A challenge to non sc students [Archive]

xman3

05-17-2007, 08:02 PM

That would defeat the purpose of factnet. It will never happen. It would also deprive many of us of the entertainment received from reading the SC threads.

I think the doctrine of the serpent seed is a potentially racist doctrine, but I do not see any racism in Smyrna or any of the regular SC posters myself. They were quite cordial to me when I was discussing the doctrine earlier, so I believe good dialogue is possible if they are treated with the courtesy and respect I would like to receive. I was only insulted only by a couple of the detractors who have no idea why I was even inquiring.

The name calling and such definitely goes both ways here. I would suggest attempting to stop the insults and such and approach it differently, but to expect those who think Murray and the Chapel are a cult to not post is unrealistic in my view. It has absolutely nothing to do with strength.

fatherofaking

05-17-2007, 08:08 PM

i am not asking the sc students to stop believing the things they believe arron.

i am challenging all non-sc students to leave them alone and let them believe what they want to believe.

evey person must make a choice what they are going to believe for themselves.
we all say that we respect that choice as long as it is not pushed on us to believe what someone else accepts as truth.

what i am doing is calling everyone on this.
do we respect their right to believe what they choose or not?
if we do, then let them be.

they say they are not here to push anything on anyone.
they say they are simply here to defend themselves aginst those who do not afford them the same rights that we want for ourselves.

i think it is time we gave them the benifit of the doubt on that and leave them be.

that is my challenge.
stop trying to take that right from them.
lets see if the reason that they are here is to defend their beliefs, or to push them on others.

saygoodnightgracie

05-17-2007, 08:11 PM

"They were quite cordial to me when I was discussing the doctrine earlier"

That's because you are a real Christian, they are quite cordial to me as well.

"It has absolutely nothing to do with strength." That's the way it works Xman, if you don't quite posting, then you are weak.

I'll make a suggestion to father of faking. Don't ever post on the SC threads again, never. Not even to respond to me. Just make post number 85 be your last on these threads. You want to make peace, let's see if you are true to your ideals.

Do YOU think you have the strength, the character and the integrity to do this.. (or will you post here again?)

fatherofaking

05-17-2007, 08:18 PM

but to expect those who think Murray and the Chapel are a cult to not post is unrealistic in my view.

they say they are here simply to defend themselves.

if they have nothing to defend then what purpose would they have for being here?

i am only calling them on their own words.

anyone has the right to post here.
i am not taking that away from anyone.
again, i am calling them on their purpose for being here.

if they continue to say the they have the truth and everyone else is a liar, then maybe there is reason to continue the debate.
otherwise i see no purpose in it.

these threads are an insult to most everyone that posts here.

the hatred and and name calling completely contradicts every major religions basic tenets.

fatherofaking

05-17-2007, 08:20 PM

i accept your challenge gracie.

trainedobserver

05-17-2007, 08:40 PM

sgg"Do YOU think you have the strength, the character and the integrity to do this.. (or will you post here again?)"

foaf"i accept your challenge gracie."

Damn! You've lost already! Nyuk, nyuk.

stage_director

05-17-2007, 10:45 PM

QUOTE
I think the doctrine of the serpent seed is a potentially racist doctrine, but I do not see any racism in Smyrna or any of the regular SC posters myself. They were quite cordial to me when I was discussing the doctrine earlier
END QUOTE

With all due respect, xman3 ... that's one problem with some Shepherd's Chapel doctrine. Much of it can be presented so "politely" it can come off benign and non-racist to some.

Shepherd's Chapel teaches that in the heavenly temple of heaven, the inner court and sanctuary is occupied by the literal seed of Adam/Abraham, while the outer courtyard is the place of the ethnic people.

Shepherd's Chapel teaches that race mixing is an abomination, that a black woman and a white man of Israel would produce a mamzar, or b@ st@ rd ... because intermarriage is not procreating "kind after kind" per biblical instruction.

Shepherd's Chapel teaches that blacks and orientals and all the ethnic people of the world were created on the 6th day, but that Adam and his offspring, later to be called caucasians, were created separately on the 8th day.

Do the Shep Chap'lers posting here disagree with any of these teachings? Do they think Murray is incorrect?

franklin

05-18-2007, 03:37 AM

UH...... fof, when you respond to sgng you are responding to smyrna. One and the same. These Scers have many multiple user names, isps and personalities. Their isps have all been matched up. sgng and gag and bruno and smyrna are all the same person. FYI.

franklin

05-18-2007, 04:29 AM

It means the same ip addresses have been matched up to all of the below listed aliases of SC sybils.

I am not guilty of cyberstalking. That is exactly what your precious smyrna/getagrip/saygoodnightgracie/franvagosity is guilty of.

Here is what I just posted to another psycho cybestalker on the Faith Assembly / Hobart Freeman thread. Pay attention Angie Durango!

The end does NOT justify the means! That is not biblical. Not that you would care. It is atheist and cultic!

franklin
Junior Member
Username: franklin

Post Number: 37
Registered: 11-2004
Posted From: 71.51.75.72
Posted on Thursday, May 17, 2007 - 10:10 pm:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't know what's going on with all of this posting IP locations but it better stop!

Factnet is here to discuss scripture and how cults are formed by the perversion of God's word.

Not for cyberstalkers to try to reveal personal information about other posters for intimidation purposes.

Forum Rules

"You explicitly agree, in using this web site or any service provided, that you shall not:"

"collect or harvest any data about other users."

"attempt to harvest or collect member information, including screen names."

So psycho cyberstalker false prophet.....STOP IT!

smyrna

05-18-2007, 10:10 AM

Franklin is a nut case. I am NOT SGNG. This is just another allegation that he cannot prove.

However, as Angie noted, we have Glenn/Franklin/Gavin/Foxy Loxy/Little Chick this guy has no problem giving himself fruitcake names.

His IP address comments show he is just as ignorant of protocols as that moron Admin at Cultbusters.

However, this is typical of the detractors. Make an accusation and treat it as irrefutable truth.

Anyway, Stage Director wrote:

"Shepherd's Chapel teaches that blacks and orientals and all the ethnic people of the world were created on the 6th day, but that Adam and his offspring, later to be called caucasians, were created separately on the 8th day."

Smyrna: Stage Director is ignorant of Chapel teachings. ALL races were represented on the 6th day. Her accusation is just that, and once again she offers no documentation for it.

smyrna

05-18-2007, 10:51 AM

Fatherofaking,

To expect the whackos that are detractors of the Chapel to actually control themselves isn't even a noble getsure. It just shows how ignorant you are, and I don't mean that in a bad way. You just don't know these people.

After all, you are talking about individuals such as Godchild and Franklin.

Yes, there are and have been those who have come here criticizing the SC and have done so simply by giving their views of Scripture.

And, as Xman noted, in many cases we have been quite cordial, because they didn't come here blasting away with all kinds of silly, ridiculous, fabricated accusations that no one else but their fellow InterNuts actually believe.

What you are really trying to do is appeal to the most extreme element of Chapel critics, and they are clearly not emotionally stable people.

Look, these people have been caught not only lying through their teeth, but also deliberately misrepresenting what the SC teaches,denied anything that proved them wrong had any veractiy, ingnored obvious evidence that showed they are wrong, set up "secret" threads at Cultbusters and proceeded to fabricate all sorts of rumors and false accusations without any fear of being challenged, because anybody that did so there is immediately banned.

So it is laughable that you think you are going to get these sickos to just let us believe what we want and go away. You are really being ridiculous.

With that being said, I'd really like to get together with the other SC posters here, and just put together a brief montage of the most outrageous examples of Godchild's, Frankie's and Stage Directors' posts, stuff that shows how really nutty they are, and just copy that post to the board every time they post anything. We would just say something like: "Look at what these people have done. Would you really believe anything else they have to say after reading this?"

That way, we show every new reader right away that no matter what those detractors have to say, it is merely another product of their lunacy.

Then we can converse with those who actually want to discuss the SC.

stage_director

05-18-2007, 03:33 PM

Smyrna, you really are the prince of ad hominems. For the record ... I'm not just a heckler, I'm probably more like your nightmare. You can talk out of both sides of your face all you want, but in the long run it's you who'll be proved the dunce because you see, sport ... I have the old audios ... Communion and Sixes, Temple Elect, and lots more oldies but goodies ... I have the documents CARM and CRI have wanted to see for years. I'm going to put them on the World Wide Web so we can all listen to them ... and then, to coin a favorite Murrayism, we really will let the chips fall where they may.

So let's get one thing straight, little man ... I'm not some "detractor" throwing rocks in the dark, nor am I here to have "fun" arguing with Shep Chap students ... I have a purpose and a method ... and you have no idea what's coming your way, you anal-rententive wolf in a troll suit. Get ready.

smyrna

05-19-2007, 01:11 AM

S_D wrote:

"I'm not just a heckler, I'm probably more like your nightmare."

Smyrna: First, at least she admits she is a heckler. Second, she gives herself way too much credit. You are just a sideshow to me, as are all the detractors.

You also wrote:

"I have the documents CARM and CRI have wanted to see for years. I'm going to put them on the World Wide Web so we can all listen to them ... and then, to coin a favorite Murrayism, we really will let the chips fall where they may."

Smyrna: Yeah yeah, ok, we've heard all about what you claim you have, but that means zilch to all of us SC students.

Based upon your brief history at FacNet, there is a world of difference between what you say you have, and what you actually have, as well as how you interpret what you have, verses how we see it.

By the way, I've been ready, but nothing ever comes.

stage_director

05-19-2007, 03:06 AM

QUOTE
You are just a sideshow to me, as are all the detractors
END QUOTE

lol Well, now ... I think you've written me far too many "love letters" for that to be the case. http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/kiss.gif

xman3

05-19-2007, 07:20 AM

Stage Director- By the way, thanks for the response earlier. Once again, I was set back to 0 on my posts and locked out for awhile. I am unaware of the foundations of the doctrine because I was more interested in the kenite thing from a more modern perspective rather than from the beginning. Some potentially rotten stuff there.

I do think it's possible that although Murray and official SC doctrine says one thing, individual students could believe something else. I don't know though. Sometimes I see big disagreement between what a detractor says and what a student says they actually believe and it becomes confusing.

Who knows about the IP thing. It's possible either could be telling the truth. Either way, the bottom line is that as long as certain things are taught, the non sc students and detractors will always post, and probably ought to.

I don't blame the students from responding and kind of admire their tenacity a bit as we can't get anyone from EN to actually hang around and defend that ministry. They just get beat up and run home and hide.

smyrna

05-19-2007, 01:22 PM

S_D wrote:
"lol Well, now ... I think you've written me far too many "love letters" for that to be the case"

Smyrna: Her statement is just one more example of her own flawed perceptions of herself. She is so deluded, she brings stuff to this thread that we have heard many times, ans acts as if she is giving us some new revelations about the SC and the Murrays.

And once she realized that what she had brought here was no news to us, she had no other choice apparently than to either embellish her accusations to make them sound worse than they were, or even make up things apparently out of the clear blue, since she STILL has not offered any documentation for them.

Now since that is the case, she can only be a distraction, a sideshow, since Godchild and Franklin will always have the center stage when it comes to goofy accusations they can never prove.

xman3

05-19-2007, 02:36 PM

So Smyrna, what about those things SD said up there. Are they accurate portarayals of SC doctrine or not? I'm not asking you to rehash stuff that's probably covered 10 times over in other threads, but I was just wondering.

It doesn't make any difference to me as far as how I feel I've been treated in my few posts here though. Despite any disagreements I have with some of these more controversial doctrines, I still like to listen to Pastor Murray sometimes in the morning anyway. I particularly get a kick out of that question and answer segment. Sometimes I think he comes off as acting a little superior though. He'll answer a question in a fashion that kind of hints that the person asking the question ought to know better when sometimes they're just legitimate questions by people who don't know the Bible as well as he does whether his interpretation is right or not. It could just be how his personality comes across though.

smyrna

05-19-2007, 05:10 PM

Xman,

Since S_D makes no effort to hide the fact she is a heckler, and since she has intentionally hurled false accusations at not only Pastor Murray, but us as well, without bothering to offer any evidence, and since she also has a history of disdain towards Christianity, at least on a juridicial level, I only treat her posts as she wants us to: as just more heckling.

aviyah

05-19-2007, 09:25 PM

*********************************************** ***
"So let's get one thing straight, little man ... I'm not some "detractor" throwing rocks in the dark, nor am I here to have "fun" arguing with Shep Chap students ... I have a purpose and a method ... and you have no idea what's coming your way, you anal-rententive wolf in a troll suit. Get ready." (Stage Director, 05/18/07)
*********************************************** ***

So Stage Director...What exactly is your purpose and your method, to stifle the FREE SPEECH of Sheperd's Chapel students on this public forum?

On two separate occasions, I have engaged in debate with you on this discussion board regarding the teachings of Sheperd's Chapel. During both discussions I was able to point out the falisy of your reasoning, at least to my own satisfaction. On both occasions my user account was promptly suspended. Tell me, does your purpose and method have anything to do with this? According to Factnet management there have been "problems with hackers".

Although this message board IS a means of identifying cult groups and dealing with the repercussions of cultic activity, here's an interesting fact to consider: Sheperd's Chapel is NOT listed on Factnet's list of "Cult Groups".

Here's a novel idea Stage...if you don't like the teachings of Sheperd's Chapel...don't listen to them. If you no longer listen to the teachings you are hardly qualified to speak regarding what the Chapel teaches.

As a fellow Christian, might I recommend you find SOME means of comprehending the scriptures. Judging by our last exchange, this action is sorely needed.

God Bless, AviYAH

stage_director

05-19-2007, 10:09 PM

QUOTE
I do think it's possible that although Murray and official SC doctrine says one thing, individual students could believe something else. I don't know though. Sometimes I see big disagreement between what a detractor says and what a student says they actually believe and it becomes confusing.
END QUOTE

Xman3, it's possible that someone who'd only been a member for a couple years might not know the deeper implications of the doctrine, since Murray is much more cautious about what he says publically anymore. Someone who's been an active student since the 90s or earlier is either lying through their teeth or reeeally dense if they deny the things I said.

QUOTE
she also has a history of disdain towards Christianity,
END QUOTE

Quick! Get the water! Your pants are on fire again.

QUOTE
His latest words on a phophecy message (479-787-5556) "once a marine, always a marine". I realize this is a common saying but I fail to see the connection with a marine running a church.
END QUOTE

That's another thing ... The Marines deny he was ever enlisted, much less at the Chosin Reservoir. Now, Harold (his brother) was two years older, and he served in WWII ... but there's no record for Arnold.

stage_director

05-19-2007, 10:25 PM

QUOTE
As a fellow Christian
END QUOTE

Wow, Abi ... I had to pick myself up off the floor! ;-)

There are so many posts and these threads are so long I miss things, or by the time I notice it the thread's veered off in a new direction. (Smyrna gets REALLY upset when we respond to older posts, ya know ...) Seriously, Abi ... I'll tell you what I believe ... and explain why I think there's obstacles to what you believe, but once it's established to me that neither can be swayed ... I see no point in arguing and arguing what I've already said ... and I don't need to get the last word in.

ramblingrose

05-20-2007, 12:26 AM

Then when Arnold was in California doing the radio broadcast about the same time Wesley Swift's organization took hold there, he never left that area, but went into training for that ministry. In what way did Arnold shed blood for this nation?

ramblingrose

05-20-2007, 12:37 AM

Unification Church established after the Korean War when Moon fled to South Korea has a doctrine like Arnolds that teaches that the fall of Adam and Eve was sexual in nature due to a premature act of love leading to physical corruption. Sin to Moon was a matter of genetics (physical children of Lucifer), not moral choice. This was
not the only story as other variations were fables - part of folklore.

aviyah

05-20-2007, 01:00 AM

Stage,

Anyway, now that we've cleared up that misunderstanding, what exactly are you saying here?...

*********************************************** **
"There are so many posts and these threads are so long I miss things, or by the time I notice it the thread's veered off in a new direction. (Smyrna gets REALLY upset when we respond to older posts, ya know ...) Seriously, Abi ... I'll tell you what I believe ... and explain why I think there's obstacles to what you believe, but once it's established to me that neither can be swayed ... I see no point in arguing and arguing what I've already said ... and I don't need to get the last word in". (Stage Director, 05/19/07)
*********************************************** ***

God Bless, AviYAH

aviyah

05-20-2007, 01:06 AM

Stage Director,

"As a fellow Christian". (AviYAH, 05/19/07)

You are confusing my name with Abiyah. I am Aviya(h) not Abi. Don't you remember how you helped me arrive at my new name?

Sorry about the confusion Abiyah. I was formerly Aviya but Stage encouraged the H. Surely there is room for both of us to claim Yah as our Father.

God Bless, Aviya

aviyah

05-20-2007, 01:31 AM

Xman3,

*********************************************** ***
"Shepherd's Chapel teaches that in the heavenly temple of heaven, the inner court and sanctuary is occupied by the literal seed of Adam/Abraham, while the outer courtyard is the place of the ethnic people.
Shepherd's Chapel teaches that race mixing is an abomination, that a black woman and a white man of Israel would produce a mamzar, or b@ st@ rd ... because intermarriage is not procreating "kind after kind" per biblical instruction.
Shepherd's Chapel teaches that blacks and orientals and all the ethnic people of the world were created on the 6th day, but that Adam and his offspring, later to be called caucasians, were created separately on the 8th day". (Stage, 05/17/07).
*********************************************** ***

I have been studying with Sheperd's Chapel consistently since 1991 or 1992 and I can attest that this is a skewed interpretation of the teachings of Sheperd's Chapel.

I know for a fact Pastor Murray teaches that bastards are the offspring of fallen angels and the daughters of Adam. A mamzar is the offspring of an inter-racial union. The two terms are not one in the same. I know with a certainty Pastor Murray teaches that ALL races were created on the 6th day (including the caucasian race).

Listen to your instincts rather than Stage's biased opinion. He/she is confused much of the time.

God Bless, AviYAH

stage_director

05-20-2007, 03:31 AM

QUOTE
I know for a fact Pastor Murray teaches that bastards are the offspring of fallen angels and the daughters of Adam. A mamzar is the offspring of an inter-racial union.
END QUOTE

That's incorrect ... How could he?

Deu 23:2
2 A b@ stard shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the LORD.

b@ stard - Strongs H4664 mamzer

Murray teaches that the offspring of angels/humans are geber ... the giants.

stage_director

05-20-2007, 03:33 AM

QUOTE
Then when Arnold was in California doing the radio broadcast
END QUOTE

Are you talking about the network he "bought" ?

ramblingrose

05-20-2007, 03:38 AM

How many races are there? God's pattern is kind after kind. Races are genetic variants but mankind is different in that he was created in the image of God able to reproduce offspring no matter what the race. Arnold understands nothing about genetics or DNA. He might have gotten away with this twenty years ago, but he cannot anymore. It is very clear that angels neither can marry or be given in marriage (able to reproduce) They are spirit

Heb 2:16
For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.

The nature of angels is spirit; the nature of man is flesh and blood. But Christ is not saving the flesh and blood, he is saving the soul of man for it was in the day man sinned that the living soul was liable to die.

Moses could not save mankind, Abraham could not save mankind, Jacob could not save mankind; only Christ who took on the seed of Abraham could be the Saviour. If Arnold truly believed that Christ was the Son of God, he would not teach as if there was a special race designated as a saviour of man. Instead he would believe that the Trinity - God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit - all three present when John the Baptist announced him.

Matt 3:16-17
16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:

17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

This was predestination - that according to the plan of God - a predetermined, predestined plan, there would be a Saviour}

ramblingrose

05-20-2007, 03:43 AM

Radio Broadcast: 1982 tape - radio broadcast 35 years ago in Long Beach, California would make the broadcast in 1947. Wesley Swift formed the Church of Jesus Christ, Christian in 1946

stage_director

05-20-2007, 04:35 AM

QUOTE
This was predestination - that according to the plan of God - a predetermined, predestined plan, there would be a Saviour}
END QUOTE

I agree.

QUOTE
Radio Broadcast: 1982 tape - radio broadcast 35 years ago in Long Beach, California
END QUOTE

There's another network in between the current SCN and that ... how Murray acquired it is pretty fascinating all by itself.

Well, in 1947 Murray was only eighteen years old. Most of the history I have on him involving his activities takes place in the 50's and later. I know Comparet and Swift were the scurge of the San Diego area back then, and Murray was definitely intimately involved in their organizations ...

ramblingrose

05-20-2007, 04:52 AM

Now, there is the link between L.Ron Hubbard of Scientology, Kenneth Goff, and the Brain Washing Manual of 1955. Goff signed Arnold's license in 1958. If all this is true, he had to be running wild with the bunch in California. So where was it that Arnold shed blood and when did he find time to go into the Korean War. I understood that the Mafia headquarters was in San Diego.

ramblingrose

05-20-2007, 05:10 AM

Aviyah,

Why do you want to make salvation based on race? Do you think the American Indians have less rights or are they like Ruth who came into the camp of Israel and accepted the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. That is what the Arabs have to do. But they like so many, think that flesh and blood will inherit the Kingdom of Heaven. That is what happens when the gospel is not preached for it is all about the Kingdom of God and what is required to be in that Kingdom. The Kingdom of God is not of this world, it is a far country which flesh and blood do not inherit. If flesh and blood do not inherit it, how can race be a distinguishing factor in salvation?

stage_director

05-20-2007, 05:13 AM

I know for fact what Murray teaches regarding this.

From Shepherd's Chapel's Newsletter #208 February 1996 ...

"The word "giants" is from the Hebrew word "nephilim". The fallen angels took the daughters of Adam, and they bare children. The results were mighty men renowned for their ungodliness called "gibbor" in Hebrew. This was Satan's plan to destroy the seed line of Eve through which would come Messiah. This is also the reason God destroyed the gibbor by flooding the earth. Let's go to another proof that the offspring of the nephilim did indeed exist.

DEUTERONOMY 3:11
For only Og king of Bashan remained of the remnant of giants; behold, his bedstead was a bedstead of iron; is it not in Rabbath of the children of Ammon? nine cubits was the length thereof, and four cubits the breadth of it, after the cubit of a man.

Do you know why Og was the last of the giants to remain? That dude's bed was approximately eighteen and a half feet long and a little over eight feet wide. There are proofs of the existence of these giants throughout history. We offer a book entitled "Petra" by E. Raymond Capt, which historically documents the existence of these giants. The offspring of the nephilim were giants. They did not belong here. The nephilim followed Satan in the first earth age (Rev. 12). They refused to be born of woman and came to earth against God's plan. The results were freaks of nature --- giants. Not all "sons of God" are fallen angels (Job 38:7). The fallen angels are those that refused to be born of woman. Let's go to the New Testament."

smyrna

05-20-2007, 05:23 AM

Ok, so, he teaches this. If you have a problem with it, then too bad. That is the basic outline, but I'll withold my full opinion to make sure you don't twist his words in a subsequent post.

aviyah

05-20-2007, 05:28 AM

Ramblingrose,

*********************************************** ***
"It is very clear that angels neither can marry or be given in marriage (able to reproduce) They are spirit" (Ramblingrose, 05/19/07)
*********************************************** ***

It is clear to whom? Are you suggesting that Heb 2:16 clarifies your aforementioned opinion? Heb 2:16 says to me that God took on the form of flesh and blood (Christ) in order to suffer death and defeat death (the devil). It makes no mention whatsoever of whether or not angelic bodies are able to reproduce.

How, I wonder, do you decipher Genesis Chapter 6? Who were the "sons of God" who saw the "daughters of men" and took them to wife? Who were the "giants in the earth in those days"?.

God Bless, AviYAH

aviyah

05-20-2007, 05:52 AM

Yes Stage...Murray teaches that the fallen angels produced offspring with the daughters of Adam which resulted in "mighty men which were of old, men of renown". What does that have to do with the offspring of Adamic man and woman? How does this confirm what you are accusing (that Murray teaches inter-racial marriage is a sin)? The two ideas have nothing to do with one another.

God Bless, AviYAH

aviyah

05-20-2007, 06:02 AM

Ramblingrose,

*********************************************** ***
"Why do you want to make salvation based on race?" (Ramblingrose, 05/20/07)
*********************************************** ***

I don't. How on earth have you concluded that I believe salvation is based on race?

God Bless, AviYAH

aviyah

05-20-2007, 06:05 AM

ramblingrose

05-20-2007, 06:28 AM

Adam was a son of God by creation. Christ was the only begotten Son of God, begotten not made, who came in the likeness of the seed of Abraham. What Murray teaches would imply an incarnate devil - that Satan could literally produce children. If Adam was a son of God, so were his immediate descendants as a product of lineage through creation. Those who wandered into idolatry would no longer be considered believers just like Cain for if he would have believed God, he would not have been exhiled, thus no longer a son of God (physical disinheritance) because of the act of physical disobedience. A sin in the flesh mars the soul. Only the true believers inherit the Kingdom of God through Christ. Christ was crucified which took care of the sin against the flesh and fact that he is the Only Begotten Son of God took care of the salvation of the soul. The sin in the garden was two fold - flesh disobedience and spiritual disobedience

Heb 4:12
12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

soul, spirit, joints and marrow (flesh body)

The giants in Genesis were those who thought they could get along without God, were powerful in their own might - mighty men of renown - had a reputation. So they made a name for themselves and built a city of non-believers.

smyrna

05-20-2007, 01:04 PM

S_D wrote:

"That's another thing ... The Marines deny he was ever enlisted, much less at the Chosin Reservoir. Now, Harold (his brother) was two years older, and he served in WWII ... but there's no record for Arnold."

BUSTED! That is a damn lie! Since the burden of proof is on YOU, it is YOU that has to prove that accusation.

But I know for a fact that the idiots that have gone down the same road you are going, were proven wrong, and it's too bad, at least in this case, that the original www.scripture_truth.homestead.com (http://www.scripture_truth.homestead.com) site has been dismantled. Because on that site, was a copy of Arnold Murray's record with the Chosin Few.

You are a liar, you just throw out accusations without proof, and until you come up with proof of all thse accusations, I'll hammmer away at that point until you can't stand it anyomore.

Of course, that presumes you have a conscience, a presumption that may not have any merit, since you seem to lie and be a rumormonger without giving any thought to actually having to provide eveidnce.

Hey, what is it really like to be such a lying wretch?

blessedlyfe68

05-20-2007, 03:26 PM

Although the site may have been dismantled, just about everything on the internet is archived at some point. This is the archived version of the scripture_truth website dated March 24, 2005:

http://web.archive.org/web/20050324025957/http://scripture_truth.homestead.com/

Take a look at the following excerpt from this site:

"Mr. Murray has also stated repeatedly, that he served as a United States Marine. He states in his "answer to critics", that he was a member of the "Chosen Few"; (the group name is "Chosin Few") a group of Marine Corps veterans who served valiantly at the Chosin reservoir, during the Korean War. He states that he was wounded in this battle. I have searched Korean war databases for any proof of a Purple Heart, to confirm his claim, but have not as of yet, found that proof. He does not provide details of his detachment, so it is difficult to confirm."

aviyah

05-20-2007, 04:34 PM

Ramblingrose,

Beget means to cause to exist. When the Bible says Christ was the only begotten son of God, this means Christ was the only "son of God" that Father caused to exist in the flesh.

Please read Genesis 6 again. The "sons of God" were fallen angels that took to wife "the daughters of Adam" (flesh man). The offspring were bastards, giants.

The seed of Abraham that you speak of is the lineage of which Christ was born. This was the only family since the time of Adam and Eve which had not intermingled with fallen angels. The main purpose of Genesis is to document the offspring of Adam and Eve from their son Seth to Abraham. The offspring of Cain is there too because Cain existed as the result of Satan trying to interfere with Father's plan of salvation. Satan seduced Eve and Cain was born in an attempt to stop the seed from which Christ was to be born. Abel's murder was another attempt to stop the seed of Adam and Eve from eventually bringing forth a savior.

Mary, mother of Jesus, was a descendant of Abraham. So Christ was eventually born from the seed of Seth. The whole reason this Adam and Eve were created was to bring forth the Savior. The whole purpose of Genesis is to inform us of this geneology. This is the Key of David. The rest of God's word wouldn't make much sense without knowing this key information.

God Bless, AviYAH

aviyah

05-20-2007, 04:49 PM

Stage Director,

Where are you getting this from? I am not finding this in the Hebrew and Chaldee or the Greek dictionaries of Strong's Concordance.

*********************************************** **
"•••••••-Strongs H4664 mamzer" (Stage Director, 05/19/07)
*********************************************** **

Please respond to my previous questions...What exactly is your purpose and your method, to stifle the FREE SPEECH of Sheperd's Chapel students on this public forum?

On two separate occasions, I have engaged in debate with you on this discussion board regarding the teachings of Sheperd's Chapel. During both discussions I was able to point out the falisy of your reasoning, at least to my own satisfaction. On both occasions my user account was promptly suspended. Tell me, does your purpose and method have anything to do with this? According to Factnet management there have been "problems with hackers".

God Bless, AviYAH

stage_director

05-20-2007, 05:43 PM

Abi, what are you talking about? The word "b@ stard" in the bible is the Hebrew word "mamzer" and any Strongs will point that out.

Join the crowd ... I think just about all of us have tried to post and got the message that says "your user name and password do not match." I've had to re-register at least four times. Why do you think our post numbers keep going back to "one"?

ramblingrose

05-20-2007, 05:46 PM

Aviyah,
Did you ever think about how God formed man and then put him in the garden. Man was formed outside of the garden.

Gen 2:7-8

And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

Gen 2:15
And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.

He had not named the man yet. So does this mean that the man was part of the creation on the sixth day or was he created before the animals or was the Lord resting on the seventh day waiting to see what Adam would do.

I know the law of God which is kind after kind. So it only makes sense that the woman would be taken from man so the genetics would permit reproduction. Reproduction is always species specific. What is not of like kind cannot reproduce.

I can also see by looking at the sentence that Eden was already present, then man was created, and then the garden was planted, and then man was put in it, and then woman was made.

I can also see by the sentence

Gen 1:27
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Man was created first and then the female. He created them both but first the man and then the woman (womb of man). It is as if he gave birth to her.

smyrna

05-20-2007, 09:14 PM

http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/rofl.gifStage Director thinks Aviyah is Abyiah!

But this shows how silly she can be. Anyone (except S_D) can see the difference in writing style, among other clues.

Now, down to business:I guess Stage Director missed my post above, so here it is the number:

2490

Of course, it's just another of her silly accusations she can'tovide evidwnce for.
It's a growing list, but like the other detractors, she doesn't care if there is any evidence or not. She probably figures that there will be some sap that will believe what she says and passes it on to some other website.

That's what bearing false witness is all about.

The truth will come out. We work on doing that all the time.

aviyah

05-21-2007, 05:42 AM

Stage Director,

What are YOU talking about? I have a Strong's Exhaustive Concordance right here in my lap and I am telling you, this word "mamzer" is NOT in it.

I do understand what you're getting at. I know that mamzar means inter-racial offspring. But what is this "•••••••-Strongs H4664 mamzer" that you tossed out in a previous post?

I'm really starting to think you just pulled this one out of your hat!

Oh, and once again, I am AviYAH not Abiyah.

God Bless, AviYAH

xman3

05-21-2007, 05:45 AM

Listen to your instincts rather than Stage's biased opinion. He/she is confused much of the time.

Well, I'll tell you what my "insticts" are here. It seems based on the responses that SD's statements are true as no actual denial has been presented. They don't say anything earth shaking though anyway.

My gut feeling on the Chapel and Murray is that he's a Christian and does his best at teaching the Bible. Lot's I don't agree with but most of that stuff is extraneous to things I deal with everyday. Outside of the unfortunate things that are clearly not Christian that students post here in the heat of arguing (the name calling, insults, etc...) I find most of the students to be sincere and knowledgeable and willing to explain why they believe the stuff they do regardless as to whether I or anyone else wants to embrace it.

They seem to be doctrineally considered a "cult" by some people, but I rarely if ever have seen examples in actual practice of abuse, racism, or mind control and such. More theory and doctrine than actual abuse.

That's my current take, and I have no intention of joining the group or anything, but I have no problem with them as people or with Murray for the most part.

I also have no problem with the detractors stuff either. All the groups on factnet actually have a core group of detractors because a few postres usually represent a larger group of people who believe the same but don't post in places like this. Usually I think the SC students "win" a lot of the arguments but quickly lose the advantage when the thread degenerates.

stage_director

05-21-2007, 06:37 AM

QUOTE
What are YOU talking about? I have a Strong's Exhaustive Concordance right here in my lap and I am telling you, this word "mamzer" is NOT in it.
END QUOTE

Really ... and just what does your Strongs say is the Hebrew word #4664 ?

godchild

05-21-2007, 06:45 AM

No 'mamzer' in my strong's either.

Did you know the story of "Eve having sex with the serpent" comes from the Talmud, that "corrupted Kenite text"?

stage_director

05-21-2007, 07:27 AM

QUOTE
No 'mamzer' in my strong's either.
END QUOTE

http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/words.pl?book=Deu&chapter=23&verse=2&strongs=04464 &page=

saygoodnightgracie

05-21-2007, 11:01 AM

"My gut feeling on the Chapel and Murray is that he's a Christian and does his best at teaching the Bible."

I concur, and I base that on what I read from SC supporters versus what I read from their "detractors".

And tho it is true that things can degenerate here quickly, if (and when) it is my pastor being attacked, I would respond in perhaps the same way. And some of the attacks here are quite obviously unfounded.

And the attackers are often found quite oblivious... to anything regarding civility, wisdom or anything vaguely resembling a real life.

Pitiful, pray for them is what I suggest. Fervently.

watchman_2

05-21-2007, 03:11 PM

ramblingrose,

You chose an appropriate name for this forum. For, it is quite obvious that you do ramble without fully investigating what you are posting about.

So, let's begin to sort out fact from fiction so that your deprogramming can commence.

You wrote:
****************************
If Adam was a son of God, so were his immediate descendants as a product of lineage through creation. Post No. 8, 5/20/07
****************************

Yes, Adam was called a "Son of God" because his existence was the direct result of a divine act of God. Likewise, Christ and angels are referred to as "Son{s) of God" because of God's divine act.

There is no evidence in the scriptures that anyone that came into existence strictly from the mating of flesh man and woman is referred to as a "Son of God".

Hence, the position that you take in the quote above is purely unbiblical. See Companion Bible, Appendix 23.

aviyah

05-21-2007, 04:14 PM

*********************************************** ***
"ramblingrose...You chose an appropriate name for this forum. For, it is quite obvious that you do ramble without fully investigating what you are posting about". (Watchman, 05/21/07)
*********************************************** ***

My sentiments exactly Watchman. Oh well...ramble on. It's in God's hands.

But in your ramblings Rose, please be courteous enough to spare us the trash talk against a United States Marine which has helped to afford us this opportunity for free speech.

God Bless, AviYAH

aviyah

05-21-2007, 05:01 PM

Stage,

My original point was, Pastor Murray teaches there is a difference between a mamzar and a •••••••. Your original accusation was that Murray teaches that mamzars are bastards.
Remember this:

*********************************************** ***
"Shepherd's Chapel teaches that race mixing is an abomination, that a black woman and a white man of Israel would produce a mamzar, or b@ st@ rd ... because intermarriage is not procreating "kind after kind" per biblical instruction". (Stage Director, 05/17/07)
*********************************************** ***

This accusation is simply not true. I have heard other wise from Sheperd's Chapel with my own ears.

God Bless, AviYAH

stage_director

05-21-2007, 05:17 PM

The word translated "b@ stard" in the bible is the Hebrew word 4464 "mamzer" ...

http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/words.pl?book=Deu&chapter=23&verse=2&strongs=04464 &page=

smyrna

05-21-2007, 05:29 PM

Hey Aviyah,

Notice how Stage Director IGNORES your post 17 and just goes on with her usual drivel?

This is just the usual tactic by the extremist detractors.

Prove them wrong, and they ignore you can just keep on babbling.

Now if that isn't dishonest enough, they have a whole list of stupid tricks to choose from. The problem is, it they only work in THEIR minds, and no one else's.http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/rofl.gif

godchild

05-21-2007, 05:30 PM

"Funny for today", has to be a person saying,
"Busted. You're a liar. Now you have to prove that you're a liar." (paraphrased) see smyrna post #2490

Thayer's Lexicon has 'mamzer' in it. mamzer is not found in the kjv, which is the Bible I use and according to scer's they do also. You won't find the word in the Strong's Dictionary.
quote from blue-letter bible site:

Bible Search (Help)

Dictionary Results
There were no results found in the dictionaries. Browse the Dictionaries.

Dictionaries:
C = Condensed Biblical Cyclopedia
E = Easton's Dictionary
H = Hitchcock's Dictionary
I = International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
K = King James Version Dictionary
N = Nave's Topical
S = Subject Guide
T = Torrey's Topical
V = Vine's Dictionary

KJV Concordance for -mamzer-
Help Using the Search Tool
Sorry! The word mamzer doesn't occur in the KJV. You may wish to check Secondary Results on the tab above to expand the breadth of your search.

david_munson

05-21-2007, 05:31 PM

Evidence of a supriority complex,
:"so that your deprogramming can commence."

This is enough evidence that there is a superiority complex at play here at least with watchman.

Sorry watchman,
you don't have a corner on the truth and you are definately not superior in your understanding to any one else.

I do like it when your true colors show though and I thank you for showing them for all to see.

It makes perspective a bit easier to establish.

Isn't God good?

}

}}

smyrna

05-21-2007, 05:33 PM

The syetem wouldn't let me correct this line:

"Prove them wrong, and they ignore you can just keep on babbling."

It should read: "Prove them wrong, and they ignore you so they can just keep on babbling."

godchild

05-21-2007, 05:51 PM

What the h.... After all that hoopla by scers,
av says "Your original accusation was that Murray teaches that mamzars are bastards. This accusation is simply not true. I have heard other wise from Sheperd's Chapel with my own ears." What are YOU smoking? You need to take this up with smyrna or watchman, not stage.

watchman_2

05-21-2007, 05:54 PM

More ramblings:
**************************
The giants in Genesis were those who thought they could get along without God, were powerful in their own might - mighty men of renown - had a reputation. So they made a name for themselves and built a city of non-believers. (ramblingrose Post No. 8, 5/20/07)
**************************

That was pure speculatation -- unsupported by the Word of God. A little study of Gen. 6:4 would prove beneficial here.

en 6:4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown. 

When one looks at the meanings of these words, one will notice that there is no implication that these were just ordinary offspring that were not believers in God. It is clear that they possessed great physical attributes as well as knowledge as they ruled over the others.

The key to unlocking the interpretation to this scripture is the words 'of old'.

Strong's for 'of':

H4480
min minni&#770;y minne&#770;y
min, min-nee', min-nay'
For H4482; properly a part of; hence (prepositionally), from or out of in many senses: - above, after, among, at, because of, by (reason of), from (among), in, X neither, X nor, (out) of, over, since, X then, through, X whether, with.

Strong's for 'old':

H5769
&#8219;o&#770;la&#770;m &#8219;o&#770;la&#770;m
o-lawm', o-lawm'
From H5956; properly concealed, that is, the vanishing point; generally time out of mind (past or future), that is, (practically) eternity; frequentative adverbially (especially with prepositional prefix) always: - always (-s), ancient (time), any more, continuance, eternal, (for, [n-]) ever (-lasting, -more, of old), lasting, long (time), (of) old (time), perpetual, at any time, (beginning of the) world (+ without end). Compare H5331, H5703.

So, the scripture does not claim that these were old men as we think of them today. They were 'mighty men' because they had knowledge that had been concealed from the begining of the world [first earth age].

No son of Adam would have that knowledge; however, angels would. This clearly links these offspring to the 'nephilim', the fallen angels.

watchman_2

05-21-2007, 06:17 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnold_Murray

You folks that don't think PM is a marine that fought in the Korean conflict need to contact Wikipedia and provide them with your proof.

LOL

aviyah

05-21-2007, 06:35 PM

godchild,

You have a filthy mouth (whether you spell it out or not).

"What the h...." (godchild, 05/21/07)

Furthermore, alluding to familiarity with illicit drugs, does nothing for your own reputation or the reputation of Christianity as a whole.

"What are YOU smoking?" (godchild, 05/21/07)

You're free to share your thoughts here just as I am. For the sake of the Christian religion, can't you please try to refrain from being vile?

As I said before, I have heard it taught on Sheperd's Chapel there is a difference between mamzers and bastards. All I can offer for proof is that one listen themselves until the subject comes up again.

Since you're obviously not a student of Sheperd's Chapel, what gives you the notion that you are in a position to spout off about the teachings?

God Bless, AviYAH

watchman_2

05-21-2007, 06:43 PM

David,

Remember -- you were deprogrammed too. You came to these threads with a purpose that was quickly defeated. Now, you are left to derrogatory commentary.

Don't you think ramblingrose deserves the same as you? Try to show some objectivity for a change.

aviyah

05-21-2007, 06:46 PM

Watchman,

Thank you for that web address.

God Bless, AviYAH

yaakov2

05-21-2007, 06:52 PM

smyrna

Kenite influence in the Talmud is certainly present, but not all pervading, anymore than the KJV translators werer always in error. The problem with the Talmud is that it is not inspired, but that does not mean it contains no truth at all.

In other words, you cherry-pick the Talmud the same as you do Strongs. At least you are consistent.

godchild

05-22-2007, 02:07 AM

yaakov, I like that term "cherry-pick". According to everything I have heard am/sc students quote am and the other teachers say, it's always "NEVER listen to a rabbi." Guess that's only for those things am receives revelation about. Who do they think wrote the Talmud? And what's the definition of rabbi; teacher. Doesn't that leave am out? IT SHOULD!

godchild

05-22-2007, 02:26 AM

rambling, You can fill in whatever word you want. That makes you own it. Can you wrap your mind around what I just said.

I'm as much a 'student' of am/sc as you or anyone else here. I've studied him and his teachings for over a year, and I'm a "quick study". http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/wink.gif "Keep your friends close, and your enemies even closer." That's a gift from me to you. God bless you.

I've "studied" hitler's book, his biography, history of Germany. I've studied Ghandi. I've studied mormonism. I've studied Princess Diana. I've studied the Catholic Encyclopedia. I've studied the history of Buddha. I've studied the life of Ted Bundy. And much more. None of these "studies" means I follow their teachings or beliefs. Get it? Good! Don't EVER make presumptive statements about another's knowledge or intentions. Knowledge isn't the key. The wisdom that comes with it is! Praise God! You need to find the difference. (The Old Testament is a good place to start).

If you are interested in knowing me, ask me.

If you want to know the truth about am/sc, first take off those rose-colored glasses. But let me give you a hint about this board and these topics. Watchman and smyrna are trying to teach you (by correcting you). You can accept their words or reject them. Watchman has stated he doesn't live by (1) faith, but by analysis first. smyrna said he is here (1) to defend am.

If you want to know about scriptures, you're listening to the wrong people. But that's your God given choice, of course.

angie0401

05-22-2007, 02:35 AM

Vivian
What in the world are you talking about? Have you gone off the deep end - I scrolled all the way back up through the posts and don't see where ramblingrose even addressed you or said anything about you. In case you didn't notice - she is on YOUR side.
Sheesh!!!

smyrna

05-22-2007, 10:49 AM

Yaakov,

"In other words, you cherry-pick the Talmud the same as you do Strongs. At least you are consistent."

Smyrna: yes, I do, and I find nothing worng with that. As you well know, even the KJV Bible contains errors, historical, textual, and otherwise. Yet there are ways to find corrections for them.
So for the Talmud, which all agree is not Divinely inspired,and you know is akin to this very discussion baord in a sense, of course you have to sift through it and choose that which can be affirmed by Scripture itself,which may or may not lead to irrefutable truth, but as we know, no one can reach perfection in this life.

Any study involves a methodology, a search for truth, the results either absolutes or probabilities. If you want to refer to that as "cherry picking" that's cool with me.

xman3

05-22-2007, 11:39 AM

Godchild- Good point about being a student of the chapel and Murray. I think you may very well study more and be more well apprised about some of this stuff than some of the actual students. Probably not the regular posters here though. I think you make a lot of very good points.

What the h*** is not vile. It is quite tame in my book and pales in comparison to someone calling a Christian brother or sister a name in my opinion.

Tha Chapels and Murray's doctrines aren't so weird that only they believe them. I don't know that I consider this stuff harmless, but I don't consider it as bad as what I see in the practices in many other churches and groups. Thus far, in my studying and reading, I find that the SC perspective is supported to an extent by certain scriptures, but that the case is not very strong. It seems that some of the stuff is built on some scriptures which are controversial and ambiguous and have some room for interpretation, which they have so done in an unconventional fashion which I disagree with to an extent, but understand how it was done. It's all quite fascinating to me still and I like some of these discussions.

godchild

05-22-2007, 12:33 PM

I apologise, rambling rose. I meant to address my last post to aviyah. Please accept my apology.

xman3, I appreciate your vote of confidence. I hope you continue to view the posts here. Notice when am/sc followers quote scripture, they do not interpret it from the whole chapter, but pick out a few words or one sentence. The bible interprets itself. In other words, what you read in the bible is confirmed by being repeated elsewhere (by another witness or author).

Take, for example, your words "I disagree with to an extent, but understand how it was done." Some can read that and may interpret it to mean "men make errors in interpretation" or "its easy to misinterpret scripture", or even "there's no harm that I see in their interpretation". I am even unsure of what you meant, but that's just an example. You may also notice one scer will say "I heard am say" while another interprets his words completely differently. All the while they are saying they don't listen to a man but go to the Word (like they say am tells them to do). If that is true, and they are guided by the Holy Spirit, how do two people come up with completely opposing interpretations? I say it is because they are listening to the man, and not reading the scripture without his words getting in the way. That's just my opinion, of course. Are there other explanations?

watchman_2

05-22-2007, 02:12 PM

xman3,

You wrote:
*************
I do believe that sometimes scriptures are taken out of context and used to support certain doctrines. The ones I am referring to, such as the serpent's seed doctrine, are built on scriptures which are somewhat ambiguous to me Post No. 16 5/22/07
**********

Certainly, the scriptures describing that which took place in the Garden of Eden would be less difficult to understand if given to Moses in modern day English language. However, I fail to see what can possibly be ambiguous about the scriptures.

In reading Gen. 3:15, 16, and 20, there can be little doubt that the woman was pregnant. In fact, she received the name Eve because of that fact.

So, when Adam first had sex with her in Gen. 4:1, you can see that he had sex with Eve -- a pregnant woman.

It is really quite straight-forward and clear. What is ambiguous about this?

xman3

05-22-2007, 02:47 PM

I'll think about it a bit and post later when I have some time. I'm not necessarily referring to that specific scripture and I would have to refresh my memory on some of the specifics. It seems some of the stuff about pre-existing spirits and such struck me as ambiguous at the time and I don't have much off the top of my head.

I don't want to tie all my comments to just the one doctrine, and I don't want to debate them too deeply because I'm neither a detractor or a supporter, but mostly an interested observor with occasional spurts of postings in these threads. Thanks for the response though. I'll consider it a bit today.

david_munson

05-22-2007, 05:15 PM

Watchman:"David,
Remember -- you were deprogrammed too. You came to these threads with a purpose that was quickly defeated. Now, you are left to derrogatory commentary."
---
LOL.
You seem to have become delusional.
How do you defeat God's Love?
You have no idea why I have come to these threads.(though you like to assert others intentions by your own bias)

Defeated? LOL. You seem to think this is a contest or some other rediculous thing of that sort but you are way off the mark.
You claim that you win every discussion but you are blind to the truth that it's only in "your" mind.
For crying out loud, you don't even know the difference between a woman and a man.

Deprogrammed huh?
Thanks for the humor as you know I like humor.

I also like it when you show your superiority complex.Especially in such a delusional fashion.

As for derogatory comments ,I leave that to you as always.
You know "satans tit" "you're not saved if you believe in a rapture" and all that mindless nonsense.

You defeat youself with those statements.

Wouldn't praying that God curses another believer be derogatory or even worse hateful?
You did this in violation of God's Holy Word to Love all men and to have Love for the brethren.

Always learning yet never coming to the knowledge of the "Truth".

Sad indeed.

}

yaakov2

05-22-2007, 05:19 PM

Smyrna

"In other words, you cherry-pick the Talmud the same as you do Strongs.

Smyrna: yes, I do, and I find nothing worng with that.

Really?! Well, we have different study methods then. I’d rather study from books that I consider to be factually correct, enhancing and deepening my knowledge. I don’t see a point to perusing error-riddled books just searching for a few sentences that happen to agree with my existing knowledge.

So for the Talmud, which all agree is not Divinely inspired,and you know is akin to this very discussion baord in a sense, of course you have to sift through it and choose that which can be affirmed by Scripture itself…

The Talmud is more akin to legal opinions issued by the majority and dissenting judges, that is, law experts. You don’t “sift” through it looking for agreement to your positions and discarding those you disagree with. You read it ALL and analyze the discussions for and discussions against. You seek the kernel of truth within the discussions to enhance your understanding of that particular point.

All of Talmud is affirmed by Scripture. When the literal scripture is vague, we need the “court opinions” to enable us to determine how to carry out the laws. The Talmud turns the bible into a living, breathing document that continues to be useable in changing times.

Any study involves a methodology, a search for truth, the results either absolutes or probabilities. If you want to refer to that as "cherry picking" that's cool with me.

I define cherry picking as <blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:

the act of using data that confirms a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of data that contradicts that position.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> It’s not always incorrect to do so, for example, defending attorneys use it. Thanks for confirming to me that this is your research technique.

watchman_2

05-22-2007, 05:54 PM

David,

Anyone can see your original posts under these threads. You were nothing more than a drone for every Apologetic Ministry out there on the web.

Look how far that you have come, to date, due to our deprogramming efforts. It was so effective that you didn't even realize it. LOL

Perhaps, in a year or two of hard work, we might even get you to admit that the word 'rapture' is not in the Bible or the manuscripts. Wishful thinking on my part, but, continued deprogramming efforts may even result in an acknowledgement that 'rapture' traces back to the year 1830 and to a sick woman named Margaret McDonald.

What a victory for Father on that day!

smyrna

05-22-2007, 08:22 PM

Yaakov:

"All of Talmud is affirmed by Scripture. When the literal scripture is vague, we need the “court opinions” to enable us to determine how to carry out the laws. The Talmud turns the bible into a living, breathing document that continues to be useable in changing times.'

I agree. Then you agree that Satan had sex with Eve in Eden?

Yaakov:

"Really?! Well, we have different study methods then. I’d rather study from books that I consider to be factually correct, enhancing and deepening my knowledge. I don’t see a point to perusing error-riddled books just searching for a few sentences that happen to agree with my existing knowledge."

Smyrna: I agree on several of your points, with the exceptions that I don't consider the Talmud or the KJV "error ridden".

I said there were errors, there is a difference. As for the KJV, most errors are known and corrected in later versions, as well as clarifications in the Strong's and the Companion Bible footnotes.

I don't think it is the Talmud that "turns the bible into a living, breathing document".

Does that mean the Talmud is your idol, your god?

I think the Holy Spirit is what gives Scripture its life. (John 1:1)

yaakov2

05-22-2007, 10:24 PM

smyrna

I have no idea how you pulled the statements about the devil and idols out of what I said. Not only do our study methods differ, but your reading comprehension does as well.

smyrna

05-23-2007, 08:10 PM

Yaakov,

Yes, our comprehension does differ, because we are separate individuals.

For clarification, you stated that the Talmud
"...turns the bible into a living, breathing document"...

I simply disagree, because I don't attribute that power to the Talmud, but to God. To attribute that power to the Talmud is to replace God with the Talmud.

How can an uninspired (in a divine sense) work turn the Word of God into a "living, breathing document"? Only the Holy Spirit can do that.

So in that context, you are idolizing the Talmud.

As far as satan is concerned, since you claim that "when the literal scripture is vague, we need the “court opinions”" Since the Rabbis stated that they understood Eve had sex with satan, based upon what Genesis was telling them,that must have been their "court opinion."

yaakov2

05-24-2007, 02:39 PM

Thank you smyrna for proving my point. Cherry picking one sentence out of the Talmud and using to make a point (or base a religion on) winds up with silly conclusions.

smyrna

05-24-2007, 05:40 PM

Yaakov,

You are certainly free to think I proved your point.
Of course, I'd be interested in knowing how you theorize that I based one sentence out of the Talmud on a religion, or even a doctrine.

I disagree, so I guess we are at a stalemate.

lutheratx

05-25-2007, 03:21 PM

One world religion one world peace one world one world one world................

you must be a strong Christian to watch this the Jews and CB's will love this religion........

Enjoy your god and our instead of christ I will not stand by while Christ is taken out of our mist, I thought I was paranoid, I thought that you said this would never happen.........

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ucUayw0cwjY

lutheratx

05-25-2007, 03:58 PM

They say it is all differ religions, then they call it the second largest religion in the world.
Don't they also call him the prophet founder. He writes scripture, One god, One religion. Apparently you do not need Christ to have this salvation. Since UN has been in affect the Baha'i have worked closely, all social, and economic....The Earth summit the Baha'i very involved in one word power. Just remove Christ and you will have world peace. Baha'ullah says he is the promise of all ages. Giving the background for World Order.......

Are you nucking futs. There will be no world peace until the arrival of Messiah, trust me though this guy is just a type for Antichrist anti will be much bigger than this false prophet. However all ac will have to say is I am Baha'i and these poor deceived people will worship him, they already worship the beast.

Here is your cult you should watch nurturing the 7 headed beast political system, not the ones who warn you of the coming of anti, and by the way this is what our Jewish friend in visions too, however he may completely remove the Messiah, saying the Jewish people is the messiah for all people. The Jews faith are Antichrists, so is this religion. The one world religion, the Jew I invite, I don't want to fight there agenda.(it is God's will Rev13) I just want to warn you that they are in false religion to usher in Antichrist and that this is the way to separate tare from the wheat, let them do it there selves. The Christian people should have no dealings with a one world system other than being the defenders of Jesus Christ. No money, warning of Antichrist, possible imprisonment, mocking, solitude, etc...........
Revelations 3:21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.

lutheratx

05-25-2007, 04:22 PM

Aw peace peace peace, how nice, that is nice, so nice, so so nice, peace peace peace.

1Thess5:3 For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape.

They shall not escape the destruction of there very soul. Tolerate each others religion I'm sure they will want to hear Jesus is the version of God that wouldn't have people running and trembling in fear. This is why on Baptism God was still able to say This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. He is way to powerful to be a spirit placed inside a human, so only a percentage of God walked as a man through the son. He was still able to conquer death by never sinning though, even with the devil, a cherub, tempting his flesh. See how the other religions embrace the fact that Jesus was Emmanuel. This must not be brought up to much in this religion that is composed of all religions.........Satan wants this more than any thing else.

lutheratx

05-25-2007, 04:27 PM

You must warn of Antichrist.

ezekiel_37

05-27-2007, 06:52 AM

Hello xman3, about SD's post, I don't mind answering them.

Shepherd's Chapel teaches that in the heavenly temple of heaven, the inner court and sanctuary is occupied by the literal seed of Adam/Abraham, while the outer courtyard is the place of the ethnic people. 

Shepherd's Chapel does not teach this. The SCN teaches that the inner sanctum is to be comprised with the Elect, the dead in Christ (who are from many nations) and the kings (and queens)of the ethnic peoples.

Shepherd's Chapel teaches that race mixing is an abomination, that a black woman and a white man of Israel would produce a mamzar, or b@ st@ rd ... because intermarriage is not procreating "kind after kind" per biblical instruction. 

She is wrong again. Shepherd's Chapel teaches the example of Solomon, where he married those that worshipped other gods. A Christian should not "mix" with someone who worships false gods.

I have heard him teach that if two peoples of different ethnicity's marry, it will most likely cause trouble, but not from God's prospective, but rather in the eyes of society. I believe this to be true (I live in one of the most culturally diverse cities in the entire world), not racist but what the 'world' thinks. It was a social opinion. But the example used is not about skin colour but about worshipping other gods.


Shepherd's Chapel teaches that blacks and orientals and all the ethnic people of the world were created on the 6th day, but that Adam and his offspring, later to be called caucasians, were created separately on the 8th day. 

Again SD is mistaken. SCN teaches that ALL races were created on the 6th day, including the white race. Adam (also being white) was created separate from the rest for a specific reason. He was placed in the garden, had his rib (Hebrew=curve - DNA - helix curve) taken and made into another...Eve. Therefore the Adamic peoples would be pure, and set aside from the other races so that Christ could come. The fallen angels were evidently busy MIXING with ALL races before the 8th day, hence no pure race was left. It took Noah 500 years to find a wife, who was also perfect in her generations .... unlike the majority of his for-fathers who married around 100.

Do the Shep Chap'lers posting here disagree with any of these teachings? Do they think Murray is incorrect?


Yes to the first and no to the second. Arnold Murray does NOT teach what SD claims. Our collective denial of 'her' many, many lies should convince anyone of this fact.

So we disagree with what SD has posted but (in most cases) not with PM. I think that all of us here have a different opinion than PM on at least 1 topic. Some more than 1.

SD claims to know what the SCN teaches, but in reality she is very far off. I believe (really) that is it deception on SD's part. Purposeful.

I really wonder why she is so PEEVED at the SCN?

although I have been known to call some here liers and other colourful titles (of which I feel that they earned those titles), I do not like the name calling and for that reason I do not visit these threads as much as before. Today, I decided to read this thread in it's entirety and felt led to answer your query about SD's posts.

In honesty, SD (or for that matter godchild and franklin) has no credibility with me (or the other students here). That bad rep is built on SD's many incorrect and misleading posts.

in His service
c

franklin

05-27-2007, 10:24 AM

Ezekiel:

"inner sanctum is to be comprised with the Elect, the dead in Christ (who are from many nations)"

The "Elect" to you means the so called "Adamic Race" (Germanics/Gaelics) does it not?

"(who are from many nations)"

means to you Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Denmark, Holland, Belgium, Great Britain, Ireland, Sweden, Norway, Iceland, Canada, America, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and wherever else in the world the Germanic/Gaelic people live does it not?

"and the kings (and queens)of the ethnic peoples"

means the non Germanic/Gaelic whites, those who speak Latin, Slavic, Greek languages and they are only allowed to enter but not live in the Inner Court and Sanctuary with God does it not?

The saved blacks and orientals will live in the outer court and realm of heaven correct?

Or will they even be allowed in heaven at all?

"SC teaches that ALL races were created on the 6th day, including the white race."

Meaning the white race in that statement is comprised of all non Germanic/Gaelic ethnic groups does it not?

What does Arnold Murray say and mean about the phrase "kind after kind"?

Thank you for your answers.

xman3

05-27-2007, 12:15 PM

Thanks for those answwers e37. They're pretty good.

As for kind after kind, well it seems to me that means dog, monkey, flower, lizard, human etc..., rather than different races. Some of this dissecting of the words back to original language stuff will work against those who do so if one wants to do that with every word in the Bible. Its too much work for me, but I've noticed many, many, instances when my knowledge of Hebrew and Greek would satisfactorily do so to my satisfaction.

Since I don't view SC as a cult, then I don't bother because I'm concerned I won't follow through a disussion to the end because I'm not so passionate concerning chapel issues, so I refrain.

I am more interested in gaining an understanding of what the adherants actually believe Murray teaches and determining if it is something valid I ought to be considering even if it flies in the face of traditional interpretation.

I appreciate the fact that each student in particular has varying levels of agreement with PM's stuff because no one has a handle on all truth. That's how I view things here anyway and it seems that sometimes when PM or SC is attacked so hard that it seems proper to defend even things that an individual might not agree with because of the ferocity of the attack. It becomes a personal war that loses sight of the actual issue at hand sometimes and usually neither side wins.

Doctrineally, I think the students do a good job overall and hold their own in these discussions, but the proof is not definitive.

I agree (e37) that there appears to often be unsubstantiated stuff posted by the detractors, and even if it could be substantiated, who wants to wade through some of these lengthy threads littered with trash talk just to find it. It's too hard for me because I'm usually rolling around on the floor laughing at the stuff that has nothing to do with the point at hand.

I don't think they are discredited because of it though. A lot of what they say seems true and I see some good questions, but overall it seems so much water has passed under the bridge that at this point it is almost impossible for some of the students and detractors to engage in civil discussion for more than a couple of posts before someone accuses someone of lying, being an idiot, or something similar.

smyrna

05-27-2007, 02:14 PM

Xman, that was a very good post.

I think the detractors are their own worst enemies, they really don't need any help from us to discredit them.

When I say detractors, I'm mainly referring to Frankie, Godchild, and Stage Director, though from time to time we are visited by other Cultbuster's members.

Though they don't deserve it, I'll try to be polite: the CB folks are in a class by themselves.

When we accuse someone of lying, though I may be making fun of them at the same time, I consider it serious, and I show why I think they are lying, and give them an opportunity to prove me wrong.

But the detractors lie their a$$es off, and rarely do they bother trying to prove their allegations.

You've read stuff here long enough to know that the 'three stooges' are chronically guilty of lying, deliberate misrepresentation,deception by omission, using guilt by association schemes,literally every trick they can think of.

But their execution of those tactics is at times incredibly funny, and since they get caught so often, very poor.

franklin

05-27-2007, 02:51 PM

franklin

05-27-2007, 04:54 PM

I am asking Ezekiel, not you. He made the statements. I asked the questions for clarification. He should answer.

I am wanting to know what Arnold Murray preaches. Not the watered down, more palatable for public sensitivities version you portray here.

What we read on the figtree forum and in Arnold Murrays's own words is much different than what you skim over really quickly here.

Christian interpretation of scripture is that there will be NO races in heaven. No ethnic groupings. No skin color. No lilly white Germanic/Gaelic ubermenschen. No elect. No inner sanctum, no outer sanctum. Just one heaven for all who believe in Christ and Christ knows.

"I go to prepare a place for you."

Christ's own words.

Christ did NOT say he was going to prepare an inner sanctum of heaven for the elect and an outer sanctum for the not so elect.

Christ said "A" "PLACE" (not places) for "YOU". "YOU" includes everyone Christ knows. Why do YOU not know this? Have YOU got Alzheimers?

I will wait for Ezekiel's answers thank you.

wls

05-27-2007, 06:38 PM

Sorry, had to but in http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/talker.gif

All I know is yes, the races will all be represented in Heaven. Our flesh bodies are reflections of our perfect spiritual bodies.

The "Kings and Queens of the Ethnos" refers to the non-Israelite peoples.

I've never been that good with being able to recall chapters and verses, but I do know it's Scriptural from watching and reading the Bible studies. Perhaps the more learned students can answer in more detail.

franklin

05-27-2007, 06:58 PM

If you have not read and understood it for yourself then WHY would you believe such utter blasphemy!

Unreal!

Stop letting a man tell you what to believe and read the Bible for yourself!

You will not read any of arnie's heresy in the Bible. It's not there!

He just stole it from Hitler and the rest of those Nazi racists!

WAKE UP!

wls

05-27-2007, 07:49 PM

"If you have not read and understood it for yourself then WHY would you believe such utter blasphemy!"

I have read and understood it. I merely said that I'm not as gifted in recalling various scriptures as some people are. But scriptual it is.

Look up "Kings and Queens of the Ethnos", I believe it's in Revelation and other Books.

franklin

05-27-2007, 09:33 PM

"Why the white washing?"

http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/lol.gif Great pun!

smyrna

05-27-2007, 11:53 PM

"You members cover up the things he teaches and you'll protect him at all costs ... even denying basic Shepherd's Chapel doctrine."

Smyrna: Prove it. Give us an example.

While you are trying to find an example (wasting your time)I'll give an example as to why you an idiot, who doesn't know what you are talking about:

"Murray even makes Ruth out to be an Israelite..."

Smyrna: She was, as you can see here:

http://www.israelofgod.org/ruth.htm

As the evidence shows, Ruth was an Israelite.

As for Aseneth, Joseph's wife, all I know off the top of my head is that she CONVERTED to the worship of YHVH, and since Stage Director often intentionally and conveniently screws up what Murray ACTUALLY teaches, I'd be more comfortable hearing his own coverage of Genesis 41 & 46, and not S_D's hearsay. If he really stated that Aseneth was an Israelite as well, I'm sure he has his reasons.

S_D; "That's not normal."

Smyrna: What is not nromal, is for Satge Dirctor to post accusation after accusation without ever giving any documentation. Declarations are not evidence.

You can say Franklin rides white elephants, but without any proof, who, other than your clone Godchild, would believe you?

Now, there is more than a few accusation you have made that you never provided evidence for, You know it, I know it, and anyone reading these threads knows it. So until you actually provide evidence that can be verified, you are merely a rumor monger, and that is NOT normal.

Stage Director is at her funniest when she tries to prove she knows the Bible, when she is so clueless, she should just take up Buddhism.

The Bible is far too hard to read for her.She can't even understand most of the posts here, much less try to understand the Bible.

xman3

05-28-2007, 12:09 AM

In this case, I think stage director's point is what Murray teaches, rather than what the Bible teaches or whether she understands it. I think what she (I say she based on Smyrna saying she) has made a good point here and it hasn't really been addressed.

Murray says about race mixing ... "Our Father doesn't like it. He wants things to remain as he created them ..." Then he adds, "Because it was good ..."

This part right here is what sticks out to me out of the whole post. What did he mean here? Is this actually a Quote? That is not dependent on understanding scripture.

Now if he did say it, then what he actually means may very well be dependent on understanding scripture. But that's really what is being brought up that from my perspective could use an answer.

That aside however, I will ask you (Stage Director) a question because I think you make better posts than you are given credit for. Do you think any of the people on the list of students is a racist? If so what have they said to indicate that, aside from the SS doctrine which could look racist, but really is more theoretical in it's racism than actually being racist to any particular person in my view. You strike me as a bit more fair in answering my questions than franklin, who is too hardcore for me.

smyrna

05-28-2007, 01:08 AM

"Murray says about race mixing ... "Our Father doesn't like it. He wants things to remain as he created them ..." Then he adds, "Because it was good ..."

"This part right here is what sticks out to me out of the whole post. What did he mean here? Is this actually a Quote?"

Smyrna: I've never heard him say that, but let's just go with saying he did.

I don't know if you saw it, but I posted a link to the Catholic encyclopedia about Genesis.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01129a.htm

But the SC and the Catholic Church both teach very similar aspects of Adam, Eve, and how the story is accepted in their theology.

Now, even though many peoples, tribes, and races lived very close to each other for thousands of years, they did not all melt together through race mixing.

There were and even still are cultural and in some cases even religious taboos against mixing with other races to bear children.

Now if that were not so, the human races would have melted into each other a long time ago.

Those cultures and races did not get their taboos against marrying outside their race from Pastor Murray.

Detractors are trying to say that just because Pastor Murray agrees with all these cultures and other sources for this taboo, that he and anyone who accepts those taboos is a racist!

But would that not mean that ALL these cultures and anyone that viewed mixing with other races to have children are racists?

Of course not!

This is yet another example of Stage Director's foolish attempts at discrediting Pastor Murray and the students of the SC.

The SC has many, despite the lies of the detractors, members of different races as students of the SC. You have seen evidence that even admitted racists and anti-semitic people do NOT consider and are even disappointed that SC is NOT racist or anti-semitic.

Yet these idiot detractors STILL try and make that accusation.

Well, like I said before, everyone has a right to be stupid, and the detractors raise that to an art form.

stage_director

05-28-2007, 05:11 AM

SD: Murray even makes Ruth out to be an Israelite...

Smyrna: She was, as you can see here:

My reply: Show me from the bible, not from some man's explanation.

Smyrna: As for Aseneth, Joseph's wife, all I know off the top of my head is that she CONVERTED

My reply: LOL I rest my case ...

stage_director

05-28-2007, 05:36 AM

QUOTE
I will ask you (Stage Director) a question because I think you make better posts than you are given credit for. Do you think any of the people on the list of students is a racist?
END QUOTE

Murray has gotten way more careful about what he publically teaches and I do think it might be possible that a student of less than a couple years may not be aware of everything he's taught.

On the other hand ... A student who's followed along even half the time I have is definitely going to know. As I said once before ... I've been on at least five student member forums since the late 90s and these things he taught were common knowledge and discussed all the time.

You know, the fact that students who've been with that ministry a long time deny he's taught the things I said says a whole lot to me. I might believe them innocent if they'd said he'd changed and no longer believes or teaches what he use to ... but the fact they just outright deny it tells me they'll just do anything to cover up for him. There's no way a long time student would not know.

smyrna

05-28-2007, 05:46 AM

"My reply: Show me from the bible, not from some man's explanation."

Once again, Stage Director completely blows it.

The link I provided showed, using God's Word, by reading carefully, that Ruth was indeed an Israelite.

It's not really important that you understand that or not, because you just can't handle Scripture.

The other readers should be able to read and see that the author shows plenty of proof, straight from the Bible.

Too bad, try again, and keep looking for those three planes too. Maybe you'll have an easier time reading State and FAA Records than the Bible.http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/rofl.gif

ezekiel_37

05-28-2007, 06:19 AM

Franklin,

I wrote:"inner sanctum is to be comprised with the Elect, the dead in Christ (who are from many nations)"

You ask: The "Elect" to you means the so called "Adamic Race" (Germanics/Gaelics) does it not?

No, it means Israelites, which would include anyone who converted, regardless of race.

I wrote: "(who are from many nations)"

You said: means to you Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Denmark, Holland, Belgium, Great Britain, Ireland, Sweden, Norway, Iceland, Canada, America, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and wherever else in the world the Germanic/Gaelic people live does it not? 

No, it means from many nations. Doesn't matter about skin colour.

I wrote: "and the kings (and queens)of the ethnic peoples"

means the non Germanic/Gaelic whites, those who speak Latin, Slavic, Greek languages and they are only allowed to enter but not live in the Inner Court and Sanctuary with God does it not?

No, it means anyone who is not an Israelite or a converted Israelite.

The saved blacks and orientals will live in the outer court and realm of heaven correct? 

No, anyone who is saved in the Millennium, will have their glorified spiritual body which is immortal and not liable to die the 2nd death. The people who are not yet saved, no matter what skin colour they are, will be outside, being taught the truth for a 1000 years.

Or will they even be allowed in heaven at all? 

Who? Saved or unsaved. We are speaking of the Millennium right? Which is right here on earth right? Which is where all of us will be regardless of who is saved or not. But only the saved will be able to be in Christ's presence during the Millennium, again regardless of skin colour.

I said: "SC teaches that ALL races were created on the 6th day, including the white race."

Meaning the white race in that statement is comprised of all non Germanic/Gaelic ethnic groups does it not?

No. Those countries did not exist then. It means that God created all races on the 6th day, and it was Good.

What does Arnold Murray say and mean about the phrase "kind after kind"? 

I though I went over it above. I did.

Thank you for your answers.

No problem, just accept the answers.

stage_director

05-28-2007, 10:09 AM

QUOTE
NOT SO FAST! Here's the rest:
END QUOTE

lol I doubt anybody had made the mistake of thinking she'd converted to Islam or Hinduism ... ;-)

xman3

05-28-2007, 10:39 AM

Thanks SD. I have found that the ones who respond to me do not blanketly support AM though. There are a few things that they may vary on, and they don't get too specific, but they will admit that. The racism is potentially significant and wrapped in the SS doctrine. My current take is as follows.

I think that no one, student or detractor has adequately explained who a modern Kenite is. It's as if they are all around us, and could be almost anyone, but no one knows of any specific Kenite. They were defined as a race of Jews previously, rather than Blacks, orientals, etc...

Every student who has responded has universally declared that there are all races represented at the Chapel. All have said every person can be redeemed no matter what race. No one has expressly demonstrated that they themselves are racist in my opinion and actually could be of any race themselves, although several of the detractors have concluded they are all white and of what they think Murray would consider an acceptable race. Maybe so, but then so am I, though I consider that immaterial.

The fact that neo-nazi groups or people share some of Murray's beliefs does not mean anything to me. Satanists share many Christian beliefs and they are not representative of Christianity. There will always be parallels, and I would need a more direct connection to say they are the same.

The students here definitely do not align themselves with those fringe groups in my estimation. As for Murray himself, well there are too many threads that are too long and convoluted to determine the facts from merely reading past posts.

Most everything seems to boil down to the corrupted seed of the seprpent. Whether it is the SS doctrine, the Nephilim, or the son's of God, everything seems to be tied to the corruption of humanity and it's implications. This is the tie in and what I am attempting to understand in it's current implications.

I do not want to say racism is justified, as it never is, but IF there were a "race" that was not actually (for lack of a better phrase) human, then it would not be racism in the sense of one discriminating against blacks, whites, or Orientals etc.... Pinning this distinction and an understanding of it down is very difficult, but I believe I am slowly getting there.

I'm not looking to support a strange doctrine, but looking to understand it completely, and then determining how dangerous or racist it might be; or how accurate it might be. I don't have years of study and arguing back and forth to go on, and consider all input as fresh material for me.

As to how I am treated, the students have treated me better than the non students for the most part. Franklin's tone is so condescending and harsh it serves me no purpose. Godchild's current ranting towards ter floors me. I am stunned she would post this stuff for all to see and it looks real bad, though she has said nothing personal to me or treated me badly. It sounds quite personal.

Stage Director seems more balanced and I feel is not given enough credit for the information she provides. I have found it to be quite accurate so far, and she quotes Murray which is very appropriate.

I feel you (Smyrna) would do better to actually answer back to some of what she says with actual quotes from Murray or his writings or teachings rather than assuming the reader will agree with you that she is off base because so far she has shown herself to me to not be off base. Just my observation though.

xman3

05-28-2007, 01:04 PM

I am just one of many posters here and do not have any great insight into people and their motivations and history. I say this in reference to my last post. I expect better things from the folks I refer to as detractors, though I do understand what Franklin said when he referred to the students as the real detractors. For my purposes, however, the non students are what I call detractors and it is in no way an insult or sleight.

I expect better because their claim is that Murray and SC are the cult and the students are the "non Christians". If that is true, then I would expect unchristian behavior from them, and Chritian behavior from the detractors, even if they were continuously insulted.

The current threads going on are loaded with insults and extremely ungodly speech on both sides however and I take no sides in any of that stuff. Having said all that stuff, I might judge the stuff as bad, but I make no judgements as to who is a Christian or who isn't and give all the benefit of the doubt and trust the mercy and grace of God for all of us.

It seems like I am more supportive of the students, but I am merely referring to how I am treated. How they treat others is just as disturbing to me and everyone seems to have reasons why they somehow justify the speech which to me has absolutely no justification.

That's the end of my little rant and commentary. I know it won't stop anything but I want it clear I have no part in that aspect of these threads.

xman3

05-28-2007, 02:27 PM

Both of those threads are what prompted me to post my last post. I think they are both in poor taste. If the one was supposed to be humorous, it DEFINITELY missed the boat. I thought it was cruel. Godchild went way overboard in hers, and I'm almost saddened to admit it, right while I was posting in a more complimentary fashion about her which made me feel a bit foolish actually. As for my sincerity, well what you see is what you get with me. I have no allegience to anyone but Jesus Christ and the Cuckoo's of the nest. I unwind over there from the intensity of these threads where no one cares who you are or what you believe as long as we keep it lighthearted and often a bit foolish.

watchman_2

05-28-2007, 02:36 PM

xman3,

I appreciate your comments. I have been an SCer since 1995 and I know that smyrna has been on longer than I. I can only give my perspective of SC teachings during the time that I have been a regular.

With respect to race relations, PM has always taught that, if people taught the Bible correctly in that all of the races were created on the 6th Day and it was very good, there would be no racism.

Inter-racial marriage must be placed in context. When teaching the Old Testament, PM has taught that the Israelites were to refrain from such mixing. It was very important to God to maintain a pure bloodline from Adam to Christ. In addition, with intermixing comes false religions as well.

However, during the question and answer portion of each broadcast, I have never heard PM state that inter-racial marriage is forbidden by scripture. He does not make a correlation of maintaining the pure blood line of Christ to modern time or to any of the Gentile races intermixing.

With respect to Kenites, I have never heard PM teach anything other than the Bible regarding whom they are, their purpose, and how to handle them. Though you may see various SCers speculate as to physical appearance, specific identity, and other aspects about Kenites, such speculation is not a SC teaching.

Hopefully, this will assist you in sorting out some of the ficticious claims of the detractors above in this and other threads.

xman3

05-28-2007, 02:43 PM

There, I was being completely sarcastic, referring to Jesus seated at the right hand of God after having done His work. I did so because I thought the original post was kind of odd because I don't consider most of factnet God's work. It is no reflection of anything other than my own twisted sarcasm. Sorry for the confusion. Too much time on my hands this wekend.

franklin

05-28-2007, 03:02 PM

The original post was odd because the thread was started by an anti Christian atheist who knows nothing about God's work.

Defending Christianity against the atheists and SCers is doing God's work.

Defending Jews against hate speech saying they are the spawn of satan IS God's work.

xman3

05-28-2007, 03:13 PM

Thanks watchman. I have no problem with anything you said about race relations. Even today, although not banned by the Bible, I do believe that inter-racial marriage will have it's own set of problems caused mostly by society and culture, independent of some great spiritual problem. I would have had no problem marrying outside of my "race" if that would have worked out that way, but it could spark trouble even within the family itself.

I am perplexed by the constant accusations of overt racism because I've yet to hear what it's particularly based on other than theory. I've seen versions of the SS doctrine that are overtly racist and sometimes I get the impression that a detractor is attributing other group's specific beliefs to Murray just because of the similarity of doctrine. I may well find that they are right in the long run if they really are, but not so far.

As for the kenite stuff, I'm still going to press on with that and the Nephilim and such things because my understanding is sketchy and I believe a lot of what seperates the SC from other groups revolves around that understanding. I'm getting closer though.

smyrna

05-28-2007, 03:22 PM

Xman,

Thanks for your post above. Let it be known that Frankie is lying when he says we claim ALL Jews alive today are "spawn" of satan. That is simply not true, he knows it, he's been told this plenty of times, and this is yet another piece of evidence that you can see on the threads here.

It also means whenever he makes that accusation, it is a lie, and he knows it's a lie.

It must also be remembered that Frankie claims it is okay to lie to "pagans" so him and his CB followers have no problem lying to us, as you have seen. They don't consider us Christians.

But where in Scripture does it say it is okay to lie?

xman3

05-28-2007, 03:25 PM

I agree it can be franklin, but I don't think it necessarily is around here. Myself, I don't claim to be doing God's work here but I do think sometimes I might think a post or 2 might fall into that category.

I can't get into your head and understand why you are so adamant at this point because I don't see all the things you do, I don't react the way you do, and I am unaware of the abuse you might be aware of so I said you are too hardcore for me. Time will tell if I eventually think what you are saying is correct, but I will never change my demeanor and manner of posting except in the rare cases where I am viciously attacked in ignorance. Even then I try and be very circumspect in my response because it all remains public for all to see and it affects how my other posts are received.

Plenty of people know who I am in real life and I prefer to keep some self respect and other's respect. That's impossible from everyone here at factnet, but I have no problem ignoring a fool, though I probably won't tell them they are one.

smyrna

05-28-2007, 04:35 PM

Xman wrote:

"I can't get into your head and understand why you are so adamant at this point because I don't see all the things you do, I don't react the way you do, and I am unaware of the abuse you might be aware of so I said you are too hardcore for me."

If you think he is adamant here, just sign onto Cultbusters and ask him if he believes Genesis 3:15 is talking about snake eggs, or just disagree with what is being said there a few times. You'll be BANNED immediately! http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/rofl.gif

xman3

05-28-2007, 04:44 PM

I would be banned because I would tell them who I am without any qualms and franklin is already skeptical about me. For the life of me I can't figure out why, but that is the case. I've been to CB and wouldn't sign up because it is the EN threads and the Cuckoo's nest that actually keeps me here. This SC stuff is interesting to me and I think there is something to some of it, but it's not my passion. Most of what I believe I keep a mystery and just enjoy the assumptions made about me and my beliefs without much offense.

smyrna

05-28-2007, 05:16 PM

"I would be banned because I would tell them who I am without any qualms and franklin is already skeptical about me."

You got that right, Xman. They are really into censorship over there. If they even suspect someone is an SCer, they're gone. They lie and say all SCers are rude, but rude to them means someone who won't agree with them.

I swear they have their own dictionary.

If you disagree with them, they say you are "attacking" them.

If you believe anything that they don't, you are a heretic.

If you prove they are lying about something, you are the liar.

If you ask them for proof of any allegations, you are also "attacking" them.

I ask that you do not automatically believe me. Just try it yourself sometime.

You know what would happen if you signed on there as Xman?

They'd say, "Sorry, Smyrna must have sent you over here, so we are rejecting your application. You can't fool us."

They are way more cultish than anyone here at FN.

franklin

05-28-2007, 05:43 PM

The Cultbusters admin. knew all of you angie, watchman and smyrna, were SCers from the gitgo. You all used the same names. And you stayed on cultbusters fairly long until you did there what you do here. Flaming, trolling, cyberbullying and then you were all banned. Smyrna was banned for making repetitive posts on all of the threads. That is not allowed even on factnet. Cult defenders are always allowed to speak their minds and defend their cults on cultbusters. When they are not respectful of other members then they get banned. That's what happened to you smyrna. Then when you came back as bruno and angie as nunya, the same thing happened. You got banned. So let's tell the truth and keep the fact's straight.

Xman because of what I do, make a stand against racism and heresy I have beaucoup self respect. It's called being a man. Being human. Making a stand.

I aim to please God, not man. That is why I have never been in a cult.

If you find anything redeeming in SC then may God help you!

smyrna

05-28-2007, 06:04 PM

"Smyrna was banned for making repetitive posts on all of the threads. That is not allowed even on factnet."

Though that is true, it's not the whole story. The whole story includes the admin telling me I can't defend the SC there,as soon as I signed on, no matter what you idiots say, lies, misrepresentations and all.

"Cult defenders are always allowed to speak their minds and defend their cults on cultbusters."

First of all, SC isn't even a cult. To define it as such is a lie, and you lie when you say people can defend ANYTHING you and your space freak buddies disagree with.

Go ahead, Xman, try signing onto CB and defend any cult, and see what happens to you. All you have to do is be yourself, as you are here. I guarantee you'll be gone in a matter of days, especially if you try and defend the SC.

It is that easy to prove Glen/Franklin/FoxyLoxy/Gavin/LittleChick is lying.

Plus, he STILL has not proven I am Bruno/SGNG/gag or whoever else he find disagreeing with him.

"If you find anything redeeming in SC then may God help you!"

I do find many things redeeming in the SC, as they teach who the Redeemer is! And God has helped me immensely, thank you!

lutheratx

05-29-2007, 02:11 AM

Xman Im not around here to much because of my studies that I am in dire need of because we inch closer and closer to that faithful day when we must make a stand. You must understand the kenite has placed himself in high areas of society, you see he is a vagabond. scripture provided for Kenites slipping in the early priesthood 1 Chron 2 55 taken to Matthew 23 2, you read in Ezra2 43-65 when reading this realise The word "Nethinim" in the Hebrew means "given". The Nethinims were the people that were given to service in the Temple. Pay close attention to Ezra2 59 then 62&63, these wanted to be the levitical priest. Remember Cains punishment from God Genesis 4:12 "When thou tillest the ground, it shall no henceforth yield unto thee her strength; a fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth." The kenites go by different names also they did this so Judah and Benjamin would lose track of them. These globalist these days seat of Moses, the rapture doctrine the jewish lack of Jesus this is the seat of Aaron a levite. I don't try to identify a Kenite I try to identify false religion education, credit collectors, and politics. The reason why hate groups use sound biblical doctrine is the kenites, they planted this seed of hate to destroy the fact that satan was trying to damage the early seedline possibly one of the most important doctrine in the scripture. Smyrna and Philedelphia both knew those who claim to be the Jews Rev2 9 Rev3 9 they knew this doctrine. We the SC know who is seizing the world, and seizing the church. There are times you feel the holy spirit, so Im sure someone as intellegent as I feel you are will already know that there are those who embrace the spirit of satan, not just his seedline, but those who embrace his seedline. As for how do you tell a Kenite by physical appearance I've heard they came from an oriental tribe do to proof in the Strong's, however I have to say they are White as a lillie like Franklin says(a racist comment I find offensive) . So in my beliefs the most evil family ever, has blend into caucasion. Just look at the majority of Politican's, I kid but look at the powerfull families that get power by any means necessary.

My conclusion is the kenite is more than likely a white man based on the fact no one else could tell they where not the jews.

lutheratx

05-29-2007, 02:14 AM

By the way this is to a previous post where you asked about the Kenite..................

Have a good one feller

franklin

05-29-2007, 02:34 AM

That is one scary post. Smyrna, you need to put a leash and muzzle on this guy. He's giving away all of your secret doctrines not to be revealed outside of the inner sanctum of SC. Whacko conspiracy theories. Elders of Zion all over again. You'd all make wonderful Gestapo guards at a Kenite Concentration Camp. You are all a bunch of scary dudes!

Serious deprogramming is the only way you'll ever get right with God and God's word!

smyrna

05-29-2007, 04:30 AM

"Smyrna, you need to put a leash and muzzle on this guy. He's giving away all of your secret doctrines not to be revealed outside of the inner sanctum of SC."

I'll make you a deal, Frankie. You challenge "illogical_al's" claims that satan does not exist, that Moses didn't write the Torah, and you provide a source for Gen 3:15 talking about crushing snake eggs, and I'll ask lutheratx if he could clarify what he said.

Deal, or no deal?

franklin

05-29-2007, 04:39 AM

a source for Gen 3:15 ~ The Torah.

illogic al did not say any of that and smearna knows it. He was saying that some people do. Smearna knows that too. But a cultic mind is a very small mind. Letting arnie do all your thinking for you shuts your brain and heart down.

Oh luther was very clear. And I say Blasphemy!

xman3

05-29-2007, 08:42 AM

Thanks lutheratx for the reply. That is some interesting stuff and I appreciate your candor. I'll have to chew on that a bit.

I must re-read some of those appendixes Smyrna linked and consider everything said up 'till now a bit before I have more questions or comments. I am having a difficult time figuring out some stuff because of franklin's posts currently, so I suppose in his own twisted way he is being effective. Can't keep a train of thought going.

Franklin, you have proven nothing since you've jumped in where I've been posting. I understand your motivation for exposing SC believing as you do, but I've seen nothing but accusations and the like, but nothing of any substance. If it's been there, I've missed it. I agree with your take on revealing personal information in the other thread and find that disgusting but that's about it so far.

Apparently you could care less how you, the constantly self-professed Christian in this mess, come off in any of your posts. It seems there are 3 primary detractors and a few others who jump in. Godchild uses the most scripture probably, but lost it a bit since I've been posting with that little rant. Stage Director has seemed quite reasonable. You have added nothing but insults, accusations, self righteousness, and the like- all without a shred of evidence. You have quoted none of Murray's stuff, used little scripture, repeatedly called people liars with no proof, and accused me of various things. You are failing in your mission as far as I am concerned and doing yourself and your mission more harm than good.

I'm sure you won't look in the mirror and see if what I'm saying is true, and you will probably tack on some label to me as is your habit, but just read every post you've made since I've been here and decide for yourself. You are adding nothing to the discussion but opinion, which may actually be correct in the long run, but is presented in a very distasteful way.

If you want to keep claiming you are the Christian, you ought to consider acting like one. What you think being a man is and taking a stand is pretty odd to me. You almost seem proud of the fact that you are impossible to interact with.

If you actually read any of my posts, you will see I recognize a lot of the trash talk goes both ways, but that's not my concern. I'm slowly geeting the answers or info I need despite all that stuff, and I am more concerned with how I am responded to and treated than your ongoing battle.

In case you don't know, I am absolutely, fully, and completely aware of what you think about SC. Constantly repeating it over and over isn't doing anything to convince me of anything other than you are quite irritating.

Now smyrna, if you would do me one favor, don't copy or paste this post over and over as fuel for your fight. I know it seems like good ammo, but that's not why I posted it. I posted it for my benefit and it is solely my perspective and opinion. If anyone just has to do so, include this paragraph also please because although I find franklin irritating, he is definitely trying to stand up for what he believes and I have a certain respect for that. I'm just trying to understand some doctrines, not join or oppose SC or Murray.

Come on franklin, you have to understand that untill I actually understand what Murray and SC believe, how could I possibly agree with you they are a cult. You are making it hard for me to find what they believe, but not impossible. It's just taking longer. I actually could care less at this point what YOU THINK they teach and believe unless you actually document it. Don't assume I've read any of your past stuff where you have done so if you have, because I haven't.

xman3

05-29-2007, 08:57 AM

I will help you a little franklin. If you really believe that their doctrine is racist and/or heretical, give them some room to hang themselves with an inquirer like myself before you start in. I am smarter than you think and I will eventually get to the bottom of their beliefs if given the time. So far, I find they have done a better job proving their doctrines than the detractors have disproving them, but I'm only scratching the surface.

Eventually I will go away and you won't have to deal with me here, but for now I'm here and haven't found any posters being racist. Regardless of what I eventually conclude, I'm not ever going to join your anti-SC crusade anyway. I might leave all this alone, but I will only deal with EN stuff in an ongoing fashion because that is the group I was in.

franklin

05-29-2007, 11:38 AM

Here's some surface to scratch then. It goes right to the root of Christianity, Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant as well as Judaism and Islam. All three branches of Christianity as well as all three branches of the Abrahamic faiths.

Genesis 3:20

Genesis 4:1

They were written clearly and are understood clearly.

They stand on their own and are not contradicted by any other scriptures.

The SC and other nazi groups' perversion of these scriptures is what makes them racist and anti Semitic.

Also while you are at it study the doctrines of the Neo Nazis, the old Nazis, the Klan, the moonies, the Aryan Nation, the satanists..... You will find many similarities.

Somewhere in your head, if you are not a brainwashed SCer, a bell will go off loudly in your head like it did with me and others here. Regardless of what they say you will determine that these false doctrines are racist as well as those who believe in them.

lutheratx

05-29-2007, 02:18 PM

Good morning Franklin have a good day friend.

Xman you seem calm and collected, my advice take it or leave it because Im just some fella no better maybe even less than. It doesn't matter whether or not you start studying with the Chapel AM does not decide your fate. My advice is study your bible taken back to the original languages as much as possible. I honestly have learned a few things from rapture doctrine teachers of course I strain what I feel to be trash. However some are really trying and what does that say to me God willing these people will be fine if they keep reading taking it back to Hebrew Greek and I believe Aramaic is one of the languages. Why impress AM he is just a servant even when the angels appeared to man and he fell on his face even the angels would correct this situation because we are not into angel worship are we? Heck nah man, we worship the Father and he is the most long suffering merciful LORD ever, there is no god with him. You are going to be fine, once again I am no better than you friend. This is just one God fearing christian to another.

Love Luther

P.S. Franklin don't worry I got your post and if what I say is of man than it will not last, but if it be of God.........................

lutheratx

05-29-2007, 02:22 PM

Oh by the way
when the fire dies down what the F you gone do. Da#@ in feels good to be a Christian.

yaakov2

05-29-2007, 03:13 PM

xman3

I think that no one, student or detractor has adequately explained who a modern Kenite is. It's as if they are all around us, and could be almost anyone, but no one knows of any specific Kenite. They were defined as a race of Jews previously, rather than Blacks, orientals, etc...

I was trying to figure this out as well. The best definition that I was able to get was that a Kenite is anyone that disagrees that jesus is a god. Although, some of the posters seemed to go a bit further in their posts by accusing some other Christians of being Kenites. In which case, the Kenite definition would be expanded to being anyone that disagrees with Serpent Chapel doctrines.

lutheratx

05-29-2007, 03:25 PM

Or it could also be someone who plans a world peace without God's physical presence. Please enlighten us again on how the messianic period begins.

watchman_2

05-29-2007, 03:28 PM

franklin wrote:
*****
Here's some surface to scratch then. It goes right to the root of Christianity, Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant as well as Judaism and Islam. All three branches of Christianity as well as all three branches of the Abrahamic faiths.

Genesis 3:20

Genesis 4:1

They were written clearly and are understood clearly.

They stand on their own and are not contradicted by any other scriptures.
*****

I agree!

Gen 3:20 And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.
.
.
.
Gen 4:1 And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD.

Gen 4:2 And she again bare his brother Abel. 

So, anyone with the most basic of reading comprehension skills can see that the woman received her name of EVE because she was already pregnant.

In addition, it is obvious that the woman already had her name EVE when Adam first had sex with her.

The conception spoken of in Gen. 4:1 was that of Abel. The existing pregnancy of Eve in Gen. 4:1 was that of Cain.

Since Adam was not the father of Cain, who was if it was not Satan? See Gen. 3:14 for the answer.

lutheratx

05-29-2007, 03:30 PM

Watchman this is a good point there are many but I like this. Thankyou

watchman_2

05-29-2007, 03:35 PM

yaakov2,

You wrote:
*****
I was trying to figure this out as well. The best definition that I was able to get was that a Kenite is anyone that disagrees that jesus is a god.
*****

I don't believe that you are being truthful with that statement. I have spent a great deal of time educating you on this subject. So, you are being disingenuine when you claim that Kenites are those that don't believe that Jesus is God.

That is the most ridiculous writing that I have seen from you! I thought you were above such untruths.

lutheratx

05-29-2007, 04:05 PM

I guess twice for emphasis, yeah that's it twice for emphasis.

(Oh look there is a SC student lying)

There I did the work for you have a nice day and I hope if your at work your day goes quick. Its that boy Lutheratx. That is it! Im out til I wake up or until tommorrow or until the next earth age.

david_munson

05-29-2007, 04:26 PM

Watchman,
"continued deprogramming efforts may even result in an acknowledgement that 'rapture' traces back to the year 1830 and to a sick woman named Margaret McDonald."

http://www.raptureready.com/rr-margaret-mcdonald.html

Poof!

Deprogramming me huh?
You do live in a fantasy world don't you?
One filled with women who are really men according to your interpritation.

Watchman,
I pray that you be delivered from your delusions.

Depregrammed,LMAOROF.
}

yaakov2

05-29-2007, 04:58 PM

lutheratx

yaakov2

Just to speculate, just suppose that every person on Earth choose to do only good. Though evil and selfishness were free choices, everyone just choose generosity and good. It sound like paradise, dare I even say, the messianic age. In such a climate, man could agree to forbear from war. I think it would be Heaven on Earth. Far from nothing changing, it would be the ultimate change.

There I did the work for you have a nice day and I hope if your at work your day goes quick.

Ok, luther, you quoted me. What work did you do for me? What was your point about my quote?

smyrna

05-29-2007, 05:06 PM

Glen wrote:

"illogic al did not say any of that and smearna knows it. He was saying that some people do. Smearna knows that too.'

What I really know is that you are lying, and I have proof, not some silly declaration like you have.

The name of the thread is Let's Talk About Satan. It can be found at cultbusters.com.au and if you read the posts there from the beginning, it is clear that "illogical_al" copied and pasted articles that deny satan exist, that the Torah was written by different authors,he agreed with them, and he also added his own words in those agreements that are undeniable.

Unless you are some whacked out detractor that make a career out of denying what to everyone else are obvious facts.

watchman_2

05-29-2007, 05:06 PM

yaakov2,

That's hogwash and you know it! Nothing that I have written could ever be inferred in any way to mean that

"a Kenite is anyone that disagrees that jesus is a god".

Can't you even be honest for one moment?

yaakov2

05-29-2007, 05:45 PM

Watchman_2

In my post #60, I clearly state it is MY conclusions. Now instead of insulting me, please explain what I mis-understood from your teachings.

Look at my statements in the middle of post #60. Please correct them.

watchman_2

05-29-2007, 06:41 PM

David,

You Bible revisionists are very funny people. The extent to which you go to cover up your unbiblical beliefs is quite astounding.

You wrote:
*****
Poof!
*****

Of course, the 'raptureready.com' site has already been thoroughly discredited for a long time now; but, you still cite it anyway. You must be desperate to find a supporting argument for your Satanic doctrine.

So, let's take a look at your new argument. It is primarily premised upon the following excerpt from raptureready.com:

"The first problem with the MacDonald origin is the fact that she wasn't the one who widely taught the doctrine of the pre-trib rapture. A man named John Darby is believed by many to have sparked modern interest in the rapture. The question here is how Darby came to hear of MacDonald's vision. Proponents like Dave MacPherson and John L. Bray have never been able to prove that Darby had ever heard of MacDonald or her vision."

From "The Rapture Plot", by Dave MacPherson we learn the following:

1. Edward Irving, father of the Catholic Apostolic Church, started the rapture movement after receiving copies of Margaret Macdonalds revelation (1830). pgs.2, 3

2. John Darby visited MM in the summer of 1830. pg 6

3. Darby's first 'pretrib' writing was in December of 1830 in the "Christian Herald".

4. Robert Baxter, author of "Narrative Facts" (1833), wrote that "the delusion [MM dream] first appeared in Scotland [MM's home]" and that "it was not until adopted and upheld by Mr. Irving, that it [any moment rapture] began to challenge much attention" pg 13.

5. John Darby falsely took credit for the any moment rapture, while discounting MM and Irvingites [lengthy study].

So, the only thing going "poof" is your argument [again]. Eze. 13:18-23 defeats your rapture theory every time. It is so dispositive that your Bible-revisionists friends had to rewrite the Bible to change those scriptures in order to cover up your [and their] false beliefs.

smyrna

05-29-2007, 07:12 PM

Source: Bible Review magazine

What the Left Behind Series Left Out

..."Unfortunately, not all apocalyptic thinking is good apocalyptic thinking, and this is especially true of the so-called dispensational theology that informs these novels. The most distinctive feature of dispensational theology is what I call the "Beam me up, Scotty" belief—the notion that at the end-time, believers will be raptured into heaven and will thus avoid the Great Tribulation forecast as the precursor to the end of the world."

The Left Behind series borrows its title from passages like Luke 17:35, in which Jesus makes an end-time prophecy about two women grinding meal at a mill. When the Kingdom of God is at hand, Jesus predicts, one woman will be taken and the other left behind. A first-century audience would have understood this to mean one will be taken away for judgment, while the other will escape judgment by remaining where she is. This is clear from the context, which is about the coming judgment—a judgment that, in Jewish literature, everyone is expected to face. This is very different from saying one will be raptured and the other judged. Similarly, the oft-cited Pauline prophecy in 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17 ("For the Lord himself, with a cry of command, with the archangel's call and with the sound of God's trumpet, will descend from heaven, and the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up in the clouds together with them to meet the Lord in the air; and so we will be with the Lord forever") is not a reference to a rapture into heaven.
For other Pauline passages misinterpreted in the Left Behind series, see N.T. Wright, "Farewell to the Rapture," BR, August 2001.

yaakov2

05-29-2007, 08:12 PM

watchman_2

You are on a witch hunt to find out whom is an whom is not a Kenite within Jewish society. Since you are not a Christian, you do not hold Christ's teachings in any regard, which, with respect to the Kenites, is to leave them alone.

Actually, from when I first heard of the serpent seeders, my motive has been to distinguish the Jews from the Kenites according to your beliefs.

Hence, in my opinion, it is unwise to give you specific information relative to how I conclude someone is or is not a Kenite. Though I am within my Christian authority to make such discernments for myself, my family, and my business, it would be improper to make such discernments to those individuals that may persecute these individuals.

Nice. You refuse to tell me how you distinguish a Jew from a Kenite, but as a Christian you can make the accusation whenever you like. So I’ll dump my previous conclusion. My new conclusion is that a kenite is anyone that you say it is.

I have been very clear regarding the Kenites. Specifically, the following:

1. They are a race of people with their progenitor being Satan.

2. That, in order to blend into Israelite and, later, Jewish society, they would look like the Israelites/Jews -- which means they are white people.

3. Though scriptures indicate that they keep within themselves primarily throughout the generations, they, like any other race, may intermix with other races.

4. God tracks the race/tribe of an individual by paternity leaving each individual the daughter/son of one race/tribe.

5. The Jews have been falsely persecuted for the crucifixion of Christ when it was the Kenites that forced the issue.

6. Kenites have the same opportunity at salvation as does anyone else.

7. In Rev. 2:9 and 3:9, we are informed of Kenites [synagogue = people/posterity of Satan] that pretend they are Jews, which blaspheme God. So, we know they exist today. They blaspheme God in many ways.

8. In Christianity, we are warned of false preachers. We are told that we will know them by their fruits [= teachings]. This would include false teachers of any race, including any Kenites that have infiltrated the 10 lost tribes of Israel later to become Christian people.

I read the list above trying to prove Franklin wrong, that you believe that Jews are different from kenites. But I can’t. Everything you’ve told me applies equally to Jews.

One, no specific identifier here. Two, kenites are within the Jews. Three, Jews keep to themselves, try to only marry other Jews. Yet we can intermarry other people. Four, Jews track their particular tribal affinity by paternity. Five, the Greek Testament (GT) says it was the Jews. Six, I’ve heard many missionaries state that in relation to the Jews. Seven, the GT says it was Jews. Throughout history, Christianity has accused the Jews of blaspheming against the Christian god. I think even a few SC have accused me of blasphemy. Eight, more Jews and some Christians. False teachers being anyone that disagrees with your beliefs.

My first conclusion still looks valid to me. Anyone that blasphemes your deity and teaches contrary to your beliefs, can be accused of being a kenite.

stage_director

05-29-2007, 08:24 PM

Kenite Identity tape (1980s)
by Arnold Murray

"Beloved, it is! Our people today mistakenly believe God’s chosen people are those of He*math, these sons of Cain, the Kenites, that moved into Jerusalem and the land of Judea in 1948. This is the abomina*tion of desolation standing in the holy place where it ought not, spoken of by Daniel, the prophet (Dan. 12:11) and repeated by Jesus Christ in Mark 13:14.

Let me repeat. Christ told them they were guilty from the righteous blood of Abel and He calls them “Ye genera*tion of vipers” in Matt. 23:33-35. Now remember “generation” in the Greek means “offspring.” He had laid this charge to Cain and He calls these offspring. This means of a race or seed, and not of a religion. Further substantiation of this is found in John 8:44. “Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning..” Again I ask, who was the first murderer?. . .Cain! So call them what they are: Kenites, Sons of Cain."

watchman_2

05-29-2007, 09:25 PM

yaakov2,

You wrote:
*****
Actually, from when I first heard of the serpent seeders, my motive has been to distinguish the Jews from the Kenites according to your beliefs.
*****

I knew that from the beginning of your inquiries as well. What purpose does it serve you to know?

You wrote:
*****
Nice. You refuse to tell me how you distinguish a Jew from a Kenite, but as a Christian you can make the accusation whenever you like. So I’ll dump my previous conclusion. My new conclusion is that a kenite is anyone that you say it is.
*****

LOL! What makes you think that I am 100% correct? That is why Christ teaches the Christian to leave them alone lest an innocent Jew be persecuted as a Kenite. God, alone, knows whom is and whom is not a tare of the field [the good and bad figs].

You wrote:
*****
I read the list above trying to prove Franklin wrong, that you believe that Jews are different from kenites. But I can’t. Everything you’ve told me applies equally to Jews.
*****

Jews are not Kenites and Kenites are not Jews. They are of different progenitors. So, when that idiot franklin claims that we believe Jews are the offspring of Satan, he is in gross error. So, No. 1 does not apply to Jews.

Jews do not pretend to be Christians, Muslims, Hindus, or any other faith to hide their identity. The Jews have maintained their identity and religion throughout the centuries, eventhough dispersed around the globe. So, No. 2 does not apply to Jews.

No. 3 is true of any race. No. 4 is God's business.

No. 5 should strike home to you in consideration of the centuries of false persecution of the Jews. I know of no true Jew that would let another individual take the blame for the Jew's indiscretion. I have always found Jews to be forthright and decent people. This distinguishes them from the Kenite.

No. 6 is self explanatory.

No. 7 defeats your 'Jesus as God' claim. We know that Jews are not Christians, yet, the Bible warns us of those within your community that are fakes and which blaspheme God. It has nothing to do with a belief in Jesus.

8. The 'know them by their fruits' is not just a Kenite argument -- and one that I have not made specifically of Kenites. The fruits argument applies to all mankind.

You wrote:
*****
My first conclusion still looks valid to me. Anyone that blasphemes your deity and teaches contrary to your beliefs, can be accused of being a kenite.
*****

No -- you are way off base here. I wouldn't be labeling an Indian Hindu, Chinese Buddhist, non-white Christian preacher, or Muslim cleric [or any other non-Judaic/Christian false teacher] a Kenite. I hold the title, Kenite, only for those within the Jewish and white Christian communities that fit the criteria as established in the Bible.

Hope this helps you out.

smyrna

05-29-2007, 10:10 PM

Stage_Director,

Why do you post such old stuff?

Why not post the Kenite tape offered by the
Chapel today?

By the way, your other screen name Shadowcat also claimed to have old tapes as well as spreading filthy rumors about Pastor Murray "grove worshipping" and you came up with the silliest excuse to give in denying that you were not posting that stuff over at CB. To say you couldn't have posted that because a grove can't be in a barn is beyond ridiculous, because it was defined, on a board you frequented as both Stage Director and Shadowcat,as sex with animals or BAAL worship.

"...his ex employee quit because she claimed she caught Pastor Murray in the barn errrmmm well 'grove worshipping'. Some sort of sex/Baal worship I guess."

Shadowcat, like you as Stage Director, also claimed to know people who were associated with the Chapel in Gravette, or even worse, know people that know people, i.e. hearsay.

First, I wouldn't believe any of your quotes you say are off the tape, because you have already destroyed your own credibility with all these stories you come up with but never offer any proof of.

Secondly, Pastor Murray goes through the Biblical books and revises them over time, because he, like us,is always learning something new.

Twenty years ago, I actually believed in that silly rapture doctrine, and I thought that the flood of Noah was world wide.

It's a good thing I wasn't a Bible teacher back then, because I would have probably been teaching that stuff!

So IF Murray actually said things that he has revised today, it is because HE is learning as well, and it is just another cheap trick of yours to try and discredit him using stuff he MAY have said twenty or more years ago.

If that's all you got, you're grasping at straws, which isn't new of course.

I guess you are STILL trying to divert attention from all those allegations you have yet to provide proof for:

No proof that Pastor Murray keeps ALL the money sent to the Chapel for himself.

No proof that the SC has FIVE airplanes.

No proof that Oliver Kenneth Goff stayed with Pastor Murray when the Chapel was founded.

No proof that one of Pastor Murray's sons is a drunk.

No proof that any local Arkansas newspapers are covering an investigation of SC finances and assets.

That's just the tip of the iceberg, too. When you add the clear indications she is not about to provide proof, and continues to dodge these challenges, then you have someone who does not have much credibility, and now she's just using another silly tactic.

Well, waste your time entertaining us, because your stupid little posts on this forum will NOT sway any of us from continuing to study with the SC.

You have failed again.

terluvire

05-29-2007, 10:15 PM

Watchman,

Awesome post!!!!!!!!

aviyah

05-29-2007, 10:50 PM

Yaakov,

I do believe Rage Director is trying to insinuate that Pastor Murray teaches the whole nation of modern Israel consists of Kenites. This is not so. Pastor Murray routinely refers to Judah (modern Israel) as our brethren.

*********************************************** ***
"Beloved, it is! Our people today mistakenly believe God’s chosen people are those of He*math, these sons of Cain, the Kenites, that moved into Jerusalem and the land of Judea in 1948. (Rage Director taken from Arnold Murray, 05/29/07)
*********************************************** ***

In other words those Jews which made up the families of scribes who lived at Jabez were the Kenites who came from Hemath (aka Hamath and Chamath in Hebrew). This is not just Arnold Murray's opinion. This fact is stated repeatedly throughout the Bible.

So there's your answer. The religious order of Judaism which made/make up the house of Rechab (Hebrew Rekab) were/are the Kenites. The Tirathites, the Shimeathites, and the Sucathites came from Hemath, a city in Syria (ancient Assyria). They were/are not descendants of Abraham. At some point in Jewish history, the Rechabites intermarried with the Levites and so entered the temple service. In 1948 when Israel became a nation they staked their claim along with the rest of Judah.

Here are two of many sites of reference:

http://members.tnns.net/wordweb/jabez.htm
http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Rechabites

God Bless, AviYAH

smyrna

05-29-2007, 11:08 PM

Good work, Aviyah,

But you know how S_D is going to try and wiggle out of it?

She'll say that she only gets her info from the Bible, and she doesn't care about anyone's website.

It's the excuse she used when she claimed Murray was wrong in teaching that Ruth was an Israelite.

I pointed her to a website where the author showed, using evidence straight out of the Bible, that Ruth was indeed an Israelite.

She just has poor reading comprehension. But what do you expect from someone who can't add two plus three?

stage_director

05-30-2007, 12:13 AM

Rest assured I have enough comprehension to read your hole card ... ;-)

smyrna

05-30-2007, 12:28 AM

The only hole you can read is the sewer that is disguised as your mouth.

One more time: How many planes does Pastor Murray have, two or five?

Where is the evidence for your accusation that one of Pastor Murray's son is a drunk?

What Arkansas newspaper is CURRENTLY following an alleged (by you) investigation into SC funds?

Where is the evidence that the SC is even being investigated?

Where is your evidence that Oliver Goff stayed at Murray's house when the SC was founded?

While you are reading your hole, why don't you read those questions, and instead of ignoring the questions, answer them.

lutheratx

05-30-2007, 01:24 AM

Yaakov, I put a previous post replying that one of your beliefs is Kenite. You know it was with the one that asked if you hold dear the Pharisee. Don't worry about it if you get all upset don't worry I'll let you be Jewish I'll let you make outside interpretations of my beliefs like I erred by doing the same to yours. How did you say it, you can't understand the talmud with out years of study. You came here to accuse hey whatever, Ill allow you to do that. I understand that maybe our religous beliefs differ you see I'm supposed to turn the other cheek when it comes to religion, take the blow and invite you to do it again. However put the information out there with compassion, and I failed to do that. It is going to offend from time to time because our beliefs (Christian not SC) is compared to a double edged sword. The truth is the weapon the Christian should use, but bringing this truth you must never appologise for it. However compassion for example if you are Jewish and I say you are raccist this is not compassion. Compassion would be saying if there is ever a point in your life where you needed him the Jesus of whom I worship would leave the flock just to save that one lamb that was endangered. Look at Jesus teachings
Luke 15:11 And he said, A certain man had two sons: 15:12 And the younger of them said to his father, Father, give me the portion of goods that falleth to me. And he divided unto them his living. 15:13 And not many days after the younger son gathered all together, and took his journey into a far country, and there wasted his substance with riotous living. 15:14 And when he had spent all, there arose a mighty famine in that land; and he began to be in want. 15:15 And he went and joined himself to a citizen of that country; and he sent him into his fields to feed swine. 15:16 And he would fain have filled his belly with the husks that the swine did eat: and no man gave unto him. 15:17 And when he came to himself, he said, How many hired servants of my father’s have bread enough and to spare, and I perish with hunger! 15:18 I will arise and go to my father, and will say unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and before thee, 15:19 And am no more worthy to be called thy son: make me as one of thy hired servants. 15:20 And he arose, and came to his father. But when he was yet a great way off, his father saw him, and had compassion, and ran, and fell on his neck, and kissed him. 15:21 And the son said unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and in thy sight, and am no more worthy to be called thy son. 15:22 But the father said to his servants, Bring forth the best robe, and put it on him; and put a ring on his hand, and shoes on his feet: 15:23 And bring hither the fatted calf, and kill it; and let us eat, and be merry: 15:24 For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found. And they began to be merry. 15:25 Now his elder son was in the field: and as he came and drew nigh to the house, he heard musick and dancing. 15:26 And he called one of the servants, and asked what these things meant. 15:27 And he said unto him, Thy brother is come; and thy father hath killed the fatted calf, because he hath received him safe and sound. 15:28 And he was angry, and would not go in: therefore came his father out, and intreated him. 15:29 And he answering said to his father, Lo, these many years do I serve thee, neither transgressed I at any time thy commandment: and yet thou never gavest me a kid, that I might make merry with my friends: 15:30 But as soon as this thy son was come, which hath devoured thy living with harlots, thou hast killed for him the fatted calf. 15:31 And he said unto him, Son, thou art ever with me, and all that I have is thine. 15:32 It was meet that we should make merry, and be glad: for this thy brother was dead, and is alive again; and was lost, and is found.

lutheratx

05-30-2007, 03:12 AM

You know Yaakov at some time in your life something (or someone) has proven Judaism to you. It would be an act of God to pull you out of this. However even in my belief your fate is not sealed friend. We do not serve the same God however my God is so so fair he knows about this generation he prophesied it through his prophets. He knows the level of deceit in this generation of the fig. He gives only certain people eyes to see, and ears to hear for a reason. I'm not certain I am one of these people God just decided through my constant belief in him he would pull me out of my enslavement, he heard my cries. It took something special to do it though, it took the truth. So this is why I feel I was able to know the truth. See God has done things that proved his self to me, but I had to seek him for quite a while before he determined it was time, or that I deserved it. So an act of God can remove all deceit. Love with you friend and Jesus is the living word.

aviyah

05-30-2007, 05:55 AM

*********************************************** ***
"But you know how S_D is going to try and wiggle out of it?...She'll say that she only gets her info from the Bible, and she doesn't care about anyone's website." (Smyrna, 05/29/07)
*********************************************** ***

Yes...well anyway, I was addressing the quintessential Jew...you know that one which is unaware that YHVH is God's sacred name. I know... It's irrelevant because he hardly ever uses YHVH.

No matter. Here are plenty of Biblical scriptures for Rage Director to "comprehend" regarding the Jews of Hemath:

1 Chr 2:55
Zech 14:21
2 Kings 14:28
2 Samuel 8:6
2 Chron. 8

xman3

05-30-2007, 08:03 AM

Lots of interesting discussion here.

terluvire- I feel like I'm jumping way up the thread, but thanks for that post up yonder. It was quite helpful and explanatory. After reading what I have, and even reading the current posts here, I am pretty convinced of enough to simplify my understanding.

Seems to me the story goes satan and eve produced cain. Cain's descendants are kenites. Plain and simple. Is that correct?

It doesn't matter to me who they are now because I am satisfied in concluding that after all these generations and happenings it would be impossible to purely identify a kenite.

Assuming the answer to my question is yes, then in it's simplest form, the issue is the different interpretations of the scripture watchman deals with in his post 116.

Gen 3:20 And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.

Gen 4:1 And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD.

Gen 4:2 And she again bare his brother Abel.

So, anyone with the most basic of reading comprehension skills can see that the woman received her name of EVE because she was already pregnant.

In addition, it is obvious that the woman already had her name EVE when Adam first had sex with her.

The conception spoken of in Gen. 4:1 was that of Abel. The existing pregnancy of Eve in Gen. 4:1 was that of Cain.

Since Adam was not the father of Cain, who was if it was not Satan? See Gen. 3:14 for the answer.

I included the commentary also because I believe it illustrates the crux of the issue. Quite simply if this interpretation is true, then the SS doctrine is plausible. If this interpretation is not true, then the SS doctrine is not plausible at all. That to me is the heart of the matter. Seems simple. Logic says the descendants of cain would be the seed of the serpent, not the descendants of nephilim or any cross breed. Anyway, this seems simplistic, but I ask you experts if it is an accurate take. The differing notions on who exactly the kenites are today doesn't really come into play in understanding the doctrine it appears.

terluvire

05-30-2007, 01:28 PM

Hi Xman,

Quote:
Seems to me the story goes satan and eve produced cain. Cain's descendants are kenites. Plain and simple. Is that correct?

Yes, plain and simple.

Quote:
It doesn't matter to me who they are now because I am satisfied in concluding that after all these generations and happenings it would be impossible to purely identify a kenite.

That's how I see it also.

Quote:
Seems simple. Logic says the descendants of cain would be the seed of the serpent, not the descendants of nephilim or any cross breed. Anyway, this seems simplistic, but I ask you experts if it is an accurate take. The differing notions on who exactly the kenites are today doesn't really come into play in understanding the doctrine it appears.

Again, I agree with you. I also see things in a very simplistic way. To me, simple is best. http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/happy.gif

lutheratx

05-30-2007, 02:31 PM

Watchman you've had to separate post that were very well done, I know you don't need my approval but you are truly able to plead your case with compassion. May the comforter continue to be with you friend and to do his work. I give credit to God, not a man however, but I'm sure you expect nothing else from one who loves Christ. I especially liked

Watchman: LOL! What makes you think that I am 100% correct? That is why Christ teaches the Christian to leave them alone lest an innocent Jew be persecuted as a Kenite. God, alone, knows whom is and whom is not a tare of the field [the good and bad figs].

It hit home with me especially because I was just able to almost completely get Jeremiah 24. I would go on about this revelation, but I would just get mocked and I do not have to put up with heckling. You have to be smarter than the ............

Holla Holla Holla

lutheratx

05-30-2007, 03:11 PM

Xman said: experts

I know was not included in this, however I am far from it, no where near, I require many many more years of bible study. However God provides if you are sincere. I just try to persue him some everyday, becuase he is worthy of our praise. However just realise one thing, I myself am no better than anyone else. You should see some of the stuff I've said here, you would either laugh at me, or want nothing to do with me. I'm blessed, I believe I have Gods approval because his comforter is present, and I know Jesus is with me at times through the comforter. I thank him and he is worthy of or praise I am not worthy of him though. He is so longsuffering and merciful, leaving behind the whole flock if even one of his children needs help. This is the God we serve. This next paragraph is to a girl I was interested in and of course she shot me down soon afterward (no loss I assure you).

Our righteousnesses are filthy rags compared to what? Simple you give the poor a dollar HE gives them an eternity in paradise. You do something like give a years salary to a charity, HE gives a mother and father there first baby. What have I done that made me worthy of His touch.

You see hell is explained one time in the Strongs as : to incarcerate in eternal torment. This was refering to the Angels that sinned in 2nd Peter 2, any where else you read about the demise in hell of the unGodly you find that there demise is quick, scripture Ezek 28 and Psalms 37. So I conclude that these angels aren't being tormented by God but thereselves you see they actually have memory of God and they burn on the inside because how could cross true love (Gods blessings). It drives them mad thinking that siding with satan again they will be able to have that same love because yes even they are decieved by satan. You see they cannot be redeemed any longer by God's plan for them (Christ) they were probally one of the worse ones in the first earth age, and satan knew he could count on them throwing away there salvation. They wanted Gods love (blessings) without showing it back through works (just in case yes there are works in heaven) Now this is some of my speculation, but I do know with all my heart that God is very loving he does no evil acts just righteousness. Think about the most righteous act done by man and realise one thing it is filthy in comparasion.

watchman_2

05-30-2007, 03:20 PM

xman3,

You wrote:
*****
Logic says the descendants of cain would be the seed of the serpent, not the descendants of nephilim or any cross breed. Anyway, this seems simplistic, but I ask you experts if it is an accurate take. The differing notions on who exactly the kenites are today doesn't really come into play in understanding the doctrine it appears.
*****

Yes, you are correct that the Nephilim's offspring are not the same as the Kenites.

However, I, for one, believe there is importance in understanding whom the Kenites are today. Yes, they fulfilled the prophesy of Gen. 3:15 in the crucifixion of Christ. But, there must be purpose in God's Word.

So, when I read of Christ's evaluation of the churches in Rev. 2 and 3, I deduct that there must be a reason for the approval of those 2 churches that teach of the Kenites, which pretend to be Jews. Logic dictates that, if their mission was completed with the crucifixion of Christ, there would be no reason to judge the Christian churches, which all came thereafter the crucifixion, based upon teaching that there exists imposter Jews.

So, based upon the Rev. 2 and 3 references and the parable of the Tares of the Field, I conclude that it is important to know they exist, to know whom they are today, and to know they have a purpose in fulfilling their father's work.

watchman_2

05-30-2007, 03:45 PM

Thank you lutheratx and terluvire. All the glory goes to God -- for any ability that I have is the result of His blessing and not that I merited it in any way [here in the flesh].

I only hope that my efforts here at Factnet have met with my Father's approval and are accepted as a token of my appreciation for all that He has done for me.

terluvire

05-30-2007, 03:46 PM

Watchman said:

So, based upon the Rev. 2 and 3 references and the parable of the Tares of the Field, I conclude that it is important to know they exist, to know whom they are today, and to know they have a purpose in fulfilling their father's work.

I agree. I do not know who the Kenites are today and for me, it doesn't matter to me if I know exactly who they are or not, for we know God's plan will come to pass as it is written. The new world order (one world government) is to come to pass and I do believe the Kenites are behind this, helping to set it up. They, I feel, will be preparing the way for the world to accept their father as the Messiah.

We see this already at work. The amount of deception which is out there is unbelievable. Many are not prepared for satan to appear physically and claim to be Christ. The whole world will believe he is Christ returned when he appears:

Rev 13:3 And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast.
Rev 13:4 And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast: and they worshipped the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast? who is able to make war with him?

terluvire

05-30-2007, 03:50 PM

I do think it is important to recognize that the Kenites do exist and to recognize their method of operation.

terluvire

05-30-2007, 04:25 PM

I'd like to clarify my statement here:
I do not know who the Kenites are today and for me

I mean, I don't know, exactly who is a Kenite today, though through God's word we know they parade a our brother Judah, Jews.

stage_director

05-30-2007, 06:38 PM

QUOTE
they parade [as] our brother Judah
END QUOTE

The imitation of Murray's colloquialisms kill me. lol I dare say if you stuck 50 cents in Murray's mouth then yanked his arm ... a hundred Shep Chap'lers would begin to recite Murrayisms.

watchman_2

05-30-2007, 08:52 PM

xman3,

Thanks for stopping by with your questions. Good luck in your studies. Hope to see you again!

oneway

05-30-2007, 10:12 PM

"I still have to admit though, the UFO stuff still strikes me as funny, true or not,"

Why would it strike you as funny? I believe the bible offers plenty of evidence in favor of.

yaakov2

05-30-2007, 11:09 PM

watchman_2

From the beginning, I’ve been trying to understand your beliefs. Yes, this last series has helped me out.

Just a few follow up questions.

Your #7 kenite definition is:

7. In Rev. 2:9 and 3:9, we are informed of Kenites [synagogue = people/posterity of Satan] that pretend they are Jews, which blaspheme God. So, we know they exist today. They blaspheme God in many ways.

Your rebuttal to my question about #7 is:

 No. 7 defeats your 'Jesus as God' claim. We know that Jews are not Christians, yet, the Bible warns us of those within your community that are fakes and which blaspheme God. It has nothing to do with a belief in Jesus.

What do you mean that #7 definition defeats the jesus as god claim? I don’t see the relevance. Do Rev 2:9 and 3:9 say that jesus isn’t god?

How do you define “blaspheme god”? In your opinion, what actions or beliefs blaspheme god?

No -- you are way off base here. I wouldn't be labeling an Indian Hindu, Chinese Buddhist, non-white Christian preacher, or Muslim cleric [or any other non-Judaic/Christian false teacher] a Kenite. I hold the title, Kenite, only for those within the Jewish and white Christian communities that fit the criteria as established in the Bible.

So any born Jew, no matter their beliefs, can be a kenite?

But neither a “non-white Christian” nor a “white non-Christian” can be a kenite, right? Just white skinned Christians?

xman3

05-30-2007, 11:10 PM

You could be right oneway. You know UFOs and the Bible don't really go together on the surface, so it strikes me as funny, but I don't mean funny in the sense I want to belittle someone who sees them in the Bible. A lot of the stuff I read here looks funny at first, but after awhile I can kind of understand where it's coming from and I find it interesting.

By the way, I enjoyed your little discourse with wls over there. That stuff is on the same line a little and I think there is more than meets the eye to some it myself. I find the study of the Nephilim fascinating, but I had to pare down my discussions because I was getting into to many different issues.

yaakov2

05-30-2007, 11:11 PM

Lutheratx

I’m praying for you.

stage_director

05-31-2007, 12:46 AM

Yaakov, here's a rediculous part of the "false Jews" teaching ... Christians believe salvation comes by belief upon Christ. According to Shepherd's Chapel ... Jesus is basically saying in Revelation: "I know those who pretend to be non believing Jews, but are really non believing non Jews (Because non believing Jews are ever so much closer to him than non believing non Jews) .... and I'll make sure the second group (but not necessarily the first group) knows that I loved you." http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/uhoh.gif

Paul, who, btw, called himself both a Jew and a Benjamite, tells us what is meant in Revelation by the New Testament term "Jews" ...

Rom 2:28-29
28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither [is that] circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
29 But he [is] a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision [is that] of the heart, in the spirit, [and] not in the letter; whose praise [is] not of men, but of God.

In other words ... Christ says he knows the imposters among Christians. It has nothing to do with the tribe of Judah, per se ... it certainly has nothing to do with any imaginary Kenites.

oneway

05-31-2007, 01:13 AM

stage_director,

"In other words ... Christ says he knows the imposters among Christians. It has nothing to do with the
tribe of Judah, per se ... it certainly has nothing to do with any imaginary Kenites."

It's amazing how simple the Truth can be. The scriptures you chose to provide your statement with couldn't be any clearer or fit any better.

oneway

05-31-2007, 02:23 PM

watchman_2,

"Jews are of the white race of people [except for intermixing for a small percentage]."

God is not concerned about physical appearances or color of skin. It's all about heart. It has always
been about the heart from the very beginning.

stage_director

05-31-2007, 05:23 PM

AMEN!

aviyah

05-31-2007, 05:51 PM

Rage Director,

Lets see if we can wade through your confusingly simple post, shall we?

*********************************************** ***
"Paul, who, btw, called himself both a Jew and a Benjamite, tells us what is meant in Revelation by the New Testament term "Jews" ..."

Rom 2:28-29
28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither [is that] circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
29 But he [is] a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision [is that] of the heart, in the spirit, [and] not in the letter; whose praise [is] not of men, but of God. (Rage Director, 05/30/07)
*********************************************** ***

What are you saying here Rage? Are you saying Paul tells us in Revelation or he tells us in Romans what is meant by the NT term "Jews"?

In Revelation, I defy you to point to a verse which descibes what is meant by the NT term "Jews".

In the Roman Epistle (Rom 2:28-29) I read that Paul is addressing the Christian Church in Rome. He writes that Jew and Gentile alike can only be redeemed by faith. Regardless of Jewish law, neither Jew nor Gentile will judged righteous by God if lacking faith in Jesus Christ.

Although I take this to mean that God will judge any man (Kenites included) righteous through faith in Christ, I still don't see how this relates to Kenites specifically as you claim. The debate of whether Kenites are true Jews or not is not the subject here in these verses. Maybe, just maybe, that is why there is no mention of Kenites here.

And as for this...

*********************************************** ***
In other words ... Christ says he knows the imposters among Christians. It has nothing to do with the tribe of Judah, per se ... it certainly has nothing to do with any imaginary Kenites. (Rage Director, 05/30/07)
*********************************************** ***

...Christ doesn't say "he knows the imposters among Christians" here in Rom 2:28-29. Christ is not speaking in the book of Romans. The Holy Spirit is speaking through Paul here, not Christ.

Furthermore, if the Kenites are imaginary, why are they mentioned no less than 14 times in the Holy Bible?

Reap what you sow, AviYAH

aviyah

05-31-2007, 06:26 PM

Yaakov,

To answer your question...

*********************************************** ***
"Do you routinely make up names for people you disagree with? (Yaakov, 05/30/07)
*********************************************** ***

...No, I reserve this for Rage Director who routinely plays his/her own twisted games with my username.

And in response to these comments...

*********************************************** **
"First, given the multiple rebuttals from other Christians here that post other verses, I believe that it can only be your pastor’s interpretation. Second, after many in-person discussions with Christians in my life, I’ve never heard of this interpretation before coming to these threads. Third, we have different bibles and none of your beliefs about serpents or kenites appear anywhere in mine. (Yaakov, 05/30/07)
*********************************************** ***

...In my last post to you I referenced 2 websites. Both of these websites, among many more, demonstrate that the serpent seed doctrine and the existence of Kenites are not some new invention of Sheperd's Chapel. Both sites demonstrate that these doctrine are believed and taught by other Christians.

Whether or not you believe in Christianity or the Bible is irrelevant. The point is, these doctine are not some new revelation invented by Sheperd's Chapel.

God Bless, AviYAH

stage_director

05-31-2007, 06:28 PM

You don't know Paul wrote Romans, and that it was Christ speaking in Revelation 2 and 3? Let me speak slowly ...

In Romans 2 Paul defines what Christ meant in Revelation 2 and 3 concerning "those who say they are "Jews" ...

aviyah

05-31-2007, 07:37 PM

Rage Director,

Of coarse I know that Paul wrote Romans...

*********************************************** ***
"You don't know Paul wrote Romans, and that it was Christ speaking in Revelation 2 and 3? Let me speak slowly ..." (Rage Director, 05/31/07)
*********************************************** ***

I do believe that is what I just wrote...

*********************************************** ***
In the Roman Epistle (Rom 2:28-29) I read that Paul is addressing the Christian Church in Rome. He writes that...(AviYAH, 05/31/07)
*********************************************** ***

...Yep, it sure was!!!

If I'm not mistaken, you wrote that Paul tells us in Revelation what is meant "by the New Testament term Jews". Then you toss in Romans 2 and go on to say that Christ spake these verses in Romans...

*********************************************** ***
"Paul, who, btw, called himself both a Jew and a Benjamite, tells us what is meant in Revelation by the New Testament term "Jews" ...

Rom 2:28-29
28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither [is that] circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
29 But he [is] a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision [is that] of the heart, in the spirit, [and] not in the letter; whose praise [is] not of men, but of God.

In other words ... Christ says he knows the imposters among Christians. It has nothing to do with the tribe of Judah, per se ... it certainly has nothing to do with any imaginary Kenites."
(Rage Director, 05/30/07)
*********************************************** ***

...Yes indeed. That is what YOU wrote!

Regardless, none of this has anything to do with the error of your initial claim which was:

"Romans 2:28-29 means there is no such thing as Kenites".

Reap what you sow, AviYAH

aviyah

05-31-2007, 09:01 PM

To whom it may concern,

In response to others that have wondered if Ramblingrose is actually Rage Director, I would like to say that I see it too.

In fact, I have been wondering for some time now if Rage Director is actually 4 or 5 different personas here on the SC threads.

Here's my theory:

I wonder if Rage Director is the moderator here?

I wonder if Rage Director is Ramblingrose because she only rambles in periodically to agree with Rage and toss out some Biblical scripture which has little if anything to do with the topic at hand. Ramblingrose's use of scripture is very much in keeping with Rage Director's M.O.

I wonder if xman3 is actually Rage Director. Pay close attention to the similarities in both character's use of sarcasm. Here's one of many statements which are eerily similar to those made by Rage...

*********************************************** ***
"Just scratch experts and insert any word of your choosing." (xman3, 05/30/07)
*********************************************** ***

Something about the banter between Oneway and xman3 and the banter between Rage Director and both of these characters also makes me wonder if Oneway is actually Rage Director. Maybe not. It just seems curious how both characters approach SC students in a similar "impartial" way but still agree with Rage Director in a round about way.

If in fact there is some psycho here on factnet pretending to be 4 or 5 different people, I would even venture to say that Franklin might very well be this persons most flamboyant character of all. Every now and then, Rage director bursts out in fits of rage which are similar in nature to Franklin's tantrums.

Somehow or other all of these characters continue to drill the issue of race with SC students even though most SC students have stated clearly and repeatedly our views about race. Has not every single SC student on this thread remarked over and over that we believe EVERY man is entitled to redemption through Christ? Has not every student of Sheperd's Chapel professed that ALL who are judged righteous by God will be in God's heaven? Anyway, this obsession with race may have Franklin's name written all over it.

If I am mistaken, please accept my sincerest apologies.

In the event that there IS one here among us with a multiple personality disorder, might I suggest that YOU NEED HELP! Perhaps a Psych referal is in order here. Where on earth is Dodge when one needs him?

God Bless, AviYAH

oneway

05-31-2007, 10:06 PM

"Something about the banter between Oneway and xman3 and the banter between Rage Director and
both of these characters also makes me wonder if Oneway is actually Rage Director. Maybe not. It just
seems curious how both characters approach SC students in a similar "impartial" way but still agree
with Rage Director in a round about way."

While it might be fun to watch you scers squirm over this, I'm just going to have to be a nice guy and let you all off the hook.
Go to this site http://www.ip2location.com/demo.aspx
and type in all of the IPs listed here that's in question. After you do all of this, I would be curious to hear your explanations of how we can be one another, but none of us happens to reside in the same state. This includes me, stage_director and ramblingrose. Don't take my word for it, check it out for yourselves.
Another thing I'm curious about. Why would stage_director need to be playing roles of being sev different members when she does just fine on her own? She speaks very well for herself. I don't believe she needs any help by pretending to be other members.

skooter942000

05-31-2007, 10:14 PM

Deception comes from satan.

Some cannot even share a (REAL) FIRST Name.

When this occurs, i mark them as to why.

ONE shared name is not going to cause anyone harm.

But to hide it ,(could serve a means to an END).

- satan Slithers in the dust.
- (this we know)
(he has many names/titles)

I don't believe we should accuse them,
- as they falsely accuse , (us).

- But that's me.

Then again,

- having multiple identities, - Does not SERVE CHRIST. (imho) , How can it?

- (And some here have had them)
- And have been caught at it too. http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/blush.gif

Having full discussions with oneself,
- (is simply ludicrous)

and thanks oneway, for the reminder of that site.
- i lost that link.

- When reloading things.

- My backup was not totally backed (up).

Don <*))><

franklin

05-31-2007, 11:34 PM

I have always only posted on factnet as Franklin. I have no reason to lie about that. If others believe you are racists it is because we have good reasons too.

Like how arnie interprets Genesis 3:20 and Genesis 4:1 for you.

Nice try. Trying to throw us off the scent of xman. If xman is a multiple user named poster the other NAME would have to be an SCer's. His posts are reproductions of bruno's on cultbusters. bruno and smyrna had the same ips.

Like Gomer Pyle used to say:

SURPRISE! SURPRISE! SURPRISE! http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/smile.gif

stage_director

06-01-2007, 12:37 AM

QUOTE
Something about the banter between Oneway and xman3 and the banter between Rage Director and both of these characters also makes me wonder if Oneway is actually Rage Director
END QUOTE

LOL I'm not surprised ... Gee, is there anyone posting you don't think is me?

stage_director

06-01-2007, 12:42 AM

Hey, Oneway ... that site won't help much because most of the Shep Chap'lers are using proxies so they can mask their real ips.

xman3

06-01-2007, 01:15 AM

Gee kids, I'm right here. Does the word paranoid mean anything to you? Long ago I pointed out how brilliant I would have to be to pull off such a ruse considering the context of my posts since 12/06, all to set up the folks here at the chapel threads.

I accept your apology aviyah, and assume that means you won't repeat that accusation of my lying ever again, since I have flat out answered this already. I expect that from some people, but from you, it surprised me.

I suppose I'll stick around here for a little while as long as my name comes up because I find a lot of this interesting and don't mind defending at the very least my sincerity in my questions and opinions. They may not be right, but they are my own. As for thinking me and Stage Director are the same person, well I'll bet we both can sit at our computers and chuckle over that one.

Bru.... oops, I mean xman3

terluvire

06-01-2007, 02:25 AM

Well, I really have no idea what a proxy is. All I know is that I connect through my internet provider.

xman3

06-01-2007, 02:40 AM

Security is the main reason, outside of hiding. See how easy it is.

xman3

06-01-2007, 02:44 AM

That was just from a website someone here at factnet recommended for some reason. I rarely use it, and that's the first time I've tried it here. Works pretty good.

angie0401

06-01-2007, 03:02 AM

I use a proxy server most of the time. It does make it a little harder - but not impossible - for someone to hack into your computer. The other reason I use one is that some of these people on here are just plain nuts (not speaking of anyone posting on here right this minute). I have a friend whose children were scared to death when someone from factnet called and threatened them. I have small kids and will do anything I can to keep them safe.

OH - franklin, smyrna also uses a proxy server, so that may be why (if it's even true) he & "bruno" had the same ip address at some point.

aviyah

06-01-2007, 03:51 AM

*********************************************** ***
"Well, I really have no idea what a proxy is. All I know is that I connect through my internet provider." (Terluvire, 05/31/07)
*********************************************** ***

Same here. It is interesting how everyone but Ramblingrose chimed in right on cue though.

*********************************************** ***
"Does the word paranoid mean anything to you?" (xman3, 05/31/07)
*********************************************** ***

Aren't you taking this message board a little to seriously?...almost as seriously as Rage Director and Franklin who have both valiantly stated their "missions" here.

The "accusation" that some posters here may be the same person is certainly more benign than some of the accusations I have read here against Sheperd's Chapel and/or its students.

Anyway...it is just a theory of mine...one that I keep in mind when I read these exchanges.

God Bless, AviYAH

stage_director

06-01-2007, 04:06 AM

QUOTE
If I'm not mistaken, you wrote that...
END QUOTE

You are and you misread it ...

angie0401

06-01-2007, 04:34 AM

aviyah,
FWIW - I don't believe that xman3 posts under any other name and I do believe him to be sincere and honest.
I also don't think that s_d & oneway are the same person, either.

s_d said:
Hey, Oneway ... that site won't help much because most of the Shep Chap'lers are using proxies so they can mask their real ips.
Don't you use a proxy server, also?

aviyah

06-01-2007, 04:35 AM

*********************************************** ***
"You are and you misread it" (Rage Director, 05/31/07)
*********************************************** ***

I beg to differ. You misquoted and misinterpreted Romans 2:28-29. Just as I was saying before, your reading and writing comprehension skills remind me a lot of Franklin's.

Reap what you sow, AviYAH

stage_director

06-01-2007, 04:39 AM

Well, Abi ... I sincerely hope you don't reap what you sow, but that you find God merciful.

stage_director

06-01-2007, 04:42 AM

QUOTE
Don't you use a proxy server, also?
END QUOTE

No, I don't.

aviyah

06-01-2007, 04:58 AM

Angie,

What is meant by proxy server. You'll have to excuse my lack of computer savvy here. Also what is meant by IPs? Am I wrong in assuming this means Internet Providers?

Why on earth are some here searching out the states in which other users live? I agree there are apparently some psychopaths on board here.

As I said before, this is just a theory that I take into consideration as I am reading these exchanges.

God Bless, AviYAH

angie0401

06-01-2007, 05:04 AM

s_d said:
No, I don't.

Prove it.
http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/rofl.gif

aviyah

06-01-2007, 05:16 AM

Rage Director,

Father is the judge of what I sow...not you.

*********************************************** ***
Well, Abi ... I sincerely hope you don't reap what you sow, but that you find God merciful. (Rage Director, 05/31/07
*********************************************** ***

Keep that reality in mind when you add your own twist to the mix here. Keep that in mind before you qoute (or misquote) Holy Scripture verbatim. Keep that in mind when you add the word "fraud" to newspaper articles which are in no way related to fraud. Keep that in mind when you deliberately try to cause confusion (babel) by addressing me as Abiyah.

Reap what you sow, AviYAH

aviyah

06-01-2007, 05:17 AM

Rage Director,

Father is the judge of what I sow...not you.

*********************************************** ***
Well, Abi ... I sincerely hope you don't reap what you sow, but that you find God merciful. (Rage Director, 05/31/07
*********************************************** ***

Keep that reality in mind when you add your own twist to the mix here. Keep that in mind before you quote (or misquote) Holy Scripture verbatim. Keep that in mind when you add the word "fraud" to newspaper articles which are in no way related to fraud. Keep that in mind when you deliberately try to cause confusion (babel) by addressing me as Abiyah.

Reap what you sow, AviYAH

stage_director

06-01-2007, 07:50 AM

QUOTE
Prove it.
END QUOTE

lol You really aren't the brightest bulb on the tree, are you?

oneway

06-01-2007, 02:05 PM

"Why on earth are some here searching out the states in which other users live? I agree there are
apparently some psychopaths on board here."

Perhaps when you're being accused of being someone else..wouldn't you think that would be good reason? It's called offering proof that you are who you say you are. It's about credibility. Don't make it something it's not, such as psychopathic. My IP shows I'm in Texarkana, and that's exactly where I am. But if you want to talk psychopaths in here, perhaps you need to look within your own group. Some of them are not exactly internet illiterate. They know all about IP checking, proxies etc.

oneway

06-01-2007, 02:35 PM

"Security is the main reason, outside of hiding. See how easy it is."

Yes, I understand the security aspect of it. But just be reminded of where we are. Both sides, scers and detractors accuse each other of being other members, which may or may not be true. So it's more about credibility. It bothers me in the least whether someone in here is using a proxy or not. I honestly couldn't care less. I have no beef with anyone in here, I just happen to disagree with some of their beliefs. But that's mutual. They obviously disagree with some of mine.

watchman_2

06-01-2007, 03:11 PM

yaakov2,

I don't know if you heard an interview of Louis Farrakhan on Fox News about 2 years ago. Even he made the distinction between the "good" Jews and "evil" Jews. Of course, the interviewer had no clue what he was speaking about.

angie0401

06-01-2007, 03:41 PM

s_d said:
lol You really aren't the brightest bulb on the tree, are you?
Why do you say that? Because I made an accusation, without proof, and then challenged YOU to disprove my accusation? It would be more believable if I provided the proof to back up the accusation, wouldn't it?

http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/smile.gif

angie0401

06-01-2007, 03:54 PM

oneway said:
But if you want to talk psychopaths in here, perhaps you need to look within your own group. Some of them are not exactly internet illiterate. They know all about IP checking, proxies etc.

Since when does being computer savvy = psychopathic? http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/uhoh.gif

I think I was clear that I wasn't accusing anyone posting on here at present as being a psychopath, but there are dangerous people on Factnet (as well as all over the net). Also, everyone knows that people can get VERY serious when discussing religion, so it is just prudent to guard your personal information.

If you don't think so and are really interested in full disclosure - why don't you post all of your personal info on here? Of course, I wouldn't really expect you to do that, but to accuse any of us of being a psychopath because we know about proxies or because we choose to be cautious is really unfair.

rachelengland

06-01-2007, 04:05 PM

franklin

06-01-2007, 04:14 PM

watchman: "Even he made the distinction between the "good" Jews and "evil" Jews."

Like as if Farrakhan is a source of anything credible. Unreal!

What we are seeing on these threads are the distinctions between the "good" Germanic/Gaelics and the "evil" Germanic/Gaelics. The Scers obviously being in the latter group.

angie0401

06-01-2007, 04:17 PM

oneway, please let me clear something up for you, none of us who disagree with the scers have ever called any of them or their friends(who may also follow opposing doctrines) on the phone and threatened them or their children-infact "most" of us are parents and we would not cuae fear or harm to children or adults if you will...

I didn't see anyone pointing any fingers or even insinuating it was someone on here - it was just an observance that there ARE people associated with Factnet who will stoop to such things.

However, your statement isn't entirely true - one of your group did try to cause fear by posting (what she thought was) my daughter's name on here. I didn't see YOU stepping up to condemn that action.

Rachel, aren't you concerned that oneway will consider YOU a psychopath since you are fairly knowledgeable about ip addresses, masking your id, multiple usernames, etc?

rachelengland

06-01-2007, 04:34 PM

Hi angie.. no I think oneway knows none of here are "really" psychopaths and actually I suck when it comes to ips and masking my id and when we speak of multiple user names- we never can really tell unless we are in a room with someone and see them doing it...

I did not know someone tried to reveal your children's names until just recently when you thought is was Pdee or myself but I will tell you this- it is WRONG and I do think people go way overboard with that stuff.

I will also say this- I am not part of any group anymore-I have made my declaration of who I am. I don't believe in either of your Biblical stories be it sc or cb but you are all welcome to believe as you wish...R

yaakov2

06-01-2007, 04:42 PM

Watchman

I agree with Franklin. Louis Farrakhan is a racist and has no credibility.

stage_director

06-01-2007, 04:57 PM

QUOTE
Why do you say that? Because I made an accusation, without proof, and then challenged YOU to disprove my accusation?
END QUOTE

Because, my dear ... I'm sure you've already checked out my ip, and a "proxy savvy" person such as youself ought to know that SBC/AT&T isn't a proxy server ...

angie0401

06-01-2007, 04:58 PM

rachel said:
Hi angie.. no I think oneway knows none of here are "really" psychopaths ...
Good, because I don't think so either. However, I think there are a couple of unstable people (and NO - I'm not thinking of you) on here.

rachel said:
I did not know someone tried to reveal your children's names until just recently when you thought is was Pdee or myself but I will tell you this- it is WRONG and I do think people go way overboard with that stuff.
I appreciate your comments here, rachel. Contrary to what some might say here, I would NEVER reveal personal info that I have on someone. I know I've used it to pick at you, but I would NEVER EVER EVER endanger anyone and I have NEVER searched out info on any of you. That's just not me.

rachel said:
I will also say this- I am not part of any group anymore-I have made my declaration of who I am. I don't believe in either of your Biblical stories be it sc or cb but you are all welcome to believe as you wish...R
That's all we've asked from the beginning - to be allowed to believe without harassment.

You know what's really funny, rachel? I think in real life you and I might have actually been friends, differing beliefs and all...

stage_director

06-01-2007, 05:12 PM

QUOTE
Louis Farrakhan on Fox News about 2 years ago. Even he made the distinction between the "good" Jews and "evil" Jews
END QUOTE

Oh, no you didn't! lol Did you just cite Louis Farrakhan as a "credible source" ?
http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/rofl.gif

oneway

06-01-2007, 05:19 PM

rachelengland,

"oneway, please let me clear something up for you, none of us who disagree with the scers have ever
called any of them or their friends(who may also follow opposing doctrines) on the phone and
threatened them or their children-infact "most" of us are parents and we would not cuae fear or harm
to children or adults if you will...

Finding out where people live, who their family members are or what they look like really should be none
of our business unless one wants to share that with you..."

I understand your concern. And if that is the case, then using a proxy server makes sense in that regard. All an IP address does is indicate who your ISP is, nothing else. Unless I actually give out my phone# or my physical address, there is no way my IP address can lead anyone to that info. Where I live, the population is around 100,000. It would be totally impossible for anyone to know exactly where I am physically located within this city, unless of course I tell them.
Another way that it could happen is if I happen to have that info on my hard drive and my pc gets hacked. Speaking for myself, I don't keep info like that on my hard drive.
Here's some good advice. Never give out your phone # or any physical location to anyone over the net.
Even to someone you trust thru email, unless you're using an ssl server. Any data that one transfers to one another can easily be sniffed out by hackers, since the data is actually being transmitted for all to see if they want to and know how to.

Also I might point out, proxy servers are not as secure as one might believe. Countless other users
use the same IP and hackers can use various means to hack others while they too are using the same proxy servers.

I learned a lot of this stuff a few years back. I used to be overly paranoid about the internet. I used to daisy chain 20 to 30 proxy servers at a time. The thing is, a cpl of yrs back I wasn't hanging around on religious forums. And now that I am, I just don't feel the need for all the proxies anymore.

yaakov2

06-01-2007, 06:47 PM

watchman_2

I don't know if you heard an interview of Louis Farrakhan on Fox News about 2 years ago. Even he made the distinction between the "good" Jews and "evil" Jews.

I’m still wondering why you would quote from this guy. Is Mr. Farrakhan a believer in the serpent seed doctrine?

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:

“The real anti-Semites are those who came out of Europe and settled in Palestine, and now they call themselves the true Jews, when in fact, they converted to Judaism.”
Al Jazeera TV interview, 3/18/07<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>

Here’s a quote about the true/false Jew. He seems to be saying that “true” Jews believe in jesus. When I asked you directly about this, you told me that you know that true Judaism doesn’t accept jesus as a god.

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:

Christians are in a struggle to discipline themselves to the way of Jesus Christ, and Jews have had same struggle, but there are Jews that ain't strugglin' at all. These are the Hollywood Jews, who say they are Jews but they are not, and until the true Jew point the finger at the false Jew, the false Jew will make the true Jew look bad."
Saviours' Day, Chicago, Illinois, 2/26/06<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>

Do you agree with Mr. Farrakhan’s statements about the white race?

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:

White people are potential humans…they haven’t evolved yet."
Philadelphia Inquirer, 3/18/00<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>

oneway

06-01-2007, 08:22 PM

"Rachel, aren't you concerned that oneway will consider YOU a psychopath since you are fairly
knowledgeable about ip addresses, masking your id, multiple usernames, etc?"

In all honesty, the only reason I addressed the psychopath thing was because I felt that remark was being addressed to me, because I checked a few IPs. But after re-reading these posts, it seems that I took it out of context a bit. And for the record, I don't think anyone in here is a psychopath, and this includes Dodge. He's just a little sick in the head with some of his so called tasteless and sick humor he's posted about Christ, but I don't find him to be psychopathic.

rachelengland

06-01-2007, 08:36 PM

http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/happy.gif smiles to all?

An ISP is your Internet Service Provider. Your IP (Internet Protocol) address is the actual "number" associated with your computer (kind of like a phone number)." No, actually the IP as it is shown on FN is the IP of the modem to which your computer is attached. The IP of the computer never gets out past the modem provided by the ISP, Time Warner, etc. And the only way someone can find the exact address of where that modem is located is with a court order. General locations and cities are obtainable, but your house is not. I would not worry too much.

(Message edited by admin on June 01, 2007)

watchman_2

06-01-2007, 10:44 PM

yaakov2,

Farrakhan was pressed by the interviewer as to whom are those Jews he considers evil. He basically defined the evil ones as many Christians would the Kenites. He indicated that his group was against the evil Jews, but had no problem with the good Jews.

I have no idea what they believe in regarding the origination of the evil Jews; but, the interview sure sounded like he understood the difference.

I usually don't hear anything that man states; however, he did get my attention with his distinction of those that call themselves Jews, but are not.

watchman_2

06-02-2007, 03:25 PM

franklin [Farrakhan Junior],

I suggest that you go review Big Mitch's post at cultblunders where he demonstrated that the Jews believe in the literal offspring of Satan. I proved it to you many times.

Only an idiot like you would continue to embarass yourself day after day with your ridiculous claims.

aviyah

06-02-2007, 04:12 PM

Watchman,

I didn't perceive your comment about Farrakhan to mean that you agree with him or find him credible in any way.

I understood your comment to mean that Farrakhan, A MUSLIM, is aware of these same "certain Jews" which we continue to debate. Is that right? If so, that is very interesting.

God Bless, AviYAH

watchman_2

06-02-2007, 04:45 PM

aviyah,

Of course, you are correct. Some detractors come here and act like PM invented the Serpent Seed Doctrine.

My Farrakhan posts, as well as your posts and others' posts, demonstrate that the Serpent Seed Doctrine is not an invention, but has been with us from the beginning of the scriptures.

If I had time to document it, I am confident that the Serpent Seed Doctrine was mainstream teaching until the Catholic Church took over Christianity and began corrupting the Word.

After all, the teaching is prevalent in Jewish and Muslim religions, which derived such beliefs long before the Reformation. Though we owe the Catholic Church much thanks in preservation of the Word throughout the early centuries, we also owe them discredit for many false teachings.

As smyrna has documented, the early Catholic Church had much debate on the subject. By edict, the truth was declared untruth [for only God knows the reasons].

Unfortunately, the Reformation did nothing to correct the errant Catholic position regarding the Serpent Seed Doctrine and so we have what is referred to as fundamentalist Christianity denying this simple truth as well.

Of course, God is great and has seen to it that the Truth of the Serpent Seed Doctrine is brought forth for those that have eyes to see and ears to hear.

stage_director

06-02-2007, 04:57 PM

QUOTE
I didn't perceive your comment about Farrakhan to mean that you agree with him or find him credible in any way.
END QUOTE

Then why bring him up if you don't find him credible?

QUOTE
If I had time to document it, I am confident that the Serpent Seed Doctrine was mainstream teaching until the Catholic Church took over Christianity and began corrupting the Word.
END QUOTE

Neither you nor Smyrna are correct on this.

stage_director

06-02-2007, 05:00 PM

Let me add that I dare you to come up with "proof" of that from outside the realm of your CI/BI agenda ...

aviyah

06-02-2007, 06:33 PM

*********************************************** ***
"Then why bring him (Farrakhan) up if you don't find him credible?" (Rage Director, 06/02/07)
*********************************************** ***

AGAIN...

*********************************************** ***
"...Farrakhan, A MUSLIM, is aware of these same "certain Jews" which we continue to debate."
*********************************************** ***

The key word here is MUSLIM Rage Director.

*********************************************** ***
"...the Serpent Seed Doctrine is not an invention..." (Watchman, 06/02/07)
*********************************************** ***

The key words here, Rage Director, are Serpent Seed Doctrine.

Now carry on with the directing of confusion.

Reap what you sow, AviYAH

aviyah

06-02-2007, 06:46 PM

Yaakov,

Can you elaborate on your earlier quote from Al Jazeera TV? Who was speaking and what was the topic of discussion?

God Bless, AviYAH

franklin

06-02-2007, 07:08 PM

Take all the time you want you will NEVER prove that the stupid serpent seed heresy was ever part of Christian theology.

Big Mitch quoted from the Talmud, which does not claim to be revealed but speculative discussions between Rabbis. And what IS the Jewish belief about satan? Nothing you portray it to be.

Farrakahn is about as far from me as one could get. He is a racist like you and definitely heretical to the moslem faith. His views on whites is totally unacceptable to Islam.

You guys are way off base on everything as usual. You're just grasping at straws, pulling stuff out of nowhere to save you're cult's existence.

Notice I did not call you any names like you do. Your views are racist so that you are.

watchman_2

06-02-2007, 07:54 PM

stage_director,

You wrote:
*****
Let me add that I dare you to come up with "proof" of that from outside the realm of your CI/BI agenda ...
*****

It has already been done dozens of times. It is called the BIBLE. You should try reading it sometime. It is a wonderful book.

Why don't you review the many threads here wherein the proof has been given. Once you have educated yourself on the subject, I am sure any SCer here would be happy to answer your questions.

BTW, we are all waiting for your proof of your many outlandish claims.

stage_director

06-02-2007, 09:19 PM

QUOTE
It has already been done dozens of times. It is called the BIBLE. You should try reading it sometime. It is a wonderful book.
END QUOTE

For a fact the bible and your interpretation of it are two very different things ... and I don't need to read threads to know what Shep Chap teaches, or why your doctrines don't work.

watchman_2

06-02-2007, 09:37 PM

stage_director's quote:
*****
For a fact the bible and your interpretation of it are two very different things
*****

Gen 3:20 And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.
.
.
.
Gen 4:1 And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD.

Gen 4:2 And she again bare his brother Abel. 

So, anyone with the most basic of reading comprehension skills can see that the woman received her name of EVE because she was already pregnant.

In addition, it is obvious that the woman already had her name EVE when Adam first had sex with her.

The conception spoken of in Gen. 4:1 was that of Abel. The existing pregnancy of Eve in Gen. 4:1 was that of Cain.

Since Adam was not the father of Cain, who was if it was not Satan? See Gen. 3:14

So, stage_director, since you lack basic reading comprehension skills, it would benefit you greatly to review these threads in order to educate yourself. It will help keep you from embarassing yourself further.

stage_director

06-03-2007, 05:07 AM

QUOTE
It will help keep you from embarassing yourself further.
END QUOTE

lol I think you should be a little umm, "red in the face" over this statement:

So, anyone with the most basic of reading comprehension skills can see that the woman received her name of EVE because she was already pregnant.
http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/lol.gif

watchman_2

06-03-2007, 05:44 AM

You should be---"red in the face". After all, you were proven wrong [again].

Have you no shame?

stage_director

06-03-2007, 05:58 AM

Yes, I do ... I'm a little ashamed I didn't realize a little sooner how seriously wicked Shepherd's Chapel doctrines are. And to think I thought the critics might be exaggerating ... My bad. You know, if there weren't furniture in it, I might go stand in the corner and think on this. ;-)

watchman_2

06-03-2007, 01:44 PM

Wow -- now you claim the Bible is wicked! That's most unfortunate for you. After all, Christ is the living Word and, by inference, you declared Christ wicked.

Have a nice trip!

franklin

06-03-2007, 01:50 PM

The Bible is NOT wicked. Only those like arnie who pervert the word of God are!

The Jews you point at are not the literal or spiritual spawn of Satan.

But those who pervert God's word like arnie and the SCer's do ARE the spiritual spawn of satan.

terluvire

06-03-2007, 02:14 PM

Franklin said:

The Jews you point at are not the literal or spiritual spawn of Satan.

No kidding, that's what we've been saying all along, the Jews are not the children of satan!!

I am a Jew!!!

The Kenites are the children of satan.

Got it????

Good!!!!

stage_director

06-03-2007, 02:36 PM

QUOTE
Wow -- now you claim the Bible is wicked! That's most unfortunate for you. After all, Christ is the living Word and, by inference, you declared Christ wicked.
END QUOTE

lol How you do try to manipulate my words ... If it isn't crystal clear to you, I say yours and Murray's interpretation of the bible is wicked.

franklin

06-03-2007, 02:42 PM

The world will never "get" your whacky perversion of the Bible.

German/Aryan/Gaelics are NOT Jews.

You point your fingers at the Jews in Israel, yes arnie says they are ALL kenites, and accuse them being the literal spawn of satan.

That is tantamount to encouraging a child Hamas suicide bomber going on a bus in Telaviv and murdering dozens of innocent men, women and children. Hamas and Al Queda teaches their jihadists, men women and children, that the Jews in Israel are the spawn of satan.

Blood is on your hands from the evil lies you speak.

oneway

06-03-2007, 03:28 PM

"The Kenites are the children of satan.

Got it????

Good!!!!"

Speaking for myself, I don't get it. There is nowhere in scripture that even remotely indicates that the kenites are the children of satan. Anyone that is not a child of God..these are the children of satan. And satan aint even prejaduce. His children come in all sizes, shapes, religions and colors. Why would he need this race of so called hybrid demons called the kenites, when he already has plenty of children called human beings? Satan is out to kill, steal and destroy. Why does he need physical hybrids called kenites to accomplish this? Demon possession is real, hybrid demons called kenites walking around in earthly bodies are not. There is no evil race of hybrid kenites. There never was, there never will be. This is what I do get, but hybrid kenites..I don't get that.

watchman_2

06-03-2007, 03:30 PM

stage_director's quote:
*****
lol How you do try to manipulate my words ... If it isn't crystal clear to you, I say yours and Murray's interpretation of the bible is wicked.
*****

Well, you had your opportunity to prove otherwise and all you did was offer your smug denial. Let's try again.

Gen 3:20 And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.
.
.
.
Gen 4:1 And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD.

Gen 4:2 And she again bare his brother Abel. 

So, anyone with the most basic of reading comprehension skills can see that the woman received her name of EVE because she was already pregnant.

In addition, it is obvious that the woman already had her name EVE when Adam first had sex with her.

The conception spoken of in Gen. 4:1 was that of Abel. The existing pregnancy of Eve in Gen. 4:1 was that of Cain.

Since Adam was not the father of Cain, who was if it was not Satan?

franklin

06-03-2007, 03:49 PM

Wrong again watchman.

Moses wrote Genesis.

He wrote in the past tense "was" because the event that Moses was writing about, what Adam called Eve, ocurred thousands of years before Moses wrote that Eve "was" the mother of ALL living.

So simple a child could understand that.

Your misinterpretation requires deep programming by a racist cult to ever be able to skew it that way.

Adam is the father of Cain.

Eve is the mother of ALL living. White, black and yellow races. ALL living.

watchman_2

06-03-2007, 09:16 PM

franklin [Farrakhan] wrote:
*****
He wrote in the past tense "was" because the event that Moses was writing about, what Adam called Eve, ocurred thousands of years before Moses wrote that Eve "was" the mother of ALL living.

So simple a child could understand that.
*****

LOL -- Do you actually check out this crap before you throw it out there? Are you that desperate to maintain your idol-worshipping Captain position over at cultblunders?

Let's examine Gen 3:20 again:

Gen 3:20 And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.

As anyone except an idiot like Franklin can see, Adam gave her the name Eve because of her existing pregnancy. Moses is not claiming that the name Eve means mother of all living.

For the sake of argument, if that moron Franklin's position had merit, then we would rarely see the word "is" in the Torah.

An examination of the first 5 books of the OT shows that the word "is" is utilized 754 times. So, if Franklin maintains his argument that, since Moses wrote these books thousands of years after the events occurred, then Franklin has to explain away the 754 instances where the word "is" [denoting present tense] is used in the scriptures.

Eve was only the Mother of the Kenite and Adamic races. The rest of the races were created on the 6th Day -- just as the Bible plainly states.

franklin

06-03-2007, 11:25 PM

Genesis 3

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

No mention of Eve having sex and becoming pregnant.

All mention of a man or woman having sex and becoming pregnant in the bible says so clearly. Such as "knew" or "know". Clearly understandable that sex ocurred. But not in Genesis 3. Moses would not and did not write Genesis 3 in a secret code to say "eat" when he meant sex.

There is now way, no how that Eve was pregnant in Genesis 3.

So you do not have any scriptural leg to stand on. None whatsoever.

Not calling you the names you call me but where does the Bible mention race? Adamic, Kenite, black .......?

If so in what context?

ramblingrose

06-04-2007, 04:16 AM

There is no proof that twins were born to Adam and Eve.

Gen 4:1-2
4:1 And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD.
2 And she again bare his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground.
KJV

Some think she conceived again (again bare) for it says nothing about twins which may indicate Cain was older than Abel and he may have been jealous of him.

CAIN
Cain is the first son of Adam and Eve. His birth is hailed as a manifestation of Yahweh's help. He becomes "a tiller of the ground," and brings to Yahweh an offering of the produce of the soil, his brother Abel, the shepherd, bringing at the same time the fat of the first-born of his own flock.
(from International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, Electronic Database Copyright (c)1996 by Biblesoft)

Cain was offered a choice
Gen 4:7
7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.
KJV

God knows the intent of the heart, knew what Cain was thinking.

ramblingrose

06-04-2007, 04:44 AM

Gen 3:20
God having named the man, and called him Adam, which signifies red earth, Adam, in further token of dominion, named the woman, and called her Eve, that is, life. Adam bears the name of the dying body, Eve that of the living soul. The reason of the name is here given (some think, by Moses the historian, others, by Adam himself): Because she was (that is, was to be) the mother of all living. He had before called her Ishah-woman, as a wife; here he calls her Evah-life, as a mother.

(from Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible: New Modern Edition, Electronic Database. Copyright (c) 1991 by Hendrickson Publishers, Inc.)

Gen 2:23-24
23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
KJV

Here we have an insight into what may have been a long explanation from God. For Adam was describing marriage and leaving father and mother. How would they know about father and mother if God had not told them about bearing children? This is interesting for the plan was in place about bringing forth children before they disobeyed God. So by the time Adam called his wife's name Eve, he knew children would be born which does not support any theory of sex with the Devil (extramarital sex)

watchman_2

06-04-2007, 03:06 PM

ramblingrose wrote:
*****
There is no proof that twins were born to Adam and Eve.

Gen 4:1-2
4:1 And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD.
2 And she again bare his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground.
KJV

Some think she conceived again (again bare) for it says nothing about twins which may indicate Cain was older than Abel and he may have been jealous of him.
*****

Her theory is easily defeated. The word 'again' in Gen. 4:2 is an ADVERB.

A look at Strong's for definition:

H3254
&#1497;&#1505;&#1507;
ya&#770;saph
yaw-saf'
A primitive root; to add or augment (often adverbially to continue to do a thing): - add, X again, X any more, X cease, X come more, + conceive again, continue, exceed, X further, X gather together, get more, give moreover, X henceforth, increase (more and more), join, X longer (bring, do, make, much, put), X (the, much, yet) more (and more), proceed (further), prolong, put, be [strong-] er, X yet, yield.

It is concise and clear that, in the manuscripts, Cain and Abel were born during the exact same gestation period of Eve.

This is further evidenced by an omission of a very important clause to support the theory of separate gestations. That clause is "Adam knew his wife again".

As one can see with the birth of Seth in Gen. 4:25, the scriptures state, " And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth". So, if Abel was conceived and born after a separate gestation period following the birth of Cain, one would expect to see the conception clause again.

Since there is an omission of "And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son" we know that there were only 2 conceptions associated with Adam; yet, there were 3 sons born.

This fact, along with the concise Hebrew for the word 'again', leave us with the only rational conclusion that Cain and Abel were twins.

Of course, Gen. 3:20 precludes Adam from being the father of both twins.