Stay Away from the Shepherd’s Chapel Cult!

Are you part of this cult?
Are you part of this cult?

Once upon a time I was in a very large Christian cult called the Shepherd’s Chapel. By God’s grace I am no longer in bondage to this ministry’s deception.

Maybe you are a student of Arnold Murray, or maybe you have seen him on T.V. and wondered about his teaching. Or maybe you know someone who is in the death grip of this religious fantasy. If so then this blog is specifically for you.

I am going to share my personal experiences with you of how the Lord Jesus delivered me from the clutches of this incredibly intoxicating system of false religion. We are going to be exposing these teachings one at a time… and there are a lot of them!

The goal being to help you get free and help you better appreciate who Jesus Christ is, what He has done for us and the liberty that we have in him.

So to quote everyone’s favorite Christian Identity teacher, buckle up, “we’re about to kick some butt and take dragon!”

If you’re caught up in this and notice a tingling sensation in your brain as you’re reading the posts… don’t worry, it just means the Holy Spirit is deprogramming you from false religion!


Murderers Can’t Be Forgiven in the Flesh?

David Murdered Uriah... in cold blood - and God forgave him
David Murdered Uriah… in cold blood – and God forgave him

According to Shepherd’s Chapel murder is a quasi unpardonable sin. Murray asserts that premeditated murderer (a criminal homicide) can not be forgiven in the flesh. There are two grievous errors in this position…

1. The sin is too great for Christ’s blood to atone for on earth and…

2. A person’s sins can be forgiven for sins after death…

I call the 2nd point the Second Chance error… and it can be found all throughout Murray’s teachings, specifically in reference to the tribulation and millennium. It is a smooth teaching, smoother than God will allow.

Let’s take this to the next step logically then – a women after a period of deliberation has her child aborted (i.e. premeditated murder), so she cannot receive forgiveness in the flesh. She must die and settle before her child before Christ will grant forgiveness according to Murray.

This is sheer biblical lunacy. Every sin can be forgiven through the blood of Christ if the sinner truly repents – the bible has many examples.

I leave you with the example of David who was as the bible records, “a man of blood”. David’s murder of Uriah was premeditated, no doubt.

Psalm 51 is a record of God’s having forgave David after he turned to Him in repentance. It wasn’t required that David die before God washed his sins away.

The teaching that murderers must die in order to be forgiven is popular with carnal man but it is base heresy, plain and simple.

“Calling Upon the Lord” in Genesis 4:26 – What Does it Mean?



“To Seth also a son was born, and he called his name Enosh. At that time people began to call upon the name of the LORD.” – Genesis 4:26 ESV

In Genesis 4:26 we are told that men began to call upon the name of the Lord, but what does that mean?

Murray’s interpretation of Genesis 4:26 is insightful – he asserts that at this time men began to blaspheme God and take God’s name in vain. Murray’s premise on Genesis 4:26 derives from Bullinger who as we know teaches the Genesis 6 hybrid doctrine. In a moment we will look at his appendix on this.

A correct understanding of this passage will reveal who the “Sons of God” were.

The sons of God were a tribe, they were primarily the sons of Enos but more specifically they were an antediluvian covenant people who began to intermarry with non-believers. This is a famous motif in Moses writings.

These men who called upon the name of the Lord were the “Sons of God”. They subsequently began to fall into apostasy and the flood resulted.

As a parallel in the New Testament believers are warned NOT to marry unbelievers…

Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?” – 2nd Corinthians 6:14

This would apply in many ways but specifically in marriage. Perhaps Jesus warning in Matthew 24:37-38 is referring to this very type of apostasy…

“But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,”

The apostasy that precedes Christ return will feature this same sort of sin that happened in Noah’s day and it has nothing to do with angels and women having sex and siring devil babies…

Do you see how absurd that is? To assert that it to completely miss the essence of Jesus warning.

Jesus isn’t referring to angels and women intermarrying here because if He wanted to clarify the issue he could have right here in one or two words. No, we are talking about marriage in the simple sense and somehow the apostasy was the result of it.

Enoch was a “Son of God”. Noah and his sons, were the “sons of God”. Luke calls Adam a “son of God”. But especially Noah as we find that he was the main person who did not fall into the prevailing apostasy at the time. That is why he was “perfect”. Has nothing to do with genetics.

Keep in mind the Torah was for the Israelites and was given to them AS they were entering into the promised land where they would have to abstain from intermarriage or cease to exist.

Genesis 6 was an object lesson from Moses to the Israelites to abstain from intermarriage with the godless pagan nations whom they were about to be in contact with.


Bullinger’s View on Genesis 4:26


Here’s what Bullinger has to say in Appendix 21 about the meaning of this phrase…



“Then began men to call upon the name of Jehovah.” If this refers to Divine worship it is not true: for Abel and Cain both began, and their descendants doubtless followed their example.

What was really begun was the profanation of the Name of Jehovah. They began to call something by the Name of Jehovah. The Authorized Version suggests “themselves”, in the margin. But the majority of the ancient Jewish commentators supply the Ellipsis by the words “their gods”; suggesting that they called the stars and idols their gods, and worshipped them.

The Targum of Onkelos explains it: “then in his days the sons of men desisted from praying in the Name of the Lord.”

The Targum of Jonathan says: “That was the generation in whose days they began to err, and to make themselves idols, and surnamed their idols by the Name of the Word of the Lord.”

Kimchi, Rashi, and other ancient Jewish commentators agree with this. Rashi says: “Then was there profanation in calling on the Name of the Lord.”

Jerome says that this was the opinion of many Jews in his days.

Maimonides, in his Commentary on the Mishna (a constituent part of the Talmud), A.D. 1168, in a long treatise on idolatry, gives the most probable account of the origin of idolatry in the days of Enos.

The name Enos agrees with this; for his name means frail, weak, sickly, incurable. The sons of men, as “Enosh”, are so called for a similar reason (Job 7:17; 15:14. Psalm 9:20; 103:15. Daniel 2:43). See Appendix 14.

If Jonathan, the grandson of Moses, became the first idolatrous priest in Israel (see notes on Judges 18:30), what wonder that Enos, the grandson of Adam, introduced idolatry among mankind.

Moreover, what “ungodliness” did Enoch, “the seventh from Adam” have to prophesy about in Jude 14, 15, if purity of worship was begun in the days of Enos, instead of profanation in calling on the Name of the Lord?

Surely this is sufficient evidence that this profanation of the Name of the Lord was the reason why Enoch was raised up to prophesy against it.


It would seem to me that idolatry began at the fall – it is speculation to pin the blame for the origin of idolatry on Enos. Enos came from a line of godly pre-flood patriarchs. It would be much more appropriate to assign the origin of idolatry to Cain and his descendants.

I acknowledge how some commentators have viewed this passage but if we are to resort to that then my first question would be, how have other commentators understood this passage?

The Septuagint translators didn’t view this passage that way.

This view of Genesis 4:26 would be the natural interpretation for those who accept the hybrid theory of Genesis 6 as the one I suggested would end all dispute about who the “sons of God” were.

The transliteration of Enos name lends nothing to the argument. There are much better transliterations than what Bullinger gives us.

Bullinger citing a passage from the pseudipigraphal book of Enoch (Jude is citing Enoch) does nothing to strengthen his argument either, it rather reveals the origin of his bias in this regard.

There are several good interpretations of what “calling upon the name of the Lord” could refer to but my position is that this is what distinguished the “Sons of God”…

From the LXX:

“And to Seth, to him also was born a son, and he called his name, Enos. This one hoped, therefore he called to himself the name of the Lord God.”

The KJV agrees with this translation.

Enos far from being the first idolater, hoped in the promise of God, the seed to come.

Lastly, consider this passage:
Deut 28:9-10 NKJV
9 “The LORD will establish you as a holy people to Himself, just as He has sworn to you, if you keep the commandments of the LORD your God and walk in His ways.
10 Then all peoples of the earth shall see that you are called by the name of the LORD, and they shall be afraid of you.”

Moses using the same idea of a covenant people as in Genesis… the covenant people in those days were destroyed.



Noah’s Family Line Didn’t Have Sex with Fallen Angels?

This picture proves everything!
This picture proves everything!

(Gen 6:2) That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

According to Murray, the antediluvian world was swarming with hybrid monstrosities sired by a demonic host. The madness was so widespread that only Noah’s family had pristine DNA, uncontaminated by Satan’s fallen angels. Though this fantastical idea isn’t found in the bible, Murray will cite the book of Enoch as proof of the debauchery.

It was because of these hybrids and not because of the wickedness of man that God sent the flood, albeit it was a local flood according to Murray. Or a universal one if you must (the Kenites and other races fit the definition of other flesh, right?) – Murray taught both simultaneously as every text in the bible has three levels of meaning.

Sound confusing? Put it on the shelf then for later.

Back to the story, I mean the bible. You see, Jesus needed a flawless gene pool in order to effect redemption…

Satan and his host knew the gig was up. They devised their own plan to counter God – he would have to convince the angels to rebel and begin to use their procreative parts to corrupt the gene pool of man. They almost succeeded in their devices until one man came along…

(Gen 6:9) These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.

According to Murray’s theologian of choice, E.W. Bullinger, the word “perfect” explains everything. It has nothing to do with Noah’s moral constitution. No, it means physically perfect… Noah’s mug be buff – and his DNA had absolutely no trace of devil blood.

Forget the fact that Noah was “just” and walked with God, this dude is only into women with an uncontaminated gene pool… that’s why Noah found grace.

God didn’t destroy the world because the wickedness of man was great… no, He destroyed them (collateral damage) because He gave those pesky fallen angels procreative parts and they began to make diligent use of it, and it repented Him because of that.

So God hatched a brilliant strategy, he would send a local flood (or a universal one to cover all possibilities) to wipe out these hybrid monstrosities and humanity will live happily ever after until the next influx of fallen angels decides to procreate.

According to Murray, the last days will feature fallen angels having sex on an unprecedented scale…

(Mat 24:37) But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
(Mat 24:38) For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark…

Okay, okay… it says here they simply were eating and drinking – that’s really a euphemism for something else more sinister if you catch my drift…

And who knows, if you don’t agree with the Chapel, you may either be a Kenite or the result of one these illicit unions…

But are fallen angels really able to do this? Did God by some strange act of providence give these evil beings procreative parts? The answer is an EMPHATIC NO!!!

(1Co 15:40) There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.

Celestial beings DO NOT HAVE the procreative function! How is that so difficult to understand?

(Luk 20:34) And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage:
(Luk 20:35) But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage:
(Luk 20:36) Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.

Whatever Genesis 6 is talking about I can assure you of this: it has NOTHING to do with fallen angels having sex and siring monstrosities.

Dennis Murray Takes Over Shepherd’s Chapel… Now What?

dennis murray takes over...


Pastor Arnold Murray passed away a little over a year ago handing the reigns of his lucrative ministry to his son, Dennis Murray. For as long as I can remember Dennis has been teaching an almost identical doctrine alongside of his father.

As much ire as I express towards the Chapel on this blog I want to state that I genuinely like and respect Dennis Murray. I believe he has been led astray from a very young age and I feel bad for him… I pray that God has mercy on him.

But that will NOT keep me from speaking out against his teaching.

Most of the time you will see him going over the more mundane historical books of the old testament. Don’t let that fool you! He’s a carbon copy of his father and will simply continue to propagate the errors that his father set forth.

He does say that they do have differences of opinion but I can assure you they amount to very little. Why risk ruining something that works?

He will simply continue to build upon the false foundation put in place by his dad.

Let’s start with a simple statement by Dennis Murray…

In a message Dennis stated, “God’s elect have no free-will. I have no free-will. We just serve God on His terms.”

This is a denial of reality.

Quite an intriguing statement that Dennis Murray makes here… According to the chapel, the elect have no free will… only the non-elect have free will. The elect are not the redeemed as a whole but they are a smaller group of 144,000. So if you’re not part of this group that fought alongside God in the first earth age then you are not elect…

This small group of elect earned the right to be saviors at the end of the age and they have no free will… they came here with the purpose to be delivered up to witness against the antichrist during the abbreviated 5 month tribulation. They earned their salvation in the first earth age due to their performance!

They were justified in the world that was as a result of their efforts. Now they come with a mission… and have forfeited their free-will in advance.

If you are caught up in these delusions I plead with you to snap out of it!!! Repent, turn to Jesus Christ and away from these false teachers!

The Word “Easter” IS NOT Derived from Ishtar – the KJV is Right!



According to Murray, the word “Easter” should not be in the bible. He reasons that since the word Ishtar (or Astarte) and the word “Easter” sound the same then the KJV translators were in error. Thus proving that the KJV lacks inspiration.

It’s mere presence is just one more proof of the inter-generational Kenite conspiracy.

He implicates those pesky and subversive scribes for placing that word in there in place of the Passover, who knows what else they changed!

let’s take a look to see if it should be in there…

Part of Murray’s standard bag of tricks is taking words that sound similar to words in another language and haphazardly using that as an etymological proof for his wack-a-doodle theology. You see him do this with reckless abandon to prove British-Israelism.

And since he’s been studying the Hebrew and Greek since Moby Dick was a minnow, who are you to question him?

But does the word Easter derive from Ishtar? No. No. NO!

The origin of the word “Easter” has nothing to do with pagan fertility rights. The correct etymology of comes from the German word for “east” which is “ost”. Easter in German is “Ostern”. It is a Christian word.

Our word “east” refers to the direction in which the sun rises, hence the similarity in east and Easter…

“But unto you that fear my name shall the Sun of righteousness arise with healing in his wings;” – Malachi 4:2

The word “Easter” is the perfect Christian word referring to the resurrection of Jesus Christ. In the Greek the word for Easter is pascha or the Hebrew Passover, the day that Jesus was crucified. The KJV translators knew what they were doing.

Easter Does NOT Refer to a Pagan Holiday

My recent position was that Easter referred to a pagan holiday. That position can be seen reflected in the comments below. When I am wrong I admit it.

The main point from the start is, the KJV is inspired and “Easter” should be in the bible. I will give my old argument (which is common) for this and show why it’s not correct.

In Acts 12. James the brother of John was killed by Herod. When Herod saw that it pleased the Jews and he proceeded to take Peter.

And because he saw it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also. (Then were the days of unleavened bread.) And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people. – Acts 12:3-4

Peter was arrested during the days of unleavened bread. The days of unleavened bread, they argue, compasses the week AFTER the Passover.

They reason, if Easter should be interpreted as Passover then why does it say Herod intended to bring him out after if Easter if it is to be  translated as the Passover. They use this text to support their position…

“In the fourteenth day of the first month at even is the LORD’s passover. And on the fifteenth day of the same month is the feast of unleavened bread unto the LORD: seven days ye must eat unleavened bread.” – Leviticus 23:5,6

By their reasoning, Passover had already taken place once Herod arrested him so Acts must have been referring to the pagan observation.

Struggle as I might I could never find anything in any historical account to suggest that there was a separate pagan observance also referred to as “Pascha”.

“Now the feast of unleavened bread drew nigh, which is called the Passover.” – Luke 22:1

So as we can see, the whole feast including unleavened bread is called the Passover – and this is what is happening in Acts 12:4. Pascha refers to the whole feast that lasts a week and begins with the Passover on the first day.

There was a pagan festival that was celebrated by the ancients that took place on the Spring equinox that eventually came to be associated with the Christian Easter but there is nothing to suggest that the Christian Easter derived from paganism.

So why do Christians commemorate the resurrection day, Easter, on different days of the year each year?

Easter, a Christian observance was recognized from the earliest times of the church. Another article would have to be written to explain why but it has nothing to do with paganism.

It was determined long ago by the Catholic church for Easter to be observed on the first Sunday after the first full moon after the vernal equinox. It mostly had to do with Sunday worship – as Passover fell on a different day of the week each year.

Early on Christians observed Easter on the Passover.

So is there anything wrong with commemorating on this day? No. On Easter we commemorate the Lord’s resurrection not a pagan deity. And besides that we never celebrate Easter on the vernal equinox, the day of the pagan observance.

Murray uses false teachings like the ones concerning Easter to try to implicate that regular Christians are part of the Babylonian system… because they observe Easter, eat sugar coated peeps, chocolate bunnies and let their kids go Easter egg hunting! It’s really a sinister plot!