what happened to david murray of shepherds chapel

Christian Research Found

ARNOLD MURRAY AND THE SHEPHERD'Southward CHAPEL

A teacher who has recently get popular over television is a human named Arnold Murray of the Shepherd'southward Chapel in Gravette, Arkansas. Nosotros at the Christian Research Institute practice not endorse the teachings of Arnold Murray. This paper volition demonstrate why we consider Mr. Murray's teachings to be heretical.

THE CULTIC TEACHINGS OF ARNOLD MURRAY

Modalism

Mr. Murray does non believe in the Christian doctrine of the Trinity (one God existing eternally in three Persons). There are three real and personal relationships between the Begetter, Son, and Holy Spirit. Murray denies the three persons of God, claiming they are merely three offices. Apropos the Trinity, he said:

You have these yo-yo's that will say, 'Well I want you to recollect like of water (sic) and ice' and then on, various gases or so forth, or then they'll say, 'I want y'all to think of a 200 watt bulb, and a 150 watt seedling, and a 50 watt bulb.' Well, they're all the same wattage, friend. So why not simply simplify it instead of playing stupid games, and understand in that location are three offices of the Godhead. Like this little lady said. She said, 'To my husband I am a wife, to my children I am a mother, that's my role. To hundreds of third graders I am their instructor and have been down through the years. That's a different office; none of them the same, but I'm notwithstanding the same person.' I similar that. It's unproblematic and to the point (The Shepherd'due south Chapel Question and Answers period, aired 64-91).

Referring to Christ, Murray says, "His spirit is holy and he is the Holy Spirit." (Shepherd'due south Chapel Question and Answers menstruation, aired 54-91) Hence, Murray is guilty of teaching the heresy of modalism, which states that Jesus is the Begetter, Son, and Holy Spirit (i Person in iii roles, or modes). 1 of the accusations made against CRI past the followers of Arnold Murray is that Mr. Murray does concur to the eternal deity of Christ. However, since Murray does not believe in the 3 Persons of the Trinity, he cannot logically concur to the deity of Jesus Christ being the eternal Son of God, 2nd Person of the Trinity. Having made these statements, he inconsistently says, A wise man never discusses the Trinity. (Ibid., 5-xv-91)

Lilliputian Gods

Not just does Arnold Murray teach a imitation concert of God, he also believes that men were once gods who existed prior to living on the earth. In Genesis 1:26 when referring to the "Our" and "Us" (which has normally been understood to mean the Persons of the Trinity: Mal.2:10 cf. Job 9:8; Isa.44:24) Murray says, "he spoke to the Elohim, pregnant God and his children, let us make that man in our image, which is to say make information technology wait in the likeness that nosotros are. Do you appear as your soul appeared in the globe that was?"-I told you, that God said "in Our paradigm, Our likeness', the Elohim were continuing there, they were from earlier." (Tape #146) We e'er were with Him [God] until you were born into this globe.. (Kenites, Tape #436) Like to the cultic educational activity of the Mormons, Murray declares that God is "ane human being,…our Male parent," and like the Oneness Pentecostals, God "(sic) gots 3 offices he serves". (Shepherd'southward Chapel Questions and Answers menstruation, aired 5-14-91)

The Biblical View of God

The biblical instruction concerning the nature of God is completely incompatible with Murray's modalism (a heresy taught past groups such every bit the Oneness Pentecostals). In that location is a distinction of Persons in the Godhead (Matt. 3:16,17; 28:19; two Cor. 13:14) who have personal relationships with one another which cannot be deemed for if they are all the verbal same person as Murray teaches (Matt. 12:31,32; John 1:i-14; 8:sixteen-xviii; 14:sixteen,17,23; 15:26; xvi:28; 17:i-5). The Trinity is one of the major tenets of the Christians faith. All the cults deviate from Christianity on this point, and Mr. Murray is no exception.

Additionally, God is not a man (Num.23:19; Hos. 11:9; John 4:24), and angels and humans are not gods (Isa. 43:10; 44:half-dozen-8; 1 Cor. eight:four-6; Gal. 4:8). Neither did man preexist with God. The Bible says that God created homo on the world, not in heaven (Gen.2:7; Zech. 12:i; 1 Cor. 14:47,48). Christ, on the other hand, beingness the eternal Son of God who always existed with the Male parent (John one:ane; 17:5), is the merely man who ever preexisted with the Male parent (John 3:13,31; 8:23; one Cor. 15:45-48). John the Baptist, who was built-in before Christ (Luke ane,two),said that Christ existed earlier he did (John 1:15,30). His statement can only be explained by affirming that Christ existed with God before his incarnation, and John the Baptist (or whatever other homo) did not.

THE IMPLICIT RACISM OF ARNOLD MURRAY

Anglo-Israel Origin

Mr. Murray teaches Anglo-Israelism which believes that Anglo-Saxons are the chosen race, and America and Dandy Uk are the lost tribes of the children of Israel. Murray claims that the northern ten tribes of Israel are "the same tribes that later went due north and populated Europe and North America". (The Shepherd's Chapel newsletter #148, two-91) According to the theology of Anglo-Israelism, other races are junior to whites, and usually the blacks and Jewish race are specially stigmatized. Murray, on the other manus, says that he respects blacks and other races.

However, he believes these races were the 'Adam' created on the sixth day of cosmos in Genesis 1, while the Anglo-Saxons were 'another Adam' created on the eighth day of creation based on his estimation of Genesis ii. Hence, there is a definite stardom between whites and not-whites. Arnold Murray also promotes the literature of other Anglo-Israelism teachers. The Shepherd's Chapel Volume Listing, for instance, offers materials by E. Raymond Capt and J. H. Allen.

The Serpent Seed Doctrine and the Kenites

Another central didactics of Arnold Murray is the ophidian seed doctrine. According to Murray, Eve had sexual practice with the Ophidian in the Garden of Eden. In ii Corinthians 11:iii, Murray uses the give-and-take "beguiled" to mean "wholly seduced". Hence, Murray claims the Serpent sexually seduced Eve who then became significant with Cain; the devil's literal offspring. Murray asserts that the offspring of Cain are called the "Kenites". He also states that the Kenites are not a race, "but a hybrid". (Genesis 1:1-half-dozen:22, record #146) He thus seems to implicitly consider them to be less than human. Mr. Murray claims that many of the Kenites are Jewish! Based upon the "creed" of the Shepherd's Chapel, Murray states, "We believe in an existing Satan… who has a people who will non hear God (John 8:44-47)". (Our Statement of Religion, p.ii) In John viii:44-47, the context conspicuously states that these people who are the "children of the devil" are Jews (8:31-58).

Hence, Murray believes that Jesus is referring to these item Jews equally the literal offspring of Satan. Regarding the Jews he writes, "Now, who stands in Jerusalem today?.. the sons of Cain or those who will not accept Jesus Christ.. the Kenites, that founded a new nation starting in 1948."

(The Shepherd's Bible, Commentary by Arnold Murray, 1979) He calls them "scum", and plain makes the racial Jewish businessman remark when he states, "If you lot want to get a Kenite upset, bother his coin table". (Parable of the Fig Tree, Tape #445)

Murray connects these Jews with Cain by Christ's annotate in John viii:44 that their father was a "murderer from the beginning.. To affirm these Jews as the offspring of Cain (i.eastward., the Kenites), Murray refers to Cain's murder of Abel in Genesis four.0ne tin can only conclude that Mr. Murray has made statements that characterization him as a white supremacist. He might tell colored people to be proud of who they are, but then over again, and then do some white supremacists.

The real questions the followers of Arnold Murray need to ask are: Does Arnold Murray remember that non-whites are equal to whites in every respect? Does he approve of interracial Christian marriages similar the Bible does? (Gen. 16; Num. 12 cL, Gen. 10:six ~ Amos 9:7; Vocal of Sol. i:five-seven cf., 3:7-11; one Cor. 7:39; Gal. 3:28 [annotation: The only blazon of marriage the Bible forbids is one between believer and nonbeliever: Ex. 34:14-16; 1 Cor. 7:39; 2 Cor. half-dozen:14]) Would Mr. Murray permit a black or a Christian of Jewish ancestry preach at his church-peradventure even take information technology over if he were to pass abroad? What does Murray think almost the Jewish holocaust in Earth War II? What does he think virtually the Nazis and the Ku Klux Klan? These types of questions need to be addressed to Arnold Murray.

The Biblical View of the Races

The cosmos of man in Genesis i and 2 should non be interpreted equally two separate Adams. Simply similar the Esau of Genesis 36:1-37:ane should not be considered a different Esau from the i mentioned in Genesis 25:1235:29 (cf. ane Chron. 1:38-42), so the Adam mentioned in Genesis 1:one-2:3 should not be considered a different Adam than the one mentioned in Genesis 2:four-4:26. Genesis i:1-two:3 just focuses on the development of sky and world, while Genesis 2:4-4:26 focuses on the development of human being. If Murray were consistent, he would take to say there must be a *third* Adam mentioned in Genesis five:1,two that is different from the previous two Adams!

The Anglo-Israelism theory has been refuted, and virtually no reputable scholar or historian today would promote it. The Assyrian and Babylonian captivities in 722 B.C. and 586 B.C. forever ended the schism betwixt Judah and Israel. From about that time on, the terms "Jew" and "Israelite" were used interchangeably. Further, there is no sufficient evidence that the Scythians (the supposed missing link betwixt State of israel and Great Britain) were ever connected with the ten tribes of State of israel. By comparing the etymologies of English words from the most respected English dictionary (Oxford English Lexicon), there is simply no sufficient evidence to support whatsoever connexion between the Anglo-Saxon and Hebrew tongues.

The Sometime Testament also uses the children of Judah and the 10 tribes of Israel together after the Jews returned from the Babylonian captivity in 536 AD. (Ezra 2:70; vi:17; vii:half-dozen-15; Neh. 7:73; 12:44-47; Zech. one:19: 8:13; 10:half-dozen; cf. 2 Chron. 11:iii-17; xv 9). Many of these texts are the fulfillment of Ezekiel 37:15-25 (cf. Jer. 31:27; 50:40).

In the New Attestation the Jews and the ten tribes of Israel are mentioned many times without any distinction fabricated between them (due east.g., Matt. x:5,half dozen; 15:24; Luke ii:36; 22:xxx; Acts 2:14,22,23,36; James i:1; Rev. 7:4-viii). Both Jesus and Paul were Jews (Matt. 27:11 cf. Rom. 9:1-4; Acts 21:39 cL, Rom. eleven:ane-2). Since all New Testament Christians are God's called people, racial distinctions no longer thing (John 1:12-xiii, Acts ten:34; 17:26 cf. Gen. 3:20 Rom. viii:14; 1 Pet.two:9; Col. three:eleven; Gal.3:28; Rev. 5 9,10). All humanity has sinned (Rom. 3:23; 5:12-twenty), thus, as William H. Bakery states, The so-called races must be equal, because sin is what produces undesirable traits, not race. (Moody Monthly, Equal Before God,. p.19, i-87).

The Myth of the Kenites

The Jews of John 8:44 are not Kenites. Jesus was simply denouncing these particular Jews for their unbelief-equally he and his apostles would denounce anyone as a child of the devil, Jew or Gentile, who refused to believe (Matt. 16:23; Eph. 2:ane-three,11; three:ane; one John three:9,10). Christ was calling them children of the devil considering of what they believed, non because of who they were. Additionally, Jesus was not making a blanket judgment on all or even almost Jews, but only this small group of Jews because they intended to kill him (John 8:40,44,58,59).

Furthermore, it is not Cain who is the murderer in John viii:44, for Jesus says information technology is literally the devil who is the murderer. The murder mentioned in John 8:44 is not Cain'due south murder of Abel, but the devil causing death to occur upon all the human being race when he instigated Adam and Eve to sin (Gen.2:17; 3:14,xix; Rom.6:12). Anyone, whether Jew or Gentile (including Anglo-Saxons), are considered Satan's children if they decline to believe in Christ (Gen. three:15; Matt. 13:3643). This Seed of the Serpents is not Cain and his literal offspring, simply merely a figurative offspring. In other words, only those people (regardless of what race they belong to) who do non believe the gospel are the children of Satan considering they follow their own sinful tendencies instead of accepting Christ (Matt. i6:23; John 6:lxx,71; Acts 5:3; xiii:4-10; Rom. v:12-19; 8:v-half-dozen; Eph. 2:1,2; ane John three:4-10).

If there were any descendants of Cain (which there isn't), they could receive salvation too, because a number of people from all nationalities, tongues, tribes, and races will serve Christ (Rev. 5:9,10) just similar a number of people from all races will serve Satan (Rev. 13:5-viii).

Furthermore, the Kenites mentioned in Jeremiah 35 and 1 Chronicles 2:55 are not the children of the Cain of Genesis 4. Showtime of all, Scripture does not say that the Kenites are the children of the same Cain who slew Abel. Second, simply because both terms come up from the same Hebrew word does not mean that all, some, or whatsoever Kenites are the descendants of the Cain who slew Abel. Manifestly, "Cain" was a mutual name just similar "Zechariah". The Bible records at least 33 men by the name of Zechariah, and not all of them were related (e.k., in that location is no human relationship between these men who were all named Zachariah: 1 Chron. 5:vii; 24:25; 2 Chron. 21:2; ii Kings 14:29).

Therefore, individuals tin be called the descendants of Cain, but the Cain they are related to was not the same Cain who slew Abel in Genesis 4 (encounter for instance, the different Kenites mentioned in Gen. 5:12; Num. 24:21,22; Judges ane:16, and one Sam. 15:6).

Third, some Kenites do acts of righteousness, and Jonadab the Rechabite could exist considered a righteous man of God (1 Sam.15:6; two Kings 10:15,16,23,24; Jer. 35:12-xvi). It would be impossible for them to be commended for their righteousness past both God and the Israelites if they were "children of the devil".

Furthermore, the whole doctrine of the ophidian seed is flawed considering nowhere in Scripture does it e'er say word for give-and-take that Eve actually had sex with the Snake in the Garden of Eden. In 2 Corinthians 11:3 the discussion for "beguiled" (exanatao), should be rendered "wholly deceived" Just because Eve was fully deceived does not mean that she literally had sexual activity with the Serpent. In other passages where this same Greek word is used, it is never connected with sex. In fact, if information technology were continued with sex, we would run into ridiculous conclusions like people literally having sexual practice with their own minds (Rom. 16:eighteen; cf., 1 Cor.3:18)1

Likewise if Eve had to hide her nakedness because of her sex with the Ophidian, we would have to conclude that Adam also had sex with the serpent (Gen. iii:half dozen,7). It was out of a sexual human relationship with Adam, not the Ophidian, that Eve became impregnated with Cain. The New International Version correctly renders Genesis four:ane,2: Adam lay with his wife Eve, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Cain."

There is also no evidence that Abel was the fraternal twin of Cain. The "again" of Genesis 4:two does not bespeak that Eve gave birth to Abel correct after (whether a few minutes, hours, or days) she gave birth to Cain. Several years may take passed earlier Eve "diameter again" by giving birth to

Cain's brother Abel. Non to mention, Josephus writes that Cam was begotten by both Adam and Eve (Antiquities 1.2:1). Finally, fifty-fifty if Cain were the literal offspring of Satan, no descendent of Cain survived the flood of Noah.

The Kenites and the Inundation of Noah

In gild to back up his view that the Kenites survived the flood, Murray misinterprets Genesis 6:seven. Instead of adhering to the plain meaning of the text in which God says that he will wipe out all mankind, Murray claims that this phrase is a figure of speech which means that he'll wipe out "more or less" everything. (Tape #146) According to Murray, information technology cannot mean that God would wipe out absolutely anybody, because Noah and his family unit survived the flood.

In the same context, however, the Bible states that the only exception to this overflowing would be Noah and his family because Noah was a righteous human (Gen. half-dozen:8-ix). All the rest of humanity would be completely wiped out (cL 7:nineteen-23).

God told Noah the reason why He would destroy all humans was considering mankind had get wicked (6:10-13). If the purpose of the flood was to wipe out sin, then why would God allow some of the "wicked Kenites" to survive? The only logical explanation is to believe that God wiped out all mankind, including all the Kenites.

Additionally, in Genesis ix:eleven God promises Noah that He would never over again destroy all flesh past means of a flood. But if this flood were merely a local community flood which did non fifty-fifty attain the people of the land of Nod, as Murray claims, and so God must have lied considering nosotros still have had hundreds of local floods over the years. The only way to affirm that God kept His promise is to believe that this overflowing universally destroyed all human life. Regardless of whether one believes that the flood of Noah covered the entire world, or only a portion of information technology, the evidence is articulate that this overflowing destroyed all flesh except for i family. Other cultures testify to this as well.

*In order to escape this evidence, Murray makes the exclamation that some Kenites actually managed to get on board of Noah's ark. Since Noah took Two of every flesh,. Murray concludes that he also took ii Kenites on lath! (Kenites, Tape #436).

The Bible, however, conspicuously affirms that Noah, his wife, and his 3 sons and their wives were the only humans who survived the alluvion (Gen.half dozen:18; 9:18,19; 2 Pet.two:5). In order to be true to Scripture Murray must either conclude that absolutely no Kenites survived the inundation, or acknowledge that he is a racist for believing the Kenites cannot actually be considered human. He appears to hold the latter by maxim the Kenites are not a race, "only a hybrid". (Record #146)

Even so, even if the Kenites were less than homo, they still committed sin according to Murray. And as mentioned earlier, the purpose of the flood was to wipe out sin and wickedness. If any Kenite survived the flood, and so God failed to reach His purpose. Thus, either God made a error, or Arnold Murray made a fault. Since God is perfect, and Murray isn't, we must conclude that Murray is incorrect, God is right, and there are no Kenites alive today.

ARNOLD MURRAY'S FAULTY INTERPRETATIONS

Most of Arnold Murray'south heretical teaching comes from a subtle misinterpreting of Scripture. He commonly manipulates the original Greek and Hebrew languages, abuses the use of symbols and numerics, interprets Scripture out of context, and makes use of selective citations. BY emphasizing to his audience that he has the right, almost "secret" pregnant of the text that nigh scholars accept ignored or overlooked, Murray tin can go a passage of Scripture to mean almost annihilation he desires information technology to. He claims that the majority of Christians accept been wrong from the offset regarding their understanding of Scripture. (Parable of the Fig Tree, tape #445)

It should exist noted that the original languages are not necessarily the most of import aspect of interpreting Scripture, and numerics and symbols are of footling value. The uncomplicated reading of a text within its proper context, and comparing this in light of all biblical passages that relate to that text remains the most important principle of interpreting Scripture.

Murray does very niggling of this. His usual method is to let either the root meaning of a particular word, or figurative language and symbols dictate what the text means while ignoring the context and passages that contradict his claims. We encourage the followers of Arnold Murray to do their own written report of the Scriptures without Murray's aid. By applying sound principles of interpretation, nosotros are confident they will come up up with a completely dissimilar view than that of Mr. Murray.

A proficient book to help the student brainstorm this pursuit is Knowing Scripture by R.C. Sproul (IVP). Some other excellent books on this field of study are Scripture Twisting by James Sire (IVP), and Exegetical Fallacies past DN Carson (Baker).

MURRAY'South FAULTY VIEW OF HELL

Mr. Murray too teaches the doctrine of annihilationism. This view teaches that all unbelievers volition not be tormented eternally in hell, only will completely disappear. "We know man tin impale our earthly bodies, merely only our Male parent in heaven has the power to wipe out the existence of the soul…

God's emotions are so much greater than you can even imagine, and to roast ane of his ain children 24-hour interval and night would be something just Satan would conceive of". (Newsletter #151)

Christ, on the other hand, asserts that merely like the righteous will have never ending life, so shall the unrighteous have never catastrophe punishment (Matt. 25:41,46). Furthermore, this penalisation is a conscious punishment according to Revelation 14:9-11 (cL Rev.20:10).

IS THE RAPTURE CULTIC?

Mr. Murray also emphasizes, and takes dogmatic stands on issues over which Christians tin can legitimately disagree. One such instance pertains to the rapture of the church.

According to Murray, Christians who believe in the rapture are cultic, and do not have God's seal upon them. They will be deceived by Satan during the end times. "Most go along with this cult that teaches the rapture that didn't offset till 1830, but it's growing into the largest cult in the worlds". (The Shepherd's Chapel Questions and Answers menstruum, aired ~sixteen-91)

"When this fake christ stands in the holy place performing in the sight of Christians, the pretribulation rapture Christian shall call back it is Christ come to rapture them abroad". (Our Statement of Religion, p.two)

Murray's argument, however, is fallacious. Christianity has e'er believed in a literal rapture by which the saints would be transformed and removed from this earth to meet Christ in the air, not on the earth. Since the Antichrist (who will live on the earth, not in the air) volition non be able to literally transform their bodies nor cause them to disappear from the earth, there is merely no way Christians volition follow such a man, nor believe he is the Christ who has come to rapture them abroad. Information technology is truthful that followers of the Antichrist volition be strongly deluded, merely this mirage is caused past the miracles he and the faux prophet perform (2 Thes. 2:nine; Rev. xiii:1115; 16:13,14; 19:20).

Simply Christians already know that the Antichrist volition endeavour to delude people past using spectacular miracles. Information technology is nigh inconceivable, then, to recollect that whatsoever believers would follow a homo they know fits the criteria of the Antichrist.

Mr. Murray bases much of his anti-rapture merits on Dave MacPherson's research. He claimed that the pretribulation rapture came from a personal revelation of a immature girl named Margaret Macdonald in 1830.

Actually, there is no hard evidence that J.N. Darby, the pretribulatlon abet of the 19th century, was influenced past Margaret Macdonald. 2nd, even if Darby was influenced by Macdonald, this does non necessarily hateful that his view was simulated. As long as he can adequately support his position by Scripture, it does not matter who influenced him.

We should avert committing the "genetic fallacy" of Arnold Murray. Merely considering some beliefs and teachings are connected with controversial or pagan origins, does not necessarily mean that such teachings should be discarded.

For instance, chemistry came from boiling toads in urine. But it would exist absurd to discard all medicine because chemistry had its origin in what seems to be a witch's brew!

Murray besides commits this aforementioned fallacy by denouncing those who celebrate holidays such as Easter. The Hebrews historic their Feast of Tabernacles afterward the pagan holidays of Palestinian civilization at that time. If Murray were consistent, he would take to condemn all musicians, cattlemen, and smiths considering these occupations found their roots with the lineage of Cain (Gen. 4:nineteen-22).

Regardless of when the rapture will occur, the fact remains at that place will be a rapture or "communicable away" of the saints to meet the Lord in the air (1 Thee. 4:sixteen,17; 1 Cor.15:52; possibly Rev.11:12; 12:5). If Murray believes there volition exist no rapture (catching away) of the saints, he is being both unbiblical and setting himself against the celebrated understanding of the Christian church.

ARNOLD MURRAY: GOD'S Exclusive End Time MESSENGER?

What really sets Arnold Murray autonomously is his merits to be God's sectional messenger for this era. Although he says that not all Christians are deceived, he even so ostracizes all orthodox denominations as being deceived past his comments. First, all teachers who practice not hold to a literal offspring of God and Satan (i.e., the snake seed doctrine), are considered by Murray as "nothing but a agglomeration of self-righteous hypocrites blinded by what sounds good to men'due south ears". (Tape #436)

2nd, Christians who believe in a literal six day creation are deceived and many are going to hell (i.eastward., all or most fundamentalists). "But an idiot will stand and argue…such a affair [young earth creationism], for the manuscripts declare that this world, not this earth historic period, only this earth is millions of years old … A lot are going to hell unless they realize 'the devastation that was'(i.east., the gap theory between Genesis 1:1 and 1:ii)…Take the blinders…off of your eyes where you jut take tunnel vision, one earth historic period. You tin can't understand God'south Word if that'south all y'all see"(Ibid).

Third, Christians who believe in the rapture, speak in tongues, or celebrate Easter are deceived (that includes all major branches of Christianity: Protestant, Catholic, and Eastern Orthodox!) "Do nosotros know anyone deceived by whatever of Satan's lies? Do we believe in rapture, or babbling, or Easter, etc.? .. To flirt with doctrines, beliefs, and traditions that are contrary to what Christ taught endangers the pureness of your soul…Recognize the faux from the truthful and then you may come to the wedding, worthy and answerable to be accustomed." (The Shepherd'due south Chapel Newsletter #126, 4-89)

Fourth, he claims that the bulk of Christians have been "wrong since the beginning" (i.e., historic orthodox Christianity). (Parable of the Fig Tree, Tape #445)

Ultimately, Mr. Murray subtly pressures his listeners to choose between his "prophetic word", or "the doctrine of the Pharisees" of orthodox Christianity. "But, deep down in your souls when you must make the decision to represent your Father or the traditions of man, information technology can separate you from friends and loved ones." (Newsletter #129, vi-89)

In defiance of Acts 1:vii, Mr. Murray set an end time engagement by claiming that the Antichrist would appear by 1981. This prediction, of form turned out to be fake. "Lucifer was taken to the pit…Know from the 2d chapter of 2 Thessalonians that he shall shortly render. The Book of Daniel very conspicuously states that it shall happen earlier the year 1981, if you accept whatsoever understanding at all of the wisdom of the elect in the last days" (Seed of the Serpent, version taped in 1979)

Yet, in spite of his prejudices, false doctrine, and false prophecies, he states, "I am a servant of the living God that carries the end time message, and it's either fourth dimension to wake upwards at present, or get down with your boat, friend". (The Shepherd'due south Chapel Questions and Answers period, aired 5-16-91)

CONCLUSION

Based on the above evidence, by redefining the nature of God, Arnold Murray denies the Trinity and the eternal sonship of Christ. Equally this statement has demonstrated, his views imply a subtle racism. He as well teaches the distorted gospel of Anglo-Israelism, the ophidian seed doctrine, and other heretical doctrines.

He uses the original languages, numerics, symbols, and figures of oral communication whenever they tin be manipulated to support his view, simply ignores, or redefines them if they happen to contradict him. His combative attitude towards orthodox Christianity is blatantly evident. Christians should stay far abroad from his ministry building and teachings.

Soul Sleep Exposed: Where Practice We Go When Nosotros Die? | Heresies | Wolves Exposed | William Branham and Serpent Seed Heresy Exposed

How practice We Know Who is "of God" and Who is "Not of God"?

The Worst Kind of Identity Theft: Beware of the Manipulating Monsters

Wolves Who Deceive, Devour, and Defund their Casualty

nelsonpedularave.blogspot.com

Source: https://safeguardyoursoul.com/arnold-murray-and-the-shepherds-chapel-exposed/