Did the apostles teach baptism?

It is not so "hands down" natural birth. "enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit" The way into the Kingdom is the context. It seems unnatural logic to think that he is saying you must be born of the flesh and of the spirit when he just got through saying that which is born of the flesh is flesh.. He has moved on from flesh to a different concept "water and spirit" This is also an interpretation and which one is more natural is the question.

The view that water is referring to natural birth might be correct. If I had an example of ancient text that referred to a natural birth in this way it would be strong evidence that Jesus meant natural birth. Maybe there is such an cultural textual reference.

If not, then the "water and spirit" being the "spiritual" antithesis of "flesh" seems a more natural interpretation especially since they were baptizing people and preaching baptism which was what everyone knew about Jesus and his disciples.

Think about it. Jesus and his disciples are going from town to town baptizing people and preaching repentance and the Kingdom of Heaven. They are famous for it. They just baptized 200 at the river that day. And then Jesus makes the comment "you must be born of water and the spirit" as the opposite of being born of flesh. Put yourself there in Nicodemus place. What would you think?

I doubt the average man had detailed knowledge about fluids involved in birth as they did not accompany their wives when they gave birth but left it to midwives and women to take care of. This idea that it would be understood that being born of water had to do with a natural birth seems to have been invented. Does anyone know when it first shows up in commentaries or church writers?

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).

Not joining in this debate but I would Just like to point out “ born of water” is clearly hands down Jesus referring to a natural birth. If you read the context this phrase has nothing to do with water baptism but both Jesus and his questioner see it as meaning natural birth.

3 In reply Jesus declared, "I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again. [1] "4 "How can a man be born when he is old?" Nicodemus asked. "Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb to be born!"5 Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit.6 Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit [2] gives birth to spirit.7 You should not be surprised at my saying, `You [3] must be born again.'

I just mean for this conversation or thread, how ever ya wanna put it.
All I can say is if they misconstrue what I write so easily, then what they say about the Bible is completely unreliable.

you're really sticking with "the Bible is contradictory & wrong" and you get to choose for yourself which part to believe and which part to reject?

why then do you bother reading it or quoting it.

They are hard of hearing. They take pride in their work. That’s why they will never believe you. Unless god helps them

Boasting. By defenition it is taking credit for something you earned

Take baptism for example

One person was baptized in a nice warm baptismal in a nice warm church. The other had to walk 5 miles to find a cold body of water and was baptized in that freezing water

person number 2 can boast if his baptism as being greater because it is harder work

Another example

Person 1 believes he was baptized into
Christ’s death burial And body by god Himself and no work if his own

Person 2 believes he also was baptized by god. But only when he obeyed god and was baptized in water

Again Person 2 can boast of how his work caused god to save him

Not if works lest anyone should boast. If there is even the hint of a possibility that one can boast. It is a work and is not if god. But is a false gospel
Of works

Not if works

Water baptism is a work of righteousness. Do you deny this? If not then Titus 3:5 is the clincher

Perhaps God will help you capitalize his title before you think to judge any Christian here who does show that respect for our Creator.

Your entire post is an example of boasting your own false doctrine to others.
You misconstrue Baptism in the process and all to condemn and judge those who hold to the teachings of Christ as pertains to the Baptismal rite you dismiss as of import.

Again and finally, those are all your words. Research the Bible and how it came to exist.

Yes, a contradiction.

That water baptism is a work of righteousness? That you are equating Baptism to works salvation?
I condemn your blasphemy with every fiber of my being. Titus 3 in no way supports that. Eternally grateful? For what? When you say such things and contradict the Lord himself.
God help you.
See that? Capital G! Not lower case g as atheists and pagans use in order to dismiss the sovereignty of God.

Great site you have there in the footnotes. And no parentheses. https://web.mit.edu/jywang/www/cef/Bible/NIV/NIV_Bible/JOHN+3.html#footnote_181955953_3
21But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God." [8]22 After this, Jesus and his disciples went out into the Judean countryside, where he spent some time with them, and baptized.

same site, next chapter ((it's just the NIV, nothing special about the website -- and 3:22 doesn't have a footnote, BTW))

View attachment 222055

why do you trust John chapter 3 when you say John chapter 4 is lies?

Your words not mine once more.
John 4:1 Now when Jesus[a] knew that the Pharisees[b] had heard that he[c] was winning[d] and baptizing more disciples than John 2 (although Jesus himself was not baptizing, but his disciples were),[e] 3 he left Judea and set out once more for Galilee.[f]
FOOTNOTE
sn This is a parenthetical note by the author.

You appear to be that one that has an issue with John 3 and prefer that of John 4 and its authors parenthetical addition .
Further Testimony About Jesus by John the Baptist
John 3: 22After this,[au] Jesus and his disciples came into Judean territory, and there he spent time with them and was baptizing. 23 John[av] was also baptizing at Aenon near Salim,[aw] because water was plentiful there, and people were coming[ax] to him[ay] and being baptized. 24 (For John had not yet been thrown into prison.)[az]
FOOTNOTE
sn[az] This is a parenthetical note by the author.
Do you want to argue that John was speaking third person of himself there?

Could you just answer?

It's pretty straightforward question and even though i think you've made yourself clear, I don't want to later be accused of misrepresenting you.

Is scripture trustworthy or is it corrupted with lies and self-contradictory, false statements?

Thanks.

This is a parenthetical note by the author.

Just an FYI dear,

you don't understand what this footnote is saying.
John is the author of John. He says so himself in John.

There is no manuscript disagreement about John 4:2, even the peschita reads exactly the same.

The NET note is a superfluous reminder that the fact Jesus Himself wasn't baptizing isn't directly related to their travel plans, but mentioned here as an aside.
The footnote is not saying 'the word of God has been tampered with and a lie inserted here but every version of the Bible ever leaves it in anyway'