Did the apostles teach baptism?

Literary rules apply, the tangible "this" is the subsequent explanation.

i agree, and i accept a transitive mathematical property in these things algebraically.
yet it - "this" - isn't a physical, corporeal *thing* in the case.

isn't there a connection between 'take, eat; this is My body' and 'you are the body of Christ, and each one of you a part of it' and 'I AM the bread of life' -- the true manna?
transitive property here? but we've got literal tangible manna in Exodus 16 and a clearly figurative reality in John 6 -- with equivalence. transitive? then the church, which is the body, is equivalent both to a corporeal and a metaphysic. is this wave/particle duality all over again? or rather, the theological truth which wave/particle duality in creation testifies of.

and He gives to the one that overcomes, of the hidden manna -- the same manna that is true? the invisible made visible, the exact representation. there's good reason the church has grappled over the topic for 2,000 years

When you COME to JESUS = YESUAH YOU ARE SAVED, until YOU CHOOSE TO SIN AGAIN, Willfully, KNOWING IT SIN AND SINNING ANYWAY, THIS PUTS US IN A LOST POSSESSION, till we repent of that sin and get it under the blood of CHRIST,
HEBREWS
10:26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,
10:27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.
10:28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:
10:29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?
SINNING WHEN YOU KNOW IT'S SIN IS CHOOSING TO BE LOST POSSESSION, AND WILL BE LOST IF GOD DON'T BRING US TO REPENTENCE, OF THAT SIN, THE BIBLE SAYS IT AND THAT SETTLES IT, THE BIBLE IS ALWAYS RIGHT,

I think the particle vs wave analogy is pretty good.
And it's certainly a difficult subject to to wrap ones mind around. According to the Gospel of John, when Jesus said unless you eat my body and drink my blood, a bunch of his followers left. Jesus had to kind of scold his 12 disciples, saying, does this cause you to stumble. Then he says, my words are spirit and truth. So there is more to it than just a bread and wine snack at a memorial service, or mere symbolism.
For some it's hard to accept that Jesus is both God and man. But hey man I'm ok with not being able to understand how things can be a complete paradox yet be.

Aside from mis applying Hebrews . Didn't Jesus die for the sins of the world ?

2cor 5.19To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.

Col 2 13And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you ALL trespasses;
14Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;

Eph 2
13But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.
14¶For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;
15Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;
16And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:

What sin?

Then are you are co saviour with Jesus for yourself ? It sounds like your teaming up with God to redeem yourself?

John 1.12 . Says ' as many as ' RECIEVED him to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
13Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

Eph 1 13¶In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were SEALED with that holy Spirit of promise,
14Which is the earnest ( GURANTEE) of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.

In regards to Hebrews 10:26, To "sin willfully" in the Greek carries the idea of deliberate intention that is habitual, which stems from rejecting Christ deliberately. This is continuous action, a matter of practice. Now we don't walk along our daily life and "accidentally" fall into a pit called sin. We exercise our will but, the use of the participle clearly shows continuous, willful, habitual action. The unrighteous practice sin (1 Corinthians 6:9-10; Galatians 5:19-21); not the righteous, who are born of God (1 Corinthians 6:11; 1 John 3:9).

If the word 'sanctified' in Hebrews 10:29 is used to describe saved people who lost their salvation and became unsanctified, then we have a contradiction because the writer of Hebrews in verse 10 said "sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all" (Hebrews 10:10) and in verse 14, we read, "perfected for all time those who are sanctified." (Hebrews 10:14) In Hebrews 10:10, we clearly read ..WE have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. In Hebrews 10:14, we read - For by one offering He has perfected for all time THOSE who are sanctified. *So to go from sanctified back to un-sanctified would be in contradiction here.

*NOWHERE in the context does it specifically say the person who "trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant" was "saved" and/or "lost their salvation." The reference to "the blood of the covenant that sanctified him" in verse 29 "on the surface" appears to be referring to a Christian, but this overlooks the fact that the word translated "sanctified" (which is the verb form of the adjective "holy") which means "set apart," and doesn't always necessarily refer to salvation.

Strong's Concordance
hagiazó: to make holy, consecrate, sanctify
Original Word: ἁγιάζω
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: hagiazó
Phonetic Spelling: (hag-ee-ad'-zo)
Definition: to make holy, consecrate, sanctify
Usage: I make holy, treat as holy, set apart as holy, sanctify, hallow, purify.

In 1 Corinthians 7:14, Paul uses the term "sanctified" to specifically refer to non-Christians who are "set apart" by their believing spouse. (And by this Paul does not mean that they are saved). A non-Christian can be "set apart" from other non-Christians without experiencing salvation as Paul explained. So the word "sanctified" means to be "set apart." If the word "sanctified" simply meant saved in every case, then you would have to say that the seventh day was saved (Genesis 2:3), the tabernacle was saved (Exodus 29:43), Moses saved the people after coming down off the mountain (Exodus 19:14), the priests and the Levites saved themselves (1 Chronicles 15:14), the Father saved the Son (John 10:36), the Son saved Himself (John 17:19) and many other things that do not line up with scripture.

In verse 39, the writer of Hebrews sets up the CONTRAST that makes it clear to me that he was referring to make believers/nominal Christians, not saved people: But WE are not of those who draw back to perdition, but OF THOSE who believe to the saving of the soul. Those who draw back to perdition do not believe to the saving of the soul and those who believe to the saving of the soul do not draw back to perdition.

So after considering the CONTEXT, it seems most likely that "he was sanctified" should be understood in the sense of someone who had been "set apart" or identified as a professing believer in the Hebrew Christian community of believers, but later renounces his identification with other believers, by rejecting the "knowledge of the truth" that he had received, and trampling under foot the work and the person of Christ himself. This gives evidence that his identification with the Hebrew Christian community of believers was only superficial and that he was not a genuine believer.

So salvation to you is a revolving door of saved, willfully committing a sin, then lost all over again, then repenting and getting saved all over again? Are you trusting in Jesus Christ and His finished work of redemption (Romans 1:16; 3:24-28; 5:1 etc..) as the ALL-sufficient means of your salvation or are you trusting in your best efforts/performance to maintain a sinless life as the means of your salvation?

Its not salvation, its ' probation ' . Its not peace with God , its only cease fire .

I have often said. Salvation is not probation. Eternal life is not temporary life. Jesus is the door. He is not a revolving door.

Amen .

Jesus himself is full of paradoxes. He man, he is God, not in part but completely, so he isn't a demi, or half but being completely both at the same time. He died on a cross at the hands of men. God in the flesh on earth died, and while being dead went into the holding place of the dead, proclaimed victory over death to those who were already dead, and then being dead raised himself from death. Every part of this is one paradox after another. So why would we have a problem with Jesus giving us his body and blood in the form of bread and wine. Yes it is indeed bread, and yes indeed wine, but some how Jesus is there, not only in you, but in his words, and in this bread and wine. How? I don't know. I just take it in faith.

Being a Christian isn't merely living in a demilitarized zone in which we live in a state of cold war with God. Sins are indeed forgive and we are restored to a state of reconciliation with God, his Holy Spirit then inhabits us, we are joined to Jesus in baptism. This is a marriage not a cease fire.

I was saying that's what OP believes, Its not what I believe.

A command and a requirement.
And Romans 6, etc, etc.

Simple Mark1616. As we can see from the day of Pentecost, baptism was preached when the gospel was preached because it was integral to the salvation experience. And that is why you constantly hear about baptism in Acts because they preached the same gospel.

Cool, I'm glad.
I misunderstood.