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

"I too am a graduate of SC and I thank my Father daily for Arnold's ministry."

Question/Comment: 

----- Original Message -----
From: Name Withheld
To: Paul Stringini
Sent: Friday, December 28, 2012 2:53 PM
Subject: arnold murray scn
 in Christ Jesus greetings !

i have been studying with SC since 1990+/- i first heard dr.murray whilst crawling on my carpet at 3:00 am tweaking for a crack crumb to put into my pipe. arnold was teaching on Romans 13:4 a passage that had bothered me since my undergrad days at a "Christian" college some 25 years prior. the timing was in our Father's perfection i smashed my glass pipe and have been clean and sober since. i venture to say that FOR ME, for what my background, prejudices, epistemology and indeed my "natural man" were at that time, SC was the the vehicle that brought me from an "if it feels good and works, do it!" malefactor into the Light.

i was broke at the time and 1 short step from homeless; i inquired of the chapel if i could pay out a strong's and a "how to enjoy the Bible" the answer came in a package containing both, gratis! through the viet-nam gi bill i got about a year in a room and board "non-sectarian" rehab environment where i could comfortably recuperate from many years of life-style abuses.

i had put a number of arnold's teachings "on the shelf" like "replenish"," pneuma vs air " (when the Lord appears on the Mount of Olives, Zec 14:4 there may not be room for us all to be standing ON the mount and we will gather like a "cloud" about Him in the air...) . as to kenites.... i am 1/2 ashkenaz    and 1/2 sephardic JEW by ethnicity and was baptized at Passover at SC years ago. if anything, i was warmly welcomed and given a room at Gravette prior to the Passover meeting, however i do remember a rebroadcast where he referred to  gerald l.k.smith as a local "good old boy" he repudiated that statement on a later broadcast.

the point:

Jas_5:20  Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins .

SC's ministry was the instrument of my conversion and i'm sure the conversions of many other "knuckleheads". arnold now and for the past few years, has stated that kenites occur amidst EVERY racial group........ tares vs wheat are the angel's job. we are to merely to judge the fruit.

i too am a graduate of SC and i thank my Father daily for arnold's ministry.

In YASHUA's Sevice,

Name Withheld

My First Response:

----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Stringini
To: Name Withheld
Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2012 2:11 PM
Subject: Re: arnold murray scn

Name Withheld, Hi, thanks for taking the time to write and tell me about yourself.

It doesn't surprise me if Arnold has somewhat softened his position on the whole "Kenite"  issue, but the central facts remain unchanged.  ( I would add that Arnold has always said that Kenites breed into every ethnic group, but that they do not accept these "bastards" into the inner circle of the "Learned Elders"  Hear him tell it in his own words Who are the Kenites?  I don't really think this is anything new.  This person is just reading his own opinions into Murray's public comments).

He still teaches that what makes them "children of the devil"  is their birth, they are sons of Cain by birth, therefore they are children of the devil, the way they get into other races, according to Arnold, would be by BREEDING.  But the Apostles taught that we would know the children of the devil by their works, not by their race, that explains why you find children of the devil in every race, but there is no connection between "the children of the devil"  a spiritual state,  and the Kenites, a tribe of men.  

Just because he "now says"  that Kenites are "in every race" what does that even mean?  Did God say it?  No, Arnold Murray said it on his own Authority, no bible involved.  Arnold is inconsistent and more and more is seeking to please people, for me this is just evidence of his corruption.

People find all kinds of ways to get off drugs, but that does not mean that God is in all those things. Cover a multitude of sins, ok, but it is not enough to cover all our sins. I'm not impressed by that. What I look for is faithful adherence to the word of God, I see no virtue in loyalty to men who are disloyal to the word with which they have been charged. 
Sincerely,
Paul Stringini

Emailer's First Reply:

----- Original Message -----
From: Name Withheld
To: Paul Stringini
Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2012 7:58 PM
Subject: Re: arnold murray scn
can't you forgive arnold for having feet of clay ?? how do YOU or anyone else for that matter presume judge whether or not anyone's conversion is from God ??? i was NEVER addicted..... i just enjoyed getting high and getting my neuroconductors in an uproar ! if sin wasn't "fun" in the short term, i venture to say that the only sinners would be masochists!
we are ALL peering through the "darkened glass" and i can think of quite a number of ministries that are far more "corrupt"..... AND anti-christ to boot ! you and i have our own sets of opinions and pomps and prejudices.

Name Withheld

My Second Response:

----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Stringini
To: Name Withheld
Sent: Monday, December 31, 2012 12:07 PM
Subject: Re: arnold murray scn
Name Withheld,
 
can't you forgive arnold for having feet of clay ??
 
I don't know what you mean by "feet of clay."  And I'm not going to start guessing.  I forgave his sins against me, but the problem is that he continues to harm others, he is unrepentant, and the whole do not require a physician.  If we feel justified in our actions we will continue to do them and will not repent, and Christ does nothing for us. 
 
As I was leaving the house I thought about the verse "Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins."  And I asked myself, "who will convert Arnold Murray from the error of his ways and save him from death?"  And "whose sins get covered?"  I'm not sure that the way we read that verse is not being subject to a preconditioned reading that may be wrong.

Before we go converting sinners we ought to have our own sins covered by the blood of Christ, when we convert others or have fervent love towards others, their sins get covered too, maybe the verse is referring to the sins of the sinner.  But then maybe when I convert others from sinful ways my sins do get hidden, but I still have to repent of them, I don't think that verse was ever intended to be a blank check for us to just go and sin and sin without even recognizing it. 

And if we are blind there is usually a reason for that and it is not likely to be a good one if it goes on for a long time and the sins are grievous.  That is why I pray for God to reveal to me my sins that I have not yet recognized, I got over drugs and alcohol, and discovered there was more dirt under that, that is why nothing Arnold does impresses me because he does not encourage you to go on to perfection, you are probably still a sinner, like me, and need to continue in faith in order to obtain the fullness of the promises of God.  Arnold does not convert sinners, you mentioned one sin
 
 how do YOU or anyone else for that matter presume judge whether or not anyone's conversion is from God ???
 
I'm not the presumptive one, that is you.  I said "People find all kinds of ways to get off drugs, but that does not mean that God is in all those things."  I'm not judging "whether or not"  all I was saying is that stopping drug abuse does not automatically have to come from God.  You wrote me, actually prodding me to judge that it WAS from God.  So it is hypocritical for you to now say I said "whether or not," when you came to me suggesting I should judge that God was using Arnold Murray for good because you give him credit for getting you to stop using drugs.  All I basically said was that I could not judge Arnold Murray's ministry on your experience.  So don't start on this nonsense about me judging that.  Read what I wrote.
 
i was NEVER addicted..... i just enjoyed getting high and getting my neuroconductors in an uproar !
 
I don't understand this.  I didn't say you were addicted, but I feel like this is some sort of reaction... 
 
 if sin wasn't "fun" in the short term, i venture to say that the only sinners would be masochists!
 
As I get older, sin seems less and less like a fun idea, I enjoy being sober,  I don't think it would be fun to be drunk or stoned again, and I was not happy back in the day when I was drunk and stoned daily.  But that is long-term experience speaking, not short term knowledge. There are deeper sins and deeper issues... it is not just about fun, but I'm going to assume you know that. 

we are ALL peering through the "darkened glass"
 
Again, that is no excuse to neglect using good judgment.   Some things we see more clearly with experience, like false doctrine, false prophets, etc.  We are supposed to grow up and understand things better on the way to ultimate understanding in the resurrection. 
 
1 Corinthians 13:
9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. 

(but we do not prophesy part lies and part truth, we prophesy in part, truth and the other part is unknown, and therefore we are silent. I'm a firm believer in that, unlike Murray who really has few gaps in his teachings and has an answer for everything.)

10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.
11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.
 
This is not an excuse to go around filling in the part we don't know!!!! You are not allowed to make stuff up!  That is what Arnold does!
 
INTRUDING into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind,
 
and i can think of quite a number of ministries that are far more "corrupt"..... AND anti-christ to boot !
 
That is great, what a wonderful standard.  You need to put away childish things especially thinking like a child of the world.  Do you think that we are all supposed to just run around speaking false doctrines and being blind and ignoring the false teachings of false teachers?  Is that what those verses mean?  "We're all blind bro, so who cares if Arnold Murray teaches falsely? We all do it dude."  Grow up. That is my personal definition of playing religion. 

You think of your attitude as being "loving." But it is actually irresponsible and hateful.  We should pursue truth and righteousness with vigor.  We ought not settle for corruption but rather press on and seek God for greater revelation and purity.  That is how the apostles talked, but you sing a different tune. 
 
How do you apply this verse?
 
1 Tim 5:20 Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear.
 
Or do you just prefer to turn a blind eye?  BUT... You don't turn a blind eye to what you see as my sins, you wrote me a letter, so why do you hypocritically fault me for not turning a blind eye to Arnold Murray's sins? 
 
you and i have our own sets of opinions and pomps and prejudices.
I don't know about you, but I actually work on that.  I look for those to root them out, because I expect to improve.  Your attitude is decidedly unChristian, you should put away that little fish after your name, it does not properly ornament your words.  I don't judge men, I judge WORDS, and yours are not good, you speak from the wisdom you have gained through the world (influenced by the bible, but not coming from it), and the corruption leavens everything you are saying.  You can do better.
 
I recommend my bible studies http://oraclesofgod.org/studies/index.htm
 
Sincerely,
Paul Stringini
 

Emailer's Second Reply: (this message actually arrived before I wrote the above reply to the previous message.)

----- Original Message -----
From: Name Withheld
To: Paul Stringini
Sent: Monday, December 31, 2012 11:57 AM
Subject: Re: arnold murray scn
while we are certainly not (the)paul and arnold certainly not peter, peter taught in error..... 
Gal 2:11-20
11    But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
12    For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.
13    And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.
14    But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?
15    We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles,
16    Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
17    But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid.
18    For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor.
19    For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God.
20    I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.
(KJV)

i have discussed the so-called "gap" theory with orthodox hebrew "scholars" most of whom acknowledged the pre-birth existance of all souls as a legitimate interpretation of the hebrew Scriptures. i was blessed with a very early education in BOTH hebrew and english. my first grade teacher was fired because she got a little too literal about the garden; at the time what she taught was way over our heads but some of the parents and/or the male teachers got upset. yes indeed "naga" does have a sexual connotation..... if you do your "homework" there was indeed a 2cnd influx of fallen angels and indeed the pauline "darkened glass" and heisenberg uncertainty theory in physics are different takes on the same aspect of our Lord's creation.

Agape

your fellow-servant

Name Withheld

My Third Response:

----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Stringini
To: name Withheld
Sent: Monday, December 31, 2012 6:12 PM
Subject: Re: arnold murray scn

I never said people are not allowed to make mistakes, but there is no evidence suggesting that Peter continued that behavior.  And he was not "teaching in error" he was dissimulating, which means he was pretending to be something he was not, i.e. when certain people came from James, he acted like he never ate with Gentiles, which was a dissimulation.  

It is sort of like the way Arnold Murray pays lip service to "the trinity" but does not teach the Trinitarian view of God in three persons, he is pretending to be something he is not in order to please a certain segment of his audience.  the bigger he gets the more he dissimulates.  He is also to blame, but unlike Peter, Arnold Murray can be observed regularly in his dissimulation. Paul called Peter on his dissimulation, and I call Murray on his errors, so what is your point? 

You are basically confirming what I am doing is right.  Paul did not "keep it quiet" about what Peter did, and there are numerous other examples in the bible.  I really fail to see your point
 
i have discussed the so-called "gap" theory with orthodox hebrew "scholars" most of whom acknowledged the pre-birth existance of all souls as a legitimate interpretation of the hebrew Scriptures.
 
The gap-theory has very little to do with the pre-birth existence of all souls; you have two issues there that are only slightly related but neither of which requires the other.  This causes me to seriously question your critical thinking skills. You need to examine the way you think about things.
 
And I think orthodox Hebrew scholars are the enemies of the truth, so I could care less what they have to say.  Why would I look to a bunch of blind guides?  All the bible evidence points to our origin as "in the womb."  That is where we were formed, that is where we began.  Orthodox Jewish scholars (the heirs of the scribes and Pharisees religion) are notorious for corrupting the scriptures, I place no value in anything they say, they cannot be trusted.  Why do you run after false teachers who reject Christ instead of studying the bible for yourself?  The bible can teach you, and you ought to let it.
 
i was blessed with a very early education in BOTH hebrew and english. my first grade teacher was fired because she got a little too literal about the garden; at the time what she taught was way over our heads but some of the parents and/or the male teachers got upset. yes indeed "naga" does have a sexual connotation.....
 
Words, such as "cock," "wood," or "touch" can be use euphemistically to imply something sex related, but they need to be judged in context.  It is totally useless to just go around assuming every time the word "touch" (naga) occurs that you need to invoke the euphemism.  Naga is also used in this verse:
 
Genesis 32:32 Therefore the children of Israel eat not of the sinew which shrank, which is upon the hollow of the thigh, unto this day: because he touched (NAGA) the hollow of Jacob's thigh in the sinew that shrank.
 
So what are you saying?  Did Jacob engage in homosexual sex?  Was Jacob limping because the angel sodomized him? Would that be the "literal" interpretation of "naga?"  Have you ever touched a Hebrew concordance? You can use one to look up all the occurrences of "naga" and see what how ignorant you sound to me.  That is where that kind of thinking leads, you can't read euphemism into every usage of the word "naga"  because sometimes a touch is really just a touch with no sex implied.  You have to go based on the context and Genesis 3 does not contain any contextual material which leads us to presume it was a sexual encounter.  The same goes for exapatao, the only way you can read those words as sexual is by artificially inserting a sexual innuendo into a passage that has nothing to do with sex.
 
You may have had Hebrew and English early, but you have very little real understanding of verbal communication.  
 
 if you do your "homework" there was indeed a 2cnd influx of fallen angels
 
Name Withheld, you are just throwing more and more random stuff at me.  Information about Angel influxes are not really very useful.  How will that help me become more like Christ?  It is just a bunch of useless and speculative information.  it is the knowledge that puffs up.  There is no edification in it.  You don't become a better man by knowing about these things.  In knowing these things, you have learned nothing at all.
 
and indeed the pauline "darkened glass" and heisenberg uncertainty theory in physics are different takes on the same aspect of our Lord's creation.

You don't hear anything I say, you are totally wrong on that one.  Do me a favor, don't write back, I don't have any more time to waste with you.  Now that you are off drugs it is time to sober up.  You lack discipline in your thinking, therefore all kinds of useless and corrupt information is influencing and leading you.
 
Sincerely,
Paul Stringini
 

Emailer's Third Reply:

----- Original Message -----
From: Name Withheld
To: Paul Stringini
Sent: Monday, December 31, 2012 8:01 PM
Subject: Re: arnold murray scn

and You call THEM pharisees ??????

My Fourth Response:

----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Stringini
To: Name Withheld
Sent: Tuesday, January 01, 2013 11:42 AM
Subject: Re: arnold murray scn
No, the Orthodox Jewish religion is the historical descendant of the Pharisees. I don't "call" them Pharisees, I call them Orthodox Jews, but I was talking about history.  It seems like you don't really know what the Pharisees were and what they believed. Have you ever studied the history which followed the New Testament times?  The Pharisees, founders of rabbinic Judaism, were the only sect which survived the destruction of the Temple.  http://www.jewfaq.org/movement.htm Anyway, suggesting I'm a Pharisee doesn't even make sense, Arnold Murray is the one who prefers to lay his own oral traditions over the text of bible. 
 
Sincerely,
Paul Stringini

Emailer's Fourth Reply:

----- Original Message -----
From: Name Withheld
To: Paul Stringini
Sent: Tuesday, January 01, 2013 3:23 PM
Subject: Re: arnold murray scn

i am not calling you a pharisee... i'm talking about your ATTITUDE.... to me genetics make not a farthingsweight of difference, it is spiritual..... physical genealogies serve to testify to prophesy.... period.

Eph 6:11  Put on all the armor of God, for you to be able to stand against the wiles of the Devil,
Eph 6:12  because wrestling against flesh and blood is not to us, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the world's rulers, of the darkness of this age, against the spiritual powers of evil in the heavenlies.
Eph 6:13  Because of this, take up all of the armor of God that you may be able to resist in the evil day, and having worked out all things, to stand.(litv)

Matt 13:38-41
38    The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one;
39    The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels.
40    As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world.
41    The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity;

however the sowing took place (physical and/or spiritual), the reality is there are wheat and there are tares there are drunkard princes in the mornings and locusts that sting and devour like scorpions.

for years, time after time i've heard arnold say that sc's purpose was NOT to promulgate arnold murray's point of view but to drive the listner into THEIR OWN study of The Word. i know in my case he has done that and thanks to the Holy Spirit and the tools that i got turned on to by sc, i think they have done a good job.


1Co 13:9  For we know in part, and we prophesy in part;
1Co 13:10  but when the perfect thing comes, then that which is in part will be caused to cease.
1Co 13:11  When I was an infant, I spoke as an infant, I thought as an infant, I reasoned as an infant. But when I became a man, I caused to cease the things of the infant.
1Co 13:12  For now we see through a mirror in dimness, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I will fully know even as I also was fully known.
1Co 13:13  And now faith, hope, and love, these three things remain; but the greatest of these is love. (litv)

agape

My Fifth Response:

----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Stringini
To: Name Withheld
Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 12:40 PM
Subject: Re: arnold murray scn

Name Withheld,
 
 i've heard arnold say that sc's purpose was NOT to promulgate arnold murray's point of view but to drive the listner into THEIR OWN study of The Word
 
Did you hear that?? Oh!  Arnold said it, that's the end of it!  Give me a break. You don't just take what people say like that when their actions are OPPOSITE!
That is sort of like how he "says" - "I never beg!"  but then asks for help at the end of every broadcast, asks for donations between every break.  He is a hypocrite. 
 
The people who are actually driven into their own study are a minority, I happen to be one of them.  My ministry is the result of my studying. 
 
The vast majority of long-term chapel students just watch the broadcast and think of that as studying for themselves, and Arnold encourages it, you have to open your eyes to start seeing what is really going on. 
 
It is called "confidence" they call the practitioners "con-men" Phil, don't trust me, look it up yourself, con-men say stuff like that all the time.  It is meant to get you to have confidence in their personal integrity, but it is a very unethical, immoral way to talk to people.  He thinks you are a dummy, so he smiles and pats you on the back, "would I lie to you?"  "don't trust me, check it out yourself, I'll show you how."  Spend some time down at the chapel, see how welcome you really are.  Make sure they know you're a Jew.
 
Love is not just about accepting "whatever,"  Loving Good is very much about HATING evil. 
 

Emailer's Fifth Reply:

----- Original Message -----
From: Name Withheld 
To: Paul Stringini
Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 9:07 PM

i spent a week at gravette & ft.smith, was baptized at Pesach in the hotel pool. i was given a room at the guest house in gravette fed very well and spent some one on one with dr.murray. at least two of the elders (in adjutant positions) were members of "my tribe" . i was treated like "royalty" not in spite of, but perhaps because of, being a Jew. perhaps my being a patient at a v.a. hospital and a frequent q&a participant had a bearing or perhaps it was a conspiracy on the part of the dear gentle folk at gravette to punk me. yeah i spent some time in gravette back in the very early 90's. arnold is doing an excellent job of teaching folks to count 5-6-7. the flyaways at calvary chapel, red letter Bible etc. etc. are screaming "cult!" at arnold...... perhaps he would be less liable for criticism if he used painted ladies and french bawdy house salon settings like tbn.

anyhow my best to you and yours

agape

Name Withheld <><

My Sixth Response:

----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Stringini
To: Name Withheld 
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2013 1:19 PM
Subject: Re:
Name Withheld , That is a very nice story, when I went to Gravette, I had a positive experience too. I was married down there in '95 and I also stayed for about a week and met friendly smiling folks.  When I suggested you spend some time down there, I was suggesting something more like a month or two.  I know people who have had far less positive experiences, but that is not the route I prefer to take.  You mentioned your time down there so I responded to that.  But I like to stick to the issue of doctrine because that is where I have a problem with the Murrays' Chapel.
 
You talked about the "flyaway's," and others, in a suggestive and negative way.  I'd like to know what makes think it is ok for you to judge their doctrine, but not ok for me to judge Murray's doctrine?  This is exactly the sort of double standard I frequently encounter among Chapel students.  You said, "Peter taught in error"  defending the idea that Murray might teach some things in error, so what makes their errors less "ok" than Murray's?  He calls them "flyaway's"  and you certainly know who he is talking about, he has no problem talking negatively about other ministries, despite his dissimulation to the contrary.  And they call him a "cult."  So what is the difference?  He teaches in error, they teach in error, what difference does it make?  What makes his errors passable and their inexcusable.  After all, if they are blinded, then why should they even be expected to do any better?  How do you know for sure that when the fly away does not come that they will not realize their error?  What gives Arnold the right to say they will worship Satan?  How does he know that for sure about so many people?  There are all kinds of reasons people could worship Satan, a drug addict might do it for one more hit, a whore-lover for one more whore, even if he knew "the truth," because it is not US or what we think we know that gets us through it.  Thank God!
 
All that talk you made about seeing through a dark glass  was to defend Murray.  But look at what you said about those other churches.  Why don't you defend them by saying "we see through a glass darkly?"  Why didn't you do that there?  Because you think you see, all too clearly, their error in your own mind.  You lack circumspection.  The fact that you think you see their error means that your sin also remains.  Because if you claim to see their errors, then you cannot claim for yourself that you could not see because you were looking through a darkened glass, you should have looked at yourself the same way you looked at them.  You have no excuse for harboring false doctrine, you claim to see the false doctrine of others.  With what measure you mete is will be measured to you again.  And if you do not see how I absolutely nailed you on that one, then I pity you most grievously.
 
Do you ever stop and ask what the truly critical doctrines of Christianity are?  I will admit that we can all make mistakes on minor issues.  But also that we should not then make those issues into major issues (minor issues:  "how old is the earth?"  "the giants," "on what day of the week was Christ crucified?" "how long was Christ's hair?" These minor issues become leaven, they add nothing to your faith but puff you up with useless knowledge)  Then there are the truly major issues, we cannot make any mistake about them (major issues "What makes us a child of the devil or a child of God?" "The doctrine of death and resurrection,"  "Who is Christ?  What is the nature of God?  What must I do to be saved?  What is salvation?)  I'm working on a series of papers on the critical doctrines.
 
Titus 2:7 In all things showing thyself a pattern of good works: in doctrine showing uncorruptness, gravity, sincerity,
 
In my opinion, the only way you can fulfill that is if you do this:
 
Heb 13:9 Be not carried about with divers and strange doctrines. 
 
strange doctrines:  Eve had sex with Satan and Cain was Satan's physical offspring.  We all preexisted before we were born and lived consciously in a world in which Satan rebelled and the elect stood against him earning salvation in the next world (this world).  Phil you have been conditioned to the point where you no longer see how strange that is., how alien those ideas are to the doctrine of Christ.  You lusted after secrets, and Arnold told you some, but they were lies, I fell for it too.
 
These strange doctrines are pure corruption.  A little leaven leavens the whole.  A little false doctrine makes the whole church false.
 
Of course, they are all cults, it is just a question of what sort of cult they are.  Arnold Murray is indeed a "cult of personality." His ministry and teachings are carried along mostly by the force of his personality, certainly not by his scholarship. Outside of specifics like that, cult is just the set of practices and rites a religion requires of us.  So the Catholic church is one of the biggest cults in the world, but because 'cult' has become such a dirty word people get all up in arms about being called a cult. The idea that heresy makes you a cult is a little far-out (that is what they say about Arnold, that he is cultic in doctrine, but that is heresy, not cult). Heresy is in the church. I personally consider it an honor when my enemies call me a cult, and I take it as a badge of honor when I'm called a Kenite or son of the devil.  They called Christ the prince of devils so why should I expect anything better. 

That is why I don't understand the sensitivity people have about being called a "cult"  The truth is, that it upsets them because they are afraid of negative public statements made against them for the possible effect it might have on people they might like to seduce into their churches.  That is why Chapel students hate me, because I turn people off from Murray, not old students, but new ones.  They have sought to destroy me at times, filing false and slanderous complaints with internet authorities.  They like to close off debate and discussion using outside authorities.
 
If you were around since the early 90's then you might remember Passover 95 when Arnold said that the fifth trump was "where we are now."  he was wrong then and he is wrong now about the sixth trump.  The truth is that not one single trumpet has sounded.  he is still trying to make the visions and predictions he told and made back in the 80's come true, but it isn't happening.  He is a proven and unrepentant false prophet.  And deserves no more respect than the flyaway's
 
I recommend my bible studies, you can listen online or download for your convenience my line-by line bible studies.  I don't think you have to be a scholar to be incorrupt in doctrine, you have to be faithful and attentive to the written word.  Most of it is just as plain as day.  http://oraclesofgod.org/studies/index.htm
 
Sincerely,
Paul Stringini

Emailer's Sixth Reply:

----- Original Message -----
From: Name Withheld 
To: Paul Stringini
Sent: Friday, January 04, 2013 11:21 AM
Subject: Re:
EZEKIEL 13 MARK 13 MAT 24  We are warned of deception by The Lord Himself.... the so-called "fly-aways" promote the freaking niv ; i monitor their broadcasts occasionally gleaning a nugget of wisdom here and there...... i'm sure they mean well, but are so wound up in their churchianity that they are blind to the very deception we have been WARNED about. i attach a paper on the niv..... that translation is PERMEATING the media !

agape bro

My Seventh Response:

----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Stringini
To: Name Withheld 
Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2013 10:18 AM
Subject: Re: Re:

I should not have expected you to read or listen now, because the whole time you have failed to directly respond, except to the things you cherry-picked.  I don't believe in the rapture.  Those who teach the rapture are false prophets.  Arnold Murray is also a proven false prophet and deceiver.  So he is exactly like them. It is pathetic the way you give him a pass for being a false prophet (and unrepentant) yet you are all over the "fly-away's."  I have no respect for you.  I don't consider you a brother.  I reject you.
 
agape neighbor

My Additional comment:

----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Stringini
To: Name Withheld
Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2013 11:11 AM
Subject: Re: Re:

by the way, interesting article, thanks for that

 

Here is a link to the same article which he had included in an attachment of his final message.  It's an anti-NIV piece.  I never use the NIV, I prefer the King James for my own reasons.

 

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