Is Baptism necessary for Salvation?

That happened in Acts 2 to the apostles per Luke 24:49.

As I posted for another one here, read a bit further in the Corinthian letter to understand your posted scripture regarding what Paul said about him coming to preach.

Apollos baptized, Paul planted the word. Re-read the pertinent text again with this in mind and Paul's opening comments about the issues in Corinth starting in 1 Cor 1:10

1 Cor 3:5-7

5Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man? 6I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase. 7So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase.

I don't understand the question.

Why would anyone coming to the Lord, repenting of their sins, believing in His word, and giving their life to Him not get baptized?

Why are you parsing the words "necessary for salvation"? Is anyone disputing that Jesus is Lord? Is anyone disputing that we are told in the NT that after believing we are to be baptized? This is the word from the Lord Jesus and from the apostles, why are you disputing it? That is leaning on your own understanding and that is rebellion.

That's a little bit of an over-simplification, but I agree with the final statement.
There are many "reasons" to be baptized, but the act of being dunked is not "how" we get saved.
Baptism is, first of all, commanded for us to do. You can call it an act of obedience, which it is.
It is also symbolic in several ways... it is symbolic in the sense that we are "saved" through water, like Noah and his family were.
It is symbolic of the death, burial, and resurrection of our Savior..
It is an outward sign of who we are, in the same way that circumcision was symbolic of who the Jews were...
It is an appeal to God for a clear conscience....

It is definitely more than only an act of obedience.

Thanks your comment. In 1 Corinthians, beginning at verse 10, Paul isn’t saying baptism is unnecessary. His point is that the only people eligible for baptism are those who are believers in Christ.

As you can see below, followers of Paul, or followers of Appolos, or those who don’t understand Christ was crucified for them aren’t ready to be water baptized. That’s why Paul thanked God he didn’t baptize them so that they couldn’t say they were baptized in the name of Paul. It would have been a false baptism and that’s dangerous.

Christ sent Paul to preach the gospel because the gospel must be understood and believed before all things. It’s our foundation and once someone understands and believes the gospel they’re free to have a valid Christian water baptism.

Please read with this perspective in mind and it’ll make more sense.

1 Corinthians 1:12-17
12What I mean is this: One of you says, “I follow Paul”; another, “I follow Apollos”; another, “I follow Cephas”; still another, “I follow Christ.”

13Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized in the name of Paul? 14I thank God that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15so no one can say that you were baptized in my name. 16(Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don’t remember if I baptized anyone else.) 17For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—not with wisdom and eloquence, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.

Agree with that bro....

Have you ever considered the consequence for those who would neglect to obey God's command of circumcision? Circumcision was required for those in the OT in order to remain in covenant with God. I've provided confirming scriptures below. Consider the significance as it relates to the NT command of water baptism.

"And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant." Gen 17:14

"And it came to pass by the way in the inn, that the Lord met him, and sought to kill him. (Moses)
Then Zipporah took a sharp stone, and cut off the foreskin of her son, and cast it at his feet, and said, Surely a bloody husband art thou to me.
So he let him go: then she said, A bloody husband thou art, because of the circumcision." Ex 4:24-26

nope

Let's consider an analogy, do you need to wear a wedding ring to be married? No.

Can you imagine that Jesus would be offended if his wife refused to wear the wedding ring? yes.

Kinda like this, eh?:

Imagine God Teaching ONE Baptism, "BY the Holy Spirit" to Save And
Identify "members of The Body With Christ," and then man Adding to
Scripture (which is Forbidden By God!), water baptism, Either for
salvation or a symbol (shadow), making TWO (Bad Math) baptisms?

Wouldn't that be offending (Grieving) God with all the Confusion
thereof?

Grace, Peace, And JOY In The LORD JESUS CHRIST,
And His Word Of Truth, Rightly
Divided (+ I and II).

Salvation is simple Jesus is the way period

Yes, I have considered that. That's why I included it in my list of reasons that baptism is "necessary".
Baptism, to believers, is what circumcision was to the Jews. It is a public declaration and sign that a person has joined into the covenant with Jesus...

The point is there are people who are unable to be baptized. Some prisons will not allow it, people on their death bed, etc.

It is a valid concern for about 0.01% of those who receive the Lord.

Do you remember the Eunuch asked "what prevents me from being baptized?" For 99.99% of those who are saved the answer is "nothing". But that is not the question they are asking, instead they ask "is it necessary to get baptized"? Does not sound like much of a conversion experience.

The rebirth experience includes both water and Spirit according to Jesus' words in John 3:5. The scriptures you mention pertain to the experience of speaking in tongues that occurs when the Holy Spirit comes to dwell in a person. This is confirmed elsewhere in scripture.

"In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink.
He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.
(But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)" John 7:37-39

We see this truth in action as recorded in Acts 2:1-4. And specifically referenced in Acts 2:32-33 below:

"And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.
And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting.
And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them.
And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance." Acts 2:1-4

"This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.
Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear." Acts 2:32-33

I agree.... if you are willing to accept the free gift of salvation, and Jesus tells you to be baptized, why would you NOT? Rebellion and second-guessing are the only answers I can see.
Imagine if Moses had said, "yes, Lord, I want to be in covenant with you, but that silly old "cut off your foreskin thing...?? I think I'll just skip that, because what difference could it possibly make? "
Trying to use human logic to second-guess Jesus is just unbelievable to me....

as an aside...... I have never heard of a prison refusing to allow a prisoner to be baptized. Where did this happen?

edit: I goobered it and found this article.... this is news to me...

https://christianchronicle.org/prisoners-denied-baptisms/

Baptism isn't the sign of the new covenant. The wounds in Christ's own body are the signs of the new covenant. That's why we eat His flesh and drink His blood—to proclaim His death until He comes.

But, again... we have a loving God as our father... do you think He would not save a child of his that wanted to respond to Jesus' command, but was physically not allowed to?
That decision is strictly in the hands of our God... who loves us, and wants all His children to be saved... do we really think He would quibble over this? Personally, I don't.
Willing refusal to respond to the command is another thing entirely. God knows what is in our hearts...

I heard this from a brother who was in a prison ministry in California

Your response was to my Post 1088: "Acts of submission to the Lord are many as you say. However, do you not see obedience to water baptism as corresponding specifically to the NT rebirth? Many scriptures reveal this; such as, Acts 2:36-42, 8:12-18, 10:43-48, 19:1-7, 22:16. These scriptures make it easy to see that obedience to water baptism in the name of the Lord Jesus parallels one of the requirements Jesus said is required in order for people to become born again in John 3:5."

As you understand it, receiving the Holy Ghost is the only thing that is necessary in order to be reborn. If that's the case, why do you think the scriptures reference both baptism in water (in the name of Jesus) and people receiving the Holy Ghost as evidenced by speaking in tongues?

You can say nope all you want, or nope backwards, epon, or change the letters even, open, peno, pone, or whatever, but you can't change what the scriptures clearly say. Nope; that ain't gonna happen.