The first and second parts of Tay’s and Andah’s exposition of damnable heresies were published of recent weeks; from 1ST June 2016 and thereafter. Seemingly Tay is busy trying to formulate his defence, but his defence is departed. As we published by a second notice, he is trying to use a major devilish formula to excuse himself from this exposition, and it is based upon quotations of Brother Branham which he termed “Word-based quotations” and “Non-Word-based quotations”.


I repeat that this itself is a nasty satanic heresy. It is saying, in so many words, that Brother Branham said things that were not scriptural. You liar, bastard born hypocrite, deceiver. That is the simplicity of this wicked heresy. We condemn it, it is a lie of the devil, it is the serpent’s strategy from the Garden of Eden, and it has passed that. The serpent only added one word, but Tay and Andah have added multitudes of lies against the truth and Brother Branham’s message, by saying which are non-Word-based statements. It is a wicked lie of the devil. Let message believers arise with their swords out of their sheaths, and chop this heresy to pieces. Who is this mad man to defy the message and the prophet? Contend for the faith (Jude 1:1-4).


            Jude 1:3 <Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.

For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.>




            We perceive that in Tay’s lame defence will be other hideous lies, heresies and private intepretations, and they will be based upon the “Love gospel”: “Don’t rebuke, love one another, let us all come together, etc”. A bunch of sissies will support that. This cannot defend him, this cannot excuse him for the heretic that he is, and also Andah. Their heresies are too dangerous, cunning and deceptive to the simple in mind, filled with lies, hypocrisy and unbelief against the prophet and his teachings. They are truly the sons of Mr Jackson.


By his approach of the “love gospel”, it reveals a spirit of antichrist upon him, identified in the early ages as the Nicolaitans.


This is nothing less than white horse tactics of the love gospel, coming in peaceably and seemingly harmless, and inoffensively, but with a dagger to conquer the souls of message believers. Run for your lives. The tongue of Andah is silent like a barkless dog. Come on the scene you bastard, or we will vote you in. Open your mouth like you brayed your heresies out on your book: Two clouds etc. You are a cloud without water, a raging wave foaming out your own shame, a wandering star that has no place to rest. You better help Tay,  as you helped him to embarrass our brothers and E.O.D.H. ministers. He is distressed with the proclamation of a fivefold ministry restored, which he borrowed from you.


Hear the psychological words of Tay, with his love gospel: “My Dear Bro. Christian Greetings. Shalom. God bless you. I love and respect you.” He is sending an ambassage of peace, after he declared war on E.O.D.H. and our ministers.


Message believers, beloved of the Lord, elected children, is Tay speaking to you all, locally and internationally, so nicely, humbly, peacefully and respectfully about us? Or is he hatefully, critically, arrogantly, and with a hot temper blasting us out to save his face? In Ghana all bear witness that Mister Tay is an arrogant, high tempered man, full of pride and with a boastful mouth. This was evidently displayed before E.O.D.H. ministers.


By this psychological and hypocritical love gospel strategy is how they fought the true ministers, even Apostle Paul. They tried to belittle those who exposed their heresies and them as heretics, and show the public how good they were and what humble Christians they were, with psychological words and psychological writings. Apostle Paul exposed their approach as “Enticing words of man’s wisdom”, which he never used. He had a gospel with teeth.


            I Corinthians 2:4 <And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:>


            A good example of what Tay is about to do is represented in the letter below, supposedly written to Brother Paul. This represents the attitude of the “love gospel” and the hypocrisy. Like Brother Branham spoke of the good old priest, and compared him with Jesus, showing how Jesus appeared to the public, and how  the good old priest appeared to the public as the right one and the nice one. He intends to let E.O.D.H. appear to the public in like manner.


            In this letter to the Apostle Paul, fictitious or non-fictitious, it has truly exposed this “love gospel”, compromising spirit, a bunch of make believers and a bunch of hypocrites and sissies. I could put Tay’s name right under that letter as a heretic and Nicolaitan. We wish to lend you this letter to enhance your false defence, Mr Tay. This may help you. Why not copy this, as your defence against E.O.D.H.?


Coming soon would be the third part of the exposition of Tay and Andah. We close our case for the time being and await Tay’s and Andah’s defence against those three messages, ten chapters, exposition of their heresies and both men as heretics.


This has nothing to do with the thirty assumed errors that Tay boastfully claimed that he found in E.O.D.H. That is a separate subject. But he will try to tie that in there, saying that we did not give him enough time to point out the errors in E.O.D.H. It is a lie.


We await the thirty errors he claimed to have found in E.O.D.H., and we already warned him that we want the Word of God and the message of the prophet, W. M. Branham.


We are not going to accept his dagger and broken sword with a percent of the message and condemning the quotations of the prophet. Any man who does that, he is of Satan, of the devil, he does not believe this message, he is a hypocrite and bastard, and that is where Tay fits. Tay fits with the so-called Pentecostal spirit that hates William Branham, but we love him and we love his teachings.



Presbyterian Church in Asia Minor

Committee on Missions

Paul the Apostle
c/o Aquila the Tentmaker
Corinth, Greece

Dear Paul:


We recently received a copy of your letter to the Galatians. The committee has directed me to inform you of a number of things which deeply concern us.


First, we find your language to be somewhat intemperate. In your letter, after a brief greeting to the Galatians, you immediately attack your opponents by claiming they want to "pervert the gospel of Christ". You then say that such men should be regarded as "accursed;" and, in another place, you make reference to "false brethren." Wouldn't it be more charitable to give them the benefit of the doubt ­ at least until the General Assembly has investigated and adjudicated the matter? To make the situation worse, you later say, "I would they were even cut off which trouble you." Is such a statement really fitting for a Christian minister? The remark seems quite harsh and unloving.


Paul, we really feel the need to caution you about the tone of your epistles. You come across in an abrasive manner to many people. In some of your letters you've even mentioned names; and this practice has, no doubt, upset the friends of Hymenaeus, Alexander, and others. After all, many persons were first introduced to the Christian faith under the ministries of these men. Although some of our missionaries have manifested regrettable shortcomings, nevertheless, it can only stir up bad feelings when you speak of these men in a derogatory manner.

In other words, Paul, I believe you should strive for a more moderate posture in your ministry. Shouldn't you try to win those who are in error by displaying a sweeter spirit? By now, you've probably alienated the Judaizers to the point that they will no longer listen to you.


By your outspokeness, you have also diminished your opportunities for future influence throughout the church as a whole. Rather, if you had worked more quietly, you might have been asked to serve on a presbytery committee appointed to study the issue. You could then have contributed your insights by helping to draft a good committee paper on the theological position of the Judaizers, without having to drag personalities into the dispute.

Besides, Paul, we need to maintain unity among those who profess a belief in Christ. The Judaizers at least stand with us as we confront the surrounding paganism and humanism which prevail within the culture of the contemporary Roman Empire. The Judaizers are our allies in our struggles against abortion, homosexuality, government tyranny, etc. We cannot afford to allow differences over doctrinal minutia to obscure this important fact.


I also must mention that questions have been raised about the contents of your letter, as well as your style. The committee questions the propriety of the doctrinaire structure of your letter. Is it wise to plague young Christians, like the Galatians, with such heavy theological issues? For example, in a couple of places, you allude to the doctrine of election. You also enter into a lengthy discussion of the law. Perhaps you could have proved your case in some other ways, without mentioning these complex and controverted points of Christianity. Your letter is so doctrinaire, it will probably serve only to polarize the differing factions within the churches. Again, we need to stress unity, instead of broaching issues which will accent divisions among us.


In one place, you wrote, "Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing." Paul, you have a tendency to describe things strictly in black and white terms, as if there are no gray areas. You need to temper your expressions, lest you become too exclusive. Otherwise, your outlook will drive away many people, and make visitors feel unwelcome. Church growth is not promoted by taking such a hard line and remaining inflexible.


Remember, Paul, there is no such thing as a perfect church. We have to tolerate many imperfections in the church, since we cannot expect to have everything at once. If you will simply think back over your own experience, you will recall how you formerly harassed the church in your times of ignorance. By reflecting on your own past, you might acquire a more sympathetic attitude toward the Judaizers. Be patient, and give them some time to come around to a better understanding. In the meantime, rejoice that we all share a common profession of faith in Christ, since we have all been baptized in his name.



Charles Phinney
Coordinator, Committee on Missions