oteneaaron:
■ 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.

Is there only exactly one original manuscript in existence for the book of Matthew chapter 19?

oteneaaron:

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. 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.

So in a nutshell you don't have any religion shey?
There's no need talking about what others chose to do with their lives after all you've made your own choice let others make theirs as well!

Courz:


Yes. That's true. Jehovah's witnesses are actually practicing the Trinity doctrine without even knowing it.

It was quite shocking when I found this out.

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?

That is the biggest question!

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.

You do have a point, but from what I learned, there are two groups of people who practice Judaism -

1. The Zionists who believe every word of the Torah and their other sacred texts to be actual history and thus follow it word for word in its literal sense - just like fundamental Muslims.

Because of this, they believe in war and conquering of other nations, just like the ancient Israelites are described in the Bible.

2. They is another group of people who practice true Judaism and look beneath the surface of these Bible stories - they look beyond the "history" and practice the hidden or esoteric meaning of these texts - more like the Sufist Muslims.

Study these two groups, and see will see a big difference.

MaxInDHouse:


So in a nutshell you don't have any religion shey?
There's no need talking about what others chose to do with their lives after all you've made your own choice let others make theirs as well!

Hahahahahahaha

He cannot answer those shocking questions!

How does it feel to learn that your religion wasn't that special after all?

You are just like EVERYONE else.

How come did "Jesus" chose your organization in 1919?

Think Max!

Think!

😂😂😂

Kobojunkiee:
Is there only exactly one original manuscript in existence for the book of Matthew chapter 19?

Why don't you enlighten me?

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 the altercation of Matthew 28 VS 19 by the Catholic Church?

2. Why did they add the same mistake or altercation 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, Maynnman, tctrills

Tell us, do you have any religion mind worshipper?

oteneaaron:
■ Why don't you enlighten me?

I am anti-religion and no question that I would be happiest to root out every religious lie there is out there. But this claim does not add up given it assumes there has only ever been one manuscript for the scripture in question and that one manuscript was altered by the Catholic church. Manuscripts of the Gospel of Matthew

What is written in Matthew 28 vs 19 is not the Trinity doctrine and is not in support of the Trinity doctrine. Rather it is a statement that acknowledges the involvement of the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit(the Spirit of Truth) in the lives and living of those who are submitted to the New Covenant Law of God, something that was not available to those who were of the Old Law of Moses.

So far, there is no evidence that all manuscripts have been tampered with and no indication of the particular manuscript that may have been tampered with. So let's take these claims with a pinch of salt.

cornelboy:

Tell us, do you have any religion mind worshipper?

Check out my reply to your sweet a.s.s MaxInDHouse.

😅😅

Kobojunkiee:
I am anti-religion and no question that I would be happiest to root out every religious lie there is out there. But this claim does not add up given it assumes there has only ever been one manuscript for the scripture in question and that one manuscript was altered by the Catholic church. Manuscripts of the Gospel of Matthew

What is written in Matthew 28 vs 19 is not the Trinity doctrine and is not in support of the Trinity doctrine. Rather it is a statement that acknowledges the involvement of the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit(the Spirit of Truth) in the lives and living of those who are submitted to the New Covenant Law of God, something that was not available to those who were of the Old Law of Moses.

So far, there is no evidence that all manuscripts have been tampered with and no indication of the particular manuscript that may have been tampered with. So let's take these claims with a pinch of salt.

I completely understand you.

But you're missing the point.

The Catholic Church has admitted that they "changed" the text at Matthew 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."

If you have the original manuscript, then please show me what it says.

oteneaaron:

Hahahahahahaha
He cannot answer those shocking questions!
How does it feel to learn that your religion wasn't that special after all?
You are just like EVERYONE else.
How come did "Jesus" chose your organization in 1919?
Think Max!
Think! 😂😂😂

I have thought over and over and over again and again your life doesn't make sense to me as long as you can't present your fellow believers!

cornelboy:

Tell us, do you have any religion mind worshipper?

He's just gathering gullible followers to get them into fruitless arguments i'm much more intelligent than such nonsense!

MaxInDHouse:


I have thought over and over and over again and again your life doesn't make sense to me as long as you can't present your fellow believers!

What has my life got to do with anything?

Are you practicing blind faith?

🤔🤔🤔

oteneaaron:


Check out my reply to your sweet a.s.s MaxInDHouse.

😅😅

I don't have that time a.s.s kissing admirer. I guess you have enough bros kissing your a.s.s now, tctrills and co..

oteneaaron:
■ I completely understand you. But you're missing the point. The Catholic Church has admitted that they "changed" the text at Matthew 28 verse 19! If you have the original manuscript, then please show me what it says.

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

oteneaaron:


It was quite shocking when I found this out.



That is the biggest question!



You do have a point, but from what I learned, there are two groups of people who practice Judaism -

1. The Zionists who believe every word of the Torah and their other sacred texts to be actual history and thus follow it word for word in its literal sense - just like fundamental Muslims.

Because of this, they believe in war and conquering of other nations, just like the ancient Israelites are described in the Bible.

2. They is another group of people who practice true Judaism and look beneath the surface of these Bible stories - they look beyond the "history" and practice the hidden or esoteric meaning of these texts - more like the Sufist Muslims.

Study these two groups, and see will see a big difference.

This is why we don't take clownish Cults like Jehovah's witnesses serious because all they do is boast and have nothing to show. They can argue so much against Trinity not knowing that they have been practicing it all along. . When Jesus selected them as the One True Religion,why didn't he correct them there and then that baptism is meant to be done in his name and that they have been practicing the Trinity all along? Mad MaxinDhouse will never answer that one.

Well, the source I read mentioned the Fake Jews that follow the Talmud. I believe they are Zionists and at the same time share esoteric beliefs. I will read up on the different groups. This discovery shows that The Catholic Church still has much power to dictate to the whole of Christianity including Jehovah's witnesses. I mean, if you can successfully alter verses and convince the whole of Christianity to follow them, you are still in control. This is a very bad sign as we all know the Dark side of the Catholic church.

Courz:


This is why we don't take clownish Cults like Jehovah's witnesses serious because all they do is boast and have nothing to show. They can argue so much against Trinity not knowing that they have been practicing it all along. . When Jesus selected them as the One True Religion,why didn't he correct them there and then that baptism is meant to be done in his name and that they have been practicing the Trinity all along? Mad MaxinDhouse will never answer that one.

Well, the source I read mentioned the Fake Jews that follow the Talmud. I believe they are Zionists and at the same time share esoteric beliefs. I will read up on the different groups. This discovery shows that The Catholic Church still has much power to dictate to the whole of Christianity including Jehovah's witnesses. I mean, if you can successfully alter verses and convince the whole of Christianity to follow them, you are still in control. This is a very bad sign as we all know the Dark side of the Catholic church.

Lol you're taking eh eh pekele pekele arúgbó je gbese tani o San?

You that have claimed many times that all religions are cults and Jehovah is a satanic name.
You want everyone to leave religionike you did? You will have to convince your Father and mother first and tctrills and acholardey

cornelboy:

I don't have that time a.s.s kissing admirer. I guess you have enough bros kissing your a.s.s now, tctrills and co..

No bro!

We don't do that over here.

They are all critical thinkers - they can never kiss any a.s.s - unlike you.

cornelboy:

That's none of your business. If the a.s.s was bitter I wouldn't have kissed it. It was obviously sweet.

😂😂😂

oteneaaron:

What has my life got to do with anything?
Are you practicing blind faith?🤔🤔🤔

Good!
Let's talk about which one is BLIND my faith in the God Jehovah's Witnesses are worshiping or your mind?
Are you ready for a discussion on that?

cornelboy:

Lol you're taking eh eh pekele pekele arúgbó je gbese tani o San?

You that have claimed many times that all religions are cults and Jehovah is a satanic name.
You want everyone to leave religionike you did? You will have to convince your Father and mother first and tctrills and acholardey

Shut up your mouth silly girl! Is it my fault that you are worshipping JahBuLon the Masonic Spirit? Ordinary Wikipedia admitted the origin of Jehovah. Is it my fault that you have chosen to worship Satan? What rubbish are you typing? Can't you see the topic of discussion? Dumb dumb. You have nothing tangible to contribute. Dullard! Oteneaaron showed us here that the Catholic church altered verses in Matthew 28 Vs 19. And they admitted it in Thier Encyclopedia, the same encyclopaedia your dull Watchtower Cult like to take information from. And you know it is the Catholic church that compiled the Bible we are all using today. How is it that your Dullard Watchtower couldn't see where the Catholic Church admitted to doing this and yet you JWs like to argue up and down against the trinity.Yet, you people practice The Trinity doctrine unknowingly. How do you feel about this? That your silly one true religion has been committing blunder for years without knowing? What is it that you have to say from that your maggot infested brain?

Courz:


This is why we don't take clownish Cults like Jehovah's witnesses serious because all they do is boast and have nothing to show. They can argue so much against Trinity not knowing that they have been practicing it all along. . When Jesus selected them as the One True Religion,why didn't he correct them there and then that baptism is meant to be done in his name and that they have been practicing the Trinity all along? Mad MaxinDhouse will never answer that one.

Well, the source I read mentioned the Fake Jews that follow the Talmud. I believe they are Zionists and at the same time share esoteric beliefs. I will read up on the different groups. This discovery shows that The Catholic Church still has much power to dictate to the whole of Christianity including Jehovah's witnesses. I mean, if you can successfully alter verses and convince the whole of Christianity to follow them, you are still in control. This is a very bad sign as we all know the Dark side of the Catholic church.

I tell you bro.

I think the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses know this but instead, they chose to to be a part of the Catholic Church after their years of bashing the same Catholic Church as Babylon the Great.

They keep shouting "get out of her my people" but they are still part of their so-called Babylon The Great - The World Empire of False Religion.

No wonder they registered be part of the United Nations for 10 years after claiming the UN was the "scarlet colored wild beast".

It is quite shocking.

oteneaaron:


I tell you bro.

I think the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses know this but instead, they chose to to be a part of the Catholic Church after their years of bashing the same Catholic Church as Babylon the Great.

They keep shouting "get out of her my people" but they are still part of their so-called Babylon The Great - The World Empire of False Religion.

No wonder they registered be part of the United Nations for 10 years after claiming the UN was the "scarlet colored wild beast".

It is quite shocking.

Don't mind them. There was a book where I got to know that London is in control of the Finances of the world, Washington DC is in control of the Military forces of the world and the Vatican is in control of all Religions regardless of their beliefs. I have seen way too many sources saying this. A former Jesuit priest revealed this. This means the same Catholic Church is in control of Jehovah's witnesses behind the scenes but they need to act like they are against them just to deceive JWs. That's why Watchtower is still part of the wild Beast and a Government agent.

Kobojunkiee:
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?

Oh really?

If that is what you think after all I have shared above then it's cool.

oteneaaron:
■ Oh really? If that is what you think after all I have shared above then it's cool.

There needs to be definitive evidence to show that this change was made. All those comments amount to hearsay as they do not point to exactly which manuscripts were tampered with by the religion of Christianity — the catholic church its mother church.

Courz:


Shut up your mouth silly girl! Is it my fault that you are worshipping JahBuLon the Masonic Spirit? Ordinary Wikipedia admitted the origin of Jehovah. Is it my fault that you have chosen to worship Satan? What rubbish are you typing? Can't you see the topic of discussion? Dumb dumb. You have nothing tangible to contribute. Dullard! Oteneaaron showed us here that the Catholic church altered verses in Matthew 28 Vs 19. And they admitted it in Thier Encyclopedia, the same encyclopaedia your dull Watchtower Cult like to take information from. And you know it is the Catholic church that compiled the Bible we are all using today. How is it that your Dullard Watchtower couldn't see where the Catholic Church admitted to doing this and yet you JWs like to argue up and down against the trinity.Yet, you people practice The Trinity doctrine unknowingly. How do you feel about this? That your silly one true religion has been committing blunder for years without knowing? What is it that you have to say from that your maggot infested brain?

Lol 😂😂

oteneaaron:


No bro!

We don't do that over here.

They are all critical thinkers - they can never kiss any a.s.s - unlike you.

😂😂😂

Critical thinkers with different beliefs 🤣🤣🤣 do they even believe in any infinite mind like you do?
Thinking rubbish doesn't mean you think critically.

Have you ever experienced that feeling when some kiss your a.s.s?
Max's a.s.s is delicious and I kiss it without hesitation.

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

Do your research 🔬

You are a liar. The Catholic Church and indeed no one at the Fist Council of Nicea ( AD 325) modified any section of the Christian Bible.

The Council was principally convened to solve the problem created in the Eastern church by Arianism, a heresy first proposed by Arius of Alexandria that affirmed that Christ is not divine but a created being..

Consequently, its main accomplishments were settlement of the Christological issue of the divine nature of God the Son and his relationship to God the Father, the construction of the first part of the Nicene Creed, mandating uniform observance of the date of Easter, and promulgation of early canon law (ordnances and regulations for governance in a Christian church or body).

The Fist Council of Nicea never altered any Bible verses.

oteneaaron:
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:



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:















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

I have done my research and the outcome expose the deceit and lies in your claims.

Some people claim that Matthew 28:19 was altered to contain the Trinitarian formula and that the original text supported baptism in the name of Jesus only.

Most proponents of the claim rely on Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew Gospel and writings of Eusebius the Bishop where his quotes of Matthew 28:19 only contain baptism in my name (Jesus name).

Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew Gospel date back to 14th Century while Eusebius and his writings date back to the 4th Century (around 300 AD).

It is widely agreed that the Matthew Gospel was originally written in Aramaic (losely refered to as Hebrew) and that translations followed later in Greek and that the original text was written in the 1st Century (around 60 AD) as attested to be several early Christian Fathers such as Papias (80-155 AD), Irenaeus (130-202 AD) and Origen (185-254 AD).

The original Aramaic text of Matthew Gospel did not survive to date but the Greek translations contain the Trinitarian formula of baptism in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost and the earliest Greek translations date back to the 1st Century (around 75 AD).

The Didache (also known as The Lord's Teaching Through the Twelve Apostles to the Nations), an early Christian Treatise written in Koine Greek dating to the turn of the 1st Century (around 100 AD) and with significant similarities to the Matthew Gospel, contains the Trinitarian formula in its borrowings from Matthew 28:19.

Tertullian (an early Christian author who lived between 155 to 220 AD), writing around the turn of the 2nd century, also cited the bapstismal Trinitarian formula from the Matthean passage in his writings.

From the foregoing, the earliest texts that those who claim alteration of Matthew 28:19 rely upon were written between 300 AD to 1,400 AD while texts and writings as early as 75 AD to 220 AD support the Trinitarian formula in references to Matthew 28:19.

It is clear therefore that the claims of alteration are more recent and difficult to sustain with facts. It is safe to conclude that the allegations of alteration are false.

References:

https://www.quora.com/Was-Matthew-28-19-Trinity-Baptism-a-later-edition-added-in-by-translators

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shem_Tob%27s_Hebrew_Gospel_of_Matthew

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eusebius

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Didache

Babinski:


I have done my research and the outcome expose the deceit and lies in your claims.

Some people claim that Matthew 28:19 was altered to contain the Trinitarian formula and that the original text supported baptism in the name of Jesus only.

Most proponents of the claim rely on Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew Gospel and writings of Eusebius the Bishop where his quotes of Matthew 28:19 only contain baptism in my name (Jesus name).

Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew Gospel date back to 14th Century while Eusebius and his writings date back to the 4th Century (around 300 AD).

It is widely agreed that the Matthew Gospel was originally written in Aramaic (losely refered to as Hebrew) and that translations followed later in Greek and that the original text was written in the 1st Century (around 60 AD) as attested to be several early Christian Fathers such as Papias (80-155 AD), Irenaeus (130-202 AD) and Origen (185-254 AD).

The original Aramaic text of Matthew Gospel did not survive to date but the Greek translations contain the Trinitarian formula of baptism in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost and the earliest Greek translations date back to the 1st Century (around 75 AD).

The Didache (also known as The Lord's Teaching Through the Twelve Apostles to the Nations), an early Christian Treatise written in Koine Greek dating to the turn of the 1st Century (around 100 AD) and with significant similarities to the Matthew Gospel, contains the Trinitarian formula in its borrowings from Matthew 28:19.

Tertullian (an early Christian author who lived between 155 to 220 AD), writing around the turn of the 2nd century, also cited the bapstismal Trinitarian formula from the Matthean passage in his writings.

From the foregoing, the earliest texts that those who claim alteration of Matthew 28:19 rely upon were written between 300 AD to 1,400 AD while texts and writings as early as 75 AD to 220 AD support the Trinitarian formula in references to Matthew 28:19.

It is clear therefore that the claims of alteration are more recent and difficult to sustain with facts. It is safe to conclude that the allegations of alteration are false.

References:

https://www.quora.com/Was-Matthew-28-19-Trinity-Baptism-a-later-edition-added-in-by-translators

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shem_Tob%27s_Hebrew_Gospel_of_Matthew

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eusebius

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Didache

Interesting.

Pray tell, how I am being deceitful when I was only sharing that the Catholic Church themselves admitted in their Encyclopedia that they did change the wordings of Matthew 28 VS 19?

I took my time to check out the references you shared, but unfortunately, the issue still persist.

The Quora link you shared contained numerous opinions for and against the notion that the Catholic Church altered Matthew 28 VS 19.

George E. Howard in 1985, published a translation of Shem Tob's Hebrew Gospel of Matthew.

I couldn't get my hands on this translation by George E. Howard - if you have it can you show me what Matthew 28 VS 19 says in that translation?

William L. Peterson of the Pennsylvania State University, Netherlands Institute for Advanced Studies published a paper titled - Some Observations on a Recent Edition of and Introduction to Shem-Tob's "Hebrew Matthew"

In the paper, this is the only thing he said about Shem Tob's version of Matthew 28 VS 19:

Matt 28:19-20

8. In Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew, the "Great Commission" becomes: "Go and teach them to carry out all the things which I have commanded you forever." No mention is made of "making disciples of all nations," nor does Jesus promise to be "with you always, even unto the end of the world."

If you have the translation, please share with me exactly what Matthew 28 VS 19 says.

Here is a link to the paper - http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/vol03/Petersen1998a.html

The fact still remains the the Catholic Church themselves made clearly said this in their own Encyclopedia:

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."

So what gives?

@oteneaaron
Are you ready to discuss?
Between my faith and your infinite mind which is blind and which can see clearly? Psalms 115:4-8
If you're ready let's discuss i'm with you on that note but randomly selecting religions to talk about when yours is kept in the pot makes no practical sense to me Sir!

But they have the power to bind And loose in heaven and on earth. That power was given to Peter the first pope. And there has been an unbroken succession.

njelrapheal:
■ But they have the power to bind And loose in heaven and on earth.
■That power was given to Peter the first pope.
■ And there has been an unbroken succession.

Power to bind and loose what exactly?

How could Peter who there is no record to show he was ever in Rome had been the first pope?

Unbroken succession in an enterprise, sure, but what has that to do with anything?

Kobojunkiee:
Power to bind and loose what exactly?

How could Peter who there is no record to show he was ever in Rome had been the first pope?

Unbroken succession in an enterprise, sure, but what has that to do with anything?

My friend I don't have time for you. You are so ignorant. Sure you don't expect me to respond to your clueless questions. Of course you would reply to this but I won't respond back.