Did the apostles teach baptism?

Nicely put.
Titus shows us that Baptism does not relate to what some term, works salvation. Paul saw Baptism as a sacrament. https://biblehub.com/commentaries/titus/3-5.htm

Perhaps it is time to mention that the command Jesus gave regarding baptism was to baptize...

I wonder how many here have baptized another?

i'm going to take this as an evasive way of saying "yes" to the simple question of whether you believe the Bible is corrupt & untrustworthy.

i disagree; i believe the scripture.

thanks

i do not think that holding a position directly contradicted by scripture, and propping up that position by casting doubt on the authenticity of scripture wherever it disproves your position, is a credible line of argumentation in Bible discussion.

if you have to convince me the Bible is contradicting itself and some part of it must be thrown out in order to accept your interpretation, your cause is already lost, IMO.

To automatically read "baptism" into John 3:5 simply because it mentions "water" is unwarranted. There are those who would argue that the natural sense of the passage parallels "water" with being born out of a mother’s womb (verse 4) and with "flesh" (verse 6). The first is a physical, literal, "flesh" birth (which is, of course, accompanied by amniotic "water") and the second is Spirit.

There are also those who would argue that Jesus mentions "living water" in John 4:10, 14; 7:37-39 and in John 7:38-39, we read - "He who believes in Me, as the Scripture has said, out of his heart will flow rivers of living water. But this He spoke concerning the Spirit. The Holy Spirit is the source of living water and spiritual cleansing. If "water" is arbitrarily defined as baptism, then we could just as justifiably say, "Out of his heart will flow rivers of living baptism" in John 7:38. If that sounds ridiculous, it is no more so than the idea that water baptism is the source or the means of becoming born again.

Yet there are still others who would argue that "water" is used in the Bible as an emblem of the word of God, and in such uses it is associated with cleansing or washing. (John 15:3; Ephesians 5:26) When we are born again, the Holy Spirit begets new life, divine life, so that we are said to become "partakers of the divine nature" (2 Peter 1:4). The new birth is brought to pass through "incorruptible seed, by the word of God, which lives and abides forever" (I Peter 1:23) and the Holy Spirit accomplishes the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit. (Titus 3:5)

Matthew 3:13 - Then Jesus came from Galilee to John at the Jordan to be baptized by him. 14 And John tried to prevent Him, saying, “I need to be baptized by You, and are You coming to me?” 15 But Jesus answered and said to him, “Permit it to be so now, for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness.” Then he allowed Him.

Amen,

and any of these would be more biblical than reading water baptism, especially since Jesus never mentioned the word once when he explained how one is born again “whoever believes will have eternal life”

He was being up as high priest, this was his washing (ceremonial) it also was Gods witness, as John proclaimed whoever he baptized and immediately the spirit comes upon (anoints) him, this is the one

The word "washing" in the Strong's Greek Concordance with Vine's Number 3067 - (Loutron) "a bath, a laver" is used *metaphorically of the Word of God, as the instrument of spiritual cleansing,* Ephesians 5:26; and Titus 3:5, of the "washing of regeneration." - Plain ordinary H20 has no power to cleanse the heart from sin and regenerate the new believer.

It seems to me that if he meant you must be born of the flesh and of the spirit to enter the kingdom of God he would have said so. Instead he contrasts the two. I think people have to be taught by an outside source like a preacher or read it in a commentary to apply the water to amniotic fluid. It did not come to me the first time I read it. I thought he was talking about baptism. I had to read the amniotic fluid theory from a preacher. I did not agree at that time and I am still not persuaded. But like I said, if there is evidence of using such terminology in ancient near east literature, rabbinical writings, or even Greek literature of the time of Christ I would consider it strong evidence that Jesus meant natural birth but without that it is not likely Jesus made up that phrase on the spot and they would have immediately understood him.
If Jesus made up the phrase "born of water" on the spot they would have been scratching their heads asking one another "what does 'born of water' mean?" And if the conclusion was that Jesus was talking about being born of the flesh, then they would have wondered why Jesus made up that phrase and what did it have to do with the mysteries of the kingdom of Heaven. As a matter of fact if you believe that born of water means born of flesh and that Jesus invented it and gave it to the disciples for the first time here then you must wonder why? And what mysterious revelation is behind this new phrase Jesus invented?

Ezekiel 36:25–27:
I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and you will be clean. I will cleanse you from all your impurities and from all your idols. I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws.

Nicodemus would have understood this.

It is possible that more was said to Nicodemus at this time and we are given a concise version that was considered the most important and relevant.

I think Ezek 36:25-27 was what Jesus was referring to when He told Nicodemus, "are you a teacher of Israel and you don't know this?" He should have known that Jesus was referring to this prophecy. And here is where your water reference comes from. Not amniotic fluid but the prophesied spiritual rebirth.

You're welcome. Now go forth and preach it, baptizing in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all things that Jesus commanded. He is with you to the ends of the earth.

I personally don’t hold to the amniotic fluid view, but certain people do. See post #326. Have you considered “living water” and “the word of God” in regards to water and spiritual cleansing? Prior to my conversion several years ago while still attending the Roman Catholic Church, I understood John 3:5 as referring to water baptism, but after my conversion came to realize that view is unwarranted.

Or he could mean exactly what Peter meant when he said get up and be baptized and wash your sins away.
No hoops had to jumped through no wrangling with words necessary, and no insertion of metaphors into a literal explanation.

I would rather read the scriptures for what they say than try to wrangle words and dig for hidden meaning. Yeah I know that there are allegorical statements, and poetry, and apocalyptic language throughout the Bible, but the context makes that clear so when you come to it, it's actually quite easy to recognize.

The only problem here is, why would Jesus tell Nicodemus, a man well steeped in the scriptures, that he needed to be born of the word and of the spirit? It just don't contextually hold water.

Interesting understanding, that makes a lot of sense. Thanks for sharing this.

Why was Nicodemus, a man well steeped in the word confused by Jesus’ words in John 3:5 and not imply that Jesus meant water baptism?

Why did Jesus tell his disciples they were clean through/because of the word which He has spoken to them in John 15:3?

Why did Paul say that the church would be sanctified and cleansed with the washing of water by the word in Ephesians 5:26?

Why did Peter say having been born again, not of corruptible seed but incorruptible, through the word of God which lives and abides forever in 1 Peter 1:23? Are you seeing the connection here?

Excellent article on Acts 22:16 - https://kentbrandenburg.blogspot.com/2015/03/acts-2216-baptism-essential-for.html?m=1

We need to properly harmonize Scripture with Scripture before reaching our conclusion on doctrine.