm talking about. But here he goes quoting some of his sermons on the Godhead. He said, if you can understand what I'm saying, you will simply understand there's one God and only one begot and son, which means uniquely begot and one of a kind never has been repeated, never will be repeated.

So what we're going to see here John is that the son that this minister is talking about is something that's birthed out of God. It's not like he was the son or the word dwelling with God in the beginning.

And that's why he keeps pointing away from is that you only had one God spirit dwelling in the beginning. And there was no place for a son or a holy spirit. There was all one God.

So in order to have the son, you had to have something birthed out of God, which it was the son, which was not fully God, but it was birthed out of God. And that's what he's getting at here.

So everything he hears me say from here on out is talking to that point. But what it leads to is that the bride is on the same condition. Birthed out of God brought down here to earth, we bypassed our theophany body, and Jesus didn't.

He was birthed in that. So he had a memory of his existence, whereas we didn't. And that's the only difference between us and Christ in reality. So I'll continue on with his quote here. He said, he's the first one, Jesus being the first one.

And I'll say of many like us, and he owns 50% of everything that God's got. And I'll say the bride owns the other 50% in the inheritance is the way he's putting this. But then here's the key there. He said, Jesus is not Godhead.

He's not equal in stature and wisdom and understanding because he's not omniscient and he's not omnipotent. He's only omniscient and omnipotent as God is. So here he just automatically... He takes Jesus off the throne and says he's not in the Godhead, he's not Godhead, he's not fully God.

But we know from Christ and teaching that Jesus is fully God. He's not, say, the Father and he's not the Holy Spirit, but he is fully God. He was fully God when he was born as a baby in the manger all the way up into the cross till he gave up his spirit, fully God in flesh.

But the message will not teach that. So that's where the heresy comes in. And really John, it's just an old heresy being rehashed and maybe a few additions put on it or changed in a little bit of a way.

But it's really the same heresies that was way back in the early Christian church. All right. So I want to show you something that William Brenham taught that ties into this teaching on deities not in heaven.

That this minister so condemned while ago. So William Brenham actually believed that God could only be in one place at any given time. In other words, God is not omnipresent. And that's why he taught deity is not in heaven now.

And that's why the other minister said that God left the form of college Jesus so God can be in only one place at one time. Here's a direct quote from William Brenham in 1960.

I wasn't so from the beginning. He said, no, God is omnipotent omnipresent. And then he says, by being omniscient, it makes him omnipresent. He knows all things. Your God cannot be just like the area is because God has a dwelling place.

So really, William Brenham teaches over and over again, and he'll say I'm omnipresent in certain crowds. But here's some of these quotes here. He's saying God is only omnipresent because he knows all things.

So to illustrate this, if you had a flea batting his eye, say in the land of China, right now, and I'm omniscient, I would know that flea batting his eye in the land of China is safe.

But I'm not there, but because I know it, it makes me as if I were there. So therefore, I'm omnipresent. That's exactly how William Brenham described God. All right, here's another quote that goes along with it in 1960.

It is I, he said, if he will, he who is omnipresent by being omnipotent. So again, he says, by him knowing all things, that's what makes him omnipresent. Now, here's a quote that even explains it further in 1965.

And surely we can take these quotes being, thus say, if the Lord, he said, he was omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent. If he isn't, then he can't be God knows all things, all places because of his omnipresent.

He said, omniscient makes him omnipresent. He is a bean. He's not like the wind. He is a bean. He dwells in a house. But being omniscient, knowing all things, makes him omnipresent because he knows everything that's going on.

So therefore, I've seen, I believe in a measure, in fact, of some other quote I'm fixing to read. But let me read it, a 1959 dedication of the building to the Lord. He said, well, I believe in a measure that God is omnipresent.

God is omnipresent, Him being omniscient makes Him omnipresent. If God is omnipresent just like the atmosphere, then He is a myth, but God is a person. Therefore we have to have a certain dwelling place that He dwells, and He is omnipresent by being omniscient.

Therefore if He is everywhere because being omniscient, He knows everything, therefore if He knows everything, He knows what's going on at every place, but God Himself dwells in a certain place. So we see that's exactly what William Brennan believed about God.

He was not everywhere at one time, filling all the space time and eternity. He constantly goes back to this. He's only omnipresent because He knows all things, not because He is everywhere. Now let's go on, and we're going to show this minister that was teaching on the Godhead, was preaching exactly what William Brennan taught, and it all hinges on John 1, 1 is where it hinges on.

So we'll go through a few more here, and then you talk John, but let me just quote where we're starting from here. This is the key for this episode today. In 1965, Christ revealed in his own word, William Brennan said this, to misinterpret Jesus Christ being the word, and this is in John 1, 1.

He said, you would make Him one God out of three, or you would make Him a second person in a Godhead. Now you've got to listen carefully what William Brennan is saying here, and you've got to really understand, he says, to misinterpret Jesus Christ being the word in John 1, 1.

You would make Him one God out of three. So what he's saying, prior to that, he said, you can't misinterpret the word, you can't misplace it, you can't mislocate it. But what he's saying is that you cannot interpret Jesus Christ as the word, the logos, which was God.

You can't interpret Him as the logos. He was a little logos, but not the logos. And that's why he's saying, to misinterpret Jesus Christ, if he was the word in John 1, 1, you would make Him one God out of three.

Now this is the minister that I was quoting that I was called the three allogen of the message. He explains what Brother Bram meant by this statement here. He said, and so here's what Brother Bram says in Christ revealed in his own word, notice to him, to misinterpret, now watch these words very carefully, to misinterpret how Jesus is existing in the form of God in a man.

He says, you would make Him one out of three or one of the two, to misinterpret Jesus being the word. He said, now you say I'm interpreted Jesus being the word. Now he said, William Random said, to misinterpret being the word.

You make him one God out of three or the second person of the Godhead. And that's the correct. You're making a second person to do that. You missed the whole scripture up and you never get anywhere.

So it must not be misinterpreted. So Brother Bram is saying here, if you make Jesus the word in John 1, 1, then you misinterpreted the Bible. You instantly got three God. So right off the bat, there's a misunderstanding of John 1 and

Here he plainly says what William Brown is talking about here We in Brown did not believe Jesus was the Logos, but a word of God A maybe even a spoken word of God just like the bride is one of the seeds the word that comes forth and it's due time being manifest as a word on earth Coming straight from God. That's that's the category puts Jesus in He's and also they have to change the word of God to do this we in Brown him had to And this minister has to change the word of God to actually get over this. So let me read you what he says here

Now let me read you it this way John 1 1 should be read in the beginning was the word and the word was God What's in between is not necessary? What's in between is not the thought is an added Augmentation it's supposed to make something clear lead you into a realm a realm of revelation beyond the simple word That it says here in the beginning was the word and the word was God or in the beginning was the word who was God or God who was the word or the word God He said so when it comes to with in John 1 1

God you got some problems here. You could just leave it out It wouldn't hurt anything because this is what brother Brannum is saying because when you use the terminology and don't understand What the word with is all about he said it's a phrase a preposition an object with an accusative case You can see it the word with it's there and it's not actually that valuable to you So so in this John we see the deception taking place it starts will leave it out words from scripture Even saying they're not needed just to make William Brannum's doctrine fit

You know what he's trying to say and then saying you can just leave it out. It don't really matter But John there's a very strong warning about adding to or taking away from the words of God They can only expect all the plagues to come down upon them Like I said and Galatians also says to change the gospel brings a curse to you So I want to pause there for a minute and and stress something that you just said brings a curse to you We were taught this angels or demons heaven or hell This weird religion where you are actually scared of getting a curse

You were scared that God would not protect you of the curse The only thing that would protect you is literally to stay in the cult and Specifically you had to listen to and adhere to the doctrines of the cult leader William Brannum Otherwise you were to get a curse and those who leave they are cursed But I have thought long and hard about this passage Because yes, there are biblical passages talking about a curse But I I'm not certain that's what is actually being said here if you really think about it Look at a group whose theology is so destructive

that it actually breaks families apart and families curse other members of the family and they start lashing out whenever somebody tries to point them to actually to the, you know, the God of the Bible, the Jesus of the Bible, they will actually curse the person who's doing this if that statement, if the Jesus that they're trying to teach them is in disagreement with the Jesus that is being taught in the called.

So the movement itself has a curse, but I don't think it's the same type of curse that everybody is really thinking through when they read this passage in the called. They don't even realize that they have this curse. They don't realize that their family is broken apart because of this movement.

This, this false message is false doctrine. It is a doctrine that rips families apart and it does not restore the hearts of the children to the fathers and the fathers to the children, which is the exact message that they say that William Brannum was bringing.

And again, this just simply goes back to the, to the fact that this is a message of confusion. This is not a message of coherent thought. This is a message where somebody is literally rambling with all kinds of different heresies. Many of those heresies are in conflict, even internally with the message itself.

So the curse, when you think about the curse being brought on the people, this is a curse that is of the, of the nature of the foundation of the doctrine of the movement. Have you ever wondered how the Pentecostal movement started or how the progression of modern Pentecostalism transition through the latter reign, charismatic and other fringe movements into the new apostolic reformation? You can learn this and more on William Brannum Historical Research's website, William-Brannum.org.

On the book's page of the website, you can find the compiled research of John Collins, Charles Paisley, Stephen Montgomery, John McKinnon and others, with links to the paper, audio and digital versions of each book.

You can also find resources and documentation on various people and topics related to those movements. If you want to contribute to the cause, you can support the podcast by clicking the contribute button at the top.

And as always, be sure to like and subscribe to the audio or video version that you're listening to or watching. On behalf of William-Brannum Historical Research, we want to thank you for your support.

Not only do they change scripture, John, but they have to invoke, you know, to make this work, they have to invoke the end time profit and that he had some revealed mysteries, which Paul the Apostle, Apostle, didn't even know about, to make it sound so mysterious so he can change the word of God and tell you these things. He wants to tell you which is the doctrine of William-Brannum and which is not scriptural.

But here he goes again, I'll quote him continuing on. He said, Brother Brannum, clued us in. He told us that this profit at the end time would reveal to us the mysteries, which were not known before the foundation of the world.

And the one thing that wasn't really truly known from the Old Testament, and from Paul, he said, though, here he gets a little lip service to Paul, but then says, Paul didn't really know it all.

Though Paul did teach very, very closely from Hebrews, Ephesians, Philippians, that God by Christ Jesus the Son created the worlds, he understood that. He said this, but the mystery of how God said, now aren't my Son, the staff of God, and he was never told us or Paul. And what Paul said about Jesus, creating God, creating by Him, that was not told us, but what Brother Brenham said before there was any creative act, not a molecule, nothing, but God, a light formed. He said, now that light was the Son of God. So here he's saying that Paul didn't know all the mysteries, and that now

by the end time prophet, we know all the mysteries, and we know the warnings given to people if you don't believe the end time prophet, but he said that the light was formed, so it didn't exist at the beginning, it had to come out of God. In other words, it was birthed out of God, not that it truly existed as a person in God in the beginning, but it had to be birthed. God had to do some type of creative act or some act of birthed to make that happen. But let me tell you where this all comes

from, John. The Christian tradition that describes the Son of God as not being eternal, but rather born or begotten of God, is often likened to a light forming in the beginning, and as closely associated with a doctrine called Aryanism by the theological theologian named Areas, but this theological perspective emerged in early fourth century championed by Areas, who was a Presbyter in Alexandria, and was deemed heretical by mainstream Christianity, especially at the Council of Nicaea, where they fought against it, because he was trying to take Christ and make him something lesser than God himself. The key points of Aryanism here, and it's the same thing William Brantum speaks

off to in his sermons, which I'll quote here in a minute, but that Jesus is not eternal, non-eternal Son. Aryanism teaches that the Son, Jesus Christ, is not co-eternal with the Father. Instead, the Son was created or begotten by the Father at a specific point in time. Before the creation of the world, Areas famously stated, there was a time when the Son was not emphasizing the Son had a beginning and is not eternal like the Father. Also, Areas taught he was begotten as a light.

Areas used imagery such as the Son being a light from light or a derivative being proceeding from the Father, but they viewed the Son as distinct subordinate entity. The Son was seen as the first and greatest of God's creations, though whom the rest of creation was made, but not as fully divine in the same sense as the Father. Actually, for me, that was the exact point whenever I discovered that.

What William Brannum was teaching was not the same Jesus of the Bible. We were, I had just left the call, and we were in a, some sort of a Bible study in our church about Aryanism, different heresies we were talking through it, and I had never heard of Aryanism, so he starts to proceed to tell me what Aryanism, tell the group what Aryanism is, and suddenly I'm like, you know, slap smack in my head thinking, oh my gosh, this is exactly what we were taught in the message called, and I always had a problem with it,

because through the manifested sons of God doctrine, what William Brannum would do is he would say things like, I've had more miracles in my ministry than Jesus ever did when he was walking the earth, and you know, it didn't sit right with me, whenever he would say that, I was just thinking, well, it's wonderful, we have all these miracles, but I never really thought about the fact that he was insulting Jesus to make himself bigger, make himself better. I also didn't catch it.

I fully did not catch it whenever he said things like, Jesus was powerless to do one single thing until he first saw a vision by the Father. That I would have immediately just got up and walked out of church, had I heard it, but I did not realize that he said that until later, and again, it's not consistent. If you go back to some of the earlier versions of his ministry, he's not saying he may be believing these things, but he's not saying them outright because he knows, like me, many of the crowd is just going to get up and walk out. He has to first indoctrinate

them with the manifested sons of God doctrine, the Joel's army theology, and once he has indoctrinated them, then he can openly start talking about it, and the people not flee and disgust. But that's the way this works. That's the way the foundation is laid and then built upon. What he's essentially doing, and you've said it in the last few episodes, he's actually diminishing the deity of Jesus so that he can increase his own deity. If you think in terms of this one minister you mentioned said, progressive revelation, I tend to agree with that. The problem is, John, it's not progressing

in the right direction. It's actually progressing further and further and further into heresy. Arianism, whatever heresys he can get his hands on, he's bringing it to the surface and putting it into his message and calling it a message from God. The problem is, many of these ministers like the one that you're mentioning are not actually studying Bible and studying Bible history to understand that what William Brannam's teaching has been condemned for a decade, for centuries.

This is not a good doctrine, and again, it is not progressing in the right direction. So, we're going to see this very thing that I took this straight from the histories, but we're going to see this minister fleshed us out a little more. He said, also Brother Ram called it, us. Now here's where we're going to have a lot of trouble because this is where the problem comes in over and over. That word, low-goss, when it says in the beginning, in Genesis, God created the heavens and earth, you'll find the same thing here in John 1, 1, all things

were made by him. And here he says, God, not Jesus, not Jesus. He said, though Jesus did it in the sense he was authorized and given the ability to do it. In other words, Jesus Christ was the perfect manifestation that God wanted. So I'll say this John, Jesus, if he had to be given the authority to do it, or if he had to be authorized to do it, or given the ability to do it, he's not a God. Jesus was fully God and he had the perfect ability to create a world and to create the worlds through the Father's will, of course,

and inside God, it was all the same will. But Jesus Christ was being born out of God would not make him fully God. And so I'll continue on here. It says, so it tells you right there, there was one, which was God, manifesting through the other. Low-goss signifies the outward form by which the inward thought is expressed. Low-goss is the outward form containing a part of what is to be expressed. So God is really, what I was saying here, is God is going to be expressed. But the low-goss, Jesus, the little low-goss coming out from

God is only a part of the total. He says, I find it very unsettling for people to set upon one thought of the word low-goss. And here he's trying to say, well, we've got multiple low-gosses here. God is the low-goss, but then you've got Jesus, you've got the bride, you've got the prophets. They were all little low-gosses or little mosaics in other words. He says, because you'll notice in here, Brother Ram said, if you make the low-goss, Jesus, you've got three people. And this right here is the heart of the problem.

When you look at the church today, the New Apostolic Reformation, all the errors they're in, it gets into what's called apostolic authority. These men and women who believe that they are the spiritual elite, they're the ones who are in dude with the power, they have the manifested Son of God in them, or they have the spoken word, the ramah. They have different ways of saying that God is working so directly through me that you must be subordinate to me. And they create this cult hierarchy. All of that is built upon this exact thing.

So William Brannum, he tailored his message to different crowds. And there are different versions of the Godhead that he taught. In one audience, he says that anybody who even uses the word person, they're in error. And he goes on to say that the doctrine of the Trinity came from the doctrine of demons. He ties it to his mark of the beast theology.

If you accept the Trinity doctrine, you have accepted the mark of the beast. But then he goes into another church who is a... It's a Trinitarian Church, and he prays to the Trinity. And he says, praise, praise your father.

Thank you for sending your son and the Holy Spirit, the third person, the Trinity. And not just one time. This happens multiple times. And again, there is a progression. These ministers are correct. There is a progression.

He does it less over time, but that's because the Trinitarian churches have kicked him out. He has no opportunity to tailor his message to the crowds. And what he is actually doing is he's going further into heresy.

He is teaching, and I don't think many message believers themselves understand this. He's teaching the idea that John 1, when it says in the beginning, was the word, the word with God, the word was God.

He teaches that God spoke, and then that was the word, not understanding fully what the Logos meant. And he says that that word itself basically came down in the form of a Spirit. And the Spirit embodied Jesus, gave him the manifested sons of God power.

And so this thing, this word became the power. The word itself was the actual spoken word. If you understand Logos, that's not at all what it means. But what that did was that empowered the leaders of the movement to say that whenever they are speaking and they get filled with the Spirit behind the pulpit, they're doing the same thing, maybe at a lesser powerful word, spoken word, doctrine, or whatever.

But they have the same power. And what happened over time is this built up to men and women claiming that they could just turn this power on and off. It was like a water faucet.

They turned on the Spirit of God that came down this Logos. And so in effect, what they're teaching is whenever they get behind a pulpit and begin speaking, they're speaking the Logos. And that really is the heresy, if you understand what it is.

William Brandham diminished the deity of God. He changed the meaning of the text in John 1. And tried to say that Jesus was nothing but a less than a human because he often says Mary was not his mother, which is also a little bit anti-biblical if you understand it.

But he tries to say that this less than human body became endued with the power because God spoke. And whenever God spoke, the Logos went out. And that's really the key phrase, the Logos went out.

So what you have essentially is you have God the Father who left his deity, if you think about this, because he's also teaching Aryanism, oneness, all kinds of different models of his Godhead doctrine.

But he says went out and he's saying that God is one. God can't be multiple. Like you just said. So where does that leave the Father? The God went out of the Father, went into the power of the manifestation of Jesus.

And now in today's world, it goes into me and you, friends, except for the fact that had... any single person in his congregation said, I have it. I have the manifested sons of God. I can speak the logos.

Brandham would have just ejected him from the church because there was a hierarchy and he had to be at the top of that hierarchy. And so, for me, what it ends up to be is it's like a cured on the stick religion.

You too can have this manifested son of God. However, you can never be up to my level of manifestation because I'm the prophet guy. And I have greater works in my ministry, the prophet guy, than Jesus had in his ministry. So I'm actually bigger than Jesus, bigger than you, and you will never be like us.

We're going to get into some some deep things here. Continue on with John 1-1 because this is really the stumbling block for the whole thing. And for the whole message comes to a screeching halt.

And they have to find a way around this. And it all hinges on one little word called you know, the being the word being with God. Because if you expound that in scripture, you're going to find out that what that means is that the word was face to face with God. So it's like there's a communion there.

There's a relationship there. And it was something that was not created. You know, it was it was eternal from the very beginning prior to anything being created. And and that's that's what true Christianity preaches and teaches.

But we find here, this is veered off in some old heresy that started back in the four century called Arianism. So to break this down for people who are in the message, cult falling of William Brannum or who are on the outside looking in, trying to see what was this heresy and how did it develop into the church.

You have to understand a few things. Number one, the version of the Godhead that Brannum taught is in conflict with itself. And there were different versions of the Godhead. Some of them Trinitarian, some of them Oneness, some of them Arianism, some of some of these versions are in conflict with herself so much that he had to start changing other doctrines that were built on top of his different versions of the Godhead.

But in the version we're talking about today, William Brannum fully denied that Jesus was the Logos of John 1-1. He tried to separate the word from the you know the word Logos from God.

And it's denying things like Christianity has always understood that the Logos means the eternal sun. And there are passages that talked about how Jesus exists with God eternally. The Logos basically is God in essence.

But Brannum taught that Jesus was not the Logos. Jesus instead was a little word, a little Messiah like one of the prophets or the bride. And you too can be like this if you are a manifested son of God.

And the Logos in John 1-1 was God alone, not Jesus as a distinct divine being that was empowered by the word that went out of the mouth of God. But Brannum added to that passage from John 1-1 the idea that God went out of God and God embodied Jesus and embodied this thing that came out of God into Jesus. That's essentially what he was trying to say. And this devalues Christ and just totally destroys the Godhead that's mentioned in the Bible who are described in the Bible, which is exactly what he's doing here. And he tried to remove the word with, like you said, from John 1-1, which is in grave

error. He would often condemn people. He would say, you ministers who violate the book of revelation where it says anyone who adds two or takes away from. And he did both in this case. He tried to remove the word with. He tried to add all of these ideas that weren't there. But it clearly says the word was with God. And you can't change or deny that. That is what the text says. But he tried to change this. And like I said, it's just a, it's a heresy that collapses whenever you try to try to make it in any way coherent with the New Testament or even with William Brannum himself.

So not only did he proceed further and further and further into heresy and into error, he also proceeded further and further into confusing doctrine that just can't be reconciled with itself or with the Bible. So so much more to say, I know you have more, more to bring up on this topic. But I just wanted to say that whenever I was in it, I didn't fully understand all of this. Had I been able to process it, had I not been indoctrinated in such a way that I could, you know, I was, I was blocked from processing it. My brain couldn't do it because of the programming,

the indoctrination. Had I understood what he was trying to tell me, I would have just got up and left because that is not what I was reading when I read the Bible. But what he taught wasn't in the Bible. It was this extra. I think you were used the word earlier mystery. This was a mystery religion.

He tried to say that Jesus was a divine mystery that only he could bring truth and unravel to the church. And when you do this, you have a soul authority on doctrine and scripture, which is what he tried to be. You have essentially the DNA for what would develop into the the mess that the church has grown into today. I tell you, we've got a lot more to come on the same subject. I do want to get all these quotes out there in the public. It's not that I want to dwell on so much.

And the fact that I just want people to hear, because unless you dig deep into all these sermons that was preached on this and and get through them line by line, you won't hear these things. But what I did is I went through the sermons and I picked out those portions and because it's so convoluted, he only throws those things out here and there. So you really have to dig deep to find them. But I found them and I think I've put them all together in enough context so everybody can see what's being taught.

So I'm glad you did, because like I said, had I known all of these things while I was in it, had I been able to critically think about what was being said, I would have just got up and walked out, because it doesn't take a great Bible scholar to know that whenever somebody is preaching against the text, John 1-1, when he's saying that Jesus was not in the beginning with God, you have to understand that he is simply just not teaching the Bible, he's teaching a different Jesus, different Bible, different gospel, different religion.

I would have just got up and left, but I think, you know, had I had all of this material that you have lined up like you've lined it up here, I probably would have got up and left, but somebody who's listening today, maybe they're in the cult, and they've never thought through this, and maybe this is the first time they've ever heard that Brannum was progressing into heresy, so maybe this will help somebody else to escape.

So I know you've got way more to get into, and time is getting almost an hour here. So we'll save the next topic for next time, but thank you so much for doing this, and I look forward to the next one.

I look forward to it next time, John, and I'll be very soon, I hope, and we'll see you next time. Awesome. If you've enjoyed our show and you want more information, you can check us out on the web.

You can find us at www.William-Brannum.org. For more about Roy Davis and William Brannum, you can read the persuasive preacher, the gifted prophet, and the noble politician, and for more about the dark side of the New Apostolic Reformation, you can read Weaponized Religion from Christian Identity to the NAR, available on Amazon, Gendel, and Audible.