Did the apostles teach baptism?

Wow, You started with the ad homs some time ago with all your false accusations and misleading implications. Quite the smear tactic you've got going there, along the path you have chosen. Bye bye to you.

Again you think all your misrepresentations funny. Good thing we know who the father of all lies is

Did John the Baptist lie, then? (Matthew 3:11; Luke 3:16)

Or do you simply disbelieve him?

Jesus and the water of life are actually synonymous with Baptism.

I'm going to ignore you now so you don't go lower in yet more dark sarcasm and innuendo. Do you think you'll ever see a day when you example your lovely art work scripture messages?

Maybe take into consideration he was referring to the same thing as is in Acts.
The ministry of John the Baptist Matthew 3:11 “I baptize you with water, for repentance, but the one coming after me is more powerful than I am—I am not worthy[p] to carry his sandals!
He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.[q]

FOOTNOTE
[q]sn With the Holy Spirit and fire. There are differing interpretations for this phrase regarding the number of baptisms and their nature. (1) Some see one baptism here, and this can be divided further into two options. (a) The baptism of the Holy Spirit and fire could refer to the cleansing, purifying work of the Spirit in the individual believer through salvation and sanctification, or (b) it could refer to two different results of Christ’s ministry: Some accept Christ and are baptized with the Holy Spirit, but some reject him and receive judgment. (2) Other interpreters see two baptisms here: The baptism of the Holy Spirit refers to the salvation Jesus brings at his first advent, in which believers receive the Holy Spirit, and the baptism of fire refers to the judgment Jesus will bring upon the world at his second coming. One must take into account both the image of fire and whether individual or corporate baptism is in view. A decision is not easy on either issue. The image of fire is used to refer to both eternal judgment (e.g., Matt 25:41) and the power of the Lord’s presence to purge and cleanse his people (e.g., Isa 4:4-5). The pouring out of the Spirit at Pentecost, a fulfillment of this prophecy no matter which interpretation is taken, had both individual and corporate dimensions. It is possible that since Holy Spirit and fire are governed by a single preposition in Greek, the one-baptism view may be more likely, but this is not certain. Simply put, there is no consensus view in scholarship at this time on the best interpretation of this passage.



The Holy Spirit and the Day of Pentecost
Acts 2 Now[a] when the day of Pentecost had come, they were all together in one place. 2 Suddenly[b] a sound[c] like a violent wind blowing[d] came from heaven[e] and filled the entire house where they were sitting. 3 And tongues spreading out like a fire[f] appeared to them and came to rest on each one of them. 4 All[g] of them were filled with the Holy Spirit, and they began to speak in other languages[h] as the Spirit enabled them.[i]


FOOTNOTE
tn Or “And divided tongues as of fire.” The precise meaning of διαμερίζομαι (diamerizomai) in Acts 2:3 is difficult to determine. The meaning could be “tongues as of fire dividing up one to each person,” but it is also possible that the individual tongues of fire were divided (“And divided tongues as of fire appeared”). The translation adopted in the text (“tongues spreading out like a fire”) attempts to be somewhat ambiguous.


Hebrews 12: 29 For our God is indeed a devouring fire.[aj]
FOOTNOTE
[aj] A quotation from Deut 4:24; 9:3.

They were baptized/anointed by fire=God.

If Baptism wasn't a part of our Salvation I'm absolutely convinced Jesus wouldn't have taught it is and then died to seal the covenant in which his teaching is contained.

But from Mark s perspective and the context of the ending of Mark ( I see it as a mini summary of Acts ) what makes you see Hes talking about water in 16 16 ? I can see that if someone is not baptised by the Holy Spirit he will not be saved. So Mark ,as he has already seen the giving of the Holy Spirit to Jews AND gentiles , would confirm ' believe and recieve the Holy Spirit to be saved . Of course without believing there is no receiving.
This makes more sense than ' He who believes and is ' water baptised will be saved ' and then the but he that believeth not shall be damned.

OK. Thanks for your reply. To avoid confusion, let's examine the scriptures you use to show that salvation is by the Baptism of the holy Spirit. Then we'll see immediately which one Mark is talking about. Just post them with a short explanation - one or two lines to point out the salient points.

Basically Mark would be referring to the receiving of the Holy Spirit . Acts 2 . Then when Cornelius demonstrates that now the gentiles have also been given the Holy spirit .
We cannot be saved without the Holy spirit. Without the Holy Spirit we are none of his ect .
Being ' baptised ' with the Holy spirit of Promise. Sealed by the Holy Spirit until the day of redemption.
I believe this is what Mark 16.16 may be referring to .
Not sure why he would be referring to water in Mark 16.16 in light of saying " He who believes AND is baptised will be saved "
Makes more sense to mean " He who believes and is baptised ( by the Holy Spirit) will be saved. That matches his summary from Mark 16 to the end of Mark . ( Acts summary )

OK. The first thing to settle is the difference between the receiving of the Holy Spirit INTO a man as occurred in John 20:22, and the receiving of the Holy Spirit UPON a man for power to do God's work as in Luke 24:49 and Acts 1:8. In John 20:30-31 we see the purpose of the gospel of John - that is, to get the divine LIFE of God INTO man so that he can (i) be the son of God, (ii) be a heavenly being, (iii) be in the image and likeness of God. But this man also has duties for God, from preaching the gospel in dangerous areas, to casting out of demons and healing the sick. For this he needs POWER. And this is why the same Holy Spirit is UPON men. The man is INFUSED with the Holy Spirit to partake of the divine LIFE, and the man is FURNISHED (lit. Gk.) with the Holy Spirit for POWER to serve. John 7:39 said that the Spirit that men would receive for LIFE was only given after Christ's resurrection, which came to pass in John 20:22 once Christ was raised. But the Spirit for POWER was given to the Old Testament prophets, Samson and even Balaam's donkey to speak in a tongue. But none of these possessed the divine LIFE. When Balaam's donkey had finished speaking in a foreign tongue (to donkeys), he was still a donkey. John Baptist had the Holy Spirit UPON him, and was the greatest man born to a woman. But he did not believe that Jesus was the Messiah. He sent HIS disciples to ask Jesus. John Baptist has the Holy Spirit UPON him, but not IN him. He was not "born again". He was "born of a woman".

The second thing to settle is that throughout this explanation, when I use the phrase or concept of the "Kingdom of Heaven", I mean a Kingdom with heavenly rules, BUT SET UP ON EARTH like Daniel 2:44. It is "the Kingdom (out) OF Heaven" - NOT "the Kingdom IN Heaven".

With that settled, we turn to your understanding of Mark 16:16. And we (hopefully) agree that there are no scriptures that say a man is saved by the Immersion of the Holy Spirit. A man is "saved" in five ways:

1. He must have His sins taken by another, and worthy substitute. He is thus "saved" from God's righteous retribution, or "Gehenna"
2. He must be INFUSED with God's Life to be in the image of God. He is saved from failing to fulfill God's purpose of Genesis 1:26-28
3. He must be saved from his own fallen human nature. This is by the transforming work of the Holy Spirit (2nd Cor.3:18)
4. He must be saved from death and corruption of his body. He is "saved" in this by resurrection
5. He must be restored to his former post of ruler and subduer of the earth, sea and sky. That is, he must be part of God's active Kingdom. In Matthew 19:25, Mark 10:26 and Luke 18:26 not being allowed this privilege was counted as not being "saved"

Now, if we see the part played by the Holy Spirit in these five "salvations" NOT ONE OF THEM IS BY THE OUTWARD FURNISHING OF THE HOLY SPIRIT - or, if you will, the IMMERSION into the Holy Spirit.

• Number 1 is achieved by the blood of Jesus Christ
• Number 2 is achieved by the INWARD receiving of the Holy Spirit
• Number 3 is achieved by the INWARD changing work of the Holy Spirit
• Number 4 is achieved by the Holy Spirit, but by an action SEPARATE and INDEPENDENT from the man
• Number 5 is achieved by a combination of man's cooperation and the INWARD presence of the Holy Spirit

Not one of the salvations of a Christian depend on the FURNISHING of the Holy Spirit. That is given to men to achieve GOD'S GOALS.

Added to this, if we return to point number 5, we discover an interesting fact. Abraham was promised a Land with borders. This Promise was extended to his "seed" and made a COVENANT. But because of God's original councils, this Promise is extended, in Romans 4:13, to the WHOLE EARTH. And the condition of the Covenant of Promise was circumcision. Any "seed" of Abraham who refused circumcision, was not to partake of this Kingdom (Gen.17:14). Circumcision did not make a man son of Abraham. It made him, who was already a son, eligible for the kingdom of Israel.

Now, Galatians 3 and Ephesians 1 & 2 both build a case that the Christian, even if he is not an Israelite, can be SEED OF ABRAHAM. In Ephesians 1 & 2 we become HEIRS by "adoption" (in Chapter 1) and by being integrated into the "commonwealth❊" in Chapter 2. And in Galatians 3 we become SEED of Abraham by being IN CHRIST - Who is Seed of Abraham (verse 29). So, if we are seed of Abraham by every possible organic and legal way, we need circumcision for the coming ownership of the WHOLE EARTH (Rom.4:13).

But the circumcision made by hands might be good enough for Canaan - an earthly kingdom, but it is not good enough for a heavenly Kingdom. According to 1st Corinthians 15:50, the bodies of men, whether circumcised or not, are unfit for the coming Kingdom. It needs to die and be resurrected. The combination of flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom. For Canaan, a bit of the flesh must be cut off. But for the Kingdom of Heaven, when Christ sets it up on earth, the WHOLE BODY MUST BE CUT OFF. But God also needs our bodies for the Church (1st Cor.6:15), so like Abraham, He gives a "sign" of the Body having been cut off (Rom.4:11). But what "sign" will replace circumcision?

1. In Colossians 2:10-12 it states it plainly - Baptism
2. In Matthew 20:22-23, in context of the Kingdom, our Lord Jesus says that His death is a "Baptism"! And not only would He be Baptized with this Baptism, but so would the DISCIPLES. And the "sign" that death is JONAH who was IMMERSED IN WATER. That is, the NEW "SIGN" for the cutting off of the flesh for the Kingdom is NOW IMMERSION IN WATER.

Now, you might be being confronted with this for the first time, and my explanation is very brief (long posts are not read). So take your time to read this - and then read it again. WATER IMMERSION IS A "SIGN" THAT YOU ENTER COVENANT WITH GOD FOR EARTH! Water immersion is so that you are not cut off from the People who inherit the Kingdom on EARTH. It is is the prerequisite for being a "subduer and ruler" of this earth. In point number 5 above, if you enter the Kingdom you are "saved". It is only one of five points, but it is a vital point in the complete salvation of a man.

Water Baptism allows you to ENTER the Kingdom. This is what John 3:5 is getting at. Thus, Mark 16:16 is perfectly harmonious with WATER IMMERSION. But Mark 16:16 with immersion into the Holy Spirit is neither supported by scripture, nor has it any purpose in being SAVED.

Take your time.




❊ A "Commonwealth" is not being a citizen. A Commonwealth is the way a central government deals equally with its citizens and foreigners who belong to it. Great Britain has a number of Commonwealth countries, like Canada and Australia. An Australian or a Canadian are NOT citizens of Great Britain, but they enjoy a combining of resources. So also the Christian. He is not a Israeli, but in the matter of the Covenant of Promise, he enjoys equality. He would have had to be part of the other Covenant - that of Law too, but our Lord Jesus nailed that to the cross in death and abolished it for the men of the Commonwealth.

16John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire:
17Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and will gather the wheat into his garner; but the chaff he will burn with fire unquenchable.
The fire is Judgement. The worst kind .

Very low blow. You have good reason to be worried.

Good morning, throughfaith Fire is a cleansing/purifying agent for believers as well

On another note, is it not perplexing how some completely miss that Jesus
makes a clear distinction between earthly water and the water that He gives?

I know this verse in Corinthians.
13Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is.
14If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward.
15If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.

Good morning to you ☺

Baptism is indeed a part of our salvation in that it is the first step toward SANCTIFICATION. But justification by grace through faith precedes that. Kindly read and study Romans 4 and 10, which also correspond to the words of Christ in John 11:25,26.

As of fire . Not fire. As of . That was how they described what it was ' like'

1 pet 3:21

The apostles were baptized with the Holy Spirit and with fire.

Water baptism is symbolic of cleansing.