Return to Oraclesofgod.org

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

On the Serpent Seed and Importance of Bloodlines: "Dude, let me really blow your mind."

Question/Comment:

----- Original Message -----
From: Name and Address Withheld
To: <reborn@oraclesofgod.org (Paul Stringini)>; <meXXXXXX@hotmail.com>; <shXXXXX@hotmail.com>; <baXXXXX@san.rr.com>; <loXXXXXXX@roadrunner.com>; <caXXXXXX@hotmail.com>; <pastorXXX@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 12:56 PM
Subject: For Reborn @ Oracles. Nice job of cherry picking . You should have been a lawyer.

   In Genesis chapter 5 verse 3 it CLEARLY tells you that Adams FIRST  BIOLOGICAL son was Seth.    QUOTE . " And Adam begat a son IN HIS OWN  LIKENESS AFTER HIS IMAGE and called his name Seth ".    You also left 
out the TRUE Hebrew definition of PIRACH , NAGA , and NACASH .  Cains  own genealogy does not list him as a descendent of Adam nor is Cain  or Abel listed in the genealogy of Jesus Christ.   God put a curse on  Eves sexual reproductive organs NOT because she had a piece of fruit  nor did Adam and Eve cover their reproductive organs in shame for  eating some fruit my friend.  Get yourself a good Hebrew and Greek  Concordance and ask the Holy Spirit for TRUE Revelation of Gods TOTAL  TRUTH .  Luke chapter 3 is trying to tell you something so read and 
study the WHOLE CHAPTER .

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

----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Stringini
To: memXXXX@hotmail.com ; shXX@hotmail.com ; baXX@san.rr.com ; loXX@roadrunner.com ; caXXX@hotmail.com ; pastorXXXX@gmail.com ; XXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 4:10 PM
Subject: Re: For Reborn @ Oracles. Nice job of cherry picking . You should have been a lawyer.

Hello, "In Genesis chapter 5 verse 3 it CLEARLY tells you that Adams FIRST  BIOLOGICAL son was Seth.    QUOTE . " And Adam begat a son IN HIS OWN   LIKENESS AFTER HIS IMAGE and called his name Seth ".   

So you are saying that Abel was not a son of Adam, either? That is a new one.  So not only is Cain not Adam's Son but neither is Abel?  Ridiculous.  I'm going to pretend you didn't mean that. Here is the way in which Cain Came into the world: 

Gen 4:1 And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain  

Here is the way Seth Came into the world 

Gen 4:25 And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth:  

These are very simple phrases describing a very simple narrative and a very simple fact of nature.  Knowing your wife makes babies.  It is the total disregard for what the scriptures communicate that separates Dr. Arnold Murray and such from other false teachers.  You all seem to despise the very word of God and want to tell us all that what he (God) said is not what he meant. 

Cains   own geneaology does not list him as a descendent of Adam nor is Cain   or Abel listed in the genealogy of Jesus Christ.

Neither are other first begottens Ishmael, Reuben, Ephraim, or Esau in Christ's genealogy.

Noting that Genesis Chapter 5 is not the Genealogy of Adam, Adam has no genealogy (not as such, Adam being created not born), only descent; it is the genealogy of Adam's sons, but not of all of his sons, Adam also begat many other sons besides Cain, Abel, and Seth, yet none of them appear in chapter 5's genealogy either

Genesis chapter 5 is, in essence, the genealogy of Noah, Cain was not the father of Noah, that is why Cain is not counted. The children of the flesh are not counted, it is the children of promise who are counted for the seed.  Cain was rejected, not because he was not the son of Adam, he certainly was. 

There are many examples of the firstborn being passed over.  Esau, Reuben, Ishmael, etc.  None of those men are listed in Luke chapter 3 either, but that does not indicate that Satan had sex with their mother, it is merely that they were not counted for the seed, though they were the children of the flesh. 

You apply a standard to Gen 5 and Luke 3 that I find nowhere in the bible: that only the firstborn son counts. Nonsense.  The firstborn is special, but notice, firstborn is first "BORN" not begotten.  "All that open the womb" are said to be God's.  Cain opened the womb, not Seth.  Ishmael was Abrahams first biological son, but not counted.  

You also left out the TRUE Hebrew definition of PIRACH , NAGA , and NACASH .  

Nonsense.  You must mean, Tree=Body, Touch=Sexual intercourse and Serpent=Shining Angelic being.  

Those are not the "true definitions."  you are painful confused, you have my pity. You cannot overturn the meaning of a passage based on the misappropriation of a few words. 

Just because "touch" can have an idiomatic usage is not reason to assume that usage in every case.  Are you one of those people who giggles every time you hear the phrase 'the cock crew'?  Because that is essentially what this is, words with two meanings like this do not always take on the sexual or other idiomatic meaning.  

Context is everything in this sort of issue.  If the word "touch" would have been used of the serpent as in "thou shalt not touch the serpent" Then maybe you would have something, but only maybe.   

Same thing with "tree" the language is very clear Gen2:9 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
 
The lack of any verbs in the clause regarding the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (TKG&E) means that the verbs must be supplied from the preceding clauses. 

This verse says that the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil grew from the ground and were good for food. 

Eve also saw it was so: "And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food" (Gen 3:6)  Why should I think anything different? Do not do violence to God's word in the reckless abuse of idioms.  There is no context for this usage here, only the conditioning of miserable teachers. 

Serpent is snake, almost every time it is used the translation "snake" or serpent is certainly appropriate.  There is nothing strange about talking animals in the bible.The main reason that would make someone think that the Serpent was also a serpent, is because of the verse that introduces the serpent, which leads us to believe that the serpent is a beast.

 Gen3:1 Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made.   Man is not included among the "beasts of the field" the fact that the serpent is mentioned in this way leads many people to assume that the serpent is a beast, and that is logical in context, if the serpent is not a beast, then this verse is a little misleading.  

The other verse is the "punishment verse" which says "on your belly thou shalt Go."  I guess if God meant something other than a beast, then he is definitely giving people a different impression by what is written in the word.  I do not consider it a very critical issue, I don't care one way or the other, animal, mineral, spiritual, or vegetable, Satan was present.

 So there are your three words, they do not do all the magic you suppose. 

God put a curse on   Eves sexual reproductive organs NOT because she had a piece of fruit   

He didn't?  But it says he did. 

Gen 3:13 And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.  16 Unto the woman he said, (Because thou hast done this) {elipsis supplied from v14} I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.  

You contradict God. 

He that is of God heareth God's words.  He did not curse her "organs," just her labor. 

The last time I checked, women still enjoy sex.  That is not true of all animals. God did not curse anyone's organs.    

nor did Adam and Eve cover their reproductive organs in shame for   eating some fruit my friend. 

On that one you are almost right.  They didn't cover themselves because of the fruit (Well, not directly because of it) 

They covered themselves because they were naked.  But not because they had been doing "the nasty" with the devil. 

Gen 3:7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked;
 
It is written that they they suddenly had knowledge of their nakedness, not that they were ashamed for having done anything while naked. This knowledge came from eating the fruit.
 
This is very simple: Every child, when they come to a certain age, becomes self-conscious of their nakedness, not because of sex, nor of any wrong that they have done, it just happens.  When man ate of the fruit of the TKG&E his whole perception of the world changed, he simply KNEW he was naked, so he covered himself.  
 
Dr. Murray uses a lot of the power of suggestion to get people to see things in the word that are just not there. 
 
If they had sex with Satan, or talked with him, or had an "immaculate conception" with him, yet had not eaten the fruit, then they would not have been aware of their nakedness, nor sinned, because that is not what God told them not to do.  There is no sin without transgressing the commandments.
 
Since these people did not even realize that they were naked, I find it extremely difficult to believe that they would have the savvy to understand that the commandment "not to eat of a particular tree" would have actually meant "stay away from the serpent, don't talk to that dude or have sex with him."
 
Gen3:17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: 
 
That was the commandment, that was the sin.  Period Get yourself a good Hebrew and Greek   Concordance and ask the Holy Spirit for TRUE Revelation of Gods TOTAL   TRUTH . I have one, but I tell you to put yours away, it is just a tool for evil men to pervert your understanding from the simple language in God's word.  They are not revealing secrets, they are clouding the truth.   

Luke chapter 3 is trying to tell you something so read and  study the WHOLE CHAPTER

I have, but, in truth, everything important comes before verse 23. 

1Tim1:4 Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.  

Think about how much you have looked for the devil in endless genealogies (and obsession with genealogy is endless) but never where he is truly lurking.  This is the truth about the serpent's seed from the mouth of an Apostle: 

1John 3:7 Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous.
8 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.
9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.
10 In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother.
11 For this is the message that ye heard from the beginning, that we should love one another.
12 Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. And wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his brother's righteous.

(John Just missed a prefect chance to declare that it was because Cain was the orgasmic output of Satan, if such nonsense had an ounce of truth to it) 

You don't need a concordance or a teacher to understand that.  Just look at those verses.  Read them. Believe them. Let no man deceive you. 

Sincerely,

Paul Stringini

Emailer's First Reply:

----- Original Message -----
From: "XXXX and XXXXX"
To: Paul Stringini ; memXXXX@hotmail.com ; shXX@hotmail.com ; baXX@san.rr.com ; loXX@roadrunner.com ; caXXX@hotmail.com ; pastorXXXX@gmail.com ; XXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 4:57 PM
Subject: for reborn

       You need to start over and get a clue about the importance of  WHY Christ's bloodline was so important. You are taking out of context  Genesis 4 verse 1. Sin and death entered by the blood of the Serpent  which was NOT a snake and ONLY the Blood of Jesus Christ could  conquer sin and death. OF COURSE Eve thought Cain came from Adam she  was under the influence of the Serpent it is called SPELLBOUND in the  Hebrew. The bloodlines are irrefutable evidence that Cain and Able  were not the biological children of Adam

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

----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Stringini
To: memXXXX@hotmail.com ; shXX@hotmail.com ; baXX@san.rr.com ; loXX@roadrunner.com ; caXXX@hotmail.com ; pastorXXXX@gmail.com ; XXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 7:13 PM
Subject: Re: for reborn

You need to start over and get a clue about the importance of  WHY Christs bloodline was so important.
 
Why was Christ's bloodline so important if not because he was the son David and the son of God?
 
You are taking out of context   Genesis 4 verse 1.
 
Even when I take it in its broadest context, it still says the same thing.  Context cannot rescue the serpent's seed lie.
 
Sin and death entered by the blood of the Serpent  
 
That is not what the Apostles of Jesus Christ taught.  It was by man's disobedience that sin and death entered the world.  Not by anyone's blood.  Everything you are saying is contrary to the things you should have learned from Christ.  You are still fretting about bloodlines to the neglect of what really matters, the spirit.
 
which was NOT a snake
 
Like I said, you may disagree, but the Bible strongly implies that it was.
 
and ONLY the Blood of Jesus Christ could  conquer sin and death.
 
Yes, but it was due to the pureness of his moral character and not to the pureness of his ancestors blood.  There is no "devil's blood."
 
OF COURSE Eve thought Cain came from Adam she   was under the influence of the Serpent it is called SPELLBOUND in the  Hebrew.
 
It is not what Eve though that interests me.  Eve did not say "I have gotten a man from Adam."  The bible says Adam knew her and she conceived.  THAT is a direct relationship. CAUSE and EFFECT. It is what the bible reports.  You can disregard the testimony of scripture at your own peril.
 
The bloodlines are irrefutable evidence that Cain and Abel  were not the biological children of Adam.
 
Nonsense.  The bloodlines of Noah should not contain men who are not his progenetors.  According to your logic the bloodlines are proof that most of Adam's children were not the biological children of Adam.  I'm going to speak plainly to you. That is just stupid.
The bible does not say "the serpent knew Eve and she conceived" it specifically implicates ADAM as the father of Cain and Abel.  Cain's father is declared, not in the geneology of Noah (no relation to Cain) but his parentage is declared in the formula "Adam Knew his wife and she conceived Cain" That is ABSOLUTE.
 
Plus, Abel is called "righteous Abel" by CHRIST HIMSELF. He was not a child of the devil. In saying this you are smearing the name of a righteous man, declaring him a bastard and worse, the son of Satan himself. Don't be a fool.
 
This is your little "revelation" is it? Abel too? Seriously. You know nothing. You are a danger to yourself. You have my pity.

Emailer's Second Reply:

----- Original Message -----
From: "XXXX and XXXXX"
To: Paul Stringini ; memXXXX@hotmail.com ; shXX@hotmail.com ; baXX@san.rr.com ; loXX@roadrunner.com ; caXXX@hotmail.com ; pastorXXXX@gmail.com ; XXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 7:40 PM
Subject: For Reborn. Dude let me really blow your mind. It says " And Noah was PERFECT IN HIS GENERATIONS " ( NON CONTAMINATED DNA )

     The entire flood was about destroying the Serpents bloodline.  Let me further blow your mind. You live on an occupied planet and  that is why Jesus is coming back with an army to fight the last and  FINAL battle. If you ever STUDY the account of Noahs Ark you will  understand that through Hams wife ( Serpents blood ) that Cannan was  cursed.

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

----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Stringini
To: memXXXX@hotmail.com ; shXX@hotmail.com ; baXX@san.rr.com ; loXX@roadrunner.com ; caXXX@hotmail.com ; pastorXXXX@gmail.com ; XXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 10:12 PM
Subject: Re: For Reborn. Dude let me really blow your mind. It says " And Noah was PERFECT IN HIS GENERATIONS " ( NON CONTAMINATED DNA )

The entire flood was about destroying the Serpents bloodline . 
If the point of the flood was to wipe out that bloodline then why did God allow that bloodline on the ark? Is he stupid? Or just weak? or inept? Or all three?
 
The point of the flood was to wipe out the ungodly generation of men that had filled the earth with violence.  Whatever can be said about the flood's purpose, it was not to "destroy the serpent's bloodline.  That is just stupid, since God himself had said that the seed of the woman would crush the head of the serpent.  God would be working against himself.
 
Let me further blow your mind. You live on an occupied planet and 
> that is why Jesus is coming back with an army to fight the last and 
> FINAL battle.
 
I didn't think the planet was unoccupied.  The only thing that blows my mind here is your vagueness.
 
 If you ever STUDY the account of Noahs Ark you will 
> understand that through Hams wife ( Serpents blood ) that Cannan was 
> cursed.

I did study the Ark and you have touched on the only logical way the serpent seed could have got through the flood.  So, I do applaud you for being a reasonable person on that account.  I mention that fact in another email on my website. Kudos to you.
 
But still.. You ought to study the doctrine of Jesus Christ and the doctrine of the Apostles (instead of wasting your time on the finer details of the flood).  They do not speak as you do. The serpent seed are those who commit sin.  "Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin, for his seed remains in him and he cannot sin."  In this are manifested the children of God and the children of the devil.  You can tell the serpent seed by their works.  "Ye shall know them by their works" By their fruit.  That is why Jesus is going to tell them "depart from me ye that work INIQUITY."  If you die in your sin, you are a child of the devil.
 
"Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin." Jesus Christ
 
There is no bloodline. It is trash. It is not in the bible. It is a satanic fiction designed to keep you destracted and in your sins and prevent you from inheriting eternal life.  The serpent seed is the serpent's lie.  You read way too much into things you plainly do not understand and have not even begun to understand the first principles of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. 

Emailer's Third Reply:

----- Original Message -----
From: "XXXX and XXXXX"
To: Paul Stringini ; memXXXX@hotmail.com ; shXX@hotmail.com ; baXX@san.rr.com ; loXX@roadrunner.com ; caXXX@hotmail.com ; pastorXXXX@gmail.com ; XXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 8:51 AM
Subject: No . Issac said " thou shalt NOT take a wife of the daughters of Canaan " ( THE SERPENTS BLOODLINE ) Genesis 28 : 6

      When Esau heard Issac orders to Jacob  "  And Esau seeing that  the daughters of Canaan pleased NOT Isaac his father  went unto  Ishmael and took unto the which he had Mahalath ( THE SERPENTS  BLOODLINE ) .  Issac also married other hybrid races " NOW THESE ARE  THE GENERATIONS OF ESAU WHO IS EDOM .... " Genesis 36.  These are  LITERAL PHYSICAL ACTS against the bloodline of Gods Creation not some  sugar coated out of context misrepresentation of the Word of God.     Just keep following the BLOODLINE TRAIL OF THE SERPENT EDOMITES   all  the way to Johns Revelation.  THERE ARE FOUR GENEALOGIES IN GENESIS  FOR A REASON .    " FOR THY VIOLENCE AGAINST THY BROTHER JACOB SHAME  SHALL COVER THEE AND THOU SHALT BE CUT OFF FOREVER "   THUS SAITH THE  LORD CONCERNING EDOM.       Obadiah

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

----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Stringini
To: memXXXX@hotmail.com ; shXX@hotmail.com ; baXX@san.rr.com ; loXX@roadrunner.com ; caXXX@hotmail.com ; pastorXXXX@gmail.com ; XXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 3:59 PM
Subject: Re: No . Issac said " thou shalt NOT take a wife of the daughters of Canaan " ( THE SERPENTS BLOODLINE ) Genesis 28 : 6

Your doctrine IS sugar-coated out of context misrepresentation of God's word.  It is a load of trash.  You say "follow the bloodline"  and I say WHERE TO?  Where does this all lead you?  What does this do for you?  It is garbage.  Trash.  I am interested in the POWER not words.  If your doctrine does not give YOU the POWER to live a sinless life, then I say it is worse than dung.  (Because at least dung has its uses)  Even if everything you say is correct in the factual arena.  When was this ever the emphasis of the Apostles of Christ? It is useless. The enemy is sin.  If you look outside yourself for enemies I can guarantee you will be destroyed.
 
And unless you want to be taught by me please stop writing me. Go Away.
 
Paul

Emailer's Fourth Reply:

----- Original Message -----
From: "XXXX and XXXXX"
To: Paul Stringini ; memXXXX@hotmail.com ; shXX@hotmail.com ; baXX@san.rr.com ; loXX@roadrunner.com ; caXXX@hotmail.com ; pastorXXXX@gmail.com ; XXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 4:21 PM
Subject: For Reborn. This will be my last email and apology to you.

      No man is my teacher on earth except Jesus who is the WORD OF  GOD ( John 1 verse 1 ). If my quoting Thus Saith The Lord is "  Garbage " to you then we certainly have nothing in common to discuss.  I will bid you farewell and good luck.

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

Return to Oraclesofgod.org