Transcription
Hi everyone. Uh, this is going to be an episode where I just want to show you how the uh fraud and everybody agrees that it's a fraud in Matthew 28 verse 19, where it says the blessing, uh, the baptism is in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Everyone agrees. The Jerusalem Bible agrees. It's a fraud. It was added later. It was added after 325 A.D.
And we found the approximate date is 325 A.D. The council. And I say a date because from when, uh, Eusebius is writing, all his, he's got 17 quotes prior to 325 A.D. of this passage, the baptismal thing, because that was important. So baptism is important. He quotes it 17 times without the, the, uh, what we call the threefold blessing. But every time after 325 in his writings, it always has the threefold blessings. So we can, we know that this was a deliberate result of the Trinity Doctrine, or at least the perception that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit would be mentioned in a blessing after that point.
Now, the Trinity didn't become official until 381, just so we know. But, uh, by deity of Christ was in 325. And so this is where, uh, it, uh, started from. Anyway, the point is, this is, uh, you can see there, it's 100% concurrence. Roman Catholics agree, even Protestant authorities all agree. This was not in the original Bible of the, the period when Matthew wrote it, which is approximately 37 A.D. So we're talking about almost, uh, almost 300 years later, it's changed. Okay? And everybody agrees. So nobody can say, "Oh, Doug, you're bringing up something that, uh, nobody, nobody believes." No, everyone agrees. So that's in this video. If you don't, if you want to see it with your own eyes, all the authorities, it's in my video called Number One. Matthew is right there on the screen. Matthew 28:19, fraudulent baptismal formula tolerated despite 100% consensus is fraudulent. So meaning, meaning every Bible still has it. Every text on Bible of all 20, I think it's 27, uh, Bibles have it, even though they, they all know it's wrong, even though they all know it's fraud. Oh, because a doctrine made a, uh, valid later, 300 years after the fact. No, no, no. Then you're not giving us the Bible the way it was written. You're letting human beings create a human tradition to change the Bible. The Bible should speak for itself. If it's there, it's there. You don't need to help it. Okay? Anyway, but, but it's going to get interesting. I just wanted to show you this example here. So I'm going to show you this. Uh, this episode is going to be called How the Fraud in 325 A.D. is Exploited by at Least 200 More Years Later. That's it. Just an example. It's very brief and to the point. So just so we can see.
So this is just something I, I bumped into. I'm trying to find the, uh, a sermon by, uh, uh, Augustine, Sermon 169. And I bump into this. And I, I was reading the wrong book. And so, but I just started to read out of curiosity. And this is Caesarius of Arles. He's a, uh, a father or in a saint, actually. Look at that. Saint Caesarius of Arles. And he lived between 468 and he died in 548, 542 A.D. So whatever happens here, I'm going to say this is at least by 540 A.D. is happening. Uh, he was born in what we would modern day call France, in the Gallia, that means Gaul in those days. And so here it is, Volume Two. So you can see all the text background on this book. And then we're going to go to where he says, um, and so his Sermon 169. So I thought at first they made it sound like this was Augustine's works. I go to Sermon 169 and he has it. Uh, so it's just a, just a freak, a freak thing where I think this is Augustine when I'm opening it up. And I, you know, that's how it looked on Google. But when you finally dig into it, you go, this isn't Augustine. This is somebody else. And I figured out what it is. But anyway, so again, this all happensstance, how I'm, I'm tripping over my feet and I end up in this book and I end up looking at Sermon 169 of this guy, thinking it was, uh, was, uh, Augustine.
So here we go. So now we're page 417 of the book. And he's going to actually, uh, say something that's interesting. First of all, and I, I cited this for this. So he's going to say that, uh, when the disciples first see Jesus, uh, resurrected, uh, they don't really, they're, they're talking to Jesus and they don't know it. And they're saying, hey, they're the disciples. And they thought, they go, oh gosh, we thought he would, he should redeem Israel. This is a citation to Luke 24:21. So he even says, uh, that these people did not believe. Okay? So, moreover, when those disciples said this, they did not believe the Christ was to be God at all. Finally, see what they said. They were hoping that it was he who should redeem Israel. So this, the very fact that they talk like that, he's saying, see, they didn't, they didn't believe Jesus was God. So he's defending the view that this was not the original doctrine of the church. There was no belief that Jesus was God. And this is going to, this is something we had to be revealed later. So, so there's some truth to this, uh, person. He's trying to tell you, we know this is something we've added later. He's sort of guiltily expressing this in this way.
He also mentions here, just incidentally, so we know I've made this point many times, is that Jesus is the prophet. So he says up here, and yet this name may be applied to our Lord and Savior according to what Moses said, "The Lord your God will raise up a prophet whom you will hear, as me." If any man will not hear that prophet, he will be expelled from the people. And he cites Deuteronomy 18, verses 18 to 19. So just so you know, this idea had not died out. This is in Acts 3, verses 21 to 23, where Peter is saying Jesus is the prophet of Israel, not just Messiah. See, this is the other thing. The, the Ebionite Church emphasized that Jesus is not just the Messiah, which would mean he's in the royal line of David and he's going to be king, but the prophet meant that everything this prophet said would be from God. Because of what happened, and then we know that the baptism, what happened is that God speaks over him and says, "Listen to him." And those words, "Listen to him," are a quotation from Deuteronomy 18, verses 18 and 19. It's repeated twice in that passage. Deuteronomy 18, verses 18 to 19. Go look it up. Double check me.
So anyway, uh, so this is interesting. He's admitting that the people, the disciples, did not believe Jesus was God. And that's why they're there when he dies, and they have no idea, you know, they're, they're so clueless that he's going to resurrect. And they're still clueless. And so this Arles is trying to say, hey, see, they didn't even believe it was God. Okay? Then he's going to bring in, and so he's saying they were foolish. Okay? The next, next page, or at the same page, it's going to say they were foolish and slow of heart to believe. Jesus is upset with them. Okay? Uh, 17 is cited here. Luke 24:25. So you see how he's saying, "Oops, see how saying, uh, all foolish ones, it's slow of heart to believe." So this is Jesus' response to the fact they don't understand who he is. Now, he's not saying he's God in these passages, but that's what is being overlaid into this. So there's this brainwashing going on where you're supposed to think that this is Jesus is correcting, and that they're foolish because he's really God, and they're getting the message. So somehow the message of Jesus Christ turned into all about whether he's God or not. That that was just, if that was the, it, then Jesus would have told us. It would never have said John 17:1-3, "The only true God is the Father." That's what he says. So why would he say that if it's all about him being God? No, he's saying, "I'm the Christ. I'm the prophet. These are the things that we have to believe. This was who he was." And yet we changed him into something he never claimed to be and denied he was. And now, you know, we're living with it. And this is the kind of propaganda you get endlessly, endlessly, tirelessly.
"Christ has not yet spiritually changed the water into wine." So that's what he's saying there is that when he's meeting the disciples on the road, he's resurrected, but they can't even recognize who he is. You know, they've only been drinking water, they've not gotten the good wine. And so they're not ready yet to understand he's God. And the fact he resurrected doesn't just prove he's a human being who God resurrected. Instead, know it proves that he's God. So this is all about the Christian faith is being changed into this completely, totally an issue. Is he God or isn't he God? They've lost track of what was important. That he's the prophet, he's the Messiah, son of David. Well, of course, they got rid of the son of David part by getting rid of, by creating this virgin birth account or never correcting it, just living with it. Go, let's run with it. Let's run with the ball on that one. Okay.
So what did the Lord add after this? He says, "Thus it is not written that thus the Christ should suffer and should rise again?" Thus is it not written? So Jesus is talking to these people. And is it not written that thus the Christ should suffer and should rise again from the dead on the third day, and the repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name to all the nations? What are you supposed to preach, dude? No, now we're supposed to preach he's God. That's what this Arles is telling us. But Jesus actually, you see, he, Arles is quoting Jesus and doesn't realize Jesus is contradicting Arles's message. Arles is saying the real wine is that Jesus is God. And the primitive mind that does not realize Jesus is God. But what does Jesus say is the real truth here? Is is now you should be preaching the repentance, remission of sins, preached in my name to all nations. That's what Jesus is teaching, contrary to Arles's own presuppositions that are soaking all around there, and left and right and back and forward and so on. "And beginning with Moses, with all the prophets, he interpreted them in all the scriptures the things referring to himself." When he interpreted the scriptures to them, then the word was changed into wine.
Okay, now, now we're going to see the next sentence. He's going to say, what was, what was the law on prophets that Jesus is expositing? Now, this is him making up stuff that Jesus doesn't say in the law and prophets. "Not only the mystery of the Trinity is recognized, but the two precepts of Charity are also preached continually." So where is in the law and prophets that there are three gods and one godhead? I, I really don't know where that is, unless you're making it up as you go along, unless you want to see it. This is what, uh, the movie and and the story of 1984 is so useful for, where if you're tortured, if you're punished, you, and they had to use every kind of punishment to make people accept Trinity in those days. Were the heirs of that? So it's a subtle question for us, but they were being tortured mentally and punished, their inheritance would be taken away, that you'll be treated, that you'll be excommunicated from the church, you couldn't get married, all these privileges were taken away unless you accepted the Trinity because it became law under Justinian, excuse me, under Theodosian in 381 A.D.
So this is, this is the persecution that's going on. And by the time of this period in the 580s, it's been 200 years since it became law in 381 A.D. that you must believe in the Trinity, or you're going to have all these punishments. All but, like I told you, you could be punished, you're going to lose inheritance, you're going to be excommunicated, you can't get married, you're done, you're so you're, and to talk about getting employment, forget it. So this is how you people were convinced, not by persuasion, not by a Bible verse, not by somehow overturning that Jesus said, "The only true God is the Father" in John 17:1-3. They're not trying to, they're not trying to reason with you and cite Bible verses and disprove that passage. They're trying to punish you for believing anything different than what the law said you must believe about Jesus. And so he's just making this up. The law and prophets don't speak of the Trinity. They don't even mention the word Trinity. And they don't mention there's more than one God in some godhead, but that's what we're supposed to believe now.
Get this. Now he's going to bring it home here, okay? So, uh, he's going to argue that the, uh, passage, uh, where it says in John, "I and the Father are one," means somehow that, you know, it confirms the Trinity. When it doesn't, in context, it's very clear that the next ver, the next part of the verse says, "In that Father, I pray that, uh, those who you've given me, that they will be one, even as you and I are one." Okay? So what did he mean that they're going to become fused into one being, or they are, or we, we all the believers are one being and we live and exist inside of a godhead of humanity somehow, and we're really just one being but with multiple brains inside this human head? Is that what we're supposed to think? No. What Jesus meant by "I and the Father are one" was they were one in mind, in agreement. And he wants the believers to have a similar consensus and, and, uh, agreement amongst themselves so we would have peace. But now we've had, wait till you see the war, the war that had to go on to make people believe in the Trinity. It was a law was passed in 381 A.D. that if you didn't follow, if you, you must believe in a Trinity. It's a law. And if you don't, we're going to take all kinds of legal privileges away from you, the right of marriage, inheritance, all these other things. We're going to punish you to the ends of the earth. We're not going to try to convince you or leave it up to your freedom of religion. No, we're taking that away from you and we're going to demand this. And on top of that, we're going to see the next thing they're going to do. They're going to make you accept a fraudulent verse.
"Behold, you have two from the I and the Father and one." So now you have two and one. That's what he's saying, which is false. "If you have two agreeing on one principles or one set of principles, give the three also." Go. It says, "Baptizable nations, the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." See, you have three. So he's saying this proves the Trinity. And it doesn't. Just to make a point here is that Tertullian was the first inventor of the Trinity, but he did not believe it made the Holy Spirit God apart from the Father. The Holy Spirit was sent by the Father. Jesus said, "When if I go, then the Holy Spirit will come." So the Holy Spirit comes from God. It doesn't mean there's a second God who's inside of a godhead with God the Father. No, it's the spirit of God. That's what Jews always had that idea. That you ask the Jewish people, does the Holy Spirit or the spirit of God mean there's a second God? No, of course not. That would be idolatry. You'd be turning the spirit into a god competing against the Father, and that would be idolatry.
So then, uh, so Tertullian, who invented the term, used it in simply, there were three offices. Okay? You know, the Holy Spirit is, is acting on behalf of God. And then the Jesus is acting on behalf of God. Okay? But not his separate minds. Not, I mean, Jesus is a separate mind, but the Holy Spirit, not as a separate mind. Jesus as his agent. That says Messiah is, is the prophet and his, uh, son. So there was never any intention that this would be a Trinity of three gods in one God. That's exactly it. It's God the Son, God the Holy Spirit, God the Father. That's what, just, it's clearly three gods in one godhead. That's how it was explained in 381. That's how it's explained traditionally and and Protestantism and in Catholicism because you can't, you know, you can't change history. And that's the way they explained it. And so they're stuck with it. But that is idolatry.
But Tertullian didn't see that it meant that. It all. And in fact, in his book, uh, Against Praxeas, he mocks it. And he says, "Those who claim it, Jesus is God." If that were true, then why did God say, "This day I begotten you?" Because if Jesus was God, it would mean God is saying to himself, "This day I begotten myself." Why would God speak to himself that way? So that just shows you, if Tertullian can mock it, that any concept that Jesus would be God is, is worthy of being mocked. And he then says, uh, he says, "An idolatry begins when you lose track of who's the creator." And so he's, he says in that same context, is that anything that takes away the creator God being the Creator is in a form or sense of idolatry. So he called it out. So he knew that people in this is 220 A.D. Okay? This is 160 years before the Trinity became law. The, the Trinity that was three gods and one godhead. Okay? So he's believing in a Trinity that is not a godhead and is not three gods. It's God's spirit is working with God. So there's still one God. And Jesus is his servant and in the Messiah and Christ and prophet. And he's a second agent of his God the Father. So there's, there's abundant evidence that avoids idolatry. Even if you had the word Trinity, you could have used it in the way Tertullian used the term, which would be technically harmless. But the way the Trinity is sold is exactly what he wants you to believe here. Is these are three gods and one godhead. And that became law in 381 A.D. in the Eastern Roman Empire. And of course, it became part of the foundational, uh, doctrine. And you were legally punished if you didn't believe it. And so we're not going to convince you. We're just going to pass the law and you have to believe in it. You may not be able to get married, you may not be able to inherit, you may not be able to get a job, but that's not our problem. That's your problem. You have to believe this doctrine or else we're going to give you all these legal punishments. You're committing a crime against the state by not believing in this doctrine. So it's just unbelievable that this became what, what the law was.
All right. Anyway, God bless. I hope this helped everybody understand the, uh, this doctrine within, uh, two couple hundred years from 381 all the way to he was about 540, 540. Okay? This is 100, uh, 160. How many years? That 160 years later, it's being used to force people or to convince people that you, you have to obey this, uh, the Trinity because it's, it's right there in the Bible. It's right there in the Bible. And Jesus is divine. The Father and one. So instead of instead of reading the context and convincing people, they can't do that. They have to commit fraud by adding the Matthew 28:19. And they have to quote out of context. "I and the Father are one." So you can see, two one's a complete absolute fraud. The other is a misleading out of context quotation. Okay? God bless. Take care. I hope that helped everybody. Down.
[Music]