Look how will the 12 disciples prior to Jesus going to the cross, being buried and rising understood Christianity? Even John the Baptist seemed to have a different perspective on the Messiah and asked Jesus “are you the one?” The masses (the majority of Jewish people) had a misconception of the Messiah and would not have understood their commitment with John’s baptism. When you commit to a leader that has gone to the grave, you have to have faith in His resurrection. If you were a Jew lived in Palestine at the time of John the Baptist and everyone was believing he was a prophet and everyone was going out to be baptized by him what is the down side risk to accepting John’s baptism? Why would you not be baptized by John unless you were part of the Jewish religious leadership, but even they did not say anything against John, John had no critics? The idea being conveyed is that the vast majority of the Jewish people were baptized with John’s baptism. Making a commitment to Christ as the Messiah after being crucified is another whole story. That could get you kicked out of the synagogue, that was accepting a entirely different Messiah.
I said all that to get to the numbers: The evidence we have is there were over 150,000+ people in Jerusalem at the time of Christ the Bible supports this idea also but does not give the number specifically.
Luke 7:29 All the people, even the tax collectors, when they heard Jesus' words, acknowledged that God's way was right, because they had been baptized by John.
Acts 13:24 : Before the coming of Jesus, John preached repentance and baptism to all the people of Israel.
Matt:21:26 we are afraid of the people, for they all hold that John was a prophet.
John 3:23 Now John also was baptizing at Aenon near Salim, because there was plenty of water, and people were constantly coming to be baptized.
To use the word “all” the number must be much greater then 50%, so would that not mean greater the 50% of the 150,000 plus in Jerusalem? If that is true, how can there be by Acts 4:4 the Church rapidly growing to only 5,000 men believers?
John the Baptist preached repentance for the forgiveness of sin (Mark 1:4). I am sure the Messiah as the source of that forgiveness would be addressed, but there would be confusion about the description of the Messiah. Many seemed to think John was the Messiah. John knew Jesus was the Messiah and said as much, but did not play the part of an advertiser or a recruiter for Jesus. John was preparing the way for the new dispensation and the Kingdom. John’s picture of the Messiah seemed incomplete, so he would ask again Luke 7:19. The servant, selfless, sacrificial, God in man Messiah was not understood by the Masses (if anyone at the time). John was preaching the same good news taught by the prophets before him, the baptism was a sign of commitment to those concepts.
What would it have meant to the Jews that heard from John: Jesus is the Christ and only preach the Baptism of John? If that is the whole message then Priscilla and Aquila would not have more to teach Apollos in Acts 18:26. Apollos needed more training on baptism and not on Jesus as the Christ.
John’s baptism did nothing in the way of conveying the Holy Spirit.
Acts 18: 25He had been instructed in the way of the Lord, and he spoke with great fervor and taught about Jesus accurately, though he knew only the baptism of John. 26He began to speak boldly in the synagogue. When Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they invited him to their home and explained to him the way of God more adequately.
The only short coming of Apollos message was he only knew the baptism of John.
Paul appears to meet up with some taught by Apollos and explains the short coming to knewing only John’s baptism.
Acts 19: 1While Apollos was at Corinth, Paul took the road through the interior and arrived at Ephesus. There he found some disciples 2and asked them, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when[a] you believed?"
They answered, "No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit."
3So Paul asked, "Then what baptism did you receive?"
"John's baptism," they replied.
4Paul said, "John's baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus." 5On hearing this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. 6When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied. 7There were about twelve men in all.
From the above discussion you can see Paul ties water baptism to receiving the Holy Spirit. There is a sequence of events that follows there hearing about Jesus as the Christ, they were baptized (water baptism) and then afterwards “when” Paul places his hands on them the received a miraculous portion of the Spirit that included speaking in tongues. They were not baptized with the Spirit and the laying on of Paul’s hands is not baptism. If you look at the Greek there is a sequence of events.
At water baptism we do not receive the miraculous gifts of the Spirit that goes with being baptized with the Spirit or the laying on of the apostles hands, but we do receive the indwelling portion of the Spirit that is not outwardly seen. That indwell portion is what all Christians receive today, for there are no more apostles around to lay hands on people and there has not been any baptisms of the Spirit since the very early church days. John’s baptism did not provide the indwelling Spirit.
I have gone over John’s baptism above, but the big commitment difference is committing to the crucified Christ and the understanding we put Christ on the cross for our sins to be forgiven. It is one thing to commit to God forgiving our sins some how through the Messiah (what else can we do for we can not work our way out of that debt) and it is another thing to commit to being responsible for butting Christ on the cross. My sins sent Christ to the cross and He willingly bore my sins there.
Acts 2: 38Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
Look what Jesus says in John 3:6 Jesus does not say “born of water is flesh” or physical. Physical birth is not expressed as water birth.
Nic did not need clarification on the first birth, they were in agreement with that. Also, Jesus replies to the question on people’s hearts not the questions or comments they verbally address to Jesus you can see that with John 3:1-3.
I think the explanation I already gave is clear on this:
Well my Greek is rusty, but let me try to explain what I remember: In John 3:3 Jesus said: "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God." Then in John 3:5 in response to Nicodemus want clarification Jesus restates what He said: "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. It is very easy to see that “born again” in 3:3 = “born of water and the Spirit” in 3:5. It would not be logical for Jesus to add another concept into the second parallel statement said right after the first. “born again” was what Nicodemus was asking about not being born the first time, he understood that.
I am saying “Born of water and the Spirit” means this birth consist of both “water and the Spirit” not two births. Jesus did not say “born of water and born of the Spirit” that would be a totally different Greek wording, check the Greek out. The water birth is spiritual worship and is only significant as a spiritual act. John was providing something totally different, then the physical acts of worship at the temple, this was an act of Spiritual worship that would have been include in Jesus statement John 4:23.
) and I suggest you read atleast up to the point where at the end of one of the paragraphs it will say...... (Job42) ...... (which is about half way through the article). I urge you not to overlook this article. Thanks...and I hope you find it helpful.....:cheers: 
