I am not sure what is your argument here. Is baptist baptism not by water?
The Bible is a treasure trove that can more than satisfy any appetite
Except, it seems, when you come across a verse you don't like, like Acts 8:30, and then is just becomes a "guy explaining a scripture to another guy".
He didn't abandon the terminology, He confirmed the idea by using a like term, so there would be no confusion
Accoridng to you, Jesus introduced tremendous confusion. Nicodemus calls natural birth birth of the womb. Christ refers (you think) to the natural birth as birth of water. But in the next verse He is back calling it birth of the flesh. That, when water is how John performed his baptism of rebirth.
Wasn't it you who said that the Baptisms of John the Baptist didn't have the same effect as they do today?
That is correct, but the two are related and the johannine baptism had established the connection between baptism as a ritual, second birth, and water, by the time the conversation with Nicodemus is taking place.
I am not sure what is your argument here. Is baptist baptism not by water?
I mean that the "REAL" Baptism that matters is the Baptism by the Spirit, which happens at salvation. (We are immersed in the Spirit and He indwells.) Later on, Baptists do a Baptism by water to commemorate the first Baptism. The second is very important as an obedience to God, but has no salvific effects, according to our beliefs.
FK: "The Bible is a treasure trove that can more than satisfy any appetite."
Except, it seems, when you come across a verse you don't like, like Acts 8:30, and then is just becomes a "guy explaining a scripture to another guy".
I like Acts 8:30 just fine. It is an excellent example of evangelism that Jesus commanded for all of us. It promotes teaching and (along with other verses) I would quote it on the subject of whether we are to go out into the world and spread the Good News. It really is a good story for us Evangelicals. :) I just don't expand its meaning to refer to the Church.
According to you, Jesus introduced tremendous confusion. Nicodemus calls natural birth birth of the womb. Christ refers (you think) to the natural birth as birth of water. But in the next verse He is back calling it birth of the flesh. That, when water is how John performed his baptism of rebirth.
I happen to see birth of water and birth of flesh as the same thing. I am not familiar with scripture that says that John's Baptisms were for rebirth. How could they be when all of them were performed before Jesus died? How did John's Baptisms establish "the connection between baptism as a ritual, second birth, and water"? It can't be because of Jesus, He was not reborn at Baptism.