Matthew 28:19

[Victor2211]

I’m having an online debate with a person who claims Matthew 28:19 was added to the bible, and is therefore unreliable. For this and many other reasons, he denies the Trinity. I’m not sure of this person’s faith denomination. He also denies the divinity of Christ (possibly Jehovah’s Witness). How would I refute this claim against Matthew 28:19?

 

[po18guy]

I’m having an online debate with a person who claims Matthew 28:19 was added to the bible, and is therefore unreliable. For this and many other reasons, he denies the Trinity. I’m not sure of this person’s faith denomination. He also denies the divinity of Christ (possibly Jehovah’s Witness). How would I refute this claim against Matthew 28:19?

The only guarantee of things added later are his beliefs. You can trace them all the way back to 1800s America. He is ignoring an awful lot of scripture to say what he is saying.

I would get a copy of The Essential Catholic Survival Guide and read up. It is a very handy and valuable reference book.

 

[bzkoss236]

He’s the one making the claim, so I would ask him to provide the proof. Ask him what evidence he has that it was added and when it was added.

He is likely just spouting what his church leaders have said, which is likely what their church leaders have said, all the way until one person made it up to attempt to discredit the Catholic Church.

It likely has no ground. Often, for these unfounded claims, it is simple to debunk by just asking for solid historical evidence.

 

[thistle]

I’m having an online debate with a person who claims Matthew 28:19 was added to the bible, and is therefore unreliable. For this and many other reasons, he denies the Trinity. I’m not sure of this person’s faith denomination. He also denies the divinity of Christ (possibly Jehovah’s Witness). How would I refute this claim against Matthew 28:19?

He is making the claim. It is up to him to provide you with documentary evidence to back up his claim and then we can discuss it.
It is not up to us to refute baseless claims.

 

[Khalid]

The previous posters are correct.

Also, he must be confused. The authenticity of Matthew 28:19 is not doubted by any legitimate textual critic I know. It is present in the ancient manuscripts of every tradition and not very prone to variant readings, and is given a rating of high reliability in the modern critical Nestle-Aland 28 text. Another proof-text for the Trinity, 1 John 5:7-8 (the comma Johanneum) is doubted by modern textual critics, and is removed from the modern critical texts.

Of course, the Byzantine text is correct, but that’s neither here nor there. His issue is of authority: if he can come up with one critic who challenges the passage, I can come up with two more highly-qualified critics that support it.

 

[Victor2211]

Thank you all for the replies. These are very helpful.

 

[Evan]

I’m having an online debate with a person who claims Matthew 28:19 was added to the bible, and is therefore unreliable. For this and many other reasons, he denies the Trinity. I’m not sure of this person’s faith denomination. He also denies the divinity of Christ (possibly Jehovah’s Witness). How would I refute this claim against Matthew 28:19?

To be more correct, the entire book of Matthew was added to the bible by the Catholic Church and is therefore unreliable.

To be EVEN more correct, the entire New Testament was added to the bible by the Catholic Church and is therefore unreliable.

 

[Khalid]

The Old Testament was added by religious Jews, so it must be unreliable too.