Did the apostles teach baptism?

Not exactly. I wouldn't say has nothing to do with salvation. Just that it is part of salvation. The sealing if you will, like a wedding joining you to Christ in his death and resurrection.
Now I am not one to say that if a person comes to saving faith and there is no opportunity for baptism that God has no provisions for this. In fact I would say this is the purpose that Jesus was baptized to fulfill all righteousness, Jesus had no unrighteousness to fulfill, he did everything that he did for us. I would say that Jesus baptism covers those who have not the opportunity to be baptized. But that's another subject.

Amen. For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit. (1 Corinthians 12:13) Of course, you believe that it is earthly water baptism that accomplishes this, while I accept the distinction Jesus clearly made between the Spiritual water He offers and the earthly water many confuse this with and adhere to.

This is works salvation though. It states the person has to earn salvation by completing the work of baptism

How is this any different than the jews trying to add circumcision to the gospel?

I cannot tell you how many times I have heard people say that being born of water refers to our natural, earthly birth, but I must say, that interpretation never sat well with me, and I have come to a much clearer understanding of why through my participation here. I love how more is revealed as we immerse ourselves in the Word of God, both the living and eternal Word of God, and the revealed written Word of God There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. Ephesians 4:4-6

I think he was talking about baptism as well. I probably posted on it in the past. I am being too lazy to look up my history. I have never seen any evidence that calling a natural birth "born of water" as a phrase used at Jesus time. Therefore no one would understand that he meant natural birth without him explaining that phrase. It would have been an invented phrase by Jesus. That is highly doubtful.

However they had been baptizing and preaching baptizing and their first thought would have been that he was talking about baptism. People can argue about it until Jesus comes back again but unless I see evidence that ANYONE from his time or before ever talked about being born of water meant amniotic fluid in natural childbirth I find it preposterous to suggest that Jesus was talking about that.

To explain how a natural childbirth involves "the water breaking" from a modern cultural phrase, but not presenting ancient literature evidence of "being born of water" in context of natural child birth does not prove that Jesus was talking about natural child birth and I don't understand why people think they have a valid hermeneutical point when using modern phrases to interpret ancient culture. It does not work that way. Present an ancient proof text. Without such proof you only have evidence that they would have known about baptism as they were preaching it and doing it daily. What else would they have thought.

They may have baptized people that very day. Of course they would have thought Jesus was talking about baptism in water. They were preaching the Kingdom of God in context of Baptizing people in water and getting wet all day, and then Jesus says "born of water" and spirit in order to see the Kingdom of God. That we have proof of. We know that was going on.

We do not know that anyone in Jesus audience had ever heard even once in their lifetime that being born of water is what ANYONE ever called being born naturally because there was amniotic fluid involved. I could be wrong and someone could show me an ancient text from another ancient source that demonstrates such language about natural birth.

Just because spiritual water is administered in the form of earthly water doesn't mean that the spiritual isn't there.

The work of baptism is the work of the Holy Spirit. Not of the men who participate.
Consider it like a 3 year old mowing the grass with daddy. The lad is standing there with his hands on the handle, but daddy is pushing the mower.

John 3:22 After this, Jesus and his disciples went out into the Judean countryside, where he spent some time with them, and baptized

Acts 19
Disciples of John the Baptist at Ephesus
1 While[a] Apollos was in Corinth, Paul went through the inland[b] regions[c] and came to Ephesus. He[d] found some disciples there[e] 2 and said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?”[f] They replied,[g] “No, we have not even[h] heard that there is a Holy Spirit.” 3 So Paul[i] said, “Into what then were you baptized?” “Into John’s baptism,” they replied.[j] 4 Paul said, “John baptized with a baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him,[k] that is, in Jesus.” 5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus, 6 and when Paul placed[l] his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came[m] upon them, and they began to speak[n] in tongues and to prophesy.[o] 7 (Now there were about twelve men in all.)[p]

Acts 2:38 Peter said to them, “Repent, and each one of you be baptized[cb] in the name of Jesus Christ[cc] for[cd] the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.[ce] 39 For the promise[cf] is for you and your children, and for all who are far away, as many as the Lord our God will call to himself.” 40 With many other words he testified[cg] and exhorted them saying, “Save yourselves from this perverse[ch] generation!” 41 So those who accepted[ci] his message[cj] were baptized, and that day about 3,000 people[ck] were added.[cl]

Administered?

To me it is more likely to be the word, or spiritual water as in John 4, but considering the word flesh is used next and spirit, it also fits in context to be human birth.

both are better than water baptism in any case

There is one baptism, not two,

you are equating Holy Spirit baptism happening at the same time as water baptism.

your also limiting god to not save a person and make them alive until they do the work of water baptism. Giving a huge opportunity to boast,

not of works, lest anyone should boast. Water baptism leaves many possibilities of boasting

Also, spiritual, life-giving water is sprinkled throughout Scriptures, in both OT and NT

Please excuse the pun

I gave a few examples earlier in this post

Yes, a contradiction.

Are you able to support that last part with scripture in proper context as pertains to your boast?

Which one specifically was Paul referencing per that passage?

One Baptism:
What we have to understand, and be aware of, is the fact that when speaking of baptism (or being baptized) it can mean one thing in one passage and mean something totally different in another passage. The difference is usually a matter of one of three preposition words or phrases following the word baptized:


To Be
(1) “Baptized with,” (2) “Baptized in the name of,” and (3) “Baptized into”


Baptized with:
To be baptized with usually denotes that a specific type of baptism is being identified (baptized with water, with John’s baptism, with the Holy Ghost, etc. – Mark 10:38; Luke 12:50; Acts 1:5, 11:16, 19:4)


Baptized in the name of:
Normally this phrase indicates the authority of, or by whose authority something is being done. Peter baptized in the name of (by the authority of) Jesus, (Acts 2:38) and that authority Jesus had came from God (Mat 28:18; John 12:49-50; 1Cor 1:12-13)


Baptized into:
This phrase (into) indicates under the leadership of an individual (or group), an idea, movement or purpose (Acts 19:3; Gal 3:27; Rom 6:3-4).

The baptism spoken of in this passage (Ephesians 4:5) is in reference to those individuals who are said to have been baptized into Christ (Gal 3:27; Rom 6:3-4) our Lord/Master (Acts 20:21; Rom 1:3, 5:1, 11, 21) which is a phrase reflective of only those who are obedient followers of Christ (John 14:15-17, 21; 1John 3:22-24 NKJV) (See also: Verses Where “He” & “Him” Should Be Referred To As “It”.).

What most people usually mean by “spirit baptism” is what the scripture calls “baptize with the Holy Ghost” or “the Holy Spirit.”

When John (the forerunner of Jesus) was baptizing in the River Jordan, this is what he told people about Jesus: “I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire” (Matthew 3:11 NKJV).

John baptized in water, but Jesus did not baptize in water instead He was to baptize with “the Holy Spirit and fire.” Jesus refers to the baptism with the Holy Spirit when He told the apostles to wait in the city of Jerusalem for power from on high: “for John truly baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.” (Acts 1:5 NKJV).

The apostle Peter refers to this promise later, when he preached to the household of Cornelius, “And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them, as upon us at the beginning. 16 Then I remembered the word of the Lord, how He said, ‘John indeed baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit.” (Acts 11:15-16 NKJV).

Note: These are the only two cases recorded in Scripture of the baptism with the Holy Spirit.
Only Christ could baptize with the Holy Spirit. No other man had authority to do that. Jesus sent his apostles out and the apostles continued baptizing people in the water, including Jesus (Acts 8:36 10:47; I Peter 3:20,21).
However, no man, other than Jesus, was ever given the ability (authority) to baptize people with the Holy Spirit. Only Christ had that authority to make it come about and it came about after Christ ascended up into Heaven (John 14:26, 16:7) (See also: Verses Where “He” & “Him” Should Be Referred To As “It”.)

Note: to be baptized with (is to be filled with or receive) the Holy Ghost, which was a promise, not a command (Acts 2:38). However, the baptism administered by the apostles was a command (Acts 10:47). The baptism with the Holy Spirit was not for all people, but only those who were obedient (Acts 5:32).
You can be baptized and still not receive the Holy Ghost. The act of water baptism can be performed but all of the Acts 2:38 conditions must be met in order to receive the Holy Ghost.

The purpose of this “one baptism” (the baptism of Christ), which (Ephesians 4:5) speaks of, was to empower people, as Jesus told the apostles, “Ye shall receive power when the Holy Spirit is come upon you” (Acts 1:8 NKJV). The outpouring of the Holy Ghost, on that day of Pentecost, came as a result of what Christ accomplished, through the baptism of Christ (Luke 3:21-22).
This “one baptism” puts you as one with Christ (“into Jesus Christ” Romans 6:3), it is when we are in this position (condition) in life that it saves us from our past sins, as “unto the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38) and “into the death of Christ” (Romans 6:3). When one obeys Christ today, he is considered baptized into Christ because we have “earnestly” repented of our sins, baptized in water (normally, but not always in this order) we receive the Holy Ghost (have been baptized with the Holy Ghost), as is the promise, thus we are considered saved (Mark 16:16).

there isn't a contradiction in John.
Jesus didn't water-baptize anyone; the apostles baptized in water on His authority.

when it's said, 'General MacArthur is on the hill and harrying the troops in the valley' it doesn't mean necessarily that the man MacArthur himself is on the hill harrying troops; the meaning is that those under his command are doing so. general MacArthur himself may, or may not, be directly involved in the action, but regardless of whether he is the one doing it, he is the one responsible for it happening.

the apostle is clearing up the ambiguity of 3:22 just a paragraph later in 4:2 -- not contradicting himself as though he is giving false testimony.

I'm done here, we have circled this drain over and over. There is never going to be any common ground. Just as you think your coming close it's back to the beginning.

i know this is y'all's conversation here, but suffer me to help EG out because something came to mind immediately when i saw your post --



how about this?
why is Paul contextually linking being baptized by someone to boasting?
humans are extremely resourceful when it comes to figuring out some clever way to be vain.