Return to "The Shepherd's Chapel and Dr. Arnold Murray" Main Page
"I would like some friendly debate on this issue of Kenites and the races."
----- Original Message -----From: Emailer #252To: Paul StringiniSent: Sunday, November 09, 2014 7:58 PMSubject: Kenites and racesHi,I would like some friendly debate on this issue of kenites and the races. I have a scientific background, once a strong believer in evolution and then my scientific revelations and my journey back to creationism. So, believing now, that the laws of nature are of divine design, my perspective regarding this issue is strongly influenced by my science training. We know that God's plan for mankind was not only inspired and written, but he also placed his design and plans into the universe as well, ie the constellations and into the very nature of the physical laws that governs his creations. The word of God and the laws of his creation cannot be antagonistic in their relationship, otherwise the specter of hypocrisy and doubt arises. In regards to the single origin of mankind, it would be extremely easy to prove this point scientifically, every race would have to have every genetic combination of every other race, meaning the physical attributes of the asian race would have to be inherited in the african race. What does that mean in Genetics, for example, if a white rabbit and a black rabbit has four offspring, one baby rabbit would be white, one baby rabbit would be black and two baby rabbits would be the combination of the dominate and recessive genes of white and black. That has be reproduced over and over again, making it a scientific fact, which is a theory that can be currently observable and reproducible. Now bearing in mind that if every race was produced by the the same genetic material, that in every race, an asian variance, an african variance, an indian variance, an caucsian variance, etc would appear on it's own accord without the introduction of a different strain of genetic material. That is the law of genetics, dominate gene versus recessive gene traits. But yet, we do not observe that natural occurrence, in an asian family if they have at least four or more children, one of those would display none asian traits such as, dark skin, broad nose, blue eyes, blond hair, etc, without the specific introduction of that genetic material. So by the observance of God's natural laws, it would seem unlikely that the every race descended from one genetic donor. As far as the kenite issue, even the dictionary says the word kenite is derived from the word Cain. The teachings were never that the Kenites are Jews biologically but rather they have assumed the Jewish state by residency, just like I am of German origin, but I call myself an American, because that is where I reside. People, regardless of their ethnicity, who accept Jesus Christ as their savior are the adopted children of Abraham, not his biological children, they fall under the promises of the covenant between God and Abraham. It is easy to take someone out of context, if they misspoke, we all do at times, that is the part of the human nature. So explain to me what the sin in the Garden of Eden was, I mean specifically.Thanks,
----- Original Message -----From: Paul StringiniTo: Emailer #252Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2014 1:52 AMSubject: Re: Kenites and races
Hello, Thanks for writing.I would like some friendly debate on this issue of kenites and the races.Generally, I don't like debates. If the point is to "win," it becomes a game. I engage in many discussions with people which might be considered debate. I doubt they could be considered anything else, because they are mostly for the benefit of people that might read my website. Believe it or not, I don't like arguing. I am interested in finding out truth, if you have specific information that can legitimately be considered accurate, I will agree with you. If I make factual statements I expect you to address them, or I will suspect you are intentionally wasting my time. My detailed response here is the measure of my goodwill towards you. As a fellow believer in Jesus Christ, my every expectation for you is only good.I have a scientific background,Since you mention this, I must ask what, specifically, that scientific background is. Mentioning that you have a scientific background is a minor appeal to authority. Whether you intend or not, there is a suggestion that you have special training or knowledge that gives you greater insight into the subject of science over someone like me who has no formal scientific training other than what I received in High School and can make no claims to the authority of a "scientific background." What small scientific knowledge I have obtained has been obtained as a lay person with some significant scientific interest.once a strong believer in evolution and then my scientific revelations and my journey back to creationism.Creationism is a loaded term, it can mean a lot of things to a lot of people. I could guess at your brand of creationism, but I don't think it will be important in this discussion. I accept evolution and creation. Evolution insofar as it is backed up by science, and creation insofar as it is in truth. Many people believe in Jesus with no significant understanding of Christianity. And many people believe in evolution with no significant understanding of evolution.So, believing now, that the laws of nature are of divine design, my perspective regarding this issue is strongly influenced by my science training.I see the two issues as completely disconnected. There will either be a debate over science, or a debate over faith. I generally keep the two separate. They may confirm the same facts, but the information is derived by two totally different methods and is not reliably interchangeable.Romans 10:6 But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down from above:)
7 Or, Who shall descend into the deep? (that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead.)
8 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;
I do not look for the righteousness which is of faith in the stars, nor under the earth. The greatest truth is found in the person of Christ and in the power of His resurrection, that is where my faith lies.We know that God's plan for mankind was not only inspired and written, but he also placed his design and plans into the universe as well, ie the constellations and into the very nature of the physical laws that governs his creations.Yes, but the degree to which we can trust our interpretation of those designs is very small indeed.The word of God and the laws of his creation cannot be antagonistic in their relationship, otherwise the specter of hypocrisy and doubt arises.When Christ walked on water, was that not antagonistic to the supposed "laws" of nature? What we call laws might better be considered, "generally accepted consistencies." I can think of a half a dozen things from the bible, just off the top of my head, which are antagonistic to the supposed laws of nature. As a former Agnostic (?), you must know about these antagonistic episodes which are recorded in the bible, these are often the things that unbelievers scoff at due to the very antagonistic nature of the events to the supposed "laws" of creation.In regards to the single origin of mankind, it would be extremely easy to prove this point scientifically,That would be incorrect. It is not easy to "prove." For example, the mitochondrial Eve theory has been very popular, but is based on probabilities, not proof. The overwhelming weight of scientific evidence tends to affirm that humanity is ultimately a single family. I suggest you read the following article: Understanding Human Genetic Variation http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK20363/ I will repeat the link later.every race would have to have every genetic combination of every other race, meaning the physical attributes of the asian race would have to be inherited in the african race.This is incorrect. I want to double that and say this very strongly. What you wrote there is scientifically wrong. The differences observed between races are the result of the loss of genetic information. When populations spread out, and become isolated, genes present in the larger population may not be present in the isolated population. Further, over time, mutations, drift, and other factors such as selective breeding can lead to certain traits becoming lost in an isolated population.When new dog breeds are developed. When you put a pair of purebred Shetland sheepdogs together, there is no chance of getting any related breed, such as a German shepherd, to appear. Even though both were bred from the same ancient domestic stock, you cannot make vanished genetic traits reappear in a population that no longer possesses them. You might get dogs that deviate from the ideal for the breed, but you don't get purebred German shepherds from purebred Shetland sheep dogs, ever. Isolated populations do not carry all the genes of the total population.I'm going to be direct with you. I want to be as friendly as I can in saying this, but I acknowledge it is not a very friendly sounding statement. The above statement leaves me with no doubt that, whatever your scientific background was, it had nothing to do with genetics. Your primary assertion is wrong and all statements subsequent to it are misapplications of a partial understanding of genetics. I will demonstrate this in detail.What does that mean in Genetics, for example, if a white rabbit and a black rabbit has four offspring, one baby rabbit would be white, one baby rabbit would be black and two baby rabbits would be the combination of the dominate and recessive genes of white and black.That is not correct. There would be a percentage chance for each of the possibilities. There would not be any fixed outcome as the wording you used implies (which you may not have implied, but the wording stands incorrect). For example: they might all come out black, or they might all come out white. The breakdown you gave is only based on probability. For example, both my wife and I carry the recessive gene for blue eyes, I know this because both our mothers had blue eyes. But, of our 7 children, none have blue eyes, even though they each had a 25% chance of getting blue eyes. Some of them may carry the recessive gene for blue eyes, but we have no way of knowing.If you put a black and white person in the same situation, you may get a similar result. And, in fact, the grandchildren of black and white pairs (both of whom appeared to be black) have been documented to be able to produce both a fully black child, and a blue eyed blonde haired child. There is a documented case I can refer you to. But when isolated populations come back together and lost genetic information is restored to the gene pool, you can (and do) get white babies from black parents.But this argument is based on the fallacy of false equivalence. The issue here is not what happens when you mix blacks and whites, but where do blacks and whites come from in the first place. It is not equivalent because the process that brings about black and white rabbits in the first place is entirely different form the process you describe which is what can happen when one reintroduces once isolated populations to each other.That has be reproduced over and over again, making it a scientific fact, which is a theory that can be currently observable and reproducible.To the extent that those are probabilities and not certainties, insofar as dominant and recessive genes go, that is true. But you have misapplied the facts of one case to an entirely different case.Now bearing in mind that if every race was produced by the the same genetic material, that in every race, an asian variance, an african variance, an indian variance, an caucsian variance, etc would appear on it's own accord without the introduction of a different strain of genetic material.Once a population becomes isolated and the genetic material which causes certain variations is lost or altered, those variations cannot recur without the reintroduction of the lost genetic variation.Using dogs again. Many dog breeds have known lineages. Once the desired traits have been isolated in a population, one cannot get dogs which are generations removed from their ancestors to reproduce the breeds from which the new breed was derived. Not without introducing dogs who carry the lost genetic traits which the group of origin possessed.Another example, a population of blue-eyed people will never produce a brown-eyed person even though you could create a population of blue-eyed persons directly from a population of 100% brown-eyed persons (who can carry the recessive gene).That example, in addition to the fact that your assertion is based on a false equivalence, completely nullifies your argument regarding the Indian, Asian, Caucasian variance. Caucasians can't make black people because they no longer possess the genetic material to produce a black person, but this does not prove that black and whites are not descended form the same population.I return to my group of blue-eyed people to reinforce my argument. We have a population of brown eyed persons, each carrying the recessive blue eyed gene. They create a generation of children. We separate those children based on eye color. Blue-eyes with blue eyes, brown eyes with brown eyes. The blue eyed group will never produce a brown eye. The brown eyed group may keep producing a few blue-eyed, but if we keep taking every blue eyed person out of the group, after several generations, eventually they will cease to produce any blue-eyed offspring and due to the lack of the recessive gene may become be unable to produce blue eyes. This example more closely resembles the situation with races than your example, though it is not a perfect analogy because the situation is more complicated.That is the law of genetics, dominate gene versus recessive gene traits.You have over-simplified the situation and this has lead to your misinterpretation of the facts.But yet, we do not observe that natural occurrence, in an asian family if they have at least four or more children, one of those would display none asian traits such as, dark skin, broad nose, blue eyes, blond hair, etc, without the specific introduction of that genetic material.Again, your example is not equivalent to the situation you described. If you have white rabbits breed, you will get white rabbits. you get similar results with people.But here the elephant in the room: Where do white rabbits come from in the first place? Where do blue Budgerigars come from? In nature, every budgie is green. I've studied budgies because I owned several, I suggest that you look into the history of budgies.You are making connections based on an incomplete understanding of genetics. I again strongly suggest you read the following article: Understanding Human Genetic Variation http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK20363/You have come to me explicitly appealing to science. That article is science, and science does not agree nor support the way you have applied the scientific facts you have misused to support your argument.So by the observance of God's natural laws, it would seem unlikely that the every race descended from one genetic donor.(Again, there are no natural "laws." God is not a lawbreaker. We only suppose them to be "laws." God has made the world very consistent, but the observed consistencies have never been proven to be laws of God, nor can be.)The bible says this:Acts 17:26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;God did indeed intend for their to be races, he is the one that separated them, but they all come of ONE (I acknowledge that the word "blood" is not present in the best texts, but "blood" is not a necessary factor, one means ONE.) One man, one flesh, one lineage of man.You have misused the scientific facts. You have not used the bible to support your claim (but I have used it to support my own). But both science and the word of God agree in this case that all humanity comes from the same genetic population.Science is not what you personally interpret to be true based on partial understanding and misapplication of certain facts. Science is a general consensus based on research and peer review, and the scientists who work in the field of genetics would absolutely tell you that you are wrong in your application of the facts.As far as the kenite issue, even the dictionary says the word kenite is derived from the word Cain.This is also an illogical argument based on several assumptions which cannot be supported by facts.1) There was only one man ever named Cain. A presumption.2) The fact that one name is derived from another proves that the people so named must have descended from the other.(i.e. Because Kenites means sons of Cain, the Kenites spoken of later in the bible must have descended from the Cain of Genesis 4)3) Because a people are called "Kenites" that must mean they are descended from Cain. Next you use the residency argument in support of your position. But according to the above logic, If they are called "Jews" they must be descended from Judah. And then Hell's Angel's, must also be just as their name implies. But it is not so.The teachings were never that the Kenites are Jews biologically but rather they have assumed the Jewish state by residency, just like I am of German origin, but I call myself an American, because that is where I reside.I don't understand what this is supposed to signify, because it seems to be in refutation of a point that has not been made.The idea is that the Kenites are the people "everyone" thinks of as (or calls) Jews. The idea is that the people widely understood to be the children of Abraham by family descent (the people called Jews) were actually supplanted by a family descended from Satan via Cain.It is a red herring to make the residency argument at this point because it does not address the core issue of whether such a replacement actually occurred. You've got your cart in front of your horse. In a passage widely used to support the Kenite argument, Jesus Christ himself affirms that those whom he said were "of their father the devil" were indeed the seed of Abraham.John 8:37 I know that ye are Abraham's seed; but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you.They were the carnal offspring of Abraham, but spiritually the children of Satan. Just as Cain was carnally the offspring of Adam (as the bible specifically describes) but was "of that wicked one," due to the nature of his deeds and the evil in his heart. Later, when Jesus tells them they are "of the Devil," it is in direct response to the fact that they claimed that GOD was their father. That means that the conversation has gone from a carnal application to a spiritual application. I will demonstrate this clearly.John 8:41 Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God.
42 Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.
43 Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word.
44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.I know that Ye are Abraham's seed, affirms their carnal descent. They then claim to be the children of God, (this can safely be presumed to be meant "spiritually") and in response to that assertion, Jesus tells them they are the children of the devil.By the way, when people introduce the red herring, "who was the first murderer?" here, they are ignoring the fact that Jesus here is claiming that SATAN was a murderer. To insert Cain into this passage is begging the question and ignoring Jesus Christ's intended meaning, a very bad practice.People, regardless of their ethnicity, who accept Jesus Christ as their savior are the adopted children of Abraham, not his biological children, they fall under the promises of the covenant between God and Abraham.This is a mixture of ideas. But none of these are related to the question of whether or not the Kenite doctrine is actually true. You would have to elaborate on this issue and make a point directly for some idea you support or against something I assert for me to be able to respond. I don't believe in the Kenite doctrine, so the side question of "can a Kenite be saved" is a red herring to me and totally irrelevant.I will say this, that a "tare" cannot be saved. Tares are to be burned. If you equate Kenites with tares, then you have a contradiction to deal with, so I certainly understand why you would assert what you said. But tares are for burning and nothing else, they don't magically turn into wheat any more than a population of blue-eyed people will turn out a brown'ed. So the parable of the tares must not have anything to do with Kenites or any other race. The parable's meaning is governed by the facts about carnal things, but the application is spiritual. I suggest you listen to my study in Matthew 13 http://oraclesofgod.org/studies/40_Matthew/Matthew.htmlIt is easy to take someone out of context, if they misspoke, we all do at times, that is the part of the human nature.I suppose that is how people come up with doctrines like the doctrine of the Kenites. They take certain passages of the bible out of context in order to affirm unbiblical ideas. That is why I have taken great care to answer you. You see how I took John 8 in context? I tell you the truth, anyone who teaches the Kenite doctrine, takes Christ, in John 8, out of context.So explain to me what the sin in the Garden of Eden was, I mean specifically.You make that sound so difficult, but it is so simple, even a child could understand it. The sin in the garden was disobedience. It could be nothing else. God said, "Thou shalt not eat." and they ate. That is simple disobedience. God gave no commandment regarding sex with serpents. So even if they did have sex with the devil (a highly speculative assertion) it would not have been a sin, since they were given a commandment not to eat of a particular tree. Do you suppose that there is a child in the world who could read Genesis and report that Adam and Eve had sex with the devil? Did you realize that Adam is in Cain's genealogy?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.I consider that verse to be a simple vision test. If one cannot read that verse and understand that the result of the sexual union of Adam and Eve was Cain, that is blindness indeed. "...the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive." That is what I think of the methods of those who teach otherwise.What about the context? Verses 2-16 are parenthetical. Chapter 4 is the genealogy of Cain, pick it up in verse 17.17 And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, EnochAnd Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare CainAnd Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch:I detect a pattern.Thanks,You are very welcome. I am at your service, and I will look forward to your reply.Sincerely,Paul Stringini
----- Original Message -----From: Emailer #252To: Paul StringiniSent: Tuesday, November 11, 2014 9:24 AMSubject: Re: Kenites and races
I have a bachelors in Science and an associate degree in computer programming and Nuclear Physics. Thanks for responding, I am also on the quest for truth, I grew up in the Catholic church, became disillusioned, turned my back on God, after college, joined the Army, came face to face with death and the evil in the world, which renewed my interest in discovering God, I started bible studying on my own in the early 1990's and it has been a wonderful journey ever since. Those of us who have studied science in depth have gained a renewed respect, awe and wonder at the beauty of his creation. Everything from the obviously observable to the microscopic world of neutrons, protons and electrons all obey a well defined state of rules, interactions and laws. God creation, unlike mans, has been built to constantly rebuild itself or convert itself back to it's basic components. The first law of physics is that matter cannot be created nor destroyed, for example a log placed into a fireplace and lit on fire, it's physical structure is destroyed but the basic components or molecules are disconnected but not destroyed they are placed back into the environment for use in other forms. Science does not disprove God, but rather it's intricate and delicate balance of actions and interactions is proof of God's existence. Evolution is a theory, it does not obey the a law of science which states it must be observable and reproducible, now Darwins law of adaption is a scientific fact, it is easily observable and reproducible. For evolution to be scientifically viable, an organism must have the ability to add new genetic material to itself. There is no none example of an organism having the ability to add new genetic material to itself. So on the surface evolution can be argued, but when you get into the detailed sciences it quickly falls apart.
Faith does not require science, the definition of faith is the believe in things unseen and the hope for things yet to come. But science requires faith, when you plug in an electric cord, you have faith that your tv will turn on an operate, even though you cannot see the flow of electrons. If you accidently ground yourself, you will feel the actions of electrons flowing through your nervous system. We have faith that the effects of gravity will be present day to day, that it will keep us grounded to terra firma, if we lived in doubt of that physical state, if suddenly we would be lifted off the earth to ascend continuously until our demise due to lack of oxygen and hypothermia. So even in God's creation there is faith, the faith that the sun will rise everyday, the faith that the atmosphere will produce rain to aid in sustaining us, etc, etc.So the two are not always separate from each other.The laws of nature are in effect for the earthly man, yes Jesus walked on water, he also had the power to raise the dead, mere men do not, we are confined to the laws of nature, God who established those laws has the knowledge to manipulate his creation whereas man does not. We call them miracles, I see them as an absolute sign of the knowledge and power of God.
----- Original Message -----From: Paul StringiniTo: Emailer #252Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2014 1:31 PMSubject: Re: Kenites and racesI see, thank you for that explanation of your background.I have just a few things to say about faith here. One is in regard to faith being the substance of unseen hopes. This does not really address where faith comes from or what faith is. I don't think that Hebrews passage was attempting to corner the definition of faith. Faith is the substance of our hopes, yes, but that sentence is not an attempt to exclusively define faith as belief based on hope. The Greek word used for "Faith," in the raw, means "persuasion." One can have faith (persuasion) based on evidence, or faith based on nothing (but the former is much more common than the latter). The evidence may not be acceptable as scientific evidence, but that is due to the fact that science is a severely limited investigation, they hobble themselves. Faith is just the actual believing in of things. When God makes a promise of salvation to those who put their faith in him, faith is then the substance of the hope that God will make good on that promise. That idea does not really speak to the issue of why we believe in the first place.My faith has increased during my lifetime based on various evidences, not based on receiving more unseen promises. Faith is the substance of unseen promises, but unseen promises are not the substance of faith, and that his frequently how those terms get mixed up. For the Apostles, the resurrection of Christ was not based on an unseen promise after the fact. They saw him risen from the dead. But it was still a technically a matter of faith after they saw him alive again, when Christ told Thomas to put his hands in the wounds he admonished him to, "believe."Seeing Christ in his resurrection increased their faith to a level which they would have considered certain. But their certainty is of lesser use to us. And to science, it is basically useless. I'm not really saying this in specific to any point you made, I don't consider it an argument, but I don't like the generally held belief that evidence is the enemy of faith. It takes a lot of faith to believe something without any evidence. But as one gets more evidence, one's faith increases, but the near certainty we can gain through evidence does not mean that we no longer rely on faith. A feeling of certainty, with or without evidence, is faith. Faith is the substance of the unseen expectation, we have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow, but when tomorrow comes, it is no longer an issue of faith in expectation (hope), but of course, there is another tomorrow afterwards, which we have not yet seen and in which we have some degree of faith that the sun will rise.Since science can never truly reach the absolute which many believe it promises, it is also based on faith in an expectation that what has been true will continue to be true. Scientists generally don't think of what they do as being based on faith. I would not consider the faith inherent in science to be merely believing in phenomena that is not visually perceptible. The electrons in an electrical cord are "unseen" but not undetectable. So the analogy you chose does not quite fit. The faith inherent in science is the faith that causes us to flick the lightswitch on for the thousandth time , expecting light. The faith inherent in science and in the scientific method is in the basic assumptions they make about the facts they observe.Assumption #1). What can be detected, is all there is. One assumption taken on faith is the assumption that phenomena which is detectable by human creatures are all the universe is based on. It is a very vain assumption. To think that the senses and intellect we possess are sufficient for detecting all that there is in the universe is a matter of faith. Science excludes the undetectable world and presumes it either does not exist, or is not important. (They exclude the metaphysical.) They really have no choice, but it is vain of them to go about as if nothing could possibly be beyond the reach of their methods. Also, as a corollary, it ought to seem highly suspicious that we are so capable of observing the universe, since there is no evidence the universe naturally requires observers.The blind are not fit to define the basis on which evidence is acceptable to me. If a group of individuals are not given the same set of facts, it is understandable why they would not believe as one who possesses that set of facts. But as those born blind cannot really understand what color is, so also those who limit themselves to scientific observation can never truly understand who God is, nor receive the gifts of the Spirit.Assumption #2). What can be repeated, will always be repeatable. Repeatability does not prove that anything is absolute. I often use the example of the sun rising. It has risen billions of times in a row, but that does not mean that some day it may not rise. That is highly improbable at the moment, but not impossible. We take it based on faith because of the many repetitions. But all the laws of science are like that. They are only near certainties, not absolutes. People consider them absolute, but scientific knowledge does not actually make them absolute, it can't, it is not logical. Calling these phenomena "Laws" goes back to guys like Newton who liked to think of the universe as governed by unbreakable laws. We do not know how to overcome these "Laws" but that ignorance does not make the so-called Laws absolute.Repetition does not prove a logical absolute. It is reasonable to believe the results of repeated experiments. But this is faith just as my faith in God is faith, even though I have encountered evidence which has caused me to believe more strongly. For example, when the Lord gave me the power to overcome drug and alcohol addiction, that increased my faith. And every day as I continue to observe that I still am not subject to those temptations, reinforces my faith in God's deliverance. It remains faith in the unseen, because I still need this power tomorrow and the days after, but it is faith based on what I have already seen God do. Before he delivered me, I did believe he would deliver me, but not very strongly. So it is with all we believe, there is evidence we see that causes us to hope in the unseen. It is a different kind of evidence, and not really scientific, but significant to us as individuals.Sincerely,Paul Stringini
----- Original Message -----From: Emailer #252To: Paul StringiniSent: Tuesday, November 11, 2014 3:05 PMSubject: Re: Kenites and races
The unseen means we believe even though we don't see God or Jesus Christ,we believe without having a physical presence, the hope of things yet to come is twofold, the reward of our believe is life everlasting, and the promise of the ending of this world age, the destruction of evil and the beggingings of the new heaven.
----- Original Message -----From: Paul StringiniTo: Emailer #252Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2014 4:52 PMSubject: Re: Kenites and races
The Apostles actually saw Jesus Christ, and because of this, they believed.John 20:29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.So seeing can be the direct cause of faith. The substance of the unseen is faith, but the substance of faith is not necessarily the unseen. Why does Jesus continually bless those with eyes to see? Because sight, (not merely physical sight), causes faith. Faith also comes by hearing, but not necessarily the hearing of sound waves. Ideas can be seen and heard without physical sight or sound. Of course, in John 20:29 Christ was referring to physical sight, so this can also lead to faith.What happened to races and Kenites?I can't understand why the discussion would be going off on this particular tangent. I'm not even sure if you are arguing with me. This is supposed to be about races and Kenites. Should I consider all other points conceded?
----- Original Message -----From: Emailer #252To: Paul StringiniSent: Tuesday, November 11, 2014 10:26 PMSubject: Re: Kenites and racesBut don't forget the dispensations of time, only a small segment of people actually got to see Christ and his miracles, his ministry only ran 3 years. In the old testament period, the hebrews witnessed Gods presence and power, the prophets actually had indirect and direct communication from God, that was one dispensation of time, then came the Messiah, and the Son of God was with his people, this is another dispensation of time, after his death and resurrection it was the apostles in the creation of the body of the church, first hand witnesses, this is another dispensation of time, then came the time of the Gentiles, the word of God was written and finished with the works of the new testament, where there is no pillars of fire, no burning bush, no direct communcation with God , we have the written word completed, so in this dispensation of time, the words of Paul written to the Hebrews rings true "Now, faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen"
----- Original Message -----From: Paul StringiniTo: Emailer #252Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2014 11:06 PMSubject: Re: Kenites and racesYou are still interpreting that verse in reverse. Faith is the substance of hope. That is what it says. But you keep explaining it as if hope was the substance of faith. That is not what it says.Now you are bringing dispensations into it. Dispensations have nothing to do with it. That is an artificial and unnecessary construct. God can show himself to anyone at any time in the manner of his choosing. No doubt there is a time for every purpose under heaven, but I'm not going to yield to these artificial boundaries men create to compensate for the fact that they received nothing from God.I read the bible with my eyes. That gave me faith. I looked at the scientific evidence for the shroud of Turin, and that built up my faith. Not because it was scientifically proven, but the evidence was suggestive, and it gave me faith based on what I saw. I heard the Gospel with my ears. That gave me faith. I called on the name of Jesus Christ with my lips, and he sent me the Spirit. That happened to me, and it gave me faith. I do not wait in hope for the Spirit, He is come, and that built my faith.You are rigidly clinging to a misreading of Hebrews. The faith of David speaks on this wise:1 Samuel 17:37 David said moreover, The LORD that delivered me out of the paw of the lion, and out of the paw of the bear, he will deliver me out of the hand of this Philistine. And Saul said unto David, Go, and the LORD be with thee.Maybe you believe with absolutely no evidence...are you seriously going to tell me that your faith is based on nothing but the fact that you believe God will do something in the future? Why are we even having this conversation? This feels like pointless discussion.Do you believe the testimony of the Apostles? That is evidence. My faith is certainly based on evidence. I'm not saying people can't have simple faith. I'm just saying, that isn't me. If God did not help my unbelief, I would probably be an agnostic by now. These are simply the honest facts of my experience.Everything in Hebrews 11 is talking about the things that are done BY or THROUGH faith, Paul isn't even talking about the ways belief can come about.Hebrews 11:13 These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them,They were persuaded to believe the promises by what? What persuaded them? SEEING THEM!How about those rabbits and Kenites?
Return to "The Shepherd's Chapel and Dr. Arnold Murray" Main Page