"I Have Been a Student of the Shepherd's Chapel Since 1992"

Hello Name Withheld,

I appreciate your polite tone. I do. And you seem to be a nice guy, in fact, I'm sure you are. But Arnold Murray is not a nice guy, and if my tone gets a little less polite than yours, please understand that it is primarily directed at Murray.

It sounds like we started studying with the chapel at about the same time. I do not believe in the rapture. Even before Murray showed me 2 Thessalonians 2, I didn't like the idea of the rapture (even though I did believe it). But Murray goes too far. For one, when he says that the word "air" in 1 Thessalonians 4 refers to the "breath of life body" The apostles never referred to the spiritual body as a "breath of life body" and neither does the word "air" have any reference to that idea. When Christ returns we are going to meet him in the clouds, in the air, because it is a lot more efficient than having us all walk over to Jerusalem. Murray was off the rails on that one.

"The other thing that God and the word has revealed to me that in the garden of Eden Adam and Eve did not eat an apple that most Christian churches
teach,"

For one, it is not correct to say the most churches teach that there was an "apple" involved. The reason that people say "apple" is simple. They say "apple" because "the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" is a mouthful and also a real pain to type over and over as I am about to do. It is just more convenient to call it "the apple" I don't call it an apple, I call it "the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of Good and evil' because I deal with this issue all the time. Editorial Comment: Also, I have come to think the word "apple" in this context, is used like the term "widget" as a placeholder, it's use goes back to a Latin pun, because the word for Apple and Evil were the same in Latin. And guys like Murray distort what is being said and use that distortion to make a straw man argument. What Murray never deals with is the fact that the bible says that "the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of Good and evil" existed and that Adam and Eve ate it and it opened their eyes.

The fruit of the tree of the knowledge of Good and evil was a real fruit that the scriptures very clearly describe as growing from a tree that grew from the ground. Are you denying that such a tree and fruit existed? because that is what the bible says.

Genesis 2:9 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

Genesis 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

The bible clearly teaches that there was fruit on a tree and that they took the fruit from the tree and ate it. Period. To suggest that what we read in Genesis 3 is actually the story of Satan having sexual intercourse with Adam and Eve, is not something the bible teaches, ever. It is something that corrupt teachers such as Murray read into the word based on their own corrupt minds and thoughts, and then when you see what they suggest is there, they flatter you and pat you on the head and tell you you are one of God's elect..

"if they had just eaten a piece of fruit why would they cover there private parts with the fig leaves,"

Easy one. The bible teaches the answer to that question.

Genesis 3:7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.

The tree of the knowledge of Good and evil possessed the power to grant the knowledge of Good and evil, as the bible teaches, just as the tree of life had the power to grant eternal life. If you have trouble believing that, then you need to evaluate whether you think you should be subject to the wisdom of the scriptures or whether the scriptures ought to be subject to your wisdom.

But when they ate the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil the bible says, "their eyes were open," and they knew they were naked. I don't know about you, but I cover my crotch at ALL times, even if I didn't just have sex with the devil. So that is just ridiculous. Murray's logic on that one is totally off the wall. It makes no sense at all/ The bible says they covered themselves because they were NAKED, not because they just had sex. If they had just had sex, maybe they should have used the leaves to wipe the mess off themselves, because why would they cover themselves after sex if being naked was the normal thing? It does not make any sense at all.

Murray's story is not the story that the bible tells. Murray was a false prophet and a deciever. Quite simply. He was a documented false prophet. And unrepentant, because he repeated false prophecies year after year reading current events into the bible. And if you have followed him since '92 you probably know this is true.

"if you go to Genesis chapter 6 you will find that Satan's angels came down and intermixed with the daughters of Adam and the giants were born."

Quite possibly. But what I have often said to people about that is "SO WHAT?" Did you know that in Isaiah, the servant of the King of Assyria told the men of Israel that they would eat their own dung and drink their own piss? So what? Just because something is shocking and true and in the bible and little talked about, does not mean that it ought to be taught as a core issue in Christianity or is worthy of being called "the truth".

How exactly does that empower me with the knowledge of how a man might live a righteous sober and godly life in this present world? How does that get me one step closer to being like Christ? How does that enable me for one second to stand against the fiery darts of the wicked? It does not. There is a lot of things in the bible that are true, but not truth, because they do not lead us to eternal life. Knowing about the angels that sinned is the kind of knowledge that puffs up, not the sort that edifies. I'll tell you right now, this paragraph is a bit of a test, because if you react negatively to what I just said, then you do not love the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Titus 2:11 For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,
Titus 2:12 Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world;

A Christianity that does not empower us to be more like Christ is not worth following. Arnold Murray had a form of godliness, but denied the power thereof. He often went out of his way to slam anyone who preached righteousness. When he taught this passage, he used the phrase "in this present world" as an excuse to go off on a tangent about his "three world ages" myth. And even when he stumbled and read it a second time, he had nothing to add. It is not that I think Arnold Murray encouraged people to sin, but he never missed a chance to go off on a tangent when it came to one of his pet doctrines. But when it came to certain simple truths in the bible, such as the call to righteousness, godliness and holiness, it seems like he had very little to say. But these are the things which are at the core of the gospel, because it was for this cause that Christ came, to deliver us from sin and to turn us from iniquity.

"If this is the case then it makes perfect sense that Satan had sex with Eve, "

Why does that make perfect sense? I'm sorry, but that is not sensible at all. The two things are very different. In Genesis 3 we have Adam and Eve eating fruit, that is what the BIBLE says, don't tell me what the mainstream says, I'm talking about what the bible syas. In Genesis 6 we have "the sons of God" taking wives. That is a big difference there. Those are two VERY different passages. There are lots of passages in the bible with angels interacting with humans, should we suspect sexual intercourse in all of them, just because in one passage we have "sons of God" taking wives?

"you do not hear this even mentioned in the main stream Christian church, "

I am not part of the mainstream. But even so, it is not worth mentioning any more than eating dung and drinking piss is worth mentioning. I would rather make mention of all that Christ has promised us which goes beyond what Murray mocks as "simple salvation"

"Arnold Murray teaches this and it is definitely the truth. "

That is the truth huh? Jesus died for our sins, Satan had sex with Adam and Eve, The sons of God came down and made giants. (We ought to round the list
off so...) the people called Jews are Satan's flesh and blood offspring, and if you can see this in the bible it means that you probably stood against Satan in the world that was and that is why God chose you to be his elect. - Truth? Or Leaven?

That is not the truth. The only truth in there is the part about Jesus, and the rest is corruption which Murray inserts into the bible.

"I could go on but I will not, again I have been studying with the Chapel for a long time and I know Pastor Murray had his faults but he has definitely unlocked the truth of Gods word to me and he was a very great man of the word of God. My prayers are for Gods Church would one day be unified in Christ Jesus but to do this we must learn Gods Word, my goal is to preach the truth to everyone I meet and Brother I know the Shepherds Chapel is preaching the Word."

Arnold Murray is a preacher of Arnold Murray's word, he denies the scriptures (especially in the issue you have raised). The church as we know it is never to be unified, read your bible. The church will be pruned of the unfruitful branches and the fruitful branches will bear more fruit. The unfruitful branches will be cast into the fire and burned.

Sincerely,
Paul Stringini