I see you are making your way through this thread. By now, I hope you have read (post 198) the 2 dozens scholars, experts, commentators and more who pick apart your one dimensional use of the word eis as it applies to Matthew 12:41.
And I hope you picked up on the comments I cut and pasted in post 201. If not - here they are again....
Please reconsider the Church of Christ position on baptism. To teach that is is not necessary is akin to teaching repentance is not necessary. I leave you with another cut and paste from post 198.
c. Since the conjunction kai "and" joins the two commands
together, what is said of one command applies to the other
1) If they were to baptized "because of" remission of sins...
2) ...then they were also to repent "because of" the
remission of sins!
d. This would present two problems
1) Where else are people told to repent "because" their
sins are already forgiven?
2) Peter would have failed to tell them what to do to
remove their guilt!
You would like to infer that, but the logic of it is:
Repent(confess and forsake sins, and He that is righteous and just will abandon your sins and cleanse you from all unrighteousness, 1 Jn. 1:9 applied), and now being inwardly cleaned, be ritually externally purified by baptism on the basis of sins already confessed and remitted.
What's your problem with that syntax?