Return to "The Shepherd's Chapel and Dr. Arnold Murray" Main Page
"Let Me Clear Up the Doctrine About Cain and Adam and Eve First."
Question/Comment:
----- Original Message -----From: Name WithheldTo: Paul StringiniSent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 3:58 PMSubject: doctrine
----- Original Message -----From: Paul StringiniTo: Name WithheldSent: Friday, June 21, 2013 12:27 PMSubject: Re: doctrine
Hi, Thanks for writing,I am in agreement with you that Arnold Murray has a few things wrong.Ok.But let me clear up the doctrine about cain and adam and eve first.The problem here is that you just go on to make a series of assertions. You are telling me things that you believe, but you are not giving your statements the scriptural support they need.There was a tree with fruit on it.Ok, we agree on that.Satan was there to seduce Eve.Ok, we agree on that. If seduce means to deceive.She ate the fruit and Satan had sex with her.I agree that she ate the fruit, but she did not have sex with Satan. You used the word "seduced." Which is an interesting choice of words. I'm going to assume that you are looking at 2 Corinthians 11 where is says Eve was "beguiled" beguiled is definitely a better translation of that word, at least in modern English. In modern English we have come to see the word "seduce" as implying sexual seduction; but that is not how it is being used in the New Testament. The word exapatao (translated beguiled) is never used to indicate sexual seduction, neither is apatao (the root) I have used my New Englishman's Greek Concordance to look up every occurrence of those words and there is not one single time the word is ever used to describe sexual seduction. The strong's concordance suggests "wholly seduced" due to the fact that in the time of Strong, "seduce" had not yet come to strongly imply sexual seduction. Wholly seduced does not in any way indicate sexual seduction in 2 Cor 11.She took the fruit to Adam and he ate it and had sex with Eve also.Adam is the only person the bible records as having sex with Eve, and the product of their sexual union was Cain.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.That is the formula for indicating direct descent in many passages.Genesis 4:17 And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch:That is very simple, very direct, very clear.She conceived two sons at the same time.That is possible. But Genesis 4 does not require us to make that assumption.One was Satan's offspring the other was Adam's.If one belonged to Satan, it would have to be Abel, because according to my bible:Genesis 4:1 And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare CainCain's conception and birth are directly associated with Adam's intercourse with Eve, whereas Abel's conception is not described. But I don't take that seriously, because Satan never had sex with Eve.God never forbade Eve from having sex with Satan, or Adam.If such a thing had happened the bible would use words to describe these events instead of relying on imaginations of men.The kenites are a real race and seed lineage.The Kenites of Chronicles and Jeremiah are not related to the Cain of Genesis.Moreover there is nothing to indicate they were a separate race from other men. Moses married a Kenite and there was no issue with it.Some who call themselves Jews are not real Jews.The people who call themselves Jews and are not are the Identity movement. Pastor's such as Arnold Murray lead the synagogues of Satan. The shepherd's Chapel is a synagogue of Satan.Can you and I point a finger at any one and say "you are a "kenite"?Modern genetics say otherwise.Genetic studies on Jews http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_studies_on_JewsThat would be dangerous ground. Let God do the judging.Why should any man be judged based on who his ancestors were? It this Christianity?Mark of the beast. There is a real identifying mark that will be on people's forehead or hands.Ok...Murray is flat wrong about his take on it. He assumes that Satan is too smart to do something so readily found in scripture and he assumes that it is satan's role to deceive Christians.How is it that you have no problem taking the book of Revelation so strictly literally, and at the same time can insert into Genesis fables about Satan having sex with Eve? It is very hard for me to comprehend how you justify such a contradiction.I don't know myself, but it seems like a bad idea to assume that the mark will be either visible or invisible. That is really not the point. I'm confident rather that when the end comes we will understand. Whosoever commits sin is the servant of sin. Your master is he to whomsoever you yield yourself to obey. If people are obeying Satan now, he is already their master, if they cannot resist him now, they will not be able to resist him then...Real Christians will not take the mark but a lot of people who flagged themselves as Christian will.If we yield ourselves to sin. to obey Satan. Then he already owns us and we will be wearing his mark. What is a real Christian? What is a real child of the devil? The bible make a very clear statement on that one:1 John 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.1 John 3:9 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.
1John 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.
That is how the children of the devil are manifest. If they commit sin, they are the devil's children. I did not say it. The Apostle John did. The Jews are not the Children of the devil, the sinners are.it will be according to Scripture. Dangerous ground for Arnold on this one.I suppose. But only if you presume that understanding the book of Revelation before it comes to pass is the only way to overcome the devil in the end times. I do not ascribe to that view. But I agree is is presumptive of him to say that the mark is only mental. But it is just as dangerous to say that it must be visible. The bible never says it must be visible. When I take my kids to Chuck-e Cheese's for a birthday, they mark my hand with invisible ink that can only be seen under certain light.I hope you see that you are being as presumptive as Murray.The rapture. Everyone is wrong about this. God revealed to me what this is.Ok, let's hear it. But since you have this by special revelation, there is not much I can say...The Marriage supper takes place here on earth in the geograpgical place called United States. When satan casts down the place of his own sanctuary(america) the resulting war and invasion will cleanse this land of all that offends. The God will preserve his bride here. And he will come to his bride and they shall obtain joy while the rest of the world experiences tribulation from antichrist and judgement from God. Having cast down America, this antichrist will then go to Israel and perform his scriptural stated role there. The vatican shall also move to Jerusalem. The only rapture there is at this time is the one where God will move all his bride to the "safe" place, from where ever they are all over the world. God moved me once and I know how it happens. The world will think America destroyed and unihabitable but God will miraculously preserve and protect his bride here after the war which will last but a very short time. The bride will receive her rewards promised because Jesus will come to them in his spirit. Yes! a second definate work if grace is coming to the bride.God did not reveal any such things to me. They do not resonate with my spirit.Let's face it the types have all became spiritual substance since Christ's ressurection. The temple is now his body of believers not a building.Jerusalem is, in God's eyes, where ever his believers are congregated in the most mass.After almost two millenium of persecution(foxes book of martyrs) God established a sanctuary where his believers could rest from persecution. A place where the gospel could go out to all the world in these last days. America is that sanctuary.Most prophecy preachers believe that the "Holy Covenant" talked about on Daniel is the peace agreement that antichrist makes with the state of Isreal. This is ludicrous because there is nothing "Holy" about that agreement. God himself calls the agreeement a pact with hell and a covenant with death.The Holy Covenant is the one that provided the sanctuary. The "Inspired" Constitution of the United States. This is the covenant that the antichrist is against whom he has intelligents with those that forsake it.I hope you underatnd the spiritual meaning of these things. For it is in the eyes of God that these things are seen and described. Not man.We are not living in the last days. Therefore anything prophecy preachers say about last days events predicted by Daniel is purely speculation. They wander in the darkness like blind men. The believe they see, but they see nothing. The vision will not be understood until the time of the end. God confounds all the arrogant attempts of men to intrude into things which they have not seen but are for an appointed time.Daniel 12:8 And I heard, but I understood not: then said I, O my Lord, what shall be the end of these things?
Daniel 12:9 And he said, Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end.If you want to overcome in the end, overcome today. If you have run with the footmen and they have made you weary... how will you contend with horses? If the devil owns us now, we deceive ourselves if we think we shall escape him then.The best way to prepare for the end times is not to intrude into prophecies that are sealed, but rather to set our own houses in order that we be not weighed down with iniquity and sin. That is what I teach, and I stand by it.Sincerely,Paul Stringini
----- Original Message -----From: Name WithheldTo: Paul StringiniSent: Sunday, June 23, 2013 8:00 AMSubject: Re: doctrine
Hi again Paul,It would seem that you actually read my post. ty, I understand that you do not accept several points I made. I normally do not engage in unproductive banterring over such things. I have learned that people seldom venture away from their own reasoning. And most time that reasoning is founded upon traditionally accepted veiws of scripture.I would like to point out an obvious misconception on your part. You stated that the Synagogue of satan, as referd to by Jesus in scripture, was the identity movement.1. The identity movement did not exist in the time of Jesus and he obviously talked to them.2. The synagogue of Satan has forever been the source of rebellion and discord. They have caused most of the wars and have fostered many revolutions across the world in the attempt to gather the world into a NWO with their father at the helm. This is undoubtedly the work of the Identity movement.lolPaul, I do not respond to you in any attempt to argue or show one upmanship. I am simply a child of God who has been given some light and I seek to shine it on all I come in contact with.If you had a desire to learn incredible things that have been hidden from the saints, I would take the time toshare. But if you are like most saints I have corresponded with, you probably do not feel that I could teach you anything. How often ego gets in the way of learning. Name Withheld
----- Original Message -----From: Paul StringiniTo: Name WithheldSent: Tuesday, June 25, 2013 6:29 PMSubject: Re: doctrineHi again Paul,It would seem that you actually read my post. ty,You are welcome. It is something I believe I owe to the people whom the Lord moves to write me, for whatever cause. My opinions were once very different from what they are now, and no authority ever had any patience with me. I try to give some time and thought to every message, as I would like to be treated.I understand that you do not accept several points I made. I normally do not engage in unproductive banterring over such things. I have learned that people seldom venture away from their own reasoning. And most time that reasoning is founded upon traditionally accepted veiws of scripture.I don't know if you know my story but I was once a student of the Shepherd's Chapel. My reasoning regarding serpent seed and related issues is founded my former sincere belief in those doctrines which was slowly eroded over a decade by continual independent bible study using the most basic tools (Strong's, Green's, Wigram's etc.) It has been about over 20 years since I started studying the bible. My views became what they are now about 8 years ago after over a decade of personal study and contemplation.I would like to point out an obvious misconception on your part. You stated that the Synagogue of satan, as referd to by Jesus in scripture, was the identity movement.I should have made the statement more clear. The identity movement is a synagogue of Satan, not "the" synagogue of Satan. It exhibits the hallmark of claiming Jewish descent while having no relation to the Jews (or of any of the tribes of Israel referred to as Jews in the New Testament) Spiritually also, Churches such as the Shepherd's chapel also observe Jewish customs and holidays as did their first century counterparts. Most importantly they place great importance on descent from the twelve tribes of Israel, as did the first century Jews.1. The identity movement did not exist in the time of Jesus and he obviously talked to them.The sense in which the identity movement is a synagogue of Satan Satan is based on a non-historical interpretation of Revelation 2 and 3. It is based on a prophetic interpretation of Revelation 2 and 3.There is precedent for this. For example, from the prophet Isaiah.Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.In the time of Isaiah, there was an actual maid to whom this prophecy referred to. I'm presuming you are familiar with this prophecy. The word "virgin" in hebrew does not indicate a technical "virgin" but merely a "young maid" Young maid's are doubtless presumed to be virgins, at least back then, but the sign had more to do with what would happen soon after the child's birth.Isaiah 7:16 For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.This came to pass when the Assyrian conquered Israel and Syria.When this prophecy is applied to Christ we see that the prophecy had a futurist intent under the historical application.So also with the prophecies of the seven churches. The identity movement did not exist in the first century, but neither was Messiah born in the days of Isaiah.The identity movement is a synagogue of Satan as much as the Pharisees of the Jews. I see the two as very much alike. Specifically in the church I am most familiar with, the Shepherd's Chapel. The attitudes and philosophy taught in that church more closely reflects the attitudes and philosophy of the first centruy Jews than it does Christ or his Apostles.2. The synagogue of Satan has forever been the source of rebellion and discord.That is not what the book of Revelation says about the synagogue of Satan. Nor any of the bible. The bible says that these people are blasphemers who claim to be Jews but are not. That describes the identity movement pretty much as well as any description one could imagine.They have caused most of the wars and have fostered many revolutions across the world in the attempt to gather the world into a NWO with their father at the helm. This is undoubtedly the work of the Identity movement.lolWell, a very similar race-based philosophy lead Hitler and Germany to provoke a world war and attempt to usher in a new world order.I'm not saying Hitler was part of the identity movement, but it was race-based politics and the identity movement is race-based religion. Christianity is not a race-based religion, our religion is based on a man, Jesus Christ, and he fulfilled and did away with the religion which had been based on a single family.Paul, I do not respond to you in any attempt to argue or show one upmanship. I am simply a child of God who has been given some light and I seek to shine it on all I come in contact with.Honestly, if that is what you are about, you shouldn't have to say so. If that is what you do, then that is what people will see you doing.If you had a desire to learn incredible things that have been hidden from the saints, I would take the time to share.Like I said, I spent 4 years studying with Arnold Murray and another 6+ on my own attempting to confirm what I had learned from him. If you take a look at my page on the Kenites http://oraclesofgod.org/emails/_kenites.htm you may find that you will have very little to say to me that I have not heard or did not know already.But if you are like most saints I have corresponded with, you probably do not feel that I could teach you anything. How often ego gets in the way of learning."Argumentum ad ego." Argument to the ego. It is basically and ad hominem attack. It is presumptuous and insulting to make such statements. You ought to respect my motives the way I respected yours. Believe it or not, but some of your remarks in your original message might be taken by some to be ego-fueled delusions.Sincerely,Paul Stringini
----- Original Message -----From: Name WithheldTo: Paul StringiniSent: Thursday, June 27, 2013 1:58 PMSubject: Re: doctrine
Let's go about this from a different diection. Understand that I am not a student of Arnold Murray. There are several things that I do not agree with concerning his teaching ministry. My teacher was Dr. gene Scott. for 23 years. I was placed into that ministry by God himself after seeking him with prayer and fasting as to where I could go to hear the truth and find a church doing it God's way. This was out of frustration after visiting many churches and finding only dissention and no respect for pastors and people filling pews with little or no spirit.I didn't know Gene Scott at all and had never heard of him until God revealed him to me. After only listening to him for twenty minutes or so I knew he was the answer to my prayers. I came to know the teacher-student relationship and he was a spiritual father me. Having said that, I would like you to recall Malachi. What is being said in Malachi. Several things. It is a prophecy of the coming of John the babtist(the voice crying out in the wilderness) And again it also includes a prophecy about a promised appearing of Elijah that would occur just before the "great and terrible day of the Lord"The traditiona church scholars would tell you that this appearing is one of the two witnesses. How they get that I do not know. because the two witnesses coming during the great and terrible day of the Lord. Not before. And they do not have a teaching ministry. What teaching ministry does Malachi say that the promised Elijah would bring? Reach the chapters carefully. One thing this teacher will restore is the correct way and reason of sacrificing to God and as the text says in Malachi. "then will the offerings to the Lord be pleasant to the Lord as in the days of old. The second thing he will teach is their true heritage and in doing so turn the heart of the fathers to the children and vice a versa.Read it carefully. this messenger is not Christ it is the promised Elijah. Everytime the King approaches someone has to roll out the red carpet so to speak and prepare a people for the king.Why has the church world at large ignored this prophecy and why is Malachi the least studied and least taught book in the bible when God made such a promise.He is not one of the two witnesses. They do not have a teaching ministry. They are here to dish out God's wrath in the time of wrath. Elijah is scheduled to come "BEFORE" the great and terrible day of the Lord.And why would anyone refute the biblical history and the secular history which shows the northern ten tribes going into captivity and then being settled at the base of the Caucauses mts. and then being spread to Europe and the west. It is nutso to say that history is not true. and on top of that to accuse those gentiles who were rightly called gentiles because God divorced them. But he said he would remarry them in Christ and that they would trust in him. To deny these historical facts is blasphemous at the least and those who do are joining the ranks of the synagogue of satan spiritually by denying the truth of this. It is very dangerous ground. remember there were ten virgins. they were all virgins(all christians) yet five of them were foolish and five were wise. If you do not accept the biblical evidense of God transplanting the throne of David in Jeremiah then you are in danger of falling into the catagory of the five foolish ones. Be careful.
There was no response. As I put this page together, I realize that I did not bother to respond to this message. I remember looking up this "Gene Scott" person and not liking him one bit. I could not really find out much about what the guy taught. I mostly read how he smoked cigars, cursed and had bikini clad girls on his "religious" broadcast. The only doctrinal stuff I could find was that he was heavy on "sole fide." No surprise there. In any case, I got tired of investigating a guy I had never heard of and who seemed to be more of a joke than a serious minister of God. I think I intended to Go back and learn more about Scott so I could answer this message. But instead I just forgot about it. As I have said on many occasions. I am not a heresy hunter. I was a student of Arnold Murray, not Gene Scott.
I am now going to answer a few of the points this writer made.
Let's go about this from a different diection. Understand that I am not a student of Arnold Murray. There are several things that I do not agree with concerning his teaching ministry. My teacher was Dr. gene Scott. for 23 years.
Dr Gene Scott. From the little I have uncovered it seems he was a very knowledgeable and competent scholar, but these qualities to not a man of God make. I think his flaunting of immorality proves he had no concept of what it meant to have faith in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. He was a blind guide.
I was placed into that ministry by God himself after seeking him with prayer and fasting as to where I could go to hear the truth and find a church doing it God's way. This was out of frustration after visiting many churches and finding only dissention and no respect for pastors and people filling pews with little or no spirit.I didn't know Gene Scott at all and had never heard of him until God revealed him to me. After only listening to him for twenty minutes or so I knew he was the answer to my prayers. I came to know the teacher-student relationship and he was a spiritual father me.
God places us all in our places, and God calls us forth from darkness as well.
Having said that, I would like you to recall Malachi. What is being said in Malachi. Several things. It is a prophecy of the coming of John the babtist(the voice crying out in the wilderness) And again it also includes a prophecy about a promised appearing of Elijah that would occur just before the "great and terrible day of the Lord"The traditiona church scholars would tell you that this appearing is one of the two witnesses. How they get that I do not know. because the two witnesses coming during the great and terrible day of the Lord. Not before. And they do not have a teaching ministry. What teaching ministry does Malachi say that the promised Elijah would bring? Reach the chapters carefully. One thing this teacher will restore is the correct way and reason of sacrificing to God and as the text says in Malachi. "then will the offerings to the Lord be pleasant to the Lord as in the days of old. The second thing he will teach is their true heritage and in doing so turn the heart of the fathers to the children and vice a versa.Read it carefully. this messenger is not Christ it is the promised Elijah. Everytime the King approaches someone has to roll out the red carpet so to speak and prepare a people for the king.
See where this is leading?
Why has the church world at large ignored this prophecy and why is Malachi the least studied and least taught book in the bible when God made such a promise.He is not one of the two witnesses. They do not have a teaching ministry. They are here to dish out God's wrath in the time of wrath. Elijah is scheduled to come "BEFORE" the great and terrible day of the Lord.
The "church world" has not ignored this prophecy. I have heard over the years numerous cultic leaders suggested as being the "end-time Elijah." But neither Herbert W. Armstrong, nor Gene Scott impress me at all. The last Elijah was John the Baptist, to have his successor be this immoral, intemperate, covetous man who died in peace is ridiculous.
And why would anyone refute the biblical history and the secular history which shows the northern ten tribes going into captivity and then being settled at the base of the Caucauses mts. and then being spread to Europe and the west.
This is neither biblical not secular history. The so-called history of the ten-tribes migrating into Europe is not considered legitimate history.
It is nutso to say that history is not true.
No. That history is based on suppositions and conjecture. It is the product of men's imaginations and not the product of a scholarly investigation of actual historical sources.
and on top of that to accuse those gentiles who were rightly called gentiles because God divorced them. But he said he would remarry them in Christ and that they would trust in him.
Basically it becomes circular reasoning. The fact that the bible calls the barbarians gentiles "proves" that they are Israel, because God had rejected them. nevermind that there is no Genetic evidence of a link between the people Jesus and Paul called Israel, and these barbarians.
To deny these historical facts is blasphemous at the least and those who do are joining the ranks of the synagogue of satan spiritually by denying the truth of this.
Nonsense
It is very dangerous ground. remember there were ten virgins. they were all virgins(all christians) yet five of them were foolish and five were wise. If you do not accept the biblical evidense of God transplanting the throne of David in Jeremiah then you are in danger of falling into the catagory of the five foolish ones.Utter nonsense. I suggest anyone reading this listen to my teaching on the ten virgins. Matthew 25
Be careful.
I am not afraid of this corrupt doctrine. Burn it down. Being careful after the doctrine of Jesus Christ is how I have come to where I am today
Paul Stringini
Return to "The Shepherd's Chapel and Dr. Arnold Murray" Main Page