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

Cains Veiled Descendants - Down the Rabbit-hole

Question/Comment:

----- Original Message -----
From: Name Withheld
To: Paul Stringini
Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2011 8:19 AM
Subject: Cains Veiled Descendants
Searching out how Cain's descendants survived the flood, I came across your evaluation of Arnold Murray.  I listened to a fair bit of his teaching a couple of years ago, same for listening John Hagee, Joel Ostein, Garner Ted Armstrong, and on and on.  I'm somewhat Baptist, but study on my own.  And, I'm hearing a lot of different things than I hear from all or any of them!  I certainly disagree with all of them on at least something, and I personally think Murray has come up way short considering the big picture.    
 
Cain's "mark," whatever you perceive the physical construct to be, afforded Cain anonymity such that he would not be 'found out' and henceforth, slain.  God promised vengence 7 fold:  counting Satan as 'one fold', Cain as the second, Enoch third, Jared, Mahujael, Methusael, and the SEVENTH:  Lamech. 
 
Lamech, the seventh 'fold' from Satan, professed himself a murderer and proclaimed physical preservation via anonymity as Almighty afforded Cain.  However, Lameck was afforded SEVENTY and (+, plus) seven fold, seventy more 'fold' than Cain, a total of 77 generations.  Well, Cain is not listed as a descendant of Adam, and the years of life are not recorded for any of Cain's descendants, and no further mention was made of Cain's descendants until the Gospels and only via indirect reference then. 
 
Are we sure about 'fold' meaning generation?  Well, since Cain's descendants are not recorded in scripture beyond Lamech's sons, we cannot count 70 generations further to find out what was going on at that time in the future.  So, the only way we can check on what was going on 70 generations after Lamech is to consider the lineage of Christ.
 
Go to Luke 3:23 which begins the generations of Jesus counting Jesus' stepfather Joseph as a generation.  In fact, go to the end of the chapter and count from God with God as one generation, Adam as the second generation, Seth as the third... and count the names to number 77.  What was going on 77 generations from God?
 
Now, if Noah's flood was inspired by Almighty God, God could not kill the offspring of Cain/Lamech with HIS flood.  Cain's descendants might die of natural causes or accidents.  Otherwise, God would be a liar!  The Egyptians just mysteriously appeared in Genesis... hmmmmm real suspicious with their anonymous ancestry???  Who begat the Egyptians? 
 
What was it that happened in Noah's tent that night?  Canaan was cursed for something his father did:  looked upon the nakedness of Noah???  Was that some homosexual incest thing?  Consider Leviticus 18:8 and 20:11 that say something along the lines that one should not uncover thy mother, she is thy father's nakedness.  Also in Deutoronomy in a couple places.   Paul reports in 1Cor 5:1 that it is reported commonly among you that such fornication which has not so much been mentioned among the Gentiles (two older sons of Noah) that one should have his father's wife! 
Bingo!  Incest between Ham and Noah's wife!!!  She was Ham's mother.  Canaan was cursed being the progeny of incest, sort of like Kin Tutt was cursed being the progeny of brother-sister incest with incest in their ancestry .  Of course, the Bible would never have made it to print in 1611 to contain such incestuous pornography when the earth was flat, you know? 
 
Ham, the youngest of Noah was born closest to the wicked going's on before the flood when the Son's of God found favor with the daughters of man (likely Adam), all of whom THEY chose, and they bore children... Well, what do you think Noah's wife was up to having two sons (wanting a daughter) while Noah was busy building the Ark and coming home late smelling like camel dung?  Do you think Noah had a vineyard before the flood?  Sure! 
 
My theory, from this point on, is that Ham was not Noah's biological son!  Almighty God promised Cain physical preservation via anonymity, and Lamech took up the axe!  Ham was the progeny of Cain, and Canaan was the incestuous progeny of Ham and Noah's wife.  In fact, all of Ham's sons were "Canaanites."  None of Ham's sons were gentiles because Ham was not Noah's biological son.
 
In fact, in the second half of John 8, Jesus had an open air discussion with the "Pharisees" who I propose are a specific sect of Pharisees and not "Jewish" at all!  Those liar Pharisees who had taken over the Jewish Synagogue were the descendants of Ishmael, and this was outlined in the second half of John 8:   1) descendants of Abraham, 2) never in bondage (Ishmael), and 3) not born of fornication = Egyptian Hagar, Ishmael's surrogate mother not even qualifying as much as a concubine.  The descendants of Abraham via Ishmael were NOT Jews, but they WERE descendants of the FIRST BORN of Abraham.  Hence, Jesus couldn't be the Messiah being a descendant of Isaac!!! 
 
Jesus, not able to speak a name in condemnation.  Jesus could not say those Pharisee liars were descendants of Cain... but Jesus did say their father was a murderer from the beginning (bingo!), and liar (Satan) and the father of it.  All you need is a little Comforter, a little Holy Spirit, a little Holy Ghost... THE SPIRIT OF TRUTH for this dynamic sermon to grab hold of you!
 
I realize Murray believes Cain was a descendant of Satan.  Murray wasn't first to propose such.  And, I really don't understand how Murray comes to his conclusion, I haven't pursued his position to that detail.  But, Jesus sure does seem to link the Ishmaelite sect of Pharisees with their father Cain... even Satan!  Jesus' own words! 
 
Go now and read Revelation 2:9 and 3:9 and think about the "Jews" who say they are Jews, and are not, and are liars and the synagogue of Satan...  descendants of Ishmael, descendant of Egyptian Hagar, descendant of Cain, descendant of Satan.
 
Thanks for lending an ear to hear something I've never heard anywhere except in His Holy Word!
 
Name Withheld
Original Message - 1st Response - 1st Reply - 2nd Response - 2nd Reply - 3rd Response - 3rd Reply
4th Response - 4th Reply - 5th Response - 5th Reply - 6th Response - 6th Reply - 7th Response
7th Reply - 8th Response - 8th Reply - 9th Response

My Response

For some reason, I could not find my initial reply to this person, and if they want to forward that back to me, I would be happy to replace this text.  My guess is that this would be one of those messages that I initially rejected because this person does not even claim to be a student of the Chapel and is making up their own theories about Kenites and the "serpent seed" doctrine rather than following the doctrine of the Shepherd's Chapel and Arnold Murray, the ostentatious subjects of these pages.   I am not here to talk about the pet theories of every random "lone-ranger" heretic that decides they want me to debate them over their pets ideas.

I probably told him I was not interested in talking about his particular brand of heresy.  I get quite a bit of this sort of mail.  People who claim not to totally agree with Arnold Murray and then expect me to give my attention to their personal take on doctrines similar to Arnold Murray's doctrine.  It can be frustrating because I never know what twist or turn their conversation is going to take next so I generally avoid going down the rabbit hole chasing these folks.

After I told him I was not interested he sent the following message to me a few months later.  I did not remember his first message when I was replying to this second message.  Notice his total willingness to tell lies.  I see way too much of that these days.  People who call themselves Christian, but feel no shame in telling lies, or in foolish jesting, if that was all it was.  After realizing I was not going to pay him any attention, because he was admittedly not a student of the Chapel, they guy proceeds to reverse himself and declare his undiluted support for the chapel. I did not realize he was a repeat-offender, so the following conversation occurred.  I post it here so that perhaps it may not have been a complete waste of my time.

Emailer's First Reply:

----- Original Message -----
From: Name Withheld
To: Paul Stringini
Sent: Monday, October 03, 2011 8:08 PM
Subject: Cain's descendants
Greetings,
Thought I'd try again.  Rest assured, I hold Dr. Murray in very high esteem!  I think Dr. Murray's got more of the picture together than anyone else out there.  I was a devout listener for several years, and still connect with him on the tube from time to time.  I was referred to Dr. Murray several years ago by a cousin who was married at Shepherd's Chapel.  My cousin, my brother-in-law and I have actually ordered probably 100 VCR's and CD's of Dr. Murray and quite a number of books from the bookstore.  And, I have sent multiple small donations to this ministery, exclusively.
 
Do realize I have had significant conversations with probably 20 Master's in Divinity working on their Phd's, and four Phd's are on my email list.  I admire that Dr. Murray has the spiritual fortitude to express quite non-traditional understandings.  Consequently, thought I'd pass along this attached original writing, probably spent a thousand hours on this writing alone!  I appreciate Dr. Murray reminding folk to read for themselves... I took him up on the task, its the only way!
Regards
Name Withheld

With this message came an extensive document attached titled "Cain's Veiled Descendants" which I did not respond to and will not post here.  The substance of  that document was not dissimilar to the first email from this person and was infected with the same sort of rhetorical self-affirmation that all his writings seem to rely on.

My Second Response:

----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Stringini
To: Name Withheld
Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2011 6:36 PM
Subject: Re: Cain's descendants
Hi, lest you should fail to read all of this, I'll start you with this little gem:

Who begat the Egyptians who mysteriously appeared in GEN 12:10?

Genesis 9:6 And the sons of Ham; Cush, and Mizraim, and Phut, and Canaan.
Mizraim is the Hebrew word usually translated "Egypt" but here it is transliterated.  Look it up. Ham was the father of Egypt,  Mizraim. 
And there are more... so keep reading if you would "hone your metal."
 
"Do realize I have had significant conversations with probably 20 Master's in Divinity working on their Phd's, and four Phd's are on my email list. "
 
The fact that you have to resort to this sort of appeal to the authority of people you have had "significant conversations with" and who are "on your email list" is revealing when contrasted with the actual scholarship presented in your paper. 
 
In the second paragraph of your paper you make mention of John 8:43-45 and Matthew 23:29-36 and you say that these passages refer to some of the Pharisees as being descendants of Cain.  This is typical of the kind of scholarship and fact bending practiced by Arnold Murray and similar minded "scholars".  These passages refer to these individuals as being "serpents" and "offspring of vipers" and "of your father the devil" who "was a murderer from the beginning."  It does not say "Who was the first man to do murder."  It says positively that their father was THE DEVIL, and HE was a murderer.   The fact that Cain was also a murderer does not really have any bearing here since the their father is specifically named in the passage being "your father the Devil,"  and to insert Cain into this equation is begging the question.  Cain is not mentioned.  In the new testament there is a simple scripture which identifies the children of the devil.

1 John 3:10 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. (and) 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.

This is consistent with what Jesus taught in John 8, and John wrote both passages so he ought to know what he meant. I will take the word of an  Apostle of Jesus Christ over misleading and poorly constructed scholarship every time.
 
Now on to your numbered points:

1. There are two components to Cain’s plea: if he is ‘found out,’ then he will be ‘slain.’ It stands to reason then if Cain is not found out, then he won’t be slain. Consequently, the ‘mark’ of Cain, whatever it is perceived to be, afforded a ‘veiled’ flesh existence. The mark afforded certain anonymity so that Cain wouldn’t be found out.
 
This based on unsound assumptions and suppositions.  Cain's fears may have been real or imagined, and the world has suffered many murderers to live.  Also there is no reason to suppose that Cain's "mark"  would have been passed on to his descendants.  Also since you claim that the mark is a "veiled existence" it begs the question, "Then how do you know about it?" If a novice like me can see this much is wrong with this point, then what does that say about so-called "scholars" who fail to see what colossal errors are inherent in this line of thinking?

While the physical construct of the mark inspires curiosity and is even heatedly debated within the religious community,

You are basically trying to create "proof by verbosity" (look that up)  This sentence is basically nonsense.  I have never seen a heated debate over the form that Cain's mark would have taken.  If you have seen such a heated debate, it must have been between two of the biggest fools the world has ever seen.  The bible is silent about the physical form of the Mark, there is nothing to debate over.

the purpose of anonymity and the end result of physical preservation remain surprisingly elusive.

 
This is wrong, there is no anonymity promised nor a promise of physical preservation, only of vengeance.  Cain was marked so that no one would kill him.  But the only thing Cain was promised was that his death would be avenged.
 
2.God’s promised mark upon Cain affording a ‘veiled’ identity was an act of His mercy sponsoring physical preservation ‘sevenfold’ (GEN 4:15). According to Hebrew translation, ‘sevenfold’ means:  seven times.  This translation of the word, ‘sevenfold’ is abstract not indicating the ‘thing’ being accumulated or multiplied seven times.  Historically, ‘sevenfold’ has respectfully been accepted as a number possessing ‘divine wholeness.’  Utilizing a more analogous and literal perspective:  a horse which birthed seven consecutive offspring, the last offspring would be the ‘seventh fold.’ 
 
 This second point is not really a second point, but a second step building on the presumption that the ‘veiled’ identity hypothesis of point #1 was correct and sound.  The ‘thing’ being accumulated or multiplied was the vengeance which would be taken on whoever slew Cain.  You have this all wrong.  It is elementary and you fail to grasp the simple communication which the word of God is making by paying attention to the actual words of the scriptures, in context. 
 
Could ‘sevenfold’ mean seven generations? 
This point ends with a rhetorical question.  Rhetorical questions are fine for adding drama and for sensationalizing one's ideas for a popular audience but they amount to a form of rhetorical black magic. "Could ‘sevenfold’ mean seven generations? " Well you just spent half your paragraph telling me that it meant "seven siblings," ("fold" is a multiplier it means "seven times" whatever the subject is, "manifold wisdom") But one need only consult the biblical text to discover how faulty your reading of Genesis 4:15 is.  "Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold." Sevenfold VENGEANCE. Seriously, how can one get from the words of the Lord to "seven generations of veiled existence?" I'll tell you, it is based on the fact that Arnold Murray and those who adopt his methods treat the bible like it is molding clay.  The form it into whatever they want it to mean.  They are the ones who teach the bible what it is supposed to mean rather than letting the bible be their teacher.  They are the enemies of God and the enemies of those that hear them.  "Sevenfold" vengeance would have to refer to the person who slew Cain, not to Cain or his descendants, it might mean seven generations of vengeance but it would still apply to the one who became the object of the VENGEANCE.  The bible is easy to read unless you do not wish to hear what it says.
 
3.  Exploring 'sevenfold' as seven 'generations' and counting from Satan:  (1) Satan (2) Cain (3) Enoch (4) Irad (5) Mehujael (6) Methusael, to (7) Lamech, a professed murderer proclaiming the mark of Cain. (GEN 4:17-24)  
 
Surprise, Surprise, the answer to the rhetorical question was, "yes." Again, this is another "step" another conclusion drawn from the earlier assumptions.  If points one and two are not sound foundations, then what should we expect from point 3?  More of the same no doubt.  Here is another gem of bad scholarship,
 
The promise of "seven fold vengeance" was given to CAIN, not Satan, so it is not right to count from Satan (nor yet from Adam, Cain's  father), Lamech was the sixth from Cain who was the one who received the promise of vengeance. 
 
"Lamech, a professed murderer proclaiming the mark of Cain."  This is based on the assumption that Cain's mark is "a veiled existence"  even though the story of Lamech is written in the bible and his descent is clearly visible and has never been veiled.  It basically comes down to an unwillingness to accept the bible. 
 
These people basically are not satisfied with the word which God has given us so they have taught themselves and others that the best way to read the bible is to look "between the lines"  This is basically a form of divination.  Lamech did not "claim Cain's mark"  Lamech said "If Cain shall be avenged sevenfold, truly Lamech seventy and sevenfold."  He is claiming the vengeance promised Cain, and there is nothing to indicate he had a right to it,  there is nothing to indicate that he had a mark or a "veiled existence." And he was the sixth from Cain the seventh from Adam, but not the seventh from the promised vengeance.  The whole idea on which your writing is based is faulty.

"Lamech was proclaiming Divine and equal justice: if mercy was granted Cain, then mercy should be granted Lamech and his descendants (GEN 4:24)."　

Cain was not granted Mercy so much as given the promise of vengeance.  Lamech makes no reference to descendants.  Why do you insert the idea that Lamech claimed it for his descendants?  Because if fits your story, this is very typical of the careless way in which Arnold Murray and other people who have no respect for the scriptures other than LIP SERVICE treat the bible.  You treat the bible like it is your servant, your pupil.  "Seven times" and "seventy times seven" ARE NOT EQUAL.  My Third grader could have told you that.  I can't help but think that if you placed the scriptures side by side with your assertions about what they indicate that children could instantly pick out where you were misreading that which is written.
 
"Is this a random association between sevenfold and seven generations?"
 
Another lovely Rhetorical question.   But there is no association and you listed Cain's father as being Satan when the bible clearly said it was Adam:
 
Gen 4:1   And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain,
Gen 4:25 And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth:
Gen 4:17 And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch:
 
That is the formula, that is the simple truth.  Adam knew his wife and she conceived.  Is that too  hard for you to accept?   I am weary with you  and your kind, you never improve, you all only seem to get worse and worse.
4. "However, Cain is mysteriously not listed as a son of Adam (GEN 5). "
 
Actually Cain is listed as a son of Adam, but this reference to Genesis 5 is a "red herring" because Genesis 5 is NOT a list of the sons of Adam. Genesis 5:4 And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters:
Adam begat many sons and daughters which were not listed in Genesis 5.  Genesis 5 is the genealogy of NOAH  Cain is not listed in NOAH's genealogy because Noah was not a descendant of Cain.  Genesis 5 only lists the names of the sons of Adam which led to Noah, SIMPLE!  Adam is listed as Cain's father in CAIN's Genealogy in Genesis chapter 4
 
Genesis 4:1 And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD.
17 And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch. 18 And unto Enoch was born Irad: and Irad begat Mehujael: and Mehujael begat Methusael: and Methusael begat Lamech.
 
Verses 2-16 are parenthetical, chapter 4 is the genealogy and story of the firstborn son of man, the murderer.  And he was of the devil.  But as the Apostle John described in 1 John 3.  Satan was Cain's spiritual father, but Adam was clearly Cain's natural father, THE BIBLE TELLS ME SO.
 
Lamech’s declaration before his family almost implies an inherited component to God’s promised veil preserving flesh life for Cain’s descendants beyond Lamech… beyond sevenfold.
 
You say it "almost" implies, yet you go on in your surmising as if it had definitively declared it.   None of this has been established and is based on a faulty foundation.  I really don't even need to go on, if the foundation is unsound, the whole structure is ready to fall.
 
5.  Consequent to Cain’s act of murder, there appears to be seven ‘generations’ of preservation through anonymity.
 
Lord, help me, how can I abide such as this?  They were not anonymous, we have their names.  And "consequent" to Cain would be SIX generations.  Not only that, I repeat myself, but, the sevenfold was sevenfold VENGEANCE.  If it is as you say and the promise was for seven generations of veiled anonymity then where did they go?  Because I know Arnold Murray's doctrine and the descendants of Cain are supposed to have been on the Ark, that would be the point at which they would have become anonymous.  But then what are all these references in the Old Testament to KENITES, that Arnold prattles about? If they are ANONYMOUS then why do they go around calling themselves KENTIES? Not to say they even were the true descendants of the original Cain.

Lamech’s act of murder suggests we investigate ‘seventy and sevenfold’ generations to affirm or refute the possible generational meaning of ‘sevenfold,’

Ok I see where you are going, but it still remains that the people you say have a protection of "anonymity are calling themselves "Kenites" openly and have many of their names listed in the bible.  That is not very anonymous (Don't worry, I get to Hagar later).  And you don't prove the meaning of "sevenfold" by going looking for hidden meanings and secret texts.  All one has to do is read Genesis and see that "Sevenfold" refers specifically to a promise of vengeance on those that harm Cain.  In other words, if I harmed Cain, one might argue that seven generations of my descendants would suffer but it would not have anything to do with Cain, because he would be dead.  You forget that " Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain"  is a condition that needs to be fulfilled for the sevenfold vengeance to kick in.
 
Is God’s promised veiling generational being ancestral and inherited? 
 
It is funny that you take these "Kenites" to be the enemies of God yet you would take the words of Lamech as the basis for your doctrine.  That is sort of like taking the words of Rabshekah as doctrine.
 
Isa 36:12 But Rabshakeh said, Hath my master sent me to thy master and to thee to speak these words? hath he not sent me to the men that sit upon the wall, that they may eat their own dung, and drink their own piss with you?
 
Shall we go and do likewise?  Well that is little different than the way you use Lamech's words.  What Lamech said was not just and there is no indication that God promised him anything.  Only that Lamech coveted the promise of vengeance on anyone who harmed him.
 
6.  Consider God’s Word reveals in GEN 4:24 that this veiled protection might even extend 'seventy and sevenfold'  
 
You mean Lamech's word.  yes, written in the bible, but you have to take it in context, you can't just rip things our of context and say,
 
God's word says, 
"they may eat their own dung, and drink their own piss with you"
 
That is the sort of scholar you are.  You are no disciple, you lack discipline. 
 
further Scriptural exploration is merited
 
You don't merit anything from me, but I will give you further counsel regardless of the merits of your doctrine.
 
7. Since there is ‘mysteriously’ no Biblical　record of Cain's descendants beyond Lamech (and his sons)
 
After the flood there are no records of anyone except Noah and his sons, this is not "Mysterious."

then we might consider the Hebrew record of Jesus’ generations seeking some relevance to 77 generations later and investigate the goings on at that time in the future from Genesis. Read in Luke 3:38, and begin counting backward (into the future) the ‘…who was the son of…’ names with Almighty God as #1 generation, Adam as #2 generation… and count to 77 names. What was going on 77 generations from God at that time in the future?

Seventy times seven vengeance.  Anyway, what real bearing does thins have on how we might become the sons of God, because if we continue in our sins then we will die in our sins and we will not inherit the kingdom of God and we will remain the children of the devil.
 
It is amazing all the trouble you go through to identify the children of the devil when you ignore the child of the devil within YOU.  That is the one we have to look out for!   In this the children of the devil  are manifest, I can manifest a child of the devil, whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, but of the devil.  If you do not do righteousness you are a child of the devil, that is what the Apostle John said in 1 John 3.  Now that is a clear scripture identifying who the sons of Satan are.  "Ye do the deeds of your father." 
 
8. This concurrence with seven fold and seventy and seven fold is entirely too powerful to be discounted as mere random association.
 
Well the number seventy comes up a lot in the bible it is not random, it has its own signification.  But the mark is placed on Cain not on his father  so you are missing a generation, Lamech was the SIXTH from CAIN, the SIXTH from the promise of sevenfold vengeance, so your whole apparatus falls apart, you can't count Cain's father because the promise of vengeance is given to CAIN, not Adam (nor yet Satan)  Lamech is the sixth from Cain, not seventh and there is no evidence he carried any mark.
 
9.Recall, the recorded descendants of Adam provided in GEN 5 mysteriously excludes Cain. 
 
Recall, that this is not mysterious because Genesis 5 only traces the sons of Adam in Noah's genealogy
 
Cain is listed as a son of Adam but Genesis 5 is NOT a list of the sons of Adam. Adam begat many sons and daughters which were not listed in Genesis 5.  Cain is not listed in NOAH's genealogy because Noah was not a descendant of Cain.  Adam is listed as Cain's father in CAIN's Genealogy in Genesis chapter 4
 
Genesis 4:1 And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD.
17 And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch. 18 And unto Enoch was born Irad: and Irad begat Mehujael: and Mehujael begat Methusael: and Methusael begat Lamech.
 
As stated before Verses 2-16 are parenthetical, chapter 4 is the genealogy and story of Cain.  Adam was clearly Cain's natural father,
 
Almighty God’s promise of ancestral anonymity to Cain and his descendants remained in full force and effect throughout the ENTIRE Word of God until His Son (who else?) indirectly unveiled Cain's descendants in MATT 23:29-32, and JOHN 8:43-5 discussed later. 
 
Not really, because Jesus only calls them the Devil's children, not Cain's children, he also affirms that they were the flesh and blood descendants of Abraham.  And the children of the Promise are counted for the seed.  These were no Ishmaelites.
 
John 8:37 I know that ye are Abraham's seed; but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you.
...39 ....Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham.
 
They were the flesh and blood seed of Abraham and the spiritual children of the Devil based on their works (1 John 3).  It has to be that way, because Jesus said they were "Abraham's seed" but not "his children"  the only other interpretation is to say they were flesh and blood of the devil ans spiritually of Abraham, but that would not make sense. 

They accurately declared themselves descendants of Abraham which Jesus agreed, although not 'children' of Abraham (JOHN 8:39).

Again, Jesus declares why he does not count them as Abraham's children, and it has nothing to do with Hagar.  "If Abraham were your father you would love me."  Would it be because they had Abraham's GENES?  Would that make them love Christ?  Was it all Genetic?  That is such a bunch of nonsense.  They were not the children of Abraham because of their DEEDS.  That is the consistent message of the new testament. By their fruits you shall know them.  You are basically trying to establish the concept of a single cursed race of men, as if the wickedness of man could be boiled down to who his flesh and blood ancestor was.  Really, what does this doctrine teach you?  All it does is puff you up.  And make you a fool.

Jesus told those specific　‘Pharisees’ something about themselves that　even Abraham did not know (JOHN 8:40). What was Jesus saying that Abraham did not know?

Now I begin to feel sorry for you. You lack the ability to read.  You have no business trying to teach the word, you are a danger to yourself and to those that hear you.
 
John 8:40 But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham.
 
"This did not Abraham"  Abraham did not seek to kill people that told him the truth.  You have misread this passage to mean "Abraham did not hear the truth which Jesus heard."  But that is not what it says,  THIS did not Abraham. Refers to the deeds of the Jews, that was the comparison Jesus was making, they did not do the works of Abraham, they did the works of their fathers.  Your misreading is actually startling,  but I suppose I should not really be shocked but I can't help but marvel at you.  This is the fruit of Arnold Murray's instruction, you think you do well as you alter the plain meaning of bible verses. 
 
Almighty God's promised veiling even prevented Abraham from knowing the mysterious ancient ancestry of the Egyptian Hagar, or Abraham would never have sired Ishmael.
 
But to YOU  Disciple Name Withheld it has been revealed that Hagar was a Kenite.  What can I say to that?  if you want to make things up, I really have nothing more to say about it except that there is nothing Mysterious about the history of Egypt the son of HAM.
 
And really this whole load of horse doo-doo  you call doctrine boils down to the old lie that "the fathers have eaten the sour grapes and the children's teeth are set on edge."  Your doctrine is basically a racist's take on the bible and on "breeding."  Racism is basically contrary to Christianity which teaches us not to call any man unclean or polluted because of his ancestry.  To return to these weak and beggarly elements is folly.
 
Acts 10:28 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.

Our Almighty Heavenly Father kept His promise to Cain seven fold,

No he did not, he did not have to because Cain was never slain, so God did not have to take vengeance sevenfold on Cain's behalf.
 
and Almighty God justly afforded the same anonymity to Lamech’s descendants seventy more fold until His Son arrived to rent the veil.
 
It is surprising then that the new Testament went in the entirely opposite direction from you doctrine.

Who begat the Egyptians who mysteriously appeared in GEN 12:10?

Genesis 9:6 And the sons of Ham; Cush, and Mizraim, and Phut, and Canaan.
 
Mizraim is the Hebrew word for Egypt.  Look it up.  You have failed again to be DILIGENT in your study and have once again shown the world the sloppy sort of "scholars" that follow Arnold Murray.  Plus Arnold would not even agree with you.  The Kenites are the Kenites according to him, at least he knows who the Egyptians are, he is a poor scholar, but he is better than you by far.
 
The rest of your points are built on the same shoddy assumptions which I have pulled to pieces here and are not really worthy of further comment.  If the foundation is broken the tower cannot stand.
 
I will end by remarking on you "crumbs."
 
Disclaimer

‘Crumbs’ from the Master’s table: food for thought.　

This is so condescending. 

The above analysis is only extremely remotely perceived, yet self-evident when explored without preconceived notions, through our own childish curiosity, with help from the Spirit of truth.　

This is ridiculous.  No one ever picked up the bible and read it simply, as a child and came up with this kind of convoluted crap.  When most people pick up the bible and read it the self-evident facts are seen that Cain is Adam's son and the children of the devil are those that do not righteousness.  As plainly stated in the word.  You have to be taught this doctrine by men, men made it and men spread it.

The theory that Cain’s descendants survived the flood is not uncommon.

Yes it is.  Though that is no proof of its veracity one way or the other, but they certainly did not found Egypt.  You have fallen into a trap because you don't know what you are doing.

However, this theory about how Cain’s descendants survived the flood is new, unique and exclusive, and is not directly influenced by consideration of these Scriptures　through outside sources or established religious organizations.　

Oh I see, Thou wouldest make a name for thyself, dear, humble, Name withheld You can have your new theory, it is just a new error.  It is pointless and takes us nowhere.  You are wasting time intruding into things your eyes have not seen.  Vainly puffed up.

With all due respect, this theory has been honed through candid criticism from independent and sincere 'truth seekers' in Christian spirit.

I have no respect for you.  This doctrine has not been honed, that is laughable, what have you honed it with, a feather? You overlooked the descent of Egypt via Ham and so did all your "honers."  Did you think you found something?  Did you think you uncovered some hidden secret?  That sort of knowledge does not commend us to God.  Any decent scholar could have pointed out to you where Mizraim (Egypt) came from.  So your independent seekers get no respect either.   They are not worth spit either.  None of you get respect, you are unworthy of respect.  You have to be competent to be respected, and you, sir, are incompetent.

You would get a little respect from me if you publicly retracted this idea of yours. 

Criticism includes that some theories about how Cain’s descendants survived the flood embraces a literal　'serpent seed line' who survived the flood being some reptilian-human hybrid.　 Such notion is strictly great science fiction, yet beyond the bounds of science. Such notion exceeds God's laws for creation by any stretch of imagination.　

Interesting, but there, you have my two cents.
 
Sincerely,
Paul Stringini
 
Ps. My counsel to you is: stop teaching and start over, become my disciple, I'll make a real scholar out of you.  Begin by listening to all my bible studies: http://oraclesofgod.org/studies/studies.html they are free.

Original Message - 1st Response - 1st Reply - 2nd Response - 2nd Reply - 3rd Response - 3rd Reply
4th Response - 4th Reply - 5th Response - 5th Reply - 6th Response - 6th Reply - 7th Response
7th Reply - 8th Response - 8th Reply - 9th Response

Emailer's Second Reply:

----- Original Message -----
From: Name Withheld
To: Paul Stringini
Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2011 10:51 PM
Subject: RE: Cain's descendants

Gee whiz Paul!
I am certainly honored with your indepth consult, quite impressed with your knowledge.  Thank you so much for connecting the dots with the Egyptians as descendants of Ham.  Rather interesting that ALL of Ham's offspring were Canaanites.  Canaan was cursed, is it reasonable to presume all of Ham's sons were 'cursed' living in the land of Canaan?  I've read every word you presented, and connecting Ham with the Egyptians is a true "little gem" as you've spoken, and I thank you for this.  Makes much more sense. 
 
Although, I beg your comment as to the nature of the curse of Canaan.  What exactly was this curse?  How could Canaan be cursed for something his father Ham did?  What exactly did Ham do?  Was Ham a homosexual?  Did Ham have an incestuous homosexual experience with his passed out father?  How do you explain LEV 18:8, 20:11, couple verses in DEU, 1COR5:1?  Do you see any association with these later scriptures and Ham's deed?  I certainly appreciate Ham being the father of Egypt... they were quite well known in secular history... King Tut was cursed (so was Canaan), he was cursed being the irrefutable, genetically affirmed, offspring of brother-sister incest and even they were progeny of incest.  So... What did Ham do?  If all you can say, Paul, is that "Ham looked upon the nakednes of Noahhhh,"  Sir, I've hear this rehearsal all too often, and I think you are too bright to just write that tidbit off.  There's a "little gem" there, Paul.   
 
Appeal to those studied in theology?  It's at least an honorable attempt exploring and discussing Scripture.  I'm sure these folk would enjoy conversing with you as well!  What an entire honor!  I didn't at all mean to suggest they agree with me, please forgive me.  I just enjoy engaging those more well read, those like yourself, Paul.
 
Paul, I'll comment further in blue if this is cool:   
 
From this point on My text (Paul Stringini) is in black and this writer (disciple "A") is in blue
 
In the second paragraph of your paper you make mention of John 8:43-45 and Matthew 23:29-36 and you say that these passages refer to some of the Pharisees as being descendants of Cain.  This is typical of the kind of scholarship and fact bending practiced by Arnold Murray and similar minded "scholars".  I'm not aware that Murray has directly proposed that this SECT of Pharisees were descendants of Cain.  That's just what I read, never heard this from Murray or anyone else for that matter. These passages refer to these individuals as being "serpents" and "offspring of vipers" and "of your father the devil" who "was a murderer from the beginning."  I have heard Murray say "murderer from the beginning" being Cain.  Please trust that I held this opinion before hearing this from Murray.  A devout follower of Murray who I know didn't recognize this as Murray's teaching, and I assured him this is what Murray teaches.  It does not say "Who was the first man to do murder."  It says positively that their father was THE DEVIL, and HE was a murderer. Right Paul!  Their FATHER... the second half of John 8 is all about literal "seed."  I refer to this as the debate on "Who's ya daddy!"  Try and grasp the literal discussion on paternity.  I can appreciate the figurative aspect... but that's only half the story!   The fact that Cain was also a murderer does not really have any bearing here since the their father is specifically named in the passage being "your father the Devil,"  and to insert Cain into this equation is begging the question.  Cain is not mentioned.  Sure Paul... Cain is not mentioned.  Jesus could not speak a single name in condemnation other than the devil who is already judged.  Reading the first verses in John 8 with Jesus doodling in the dirt affirms this point BEFORE the debate on "who's ya daddy!"  Jesus preempted the argument that neither Cain's name, nor Ishmael's for that matter, was not be spoken by Jesus.  Neither did Jesus condemn the adulteress, nor could He condem anyone else!   Although, I'll have to give you some credit that Jesus may have been referring to the Devil, exclusively.  Nonetheless, I'm not aware of Satan directly murdering anyone!   In the new testament there is a simple scripture which identifies the children of the devil.
 
1 John 3:10 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. (and) 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.
 
This is consistent with what Jesus taught in John 8, and John wrote both passages so he ought to know what he meant. I will take the word of an  Apostle of Jesus Christ over misleading and poorly constructed scholarship every time.  Fascinating that you reference this scripture, Paul.  Are you taking the work of an Apostle of Jesus Christ accurately?  John was referring to Jesus, Himself.  Jesus did not sire a child (despite the movie), and therefore He was righteous among other reasons.  Might one consider a spiritual being embodied in flesh and procreating with the daughters of men as unrighteousness?  Kinda like what was happening before the flood?  Is that the unrighteousness being referenced here?  I think so! 
 
Now on to your numbered points:

1. There are two components to Cain’s plea: if he is ‘found out,’ then he will be ‘slain.’ It stands to reason then if Cain is not found out, then he won’t be slain. Consequently, the ‘mark’ of Cain, whatever it is perceived to be, afforded a ‘veiled’ flesh existence. The mark afforded certain anonymity so that Cain wouldn’t be found out.
 
This based on unsound assumptions and suppositions.  Cain's fears may have been real or imagined, and the world (Almighty God) has suffered many murderers to live (Cain and Lamech, included... hmmmmmm????).  Also there is no reason to suppose that Cain's "mark"  would have been passed on to his descendants.  Also since you claim that the mark is a "veiled existence" it begs the question, "Then how do you know about it?"  Paul, your name's sake was spiritually blinded (misled by that 'sect' of Pharisees), and then physically blinded on the road to Damascus.  It was not until Apostle Paul met Disciple Ananias did Paul receive his "sight"... and I propose Paul received Spiritual and physical sight via Jesus' voice and via his encounter with Disciple Ananias.  In fact, I propose Jesus prophesied this very event when Jesus double healed the blind man who first saw men as trees (check out EZE 31), and then saw men as they are.  Granted, if you cannot capture the insights into Genesis from EZE 31, then this reference will have no meaning either.  Do you think Jesus misdiagnosed when the blind man saw men as trees?  If a novice like me can see this much is wrong with this point, then what does that say about so-called "scholars" who fail to see what colossal errors are inherent in this line of thinking?
 
While the physical construct of the mark inspires curiosity and is even heatedly debated within the religious community,
 
You are basically trying to create "proof by verbosity" (look that up)  This sentence is basically nonsense.  I have never seen a heated debate over the form that Cain's mark would have taken.  If you have seen such a heated debate, it must have been between two of the biggest fools the world has ever seen.  Gosh, Paul... might be careful here!  The bible is silent about the physical form of the Mark, there is nothing to debate over.  Well, then what was the physical form of the mark?  Silent?  Too many racists (real racists, Paul) suggest the mark was dark skin... you've heard of the KKK... I'd suggest that's heated!  I suspect you've heard this argument in your walk... and I don't believe this either in the least.  Stephen Segal was even "Marked for Death!"  Silent?  There was no physical mark in the first place!  But, Are you into tatts?
 
the purpose of anonymity and the end result of physical preservation remain surprisingly elusive.
 
This is wrong, there is no anonymity promised nor a promise of physical preservation, only of vengeance.  Maybe you're a little more abstract... but, I could just never understand how one could gain vengence seven times?  God said seven times, Paul.  Have you got the seven figured out, or are you making suppositions and discounting God?  Cain was marked so that no one would kill him.  But the only thing Cain was promised was that his death would be avenged.  Right, Paul! Cain's death would be avenged!  Cain was afraid those who find him would slay him, God afforded Cain life by assuring Cain would not be killed... The Almighty Himself so stated.  And, that sounds more like an argument for your position as you ponder the word, "sevenfold." 
 
2.God’s promised mark upon Cain affording a ‘veiled’ identity was an act of His mercy sponsoring physical preservation ‘sevenfold’ (GEN 4:15). According to Hebrew translation, ‘sevenfold’ means:  seven times.  This translation of the word, ‘sevenfold’ is abstract not indicating the ‘thing’ being accumulated or multiplied seven times.  Historically, ‘sevenfold’ has respectfully been accepted as a number possessing ‘divine wholeness.’  Utilizing a more analogous and literal perspective:  a horse which birthed seven consecutive offspring, the last offspring would be the ‘seventh fold.’ 
 
 This second point is not really a second point, but a second step building on the presumption that the ‘veiled’ identity hypothesis of point #1 was correct and sound.  The ‘thing’ being accumulated or multiplied was the vengeance which would be taken on whoever slew Cain.  You have this all wrong.  It is elementary and you fail to grasp the simple communication which the word of God is making by paying attention to the actual words of the scriptures, in context.  "Context" Paul?  Have you considered that your definition of 'sevenfold' may be out of context?  I would think we both could give God full credit that 'one' of His 'vengences' would be sufficient, don't you think?  Seven vengences... think that might be a bit of an overkill for God?  Might give me some pointers on 'sevenfold' from your perspective... you've certainly gotten my attention.  Now, I really don't think you're implying that one of God's vengences is insufficient, but that's how it tends to sound?   
 
Could ‘sevenfold’ mean seven generations? 
This point ends with a rhetorical question.  Rhetorical questions are fine for adding drama and for sensationalizing one's ideas for a popular audience but they amount to a form of rhetorical black magic. "Could ‘sevenfold’ mean seven generations? " Well you just spent half your paragraph telling me that it meant "seven siblings," ("fold" is a multiplier it means "seven times" whatever the subject is, "manifold wisdom") But one need only consult the biblical text to discover how faulty your reading of Genesis 4:15 is.  "Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold." Sevenfold VENGEANCE. Seriously, how can one get from the words of the Lord to "seven generations of veiled existence?" I'll tell you, it is based on the fact that Arnold Murray and those who adopt his methods treat the bible like it is molding clay.  Paul, I'm certainly not defending Murray... and I disagree a lot with all of them!  Not molding clay, Paul... more like a mustard seed in the garden that blooms.  The form it into whatever they want it to mean.  They are the ones who teach the bible what it is supposed to mean rather than letting the bible be their teacher.  They are the enemies of God and S.... so sorry, Paul... I accidentally deleted this trying to respond.  I was flattered that you might consider 'seven generations of vengence,' because His promised promised protection did actually extend seven generation considering Satan is not yet destroyed.     The bible is easy to read unless you do not wish to hear what it says.  Paul, we study to show ourselves the 'proof.'
 
3.  Exploring 'sevenfold' as seven 'generations' and counting from Satan:  (1) Satan (2) Cain (3) Enoch (4) Irad (5) Mehujael (6) Methusael, to (7) Lamech, a professed murderer proclaiming the mark of Cain. (GEN 4:17-24)  
 
Surprise, Surprise, the answer to the rhetorical question was, "yes." Again, this is another "step" another conclusion drawn from the earlier assumptions.  If points one and two are not sound foundations, then what should we expect from point 3?  More of the same no doubt.  Here is another gem of bad scholarship, Paul, don't cut God short!  I'd like to think 'one' vengence would be enough, are you proposing one of God's 'vengences' is insufficient?  Then what was sevenfold?  I propose here that sevenfold is seven generations of protection that Cain survived... and Satan is not yet destroyed/whatever!  And, if you can consider seven generations of vengence as a possiblity... then this might imply seven generations of protection, think?  It is not beyond reasonable imagination.  
 
The promise of "seven fold vengeance" was given to CAIN, not Satan, so it is not right to count from Satan (nor yet from Adam, Cain's  father), Lamech was the sixth from Cain who was the one who received the promise of vengeance.  I've appreciated this argument before, several times in fact, so you're on a good track.  So, let me ask you this... in Luke 3 where the genealogy of Jesus reveals Jesus is the 77th from God, do you include God?  Sure!  Or, we might equally be accurate to say Jesus was the 76th from Adam... but God is certainly listed!  You proposed above that Jesus referred to let's say 'certain Pharisees' (I have absolutely no idea whether or not they are 'Kennites")  that those 'certain' Pharisees declared themselves "seed of Abraham", that their father was "even God", while Jesus said their father was the devil (with or without Cain).  Yet, you want to suggest I don't take the Bible literally enough discussing 'sevenfold.'  So... I agree Satan was their spiritual father to say the least!.. and I agree with Jesus again that Satan was their literal father in the second half of John 8 "Who's ya daddy!"  They even asked Jesus where His Father was!  Who's ya daddy!  How do you account for Genesis 3:15 when God was chastizing Satan:  "I will put enmity between the and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed"  Hey, Paul... THY seed??? gotta make you wonder what really happened in the Garden (hint EZE 31 again).   Kinda makes one wonder WHY that was so elusive... (promised protection?)  It was written after the fact!  And, we both know who the author is!    
 
"Lamech, a professed murderer proclaiming the mark of Cain."  This is based on the assumption that Cain's mark is "a veiled existence"  even though the story of Lamech is written in the bible and his descent is clearly visible and has never been veiled.  It basically comes down to an unwillingness to accept the bible.  Veiled existence, that's MY theory... and it does happen to be original.  You got any original sermons, Paul?  Neither did your name's sake until he met Jesus' disciple, Ananias!   What an author! 
 
These people basically are not satisfied (why do we need the Spirit of Truth?) with the word which God has given us so they have taught themselves and others that the best way to read the bible is to look "between the lines"  This is basically a form of divination Some people refer to this as the Holy Spirit, THE Spirit of Truth as Jesus spoke the truth to 'certain' Pharisees who didn't believe Him including those 'lost' like Paul before his conversion.  Lamech did not "claim Cain's mark"  Lamech said "If Cain shall be avenged sevenfold, truly Lamech seventy and sevenfold."  He is claiming the vengeance promised Cain, and there is nothing to indicate he had a right to it (Lamech didn't have a right... and God didn't deny it... or... was Lamech murdered?  Gee... why can't I anser that?,  there is nothing to indicate that he had a mark or a "veiled existence." Spot on there... poof!   And he was the sixth from Cain the seventh from Adam, but not the seventh from the promised vengeance (I appreciate your point, but you're gonna have to refute Satan's seed in Gen 3:15, and you're gonna have to refute Jesus saying their literal father was the devil!).  The whole idea on which your writing is based is faulty.
 
"Lamech was proclaiming Divine and equal justice: if mercy was granted Cain, then mercy should be granted Lamech and his descendants (GEN 4:24)."　
 
Cain was not granted Mercy so much as given the promise of vengeance = protection.  Lamech makes no reference to descendants (right, Lamech only gathered his wives... I can only assume his sons were there too, they were mentioned previously).  Why do you insert the idea that Lamech claimed it for his descendants?  Why didn't God kill Cain?  And that's how Lamech came to be!  Fruit of the tree (hmmmm "I see men as trees,"  and EZE 31...)  Because if fits your story, this is very typical of the careless way in which Arnold Murray and other people who have no respect (no respect?  I think only one of God's vengences would be enough... you?) for the scriptures other than LIP SERVICE treat the bible.  You treat the bible like it is your servant, your pupil.  "Seven times" and "seventy times seven" ARE NOT EQUAL.  My Third grader could have told you that.  I do love kids, my youngest is 16... they are certainly not equal and I never proposed they were... God's protection was equal, but the terms of the 'agreement' (albeit by default on the second) were 7 generation plus seventy generations.  I can't help but think that if you placed the scriptures side by side with your assertions about what they indicate that children could instantly pick out where you were misreading that which is written.  Paul... you ever figure out what Jesus was doodling in the dirt in the first few verses of John 8?  Right!  We'll never know exactly... or Jesus would have defaulted into Judgement v. Salvation.  Nonethless, I can get close enough... requiring only a mustard seed of faith...  to get the message why Jesus could not and never mentioned the names Ishmael or Cain.  Although Paul spoke of the Ishmaelites! 
 
"Is this a random association between sevenfold and seven generations?"
 
Another lovely Rhetorical question (Paul, you are entirely too kind!).   But there is no association and you listed Cain's father as being Satan when the bible clearly said it was Adam:
Gen 3:15  THY SEED! So, what's with the mystery????  How about veiled protection?  Possibility!!!  It's hidden in the fig leaf masks they put on their faces for eating the fruit! (I do think that's Murray's by the way... or something close to it).
Gen 4:1   And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain,  God pleads the 5th! 
Gen 4:25 And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth:
Gen 4:17 And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch:
 
That is the formula, that is the simple truth.  Adam knew his wife and she conceived.  Is that too  hard for you to accept?   I am weary with you  and your kind, you never improve, you all only seem to get worse and worse.  Running quite solo here Paul... and your name's sake was also weary before his conversion!
4. "However, Cain is mysteriously not listed as a son of Adam (GEN 5). "
 
Actually Cain is listed as a son of Adam, but this reference to Genesis 5 is a "red herring" because Genesis 5 is NOT a list of the sons of Adam. Genesis 5:4 And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters:
Adam begat many sons and daughters which were not listed in Genesis 5.  Genesis 5 is the genealogy of NOAH  Cain is not listed in NOAH's genealogy because Noah was not a descendant of Cain.  Genesis 5 only lists the names of the sons of Adam which led to Noah, SIMPLE!  Adam is listed as Cain's father in CAIN's Genealogy in Genesis chapter 4.  Bingo, the veil remained intact as His Word was authored by Almighty God!  Let's see here finishing Gen 4:1  you sited '... and she conceived, and bare Cain, and (she) said, I have gotten a man from the Lord."  Well, Paul... she was "beguiled," was she not?  Are you believing this beguiled person speaking here?  Cain did kill Able (hint, enmity... THY seed... Gen 3:15).  Here's a little gem for you:  look up the Hebrew definition for "beguiled."  Now, tell me, are you believing Eve?     
 
Genesis 4:1 And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD.  Beguiled, Paul! 
17 And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch. 18 And unto Enoch was born Irad: and Irad begat Mehujael: and Mehujael begat Methusael: and Methusael begat Lamech.
 
Verses 2-16 are parenthetical, chapter 4 is the genealogy and story of the firstborn son of man, the murderer.  And he was of the devil.  But as the Apostle John described in 1 John 3.  Satan was Cain's spiritual father, but Adam was clearly Cain's natural father, THE BIBLE TELLS ME SO.
 
Lamech’s declaration before his family almost implies an inherited component to God’s promised veil preserving flesh life for Cain’s descendants beyond Lamech… beyond sevenfold.
 
You say it "almost" implies, yet you go on in your surmisings as if it had definitively declared it.   None of this has been established and is based on a faulty foundation.  I really don't even need to go on, if the foundation is unsound, the whole structure is ready to fall.
 
5.  Consequent to Cain’s act of murder, there appears to be seven ‘generations’ of preservation through anonymity.
 
Lord, help me, how can I abide such as this?  They were not anonymous, we have their names They WERE named to establish the genealogy to Lamech (and his two named sons), and they lived beyond that anonymously, they were protected, they remain veiled until one is converted as Apostle Paul learning the Truth spoken by Jesus that those 'certain' Pharisees didn't even know... 4 thousand years of mystery from the foundation of the world!  Paul, here's a little gem... What did Elias have to say about 'conversion' MAT 13:10-17.  Are you so certain you aren't listening to someone else's explanation of parables?  And "consequent" to Cain would be SIX generations.  Not only that, I repeat myself, but, the sevenfold was sevenfold VENGEANCE.  If it is as you say and the promise was for seven generations of veiled anonymity then where did they go?  Because I know Arnold Murray's doctrine and the descendants of Cain are supposed to have been on the Ark, that would be the point at which they would have become anonymous.  But then what are all these references in the Old Testament to KENITES, that Arnold prattles about? Dude, got me there... I have absolutely no idea how Murray connects the "kennites' with the occupants of the Ark.  So, I have no idea how Murray pulled together his theory.  Far as I know he'd differ with me!  My theory is that Ham was the illegitimate son of Noah's wife!  Noah wasn't even Ham's biological father!  I have no idea whether or not Murray thinks or teaches that.  You've gotta take that up with him!   If they are ANONYMOUS then why do they go around calling themselves KENTIES?  Beats me, man... take that up with Murray, I have absolutely no idea???  I don't even think Murray recognizes the "veiled anonymity" theory or not... that one's exclusively mine, period, never heard it anywhere, Paul.  Just what I read!  Not to say they even were the true descendants of the original Cain.
 
Lamech’s act of murder suggests we investigate ‘seventy and sevenfold’ generations to affirm or refute the possible generational meaning of ‘sevenfold,’
 
Ok I see where you are going, but it still remains that the people you say have a protection of "anonymity are calling themselves "Kenites" openly and have many of their names listed in the bible.  I can't argue with you here, Paul.  That's an argument with Murray.  Murray may be on to something, maybe not.   That is not very anonymous (Don't worry, I get to Hagar later).  And you don't prove the meaning of "sevenfold" by going looking for hidden meanings and secret texts.  All one has to do is read Genesis and see that "Sevenfold" refers specifically to a promise of vengeance on those that harm Cain.  In other words, if I harmed Cain, one might argue that seven generations of my descendants would suffer but it would not have anything to do with Cain, because he would be dead.  You forget that " Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain"  is a condition that needs to be fulfilled for the sevenfold vengeance to kick in.  Well, what can I say Paul?  I guess God's promised protection worked, I think God meant it! Even once!  However, on this point I think I might give God a little slack that He wouldn't take out vengence beyond the perpetrator... but, I do propose Canaan, son of Ham, was cursed... cursed being the progeny of incest:  mentally challenged, even.  Cursed being that all descendants from Canaan forward in time had DNA negatively impacted by incest... talk about Pandora's box!  That has nothing to do with Murray, either. 
 
Well, wish I had more time, Paul.   Totally appreciate your response, even though you're mistaken that I'm a disciple of Murray.  I do admire him greatly, but I have no idea whether or not he'd have any more respect for me and my theories than you!  I might suggest you reconsider the very last statement in your reply under "PS" where you invite me to be "your" disciple.  Disciples are called, Paul.  It is pointless for me to even ask you to be a Disciple of Jesus.  I'm just out here tossing crumbs...
 
In Christ's Name
Name withheld   

My Third Response:

----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Stringini
To: Name Withheld
Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2011 7:39 PM
Subject: Re: Cain's descendants
Regarding the questions you asked regarding Ham and Canaan. 
 
 What exactly was this curse? 
 
You know the text, I would not have much to say beyond that.  Except that I would say that the curse on Canaan does not necessarily have to apply to the Canaanites. There are all kinds of curses in the earth, and man himself is under a curse.  If you look for curses they will never be hard to find.  You can find ways to claim every race of men under the sun are cursed or have been cursed in one way or the other in the past.  There are often hundred ways to make a proof of curses.
 
How could Canaan be cursed for something his father Ham did? 
 
I suppose it is kind of like when the David's first son with Bathsheba died.  Because of David's adultery the child died.  This would seem to go contrary to some of what I said about "eating the sour grapes"  But does it really? I don't think so,  David was punished for his adultery, his son died, and the curse on Canaan was a punishment on Ham, no father wants his son to be a "servant of servants." Canaan did suffer for his father's sin, but this is more exceptional than the rule.  People have died for lesser causes, men have been made servants for less.  It is hard to draw out hard and fast rules based on these curses and punishments.  And that is the key in all of this.  Yes, a curse COULD be hereditary, but not NECESSARILY.  That is what I would emphasize to you.  That unless a conclusion is NECESSARY then it is not a sound foundation for doctrine. 
 
What exactly did Ham do?  Was Ham a homosexual?  Did Ham have an incestuous homosexual experience with his passed out father?  How do you explain LEV 18:8, 20:11, couple verses in DEU, 1COR5:1? 
 
Maybe. The nakedness of your mother is "your father's nakedness"  as Lev 18:8 says.  But it could have been either way, because your father's nakedness can be his own nakedness.  When you read the actual narrative, it says that Noah was laying there naked and when you read what the other sons did it makes it sound like there may have been more than "euphemism" being talked about there.  One could make an argument from three perspectives, not all nakedness is necessarily sex, not all knowing is necessarily sex, it does not make sound doctrine because I don't see how anyone could be definitive about any of this. 
 
In all sincerity, consider whether or not this issue is one on which you would have an unbeliever or apostate to stumble.  For example, let's say I am preaching in church that Ham was a homosexual and an apostate walks in who was taught since his youth that Ham saw his dad's genitals.  I do not want to make that the issue over which someone makes a decision to stop listening to me.  And neither do I wish to preach on the subject of Ham's sin, it leads to doubtful disputations, and foolish questions, foolish because we really don't know for sure either way.  I try to avoid these topics, because 1) they don't have a clear answer 2) Knowing the answer has no benefit other than to make me feel smart.  I know you are not puffed up by this , but this knowledge will add nothing to you but wind.
 
1Tim 1:3 that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine,
4 Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.
Not only are we speculating when we try to answer your question.  But the answer it really is not worth knowing.  Not all knowledge is worth knowing.  Knowledge does not commend us to God.  When we stand before him he is not going to be impressed with our abilities to puzzel out questions such as these.  It was over such questions such as these that I left the church I had become part of from 2005-2008.  It is leaven.  It is the kind of knowledge that makes us feel more knowledgeable, but really adds nothing to us.
 
When i received the spirit of God in 2005 and my understanding was changed, I suddenly realized how I had really missed out on the true riches.  I had coveted the wrong kind of knowledge.  I knew many things, I knew all the kings of Judah and Israel and their reigns, but I did not know the reins of my own heart.  I knew all the paths that Abraham had walked, but I did not know how I myself might walk as Christ walked.  That is now the knowledge that I covet.  The knowledge which leads me to godliness and righteousness.
 
Tits 2:11 For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,
12 Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world;
 
Consider those words, I remember when I used to just brush off many of the New Testament's calls to righteousness.  I was blind.  I thought it was all just "imputed" and so I never really took any of it seriously.  But my life was seriously messed up.  Godly edifying is edifying which leads us to godliness.  I don't really know what I used to think, I think the ideas seemed so far-fetched that I was more willing to spend my effort researching the mating habits of angels than wasting my time seeking righteousness.  It was also because of men, men taught me that I could never be perfect, and though I may never attain perfection in the flesh, it is still our salvation that we should strive and race to win. 
 
 So... What did Ham do?  If all you can say, Paul, is that "Ham looked upon the nakednes of Noahhhh,"  Sir, I've hear this rehearsal all too often, and I think you are too bright to just write that tidbit off.  There's a "little gem" there, Paul.   
You have heard other perspectives, I really have no opinion.  You know everything there is to know on this subject, EXCEPT you don't know that the rehearsal you have heard might be right, and that it does not matter anyway.  What is the prize for figuring this out?  What will you give me when I get this right?  It is not a gem.  It is fool's gold.  They trick you into thinking you are getting "deeper into the bible"  but if you really want to get deeper into the bible, show me how to do this:
 
2Cor7:1 Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.
 
If you can show me knowledge of how you can do that, then I will be genuinely impressed with your knowledge.
 
Appeal to those studied in theology?  It's at least an honorable attempt exploring and discussing Scripture.  I'm sure these folk would enjoy conversing with you as well!  What an entire honor!  I didn't at all mean to suggest they agree with me, please forgive me.  I just enjoy engaging those more well read, those like yourself, Paul.
Theologians are more useful in exploring useless questions than in exploring useful ones. 
 
I'll look at your commentary later.

My Additional Comments:

----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Stringini
To: Name Withheld
Sent: Friday, October 07, 2011 3:11 PM
Subject: Re: Cain's descendants
I see from reading your blue text that you do not share all the views of Arnold Murray.  I only had one teacher in the Bible, and that was Arnold Murray, so his doctrine is the only version of that doctrine I am familiar with.  I'm not interested in learning all the different forms that those doctrines can take in the minds of different men nor yet debating all of them.  But this truly does interest me:
 
1 John 3:10 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. (and) 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. 
 Fascinating that you reference this scripture, Paul.  Are you taking the work of an Apostle of Jesus Christ accurately?   Jesus did not sire a child (despite the movie), and therefore He was righteous among other reasons. 
 
John was referring to Jesus, Himself. 
 
You are absolutely wrong The context of that passage is clear as crystal.  Please continue.  Please give me your blue commentary on this.  There is no man who has ever been able to address these scriptures and my commentary on them and I would dearly like to see you do so.  Tell me why I'm wrong about 1John 3, based on the text of 1John 3 and based on my commentary.
 
1John 3:1 Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.
 
The general subject of this passage is looking at the how by the Father's love WE should be called the sons of God and what that means in the light of who Christ was.  This is a marvel to behold, that marvel can be felt in this passage, let me share my marvel at it by sharing with you the song I wrote containing the full text of 1 John 3 http://oraclesofgod.org/songs/128k/Live/1_John_Chapter_3_%202005_May.mp3

2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.
 
We are now the sons of God, (by virtue of the promise and election of God), but we don't even really know what that means, but we Shall be like him, when he appears.  Notice, the focus is on OUR becoming like him, on OUR becoming sons of God.

3 And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure.
If we have this hope in us, If we expect to become the sons of God, then we will purify OURSELVES even as he is pure.  These sentences flow together. Very simply very elegantly.  It is about us and how we ought to be like Christ.
 
4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.
Notice,  "Whosoever"  this refers to any man, this is the subject of the verses that follow it is ver simple and the apostle never let's it slip either.  Also "whosoever"  implies the possibility of many candidates, it means that John has more than one person in mind when he uses this word.
 
5 And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin.
Jesus Christ was manifested to take away our sins, not merely to "declare" them taken away, but to actually remove sin from us.  If we do acts of sin, then sin is on us, and our sins are not taken away.  We must be purified from this if we want to be like him.
 
6 Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him.
Notice the parallel passage here: "WHOSOEVER"  Just like in verse 4, this refers to any man, specifically, to mortal men who seek to become the sons of God.  In this sentence your terribly corrupt reading is shown for the farce it truly is.  WHOSOEVER abideth in HIM, can only refer to US abiding in CHRIST.  . Jesus cannot be the subject of this verse because he is the object.  If we abide in him, we cannot sin.  And to your bone, sir, you ought to know the truth of this, because you cannot take Christ with you to the whorehouse.  If we truly abide in him, then we cannot sin because we are with him and he is with us.  If we sin we have not seen Christ neither know him.  Let me Fix this verse so even you could understand it.
 
6 Whosoever abideth in Christ sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen Christ, neither known Christ.
For your interpretation, "WHOSOEVER" should also refer to Christ and that would be folly, because that would require ignoring the fact that HIM is a personal pronoun and "WHOSOEVER" is NOT a personal pronoun.  If you substitute "Christ for "whosoever" then you have a bunch of nonsense, not even a proper sentence.
 
Why would anyone force a false interpretation here?  Only because they give more weight to their own opinions than to what the scripture says in its simplicity.  WHOSOEVER SINNETH HATH NOT SEEN CHRIST NEITHER KNOWN CHRIST.  If you cannot accept that, than you can never be his disciple.  I don't claim to be perfect, but you do.  But you will surely tell me that you do not think yourself perfect, Name Withheld.  Well,  if you are not perfect, then what do you lack?  I lack the fulfillment of this verse, I need to know him, I need to see him.  What about you?  If you say that you do not need to be perfect, then that means that you are already complete in your sins.  Just keep on sinning, Christ will forgive you. Don't you know that the unrighteous will NOT inherit the kingdom of God?  But if you confess that you still lack then you must also confess that these verses are true, as they are written.
 
7 Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous.
This is one of those sweet, tender verses, "little children" that means that John is going to talk to you in the simplest and most basic kind of language that even a child could understand.  You must become like a child to enter into the kingdom Name Withheld, but your interpretation of 1 john 3 is NOT child like.  Read verse 6 to a child and ask them what it means!
 
LET NO MAN DECEIVE YOU   HE (WHOSOEVER) that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as HE (CHRIST) is righteous.
 
Name Withheld, you let some man deceive you, you let some man tell you that you could be righteous apart from actually doing righteousness. Righteous behavior makes you righteous.  Do you think that you are going to be accounted righteous even if you continue to sin?  Little child, Name Withheld, you should not have let those men deceive you.  It will not be so.
 
You can't have Christ be both ":he's" in that sentence, that is the sort of convoluted thinking that only a full grown man could come up with.  Christ that does righteousness is righteous even as Christ is righteous?  The CONTEXT of the passage clearly indicates that this is about how WE become like HIM, How WE must be Like HIM, not how he is like himself or like the Father but how we become like him.  This verse is about what we must do to be righteous.
 
Honestly it makes me nearly weep to think of the care the Apostle John put into writing these simple words only to have corrupt men come along and smear their foul opinions over the message and obscure the truth.  Are you so far gone Name Withheld?
 
It is SO simple, so clear no child would ever come up with your interpretation without having "help" from some corrupt adult.
 
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.
The subject of this passage is about how we as humans might become the sons of God, but the inverse is how we may found to be of the devil.  If you commit sin, you are of the devil.  Jesus was manifest to destroy the devil's work. It is very simple, very clear.  You can look at all that Jesus said in his ministry and see the truth in this.  John 8 especially.
 
These verses are at the core of what John 8 was about:
John 8:34 Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.
35 And the servant abideth not in the house for ever: but the Son abideth ever.
36 If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.
 
The Pharisees were sinners and they did not submit to the gospel, therefore they were of the devil.  We must become sons to abide forever.  Those that serve sin will be cast out.  Jesus came to make us free indeed, but men have taught you that Jesus came to make us free "theoretically." They dare not say  "If the son therefore shall make you free you shall be theoretically free but you will still serve sin." But it is on their lips.  Is that free indeed?  Your problem is you have learned too much from those that know nothing, start with my study in Romans, it is one of my earliest studies but it will be better than you you have been fed with thus far.
 
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.
WHOSOEVER, means WE, US, US HUMANS, the subject has not changed. "Whosoever" implies multiple candidates.  We must be born of God.  Do you deny this?  This clearly and simply  says that if we are born of GOD, BORN AGAIN, truly, then we will not commit sin.  Because the seed of God will remain in us we will not be able to sin.  If the son therefore shall make you free... Name Withheld, you need to realize that you have been a fool, and if you could recognize that you would have a chance to become wise.  Have you never read the parable of the sower?  Why do you mock me with references to "The Da Vinci" code?  The good seed are the children of the kingdom.   The evil seed are the children of the wicked one.  This is not about Christ but about men in general.  Jesus Christ is the seed of God, he must abide in us and we in him. 
 
I begin to feel though that you cannot understand anything except in carnal terms.  Carnal seed, carnal children, don't you know that it is death to be carnally minded? And that is precisely the kind of carnal mind that cannot perceive the things of God. 
 
If you do not accept these verses in their simplicity in which they were written, I will tell you, it is because you are wiser than the scriptures.  Your doctrine says that it is impossible to "go and sin no more"  so you deny that it is required of us, and no, as I said before, I'm not perfect, but I SUBMIT to what God demands and I trust that by his power I will overcome all sin, I know that I will be like him, and when I am like him, I will truly be born of him and be abiding in him,  this is what Christ came into the world to do, to take away sin.  But the whole do not need a physician and will receive no healing and will die in their sins, you do not need these verses because they do not fit with your ideas, you are the one that teaches the bible what it ought to say , how dare the bible try to speak for itself. 
 
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.
 
This is one of the verses I quoted. You seem to have a knack for ignoring context and instead using what you think the passage OUGHT to say as the means of interpreting the passage. You have a severe problem on that count.  A severe problem indeed, because if you are willing to do that, then you are in danger of tuning our the very voice of the scriptures..
 
"Whosoever"  Notice it is CHILDREN, not "Child" not "only begotten son" it plainly says Children and you, Name Withheld, are as wrong as you ever have been except this time it is in a matter that actually means something.  This is essential doctrine, and if you don't get this, you are simply not a Christian, if you deny that Christ-likeness is required of us.  If you corrupt this word, then there is no sin that is beyond you.  You said I was misreading this verse, but I marvel at your thinking, blind or stupid, I have to believe blind because it is as plain as day and only the blind would fail to see the day, but do you not even feel the heat of this sun?
 
You are no brother, repent, you are some fool of a heathen.  But I have taken the time and care enough to rebuke you, make of that what you will, I really don't care about your standards of "civility"  you want to walk away proud that you are "nice" and I will walk away glad that I told you the truth..  I know your type, you politely sit on your high-horse and look down your nose at the vicious way I "attack" you (and what harm have I done against you, or against any man to their hurt) and you think that you are showing yourself the better man.  But the truth is that it is easy for you to keep your cool because you don't have a passionate bone left in your body because your doctrine is as dry and dead as the men that first spawned it.  Why get excited about your genealogies and "who's your daddy?" They don't excite me either, it is your corruption of the scriptures that lights my fires. I had the same dispassionate smug attitude back when I was blind like you.  All that stuff you trouble yourself over is not going to lead anyone to Christ or to righteousness.  The zeal for the things of God has eaten me up.
 
Jesus did not sire a child (despite the movie),
 
How very foolish.  "But as many as received him gave he power to become the sons of God."  "Marvel not that I said unto you, You must be born again."  The good seed are the children of the kingdom.  You are so carnally minded. 
 
To become Christ's disciple, you must become my disciple, because I am the man that Jesus Christ sent you to. 
 
Sincerely,
Paul Stringini

Emailer's Third Reply:

----- Original Message -----
From: Name Withheld
To: Paul Stringini
Sent: Saturday, October 08, 2011 2:04 PM
Subject: RE: Cain's descendants

PAUL, IN CHRISTIAN SPIRIT, IF YOU WANT TO PASS ON ALL THIS VERBAGE BELOW FOR TIME AND INTEREST'S SAKE... JUST SCROLL DOWN TO THE RED 'X' LINE AND PICK UP FROM THERE.  I APPRECIATE YOUR IN-DEPTH RESPONSE.
 
From: Paul Stringini
To: Name Withheld
Subject: Re: Cain's descendants
Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2011 15:11:16 -0500
I see from reading your blue text that you do not share all the views of Arnold Murray.  I only had one teacher in the Bible, and that was Arnold Murray, so his doctrine is the only version of that doctrine I am familiar with.  I'm not interested in learning all the different forms that those doctrines can take in the minds of different men nor yet debating all of them.  But this truly does interest me:
 
1 John 3:10 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. (and) 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. 
 Fascinating that you reference this scripture, Paul.  Are you taking the work of an Apostle of Jesus Christ accurately?   Jesus did not sire a child (despite the movie), and therefore He was righteous among other reasons. 
 
John was referring to Jesus, Himself. 
 
You are absolutely wrong The context of that passage is clear as crystal.  Please continue.  Please give me your blue commentary on this.  There is no man who has ever been able to address these scriptures and my commentary on them and I would dearly like to see you do so.  Tell me why I'm wrong about 1John 3, based on the text of 1John 3 and based on my commentary.
 
1John 3:1 Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.
 
The general subject of this passage is looking at the how by the Father's love WE should be called the sons of God and what that means in the light of who Christ was.  This is a marvel to behold, that marvel can be felt in this passage, let me share my marvel at it by sharing with you the song I wrote containing the full text of 1 John 3 http://oraclesofgod.org/songs/128k/Live/1_John_Chapter_3_%202005_May.mp3
 
DUDE!  ENJOYED THE MUSIC!  APPRECIATE THE LINK... WAS THAT YOUR VOICE?  GREAT BRAVADO... THAT'S INHERITED BY THE WAY, BRISK BRAVADO (LIKE JOAN BAEZ) IS MESMERIZING TO ME, REMARKABLY GENETIC!  ANYWAY... PAUL, AT THE RISK OF BENG PRESUMPTUOUS, JESUS WAS 'BORN OF GOD.' BORN LITERALLY, PHYSICALY, SPIRITUALLY... RECALL THE LINEAGE (EXCEPT JOSEPH) OF JESUS IN LUKE 3.  PERFECT SPIRIT IN A PERFECT BODY... I EVEN PROPOSE JESUS WOULDN'T NEED VACCINATIONS, NEVER HAD A COLD.  AND, IF YOU NEEDED A HEART TRANSPLANT AND JESUS DONATED HIS, YOU WOULDN'T EVEN NEED ANTI-REJECTION DRUGS...  PAUL, YOU'RE DEALING HERE WITH A MORE ORIGINAL MAN THAN YOU SUSPECT.  NEITHER AM I A THE SUM OF ALL MY HUMAN CONTACTS, AND ORIGINAL IS A RARE BIRD, INDEED.  JESUS... NOW TALK ABOUT ABSTRACT AND ORIGINAL!!!
 
PAUL, I'VE HEARD MANY SERMONS, BUT I DON'T RECALL A SERMON ON THIS SCRIPTURE, SO WHAT YOU'RE HEARING IS MY OWN PERSONAL UNDERSTANDING, AND YOU CAN CALL ME A FALSE PROPHET, I KINDA PREFER THAT TITLE ABOVE THE SLANDEROUS THOUGHTS AS TO MY ANCESTRY, LOL!  NOW, WHEN I READ, 1JOHN3:1, THE 'MANNER OF LOVE THE FATHER HATH BESTOWED UPON US' IS (FATHER'S LOVE #1) JESUS (JOHN 3:16).  FURTHERMORE, LOVE IS ALSO SHOWN BY THE AVAILABILITY OF OUR ETERNAL SPIRITUAL DESTINY (FATHER'S LOVE #2) CONSEQUENT TO CHOOSING JESUS (LOVE #1) AND THEN CHOOSING TO LIVE RIGHTEOUSLY. AND WE AGREE JESUS IS THE WAY...  WITHOUT JESUS (FATHER'S LOVE #1) WE WOULD NEVER  FIND OUR WAY TO THIS ETERNAL SPIRITUAL DESTINY (FATHER'SLOVE #2).  THROUGH CHRIST WE WILL, ('SHOULD BE') CALLED THE  SONS OF GOD.  AND, THIS FUTURISTIC PERSPECTIVE REFERS TO 'WHO' WE WILL BECOME ACHIEVING OUR SPIRITUAL DESTINY THROUGH JESUS AFTER JUDGEMENT:  SONS OF GOD AS JESUS IS THE SON OF GOD.  
 
HOLD ON NOW.  WE ARE IN TOTAL AGREEMENT THAT WE TRY TO LIVE AS CHRIST, WE TRY TO BE RIGHTOUS, AND WHEN WE "PUT ON CHRIST' WE BECOME 'HEIRS TO THE PROMISE.'  HEIRS, PAUL.  MY SON IS MY HEIR... WHAT'S MINE IS OURS, AND WHEN I DIE 'OURS' BECOMES HIS EXCLUSIVELY.  WHILE WE ARE IN THESE CORRUPTIBLE BODIES WE ARE HEIRS.  JESUS WAS NOT AN HEIR!  AS JESUS IS OUR ADVOCATE BEFORE THE FATHER AT JUDGEMENT, WE THEN BECOME SONS OF GOD AS JESUS IS THE SON OF GOD.  JESUS IN THE FLESH WAS THE SON OF GOD, AND JESUS IN THE SPIRIT IS AND WAS ALWAYS THE SON OF GOD.  JESUS WAS NEVER AN HEIR, HE WAS ALREADY PERFECT IN FLESH AND SPIRIT.  TWO COMPONENTS OF OUR FATHER'S LOVE, JESUS AND HEAVEN, SEPARATED IN TIME, TO BE FINALIZED AND ACCOMPLISHED WHEN TIME WILL BE NO MORE.  RIGHTEOUSNESS EXISTS AS A FLESH CHALLENGE IN THE TIME BETWEEN ACCEPTING JESUS, AND JUDGEMENT.  I'M CERTAINLY NOT ADVOCATING SIN, BUT WHEN WE SIN WE HAVE AN ADVOCATE BEFORE THE FATHER (AT JUDGEMENT).  WE  BOTH AGREE THAT WE ARE NOT 'SAVED' THROUGH RIGHTOUSNESS. 
 
I THINK THIS IS WHERE WE SEE THINGS DIFFERENTLY, PAUL:  MY IMPRESSION IS THAT YOU BELIEVE OR THINK WE CAN HAVE SALVATION NOW, IN THE PRESENT, IN THESE FLESH BODIES.  FORGIVE ME IF I PUT WORDS IN YOUR MOUTH, NOT MY INTENTION.  I DO AGREE WITH YOUR CONCEPT OF RIGHTEOUSNESS, AND ACTUALLY HAVE MORE TO ADD, PERHAPS A SUBJECT LATER.  I, IN SIMILAR FASHION, ALBEIT SUBTLY DIFFERENT, BELIEVE SALVATION IS NOT FULFILLED UNTIL WE RECEIVE OUR JUST REWARDS AFTER JUDGEMENT.  JESUS IS THE DOOR, DISCIPLESHIP IS THE PATH (AGREEING PAVED WITH RIGHTEOUSNESS IN THESE FLESH BODIES), AND SPIRITUAL ETERNITY (WITH THE FATHER) IS THE END RESULT.  WE HOLD TITLE TO THE INHERITENCE VIA JESUS, BUT OUR INHERITENCE IS NOT AND CANNOT BE FULFILLED UNTIL WE FORFEIT THESE CORRUPTIBLE BODIES.
 
WITH SINCERE AND HUMBLE RISK OF SOUNDING JUDGEMENTAL, GOD FORBID, A PERSON LIVING RIGHTOUSLY, BY AGREED UPON DEFINITIONS, IS INSUFFICIENT AS WE BOTH AGREE... IT'S (1) ACCEPTING CHRIST, (2) LIVING RIGHTEOUSLY AS WE CAN, (3) JESUS' ADVOCATION BEFORE THE FATHER, (4) SPIRITUAL ETERNITY WITH THE FATHER AS A SON OF GOD JUST AS JESUS IS THE SON OF GOD.  OUR NAME IS WRITTEN IN THE LAMB'S BOOK OF LIFE (TITLESHIP TO THE PROMISE, HEIRS).  MY SON'S NAME IS WRITTEN IN MY WILL... OUR NAMES ARE WRITTEN IN THE LAMB'S BOOK OF LIFE... BUT THE FULFILLMENT OF EACH OCCURS AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE... WHOSOEVER WILL TAKE UP THE CROSS, GOD BE THE JUDGE, JESUS IS OUR ADVOCATE.
 
PAUL, I APPRECIATE YOUR NOBLE JOURNEY IN PURITY AND RIGHTEOUSNESS... AND, I HAVE NO DISAGREEMENTS.  I MIGHT ADD THAT THERE IS PHYSICAL AND SPIRITUAL PURITY AND RIGHTEOUSNESS.  JESUS HAD BOTH OF COURSE, AND WHAT I WOULD GIVE FOR ONE DROP OF HIS BLOOD TO RUN THROUGH A DNA LAB!!!  PERFECT!!!  SACRIFICE, INDEED!!!  WE, ON THE OTHER HAND, HAVE NEITHER!  EXCEPTING THROUGH CHRIST WE HAVE THE HOPE OF SPIRITUAL PERFECTION BEYOND JESUS' ADVOCATION BEFORE THE FATHER AT JUDGEMENT.  NO, PAUL, I AM NEITHER ADVOCATING UNRIGHTEOUSNESS, NOR DISCOUNTING IT!.  
 
2 Beloved, now (NOT 'NOW' AS IN TIME TODAY, BUT 'NOW' AS IN FULFILLMENT) are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that ('NOW' THAT WE KNOW), when he shall appear, we shall (SHALL IN THE FUTURE BEING DISCUSSED) be like him (SONS OF GOD); for we shall see him as he is.
 
We are now the sons of God, (by virtue of the promise FUTURE FULFILLMENT and election of God), but we don't even really know what that means, but we Shall be like him, when he appears WHEN HE APPEARS...  NOT TODAY!  Notice, the focus is on OUR becoming like him, on OUR becoming sons of God. PAUL, COULDN'T AGREE WITH YOU MORE, ITS A TIMING ISSUE!

3 And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure.
If we have this hope in us, If we expect to become the sons of God, then we will purify OURSELVES even as he is pure.  PAUL, I MIGHT HAVE A BONE TO PICK AT THE RISK OF SOUNDING LIKE I PROMOTE UNRIGHTEOUSNESS.  WE DON'T PURIFY OURSELVES (NOT 100% ANYWAY), HOPE (ANTICIPATION OF FULFILLMENT OF THE PROMISE)PURIFIES US WHEN JESUS ADVOCATES FOR US BEFORE THE FATHER AT JUDGEMENT.  WE WILL GAIN TOTAL AND COMPLETE SPIRITUAL PURITY WHEN WE BECOME THE SONS OF GOD.  AND, I UNDERSTAND YOU MAY BELIEVE OR THINK YOU HAVE GAINED 100% TOTAL AND COMPLETE SPIRITUAL PURITY TODAY.  AT THE RISK OF SOUNDING JUDGEMENTAL, GOD FORBID, I THINK ITS IMPOSSIBLE IN THESE FLESH BODIES.  IF YOU THINK SPIRITUAL PERFECTION IS POSSIBLE TODAY IN THESE FLESH BODIES, THEN I UNDERSTAND WHERE YOU'RE COMING FROM, I JUST HAVE TO LISTEN TO APOSTLE PAUL WHEN THE CORRUPTIBLE PUTS ON THE INCORRUPTIBLE.  ARE YOU INCORRUPTIBLE?  IF YOU BELIEVE YOU HAVE ACHIEVED SPIRITUAL PERFECTION, THEN I MIGHT SUGGEST YOU HAVE PREEMPTED JESUS' ADVOCATION BEFORE THE FATHER AT JUDGEMENT, AND JUDGEMENT IS YET TO COME.  OUR HOPE TODAY IS ABOUT FULFILLMENT IN THE FUTURE, NOT FULFILLMENT TODAY IN THESE FLESH BODIES.  HOPE DOES NOT PURIFY US TODAY, AND LIVING RIGHTEOUSLY DOES NOT FULFILL THE PROMISE TODAY.  LIVING RIGHTEOUSLY IS EVIDENCE WE BELIEVE THE PROMISE, EVIDENCE THAT WE ARE HEIRS TO THE PROMISE... HEBREWS 11:1, HOW  TRULY MAGNIFICENT... FAITH.  These sentences flow together. Very simply very elegantly.  It is about us and how we ought to be like Christ.
 
4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.
Notice,  "Whosoever"  this refers to any man, this is the subject of the verses that follow it is very simple and the apostle never let's it slip either.  Also "whosoever"  implies the possibility of many candidates, it means that John has more than one person in mind when he uses this word. AGREED, PAUL... THE VERY NEXT VERSE JOHN TALKS ABOUT JESUS, OUR HOPE, OUR HOPE THAT WILL TAKE AWAY OUR SINS... SO, IF YOU THINK YOU ARE SINLESS AND INCORRUPTIBLE TODAY
 
5 And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin.
Jesus Christ was manifested to take away our sins, not merely to "declare" them taken away, but to actually remove sin from us.  If we do acts of sin, then sin is on us, and our sins are not taken away.  We must be purified from this if we want to be like him.  THE SPIRITUAL PERFECTION YOU PROPOSE PREEMPTS ADVOCATION AND JUDGEMENT, AND I'M NOT WALKING ON WATER...  WE SIN IN WAYS WE DON'T EVEN KNOW!  IF YOU DON'T TALK ABOUT MY GUT, I WON'T YELL ABOUT YOUR CHOLESTEROL!  THERE ARE SINS IN THE SPIRIT, AND SINS IN THE FLESH.  WE DO THE BEST WE CAN... CHRIST IS THE EXAMPLE... WE PRAY FOR FORGIVENESS... AND TRY TO DO BETTER.  MY FLESH IS NOT PERFECT, NEITHER MY SPIRIT... BUT I DO MAINTAIN THE 'HOPE' THAT OUR SPIRITS WILL BE PERFECTED WHEN WE BECOME SONS OF GOD AND SEE JESUS AS HE IS, SPIRITUAL SON OF GOD (WAS FLESH SON OF GOD WHILE ON EARTH).  I SIMPLY PROPOSE THAT WHAT I HEAR IS THAT SPIRITUAL PERFECTION IS FULFILLED WHEN WE SEE JESUS AS HE IS... AND WE CAN'T LITERALLY SEE HIM AS LONG AS WE'RE IN THESE FLESH BODIES."KNOWING" JESUS IS ANOTHER ASPECT, ALTOGETHER. 
 
6 Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him.
Notice the parallel passage here: "WHOSOEVER"  Just like in verse 4, this refers to any man, specifically, to mortal men who seek to become the sons of God.  In this sentence your terribly corrupt reading is shown for the farce it truly is.  WHOSOEVER abideth in HIM, can only refer to US abiding in CHRIST.  . Jesus cannot be the subject of this verse because he is the object.  If we abide in him, we cannot sin.  And to your bone, sir, you ought to know the truth of this, because you cannot take Christ with you to the whorehouse.  COULDN'T AGREE WITH YOU MORE, PAUL... BUT JESUS DID SUP WITH SINNERS!  If we truly abide in him, then we cannot sin because we are with him and he is with us.  If we sin we have not seen Christ neither know him.  Let me Fix this verse so even you could understand it.
 
6 Whosoever abideth in Christ sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen Christ, neither known Christ.
For your interpretation, "WHOSOEVER" should also refer to Christ and that would be folly, because that would require ignoring the fact that HIM is a personal pronoun and "WHOSOEVER" is NOT a personal pronoun.  If you substitute "Christ for "whosoever" then you have a bunch of nonsense, not even a proper sentence.
 
Why would anyone force a false interpretation here?  Only because they give more weight to their own opinions than to what the scripture says in its simplicity.  WHOSOEVER SINNETH HATH NOT SEEN CHRIST NEITHER KNOWN CHRIST.  If you cannot accept that, than you can never be his disciple.  I don't claim to be perfect, but you do.  But you will surely tell me that you do not think yourself perfect, Name Withheld.  Well,  if you are not perfect, then what do you lack?  I lack the fulfillment of this verse, I need to know him, I need to see him.  What about you?  If you say that you do not need to be perfect, then that means that you are already complete in your sins.  PAUL, I'M SUGGESTING 100% SPIRITUAL PERFECTION CAN ONLY OCCUR (JESUS WAS THE ONLY EXCEPTION) UNTIL AFTER JESUS' ADVOCATION AT JUDGEMENT. I MIGHT SUGGEST THAT IF YOU BELIEVE YOU ARE SPIRITUALLY PERFECT, THEN YOU MUST BE IN HEAVEN, JESUS HAS ADVOCATED ON YOUR BEHALF, AND JUDGEMENT IS COMPLETE.  Just keep on sinning I LIVE IN A CORRUPTIBLE BODY... PHYSICALLY AND SPIRITUALLY CORRUPTIBLE, Christ will forgive you HE DOES EVERY DAY!. Don't you know that the unrighteous will NOT inherit the kingdom of God?    But if you confess that you still lack then you must also confess that these verses are true, as they are written.
 
7 Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous.
This is one of those sweet, tender verses, "little children" that means that John is going to talk to you in the simplest and most basic kind of language that even a child could understand.  You must become like a child to enter into the kingdom Name Withheld, but your interpretation of 1 john 3 is NOT child like.  Read verse 6 to a child and ask them what it means!
 
LET NO MAN DECEIVE YOU   HE (WHOSOEVER) that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as HE (CHRIST) is righteous.  PAUL!  I'M NOT ADVOCATING UNRIGHTEOUSNESS!   WE LIVE IN THESE FLESH BODIES, WE FOLLOW CHRIST AS BOTH A PHYSICAL AND SPIRITUAL EXAMPLE, AND HE ADVOCATES FOR US AT JUDGEMENT.  NOW, I AGREE WE NEED TO WALK RIGHTEOUSLY, I UNDERSTAND THIS, AND I UNDERSTAND WE NEED TO STAY 'PRAYED UP'.  GOD'S THE JUDGE, WE TRY TO KEEP OUR SLATE CLEAN, WE TRY AND POLISH IT UP ALONG THIS PILGRIMAGE IN FLESH. 
 
Name Withheld, you let some man deceive you, you let some man tell you that you could be righteous apart from actually doing righteousness. Righteous behavior makes you righteous.  Do you think that you are going to be accounted righteous even if you continue to sin?  Little child, Name Withheld, you should not have let those men deceive you.  It will not be so.
 
You can't have Christ be both ":he's" in that sentence, that is the sort of convoluted thinking that only a full grown man could come up with.  Christ that does righteousness is righteous even as Christ is righteous?  The CONTEXT of the passage clearly indicates that this is about how WE become like HIM, How WE must be Like HIM, not how he is like himself or like the Father but how we become like him.  This verse is about what we must do to be righteous.
 
Honestly it makes me nearly weep to think of the care the Apostle John put into writing these simple words only to have corrupt men come along and smear their foul opinions over the message and obscure the truth.  Are you so far gone Name Withheld?  PAUL, I'M A SINNER TRYING TO DO BETTER... THE PHARISEES HAD NO NEED OF SALVATION.  WITH ALL HONESTY AND HUMILITY PAUL, I DON'T THINK YOU NEED SALVATION, YOU ALREADY HAVE IT IN THIS FLESH!  WITH ALL DUE RESPECT AND ADMIRATION FOR YOUR RIGHTEOUS ENDEAVORS, 100% SALVATION OCCURS WHEN WE SEE JESUS AS HE IS, WHEN WE BECOME SONS OF GOD, JUDGEMENT HAS NOT YET OCCURRED.  WE ARE NOT 'SAVED' THROUGH RIGHTEOUSNESS, YET RIGHTEOUSNESS IS EXPECTED OF US. 
 
It is SO simple, so clear no child would ever come up with your interpretation without having "help" from some corrupt adult.
 
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.
The subject of this passage is about how we as humans might become the sons of God, but the inverse is how we may found to be of the devil.  If you commit sin, you are of the devil.  Jesus was manifest to destroy the devil's work. It is very simple, very clear.  You can look at all that Jesus said in his ministry and see the truth in this.  John 8 especially.
 
These verses are at the core of what John 8 was about:
John 8:34 Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.
35 And the servant abideth not in the house for ever: but the Son abideth ever.
36 If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.
 
The Pharisees were sinners and they did not submit to the gospel, therefore they were of the devil.  We must become sons to abide forever.  Those that serve sin will be cast out.  Jesus came to make us free indeed, but men have taught you that Jesus came to make us free "theoretically." They dare not say  "If the son therefore shall make you free you shall be theoretically free, but you will still serve sin." But it is on their lips.  Is that free indeed?  Your problem is you have learned too much from those that know nothing, start with my study in Romans, it is one of my earliest studies but it will be better than you you have been fed with thus far.
 
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.
WHOSOEVER, means WE, US, US HUMANS, the subject has not changed. "Whosoever" implies multiple candidates.  We must be born of God.  Do you deny this?  This clearly and simply  says that if we are born of GOD, BORN AGAIN, truly, then we will not commit sin (PAUL, I'M A SINNER HOLDING TO THE HOPE, AND FORGIVEN ON A DAILY BASIS).  Because the seed of God will remain in us we will not be able to sin.  If the son therefore shall make you free... Name Withheld, you need to realize that you have been a fool, and if you could recognize that you would have a chance to become wise.  Have you never read the parable of the sower?  Why do you mock me with references to "The Da Vinci" code?  NO MOCK INTENDED WHATSOEVER, BUT PLEASE ACCEPT MY APOLOGY JUST THE SAME.  The good seed are the children of the kingdom (SURE, WE PUT ON CHRIST AND BECOME HEIRS TO THE PROMISE, WE HOPE, WE HAVE FAITH.   The evil seed are the children of the wicked one LITERAL SEED AND SPIRITUAL FOLLOWERS, FORGIVENESS IS AVAILABLE!.  This is not about Christ but about men in general.  Jesus Christ is the LITERAL seed of God, he must abide in us and we in him. 
 
I begin to feel though that you cannot understand anything except in carnal terms.  Carnal seed, carnal children, don't you know that it is death to be carbnally minded? And that is precisely the kind of carnal mind that cannot perceive the things of God. 
 
If you do not accept these verses in their simplicity in which they were written, I will tell you, it is because you are wiser than the scriptures.  Your doctrine says that it is impossible to "go and sin no more"  so you deny that it is required of us, and no, as I said before, I'm not perfect, but I SUBMIT to what God demands and I trust that by his power I will overcome all sin, I know that I will be like him, and when I am like him, I will truly be born of him and be abiding in him,  this is what Christ came into the world to do, to take away sin.  But the whole do not need a physician and will receive no healing and will die in their sins, you do not need these verses because they do not fit with your ideas, you are the one that teaches the bible what it ought to say , how dare the bible try to speak for itself. 
 
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.
 
This is one of the verses I quoted. You seem to have a knack for ignoring context and instead using what you think the passage OUGHT to say as the means of interpreting the passage. You have a severe problem on that count.  A severe problem indeed, because if you are willing to do that, then you are in danger of tuning our the very voice of the scriptures..
 
"Whosoever"  Notice it is CHILDREN, not "Child" not "only begotten son" it plainly says Children and you, Name Withheld, are as wrong as you ever have been except this time it is in a matter that actually means something.  This is essential doctrine, and if you don't get this, you are simply not a Christian, if you deny that Christ-likeness is required of us.  PAUL, CHRIST 'LIKENESS' IS REQUIRED, BUT I'M NOT THE CHRIST!  WE WERE BORN IN THE IMAGE AND LIKENESS.  LOT TO IMPROVE UPON, THOUGH. AND CHRIST IS THE MESSENGER, THE WAY...  If you corrupt this word, then there is no sin that is beyond you.  You said I was misreading this verse, but I marvel at your thinking, blind or stupid, I have to believe blind because it is as plain as day and only the blind would fail to see the day, but do you not even feel the heat of this sun?
 
You are no brother, repent, you are some fool of a heathen.  But I have taken the time and care enough to rebuke you, make of that what you will, I really don't care about your standards of "civility"  you want to walk away proud that you are "nice" and I will walk away glad that I told you the truth..  I know your type, you politely sit on your high-horse and look down your nose at the vicious way I "attack" you (and what harm have I done against you, or against any man to their hurt) and you think that you are showing yourself the better man.  PAUL, PAUL... WE'RE SUPPOSED TO BE SHOWING THAT JESUS WAS THE BETTER MAN, PERFECT EXAMPLE, IN FACT.  IF I HAVE FAILED TO CONVEY THIS, I BEG YOUR FORGIVENESS AS WELL.  But the truth is that it is easy for you to keep your cool ITS CALLED CHARITY, PAUL because you don't have a passionate bone left in your body APOSTLE PAUL WAS ZEALOUS, AND I ADMIRE YOUR ZEAL because your doctrine is as dry and dead as the men that first spawned it REMINDS ME OF EZE 37.  Why get excited about your genealogies and "who's your daddy?" They don't excite me either, it is your corruption of the scriptures that lights my fires. I had the same dispassionate smug attitude back when I was blind like you.  All that stuff you trouble yourself over is not going to lead anyone to Christ or to righteousness.  The zeal for the things of God has eaten me up.
 
Jesus did not sire a child (despite the movie),
 
How very foolish.  "But as many as received him gave he power to become the sons of God."  "Marvel not that I said unto you, You must be born again."  The good seed are the children of the kingdom.  You are so carnally minded.  THERE WAS ONLY ONE TRUE SON OF GOD ON THIS PLANET, AND IT SURE AIN'T ME! 
 
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
 
To become Christ's disciple, you must become my disciple, because I am the man that Jesus Christ sent you to.  PAUL, YOU KNOW FULL WELL THAT DISCIPLES ARE CALLED BY CHRIST...  I CANNOT FORCE IT AS I'VE TRIED IN THE PAST, BUT I DO GET THE IMPRESSION THAT YOU THINK YOU CAN FORCE DISCIPLESHIP.  I CANNOT BE YOUR DISCIPLE.  IN FULL APPRECIATION FOR YOUR RIGHTEOUS ENDEAVORS AND ZEAL FOR RIGHTEOUSNESS, YOUR FOCUS ON RIGHTEOUSNESS IS BASED UPON AVOIDING UNRIGHTEOUSNESS WHICH WE BOTH AGREE IS A GOOD THING.  NONETHELESS, IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU'VE SAVED YOURSELF (TODAY) WHILE FOLLOWING CHRIST (OUR BLESSED HOPE), AND I DO SAY THIS WITH GREAT HUMILITY, GOD BE THE JUDGE WITH JESUS AS OUR ADVOCATE.  AND, I DO RESPECT YOUR KNOWLEDGE OF SCRIPTURE, REGARDLESS OF OUR DISAGREEMENTS.  PAUL, DO REALIZE I ENJOY AND APPRECIATE DIALOGUE IN SCRIPTURE, AND I ALWAYS ENJOY LEARNING FROM OTHER FOLK AS WELL AS FROM THE HOLY SPIRIT OF TRUTH.  
 
ENJOYING THE SUBJECT, I WOULD ENJOY YOUR OPINION/INTERPRETATION, ETC. ALONG THE LINE OF DISCIPLESHIP.  IF YOU'LL AGREE THAT DISCIPLES CAN UNDERSTAND PARABLES/SCRIPTURE IN GREATER DEPTH, I PROPOSE TO YOU QUESTIONS FROM THE SCRIPTURE IMMEDIATELY BEFORE THE SCRIPTURE YOU SITED ABOVE:
 
MAT 13:10 And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?  11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you (disciples) to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them (multitudes) it is not gven.  12 For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance; but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.  13 Therefore speak I to them in parables:  because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.  14  And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith By hearing he shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not percieve;  15  For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed, lest at any time they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, and should understand with their hearts, and should be converted, and I should heal them.  16 But blessed are your (disciples) eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they hear.  17 For verily I say unto you That many prophets and righteous men have desired to see those things which ye see, and have not seen them; and to hear those things which ye hear and have not hear them.  18 Hear ye then the parable of the sower.
 
1) What are the mysteries of the kingdom of Heaven?  Please name one.
2) What specifically is the 'abundance' or loss thereof?
3) What is not being seen or heard or understood?
4) Do you hear that disciples are converted from the multitudes?
5) What is the difference between a disciple and a believer?
 
Referencing your prior comments r/t John 8:
 
JOHN 8:30 As he spake these words, many believed on him.
 
6) What did Jesus tell them, Paul?  I've read it, so no need to recite.  Just tell me in your own words what Jesus meant.  I trust you'll not look up other commentator's opinions... I really want to know what you personally think Jesus meant, tell me what you hear as a child would read this.  This is really, really a major point.
 
JOHN 8:31 Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If you continue in my word, then are ye my disciples, indeed;  32 And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.
 
Jesus told those who believed him how to become a disciple, indeed.  From believer to disciple here, Paul.  I totally accept your believership, beyond question.  What did Jesus tell them that they believed that would lead to conversion into discipleship?  I've never heard a single sermon on the prelude to  "the truth will set you free."  Paul, there are a ton of believers out there calling themselves disciples, you and I would likely agree to disagree with a lot of them!  That's right, Paul, Jesus himself revealed how to convert from believer to disciple.   
 
7)  Map out Jesus' path to discipleship! 
 
Paul, this is THE million dollar question!  As far as I'm concerned, this is the ONLY path to discipleship, a door that no man can shut that many will seek and few shall find, narrow is the gait and straight is the way (paved with righteousness, I'll give you credit).  Paul, draw a map!  Disregard all the previous verbage which I enjoyed... focus on this single task, my respect for you as a disciple hangs in the balance.  My ears have become dull of hearing, my eyes are dim, my heart is weary... I have only little regard left for interpreters of scripture from anyone except a disciple!   It is professed to be a truly marvelous journey!  Many prophets and righteous men do seek to know these things... things disciples know!   I'm sorry that I neither have the time, nor the patience to hear your personal path to discipleship... I just pray that you know what you are teaching is Jesus' path to discipleship... the false prophet I am!  You remind me a lot of my zealous brother... I bet you have a wall full of Catholic scalps!  I'm not Catholic, by the way. 
 
Sincerely,
Name Withheld

My Fourth Response:

----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Stringini
To: Name Withheld
Sent: Sunday, October 09, 2011 4:32 PM
Subject: Re: Cain's descendants
Name Withheld, I read your message and you did a decent job defending yourself against areas where I probably over-reached.  But on your basic assertion that "he that is born of God" refers to Christ and not to the faithful you did a very poor job. And that is the root of the matter.   I did misunderstand the entire sense in which you take the passage, I was guessing, I should have held my peace on what I didn't know.  But your initial remark is as much in error as it ever was. 
 
In the following I have answered your numbered questions and I would expect you to at least look at those answers< i have tried not to overload you this time because I'm interested in your response. In addition to the numbered points there is this:
 
The evil seed are the children of the wicked one LITERAL SEED AND SPIRITUAL FOLLOWERS, FORGIVENESS IS AVAILABLE!. 
 
Among other things you are wrong on that last count.  The parable of the sower never speaks of tares changing to wheat.  Tares are to be burned.  There is no repentance for a true tare.  The tares are burned, period. The wheat are the children of the kingdom, the tares are the children of the wicked one.  The tares are burned.  PERIOD.  Tares do not change into wheat.  You stake out your ground in Matt 13 but you fail to grasp the words.  To see any possibility of "forgiveness" in a tare, which is a categorically excluded group from those that are called the children of the kingdom is very far removed from the explanation Jesus himself gave.  Tares are burned.  There is no forgiveness for tares, only burning.  Only children of the kingdom can enter the kingdom.  The reapers were forbidden to uproot the tares only because it was feared they might accidentally root up some wheat (after all we may suppose many saints start out looking like tares)  There is never any hint of a possibility that the tare might change into something other than a tare.  Tares are damned.  Period.  That is why I find it disgusting when people try to make this about a carnal seed.  Name Withheld, it is wrong and it is also useless.  What does this so-called knowledge gain you? I'd really like to know.
 
Just a short clarification. You also made a few comments that led me to think that you thought I was advocating some sort of works based salvation.  That is not so.  God does not save me based on my works, but my works are the evidence of the work of salvation in me.  Salvation is wrought in God.  A passage I am form of referencing is 2 Peter 1, add to your faith...virtue, knowledge, temperance, etc. give diligence to make your calling and election sure for if these things be in you and abound you shall never fail.  God is already sure about my election, he elected me, I did not elect him.  But I am not so sure about my election as God is, I do not have his perspective, and the way I make my calling and election sure is by giving diligence to the things which the Apostles counseled us to do.  It gives me confidence, but it does not make God look at me and say, " Wow, he sure is doing good, I want him on my team." Not at all.  The grace of God is what  saves us, he favors us because it is his will, not because of any works that I have done or will do.  But If I say I have faith and have not works then my boast of faith is vain.
 
Also a word on perfection, even though I was careful not to claim to be perfect, I felt like you were trying to place me in that mould.  Jesus Christ himself was not perfect while he walked the earth, it is true, He had to be made perfect:
 
Heb 2:10 For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings.
 
To stop sinning is not to be perfect, stopping sinning and unrighteousness is not salvation or perfection.  It is given us on the behalf of Christ not only to believe on him but also  to suffer for his name sake. (Phil) I'm not even sin free, so I know I'm far from perfection. But we must be sin free, Christ will make us free but we must continue believing in the promise.. 
 
When I read your comments I see how you are guessing at what I believe as much as I am guessing at what you believe, and it is irritating so I'm going to stop doing it to you as best I can in the hopes you will return the favor at least to some degree.
 
 I CANNOT FORCE IT AS I'VE TRIED IN THE PAST, BUT I DO GET THE IMPRESSION THAT YOU THINK YOU CAN FORCE DISCIPLESHIP
 
No I don't think that, every once in a while I call someone, I'm not forcing you, I'm just calling you.  Don't become my disciple if it displeases you, but you might check out this video on YouTube and see what I'm really all about, I am passionate about the gospel, that is what matters and that is what will save us. You have asked me questions about your doctrines, not mine,  I am a former student of Arnold Murray, I had a life altering experience in 2005 and I've really only laid out what I think in part here but you have gotten the wrong impression about my teachings, you don't have to become my disciple, but you seem fond of exploring ideas so you might watch this.
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbwnbYIdICY
And this is my channel:
http://www.youtube.com/user/PaulStringini
 
I have done over 80 chapters of the bible as songs, including the books of Joel and Revelation, and most of them can be downloaded from my website. http://oraclesofgod.org/ that was what God initially called me to do.  If you liked 1 John 3 you will probably love my other songs, it is just the bible,  on my youtube channel, I also have a few songs and some studies.  I have the scriptures appear with the study , but I also have all the reference scriptures come up too.
 
YOU'LL AGREE THAT DISCIPLES CAN UNDERSTAND PARABLES/SCRIPTURE IN GREATER DEPTH, I PROPOSE TO YOU QUESTIONS FROM THE SCRIPTURE IMMEDIATELY BEFORE THE SCRIPTURE YOU SITED ABOVE:
 
Ok, I will play, but I will also mention:
I cover this in my series on the book of Matthew,  Matthew 13: http://oraclesofgod.org/studies/40_Matthew/40_Matthew_Chapter_13_Complete.mp3
 
Your numbered points:
 
1) What are the mysteries of the kingdom of Heaven?  Please name one.
 
Mystery 1: That some men are destined to destruction, and some men are destined to glory, that is one of the mysteries revealed in  the Parable of the tares witnessed in many other scriptures.
 
Mystery 2 (related, I add this because I anticipate displeasure over the first mystery): That God is not fair in the eyes of men because God is gracious with people who do not deserve it, and is merely "fair" to others. All men do deserve the same fate.  All have sinned. That would be fair.   But God is gracious to some, more than fair, and to those he is merely "fair" with; it seems unjust. The parable of the workers of the field   Matthew 20:1-16
 
9 And when they came that were hired about the eleventh hour, they received every man a penny.
10 But when the first came, they supposed that they should have received more; and they likewise received every man a penny.
 
Was that fair?  It was fair.  They had agreed to get a penny, they got what they deserved.  What was UNFAIR was the gracious way which God dealt with those who had come late.  They did not get what they deserved.  This is the grace of God.

11 And when they had received it, they murmured against the goodman of the house,
12 Saying, These last have wrought but one hour, and thou hast made them equal unto us, which have borne the burden and heat of the day.
 
ITS NOT FAIR!  That is how man sees it. And in the wisdom of man, they are right.  On an hourly rate, the workers who worked an hour received TWELVE TIMES as much money for their one hour of labor.  But what does God say?

13 But he answered one of them, and said, Friend, I do thee no wrong: didst not thou agree with me for a penny?
14 Take that thine is, and go thy way: I will give unto this last, even as unto thee.
15 Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own?
 
God does what he wills, and man will take what he gives and there is nothing man can do to change it. God is fair to all and gracious to a few and man does not like it one bit.
 
Is thine eye evil, because I am good?
 
That is the point, God only gives the wicked what they deserve.  But it angers them that others get more than they deserve, after all, the righteous were once sinners too.  And If they knew what the righteous know, they would also turn from their sins, that is another mystery.

7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:
8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
 
God hides the wisdom from them so that they would do his will and not repent.  Just as he hardened Pharaoh's heart.  And then these tares are burned as they richly deserved.  Why did Christ speak in parables?  You already know that.
 
If one does not understand these mysteries in this way, then the reason may be because that one looks at Christ's parables with the eyes of a man, with a carnal mind.  That one sees God as he wishes him to be rather than as he really is.  Men think God ought to be fair, but if Christ gives us a parable which plainly shows that God is not fair, men are more willing to corrupt the word of God than to corrupt the idol that they keep in their heart. 
 
2) What specifically is the 'abundance' or loss thereof?
 
The abundance is the knowledge and understanding which leads to salvation, ears that are open, will open wider, and all that enters into them from God is the abundance we receive who hear and understand the mysteries of the kingdom.  The loss is that even that little understanding or faith which they "seem" to have shall be taken from them.  Just as tares may seem to be wheat to the eyes of men (but never to God), and as many wolves wear sheeps clothing, so also many who say that have faith only "seem" to have faith.  People may "seem" to men be saved, but since they do not progress in the faith they are revealed in the end to have been tares all along.
 
Luke 8:18 Take heed therefore how ye hear: for whosoever hath, to him shall be given; and whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken even that which he seemeth to have.
3) What is not being seen or heard or understood?
 
What he really meant by the parables.  My specialty is parables, if you want to test me look at my teachings on the subject all my studies are broken up by chapter..  You don't have to commit yourself to being my disciple to listen to the words I say.
 
4) Do you hear that disciples are converted from the multitudes?
 
The multitude does not change and never hears, every disciple comes out of the multitude of all men, but the multitude remains unchanged.  The idea of the "multitude" is a numerical distinction.  The point of the parables was to separate those few that could hear from the multitudes that were not intended to hear.  The Multitude is never converted but the elect are "called out" and chosen, there were a multude of tax collectors in Jesus day, but only Matthew was chosen to become an Apostle.  There was a multitude of fishermen in the sea of Galilee, but Christ only chose a few from among them.  Disciples are separated from the multitude but before they are chosen it is impossible to distinguish them from the multitude, unless one is God.
 
5) What is the difference between a disciple and a believer?
 
I might as well ask you "what is the difference between a man and a human being?"  Not every human being is a man but every man is a human being.  Every disciple is a believer but not every believer is a disciple, but every believer that continues in the faith will progress through discipleship to even greater gifts.  There is no shame in being a believer, because you must believe to become a disciple.  Remaining a disciple forever is as shameful as never progressing from simple faith.  A permanent disciple is like those which Paul mentioned who are "ever learning" but never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. 
 
Are you still a disciple?  Where do you go from there?  What is the difference between a disciple and a prophet?  I tell you you need to learn again.
 
6) What did Jesus tell them, Paul?  I've read it, so no need to recite.  Just tell me in your own words what Jesus meant.  I trust you'll not look up other commentator's opinions... I really want to know what you personally think Jesus meant, tell me what you hear as a child would read this.  This is really, really a major point.
 
JOHN 8:31 Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If you continue in my word, then are ye my disciples, indeed;  32 And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.
 
Been there, done that.  THAT IS WHAT IT MEANS, no need to argue here, you have to continue in his word to become a disciple.  Around 1998, through personal study, I became disillusioned with the teachings of Arnold Murray but still clung to many of the things I had learned, but I continued in God's word for another 7 years.  After a total of ten years of study God sent his holy spirit to me in power.  I wrote about this on my website.  In a single day he permanently wiped away many of most grievous sins (meaning that my behavior changed and remains changed) and he also totally revolutionized my understanding of the bible.  All my fellow disciples were shocked at the sudden change and I lost all of my friends(only one has returned to me) My wife was so very angry with me(for the change in doctrine) but the lord gave me a mouth and wisdom and gave her ears to hear me..  Since then I have no longer been a disciple of Jesus Christ, but he made me a chosen teacher and prophet. 
 
What you don't know about me, Name Withheld, is that I have something that will never allow me to change course again, I cannot go back to the beggarly elements.
 
Jesus told those who believed him how to become a disciple, indeed.  From believer to disciple here, Paul.  I totally accept your believership, beyond question. What did Jesus tell them that they believed that would lead to conversion into discipleship?  I've never heard a single sermon on the prelude to  "the truth will set you free."  Paul, there are a ton of believers out there calling themselves disciples, you and I would likely agree to disagree with a lot of them!  That's right, Paul, Jesus himself revealed how to convert from believer to disciple.   
 
It is an interesting world you live in.  But in my world I am six years removed from the days of my discipleship.  I know you are a disciple, but you are foundering, you have not received power from on high.  I know what I received.  I felt the power on my hands on my ears on my lips and on my feet.  God's spirit went into me and there is nothing that men can do to diminish that.  What did you receive since you believed?  I know you are a disciple, but you are a poor one.  I have suggested you become my disciple so that you might go beyond disciple ship because if you can receive this then you will also receive power and become more than a disciple.  If you continue on your current course, you will never progress beyond discipleship.  And you already know it, you seek to make disciples, I want to finish men's discipleship.
 
7)  Map out Jesus' path to discipleship! 
 
If it was not so pathetic I would laugh at you.  even that you seem to have will be taken from you.  You seem to be a disciple, but if you do not go on, you will lose even that!
 
Paul, this is THE million dollar question!  As far as I'm concerned, this is the ONLY path to discipleship, a door that no man can shut that many will seek and few shall find, narrow is the gait and straight is the way (paved with righteousness, I'll give you credit).  Paul, draw a map!  Disregard all the previous verbage which I enjoyed... focus on this single task, my respect for you as a disciple hangs in the balance.  
 
Ten years of discipleship was enough.  I continued in his word, I still continued in it, God has already come into me.  I know he has not come into you, because if he had we would agree.
 
Name Withheld, did you know that the term "DISCIPLE" never appears after the book of Acts?  It is used hundreds of times in the Gospels and Acts but never once in any of the epistles of Paul or of any of the other Apostles or in Revelation.  The epistles were written to lead us from discipleship to perfection.  Not that there is no place for discipleship, and even if there were more uses of the word, it would still remain that discipleship is NOT the goal of the Christian. 
 
My ears have become dull of hearing, my eyes are dim, my heart is weary... I have only little regard left for interpreters of scripture from anyone except a disciple!  
 
Disciples are one thing, I am not a disciple but a master, that is why people come to me.  I did not go to you, but you came to me.  Be not many masters. but still this falls to some of us to be masters and risk that judgment.  You ought to study with a MASTER.  It is not given to disciples to be masters.  Except they finish the period of their discipleship and go on.
 
24 The disciple is not above his master, nor the servant above his lord.
25 It is enough for the disciple that he be as his master, and the servant as his lord. 
 
I do not desire to be called "master" but that is my role. I am a master, not a disciple.  Christ has made me so by the power of his spirit which descended on me in power.  Whether you believe it or not, I believe it.
 
My brethren, be not many masters, knowing that we shall receive the greater condemnation.
 
But nevertheless, there are masters.  To deny this is a form of false humility.  There is nothing glorious in true mastership.  The world is full of masters who deny what they are. 
 
Name Withheld, You also desire to be a master, but you hide behind your claim to discipleship.  But be not deceived, he who does a master's work is a master and will receive a master's judgment.  If you want to be a DISCPLE then SHUT UP and continue in his word and stop trying to do the work of a Master.  Otherwise drop the false pretenses and be honest with yourself, you hypocrite.
 
It is professed to be a truly marvelous journey!  Many prophets and righteous men do seek to know these things... things disciples know!   I'm sorry that I neither have the time, nor the patience to hear your personal path to discipleship... I just pray that you know what you are teaching is Jesus' path to discipleship... the false prophet I am!  You remind me a lot of my zealous brother... I bet you have a wall full of Catholic scalps!  I'm not Catholic, by the way. 
 
No, I have a wall full of IDENTITY scalps and the scalps of those who teach the serpent's seed and other things that men intruded into which they have not seen, I have not treated much with you because I'm tired of going over the same things over and over again.  They never answer the questions they never account for the scriptures.  The trophies are all the emails I have posted on my site, this is not one of my better ones mostly because I have not taken you very seriously, I've seen dozens like you.  And I am weary with you all writing me without your having  first read the obituaries of those that came before you making the same arguments.  It would be so much more interesting.  I was never a disciple of the Catholics, God did not send me to them. He sent me to the disciples of Arnold Murray and they are  the ones I dispute with because I was one of them.
 
Sincerely,
Paul Stringini

Emailer's Fourth Reply:

----- Original Message -----
From: Name Withheld
To: Paul Stringini
Sent: Friday, October 14, 2011 6:29 PM
Subject: Name Withheld... John 8:28-32
Hey Paul!
Lost access to my phanton account we were corresponding on???  Sorry...  Anyway, I've been unable to receive your response(s), and I'd be greatful if you could forward your reply to this phanton address.  I was particularly interested in your understanding of John 8:28-32.  I've never heard it preached, taught, or otherwise.  Since my email, I did Google the verses and engaged the Catholic church to no avail as of yet. 
 
I recognize Jesus telling the Pharisees that when they have lifted up the Son of man (put Him on the cross), that they will know Jesus is the Messiah.  How did Jesus prove, from the cross, that He is the Messiah?
 
Jesus said His Father was with Him and never left Him alone.  How does this contrast with Jesus' statement (word) from the cross, "My God. My God. Why hast thou forsaken me?"
 
Some of the Jews believed Jesus would prove He is the Messiah from the cross, and Jesus told them that if they continue in His Word, they will be disciples, indeed.  I recognized this as the clue to converting from believer to disciple. 
 
I propose that if Jesus told His believers to "continue" in His Word, then He would tell them, from the cross, where to start!
 
Psalm 22 is fairly well known and respected as crucifixion prophesy with the first words, "My God. My God.  Why hast thou forsaken me."
 
I just find this entirely too coincidental... , and when we "continue in His Word" we hear Psalm 23, "Yeah though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death (near death), I will fear no evil.  For thou (God) art WITH  ME."
 
What I've come to learn is that believers believe Jesus was forsaken by Almighty God on the cross.  Disciples understand Jesus was merely referring us to crucifixion prophesy written some 600-1000 years prior by King David, inspired by Jesus!  Jesus had 600-1000 years or more of prior knowledge that Psalm 22 was crucifixion prophesy, and that 'continuing in His Word,' we hear 'thou art with me.'
 
I propose Jesus preempted the 'forsaken Jesus' theory knowing this would be a misunderstanding, that those who find this door would become disciples.
 
What sayest thou?
 
Sincerely,
Name Withheld

My Fifth Response:

----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Stringini
To: Name Withheld
Sent: Saturday, October 15, 2011 1:44 PM
Subject: Re: Cain's descendants

I'll look at your new question but first this is my response that you missed:

And I attached my 4th response...

Emailer's Fifth Reply:

 He continues his practice of commenting in the midst of my previous responses...Now in light red.
----- Original Message -----
From: Name Withheld
To: Paul Stringini
Sent: Saturday, October 15, 2011 5:35 PM
Subject: RE: Cain's descendants

Paul!  Great to connect, again... thanks for your response.  A learning experience, indeed, and I enjoy your input, thank you!  I'll agree that we are likely disagreeing from a perspective in 'time.'  And, appreciating your response, I'll reply in another color than blue.
 
From: Paul Stringini
To: Name Withheld
Subject: Re: Cain's descendants
Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2011 12:44:28 -0500
I'll look at your new question, but first, this is my response that you missed:
 
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Stringini
To: Name Withheld
Sent: Sunday, October 09, 2011 4:32 PM
Subject: Re: Cain's descendants

Name Withheld, I read your message and you did a decent job defending yourself against areas where I probably over-reached.  But on your basic assertion that "he that is born of God" refers to Christ and not to the faithful you did a very poor job. And that is the root of the matter.  Paul, I actually agree that 'he that is born of God' includes the faithful... I happen to include Jesus as being born of God!   I did misunderstand the entire sense in which you take the passage, I was guessing, I should have held my peace on what I didn't know.  But your initial remark is as much in error as it ever was. 
 
In the following I have answered your numbered questions and I would expect you to at least look at those answers< i have tried not to overload you this time because I'm interested in your response. In addition to the numbered points there is this:
 
The evil seed are the children of the wicked one LITERAL SEED AND SPIRITUAL FOLLOWERS, FORGIVENESS IS AVAILABLE!. 
 
Among other things you are wrong on that last count.  The parable of the sower never speaks of tares changing to wheat.  Tares are to be burned.  There is no repentance for a true tare.  The tares are burned, period. The wheat are the children of the kingdom, the tares are the children of the wicked one.  The tares are burned.  PERIOD.  Tares do not change into wheat.  You stake out your ground in Matt 13 but you fail to grasp the words.  To see any possibility of "forgiveness" in a tare, which is a categorically excluded group from those that are called the children of the kingdom is very far removed from the explanation Jesus himself gave.  Tares are burned.  There is no forgiveness for tares, only burning.  Only children of the kingdom can enter the kingdom.  The reapers were forbidden to uproot the tares only because it was feared they might accidentally root up some wheat (after all we may suppose many saints start out looking like tares)  There is never any hint of a possibility that the tare might change into something other than a tare.  Tares are damned.  Period.  That is why I find it disgusting when people try to make this about a carnal seed.  Name Withheld, it is wrong and it is also useless.  What does this so-called knowledge gain you? I'd really like to know.  Paul... couldn't agree with you more!  Here's the 'timing' issue:   This 'forgiveness' I speak of occurs before the harvest.  The Parable of the Sower occurs during the harvest... until harvest, well, John 3:16 comes to mind.  I might propose the 'reapers' were the same who arrived during Moses' time, and the 'reapers' passed over those households which had the sacrificial blood on the doorposts.  Similarly, the reapers in the Parable of the Sower will overlook the wheat proclaiming the blood of Christ... the wheat.  Meanwhile, the tares have a chance until the harvest. 
 
Just a short clarification. You also made a few comments that led me to think that you thought I was advocating some sort of works based salvation.  That is not so.  God does not save me based on my works, but my works are the evidence of the work of salvation in me.  Salvation is wrought in God.  A passage I am form of referencing is 2 Peter 1, add to your faith...virtue, knowledge, temperance, etc. give diligence to make your calling and election sure for if these things be in you and abound you shall never fail.  God is already sure about my election, he elected me, I did not elect him.  But I am not so sure about my election as God is, I do not have his perspective, and the way I make my calling and election sure is by giving diligence to the things which the Apostles counseled us to do.  It gives me confidence, but it does not make God look at me and say, " Wow, he sure is doing good, I want him on my team." Not at all.  The grace of God is what  saves us, he favors us because it is his will, not because of any works that I have done or will do.  But If I say I have faith and have not works then my boast of faith is vain.  Amen, Paul!  Couldn't agree with you more... my apology for considering a wrong impression.  Our work is evidence of our hope in His return and advocation!
 
Also a word on perfection, even though I was careful not to claim to be perfect, I felt like you were trying to place me in that mould.  Jesus Christ himself was not perfect while he walked the earth, it is true, He had to be made perfect:
 
Heb 2:10 For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings.
 
To stop sinning is not to be perfect, stopping sinning and unrighteousness is not salvation or perfection.  It is given us on the behalf of Christ not only to believe on him but also  to suffer for his name sake. (Phil) I'm not even sin free, so I know I'm far from perfection. But we must be sin free, Christ will make us free but we must continue believing in the promise..  Paul, I might beg to differ with you here, and, again... its a timing issue.  Please humor me here... Jesus committed no sin.  He was 'imperfect' in that He was made flesh, not that He sinned... and I trust you agree here.  Flesh is not eternal, therefore flesh is not perfect!  Jesus was made perfect when he yeilded His flesh on the cross... Jesus became exclusively Spirit, and no longer Spirit in flesh.  Apostle Paul continues in Heb 2:14-15 that through death (physical) and His defeat of death (flesh) that we might have hope:  freedom from the bondage of flesh that the end of flesh is not the end of life.  I propose Jesus defeated death on the cross!  And, this get's into my inquiry r/t John 8:28-32. 
 
When I read your comments I see how you are guessing at what I believe as much as I am guessing at what you believe, and it is irritating so I'm going to stop doing it to you as best I can in the hopes you will return the favor at least to some degree.  Certainly, Paul!  Forgive my presumptuousness as well.
 
 I CANNOT FORCE IT AS I'VE TRIED IN THE PAST, BUT I DO GET THE IMPRESSION THAT YOU THINK YOU CAN FORCE DISCIPLESHIP
 
No I don't think that, every once in a while I call someone, I'm not forcing you, I'm just calling you.  Don't become my disciple if it displeases you, but you might check out this video on YouTube and see what I'm really all about, I am passionate about the gospel, that is what matters and that is what will save us. You have asked me questions about your doctrines, not mine,  I am a former student of Arnold Murray, I had a life altering experience in 2005 and I've really only laid out what I think in part here but you have gotten the wrong impression about my teachings, you don't have to become my disciple, but you seem fond of exploring ideas so you might watch this.
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbwnbYIdICY  I can't acces this link in 'reply' mode... trust me that I will come back when I come back to this email in 'read' mode.
And this is my channel:
http://www.youtube.com/user/PaulStringini
 
I have done over 80 chapters of the bible as songs, including the books of Joel and Revelation, and most of them can be downloaded from my website. http://oraclesofgod.org/ that was what God initially called me to do.  If you liked 1 John 3 you will probably love my other songs, it is just the bible,  on my youtube channel, I also have a few songs and some studies.  I have the scriptures appear with the study , but I also have all the reference scriptures come up too.
 
YOU'LL AGREE THAT DISCIPLES CAN UNDERSTAND PARABLES/SCRIPTURE IN GREATER DEPTH, I PROPOSE TO YOU QUESTIONS FROM THE SCRIPTURE IMMEDIATELY BEFORE THE SCRIPTURE YOU SITED ABOVE:
 
Ok, I will play, but I will also mention:
I cover this in my series on the book of Matthew,  Matthew 13: http://oraclesofgod.org/studies/40_Matthew/40_Matthew_Chapter_13_Complete.mp3
 
Your numbered points:
 
1) What are the mysteries of the kingdom of Heaven?  Please name one.
 
Mystery 1: That some men are destined to destruction, and some men are destined to glory, that is one of the mysteries revealed in  the Parable of the tares witnessed in many other scriptures.
 
Mystery 2 (related, I add this because I anticipate displeasure over the first mystery): That God is not fair in the eyes of men because God is gracious with people who do not deserve it, and is merely "fair" to others. All men do deserve the same fate.  All have sinned. That would be fair.   But God is gracious to some, more than fair, and to those he is merely "fair" with; it seems unjust. The parable of the workers of the field   Matthew 20:1-16
 
9 And when they came that were hired about the eleventh hour, they received every man a penny.
10 But when the first came, they supposed that they should have received more; and they likewise received every man a penny.
 
Was that fair?  It was fair.  They had agreed to get a penny, they got what they deserved.  What was UNFAIR was the gracious way which God dealt with those who had come late.  They did not get what they deserved.  This is the grace of God.

11 And when they had received it, they murmured against the goodman of the house,
12 Saying, These last have wrought but one hour, and thou hast made them equal unto us, which have borne the burden and heat of the day.
 
ITS NOT FAIR!  That is how man sees it. And in the wisdom of man, they are right.  On an hourly rate, the workers who worked an hour received TWELVE TIMES as much money for their one hour of labor.  But what does God say?

13 But he answered one of them, and said, Friend, I do thee no wrong: didst not thou agree with me for a penny?
14 Take that thine is, and go thy way: I will give unto this last, even as unto thee.
15 Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own?
 
God does what he wills, and man will take what he gives and there is nothing man can do to change it. God is fair to all and gracious to a few and man does not like it one bit.
 
Is thine eye evil, because I am good?
 
That is the point, God only gives the wicked what they deserve.  But it angers them that others get more than they deserve, after all, the righteous were once sinners too.  And If they knew what the righteous know, they would also turn from their sins, that is another mystery.

7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:
8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
 
God hides the wisdom from them so that they would do his will and not repent.  Just as he hardened Pharaoh's heart.  And then these tares are burned as they richly deserved.  Why did Christ speak in parables?  You already know that.
 
If one does not understand these mysteries in this way, then the reason may be because that one looks at Christ's parables with the eyes of a man, with a carnal mind.  That one sees God as he wishes him to be rather than as he really is.  Men think God ought to be fair, but if Christ gives us a parable which plainly shows that God is not fair, men are more willing to corrupt the word of God than to corrupt the idol that they keep in their heart. Fascinating, Paul.  Great discussion on the wages point... We certainly can't put a price on Grace.  I might even suggest that our 'wages' are as we percieve them to be as evidenced by our walk.  And, I couldn't agree with you more that our walk is evidence of our hope, and our path is outlined in His Word. 
 
2) What specifically is the 'abundance' or loss thereof?
 
The abundance is the knowledge and understanding which leads to salvation, ears that are open, will open wider, and all that enters into them from God is the abundance we receive who hear and understand the mysteries of the kingdom.  The loss is that even that little understanding or faith which they "seem" to have shall be taken from them.  Just as tares may seem to be wheat to the eyes of men (but never to God), and as many wolves wear sheeps clothing, so also many who say that have faith only "seem" to have faith.  People may "seem" to men be saved, but since they do not progress in the faith they are revealed in the end to have been tares all along.  Certainly, God be the judge.  Salvation is as simple as "...go and sin no more." "This day you will be with me in Paradise."  That simple.  And we have an advocate before the Father at harvest, being careful to not advocate unrightouesness.  I really don't see knowledge and understanding as a path to salvation, a path of the disciple for sure.  Salvation is assured by simply believing on the name of Jesus.  The abundance... truth, Paul.  And, I think truth sums up your presentation.  And, I propose 'truth' begins with what I propose in John 8:28-32. 
 
Luke 8:18 Take heed therefore how ye hear: for whosoever hath, to him shall be given; and whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken even that which he seemeth to have.
3) What is not being seen or heard or understood?
 
What he really meant by the parables.  My specialty is parables, if you want to test me look at my teachings on the subject all my studies are broken up by chapter..  You don't have to commit yourself to being my disciple to listen to the words I say.  The parables are awesome, and I admire your endeavor in them!
 
4) Do you hear that disciples are converted from the multitudes?
 
The multitude does not change and never hears, every disciple comes out of the multitude of all men, but the multitude remains unchanged.  The idea of the "multitude" is a numerical distinction.  The point of the parables was to separate those few that could hear from the multitudes that were not intended to hear.  The Multitude is never converted but the elect are "called out" and chosen, there were a multitude of tax collectors in Jesus day, but only Matthew was chosen to become an Apostle.  There was a multitude of fishermen in the sea of Galilee, but Christ only chose a few from among them.  Disciples are separated from the multitude but before they are chosen it is impossible to distinguish them from the multitude, unless one is God.  Excellent point, Paul!  Yet, I have to ask, "How does one know one is a Disciple?"  I hear tons of people professing discipleship, what's the distinction? 
 
5) What is the difference between a disciple and a believer?
 
I might as well ask you "what is the difference between a man and a human being?"  Not every human being is a man but every man is a human being.  Every disciple is a believer but not every believer is a disciple, but every believer that continues in the faith will progress through discipleship to even greater gifts.  There is no shame in being a believer, because you must believe to become a disciple.  Remaining a disciple forever is as shameful as never progressing from simple faith.  A permanent disciple is like those which Paul mentioned who are "ever learning" but never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.  I might suggest you have proposed a new word, 'permenant disciple.'  I propose Paul is referring to 'ever learning' as believers attempting to achieve discipleship via aquisition of knowledge.  Although, knowledge is awesome... we agree Disciples are chosen as our illuminated previously.  And, we might debate each other's 'calling', but what makes one a disciple?  I can only declare John 8:28-32... disciples, indeed... the truth that makes us free... 
 
Are you still a disciple?  Where do you go from there?  What is the difference between a disciple and a prophet?  I tell you you need to learn again.  Prophets and righteous men wish to hear and see those things which disciples hear and see.  Sure, Paul... I'm still a disciple by my understanding of Jesus' door in John 8:28-32... and I'm still on the path!   Discipleship is a path, a journey, but we have to go through a very specific door.  Many believers may walk the path, but this doesn't mean they were chosen, albeit the right thing to do!  Prophet, Paul?  Tell you what... I promise I can tell you something about Jesus that has been before us for 2000 years, and I've never heard a single person propose such illumination... and we'll get there!  This unique knowledge of Jesus which I will propose is very difficult to swallow except being a disciple... nah, I'm no cult!   LOL!
 
6) What did Jesus tell them, Paul?  I've read it, so no need to recite.  Just tell me in your own words what Jesus meant.  I trust you'll not look up other commentator's opinions... I really want to know what you personally think Jesus meant, tell me what you hear as a child would read this.  This is really, really a major point.
 
JOHN 8:31 Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If you continue in my word, then are ye my disciples, indeed;  32 And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.
 
Been there, done that.  THAT IS WHAT IT MEANS, no need to argue here, you have to continue in his word to become a disciple. Paul, I await your feedback regarding John 8:28-32.   Around 1998, through personal study, I became disillusioned with the teachings of Arnold Murray but still clung to many of the things I had learned, but I continued in God's word for another 7 years.  After a total of ten years of study God sent his holy spirit to me in power.  I wrote about this on my website.  In a single day he permanently wiped away many of most grievous sins (meaning that my behavior changed and remains changed) and he also totally revolutionized my understanding of the bible.  All my fellow disciples were shocked at the sudden change and I lost all of my friends(only one has returned to me) My wife was so very angry with me(for the change in doctrine) but the lord gave me a mouth and wisdom and gave her ears to hear me..  Since then I have no longer been a disciple of Jesus Christ, but he made me a chosen teacher and prophet.  Thank you for your testimony, Paul... I've listened to many and have learned from all, and disagree with all at some point.  Teacher... Prophet?  I cannot deny... Maybe I can share something with you that is illuminating still!   
 
What you don't know about me, Name Withheld, is that I have something that will never allow me to change course again, I cannot go back to the beggarly elements.  I certainly won't suggest that either of us go back to the beggarly elements!
 
Jesus told those who believed him how to become a disciple, indeed.  From believer to disciple here, Paul.  I totally accept your believership, beyond question. What did Jesus tell them that they believed that would lead to conversion into discipleship?  I've never heard a single sermon on the prelude to  "the truth will set you free."  Paul, there are a ton of believers out there calling themselves disciples, you and I would likely agree to disagree with a lot of them!  That's right, Paul, Jesus himself revealed how to convert from believer to disciple.   
 
It is an interesting world you live in.  But in my world I am six years removed from the days of my discipleship.  I know you are a disciple, but you are foundering, you have not received power from on high.  I know what I received.  I felt the power on my hands on my ears on my lips and on my feet.  God's spirit went into me and there is nothing that men can do to diminish that.  What did you receive since you believed?  I know you are a disciple, but you are a poor one.  I have suggested you become my disciple so that you might go beyond disciple ship because if you can receive this then you will also receive power and become more than a disciple.  If you continue on your current course, you will never progress beyond discipleship.  And you already know it, you seek to make disciples, I want to finish men's discipleship.  Paul, we're probably in agreement that there should be an end to 'men's' discipleship... there is only Jesus' discipleship.  With all due respect for your experience:  Out of curiosity, did you see the light?  You know Paul saw the light...  I did see a light, and I've pondered it ever since!  I listen to the Bible on CD with a long drive home from work down an all too familiar two lane country road.  About 9 pm.. mabe less than a quarter moon... all of a sudden the dash on my car lit up like a spot light was overhead.  I looked around me outside the car, and the pavement was lit up that I could see a penny on the ground outside the window... that bright!  the light didn't extend more than about 15 feet around the car.  There was a motorcycle behing me about  3/4 mile, and I even thought about asking the driver if he saw the light!  The light was overhead leaving the shadow of the car top on the dash in front of me.  I looked up through the front windshield, out the side and rear windows...  About 20 seconds, no sound... Beats me man... I'm a real outdoorsman, least in my past, and I did once see a meteor burst lke a roman candle and light up the ground, but that was a lot of light covering as far as I could see.  This was a focused light... very strange, and I have no explanation, but really caught my attention!
 
7)  Map out Jesus' path to discipleship! 
 
If it was not so pathetic I would laugh at you.  even that you seem to have will be taken from you.  You seem to be a disciple, but if you do not go on, you will lose even that!
 
Paul, this is THE million dollar question!  As far as I'm concerned, this is the ONLY path to discipleship, a door that no man can shut that many will seek and few shall find, narrow is the gait and straight is the way (paved with righteousness, I'll give you credit).  Paul, draw a map!  Disregard all the previous verbage which I enjoyed... focus on this single task, my respect for you as a disciple hangs in the balance.  
 
Ten years of discipleship was enough.  I continued in his word, I still continued in it, God has already come into me.  I know he has not come into you, because if he had we would agree.
 
Name Withheld, did you know that the term "DISCIPLE" never appears after the book of acts?  It is used hundreds of times in the gospels and acts but never once in any of the epistles of Paul or of any of the other Apostles or in Revelation.  The epistles were written to lead us from discipleship to perfection.  Not that there is no place for discipleship, and even if there were more uses of the word, it would still reamain that discipleship is NOT the goal of the Christian.  Paul, the destination of a Disciple is the same as that of a a believer.  The path of a disciple, however is different.  Paul, you can laugh at me... totally cool!  I'm inclined to give your input consideration just the same!  LOL!  I'll take up "Jesus' path to discipleship" as I know is discussed in your next email which I have yet to read, and look forward to it. 
 
My ears have become dull of hearing, my eyes are dim, my heart is weary... I have only little regard left for interpreters of scripture from anyone except a disciple!  
 
Disciples are one thing, I am not a disciple but a master, that is why people come to me.  I did not go to you, but you came to me.  Be not many masters. but still this falls to some of us to be masters and risk that judgment.  You ought to study with a MASTER.  it is not given to disciples to be masters.  Except they finish the period of their discipleship and go on.
 
24 The disciple is not above his master, nor the servant above his lord.
25 It is enough for the disciple that he be as his master, and the servant as his lord. 
 
I do not desire to be called "master" but that is my role. I am a master, not a disciple.  Christ has made me so by the power of his spirit which descended on me in power.  Whether you believe it or not, I believe it.  I'm not particularly disagreeing with your calling, Paul. 
 
My brethren, be not many masters, knowing that we shall receive the greater condemnation.  I might propose being a master is a Disciple knowledgeable in truth... kinda like the discple Ananias who Apostle Paul spent about 3 days with!  Paul did heal a man on the shores of the Mediterranean during his capture and "extradition."  I can't say I've healed a person under similar circumstances.  But, being a nurse practitioner, I can say I have seen miracles!
 
But nevertheless, there are masters.  To deny this is a form of false humility.  There is nothing glorious in true mastership.  The world is full of masters who deny what they are. 
 
Name Withheld, You also desire to be a master, but you hide behind your claim to discipleship.  But be not deceived, he who does a master's work is a master and will receive a master's judgment.  If you want to be a DISCPLE then SHUT UP and continue in his word and stop trying to do the work of a Master.  Otherwise drop the false pretenses and be honest with yourself you hypocrite.   Paul... I do have one illumination to share, if I may beg your patience. 
 
It is professed to be a truly marvelous journey!  Many prophets and righteous men do seek to know these things... things disciples know!   I'm sorry that I neither have the time, nor the patience to hear your personal path to discipleship... I just pray that you know what you are teaching is Jesus' path to discipleship... the false prophet I am!  You remind me a lot of my zealous brother... I bet you have a wall full of Catholic scalps!  I'm not Catholic, by the way. 
 
No, I have a wall full of IDENTITY scalps and the scalps of those who teach the serpent's seed and other things that men intruded into which they have not seen, I have not treated much with you because I'm tired of going over the same things over and over again.  They never answer the questions they never account for the scriptures.  The trophies are all the emails I have posted on my site, this is not one of my better ones mostly because I have not taken you very seriously, I've seen dozens like you.  And I am weary with you all writing me without your having  first read the obituaries of those that came before you making the same arguments.  it would be so much more interesting.  I was never a disciple of the Catholics, God did not send me to them. He sent me to the disciples of Arnold Murray and they are  the ones I dispute with because I was one of them.  Paul, I was never one of Murray's 'disciples', and I cannot be yours.  Respecting your humble wish to not be called, "Master," and affirming Jesus' words in Matt 23:8 But be not ye called Rabbi; for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. 9 And call no man you father upon the earth:  for one is your Father, which is in heaven.  10 Neither be ye called master, for one is your Master, even Christ.  Paul, I have one Master.  I will remain Disciple.  I do get the impression you believe Disciples evolve into Masters... at least via Christ's calling.  And, I can appreciate to path of the disciple leading toward greater illumination.  I propose one becomes a disciple when entering through the door Jesus illuminated in John 8:28-32... once a diciple, the 'truth' illuminates the path, and the path illuminates the truth.  That path embraces righteousness which we both acknowledge.  Let's see what you have to say about John 8:28-32.
 
Sincerely,
Paul Stringini

Emailer's Additional Remarks

----- Original Message -----
From: Name withheld
To: Paul Stringini
Sent: Saturday, October 15, 2011 7:08 PM
Subject: RE: Cain's descendants

Thanks for your great video... beautiful voice! 
 
I appreciate all the scriptural associations, and would have much to say, ask, and discuss.  Nonetheless, I'm still rather 'stuck' on this discipleship thing...  at the risk of forcing the issue.  Totally agreeing that studying the scripture is invaluable, and you've clearly studied much.  I'm not suggesting that you're not on the 'path' of a disciple living in righteousness... but, I'm not sure you went through the same door I went through... and, I have no idea where Murray stands on John 8:28-32???  If I may be so bold, I get the impression you have taken 'the truth will make you free' out of context, yet I cannot agree with you more that Biblical truth is liberating.  Rather interesting that the Pharisees thought Jesus was talking about literal, physical bondage... while Jesus was talking about spiritual freedom.  What a fabulous contrast!  So, here's my little sermon: 

John 8:28-32   Door to Discipleship… many were called, few were chosen:

I run quite solo... more like a John the Baptist type, don't go to church.  I’m not asking you to join my church or organization… there isn’t one!  I've never heard a sermon, etc on John 8:28-32 ending in the “truth will make you free…” until surfing recently... but, I can sum up my understanding without references to specific scripture attesting to your knowledge, Paul.  I ask only your consideration.  
 
Jesus identified the door to discipleship, from believer to disciple, and we likely agree to a certain point.  The door that no man can shut, narrow is the gait and straight is the way, many will seek and few will find, with the achievement of discipleship being so valuable that prophets and righteous men have desired to see and hear what you (disciples) see (Mat 13:10-17)...
 
In the scripture, John 8:28-32  Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things.  29 And he that sent me is with me:  the Father hath not left me alone; for I do always those things that please him.  30  As he spake these words, many believed on him (believers).  31  Then said Jesus to those Jews who believed on him, If (condition) ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples, indeed;  32  And (then) ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free

Jesus reported that when the corrupt Pharisees put Him on the cross, then He will prove (from the cross) He is the Messiah, as if His miracles were not sufficient to those Pharisees.  Jesus stated that His Father is with Him, His Father has never left Him alone, and that He always does those things which please His Father. 
 
Just a little orignal footwork, Paul:  Those things which please His Father refers to:
 
John 10:17-18 Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again.  18 No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself.  I have the power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again.  This commandment have I received of my Father.
 
Still original, here, Paul:  Jesus, submitting to crucifixion, was following this commandment He received from His Father.  I lay down my life.  No man takes His life... Jesus wasn't murdered on the cross!  He had the power to spiritually depart from His living flesh, albeit near death.  I propose Jesus' spirit left his flesh on the cross, and His body then died.  Remember the Centurion at the cross?  Even Pilate 'marvelled' that Jesus was already dead!  Jesus preempted death by crucifixion, not suggesting He wasn't crucified. This is the power to yield His flesh body up as a sacrifice and prove He had divine power!  The proof He is the Messiah... I've never heard this position, but I believe this yielding of His flesh was as powerful a miracle as His resurrection!  I have never, ever heard this preached or taught before.  I happen to believe that those of us who are alive when He returns will likewise leave our flesh!  A miracle was conceived, then born, in flesh!  Furthermore, when Jesus exercised power… a miracle was performed:  conception, sacrifice, and resurrection among others, and it was through the Father that all miracles were performed.  
 
Now, Jesus declares that His Father is with Him and has never left him alone in John 8:28-32.  Keep this in mind... very, very key point for later support.  Do you believe Jesus' own words here as He's discussing his anticipated crucifixion?
 
Jesus said He would prove, FROM THE CROSS, that He is the Messiah.  Spiritual "c-section" is one such proof "…unto thee I commend my spirit."  Furthermore, in John 8:28-32, He said, "If you continue in my word, you will be My disciple, indeed."  Does it not stand to reason that He would tell us, beginning with His words from the cross, where to continue in His written Word?  Well, I take Him at His word!  So, what did Jesus say on the cross?  
 
Jesus said, "I thirst" from the cross.  Original here, Paul:  According to one Gospel (Mark I think), Jesus refused the wine mixed with myrrh.  However, Jesus did receive the vinegar from the sponge on a hyssop reed ‘concidentally’ used at the first Passover to spread the sacrificial blood on the doorposts.  After He received the vinegar, He said, "It is finished."  I can appreciate He finished His ministry, finished His Father's commandment, even... but, I propose there was an even more specific "finish" that only His disciples would understand!  Consider vinegar as old wine... souring beyond fermentation.  (Reflect on new wine in old bottles)  Jesus had a special message to His disciples that He first presented at the Last Supper:
 
Mat 26:27-29 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; 28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.  29 But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the fine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.
 
Jesus also "finished" His words to His disciples... Jesus refused the new wine offered before He was put on the cross... Jesus received the old wine (vinegar) FROM THE CROSS!  Jesus fulfilled His sacrifice just as He shared with His disciples at the Last Supper!  Interesting, Paul?  I hope so... because what's next will likely challenge your faith paradigm.  Jesus said in the subject scripture, while anticipating His crucifixion, that His Father is with Him and His Father has never left Him alone... Jesus preempted what is possibly a cornerstone in your faith paradigm, Paul.  What else did Jesus say FROM THE CROSS?
 
"My God.  My God.  Why hast thou forsaken me?
 
Was Jesus forsaken on the cross by His Father?  Jesus was telling those who believed Him... even today... where to "continue in my word" BEGINNING WITH HIS WORDS ON THE CROSS to convert believers into disciples.  Jesus was referring believers to a specific place in His Word (OT) to continue from His Words on the cross, child's understanding.   The New Testament wasn't written yet, of course.

Granted, there are many, many truths in His Word, Paul... His reference from the cross was to a specific place in His Word full of truths to continue.  Jesus was referring us to the crucifixion prophesy of Psalm 22, even continuing into Psalm 23 written by King David.  Recall the 'dog 'of a mother's plea, "Oh Lord, thou son of David."  Jesus said she had great faith!  She KNEW Jesus was the Messiah, but her great faith is another sermon, altogether.   

It is not uncommon to recognize Psalm 22 as crucifixion prophesy... but, that's after the fact, Paul.  Jesus, Son of Almighty God, knew Psalm 22 was crucifixion prophesy when He inspired David to write it some 600 to 1000 years prior!  Jesus had PRIOR knowledge... well, that's a lot of proof.  But, let's continue in His word to Psalm 23... "Yea though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death (near death), I will fear no evil FOR THOU ART WITH ME!"  Amen to that one!
 
Apostle Paul reports:
 
HEB 13:5  Let your conversation be without covetousness; and be content with such things as ye have:  for he saith, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee."
 
If we have seen the Son, then we have seen the Father!
 
Door to discipleship, Paul... THE specific truth that will make you free, indeed.  Irrefutable proof Jesus is the Word, the Messiah, and Son of Almighty God.  Through your faith and experience you believe (know through faith) Jesus is the Messiah.  Believers believe Jesus was forsaken by Almighty God on the cross... that's carnal, Paul... that's flesh.  Disciples know the truth!  Believers believe Jesus is the Messiah... Disciples KNOW Jesus is the Messiah, and I have shared with you how I KNOW Jesus is the true Messiah. 
 
Paul, thanks for considering this humble servant's position.  With all due respect for redundancy... put on your armour here, Paul... I've heard enough of the boo hoo voo doo... I want some meat I can sink my teeth into!  Were you a disciple, Paul?  Being Murray's disciple is not being Jesus' disciple any more than me being your disciple!  Maybe you were Murray's disciple... One Master... and I'm here to testify that the door is before you!  What do you hear in John 8:28, 29, 30, 31 and 32, Paul?  Where does it take you?

Sincerely
Name Withheld

My Sixth Response:

----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Stringini
To: Name Withheld
Sent: Saturday, October 15, 2011 10:47 PM
Subject: Re: Cain's descendants
Multiple email strings are always a bad sign... I wish you had waited till I cleaned up your new message... oh well...
 
The problem with your interpretation of John 8:28-32 is that you are doing precisely what you suggested I did (but I did not).  That is, you are taking those verses out of context, critically, you leave out verses 33-36,  And these verses are critical because in them Jesus ACTUALLY EXPLAINS what he meant about "...know the truth and the truth shall make you free."  Specifically he defines FREEDOM.
 
This is very simple
 
33 They answered him, We be Abraham's seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free?
They asked him, "What do you mean by "you shall be made free?"  And since Christ himself gave them answer, in the following verses, all and any speculation on our part, as to his intent, is unnecessary.
 
34 Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.
Jesus starts out definineg freedom by defining bondage. If you commit sin then you are the servant of sin. Period.
 
35 And the servant abideth not in the house for ever: but the Son abideth ever.
 
A servant is not a free man they needed to become disciples and be made free, and this is the way in which Christ intended for us to take that statement. Free from service to sin.  Very simple.  USE CONTEXT.  In 35 we may presume with some safety that he is also making allusions to matters of eternal life and death.
 
36 If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.
 
Most Christians believe that the righteousness which Christ gives believers is "only " imputed. That is this idea that God looks at us as being righteous even though we may still be sinning in actuality.  And there is an imputation of righteousness, that cannot be denied.  But that is a theorhetical righteousness, not righteousness indeed.  Righteous in action, INDEED is also part of being a Christian, and that goes over to what 1 John 3 says about "Little children let no man deceive you"  DOING righteousness makes you righteous, whoever does not DO righteousness is not of God.  I used to make the excuse that the righteousness is "imputed" but that is about as disgusting a cop-out as I can think of.
 
To be free indeed is to no longer commit sin.  If we continue in his word and become his disciples indeed then he will make us free from sin, indeed.  "Whosoever COMMITETH sin is the servant of sin."  The only way you can be free "indeed" from that axiom, is if you no longer commit acts of sin.  That is true freedom.  That is IN CONTEXT.  That is the freedom of which Christ was speaking of in verse 32.  If you look at the context you can easily see that verses 33-36 are supplied to EXPLAIN what Jesus meant by FREEDOM. 
 
And the truth that makes free is to know that Jesus Christ is the son of God and to continue in his service and to continue to believe in his "great and precious promises," come what may.
 
I still have not gotten to your other email, but I thought I would mention that I also recorded a song for John Chapter 8 complete, I have memorized this chapter (and many others) and  I have a great deal of clarity regarding the context of all things said in it. 
 
 
I have long been aware that Jesus laid down his life on the cross.  He gave up the ghost.  No one killed him.  Did you think you were the only person who knew that?  The Roman centurion would have seen many men die on the cross, and knew that it could take days. Yes, that is what impressed him.  It is not exactly the most earth shaking bit of truth.  I used to be very enamored with every little bit of information I thought I had found in the scriptures.  But now I realize that my knowledge does not commend me to God.  And that trying to impress upon men all I know is folly as well.  I answer the questions that are asked me and I teach the scriptures as they are written, that is why I don't have a doctrine of serpent's seed, you can't make sound doctrine out of that stuff, and until you learn how to know sound interpretation practices from unsound ones you will wittingly or not corrupt the word you seek to honor.
 
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Stringini
To: Name Withheld
Sent: Saturday, October 15, 2011 10:56 PM
Subject: Re: Cain's descendants

I have no idea where Murray stands on John 8:28-32??? 
 
I'm not exactly sure, but based on what I got out of his teachings (and this was a long time ago) I would say that to Arnold, "the truth" is a special set of doctrines, his pet doctrines, basically.  He is pretty focused on his doctrines as being the means by which we avoid deception and prove our election.

Emailer's Sixth Reply: Mailer's comments in blue

----- Original Message -----
From: Name Withheld
To: Paul Stringini
Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2011 2:27 AM
Subject: RE: Cain's descendants
From: Paul Stringini
To: Name Withheld
Subject: Re: Cain's descendants
Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2011 22:47:18 -0500
   
Multiple email strings are always a bad sign... I wish you had waited till I cleaned up your new message... oh well...
 
The problem with your interpretation of John 8:28-32 is that you are doing precisely what you suggested I did (but I did not).  That is, you are taking those verses out of context, critically, you leave out verses 33-36,  And these verses are critical because in them Jesus ACTUALLY EXPLAINS what he meant about "...know the truth and the truth shall make you free."  Specifically he defines FREEDOM.  Absolutely correct as I hear this as well, but somewhat from another angle, Paul.  Please understand that Jesus was then talking to the Pharisees explaining 'freedom,' just as you state.  Jesus was not then talking to those who believed Him.  The more abstract 'truth' Jesus unveiled to His believers was achieved through His door to discipleship.  That 'truth' was beyond the concrete minded perception of the Pharisees even thinking physical bondage! Two 'truth's' and two 'freedom''s' to two different audiences here Paul (excluding those undecided):  (1) freedom for believers (had salvation)  to know His authenticity (v. believieving alone) through truth found in discipleship via a specific portal or door, and (2) freedom (salvation) for those specific Pharisees from their sin teaching and believing (among other sins) the Messiah was to be born a descendant of Ishmael (Who's ya daddy?).  Jesus revealed the door to discipleship to his believers as I suggest.  After the Pharisees spoke of physical bondage, Jesus then continued His explanation of 'freedom" to the Pharisees... freedom being salvation.  Before His explanation beyond verse 33, Jesus was talking to the Jews who actually belived Him!  The Pharisees responded with their classic 'concrete thinking' response.  Jesus knew those Pharisees had no concept of the truth or the freedom that He was talking about to those 'Jews' who believed Him.   
 
This is very simple
 
33 They answered him, We be Abraham's seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free?
They asked him, "What do you mean by "you shall be made free?"  And since Christ himself gave them answer, in the following verses, all and any speculation on our part, as to his intent, is unnecessary.  Sure, the corrupt Pharisees asked Him, Paul... they had no idea of the freedom Jesus illuminated to those who believed Him.  I'll catch up with you Paul... but, you've skipped over one point that has a major part to play as we move forward:  Never in bondage to any man.  Who were the descendants of Abraham never in bondage to any man?  This is very important, Paul.  The descendants of Abraham through his son ______________________ were never in bondage.  Got to take this one step at a time, please humor me and fill in the blank. 
34 Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.
Jesus starts out definineg freedom by defining bondage. If you commit sin then you are the servant of sin. Period.  It is imperative to recognize Jesus was talking specifically to the corrupt Pharisees here, not His believers.  Those corrupt Pharisees had no advocate before the Father, yet the believers did (although, not quite disciples.).  I understand the whole world is blessed by His presence on earth John 3:16.  Nonetheless, Jesus said he was sent unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel (MAT 15:24), and as Jesus was sent, so sent He His disciples unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel (MAT 10:6).  I propose those corrupt Pharisees (and followers) were not descendants of Isaac, the children of God who left Egyptian bondage in Exodus 1.  Righ tnow, I'm proposing those corrupt Pharisees were not descendants of Isaac... but, more support is forthcoming in this chapter. 
 
35 And the servant abideth not in the house for ever: but the Son abideth ever.
 
A servant is not a free man recall the curse of Canaan! I proposed in my essay that the corrupt Pharisees were descendants of Canaan, Jesus was specifically talking to those corrupt Pharisees they needed to become disciples and be made free I appreciate your associating discipleship and freedom, and they would be made free (salvation) via Christ  and this is the way in which Christ intended for us to take that statement I might disagree to this extent that Jesus was talking to the corrupt Pharisees.  Believers were not corrupt Pharisees.  Believers have an advocate before the Father!  Free from service to sin.   Believers are subject to sin, but not servants to sin.  The Pharisees were non-believers, not undecided!  As non-believers, and that's an understatement, the corrupt Pharisees had no advocate, and will therefore die in their sins!  Very simple.  USE CONTEXT.  In 35 we may presume with some safety that he is also making allusions to matters of eternal life and death.
 
36 If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.
 
Most Christians believe that the righteousness which Christ gives believers is "only " imputed. That is this idea that God looks at us as being righteous even though we may still be sinning in actuality.  And there is an imputation of righteousness, that cannot be denied.  But that is a theoretical righteousness, not righteousness indeed.  Righteous in action, INDEED is also part of being a Christian, and that goes over to what 1 John 3 says about "Little children let no man deceive you"  DOING righteousness makes you righteous, whoever does not DO righteousness is not of God.  Couldn't agree with you more!  I might suggest we pray and strive for rightouesness... and when WE sin we have an advocate before the Father.  Those corrupt Pharisees had no advocate!  Therefore they will die in their sins. We both acknowledge we are not perfect... WE have an advocate before the Father!  I used to make the excuse that the righteousness is "imputed" but that is about as disgusting a cop-out as I can think of.  You kinda lose me here, but I think we agree. 
 
To be free indeed is to no longer commit sin.  Are you implying perfection?  "Free indeed" was referring to the opportunity Jesus presented to those corrupt Pharisees... salvation accepting Jesus as the Messiah, Son of David.  If we continue in his word agreeing only with continuing to Pslam 22-23 and become his disciples indeed then he will make us free from sin, indeed.  I can't agree with you here because the freedom offered the believers (truth found through contiuing in His Word... Pslam 22-23, etc) is a different freedom (salvation) Jesus offered those non-believing corrupt Pharisees  "Whosoever COMMITETH sin is the servant of sin."  The only way you can be free "indeed" from that axiom, is if you no longer commit acts of sin.  Then, Paul, are you proposing that you'll not sin from this day forward?  Neither can I say that... I live in a corruptible body.  I can say I pray and strive for righteousnes, and I have an advocate before the Father, at the risk of sounding like I advocate unrighteousness.  That is true freedom.  That is IN CONTEXT.  That is the freedom of which Christ was speaking of in verse 32.  If you look at the context you can easily see that verses 33-36 are supplied to EXPLAIN what Jesus meant by FREEDOM.  I do beg your patience, Paul:  two truths... two freedoms... to two audiences (excepting those undecided):  believers offered discipleship, and corrupt Pharisees offered salvation.  The freedom for the Pharisees will not make disciples out of believers...  And, the freedom offered the believers will not necessarily make disciples of the corrupt Pharisees (Disciples are chosen).  In fact, not all believers will be disciples... at least for this point in time of conversation. 
 
And the truth that makes free is to know that Jesus Christ is the son of God and to continue in his service and to continue to believe in his "great and precious promises," come what may.  Paul, I have shared with you how I KNOW Jesus Christ is the son of God as I have found through the door to discipleship:  Disciples KNOW Jesus is the Messiah.  So, Paul... with all due respect for you personal experiences, explain to an aethiest... a Jew... how you KNOW Jesus is the Messiah:__________________________________________.
 
We still have unfinished business in John 8:  The corrupt Pharisees said (1) they were the 'seed' of Abraham, and Jesus affirmed this.  (2) They said they were never in bondage.  Jesus didn't challenge this.  Paul, then who were the seed of Abraham never in bondage?  Descendants of Ishmael!  Abraham had sons/daughters through Keturah and concubines (legal relationships) at that time... and they received their inheritance in that scripture.  Where's Ishmael's inheritance?  (3)  Those corrupt Pharisees said, "We be not born of fornication."  Well, concubines were legal relationships according to the Law of Moses.  But, 'surrogate' mothers, like Hagar, had no place in the Law!  Was that fornication?  Certainly cocks the eye up!  Let's take this to another Gospel.   Listen  to Jesus' words speaking to those corrupt Pharisees ending the 'seven woes':
 
MAT 23:30-31 And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.  31  Wherefore ye be witnesses unto youselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets.
 
We both know those corrupt Pharisees were already contemplating His crucifixion!  Jesus was talking about their literal father, their being literal partakers in the blood, their being literal witnesses, and their being literal children of those who murdered the prophets.  Wasn't Ishmael also the son of an Egyptian mother?  Didn't Ishmael have an Egyptian wife?  Didn't the Egyptian Hagar and Ishmael get banished... where did they go?  Wasn't Ishmael the father of 12 princes (by an Egyptian mother), father of a great nation?   Now, who was it who later put under bondage the children of God (Israelites) in Exodus 1?  You are a smart man, Paul.  Can you connect these dots?  You said yourself, Paul, that Ham was the father of the Egyptians... servant unto servants, servants of sin, progeny of fornication (LEV 18:8, 20:11, DEU in two places, and even 1COR5:1).  Paul, you might say Murray agrees with me!  And, there are key issues that I disagree with Murray... but, no one gets it all wrong in Christianity.  
 
 
I still have not gotten to your other email, but I thought I would mention that I also recorded a song for John Chapter 8 complete, I have memorized this chapter (and many others) and  I have a great deal of clarity regarding the context of all things said in it. 
 
 
I have long been aware that Jesus laid down his life on the cross.  He gave up the ghost.  No one killed him.  Did you think you were the only person who knew that? No, in fact, little I say is original... its all in the Good Book!  Nonetheless, I'm impressed that you perceive this!  This does happen to be pretty rare in the religious community. The Roman centurion would have seen many men die on the cross, and knew that it could take days. Yes, that is what impressed him.  It is not exactly the most earth shaking bit of truth yet the earth did shake!  I used to be very enamoured with every little bit of information I thought I had found in the scriptures.  But now I realize that my knowledge does not commend me to God.  And that trying to impress upon men all I know is folly as well like memorizing chapters?  I never read the instructions for building an ark all the way through, but I know where to find the instructions if I need to build one!.  I answer the questions that are asked me and I teach the scriptures as they are written, that is why I don't have a doctrine of serpent's seed then you refute GEN 3:15, you refure Jesus' words MAT 23:33, JOHN 8:43-47, among other places?, you can't make sound doctrine out of that stuff, and until you learn how to know sound interpretation practices from unsound ones you will wittingly or not corrupt the word you seek to honor.  Listen to Jesus, John 8:43 Why do ye not understand my speech?  even because ye cannot hear my word.  Paul, I might suggest you are caught up in thrashing your flagrum (cat of nine tails) upon those who are not perfect, yet you yourself say you are not perfect... bondage, Paul!  You are both the victim and the opressor of spiritual bondage.  Believer?  Sure, Paul... couldn't agree with you more.  DIsciple... well, I see you too caught up in bondage to see the door in John 8:28-32, many were called, few were chosen.  I'll agree you were called, but being chosen remains between you and Christ.  Forgive me that I just cannot see it from where I stand, although your proposition is compelling.  From where I stand, the 'truth' in discipleship is clearer than your definition of righteousness.  The relentless pursuit of righteousness is a worthy journey, expected of disciples... and many prophets and righteous men desire to see and hear those things which you (disciples) see and hear.  The relentless pursuit of righteousness is the path of disciples, but it is not the door to discipleship as I read John 8:28-32. 
 
Sincerely, Name Withheld

My Seventh Response:

----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Stringini
To: Name Withheld
Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2011 12:30 PM
Subject: Re: Name Withheld... John 8:28-32
I recognize Jesus telling the Pharisees that when they have lifted up the Son of man (put Him on the cross), that they will know Jesus is the Messiah.  How did Jesus prove, from the cross, that He is the Messiah?
You already gave the answer to that.
 
Jesus said His Father was with Him and never left Him alone.  How does this contrast with Jesus' statement (word) from the cross, "My God. My God. Why hast thou forsaken me?"
Name Withheld, the way you pose questions to me is in the spirit of interrogation.  You are not genuinely seeking answers to these questions.  You are testing me. I'm sick of playing games with you.  Answer your own question.  You are not my teacher and I'm not here to answer questions that you already think you know the answers to.  It is one thing if you are genuinely curious, I can tolerate that to a point.
 
Want to know what I think?  Then look up those passages in my bible study archive.
 

Emailer's Seventh Reply:

----- Original Message -----
From: Name Withheld
To: Paul Stringini
Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2011 3:49 PM
Subject: RE: Name Withheld... John 8:28-32
Paul, thank you so much for your time! 
 
I've totally enjoyed the dialogue... learned much, and I sincerely appreciate your contribution to my knowledge base via scriptural dialogue.  Likely, I could learn in you bible study archive... I just need more 'meat' on my plate, no pun intended (carnal).  As you Paul, neither am I inclined to be a pupil to anyone other than the Holy Spirit, disciples are the primary exception.  I suppose my 'interrogation' was received in such fashion for my lack of charity, please forgive me...  probably r/t my investigation skills in health care... I'll work on that! 
 
There's nothing new under the sun... but, there is new understanding.  So, you can say you heard this from the (only one I know) source, the false prophet:  Think about specific healing miracles exclusively, not raising the dead, no healing of the masses.  Being the nurse practitioner I am, I can't help but play, 'name that disease.'  And, while reading about the woman who had an issue of blood... I realized she was a hemophiliac.  She had the illness all of her life, spent all her money to no avail... she attained puberty, age 12, and she was bleeding to death as most females eventually bled to death beginning her period.  She was growing weaker and weaker... couldn't eat fast enough to replace the blood loss...  
 
Hemophilia is an inherited illness (exceptions being radiation, chemical, pollution exposure).  This 'woman,' rather 'little daughter' of Jairus had inherited hemophilia.  How did and still DOES hemophilia get into the human gene pool?  Think about the blind man John 10:1 where His disciples asked Jesus, "who did this sin, this man or his parents, that he be born blind."  Catching a clue being a layman to health care?  Sure, the blind man inherited it!  How does blindness become an inherited illness absent radiation, chemicals, pollution?  
 
So, let's just speed things up here Paul... specific healing miracles:  born blind, born lame, born deaf/mute, born hemophiliac, born genetically predisposed to leprosy, born with seizures (vexed, not possessed with a devil)... connecting the dots is believer's work.  Jesus WAS healing those specific illnesses, Paul.  He didn't heal a severed spine in a head-on camel collision, and I'm not at all proposing that He couldn't heal an injury!  Healing the servan't ear was the only injury... and He neither sought out, nor did ANY seek Him out for an injury.  Sounding like Jesus' specific healing miracles were focused?  Sure, the work of His Father!  How did these insidious illnesses get into the human gene pool... on the tip of your tongue, Paul.  Incest, Paul... the same fornication Apostle Paul spoke of in 1COR5:1.  Does sin cause illness?  Sure... the innocent progeny of incest suffer, and that blood line throughout time remains prone to flare-ups.  Furthermore, Jesus was healing THOSE specific illnesses, Paul... Jesus was a genetic healer.  If we have seen the Son, then we have seen the Father!  Creater, and Re-Creator.  Almighty God the creator of life (DNA), and His Son... the healer of life (DNA).  No 'believeing' needed that Jesus IS the indisputible Son of Almighty God, Paul.  Disciples KNOW Jesus is the Messiah!
 
PS, that 'little girl,' that 'woman' with hemophilia... she felt His healing all over her body, Paul.  Her DNA was repaired... and for all we know, we are descendants of those He healed.  Her children were born absent those defective genes that would have passed on that dreadful and fatal disease.  Jesus said, "Physician heal thyself."  His words ring true to this very day.  Paul, there are over 6,000 inherited illness today, and not a single inherited illness has been healed since Paul healed the father of Publius on the shores of the Mediterranean... he had Mediterranean Fever, Google it up!
 
So, Paul... I can only imagine that you may have encountered a disciple of Jesus in your spiritual endeavors.  You have just met one, for sure!  I can't heal genetic illnesses, I help ease the suffering of those who are so afflicted.  Like I was asked sitting in the big seat in front of a judge being 'interrogated' by the defendant's attorney as I was awarded custody of two kids from their teacher mom.  I had to work weekends to be a father to my kids, listen to her attorney as he pierced my eyes:  "MR RICE, you don't go to church, DO YOU?"  My response..., "Counselor, I spend my Sundays laying hands on the sick and dying... I don't have the luxury to sit in a pew and sing songs."  Resonate, Paul?  Was Jesus a genetic healer?  Try passing that along in some of your Biblical archives and music!  You'll have to give it all up!  I have and will pray for you, Paul.  I am not in your situation, tough one... one requiring great faith!  You have your gifts, and I have mine... all gifts from God.  Pick up the cross, Paul!
 
Sincerely, Name Withheld

My Eighth Response:

----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Stringini
To: Name withheld
Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2011 4:27 PM
Subject: Re: Cain's descendants
I'm not done with you Name Withheld.
 
Paul, I actually agree that 'he that is born of God' includes the faithful... I happen to include Jesus as being born of God!
 
Name Withheld, if that is truly the case it sis strange because you started out  disagreeing with me, this is what you said originally when I made reference to these verses and said that this was how we distinguish the children of the devil from the children of God.
 
1John 3:8 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.
9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.
10 In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God,
"Fascinating that you reference this scripture, Paul.  Are you taking the work of an Apostle of Jesus Christ accurately?  John was referring to Jesus, Himself.  Jesus did not sire a child (despite the movie), and therefore He was righteous among other reasons. "
 
You didn't agree with me back then!  You are changing your opinion, but acting like nothing has changed at all, humble yourself and admit you were wrong then,. I'm never afraid to admit when I'm wrong, you said "John was referring to Jesus, Himself."  and you also disavowed the idea that this was in reference to anyone else, as I had asserted, by saying, "Jesus did not sire a child (despite the movie), "  But I say that the incarnate Christ IS a father, as it is written in Isaiah 9, "his name shall be called...the everlasting father"  among other things.
 
I never really commented on this part of your statement,  "Might one consider a spiritual being embodied in flesh and procreating with the daughters of men as unrighteousness?  Kinda like what was happening before the flood?  Is that the unrighteousness being referenced here?  I think so!  "  But that is a prime example of an unsound interpretation.  You were trying to say that John was making a reference to the sons of God taking the daughters of men for wives, but in context it is clear that is not what was being talked about.
 
Name Withheld, the number one reason I'm just about through with you is because you engage in a certain form of debate which I find to be irritating.  That and the fact that you are an unrepentant heretic.  I have every right to reject you at any point now. You've had more than two admonitions, at this point I'm streching my liberty.
 
Paul... couldn't agree with you more! 
 
No, you don't agree with me, you keep saying that,  that is what I'm talking about, you say, "I couldn't agree with you more" and then you go on to describe how you do disagree with me.  WE DON"T AGREE.  This is just weasel talk.  I suppose it is true in the sense that total disagreement is the most agreement we are likely to achieve.  Sure, you can't agree with me more because we are of completely different opinions.
 
Here's the 'timing' issue:   This 'forgiveness' I speak of occurs before the harvest. 
 
No kidding, Did you think I thought there was forgiveness after the harvest?  Do I have to clarify every thing I say by mentioning whether timing is a factor?  Timing is not a factor here.  A tare can never be forgiven because it is PREDESTINED to destruction.  This predestination is not effected by timing.  God inhabits eternity, he sees the end from the beginning.  Humanity is wheat and tare to God,  Good and evil.  We can not know the difference before the harvest, but God knows from the beginning because he knows what he created..  A human being can repent before the harvest, but that is not to say he was a tare, tares do not repent,   they BURN.
 
The Parable of the Sower occurs during the harvest
 
We are actually talking about the parable of the tares of the field, " Declare unto us the parable of the tares of the field." I know Arnold Murray, and I suppose some others, like to call it "the parable of the sower," the parable of the tares does involve a sower but that gets confusing because there is a proper parable of the sower, (Matt13:3-23) ..   Why do this?  I know Arnold Murray likes to use Mark 4:13 to say that if you don't understand the parable of the tares then (according to his understanding) you won't understand any parables, this all serves to promote his habit of elevating his corrupt doctrines about serpent seed to the level of critical truth.
 
The Parable of the Sower occurs during the harvest
 
No, wrong, the parable of the tares of the field is the whole age of man, from planting to harvest.   This is evident.  "The harvest is the end of the world" Sowing has to come before reaping. This shows a critical lack of LOGIC on your part.  You are unfit to interpret the word.  This is why, the parable of the sower CONTAINS the harvest as a part of it, since the harvest is a limited time period therefore the parable of the sower MUST cover a longer time period than the harvest.  Name Withheld, you make mistakes left and right and you do not detect them on your own, this is a serious problem.
 
... until harvest, well, John 3:16 comes to mind. 
 
How about John 1:13?  This actually fits in much better.
 
John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
Who planted the good seed?  Who are they born of?  GOD. And they enter the kingdom.  That which is born of the devil is to be BURNED, there is no John 3:16 for them.  John 3:16 is EXCLUSIVE. There is a very strict requirement>
 
"Whosoever believeth"  Not all men have faith, and it is not given to all men to believe.  How shall they believe when belief is not given to them?  They cannot.
 
1Cor 4:7For 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?
 
God makes men to differ.
 
 I might propose the 'reapers' were the same who arrived during Moses' time, and the 'reapers' passed over those households which had the sacrificial blood on the doorposts.  Similarly, the reapers in the Parable of the Sower will overlook the wheat proclaiming the blood of Christ... the wheat. 
 
Speculation,  do you consider this kind of speculation to qualify as "continuing in my word"?  I do not. I think it is the opposite,  YOU WANDER.  You continue not.
 
Meanwhile, the tares have a chance until the harvest. 
 
WRONG AGAIN!  Absolutely not! The WHEAT ARE GIVEN A CHANCE.  It is all there in Matt 13.
 
Matt 13:28 Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up? 29 But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them.
There is NO CONCERN for the tares.  It does not say, lest that tare "evolve" into wheat.  No, it is only out of concern that the reapers might mistake wheat for tare, There is no concern after the tares, only after the wheat.  You are making things up. You do not continue in the word of Christ but you wander from it into speculations and imaginations.  You exalt your own knowledge above that which is GIVEN in the word.  You are so caught up in matters that matter not that you have overlooked the most critical aspect of becoming a disciple INDEED, staying within the BOUNDS of what Christ taught.
 
2Cor 10:5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;
 
You don't do this.  Your heart is bursting with imaginations and folly.
 
On perfection:
 Paul, I might beg to differ with you here, and, again... its a timing issue. 
 
You did not make it clear what you meant by timing, but I thought I made it clear that I intended that time was a factor by using words like "yet" and "must be" and "become"  There are all kinds of perfection.  So really it depends on what you are talking about, but even if I never sinned from this day forward, that would not make me perfect, or even save me.
 
Eph 4:13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a PERFECT man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:
 
Php 3:12 Not as though I had already attained, either were already PERFECT: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus.
 
Col 1:28 Whom we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom; that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus:
 
9 For we are glad, when we are weak, and ye are strong: and this also we wish, even your perfection.
 
2co 7:1 Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, PERFECTing holiness in the fear of God.
 
2ti 3:17 That the man of God may be PERFECT, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
 
Please humor me here... Jesus committed no sin.  He was 'imperfect' in that He was made flesh, not that He sinned...
 
I said he was imperfect in that he had to suffer to be perfect, it has nothing to do with sin, of course Christ was "without sin" my point was that "perfection" is much more than being without sin.  Perfection is to finish the work that God has given us to do, for Christ that meant suffering and death, suffering and death made Christ perfect I quoted the verse from Hebrews. "make perfect through suffering"  That is what it said.
 
Heb 2:10 For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation PERFECT through sufferings.
Heb 5:9 And being made PERFECT, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;
 
 and I trust you agree here.  Flesh is not eternal, therefore flesh is not perfect! 
 
I don't agree because you don't understand the idea of perfection.  Flesh is perfect when it is whole and complete.  Perfection is always a matter of perspective.  Relative to an in corruptible body, flesh is not perfect, but relative to a cripple, or a deformed person, many in the flesh are "perfect"
 
Lev 22:21 And whosoever offereth a sacrifice of peace offerings unto the LORD to accomplish his vow, or a freewill offering in beeves or sheep, it shall be perfect to be accepted; there shall be no blemish therein.
 
That is one kind of perfection, and in that sense Jesus WAS perfect in the FLESH.  Name Withheld, your instincts are all wrong.
 
Jesus was made perfect when he yeilded His flesh on the cross...
 
That was a different kind of perfection, he perfected his work through suffering the death of the cross, not his body, his body had to be perfect to be acceptable as an offering, offering a body does not make a body perfect, to this all the law attests.
 
Jesus became exclusively Spirit, and no longer Spirit in flesh.  
 
This is the problem with talking to people like you, I never know when you are going to say something out of left field. But sometimes it is illustative and convenient because you are wrong again. 
 
YOU ARE NOT A DISCIPLE OF JESUS CHRIST "INDEED"  And the condemnation is out of your own mouth, because you continue NOT in his word.  look:
 
AFTER THE RESURRECTION: 
LUKE 24:36 And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.
37 But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit.
38 And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts?
39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.
 
Whatever else you may want to say, Christ himself directly denied that he was "pure spirit" after his resurrection. You Name Withheld, are a heretic and  you are wasting my time with your ignorant heresies.  Heresy is to hold a different opinion.  And you opinion differs from the word on many counts.  You step in it every other time you open your mouth, you are a danger to yourself and to those that hear you.  You are smug and confident, when you ought to tremble and fear.
 
Apostle Paul continues in Heb 2:14-15 that through death (physical) and His defeat of death (flesh) that we might have hope:  freedom from the bondage of flesh that the end of flesh is not the end of life. 
 
Fine but that was not relevant to my point, which was that total perfection is not merely sinlessness.
 
I propose Jesus defeated death on the cross!
 
I propose Jesus was born of a virgin!  What kind of proposal is that?  Cut it out with the whole "scholarly" act, it nauseates me.  Your level of scholarship makes your posturing even more unseemly than it would be if you were any kind of diligent scholar.
 
And, this get's into my inquiry r/t John 8:28-32. 
 
"Inquiry?"  this isn't an inquiry, you are trying to instruct me.  But you are not fit to instruct me.
 
Fascinating, Paul.  Great discussion on the wages point... 
 
"Fascinating," is not a very interesting comment.  It could mean anything, I found your remark that Jesus became "pure spirit" fascinating too, so fascinating that I called my wife over to hear about that one.  But I'll presume you mean well, so thanks.
 
We certainly can't put a price on Grace. 
 
No, we can't.  That was safe to say..
 
I might even suggest that our 'wages' are as we percieve them to be as evidenced by our walk. 
 
The wages are simply what we get at the end of the world.  Some will be happy with what they get, and others will not, but no one gets less than they deserve.  For some the wage is death, for we are all worthy of death, but for others they will get more than they deserve, the grace of God and salvation.
 
And, I couldn't agree with you more that our walk is evidence of our hope, and our path is outlined in His Word. 
 
Fine. Good.  My problem with you Name Withheld is that you leaven a good basic understanding of Christianity with imagination and strange doctrines about Ishmael and such.  A little leaven leavens the whole.  A little heresy makes you a heretic. No heretic will enter the kingdom of God, you need to purge these heresies of yours. 
 
 Certainly, God be the judge.  Salvation is as simple as "...go and sin no more."  "This day you will be with me in Paradise."  That simple.
 
Sometimes, and for some.  If you look at the Salvation that the Apostle Paul worked out in his own life it included a whole lot more.  To whom much is given much is required.  God has the liberty to forgive anyone at any time, but if a man thinks he can live a life of sin and repent on his death bed and be saved, he may just as well be in for a rude awakening.  God's grace is his to give and his to withdraw.
 
And we have an advocate before the Father at harvest, being careful to not advocate unrightouesness. 
 
Here is another example of they way you go too far.  The word does not specify that. 
 
1jo 2:1 My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an ADVOCATE with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:
This can be a present time advocation. That is the most likely interpretation.  Your limiting advocation to "harvest time" is artificial and perplexing.  At Harvest time, my judgment will be in a moment, in a twinkling of an eye,  at the last trump, if we are raised incorruptible and gather with him in the clouds as he returns, what judgment is left for us that we should yet require an advocate?  And advocate must come before the judgment. because the purpose of an advocate is to mitigate judgment.  Those that are raised with him are judged.  The wheat is ripe, gather it into barns, it will be plain to the reapers at harvest time.
 
I really don't see knowledge and understanding as a path to salvation, a path of the disciple for sure.
 
Well I don't know what you are talking about, once again you have said something completely mystifying.  Knowledge and understanding are requirements for salvation. How can you believe on him whom you have not known, how can you know him whom you do not understand?  What I was saying was that knowledge does not commend us to God, meaning that God is not impressed by our knowledge, and the implcation of that is that we do not merit grace by our knowledge or understanding.  There is a knowledge that leads to salvation.
 
2Peter1:3 According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue:
(not mere discipleship)
4 Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises
(how shall we have faith in promises we have not heard and known?):
that by these (promises) ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.
5 And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge;
6 And to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and to patience godliness;
7 And to godliness brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness charity.
 
Add to yur faith, faith must be added to and augmented.

8 For if these things be in you, and abound, they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.
9 But he that lacketh these things is blind, and cannot see afar off, and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins.
10 Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall:
11 For so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.
 
THAT IS THE PATH TO SALVATION, 2 Peter Chapter 1.
Salvation is assured by simply believing on the name of Jesus. 
 
Funny you should say that. PETER does not agree, salvation is assured when you see all the works of God happening in you and abounding. 
 
 The abundance... truth, Paul.  And, I think truth sums up your presentation.  And, I propose 'truth' begins with what I propose in John 8:28-32. 
 
No, you are wrong, you are so caught up in this "disciple" thing, but you never stop and question your basic assumption that becoming a disciple is the path to salvation.  A disciple is a student.  There is really no special status in being a disciple.  A disciple is a learner.  As we must continue in the faith to be saved indeed, we must continue in his word to be his disciples indeed. 
 
What is peculiar about you is that even though I acknowledge these simple facts, you still seem hung up on some aspect of this that I seem to have missed.  In actuality, you are hung up on one of your many departures from the word of Christ!  proving again, that you are no disciple.
 
 Excellent point, Paul!  Yet, I have to ask, "How does one know one is a Disciple?"  I hear tons of people professing discipleship, what's the distinction? 
 
Jesus had many disciples of different stripes, In John 8 he says that to be his disciples "indeed" they would need to continue in his word.  Name Withheld, since you have demonstrated, over and over that you are one to STRAY from the word, and into imaginations and high things which you exalt above the knowledge contained in the scriptures, I must say that you are NOT a disciple indeed.. 
 
 I might suggest you have proposed a new word, 'permenant disciple.' 
 
No, that is two words, no new word here.  If discipleship is the goal, then that is what it is, a permanent status.  Will you ever stop being a disciple?  If the answer is no, then my phrase is an accurate representation of your idea of discipleship.  I see discipleship as a phase, not an end. 
 
 I propose Paul is referring to 'ever learning' as believers attempting to achieve discipleship via aquisition of knowledge. 
 
Name Withheld! That is not how he described it!   "ever learning but never able to come to the knowledge" is what HE said.  The whole point of that passage was that we ought to OBTAIN knowledge, your point totally missed Paul's point and went in the total opposite direction.
 
NAME WITHHELD!  What you are saying is the EXACT OPPOSITE of what Paul said.   Really, you have to look at this seriously, you are saying things that are exactly the opposite of what the scriptures say.  You are no disciple of Jesus Christ.
 
Although, knowledge is awesome... we agree Disciples are chosen as our illuminated previously.  And, we might debate each other's 'calling', but what makes one a disciple?  I can only declare John 8:28-32... disciples, indeed... the truth that makes us free... 
 
Really you have too many verses in there, because 28- 30 are being artificially inserted into the equation because of your own inclination to heresy, you tend to ignore critical context when you ought to give heed and conversely you will draw in subject matter that is often irrelevant when you ought to be focused on statement that is universally applicable in any context.  Name Withheld, you are so far out of the way that it nearly takes my breath away, you are no disciple, for you do not continue in his word as evidence by your numerous remarks which lay bare your complete lack of understanding coupled with an arrogant and smug attitude unworthy of one so ill equipped.
 
Paul, we're probably in agreement that there should be an end to 'men's' discipleship... there is only Jesus' discipleship. 
 
I don't know whose disciple you are, but you are no disciple of Christ's. Your own writings have given all the evidence against you.
 
With all due respect for your experience:  Out of curiosity, did you see the light? 
 
The eyes of my understanding were opened, I can't say that for you.
 
You know Paul saw the light...  I did see a light, and I've pondered it ever since!  I listen to the Bible on CD with a long drive home from work down an all too familiar two lane country road.  About 9 pm.. mabe less than a quarter moon... all of a sudden the dash on my car lit up like a spot light was overhead.  I looked around me outside the car, and the pavement was lit up that I could see a penny on the ground outside the window... that bright!  the light didn't extend more than about 15 feet around the car.  There was a motorcycle behing me about  3/4 mile, and I even thought about asking the driver if he saw the light!  The light was overhead leaving the shadow of the car top on the dash in front of me.  I looked up through the front windshield, out the side and rear windows...  About 20 seconds, no sound... Beats me man... I'm a real outdoorsman, least in my past, and I did once see a meteor burst lke a roman candle and light up the ground, but that was a lot of light covering as far as I could see.  This was a focused light... very strange, and I have no explanation, but really caught my attention!
 
That sounds really cool, but when I received the Holy spirit a power came over me, I have not described it in full to you,  but it started on my hands then proceeded to other parts of my body and eventually to my lips, and I was unable to speak properly, I never believed in tongues till that day, I still think many people fake it, but I know I did not, because I was trying like heck to talk straight.  I'm not trying to impress you with all that, things happen to us and the experience fades with time.  But the understanding remains, Name Withheld, when I hear some of the things you are saying I know you have not had the eyes of your understanding opened.  We can all have all kinds of experiences and they will mean something to each of us, but for me to accept you, you have to be square with the word.  And you keep saying stuff that is just wrong.
 
Paul, the destination of a Disciple is the same as that of a a believer.  The path of a disciple, however is different. 
 
This is basically hair splitting, if someone is "just a believer"  if that is all they have, they will probably be damned.   You claim much Name Withheld, but you have little.  Repent or you will lose even that which you seem to have.  You have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God, and so God sent you to me. I'll teach you, but you have to start over.  Your knowledge is corrupt.
 
Paul, you can laugh at me... totally cool!  I'm inclined to give your input consideration just the same!  LOL!  I'll take up "Jesus' path to discipleship" as I know is discussed in your next email which I have yet to read, and look forward to it. 
 
Goody.
 
 I might propose being a master is a Disciple knowledgeable in truth...
 
A master must first be a disciple, I said I had gone through that.  But a Master is essentially a teacher, not a student.  It is a different role, we can play with the words but what I'm really talking about is what we DO, a disciple LEARNS, a master INSTRUCTS.
 
kinda like the discple Ananias who Apostle Paul spent about 3 days with!  Paul did heal a man on the shores of the Mediterranean during his capture and "extradition."  I can't say I've healed a person under similar circumstances.  But, being a nurse practitioner, I can say I have seen miracles!
 
Not by my definition.  Miracles are too dumbed down these days.  Just because a doctor says " he has no chance to recover,"  does not mean a miracle happens when he is wrong.  A true miracles defies the normal laws of the universe.  It is not just something extremely unlikely.  A million to one chance of something happening is not a miracle, if that was the case then every lottery winner is a miracle.  A miracle is something more than these "every day miracles"  I think people cheapen miracles in this way.
 
 
 Paul... I do have one illumination to share, if I may beg your patience. 
 
You still have it though I'm about ready to say enough.
 
 Paul, I was never one of Murray's 'disciples', and I cannot be yours.  
 
Either way you arre an heretic. Because you speak heresies.  You are not doing well on your own, you NEED someone to guide you.  Like it or not.  There is precident for this in the scriptures you claim to uphold but only tread under your feet.  .  You cannot be the disciple of Jesus if you refuse to be a disciple also of Peter and Paul and James, for Christ appointed them after him. 
 
Respecting your humble wish to not be called, "Master," and affirming Jesus' words in Matt 23:8 But be not ye called Rabbi; for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. 9 And call no man you father upon the earth:  for one is your Father, which is in heaven.  10 Neither be ye called master, for one is your Master, even Christ.  Paul, I have one Master.  I will remain Disciple. 
 
You are no disciple of Jesus Christ, you are a corrupter of his word, you consistently prove it by the very words you write.  Christ is Master over all but he has also appointed other men after him, whom you ought to also hear, 
 
Name Withheld, in what matter have I offended you? 
 
 In what matter have I spoken something that was not the truth? 
 
All your gripe about me, is that I do not join you in your heresies against Christ.  I have proved many and could prove more, but yet you refuse to hear me.  Therefore you are your own judge.
 
 I do get the impression you believe Disciples evolve into Masters... at least via Christ's calling. 
 
Some do, some may have other gifts, not all can teach. I have nothing against discipleship, for some it might be 20 or 30 years, but eventually "by reason of time ye ought to be teachers."
 
For the scribes and Pharisees desired to be called "master" and be appointed to offices, but a Christain simply does the work,  if you read my email's all of them, you would find that I have never before said to anyone "I am a master"  The reason I say it to you is because you are all about this discipleship thing, and you are telling me you don't know if I am a disciple, so I told you what I really am, there is no pride in it, and no false humility, I do the work of a master.  it would creep me out if people started calling me anything other than by my given name.  They call me Paul, and I teach the bible, I'm qualified to do so because CHRIST judged me faithful in my discipleship and gave me the mastery of the scriptures that I might instruct others.  You could learn a lot from me and benefit from the gifts God has given me, but you are like the hand that says to the eye, "I have no need of you!"   Then go on wandering in darkness.
 
And, I can appreciate to path of the disciple leading toward greater illumination.  I propose one becomes a disciple when entering through the door Jesus illuminated in John 8:28-32...
 
Once again, you have too many verses, you only need verses 31 and 32 to know what it means to be a disciple, and you FAIL that test.  Why make it more complicated, you cannot even meet the basic requirement of "continuing in my word" Why complicate things?  The word of Christ is all screwed up in your mind, you need some help, Christ sent me
 
John 13:20 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that receiveth whomsoever I send receiveth me; and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me.
 
You say you follow only Christ, then follow me until you see me deviate from his teachings. Because you have demonstrated you don't know how to continue in the word, I will show you how it is done,  I will teach you how to maintain sound doctrine.
 
1The 5:12 And we beseech you, brethren, to know them which labour among you, and are over you in the Lord, and admonish you;
13 And to esteem them very highly in love for their work's sake.
 
Who admonishes you, Name Withheld?  Who is over you in the Lord?  Or are you unadmonished? If you are the best Christ has to offer then Christ is in a sad state indeed, lol If I am the best Christ has to offer that would be just as sad, lol. But  you are like an orphan child in the streets, running wild and getting into mischief and Christ has dropped you in my lap, I do not take that lightly.
 
You have not even heard me, you want to categorically rule me out because you say I am not Christ, and you only follow him, but if Christ sent me then to receive me is to receive him.  And to reject me CATEGORICALLY is to be a heretic and reject Christ's own words, it is to deny that there is anyone over you in the Lord, it is to say that you are the pinnacle of Christ's work on earth and answer to none but God.. You ought to at least hear me out before you judge me.  But how can you judge since you have proven yourself to lack the ability to strictly confine yourself to the scriptures?  i am probably your test, this is probably your turning point for good or ill.  I may not be the best Christ has to offer but I'm what you get.  You may not realize it but If you lacked something, would Christ not supply it?  And here your lack is demonstrated and a solution in hand but you want to reject it based on your heretical understanding of discipleship.
 
1Tim1:3 As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine, 4 Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.
Who do you take charges from?  No one but Christ dares charge mighty Name Withheld.  Your doctrine please you and you feel righteous and loyal to Christ in holding it, but you are out of line.
 
once a diciple, the 'truth' illuminates the path, and the path illuminates the truth.  That path embraces righteousness which we both acknowledge.  Let's see what you have to say about John 8:28-32.
 
I say you have a lot to learn.
  
Sincerely,
 
Paul Stringini

Emailer's Eighth Reply:

----- Original Message -----
From: Name Withheld
To: Paul Stringini
Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2011 11:06 PM
Subject: RE: Cain's descendants

Well, what can I say, Paul!  
I'll repond in green for being current in my response...
 
From: Paul Stringini
To: Name Withheld
Subject: Re: Cain's descendants
Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2011 16:27:53 -0500
I'm not done with you Name Withheld.
 
Paul, I actually agree that 'he that is born of God' includes the faithful... I happen to include Jesus as being born of God!
 
Name Withheld, if that is truly the case it is strange because you started out  disagreeing with me, this is what you said originally when I made reference to these verses and said that this was how we distinguish the children of the devil from the children of God.  I stand somewhat illuminated to the inclusion of the faithful as being another aspect of 'born of God'... in fact, I think we both are!  And, that's certainly a good thing.  Thank you!  However, from verse 8 John is speaking exclusively of the Son of God.  There is no indication John's subject has changed in verse 9...
 
1John 3:8 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil. Paul, John is continuing his conversation about the Son of God in the next verse: 
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,
"Fascinating that you reference this scripture, Paul.  Are you taking the work of an Apostle of Jesus Christ accurately?  John was referring to Jesus, Himself.  Jesus did not sire a child (despite the movie), and therefore He was righteous among other reasons. "
 
You didn't agree with me back then!  You are changing your opinion, but acting like nothing has changed at all, humble yourself and admit you were wrong then,. I'm never afraid to admit when I'm wrong, you said "John was referring to Jesus, Himself."  and you also disavowed the idea that this was in reference to anyone else, as I had asserted, by saying, "Jesus did not sire a child (despite the movie), "  But I say that the incarnate Christ IS a father, as it is written in Isaiah 9, "his name shall be called...the everlasting father"  among other things.  Sons of God, Paul, are who we will be as and when Jesus advocates for us before the Father, we receive our rewards as an heir claims title at a future date... we will exist in our new, non-flesh, bodies as Christ exists in His spiritual body with the Father at this moment.  Meanwhile, I do have greater respect for "children" of God... even children of Christ, figuratively speaking, in these flesh bodies.  We can only be literal Sons of God in our new spiritual bodies... we might be AS sons of God in these flesh bodies.  As a close analogy:  my son is my child... when he reaches 18 in the near future, he will no longer be a child (albeit he'll always be my child), but he will still be my son.  Meanwhile... we are 'children' of God in these flesh bodies, and I do maintain, maybe wavered a bit, lot of intense conversation over finite and abstract points, we can only be literal Sons of God, as Jesus is the Son of God, when we claim title as heirs.  We cannot claim title as heirs in the flesh until we submit our papers to probate court, ie. judgement.  I'm certianly not infallible, Paul... I've got some back paddling to do with another person where I accidentally suggest disciples are called... my mistake... believers are called, disciples are chosen.  Not at all infallible, Paul.  Thanks for point this out!
 
I never really commented on this part of your statement,  "Might one consider a spiritual being embodied in flesh and procreating with the daughters of men as unrighteousness?  Kinda like what was happening before the flood?  Is that the unrighteousness being referenced here?  I think so!  "  But that is a prime example of an unsound interpretation.  You were trying to say that John was making a reference to the sons of God taking the daughters of men for wives, but in context it is clear that is not what was being talked about.  I can appreciate your discount referring to Sons of God being who we are after Judgement.  Forgive me if my point was not more clear... I propose the 'unrighteousness' in verse 10 above is the same unrighteousness (genetic corruption in general) as occurred before the flood, in Noah's tent that night(Only Noah was righteous in his generations), in unrighteous 'fornication' being incest as Apostle Paul references in 1COR5:1 that was actually continuing beyond Jesus' life.  I'm referring to the same unrighteous (genetic corruption via incest exclusively) 'fornication' that Jesus referred to in REV 2:20  ... that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication (incest), and to eat things sacrificed unto idols (they cooked and ate the disfigured progeny of incest, Molech).  Think about the 'golden calf' when Moses came down and found them dancing naked... naked?   Think that might have been going on in Sodom and Gomorrah... at least!  Jezebel's father was Ithobaal (sp?), king of Sidon (named after Canaan's first born son) or at least Tyre which Ezekiel spoke of with such disdain about the Zidonese and their 'unrighteous' practices.  Moses spoke of this abominaiton in LEV 18:21, LEV 20:2, 3, 4, 5... and I need not go further. 
 
I certainly recognize the various definitions of unrighteousness and righteousness... I'm agreeing with you totally in your definition in a general and contemporary sense of the word... Please forgive me for not affording you a clearer target, with my broader definition of unrighteousness as was occurring during OT and NT which seems to, say, 'lost flavor" in contemporary studies.  Forgive me for lack of clarity!  I do suggest your incomplete definition of unrighteousness does not fit the subject in verse 10, because incest, and the cooking and eating of disfigured progeny of incest is just, too hard to 'digest.'  Kuru, similar to mad cow, is aquired through the eating of infected human flesh... it's inherited and contagious!  I've probably taken care of 6 patients with the human equivalent of mad cow.. CJD.  Paul, if your interest compels you:  Cruetzfeldt-Jacob Disease remains genetic in certain Jewish family lines today, originating from a specific area around Judea since Biblical times.  I can't assume you know that, please Google that one!   So, sincerely, please forgive me for not being more clear, sooner, Paul.  Can you handle it?  Do your definitions of unrighteousness include any of the above?  Please don't feel un-illuminated in tradtional Bible teachings, Paul... I didn't really start figuring these things out until I started sudying on my own.  Have you ever heard the word 'incest' from a pulpit?  Maybe a better setting, Sunday School... is the word 'incest' even anywhere in your Bible study archives?  Point me to that 'unrighteousness' and complete the definition, you'll capture my interest including the reality of Biblical experiences... all of them!  Noah was perfect in his generations, what does that mean to you, now?  GEN 7:1 And the Lord said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteousness before me in this generation.  What sayest, thou?  What was the unrighteousness that occurred in Noah's tent that resulted in Canaan's conception and curse?  Your response has been the Bible doesn't say... think about the Book of Jude where the Apostle John is believed to have written the knowledge Jude... brother of Jesus, consider then intensity of those scripture! 
      
Name Withheld, the number one reason I'm just about through with you is because you engage in a certain form of debate which I find to be irritating.  That and the fact that you are an unrepentant heretic.  I don't think you have the authority to label me unrepentent, but I'll gladly accept 'heretic,' although I'm more familiar 'false prophet.'  I have every right to reject you at any point now. You've had more than two admonitions, at this point I'm streching my liberty.  Paul, ple]ase forgive my irritating way of debate... new knowledge, which rattles the timbers in anyone's faith paradigm, tends to do that.  I know... its pretty, tough.  Please forgive me... no malice intended.
 
Paul... couldn't agree with you more! 
 
No, you don't agree with me, you keep saying that,  that is what I'm talking about, you say, "I couldn't agree with you more" and then you go on to describe how you do disagree with me.  WE DON"T AGREE.  This is just weasel talk.  I suppose it is true in the sense that total disagreement is the most agreement we are likely to achieve.  Sure, you can't agree with me more because we are of completely different opinions.
 
Here's the 'timing' issue:   This 'forgiveness' I speak of occurs before the harvest. 
 
No kidding, Did you thik I thought there was forgiveness after the harvest?  Sorry, I might have been referencing what I think I hear you propose that includes 100% righteousness here in the flesh.  I propose righteousness in the flesh is a journey.  Do you propose 100% righteousness is attainable in the flesh?   Do I have to clarify every thing I say by mentioning whether timing is a factor?  Timing is not a factor here.  Do you propose 100% righteousness is attaiable in the flesh?  A tare can never be forgiven because it is PREDESTINED to destruction. I know you're not a racist.  This predestination is not effected by timing.  God inhabits eternity, he sees the end from the beginning.  Humanity is wheat and tare to God,  Good and evil.  Great summary, Paul!  We can not know the difference before the harvest, but God knows from the beginning because he knows what he created..Dude!  Calling me an unrepentent heretic is getting pretty darn close!  LOL!  A human being can repent before the harvest, but that is not to say he was a tare, tares do not repent,   they BURN.  Do you think Jesus would have been able to discern a tare?  Absolutely!  Did Jesus illuminate anyone as a tare?  Not specifically, he couldn't speak their specific names in condemnation.... but, He sure had a beef with certain Phairsees!  Judgement was not yet.  Think about the 'mark' of Cain preserving anonymity... at least until His Son rent the veil!  Labeling someone a 'tare' would be absolute judgemental, judgement is not yet,certainly not within our authority... even the Christ could not point a finger without overstepping His mission and authority.      
 
The Parable of the Sower occurs during the harvest
 
We are actually talking about the parable of the tares of the field, " Declare unto us the parable of the tares of the field." I know Arnold Murray, and I suppose some others, like to call it "the parable of the sower," the parable of the tares does involve a sower but that gets confusing because there is a proper parable of the sower, (Matt13:3-23) ..   Why do this?  I know Arnold Murray likes to use Mark 4:13 to say that if you don't understand the parable of the tares then (according to his understanding) you won't understand any parables, this all serves to promote his habit of elevating his corrupt doctrines about serpent seed to the level of critical truth. Can't really argue with you on Murray's position.  But, I appreciate your argument with him. 
 
The Parable of the Sower occurs during the harvest
 
No, wrong, the parable of the tares of the field is the whole age of man, from planting to harvest.   This is evident.  "The harvest is the end of the world" Sowing has to come before reaping. This shopws a critical lack of LOGIC on your part.  You are unfit to interpret the word.  This is why, the parable of the sower CONTAINS the harvest as a part of it, since the harvest is a limited time period therefore the parable of the sower MUST cover a longer time period than the harvest.  Name Withheld, you make mistakes left and right and you do not detect them on your own, this is a serious problem.  Paul... I thought I was only referring to the end part... the harvest part, forgive me if I was misleading.  My Freudian slip... I'm with you.  I think a child can grasp the picutre... we might have some disagreement with the literal children of the Wicked  one.
 
... until harvest, well, John 3:16 comes to mind. 
 
How about John 1:13?  This actually fits in much better.
 
John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.  "... power to become..." believers, still futuristic to me, Paul.
Who planted the good seed?  Who are they born of?  GOD. And they enter the kingdom fufure.  That which is born of the devil is to be BURNED future, there is no John 3:16 for them.  John 3:16 is EXCLUSIVE. There is a very strict requirement>.  Ya know, Paul... I've explained the ancestry of those corrupt Pharisees as I hear it in John 8.  Crystal clear to me, and you have yet to acknowledge those corrupt Pharisees were even descendants of Ishmael. 
 
"Whosoever believeth"  Not all men have faith, and it is not given to all men to believe.  How shall they believe when belief is not given to them?  They cannot.  I might split a hair...
 
1Cor 4:7For 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?
 
God makes men to differ. 
 
 I might propose the 'reapers' were the same who arrived during Moses' time, and the 'reapers' passed over those households which had the sacrificial blood on the doorposts.  Similarly, the reapers in the Parable of the Sower will overlook the wheat proclaiming the blood of Christ... the wheat. 
 
Speculation,  do you consider this kind of speculation to qualify as "continuing in my word"?  Matter of taste, quality tangent speculation  I do not. I think it is the opposite,  YOU WANDER.  You continue not.  Great speculation, just the same!  YOU ARE TOO INTENSE!  Kinda like I was with multiple definitions of "unrighteousness" that need to be in your vocabulary!
 
Meanwhile, the tares have a chance until the harvest. 
 
WRONG AGAIN!  Absolutely not! The WHEAT ARE GIVEN A CHANCE.  It is all there in Matt 13.
 
Matt 13:28 Wilt thou then that we not reapers go and gather them up? 29 But he said, Nay; lest while ye not reapers gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them.
There is NO CONCERN for the tares.  It does not say, lest that tare "evolve" into wheat.  No, it is only out of concern that the reapers might mistake it wasn't the reapers at risk for mistake...  wheat for tare, There is no concern after the tares, only after the wheat.  You are making things up. You do not continue in the word of Christ but you wander from it into speculations and imaginations.  You exalt your own knowledge above that which is GIVEN in the word maybe I should memorize chapter, like my brother has read the Bible umpteen time... pentance?.  You are so caught up in matters that matter not that you have overlooked the most critical aspect of becoming a disciple INDEED, staying within the BOUNDS of what Christ taught.  Try to stay on track... LOL... Please allow me to be more specific as to critical differences:  you are on the 'Pharisee refusing salvation' side of John 8:33-6, and I'm on the 'believer to disciple' side on John 8:28-32.  Two audiences (excluding undecided), two truths, and two freedoms. Well, I have a pretty good idea why you can't go there... are you a Forsaken Jesus Theorist?  I am a Disciple Reference Theorist, exclusively!.  I understand where you're coming from there... but you want to explain me there is difference in people by God's will, agreed. And, I do admire your knowledge.  Sir, are you cramming innocent believers into the status of those corrupt Pharisees?  Recall, MAT 18:6  But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.  Let's pray for one another on that one!       
 
2Cor 10:5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;
 
You don't do this.  Your heart is bursting with imaginations and folly.
 
On perfection:
 Paul, I might beg to differ with you here, and, again... its a timing issue. 
 
You did not make it clear what you meant by timing, but I thought I made it clear that I intended that time was a factor by using words like "yet" and "must be" and "become"  There are all kinds of perfection.  So really it depends on what you are talking about, but even if I never sinned from this day forward, that would not make me perfect, or even save me.  Nor me!  Perfection occurs when Jesus advocates for us before the Father, and we become Sons of God as He is the Son of God in spirit form.  Currently, we are children of God. 
 
Eph 4:13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a PERFECT man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:
 
Php 3:12 Not as though I had already attained, either were already PERFECT: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus.
 
Col 1:28 Whom we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom; that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus:
 
9 For we are glad, when we are weak, and ye are strong: and this also we wish, even your perfection.
 
2co 7:1 Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, PERFECTing holiness in the fear of God.
 
2ti 3:17 That the man of God may be PERFECT, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
 
Please humor me here... Jesus committed no sin.  He was 'imperfect' in that He was made flesh, not that He sinned...
 
I said he was imperfect in that he had to suffer to be perfect, it has nothing to do with sin, of course Christ was "without sin" my point was that "perfection" is much more than being without sin.  Perfection is to finish the work that God has given us to do, for Christ that meant suffering and death, suffering and death made Christ perfect; I quoted the verse from Hebrews. "make perfect through suffering"  That is what it said.  Ok, I see where you're coming from... by His stripes we are healed.  I agree that it was through suffering... His perfection came when He yeilded His spirit form LIVING flesh, through His perfect sacrifice, and He defeated death on the cross now being perfect in spirit form having fulfilled His commandment he received from His Father.. 
 
Heb 2:10 For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation PERFECT through sufferings.
Heb 5:9 And being made PERFECT, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;
      
 and I trust you agree here.  Flesh is not eternal, therefore flesh is not perfect! 
 
I don't agree because you don't understand the idea of perfection.  Flesh is perfect when it is whole and complete.  Perfection is always a matter of perspective.  Relative to an in corruptible body, he..... Sorry I bleeped some stuff of yours...  Jesus' flesh was absolutely perfect, 100% intact DNA, the ultimate sacrificial Lamb.   Spiritual perfection is another form.  I'm sure geneticists are working on it... clones are perfect replicas... but that includes the same flaws.  Jesus was without spot or blemish, spiritually and physically, period.  There is not now, otherwise never was, nor ever will be perfect flesh... Jesus alone.  Otherwise, anyone 'perfect' in flesh could have been the sacrificial lamb.   
 
Lev 22:21 And whosoever offereth a sacrifice of peace offerings unto the LORD to accomplish his vow, or a freewill offering in beeves or sheep, it shall be perfect to be accepted; there shall be no blemish therein.
 
That is one kind of perfection, and in that sense Jesus WAS perfect in the FLESH.  Name Withheld, your instincts are all wrong.  Instincts?  Perfect DNA!  Perfect sacrifice.  Are you there?
 
Jesus was made perfect when he yielded His flesh on the cross...
 
That was a different kind of perfection, he perfected his work through suffering the death of the cross sorry Paul Jesus defeated death on the cross... he DID NOT suffer the death of the cross.  You are contradicting yourself... or maybe I missed it prior.  Suffering, sure... death was defeated on the cross.  Jesus perfected His work when His Spirit departed from LIVING flesh, following His Father's commandment, and THEN His body died.  You said yourself His Spirit left his body on the cross... I'm talking about His Spirit leaving LIVING flesh, not his body, his body had to be perfect to be acceptable as an offering, offering a body does not make a body perfect, to this all the law attests.  I think we're in agreement here Paul... offering a body does not make a body perfect... it makes the spirit perfect (at least ours at judgement, Jesus spirit already was perfect!).  Jesus' body was the finest example of human DNA on planet earth
 
Jesus became exclusively Spirit, and no longer Spirit in flesh.  
 
This is the problem with talking to people like you, I never know when you are going to say something out of left field. But sometimes it is illustative and convenient because you are wrong again. 
 
YOU ARE NOT A DISCIPLE OF JESUS CHRIST "INDEED"  LOL!, Paul... you are not a corrupt Pharisee, indeed... even though youre out there trying to lead them in your John 8:33-36 mindset in the flesh, carnal.  You're out there trying to 'save' Phairsees?  Jesus couldn't...but, I'll give you credit for trying!  I propose you're cramming naive' believers into the status of corrupt Pharisees so you can lead them to YOUR disciples... well, its as simple as believe, go and sin nore more = believer... so what are you offering Paul?  You're offering me, and them, and opportunity to be YOUR disciple... get over yourself, dude!  Jesus' love is unconditional to those of us who believe.  You are telling folk to be YOUR Disciple???  Kinda puts you right beside Jesus, right now, in the flesh... which I have tried to explain that CANNOT be accomplished until we pass go and collect our rewards.  I'm not even asking you to be JESUS' disciple!  He has to do that... and the door is right there on the believer side of John 8:28-32.   You clearly cannot see or hear, and that's between you and Christ, so it is written and so shall it be.  Paul... you are a beliver, albeit good one, in Disciples clothing!    
 
 And the condemnation is out of your own mouth, because you continue NOT in his word.  look:
 
AFTER THE RESURRECTION: 
LUKE 24:36 And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.
37 But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit.
38 And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts?
39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.   
 
Whatever else you may want to say, Christ himself directly denied that he was "pure spirit" after his resurrection. Paul... you left out a part... what form was Jesus in between the Cross and Resurrection?  You jumped the gun, again... timing, again.  How can we even see Him in spirit form?  We are not yet Sons of God!  You Name Withheld, are an heretic and  you are wasting my time with your ignorant heresies.  Heresy is to hold a different opinion.  And you opinion differs from the word on many counts.  You step in it every other time you open your mouth, you are a danger to yourself and to those that hear you.  You are smug and confident, when you ought to tremble and fear.
 
Apostle Paul continues in Heb 2:14-15 that through death (physical) and His defeat of death (flesh) that we might have hope:  freedom from the bondage of flesh that the end of flesh is not the end of life. 
 
Fine but that was not relevant to my point, which was that total perfection is not merely sinlessness.
 
I propose Jesus defeated death on the cross!
 
I propose Jesus was born of a virgin!  What kind of proposal is that?  Cut it out with the whole "scholarly" act, it nauseates me.  Your level of scholarship makes your posturing even more unseemly than it would be if you were any kind of diligent scholar.
 
And, this get's into my inquiry r/t John 8:28-32. 
 
"Inquiry?"  this isn't an inquiry, you are trying to instruct me.  But you are not fit to instruct me.  Paul, didn't know you have exclusive rights to instruction... we kinda learn from one another., don't you think?  Well Paul... did you ever cover a single word specifically from John 8:28-32?  I only heard your reference to Jesus' dialogue with the PHARISEES!   I, sir, am at least a believer from your perspective, a Muslim would give me that credit!  Believers deserve to at least Hear His words to them!  How's that for priority?  Jumped the gun, again here Paul!  So, hard as it is for you, Paul... Jesus said He would prove from the cross that HE IS THE Messiah... and that His Father IS WITH HIM, and NEVER left Him alone... You, Paul, are telling me He is the Messiah.. but, you cannot repeat these words of Jesus Himself that His Father was With Him on the cross, and NEVER left Him alone on the cross, because you are a Forsaken Jesus Theorist!   Jesus' very words deprive you of your flagrum, your scepter.  Cool... Discipleship is a Jesus chosen relationship, not a Paul chosen relionship, and CERTAINLY not mine as I have stated.  And, I'm here to testify that Jesus was NEVER forsaken by Almighty God on the cross.  Sorry, it kinda knocks you off your pedistal!   It's only through discipleship in Christ that this is apparent from what I can see, and I see it and hear it in John 8:28-32 whether or not you do!   Jesus said, if you want to believe a lie... I will send you a lie...  WHAT WAS THE LIE, Paul?  See... I've had to ask myself that question! 
 
You understand the road of 'righteousness' in a very contemporary and traditional sense, Paul, and my hat's off to you.  You have done an exceptional job sharing your knowledge despite our misunderstandings and disagreements... But, you cannot tell me the Father was with Jesus on the Cross!  You cannot tell me Jesus was never forsaken by Almighty God... EVER!  Be very careful here, Paul, and choose your words wisely and carefully... to say Almighty God forsook His Son, doing His Father's WILL on the cross, is to call Almighty God a liar and a traiter... think about it!
That's what the entire book of Job is about, Paul... Job NEVER cursed God... Despite ALL of Job's 'unfairness' and suffering... Job NEVER called Almighty God a liar and a traiter!   Is Jesus less than Job?  What sayest  thou, Paul?  We can split hairs till kingdom come... but, this is where its at Paul, you are entirely smart enough to understand my position and this question... what is it?  Forsaken... or, Presence?  Real easy answer, no hedging...
 
No disrespect, enjoyed the dialogue.   Let me cut of here for now...
 
Sincerely, Name Withheld   

My Ninth Response: 

----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Stringini
To: Name Withheld
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2011 6:37 PM
Subject: Message 1 Forsaken Jesus Theory
I'm going to split up a few things here so that each gets its proper due, all this was part of one message at first...but I wanted you to get this first.
Jumped the gun, again here Paul! 
No actually you are the gun jumper, you respond before I get a chance to answer all you messages, and by the time I do answer your point you make a fool of yourself like this.
 
 So, hard as it is for you, Paul... Jesus said He would prove from the cross that HE IS THE Messiah... and that His Father IS WITH HIM, and NEVER left Him alone... You, Paul, are telling me He is the Messiah.. but, you cannot repeat these words of Jesus Himself that His Father was With Him on the cross, and NEVER left Him alone on the cross, because you are a Forsaken Jesus Theorist!  
 
And you are presumptuous and wrong again.  I do not believe that God forsook Jesus on the cross.  I never believed that.  What a stupid way to lose your cool.
 
 Jesus' very words deprive you of your flagrum, your scepter.  Cool... 
 
Look at that fine fat egg you laid, little hen, cluck all you like.
 
Discipleship is a Jesus chosen relationship, not a Paul chosen relionship, and CERTAINLY not mine as I have stated.  And, I'm here to testify that Jesus was NEVER forsaken by Almighty God on the cross. 
 
The Apostle Paul was never a disciple of Christ.  He went from enemy  to Apostle in a single move.  You over emphasize the term disciple to your own loss.  (more on this in message 2)
 
Sorry, it kinda knocks you off your pedistal!   It's only through discipleship in Christ that this is apparent from what I can see, and I see it and hear it in John 8:28-32 whether or not you do!  
 
Again, you are reading at a level below a third grader (see message 3).  You ought to be ashamed at all your tongue wagging.
 
 Jesus said, if you want to believe a lie... I will send you a lie...  WHAT WAS THE LIE, Paul?  See... I've had to ask myself that question! 
 
Well, you believe lots of lies.  The lie is that you can be acceptable to God and still continue in sin.  That is what Jude warned against and also the other apostles and Christ in John 8 31-36.
 
You understand the road of 'righteousness' in a very contemporary and traditional sense, Paul, and my hat's off to you.
 
What are you talking about?  That is nonsense.
 
  You have done an exceptional job sharing your knowledge despite our misunderstandings and disagreements...
 
Your misunderstandings ARE our disagreements and that is the truth.
 
But, you cannot tell me the Father was with Jesus on the Cross! 
 
Name Withheld,, I tell you the truth, The Father was with Jesus Christ on the cross.  What is wrong with you?  I just don't like you putting me to the test like that.  You inspire me to act evasive.  You question me like the Pharisee's "By what authority?"  Answer us!!!!  Lay off man.  You are making a fool of yourself.
 
You cannot tell me Jesus was never forsaken by Almighty God... EVER!  
 
I just did. Wrong again Name Withheld.  I just don't like to play your little game.  You disgust me with the way you pervert the word.  But if you are going to make up LIES about me I have to set you straight.
 
Be very careful here, Paul, and choose your words wisely and carefully... to say Almighty God forsook His Son, doing His Father's WILL on the cross, is to call Almighty God a liar and a traiter... think about it!
That's what the entire book of Job is about, Paul... Job NEVER cursed God... Despite ALL of Job's 'unfairness' and suffering... Job NEVER called Almighty God a liar and a traiter!   Is Jesus less than Job?  What sayest  thou, Paul?  We can split hairs till kingdom come... but, this is where its at Paul, you are entirely smart enough to understand my position and this question... what is it?  Forsaken... or, Presence?  Real easy answer, no hedging...
 
I reject you Name Withheld, you are a total waste of my time, you have my final messages, go away from me.  I will not suffer your foolishness any longer.

My Additional Response:

----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Stringini
To: Name Withheld
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2011 6:37 PM
Subject: Message 2: Cain's descendants

 I had started this message with my stuff on John 8, you might want to read message 3 fbefore this one, it is shorter
 
Thank you!  However, from verse 8 John is speaking exclusively of the Son of God.  There is no indication John's subject has changed in verse 9...
 
Oh we agree, we agree, that is what I dislike about you, your fake agreement.
 
8 He that committeth sin (referring to any human being of any race, no specific sin is mentioned sin and righteousness are to be taken as defined in this passage) is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God (Jesus, no kidding, he is the only "THE son of God") was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.
9 Whosoever (As I said before this word implies more than one candidate and if we want to inherit eternal life we MUST be born again) is born of God doth not commit sin; for his (GOD"S) seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.
 
To be born again is to be born of God, if you manifest sin, all that means is that you have not been fully born of him. 
Gal 4:19 My little children, of whom I travail in birth again until Christ be formed in you,
 
...we shall be like him.  Verse 9 definitely refers to believers every word of it.  And I'm not into using your "special terminology" where you discount belief as being second to discipleship and draw your little lines in the sand.  The seminaries are filled with unbelieving disciples of Jesus Christ whose end is destruction whose glory is their shame.  It is all a game of semantics and it is stupid.  Concern yourself with deeds and verbs, not labels.  Overcome, Inherit, be formed.  Think of perfect as a verb, not as a noun.
 
I stand somewhat illuminated to the inclusion of the faithful as being another aspect of 'born of God'... in fact, I think we both are! 
 
I think you are not. Heresy is a sin. Speaking for myself, I am in travail.
 
This is a prime example of the kind of man-pleasing "knee-jerk" statements you make.  To make peace between us, you mince words and try to play like we are in agreement.  Is that a righteous thing in your eyes? That is another thing I don't like about you. 
 
Paul, John is continuing his conversation about the Son of God in the next verse: 
No. He is continuing his monolog about what the WORK of Christ is supposed to do in us You merely assert your will on the scriptures but I will demonstrate by the words that what I say is true.
 
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.
 
The works of the devil are sin and death, that is what Jesus came to destroy.  And where do you find sin and death? In man of course, so how does Christ destroy the works of sin and death in man? By the new birth.
 
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.
The children of God are manifest in the fact that they do not sin and the children of the devil in that they do.  Verses Nine and ten go together.  You keep harping on the "definition of righteousness"  but here it is obvious that righteousness is the opposite of sin, it includes all forms of rigghteousness, (restraint from evil and positive doing of good)
 
The whole time we have been talking about this, I keep getting statements from you which indicate that you think I am telling you that you have to be perfect right now, but I have never said anything of the kind.  My point from the beginning was that this is what distinguishes the children of God from the children of the devil,  NOT DNA.  THAT has been the point I was trying to make and you initially claimed I was taking this out of context, etc.   MY POINT is that the Pharisees were the children of the devil because of their DEEDS not because of their GENES.  It is manifest, on judgement day men are judged by their WORKS.  You know false prophets by their WORKS.  It does not tell us their ultimate destiny, but it tells us how to deal with the in the present.  How will you doctrine help you?  With a cotton swab and a genetic test?   And since you grant that any race may repent, why do you desire to single out Ishmaelits as....as what?!? What is the POINT?  Since all men will be judged by their works and not by their race, what is the POINT? 
 
Acts 10:28 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.
 
And you seriously think that Ishmaelites were in control of the Jewish heirarchy?  Jesus never questioned their Jewishness or their descent.  It was their works and unrepentant hearts.  Jesus knew all men.  And he did not judge them evil because they were genetically something other than Jewish.  Look at the history of the men of Israel.  Is there anything in the history of that people that makes the behavior of the leaders of Jesus day INCONSISTENT with the behavior of other Israelite leaders in other times??  Are all the "pure Jews" naturally good and noble people, without fail?  Does every good father and mother sire a good son?
 
Really Name Withheld. Your doctrine is worthless.  I can't use it to do anything worth doing.  I can tell a false prophet by his works, but what can I tell by looking at a man's race? 
 
There was nothing perfect about Abraham's DNA, He was given a promise and that promise was that he would have a son by Sarah and Christ was the ultimate outcome of the promise made to Abraham, He had to be of Abraham because of the promise, all other considerations are speculative.  Jesus was born of Mary of the line of Abraham according to the promise. 
 
 I've got some back paddling to do with another person where I accidentally suggest disciples are called... my mistake... believers are called, disciples are chosen.
 
That is an ignorant thing to say, disciples are believers, you have to be called and chosen and faithful, Jesus Chose twelve and one was a devil, chosen is not good enough. While you and your buddies are busily making up your new religion, some people have been busy reading the parts of the bible that you conveniently overlook.
 
Acts 6:1 And in those days, when the number of the disciples was multiplied, there arose a murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebrews, because their widows were neglected in the daily ministration.
2 Then the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them, and said, It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables.
The multitude of the disciples.  Apparently the Apostles were not aware of your hair splitting over the term "disciple."  And that is what you are, a hair splitter, a gnat strainer, that is your type.  You are so focused on your little hair of knowledge that you totally are missing out on the big picture.  And you still have a bad attitude towards me, you still keep presuming things I have niot said and ask questions of me, testing me according to your hair's breadth understanding.  I'll show you what I mean eventually.
 
Seriously, what is this? Another "proposal." More folly.
 
 I propose the 'unrighteousness' in verse 10 above is the same unrighteousness (genetic corruption in general) as occurred before the flood, in Noah's tent that night(Only Noah was righteous in his generations), in unrighteous 'fornication' being incest
 
Well, this is that "argument by verbosity I was talking about.  You just thow out a lot of facts and quasi-facts and the strategy 9whether you are aware of this or not) is to overwhelm the opposition with all kinds of information.  Like I'm not sick of picking through all the questionable "facts" you bring up mingled with actual facts,   It makes a disgusting soup.  Something you have never learned Name Withheld, a little leaven leavens the whole lump.  A little dung in the broth ruins the whole soup.
 
I PROPOSE that the unrighteousness mentioned in verse 10 is the SAME unrighteousness mentioned in vthis erse
 
4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.
 
1John 5:17 17 All unrighteousness is sin:
 
Your ignorance is painful.  It is no sin to be ignorant, but you ought to learn to listen before you speak, and I mean listen to the word.  You are talking before you have heard, that is your problem. 
 
Job 38:2 Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?
 
Just your servant Name Withheld, Lord.  Name Withheld, the hair splitter, Name Withheld, the gnat strainer.  Help, poor Name Withheld.
 
as Apostle Paul references in 1COR5:1 that was actually continuing beyond Jesus' life. 
 
Incest is nothing new and it is going on today, and is is not the subject of 1 John 3, that is just FAR OUT...
 
I'm referring to the same unrighteous (genetic corruption via incest exclusively) 'fornication' that Jesus referred to in REV 2:20  ...
 
Exclusively, Name Withheld, you have no right to say that. It says "fornication"  all fornication is sin enough to burn over.  Your fleshly mind is intruding into things you have not seen.
 
 that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication (incest),
 
So saith Name Withheld, the editor of the bible. Name Withheld, you ought to have more respect for the word, it is not such a light thing that you should feel at liberty to say whatever you think is right. You are too light with the word. Light Careless, Sloppy, and hair splitting make for bad bed-fellows.
 
and to eat things sacrificed unto idols (they cooked and ate the disfigured progeny of incest, Molech). 
 
Wow, man, you have no bounds on your imagination, you take possibilities and turn them into doctrines.  CASTING DOWN IMAGINATIONS!  End this foolishness.
 
Think about the 'golden calf' when Moses came down and found them dancing naked... naked?   Think that might have been going on in Sodom and Gomorrah... at least! 
 
Imagination is a powerful thing, you exalt it, I CAST IT DOWN!!!
 
2Cor 10:5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ; 
 
You keep laboring under this mistaken idea that the things you imagine to be true because they appeal to you are actually doctrines, when they are really imaginations. 
 
Jezebel's father was Ithobaal (sp?), king of Sidon (named after Canaan's first born son) or at least Tyre which Ezekiel spoke of with such disdain about the Zidonese and their 'unrighteous' practices.  Moses spoke of this abominaiton in LEV 18:21, LEV 20:2, 3, 4, 5... and I need not go further. 
 
Please don't, you know a lot about some very speculative interpretations of what people may have done in the past, but you yourself fail the test of being a true disciple, you wander from the word into imaginations, even the parts of what you say that are right are corrupted by the false imaginations you throw in. 
 
You do not understand that heresy is a touchy thing, you allow yourself to speculate broadly, but in so doing you show the scriptures no respect and do disservice to Christ and his word.  None of this information is solid and none of it will help people come to righteousness.  And though I do not say you must be perfect today, yet I will also tell you that when Jesus Comes to raise the dead and rule the earth we had better not be found in our sins, we had better not have died in our sins.  This is a race and we need to leave sins behind us, when we come to the finish we do not want to cross the line, neck and neck with sin.
 
I certainly recognize the various definitions of unrighteousness and righteousness...
 
Well, the definition in question is the one referred to in John's Epistles, HIS definition would be paramount here, and we have his definition so mine and yours don't really matter much.
 
I'm agreeing with you totally in your definition in a general and contemporary sense of the word...
 
"Contemporary"  Name withheld, what are you talking about?  I'm going with the definition as described in the bible in the context of the passage in question.  If we want to know about the abomination of the Amonites, we might look in the old testament for clues to that specific form of unrighteousness, but if we want to know what 1 John is referring to, we need look no further than 1 John..
 
1John 5:17 17 All unrighteousness is sin:
 
And sin is the transgression of the law.
 
You are also wrong in that you cannot say that the definition of "unrighteousness"  is incest, that is illogical. You cannot define a thing by one of its parts.  That is like saying  that the definition of Man is a two legged creature. Incest is s KIND or PART of unrighteousness, there are many kinds of unrighteousness many aspects, and John was referring to them all.
 
Please forgive me for not affording you a clearer target, with my broader definition of unrighteousness as was occurring during OT and NT which seems to, say, 'lost flavor" in contemporary studies. 
 
Name Withheld, you are always a clearer target than you know because you fail to see the areas where you are weakest.  Your definition is an extremely narrow and illogical definition.  How much more of a target could I ask for?  How can you call that definition "broader" than mine, it is one sin, one unrighteousness, that is very narrow.  You exhibit a very odd behavior, you often state things as being opposite of reality.  To say that 1 John is referring to what you say it is referring to is an extremely narrow definition, not a broad one, no0t only that but to define a righteousness by one of its parts is a novice's error.
 
Forgive me for lack of clarity!  I do suggest your incomplete definition of unrighteousness does not fit the subject in verse 10, because incest, and the cooking and eating of disfigured progeny of incest is just, too hard to 'digest.'  
 
Lol again, my definition includes your definition, because all sin is unrighteousness according to the Apostle John.
 
Kuru, similar to mad cow, is aquired through the eating of infected human flesh... it's inherited and contagious!  I've probably taken care of 6 patients with the human equivalent of mad cow.. CJD. 
 
Good for you, more verbosity, I've noticed as we talk that you are long on yak but short on the scriptures, you know more facts about things that are not in the scriptures than you do about the scriptures.  I always have scriptures to back up what I say, and you step in it every time you turn.
 
Paul, if your interest compels you:  Cruetzfeldt-Jacob Disease remains genetic in certain Jewish family lines today, originating from a specific area around Judea since Biblical times.  I can't assume you know that, please Google that one!  
 
Fascinating and unsurprising, but this has little to do with the subject at hand.  I know what the Israelites did.  It is written in the prophets, but I don't need to do a genetic survey and study the prevalence of any disease to know how the children of the devil are manifest.  That is the problem with you.  You say that it is in God's hands yet you keep trying to nail down one people or the other as being the Devil's seed.  it is pointless.
 
So, sincerely, please forgive me for not being more clear, sooner, Paul.  Can you handle it?  Do your definitions of unrighteousness include any of the above? 
 
Name Withheld, you have begun to make me seriously question your intelligence.  Why would you even ask that?  Do you think I'm going to say, "Eating babies is not aunrighteous?"  YOU RDEFINITION IS THE ILLOGICAL ONE that FAILS TO INCLUDE ALL SIN.
 
You get another  F, you FAIL.
 
Please don't feel un-illuminated in tradtional Bible teachings, Paul...
 
Nice try Name Withheld, you are the one that keeps coming up short on that account.  You throw out all kinds of stuff and you assume I don't know about it, then you get on your high horse and try in vain to mock me "Don't feel bad widdle Pauly, don't feel un-illuminated because  you don't know everything Disciple Name Withheld the illuminated knows"  Ha!
 
You are pathetic. You are stabbing at me in the dark, because you are unskillful in the word and there are no openings in my armor, and I will keep chopping you to pieces, and this is what you deserve for your arrogance and corrupt mindset towards the word. All I have to do is wait for you to open your mouth and you will say something CONTRADICTORY to the word and/or to logic, time after time, You keep launching your little "facts" at me like I don't already know everything you know that is worth knowing, and in the mean time you are putting your foot in your mouth over and over. 
 
I didn't really start figuring these things out until I started sudying on my own. 
 
Well, good for you, but you are a blind leader of the blind.  You and yourself.
 
Have you ever heard the word 'incest' from a pulpit? 
 
Yes I have,  I've heard it on the radio.  I mean, are you serious?  Is your experience so limited?   A  fool judges everything by his own limited experience.
 
 Maybe a better setting, Sunday School... is the word 'incest' even anywhere in your Bible study archives?  Point me to that 'unrighteousness' and complete the definition, you'll capture my interest including the reality of Biblical experiences... all of them! 
 
Why the hard-on for incest and baby eating?  How about having a spear shoved up your anus? or how about having someone force feed you your own genitals?  What is with you?  Dude, everyone knows incest is a sin, and they know baby eating is a sin.  Yeah, it is in the bible.  I mention it when it comes up in my studies, of course.   Why are you so hung up on such a specific sin, especially in this context?   It is not exactly a very common sin. and it has its roots in much deeper sins of the mind, you attack the branch when you should be going for the root!
 
It only takes one little sin to fail to inherit the kingdom.  Heresy is listed with Murder and you were proud to be called a heretic. How foolish. 
 
You are the one with the exclusive definition of unrighteousness, not me, I don't even know how you got on this weird incest kick.
 
Noah was perfect in his generations, what does that mean to you, now?  GEN 7:1
 
No, you tell me what it means to YOU.  You are the one with a hang up over it.  I take the words of Genesis 7:1  at face value, that is all I am required to do in that place. There is no need to engage in all kinds of extra theorizing about issues that were resolved long ago.  From the time of the Apostles these issues have been laid to rest.
 
And the Lord said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteousness before me in this generation.  What sayest, thou?  What was the unrighteousness that occurred in Noah's tent that resulted in Canaan's conception and curse?  Your response has been the Bible doesn't say... think about the Book of Jude where the Apostle John is believed to have written the knowledge Jude... brother of Jesus, consider then intensity of those scripture! 
 
Yes "going after strange flesh," "in like manner" men with men, men with angels, it is all possible, exactly which way is arguable, and I follow the counsel of my teacher Paul who said to avoid such arguments. I stick to the tried and true, to the solid rock. None of that will help Christ be formed in you.  You missed the point of Jude:
 
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.
 
He follows with examples, like in 1 Cor 9: 10  these things were examples, because as those men of old were corrupted from their righteousness men would also come to corrupt you from the faith.  Going after strange flesh is akin to going after strange doctrines.  Fornication of the body and fornication of the mind.  It is all included it is all important. 
 
Jude wants us to contend for the faith, he wrote of the common salvation, that is what he told us to contend for, but that is not enough for you, you have to intrude into things about which the faith does not speak, and I'm not talking about the fact that incest is unrighteous.  I'm talking about your doctrine of "The Pharisees were Ishmaelite,"  if that was the case, Name withheld, then why is there not a word of that in scripture?  All you have is a statement from the pharisees which you have TWISTED as they that accused Christ twisted their own words
 
I don't think you have the authority to label me unrepentent, but I'll gladly accept 'heretic,' although I'm more familiar 'false prophet.' 
 
You are unrepentant, I don't need any authority, all I have to do is read you words. You gladly accept heretic because you think you are being wrongly labeled, but why would you be troubled by unrepentant when you repent not of the heresies?  You have this problem with context , you are a danger to yourself.  You think I mean that you are "unrepentant" of all your sins, but I specifically said  "unrepentant heretic"  I did not say that you were "unrepentant and an heretic,"  Your skills are very poor so you will mislead yourself often, as you have demonstrated.
 
Paul, ple]ase forgive my irritating way of debate... new knowledge, which rattles the timbers in anyone's faith paradigm, tends to do that.  I know... its pretty, tough.  Please forgive me... no malice intended
 
If I didn't forgive it I wouldn't be talking to you.  I tell you so that you can examine yourself.  I take every criticism leveled at me and take a good look at it.
 
Sorry, I might have been referencing what I think I hear you propose that includes 100% righteousness here in the flesh.  I propose righteousness in the flesh is a journey.  Do you propose 100% righteousness is attainable in the flesh?   
 
Yes but only with forgiveness for the past and much exercise.  I think that as I live I will go from righteousness to greater righteousness, from faith to faith, onward and upward, adding to my faith, adding to my righteousness, priogressing and improving.  In my life I expect to lay aside all my former sins, because the bible has led me to believe this.
 
Titus 2:11 For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,
12 Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world;
 
The bible could not be more clear.  Do you reject the idea that we should live soberly righteously and godly, in this present world?
 
Do you reject the idea that it is possible?
 
2Pe2:14 Having eyes full of adultery, and that cannot cease from sin; beguiling unstable souls: an heart they have exercised with covetous practices; cursed children:
Why would Peter complain of people who "cannot cease from sin" if ceasing from sin is impossible? Huh?  Is it impossible?  Was Peter off his rocker?  Was Peter setting unrealistic expectations?  Or are you denying the faith that was once delivered the saints?
 
I have been a disciple of Jesus and John and Peter, and Paul, and James and Jude, and Matthew and Mark and Isaiah and Moses and many others.   And even of Arnold Murray.  But you say, "I am of Christ," are you not carnal? Name Withheld, You are carnal. (1 Cor 1 and 3)
 
Do I have to clarify every thing I say by mentioning whether timing is a factor?  Timing is not a factor here.  Do you propose 100% righteousness is attaiable in the flesh?  
 
100% implies that we would have never sinned in our lifetime.  I'm just saying we can stop sinning by the power of Christ.  That is what Jesus came to do, to destroy the works of the devil:
 
Acts3:26 Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities.
 
I propose only what the apostles said Christ would do for me.  This is one of the great and precious promises, only those that seek it will find it.
 
A tare can never be forgiven because it is PREDESTINED to destruction. I know you're not a racist. 
 
Yes, because a tare is not defined by their race.  Obviously, you have to allow for tares to be something other than they are  I assume because I believe you see the parable as racial.  The pure race being the wheat and the tares being the carnal offspring of the devil.  I say that the seed is spiritual as 1 john 3 says.  It is defined by the works we are judge by in the end.
 
 This predestination is not effected by timing.  God inhabits eternity, he sees the end from the beginning.  Humanity is wheat and tare to God,  Good and evil.  Great summary, Paul! 
 
Ok, I hope that was sincere. A little word of affirmation that showed we were on the same page would be helpful, something like "God is sovereign over the fates of men."  That would help.
 
We can not know the difference before the harvest, but God knows from the beginning because he knows what he created..Dude!  Calling me an unrepentent heretic is getting pretty darn close!  LOL! 
 
No, it is not close at all. The parable is about the big picture, how God sees the world, how he will judge the world.  We do not have God's perspective, All that I can say about you is based on what is true at this moment.  To call Saul and enemy of the gospel was true so long as he persecuted the church.  So to call you an unrepentant heretic is true so long as you continue in your heresy.  Obviously if you repent, then everything changes doesn't it?  But whatever happens God already knows what you really are, but to me it is a mystery, all my hardness toward you is to break the chains that bind you. 
 
You profess yourself to be wise, so for your own good I have to make you a fool. I know you would rather not call yourself wise, but you have to take my perspective, the way your first message came to me, I see you as one professing wisdom, would you say you came to me professing folly?  But I come to you professing folly, the folly of believing that a man might live his life in this world righteously, and cease from sin.
 
 A human being can repent before the harvest, but that is not to say he was a tare, tares do not repent,   they BURN.  Do you think Jesus would have been able to discern a tare?  Absolutely! 
 
That is why he called them the children of the devil, because he knew their deeds and that they would not repent.  But it had nothing to do with their DNA.  At least, the bible says nothing about that.
 
 Did Jesus illuminate anyone as a tare?  Not specifically, he couldn't speak their specific names in condemnation.... but, He sure had a beef with certain Phairsees!  Judgement was not yet. 
 
Ok.
 
Think about the 'mark' of Cain preserving anonymity
 
That nonsense?  I told you that was nonsense.  This is what I mean by unrepentant.  You made all that up about "preserving anonymity"  It is hogwash.
 
... at least until His Son rent the veil!  
 
Name Withheld, that is not the manner in which Christ rent the veil.
 
Labeling someone a 'tare' would be absolute judgemental, judgement is not yet,certainly not within our authority... even the Christ could not point a finger without overstepping His mission and authority.      
 
Two things, that was not the point, and also you prove my point
 
1) Not the point:  I can label false prophets and false teachers, I can label heretics and adulterers, because I'm not judging anyone, the judgment of God has already been written concerning these things.  I only LISTEN to the judgment of God  and I compare that to the works that men do, we are to know the fruits, I  can declare what he has said concerning those things.  And they may repent, or not but it really changes nothing in the sight of God.
 
2) You prove my point, You cannot call someone a tare,  because you do not see the world as God sees it.  Everything has already been judged and determined, that is what the parable of the tares teaches us, but no one but God knows what that outcome is. And without being specific about exactly who is a tare I can declare that all tares will be burned, that which is planted a tare is reaped a tare.   the fact that you refuse to call anyone a tare shows only that you know that to be a tare means that an immutable doom has been pronounced over someone.
 
 we might have some disagreement with the literal children of the Wicked  one.
 
The spiritual children are the literal children, I deny that there are CARNAL children.  Satan has no fleshly carnal offspring, this is fable and confusion of genealogy.
 

4 Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.
 
9 But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.
 
You are the minister of questions, you have question after question to no profit
 
rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do
 
Godly edifying is edification which leads to GODLINESS.  In faith.   Your pet doctrines  and heresies, which you yourself have seen do not stand on strong foundation ("Mizraim,") will continue to lead you away from pure godliness in faith.  You became a heretic over Mizraim and over many such like things you will also stumble.  So also is this "anonymity" trash, perverted doctrines of men.  You are following a devil's doctrine, you handle the word like one who despises it.
 
 
Matt 13:28 Wilt thou then that we not reapers go and gather them up? 29 But he said, Nay; lest while ye not reapers gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them.
 
What is this stuff about "not reapers", I never said they were reapers,  and whether servant sor reapers it does not change anything.  Reapers are servants.  You have fallen into the same definition error again.  This is hair splitting.  What is the difference?  The reapers are the angels, so then who are the servants?  The prophets?  Ok, fine,  I don't care, it really makes no difference, regarding what I said,
 
There is NO CONCERN for the tares.  It does not say, lest that tare "evolve" into wheat.  No, it is only out of concern that the reapers might mistake it wasn't the reapers at risk for mistake...  
 
Name Withheld, anyone who does reaping is a reaper.  You are wrong, If I send someone out to reap he is a reaper, he does not need to have a membership in the reapers union to be a reaper. Name Withheld, hair splitter, missing the forest for the trees again.
 
And let us say you are right, that is "was not the reapers" who would "reap" the tares out of season.  That does not change the fact that the MASTER was only concerned about the WHEAT, that was my point, and your point is just a RED HERRING.  TOTALLY IRRELEVANT TO THE ARGUMENT.  Right or wrong your point has absolutely no impact other than to force me to reword the statement, at worst.
 
No, it is only out of concern that the reapers might mistake it wasn't the reapers at risk for mistake...  
 
Ok Name Withheld, I'll play your little game
 
No, it is only out of concern that the SERVANTS might mistake wheat for tare,
 
Happy?  That does not change a thing, you are so desperate to be right about something.
 
You exalt your own knowledge above that which is GIVEN in the word maybe I should memorize chapter, like my brother has read the Bible umpteen time... pentance?. 
 
Name Withheld, you profess yourself to be wise, you are the true disciple, you figure out what to do.
 
You are so caught up in matters that matter not that you have overlooked the most critical aspect of becoming a disciple INDEED, staying withing the BOUNDS of what Christ taught.  Try to stay on track... LOL...
 
Well, you don't get it, heresy, even a little will exclude you from God's Kingdom, that is not my judgment.  You must continue in his word to be his disciple.
 
 Please allow me to be more specific as to critical differences:  you are on the 'Pharisee refusing salvation' side of John 8:33-6,
 
No actually I'm on the side of memorizing the whole chapter and obeying all the words.

33 They answered him, We be Abraham's seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free?
34 Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.
35 And the servant abideth not in the house for ever: but the Son abideth ever.
36 If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.
What is wrong with these words, you are the one who has divided this passage WRONGLY. 
 
31 Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;
32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.
These words go with Verses 33-36, there is a strong connection in form and substance.  When I post our discussion on my website anyone reading our conversation will clearly see what I'm talking about.
  Verses
 
and I'm on the 'believer to disciple' side on John 8:28-32. 
 
Name Withheld, yes I am repeating myself but you are splitting things that don't need splitting, this is some little pet section of scripture you have made your little bird's nest in and polluted, but I can smell your stink from the pure words. 
 
28 Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things.
29 And he that sent me is with me: the Father hath not left me alone; for I do always those things that please him.
30 As he spake these words, many believed on him.
These verses are more closely attached to verses 21-27 than to 31 and 32 a casual reader can see that.  In 21-27 he is talking about the father and his death, but in verses 31-36  he talks aabout freedom from sin. 
 
You are clearly misreading the passage.   I really don't even get what you are going on about, these words are simple, yet you are really hung up here like there is some big secret revealed here by ignoring the context and ramming verse 28-30 together with 31 and 32.  You have laid an egg and are making a lot of noise, but I'm not impressed.   You fail to comprehend the simple truth that your methods of interpretation are actually evidence that you are one who strays from the word and gives heed to imaginations, and fables, to genealogies and other foolish pursuits that do not lead to godly edification.
 
Two audiences (excluding undecided), two truths, and two freedoms. 
 
You are totally off your rocker.  There is only one freedom, in 31 and 32 he makes the proclimation in 33-36 he clarifies what it meant.  And that is what it says child.
 
You just wish it said something else and since you hold the truth in contempt you do not think antything of corrupting the meaning and the sense plainly given.  I went through the verse at the beginning
 
Well, I have a pretty good idea why you can't go there... are you a Forsaken Jesus Theorist? 
 
Another stab in the dark, I actually like not telling you, because you keep impotently stabbing in the dark at me.  Like I'm some common teacher.  Is that your litmus test? If they say God "forsook Jesus on the cross" is that how you tell a false teacher? You don't even have your own house in order, and you stab blindly at me as if by guessing you might find something to nail me on.  "He has not despised nor abhorred the affliction of the afflicted neither has he hid his face from him but when he cried unto him he heard." 
 
It is funny that people believe that God forsook Christ because "sin was on him, yet they also believe God is with them as they play with their male prostitutes.  Anyway,  God did not forsake Christ on the cross, but Jesus may have felt forsaken, indeed, as David did, I have also made a song out of Psalm 22.  But God never forsook Christ, that is nonsense.  He was touched with the feeling of our weaknesses.
 
 I am a Disciple Reference Theorist, exclusively!. 
 
Oh, so you see Jesus as like this robot with no feelings, stoically quoting scripture from the cross.  I used to think like that and I have no doubt that he was trying to communicate with his disciples by quoting psalm 22, but I think
 
15 ....we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.
 
To me, that is comforting, because I have felt alone and forsaken by God at times, and the fact that Jesus may have felt the same helps me not feel too guilty about it.  God does not grudge us our feelings.
 
I understand where you're coming from there... but you want to explain me there is difference in people by God's will, agreed. And, I do admire your knowledge.  Sir, are you cramming innocent believers into the status of those corrupt Pharisees? 
 
John 8 again, you are the corrupt one. You corrupt the passage.  Those were believing Pharisees.  I already proved it.  To dispute that point is to endter into great folly.
 
Recall, MAT 18:6  But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.  Let's pray for one another on that one!       
 
You are stumbling and I'm trying to help you, save your prayers.
 
 Perfection occurs when Jesus advocates for us before the Father, and we become Sons of God as He is the Son of God in spirit form.  Currently, we are children of God. 
 
Dude, children and sons are usually the same word, show me in the greek what you are talking about, as far as I am aware, the phrase "children of God" is identical to "sons of God"  show me otherwise.  You are splitting hairs in english that don't exist in the greek.
 
 
I don't agree because you don't understand the idea of perfection.  Flesh is perfect when it is whole and complete.  Perfection is always a matter of perspective.  Relative to an in corruptible body, he..... Sorry I bleeped some stuff of yours... 
 
It was that offensive?  I'm not perfect in body dude.  I happen to have been born deformed.  No Joke. I am a deformed man. Rejected for service on grounds of my several imperfections.
 
Lev 21:18 For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing superfluous,
19 Or a man that is brokenfooted, or brokenhanded,
20 Or crookbacked, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken;
21 No man that hath a blemish of the seed of Aaron the priest shall come nigh to offer the offerings of the LORD made by fire: he hath a blemish; he shall not come nigh to offer the bread of his God.
 
"Relative to an in corruptible body, flesh is not perfect, but relative to a cripple, or a deformed person, many in the flesh are "perfect"" 
 
That is how the bible defines it DUDE. I mean seriously?  You talk about incest and eating babies and I mention cripples and deformities  and you break out the censorship button?
 
And I'll tell you up front, I AM ONE OF THOSE.  Ok so don't get all squeemish on me.
 
Jesus' flesh was absolutely perfect, 100% intact DNA, the ultimate sacrificial Lamb.   
 
Well, where did 100% of his DNA come from?  The female Carries no Y Chromasome, so half of his DNA came from a spiritual being or throught the manipulation of a spiritual being.  I'm not saying that made3 him less than perfect but you had a lot to say about spirit beings impreggnating women.  Jesus is one undeniable case. I'm not talking about sex I'm talking about seed.  Jesus was of the seed of a spiritual being.  he was "conceived of the Holy Ghost..  think about the things you say... for a change.
 
Spiritual perfection is another form.  I'm sure geneticists are working on it... clones are perfect replicas... but that includes the same flaws.  Jesus was without spot or blemish, spiritually and physically, period.  There is not now, otherwise never was, nor ever will be perfect flesh... Jesus alone.  Otherwise, anyone 'perfect' in flesh could have been the sacrificial lamb.   
 
Abraham offered Isaac, he was not refused for imperfections of the flesh.  The reason Jesus was offered is because he was the promised substitute. 
 
This is a pointless argument, you don't know your bible, I won't argue with you over how perfect Jesus was in the flesh,  but you say things that go a little beyond what we really know, based on what you think ought to be true. 
 
Jesus was perfect, a perfect sacrifice of the seed of Abraham and of David.
 
Name Withheld, your instincts are all wrong.  Instincts?  Perfect DNA!  Perfect sacrifice.  Are you there?
 
Well, I was saying that there are different kinds of perfection and you had assumed I meant absolute perfection.  You are making it about something else than ever I was saying... my original point was that perfection goes beyond sinlessness. 
 
That was a different kind of perfection, he perfected his work through suffering the death of the cross sorry Paul Jesus defeated death on the cross... he DID NOT suffer the death of the cross. 
 
Jesus died on the cross.  Just because he chose the moment to give up the ghost does not change that.
 
Php2:8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
 
Peter says Jesus was "put to death." 
 
1Peter 3:18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:
Christ was put to death, he was executed, that is what he submitted to.  You have let that little bit of knowledge about him laying down his life run wild and evolve into something that goes beyond what was said.
 
This is what I mean by "bad instincts"   you tend to look for ways in which you may overturn what the bible says, over and over.  Yes, he laid his life down, but that fact does not overturn the reality that he was certainly put to death according to tthe scriptures. 
 
He defeated death in his death and resurrection.  His death was for our sins, and he died and rose to defeat death,.
 
You are contradicting yourself... or maybe I missed it prior. 
 
I just don't take one little fact and use it to overturn everything else.  That is why a novice like you is dangerous, mostly to yourself but also to those who hear you.
 
Suffering, sure... death was defeated on the cross. 
 
In his death he defeated sin and death, but I don't like to leave out the resurrection, that was the proof of his victory over death, through death he destroys the devil and his works. I would not word it the way you do, the resurrection is too important to leave out of the equation.  I want to be made conformable to his death, that means I wish to rise again as he did.
 
 Jesus perfected His work when His Spirit departed from LIVING flesh, following His Father's commandment, and THEN His body died.  You said yourself His Spirit left his body on the cross... I'm talking about His Spirit leaving LIVING flesh, not his body, his body had to be perfect to be acceptable as an offering, offering a body does not make a body perfect, to this all the law attests.  I think we're in agreement here Paul... offering a body does not make a body perfect... it makes the spirit perfect (at least ours at judgement, Jesus spirit already was perfect!).  Jesus' body was the finest example of human DNA on planet earth
 
Well, sort of,  to me "giving up the ghost" is death, but Jesus was still in his body.  His soul was not left in hell, (the grave) jesus went into the ground in his death, not into heaven.  The spirit departed but the man, the person, remains, not just flesh, but the soul.  The soul does not depart the body.  As it is written of him, his soul was not left in hell. (Acts 2) I'm guessing you are greatly mistaken about souls and spirits as well, but I'm not going to train you up in that unless you become my disciple...
 
YOU ARE NOT A DISCIPLE OF JESUS CHRIST "INDEED"  LOL!, Paul... you are not a corrupt Pharisee, indeed... even though youre out there trying to lead them in your John 8:33-36 mindset in the flesh, carnal. 
 
yeah, well I laid that little error of yours to rest already.
 
 You're out there trying to 'save' Phairsees?  Jesus couldn't...but, I'll give you credit for trying! 
 
No, I'm out here speaking the truth and whatever comes of it is what comes of it.  God is pleased with my work if you hear me or if you reject me, whether for death or life it is a sweet savor to him.
 
 I propose you're cramming naive' believers into the status of corrupt Pharisees so you can lead them to YOUR disciples...
 
Whatever, this is just more nonsense, you are full of that.
 
well, its as simple as believe, go and sin nore more = believer... so what are you offering Paul?  You're offering me, and them, and opportunity to be YOUR disciple... get over yourself, dude! 
 
Well, you would benefit from being my disciple, I don't ask you to be "exclusively" my disciple.  But I stand bofore you in the stead of Christ, I'm what he is offering, and you plainly need to learn the things I have learned.
 
Honestly, I don't even have "disciples"  I don't use that term, I'm not about labels I'm about deeds.   What is easier for me to say?  Hear my teachings? or Become my disciple?  You are stumbling, not at me, but at your own hair splitting.  You have already taken instruction at my hand and yet you will continue to say you are not my disciple, then stop taking my discipline, go on in your ignorance.
 
You are the one who needs to get over yourself, I think nothing of myself, to you, I'm just another man with an opinion.  But whatever I am in Christ that is his doing.
 
Jesus' love is unconditional to those of us who believe.  
 
Really?  "Jesus love is unconditional to..."  *dramatic pause*  "...those that believe"  BELIEF is a CONDITION. Name Withheld, you are completely wrong. I look in the word and see all kinds of conditions.  Unconditional love is not a teaching of the bible.  And Jesus is not impressed with belief. 
 
John 2:23 Now when he was in Jerusalem at the passover, in the feast day, many believed in his name, when they saw the miracles which he did. 24 But Jesus did not commit himself unto them, because he knew all men,
25 And needed not that any should testify of man: for he knew what was in man.
 
You have to go from faith to faith....
 
You are telling folk to be YOUR Disciple??? 
 
Nope, Just you and others like you.  The ones who need it.
 
Kinda puts you right beside Jesus, right now, in the flesh...
 
What do you think the word "Christian" means?  Little Christ.  Christians are men who seek to walk and live as Christ.  To be as their master.  There is nothing shameful in it.  What have I offended in that it should be unseemly for me to follow my master and his Apostles?  I don't seek disciples, but you sought me, so I called you and you rejected the call, it is all very interesting, but I have not offended in calling you to learn from a gifted teacher.  Lots of people gladly learn from me, I don't go around calling them my disciples, but since you make a big deal about it that is what I call it for your sake, because you are too light with the word when you ought to be grave and too heavy when you ought to be light, the classic "strain at a gnat and swallow a camel,"
 
which I have tried to explain that CANNOT be accomplished until we pass go and collect our rewards. 
 
How shall you that are accustomed to doing evil do good? You have a bad attitude.  I know I will be like him when I see him, but I also know that I will be more like him tomorrow and the next day.  Shining brighter and brighter.  What is the point of saying "we'll never be like him in this world? you lie. We can be like him even now, but obviously only so much at a time.  I'm not exactly like him by a long shot but is it wrong to expect to be better?  What do you expect of yourself? Stagnation and ruin?  Then one day, POOF  you will magically be transformed?  If  we do not love righteousness on the earth we will not love it in the kingdom either.
 
 I'm not even asking you to be JESUS' disciple!  He has to do that...
 
Well, I am not carnal like you, I am not Christ's disciple anymore, I am a teacher, that is what he appointed me to do. When I was a child I spoke as a child...
 
and the door is right there on the believer side of John 8:28-32.  
 
Again, I have no respect for your opinion on that one.   I took you through it, deny my explanation, lets just talk about John 8:21-36 for the rest of our lives and I will show the whole world what a fool you can make of your self.  Or repent.
 
You clearly cannot see or hear, and that's between you and Christ, so it is written and so shall it be.  
 
You are the one who does not see words like "then he answered THEM"  You are the one who is blind, I can make you touch what you do not see but christtt can make you see it.
 
Paul... you are a beliver, albeit good one, in Disciples clothing!    
 
And you are a hairsplitting camel swallowing heretic.  I won't flatter you.  Stop flattering me.  "They shall cling to them with flatteries."  That is you, flatterer. 
 
Whatever else you may want to say, Christ himself directly denied that he was "pure spirit" after his resurrection. Paul... you left out a part... what form was Jesus in between the Cross and Resurrection?  You jumped the gun, again... timing, again.  How can we even see Him in spirit form?  We are not yet Sons of God! 
 
WRONG AGAIN!  He was in the ground, in his body.  As the scriptures say.  he was not "in spirit form" there are no scriptures for that. 
 
29 Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day. (The "person" David is in the ground)
30 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;
31 He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.
32 This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.
 
You have been burned again.  Give me a scripture, your quiver is empty but mine is still full, I have so many arrows I could fire at you over this one. Seek for yourself.
 
"Inquiry?"  this isn't an inquiry, you are trying to instruct me.  But you are not fit to instruct me.  Paul, didn't know you have exclusive rights to instruction... we kinda learn from one another., don't you think? 
 
All I have learned from you are many new ways which men of corrupt minds do pervert good doctrine.
 
Well Paul... did you ever cover a single word specifically from John 8:28-32?  I only heard your reference to Jesus' dialogue with the PHARISEES! 
 
At the top of this message I did, and you are shown to be wrong. You are careless.
 
  I, sir, am at least a believer from your perspective, a Muslim would give me that credit! 
 
You don't believe in my Gospel.  You are not a believer in my Christ.  You are a pervert, you pervert the word.
 
Believers deserve to at least Hear His words to them!  How's that for priority? 
 
That is why I teach the whole bible and not just John 8:28-32 out of context, pervert.
 
I reject you NAme Withheld, go away from me.
 

My Additional Response:

----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Stringini
To: Name Withheld
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2011 6:38 PM
Subject: Message 3 John 8:28-32
Name Withheld, you basically compound your errors. But you need to be straightened out on John 8
 
Two audiences (excluding undecided), two truths, and two freedoms. 
 
You are totally wrong.  There is only one audience and I can prove it, in 31 and 32 he makes the proclimation in 33-36 he clarifies what it meant. 
 
31 Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;
32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free
33 They (those Jews which believed on him) answered (the word "answered" means that this was the reply to those whom Jesus addressed in verse 31, the word "answered" is an absolute marker of a continuous dialog)) him, We be Abraham's seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free? (This is not insolent, it is like Nicodemus asking can a man enter his mothers womb the second time? They are genuinely curious, they do not think of themselves as being in bondage to anything)
34 Jesus answered them ( again those Jews which believed on him,  these are the very same them he was talking to starting in verse 31, you have no right to change that or pervert it, the term "answered" is an indicator of an uninterrupted dialog, this is absolute, it is a convention of language), Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.
35 And the servant abideth not in the house for ever: but the Son abideth ever.
36 If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.
 
Simple, those verses are all together, your other two go with 21-27.
 
You fail. And the heresy you are "unrepentatnt"  regarding is this whole DNA nonsense with the pharisees, as if having the wrong genes is what makes made the pharisees what they were.  With Murray it is the kenites, with you it is the Ishmaelites, with others it is the Edomites and you are all totallly wrong, you have the wrong ideas, and you have strayed from the path of Christ's teachings by inserting these alien ideas into the message and thereby corrupting it.
 
This one too:
 
33 They answered him, We be Abraham's seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free?
 
You PRESUME that "were never in bondage to any man" means that they are referring to alll their ancestors, this presumption leads you into trouble.  All they meant was that they themselves had never been slaves, that is all they are saying, that is what the words say.  Christ was talking to them personally and they were taking it personally, and answering for themselves, not for their ancestors.  For you to insert an alien idea that they were actually saying "none of our ancestors were ever in bondage" is innappropriate and a prime example of the kind of carelessness with which you handle the word of God.  You have no right to do that, whether you know it or not, it is s deceitful way to handle the word.  You never look at what you are doing and consider that you may be damaging what God intends to communicate in this passage, you are too busy exalting your own ideas about what you think it ought to mean.   
 
And how do you know no Ishmaelites were ever in bondage?  You don't.  It is very likely Ishmaelites have been in bondage, because bondage was so common in the ancient world.
 
2Cor 4:2 But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God.
 
Please allow me to be more specific as to critical differences:  you are on the 'Pharisee refusing salvation' side of John 8:33-6,
 
No actually I'm on the side of taking the word as it is written.
and I'm on the 'believer to disciple' side on John 8:28-32. 
 
Name Withheld, you are splitting things that don't need splitting, this is some little pet section of scripture you have made your little bird's nest in and polluted, but I can smell your stink from the pure words. 
 
28 Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things.
29 And he that sent me is with me: the Father hath not left me alone; for I do always those things that please him.
30 As he spake these words, many believed on him.
 
These verses are more closely attached to verses 21-27 than to 31 and 32 a casual reader can see that.  In 21-27 he is talking about the father and his death, but in verses 31-36  he talks about freedom from sin in an unbroken dialog. 
 
You are clearly misreading the passage.   I really don't even get what you are going on about, these words are simple, yet you are really hung up here like there is some big secret revealed here by ignoring the context and ramming verse 28-30 together with 31 and 32.  You have laid an egg and are making a lot of noise, but I'm not impressed.   You fail to comprehend the simple truth that your methods of interpretation are actually evidence that you are one who strays from the word and gives heed to imaginations, and fables, to genealogies and other foolish pursuits that do not lead to godly edification.
 
I wish you would have waited for me to finish replying to all your messages before dumping another one one me, you are so full of yourself, yet if you read the message I just sent you might see what a complete failure you are when it comes to meeting Christ's criteria for a disciple.  You are unfaithful to the word, you think nothing of contradicting and make statements out of ignorance and imagination.
 
... I just need more 'meat' on my plate, no pun intended (carnal). 
 
You are unfit to eat meat, you have need of milk.  You don't know what meat is nor yet what milk is.  You fail to grasp the most basic elements, you are unfaithful to the word and you are a waste of my time.
 
I reject you.
 
 I reject reading any more messages from you or giving you more of my precious time.
 
I reject you. You are a waste of my time.
 
Tit 3:9 But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.
10 A man that is an heretic after the first and second admonition reject;
11 Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself.
 
I reject you.  Go away from me.
 
You are no disciple, You are an insult to Name Withheld's name.  I named you Name Withheld, because that name fits you better.
 
Gal 5:19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; ...heresies,... 21  ...and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
 
It is not about what you say you believe, because faith is manifested in works, if you do heresies, you will be damned in them.
 

Emailer's Final Reply

----- Original Message -----
From: Name Withheld
To: Paul Stringini
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 8:57 PM
Subject: Rejection accepted
Thanks for all your time, Paul.  Rejection accepted.  I am sincerely respectful of your affirmities and challenges... yet you do have gifts!  We do strive to be more Christlike every day!  Jesus was never forsaken on the cross by Almighty God, and he didn't feel that way.  Take if from your name's sake in an absolutely magnificent perspective:
 
HEB 12:1-2  Wherefore seeing we also are encompassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us,  2. Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.
 
Jesus despised the shame, Paul... that's how Jesus felt on the cross, not forsaken.  Apostle Paul talked about laying aside every weight (shame), and the sin which doth so easily beset us (shame takes us back into the sense of unforgiven), and run with patience...  If Jesus had felt forsaken as you propose, then His statement from the cross would have made a liar out of Him and His Father as Jesus declared His Father is with Him and never left him alone in John 8:29 as He discussed His very crucifixion to 'whomsoever.' 
 
I might propose that when we give up the shame... we gain patience... talk about freedom?
 
In Christian Spirit,
I bid you peace!



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