No. What I mean by witnesses is that at least 2 or 3 scriptures state the same thing. This is the way of confirming that what we believe is actually true. Example; we know that every detailed water baptism record shows that the apostles baptized using the name of the Lord Jesus. This tells us that it is the way it is supposed to be administered.
Then you should have made that clearer.
You should have said "Where at least 2 or 3 scriptures say this then that confirms what is true or what you believe to be true"
You made it look like people.
My point about establishing truth by 2-3 witnesses was concerning the use of Jesus' name in water baptism.
A good few posts back I asked you why Jesus could not condemn the adultress woman and if memory serves me you said
"Because there were not 2-3 witnesses.
Aka people.
What about this guy?
Acts 8:36-38
36 Now as they went down the road, they came to some water. And the eunuch said, “See, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?”
37 Then Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.”
And he answered and said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”
38 So he commanded the chariot to stand still. And both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and he baptized him.
Nothing here states that he was baptised in the name of Jesus only, therefore it's invalid?
Acts 8:36-37
36 Now as they went down the road, they came to some water. And the eunuch said, “See, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?”
37 Then Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.”
And he answered and said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”