Return to "The Shepherd's Chapel and Dr. Arnold Murray" Main Page
Arnold Murray and the Denial of the Bodily Resurrection
Question/Comment:
----- Original Message -----From: "Theresa"To: <Paul Stringini>Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2013 4:12 PMSubject: Arnold Murray and the Denial of the Bodily Resurrection of Jesus.
I was looking over your information on Arnold Murray and the Shepherd's Chapel because my parents have become indoctrinated by Arnold Murray's wrong teachings.
My parents refuse to celebrate the resurrection of Jesus on Easter. I asked them what they are being taught by Arnold Murray. They said, "There is no flesh in heaven, Jesus is in heaven spiritually"
Then I asked them point blank if they believed that Jesus' body that was buried in the tomb was raised on the 3rd day and they said, "Theresa, you've been taught wrong to believe that there is any flesh in heaven. Jesus only has a spiritual body."
I showed them the scripture of Luke 24:39. and I said, "These are Jesus' words" They said my Bible is corrupt. I told them "Anyone who refuses to believe in the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ is not a Christian."
They then began their mocking, "I guess you're one of those stupid ones that believe in the fly away doctrine." I knew exactly what they were doing.
I took them right back to Jesus' Resurrection and said to them. "Jesus' spirit went to heaven at the moment of his death, but his body that was buried in the tomb was raised on the 3rd day. The proof is here in the scripture. Yet you chose to believe a man's teaching over Holy Word of God? Why do you refuse to believe Jesus' own words?"
My parents shut down when I call them out on their wrong beliefs. We have not had any more spiritual discussion since. I think they believe in Jesus' deity that he is Fully God but they do not believe Jesus is also reigning in heaven as Fully Man.
I know we are dealing with Gnosticism, so I began to read 1,2,3 John The Holy Spirit later revealed to me on my flight home, that because they refuse to believe our Risen Lord Jesus appeared to many witnesses IN THE FLESH, the Shepherds Chapel teaching is ANTICHRIST. This man is deliberately tearing down every foundation a Christian believes and because my parents have joined in with Arnold Murray for many years speaking about their hatred for the church, they choose to believe him instead of God's Holy inspired Word.
Talking about whether a person believes in the Rapture is only a distraction from what Arnold Murray's followers are really being taught about Jesus' Bodily Resurrection.
Since this is my parents' interpretation on what Arnold Murray is teaching them, maybe you could clarify what Arnold Murray is really teaching about Jesus' Bodily Resurrection.
Thank you,
Name Withheld
----- Original Message -----From: "Paul Stringini"To: "Name Withheld"Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2013 1:24 PMSubject: Re: Arnold Murray and the Denial of the Bodily Resurrection of Jesus.Hi Name Withheld,
> I do remember that when I was a student of Shepherd's Chapel that I had a negative reaction when I would hear other people talk about Jesus resurrection as being a resurrection of the body. I know for certain that Arnold Murray definitely teaches that the body of Christ was not left in the tomb. They believe that the body of Jesus was transfigured in the resurrection, which, of course, it was. But where they make problems is that they insist that Christ was not "bodily" resurrected and that our "flesh" bodies do not rise.
It is not really Gnosticism, I think this is purely a semantic problem which Arnold Murray creates due to the way he emphasizes certain scriptures and ideas and mischaracterizes what is meant by "bodily raised." He is extremely attached to the verse 1 Cor 15:50 "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, neither doth corruption inherit incorruption."
Obviously, when Christ was raised, his body was no longer corruptible, or subject to any of the normal human weaknesses, and neither will our bodies be, but it was still his very same body, in the truest sense.
To borrow the Apostle's analogy: The plant sprouts from the seed, they are different in nature, but yet still one thing. We do not deny 1 Cor 15 when we say Christ was raised bodily, but they THINK we do because of the narrow way they choose to interpret the verse. They think body = corruptible carnal body and they think that by raising the body 1 Cor 15:50 is somehow violated.
By choosing those words (raised bodily), we are basically declaring to them that we do not realize 1 Cor 15:50 exists. The body that rots, is not the body that shall be, but every example and analogy in the scripture teaches that there is a direct correspondence between the body that is buried and decays and the body that rises from the dead. There is a seed-plant relationship there. It is somewhat paradoxical. Flesh and blood does not inherit the kingdom of God, yet men who were born of flesh and blood will inherit it. And being void of the spirit; they wrestle with this, and become corrupt in their understanding.
Murray teaches that Christ's flesh was not left in the tomb, and also implies that what happened to Christ was an exception. His idea is that when we die we are instantly resurrected, and that when Christ was raised, his body was not left in the ground so that they would know he had been raised.
I remember that when I was Murray's student I believed that when we rose from the dead our bodies would be left behind like the wrapper on a piece of candy. They actually believe that Jesus was raised bodily, but they strenuously object to that choice of words, because according to the way they read it, the flesh body is not supposed to be raised so when we talk about Jesus resurrection and emphasize the fact that he was raise BODILY, they feel irritated with us. The way they treat Christ resurrection as exceptional instead of as exemplary it the root of their frustration. It becomes frustrating for them, because it is easy for us to point to the empty tomb and say, "See?" They think of that resurrection as being a one time exception. whereas we see it as the example. So you can understand how they would quickly get irritated in a debate.
They do not like to read this verse literally:
Romans 6:5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:
As much as I would rather not listen to Arnold Murray I am somewhat tempted to go dig out his cassettes on the Gospel of John because while I do remember that the following verse always troubled me, I do not remember how Murray dealt with it.
John 5:28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, 29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.
I remember that he spiritualized Rev 20:5 "But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. " But if we read this as it is written; that verse can be extremely deadly to a whole section of his "special" teachings...
...I see Arnold Murray's heresy in the matter of the resurrection as being more along the lines of Hymenaeus and Philetus. He does not see the resurrection as a promised future event, but as something that has already come.
2 Tim 2:17 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. ("past already" can be translated "even now to have come")
It is very common for people to believe that the dead are already raised without their body. It is a very popular belief among Christians. Arnold Murray takes it to the next level. Most Christians compensate for their belief in instantaneous resurrection by inserting into their doctrine the idea that the resurrected spirits will later return for their bodies, (despite the fact that these spirits are apparently already resurrected) That is where the rapture comes in. They think that the idea that persons who are already resurrected would have to return for their corrupted body is ridiculous. And I agree, it is ridiculous. But what they fail to see is that they have taken their heresy one step further and instead of having the resurrected persons return for their bodies, they declare that to body does not really rise at all, only the spirit (which they confuse with the spiritual body). It is really the natural evolution of the same heresy which is a corruption of the doctrine of the resurrection. They don't realize that everything they believe about the resurrection is a reaction to the Rapture Doctrine, and is therefore dependant on the Rapture Doctrine, and is indeed a child of the Rapture doctrine.
I do not believe in the rapture, I believe in the resurrection. That is what the Apostles called it, that is what I call it. Creating splinter doctrines is a typical way that heresy grows. First a slight deviation, then a greater.
I recommend my article "I believe in Death and in the Resurrection of the Dead." Which can be accessed through my "Doctrine" page.
http://oraclesofgod.org/doctrine/03_the_resurrection_of_the_dead.htm
Isaiah 26:19
Thy dead men shall live, together with MY DEAD BODY shall they arise. Awake and sing, ye that dwell in dust: for thy dew is as the dew of herbs, and the
earth shall cast out the dead.
It seems pretty plain, does it not?
I usually think it is best to attack Murray at the foundation of his teachings, which is the serpent seed, he is most vulnerable there.
Sincerely,
Paul Stringini
----- Original Message -----From: "Name Withheld"
To: "Paul Stringini"Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2013 11:10 AMSubject: Re: Arnold Murray and the Denial of the Bodily Resurrection of Jesus.Dear Paul,
Thanks for clarifying what Arnold Murray is teaching on the Resurrection and will check out more on your article about the resurrection of the dead.
I am praying for my parents to have a spiritual birth. They are confused and have chosen Arnold Murray to tell them what to think.
I remember reading 1 Cor 15 with my parents and when I came to verse 46 my dad said, "That's wrong. The spiritual came first." I said, "Dad, do you believe what the Bible is telling us is wrong? Or is it what Arnold Murray has told yours wrong?, You have a choice to make I choose to believe the Bible and let the Holy Spirit be my instructor, not Arnold Murray. I feel he has caused you to be even more confused as to what to believe."
I will be visiting them again in April.
Thanks,
Name Withheld----- Original Message -----From: "Name Withheld"To: "Paul Stringini"Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2013 4:14 PMSubject: Re: Arnold Murray and the Denial of the Bodily Resurrection of Jesus.Hi Paul,
I was wondering how Arnold Murray handles Luke 24:39.
My dad told me the Bible is corrupt when I showed him this.
Thanks,
Name Withheld
----- Original Message -----From: "Paul Stringini"To: "Name Withheld"Sent: Friday, October 11, 2013 12:21 AMSubject: Re: Arnold Murray and the Denial of the Bodily Resurrection of Jesus.Name Withheld,
That is really terrible to hear, these are the verses which led me to begin questioning Arnold Murray. I almost can't believe that it would actually lead someone to instead question their bible... One of Arnold Murray's catch-phrases is, "Don' t trust any man... not this man (pointing at himself and bowing his head slightly) or any other man... without checking him out in God's word." I consider it a form of confidence abuse, but even so, Arnold says that ALL THE TIME and of all the things he says if there was one thing people ought to take to heart it is THAT. Maybe you should remind your dad that Arnold Murray says that every man's words should be judged by the word of God, and not vice versa.
1 Cor 15:46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.
This verse is problematic for Murray, he usually passes over it quickly. If pressed, I believe he would try to limit the scope of that verse. If you take that verse in the broad sense it creates all kinds of problems for his doctrine, because he teaches that we all preexisted in spiritual bodies before we were "born innocent of woman" to inhabit "the flesh" in "this age." That is why your dad wanted to contradict 1 Cor 15:46, because according to Arnold Murray, the plain reading of 1 Cor 15:46 must be incorrect. I would expect a student of the Shepherd's Chapel to offer some other explanation, not just say "you bible is wrong," because it is not just YOUR bible, ALL THE BIBLES say the same thing. Arnold never directly contradicts that verse...
Ok, while I was writing that I started wondering just exactly what Arnold did say about that verse. I actually went out into my garage and dug out his tape on 1 Cor 15. Oddly enough, he does pretty much what I said he does. I say "oddly" because after so long I wonder sometimes if I still know his teachings.. Leading up to that verse he spends a lot of time emphasizing his idea that we currently inhabit two bodies. When we die the flesh goes in the ground and will never rise, while the spiritual body goes on, I consider that a denial of the resurrection.
Before he gets to verse 46 he really lays into those ideas. When he gets to verse 46 he simply reads it and says, "Howbeit... why did it have to be that way?" referring back to verse 45 "And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit." He basically implies that verse 46 refers to the fact that Adam came first and Christ came second. What I found most interesting, was the fact that he read verse 46 as if Paul was asking a rhetorical question about Adam and Christ, instead of returning to the main subject about bodies. He seems to misunderstand the term "howbeit" as if it were Ebonics or something, "How be it?" instead of as an archaic form of "However." Arnold then takes off on a lecture about how we all preexisted in the first age and really lays it on. Basically he isolates that scripture and by loudly contradicting it hopes that people will just forget it exists.
I was wondering how Arnold Murray handles Luke 24:39. My dad told me the Bible is corrupt when I showed him this.
On that one I think your dad is just taking Arnold Murray farther than Arnold Murray. Arnold Murray does not deny that Jesus Christ's flesh body was raised from the dead. So I'm a bit confused because of what your dad is saying. But Murray would stipulate that it was done so that people would know that Christ had actually risen. I think your dad is just going based on what he has learned and being logical about things. If you believe Arnold Murray, then it would make sense that Christ's resurrected body would not have any wounds on it. So he stumbles at the wounds. But Arnold would not really have much of an issue with that. ( I do not have cassettes for Arnold Murray's teaching in Luke, perhaps one of his students could enlighten us as to Arnold's precise position on this scripture).
Sincerely,
Paul Stringini
The funny thing about Arnold is that he never deals with the consequences of his teachings. Because if we resurrect immediately upon death, then there was nothing special or meaningful about Christ's Resurrection. The only significance was in the fact that he appeared to people after he died. According to Arnold Murray, we we die, we all resurrect, right away, but he does not generally call it that, the same way people do not call the rapture the resurrection.
"howbeit that was not first which was spiritual but that which is natural"
----- Original Message -----From: "Name Withheld"
To: "Paul Stringini"Sent: Friday, October 11, 2013 4:12 PMSubject: Re: Arnold Murray and the Denial of the Bodily Resurrection of Jesus.Hi Paul,
I have heard Arnold Murray say not to trust man's teaching and I have heard my parents repeat it back.
They only want the King James Version used, but my Dad has admitted that it is hard for him to understand and likes how my version is easier for him to understand when I read it. But he is quick to say my version is corrupt when the words clearly go against what he has been taught to believe or what he wants to believe.
I have found many times Arnold Murray replaces the Gospel message in scripture by distracting the conversation to the serpent seed "teaching". Mom and Dad get angry if I call it "Doctrine" . They begin to talk against the church and how I believe in doctrines of men and I said, The Serpent Seed is Arnold Murray's Doctrine, for that is what he fully believes. I fully believe the Gospel, he fully believes the serpent seed, the two doctrines couldn't be further apart. What do you believe?" They said they believe what the Bible teaches. I took them to Genesis 4:1. I asked Mom to read the verse out loud. Mom refused to read it. I asked Dad to read it out loud and he also refused. After I read it out loud from my Bible, I said, "I believe what the Bible teaches, Adam is the physical father of Cain, not Satan." Mom said, "Well Bill, she's just too weak to understand it now, she will get it in the new millennium"
This has become an easy way for them to end the controversy when they have lost the battle.
Another time, I heard Arnold Murray call the Jews "Kenites, children of Satan for that is what they are". I spoke up and said, "Please explain to me why he would he say such a thing about the Jewish people?" My father looked very angry at me and said, "Because that is what they are! They are the synagogue of Satan. You don't know that because you are taught wrong."
The next day, Mom sat down with me and I discovered that Arnold has taught them to believe that the Jewish people are not even physical descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. This information was eye opening for me, and I said, "Now I know why we are not on the same page. You don't believe that the Jews are the physical descendants of Abraham Isaac and Jacob." and she confirmed what I said by saying, "That's right"
I confirmed one more time and asked, "You don't believe that the Jewish nation of Israel, God's chosen people, are physically descended from Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob?" and mom then wanted to go into the ten lost tribes.
I would love to know what Arnold Murray has taught them about the ten lost tribes and why he has replaced God's Chosen people with his followers. It was sounding racist and I had to stop Mom. Again Mom said I "was too weak to understand, Arnold Murray is not a racist"
But I know my parents are, and that's one of the reasons they like what Arnold teaches them.
That evening, when Arnold Murray began obscured the Gospel with the serpent seed again, I said, "Dad let me read a scripture verse to clarify what this scripture is saying here."
Dad refused to allow God's Word to be spoken to clarify, instead he only wanted to listen to Arnold's rant about the serpent seed. I prayed through the false teaching and when Dad showed how mad he was at me I said, "I will always choose God's Word over man's interpretation. Unfortunately, Dad I watched you as you chose man's words over God's Holy Word."
Dad was mad when I called him out on listening to man's words over God's Word but my parents couldn't deny that I was Right!
My brother, who lives with my parents, said to my parents he would stay up and explain where I was wrong. As we started discussing John 8 together, the Holy Spirit was truly moving in my brother's heart. It was wonderful to see how quickly my brother had more questions than answers about the Serpent seed. He listens to Arnold but he is no longer a follower. He lives with my parents and is forced to listen with them everyday and puts on an act like he believes with them when they are present but told me last spring he does not believe. I told him I was glad he is continuing to read the Bible on his own.
As children, we were physically abused by my Dad and I think my brother has had a few run ins with Dad the past couple of years since he moved in with them and doesn't want to ruffle any feathers.
My prayers are with them all everyday, praying for the Holy Spirit to transform them. Dad and Mom always bring up spiritual discussions with me first, They appreciate the challenge and know I'm not just telling them what they want to hear. They know I am being honest with them about what I believe. This gives me great hope.
I am glad I can ask you what is really being said by Arnold Murray. My parents interpretation of Arnold's "teaching" is heart-breaking for me. Especially when it comes to the resurrection of Jesus' body. They speak with hatred against the all churches and mock us calling us weak-willed.
Thanks again,
Name Withheld
----- Original Message -----From: "Paul Stringini"To: "Name Withheld"Sent: Monday, October 21, 2013 1:41 PMSubject: Re: Arnold Murray and the Denial of the Bodily Resurrection of Jesus.
Probably one of the most self-serving aspects of Murray's teachings is that he makes our election essentially dependant on our ability to read into the bible the same fantastic imaginations as he does. It's sort of like basing election on your ability to see the same shapes in the clouds as Master Murray. Adam knew his wife Eve, and she conceived and bare Cain. The bible is trying to tell us something. That is the formula the bible uses to indicate who the father of a child is. Arnold Murray steps in and says... hmmmm....what does he say there? I'm not going to get my tapes out right now, but I believe he generally passes over that. I mean the directness of it. He basically tells us that Genesis 4:1 was from the perspective of Eve, in her poor deluded mind she thought she had got the child from God. He would point back to Chapter 3 and emphasize the "continued in labor" aspect of "again bare" and go on to emphasize that these were twins, (as if that itself proved they had different fathers) "They were twins!" Gasp! shock! And then he will go into how twins can rarely be begotten by more than one father. As if the mere possibility of the thing made it a certainty. (Having Listened to many of Murray's tapes again, I have found that when he Gets to Genesis 4 he basically challenges his students to "look deeper" to "mature" and basically proceeds to dismantle Genesis 4:1 based on the idea that Cain and Able were twins by different fathers, it is basically a slight of hand maneuver. Now you see it, now you don't. In other words, he denies the plain meaning of Genesis 4:1 based on factors he suggests override that meaning).
I use the King James all the time. I don't like the NIV at all, but the NASB or the RSV are fine. Arnold Murray does not really depend on the King James so much as he depends on his abuse of the Strong's Concordance and people's ignorance of how to properly use that tool. His corruption of the meaning of exapatao (in 2Cor 11 "beguiled" = deceived) into "sexually seduced" is a major case in point. He cloaks himself in the mantle of a "Scholar" and plays the same old authority game as the ministers and churches he rips into do.
If you try to approach them again on this subject, I recommend finding as much common ground as possible. I.E. use a King James if you can, use a Strong's concordance. You are truly in the more powerful position, you have the truth, so you can afford to fight for them on their ground. Remember that they have been deceived by this man. Remember also that one aspect of this man's teachings is to instill in his students a very strong sense of personal pride. They stood against Satan himself in the world that was and God chose them because they were the souls that fought for God. Murray instills in them this very prideful idea. They are the ultimate authors of their election. But since this house is built on sand it is inherently weak. When they feel you attacking them on many fronts they will tend to put up their defenses.
There is nothing wrong with the King James and Murray is not one of those "King James Only" cults. Some people just prefer it, there are many good reasons for this, but my point is that you should focus the fight on a single weak point. I recommend the serpent seed, it is the foundation of Murray's teachings (the free tape he gives away is all about the serpent seed) and it is also a doctrine riddled with weaknesses. If you prepare thoroughly, Lord willing, you will inspire them to doubt and then time and prayer will do the rest. Jesus Christ be with you. If you have any questions on any specific points I will be happy to do whatever I can for you.
Sincerely, Paul Stringini
----- Original Message -----From: "Name Withheld"To: "Paul Stringini"Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2013 11:40 AMSubject: Re: Arnold Murray and the Denial of the Bodily Resurrection of Jesus.Thanks for your insights on Arnold Murray's teachings.
I agree with you that Arnold Murray is corrupting the true meaning of the Bible with the Strong's Concordance. When listening to one of Arnold Murray's teachings in the Book of Acts I heard Arnold Murray say that the King James is not correctly interpreted and used my Bible's version instead. When I showed Dad this, he was not happy because it caused a real stumbling block for my Dad in his strong support to only use the King James Version.
What you have said is about Arnold Murray not depending on only the King James Version is interesting. My parents are definitely against any version of the Bible except the King James Version. They make it very clear, but apparently this is just a further corruption in my parent's minds from what Arnold Murray teaches. Maybe they are getting this from Uncle Gary who introduced Arnold Murray to them. Uncle Gary is the one they run to when they begin to doubt Arnold Murray's wrong teachings and misinterpretations of the Bible, so I will specifically direct my prayers in this direction.
My parents are really on the 10 lost tribes thing right now. What does Arnold Murray teach them about that? What does Arnold Murray teach them about the Jews, does he teach them they are not physically descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob? or is that just another further corruption in my parents minds to hate the Jews? Uncle Gary says he hates Christians too. His exact words were, " Jesus is OK, it's his followers I hate." Maybe Uncle Gary is into something far worse and just uses Arnold Murray as a front to ease his "Murray followers" into deception, from one depravity to a deeper depravity.
My cousin has lost all contact with her Dad. She has tried to make herself available to him but he told her "if you won't listen and believe me, I want nothing to do with you".
Thanks,
Name Withheld
----- Original Message -----From: "Paul Stringini"To: "Name Withheld"Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2014 9:56 PMSubject: Re: Arnold Murray and the Denial of the Bodily Resurrection of Jesus.Name Withheld, Sorry, I got busy and laid your last message aside and forgot about it.
"My parents are really on the 10 lost tribes thing right now. What does Arnold Murray teach them about that?"
The ten lost tribes wandered into the north and became the European Race. Many of the books sold at the chapel are on this subject. Arnold does not have a ton of specifics on it, not on air. He usually generalizations about the tribes wandering into the north. He identifies England and America with Ephraim and Manassah, Judah with Germany, etc..
"What does Arnold Murray teach them about the Jews, does he teach them they are not physically descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob? or is that just another further corruption in my parents minds to hate the Jews? "
According to Arnold Murray the people commonly called Jews are the physical descendants of the Devil. They snuck in and replaced the true Jews. I HIGHLY recommend this brand new page on my website http://oraclesofgod.org/1980/jews.htm I transcribed Arnold's words, so you can read and hear exactly what he thinks of the Jews.
"Uncle Gary says he hates Christians too. His exact words were, " Jesus is OK, it's his followers I hate." Maybe Uncle Gary is into something far worse and just uses Arnold Murray as a front to ease his "Murray followers" into deception, from one depravity to a deeper depravity. "
I think you may be right. Uncle Gary sounds like a bit of a misanthrope, Murray is not exactly a people person, but he would never say stuff like "Jesus is ok it's his followers I hate." The Apostle John said, "Whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother." And even if we do not consider someone a brother, they are at minimum a neighbor, also worthy of love.
"My cousin has lost all contact with her Dad. She has tried to make herself available to him but he told her "if you won't listen and believe me, I want nothing to do with you". "
Well that can be biblical, but usually when someone insists on living ungodly. We should not keep casual company with unrepentant sinners who call themselves Christians. But it is your uncle that sounds like he is in the deep iniquity.
1 Cor 5:9 I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators: 10 Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world. 11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.
There are situations where you do not "keep company" with someone. He seems to think that "not listening to him" rises to the level of fornication and idolatry.
Sincerely,
Paul Stringini
----- Original Message -----From: "Name Withheld"To: "Paul Stringini"Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2014 6:40 PMSubject: Re: Arnold Murray and the Denial of the Bodily Resurrection of Jesus.Thanks for all your help so far. I appreciate you diligence in responding to my questions. I will read what you have posted about Arnold Murray and the Jews. I will be visiting my parents in April.
I am praying for the Holy Spirit to keep the doors of communication open with them and asking Him to soften their hearts. My parents have always been on the fringes of Christianity so this will take God’s intervention in their lives to surrender their control over and let God be God.
Thanks,
Name Withheld
Return to "The Shepherd's Chapel and Dr. Arnold Murray" Main Page