A Curse Is Not An Ideal

[miz3]

Cross,

What you are noticing is a careful avoidance of cultural influence on Pauls writing, when it serves a purpose. This happens quite often in theological discussions, regardless of the organization. Within the SDA organization when all else fails, ie, study, research, etc, many rely on EGW and fit here words into a preconceived idea. If her words fit, then they are from God/inspired, if they don't, it becomes opinion. What SDA's have to do, in my opinion, is rely more on the words of Christ/God, directly, through the guidance of the 3rd person of the Godhead, Holy Spirit. Of course, if one is not a believer, then that makes no sense. My belief, for the person seeking to understand the Bible and not a believer in any religious orientation, is to read it with careful cultural, time and history understanding. This method would also serve professed christians as well.

The following is an example of trying to fit words with preconceived ideas, in my opinion.

>{God reprimanded Adam for listening to the voice of his wife because Adam was supposed to be her protector and teacher. Instead, he became a passive observer. He allowed his love for Eve to lead him to disobey God.

God didn't intend for Adam to be a passive observer of what his wife did. He was supposed to be the leader. Adam wasn't given to Eve in order to be her helper, but Eve was created to be Adam's helper.

God didn't create an inferior partner for Adam. Eve was made equal to Adam, but they had different functions and roles. Similarly, Christ is equal to the Father, yet they have different work to do. This is the way it is in the church as well as in the home.}<

Notice in one sentence Adam is called, leader, protector, and teacher, then in the next we get told that Adam and Eve were equal!!!! Is the student equal to the teacher or follower to the leader, etc? Does equal mean equal? Or is there a subtle inference that we have a dual meaning for equal when it comes to men and women, ie, well, you know, the refrain of different functions and roles!!! We are seeing the real issue here of who has more blame, the women, and she was only to be a helper, still not fitting the equal definition!

equal |

adjective

1 being the same in quantity, size, degree, or value

• (of people) having the same status, rights, or opportunities.

• uniform in application or effect; without discrimination on any grounds: a dedicated campaigner for equal rights.

• evenly or fairly balanced

So, according to some, equality in the Bible has another meaning....at least for men and women!! Confused!! Don't be...we have our cultural differences as well!!

[Woody]

I'll like your like

And raise you one:

[John317]

And because of the angels

.

No one has given a satisfactory account of this verse except Kate Bushnell. Tertullian ascribed it to lust; women's faces cause angel to lust (which I think tells us more about Tertullian than it does about angels). Some have said these are human messengers (angeloi) who will see the woman looking like hookers and get the wrong idea. That is possible but it would be a pretty cryptic remark. Bushnell has the most fitting and logical answer:

.... The words in verse 10 bear the translation, "because of her angels," the definite article in Greek often having the force of a possessive pronoun, and thus the verse should have been rendered.

Since when can a masculine definite article be translated as a feminine possessive pronoun? It is tous-- accusative plural masculine.

What is there about the context that demands such a unique translation?

Can you give another example of where this occurs in the NT?

Also, please show references to Greek grammars which describe this rule governing the definite article, showing that a masculine definite article is sometimes used as a feminine possessive pronoun.

Finally, if you can, please also quote from a competent NT translation which reads, "her angels."

Although I have over 65 different translations of 1 Cor. 11: 10, I have not been able to find any which read "HER angel."

[John317]

... No there is really nothing about Pauls writings that I like. That said of course as with anything there is a few gems here and there. I just can't think of any off of the top of my head. I think he was a lonely man that threw himself into a religious fervor so hard that he could not see the trees for the forest. He comes off to me as a bitter, angry man that was never satisfied with much of anything.

Would I be right to conclude that you do not believe Paul was inspired by God or that he told the truth about what occurred on the road to Damascus?

How could a bitter, angry man who was never joyful write 1 Cor. 13 and other NT passages? What was the secret of his power to change the world and make such a great impact on millions of people's lives?

[John317]

Deborah told Barak that God commanded him to go and deploy troops at Mount Tabor (v. 6). Notice that God did not tell Deborah to deploy the troops.

At that point Barak told Deborah that he would deploy the troops only if she went with him (v. 8). So she said she would go with him.

But notice that she said since she was going with him, he wouldn't get the glory but a woman would get all the glory-- Jael, Heber's wife. In other words, Barak should have gone alone, without Deborah.

Whose command does verse 10 say the ten thousand MEN were under?

It says the men were under the command of Barak, not under a woman's command.

Then look at verses 14 and 15. It says the army was following Barak. The army-- all men-- wasn't following Deborah.

As you read on, does the text (v. 22) say that Deborah pursued Sisera? Or does it say Barak pursued Sisera? Barak, right?

Originally Posted By: miz3

Why do you ignore what the Bible says before that?

The FACT is that Deborah was there and she led and gave the command to attack. That is FACT. It is vital FACT that you keep ignoring.

Here is what it says "before that"--

Quote:

Judges 4:5-9

She[Deborah] used to sit under the palm of Deborah between Ramah and Bethel in the hill country of Ephraim, and the people of Israel came up to her for judgment. [6] She sent and summoned Barak the son of Abinoam from Kedesh-naphtali and said to him, "Has not the Lord, the God of Israel, commanded you, 'Go, gather your men at Mount Tabor, taking 10,000 from the people of Naphtali and the people of Zebulun. [7] And I will draw out Sisera, the general of Jabin's army, to meet you by the river Kishon with his chariots and his troops, and I will give him into your hand'?" [8] Barak said to her, "If you will go with me, I will go, but if you will not go with me, I will not go." [9] And she said, "I will surely go with you. Nevertheless, the road on which you are going will not lead to your glory, for the Lord will sell Sisera into the hand of a woman." Then Deborah arose and went with Barak to Kedesh.

Here's what we learn from this passage:

1) God commanded Deborah to tell Barak to gather BARAK'S men at Mt. Tabor.

2) God would draw out Sisera to meet BARAK.

3) God would give Sisera into BARAK'S hand.

4) Barak said he would only obey God's command if Deborah went with him.

5) Deborah THEN said she would go with Barak, but that her going with Barak would mean that a woman-- Jael-- would receive all the glory.

6) Notice that after Deborah said she would go with Barak, Deborah said that instead of Sisera being given into Barak's hand, God would now give Sisera into the hand of a woman, Jael.

[Tom Wetmore]

MODERATOR COMMENT

This topic has now been unlocked. I have had to do substantial editing/removing of ad hominem commentary and escalating responses to it. It has taken quite a bit of time to do so.

If you feel someone has insulted you, responding to the insult does not help. It only aggravates and escalates the rhetoric. And it means your response will get edited/removed as well.

So, please stick to the topic and not to each other. I will be monitoring this topic very closely. If we cannot maintain civility it will be locked again.

[Stan]

Good call Tom.

[Woody]

Tom - Want to say that I appreciate the way you have clearly defined that it is a MODERATOR COMMENT.

In the past - one could never disagree with a moderator who made a comment as a poster for fear he would consider himself as a moderator at that point.

Appreciate the effort you put into your job.

[M. T. Cross]

Originally Posted By: EmptyCross

... No there is really nothing about Pauls writings that I like. That said of course as with anything there is a few gems here and there. I just can't think of any off of the top of my head. I think he was a lonely man that threw himself into a religious fervor so hard that he could not see the trees for the forest. He comes off to me as a bitter, angry man that was never satisfied with much of anything.

Would I be right to conclude that you do not believe Paul was inspired by God or that he told the truth about what occurred on the road to Damascus?

How could a bitter, angry man who was never joyful write 1 Cor. 13 and other NT passages? What was the secret of his power to change the world and make such a great impact on millions of people's lives?

No I don't think he was inspired by God. As far as what happened on the road to Damascus........ Well I would not be surprised if something happened. But I have a lot of doubt its what he thought it was.

Lets take into consideration that likely the Devil would have been looking for a way to corrupt this new message being taught. What better way than to convince someone that they were being chosen to have further information on that message? The Devil I would assume is fairly intelligent so of course there could be messages of beauty.

As far as having the power to change millions of lives? Lots of pretty evil men have had that power as well.

In the end that is just my opinion.

[Neil D]

(4) Battle of the Lexicons

Grudem explains the missing authoritarian defition in Liddell and Scott:

"The omission of the meaning "authority over" from the Liddell-Scott Lexicon is an oversight that should be corrected (but it should be noted that that lexicon does not specialize in the New Testament period)."

Now this is a fine response! It's an "oversight," We look to the Lexicon as the authority, and only so but Liddell and Scott is the only real authoritative Lexiocon for Greek-English and all others take their ques from it. We look to this source for authority, it doesn't back up our claim, so it's a "oversight." In fact its an oversight made in three different versions ("papa bear," "mama bear" and "babby bear") over houndreds of editions for several generations, one would think the authorities would have corrected. Moreover, since Grudem has been in contact with their editor one wonders why they have not!

(Grudem's argugument:Rejection of Patristic Evidence)

Cervin then rejects any instances of head meaning "authority" from the period immediately after that of the Apostolic Fathers, the period of the Patristic writings. He admits that in Lampe's Patristic Greek Lexicon there are many citations referring to Christ as the "head of the church," and a few citations where kephale refers to "religious superiors or bishops" (p. 107). These references would seem to be strong evidence that kephale could mean "authority over" or "leader." But Cervin dismisses these examples with the following sentence: "It appears that the use of head in Patristic Greek is a technical term referring primarily to Christ, and occasionally to members of the ecclesiastical order" (p. 107)....

(Cervin responds):"Grudem's citation of Lampe is misleading" (p. 107), but by what kind of logic do examples that support a case become "misleading"? It is not clear to me how he can reason that instances of kephale where it refers to Christ or to church officers in authority over the church do not show that kephale can mean "leader" or "authority over."

It becomes misleading when one pretends that the Patristics are good clue as to NT usage. They are not, and most Greek scholars know that. That's why Bauer follows Liddell and Scott as much as he does.

[snip]

Bauer was a fine scholar, but his lexicon is primarily of the NT and Patristic literature as it proclaims on the cover. It takes some uses form classical Greek, but mainly follows Liddell and Scott when it does that. More importantly, it only sites the NT verses of Kephale for it's defintion of Kephale. Meaning, Bauer did not consult the LXX, nor did he do the spade work of the Mickelsens in uncovering the use of Kephale in the LXX, nor did he consult classical Greek sources for the use of that word.He merely read his doctrine back into the passages from whence it came, and called it a definition. Rather, he read it into the passages from the church expositors from whence it came, back into the verses that proof text it. Bauer was a fine scholar, that doesnt' mean he did his homework on the word Kepahle.

The Battle of the Lexicons could continue forever, and it probably will. At some future point I will deal with Grudem's hermeneutics. But that this point I want to break this off, as it it will probably never end, and resort to a tie breaker. We have a dispute over Methods and sources. Grudem is inconsistent in his use of the Patristics, criticizing Kroeger for her use of them, while they constitute his main focus. He also is inconsistent in use of the LXX because he admits it is a fine source:

(Grudem further castigates Cervin for his rejection of the LXX:

But if the Septuagint was indeed the Bible used by the New Testament authors and Christians throughout the New Testament world (as it was), then the fact that it was a translation made two centuries earlier does not mean that its examples of the use of kephale are irrelevant as evidence. To dismiss these as irrelevant would be similar to someone trying to find out what American evangelical Christians in 1990 meant by the use of a word and then saying that the use of that word in the NASB or NIV Bibles could not count as evidence because those Bibles were "translations" and therefore may not reflect native English uses of the word.

Now that is quite interesting, since the Mickelsens establish that in all but 8% of the time LXX uses arcon not Kefalh for Rosh. Even being charitable and allowing for all of Grudem's 18 examples, it's still something like 80+% of the time that "kephale" does not mean "superior." Grudem can't have it both ways.

Summary: An authoritative lexicon [Liddell and Scott ] while done very well, has been found with a deficiency...It is based upon "Patristic" writings and this Lexicon passes on it's biases onto the users and other lexicons who base thier works upon it. However, non-biblical greek scholars who study primarily non-biblical sources show a different renderings of the language..and do not carry with them the inherent subtil biases of translations as those that are used for biblical use.

[phkrause]

No I don't think he was inspired by God. As far as what happened on the road to Damascus........ Well I would not be surprised if something happened. But I have a lot of doubt its what he thought it was.

Lets take into consideration that likely the Devil would have been looking for a way to corrupt this new message being taught. What better way than to convince someone that they were being chosen to have further information on that message? The Devil I would assume is fairly intelligent so of course there could be messages of beauty.

As far as having the power to change millions of lives? Lots of pretty evil men have had that power as well.

In the end that is just my opinion.

EC I have to disagree with your disagreement here. Because as a Christian I accept the Bible from cover to cover as inspired by God, so for Satan to have any sway over anyone to that extent and than calling the Bible inspired makes no sense.

[Neil D]

Originally Posted By: hamilton-beach

And because of the angels

.

No one has given a satisfactory account of this verse except Kate Bushnell. Tertullian ascribed it to lust; women's faces cause angel to lust (which I think tells us more about Tertullian than it does about angels). Some have said these are human messengers (angeloi) who will see the woman looking like hookers and get the wrong idea. That is possible but it would be a pretty cryptic remark. Bushnell has the most fitting and logical answer:

.... The words in verse 10 bear the translation, "because of her angels," the definite article in Greek often having the force of a possessive pronoun, and thus the verse should have been rendered.

Since when can a masculine definite article be translated as a feminine possessive pronoun? It is tous-- accusative plural masculine.

What is there about the context that demands such a unique translation?

Please note, the article said that "the definite article in Greek often having the force of a possessive pronoun, and thus the verse should have been rendered." You misread literally for intent....

2nd, that greek word/article, as I understand it, should have the weight of the context, not the object...IOWs, what is normally to be translated as a "the" should have been translated as a "her", because the context is about the woman, not about the angels watching her, [thus "her" angels]

3rd, classical greek scholars, who understand the subtleties of context, versus the need to maintain tradition [as many biblical scholars are wanton] avoid due to the implications of traditions...and biases...

4th, the word "exousia" is defined as -

1) power of choice, liberty of doing as one pleases

a) leave or permission

2) physical and mental power

a) the ability or strength with which one is endued, which he either possesses or exercises

3) the power of authority (influence) and of right (privilege)

and carrys with it the concept of SELF rule or power of choice, something that one self exercises...something easily missed. A biblical example of this is the Centerion who commented to Jesus, "For I also am a man under authority, with soldiers under me; and I say to this one, ‘Go!’ and he goes, and to another, ‘Come!’ and he comes, and to my slave, ‘Do this!’ and he does it.” Matthew 8:8-10

We understand this centerion HAS authoritory and has exercised it at his discression. The greek uses the same word for authority here as it does for I corthin 11:10. So, when a woman is "under authority", the better translation for So that is why a woman should have her head covered with something that shows she is under authority. is ...shows she is exercising the power of choice. The ERV bible shows an alternative translation- “do what will keep people from misunderstanding her uncovered head.”...Obviously the need to exercise her power of choice or exousia.

5, which bring us to why is a woman's head needing to be covered anyway? Or more precisely, why is it that a head without covering is the same as a bald head? Perhaps its because the temple prostitutes were bald? If that is the case, all of this points that Paul was not preaching submission of the woman, but rather reaffirming the original plan of marriage...which at the time of Eden was a partnership...

[Twilight II]

How many here consider themselves on equal terms with Jesus Christ?

[phkrause]

How many here consider themselves on equal terms with Jesus Christ?

Interesting question Twilight! I think I have an idea what your getting at!

[Twilight II]

Christ is the husband.

The bride is the church.

When we start to argue that the husband and the bride should be equal, we are in effect arguing that Christ and His Church should be equal...

Marriage is an object lesson in the relationship between Jesus and the Church.

Why do you think Satan attacks marriage so vigorously.

How does he attack marriage?

Through ideologies such as these:

1. Homosexuality.

2. Feminism.

3. Fornication.

4. Divorce.

This is why we should not just accept certain "ideas" that are heavily promoted in the world, into the church.

Because they are designed to attack Jesus Himself.

This is why we have to be careful about thinking we can re-write the roles of men and women.

Unless of course we do believe that we are equal with Christ...

[M. T. Cross]

Originally Posted By: EmptyCross

No I don't think he was inspired by God. As far as what happened on the road to Damascus........ Well I would not be surprised if something happened. But I have a lot of doubt its what he thought it was.

Lets take into consideration that likely the Devil would have been looking for a way to corrupt this new message being taught. What better way than to convince someone that they were being chosen to have further information on that message? The Devil I would assume is fairly intelligent so of course there could be messages of beauty.

As far as having the power to change millions of lives? Lots of pretty evil men have had that power as well.

In the end that is just my opinion.

EC I have to disagree with your disagreement here. Because as a Christian I accept the Bible from cover to cover as inspired by God, so for Satan to have any sway over anyone to that extent and than calling the Bible inspired makes no sense.

I never expected anyone here would agree

But I have a lot of issues with the Bible being inspired, and I just give my honest opinion when asked for it.

[Bravus]

The logical conclusion of your statement, Twilight II, is that every husband is the equal of Christ.

[Twilight II]

The logical conclusion of your statement, Twilight II, is that every husband is the equal of Christ.

How is that logical?

The church is made up of men and women.

Therefore the church is the bride.

And the men have to assume the relationship with Christ, in the same manner as a woman does with a man.

Christ and His Church are not "equal" in any sense, Christ leads, we follow.

So to argue for "equality" with that in mind, is to deny Christ's leadership principles.

Didn't Satan want to be "equal" with Christ?

And didn't Satan rebel, because he was not permitted into the inner councils of the Father and the Son?

And that "spirit" is still in the children of Adam.

And women have inherited that very strong trait from their mother, Eve.

It is one of their primary issues.

To seek control.

So God has ordained a system where that sin can be dealt with.

As well as the male sin, of not loving the wife.

Both have been dealt with, in Gods order.

But because secular ideology, that reflects satans ideas have been accepted by many Christians, they are blind to what is really going on.

It is the "old man" that seeks "equality" (which is in fact a veiled need for superiority).

The "new man" seeks to serve.

[phkrause]

And with this post I have to agree, this is exactly the analogy Jesus was making with that statement. It has nothing to do with anyone being inferior to another, or like some like to say, be put in there place. If anyone is being put in the place its the church. Who continues to talk for God, that would be the RCC.

[Bravus]

The analogy between Christ and the church to husband and wife is one of sacrifice and service, not one of leadership. "Husbands, love your wife as Christ loved the church and gave himself for it". It's a mis-application to use this text to counsel subjection to women... that's not its focus at all.

[miz3]

Originally Posted By: John317

Deborah told Barak that God commanded him to go and deploy troops at Mount Tabor (v. 6). Notice that God did not tell Deborah to deploy the troops.

At that point Barak told Deborah that he would deploy the troops only if she went with him (v. 8). So she said she would go with him.

But notice that she said since she was going with him, he wouldn't get the glory but a woman would get all the glory-- Jael, Heber's wife. In other words, Barak should have gone alone, without Deborah.

Whose command does verse 10 say the ten thousand MEN were under?

It says the men were under the command of Barak, not under a woman's command.

Then look at verses 14 and 15. It says the army was following Barak. The army-- all men-- wasn't following Deborah.

As you read on, does the text (v. 22) say that Deborah pursued Sisera? Or does it say Barak pursued Sisera? Barak, right?

Originally Posted By: miz3

Why do you ignore what the Bible says before that?

The FACT is that Deborah was there and she led and gave the command to attack. That is FACT. It is vital FACT that you keep ignoring.

Here is what it says "before that"--

Quote:

Judges 4:5-9

She[Deborah] used to sit under the palm of Deborah between Ramah and Bethel in the hill country of Ephraim, and the people of Israel came up to her for judgment. [6] She sent and summoned Barak the son of Abinoam from Kedesh-naphtali and said to him, "Has not the Lord, the God of Israel, commanded you, 'Go, gather your men at Mount Tabor, taking 10,000 from the people of Naphtali and the people of Zebulun. [7] And I will draw out Sisera, the general of Jabin's army, to meet you by the river Kishon with his chariots and his troops, and I will give him into your hand'?" [8] Barak said to her, "If you will go with me, I will go, but if you will not go with me, I will not go." [9] And she said, "I will surely go with you. Nevertheless, the road on which you are going will not lead to your glory, for the Lord will sell Sisera into the hand of a woman." Then Deborah arose and went with Barak to Kedesh.

Here's what we learn from this passage:

1) God commanded Deborah to tell Barak to gather BARAK'S men at Mt. Tabor.

2) God would draw out Sisera to meet BARAK.

3) God would give Sisera into BARAK'S hand.

4) Barak said he would only obey God's command if Deborah went with him.

5) Deborah THEN said she would go with Barak, but that her going with Barak would mean that a woman-- Jael-- would receive all the glory.

6) Notice that after Deborah said she would go with Barak, Deborah said that instead of Sisera being given into Barak's hand, God would now give Sisera into the hand of a woman, Jael.

None of what you say changes the FACT that God gave Deborah Authority over Barak which allowed her to give orders from God to Barak. God did not give His Orders directly to Barak (although God could have) but God gave His Orders to Deborah and placed Deborah over Barak. Just like the Chain of Command we talked about earlier.

Deborah like every other Leader of God's People such as Moses, Samuel, Huldah, Ellen White, Paul, Elisha, etc. has no power/authority of their own but has only the Power and Authority of God with them. They are God's Messengers.

This is the concept of Power/Authority that God always uses for those He calls to Service.

[Twilight II]

The greater responsibility lies with the man in the relationship.

He has to set the example of servant leadership in the home.

He has to lead out.

He has to crucify self first.

That is leadership in the home.

Then that should be taken into the church.

[Twilight II]

The analogy between Christ and the church to husband and wife is one of sacrifice and service, not one of leadership.

Incorrect.

It is "serving" leadership that Christ modelled.

[miz3]

I wrote this on the other thread in response to Overaged. I think it applies here as well.

"OA you misunderstand the nature of any Prophet/Leader/Judge/Administrator/etc.'s Authority.

All of these People whether they be Moses, Samuel, Huldah, Deborah, Miriam, Ellen White, etc. have Authority only because God says they do. It is a call from God.

None of these People ever have Authority in their own right. The reason the king and his people consulted Huldah was because she had Authority from God and would speak to them as to what God wanted done. Moses did the same thing. Moses had no Authority of his own. In fact in Egypt the Children of Israel told in the beginning they had no reason to listen to him because Moses was not their Authority. Then Moses showed them God's signs and wonders and told them the Lord God had sent Him. It was this evidence that God had "called" Moses that gave Moses his Authority.

It was similarly obvious to the king and his other powerful men that Huldah was "called" of God and as such, like Moses, had Authority over them because she (Huldah) would tell them God's orders.

Moses and Samuel did exactly the same. These two men were no more than messengers of what God wanted done. Remember the boy Samuel, his only Authority was that he was to deliver a message from God to Eli. That is all anyone "called" by God to Authority ever does. They deliver messages from God.

Today that is exactly what our SDA Church .org leaders are supposed to do. They are supposed to be just Messengers "sent" and "called" by God to deliver what God wants done.

Our ministers, Union Presidents, GC President, etc. are to be nothing more then Messengers, God's Messengers. If they exceed their Authority as such then they are bad messengers and are in it like Balaam for the coin, power, and prestige. God did not "call" our SDA Church .org ministers, Union Presidents, GC President to be Power brokers in the SDA Church .org. God called SDA Church .org ministers, Union Presidents, GC Presidents, etc. just like God called Moses, Samuel, Huldah, Deborah, Miriam, Ellen White to exercise Authority to "serve" and "give Messages" to His People. There Authority comes direct from God.

If however our current ministers, Union Presidents, GC President, etc. are in the game to simply exercise authority, gain power, enrich themselves like Balaam they have betrayed their "call" from God.

You see OA no one at anytime on this sinful planet is ever "called" by God to actually be anything more than a simple MESSENGER.

This is why it is demeaning and minimizing for any of us to say that these "called out ones" like Huldah are "nothing more than messengers". This like making fun of Elisha. In doing such we do not show the proper respect for any of those "called" by God to be His MESSENGERS.

God expects all of us to show those "called by Him" to be MESSENGERS great respect because there soul duty and job on this earth is to be "MESSENGERS" and as such they have God's direct Authority.

This is why it is wrong to say, "Huldah was 'just' a messenger" as if she was irrelevant and small. NO, NO, Huldah was not and never ever was irrelevant and small. Huldah had all the Authority of God as His MESSENGER.

To be called by God to be a MESSENGER as was Huldah and all the others I have mentioned is a sacred and awesome "CALL". Such is never to be taken lightly. Some today as did Balaam take their call as MESSENGERS lightly are in it only for their personal gain.

Fortunately some are also MESSENGERS today because they are indeed "called" by God and they respect the awesome responsibility that has been placed on their shoulders just as those in the past did, like Huldah.

God does not and has never ever made His Call to be a MESSENGER like Hulda, and the others, including our own Union Presidents, ministers, GC President, etc. simply ONLY A MAN'S (MALE) CALL.

The Bible demonstrates that God calls both men and women to His Gospel Ministry as Leader/Administrators because they are all to be ONLY MESSENGERS OF GOD AND WHAT HE WANTS HIS PEOPLE TO BE AND DO.

So again I call us all to get behind the Truth and let us in the SDA Church .org include our wonderful women, who are truly called by God to become GOD'S MESSENGERS just our men who have been "called" by God and "serve" (not wield power) God's People.

I will stand for this, who will join me because it is wrong and evil to deny God's chosen women to be His Leader/Administrator MESSENGERS."

[miz3]

Christ is the husband.

The bride is the church.

When we start to argue that the husband and the bride should be equal, we are in effect arguing that Christ and His Church should be equal...

Marriage is an object lesson in the relationship between Jesus and the Church.

Why do you think Satan attacks marriage so vigorously.

How does he attack marriage?

Through ideologies such as these:

1. Homosexuality.

2. Feminism.

3. Fornication.

4. Divorce.

This is why we should not just accept certain "ideas" that are heavily promoted in the world, into the church.

Because they are designed to attack Jesus Himself.

This is why we have to be careful about thinking we can re-write the roles of men and women.

Unless of course we do believe that we are equal with Christ...

If indeed Christ is in the Church as He said to the Disciples in John chapter seventeen (the ONENESS PRINCIPLE) then they are both EQUAL in Authority (and everything else).

If Christ is NOT in the Church then the Church is nothing.

God was in Moses that is why Moses had soooo much Authority. When Moses spoke it was indeed the Voice of God.

Understanding the Principle of the Calling by God is crucial to understanding the Authority of the Human Instrument who has been Called by God be they female or male.

Understanding the Oneness Principle is also vital to understanding the Authority of the Human Instrument who has been called by God be they male or female.

We humans never ever decide that we are "equal with Christ" that is not how it works.

The way it works is that God calls us and in the Call God imbues the human instrument with His Authority and in doing this God lifts the human instrument up to be Equal with Him be they female or male.

Understanding these FACTS is vital to understanding how God Works within the Human Instrument. See John Chapter Seventeen and look at how the Holy Spirit worked in Deborah, Huldah, Jeremiah, Moses, Elijah, Elisha, Ellen White, Paul, Peter, etc. etc. They all carried in their person the Authority of God when God's People were in Need of It.