PDA

View Full Version : William Branham?



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12

-GodsLove-
May 25th, 2007, 11:32 AM
How about answering my post. :wave

Another thing, what are the signs of a cult.
When they consider themselves to be the only true church.
When they are inclusive.
When they deny the deity of Jesus.
When they are saturated in legalism.

You know how JWs believe that Jesus is the archangel Michael? Well, I can show you in three of Branham's sermons where he says that exact same thing. :twitch

Your post about Matthew has me all confused???? I don't care about dwell, dwell in, in dwell. Whatever. It really is dumb. So your point is in that post that Branham preached that Jesus wasn't God! This really is weird. He never said that. A cult is when someone worships a man. When people would try to make Branham Christ while he was living he would tell them to never think that. We don't consider ourselves to be the only true church we believe in the Bride of Christ and those are the ones that will live for eternity reigning with Jesus Christ. And we certaintly do not deny the deity of Jesus Christ. You can't be a Christian and believe it that way. And its not legalism, God says if we love him we will obey his word, his word says:

Deuteronomy 22:5 A woman must not wear men's clothing, nor a man wear women's clothing, for the LORD your God detests anyone who does this.

1 Corinthians 11:5
5And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is just as though her head were shaved. 6If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head. 7A man ought not to cover his head,[a] since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. 8For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; 9neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 10For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head.

Corinthians 11:11
11In the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. 12For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God. 13Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, 15but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering.


Corinthians 11:7
Or 4 Every man who prays or prophesies with long hair dishonors his head. 5 And every woman who prays or prophesies with no covering (of hair) on her head dishonors her head—she is just like one of the "shorn women." 6 If a woman has no covering, let her be for now with short hair, but since it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair shorn or shaved, she should grow it again. 7 A man ought not to have long hair


This is pretty simple: But the plain daylight fact is people don't want it so they fight it.

lisa
May 25th, 2007, 11:48 AM
God's Love, your tone in your posts is inappropriate. Please see that future posts reflect you love for the Lord and for others.

-GodsLove-
May 25th, 2007, 12:25 PM
God's Love, your tone in your posts is inappropriate. Please see that future posts reflect you love for the Lord and for others.


Im sorry that I offended you. I really didn't mean to offend anyone, it just seems that these accusations some people made was because of the lack of their knowledge about what I believe.

-GodsLove-
May 25th, 2007, 12:31 PM
Setting aside for the moment, the fact that I not arguing....I am wrong simply because I want to argue?



Naw, it's weak man, really.

And who is arguing?? I can't present my evidence from scripture without being accused on unchristian conduct??



I was simply responding to YOUR statements.



If he uses the same support for his points that you use (that is, none at all), I can't see how he has proven anything.



I am perfectly willing to hear your support for you position. I have not shut you down, or stopped you from making your point. Quite the contrary, I have given you every opportunity, and you have simply changed the subject three different times. And now it is MY fault that you haven't supported your position?? :ohno



Why don't you present them? I haven't seen them. In fact, I had no idea we were taling about Branham at all. This is a VERY strange modus operandi.....bring up totally unrelated topics in the middle of a conversation.



As I say, if your comments here have been an example of your knowledge of the bible and doctrine, I would say it is YOU who needs to study. And I would also say it is you who are blowing up, not I (Rom 2:1).

Good day to you. :wave

Please forgive me for judging you so harshly. In that order I was wrong.
I will be honest to say that I began to get upset when posts were made that I seriously disagreed with and for that I was wrong. I should have never got upset. Im sorry.

CountryBumpkin
May 25th, 2007, 05:24 PM
1.Do you believe that Jesus was fully God and fully Man when He was born?

2.Do you believe that Mary was Jesus' biological mother - that her egg was used?

-GodsLove-
May 25th, 2007, 06:30 PM
1.Do you believe that Jesus was fully God and fully Man when He was born?

2.Do you believe that Mary was Jesus' biological mother - that her egg was used?

Yes I believe Jesus was fully God in a man.

No. I believe God created the egg just as he did the sperm. Jesus couldn't have had a biological mother because he was God and God is eternal. And for Mary to have produced the egg would mean that there had to be a sexual act and there wasn't it was the Holy Spirit overshadowing.

LaMontre
May 25th, 2007, 07:23 PM
Please forgive me for judging you so harshly. In that order I was wrong.
I will be honest to say that I began to get upset when posts were made that I seriously disagreed with and for that I was wrong. I should have never got upset. Im sorry.

Hey, it isn't getting upset that's a problem here, at least not for me.

We are all here seeking truth, and the way we do that is to share what we believe, and to see what others have to add, or to detract from that.

We all need to be more teachable, there is no doubt, and I accept your appology, though there is really nothing to applogize for. Jesus told me not to be offended, so I am not. If you will remain here and share, and recieve, you may find yourself helping some, but more than that you will be helping yourself; at least that has been my experience here. I too would like to offer my appology if I was too harsh. I sometimes speak my mind a bit more than I should and say things that aren't as helpful as I might think at the time.

CountryBumpkin
May 25th, 2007, 07:32 PM
Yes I believe Jesus was fully God in a man.

No. I believe God created the egg just as he did the sperm. Jesus couldn't have had a biological mother because he was God and God is eternal. And for Mary to have produced the egg would mean that there had to be a sexual act and there wasn't it was the Holy Spirit overshadowing.

GodsLove, may I ask why, if you knew what this board's statement of faith says, did you join?

LaMontre
May 25th, 2007, 07:36 PM
Yes I believe Jesus was fully God in a man.

No. I believe God created the egg just as he did the sperm. Jesus couldn't have had a biological mother because he was God and God is eternal. And for Mary to have produced the egg would mean that there had to be a sexual act and there wasn't it was the Holy Spirit overshadowing.

This is a topic that is almost as difficult as the trinity.

Jesus was not only the Son of God, he was also the Son of Man. He is a part of the promise to Abraham, and to David. He is a direct descendant of both.

This is absolutely necessary in order for him to be the Messiah.

In the law, the seed of the woman alone is enough to carry on a line. It was not necessary for Jesus to have a human father in order to fulfill the royal line to which he is hier. It is however necessary that the fallen seed of Adam not be his, thus the necessity of the virgin birth.

All of this is so that he could literally fulfill prophecy.

This is a very simplistic explanation, but do you see where I am going? There is far more to his Messiahship than divinity. In fact, his divinity was not really foreseen by anyone when they read the old testament. It was a part of "the mystery". Every Jewish woman hoped and expected that her son was the Messiah, yet Mary knew, because her conception was miraculous.

Hope that helps, as it is far more complex than I could ever post here.

BlessedinHim
May 27th, 2007, 07:46 PM
The trinity is hard to understand because it is not something we can do or see. the bible says, there are 3 that bear record in heaven and these 3 are 1. whether or not we can comprehend that with our human capacity is a mute point. we cannot comprehend eternity, either. to argue with that is then arguing with the bible, not anyone. you either believe what the bible says, or you dont. For now we know in part, but when He comes, we will know all.