Talk:Baptism

Baptism in Hyperdispensationalism

A statement in this section is factually incorrect. It is this one: "Likewise, Holy Spirit Baptism is recorded as only occurring twice in all the book of Acts to selected individuals (Acts 2:1-4; Acts 10:44-46)."

Holy Spirit baptism is recorded in Acts in more places than just two. The writer of the above statement seems to be ignorant of the following (in addition to Acts 2:1-4 and 10:44-46): Acts 4:31 (disciples at Jerusalem -- see note below*); Acts 8:17 (converts at Samaria); Acts 13:50 (disciples at Antioch); Acts 19:1-6 (disciples of John the Baptist converted at Ephesus); and, finally, the implied infilling of Saul/Paul, seen by cross referencing Acts 9:17-18 (Ananias' exhortation to Paul to "be filled with the Holy Ghost") with Acts 13:9 (proof that Paul was filled with the Spirit) and 1 Corinthians 14:18 (Paul's affirmation that he spoke with tongues to a significant degree);

• The implication of a large-scale outpouring on approximately 3,000 converts at Jerusalem can be seen by cross referencing Acts 4:23-31 with Acts 2:38 (Peter's promise to the large crowd that all the obedient would indeed "receive the gift of the Holy Ghost") and with Acts 2:41 ("they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls"). The same crowd that was addressed and converted in Acts 2:38-41 was later called "their own company" (Acts 4:23) and was said to be "all filled with the Holy Ghost" (Acts 4:31).

Furthermore, the writer's paragraph as a whole seems to be more geared toward debating the view of Hyperdispensationalism, rather than simply reporting on it. I'm not a Hyperdispensationalist, by the way. :)

Finally, the writer's whole point (in making the incorrect observation) is not well taken. In other words, the writer's reasoning (for saying that Holy Spirit baptism supposedly happened to only a select number of people) is moot. It runs counter to Joel's prophecy (Joel 2) that the Holy Spirit baptism was to be poured out on *all* flesh (i.e. upon *all classes of people*) and it runs counter to Peter's recitation of Joel's prophecy while preaching about the outpouring of the Spirit after it first occured in Acts 2.

To simply correct the writer's too-short list would not address the bigger issue, which is that he/she made a point that should not be made. The proper action seems to be to remove the whole statement. What effect that would have on the remainder of the paragraph is moot. Comments anyone? DougJoseph (talk) 21:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Catholic Baptism

Does anyone have a better picture of a Catholic baptism? The priest's vestments in the one used currently are kinda plain and ugly.

Baptism-like ritual in Norse pagan practice?

A few poems in the Elder Edda refer to the Norse name-giving ceremony of "sprinkling with water" (vatni ausa); scholars have disagreed whether this developed independently or as a reaction to Christian baptism. --ISNorden 00:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

That's something of a problem with the study of Nordic religion in general. Most of what we know about it postdates contact with Christianity, so we can never really tell which apparently similar features were due to borrowing. The wearing of the Thor's Hammer talisman may be another example, reacting to the Christian crucifix. (Or maybe not, but I don't think we can tell either way.) TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

In regards to the wearing of Thor's Hammer, we could tell if it was a pre-Christian talisman, all we would need would be pre-Christian archaeological artefacts.--Redroven (talk) 21:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

might i add that many of the practices of christianinty are in fact adopted from the pagan religion during the transition of the roman empire to christianity, e.g. the celebration of christmas is on december 25th but christ was born in april, this was so that the former pagans of the time would be able to celebrate on the same dates as many of their previous rituals, as to ease the process of transition. dont believe me, check one of the most reliable books i have ever read, the da vinci code, although the story line never happened, all of the art, religious facts, architecture, and even the priory of sion, are completely real. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.57.109.162 (talk) 03:39, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

You may add it. I do believe you. I don't believe that Christ was born in April, as there is no proof of when he was born. But your comments have no bearing on baptism. And the Da Vinci Code is not a reliable book: it's fiction.--Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying that the Bible is wrong I am just saying that certain days and practices are adopted from the earlier Pagan religions as to help the conversion to Christianity, such as Communion, not denying the Last supper happened just that the practice of god-eating that was used tin the Pagan religions is strikingly similar. And the Da Vinci COde is a very reliable book, though I will admit it is fiction, as i previously stated, the architecture, artworks, locations, secret societies, and even the clues pointed out are in fact true. it is a completely reliable book. anyway, i myself am a faithful Roman Catholic and dont doubt the actuality of the one true God, just saying that some of the practices of Pagans are similar to Christianity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.57.109.162 (talk) 01:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Mu. This is the baptism article. Can you share something about baptism? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:01, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

give me a sec here...here we go...( this is from [1]), Christianity has Baptism... But Paganism had it first, the pagan baptism was the purification of one by immersion of water... Baptism came WAY before Christ and Christianity. You've got to read some of these books and websites, cuz they are really very eye-opening, and it really freaked me out the first time i saw these claims so i took it upon my self to do a little research and found that it was all true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.57.109.162 (talk) 04:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

That's great. The web site isn't particularly good, but it's a source. I fixed up your reference a bit. Baptism was practised well before the time of Christ and you should feel free to add a section on it into the article, but don't rant about Brown's book (or I'll start to rant about Alton Brown's cooking show, which is much better in my opinion).

I have even heard that baptism was performed by Jews when non-Jews converted. I have no definitive source so I didn't add that. For the Christian who read here, this is why the baptism of John was so controversial at the time: the symbolism of his baptism was to cleanse the Jews for conversion to the true Judaism.

With that said, the original question was on a baptism-like practice in Norse pagan religions. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:49, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Collective baptisms

There should maybe be a stub entry on the topic of collective baptisms, which were fairly common in the early days of Christianity and which are reportedly still practiced in some parts of Georgia and Russia. [2] ADM (talk) 23:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Church authority for trinitarian baptisms

The article should maybe mention the issue of Church authority for trinitarian baptisms. I think there is a historical Catholic practice of considering that all Protestant baptisms are de facto Catholic baptisms because they are trinitarian in character. This explains the development of the ecumenical movement and the absence of modern conversion efforts directed at Protestants. Hence, as it is shown in the 2007 document "Subsistit in" in Lumen Gentium about the ecclesial communities born out of the Reformation, the Catholic Church continues to behave as if it literally owns the souls of the vast majority of Protestants in the world. This issue also applies for the Eastern Orthodox, given that the Holy Office continues to assert that the Eastern Churches are mere local Churches subjected to the authority of the Roman protos. ADM (talk) 08:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I think your above statment includes many misunderstandings. The baptism is never considered a way "to own" a soul, and the Catholic Church never claim to "own" any soul: these are false statments. The document about "subsist in" of 2007 simply states that the Church of Christ is larger than the Catholic Church, which is anyway considered the part of the Church of Christ with less unperfections (i.e. the part where the Church of Christ subsist in, that is Latin term). The Catholic Church does not consider the Protestant baptism as Catholic baptisms (i.e. licit), but anyway consider them as valid (i.e. true) as the Catholic ones even if not lecit (that is the more important thing from the Catholic point of view). With a more technial wording, we can say that for the Catholic Church the jurisdiction is not at all a requirement for a valid baptism: the grace of God works indipendently from the jurisdiction issues. Section Baptism#Validity_considerations_by_some_Churches is well done as it is now. A ntv (talk) 15:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Secular baptisms

In France, because of the country's traditions of civil religion, there are unusual ceremonies of secular baptisms, sometimes called republican baptisms. It could be maybe be mentioned in the article as a peculiar kind of child sponsorship. [3] ADM (talk) 04:56, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Baptism of objects

There is baptizing of cities in Orthodox Christianity. For example most of the cities and villages of Crimea are baptized, because Crimea was Muslim country, before Russians came. For example it is claimed that capital city Simferopol (1784) is 225 years old. As it is written in Wikipedia article: "Founded in 1784 as Simferopol, previously known under the Crimean Tatar Aqmescit."

Is there another examples of baptizing of cities, except Orthodox Christianity? --195.110.6.24 (talk) 11:56, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Choice of main image

ReaverFlash is insisting on replacing the primary image in this article, which has long been one of baptism as depicted in an early-Christian fresco. BeaverFlash wants to replace it with a nineteenth-century Danish LDS-beloved painting of the baptism of Jesus. Since, as stated in the hat-note, the principal object of this article is "the Christian religious ceremony of Baptism", not John the Baptist's, I think the primary image should be of a Christian baptism, preferably an early-Christian image. If ReaverFlash's image is to be included, I think it should be put in the section that deals with its subject, the baptism of Jesus. I notice that BeaverFlash's image is not included in the article on the baptism of Jesus, making still more curious the proposal that it should be made the primary image of an article on the rite. This I have indicated in my edit summaries. In his edit summaries ReaverFlash has said that his preferred image is clearer than the image of early-Christian baptism; and that the baptism of Jesus is more widely depicted than early-Christian baptism (as of course it is). Rather than wage an edit war, it is best to listen to what other editors have to say on the choice of an image to head this article. Lima (talk) 19:47, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The reason I changed the image was because the old one was not at all clear, and just looked amateurish. While I understand that some people might appreciate it, others will not. Do you want to exclude baptism of Jesus paintings entirely? Flash 21:52, 25 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ReaverFlash (talk • contribs)

Obviously not. One of those paintings would be highly appropriate in the "Baptism of Jesus" section, where I (twice) moved the one you want to make the leading image for the whole article. The early-Christian fresco was chosen not principally for artistic merit but because of the relevance and importance of its content. I still await comments by others. Lima (talk) 22:06, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

How about another option. But first, in fairness, I must say that I did leave the following message for Flash: "Actually, I do like your picture better. But I have worked with Lima a lot in the past and he is a nice guy and I like him. So I do not want to get in the middle of that argument." Having said that, I thought more and I think Carl Bloch is getting a really disproportionate share (as in Wikipedia:Undue weight )of the main page images in Wikipedia. A few of them are added by Flash (who is pretty good at selecting images) but there are just too many blocks ... sorry, I mean Blochs in the way of having this many images painted by Carl to be a fair representation of art. If this trend continues, it will be Blochopedia, not Wikipedia and there are many Blochs... I mean obstacle to that. Anyway, om that note, I just went back and changed a Bloch images from Passion (Christianity) where the image is a repeat of Angle - no point in repeats. Now, in fairness, that other 3rd or 4th century Baptism photo is not that great. So, can we all agree on a 3rd choice which is not a Bloch, but is somewhat more artistic? Thanks. History2007 (talk) 12:23, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I hope that, with the kind help of History 2007 and perhaps others, we can agree on a leading image. As I said, I think an image of a baptism other than the rite administered by Christians is inappropriate as a leading image in this article, which deals principally with Christian baptism. (John the Baptist was pre-Christian, and the significance of his baptism of Jesus is disputed.) But I have no objection whatever to inclusion of the Bloch image in the section dealing with John the Baptist's baptism of Jesus. Whether the multitude of Bloch images is mostly due to LDS editors is unimportant. I don't mind having one Bloch more (or less). What should we have as the leading image? My personal view is that the most appropriate leadng image would be one of the earliest pictorial representations of how Christians actually administered baptism. And I suppose that is why the catacomb fresco was for so long the leading image, until Flash removed it. There are several depictions of early Christian baptism in Wikipedia Commons, but extremely few contemporary (i.e., early Christian) ones. One such non-contemporary depiction (St Peter baptizing new Christians) I hesitantly proposed. Flash immediately rejected it without perhaps clearly explaining why; but others might well describe as a violation of NPOV any depiction of early Christian baptism in line with the practice in the artist's denomination at some later time. They cannot raise that objection to an early-Christian depiction of early-Christian baptism. So I quite fail to think of any image available on Commons that I can propose to Flash. Those in the section Symbols of baptism are perhaps of neutral point of view, but they are not very beautiful. Can Flash succeed where I cannot? Or History? Or someone else? Lima (talk) 20:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, fine. I will look around the web. It is a really, really big web... So it will take a few days. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 20:51, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• I have restored the old lead picture. This is not, to be clear, "early-Christian" or "3rd or 4th century" but a scene from the very famous Early Renaissance Brancacci Chapel frescos from the 1420s (though certainly of an Early Christian scene). Nor is the image at all "blurry"; it is a good quality shot of a fresco in less than perfect condition, with damaged areas. However it is both from a series universally recognised as artistically important, and very nicely appropriate to the general subject of Baptism. Neither can be said of the Bloch image. I see no need to look further. Johnbod (talk) 23:51, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

There are higher quality images, such as the baptism of St Augustine.Flash 22:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ReaverFlash (talk • contribs)

Well that probably saved me 3-5 hours of searching. Now you guys can decide what goes on this page, since now that the Bloch-colonization of Wikipedia images has halted, I do not need to be involved any more. I was not aware of the Bloch sub-context... I guess one learns new things all the time.... By the way John, do these Bloch images look retouched to you? There were a few in Wikipedia, then gradually they got replaced by others of a much higher quality resolution, almost like they were enhanced on a computer.... Seemed strange... anyway, that is another story... Cheers. History2007 (talk) 14:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC) History2007 (talk) 14:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

They might be - or just better images. Several versions off his Sermon on the Mount one have been uploaded - that at least is of a scene rarely painted by earlier artists. This Baptism of Jesus seems his least attractive work to me; some others are ok in a Victorian way. I don't think Flash is on an LDS thing; he just has a particular taste. Elsewhere it is all Guido Reni & Murillo, both among the most highly thought of & expensive old masters in the mid-19th century, but not now. Johnbod (talk) 15:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Are people baptized in or into a denomination?

There is a debate going on, mostly fuelled by one member, about this phrase. So I would like to ask this group, are we baptized in a denomination or are we baptized into a denomination? There is no disagreement on the Pauline theology that we are baptized into the body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:13) or more directly into Christ (Galatians 3:27), but the question is, about the term used with a specific denomination. I would appreciate both opinion and, if possible, supporting documentation. I am trying to ask this question neutrally and will attempt to not inject my position on the discussion. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:06, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

There is a prevailing understanding among some that a person is Baptized by the Church and into the Church. However, as you have cited, 1Cor 12:13 teaches that we are baptized by the Spirit into the Body and then become part of the ekklesia/church. Christ affirmed that “all authority” has been given to Him, then he says “Go Baptize.” A Catholic would need to confirm this, but my impression is that they believe the authority of Christ has been given to the Catholic Church. Afaprof01 (talk) 18:57, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

And what about other denominations? Am I baptized in the Methodist/Anglican/Baptist denomination or into it? Is there a theological ground for either statement?

I think this issue was decided during the era of Cyprian of Carthage. Basically, among the mainline faiths, it is so far as I know almost unanimously held that any baptism into a Christian faith is counted as baptism into Christianity. You will basically only find converts from one branch of Christianity baptized on conversion if there is some question as to whether the convert ever was baptized, for instance. The one exception I know of is regarding how Catholics (and presumably some others) view baptism in Mormonism, because of their different conceptions of the trinity and, I think, different phrasing. There might be others, but that is the only one I know of. John Carter (talk) 21:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

For the Catholic Church the situation is clear. Christian baptism, wherever conferred, provided it is Christian baptism (and not, for instance, the Mormon ceremony, which is administered in the name of something other than the Trinity that Christianity has believed in since at least the First Council of Nicaea), has exactly the same theological effects. Different legal effects follow in accordance with where one is baptized: "in" the Catholic Church or not "in" the Catholic Church. The Code of Canon Law and the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches speak several times of being baptized "in ecclesia catholica" (in the Catholic Church); never about being baptized "in ecclesiam catholicam" (into the Catholic Church). Are there perhaps Protestant groups who speak about being baptized into their group? That I don't know. Lima (talk) 22:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I think we now have the clear distinction. There are protestant denominations that speak of into. I'll let the discussion continue to determine if there is a roll-call. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Opening definition

The way it currently reads: "is the ritual act, with the use of water, by which one is admitted to membership of the Christian Church"; however not all Christian denominations accept this statement. For instance, in the Mennonite Brethren denomination, membership has a specific definition and baptism is considered to be merely an external sign of their belief in Christ. Membership is a separate act. Also, I believe that paedobaptists‎ don't consider it to be definitive of membership which, as I understand it happens at the point of confirmation within most protestant traditions. Could we somehow rework the opening to 1) be more inclusive of all denominations, and 2) reflect, as was mentioned above, the fact that baptism is also practised by non-Christians? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

scholars in "baptism by Jesus" section

The baptism by Jesus section includes references to some top scholars, esp, Sanders and Thiessen. But there are also references to a number of scholars that don't even have WP pages. (Heck, I've got a WP page!) Anyone know who these people are? Peter Tomson, Joel B. Green, Daniel S. Dapaah, Frederick J. Cwiekowski.

Some of these sources are from Intervarsity Press. My impression is that this is a Christian source rather than a neutral, academic source. If that's the case, wouldn't it be a service to our readers to identify this as a Christian source? Or are these well-regarded historians outside of evangelical circles? Leadwind (talk) 23:32, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Mormonism?

I'm sorry, but the last time I checked, my faith wasn't called Mormonism, it was called LDS (Latter Day Saints).

Please correct our names, and then in brackets on the side, say Mormon

e.g: Latter-Day Saints (Mormon).

Mormon is a nickname, which we accept, when talking about the members, but the faith CAN NOT be called Mormonism, for that is NOT true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doomextreme (talk • contribs) 13:20, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

It's just as easy to correct it as it is to write on this page. Since I'm not sure what the correct usage is, I suggest that you change the article. No need to sign changes made to the article. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

More illustrative image needed

Under the "Who may administer a baptism" section, the existing image barely shows the person doing that, because it is such a crowded photo. Seen at thumbnail size, the thing that most jumps out is the Coke machine. Switching this to a clearer, less busy, and more illustrative image. Jonathunder (talk) 14:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

But the topic is who, not how. The person in your image is obviously clergy and the baptism is clearly of an infant and the majority of the images on the page represent this. The final sentence of opening paragraph of the section (incorrectly) indicates that "Many Protestant [should read: Anabaptist] churches see no specific prohibition in the biblical examples and permit any believer to baptize another" and there are few examples on the page. Please restore the image somewhere more appropriate. Also, despite being a better image (more clear and less busy) it does not actually show the act of baptism, but merely the holding of an infant and therefore not particularly illustrative. Despite the provided text for all we know, the person could be the rector of an Anglican church, child could be his own, and the event could be the greeting of congregants in the nave at the end of a service. It does not illustrate baptism. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I thought that image of the girl who had just been baptized in the ship's bell was one of the best on the subject on the Commons and had great expression. But to meet your concerns, I've replaced it with one of a different U.S. Navy chaplain, this one administering baptism to a man in an improvised font in the desert of Iraq. The one with the Coke machine is just full of distraction and doesn't work at all at thumbnail size. Jonathunder (talk) 16:20, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I saw it and I think it is an excellent example. There's no visual indication that it's a chaplain, and it's a submersion baptism so I think it adds some variety. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Etymology

While I appreciate the effort that went into the addition, I don't think a long note on the etymology of the English word "baptism" is what the article should start with. Better to start with the reality. Besides, the first source given indicates the Indo-European roots of Greek τέγγω and Greek Pythōn and Typhōn – roots from which are derived words that in other languages, not in English, are used to mean "baptize" – and it does not indicate the Indo-European root of Greek βαπτίζω, βαπτισμός, βάπτισμα, from which English "baptism" is derived.

I have therefore cut it down to the essential information and placed it as a separate subsection. Esoglou (talk) 06:45, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Your refreshing response afforded me great amusement at my own expense. I have finally stopped laughing enough so I can respond. I was told once that my essay answers were more like doctoral dissertations. I failed to advert to the fact that material in encyclopedia articles are introductions to subjects, like "Cliff's notes", and that my eagerness to inform is occasionally like "firing the bait at the fish". You have reminded me that the reader serious about knowing more will pursue it, as I did. Hermitstudy (talk) 15:39, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: the first source given in footnote, U. of Texas, I intended it from anthropological POV as illustrative of semantical roots foundational of idea of "baptism", not primarily as etymological exemplification of English "baptism" Greek linguistical IE root, hence the PIE etymon and IE reflexes cited there in list, and used by me in the paragraph. pax vobiscum Hermitstudy (talk) 18:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your understanding. Esoglou (talk) 19:06, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

History: Jewish section & its source

"John the Baptist adopted baptismal immersion as the central sacrament in his messianic movement.[53]"

I went to the source; I read the source; I don't see where the article indicates that John adopted immersion as the central sacrament. RivkaRebecca, or 76.183.122.89 (talk) 15:39, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

There is no mention even of John the Baptist in the alleged source. I have removed the statement. This is the second instance of a statement wrongly claimed here to be based on that EB article. Esoglou (talk) 15:09, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

"Baptismal immersion in water was practiced in Judaism for some time before the fall of Jerusalem in ce 70, and it was adopted by John the Baptist (a Jewish prophet and cousin of Jesus Christ) as the principal sacrament in his messianic movement.". The problem is that the page doesn't load all the text immediately. You have to scroll to force the page to load all of the text. Will restore now. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:04, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

You are right and I was wrong. Or should I say my computer was wrong. When I searched for "John" earlier, it indicated that no matches were found. The same thing happened when I tried a short time ago. But when I scrolled down and found the name, I tried the search function again, and now it comes up with "4 matches"! Apologies from both my computer and me (the one who uses or misuses the computer)! Esoglou (talk) 16:14, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I have now fixed (undone) my previous "fixing" of another reference to the EB article, in which my computer and I have encountered again, even now, the same difficulty. Esoglou (talk) 16:41, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Original research

I have been following the debate over Catholic sources as "original research" to be removed. Per Wikipedia guidelines on OR and the uses made of the sources controverted by some editors here, I do not see that direct quotations of prime Catholic documents, or explicit references to them, which support statements in the article is any form of "original research" (though they did in fact need to be condensed). This is in distinct contrast to those citations and references made by Esoglou and others from external encyclopedias and books of commentary on the subject by primarily Protestant writers betraying a particular theological slant. I have read the earlier versions of the article which cite Roman Catholic documentation. The consistent excision of them and of supportive scriptural texts as being "original research" does not seem justified, especially when they have next to no editorial commentary attached to them. This practice does not seem to indicate NPOV. I have the distinct impression that one or both of the major editors of this article (Walter G. and Esoglou) believe they "own" the article, or at any rate are its guardians. I suggest a reassessment of attitude. (a collegue) 75.162.4.79 (talk) 20:02, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I prefer to take it that this editor did not really mean to accuse other editors of bad faith. And it would be good to talk not just generically, but to cite concrete cases about which the complaint is made. Is the following one case? I mean, the removal of "Compare Romans 6:3–4 ("...all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus...") Romans 12:4–5 ("...so we, though many, are one body in Christ...") Ephesians 4:4–16 ("...one Lord, one faith, one baptism...") Ephesians 5:25–27 ("...Christ loved the Church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word...") Colossians 1:24 ("...for the sake of his body, that is, the Church...") 1Peter 3:18–22 ("...baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you...") 2Peter 3:15–17 ("...There are some things...hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction...")." This was presented as teaching of the (Roman) Catholic Church. In my edit summary I called these "OR observations that don't even claim to be part of RC teaching". What I wrote seems to be accurate: no indication is given that the Catholic Church has proposed these as its teaching; no indication is given that the Catholic Church has taught that phrases such as the last one, about "some things ... hard to understand", are even directly related to baptism. All that is given is an editor's own attribution of these to the Church's teaching. Esoglou (talk) 20:40, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

This particular reading of the material is an example of what I said about lack of NPOV. The Bible references are not presented by the editor as Catholic Teaching, but rather as key texts of Christian scriptures for comparison.

In reading the citations of scripture that were placed after the block of Catholic quotations I got the impression that they were in contrast to the position of both the Catholic and the Lutheran sources quoted, not ipso facto supportive of them, and in addition they were not presented with any kind of statement saying "In support of these positions, see (these Bible texts)". They are not stated to be the "Teaching of the Catholic Church" (moreover, you said nothing about them being presented as "Lutheran Teaching", either in support of, or in contrast to, the Catholic).

Instead, the contributing editor "Hermitstudy" included the neutral prefatory "Compare..." I compared them—with both the preceding quotations and with the immediately following statements about symbolic intent "In contrast(to the Lutheran and the Catholic statements), ...". "Compare", as I read it, simply invites the reader to compare the scriptural texts with what was just said and with what will follow. It did not strike me as especially proving a particular POV. The texts cited are important points of departure for discussions and debates over interpretation of doctrine, or formation of doctrine. This is probably why the last text "...hard to understand..." was included. The fact that Christians have disputed the meanings of these texts for centuries is due to the fact that they must be "hard to understand." The inclusion of that text could be interpreted as implying that the preceding statements by Catholic and Lutheran sources could be based on misunderstandings of the scriptures, hence: "compare". You do not appear to have considered that possibility. You certainly did not mention it in the edit summary.

I am not charging you or the others with bad faith. Consider these facts: It looks bad when references to controversial authors' opinions and their works are included with solidly balanced and neutral sources and are not removed from the article and its footnotes as were the Catholic ones.

This does not change the fact that cited and referenced primary sources, being external to the article, and attributions for material presented, are not "Original Research", which by Wiki definition is any unattributed or unattributable material submitted by an editor or contributor, apparently on his own authority: i.e. "unfounded". You removed citations and references and quotations that were not the invention of "Hermitstudy" but (and I checked them) are solidly backed and neutrally presented. Labelling them "Original Research" as the sole pretext for their removal when that could not be the actual reason for their exclusion from the standpoint of Wikipedia policy appears to indicate that you removed them simply because you did not agree with them—or with what you thought they implied. You know whether or not you acted in bad faith in excluding their point of view, but it cannot be argued that you were acting in accord with the policy of Wikipedia regarding the meaning of OR.

If I am beginning to sound like "Hermitstudy", forgive me. Rabbinical training, too much Talmud. But your question about "bad faith" requires an answer with explicit points of example, as in a court of law. To your credit you did include in the article on Baptism the salient points presented in the material submitted, which were previously lacking in the article. To your discredit you did not include the original citations and references, provided by "Hermitstudy", to most of the substantiating primary documents of the Catholic Church which back all of the statements you retained. I wondered why you didn't. It does not require a lot of space in footnotes to include the Catechism of the Catholic Church 1271-2 and 818, the Sixteen Documents of Vatican II, Ecumenism, 3, the Papal encyclical Mystici Corporis Christi of Pius XII with external link to full text, The Roman Catechism pp. 108, 110, 199, together with ISBN's. As he/she said in the edit summary, too many people are unaware of the real position of the Catholic Church who might benefit from that knowledge.

And by the way, those who "have separated" themselves (actively) from a Church are not necessarily identical with those who today "are separated" (condition of being not members). The documents you removed make such a distinction, and that could have been a surprise to many readers. Again, I suggest you reassess your attitude. ("Compare" your position to what is defined in the article intellectual dishonesty. -or does that sound to you like I am charging you with intellectual dishonesty? I said "compare", not "jump to conclusions".) 75.162.4.79 (talk) 23:19, 12 September 2010 (UTC) שלם

I already said on Esoglou's talk page that I completely concurred with what he had done. With respect to the question of including 2 Peter 3:16, the above contributor is correct that I submitted the referenced Bible texts solely for comparison. With respect to the observation of Esoglou that 2 Peter 3:16 is not related to baptism, I would say it is not directly related to the subject of baptism but is more related to what Rabbi 75.162.4.79 suggested: as a caution in interpretation of any scriptural text. The Catechism of the Catholic Church does say (100): "The task of interpreting the word of God authentically has been entrusted solely to the Magisterium of the Church, that is, to the Pope and to the bishops in communion with him." Now, if anyone can cite a Catholic dogmatic source that has definitively and dogmatically interpreted the texts (offered by me for comparison) as the Official Catholic Orthodox Church Teaching about baptism, I am unaware of such a source, and invite any of the readers to cite it here, or on our talk pages. I certainly did not cite the "texts for comparison" as the teaching of the Catholic Church. The footnote to the NAB text of 2 Peter 3:17 says: "To avoid the dangers of error and loss of stability, Christians are forewarned to be on guard and to grow in grace and knowledge (2 Pt 1,2) of Christ...." The DV text of 2 Peter 3:16-17 has no footnote. It is a simple, undeniable, historical fact that there are things in Paul's letters "...hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction..." The Catholic Church does not derive its doctrines and dogmas solely from the text of Sacred Scripture alone, but from Scripture and Apostolic Tradition as interpreted within the continuing community of the Church by the guidance of the Holy Spirit within the Church's Magisterium. "Consequently, it is not from Sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed. Therefore, both Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture are to be accepted with the same sense of loyalty and reverence." Dei Verbum 9. With respect to the citation of Catholic Sources, it is enough for me that the article (as it is now) is reasonably accurate. Let the reader observe that I did not attempt to revert Esoglou's edit, neither did I attempt to re-insert the citations and resources that were removed. Anyone who wants to track down the prime sources of Catholic doctrine can find them, and in their original languages if desired. And there are other sources of information available online and in libraries if the reader does not agree with what is in the Wikipedia. (Even the EB, for example!) — שלם, pax vobiscum Hermitstudy (talk) 03:09, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Blog and how it is interpreted

With regard to the bit of reciprocal reversion between an anonymous New Jersey editor and myself, I leave it to others to judge

• whether the blog in question is acceptable as a Wikipedia reliable source
• whether the blog, which talks about the meaning of the Greeks words underlying the English word "baptize", is saying that it is only "according to some interpretations" that the New Testament says Jesus was baptized. Esoglou (talk) 14:30, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

A blog is a blog and there is no proof the Blog's author is an expert. What are Joel M. Hoffman's credentials? It clearly is excluded as per WP:ELNO. There are no interpretations that indicate that Jesus wasn't baptized, the question raised by the blog is the mode. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:43, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Excommunication

It is referenced nowhere in this article on how to be excommunicated from the Roman Catholic Church. It needs to be. Fix it, somebody. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SquirrelStalka (talk • contribs) 02:39, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

This is an article on Baptism. What you're looking for is likely in the excommunication article. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:44, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:RS again

I see we're having the same issue here. I have provided numerous quotations from WP:RS, which I have placed in the article. Walter, don't tell me to include WP:RS when that's what I've already done. I am removing sources which do not meet WP:RS, and you keep putting them back. Please understand that WP:V is not the same as WP:RS.--Taiwan boi (talk) 15:23, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

On what grounds do you consider unreliable those that you have now twice deleted? It would be at least polite to indicate the grounds of your judgement and your action. Esoglou (talk) 15:32, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I've already explained this on the other baptism page. The Presbyterian article is POV and of no scholarly standing (simply stating their ideas), Schaff is wildly out of date (and is deceptively dated 2009), the 1911 Britannica is wildly out of date (and is also deceptively dated 2009), Van Roo is not a recognized authority on either the word or the history, and Taylor is contradicted by both the scholarly consensus and the archaeological evidence. Please look up WP:RS. If you persist in refusing to adhere to WP:RS I will simply take this to arbitration.--Taiwan boi (talk) 15:49, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, you've reverted again, you've failed to use WP:RS, you're no longer discussing it, and you're ignoring the WP:RS I've quoted extensively. I will now take this to arbitration.--Taiwan boi (talk) 16:08, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

"Contradicted by the scholarly consensus". What scholarly consensus?

Do none of the others reflect the author's POV? Esoglou (talk) 16:22, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I have provided evidence for the scholarly consensus. The fact that you disagree with that consensus is irrelevant; you also disagree with the definition of the word as given in standard English dictionaries. Your misrepresentation of Schaff and the 1911 Britannica as published in 2009 is particularly disingenuous.--Taiwan boi (talk) 16:31, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Somehow I feel that the tertiary source, the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, is a better indication of present-day scholarly consensus than your personal assessment (a synthesis fabricated by you?). Esoglou (talk) 16:35, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

This is not a matter of my personal opinion. I have already cited a dozen scholarly works showing that the ODCC does not represent the scholarly consensus. In order to prove WP:SYNTH you have to demonstrate that I am misrepresenting the quotations to arrive at a conclusion none of them support. You have not done this, and it is verifiable that no WP:SYNTH has occurred. Your insistence on the ODCC is transparently motivated. You also disagree with the definition of the word as given in standard English dictionaries. Your misrepresentation of Schaff and the 1911 Britannica as published in 2009 is particularly disingenuous.--Taiwan boi (talk) 16:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm curious to know what are the modern reliable sources that you believe deny that "The usual form of baptism among the earliest Christians was for the candidate to be immersed totally (submersion) or partially (standing or kneeling in water while water was poured on him or her)". There is nothing there about the definition of any word. And I do sincerely believe that this is the scholarly consensus on the matter.

Why do you attribute to me a misrepresentation of Schaff and of the 1911 edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica? Esoglou (talk) 17:23, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Please read what I write, don't attribute to me statements I have not made. I have objected to you citing sources which are not WP:RS, and citing sources for your view when they explicitly declare another view. The sources I have quoted say very clearly that the usual form of baptism among the earliest Christians was total immersion (Collins, Dau, France), and two of them differentiate this explicitly from the pouring for which you cite them as evidence (Dau, France). For you to cite them as evidence that the usual form was 'for the candidate to be immersed totally (submersion), or partially (standing or kneeling in water while water was poured on him or her)', is completely inaccurate since none of them say this and two of them specifically state that they are not referring to pouring. If you had any evidence for what you consider to be the scholarly consensus, you would have posted it by now. I attribute the misrepresentation of Schaff and the Britannica article because you have repeatedly placed those misleading dates in the article, and you have done so after I have repeatedly pointed out that the dates are misleading. Your inclusion of these dates is deliberate.--Taiwan boi (talk) 17:33, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

This seems an extremely slender basis for your claim that scholarly consensus denies that the usual early-Christian form of baptism was "for the candidate to be immersed totally (submersion), or partially (standing or kneeling in water while water was poured on him or her)". Take your claim that Dau said what is attributed to him in the footnotes. He didn't. What is quoted there was written by a certain A. T. Robertson, who died in 1934, when he was almost exactly 91 years old. I don't know how many years before that he wrote the words that are quoted, but it is likely that it was in 1915, when the work in which the words appear was first published. This you consider a basis for your claim about scholarly consensus. And you haven't noticed either that Robertson was explicitly giving the "Baptist view". So what a Baptist wrote in support of the 1915 Baptist view must be taken as representing today's scholarly consensus? What Dau says is that Mt 28:19 "indicates with sufficient clearness, by the use of the term, 'baptize', the external element to be employed, viz., water, and the form of the action to be performed by means of water, viz., any dipping or pouring, or sprinkling, since the word, 'baptize', signifies any of these modes" (pp. 423-424 of the same book - emphasis added).

You asked for more sources that support the statement in the article. Any one of the following is better than Dau Robertson:

• Ralph E. Bass, Jr., What about Baptism: A Discussion on the Mode, Candidate and Purpose of Christian Baptism, p. 39
• Roger Greenacre, Jeremy Haselock, The Sacrament of East 1995, p. 65
• Regina Kuehn, A Place for Baptism 1992, p. 75
• Robert Milburn, Robert Leslie Pollington Milburn, Early Christian Art and Architecture 1988, p. 203
• T. Jerome Overbeck, Ancient Fonts, Modern Lessons, 1998, p. 7
• Joan E. Taylor, The immerser: John the Baptist within Second Temple Judaism 1997, p. 54

Esoglou (talk) 19:48, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

"Scholarly consensus"

I believe "scholarly consensus" is Taiwan boi's shorthand for "that which I've read" and the repeated returns to WP:RS instead of WP:V seem to be another way of introducing POV. The way I see it, there are many sources for many opinions. Just because they disagree does not make one a reliable source and the other not. For instance, the insistence that Calvin is not a reliable source for the meaning of the Greek term for "baptism". His scholarship may not be current, but that doesn't make it an unreliable source. I think you have to weigh WP:V with your interpretation as to whether a source meets WP:RS and simply admit that there are differences of opinion. Rather than edit out that with which you disagree, simply add a contrary point with a WP:V source. Are you assuming that the uneducated will give undue weight to a well-known theological figure such as Calvin? Then add sufficient counter arguments to make his point moot. My primary concern is that you're removing material that meets WP:V. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:00, 27 October 2010 (UTC) And I want to go on record again as welcoming the additions made by Taiwan boi. It is important for this article, and all others on Wikipedia, to have present information in a balanced manner. If we're pushing one side or allowing it to speak more clearly than another's, then we are in violation of WP:NPOV. However the answer is not to remove the material but to restore balance by adding more. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:07, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

No it is not shorthand for what I have read, and if you actually read what I write, and the article itself, you will find that I explained how to incorporate your non-WP:RS into the article and did so without removing them. Since you show no evidence of understanding WP:RS, and continue to refuse to apply it, here are the relevant statements.

• When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources. However, some scholarly material may be outdated, in competition with alternate theories, or controversial within the relevant field. Try to cite present scholarly consensus when available, recognizing that this is often absent. Reliable non-academic sources may also be used in articles about scholarly issues, particularly material from high-quality mainstream publications.
• Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable. If the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses, generally it has been at least preliminarily vetted by one or more other scholars.
• The scholarly acceptance of a source can be verified by confirming that the source has entered mainstream academic discourse, for example by checking the scholarly citations it has received in citation indexes. A corollary is that journals not included in a citation index, especially in fields well covered by such indexes, should be used with caution, though whether it is appropriate to use will depend on the context.

You must demonstrate that Calvin is regarded as a lexicographical authority, and that he meets these criteria. The same goes for Schaff, the 1911 Britannica, and any other sources you use.--Taiwan boi (talk) 03:44, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I strongly suggest that all parties in this discussion try to avoid going for "all or nothing" "victory" in this case. Put yourself in the other's shoes. Try to ask yourself what it is your interlocutors are MOST worried about and then ask yourself whether you could fit this somehow TOGETHER with what you are worried about. AND, if you have proposal about how the proposals of another might be modified to AVOID argument, propose it rather than waiting for them to do so.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:43, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Please read the talk page and article. We're not going for an all or nothing victory. We've managed to agree on a number of sources to be included; no one is deleting sources wholesale here. What is under discussion is the validity of certain sources, and how they ought to be prioritized in the article. I believe that modern lexicographical sources should be used to define words, for example. I believe that where sources constitute outdated scholarship, they should be de-prioritized in the article and not used to make factual claims. Rather, they should be identified as the personal beliefs of previous scholarship which is now outdated. This is no different to how Wiki policy operates on other pages.--Taiwan boi (talk) 14:19, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

And the remainder of the editors feel that these so-called "personal beliefs" are actually scholarly work and that if they are out-dated should be countered with additional material rather than simply deleting them. The definitions have not changed and so there are only theological reasons for removing them. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:23, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Scholarly work with WP:V references. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:24, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

What you think is irrelevant. If you believe they are scholarly work you have to WP:PROVEIT. I did not delete them, I have included them in the article, so stop saying I deleted them. This is not about whether the definitions have changed, it's about whether or not Calvin's definition is accurate in the first place. You have provided absolutely no evidence that it is accurate, and standard modern lexicographical sources differ completely from his views. Calvin's personal opinion is not a scholarly work, and it isn't a reliable source according toWP:V. It was even self-published.

WP:UNDUE seems to me to be the issue at hand here. Certainly, we should give the most weight in any article to those reliable sources which most clearly and directly reflect the existing academic opinions on the matter being discussed. The difficulty there, of course, is that pretty much the only way to demonstrate that a given reliable source does not reflect the existing academic opinion is to do as much as possible to demonstrate what the existing academic opinion is in as many sources as possible. If a generally reliable source can be demonstrated in this way as being at odds with the existing best academic opinions on the matter, then the policy at WP:UNDUE and, maybe, in some cases, WP:FRINGE can be invoked. John Carter (talk) 15:23, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you John. Could you provide some guidance as to what constitutes appropriate academic literature? How would you suggest that Walter go about proving that James Murray's view of baptism most clearly and directly reflects the existing academic opinions, for example, or the 1911 Britannica, or Beveridge?--Taiwan boi (talk) 16:12, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I would think that, if they discuss the subject, the best quality sources would be along the lines of the Macmillan's Encyclopedia of Religion or maybe Religion Past and Present published by Brill might be among the better sources. Otherwise, going to the nearest good libraries, be they public or college/university or even theology school, and looking to see what the sources included in the reference section of the library say about the subject, or asking the librarian who deals with that general subject what are the more current works relating to the topic they have and then consulting them. Because I don't know where anyone lives, I probably can't be any more specific, but if anyone lives near any of the libraries listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Special collections they might be among the better available places to look for information. In general, I would have to think that the Hastings Encyclopedia of Religion and things of that age are probably not among the best possible sources however, because information may well have changed since they were published. I don't know that applies in this case, but such things do happen in general. John Carter (talk) 16:57, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit war warning

A warning to all editors: An edit war is defined as editors trying "to force their own position by combative editing (making edits they know will be opposed) and repeated reverting." The three revert rule is merely a bright-line rule and it expressly says, "Remember that an administrator may still act whenever they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit-warring, even if the three-revert rule has not been breached. The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times." What's going on here is clearly an edit war and I must warn you all that you stand a risk of having this page protected and/or being blocked from editing if it continues. Decide it by discussion, do a RFC, take it to MedCab, or use some other form of dispute resolution, but stop reverting. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 18:02, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Esoglou (talk) 19:48, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Remove submersion

Would it be appropriate to remove/merge the "submersion" section if the modern scholarly consensus defines "immersion" in an identical way? Swampyank (talk) 05:06, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes.--Taiwan boi (talk) 05:30, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Do they? Do we really need to discuss this again? Submersion is going completely beneath the water. Immersion means to go into the water, but not necessarily beneath it. The fact that most people don't know that is reason enough to explain the difference and inform people of that difference. This is an encyclopedia and it's our job to get it right, not to simply parrot what people think is right. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:32, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

PS: I reverted the removal of submersion again since it is inaccurate. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:33, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes it is our job to get it right. In standard English dictionaries and thesauri, 'immersion' is identified as being dipped, plunged, submerged. It is never described as 'standing in water while water is poured over you' in a single standard English dictionary (likewise, baptizo is never defined in any standard professional Greek lexicon as 'standing in water while water is poured over you'). The fact that some people use a different definition should be noted, but their non-normative definition should not be identified as the normative definition.--Taiwan boi (talk) 05:42, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

That's where I stand too. I think it is misleading to readers state that the word "submersion" is normative or that "affusion" is normative for immersion, but I'm not opposed to mentioning that some people use immersion to mean affusion or submersion to mean immersion.Swampyank (talk) 05:53, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. We can't have people using English words without their standard meanings. The word 'immerse' does not mean 'standing in water while having water poured over the head', and nor does the Greek word baptizo.--Taiwan boi (talk) 05:59, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Is this about this article or Immersion baptism? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:04, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Submersion and affusion are normative, but not in most protestant and Anabaptist denominations. How can that be explained? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:09, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Submersion also seems to be used by those who don't practice it to describe it as opposed to sprinkling. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:12, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

A quick Google search shows immersion baptism has about 6.6 times the number of hits as submersion baptism. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:14, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

1. It's about this article. 2. Your question is irrelevant to the subject under discussion. 3. Relevance? 4. Thanks for your WP:OR; what are you trying to prove?--Taiwan boi (talk) 06:42, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Given that my comment above makes absolutely no personal references to you, and only addresses what you wrote, you cannot claim it is a personal attack. If you're interested in discussion just answer the questions please. If you think what I wrote was a personal attack, take it to User John Carter, the Christian Project admin (I may ask him to come here to provide a third party perspective).--Taiwan boi (talk) 07:08, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry that you feel that way. I suggest that you do take it to an admin. I made a bad assumption and you attacked me instead of assuming good faith. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:10, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Please identify anything in what I wrote which you are interpreting as a personal attack, or an assumption of bad faith. I'll be better able to understand your objection if you explain it in detail. For example, what personal comments did I make about you? Not what you wrote, but about you as a person?--Taiwan boi (talk) 07:16, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I disagree in removing "submersion". We shall explain that there are two different liturgical ways of baptism into water: (full immersion = submersion) and (pouring with part of the body immersed = immersion). These terms came from Latin: Sub-mersion = Sub (under) + mergo (put in water), while Im-mersion = In (in) + mergo (put in water). A ntv (talk) 08:43, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

The different methods of liturgical baptism are already explained in the 'Immersion baptism' article. The Latin is not in question, and since this article is in English we need to use standard English words with their standard English definitions as found in standard English dictionaries. In standard English dictionaries and thesauri, 'immersion' and 'submersion' are synonyms.--Taiwan boi (talk) 09:48, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Not always. Esoglou (talk) 10:06, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

As I mentioned, you're free to quote any standard English dictionary or thesaurus which defines 'immerse' or 'immersion' as 'standing in water while having water poured over the head'.--Taiwan boi (talk) 10:12, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd have thought that you'd know that a general dictionary or thesaurus gives near synonyms, not strict synonyms. So, two words given together in a general dictionary or thesaurus can have quite distinct meanings in some contexts. The words used in a dictionary or thesaurus to explain another word are not meant to be exact synonyms, just similar in meaning. Do you possibly imagine you can find a reliable source that says that the words by which a dictionary or thesaurus explains another word always mean exactly the same as the word that they explain? For someone with an open mind, it isn't difficult to see the difference. For instance, an iceberg is immersed in the salt water of an ocean, but only part of the iceberg is submerged in the water. Much the same holds for the more complicated example that you yourself give. A person can be baptized by being immersed, either as in the picture of an immersion baptism that you gave or by having his head submerged in water while the rest of the body, even the feet, is entirely dry. In neither case is the person submerged, but he is immersed in water. The Jews who, on returning from market, washed their hands up to the elbow were immersed in water (the New Testament speaks of them as "baptized"), but they weren't submerged. In other fields too, the two words can be quite distinct, as when a study concludes: "Immerse (don't submerge): this is the best way to teach students English". So in specialist fields (and the study of the modes of baptism is one such field) the two words are quite distinct and are by no means synonyms. But non-specialists will continue to confuse the two terms even in the specialist field, using them in imprecise non-specialist senses - as happens too with certain people discussing modes of baptism. Esoglou (talk) 13:19, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

None of this actually addresses the following facts: 1. Standard English dictionaries define 'immersion' as submersion, and identify the two words as synonymous. 2. No standard English dictionary defines 'immerse' as 'standing in water and having water poured on the head'. 3. No standard professional New Testament Greek lexicon (or LSJ), defines baptizo as 'standing in water and having water poured on the head'. 4. Non-standard ues of the words 'immerse' and 'submerge' outside the context of Christian baptism are irrelevant. This article is not discussing scuba diving or language immersion. 5. As explained by the lexicons I quoted, the Jews washing on return from the market immersed their hands. The word here means 'immerse', it does not mean 'baptize'. The New Testament does not speak of them as 'baptized', it speaks of them as having been 'washed'. No standard lexicon identifies this as baptism, and no standard English translation renders baptizo 'baptized' here.--Taiwan boi (talk) 14:08, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

1. Standard dictionaries register certain uses, without passing a judgement on them, and don't say that other uses are necessarily wrong (nobody denies that you, for instance, use "immersion" to mean "submersion"). 2. No standard English dictionary does; a specialist English dictionary does. 3. No standard professional New Testament lexicon, such as LSJ, limits βαπτίζω to meaning only complete submersion. 4. Use of the words "immerse" and "submerge" outside the specialist field of the modes of baptism is irrelevant. 5. If you had read the passage in question, you would have seen that the action done to the hands (whether they were immersed or not) is described with the verb "wash" (νίπτω), not "baptize" (βαπτίζω), while the action done in relation to the persons is described with the verb "baptize" (βαπτίζω): they are not spoken of as having been "washed". This was not baptism in the Christian sense of the term, but the same term is used of it in the New Testament as for the administration of Christian baptism.

Would you also please follow MOS:QUOTATION MARK#Quotation marks. Esoglou (talk) 14:34, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

1. Standard dictionaries register normative usage. Normative usage is what encyclopedia articles must use. Sure, we could say that just because the word "sit" is defined one way in a dictionary doesn't mean that defining it as "stand" is wrong, but we would be incorrect. Words don't have whatever meanings we attach to them. 2. You haven't appealed to a "specialist English dictionary", you've appealed to a theological dictionary of liturgical terminology in the Roman Catholic/Anglican/Orthodox tradition. 3. It has never been claimed that any standard New Testament lexicon limits baptizo to meaning only complete submersion. I have provided other uses of the word from standard lexicography. 4. Use of the English words "immerse" and "submerge" outside their normative English usage is what encyclopedias should avoid. In any case, the overwhelming number of standard specialized Bible dictionaries and encyclopedias uses these terms synonymously when referring to baptism. 5. Yes I have read the passage. The word baptizo here means wash (not "baptize"), as standard modern English translations render it, and as the lexicographical data I quoted explains. Washing the hands (louw), was by immersion. When someone was said to batizo before eating it meant they were going to wash (by immersing the hands), not that they were going to baptize themselves. Of course the same term is used of Christian baptism, because immersion took place in Christian baptism just as immersion took place when the hands were washed by baptizo. This is all explained in the lexicographical data I provided.--Taiwan boi (talk) 14:49, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

"any standard English dictionary". This is incorrect. The most precise dictionary says: http://oxforddictionaries.com/view/entry/m_en_gb0401360#m_en_gb0401360 "the action of immersing someone or something in a liquid:", "baptism by immersing a person bodily (but not necessarily completely) in water". --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:08, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Check out the definition for the verb.

• 1 [with object] dip or submerge in a liquid:immerse the paper in water for twenty minutes baptize (someone) by immersion in water

Note the word "submerge". I'm still waiting for any examples of a standard English dictionary which defines "immerse" or "immersion" as a reference to standing in water while having water poured over the head. That's what you need because that is what is being claimed as the meaning of "immerse" and the meaning of the Greek word βαπτίζω. Of course the fact that standard Bible dictionaries define baptism by immersion as baptism by submersion, is an additional obstacle for you.--Taiwan boi (talk) 15:19, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

That's a very thin straw on to which you're holding. Since your hyperbole can be refuted with a single reference, and I have shown one, your argument should now be amended to say "most", unless of course you would like to prove that Oxford isn't a standard dictionary. If that's the case you can work on Longman next. http://www.ldoceonline.com/dictionary/immersion --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:33, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not a 'thin straw'. The normative meaning of 'immerse' is not 'partially immerse'. The Oxford dictionary doesn't say that either. By the way, I'm very happy with Longman, thanks for drawing that to my attention:

• "im‧merse [transitive]1 to put someone or something deep into a liquid so that they are completely covered"

Remember, the definition of "immerse" you're arguing for is "standing in water and having water poured on the head". As I have pointed out repeatedly, this definition of "immerse" is found in no standard English dictionary, nor is it ever described as the definition of "baptizo" in any standard Greek lexicon.--Taiwan boi (talk) 00:56, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be defining "immerse" while I seem top be defining "immersion". Sorry we don't agree on the word. Both Oxford and Longman state partial when immersion is being defined. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:59, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Neither Oxford nor Longman state that "immersion" means "partial immersion". The normative use of "immersion" when unqualified is not "partial immersion". I'm still waiting for any examples of a standard English dictionary which defines "immerse" or "immersion" as a reference to standing in water while having water poured over the head. That's what you need because that is what is being claimed as the meaning of "immerse" and the meaning of the Greek word βαπτίζω.--Taiwan boi (talk) 01:29, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

((outdent}}1. Standard dictionaries register actual usage. If usage changes, so do the dictionaries. It's because it is actual usage, not because it has been registered in a dictionary, that a certain usage is normative. 2. A specialist dictionary of theological terms registers the objective fact that the terms are actually used in that way in that specialist field. It is a verifiable fact that they are used in this way. 3. I don't understand your "I have provided other uses of the (Greek) word from standard lexicography". There are lots of uses, registered for instance in LSJ, and there is no need to add yet more. The more there are, the less reason for saying that there is only one use of the verb βαπτίζω. 4. Your claim that your preferred use is "normative" is your personal opinion: you won't find it stated in any reliable source. 5. Well, if you have read the passage, you should know that the text doesn't actually say (nor does it deny) that the washing of the hands was by immersion rather than by pouring. But that question is irrelevant here. The point is that the text doesn't use the word "baptized" about the hands: it says they were "washed", a word you perhaps rightly interpret as meaning "immersed" in this context, but that is not what the word in itself says; and, when speaking of the persons, the text does use the word "are baptized" (βαπτίζονται), the same word as used for Christians being baptized, and which you, no doubt rightly, interpret as meaning generic "washing" in this context (as do, equally rightly, the translators into English), but the word that the text actually uses is "baptized" - another indication. like the uses you say you have provided, that βαπτίζω does have more than just one meaning. Esoglou (talk) 15:44, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

1. Irrelevant, it's still normative use. 2. As I have pointed out before, that dictionary of yours has been criticized repeatedly in the relevant scholarly literature for its Roman Catholic/Anglican/Orthodox bias, and presents a definition which is not found in the majority of standard Bible dictionaries. It isn't objective, and doesn't say that that's how the terms are used "in that specialist field", it simply cites the meaning within a certain theological tradition. 3. You complained that I hadn't provided any other uses of the word βαπτίζω, yet I had; I provided "it is used with literal and figurative meanings such as "sink", "disable", "overwhelm", "go under", "overborne"". No one has ever said there is only one use of the verb, so your complaint is groundless. 4. This has nothing to do with my "preferred use", because unlike you I don't come to this article with a POV, I only cite what is found in the relevant scholarly literature. I have quoted from all the standard professional lexicons addressing the word in its New Testament context, yet you avoided all of them in favour of quotes from random ministers, and doubled up citations by quoting the ODCC and then citing other references which simply cite the ODCC (since they are not independent sources, they are not providing additional support). 5. You have still failed to understand the point about the washing of the hands. The text doesn't say the hands were baptized, it says they were washed; however, it is understood that they were washed by immersion, so "baptizo" here refers to immersion though it is rightly translated "wash". Similarly, speaking of the persons the text does not say they were "baptized" since that is a word reserved specifically for Christian immersion, which is why no standard Greek lexicon, commentary, or modern Bible translation renders "baptizo" as "baptized" in this passage, it rightly says that they were "washed". This is all explained in detail in the references I quoted. You conclude with a repetition of your irrelevant complaint; no one here is saying that "baptizo" has only one meaning.--Taiwan boi (talk) 00:56, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Walter and Esoglou still do not provide solid scholarly sources that show that their definition (standing in a pool getting water poured on you) is normative among English writers and readers or scholars in mainstream dictionaries. It is true that some day definitions could change and standing in a pool with water being poured on you could be considered the regular use of the word immersion, but that is not the normative usage of the word in English today. I don't dispute that a minority of English speakers may go around calling immersion "submersion" and affusion "immersion," but let's not mislead readers.

Tawain Boi is absolutely right and his reasoning is solid. Overwhelmingly, the normative usage of "immersion" is to fully cover a person with water during baptism as seen from the dozens of helpful sources he has provided. 100,000 people view this article monthly. Why should we call this submersion when most english speakers call in immersion? We should be serious about precisely defining these words so the public is not misled about immersion and confused when their neighbors speak. If I heard someone speaking in English about immersion baptism and looked it up on wikipedia, I would be confused if immersion wasn't identical to submersion in its normative usage. Very, very few English speakers call it submersion baptism. Swampyank (talk) 16:02, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your support. We may end up taking this to RfC.--Taiwan boi (talk) 00:56, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Standing in a pool of water etc. is not my definition. It is the definition of several reliable sources. It is not the only definition that has been given: another given with several sources (has someone removed them?) is baptism by dipping the candidate's head in water, whether the candidate is on dry ground or wet. That is not baptism by affusion: there is no pouring. Nor is it baptism by aspersion: there is no sprinkling. Does it fit your definition and Tb's of baptism by (total) immersion? Is it baptism? Well, if baptism by aspersion is called baptism, this mode must also be called baptism. What name would you give to this mode of baptism, if you don't accept what the reliable sources call it, namely "immersion baptism" as distinct from "submersion baptism"? Esoglou (talk) 16:20, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

"standing in a pool getting water poured on you" is not my definition either. I am just not convinced that immersion = submersion and that we need to clarify that submersion is the technically correct term that = "full immersion". --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:06, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of what you think about the definition of "immersion", we have to stay with normative use.--Taiwan boi (talk) 00:56, 31 October 2010 (UTC)