Female priests

  • Thread starter Thread starter CWN_News
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I would like to suggest two books for the people reading this thread.

“The Gift of Infallibility” by Bishop Vincent Ferrer Gasser and “Magisterium: Teacher and Guardian of the Faith” by Avery Cardinal Dulles SJ

Two excellent references that explain the teaching authority of the Church and the three levels of Magisterial teaching and the assent of faith necessary for each level.
 
I know lots of people that take their faith very seriously: prayer, scripture reading, sacramental life, and daily works of charity. Yet, notwithstanding their daily exercise of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, some here would suggest that they are not in union with the Body of Christ because the “dissent”.

I would venture that St. Paul, who named and honored women in his ministry and who famously declared there is no longer man or woman in Christ, would find this whole discussion risible.

Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and his saving acts is the beginning and end of salvation. To build up rules as a bar to a full relationship with God is what our Lord often preached against.
 
I know lots of people that take their faith very seriously: prayer, scripture reading, sacramental life, and daily works of charity. Yet, notwithstanding their daily exercise of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, some here would suggest that they are not in union with the Body of Christ because the “dissent”.

I would venture that St. Paul, who named and honored women in his ministry and who famously declared there is no longer man or woman in Christ, would find this whole discussion risible.

Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and his saving acts is the beginning and end of salvation. To build up rules as a bar to a full relationship with God is what our Lord often preached against.
Are you suggesting that the Church is ‘building up rules’ as a bar to a full relationship with God? Because last I knew, in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, Pope John Paul II stated that the CHURCH HAS NO AUTHORITY TO ORDAIN WOMEN.

Not “It’s the Church’s RULE not to ordain women.”

The Church has no AUTHORITY to ordain women.
 
Wow, I’ve read some very narrow minded, and in some cases almost insulting points of view in favor of men only priesthood. A few points on this I’d like to throw out.
  1. Historically in the early days of the Church women were priests as were married men (St Peter for all you theologians who like to go straight to scripture for everything). Women were quickly dismissed from the priesthood because of the culture of the day. Women were second class citizens, and if this new Church was ever to gain respect and status among the people, they simply couldn’t allow women to continue being leaders of their churches.
  2. Read the Gospels some time, not for the word by word content, not for the “exact” quotes from Jesus, but read them as a story. Like you’d read Moby Dick. What is a reoccurring theme though the Gospels? Jesus treats women as equals. Women (Mary his Mother, Mary Magdalene, the women on the way to Calgary, the woman at the well, etc) are always interacting with Jesus, to the point his Apostles are almost offended by his equal treatment of them. And getting back to point 1, given the male dominance of the society, it’s probably safe to say women were ultimately downplayed in the final drafts of the Gospels. So if Jesus treated women as equals, why are people so opposed to it now. Hell, I had to fill in Altar Serving one time 15-20ish years ago because the Archbishop was coming to our church and girls were not allowed to Serve and there was a girl server scheduled. That’s equality? Was that 1990 or 1690?
  3. “Women have NEVER been allowed to be priests!” Yes (well maybe…) but 50 or so years ago women were never the leader of a country. Women were never professional basketball players. Women were never lawyers, or CEOs or butchers, etc. Times change, and for the first time in modern human history women are considered full equals to men. Well, most everywhere, except in the Catholic Church where it feels we’re clinging to "they’ve never been, the Pope said, and but the Apostles were all men.
  4. The Pope said! Yes, and in 2000 the Pope finally admitted the Papacy was wrong about calling Galileo a heretic for saying the Earth went around the Sun. Apparently the Pope isn’t spot on right about everything.
  5. and the Apostles were all men! Well, we’re fairly sure. There is that whole Disciple whom Jesus loves = Mary Madeline thing, that could be a bunch of ****, or could be right. Till we get a time machine, we’ll never really know for sure.
Just some of my thoughts on this issue. Feel free to excommunicate me below!
 
Being a Priest is not a right. I want nothing more than to be a Priest, but the Seminary doesn’t have to take me just because I’m a man. If they deem me unfit or if they sense no vocation in me, they will have the right to can me. I don’t understand the argument that we’re being unfair to women when 99% of the male population doesn’t even have a chance of being a Priest.

Yes, it’s for men only, but just how many make the cut?
 
Wow, I’ve read some very narrow minded, and in some cases almost insulting points of view in favor of men only priesthood. A few points on this I’d like to throw out.
  1. Historically in the early days of the Church women were priests as were married men (St Peter for all you theologians who like to go straight to scripture for everything). Women were quickly dismissed from the priesthood because of the culture of the day. Women were second class citizens, and if this new Church was ever to gain respect and status among the people, they simply couldn’t allow women to continue being leaders of their churches.
  2. Read the Gospels some time, not for the word by word content, not for the “exact” quotes from Jesus, but read them as a story. Like you’d read Moby Dick. What is a reoccurring theme though the Gospels? Jesus treats women as equals. Women (Mary his Mother, Mary Magdalene, the women on the way to Calgary, the woman at the well, etc) are always interacting with Jesus, to the point his Apostles are almost offended by his equal treatment of them. And getting back to point 1, given the male dominance of the society, it’s probably safe to say women were ultimately downplayed in the final drafts of the Gospels. So if Jesus treated women as equals, why are people so opposed to it now. Hell, I had to fill in Altar Serving one time 15-20ish years ago because the Archbishop was coming to our church and girls were not allowed to Serve and there was a girl server scheduled. That’s equality? Was that 1990 or 1690?
  3. “Women have NEVER been allowed to be priests!” Yes (well maybe…) but 50 or so years ago women were never the leader of a country. Women were never professional basketball players. Women were never lawyers, or CEOs or butchers, etc. Times change, and for the first time in modern human history women are considered full equals to men. Well, most everywhere, except in the Catholic Church where it feels we’re clinging to "they’ve never been, the Pope said, and but the Apostles were all men.
  4. The Pope said! Yes, and in 2000 the Pope finally admitted the Papacy was wrong about calling Galileo a heretic for saying the Earth went around the Sun. Apparently the Pope isn’t spot on right about everything.
  5. and the Apostles were all men! Well, we’re fairly sure. There is that whole Disciple whom Jesus loves = Mary Madeline thing, that could be a bunch of ****, or could be right. Till we get a time machine, we’ll never really know for sure.
Just some of my thoughts on this issue. Feel free to excommunicate me below!
Women were never Priests in the early history of the Church. I don’t know where you get your information from, but it’s wrong.
 
I know lots of people that take their faith very seriously: prayer, scripture reading, sacramental life, and daily works of charity. Yet, notwithstanding their daily exercise of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, some here would suggest that they are not in union with the Body of Christ because the “dissent”.

I would venture that St. Paul, who named and honored women in his ministry and who famously declared there is no longer man or woman in Christ, would find this whole discussion risible.

Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and his saving acts is the beginning and end of salvation. To build up rules as a bar to a full relationship with God is what our Lord often preached against.
Our Lord Jesus Christ said this to Peter, Matt 16: 19-20 “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

And He also said this to the twelve apostles, John 16:12 “I still have many things to say to you abut they would be too much for you now. But when the Spirit of Truth comes He will lead you to the complete Truth.”

And He said it again to the twelve in John 14:25 to the apostles, “These things I have spoken to you, while I am still with you. But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.”
 
The teachings are good because they are from God and He wants what is good for us. He knows that when we follow His teachings we will have peace and joy. Dissenting will only cause us grief. Sin harms the sinner the most.

When we follow Him we will grow closer to our Lord Jesus.
 
Women were never Priests in the early history of the Church. I don’t know where you get your information from, but it’s wrong.
That’s a debatable point. There were absolutely deaconesses in the early church, and some historians believe that some of these deaconesses were more than that. If women were not priests, or were not at least pushing those boundries, why else would the Council of Laodicea have to issue a Canon banning it?

Then there’s Rom 16:1-2, which though it doesn’t specifically say Phoebe was a Priest, it talks about her in a manner that could very well mean she was.

So you are right, there is no concrete evidence that women were priests early in our history, there’s nothing outright saying they weren’t either.
 
So you are right, there is no concrete evidence that women were priests early in our history, there’s nothing outright saying they weren’t either.
It would seem that there were always people who preferred to do things their own way.

Galatians 1:6-7 “I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and turning to a different gospel – 7 not that there is another gospel, but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ.”

biblestudytools.com/history/early-church-fathers/post-nicene/vol-14-seven-ecumenical-councils/11-appendix/epistle-same-athanasius-taken-from-xxxix-festal-epistle.html

“As the heretics are quoting apocryphal writings, an evil which was rife even as early as when St. Luke wrote his gospel, therefore I have thought good to set forth clearly what books have been received by us through tradition as belonging to the Canon, and which we believe to be divine.”

There may have been women who thought they could act as priests, as there are today, but that does not make them correct, in their thinking or their actions.

🙂
 
Wow, I’ve read some very narrow minded, and in some cases almost insulting points of view in favor of men only priesthood. A few points on this I’d like to throw out.
  1. Historically in the early days of the Church women were priests as were married men (St Peter for all you theologians who like to go straight to scripture for everything). Women were quickly dismissed from the priesthood because of the culture of the day. Women were second class citizens, and if this new Church was ever to gain respect and status among the people, they simply couldn’t allow women to continue being leaders of their churches.
  2. Read the Gospels some time, not for the word by word content, not for the “exact” quotes from Jesus, but read them as a story. Like you’d read Moby Dick. What is a reoccurring theme though the Gospels? Jesus treats women as equals. Women (Mary his Mother, Mary Magdalene, the women on the way to Calgary, the woman at the well, etc) are always interacting with Jesus, to the point his Apostles are almost offended by his equal treatment of them. And getting back to point 1, given the male dominance of the society, it’s probably safe to say women were ultimately downplayed in the final drafts of the Gospels. So if Jesus treated women as equals, why are people so opposed to it now. Hell, I had to fill in Altar Serving one time 15-20ish years ago because the Archbishop was coming to our church and girls were not allowed to Serve and there was a girl server scheduled. That’s equality? Was that 1990 or 1690?
  3. “Women have NEVER been allowed to be priests!” Yes (well maybe…) but 50 or so years ago women were never the leader of a country. Women were never professional basketball players. Women were never lawyers, or CEOs or butchers, etc. Times change, and for the first time in modern human history women are considered full equals to men. Well, most everywhere, except in the Catholic Church where it feels we’re clinging to "they’ve never been, the Pope said, and but the Apostles were all men.
  4. The Pope said! Yes, and in 2000 the Pope finally admitted the Papacy was wrong about calling Galileo a heretic for saying the Earth went around the Sun. Apparently the Pope isn’t spot on right about everything.
  5. and the Apostles were all men! Well, we’re fairly sure. There is that whole Disciple whom Jesus loves = Mary Madeline thing, that could be a bunch of ****, or could be right. Till we get a time machine, we’ll never really know for sure.
Just some of my thoughts on this issue. Feel free to excommunicate me below!
Just one question, why are you Catholic?
 
Wow, I’ve read some very narrow minded, and in some cases almost insulting points of view in favor of men only priesthood. A few points on this I’d like to throw out.
  1. Historically in the early days of the Church women were priests as were married men (St Peter for all you theologians who like to go straight to scripture for everything). Women were quickly dismissed from the priesthood because of the culture of the day. Women were second class citizens, and if this new Church was ever to gain respect and status among the people, they simply couldn’t allow women to continue being leaders of their churches.
  2. Read the Gospels some time, not for the word by word content, not for the “exact” quotes from Jesus, but read them as a story. Like you’d read Moby Dick. What is a reoccurring theme though the Gospels? Jesus treats women as equals. Women (Mary his Mother, Mary Magdalene, the women on the way to Calgary, the woman at the well, etc) are always interacting with Jesus, to the point his Apostles are almost offended by his equal treatment of them. And getting back to point 1, given the male dominance of the society, it’s probably safe to say women were ultimately downplayed in the final drafts of the Gospels. So if Jesus treated women as equals, why are people so opposed to it now. Hell, I had to fill in Altar Serving one time 15-20ish years ago because the Archbishop was coming to our church and girls were not allowed to Serve and there was a girl server scheduled. That’s equality? Was that 1990 or 1690?
  3. “Women have NEVER been allowed to be priests!” Yes (well maybe…) but 50 or so years ago women were never the leader of a country. Women were never professional basketball players. Women were never lawyers, or CEOs or butchers, etc. Times change, and for the first time in modern human history women are considered full equals to men. Well, most everywhere, except in the Catholic Church where it feels we’re clinging to "they’ve never been, the Pope said, and but the Apostles were all men.
  4. The Pope said! Yes, and in 2000 the Pope finally admitted the Papacy was wrong about calling Galileo a heretic for saying the Earth went around the Sun. Apparently the Pope isn’t spot on right about everything.
  5. and the Apostles were all men! Well, we’re fairly sure. There is that whole Disciple whom Jesus loves = Mary Madeline thing, that could be a bunch of ****, or could be right. Till we get a time machine, we’ll never really know for sure.
Just some of my thoughts on this issue. Feel free to excommunicate me below!
Really? where did you see this? St Paul says that women is to wear headcovers and be silent in Church. If she has a question, she must ask the husband at home. HUmmmmmm
 
Really? where did you see this? St Paul says that women is to wear headcovers and be silent in Church. If she has a question, she must ask the husband at home. HUmmmmmm
“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, and there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” Gal 3:25

This writing by St. Paul is all the more remarkable given the subordinated role/status of women in Greco-Roman society of the time.

The statements in the letter to Timothy about head covering were probably not written by St. Paul. The majority of scripture scholars doubt that Paul was the direct author of the two letters to Timothy and the letter to Titus.

BTW, if church practices mentioned in the NT are forever immutable, why doesn’t the church insist on head coverings and silence for woman? St. Peter was unmistakably married after he answered Christ’s call to discipleship. Another trivial example of shift in religious practice: Why is it we are now allowed to eat the meat of “strangled animals” which for some reason was mentioned as an enduring requirement of Judaism? (Act 15:20)
 
“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, and there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” Gal 3:25

This writing by St. Paul is all the more remarkable given the subordinated role/status of women in Greco-Roman society of the time.

The statements in the letter to Timothy about head covering were probably not written by St. Paul. The majority of scripture scholars doubt that Paul was the direct author of the two letters to Timothy and the letter to Titus.

BTW, if church practices mentioned in the NT are forever immutable, why doesn’t the church insist on head coverings and silence for woman? St. Peter was unmistakably married after he answered Christ’s call to discipleship. Another trivial example of shift in religious practice: Why is it we are now allowed to eat the meat of “strangled animals” which for some reason was mentioned as an enduring requirement of Judaism? (Act 15:20)
I would recommend to read this link. After Jason Evert explains the historical proof that there never have been female Priests or deaconesses, I would recommend paying close attention to the quote by Pope John Paul II at the very end:

In 1994, Pope John Paul II declared, “Although the teaching that priestly ordination is to be reserved to men alone has been preserved by the constant and universal Tradition of the Church and firmly taught by the Magisterium in its more recent documents, at the present time in some places it is nonetheless considered still open to debate, or the Church’s judgment that women are not to be admitted to ordination is considered to have a merely disciplinary force. Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Luke 22:32), I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful” (Ordinatio Sacerdotalis 4).

Notice how it says “definitely held by all the Church’s faithful”? In laymen’s terms, this would mean that every Catholic is to hold this position, no matter what.
 
St. Peter was unmistakably married after he answered Christ’s call to discipleship.
Source?

While it is clear from the gospels that St. Peter was married before he answered Christ’s call, There is no clear evidence that she was alive while he was a disciple.
Another trivial example of shift in religious practice: Why is it we are now allowed to eat the meat of “strangled animals” which for some reason was mentioned as an enduring requirement of Judaism? (Act 15:20)
ECUMENICAL COUNCIL OF FLORENCE

Session 11—4 February 1442
It firmly believes, professes and teaches that every creature of God is good and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, because according to the word of the Lord not what goes into the mouth defiles a person, and because the difference in the Mosaic law between clean and unclean foods belongs to ceremonial practices, which have passed away and lost their efficacy with the coming of the gospel. It also declares that the apostolic prohibition, to abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled, was suited to that time when a single church was rising from Jews and gentiles, who previously lived with different ceremonies and customs. This was so that the gentiles should have some observances in common with Jews, and occasion would be offered of coming together in one worship and faith of God and a cause of dissension might be removed, since by ancient custom blood and strangled things seemed abominable to Jews, and gentiles could be thought to be returning to idolatry if they ate sacrificial food. In places, however, where the Christian religion has been promulgated to such an extent that no Jew is to be met with and all have joined the church, uniformly practising the same rites and ceremonies of the gospel and believing that to the clean all things are clean, since the cause of that apostolic prohibition has ceased, so its effect has ceased. It condemns, then, no kind of food that human society accepts and nobody at all neither man nor woman, should make a distinction between animals, no matter how they died; although for the health of the body, for the practice of virtue or for the sake of regular and ecclesiastical discipline many things that are not proscribed can and should be omitted, as the apostle says all things are lawful, but not all are helpful.
🙂
 
“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, and there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” Gal 3:25

This writing by St. Paul is all the more remarkable given the subordinated role/status of women in Greco-Roman society of the time.

The statements in the letter to Timothy about head covering were probably not written by St. Paul. The majority of scripture scholars doubt that Paul was the direct author of the two letters to Timothy and the letter to Titus.

BTW, if church practices mentioned in the NT are forever immutable, why doesn’t the church insist on head coverings and silence for woman? St. Peter was unmistakably married after he answered Christ’s call to discipleship. Another trivial example of shift in religious practice: Why is it we are now allowed to eat the meat of “strangled animals” which for some reason was mentioned as an enduring requirement of Judaism? (Act 15:20)
I see. the Scriptures that you think agrees with what you want, you deemed to be true and written by St Paul but the other doesnt. Hummm… that is what got those outside the Church where they are today.

St Peter may have been married, but nowhere we hear anything about his wife. the reason the Church is being tolerant is because the rebellious people in her. but make no mistake, what God said in the past it is still valid today, and each of us will give account for even every word that comes out of our mouth. When the question of divorce came to Jesus, He said, Moses conceded divorce because the hard hearts of the people, He went on to say that it was not God’s Will. He also said what God has joined let no men separate. So, here is Jesus reaffirming the teachings of God.

And remember this also. I am not holy than thou, but I will tell you this, the Jews had a chance to repent but we do not. When Jesus comes back, He will come as a Judge where repentance will no longer apply.
 
Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Luke 22:32), I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful" (Ordinatio Sacerdotalis 4).
No authority?

It seems to me that the very authority of “binding and loosing” that the Church claims gives it all the authority it needs to ordain women.
 
I would recommend to read this link. After Jason Evert explains the historical proof that there never have been female Priests or deaconesses, I would recommend paying close attention to the quote by Pope John Paul II at the very end:

In 1994, Pope John Paul II declared, “Although the teaching that priestly ordination is to be reserved to men alone has been preserved by the constant and universal Tradition of the Church and firmly taught by the Magisterium in its more recent documents, at the present time in some places it is nonetheless considered still open to debate, or the Church’s judgment that women are not to be admitted to ordination is considered to have a merely disciplinary force. Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Luke 22:32), I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful” (Ordinatio Sacerdotalis 4).

Notice how it says “definitely held by all the Church’s faithful”? In laymen’s terms, this would mean that every Catholic is to hold this position, no matter what.
Well, 1, Evert’s article blatently says there were deaconesses. And 2, a quick google search and I found Cannon 14 from the Council in Trullo which states:
“Let the canon of our holy God-bearing Fathers be confirmed in this particular also; that a presbyter be not ordained before he is thirty years of age, even if he be a very worthy man, but let him be kept back. For our Lord Jesus Christ was baptized and began to teach when he was thirty. In like manner let no deacon be ordained before he is twenty-five, nor a deaconess before she is forty.” So yes, there were Deaconesses, Deaconess does not equal priest, but they did exist.

To your JP2 comment, how many times in our Church’s history has one Pope changed views from another Pope who gave the same “must be held by all Catholics” line? Does the sun revolve around the Earth? Is there no such thing as evolution? Should women cover their faces in Church?

My priest once told me the biggest problem with Catholics is they can’t distinguish between the true Faith of the Church (in God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, and the Eucharist) and the rules that someone came up with centuries ago. On this topic of women priests. No where does Jesus make anyone a “priest.” No where does Jesus ban women from being priests. People read into the stories that “the Apostles were all men, so that means Jesus only wants men to be priests!” Well, when the Holy Spirit came to those Apostles on Pentecost, were they alone, or were there women with them? When Jesus died on the cross who was at his feet? When he rose from the dead who did he appear to first? When I read the Gospels, I see a Christ that is welcoming of women and treats women as his equal. Then I come to a board like this and see his present day followers belittling women as the Jews, and the rest of society did, in Christ’s time. It really saddens me.
 
I see. the Scriptures that you think agrees with what you want, you deemed to be true and written by St Paul but the other doesnt. Hummm… that is what got those outside the Church where they are today.

St Peter may have been married, but nowhere we hear anything about his wife. the reason the Church is being tolerant is because the rebellious people in her. but make no mistake, what God said in the past it is still valid today, and each of us will give account for even every word that comes out of our mouth. When the question of divorce came to Jesus, He said, Moses conceded divorce because the hard hearts of the people, He went on to say that it was not God’s Will. He also said what God has joined let no men separate. So, here is Jesus reaffirming the teachings of God.

And remember this also. I am not holy than thou, but I will tell you this, the Jews had a chance to repent but we do not. When Jesus comes back, He will come as a Judge where repentance will no longer apply.
“In modern times, scholars have become divided over the issue of authenticity, with many suggesting that First Timothy, along with Second Timothy and Titus, are not original to Paul, but rather an unknown Christian writing some time in the late-first-to-mid-2nd century.”

And that last paragraph? Is that a: “think what you will now, when you’re burning in hell, it won’t be my fault!” line? Really? People still go with that? Did you ever pass the thought that, what happens if humans, in the name of the Church, have twisted Jesus’ message wrong (see the Sun going round the Earth) and it turns out some of your solid views are actually wrong? Isn’t it better to keep an open mind to these things and let Jesus and the Gospels themselves teach you about what to believe?
 
“In modern times, scholars have become divided over the issue of authenticity, with many suggesting that First Timothy, along with Second Timothy and Titus, are not original to Paul, but rather an unknown Christian writing some time in the late-first-to-mid-2nd century.”

And that last paragraph? Is that a: “think what you will now, when you’re burning in hell, it won’t be my fault!” line? Really? People still go with that? Did you ever pass the thought that, what happens if humans, in the name of the Church, have twisted Jesus’ message wrong (see the Sun going round the Earth) and it turns out some of your solid views are actually wrong? Isn’t it better to keep an open mind to these things and let Jesus and the Gospels themselves teach you about what to believe?
I am quite aware of modernism, relativism, and so forth. The Church has fought heresies before and she is still here.

Here is what I have to say to you.

“But if serving the Lord seems undesirable to you, then chose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the God, your ancestors served beyond the Euphrates or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you are living. But as for me and my household, we will serve the Lord.” Joshua
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top