Talk:Baptism/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Methodist Contradictions

In the comparison chart, it says that Methodists see baptism as merely an outward sign. Under the section Meaning/Effects of Baptism, it says that Methodists believe in baptismal regeneration. The section Baptism in most Christian traditions also lists this claim.

In addition, the Meaning/Effects of Baptism claims that Methodists were formed early in the Reformation, which doesn't seem correct to me, but I'm not certain. Freder1ck 22:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)Freder1ck

ISBN -> OCLC

Not seeing a valid ISBN for this

• Scaer, David P. ''Baptism.'' Confessional Lutheran Dogmatics, Vol. XI. St. Louis: The Luther Academy, 1999. ISBN 0-9622791-2-1{{Please check ISBN|Calculated check digit (9) doesn't match given.}}

I am removing the ISBN and inserting an OCLC and ASIN. Kind Regards, Keesiewonder 19:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

1 Small Edit

Amended section 5.5 , "Who may administer baptism," to reflect new traditions towards the baptism practices of non-denominational churches.

"Newer movements of Protestant Evangelical churches, particularly non-denominational, have begun to allow those persons most instrumental in one's faith to baptize. The rationale for such a practice lies in the New Testament accounts of John the Baptist baptizing his own disciples, Christ his own, Phillip his own (such as the Ethiopian Eunich), etc."

72.86.7.190 00:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)rthomasneace

More on emergency baptism

In an emergency, someone who is not a priest can baptize someone, and (depending on Church) perhaps even someone who is not themself baptized; so, if the conditions called for it, could someone baptize themself? To put forward a purely hypothetical situation: someone trapped alone down a mineshaft, on a desert island, or injured after an accident, thinking death imminent and wanting baptism.... Could someone in that situation perform a self-baptism (water plus "I baptize myself in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit")?

Speaking from a Catholic perspective, the answer would be no, but again falls under baptism of desire.DaveTroy 16:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Early Christian practice

Early Christian period is generally regarded as the period after the Death of Jesus c.33. St. Cyprian (Epistle 75), was baptised in 245 or 246, well beyond this period.

If there is dispute surrounding early Christian time period, perhaps the heading could be changed to "First Century Christian practice"? This would certainly remove ambiguity? Or place sub headings for various "early Christian" periods?--Traveller74 08:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia defines "early Christianity" (to which Traveller74 has kindly inserted a link in this article) as follows: "The term Early Christianity here refers to Christianity of the period after the Death of Jesus c.33 and before the First Council of Nicaea in 325." Cyprian belongs to this period.

We have documents and paintings that indicate how baptism was administered in early Christianity (normally, but not always, by immersion). I think it would be useless to add a section on the practices of first-century Christianity, what some call Primitive Christianity. It would only be speculation. Have we any evidence of the manner in which the Philippi jailer was "immediately" baptized, apparently in his house, not in a river or the city baths (Acts 16:33)? How long would it have taken to baptize by total immersion the three thousand or so who "received (Peter's) word (and) were baptized ... in that day" (Acts 2:41)? One can speculate that these people of Philippi and Jerusalem were indeed baptized by total immersion. One can just as easily speculate that some other form of baptism must have been used. Surely we don't want to dedicate a whole section of the article to such speculation. Can Traveller74 point to any hard and fast evidence of how first-century Christians administered baptism? I suppose that, only if the Didache could be shown to be of the first-century and not of the first half of the second, would we have evidence about first-century practice, and that document states clearly that merely pouring water on the head was recognized as a form of baptism. (I had better (re)insert the Didache's statement in the article, especially since someone who disliked the idea must have removed (censored?) it: the article still has a reference to "the above quotation from the Didache".) Lima 09:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

With respect, I must disagree that having a section devoted to first century Christian baptism would be "useless", nor would it be speculation to mention/quote (without bias or speculative comments) first-hand accounts from the Bible. Any speculation regarding this period should be left to the reader. If added this section could present known texts from the bible (or reference to), and references from historians.

As noted by Lima, this period is distinctly different from latter periods. --Traveller74 10:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC) --Traveller74 10:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I await with interest the "first-hand accounts from the Bible" that show how Primitive Christians baptized. I have now read the Wikipedia article on the Didache, and I have learned from it that the prevalent scholarly view is that the Didache is of the first century, and that some would even put it as early as 44 or 47, making it contemporary with the earliest letters of Saint Paul. This last opinion I am reluctant to accept. But I cannot formulate a judgement on the basis of any expertise of my own. And even if I could, it would be excluded by Wikipedia's "no original research" (in other words, verifiability) rule. Lima 10:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I Fail to see where I’ve mentioned first-hand accounts that give any direct reference to the method of baptism? If somehow I’ve inferred this, please accept my apologies. What I propose is to merely mention biblical references and let the reader draw their own conclusions as to how the baptisms were actually performed. After all, no one is disputing the veracity of these texts, and they should be able to stand on their own.

I’m also concerned that the (baptismal pool) http://www.koelner-dom.de/index.php?id=88&L=1#b link is dead, and has been for some time. --Traveller74 11:14, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I have checked and found that the link works for me. Does anyone else have problems with it? I wonder whether, if Traveller74 tried this link and then scrolled down to the words beginning with the letter B, the problem would be overcome. The text there is: "Related to the later medieval baptismal font, this was an early basin often in the floor of a baptistery which allowed Early Christian baptisms to take place with a pouring of water over the person standing in the pool. Many different forms of baptismal piscinas follow Antique models, but only in the 5th/6th century they were clearly related to Christian use with a definite form: e.g., the octagonal piscina with the ciborium in Cologne. More often round and square versions survive from Early Christian times." If others too have difficulty in reaching this text, I should perhaps insert it in the article. Or perhaps I should insert it immediately. A description of the baptismal pool in the Cologne cathedral is given here. More general information on baptismal pools, the average depth of which was less than three feet, can be found in the Archeology section of the article Baptismal Font of the Catholic Encyclopedia of a century ago. Perhaps that is the link that I should put in the article. With renewed thanks to Traveller74. Lima 12:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I've added two sub-headings to this section, Apostolic period, and Post apostolic period. Contrary to Lima's assertion that the Apostolic period could only be filled with speculation, it currently has verifiable, non-denominational and non-biased information. --Traveller74 13:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Again I thank Traveller74 for the kind assistance given, through which I have learned that the Didache is generally considered to be a first-century work (and therefore extremely important for knowledge of the earliest manners of administering Christian baptism, about which the New Testament gives no details), and have also learned much more than the very little I knew about baptismal pools. Some of this knowledge I have now inserted into the article. Lima 15:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd also like to thank Lima for his/her paitence and brilliant editing abilities. During research into various historical texts I've managed to expand my own knowledge on the subject, and have hopefully contributed something to this article.

However, there are a few points that need attention:

• References to historian Augustus Neander's works regarding infant baptism have been removed. This should go somewhere in the baptism article, as it does relate to baptism.
• Other references to Augustus Neander's works have been removed, why?
• References to Histoire Dogmatique, Vol. 1, page 236. has been removed, which would give the reader a more balanced view of aspersion and a time period for its introduction.

--Traveller74 05:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I am grateful for Traveller77's continued collaboration.

• On infant baptism, Traveller77 could begin a new section. This section is on the manner or method of baptism: immersion etc.
• The only other reference to Neander seems to be: Augustus Neander's History of the Christian Religion and Church, During the Three First Centuries states: "Baptism was originally administered by immersion." (Note that Neander does not say: "Baptism was originally administered only by immersion.") My omission of this was not deliberate: it must have dropped out together with the talk about infant baptism. For my part, I do not see its importance. Nobody, as far as I know, denies the statement. But if Traveller74 thinks it important, it can easily be put in along with the other quotations in footnote 3.
• The quotation about aspersion from Corblet's Histoire dogmatique refers to the thirteenth century, long after the period we are considering. One might as well say (and with truth): "Even in the twenty-first century baptism by aspersion is still an out of the ordinary practice in the Roman Catholic Church." Besides, the quotation from Corblet must surely be a mistranslation, if not an out-and-out fabrication. Thomas Aquinas most certainly did not say that "a minister would sin gravely in baptizing other than by immersion, because he would not be conforming to the ceremonial of the Latin Church." Look up what he actually did say on the question Whether immersion in water is necessary for Baptism? Lima 06:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Continued thanks to Lima, whose contributions continue to enlighten me.

• Infant baptism is necessary in the section on the post-apostolic period, as it gives reason for the introduction of aspersion. Even if it is an out of the ordinary pracitce, it is another form of baptism introduced during this period of early Christianity. Also it's referenced in an earler quotation provided by Lima: "Moreover, the acts of the early martyrs frequently refer to baptizing in prisons where infusion or aspersion was certainly employed" therefore deserves further explanation.
• Further research on the history of infant baptism has uncovered works by historian Louis Réau, who discusses infant baptism and shallow baptism pools. It is a fitting introduction to Lima's paragraph on these archaeological uncoverings.
• Given Lima's comment on the quotation about aspersion from Corblet's Histoire dogmatique I didn't re-insert this. But may do so if further research uncovers more solid information. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Traveller74 (talk • contribs) 23:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC).

On further inspection, this section seems to be contradicting itself. In the Apostolic period section, one paragraph clearly states of Bible accounts "None of these accounts describe the manner of administering baptism", which seems to be correct. However, the Catholic Encyclopedia has seemingly derived methods from these same texts "Moreover, the acts of the early martyrs frequently refer to baptizing in prisons where infusion or aspersion was certainly employed." --Traveller74 00:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there is a contradiction between the statement about the absence of description of the method used for the baptisms mentioned in the New Testament and the statement about baptisms administered to people in prison awaiting martyrdom in subsequent early-Christian times. The latter statement does not say that aspersion was used; only that, since immersion was impossible, these baptisms must certainly have been conferred either by infusion/affusion or by aspersion, the only other methods that could be used.

I do not see on what grounds it is presumed that baptism by aspersion arose because of baptizing infants. Surely it is easier to immerse infants than adults. If a discussion of infant baptism is to include such considerations, it needs a section of its own all the more. Lima 05:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Unless there is other supporting evidence, the assertion that immersion was impossible can only be pure speculation given that Bible texts don't give details of how these baptisms were administered. certainly affusion may have been possible during this period, however aspersion seems highly unlikely at such an early time.

The infant baptism comments are not my own, rather, they're from a reliable and verifiable source, French historian Louis Réau. His grounds for reasoning are quite clear, specifically, the dangers of immersing infants in water. This text certainly gives the reader one reason for when and why aspersion was introduced. If you can find other information regarding when and why aspersion was introduced, please fell free to add.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Traveller74 (talk • contribs).

Apologies for not being sufficiently clear.

1. The quotation in question spoke of immersion as impossible in the circumstances of imprisoned catechumens about to be martyred. It was not referring to the baptisms mentioned in the "Bible texts".
2. The quotation does not say that aspersion was actually used for those persons. It merely says that, since immersion was not possible for them, and since these were in fact baptized before execution, some other method (and there are only two other possibilities) must have been used.

I do not have Réau's book, not have I found anything much about it on the Internet. Does it say that aspersion was in fact used by early Christians? And on what evidence? If there is no clear evidence either that aspersion was actually used, even if only occasionally, in that period, or on the other hand that it was never used, even occasionally, in that period, then it is out of place to speak of it specifically (rather than just as one of the possible forms of non-immersion baptizing) in this section that treats of the method(s) the early Christians used in baptizing. I hope too that the information about the book is not just second-hand and perhaps no more trustworthy than the attribution to Corblet of the above statement about Thomas Aquinas. Lima 09:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to Lima for the clarification, perhaps the article could be updated to reflect this.

Information supplied regarding Corblet and that of Réau's book is true and accurate, and certainly has not been altered by myself. The fact that Corblet was not re-inserted after your deletion does in no way lessen its veracity; it was removed until supporting evidence could be located, as a courtesy to yourself . Surely, this should be given the benefit of doubt, rather than suggesting some form of underhanded work? And I certainly hope your not inferring anything about my character, or the writers who originally referenced this work. Unambiguous references have been given, and it's open to public scrutiny for verification. Dare I say, perhaps bias toward the Catholic church is somehow interfering with intellectual reasoning.--Traveller74 10:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, if you happen to have better information regarding the emergence of aspersion I'd like to read it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Traveller74 (talk • contribs) 10:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC).

No, I was not casting aspersions (good word!) on the character of Traveller74, in whose good faith I have full trust. But I have cast them on whatever source attributed to Corblet a statement that I cannot believe Corblet actually wrote. I wonder whether, in accordance with Wikipedia rules about verifiability, more of the quotations that Traveller74 gives should be rephrased to read: "Source X says that such-and-such an author wrote that ..."

Well then, I await enlightenment about what is the earliest evidence of the use of aspersion, rather than affusion or immersion, for baptism. As far as I know, baptism by aspersion is still very rare today and any discussion of it is done with a view not to practising it, but rather to considering on a theoretical level whether it would be valid. Perhaps someone will enlighten me on this question also. Lima 10:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The claims made in this article are not exceptional, and have already been given strong sources, therefore according to wikipedia should not require any stronger sources (see verifiability). They may however go against teachings from one or more Christian denominations, which of course, cannot be avoided. For the sake of neutrality, I have carefully avoided using sources that would bias this section toward one particular denomination, which is why notable historians have been primarily used. Of course, if you're still in doubt, you could seek original texts for verification.

The search for more information regarding the emergence of aspersion is in progress and awaiting my next visit to the library. You'll be one of the first to know if/when more information is found. I've tried to avoid mentioning any texts regarding the validity of any particular baptism method. This topic is entirely subjective and open to all sorts of opinions from virtually every denomination, therefore should be restricted to the appropriate sections. At this point, the evidence suggests aspersion has seemingly been introduced at some point after the apostolic period, would you agree? --Traveller74 23:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I see now that some questionable additions escaped my notice yesterday. "In stark contrast to adult only baptism practices of first-century Christians ..." is certainly a POV statement. Infant baptism shows that the first-century situation is not that clear. Just as unsourced is what is said of aspersion. The quotation from Réau in fact says nothing of aspersion: why should aspersion, rather than affusion, have been used for those standing in a baptismal pool? Corblet too, who the Traveller74 editing says spoke of aspersion, in fact explicitly speaks instead, in the quotation from him, of affusion (pouring). Since Traveller74 puts such store by these quotations, I have preserved them by putting them with the others that speak of how immersion was the usual, normal, prevalent form (not necessarily the only form) everywhere at first, but later gave way to affusion in the West. (I would have thought it unnecessary to put more than, at most, one quotation about this matter: surely nobody disputes it.) I have preserved the Neander quotation also, and even inserted it in the article on infant baptism. Lima 07:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

It's difficult to see how a complete lack of evidence for infant baptism is "not that clear"? But given the nature of the topic in general, it is understandable. In fact the Infant baptism article is full of POV and bias toward Catholicism. This is obviously a sore point for the modern day catholic church and its proponents. Jesus aptly prophesied about such matters in Matthew 15:3–9.

I've re-inserted the Corblet paragraph, and changed the error that you've so kindly pointed out. It now reads "Regarding the transition from immersion to affusion". This was an error on my part. With the error fixed, there is no valid reason to remove this paragraph. Lima's preceding paragraph mentions affusion, so it is fitting to have a background on this manner. If removed/moved, it can only be because of POV reasons. --Traveller74 23:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

There may be "complete lack of evidence for infant baptism" in the first century. Much more certainly, there is complete lack of evidence that baptism of infants was excluded in the first century: at a time when Christianity was growing by conversion much more than by by child-bearing, it was inevitable that people would write of baptism principally with converts in mind. Conclusion: "the first-century situation is not that clear", i.e. as clear as Traveller74 still thinks it is.

The Corblet quotation is already in the article, together with other quotations - an unnecessary number of them - dealing with the same matter. See footnote 3. I have also clarified that it refers to the centuries-later change whereby pouring became the prevailing method in the West. It has in fact been said that the change was due to the colder climate of northern Europe, the same reason given for the change whereby solemn baptism began to be conferred at Pentecost rather than at Easter. In the East, immersion has remained the prevailing (but not the only) method. Lima 05:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Some editing and corrections

I did some minor editing to clarify or rectify some things. First of all, under "Meaning/effects of batism", it was said that WATER baptism was a requirement for salvation, a belief "shared by the Roman Catholic...". I removed "water" and specified right away the other types of baptism although I know they are explained in more details in another section. Otherwise, someone who reads this will think that the Catholic Church holds that only water (sacramental) baptism can save, which is not true. Secondly, I added the John 3:5 quote in the section "Catholic baptism and salvation" because the opening sentence "this teaching dates back to the teachings... of first-century Christians" is a half-truth since it is really based on Jesus' own words. In the section "who may administer a baptism", I would suggest to remove the last sentence "The rationale for such a practice..." since there are no New Testament accounts of Christ baptizing his own disciples (there never will be a citation!), so I think the whole line of reasoning doesn't hold up. Finally, in the comparative summary chart, the beliefs of the Roman Catholic Church about baptism should be clarified. Grace doesn't "starts one's path to salvation"... it is salvation! Grace is divine life. If you have divine life (if you're filled with Holy Spirit!), you have salvation. It would be better to say : "Sacramental baptism infuses the sanctifying power called grace. It 'removes' original sin and confers forgiveness of actual sins. Sanctifying grace is necessary for salvation." or something among those lines. Of course, if the entire Chart is taken as an external source, it may not be possible to modify it (?) --66.131.26.228 19:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC) I add my signature at a later date to identify myself properly --Benz74 21:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Catholic understanding of LDS baptism

I added the citation for the invalidity on LDS baptism. It is worth noting that the CDF DID NOT specify reasons, only made a declaration. Further, as noted in the following sentence, no other group was effected, only the mainline denomination. This is because only the main LDS church was studied as to sacramental validity. I added a citation for that as well.DaveTroy 17:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Suppression by User(s) IP 129.252.106.50/70.144.12.31 of verifiable fact

Can this user (or is it really more than one) justify his suppression of sourced information about the fact that in the New Testament the verb βαπτίζω, which not even once appears as clearly referring to total immersion, verifiably appears twice as referring to a merely partial washing? Lima 08:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Please see "Not Necessarily" below. Sky 18:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)Sky

Why the head?

Does anyone here know why the sprinkling (apserion) is done upon the head and not on other parts of the body? Why did it first begin?

Please see "Not Necessarily" below. Sky 18:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC) Sky

You still never answred the question of why the head though and not some other body part.

There are possibly two reasons. As the traditional practice of three fold emersion in a lake or river gave way to baptism within the church building itself, baptismal fonts became smaller. Eventually a person (Except infants) did not climb into the font but stood beside it and leaned over. The second reason, which also might have to do with the development of the font itself is modesty. Old icons show people being baptized naked, or clothed in undergarments. It may be that because people now wore clothing during the baptism that sprinkling the head became practical.--Phiddipus 05:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

No, it goes back long before that. The possibly first-century Didache instructed: "Concerning baptism, baptize in this manner: Having said all these things beforehand, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in living water [that is, in running water, as in a river]. If there is no living water, baptize in other water; and, if you are not able to use cold water, use warm. If you have neither, pour water three times upon the head in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit." It is just that the head is considered the most important part of the body, perhaps because only in the head do you find the organs of all the senses (seeing, hearing, tasting, smelling, as well as touching) and it would be considered wrong to choose, say, a toe instead of the head. Soidi 05:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

And by the way, why did Sky mention "sprinkling". Does any Church regularly practise baptism by sprinkling? (In Catholic teaching, any baptism by sprinkling must result in the water flowing on the person and is thus, practically speaking, baptism by pouring.) Sky should surely have said "pouring", the general practice in, for instance, the Western Catholic Church. The same as the Didache instructed almost two millennia ago. Soidi 05:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Pouring upon the head presupposes the one being baptized is standing, so that the water flows down over the body, to make it like a physical washing such as you would do if you didn't have enough water for a bath.

Mainstream American Protestant denominations regularly baptize either by sprinkling or by wetting the hand and wiping it over the infant's head. TCC (talk) (contribs) 07:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Trumpsound

I presume Trumpsound's edits are made in good faith. But the fact remains that he not only wants Wikipedia to make statements that are unverified (and can even be shown to be false) but actually falsely attribute these false statements to respectable sources. Take the statement that "the Catholic Church changed it’s practice of baptizing candidates in the name of Jesus to the use of the words Father, Son, and Holy Ghost during the second Century". This allegation runs counter to the probably first-century Didache, which gave explicit instructions to baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit; but much worse is his attribution of this allegation to the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica and the Catholic Encylopedia, neither of which (as the on-line versions show) says: "The Catholic Church changed its (the correct spelling) practice of baptizing candidates in the name of Jesus to the use of the words 'Father, Son, and Holy Ghost' during the second century". Lima 09:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Catholic acceptance of Orthodox baptism

In the article, the sections Conditions of the validity of a baptism mentions that However, all these Churches recognize each other's form as valid but, it is uncited. Reading above, it would appear that it is not true (at least for the Orthodox Church to recognize non-Orthodox baptisms). But, how about the Catholic Church accepting/recognizing Orthodox baptisms? --Kimon^talk 17:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes[1]. The RCC recognises any baptism as valid which is performed 1) with water; 2) in the name of the Trinity; 3) (as I understand it) in the context of faith. [2] Marnanel 00:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! --Kimon^talk 12:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Clarification Concerning

I have made some clarification changes which can be seen in the "history" tab. The churches of Christ and the hyperdispensational points are improved.Sky Sky 10:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Not Necessarily

Proper biblical exegesis requires adherence to the science of interpretation, and certain axiomatic rules regulate how we borrow from one passage to apply to another. One of those rules concerns figures of speech. The bible is as prone to use a figure of speech as any other literature. When it does, the iron rule states that unless there is clear contextual evidence to the contrary, a word of symbolic import does not escape the conclusion of common sense or common usage. For example, “baptize” is used about a hundred times in its affiliated or related cases in the NT. Therefore, the occasion of a figurative “cleanse” or “sprinkle” or “bury” does not forge a new doctrine, or a different definition of the term.

Unless there is clear contextual evidence that a symbolical usage has not been made, the conclusion goes for common sense, and in this case, for immersion in water rather than “spirit” baptism. The bible shows clearly that the persons who were being baptized were obeying from their hearts the form of doctrine the apostles commanded, Rom 6.17, and that they acted with faith and repentance which gave them the remittance of their sins, union with Christ, and thus the indwelling Holy Spirit which will raise us up on the last day.

Here are three passages that take on a figurative application where the rite of “water baptism” is used as a figure:

Matthew 3:11 “As for me, I baptize you with water for repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, and I am not fit to remove His sandals; He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.

Luke 12:50 “But I have a baptism to undergo, and how distressed I am until it is accomplished!

Acts 1:5 for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.”

Thank you for calling my attention to the meaning of the word issue. I hadn't noticed the science of interpretation rule violation of the statement, "In spite of the word's basic meaning, there is, as Strong's Concordance says, no unequivocal instance in the New Testament of its use to indicate full body immersion." Actually, Strong's didn't say that at all. Even if Strong's had said that, please note the following:

Not to be confused with Strong's Greek 911, bapto, 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’ (bapto) into boiling water and then ‘baptised’ (baptizo) in the vinegar solution. Both verbs concern the immersing of vegetables into a solution. Nothing more need be said and no other views need to be weighed.

Careful exegesis requires the figure to refrain from making new and unacceptable doctrine. Sky 18:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC) Sky

Meaning of the Word

I was startled to see the patent Calvinistic Point of View within this section and I have removed it to a NEUTRAL Point of View. The biblical term "baptism" must be interpreted with the bible, period. Sky 19:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)Sky

I'm not sure why you say that. The NT writers certainly didn't; they used a language they understood in the way they understood it. Scholarly, non-religious sources are perfectly acceptable sources for the meaning of Greek words. They happen to agree with Strong, but I see no good reason to drag unrelated arguments in over controversies I just don't see here. In fact, this being an encyclopedia, we shouldn't advance arguments but only explain viewpoints. The overwhelming consensus of Greek language scholarship is that "baptizo" means to dip, or immerse. (Not to mention the overwhelming consensus of modern native Greek speakers.) That's all that needs to be said. Strong might have felt the need to argue against "spirit" baptism -- if I understand the point of the edit correctly -- but the real issue over the meaning of the word is whether sprinkling is acceptable as a normative practice. One might argue one way or the other on it, but that doesn't change the meaning of the word.

This is not to say the text you replaced had any business being there -- it didn't -- but on the other hand, what your edit is trying to get at isn't clear. What does "first derivation" mean, who says Calvin did whatever you meant by that, and who cares? TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Now that I look more closely, this requires a whole lot of work. I cut this entire section in favor of a short, footnoted derivation in the intro, but the "Apostolic period" section that follows is, frankly, a mess. There are long passages formatted as quotations but unattributed; there are passages that seem to be direct quotations that are not formatted as such; and in general the entire section is an exercise in overkill, as if the point needed to be argued extensively. That may be true in some religious circles, but not in an encyclopedia article. Simply state the consensus of scholarship, cite it, and move on. About 75% of this material can be cut, with no loss of information and at considerable gain of readability. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

TC, thank you for your close inspection and changes. Your removal of the "Meaning of the Word" section is GREAT. You are also right about a change being needed in the Apostolic section. There is simply no need for all of that unless we are going to have to explain each and every view that is possible to have. Since we have the words of the Apostles there is really very little that needs to be said beyond the basic explanations.Sky 05:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)Sky

I think we do have to include other views, but in each case we clearly identify the POV. If there are, for example, groups that view a proper baptism as unnecessary, then we say so, mention who they are and what strand of Protestant theology they represent, cite it, and again move on. (I'd do this myself, but I am deeply ignorant on the subject of who might say this.) We don't have to -- in fact we shouldn't -- argue the points or try to demonstrate our own correctness. (Even if we are correct. That's the part of the NPOV policy that's most annoying.)

My complaints weren't something I necessarily expected you to get to work on. I mentioned it here in case there were strong objections to my opinion or if there was some point I was missing, as there might easily have been. But thank you for seeing to it! TCC (talk) (contribs) 07:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

TC I didn't take your complaints that way, I was anxious that it should be done. I was happy to do it because I was disappointed with trying to patronize every view and having nothing from the bible in tact. I will have NO problems if there are a gazillion different POV's as long as they put their view into a section they create properly labeled instead of trying to mash all the views together. Thanks. Sky 11:42, 7 July 2007 (UTC)Sky

Article reflects baptistic POV in the translation of the Greek (even baptistic scholars such as Ryrie admit immersion is not the only definition) & in interpretation of going in and out of water.

/* Meaning of the word in the New Testament */ This section violates Wikipedia's requirement that articles have a neutral tone. This section states definitions of the word that are used to support a baptistic position as fact but describes other definitions with biased-tone words such as "alleged," "claimed," and "claim." It has the tone of a personal blog written from a baptistic point of view.

Apostolic period

I was startled to see the patent Calvinistic Point of View within this section and I have removed it to a NEUTRAL Point of View. The biblical term "baptism" must be interpreted with the bible, period. Sky 19:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)Sky

I removed, "making full immersion difficult" ??? Such an eisegetical revision of history, which the writer obviously didn't witness, requires strict adherence to Aristotle's dictum that "the benefit of the doubt should be delegated to the document itself, not arrogated by the critic to himself."SkySky

The whole section on the Apostolic period needs work. The Didache is misrepresented as having been edited only once, and its support of Jesus-name baptism (not just Trinitarian-three-title baptism) has been omitted. And the latter paragraph of the section needs a lot of work. The clear inference that Matthew 28:19 was written "(c 80-85),[36]" based simply because the rest of Matthew-proper is reckoned as having been written at that time, omits much textual evidence indicating Matthew 28:19 was part of either an interpolation or a spurious addition. The dependant claim that, "Christians are to baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit [20]" is but a claim, and non-NPOV at that. Furthermore, much serious scholarship, including the authors of the Encyclopedia Brittanica and many others, conflicts with the view of the one particular author cited repeatedly in footnote #8 (i.e. That one author's claim that "Baptism has been in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit since at least the end of the 1st century" [8]) is but a viewpoint rather than an established historical fact. That viewpoint is non-NPOV and is seriously questionable. Lastly, this sentence: "In Acts (c 90),[36] Christians baptize in the name of Jesus (Acts 19:5) though whether that formula was ever used has been questioned as the phrase was used to distinguish it from the baptism of St John the Baptist [8]" is very much non-NPOV. It again refers to that same single author (oft-cited by the non-NPOV editor) whose viewpoint is not corroborated by other scholarship, and whose non-NPOV views are highly questionable. Finally, that statement itself seems to seek to minimize the historicity of Jesus-name baptism by citing only one of the instances in Acts instead of the several that are there (including, in addition to Acts 19:5) these: Acts 2:38, Acts 8:16, Acts 10:48, and Acts 22:16. DougJoseph (talk) 21:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Meaning of the word

A considerable amount of OR is contained in this section despite the references given. The one that caught my eye is the claim of obviousness that a complete immersion of the body (or something close to it) was not expected before eating. Well, that depends on what a person was doing beforehand. One sign archaeologists look for to determine whether a site in Judaea was inhabited by Jews is to look for mikvot. Their presence is a guarantee of a significant Jewish presence; their absence bespeaks a very small Jewish community at best. While not strictly required by Torah before eating after, say, a journey, it may well have been a common practice by way of "setting a fence around Torah" in the 1st century. The Essenes were particularly known for this. So the claim that Jesus was "obviously" not expected to immerse himself before eating, under the particular circumstances at that moment, is something that must be established. TCC (talk) (contribs) 10:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Explanation of edit

I've made a major edit in an attempt to yank this article away from the various POVs that's been imposed on it, and I'll explain what I did here as best I can.

• Definition from Liddell & Scott - As phrased, it was somewhat misleading. They really give only one primary definition; the other two are derivative. It's particularly absurd to give the sense "baptize", since that's the very topic under discussion! That's not helpful when trying to determine how the word was used before the Christian meaning became common, and why it was used for the Christian rite. "To perform ablutions" is furthermore given as derivative of this Christian meaning.
• "Meaning of the word" section - I cut this entirely. In response to the concerns I raised above about the excessive OR there, rather than discussing content on this talk page an editor chose to insert even more OR supporting his own POV. There really was very little cited to the point there; the section seemed to exist solely advocacy of baptism by means other than immersion.
• Paragraph beginning "As indicated above, the Bible sometimes uses the word..." - I cut it entirely. In earlier versions of the article it argued for the POV in favor of immersion; it had been edited to argue the opposite instead. Actually, no argument should be made either way.
• Paragraph about Calvinist times and Hyperdispensationalism - I shifted it to a more suitable section, as it not directly related to Apostolic times.
• 2 paragraphs beginning "The following period of Early Christianity seems to have introduced little to no changes." - This contained an extensive quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia, which was unreferenced and which had some other text inserted with a pro-immersion POV; paragraph following advocated same POV; did what I could to neutralize them.
• Mikvah/Baptism link - This is said often enough that we can't advocate here that they're unrelated. I shifted that section to the beginning of the "Early Christianity", which is now renamed History since it had drifted toward a more general treatment. I cut the old Mikvah section down though, since it went into too much detail.
• Removed Episcopalians from the Comparisons table since they're part of the Anglican Communion. Also removed Salvation Army -- if they don't practice baptism, why are they there? If we need to mention groups calling themselves Christian that don't baptize, then they should be described in the article body, not encountered for the first time in the table.

In general, I have cut unreferenced sections that seemed to present advocacy for one POV or another, since there was far too much argumentation what is a fairly long article in the first place. It's one thing to outline a controversy; it's another to go over the arguments in excruciating detail. No one wants to read that.

In this context, Biblical citations are as good as no citations at all. The Bible is primary source material, and per WP:NOR such should be used with caution. Since the various POVs are supported by varying interpretations of Biblical passages, we can't use them here to support a claim that is in fact controversial. (Showing that certain groups use certain passages in one way or another is a different matter.) TCC (talk) (contribs) 06:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

No, the replacement of the intro text and "Meaning" section is still very much OR. You are taking a use where the text makes it clear the context is the washing of hands -- i.e. dipping or immersing them in water, and in the passive voice at that -- and implying it can mean that in a more broad context with no citations at all to back it up; and implying further that dipping or immersion isn't still the basic concept even then. Even the Strong's quotation in the following restored section doesn't help, since its "ceremonial ablutions" definition is in fact circular. (It boils down to "baptism means baptism.") The point is we shouldn't be making any cases here at all, either for or against immersion or other methods. Some traditions prefer or insist on full immersion, some prefer other methods. They all have their own reasons for their practice, explication of which ought to be left to their own articles unless we want this to be a truly lengthy tome.

If you want to discuss it, please do so here. It's impossible to have a meaningful conversation via edit summaries. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by Original Research? I thought it meant putting on Wikipedia your own ideas, not those that are verifiably those of others. And I thought that the sources indicated in the text made it quite obvious, without need of discussion, that what the article says (and said, until it was excised a few weeks ago) about the meaning of the word baptizo is not just the idea of some editor.

The quoted Presbyterian source on the meaning of the word baptizo says:

15. How may it be proved from their scriptural usage that the words baptizo and baptisma do not signify immersion, but washing to EFFECT PURIFICATION, without any reference to mode?

...

2d. The question agitated between some of John's disciples and the Jews, John 3:22 -- 30, and 4:1 -- 3, concerning baptism, is called a question concerning purification.

3d. Matt. 15:2; Mark 7:1 -- 5; Luke 11:37-39. The word baptizo is here used (1) for the customary washing of the hands before meals, which was designed to purify, and was habitually performed by pouring water upon them, 2 Kings 3:1; (2) it is interchanged with the word nipto, which always signifies a partial washing; (3) its effect is declared to be to purify. (4) the baptized or washed hands are opposed to the unclean, (koinais).

The quoted Lutheran source on the meaning of the word baptizo says:

Mark 7:4 may tell us something about how the word "baptize" was used in Jesus' day. This

passage doesn't describe the Sacrament of Baptism, but the word used here for "wash" (Greek baptizo) is the same word. Some people think the word always meant to immerse - that is, to dunk something or someone all the way under the water, but this passage would seem to argue against that. Which item mentioned here would probably NOT be dunked all the way under the water?

The quoted Catholic source on the meaning of the word baptizo says:

Immersion is not the only meaning of baptizo. Sometimes it just means washing up. Thus Luke 11:38 reports that, when Jesus ate at a Pharisee’s house, "[t]he Pharisee was astonished to see that he did not first wash [baptizo] before dinner." They did not practice immersion before dinner, but, according to Mark, the Pharisees "do not eat unless they wash [nipto] their hands, observing the tradition of the elders; and when they come from the market place, they do not eat unless they wash themselves [baptizo]" (Mark 7:3–4a, emphasis added). So baptizo can mean cleansing or ritual washing as well as immersion.

A similar range of meanings can be seen when baptizo is used metaphorically. Sometimes a figurative "baptism" is a sort of "immersion"; but not always. For example, speaking of his future suffering and death, Jesus said, "I have a baptism [baptisma] to be baptized [baptizo] with; and how I am constrained until it is accomplished!" (Luke 12:50) This might suggest that Christ would be "immersed" in suffering. On the other hand, consider the case of being "baptized with the Holy Spirit."

In Acts 1:4–5 Jesus charged his disciples "not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father, which, he said, 'you heard from me, for John baptized with water, but before many days you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit.'" Did this mean they would be "immersed" in the Spirit? No: three times Acts 2 states that the Holy Spirit was poured out on them when Pentecost came (2:17, 18, 33, emphasis added). Later Peter referred to the Spirit falling upon them, and also on others after Pentecost, explicitly identifying these events with the promise of being "baptized with the Holy Spirit" (Acts 11:15–17). These passages demonstrate that the meaning of baptizo is broad enough to include "pouring."

More statements of this kind about what, in the New Testament, was meant by the word baptizo could be quoted, but surely these samples from three different denominations are enough to show that what the article says isn't the result of what at least I would call Original Research.

Liddell and Scott explicitly says that in Luke the word baptizo means perform ablutions. I do not see how, in the context of this article, you can honestly quote Liddell and Scott on the meaning of the Greek word baptizo while omitting this highly relevant statement.

So, really, on what grounds have you have been saying that what the article says about the meaning of the word is, in the Wikipedia sense, Original Research? I thought the matter was so obvious that there was no need for discussion. The expression of what the article says could be improved, but simply deleting what it says deserves, one would think, a word commonly used when reverting edits. Soidi 06:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't go throwing around the "V" word. That's asinine. I posted what I did and my reasons for it on this page; you chose not to discuss the matter until I practically demanded it. If anyone is at fault here, it's not me. You reverted without discussion by reinserting that material. I did no such thing.

The sources you cite appeared in the "Meaning" section, but I didn't cut that because it was OR. I cut it because it was needlessly argumentative and belabors the point for no apparent reason. "Baptizo" primarily means "immerse". That's indisputable. Not only L&S say so, but you can ask any Greek. It can also be used figuratively to mean "wash". Fine. Say it and move on. Or don't even bother saying it. It's not even relevant unless we're going to rehearse all the arguments about immersion/pouring/sprinkling, and as I said above there's no good reason to do that. It says right there in the article there was a range of allowable practices in the early Church. So why go on about it? TCC (talk) (contribs) 07:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Because some people keep suggesting that "baptizo" in the New Testament must mean "dunk". Making the point was not without "apparent reason": editors kept explicitly declaring that "baptizo" must mean "immerse", and the excision of the point gave readers the impression that what they stated was fact. Nobody, I think, disputes the primary meaning of the word "baptizo" (although there is no indisputable instance of its use in this primary sense in the New Testament), but the word was indeed used (literally, it seems, and not just figuratively, but that is only a minor point) in the New Testament to mean "wash", a fact of more than trivial importance in this context.

Improve the treatment, by all means, but don't cut it. Soidi 13:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

You may not have noticed that I cut all that material, and merely noted the practice of the denominations mentioned. If there's any left it was inadvertent, so feel free to rephrase it if you find any. This section is the only contentious language along those lines left in the article as far as I know. As far as I can tell, in RL there really isn't a controversy in the sense of one faction trying to impose its practices on all the rest, so I don't see a reason for this article to reflect anything like that. Each group administers it their own way for their own reasons. They may believe these reasons to be absolutely correct, and it may affect the manner in which they receive converts from other churches, but there's not a lot of contention these days.

The thing is that articles like this can become very tiresome to read when you get 10,000 words of two sides trying to prove their own POVs. It's often impossible for people with a stake in one side or the other to simply present their POV without turning the article into an ongoing debate. When there actually is some kind of ongoing controversy it's important to characterize it, but I just don't see that as being the case with baptism anymore. It certainly was at one time, but in those cases it can be presented in the articles on the involved parties. In a general article they're kind of beside the point. (It would be worthwhile to link to anything like this where it exists.)

As long as we can cut out all the back-and-forth arguing, I'd be happy to give the primary meanings in the intro, since I don't see any indication that the basic meaning is ambiguous, adding, "and is sometimes used by extension to mean washing in general." TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The meaning of the word "baptizo" in the New Testament is all that is required, and an article on Christian baptism does require it.

Even apart from what people keep adding to the article - I do not suppose you will be constantly policing the article to remove such additions - the notion that, in the Bible, "baptizo" must mean "immerse" is so often repeated that the article would be incomplete without a treatment of the question.

The article must not give the impression that the basic meaning of the word "baptizo" is almost certainly the meaning it has in the New Testament. The basic meaning of the word "Vatican" is a place; but that is not the meaning in which newspapers usually employ it, since they repeatedly write, for instance, "The Vatican has declared ..." Soidi 05:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. For one thing, obviously the Early Church understood "batpizo" in the New Testament to mean "immerse"; otherwise that wouldn't have been the normative practice recorded in the Didache. That is how native Greek speakers has always understood it in this context. I think a Greek has a much better understanding of what is and is not a figurative use of one of their own words than either of us do, just as every native English speaker knows perfectly well when "Vatican" is used in the figurative sense you waved around and when it is not. That's why the only church around that still reads the New Testament in the original language baptizes by immersion, and has always done so even when New Testament Greek was the language of the streets. To them, it's nonsensical to do otherwise.

Yes, I know the Didache allows baptism by pouring. It allows it as a last-ditch way of satisfying the ritual requirement of washing in water when no means of immersion is available. The preferred method is to immerse (baptisate) in running ("living") water; if that's not available then immerse (baptison) in still ("other") water, which should be cold, but if that's unavailable then warm, but if none of that can be had, then pour (ekcheon, not an inflection of baptizo). Yes, it's treated as a valid baptism after that, but the fact is that when something other than immersion is meant when directing what should be done, a different word is used.

Clearly, just because a word is used figuratively in one place, we don't automatically read it that way every time it occurs even in the very same text, let alone a collection of texts such as the New Testament. No one is so much of an idiot that they'd read both "The Vatican announced today..." and "The Pope returned to the Vatican..." figuratively even if they appeared in the same newspaper article. You can show all the figurative uses of "baptizo" in the New Testament (where they really occur) that you care to. It doesn't affect how the word is to be understood everywhere else.

That rant is just because of your insistence, despite evidence to the contrary, that the NT does not most likely mean "immerse" where it says "immerse". But that's really beside the point. In spite of the obviously correct meaning of the word, I've taken considerable trouble to remove any "pushes" of that POV from the article, just so that it doesn't end up as little more than a series of arguments that are deeply interesting only to those involved. In spite of that, you insist on keeping a POV push in the opposite direction -- which would leave a reader thinking that the figurative meaning is more common than the primary. That's the wrong impression, and there's no justification for it whatsoever. I'm removing one half of the argument. It's absurd to keep the other half just in case someone comes along and re-inserts the old material. Who does that kind of thing?

I'm not saying to leave out the figurative meaning entirely. It ought to be mentioned just as often as the primary reason is, which is precisely what I suggested. I'm saying we should drop the arguments. TCC (talk) (contribs) 07:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Declaring that, when the NT says "βαπτίζω", it is saying "immerse" sounds like a "petitio principii". Whoever wrote the Didache was a Greek speaker, and he knew that "βαπτίζω" had a wider meaning than that: otherwise he wouldn't have considered pouring water on the head to be baptism. I think a Greek of that time, such as he, had a much better understanding of what was and was not a correct use of one of their own words than either of us do.

No more than the NT, the Didache doesn't expressly say, as I possibly wrongly think you believe, that the ordinary (a more exact word than "normative") or optimal way of baptizing - i.e. in "living water" - was by total immersion in water of that kind: how can you be sure that the expression in the Didache could not apply also to pouring water on a person standing in (not submerged beneath) the living water, which is an impression one can (rightly or wrongly) easily get from ancient pictures of baptism?

I have seen a recent film by the Church of which you write, on the work of its Αλληλέγγυα (please excuse the probable misspelling) organization in Africa, that showed a Greek bishop baptizing a few adults and grown children in a channel of water (doubtless slow-flowing water - and the channel was at most two metres wide) by pouring water on their heads, after which they were made to hunker down briefly in the more-or-less forty-centimetre-deep water.

Would you also say: "You can show all the figurative uses of "Vatican" in the New York Times (where they really occur) that you care to. It doesn't affect how the word is to be understood everywhere else"? Soidi 11:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

No. It's not begging the question to assume a word is taking on its primary meaning absent any good reason to the contrary. The burden of proof is the other way around. We couldn't possibly communicate if that wasn't the case. Hasn't it occurred to you that your standards leave no means at all for the New Testament to say "immerse" anywhere? To conclude that it doesn't say anything about immersion based on that standard is circular reasoning, to say the least. It's the kind of thing you'd do only if you had a conclusion in mind that you really, really want to reach.

That the Greek bishop in question was baptizing by pouring using the only water in question is beside the point, since I've already said that under such circumstances this has always been allowable in order to meet the ritual requirement of a washing in water. That's why the Didache only directed it to be done by pouring when no other means was available. If "baptizo" always meant pouring -- a patent absurdity -- they wouldn't save mention of it for last. Otherwise you immerse three times. It doesn't change what the word means, and it doesn't change the preferred method. Orthodox everywhere baptize by immersion when they can. That this happened in a river is neither here nor there; it was not deep enough for immersion and therefore pouring was used. It's a silly casuistry to impose some other interpretation on it. I do know what I'm talking about when it comes to my own church. I've even got a bit of education in it.

To your last question -- Yes, I would. Why every not? You seem to think it results in something nonsensical, but it just isn't there. Just because the NYT means a spokesman for the central authority of the Roman Catholic Church when it says "Vatican" in one place, does not mean they cannot also use "Vatican" in its proper sense as a place name. I even gave you an example. Didn't you bother to read it?

I'm not sure why you picked "Vatican" as an example. The American press uses "White House" in exactly the same way. Just because the NYT says "White House" when it means an unnamed spokesman for the Executive branch, there's no reason why it cannot also use "White House" in its proper sense to denote the Executive Mansion, even elsewhere in the article.

But again all this is a side issue. The subject of the discussion is your resistance to the removal of exactly this kind of argumentation from the article. Since you didn't bother to address that, I'll assume you've conceded the point. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I have "bothered to address that", at 13:35 on 2 August and 05:01 yesterday. It is an easily verifiable fact that people think baptism must be done in accordance with what the New Testament says when it speaks of baptizing. And to know what the New Testament says about baptizing, we must understand the word it uses in the way it actually used it. This is essential matter for the article, not something for an appendix or a footnote.

"Hasn't it occurred to you that your standards leave no means at all for the New <York Times> to say <'White House' in the sense of a building> anywhere? To conclude that it doesn't say anything about <the building> based on that standard is circular reasoning, to say the least. It's the kind of thing you'd do only if you had a conclusion in mind that you really, really want to reach."

Well, you answer this yourself, by saying: "Just because the NYT means a spokesman for the <US President> when it says '<White House>' in one place, does not mean they cannot also use '<White House>' in its proper sense as a place name."

"That the Greek bishop in question was baptizing by pouring using the <abundant> water in question is beside the point, since I've already said that under such circumstances <(having to make, for complete immersion of those being baptized, a deeper pool as part of the preparation for the bishop's visit; indeed, it is possible to immerse a non-obese person fully in just 40-cm-deep water, so was pouring (plus the baptized person's own hunkering) used merely to allow the bishop to baptize from the bank of the channel without getting wet?)> this has always been allowable in order to meet the ritual requirement of <baptizing, as explicitly stated in the Didache at a time when people surely understood the word in the same way as the New Testament writers did>." Soidi 05:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I answered it myself. The problem is that it's not a statement you subscribe to. Yes, it looks absurd when you use "NYT" and "White House" in place of "NT" and "baptism". It is absurd. But that's exactly the kind of thing you're doing when you say that we can never unambiguously understand "baptism" (i.e. "immerse") to mean immerse regardless of context. I cannot fathom why you think you're scoring a point here.

Your other substitution doesn't support you either. You insert "abundant" about water that was somehow not deep enough to immerse someone in. You weren't there and neither was I, but I'm telling you that in any Orthodox Church immersion is always done unless there's a very good reason not to. Merely that the bishop doesn't want to get wet isn't one of them -- if it was in this case then it's on his head -- since the sponsor can perform the actual dunking if need be. There must have therefore been some reason why the water was thought unsuitable for it. You can either believe me or not, but any standard reference on Orthodoxy will contradict you. (For example, [3], which is from the standard basic reference on Orthodoxy in English.) The rest of it is the same circular reasoning you've been using all along, and a misreading that can only be achieved by begging the question. Using your method, it certainly doesn't work if we substitute "wash" for "baptize": we're left with, "wash in living water... wash in other water... pour over the head", which still uses words that mean something different. But we're in exactly the same situation I put forward before. You leave this text with no means of using the primary meaning of the word when you insist on reading it otherwise everywhere.

But since you're continuing to argue the point, I'm afraid it's become transparent. You're really about pushing your own POV here, at a time when I'm trying expressly to remove such pushes from either side of the question, even the one I agree with. As I said, if you see any such pushes remaining, I invite you to remove them in lieu of retaining this section devoted exclusively to your side. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The word "baptizo" had a wider meaning, but of course it could be used also to refer to complete immersion. "White House" has a wider meaning, but of course it can be used also to refer to the bulding. Apart from Jehovah's Witnesses, nearly everyone accepts that the Greek word "stauros" had a wider meaning, but that it could of course be used also to refer to a stake. As you know, the primary meaning of "stauros" is a stake, but I presume you don't claim that an article dealing with the death of Jesus should exclude any mention of what was meant by the "stauros" on which he died; or that, any time that the word "stauros" appears, the onus of proof lies entirely on those who understand it as meaning something other than a stake.

The fact remains that "baptizo" was used in the New Testament in a wider sense than "full immersion". What the words "baptizo", "baptisma", "baptismos" meant to people at the time the New Testament was written is essential for knowing what the early Christians understood by baptism. Excluding from an article that goes into the question of the origins of Christian baptism a mention of this seemingly verified fact of how people did understand these words would be pushing a POV that the words meant "immerse completely" and nothing else. Of course, if you can find verifiable evidence for this latter thesis, I invite you to add it to the section dealing with the meaning of the word. Soidi 06:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Small Change in church of Christ Section

I figured I should mention this since this is a well-debated article. I changed some wording about the Great Commission that implied Christians from the church of Christ use this section in Matthew to define the type of baptism Jesus was talking about. This was unsourced at best, and certainly not true. The Great Commission is simply an example of Jesus commanding baptism to be performed, and for what reason. It doesn't mention the mechanics of the act, and I've never heard anyone claim that it does. Tehpeabody 05:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

early christian beliefs about baptism

Oxford Dictionary of World Religions says that early Christian doctrines about B were variable. Lima (who has a habit of altering and deleting my edits on Purgatory and other pages) changed "doctrines" to "forms." Surely there's a policy against changing a cited statement so that it no longer agrees with the source cited? That can't be kosher, can it? Perhaps Lima is defending the RCC POV that true doctrine has never changed, so I changed the term to "beliefs" instead of "doctrines."

Lima? Is "beliefs" OK? Would you care to explain yourself? Leadwind 14:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Now Lima is doing the same thing he's done to my work on other pages, adding "According to (name of reference)" to the information. The reference is already cited in the footnote and doesn't need to be called out. Lima, please explain yourself. Leadwind 00:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Someone keeps adding the extraneous "According to (reference)" conditions to citations that they don't like. Lima, is that you? Leadwind (talk) 14:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Oxford Dictionary of World Religions

I'm adding material from World Religions. Lima has taken to altering my cited information without comment. Please keep an eye on him. If he alters the cited information and leaves the citation on it, that's a false citation.

Lima, if you're going to alter a citation, at least delete the reference, too. Leadwind 02:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Did someone delete the cited information about Jesus not baptizing people? Lima, was that you? Leadwind (talk) 14:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I deleted this primary source reference: "The gospel of John says that Jesus too baptized (3:22, 3:26, 4:1) but adds that "Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples" (4:2)." Someone (Lima?) is trying to use a primary source to suggest that Jesus baptized, at least indirectly. What's needed here is a good secondary source, not proof from scripture. The information I deleted would be fine in a section about early Christian references to baptizing, or to Jesus baptizing. But it can't be used as historical information without a secondary source backing it up. Lima, did you substitute primary-source information you like for cited information you don't like? Leadwind (talk) 14:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Why on earth may we not report that the Gospel of John does make that statement? It is a fact. I merely state the fact: I add no interpretation, draw no conclusion.

I am not saying that Leadwind quotes his picked sources inaccurately here, but examples of past inaccuracies are found here and here. Lima (talk) 11:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

If you are talking about the gospel of John and what it says, you can, of course, quote what it says. If you are talking about whether Jesus baptized, you need a secondary source. Vassyana has made this point clear to you on the Early Christianity page. You can't use scripture as a reliable source. Please respect the policy of verifiability. In this sentence, you cobbled together two sentences thus: "Jesus did not baptize as part of his ministry,[1][3] though the Gospel of John says three times that Jesus baptized,[4] but adds that "Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples."[5]." Here you're using a primary source (scripture) to qualify a two secondary sources. If you want to reference John, fine, but in the context of what Christians in Ephesus were saying around the end of the first century, not in the context of Jesus' own life.

Are there any other editors reading this who could chime in, or is it going to be Lima and me head-to-head again?

Finally, Lima, would you please answer my original question. Was it you who deleted the referenced information about Jesus not baptizing? Leadwind (talk) 15:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I did not feel free, over Leadwind's objections, to restate explicitly in the text that what he makes Wikipedia say (i.e. that Jesus simply did not baptize) is a view attributed to two modern writers, neither of whom Leadwind quotes exactly. I therefore found no remedy other than to "cobble together" two statements: a) Jesus did not baptize (which Leadwind presents as a fact, not as what two writers say); and b) "John says that Jesus did baptize, though not personally". I am confident that, precisely because of that apparent (but perhaps not real, since both statements could be true) contradiction, people more knowledgeable that I am will have their attention drawn to the matter and settle it for us. Meanwhile, I let Leadwind's edit stand, and I ask him to be so good as to let mine stand until such time as the more knowledgeable people intervene. Surely, the matter is not so urgent that it must be settled within hours. Please, let the two of us pause our part in this argument and await the help of others. These others may perhaps show, with exact quotations, on what grounds these two end-of-the-twentieth-century writers cast aside (if they did) end-of-the-first-century John's statements, of which they ought surely not to have been ignorant.

I don't see why anyone would think it so important to insert into this particular article either Leadwind's statement that Jesus did not baptize in any sense or John's that Jesus did baptize, but only through his disciples. But I cannot let the first of these statements stand unaccompanied by any explanation whatever of what seems to be its bald direct contradiction of a well-known first-century statement on the question, unaccompanied even by any indication of the existence of the apparent contradiction. Lima (talk) 17:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Lima, you've been warned not to use primary sources as references for your assertions. The way I cite Jesus not baptizing is in accord with WP policy. I say what the RS says and I cite it. If this isn't fact, then find an RS that says otherwise. Once there's an RS that says Jesus baptized, then it's an open issue and we must describe it as such. I returned the material to chrono order and distanced my scholarly source from your primary source. And one more thing. Historians generally regard John as not reliable historically. It represents not historical Jesus (who didn't baptize) but semi-gnostic eternal spirit Jesus (who did baptize, and even created the world). These two modern sources have no reason to credit anything John says about Jesus baptizing. Jesus didn't create the world, and he didn't baptize. Leadwind (talk) 06:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

My only assertion here is that the Gospel of John says that Jesus baptized (not personally but through his disciples). The fact that this first-century source made that statement (whether correct or not, something about which I make no assertion in the article) is highly relevant to the article as it now stands since you added to it your assertion that two twentieth-century writers ruled out any baptizing in Jesus' ministry. You have not put in chronological order the statement you attribute to these writers, but have instead placed it before Saint Matthew's Gospel! I have left your assertion untouched, and have not even moved it into either chronological order or logical order (i.e. close to the contrary statement in the Gospel of John); so you have nothing to complain about. Let us just let the matter rest (even if the apparent omission by your two sources of any mention of the clear statement by the Gospel of John is puzzling) and cease quarelling.

By the way, there is nothing wrong with quoting exactly and without interpretation easily verifiable primary sources. Quite the contrary. Lima (talk) 10:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Calvin paragraph

What does this mean? Leadwind (talk) 06:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

At the time of John Calvin, some held that immersion in water for remission of sins (Acts 2:38), the "burial in baptism" used as a figure of speech in Romans 6:4 and Colossians 2:12, was not required in Christianity to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. Instead, they posited a waterless "baptism in the spirit", citing Jesus on the day of his Ascension in Acts 1:5: "For John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized in the Holy Spirit not many days hence." See Baptism in Hyperdispensationalism.

Oneness Pentecostals

Oneness Pentecostals aren't on the big table. I don't know whether they baptize infants or whether they say that baptism "Regenerates, Gives Spiritual Life." They're pretty interesting as far as their baptism beliefs go, what with their Jesus' name and Holy Ghost baptisms. Anyone know the details? Leadwind (talk) 06:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

It is to complecated

Half of the people who look at it won't understand what half of it says. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.171.222 (talk) 11:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Spelling: baptise v. baptize

A consensus needs to be reached. There are only two occurrences of baptise in the current article, but both appear to be correct (see Wiktionary links in heading). Does anyone else see an overwhelming use of American spelling and usage versus British? According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English, terms and spelling should be consistent throughout articles. I can't imagine baptism having any stronger tie to the States or the UK, but you never know until you ask and someone steps up to correct you. [Ashleyy|osaurus] 19:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest that since this the English Wikipedia, the spelling should reflect the wider English-speaking community. I think 'baptise' does so, though of course our Yank brethren use 'baptize' and it is the older spelling elsewhere too. No offence to US editors!--Gazzster (talk) 22:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I suppose it would be impossible for Wikipedia to adopt the rule that was followed some decades ago (and perhaps still is today) in United Nations documents in English: Use the more international (the non-US) spelling, but with -iz- in place of -is-, as is permitted (not obligatory) outside the United States. I think this would be the ideal, but I think it would not be acceptable to US contributors. Lima (talk) 04:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

My two cents on the matter: In every Church-endorsed article or material I've run across that's been published in America, baptize has ALWAYS, without one exception, been spelled with "iz" rather than "is". The only time I've come across it any differently was in the word "baptism" which, of course, has an "is". I've seen the word "baptise" spelled with an "is" ONLY in articles still in English but not so-called "American English". This seems to be a highly technical point. I would say that I personally am in favor of the "iz" spelling because that's what I'm most familiar with, but if the consensus disagrees with me, it's not going to break my heart to concede to the "is" usage. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 05:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

And the "favour" usage? Lima (talk) 08:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

That's easy as well. If we're using American English, then "favor" would be the most appropriate. The "favour" usage has been in the scriptures in times past, but "favor" seems to be the most commonly used spelling nowadays. Again, I'm in agreement with whatever the consensus decides, but I personally prefer "favor" because that's the form I'm most familiar with. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 13:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

As Jgstokes has just indicated, Americans will write "favor" and "baptize". Most others will write "favour" and (quite likely though not necessarily) "baptise". Conclusion: We must follow the general Wikipedia rules and use uniformly throughout the article (except for quotations) one or other of the two styles. It would be inappropriate to apply different rules to this one article. Will someone please check which style was first established in this article? Remember that "-ize" does not necessarily indicate US spelling: it is correct also in the non-US style. Lima (talk) 14:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Since nobody else has done it, I have checked the matter myself. The very first version of this article (1 November 2001) used the US spelling, "practice", for the verb "to practise". (The noun is spelled "practice" in both styles.) So, according to Wikipedia rules, US spelling is the one to use here. I leave it to a US-speller to make the adjustments. Lima (talk) 09:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Tb|Tb]] (talk) disagrees with me. With regard to a different article, he has written:

You suggest, "If this rule has been violated, then the violation must be undone - or so I think." but this is exactly the problem. This leads to endless problems. The rule does not say anything about "undoing" anything. It says two things: if the article has been around a long time, and edits have been mostly one way, keep it that way, and, if the article is new, follow the lead of the first disambiguating major contributor. The article has been around a long time, and, AFAICT, has for nearly all that period used American usage. The point here is that Wikipedia stresses stability and not correcting every past mistake. The point of the policy is to discourage changes of spelling while preserving consistency. Tb (talk) 16:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Lima (talk) 18:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

To speak for myself, Lima's representation of my remarks is correct, but I want to be clear.

• The general wikipedia policy applies here.
• The US spelling of the past tense is "baptize", always with a Z..
• This is not a new article, so the "first major contributor" rule does not apply.
• This is a long-established article, so the main rule applies: use the spelling which has been mostly used.
• Before March 9, the article had inconsistent spellings. But the British spellings were introduced only more recently. For example, "baptised" does not exist in the July 22, 2007 versions. A few Britsh spellings started to get introduced last year. At one point, "baptised" was changed to "baptized", and Lima reversed it. Later, some changes from Lima used -ize spellings, saying that -ize is permissible everywhere.
• It seems to me then that
  • The article has sometimes had inconsistent spellings, and sometimes uniformly American ones,
  • So the article should remain with American spellings. Tb (talk) 19:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The rule is not, as I thought, "Follow the spelling of the first person to make an edit that disambiguates the variety of spelling" (here the US spelling, in the other article the non-US spelling); the rule is, as Tb has pointed out, "Follow whatever spelling has managed, over time, to establish itself in the article, even if it did so by eliminating the spelling originally used - until such time as the other style succeeds in establishing itself without immediate protest". (By the way, if I at some stage introduced "-ise", I must have been copying a source: I myself use "-ize".) Lima (talk) 19:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

"Baptize" is one of the few words where the pedantic UK English spelling uses a "z" on the basis that the word comes to us solely from the Greek and "ize" best represents the Greek ending. So in this case "baptize" ought to be viewed as satisfactory to all. (Personally, I laways write "baptise") John Campbell (talk) 12:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

So Australians (for instance) either don't exist or don't count? Lima (talk) 13:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Strangely enough, in discussion of a different article I objected that English-speakers did not just exist in North America and UK but then was shot down in flames because (or so it was claimed) there are only two spelling variants, called US and UK for convenience. John Campbell (talk) 13:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Baptism pictures

I removed two pictures reputed to be baptism pictures in the Église du Christianisme Céleste (Celestial Church of Christ). What they really show is headwashing as a kind of "spiritual work" to avert bad luck. In ECC submersion in river water is compulsory for baptism. -- JohSt 08:43 28. April 2008 (CET) —Preceding comment was added at 06:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

How is confimation given

The bishop extends his hands over the person and anoints the forehead in the form of the cross while saying ("Be sealed with the gift of the holy spirit".)The person being confimed answers "Amen" meaing ("let it be so".)The gift of the holy spitit, who is father and the son to us. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.193.74.170 (talk) 23:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what you're talking about or what religious denomination you are talking about, but it sounds like nothing I've ever heard before. Could you please explain? --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 23:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Sounds pretty close to the current RC rite to me, though why it should be here is unclear to me. Tb (talk) 03:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Within the Eastern Orthodox Church after the baptism the priest anoints the new member with a specially prepared oil called Chrism. He anoints the forehead, eyes, ears, lips, nostrils, throat, back of the head, chest, shoulders, both sides of each hand, the back, and feet. With each anointing he says "The seal of the gift of the Holy Spirit" and the new member says "Seal" or "Amen". In some traditions with infants the entire body is rubbed with this holy oil. Some scholars have said that this tradition is symbolic of wrestlers covering themselves in olive oil before the struggle; in this case the struggle with sin and temptation.

Churches of Christ

I've removed the section on the Churches of Christ, because essentially they believe the same thing about baptism that other protestant denominations do. If we allow them their own section every one of the many hundreds of divisions of evangelical protestantism will want their own section. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

cited material repeatedly deleted

Jesus did not baptize as part of his ministry.<ref name="ODWR">Bowker, John (ed.). The Oxford dictionary of world religions. New York: Oxford University Press. 1997</ref>

That line keeps getting deleted. When people repeatedly delete scholarly material on a religion page, I suspect defense of POV. Leadwind (talk) 03:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

If it keeps getting deleted (certainly not by me), perhaps it is because it keeps being reinserted as Wikipedia-stated fact, not as the opinion of the author of the article in the ODWR, while what appear to be contrary indications exist in other sources. Why not explicitly attribute the statement to its source? Then nobody can object. Lima (talk) 06:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

You've deleted this sentence before, after an RfC said you should leave it alone. Lima, please do us all a kind favor and find one verifiable source (not scripture or church tradition) that says Jesus baptized. If our only contemporary source says he didn't, then as far as WP is concerned, he didn't. Should every cited piece of information on WP start with "according to name-of-source"? No. Neither should this sentence. Leadwind (talk) 14:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

When two early sources state that Jesus did baptize, one of them a first-century source which adds that the baptizing was done indirectly, the other a second-century source which says Jesus baptized one person personally, I have difficulty in understanding how you can justifiably make Wikipedia baldly state that Jesus did not baptize, instead of saying that according to a certain writer he didn't. I have not said that every cited statement should have "according to ..." I have said that, when sources, even Scripture or a Church Father, indeed, in this matter, especially first-century Scripture, explicitly state (not just are interpreted as implying) the opposite, you must not present something as an undisputed fact. Lima (talk) 15:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

You're using scripture (primary source) as if it were a scholarly source. Perhaps you as a layman conclude that Jesus baptized, but please find a contemporary expert who says so and cite that expert. If you can't, then WP policy is to follow expert opinion, no matter how accurate you personally might think your scripture is. By relying on scripture, are you conceding that contemporary scholars agree that Jesus didn't baptize? Look, for all I know, he did. I'm no expert. Please find an expert who says he did. If we find two experts who say different things, then it's an open issue. Leadwind (talk) 16:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I added sourced text representing the prominent views on the topic and the changed the lead to reflect the body.[4] Vassyana (talk) 19:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Excellent, I think, as far as you have gone. No doubt you will now get around to remedying the still persisting contradiction between the baldly stated "Jesus did not baptize as part of his ministry" and what follows, which has now become "Scholars are divided on whether or not Jesus baptized and, if so, to what extant". Lima (talk) 19:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Oops! I meant to remove that as part of the lead rewrite, as the particular claims are all represented with some context in the body of the article. After removing that, does it seem appropriate and balanced to you? Vassyana (talk) 19:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for the great help, and also for removing the problematic statement. Lima (talk) 19:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

And thanks for getting rid of the appeal to scripture. I almost put a fact-tag on the statement that scholars are divided, as the other side hasn't cited a nonsectarian source for the claim that the issue is even an open question. Leadwind (talk) 19:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

primary sources

Geez, the early Christianity section looks like immersionists and anti-immersionists had a POV war, using as their weapons primary sources (Bible quotes) and long-dead scholars. I'm cleaning up. Leadwind (talk) 03:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

deletion of cited information, bad reorg

Lima again deleted the cited information about Jesus not baptizing. He also made Jesus' baptism a sub-section of the NT, even though the baptism of the historical Jesus is a topic in its own right. I reverted. V had removed the statement about Jesus not baptizing from the lede because it was covered in the body. I put it in the body. Can someone besides Lima and me tell us how to use the cited information that Lima keeps deleting and I keep adding? Leadwind (talk) 07:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and made some edits again. I combined some redundant and fragmented sections. I removed some redundant information and claims. I do not see the need to reinsert the claim that Jesus did not baptize. A discussion of the matter is already present in the article based on reliable sources, with in-text attribution to the references, with context and explanation accompanying the claims (as presented in the sources). Why should it be necessary to reinsert the claim when it is already covered in much better detail as part of a spectrum of views? Vassyana (talk) 09:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

So the Oxford Dictionary of World Religions says that Jesus didn't baptize. But that information doesn't go on this page? V, you say it's already covered. Where, exactly? I can't find it. There's commentary on the New Testament, but that's a generation later than the historical Jesus. Why can't we cover Jesus directly as a historical figure (who, it would seem, didn't baptize)? Why can we only cover him as the ahistorical character presented by John? How about in between Jewish ritual and New Testament we put the stage that occurred between them chronologically: historical Jesus, baptized by John, didn't baptize? Then we can cover Jesus as described by his followers a generation or three later? Leadwind (talk) 16:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

It's covered at the aptly named Baptism#Baptism by Jesus. The closing paragraph covers that point of view, with some explanation and context. Vassyana (talk) 21:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The closing paragraph describes the idea that Jesus didn't baptize as a theory of two scholars. The Oxford Dictionary of World Religions presents this idea as historical fact. Proponents of Jesus baptizing present no historical evidence on their side, only scripture. Can we say something to let the reader know that it's not a case of two scholars against the world in the "Jesus didn't baptize" theme? Maybe an intro paragraph, "Contemporary scholars conclude that Jesus didn't baptize," with a mention of ODWR in the footnote? Leadwind (talk) 23:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

All the views presented there are attributed to the sources. Such a broad attribution as you'd suggest would be highly inappropriate, because it would be plainly false and counter to NPOV. (For example, The Cambridge Companion to Jesus [a source very comparable to the Oxford Dictionary of World Religion] asserts Jesus did baptize.) There are a variety of views on the subject in the body of reliable sources. The current article appropriately represents that. Vassyana (talk) 07:06, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

"Proponents of Jesus baptizing (scil. through his disciples) present no historical evidence on their side" - I wonder what historical evidence the ODWR writer could present on his side! Is any even imaginable?

"Two scholars against the world" - or is it, just perhaps, the ODWR writer against the world? Lima (talk) 04:39, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The "Baptism by Jesus" section consists of three paragraphs that refer not to the historical Jesus but to the gospel of John. Since they all refer to scripture, let's put this whole section under "New Testament." Leadwind (talk) 23:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Let's instead stick to the sources, which do not make the distinction you assert. For example, the first source explicitly states that the Gospel of John confirms the fact that Jesus baptized. Vassyana (talk) 07:06, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I just stumbled across this discussion as I was looking up baptism, and thought maybe I would weigh in as someone outside the present debate who is also a Christian. John 4:2 does offer the clarification that it was not Jesus himself but his disciples that were doing the baptizing. Liberal scholars are nitorious for suggesting "someone just inserted that somewhere along the way" to bring doubt to the text, despite the proper literary method of always giving the benefit of the doubt to the text. Anyways, I think the section on Jesus baptizing is good to include, if only to say that some say that Jesus himself baptized and some say he did. I think there needs to be a bit that supports the idea that he didn't, because that seems to have been left out for the most part. I don't see a problem in leaving it as its own heading as long as all views are presented, not just the "the verse that says it wasn't Jesus baptizing isn't real" view. Kristamaranatha (talk) 03:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

K agrees with me that the "He didn't" side get short shrift. How about adding one sentence: "The ODWR concurs that Jesus didn't baptize"? Leadwind (talk) 17:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Lima, "I wonder what historical evidence the ODWR writer could present on his side! Is any even imaginable?" Really, you don't have any idea what sources historians use to reconstruct Jesus' biography? This whole discussion must seem nonsensical to you, then. (Hint: synoptics, in which, unlike the 4th gospel, John is called the Baptist, Jesus is baptized, and Jesus doesn't baptize.) Leadwind (talk) 17:34, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

The Synoptics say Jesus was baptized; therefore (!!) the Synoptics say Jesus never baptized! Curious logic! And is the fact that the Gospel of John calls the Baptist simply "John" also supposed to prove that Jesus never baptized anyone? Neither the Synoptics nor John say that Jesus laughed; is that "historical evidence" that he never laughed? Lima (talk) 19:09, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

If you don't understand historical analysis of the gospels, then it's easy to make fun of it. Everybody laughs, so there's no historical reason to think that Jesus didn't. Luke probably would have Jesus never laugh, because he portrayed Jesus as an implacable spiritual being. No agony, passion, or sweating blood, just calm acceptance of his fate. But that's not how the original biographer (Mark) puts it, so Luke's stoic Jesus is probably just Hellenized elaboration. As for baptizing, who did that? It's not like laughing. Not everyone, apparently. Probably the guy they called the Baptist. Of course, John doesn't call him the Baptist. Why not? To transfer the baptism cred to Jesus. Leadwind (talk) 15:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

The notion that, since the Synoptics don't say that Jesus did baptize, it follows that he did not now has company in the idea that, since Luke portrayed Jesus as an "implacable" (impassive?) spiritual being, Luke 22:41, which says Jesus prayed not to have to suffer, doesn't really belong to Luke, and that Luke 22:44, which speaks of Jesus' sweat falling like drops of blood, actually belongs to Mark, which, as it now stands, says nothing of sweating blood. Lima (talk) 18:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I would probably word it something like "Many sources concur with the biblical account that it was not Jesus but his disciples who baptized" and insert the footnotes accordingly, including the Cambridge Companion to Jesus, the ODWR and other sources... I am looking through some of the textbooks I have here to find some more, including the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology (an excellent source, and also a book I think every Christian would benefit from). I'll get back to you on those sources momentarily. Kristamaranatha (talk) 18:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

The Evangelical Dictionary of Theology reads, "But Christ does not give the external baptism directly; he commits this to his disciples (John 4:2)" (Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001. Edited by Walter A. Elwell. page 129). I'll see what else I can find if you feel we need more sources. Kristamaranatha (talk) 19:09, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, K, but the historical opinion seems to be that Jesus didn't baptize and neither did his apostles (during his ministry). Why would the synoptics be silent on this account? Could it be that Jesus' disciples baptized more people than John, but Jesus' biographers (Mark, Matthew, Luke) don't even mention this? And it's not until AD 90 or so that anyone bothers to write about Jesus' big baptism campaign? Unlikely. Outside of sectarian circles, John's not regarded as a source for historical information about Jesus. Leadwind (talk) 15:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

No, the "historical Jesus" approach is that you can't trust the Bible. This is an article about biblical theology, and as such we need to go to the Bible and what biblical scholars say about it, not just the ones who don't trust the Bible. John is a historical document just like the synoptic gospels. The synoptics each had different emphases on the life of the Lord, just as John, which is why they talk about different accounts sometimes. John is theologically unique from the synoptics, which is why it talks about some aspects of theology (namely the deity of Christ) that aren't touched upon as much in the synoptics. There are a variety of opinions on the dating of John AD 90 being a very late dating, and many scholars taking an earlier date. If you don't believe in the historicity of John, fine. But the scholars that study the Bible support it, and believe its account is reliable, as supported by the sources that were requested. In an article on biblical theology it is proper for the biblical account to be supported by reputable Bible scholars. Kristamaranatha (talk) 18:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I looked up the Cambridge Guide to Jesus that says he baptized. Guess whether it's a nonsectarian or sectarian source. It's an attempt to integrate the historical Jesus into orthodox Christianity, and it explicitly renounces the mainstream project of creating a historical biography of Jesus. (read [http://www.amazon.co.uk/Cambridge-Companion-Jesus-Companions-Religion/dp/0521796784 online) The other scholar that says Jesus baptized is a theologian, not a historian. So let's see, my nonsectarian source that says he didn't baptized is a parenthetical observation. The sectarian sources each get a paragraph. I'm happy with leaving the sectarian stuff in there, but let's label it as sectarian.

The second paragraph is weird. Here it is: 'The theologian Thomas L. Brodie ... notes that many scholars consider the statement that Jesus did not baptize, but rather his disciples baptized (John 4:2), to be a later editorial insertion. Brodie asserts this is unlikely, postulating that there is no need to attribute it to contradiction and editorial insertion; it represents a theme of Jesus taking on a more distant leadership role, passing on responsibility to the disciples.[17]"' It looks like someone wanted to be sure to get Brodie's defense in there, and so brought up the topic of the interpolation only so it could immediately be put down.

By the way, I think I finally understand why I'm getting so much heat over this particular issue. It seems that the did-didn't baptize turn-around in John is a prime example of an interpolation in the text. It looks like a clear case of some well-meaning scribe trying to make John not contradict the synoptics. People who don't think the text was ever meaningfully interpolated are ready to defend this text, and I just stumbled into a pre-existing controversy.

Anyway, let's start a new section called Historical Jesus. That section will cover what historians think about Jesus and baptism. Then cover the New Testament. Historical Jesus came before the New Testament. Leadwind (talk) 02:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

We don't judge a source based on our personal opinion of its point of view, but rather based on the prominence of that view and the reliability of the source. An introductory text from Cambridge University Press that echoes a very prominent view is hardly inappropriate in any sense.

That paragraph is simply a reflection of Brodie's text. We stick to the sources here. Whether you like what they say (or how they say it) or not, quite bluntly doesn't matter in the least. There's no ulterior motive, and I'd kindly ask you to avoid making such assumptions.

Unless the sources clearly mark out the distinction between a historical Jesus and other analysis in relation to this topic, we do not do so. There's these pesky policies called "neutral point of view", "verifiability" and "no original research", and in light of them, you're way off-base here. Vassyana (talk) 13:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

V, I'm all for including all notable viewpoints. I just want Christian-viewpoint material labeled as such, and historical-viewpoint material labeled as such. The lay reader can't tell whether the Cambridge guide is Christian, historical, or both (it's both). Why not let them know? When we give the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox viewpoints, we dutifully label them as such? Why not label the notable viewpoints here? Leadwind (talk) 14:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The source of the claim is clearly attributed. It is not our place to detail the point of view of every single source we cite. Going beyond attributing the source in-text is outside the bounds of common good practice. If we are attributing a view to the Catholic or Orthodox view, we should only be doing so if the source itself is explicitly intended to represent that view (such as a catechism) or the source itself explicitly frames the information as the Catholic or Orthodox view. The Cambridge Companion does no such thing. The Companion is divided into "historical" and "theological" halves, and (contrary to your concerns) the claims cited come from "Part I: The Jesus of History". Vassyana (talk) 15:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

K, this article is not about biblical theology, it's about baptism. The lay reader who wants to know about baptism wants to know both what historians say (Jesus didn't baptize) and what Christians say (he did, it saves you, Jesus started it), and they want to be able to keep those things straight. When I go to a page about a Muslim practice, I want to know both what historians and what Muslims say about it. Same here. WP is for everyone, secular humanists with an interest in church history, too. Also, if John really is more historically reliable than the synoptics, find a good source that says so and put it on the John page, because right now the citations are weighing very heavily in favor of John not being much of a biography. Leadwind (talk) 02:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Lima, Jesus didn't sweat blood in Luke's garden. That's a detail that a later hand added in order give Luke's implacable Jesus a little passion. If you take out the offending insertion (complete with the only angel in Luke that doesn't speak), you'll see that it was thoughtlessly inserted into the middle of a five-step scene: Jesus says "pray," Jesus walks and kneels, Jesus prays, Jesus rises and walks, Jesus says "pray." Luke 22:43-44 were not in the earliest manuscripts, and they're relegated to a footnote in my Bible (RSV, May & Metzger). Leadwind (talk) 02:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Critical editions of the New Testament include the two verses "as later additions to the text, but which are of evident antiquity and importance". I already referred to the uncertainty about them. I also referred to the undoubted fact that Luke has Jesus pray to escape suffering. And to the fact that Mark does not have Jesus sweat blood. Lima (talk) 06:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

In Luke's Gethsemane, Jesus doesn't mention suffering in his prayer. In fact, Luke had Mark's text but chose to leave out the detail about Jesus being sorrowful to death, distressed, and troubled. Lima, we're off topic on Luke's implacable Christ. We apparently got there after you made the comment about Jesus laughing. If you want to get the last word in on implacable Christ, be my guest, but I think I'm about through. Leadwind (talk) 14:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The "Quest for the historical Jesus" is NOT the historical method, it is a dissident method by the Jesus Seminar trying to discredit anything supernatural in God's Word... They arbitrarily pick and chose what they think was really written and what Jesus really said, taking out anything offensive or odd. They also view the Bible as a human book. So anything that they don't like they write off as "added later" even though there isn't a shred of evidence that verses such as John 4:2 were in fact later editions. Every manuscript we have contains this verse. They also confuse a later gospel (John being the last written) to mean that anything found in John that is not found in the synoptics is made up. Again, this completely undercuts the authority and inerrancy of Scripture, trying to add a completely human explanation to things. The real historical method gives the benefit of the doubt to the text, not the scholars who come 1800 years later and start making up their own interpretations of what should and shouldn't be in God's Word. The Jesus Seminar is not seen by any reputable Bible scholars as accurate in their views of the Bible. This article is about biblical theology in the sense that baptism is a biblical doctrine found in Christian churches. As such the balance needs to be focused on what Christians believe and what the Bible says, not just what a bunch of people who don't even trust the Bible have to say about it. Balance the viewpoints please. Kristamaranatha (talk) 19:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

K, your understanding of "historical Jesus" is very different from the understanding current among contemporary historians. I'm talking about historical Jesus as understood by contemporary historians. They might be wrong, but they're experts, so we cite them. I totally agree that this article should mostly be about what Christians believe. It is. The historical Jesus material is only several lines. As for the Jesus Seminar, as with your opinion on John's historical value, you are saying things that I've never heard a reputable historical expert say. If you have evidence (notable citations), please go to the Jesus Seminar page and let everyone know that they're arbitrary and totally rejected by other Bible scholars. Also, it turns out that undermining the inerrancy of scripture has been, since Thomas Jefferson, part and parcel of the quest for historical Jesus. Leadwind (talk) 01:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I think that there is a bit confusion here between "the quest for the historical Jesus" and the scholarly discussion of "the historical Jesus". The Jesus Seminar and scholars such as Elaine Pagels certainly represent a far end of the spectrum of respectable scholarship. On the other side, you have classical traditionalists. In between is a broad spectrum of scholars that take a very diverse variety of views about early Christianity and the historical portrait of Jesus Christ. In that broad middle ground you have academics as varied as Jimmy Dunn, N.T. Wright, Bruce Metzger, Philip Esler, Jaroslav Pelikan and Alister McGrath. Despite the variety of views, there are a number of broad points regarding the texts of the Bible, the historicity of Jesus and the early history of Christianity where these scholars generally agree. Vassyana (talk) 04:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

gospel of John

The idea that Jesus baptized is based entirely on the gospel of John, which historians generally regard as a problematic biography of the historical Jesus. Does the average reader understand the context for Jesus' disciples baptizing in John? Maybe a little context would help them.

"John's gospel is considered less historically reliable than the synoptics (Mark, Matthew, and Luke). John markedly subordinates the Baptist to Jesus. In this gospel, the Baptist states that his mission is to identify Jesus, swears that he personally saw the Holy Spirit abide with Jesus, and baptizes fewer people that Jesus' own disciples. Josephus records John baptizing large numbers of people but not Jesus' disciples doing so."

I had a pretty good religious education in college, but even I didn't realize how far afield the gospel of John is until I started researching it for WP editing. The lay reader is not likely to understand that "from the gospel of John" means, to a historian, "not likely." Leadwind (talk) 16:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Or maybe something like "Jesus' disciples baptizing during his ministry does not appear in the synoptics, which historians regard as superior to John in terms of historical reliability." Then we're saying something nice about the synoptics instead of something mean about John. Leadwind (talk) 16:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

While it's a very interesting topic, broader discussions of historical accuracy and historicity seem a bit far off the path for this article. If we could find a reliable source that speaks to the issue in relation to baptism, that would be fantastic! I have searched a bit on the issue, but so far have come up empty. Vassyana (talk) 21:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

whole-paragraph citation

This entire paragraph is apparently cited: "The event raised the issue of Jesus' potential submission to John the Baptist and seemed contradictory to the Christian belief in the sinless nature of Jesus Christ. Attempts to address this theological difficulty are apparent in the earliest Christian writings, including the Gospels. For Mark, the baptism by John is the setting for the theophany, the revelation of Jesus' divine identity as the Son of God (Mark 1:7-11). Matthew shows John objecting to baptizing Jesus, an obvious superior, and only agreeing when overruled by Jesus (Matt 3:14-15) and omits Mark's reference to baptism for the forgiveness of sins. Luke emphasizes the subservience of John to Jesus while both are still in the womb (Luke 1:32-45), and omits the role of John in the baptism of Jesus (Luke 3:18-21). The Gospel of John omits the episode.[14]"

Is there a way to tell editors that each sentence in the paragraph is cited, and that they shouldn't add material to this paragraph (unless it's from the cited source)? Leadwind (talk) 03:23, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Generally, if a paragraph closes with a citation without other citation, it should be treated as a whole paragraph citation. It's a standard citation style. Vassyana (talk) 03:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Oops. I wouldn't be surprised if I've added material to a paragraph not realizing that the whole paragraph should be left alone as one big citation. Or that I've added a cited sentence as the last one in an uncited paragraph. Leadwind (talk) 01:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

No worries. We all make our own mistakes. (I certainly make plenty of my own!) The ins and outs of various styles and standards are something only learned through experience and time. Vassyana (talk) 04:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Thomas Brodie

I'm suspicious of scholars that don't rank a WP page, such as Thomas Brodie. But he looks legit (read online). Leadwind (talk) 03:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

so why all the edit-warring??  —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 14:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Because in light of new research his contention that Jesus led a baptizing mission falls outside the mainstream. Back when some other editor carefully cited Thiessen and Merz as if they supported Brodie, Brodie's view seemed mainstream. Now that I can read T & M for myself, and it's clear that they oppose Brodie's view, Brodie no longer has the weight or notability to carry a non-mainstream view. Leadwind (talk) 15:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

References to Judaism

References to Judaism should exist only in the section relating to baptism's likely origins in Judaism. Concise reference to "Jews who used to baptize converts" is both misleading and counterproductive. If baptism is defined as "immersion of those who complete their commitment to Jesus," it can hardly be stated that Jews baptize their converts. If a non-literal, or perhaps loose, interpretation is what is meant, that's fine -- but it does not belong in the intro in such a terse fashion that it neither gives explanation as to what is being stated or how it relates to modern baptism. If anything, baptism relates to Judaism, not vice versa. Since mention is already made in the section on baptism's likely origins in Judaism that Jews use a mikvah for X, Y and Z, mention of the use of a mikvah (as opposed to vague reference to baptizing converts) can be made in this section. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 21:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "ODWR" :
  • Bowker, John (ed.). The Oxford dictionary of world religions. New York: Oxford University Press. 1997
  • Bowker, John (ed.) The Oxford dictionary of world religions. New York: Oxford University Press. 1997

DumZiBoT (talk) 13:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The distinction between a false prophet and a false messiah.

Regarding the following line:

"Mandaeans, who abhor[citation needed] Jesus and Moses as false prophets, revere John the Baptist and practice frequent baptism, a rite therefore of purification, not of initiation."

I read our article on the Mandaeans and it seemed to me that they in fact consider Jesus not as a false prophet as such, but rather a false Messiah (or some milder term even). This may be a fine distinction to make, but it does seem from the text that it should be made, even in this article. That is just the impression I get from comparing the two articles take. I have no personal opinion on which article has it precisely correctly, though clearly they can't both be fully precisely accurate. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 07:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Flummoxed

I've been doing a bit of research on pagan baptism rituals. I wanted to share some of what I've found here on Wikipedia, but I'm a bit flummoxed. This article seems to be very explicitly about Christian baptism. The preamble states clearly:

"This article is about the Christian religious ceremony of Baptism..."

I'm not sure how to proceed. Is it inappropriate to expand this article to include non-Christian baptism rites? But that would require a significant re-write of those opening passages, and I hesitate to be so bold.

Would a separate article be preferable? Any opinions? --Editor B (talk) 15:51, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Upon further reflection, I believe this article is excessively focused on the Christian ritual. I believe it would be best to move the bulk of this article to a new article on "Christian Baptism." But I've never done that level of work on Wikipedia myself... not yet anyway. I'm interested to know what others might think before I attempt it. --Editor B (talk) 19:42, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what to tell you. Maybe start a page called "Baptism (pagan)." We could change the name of this article to Baptism (Christian), but baptism does seem to be about 95% Christian, so that's sort of redundant. Leadwind (talk) 19:49, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Beginning

I was a bit confused when I came to this article and immediately began to read about "infant baptism" rather than simply "baptism" which the article is obviously about. Why not first discuss the Christian practice and purpose of baptism and then get into specifics? I think the first paragraph should definitely be re-written. In fact, the entire introduction is very clumsy and reads like a list of facts, not like an introduction to an article at all. It should be revised.--Uriah is Boss (talk) 07:19, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Uriah, for drawing attention to this serious defect, which was due to changes that escaped notice and that may perhaps even have been of vandalistic intent. I have restored and to some extent copyedited what was previously in the article. Lima (talk) 13:48, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Good Lima, it's much better!--Uriah is Boss (talk) 16:49, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

altering cited text

Someone is messing with cited text again. Here's the sentence: "The Oxford Dictionary of World Religions also states that Jesus did not baptize as part of his ministry." Someone changed it to "The Oxford Dictionary of World Religions also states that Jesus did not physically administer baptism as part of his ministry." Changing cited material like this is well-intentioned, but it's lying. The source says he didn't baptize, that's what the material should say. I'm not sure who made this change, though I know that a certain editor has a history of stealthily altering my cited information on this page. Anyway, whoever it is, please stop. If you don't like the information that I work to get and bring to WP, then go out and find information you like.

The issue here is once again historical evidence (historical Jesus didn't baptize) versus church tradition (Jesus Christ did baptize). When one side is backed so far into a corner that they have to resort to altering cited information, what does that say about their standing in the debate?

While we're on it, does someone have access to the Cambridge book that says from a historical perspective that Jesus baptized? I'd like to see the exact quote. Leadwind (talk) 19:56, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Beyond Submersion

Biblical passages such as Romans 6:2-13 and Colossians 2:12-13 are often interpreted to mean that baptism is by full immersion (submersion) in water in order to represent a death and burial (when the person being baptized is submerged under the water, as if buried), and a resurrection (when the person comes up out of the water, as if rising from the grave) - a "death" and a "burial" to an old way of life focused on sinning, and a "resurrection" to the start of a new life as a Christian focused on God.

Represent? Are you forgetting about near-death_experience? How does drowning and being resuccitated represent anything? 72.60.158.19 (talk) 14:37, 25 December 2008 (UTC)