Another shout of praise goes up to Jehovah!, page-2683

"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"

This is a clear example of how your delusions are causing you to loose the plot

John 14:6 - Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
John 10:9 - I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture. = the word of God.

Phil 2:9 - Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name,
Is the penny dropping yet, every name, which would include the Fathers.
Acts 4:12 - Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

What name does he have = The Word of God = his name represents the entire word of God and Lo - Behold, that includes the Father who IS the One Holy Spirit.
--------
"this signifies that Jesus is of the same nature"

It does nothing of a sort, is simply shows the position that the God and Father place him in, due to his works, achievements etc.

"Same nature" -> what do you expect, the God and Father who is The Word, raised him in his word, for most of his life.
So when he expressed them out, he became the express image of the God and Fathers Person = Word, The Word, who Jesus is "OF" -> The Word OF God.
You're not what you're "of" DRRRRRRRRRRR!
----------------
"history shows that it was the same baptismal formula as used in Matt, no issue there"

No, the Bible history shows several times, they were Baptized in Jesus's name.
Your corruption and shown by you, began between the 1 - 200's.
------------
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,"

Delusions getting the better of you again, I never said you did DRRRRRRR, you not only corrupt the Bible, but peoples posts.
On your claim = 1 -200's, the Matt Baptism was in play, but based on the Bible, in Jesus name a number of times, BEFORE your 1 - 200's, your Matt was not the go.
Try LOOKING before you leap.
-------------
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"

He tried and FAIL again.
Your first line is NOT backed by the Bible, that spill began growing legs around the 100's, by your forefathers.

By the way, as you seem to think you and your forefather have credentials -> the word "Godhead" is NO WHERE to be found in the Bible TRUTH, that is purely trinity tampering, add on there - DYOR.

"Baptizing in Jesus' name was a way to affirm both the role of Jesus as the Messiah and the unity of the Godhead Father, the Only True God at the time of Jesus to the Jewish people"