Announcement Announcement Module
Collapse
No announcement yet.
PASTOR DENNIS MURRAYSHEPHERDS CHAPEL Page Title Module
Move Remove Collapse
X
Conversation Detail Module
Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • PASTOR DENNIS MURRAYSHEPHERDS CHAPEL

    Since dennis has taken over much of his father's (arnold's) preaching on t.v., I thought we should start a thread for him.

    The reason being, for one, in a q&a portion of the telecast, he was asked if he and his father have differences of opinion. He said they did, and have "agreed to disagree". (Sure would be nice if their students felt that way.)

    This morning, I was watching him during the q&a. Someone named Rhonda wrote asking if the flag (U.S.) behind him wasn't considered "worshipping idols". An instant change came over Dennis. His demeanor went from nice to cold in an instant. He said (paraphrased): "Rhonda, I guess you thought your question would never get on the air, didn't you. You probably thoght it would perturb me. What perturbs me is the word is graven image, not idol." He then went on to say how we should respect our flag. What he said next was very disturbing for a pastor to say. He said "Rhonda. I'll bet you are a very unhappy person. I'll bet you're not happy living in America. I think you should leave it. I hear Nicaragua is real nice this time of year." Then he went on to the next question. I would say her question "perturbed him" a great deal! Did he respond in the way a Christian minister would/should? You decide.

    A week or so ago he answered another question about his father "translating" something. He said his father translated the Bat Cheek Stone. That's all he said about it. When I ask people about this; people who should know, they refuse to answer. My question is/was, "If am translated the Bat Creek Stone, what was the translation? Why won't his students talk about this?

    He also said the unforgivable sin is this: If the elect refuse to speak in the millenium when they are brought up before the antichrist, that is blasphemy, the "unforgiven sin". Is he saying, then, that those who don't live until then cannot commit the unforgivable sin (as he interprets it)?

    I'm going to ask nicely, if students of am/sc or dennis/sc don't know the answers, or don't want to answer, that is fine, that is their right; but please do not attempt to interfere with this thread by more attacks on me to avoid the questions and to fill the pages so people will bypass them and move on. Thank you. It would only show your true intent on these boards.

  • #2
    QUOTE
    If the elect refuse to

    QUOTE
    If the elect refuse to speak in the millenium when they are brought up before the antichrist, that is blasphemy
    END QUOTE

    (You mean the trib), but ... I thought Oneway made a great point about those denying the HS being the ones who commit blasphemy.

    I think the response to Rhonda is NOT how a minister of God treats a question. The scathing innuendo passed off as "salt" is offensive.

    Comment


    • #3
      godchild,

      Your question -


      godchild,

      Your question -
      Did he respond in the way a Christian minister would/should?

      How would you know how a Christian should respond?? These threads are replete with your unChristian comments.

      Your question -
      My question is/was, "If am translated the Bat Creek Stone, what was the translation?

      I don't recall what the exact wording of the translation was of the Bat Creek Stone. I believe it had ties to ancient Israel.

      Your question -
      Why won't his students talk about this?

      The topic has never come up. There is ample evidence of groups traveling to the Americas from Europe and the Middle East long before Columbus.

      Your question -
      Is he saying, then, that those who don't live until then cannot commit the unforgivable sin (as he interprets it)?

      No. Not in the millenium [Lord's Day], but prior to the return of Christ.

      Comment


      • #4
        Didn't I say Christian [i]

        Didn't I say Christian minister. Does watchman think I am a minister?

        The topic has never come up? Where has watchman been? When brought up a few days ago, scers said they wouldn't answer the question....right here at factnet. So I thank watchman for at least giving a response. I guess the Bat Creek Stone isn't important to them, which means am is wasting the scers tithes when he travels around in his jet (that we know he didn't buy on a mail-carriers pay) looking for archaeological proofs for his weird teachings. For people's information, the Bat Creek Stone is considered a hoax. At least by any credible investigators.

        On a list of those who say it is credible you can find this:

        First, numerous individuals and groups (often referred to as diffusionists) believe that significant pre-Columbian interaction took place between native American peoples and various ancient and early modern civilizations (such as the Hebrews, Greeks, Romans, Celts, and so forth). It is definitely possible that such communication took place, but so far little or no verifiable, objective evidence has been found to support such theories. It's one thing to find a fragment of Phoenician pottery in Boston Harbor since this can be explained as the result of a European ship discharging a load of stone ballast that happened to contain the fragment. It would be quite a different situation if someone found translatable, legible writings on a datable stone standing in a field in Missouri (as opposed to a forgery, or cracks and weathering marks that just happen to resemble such writing) that could be successfully traced to ancient Phoenicians. The former has happened, but the latter has not.

        Complicating matters further, at least a few supporters of diffusionist theories are the heirs of 19th century racist attitudes toward native American cultures. At that time it was widely held that the "lost Moundbuilder culture" could not have possibly been related to the "savage Indian tribes" regularly encountered by white settlers. A theory arose that the Moundbuilders must have been of a race that died out prior to the arrival of Europeans, since the "savage" native American tribes were "obviously too primitive" to have created such wonders. It is certainly not the case that all diffusionists are racists, but some racists have apparently seen fit to associate themselves with this movement in order to give themselves a measure of respectability, much as social Darwinists who promulgated "Aryan superiority" myths in the early 20th century hijacked and twisted the theory of evolution in pursuit of their own goals.

        to be cont.

        Comment


        • #5
          cont.
          As for those researcher

          cont.
          As for those researchers who claim to have made successful translations of some of the inscriptions, at least one is highly suspect since the translator made free use of various alphabets and languages in constructing his results. Some characters were taken from Etruscan, others from Hebrew or another language. An academic who reviewed the translators' efforts commented that "if one is allowed to pick and choose the letters and their translations, and fill in the blanks with vowels of one's own choosing, then words can be composed to fit any story." (Chapman, 1995)

          If the rest of the translations are similarly flawed, then Barry Fell's assertion that the stones were "nothing but gibberish" becomes all the more likely.

          More Complications
          The matter of the Cave's provenance is further complicated by the colorful background of some of the people whose names have become attached to it. Writer Rick Flavin wrote a column about a fellow named Frank Collin, best known as the neo-Nazi who attempted to organize a march through predominantly Jewish Skokie, IL in the 1970s. In the article Flavin touched on the subject of Burrows Cave and the apparent relationship between Frank Collin (who is no longer a neo-Nazi but has picked up a new vocation as a "new age" icon and writer while operating under the pseudonym "Frank Joseph") and Russell Burrows. Collin is an editor for Ancient American magazine, a glossy, non-scholarly publication that publishes numerous articles in support of diffusionist theory (it is also the only national magazine to publish any articles about the Cave). Several of the magazine's publishers and staff are members of a fringe sect of Mormons who, according to mainstream members of the LDS Church, are a "bunch of loons making the rest of us look bad." (message from Ben Spackman, July 2003).

          Another name strongly associated with the Cave is that of Dr. James Scherz, a retired engineer and surveyor who wrote numerous articles in support of the Cave's authenticity. It should be noted that Scherz is (or was?) the president of a diffusionist group called The Ancient Earthworks Society; thus his support for the Cave may be somewhat biased for the reasons noted above.

          to be cont.

          Comment


          • #6
            cont.
            More amusing coincidenc

            cont.
            More amusing coincidences came to light when an odd article (original site lost, now found at a new location) was discovered on the Internet; according to the original site's administrator it "appeared in his inbox one day" and no author was cited. The text described the discovery of Burrows Cave and then recounted some of the wonders found there, including Etruscan, Greek, and Sumerian texts and pictograms. The article appeared to be a very scholarly work, and dropped the names of various researchers who'd examined the artifacts and judged them authentic.

            First we hear of "Fred Rydholm," an amateur who apparently has been involved in a great deal of archaeological research in the past in association with Russell Burrows and James Scherz. He is also said to have produced an excellent 2-volume work on another topic unrelated to Burrows Cave.

            Next there is a reference to "Dr. Arnold Murray of Arkansas." Research reveals that far from being a scholar, Murray is a fundamentalist Christian televangelist whose views are strongly condemned by mainstream Christianity. Exactly what credentials he is supposed to have to assist in the decipherment of Hebrew, Etruscan, or other texts are not mentioned. It's also obvious that Murray would be happy to support diffusionist ideas since his teachings involve "Anglo-Israelism," i.e. the idea that "Anglo-Saxons are the chosen race, and America and Great Britain are the lost tribes of the children of Israel. Murray claims that the northern ten tribes of Israel are the 'the same tribes that later went north and populated Europe and North America.' " (1)

            "Zena Halpern" is cited as "a Hebrew scholar from New York." Another source says that she is "a scholar who CAN do good work" but has become a "true believer" regarding Burrows Cave and therefore refuses to believe any evidence contradicting her interpretation that it's legitimate.

            "Dr Joe Mahan" was the founder of the Institute for the Study of American Cultures (ISAC), described by the same source (who is on this group's board of trustees) as a "pro-indian, pro-diffusion group." This source, as well as numerous other academics who've written commentaries on Burrows Cave, claim that Mahan was a very good scholar who was "suckered" into the Burrows controversy, and apparently also became a "believer." During a meeting of the group another scholar called for validation of Burrows Cave (a standard practice--ALL archaeological sites must be validated). At this, Mahan "stood up and yelled at her: Burrows Cave needs no validation" (Buchanan, 2001). This is an unconscionable attitude for a supposedly impartial scholar since it means his personal feelings about the site were interfering with his ability to approach it from a rational, analytical standpoint.
            © 2001-2003 Richard E. Joltes.
            --------end
            I think people will get the point. Though this article talks about Burrows Cave, it shows what is thought of what am and other novices (claiming to be educated in such things) will do to further their own agendas.....something that has been said here before. Sound familiar? It should.

            Let's now look at what is said about the Bat Creek Stone.
            to be cont.

            (Message edited by godchild on September 07, 2007)

            Comment


            • #7
              godchild,

              No--I don't t

              godchild,

              No--I don't think you are a Christian minister. In my opinion, you are not a Christian at all.

              Of that which I can speak with certainty, you have no business commenting on anyone's Christian demeanor! These threads are replete with your vile commentary.

              Comment


              • #8
                The Bat Creek stone, allegedly

                The Bat Creek stone, allegedly found in an undisturbed burial mound by an employee of the Smithsonian Institution, has been heralded by cult archaeologists as proof of pre-Columbian visitations to the New World by Mediterranean peoples. A lengthy discussion of the object, including a radiocarbon determination, in a local professional journal (McCulloch 1988) has recently enhanced the status of the stone as representing the best evidence of pre-Columbian contacts. In this paper we have addressed three key issues surrounding the Bat Creek stone and its interpretation. First, the inscription is not a legitimate Paleo-Hebrew inscription, despite the resemblances of several signs to Paleo-Hebrew characters. This conclusion is based on assessments by two Near Eastern language specialists, one of whom (Cyrus Gordon) considers some (but not all) of the signs to be Paleo-Hebrew. Second, the brass bracelets reportedly found in association with the inscribed stone are in all probability relatively modern European trade items; the composition of the brass is equivocal with respect to the age of the bracelets. Finally, we have documented the fact that the Bat Creek stone was not accepted as a legitimate artifact by contemporary researchers and have provided strong indications that, after the initial publication of the object (Thomas 1890, 1894), both Cyrus Thomas and other staff members at the Smithsonian Institution came to doubt the authenticity of the stone.

                Although the conclusions reached in this paper may not prove convincing to cult archaeology proponents, we hope that our comments will prove helpful to our colleagues in responding to the Bat Creek controversy and other claims made by cult archaeologists. Perhaps more important, we hope that our efforts here will influence some of our colleagues to take an active role in countering claims made by cult archaeologists and particularly in providing the general public with accessible information about the remarkable discoveries made by mainstream archaeology (see Williams 1987, 1988a, 1988b).


                Acknowledgements
                The authors particularly thank Frank Moore Cross, Hancock Professor of Hebrew and Other Oriental Languages at Harvard University, for providing us with his professional assessment of the signs on the Bat Creek stone. Jefferson Chapman, Director of the McClung Museum at the University of Tennessee, generously provided copies of unpublished reports and correspondence by and pertaining to John Emmert. Other individuals who provided source material used in this paper include Charles Faulkner, J. Houston McCulloch, Joseph B. Mahan, Michael Moore, and Stephen Williams. Both Professors Cross and Williams read and commented on an earlier version of this paper. Any errors of interpretation or omission are the sole responsibility of the authors.
                ---------------end
                If people are convinced that am translated the Bat Creek Stone, or any other so-called artifact, that is up to them. If, as they say, they study things before accepting them, they must agree murray's and his son's claims are mere false braggido. Where did am say he got his education again?

                (I am reminded that watchman said in one of his posts that he doesn't accept things by faith, but by scientific study [paraphrased in the hopes he will correct me]. Can either he or his fellows scers say what they profess to be true; has been proved true?)

                Comment


                • #9
                  As compared to what, watchman?

                  As compared to what, watchman? Your commentary here that we will give suck to satan, that we are the devil's tit, that we are his whores, that we should "have a nice trip", that we have already laid down and spread our legs for satan. Is that the comparison you are talking about?

                  I apologized a long time ago for anything I may have said to offend anybody. Have you? Are you my judge? If I have offended you, please show the comment I made to you that has offended you so.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    It's exactly as you said i

                    It's exactly as you said it would be, GC ... In lieu of addressing the attitude in which Dennis Murray addressed the woman an attempt is made to divert the focus of the thread onto you.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Have you noticed when am is pr

                      Have you noticed when am is preaching, his whole demeanor changes when he mentions kenites?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Watchman,

                        Nice to see you

                        Watchman,

                        Nice to see you back. Of course, the detractors, I am sure, do not share my sentiments.

                        I see the dynamic duo of Godchild and Stage Detractor have now zeroed their hate on Dennis Murray.

                        Too bad for them they won't get anywhere doing that, and I'm actually surprised they've taken so long to attack him.

                        I think Dennis is an excellent Pastor and teacher.

                        He sure sent Godchild on her latest copy and paste fest,I guess she's run out of her usual lunacy which is her own concoction of silly commentaries filled with endless exhibitions of her stupidity.

                        No, we are not diverting attention from Dennis by pointing out how ridiculous these two cretins are.

                        As a matter of fact, it's really ridiculous that Stage Detractor would even would bring such a charge immediately after Godchild posted irrelevent material pertaining to archaeology, of which it is obvious that Godchild knows little or nothing about.

                        Maybe she can enligthen us, and tell us what Dennis thinks of the Bat Creek stone.

                        As for Dennis's demeanor changing when he mentions Kenites, it's probably the same change of demeanor I get when I read any of the detractor's posts.http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/rofl.gif

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          I think Dennis is an excellent

                          I think Dennis is an excellent Pastor and teacher of Jew hating and racism. Like father, like son. Both racist Jew haters. Sieg Heil!

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            I started the thread and the f

                            I started the thread and the first post contained this:

                            A week or so ago he answered another question about his father "translating" something. He said his father translated the Bat Cheek Stone. That's all he said about it. When I ask people about this; people who should know, they refuse to answer. My question is/was, "If am translated the Bat Creek Stone, what was the translation? Why won't his students talk about this?
                            ----------------end
                            How does smyrna respond?
                            Maybe she can enligthen us, and tell us what Dennis thinks of the Bat Creek stone.
                            --------------end
                            Duh!!

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Why won't Dennis answer th

                              Why won't Dennis answer this?-gc

                              The following article is an exact copy of the letter that Steve Lagoon (in behalf of Religion Analysis Service) sent to Arnold Murray's ministry (The Shepherds Chapel). In a phone conversation, Arnold Murray's son, Dennis Murray, promised a written response to this letter. However, shortly after receiving the letter, Steve Lagoon received a call at the office of Religion Analysis Service from Dennis Murray stating that the Shepherd's Chapel ministry would not honor their word, and had decided not to answer the letter as they had previously promised. Read the letter and find out what Arnold Murray is afraid of!

                              The Shepherd’s Chapel
                              Mr. Dennis Murray
                              PO Box 416
                              Gravette AR 72736

                              Tuesday, May 08, 2001

                              Dear Mr. Dennis Murray,

                              I was privileged to speak with you on the telephone on February 27th and I want to thank-you for your kindness and generosity, and your commitment to answer my concerns about the teaching’s of the Shepherd’s Chapel (hereafter SC) in writing. It was my intention to follow up our conversation with this letter much sooner, but I was greatly affected by the tragic death of my 17 year old son Kyle in an automobile accident. I apologize for the delay.

                              We at Religion Analysis Service often receive inquiries about your father and the teachings of the SC. It was decided that we would research your ministry and put together an article for our ministry’s journal which is called the Discerner magazine. In doing research for that article, I came across several articles that were critical of the ministry of the SC. I also became acquainted with your own website. I was most interested in your doctrinal statement (Our Statement of Faith), and especially the article written by your father (In Answer to Critics by Pastor Arnold Murray) in which he seeks to answer some of the criticisms leveled by “Christian Research” organizations. I am organizing this letter to you around the format of your father’s In Answer to Critics.
                              to be cont.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X