Your Synopsis of the Serpent Seed Doctrine is Lacking to Say the Least."

I'm not sure why I feel compelled to email you for one reason or another. I think the attempted character assassination and insults ("coward", etc.) should probably be enough to let me know better. Things happen for reasons, one way or another.

Any man invested in truth feels the need to defend that truth. I don't grudge you your desire to defend your truth, although I have no respect for it.

Perhaps positives come from this, or maybe I see hope with all the young ones around you on your Facebook profile.

I'm a man full of hope, you should probably listen to my bible studies instead of wasting your time debating the serpent seed with me. It is impossible to persuade me because the persuasion that has hold of me is from God not man..

Your synopsis of the study is lacking to say the least.

I'm not in the business of making the shepherd's chapel's arguments for them, that is up to the students. If the explanations of the Serpent seed are lacking then it is lacking because those who stepped forward to defend it failed in their efforts.

I'm also aware that some people have made a regular hobby of exploring the nuances and riches of the serpent seed, their fleshly minds intruding into things they have not seen, vainly puffed up. My business is to deflate such puff.

I really have no respect for the intelligence of those who have tried to defend this doctrine, maybe you will change that?

On one hand I'm disheartened by the lack of understanding on multiple levels. On the other, it does give me guidance to where I can clear things up, so I am at least grateful for that.

I look forward to seeing that. I'd be lying if I did not say I was skeptical. Bring forth your strong reasons.

I'll start where we can agree. The sin in the Garden is all about disobedience, whether apple or sex.

WRONG. Unfortunately, I totally disagree, because if the sin in the garden was about disobedience, it must be remembered that sex was not a sin. God did not forbid sex in the garden, he forbade eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (a tree which grew out of the ground and produced fruit that looked good FOR FOOD). If Adam and Eve had sex with the Serpent then they were not disobeying God because God gave no commandment regarding sex with serpents. Adam and eve didn't even know they were naked, so it is highly unlikely that they would have seen the leering double entendre that men of perverse minds see when they read Genesis 3. If the sin was about disobedience then it could not have been sex because sex was not forbidden. If you had read my writings you would know that I would make this argument.

And leave apples out of it, the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil must be assumed to be unique. Does anyone ever suggest that the tree of life's fruit was anything less than unique?

I have no respect for those who do not respect the biblical text. The problem with folks who believe this stuff is that they are always teaching the bible that it says what they believe instead of letting the bible say what it says and teach them what they ought to believe.

Just like law, sin can become hazy when humans are involved.

? I guess...

It was not my intention to suggest that sex with Christ was the potential sin after the first.

I still don't know who you are, but this really is an odd thing to say. But I seem to remember making the point somewhere that if sex with the serpent = eating fruit of Knowledge the it follows that eating the fruit of life = sex with Christ.

You may not have intended it, but it is there. I mean, the question bears answering, if the code words for "having sex with Satan" are "eat the fruit thereof" then it bears mentioning that the same meaning must be applied across the whole narrative. To deny this would be like changing the meaning of "seed" half-way through a parable.

I really am beginning to remember our conversation now, but I still don't know which email it was.

Instead, my primary intention was to keep the piece relatively G-rated. I cannot control who views the study unless I lock it down, which totally defeats the purpose. I think the term is called modesty.

Good for you.

You're focusing much too intently on the act although your initial rebuttal tries to suggest otherwise. I've seen far too many focus too intently on the apple as well.

Not really, I don't even believe in this nonsense about sex in the garden, there is no act to focus on. It is pure fabrication. The product of corrupt men whose corrupt minds corrupt the word of God.

I think if you fixed a couple errors, such as me referring to Strong's as a verse - if you would read the study in context I think it should be obvious about what I mean by verse - the Bible has verses, not strong. I'm not sure how deep your familiarity is with the English language, but I can use the term above verse and refer to the exact last verse talked about, not the Strong's definition.

If you want me to make a correction on something you wrote that is on my site I would be more than happy to oblige. Just give me the URL and a good idea of where the mistakes are and I'll fix it.

I'm not sure how deep your familiarity is with the English language,

Is that really the way you want to take this?

I'd also appreciate it if you don't try the old red herring approach by interpreting how you think I would about Balaam.

That would be a "straw-man." Still, if Balaam's ass spoke, then why is it so worthy of scorn to believe that a snake could speak on such an extraordinary occasion?

In actuality, if you spent some time on the forum, I'm fairly sure I've used/discussed the account on more than one occasion.

I can't, I work for a living, I coach wrestling, I have a family, I have a ministry, wasting time with people who see no harm in corrupting the word of God with fables is not my idea of time well spent.

But hey, if you're going to call someone a coward and not give them notice or a chance to respond...well that speaks volumes for the folks reading it. Unfortunately rude remarks - some irony there - forced me to close posting directly to the study, but I openly address any concerns in my forum and have always welcomed feedback, criticism, and even outright disagreement.

Why would I come to your forum, more people read mine. You have always had a chance to respond, you just never took it.

Anyway, I'm not here to lecture and this email is bordering on slight anger because of the shakedown I was given, but so be it.

Well, you had it coming and as far as I can tell you could use a share more.

I don't put it out there if I don't believe it and know that the character assassins and proclaimed critics will take their shots.

Quit parroting Dr. Murray when you don't even know what you are talking about "Proclaimed Critics" Dr. Murray is referring to the German school of "higher critics" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higher_criticism When you parrot Murray like that all you do is show off your ignorance and how well he has conditioned your mind to his ideas. Snap out of it.

If you would be interested in a real dialog or debate, I'm all for it.

Not interested, you are not up to it. If you would like to send a rebuttal to anything I have already posted then I will post it for you but you really have nothing to debate me with, and I'm basing that on what you wrote so far. This debate will go nowhere, you will just get angrier and angrier and I will tear you apart because God is with me.

Thanks for your time,

And man to man, I appreciate your writing again, and I appreciate your appreciation, but you need to be rescued, not debated with. I'm certain that will make you angry but please understand that I mean it only from an intense desire for what I believe to be the truth to be victorious in you and for you to be victorious in the truth, God has been giving me a lot of encouragement lately, because in spite of the loss of time, this year I have actually persuaded people, so I pray that you also will be persuaded, I encourage you to check out my bible studies, I teach the bible, not about Dr. Murray you may be surprised to hear what I think the bible is really all about.

Sincerely,

Paul Stringini