Beginning a Video by Shad M. Brooks (To Prove I'm Not a Mormon)

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

His best known channel is Shadiversity, but he also has "The Latter-day Knight".

ALL Christians teach FALSE GOSPELS except the LDS/Mormons
The Latter-day Knight | 4 March 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZMEfXkZf_U

Matthew 28, verses 16 to 20.

What does "all days" mean?

All days until you die, and then, once again, all days until Moroni dies, and then, a third time, all days from Joseph Smith to Doomsday?

Or does "all days" mean literally "all days" as in no gaps?

SlavicChautauquan

@SlavicChautauquan

That's actually a really good assessment, and worth addressing.

I'd argue that we have to ask who is being addressed here. Christ's love is eternal, and he is addressing his apostles here. His physical presence isn't there, obviously, so we have to consider what he meant by "I am with you always".

I'd argue His love extends eternally, and certainly has no gaps within. I'd also argue that if we take the broadest possible interpretation, that could work. But that's the sort of broad interpretation which has folks looking for the political messiah, the kind which had people asking, "Art thou a King, then?" a few days prior.

We have to consider that there were warnings about apostasy--Arguably, Paul's entire body of work is trying to prevent apostasy. These are issues not unique to the ancient Christian church, and they still persist today. But we can see that there are disconnects. For me, the connection from Peter to Linus is pretty tenuous at best, at least as tenuous as believing in modern miracles.

So we have to choose where we place our faith, ultimately.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@SlavicChautauquan The warnings about Apostasy are about a Great one, not about a Universal one.

"But we can see that there are disconnects."

Oh?

"For me, the connection from Peter to Linus is pretty tenuous at best,"

That's taking away from the arguments for believing in Jesus in the first place.

"at least as tenuous as believing in modern miracles."

Is your problem, they are through the intercession of Mary, as at Cana?

SlavicChautauquan

@hglundahl Oh, no, I just see no biblical evidence of Linus being the one to handle the succession from Peter. We know that Peter died long before many of the other Apostles, especially John, and so making the connection that Linus ought to have primacy over John seems tenuous at best.

I'm not taking away from the belief that Jesus is Christ because I deny the authority of Linus. That's a jump in logic which could reach world records. I'm saying that if you're going to put as much trust in Linus when he ascended above apostles who were at the feet of the Son of God and chosen by Him to minister, you should be willing to accept angelic ministrations in latter times.

I'm interested in a revelatory, not political church. Just because Linus was parked in Rome, does not mean he had authority over John or Andrew or Thomas.

But that's a schism with the Orthodox, more than anything. A political schism.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@SlavicChautauquan Supposing Peter retained authority over every other Apostle up to his death and Linus inherited that authority. What makes you think the Bible would spell that out?

"I'm not taking away from the belief that Jesus is Christ"

Is this the only credendum?

I would in principle be open from Matthew 28:16—20 to any kind of succession of the twelve that would last to today and beyond that to Doomsday.

But I would settle for the one we find.

When you speak of Apostles living so and so long, you are introducing extra-Biblical evidence quite as much as I do.

But you are also presuming the Apostle John who is a Hagiographer was also one of the twelve, i e the Son of Zebedee. This is disputed and not just by sceptics. No early Church Father from Asia Minor (except St. Irenaeus who didn't stay there but went to Lyon when he was 16) identified John the Gospeller with John the Son of Zebedee.

Again, you are second guessing what a succession should look like and rejecting the one we have attested because it doesn't look like that.

I cannot prove from the passage you are wrong on how it was meant to look. I can prove from the passage and Church history you are wrong, supposing Christianity is true.

2:13 I would say, the Gospel is all that Jesus gave His disciples.

Matthew 28, verses 16 to 20 or John 14, specifically verses 16 and 26 (verse divisions of a Catholic Bible).

2:52 Excellent point.

The Gospel was already known, by oral tradition.

Before you add "this was lost and then restored by Joseph Smith", how about rereading my verse recommendations from Matthew 28 and John 14.