(John 3): "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he can not enter into the Kingdom of God."

However a close reading of the text in context cannot validate this interpretation. This discussion between Nicodemus and Jesus took place long before Jesus started his ministry. The statement is in the context of comparison between "that which is born of the flesh" and "that, which is born of the spirit". The question of baptism was not even remotely intended. A correct reading of the text simply shows that the words "born of water" simply means born of the flesh. All flesh was created through water and human birth is through the water from their mother’s womb. This is the traditional Jewish expression for human birth. This is the only explanation that is permissible within the context. The next sentence "That which is born of the flesh is flesh and that which is born of the spirit is spirit " corroborates it as the usual parallel literary style of the master.

It is claimed that Christ instituted baptism as He commissioned His Apostles to baptize, as narrated in John, iii and iv. There is nothing directly in the text as to the institution. This baptism was called the Baptism by Jesus even though He himself did not baptize. This was long before death and resurrection of Christ, that any attempt to associate this baptism with Baptism connected with the Holy Spirit is out of question. Evidently it was a continuation of the Baptism of John and the message associated with that baptism was the same as that of John’s baptism viz., "The Kingdom of God is at hand". John in fact compares the baptism of John with that of Jesus and mentions no difference except in the numbers. They were identical in all respects even to the minute details. These baptisms were simply symbols of discipleship a pledge of total allegiance.

St. John Chrysostom (Hom. xxviii in Joan.), Theophylactus (in cap. iii, Joan.), and Tertullian (De Bapt., c. ii) declare that the baptism given by the Disciples of Christ as narrated in these chapters of John was a baptism of water only and not of the Holy Ghost; the reason is that the Holy Ghost was not given until after the Resurrection. It is evident from John, 3 and 4; Christ certainly conferred baptism, and that only by the hands of His Disciples, before His passion. The baptism by Jesus is only "with the Holy Spirit" The traditions that are unreliable (Niceph. Hist. eccl, II, iii; Clem. Alex. Strom. III) declares that Jesus baptized the Apostle Peter, and that the latter baptized Andrew, James, and John, and they the other Apostles. These cannot be considered as valid and all evidence for any institution of baptism by Jesus is nonexistent.

In the Great commission command "Go and teach ….baptizing" does not involve an institution but a command to the continuation of what they were doing from the beginning of the ministry. Notice that the Great commission refers to teaching and disciplining those who receive the Gospel. These baptism were simply intended as a declaration of the Lordship of Jesus and never as a means of salvation by its own merit. This was the means of joining the Way – the inititation into the New Way.

We have seen that Historically, John used the Prosetelysing baptism into a baptism of repentance. The Jew who was also circumcised received the baptism when they joined to become the disciple of John. Jesus establishing the Way simply used the same baptism symbol. Initially like John, Jews were the only converts to the Way. But later when Gentiles began to join the Way, they were required to be circumcised first and later baptized. The circumcision group demanded that claiming the Way as a Jewish cult. It was overthrown at the Council of Jeruselem under the Chair of James the Just which declared the Way as an independent religion apart from the Jewish religion.