Yes that's my understanding as well. For someone who says they were Christian to have converted to Catholicism means they were never a Christian in the first place.

That's not what Paul meant. I'm calling the Catholic church a liar.

2 Thessalonians 2:15 cannot be used to support the claim that extrabiblical, spiritually binding “apostolic tradition” is passed down verbally through popes and bishops. Paul’s whole point was that the Thessalonians should treat as authoritative only what they had heard from his own mouth or received from his own pen. That body of truth—the Word of God—was to be the measuring stick they used to examine all things. Two other verses confirm this. In 2 Thessalonians 3:6 Paul writes, “Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from every brother who leads an unruly life and not according to the tradition which you received from us.” And in verse 14 he adds, “If anyone does not obey our instruction in this letter, take special note of that person and do not associate with him, so that he will be put to shame.”

Therefore, Paul is affirming that the Bible is the only reliable criterion by which believers in this age can evaluate messages claiming to be truth from God.

Proof? Here's proof the Catholic church is lying. You should read it.


"A stone is movable, unstable; and this is exactly what we see with Peter, who doubted when he walked on water, who denied Jesus, and who was rebuked by Paul at Antioch."

The Roman Catholic Church Puts a great deal of emphasis on Peter and claims that Jesus said he would build his church on him.

Simon Peter holds the first place in the college of the Twelve; Jesus entrusted a unique mission to him. Through a revelation from the Father, Peter had confessed: "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." Our Lord then declared to him: "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it." Christ, the "living Stone," thus assures his Church, built on Peter, of victory over the powers of death. Because of the faith he confessed Peter will remain the unshakable rock of the Church. His mission will be to keep this faith from every lapse and to strengthen his brothers in it." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 552).
"By the word "rock" the Saviour cannot have meant Himself, but only Peter, as is so much more apparent in Aramaic in which the same word (Kipha) is used for "Peter" and "rock." His statement then admits of but one explanation, namely, that He wishes to make Peter the head of the whole community of those who believed in Him as the true Messias; that through this foundation (Peter) the Kingdom of Christ would be unconquerable; that the spiritual guidance of the faithful was placed in the hands of Peter, as the special representative of Christ." (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11744a.htm).

The scripture reference to which the Roman Catholic Church attempts to substantiate its position is found in Matt. 16:18. Here it is in context.

"Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, He began asking His disciples, saying, "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?" 14 And they said, "Some say John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; but still others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets. 15 He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" 16 And Simon Peter answered and said, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." 17 And Jesus answered and said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. 18 "And I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it. 19 "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." 20 Then He warned the disciples that they should tell no one that He was the Christ," (Matt. 16:13-20).

There are problems with the Roman Catholic position. First of all, when we look at the Greek of Matthew 16:18, we see something that is not obvious in the English. "...you are Peter (πέτρος, petros) and upon this rock (πέτρα, petra) I will build My church..." In Greek nouns have gender. It is similar to the English words actor and actress. The first is masculine, and the second is feminine. Likewise, the Greek word "petros" is masculine; "petra" is feminine. Peter, the man, is appropriately referred to as Petros. But Jesus said that the rock he would build his church on was not the masculine "petros" but the feminine "petra." Let me illustrate by using the words "actor" and "actress:" "You are the actor; and with this actress, I will make my movie." Do see that the gender influences how a sentence is understood? Jesus was not saying that the church will be built upon Peter but upon something else. What, then, does petra, the feminine noun, refer to?

The feminine "petra" occurs four times in the Greek New Testament:

Matt. 16:18, "And I also say to you that you are Peter (petros), and upon this rock (petra) I will build My church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it."
Matt. 27:60, "and laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn out in the rock (petra); and he rolled a large stone against the entrance of the tomb and went away."
1 Cor. 10:4, "and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock (petras) which followed them; and the rock (petra) was Christ."
1 Pet. 2:8, speaking of Jesus says that he is "A stone of stumbling and a rock (petra) of offense"; for they stumble because they are disobedient to the word, and to this doom they were also appointed."

We can clearly see that in the three other uses of the Greek word petra (nominative singular; "petras" in 1 Cor. 10:4 is genitive singular) we find it referred to as a large immovable mass of rock in which a tomb is carved out (Matt. 27:60) and in reference to Christ (1 Cor. 10:4; 1 Pet. 2:8). Note that Peter himself in the last verse referred to petra as being Jesus! If Peter uses the word as a reference to Jesus, then shouldn't we?

In addition, Greek dictionaries and lexicons give us further insight into the two Greek words under discussion:

Petros:
Petros, "πέτρος, a stone, distinguished from πέτρα (Source: Liddell, H., 1996. A lexicon : Abridged from Liddell and Scott's Greek-English lexicon (636). Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.).
Petros, Πέτρος, Peter, meaning stone. The masc. of the fem. pétra (4073), a massive rock or cliff.” (Spiros Zodhiates, The Complete Word Study Dictionary: New Testament, electronic ed., G4074, Chattanooga, TN: AMG Publishers, 2000, c1992, c1993).
Petros, Πέτρος, “a noun akin to 4073, used as a proper name; “a stone” or “a boulder,” Peter, one of the twelve apostles:— Peter(150), Peter’s(5).” (Robert L. Thomas, New American Standard Hebrew-Aramaic and Greek Dictionaries : Updated Edition, H8674, Anaheim: Foundation Publications, Inc., 1998, 1981).
Petra:
Petra, πέτρα , Ion. and Ep. πέτρη, , a rock, a ledge or shelf of rock, Od. 2. a rock, i.e. a rocky peak or ridge . . . Properly, πέτρα is a fixed rock, πέτρος a stone." (Source: Liddell, H. (1996). A lexicon : Abridged from Liddell and Scott's Greek-English lexicon (636). Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.).
Petra, πέτρα , (4073) denotes a mass of rock, as distinct from petros, a detached stone or boulder, or a stone that might be thrown or easily moved." Source: Vine, W., & Bruce, F. (1981; Published in electronic form by Logos Research Systems, 1996). Vine's Expository dictionary of Old and New Testament words (2:302). Old Tappan NJ: Revell)
Petra, πέτρα, ας, ἡ (1) literally, living rock, bedrock (MT 7.24), in contrast to πέτρος (isolated stone); (Timothy Friberg, Barbara Friberg and Neva F. Miller, vol. 4, Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament, Baker's Greek New Testament library, 311, Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 2000).
Petra, πέτρα, noun feminine; ≡ bedrock, (James Swanson, Dictionary of Biblical Languages With Semantic Domains : Greek (New Testament), electronic ed., GGK4376 (Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997).
Petros & Petros
πέτρα petra; a prim. word; a (large mass of) rock:--rock(10), rocks(3), rocky(2). Πέτρος Petros, “a noun akin to 4073, used as a proper name; “a stone” or “a boulder,” Peter, one of the twelve apostles:— Peter(150), Peter’s(5).” (Robert L. Thomas, New American Standard Hebrew-Aramaic and Greek Dictionaries : Updated Edition, H8674, Anaheim: Foundation Publications, Inc., 1998, 1981).
"On this rock (ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ). The word is feminine, and means a rock, as distinguished from a stone or a fragment of rock (πέτρος, above)." (Marvin Richardson Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament, 1:91, Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2002).
Petros, "πέτρος, a stone, distinguished from πέτρα. Petra, πέτρα , Ion. and Ep. πέτρη, , a rock, a ledge or shelf of rock, Od. 2. a rock, i.e. a rocky peak or ridge . . . Properly, πέτρα is a fixed rock, πέτρος a stone." (Source: Liddell, H. (1996). A lexicon : Abridged from Liddell and Scott's Greek-English lexicon (636). Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.).

A stone is movable, unstable; and this is exactly what we see with Peter, who doubted when he walked on water, who denied Jesus, and who was rebuked by Paul at Antioch.

Matt. 14:29-30, "And Peter got out of the boat, and walked on the water and came toward Jesus. 30 But seeing the wind, he became afraid, and beginning to sink, he cried out, saying, "Lord, save me!"
Luke 22:57-58, "But he denied it, saying, "Woman, I do not know Him." 58 And a little later, another saw him and said, "You are one of them too!" But Peter said, "Man, I am not!"
Gal. 2:11,14 "But when Cephas [Peter] came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned . . . 14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in the presence of all, "If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?"

Jesus, who knew the heart of Peter, was not saying that Peter, the movable and unstable stone, would be the immovable rock upon which the Church would be built. Rather, it would be built upon Jesus; and it was this truth that Peter had affirmed what he said to Jesus, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God," (Matt. 16:16). This is consistent with scripture elsewhere where the term rock is sometimes used in reference to God but never of a man.

Deut. 32:4, "The Rock! His work is perfect, for all His ways are just; a God of faithfulness and without injustice."
2 Sam. 22:2-3, "The Lord is my rock and my fortress and my deliverer; 3 My God, my rock, in whom I take refuge."
Psalm 18:31, "And who is a rock, except our God."
Isaiah 44:8, "Is there any God besides Me, or is there any other Rock? I know of none."
Rom. 9:33, "Behold, I lay in Zion a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense, and he who believes in Him will not be disappointed."

It should be obvious from the Word of God that the rock Jesus was referring to was not Peter--but himself.
The Aramaic Kepha

In contrast to this, in paragraph #2 at the beginning of this article, the Roman Catholic Church says that the rock cannot refer to Jesus "but only Peter--as is so much more apparent in Aramaic in which the same word (Kipha) is used for 'Peter' and 'rock.'" The problem is that the text is not in Aramaic--but Greek. Since we do not have the Aramaic text, it is not proper to refer to it as proof of the Roman Catholic position. We have to ask ourselves why the Roman Catholic Church would resort to using something that we don't have: the Aramaic text. Is it because their argument is not supported by the Greek, and so they must infer something from a text we don't possess?

Furthermore, in John 1:42 it says, "He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him, and said, "You are Simon the son of John; you shall be called Cephas," (which is translated Peter)." The word "Peter" here is petros--not petra. It is used to elucidate the Aramaic kephas which is not a name in Aramaic.

"Except in Jn. 1:42, where it is used to elucidate Aramaic kēphás, Pétros is used in the NT only as a name for Simon Peter . . . The translation supports the view that Kēphás is not a proper name, since one does not usually translate proper names"1

Jesus is the rock on which the church is built

The truth is that the only foundation is Jesus. The only rock of truth is Jesus Christ; and that we, as his redeemed, need to keep our eyes on him. We are to look to no one else as the foundation, the source, or the hope on which the church is built. The Church is built upon Jesus--not Peter.

"For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ," (1 Cor. 3:11).

https://carm.org/is-peter-the-rock

Apostolic tradition debunked - biblically

-snip

2 Thessalonians 2:15 cannot be used to support the claim that extrabiblical, spiritually binding “apostolic tradition” is passed down verbally through popes and bishops. Paul’s whole point was that the Thessalonians should treat as authoritative only what they had heard from his own mouth or received from his own pen. That body of truth—the Word of God—was to be the measuring stick they used to examine all things. Two other verses confirm this. In 2 Thessalonians 3:6 Paul writes, “Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from every brother who leads an unruly life and not according to the tradition which you received from us.” And in verse 14 he adds, “If anyone does not obey our instruction in this letter, take special note of that person and do not associate with him, so that he will be put to shame.”

Therefore, Paul is affirming that the Bible is the only reliable criterion by which believers in this age can evaluate messages claiming to be truth from God.

https://www.onepoliticalplaza.com/t-146458-1.html

I never would have guessed.

Thanks for the info.

For Doc and his attempts to justify false doctrine.

You don't use straw man correctly Doc.

It's been proven multiple times that praying to Mary is idol worship - proven with scripture. Pretending it hasn't is just you being dishonest again.

Doc is manically trying to justify the idol worship of the Catholics. This ark of the new covenant thing is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever seen with regards to Mary. She'd be horrified if she knew what was going on.

Notice how none of this is in God's word but there is a very weak attempt at trying to justify one of Satan's lies.

The "immaculate conception" was made up by Pope Pius IX in 1854. Why would this have been left out of the Bible? Because its not true.

A patently false and ridiculous unbiblical claim. A dead woman as the ark of the new covenant.

the worship of Mary is an attack on God Himself. Mary becomes the mother of the Son of God. Mary becomes the mother of God, in their language. She is called the Queen of heaven, and therefore she is the rival of the King of heaven, the sovereign God Himself. As we have learned, she is granted sovereignty. She is worthy of worship, worthy of praise. She demands if you want salvation, that you adore her, that you love her, that you enthrone her because she is loving, gracious, merciful. She is all-knowing, all seeing, and all powerful. De Liguori in “The Glories of Mary,” page 566, quote: “At the command of Mary all obey, even God.” Blasphemy against God.

This goddess worship is also blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. Mary is the comforter. Mary is the sympathizer. Mary is the helper. Mary is the empowerer. Mary is the advocate. Mary is the encourager. Mary is even the sanctifier who works to make her children pure.

This goddess worship is also an attack against the Son. She becomes a counterfeit savior: born sinless, without the stain of original sin, living a sinless life. She is called the all-holy child. She becomes redeemer, provider of salvation, dispenser of forgiveness, source of all blessing, from salvation to glorification. She is called the all-holy one, clearly a title belonging only to God.

https://www.gty.org/library/sermons-library/90-317/exposing-the-idolatry-of-mary-worship-what-the-bible-says

From the same article -

the worship of Mary is an attack on God Himself. Mary becomes the mother of the Son of God. Mary becomes the mother of God, in their language. She is called the Queen of heaven, and therefore she is the rival of the King of heaven, the sovereign God Himself. As we have learned, she is granted sovereignty. She is worthy of worship, worthy of praise. She demands if you want salvation, that you adore her, that you love her, that you enthrone her because she is loving, gracious, merciful. She is all-knowing, all seeing, and all powerful. De Liguori in “The Glories of Mary,” page 566, quote: “At the command of Mary all obey, even God.” Blasphemy against God.

This goddess worship is also blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. Mary is the comforter. Mary is the sympathizer. Mary is the helper. Mary is the empowerer. Mary is the advocate. Mary is the encourager. Mary is even the sanctifier who works to make her children pure.

This goddess worship is also an attack against the Son. She becomes a counterfeit savior: born sinless, without the stain of original sin, living a sinless life. She is called the all-holy child. She becomes redeemer, provider of salvation, dispenser of forgiveness, source of all blessing, from salvation to glorification. She is called the all-holy one, clearly a title belonging only to God. And if you’ve been with us for the last three weeks, you have felt the heat of the blasphemy. So, the blaspheming is the first thing to understand in conclusion. Secondly, let’s call it the comparing. We need to do a little comparing here. What does Scripture say about Mary? What is the real story of Mary?

How they chose the 66 books for the Bible is interesting and not a simple task.

If you were interested in more one who is very good at Christian apologetics is Ravi Zacharias. He regularly fields tough questions from university students and always gives insightful answers. A very kind hearted man. A lot of those are on youtube.

The Catholic Bible added extra books in response to the Reformation which exposed some false doctrines. They added them in an effort to justify that doctrine. I am not as familiar with Orthodox and Charismatic except to know they have a lot of false doctrine as well.

-snip

It is idolatry in the clearest form. And to deal with this we need only really to do two things, biblically. One is to see what the Bible says about idolatry, and the other is to see what the Bible actually says about Mary. And then, we will clearly understand that they have invented a goddess to worship who has no relationship to the true Mary, the mother of Jesus revealed in Scripture, the historical Mary.

Psalm 115: “Not to us, O Lord, not to us, but to Thy name give glory because of Thy loving-kindness, because of Thy truth. Why should the nations say, ‘Where, now, is their God?’ But our God is in the heavens. He does whatever He pleases. The idols are silver and gold, the work of man’s hands. They have mouths, but they cannot speak; they have eyes, but they cannot see; they have ears, but they cannot hear; they have noses, but they cannot smell; they have hands, but they cannot feel; they have feet, but they cannot walk; they cannot make a sound with their throat. Those who make them will become like them, everyone who trusts in them. O Israel, trust in the Lord. He is their help and their shield. O house of Aaron, trust in the Lord; He is their help and their shield. You, who fear the Lord, trust in the Lord; He is their help and their shield. The Lord has been mindful of us. He will bless us. He will bless the house of Israel. He will bless the house of Aaron. He will bless those who fear the Lord, the small together with the great. May the Lord give you increase, you and your children. May you be blessed of the Lord, maker of heaven and earth. The heavens are the heavens of the Lord; but the earth He has given to the sons of men. The dead do not praise the Lord, nor do any who go down into silence. But as for us, we will bless the Lord from this time forth and forever. Praise the Lord.”

The Lord alone is to be glorified. The Lord is the source of loving-kindness. The Lord is the source of truth. The Lord is to be trusted. He is our help and our shield. The Lord alone is to be feared. He again is our help and our shield. The Lord does not need to be reminded about us, He is mindful of us, He will bless us. He is to receive all our praise. In Psalm 116: “I love the Lord because He hears my voice and my supplications. Because He has inclined His ear to me, therefore I shall call upon Him as long as I live.” I don’t need another God. I don’t need a mediator. I don’t need an intermediary. I don’t need someone to plead my case before God. Even in the direst circumstance, verse 3, “The cords of death encompassed me, the terrors of Sheol came me. I found distress and sorrow. Then I called upon the name of the Lord: ‘O Lord, I beseech Thee, save my life.’“ You will remember that Pope John Paul II when he was shot kept crying, “Mary, save me. Mary, save me. Mary, save me.”

Psalm 117, “Praise the Lord, all nations; laud Him, all peoples, for His loving-kindness is great toward us, and the truth of the Lord is everlasting. Praise the Lord.” Psalm 118, “Give thanks to the Lord for He is good. For His loving-kindness is everlasting. O let Israel say, ‘His loving-kindness is everlasting.’ O let the house of Aaron say, ‘His loving-kindness is everlasting.’ O let those who fear the Lord say, ‘His loving-kindness is everlasting.’“

The Roman Catholic view of Mary calls into question the compassion, the sympathy, the loving-kindness of God. It places in the people’s minds doubt about God’s care, concern, sympathy, compassion, and interest in their plight. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Bible ends in the 22nd chapter of Revelation with John having heard the amazing revelations, and in this particular case from an angel, when he heard, verse 8 of Revelation 22, it says, “I fell down to worship at the feet of the angel who showed me these things. And he said to me, ‘Do not do that/ I am a fellow servant of yours and of your brethren, the prophets, and of those who heed the words of this book. Worship God.’“ In another scene in the book of Revelation there is an angel, an everlasting, flying through heaven with an everlasting message, “Worship God. Worship God,” who is to be worshiped as our Redeemer, our Benefactor, our Comforter, our Sympathizer, our Deliverer.

-snip

https://www.gty.org/library/sermons-library/90-317/exposing-the-idolatry-of-mary-worship-what-the-bible-says

Good point Jack. It's not us, its God's word they can't defend against. Padre couldn't either.

What you brought up somewhere else was an excellent point - did Christ leave an incomplete church? How could a perfect God do that?

Gyrations is the perfect word for it. He's manic about it.

It reminds me of Satan trying to tempt Jesus with scripture. That's similar to what Satan does in the Catholic church - misuse scripture to try and prove falsehoods but he leaves in just enough truth to keep them in it.