Return to Oraclesofgod.org

Return to "The Shepherd's Chapel and Dr. Arnold Murray" Main Page

Point by Point, Debunking Paul Stringini? Easier Said Than Done.

(3/1/09) The following is my response to something I found on factnet.org. (Actually, I found it through google).  I have dabbled in forums from time to time, but I find that the pace does not suit me, I have a wife, six children, a job, and numerous other things in my life; and in order to be able to participate in these forums, satisfactorily, I would end up spending all my time chained to the computer.  I just can't do it.  The other problem with forums is that eventually many of them disappear and so does all the work that gets put in them. 

I am aware that I get talked about on forums.  I would like to  respond to them.  So if anyone runs across something someone has written about me in regard to the Shepherd's Chapel , I would appreciate it if you would send it along to me for rebuttal (if you really think it is worth replying to).

Really, if you "Elect" Chapel Students want to take me on, you really ought to take me on here, to my face. You have to stamp me out at the source, or my fire is just going to keep burning.  So far, all the "Elect" have done is help me make my point.  All they have done is help me turn people away from the Chapel.  Keep up the good work.  I can't take on Dr. Murray directly, but you can take me on, you have every advantage.

In any case, this particular piece of work falsely claims to be a "Point by point debunking" of my original Shepherd's Chapel document.  Aside from failing to "debunk" what I had written, and aside from its failure to be a "point by point" document.  The writer, "Watchman 2," fails to grasp  the arguments he claims to rebut.  If one cannot understand what he is rebutting, one cannot make a good argument against it. 

Watchman_2's text appears in Blue, while his quoting of my text appears in red. Read Watchman_2's original piece,  here

Watchman_2:

I piece that I wrote -

Point by point debunking Paul Stringini's http://www.oraclesofgod.org/shepherds_chapel.htm

1. Details of the World That Was, the Elect, and the Angelic Rebellion Completely Fabricated by Dr. Murray

Stringini's conclusion:

"This was the big one, maybe, for me, the worst thing, when examined closely, Pastor Murray teaches a \u{perverted} form of predestination."

It is interesting to me to see the dichotomy here.

His doctrinal argument point is that the details of the first age angelic rebellion were "completely fabricated". Then, he goes straight to a conclusive statement that the predestination doctrine is "perverted".

A “Completely fabricated” detail does not mean the doctrine is "perverted". The two positions are mutually exclusive points.

The idea that some "stood against Satan" in the supposed first earth-age angelic rebellion is a fabrication and is the very foundation of Dr. Murray's version of predestination.  To apply the term s "mutually exclusive" and "dichotomy" to two ideas which are so inexorably linked in Dr. Murray's doctrine is a major blunder.  So Watchman_2 starts off his little "piece" staggering.

A “Completely fabricated” detail does not mean the doctrine is "perverted". The two positions are mutually exclusive points.

100% Wrong.  The fact that Watchman 2 does not even understand this fact, and tries to say that there is some logical barrier to the truth of my statement highlights the fact that he is not well versed in the doctrines of the Apostles and prophets, and demonstrates the intellectually crippling effects of Dr. Murray's instruction.

A little leaven leavens the whole lump.  Bread is either leavened or unleavened.  No one ever says, "it only has a little yeast in it, most of it has no yeast in it, most of it is pure flour, so technically it can still be considered to be unleavened."  That is not how it goes.   It is like saying you cheated only on "part" of the test, if you cheat on part of the test, you cheated on the whole test.

That is what the Apostles taught, that is what Jesus taught. "Beware the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees."  If what Dr. Murray is teaching is fabricated, then all of his ministry is corrupted, just like leavened bread, so eat it.

It is akin to me providing details of the sexual act between Satan and Eve in the Garden of Eden. If I declared that they did it doggy style, then the detractor's conclusion would be that I fabricated the detail thereby making the Serpent Seed Doctrine false. This is nonsense -- the details of ‘how’ they did it is not related to the fact that they ‘did’ do it.

 If that had been what I had done, then maybe he would have had a point.  But his argument rests on the significance of the fabricated details.

Doggy or Missionary? Not very significant details in proving  whether they "did it," or not.  True.  Watchman 2's problem is that he is trying to be logical while disconnected from the facts of the case.  You cannot transfer the logic of one case to another unless there is sufficient congruence between the facts in each case.  So He assumes "details" are inherently insignificant, they are not inherently insignificant, the significance of details must be judged in each case.

"They stood against Satan in the world that was." That is significant, essential, and a fabricated detail.  If the fabricated portions of Dr. Murray's doctrines were insignificant to the doctrines themselves, then, yes, they would not make the doctrine false.  But that is not the case.  "The Devil's in the Details."

Also, if Dr. Murray was actually making up insignificant details about the world that was, wouldn't you think he was a bit cracked??? I mean, let's pretend I claimed that the elect flew four banners, and eagle, a man, a calf and a lion while Satan's minions marched under the banners of a Dragon, a serpent, a goat, and an inverted pentagram. These fabricated details would have no impact on whether the  Satanic rebellion and Angelic resistance ever happened, but still, if you are going to make things up, you should at least do something significant.  So, this is just a stupid argument, and I have to say so.

Really, all this "Watchman_2" has proven is that I should have used a better word than "detail." I should have said,  "All facts pertaining to all humanity living in a 'world that was' in angelic bodies with some rebelling with Satan and others standing against him and becoming the elect completely fabricated."

That is what I should have said, that is much more accurate and to the point.

Hence, the relative truth or untruth of the details of the first age angelic rebellion neither makes or breaks the true doctrinal issue of the veracity of 'predestination'.

Hence, Watchman_2, is not a very good reader and an even worse logician.  The details of the first earth age angelic rebellion are the cause of predestination, according to Dr. Murray.  Standing against Satan and becoming the elect IS Dr. Murray's doctrine of election/predestination, and it is completely fabricated.  In fact, it is the most fabulous fable in the entire "world that was" claim.  It has absolutely zero scriptural support. 

It is the detail that totally make the whole thing fall because it is the whole thing.  You can have a "world that was,"  you may even suppose an angelic rebellion, but when you say, "People alive today were there and they stood against Satan and that is why God has predestinated them to obtain salvation."  That is just bilge, sewage, septic-soup, uh, not true.   

I believe in the biblical doctrine of predestination, Dr. Murray doesn't, and this guy doesn't have a clue what he is talking about.

Even more interesting is the choice of the word 'perverted'. This presents another dichotomy.

On the one hand, he supposedly declares his admiration and respect for PM. Yet, he chose the word 'perverted' [very strong word] instead of 'errant', 'mistaken', 'unbiblical', etc. [more respectful word].

The word 'perverted' happens to be the word of choice of most of SC critics. You can see this word often throughout the anti-chapel websites that pollute the internet.

I myself have posted regarding what I think are errant teachings of PM. I would never consider using the word 'perverted' to describe an error of a teacher that I respected at one time. It is demeaning.

Perverted means, twisted, and that is what Dr. Murray does, I think sometimes, in the interest of civility I have tried to be respectful, but that is just emotional, I was once very fond of Dr. Murray, when I think of the man, I feel affection, but I hate his teaching, I have zero intellectual respect for Dr. Murray, nor for this intellectual pretender, "Watchman_2." Not from what I've seen so far.

I almost can't believe that I was quoted in that newspaper article saying that he was a "pretty good teacher"  I regret that.  I do. I will clarify that someday, hopefully soon.

I'll not go into the scriptural issue other then to say that his exegesis is very weak and does not prove his point. There is ample scriptural evidence to support the doctrine of ‘predestination’ based upon the first age.

No, there isn't, "ample scriptural evidence to support the doctrine of ‘predestination’ based upon the first age" What a pity that he didn't go into it.  Talk about weak, there is absolutely no support for the idea that predestination is based on actions one took in another earth-age, none, zero.  This is an absolute.  There is nothing.

No one has ever really taken up the torch on this subject, mostly because they know deep down that they are listening to story-time, so I guess I'll have to tell the story for them.

I'm going to present Dr. Murray's "story" and then examine the scriptures which he claims document it.

The Story: Before this earth-age, there was another Earth-age, and in that Earth-age all the people who have ever lived on the earth were alive and lived with God in angelic bodies.  Satan rebelled taking a third of the angelic host with him, this event is referred to as the "overthrow of Satan" or the katabole (Ka-ta-bow-lay, from the Greek) Some of the angelic host stood against Satan and are now predestined in this age to be God's elect, those who did not stand against Satan have free will.

I'm going to stop there, I strayed a little beyond the scope of "the world that was" but it just gets worse and worse, I could have carried it into the millennium, but I'll leave that for another time (it has been addressed in emails).

So let's break it down, just a bit.

First, I do not disagree with the idea that there may have been an earth-age before this one, I'm not going to argue with anyone on that, but if there was, there is really very little information given on it, and that information is extremely sketchy. Let's look at some of the sources Dr. Murray uses to back up his story:

Job 38: 4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. 5 Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it? 6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof; 7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

The problem here is that Dr. Murray has taken a single scripture and run with it; without regard to the context or the overall judgment of scripture on this issue. Verse seven is the focus verse for Dr. Murray, and Dr. Murray provides an answer, he says that we were there when God laid the foundation, we were those "Sons of God"  But the point that God is making here is that man is a puny  and ignorant thing, the answer is that man had nothing to do with any of those things. Man was nowhere.

When Adam was created, he was not infused with a soul, he became one.

Gen2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

The importance of this cannot be understated, the language is pretty simple, God formed man and brought him to life, and he became a soul right there on the ground.  This was Adams absolute beginning as a being.  One could argue that we all preexisted in the purposes of God, but I would not say it is even possible that we ever pre-existed as individual beings.

The bible teaches that our lives begin in our mother's womb, no earlier time is ever mentioned for our beginnings.  The bible always talks about us as having originated from our mother's womb, never as having originated from somewhere else, and being implanted there, the only case of that would be Christ.

John3:13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.

Dr. Murray correctly states that "again" in "born again" can also mean "from above."  But he then goes on to say (perversely) that Jesus is indicating that, in order to be saved; our angelic persons, which we once were, have to come down from heaven ("from above" ) and be "born innocent of woman," and live in this flesh age, again, in order to be saved.

That is not what Jesus was saying.  Pardon me, but that is a stinking load of crap, and no one should have to smell it.  We do have to be "born from above," but Dr. Murray completely botches the simple language that Jesus uses;  "You must be born again" indicates some thing that we lack.  Dr. Murray treats it like Jesus was informing us of something we already possess, but are ignorant of, as if saying, "You must realize you were born from above; we were all born from above."  But that is just devilish.  He usually throws in the 'angels that sinned' here as proof, claiming that their sin was that they did not submit to being born in flesh bodies, so they cannot be saved.  But he has left the teachings of Jesus Christ far behind by that point

Verse thirteen from John Chapter 3 is clear, Jesus alone is "he that came down from heaven" to be born of woman. No one else ever has. 

Also, the phrase "so is every one that is born of the Spirit." from John 3:8 implies that "born from above" is not a universal phenomena.  If Jesus was trying to communicate that it was; he could have said, "everyone is born from above."

Whenever the scriptures wish to refer to the earliest possible time in someone's life, they unerringly refer to the womb:

Ps 22:10 I was cast upon thee from the womb: thou art my God from my mother's belly

Isa 44:2 Thus saith the LORD that made thee, and formed thee from the womb,

Isa 44:24 Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb,

Isa 49:1 Listen, O isles, unto me; and hearken, ye people, from far; The LORD hath called me from the womb; from the bowels of my mother hath he made mention of my name.

Jer 1:5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.

Dr. Murray actually uses Jeremiah 1 to back up his claims; claiming that God knew Jeremiah before he was born because Jeremiah had existed in that angelic age.  But God here is speaking of the womb as the earliest period in Jeremiah's existence, Jeremiah was "formed in the womb,"  not just his body, but the person, Jeremiah.  God Formed him in the womb and Jeremiah became a living soul, his body was not infused with a soul, the formation of the body and the bringing to life was the act of creation for Jeremiah. 

The foreknowledge of God does not give us any cause to suppose Jeremiah had existed in an angelic body prior to this genesis spoken of in this verse.  I suppose it could mean that, but that would really be pushing the issue, you have to have a very compelling reason to make an interpretation like that, such as some good collaborating scriptures,  which we have not found.  Dr. Murray's students become conditioned so that it becomes very difficult to see it any other way.

Psalm 82:5 They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness: all the foundations of the earth are out of course. 6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High. 7 But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.

I used to look at this one and it really seemed like it said a lot, but I was just reading too much into it.  Dr. Murray colors the perceptions of the people who follow him, they see his story in the scriptures the way I can make you see a dragon in the clouds, by suggesting to you that it is there and by you being willing to see it.

In these verses we are led to believe that God is pronouncing judgment on the Angelic host and condemning them to die in the flesh as part of the lesson of this earth age. 

Well, that is the way I took it.  But really this is just a simple case of taking things out of context

Psalm 82:1 A Psalm of Asaph. God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods. 2 How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked? Selah.
3 Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy. 4 Deliver the poor and needy: rid them out of the hand of the wicked.
5 They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness: all the foundations of the earth are out of course. 6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High. 7 But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes. 8 Arise, O God, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations.

The second and third verses make it clear that this Psalm is in reference to earthly affairs and the men who rule in the Earth, but especially to the rulers of Israel.  In the old testament the only people who God ever referred to as his children were the people of Israel.

And when people stand in the stead of God, handing down life and death, it is not unusual for God to call them "gods." 

Ex7:1 And the LORD said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.

Referring to these earthly leaders as "gods" is an acknowledging of the power they have over the people, and is further reinforced by the admonishment to "deliver the oppressed" and etc. 

The "all of you are children of the most high," refers to all the children of Israel, and he is reminding the judges and rulers that they are all part of that covenant and that they all shall die and be judged by the judge of all nations.

This has nothing to do with any "world that was."

All these fabricated details are laid over a skeleton of scriptures, and may seem convincing to those who are receiving his instruction innocently or to those who have been conditioned to read things with his doctrinal overlay in place.  But if one is able to look at the whole of scripture with a clear mind, Dr. Murray's fables are shown to be what they truly are.  Unfortunately,  many of Dr. Murray's long-term disciples become conditioned to see things in the text that are not there.  I used to see those things, but now I see that I was only conditioned to see something that was the product of the imagination of a man, but was never really there.  True "eyes to see" is the ability to read the bible as it is written, and that ability, oddly enough, is quite rare.

Anyway, I don't feel like going on, everything I do is limited by time and I've covered the New Testament "katabole" in the emails, just do a search of my website. 

2. {Replenish the Earth - Dr. Murray Abuses the Word When Convenient

Stringini's conclusion:

Either, he is ignorant of the facts, or he is abusing the word because it is convenient for him to do so in order to bolster his wild and speculative hypotheses.

It is true that the Hebrew word ‘replenish’, according to Strong's, means 'to fill' -

H4390
mâlê' mâlâ'
maw-lay', maw-law'
A primitive root, \b{to fill} or (intransitively) be full of, in a wide application (literally and figuratively): - accomplish, confirm, + consecrate, be at an end, be expired, be fenced, fill, fulfil, (be, become, X draw, give in, go) fully (-ly, -ly set, tale), [over-] flow, fulness, furnish, gather (selves, together), presume, \b{replenish}, satisfy, set, space, take a [hand-] full, + have wholly.

Yes, the KJV translators rendered it 'replenish', which in English commonly means 'to fill again'. This may or may not be a great rendering in the KJV.

Irrespective of whether or not 'replenish' is a good rendering, it was the rendering used in the KJV. Stringini does not go on to detail the article 'eth that is used in the Hebrew and the import thereof. Stringini uses this single word as the basis for declaring the entire hypotheses [he did not declare which ones] as "wild and speculative".

"Eth" and the import thereof?  If it is was important, I would have gone into it, but it happens to be a "red herring."  Dr. Murray is not a competent scholar of the Bible or Hebrew, he merely pretends to be.  He overemphasizes things like ARTICLES and bad English renderings of Hebrew words (like "replenish").

Watchman_2 is a great scholar, why doesn't he go into it? "Eth Ha Adam," the significance is killing me.

See Email #44 "Extensive Discussion of  What Happened In the Garden of Eden and the Origin of Races"

 the entire hypotheses [he did not declare which ones] as "wild and speculative".

Follow the subject.  I was referring directly to the hypothesis that the word "replenish" here is an explicit command from God to RE-fill the earth from the world that was.  Hogwash.

As I noted above, there is ample other evidence addressing the first age and our existence therein.

I have gone into greater detail now, so a lot of that "evidence" is really not where you think it is. It is all extremely weak, I'm interested in doctrines that are strongly supported by scripture, but that no one obeys.  Those are the ones you need eyes to see.  Dr. Murray is merely a blind leader of the blind.  Those who can see always see though him in the end.

Stringini does not even address any of these other scriptures.

Well now I did address a few more, I'll get the rest later (time again).  But I was just making what I felt were the most compelling points, the ones that stood out to me, I was not trying to catalog Dr. Murray's errors or even "disprove" his doctrines, I was trying to point out the things that effected me as I turned away from his teachings.   You don't have to take out all the legs of a table in order to make it fall.  I believed in Murray's "world that was" long after I decided he was being reckless with "replenish."  but, for me, that was the beginning of the end.

That document was just a first volley, something for people to respond to.  Even so, I'll stand by what I said.

This argument of Stingini was completely pointless and unintelligible.

Unintelligible?  Frankly, It has more to do with the reader.  The work of watchman_2 demonstrates his difficulty in comprehending simple points that go contrary to the way he has been conditioned to think.

Granted, I could have done a better job on that original article, but I wasn't writing a doctoral thesis or anything, I'm just some guy in a dirty t-shirt and sweatpants sitting in front of my computer, this is not my life, I'm not Clergy or a retired person, I have a very limited time for this which I try to make the best of.  That document was my simple story. That was the process I went through, very simply stated.  It was proof-read by several people for grammar and clarity.  That's it.

I originally intended it for Chapel students, but, really, it has become more of a thing for people who are just getting started with the Chapel, to help them before they become conditioned and join the ranks of the "electrified" (victims of Dr. Murray's brainwashing who believe they are the elect and begin to get abusive with people who they believe are not)

3. Kenites and the Devil's Children

He really doesn't make a general point here -- just sub points:

A. Satan Actually Fathering a Son

Stringini's conclusion:

"Cain slew his brother out of jealousy, no doubt Cain was of the Devil and of the Serpent's seed, albeit, in the spirit the same way I am of the seed of God, but the spirit."

As I have pointed out this many times here at Factnet. Gen. 3:20 and 4:1 are dispositive of the issue. It is clear that the woman received the name Eve because she was already pregnant. It is also clear that the woman already had her name Eve when Adam first had sex with her.

I have no idea what the word "dispositive" is, and I don't feel like looking it up, but I'll venture to guess it means something like "conclusive" or "definitively conclusive."  And I'll venture to guarantee that those passages are nothing of the sort.

Gen 3:20 And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.

Gen 4:1 And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD.

None of the conclusions drawn by W2 are required by these texts, his fancy word cannot save him from his poor judgment.

It is clear that the woman received the name Eve because she was already pregnant.

It is not.  Even if she was pregnant.  Is it entirely safe to assume that Adam would have known she was pregnant?  Would she head down to Wal-mart and pick up the trusty old, "1st Response," and  slip off to the ladies' room for a quick little test?

Let's say she is starting to show.  Is it a forgone conclusion that Adam would have known that she was eventually going to eject another human being from her vaginal cavity? He'd never see that before!  He'd never see a mini-human either.  Maybe he would, maybe he wouldn't.  Maybe Adam and Eve had sex before they ate from the fruit of the tree.  (and that is all they did, eat fruit), See: Email 44 "Extensive Discussion of  What Happened In the Garden of Eden and the Origin of Races" )

There are no chronological indicators given here. 

W2's error is that he is drawing too much conclusion from too little fact.  The word does not supply all that information.  These verses lack any chronological information indicating Eve was already carrying Cain, so he boldly declares that the sentence structure is revelatory in that regard.  But this is a major error.  

The sentence structure here is not a source of chronological information.

This is the kind of bad interpreting that goes on with those who have been conditioned to see the serpent sex myth in Genesis.

It is also clear that the woman already had her name Eve when Adam first had sex with her.

It is not clear.   It is not even reasonable to say.   The only thing that this passage makes clear regarding Eve's name is that Eve already had her name when Moses wrote about Adam having sex with her. 

Dr. Murray's followers spend all their energy attempting to prove their master's points, and, in so doing, they are forced to reach farther, and farther, and farther, after things which are just not reasonable.

And to condescend: In Christianity, we have a book, the Bible, and in it are contained all the stories of our religion.  If Moses wanted to tell a story about Eve having sex with Satan, then he would have done so, and that would have been the story we had been given, but he did not do that, he gave us a different story, a story of simple disobedience, revelation, and judgment.  Dr. Murray and his followers try to read into the story, a different set of facts and foreign inventions, in order to change the story (and even mock it!),  and then, at the same time say that this hidden mythology is "clear," so very, very, clear.  Yet even they MUST admit that what they want for people to see in Genesis is hidden and is contrary to the narrative as Moses delivered it. -----------------------

If we were to read Gen 4:1 according to their standard, one could say it is clear Eve gave birth a moment after Adam "knew her,"  because according to the sentence structure, those events happened in rapid succession.  Again, there is no chronological information given which indicates that Cain was not the son of Adam, and if I am going to abuse sentence structure to jury-rig chronology, I'm going to run into a heap of trouble. 

Maybe, before he had sex with her, Adam already knew she would be the mother of all living people.  That is just as reasonable as thinking he would understand what a pregnancy even was moments after the first sexual encounter in the history of the earth.  Just how much knowledge did the first man have? We can only guess.

"I have gotten a man from the Lord"?  Does that now mean it was clear that Cain was born full grown? Because what she got from the Lord was a baby, not a man.  I'm only saying that to show that it is foolish to read too much into such statements.  What was the intention of the writer?  What was the writer trying to say?  These are the foundation stories of Christianity and Dr. Murray has thought to utterly change them.

That is the problem with Dr. Murray, he  wants to get us to see that the way things are written is not the way they really are, because none of us came to these conclusions without the assistance of a teacher, no unconditioned, honest, intelligent reader would ever draw such wild and speculative details out of such little information, the individual has to be conditioned to come up with that kind of interpretation (or possibly under demonic influences).  Dr. Murray conditions people to read such things into the text (just as he was conditioned by others).  You have to get rid of all that garbage, those who follow these errors have been conditioned to see what is contrary to what the Apostles and Prophets taught.

The word 'seed' in Strong's only means posterity as used in Gen. 3:15. Stringini dances around this issue by interjecting the Greek. If you notice, he was quick to point out Strong's definition for 'replenish' in item 2, but stays far away from Strong's with respect to the word 'seed'.

Dr. Murray is always the one harping about "Sperma" "Sperma" "Sperma" that is why I focused on that word. I was not dancing around anything. It didn't occur to me because the texts in question (in my document) are the Greek texts.  Plus, even if the word only means "posterity" in Genesis 3:15 that still does not speak to whether the word is being used figuratively, literally, spiritually, etc., 

Above all else, the usage of a word determines what is meant, not the definition.  This morning my oldest son was in a wrestling tournament in which he was the "fourth seed" which has no bearing on the meaning of "seed" in the bible, but it shows how important the usage is, usage trumps the dictionary.   When Judah's son Onan spilled his "seed" on the ground was that his "posterity?" or his sperm?

The Old Testament never calls Cain anyone's "seed" but it does say that "Adam knew his wife and she conceived and bare Cain."  so I think it is pretty clear that the intent of the writer of Genesis is that we should understand that Cain is the literal "seed" of Adam. 

I don't give Gen 3:15 the weight Watchman_2 does.  The serpent's seed are those who do iniquity, the seed of promise is Christ. That is the correct interpretation of Gen 3:15 confirmed by 1John 3

8 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.
9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.
10 In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother.
11 For this is the message that ye heard from the beginning, that we should love one another.
12 Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. And wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his brother's righteous.

Why create and entirely obscure narrative about sex when the Apostles have already explained the issue of seeds? Cain was "of Satan" because of his sin. Abel and Seth Were of God because of the imputed righteousness, "God had respect unto Abel".  They are the appointed seed, appointed to be the line of Christ.

This really establishes the fact that Stringini was not much of a Bible student with SC. He probably was acquiring information for his writings or for his business

It is my opinion that no one who studies with Dr. Murray is much of a bible student. Most of my development as a student came after I stopped listening to Dr. Murray and I began to study God's word for myself.  Dr. Murray's students exist in a state of arrested development,  that is why they cannot prevail in any of our discussions.

He probably was acquiring information for his writings or for his business

What I think he probably meant, is that I was never much of a studier with the chapel, and that I obtained my information on the Chapel cynically, for my writings or for business.  Which is ridiculous because I stopped studying with Dr. Murray in or around 1996, I held onto most his doctrines for years after that.  it was only in the past several years that I finally came down so clearly against him that I decided to write.  Also "My business" has no relation to religion.

I'm really not the type to do that though.  What is it with people and the making of  accusations like this?  Honestly, If I had not studied with Dr. Murray back then, I never would have done so.  I would not waste my time studying someone I didn't believe in as a teacher.  I can hardly stand listening to anyone, least of all him.  That is definitely not my style, or I would have papers out on many popular teachers since I reject them all.

I spent four years on Dr. Murray, I was 19 years old when I started.  And I'm a little embarrassed it took me so long to conclude that Dr. Murray was not a man of God (Which took even more years than the four).  In any case, if anyone goes over my website they will see that I have mountains of original material (including that first article, which indeed sprang naked from my very own brain) 

I don't read forums (not very often) and I don't  rehash someone else's arguments.  I don't use other people's research material either (if that is what was being insinuated).  Look at the responses to Emails and other writings on my webpage.  They are the product of the mind God has given me.  My position has refined over time and will continue to be refined.

B. Extra People Making It On the Ark?

Stringini's conclusion:
 

For one, Cain was "Adamic." Eve was taken out of Adam and Cain was the son of Eve, correct? So Cain is a descendant of Adam, even if Satan was his Dad. So that whole bunch of garbage about other "kinds" of "souls" getting on the ark ought to be discarded as such.

This is real nonsense. It is clear from scripture that the Adamic souls that were mentioned to be on the ark were descendants of Adam, through Seth. Whether Cain is "Adamic" or not has nothing whatsoever to do with this point. Surely, the 6th Day creation [Gentile races] would not be Adamic.

That's not "de-bunking."  It's just plain old bunk.

It is clear from scripture that the Adamic souls that were mentioned to be on the ark

Where was that mentioned? 2nd Nebuchadnezzar? Chapter 3?  Verse 12? Perhaps?  The word ADAMIC is not in the bible.  And, uh, Eve was the mother of all living.  We're all Adamic. 

For More on the first and only human family:  SeeEmail #44Extensive Discussion of  What Happened In the Garden of Eden and the Origin of Races

Whether Cain is "Adamic" or not has nothing whatsoever to do with this point.

Yes, it does! Because only eight souls were listed on the Ark, and Dr. Murray claims that these eight souls were merely the Adamic souls, and therefore other souls (non-Adamic) were not included in that number, hence the lack of the accounting for these other souls proves that they were on the ark (classic circular reasoning).  So if Cain was "Adamic" it is very significant,  because Murray says there were only eight "Adamic" souls on the Ark, so Cain, being Adamic must have had his offspring among those eight Adamic souls.  He did not come from any other race.  Eve was his mom, and Adam was, at minimum, his granddaddy.  He was of Adam because Eve was of Adam, so he was Adamic. 

Actually, I thought of a better way around this, and to show you what a stand-up guy I am, I'll even give it to you.

The best way Cain's descendants could have gotten on the Ark was through Noah's sons' wives.  Their pedigree was not mentioned.  One of them might have been a descendant of Cain.  A stretch?  An argument from silence?  Maybe, but it is better than the "Adamic Souls" garbage.  I don't believe either.

For More on Cain's Descendants:  Email #44Extensive Discussion of  What Happened In the Garden of Eden and the Origin of Races (See also 40a and 40b)

Surely, the 6th Day creation [Gentile races] would not be Adamic.

All races are Adamic. The Gentiles came from the sons of Noah: Ham and Japeth and Some even Came of Shem; that will be briefly touched on in the next little section. 

For More on the first and only human family:  Email #44Extensive Discussion of  What Happened In the Garden of Eden and the Origin of Races

C. Are The Kenites of Chronicles Descendants of the Same Cain from Genesis?

Stringini's thought:

There easily may have been more than one person with that name (Cain). Being called Kenites does not mean they are the sons of that Cain. Especially when the original sons of Cain were wiped out by the flood.

He just presents his own theory -- doesn't defeat PM's teaching. His theory garnishes no proof whatsoever in scripture. Gen. 10:5 gives ample proof that others survived Noah's flood

My own theory is to be preferred over Dr. Murray's because of Occam's Razor.  Dr. Murray's teaching requires many more special assumptions and logical leaps.  Since redundant names between the descendants of Seth and the descendants of Cain are an established fact, it is no stretch to believe that there was someone else in the world named Cain whose family came to be known by that name, I know people today with the name Cain. 

Dr. Murray's speculations are based on whim.  Placing more than eight people on the ark has got to be one of the most ridiculous attempts to circumvent the facts as given in scripture that I have ever encountered.  It is an open-and-shut case, Peter was being specific, Peter could have taken this final opportunity to privy us all, if it was not so.

1Pe3:20 ...the ark..., wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

According to the teachings of Dr. Murray, the above statement is extremely misleading.  This is the testimony of an Apostle of Jesus Christ, I take the word of an apostle over the gainsaying of a false Prophet like Dr. Murray  (from Murray's history on false prophecies)

Defeating Dr. Murray was not my intent with my original document, that is a long-term goal, but the original document is serving its purpose in sparking further discussion and dissuading people from following Dr. Murray before they become conditioned to start seeing the doctrines that are not there and that contradict the testimonies of those whom we know the Lord chose to be his representatives.

The point of presenting an alternate theory is to show that there are more possibilities than just the one suggested, I have actually done extensive work tracing the sons of Cain (whether of the original Cain or Not) 

#27 An Excellent and Exhaustive 70 Page Debate Over Several Diverse Chapel Doctrines: Serpent Seed, The Resurrection of the Dead, Predestination, Preexistence, Kenites (This One May Need An Index)

#40a.) Kenites, Are all the Jews Kenites? What Dr. Murray Has Said, Plus: Debunking the Nethinim Myth. Did the Kenites take over the priesthood? (Extensive)

Gen. 10:5 gives ample proof that others survived Noah's flood

Bald supposition in contradiction to the testimony of an Apostle appointed by Christ does not qualify as proof.  You have learned to speak a language of  wisdom, but you have not learned to use wisdom.  If you had, you would no longer be a follower of these doctrines.

Gen10:5 By these were the isles of the Gentiles divided in their lands; every one after his tongue, after their families, in their nations

"By these"  Ok. What are the "these" that the word says did that?

It has to be these: Gen10:2 The sons of Japheth; ...4 And the sons of Javan; Elishah, and Tarshish, Kittim, and Dodanim.

or these: Gen10:6 And the sons of Ham; Cush, and Mizraim, and Phut, and Canaan.

Those are your two choices according to the context.  You cannot pull in a third subject from the blue such as "other races." If you pull the third subject from the blue you may as well join the ranks of those who say the "Church" is the "restrainer" of 2Thess2, because you are making the same mistake. 

The sons of Ham and the Sons of Japheth are referred to in the bible as "Gentiles," of course the "Gentiles" were on the ark,  "Gentile" does not mean "non-Adamic."

And to get ahead of you, Verse five is obviously looking forward to the tower of Babel, because, until then, "the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech." (Gen11:1)

No reason to go on – Paul Stringini is not even close to an average student – clearly, he was never a “graduate” of SC.

I'm glad you see that I am not even close in intellect and understanding to the average SC student, I think others see that as well, and it is very humbling.   True, I was not really a "graduate,"  just a really late term abortion.  I hate analogies, and that is all it was, an analogy to spark interest, and it worked. 

But I did teach SC doctrines for years, I even persuaded people and turned them on to the Chapel.  Somewhat to my embarrassment, I know there are some people out there who will probably forever remember me as that crazy guy who was trying to show them how Eve had sex with the Serpent, etc. etc.  Here is a flyer I made for one of my bible studies back in the day.  I was 20 when I did this.  I forgot about this for some time, and I think I will have to "prove me wrong" myself (on this website),  that will be kind of fun, but anyway, I used to hand copies of this thing out at Harper Community College  to spark interest in my SC inspired bible study (the only classes I passed at community college were creative writing and voice class).  I was good at it too (the bible study).  Believe it.

Click to open larger, readable versions.

And my final take on the initial "debunk" is that is lacked clarity of understanding of what I'd written and also was not an honest "point by point" look at my original writing (either that or the writer lacked the ability to comprehend what I had said).  While it had the framework and semblance of a well-thought-out rebuttal, it was really just an empty shell of faux logic, bald counter assertions, and ignorant accusation.

Here is the original post, as it appeared on from factnet.org.  You may observe that what I have done here is truly a "point by point" refutation of this "piece."

Return to "The Shepherd's Chapel and Dr. Arnold Murray" Main Page

Return to Oraclesofgod.org