You claimed the history showed, that the apostles baptized as...

You claimed the history showed, that the apostles baptized as per your Matt, and the Bible shows that this is a lie, as they ONLY Baptized in the name of Jesus.

Then you must show why they were not baptized in the Father's name only, as by your take Jesus independently proclaimed the Father as the only true God, this signifies that Jesus is of the same nature


history shows that it was the same baptismal formula as used in Matt, no issue there
The same used in the bible, Matt, you are the one lying, as you are the one who wants to change the bible and history so it'll line up with you, sorry, no dice

Hence by you own claim, this clearly must have changed between the 1- 200's, you provided the evidence of the corruption timing, but the Bible goes back further than YOURS = END OF THE STORY =Truth is revealed, right before our eyes.

BS wotsup, I never claimed it must have clearly changed, your the one who doesn't agree with Matt and history, your up to your wotsupian tricks again putting words where there is none, you're quite right end of story as we can see how you manipulates to line things up, that's why I have no time for you

Are you trying to tell me that I'm lying when I say Peter and Co Baptized in Jesus's name?
It is you that's claiming otherwise, therefore the Bible shows that it is YOU that's telling a lie.

Want to try AGAIN ppm

The early Christians understood "the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" as pointing to the complete authority of the Godhead. Baptizing in Jesus' name was a way to affirm both the role of Jesus as the Messiah and the unity of the Godhead to the Jewish people