Return to Oraclesofgod.org

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

From the Same Person as 27 and 28: Kenites, Israel, Election, and Attitude, in Multiple Parts

Kenites, Are All the Jews Kenites? Examining What Dr. Arnold Murray Has Said,

Plus: Debunking the Nethinim Myth. Did the Kenites Take Over the Priesthood?

Emails #40a, b, c, d, and etc. all start from the same email and the same person.  After the initial email I asked the writer to look at something which started a completely different discussion, which sometimes overlapped, so  two are a bit of a mess.  There is also a summary which takes elements from a, b, & c,  into account.

In this thread of discussion (40a) I float some audio I obtained of Dr. Murray confirming that all the people normally considered Jews are to be considered Kenites, I have not transcribed the audio clips but they may be heard through the links here.

The emailer at once begins to engage in a debate over the Kenite doctrine but when it begins to go south he starts making the discussion about me, personally.

I wrote this guy so much that sometimes his name slips out, but just his first name, so it is still basically keeping him anonymous.

It is recommended that #40a and #40b be read in tandem (check dates to follow the flow).

The Question/Comment:

Original Message - First Response - Second Response - Third Response - Fourth Response - Fifth Response

Sixth Response - Seventh Response - Eighth Response - Ninth Response

My First Response:  edits in maroon and in ( ), as in: (this is an example of an edit)

----- Original Message -----

From: reborn@oraclesofgod.org

To: 

Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2008 10:13 PM

Subject: Re:

I had just written a short reply and then the power went out for a second and it went byby....so this is the short version of that message.

 

I was still not giving my reply to this message yet but I wanted you to check something out.  You said:

 

"Judah was employed by God to bring about the crucifixion of Christ and thereby salvation to all men."

 

Dr. Murray would strongly disagree with you.  The kenites Crucified Christ, Judah is Germany. 

 

Listen to the following clips, these are some of the things that Dr. Murray teaches that he does not let his televison audience hear:

 

http://oraclesofgod.org/1980/Judah_Is_Germany.mp3 - Judah Is Germany 
http://oraclesofgod.org/1980/The_Jews_In_New_York.mp3 - 9 million Jews = 9 million Kenites 
http://oraclesofgod.org/1980/Who_Are_the_Kenites.mp3 - How to tell a Jew from a Kenite

 

I am going to use these clips and others for a new Dr. Murray section of my site.  I will be using these clips and others showing Dr. Murray's false prophetic record.

 

Let me know what you think and I will reply to your message soon,  I've already worked it out in my head I just need to type it out.

 

Sincerely,

Paul

Original Message - First Response - Second Response - Third Response - Fourth Response - Fifth Response

Sixth Response - Seventh Response - Eighth Response - Ninth Response

Emailer's First Reply:

----- Original Message -----

From: 

To: reborn@oraclesofgod.org

Sent: Friday, August 22, 2008 1:31 PM

Subject: Re:

 

Ok Paul here we go again,another saga

      Lets put all animosity aside,I know that is what you feel towards Murray's teachings and some of his students .Having read your postings I see that animosity in the discourses with some of the chapel students. Remember there are rotten apples in every barrel,and in so saying not all chapel students are like that . Having said that let me clarify my statement about Judah.

 

Yes ,God used Judah to bring about the crucifixion.but it was through the political and religious leadership of Judah ,which was polluted by the nethenim. God deliberately polluted that leadership to bring about his purposes,and please don't call me a racist ,or say I am obsessed with genealogy for much of the bible is a genealogy of a race of people whom God choose to use as an example unto the rest of humanity. We have debated about how Christ felt about this leadership before ,this leadership which was and is polluted with a particular race of people. Yes they are mixed in with real judah but they have usurped and maintained the leadership and they do have distinct characteristics. Judah thought it was right to follow its leaders and condem Christ,yet the tool God used was the Kenite. Again I ask you to please not use the argument of racisim and geneology because those types of arguments only serve to cause distraction from the subject being discussed.

 

The first sound bit about germany is opinion and we are all entitled to our opinion,it is a subject of secular history.The next two sound bits are based on the knowledge of the chacteristics of the Kenites. God maintained the persecution of Judah through the Kenites. He gave the Kenites the ability to control  politics economics and commerce thereby having control over the wealth of the world, thereby giving them power to manipulate the course of history.This is why the world mistakenly hates the Jews,because true Judah being mixed in with the nethenim is also subject to this hatred. Again please don't use the argument to distract from the subject that it is God who controls history ,that is a given , he is using the Kenite to do so.

 

I don't want to go into the discussion about whether Cain is a son of satan or not. Some people see a direct conection,others a connection through association and others no connection at all. I can go so far as to say that Cain exibited the traits of satan However lets look at the validity of the argument about whether the leadership of Israel has been and is polluted with what the bible calls the Kenite.

 

First of all lets establish the traits or characteristics that identify Cain as follows:

 

Gen 4:11  And now art thou cursed from the earth, which hath opened her mouth to receive thy brother's blood from thy hand;
Gen 4:12  When thou tillest the ground, it shall not henceforth yield unto thee her strength; a fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth.
 

If You do a study of the children that Cain fathered you will find all the occupations that they engaged in yet non were farmers ,for vagabonds would not be able to farm.It is intresting to note that Cain before God cursed him was a tiller of the soil.

 

Gen 4:3  And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD.

 

If you care to study the names of the sons of Cain you will see that they mimic the names of the sons of Adam. This is an other trait of the Kenite as they continue to claim to be of Judah to this very day.

 

Now lets establish that the Kenites are the sons of Cain,the following is strongs definition of the name Cain.

 

7014  Qayin (kah'-yin);

 

the same as 7013 (with a play upon the affinity to 7069); Kajin, the name of the first child, also of a place in Palestine, and of an Oriental tribe:

 

KJV-- Cain, Kenite (-s).

 

The following is the strongs definition of Kenite

 

7017  Qeyniy (kay-nee');

 

or Qiyniy (1 Chron. 2:55) (kee-nee'); patronymic from 7014; a Kenite or member of the tribe of Kajin:

 

KJV-- Kenite.

 

So we see that the term Kenites in scripture means the sons of Cain.

 

Some would have you believe that the sons of Cain (Kenites) were destroyed in the flood of Noah,yet scripture again denies that as indicated in the  following verse as they are listed with the tribes of Israel.

 

1 Chr 2:55  And the families of the scribes which dwelt at Jabez; the Tirathites, the Shimeathites, and Suchathites. These are the Kenites that came of Hemath, the father of the house of Rechab.

 

So how did these Kenites come to dwell with the house of Israel (The people of God)?

The following verses will establish that question,the veses highlighted in red establishing them as the sons of Cain.

 

Jer 35:1  The word which came unto Jeremiah from the LORD in the days of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah king of Judah, saying,
Jer 35:2  Go unto the house of the Rechabites, and speak unto them, and bring them into the house of the LORD, into one of the chambers, and give them wine to drink.
Jer 35:3  Then I took Jaazaniah the son of Jeremiah, the son of Habaziniah, and his brethren, and all his sons, and the whole house of the Rechabites;
Jer 35:4  And I brought them into the house of the LORD, into the chamber of the sons of Hanan, the son of Igdaliah, a man of God, which was by the chamber of the princes, which was above the chamber of Maaseiah the son of Shallum, the keeper of the door:
Jer 35:5  And I set before the sons of the house of the Rechabites pots full of wine, and cups, and I said unto them, Drink ye wine.
Jer 35:6  But they said, We will drink no wine: for Jonadab the son of Rechab our father commanded us, saying, Ye shall drink no wine, neither ye, nor your sons for ever:
Jer 35:7  Neither shall ye build house, nor sow seed, nor plant vineyard, nor have any: but all your days ye shall dwell in tents; that ye may live many days in the land where ye be strangers.
Jer 35:8  Thus have we obeyed the voice of Jonadab the son of Rechab our father in all that he hath charged us, to drink no wine all our days, we, our wives, our sons, nor our daughters;
Jer 35:9  Nor to build houses for us to dwell in: neither have we vineyard, nor field, nor seed:
Jer 35:10  But we have dwelt in tents, and have obeyed, and done according to all that Jonadab our father commanded us.
Jer 35:11  But it came to pass, when Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon came up into the land, that we said, Come, and let us go to Jerusalem for fear of the army of the Chaldeans, and for fear of the army of the Syrians: so we dwell at Jerusalem.

 

The following verses document how and why God cursed Israel with the Kenite.

 

Jer 35:12  Then came the word of the LORD unto Jeremiah, saying,
Jer 35:13  Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Go and tell the men of Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, Will ye not receive instruction to hearken to my words? saith the LORD.
Jer 35:14  The words of Jonadab the son of Rechab, that he commanded his sons not to drink wine, are performed; for unto this day they drink none, but obey their father's commandment: notwithstanding I have spoken unto you, rising early and speaking; but ye hearkened not unto me.
Jer 35:15  I have sent also unto you all my servants the prophets, rising up early and sending them, saying, Return ye now every man from his evil way, and amend your doings, and go not after other gods to serve them, and ye shall dwell in the land which I have given to you and to your fathers: but ye have not inclined your ear, nor hearkened unto me.
Jer 35:16  Because the sons of Jonadab the son of Rechab have performed the commandment of their father, which he commanded them; but this people hath not hearkened unto me:
Jer 35:17  Therefore thus saith the LORD God of hosts, the God of Israel; Behold, I will bring upon Judah and upon all the inhabitants of Jerusalem all the evil that I have pronounced against them: because I have spoken unto them, but they have not heard; and I have called unto them, but they have not answered.
Jer 35:18  And Jeremiah said unto the house of the Rechabites, Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Because ye have obeyed the commandment of Jonadab your father, and kept all his precepts, and done according unto all that he hath commanded you:
Jer 35:19  Therefore thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Jonadab the son of Rechab shall not want a man to stand before me for ever.

 

Notice the indictment  against the people of God ,also notice the comparison that God makes between Israel and the Kenites. There lies the lesson in why God introduced the Kenite into the house of Israel.. It was because Israel would not listen to God their father .Yet these Kenites listened to their father Cain. Please no distractions here saying that they listened to their father Jonadab. He was a Kenite ,a decendant of Cain,and they all had the marks of Cain ,that was their inheritance and their heritage.

 

When Ezra brought Judah out of the babylonian captivity he had problems finding a bonified priiest in the congregation and had to send out a call to babylon for the Levites.

He had to clean house before he could proceed.Between the time that the second temple was built and the ministry of Christ the Kenites had crept back into the priesthood

 

Ezra 2:58  All the Nethinims, and the children of Solomon's servants, were three hundred ninety and two.
Ezra 2:59  And these were they which went up from Telmelah, Telharsa, Cherub, Addan, and Immer: but they could not show their father's house, and their seed, whether they were of Israel:
Ezra 2:60  The children of Delaiah, the children of Tobiah, the children of Nekoda, six hundred fifty and two.
Ezra 2:61  And of the children of the priests: the children of Habaiah, the children of Koz, the children of Barzillai; which took a wife of the daughters of Barzillai the Gileadite, and was called after their name:
Ezra 2:62  These sought their register among those that were reckoned by genealogy, but they were not found: therefore were they, as polluted, put from the priesthood.

 

Ezra 8:15  And I gathered them together to the river that runneth to Ahava; and there abode we in tents three days: and I viewed the people, and the priests, and found there none of the sons of Levi.
Ezra 8:16  Then sent I for Eliezer, for Ariel, for Shemaiah, and for Elnathan, and for Jarib, and for Elnathan, and for Nathan, and for Zechariah, and for Meshullam, chief men; also for Joiarib, and for Elnathan, men of understanding.
Ezra 8:17  And I sent them with commandment unto Iddo the chief at the place Casiphia, and I told them what they should say unto Iddo, and to his brethren the Nethinims, at the place Casiphia, that they should bring unto us ministers for the house of our God.
Ezra 8:18  And by the good hand of our God upon us they brought us a man of understanding, of the sons of Mahli, the son of Levi, the son of Israel; and Sherebiah, with his sons and his brethren, eighteen;
Ezra 8:19  And Hashabiah, and with him Jeshaiah of the sons of Merari, his brethren and their sons, twenty;
Ezra 8:20  Also of the Nethinims, whom David and the princes had appointed for the service of the Levites, two hundred and twenty Nethinims: all of them were expressed by name.

 

They even brought more Nethinims with them.
You can bet your boots that the Kenites where among the Nethinims
 

The northern Kingdom of Israel was dipersed but the southeren kingdom remained for several hundred years in Judea. They were eventually removed from the land by the Babylonians and in finality by the Romans,until 1948 when God brought them prophetically back to the holy land,the Kenite with them,and so the persecution continues as the following verses indicate

 

;Rev 2:9  I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.

Rev 3:9  Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.

 

Notice that God did not blast all Jews,but only those who lie and claim to be Jews and are not,so dont' make God angry by hating Jews and calling them the synagog of satan. It is the Kenite who is hated to this very day due to their method of operation, not true Judah. Regarardless true Judah because they are blinded to this very day continue to follow its leaders and remain under the curse of blindness,blind to the Kenites that live amongst them.

 

We can discuss how Christ identified these Kenites and how he felt about them but we have already done this at a prior time.

 

Getting late,got to go

XXXXXX

Original Message - First Response - Second Response - Third Response - Fourth Response - Fifth Response

Sixth Response - Seventh Response - Eighth Response - Ninth Response

My Second Response:

----- Original Message -----

From: reborn@oraclesofgod.org

To: 

Sent: Saturday, August 23, 2008 8:00 PM

Subject: Re:

 

XXXX, I'll get to that other thing soon, but this was unexpected. I've been waiting for these arguments to come up, thanks.

 

"Ok Paul here we go again,another saga

      Lets put all animosity aside,I know that is what you feel towards Murray's teachings and some of his students .Having read your postings I see that animosity in the discourses with some of the chapel students. Remember there are rotten apples in every barrel,and in so saying not all chapel students are like that . Having said that let me clarify my statement about Judah."

 

I would say most Chapel students are not like that, but their teacher is.  Also most Chapel students do not understand that their teacher is like that because he is very careful to hide what he really believes from the general public and most of his students.   His doctrines are racist and so are yours in the sense that you make so much of it about race.  Look at what you said, and I'll tell you how I hear it. 

 

Yes ,God used Judah to bring about the crucifixion.but it was through the political and religious leadership of Judah ,which was polluted by the Nethinim. God deliberately polluted that leadership to bring about his purposes,and please don't call me a racist ,or say I am obsessed with genealogy for much of the bible is a genealogy of a race of people whom God choose to use as an example unto the rest of humanity. 

 

"Polluted?" That kind of language should have died with the Old covenant, the only place for that talk now is  in regards to the spiritual.   

Acts10:28 And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath showed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.

Neither should you. These doctrines have no place in Christianity.

 

You seem to be saying that God needed to bring in these "polluted people" to do evil in the midst of God's people. As if the people of God themselves were not capable of doing such a thing.  You seem ignorant of the fact that our race is as corrupt and sinful as any other and so are the Jews.  The very idea that God had to bring in men from another race to accomplish this evil is ridiculous.  Plus in all of the doctrine of the apostle Paul or any other Apostle there is not one mention of this nonsense. 

 

PLUS, as I will show, there is nothing, zero, in the Bible that should lead anyone to think that the Nethinim, (Wood Cutters and Water Bearers) ever ascended into any sort of leadership positions or authority.  That is an absolute ZERO. 

 

John 1:11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.

 

He was not rejected by the Kenites, he did not come to the Kenites, if there were still Kenites/Rechabites among Israel at this time is is much safer to assume that they were probably still living SEPARATE from the Jews and obeying their father Jonadab, because their law demanded it, and the jews were very exclusionary of foreigners all through the intertestamental period. 

 

We have debated about how Christ felt about this leadership before ,this leadership which was and is polluted with a particular race of people. 

 

That is less than nonsense, it is crap.  It is a lie.  Neither Jesus nor any Apostle of the Lord EVER brought into question the race of any of the leadership of Judah or suggested that their rule was anything less than legitimate. The Jews were obsessed with PEDIGREE and still are to this day.  The idea that a race of Kenites slipped in practiaclly unnoticed and then took over is preposterous, and I will prove it.

 

Yes they are mixed in with real Judah but they have usurped and maintained the leadership and they do have distinct characteristics.

 

There is no proof that there was any "mixing" with Judah, "mixing" would have made their children bastards, not Jews. And they Jews were in the habit of exclusing such people from their society.

 

Judah thought it was right to follow its leaders and condem Christ,yet the tool God used was the Kenite. Again I ask you to please not use the argument of racisim and geneology because those types of arguments only serve to cause distraction from the subject being discussed.

 

No, I won't obey you, it is racist. It is a racist doctrine and you and Dr. Murray are polluting the sincere word of God with false doctrines intruding into things that you do not know.  You are just holding on to a watered down version of Dr. Murray's filth.  Sorry, that is my opinion.

 

The first sound bit about germany is opinion and we are all entitled to our opinion,it is a subject of secular history.

 

If it is a subject of secular history, then it is not true.  As far as Dr. Murray is concerned it is not an opinion, it is truth.  As for your opinion on the subject: I'm still completely ignorant. Are you taking cues from Murray who does not speak what he believes is truth publicly? 

 

The next two sound bits are based on the knowledge of the chacteristics of the Kenites.

 

Ok, so Dr. Murray said that the 9 Million Jews in NYC are "all Kenites." And you say that, "knowledge of the chacteristics of the Kenites" is the basis on which Dr. Murray can proclaim that the 9 million Jews in NYC are "all Kenites."  That blows my mind.  You can't possibly mean that, but that is how you defended him.  You are really just avoiding discussing it; since you do not want to agree with Dr. Murray, and do not wish to get beat up defending him for saying such things, I can see why.

 

God maintained the persecution of Judah through the Kenites. He gave the Kenites the ability to control  politics economics and commerce thereby having control over the wealth of the world, thereby giving them power to manipulate the course of history.

 

I've got my bible open... Where is that written?  That is conspiracy theory mumbo-jumbo. We westle not against flesh and blood. 

 

This is why the world mistakenly hates the Jews, because true Judah being mixed in with the nethenim is also subject to this hatred.

 

God uses "whomsoever he will" not one particular race.  That is what my bible says. He uses whole nations, but not just one just like that, he could, but he never says, "I will use the race of the Kenites to take over all the banks"   You can't just throw that stuff out, you have to have some reason.

 

So then, is a Jew in banking automatically a Kenite?  And what about a blonde haired blue eyed pure Aryan banker?  Or a black banker?  Are all bankers Kenites?  Don't you see how racist your doctrine is?  I remember how it was, a banker named Smith, no big deal, a banker named Horowitz, still no big deal, but the mental note is taken, "Kenite."  What a waste.

 

Again please don't use the argument to distract from the subject that it is God who controls history ,that is a given , he is using the Kenite to do so.

 

You are not very good a guessing what I'm going to say.  I'm not abiding by your rules, I just have no interest in that line of argument here.

 

I don't want to go into the discussion about whether Cain is a son of Satan or not. Some people see a direct connection,others a connection through association and others no connection at all.

 

Isn't that how the scribes taught?  "Some people think this, other people think that, but no one has any authority to say who is right."  I do not care what people's opinions are.  Show me the scriptures.  Cain is a son of Satan, but not because of the sperm of Satan.

 

I can go so far as to say that Cain exhibited the traits of Satan

 

Because he killed a man?  When David had Uriah killed, do you think that he was exhibiting the traits of Satan? He verily was.  When Jesus said to Peter "Get thee Hence Satan."  Do you think that perhaps it was because he might have had a drop or two of "Kenite blood" in him? Or was he just, "Exhibiting the traits of Satan." He verily was. If so many other people are "like Satan" I don't know how you can call people, who are no more sinful, more like Satan or decide that there is a race literally descended from Satan..

 

However lets look at the validity of the argument about whether the leadership of Israel has been and is polluted with what the bible calls the Kenite.

 

This is not a valid argument.  The problem with you is that you have only looked at one side of it. 

 

First of all lets establish the traits or characteristics that identify Cain as follows:

 

Gen 4:11  And now art thou cursed from the earth, which hath opened her mouth to receive thy brother's blood from thy hand;
Gen 4:12  When thou tillest the ground, it shall not henceforth yield unto thee her strength; a fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth.
 

 

The original curse was not pronounced against any of his seed.  Also Cain was not cursed for being "the son of Satan" but for the deed he had done (the deed made him a son of Satan, not seed, that makes a good slogan:  Deeds Not Seeds).  You are suggesting that God cursed the children for the sins of their father.  And that is fine, God does that under certain conditions, but what I'm saying is that there is no indication that the whole seed of Cain was cursed. 

 

If You do a study of the children that Cain fathered you will find all the occupations that they engaged in yet non were farmers ,for vagabonds would not be able to farm.It is interesting to note that Cain before God cursed him was a tiller of the soil.

 

SIMPLE: If your father is not a farmer and is a fugitive, it is unlikely that you will ever have opportunity growing up to learn farming, since your family owns no land, No one in my family farms because their families have lived in the cities for a generation.  The fact that a man who is not a farmer has no children that are farmers is unremarkable.  This is a non-argument.  Just because a group of people do not farm you cannot claim that they are the sons of Cain, some people do not farm because of where they live or because of tradition, or for many other reasons.  Even Cain may have had other sons or grandchildren that are not mentioned who took up farming.

 

If you care to study the names of the sons of Cain you will see that they mimic the names of the sons of Adam. This is an other trait of the Kenite as they continue to claim to be of Judah to this very day.

 

Wrong, If you would care to think, then you would not assume a repeated name is a "mimic."  Growing up, at school, there were several John's, a few Jim's, and another Paul.  Does that mean that one set of parents are "mimicking" another? No, it is because we come from a common culture that we have the same names.  What would be VERY strange is if Cain's Children had names that were completely different from the names of their cousins.  "Ebubabba, Hagonimt, and Gorothusah."  That would be strange.  That would be something.  What you have is NOTHING.  What you have is what one would expect of cousins: similarity of names.  It is no big deal.  Dr. Murray has drawn undue attention to this non-argument.

 

This is an other trait of the Kenite as they continue to claim to be of Judah to this very day.

 

That is such bad reasoning, the similarity of names indicates no trickery, they had the same names but they were not denying that their father was Cain, or claiming to be anyone else.  This is not indicative of any pattern of deceit.  Enoch the son of Cain, is never said to have claimed to be a son of Seth.  We have about 6 Michaels in my family.  This is a big ZERO.  You try to have it both ways, because when the Rechabites appear and call themselves Kenites, they do not display this trait, but you need them to further your hypothesis, so that "trait" is conveniently ignored.  This is another non-argument.  This reveals not such pattern. 

 

7014  Qayin (kah'-yin);

the same as 7013 (with a play upon the affinity to 7069); Kajin, the name of the first child, also of a place in Palestine, and of an Oriental tribe:

KJV-- Cain, Kenite (-s).

The following is the strongs definition of Kenite

7017  Qeyniy (kay-nee');

or Qiyniy (1 Chron. 2:55) (kee-nee'); patronymic from 7014; a Kenite or member of the tribe of Kajin:

KJV-- Kenite.

So we see that the term Kenites in scripture means the sons of Cain.

 

No, we don't see it.  What does Johnson mean?  Sons of the Apostle John?  Another Non-Argument. You are assuming.  And your assumptions are not worthy of acceptance.  There are no grounds for such assumptions.  I will show.

 

Some would have you believe that the sons of Cain (Kenites) were destroyed in the flood of Noah,yet scripture again denies that as indicated in the  following verse as they are listed with the tribes of Israel.

 

The scripture dos not deny any such thing, The scriptures are what establishes that idea, the scriptures would have me believe that Cain's descendants are all dead. You are abusing the genealogies, they are not to be used to overturn the Word of God.  (The Sons of Cain are never called Kenites in their day, by the way) 

 

Hear the word of God:

 

Gen6:6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.
8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD. (no one else)

17 And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.
18 But with thee will I establish my covenant; and thou shalt come into the ark, thou, and thy sons, and thy wife, and thy sons' wives with thee.

 

No other humans are mentioned. It is Noah only and his family.  To attempt to read more into the text is perverse.

 

Gen 7:21 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:
22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.
23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.

 

These statements are so all encompassing and broad that I can only believe that the flood must have been worldwide.  As I have said before, every is stronger than all.

 

yet scripture again denies that as indicated in the  following verse as they are listed with the tribes of Israel.

 

1 Chr 2:55  And the families of the scribes which dwelt at Jabez; the Tirathites, the Shimeathites, and Suchathites. These are the Kenites that came of Hemath, the father of the house of Rechab.

 

Look, this is very easy.  Why should I look at this verse and say, "Everything that Genesis Six and Seven said about the flood must be wrong, there must be some hidden deception.  People had to survive the flood that God said would kill everyone, he must have had his fingers crossed or something" 

 

Truly, If I am being deceived then it is the scriptures that have deceived me.  I cannot follow a rule of interpretation that plucks a name from an obscure genealogy and the uses the similarity of the name to Cain to overthrow scriptures that are VERY CLEAR and VERY PLAIN in their meaning.  Genesis Chapter 6 and 7 are the authoritative passages on who made it through the flood, not 1 Chronicles 2,

 

Instead of undermining the words of God in Genesis 6 and 7, why is it not more reasonable to assume that this family of Kenites are the family of some other people who were descended from a different man named Cain?  Cain is not exactly Mahershalalhashbaz, it is not a very unusual name.   To say instead that Gen 6 and 7 are not saying what they are saying is heresy.  

 

1 Chr 2:55  And the families of the scribes which dwelt at Jabez; the Tirathites, the Shimeathites, and Suchathites. These are the Kenites that came of Hemath, the father of the house of Rechab.

 

IMPORTANT POINT: the fact that these people are listed here, proves that they were not "sneaking in"  It proves that the Jews were well aware that they had these foreigners working for them.  Their names being listed like this shows that the Jews knew exactly who was among them and that they were treated as a separate people living within their borders.  This scripture actually does more to prove that the Kenites were not polluting Judah than anything else. Judah knew they were there and kept track of them. 

 

When Israel came out of Babylon they divorced their strange wives and sent them away with their strange children,  they also took note of  foreigners among them and these were always noted separately and marriage to them was forbidden.  The idea that the Jews had been infiltrated is undocumented fantasy.    This habit only got stronger from that time through the time of Christ.  That is what all the evidence points to.

 

So how did these Kenites come to dwell with the house of Israel (The people of God)?

The following verses will establish that question,the verses highlighted in red establishing them as the sons of Cain.

 

Before I look at the verses I'm going to reiterate what I just said, the presence of these scriptures shows that these people were not "sneaking in."  The law had many provisions for "Strangers living within your borders" there is nothing remarkable or sinister about the presence of foreigners in Israel.

 

Jer 35:7  Neither shall ye build house, nor sow seed, nor plant vineyard, nor have any: but all your days ye shall dwell in tents; that ye may live many days in the land where ye be strangers.
Jer 35:8  Thus have we obeyed the voice of Jonadab the son of Rechab our father in all that he hath charged us, to drink no wine all our days, we, our wives, our sons, nor our daughters;
Jer 35:9  Nor to build houses for us to dwell in: neither have we vineyard, nor field, nor seed:
Jer 35:10  But we have dwelt in tents, and have obeyed, and done according to all that Jonadab our father commanded us.
 

You must be thinking of this verse:

 

Gen 4:20 And Adah bare Jabal: he was the father of such as dwell in tents, and of such as have cattle.
 

What shall we do about this verse then?

 

Gen 4:21 And his brother's name was Jubal: he was the father of all such as handle the harp and organ.

 

Wow, David was a handler of the harp, and a murderer, surely, that is even more proof that the leadership of Israel had been infiltrated by the sons of Satan, even earlier.  It said that Jubal was father of ALL that handle the harp, and I know that you take the bible seriously, and that you take the word "All" never to be part of a figure of speech, and to mean "every single one without exception."

 

In fact, God used David to curse Israel, of course, this fits right in with your doctrine, that in order to curse Israel God had to bring in another race of men, so David must also be a Kenite.

 

2Sam24:1 And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah.
 

And, think about this, here is another descendant of David who exhibits Cain-like characteristics:

 

Mt8:20 And Jesus saith unto him, The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head.

 

Look at the evidence: Jesus was not a farmer, Jesus was a vagabond; a hunted fugitive, very strong evidence that he was a son of Cain.

 

Don't you see? Your reasoning is weak, you cannot indict the Rechabites as being sons of the original Cain by this kind of evidence, it can be said of many other people.  You have no ground to stand on here.  A few rules followed by a few people.  How many times do you suppose such things are repeated in the world?  You are sailing on a sea of assumptions, you have nothing to stand on.

 

Jer 35:16  Because the sons of Jonadab the son of Rechab have performed the commandment of their father, which he commanded them; but this people hath not hearkened unto me:
Jer 35:17  Therefore thus saith the LORD God of hosts, the God of Israel; Behold, I will bring upon Judah and upon all the inhabitants of Jerusalem all the evil that I have pronounced against them: because I have spoken unto them, but they have not heard; and I have called unto them, but they have not answered.
Jer 35:18  And Jeremiah said unto the house of the Rechabites, Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Because ye have obeyed the commandment of Jonadab your father, and kept all his precepts, and done according unto all that he hath commanded you:
Jer 35:19  Therefore thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Jonadab the son of Rechab shall not want a man to stand before me for ever.

 

Notice the indictment  against the people of God ,also notice the comparison that God makes between Israel and the Kenites. There lies the lesson in why God introduced the Kenite into the house of Israel..

 

No, that is not what it said.  God threatens Israel with "All the evil he had pronounced" Which meant the captivity and the King of Babylon. Not the Kenites.  God was punishing Israel by bringing the Babylonians upon them, not by bringing the Kenites among them.

 

What about the comparison?  He is making a comparison.  What am I supposed to surmise from that? 

 

 It was because Israel would not listen to God their father .Yet these Kenites listened to their father Cain.

 

"It?" It what?  You are saying that because of this distinction that God was using one to curse the other.  It is not there. You are making this stuff up.  Or, to be fair, you are just parroting it.  It isn't in the text.

 

Please no distractions here saying that they listened to their father Jonadab. He was a Kenite ,a decendant of Cain,and they all had the marks of Cain ,that was their inheritance and their heritage.

 

You are not very good at guessing what I'm going to say.  I can nearly always guess what you will say, because you are behaving like a parrot.  I know that is insulting, and I'm not trying to insult you, really, but from my perspective you insult yourself by such behavior.  I used to be the same way, parroting Dr. Murray's doctrines, giving them my own moderating twist.  (You, like the me of the past, do not believe that all Jews are Kenites.)  Still, I look back and I see myself as a pathetic student of God's word, manipulated by the suggestions of that false prophet, Arnold Murray.  We have had a long talk, you and I, the only thing that keeps me going is your desire to continue the conversation.  Because, in spite of me being a jerk, I do care about other people, I'm not here to insult you, but to make you ashamed.

 

When Ezra brought Judah out of the Babylonian captivity he had problems finding a bonified priest in the congregation and had to send out a call to Babylon for the Levites.He had to clean house before he could proceed.

 

I'm going to keep relying on this very simple argument,  "If the Kenites had "infiltrated" the priesthood, then how come Ezra even knows there is a problem?"  The existence of these passages documents the fact that the Jews were very mindful to keep themselves from being "polluted."

 

Between the time that the second temple was built and the ministry of Christ the Kenites had crept back into the priesthood

 

Freeze!  What did you just say?  Ok, so now you are just going to start making things up?  You admit that Ezra "cleaned things up."  But then baldly claim that in the time that followed the kenites "crept back in"  And I have to ask HOW?!? Why not read the books which were written during the period you are referring to, between the second temple and Christ, look for a hint, of such a thing.

 

You are making things up. (or parroting made -up things, take your pick) The Jews were obsessed with ancestry and genealogy, and you just throw it out there that foreigners are going to get into the most exclusive branch of such an exclusive family, the Levites of the Israelites.  

 

It is very difficult to believe that they could "infiltrate" a blood-based priesthood like the Levites and not one godly person taking notice (like Ezra).  These are fantasy fairy tales you are telling, imaginations, there is no evidence of infiltration, only of separation.  There is no promise that God would do this, despite your fanciful presumptions. 

 

From the time of the Second Temple to the time of Christ the Jews became more and more zealous of the law and were very strict about who you could marry, and about who was a Jew. FACT.

 

Ezra 2:58  All the Nethinims, and the children of Solomon's servants, were three hundred ninety and two.
Ezra 2:59  And these were they which went up from Telmelah, Telharsa, Cherub, Addan, and Immer: but they could not show their father's house, and their seed, whether they were of Israel:
Ezra 2:60  The children of Delaiah, the children of Tobiah, the children of Nekoda, six hundred fifty and two.
Ezra 2:61  And of the children of the priests: the children of Habaiah, the children of Koz, the children of Barzillai; which took a wife of the daughters of Barzillai the Gileadite, and was called after their name:
Ezra 2:62  These sought their register among those that were reckoned by genealogy, but they were not found: therefore were they, as polluted, put from the priesthood.

 

And what next?  Did the Jews later decide to start admitting such people? I think not.  During the time of Christ the Israelites were still obsessed with genealogy and pedigree, it is all over the new testament, if you just look.  IF ANYTHING, you could say that the Jews became more strict about excluding other races, not less.  Look at the evidence, read your new testament.  The Samaritan woman was shocked that Jesus would even talk to her. 
 

How do you know that during the time between Christ and the second temple that the Jews did not decide to have all the Nethinim executed?  Or deported? Or castrated?  That is far more realistic than the theory you are parroting.  I have just as active an imagination, I can make up history too, but at least my history is based on FACTS, and the fact is that the Jews were practicing exclusion in the days of Ezra, and there is every indication that in the time of Christ it had only grown STRONGER.  There is no indication anywhere in history that during this time period there would have been any opportunity for men of any other race to usurp the priesthood.

 

Ezra 8:15  And I gathered them together to the river that runneth to Ahava; and there abode we in tents three days: and I viewed the people, and the priests, and found there none of the sons of Levi.
Ezra 8:16  Then sent I for Eliezer, for Ariel, for Shemaiah, and for Elnathan, and for Jarib, and for Elnathan, and for Nathan, and for Zechariah, and for Meshullam, chief men; also for Joiarib, and for Elnathan, men of understanding.
Ezra 8:17  And I sent them with commandment unto Iddo the chief at the place Casiphia, and I told them what they should say unto Iddo, and to his brethren the Nethinims, at the place Casiphia, that they should bring unto us ministers for the house of our God.
Ezra 8:18  And by the good hand of our God upon us they brought us a man of understanding, of the sons of Mahli, the son of Levi, the son of Israel; and Sherebiah, with his sons and his brethren, eighteen;
Ezra 8:19  And Hashabiah, and with him Jeshaiah of the sons of Merari, his brethren and their sons, twenty;
Ezra 8:20  Also of the Nethinims, whom David and the princes had appointed for the service of the Levites, two hundred and twenty Nethinims: all of them were expressed by name.

 

They even brought more Nethinims with them.

 

Yes, but they knew who was of Levi and who was not.

 

You can bet your boots that the Kenites where among the Nethinims

 

I'd probably end up barefooted if I did. The Kenites were scribes not wood choppers and bucket haulers.

 

But you can bet your undies that Levi did not intermarry with them.  You can bet your undies that they would have been forced to divorce and the children would be banished.  That was what was being practiced.  As the Levites multiplied the Nethinims may have been forced out.

 

In any case, the leaders of Israel knew "who the Kenites were," and you can bet your life they knew them a lot better than you do.  This whole argument is pathetic and ridiculous, you can thank Dr. Murray for that.

 

The northern Kingdom of Israel was dispersed but the southern kingdom remained for several hundred years in Judea. They were eventually removed from the land by the Babylonians and in finality by the Romans until 1948 when God brought them prophetically back to the holy land,

 

Ok,

 

the Kenite with them,

 

I suppose you have "proof"

 

and so the persecution continues as the following verses indicate

 

That is not what they indicate.

 

Rev 2:9  I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.

Rev 3:9  Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.

 

Notice that God did not blast all Jews,but only those who lie and claim to be Jews and are not,so don't make God angry by hating Jews and calling them the synagogue of Satan.

 

here is what I notice.  The Shepherd's Chapel is the synagogue of Satan, they claim to be "Jews" and are not.  Dr. Murray is a proven false prophet and a teacher of perverse doctrines.  What is a more satanic trait?  They claim to be of the lost tribes of the Jews, the "true Jews,"  they may prefer the name Israel, but its all the same, they wish to be considered to be what the Jews are generally considered to be, God's chosen race.   Dr. Murray is a blasphemer who fulfills this verse.  The Shepherd's Chapel, with The remnants of Herbert W. Armstrong's Movement and the rest of the Anglo-Israelites, are the synagogue of Satan.

 

Acts10:28 And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath showed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.

Dr. Murray want to take us back to being like the Jews, minding "pedigree" and such, calling the real Jews "polluted" while he himself pollutes the doctrine and name of Christ and essentially claims to be a Jew.  That is the dirtiest secret of all. 

 

It is the Kenite who is hated to this very day due to their method of operation, not true Judah.

 

People hate true Judah too, you are living in a fantasy world.  Is that how you can tell a Kenite?  If they are hated then they are the sons of Satan?  There is nothing to justify the hatred of the Jews, there is no "method of operation" What are you talking about???

 

It is those who spread the lie that the Jews are Satan's children and then claim themselves to be the true house of Israel that are the true Children of Satan.  They cause hatred of the Jews. people who spread lies about Jews.  "Look at all the Jew in Hollywood."  Well, look at all the Italians in organized crime.  "Look at all the Jews in banking."  Welll, look at all the Germans in banking.  It is an illusion, a lie, poppycock.  As soon as a Jew is successful in the world it means that they are children of the Devil?  I ask again.  What "method of operation?"!?

 

This is racist trash, with a happy face painted on the bag, but it is still trash and it is stilll racist. It is pure, "dung that cometh out of man."

 

Regarardless true Judah because they are blinded to this very day continue to follow its leaders and remain under the curse of blindness,blind to the Kenites that live amongst them.

 

As I have shown, there is no evidence that the Jews were ever blind to the Kenites living among them, they kept track of them, it cannot be denied.  All the documentation you provided only proves that the Jews were very careful about who they admitted into the priesthood.  There is no evidence that there were any Kenites in Jerusalem in the time of Christ either.  There is no record.

 

We can discuss how Christ identified these Kenites and how he felt about them but we have already done this at a prior time.

 

If we did, then my arguments would only get better,  every time I discuss this I get new insights.  But this is fine. I'm sure someone else will make the exact same arguments you would make and have made.  I have already showed you how weak that whole line is.  Jesus acknowledged them to be the seed of Abraham, if they were anything less than that, then why would he even acknowledge them to be so, and if they were wicked we do not need to look into their race to find out why.  That is RACISM. 

 

I don't see the point of this doctrine, if race does not make you more wicked, then why is it significant?  If the kenites  were even there.  (And there is no evidence they were still in Jerusalem.)  In the NT a son of satan is defined as someone who continues in sin. PERIOD.

 

Jesus taught that sin makes people the servants of Satan (John 8), his Apostles taught that, and you have completely missed the point he was making .  You are hung up on race and pedigree and you are out of the way.

 

God hath showed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.

 

There is no longer any such thing as "pollution" of races. 

 

Sincerely,

Paul

Original Message - First Response - Second Response - Third Response - Fourth Response - Fifth Response

Sixth Response - Seventh Response - Eighth Response - Ninth Response

Emailer's Second Reply:

----- Original Message -----

From: 

To: reborn@oraclesofgod.org

Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2008 4:37 AM

Subject: Fw:
 

Here we go again Paul

     You do have a profound and innate ability to make black seem white and white seem black. You continue to emanate an animosity towards me that I do not deserve. You yourself admit that you are putting words in my mouth.

 

You seem to be saying that God needed to bring in these "polluted people" to do evil in the midst of God's people

 

The Rechabites I did  were part of the nethinim ,nowhere did I say that they were all of the nethinim. They did not sneak in,God deliberately brought  them in as punishment in plain open sight.I did  not say they where Kenites,Gods word said they were. They were not of Gods chosen people,but they were brought directly into the temple and given position.

 

Jer 35:19  Therefore thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Jonadab the son of Rechab shall not want a man to stand before me for ever.

 

They are the forefathers of the scribes that Christ dealt with

 

1 Chr 2:55  And the families of the scribes which dwelt at Jabez; the Tirathites, the Shimeathites, and Suchathites. These are the Kenites that came of Hemath, the father of the house of Rechab

 

God did this to spite and punish Israel for its failings, for that punishment amongst them would last a lot longer than the babylonian captivity.

 

Jer 35:16  Because the sons of Jonadab the son of Rechab have performed the commandment of their father, which he commanded them; but this people hath not hearkened unto me:
Jer 35:17  Therefore thus saith the LORD God of hosts, the God of Israel; Behold, I will bring upon Judah and upon all the inhabitants of Jerusalem all the evil that I have pronounced against them: because I have spoken unto them, but they have not heard; and I have called unto them, but they have not answered

 

And again.

 

Notice the indictment  against the people of God ,also notice the comparison that God makes between Israel and the Kenites. There lies the lesson in why God introduced the Kenite into the house of Israel.. It was because Israel would not listen to God their father .Yet these Kenites listened to their father Cain. Notice that God did not lift up the Kenite because they listened to him,which they never would anyway.Do you suppose that they may be tares. Are we to be aware of the tares.? The devil planted the tares,God is simply making use of them.

 

The strongs concordance was my source for the definition of the Kenite as being the sons of Cain. If you have a problem with that so be it.

 

Before you go off on a tangent again,I did not say that they composed all of the leadership of Israel during Christ's time but they did seed that leadership amply because that was Gods purpose.God did not need to bring the Kenite into the fold of Israel to seed evil ,nevertheless he did. All men sin ,you included and if you deny that ,no man would  have to condemn you and you can take that as you will.

 

The Kenites are counted amongst the enemies of the lord .Again not my words

 

Num 24:14  And now, behold, I go unto my people: come therefore, and I will advertise thee what this people shall do to thy people in the latter days.
Num 24:15  And he took up his parable, and said, Balaam the son of Beor hath said, and the man whose eyes are open hath said:
Num 24:16  He hath said, which heard the words of God, and knew the knowledge of the most High, which saw the vision of the Almighty, falling into a trance, but having his eyes open:
Num 24:17  I shall see him, but not now: I shall behold him, but not nigh: there shall come a Star out of Jacob, and a Sceptre shall rise out of Israel, and shall smite the corners of Moab, and destroy all the children of Sheth.
Num 24:18  And Edom shall be a possession, Seir also shall be a possession for his enemies; and Israel shall do valiantly.
Num 24:19  Out of Jacob shall come he that shall have dominion, and shall destroy him that remaineth of the city.
Num 24:20  And when he looked on Amalek, he took up his parable, and said, Amalek was the first of the nations; but his latter end shall be that he perish for ever.
Num 24:21  And he looked on the Kenites, and took up his parable, and said, Strong is thy dwellingplace, and thou puttest thy nest in a rock.
Num 24:22  Nevertheless the Kenite shall be wasted, until Asshur shall carry thee away captive.
 

1 Sam 30:25  And it was so from that day forward, that he made it a statute and an ordinance for Israel unto this day.
1 Sam 30:26  And when David came to Ziklag, he sent of the spoil unto the elders of Judah, even to his friends, saying, Behold a present for you of the spoil of the enemies of the LORD;
1 Sam 30:27  To them which were in Bethel, and to them which were in south Ramoth, and to them which were in Jattir,
1 Sam 30:28  And to them which were in Aroer, and to them which were in Siphmoth, and to them which were in Eshtemoa,
1 Sam 30:29  And to them which were in Rachal, and to them which were in the cities of the Jerahmeelites, and to them which were in the cities of the Kenites,

 

These tares(I call them) are specifically targeted by God,not me and the word of God says they are still around in the latter days,again those are not my words. The word of God definitely says nations,again not my words. I am not supporting Murray,but what is truth is truth

 

Ok I can't prove in the following verse that the priesthood was polluted by the Kenite, nevertheless Gods word ,not my words ,states that it was.polluted once a census was taken.How many times was it polluted I ask you?

 

Ezra 2:61  And of the children of the priests: the children of Habaiah, the children of Koz, the children of Barzillai; which took a wife of the daughters of Barzillai the Gileadite, and was called after their name:
Ezra 2:62  These sought their register among those that were reckoned by genealogy, but they were not found: therefore were they, as polluted, put from the priesthood.

 

Had a priesthood arisen other than the Levitical priesthood claiming legitamacy and it was not found out till a census was taken.

 

Notice that Ezra views the people and the priests but no levitical priests. What priests I ask you if they where not Levitical? God planted the Kenites in Israel and there was not a thing Israel could do about it

 

Ezra 8:15  And I gathered them together to the river that runneth to Ahava; and there abode we in tents three days: and I viewed the people, and the priests, and found there none of the sons of Levi.

 

And dont tell me the preisthood was not polluted at Christs time. Where there not 4 different factions in the religious leadership at that time that had power? You may even call them denominations. Tell me which one was legit to rule in Gods temple.

 

Lets take a bit of a break here Paul. Maybe I am being the so called devils advocate here but it seems to me that this sparring that you are doing with me is not about truth of what is in Gods word rather it is a single minded road you are on to discredit Murray. You knowing that I have at one time studied Murrays teachings think I am trying to defend him, and have again singlemindedly zeroed in and said to yourself I'm going to nail him. I don't care what murray says, or what you think about his doctrine I have my own views as well  Forget how this may tie into what you call a doctrine,all I am interested in is this very small potion that we have taken out of Gods word that says ,that God himself brought the Kenties into service in Israel. Is it true or not.You and I know God has a purpose for everything.Now I know that you are not going to give up or acknowledge anything because you have doggedly stated several time that you will not do what you think I want you to do. I have come to the conclusion that no matter what I may bring forth you will disagree simply because I at one time studied Murrays teachings. However it crossed my mind at this time and I felt I needed to divulge to you my thoughts.

 

Lets carry on:

 

"Polluted?" That kind of language should have died with the Old covenant, the only place for that talk now is  in regards to the spiritual.   

 

The old covenant may have died but certainly the old testament did not.

 

Acts10:28 And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath showed me that I should not call any man common or unclean

 

Accept maybe for the Tares,right? after all they were created for destruction and so we can condemn them because they are already condemned predestinated,right? canon fodder.

 

There is no proof that there was any "mixing" with Judah, "mixing" would have made their children bastards, not Jews. And they Jews were in the habit of exclusing such people from their society.

 

I never said that they would mix with Judah,again putting words in my mouth,in fact they themselves were exclusive as they listened to their own father not God ,nevertheless God did give them a station in his temple as his word declares.

 

Jer 35:19  Therefore thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Jonadab the son of Rechab shall not want a man to stand before me for ever.

 

We could go on and on here Paul but anyone reading this can see how you are manipulating my words and putting words in my mouth to advance your view with your preconceived and single-minded agenda. Not that I am condemning you Paul but maybe you are discrediting yourself with your single-mindedness. You seem to have this incessent need to disagree. When you cannot prove a point with scripture you turn to insult and derogatory remarks and double talk and trying to discredit . If you must, save it for Murray,he has carried that on his shoulders from heavier dudes then you over the years.Standing back and looking at both you and Murray I see an arrogance and single-mindedness in both camps. The difference is that Murray is transparent he minces no words,and you know where he stands.,you on the other hand remind people that they don't know you.Double talk Paul,double talk you use it to try to confuse ,you must have studied law . You twist my words and add to my thoughts as a means to an end. You really don't care what I think as a person ,immediately you dive into what you call Murrays doctrine and rip and tear with a vehemence that borders on a frenzy.Paul you really do go on and on. You make tounge in cheek statements. If you want to insult me,insult me but don't tell me that you don't mean to insult me and then go ahead and do so by saying that I insult myself,for then you discredit yourself. Now I know from experience that you will take every sentence I have written here and break it down and assemble a rebuttal  because it is your nature and practice to do so,but then you may resist that urge because you would not want to admit that I was right in that assumption. Paul you profess to not sin every day yet you show a disrespect and contempt that is not deserved. You do have an agenda as you indicated with your openning statement and even thanked me for giving you a golden opertunity ,and bang you jumped in with no regard You did not even think,your hunger and hatred made you reckless.I throw your own word back in your face Paul.

 

but God hath showed me that I should not call any man common or unclean .  

 

Well I have had my say for now Paul .Good hunting

 

XXXX

Original Message - First Response - Second Response - Third Response - Fourth Response - Fifth Response

Sixth Response - Seventh Response - Eighth Response - Ninth Response

My Third Response:

----- Original Message -----

From: reborn@oraclesofgod.org

To: 

Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2008 3:41 PM

Subject: Re:
 

Lets take a bit of a break here Paul. Maybe I am being the so called devils advocate here but it seems to me that this sparring that you are doing with me is not about truth of what is in Gods word rather it is a single minded road you are on to discredit Murray. You knowing that I have at one time studied Murrays teachings think I am trying to defend him, and have again singlemindedly zeroed in and said to yourself I'm going to nail him. I don't care what murray says, or what you think about his doctrine I have my own views as well 

 

Bob, I sent you a set of things said by Dr. Murray and I asked you if you would give your opinion of them.  You did not say that you thought any of it was wrong.  You did not say that you disagreed with it.  You did launch into a heavy defense of the Kenite Doctrine.   I knew you didn't agree with what he said 100%, even though you wouldn't say.

 

Have you forgotten that the webpage which you originally wrote to me about is titled, "Dr. Arnold Murray and the Shepherd's Chapel?" The whole reason this page exists is to discredit Dr. Murray's teachings.  You are a nice guy, but you are small, what is the point of discrediting the doctrine of Bob?  I'm not particularly interested in discrediting your nuanced version of Dr. Murray's doctrine. 

 

I should have told you that I did not intend to post your comments on the Dr. Murray clips I sent, because I was just interested, personally, in your opinion.  I did not expect a lengthy discussion on that topic, but since you gave me nearly the whole catalog of the defense of the Kenite doctrine  to shoot at,  I have to use it, not against you, but against the man who teaches it on TV.  

 

I'm sorry you take it personally, I just can't help but turn the discussion towards Dr. Murray's way of teaching.  When I discredit the Doctrine I want to have my words aimed squarely at the Dr.

 

With that said,

 

You do have a profound and innate ability to make black seem white and white seem black.

 

No, it is just that you have learned that black is white and, of course, you resist my correction.  I'm very flattered that you would say that my abilities are "profound." 

 

You continue to emanate an animosity towards me that I do not deserve.

 

Sorry about that, it is that doctrine, it gets me all revved up.  My animosity towards that doctrine is so great that is tends to spill over and splash about.  I don't have anything personal against you.  Of course, by coming on my website and speaking up for these doctrines, I have to consider you an enemy, at least for the purposes of debate.  But I only want good thing for you from God.  Like a long healthy life, and major doctrinal change. 

 

You yourself admit that you are putting words in my mouth.

"You seem to be saying that God needed to bring in these "polluted people" to do evil in the midst of God's people"

 

If I admit it myself, then what is the big deal,  I'm just telling you the things that your words inspire in me.  It is kind of like when I would start to declare to you the nature of my God and you would say things like that I made God seem like a monster.  All I'm doing is reacting to what you say and telling you my reaction to your words.

 

The Rechabites I did  were part of the Nethinim ,nowhere did I say that they were all of the Nethinim.

 

Did I ever suggest you said they were?  No.  What I said, is that it was never said that ANY the Nethinim were Rechabites,  there is no evidence that there were any Rechabites among the Nethinims.  There is a LIST of the people who made up the Nethinims, the Rechabites ARE NOT ON THAT LIST.

 

They did not sneak in,God deliberately brought  them in as punishment in plain open sight.

 

They did not sneak in, they were not brought in for a special purpose, the Nethinims were no punishment, they were "pollution." And they were put from the priesthood, because they could not show their father's house.  God NEVER brought them into the priesthood openly.  All the evidence says that they were kept separate, and as Israel grew in numbers and in their zeal for the law they may even have been ejected from the temple service altogether.  That is just as possible as any other supposition.

 

I did  not say they where Kenites,Gods word said they were.

 

You have accused me of putting words in your mouth but you ought to fear putting words in His.  GOD's WORD NEVER SAYS THAT ANY OF THE NETHINIM WERE KENITES.  Never.

 

They were not of Gods chosen people,but they were brought directly into the temple and given position.

 

No, it never says that, that is a croc. Chopping wood (the Nethinim's Job) is not "position." I suppose the next verse is supposed to prove that.

 

Jer 35:19  Therefore thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Jonadab the son of Rechab shall not want a man to stand before me for ever.

 

IMPORTANT POINT - All that means is that Jonadab the leader of the Rechabites would never be without descendant to be a leader of the Rechabites.  Notice it says, "a man," not, "men," and the promise is given directly to him. 

 

Jer 49:19 "and who is a chosen man, that I may appoint over her? for who is like me? and who will appoint me the time? and who is that shepherd that will stand before me?"

 

The leaders of people are said to "stand before" God.  But there are a number of different ways in which people are said to "stand before" the Lord.  It is true that the Bible speaks of the priests that "stand before the Lord" But that is just one of many applications.  This is an example of the inexcusable recklessness with which Dr. Murray interprets God's word.

 

There is no way that Jer 35:19 means, "Thus saith the Lord, I'm bringing you into my priesthood."  That is far beyond the pale of reasonable interpretations.  The text does not say,  "Therefore the Rechabites shall stand before me for ever." You are badly misreading that passage.

 

Here are examples of the different ways in which people "stand before" the Lord.  You have misinterpreted Jer 35:19.  Period.

 

Leaders stand before the Lord: Jer 49:19  - Above -

 

Priests stand before the Lord:   Deut10:8 "At that time the LORD separated the tribe of Levi, to bear the ark of the covenant of the LORD, to stand before the LORD to minister unto him, and to bless in his name, unto this day."
 

Litigants in a Lawsuit stand before the Lord:    Deut19:16 "If a false witness rise up against any man to testify against him that which is wrong; 17 Then both the men, between whom the controversy is, shall stand before the LORD, before the priests and the judges, which shall be in those days;"
 

In certain solemn occasions all the people may stand before the Lord: Deut 29:10 "Ye stand this day all of you before the LORD your God; your captains of your tribes, your elders, and your officers, with all the men of Israel,"

 

I found lots of other uses of the device to"stand before," look it up yourself.  The use of this phrase here in Jer 35, by no means, indicates priesthood.  BY NO MEANS.

 

They are the forefathers of the scribes that Christ dealt with

 

You commit the logical fallacy of assuming that scribes are assumed to be Kenites just because some kenites were scribes. (Even if all Kenites were scribes one could not logically conclude that all scribes are Kenites, that is Logic 101: partial conversion of universal affirmatives.  Even so, the bible only indicates that some Kenites were scribes, so his logic is, "Some Kenites were scribes, therefore all scribes are Kenites."  and that is just unworthy of consideration). Plus the Nethinim were not scribes, but choppers of wood and carriers of water.  If you think it is hard for people to move up the corporate ladder, can you imagine how impossible it would have been for someone to move into a blood-based priesthood?  There was no divine intervention (which would definitely be required), that is just a convenient invention of your imagination.  Jer 35 has no support for you there.

 

There is nothing to connect the scribes of Israel in Jesus days with the Kenite scribes of Chronicles or the Nethinim.  The scribes of Jesus days may have been a completely different class of scribes, and not Kenites, we are talking about over five hundred years of separation, there is nothing to connect the two except occupation, and that is a very thin connection over five hundred years. 

 

Scribeship, unlike priesthood, is not blood-based.  The Kenites who were scribes in the census of Chronicles, were living in tents and keeping cattle four hundred years later in the book of Jeremiah, they weren't scribes anymore.  There is no evidence that the Kenites continued to do scribeship or even what kind of scribes they were.  They could have been scribes for commerce, Jeremiah had his own personal scribe, it is not fair to assume he is a Kenite.  Some Kenites were scribes  it is not logical to conclude that all (or even most) scribes were Kenites.  Especially when you are talking about scribes who lived nearly a thousand years apart (from the beginning of chronicles to Jesus day).

 

Abraham dwelt in tents, and so did the Rechabites, that doesn't mean anything, in fact, if they became the Nethinim, then they would have disobeyed their father, by permanently making a home in Jerusalem.  They said they were there for the siege and when the siege was over they probably went back to their nomadic lifestyle.

 

1 Chr 2:55  And the families of the scribes which dwelt at Jabez; the Tirathites, the Shimeathites, and Suchathites. These are the Kenites that came of Hemath, the father of the house of Rechab

 

It is interesting that, while they started off as scribes, by the time of Jeremiah they have taken up a nomadic lifestyle and adopted commandments against having permanent dwelling places in Israel.  I think it is very likely that after the Babylonian captivity the Kenites completely disappeared from Israel.  First we find them "dwelling at jabez," but the Rechabites are descended from these Kenite scribes and end up nomadic, and having no permanent dwelling.  All the indications are is that they were trying not to get into trouble in Israel "Don't drink wine, don't plant seed, don't settle down," that all says we don't belong here and we may have to leave very quickly.  They probably did.

 

God did this to spite and punish Israel for its failings, for that punishment amongst them would last a lot longer than the Babylonian captivity.

 

*Sigh* No evidence, there is no evidence for that.  Longer than the Captivity?  What??? Oh, you mean these verses?

 

Jer 35:16  Because the sons of Jonadab the son of Rechab have performed the commandment of their father, which he commanded them; but this people hath not hearkened unto me:
Jer 35:17  Therefore thus saith the LORD God of hosts, the God of Israel; Behold, I will bring upon Judah and upon all the inhabitants of Jerusalem all the evil that I have pronounced against them: because I have spoken unto them, but they have not heard; and I have called unto them, but they have not answered

 

That blows my mind that you would try to use that verse to support that claim.  That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever seen you assert. "All the evil that I have pronounced against them"  means this: (and you will notice there is not ONE MENTION of the "evil" that you insinuate, I underline the evils):

 

Jer 19 1 "Thus saith the LORD, Go and get a potter's earthen bottle, and take of the ancients of the people, and of the ancients of the priests;
2 And go forth unto the valley of the son of Hinnom, which is by the entry of the east gate, and proclaim there the words that I shall tell thee,
3 And say, Hear ye the word of the LORD, O kings of Judah, and inhabitants of Jerusalem; Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Behold, I will bring evil upon this place, the which whosoever heareth, his ears shall tingle.

6 Therefore, behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that this place shall no more be called Tophet, nor The valley of the son of Hinnom, but The valley of slaughter.
7 And I will make void the counsel of Judah and Jerusalem in this place; and I will cause them to fall by the sword before their enemies, and by the hands of them that seek their lives: and their carcases will I give to be meat for the fowls of the heaven, and for the beasts of the earth.
8 And I will make this city desolate, and an hissing; every one that passeth thereby shall be astonished and hiss because of all the plagues thereof.
9 And I will cause them to eat the flesh of their sons and the flesh of their daughters, and they shall eat every one the flesh of his friend in the siege and straitness, wherewith their enemies, and they that seek their lives, shall straiten them.
10 Then shalt thou break the bottle in the sight of the men that go with thee.
11 And shalt say unto them, Thus saith the LORD of hosts; Even so will I break this people and this city, as one breaketh a potter's vessel, that cannot be made whole again: and they shall bury them in Tophet, till there be no place to bury.
12 Thus will I do unto this place, saith the LORD, and to the inhabitants thereof, and even make this city as Tophet:
13 And the houses of Jerusalem, and the houses of the kings of Judah, shall be defiled as the place of Tophet, because of all the houses upon whose roofs they have burned incense unto all the host of heaven, and have poured out drink offerings unto other gods.
14 Then came Jeremiah from Tophet, whither the LORD had sent him to prophesy; and he stood in the court of the LORD'S house; and said to all the people,
15 Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Behold, I will bring upon this city and upon all her towns all the evil that I have pronounced against it, because they have hardened their necks, that they might not hear my words. "

 

THAT is the evil God was bringing on them, it had absolutely nothing to do with the Rechabites (as a punishment), It also explains plainly why.

 

Jer 44:2 Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Ye have seen all the evil that I have brought upon Jerusalem, and upon all the cities of Judah; and, behold, this day they are a desolation, and no man dwelleth therein,

 

That was the evil.

 

And again.

Notice the indictment  against the people of God ,also notice the comparison that God makes between Israel and the Kenites. There lies the lesson in why God introduced the Kenite into the house of Israel.. It was because Israel would not listen to God their father .Yet these Kenites listened to their father Cain. Notice that God did not lift up the Kenite because they listened to him,which they never would anyway.Do you suppose that they may be tares. Are we to be aware of the tares.? The devil planted the tares,God is simply making use of them.

 

That indictment is all over the book of Jeremiah.  Is this the only Chapter in Jeremiah you have ever read?  Did you never notice the indictments which are the subject of the first 34 Chapters?!? And you do not even understand this chapter, how can you even hope to understand the rest? 

 

Also notice the comparison that God makes between Israel and the Kenites. There lies the lesson in why God introduced the Kenite into the house of Israel.. It was because Israel would not listen to God their father .Yet these Kenites listened to their father Cain.

 

You have never even established that they are being "brought in," (the fact that this was taking place in the temple does not mean that that they were being made priests) from all appearances they are LEAVING FOREVER with God's blessing (they are never mentioned again in the history of the Bible).  The Rechabites disappear from the Bible after the fall of Jerusalem, they started out with dwelling places and jobs and ended up with commandments not to have dwelling places and to keep cattle.  You can't just look at a comparison and say, "because he compared them, that is why he brought them in," you don't even have evidence that they are being "brought in" the city is about to be totally laid waste and the Temple burned with fire. 

 

Oh, you can say it, but it does not make any sense.  You seem like a sensible person, sometimes I sit here and wonder at the things you are saying.  They are so far out I don't have much to say except, "That is an awful interpretation."  What else can I say? The verses that you are trying to use to prove your point do not prove your point.

 

Notice that God did not lift up the Kenite because they listened to him,which they never would anyway.

 

That is a pretty bold assumption, who says that they would "never" listen to him anyway?  They obeyed their father.  They were not Israel, God did not judge them as Israel.  God never gave them special commandments to obey, can you name one sin that they had done, that proves their disobedience to God?    As a people, they pleased him, from every indication.  You are slandering a whole family with no grounds to do so. 

 

Even so, God's "chosen people" never listened to him either, and always did thing contrary to what he said.  What does that prove?  You are fond of declaring that all Christians keep on sinning, isn't that the same thing?

 

Do you suppose that they may be tares.

 

No, I don't suppose that at all.  Why are they automatically tares? What have they done wrong? What is the proof of their tareship?  I see no reason to condemn this whole family as tares, God is rewarding them and you want to label them.

 

Are we to be aware of the tares.?

 

The angels can't even tell them from wheat.   How is it that you can look at that verse and declare a whole family of people who appear to be pleasing to God to be tares?

No, even the angels could make mistakes watching them while they grow.  What is the point of being aware of the tares?  Dr. Murray says it is important to know who the tares are so that you can call the Jews Kenites.  Why do you think we must be "aware" of them?

 

If tares were to be found as whole nations and peoples then it would have made sense in the parable for Jesus to say that there were two fields  one full of wheat and one full of tares.  If the tares were a family then why would the angels have any trouble telling the difference?  It could all be cleared up with a genetic test, or by just looking at someone's heritage.  This view of the tares is perverted and wrong. 

 

The devil planted the tares,God is simply making use of them.

 

Okey Dokey, he does that.  But that is not what is happening in Jer 35, you are basically slandering the Rechabites.

 

The Strong's concordance was my source for the definition of the Kenite as being the sons of Cain. If you have a problem with that so be it.

 

I don't have a problem with THAT. 

 

What I have a problem with is the logic which says, "Johnsons, means, "Sons of John," therefore everyone with the name Johnson is descended from John Adams."

 

You cannot use the definitions of words like that, there are all kinds of circumstance and pitfalls that make that kind of interpretation perilous.

 

**** I was away from this for a few hours, but something struck me.  I know how the offspring of Cain may have made it through the flood: through the wives if Noah's sons. What it would be then, is that a family of them eventually decided to trace their ancestry back through their mother to Cain for some reason.  That is the only possibility I can see. If you want to go with that then I'd have to say that it was possible.********

 

Before you go off on a tangent again,

 

I was not going there, but since you have, I guess I'll have to come along.

 

I did not say that they composed all of the leadership of Israel during Christ's time but they did seed that leadership amply because that was Gods purpose.

 

Those are your words, your ideas,  interesting statements they are, but you are using the same kind of documentation that the author of the "DaVinci Code" used to determine that Jesus "seeded" Mary Magdalene.  It is pathetic that this kind of make-it-up-as-you-go-along scholarship has found such a prominent voice in our land through Dr. Murray and the Shepherd's Chapel. 

 

God did not need to bring the Kenite into the fold of Israel to seed evil ,nevertheless he did.

 

Ok, then, why did he do it? If the Israelites were perfectly capable of doing the evil that the imaginary "Kenites" supposedly did, then why bring them in?  As a punishment? If they are standing in the place of Israel doing evil instead of Israel then the Kenites are a blessing because they will be punished for deeds that the now supplanted Israelites cannot do.

 

You have come so far from Dr. Murray's position, and I commend you for it, but you are holding on to a black and evil doctrine which you have tried to make a little whiter.  You are trying to clean it up, but the ONLY reason God would have brought such "Kenites" into leadership (if they really existed like that) would be to do evil. 

 

I do not believe in Kenites (as such), I believe in Tares, God selected certain souls to fulfill particular roles, from Pharaoh to Caiaphas the High Priest.  There is no race involved, but he places the tares in these spots for one reason, to do EVIL, evil that he would not wish his wheat to do, evil that will destroy them.  That is the truth and you can bet your soul on it.

 

All men sin ,you included and if you deny that ,no man would  have to condemn you and you can take that as you will.

 

No, all men have sinned.  The Phrase "all men sin" is not found in the Bible.  If we do not stop sinning, then we have not put on the righteousness of Christ. ("He that DOES righteousness is righteous even as he is righteous")  And if I sin, does that make the scriptures void? No. All that does is just make me of the devil, like all other sinners. The scriptures stand, he that commits sin is of the wicked one.  I think that you must hate that scripture, every time I mention it you deny it.   It is hard for me to imagine a more cut-and-dry scripture than 1 John Chapter 3.  If I am still a sinner then I am still in the snare of the wicked one, and I need to be made free.

 

"Whosoever commiteth sin is the servant of sin.  And the servant abideth not in the house forever, but the son abideth forever, if the son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed."  John 8

 

Most people think of this freedom from sin in terms of, "in theory," instead of, "indeed," as in:  "If the son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free in theory, but you will still sin."  What do you think?  Is that what Jesus Christ had in mind when he said that?

 

Most Christians, including you,  have forgotten the Gospel (did you notice that in my final reply to our shorter thread (#28?) I defined the Gospel for you?)

 

The Kenites are counted amongst the enemies of the lord .Again not my words

 

"Again?"  So Much of what you assert has no reference in the word of God that the use of this phrase here only heightens the tense, yet humorous, irony of your statement.   Israel is counted as the enemy of God, for the Gospels sake, what does that prove? Sinners are the enemies of the Lord, and according to you, that includes everyone.  So what?  So what if they are the

Num 24:21  And he looked on the Kenites, and took up his parable, and said, Strong is thy dwellingplace, and thou puttest thy nest in a rock.
Num 24:22  Nevertheless the Kenite shall be wasted, until Asshur shall carry thee away captive.
 

 

Now you are digging deep for the Kenite scriptures.  What does this scripture mean, what does it prove?  I fail to see the relevance of this to our discussion, all this proves is that Israel would dominate the Kenites.  Whoop-de-doo.... It does not label them "eternal enemies"

 

This next one is just a failure. 

 

1 Sam 30:25  And it was so from that day forward, that he made it a statute and an ordinance for Israel unto this day.
1 Sam 30:26  And when David came to Ziklag, he sent of the spoil unto the elders of Judah, even to his friends, saying, Behold a present for you of the spoil of the enemies of the LORD;
1 Sam 30:27  To them which were in Bethel, and to them which were in south Ramoth, and to them which were in Jattir,
1 Sam 30:28  And to them which were in Aroer, and to them which were in Siphmoth, and to them which were in Eshtemoa,
1 Sam 30:29  And to them which were in Rachal, and to them which were in the cities of the Jerahmeelites, and to them which were in the cities of the Kenites,

 

The spoil is being given "to" these people not taken "from" them.  David is giving the Kenites some of the spoils.  Well not really, it is "them that are in the cities of the Kenites,"  the Israelites that live in the predominantly Kenite Cities, but after the Assyrians conquer them the Kenites are reduced to living in tents.  Don't you see, they had cities, but ended up in tents, and the prophecy of Balaam... 

 

Your interpretation is based on an illiterate reading of this passage. This passage does not show the Kenites to be the enemies of Israel, but living separately within their nation.

 

Interestingly, this is back in the day when the Kenites still had cities in Israel, by the time of Jeremiah they were in tents.  Is it not likely that Asshur (the Assyrian) carried most of them away and that the ones referred to in Jeremiah's time were all that were left?  I have not done an intense study on Kenites in years (and that was to get to where you are), but you are nearly inspiring me to take all that our conversation has revealed to me and trace the true history of the Kenites free from Dr. Murray's ignorant interpretive methodology.

 

These tares(I call them) are specifically targeted by God,not me

 

For blessing, in Jer 35, 1 Sam 30 is pretty much neutral, what's next?

 

and the word of God says they are still around in the latter days,again those are not my words.

 

The term "latter days" does not always refer to the end of the world.  It can refer to some point in the distant future.  The modern Assyrians are not about to carry away anyone captive, but the ancient Assyrians reduced the Kenites from cities (plural) to living in tents and probably one family (the Rechabites, where are the Tirathites, the Shimeathites, and Suchathites?  Wiped out., Rechab alone was left, that last part is supposition, but is much more logical than the things you are trying to say) 

 

The word of God definitely says nations,again not my words. I am not supporting Murray,but what is truth is truth

 

?  I'm not sure what you were referring to here.

 

I am not supporting Murray,but what is truth is truth

 

Hey! That's my line!

 

Ok I can't prove in the following verse that the priesthood was polluted by the Kenite, nevertheless Gods word ,not my words , states that it was.polluted once a census was taken.How many times was it polluted I ask you?

 

Well, the confusion of the captivity would have been the best time to pollute it.  After that it would have been more difficult, I don't think it ever happened again.  You say it happened because it "had to" happen, but it didn't and there is no evidence it did, read the Apocrypha, the Jews were zealous, no foreigners could have become priests short of a miracle.

 

Ezra 2:61  And of the children of the priests: the children of Habaiah, the children of Koz, the children of Barzillai; which took a wife of the daughters of Barzillai the Gileadite, and was called after their name:
Ezra 2:62  These sought their register among those that were reckoned by genealogy, but they were not found: therefore were they, as polluted, put from the priesthood.

 

How was the priesthood polluted? "And of the children of the priests:...the children of Barzillai; which took a wife of the daughters of Barzillai the Gileadite."

 

I'm sorry, the Gileadites were of the tribe of Manasseh, not Kenites, they were put from the priesthood because they were Levites who had intermarried with the tribe of Manasseh.  These Levite-Manassehites were called by the name of their Maternal Grandfather Barzillai. 

 

Num26:29 "Of the sons of Manasseh: of Machir, the family of the Machirites: and Machir begat Gilead: of Gilead come the family of the Gileadites. "

 

In any case, just what were you trying to say?  Oh that since Manasseh was UNABLE to infiltrate the priesthood, the people of a completely different race would do so later on?

 

Are you serious?

 

Had a priesthood arisen other than the Levitical priesthood claiming legitimacy and it was not found out till a census was taken.

 

It was Levitical, didn't you read it?  It is just that they had married into Manasseh.  They were all Israelites.  No foreigners.

 

Notice that Ezra views the people and the priests but no levitical priests.

 

No, no, at first  at, "the river that runneth to Ahava," he did not find any Levitical Priests when he was there, but then he looked a little harder and they found them.

 

Ezra 8:18  And by the good hand of our God upon us they brought us a man of understanding, of the sons of Mahli, the son of Levi, the son of Israel; and Sherebiah, with his sons and his brethren, eighteen;
Ezra 8:19  And Hashabiah, and with him Jeshaiah of the sons of Merari, his brethren and their sons, twenty;

 

The three hundred or so nethinims were basically the Levites slaves. "Fetch me some water."  "Cut em some wood."  They had about as much chance of becoming priests as I have of becoming Pope (probably even less because I'm not excluded from being Pope by blood).

 

What priests I ask you if they where not Levitical?

 

They were Levitical.  The children of Habaiah, the children of Koz, were Levitical families that had married into other families, the Gileadites were mentioned specifically, (I don't know if there were others or if they were all part of this one family), but the fact is that these were priestly families who had married outside the tribe of Levi and were no longer fit for priestly duties, UNTIL a high priest was appointed who could seek the will of God on the Matter by Urim and Thummin.  They WERE NOT Kenites, they would not even be considered in that case.

 

In reference to this "63 And the Tirshatha said unto them, that they should not eat of the most holy things, till there stood up a priest with Urim and with Thummim."

 

Chapter 8 of Ezra was at a completely different place and time.  They were camped by a river and he couldn't find Levites (for a moment) but then sent and got some.  I wish I could sit down with you and the Book of Ezra, have you ever read the rest of Ezra 2????

 

Ezr2: 1 Now these are the children of the province that went up out of the captivity, of those which had been carried away, whom Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon had carried away unto Babylon, and came again unto Jerusalem and Judah, every one unto his city;
2 Which came with Zerubbabel: .....
40 The Levites: the children of Jeshua and Kadmiel, of the children of Hodaviah, seventy and four.
41 The singers: the children of Asaph, an hundred twenty and eight.
42 The children of the porters: the children of Shallum, the children of Ater, the children of Talmon, the children of Akkub, the children of Hatita, the children of Shobai, in all an hundred thirty and nine.

 

There were plenty of Levites, Do your research better next time. 

 

God planted the Kenites in Israel and there was not a thing Israel could do about it

 

There are no Kenites in the book of Ezra or Nehemiah. or in any of the Prophets that succeeded them (absolutely) or in any of the historical writings of the Apocrypha (to the extent of my knowledge), if there were you can bet that Dr. Murray would be dragging those books out. 

 

Your statement is based on fantasy and wishful thinking and the teachings of the false prophet, Dr. Arnold Murray. 

 

Ezra 8:15  And I gathered them together to the river that runneth to Ahava; and there abode we in tents three days: and I viewed the people, and the priests, and found there none of the sons of Levi.

 

Ezra 8:18  And by the good hand of our God upon us they brought us a man of understanding, of the sons of Mahli, the son of Levi, the son of Israel; and Sherebiah, with his sons and his brethren, eighteen;
Ezra 8:19  And Hashabiah, and with him Jeshaiah of the sons of Merari, his brethren and their sons, twenty;

 

and by the time they Got back to the land they counted HUNDREDS of PURE BLOOD LEVITES. 

 

And dont tell me the preisthood was not polluted at Christs time.

 

I will definitely tell you that there is no evidence that it was polluted with foreign blood.  Do you think that John the Baptist was the only family who was pure? 

 

Where there not 4 different factions in the religious leadership at that time that had power? You may even call them denominations. Tell me which one was legit to rule in Gods temple.

 

I am ready to laugh at you.  NONE RULED IN GOD's Temple, that was the sole dominion of the Levites,  The Pharasees and Saducees were distinct from the Levites, so were the Herodians, the only ones who were "ruling" in the temple were the Levites.

 

Lets carry on:

 

"Polluted?" That kind of language should have died with the Old covenant, the only place for that talk now is  in regards to the spiritual.   

 

The old covenant may have died but certainly the old testament did not.

 

Ok, so, I understand the Old Testament, you don't, that is a problem you should look into.

 

Acts10:28 And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath showed me that I should not call any man common or unclean

 

Accept maybe for the Tares,right?

 

Wrong, you can't tell a tare while it is growing, so you can't call it unclean either.  

 

after all they were created for destruction and so we can condemn them because they are already condemned predestinated,right? canon fodder.

 

Only theoretically,  I can condemn tares because Christ has condemned them, but I cannot identify tares, unlike you, I do not claim to know "how the tares are" and I do not think that is important to either.  What is important is that I know the judgment of God concerning such things. 

 

There is no proof that there was any "mixing" with Judah, "mixing" would have made their children bastards, not Jews. And they Jews were in the habit of exclusing such people from their society.

 

I never said that they would mix with Judah,again putting words in my mouth,in fact they themselves were exclusive as they listened to their own father not God ,nevertheless

 

You are confusing, on the one hand you talk about polluted priests and the only way to pollute a Levitical priest is to marry one.  Oh yeah I forgot, You are still relying on this pathetic form of documentation.  When you say polluted, I have to conclude you mean "mixing"  How the heck are the Kenites supposed to be part of a Levitical priesthood without marrying some Levites?  How in the heck are they supposed to keep their existence separate and secret? How come this second separate priesthood exist and there is no mention of it?  The Kenites are never listed in the families that returned from captivity.  They may never have gone into captivity.  There were no Kenites in the Priesthood.

 

God did give them a station in his temple as his word declares.  Jer 35:19  Therefore thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Jonadab the son of Rechab shall not want a man to stand before me for ever.

 

Wow, after all I have said concerning this verse, when it appears here, it is pretty ironic.  God did not give them a station in his temple.  He gave them a shepherd. 

 

Jer 49:19 "and who is a chosen man, that I may appoint over her? for who is like me? and who will appoint me the time? and who is that shepherd that will stand before me?"

 

Your interpretation won't hold water, holding on to that interpretation will force me to conclude that you are not a man of any intelligence.

 

We could go on and on here Paul

 

That is what you usually say when you have nothing left.

 

but anyone reading this can see how you are manipulating my words and putting words in my mouth to advance your view with your preconceived and single-minded agenda.

 

Anyone reading this will readily see that you are whining and hypocritical.  I never "put words in your mouth" if that was so then you are guilty of the same thing

 

"The old covenant may have died but certainly the old testament did not."

I never said it did, you are putting words in my mouth

"after all they were created for destruction and so we can condemn them because they are already condemned predestinated,right?"

You are twisting my words again.

 

You do it all the time, it is very irritating to have to respond to, because it makes the response complicated, because you have to straighten out your own words first, but that is the way it goes when people do not understand eachother.  Live with it.

 

Not that I am condemning you Paul but maybe you are discrediting yourself with your single-mindedness.

 

That won't work, what am I supposed to be?  Larry King? I believe Dr. Murray is a false teacher, his doctrine is my primary target, I want my arrows aimed at it.

 

You seem to have this incessent need to disagree.

 

And who is my favorite email correspondent? Who has written me more than any other? Come on, what am I supposed to do? Agree with false doctrine?  What part hath light with darkness?  My "problem" is that I see very clearly, it is a gift.  And that draws me into conflict with those who do not see well, but insist that they see clearly things that I know are not there.  Consider the things I showed you in Ezra, think hard about it.  How did you miss, over 300 pure-blood Levites arriving in Jerusalem? 

 

When you cannot prove a point with scripture you turn to insult and derogatory remarks and double talk and trying to discredit .

 

Now I'm insulted, I'm not even sure what double talk is (but I'm willing to bet that you use it) And I usually delete the insults before I send the message.  But your interpretations of many of these scriptures are an insult, I do not know how else to respond to them, a bland "that's wrong" just doesn't cut it.  I do not always need to bring in other scriptures to prove that your interpretations are wrong, one need only glance at the verses you are interpreting. 

 

It is difficult not to be insulting.  I feel insulted every time I read these perverse interpretations of men.  I feel like some slimy pervert is sidling up to me and running his fingers up my leg when I read this stuff, its that perverted.  (nothing personal there, I mean the doctrine)

 

If you must, save it for Murray,he has carried that on his shoulders from heavier dudes then you over the years.

 

I don't think so.  He'll be dead before I come into my own.

 

Standing back and looking at both you and Murray I see an arrogance and single-mindedness in both camps.

 

And you have what? Double-mindedness?  here is a verse for you to chew on James1:8 "A double minded man is unstable in all his ways."

 

Since double and single are out maybe I should try triple-minded, do you think that would be better.

 

XXXX, you are chock full of worldly wisdom, uh, single-mindedness is GOOD.

 

The difference is that Murray is transparent he minces no words,and you know where he stands.,

 

ARE YOU INSANE!!! Did you even listen to the quotes I sent you?!?  Do you even know that he keeps the Chapels financial records are kept under wraps ?!?  Dr. Murray lives like a king, does not have a job and declares "I never take a salary for teaching."  No, but he takes the perks!  And he is, "President of this network," and you can bet your boots he gets paid for that.  He is the most UNTRANSPARENT minister I can think of.

 

The dude would lose many people if they knew what he really believed, if they knew about his false prophecies.  If they knew that the doctrine he teaches is that ALL JEWS ARE KENITES.   That guy plays his cards CLOSE to the vest.  That thing that you just said, is a great example of calling black white.  Dr. Murray is a SELF-DECLARED secretive LONER.  .

 

you on the other hand remind people that they don't know you.

 

You must never have read my autobiography on my webpage,  but really, "what man knows the things of a man save the spirit of man in him?"  I don't care about me, it is my words that matter,  they need to know my words.  I'd like to write more about doctrine, but I work for a living and have six children and a wife, leading cub scouts, coaching wrestling baseball,  I'll be writing more and more, but it isn't me you have to know. 

 

Dr. Murray is the cult of personality, not me.

 

Double talk Paul,double talk you use it to try to confuse ,you must have studied law .

 

You sure know how to puff me up, I studied dope, I studied drunkenness, and I studied women.  That is what I did in my first year at the university of Illinois before I failed out.  After that I studied the bible,  I remember most of what I learn, not like a photographic memory, but I learned alot in grammar school,  I often remark to my wife that I'm surprise she does not know this of that because I learned it in 8th grade.  I have many gifts.  No one taught me them.

 

You twist my words and add to my thoughts as a means to an end.

 

Well if you refuse to take your thoughts to their inevitable conclusion I am not afraid to.   I only "twist" your words so that I can look at them from every side and see where they lead, and whether they are any good.  I'm sorry that most of your words are found wanting.  But facts are facts, your words are found wanting.

 

You really don't care what I think as a person ,immediately you dive into what you call Murray's doctrine and rip and tear with a vehemence that borders on a frenzy.

 

I do care , sometimes, like when I asked you to comment on Murray's clips, (I do regret not calling a truce first!)  But in general, that has been something I have been criticized for from my early days at Intervarsity Fellowship,  "Paul, you make people feel like you do not really care about what they think."  I had to admit, they were right, I'm not in the business of caring for peoples opinions, if your opinion is no good, I give it the same treatment I give all of my own opinions.  I got to where I am by "twisting" my own words to see if they were true, to see if they could stand up to the test.  You are up against a buzz-saw-mind, I will rip your ideas apart, but only because they are made of such pathetically weak materials.  If they were made of stronger stuff, I could not touch them.

 

Paul you really do go on and on.

 

At church they say that Stringini can fellowship us all "under the table."

 

You make tongue in cheek statements.

 

Sometimes.

 

If you want to insult me,insult me but don't tell me that you don't mean to insult me and then go ahead and do so by saying that I insult myself,for then you discredit yourself.

 

Well, I don't want to insult you, but sometimes I feel like "what is left?"  When you say things that are worthy of insult.  I try to avoid it.  But then you say some things which demand derision.  So I deride them.   I only discredit myself to people who have no spines and people who whish I would just let go of this civil tone I try to create (not good at it).

 

Now I know from experience that you will take every sentence I have written here and break it down and assemble a rebuttal  

 

Amen

 

because it is your nature and practice to do so,but then you may resist that urge because you would not want to admit that I was right in that assumption.

 

My buzz-saw never cuts the truth.  I'm not trying to stack the deck.  So what if you know what I do, at least I know that you can detect a pattern.

 

Paul you profess to not sin every day

 

No, I do not profess that, If I said that before, then I must have had a good streak going, but I have sinned, still, I've stopped, hopefully for good.  Until I do stop for good I might as well consider myself a child of Satan.

 

yet you show a disrespect and contempt that is not deserved.

 

I have shown no contempt for you.  Disrespect? I can't respect you while you hold to this doctrine, you don't deserve it.  I have utter contempt for the doctrine of the Kenites, I have thrown so much doubt on it that you should be able to see that you have missed some things. 

 

I don't think you are stupid.  I sometimes say, "If you can't see this point I question your intelligence."  That is not an insult, it is a mild threat.  But no matter how smart we are, I may be believing a lie.  But if that is so then I cannot do anything, because this is all that God has put in my heart to see.

 

You do have an agenda as you indicated with your openning statement

 

Yea, so what if I do? What is wrong with an agenda?  Agenda Point #15) Destroy the doctrine of the Kenites 

 

Jesus and the Apostles had, "agendas," you do not have to look hard and you will find them.  I actually don't have an agenda but I should probably make one and post it online. "My Agenda."  

 

and even thanked me for giving you a golden opertunity

 

I can't even get credit with you for being gracious.

 

,and bang you jumped in

 

I love fighting this battle.

 

with no regard

 

Regard for what? (you are making me literally feel giggly now, I know what is coming)

 

You did not even think,your hunger and hatred made you reckless.

 

It must be my Viking blood-lust kicking in again.

 

I throw your own word back in your face Paul.

 

I quake.

 

but God hath showed me that I should not call any man common or unclean .  

 

That's it?  You have to be kidding, that is like trying to cut down the tallest tree in the forest with a red herring.

 

Don't worry, I don't question your bloodline, I don't care about bloodlines, how is this supposed to affect me? Kill me from laughing??? 

 

What is the point here?  You will have to do better.  If I am supposed to feel guilty here, you have failed.  

 

You are the guy calling whole families unclean.  

 

Your doctrine is unclean though, and profane (that is what common means)  But I would not have any problem eating off the same plate as you, or sharing a bottle of water with you or with a Jew or with a Black man or with an Asian.  How about you?

 

Well I have had my say for now Paul .Good hunting

 

Ok.

 

Sincerely,

 

Paul

 

P.S. Is it hunting when the prey keeps coming back to me?

Original Message - First Response - Second Response - Third Response - Fourth Response - Fifth Response

Sixth Response - Seventh Response - Eighth Response - Ninth Response

Emailer's Third Reply:

----- Original Message -----

From: 

To: Undisclosed-Recipient:;

Sent: Friday, August 29, 2008 12:59 AM

Subject: Fw:
 

Hi Paul

     Isn't it just like you to interpret what I meant when I said profound,to pat yourself on the back when I did not even mention how that profoundness may apply to you. Let me clarify what I mean. Profound means deep,descending far below the surface,and not necessarily good but could pertain to good or evil,for Satan himself is a very profound entity.Now again don't go off half cocked and come to the conclusion that I think you are evil ,but I do give you credit for your innate ability ,which you use to twist any given situation to your purposes.

     I will give you some examples of how you twist things around,and for the life of me I don't know how you see logic in the statements you make but then maybe his mind is not as profound as the buzz-saw thinks it is

 

XXX, I sent you a set of things said by Dr. Murray and I asked you if you would give your opinion of them.  You did not say that you thought any of it was wrong.  You did not say that you disagreed with it.  You did launch into a heavy defense of the Kenite Doctrine.   I knew you didn't agree with what he said 100%, even though you wouldn't say.

 

Now you stated that you asked me to express my opinion and I did ,then in the same statement you criticize what I gave you . Well if you did not want my opinion why did you ask for it? You wanted me to say that it was wrong ,and disagree with it and to cap it off you said "  I knew you didn't agree with what he said 100%, even though you wouldn't say" Paul that is an outright lie because I have admitted that to you on

more than one occasion.

 

Well if you refuse to take your thoughts to their inevitable conclusion I am not afraid to.   I only "twist" your words so that I can look at them from every side and see where they lead, and whether they are any good.  I'm sorry that most of your words are found wanting.  But facts are facts, your words are found wanting.

 

In one statement  you criticize me for expounding and them later you criticize for not taking my thoughts to the inevitable conclusion,just more doubletalk.

 

I should have told you that I did not intend to post your comments on the Dr. Murray clips I sent, because I was just interested, personally, in your opinion.  I did not expect a lengthy discussion on that topic, but since you gave me nearly the whole catalog of the defense of the Kenite doctrine  to shoot at,  I have to use it, not against you, but against the man who teaches it on TV.  

 

You so conveniently forgot to tell me that it would not be posted,what a bunch of crapp (your words).(an other lie) That is your whole agenda Paul, entrapment so you can twist my words.

 

 I did not expect a lengthy discussion on that topic, but since you gave me nearly the whole catalog of the defense of the Kenite doctrine  to shoot at,  I have to use it, not against you, but against the man who teaches it on TV.  

 

What did you expect Paul,you and I have had nothing but long exchanges.Maybe an oversight,or just an other lie you are inserting here to justify yourself.

 

I'm sorry you take it personally, I just can't help but turn the discussion towards Dr. Murray's way of teaching.  When I discredit the Doctrine I want to have my words aimed squarely at the Dr

 

You are not very good at guessing what I'm going to say.  I can nearly always guess what you will say, because you are behaving like a parrot.  I know that is insulting, and I'm not trying to insult you, really, but from my perspective you insult yourself by such behavior

 

Paul, you do expect me to take it personally,and if your words are not aimed squarely at Murray you aim them at the person who has studied with him and insult them.Its no wonder the chapel students dislike you.Just more lies

 

Sorry about that, it is that doctrine, it gets me all revved up.  My animosity towards that doctrine is so great that is tends to spill over and splash about.  I don't have anything personal against you.  Of course, by coming on my website and speaking up for these doctrines, I have to consider you an enemy, at least for the purposes of debate.  But I only want good thing for you from God.  Like a long healthy life, and major doctrinal change

 

You apologize for the animosity comparing it to taking a bath joyfully splashing it about.Yet you have nothing against me personally ,still you count me as your enemy. More double talk and outright lies Paul.

 

Your doctrine is unclean though, and profane (that is what common means)  But I would not have any problem eating off the same plate as you, or sharing a bottle of water with you or with a Jew or with a Black man or with an Asian.  How about you?

 

Paul you hang yourself with your own words,your twistings and turnings ,all throughout our discourses you have continued to insult me . What a bunch of crap Paul(again your words) you would not dare to sit down with a Jew or a Black man or an Asian if you insulted them for their beliefs as you insult mine,  but then you probably wouldn't have the guts to do that face to face,,just more lies.

 

Paul you pride yourself in your abilities and the real you has seeped out in our discussions.You are an arrogant,prideful habitual doubletalking liar. Do you see what this exchange has progressed to? We are not discussing the word of God,and you now have me doing the same thing as you. But this is what you really love,this is the real you. Do you think I care if you post this ,or any other exchanges we have had ,go to it I don't care have fun ,but this thread must end for me .

 

There are other glaring examples but I have had enough of this Paul.I do not feel the need to go on and on

 

XXXXX

Original Message - First Response - Second Response - Third Response - Fourth Response - Fifth Response

Sixth Response - Seventh Response - Eighth Response - Ninth Response

My Fourth Response:

----- Original Message -----

From: reborn@oraclesofgod.org

To: 

Sent: Friday, August 29, 2008 1:06 PM

Subject: Re:
 

XXXXX, 

 

I wish you would try to contradict my doctrine, but you just can't.  This email is just a bitter retreat.  You are taking your ball and going home, because you are losing, and, as you go, you are yelling over your shoulder that I'm a big jerk.  Utterly mature XXXXX.

 

What I really should have known about you is that when the debate turns against you, you turn tail and run.  Maybe that is the wisest thing you could have done, because if you had continued to argue with me, you know that your doctrine would just have been defeated even more utterly (if that is even possible).  Collect the broken remnants of your doctrine, forget the truth, change the subject.  I consider this utter victory, I have wiped the subject of the Kenites from your mouth.

 

Isn't it just like you to interpret what I meant when I said profound,to pat yourself on the back when I did not even mention how that profoundness may apply to you.

 

I turned your insult around.  I know what you meant.  I was just displaying that profound ability again.

 

Let me clarify what I mean. Profound means deep,descending far below the surface,and not necessarily good but could pertain to good or evil,for Satan himself is a very profound entity.Now again don't go off half cocked and come to the conclusion that I think you are evil ,but I do give you credit for your innate ability ,which you use to twist any given situation to your purposes.

 

So since my ability is not evil, should I assume that it is good?  Because I can't imagine that you mean that it is profoundly mediocre...

 

I will give you some examples of how you twist things around,and for the life of me I don't know how you see logic in the statements you make but then maybe his mind is not as profound as the buzz-saw thinks it is

 

It is really a pity that nothing in this message of yours has anything to do with the word or doctrine.  I guess that you didn't find any thing there to criticize?  I think the defeat of your ideas was just too overwhelming.  You are left arguing with me about style and about your personal sensitivities.

 

Bob, I sent you a set of things said by Dr. Murray and I asked you if you would give your opinion of them.  You did not say that you thought any of it was wrong.  You did not say that you disagreed with it.  You did launch into a heavy defense of the Kenite Doctrine.   I knew you didn't agree with what he said 100%, even though you wouldn't say.

Now you stated that you asked me to express my opinion and I did ,then in the same statement you criticize what I gave you . Well if you did not want my opinion why did you ask for it?

 

Well, I criticized it because you didn't say anything negative about the clips and actually defended them as biblical,   I didn't  expect that.  

 

You wanted me to say that it was wrong ,and disagree with it and to cap it off you said " I knew you didn't agree with what he said 100%, even though you wouldn't say" Paul that is an outright lie because I  " have admitted that to you on more than one occasion.

 

Ok so you do disagree with Dr. Murray's clips,  that is what I thought, I was curious if you were even aware that those were the fullness of his teachings,  I was surprised that you defended them because of your prior statements. 

 

and to cap it off you said " I knew you didn't agree with what he said 100%, even though you wouldn't say" Paul that is an outright lie because I  " have admitted that to you on more than one occasion.

 

Ok so you do disagree with Dr. Murray's clips, but you did not want to say so again.  Well, you defended them and that confused me.  I was not lying, I was CONFUSED.  Man, you are quick to accuse... I could accuse you of being a liar for this, but I choose rather to believe that you are just conflicted.

 

Well look back at what you said here

Well if you refuse to take your thoughts to their inevitable conclusion I am not afraid to.   I only "twist" your words so that I can look at them from every side and see where they lead, and whether they are any good.  I'm sorry that most of your words are found wanting.  But facts are facts, your words are found wanting.

In one statement  you criticize me for expounding and them later you criticize for not taking my thoughts to the inevitable conclusion,just more doubletalk.

 

No double talk.  That was straight English, I criticized you for NOT expounding on your thoughts, the above statement is completely straightforward.  You  don't follow your thoughts to their conclusion, so I do it for you.  And when I do, I find your ideas wanting. No doubletalk.  You may need to read what I write twice.

 

I should have told you that I did not intend to post your comments on the Dr. Murray clips I sent, because I was just interested, personally, in your opinion.  I did not expect a lengthy discussion on that topic, but since you gave me nearly the whole catalog of the defense of the Kenite doctrine  to shoot at,  I have to use it, not against you, but against the man who teaches it on TV.  

You so conveniently forgot to tell me that it would not be posted,what a bunch of crapp (your words).(an other lie) That is your whole agenda Paul, entrapment so you can twist my words.

 

I was not intending to post your remarks on those clips, I had not thought about it that far yet, I had something else in mind,  I was not fishing for website material, at the very least, not for an argument. This is what happened that day: I had just showed the same clips to an old friend who still casually watched Dr. Murray and defended him on certain points.  He was totally floored, he had no idea that Dr. Murray was so extreme as to declare that all the Jews are Kenites (and other points).  I was surprised at that reaction, and I really thought that the clips would have the same good effect on you, so after I got off the phone with him I whipped up a quick message for you and uploaded the clips to my website. I was expecting that you would condemn his words since you already disagreed with him. <---- ALL TRUTH.  I guess I did not properly perceive that you still had a good measure of loyalty to the Dr. 

 

 

I did not expect a lengthy discussion on that topic, but since you gave me nearly the whole catalog of the defense of the Kenite doctrine  to shoot at,  I have to use it, not against you, but against the man who teaches it on TV.  

What did you expect Paul,you and I have had nothing but long exchanges.Maybe an oversight,or just an other lie you are inserting here to justify yourself.

 

I had just showed the clips to an old friend who was totally floored, he had no idea that Dr. Murray was so extreme as to declare that all the Jews are Kenites.  I was surprised at that, and I really thought that the clips would have the same effect on you, so after I got off the phone with him I whipped up a quick message for you. I was expecting that you would condemn his words since you already disagreed with him. <---- ALL TRUTH 

 

I'm just guilty of being stupidly optimistic about you.

 

I'm sorry you take it personally, I just can't help but turn the discussion towards Dr. Murray's way of teaching.  When I discredit the Doctrine I want to have my words aimed squarely at the Dr

 

Well, that was in response to your complaint that I kept turning the conversation towards Dr. Murray.  I didn't mean that it was a "law" or a "promise," just a desire.  

 

You are not very good at guessing what I'm going to say.  I can nearly always guess what you will say, because you are behaving like a parrot.  I know that is insulting, and I'm not trying to insult you, really, but from my perspective you insult yourself by such behavior

Paul, you do expect me to take it personally,

 

No, I don't expect you to take it personally, I expect you to take it like a man, but since you have never shown that ability I suppose I should count myself a little dim for not realizing that you always take everything personally.  How about this, I won't care if you take it personally.  I don't care if you think I'm a nice guy. I keep trying to play nice.

 

and if your words are not aimed squarely at Murray you aim them at the person who has studied with him and insult them.Its no wonder the chapel students dislike you.Just more lies

 

I've had trouble explaining myself, because I'm conflicted, not lying. My purpose is not to just sit here and insult you for the sake of insulting you, but then you say many things that are just ... well, way off, and you are repeating things whose source I am well aware.  By not trying to insult you, I mean that my purpose is not to go hunting for reasons to insult you, but you say so many things that are just so ... worthy, that I begin to feel that if I don't call a spade a spade, that I'm not doing my job, If you are parroting Dr. Murray, then you are in the way of my arrows.  Be insulted.  Sorry.

 

Sorry about that, it is that doctrine, it gets me all revved up.  My animosity towards that doctrine is so great that is tends to spill over and splash about.  I don't have anything personal against you.  Of course, by coming on my website and speaking up for these doctrines, I have to consider you an enemy, at least for the purposes of debate.  But I only want good thing for you from God.  Like a long healthy life, and major doctrinal change

 

You apologize for the animosity comparing it to taking a bath joyfully splashing it about.Yet you have nothing against me personally ,still you count me as your enemy. More double talk and outright lies Paul.

 

Don't think of it as a bubble bath, I was thinking more of molten rock or metal.  I don't wish you any harm, I love my enemies (is that doubletalk too?)  I was making reference to this:

 

Rom11:28 As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes.

 

Your doctrine is unclean though, and profane (that is what common means)  But I would not have any problem eating off the same plate as you, or sharing a bottle of water with you or with a Jew or with a Black man or with an Asian.  How about you?

Paul you hang yourself with your own words,your twistings and turnings ,all throughout our discourses you have continued to insult me .

 

So what? What does that prove?  How have you responded?

 

What a bunch of crap Paul(again your words) you would not dare to sit down with a Jew or a Black man or an Asian if you insulted them for their beliefs as you insult mine, 

 

What does race have to do with being afraid to sit down with someone you disagree with? 

 

but then you probably wouldn't have the guts to do that face to face,,just more lies.

 

I have plenty of guts (it would more likely be a fault than a deficit), some people who have had arguments with me have gotten so scared that one threatened to call the police if I talked to him again.  Others run away angry.  Others curse me behind my back.  I'm six foot three, 275 lbs and smarter-than-the-average-bear, why would I be intimidated by anyone? 

 

I would rather talk face to face with people, they are never as rude when they speak with me in person. 

 

Don't kid yourself, have you ever heard of "I'm rubber you're glue?"   My name is Paul Stringini, I use that name to speak out against one of the most popular preachers in America.  And you call me a coward?  I have to laugh.

 

Paul you pride yourself in your abilities and the real you has seeped out in our discussions.

 

God is responsible for my abilities, I exalt those gifts, I had nothing to do with them.  As if the real me is even important, there is no "real me" to "seep out"  I'm like this ALL THE TIME, AND WORSE.  But I will try to take this as a lesson, remember I'm only 34, and by the time I'm your age I hope there will be no more "me."  The fact that you find enough of "me" in what I say that you can use it to flee from the discussion is a matter I'm going to have to work on.  I don't want to let people like you escape with such lame excuses.

 

You are an arrogant,prideful habitual doubletalking liar. 

 

You have stopped talking about the bible and have focused exclusively on me, personally. 

 

 Do you see what this exchange has progressed to?

 

I won.  And now you are bitterly complaining about unrelated issues.

 

We are not discussing the word of God,and you now have me doing the same thing as you.

 

I was discussing the word of God, you are just so badly defeated that you have nothing left but to go after me, personally.  That is called an "ad hominim" attack, and all it proves is that you are desperate and defeated.

 

But this is what you really love,this is the real you. Do you think I care if you post this ,or any other exchanges we have had ,go to it I don't care have fun ,but this thread must end for me .

 

It has to end because I struck too deeply at your misguided beliefs.  It cannot continue because the Kenite doctrine has been so wounded that you don't even think it is worth it to try to sneak back to the field of battle and drag your friend to safety, you are the one with the gut deficit.

 

There are other glaring examples but I have had enough of this Paul.I do not feel the need to go on and on

 

You have had enough, but it is the doctrine that is killing you, not "personal insults"  Are you really that weak?  Never heard of sticks and stones?  You insult me, and it rolls off, like water off a duck's back.  And I don't even have any guts!  Where does that leave you?  You are just taking my little barbs and trying to impale yourself on them to show that you are deeply wounded, and you are deeply wounded, but it isn't because I compared you to a parrot. 

 

Do you really think that by proving I'm a jerk (if you even did that) that it will convince people that my words are less true?  Don't kid yourself. 

 

Sincerely,

Paul

Original Message - First Response - Second Response - Third Response - Fourth Response - Fifth Response

Sixth Response - Seventh Response - Eighth Response - Ninth Response

Emailer's Fourth Reply:

----- Original Message -----

From: 

To: Undisclosed-Recipient:;

Sent: Friday, August 29, 2008 2:26 PM

Subject: Fw:

As an Addendum to the last God forsaken exchange we had

    I worked closely and ate beside all those people you mentioned five days a week for 36 years in a steel mill,north American Indians,Africans, south American Indians far east Indians,Europeans of every culture,Asians Russians. There was union meetings,barbeques,birthday parties,weddings,long weekends, dinner meetings,coffee shops,sometimes a beer after work,holidays, church funtions(hard for you to believe ,church functions)There were ballet classes, hockey practice and tournaments soccer practices and tournaments with my children,square-dance practices and tournaments.You and your self righteousness makes me sick Paul. You don't even know what my ethnicity is,and I don't live in a country that is hated around the world  for its prejudices,both inside and outside of its society. Your society is arrogant and hypocritical to the n-th degree the spoiled cesspool of the world. I have visited your country many times and have come across a number of places where colored ethnicity is not tolerated to this very day.

 

thats it

Original Message - First Response - Second Response - Third Response - Fourth Response - Fifth Response

Sixth Response - Seventh Response - Eighth Response - Ninth Response

My Fifth Response:

----- Original Message -----

From: reborn@oraclesofgod.org

To: 

Sent: Friday, August 29, 2008 5:59 PM

Subject: Re:

 

I worked closely and ate beside all those people you mentioned five days a week for 36 years in a steel mill,north American Indians,Africans, south American Indians far east Indians,Europeans of every culture,Asians Russians. There was union meetings,barbeques,birthday parties,weddings,long weekends, dinner meetings,coffee shops,sometimes a beer after work,holidays, church funtions(hard for you to believe ,church functions)There were ballet classes, hockey practice and tournaments soccer practices and tournaments with my children,square-dance practices and tournaments.

 

Well, I guess you don't have a problem with it then, all you had to do was say so, I only asked because some Identity people are like that, and since you make race a point of doctrine I thought I'd ask. 

 

"But I would not have any problem eating off the same plate as you, or sharing a bottle of water with you or with a Jew or with a Black man or with an Asian.  How about you?"

 

Apparently you do not understand that many believers in Christian Identity, believe that you cannot even be saved unless you are a pure blood son of Adam, the first white guy.  I'm working against that doctrine and all false doctrine that is kindred to it.  If you are so multi-cultural then why are you so pissed at me for asking?  You are defending the same precepts that racists use to promote a racist gospel.  I'm glad you barbeque with all those people, but you are fighting for the doctrine embraced by racists. http://israelect.com  

 

You rave how I don't know you, and take offense when I ask a personal question.

 

You and your self righteousness makes me sick Paul.

 

Oh, like the kind of Self -righteousness found in your first paragraph?

 

You don't even know what my ethnicity is,

 

I don't have to know your ethnicity, its about the doctrine, you speak my language and you are a Christian, what else do I need to know??

 

and I don't live in a country that is hated around the world  for its prejudices,both inside and outside of its society.

 

I bet your country is not loved around the world the way mine is either.  So? I live in the country that people risk their lives to be part of.  But even if they didn't, it is a great country, you're just exposing more of your ignorance.

 

Your society is arrogant and hypocritical to the n-th degree the spoiled cesspool of the world.

 

I'm just glad this is my home.  You do not even know MY country.   Hate away, it only poisons you. 

 

I have visited your country many times and have come across a number of places where colored ethnicity is not tolerated to this very day.

 

Not tolertated?  I'll admit, some people merely "tolerate" other people, but where have you been in America where other races are systematically not tolerated in the 21st century? If they do its illegal.   What did you run into someone with a bad attitude?  Did someone call you a name?  I know you can hardly handle criticism.

 

I can't help it. I love my country.   Only a fool hates his own flesh and blood, and that is what my country is, America is my flesh and blood.. Since you are not from here maybe you cannot understand that but you have children, so maybe you can.

 

Are you trying to get Dr. Murray's followers to like me more? because most of them just decided that I'm not the biggest jerk in the room after all.

 

thanks,

Paul

Original Message - First Response - Second Response - Third Response - Fourth Response - Fifth Response

Sixth Response - Seventh Response - Eighth Response - Ninth Response

Though I do recommend reading the complete text of this discussion, (I worked very hard on it, and it gets really fun) it takes me a while to get my friend here back on the subject of Kenites, click here to skip down to the point where I finally provoke him to get back to talking about the Kenites.

Emailer's Fifth Reply:

----- Original Message -----

From: 

To: reborn@oraclesofgod.org

Sent: Friday, August 29, 2008 11:22 PM

Subject: Re:

 

Paul

   Turn it anyway you want and that is what you are good at as I have stated. Criticize the doctrine all you want but don't drag what you think my character lacks into the debate. It does not matter what I state ,you have it in you to put us into conflict and that is deliberate so that you can take my concentration away from the subject . You and I have exchanged a lot of information ,but you have not acknowledged one iota of what I have put forward. Not one thing have you agreed with on my part, you contest everything. Then why should I continue this pointless endeavor. It is not in you to agree with me.Its like I said,if I say black ,you say white and vice versa .If you are trying to win me over you are failing miserably but its really not your intent nor in your interest to win me over is it,rather it is to hold me up as a punching bag for the sake of attacking Murray It is the first time that I have taken it upon myself to respond in the manner that you do. I don't like that type of rhetoric. You and I do not agree on this subject we have been hacking away at,so the better part of wisdom is to leave it alone . It has already caused both of us to say things about each other that should not be said in this type of discussion,at least that is how I feel. I don't know how you feel about that and frankly at this point in this discussion I don't care how you feel.I did notice that you used very little scripture in your last response, just a boastful and condescending attitude ,more character bashing and patting yourself on the back and flaunting your own righteousness.We did not discuss doctrine according to scripture ,you had more personal explanations and opinion than anything as far as I am concerned. I brought forth scripture and you flat out denied and tried to explain it away. There is no point in trying to convince me, you have poisoned any trust I might have had in you in this thread,not concerning doctrine but concerning your handling of the exchange of affairs,after all that you profess to have the superior mind.I am not turning tail,you should know me better than that,I think I have remained with you longer than anyone else, its just that I don't think what has developed is suitable or conducive to any progressive dialogue.Paul I didn't call you a jerk you did (always putting words in my mouth). It is my prerogative and I have the ability to turn you off by not responding when and if I have had enough of your abuse and I can turn you on by picking it up again because you cannot resist the challenge nor the itching urge to put me in my so called place .Go ahead and continue with your playground rhetoric and remind me how you are the biggest bully on the block.I really am sorry but I must do this(one of your favorite type phrases) but I have to take control over how much goes into this thread  ,so am taking control right here on my part and this thread ends here and now for me.

 

I noticed that you left out the entirety of my last response in this potion of the thread,was that on purpose?( my suspicious nature)The rebuttal to my response is here but not my response (this was  in reference to a technical issue where the replied-to message was cut off in the email, but the entire thing appears here on this webpage)

You can now have your final say, Paul . However long it may be in its entirety and however long it may take you,it will be final for I will no longer oblige you in this thread

Original Message - First Response - Second Response - Third Response - Fourth Response - Fifth Response

Sixth Response - Seventh Response - Eighth Response - Ninth Response

My Sixth Response:

----- Original Message -----

From: reborn@oraclesofgod.org

To: 

Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2008 12:26 AM

Subject: Re:

 

I noticed that you left out the entirety of my last response in this potion of the thread,was that on purpose?( my suspicious nature)The rebuttal to my response is here but not my response

 

Bob, it is in a folder on my computer, I usually copy and paste your  message for easy reply, this time I cut and pasted it instead.  When I post this to my website it will all be there.  In fact I'll paste it in right now.

 

You can now have your final say, Paul . However long it may be in its entirety and however long it may take you,it will be final for I will no longer oblige you in this thread.

 

Ok

 

 Turn it anyway you want and that is what you are good at as I have stated. Criticize the doctrine all you want but don't drag what you think my character lacks into the debate. It does not matter what I state ,you have it in you to put us into conflict and that is deliberate so that you can take my concentration away from the subject . "

 

Bob, as you know, other people curse at me and insult me from time to time, I really don't mind that,  and I really don't mind what you do either, but because you are so sensitive about the way I talk to you, I think that you should be made aware of the way you talk to me, because you seem blind to it. 

 

The above statement is a good example of your manner of slander.  And slander is the best word I can come up with for what you do.  You consistently slander my motives without any justification.   In the above paragraph you are suggesting that I am motivated by some crass desire for conflict, or that I'm using dirty ticks "so that you ( I ) can take my (your) concentration away from the subject" (Which is the last thing I want, I want to defeat you, at your best) 

 

I do not remember ever "dragging what your character lacks" into the debate.  I don't remember ever suggesting you were motivated by anything other than the fact that you believed that what you were saying was the truth.  The worst I have done is suggest that you were parroting another man, and insinuate that you were not reading or interpreting the scriptures very intelligently, that your interpretations were "crap" and that the ideas you were putting forwarded were ridiculous (and I asked if you were a racist).  You, on the other hand, slander my motives, you suggest that there is some motive beyond my belief of the truthfulness of what I'm saying that causes me to say what I say.

 

I do not recall ever slandering your motives.  I am always focused on the ideas, and even the directly insulting remarks I have made were only insulting in regards to what was actually said.  I have never questioned your motives or suggested you were evil.  From earlier in this discussion: 

 

Profound means deep,descending far below the surface,and not necessarily good but could pertain to good or evil,for Satan himself is a very profound entity.Now again don't go off half cocked and come to the conclusion that I think you are evil ,but I do give you credit for your innate ability ,which you use to twist any given situation to your purposes.

 

You are comparing me to Satan, now, you don't want to declare that I'm "evil," but that is empty rhetoric, you obviously are saying that I am not using my abilities for good, so what is left?  "which you use to twist any given situation to your purposes"  Is that a good thing?  I took the high road before and suggested that since you said that it was not evil, then it MUST be good, but that was a bit tongue-in-cheek.  You and I had a talk about judgment before, your outward refusal to judge anything does not mean that there is not judgment going on. 

 

You are suggesting that I have "purposes" and an "agenda" (in another place) these words in and of themselves have no ill meaning but in our vernacular they have taken on a negative connotation,  when used in this manner these words suggest that someone is interested on their own secretive ends, and will use all manner of underhanded, disingenuous, or otherwise wicked devices to accomplish their goals.  You slander my motives in this manner.  "its really not your intent nor in your interest to win me over"  You really don't know what motivates me, you are guessing my motives and slandering them.  All I have ever done with you is treat you as an honest person who disagrees with me.

 

You and I have exchanged a lot of information ,but you have not acknowledged one iota of what I have put forward.

 

That is not true, I have acknowledged EVERY WORD that you have put forward. I have carefully examined each and every statement you have made and responded, it is not my fault that I can't agree with the arguments that you are putting forward, I know it must seem incredible, even impossible that you could have gotten it all so very, very wrong, but that is how I see it, I do not believe that there is any merit in the idea that the Kenites exist as the literal sons of Satan and the rest.  I see no truth in it.  

 

I carefully researched the verses you put forward, showing how they were not accurately interpreted.  That the only way in which the Levites were polluted was by the tribe of Manasseh, that there is nothing to link the Kenites to the Nethinim, and much more.

 

Not one thing have you agreed with on my part, you contest everything.

 

Yes, I have to agree, you are right, I always disagree.  (ok, that was a joke)

 

These are not the only times I have agreed with you:

 

"The devil planted the tares,God is simply making use of them."

"Okey Dokey, he does that..."

"They even brought more Nethinims with them."

"Yes, ..."

"Paul you really do go on and on. "

"At church they say that Stringini can fellowship us all "under the table.""
 

"You make tongue in cheek statements.

"Sometimes."

 

I agreed recently that the descendants of Cain could have been on the Ark (through Noah's sons' wives).  If my purpose is so sinister, then why even acknowledge one single loophole that no one else (as far as I know) has ever even suggested?

 

It is hard for you to see this, but I know within myself that I am utterly fair, and within myself and before God I stand on the  integrity of my motives.  If there was any merit to the Kenite doctrine I would grant it, and have granted it in my past, but the attempt to trace the Kenites which you made (and which I myself once taught) does not stand up to scrutiny.

 

Then why should I continue this pointless endeavor. It is not in you to agree with me.Its like I said,if I say black ,you say white and vice versa .If you are trying to win me over you are failing miserably but its really not your intent nor in your interest to win me over is it,rather it is to hold me up as a punching bag for the sake of attacking Murray

 

I don't know if you can be won over, that is up to God, but I will continue to stand up for the truth, maybe someone else is being won over by our conversation.  Maybe someone is being lost.  I am speaking out because I believe that what I'm saying is the truth, that the doctrines of Dr. Murray are false doctrines and that Dr. Murray is a false teacher/prophet.  You wrote me first, I don't know what you hope to gain, I was once a follower of the doctrines of Dr. Murray, no one dissuaded me, I checked it out for myself and it was eventually revealed to me how false his teachings were.  There is nothing that you could show me about those doctrines that I have not already known and taught, I studied Dr. Murray deeply, and I had a very firm grasp on the doctrines and the ways in which they\may be defended, I have defended them in the past.  I am thoroughly convinced, having been thoroughly informed.  There is nothing that you could say for these doctrines that I have not already considered.

 

 It is the first time that I have taken it upon myself to respond in the manner that you do. I don't like that type of rhetoric. You and I do not agree on this subject we have been hacking away at,so the better part of wisdom is to leave it alone .

 

You must mean the name-calling?  I guess I could say that the "real Bob" has been revealed, but I understand it is just frustration.  You have your own form of rhetoric, and it irritates me just as much as mine does you. 

 

There is nothing as arrogant as saying, "What I think is the truth," or "My opinion is right."  So what are we to do?  Pretend like we do not know the truth?  Christianity is an arrogant religion.  "I am the Way the Truth and the Life"  I spent a good half a year in dialog with Atheists and I can assure you that this is their opinion of our faith,

 

It has already caused both of us to say things about each other that should not be said in this type of discussion,at least that is how I feel. I don't know how you feel about that and frankly at this point in this discussion I don't care how you feel.

 

Ok.

 

I did notice that you used very little scripture in your last response, just a boastful and condescending attitude ,more character bashing and patting yourself on the back and flaunting your own righteousness.

 

That is a laugh, Bob,  you used ZERO.  I only used "very little," because you stopped talking about the Bible and started focusing solely on me.  We stopped talking about doctrine and started talking about your sensitivities.  I can't figure you out, I can hardly even believe you just said that.

 

just a boastful and condescending attitude ,more character bashing and patting yourself on the back and flaunting your own righteousness.

 

Bob, my remarks which you are referring to are in response to your assertions of my profoundly good/evil/lukewarm abilities and your attacks.  You attack my strength and all I did was take what you said and turn it back around and say, "I'm flattered you think my abilities are profound."  You complain about the way I cut through your interpretations "you contest everything" as if that were a sin or something, I contest the falsehood you are declaring, yes, every bit of it and I'm going to use the glorious tools which God has given me to to so.  I do not believe in false modesty, false modesty is not humility.  If someone says to me that I am smart or skilled I say, "God has given me a gift," that is not pride, pride is saying, "Oh, no, it's nothing."  If you can't see that then think harder, If I say "It is nothing" then I'm denying the gift of God in me, and then what is left, but my own effort to be better or study harder?  But I testify that these things come to me easily, because God has given me gifts, and he could just as easily take them away.

 

I never flaunt my own righteousness, my own righteousness is filthy, it is Christ's righteousness that I wish to put on and show.  "Let your light so shine before men so they can see your good works and glorify your father in heaven"  Should light be put under a basket?  Should the Lord's money be hid in the earth?

 

We did not discuss doctrine according to scripture ,you had more personal explanations and opinion than anything as far as I am concerned. I brought forth scripture and you flat out denied and tried to explain it away. 

 

You must be referring to your email three emails back, because in the last two you never refer to scripture of doctrine. 

 

you had more personal explanations and opinion than anything  I brought forth scripture and you flat out denied and tried to explain it away. 

 

These are the kind of remarks that  reveal to me how blind you are to your own devices.  You say I do something, but you are the one who does it.    I used as many scriptures as you did, and more, I used all the same ones you did, plus I added more. 

 

When you quote a scripture you have opinions and personal explanations in mind, you don't usually offer much explanation or justification but you just throw out a scripture and suggest that it makes it so.  All the scriptures you provided to support your ideas about the Kenites did none of the things that you intended that they should do.   I had to write so much, I first had to deconstruct your OPINIONS and personal interpretations,  which you had placed on the text, then I had to break the passage down and carefully examine if the words meant what you said they did, and they, more often than not, did not.  When you misread a passage, you do worse than misinterpret, you create this false idea that I'm changing the meaning of the word, no, you have a reading deficiency, I'm sorry but that is the truth, you do not understand the words that you are reading in the bible, you have demonstrated this to me over and over. Don't say I'm insulting you again, that is like saying a Doctor is insulting his patient when he tells him that he has cancer, you misread the text, over and over, then you interpret the misreading, you make presumptions and assumptions and  smother them with opinions and personal preferences. 

 

The fact that you make the above statement proves to me that you do this, because I know for a fact that I do not.  This is one of your methods, to accuse me of doing the things which I never do, but that you do, all the time.

 

There is no point in trying to convince me, you have poisoned any trust I might have had in you in this thread,

 

If this was solely about you, I would have stopped talking to you long ago, "A man that is an heretic after the first and second admonition reject."  I'm just interested in discussing the doctrine here, but I also will defend myself against your slander.

 

not concerning doctrine but concerning your handling of the exchange of affairs,after all that you profess to have the superior mind.

 

Look, that may be true, but that is not why I'm right.  Sometimes I get frustrated with people who disagree with me, especially when the conversation goes on and on.  When I make no headway with someone in such a long discussion it is very tempting for me to want to blame the person's intelligence, because I have always been smarter and when people don't "get it" I start to think that they must not be very smart.    (And not that I did not make headway in the debate, I won, hands down, but your remarks along the way, which reflect your own lack of understanding, I find to be a source of constant irritation.)

 

I do not have the truth because I am smarter than you.  I do not believe that for a second.   The truth is, that if God has given one of us the truth, then the other is rejected of God, because he cannot receive the love of the truth which the other possesses, this has nothing to do with intelligence, but with the will of God. 

 

Jer 9:23 Thus saith the LORD, Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom, neither let the mighty man glory in his might, let not the rich man glory in his riches:
24 But let him that glorieth glory in this, that he understandeth and knoweth me, that I am the LORD which exercise lovingkindness, judgment, and righteousness, in the earth: for in these things I delight, saith the LORD.
 

I could be blind, a no matter how smart I am.  But I rejoice and glory in the knowledge that God has given to me of Him.

 

I am not turning tail,you should know me better than that,I think I have remained with you longer than anyone else, its just that I don't think what has developed is suitable or conducive to any progressive dialogue.

 

I think you did turn tail, the response I made to your Kenite scriptures was devastating,  in the following email you switched from a discussion you had lost, to one that you felt you still might win, the attack against me personally. (and I don't really care if I win this "Is Paul a Jerk" discussion because I am nothing, I'll prove I don't care by the end of this message)  In that message you did not even mention my overwhelming refutation of the tracing of the Kenites from Chronicles to Christ, I showed conclusively how that there were absolutely no grounds to imagine that Kenites had entered the priesthood, or that they were in any way related to the Nethinim.   You have never acknowledged that aspect of that email message, (once again you are found doing what you falsely say that I have done).  You ran from the real battle to try to smite me in the rear.

 

Paul I didn't call you a jerk you did (always putting words in my mouth).

 

No you called me, "an arrogant,prideful habitual doubletalking liar."   I was just trying to tone down the rhetoric,  I didn't put any words in your mouth, I'm not even slandering your motives they way you do mine.

 

Don't get mad, but am I right in thinking that you have never received the baptism of the holyghost, with the evidence of speaking in tongues?  Because if you do have the holyghost I'm a bit shocked at the way you take everything by the letter.  You did not say that I was a, "jerk,"  you said I was worse things than that.  I'm just capturing the spirit of all your complaints against me which may be summed up thus: Paul, you're a big jerk.   And that is an understatement.  You don't have to use the word "jerk" for my statement to be true.  I "seep," I "twist," I make "black seem white, and white seem black"  I have "profound" abilities which mirror Satan himself's abilities.  If you are right, I'm much worse than a big Jerk.

 

"Woe unto them that call evil good and good evil that put darkness of light and light for darkness that put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter, woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes and prudent in their own sight."  Isaiah

 

It is my prerogative and I have the ability to turn you off by not responding when and if I have had enough of your abuse

 

Yeah, and it is my prerogative to recognize a defeated man when I see one.  And I'm looking at one.

 

and I can turn you on by picking it up again because you cannot resist the challenge nor the itching urge to put me in my so called place .Go ahead and continue with your playground rhetoric and remind me how you are the biggest bully on the block.

 

Ok, I double-dog-dare you to try to continue discussing the old testament documentation of the Kenite doctrine with me.  And I triple-dog-dare you to stop distracting from the subject by whining about inconsequential nonsense like in your last two emails.. 

 

That is my biggest regret, that I gave you an out, that I let you pull this, because I was too rough with you, and you cried, and now I'm being raked for bullying you.  Take off the neck-brace, Bob, you're not hurt.

 

I really am sorry but I must do this (one of your favorite type phrases) but I have to take control over how much goes into this thread  ,so am taking control right here on my part and this thread ends here and now for me.

 

 <----XXXXX

 

 

Sincerely, Paul 

 

Ps. I hope you understand the degree to which I'm just playing into your accusations to make a point, if you say, "playground rhetoric," then I give you real playground rhetoric, to show how absurd the accusation is...etc....

Original Message - First Response - Second Response - Third Response - Fourth Response - Fifth Response

Sixth Response - Seventh Response - Eighth Response - Ninth Response

Emailer's Sixth Reply:

----- Original Message -----

From: 

To: Undisclosed-Recipient:;

Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2008 3:23 PM

Subject: new thread.

 

Reverend Stringinni

         Seeeing as how you and I cannot engage in a respectful exchange but are destined to trade in an analysis of each other, lets entertain each other and your flock and start a new thread devoted entirelly to exactly that.To hell with Rev..Stringinni's and Dr. Murray's doctrines.

 

I have inserted a wave file attachment that I believe typifies both Rev. Paul Stringinni and Dr.Arnold Murray at the return of Christ. (Which I do not possess) You both are one and the same,and you both have your own truths and agendas which you unabashedly and doggedly spread.You both claim to know 100% of the truth (arrogance) but I think that the truth lies somewhere in between. I am not condemning but Christ will blow the wind out of your sails.

You have failed miserably Paul,to convince me with that superior mind and intellect,which is as it should be for you have not used scripture to convince me rather you have engaged in extended anaylasis and  irrelevant rhetoric. I have tried to divert us from this broad highway by ending a thread but you continue to (in your own words) return to your own vomit.You simply will not stop,even when I end a thread.

 

The word of God is much sharper and more powerful than any mans tongue or intelligence . Can your superior intelligence your self proclaimed God given gift do what the following verse does? No it can't.Oh how I hate self righteousness.

 

Heb 4:12  For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart

 

So in effect it is not your word nor your analytical abilities and intelligence nor your imposing 275 lb. build that bring forth truth ,rather it is the power of the word of God

 

What is the intent of your heart Rev.Paul Stringinni

 

You see Rev. it is I who has control  I can continue to suck you along (because you cannot resist) or I can shut you off at will .You dance to my tune

 

The Chicken Maaaaaaaaaaan

Original Message - First Response - Second Response - Third Response - Fourth Response - Fifth Response

Sixth Response - Seventh Response - Eighth Response - Ninth Response

My Seventh Response:

----- Original Message -----

From: Oracles of God

To: 

Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2008 1:47 PM

Subject: Re: new thread.

 

Reverend Stringinni

 

There is no double "n" in Stringini.

 

Seeeing as how you and I cannot engage in a respectful exchange but are destined to trade in an analysis of each other,

 

I could, but you keep writing me about trash, and I'm responding to it because I have an ulterior motive here.  If you would just go back to where we left off, with the Kenite doctrine fairly well defeated, we could get this conversation back on track. 

 

 I submitted to you a brutal dismemberment of your defense of the pathetic and perverted Kenite Doctrine.  You have yet to respond to that.  I have nothing more to say on that subject, unless you mount some sort of defense.  But of course, I left you with nothing.

 

I'm just curious, I want to see how long you will keep this up, people who read this on my website will be wondering,  "When is that guy going to get back to the Kenite doctrine.  I want to see what he has to say about all those things that Paul said." 

 

lets entertain each other and your flock and start a new thread devoted entirely to exactly that.

 

I think you would like that, but If I get bored I'll just quit.  I'm just waiting for you to respond to what I said about the Kenites.

 

To hell with Rev..Stringinni's and Dr. Murray's doctrines.

 

I'm very flattered that you would put me on a par with Dr. Murray, who has a following of Hundreds of thousands.  But, really, do I warrant such attention?

 

I have inserted a wave file attachment that I believe typifies both Rev. Paul Stringinni and Dr.Arnold Murray at the return of Christ.

 

It is a pity that you did not include that sound file to me, I would have liked to have heard it and posted it on my website. I know that you have been forwarding my messages to your friends, but here it is Bob, was it not you who battered me with, "judge not that ye be not judged?"  I explained to you the truth about judgment, and you never agreed with me.   Yet here you are, and you are not afraid to do judgment that you said one should not do.  You are practicing Hypocrisy.

 

Because you have no standards when it comes to righteousness, it is easy for you to delve into this sort of sin.  You believe you will sin, and so you do it proudly.

 

You both are one and the same,and you both have your own truths and agendas which you unabashedly and doggedly spread.

 

XXXX, as usual, you accuse other people of having your own faults, I would never say that about Dr. Murray, and never have.  You are a hypocrite, because you have defended Dr. Murray on numerous occasions, and now you want to throw him in the fire with me,  I think everyone has long discovered who really has the agenda here.

 

You are unskillful in the word of righteousness, so you really don't have any business judging others by it.

 

which you unabashedly and doggedly spread.

 

I wish I was doggedly spreading this, now you are making me feel ashamed. I'm not doing enough...

 

You both claim to know 100% of the truth (arrogance) but I think that the truth lies somewhere in between.

 

I have never claimed to know 100% of the truth.  Never, so get it straight, what I believe is 100% truth, not 100% of the truth.  (That is the difference between saying a McDonald's cheeseburger is 100% beef and saying that a McDonald's cheeseburger is 100% of the beef that exists in the universe, a big difference)  Dr. Murray does not claim that either, you defend him over the things that should not be defended, then condemn him over the things that should not be condemned.

 

You are misrepresenting what I believe. If I were you, I would suggest that you did that on purpose and say that you were a liar, but still, I don't believe that, I think you are just confused again.

 

but I think that the truth lies somewhere in between.

 

You are a typical user of the wisdom of man.  You are sooooo sensible.  Somewhere in between?  Somewhere between me and Dr. Murray?  Is that what you are saying?  That is so diplomatic, so worldly-wise, but that kind of wisdom will not please God.  You keep arguing for his side, not anything in between.  The truth may lie somewhere else completely, but I can only go with the truth that God has allowed me to see.

 

I am not condemning but Christ will blow the wind out of your sails.

 

Yes, you are condemning, you are just saying you are not, in order to cover your sins,  you have to actually "take back" what you said for it to be true that you are not condemning.  You sent around a funny wav file to mock me, condemning my appearance before Christ.

 

The Spirit of God is the wind in my sails.  His spirit is what leads and "guides me into all truth."  Where does your spirit lead and guide you???  Somewhere in between???

 

John 16:3 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will show you things to come.

 

You have failed miserably Paul,to convince me with that superior mind and intellect,which is as it should be

 

I do not think that being smart makes someone more likely to have the truth, look at science.  In fact, according to the word of God, intelligent people are actually less likely to be called of God

 

1 Cor 1:26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:

 

God does not wait for smart people to come along and figure out who he is.

 

1 Cor 1:19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.
20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?

 

So the question becomes, "What kind of wisdom are you following?" Bob, you have, on numerous occasions, displayed to me that you think in terms of worldly wisdom,  you think like the world thinks.  I don't have to convince you of this, you are an example for others.

 

for you have not used scripture to convince me rather you have engaged in extended anaylasis and  irrelevant rhetoric.

 

Do you actually believe, for a second, that people are not going to burst into peals of laughter at that statement?  Bob, I went over the scriptures, the people who are going to read this on my website are going to see very clearly what happened.  I went through the scriptures in Jeremiah, Ezra, Chronicles, Numbers, and any other scripture pertaining to the Kenites, I used them all, and more, because I took in the context in which those scriptures were found, I brought in other scriptures that shed more light on the others.

 

XXX, you are either colossally forgetful or a completely dishonest person.  All the folks reading this are going to see your lack of...accuracy  (I'm not going to be judgmental here).  You never responded to what I'm about to show, but instead you chose to take this route of taking every criticism personally, and returning stripe for slight, and bruise for bump, and everyone is going to be able to see it.  It is so easy to see, I used the scriptures to dismantle the Kenite Doctrine and you fled from that discussion and took up this worthless path of bitter retreat. 

 

Here is a sample of the pains I went through documenting my points and making yours of none effect, and all the scriptures I used.

 

They were not of Gods chosen people,but they were brought directly into the temple and given position.

No, it never says that, that is a croc. Chopping wood (the Nethinim's Job) is not "position." I suppose the next verse is supposed to prove that.

Jer 35:19  Therefore thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Jonadab the son of Rechab shall not want a man to stand before me for ever.

IMPORTANT POINT - All that means is that Jonadab the leader of the Rechabites would never be without descendant to be a leader of the Rechabites.  Notice it says, "a man," not, "men," and the promise is given directly to him. 

Jer 49:19 "and who is a chosen man, that I may appoint over her? for who is like me? and who will appoint me the time? and who is that shepherd that will stand before me?"

The leaders of people are said to "stand before" God.  But there are a number of different ways in which people are said to "stand before" the Lord.  It is true that the Bible speaks of the priests that "stand before the Lord" But that is just one of many applications.  This is an example of the inexcusable recklessness with which Dr. Murray interprets God's word.

There is no way that Jer 35:19 means, "Thus saith the Lord, I'm bringing you into my priesthood."  That is far beyond the pale of reasonable interpretations.  The text does not say,  "Therefore the Rechabites shall stand before me for ever." You are badly misreading that passage.

Here are examples of the different ways in which people "stand before" the Lord.  You have misinterpreted Jer 35:19.  Period.

Leaders stand before the Lord: Jer 49:19  - Above -

Priests stand before the Lord:   Deut10:8 "At that time the LORD separated the tribe of Levi, to bear the ark of the covenant of the LORD, to stand before the LORD to minister unto him, and to bless in his name, unto this day."
Litigants in a Lawsuit stand before the Lord:    Deut19:16 "If a false witness rise up against any man to testify against him that which is wrong; 17 Then both the men, between whom the controversy is, shall stand before the LORD, before the priests and the judges, which shall be in those days;"
In certain solemn occasions all the people may stand before the Lord: Deut 29:10 "Ye stand this day all of you before the LORD your God; your captains of your tribes, your elders, and your officers, with all the men of Israel,"

I found lots of other uses of the device to"stand before," look it up yourself.  The use of this phrase here in Jer 35, by no means, indicates priesthood.  BY NO MEANS.

 

I have tried to divert us from this broad highway by ending a thread 

 

How about diverting us by staying on topic?  You will wish this had ended long ago once it appears publicly.  I'm the one who has been trying to get you back to the subject we were discussing, and everyone can see that for themselves because it will all appear together.

 

but you continue to (in your own words) return to your own vomit.You simply will not stop,even when I end a thread.

 

As usual, you are found doing the things that you say others are doing.  You have declared the end of this discussion two or three times and have said each time "this is the end for me."  I have never agreed to end it,  I'm not yours to command, XXXX.

I'll quit when I'm good and ready. 

 

You are the one who keeps saying "I've had enough," but then greedily rushes back to the table to lick up his own vomit.  I'm not even done chewing, and I'm not about to puke.

 

"I have had my say"
"I do not feel the need to go on and on"
"this thread must end for me "

 

The vomit that you refuse to go back to, and lick up, is your defense of the pathetic Kenite doctrine, you have not even said the word Kenite in the past three or four messages in this thread.

 

The word of God is much sharper and more powerful than any mans tongue or intelligence . 

 

True, but if the mind that handles that word, is inept or unskillful, the poor fellow is more likely to hurt himself than anyone else. (I'm remembering the way you handled Jer 35, Ezra 2, Chronicles, you don't know what you are doing)

 

Can your superior intelligence your self proclaimed God given gift do what the following verse does?

 

My mind is the hand that holds the sword. And if God did not given me what I have, then who do you suggest did? 

 

James1:17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.

 

1Cor 4:7 For who maketh thee to differ from another? and what hast thou that thou didst not receive? now if thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory, as if thou hadst not received it?
 

No it can't.

 

The word is sharp, but the dead cannot handle it, nor the lame, nor the sick, but those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil (that's from Hebrews too)  they handle it skillfully.

 

XXXX, you are like an untrained person who tries to use his sword by striking with the flat end.  You don't know what you are doing.  The sword doesn't work right for you.

 

Oh how I hate self righteousness.

 

You do not appear to understand what self-righteousness is, much less hate it.  Let me give you an example:  Self-righteousness is when you tell me that saying Dr. Murray is a false teacher is forbidden judgment, but then you have no problem declaring that I and Dr. Murray will have a bad meeting with Christ.  XXXXX, you are guilty of what you accuse others of doing.  You not only do the things which you forbid, but you do even worse.  So your hate is really for yourself, and you keep cutting yourself with that sword.  You are a Romans 2 poster-child. 

 

As far as I can see, you love self-righteousness and hate the righteousness of God.

 

Heb 4:12  For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart

 

So in effect it is not your word nor your analytical abilities and intelligence nor your imposing 275 lb. build that bring forth truth ,rather it is the power of the word of God

 

I already used the word to cut the Kenite doctrine to shreds, I have not used much word against you now because I don't just turn the sword on someone personally, not without good reason.

 

You said "you probably wouldn't have the guts to do that face to face."  I told you it weren't so, that I'm not afraid to stand face to face and speak with any man, and that the truth is, that usually people are afraid to stand face to face with me because of various factors, sometimes it is size, sometimes it is my intimidating intelligence. I was not saying that my size has any bearing on the truth or either that I scare everyone, or even that I scare lots of people, I was just saying that I am not scared, that's really all I was getting at. 

 

You, again, are found doing the things that you falsely say others do   You twist my words, not to examine them or try to figure out what I mean, but to actually pervert their meaning to give you some sort of rhetorical victory.

 

But the word of God is in my mouth and in my heart and I bring forth truth.  You mishandle, abuse, and stumble at the word and bring forth wind.

 

What is the intent of your heart Rev.Paul Stringinni

 

To bring forth the truth.  What is yours, because you stopped talking about doctrine to me long ago, I keep trying to bring you back but you refuse.  And there is no double "n" in Stringini.

 

You see Rev. it is I who has control  I can continue to suck you along (because you cannot resist) or I can shut you off at will .You dance to my tune

 

Keep telling yourself that Bob, I'm not going to claim that I'm controlling you, how could I control you if you can't even control yourself?  And if you can't even control yourself it is a joke that you would claim to control me.  Like I said, I don't want to stop yet, you are the one who has declared the end of this thread multiple times, but cannot follow through.  It is precisely because I refuse to dance to your tune that you are still here.   Believe me, if I were to say, I'm done, I would quickly end this conversation, but I'm not done. 

 

Now what is the intent of your heart??? To make me dance? So, you have revealed yourself.

 

The Chicken Maaaaaaaaaaan

 

Kay, But whatevah you do Briar Fox, don't be talkin' ta me 'bout no Kenites, Pleeeeese, don't be talkin' ta me 'bout no Kenites, Briar Fox, I'za sore 'fraid that if'n you draw out that sword'zat I'msa gonna gets cut sore fo' sure!

 

Sincerely,

Paul

 

P.S.

I'm conflicted on whether I should have sent this, I decided to go ahead, take what you wish from it.

 

Hi XXX

    This morning I was looking for email from my mother in law, and I was very happy to find one. I also found this letter from you. I don't know who you are or why you're calling my husband reverend, he does not go by titles, he is simply the most zealous servant I've ever met. Paul and I have been married over thirteen years, have six beautiful  happy, loving,children.  Paul has been leading Bible studies for over fifteen years, I say this to let you know he's not some jerk, but full of love for the Lord Jesus Christ, and desires all to come to the knowledge of the truth. He is the most humble man I've ever met, and the funniest.:)   I have never sent an e-mail like this in all our years, but I feel led of the Spirit strongly. 

Love

Katie   

Original Message - First Response - Second Response - Third Response - Fourth Response - Fifth Response

Sixth Response - Seventh Response - Eighth Response - Ninth Response

THIS IS WHERE HE FINALLY GETS BACK ON SUBJECT (actually I provoked him to get back on topic)  Click here to go back to where things really got off track.

Emailer's Seventh Reply:

----- Original Message -----

From:

To: <Undisclosed-Recipient:;>

Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2008 3:22 AM

Subject: Kenites

Ok Paul you convinced me with that low blow

I am going to try very hard to make this defence as simple as possible.

Is all this self reasoning and self  analysis really true? proof , that I am that far off the mark?

 Very Sloppy work Paul

They were not of Gods chosen people,but they were brought directly into the temple and given position.
No, it never says that, that is a croc. Chopping wood (the Nethinim's Job) is not "position." I suppose the next verse is supposed to prove that.
Jer 35:19  Therefore thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Jonadab the son of Rechab shall not want a man to stand before me for ever.
IMPORTANT POINT - All that means is that Jonadab the leader of the Rechabites would never be without descendant to be a leader of the Rechabites.  Notice it says, "a man," not, "men," and the promise is given directly to him. 
Jer 49:19 "and who is a chosen man, that I may appoint over her? for who is like me? and who will appoint me the time? and who is that shepherd that will stand before me?"
The leaders of people are said to "stand before" God.  But there are a number of different ways in which people are said to "stand before" the Lord.  It is true that the Bible speaks of the priests that "stand before the Lord" But that is just one of many applications.  This is an example of the inexcusable recklessness with which Dr. Murray interprets God's word.
There is no way that Jer 35:19 means, "Thus saith the Lord, I'm bringing you into my priesthood."  That is far beyond the pale of reasonable interpretations.  The text does not say,  "Therefore the Rechabites shall stand before me for ever." You are badly misreading that passage.
Here are examples of the different ways in which people "stand before" the Lord.  You have misinterpreted Jer 35:19.  Period.
Leaders stand before the Lord: Jer 49:19  - Above -
Priests stand before the Lord:   Deut10:8 "At that time the LORD separated the tribe of Levi, to bear the ark of the covenant of the LORD, to stand before the LORD to minister unto him, and to bless in his name, unto this day."
Litigants in a Lawsuit stand before the Lord:    Deut19:16 "If a false witness rise up against any man to testify against him that which is wrong; 17 Then both the men, between whom the controversy is, shall stand before the LORD, before the priests and the judges, which shall be in those days;"
In certain solemn occasions all the people may stand before the Lord: Deut 29:10 "Ye stand this day all of you before the LORD your God; your captains of your tribes, your elders, and your officers, with all the men of Israel,"
I found lots of other uses of the device to"stand before," look it up yourself.  The use of this phrase here in Jer 35, by no means, indicates priesthood.  BY NO MEANS

First of all lets  again establish from Gods word that Rechabites where KENITES

1Ch 2:55 And the families of the scribes which dwelt at Jabez; the Tirathites, the Shimeathites, and Suchathites. These are the Kenites that came of Hemath, the father of the house of Rechab.

Secondly you keep harping on the priesthood and that is my fault I suppose,again I guess I lack some ability to make myself clear so I will try again,

There where many duties to be taken care of in the temple. Before the nethinim and the scribes came into service the Levites performed all the duties in the temple. As the nethenim and the scribes came into service and time passed the only thing that the priests performed were the actual religious services.The teaching,,recording ,interpreting of the  religious law ,daily transactions in the temple ,presiding in court and handing down religious judgment ,presiding over and controlling finances ,daily maintenance ,collecting money ,ministering to the masses other than religious services. etc,etc was handed down to others which gave them power and prestige In that sense I meant the priesthood had been polluted.

 Next lets see what the word of God says about service to God.
1Sa 16:21 And David came to Saul, and stood before him: and he loved him greatly; and he became his armourbearer. (in service)

1Sa 16:22 And Saul sent to Jesse, saying, Let David, I pray thee, stand before me; for he hath found favour in my sight (in service)

Jer 50:44 Behold, he shall come up like a lion from the swelling of Jordan unto the habitation of the strong: but I will make them suddenly run away from her: and who is a chosen man, that I may appoint over her? for who is like me? and who will appoint me the time? and who is that shepherd that will stand before me? (in service)

Jer 49:19 Behold, he shall come up like a lion from the swelling of Jordan against the habitation of the strong: but I will suddenly make him run away from her: and who is a chosen man, that I may appoint over her? for who is like me? and who will appoint me the time? and who is that shepherd that will stand before me?(in service)

Jer 15:19 Therefore thus saith the LORD, If thou return, then will I bring thee again, and thou shalt stand before me:(in service) and if thou take forth the precious from the vile, thou shalt be as my mouth: let them return unto thee; but return not thou unto them.

NOTE: Jeremiah had questioned God's righteousness (see Jer_12:1 ); he is told, "If thou return," if thou repent thee of thy doubts, and think only of thy duty, "then will I bring thee again, then will I cause thee again to stand before Me." To stand before a person means to be his chief officer or vicegerent. It implies therefore the restoration of Jeremiah to the prophetic office.

Eze 22:30 And I sought for a man among them, that should make up the hedge, and stand in the gap before me (in service)for the land, that I should not destroy it: but I found none.

Jer 35:19 Therefore thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Jonadab the son of Rechab shall not want a man to stand before me(in service) for ever

stand before In this instance means to be in service or office  (serve GOD)

Lets break Jer 35:19 down a little:

(Jonadab the son of Rechab shall not want a man to stand ) means there shall not a man be cut off from Jonadab the son of Rechab to stand.

The meaning is exactly the  same as in the following verse:

Jer 33:17 For thus saith the LORD; David shall never want a man to sit upon the throne of the house of Israel

To sit upon in the previous verse refers to an office,here it is the throne of david.

(to stand before)it has already been established that to stand before means to be in service or office

(me)God himself speaking, self explanatory. up front and personal

(for ever) this part of the verse is also self explanatory.

Christ stands in service before God.

Israel was chosen to stand in service before God.

The prophets where chosen to stand in service before God.

Levi was chosen to stand in service before God

The elect where chosen to stand in service before God.

Pharaoh was raised to stand in service before God.

And so  the Rechabites (KENITES) with Jonadab being the first would for ever have a man to stand in service before God.And also the Rechabites are counted as being with the 12 tribes (just more proof.that they where in service to God in some capacity inside not outside of Israel So if they were scribes what do you think God would employ them for? Camel herders?ya right.(Not rocket science.))

Sure,there are many instances in the bible where a man or men are ordered to stand before God at a certain time or place or on a single occasion for single service but not in Jer 35:19

The verses that contain continuous action or perpetual action are verses that pertain to offices of service.

And what is the significance of this" one man" thing ?  A king has wives and Princes and Princesses who occupy offices in the kings services,and through whom the kings lineage continues..It is the same with Jonadab,his lineage and office would continue exactly the same. Well you could say that these scribes only worked in the secular services throughout Israel,well probably a lot of them did.But GOD said a descendant of Jonadab will stand before ME(THE I AM) forever. Remember these people did as their fathers told them to do, so they had more allegiance to their fathers than to our father God. Yes they would serve the temple of God in their capacity as scribes,and they would prosper and grow and gain influence,prestige,and power. And more than likely the head scribe would be a direct descendant of Jonadab.

What? you think that no evil thing could be brought into the temple,Israel was punished countless times for bringing abominations in to it. Here God does it himself to punish Israel.Its not like God didn't punish Israel before and would not after that.Israel was practically in constant punishment, read the book. Maybe the kenites were not so evil when they where first introduced into Israel but they sure developed a yen for it. But then again evil is evil.

Lets hear about the scribes.

Mat 23:13 But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.

Mat 23:14 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.

Mat 23:15 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.

Mat 23:23 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.

 Mat 23:25 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess.

Mat 23:27 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness.

Mat 23:29 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous,

Luk 11:44 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are as graves which appear not, and the men that walk over them are not aware of them.

Man these guys loved to spout off about rules, procedures , traditions secular and religious laws,sold prayers,evangelized(proselyte),were anal to detail while ignoring the weightier things of the law, worse than any thing around today for they combined the crime syndicate and the church into one .

Now having clarified myself earlier at the beginning as to how others took over most of the duties of the priesthood it looks like these fellows took it upon themselves to perform even much more as the previous verses and following excerpts prove without a doubt.

The following are some excerpts from the Barnes

Ye shut up the kingdom of heaven - They shut it up by teaching false doctrines respecting the Messiah; by binding the people to an observance of their traditions; by opposing Jesus, and attempting to convince the people that he was an impostor, thus preventing many from becoming his followers.

Devour widows' houses - The word "houses" is used here to denote "property" or possessions of any kind. You take away or get possession of the property of widows by improper arts and pretences. This was done in two ways:

1. They claimed a very exact knowledge of the law and a perfect observance of it. They pretended to extraordinary justice toward the poor, friendship for the distressed, and willingness to aid those who were in embarrassed circumstances. They thus induced "widows" and poor people to commit the management of their property to them as guardians and executors, and then took advantage of them and defrauded them.

2. They put on the appearance of great sanctity, and induced many conscientious but credulous women to give them much, under pretence of devoting it to religious purposes.

Long prayer - Their prayers are said to have been often three hours in length. One rule among them,  was to meditate an hour, then pray an hour, and then meditate another hour - all of which was included in their "long prayers or devotions."

Twofold more the child of hell - That is, twice as bad. To be a child of hell was a Hebrew phrase, signifying to be deserving of hell, to be awfully wicked. Compare the notes at Mat_1:1. The Jewish writers themselves say that the proselytes were "scabs of Israel," and "hindered the coming of the Messiah" by their great wickedness. The Pharisees gained them either to swell their own numbers, or to make gain by extorting their money under various pretences; and when they had accomplished that, they took no pains to instruct them or to restrain them. They had renounced their superstition which had before somewhat restrained them, but the Pharisees had given them no religion in its place to restrain them, and they were consequently left to the full indulgence of their vices.

Full of extortion and excess - The outside appeared well; the inside was filled with the fruit of extortion, oppression, and wickedness. The meaning is, that though they took much pains to appear well, yet they obtained a living by extortion and crime. Their cups, neat as they appeared outward, were filled, not with the fruits of honest industry, but with that which had been extorted from the poor by wicked arts. Instead of "excess," many manuscripts and editions of the Greek Testament read "wickedness."

Naw, I guess these guys didn't interfere with the religious life of the Israelites,rather they interfered with their lives period.You ask how could this happen?Well they did as their fathers told them rather then our father God.God knew and planned this and chose them as punishment for Israel.

You know in retrospect I don't have to prove that the Rechabites were the sons of Cain,for it is irrelevant. For the Rechabites (KENITES) were a blight on the face of Israel. A curse,a punishment.

Go ahead deny. Save your apologies for God not me I don't deserve them

BOB

Oh I almost forgot I did not call the Rechabites Kenites ,nor Scribes,Gods word did.

Consider that thread on which we were trading insults closed its boring me.

Original Message - First Response - Second Response - Third Response - Fourth Response - Fifth Response

Sixth Response - Seventh Response - Eighth Response - Ninth Response

My Eighth Response:

----- Original Message -----

From: reborn@oraclesofgod.org

To: 

Sent: Monday, September 15, 2008 12:58 PM

Subject: Re: Kenites

 

XXXX you are summarizing before I even reply,

 

You have only gone back and answered one of my points about the Kenites.  For brevity sake I'm not going to complain.  It has to be understood here that the burden of proof lies with you.  The ideas behind this doctrine are incredible, the idea that foreigners infiltrated the Jewish community and basically took it over is an incredible claim and in order to be believed it requires some incredible proof.  All the "proof" you have put forward is circumstantial, I can't possibly overstate that fact.  That is very important.  Consider this, when I talk about predestination I can find a place where such a doctrine is spoken of and defined in the Bible.  But when you are talking about the Kenites no such verses exist, everything about this doctrine is circumstantial, and not very good circumstantial either.  I should define circumstantial, what I mean is that none of the passages are instructional in their nature, they are bits of history and lists of names and such, but the problem is you have lists of names which do not support the claims you are making about them and you have bits of history which are being interpreted in an extraordinary manner.

 

 Very Sloppy work Paul

 

That is a pretty arrogant statement coming from someone who has responeded to merely one of the rebuttals I provided to your doctrine.  Many Emails ago I took every one of your scriptures about the Kenites and showed definitively how you were misinterpreting them.  I was working quickly, just because I left you room to breathe is no reason to get cocky.

 

Remember, I'm just casting doubt on your extrordinay claim, I'm not the one who needs to prove anything. That is all I have to do, the burden of proof lies with you.   The reason, I first began to question this whole issue, is that on looking at everything I was going on with this doctrine I began to realize that the documentation for these extrodinary claims was very, very scanty, and I no longer felt comfortable defending them.  You have done about as thorough a job as possible with bringing out your list of scriptures, the problem is that none of the critical texts say what you need them to say,  despite your continued denials to the contrary.  Since you have forgotten everything I said about your proofs I'll have to bring them back again at the end of this message.

They were not of Gods chosen people,but they were brought directly into the temple and given position.
No, it never says that, that is a croc. Chopping wood (the Nethinim's Job) is not "position." I suppose the next verse is supposed to prove that.
Jer 35:19  Therefore thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Jonadab the son of Rechab shall not want a man to stand before me for ever.
IMPORTANT POINT - All that means is that Jonadab the leader of the Rechabites would never be without descendant to be a leader of the Rechabites.  Notice it says, "a man," not, "men," and the promise is given directly to him. 
Jer 49:19 "and who is a chosen man, that I may appoint over her? for who is like me? and who will appoint me the time? and who is that shepherd that will stand before me?"
The leaders of people are said to "stand before" God.  But there are a number of different ways in which people are said to "stand before" the Lord.  It is true that the Bible speaks of the priests that "stand before the Lord" But that is just one of many applications.  This is an example of the inexcusable recklessness with which Dr. Murray interprets God's word.
There is no way that Jer 35:19 means, "Thus saith the Lord, I'm bringing you into my priesthood."  That is far beyond the pale of reasonable interpretations.  The text does not say,  "Therefore the Rechabites shall stand before me for ever." You are badly misreading that passage.
Here are examples of the different ways in which people "stand before" the Lord.  You have misinterpreted Jer 35:19.  Period.
Leaders stand before the Lord: Jer 49:19  - Above -
Priests stand before the Lord:   Deut10:8 "At that time the LORD separated the tribe of Levi, to bear the ark of the covenant of the LORD, to stand before the LORD to minister unto him, and to bless in his name, unto this day."
Litigants in a Lawsuit stand before the Lord:    Deut19:16 "If a false witness rise up against any man to testify against him that which is wrong; 17 Then both the men, between whom the controversy is, shall stand before the LORD, before the priests and the judges, which shall be in those days;"
In certain solemn occasions all the people may stand before the Lord: Deut 29:10 "Ye stand this day all of you before the LORD your God; your captains of your tribes, your elders, and your officers, with all the men of Israel,"
I found lots of other uses of the device to"stand before," look it up yourself.  The use of this phrase here in Jer 35, by no means, indicates priesthood.  BY NO MEANS
 

First of all lets  again establish from Gods word that Rechabites where KENITES
1Ch 2:55 And the families of the scribes which dwelt at Jabez; the Tirathites, the Shimeathites, and Suchathites. These are the Kenites that came of Hemath, the father of the house of Rechab.

I thought you were trying to make this short, I never disputed that.  What you cannot establish is that any of the Kenites were Nethinim or that any of the Kenites returned from the Babylonian captivity.  None were, none did.  The Kenites are not included in the list of the people who returned from captivity, the Nethinims have totally different family names.

 

Secondly you keep harping on the priesthood and that is my fault I suppose,again I guess I lack some ability to make myself clear so I will try again,

Preisthood, whatever, there is nothing to link the Kenites to the Nethinim, nothing, there is nothing to link the Kenites to the temple service (beyond Jer 35 which does not make any such link, but you falsely claim it does).

 

There where many duties to be taken care of in the temple. Before the nethinim and the scribes came into service the Levites performed all the duties in the temple.

 

I guess what surprises me most about you is that you are an advocate of bizarre doctrines who does not appear to have very broad knowledge in the scriptures.

 

The nethinim were "the children of Solomon's servants"  Solomon built the temple, the Nethinim were in the temple from the beginning, they were basically the slaves of the Levites.  Their history goes back to the time of Joshua

 

Joshua 9:21 And the princes said unto them, Let them live; but let them be hewers of wood and drawers of water unto all the congregation; as the princes had promised them. 22 And Joshua called for them, and he spake unto them, saying, Wherefore have ye beguiled us, saying, We are very far from you; when ye dwell among us? 23 Now therefore ye are cursed, and there shall none of you be freed from being bondmen, and hewers of wood and drawers of water for the house of my God.

27 And Joshua made them that day hewers of wood and drawers of water for the congregation, and for the altar of the LORD, even unto this day, in the place which he should choose.

 

They were not Kenites of any of the Kenite families, they were Canaanites, just read Joshua 9 and you will know the origin of the Nethinim, they have a completely different history than the Kenites.

 

As the nethenim and the scribes came into service

 

The Nethinim were not scribes, and came into service at the beginning  of the history of Israel.  when you consider that the Nethinims were still being accounted as a separate people in the days of Ezra, nearly four hundred years after Solomon, it is hard to believe that they would be lost during Israel's most faithful period in their history. (~500BC - Christ)

 

As the nethenim and the scribes came into service and time passed the only thing that the priests performed were the actual religious services.The teaching,,recording ,interpreting of the  religious law ,daily transactions in the temple ,presiding in court and handing down religious judgment ,presiding over and controlling finances ,daily maintenance ,collecting money ,ministering to the masses other than religious services. etc,etc was handed down to others which gave them power and prestige In that sense I meant the priesthood had been polluted.

 

WOW! This is a whole lot of imagination, Bob, that is all story-telling, fables, LEAVEN, you are corrupting God's word with leaven.  This pure fiction is documented nowhere in God's word, I remember a certain teacher, Dr. Murray by name, who lead me through all this.  " It starts off with them carrying water, then it's "Oh, let me help you with this, O, let me help you with that."  And pretty soon they're taking over."  (Not a literal quote, but that is essentially the way I remember him teaching it.) 

 

2Tim 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; 4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

You have turned unto fables.  Everything in the above paragraph is contemptible, disgusting.  Repent.

 Next lets see what the word of God says about service to God.
1Sa 16:21 And David came to Saul, and stood before him: and he loved him greatly; and he became his armourbearer. (in service)
1Sa 16:22 And Saul sent to Jesse, saying, Let David, I pray thee, stand before me; for he hath found favour in my sight (in service)
Jer 50:44 Behold, he shall come up like a lion from the swelling of Jordan unto the habitation of the strong: but I will make them suddenly run away from her: and who is a chosen man, that I may appoint over her? for who is like me? and who will appoint me the time? and who is that shepherd that will stand before me? (in service)
Jer 49:19 Behold, he shall come up like a lion from the swelling of Jordan against the habitation of the strong: but I will suddenly make him run away from her: and who is a chosen man, that I may appoint over her? for who is like me? and who will appoint me the time? and who is that shepherd that will stand before me?(in service)

I do not dispute that "standing before God" is generally for service, certainly in Jer 35 (even though some places it is for Judgment, it does not always mean service)  Even so, the context determines what KIND of service they are in.

 

Jer 15:19 Therefore thus saith the LORD, If thou return, then will I bring thee again, and thou shalt stand before me:(in service) and if thou take forth the precious from the vile, thou shalt be as my mouth: let them return unto thee; but return not thou unto them.
NOTE: Jeremiah had questioned God's righteousness (see Jer_12:1 ); he is told, "If thou return," if thou repent thee of thy doubts, and think only of thy duty, "then will I bring thee again, then will I cause thee again to stand before Me."

 

OK.

 

To stand before a person means to be his chief officer or vicegerent. I

 

Not always, not in every application.  Plus you make that statement as if God has but one vice-regent (if that is what you take the phrase to be).  What it means is that he is a vice-regent of God, for whatever purpose the context dictates, sometimes multiple people are said to stand before God,

 

The notion that the Kenites as a whole would be God's chief vice-regents over Israel forever is just nuts. 

 

God was promising that the Rechabites would always have a man to stand before God as a vice-regent on behalf of the Kenites, not over Israel, that is more FABLES from Bob and Doc Murray.

 

Jer 35 does refer to service but you are making some very questionable leaps of faith, (and not the faith of Christ)

 

It implies therefore the restoration of Jeremiah to the prophetic office.

Yes, but that does not apply to every use of the phrase, as I have shown the uses of this phrase are varied and many.  The intended meaning must be interpreted according to the context.

 

Eze 22:30 And I sought for a man among them, that should make up the hedge, and stand in the gap before me (in service)for the land, that I should not destroy it: but I found none.
Jer 35:19 Therefore thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Jonadab the son of Rechab shall not want a man to stand before me(in service) for ever
stand before In this instance means to be in service or office  (serve GOD)
 

 

Yes, but in what office?  You place them over all Israel, but that is not what is meant.  Fables.  God was promising that the Rechabites would always have a man to stand before God as a viceregent on behalf of the Kenites.

 

Lets break Jer 35:19 down a little:
(Jonadab the son of Rechab shall not want a man to stand ) means there shall not a man be cut off from Jonadab the son of Rechab to stand.
 

But for what purposewere they to stand?  To serve God for the Rechabites.  The temple is about to be destroyed, they certainly won't be serving God in the temple.  God was promising that the Rechabites would always have a man to stand before God as a viceregent on behalf of the Kenites.

 

The meaning is exactly the  same as in the following verse:
Jer 33:17 For thus saith the LORD; David shall never want a man to sit upon the throne of the house of Israel
To sit upon in the previous verse refers to an office,here it is the throne of david.

 

And in Jer 35 it means over the Rechabites, not over Israel. God was promising that the Rechabites would always have a man to stand before God as a viceregent on behalf of the Kenites.

(to stand before)it has already been established that to stand before means to be in service or office
 

 

But the object cannot just be plucked from one's imagination, you cannot put the Kenites over Israel this way. God was promising that the Rechabites would always have a man to stand before God as a viceregent on behalf of the Kenites.

 

(me)God himself speaking, self explanatory. up front and personal
(for ever) this part of the verse is also self explanatory.

Christ stands in service before God.
Israel was chosen to stand in service before God.
The prophets where chosen to stand in service before God.
Levi was chosen to stand in service before God
The elect where chosen to stand in service before God.
Pharaoh was raised to stand in service before God.

 

Yeah, ok, but to each his own office. God was promising that the Rechabites would always have a man to stand before God as a viceregent on behalf of the Kenites.

And so  the Rechabites (KENITES) with Jonadab being the first would for ever have a man to stand in service before God.

 

But that does not mean in the temple or over the levites or among the levites or over Israel, it does not.  To say otherwise is to corrupt the word of God with the leaven of men.  The temple is about to be destroyed, they certainly won't be serving God in it.  God was promising that the Rechabites would always have a man to stand before God as a viceregent on behalf of the Kenites.

 

And also the Rechabites are counted as being with the 12 tribes (just more proof.that they where in service to God in some capacity inside not outside of Israel

 

They were not numbered among the tribes, not as part of the tribes, they were numbered with the tribes only in the sense of their geographical position, their names and families are kept separate and they are marked off as being of different families.  That numbering was 400 years before Jeremiah,  if one examines the context they will find much has changed, the kenites no longer lived in cities in the time of Jeremiah

 

(just more proof.that they where in service to God in some capacity inside not outside of Israel

 

To call that "more proof", is just irresponsible.  They never existed in Israel after the captivity, they are never mentioned again in History (Bible history)

 

God was promising that the Rechabites would always have a man to stand before God as a viceregent on behalf of the Kenites.

 

So if they were scribes what do you think God would employ them for? Camel herders?ya right.(Not rocket science.))

 

Bob, God is not saying "The Kenites Shall stand before me" and this is one of  your critical errors.  But that "They shall not want A MAN to stand before me" BIG DIFFERENCE, they are getting ONE MAN who will stand before God in his service on their behalf, that is all this passage means, PERIOD.  God is not employing THEM he is employing ONE MAN among them.  ONE MAN AMONG THEM.  To say what you say is the height of reckless and irresponsible interpretation

 

Bob, their great great great great grandaddies were scribes, dwelling in cities, these guys lived in tents, perhaps that is the mark of this branch of the family of Cain:  20 And Adah bare Jabal: he was the father of such as dwell in tents, and of such as have cattle.

 

In any case, these men, who were scribes, lived nearly five hundred years before the Rechabites of Jer 35 who are not described as being scribes and even if they were, so what?  That would not mean that EVERY scribe was a KENITE.  That is like saying, "The gypsies are entertainer,therefore all entertainers are gypsies," No, no, no.  (it is not as if God's people were illiterate)  What were your ancestors doing 400 years ago?

Sure,there are many instances in the bible where a man or men are ordered to stand before God at a certain time or place or on a single occasion for single service but not in Jer 35:19

Yeah but still, this is the promise of a single man to stand before God for the service of the Kenites, not for Levi, not for Israel, that is leaven and fable, unsound doctrine.  God was promising that the Rechabites would always have a man to stand before God as a viceregent on behalf of the Kenites.

 

And what is the significance of this" one man" thing ?  A king has wives and Princes and Princesses who occupy offices in the kings services,and through whom the kings lineage continues..It is the same with Jonadab,his lineage and office would continue exactly the same. Well you could say that these scribes only worked in the secular services throughout Israel,well probably a lot of them did.But GOD said a descendant of Jonadab will stand before ME(THE I AM) forever.

 

 If forever means forever then even Christ cannot replace them. Your interpretation means that Christ cannot replace the kenites, forever. 

God was promising that the Rechabites would always have a man to stand before God as a viceregent on behalf of the Kenites.

 

Remember these people did as their fathers told them to do, so they had more allegiance to their fathers than to our father God.

 

You should drop that line, if that was so, then the Kenites should have told God to take a hike because they had to keep living in tents and living in the temple would have been an affront to their father's commandment.  So your own doctrine contradicts you.

 

You say that, but you are just slandering a people God has blessed.

 

Yes they would serve the temple of God in their capacity as scribes,and they would prosper and grow and gain influence,prestige,and power. And more than likely the head scribe would be a direct descendant of Jonadab.

The were never bought into the temple service.  They got one guy to represent them to God.  Your verse only gives them one man, How do you get the whole tribe into the temple???  You are just repeating made-up stories. 

 

What? you think that no evil thing could be brought into the temple,Israel was punished countless times for bringing abominations in to it.

 

Ok, thanks for putting lying thoughts in my head, (you always do the things you accuse me of) but Why would this even be seen as evil?  Jeremiah does not portray what he is doing as being evil.  And if it was evil, then why is it never spoken of as such???  Solomons temple was about to be burned with fire, if you treat me with this kind of contemptuous condescention then don't expect different from me.

 

Here God does it himself to punish Israel.

 

There is no sign that this is a punishment. None at all. There is no sign that God is "bringing the kenites into the temple"   You accomplsh this acrobatic of falsehood by grabbing the punishment verses from the latter portion of jer 35, I know exactly where you get it, so don't try to shove it down my throat again like you always do.  I know where you are coming from.  You are just wrong.

 

Its not like God didn't punish Israel before and would not after that.Israel was practically in constant punishment, read the book.

 

You are just setting up a staw man and then knocking him down as if I said things like that.  Aren't you tough, you created and beat up a staw mockery of me.  Well the real me is standing right here and this kind of gamesmanship does nothing to improve your position,

 

Maybe the kenites were not so evil when they where first introduced into Israel but they sure developed a yen for it. But then again evil is evil.

What vain chatter, you say you are not a racist, and I know you are not a bigot, but you are a racist in this sense, you steroetype a whole family that is never said to have done anything wrong.  They will be your judges.

 

Lets hear about the scribes.

 

I'm not going to even bother, scribes in the new testament lived 1000, count'em 1000 years after the scibes listed in Chronicles, Paul himself was a Pharisee.  The bible was copied by scribes. 

Mat 23:13 But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.
Mat 23:14 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.
Mat 23:15 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.
Mat 23:23 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone. 
 Mat 23:25 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess.
Mat 23:27 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness.
Mat 23:29 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous,
Luk 11:44 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are as graves which appear not, and the men that walk over them are not aware of them.

Man these guys loved to spout off about rules, procedures , traditions secular and religious laws,sold prayers,evangelized(proselyte),were anal to detail while ignoring the weightier things of the law, worse than any thing around today for they combined the crime syndicate and the church into one .

 

So?  These were Jews, not some other race. 

Now having clarified myself earlier at the beginning as to how others took over most of the duties of the priesthood it looks like these fellows took it upon themselves to perform even much more as the previous verses and following excerpts prove without a doubt.

 

You have to be kidding, they don't do any such thing, Scribes and Pharisees were not the preisthood.  Fables again.

The following are some excerpts from the Barnes

Ye shut up the kingdom of heaven - They shut it up by teaching false doctrines respecting the Messiah; by binding the people to an observance of their traditions; by opposing Jesus, and attempting to convince the people that he was an impostor, thus preventing many from becoming his followers.

Devour widows' houses - The word "houses" is used here to denote "property" or possessions of any kind. You take away or get possession of the property of widows by improper arts and pretences. This was done in two ways:

1. They claimed a very exact knowledge of the law and a perfect observance of it. They pretended to extraordinary justice toward the poor, friendship for the distressed, and willingness to aid those who were in embarrassed circumstances. They thus induced "widows" and poor people to commit the management of their property to them as guardians and executors, and then took advantage of them and defrauded them.

2. They put on the appearance of great sanctity, and induced many conscientious but credulous women to give them much, under pretence of devoting it to religious purposes.

Long prayer - Their prayers are said to have been often three hours in length. One rule among them,  was to meditate an hour, then pray an hour, and then meditate another hour - all of which was included in their "long prayers or devotions."

Twofold more the child of hell - That is, twice as bad. To be a child of hell was a Hebrew phrase, signifying to be deserving of hell, to be awfully wicked. Compare the notes at Mat_1:1. The Jewish writers themselves say that the proselytes were "scabs of Israel," and "hindered the coming of the Messiah" by their great wickedness. The Pharisees gained them either to swell their own numbers, or to make gain by extorting their money under various pretences; and when they had accomplished that, they took no pains to instruct them or to restrain them. They had renounced their superstition which had before somewhat restrained them, but the Pharisees had given them no religion in its place to restrain them, and they were consequently left to the full indulgence of their vices.

Full of extortion and excess - The outside appeared well; the inside was filled with the fruit of extortion, oppression, and wickedness. The meaning is, that though they took much pains to appear well, yet they obtained a living by extortion and crime. Their cups, neat as they appeared outward, were filled, not with the fruits of honest industry, but with that which had been extorted from the poor by wicked arts. Instead of "excess," many manuscripts and editions of the Greek Testament read "wickedness."

I don't care about the barnes, you have failed to link the Rechabites to the new testament scribes.

 

Naw, I guess these guys didn't interfere with the religious life of the Israelites,rather they interfered with their lives period.

 

you have failed to link the Rechabites to the new testament scribes. 

 

You ask how could this happen?

 

No, I don't.  But you will tell me anyway. Even though you have failed to link the Rechabites to the new testament scribes

 

Well they did as their fathers told them rather then our father God.God knew and planned this and chose them as punishment for Israel.

More fables.  The only way your doctrine could be true is if they disobeyed their father and obeyed God.   So your doctrine is self-refuting.

 

You know in retrospect I don't have to prove that the Rechabites were the sons of Cain,for it is irrelevant. For the Rechabites (KENITES) were a blight on the face of Israel. A curse,a punishment.

 

And you will answer for that slander.  They will be your judges.   ALL of Israel's leaders lead them astray BOB, your words are ignorant,  from Saul to Zedekiah, no Kenites, plenty of bad leaders,  Look what Jeremiah said before you say he brought in the kenites.

 

Jer 5:31 The prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests bear rule by their means; and my people love to have it so: and what will ye do in the end thereof?

 

Jer 8:10 for every one from the least even unto the greatest is given to covetousness, from the prophet even unto the priest every one dealeth falsely.
Jer 23:11 For both prophet and priest are profane; yea, in my house have I found their wickedness, saith the LORD.

 

Jer 23:13 And I have seen folly in the prophets of Samaria; they prophesied in Baal, and caused my people Israel to err.
14 I have seen also in the prophets of Jerusalem an horrible thing: they commit adultery, and walk in lies: they strengthen also the hands of evildoers, that none doth return from his wickedness: they are all of them unto me as Sodom, and the inhabitants thereof as Gomorrah.
Jer 26:11 Then spake the priests and the prophets unto the princes and to all the people, saying, This man is worthy to die; for he hath prophesied against this city, as ye have heard with your ears.

 

HUMAN LEADERS always do all that stuff, I could quote many many more prophets, (Ezekiel 8 comes to mind)  If the rechab9ites were over Israel they did nothing worse than anyone beforre them, and you have not even established that

 

Go ahead deny.

 

I do.  Your argument boils down to this: "1000 Years before Christ, there were some Kenite scribes, by the time of Christ they took over Israel"  that is an extrodinary claim since history has no such record.

 

Save your apologies for God not me I don't deserve them

 

No, you don't.  I make no apologies.  Your arguments have failed again, not just to convince me, but they fail to measure up to any reasonable standard of good interpretation.

Oh I almost forgot I did not call the Rechabites Kenites ,nor Scribes,Gods word did.

 

The Rechabites are never siad to be scribes, the Tirathites the Suchathites and such are described as scribes, 

 

And the families of the scribes which dwelt at Jabez; the Tirathites, the Shimeathites, and Suchathites. These are the Kenites that came of Hemath, the father of the house of Rechab.

 

The Rechabites ancestors were scribes, you assume that for a thousand years that is all that they did.  even though in your critical passage Jer35, it is not mentioned once that these people were still engaged in scribeship

 

Also, the Rechabites are never listed as returning from the Babylonian captivity. Never, the Nethinim have different family names and a different family heritage.  They are unrelated

Consider that thread on which we were trading insults closed its boring me.

 

The only thing I consider closed is are your eyes to the truth.

Original Message - First Response - Second Response - Third Response - Fourth Response - Fifth Response

Sixth Response - Seventh Response - Eighth Response - Ninth Response

Emailer's Eighth Reply:

----- Original Message -----

From: 

To: Undisclosed-Recipient:;

Sent: Friday, September 12, 2008 1:40 PM

Hello Paul

         You may not believe this but since our exchanges where we mercilessly and misguidedly slandered each other I have really had no rest. I know that our world of today is under siege from misguided religious fundamentalism.and I know that as Christians we must work through this and be of a peaceful nature. I know that what we engaged in was not proper and if it caused you to consider me a heretic than that is my fault so at this point I apologize and ask your forgiveness.

Obviously I lack the ability to explain myself properly or maybe its a laziness on my part to endeavored to make myself understood ,a sloppiness that I shall try to correct.Having said that I hope we a can continue our discussions..

It seems to me that all we did was deny what the other said and somewhat of an animosity developed between us. I do not want to engage in an exchange of criticism  or accusation in respect to doctrine. I will put forth my argument and you can have your rebuttal ,or vice versa. I do not wish to engage in a continuous exchange on a particular point, for all it does is develop into an exchange of personal interpretation and  analysis It develops into a boring diatribe that no one would want to read Morphing into a monster that would require a study unto itself.

 So from here I wish to pickup on the subject of covenants in Gods word.

 I wish to explain myself in regards to where I stand on the subject of people in regards to salvation.There is only one literal nation on the face of the earth that has the right to the claim as to being the chosen people of God,and that is Israel,and it is elect.The nation as a whole has this by birthright through Abraham as children of the promise.This birthright promise is an unconditional national covenant exclusive to Israel through the promises God made to Abraham. The rest of the nations of the world cannot claim this special statusas as the word itself proves.

God made an unconditional national covenant with Abraham.

Gen 17:7  And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.
 

Rom 11:28  As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes.

Rom 11:29  For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance

 

 

Regardless salvation is still based on a individual  basis in regards that they must believe that Christ is come and live a Christian life.. Salvation was taken to the world ,to the Gentile through the gospel and again granted through the belief in Christ and upon repentance.and living the life of a Christian on an individual basis.

 

The following are more unconditional national covenants (promises) God made.

God made  further unconditional national covenants with Jacob.

Gen 35:11  And God said unto him, I am God Almighty: be fruitful and multiply; a nation and a company of nations shall be of thee, and kings shall come out of thy loins;

Gen 48:19  And his father refused, and said, I know it, my son, I know it: he also shall become a people, and he also shall be great: but truly his younger brother shall be greater than he, and his seed shall become a multitude of nations.

The previous verse Gen 35:11 God Almighty promised Jacob(a nation and a company of nations shall be of thee, and kings shall come out of thy loins;) This is again prophesied by Jacob (Israel) in Gen 48:19  when he hands out the blessings to his twelve sons and also the double blessing to Joseph,Joseph himself having been given a blessing and also his two sons Ephraim and Manasseh ,Jacob qualifies that this covenant God promised in Gen 35:11 is in regards to Ephraim and Manasseh whom God later calls the kingdom of Israel, after having separated Judah and the rest of Israel. 

God did cause Israel (the northren kingdom) to loose its national identity with the Assyrian dispersion yet he made covenants with Jacob for Ephraim and Manasseh, that never came to pass in biblical history. And again he made a covenant with David that David would never want for a man to sit upon (Office) the throne of david .Yet Israel the southern kingdom never had a bonified king after the Babylonian captivity.

Somewhere somehow those covenant have come to pass, are coming to pass or will come to pass,because Gods word says so.( Rom 11:29  For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance)

  

God made an unconditional national covenant with Ishmael.
 

Gen 17:20  And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee: Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation.

Now we know that the Arab nations claim to this very day to be the sons of Abraham through their father Ishmael,but The Bible states that Ishmael was not born by the promise, as the following verses prove ,yet we know that to this day they claim the birthright of Issac because Ishmael was firstborn.The following verse also prove that both Issac and Ishmael recived a covenant.

Gal 4:22  For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.
Gal 4:23  But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.
Gal 4:24  Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.
Gal 4:25  For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.
Gal 4:26  But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.

It does not say as much in the word but it is undeniable that Ishmael also became a company of nations.Granted they are mixed with other nation that have persecuted and are still persecuting Israel ,but they have all adopted the religion of Islam. Those that have come to Christ in those countries are also persecuted ,much beyond our wildest nightmares. Yes Islam was not around during Christ's time,but the sons of Ishmael would adopt it just the same.

Gal 4:29  But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now

Now Israel today in the middle east is being slowly strangled by these Arab nations and it is surrounded by them and the Mediterranean sea.The persecution of  (The Children of the Promise) by Ishmael started soon after they grew up (Issac and Ishmael) and continues to even this very day.Today this persecution is fueled by religious fundamentalism and totalitarianism.and the tool they use is terrorism and the persecution is not restricted to just historical Israel anymore

.Gen 16:12  And he will be a wild man; his hand will be against every man, and every man's hand against him; and he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren

Their methods are barbaric and terroristic, in every military and religious hotspot in the world today you can bet that Islam is involved.and they also live amongst the children of the promise today, their own brethren through Abraham.It is Islam's unrelentless and unremitting push to conquer and convert the world. Their creed is ,that if the infidel will not convert they must be killed

Gal 4:30  Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman

Judah and Levis are blinded to the mystery of Christ ,those branches broken from the root of Israel so that the Gentiles including their half brother, may be grafted into the children of the promise (Israel) through faith according to grace, in Jesus Christ as joint heirs. Those people within the Arab nations who have been called to the election of grace are truly suffering for the sake of Christ,not like us in this part of the world.

The First covenant as we know it was not an unconditional national covenant ,rather it was a conditional national covenant based on the law ,the Ten Commandments,the second covenant is also based on the same laws.You could say that the second covenant is a conditional (in the Interm,the flesh) unconditional (forever in the here after) national (and so all Israel shall be saved) covenant.

So we see that the unconditional covenant given to Abraham (as children of the promise) is separate from the conditional covenant given to Moses yet they are undeniably intertwined and they were both given exclusively to Israel.It was that first conditional covenant that Israel would not honor that brought about the punishments of Israel.

XXXXX

Original Message - First Response - Second Response - Third Response - Fourth Response - Fifth Response

Sixth Response - Seventh Response - Eighth Response - Ninth Response

My Ninth Response:

----- Original Message -----

From: reborn@oraclesofgod.org

To: 

Sent: Monday, September 15, 2008 2:58 PM

Subject: Re:
 

XXXXX,

 

You may not believe this but since our exchanges where we mercilessly and misguidedly slandered each other I have really had no rest.

 

I believe you, I always believe you, I don't go around judging evil thoughts. I just cannot agree with the false doctrines you sincerely believe in.

 

I know that our world of today is under siege from misguided religious fundamentalism.and I know that as Christians we must work through this and be of a peaceful nature.

 

That is a very common sentiment, but I think people do not understand what it means to be of a peaceful nature.  Paul said in Rom12:18 "If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men."  But that does not mean that we have to abide by modern concepts of civility and "niceness," in order to fulfill that.  Jesus was of a peaceful nature, yet he drove men with a scourge.   Paul was a peaceful man but he did never shirk from speaking boldly against the enemies of the Gospel.  That confrontation and conflict, did not void their personal peace nor make them contentious men.

 

The fact that you did not have peace in our conflict comes from your misguided idea of how a Christian is to behave, your conscience bugged you but it was misguided, my conscience is clear, I don't believe like you do.  From your perspective, I am a reprobate, that does not offend me, it made me smile (it is far more irritating when you say things like "You think that God wouldn't bring evil into his temple?" for reasons you should be familiar with)  While I would hesitate to call you a reprobate, (that is pretty strong) I have no trouble calling you a heretic, not to be inflammatory just for the sake of conflict, but that is how it is.  Just because we are not to be contentious does not mean that we should not contend for the faith. 

 

You see me as contentious but you have to consider that you are talking to me about a doctrine that I believe is a total lie.  Imagine how Paul would react to someone who taught something contrary to his gospel, you don't have to imagine, there are numerous examples.

 

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.
4 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.
 

If our world is under siege from misguided fundamentalism it is due to the misguided notion of fundamentalists that they can be fundamental in their faith and still practice sin.  It is that they have forms of Godliness, but deny the power thereof.   I am not a fundamentalist (I was kicked of their website) I am a fanatic.  I belong to a fanatical cult of Jesus Christ worshippers..

 

I know that what we engaged in was not proper and if it caused you to consider me a heretic than that is my fault so at this point I apologize and ask your forgiveness.

 

I do not know that at all, I totally disagree,  Why should either of us give place to false doctrine?  If either of us is perverting God's word, is it not the duty of the other to say, "This man is perverting the word of God." ?  It is.

 

No apology is necessary, nor is any apology sufficient, I can only accept your repentance from and repudiation of the Kenite doctrine, without this you cannot be forgiven, you have not sinned against me, you have sinned against the truth, in order to be forgiven of the truth you have to repudiate the lie..  What caused me to consider you a heretic was not the manner in which you spoke with me but rather the content of your doctrine.

Obviously I lack the ability to explain myself properly or maybe its a laziness on my part to endeavored to make myself understood ,a sloppiness that I shall try to correct.

Bob, don't forget, I really did used to teach the Kenite doctrine, I used to go through, Genesis, Numbers, Chronicles, Ezra, Jeremiah, Matthew 13, 23, John 8, 1John 3, etc. I know it all, I used to teach it all (granted, over ten years ago, I can be  a little rusty, but there are no surprises), you have a slightly unique take on the Kenites, but still, at its core, the Kenite doctrine still rots.

Having said that I hope we a can continue our discussions..

Well, that is conditional...  We have to have something I'm interested in discussing.

It seems to me that all we did was deny what the other said and somewhat of an animosity developed between us.

I know you feel that way, but for me there are just fundamental flaws in the Kenite doctrine which make it unworthy of belief.

I do not want to engage in an exchange of criticism  or accusation in respect to doctrine.

Doctrine is all I'm interested in here, I have alot of other interests in life, but for the purposes of my website, it is doctrine.  If you try to tell me something that I know is false, it will be criticized, if your methods of interpretation are faulty, they will be criticized, if the meaning of the words are changed, you will be accused of changing the meanings of words.

I will put forth my argument and you can have your rebuttal ,or vice versa. I do not wish to engage in a continuous exchange on a particular point, for all it does is develop into an exchange of personal interpretation and  analysis

Well, that is what makes the religious world go around.  I exist, to read the bible and see where others have got it wrong,  that is what I see,  it all comes down to personal opinion.  I don't believe that my opinion is "just an opinion"  I believe that I read things correctly where I see others reading it wrongly.  To me, a lot of it seems like people just can't read plain English.  I don't know what to tell people,  I pity them, but God has revealed himself to me, why should I listen to men concerning whom God has not testified to me?   Why should I follow interpretations which God has given me the mind to know are false?  Why should I follow lesser men? 

It develops into a boring diatribe that no one would want to read Morphing into a monster that would require a study unto itself.

Maybe,   but it doesn't really matter, whoever is more or less eloquent or intelligent, those who can hear me are of God, that is all I need to know.

 

So from here I wish to pickup on the subject of covenants in Gods word.

 

Now you are failing one of my conditions for continued discussion... I have read all you were saying on this subject and I do not desire to go through my nuanced differences concerning covenants, but I will simply say I do not give such a preeminent place to covenants,  nor do I have much to say about them either.

 

Salvation is all about being made free from sin, if we die in our sins, there is no covenant in the world that is going to save us.

 

1Co10:1 Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;
2 And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;
3 And did all eat the same spiritual meat;
4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.
5 But with many of them God was not well pleased: for they were overthrown in the wilderness.
6 Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted.
7 Neither be ye idolaters, as were some of them; as it is written, The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play.
8 Neither let us commit fornication, as some of them committed, and fell in one day three and twenty thousand.
9 Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents.
10 Neither murmur ye, as some of them also murmured, and were destroyed of the destroyer.
11 Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.
12 Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall.

 

This is the only covenant I wish to see fulfilled in me,

 

Heb8:6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.
7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.
8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:
9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.
10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.
12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.
13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

 

"their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more." Implies that they are all past.

 

Sincerely

Paul 

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

Return to Oraclesofgod.org