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

From: Name Withheld

To: Paul Stringini

Sent: Monday, July 02, 2012 6:15 PM

You have totally misrepresented Pastor Murray. I will use just one of your misinterpretations.  He has Never said that the sin against the Holy Spirit was premeditating what you will say before Satan. He says that the Elect refusing to allow the Holy Spirit to speak through them at that time is. Why don't you ever bring up the FACTS of the original manuscripts. Your explanation of the Word of God is not backed up by the Strongs Exhaustive Concordance. I am not saying I totally agree with Pastor Murray but I do know that you are wrong the way you have raised yourself up and put him down. God's Word interprets God's Word.

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

From: Paul Stringini

To: Name Withheld

Sent: Monday, July 09, 2012 3:54 PM

Subject: Re:

Hi,  Sorry, I'm a bit slow at the reply lately,

 

You are right. Actually you are not the first person to bring that point up. I thank you for pointing that out, I already posted a correction on that one. Email # 94

 

94.)  "You Are the Fraud!"  One of My Inaccuracies is Pointed Out by a Sharp Shepherd's Chapel Student

 

So I already corrected myself publicly on that one.  But the fact only goes to prove that it has been a long time since I listened to Arnold Murray.  I have admitted that. What i would really like to know is where you saw me say that so that I can post a link to the correction next to the mistake.  I'm not going to remove the mistake, I just want to post a link to Email # 94 so that people can see the correction.  Any chance you remember what page you were reading when you saw that mistake?

 

And if you get a chance, read email 94, because even if I did misrepresent Dr. Murray's teachings its was an honest mistake. And furthermore, this is the second email I have gotten correcting that inaccuracy.  But I have not gotten any emails correcting any other inaccuracies, you said this was "just one."  Well I have dealt with that one. Perhaps you would do your teacher another service and correct me on some other points so I could correct those as well.  I do not want to misrepresent Dr. Murray, I don't see much point in that, I oppose his actual teachings, not out of malice, but because I love the truth.

 

Here is a short excerpt from email # 94 it contains a point I want to make clear to you.  Below I also address your other questions.

 

Email # 94 - "For one, Pastor Murray has NEVER said that a person that premeditates what to say when they stand with the Lord is the unpardonable sin.

but rather that we are not to worry about/premeditate what to say but to allow God to speak through us. Then, if we were to REFUSE God to speak through us, THAT is the unpardonable sin." Get it right, Jack."

 

Yeah, you are right, that is exactly the way he teaches it.  But really, most people are going to see that as a pretty meaningless distinction when the fact is considered that either way you look at it, what he teaches is still TOTALLY wrong.  I still stand by everything I said against his misteaching of the "unpardonable sin,"

 

I think the mere fact of this being such a deceitful mishandling of the word always threw me.  I never really was able to totally swallow this one,  I tried, I did, but it was too hard to swallow.

 

Mark 3:28 Verily I say unto you, All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith so ever they shall blaspheme:
29 But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation:
30 Because they said, He hath an unclean spirit.

 

The reason is given.  Dr. Murray is wrong,  even if you are right about what he teaches, what he teaches is still wrong and you have helped me do my work more accurately.

 

Mark 3 makes this teaching very clear.  I had a lot more to say in that email #94 and I suggest you check it out for yourself.

 

In the meantime I'll be waiting for that list of misrepresentations.  I don't deny there may be others. But I am not aware of any.

 

Why don't you ever bring up the FACTS of the original manuscripts.

 

The thing is, the "original manuscripts"  refers to the original writings of the Apostles and prophets.  The Hebrew and Greek manuscripts existing today are not the originals.  Not that it really matters, but there are some FACTS, Another fact is that Arnold Murray does not deal honestly when he "goes back to the original"  mostly he uses people's ignorance of Hebrew and Greek to manipulate their understanding.  That is how he turns the Garden of Eden account into a fairly tale about Eve having sex with Satan.  The original manuscripts are being manipulated to convey sexual innuendos and invoke double meanings that do not exist in those passages.  The tree bare fruit, it grew out of the ground, it was GOOD for food, they ate it,  that is what the original manuscripts say and the original manuscripts to not contain a salacious tale of sex.  It just isn't in there.  I have gone on and on about this with people but Arnold Murray abuses tools like Strong's concordance and he uses confidence tactics to win people's trust.  But he is not trustworthy.

 

Your explanation of the Word of God is not backed up by the Strong's Exhaustive Concordance.

 

You are totally wrong there.  It certainly is, I will prove it. You have to use the tool the way it was intended.  Arnold abuses the Strong's in order to cloud the plain meaning of what is written on the page so that he can substitute and exalt his own knowledge above that which is written.

 

I would specifically cite his abuse of the word "exapatao" which is translated "beguiled" but he says means to "wholly seduce" (SEXUALLY) And I added that (Sexually) because it is the hidden subtext of his misteaching.  Strong's never says "sexually" and the word is never used in that context, EVER.  But by suggesting to you that the greek word actually has something to do with sex he uses this to prove his lurid fantasies about Genesis. But if you had a New Englishman's Greek Concordance, coded with strong's numbers, you could trace every single use of the word "exapatao" and you could trace the root "apatao"  as I have done and you would find that neither "exapatao" nor apatao" are ever used in a sexual context, or have any sexual meaning.  Maybe it is his ignorance of English because the English word "seduce" does not imply sexual seduction unless the context dictates sexual seduction.  And as for the Greek word,  the only reason you might think there is a sexual context is because Arnold is abusing the Strong's to say that "Seduced eat a fruit and to gain wisdom and be like god"  is just a bunch of smoke an mirrors, According to Arnold, it was straight up sexual seduction.  But that is not what you read in Genesis. 

 

 

and Just read the CONTEX for heavens sake!!!

 

2 Cor 11:3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent completely seduced Eve through his subtlety, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.

It is a MENTAL seduction, not a physical seduction. That is the context. Do your homework.

 

God's Word interprets God's Word.

Then let what you read in Genesis interpret what you read in 2 Corinthians, and Don't let Dr. Murray make a fool out of you with his confidence tactics and reverse psychology "don't trust this man," "I never beg for money," Give me a break.

 

 

I recommend my line by line bible studies.  http://oraclesofgod.org/studies/studies.html

 

 

I am not saying I totally agree with Pastor Murray

 

The how can you defend him?  Either make the tree good and its fruit good or make the tree corrupt and its fruit evil.  A little leavens the whole. That may conflict with the wisdom of the world.  The wisdom running through your mind right now.  But you can't have "just a little"  false doctrine.  It is like leaven, it corrupts the whole teaching.  That is what Christ and his Apostles taught, in any case.

 

Titus 2:7 In all things showing thyself a pattern of good works: in doctrine showing uncorruptness, gravity, sincerity,

 

but I do know that you are wrong the way you have raised yourself up and put him down.

 

How do you know that? I put him down because it is my duty and obligation.

 

2 Tim2:16 But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.
17 And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus;
18 Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.

 

Mark them, name them, it is all proper and good.

 

Rom 16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.
18 For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.

That is our Dr. Murray.

 

Sincerely,

Paul Stringini