Surely your not saying that God's Word is less in Authority than the king/priest/ruler/etc? Since Huldah was expressing the Word of the Lord God, then in those expressions she was indeed the defacto/dejuri ruler of all Israel/Judah. Her rule would in FACT be absolute from which there is no appeal.

A king's and a priest's ruling could always be appealed directly to God, but when a prophet like Deborah/Huldah/Samuel/Moses spoke the Word of God there is no appeal.

Thus, no human can rule more absolutely than that. That was precisely the whole point of God calling prophets/prophetesses so that God had a direct line of ruler ship to all the other humans on the earth. Thus, Deborah/Huldah/Moses/Samuel/etc. You remember Jonah, well Jonah was God's Authority over the people of Nineveh (including their king).

I know from your posts here on Club Adventist that you believe in the absolute Authority of Ellen White as speaking(communicating) God's Word and that as such their is no appeal higher because these words in your view are inspired and direct from God. As such then by practice (even if not by intellectual assent)you accept Ellen Whites Authority over all other human powers (the GC, Presidents/Administrators/Pastors/etc.). As such you again by practice (even if not by intellectual assent) recognize Ellen White's Authority to actually be a ruler over said Presidents/Administrators/Pastors/etc. Thus again by practice (if not by intellectual assent) you accept her role as Prophet to include that of President/Administrator/Pastor/etc. In FACT Ellen White did direct the nuts and bolts activities of SDA Church by her testimonies to its Presidents/Administrators/Pastors/etc.

Thus, in the Bible and even in the SDA Church .org and by your own Club Adventist posts you have already recognized "women" as having been called by God to Rule over men (as in males) and that God calls such prophetess to actually rule and wield authority.

In the actual Bible - we have examples of prophets (Daniel, Jonah) and prophetesses (Anna in the Temple) that minister in a context where they are not kind and where the king/ruler is not necessarily inclined to hear them - nor can they set their own laws and commands for the people.

In your [post] above you argue that because God gives a message to a prophet - then anything the prophet says on their own - while having breakfast etc must also be as a king no matter if it is from God or just their own morning thoughts and ideas.

That is not a teaching we find in the Bible.

Nathan served as a true prophet of God and David although King and Bible writer seeks out Nathan as prophet to ask not what Nathan thinks - but what God thinks.

When Nathan's response is merely "what Nathan thinks" in a matter where the king asks for "what says the Lord on this matter" - God later corrects Nathan and Nathan has to go to David and state the matter as it came from God.

But one of the points you are making that sticks is the fact that God can choose a man or a woman as his prophet and that once He has made His choice those who accept them as a prophet are obligated to listen to what they say when they claim it has come from God. That much of your text is true.

In Ellen White's case - after the death of her husband there was a rift between Ellen White and church leadership - which is why she was sent to Australia.

in Christ,

Bob

2. In the texts that I cite both Deborah and Huldah are given Authority by God to rule/lead God's People from the king/general on down to do and know what God's Will is. Thus, Deborah/Huldah were in Authority over both men and women of all positions within the company of God's People.

4. Speaking of your comments on Ellen White, are you [saying] that she was not the Voice of God? Are you saying that her words whether spoken and/or written do not carry the "inspiration" and power as the Voice of God?

Old Testament scholars and linguists argue that there was women's ordination in Judiasm routinely until about 100 years before Christ, then it was a hot potato topic with the conservatives ordaining women and liberals opposing the ordiantion of women, and that we find Jesus ordaining women.

Interesting. I want to announce the side I'm on. None.


However, I have discovered in the past that many "prizes" (such as ordination could ostensibly be for women,) turn out to be manipulative devices designed to take, not give liberty in Jesus. So I tend to look at lavish gifts cautiously, examining the horse for any trapdoors in it, trying to ascertain if the gift came from the Trojans, etc.

So here I sit down and think.

So here I sit down and think.

Did Jesus ordain anyone? I know he set apart 12 apostles, and then there was another larger group sent out "without scrip" and without a lot of other baggage. But I don't remember any ordination services being held in the gospels.

The Scriptures (not to mention EGW)in several places (in the mouths of 2 or 3 witnesses)clearly forbid women from usurping the authority of their husbands.Yet,when this fact is cited by WO opponents as a Trojan horse policy that threatens the city of distinctive gender roles the WO advocates do not argue that those roles will continue to remain safe they argue that the horse will insure that the destruction of that city which they claim has been a hindrance to the strength and prosperity of the entire nation.Beware of Greeks bearing "gifts"!!

I wish in all sisterly and motherly kindness to kindly warn you upon another point. I have often noticed before others a manner you have in speaking to [your husband] John in rather a dictating manner, the tone of your voice sounding impatient. Mary, others notice this and have spoken of it to me. It hurts your influence.

We women must remember that God has placed us subject to the husband. He is the head and our judgment and views and reasonings must agree with his if possible. If not, the preference in God's Word is given to the husband where it is not a matter of conscience. We must yield to the head. I have said more perhaps upon this point than necessary. Please watch this point.

I am not reproving you, remember, but merely cautioning you. Never talk to John as though he were a little boy. You reverence him and others will take an elevated position, Mary, and you will elevate others.
--Letter 5, 1861, p. 2. (To Mary Loughborough, June 6, 1861.) (6MR 126)

I still don't know what WOPE is. What is it, brethren??

The W stands for women so it must be a female version of the Papal head (POPE)??

WOPE= Women ordained as pastors and elders

Its used on another board.

Its in the OP. It seems that those that had no idea, should have an idea or maybe they skipped the reading of the OP.