Matthew 28:19 – Trinity corrupted verse

[Mungo]

BroRando's quote was from chapter 6, which is titled "Against Those who think that the Christ of God was a Sorcerer" (see Eusebius of Caesarea: Demonstratio Evangelica. Tr. W.J. Ferrar (1920) -- Book 3 - search for the line beginning (132)). He finished the paragraph with:

"What similar daring has been shewn by the ancient sorcerers before the time of Jesus, or even after Him, which would make it plausible that He was assisted in His sorcery by others? And if the only answer to this is that no one has ever been like Him, for no one was the source of His virtue, surely it is time to confess that a strange and divine Being has sojourned in our humanity, by Whom alone, and for the first time in man's history, things unrecorded before in human annals have been effected."​

Nevertheless, it still quotes Matthew 28:19-20, from the manuscripts that Eusebius had, and shows what Matthew originally wrote.

What it doesn't show is the the manuscript that Eusebius quoted from did not have the end part of Mt 28:19. All it shows is that Eusebius didn't quote that part. He didn't need to quote that because it was irrelevant to the point he was making.

 

[keithr]

What it doesn't show is the the manuscript that Eusebius quoted from did not have the end part of Mt 28:19. All it shows is that Eusebius didn't quote that part. He didn't need to quote that because it was irrelevant to the point he was making.

But as I quoted from The Encyclopedia of Religion & Ethics concerning all Eusebius' writings, “The facts are, in summary, that Eusebius quotes Matthew 28:19 21 times, either omitting everything between 'nations' and 'teaching’, or in the form 'make disciples of all nations in my name', the latter form being the more frequent”. I don't think that we can assume that every time he quoted Matthew 28:19-20 he always omitted "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" because it wasn't relevant. He appears to quote other verses fully.

Bear in mind that we also have Dr. George Howard's English translation of the Matthew Hebrew Gospel, which also confirms the missing trinity allusion. I find this quite convincing, even if you don't!

 

[Mungo]

But as I quoted from The Encyclopedia of Religion & Ethics concerning all Eusebius' writings, “The facts are, in summary, that Eusebius quotes Matthew 28:19 21 times, either omitting everything between 'nations' and 'teaching’, or in the form 'make disciples of all nations in my name', the latter form being the more frequent”. I don't think that we can assume that every time he quoted Matthew 28:19-20 he always omitted "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" because it wasn't relevant. He appears to quote other verses fully.

Bear in mind that we also have Dr. George Howard's English translation of the Matthew Hebrew Gospel, which also confirms the missing trinity allusion. I find this quite convincing, even if you don't!

I think this is a controversy that will run and run.

 

[Enoch111]

Bear in mind that we also have Dr. George Howard's English translation of the Matthew Hebrew Gospel, which also confirms the missing trinity allusion.

Matthew's "Hebrew Gospel" is simply a fiction. That was actually a Hebrew translation from the Greek (with whatever corruptions were necessary to justify it). But you -- in your opposition to the truth -- wish to ignore 99.9% of the evidence in order to support your heresy. Good luck with that.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Matthew 28 (WEB): (19) “Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, (20) teaching them to observe all things that I commanded you”.

When I was baptised, about 27 years ago, I was insistent that I should be baptised in Jesus’ name, and not in the name of “the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”, as is mentioned in Matthew 28:19. I was convinced of the error of the Trinity doctrine, and I strongly suspected that this was a corrupted verse – but I had no evidence to support that suspicion at that time. Now, 27 years later, and after someone on this forum claimed that they had evidence of the corruption, I have researched it and finally found evidence that vindicates my suspicion. This is a brief summary of what I found.

My suspicions were mainly based on the fact that his disciples didn’t obey that command. There are only four cases which are recorded in the New Testament where it mentions the disciples baptising in somebody's name, and in all cases they were baptised in the name of Jesus only. In particular, when Peter preached on the day of Pentecost, just days after Jesus' command in Matthew 28:19, he said:

“Repent, and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:36-38, WEB).


From Acts 4 (WEB):

8) Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them, “…
10) in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, …
12) There is salvation in none other, for neither is there any other name under heaven, that is given among men, by which we must be saved!”​

Nice try but wrong!

I would not boast of following a christadelphian teaching. they are a parent philosophy of the Jehovahs witnesses.

There are several hebrew gospels of Matthew and others use the triune baptism formula.

In your investigations what you err in is that all the verses you cite were proclaimed to jews who already believed in God the Father! These contemporary people of the events of Calvary needed to be baptized in Christ as they were already baptized. It is since the times of Jesus that all need the triune Baptism. Jews no longer undergo baptisms but simply ritual baths according to Mikveh.

But here is evidence before 325 AD, which by the way did nothing to codify the trinity, just declared the divinity of jesus. The trinity was codified in 381.

Didache (a.d. 60-150) chapter 7.1-4

“Now about baptism: this is how to baptize. Give public instruction on all these points, and then baptize in running water, in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. If you do not have running water, batpize in some other. If you cannot in cold, then in warm. If you have neither, then pour water on the head three times in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Before baptism, moreover, the one who baptizes and the one being baptized must fast, and any others who can. And you must tell the one being baptized to fast for one or two days beforehand.”

First Apology by Justin Martyr (a.d. 155) chapter 61

“…Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are born again, for they then receive washing in water in the name of God the Father and Master of all, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit. For Christ also said, ‘Except you are born again, you will not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.’…


Against Heresies by Irenaeus (a.d. 180) book 3 chapter 17.1

“…And again, giving to the disciples the power of regeneration into God, he said to them, ‘Go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.’…”

On Baptism by Tertullian (a.d. 198) chapter 13

“For the law of baptizing has been imposed, and the formula prescribed: ‘Go,’ He saith, ‘teach the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.’ The comparison with this law of that definition, ‘Unless a man have been reborn of water and Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of the heavens,’ has tied faith to the necessity of baptism.”

The Apostolic Tradition by Hippolytus (a.d. 200-235) chapter 21.12-18

“And when he who is baptized goes down into the water, he who baptizes him, putting his hand on him, shall say thus: Do you believe in God, the Father Almighty? And he who is being baptized shall say: I believe. Then holding his hand placed on his head, he shall baptize him once. And then he shall say: Do you believe in Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who was born of the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary, and was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and was dead and buried, and rose again on the third day, alive from the dead, ascended into heaven, and sat at the right hand of the Father, and will come to judge the living and the dead? And when he says: I believe, he is baptized again. And again he shall say: Do you believe in holy spirit, and the holy church, and the resurrection of the flesh? He who is being baptized shall say accordingly: I believe, and so he is baptized a third time.”

Epistle to Magnus by Cyprian (a.d. 250) chapter 7

“…But if any one objects, by way of saying that Novatian holds the same law which the universal church holds, baptizes with the same symbol with which we baptize, knows the same God and Father, the same Christ the Son, the same Holy Spirit, and that for this reason he may claim the power of baptizing, namely, that he seems not to differ from us in the baptismal interrogatory; let any one that thinks that this may be objected, know first of all, that there is not one law of the creed…”

One would expect Eusebius to not use a triune formula in commenting on Matt. 28- He was an arian and therefore a serious heretic.

Variant texts do not prove the grand conspiracy you are declaring. do a more thorough study of how the New Testament came to be and variant texts and you will be surprised that many manuscripts varied one from another. And then you will also learn the reasons why and see no conspiracy.

Also remember this since the reformation, there have been untold numbers of those who searched the manuscript evidence who loathed the Roman Church. If there was evidence of truth to your allegations, all those who have sttod in opposition to Rome would have uncovered this and reported so. Protestantism was born as a protest to all the excesses of Rome.

 

[BARNEY BRIGHT]

Hi,

I can’t find that quote in the Catholic encyclopedia II. Can you provide the link where you found that? Thank You.

I found in the Britannica Encyclopedia 11th edition volume 3 pages 365-366 this Encyclopedia says Matthew 28:19 was changed from, "the name of Jesus Christ," to, " in the name of the Father, Son, & Holy Ghost."
In the Britannica Encyclopedia volume 3 page 82 it says everywhere in the oldest sources it states baptism took place in the name of Jesus Christ. The CANNEY ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RELIGION page 53 says the early church always baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ until the development of the Trinity.
The Catholic Encyclopedia volume 2 page 263 says that the Catholics acknowledged that baptism was changed by the Catholic Church.
Read other Encyclopedias such as, " HASTINGS ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RELIGION Volume 2 pages 377, 378; volume 2 page 389.

 

[BARNEY BRIGHT]

Seems to me, baptising in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, are just fine, but I fail to see how that justifies the Trinity.

Those three are of the holiest that exist, but that doesnt mean they all three make up God. As I see it, God is God, the all powerful, Jesus is his son (duh) and the Holy Spirit, is our helper...three individual things, and the Bible is very clear on that.



Then men got their dirty little hands on it, and unfortunately, some choose to agree with men over Gods word.

As I see it, if God didn't inspire men to write down to baptize, "in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost," but instead inspired men to write down to, "baptize in Jesus Christ name," I can't see any human being or group of human beings having the right to change what God inspired men to write down.

 

[BroRando]

Did you notice how hard the trinitarians are fighting against being Baptized in the Name of Jesus Christ? They openly reject the teachings of Jesus Christ by inserting man made doctrines. "This is where it calls for Wisdom: Let the one who has insight calculate the number of the wild beast, for it is a man’s number, and its number is 666." (Revelation 13:18) "These will battle with the Lamb, but because he is Lord of lords and King of kings, the Lamb will conquer them. Also, those with him who are called and chosen and faithful will do so." (Revelation 17:14)

"And I saw three unclean inspired expressions that looked like frogs come out of the mouth of the dragon and out of the mouth of the wild beast and out of the mouth of the false prophet." (Revelation 16:13) Do you See it?

The 3 inspired expressions?? What is their aim?
"They are, in fact, expressions inspired by demons and they perform signs, and they go out to the kings of the entire inhabited earth, to gather them together to the war of the great day of God the Almighty." (Revelation 16:14) How long are these things been taking place. Would you believe for almost 2,000 years? That 'time limit' is coming to a conclusion.

Satan well knows his time is almost up! "Woe for the earth and for the sea, because the Devil has come down to you, having great anger, knowing that he has a short period of time." (Revelation 12:12) Can you feel the heat of this Dragon's breath on your neck? What are the consequences of accepting the three unclean inspired expressions. Everlasting Life. "But whoever disowns me before men, I will also disown him before my Father who is in the heavens." (Matthew 10:33)

What about those who are faithful and true to Jesus Christ? "Put on the complete suit of armor from God so that you may be able to stand firm against the crafty acts of the Devil; not against blood and flesh, but against the governments, against the authorities, against the world rulers of this darkness, against the wicked spirit forces in the heavenly places." (Ephesians 6:11-12)

Life will be tough for the Christian in Satan's world, for "It puts under compulsion all people—the small and the great, the rich and the poor, the free and the slaves—that these should be marked on their right hand or on their forehead, of the wild beast or the number of its name." (Revelation 13:16-17)

The scripture at Matthew 28:19 today doesn’t read as it did in the first century. Matthew who was born of the Levi tribe, first wrote his book in his native tongue, (Hebrew). So let’s visit the Actual Scripture. “Go, therefore, and make disciples of people of all the nations in MY Name,” (Shem Tov Hebrew Matthew 28:19) Note: Scripture is under scrutiny and research for possible correction due to new findings from sources familiar with the deception.

“Jesus approached and spoke to them, saying: “All authority has been given ME in heaven and on the earth. Go, therefore, and make disciples of people of all the nations in MY Name, teaching them to observe all the things I have commanded you. And look! I am with you all the days until the conclusion of the system of things.” (Hebrew Mat 28:18-20)

So how were Christians baptized?

• 
  
  
  • “With that he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they requested him to stay for some days.” (Acts 10:48)
  • Peter said to them: “Repent, and let each one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the free gift of the holy spirit.” (Acts 2:38)
  • “But when they believed Philip, who was declaring the good news of the Kingdom of God and of the name of Jesus Christ, both men and women were getting baptized.” (Acts 8:12)
  • “Or do you not know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?” (Romans 6:3)
  • “On hearing this, they got baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.” (Acts 19:5)

"In Origen’s works, as preserved in the Greek, the first part of the verse is cited three times, but his citation always stops short at the words ‘the nations’; and that in itself suggests that his text has been censored, and the words which followed, ‘in my name’, struck out.' – Conybeare"

 

[TheslightestID]

As I see it, if God didn't inspire men to write down to baptize, "in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost," but instead inspired men to write down to, "baptize in Jesus Christ name," I can't see any human being or group of human beings having the right to change what God inspired men to write down.

Then to baptize in tne name of Jesus was clearly stated by God? If so, then yes, of course.

 

[Taken]

The trinity doctrine never acknowledges Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. “

I've never seen or read anything called:
"The Trinity Doctrine"...

What is that?

 

[Marymog]

I found in the Britannica Encyclopedia 11th edition volume 3 pages 365-366 this Encyclopedia says Matthew 28:19 was changed from, "the name of Jesus Christ," to, " in the name of the Father, Son, & Holy Ghost."
In the Britannica Encyclopedia volume 3 page 82 it says everywhere in the oldest sources it states baptism took place in the name of Jesus Christ. The CANNEY ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RELIGION page 53 says the early church always baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ until the development of the Trinity.
The Catholic Encyclopedia volume 2 page 263 says that the Catholics acknowledged that baptism was changed by the Catholic Church.
Read other Encyclopedias such as, " HASTINGS ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RELIGION Volume 2 pages 377, 378; volume 2 page 389.

Hi Barney and BroRando,

Here is a link to the Catholic Encyclopedia volume 2:

The Catholic Encyclopedia

Go to page 263, like I did, and see if you can find that quote.

Thank you.

@BroRando

 

[Marymog]

Good luck with getting that.
JWs are very deceitful in their quotes as I showed with the Cardinal Ratzinger quote

Hi Mungo,

I found a copy of the Catholic Encyclopedia v2 online and read all of page 263. What @BroRando and @BARNEY BRIGHT are alleging is simply false. I suspect they are relying on others for their information instead of doing the research for themselves.

God Bless

 

[Marymog]

Matthew 28 (WEB): (19) “Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, (20) teaching them to observe all things that I commanded you”.

When I was baptised, about 27 years ago, I was insistent that I should be baptised in Jesus’ name, and not in the name of “the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”, as is mentioned in Matthew 28:19. I was convinced of the error of the Trinity doctrine, and I strongly suspected that this was a corrupted verse – but I had no evidence to support that suspicion at that time. Now, 27 years later, and after someone on this forum claimed that they had evidence of the corruption, I have researched it and finally found evidence that vindicates my suspicion. This is a brief summary of what I found.

My suspicions were mainly based on the fact that his disciples didn’t obey that command. There are only four cases which are recorded in the New Testament where it mentions the disciples baptising in somebody's name, and in all cases they were baptised in the name of Jesus only. In particular, when Peter preached on the day of Pentecost, just days after Jesus' command in Matthew 28:19, he said:

“Repent, and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:36-38, WEB).

I don’t think Peter forgot Jesus' command so quickly, especially considering that Jesus said, “the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and will remind you of all that I said to you” (John 14:26).

Also, Luke’s and Mark’s version of the Great Commission don’t mention baptising in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. They wrote:

“And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem” (Luke 24:47). “And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned” (Mark 16:15-16).

If we suspect that a verse has been corrupted from the original writing, then normally we would seek the oldest copy that we have; the older the manuscript the more likely that it is a faithful copy (remembering that this was many centuries before the invention of printing presses, so all books were written by hand). Unfortunately, we don’t have any New Testament manuscripts older than the 4th century AD, mainly because in AD 303 the Roman Emperor Diocletian ordered that all Christian sacred books should be burnt. Diocletian's first "Edict against the Christians" prohibited Christians from assembling for worship, and ordered the destruction of their scriptures, liturgical books, and places of worship across the empire. Very few manuscripts survived, and in the only codices which would be even likely to preserve an older reading, namely the Sinaitic Syriac and the oldest Latin Manuscript, the pages which contained the end of Matthew are missing (which I think is suspicious!).

However, while we don’t have manuscripts from the first three centuries, we do have other documents where the writers have quoted from the copies of Matthew that they had access to during those times. In particular, Eusebius Pamphili, or Eusebius of Caesarea, was born about 270 A.D. and died about 340 A.D. He became a Trinitarian, and later in life he assisted in the preparation of the Nicene Creed (325 A.D.).

The Encyclopedia of Religion & Ethics states, “The facts are, in summary, that Eusebius quotes Matthew 28:19 21 times, either omitting everything between 'nations' and 'teaching’, or in the form 'make disciples of all nations in my name', the latter form being the more frequent”.

Fraternal Visitor, in The Christadelphian Monatshefte, 1924, page 148, states, "Codex B. (Vaticanus) would be the best of all existing MSS if it were completely preserved, less damaged, (less) corrected, more easily legible, and not altered by a later hand in more than two thousand places. Eusebius, therefore, is not without grounds for accusing the adherents of Athanasius and of the newly-arisen doctrine of the Trinity of falsifying the Bible more than once."

So it seems as though the few copies of the Matthew manuscripts that they had were altered not long after the Council of Nicaea.

There is now even better proof than this though. It was known by the Catholic Church that the Jews had preserved a copy of the original Gospel of Matthew in the Hebrew language. The fact that it exists is proof that God wanted it preserved. There have been many attempts to destroy the credibility of this very valuable Hebrew Gospel, because it is the only existing manuscript that proves Matthew 28:19 did not originally contain the Trinitarian baptismal formula. Catholics and Protestants have no other reason to cast doubt on the validity of this manuscript. In fact, early writers claim that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew:

“As having learnt by tradition concerning the four Gospels, which alone are unquestionable in the Church of God under heaven, that first was written according to Matthew, who was once a tax collector but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, who published it for those who from Judaism came to believe, composed as it was in the Hebrew language” (Origen circa 210 A.D., quoted by Eusebius, Church History, Book 6, Chapter 25, Section 4).

In 1987 Dr. George Howard published an English translation of Shem Tov's Matthew Hebrew Gospel. A scanned copy of part one of the second edition of the book is available for download at http://www.kingdomofyisrael.org/s/w...spel-of-MATTHEW-by-George-Howard-Part-One.pdf (56.1MB). To just see the last page, Dr. G. Reckart, of the Apostolic Theological Bible College, has published the pages showing the Hebrew text and the English translation of the end of Matthew 28 on a web page – see Mathew 28:19 Fraud Exposed, and follow the links in that page for more evidence and arguments that prove the verse was corrupted.

The translation into English of verses 19-20 is “Go, and (teach) them to carry out all the things which I have commanded you forever”.

So it seems that the Catholic Church has willingly lied about Matthew 28:19 and the Catholics in general (including the Eastern Orthodox) have lied to the world!

From Acts 4 (WEB):

8) Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them, “…
10) in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, …
12) There is salvation in none other, for neither is there any other name under heaven, that is given among men, by which we must be saved!”​

Hi keither,

I am trying to figure out what you mean when you said; “It was known by the Catholic Church that the Jews had preserved a copy of the original Gospel of Matthew in the Hebrew language. The fact that it exists is proof that God wanted it preserved.”

Where is this original copy of Matthew in Hebrew? Has it been published online?

Thank you in advance....Mary

 

[keithr]

I found a copy of the Catholic Encyclopedia v2 online and read all of page 263. What @BroRando and @BARNEY BRIGHT are alleging is simply false. I suspect they are relying on others for their information instead of doing the research for themselves.

Yes, I found several web pages which claim that the Catholic Encyclopedia II, page 263, says "The baptismal formula was changed from the name of Jesus Christ to the words Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by the Catholic Church in the second century", but it's clearly not there (you can check here - Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 2.djvu/309 - Wikisource, the free online library). The web page Baptism Practice - Bible Prophecy and Truth attributes it to Britannica Encyclopedia 11TH edition, Vol 3, pages 365-366 (The Encyclopaedia Britannica : a dictionary of arts, sciences, literature and general information : Chisholm, Hugh, 1866- : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive), but it is not a direct quote, merely a summary or implication from those pages. For the Catholic Encyclopedia II, page 263, reference it says, "Here the Catholics acknowledged that baptism was changed by the Catholic Church", but again it's not a direct quote, it's just saying that is implied on that page.

The Britannica website's baptism page says "Although the conclusion has repeatedly been drawn from the book of Acts that a baptism in Christ’s name was current at some places during the 1st century, by the 2nd century the irreducible minimum for a valid baptism appears to have been the use of water and the invocation of the Trinity" - Baptism | Christianity.

 

[keithr]

I think that Acst 19 is interesting:

1) While Apollos was at Corinth, Paul, having passed through the upper country, came to Ephesus, and found certain disciples.
2) He said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” They said to him, “No, we haven’t even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.”
3) He said, “Into what then were you baptized?” They said, “Into John’s baptism.”
4) Paul said, “John indeed baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying to the people that they should believe in the one who would come after him, that is, in Jesus.”
5) When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
6) When Paul had laid his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke with other languages and prophesied.​

So God seems to approve of and vindicate Paul's baptising in the name of Jesus, and only in Jesus' name.

 

[Marymog]

Matthew 28 (WEB): (19) “Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, (20) teaching them to observe all things that I commanded you”.

When I was baptised, about 27 years ago, I was insistent that I should be baptised in Jesus’ name, and not in the name of “the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”, as is mentioned in Matthew 28:19. I was convinced of the error of the Trinity doctrine, and I strongly suspected that this was a corrupted verse – but I had no evidence to support that suspicion at that time. Now, 27 years later, and after someone on this forum claimed that they had evidence of the corruption, I have researched it and finally found evidence that vindicates my suspicion. This is a brief summary of what I found.

My suspicions were mainly based on the fact that his disciples didn’t obey that command. There are only four cases which are recorded in the New Testament where it mentions the disciples baptising in somebody's name, and in all cases they were baptised in the name of Jesus only. In particular, when Peter preached on the day of Pentecost, just days after Jesus' command in Matthew 28:19, he said:

“Repent, and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:36-38, WEB).

I don’t think Peter forgot Jesus' command so quickly, especially considering that Jesus said, “the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and will remind you of all that I said to you” (John 14:26).

Also, Luke’s and Mark’s version of the Great Commission don’t mention baptising in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. They wrote:

“And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem” (Luke 24:47). “And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned” (Mark 16:15-16).

If we suspect that a verse has been corrupted from the original writing, then normally we would seek the oldest copy that we have; the older the manuscript the more likely that it is a faithful copy (remembering that this was many centuries before the invention of printing presses, so all books were written by hand). Unfortunately, we don’t have any New Testament manuscripts older than the 4th century AD, mainly because in AD 303 the Roman Emperor Diocletian ordered that all Christian sacred books should be burnt. Diocletian's first "Edict against the Christians" prohibited Christians from assembling for worship, and ordered the destruction of their scriptures, liturgical books, and places of worship across the empire. Very few manuscripts survived, and in the only codices which would be even likely to preserve an older reading, namely the Sinaitic Syriac and the oldest Latin Manuscript, the pages which contained the end of Matthew are missing (which I think is suspicious!).

However, while we don’t have manuscripts from the first three centuries, we do have other documents where the writers have quoted from the copies of Matthew that they had access to during those times. In particular, Eusebius Pamphili, or Eusebius of Caesarea, was born about 270 A.D. and died about 340 A.D. He became a Trinitarian, and later in life he assisted in the preparation of the Nicene Creed (325 A.D.).

The Encyclopedia of Religion & Ethics states, “The facts are, in summary, that Eusebius quotes Matthew 28:19 21 times, either omitting everything between 'nations' and 'teaching’, or in the form 'make disciples of all nations in my name', the latter form being the more frequent”.

Fraternal Visitor, in The Christadelphian Monatshefte, 1924, page 148, states, "Codex B. (Vaticanus) would be the best of all existing MSS if it were completely preserved, less damaged, (less) corrected, more easily legible, and not altered by a later hand in more than two thousand places. Eusebius, therefore, is not without grounds for accusing the adherents of Athanasius and of the newly-arisen doctrine of the Trinity of falsifying the Bible more than once."

So it seems as though the few copies of the Matthew manuscripts that they had were altered not long after the Council of Nicaea.

There is now even better proof than this though. It was known by the Catholic Church that the Jews had preserved a copy of the original Gospel of Matthew in the Hebrew language. The fact that it exists is proof that God wanted it preserved. There have been many attempts to destroy the credibility of this very valuable Hebrew Gospel, because it is the only existing manuscript that proves Matthew 28:19 did not originally contain the Trinitarian baptismal formula. Catholics and Protestants have no other reason to cast doubt on the validity of this manuscript. In fact, early writers claim that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew:

“As having learnt by tradition concerning the four Gospels, which alone are unquestionable in the Church of God under heaven, that first was written according to Matthew, who was once a tax collector but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, who published it for those who from Judaism came to believe, composed as it was in the Hebrew language” (Origen circa 210 A.D., quoted by Eusebius, Church History, Book 6, Chapter 25, Section 4).

In 1987 Dr. George Howard published an English translation of Shem Tov's Matthew Hebrew Gospel. A scanned copy of part one of the second edition of the book is available for download at http://www.kingdomofyisrael.org/s/w...spel-of-MATTHEW-by-George-Howard-Part-One.pdf (56.1MB). To just see the last page, Dr. G. Reckart, of the Apostolic Theological Bible College, has published the pages showing the Hebrew text and the English translation of the end of Matthew 28 on a web page – see Mathew 28:19 Fraud Exposed, and follow the links in that page for more evidence and arguments that prove the verse was corrupted.

The translation into English of verses 19-20 is “Go, and (teach) them to carry out all the things which I have commanded you forever”.

So it seems that the Catholic Church has willingly lied about Matthew 28:19 and the Catholics in general (including the Eastern Orthodox) have lied to the world!

From Acts 4 (WEB):

8) Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them, “…
10) in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, …
12) There is salvation in none other, for neither is there any other name under heaven, that is given among men, by which we must be saved!”​

Hi keither,

You said “that the Catholic Church has willingly lied about Matthew 28:19” and “in general lied to the world”.

As @Mungo pointed out in post #3 the writer(s) of The Didache along with Turtulion, Origan and Cyprian all affirm “baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit” before the alleged corruption in the 4th century. Based on your logic are they all liars also? Wouldn’t THEY be the original liars to the world? Where they Catholic?

Also, based on your logic, wouldn’t the conspiracy to included “baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit” have been started in the late 1st or early 2nd century since The Didache was written BEFORE Matthew?

Curious Mary

 

[Mungo]

Hi Mungo,

I found a copy of the Catholic Encyclopedia v2 online and read all of page 263. What @BroRando and @BARNEY BRIGHT are alleging is simply false. I suspect they are relying on others for their information instead of doing the research for themselves.

God Bless

Very common. These anti-Catholic quotes go around the net. They don't check - just use it.

 

[keithr]

I am trying to figure out what you mean when you said; “It was known by the Catholic Church that the Jews had preserved a copy of the original Gospel of Matthew in the Hebrew language. The fact that it exists is proof that God wanted it preserved.”

Where is this original copy of Matthew in Hebrew? Has it been published online?

It seems that the Jews had a copy of Matthew's Gospel in Hebrew (and Matthew may have written his Gospel first in Hebrew, and either later wrote a Greek version or somebody translated it from Hebrew to Greek), which they studied and used in their arguments against the Christians. Most Christian Scripture documents were destroyed by order of the Roman Emperor Diocletian from about 303A.D. but the Jews were able to preserve their copy (the Romans didn't persecute the Jews in the same way). I don't think it still exists (that I know of) but in 1380 a Spanish Jewish Rabbi called Shem-Tob ben Isaac Shaprut published a work called Eben Boḥan (The Touchstone) in which he included the complete Gospel. As I mentioned in my first post, in 1987 Dr. George Howard published an English translation of Shem Tob's Matthew Hebrew Gospel. A scanned copy of part one (containing the Gospel in Hebrew and English) of the second edition of the book is available for download at http://www.kingdomofyisrael.org/s/w...spel-of-MATTHEW-by-George-Howard-Part-One.pdf (56.1MB).

 

[Marymog]

Yes, I found several web pages which claim that the Catholic Encyclopedia II, page 263, says "The baptismal formula was changed from the name of Jesus Christ to the words Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by the Catholic Church in the second century", but it's clearly not there (you can check here - Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 2.djvu/309 - Wikisource, the free online library). The web page Baptism Practice - Bible Prophecy and Truth attributes it to Britannica Encyclopedia 11TH edition, Vol 3, pages 365-366 (The Encyclopaedia Britannica : a dictionary of arts, sciences, literature and general information : Chisholm, Hugh, 1866- : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive), but it is not a direct quote, merely a summary or implication from those pages. For the Catholic Encyclopedia II, page 263, reference it says, "Here the Catholics acknowledged that baptism was changed by the Catholic Church", but again it's not a direct quote, it's just saying that is implied on that page.

The Britannica website's baptism page says "Although the conclusion has repeatedly been drawn from the book of Acts that a baptism in Christ’s name was current at some places during the 1st century, by the 2nd century the irreducible minimum for a valid baptism appears to have been the use of water and the invocation of the Trinity" - Baptism | Christianity.

Thank you. I agree. It is clearly not there. Would it be fair to say that your “summary or implication from those pages“ is really just an opinion since what is being alleged is clearly not there?

Also, since you are using Encyclopedia Brittanica as a source to validate our beliefs, did you know that on the link you provided it also says; Although there is no actual account of the institution of baptism by Jesus, the Gospel According to Matthewportrays the risen Christ issuing the “Great Commission” to his followers: “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you” (Matthew 28:19–20).“

 

[Mungo]

I think that Acst 19 is interesting:

1) While Apollos was at Corinth, Paul, having passed through the upper country, came to Ephesus, and found certain disciples.
2) He said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” They said to him, “No, we haven’t even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.”
3) He said, “Into what then were you baptized?” They said, “Into John’s baptism.”
4) Paul said, “John indeed baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying to the people that they should believe in the one who would come after him, that is, in Jesus.”
5) When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
6) When Paul had laid his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke with other languages and prophesied.​

So God seems to approve of and vindicate Paul's baptising in the name of Jesus, and only in Jesus' name.

My view on this is that the phrase "in the name of the Lord Jesus" or "in the name of Jesus Christ" is used to distinguish it from John's baptism. It is not the formula for baptising.