A Shepherd's Chapel Graduate

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

A Shepherd's Chapel Graduate

Question/Comment:

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

From: Name Withheld

To: Paul Stringini

Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2014 2:29 PM

Subject: Shepherd's Chapel Graduate

Greetings!

I found your site by searching several things and found a lot of what you said about SC students to be very true. I too consider myself to be a graduate like you. I have been to 4 Passover gatherings in Branson, MO too. I have a lot of tapes. The one thing that even pastor Murray said was that there are a lot of crazies that we would run into there at Passover and that he does not endorse them. You are very true about there being students that follow him instead of doing what Murray says himself, to prove him wrong. That is one thing that got me started in studying with him. I don't study any longer but the one thing he did do is teach me HOW to study for myself.

I would really like to see your studies and thoughts on the end-times and what we are coming in to.

Blessings!

Fourth Message:

My First Response:

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

From: Paul Stringini

To: Name Withheld

Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2014 11:00 PM

Subject: Re: Rev

Hi Name Withheld, nice to hear from you.

I remember Reine, She wrote a nice endorsement of my CD way back when I was still a Chapel student. I have not spoken with her in years. I signed up again on the Fig Tree Cafe not long ago, because someone asked me to read something he had posted there. I got banned within about 24 hours, without ever making a single post. I guess that was because I used my real name and my views are already well known. But I don't take it personally. I wasn't there to start trouble in any case. Editorial Comment: That's why I registered with my real name. I don't believe in Arnold Murray's oft suggested "covert activity" approach to ministry.

"It sounds like you believe we will die, go in the grave and be oblivious of anything until the return of Christ. ??"

Correct, I came to this position eventually, I found it was easier to reconcile the scriptures to that view than to continue with what I learned from Murray. I know there are difficulties with my current position, but it was dealing with the difficulties in my old position that led me to eventually reject that position in favor of the view you described above. The passages I find most influential are in John, such as:

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.

And many more which you are likely to be already aware of (and some you may not). I wrote a lengthy paper on the subject. It is on my webpage on the doctrine page, and I recorded a reading of it, which can also be downloaded.

"So you confused me with the two theories for the churches. Either being historical or ages. If we are in the Lord's Day (future) how can Christ get rid of 5 of the churches if they are either of these?"

Man, this comment does not make my day and I'm feeling pretty bummed that I managed to make that confusing. I reject both those views (well, one more than the other). I think if you kept listening it might have become obvious that while I entertain the idea that the Churches have an historical application; I totally reject the idea that the churches are progressive "church ages." I do think that the real application for the seven churches is a purely end-time application.

Anyway, If you have any questions or would like me to comment on anything I say, feel totally free to ask. I sometimes take a little time to respond, but I am at your service.

Sincerely,

Paul Stringini

Emailer's First Reply:

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

From: Name Withheld

To: Paul Stringini

Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2014 8:32 AM

Subject: Re: Rev

Good morning Paul!

Thanks for getting back with me.

I must say that I studied with SC for quite a while and had a lot of studies under my belt. I studied at my house for about 3.5 years as a church that we would have whomever over for. It was great and it did make me grow in how to study. Then after that time it was revealed to me that I was at a place now to where we could go back to a 'church' and I wouldn't be swayed or aggravated by what they taught because I knew how to study for myself. This is the one thing I say Pastor Murray did for me. The one thing that started sticking in the back of my mind after doing this was; am I really studying for myself or am I just following another person's teachings? I never did adhere to everything that PM taught but when you go to a Passover with the SC man! you can see the people that are there to just worship PM. They don't study for themselves but there is no way you could tell them that. :-(

My background in religion growing up is JW. Being oblivious in the grave is what they teach. Does that mean it's wrong? No. Just as you can't say that just because someone is a JW they are going to hell. We can't know that. But I have thought that there are all these religions and denominations that have little pieces right with what the Bible teaches. I can see the oblivious argument, but how do you get past the meaning of the word for eternal life? aiōnios Strong's #G166 - without beginning and end, that which always has been and always will be.

I will go back to your site and look for that study.

I love to get into God's word and I am looking forward to doing so with you.

If you are wondering about my title on my signature, it is Hebrew for Sensei in Japanese. I teach a Christian martial art called Neshamat Elohim that I co-developed. It took me some time but I also translated all the Japanese we use into Hebrew.

Blessings!

Additional Message:

Additional Message:

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

From: Name Withheld

To: Paul Stringini

Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2014 1:16 PM

Subject: Re: Rev

Paul,

So I've been reading through some of your letters to those that have emailed you. Here is one subject I stopped on and would like to see what you think concerning where the dead are. :-)

Acts 2:29-34, If Jesus was 'dead' for 3 days and in the grave oblivious of anything, how did He preach to the prisoners? The word hell used there is hades and is more meaning a place of separation of the soul and body. You and I know that Eccl is speaking to the 'flesh' body and I feel so many people have a really hard time separating that from who 'we' are. And David did not ascend...This is addressing Jesus' resurrection bodily which David did not do. There was no reason for David to ascend in this manner for that is what our Savior was to do. So David was not transfigured as Christ was.

Iron sharpening iron brother. :-)

My Second Response:

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

From: Paul Stringini

To: Name Withheld

Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2014 11:06 PM

Subject: Re: Rev

Hello again Name Withheld,

I'm going to respond to what you say in my customary fashion. I find it is easiest for me that way.

"I must say that I studied with SC for quite a while and had a lot of studies under my belt. I studied at my house for about 3.5 years as a church that we would have whomever over for. It was great and it did make me grow in how to study."

I do not agree with the idea that the Shepherd's Chapel teaches people how to study the bible. Rather, the chapel teaches people how to read into the scriptures a series of doctrines which are not found in the bible, but which may be read into the bible by those who desire to do so. Much of what Arnold Murray did with the strong's concordance amounts to what I would call "tool abuse" For example, I have written a page on how he abuses the ignorance of his students in order to give "exapatao" a meaning never intended by the apostle Paul or by any other New Testament writer. http://oraclesofgod.org/shepherds_chapel/exapatao.htm This is by no means the only example of such behaviors.

Arnold Murray certainly brought many study tools to my attention and filled a void when I was hungry for information. But he taught me to follow a breadcrumb trail which he set out for me, more than he taught me how to actually to study for myself. He did not really teach me to study on my own. He did certainly verbally encourage me to study on my own. It was through these studies that I began to drift away from his teachings and later came to out and out oppose his ministry.

"Then after that time it was revealed to me that I was at a place now to where we could go back to a 'church' and I wouldn't be swayed or aggravated by what they taught because I knew how to study for myself. "

I suppose one might feel that way. I personally don't like to sit-in while someone butchers God's word. I feel that my presence is a form of endorsement. I do not like to go around "covertly" as Murray sometimes suggests either. The gospel is not something we ought to have to hide. If we are keeping our beliefs to ourselves to be part of a church, we are not really part of anything.

This is the one thing I say Pastor Murray did for me. The one thing that started sticking in the back of my mind after doing this was; am I really studying for myself or am I just following another person's teachings? I never did adhere to everything that PM taught but when you go to a Passover with the SC man! you can see the people that are there to just worship PM. They don't study for themselves but there is no way you could tell them that. :-(

I got tired of listening to his tapes, I realized that there was not a whole lot to hear from him after a while. He knows a few notes, and he plays them over and over on his trumpet.. So, yeah, you start to study on your own, or you become an Arnold Murray sycophant. The thing is, that when you study for yourself you almost have to end up alienated from him, to some degree, because you cannot talk to him (Even when he was alive) about anything you disagree over. It's a one way street kind of relationship.

My background in religion growing up is JW. Being oblivious in the grave is what they teach. Does that mean it's wrong? No. Just as you can't say that just because someone is a JW they are going to hell. We can't know that.

Well, I would say we are all going to hell, just like Jesus did for three days. I believe that when you die, the very next thing you will experience is the resurrection of the dead. No sitting around in heaven, waiting, and then diving back to earth to go find a body that has long ago decayed away. You die and go straight to the Kingdom of God, instantly. I get sick of always making the argument from the earthly perspective of "oblivious" and waiting. There is really no waiting if you are not conscious.

People try to get me with the "guilt by association" argument all the time. I call it the "Hitler loved dogs" argument. Because Hitler loved dogs, does that mean it is wrong to love dogs? There must be something wrong with anyone who loves Dogs, because Hitler loved dogs, and we know there was something wrong with that guy. Yeah, it is totally unfair.

But I have thought that there are all these religions and denominations that have little pieces right with what the Bible teaches.

Little pieces eh? How many fragments did you take up...? Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and the Sadducees. Of the JW's and The Murray's and of all men who would pollute the word of God. A little leaven makes it all corrupt. (Editorial Comment: I should say "corrupt over time." The presence of leaven in our belief is not a source of instantaneous corruption, but it means we have work to do to purge out the leaven and that if we allow our faith to forever remain leavened, it will indeed corrupt the whole).

I can see the oblivious argument, but how do you get past the meaning of the word for eternal life? aiōnios Strong's #G166 - without beginning and end, that which always has been and always will be.

For one, Dr. Strong is not the last word on Greek scholarship. That is a very specific definition colored by theological prejudice. You should use a Greek concordance to examine every time the word is used in Greek and see if that definition holds up in context.

Examples:

Matthew 25:46 And these shall go away into everlasting (#166 aiōnios) punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

So how does that definition hold up in that passage? Punishment which has always been? No beginning? The idea that created beings could be characterized as being without beginning is incorrect. The idea that torment which contextually has a beginning has no beginning is ridiculous. So the definition does not hold up in every context.

John 10:28 And I give unto them eternal (#166 aiōnios) life;

If it is given, then is must at some point commence. That point is at the resurrection. The life we possess now is not eternal life. Eternal life is that which is given by God in Christ at the resurrection. Everything we might claim about having eternal life prior to that point is based on our faith in a promise which God has yet to fulfill.

If you are wondering about my title on my signature, it is Hebrew for Sensei in Japanese. I teach a Christian martial art called Neshamat Elohim that I co-developed. It took me some time but I also translated all the Japanese we use into Hebrew.

I had not seen the signature. I am also into hand to hand combat, I coach wrestling and participate in submission grappling, but right now I'm injured (separated rib and dual rotator cuff injuries). So I'm just coaching grappling at the moment.

Would you read a study I wrote on Matt 24? It is only 17 pages. I would really like to hear what you have to say.

I will look at it. It would be easier for me if you had a dictation of it.

So I've been reading through some of your letters to those that have emailed you. Here is one subject I stopped on and would like to see what you think concerning where the dead are. :-)

Acts 2:29-34, If Jesus was 'dead' for 3 days and in the grave oblivious of anything, how did He preach to the prisoners? The word hell used there is hades and is more meaning a place of separation of the soul and body.

Let's read the passage.

18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:
19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;

Jesus was "made alive" (quickened) in the resurrection. There is no justification in placing this event in the three days he was in the tomb. This is done by some, who having the previous assumption that Christ was not three days in the tomb, suggest that this event took place while he was in the tomb, (also assuming that the "Hell" where Jesus was laid, is the same place where these spirits were imprisoned - many problems with that). The assumption runs contrary to the actual text of the passage here which makes this a post-resurrection event.

The spirits in prison passage is loaded with assumptions. What are your assumptions here? I'd prefer not to guess at them.

You and I know that Eccl is speaking to the 'flesh' body and I feel so many people have a really hard time separating that from who 'we' are.

No, I do not know that. That is the filter Arnold Murray told me I should place over my eyes when reading that book. I draw very different conclusions when I let the bible teach me what it is trying to say to me instead of reading into the bible a script which men provide me.

The bible itself has a hard time separating the person from the body. (e.g.. Jesus gave up the ghost) From what I can tell, according to the bible, the person is actually inseparable from the body. The mortal body must put on immortality.

Jesus gave up the ghost, Jesus did not give up the body. Linguistically, it is obvious what the perspective of the gospel writers is. We read into these writings our own prejudices and wishes.

I know this is baiting the "absent from the body" passage, but that is another passage that is generally read-into, instead of read. You may ask about it if you wish. Of course.

And David did not ascend...This is addressing Jesus' resurrection bodily which David did not do. There was no reason for David to ascend in this manner for that is what our Savior was to do. So David was not transfigured as Christ was.

You are reading the idea of transfiguration into that passage. David did not ascend (go up). You are saying he did ascend (go up), albeit in a manner different from the way Christ ascended. Peter did not make that assertion. When you read the passage it is clear that Peter is confirming that David did not only "not ascend," but that he is "both dead and buried"

John declared in his gospel that no man has ascended into heaven but he that came down from heaven, the son of man which is in heaven. Anyway, I cover all this stuff in my paper. http://oraclesofgod.org/doctrine/03_the_resurrection_of_the_dead.htm

I'm sorry if I have not done a very thorough job here but with my current injuries I have trouble typing for long periods. Feel free to follow-up. I am at your service.

Sincerely,

Paul Stringini

Emailer's Second Reply:

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

From: Name Withheld

To: Paul Stringini

Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2014 9:27 AM

Subject: Re: Rev

Hey Paul,

Thanks for getting back to me again. I will just hit on the subjects that come to me first if I may. :-)

Let's look at Eccl. aside from what Pastor Murray taught. It is obviously a book about reveals the depression that inevitably results from seeking happiness in worldly things. This can only be done while we are in this flesh body. This book gives us the chance to see the world through the eyes of a very wise person who is trying to find meaning in the temporary - i.e. flesh of this world.

A dictation of my study? I have it in a .doc form that I can send you.

Personal Information Withheld - Personal Information Withheld - Personal Information Withheld I developed a whole bible based curriculum that goes along with it.

By saying that other denominations have elements correct I would mean that you believe as the JW's do...that we will lay oblivious of everything until the return of Christ. I believe that we will cease to exist instead of an everlasting burning hell as the JW's do. I do not adhere to any of their other teachings.

So even if Jesus preached to the prisoners before or after His transfiguration how could He do so if they were laying in the 'grave' oblivious? I believe the structure of the sentence in vs 18 is saying that when He died in the flesh He was made alive in the Spirit and THEN :...

I will stop here. :-)

Blessings

My Third Response:

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

From: Paul Stringini

To: Name Withheld

Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2014 1:27 PM

Subject: Re: Rev

Let's look at Eccl. aside from what PM taught. It is obviously a book about reveals the depression that inevitably results from seeking happiness in worldly things. This can only be done while we are in this flesh body. This book gives us the chance to see the world through the eyes of a very wise person who is trying to find meaning in the temporary - i.e. flesh of this world.

Aside from thematic generalizations about the book of Ecclesiastes: the pertinent issues pertaining to your question are verses such as this:

Eccl 9:5 For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten.

It is one thing to make general statements about the theme of Ecclesiastes. But one cannot simply apply that theme as a blanket in order to dismiss verses which agree with a consistent view found many places in scripture. When people read, "the dead know not any thing," and say "it is only talking about the flesh body" That is a very simplistic and questionable way to dismiss a verse. "Look ma, I can wave my hand and make whole scriptures disappear." That is a very broad application of a very thin aspect of Ecclesiastes. It is a failure to consider the broader view of scripture as a whole and also the intent of the author.

E.g.

This is not the only book of the bible that tells us this. Psalm 146:4 His breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth; in that very day his thoughts perish." So should this generalization about Ecclesiastes gets extended to passages outside of Ecclesiastes? What justifies such arbitrary action?

Passages like this which we find in the bible are generally attempting to describe what it is like to be dead, many of the passages opponents cite are not passages which are contextually attempting to communicate the truth about death.

The term "flesh body" is hardly ever found in the bible (never in that exact formulation). Yes, we have a body of flesh and bones, but when we start using terms like that as a damper to dismiss the intent of specific scriptures, we are engaging in a form of scriptural manipulation.

Thoughts and Knowledge are not flesh and bone. If Solomon wanted to tell us what you suggest, there is language available to him which he could use to describe that kind of idea.

"In that day the 'flesh body' has no more thoughts."

But does it really take a very wise man to figure that out? Seriously, we needed Solomon to tell us that a corpse that rots away is no longer going to do anything or think anything? The whole point of this part of Ecclesiastes is to tell people something important about what it is like to be dead.

A dictation of my study? I have it in a .doc form that I can send you.

Look, I'm not begging for it, I said I'd read it. I dictate some of my writings for the convenience of people who don't have the endurance to sit at the computer and read a 75 page document on death and resurrection.

Personal Information Withheld - Personal Information Withheld - Personal Information Withheld. I developed a whole bible based curriculum that goes along with it.

By saying that other denominations have elements correct I would mean that you believe as the JW's do...that we will lay oblivious of everything until the return of Christ. I believe that we will cease to exist instead of an everlasting burning hell as the JW's do. I do not adhere to any of their other teachings.

Well, I really don't know much about JW's. But having them shoved in my face all the time is rude. It would be like me saying you believed as the men who originally founded those schools of martial arts. "You teach a martial art founded by people who worship their ancestors." or whatever. I don't know anything about it.

I believe that we will cease to exist instead of an everlasting burning hell as the JW's do.

Soul destruction is best applied with a consistent view. The first death and the second death are consistently described as an unconscious state. This is the most consistent and elegant view.

So even if Jesus preached to the prisoners before or after His transfiguration how could He do so if they were laying in the 'grave' oblivious?

Unfounded assumption. You are assuming that the "spirits in prison" are dead people. I find that extremely unlikely. He makes reference specifically to spirits which were disobedient while Noah's Ark was preparing. Why that specific time? Why not, "all who lived before his sacrifice." Because there is a second assumption here. The meaning and intent of the term "preached." The word would be better translated "heralded." The word has no regard to what is heralded (or preached) and is therefore dependant on the context for the content of the preaching.

I believe the structure of the sentence in vs 18 is saying that when He died in the flesh He was made alive in the Spirit and THEN :...

I will stop here. :-)

I suppose that was going somewhere base on those assumptions. I don't know. I can't read your mind.

Revelation 20:5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.

No verse ate at me more. The scripture must instruct us, not vice versa. We need to adopt views whereby we are not immediately forced to run in and redefine terms.

Sincerely,

Paul Stringini

Emailer's Third Reply:

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

From: Name Withheld

To: Paul Stringini

Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2014 1:44 PM

Subject: Re: Rev

Paul,

I will not send you my study as it seems to have offended you in some way that I have tried to clarify your needs. I am not out trying to push it on anyone either. I was merely wanting input but I will pass on that.

JW's - you accused me of holding on to elements of JW or something else and wondered what else I might have. I was raised JW so therefore I know what they believe. :-) I was merely pointing out that just because you or I agree with a religions point of view does not make us apart of said religion or denomination.

So you are saying that the 'spirits' Jesus preached to were angels or something? If not people then who?

I thought we could interact in some way with seeing what we have each studied. But I 'hear' a slight tone of frustration in your responses towards me. I don't know if it is because you know I studied with SC before and you might think I'm a spy for them or something... I can't read your mind either. :-) I assure you that I do my own studies and nothing with the SC.

I appreciate your time brother.

Blessings and stay strong!

Additional Message:

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

From: Name Withheld

To: Paul Stringini

Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2014 2:22 PM

Subject: Re: Rev

I can't let this one go. :-) You made a statement to an email about 'flying to save soul' where you said that "war is sinful". With the following verses: God sinned? Maybe a better way to say it would be; to go to war for the wrong reason is a sin? Obviously there are appropriate reasons to go to war.

Exodus 17:16, Numbers 31:1-3, 1 Samuel 15:1-3

Blessings!

Additional Message:

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

From: Name Withheld

To: Paul Stringini

Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2014 2:47 PM

Subject: Re: Rev

Paul,

I forgot about explaining what I meant when I said that PM taught me how to study. Before I started studying with SC I was in a church, preaching and 'teaching' sunday school. I soon realized that I was not really a teacher but rather a conveyor of the Baptist church's quarterly and doctrine. I did not know how to check out what they were telling me to tell others was true or not. That scared me knowing that the Bible says the teachers will be judged harder than others.

I worked for a TV station where I had to air SC and used to make fun of him for not believing in the rapture. PM kept saying "prove me wrong", "check it out for yourself". So I did and it started with the word 'air' in Thess. From there I started wondering what else the 'church' lied to me about. All this was really going against what I had been taught. I remember getting to the point where I had to know how to find the truth because I was going to the Christian bookstores and no studies were doing it. I remember crying out to God to show me and it was like the Holy Spirit slapped me on the forehead with 'Greek, Hebrew, Greek, Hebrew...do your own homework.'

So being shown how to use the Strong's, Lexicon and others is what I mean by PM showing me how to study.

Blessings

My Fourth Response:

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

From: Paul Stringini

To: Name Withheld

Sent: Friday, July 18, 2014 1:35 AM

Subject: Re: Rev

I will not send you my study as it seems to have offended you in some way that I have tried to clarify your needs. I am not out trying to push it on anyone either. I was merely wanting input but I will pass on that.

   I mentioned that I would prefer a dictation because reading a long paper is very inconvenient for me. When you responded with a question I indicated that I was not saying "oh please record it for me so I don't have to read it. I said I'd read it.

I will look at it. It would be easier for me if you had a dictation of it.

"A dictation of my study? I have it in a .doc form that I can send you. "

Look, I'm not begging for it, I said I'd read it.

I generally refuse these requests.  I am not a professional minister or anything. I'm just a guy on the internet who teaches the bible. I mentioned dictation, I was fishing for an easy out.

JW's - you accused me of holding on to elements of JW or something else and wondered what else I might have.

You must be talking about this comment:

But I have thought that there are all these religions and denominations that have little pieces right with what the Bible teaches.

Little pieces eh? How many fragments did you take up...? Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and the Sadducees. Of the JW's and The Murray's and of all men who would pollute the word of God. A little leaven makes it all corrupt.

That was advice and observation. Also there are allusions to things Jesus said.How many fragments did you take up...? There is no accusation in that. If it feels like an accusation, I really don't know what to tell you.

As far as any accusations or comparisons, I get the JW's thrownat me all the time when people want to dismiss what I have to say about death and resurrection. I'm not saying you were accusing me of anything, but you brought them up in the context of a discussion about death.

I was raised JW so therefore I know what they believe. :-)

Ok.

I was merely pointing out that just because you or I agree with a religions point of view does not make us apart of said religion or denomination.

I agree. I'm just interested in talking about the points of view themselves. I never brought up the "JW's"

So you are saying that the 'spirits' Jesus preached to were angels or something? If not people then who?

They were spirits. There are all kinds of spirits. The bible tells us these were imprisoned spirits from the time of Noah's Ark. Whatever one might say about this passage, the point is that it is not solid ground on which to overthrow clear passages of scripture concerning the dead. I don't have to know exactly what is going on in 1Peter 3 to be able to make that assertion.

I thought we could interact in some way with seeing what we have each studied. But I 'hear' a slight tone of frustration in your responses towards me. I don't know if it is because you know I studied with SC before and you might think I'm a spy for them or something... I can't read your mind either. :-) I assure you that I do my own studies and nothing with the SC.

I believe you. You say we both have studied. That is very well, but, fundamentally, my understanding does not come from study. So I think you misunderstand me on a very fundamental level. No amount of study can uncover the truth. God reveals his truth to us in his time. Bible study is no longer as important to me as simple bible obedience. There is no amount of study I can do which will make me righteous. Therefore while study is useful and good, it is not the point of Christianity. Otherwise only the intellectually superior would be saved.

You have asked about the same subject several questions. But it is not really a question you are asking. You are just raising objection after objection. Which is fine, but you have not read my work on the subject, and apparently think you know all about the subject, since you have studied.   So it is not so much a question as an examination. I answer questions all the time. And I can tell when things are going nowhere. I have written on that subject and if what I have written is not persuasive, then nothing I say will persuade you. So I tire of the debate.

I can't let this one go. :-) You made a statement to an email about 'flying to save soul' where you said that "war is sinful". With the following verses: God sinned? Maybe a better way to say it would be; to go to war for the wrong reason is a sin? Obviously there are appropriate reasons to go to war.

Ex 17:16, Num 31:1-3, 1 Sam 15:1-3

You have to take my statement in context and also consider what my intent was. Without a specific link I can't comment on that specific writing. In righteousness he doth judge and make war. But war is full of sin, even if you justify it, all that means is that someone sinned, and so there will be war. War is always the result of sin. Period. Does Christ make war for some other reason?

Paul,
I forgot about explaining what I meant when I said that PM taught me how to study. Before I started studying with SC I was in a church, preaching and 'teaching' sunday school. I soon realized that I was not really a teacher but rather a conveyor of the Baptist church's quarterly and doctrine. I did not know how to check out what they were telling me to tell others was true or not. That scared me knowing that the Bible says the teachers will be judged harder than others.

Ok

I worked for a TV station where I had to air SC and used to make fun of him for not believing in the rapture. PM kept saying "prove me wrong", "check it out for yourself". So I did and it started with the word 'air' in Thess.

This is what I have bee trying to say from the beginning. I cannot respect that form of studying. That is what I thought from the first that you meant by Arnold Murray "teaching you how to study." I say he taught you wrong.

I do not believe in the rapture. But the word "air" has nothing to do with the "breath of life body." The word "air" in 1 Thessalonians 4 means, "air," yes, the stuff we breathe. Just because it comes from a root which indicates respiration (or whatever) does not mean that the word means "breath body," or can even be shifted in that direction. It is a prime example of how he teaches people how to MISUSE the tools. The context is clearly talking about an airborne meeting in the clouds. If Jesus is returning to Jerusalem from the sky, how do you propose we get there? Shall we walk? He is returning in the air, and that is where we will meet him. That is what the passage says. To use the tools to distort that meaning is not studying, it is manipulation.

I don't look at this as "you've studied, I've studied, let's talk." I look at this in this manner: you are telling me that Arnold Murray's methods are somehow scholarly. I reject that idea completely. If you are still using the Strong's concordance like that, then you have not studied. In the context of telling me that, you are also mounting a series of objections to what I teach on death and resurrection. As friendly as your tone may be, and I do appreciate that, that is not the conversation we are having.

From there I started wondering what else the 'church' lied to me about.

No one lied to you except Arnold Murray. He lied to you about how you use a tool like that to understand the word.  1 Thessalonians is a passage about the resurrection. I don't even need a concordance to see that focusing on the transportation aspect of the resurrection to spin off a secondary "rapture doctrine" is wrong.

All this was really going against what I had been taught. I remember getting to the point where I had to know how to find the truth because I was going to the Christian bookstores and no studies were doing it. I remember crying out to God to show me and it was like the Holy Spirit slapped me on the forehead with 'Greek, Hebrew, Greek, Hebrew...do your own homework.'

You cannot find the essence of Christian truth in a Strong's concordance. The truth is simple and elegant and has more to do with how we live out our faith than with secret doctrines and textual analysis.

So being shown how to use the Strong's, Lexicon and others is what I mean by PM showing me how to study.

That is not how I study. I gave that up years ago. And even so, Murray does not teach the correct use of those tools. Pastor Murray teaches the systematic abuse of those tools. Beguiled, the tree, eth ha Adam, air etc. When Murray opened the Strong's he usually did so in order to use it to change the meaning of scripture by mishandling roots and etc.

I'm not into all that scholarly stuff, that is now how understanding comes. There is not much there to uncover through tools. The simple truth of the scripture is hiding in plain sight and no man can uncover it. It is simple and good, but men are not interested in that which is simple and good so they seek out teachers like Arnold Murray to tickle their ears and flatter them.

Sincerely,

Paul Stringini

Emailer's Fourth Reply:

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

From: Name Withheld

To: Paul Stringini

Sent: Friday, July 18, 2014 9:31 AM

Subject: Re: Rev

Hey Paul, it's me again. :-)

There are all kinds of spirits. Hmmm...kinds? Kinds sounds like you are saying there are many types of spirits. I am only aware of two kinds of spirits talked of in the Bible; good and evil ones. You make it sound like there is a whole array of different types of them.

The bible tells us these were imprisoned spirits from the time of Noah's Ark. I am definitely not familiar with a verse that states this. So where are you saying Christ went to preach? Hell or the grave? Because why would He go to hell if that is what is reserved for Satan and his angels? I don't think He would. So how can He preach to spirits in the grave if they are oblivious?

You have to take my statement in context and also consider what my intent was. I can't read your mind. I read it in context. I looked for a reference # but didn't see one or I would have posted it. You plainly said that war is sin. War might be about sin but [it] is not sin in and of itself. Otherwise God committed sin and you and I know that is not possible.

This is what I have bee trying to say from the beginning. I cannot respect that form of studying. I'm going to drop this point because you STILL don't see my point and I tried to spell it out as simply as possible.

No amount of study can uncover the truth. God reveals his truth to us in his time. Bible study is not as important to me any more as simple bible obedience. This statement bothers me. It gives you an air of 'holier than thou' and that is what you accuse PM of. Doesn't 2 Tim tell us to STUDY and shew thyself approved unto God. Yes no amount of study will make you more righteous, only our growing closer in relationship with God can. But you make it sound like you are just given this 'insight' just because you are closer. That is true in part but it comes about in conjunction with our study. How else will He speak to us? Through His word. And yes through the Spirit but you have to check out every spirit by the word of God. Just making an observation here on your responses.

No one lied to you except Arnold Murray. Not true. Yes AM lied to me but so did other churches because of their following their church doctrine instead of what the Bible says.

You cannot find the essence of Christian truth in a Strong's concordance. Do you really think I'm that stupid that I don't use any other tools? Or that I don't keep things in context?

Blessings.

My Fifth Response:

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

From: Paul Stringini

To: Name Withheld

Sent: Friday, July 18, 2014 2:47 PM

Subject: Re: Rev

Name Withheld,

There are all kinds of spirits. Hmmm...kinds? Kinds sounds like you are saying there are many types of spirits. I am only aware of two kinds of spirits talked of in the Bible; good and evil ones. You make it sound like there is a whole array of different types of them.

Are you splitting hairs between the difference between "kinds" and "types?" That is like saying there are only two types of creatures in the world, plants and animals. Actually, since I'm not really referring to the character of the spirit, good or evil really has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. That is all you have learned out of the scripture? I suppose then there is no difference between the spirits of men and the spirits of beasts and the spirits of angels and the Spirit of God, and even the spirits of God and the Spirit of God. The bible calls many things spirits which are not even personal beings. If you have never noticed this, then I'm pointing it out to you now. I don't even feel I should have to explain this to you. There are many kinds of spirits and that is just going based on what scripture has revealed.

The bible tells us these were imprisoned spirits from the time of Noah's Ark. I am definitely not familiar with a verse that states this.

You ought to know it. You are the one who brought it up.

1 Peter 3: 19...the spirits in prison;
20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing,

Taking out the parenthesis "the spirits in prison; Which sometime were disobedient, while the ark was a preparing, "

If you were trying to make an impression on me that you competently study the bible, I think that ship has sailed.

So where are you saying Christ went to preach? Hell or the grave?

Neither. The bible said prison. That is what the bible says. Jesus went to the spirits in prison and declared his victory. This was not likely a friendly visit or a visit intended as an offer of salvation.

Also If you want to bring hell into it you should at least distinguish which hell you refer to. Since you have studied the original languages, you ought to know that "Hell" is one of the most badly translated words in the English bible.

Because why would He go to hell if that is what is reserved for Satan and his angels?

The bible never says hell is reserved for the Devil and His angels. "Everlasting fire" is reserved for the devil and his angels. The devil is cast into the lake of fire before hell is cast in there so hell cannot be reserved for him.

Hell was not part of 1 Peter 3, when you bring it in you ought to define what you mean. When I say that the soul of Christ was in Hell, I mean the grave.

I don't think He would. So how can He preach to spirits in the grave if they are oblivious?

That is not a logical question. I have been telling you what the passage says. You refuse to hear what I say, and then you create a straw-man situation in which you can ask a question like that. Christ preached to spirits in prison. Not to dead people in the grave. You didn't even bother to read the context of 1 Peter 3 to know that those spirits were in prison from the time of Noah. And when I pointed it out, you were not even familiar enough with 1 peter 3 to know that is there. YOu said, "I am definitely not familiar with a verse that states this." Definitely not. So you make up a bunch of details about 1 Peter 3 and throw it at me like you have some sort of point. You have no point.

You have to take my statement in context and also consider what my intent was. I can't read your mind. I read it in context. I looked for a reference # but didn't see one or I would have posted it. You plainly said that war is sin. War might be about sin but [it] is not sin in and of itself. Otherwise God committed sin and you and I know that is not possible.

When I say reference I mean web page. http://www.oraclesofgod.org/emails/email177.htm But even so, let me check Google:

Google: No results found for "war is sin" Stringini.

No, I said war was sinful, that is a different perspective. Furthermore, I just reread the context of that statement and it is quite clear in the context that the point of the paragraph was to JUSTIFY fighting some wars. Also, it is clear in the context that I am giving my opinions.

War might be about sin but [it] is not sin in and of itself. Otherwise God committed sin and you and I know that is not possible.

I'm not even arguing with you because that is not even what I said.

This is what I have bee trying to say from the beginning. I cannot respect that form of studying. I'm going to drop this point because you STILL don't see my point and I tried to spell it out as simply as possible.

No, I saw your point, if I'm not getting it, you could simply say "Of course I know "air" in 1 Thessalonians 4 has nothing to do with the "breath of life body." And I would be like, "I'm totally sorry, I misunderstood you, I thought you were saying that Murray was correct on that one."

No amount of study can uncover the truth. God reveals his truth to us in his time. Bible study is not as important to me any more as simple bible obedience. This statement bothers me.

I should think so, based on the values you have absorbed.

It gives you an air of 'holier than thou'

Well, that is a very specific air. By the same token, one might accuse the Apostles of being "holier than thou" because they attempted to show people a better way. Bible study can lead to a sense of superiority, especially when coupled with the kind of flattery that Murray spoons out. I'm saying God opens the door to understanding. Yes, he rewards them that diligently seek him. But sometimes studying get converted from a search for God to a search for secret doctrines and forbidden knowledge.

and that is what you accuse PM of.

Yep. "I never beg!" "That's why I'm glad I'm an every day bible teacher!" The guy loves to toot his own horn.

Doesn't 2 Tim tell us to STUDY and shew thyself approved unto God.

Study to show yourself approved. That is a good reason to study. It does not say study to intrude into things you have not seen. I really don't know where you are, but Murray teaches that form of study, Study to intrude into things which God has not revealed in His word.

Yes no amount of study will make you more righteous, only our growing closer in relationship with God can.

I do bible studies, about 6 a month, so obviously I do value bible study. What I'm saying is that the way Murray taught me to go about studying is not the right way. I'm not totally sure what you've been saying about what Murray gave you, but I'm a big believer in "make the tree good and its fruit good or make the tree evil and it's fruit evil.

But you make it sound like you are just given this 'insight' just because you are closer.

No. Maybe that is how it sounds to you because you want to see me that way because we disagree. But what I mean is that we are given insight at God's whim. He shuts and no man opens and opens and no man shuts.

That is true in part but it comes about in conjunction with our study. How else will He speak to us? Through His word. And yes through the Spirit but you have to check out every spirit by the word of God. Just making an observation here on your responses.

I'm not going to dispute any of that.

No one lied to you except Arnold Murray. Not true. Yes AM lied to me but so did other churches because of their following their church doctrine instead of what the Bible says.

No, I meant that specifically in regard to the word AIR. Honestly, you need to follow context better. It's coming up a lot.

You cannot find the essence of Christian truth in a Strong's concordance. Do you really think I'm that stupid that I don't use any other tools?

It is not a question of stupidity, it is a question of habituation and practice. Your intelligence is not an issue. I firmly believe that God's word does not require us to be smart. I hate when I hear Murray talk about people being "just a little bit stupid" who disagree with him. God's word is not just for the intellectually superior.

I'm sure you are a man of intelligence able to teach others, communicate, etc. But this:

Do you really think I'm that stupid that I don't use any other tools?

That was not the point. It is not about using tools. It is about hearing the word. Most of the word is so simple and beautiful that one does not need a strong's concordance to understand it.

The most significant truths are not obscured by bad translation.

When I was a student of Arnold Murray I used to study by going through it word by word and breaking everything back into the original Hebrew or Greek (using Green's interlinear). What I found was that this had very little impact on the meaning of the passage. (unless I went rogue with the Strong's, like Murray does) In fact, this kind of approach coupled with the philosophical ideas of Murray actually prevented me from hearing the actual word. I would read into every passage preconditioned prejudices which enabled me to force every scripture into the philosophical framework Murray provided.

Having gone through that, when someone writes me having something good to say about the way Murray teaches us to study, I revolt. I did say, (you may remember) that he did verbally encourage me to study. But this did not have a very practical benefit, I already wanted to study. The methods I was encouraged to pursue did not enhance my relationship with God or expand my understanding.

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;

Murray had no scholarly way that I could attain those things. They cannot be attained in a scholarly manner. But that kind of knowledge is the most valuable of all. And that is what I want to obtain.

Or that I don't keep things in context?

No, you do not. All I need to do is cite 1 Peter 3 and my email #177 and that is all the evidence you need.

Sincerely,

Paul Stringini

Emailer's Fifth Reply:

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

From: Name Withheld

To: Paul Stringini

Sent: Friday, July 18, 2014 3:34 PM

Subject: Re: Rev

Touche'

Additional Message:

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