...understood, I don't think that i actually expounded on it anyhow, just an attempt to refute the compulsory aspect of it.
There are several baptisms referred to in the Bible. Baptism into the faith, baptism of the spirit, baptism with water. Thus, not every mention of baptism implies water related (sprinkling, submersion, dunking). The only two New Testament that are explicit, is Philip and the Ethiopian (the proselyte), and Cornelius and his household (1st Gentile conversion). Thus, even the day of Pentecost where 3,000 were saved, mentions that they were baptized, but do we actually believe that after being convicted in their hearts, there was a necessity to get 3,000 men into a river in order to solidify their salvation - no, they were baptized into the name of Christ Jesus.
Paul travelled throughout Asia Minor and Europe, and saved many on the spur of the moment, does one believe that there was any strategy to stay close to a body or source of water? Or, after the fact, to consider the logistics of getting so many people, in so many different environments and conditions, to an area where all can go through such a ritual - for what?
I believe that the significance of John's baptism, in such an distinct an overt manner, was because the tangible and source of faith had not arrived. There had to be a physical sign to emphasize such a novel era that was just around the corner - it added to the weight and symbolism to his message.
Yes, Christ was baptized, and water baptism continued even after Jesus started his ministry (his own disciples baptized people). But, due to the lack of emphasis on it once the Spirit arrived (as I explained above), plus the strictly superficial nature of the act, I'm extremely hesitant to see it as an obligatory requirement towards salvation.