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

Completely Refuting Cain as the Seed of the Serpent Earns Threats and Intimidation from the leader of a Shepherd's Chapel Splinter Group

Question/Comment: 

----- Original Message -----
From: Emailer #277
To:  Paul Stringini
Sent: Monday, September 21, 2015 2:02 PM
Subject: Cain the first child

I read your post and could not let this go. Yes the word Expatio means "deceived" and "wholly seduced" but dont you think the serpent (devil) had to beguile Eve before he could beguile her?  Lie to her before he actually seduced her? What does enmity between thy "seed" and the woman's "seed" mean? Zera is the Hebrew word for sperm, you can not spiritualize this as uneducated people try to do. God spoke to satan and that is what God Himself said to satan. I will put enmity between your children and the woman's children. Who killed Abel....It was Cain...This was the first enmity that took place between the woman's seed and the serpent seed, what more do you need?

Well here is a study I did.

I pray that you would read

and quit putting true men of God under the bus.

Don't you have better things to do?

You may have hot coals over your head already and the proverbial mill stone around  your neck and not even know until it is to late.

Come out of Babylon...

Emailer #277

Comment: Included with this message was a lengthy,  poorly constructed, and dishonest study titled the same as his message (which this person is free to publish on their own website).  By dishonest, it contained statements such as the following:

"(Touch): Genesis 3-3, 5060 Strong’s concordance (Naga) in Hebrew, as it is used here means to “lay” with a woman or a man."

The way that is constructed is misleading about what the Strong's actually says.  The whole thing was loaded with similarly deceptive and manipulative statements and I did not feel like combing through all that trash in addition to responding to his message to me.  I cover all the topics in my teaching http://oraclesofgod.org/questions/audio/003_The_Seed_of_the_Serpent.mp3

 My First Response:

----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Stringini
To: Emailer #277
Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 12:02 AM
Subject: Re: Cain the first child
 
Hi Emailer #277, Thanks for writing.

I read your post and could not let this go. Yes the word Expatio means "deceived" and "wholly seduced"

In my post, I make it clear that "wholly seduce" has no sexual overtones.  

 but dont you think the serpent (devil) had to beguile Eve before he could beguile her?  Lie to her before he actually seduced her?

 I don't understand why you are asking me this when I think it is clear that I am saying that the serpent did not sexually seduce the woman in any way.  The bible never teaches that idea. 

What does enmity between thy "seed" and the woman's "seed" mean?

 I cover that question extensively in my work "The Seed of the Serpent" http://oraclesofgod.org/questions/audio/003_The_Seed_of_the_Serpent.mp3

Zera is the Hebrew word for sperm,

 Then it is no wonder you are asking me what the woman's "seed" is, because, as we all know, women do not have sperm.

 you can not spiritualize this as uneducated people try to do.

I don't need to spiritualize it, because God spiritualized it in his word. It is not a question of whether the word is defined in a dictionary as "spiritual." ANYTHING can be spiritual if the scriptures justify such a course and in this case the seeds are clearly spiritual. 

To use a clear example from the Old Testament:

Isaiah 53:10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed (ZERAH), he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.

This passage, as every Christian knows is speaking of Christ,  and Christ had no carnal descendants, so the seed must be spiritual. There are examples of spiritual seeds in the New Testament, but I cover those in my work mentioned above. 

But for your view to have any merit,  the enmity would have to have been between ADAM's SEED and the Serpent's seed.  Never thought of that did you?  Never considered that if Satan had sex with Eve, and Cain was the result,  Cain would still be a seed of the WOMAN. And thus the whole fantasy behind your interpretation of the "seeds" has no logical basis. You deny that Cain was the seed of ADAM, you do not deny that Eve was his MOTHER do you? Then how can There be enmity when all the seed is the woman's seed?  Cain is a seed of the woman.  He cannot be distinctively the serpent's more than the woman's. 

This problem is the result of the faulty interpretation of the seeds.  You are trying to fit Genesis 3:15 into a framework, but it simply DOES NOT FIT. The scriptures do not support your view.

God spoke to satan and that is what God Himself said to satan. I will put enmity between your children and the woman's children. Who killed Abel....It was Cain...

And Cain was a child of Eve.  Simple. There is absolutely no merit in what you are trying to suggest. 

This was the first enmity that took place between the woman's seed and the serpent seed, what more do you need?

I think I've demonstrated clearly that you have not given proper consideration and scrutiny to the ideas you are attempting to promote. 

Well here is a study I did.

The study of the scriptures deserves close attention and respect.  Studying with Arnold Murray is faster and easier than studying the bible properly, and causes novices to overestimate their own knowledge and fosters misplaced confidence in doctrines which are not based on sound interpretations of what is written. Also, Arnold Murray's influence also causes many who study with him to have a tendency to demean and put down other believers, especially in regard to their intellect and "education."  I suggest you listen to my teaching on the serpent seed.

I pray that you would read and quit putting true men of God under the bus.

If by that you are referring to my work against Arnold Murray, then I am flattered that you believe what I do is equivalent to running him over with a bus,  but I think your analogy falls far short of reality.

Don't you have better things to do?

I do better things every day.  I have not updated my Chapel page since February. It is long over due, but I do have more important things to do than go over the same stale issues over and over again with the students of Arnold Murray.

You may have hot coals over your head already and the proverbial mill stone around  your neck and not even know until it is to late.

And you probably know next to nothing about the man you are writing to and to whom you are saying such things.
 
Come out of Babylon...

When I left the Shepherd's Chapel years ago, I came out of Babylon, and I am not the sort of fellow who looks back.

 Sincerely,

Paul Stringini

 Emailer's First Reply:

----- Original Message -----
From: Emailer #277
To: Paul Stringini
Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 5:04 AM
Subject: RE: Cain the first child

Your logic is good, but no cigar. To simplify the whole matter bro....
What was the first prophesy in the Bible?
Gen 3-15.... what was the first fulfillment of prophesy?
Cain killing Abel. So again even though you claim the woman has no seed, what do you think
an ovary is? Look for the Hebrew word for ovary and you wont find it in the Bible.
Come on bro the seed is passed through the man, but The Lord was saying to satan that in the future generations far removed from Eve then and now that there would be enmity between the two seeds. Come on bro dont you think Eve bore a male to pass her seed so to speak? Why do you think her genealogy which is Adams, is listed separately from Cains? They had different fathers is the only logical conclusion.
 You go through the points you think are stronger than mine but you
leave most of my argument out of your response.
 I could take you throughout the manuscripts and show you but if your eyes have been shut there is nothing I can do.
Bro these are my own studies. I am 60 years old and have studied intensely for 33 years. I have debated the best on this subject. I am not educated in the world, but in Gods word.

The fact that you drop names shows your immaturity in the Word of God as you are standing in the judgement seat of Christ. Also that you have to much time on your hands...
Sorry to be so hard, but you should just leave names out of you criticism, especially when your dead wrong about this subject.
 I could say the same about you ...You no nothing of the man you accuse of being a false teacher so you should quit being a hypocrite. Has Arnold Murray accused you publicly of being a false teacher? No.... If you respond to me in a negative manner, I will come after you and your so called ministry with a zeal like a whirlwind.

You should take the article down. You are a slanderous human being, if you dont.
  
----- Original Message -----
From: Emailer #277
To: Paul Stringini
Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 5:36 AM
Subject: RE: Cain the first child

Just one more second of my time is all i will give you bro, but what do you think Genesis 3:16 means? What is conception? Do I have to spell it out for you?

The Lord was saying to satan that in the future generations far removed from Eve then and now that there would be enmity between the two seeds.

Unto the woman he said,

Genesis 3:16...you know the one right after Genesis 3:15:

I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception;
in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children;
and thy desire shall be to thy husband,
and he shall rule over thee.

The sorrow continues to this day.
It started when Cain killed his brother. Cain was the son of the devil.

My Second Response:

----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Stringini
To: Emailer #277
Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 3:28 PM
Subject: Re: Cain the first child
Hello again Emailer #277,
 
Your logic is good, but no cigar.
 
You and every person who has ever written me to dispute the matter of Cain repeatedly follow the same pattern.  You people seem to think that logic and evidence are a matter of me convincing you. And that if I fail to convince you, you win.   But that is not the case.  Rest assured, my efforts are not merely aimed at convincing you, that would be nice, but is not at all necessary.  My efforts are aimed at convincing people who question (or are new to) the false doctrines you hold dear. 
 
So, in light of that, your response of "no cigar" to my well reasoned arguments is just like cigar smoke and will be seen as such by my target audience.  You have followed up my evidence and arguments with absolutely no counter other than to basically say that you disagree and that you think I did not give due attention to a dependant argument which I dismissed.  And when I respond to that and to your further assertions, you will also fail to effectively counter what I have to say, that is what you people do.  
 
What you are doing is not countering an argument.  You are avoiding my counter and throwing dependant evidence of a discredited argument back into the pot.  But your evidence has already been made void by my original argument. 
 
To simplify the whole matter bro....
What was the first prophesy in the Bible?
Gen 3-15.... what was the first fulfillment of prophesy?
Cain killing Abel.
 
No.  If we look at the biblical text we will see that your interpretation of Genesis 3 in terms of Cain and Abel is quite simply IMPOSSIBLE.
 
15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed (Cain) and her seed (Abel) ; it (Abel) shall bruise thy head, and thou (Cain)shalt bruise his (Abel's) heel.
 
Cain and Abel clearly do not fulfill this prophecy.  Abel never crushed Cain's head, in fact, the roles were completely reversed,  Abel "wounded"  Cain (his pride), and Cain bashed Abel's brains in.  It is so simple.  You overlook this simple yet devastating fact because you are blindly intent on reading your interpretation into the text.
 
 The prophecy of Genesis 3:15 was fulfilled in Christ.  And it goes much deeper than that simple statement. I cover this prophecy extensively in my teaching on the serpent seed, and since that teaching is publicly available, if you want to question me on that subject, you will have to listen to what I say about it first for us to have a meaningful conversation.  http://oraclesofgod.org/questions/audio/003_The_Seed_of_the_Serpent.mp3
 
That is how an argument is countered, with evidence that undermines the opposition's point.  This is opposed to the way you have countered my arguments, which is by giving your opinions without substantiation and by avoiding directly addressing what I wrote.
 
So again even though you claim the woman has no seed, what do you think
an ovary is? Look for the Hebrew word for ovary and you wont find it in the Bible.
 
I did not write that.  I wrote that women do not have "sperm" which they do not. You said Zemah means "sperm."   But it means many more things than "sperm," I even demonstrated that it can have a spiritual meaning, even in Hebrew, which you claimed it did not. (I am well aware of all of Zemah's meanings)
 
An ovary is an egg, but the ancients did not think of a woman in terms of ovaries. When they speak of the seed of a woman they mean the offspring, not the sperm or ovary.     
 
You did not follow what was said.  The point was that both children have the same relationship to Eve. 

Come on bro the seed is passed through the man,
 
That is my point. If Genesis 3:15 was about carnal offspring then the Enmity would be between the MAN ADAM's seed and The Serpent's seed.  That is how it would have to be since all the children in question were born of EVE. 
 
So you basically have a problem in that in your interpretation you have overlapping seeds.   It is a very simple, yet devastating, problem, which makes your version of the story in the garden impossible.
 
but The Lord was saying to satan that in the future generations far removed from Eve then and now that there would be enmity between the two seeds.
 
There is only one seed of men in terms of "the woman", and that is the seed of the woman who is the mother of all living.  The seed of the serpent is sin.  Again, you should listen to my teaching on the serpent seed.  I know all about your doctrine, you really have no idea what I teach other than that I can disprove your teaching.
 
Come on bro dont you think Eve bore a male to pass her seed so to speak?
 
Is that how you fudge the equation?  "so to speak"  She bore many males, these were all her seed.  Are you saying Cain was not the Son of Eve? Are you saying Cain was NOT the seed of the woman?  Of course not, but  that is where your teaching must lead if the enmity is between two distinct carnal seeds and one of those seeds is that of EVE.  If Cain is not a seed of the woman, then who was Cain's mother???
 
Why do you think her genealogy which is Adams, is listed separately from Cains?
 
I'm a bit confused by your choice of the term, "Her Genealogy."  But both Adam and Eve appear in Cain's Genealogy. 
 
1 And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain,
 
17 And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: 
 
Verses 2-16 are parenthetical and explain why Cain was cast out of the family.  Notice the cause and effect relationships clearly demonstrated here.  The bible is plainly saying that the Cain was the offspring of Adam and Eve.  The bible also clearly provides justification for why Cain was cast out of the family and SETH was appointed heir.  Cain was not cast out of the family because Adam was not his father, he was cast out because he was a murderer.
 
There is ample evidence in the bible of first-born sons being passed over in the line of inheritance due to gross sin and iniquity,  Esau (he was a profane person), Reuben (slept with his father's wife)  To interject the idea that Genesis 4:1 is a LIE is a completely unnecessary and despicable slander against the RECORD GOD GAVE. 
 
They had different fathers is the only logical conclusion.
 
That is not a logical conclusion at all.  That is a conclusion that is drawn by forcing a particular point of view on the text without respect to what the text plainly states..  One only need read Genesis 4:2-16 to understand why Cain is not the son of inheritance (Seth)  Cain was cast out and rejected from the line of inheritance because he was a MURDERER. 
 
1 And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain,
 
THAT is the record GOD gave.  Live with it.

 You go through the points you think are stronger than mine but you leave most of my argument out of your response.
 
What utter nonsense.  When you kick the legs out of an argument it is not really necessary to shop the tabletop to pieces.  But you have reasserted the balance of your arguments and now I have dismantled the whole.
 
I could take you throughout the manuscripts and show you but if your eyes have been shut there is nothing I can do.
 
You do not possess manuscripts.  You do not know what manuscripts are.  Manuscripts are handwritten copies of the bible.  Have a few manuscripts laying about the house do you?   I don't need to take lessons from FAKE scholars like yourself and least of all from ARNOLD MURRAY. 
 
This is a typical argument I get from Chapel students.  The suggestion of greater knowledge coupled with the lament over the blindness of my eyes.  I will trust the reader to determine who is blind.
 
Anyone who reads Genesis 4:1 and says that Cain is not the son of Adam is what I call blind.
 
Bro these are my own studies.
 
Nonsense.  You recycle the same old arguments I have heard over and over. 
 
I am 60 years old and have studied intensely for 33 years.
 
And you do a fine job tooting your own horn. I would never have guessed you were that old or had studied that long.  I'm not impressed.  You recycle the same arguments I made as a 20 year old.
 
I have debated the best on this subject.
 
Well, you may have debated the best but you have not debated me here. From what I can see you don't really debate.  I want to see you actually respond to what I say.  I'm sure the readers will be very impressed with your claim to have debated "the best."
 
 I am not educated in the world, but in Gods word.
Congratulations.
 
The fact that you drop names shows your immaturity in the Word of God as you are standing in the judgement seat of Christ.
 
Drop names?  You don't understand the concept of name dropping.  The subject of the article you cited was the teaching of Arnold Murray.  I don't casually mention his name in order to impress you or anyone.  You wrote me about him.   My page is about discrediting his teaching.  This is not name dropping.  This is matching the name with the deeds. I don't judge men, I judge works, and that is something you also are doing. 
 
Also that you have to much time on your hands...
 
You seem to be in the dark in terms of what you may or may not judge.  My time is my own,  you should continue focusing on what I say instead of intruding to matters that are no business of yours.
 
Sorry to be so hard,
 
No apology necessary.  You be as hard as you see fit.
 
but you should just leave names out of you criticism,
 
No, that would be wrong.  There is no justification for such an opinion.  Arnold Murray has chosen to make himself a public figure, therefore he deserves to be exposed in the same venue.  The Apostles named those who opposed the truth.  I am content to submit myself to God's judgment. 
 
There is a simple concept taught in the law of God.  The responsibility of knowledge.
 
Exodus 21:28 If an ox gore a man or a woman, that they die: then the ox shall be surely stoned, and his flesh shall not be eaten; but the owner of the ox shall be quit.
29 But if the ox were wont to push with his horn in time past, and it hath been testified to his owner, and he hath not kept him in, but that he hath killed a man or a woman; the ox shall be stoned, and his owner also shall be put to death.
Arnold Murray was my teacher, he is "my ox"  and I know he is a false teacher, I supported him,  therefore I am responsible for him.
 
especially when your dead wrong about this subject.
 
That is irrelevant since I'm dead-on correct.
 
 I could say the same about you ...You no nothing of the man you accuse of being a false teacher so you should quit being a hypocrite.
 
No, you cannot say the same about me.  Arnold Murray was the only bible teacher I ever had.  I studied everything he taught and read all the books he recommended.  I know a whole lot about what Arnold Murrray teaches, and that is what I target, his teachings.  I don't target Arnold Murray's private life.
 
Has Arnold Murray accused you publicly of being a false teacher? No....
 
Of course not. I doubt he knew I existed.  I certainly would like for him to have done that though.  But Arnold Murray publicly corrupted my mind through his very public ministry.  He shoved his face into my bedroom through the television.  He misled me, and I, in turn, misled others based on his teachings..  Eventually, I was led to make up for my mistake and work to discredit his teachings, which is just.  He exposed himself to this by choice, so it is very pathetic for a guy who always fostered such a macho image to teach his students that the very act of criticizing him discredits the critic (which is the net result of what he taught on this subject)  Macho Murray hides behind a false cloak of civility.  It's clever of him, but nevertheless another false teaching. 
 
If you respond to me in a negative manner, I will come after you and your so called ministry with a zeal like a whirlwind.
 
I officially respond to you in a very negative manner.  Please consider this an extremely negative response.  Thank you.

You should take the article down. You are a slanderous human being, if you dont.
 
You don't know what slander is.  It is not slander to say Arnold Murray is a false teacher.  That is an opinion to which I am entitled.
Just one more second of my time is all i will give you bro, but what do you think Genesis 3:16 means? What is conception? Do I have to spell it out for you?
 
I do understand but what I don't understand is why you insist it means that Satan and Eve had sex which the bible never even remotely suggests. 
 
The Lord was saying to satan that in the future generations far removed from Eve then and now that there would be enmity between the two seeds.
 
You said this before. That is what you said Genesis 3:15 was saying.  I don't deny the enmity.  I just deny the carnal nature of the seed of the serpent.  If the seed of the serpent is sinful because it is descended from Satan, then what is our excuse?
 
Unto the woman he said,
Genesis 3:16...you know the one right after Genesis 3:15:
 
Rudely condescending,  you do that a lot.
        
I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception;in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children;and thy desire shall be to thy husband,and he shall rule over thee.

The sorrow continues to this day. It started when Cain killed his brother. Cain was the son of the devil.
 
Again, you need to listen to my teaching on the serpent's seed.  Cain was indeed a child of the Devil.  Spiritually.  That is what the Bible teaches.  If one takes the time to allow the bible to instruct one's self.  As opposed to imposing your beliefs on the bible.  That is what you do.
 
Sincerely,
Paul Stringini
 
P.S.  So looking forward to that whirlwind...

Emailer's Second Reply:

----- Original Message -----
From: Emailer #277
To: Paul Stringini
Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 3:47 PM
Subject: RE: Cain the first child
How do you spiritualize the fact that Cain Killed his brother?
Cain was the first to display the emnity between the two  literal seeds.
Don't you think it unusual that Cain killed his brother?
That enmity was placed there in Cains heart by God Himself. Thats why he killed Abel.

Again your arguments are just sad......

I guess Cain killed his brother while he was in the spirit?..... Laughable!

Its pretty sad you devote all of your time tearing down someone elses work down but you have any of your own...
That are even close to the truth...

Got you on my radar bro...
Exapataó: to seduce wholly, deceive
Original Word: ἐξαπατάω
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: exapataó
Phonetic Spelling: (ex-ap-at-ah'-o)
Short Definition: I deceive thoroughly
Definition: I deceive thoroughly.

 What do you think Wholly seduced means? Why do you leave this part out of your sad blogg?
Havent you ever heard of a man telling a girl what she wants to hear when he wants
some? They lie out their yen yang and satan is no different.
beguile, deceive, seduce in that order.
From ek and apatao; to seduce wholly -- beguile, deceive.

Did they sew fig leaves over their mouths? No......Over their privates

If you were a detective I would fire you because you miss all of the important clues

that are esoteric in nature and pick out the clues that dont have a clue to make your point.
 
Ill debate you any time in a live forum, just let me know

when and where.

Oracles of God?
----- Original Message -----
From: Emailer #277
To: Paul Stringini
Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 3:56 PM
Subject: RE: Cain the first child
There is no winning or loosing. I am defending a brother in Christ that you are bad mouthing in public. You think that I am in the same category as the previous? You are sadly mistaken.
Just keep up what your doing.....Have a good time...

My Third Response:

----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Stringini
To: Emailer #277
Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2015 2:33 PM
Subject: Re: Cain the first child
Hi Emailer #277,
 
How do you spiritualize the fact that Cain Killed his brother?
 
The way you ask that question makes it a red herring.  As if I suggested that the physical action of murder was spiritual, which I did not.  The act of murder is a physical act, but it proceeds forth from a spiritual wickedness from within the heart.  You have been studying for 33 years and you have not learned this?
 
Matthew 15:19 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:
 
Jackpot. Murder is a spiritual problem.  Ultimately, all sin is the result of a spiritual problem. Cain killed his brother "because his own works were evil and his brother's righteous."  So Cain's problem was a spiritual problem, not a genetic problem based on who his father was..
 
Ephesians 6:12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
 
Cain was the first to display the emnity between the two  literal seeds.
 
As I stated, you are following the game plan just exactly as I laid it out in my last message.  You are not refuting the evidence I supplied from scripture.  You are simply reasserting the narrative which you insist on imposing on the text of the bible regardless of what the bible actually says.

Don't you think it unusual that Cain killed his brother?
 
Murder is relatively rare, but the hatred and selfishness that leads to murder is very common.  Do you think it was unusual that David, who was an ancestor of Christ, was also a murderer and an adulterer?  If David was capable of murder, and we know his genetics were beyond question, why do you think that it was necessary for Cain to have a genetic cause which made him more likely to be a murderer?

That enmity was placed there in Cains heart by God Himself. Thats why he killed Abel.
 
Wow, you were just talking about how murder was not spiritual, and now you say that God put the enmity in Cain's heart.  That is spiritual. 
 
This is where your ignorance of what I teach makes this a very tedious conversation.  That is because I believe that Cain's actions were the result of the enmity between the seed of the serpent (sin) and the seed of the woman (Cain).  Genesis 4:7 gives Cain the warning that the enmity is at work.
 
Genesis 4:7 "If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door. Its desire is for you, but you must rule over it.” (English Standard Version)
 
The seed of the Serpent was sin.  Sin desires to rule over and control our lives, but we must be the masters of it or it will destroy us.  This is the teaching of the New testament foreshadowed in the old.  So, yes, Cain's actions were the result of the enmity of the seeds, the Enmity was not between Cain and Abel, but between Cain the firstborn and Cain the first murderer. 
 
Again, you should listen to my serpent seed teaching so at least we could discuss this understanding one another's position.  What kind of person goes to battle without knowing the strength and tactics of his enemy, when that information is readily available?  I'll tell you, someone who is overconfident, and/or careless, and/or lazy.
 
 
Again, you are proceeding exactly as I predicted.  My arguments are "sad," you say.  What a perfectly useless observation.  When people read your comment on my website, they are going see that you really don't think they are worth your time.  You said you wrote me to defend Arnold Murray.  But you are not really trying.
 
"Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might; " 
 
I guess Cain killed his brother while he was in the spirit?..... Laughable!
 
Have you not heard of spiritual wickedness" (Ephesians 6:12)  Your statement is essentially a straw man you constructed for you to laugh at.   You laugh and misrepresent what my argument because you have no words with which you might effectively answer my actual argument in an honest manner.  And, rest assured, people will be able to see the fundamental dishonesty involved in your remark. So laugh, that is the poor man's debating device.  The volume of your laughter is the measure of the depth of the poverty of your ability to effectively refute what I actually argued. 
 
The seed of the devil is a spiritual concept as is clearly demonstrated by the following scripture:
 
1 John 3:8 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.
9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.
10 In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother.
 
John 8 is another passage that clearly demonstrates the spiritual nature of the "children of the devil."  Again, I talk about all the serpent seed scripture in my teaching on the serpent's seed linked above.
 
Its pretty sad you devote all of your time tearing down someone elses work down
 
You flatter Arnold Murray.  My work against the Shepherd's Chapel has always been something I do on the side. 
 
But how about the way in which he devoted all his time to tearing down the truth and replacing it with his own teachings and philosophy?  Arnold Murray devoted his life to destroying the work of Christ and the Apostles.
 
 I have hundreds of hours of teachings and original music available on my website for free.  It would have taken you about 20 seconds to figure that out. 
Now when people read this they will be reminded of all the free teachings I offer.
 
but you have any of your own...That are even close to the truth...
Your attitude of superiority is amusing.

Got you on my radar bro...
Your radar?  Let me assure you, you don't even show up on my radar.  Pardon me for asking but where is your website where you share all this learning you have amassed?  And where can I look at the videos you recorded of all your stunning debates verses "the best?"  You have been a student so long, but where are your teachings? I want to see your fruit.  I've managed to get hundreds of hours of teachings and thousands of pages of words online over my time (which is much less than yours), what have you been doing with all your time and abilities which you proudly boast of? 
 
exapataó: to seduce wholly, deceive
Original Word: ἐξαπατάω
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: exapataó
Phonetic Spelling: (ex-ap-at-ah'-o)
Short Definition: I deceive thoroughly
Definition: I deceive thoroughly.

 What do you think Wholly seduced means?
 
You copied and pasted that definition, apparently, without even reading it.  It does not say anything about "wholly seduced."  No modern dictionary would translate that word "seduce"  because in 21st century English "seduce" implies sexual seduction, and that Greek word does not imply sexual seduction at all.  As I stated in my article which I thought you had read.  Here is a link back to that article because I clearly explain why that word has nothing to do with sex.  http://oraclesofgod.org/shepherds_chapel/exapatao.htm  that was the point of the article.
 
Why do you leave this part out of your sad blogg?
 
Did you mean the above part or the below part?  If you mean in the above case, I have to say that does not make sense, because the whole article was about exapatao and what it does and does not mean.  If it is the below part then I really don't know why you think I should have included it as if your personal experience has anything to do with the question.

Havent you ever heard of a man telling a girl what she wants to hear when he wants some?
 
Yes, I have.
 
They lie out their yen yang and satan is no different.
 
Yes, Satan lies to get what he wants.  But sex is not what he is after. What Satan wants is us to disobey God.  Satan wants to destroy us.  He wants to "screw" us figuratively, not literally.  There is nothing in scripture that says Satan was motivated by a desire to have sex.  That is a human trait and you are in error in ascribing that motivation to the devil. 
 
beguile, deceive, seduce in that order.
From ek and apatao; to seduce wholly -- beguile, deceive.

I dedicated a whole page to demonstrate with clear proof and solid scholarship that the word in question has absolutely no sexual meaning.  Period.
http://oraclesofgod.org/shepherds_chapel/exapatao.htm

 Did they sew fig leaves over their mouths? No......Over their privates

That is another red herring.  You are suggesting that the fig leaves were sewed to cover sin.  That is not the case.  The fig leaves were sewn to cover nakedness.    I cover this and all your points in my work on the Serpent's Seed which completely refutes your false doctrine and correctly teaches what the Serpent's seed truly is. 
 

If you were a detective I would fire you because you miss all of the important clues
 
I didn't miss that clue.  I go over that extensively.  Through your own prejudice you presume I don't cover what you are talking about.  But I cover all that in my teachings.

the important clues that are esoteric in nature
 
es·o·ter·ic
intended for or likely to be understood by only a small number of people with a specialized knowledge or interest.
 
Arnold Murray corrupted the scriptures by reading esoteric meanings into texts which did not say what he wanted them to say.  If you agreed with him he flattered you as said you were one of God's elect.   The esoteric meanings you read into the scriptures are not supported by the testimony of Christ or of his Apostles.  The origin of these stories is, ironically, Jewish mysticism.  These are the Jewish fables we were warned not to give heed to.
 
and pick out the clues that dont have a clue to make your point.

I am not a detective.   The bible is not a crime scene.

Ill debate you any time in a live forum, just let me know, when and where.
 
What's wrong with here and now?  What do you have against this forum?  You can publish our debate on your website and I'll publish it on mine. 
 
I see this all the time,  it's an old bully trick.  "I'll fight you any time, name the place!"  Well, here we are.  You are avoiding responding to what I say by calling for a live debate.  We don't need a live debate.  But I'd gladly show up somewhere if you are in northern Illinois.  I won't travel far from my family. I'm in doubt whether debating you would even be interesting.  I've debated dozens of Chapel students,  You don't seem to be anything special.

Oracles of God?

I'm not here to do your research for you, or explain my ministry.  The information is already out there.  I think the radar analogy is appropriate for the way you think. 
There is no winning or loosing.
 
Wrong again. That is weak hippie nonsense.  I'm looking forward to victory in Christ, and victory over the enemies.  The bible is all about winning and losing. There is eternal life to win and souls to lose.  I will earnestly contend for the faith and gain victory against those who would destroy it.  Even in this statement, "there is no winning or losing"  I have had yet another victory over you demonstrating your unbiblical mindset.  What do you think the gospel armor is for?  I do not bear this sword in vain.  I am out to win.  By defeating you I will win the hearts of those you have not regarded as you flippantly and carelessly engage in a fight foolishly thinking there is nothing to win or lose.  Your attitude will cost you, and already has, people generally don't read this far into a conversation, some might (hi folks!) but most will see very quickly how little you have to add to this discussion and will move along, for many, you already blew your opportunity.
 
 I am defending a brother in Christ that you are bad mouthing in public.
 
And you are doing a very poor job, because all you can say is that my arguments are laughable and sad, well, I'm content that is your opinion.  But we shall see what others think.  We shall see if those who have not been so thoroughly deluded by your teachings find my arguments persuasive or whether they will trust your declarations that they are "sad" and "laughable."
 
You think that I am in the same category as the previous? You are sadly mistaken.
 
No, you are mistaken, you are the same as them, you are right in the middle, a very average Chapel student, at least according to what you have demonstrated so far.  I've certainly seen better, I've debated dozens of Chapel Students, so I ought to know.  Why don't you judge for yourself?  You can read those debates on my website.  You can judge for yourself if they did a good job, and maybe you could figure out if you could do better.  I've certainly seen guys who put effort into the discussion and I have to salute them for that.
 
http://oraclesofgod.org/emails/_kenites.htm - this is a link to most of the debates I've had over the serpent seed.
 
I don't think you have the spirit to fight for what you believe in.  You are able to lash out with half a heart,  but you will never take the time to see what others did and figure out what their mistakes were,  and perhaps figure out what my weaknesses might be.  You are so overconfident because you have been listening to the flattery of Arnold Murray for so long and you believe it. 
 
Just keep up what your doing.....Have a good time.....

As you please. I am at your service.
 
Sincerely,
Paul Stringini
 

Emailer's Third Reply:

----- Original Message -----
From: Emailer #277
To: Paul Stringini
Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2015 6:33 PM
Subject: RE: Cain the first child
 I cut you off at the ankles and you still argue ...amazing
you think we need the devil to sin? U confuse the metaphysical with the physical
The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?
You think we need the devil to be wicked?
You said the seeds were spiritual ..Cain was not spiritual He was carnal remember?
Come on man we both know sin starts in the heart. Cain killed Abel because of the enmity between the seeds that God placed there. This was because of what happened at the unholy conception.  Satan was trying to destroy the DNA of a  Adam by polluting the seed line through which Christ would come. The enmity is between the seedlines and not a war "within" the heart of man  as you mistakenly suggest.


Yes I will say it again...I do have your sorry ass on my radar until you quite sitting in the judgement seat and attacking others because you think you have a corner on truth. Your exactly what you claim Arnold to be and all the evil arrows you have sent his and my way will be sent back at you. Your just a pussy hiding behind a keyboard. Most of what i do is in real life and I have many published works that i will never share with a swine.....

Real life...
i would like to meet you in real life
Dont bother responding Im done with you.
PS
im looking at your abode on Google earth...interesting

My Fourth Response:

----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Stringini
To: Emailer #277
Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2015 12:55 AM
Subject: Re: Cain the first child
I do not take orders from you, if you want this conversation to end then you will refrain from writing me again.  You are the one who has approached me.
 
I cut you off at the ankles and you still argue ...amazing
 
Interesting choice of words. You flatter yourself.  I'm content to let the readers be the judges.  These are just words.
 
you think we need the devil to sin? U confuse the metaphysical with the physical
 
No, actually that is what you are doing.  You are confusing the biblical idea of metaphysical "children of the devil" with the man-made notion of physical "children of the devil."  The tares are the children of the wicked one.  That's metaphysical, not physical.    I'm not saying we need the devil to sin, what I say, and what the bible says, is that sin makes us the devil's children.  Get it? 

The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?
You think we need the devil to be wicked?
 
Nope.  That is not what I said, but you can entertain whatever delusions please you.  You are making straw men,  anyone can see that is what you are trying to do.
 
You said the seeds were spiritual
 
No, I said the seed of the serpent is spiritual, the seed of the woman is physical. You are not grasping it. You should have listened to my teaching on the Serpent Seed.  You are intent on following your narrative.  You can either listen to what I actually say, or you can talk to yourself.  All you are doing is discrediting yourself in the eyes of those who are going to read this on my webpage. 
 
..Cain was not spiritual He was carnal remember?
 
The point is not about him being a "spiritual person."  The point is that wickedness is a spiritual problem that results in carnal sin.  You are stuck like a broken record on your juvenile understanding of the concept of spiritual vs carnal. 
 
Come on man we both know sin starts in the heart.
 
Of course, but you and I are not participating in the same discussion apparently. 
 
Cain killed Abel because of the enmity between the seeds that God placed there.
 
I never denied this.  It is the enmity between man and sin.  The seed of the woman (man) and the seed of the Serpent (sin).  Seed is what makes children.  And what makes one a child of the devil, is sin.
 
This was because of what happened at the unholy conception.  Satan was trying to destroy the DNA of a  Adam by polluting the seed line through which Christ would come. The enmity is between the seedlines and not a war "within" the heart of man  as you mistakenly suggest.

No, it is exactly as I have stated.  Your point of view is based on reading a narrative into the scriptures which is based on Jewish mysticism.  I reject these Jewish fables and the false teachers who attempt to pollute the gospel of Christ with carnal doctrines which have no profit.  Your teaching is unchristian. Period.  It's racist garbage.
 
Yes I will say it again...I do have your sorry ass on my radar
 
Ok, so am I supposed to be scared or something?  Write an article about me or something.  See if I care.
 
until you quite sitting in the judgement seat and attacking others
 
Is that not exactly what you are doing?  And you are misrepresenting what I do.  I don't judge men, I judge works.  If they refuse to repent of those works, that is their doing, not mine.  Arnold Murray is a documented false prophet and a false teacher.  It was up to him to remove that stain.  Don't blame me.
 
because you think you have a corner on truth.
 
No, that prize goes to you and Arnold Murray with your special esoteric understanding you guys have as a result of your being the elect. 
 
You really don't know enough about me to make that statement.  I am content to submit myself to the judgment of those who are fit to judge me.
 
Your exactly what you claim Arnold to be
 
You are entitled to your opinion, but you need to provide evidence in order to convince others that what you say has any merit.
 
and all the evil arrows you have sent his and my way will be sent back at you.
 
Evil arrows?  Please.  It's is a righteous sword of truth.
 
Your just a pussy hiding behind a keyboard.
 
I think you are projecting your own personality onto me.  I'm not hiding.  It is easy to call men names.  But that is really no different than what Jesus said about "thou fool."  It is not about using a forbidden word, it is about being careful about how we speak to one another.   
 
Most of what i do is in real life and I have many published works that i will never share with a swine.....
 
Another nice name.  I don't believe you... oh?  were you thinking of your predictable facebook ramblings I was browsing?  Sorry, that does not qualify as a "published work." 
 
Real life...
i would like to meet you in real life
 
Somehow I doubt your sincerity.  This is real life and you should start acting like you think what you do is going to be judged.  I doubt you would impress me in person any more than you do in your letters.  If you are thinking of physically intimidating me, that is even less likely.

Dont bother responding Im done with you.
 
Like I said, I don't take orders from you.  You stop when you want to.  So long as you keep writing me I will continue to respond.  You cannot continue to send me messages and demand that I not reply.

PS
im looking at your abode on Google earth...interesting

Is that supposed to be intimidating? That has been tried before... "Hey, I'm looking at pictures of your family on facebook Emailer #277. Really, I am.  Nice drum set. Very nice looking family."  How do you like that?  Doesn't it give you a creepy feeling that I'm telling you that I'm looking at your family? It's one thing to look a guy up, but then to tell him you are scoping out his home or family, that's intimidation, and that is illegal. Maybe you ought to consider that before you decide to use intimidation tactics against me again.  I have been threatened before, and I take personal security seriously.  Don't get yourself in trouble.  Keep your cool big fella.
 
My advice to you is to back off you your intimidation tactics before you get yourself into trouble.   I've dealt with a number of bullies like you, you are not going to prosper in this.
 
Sincerely,
Paul Stringini

Emailer's Fourth Reply:

----- Original Message -----
From: Emailer #277
To: Paul Stringini
Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2015 6:01 AM
Subject: RE: Cain the first child
You are nothing short of a moron and I have tried to reason with you to get you to quit badmouthing Arnold Murray in a public forum. You are violating the judgment seat of Christ and You sir are the one who approached me when I saw your trash on my computer after doing a search on google. Arnold Murray is dead now and he was an ex marine that shed blood for this country and now you dishonor his name in public in this way? You are despicable!  Its one thing to teach in error as you Paul Stringwenie, but it is another thing to devote your life to tearing down another mans work. What a sad existence you must have. You violate one of the main tenants of the faith and act like there will be no consequences.

If you were on the net just doing your own thing teaching what you believe to be true I would have left this alone and thought to myself after reading your material just another 90 day wonder. But you sir are insulting the beloved General of the largest fellowship in the world.

I am sitting with a group that I teach of 36 men and women, lots of them ex and current Marines, Army, 2 Navy Seals and a number of law enforcement buddies of mine. We are in no way affiliated with the Shepherds Chapel.

Guess what the subject is?........ You ! 

Give me one good reason not to let them out of their cage.

You want to look at their daughters on FB?

Take all references to Arnold Murray down  from your website
We are prepared to take legal action against you !
This is your final warning !

My Fifth Response:

----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Stringini
To: Emailer #277
Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2015 6:32 PM
Subject: Re: Cain the first child
You are nothing short of a moron
 
Name calling tells people more about you than about me. 
 
and I have tried to reason with you to get you to quit badmouthing Arnold Murray in a public forum.
 
And I have explained to you that you have no basis on which to demand that I stop exercising my right to express my opinion on my own website.  This is not a "public forum" nevertheless, even if it was, that wouldn't make any difference.  I have a right to look at this guy's teachings and explain to people why I think they are wrong.  Your behavior towards me is completely hypocritical.  You are literally badmouthing me, personally, without much regard to what I actually say.  Not that I care, you can bad-mouth me all you like. 
 
You are violating the judgment seat of Christ
 
If that was the case, then by your own judgment, you are ALSO violating the judgment seat of Christ.  Never, anywhere in any of my writings have I ever said that Arnold Murray isn't going to be saved or will be damned.  All I'm saying is that he taught false doctrines, if you think that means he is lost, that is your judgment.
 
and You sir are the one who approached me when I saw your trash on my computer after doing a search on google.
 
You found my website and decided to contact me by looking for my email address.  You didn't have to contact me, you could have just posted a review of my website or something.  You sought me out. 
 
Arnold Murray is dead now and he was an ex marine that shed blood for this country and now you dishonor his name in public in this way? You are despicable! 
 
I was a student of Arnold Murray and in all of his teachings I never once heard him claim that he was wounded in action.  I'm not saying he wasn't, but I do not recall him ever claiming that.  You should be careful about spreading false rumors about another man's life, you can do more harm than good that way.  Arnold Murray bragged a lot, so if he had earned a purple heart, I'm pretty sure he would have had it mounted on his desk and mention that he was wounded, over and over.  My memory is not always the best, but I think you may be going beyond what Pastor Murray claimed about himself.
 
 Its one thing to teach in error as you Paul Stringwenie, but it is another thing to devote your life to tearing down another mans work.
 
Nonsense, look on my webpage, I have not updated that part of my website since February.  That does not seem like a very plausible "he devoted his life to it" scenario.  You are exaggerating and it is getting a little ridiculous don't you think?
 
Arnold Murray was the only teacher I ever had.  If I came out of the Baptist faith, I would probably have a section on my webpage devoted to why I no longer follow the Baptists.  But I was never a Baptist, I was a student of Shepherd's Chapel.
 
What a sad existence you must have.
 
If it comforts you to think that, I'm not going to argue with you.
 
You violate one of the main tenants of the faith and act like there will be no consequences.
 
Main tenants of what faith?  Not of Christianity. 
 
There are plenty of scriptures to back up my position that we ought to warn people about false teachers.  There is absolutely zero scriptural support of the idea that we should never mention false teachers by name. That is not a tenant of the faith, that is a false doctrine.  The bible clearly teaches the exact opposite.
 
Romans 16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.
18 For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.
I am marking Arnold Murray as the scriptures instruct.  I get complaints all the time from believers whose family members became estranged because of their fanatical devotion to Murray's teachings.
 
2 Timothy 2:16 But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.
17 And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus;
18 Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.
 
Notice, the apostle is perfectly comfortable naming the names of the men who are teaching false doctrine.  Interestingly, the false doctrine that these guys taught seems remarkably similar to Arnold Murrays teaching on the same subject, i.e, that the dead are already risen.
 
There is nothing virtuous in refusing to name a false teacher.  In my opinion, it was something Arnold Murray did to serve himself.  He was more interested in protecting himself than in warning people who was a false teacher.  That is fine for him to choose to do that, but it is not a tenant of the faith, it is just a decision Arnold Murray made according to what he thought was best for him. 
 
If you were on the net just doing your own thing teaching what you believe to be true I would have left this alone and thought to myself after reading your material just another 90 day wonder.
 
If I was a 90 day wonder, then I came out of Arnold Murray's 90 day wonder training camp.  In fact, that is a very apt description of the calibre of student Arnold Murray's ministry produces.  Arnold Murray's students are not well-trained students of God's word.  They generally have a very narrow knowledge of the scripture passages they use to prove their esoteric teachings.  They become very well versed in these narrow areas of the scripture, so they can impress people with very little scriptural knowledge.  Kind of like an officer who recieved those 90 day training courses, but didn't know come from sic 'em when it came to real fighting.
 
But you sir are insulting the beloved General of the largest fellowship in the world.
 
I'm not insulting him.  I'm rejecting him based on what he teaches.  Since I actually have taken the time to listen to what Arnold Murray has to say, unlike some,  I think that shows that I respect the man enough to take a serious look at his words.  Just because you don't like what I think of his words is no grounds for you to say I'm insulting him.
 
I think you have delusions of grandeur when it comes to the size of your fellowship.  In any case, this is not a pissing contest.

I am sitting with a group that I teach of 36 men and women, lots of them ex and current Marines, Army, 2 Navy Seals and a number of law enforcement buddies of mine. We are in no way affiliated with the Shepherds Chapel.
 
Oh yes you are affiliated with the Shepherd's Chapel, you just called him your general.  Oh, I know there is no legal or organizational affiliation, but are you denying that you are one body with the Shepherd's Chapel?  Are you saying that you are not in the same church as Arnold Murray?
 
Guess what the subject is?........ You ! 

You flatter me.  But don't you have more productive things to do?  I mean, aren't you violating what you say is a major tenant of your faith?  Sitting around talking about another man's ministry, aren't you supposed to be better than me?
 
Give me one good reason not to let them out of their cage.
 
No reasons.  Please, let them out.  How about all you guys buy tickets to Chicago, drive out to my house, and beat my ass to a bloody pulp in my front yard, I won't even fight back, so long as you leave my family out of it. Show people what kind of men the ministry of Arnold Murray produces. 
 
You want to look at their daughters on FB?
 
Why do you ask that? Is that what you do? You have a very dirty and underhanded way about you. You are the guy making this some sort of personal vendetta.  Pool your money, send your toughest ex- soldier out to my house.  I'll meet him out in my yard and he can beat me bloody while my wife and kids watch.  Is that the sort of Christians you are?  Then come on over.  I'm not afraid of pain.  But I will never back down from my stand against Murray. 

Take all references to Arnold Murray down  from your website
 
No.
 
We are prepared to take legal action against you !
This is your final warning !

You do that. Too bad you don't have a lawyer in your fellowship.  Because he would tell you that you have no standing and you cannot sue me for the Shepherd's Chapel.  You have already said you are not affiliated with the Shepherd's Chapel.  So you cannot sue me on their behalf.  The judge would throw your case out in about half a second.  And, believe me, if you actually found a lawyer who was ignorant of the law to the degree that he actually took your case,  I would have the best Jewish lawyers lining up to take my case for free, nothing I have done can be classified as slander or defamation of character.
 
Arnold Murray would be so disappointed in you.  Do you know what he would say?  I do.  In that sense, I'm a better student of Arnold Murray than you are.  Arnold Murray would say, "Leave the tares alone."  I'm certainly not a tare, though I've been called that by plenty of your people.  But you ought to at least know what your general would say.  If Arnold Murray's ministry is an Army, then you are a prime example of a 90-day wonder.  At least those guys had enough sense to follow orders.  All you are doing is digging a deeper and deeper hole and you are sliding down, down, down.

Sincerely,
Paul Stringini
 

Emailer's Fifth Reply:

----- Original Message -----
From: Emailer #277
To: Paul Stringini
Sent: Friday, September 25, 2015 5:02 AM
Subject: RE: Cain the first child

C U round

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