Interesting debate on Baptism

Ok.. I have been involved in an interesting discussion on some blogs about the act of baptism and thus I feel a need to make a short post on it. This will be quick as I do not feel that the debate on this topic is generally helpful anymore nor do I feel like any resolution will be come too.

The discussion is about the forms of baptism in the Christain churches ie immersion, sprinking, pouring. Are all of these forms acceptable and if not why? These topics can range and can get very heated and i have experienced myself. The simple point I have tried to make was the Jesus was baptized by immersion. It is amazing to me the number of people who want to debate this text in Matthew 14 but if you do a little, very little research, in to the words used in the Greek you find the word in the original text was baptizo. The root word for baptizo is the word bapto. Now people want to argue the context of baptism of Jesus simply because Mark and Luke do not account the baptism of Jesus of coming "out of the water" This is clearly stated in a way in the greek that should not be confused. If that is a dogmatic and legalist way of reading the scriptures so be it but let me make my point a little more.

Definition
Bapto: to dip, dip in, immerse
Baptizo:
1) to dip repeatedly, to immerse, to submerge (of vessels sunk)
2) to cleanse by dipping or submerging, to wash, to make clean with water, to wash one's self, bathe
3) to overwhelm

Commentary on both words:
"Note on Baptism in Ac. Baptism in water (such as John's) is distinguished from baptism with the Holy Spirit (i. 5, etc.). Those who receive the latter, however, may also be baptized in water (cf. xi. 16 with x. 47); and there is one example of people who had previously received John's baptism receiving Christian baptism as a preliminary to receiving the Spirit (xix. 3 ff.). John's was a baptism of repentance (xiii. 24; xix. 4), as was also Christian baptism (ii. 38), but as John's pointed forward to Jesus (xix. 4), it became obsolete when He came. Christian baptism followed faith in the Lord Jesus (xvi. 31 ff.); it was associated with His name (ii. 38; viii. 16, etc.), which was invoked by the person baptized (xxii. 16); it signified the remission (ii. 38) or washing away of sins (xxii. 16); sometimes it preceded (ii. 38; viii. 15 ff.; xix. 5), sometimes followed (x. 47 f.) the receiving of the Spirit." (F. F. Bruce. The Acts of the Apostles [Greek Text Commentary], London: Tyndale, 1952, p. 98, n. 1.)

This word should not be confused with baptô (911). The clearest example that shows the meaning of baptizo is a text from the Greek poet and physician Nicander, who lived about 200 B.C. It is a recipe for making pickles and is helpful because it uses both words. Nicander says that in order to make a pickle, the vegetable should first be 'dipped' (baptô) into boiling water and then 'baptised' (baptizô) in the vinegar solution. Both verbs concern the immersing of vegetables in a solution. But the first is temporary. The second, the act of baptising the vegetable, produces a permanent change.

Final point. Why is this such a source of debate for people? Why do people want to pour or sprinkle for baptism instead of following the model of Jesus. I can see a few extreme situations, new believer no in a place where immersion could happen, where this would be challenging but plain and simple in the church today this situation isn't a problem on a large scale. Everyone basicaly has the opportunity to be immersed. I don't care how many people want to argue the context of the Baptism of Jesus it doesn't hold up. The words of Matthew speak for themselves so I don't have to argue context on that.