₦airaland Forum

Boomark: CERTAINLY no one told you to pray to Angels. If you are doing that you are wrong.

I know human ministers (messengers) are called Angels according to revelations. Also Jesus and John the Baptist were called Angels, malachi 3:1.

Rom 8:26-27 is just to show you who the perfect spirit intercessor is. Not Mary, Judas or any other spirit being. You don't pray to them because they have nothing to add or remove to your prayers. Besides, praying to them is very wrong because God gave no such commandment.

It is only the Holy spirit that brings our prayers to an acceptable standard to God.

I asked a simple question and you are going round and round as if to reassure your self. I want to remain focused on the issue and not to start asking you in which language Angels and Messengers mean same thing.I do not know in which language translation your bible is written, that's why I keep talking of 2pet3:16.

Now we are on the Holy spirit as the Intercessor and no longer Jesus right?

Boomark: The warning in 2Peter3:16 is not for people that are willing to learn and change or probably someone who has not see where it is written before.

It is for those who still want to remain in delusion even after been shown the truth either because of their Pope, father or pastor. It is for those who twist to protect their church even after watching the video evidence of idolatry i posted.

This is just to clear the ground on matters of who the saints are before the main thing...our relationship with them. What we should or should not do to them.

Oh you learned something new,probably something you never saw where it was written before...but has now seen. It means the Holy spirit led you to me like the Ethiopian eunuch to Philip right? Why not show some humility and learn more, I simply pointed out how so sure you were about an earlier position; until I showed you how wrong you are.

Ihedinobi: Seriously! What is it with you guys? Is this not what you said:

This is what i said:

Syncan: The (Catholic) church is that universal body of faithful, established by Jesus Christ,under the leadership of Peter.

and you said:

Ihedinobi: Ok. You define "the Church" as a body of believers.

Ignoring the Peter part.

Then I brought it to your attention thus:

Syncan: ...it then means that the interpretation given by this body of believers and given a voice by the visible Peter must be the one to be adhered to.

But no, you had to put it thus:

Ihedinobi: Ok. So it isn't the Church as a body of the faithful that teaches and interprets, it is actually Peter and his successors...

I hope you see the differences now.

How does any of that differ from what I said in the following quote that you said?

I hope you see the differences now.


Where and how did I "twist" your submission? If you meant to include the elders with Peter, you, not I, failed to represent your position correctly. I'm not even trying to examine the truth of your claim. I'm just seeking clarification on what you term "the Church" or "the Catholic Church". These spurious claims that you and italo are making against me are annoying. You are not obliged to answer my questions so don't feel pressed to accuse me falsely if you would rather not answer my questions.

I never intend to accuse you falsely. It may not be deliberate I agree, but you could see that what I said wasn't what you inferred in yours at both times as shown.



I didn't miss what was written, bro, but if you think that I did, you could show me why you think that I did. I read the two verses and saw how easy it is to conclude from them that Paul thought he needed the ratification of those in Jerusalem (notably, not Peter alone even at that). But you go on and finish the chapter and that conclusion vanishes like so much mist in the face of the sunrise.

And I don't see how Acts 15 helps to uphold the conclusion you hold.

However all of that is not a development I meant to pursue. I only wanted to know what you mean each time you say "the people of God look to the Church for accurate teaching and interpretation of the Scriptures". And I understand the use of "the Church" in that context now to mean any council under the supervision of Peter or these successors you refer to. Am I correct?

Edited.[/quote]

debosky: Peter was human no doubt, however - this is my belief, supported by the Catholic Church:

The New Testament contains no explicit record of a transmission of Peter’s leadership; nor is the transmission of apostolic authority in general very clear.

"Yet it is possible to think that a primacy of the bishop of Rome is not contrary to the New Testament and is part of God's purpose regarding the Church's unity and catholicity," quoting from same source.

By the fact of this, I am reluctant to simply accept your assertion that 'the office' had successors till today, nor place any undue emphasis on this role, based on the following:

Responsibility for pastoral leadership was not restricted to Peter.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/angl-comm-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_1981_authority-church-ii_en.html

why not complete the quote thus: The New Testament contains no explicit record of a transmission of Peter's leadership; nor is the transmission of apostolic authority in general very clear. Furthermore, the Petrine texts were subjected to differing interpretations as early as the time of the Church Fathers. Yet the church at Rome, the city in which Peter and Paul taught and were martyred, came to be recognized as possessing a unique responsibility among the churches: its bishop was seen to perform a special service in relation to the unity of the churches, and in relation to fidelity to the apostolic inheritance, thus exercising among his fellow bishops functions analogous to those ascribed to Peter, whose successor the bishop of Rome was claimed to be (cf. para. 12).


However while you quote this document, note that this is only a communique from a commission set to proffer means of a closer communion between Catholics and Anglicans. This is not an official church stand, and may include compromises in historical accounts or post Biblical era accounts for the purpose of fellowship. Eg, documents brought as evidence by one party could be rejected by the other party, which may lead to arriving at a compromise that still leaves room for either party to still be right.

debosky: In response to a revelation yes - the revelation's details were not revealed.


I read this - what are you implying it means? Let's even back track - Paul started teaching immediately he received his divine instructions - he consulted NO MAN. See Galatians 1.

Oh yeah, then after fourteen years, he went back to present what he had been preaching for criticism... lest he runs in vain. Did you miss that?

What do you mean by this?

This is what Paul said in Galatians 1:12 I received my message from no human source, and no one taught me. Instead, I received it by direct revelation from Jesus Christ

Yes exactly, then in the next verse he tells you that he as well proceeded to get confirmation of what he preaches and nothing was added. He is simply showing you that the what he teaches took source from Christ himself and has been ratified by the Church on earth under the leadership of Peter.


Agreed - so then, Paul didn't need contact with them in order to for his teaching to be the correct teachings - do you agree?[/quote]Yes - no one has a problem with that, You could see that his teaching was in line,and Peter and Co could not add to it, for came from the same source which they know, for Ananias had earlier been sent to him. What will rather be ridiculous is when one is teaching something entirely different and still claim it is from the Holy Spirit using Paul as an example.

debosky: This 'visible' successor is a human creation and not evidenced in the scripture. As for being 'made official' by Peter's voice, were James' teaching for example made official' before they were used?

I guess Peter was not human to you? More so, his office as head of the apostles/elders was disbanded after his death right? That office has had successors till today, may be you can give me another word for it. James and peter learned from one source Jesus, James did not preach contrary to Peter, If he had a contrary view in Acts 15, he submitted his opinion to Peter's declaration at the end of their deliberations.

He went back to Jerusalem to fellowship with other believers - he didn't go to seek Peter's approval or stamp of authority. He went in response to a revelation he received, and not because he was compelled to because of their authority!

Secondly, this is what Paul said: they added nothing to my message. Please re-read that. Thirdly, Paul had been teaching for 14 years had he not? Was his teaching not accepted for all that period? On what basis was it accepted? Because he spoke by the leading of the Holy Spirit. He did not rely on any 'church' to interpret before he could teach.

Bro, He went in response of a revelation...what was it? Did you by any means read this in vs 2 "...and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles...lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain".

Yes they added nothing because they found his message in conformity with the correct teachings which is Christ came to die for us. Why should they add when there is no need, they simply reaffirmed it. Was Paul not taught Christ crucified? That was what he preached to the gentiles.

Ihedinobi: Ok. So it isn't the Church as a body of the faithful that teaches and interprets, it is actually Peter and his successors who teach all believers and interpret the Word to them. And you say they do that on the strength of the fact that Jesus made Peter the Shepherd of His flock. While I do find that curious, I guess I've got a clearer idea what you mean when you say "the Church".

Do not be crafty in twisting my submission. Peter and the elders who are in union with him (and their successors)teach and interprets scripture. Each of them may have individual opinions especially in the beginning stages of the church ,but when it becomes noticed, there comes a need to give an official stand for the edification of the universal church.

Edit: I read that bit of Scripture and I'm afraid that in the light of Galatians 2:6-10 and vv11-21, your conclusion that Paul went up to Jerusalem to confirm his Gospel lacks legs to stand on.

Not at all, how come you fail to comprehend the beauty of vs 9 and it seemed you missed the phrase "when Peter came to Antioch..." in vs 11.Well the conclusion of that discuss is seen in Acts 15.

Ihedinobi: Ok. You define "the Church" as a body of believers. It is this body of the faithful that you say can guide believers aright in interpreting the Scriptures, right? Can we say then that this essentially means that it is believers who guide themselves aright in interpreting the Scriptures?

Do not Ignore the "Leader" factor. The Holy Spirit, being the driver in the issue of interpretation,will always have one true interpretation. Since Christ made Peter the Shepherd of his flock, it then means that the interpretation given by this body of believers and given a voice by the visible Peter must be the one to be adhered to. Any body of believers, whose interpretation does not fall in line with that; which is made official by "Peter's voice", is not to be trusted by the flock.Neither will it be safe to trust the interpretation of a body of believers who are already separated from that Peter or his visible successor . Even Paul as I've earlier mentioned, had to go back to Jerusalem after fourteen years, to be re-assured of his preaching the correct thing. He did not take things lightly, even though he knew the holy spirit was with him. Read (Gal 2:1-2).

Ihedinobi: Nna, I don't know what you're saying o. I just asked you to explain what "the Catholic Church" is so that I can underatand what you have been saying. I didn't ask you to explain how the Catholic Church does anything. Do you have an answer to what "the Catholic Church" is?

The (Catholic) church is that universal body of faithful, established by Jesus Christ,under the leadership of Peter. see...
(Matt 16:18). She can be recognized today by these signs:

1. She is One: United in one belief, under one Visible leader."just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of us all" (Eph. 4:4-5), also "there would be one flock, one shepherd" (John 10:16). To peter he said "feed my sheep, feed my lamb" Jn21:17

2. She is Holy: Made visible by her ability to bring sinners to holiness. "Christ loved the Church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, that he might present the Church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish" (Eph. 5:25-27).

3. She is catholic: Universal, preaching same gospel all over the world for every race "the word of truth . . . in the whole world . . . is bearing fruit and growing" (Col. 1:5-6).

4. She is Apostolic: can be traced to have issued from the apostles. Christ commissioned the Apostles "Did I not choose you, the twelve?"(John 6:70). The apostles commissioned Bishops these commissioned others "that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee"Titus 1:5-9) Note please: "One does not take the honor upon himself" (Heb. 5:4).

If you see these marks, there is the Catholic Church Italo speaks about.

Zikkyy: there's no bullet-proof approach to interpreting the scriptures. they all have advantages and disadvantages. The idea of a council is not bad if the congregation is carried along. The council work even better in this age where people don't even want to interpret the scriptures for themselves. so they swallow the both the drug and poison provided by the church leaders. italo's position is that the council must be that of the RCC. and my position is that council's interpretation is acceptable if it aligns with my understanding of the scriptures, afterall council members are also bringing in their private interpretation on the matter under review.

I'll answer you with a quote from Debosky's reference...(some)Non-catholic's view.

The Church exercises teaching authority through various instruments and agencies at various levels (cf. Authority I, paras. 9 and 18-22). When matters of faith are at stake decisions may be made by the Church in universal councils; we are agreed that these are authoritative (cf. Authority I, para. 19). We have also recognized the need in a united Church for a universal primate who, presiding over the koinonia, can speak with authority in the name of the Church (cf. Authority I, para. 23). Through both these agencies the Church can make a decisive judgement in matters of faith, and so exclude error.

Exclusion of error is the target, private interpretation cannot be devoid of error. I realized today that it is true, never means it wasn't true all along...on the bold lettered.

What(some)Non-Catholics believe...culled from Debosky's reference

In the past, Roman Catholic teaching that the bishop of Rome is universal primate by divine right or law has been regarded by Anglicans as unacceptable. However, we believe that the primacy of the bishop of Rome can be affirmed as part of God's design for the universal koinonia in terms which are compatible with both our traditions. Given such a consensus, the language of divine right used by the First Vatican Council need no longer be seen as a matter of disagreement between us.

If it's God's design, it has been so for ages.

Zikkyy: Yeah. same way Rev. King followers believed their pastor was being led by holy spirit you never know till something happen to show otherwise.

You see why it is unsafe to follow one man's interpretation of scripture. Even Paul himself had to go back to Jerusalem to be re-assured that what he was teaching is right. That's why we talk about councils and not one man.

Zikkyy: we are not talking about Christ word here o!

Please remind me what we are talking about.

Enigma: OK

Was that eunuch taught specific "doctrines" like "papal infallibility", "transubstantiation", "universal jurisdiction"?

He never argued with Philip,he believed in his teacher. More so Why do you call them "specific doctrines"? Their being observed litters all through scripture and later... "historical accounts" as put by you.

Zikkyy: It was much easier then, cos the council members were what you would call the 'founding fathers' It's not that easy anymore. Just imagine if you have a council with homos as majority addressing the issue of gay marriage

Please note i do not have the RCC in mind when making the comment above, just an illustration.

That's where we profess belief and yet we have no faith. The apostles were with Jesus, heard him preach that he will rise after the third day, yet they had no faith that it will happen that way. The same scenario is repeating, Why will i look at the "Church" as being solely under human influence?

Zikkyy: The problem is that you believe the false teachers cannot infiltrate the council and take charge.

Yes o, because i believe Christ's word is true..."and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it".

^^^ and of which he led by example in Gal2:1-2, where he went to get a confirmation that he "Paul" was still preaching what is true.

Bidam: A perfect example that comes to mind is the gift of tongues which the Catholics say it has been done away with, NOT only Catholics sha but other denominations frowns at it. What say ye? Is it scriptural or not?

Go carefully through Italo's submissions on this, nothing can be more precise and correct than that.

Zikkyy: I agree with this.

Allowing the church do the interpretation have its advantages though. It allows for order in the system and nobody comes to NL fighting over issues that have to do with interpretation of the scriptures. But we also have to consider the possibility of the church feeding us with false teachings.

The problem lies when we start looking at "the church" as separate from us, as a group of people with hidden agenda. Imagine the sheep distrusting the shepherd and going on it's own. The major church teachings are ratified by councils, and these are a congregation of church leaders from all over the world where the church exists. Believe me, contrary views are heard, research and deliberations made in prayers and a final decision taken at the end. This is a rather more trust worthy means than relying on ones own interpretation.

Zikkyy: I will have to align with italo on the bolded. if it is the holy spirit doing the teaching, how come we have hundreds/thousands of interpretations?

Exactly the point! If Peter and Paul had been allowed to continue with their divergent views on circumcision, Imagine the chaos it would have caused...No one can accuse Peter or Paul of not being led by the holy Spirit, or is there? But they had to seek clarification from the council, and when the council decides, then..."it has pleased us and the Holy Spirit..."see (Acts 15). What could be more certain than the decision of the church.

Boomark: Good work bro. Also in Deut 33:2 and zech 14:5.

The next stage is: Do we pray to the saints(Angels) in heaven? NO!
Reason:
They are ministering spirits and cannot alter, influence or magnify your prayer to God or even pray on your behalf. That is the work of the Holy spirit and not any other spirit being in heaven. Prayer is between man and God and Christ is the sole mediator.

Again you're writing with certainty,Imagine the bold and coloring of the word "No". Let me remind you of how sure you were a while ago and yet you were wrong.Compare what you wrote some time ago as shown below, and the one you wrote later as seen above.

Boomark: EVERYBODY IN HEAVEN IS HOLY, BUT WHO ARE THE ONES REFEREED TO AS THE SAINTS(HOLY ONES)IN THE BIBLE?
....It is now evident who the are. these are people CALLED by Christ. they are not angels in heaven.

Before (2nd quote): Not Angels...Very sure
After(1st quote):Are Angels...Very Sure

Do find out what the adjective "ministering" stands for...to help you, I believe you've heard of ministries in the religious circle, do find out what functions the "ministers" perform to the people.

Romans 8:26-27
New International Version (NIV)

26 In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us through wordless groans. 27 And he who searches our hearts knows the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for God’s people in accordance with the will of God.

I was expecting an answer. Yes or No.

Bro,You need to tell me why you quoted the above.

As per your expectation....I need to know when the subject of your accusation took place, it won't be difficult if you're sure it is true.

Boomark: Good work bro. Also in Deut 33:2 and zech 14:5.

Why do you say good work to me? That is the Church's teaching from ages. All you needed to do was obediently submit to the church teachings;knowing that the church is the "pillar and foundation of truth" (1Tim3:15) and these truths you will learn.You however chose to ignore the warnings of St.Peter in (2Pet3:16) "As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction". Thank God for the title of this thread...Now you've learned, I hope you will enlighten those still in error on this. Praise God!

I want you to take special note of the emboldened.

Bookmark please tidy up your post to me, do not make my post look like yours and make your post look like my quote. I'll respond when it's clear. Thanks

frosbel: It is .

Racism is institutionalized [/b]in some countries [b]though it is not official, but it is a real life experience for countless many.

Same thing with s.exual abuse, hundreds of thousands of girls and boys have been abused by your so called holy fathers and priests , and instead of repenting they cover each others back , which is the sort of thing you find in cults.

How on earth people will go and confess their sins to a p.edophile priest who has yet to repent of his own sins, is a real baffle.

For example p.edophiles get posted to another parish where they carry on with their abuse of unsuspecting victims.

And we have not started talking about elderly priest abusing younger ones, the impregnation of nuns and abortion of babies etc etc.

It is a trend and the whole thing is a stench and filth.

there is nothing Holy about those wicked men.

You are holding unto cobweb, how you expect it to support your weight is what i do not understand...@ the ones in bold. That is what you are using to support the election of unrepentant homosexual Bishop? Frosbel say the truth! When did we start attacking individuals, no one has ever denied the existence of sinners or saintly ones in the Holy Roman Catholic Church. I thought you read scriptures? According to you, Jesus must have been wrong not to expose Judas Iscariot whom he knows was a thief, but allowed to still be in charge of the common purse. Can you give me an explanation for that? Did you know what was going on between them? You read so much soft sell magazine and allow the media propagating modernism against Christianity to deceive you.

frosbel: Don't even get me started , we will just end up opening a can of worms .

For starters , review : This and This

Nothing in the articles with its sensational journalism contradicts my position. You supported the Church that is institutionalizing Sin of some of her members, and vilified the church denouncing the sin of some of her members. Say the truth Frosbel!

Enigma: The Roman Catholic "popes" asked for the kind of inflammatory statement in that chapter of the Westminster Confession (especially from about the late 4th century though the Reformation and to some extent till now) with their claim of "universal jurisdiction" and headship of the Church.

Unfortunately, many present day Roman Catholics are themselves calling for that attitude ---- including very clearly quite a number on this very thread.

I wonder how many people our Lord Jesus told to "Feed my Sheep" and "feed my lamb". I wonder how many people he made such a proclamation as he made in Matt 16 16-19. Nor will you Ignore Acts 1,2,10,11 and 15, where it is shown that the apostles understood that Peter leads. He was their mouthpiece,and whoever professes their faith, abides by the decision of the leaders with Peter as the Head. Peter when making proclamations in Acts 15, represent the decision taken by the council, and gives such decision authority. Thank you for saying "the Roman catholic Popes....about the late 4th century..." My question though is... at that time, what other christian group was in existence? Catholics will not tell the other denominations to take the pope as their head, because, to have the pope as your head, you must be in agreement with his proclamations as representing the mind of the Leaders just like the early Christians took Peter. The shepherd knows his sheep and the sheep know him. Not being proud themselves, these shepherd in line with the teachings of the Good Shepherd, took the title "Servant of the servants of God" as early as Gregory 1 in 6th century, yet some people writing a "Westminister Confession" one thousand years (1000yrs)after is disturbed by conscience to accuse him or claiming to be god.

Enigma: And funny enough there will only be slander on their "pope" according to that Westminster Confession if the "pope" claims to be Head of the Church and therefore pit himself against Christ. (Or if the pope's followers so pit him against Christ)

You know what is more interesting? A former Roman Catholic "pope" said pretty much the same thing in other circumstances.

From the words of Gregory I or Gregory the Great/the Dialogist then as simply Bishop of Rome (or according to Roman Catholics, "Pope" Gregory I).

Exactly my point. Gregory 1 is seen here affirming the humility of past popes and exhorting the future ones to follow same. But The Westminster version, instead of exhorting the Archbishop of Canterbury, decided to delve into another territory. If you cannot see the difference in the two then it's your making.

frosbel: Well they are honestly , though wrongly homosexual , not like the RCC that is packed full of p.edophiles , while the so called Holy Man of god sweeps their gross misdeeds under the carpet.

Now again frosbel, "say the truth always, it shall set you free" this is one thing I have hammered through out your post to you. Now you say again that it is better to institutionalize a sin, rather than be ashamed of it. Please Frosbel, for your sake, say the truth always!

Westminster Confession of Faith :
Chapter XXV
Of the Church

I. The catholic or universal Church, which is invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ the Head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fulness of Him that fills all in all.

II. The visible Church, which is also catholic or universal under the Gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion; and of their children: and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.

III. Unto this catholic visible Church Christ has given the ministry, oracles, and ordinances of God, for the gathering and perfecting of the saints, in this life, to the end of the world: and does, by His own presence and Spirit, according to His promise, make them effectual thereunto.

IV. This catholic Church has been sometimes more, sometimes less visible. And particular Churches, which are members thereof, are more or less pure, according as the doctrine of the Gospel is taught and embraced, ordinances administered, and public worship performed more or less purely in them.

V. The purest Churches under heaven are subject both to mixture and error; and some have so degenerated, as to become no Churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan. Nevertheless, there shall be always a Church on earth to worship God according to His will.[12]

VI. There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ. Nor can the Pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof; but is that Antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalts himself, in the Church, against Christ and all that is called God.

Yeah, coming from a church that came into being due to the hard hardheartedness of an Adulterous king, and that in our times affirms the election of a homosexual bishop...Why am i not surprised at the slander on the Pope. I'll allow anyone who cares to dissect this and trash afterwards.

Boomark: EVERYBODY IN HEAVEN IS HOLY, BUT WHO ARE THE ONES REFEREED TO AS THE SAINTS(HOLY ONES)IN THE BIBLE? I LIKE GIVING EVIDENCE.

1 Cor 1:2
New International Version (©2011)
To the church of God in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus and called to be his holy people, together with all those everywhere who call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ--their Lord and ours

King James 2000 Bible (©2003)
Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours:

Rom 1:7
King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.

It is now evident who the are. these are people CALLED by Christ. they are not angels in heaven.

Did I not tell you earlier that saints/Holy ones is a translation for Greek word Hagios? In all that you quoted above the key word there is "Called to be", why can't you see that as long as you are alive you are only "called to be" saints. Now to the angels, Since you've insisted in exposing yourself, do read Jude vs14 "And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints". Please tell me who these saints are

Did the catholic church engage in the murder of Christians or people in History? simple question.

Please tell me when? I thought I asked this question earlier.

Boomark: Bro please try and be consistent. Are you saying that the woman gave birth at the time of the prophesy from Isaiah and the dragon fought with Micheal and was thrown down at that time? Or rather, when did it happen?

All you've done is leave the substance and chase shadows,You deny the existence of holy men in heaven.I tried to show you that there are holy men in heaven quoting Rev 5:8,you told me they were not in heaven. I quoted Rev 7:9-15,You told me they were things yet to happen therefore the holy men in the passage are not in heaven yet. I took you to Rev 12:7-17 and Is 14:12, trying to show you the similarities in both passages, one was a vision had before Christ's birth, a similar vision was used by Christ in (Lk 10:18) and the other after his resurrection. I concluding it with Rev 1:19 where it is clearly shown that it is a vision of past present and future. But no, you rather decided to interpret a different passage Rev 5, telling me it is not about Jesus and Mary and hence concluding that vs 7 is yet to happen. I'm not yet on Interpretation of whether it is Jesus or Mary in vs 5, but you seem too quick to do that.I simply wonder what makes you believe your private interpretation is correct when 2Pet1:19 says "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation".

Are you saying the roman catholic church were not involved in the murder of Christians in history?
the roman church cannot alter what is written and they did not write the scripture. Please show me the ones written by them. That kings Solomon was with God in the beginning and later departed to worship idol does not mean any one who fear God should follow him in idolatry. Even if it was any of the apostles, you should cut yourself off from the person. the church this, the church that. once they start worshiping idol, exonerate yourself.

It will be pleasing to know when the "Roman Catholic church murdered Christians". To the best of my knowledge, from the end of martyrdom to a period of about 1000yrs, the Christian Church was known as Roman. they worshiped Idol... yet they died for Christ. They worshiped Idol...yet the spread Christianity to the ends of the earth while displaying signs and wonders that will accompany Christ's disciple. They Worshiped Idols... but the books they confirmed as inspired and good to aid their teaching is been worshiped by you. See your statement "the church this, the church that.once they start worshiping Idol..." Why do you under estimate Christ? How could Jerusalem council be wrong and peter or Paul right? Where two or three are gathered in my name.... The gates of hell shall never overcome Christ's church. You think it is easy for Christ's church to be under Satan's grip while still propagating Christianity, and years later comes "You" filled the Holy Spirit, and reading from a book the "idolatrous" said was inspired, "exonerates" himself and becomes the true Christian. I think you have an interesting opinion of yourself. You should study more.

Ubenedictus: the question is how can protestants like calvin be protesting killing when calvin was busy burning his own "heretics".

Thanks. I didn't want to put it that way to him,I needed him to do his own Independent study/research.It will help further discussions.