Doesn't this bother you?

[woobadooba]

Boy woob...got your blood hot.

Now just because I don't think she was a prophet of God does not mean I can't learn from her or suggest others read books of those who trust her as such. I still quote her in my Adventist circles. And many know I don't trust that she was a prophet of God. Now why should I call her that when she never ever said that in print? Now I do think she had a spritual gift just as all believers have a spiritual gift. And her gift was the gift of prophecy...and that dont make you a prophet. She her self read books by others of different denominations who never kept Sabbath holy but she learned from them and even suggested that we read the books of the reformer.

Your polemic thing is hog wash...Just because I don't think she is a prophet to the same degree you think and because the author of the sources I suggest thinks to the degree you think, you use that against me and attack me!!! Listen woob, I am not a controversialist. I could use that same idea against you becasue you are the one, dispite what the bible says in 2 Tim 3:16, thinks they can pick and choose what is inspired.

Now on the textual problems you said you meantion in another post, I will look into them and get back to you. I hope the mods dont close or alter this thread.

Adventtruth

Again, I never said we could pick and choose what is or isn't inspired, but that we are to rightly divide the word of truth.

If you understand the dynamics of exegesis, then you will know what I'm talking about here.

Now please stop accusing me of things for which I'm not guilty.

As for the point that you had made in response to what I had said about 'playing the polemic', there is validity to it; and I now realise that my point was worthless to this discussion. I posted it in haste, which is something I never should have done.

It will be interesting to see what you come up with in answer to the exegetical problems that I raised concerning what both Paul and Peter had said.

 

[Sophia7]

Hold on a minute. He wasn't denying the inspiration of the Bible. He was merely suggesting that the Bible does contain opinions.

For example, look at what Paul had said here:
"To the rest I say—I and not the Lord—that if any believer has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her." (1Co 7:12 NRSV)

It is evident that Paul is disclosing that not everything that he had taught was a teaching that was directly given to him by God.

Paul isn't giving his own opinion in 1 Corinthians 7. Reread this section:

1CO 7:10 To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. 11 But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife.

1CO 7:12 To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her. 13 And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him. 14 For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.
​

Paul's first statement here (vss. 10-11) is a reiteration of the command that Jesus gave regarding divorce. His second command, dealing with the responsibility of a Christian married to an unbeliever, is not something that Jesus specifically said during His earthly ministry. That's why Paul says, "I, not the Lord." He is not directly quoting Jesus. However, notice how he ends this whole passage on marriage:

1CO 7:39 A woman is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to marry anyone she wishes, but he must belong to the Lord.
40 In my judgment, she is happier if she stays as she is--and I think that I too have the Spirit of God.
​

Paul is not giving his opinion here; he is giving what he believes is inspired judgment and counsel from the Lord. I think Paul would disagree with your statement that not all of his teachings were given to him by God. He claimed that what he taught was given to him through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Dasdream]

You guys harping on the Ellen thing here too? It';s time we move on

 

[woobadooba]

Paul isn't giving his own opinion in 1 Corinthians 7. Reread this section:

1CO 7:10 To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. 11 But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife.​

1CO 7:12 To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her. 13 And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him. 14 For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.​

​

Paul's first statement here (vss. 10-11) is a reiteration of the command that Jesus gave regarding divorce. His second command, dealing with the responsibility of a Christian married to an unbeliever, is not something that Jesus specifically said during His earthly ministry. That's why Paul says, "I, not the Lord." He is not directly quoting Jesus. However, notice how he ends this whole passage on marriage:

1CO 7:39 A woman is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to marry anyone she wishes, but he must belong to the Lord.​

40 In my judgment, she is happier if she stays as she is--and I think that I too have the Spirit of God.​

​

Paul is not giving his opinion here; he is giving what he believes is inspired judgment and counsel from the Lord. I think Paul would disagree with your statement that not all of his teachings were given to him by God. He claimed that what he taught was given to him through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

But he said, "I, not the Lord." He didn't say, "thus says the Lord."

By the way, Ellen White believed that everything she wrote was in favor with the Spirit too; and it is evident to the both of us that not everything she had said is Biblical.

Furthermore, Paul said, "I think that I too have the Spirit of God". Meaning, the Spirit's approval on what he had said. He did not say, "I have the approval of the Spirit on this matter." Indeed there is a difference.

Therefore, Just because one believes, or thinks that his thoughts are in harmony with the Spirit, that doesn't mean they are.

After all, Peter continued to believe that the Gentiles were unclean, even after the resurrection of Jesus. But we both know the Lord had to correct him on this.

Moreover, Paul believed that he was doing the work of the Lord when he sought to persecute Christians. And the Lord corrected him on this.

Hence, belief doesn't constitute fact.

 

[Sophia7]

But he said, "I, not the Lord." He didn't say, "thus says the Lord."

By the way, Ellen White believed that everything she wrote was in favor with the Spirit too; and it is evident to the both of us that not everything she had said is Biblical.

Furthermore, Paul said, "I think that I too have the Spirit of God". Meaning, the Spirit's approval on what he had said. He did not say, "I have the approval of the Spirit on this matter." Indeed there is a difference.

Therefore, Just because one believes, or thinks that his thoughts are in harmony with the Spirit, that doesn't mean they are.

After all, Peter continued to believe that the Gentiles were unclean, even after the resurrection of Jesus. But we both know the Lord had to correct him on this.

Moreover, Paul believed that he was doing the work of the Lord when he sought to persecute Christians. And the Lord corrected him on this.

Hence, belief doesn't constitute fact.

Yes, but he wrote that in contrast to his earlier statement, "Not I, but the Lord."

Yes, we are agreed on the fact that not everything Ellen White wrote is biblical. However, I see a difference because her writings are not Scripture, so the burden of proof is greater to show that what she said was actually inspired by God. I would be extremely cautious about saying that the Bible writers themselves were giving their own opinions and not really speaking with the authority of God when they made that claim.

And Peter didn't really believe that the Gentiles were unclean after his experience in Acts 10 and 11. The only reason that he separated himself from the Gentiles later (see Gal. 2:11-14) was peer pressure from "the circumcision group." Peter didn't stop eating with Gentiles because he thought it was right, nor did he write biblical counsel instructing others to do so. He was being a hypocrite, and he was quickly rebuked by Paul for it. Peter wasn't purporting to be following God's direction on that.

Both Bible writers and prophets still sinned and misunderstood spiritual truths at times and grew in their knowledge of God throughout their lives; I have no doubt of that. The question to me is could a person misinterpret Scripture or write things that are false while claiming to be under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and still be considered a prophet?

 

[woobadooba]

And Peter didn't really believe that the Gentiles were unclean after his experience in Acts 10 and 11.

I never said he did. I was referring to what he, as a prophet of God, believed before Acts 10.

Now then, let's get back to the divorce issue. Look at this:

"While Ezra prayed and made confession, weeping and throwing himself down before the house of God, a very great assembly of men, women, and children gathered to him out of Israel; the people also wept bitterly. Shecaniah son of Jehiel, of the descendants of Elam, addressed Ezra, saying, "We have broken faith with our God and have married foreign women from the peoples of the land, but even now there is hope for Israel in spite of this.

So now let us make a covenant with our God to send away all these wives and their children, according to the counsel of my lord and of those who tremble at the commandment of our God; and let it be done according to the law. Take action, for it is your duty, and we are with you; be strong, and do it."

Then Ezra stood up and made the leading priests, the Levites, and all Israel swear that they would do as had been said. So they swore.

Then Ezra withdrew from before the house of God, and went to the chamber of Jehohanan son of Eliashib, where he spent the night. He did not eat bread or drink water, for he was mourning over the faithlessness of the exiles.

They made a proclamation throughout Judah and Jerusalem to all the returned exiles that they should assemble at Jerusalem, and that if any did not come within three days, by order of the officials and the elders all their property should be forfeited, and they themselves banned from the congregation of the exiles.

Then all the people of Judah and Benjamin assembled at Jerusalem within the three days; it was the ninth month, on the twentieth day of the month. All the people sat in the open square before the house of God, trembling because of this matter and because of the heavy rain.

Then Ezra the priest stood up and said to them, "You have trespassed and married foreign women, and so increased the guilt of Israel. Now make confession to the Lord the God of your ancestors, and do his will; separate yourselves from the peoples of the land and from the foreign wives."

Then all the assembly answered with a loud voice, "It is so; we must do as you have said...

and they sent them away with their children." (Ezr 10:1-44 NRSV)

The wives that these men put away would be likened to unbelievers today, since they worshipped foreign gods. According to Ezra it was a sin to be married to such people. Moreover, as a result of these marriages the Lord was punishing His people. So it was obviously against the will of God for these men to remain married to these women.

Now then, if it was sinful for God’s people to marry unbelievers, and God willed that such marriages should be terminated, how then could we say Paul was not stating his own opinion on the matter when he had said, “To the rest I say—I and not the Lord—that if any believer has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her. And if any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him.” (1Co 7:12-13 NRSV)

Moreover, since we’re on the topic of divorce, let’s take a look at something else: “Some Pharisees came, and to test him they asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?" He answered them, "What did Moses command you?" They said, "Moses allowed a man to write a certificate of dismissal and to divorce her."

But Jesus said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart he wrote this commandment for you. But from the beginning of creation, "God made them male and female.' "For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.'

So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate." (Mar 10:2-9 NRSV)

Surely Moses thought that it was according to the will of God to give these people a "certificate of divorce". For, if he knew that it was against the Lord’s thoughts he wouldn’t have done it, right?

Yet, Jesus made it very clear that it wasn’t according to the will of God that people be divorced, but that Moses commanded that this be done because of the hardness of the peoples hearts.

So it’s evident that even Moses made up some of his own rules, believing that they were of God; yet, here we find an example of a rule that he made that was not in harmony with the will of God according to Jesus.

How do we know he believed that this was of God?

Well, notice where it's mentioned: Deut. 24:1-3. Now, if you will, take a closer look at this. You will notice that all kinds of “statutes”, “ordinances”, and “commands” are given in chapters 12-16 of Deuteronomy.

And it just so happens that in Deut. 26:16-18 Moses says, “This very day the Lord your God is commanding you to observe these statutes and ordinances; so observe them diligently with all your heart and with all your soul. Today you have obtained the Lord's agreement: to be your God; and for you to walk in his ways, to keep his statutes, his commandments, and his ordinances, and to obey him.

Today the Lord has obtained your agreement: to be his treasured people, as he promised you, and to keep his commandments“ (Deu 26:16-18 NRSV) Here it is obvious that what is being referred to as "statutes", "commandments", and "ordinances" of God, are what we find in chapters 12-26.

Hence, it is evident that Moses believed that God inspired this rule for a “certificate of divorce”, since it appears within all of the other "statutes", "ordinances", and "commands" that are declared by Moses to be of God."

Yet, Jesus made it very clear that God never commanded that a "certificate of divorce be given", but that this was a command of Moses (Mk. 10:3-5), which was given because of the hardness of the hearts of the people, not because God inspired it. Yet, Moses believed it was of God.

What does this tell us

 

[Adventtruth]

I never said he did. I was referring to what he, as a prophet of God, believed before Acts 10.

In what way was Peter a prophet of God?

Now then, if it was sinful for God’s people to marry unbelievers, and God willed that such marriages should be terminated, how then could we say Paul was not stating his own opinion on the matter when he had said,

“To the rest I say—I and not the Lord—that if any believer has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her. And if any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him.”

(1Co 7:12-13 NRSV)

Paul the apostle, being a teacher of the law, as well as the greatest theologian who ever lived, aside from Christ, understood the differences between the Old and New covenants as well as any one.

He knew there was no written command under the New Covenant given by Jesus to stay with your unbelieveing spouse...nothing of mixed marrages, therefore He said its not from the Lord but I. But does this mean that Paul was not inspired of God becasue he had just said something that was not written under the New Covenant??? As Paul would say..."may it never be" Paul understood many things about how God operates that many did not. God prepared Paul for his ministry long before he was even born...So he reasoned from the mind of God under insperation.

1) Paul understood Christian freedoms better than any one other than Christ, he understood that such marriages where lawful under the New Covenant and that there is no obligation for the christian to dissolve the marraige... the christian was not permited to repudiate the unbelieving spouse, therefore to divorce the unbeliever may have meant loosing a soul. The union is holy (1 Cor 7:14)

2) Paul understood the channels of grace and how Gods grace works through the believer.

3) Paul understood How God has a passion for His own Glory, and to loose the unbeliever would do nothing for the glory of God.

I'l get back to you on the last part of your post...I am baby sitting my 16 month old boy and he is crying...I think he is sleepy

Adventtruth

 

[Adventtruth]

Adventtruth

 

[Adventtruth]

Moreover, since we’re on the topic of divorce, let’s take a look at something else:

“Some Pharisees came, and to test him they asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?" He answered them, "What did Moses command you?" They said, "Moses allowed a man to write a certificate of dismissal and to divorce her."

But Jesus said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart he wrote this commandment for you. But from the beginning of creation, "God made them male and female.' "For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.'

So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate." (Mar 10:2-9 NRSV)

Surely Moses thought that it was according to the will of God to give these people a "certificate of divorce". For, if he knew that it was against the Lord’s thoughts he wouldn’t have done it, right?

Yet, Jesus made it very clear that it wasn’t according to the will of God that people be divorced, but that Moses commanded that this be done because of the hardness of the peoples hearts.

So it’s evident that even Moses made up some of his own rules, believing that they were of God; yet, here we find an example of a rule that he made that was not in harmony with the will of God according to Jesus.

How do we know he believed that this was of God?

Well, notice where it's mentioned: Deut. 24:1-3. Now, if you will, take a closer look at this. You will notice that all kinds of “statutes”, “ordinances”, and “commands” are given in chapters 12-16 of Deuteronomy.

And it just so happens that in Deut. 26:16-18 Moses says, “This very day the Lord your God is commanding you to observe these statutes and ordinances; so observe them diligently with all your heart and with all your soul. Today you have obtained the Lord's agreement: to be your God; and for you to walk in his ways, to keep his statutes, his commandments, and his ordinances, and to obey him.

Today the Lord has obtained your agreement: to be his treasured people, as he promised you, and to keep his commandments“ (Deu 26:16-18 NRSV) Here it is obvious that what is being referred to as "statutes", "commandments", and "ordinances" of God, are what we find in chapters 12-26.

Hence, it is evident that Moses believed that God inspired this rule for a “certificate of divorce”, since it appears within all of the other "statutes", "ordinances", and "commands" that are declared by Moses to be of God."

Yet, Jesus made it very clear that God never commanded that a "certificate of divorce be given", but that this was a command of Moses (Mk. 10:3-5), which was given because of the hardness of the hearts of the people, not because God inspired it. Yet, Moses believed it was of God.

What does this tell us

This tells me that Mose had sactified understanding of the will of God...yes Jesus said God made the two to be one from the begining, but notice Jesus never said anything bad about Moses, only that he did it because of the hardness of their hearts...

Question...I don't know if you have a wife, but what if you beat her and made it hard on her...would it be Gods will that she stay in an abusive relationship???

Thats why Moses gave permission to divorce, becasue He knew God would give his approval to do so, seeing that the Jewish men would have been very abusive to the wife.

Adventtruth

 

[smooze]

nobody is going to listen to what paul says its all about the burning the bra of oppression and Paul was just an old wind bag and being a parishe didnt help his way of thinking.

 

[Adventtruth]

I have a question for any who would like to answer.

In 1 Cor 7;12 Pauls says its ok to remain joined to the unbelieveing spouse, and that they are sanctified by by the believeing spouse.(Vrse 14)

But over in 2 Cor:14 Paul says do not be bound together with unbelievers and to come from under them and says the Lord said this. (17) Is Paul going back on what He said in 1 Cor.??? Is he contradicting himself???

Adventtruth

 

[woobadooba]

1) Paul understood Christian freedoms better than any one other than Christ, he understood that such marriages where lawful under the New Covenant and that there is no obligation for the christian to dissolve the marraige... the christian was not permited to repudiate the unbelieving spouse, therefore to divorce the unbeliever may have meant loosing a soul. The union is holy (1 Cor 7:14)

Let me try to re-state what you're saying here: Paul says under the new covenant it's lawful to marry unbelievers, because all things are lawful under the new covenant.

Where do you get this concept that it's 'lawful' from?

This is where you get it from: "All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not."
(1Co 10:23 KJV)

And you conveniently left out the part where Paul says, "all things edify not."

This is why Paul also said, "Do not be mismatched with unbelievers. For what partnership is there between righteousness and lawlessness? Or what fellowship does light have with darkness?" (2Co 6:14 HCSB)

Truth is, the idea of all things being lawful is that the law is not enforced on God's people as it was in the past. After all, before Paul's time people were stoned for doing certain things.

The idea that Paul is disclosing here is that we are free to do as we will; but it's important that we do things according to God's will, so that we may be a holy people, as He is holy. For, He has called us to holiness, and even though we may be free to do things that are outside of His will, that doesn't mean we won't face the consequences that result from carrying out such actions. Therefore, we must do those things that edify the soul, and thus bring us closer to God's purpose for us.

To use the "all things are lawful" motiff in the way that you are using it here is to suggest that God won't hold people accountable for sin. But you wouldn't say this about the rule that we shouldn't drink blood would you? Yet. that rule was also a part of the old system; but it is still forbidden. See Acts 15:20; Lev. 7:26

I still venture to say that Paul was sharing his opinion when he had said, "I, and not the Lord..."

The thing that bothers me most about your position is that you imply Paul couldn't have an opinion on anything. Yet, it was very evident that Paul was not speaking outside of his opinion here. That's why he had said, "I, and not the Lord." That is also why he had said, "I think I have the Spirit." Meaning, 'I think I have the Spirit's approval on this." Not, "since we are under the new covenant I know I have the Spirit's approval on this." Truth is, Paul didn't know for sure that he had God's approval on this idea; but he thought, or believed he did.

Belief doesn't constitute fact.

 

[woobadooba]

This tells me that Mose had sactified understanding of the will of God...yes Jesus said God made the two to be one from the begining, but notice Jesus never said anything bad about Moses, only that he did it because of the hardness of their hearts...

Question...I don't know if you have a wife, but what if you beat her and made it hard on her...would it be Gods will that she stay in an abusive relationship???

Thats why Moses gave permission to divorce, becasue He knew God would give his approval to do so, seeing that the Jewish men would have been very abusive to the wife.

Adventtruth

Did you really read what I wrote? It appears that you didn't.

Here it is again. Please pay close attention to the parts I put in red:

But Jesus said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart he wrote this commandment for you. But from the beginning of creation, "God made them male and female.' "For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.'

So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate." (Mar 10:2-9 NRSV)

Surely Moses thought that it was according to the will of God to give these people a "certificate of divorce". For, if he knew that it was against the Lord’s thoughts he wouldn’t have done it, right?

Yet, Jesus made it very clear that it wasn’t according to the will of God that people be divorced, but that Moses commanded that this be done because of the hardness of the peoples hearts.

So it’s evident that even Moses made up some of his own rules, believing that they were of God; yet, here we find an example of a rule that he made that was not in harmony with the will of God according to Jesus.

How do we know he believed that this was of God?

Well, notice where it's mentioned: Deut. 24:1-3. Now, if you will, take a closer look at this. You will notice that all kinds of “statutes”, “ordinances”, and “commands” are given in chapters 12-16 of Deuteronomy.

And it just so happens that in Deut. 26:16-18 Moses says, “This very day the Lord your God is commanding you to observe these statutes and ordinances; so observe them diligently with all your heart and with all your soul. Today you have obtained the Lord's agreement: to be your God; and for you to walk in his ways, to keep his statutes, his commandments, and his ordinances, and to obey him.

Today the Lord has obtained your agreement: to be his treasured people, as he promised you, and to keep his commandments“ (Deu 26:16-18 NRSV) Here it is obvious that what is being referred to as "statutes", "commandments", and "ordinances" of God, are what we find in chapters 12-26.

Hence, it is evident that Moses believed that God inspired this rule for a “certificate of divorce”, since it appears with all of the other "statutes", "ordinances", and "commands" that are declared by Moses to be of God."

Yet, Jesus made it very clear that God never commanded that a "certificate of divorce be given", but that this was a command of Moses (Mk. 10:3-5), which was given because of the hardness of the hearts of the people, not because God inspired it. Yet, Moses believed it was of God.

Incidentally, if Moses had God's approval on this, then why did Jesus say, "It was also said, "Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.' But I say to you that anyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity, causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
(Mat 5:31-32 NRSV)

Of course, IF you don't believe Jesus was the God of the OT then this point really won't matter to you.

 

[woobadooba]

At this point it's evident to me that my words here are out of season.

I thought that I might be able to help people to better understand the nature of inspiration as God has recently disclosed it to me; but it seems that I'm just discouraging people with what I have come to know about this.

I did not intend to do this. In fact, I think I may request that my threads be deleted. For, I don't want to be a stumbling block for others who are not ready to hear this message.

It is evident to me that a prophet can still have an opinion, and could make a mistake in assuming that something is of God when it really isn't. Prophets are not infallible.

Unfortunately, no one in here seems to agree with me on this.

 

[Adventtruth]

To use the "all things are lawful" motiff in the way that you are using it here is to suggest that God won't hold people accountable for sin. But you wouldn't say this about the rule that we shouldn't drink blood would you? Yet. that rule was also a part of the old system; but it is still forbidden. See Acts 15:20; Lev. 7:26

I am not suggest that. as believers we must face the results of our actions.

It is known that Paul in 1 Cor was addressing the problems of the Corthians in his first letter concerning marriage...the problem of marring uunbelievers. The unions had already taken place so he instructed them not to divorce but to remain in the union...By the time he worte the second letter many freedoms with unbelievers had to be address again because manywhere abusing there freedoms in Christ...and the freedoms where not all pertaining to unions of marriage.

I still venture to say that Paul was sharing his opinion when he had said, "I, and not the Lord..."

The thing that bothers me most about your position is that you imply Paul couldn't have an opinion on anything. Yet, it was very evident that Paul was not speaking outside of his opinion here. That's why he had said, "I, and not the Lord." That is also why he had said, "I think I have the Spirit." Meaning, 'I think I have the Spirit's approval on this." Not, "since we are under the new covenant I know I have the Spirit's approval on this." Truth is, Paul didn't know for sure that he had God's approval on this idea; but he thought, or believed he did.

Belief doesn't constitute fact.

Well woob...I can't change your mind here, and you can't change mine...The bible take front stage with me, and it says
2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
All means all, not all but what Paul said, but all.

Adventtruth

 

[Dasdream]

Yes I have a huge problem with that. My grandmother is a Pastor, well she was for another religion, but after she joined ours. People love her. She tells the truth. She doesn't cross the line. She doesn't sit back and watch, she preaches about things that effect us everyday. So, I highly doubt a woman like that was meant to stay quite. She is very active in church aswell. No man ever did what she did and again everyone likes her sermons. Should females stay quite? Ha, come hear her preach and tell me she should not speak.