My take on water baptism...

I wonder, what is your highest level of education? Your grasp of the meaning of "In the Name of" is suspect.

Oh that was my bad https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Hebrew_Roots/The_original_foundation/Baptism
Honestly it isd a good read there were some things I never considered and also you know how I always speak of water baptism being symbolic as coming from the water of the flesh (womb) to being born into the waters of the spirit? I saw that same thing in there and was like wow father I knew you taught me through analogies but I didn't realize it was that biblical

that's ok. I don't think you are a plagiarist

but the Hebrew roots? I saw that which is why I added 'mystical bend' to my post

be careful of Hebrew roots

Well I was going to start with the hebrew roots to understand better why they did it, because water baptism is not a new thing it was commanded for a reason but the reason and symbiolism of it may differ according to why they did it back then than why we do it today I just like to be thorough.
But at the same it goes much deeper than that it gave amazing insights but it is built more for an indepth study of water baptism not a post on a thread which would have been way to long to read so I just posted a bit of it that I thought gave a good explanation of it

The new testament analogy seems to be consistantly about identifying with his burial and raised to new life. This is found in both Romans and Col and shows that it was the normal mode of teaching water baptism in the early church.

I agree with the point in that link that the nation Israel was born out of the Red Sea

So that serves as a Backdrop to how the ritual of water baptism is intimately linked to them being born again in John writing

To me it’s fascinating why us gentiles in the body of Christ are insisting that it is also for us.

This is despite the observation that Paul never talks about water baptism and even told us he was not sent to baptise

I Guess this is the outcome of many Churches preaching almost exclusively from the 4 gospels

Well I believe it is also about us but not because of how churches preach about the gospels. Sadly I have always had to be alone in my walk with God I would travel from church to church but never found one that was home for me
And I have desperately sought out a teacher for the particular things I need help with learning understanding and walking in but no matter how hard I try I cannot find anyone so ever since I was saved God has been my teacher since I am usually in isolation anyways I figured who better to teach me than the master teacher himself.

So whether or not the church and teachers taught different people this belief or not Idk I just know and believe what I do because I am always in solitude with God, this doesn't mean I am always right of course but the good thing about being in isolation with him with no one to really guide you or teach you is you learn to become adept to knowing and hearing his voice.
I have said before in another thread I am very intuned with hearing and feeling his presence how I can walk into a room and sense if he is there and this also is the same to his voice this might not have happened if I was not in isolation and maybe that is why every time I try to find a good teacher or a church for me something always makes it impossible

I do understand why church pastors love to teach their congregation from the 4 gospels and Acts. There is where all the stories/parable are located in the NT.

To preach from Paul's letters is not as "attractive" since in Romans to Philemon, stories are scarce. Rather, its very doctrinal.

Not only do you preach heresy, you REPEATEDLY preach heresy. Do you think it's humorous to repetitively post the same thing? That silliness says a lot about the strength of your "argument". An argument based entirely on your very poor eisegesis... You repeatedly lie about scripture to support your twisted belief, and have fully placed yourself in the undesirable position of "false teacher".....

what makes you think Paul never taught it? He DID it himself..... IMMEDIATELY upon regaining his sight. Is example not teaching? Why did Paul see the need to be baptized, immediately?
You are sliding down the same path toward banned camp, if you insist on teaching heresy....

and you completely missed the reason Paul said he wasn't "sent to baptize".... there were believers that were trying to elevate themselves by saying they were baptized by Paul, or Barnabas..... he was heading off idolistic beliefs by minimizing the importance of WHO does the baptizing. He was not minimizing the importance of baptism. Read with understanding, pray for the Spirit to lead you to that understanding. Do NOT depend on your own flawed, pre-conceived notions.

My advice is "don't use Acts to form church doctrine".

Acts main theme is to account for all of us why the nation of Israel has fallen. Without Acts, the transition from Judaism to Christianity would be impossible to understand.

The period of Acts is a transition period between Israel as God's favorite nation, to Israel as a nation that was blinded by God, and how gentiles are now being welcome into God because of Israel's blindness (Romans 11:11).

When Paul was saved, he was water baptized because Israel's program required it.

Well, reckon #554 and #604 will never be answered....

that is categorically and absolutely incorrect

any teacher worth their salt will teach from Paul's letters

it is unfortunate that you have such a low view of certain things that you attribute them to others

you actually do not understand and you do not speak for most people here who are aware that Paul's letters are vital to Christian doctrine

so which is it?

you state Paul was saved then you try to insert the law into his salvation using the term 'Israels program"

if Paul was saved, then he was no longer required to obey the law as a Jew, but was now a Christian and as such, was water baptized

you are conflating doctrine and testaments to the point your post makes no sense that any Bible will confirm

Paul was baptized, NOT according to Jewish ritual and while he did baptize several people, his calling was to preach and confirm the gospel

the Bible does not contradict itself

I don't know about the churches in your area where you live, perhaps yours is an exception.

Have you observe how many churches, the % of the time of their semons about the NT, on the 4 gospels/Acts, compared to % of time on Paul?

Nowadays we even see some people calling themselves "red letter Christians".

Paul was a ethnic Jew. Until the ascended Christ revealed to him the mystery that the Law of Moses is now nailed to the cross, all Jews had to obey the Law, even after they believed in Jesus as their Messiah. (Acts 21:20)

If you disagree with me, I am fine. You can disagree politely and just share your different understanding of Scripture, as all of us are doing in this forum.

Not so...we are born again while on this earth.....we are not saved until God judges and grants such status.
If we could be saved while on this earth then God's judgement would be pointless...don't you see? If we were ...saved...while on this earth and chose to return to a sinful way...we wouldn't fit the ...saved...status..would we.?

I think you are taking this doctrine from the letters that James, Peter and John wrote to Israel, for yourself too.

For the nation Israel, their sins are only blotted out at Jesus's 2nd coming for them.

The backdrop is given by Peter whom the Holy Spirit was using to address Israel in Acts 3

14 But ye denied the Holy One and the Just, and desired a murderer to be granted unto you;

15 And killed the Prince of life, whom God hath raised from the dead; whereof we are witnesses.

....

19 Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord.

20 And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you:

21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.

The Holy Spirit was announcing to Israel the good news that, even though they have done a wicked act in crucifying their Messiah that was promised to them in the OT, forgiveness was at hand.

All their sins will be blotted out at the times of refreshing, when Jesus comes back to the Mount of Olives for the nation, as promised in the OT.

Once you can understand that, for Israel, they will only be redeemed during the 2nd coming, everything James, Peter and John was writing in their letters will make so much more sense.

Israel's responsibility now is to stay faithful and do works (James 2), endure the coming Tribulation which is the 70th week of Daniel (1 Peter), and love God and their neighbors (1 John).

In this aspect 1 Peter 4 is especially enlightening in teaching us how Israel is to view the 7 year Tribulation

12 Beloved, think it not strange concerning the fiery trial which is to try you, as though some strange thing happened unto you:

13 But rejoice, inasmuch as ye are partakers of Christ's sufferings; that, when his glory shall be revealed, ye may be glad also with exceeding joy.

14 If ye be reproached for the name of Christ, happy are ye; for the spirit of glory and of God resteth upon you: on their part he is evil spoken of, but on your part he is glorified.

15 But let none of you suffer as a murderer, or as a thief, or as an evildoer, or as a busybody in other men's matters.

16 Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf.

17 For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God?

18 And if the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear?

19 Wherefore let them that suffer according to the will of God commit the keeping of their souls to him in well doing, as unto a faithful Creator.

Vs 18 is very enlightening when I came across it for the first time. According to Peter, there is no such thing as OSAS. Even one who is righteous can scarcely be saved, which is not what Paul would instruct us in the Body of Christ.

So if Peter can tell us that, what James is saying in chapter 2 is really not surprising. There is no need for any of us former gentiles in the Body of Christ to try to force James to agree with Paul. James is referring to Israel who have no guarantee of their salvation until Jesus returns for them.

No... Paul was baptized because Jesus commanded it.. the same reason Peter and the other apostles taught and did it, starting at Pentecost. The same reason the church has taught and practiced it for nearly 2000 years.... until "enlightened" folks came along and told us how wrong we all are.

wrong.

review the book of Acts

Paul got after Peter for backing down on not having Gentiles circumcised

now for Acts 21:20. people who are trying to prove a point not found in scripture will always resort to taking ONE or 2 verses out of context that seem to identify with what they are saying BUT when the context is examined, we find the opposite of what you say. NO Jews had to obey the law; they simply wanted to obey the law because they were Jews and that is what they did in the context of their understanding

17When we arrived in Jerusalem, the brothers welcomed us joyfully. 18The next day Paul went in with us to see James, and all the elders were present. 19Paul greeted them and recounted one by one the things that God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry.

20When they heard this, they glorified God. Then they said to Paul, “You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews have believed, and all of them are zealous for the law. 21But they are under the impression that you teach all the Jews who live among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or observe our customs. 22What then should we do? They will certainly hear that you have come.

23Therefore do what we advise you. There are four men with us who have taken a vow. 24Take these men, purify yourself along with them, and pay their expenses so they can have their heads shaved. Then everyone will know that there is no truth to these rumors about you, but that you also live in obedience to the law.

Paul was asked to sponsor 4 Jewish men who had taken vows in observance of their customs and in so doing it would be shown that Paul was not teaching against them but was not enforcing them upon Gentiles. Paul did this to show he did not teach against Jewish customs. He was not teaching law as you seem to suggest.

I am going with what scripture states and not your understanding of it. Everyone cannot have a different understanding of scripture when it says a certain thing, that is what you acknowledge. You don't take one verse and say you have a different understanding

context. always context