Replies

Not to be fecetious; but, can you read and think for yourself? Go sit down and read it in context and break it down. Hmm lets see, How can one be guilty for two accidents although he was only involved in one wreck. In the one instance he cause the accident, in the other he was also a party to it when he caused it. It isn't tough, one just has to apply themselves and seek God when it isn't this apparent.

I'll take your word for it that you aren't trying to be insulting. But you aren't making sense either. Can you state your position here briefly and in english?

You have tried to identify the RCC as the whore of babylon using soley Rev 17:6. I have no doubt that you think you see things in other verses that you haven't brought up yet, but let us confine ourselves to the one that merely needs to be read in context and broken down.

You are distinguihing the RCC from other entities on the basis of 17:6, saying that it is fulfilled uniquely by the RCC, but you seem to make two distinct arguments:

The first (which is reiterated in this latest post) is the distinction that in one case they are "guilty of the blood" and in the other case (3384 "Being guilty of their martyr") they are guily of martyr (treating martyr as a verb though it is clearly a noun in the verse). But the verse makes no such distinction. The whore is drunken with the blood of the saints and the blood of the martyrs. So any distinction which tries to seperate when one is "guilty of the blood" and when one isn't is not exactly "on point". I searched ten translations and none of them failed to state it that way except the "Living Bible" (if you want to use that one you can just go read by yourself in the corner - I'm not playing) :)

Your second distinction seems to be between "saint" and "Martyr" as you were asked a couple times. You clearly posted that all the other countries were guilty of the blood of martyrs (but not of saints). The entire argument seems to break down to claiming that it is clear in the text that killing a saint is different than killing a martyr ("witness" in the Greek). And this distinction seems to revolve soley around whether a political entity did the killing personally or ordered some other political entity to do it for them? Remember that the word "mrtyr" here is being used as a noun... the people killed are martyrs. You can't distinguish whether they are a martyr or not based on who did the killing and whether it was personal or by order of another, their death is a "witness" to Christ regardless of who killed them. Your attachment as verb to the whore is just plain wrong, it is a noun describing the person killed. Whether I agree with the distiction or not, all of the states listed both killed christians and had others kill christians so the argument seems moot, but I'd love a clarification.

And please follow the point through to the end. Please let me know why there are no longer any saints being killed (assuming the RCC is not still at it of course). Since no country (including the anti-Christian Muslim countries) is currrently guilty of the blood of saints by your definition.

By the way. I searched through a pile of sites claiming that the RCC was the whore of Babylon. I couldn't find one that made any distinction similar to what you ahve been saying. A couple did identify 17:6 as speaking of Rome, but none of them said that it was unique to Rome. That "no other kingdom fit "Now name me any empire since Christ that both Put Christians to death and because of the way that empire was structured, also ordered other authorities under their jurisdiction to do the same. There are none but that of the Holy Roman Empire which was headed by the Roman Catholic Church."

Can you give me a link to someone else with your special interpretive twist? Maybe they made the (wrong) argument better than you did.

The first (which is reiterated in this latest post) is the distinction that in one case they are "guilty of the blood" and in the other case (3384 "Being guilty of their martyr") they are guily of martyr (treating martyr as a verb though it is clearly a noun in the verse). But the verse makes no such distinction. The whore is drunken with the blood of the saints and the blood of the martyrs. So any distinction which tries to seperate when one is "guilty of the blood" and when one isn't is not exactly "on point". I searched ten translations and none of them failed to state it that way except the "Living Bible" (if you want to use that one you can just go read by yourself in the corner - I'm not playing) :)

I didn't say that in any case one was not guilty of the blood. I'm saying one can and is guilty of the blood though they didn't actually martyr but had someone else do it. If one had done all the martyring themselves, the verse could be more simply stated as that she was merely guilty of the blood of martyrs.

You are purposedly IMO taking the one thing which I have made no distinction on and are treating it as though I have - just like Dave.