"it has Resistance to all damage. Also, each time it takes damage, you take the same amount of damage."

Does resistance to all damage mean you cannot be damaged?

Because it also says "each time it takes damage".

Resistance halves the damage, it doesn't negate all of the damage. 

Quote from DarkStranger1066 >>

"it has Resistance to all damage. Also, each time it takes damage, you take the same amount of damage."

Does resistance to all damage mean you cannot be damaged?

Because it also says "each time it takes damage".

"Resistance" to damage means the damage is halved; this is a fundamental concept in 5e D&D.

An easier way to describe what this spell does would be to say that when the target takes damage, instead of the target taking all of it, the target takes half and the caster of this spell takes half. (This isn't precisely true in all cases but it's a good approximation.)

Can you create Warding Bond Chains? If you have a Cleric, Bard, and a Barbarian and the Cleric casts "Warding Bond" on the Barbarian while the Bard casts "Warding Bond" on the Cleric do the Cleric and bard take 1/4 of the damage the Barbarian takes instead of only the Cleric taking half?

Quote from DiamondDgz >>

Can you create Warding Bond Chains? If you have a Cleric, Bard, and a Barbarian and the Cleric casts "Warding Bond" on the Barbarian while the Bard casts "Warding Bond" on the Cleric do the Cleric and bard take 1/4 of the damage the Barbarian takes instead of only the Cleric taking half?

 

 Read the last sentence of the spell

Quote from DiamondDgz >>

Can you create Warding Bond Chains? If you have a Cleric, Bard, and a Barbarian and the Cleric casts "Warding Bond" on the Barbarian while the Bard casts "Warding Bond" on the Cleric do the Cleric and bard take 1/4 of the damage the Barbarian takes instead of only the Cleric taking half?

 

No. The spell description says that it ends early "if the spell is cast again on either of the connected creatures".

Unfortunate you're made to warding bond another creature now but it does benefit via splitting damage across party members still. Depending how well you keep distance from front line enemies and keep out of immediate danger pretty beneficial to utilize your on average not too dinged up caster health. Not as wild for making some rather high concentration constitution saves very easy around tier 2 to 3. Helpful to combine this with death ward to help stay up for bursts of damage between you and the bonded creature (or half-orc features to stay up).

Quote from Lord_Mundi_Blackwall >>

Unfortunate you're made to warding bond another creature now 

This is how it's always worked; you're bonding yourself to one other creature.

I ran into a situation where this spell added extra damage to the party. The situation:
a) A wizard drinks a potion of invulnerability. This gives resistance to damage to the wizard.
b) Then a paladin casts warding bond on the wizard. This gives resistance to damage to the wizard. Also, each time the wizard takes damage, you - the paladin - take the same amount of damage.
c) Then the next round the wizard receives 60 damage.

How many damage is taken by the wizard and the paladin? I know resistances do not stack. That is not the point of this question (so do not answer in this direction). I would think the damage total should be 30 instead of 60, because we can only count resistance once (and not half of that). But the rules as written say otherwise:
a) The wizard receives 60 damage. Because it has resistance, the wizard takes only 30 damage.
b) The paladin takes the same amount of damage, so also 30. Total damage received: wizard 30 + paladin 30 = 60.

If the paladin had not cast warding bond, the wizard would also take 30 damage, because of the potion of invulnerability. Total damage received by the party would then be 30. But now, because warding bond is cast, the paladin gets 30 damage also and the total damage received by the party is 60. Netto effect of the warding bond: 30 extra damage. Is this ' taking damage'  mechanism the intention of the warding bond spell? Or did I miss something about the 'taking damage' mechanism?

I remember from 3rd edition the intention of this spell was to split the damage, so that the paladin can absorb half of the damage that the warded ally takes. But now with the new wording that uses resistance, it seems to achieve exactly the opposite of what the spell was originally intended for. So I would like to see that:
a) resistance takes down the damage from 60 to 30 and
b) half of this remaining 30 damage goes to the wizard and the other half goes to the paladin. So each take/get 15 damage, for a total of 30.

Question 1: what is the correct ruling for this situation, as written, in the D&D 5E rules?
Question 2: what is the intention of the rules for this situation, in the D&D 5E rules?

Thanks!

I think you're reading the Rules As Written correctly here; this is a weird edge case.

I would agree that it doesn't seem like this was the intended behavior, but it's probably not a huge deal as this sort of thing probably doesn't happen very often? In the situation you describe, assuming the Paladin and the Wizard are in control of their own actions, they've just done something pointlessly self-destructive for no real reason.