For majority of Christians, they believe that being baptized is a one of the most important tenets of Christianity.

Some people get baptized as children, others get baptized as adults when they join specific Christian denomination or sect.

The act of being baptized in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, is based on the instructions explicitly stated at Matthew 28 verse 19:

"Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,"

But while doing some research, I found out that there seems to be a problem with the above verse, because there is solid evidence that proves that the Catholic Church in the Second Century CE, altered the above verse to propagate the doctrine of the Trinity.

Here is a collection of some of these evidences to prove that the Catholic Church really did alter Matthew chapter 28 verse 19:

The Catholic Encyclopedia, II, page 263:

"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."

The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, I, 275:

"It is often affirmed that the words in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost are not the ipsissima verba [exact words] of Jesus, but...a later liturgical addition."

Edmund Schlink, The Doctrine of Baptism, page 28:

"The baptismal command in its Matthew 28:19 form can not be the historical origin of Christian baptism. At the very least, it must be assumed that the text has been transmitted in a form expanded by the [Catholic] church."

The Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics:

As to Matthew 28:19, it says: It is the central piece of evidence for the traditional (Trinitarian) view. If it were undisputed, this would, of course, be decisive, but its trustworthiness is impugned on grounds of textual criticism, literary criticism and historical criticism. The same Encyclopedia further states that: "The obvious explanation of the silence of the New Testament on the triune name, and the use of another (JESUS NAME) formula in Acts and Paul, is that this other formula was the earlier, and the triune formula is a later addition."

The Jerusalem Bible, a scholarly Catholic work, states:

"It may be that this formula, (Triune Matthew 28:19) so far as the fullness of its expression is concerned, is a reflection of the (Man-made) liturgical usage established later in the primitive (Catholic) community. It will be remembered that Acts speaks of baptizing "in the name of Jesus,"..."

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Vol. 4, page 2637, Under "Baptism," says: "Matthew 28:19 in particular only canonizes a later ecclesiastical situation, that its universalism is contrary to the facts of early Christian history, and its Trinitarian formula (is) foreign to the mouth of Jesus."

New Revised Standard Version says this about Matthew 28:19:
"Modern critics claim this formula is falsely ascribed to Jesus and that it represents later (Catholic) church tradition, for nowhere in the book of Acts (or any other book of the Bible) is baptism performed with the name of the Trinity..."

Please don't take my word for it, do your own research.


To help you on your research journey, here is a link to a collection of these hard to believe evidences - https://www.onenesspentecostal.com/matt2819-willis.htm

Yes they did at the Nicaea Council led by the Roman Emperor Constantine I in AD 325.

Do your research 🔬

At this point, we have to ask some very important questions:

1. Since we have solid proof that the Catholic Church altered Matthew 28 VS 19, what other Bible verses have they altered?

2. Can we really trust the Bible with this sort of evidence?

3. What if we dug deeper into the Bible and found out that many other verses were altered by the Catholic Church - what happens in that case?

Don't forget that the Bible as we know it today, was practically given to the world by the Catholic Church - it was they who canonized the entire books of the bible.

Hmm

From Aramaic to Greek to English language the translation is accurate but check the Roman Catholic translation of the Bible you will see contradictions here and there but with KJV it not.

Jehovah's Witnesses as a religious organization are one of few sects of Christianity who have vehemently refused doctrine of the Trinity.

They claim that the doctrine of Trinity is a pagan practice.

But when we check out their own translation of the Bible aka The New World Translation, we find the same alteration from the Catholic Church.

Matthew 28 VS 19, according to the New World Translation:

Go, therefore, and make disciples of people of all the nations,+ baptizing them+ in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit,

The Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses claim that they are the only channel of communication with God in these times we live.

They also claim that the Jehovah's Witness organization is the only true religion.

Now, I have a couple of questions:

1. If they are only true religion and only they are sole channel of communication with God, why couldn't they recognize the alteration of Matthew 28 VS 19 by the Catholic Church?

2. Why did they add the same mistake or alteration to their own translation of the Bible?

3. Why do they follow this exact formula as created by the Catholic Church when practicing baptism in their religion?

4. Does this mean that Jehovah's Witnesses are in reality, in full support of the doctrine of the Trinity?

What do you think?

CC: Janosky, MaxInDHouse, Aemmyjah, Cornelboy, Archoladey, Courz, Emusan, Maynman, tctrills

oteneaaron:
Jehovah's Witnesses as a religious organization are one of few sects of Christianity who have vehemently refused doctrine of the Trinity.

They claim that the doctrine of Trinity is a pagan practice.

But when we check out their own translation of the Bible aka The New World Translation, we find the same altercation from the Catholic Church.



The Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses claim that they are the only channel of communication with God in these times we live.

They also claim that the Jehovah's Witness organization is the only true religion.

Now, I have a couple of questions:

1. If they are only true religion and only they are sole channel of communication with God, why couldn't they recognize this mistake that Matthew 28 VS 19 was altered by the Catholic Church?

2. Why did they add this mistake to their own translation of the Bible?

3. Why do they follow this exact formula as created by the Catholic Church when practicing baptism in their religion?

4. Does this now mean that Jehovah's Witnesses are in reality, in full support of the doctrine of the Trinity?

What do you think?

CC: Janosky, MaxInDHouse, Aemmyjah, Cornelboy, Archoladey, Courz, Emusan, Maynnman, tctrills

They added lots of nonbibilical manmade nonsense so no surprises.

LipozSwiminPool:
Yes they did at the Nicaea Council led by the Roman Emperor Constantine I in AD 325.

Do your research 🔬

Was this verse altered during that particular council?

I know for a fact that the doctrine of Trinity was promulgated during that Nicean council.

oteneaaron:

Janosky, MaxInDHouse, Aemmyjah, Cornelboy, Archoladey, Courz, Emusan, Maynnman, tctrills

What is your own religion?

tctrills:

They added lots of nonbibilical manmade nonsense so no surprises.

You do have a point.

Because this means Jehovah's Witnesses are also practicing the doctrine of the Trinity.

So what really makes them different from the Catholic Church and other Christian denominations who already believe in the Trinity Doctrine?

oteneaaron:


Was this verse altered during that particular council?

I know for a fact that the doctrine of Trinity was promulgated during that Nicean council.

Yes sure
*God head
*Baptism

MaxInDHouse:


What is your own religion?

I am a Christian.

MaxInDHouse:


What is your own religion?

So that means Jehovah's Witnesses are also practicing the doctrine of the Trinity.

Right?

If yes, why do you claim to be the only true religion?

Your practice of baptism is based on Matthew 28 VS 19 just like EVERY OTHER Christian Denomination on earth today.

What now makes your organization special?

Does this mean your organization was never really chosen by "Jesus" in 1919?

oteneaaron:
At this point, we have to ask a very important question: Since we have solid proof that the Catholic Church altered Matthew 28 VS 19, what other Bible verses have they altered? Can we really trust the Bible with this sort of evidence?
What if we dug deeper into the Bible and found out that many other verses were altered by the Catholic Church - what happens? Don't forget that the Bible as we know it today, was practically given to the world by the Catholic Church - it was they who canonized the entire books of the bible.

Where is this solid proof again?

Botragelad:
Hmm

Makes you think right?

Kobojunkiee:
Where is this solid proof again?

Admitted by the Catholic Church itself:

The Catholic Encyclopedia, II, page 263:

"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."

oteneaaron:
Admitted by the Catholic Church itself:

That comment states that the Baptismal formula was changed. Is Baptismal Formula some sort of a reference to Matthew 28 vs 19 in particular or what?

I understand what you are getting at and while I do understand the desire to distance oneself from all introduced ideas, the verse itself does not stand as support for any of the catholic rituals in place even to this day.

The Catholics will of course deny changing the "word of god". Now, who's to be believed - the accused or the accusers?

LipozSwiminPool:
Yes they did at the Nicaea Council led by the Roman Emperor Constantine I in AD 325.
Do your research 🔬

Where is your evidence of this?

LipozSwiminPool:
From Aramaic to Greek to English language the translation is accurate but check the Roman Catholic translation of the Bible you will see contradictions here and there but with KJV it not.

So, the translation impacted is the Roman Catholic translation itself?

Kobojunkiee:
That comments say the Baptismal formula was changed. Is Baptismal Formula some sort of a reference to Matthew 28 vs 19 in particular or what?

But the formula is clearly stated at Matthew 28 verse 19:

NIV, St. Matthew 28:19:
Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

I understand what you are getting at and while I do understand the desire to distance oneself from all introduced ideas, the verse itself does not stand as support for any of the catholic rituals in place even to this day.

Really?

Can you explain?

tctrills:

I am a Christian.

See example of a direct answer!

oteneaaron:

So that means Jehovah's Witnesses are also practicing the doctrine of the Trinity.
Right?
If yes, why do you claim to be the only true religion?
Your practice of baptism is based on Matthew 28 VS 19 just like EVERY OTHER Christian Denomination on earth today.
What now makes your organization special?
Does this mean your organization was never really chosen by "Jesus" in 1919?

Nobody asked you for all these stories the question again is:
What is your own religion?

Whatever anyone believes is not my own problem i'm only presenting my own religion as the only religion approved by my GOD.

So speak about yours others may pick interest in your criticism of different religions i'm not if you want to engage me talk about your own religion!

oteneaaron:


Admitted by the Catholic Church itself:

Wow! This is interesting. 🤔

I never knew this.

oteneaaron:
■ But the formula is clearly stated at Matthew 28 verse 19: Really? Can you explain?

WHat is stated in Matthew 28 vs19 is not referred to in Scripture as the Baptismal formula. Rather, it is a command given by Jesus Christ among many other commands contained in the same scriptures.

John the Baptist's explanation as far as the reason for the ritual in Matthew 3 vs 1 - 12 & Luke 3 vs 1 - 18 & Mark 1 vs 1 - 8 & John 1 vs 19 - 29 is violated with each attempt at baptism carried out by those of the religion of Christianity.

oteneaaron:
■ So that means Jehovah's Witnesses are also practicing the doctrine of the Trinity.

The doctrine of the Trinity does not exist in Scripture. It is instead formulated in the doctrines and traditions of men — extra-scriptural in the formulation.

MaxInDHouse:

See example of a direct answer!

What is your own religion?

After my horrible experience of been a Jehovah's Witness for many years, I currently practice no religion per se.

I have learned to never ever in my life again, allow any man-made religion to come in-between me and my creator.

I have direct access to the Omniscient, Omnipotent and Omnipresent creator of the entire cosmos.

I don't need any religion in between.

I'm something of what you could call an ECLECTIC - check your dictionary.

Whatever anyone believes is not my own problem i'm only presenting my own religion as the only religion approved by my GOD.

So speak about yours others may pick interest in your criticism of different religions i'm not if you want to engage me talk about your own religion!

So does that mean you believe in the Trinity just like the Catholic Church and EVERY OTHER Christian Denominations?

If yes, why do you say that you are the only true religion.

Does this mean that "Jesus" never really selected your organization in 1919?

Because of "Jesus" truly selected your organization in 1919 as your ciam, you wouldn't be teaching the same doctrine of Trinity found at Matthew 28 VS 19 just like the Catholic Church and EVERY OTHER Christian denominations.

Kobojunkiee:
The doctrine of the Trinity does not exist in Scripture. It is instead formulated in the doctrines and traditions of men — extra-scriptural in the formulation.

The key issue here is that the scripture at Matthew 28 VS 19 as we currently have it in majority of translations are all wrong because the Catholic Church altered it in the 2nd Century CE.

oteneaaron:
■ The key issue here is that the scripture at Matthew 28 VS 19 as we currently have it in majority of translations are all wrong because the Catholic Church altered it in the 2nd Century CE.

Altered in

▢ Greek manuscripts?
▢ Aramaic manuscripts?
▢ Catholic writings?

Which? Where is this stated and by whom?

Kobojunkiee:
The doctrine of the Trinity does not exist in Scripture. It is instead formulated in the doctrines and traditions of men — extra-scriptural in the formulation.

So why did the Church alter the same verse at Matthew 28 verse 19?

The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, I, 275:

"It is often affirmed that the words in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost are not the ipsissima verba [exact words] of Jesus, but...a later liturgical addition."

oteneaaron:


So that means Jehovah's Witnesses are also practicing the doctrine of the Trinity.

Right?

If yes, why do you claim to be the only true religion?

Your practice of baptism is based on Matthew 28 VS 19 just like EVERY OTHER Christian Denomination on earth today.


What now makes your organization special?

Does this mean your organization was never really chosen by "Jesus" in 1919?

Yes. That's true. Jehovah's witnesses are actually practicing the Trinity doctrine without even knowing it. It is really interesting that the Catholic church went ahead to change verses and that is what Christians today are living by. This really makes you look at the Bible differently. What else have they altered? This admission from the Catholic Church confirms another source of info I bumped into that stated that the Fake Jews that practice Judaism and Kaballa connived with the Catholic Church to fix whatever they liked into the Bible including the name they claim is the name of God.

Kobojunkiee:
Altered in

▢ Greek manuscripts?
▢ Aramaic manuscripts?
▢ Catholic writings?

Which? Where is this stated and by whom?

See my first post on this thread.

The original manuscript never had "in the name of the Father and the Son, and the Holy Spirit".

They are many quotes from books, Bible translations and Encyclopedias where this was stated.

You can follow the trace the books to where they were quoted from to confirm for yourself.

oteneaaron:
■ So why did the Church alter the same verse at Matthew 28 verse 19?

But you have yet to provide evidence that it was indeed altered though. The comment claims it is often affirmed but does not state much else aside from what reads like a general opinion. So, evidence?