EXPOSITION OF NEW
HERESIES OF FALSE THUNDERS APOSTLE RICHARD GAN
CHAPTER TWO
Heretical
Article No. 596:
Quote
Richard Gan: An apostle does not feed the saints or answer
questions with quotes of William Branham, but rightly divides the Word of Truth
to them as God gives him the ability.” (From the website Page 7).
E.O.D.H.
Answer: We do not deny that an apostle rightly divides the Word of
Truth, but it is erroneous to say that he does not answer questions by quotes
of the messenger of the age. The early Church was taught by their messenger,
Apostle Paul, to judge every man’s teaching by what he and his companion
taught, and further more to “curse” them if they said or taught contrary to
what they preached (Galatians 1:8). William Branham, the messenger of this age,
taught the end time Church to do the same.
YOU ARE NOT SAYING WHAT PAUL SAID,
THEREFORE YOU ARE FALSE
Quote
W.M.B.: 83-1 Thou hast tried them that say they are apostles, and are not,
and hast found them liars.” My, that is a blunt statement. “Thou hast tried
them who call themselves apostles.” Isn’t that presumptuous? What right has a
people to try those who call themselves apostles? And how do they try them? Oh,
I love this. Here it is in Galatians 1:8, “But though we, or an angel from heaven,
preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have (already) preached
unto you, let him be accursed.”
It
was the apostles who brought the original Word to the people. That original
Word could not change, not even a dot or dash of it. Paul knew it was God Who
had spoken to him so he said, “Even if I come and try to give a second
revelation, try to make one little change in what I gave originally, let me be
accursed.” You see, Paul knew that first revelation was correct. God can’t give a first revelation, then a second revelation. If He did, He
would be changing His mind.
… And see what those false
apostles were doing. They came with their own word. Those Ephesians knew that
Word as Paul had taught it. They were full of the Holy Ghost by the laying on
of Paul’s hands. They looked those false apostles in the eye and said, “You are
not saying what Paul said. You are, therefore, false.” Oh, that sets my heart
on fire. Get back to the Word! It is not you that really tries the apostle, and
prophet and teacher, IT IS THE WORD THAT TRIES THEM.
One of these days there is going to come a prophet to
the Laodicean Church Age and you will know if he is the real one sent from God
or not. Yes you will, for if he is of God HE WILL BE IN THAT WORD EXACTLY AS GOD
GAVE IT TO PAUL. HE WON'T DEVIATE FROM THAT WORD FOR A MOMENT, NOT BY ONE IOTA.
In that last age, when there will be many false prophets appearing, watch and
see how they keep telling you that if you don't believe them and what they say,
you will be lost; but when that LAST
DAY PROPHET comes on the scene, if he is truly that prophet, he will be crying
out, “Get back to the Word or you are lost.” He won’t build on a private
revelation or interpretation, but on the Word. Amen. (
HOW NECESSARY IT IS TO SPEAK ONLY WHAT
THE MESSENGER HAS SPOKEN
Quote: 156-2 In every age we have exactly the same pattern. That is
why the light comes through some God-given messenger in a certain area, and
then from that messenger there spreads the light through the ministry of others
who have been faithfully taught. But of course all those who go out don’t
always learn how necessary it is to speak ONLY what the messenger has spoken.
(Remember, Paul warned the people to say only what he said, I Corinthians
14:37, “If any man think himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him
acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the COMMANDMENTS OF THE
LORD. What? came the Word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?”) They
add here, or take away there, and soon the message is no longer pure, and the
revival dies down. How careful we must be to hear ONE voice, for the Spirit has
but one voice which is the voice of God. Paul
warned them to say what he said, even as Peter did likewise. He warned them
that EVEN HE (PAUL) could not change one word of what he had given by
revelation. Oh, how important it is to hear the voice of God by way of His
messengers, and then say what has been given them to say to the churches. (
THE SPIRIT & THE BRIDE SAY COME –
WHAT THE MESSENGER SAYS,
THE BRIDE WILL BE SAYING
Quote: 365-1 …once again a prophet is
in the land. Once more God will reveal the truth as He did to Paul. In the days
of the seventh messenger, in the days of the Laodicean Age, its messenger will
reveal the mysteries of God as revealed to Paul…And they that hear him will be
blessed and become part of that bride of the last day who are mentioned in
Revelation 22:17, "The Spirit and
the bride say come."
…
Yes, listen to the authenticated prophet of God who appears in this last age.
What he says from God, the bride will say. The Spirit and the prophet and the
bride will be saying the same thing. And what they will say will have already
been said in the Word. (
Therefore, the scriptural way to try any man who claims to be an
apostle, is to see if he is speaking contrary to the Word and messenger’s
message. A true apostle will speak and teach in accordance with the messenger’s
message, be it by quotations or his teachings. Mr. Gan is doing the opposite of
this and deceitfully tries to bind the people by this heresy, because he knows
if the people judge him by the quotations of the messenger, they will find him
to be a false apostle and a perverter of the Word of God and message of the
hour. It is obvious, as all false apostles and Satan himself, that Mr. Gan
fears exposure and knows that he teaches contrary to the Word of God, and by
extension, the messenger’s message. We again challenge him to prove otherwise.
Heretical
Article No. 597: “Christian women in
Asian Nations can wear trousers and
pajamas because they have been their traditional wear for centuries, and are
far from the trousers women wear in America.”
Quote
Richard Gan: They want everyone to dress the way Americans dress.
Some have even told the believers in
…
The traditional trousers women wear in many parts of
E.O.D.H. Answer: Mr. Gan is trying to justify pants wearing for
women that the prophet condemned in the strongest possible terms. His heresy is
based upon “national garbs.” Even if they had been worn for millenniums before
the birth of Christ, if the Word and messenger condemn them, then they are wrong.
African women went topless for millenniums,
but when the prophet messenger went to
If this apostle had a touch of
that same Holy Spirit, he would not be propagating such heresy in opposition to
the Word of God under the disguise of “traditional wear.” The
CUSTOMS OF THE NATIONS – WE ARE FROM
ANOTHER LAND
Quote W.M.B.: E-19 When I was in
And then when you go into
I said, “No, for we are from another land. We are
pilgrims and strangers here. We’re seeking a city to come.” I said, “Because we
have been born from... Our spirit comes from another land which is heaven,
where holiness, and God, and righteousness rules and reigns. And we confess
that we are pilgrims and strangers. We’re seeking a city to come Who’s builder
and Maker is God.”
We are not looking for these things of the world. And when the Spirit of God comes into a
person, it changes them. It
motivates you... The life that’s in you motivates you. And what’s the matter
with the church today, it’s become too worldly. What we need is the Holy Ghost
in the human being, in the heart. It’ll take the new birth to do that: change
that person, making him or her a new creature.
In darkest of
But
let me tell whether it’s
See also Quote
W.M.B.: 34 “A Deceived Church By The World 59-0628m” and E-18 “The Reaction
To An Action 59-0810.”
Quote: E-31 We are citizens, not of
…You find different
traits in different nations. We find it in
So we, our citizenship is of above. And above is
holiness, and purity, and power, and revelation. (Sirs We Would See Jesus
61-0519).
I
will add the answer to a question about an Indian dress for women, which was
given when ministers from India, Africa and the West were gathered to consider
these and many other questions in 2006.
Question: “There are some traditional wears both for men and
women that appear to contradict Deuteronomy 22:5. The Churidar, which is a
combination of a dress and pants or pajamas, is sewed between the legs and
resembles slacks {pants like the women wear in USA}that is considered to be
traditional women’s wear in parts of India and in Pakistan, which is also worn
by believers of this message. Some claim that this Churidar covers a woman’s
body better than a skirt, especially when she has to bend and work in the fields
etc. Others think it is okay because in the vision of the Bride W.M.B. saw and
recognized the people of different nations that make up the Bride by their
various traditional wears.
E.O.D.H.
Answer: The devil hides himself in certain terminologies in order to have his way.
When they brought the epileptic child to Jesus, he said it was a devil. Today
science hides that same devil and calls it “epilepsy”.
For the devil to deceive people around the message and
in religious circles, sometimes he takes the same item and calls it by the name
it carries in a foreign language. From the description of this garment, it is a
shirt and a skirt that are sown together, but the skirt is parted between the
legs and sown together, therefore it resembles a man’s garment.
People in the message and even ministers allow their
families to wear that, and the reason that they give is that when the women
bend down and have to work in the fields they are more protected, and beside
that they call it a national garment and Brother Branham seen the people in
their national garment when the Bride was previewed in his vision. Now these points sounds very reasonable, and if
we would go only on reason
concerning that, then a lot of us would agree that it looks like a good garment
because when the woman bends you cannot see her form and so on, and she is even
more covered than a dress, so this seems to be a very good way of cladding
one’s self.
Now reason could take us a long way and go back and
say, “National garb”. But then we as ministers, we have no message of our own
and we cannot interpret scriptures by ourselves. The first thing we have to do
is find out what the prophet had to say about that? Now he may not have used
the word “Churidar”, but can we find something in his message that he described that could fit the Churidar?
So I am not going to deal with Churidar here this morning; I am going to deal
with the prophet’s message, and if what he said fits the Churidar then the
Churidar is unscriptural.
From my understanding of this garment, it is parted
between the legs, but it is still slack on both legs to a certain extent,
Brother Branham described this garment as slacks,
don’t matter what you call it. Let us hear what he said about slacks. If he
said that slacks is okay, then Churidar is okay, and if he said that slacks is
bad then Churidar is bad. Very simple!
Churidar, the Indian wear, is another name for slacks
worn by Western women. The prophet said it’s worse than a pants.
SLACKS (FOR FIELD HORSE) WIFE &
MOTHER
Quote
W.M.B.: E-22 I happened to meet a
lady today, and she was very much upset on what I said the other night about
women wearing little short clothes; it was not nice for Christians to do that,
and it was absolutely unscriptural. She said, “Young man, you’ll—you’ll ruin
your ministry.” I said, “Oh, no, no. If I don’t, it’ll be ruined. See?” She
said... I said, “Are you guilty?” She said, “No, sir, I don’t wear shorts.” I
said, “Well then, what’s you fussing about?” She said, “I wear slacks.” I said,
“That’s worse.” She said, “Oh, no,” she said, “--it's decent like if...” And
said, what are you going to do with a woman out in the field?” I believe is the way she put it. Said, “Yeah, riding a
horse.” Said, “Out with my husband to help round up some cattle. You think I ought
to wear a skirt?” Said, “...” I said, “You oughtn’t to be out there in the
first place. That’s what’s the matter; women’s trying to take man’s work now;
we got so many men out of work.” That’s right, that’s right. She said, “What
about in the garden --when you’re
pulling up stuff, a garden with a--with a dress on. Don’t you think it’d be
better with--with slacks?” I said, “No, ma’am. My wife has no
trouble about it, neither did my mother. I don’t think you will either, if
you’ll just take care of yourself.”
I said, “I don’t...?...” She said, “And slacks is wrong?” I said, “The Bible
said that a woman that’ll put on any garment that pertains to a man, it’s an
abomination in the sight of God.” That’s right. (Abraham's Covenant Confirmed
61-0210).
Malachi 4 has spoken and let the
churidar take its flight. We regard no opinion.
We regard no suggestions under these conditions. Malachi 4, the prophet, has
spoken and he has quoted the scripture. The scripture against churidar, slacks,
pants or whatever, is Deuteronomy
22:5 <The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither
shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto
the LORD thy God.>
LOOKS LIKE MAN - SLACKS
Quote
W.M.B.: 87 There’s no harm in it. I
have taste; I have feelings. I have a feeling that this is all right.” She come
right on down through that and right into her soul, if her soul is of that
type. Shows that she isn’t drawing through God’s Filter. But if she’s got
bobbed hair, wearing makeup, shorts, pants, looks like man, all of these slacks and ever what they
call them, saying those kind of things, and doing those things, and living for
the world, she’ll stop; she can’t get through there. No, sir. It’ll stop her at
the beginning. (Thinking Man’s Filter 65-0822e).
He is saying the same thing here that the slacks is
worse. This is 1965. So he did not change his opinion at all. The same thing he
said way back there in the earlies is the same thing he said at the last year
of his time on earth.
SLACKS WORSE
Quote W.M.B.: 97 Now, notice this. Live for Him, keeping ourselves
from the world. Now, look. You look on television, some of you sisters, and you
go down here and you want... You young women, you’re young; I know that, but
you’re a Christian. See? You’re different. You don’t want to be like the world.
You love the world’s--not only you young ones, but some of you older ones. See?
Well, what does that? See? You watch television; you go down to the store; and
you see these little old clothes that women wear that’s ungodly.
Do you know what’s going to happen at the day of
judgment? You might be just as virtuous to your husband as you can be, but in
the day of judgment you’re going to have to answer for committing adultery. Jesus
said, “Whosoever looketh upon a woman to lust after her has committed adultery
with her already in his heart.” Who’s to blame? You. See? You presented
yourself: them shorts and slacks. Some
women said to me not long ago, said, “I don't wear shorts, Brother Branham. I
thank the Lord for that. I wear slacks.” I said, “That’s worse; that’s worse.” That’s right. You can’t even buy a dress hardly for a
woman. (Things That Are To Be 65-1205).
SLACKS – HOLY
GHOST FOLLOWS GOD’S WORD
Quote: 111 If the Bible says it’s wrong for a woman to put on
a garment that pertain to a man, and you wear these little old overalls and slacks out here on the road... You
grown women... I guess a little baby would be all--think if they’re play with
little boys and things. But look, when you--when you grown women fifteen,
sixteen, eighteen years old, and up to grandma, out here on the road... And the
Bible says it’s an abomination in the sight of God for a woman to wear those
things, and you wear them anyhow, and say you got the Holy Ghost? I wonder
sometimes. The Holy Ghost will
follow God’s Word to the letter. And a preacher behind the pulpit that ain’t
got grace enough to preach it, I doubt he’s got It. Well, that’s what the Holy
Ghost is for. (What Holy Ghost Was Given For 59-1217).
MAN LED AROUND
BY EARS
Quote: E-81 It’s a--it’s an abomination. A woman said to me,
“I don’t wear shorts.” Said, “I wear these--what do you call them, when they
pull like? Slacks.” I said, “That’s worse than ever. The
Bible says it’s an abomination for a woman to wear a garment that pertains to a
man.” It’s a shame. Oh, our women, our men... And you men with a wishbone instead of a backbone, to let
your women smoke cigarettes, and act like that. Shame on you. I don’t call that
a ruler of his own house. I call
that led around by the ears
somewhere. Shame on you. Oh, “Our whole body,” Isaiah said, “has become
putrefied sores.” We need a house cleaning and a Holy Ghost revival, for the
coming of Lord Jesus Christ a cleaning... That’s right. You know that’s right.
(Greater Than Solomon Is Here 62-0628).
SIFFIFIED,
DON’T KNOW HOW TO DRESS
Quote: E-42 I said that not long ago and a woman said to me;
she said, “Listen...?... Brother Branham.” She met me in the back of the
building. She said, “Listen, Brother Branham, I don’t wear shorts.” Well, I
said, “That’s very good.” She said, “I
do wear slacks.” I said, “That’s
worse.” That’s right.
The Bible said it’s an abomination for a woman to put
on a garment that pertains to a man. God don’t change. He made a man to look
like a man and a woman to look like a woman. But today men are so sissified, they don’t know how to dress. That’s right. And women, God’s
daughters, smoking cigarettes, the greatest sabotage that the world ever had.
(Hear Ye Him 60-0712).
NATIONAL GARB
Now the question comes up here about national garbs. This is the excuse they are making to wear the churidar.
They say it’s a national garb: “It fits the Muslims in
Quote
W.M.B.: 32-4 Then I just thought I
just might as well forget it; I was gone. Then all at once, I heard them coming
again, and coming upon this side come the same Bride that went around this
a-way. Here come them little ladies again, and each one of them was dressed in
their national garb from where they come from, like Switzerland, Germany and so
forth, each one wearing that kind of garb, all long haired, just exactly like
the one at the first. And here they was coming, walking, “Onward Christian
soldiers marching as to war...” (The Choosing Of A Bride 65-0429e).
The original national wear of
Several national garments of many countries are not
original but have been modernized
which fits
I Timothy 2:9 <In like manner also, that women
adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with
broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array. >
I
Peter 3:3-4 <Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting
the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel; But let it be
the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the
ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great
price.>
Deuteronomy
22:5 and also you could get some things on dressing on E.O.D.H. Book 6.
PASTOR -THEY’RE LIBERATING WOMEN FROM COMMON
DECENCY
Quote W.M.B.: E-40
A Christian woman preacher sent a girl down here the other day that looked like
she was poured into her clothes. She
said, “Oh, Brother Branham, you’re from the old school. Our pastor liberates
women.” I said, “Liberate them from what?” They’re liberating them from Christ
and common decency. Oh, very famous,
the woman is... certainly. But anything that does that’s a child of hell. “By their fruit you shall know them.” (Handwriting
On the Wall
BONELESS
SISSIFIED MEN – YOU AIN’T GOT THE HOLY GHOST
Quote: 51 And you men, you poor, little,
boneless, sissified things, you, that would
let your wife do such a thing as that, that shows what you’re made out of.
That’s the reason you ain’t got the Holy Ghost like you profess to have, or
you’d have enough something about you to make her act like a lady, as long as
she lived with you anyhow. Amen. That sounds old fashion, cutting. But that’s
what the church needs today is an old fashion, Holy Ghost washing out, and
hanging out, and drying out, and ironing out by the Holy Spirit. Sure. (Church
And It’s Condition
Heretical Article No. 598: “Asian believers are
being forced to conform to Western Christian standard
of attires. It is okay for men who are message believers from eastern
nations to wear a “sarong” or “lungi” (Skirt-like garments), and women to wear
“samfoo” (Pants-like garments) for
those are their traditional wear and are very modest. Trousers are not only
man’s pants. They are women’s garments also. So are culottes trousers
and long johns. Neither is the skirt
only a woman’s garment.”
Quote
Richard Gan: There
have been much "force" put upon Asian believers to conform to a
Western Christian standard of attires. Because of this, Asian ministers blindly
passed the instructions to their flocks and instructed the men to wear
"shirt and trousers" and the women to wear "blouse and
skirt". Anything other than these are an abomination to the Lord. Is that
so? (From Gan’s Website).
|
|
|
Gan’s Mother In law wearing a “Samfoo” & He wearing a
“Sarong”
E.O.D.H. Answer: We will first document the answer given to
Gan from a preacher, and what effects and reproach his heresy and these
garments have brought upon the message.
Quote Richard Gan: “When Moses
wrote Deuteronomy (22:5), was he referring that women should not wear trousers?
Obviously not, for trousers was not yet in existence. But that there was a
distinct difference between men’s and women’s apparel is clear. Yet, there were
Jews in those days who had lost their sexual orientation and cross dressed
causing Moses to write what he did” (Of Man’s and
Woman’s garments).
Quote Mr.
Reckhart: For a self-promoted
intellectual he sure don’t know the Word of God. What about God specifically
designing breeches-britches for the priest to be worn in the Tabernacle as
man’s clothing, and yes Mr. Gan, trousers! We read of it here: Exodus
28:42--And thou shalt make them linen breeches to cover their
nakedness; from the loins even unto the thighs they shall reach.
To the left is a picture of these breeches-britches.
Later the length was extended down to the ankle. These were designed by
God for men. It was a sin for a woman to put wear these breeches, now called
britches, pants or trousers. These breeches are the forerunner of
pants/slacks/trousers/britches. No one will ever prove these breeches
descended down from women’s clothes. And if a woman wanted to be a priestess
she had to wear these. Since there were no female priestess in the Tabernacle,
they were forbidden to wear them. Gan is false on his doctrine here! He thinks
he can make breeches baggy, drop the hem line down to the ankle, and his mother
and other females can put them on and walk about before God without
condemnation. Moses forbid cross-dressing after the breeches design was
given to the Priesthood, Gan has to come up with the proof of what a man and
women could not wear that the opposite sex did wore. Did he do it? No! Did
Jews permit women to walk in the open world in a pair of breeches pants? If so,
then Jews broke the commandment of God given to Moses, and any such reprobation
regardless of who did it would not be acceptable to God.
E.O.D.H.: Although
this writer seems opposed to the message of the prophet, Malachi 4: 5-6,
Revelation 3: 14 & 10: 7, he should
be credited, bearing in mind that perverters of the Word and the message,
like Mr. Gan and others, are responsible for much opposition to the truth.
Mr. Gan was
exposed, put to shame and defeated by this writer who has not advertised
himself as a revealer of the mysteries and a sent one to correct the message of
the hour like Gan. This man expressed more consideration for the holiness
standard than Gan. Shame on you Gan! You
have absolutely no defense against the scriptures of the Old Testament which
defeated you. You have brought upon yourself some of the worst rebukes and
insults. You have displayed yourself like a female, and your mother-in-law like
a man. She is attired in the breeches of
a priest and you in the skirt of Mary. This proves how foolish you are to
the simplicity of the Word, insomuch that a non-message believer made you
ashamed publicly. He also saved me much research and writing in exposing your
heresy.
However, I
will add to this exposition, the answer to a question concerning your skirt or
the modern Indian Lungi, when ministers from
Question: “There
is a skirt-like garment that is worn by men and also message-believers in
E.O.D.H.
Answer:
WOMEN, DRESS
LIKE WOMEN, MEN DRESS LIKE MEN
Quote W.M.B.
And woman, you dress like a woman.
And men, you dress like a man; don’t try to be a sissy and wear women’s clothes. And women, don’t you try to
be masculine and wear a man’s clothes, because God don’t want you to do it; the
Bible condemns that. But now, about wearing a piece of hair or wearing a
hair... What is one of those rats? Did I make a mistake awhile ago or is that a
mouse? It--it’s something to--it’s something that a--a woman puts in her hair
to make it look more... Ever what it is (See?), there’s nothing wrong with
that. Go ahead; it’s all right. (Questions And Answers 64-0830e).
This is a
very ticklish question and we have to
be very considerate, in the sense that we are not trying to change the national
garb of people around the world. I have pictures with brethren from
Now, you take the Arab. He wears a robe. I want to
divide this right. You take the African. He wears something like a robe. In
When this scripture was written which said,
Deuteronomy 22:5 <The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man,
neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are
abomination unto the LORD thy God>, there was a dress-like garment that belonged to a man. It was called a robe. When Jesus came, He found that
robe and it was a man’s garment. It was built differently from a dress, and
both were different from each other that you could differentiate and say that
this is the woman’s garment and this is the man’s garment. And back in the days
when Moses wrote the Law, they had the same kind of attire, because that is
actually the Palestinian gown, and Moses wore a robe and the women wore a
certain type of dress which was entirely different, but both of them resembled
a dress, but they were definitely different.
It traveled up that even the Africans had those kinds
of garments, also the Palestinians and the Arabs. If an Arab comes here, who dressed
like that, all the days of his life, and he wants to accept the Lord, I cannot
demand from this man to wear a western shirt and pants. It will not be fair. On
the basis of that, can I say that the man’s wear today is scriptural and to
just go on and use it? No! We have to come back to the scripture.
This is what we have to do. What they are calling ‘Lungi’, does it resemble the original
robe that a man used to wear back in the days of Jesus, or what the
Palestinians have, or does it resemble a woman’s dress? If that man over there in
Vice-versa: if the woman would take a garment, and it
is looking more like a robe for a man, then I will say, “You have on the wrong
garment.” You are looking like a man in this man’s robe, and I will be in place
to say, “Woman, you better go back to your feminine wear of a dress.” So it is
not a matter of a lungi, but the resemblance of a man’s wear and a woman’s
dress: be it shirt, pants, robe or whatever. Now that’s the line behind it.
Let us get the opinion of those that are gathered here
[Ed. Brother Watson of
Is that the kind of material they use to make the
lungi, and not pants material nor jacket material?
[Ed. The brother answers: “This is the material of
lungi. A kind of saree material.]
So they are
wearing women’s material. Brethren,
in all honesty, and being very balanced men here, does this resemble a woman’s
skirt? [Ed. Everyone answers, “Amen!”]
It does resemble a woman’s skirt, and in our opinion, Deuteronomy 22:5 cannot
be fulfilled with this garment on. If it was of a different kind of a material
like a robe, like what Jesus had, like what the Palestinians had and they will
wear it from here-the shoulders right down and it will open up with the proper
material as men would have, I will still agree with that. But in my opinion I cannot agree with this.
However, I would leave this to the consciences of men in
I believe that if they cannot see what I am saying
now, I believe that if they are children of God the Holy Ghost is going to
convict them later. So if a man wears that I would not fuss with him, and would
not condemn him, and would not say that I would not associate with him, and I
am not going to make it a point of
separation. I would leave that to the consciences of our brothers because,
probably they have had this garment wearing there for a long time, they got
accustomed with that, and in their understanding they cannot see that that is
something wrong. If you cannot see, then, my beloved, I cannot condemn you. But
if you feel convicted about that and you continue to wear it then the Lord is
not going to be pleased with you. So that’s the line that I would draw here.
Now understand what I am saying. One of these days you
might see an African come in here with a garment that is down to the foot that
resembles a robe and you may want to call it a dress, and I allow this fellow
to come in here, and even preach behind my pulpit with this kind of garment. I
am not breaking the Word. That is that man’s custom.
If an Arab
is saved and he wants to continue
with his garment I would feel bless to see the Arab in his garment preaching
behind here; it’s a testimony. If a priest comes here, and he wants to come and
testify with his robe on I will allow him to testify, and that actually
happened. We’ve got to have the right line.
I will welcome any brother here, from
Now, if a brother will rise up and say, “Brother, I
think that the lungi is good and you shouldn’t say what you said.” I would give
him his rights. I would say, “You have a right to your opinion.” But in the way
that I explained that here brethren, I am for the robe, I am for the African dress, I am for the original garment of
Now, when we meet those people, I cannot command them
to take off their dhoti and wear shirt and pants. That is original garment, but
I believe that this lungi is a perversion
of the dhoti.
So, if I come down there to
I BLASTED IT
JUST AS HARD AS I COULD
Quote W.M.B.: 29-3 I was
preaching here in Phoenix, not long ago, on something like that; and the
minister’s wife, setting on the pulpit with one of these boyish bobbed hair all
kinked up, and with a dress that she couldn’t even keep her underneath skirts from shining (She couldn’t get down over her
knees, was about four or five inches above her knees setting up there.),
jumping up-and-down leading songs. I
blasted it just as hard as I could. ‘Course he won’t invite me back. I don’t
expect to, but he knows what’s right and wrong. When I stand at the judgment,
it’s not on my hands anymore. (Way Of A True Prophet 62-0513m).
ANGEL DRESSED
IN PALESTINIAN CLOTHES – WHITE ROBE
Quote: 5-5 And at that, the Angel of the Lord taken me out
then, and He taken me to a real bright stream of water... He said, “I will make
you a fisher.” …I got all excited and jerked it hard on the next one out; I
pulled the fish and all out of the water. And what it was, it was a little
bitty fish, and it, just about the size of the lure. And I got my line all
tangled up. And I was straightening out my line, and the Man which was talking
behind me, walked around in front of me, dressed
in Palestinian clothes and a turban on His head. He had a white robe. He said, “Brother Branham,
that’s it.” (Why Are People So Tossed About 56-0101).
Heretical Article No. 599: “A divorced woman can be re-married
because Romans 7: 1-3 applies to those that know the Law (
Quote Richard Gan: Romans 7:2-3 has often been used, by such preachers…to
“kill” every woman who remarried, or will remarry, while her ex-husband is
still living. They…try to…support their reasoning by applying the first part of
1 Cor.7:11 which states “But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried…”
These preachers are saying, “See, the divorced woman cannot remarry. She must
remain single until her husband dies.” The application of the statement of 1
Cor.7:11 together with Romans 7:2-3 is a serious error… one cannot…apply
it to every woman. (From the (Gan’s) website, pages
18-20)
… a preacher…emphasized that
an unsaved divorced woman can never ever remarry just as a Christian woman
cannot remarry if she divorces her husband.
…
Now, the LAW was given to
E.O.D.H.
Answer: The foundation upon which
this heresy is built is a perversion of the scriptures that:
- Romans 7: 2-3 does not
apply to every woman on earth.
- The Law was given to
- We cannot apply the
Law to judge a people who know not the Law.
- Paul was speaking to
them that know the Law.
- The Law that was given
to
- If she is an Israelite
woman who knows the LAW then she would be judged by the LAW.
The Church is made up of Jews and Gentiles. If this
heresy is true, then this teaching will apply to some in the Church (Jews) who know the law, and not the Gentiles.
It is true that the law of Moses was given to the
Jews, but when the Apostle Paul laid down these scriptural standards, he was
speaking to the Romans and Corinthians, which were gentiles.
Heretical Article No. 600: “I Corinthians
Quote Richard Gan: 1 Corinthians
7… Verse 15 is one verse that Brother Branham did not touch on in his message
“Marriage and Divorce” nor did he ever explain the verse in any of his sermons…
Now, since a brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases, can he or
she remarry?
…Many Endtime Message believers will
retort that only the man can remarry but not the woman…In Christ Jesus, is
there a preference for the man over the woman? Are not all one and equal in Him
as far as the Gospel is concerned?... God…provided a
way for the spiritually reborn woman who had been a victim of a sinful life
molded by Satan, even her unbelieving husband (1 Cor.7:15)…the Law of Christ
does not apply to the unbelievers but only to those who are born into His Body.
(From the (Gan’s) website, pages
19 to 23).
E.O.D.H. Answer: Mr. Gan is telling lies on the prophet and about
the message to deceive the simple in mind. He is a make-believer of the
message. He purposely wrest the scriptures to his own destruction and is
destroying the souls of some. Now compare Gan’s heresy with the Word and what
the prophet taught.
Quote W.M.B.: 697-27 Now, I Corinthians, 7th chapter, 15th verse.
Now, the question they asked: Brother Branham, does this mean a sister or a
brother is free to remarry?
No…They’re not free.
See, that would make a contradiction in the Scripture, and the Scriptures
doesn’t contradict themselves at all. See?
… Now, it seems like here, that the person is wanting
to know... Is a brother or sister in the Lord, can marry or remarry and be
free, if they leave their companion to remarry again?
No. Now, let’s... begin at the 10th verse: ... unto the
married I command, yet not I, but the Lord,... (See?)... Let not the wife
depart from her husband: (See?)
But... if she departs, let her remain unmarried, or be
reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife. (That’s
the Commandments of the Lord. See?)
But to the rest speak I, not the Lord:... (See?)... if
any brother hath a wife that believeth not,...
…they thought, “If... I got married and I become a
believer, and my wife wasn’t a believer, let me put her away.” Oh, no. That
isn’t it. You can’t do that. See, see?
... But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart... A
brother or a sister is not under bondage in such case, that is, if your
companion is putting you away and wants to depart for it. You don’t have to
just hold onto them. If they’re wanting to leave you and they’re going to leave
you for the cause of Christ, let them leave. But you can’t remarry. “But God
has called us unto peace.” See? Now, not that you can remarry again; he’s
already stated that, but you don’t have to live with an unbelieving husband or
an unbelieving wife if they are not willing.
… Does this mean a sister or a brother is free to
remarry? No, sir. See, he explained
that first. See:
... unto the married I command, yet not I, but the
Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: But and if she departs, let her
remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband:... (See?) There’s no such
things as any believer ever being reconciled to remarriage again, with a living
companion. (Questions & Answers 62-0527).
Quote: 37-4 Now, you notice in I Corinthians 7:10, notice,
Paul commands the wife that is--that divorces her husband to remain single or
be reconciled, not to remarry. She must remain single or to be reconciled back
to her husband. She cannot remarry; she must remain single. But notice, he
never said about the man. (Marriage And Divorce 65-0221m).
Mr. Gan does not read the message with an open heart,
but by his private interpretation. He is trying to make the scripture fit his
thoughts by forcibly twisting it out of context. Mr. Gan’s teaching is
definitely contradictory to the teachings of Brother Branham and the scripture.
Some are willfully ignorant of the message. They have closed their eyes to the
Word and message of the hour because of money, women and popularity.
Heretical Article No. 601: “Unmarried means divorced. Therefore,
according to I Corinthians 7, the divorced can be remarried if they are
divorced for a legitimate reason.”
Quote Richard Gan’s book: From
Jason To: Richard Gan:
Bro. Gan: …in
a Bible commentary… I Cor. 7… verses 11 identifies the divorce as
“unmarried”…They are the divorced…Throughout Scripture…When divorce is
permitted, so is remarriage.
…so
my understanding of this issue is that…divorced women or men… can remarry if
they are divorced for a legitimate reason. Death, adultery or the unbelieving
departs from the husband… the person is free to remarry just like widows in I
Cor.
Reply: Bro. Jason: …you understood correctly.
R. Gan (From the (Gan’s) website, pages 24 to 25).
E.O.D.H. Answer:
Quote
W.M.B.: 697-27 But if the unmarried
depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such a
case: but God has called us unto peace.
Now, I Corinthians, 7th chapter, 15th verse. Now, the
question they asked: Brother Branham, does this mean a sister or a brother is
free to remarry? No. See, you don't
get his question there and what he's saying. They're not free. See, that would make a contradiction in the
Scripture, and the Scriptures doesn't contradict themselves at all. See?... You
see, like you can make the Scripture, just by reading one verse, say anything
you want it to say to fit your thought.
… Does this mean a sister or a brother is free to
remarry?
No, sir. See, he explained that first. See: ... unto
the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from
her husband: But and if she departs, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled
to her husband:... (See?) There's no such things as any believer ever being
reconciled to remarriage again, with a living companion. (Questions And Answers
62-0527).
Heretical Article No. 602: “Christians can eat blood.”
Quote
Richard Gan: Is
it true that the Word of the Lord forbids the eating of food offered to idols
and the eating of blood?... (Act 15:1)…the Apostles and Elders there… were
still just as religious, holding on to the laws of Moses…let their feelings and
passions get the better of themselves… It was an agreement based on religious
feeling concerning the law…the opinions of the flesh were involved. The carnal
mind is always at enmity with God…1CO 8:1 Now as touching things offered unto
idols…
…1CO 10:25 Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat,
asking no question for conscience sake:
…
the eating of anything — any food which the dietary law of Moses forbids in
Leviticus 11, including blood, is not contrary to the Christian faith…
we are not under bondage to the Law (From the (Gan’s) website, pages 28 to
36).
E.O.D.H.
Answer: Paul’s subject
was not eating blood, in those verses, but eating meats sacrificed to idols.
Quote W.M.B.: E-14
...The life lays in the blood. The Bible said, "The flesh thereof, you may
eat it. But the blood thereof (which is the life) pour it upon the ground. Don't eat the blood." 'Cause in
the blood lays the life. (God Perfecting His Church 54-1204).
Heretical Article No. 603: “
Quote
Richard Gan: In chapter 13 of the book of Revelation… the second
beast is Americanism… for the last 50 years it has been prophesying lies. It
has become a False Prophet (Rev. 16: 13)
… The apostle
John did not see any further vision of the Second Beast after Revelation 13
except that it had become a False Prophet (Rev. 16: 13, 19: 20, 2o: 10). (From
the (Gan’s) website Page 9 & 13).
E.O.D.H. Answer: The false prophet cannot be
Quote W.M.B.: E-74 …it come out of the…
mouth of the false prophet which was
popery, from out of the beast. See?
(Thy House 61-0808).
Quote: 170-3 {367} It’s three stages of
the same devil power…first stage he's called antichrist; second stage, he's
called the false prophet…
…Notice, Nicolaitia…when the teaching become a man, he
was a prophet to the teaching of the hierarchy of the Catholic church. The Pope
was the prophet to the false word, and that made him a false prophet. The third
stage is a beast. (The First Seal 63-0318).
Heretical
Article No. 604:
Quote
Richard Gan:
E.O.D.H. Answer: It is true that the prophet of God said that the
Holy Spirit has gone overseas hunting souls in foreign lands, but never
invented a heresy as Mr. Gan is saying here.
Quote
W.M.B.: E-55 The Lord Jesus was standing here at the platform last night, and
proved to every person present that He was absolutely raised from the dead
without a shadow of a doubt. Tonight,
two or three hundred more people than was here last night... What’s the matter?
The end time is here, brother…That same action in Germany, Switzerland, Africa,
anywhere in the other lands…would’ve took place, there’d have been a hundred
thousand people there, there’d have been at least twenty or thirty thousand
come to Christ. And the next night, there’d have been double that. What is it?
The Holy Spirit flew away from us,
and She’s gone overseas hunting
lambs to dwell in. That’s really, exactly what’s taking place. (Making The
Valley Full Of Ditches 56-0728).
After making that statement, God opened up the seals
in
In the previous ages, whenever
the Gospel went to another Nation, it went by another messenger of another age
who was called and had his ministry in that locality. Mr. Gan is not a
messenger, and no where in the scriptures or the message said that the Gospel
has moved from
Quote W.M.B.: 72-1{29} This seven-sealed Book is revealed at the
time of the Seven Thunders of Revelations 10... Let's turn to Revelations 1...
If you notice that's Christ (See?), ‘cause He in the Old Testament was called
the Angel of the Covenant, and He’s directly
coming to the Jews now, for the Church is finished.
…Angel is a messenger, and He’s a Messenger to