Jump to content
Online Baptist

Hail Mary Prayer In The 1611 Kjv Bible ?


Recommended Posts

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I just wanted to thank you for putting your trust in our Catholic bishops (Church Fathers in general) like St. Polycarp. The Catholic Church thanks you too.

 

I don't put trust in your Catholic bishops or Polycarp.  I put my trust in my savior Jesus Christ. Polycarp was just a man.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 222
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

We have a Bible thanks only to our Lord, not the Catholics, if the Catholics had their way no one would have had a Bible outside of the leaders of the RCC. Please, please stop trying to rob God of His

The Irish - I hope all know Patrick was not Catholic. The first mention of him by Catholics was 174 yrs after his death. It is interesting to trace his history; Patrick was Baptist. The Cat-a-h

I know that you'd like to think of him as Catholic, but again you don't know your history. The Roman church didn't even begin to assert its influence until late in the 2nd century. It exerted nothin

  • Moderators

Interestingly, there IS a place for traditions in churches. It is how they are used and how highly they are placed that is important for us to consider. Paul does, indeed, speak of traditions in a positive light-but traditions are just that-traditions, made by man, for their purposes, and can NEVER be exalted higher than, or as high as, scripture. They are things that are an aspect of our liberty in Christ, but at the same time, cannot disagree with scripture. For instance, in our church, being a very rural church, in a farming community, its rare to see a suit, except on me, and I even sometimes doff the tie and jacket. However, in some more urban centers, a pastor without suit and tie would be unthinkable-its a tradition, a fine one, but not scripture, and will neither make or break a church either way. If I went to a church that carried that tradition, I would follow it for their edification and in recognition of their authority in that church, but I would expect not to be judged for sometimes not wearing them in our church. Suit and tie=tradition. Neat and modest, however, are Bible and God-honoring. 

What the RCC follows, however, are traditions of men, believed to have equal or higher authority than scripture, and that is the same error of the Pharisees which Jesus condemned. When a man stands and claims to speak with complete authority over the world, in the place of God, that is wickedness and will be judged as such. Altar Christus? Another Christ? I think not.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Having read this thread I am unable to find where this gentleman was lying or being misleading. This type of response is what sickens me about the IFB movement of which I am embarrased to say I am a part of. While the RCC may be very wrong on many points of doctrine yet sadly this is also a fact amongst many IFB churches today - I do not see how his statement that he is a christian belonging to a bible believing church would evoke such harsh words. It is a known fact that the IFB HATE the RCC yet I say look to your own house before judging anothers, the very foundation of the IFB is rotten to the core these days yet they continue to look outwards in harsh condemnation and judgmental critisism rather than  repairing their own house and leading in gentleness and truth which is the very nature of Christ.

Though the RCC may be in doctrinal error as an institution, there are many saved believers within that institution as is the case in many others and just as there are many saved in the RCC there are as many wolfs, cultists and doctrinaly bigoted idiots within the IFB.

 

36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?

37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

38 This is the first and great commandment.

39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

 

When us IFB's can live as Christ above commanded we will lead the world unto truth as men not as pouting spoilt children bickering amongst ourselves and believing that we are the only saved and doctrinally correct bunch out there!

Gosh that's a bad attitude :) Jesus commands us to love, especially the Catholic Church he founded.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interestingly, there IS a place for traditions in churches. It is how they are used and how highly they are placed that is important for us to consider. Paul does, indeed, speak of traditions in a positive light-but traditions are just that-traditions, made by man, for their purposes, and can NEVER be exalted higher than, or as high as, scripture. They are things that are an aspect of our liberty in Christ, but at the same time, cannot disagree with scripture. For instance, in our church, being a very rural church, in a farming community, its rare to see a suit, except on me, and I even sometimes doff the tie and jacket. However, in some more urban centers, a pastor without suit and tie would be unthinkable-its a tradition, a fine one, but not scripture, and will neither make or break a church either way. If I went to a church that carried that tradition, I would follow it for their edification and in recognition of their authority in that church, but I would expect not to be judged for sometimes not wearing them in our church. Suit and tie=tradition. Neat and modest, however, are Bible and God-honoring. 

What the RCC follows, however, are traditions of men, believed to have equal or higher authority than scripture, and that is the same error of the Pharisees which Jesus condemned. When a man stands and claims to speak with complete authority over the world, in the place of God, that is wickedness and will be judged as such. Altar Christus? Another Christ? I think not.

If you're referring to Apolostolic Succession then yes we follow the men Jesus left in charge. Then again think of how many people (congregations) follow a minister or preacher. Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture has worked for us for 2,000 years.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators

If you're referring to Apolostolic Succession then yes we follow the men Jesus left in charge. Then again think of how many people (congregations) follow a minister or preacher. Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture has worked for us for 2,000 years.

No, I'm not speaking of Apostolic Succession-there is no such thing. Apostles were for the beginning of the church, and no more-there were only 12 Apostles of the Lamb. There is no sacred tradition, except for what some men chose to call such and that doesn't give them the authority.

 

No, I am speaking fo Christian liberty; the Bible lays out some clear boundaries for our lives and how we are to conduct business in the assembly of the church-outside of those specific things, we have some liberty, again, things such as dress styles, how or if we use music/instruments, facial hair, how long service is, times and days of assembling, etc. In such, there are no specific rules of how, though there may be some in forms and the like, as in, keeping worldliness out, modesty in dress, and the like. No judging one another in such things, and respecting one another's liberties.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I'm not speaking of Apostolic Succession-there is no such thing. Apostles were for the beginning of the church, and no more-there were only 12 Apostles of the Lamb. There is no sacred tradition, except for what some men chose to call such and that doesn't give them the authority.

 

No, I am speaking fo Christian liberty; the Bible lays out some clear boundaries for our lives and how we are to conduct business in the assembly of the church-outside of those specific things, we have some liberty, again, things such as dress styles, how or if we use music/instruments, facial hair, how long service is, times and days of assembling, etc. In such, there are no specific rules of how, though there may be some in forms and the like, as in, keeping worldliness out, modesty in dress, and the like. No judging one another in such things, and respecting one another's liberties.

Sure there was Apostolic Succession, the disciples of the apostles then became the first bishops in the early first and second centuries. We can trace back all of our bishops to the apostles. Pretty cool huh? I'm glad you put your faith in our Bible so much. The Catholic Church thanks you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators

Sure there was Apostolic Succession, the disciples of the apostles then became the first bishops in the early first and second centuries. We can trace back all of our bishops to the apostles. Pretty cool huh? I'm glad you put your faith in our Bible so much. The Catholic Church thanks you.

If you read my post as faith in the Catholic false bible, then I can see why you are Catholic-apparently you don't read, or understand, very well. As for the apostolic succession you count as being the beginnings of the RCC, this is according to Catholic history only, not actual history, including Peter as the first bishop of Rome.  If you remember in the Bible, Paul said that Peter was given the job as the apostle to the circumcision, while he, Paul, was the apostle to the Gentiles. Since Rome was Gentile, there is no reason to believe Peter ever did any service there as Bishop or otherwise. The Epistle to the Romans never mentions Peter as being there, which would be odd if he was there as Bishop, or in ANY form, seeing as how he was one of the 12, and Paul would have been remiss to forget to name him in the epistle. Just Catholic tradition, no more, no less.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I'm so glad you love our Bible as much as us Catholics. We had St. Jerome for translate it into Greek and those bishops at Nicea for canonizing the Bible as we know it today. Thank you for your appreciation for our Bible.

 

We have a Bible thanks only to our Lord, not the Catholics, if the Catholics had their way no one would have had a Bible outside of the leaders of the RCC. Please, please stop trying to rob God of His glory placing it on the false teaching RCC. ALL glory goes only to our Lord.

 

Its become quite clear that your here to promote the RCC, & its false teachings, not to learn God's truths. I've graciously replied to you several times point you to Bible truths & you reject them putting forth the false teachings of the RCC.

 

And please remember, I did not go to a RCC forum promoting God's true teachings & pointing out the false teachings of the RCC, you came to a Baptist forum telling us our teachings are wrong, & the RCC teachings are correct.

 

I would not expect to be graciously accepted if I went to a RCC forum doing what you've done here.

 

Your teachings leads souls though the wide broad gate into the pits of hell not though the narrow strait gate that leads to life. At least in this forum you have been exposed to God's truth, my prayer is that a seed of truth has been planted in your mind, & at some point it will be watered & God will give the increase.

 

 

1Co 3:5 ¶ Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man?
1Co 3:6 I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.
1Co 3:7 So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase.
 
With the direction your taking this, promoting RCC's false teachings over God's truth, I bow out of this discussion.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Sure there was Apostolic Succession, the disciples of the apostles then became the first bishops in the early first and second centuries. We can trace back all of our bishops to the apostles. Pretty cool huh? I'm glad you put your faith in our Bible so much. The Catholic Church thanks you.

 

Which Apostle does the Roman church trace to then?  It can't be Peter or Paul; upon examination of Scripture they were not in Rome until well after the founding of the church (please don't use the Peter-rock argument unless you want to look silly).  Thomas was in Smyrna.  John spent his final days on Patmos.  James was martyred in Jerusalem.  Andrew went north to the Black Sea area (perhaps beyond). Philip was primarily in Syria, Phrygia, and Greece. Bartholomew/Nathaniel went to India.  The other James is said to have gone to Egypt.  Thaddeus and Simon the Zealot stayed in/around the Levant.  Aside from the information on Peter and Paul, the information on the rest of the Apostles is based on historical tradition, but none of them appear to have made Rome their mission field.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Gosh that's a bad attitude :) Jesus commands us to love, especially the Catholic Church he founded.

 

There was no 'catholic church' until the time of Constantine, when disputes between the Latin and Greek speakers, caused a separation.  The Latins called themselves Catholic and the Greeks Orthodox.

 

The Roman Church is the most evil and corrupt organisation on earth, as well as the richest.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

There was no 'catholic church' until the time of Constantine, when disputes between the Latin and Greek speakers, caused a separation.  The Latins called themselves Catholic and the Greeks Orthodox.

 

The Roman Church is the most evil and corrupt organisation on earth, as well as the richest.  

Is that what your pastor told you? The world "Catholic Church" was around in the 2nd century well before Constantine.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Which Apostle does the Roman church trace to then?  It can't be Peter or Paul; upon examination of Scripture they were not in Rome until well after the founding of the church (please don't use the Peter-rock argument unless you want to look silly).  Thomas was in Smyrna.  John spent his final days on Patmos.  James was martyred in Jerusalem.  Andrew went north to the Black Sea area (perhaps beyond). Philip was primarily in Syria, Phrygia, and Greece. Bartholomew/Nathaniel went to India.  The other James is said to have gone to Egypt.  Thaddeus and Simon the Zealot stayed in/around the Levant.  Aside from the information on Peter and Paul, the information on the rest of the Apostles is based on historical tradition, but none of them appear to have made Rome their mission field.

I respect your IFB interpretation of the Bible. We believe otherwise.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We have a Bible thanks only to our Lord, not the Catholics, if the Catholics had their way no one would have had a Bible outside of the leaders of the RCC. Please, please stop trying to rob God of His glory placing it on the false teaching RCC. ALL glory goes only to our Lord.

 

Its become quite clear that your here to promote the RCC, & its false teachings, not to learn God's truths. I've graciously replied to you several times point you to Bible truths & you reject them putting forth the false teachings of the RCC.

 

And please remember, I did not go to a RCC forum promoting God's true teachings & pointing out the false teachings of the RCC, you came to a Baptist forum telling us our teachings are wrong, & the RCC teachings are correct.

 

I would not expect to be graciously accepted if I went to a RCC forum doing what you've done here.

 

Your teachings leads souls though the wide broad gate into the pits of hell not though the narrow strait gate that leads to life. At least in this forum you have been exposed to God's truth, my prayer is that a seed of truth has been planted in your mind, & at some point it will be watered & God will give the increase.

 

 

1Co 3:5 ¶ Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man?
1Co 3:6 I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.
1Co 3:7 So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase.
 
With the direction your taking this, promoting RCC's false teachings over God's truth, I bow out of this discussion.

The Bible is the Words of God in the words of men. Someone wrote them down years after they occurred. Do you believe that someone was sitting next to Mary and Joseph when Jesus was born, or John was writing the accounts of the crucifixion as they happened? No of course not. John's gospel wasn't written until 20-30 years after the resurrection. Who canonized the Bible? Are you going to say the Holy Spirit? Catholic Bishops at Nicea canonized the Bible under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. And for that I thank you for reading the Bible we translated and canonized.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Gosh that's a bad attitude :) Jesus commands us to love, especially the Catholic Church he founded.

Name one verse in the bible where Jesus has commanded us to "especially" love the Catholic church! It's most defenitly not in my bible. The catholic church was not even arround when He walked this earth. And just as a tiny little note:
  • Idolatary is not acceptable to God and the RCC has made Mary, the saints, any relic and even the pope an idol that is worshiped by the masses.
  • Jesus is the way to salvation, there is no other!! So the pope being the "vicar of christ" is an abomination - there is no such title bestowed apon man in the Word, and no man is given sole authority over the church - that belongs to Jesus and Him alone.
Edited by 2Tim215
Link to post
Share on other sites

If you read my post as faith in the Catholic false bible, then I can see why you are Catholic-apparently you don't read, or understand, very well. As for the apostolic succession you count as being the beginnings of the RCC, this is according to Catholic history only, not actual history, including Peter as the first bishop of Rome.  If you remember in the Bible, Paul said that Peter was given the job as the apostle to the circumcision, while he, Paul, was the apostle to the Gentiles. Since Rome was Gentile, there is no reason to believe Peter ever did any service there as Bishop or otherwise. The Epistle to the Romans never mentions Peter as being there, which would be odd if he was there as Bishop, or in ANY form, seeing as how he was one of the 12, and Paul would have been remiss to forget to name him in the epistle. Just Catholic tradition, no more, no less.

Who taught you that Catholicism is so bad?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Name one verse in the bible where Jesus has commanded us to "especially" love the Catholic church! It's most defenitly not in my bible. The catholic church was not even arround when He walked this earth. And just as a tiny little note:

  • Idolatary is not acceptable to God and the RCC has made Mary, the saints, any relic and even the pope an idol that is worshiped by the masses.
  • Jesus is the way to salvation, there is no other!! So the pope being the "vicar of christ" is an abomination - there is no such title bestowed apon man in the Word, and no man is given sole authority over the church - that belongs to Jesus and Him alone.

The word Catholic came about in the 2nd century. St. Ignatius of Antioch was one of the first to use the term "Catholic Church." Jesus said he was going to start one church and he was going to leave someone in charge. No where does Jesus say I want you to write about this and make a book we'll eventually call the Bible. No where in the Bible does it mention anything about reading about His ministry.

 

I whole heartedly agree. We condemn idolatry too. We do not worship Mary or anyone else the same as Jesus. You have to use the correct usage for worship (latria or dulia). Latria means adoration. We latria God. Dulia means to venerate or honor (much like honoring your parents). We NEVER worship (latria) Mary or anyone else. But we honor Mary because she is the mother of God incarnate.

 

I can see we have a huge gap in interpretation. It has nothing to do with reading the Bible. I read it the same way the early Church Fathers read the Bible. And just because the Bible says "word of God" does not mean in written form only. Oral tradition as well. There we have tradition again. Who's tradition? God's tradition.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Come to think of it, if you go strictly by the Bible and not traditions of men then you would have to do away with altar calls, the sinners prayer, and revivals. In fact Sunday school and Bible studies would also have to go since the Bible does not explicitly say we have to read God's word in the NT. Everywhere I look it's hearing God's word which sounds a lot like oral teaching.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

The Bible is the Words of God in the words of men. Someone wrote them down years after they occurred. Do you believe that someone was sitting next to Mary and Joseph when Jesus was born, or John was writing the accounts of the crucifixion as they happened? No of course not. John's gospel wasn't written until 20-30 years after the resurrection. Who canonized the Bible? Are you going to say the Holy Spirit? Catholic Bishops at Nicea canonized the Bible under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. And for that I thank you for reading the Bible we translated and canonized.

What do you make of this verse then?

 

KJV 2 Timothy 3:16 - "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:"

 

Edited to add:

 

All means all. Not a little here, or most of it, or some of it; all of it. So according to the Bible, there is not a single word of man in it.

Edited by Fixation
Link to post
Share on other sites

What do you make of this verse then?

 

KJV 2 Timothy 3:16 - "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:"

Couldn't agree more. It is inspired by God but where does it say all we need is scripture? It just says that scripture is inspired, thats all.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

What do you make of this verse then?

 

KJV 2 Timothy 3:16 - "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:"

 

Edited to add:

 

All means all. Not a little here, or most of it, or some of it; all of it. So according to the Bible, there is not a single word of man in it.

You took the "word" right out of my mouth.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Couldn't agree more. It is inspired by God but where does it say all we need is scripture? It just says that scripture is inspired, thats all.

 

Joshua 1:8 - "This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth; but thou shalt meditate therein day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein: for then thou shalt make thy way prosperous, and then thou shalt have good success."

Link to post
Share on other sites

Joshua 1:8 - "This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth; but thou shalt meditate therein day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein: for then thou shalt make thy way prosperous, and then thou shalt have good success."

Ah yes, you're quoting from Joshua on the Law of Moses. That would be in the OT. No where in the NT does it say scripture alone. Yes, we all agree scripture is inspired by God, but no where in the NT does it say the only thing we need is to read the scripture.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

If the Catholic Church is so evil God would have eliminated us LONG ago.

 

Not true. Look at all of the evil people in the world. God graciously allows us to have free-will. 2 Peter 3:9 - "The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance."

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Ah yes, you're quoting from Joshua on the Law of Moses. That would be in the OT. No where in the NT does it say scripture alone. Yes, we all agree scripture is inspired by God, but no where in the NT does it say the only thing we need is to read the scripture.

 

Consider when Jesus was being tempted by Satan. At each temptation, Jesus responded with Scripture. Believer's should learn from this example and follow suit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not true. Look at all of the evil people in the world. God graciously allows us to have free-will. 2 Peter 3:9 - "The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance."

Free will yes, but look what happened every time the Jews broke their covenant with God in the OT. Call us what you want but we're growing and the IFB are shrinking in numbers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Consider when Jesus was being tempted by Satan. At each temptation, Jesus responded with Scripture. Believer's should learn from this example and follow suit.

Jesus was quoting from the OT of course. He had not given us his new covenant yet until the last supper. You still haven't provided any passage in the NT that says the only thing we need is to read the Bible. There is no such thing as scripture alone. Nice try :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Jesus was quoting from the OT of course. He had not given us his new covenant yet until the last supper. You still haven't provided any passage in the NT that says the only thing we need is to read the Bible. There is no such thing as scripture alone. Nice try :)

 

2 Timothy 2:15 - "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth."

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

That's a narrow minded thing to say. Who said you had the correct Bible interpretation anyways? The Bible doesn't say your interpretation is correct, you do.


Yep I'm narrow minded - narrow AD God's Word.

And I didn't say my interpretation was correct - I said you are a list. Which you are.
You do not go to a "Bible church".
You are not here to learn.
You go to a Catholic church, and you are here to cause trouble and to deceive.
You say you respect our Baptist beliefs but you don't. Your actions here prove it.

If you bothered to read the Bible you would easily see that many of your statements are simply wrong, both doctrinally and historically.

You may call me mean, but I am simply marking you as one who teaches false doctrine and is here.for the sole purpose of leading astray those who believe.

I hope that you come.to a knowledge of the truth, but you must first stop your deception and strife causing.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 35 Guests (See full list)

    There are no registered users currently online

×
×
  • Create New...