Came across BiblicallyMotivated in this video, on Yitshaak Kaduri:
300,000 Mourned This Rabbi...Then His Secret Note Shocked Israel
BiblicallyMotivated | 19 Dec. 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6_kVMed26A
Lots I didn't know, nothing I disagreed with very much (I could have said, there probably was a Yeshu who founded an idolatrous sect, but not in the Mediterranean: and Odinism is already obliterated, by Christianity, no, modern Odinism isn't Odinism any more than John Shelby Spong is Christianity — but the reference to a character in the Talmud was just in passing). So, I left no comment.
Not so next one:
Why Sola Scriptura Became NECESSARY Not Just For Protestants!
BiblicallyMotivated | 9 Nov. 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcmThOaw80A
Jews say Jesus wasn't the Messiah, you say Jesus didn't found the Catholic Church.
You both have a problem.
0:22 "only one survived"
Oops ... no Bible for that. Actually some Bible against that!
0:22 bis "in a form we can actually verify"
We can verify God exists by noting H+H fuses into D, D+D fuses into He.* This process knows no reversal, and there is no method for making H, yet H is still plenty, so the universe has to have been there a finite amount of time, meaning it is not itself an eternal self-sustaining existence.
However, this cannot be directly what St. Paul wrote about in Romans 1. 1) Having originated the universe doesn't prove God is still around so it doesn't prove His power inexhaustible. 2) H, D, He* have always been around, but very far from always observed. Or even observable.
If however God each day is making Sun, Moon, Fix Stars and Planets circle Earth or the axis through the Poles for some of them, that not only proves His power inexhaustible (and it would be even more proven so if the universe had had no beginning), it is also sth which has been there visible to Men since the beginning of all time, or to be more meticulous than St. Paul was, since six days later.
Now, there is a parallel about verifying the form of the Bible texts. If it were about the canon, sorry, you are joking. But I suppose you mean text reading of 1st and 2nd C. papyri agreeing with text reading of modern editions.
The parallel is this. A 5th C. Christian didn't access 1st C. papyri. If he couldn't trust the tradition in which he received the Bible, he couldn't trust the Bible either.
* Hydrogen, Deuterium and Helium, for those less savvy in chemistry.
8:10 I could actually argue the Eucharist, the Sacrifice of the Mass, the Immaculate Conception (on grounds close to Coredemptrix) on the de facto ground of Bible alone, i e if I had for arguments' sake agreed to not use Tradition or Magisterium.
Here is the thing. Given the NT, I can argue Apostolic Succession and that Jesus didn't mean it to end in the 1st C., but only when the dead are alive again in the valley of Josaphath.
Succession demonstrated
1) The eleven laid hands on people to give over authority (Acts 1, Matthias, and 8, see quote and discussion for the latter).
For he was not as yet come upon any of them; but they were only baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus Then they laid their hands upon them, and they received the Holy Ghost And when Simon saw, that by the imposition of the hands of the apostles, the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money Saying: Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I shall lay my hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost. But Peter said to him Keep thy money to thyself, to perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money
[Acts Of Apostles 8:16-20]
What we see happening is Confirmation. However, Simon Magus considered that the Apostles a) had a special power to confer Confirmation (obvious from what happened), b) could confer this power. Now, the answer of Peter isn't concerned with "oh, you know, we are the only ones who can make the Holy Ghost descend into people, when we die, people will simply have to pray much harder" ... no, it's denying none of Simon Magus' technical assumptions, and rebutting only his motivation and brashness.
2) Agabus went to Antioch from Jerusalem (Acts 11), presumably having received this conferring of authority.
3) Paul and Barnabas received the laying of hands from people having it before they left Antioch as missionaries (Acts 13).
4) Paul conferred it on Titus and on Timothy:
For which cause I admonish thee, that thou stir up the grace of God which is in thee, by the imposition of my hands
[2 Timothy 1:6]
5) They were supposed to confer it on yet other people:
Impose not hands lightly upon any man, neither be partaker of other men's sins. Keep thyself chaste
[1 Timothy 5:22]
This by the way tells us, St. Timothy was not the husband of one woman, but, like St. Paul, celibate.
Summing up:
A) Peter, B) Agabus, C) Paul, D) Timothy, E) other people Timothy imposes hands on.
Absolutely no indication that someone receiving the imposition from apostles couldn't hand it on. In an indefinite number of intermediaries.
Also, no indication you could just have it directly from God, without such imposition. The Apostles received it from Jesus, partly on occasion of John 20:21—23.
Non-finishing demonstrated
1) This series starts with the Apostles. They heard Jesus promise and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world. But as this promise is redundant for people in Heaven it has to refer to some continued presence they have on Earth, for which the obvious candidate is this kind of successor.
2) The instructions St. Paul gives for preparing clergy show it was meant to continue:
For this cause I left thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and shouldest ordain priests in every city, as I also appointed thee If any be without crime, the husband of one wife, having faithful children, not accused of riot, or unruly For a bishop must be without crime, as the steward of God: not proud, not subject to anger, not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre But given to hospitality, gentle, sober, just, holy, continent Embracing that faithful word which is according to doctrine, that he may be able to exhort in sound doctrine, and to convince the gainsayers For there are also many disobedient, vain talkers, and seducers: especially they who are of the circumcision
[Titus 1:5-10]
If the preparation to become a simple priest (this is what I think "bishop" means in the NT, while actual bishops are called other things, inter alia Apostles (the first 12, 72, possibly men from the 500) and Teachers (diocesan bishops, also called Angels in Apocalypse 2 and 3)), if then bishops are chosen from the best of these priests, this would seem to be how St. Paul sees God's very definitive plan for handing on Christ's message.
What about "in a form we can demonstrate"?
Suppose we had Catholic / Orthodox apostolic succession, we had Albigensian succession, we had Mennonite succession all not just still around, but around from the time that any of above were recognisable, so they started to be identifiable the way they are known at the same time, and none of them had a head start, and they are all still around. In that case, the above descriptions might be by themselves (not saying they cannot be complemented by other Scripture) inadequate for chosing between these types of succession, which of them came from the Apostles.
But that's not the case. Anabaptists with Mennonites as their surviving branch are very much not a continuation of Albigensians or even of Waldensians. Zwickau is not in Piedmonte, nor close to Toulouse. Albigensians were gone before the first Münzerites came on the scene. Neither of them was heard of 500 years before they disappeared (except Münzerites survive in modified form as Mennonites). The one form that stands a chance of being what the Bible writes about is the one that's Catholic / Orthodox.
Again, before Jesus said He was with the Apostles, He had given them a specific task, to teach the nations. The true Church can be marginal in the end times, because Jesus said But yet the Son of man, when he cometh, shall he find, think you, faith on earth? But it cannot have been marginal all along or for most of the time.
10:17 How do you get from Matthew 16 to Acts 1 without as much as mentioning Matthew 28:20?
Oh, before you say this was directed to all believers at the time, no:
And the eleven disciples went into Galilee, unto the mountain where Jesus had appointed them And seeing him they adored: but some doubted And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth
[Matthew 28:16-18]
This intro totally does tie a continuation up to Doomsday to precisely the tier of Apostles known as "the Twelve" or, for a certain time, between the defection of Judas and the assignation of Matthias, "the Eleven".
10:27 The 12 Apostles were the first bishops.
In the NT, Apostle is one of the categories of bishops, and that category has ceased. But bishops as such hasn't.
No contradiction. Just as "Founding Fathers" can be a category having ceased but "US official" isn't one that has ceased.
10:53 Timothy had Apostolic (that is episcopal) authority from Paul.
Who had specifically Apostolic authority from Christ, but who had episcopal consecration from some in Antioch who already had it and these from people in Jerusalem presumably including the 12.
Episcopal authority is called apostolic, not to say that bishops have equal authority with the original Apostles, but to say it originated with them, and the original ones had all authority involved in the episcopal order.
11:08 None of these verses ... you problem is you approach Biblical proof as "one verse at a time" or possible "two or three verses saying the same thing" ...
Here is a tree, there is a tree, everywhere around is a tree, but I cannot find any trace of a forest!
No comments:
Post a Comment