I get that, and agree, but you are being inconsistent in the way you handle texts identifying "God." To my understanding, both are saying that they are the same baptism, and are done under the same authority, regardless of the name being used. But, you frequently cite passages where "God" is stated in a particular context and then when "Jesus" is cited in that same context elsewhere, you say "see there, Jesus is that same God." So, if you are consistent in your dealing with scripture, this would prove that Jesus IS the Trinity. Just an observation...dwight92070 wrote: ↑Thu May 13, 2021 10:23 pmDwight - Actually, Steve has said that very thing - To baptize in the name of Jesus is baptizing in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. I agree. Either way is valid.
I'm not trying to figure out the intricate details of the Trinity - I'm trying to figure out if it is expressly revealed as truth and, if not, is it a rational and coherent explanation for the texts. It is those who defend the theory that should be able to consistently explain it. It is simply foolish (and disingenuous) to create (or support) a theory that is derived as a way to "make sense" of a text and then suggest it shouldn't have to make "sense."dwight92070 wrote: ↑Thu May 13, 2021 10:23 pmDwight - Quoting you: "you don't think he's the same thing as all three persons, do you? How do you reconcile that?" There you go again, trying to figure out the intricate details of the Trinity. We don't know. Try reading Job 38-41 and see if you understand all of those things. If we can't understand God's creation, how can we possibly understand God Himself? We CAN apprehend that there are 3 persons, but we cannot comprehend the essence of His being.
dwight92070 wrote: ↑Thu May 13, 2021 10:23 pmDwight - You want an explanation of the Trinity? How's this? "I am who I am".
I'll leave that one since we've discussed the I Am passage at great length on here.