Simon Brown.

It is not my purpose to force you to agree or believe with what’s on my websites, but rather to share my research. As the record goes: I'm Just a soul whose intentions are good. Oh Lord, please don’t let me be misunderstood. I do not write to share my research because I desire to be rich, famous, or powerful, but because investigating, studying, enquiring exploring, analysing and scrutinising, helps me learn what I don’t know. I simply love seeking, searching and researching, to discover the truth that is so rare, and become full of joy, uncovering the truth of our great GOD, and His Son’s hidden treasures, which has since caused me to become trapped in GOD’s divine love, who cannot turn back. I am Simon Brown. Amen.

Adverts are not owned by me Simon Brown. I am no longer a Trinitarian, and an independent researcher in no denomination.

Anyone with ears to hear should listen and understand! Matthew 11:15.

Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the
SON of God?
1 John 5:5.
NOT GOD OR A TRINITY, but as St john has said: but he that believeth that Jesus is the SON of God? 1 John 5:5.
And as Jesus has said: ETERNAL LIFE is believing His Father GOD is the only ONE TRUE GOD alone. John 17:3. Which is the FIRST commandment one MUST believe. Mark 12:29.

Trinitarians please read Hebrews 5:11-12. About this we have much to say, and it is hard to explain, since you have become dull of hearing. For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the basic principles of the oracles of God. You need milk, not solid food.

False Prophets and Teachers

1 But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction. 2 And many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of truth will be blasphemed. 3 And in their greed they will exploit you with false words. Their condemnation from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep. 2 Peter 2:

And Hezekiah prayed before the LORD and said: “O LORD, the God of Israel, enthroned above the cherubim, you are THE God, you alone, of all the kingdoms of the earth; you have made heaven and earth. 2 Kings 19:15.


Dear friends, just to remind you, as I am a human being, I am capable of making mistakes. If you believe I am wrong, don't let it go, but please be kind and let me know. Thank you.

But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good. 1 Thessalonians 5:21.



Friday, 24 November 2017

Matthew 28:19, The Trinitarian formula “Father the Son and Holy Spirit” YET AGAIN, Another Trinitarian FORGERY.


Matthew 28:19, The Trinitarian formula “Father the son and Holy Spirit” YET AGAIN, Another Trinitarian FORGERY.

English Standard Version
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?
Matthew 28:19.

Watch video and have your say:


Notice what we read in ALL translations of: Matthew 28:19?

We read what clearly looks like there are,
 THREE SEPARATE beings.
1. The Father.
2. The Son.
3 The Holy Spirit.

According to the Trinity faith, as we read by the Trinitarian commentaries below, this scripture is a Trinitarian formula.
 Let’s for a moment agree with them.
Click on image to enlarge.


Even though there is NO mention of The Holy Spirit being a SEPARATE being, this is still a popular scripture used to support the TRINITY faith.

We know that GOD the Father and His Son Yeshua, are BOTH separate beings, as they clearly taught us they are Father and Son, which is a requirement to believe to be saved, John 3:16.

“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

But there are NO scriptures throughout the whole Bible teaching The Holy Spirit, is a SEPARATE being.
And there is nothing in this scripture or ANY saying all THREE are ONE GOD.


Yet this scripture is used to support the Trinitarian concept of a “tritheism” (three Gods), called the Catholic doctrine of the TRINITY.

Trinitarian’s not understanding, who have become experts at contradicting what they believe, saying in one hand, there is ONE GOD, who is ONE, but in the other hand GOD is not ONE but THREE.


Therefore Matthew 28:19 cannot be correct, if it is saying there are THREE SEPARATE BEINGS, because that equals THREE SEPARATE (GODS) and NOT ONE GOD, if they are all GOD.

And if there are THREE GODS and NOT ONE, this would CONTRADICT the whole word of GOD, who always declared, from the BEGINNING to the end, He is GOD alone.
And Hezekiah prayed before the LORD and said: “O LORD, the God of Israel, enthroned above the cherubim,
 you are THE God, you alone, 
of all the kingdoms of the earth; you have made heaven and earth. 
2 Kings 19:15.

The Trinitarian formula also CONTRADICTS the simple fact that Christianity emerged from Judaism, and is a monotheistic religion.

So these Biblical facts already raises many red flags.

But could I be wrong, that this scripture reads: baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, in Matthew 28:19, and be genuine?

On my latest research, I decided to check out Matthew 28:19, where we read the Trinitarian formula “Father the son and Holy Spirit” to see if there is anymore evidence to prove if this is true, or false, or that this is another Trinitarian FORGERY.


But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good. 
1 Thessalonians 5:21.

I believe we should not believe what people teach, without doing our own research, and without investigating the foundations of our own faith, with fear and trembling St Paul said.
St John said: 

Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world.
 1 John 4:1.

We are humans and capable of error. In this case I was delightfully surprised to discover my previous research was correct, and that the Trinitarian formula “Father the son and Holy Spirit” is indeed a FORGERY.


The deceiving fact is:
In all the translations, even in the codex sinaiticus, and vaticanus, we find the Trinitarian formula:
 “Father the son and Holy Spirit. 


Matthew 28:19, The Trinitarian formula “Father the Son and Holy Spirit” YET AGAIN, Another Trinitarian FORGERY.


Matthew 28:19, The Trinitarian formula “Father the Son and Holy Spirit” YET AGAIN, Another Trinitarian FORGERY.

Modern translations.
Matthew 28:19, The Trinitarian formula “Father the Son and Holy Spirit” YET AGAIN, Another Trinitarian FORGERY.
Matthew 28:19, The Trinitarian formula “Father the Son and Holy Spirit” YET AGAIN, Another Trinitarian FORGERY.
Matthew 28:19, The Trinitarian formula “Father the Son and Holy Spirit” YET AGAIN, Another Trinitarian FORGERY.



Hebrew Gospel of Matthew. 
But guess what? There is a complete copy that scholars believe was handed down from the original writing of Matthew Himself, now known as: Shem Tob’s (or Shem Tov) Hebrew Gospel of Matthew.
Matthew 28:19, The Trinitarian formula “Father the Son and Holy Spirit” YET AGAIN, Another Trinitarian FORGERY.


Matthew 28:19, The Trinitarian formula “Father the Son and Holy Spirit” YET AGAIN, Another Trinitarian FORGERY.
Rabbinical translations of Matthew From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click on image to enlarge

On top of that, the author Papias wrote around the year 100, confirming a Hebrew Gospel of Matthew. 

Who was: Papias of Hierapolis?
Papias (Greek: Παπίας) was an Apostolic Father, Bishop of Hierapolis (modern Pamukkale, Turkey), and author who lived c. 60–130 AD.[2] It was Papias who wrote the Exposition of the Sayings of the Lord (Greek: Λογίων Κυριακῶν Ἐξήγησις) in five books.
This work, which is lost apart from brief excerpts of Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 180) and Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 320), is an important early source on Christian oral tradition and especially on the origins of the canonical Gospels.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Many of the early church Fathers also made reference to this Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, again proving it indeed existed, taking this translation back before ANY other translation of Matthew’s Gospel, where we shockingly discover this Trinitarian formula is MISSING from Matthew 28:19, and instead reads:
Matt 28:19-20 "Go and teach them to carry out all the things which I have commanded you forever."

On top of these interesting facts, there are more Biblical facts, and these important facts, reveal that there is NOT a SINGLE Trinitarian formula that reads the same or anything like the phrase:  “Father the son and Holy Spirit. 

But how can we be sure that Matthew 28:19 is in fact, another forgery?

Remember to follow the example of the Berean Jews, and to search the scriptures daily, as Jesus confirmed: We will find if we seek. Matthew 7:7.

With that in mind, when we search the scriptures, what do we find wrong with Matthew 28:19? Well, let’s have a look and see (the following are all from the English Standard Version).


For he had not yet fallen on any of them, but they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
 Acts 8:16.

On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
 Acts 19:5.

And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”
 Acts 2:38.

And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to remain for some days. Acts 10:48

But when they believed Philip as he preached good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.
 Acts 8:`12.

Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?
 Romans 6:3.

For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
 Galatians 3:27.

As we clearly see, yet again, there is NOT a SINGLE Trinitarian formula that reads: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

Arguments and debates still continue today, however as we have seen above, the Biblical facts are in the scriptures we read today, that reveal NO Trinitarian formula anywhere in the Bible.


Notice what we read in the scriptures below?
giving thanks always and for everything to God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 
Ephesians 5:20

And whatever you do, in word or deed, do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him. 
Colossians 3:17.

Give thanks in every circumstance, for this is God's will for you in Christ Jesus.
1 Thessalonians 5:18


Did you notice, there is NO mention of the Holy Spirit or the Trinitarian formula in the scriptures above?

Matthew 28:19, The Trinitarian formula “Father the Son and Holy Spirit” YET AGAIN, Another Trinitarian FORGERY.

This reveals another important fact to consider. If the modern translations are correct, why did the disciples ignore the TRINITY phrase?


As they were prepared to die for their faith, which is proof they most certainly followed Jesus in every way, and would not disobey His commands.

This also agrees with the research by Histories greatest scientist: Sir Isaac Newton argued that the Scriptures had been altered and early Christian writers had been misquoted to make it appear that Trinitarianism had been the original faith.” See Newtons link below.

Even more evidence can be found in the fact that Saint Jerome had access to a copy of the original Hebrew of Matthew’s Gospel, and also did not include the Trinitarian formula.
 “the Gospel which the Nazarenes and Ebionites use” (Jerome; On Mat. 12:13)
 “the Gospel which the Nazarenes and Ebionites use” (Jerome; On Mat. 12:13)

So, once more we have some fishy business going on here. Why and who changed the scriptures by adding in: ‘of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit’, which does seem to have been added in at a later date to promote the trinity doctrine.

My Conclusion.

I believe the very fact the Trinitarian formula: “Father the son and Holy Spirit” is in the codex sinaiticus, and vaticanus, and yet is MISSING from the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, is ‘substantial evidence’ that the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew is an older translation and was written before the codex sinaiticus, and vaticanus, which confirms why the author Papias confirmed there was an original Hebrew Gospel of Matthew at the year 100.


And remember, although there are NO teachings of the TRINITY in the codex sinaiticus, and vaticanus, except in Matthew 28:19, scholars have dated both to the forth century, the same time period when the TRINITY doctrine was being established, which could explain why the Trinitarian concept was starting to creep into the manuscripts and establish its roots. COINCIDENCE?

Is it also true that ALL or most known manuscripts before the time of A.D. 325, when the TRINITY doctrine was being established, the last page containing Matthew 28:19, with the Trinitarian formula happens to be MISSING? Were they removed and burned as we are told many books and manuscripts were at the time Constantine established the Trinity doctrine? Another COINCIDENCE.



The Didache, also known as The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles.
The Didache, also known as The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles.

On the other hand, there are those who claim the Didache, an early handbook by an anonymous Christian community, proves that the Trinitarian formula “Father the son and Holy Spirit” is genuine, because in the “anonymous” handbook, they teach and mention the practice such as baptism and Eucharist, and Church organisation, which includes the Trinitarian formula: “Father the son and Holy Spirit”

And as the Didache handbook was a very early document believed by most scholars to be dated to the first century, it therefore proves the Trinitarian formula is genuine.

The first fact against the Trinitarian formula in the Didache handbook.

However, as always, this is debated, other scholars date the text to the late 2nd century AD, [3] a belief still held today. (13)
(3) ”Didache.” Cross, F. L., ed. The Oxford dictionary of the Christian church. New York: Oxford University Press. 2005. Slee, Michelle (2003).
(13) The church in Antioch in the first century AD : communion and conflict. London [u.a.]: T & T Clark International. p. 58. ISBN 978-0567083821.

The second fact against the Trinitarian formula in the Didache handbook.

The Trinitarian formula is not found in the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, which is not anonymous, and has many references dating it back to 100 ad, proving the scholars who date the text to the late 2nd century AD, are proving to be more reliable.

The third fact against the Trinitarian formula in the Didache handbook.

I found this interesting point that says: Scholars generally agree that 9:5, which speaks of baptism “in the name of the Lord," represents an earlier tradition that was gradually replaced by a trinity of names.


baptism "in the name of the Lord," represents an earlier tradition that was gradually replaced by a trinity of names.

So in one hand we read in the Didache anonymous handbook, we have them teaching the Trinitarian formula.

And then in the other hand, we read they themselves speaking of the baptism “ in the name of the Lord,” A clear contradiction, confirming with their own hands, they themselves indeed knew the baptism was in the name of the Lord, Jesus, only.

What do you believe?
Is it true, that Matthew 28:19, The Trinitarian formula “Father the son and Holy Spirit” is YET AGAIN,
 Another Trinitarian FORGERY?

 I will leave you with the info below by Wikipedia,
 so you can decide for yourself.
I am Simon Brown.
Seek and you will find said Jesus.

Rabbinical translations of Matthew

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Rabbinical translations of Matthew are rabbinical versions of the Gospel of Matthew that are written in HebrewShem-Tob's Matthew, the Du Tillet Matthew, and the Münster Matthew, and which were used in polemical debate with Catholics.
These versions are to be distinguished from the Gospel According to the Hebrews which was one or more works found in the Early Church, but surviving only as fragmentary quotations in Greek and Latin texts.
Some scholars consider all the rabbinical versions to be translated from the Greek or Latin of the canonical Matthew, for the purpose of Jewish apologetics.[1] This conclusion is not exclusive. Other scholars have provided linguistic and historic evidence of Shem Tov's Matthew coming from a much earlier Hebrew text that was later translated into Greek and other languages. Early Christian author Papias wrote around the year 100: Matthew composed his history in the Hebrew dialect, and everyone translated it as he was able.[2] [3]

Rabbinical Jewish versions[edit]

Early Rabbinical citations of Matthew, 600-1300[edit]

Quotations from Hebrew translations of portions of various New Testament books - including the epistles of Paul - can be found in rabbinical treatises against Catholicism. These treatises multiplied wherever Jews lived in proximity to Christians - such as Spain before the expulsion of the Jews from Spain in 1492.
  • Sefer Nestor ha-Komer; "The Book of Nestor the Priest", 7th century. Contains significant quotes from Matthew, apparently from a Latin text.[4]
  • Toledot Yeshu; "Life of Jesus", 7th century.
  • Milhamoth ha-Shem; "Wars of the Lord" of Jacob Ben Reuben 12th century, which cites texts including Matthew 1:1-16, 3:13-17, 4:1-11, 5:33-40, 11:25-27, 12:1-8, 26:36-39, 28:16-20.
  • Sefer Nizzahon Yashan; "The Book of Victory" (in Latin Nizzahon vetus), 13th century.
  • Sefer Joseph Hamekane; "Book of Joseph the Official" of rabbi Joseph ben Nathan, 13th century (Paris MS).
Jean Carmignac (Paris 1969, BNES 1978) identified fifty Hebrew translations of the Lord's Prayer from the 9th to the 18th centuries.[5][6][7] Most scholars consider that the medieval Hebrew manuscripts are derived by translation from medieval Greek or Latin manuscripts, and therefore that it is extremely unlikely that any of the unique readings found in these medieval Hebrew manuscripts could be ancient.[8]
Four principal versions in rabbinical Hebrew of Matthew have survived or partially survived:

Shem Tov's Matthew, 1385[edit]

The Shem Tov Matthew (or Shem Tob's Matthew) consists of a complete text of Gospel of Matthew in the Hebrew language found interspersed among anti-Catholic commentary in the 12th volume of a polemical treatise The Touchstone (c.1380-85) by Shem Tov ben Isaac ben Shaprut (Ibn Shaprut), a Jewish physician living in Aragon, after whom the version is named. Shem Tov debated Cardinal Pedro de Luna (later Antipope Benedict XIII) on original sin and redemption in Pamplona, December 26, 1375, in the presence of bishops and learned theologians. Nine manuscripts of The Touchstone survive, though if an independent version of the text of Matthew used by Ibn Shaprut ever existed then it is lost.
Spanish Jews of Ibn Shaprut's period were familiar with the New Testament in Latin. Jacob Ben Reuben in his Wars of the Lord translated Gilbert Crispin's Disputation of Jews and Christians from Latin into Hebrew, along with quotes from Matthew. Lasker (1998) remarks that "By the fourteenth century, most likely every Iberian anti-Christian Jewish polemicist knew Latin." Moses ha-Kohen de Tordesillas made proficient use of Latin phrases. Profiat Duran (fl.1380-1420) had extensive knowledge of Latin Christian texts, and devoted a chapter of his Disgrace of the Gentiles (Klimat ha-goyim) to criticism of Jerome's Latin VulgateHayyim ben Judah ibn Musa argued with Nicholas de Lyra in his Book of Shield and Spear (Sefer magen va-romah).[9] Likewise converts to Christianity such as Abner of Burgos (Alphonso of Valladolid, ca. 1270-1347) continued to write polemical, theological, philosophical, and scientific works in Hebrew.
Shem Tov's The Touchstone (Eben = stone, bohan = test) has never been translated into English or published. It follows the model of Milhamoth ha-Shem of Jacob Ben Reuben in use of Matthew but contains not just sections of Matthew as Jacob Ben Reuben, but the whole text of Matthew and parts of Mark. George Howard excised the text of Matthew from among Shem Tov's comments and published it separately as The Gospel of Matthew according to a primitive Hebrew text (1987), a revised version Hebrew Gospel of Matthew (1995).[10]
Shem Tov's quotations of Matthew in The Touchstone are marked by Jewish thought, and are interspaced with the comments of the author. As a consequence several scholars[who?] feel it is difficult to determine which parts are Shem Tov's commentary, and which parts are the actual text of the source he was quoting. Many scholars[who?] view the text as a mediaeval translation from the Greek text of the Gospel of Matthew, as well as being the likely source of all later Hebrew versions of Matthew prior to the 20th century.
Where the Tetragrammaton occurs in Tanakh quotations, instead one finds a single Hebrew He (ה) except in one place where the word "ha-shem" (השם, the name) is spelled out. There are some interesting readings of Matthew in The Touchstone.[11]
  • Matt 12:37 "According to your words you will be judged, and according to your deeds you will be convicted."
  • Matt 24:40-41 "40 Then if there shall be two ploughing in a field, one righteous and the other evil, the one will be taken and the other left. 41 Two women will be grinding at a mill; one will be taken and the other left. This is because the angels at the end of the world will remove the stumbling blocks from the world and will separate the good from the evil."
  • Matt 28:9 "As they were going Jesus passed before them saying: 'May the Name deliver you.'"
  • Matt 28:19-20 "Go and teach them to carry out all the things which I have commanded you forever."
  • Mark 9:20-28 is placed into the text of Matthew between Matt 17:17 and 17:19. Matt 17:18 is omitted.[12]
While the quotations in Shem Tov’s The Touchstone, which are interspersed in his own commentary, diverge from the canonical text of Matthew, the text of the Münster Matthew and the Du Tillet Matthew are significantly very close to it in many passages.

Click on image to engage.

The Gospel according to the Hebrews: The Synoptic Solution. http://www.jacksonsnyder.com/yah/manuscript-library/Gospel-of-the-Hebrews.pdf
The Gospel according to the Hebrews: The Synoptic Solution. http://www.jacksonsnyder.com/yah/manuscript-library/Gospel-of-the-Hebrews.pdf

Also read: Hebrew Gospel of Matthew by George Howard Professor of Religion University of Georgiahttp://adamoh.org/TreeOfLife.lan.io/SDAcomms/Hebrew%20Gospel%20of%20MATTHEW%20by%20George%20Howard%20-%20Part%20One.pdf

Also read: Documentation that the Church changed the way we baptize?


UPDATE WED 27/JUN/2018.
I Simon Brown received this comment from Unveiling Bible Truth.  
He writes say:
Trinity is also a false doctrine of man. 

As far as Matthew 28:19 read below.
Joseph Ratzinger (pope Benedict XVI)  makes this confession as to the origin of the chief Trinity text of  Matthew 28:19.  He says “The basic form of our profession of faith, took shape during the course of the second and third centuries in  connection with the ceremony of baptism. So far as its place of origin is concerned, the text (Matthew 28:19) came from the city of Rome.” —   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 we have 1st hand evidence that the catholic church changed the wording of  Matthew 28:19 to support their beliefs in a trinity.

RELATED ARTICLES:


 Follow Me, and You Will See, How Trinitarian Verses Used, Don’t Prove The Trinity


Rabbinical translations of Matthew: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbinical_translations_of_Matthew

Here is evidence of the short version of Matthew 28:19 being used and not the long version.
https://archive.org/details/acataloguefathe00firgoog


Jude 1:4, is a perfect scripture that seems to make this point very clear.

For certain people have crept in unnoticed who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into sensuality and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.
Jude 1:4.

In an article called What Is Messiah? Jewish Messiah or Christian God by Rick Richardson, he writes:
In his article Cosmic Codebreaker, Pious Heretic, about Sir Isaac Newton (for Christian History Magazine), Karl Giberson writes: “Newton began a sustained reflection on the Christian doctrines and decided that the Anglican status quo was a thorough corruption of the true, original Christianity.
These considerations led him to write over a million words on theology and biblical studies—more than he wrote on any other subject. “Newton's theological investigations convinced him that the doctrine of the Trinity was bogus, a successful deception by St. Athanasius in the fourth century.
Newton argued that the Scriptures had been altered and early Christian writers had been misquoted to make it appear that Trinitarianism had been the original faith.”


Sir Isaac Newton

READ MORE ON Isaac Newton WHO SAID: When, after some heretics had taken Christ for a mere man and others for the supreme God. Click here. ISAAC NEWTON QUOTES.

“Go and teach them to carry out all the things which I have commanded you forever.”

Below are many historical quotes from theologians and other writers that heavily indicate that Matthew 28:19 has been altered.

It must be remembered that we have no known manuscripts that were written in the first, second or third centuries. There is a gap of over three hundred years between when Matthew wrote his epistle and our earliest manuscript copies. (It also took over three hundred years for the Catholic Church to evolve into what the “early church fathers” wanted it to become.)

Eusebius was the Bishop of Caesarea and is known as “the Father of Church History.” He wrote prolifically and his most celebrated work is his Ecclesiastical History, a history of the Church from the Apostolic period until his own time. Eusebius quotes many verses in his writings including Matthew 28:19. But he never quotes it as it appears in modern Bibles. He always finishes the verse with the words “in my name.”  “Go, and make disciples of all nations in My Name, teaching them to observe all things whatsover I have commanded you." That "Name" is Jesus.
Catholic Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger:
He makes this confession as to the origin of the chief Trinity text of Matthew 28:19. “The basic form of our (Matthew 28:19 Trinitarian) profession of faith took shape during the course of the second and third centuries in connection with the ceremony of baptism. So far as its place of origin is concerned, the text (Matthew 28:19) came from the city of Rome.” — Joseph Ratzinger (pope Benedict XVI) Introduction to Christianity: 1968 edition, pp. 82-83. The Trinity baptism and text of Matthew 28:19 therefore did not originate from the original Church that started in Jerusalem around AD 33. It was rather as the evidence proves, a later invention of Roman Catholicism completely fabricated. 
Very few know about these historical facts.

Doctrine and Practice in the Early Church:
By Dr. Stuart G. Hall 1992, pages 20 and 21. Professor Stuart G. Hall was the former Chair of Ecclesiastical History at King's College, London England. Dr. Hall makes the factual statement that Catholic Trinitarian Baptism was not the original form of Christian Baptism, rather the original was Jesus name baptism. “In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,” although those words were not used, as they later are, as a formula. Not all baptisms fitted this rule.” Dr Hall further, states: “More common and perhaps more ancient was the simple, “In the name of the Lord Jesus or, Jesus Christ.” This practice was known among Marcionites and Orthodox; it is certainly the subject of controversy in Rome and Africa about 254, as the anonymous tract De rebaptismate (“On rebaptism”) shows.”

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.”
Edmund Schlink, The Doctrine of Baptism, page 28: “The baptismal command in its Matthew 28:19 form cannot 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.”

Hastings Dictionary of the Bible 1963, page 1015:
The Trinity.-...is not demonstrable by logic or by Scriptural proofs,...The term Trias was first used by Theophilus of Antioch (c AD 180),...(The term Trinity) not found in Scripture...” “The chief Trinitarian text in the NT is the baptismal formula in Mt 28:19...This late post-resurrection saying, not found in any other Gospel or anywhere else in the NT, has been viewed by some scholars as an interpolation into Matthew. It has also been pointed out that the idea of making disciples is continued in teaching them, so that the intervening reference to baptism with its Trinitarian formula was perhaps a later insertion into the saying. Finally, Eusebius's form of the (ancient) text (“in my name” rather than in the name of the Trinity) has had certain advocates. (Although the Trinitarian formula is now found in the modern-day book of Matthew), this does not guarantee its source in the historical teaching of Jesus. It is doubtless better to view the (Trinitarian) formula as derived from early (Catholic) Christian, perhaps Syrian or Palestinian, baptismal usage (cf Didache 7:1-4), and as a brief summary of the (Catholic) Church's teaching about God, Christ, and the Spirit:...”

James Moffett's New Testament Translation:
In a footnote on page 64 about Matthew 28:19 he makes this statement: “It may be that this (Trinitarian) formula, so far as the fullness of its expression is concerned, is a reflection of the (Catholic) liturgical usage established later in the primitive (Catholic) community, It will be remembered that Acts speaks of baptizing “in the name of Jesus, cf. Acts 1:5 +.”

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...”

Tom Harpur, former Religion Editor of the Toronto Star in his “For Christ's sake,” page 103 informs us of these facts: “All but the most conservative scholars agree that at least the latter part of this command [Triune part of Matthew 28:19] was inserted later. The [Trinitarian] formula occurs nowhere else in the New Testament, and we know from the only evidence available [the rest of the New Testament] that the earliest Church did not baptize people using these words (“in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost”) Baptism was “into” or “in” the name of Jesus alone. Thus it is argued that the verse originally read “baptizing them in My Name” and then was expanded [changed] to work in the [later Catholic Trinitarian] dogma. In fact, the first view put forward by German critical scholars as well as the Unitarians in the nineteenth century, was stated as the accepted position of mainline scholarship as long ago as 1919, when Peake's commentary was first published: “The Church of the first days (AD 33) did not observe this world-wide (Trinitarian) commandment, even if they knew it. The command to baptize into the threefold [Trinity] name is a late doctrinal expansion.”

The Bible Commentary 1919 page 723:
Dr. Peake makes it clear that: “The command to baptize into the threefold name is a late doctrinal expansion. Instead of the words baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost we should probably read simply-“into My Name.”

The Catholic University of America in Washington, D. C. 1923, New Testament Studies Number 5:
The Lord's Command To Baptize An Historical Critical Investigation. By Bernard Henry Cuneo page 27. “The passages in Acts and the Letters of St. Paul. These passages seem to point to the earliest form as baptism in the name of the Lord.” Also we find. “Is it possible to reconcile these facts with the belief that Christ commanded his disciples to baptize in the triune form? Had Christ given such a command, it is urged, the Apostolic Church would have followed him, and we should have some trace of this obedience in the New Testament. No such trace can be found. The only explanation of this silence, according to the anti-traditional view, is this the short christological (Jesus Name) formula was (the) original, and the longer triune formula was a later development.”

“The Demonstratio Evangelica” by Eusebius:
Eusebius was the Church historian and Bishop of Caesarea. On page 152 Eusebius quotes the early book of Matthew that he had in his library in Caesarea. According to this eyewitness of an unaltered Book of Matthew that could have been the original book or the first copy of the original of Matthew. Eusebius informs us of Jesus' actual words to his disciples in the original text of Matthew 28:19: “With one word and voice He said to His disciples: “Go, and make disciples of all nations in My Name, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.” That “Name” is Jesus.

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 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.”

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 Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge:
“Jesus, however, cannot have given His disciples this Trinitarian order of baptism after His resurrection; for the New Testament knows only one baptism in the name of Jesus (Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:43; 19:5; Gal. 3:27; Rom. 6:3; 1 Cor. 1:13-15), which still occurs even in the second and third centuries, while the Trinitarian formula occurs only in Matt. 28:19, and then only again (in the) Didache 7:1 and Justin, Apol. 1:61...Finally, the distinctly liturgical character of the formula...is strange; it was not the way of Jesus to make such formulas... the formal authenticity of Matt. 28:19 must be disputed...”page 435.

The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, I, page 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.”
We cannot prove this verse has been tampered with by the Catholic Church but what we do know is:
1) The Catholic Church confessed to changing it.
2) Most theologians also agree that they did change it.
3) No one followed this supposed instruction and all were baptized in the name of Christ ONLY!
4) Eusebius who saw the earliest manuscripts when he quoted this verse wrote that it said, “In His name” (Jesus)
I think most will agree that the weight of evidence is overwhelming that Matthew 28:19 should have read “in My Name.”
https://www.truthseeker.church/matthew28