Another shout of praise goes up to Jehovah!, page-2689

Are you seeing a clear picture as to what Matt should have read?
The verse from Matthew reads what reads, and I'm not going to try and change that.
The "clear" picture that I see is different focuses.

Did Peter of all people, as well as other accounts in the Bible with the Same message, effectively give Jesus's message the finger
I doubt it.
I don't think Peter necessarily contradicts Matthew but has a different focus unless you want to support the idea that the Bible is littered with contradictions.

Over the years, long period of time, around 10 said expert scholars have said that the CC's either added to this verse, or the entire verse and they all quoted CC's records which confirmed this, Vol numbers etc, but miraculously, it has now vanished.
Tertullian from somewhere around the 200's, confirmed this.
It seems that you are now admitting that the Bibles come from the CC.
Given that you are so anti-CC, why do you follow the Bible?
We know about your views of what you say happened around the 200s.
Which expert scholars said this? Works of men that you deride?
Is the Bible not a "work in progress"?

To boot, Jesus was given a name above ALL names, which suggests the Fathers as well, and there is no other name under heaven, to which you are to be saved -> so does this Matt seem to make sense = NOPE.
To those who understand the Trinity, it makes sense.
I know your beliefs on the Trinity, so understand the reason that it makes no sense to you.
Isn't the fact that Matthew makes sense with an understanding of the Trinity, saying that the Bible supports the Trinity? I think it is.