Nero Turtle Made Two Videos Recently

First Video:

Catholicism disregards Scripture.. ‪@anamunley‬
Nero Turtle | 13 Oct. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bv2-8I64cHc

My first reply is in this dialogue:

Mark Anthony

@Searchformeaningalways

As a former devout Roman Catholic, for any person and/or organization to declare that a human being is uncategorically in heaven, is pure HUBRIS.

Nero Turtle

@NeroTurtle

the bible is very clear that we do not know the hearts of men. And although outwardly they may have been and done great for the kingdom, we do not know their motives. Canonization is anti biblical. 100%

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@NeroTurtle "we do not know the hearts of men."

That's why we don't canonise living persons.

"Canonization is anti biblical. 100%"

And Jesus said to him: Amen I say to thee, this day thou shalt be with me in paradise.
Luke 23:43

Some Catholics have claimed this was the first canonisation. I would say this was the first New Covenant canonisation — or the last Old Covenant one.

Previous Old Covenant ones include:

But for David's sake the Lord his God gave him a lamp in Jerusalem, to set up his son after him, and to establish Jerusalem Because David had done that which was right in the eyes of the Lord, and had not turned aside from any thing that he commanded him, all the days of his life, except the matter of Urias the Hethite
3 Kings (1 Kings) 15:4-5

We do not see a man's heart. God does. And God can respond about it, like for Hagiographers and prophets about King David, like at the Crucifixion about St. Dismas, or by working miracles on behalf of a deceased saint, as per canonisations in more recent times, after the canonic books were all written.

If the Catholic Church cannot even humanly speaking recognise a miracle, how come Biblical authors could?

Claiming Moses couldn't know if he had parted the Red Sea, as a human, but somehow he still could know so as hagiographer and Israelites only knew they had walked through the Red Sea by accepting the account of the Exodus, not from memory, well, that makes simply no sense at all.

Oh, Biblical proof that miracles are endorsements of people:

So that even there were brought from his body to the sick, handkerchiefs and aprons, and the diseases departed from them, and the wicked spirits went out of them.
Acts of Apostles 19:12

1:20 Apocalypse 6:9—11 doesn't use the term "saints", but clearly describes a category which is the most popular usage of "saints" in the Catholic Church.

The body of believers are, as Saint Paul uses it, collectively speaking saints. This doesn't guarantee that each individual in this collective is a saint.

If your sole beef with Catholicism is we use a different terminology, can you show beyond reasonable doubt that Biblical usage never varies in terminology for any concept?

Other example, St. Paul probably says "episkopoi" for what we call "priests" (presbyteroi), and for what we call diocesan bishops, he probably said "teachers" ... while he had other terms for other categories of bishops, including in his time still apostles (not limited to the twelve, btw).

2:52 As said, "only God knows the heart of a man" applies prior to God deciding to reveal sth about it.

Miracles are His preferred way of doing such revelation, as per Biblical ones.

3:29 The "I never knew you" passage involves people doing miracles while alive and being endorsed by God for something other than their persons.

When God does a miracle on behalf of someone already deceased, it's either not quite complete as a miracle, or it's an endorsement of the person.

And some that were burying a man, saw the rovers, and cast the body into the sepulchre of Eliseus. And when it had touched the bones of Eliseus, the man came to life, and stood upon his feet
4 Kings (2 Kings) 13:21

Second Video:

Catholicism's interpretation of sacred Scripture.. ‪@TotusCatholicaEN‬
Nero Turtle | 17 Oct. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IT7UbbQZiWY

Nero Turtle

[pinned comment]

Root word: βατταλογήσητε - vein repetition. Catholicism tends to argue that older is better. But only when it suits the agenda. The lexicon conclusion for this matter was established in 1611. But they prefer the 1960 version.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

The lexicon conclusion was a minority opinion by scholars from Geneva and later England.

Exactly three old Bible translations have this: Geneva Bible, Bishops' Bible, King James.

Douay Rheims is earlier than King James and has:

And when you are praying, speak not much, as the heathens. For they think that in their much speaking they may be heard
Matthew 6:7

Now, this repeats the way St. Jerome dealt with it, by rephasing. However Coptic and Syriac translations actually do give a translation "don't stutter" ...

EXACTLY what human type of discourse can be described both as stuttering and as using many words? Explaining yourself to someone above you, and don't completely trust, and being nervous.

This is exactly what Velleius Paterculus did in the last chapter (paragraph we would say) of his Roman History book II. Not by repetitive insisting on a phrase, but by constant rephrasing, from one deity to the next, hedging the petitions, giving each "a reason" to hear the prayer.

Now, "older is better" doesn't mean a Renaissance scholar or an Enlightenment scholar is better at history or linguistics than someone after 19th C.

1:23 I'm sorry, you are susbtituting Calvin's pseudo-scholarship and its English endorsement for the actual Greek.

As I recall, saying something over and over again actually has a known Greek term, it's thrallein.

2:00 "between sacred and forgotten"

Not sure where the Catholicism is that he's describing, there are lots of Catholic places where praying the Rosary (including the Hail Mary's over and over again) is very commonplace.