The Chicken or the Woman's Egg:
With today's cult followers more knowledgeable with science and anatomy than the cult of yesteryear, they are a little more than shocked when they hear William Branham make spiritual claims that rely upon denial of what we all understand and know to be fact. At which point, we receive questions concerning what Branham taught on specific subjects.
One such question came in this week: "Did William Branham teach that Mary did not produce the egg that birthed baby Jesus?"
This question, as some of the younger, more knowledgeable crowd is aware, is the conundrum one encounters when William Branham claims that Mary was not the mother of Christ, denying John 19:25
"Near the cross of Jesus stood his mother, his motherâ€™s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene." - John 19:25
In many of Branham's derogatory statements towards Mary, the mother of Jesus, and women in general, he claimed that she was "just an incubator," that she "did not produce the egg," and that Jesus had no part with her, and therefore was not a Jew, denying John 4:22:
"You [Gentiles] worship what you do not know; we [Jews] worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews." - John 4:22
The more knowledgeable crowd, schooled in anatomy and physiology, realize that the woman's body has already produced all of her eggs for her lifetime, and that the Menstrual Cycle releases an egg every month. (For the older crowd: http://www.webmd.com/sex-relationships/guide/your-guide-female-reproductive-system?page=3
But it is not entirely true that William Branham "said" that Mary did not produce the egg. Those who use this phrase, "William Branham said," mistakenly try to claim that William Branham remained in the same position in any given subject, when there are very few subjects in which Branham's position remains the same.
Here are some examples of Branham correctly stating that Mary already had her egg:
"We all know that the bloodstream comes from the male sex. The germ of life comes through theâ€”the male. And in this case, Mary had theâ€”the egg, but the germ, the blood cell, came from God the Creator Who made it. So you can't say Jesus was a Jew, He wasn't."
Branham, 60-0309 - Why?
"The very Jesus that was conceived in the womb of Mary when Jehovah, the Almighty God, overshadowed her, and brought a blood cell into her womb, mixed with that egg that was in the woman, brought forth, not the blood of the Jew, or the blood of the Gentile, but the Blood of God"
Branham, 60-0724 - The Unchangeable Word Of God
But as with almost any claim we study from the "Prophet of uncertain sound," He also said the exact opposite:
"Maryâ€¦ If that Baby's body (which the flesh comes from the egg), and if that Baby's body was flesh of Mary, then what? Then Mary had to have some kind of a sensation. You see where you put God doing? God created both egg and blood cell. "
Branham, 62-0128A - A Paradox
"That egg cannot be there without a sensation. There had to be something happen. And look where you put Jehovah, mixed up in sex. God created the entire Being of Christ in the womb of Mary, and she was just a woman, an incubator, that bare this Son. Wasn't nothing of her. Now. She's just a woman that God used."
Branham, 62-0624 - Super Sign
"But the egg didn't come from Mary. If the egg come from Mary, then there had to be a sensation. Look where you put God. God created both egg and blood cell."
Branham, 63-0121 - Zacchaeus, The Businessman
"Well, then, if this woman produced the egg, then how could David say "I'll not leave My Holy One see corruption, neither will I leave His soul in hell"? Then if the woman egg was in Christ, then the person's got something to do with His part in the resurrection, when it's wholly complete with God. Why did God raise up a sexual part of a person? In the resurrection, why didn't He leave His body see corruption? Because He was holy. And how could He be holy if He'd have had a conception with Mary, and the pollen had come from Mary, the egg down through the tube into the womb? There'd have had to be some sensation to bring the egg down. Then the woman would beâ€¦ 82 Well, you say, "The egg might have been laying there. Could have been possible." But that, if so, then look what happens here, then He wasn't altogether God. He wasn't God, inasmuch as He was human. But then if that be so, the woman had something in it. And theâ€”the actual seed that come from Mary, which come from her mother, and her mother, and her mother, was something human mixed into it, with a human desire. Couldn't have been. No, sir."
Branham, 62-0211 - Oneness
Many of you that are now leaving the message cult and seeking Christ also contact us about parents who refuse to even look at the fundamental issues with "The Message." "Why can't they see it?" we are asked. "Are they blind?"
Partly, this may be true:
"Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false" - 2 Thessalonians 2:11
But in examples like this doctrine of "Mary's egg," they simply may not have the same knowledge and understanding of God's creation and all that is in it. A people attracted to a religious movement through signs and wonders, at a time when much less understanding of the Bible, religion in general, and scientific fact were available, are more difficult to persuade away from gross error and into truth. They cannot see the error, and were attracted by signs and wonder.
One can only respond with 2 Thessalonians 2:9:
"The coming of the lawless one is by the activity of Satan with all power and false signs and wonders"