What is The Baptism that saves us now?

[Mungo]

You and I see those scriptures differently within our understanding as I believe falling on being temporary like that of the OT and then after Jesus resurrection we are baptized into the Baptism of Christ for receiving the Holy Spirit and fire (fire means power from God) Matthew 3:11; Luke 3:16; Acts 1:5; 2:38, that has nothing to do with literal water. It's like the 120 in the upper room that day that were filled with the Holy Spirit, the 3000 that repented and were baptized in the Holy Spirit, the Eunuch and many others that were Spiritually born again and filled with the Holy Spirit without ever being dunked in water, but yet they were not forbidden to be immersed in water.

After Jesus resurrection we find that people are baptised "in the name of Jesus", with water and they renewed, brought into the New Covenant, into the body of Christ. They receive the indwelling to the Holy Spirit. This is what happened to the 3,000 at pentecost and to the Eunuch.

What happened in the upper room is different. It was what Jesus promised in Lk 24:49
"And behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you; but stay in the city, until you are clothed with power from on high.”

 

[Mungo]

Those are just your opinions, and I disagree with them. I am not "mocking Jesus' words" by stating that the evidence for the "long ending" of Mark shows that it is not part of Scripture. Why are you twisting that to say I'm mocking Jesus? -> He never said anything about snakes or drinking poison <-

The "long ending" in Mark is scripture and has been for 2,000 years.

 

[jaybo]

The "long ending" in Mark is scripture and has been for 2,000 years.

That is just your opinion -- and it happens to be wrong. Try studying the situation.

Here is some information to enlighten you (NET translator's note)...

The Gospel of Mark ends at this point in some witnesses (א B sys sams armmss geomss Eus Eusmss Hiermss), including two of the most respected mss (א B). This is known as the “short ending.” The following “intermediate” ending is found in some mss: “They reported briefly to those around Peter all that they had been commanded. After these things Jesus himself sent out through them, from the east to the west, the holy and imperishable preaching of eternal salvation. Amen.” This intermediate ending is usually included with the longer ending (L Ψ 083 099 579 pc); k, however, ends at this point. Most mss include the “long ending” (vv. 9-20) immediately after v. 8 (A C D W [which has unique material between vv. 14 and 15] Θ ƒ13 33 M lat syc,p,h bo); however, Eusebius (and presumably Jerome) knew of almost no Greek mss that had this ending. Several mss have marginal comments noting that earlier Greek mss lacked the verses. Internal evidence strongly suggests the secondary nature of both the intermediate and the long endings. Their vocabulary, syntax, and style are decidedly non-Markan (for further details, see TCGNT 102-6). All of this evidence indicates that as time went on scribes added the longer ending, either for the richness of its material or because of the abruptness of the ending at v. 8. (Indeed, the strange variety of dissimilar endings attests to the likelihood that early scribes had a copy of Mark that ended at v. 8, and they filled out the text with what seemed to be an appropriate conclusion. All of the witnesses for alternative endings to vv. 9-20 thus indirectly confirm the Gospel as ending at v. 8.) Because of such problems regarding the authenticity of these alternative endings, 16:8 is usually regarded today as the last verse of the Gospel of Mark. There are three possible explanations for Mark ending at 16:8: (1) The author intentionally ended the Gospel here in an open-ended fashion; (2) the Gospel was never finished; or (3) the last leaf of the ms was lost prior to copying. This first explanation is the most likely due to several factors, including (a) the probability that the Gospel was originally written on a scroll rather than a codex (only on a codex would the last leaf get lost prior to copying); (b) the unlikelihood of the ms not being completed; and (c) the literary power of ending the Gospel so abruptly that the readers are now drawn into the story itself. E. Best aptly states, “It is in keeping with other parts of his Gospel that Mark should not give an explicit account of a conclusion where this is already well known to his readers” (Mark, 73; note also his discussion of the ending of this Gospel on 132 and elsewhere). The readers must now ask themselves, “What will I do with Jesus? If I do not accept him in his suffering, I will not see him in his glory.” For further discussion and viewpoints, see Perspectives on the Ending of Mark: Four Views, ed. D. A. Black (Nashville: B&amp;H Academic, 2008); Nicholas P. Lunn, The Original Ending of Mark: A New Case for the Authenticity of Mark 16:9-20 (London: Pickwick, 2014); Gregory P. Sapaugh, “An Appraisal of the Intrinsic Probability of the Longer Endings of the Gospel of Mark” (Ph.D. diss., Dallas Theological Seminary, 2012).sn Double brackets have been placed around this passage to indicate that most likely it was not part of the original text of the Gospel of Mark. In spite of this, the passage has an important role in the history of the transmission of the text, so it has been included in the translation.

 

[Mungo]

Sometimes that can be a problem so don't worry about the errors.

Mark 16:16 it never mentions water so I have to believe it's speaking about the Baptism of Christ for the receiving of the Holy Spirit when we are Spiritual born again from above like what it says in John 3:16 and Romans 10:9-10. Water can not save us as no one was yet saved during John's baptism as his was only for repentance as Jesus nor the Holy Spirit had come yet. It's like in the OT, they were saved by faith as they walked in obedience to God's commands as I'm not sure anyone other than John baptized with water.

Baptism "in the name of Jesus" is baptism with water and is salvific. It is not the same as John's baptism which is why Paul said to the 12 men at Ephesus that they had to be baptised in Jesus name
“John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, Jesus.” hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
(acts 19:4-5)

1Peter 3:20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.
1Peter 3:21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

The eight souls that were saved by water means they of Noah's house were saved from the flood God sent upon the earth.

IMO, the like figure of water in vs. 20, not by the flesh being made clean by water, but a good conscience of knowing one needs God through His gift of grace through Christ Jesus who sacrificed his own life being made the final blood sacrifice for sin as God raised Him up on the third day.

I think you are misunderstanding Peter's analogy here.
Those in the ark were saved from the water but that is not the comparison that Peter was making. They were not saved from water but through water (RSV, NIV, NAB, HCSB) or by water (KJV). The word tranlated in most Bible as through is Strong 1223 "A primary preposition denoting the channel of an act; through....."

The water was the means by which they were saved so Peter is therefore not referring to their salvation from the flood but a different salvation in which water was the means, the channel.

Immediately before God tells Noah to build the Ark he explains what he is doing:
“In the eyes of God the earth was corrupt and full of lawlessness. When God saw how corrupt the earth had become, since all mortals led depraved lives on earth, he said to Noah: “I have decided to put an end to all mortals on earth; the earth is full of lawlessness because of them. So I will destroy them and all life on earth.” (Gen 6:11-13)

The water (the flood) destroyed the world with all it’s sin and iniquity. It was this that those in the Ark were saved from by means of water.

And as in other examples in the OT the pre-figuring was physical, in the NT the anti-type (baptism) is spiritual.

And it saves us in a similar way, by clearing out the sin and iniquity in us. As Peter goes on to say it is an appeal to God for a clear conscience - because our sins are forgiven.

It is this same Peter that said at Pentecost
Repent and be baptised, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. (Acts 2:38)

And Paul recounted about his own baptism
Now, why delay? Get up and have yourself baptised and your sins washed away, calling upon his name. (Acts 22:16).

 

[Mungo]

That is just your opinion -- and it happens to be wrong. Try studying the situation.

Here is some information to enlighten you (NET translator's note)...

The Gospel of Mark ends at this point in some witnesses (א B sys sams armmss geomss Eus Eusmss Hiermss), including two of the most respected mss (א B). This is known as the “short ending.” The following “intermediate” ending is found in some mss: “They reported briefly to those around Peter all that they had been commanded. After these things Jesus himself sent out through them, from the east to the west, the holy and imperishable preaching of eternal salvation. Amen.” This intermediate ending is usually included with the longer ending (L Ψ 083 099 579 pc); k, however, ends at this point. Most mss include the “long ending” (vv. 9-20) immediately after v. 8 (A C D W [which has unique material between vv. 14 and 15] Θ ƒ13 33 M lat syc,p,h bo); however, Eusebius (and presumably Jerome) knew of almost no Greek mss that had this ending. Several mss have marginal comments noting that earlier Greek mss lacked the verses. Internal evidence strongly suggests the secondary nature of both the intermediate and the long endings. Their vocabulary, syntax, and style are decidedly non-Markan (for further details, see TCGNT 102-6). All of this evidence indicates that as time went on scribes added the longer ending, either for the richness of its material or because of the abruptness of the ending at v. 8. (Indeed, the strange variety of dissimilar endings attests to the likelihood that early scribes had a copy of Mark that ended at v. 8, and they filled out the text with what seemed to be an appropriate conclusion. All of the witnesses for alternative endings to vv. 9-20 thus indirectly confirm the Gospel as ending at v. 8.) Because of such problems regarding the authenticity of these alternative endings, 16:8 is usually regarded today as the last verse of the Gospel of Mark. There are three possible explanations for Mark ending at 16:8: (1) The author intentionally ended the Gospel here in an open-ended fashion; (2) the Gospel was never finished; or (3) the last leaf of the ms was lost prior to copying. This first explanation is the most likely due to several factors, including (a) the probability that the Gospel was originally written on a scroll rather than a codex (only on a codex would the last leaf get lost prior to copying); (b) the unlikelihood of the ms not being completed; and (c) the literary power of ending the Gospel so abruptly that the readers are now drawn into the story itself. E. Best aptly states, “It is in keeping with other parts of his Gospel that Mark should not give an explicit account of a conclusion where this is already well known to his readers” (Mark, 73; note also his discussion of the ending of this Gospel on 132 and elsewhere). The readers must now ask themselves, “What will I do with Jesus? If I do not accept him in his suffering, I will not see him in his glory.” For further discussion and viewpoints, see Perspectives on the Ending of Mark: Four Views, ed. D. A. Black (Nashville: B&amp;H Academic, 2008); Nicholas P. Lunn, The Original Ending of Mark: A New Case for the Authenticity of Mark 16:9-20 (London: Pickwick, 2014); Gregory P. Sapaugh, “An Appraisal of the Intrinsic Probability of the Longer Endings of the Gospel of Mark” (Ph.D. diss., Dallas Theological Seminary, 2012).sn Double brackets have been placed around this passage to indicate that most likely it was not part of the original text of the Gospel of Mark. In spite of this, the passage has an important role in the history of the transmission of the text, so it has been included in the translation.

And your opinion and someone else's opinion.

Here is another opinion. The footnote in the RSV

1. Mark 16:20 Some of the most ancient authorities bring the book to a close at the end of verse 8. One authority concludes the book by adding after verse 8 the following: But they reported briefly to Peter and those with him all that they had been told. And after this, Jesus himself sent out by means of them, from east to west, the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation. Other authorities include the preceding passage and continue with verses 9–20. In most authorities verses 9–20 follow immediately after verse 8; a few authorities insert additional material after verse 14

But you carry on picking and choosing which scripture you believe and which you don't

 

[jaybo]

And your opinion and someone else's opinion.

Here is another opinion. The footnote in the RSV

1. Mark 16:20 Some of the most ancient authorities bring the book to a close at the end of verse 8. One authority concludes the book by adding after verse 8 the following: But they reported briefly to Peter and those with him all that they had been told. And after this, Jesus himself sent out by means of them, from east to west, the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation. Other authorities include the preceding passage and continue with verses 9–20. In most authorities verses 9–20 follow immediately after verse 8; a few authorities insert additional material after verse 14

But you carry on picking and choosing which scripture you believe and which you don't

I'm not going to respond to statements like "you carry on picking and choosing which scripture you believe and which you don't". It's childish! I can say the same thing about you, but I won't bother.

 

[Mungo]

I'm not going to respond to statements like "you carry on picking and choosing which scripture you believe and which you don't". It's childish! I can say the same thing about you, but I won't bother.

Yes it is childish to pick and choose which is why I believe ALL scripture.

 

[Butch5]

Hi everyone...and to all my fellow Christian's in Christ...
I love the passage in 1 peter 3
And I have an Ideal of what I believe..
But I want to know first your thoughts...

It's water baptism. He equates it with the washing of the body.

 

[Consecrated Life]

You can not use a members profile to claim they think they are greater than John the Baptist, just because they say they are a Christian. You are misunderstanding Mungo as he never said he was greater as being more superior than JTB and stated so. Read his post #17.

The "claim" in question, of Mungo's own choosing, not mine, is that " ALL CHRISTIANS " are greater the John the Baptist

" ALL Christians are greater than John the Baptist." (Mungo, post #13)

"ALL Christians" means all Christians including you , including me , and yes, including himself .

My point from the biblical perspective was that it is a completely different animal when you lay claim for yourself of being counted among the " Greater " due to your being among the " least".
You have instantly scratched your name from the list by self-promoting your status as being among the least.

Greater & Least being completely contradictory terms , WHEN being self-appointed .

It is a replete biblical principle mentioned time and again by Jesus.
Just like choosing for yourself one of the Highest seats of Honor at a feast that Jeus mentioned, only to be told by the master of the feast to move your butt to a lower seat

The self-appointed contradiction in terms is identical to a person claiming that one of their greatest qualities is the fact that they are so MEEK.

GREAT vs MEEK & GREATER vs LEAST being brothers from the same mother in manifest contradiction .

Notice as well that if I claim that you, For His Glory, is an incredibly meek person it has no impact on the fact that you are indeed meek.
Your meekness remains intact.
However , if you were to claim for yourself that you are a very meek person your meekness is instantly gone.

Meekness being incompatible with outspoken self-promotion.
Same goes for claiming you are among the "GREAT" by virtue of the fact that you are among the "LEAST"

Luk 9:48
.... for he that is least among you all, the same shall be great.

Oh , oh, over here Jesus, that would be me, me meeee!
I know it's me that is the least of them all Jesus.
I was least when least wasn't even cool !
Thank you for making me so great Jesus !

 

[for_his_glory]

After Jesus resurrection we find that people are baptised "in the name of Jesus", with water and they renewed, brought into the New Covenant, into the body of Christ. They receive the indwelling to the Holy Spirit. This is what happened to the 3,000 at pentecost and to the Eunuch.

What happened in the upper room is different. It was what Jesus promised in Lk 24:49
"And behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you; but stay in the city, until you are clothed with power from on high.”

Nowhere in Acts 2:14-41 and Acts 8:35-38 does it say they were Spiritually born again after being immersed in water. It says they heard the word preached to them and then they received Jesus as Lord and Savior before they were immersed in water. As far as the 3000 it never says they were baptized in water, but that they were baptized with the Baptism of Christ for the receiving of the holy Spirit. Water immersion and the Baptism of Christ are two different things as one saves us and the other only being an outward appearance. Water can not save us.

 

[jaybo]

Yes it is childish to pick and choose which is why I believe ALL scripture.

Unlike yourself, I believe all authentic Scripture -- only. Do you ban people who insult others by calling them "childish"?

 

[for_his_glory]

Baptism "in the name of Jesus" is baptism with water and is salvific. It is not the same as John's baptism which is why Paul said to the 12 men at Ephesus that they had to be baptised in Jesus name
“John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, Jesus.” hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
(acts 19:4-5)





I think you are misunderstanding Peter's analogy here.
Those in the ark were saved from the water but that is not the comparison that Peter was making. They were not saved from water but through water (RSV, NIV, NAB, HCSB) or by water (KJV). The word tranlated in most Bible as through is Strong 1223 "A primary preposition denoting the channel of an act; through....."

The water was the means by which they were saved so Peter is therefore not referring to their salvation from the flood but a different salvation in which water was the means, the channel.

Immediately before God tells Noah to build the Ark he explains what he is doing:
“In the eyes of God the earth was corrupt and full of lawlessness. When God saw how corrupt the earth had become, since all mortals led depraved lives on earth, he said to Noah: “I have decided to put an end to all mortals on earth; the earth is full of lawlessness because of them. So I will destroy them and all life on earth.” (Gen 6:11-13)

The water (the flood) destroyed the world with all it’s sin and iniquity. It was this that those in the Ark were saved from by means of water.

And as in other examples in the OT the pre-figuring was physical, in the NT the anti-type (baptism) is spiritual.

And it saves us in a similar way, by clearing out the sin and iniquity in us. As Peter goes on to say it is an appeal to God for a clear conscience - because our sins are forgiven.

It is this same Peter that said at Pentecost
Repent and be baptised, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. (Acts 2:38)

And Paul recounted about his own baptism
Now, why delay? Get up and have yourself baptised and your sins washed away, calling upon his name. (Acts 22:16).

These are your views and I do respect them, even if I disagree with them.

This is what Smith's Bible dictionary says:

To be baptized for Christ shows an intention to become a true follower of Christ. John baptized with water unto repentance but as a sign of it, perhaps only a sign of their willingness to enroll themselves among John’s followers. Jesus himself did not baptize with water, but with the Spirit and Christian baptism was only instituted after the resurrection when the Lord gave the commission to his apostles to go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature.

Act 10:47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?

This verse shows that these men had already received the Holy Spirit, but wanted to be baptized in water also as followers of Christ. So I believe both verses in Acts to be water, but not for the receiving of the Holy Spirit, but an outward appearance to others that they have repented and received the Holy Spirit already.

Mat 3:14 But John forbade him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?
Mat 3:15 And Jesus answering said unto him, suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfill all righteousness. Then he suffered him.

Mark 1:1 The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God; 2 As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee. 3 The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight. 4 John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.

John's baptism was prophesied by the prophets in the OT as only being for the remission of sin before that of Messiah come. John said in Mark 1:8 I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost.​

 

[for_his_glory]

Unlike yourself, I believe all authentic Scripture -- only. Do you ban people who insult others by calling them "childish"?

Please take this to TWTS

 

[Mungo]

Nowhere in Acts 2:14-41 and Acts 8:35-38 does it say they were Spiritually born again after being immersed in water. It says they heard the word preached to them and then they received Jesus as Lord and Savior before they were immersed in water. As far as the 3000 it never says they were baptized in water, but that they were baptized with the Baptism of Christ for the receiving of the holy Spirit. Water immersion and the Baptism of Christ are two different things as one saves us and the other only being an outward appearance. Water can not save us.

Acts 2:14-21 does not say they received Jesus as Lord and Saviour.
It says they asked Peter “Brethren, what shall we do?” (vs 37)
Peter answered them “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." (Vs 38)
Then in vs 41 it says "So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls"
So what were they added to? The answer can only be added to the Church, to those being saved.
You say that it never says they were baptised in water. But then it never says they were baptised with the Holy Spirit either.

But what would baptism mean to the apostles Peter and to the 3,000?
To Peter it meant baptism with water. As Peter says in Acts 10:47-48
“Can any one forbid water for baptizing these people who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ."
Baptism "the name of Jesus Christ" is with water.

In Acts 2:38 Peter tells the 3,000 they must be baptised "in the name of Jesus Christ". That must therefore be baptism with water.

Again in Acts 8:35-38 says nothing about accepting Jesus as Lord and Saviour. But they were clearly baptised with water.

In both cases we see the gospel being preached, people believing and then bein baptised.
Jesus said "He who believes and is baptized will be saved" Mk 16:16, so we know that after baptism they had been saved.

The person who baptised the eunuch in Acts 8 was Philip; the same Philip who was baptising earlier in Samaria. Of this baptism (in Samaria) it was they had "only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus." Again baptism in the name of Jesus was with water.

But note that subsequent to being baptised with water Peter and John laid hands on them and prayed and then they received the Holy Spirit (vs 17). But this is not the same as receiving the Holy Spirit in baptism. Earlier (vs 16) it said that the Holy Spirit "had not yet fallen on any of them". That is the external work of the Spirit. (note the word I have emboldened)

Compare that to Acts 19 with Paul and the 12 men in Ephesus. They had only been baptised in with John's baptism. That was not sufficient. Paul told them to be baptised "in the name of the Lord Jesus" (vs 5). That's baptism with water for salvation.
After that Paul laid hands on them and "the Holy Spirit came on them; and they spoke with tongues and prophesied." Again the exterior work of the Spirit., and came upon them - the same as fallen on them.
Two different actions. Two different purposes.

 

[jaybo]

These are your views and I do respect them, even if I disagree with them.

This is what Smith's Bible dictionary says:

To be baptized for Christ shows an intention to become a true follower of Christ. John baptized with water unto repentance but as a sign of it, perhaps only a sign of their willingness to enroll themselves among John’s followers. Jesus himself did not baptize with water, but with the Spirit and Christian baptism was only instituted after the resurrection when the Lord gave the commission to his apostles to go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature.

Act 10:47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?

This verse shows that these men had already received the Holy Spirit, but wanted to be baptized in water also as followers of Christ. So I believe both verses in Acts to be water, but not for the receiving of the Holy Spirit, but an outward appearance to others that they have repented and received the Holy Spirit already.

Mat 3:14 But John forbade him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?
Mat 3:15 And Jesus answering said unto him, suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfill all righteousness. Then he suffered him.

Mark 1:1 The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God; 2 As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee. 3 The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight. 4 John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.

John's baptism was prophesied by the prophets in the OT as only being for the remission of sin before that of Messiah come. John said in Mark 1:8 I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost.​

Well said! Although I have my doubts that Mungo will accept this since it disagrees with Catholic doctrine.

 

[Mungo]

These are your views and I do respect them, even if I disagree with them.

This is what Smith's Bible dictionary says:

To be baptized for Christ shows an intention to become a true follower of Christ. John baptized with water unto repentance but as a sign of it, perhaps only a sign of their willingness to enroll themselves among John’s followers. Jesus himself did not baptize with water, but with the Spirit and Christian baptism was only instituted after the resurrection when the Lord gave the commission to his apostles to go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature.

Act 10:47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?

This verse shows that these men had already received the Holy Spirit, but wanted to be baptized in water also as followers of Christ. So I believe both verses in Acts to be water, but not for the receiving of the Holy Spirit, but an outward appearance to others that they have repented and received the Holy Spirit already.

Mat 3:14 But John forbade him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?
Mat 3:15 And Jesus answering said unto him, suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfill all righteousness. Then he suffered him.

Mark 1:1 The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God; 2 As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee. 3 The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight. 4 John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.

John's baptism was prophesied by the prophets in the OT as only being for the remission of sin before that of Messiah come. John said in Mark 1:8 I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost.​

Yes John's baptism was for repentance.
But the baptism I'm referring to is baptism in the name of Jesus which is different (see previous post).

The incident with Cornelius is a special case and not a good example to generalise from.
Yes I know that sounds like a get out but bear with me on this.
Consider the following.
1. Peter was sent to Cornelius as a demonstration to Peter and the Church that they must include the Gentiles in their mission. As James says after Peter recalled the incident in Acts 15 - “Symeon has described how God first concerned himself with acquiring from among the Gentiles a people for his name.” (Acts 15:14). This incident therefore was God’s initiative to begin bringing the gentiles into the Church.

2. This was the second part of God’s fulfilling the prophecy of Joel that Peter quoted at Pentecost.
“‘It will come to pass in the last days,’ God says, ‘that I will pour out a portion of my spirit upon all flesh’”.
For the Jews mankind was divided into two – Jews and Gentiles. At Pentecost God poured out his Spirit on the Jews. Now with Cornelius God is pouring out his Spirit on the Gentiles.

3. The third point to note is that Cornelius is not just any old Gentile. He is a “God-fearer”, a Gentile who was almost converted to Judaism who often attended the synagogue (see Acts 13:16) and kept the Jewish prayer times – as Cornelius was when the Angel visited him.
“Now in Caesarea there was a man named Cornelius, a centurion of the Cohort called the Italica, devout and God-fearing along with his whole household, who used to give alms generously to the Jewish people and pray to God constantly. One afternoon about three o’clock, he saw plainly in a vision an angel of God come in to him” (Acts 10:1-3).

Cornelius was also a righteous man, acceptable to God. The angel said to Cornelius:
““Your prayers and almsgiving have ascended as a memorial offering before God. (Acts 10:4)
“Cornelius, your prayer has been heard and your almsgiving remembered before God.” (Acts 10:31)

The whole incident is therefore unique.

Moreover your point is not even supported by this incident.
It says in Acts 11:14 that Peter “will speak words to you [Cornelius] by which you and all your household will be saved”. Those words includes Peter’s command (not suggestion) that they be baptised (Acts 10:48). Peter was still instructing them on what they must do when the Holy Spirit was poured out on them and interrupted Peter’s instructions.

The instructions for baptism are part of Peter’s instructions as to how Cornelius and his household will be saved.

 

[Mungo]

This is what Smith's Bible dictionary says:
Jesus himself did not baptize with water​

But Jesus did baptise with water.
John 3:22-23
After this Jesus and his disciples went into the land of Judea; there he remained with them and baptized. John also was baptizing at Ae′non near Salim, because there was much water there; and people came and were baptized.
John 3:26
And they came to John, and said to him, “Rabbi, he who was with you beyond the Jordan, to whom you bore witness, here he is, baptizing, and all are going to him.”

 

[jaybo]

But Jesus did baptise with water.
John 3:22-23
After this Jesus and his disciples went into the land of Judea; there he remained with them and baptized. John also was baptizing at Ae′non near Salim, because there was much water there; and people came and were baptized.
John 3:26
And they came to John, and said to him, “Rabbi, he who was with you beyond the Jordan, to whom you bore witness, here he is, baptizing, and all are going to him.”

John 4:1-3, "So then, when the Lord knew that the Pharisees had heard that He was making and baptizing more disciples than John (although Jesus Himself was not baptizing; rather, His disciples were), He left Judea and went away again to Galilee."

 

[Mungo]

John 4:1-3, "So then, when the Lord knew that the Pharisees had heard that He was making and baptizing more disciples than John (although Jesus Himself was not baptizing; rather, His disciples were), He left Judea and went away again to Galilee."

1. In Acts 3 John clearly states that Jesus was baptising.
2. Scripture does not contradict itself.
3. Therefore both statements are true.

The question is then how to harmonise them.
The answer is simple. Jesus was baptising at first. But later, by the time the reports of John 4 came he had handed over the baptising to his disciples. That would make sense because Jesus would have to instruct and demonstrate to his discples what he wanted them to do.

 

[for_his_glory]

Acts 2:14-21 does not say they received Jesus as Lord and Saviour.
It says they asked Peter “Brethren, what shall we do?” (vs 37)
Peter answered them “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." (Vs 38)
Then in vs 41 it says "So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls"
So what were they added to? The answer can only be added to the Church, to those being saved.
You say that it never says they were baptised in water. But then it never says they were baptised with the Holy Spirit either.

But what would baptism mean to the apostles Peter and to the 3,000?
To Peter it meant baptism with water. As Peter says in Acts 10:47-48
“Can any one forbid water for baptizing these people who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ."
Baptism "the name of Jesus Christ" is with water.

In Acts 2:38 Peter tells the 3,000 they must be baptised "in the name of Jesus Christ". That must therefore be baptism with water.

Again in Acts 8:35-38 says nothing about accepting Jesus as Lord and Saviour. But they were clearly baptised with water.

In both cases we see the gospel being preached, people believing and then bein baptised.
Jesus said "He who believes and is baptized will be saved" Mk 16:16, so we know that after baptism they had been saved.

The person who baptised the eunuch in Acts 8 was Philip; the same Philip who was baptising earlier in Samaria. Of this baptism (in Samaria) it was they had "only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus." Again baptism in the name of Jesus was with water.

But note that subsequent to being baptised with water Peter and John laid hands on them and prayed and then they received the Holy Spirit (vs 17). But this is not the same as receiving the Holy Spirit in baptism. Earlier (vs 16) it said that the Holy Spirit "had not yet fallen on any of them". That is the external work of the Spirit. (note the word I have emboldened)

Compare that to Acts 19 with Paul and the 12 men in Ephesus. They had only been baptised in with John's baptism. That was not sufficient. Paul told them to be baptised "in the name of the Lord Jesus" (vs 5). That's baptism with water for salvation.
After that Paul laid hands on them and "the Holy Spirit came on them; and they spoke with tongues and prophesied." Again the exterior work of the Spirit., and came upon them - the same as fallen on them.
Two different actions. Two different purposes.

The Jerusalem Bible
1 John 5:6 Jesus Christ who came by water and blood, not with water only, but with water and blood with the Spirit as another witness since the Spirit is truth 7 so that there are three witnesses, 8 the Spirit, the water, and the blood and all three of them agree

KJV
1 John 5:6 This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. 7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

Literal water has nothing to do with salvation as Jesus came by the foretold word of the Prophets, sent by the Father, and signified by the Holy Spirit that lighted upon Him during John's water baptism for the remission of sins, Matthew 3:11-17. Three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, the water (word) and the blood. Three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word and the Holy Ghost.

The more I think about "born again" Nicodemus had no understanding as even many today would ask the same question "How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?"

Jesus goes on to tell him "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit."

Ephesians 5:26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,

Paul understood it was not by water baptism (BTW baptism is not mentioned in John 3:5), but by the word of God that we are sanctified, which means set apart and made holy. We being the church of God have been made clean by His word as we are washed in the blood of the Lamb.

Titus 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; 6 Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour; 7 That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

1 Peter 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,

Again Paul and also Peter gives us the understanding that being born again/born from above is not by actual water which would be a work of our own righteousness, but regeneration (new Spiritual life) that comes by God's mercy through His spoken word and Spirit (Holy Spirit).

Ephesians 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9 Not of works, lest any man should boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

Per the conversation Nicodemus and Jesus were discussing in John 3:9, 10 here are a few more OT verses that parallel being born again that Nicodemus should have known, but probably not emphasized as much since Jesus had to explain it to him.

1 Samuel 10:6 And the spirit of the LORD will come upon thee, and thou shalt prophesy with them, and shalt be turned into another man.

Job 15:14 What is man, that he should be clean? and he which is born of a woman, that he should be righteous?

Job 25: 4 How then can man be justified with God? or how can he be clean that is born of a woman?

Ezekiel 11:19 And I will give them one heart, and I will put a new spirit within you; and I will take the stony heart out of their flesh, and will give them an heart of flesh: 20 That they may walk in my statutes, and keep mine ordinances, and do them: and they shall be my people, and I will be their God.

There are around 1526 instances of living water in the Bible. Here are some verses on living water being the word. John 4:4-26; 7:37-39; 12:44-50; Ephesians 5:26; 1 John 5:5-8; Jeremiah 17:13; Zechariah 14:8, 9; Rev 21:6-8; Ezekiel 47:22