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.

---

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

@johnirish989

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.

---

[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]

No, Pope Michael I Didn't Rewrite the Bible

And Pope Michael II doesn't deny the need to be in union with the Pope, as per Unam Sanctam. And if you say a Pope needs to have his residence in Rome, take that up with Pope Benedict XII.

Are SSPX Priests No Longer Catholic?
Catholic Answers Live Clips | 8 Febr. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=snL_0GziY_s

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

Sedevacantist and SSPX, you are forgetting the third category, Orthopapist.

Part of them mysticalist (St. Jovit in Canada being one and Palmar de Troya outside Seville in Spain another headquarter of ... Popes chosen or with predecessors chosen by whoever revealed himselves or themselves to these men).

Part are conclavist. The theological position is, sedevacancy leads, as usual, to a right and duty to elect a new Pope. The unusual thing being cardinals siding with a wrongful Pope, so one has to do without cardinals.

Pius XIII is out, without successor, since he died.
Linus II is out, he withdrew.

Remains, the first one and his successor, Popes Michael I and II.

Copecanada

@chrismah6248

The same ones who thought to correct and rewrite the Bible? Who had a "pontiff" see the errors and leave their church?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@chrismah6248 I think you are confusing Palmarian with Conclavist.

Or perhaps you only saw top of my comment, the sentence "some of them are Mysticalists" which include Palmarians. Michael I and II have 1) not rewritten the Bible, and 2) not had any known defectors. Prove Michael I didn't die but arranged his death is about when you could speak of a defector.

Copecanada

@hglundahl I probably am mixing the two up

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@chrismah6248 Yes, look up the other guys, there is an interview on Chris Wagner's channel Scholastic Answers.

"Unworthy of the Universe" — Does Dawkins Want It to be Worthy and to be Worshipped? Is That Where He Puts the Attributes of God?

Is Jesus "Unworthy of the Universe"? | Richard Dawkins vs John Lennox
Larry Alex Taunton | 6 Dec. 2017
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZO7tsnHI8s

Lennox starts a most important question with "is there a God" ...

Well, I suppose Dawkins would consider it petty and unworthy of the universe to believe in a God who does one very gigantic pushup a day, the one we observe as morning and evening, and then as any given constellation appearing disappearing and reapparing.

But St. Paul didn't find it petty and unworthy of God, if you read Romans 1 and Jesus refers to that undoubted work of God each day as performed even on Sabbaths (otherwise time would have stopped at two visible stars a Friday evening over Jerusalem's time zone), and if the Pharisees had said "yes, but God is God, He doesn't need to exert Himself and make an effort to do that" Our Lord could just have lifted the hand to His right ear and answer "would you repeat that, please?"

John Lennox on C.S. Lewis, Oxford, and the Faith That Shaped His Life
Larry Alex Taunton | 9.VI.2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08Xrx4xABFw

pdxeddie1111

@pdxeddie1111

how strange for anyone that declares himself an atheist to comment "how unworthy of the universe" as if the universe is worthy or unworthy of anything when by their own admission the universe simply is. It makes myself not believe in atheists. Atheists it seems no matter how much they want to detach themselves from the reality of things can't seem to not make things personal. People want to believe that there is some sort of order to it all and the chink in the armor of atheists is that they are still human and not robots.

The following comments are mine, unless a dialogue specifically begins with a handle:

1:44 So, Dawkins said "how petty"?

After that, I don't think Lennox needed to answer. Dawkins had given up the game, he had shown he wanted to give the attributes of God to the Universe.

Which as a Geocentric, I absolutely don't want!

16:21 John Lennox, has he read Unwanted Priest / Prêtre rejeté, by Revd. Bryan Houghton?

Both English original and French translation exist, perhaps only the latter in print.

18:00 Were they just calling the man Pulverulentus Siccus, famous Latin grammarian of the Narnian world? (Telmarine or perhaps adopted Telmarine ... from the Roman world).

33:19 Ah, Lennox does accept that Babylonian "creation" stories begin in Abiogenesis, like Norse and Evolutionist ones?

44:18 Marxism is Atheistic?

If you mean that as they are Atheisising, yes. It probably isn't genuinely Atheist though.

I get the feeling some would like me to be a figurehead for a Marxist revival, and accept some kind of Spinozism to bolster it on the religious side.

Marx seems to have prayed to black tapers in his room and by a chance a maidservant opened it, many testimonies, Wurmbrandt analysed them as he was Satanist. He certainly had a period of flirting with Satanism, I cannot say for sure Wurmbrandt was wrong. And whichever be the case, he was Satanic.

46:58 I remember Rosengård, being already pro-Palestinian, I was somewhat courted by Palestinian refugees, including very religious ones.

I recall a Christian Palestinian, redhaired, and I went to exactly one lecture. I don't know if he got back, I didn't.

He went out, probably visibly to all, when the lecturer attacked the theory of Evolution.

I stayed.

Next topic, embryology. Citation from the Quran, affirmation that this is supported by scientific embryology. I go out. Presumably pretty visibly too.

1:03:58 Dawkins pronouncing judgement on himself?

Reminds me of a Catholic priest who died, was judged to Hell, and Mary intervened before Jesus telling Him to give him another chance.

The priest was quite ready to accept being damned, because he knew Jesus was right. (It was about putting off the confession and amendment of some mortal sins he knew himself to be such).

Some who pronounce judgement on themselves don't remain judged, being the moral of the story.

MIGHT I suggest you pray a Hail Mary for Dawkins' conversion?

Yesica1993

@Yesica1993

Mary? She's dead. She is not intervening for anyone. Christians do not pray to Mary, ask her to pray for us, or worship her in ANY way.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@Yesica1993 That's not what the tradition of the Church says.

Even from OT times, I'll start with the life of Jesus, prior to Crucifixion:

I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? He is not the God of the dead, but of the living.
[Matthew 22:32]

After this there appeared also another man, admirable for age, and glory, and environed with great beauty and majesty Then Onias answering, said: This is a lover of his brethren, and of the people of Israel: this is he that prayeth much for the people, and for all the holy city, Jeremias the prophet of God
[2 Machabees 15:13-14]

Plus the Church says Our Lady was taken up, body and soul. That's what we celebrate 15 August.

Yesica1993

@hglundahl Christians are to follow what the Bible teaches, not what the Catholic Church teaches.

@hglundahl Plucking verses here and there is not the way we should read any book, much less the Bible.

"Plus the Church says Our Lady was taken up, body and soul. That's what we celebrate 15 August."

The Bible teaches NO such thing. Cease your idolatry. You will give account to Jesus Christ one day. Mary will not be able to help you then.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Yesica1993 On the contrary, it is Mary who will definitely help those who are saved.

Did you know She called Herself "Blessed" matching two women of the OT and was called "Blessed Among Women" matching two other ones?

One of the OT blessed women was Abigail, whom David - note, Jesus is Davidic King - called blessed because she averted him from killing an Israelite.

The Bible also teaches to follow what the Catholic Church teaches:

And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.
[Matthew 18:17]

Or do you propose another Church with unbroken, visible continuity since AD 33?

she didn't

answer about the continuity of the Church, perhaps a case of Seymore syndrome (not hitting the "See More" button).

Yesica1993

@hglundahl

"On the contrary, it is Mary who will definitely help those who are saved."

The Bible teaches no such thing. There is ONE mediator between God and man, and that is Jesus Christ. (1 Timothy 2:1-7)

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Yesica1993 And apart from the typology of Abigail, when Jesus turned water into wine, it was Mary who mediated between the hosts of the wedding and Jesus.

It's about as easy as turning a sinner into a saint.

Sharing

Why Are Israeli Forces Harassing Catholics?
Christine Niles | 4 June 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wAMdHkASx20

Recency of All Protestant / Anabaptist Type Churches

Comment on the title of following video, they should be bothered. I'll be here responding to the first half:

Why Do Protestants Seem So Unbothered By Their Own Recency?
Ready to Harvest | 24 May 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsVYtTxmcWk

2:26 The arguments can be reduced to three. One of which is a conclusion of the other two:

1) The Church was founded by Jesus
2) It cannot go out of existence.
3) Therefore any newer Church cannot be the Church.

You don't need to have between 1 and 2 another "2" of "is the Catholic Church" because, when you take away "newcomers" (obvious such) as well as extinct ones (see point 2) you are only left with a handfull of alternatives. From there on you can narrow it down between Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Etchmiadzin and Qudshanis / exile in Chicago.

"Second, the church Christ founded was the Catholic Church. Protestants agree. They separate out the Catholic Church from what they call the Roman Catholic Church. The Catholic Church just means the universal church. And so, they would say that Jesus founded this church, which is made up of all people who are truly believers in Christ and contains all congregations where the gospel is truly preached."

That in itself is an argument for leaving out your "2", namely that the Protestants redefine "Catholic" and dilute definitions to include words like "truly" ... you recall how the Georgia Guidestones were again and again harping on governments to be "wise" but left no concrete suggestions of what this meant, except a few hugely bad ones, like one world government and reduced / controlled world population?

This kind of definition is parallel to defining Ancient Israel so as to include Righteous Gentiles with no Abrahamic ancestry and no direct contact, let alone adoption or citizenship, into the Holy Land's Holy People.

Jesus defined the Church as being Apostolic "you" in Mt 28:20 isn't adressed to believers indistinctly, but to the Eleven, and as having a governance (Mt 18:27), and as being visible (Mt 5:14—15, again, this is adressed to the disciples in "you", not to those hearing the "for all" sermon in Luke). No wonder the Protestant Holzmann wanted to argue Marcan priority so as to argue "later accretions" in Matthew!

"Many Protestants would say that the institution of today's Roman Catholic Church came into existence slowly sometime after the time of Christ and that Peter wasn't really the first pope and such."

Insofar as they argue Catholics are non-Christians, this involves the paradox of an imperceptibly slow apostasy.

Insofar as they argue Catholics are Christians, this leaves the question, why leave it? If you can be saved, no problem whatsoever, in an already existing community, why leave it?

"Most Protestants agree and would say that there will always be true believers somewhere and so the church will always continue too."

Given apostolicity and visibility of the Church, "true believers somewhere" cannot be widely different communities with no mutual contact, like Paulicians and if Waldensians went back to Claudius of Turin, as some claim.

Church plants Church. Non-Church doesn't plant Church.

"Fourth, any new church other than this original church that arrives later is not the church that Christ founded. Protestants accept this too. A particular denomination can come along later because it's not a new church per se. It's part of that same church that Christ established, the universal church."

It isn't if (at its founding) breaking away from what it calls other parts.

It also isn't if at the moment of founding they considered there were no other parts left to attach themselves to.

Calvin failed to attach to Cyril Lukaris. Lutherans didn't even try.

It cannot be a part of the Church if they admit so and so are fully parts of the Church and still we sever communion. It also cannot be a part of a Church that never goes out of existence if at the moment of founding there were, on their view no other parts to attach to.

Note, a Church can be "born orphan" and attach later, like the Korean Catholics did, baptising each other and waiting for a bishop. But it cannot say "OK, there actually is no one else to attach to, other than very loosely to other newcomers" because that implies a de facto admission of their "ideal Church" having gone out of existence.

"And it's because they view the universal church or Catholic Church as not belonging to any institution"

But, since the original Church had visibility and governance, it was precisely an institution.

Protestant views on this are, sorry, a mental breakdown.

"According to this Protestant idea, when a new denomination begins, for example, Lutheranism, it is simply a reformation of what already exists. It's still the same universal church. When a new institution is founded, these institutions are incidental, not essential."

The pretense that Lutheran Christianity already existed is, historically, bunk.

Luther's best try was to make a wedge between Hussites willing to reunite and Catholics. But Hussites only take you from early 1500's to late 1300's. This move is also partially responsible for both the Thirty Years' War and National Socialism. Czech National Socialism harkened back to Hussites, German National Socialism started in 1905 as a reaction and mostly copy of it (adding racial delusions). "How great thou art" was written by a man who later came to side with National Socialist Germany, and "Horst-Wessel-Lied" was written by the son of a Lutheran clergyman.

Many who show Hitler together with "Catholic clergy" will miss that only Schachleiter was there on the Catholic side and that a Lutheran Diaconess is not a Catholic nun, and a Reichsbischoff is a bishop of the Evangelische Kirche, while the Landesbischoff of Saxony was a direct successor of Luther.

"But for these Protestants, there's nothing that says institutions have to be the same. And if an institution seems to have lost its way and is resistant to reform, then it can be abandoned and a new institution can replace it."

Only already existing parts of it, institutional ones, can replace it.

The salient point about conclavism is, a) against a 17th C. commenter on Cum ex apostolatus, for how long can one discover the elected pope was actually heretic? and b) how far down below cardinals can the duty and right to elect a new pope devolve if cardinals are unavailable as all killed, all captive or all apostates?

If the answer is "even ten years later" and "even down to laymen", than David Bawden saved papacy on the juridical side in 1990. People had been calling out Vatican II popes since Joaquín Sáenz y Arriaga who died already in 1976. 18 years after the purported "election" of Roncalli.

As to the sacramental side, he was consecrated and ordained, in lineages of bishops already existing and reconciled to his jurisdiction, in 2011. His successor in 2023 was elected already a bishop.

That's a very far cry from saying "the institutional church became unsound a few centuries after the apostles, we must now reform that 1000 years later" ...

England didn't burn Tyndale and his translation was not the crime he burned for

Why Did England Burn the Man Who Wrote Their Bible?
Ryan M Reeves | 3 June 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boHkVM5id7E

It so happens, the Franco-Flemish Inquisitor James Latomus had no beef with his translation work as such.

He was arrested for heresy and tried on the interpretation of Romans 3.

With Ephesians 2:8—9, one could favour Tyndale's passage, but adding verse 10 tips the scales to the favour of Latomus.

They agreed, no works prior to justification on part of the one in sin, can merit justification. They disagreed on whether someone getting (as an adult, after sin or infidelity) justified was or wasn't necessarily signing up for future good works, under pain of there being no justification otherwise.

So, I've heard Roman Catholics argue, he actually was encouraged to continue translating. That may be overdoing it, but it's at least not impossible.

---

To the title:

"Why Did England Burn the Man Who Wrote Their Bible?"

England didn't burn him, Holy Roman Empire did. And not for Bible translation, but for free grace theology.

Even if Tyndale's translation remained popular, it was overshadowed by Geneva Bible, Bishops' Bible and King James.

Matthew 6:7, in these three but not in Tyndale, nor obviously in Douay Rheims, is mistranslated with "use vain repetitions" for "battologein" ...

Celebrations or Sth Else? Hear Isabel Brown

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Celebrations or Sth Else? Hear Isabel Brown (ENG) · New blog on the kid: Lucy Stemp, est-elle en sécurité ? (FR)

@theisabelbrown
Paris is under attack -- here's why.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/NOS0mGt3-68

If you didn't know about me, I actually did need to hear it.

When the match ended and celebrations began, I first thought some unruly children were on the train, no, just some guys excited about the outcome.

I spent that evening in Georges Pompidou library and obviously not in Champs-Élysées, so I was safe, but proportionally to that ignorant.