The Tabernacle in the Wilderness

What makes you think I am confused?

We are told via the word that in order to establish a concept it must be witnessed at least 2 to 3 times. (Matt 18:16; 2Cor 13:1)

There is not even one, let alone 2 or 3 occurrences of the use of the phrase "the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost" being stated during administration of water baptisms. Knowing this one can only conclude that Jesus meant that His own name should be used. Why? Because every water baptism recorded (4) was administered in the name of the Lord.

Also Paul's letter to the Corinthians makes it clear that he knew the name of Jesus was used during baptisms. (1 Cor 1:12-15)


"Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.

Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized IN THE NAME of Paul?

I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;

Lest any should say that I had baptized IN MINE OWN NAME.

You know wansvic, it's really sad that you are not thinking rationally. When Jesus Christ made His statement at Matthew 28:19 are you accusing Jesus Christ of lying? Words have meaning and they mean what they say in context. He said at vs20 was a "COMMAND" for us be water baptized in the authority of the Father, the Son and in the Holy Spirit.

Now you come up with this "two witnesses" excuse (and btw your misapplying the purpose of two or three witnesses) concerning Matthew 28:19,20. Even so, look at what Jesus says at John 5:37. "And the Father who sent Me, He has born witness of Me, (put your name in the next sentence wansvic) You have neither heard His voice at any time nor seen His form."

So what better witness can Jesus have then His own Father, which for you and your other oneness teachers brings up an interesting question? If Jesus Christ is "really" God the Father, and the Son and the Holy Spirit did Jesus as the Father send Himself in John 5:37?

IN GOD THE SON,
bluto

Amen brother! Oneness Pentecostals reject the Trinitarian formula for baptism because they reject the Trinity. The phrase, "in the name of the Lord," is not a reference to a baptismal formula but a reference to authority. It is similar to hearing someone say, "Stop in the name of the Law!" We understand that the "name of the Law" means by the authority of the Law. It's the same with baptism "in Jesus' name." To baptize in Jesus' name is to baptize in the authority of Jesus. Oneness Pentecostals are in error by demanding that baptism be done with the formula "In Jesus name" (or else you won't be saved). Instead, it should be done as Jesus commanded: "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." (Matthew 28:19). The proper way to baptize "in Jesus' name" (by His authority) is to say, "I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."

If one believes in their heart that being baptized with the Holy Spirit and fire is sufficient but still gets water baptism later that would show a lack of faith in the spiritual principal of salvation, no longer relying on the shed blood of Jesus dying on the cross for their contritely confessed sins, subsequently inviting the Holy Spirit to live in their hearts to comfort and guide them on their spiritual journey. Where in the bible does Jesus commands us to be water baptized in full immersion in order to be included in the kingdom of God?

I would always insist a convert be water baptised.
I have no idea if heaven is looking on ready to chop them from the book of life if they died b4 they got dunked.

I recently witnessed a guy in our bible class get saved.
I insisted he be baptised. Several times.
The guy was heavily into drugs,gun running,and money laundering.
He was immediately stalked by a witch.

He did not get water baptised,and my councel to him was poo pooed by the group.

He departed from the faith big time. We failed him.
I am no longer associated with them.

His name is Anthony. Please pray for him.

Prayer being said for Anthony for God to guide him on the straight and narrow path.

I dunk them a second time and say in the name of Jesus.

That way any stalkers telling them their name is voided from the LBOL Has no traction

The two witnesses concept is not an excuse but actually what the bible states is the only way one can be sure their understanding of scripture is correct.

I am not accusing Jesus of lying. What I am stating is that He said to use the singular name which Peter later commanded (Acts 2:38) and every recorded baptism attests to.

Water baptisms were always performed in the name of Jesus until sadly a change was instituted by the Roman leaders, that later became known as the Roman Catholic Church, in 325 a.d. The bible makes it clear that there is significance in using the name above all names. My hope is that you will review what has been recorded on the topic in the included historical encyclopedias (The list is in no means exhaustive). Afterward consider what the word warns about following man-made traditions rather than God's word. (Col 2:8; Mk 7:8-9)

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA, VOLUME 8
“Justin Martys was one of the early Fathers of the Roman Catholic Church who helped change the ancient baptism of “in the Name of Jesus Christ” to the titles of Father, Son and Holy Ghost”
FORMULA “With regard to the form used for baptism in the early Church, there is the difficulty that although Matthew 28:19 seems to speaks of the Trinitarian formula which is now used, the Acts of the Apostles (2:38, 8:16, 10:48, 19:5) and Paul (I Corinthians 1:13, 6:11, Galatians 3:27, Romans 6:3) speak only of baptism “in the Name of Jesus.”

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA, 1967 edition, volume 2, pages 56, 59.
“An explicit reference to the Trinitarian formula of baptism cannot be found in the first centuries.”

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEIA, 1913 edition, volume 2, Page 265:
“They acknowledge that the original formula for baptism was in the Name of Jesus, but the pope changed it.”

ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RELIGION AND ETHICS Scribner‘s T & T Clark, Edinburgh, 1924, vol 1 Page 380
“Christian baptism, when connected with the mention of a formula, is alluded to four times in the Acts (2:38, 8:16, 10:48, 19:5) and the formula is never that of (Matthew 28:19) but is twice in the name of Jesus Christ (Acts 2:38, 10:48) and twice in the name of the Lord Jesus (Acts 8:16, 19:5).

That this was the usual formula of Christian baptism is supported by the evidence of the Pauline Epistles, which speak of being baptized only into Christ or into Christ Jesus (Galatians 3:27, Romans 6:3).
Is it possible to reconcile these facts with the belief that Christ commanded the disciples to baptize in the trine name? The obvious explanation of the silence of New Testament on the trine name, and the use of another formula in Acts and Paul is that this other formula was the earlier, and that the trine formula is a later edition. It would require very strong argument to controvert this presumption, and none seems to exist”.

AN ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RELIGIONS - Maurice Canney, page 53.
“Persons were baptized at first “in the name of Jesus Christ” (Acts 2:38, 10:48) or “in the name of the Lord Jesus” (Acts 8:16, 19:5).
Afterwards, with the development of the doctrine of the Trinity, they were baptized “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost”

EARLIEST CHRISTIANITY- .J. Weiss, Published 1959, volume 2, page 633.
“However little we may know of the liturgical form of the old celebration of baptism, yet it is clear that it involved uttering the name of Christ in a vigorous, expressive manner, probably by the baptizer, possibly also by the baptized person.”

ANCHOR BIBLICAL DICTIONARY volume 1, page 586
“But the role of Jesus Christ and the Christ - even necessitated its becoming a baptism ‘into the name of the Lord Jesus” or something similar.

“INTO THE NAME OF JESUS.” It is relatively certain that in the early Church one commonly referred to baptism as being done “into the name of the Lord Jesus” or something similar.

One strange thing with this phrase is that the construction in what seems to be its earliest form into the name of..” (Greek eis to onoma” was not otherwise used in normal Greek, except for the language of banking, in which it referred to the account/name “into” which a sum of money was placed

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA, 1913 EDITION.
“There has been a theological controversy over the question as to whether baptism in the name of Christ only was ever held valid. Certain texts in the New Testament have given rise to this difficulty.

Thus St Paul (Acts 19 commands some disciples at Ephesus to be baptized in Christ’s Name: “they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.”

In Acts 10 we read that St Peter ordered others to be baptized “in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ”. Those who were converted by Philip (Acts 8 “were baptized in the name of Jesus Christ”, and above all we have the explicit command of the Prince of the Apostles: “Be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of your sins” (Acts 2:38).
Owing to these texts some theologians have held that the Apostles baptized in the name of Christ only

INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE -page 34
Sometimes the baptism is spoken of specifically as “in the name of Jesus Christ” (Acts 2:38, 10:48), or “in the name of the Lord Jesus” (Acts 8:16; 19:5). Ordinarily baptism preceded the reception of the Holy Ghost.”


THE BEGINNINGS CHRISTIANITY—page 124
….“Jesus himself had the power to cast out devils, and therefore his Name carried the same power, no matter who pronounced it…

A convert knew perfectly well that when he said that he had been baptized in the name of Jesus he meant that someone had said ‘I baptize you in the name of Jesus’ or something similar, and that in consequence he had attained the way of Salvation Running parallel with this belief in the power of Jesus’ name there is also apparent in the Gospel of Mark that belief in the power of faith which persisted and grew stronger, while the other died”

THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY—page 126
“Heitmuller believes that James 2:7…. is a specific reference to those who have had the name ‘Jesus’ pronounced over them in baptism....”

ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA—1910, 11th Edition, Volume 3, pages 365-366
Page 361 “The trinitarian formula and trine immersion were not uniformly used from the beginning, nor did they always go together.

The teachings of the Apostles indeed prescribes baptism in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, but on the next page speaks of those who have been baptized into the name of the Lord—the normal formula of the New Testament.

In the 3rd century, baptism in the name of Christ was still so widespread that Pope Stephen, in opposition to Cyprian of Garthage, declared it to be valid.

From Pope Zachariah (ep.x) we learn that the Celtic missionaries in Baptizing omitted one or more persons of the trinity, and this was one of the reasons why the church of Rome anathematized them; Pope Nicholas, however (858867), allowed baptism to be valid (Tantum in nimineChristi), as in Acts.

Ursinus, an African Monk A.D. 1284), also asserted that baptism into the name of Christ alone was valid.

The formula of Rome is; “I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and Son, and holy Spirit” Page 366 No record of such use can be discovered in the Acts or the Epistles of the Apostles.
The baptisms recorded in the New Testament after the day of Pentecost were administered “in the Name of Jesus Christ” (Acts 2:38), “into the name of the Lord Jesus” (8:16) “into Christ” (Romans 6:3; Galatians 3:27). This difficulty was considered by the Fathers.

A agree that words have a specific meaning. Jesus says All power has been given unto Him. Why would He then say to baptize into the Father, Son and Holy Ghost? He specifically said to baptize in the "name" not the names of. That is the point. Afterward the disciples consistently use His name; surely they did not refuse to do what He said.

"And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them IN THE NAME of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen." Matt 28:18-20

Rejecting the trinitarian formula for baptism has absolutely nothing to do with belief or rejection of the concept of the trinity. The reason for the opposition is that the biblical record as well as historical encyclopedia's, etc. confirm that the name of Jesus was consistently used from the Apostolic era until it was changed in 325 a.d.

Why would anymore want to accept something other than what the bible clearly depicts? The Catholic Church is certainly not an organization I would place my trust in. Their doctrine is filled with a multitude of error; which I am sure most Christians would agree. However, knowingly or unknowingly denominations across the globe follow a tradition they promoted.

We are admonished to earnestly seek what the apostles did and do it:
"Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints." Jude 3

We know that getting water baptized does not show a lack of faith because the biblical record shows both water baptism and the infilling of the Holy Ghost were done consistently. In the case of Cornelius and others (Acts 10:44-48), we see they were commanded to get water baptized after receiving the initial infilling of the Holy Spirit.

In all recorded cases of people receiving the Holy Ghost they were commanded to submit to water baptism as well, (Acts 2:1-39; 8:1-17; 10:44-48; 19:2-6)

Jesus' own baptism was done by full immersion. He also states that it is to be done to fulfill all righteousness:

"And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him.
And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:
And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." Matt 3:15-17


The record of Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch expresses the need for a body of water to baptize:

"And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.
And when they were come up out of the water,..."(Acts 8:36-39)

Jesus attends water baptisms and John baptizes in Aenon where there is much water:
"After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized.
And John also was baptizing in Aenon near to Salim, because there was much water there: and they came, and were baptized." John 3:22-23

Jesus said, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." (Mark 16:16)

Jesus told Nicodemus that one must be born of water and of Spirit to ENTER the kingdom. (John 3:5)

ROMANS 6:1.
What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?
2.
God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?
3.
Know you not, that so many of us as were 'baptized into Jesus Christ' were 'baptized into His death'?
4.
Therefore we are buried with Him 'by baptism' into death: that like as Christ was 'raised up from the dead'
by the glory of The Father, even so 'we also should walk in newness of life'.
5.
For if we have been planted together in the 'likeness of his death', we shall be also in the 'likeness of his resurrection':
6.
Knowing this, that our 'old man' is crucified with Him", that the body of sin might be destroyed,
that henceforth we should 'not serve sin'.
7.
For he that is dead is 'freed from sin'.
8.
Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also 'live with Him':

it's not the 'ritual' of Baptism, it's the 'obedience' through Faith to the 'commanded ritual'
that has 'Eternal Implications'...
in other words, Baptism 'without Faith', is just getting all-'wet'...

John 12:24
Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit. (KJV)
In most solemn truth I tell you that unless the grain of wheat falls into the ground and dies, it remains what it was--a single grain; but that if it dies, it yields a rich harvest. (Weymouth)


Romans 6: baptism and the meaning thereof

First of all your not taking your time in reading the post, but instead in your fast gear ready to reply with your contrary view. Now pay attention, here is what I said that you overlooked.

"So, let's deal with what we do know wansvic. Since your a real big fan of the word, "COMMAND" what does Jesus Christ clearly say at Matthew 28:20? "teaching them (that is the disciples first) to observe ALL THAT I COMMANDED YOU; and lo, I am with you always even to the end of the age." So did He, or did He not say to water baptize in the (singular) name (or under the authorty) of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit? Now what are you going to say or do?"

Notice I specifically said "water baptize in the (singular) name (or under/by the authority) of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit?)" Do you know why it's in the singular wansvic? First I'll tell you why it's not in the singular because of what your church teaches which is the one person of Jesus is God the Father, the Son and He's the Holy Ghost. In other words, Jesus is all of them.

The reason it's in the singular according to the "Orthodox" view is the fact that all three persons of the Trinity are the one God. So, when Jesus said, "teaching them to observe all that I COMMANDED you;" water baptism can be done in the singular (as in Acts) or by the authority of the Godhead.

You also said the following to poster tourist.

"We know that getting water baptized does not show a lack of faith because the biblical record shows both water baptism and the infilling of the Holy Ghost were done consistently. In the case of Cornelius and others (Acts 10:44-48), we see they were commanded to get water baptized after receiving the initial infilling of the Holy Spirit."

The fact remains that Cornelius received the "FULL AND COMPLETE GIFT OF THE HOLY SPIRIT" first and then was water baptized. That is what the Biblical record says. Moreover, Cornelius "DID NOT" have some sort of "initial infilling" of the Holy Spirit." Cornelius received all of the Holy Spirit and was immediately saved in that millisecond.

Do you want to know where the disciples did get a taste of the Holy Spirit? Look at John 20:22, "And when He had said this, He breathed on them, and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit." Now, it could be said that Jesus was preparing them for the outpouring of the Spirit on the Day of Pentecost. Look at the next verse, 23, "If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them; If you retain the sins of any, they have been retained."

First of all only God can forgive sins, not priest of the Pope. The point Jesus was making is their message was to be the same that He had proclaimed. Those who heard had a choice, to accept or reject the message. The apostles could assure those who accepted that their sins had been forgiven, and those who rejected that they were still guility."

And btw, I could care less about what the Roman Catholic Church teach. I don't follow their beiefs and traditions which you yourself said in one of your post. And I'm sure you don't know this but the Catholic Church has a teaching which is called "Baptism of desire." This means that a person (let's say is on their death bed) and they receive Christ by faith but they cannot get water baptized. If they have a desire to get baptized then they are still saved.

It's at least better than what your church teaches that they are lost if they don't get water baptized, period. So to sum up, you can't escape the words of Jesus at Matthew 28:19-20. He commanded them to observe what He said. You can't ignor the thief on the cross who was saved and never got baptized. You can't ignore tha Cornelius was saved first and them was water baptized. Please, think about this wansvic.

IN GOD THE SON,
bluto

JESUS said that the words HE speaks are SPIRIT And they are TRUTH.So then why would you say that JESUS was talking about h2o water when HE said baptize?

By The Way JESUS told the rich young ruler to obey the Ten Commandments.GOD Is a SPIRIT but we are carnal.

Yeah right. It's no secret that Oneness Pentecostals declare that the Godhead consists of only one Person and deny the traditional doctrine of the Trinity. They maintain that the only real “person” in the Godhead is Jesus. Thus, they are often referred to as the “Jesus Only” Movement. They maintain that God exists in two modes, as the Father in heaven and as Jesus the Son on earth. Nevertheless, they are the same person, not two separate persons. The Holy Spirit is not regarded as a person at all, merely a manifestation of Jesus’ power or a synonym for Him. Several verses are quoted to establish this view such as Colossians 2:9 (NKJV), “For in Him (Jesus) dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.” Oneness theologians would argue that if the Father and the Son were separate, then the Godhead could not fully dwell in Christ. They also look to Matthew 28:19 to affirm their views that Jesus commanded His disciples to baptize in the “name” (singular) of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

The Oneness Pentecostal movements generally teach that to receive and maintain salvation, a person must adhere to four essential requirements.

1. A person must have faith in Jesus Only. Oneness teachers would agree that salvation requires putting one’s full faith in the Jesus of Oneness doctrine. That is, the Jesus who is the totality of the Godhead, who died on the cross as make atonement for sin, and who rose again from the dead.
2. A person must repent and be baptized by immersion in the “Name of Jesus.” Acts 2:38 is used as evidence that the early church baptized only in the name of Jesus. They maintain that baptism in the Trinitarian formula is invalid since it implies belief in three gods. They claim Matthew 28:19 is not to be taken as a command to baptize in that formula.
3. A person must speak in tongues. Like most traditional Pentecostals and Charismatics, Oneness Pentecostals teach that speaking in tongues is a gift to be exercised today. However, unlike most traditionalists, the Oneness movements maintain that speaking in tongues is not just a post-conversion indicator of the filling or baptism of the Holy Spirit, but an essential ingredient in the salvation experience itself. In other words, if a person has never spoken in tongues, he or she is not saved!
4. A person must abide by strict and legalistic standards of holiness. Most Oneness Pentecostals teach that once salvation is gained initially by the preceding ingredients, it must be maintained by daily adherence to legalistic codes of personal behavior. Alcohol and tobacco are prohibited. Women are not allowed to cut their hair, wear short dresses or slacks, use make-up, or wear jewelry. Men are expected to dress conservatively (white shirts and dark slacks), be clean shaven, and have short haircuts. Violations of these codes may result in a loss of salvation and exclusion from church fellowship. - http://www.marketfaith.org/the-hidden-cult-of-oneness-pentecostalism/

There are difficulties with church history, particularly ancient history that one must consider. Modern historians can certainly interpret the statements of ancient writers from the perspective of their own beliefs, finding teachings that simply are not there. On the other hand, the doctrinal positions of historians can limit their understanding of doctrines that did exist. Consciously or unconsciously, ancient writers sometimes distorted or misrepresented the views of their doctrinal opponents. As a result, we do not always have an adequate presentation of certain ancient views. As I stated before, to baptize "in Jesus' name" is to baptize in the authority of Jesus. Oneness Pentecostals are in serious doctrinal error by demanding that baptism absolutely MUST be done using the specific formula "in Jesus name" - OR ELSE YOU WON'T BE SAVED. Jesus Christ Himself COMMANDED: "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." (Matthew 28:19) and that's good enough for me. That is certainly baptizing in His authority.

The Roman Catholic church is certainly not an organization I would place my trust in (they pervert the gospel and teach erroneous doctrines) and neither would I place my trust in the Oneness Pentecostal church (which also perverts the gospel and teaches erroneous doctrines). Oneness Pentecostals have an anti-trinitarian view of God, an unbiblical doctrine of Jesus Christ, and unbiblical requirements for salvation (speaking in tongues, water baptism in ”Jesus’ name”, and a legalistic moral code). Any group or church that claims to be Christian yet deviates from essential Christian doctrine is not a group that I would be associated with. Oneness Pentecostal churches are, therefore, cultic in nature and outside the theological parameters of Christianity.

Perverting the gospel by teaching salvation by water baptism and speaking in tongues and rejecting there is ONE God in essence/nature that exists in three distinct persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit is not earnestly contending for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. I hope and pray by the grace of God that your eyes will be opened to the truth.

I do read everything in a post because it's important to me to understand a person's point of view of the word. I have been corrected in the past by others concerning scripture and appreciated it very much. Some people get stuck on having to be right. Sadly, many refuse to even study something other than what they have been previously taught.

Your response still does not take into account that each and every water baptism recorded was performed in the name of the Lord Jesus. Surely the disciples administered baptism the way Jesus prescribed. Otherwise the biblical record would include usage of the titles if that was what Jesus had meant by His words in Matt 28:19.

My personal experience included receiving the Holy Ghost at an early age. Afterward, I was water baptized in the titles before I saw what Jesus actually said in Matthew 28:19. For me personally, the experience did nothing to open my spiritual eyes so to speak. Some time later I was shown what Jesus specifically said and how people were baptized using His name in the bible. Having a desire to be obedient I immediately followed His instructions and was baptized in His name. The experience was life changing. Revelation sprung forth from the pages of the bible as never before. It was as if the Lord loaded scripture into a tennis ball machine and turned it up on the highest speed. I was simply amazed that the meaning of scriptures that had previously evaded me became crystal clear.

As Jesus said unless a man is reborn he cannot SEE the kingdom. (John 3:3) Jesus goes on to say unless a man is born of water, AND the Spirit he cannot ENTER the kingdom. Why the distinction? Being reborn of water opens one's spiritual eyes. But without receiving the Holy Ghost as well one cannot ENTER into the kingdom of God.

Yes, there are many things we are commanded to do. However, there are three specific things we are commanded to do in order to be birthed into the church as the early Christians were. After believing that Jesus is the Messiah everyone is to repent, get baptized in Jesus name for the remission of sin and receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. The bible record consistently shows water baptism and the infilling of the Holy Ghost associated with one becoming a born again Christian. (Acts 2:38-41, 8:12-18, 10:44-48, 19:1-6, 22:16)

Your comments seem to indicate that your negative feelings toward a denomination keep you from even considering the points the bible itself makes clear.

Please consider what I pointed out to another individual it applies to you as well:

Your response still does not take into account that each and every water baptism recorded was performed in the name of the Lord Jesus. Surely the disciples administered baptism the way Jesus prescribed. Otherwise the biblical record would include usage of the titles if that was what Jesus had meant by His words in Matt 28:19, it does not.

Paul's comments to the Corinthians and the Ephesus disciples make it clear the name of Jesus was used in water baptism:
"Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.
Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?" 1 Cor 1:12-13

"Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.
When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus." Acts 19:4-5

Why such denial? Because the enemy does not want people to believe and receive the name that is above all names. The word expressly states that everything we do in word and deed is to be done in Jesus' name. (Col 3:17) Jesus is the name whereby we must be saved. (John 20:31; Acts 10:43) Through the name of Jesus we receive salvation. Jesus is the name above all names. (Philippians 2:9)