Why aren't you answering my question? Who are you baptizing in? Are you baptizing in the name of Jesus(the Father) or Jesus (the man) or Jesus(Holy Spirit)? If it's only the word that counts, then you are not baptized into any of them. You are baptized into but a word. This is why I call you a pagan. You care more about the words spoken than who you are speaking with and worshiping.
Let's start over.Please tell me what the name of the son is that Jesus was referring to in this verse....
19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
I was giving everyone else an opportunity to tell me what the name of the son is. I already saw two pages ago that you do not know what the name of the son is. You and Peter have different ideas on what the name of the son is.
To each his own.
The scriptural consensus is "Jesus".So, why is it more rational to think the Father's name is Jesus as opposed to thinking the Son has two names: Jesus and YHWH?
The scriptural consensus is "Jesus".
Those that baptize in the name of "YHWH" can take the chance if they so desire.
I am not a gambler, but like a sure thing.
Acts 2:38 is my sure thing.
But, whatever makes you happy I am all for.
Don’t worry about it. If you think YHWH is the name of Jesus in the New Testament I’m all for it. I just never seen a Baptist say such things. All of the Baptist’s that I know say the name of the son is Jesus but there is a first for everything.This is not an argument.
"The scriptural consensus is "Jesus"." Are you joking? 6500 times God's divine name YHWH is used in the OT. Never, ever in all of Scripture is God called Jesus. And; Jesus being the Father's name is consensus? Hogwash. FYI, Jesus is a human's name, YHWH is the divine name.
"a gambler"? Are you kidding? Did I even ask about Baptism? I asked "Why is it more rational to think the Father's name is Jesus as opposed to thinking the Son has two names: Jesus and YHWH?" We are looking at Scripture and asking what's more reasonable. Your attempt to base this back in Acts 2:38 is quite troubling. It's almost like you can't think for yourself.