Matthew 28:19 Trinitarian deception and FORGERY. REVISED.

Summary

This video script explores the claim that the Trinitarian formula in Matthew 28:19 ('Father, Son, and Holy Spirit') is a later alteration, never used by the early disciples. It highlights historical evidence, such as the Shem Tov Hebrew Gospel of Matthew and writings by scholars like George Howard, which suggest that the original Gospel did not include the Trinitarian formula. The script further discusses how the Catholic Church allegedly modified the text in the second century, and mentions famous figures like Sir Isaac Newton who believed early Christian writings were misquoted to promote Trinitarianism.

Takeaways

• 😀 The Trinitarian formula in Matthew 28:19 ('Father, Son, and Holy Spirit') is considered by some to be a later forgery not found in earlier manuscripts.
• 😀 There is no record in the Bible of anyone being baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Instead, baptisms were performed in the name of Jesus.
• 😀 The Shem Tov Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, believed to be close to the original writings, does not contain the Trinitarian formula found in Matthew 28:19.
• 😀 Scholars, like George Howard, suggest that early Christians, including those in the 1st and 2nd centuries, did not use the Trinitarian formula but rather focused on teachings and commandments.
• 😀 St. Jerome's writings also indicate that he did not include the Trinitarian formula when referencing the original text of Matthew’s Gospel.
• 😀 Pope Benedict XVI admitted that the Trinitarian formula ('Father, Son, and Holy Spirit') likely evolved over time during the 2nd and 3rd centuries and was not part of the original Christian teachings.
• 😀 Historical sources, including early Christian writers and scholars, support the idea that the Trinitarian formula was added later to align with emerging doctrinal beliefs.
• 😀 The Catholic Church is believed to have introduced the phrase 'Father, Son, and Holy Spirit' in the 2nd century to support its developing Trinitarian theology.
• 😀 Sir Isaac Newton, in his studies, argued that many parts of the Scriptures, including references to the Trinity, were altered to reflect later theological positions.
• 😀 The claim is made that Matthew 28:19 is yet another example of a Trinitarian forgery, similar to the disputed 1 John 5:7 passage, which has been historically questioned for its authenticity.

Q & A

What is the primary argument regarding Matthew 28:19 in the transcript?

The transcript argues that Matthew 28:19, which contains the Trinitarian formula ('in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit'), is a later addition or alteration, not part of the original Gospel, and that baptisms were originally performed in the name of Jesus alone.

What is the significance of the Shem Tov Hebrew Gospel of Matthew in this argument?

The Shem Tov Hebrew Gospel of Matthew is used to support the argument that the original Gospel of Matthew did not contain the Trinitarian formula. It features a version of Matthew 28:19 that omits the Trinitarian reference and focuses only on the command to teach and baptize.

How does the transcript explain the origin of the Trinitarian formula in Matthew 28:19?

The transcript claims that the Trinitarian formula in Matthew 28:19 was introduced by the Catholic Church in the second century to support the doctrine of the Trinity, and it suggests that the original Gospel of Matthew did not contain this formula.

What role does Pope Benedict's statement play in the argument?

Pope Benedict's statement is cited to support the idea that the Trinitarian formula in Matthew 28:19 was a later development. He suggests that the basic form of the Christian profession of faith, including the Trinity, took shape in the second and third centuries, which aligns with the claim that the wording of Matthew 28:19 was altered during this period.

How does the transcript address the practice of baptism in the early Church?

The transcript asserts that baptisms in the early Church were always performed 'in the name of Jesus,' and not using the Trinitarian formula of 'Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.' This is used to argue that the Trinitarian formula was not part of the original Christian practice.

What historical figures or sources are cited to support the claim of alteration in Matthew 28:19?

The transcript mentions early Christian writers, scholars, and figures such as Sir Isaac Newton, who argued that the Scriptures had been altered, and that early Christian writings had been misquoted to make it appear that the Trinity doctrine was original to Christianity.

What is the connection made between Matthew 28:19 and 1 John 5:7 in the transcript?

The transcript connects Matthew 28:19 to 1 John 5:7, referring to both as examples of 'Trinitarian forgeries.' It argues that these passages were altered to support the Trinity doctrine, which was not originally present in the earliest Christian texts.

Why does the transcript emphasize the lack of a Trinitarian baptismal formula in early Christian writings?

The emphasis on the absence of a Trinitarian baptismal formula is used to argue that the original Christian practice was focused solely on baptizing in the name of Jesus, rather than invoking the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This is presented as evidence that the Trinitarian formula was a later theological addition.

What does the transcript suggest about the influence of the Catholic Church on the development of the Trinity doctrine?

The transcript suggests that the Catholic Church played a significant role in introducing and institutionalizing the doctrine of the Trinity, particularly by altering the Gospel texts like Matthew 28:19 to align with Trinitarian theology in the second century.

How does the transcript position Isaac Newton’s views on biblical alterations?

The transcript highlights Isaac Newton's perspective that early Christian texts were altered to misrepresent the original faith. Newton argued that the doctrine of the Trinity was a later development that was not part of the early Christian teachings, supporting the idea that passages like Matthew 28:19 were later forgeries.