Catholic Exegesis Involves Some Eisegesis (as it Should)

When a Catholic Apologist Says THESE THINGS, They Are Wrong (Here's How You Answer)!
BiblicallyMotivated | 8 June 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8---ti8nIw

Excuses, I just took a look at the caption.

That image of an angry priest in a Lent sermon or hearing confession, did you get it from a Hollywood film or is it AI?

---

Lots of church history, sometimes some Latin, lots of confident assertions about what the father said, but when you actually press them back to the text of scripture, things wax interpretive pretty fast. Because most Catholic ecclesiastical arguments aren't exeetical. their interpretive frameworks built on top of scripture and then read back into it. The text gets cited, but it's rarely doing the work they claim it's doing.

How do you avoid this with Christian interpretation of the OT?

As you may be awareish of, a certain Tovia Singer will interpret those passages differently.

I would say, yes, Catholic interpretation of the OT is a framework on top of OT Scripture which Jesus read back into it, on His walk to Emmaus and on other occasions after rising and before ascending.

I note that 4 out of your 5 examples deal with "Formalprinzip" (equivalent to Protestant "sola Scriptura") and only Apostolic Succession gets to the meat ("Materialprinzip", equivalent to Protestant "whereever the Christian faith is truly taught" and so on).

BiblicallyMotivated

@BiblicallyMotivated

The difference is in new revelation. The prophets told the Jews to expect a new covenant which would naturally include new revelation. The OT passages quoted in the NT that deviate from their original context is the right of new revelation and attributable to "manifold fulfillment" where various scriptures from the OT would be applied in new ways or given a new layer of meaning. I fully expect this to happen again at the return of Christ, but not until then.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@BiblicallyMotivated We agree that there is no new revelation (other than as to pragmatical detail) prior to the second coming after the last Apostle died.

However, with OT, we know that Jesus gave a Christian interpretation of all of the OT, Moses and all the prophets, and that's more than the few comments within NT quotes supply us with.

Our claim isn't we are authorised somehow to add, our claim is, we have preserved all of that.

john irish

@johnirish989

@hglundahl A Christian interpretation. Wow. GOD's interpretation. We allege you simply and wonderfully are not INSPIRED.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@johnirish989 I agree it's God's interpretation.

But it is also a thing over and above the bare text.

---

Wait, your Apostolic Succession is not the Catholic term.

The Catholic term doesn't refer to Apostolic origin of Scriptures, but to Apostolic origin of sacramental Church leaders.

As to Apostolic origin of Scriptures, you actually may have a point.

Like CMI certainly has a point (from Behe, I think) that the flagellum of the bacterium proves God as Creator, as Intelligent Designer.

However, the problem is, for Behe, Romans 1 doesn't refer to a thing which will be discovered close to 20 centuries later in a microscope. And your view on how NT books are authenticated involves a kind and degree of philologic work which would have been way beyond most people in the first and second centuries.

St. Paul relied on Geocentrism. We observe it, it's not a set of shining things attached to one solid cylinder or spheric inside, since Sun, Moon and other planets have orbits independent of the Sphere of the Fix Stars, therefore this needs, in the present, a very good and conscious coordinator, who, for being able to roll the universe around us needs to have inexhaustible power.

And second C. Christians relied on Tradition. Hebrews actually has two alternative authorships within the first centuries, Tertullian thought or mentioned that some thought, it was written by St. Barnabas (whom we celebrate today).

Please, do tell me if you ever get to grips with what Catholics mean by Apostolic Succession, and do a reply to that. Would you like my defense first?

john irish

The total silence of Scripture. Hmm.

But sure, school us, teacher.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@johnirish989 A silence can be very deafening, if you are deaf or don't turn the ear in the right direction.

Silence on what? Our sense of Apostolic Succession?

Matthew 28:16 to 20 says Jesus will be with His Apostles to the end of time. Apostles, if you note verse 16, He was not speaking to all faithful.

Now, this would be redundant if it were just about Apostles in their own persons, since they (Judas was already gone) went to Heaven.

Therefore it refers to them having successors.

Acts 1 shows the traitor getting, not exactly a successor in this sense, but a replacement, but in his quality of sacramental bishop, he was successor of the other 11.

I think it was Antioch that started out without Apostolic Succession, Apollo hadn't even got a Christian Baptism, but the Apostles in Jerusalem saw to it that this didn't remain so.

People in Antioch with Apostolic succession laid hands on Paul and Barnabas.

Meanwhile, in Acts 8 (I think) the Apostles had shown they had a power that the other disciples lacked, and Simon Magus wanted it. Now, Peter didn't tell him "this isn't how it works" but "your motivation and assumption about God are blasphemy". We may assume Simon Magus was right he would have been able to baptise in Holy Spirit if Peter had laid hands on him, which he didn't.

Paul, as said, had Apostolic succession at one remote (if none of the twelve was in Antioch in Acts 13), he gave it to Timothy and told Timothy about who to give or not give it to.

Complaining you don't find this in one passage is like complaining the chronology of Kings isn't in one passage.

john irish

You're adding much to Scripture. Sacramental bishops in Acts 1. Why are we adding that? Those with Apostolic succession in Acts 13. Why are we adding that?

Acts 13:1-3, 2 Timothy 1:6, 1 Timothy 4:14, 1 Timothy 5:22: Wow. Not a peep about succession.

You're reading your bias into Scripture. Indicating desperation. Your desperate church so badly needs craves legitimacy, POWER.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@johnirish989 Sorry, but you are making yourself obtuse. The only thing I positively added was the terminology, so as to explain it from the Bible.

You read like a JW accusing Trinitarians of adding to the NT.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@johnirish989 OK, it seems your questions for two of them actually have some sense.

"Sacramental bishops in Acts 1. Why are we adding that?"

Because the laying of hands is a sacramental sign and because the other thing about being an apostle, namely having witnessed the Resurrection, Matthias already had, or he wouldn't have been eligible.

"Those with Apostolic succession in Acts 13. Why are we adding that?"

Because we know from earlier, Acts 11, that the Apostles had had direct contact with Antioch.

john irish

@hglundahl Your adding garbage rcc terminology.

Again, NADA linking hands to succession.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@johnirish989 12. Antioch. Paul and Barnabas. Timothy and Titus. Those Timothy were going to lay hands on.

WHAT is this if not a succession?

And especially as Matthew 28:16 to 20 promises one.

john irish

@hglundahl You have heard of Google, no? It's hyper-quick these days. Yeah yeah, we already know. YOU'RE smarter.

But definitely the Google is uninspired, human, prone to error. You have to RIGHTLY DIVIDE it, too. It's not Godgle. Way too often a trinny. And yet, often quite the helpful.

Alright my brother. It's hot but I'm going on my long walk.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@johnirish989 I'm sorry, are you giving up argument and telling me "google it"?

Or are you suggesting the answer I had spent hours of Bible reading for a previous post was just sth I happened to hit as I googled it?

Either way, you are not winning the argument.

john irish

@hglundahl I couldn't have outed you any better. For you people Truth is irrelevant. It's all about winning.

POWER

And no. Googling questions is, just like I said, often quite the helpful.

Scared of a prenate. Don't be weird.

Alright. Let me get my lazy behind up.

Arnold the Schwartz: I'll be back.*

* footnote

If he called me Austrian, danke fürs Compliment; but if he considered me well trained, it's a bit too ridiculous to be one. I might as well ironise about myself before he does.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@johnirish989 Actually, truth was not relevant to your comments on Google.

I'm not scared to google a question, but I know there are diverse Protestant takes on Apostolic succession (including some Protestants claiming, "we have it, from the Catholic Church") and I'm interested on your take.

I also don't know what a prenate is. Did you mean prelate? No, not all that much.

I do know they can confer and I can't confer ordination, they can confer and I can't confer absolution. By the way, the power God gave His eleven minus Thomas to absolve is antecedent to successions to this power.

About another kind of power. When you tell me to google it, you are basically assuming the role of schooling me.

I'm sorry, I'm up for a debate, but not for schooling. I'm 57. I have lost decades of my life to people who are about the age of my parents, wanting to school me, but who aren't my mother. The one who did school me, when the time was the right one.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@johnirish989 Just in case you missed it, I actually did google it.

I found one reddit and one Ligonier ministries, and lazy slop dealing with the question on both.

1) "not found in Scripture" is a negative universal, and I happen to have found it in Scripture.
2) "not clearly found in Scripture" is a weasel word: Ligonier admit that it is found in Scripture as Catholics interpret it, but don't give the details or why the interpretation is rejected
3) Nestorius was validly ordained but still rejected, also Ligonier: yes, we differentiate between valid succession (which he had) and valid jurisdiction (which he lost), or in other words between sacrament and pastoral
4) "we place more importance on succession in truth than on succession in bishops" (freely after Ligonier) - we actually need both, since truth, as expressed in Scripture, actually does give us a very clear indication of Apostolic succession.

Calvin was totally right in commenting in Matthew 28:20 that someone who has succession but betrays truth is not heir to this promise. The next problem isn't that he applies this to Catholics. The huge problem is, he's not showing whom he considers to have preserved both sides, succession and truth, or at least whom he considers to have preserved truth — himself he was not claiming to preserve, but to rediscover it, contrary to the term "all days".

john irish

Read all my comments for this video. I'm too tired to repeat them and your pay sucks. You need another Google. I absolutely never read reddit. They got CIA written all over them. Yeah, you definitely have to rightly divide Google.

The only succession in Scripture that my tired brain can think of is Mathias. God silent on the issue otherwise. Some struggle with silence.* An enemy. Compelled to fill it themselves if need be. God: Be still. I was a shuttle bus driver for years. This one woman. Wow. Couldn't go 10 seconds without running her mouth. Because of her, they also didn't pay enough.

You can learn from all sources of things, people. YT Eric Church: Three Year Old.**

Alright kid, good luck.

Oh yeah:

You destroyed me.

* footnote

I'm not bothered to answer this peace of pseudoempathy, to him, but he is wrong about me, if he thought of me.

I don't GET enough silence to enjoy silence.

** footnote

Actually a good song:

https://genius.com/Eric-church-three-year-old-lyrics

Haven't heard the music yes, this library has no headphones:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fOI4X3x6JY

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@johnirish989 "The only succession in Scripture that my tired brain can think of is Mathias."

Look at a tree, miss the alley ...

I gave you a succession of hands on heads.

12 - > some in Antioch
some (including Simon Niger) in Antioch -> Paul and Barnabas
Paul -> Timothy and Titus
Timothy -> those he shall and shan't lay hands on.

In parallel with a non-succession:

Simon Peter // Simon Magus

And obviously also in parallel with the succession you mentioned:

11 -> Matthias n° 12

None are as blind as won't be bothered to see.

john irish

@hglundahl Uh. No. Are we looking to be clever? LOL. Just simply cite the Scripture that ties binds hand laying to succession. Easy-peasy.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@johnirish989 That's like asking for one scripture saying Rohoboam was successor to David. There was a Solomon between, so there are two Scriptures* adding up to that.

I've already given those adding up to Apostolic succession, and you are not clever to play obtuse, key word play.

* footnote

More like four, since there is a parallel in Chronicles.

---

[dialogue]

Patrick Pawol

@patrickpawol8639

Malachi 1 verse 11 is a prophecy of the Eucharist in the Holy Sacrifice of the in Catholic Mass.

i

Romans (E.J.)

@Repent.Believe.obeyJesus

Christians believe in the Eucharist, what's your point?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Repent.Believe.obeyJesus Did you catch the nuance "Holy Sacrifice of the Mass"?

It's not just that Jesus is on the altar.

It's that Jesus' sacrifice on Calvary is on the altar.

Malachi speaks of a "pure oblation" ... a sacrifice among the Gentiles, so, after the Jewish temple.

ij

john irish

A MEMORIAL.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@johnirish989 That it is a memorial, as per "hoc facite in meam commemorationem" doesn't exclude it is a sacrifice "qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum" / Malachi 1:11.

iij

Jesse Bryant

@jessebryant9233

No, the Eucharist is NOT a holy sacrifice. Christ's sacrifice was "once for all", just like the Bible says.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@jessebryant9233 You'd have a point if any Catholic said the Mass was another sacrifice.

Then said I: Behold, I come to do thy will, O God: he taketh away the first, that he may establish that which followeth In the which will, we are sanctified by the oblation of the body of Jesus Christ once

And every priest indeed standeth daily ministering, and often offering the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins But this man offering one sacrifice for sins, for ever sitteth on the right hand of God From henceforth expecting, until his enemies be made his footstool For by one oblation he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified
[Hebrews 10:9-14]

What we are saying is not that Mass is another oblation, but that it is, from Heaven's view, the same one.

And that so it is, we prove in Malachi 1:11 and in ...

We have an altar, whereof they have no power to eat who serve the tabernacle.
[Hebrews 13:10]

Being Un-Catholic is Not a Solution

Beginning a Video by Shad M. Brooks (To Prove I'm Not a Mormon) · Being Un-Catholic is Not a Solution · Answering Testify Cafe on Catholicism

Thinking of Converting to CATHOLICISM? Don't Do Anything Before Watching This!
BiblicallyMotivated | 13 April 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Ha1bckkwcQ

2:24 Yeah, exactly!

Caerularius could claim he was just following in the steps of Photius (who died in peace with Rome) and was continuing the immediate predecessors.

Luther could absolutely not claim that. He was a Roman Catholic clergyman of Wittenberg before being the Deformer there.

3:56 Novus Ordos aren't in communion with Pope Michael II.

5:53 What exactly did Christ promise to the 11 in Matthew 28:16 to 20?

Pretty clearly something that has the power to impose the analogy of faith.

You can pretend Roman Catholicism doesn't meet that claim. But you can't pretend the claim as such is anti-Biblical or even extra-Biblical. It's a solidly Biblical claim, for the Biblical or NT Church and its direct successor in this day.

Michael II or* Peter III or Leo XIV or Bp Pivarunas or Revd Pagliarani or Bartholomew of Constantinople or Kirill of Moscow or Nicholas of Eastern America and New York or someone actually has such a claim. It's not Dallin H. Oaks bc of the gap between Moroni and Joseph Smith, which contradicts the text.

8:40 Trinitarian Christians? Orthodox?

Bec wars are sometimes recommended by the Church, but not fought by them.

Waldensians were nearly as orthodox (adjective, not denomination) as Evangelicals, and usually I think Trinitarian, but they were also deniers of the Bodily Resurrection. They were also in the bad company of the very heretical Albigensians, who disagree with the first verse of the Bible, claiming that different entities created Heaven from who created Earth. Which is blasphemy.

BiblicallyMotivated

@BiblicallyMotivated

You must be thinking of the Cathars, whom the Waldensians resisted. Waldensian statements of faith, such as the Confession of 1120, declared that Christ "rose again for our justification" and that they looked forward to the "resurrection of their bodies at the day of judgment".

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@BiblicallyMotivated I'm aware that the confession is dated to 1120 (after just looking it up), but can you get scholars to agree? Not specifically Protestant ones.

Because once upon a time, Cathars or Albigensians were also falsely credited with a creed or confession that agreed with Protestantism (actually Calvinism).

The Church from 1200 + sth (IV Lateran, I think) required of returning Waldensians to confess "I will rise in the same flesh that now I carry" (changed, but not exchanged for another).

Perhaps that was because it was also used for Albigensians, not sure.

However, the one you quote is from a work** by this man:

Pasteur des vallées piémontaises, témoin des massacres, Jean LEGER vit ses biens confisqués et sa maison rasée sur ordre du Duc de Savoie, il se réfugia à Leyde où il fut nommé pasteur de l'Eglise Wallone en 1663.

Exactly the kind of period in which a Protestant would claim Medieval Albigensians / Waldensians for their own, as Protestantism was already more fashionable than Catharism and as modern historic scholarship was not yet a huge thing.

@BiblicallyMotivated I did find a reference*** on it:

The beliefs of the Waldensians should be found best expressed in their confessions of faith, but those which we have leave much to be desired. The confession dated 1120 by Morland and Leger, is really much later. The second that he prints is undated; the only other dated before the Reformation is the one presented to King Ladislaus of Bohemia in 1508, but it is given in a later form, as “amplified,” in 1535.

9:05 Yeah. Jesus was, unlike the lie of Caiaphas, not a heretic to Second Temple Judaism.

Jesus spoke of sin in the sense of miscarriage of justice, not as overstepping the authority, which actually involved an authority to stone blasphemers.

9:19 "Pope" who?

I don't think Michael II recognises antipope Wojtyla as Pope. Nor did Michael I.

9:58 "Protestants don't claim authoritative infallibility."

Therefore relinquishing the claim to be the Church to which Matthew 28:16 to 20 was adressed.

Also, not strictly true of early Magisterial Protestantism, like Luther or Calvin.

BiblicallyMotivated

Why would that be?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@BiblicallyMotivated The task given to the twelve was teaching everything He had told them.

The help in that task was Jesus Himself, already identified as almighty even as Man and the time for that help was every day, no breaks.

Like God the Father turning the Sun, Moon and stars around us, God the Son helping His Church doesn't take Saturdays off.

The Apostles knew this and the real successors of them know it.

BiblicallyMotivated

@hglundahl But where does this establish the principle of apostolic succession? What about this tells us that their unique authority as "witnesses to his resurrection" (Acts 1:22) would be given to others beyond them?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@BiblicallyMotivated I was not citing Acts 1:22, I was citing Matthew 28:16 through 20.

The twelve are the first bishops.

In the NT era, there was probably no single term for bishop, the Apostles (12, 70, 500) were one of the categories of bishops.

That the succession is episcopal can be gathered elsewhere than Mt 28 and Acts 1:22 is only part of it.

Barnabas perhaps, Titus and Timothy certainly were not witnesses to the Resurrection. But they were part of a succession. In Antioch, Paul and Barnabas became bishops in Acts 13. Paul made Timothy and Titus bishops before the letters. If "bishops" in the pastorals means "priests" these establish that priests must be ordained by someone (reaching back to the Apostles) and that Tim and Tite were meant to carry on, also eventually consecrating bishops.

But I think I already said. No, wait, that was to Shadiversity, not to you. The verses I cited could have been compatible with many different ways of continuing the Church, but they state the Church has to continue and do so with infallibility, and I could have been fine with any way of continuing it that I actually find.

And obviously, if the disciples in Antioch who consecrated Paul and Barnabas didn't include any of the twelve, though some have identified "Niger" as Peter (Peter > Ater = Niger, as a code name), they got their episcopal consecrations from the twelve.

Beyond the task of witnesses to the resurrection, there is the task of simply continuing to teach what one has been taught, even Paul (who was partly taught by Christ personally) says "I have handed on that which also I have received" and the principle is not limited to the context of St. Paul.

11:20 Unlike the cherubs on the Ark of Covenant and unlike the face of Jesus on the Shroud and the Sudarium, the idols of the pagans were just the craftsmanship.

If the pagans were lucky. In Delphi, they were even worse off.

That's the point Isaias is making. Not about statues being involved in worship.

11:39 The God of Israel also had an Ark which was carried in a manner physically reminiscent of idols' being carried.

12:09 It so happens, the Golden Calf was a heretical image of God.

We do condemn heretical images. Some fights between Catholics and Orthodox are about which ones are and aren't heretical.

13:00 The presence of God is dwelling in human flesh, since c. 2000 years ago.

That suddenly made God Himself, as He actually is, and not heretically is thought of, depictable.

13:43 I'm actually NOT genuinely searching.

I get recommended more than one video like this. Gavin Ortlund had a similar title.

I already converted when I was c. 20 (19+). I'm 57.

And I respond to video after video like this, and some people still want to treat me as if I were "considering" to convert and hadn't already done so.

Here is my reply to your call to viewers' conscience. Imagine you stand on judgement day and say "yeah, I know the succession seemed to match, outwardly looked like matching, what You said in Matthew 28, but I didn't trust it" ... Luke 10:16 says something about those who don't trust Apostles (or, by extension, successors).

Kamaree Myricks

@kamareemyricks8314

Protestants dont reject the apostles, we actually agree with them so im not sure what you mean when you say we didnt trust them when we literally hang on their words. we're saying We are not going to stand before god and give an account of why we weren't apart of a specific denomination. Christ is the unifer and we can be united inspite of our differences. we're going to be judged by whether we accepted or rejected the son and then our actions after. Through Jesus we attain salvation not by joining a certain club.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@kamareemyricks8314 "the apostles"

I mentioned they had successors, right?

This is apparent from "all days" in Matthew 28:20.

"why we weren't apart of a specific denomination."

What about Jews who didn't join the Church at Pentecost?

They therefore that received his word, were baptized; and there were added in that day about three thousand souls And they were persevering in the doctrine of the apostles, and in the communication of the breaking of bread, and in prayers And fear came upon every soul: many wonders also and signs were done by the apostles in Jerusalem, and there was great fear in all And all they that believed, were together, and had all things common Their possessions and goods they sold, and divided them to all, according as every one had need

And continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they took their meat with gladness and simplicity of heart Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord increased daily together such as should be saved
[Acts Of Apostles 2:41-47]

So, those who were "such as should be saved" needed to be together.

In one visible organisation, not in mutually independent ones.

That correct organisation is first defined by baptism and the doctrine of the Apostles, but the people had and have access to the full doctrine of the Apostles through their successors.

Kamaree Myricks

Mark 9:38-41

“Teacher,” said John, “we saw someone driving out demons in your name and we told him to stop, because he was not one of us.”

39 “Do not stop him,” Jesus said. “For no one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me, 40 for whoever is not against us is for us. 41 Truly I tell you, anyone who gives you a cup of water in my name because you belong to the Messiah will certainly not lose their reward

Where does it say we have to be united in a visible institution? Sure we may have disagreements but we are united by our shared faith in the saviour Jesus christ. That is the shared visible person we share in Jesus.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@kamareemyricks8314 Did you note that this was during the Old Testament, before Calvary, and both Jesus' disciples and the other ones were part of Second Temple Judaism?

Kamaree Myricks

@hglundahl I don't see how it still wouldn't apply now. Apart of the hermenutical process is seeing the difference before christ and after christ in text where that applies.

My question for you. How would we today apply this scripture? As the bible also says all scripture is given for correction reproof and teaching in all righteousness so that the man of God may be complete. If that's true what in this passage is not for today when Jesus says if they are not against you they are for you and if they do something for you in his name then they will have their reward?

Also appreciate the conversation. You didn't have to but you did so thanks for talking.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@kamareemyricks8314 "How would we today apply this scripture?"

For instance, if a relic is from the clothing of St. Francis, it's not forbidden for Dominicans to use it to obtain miracles.

if they are not against you they are for you

Well, are you for Catholicism and its claims of exclusivity?

"You didn't have to but you did so thanks for talking."

With you it's less toxic than some I've debated. Much so.

Kamaree Myricks

@hglundahl im happy to hear that.



I've heard of relics and things. Do you know of any resources that i might look into to further understand it?

Is St. Francis a saint thats not commonly appealed to by dominicans?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@kamareemyricks8314 Not the least, that's part of my point.

Franciscans are disciples of St. Francis (of Assisi) and Dominicans are disciples of St Dominic (of Guzmán or of Osma).

Yet Franciscans, as Catholics, invoke the prayers of St. Dominic and Dominicans those of St. Francis.

Back in the OT the disciples of Jesus and other people invoking His name were both parts of Second Temple Judaism.

@kamareemyricks8314 Relics?

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]

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]

Kamaree Myricks

@hglundahl is this in reference to one body but many members in communion with each other?

Sorry im a little lost. 😅

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@kamareemyricks8314 Indeed, Franciscans and Dominicans are definitely one body in Christ.

Each discipleship isn't a body to itself, just as the followers of Jesus in the Old Testament, before Calvary, were not a different body than those other Jews who used His name to expel demons.

Kamaree Myricks

@hglundahl hmm interesting thanks for clarifying that.

---

* Note, I'm saying "or" not "and" — they exclude each other.

** Histoire générale des Eglises Evangeliques des Vallées du Piemont ou Vaudoises
https://www.info-bible.org/histoire/vaudois/histoire-generale-leger.htm

Original printing of the work: A Leyde: Chez Jean le Carpentier, 1669.

*** The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers, vol. 1
https://m.egwwritings.org/en/book/956.5585#5591

It's actually a 7DA source making this admission.

Exegesis, a Protestant and My Response

They Say 'The Greek Means This.' Here's Why They're WRONG!
BiblicallyMotivated | 19 Jan. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AswxB6gBTbM

3:54 Were Jesus and Nicodemus speaking Greek or Aramaic?

If Aramaic, is there an Aramaic word that means both "from above" and "again"?

Because a word used in translation being misunderstandable or punnable doesn't guarantee the original is.

I suppose you are not pretending the dialogue was ahistoric and originally written in Greek by John after the Resurrection, in order to make a point?

A

BiblicallyMotivated

@BiblicallyMotivated

The data we have about the conversation is written in Greek. That’s all we have. How would the conversation actually have sounded? Couldn’t say for sure. But it’s irrelevant because we don’t have that data.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@BiblicallyMotivated You can check Aramaic lexica.

Is there a single word in Aramaic which has both meanings or not?

13:09 The two meanings do not exclude each other.

Baptism is from above, not from the flesh.

But it comes after birth (as some Catholic midwives know: after birth has started ... if there is a danger of death, you remember Jacob's hand and the red string? ... that hand could have been baptised by a midwife, if she feared the head wouldn't come out alive). In that sense it really is a second birth.

I

BiblicallyMotivated

The English translation is correct because it’s trying to show that Nicodemus misunderstood Jesus, which is apparent because Jesus corrects him and then highlights the heavenly “from above origin”

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@BiblicallyMotivated The Latin is correct.

It has "denuo" and that means again, and the "from above" items are never resumed as "from above" but given in detail.

BiblicallyMotivated

@hglundahl the Latin is irrelevant. The Bible was written in Greek and that’s the data that matters.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@BiblicallyMotivated Not if Matthew 28:20 is a promise Jesus kept, if so, what the Catholic Church uses matters.

Or any other single persisting Church you might prefer, I don't recommend tracing your line from Novatians over Albigensians, though.

II

john irish

@johnirish989

Jesus was baptized. So He was born twice. His Father was never birthed.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@johnirish989 The Baptism of John was not the Baptism in the Name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost.

Jesus, even as Man, was already Son of the Father.

john irish

@hglundahl His first creation. A creature. Still God. Created before time and place.

Without sin. Needing no cleansing. Baptized to fulfill Scripture.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@johnirish989 To fulfill scripture is correct, no sin, needing no cleansing is correct.

But first creation is not. Creature is not.

john irish

@hglundahl So you believe. LOL. My condolences.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@johnirish989 So you don't believe? My condolences!

john irish

@hglundahl Wow. Shameless plagiarism. I forgive you.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Thanks, I suppose.

B

Nicholas George

@nicholasgeorge7825

Nicodemus is is a Greek name, so...but we have no solid way of knowing what language or mix of languages they were using except where specified (llama sabacthani for example). We only know how John records it.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@nicholasgeorge7825 While Greek remains possible, Aramaic would seem very much more probable.

17:22 Thank you for the lesson. I was not unaware of this stuff. On βατταλογέω, Matthew 6:7 I have done my own work. It is a hapax. The meaning in Strong matches a Protestant reading. The one Greek occurrence outside the NT is lacking from the LXX and is centuries later. Can't be bothered to repeat the Perseus search.

You know what I did?

The Vulgate, one fairly early translation, doesn't use "repeat" but inserts "multum loqui" from the context. I asked on quora about the Syriac and Coptic translations, which I also knew to be early, I just don't know the languages. Both of them use "stammer" (or stutter, if you prefer) ... the most probable isn't that battologein or battalogein means "speak like Mr. Battos" (if such a man existed) but more like "speak like you were stuttering" ... what exact attitude comes across both as "stuttering" and as "many words"?

Putting a prayer on repeat, until you fly over the single words, thinking about sth else entirely, hopefully something related to the reason of the words (like, in the Rosary, the mysteries instead of the words of Hail Mary)? No.

The attitude you want is, like a teen not following school rules, trying to explain himself with the principal, he'll both start many diverse trains of thought and be insecure about many of them.

And what do we find among Greco-Roman Pagans? Not just that, but the very same year that Jesus preached, i e the sixteenth year of Tiberius? Velleius Paterculus ends book II of Roman Histories with a prayer to his gods. I'm not sure the Christian copyists have left it entirely intact. But half short as it is, it has the traits of a teen before the principal (like Edmund would have before the White Witch at a point, if she hadn't cut him short). To god after god, three different ones, with well-chosen attribute after well-chosen attribute, he requests, with no word repetitions, except "Romani" and "orbis" a preservation and blessing on the rule of Tiberius and giving him successors to the end of time ... but obviously he has to explain, he doesn't mean weak successors, but capable ones ....

The point is, the real God Who takes us as His children and becomes our Father, doesn't need those kinds of explanation. He doesn't love tricking people with the verbal meanings of their requests, unless the words are very carefully chosen.

This verse says nothing against (and also not much for) repeating prayers. Unless you fall into the trap of trusting Strong and Perseus (both operating under the KJV tradition) to tell you the word meaning.

Nicholas George

Nice job locating the hapax but I don't follow you easily. Your point is that its ok to pray repetitious prayers but not immature or relatively thoughtless ones? Ok.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@nicholasgeorge7825 No, my point is it is not OK to approach God as if one were approaching a potentially hostile and strange authority figure, with nervousness.

The point of the teenager before the principal isn't his immaturity, but his lack of power and trust in the school (often rational with quite a few schools).

So, I could have taken a small businessman in Palmermo taken before a Mafia boss instead. The small businessman is not immature.

These situations are situations where you are prone to stutter or use many, that is longwinded, words. Endless explanations.

Repeating prayers isn't mentioned in Matthew 6, except we are kind of encouraged to repeat the one Jesus taught.

Kaduri Revisited, Bible, Tradition and Magisterium Defended

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.

WSK38

@wsk38

You are wrong

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@wsk38 Fine, you think so.

Would you like responding to my arguments?

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!

Update:

The Catholic Church Did NOT Give Us the Bible - Here's the Proof!
BiblicallyMotivated | 1 Nov. 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDRIKwwSq3Q

Two points.

1) Defenders of Deuterocanonic books will not consider them as another category. Judith? Ketuvim. Tobit? Ketuvim. I and II Maccabees? Ketuvim. In so far as post-Torah historic books that are not extensively prophetic are Ketuvim, like Kings. Sirach? Ketuvim. Wisdom? Ketuvim. Like Proverbs is Ketuvim. The odd one out is Baruch. Neviim. And this one is one that has sometimes been seen as just part of Jeremias, whose disciple Baruch was. So, for Jews to consider that the contested books are Scripture, we don't need an extra category. We only need this category of Ketuvim not to have yet been closed as to its canon. Which is what we find. That Jesus taught from Ketuvim doesn't mean everyone in Israel at the time agreed on what books were in it.

2) Majority vote of 5000 manuscripts, there are two problems. a) For most of Christian history, no Christian has had access to 5000 manuscripts, they have had access to some few ... which they had from the bearers of Tradition. A k a Catholic / Orthodox bishops. Up to 1054, this was one Church, and immediately after, each side claimed both designations and officially still does so. St. Ignatius of Loyala gives rules for "agreeing with the Orthodox Church" one of which is obeying the Pope. He obviously means the Catholic Church. Russian distinguishes "Kafolik" (Orthodox, F after Greek TH as a lisp) from "Katolik" (RC, T after Latin pronunciation of the word). So, as previously mentioned, most Christians could not use your rule). Besides, most manuscripts are from a time which uncontestedly had this Church structure. b) The 5000 manuscripts are not all transscripts directly from one text, but from each other. Text families are sometimes contested. If two readings are attested in 4th C. manuscripts, seeing how many of the later ones are repeating the one or the other won't tell us which one was the original. Plus, does only Greek count, or do translations? For both of these reasons, the majority of Christians have relied for the Bible text, as they have relied for its being the word of God, on the tradition of the Church, and on the succession of its tradition bearers, the bishops, from the apostles. If it was good enough for them, it is good enough for us, even if it's less indispensable now.

A third point 3)

on two doctrines found in II Maccabees. It doesn't matter if Maccabees are Scripture or not, the historic events show that very prominent believers in the Resurrection (a non-Sadducee priesthood!) believed in prayers for dead who were not quite top notch and in prayers from dead who were. Neither of these beliefs is explicitly rebutted in the NT, like pilpuls allowing disobedience to parents are. In fact, we have things showing Jesus and Paul believed them. a) Jesus basically affirms Abraham could pray for people, since the only reason the Rich Man was rebutted was the fact he was himself damned and his brothers on a firm way to damnation. b) St. Paul prays for Onesiphorus in terms very suggestive that he had already died.

Richie Journey

@rj1840-z7g

I have to agree. Which Christians actually don’t pray for their loved ones and take offerings at their funerals even today? Also, I agree, many IT writings fall under “the writings” or the “Ketuvim” and “Neviim”. And, JUST because God was “silent” in not sending a public prophet does not mean He was silent at all. The “canon” contains written periods of “silence” to us.