Isaiah Chapter 56 was brought up, why it is deemed relevant I cannot grasp. Unless one is trying to present it as a "demand" upon the New Testament Covenant, which it clearly is not. Isaiah 56:6-8, "Thus says the Lord; "Keep justice, and do righteousness, for My salvation is about to come, and My righteousness to be revealed. Blessed is the man who does this, and the son of man who lays hold on it; who keeps from defiling the Sabbath, and keeps his hand from doing any evil." Do not let the SON OF THE FOREIGNER WHO HAS JOINED HIMSELF TO THE LORD (In the Old Covenant) speak, saying, "The LORD has utterly separated me from His people"; nor let the eunuch say, "Here I am, a dry tree." For thus says the LORD: "To the eunuchs who keep MY Sabbaths( plural), and CHOOSE what pleases Me, and hold fast My covenant (OLD), even to them will I give in My house and within My walls a place and a name better than that of sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name that shall not be cut off. Also THE SONS OF THE FOREIGNER WHO JOIN THEMSELVES TO THE LORD, TO SERVE HIM, AND TO LOVE THE NAME OF THE LORD, TO BE HIS SERVANTS (in the Hebrew faith)--everyone who keeps from defiling the Sabbath, and holds fast My Covenant (OLD)--even them I will bring to My holy mountain, and make them joyful in My house of prayer. THEIR BURNT OFFERINGS AND THEIR SACRIFICES WILL BE ACCEPTED ON MY ALTER; for My house shall be called a house of prayer for all nations." The Lord GOD, who gathers the outcasts of Israel says, "Yet I will gather to him others besides those who are gathered to him."

If anyone is drawing upon these passages to conclude that the Saturday or Sabbath observed under the Old Law is to be carried over into the New Testament, I wonder why they also do not conclude that BURNT OFFERINGS and BLOOD SACRIFICES be observed as this passages of scriptures also suggests? The truth of these passages are as follows>>>>

The covenant brought to Israel by Moses allowed people from other nations to enter into the covenant. For instance it is mentioned, "And in every province and city, wherever the kings's commands and decree came, the Jews had joy and gladness, a feast and a holiday. Then MANY OF THE PEOPLE OF THE LAND BECAME JEWS, because fear of the Jews fell upon them (Esther 8:17). These are people who are called proselytes in the New Testament. They had partial rights under the law. For instance, they were not allowed to serve in the tabernacle or temple. Levites "shall be joined with you and attend to the needs of the tabernacle of meeting, for all the work of the tabernacle; but an outsider shall not come near you" (Numbers 18:4). They could keep the Passover, but only if they followed the same rules as the Israelites. "And if a stranger dwells among you, and would keep the LORD's Passover, he must do so according to the rite of the Passover, he must do so according to its ceremony; you shall have one ordinance, both for the stranger and the native of the land" (Numbers 9:14). That meant that the foreign born had to enter into the covenant first. "And when a stranger dwells with you and wants to keep the Passover to the Lord, let all his males be circumcised, (again is this practice carried over in the NT?) and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as a native of the land. For no uncircumcised person shall eat it. One law be for the native-born and for the stranger who dwells among you" (Exodus 12:48-49).

This passage does not prove that God wanted all people to observe the Sabbath. Nor does it prove that the Sabbath was and ordinance carried over into the NEW TESTAMENT COVENANT OF CHRIST. Ralph

I said read Isaiah 33:1.56 .

And just where is Isaiah 33: 1 point 56 to be found in the scriptures? Do you mean 1:5-6, or as I misunderstood, Isaiah 33:1 and 56, just where is this 56 to be located in Isaiah, its certainly not in the 33rd chapter, as 33 has only 24 verses? Of course, I am using the KJ version. Ralph

Jesus never bestowed apostolic titles on any gentiles either, but that hasn't stopped the church from ordaining them. The church has gone out of it's way to supress women, on more than one occasion or crusade. I wonder what the fear is? That maybe it wasn't a man that was given the keys to Christ's ministry, and that maybe their version of the scripture isn't the correct one? What else is one to think?

Um, you have heard of the Inquistition right? You do know history, right? I've got your victim right here.

I could luxuriate in your victimhood for a while though!

You will find no ordained women in the church that Jesus constructed in the first century, you may find some that worship in the "custom of men" in a "denominational" offshoot of the true Christian faith, that certainly do not draw their authority from the scriptures in such instance. And, there certainly is not "versions" of the truth. Someone can have any "opinion" they wish, but they are entitled only to ONE TRUTH, as truth does not come in degrees, it's truth or it's not. Should we practice our faith in a manner to "tickle the ears" of society, or should we strive to find the truth and once having found it mold our lives around it instead of trying to mold the truth to fit our choices? Perhaps God indeed gave mankind the gift of woman to be a companion and a helpful lover that we are commanded to consider as we would ourself, but just as woman was created from the flesh of man, man was created in God's image to serve Him, God does not serve man. It is our soul duty of this life to seek out God and serve Him, period. (Acts 17:24-28, Ecclesiastes 12:13). And we are commanded to do such in both, TRUTH and SPIRIT--John 4:21-24. And just where do ones find this truth? In the WORD. (John 17:17) And I would like someone to point out just how ANYONE could be ordained an apostle, considering the qualifier for such was by "direct" appointment of Christ Jesus, either in person or by proxy of the Holy Spirit, consider the scriptural qualifiers for such---They must have personally borne witness to the ministry of Christ-- l John 1:1-3, Acts 1:21-22. They were not "appointed" by men but Christ Himself made the appointment--Acts 1:8. They were part of the foundation to the church--Eph. 2:19-20. The authority that they held was not their own or from men, but the Lords authority delegated to them--- ll Peter 3:1-2. There is no "well" in which to draw upon to be "ordained" and Apostle of Christ. Thus, what we have are people that "pretend" to be Apostles, false apostles. Ralph

Gary, yes, Isabella was a woman. A Catholic queen with a Catholic king husband. But that Spanish inquisition was not the only time the Roman Church cleansed the countryside from "heresy".

And Ralph, you can qoute the Bible to me til the end of time, but I don't recognize the Roman Church as the true church. Peter even had a problem with it. He and most everyone else at the time knew that it was James the Just who was the true heir to the title of the first Bishop, as he was the leader of the true first church, the Church Of Jerusalem. And so while I might be willilng to accept the fact that there were no women running the church, and that the culture of that time did not allow for women to be "leaders", it isn't your reasoning that sways me. Your version of Christianity, if you are a Catholic or of a denomination that came after the Protestant reformation, is based on the man who never knew the one called Jesus. Paul, or the Spouter of Lies as he was referred to by the Essene community and James the Just, is the constructor of the manufactured version of Christianity. Jesus was not the messiah to the world, he was a strict conservative Jew, who wanted to radically change the plight of his community, under Roman occupation and corrupt religious leadership.