Well, this statement doesn't refute what I said: that if 1) the name of Jesus stands in for the name of the Father and Holy Spirit, 2) then the names have equal meaning. Therefore Jesus Christ is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. I'll also add that consecration cannot be in the name of a created being, but to God only.
But your claim that they "only baptized in the name of Jesus" is unproven. Peter stating "repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ," it does not follow that Peter took a disciple to water and didn't baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as commanded in Matthew. It only proves that Peter used the name of Jesus to either sum up the baptism-- that it is in the religion of Christ, or either to highlight the name of Christ which the Jews rejected. Anything else you say is merely reaching without any logical grounding for it.
So, in other words, none of what you claim is in fact proven. On the contrary, the fact that they are commanded to baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and that we have historical evidence that this is true from the earliest ages, proves you wrong.
doesn’t use the word ‘name’ in the plural
It doesn't have to. The name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three different names, not one.
Everything else you wrote in this post struck me as rambling, so I moved on to the second one:
You downplay the expressions, that the Lord uses, to show how completely the Father empowers him, and then admit the Lord’s declaration to be true with your questions:
This is rambling. Remember that your argument-- which is mostly left unsaid by the way, you've not even explained it properly-- is that Christ may call Himself Almighty because the Father is in Him and He is in the Father. It is clear that this is true for us as well. Therefore, you are proven false.
Are you and your word two separate and distinct persons?
This is just a non-sequitur and repetition of what you said before. Obviously you are not God, you are not a God to be compared with Him, and the scripture does not clearly say of you "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God" (John 1:1). As long as this verse exists in the scripture, that the Word is both with and is God, you can talk all you want, twist individual verses all you want, but you cannot remove Christ's divinity from the scripture. Same thing with your ignorant dismissal of Christ calling Himself "I Am".
The rest of your post sounded like mad raving and ignorance, and since you barely responded to my post, I won't respond to any more of yours. Not worth my time!
**you cannot remove Christ’s divinity from the scripture. Same thing with your ignorant dismissal of Christ calling Himself “I Am”.**
You cannot remove the Father from Christ.
**Anything else you say is merely reaching without any logical grounding for it.**
Am I to assume, that in a timed debate, you would expect twice as much time allotted to you?
Do you ever quote Acts 2:38 to anyone that asks, “What shall we do?”?
**barely responded to my post**
Oh, I responded to much of it; just not to you liking.
**Not worth my time!**
Not even worth answering one final question? It’s an easy one.......In the Scriptures, do you EVER find the phrase “God the Son”.
**But your claim that they “only baptized in the name of Jesus” is unproven. Peter stating “repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ,” it does not follow that Peter took a disciple to water and didn’t baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as commanded in Matthew. It only proves that Peter used the name of Jesus to either sum up the baptism— that it is in the religion of Christ, or either to highlight the name of Christ which the Jews rejected. Anything else you say is merely reaching without any logical grounding for it.**
More of your own personal interpretation. Which I will easily prove tomorrow night. Truck driver needs to sleep.