of Cohen Reckart
This webpage contains an article written by Cohen Reckart found on the jesus-messiah.com website. I have decided to post it here to make a few comments. I do not seek to argue with the man about his doctrines as he has such a high esteem of himself. He even bestowed this title upon himself: MAN OF GOD, BISHOP RECKART. I wish to point out that he has made himself a liar by twisting my words and making presumptuous sins with his cocksure attitude. He may not have lied purposely, but for him to call himself "Apostolic" and a MAN OF GOD, he ought to have humility and wisdom. Reckart has tied my name with the Branhamites in several places of his article (below). If he has taken me for a Branhamite just because I believe the man William Branham to be God's messenger, then he is a foolish man and a blind one to believe that. Note that I cannot defend the Branhamites' teachings as I am not a Branhamite. Reckart is anti-Branham and he fights me simply because I believe Branham's ministry. On the other hand, Dalton Bruce, a Branhamite, fights me because I am not a Branhamite like him (click here for my article on "The Lies of Dalton Bruce"). Both these two men are liars on grounds that they twisted my words to make lies of my teachings. I would like Reckart to produce any statement of mine that he could use to backup any of his accusations. He knows how to contact me. My comments are made in this typeface and color against every presumption of Reckart (highlighted in yellow or cyan on his text) that he made against me. Where he has made sound statements that neither add to nor subtract from my teachings, I make no comment.
A word to the wise: Do not be like Cohen Reckart or Dalton Bruce who rip off words and statements out of context to deceive their own people. You may disagree with Branham's or my teachings, and if you have to fight against us, at least be honest enough, as a God-fearing person, to produce statements within context of our teachings. Otherwise you are a liar and a fool. Do not be like a half-blind fool who read the Bible and triumphantly exclaimed against the Christians: "How could you believe in God when the Bible says 'THERE IS NO GOD'?! You Christians teach a false hope of salvation in a non-existant God."
* * * * * * *
Richard Gan, self-proclaimed prophet, teacher, William Braham apologist, and fantastic distorter, visits Malawi in March 2004 to spread the false doctrine of the serpent seed and other Branham heresies. [Mr. Cohen Reckart: you are quite a sarcastic man, and also very judgmental. In some places I will speak sarcastically like you and perhaps that will help you see your foolishness. :o)]
Gan is a believer in the serpent seed doctrine of the Kabbalah which William Branham made famous among a generation of miracle seekers. The serpent seed doctrine in a nut-shell is that Eve and the serpent had sex and this is when Eve ate of the fruit of the tree in the midst of the garden. Gan and Branham teach that the tree in the midst of the garden of good and evil was the devil. [Reckart presumes I actually teach that because he thinks I am a Branhamite who would merely quote Branham. He calls me a deceiver. But he is the one who is actually deceiving the people with his lies, telling them about things that I do not teach or hold to. He points his one finger at me being a "fantastic distorter" but he is the one that is the FANTASTIC DISTORTER. Just look at all the lies he tells of me and my teachings in this article of his.] That when Eve ate of the fruit of this tree she had sex with the serpent's fruit which was his sex organ (they translate "eat and ate" to mean to partake of).
Branhamites teach that God told Adam not to have sex with the serpent when God told him not to eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. So, God was telling Adam not to have a homosexual relationship with the devil according to Gan and Branhamites. [Another presumption here. I am not sure if any Branhamite actually teaches or believes that.] According to Gan and Branham, Eve's body is a garden and the serpent's body is a garden each have a fruit in the midst of their garden-body. Eve ate (partook) of the serpent's fruit. She had sex with the devil. [Another presumption here. Mr. Reckart: I do believe you have not properly read through my article on the subject. I believe you merely speed-read through it, and came up with this and all the other assumptions.] According to them Eve partook of the serpent's fruit and she conceived and Cain was the result of her adultery. They claim Cain then had the seed of the serpent which they claim is the seed of fallen angels. [Another presumption here.] So, all who descended from Cain were the seed of the accursed fallen angels, which is identified as the serpent seed. [Another presumption here.] None of this accursed seed can be saved because there is no salvation for the fallen angelic seed.
This launches Gan into the heresy of Branhamite pre-destination of two seeds (fallen angelic and Adamic). [Another presumption here. Some Branhamites might teach that, Mr. Reckart, but not me.] Gan claims some people are born saved (Adamic seed) and some born damned (fallen angelic seed), depending upon the lineage of a person's seed. [Another presumption here.] Neither seed can cross over into the category of the other seed. To Gan and Branham, Calvary was only partial. Jesus did not die for all mankind, only the seed of Adam. [Another presumption here.] Those who are the seed of the serpent (descendants of fallen angels), [Another presumption here.] have no salvation or hope of eternal life. This is the scary threat Gan and Branhamites use to strike fear into the ears of listeners. [Another presumption here, a good one.] If they reject Branham when he was verified my miracles this proves they are the serpent seed. [Another good presumption here. Mr. Cohen Reckart, you can say that about some Branhamites. But stop your unholy presumption that I am a part of them.] Indeed, the secret weapon of fear is used by Gan and other Branhamites. [Again a similar presumption here.] They tell those they preach to: accept Branham and you are of the good seed; reject Branham and you are of the serpent's seed. No plan of salvation needed here in Christ, it's all in Branham! [Another presumption here. In fact a total lie. Mr. Reckart: you have a lying spirit. You need someone to cast it out, if you cannot get it out.] According to Gan and Branhamites, salvation was guaranteed and predestinated to Adam's seed before the foundation of the world. All a person of Adam's seed needs to do is accept William Branham and confess him as the prophet Elijah, or Branham Christ, or Lord Branham Christ, as their Saviour and they are saved. [Another blatant lie. Mr. Cohen Reckart: just produce one statement that I teach that and I will call myself a false preacher. If not, then you have to retract all your ugly accusations, Mr. Man of God (?). Do you really fear God, Mr. Reckart?] Then these converts are taught to claim they are saved by Jesus because they were predestinated in, owing to nothing they have done (saved by grace they say).
According to Gan and other serpent seed preachers, this seed of the serpent are fallen angels who inhabited the world before God made Adam. [Another repeated presumption here.] In the image on the left there are the angels before the fell under Lucifer. [Mr. Cohen Reckart: you have literally altered my drawing to achieve your purpose to deceive your people and others. You are feeding fear in people. You are deceiving people about a version of the Serpent Seed doctrine that I do not teach. In subtlety you drew a "Y" line connecting the angels and the prehistoric men in my drawing. You are a FANTASTIC DISTORTER, Mr. Reckart. And you dare to call me one, Mr. Man of God(?). You ought to be ashamed of yourself. If you think that I teach such nonsense just because you know some others who do, then you presume too much, much too much for your own good.] Then they are brown-black man type creatures after the fall. According to Gan and Branhamites, these pre-historic man-like beings are the missing link scientist are looking for in the evolutional chain of man's existence. It is claimed the skeletons of these fallen angelic beings were the black and negro people. This is forced upon the black races because all the oldest of these so-called prehistoric skeletons found are negroid. Wonder why all images of satan picture him as a black-man figure?
Gan and other Branhamites teach this angelic pre-Adamic race that were not created in God's image. They of course quote Isaiah 45:18 as their proof text. But does the Bible speak of mankind before Adam? Does it say fallen angels became man-like and inhabited the earth having sex and multiplying before Adam? Does the Bible say any where there were or are male and female angels who can reproduce? Does not this heresy slap Jesus in the face when he said angels in heaven do not marry or are given in marriage (Matt 22:30)?
According to Gan and Branhamites, after the fall of satan these angels became beast creatures with a man-like body and this is when the devil became the serpent. [Another presumption here that is similar to the preceeding one.] According to Gan and other Branhamites these angelic creatures could have sex and reproduce. [Another similar presumption here. Mr. Cohen Reckart: maybe you are the one who believes that angels could have sex and reproduce. I don't. Show me where I teach that, if you can. Use the Google Search engine on my website to help you do the job. You will find statements to the contrary.] Gan claims the serpent was a man-like being who was not a man but he could still have sex and could still get Eve pregnant. Two different kinds mingled according to Gan. Gan confesses this devil-serpent being was not made in the image of God like Adam and Eve. In spite of these bodily differences, Gan still claims the serpent is the devil [Another presumption here. Did I say that and where did I say that , Mr. Reckart?] from the fallen pre-Adamic race [Another presumption here.] and Eve committed fornication/adultery with him.
Many serpent seed preachers believed this pre-Adamic serpent seed race was where the black negroes came from. I have a tape to prove it (no you can't have a copy, you can listen to it only in my presence). They taught white racism, that whites are the true seed of Adam. Serpent seed preachers like Gan and William Branham modified this false doctrine and changed the way a serpent seed person was to be identified. [Another presumption here.] They could not get a great white following and so sought to convert blacks and non-whites like Gan, and so changed the racial identity of the serpent seed and spiritualized it. [Wow! A very clever play of words, Mr. Reckart. As a MAN OF GOD, you ought to be ashamed of yourself for telling such a lie. You really do have a presumptuous mind, Mr. Reckart. You really are good at spinning tall tales. You are simply reading all these presumptions into my teaching.]
I am shocked that any person of black or brown skin would accept this false doctrine. But this shows there are blacks easily deceived the same as there are whites (Branhamites) and yellow (Ganites) easily deceived. I will not go into my teaching against all of Branhamism here but I do want to point out that Eve had no flesh seed of her own, her flesh seed came from Adam. Remember, "this is bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh." If Cain was born of Eve and had a mixed flesh seed of Eve and the serpent, then he was a descendent of Adam no matter what Gan and Branhamites say. The whole doctrine of the serpent seed is false and Gan is a false teacher spreading this heresy among the nations.
I am shocked that Gusto Gadama of Malawi has joined this heretical doctrine. He has deceived JMFI for nearly five years, taking our money, claiming to preach our Messianic Doctrine, when all along he was a prostitute preacher taking money from anyone whom he could get it from. We paid for his wife's funeral and he deceived us. I am shocked that he would prostitute himself for money and accept the serpent seed doctrine because this would give him another source of income. This is the great sin of many preachers in third-world countries. They will prostitute themselves to what ever doctrine a man comes there with if he can get money out of the deal. Preachers like Gusto Gadama who take money from Trinitarians, Oneness, Branhamites, and other groups, to get their money are minister prostitutes. Gusto Gadama has sold himself for money! He is a deceiver and a religious fraud. He deserves to be disfellowshipped by every Minister and Pastor in Malawi. He is now proven to be a minister for hire.
In the picture above of Gan, Pastor Gusto Gadama is in blue seated in the far corner. Pastor Gadama is now recognized by JMFI to be a prostitute preacher who will be what ever doctrine you want him to be for money. He works with trinitarians in translating their books and also with others whom he can snare with his promises of translating their writings. He also endears himself to as many as he can, by calling himself their son. Some fall for this often used African trick, thinking the man does need a father in the Lord image and wham, they are snared. When I discovered he is was secret agent [Strange usage of words. Ronald Watson used these two words often in his foolish article against me. Were you influenced by his spirit, Mr. Reckart?] for Singapore Branhamite false teacher Richard Gan I pulled the plug. I could no longer ignore Gan. I could no longer ignore who Gadama has turned out to be. I wonder just how much money he has gotten from Gan and others to translate Branhamite heresies and other false doctrines? [Ha ha! Mr. Cohen Reckart, this paragraph and the one preceding just show the kind of person you are. You are trying to deceive others and in return you are the one being deceived − "deceiving and being deceived". You can tell the whole world that Gusto Gadama was my "secret agent". How childish can you get! Gadama came to me like he came to you. There are many preachers who came to me but none are a "secret agent" of mine. I've been to Malawi several times in the 1990s for conventions. I did not go there or any other country to build church buildings like you do, Mr. Reckart. Many have come up to me to try and gain my favor. And I know the reasons behind such action for majority are simply looking for money. I am not one to be so easily deceived. For your information, Gadama told me that he had the desire to translate my books, and he went ahead and translated several. I did not ask him to. He willingly did it on his own, and he wanted me to print them. It took a few years before I had the money to print a small quantity of the messages that Gadama had translated. Gadama was not paid for the translation work as he did the work willingly and voluntarily. The only thing that I remember giving him was a hair-clipper he requested and some small offerings. Sorry, Mr. Reckart, you were deceived and were taken for a ride by Gadama then. I wasn't. You use your money to proselyte, I don't. So, how much money did you lose? You build to broaden your organization, your kingdom. I don't because I have none. I have known several preachers from your country, and from Canada as well, that have used M-O-N-E-Y to proselyte the African people to their own organizations.]
Richard Gan claims he came into the Branhamite doctrine in 1971. [Mr. Reckart shows himself to be a very dangerous preacher, a FANTASTIC DISTORTER of truth. With just one twist of words, he made me to claim that I came into the Branhamite doctrine. I can only see him as a man of lies and not a man of God (as he claims). I said that I came into the message of William Branham in 1971, but he concocts a lie by changing my words and claiming that I came into the Branhamite doctrine. I wonder how many times he must have done that to the words written by the prophets and apostles of the Bible. Mr. Cohen Reckart: I see you, as a man who has evil intention to discredit others with lies, presumptuously or purposefully.] He claims other Branhamites are distorting the "Message" of William Branham but he is the one to fix all this and preach the truth. He is trying to raise himself up as the greatest serpent seed preacher since William Branham. This is seen in his logo where he says the eagle screams (representing Branham) and then slips down the dove and says it leads (Richard Gan). [Mr. Cohen Reckart: you ought to be a fiction writer because you have a mind full of imaginations. What terribly presumptuous lie you are giving to your people here. Anyone clicking the link about the logo on my website will understand its representation. Apparently, you did not read it but instead you chose to presume what it represents with a cocksure and self-righteous attitude. Maybe you believe that you have such a great powerful anointing that you are always correct in your assumption. Or you are blatantly trying to make a fool of me or whoever touches your sensitive ego in claiming to be a man of God.] On the doctrine of the serpent seed, Gan agrees with William Branham that Eve had sex with the devil and Cain was the devil's seed. [Another repeated presumption here.] So far as I know, I have not found a single place where he disagrees with William Branham. It is right then to conclude that he is a Branhamite equal to all the others in spite of him claiming he is some how different. [Another presumption here. Mr. Reckart, you simply do not know how much the Branhamites dislike me just as there are those in your circles who dislike you.]
Gan has traveled to several nations. including India, to spread the Branham heresies. I got some hateful emails from India Branhamite who threatened to kill me if I was to come to India. He claimed Branham was Christ. This man is one of Gan's followersor one who has run amuck after Gan's Branhamite heresies messed up his mind. [Where did you get this idea, Mr. Reckart? I don't even know the man. (I believe you are referring to S. Thomas.) You are really thinking evil of me and coming up with all these presumptuous lies. You say he threatened to kill you. Really? Or are you making it up to be a hero? If he did threatened you, I suppose it just might have crossed your evil mind then that "Gan might have asked him to", huh?] In every place he has gone, that Gan has sown this seed of the serpent message of Branham: he has brought hatred, confusion, discord, and strife. [Make up your mind, Mr. Reckart. If I am a Branhamite, why are they against me? You are making all these up because you are upset by your being deceived by Gadama whom you thought was, what you called, Gan's secret agent. You know something, Mr. Reckart, you need to take time off and examine your heart and spirit.] He believes this is all justifiable because of his belief that all denominations and other groups are of the devil, the serpent seed. When Branhamism is attacked by anyone within these denominations he discounts all their objections as being nothing less then antichrist trying to destroy the "Message." Fact is, we here in America know William Branham. He lived here, preached here, did his miracles here, and fabricated his lying false doctrines here. It was here that Branham used miracles while calling upon the name of Jesus to back up his claims he was the reincarnation of Elijah the prophet of Malachi 4:4-6. [Another lie. Mr. Cohen Reckart, can you prove where Branham said that he was the reincarnation of Elijah? If you can't, then you are a liar. And you know what the Scripture says about liar. Mm...mmm, maybe you do not know the meaning of "reincarnation". And if you do not know its meaning, then it's better that you do not try to act knowledgeable of things you do not know.] Yes, Branham claimed he was this prophet. Gan claims he was this Old Testament Prophet come again in the flesh of William Branham. Branham was then an Old Testament Prophet. But no, according to Gan he is not an Old Testament Prophet, but the last day prophet of the Church age. Well, all Branhamites have a problem here because none of them have proved Branham was with Jesus on the Mount of Transfiguration. In addition, Elijah was caught up to God and did not see death, whereas William Branham saw death in a horrible car accident that could not be anything but the judgment of God. So, if Branham was Elijah as he claimed and as Gan preaches to the unlearned throughout the world, then Elijah got killed by a drunk driver after he had an excellent air ride in a chariot driven by angels. Elijah is buried in Tennessee under a pagan pyramid symbol, and Elijah claimed it was no sin to be a member of the Baal Masonic lodge!
Richard Gan is a unique man. He buys his way among the unlearned and uneducated with cold drinks, sandwiches, and a little party for the ministers and Pastors he can gather. [How childish can you get, Mr. Reckart, to presume fearlessly that I was buying the souls of the uneducated with drinks and food and holding parties with them. You assumed that I did that from the photo(s) on my website? The fact is that I was invited to a home of a pastor for lunch. What made you think otherwise? I believe you were upset, really upset, and angry because the man, Gusto Gadama (dressed in blue in the picture), had deceived you. And you, Mr. Reckart, thought that I had something to do with it. (By the way, Mr. Reckart, it's a great sarcastic speech bubble you put above Gadama's head.)] Now where is his wife? [Right here with me, Mr. Reckart. She wants to know why she is brought into the issue and why you are such a busybody to want to know where she is. What business is that of yours? What business are you in, Mr. Reckart?] Why is she never seen with him? [Are you so sure? Where do you want me to be seen with her, Mr. Reckart? In Africa and everywhere I travel? Is that what you are wanting me to do?] Why does he never mention her? [Mention her for what reason, Mr. Reckart? Need I mention and preach about my wife? (By the way, have you ever sat in any of my meetings to hear me mention about my wife? So why did you presume that I never mention her?) Is my wife a "show piece" and a "talk piece" that I have to draw attention to her? Mr. Cohen Reckart: Did the MEN OF GOD, like Peter, John, Philip, Moses, Isaiah, etc., go out on missionary trips with their wives and/or children? Where have you ever read in the Bible that they did just that and harped about their wives and children? Are servants of God called to preach, "talk about Jesus", or to "talk about their wives"? Mr. Cohen Reckart, you sound to me that you are sick in the head and spirit in the ways you are asking these questions. Are all "Apostolic" like you? I hope not. You sound more of an Accost-olic than an Apostolic.] Is this man normal? [What are you thinking in your head, Mr. Reckart? Are you insinuating that something is physically and sexually wrong with my make-up because my wife is not with me on my mission trips? Are you thinking evil thoughts? Are wicked thoughts lurking in your mind? Otherwise, why do you ask such foolish and unbecoming questions? Have you no qualm about your foolish questioning?] He is not an anointed man of God. His teachings lack the real anointing. [You may judge, Mr. Reckart. You may esteem yourself highly. But your pride has already revealed your foolishness in claiming yourself to be a powerful anointed MAN OF GOD.] He tries to make up for this lack with educational gibberish and his ability to chart in picture form his doctrine. Any one with the real Holy Ghost would detect this instantly his false doctrine in these charts and notice how he contradicts the Word of God. Others who have met him and walked out of his meetings testify the man is somewhat of a sissy. Be that as it may or may not,[Really? Is that what they told you, Mr. Reckart? Others who have known you have also walked out of your meetings testifying that you are somewhat of a comedienne, yes a comedienne, not a comedian. Be that as it may or may not, you are certainly a wicked man in your thoughts. Catch that idea in those statements?] he is certainly a false teacher. [Be careful, Mr. Reckart. Watch your spirit. If you are so powerfully anointed of God, then don't act like Caiaphas or Korah. You only end up a foolish man.]
He made several jabs at my expose of Branham's lies and false doctrines. But did he prove any of it false? NO! Did he prove Branham did not say the things I quoted? No he did not! Instead he proposed even more stupidity. Here is a snap-shot of Gan's attack upon me for my expose of Branhamite falsehood. [For the followings, Mr. Reckart, you can argue against the teachings of William Branham till the cows come home? From what I read of your argument, it's worse than half-baked. The reason? You don't really know what the man taught just like you don't really know what I teach. All you have are presumptions and twisting of words.]
Gan quotes my Branham study: (Red is Gan, green is Branham, black are my words)
"Cohen G. Reckart, an Apostolic Messianic believer, was nit-picking on certain statements of William Branham to try and prove that Branham was a false prophet. By picking on certain statements from all his taped sermons, interviews or write-ups, he is trying to show the world that Branham was teaching certain false doctrines. Like the Branhamites, this is what Cohen Reckart is doing on his webpage — http://members.aol.com/acts0412/branham.html. He is no different from the Branhamites.
However, I would like to answer some of his questions, beginning with this one:
"Is it not true that you are not saved unless you have received the Holy Ghost?" (This was asked of William Branham by a person at one of his meetings).
Firstly, let me say this: please do not simply quote Bible verses or statements out of context just to prove your point. Any fool can even quote from the Scriptures to say that there is no God or that Jesus taught His followers to practice cannibalism and vampirism (when He told them to eat His flesh and drink His blood or else they would not have eternal life).
I know for a fact that Bro. Branham taught strongly on the Apostolic Faith based on Acts 2:38 since I received the Message of William Branham in 1971. He taught that if a person was not born again of the Word and the Spirit that person would not be saved. I know this for a fact . But now this man is telling Christians and me otherwise. He is showing that Branham was in the "look doctrine" because of Branham's first wife. (I wonder from where did Cohen Reckart get his "facts".)
"Can one have the Holy Ghost and not the signs?" (This also was asked of William Branham).
Of course, being a believer of the faith he called Apostolic, Cohen Reckart must contend that there is no salvation without the sign of speaking in tongues as recorded in Acts 2:4. I wonder how many non-Pentecostals would agree with him. As an ex-A.o.G. member, I was taught to seek for the Baptism of the Holy Spirit with the evidence of speaking in tongues. But I know that many Pentecostals don't really speak in tongues. The majority is caught up with impersonation speaking gibberish. And don't forget, demons speak in tongues too.
What did Branham teach concerning women cutting their hair:
I [William Branham] say one thing I wished, ...Now, I know my kids has done that too, Rebekah and Sarah, I seen when they cut their hair off in front, like this, ...I don't, I ...but when they got all long, hanging down like this, and just cut the front of it out of their eyes, little kids maybe, I, I wouldn't know whether that'd be wrong. (Conduct, Order, And Doctrine, Q #187. p 1102).
Unlike many churches who liberally allow Christian women to cut their hair, Cohen Reckart strictly disallow it. But does he also disallow "little kids" to cut their hair? Are little girls women?
Cutting the hair of little girls is considered as contravening the Word of God by some believing parents. But Paul, in 1 Corinthians chapter 11, talks about women and not little girls. “Women” in the Bible refers to those of marriageable age. Just as you cannot force your little girls to be water-baptized knowing that it is a believer's Baptism, so you cannot force them to keep long hair even when they are grown-up. It is their faith in God, not yours. Love them, respect them and teach them, raising them up in the reverence of God and His Word. And they will not depart from the Truth.
So a sister then speaks up and ask him:
Question: "Is it wrong for me to run a beauty shop. I don't believe in Christians [women] cutting [their own] hair, but I cut others and color also." Answer: "Sister dear, I would not know what to tell you" (Ibid Q #250, p 957).
With these quotes, Reckart shows up as a person who would strongly object to any Christians holding a job that’s un-Christian. In this case, I would advise the sister to change her job but I would not say it’s wrong if that is all she knows to do. Would Reckart consider a Christian waiting at tables in a hotel serving strong drinks to patrons and guests un-Christian? Would it also be un-Christian to work as a packer in a cigarette factory?
It has been alleged by many that Branham had been a Mason. Some believe he was mixed up possibly in Wicca or influenced somehow by it.
Scary, isn't it? That's one way to scare people away from Branham and his teachings. "It was said that..., It was alleged that..., Some ministers reported that..., etc, etc." It was said (now this is a fact) that fiction is stranger than fact. Fiction is fiction and fact is fact. They don't mix. But to take fiction and present it as though it is fact is tantamount to telling a lie."
_________________________End of Gan's quotes and statements.
To read my study on Branham's answers click here and you will see Gan did not copy and paste Branham's answers to questions as I did. Why? Because Branham's answers disclose he was a false teacher and did not teach the true Apostolic doctrine.
Let me take this from the top of Gan's statements above:
Gan is showing his anger toward me [Am I, Mr. Reckart? You may fight Branham and me with your holier-than-thou attitude over "tongues". I will let a fool speaks his mind on the subject.] because I quoted Branham about his answer concerning tongues as the initial evidence of receiving the Holy Ghost. He could not say I misquoted Branham. How come he did not print Branham's answer to the question? It's because Gan believes a person can be saved without the Holy Ghost and speaking in tongues just as Branham believed. Gan does not believe tongues are the initial evidence of receiving the Holy Ghost and neither did William Branham. William Branham's "look doctrine" came from his own words that if anyone was looking at Calvary they were saved. I gave the quote and reference where he said it. For Gan to question me on this when he knows I quoted Branham shows he is not honest.
I teach that in Acts 2:1-4 speaking in other tongues was the evidence of Holy Ghost baptism. Gan and Branham do not accept this. They claim a person can have the Holy Ghost AND NEVER SPEAK IN TONGUES! He throws up all those who don't believe in tongues as some great proof that the doctrine is false! Who is he trying to fool? Oh yes, the ignorant and unlearned. And there are plenty of them apparently where ever Gan opens his mouth. Gan later mocks the doctrine of speaking in tongues as the evidence by claiming there are some who have a demon tongue and others who talk in gibberish. Gan thinks he can easily dismiss speaking in tongues in Acts 2:4 as the initial evidence with this gobblygook. Actually, Gan believes when a person accepts the Lord as their Saviour they are saved just like Branham believed it. Acts 2:38 is not the plan of salvation for Gan or Branham. They use it but they do not rightly divide it nor preach it with the same meaning as Apostle Peter did. I noticed he never claims he had the Holy Ghost with the evidence of speaking in tongues and now he recants this experience. Not one place in all William Branham's books that I have read that copied his preaching is there a spot where he speaks in tongues. Quite amazing ain't it?
Gan and Branham believed any gift or fruit of the Spirit can substitute as a sign a person has received the Holy Ghost. Neither Gan or a Branhamite will ever produce a Scripture that documents anyone in the Bible receiving the Holy Ghost after the day of Pentecost with the evidence a fruit of the Spirit or one of the other gifts. I am right on this, both Richard Gan and William Branham are false teachers. Branham was a false prophet. If Gan claims to be a prophet then he is a false prophet with all these lies and misrepresentations.
About women cutting their hair and little girls cutting their hair. Gan is just as false as William Branham here. Branham confessed he allowed his girls to cut their hair. And they were not "little kids" either, they were grown teenagers with hair bobbed off. To the right and left are pictures and these girls as young ladies. Their hair shows evidence of being cut in both pictures. The picture on the right shows them in their cut hair a few years earlier. There was no change in the doctrine of hair in William Branham's household even though he knew other Apostolics preached against females cutting their hair. These girls are not "little kids." Gan and Branham are false teachers. They are both deceivers. Yes, I teach that little girls (kids) are not to have their hair cut. Never! Not from their birth to their death. Gan and Branham teach it's ok for them to cut their hair and do not object to the older ones cutting their hair either. Let's face it. Gan and Branham preach it is ok for all females to cut their hair. [Mr. Cohen Reckart, you are again throwing out lies to your people. You are taking these photos of the Branham Family and the words "little girls" out of my article to refer to Branham's daughters. Why are you doing this to deceive your people and your readers? I wasn't referring to Branham's daughters. You have an evil heart to distort someone else's words. If you want to FORCE your daughters who have not reached puberty to keep long hair, that's fine. I won't FORCE unscriptural teaching on anyone's daughter. My daughter was raised up from childhood through to puberty to adulthood keeping her hair long. I never FORCED her. Mr. Reckart: do you harass the girls in your organization, even those who have not come to puberty, and DEMAND them to keep long hair or else they could not be Christians? Do you DEMAND from every parent in your organization to FORCE their daughters to keep long hair? If you do, you are an abnormal preacher. Branham preached the keeping of long hair, but he never FORCED it. We can lead the horses to the water, but we never force them to drink it. You may force or enforce long hair on the women of your organization, and they do it out of a sense of religiosity or fear of you or your religious organization, then it makes you happy. Is that what you want? Does that please God?]
Gan does not believe it is a sin for females to wear britches, i.e. pants/slacks/trousers/sarong. [Do you know how to read, Mr. Reckart?] Haha, he says men wear a skirt called a sarong in his Singapore and this heathenism is to be accepted. [Seems to me you don't know what you are reading, Mr. Reckart?] He teaches his nation's heathenism authorizes men and women to cross dress (be transvestites). [Did I really teach that, Mr. Reckart? Produce that statement from my article or where ever you read it. Seems to me that you are really of unsound mind.] Below on the left is a picture of Gan's mother [She's not my mother, Mr. Reckart. And those white men in the photo below are not Germans. These are two examples that show you DO NOT READ to understand what I wrote but rather to FIND FAULTS. In so doing, you presumed many things.] in britches/pants which he confesses in his diatribe for women wearing pants and men wearing skirts, they were designed from Eastern (US) customs and named the samfoo. There Gan is in the right picture in a heathen skirt of his culture. [You are really too smart for your own good, Mr. Reckart. Like many smart-alecky Americans, you know nothing of other nations except all that's American. What made you think that the sarong is a heathen garment? Is it because it is not American? Is it because it is something Asian and therefore heathen? Are all Christians in the world to dress like the American and to follow American "Christian" culture and lifestyle? Is there nothing in America that is heathen?] He claims he put this on, on purpose to convince the German preachers in the picture that heathen culture is not to be condemned using the Bible. [Before the Gospel came to Asia, the "heathen" Asians did not shake hands in greetings in their custom/culture. Most bowed at their waists or bowed heads or placed both hands together in a prayer position. So, Mr. Reckart, are such forms of greetings heathen? Are Christian Asians forbidden to such forms of greetings? Are we to conform to the handshakes of the white men's way? What about eating with chopsticks or with the fingers? Are these customs of dining also heathen and perhaps barbaric? Can you distinguish between racial and pagan customs and traditions?] He is really saying that Branham would approve all his men in skirts? [You are really saying it, Mr. Reckart, not me. You are trying to put words in my mouth. You are a snake-in-the-grass to go so low and talk like this. Shame on you! You are insinuating it. You want people to believe in you − in your presumptuous sin.] By this perversion Gan removes condemnation from men and women around the world cross-dressing. Gan justifies this with his statement below the pictures: [Those words are not mine. You put them there and how dare you say that I put them there. This is an outright lie, Mr. man of God. You have twisted my words to suit your purpose and to achieve your aim to deceive your people and others, Mr. Reckart.]
"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" (quote of Gan's article "Of Man's and Woman's garments").
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! [I will not argue with you on this here. See my other article here.] 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.
Any preacher who believes Gan's lies is compelled to wear a skirt and show us he is not a transvestite and pervert. I want to see them preach in a skirt like he wears above. If they refuse, they are admitting this man is a woman in a man's body! [Very clever, Mr. Reckart. You good at playing with words that confuses your reader as to the real Truth. Deducing from what you say here and these questions from above: Now where is his wife? Why is she never seen with him? Why does he never mention her? Is this man normal? I gather that you have a wicked thought that I just might be a transvestite. Isn't that what you are thinking?]
Gan lies about there being no such thing as trouser like breeches in the day of Moses. Lies like these deceive the unlearned and uneducated and that is why Branhamism takes such a strong hold among cultures and nations that are prone to worship and venerate monkeys and men. In India and in Africa, idols have long been worshipped and to replace these with a christ Branham is no great task if someone goes among them performing miracles and telling them they are the result of William Branham and his "Message." These heathen will easily switch from an old dead god to a new one. Take for instance the India self-made second Elijah, S. Thomas, who claims Branham resurrected on the third day after his death and he is now Lord Branham Christ. Click here to see the front page from his book on Branham Christ.
Gan and this S. Thomas are real apostates when it comes to apostolic doctrine. Many Branhamites of India and other nations have caught on to Gan and his perversions of Branham's teachings and are now opposing him. Branhamite Ronald Watson is one such man who does not like what Gan is doing to the Branhamite family. [This is a good one, Mr. Reckart. How many beside Ronald Watson who is one of the "many Branhamites of India" do you really know? Mr. Reckart, don't you understand why the Branhamites hate me? Simply because I am not of their camp. The other half of the story you will not be able to comprehend.] There is now a feud between Gan and Watson.
Yes Mr. Gan, I preach it is a sin for females to cut their hair and to wear pants. [So do I, Mr. Cohen Reckart.] And yes, I preach a man that wears a skirt is a transvestite and a possible homosexual. [So, Mr. Reckart, Moses and all those Jews of old and even those of Christ's time must be transvestites and possible homosexuals. Did Noah, Abraham, Moses, Daniel, Isaiah, John Baptist, Jesus, Peter, Paul and all the saints of those days wear trousers/pants? Or did they wear a one piece wrap around their waist and their top, or a piece around their waist and legs (like the sarong or lungi) and another over their body? What did they wear for underwear? Trousers? Boxer-shorts? Briefs? Or a simple loin cloth? Trousers is believed to have originated in China, worn both by men and women but WITH CLEAR DISTINCTION in the COMPLETE SET of garment being worn. Cross-dressing was a crime. It is believed that the early Europeans took the design from the East in as early as some five hundred years before Christ. The Grecians began also to adopt it. But the Romans fought it as being barbaric; to them "only Barbarians wear trousers".] That means I have a very low opinion not only of your false doctrines but also you as a person. [I do not ask for nor do I need your opinion, Mr. Cohen Reckart, especially a lying "man of God". God's my Judge and that's all I need.] And yes, I do have the evidence Branham allowed his girls to cut their hair from the time they were teenagers all the way up to their adult life. Today they have cut hair and are not even living for God. Such is the sad case of the Branham family, all of them will end up in hell if someone does not reach them with the Truth. [I am no judge like you, Mr. Reckart. You have a Gospel that spells: "Unless the Christian women keep long hair they will all end up in hell." Is that the gospel according to Bishop Cohen Reckart, Man of God?]
About the woman who ran a beauty shop and cut women's hair: Branham told her it was ok. He should have told that woman to quit her job and take one in Murphy's five and dime. Yes they had them then. This woman could have taken a job in any number of places where her spiritual life would not have been in danger. There were choices of employment. One particular clothes cleaners at that time hired a lot of the Pentecostal girls and they did not have to wear pants or bob their hair. Many of the other stores and pharmacies likewise. There were several glass factories that did not require pants or cut hair. Mr Gan's thing that a woman has to work in a sinful environment is false. Yes, I preach it is a sin to put strong drink to thy neighbor's lips. And yes, I would never permit any female of my congregation to be a waitress and serve hard drinks. Apparently Gan believes its ok. Apparently he believes its ok to make, package and sell cigarettes. [A very good lie here, if ever lie is good. Again with just a slight twist of words, you have made me to ok the making, packaging and selling of cigarettes.]
Since he claims this is ok he must teach Branham authorized this when he refused to rebuke a woman for working in a sinful environment where she was cutting the hair of sinner women. Taking his doctrine would mean a person could work in any sinful work environment including a pornography business. [See. Mr. Reckart, you have such weird thinking that you presume even into the dark side. You have such a self-righteous spirit to think unholy thoughts of others.] Come on Gan, have your brains checked sir! [Hellooo! Listen to who's talking! You nit-pick at someone's teaching, twisting his words, presuming evil about him, etc. and you tell him to have his brain checked. Who is the one that ought to see a shrink for his brain check? Is it not the one who speak with fork-tongue? Did not the Apostle James say that a doubled minded man is unstable in ALL HIS WAYS? Just look at what you have written. Are you stable? Certainly not.] Would you let your wife work at a brothel as the madame of the house? [Would you? If not, what make you think that I would or Branham would? You filthy man, to think of us like that by asking such a stupid question.] Get real! [Yes, you have better get real, Mr. Cohen Reckart, before you get into trouble with the Lord Jesus, whom you are trying to serve.] Stop this madness and admit there are work places and environments that Christians should not work in. Gan's doctrine would mean a man could grow poppy flowers when he knows they will be used to make drugs. Yes, Gan, I teach it is a sin to grow tobacco, sell tobacco to a cigarette manufacturer, and to sell or in any way traffic in cigarettes. They way you write it, you see no problem in selling cigarettes to customers of a store.
Richard Gan like William Branham is a joker. [Mm...mmm, quite a comedienne, you are!] Anyone who receives him is not being led by God. Anyone who accepts his false doctrines from Branhamism is deceived. I know this is language with the bark still on it, but I must be plain-spoken here. Gan is an enemy of the Word of God and God's Messianic work. He is a perverter of Biblical doctrine. Anyone who fellowships with him will not be fellowshipped by JMFI or any of our Churches or Pastors. [Mr. Reckart, you may think highly of your organization. You have such a high regard for the system you have created that if anyone who doesn't belong to JMFI, he is...ehh...what happens to him? Does he go to hell?]
Pastor Gusto Gadama, you have deceived us for five years. You must be real proud of yourself. Did you let your wife die believing all this heresy and false doctrine? Soon, your name will on the internet as a minister prostitute who sells out for money. [How judgmental you are of Gadama. I feel sorry for Gadama but I feel even sorrier for you. He might have been looking for money and might have done it wrong. But you are so judgmental, so condescending, so condemning and without grace. You could not control your hurt over the loss of some hundreds of dollar insomuch that you fight me like an angry bull. If Gadama is really "mine" and he goes over to you, should I lose my mind and nit-pick your teachings, twist your words and presume evil of you? No preacher in his right mind would do what you are doing over the loss of some money and/or an "associate preacher" to another preacher or organization.] I am sure men like Gan and others will still use you for translating their false doctrines. But God will not allow you to be his Messianic representative of his Kingdom in Malawi. [Big deal to you, Mr. Reckart, but certainly not in God's eye. Because JMFI is not God's kingdom; it's the kingdom of BISHOP RECKART (COHEN), MAN OF GOD.] You will NEVER be trusted again by us nor used in any work we do in that nation. We will now seek now your replacement. [Right on. That's exactly the way an organization works. Proselyte some men and make them REPRESENTATIVES of a man-made kingdom.] Any and all designations, ordinations, or other fellowship status you have with JMFI is hereby revoked. I have sent emails to all our Brethren that you have sold us out for money. [Did you ever stop to think that Gadama might just have realized that he was bought by JMFI, by your money, and was a slave to the organization for all those years and finally got himself out of it? I wonder.]
Mr. Gan, congratulations! Although your doctrines are false, you did us a great favor by hiring Gusto Gadama and paying his prostitute wage [See your assumption here? You are the one doing that, not me. And you have no shame about it and still point a dirty finger at me. Unbelievable!] so we could discover his real identity as a Branhamite. Thank you for posting all about you and Pastor Gadama and your Malawi trip in March 2004. Just two months previous Gusto Gadama was to meet us in South Africa. We paid for his airfare and hotel and he claimed he could not come because the government would not approve his passport to board the plane. He cost us several hundred dollars lost. [So? You lose some, you win some, but why get all upset and put the blame on me? I didn't deceive you. I didn't buy Gadama. I know nothing about your relationship with him. And claiming to be a man of God, you dare just simply point at someone else to accuse him? Oh, my!] Now we know why he was not coming because he was a Branhamite and was in communications for your arrival in March. Again, thanks for exposing this man for what he really is, a minister prostitute. Did he get a lot of money out of you or did he sell himself to you cheap? [There you go again! You must be really upset about your loss − of money, your pride, etc.] Now sir, I call you to repent of all your false doctrines. If you do not undo the heresies you have spread in India, Africa nations, and other places, your soul will be cursed into everlasting punishment. You have been warned! [No, Mr. Cohen Reckart. You are the one who needs repenting. You are a self-made MAN OF GOD that claims powerful anointing to judge and damn others. You have committed presumptuous sins. You are a filthy dreamer and a liar. There are others who know you well to know that you have the tendency to misrepresent facts. In so doing you have made yourself a liar. If my doctrines are false, I am to be judged by God, not by you. I will repent if my doctrines are wrong, and likewise, you will need to if yours are wrong. However, true man of God does not go around and condemn another man just because he disagrees with the other man's teachings. I preach against false doctrines, but I don't preach against you or anyone directly just because I disagree with the teachings. I am not called to argue with your teachings or anyone else's. You have the right to judge my doctrines and call them false but certainly you don't have the right to misrepresent facts of my teachings. Produce the facts and don't twist words. I do not and will not take your words and twist them to misrepresent what you teach (or anyone else's for that matter). No sane man will do that. May God have mercy. (Richard Gan, dated: 28 Dec.'05.)]
Bishop G. Reckart
Updated 16 March 2006.
On the 15 March 2006, Pastor Gadama emailed a letter addressed to both Reckart and me, telling of his shock over the article Reckart has posted on the Internet accusing him of being a "trickster". I replied him and forwarded a copy of the same to Reckart. Reckart replied Gadama and then addressed me with this:
I briefly replied him as to the spirit he possessed and if he had read my posting. (Notice how self-righteous he is, he wants me to repent and to hold to his organization's doctrines.) And this is his reply which I received today:
To that I could only reply him with this:
Updated 30 Sept. 2006.
Cohen Reckart has added more attack against me on the same webpage -- http://jesus-messiah.com/html/gan-branhamite.html -- of his website. I have no idea when he added the following four paragraphs to the top of the article.
These paragraphs clearly show the man is prideful and angry when he is exposed to his lies. He is repeatedly highlighting his own lies, even that I am the one who is angry (when all I have done was to expose his lies). He is actually sulking by behaving childishly in ridiculing -- "Branham went to the second twilight zone but Gan has gone to the third: woopie, woopie, woopie, woopie, you just crossed over the time warp into Ganland." Is this a mature behaviour of a Bishop, a Man of God? It reminds me of some childish comic characters in children comic strips.
Next, Cohen again shamelessly defends himself with these words: "Gan accuses me of being mean, cruel, unchristain, unloving, proud, and several other adjectives. The fact is, as a Bishop I am doing my duty to expose false teachers. If I err in any of my assertions about him, he has himself to blame." The man's pride and arrogance really really amaze me. This self-righteous remark of his reminds me of Cain, who after killing Abel, said to God, "If I err in any of my assertions about him, he has himself to blame." Tsk tsk.
His talk about an offer to debate him is a lot of hot air for it is done to his own convenient. Let me offer him to a debate this coming October, 2006, in Nadi, Fiji, when I am there and he can come there as Fiji is nearer to USA. Would he accept the challenge? If not, I can simply say he has refused and also add that he was a coward, isn't it?
Lastly, the man has no qualm about calling me "a transvestite", and "I mean he is quite feminine about it. I mean he is absolutely a sissy. I call him to repent of his evil and his sins. I call him to come out of that Branham mess, come out of all of it. If he rjectes my voice and call, he will die lost". What I believe infuriates him to speak so evil of me and even to judge me as eternally lost by his doctrine are: i) He felt he was deceived by Gusto Gadama (after much money was spent on him) and thought that I had manipulated Gadama away from him. (How he jumped to that conclusion is beyond me. Gadama is a man who associates with many different preachers but we had never been close.) ii) When I exposed his folly.