The theif on the cross misconceptions

Acts 2:38 “what must WE do” is not even about salvation. It is a national repentance of Israel because they crucified their Messiah. Much different than the question, what must I do to be saved.

Mark 16:15-16

15And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. 16He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Belief + baptism = salvation in JESUS words not in the book of Acts.

And baptism and it's pertinance is mentioned throughout the NT letters such as Romans 6, Ephesians, Colossians, 1 Peter

I think you should lobby to have the book of Acts removed from the bible because of it being a so-called "transition book", whatever that means, and can't be relied upon as scripture.

Not a way out, just a way to confirm what's accurate. What about the mention of Easter in the KJV and only the KJV? Do you buy that, that it's accurate there, or should you look atcthe Greek word 'pascha' which means passover, not Easter? If you didn't read anything else to gain true understanding, you'd think Easter was correct, well, it's not.

Easter is the correct word, yes. No more passover after the cross, therefore, pascha is correctly defined as Easter, Christ the Passover Lamb.

Pascha is passover not Easter. Look it up in the interlinear

I agree it's a transitional book and mostly historical, but not entirely. It must be carefully evaluated in light of other scriptures to find what is doctrine and what is history.

I think we are really in agreement other than the "transitional" part of your statement which I don't understand.

The book of Acts is history as the bible is in it's entirety, but also too as is the bible in total, we must glean what is doctrine to be followed and applied from it, of which there is much in the book of Acts. It's also the book of Acts of the apostles (historical) but also referred to as the book of conversions (for our learning and doctrine), so that does provide a clue as to its value other than being simply a history book to be glossed-over.

Passover is not relevant after the resurrection...I looked it up in my KJV.

In acts, some receive the Holy Spirit by the laying on of hands. Others receive the Holy Spirit when hearing the word preached. And yet others receive the Holy Spirit after being baptized. Not until Paul settles the matter for the Gentile believers is doctrine set. Baptism has nothing to do with salvation. Salvation is when one simply trusts the d,b,r for the forgiveness of sins, no water baptism necessary.

Acts of the Apostles documents the transition from the Old Covenant to the New Covenant; that's what is meant by transitional.

We are saved by the Blood of Jesus, not the water in the tub. The baptism that happens at Salvation is the Holy-Spirit Baptism, not the water baptism. When Jesus was talking to Nicodemus, He was speaking of the first baptism, not tub-dunking.

Acts 2:38 disagrees with you or you with it.

38Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

I view water baptism by men as this;

Matthew 10:32 Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven.

Have sinned infers action. Sin must be committed. Neworn infants have not committed sin. Jesus was a newborn infant at one time. Was he guilty of sin or born with sin? Likewise with other newborn infants. They've not yet committed sin. And the bible says of such is the kingdom of heaven.

Mat 19:14

14 But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.

Covetousness is an example of a sin that does not require action. Many sins take place in the heart without the need for external action. Paul discusses some of this topic in Romans 7.

That said, I still think there is room for discussion on the topic of children and sin.

Water dunking is as effective at removing sin as circumcision was. Or being born a great great great great great grandson of Jacob.

There are several different methods of baptisms in scripture, this is evident.
Acts 1:5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.

After laying hands, not after water baptism.
Acts 8:17 Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.

Had the Holy Ghost but had not been baptized.
Acts 10:47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?

Acts is a dangerous place to set one's doctrine.

According to the law, in fact, nearly everything must be purified with blood,
and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness. Hebrews 9:22

Baptism was a ritual cleansing of the priests enabling them for service, and a ritual cleansing
of those who had been made unclean somehow. Being ritually washed and cleansed by the
priests in no way cleansed anyone of sin, just like the animal sacrifices in no way atoned for sin.

@Magenta is very talented for sure, in many areas including graphic design.

I wouldn't be so quick to assume the thief on the cross was not water baptized. Actually, I believe most people in Jerusalem and the Judean countryside were water baptized, during the time of John the Baptist's and Jesus' ministry, based off of what I've read in the New Testament.

I speculate that this fact may account for why water baptism isn't mentioned all that much in the gospels. People wrote things from their perspective and it may not have been necessary to mention water baptism too often if they knew the people they were talking to were already water baptized.

Hard to say and mostly just amounts to speculation. Conveying information through reading and writing is a rather limited medium. You're only going to know what I am telling you while the countless number of possible things occurring around me aren't even mentioned. That's typically why it's better to not "add to or take away" when talking about the Bible, or really anything in general.