I'm sorry you have such a poor taste in your mouth about Arnold Murray and the Shepherd's Chapel

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

From: Paul Stringini

To: Emailer #278

Sent: Friday, September 25, 2015 2:17 PM

Subject: Re: Blessings to you, open heart

Hi, Thanks for writing and for your very kind tone and Christian attitude.

You wrote: "I'm sorry you have such a poor taste in your mouth. "

I really don't know what you mean by that. I studied intensely with Arnold Murray for several years back in the 90's. From about the time I was 19, until I was about 23. From that point I led bible studies which were based on the things Arnold Murray taught me until about 2005 when I recieved the Holy Spirit and fully rejected the teachings of Arnold Murray and the Shepherd's Chapel. It was not until 2007, two years later that I started writing about my feeling in regards to my former teacher and the doctrines which I had followed in my youth. So I don't understand what you mean about a bad taste in my mouth. That sounds like you think I listened to Murray once or twice and decided I didn't like him based on that. I own nearly every bible study available from the Shepherd's Chapel between 1993-1996. I still have them all. I did much more than taste what Arnold Murray had to say.

You wrote: "Dr. Murray passed."

I did know that, and I also mentioned that on my website. I do not have a big announcement because his death doesn't really change anything. Arnold Murray's works live on. He is still on the T.V.

You wrote: "If you sincerely watched his broadcast you would have known that."

Well, I don't watch his current programs. I don't claim to watch his programs. I stopped watching his programs years ago. I do not enjoy watching or listening to him any more except for research purposes. But there was a time when I studied his material 4-6 hours a day. There was a time when I never missed a broadcast. But that was a long time ago.

You wrote: "I love their teachings."

Well, sorry to say, I hate their teachings. Arnold Murray's teachings basically condition us to read a false narrative over the bible. Instead of reading what the bible says, Arnold Murray taught me to read ideas into the bible that the bible was not teaching. I do not believe that is the way someone who holds the scriptures in reverence handles the bible. This is how one who hold his own ideas in reverence above the scriptures handles the bible.

A good example of this is Genesis 4:1 And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain,

Arnold Murray basically denies what this verse is quite obviously teaching. This is not the only example. He does the same thing in John 8:37 "I know that ye are Abraham's seed;" On several occasions Arnold explains this verse away by changing what the word says, Arnold used to say. "I know you CLAIM to be Abraham's seed." He adds that idea of "claim," and the only justification for that is to make the scripture fit into the narrative that he desired to impose on the scriptures. But when you read the context, it is quite clear that was not what Jesus meant. When I was a new student, I didn't notice stuff like that, but I do now, so I don't love his teachings anymore.

You wrote: "I am not Judging you or your beliefs."

That is very nice of you to say, thank you. And I have no doubt that you mean it. But that can only be half true. I can accept that you do not judge me personally. And I do not judge you either, or Arnold Murray, I trust that all who place their faith in Christ will have their eyes opened to the truth. But beliefs and/or teachings ought to be judged to the best of our ability. Arnold Murray judged the rapture and many other teachings and/or beliefs. (I don't believe in the rapture) Some beliefs are more important than others, of course . But the problem with Arnold Murray's teachings is that he exalts his personal interpretation above that which is written. Especially in the matter of the Serpent's Seed. That is not a good idea.

I invite you to judge my beliefs, I do believe in a Serpent's seed doctrine, but I believe in the biblical version of that story, before you reject what I have to say, you ought to check me out for yourself. The serpent seed is not a carnal seed, my free study explains that and covers all the scriptures on the subject.

http://oraclesofgod.org/questions/audio/003_The_Seed_of_the_Serpent.mp3

You wrote: "Have you ever taken the time to go through the Bible and search for words or terms that were lost in translations. When the Bible was first
translated."

Yes I have. And I did also go through it with Murray, confirming the evidence he selected for me to "check out." I went through all of that with Arnold Murray, but, as time went on, I continued to study to check and see if everything thatI was teaching people was true and I went through the Greek and Hebrew on my own as diligently as I could. This process steadily undermined Arnold Murray's teachings, which I had thought were sound, but gradually began to have deeper and deeper doubts about.

Sometimes people leave us a trail of breadcrumbs to follow, and we dutifully follow the clues they select for us and, lo and behold, we get the same answer they did. I think sometimes what people do when they check out Pastor Murray's teachings is that they just confirm the evidence he provides them. That is what I did at first. But a lot of false doctrine can be supported by only supplying the verses that seem to support that idea. A broader knowledge of scripture, and the pressure of having to teach others responsibly led me to try to do the best job I could in checking out Arnold Murray's teachings. But when you look deeper than what he provides, his teachings don't stand up.

You wrote: " .He has..."

So he claimed. How do you know he did a good job? For example, the things he says about the Greek for "beguiled" (wholly seduced) I found to be completely misleading and essentially incorrect. I did a short paper on that word, and I believe that I clearly prove that what Arnold said about "wholly seduced" is totally wrong. The serpent did not sexually seduce Eve, the bible never says that, and certainly not in the Greek manuscripts.

http://oraclesofgod.org/shepherds_chapel/exapatao.htm

You wrote: "words that were in original texts that we had no word for at the time..."

It sounds to me like you are referring to "et ha adam" or something. Perhaps "rib?" I'm not sure exactly what you refer to there, so I'll just leave it to you if there is something you want to draw my attention to.

You wrote: "check out Adam's genealogy ..

And you ought to check out Cain's genealogy. You will find that the first person mentioned in Cain's genealogy is Adam.

Genesis 4
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:

Notice the exact same formula is used. The bible clearly says that Cain was the result of the union of Adam and Eve. Cain was excluded from the genealogy of chapter 5 because that is the genealogy of inheritance. There are many examples in the bible of first-born sons being excluded from the line of inheritance due to some sin or fault. Esau comes immediately to mind, and also Reuben. Reuben was the firstborn of Jacob, but he slept with his father's concubine and did not receive the inheritance of the firstborn.

When Arnold Murray claims that Cain is not in Adam's genealogy, he is distracting us from the fact that ADAM is definitely in Cain's genealogy. So it comes down to whether we are going to believe what Genesis 4:1 says or whether we are going to read a false narrative over what the bible says and tell ourselves that what the bible plainly says is not true, because we know better based on following Arnold Murray's trail of breadcrumbs.

You wrote: "Helix....no word = DNA. Helix curve..."

That may be so, but that is not really a very important doctrinal teaching. I have no problem with that, Arnold Murray is not the only guy who thinks that.

You wrote: "Dr. Murray a wonderful teacher...."

I studied with Arnold Murray intensely for four years, and continued in his teachings for years after that initial period of study. It has been nearly twenty years since that time, and the more I have learned about the bible, the more my opinion of Arnold Murray's teachings diminishes. I'm sorry to tell you, I completely disagree with you.

If there is any question or matter you would like to ask me about, I am at your service.

Sincerely,
Paul Stringini