Talk:Baptism/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Baptism in Hyperdispensationalism

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

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

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

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

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

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

Catholic Baptism

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

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.9.9.104 (talk) 03:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Baptism-like ritual in Norse pagan practice?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Collective baptisms

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

Church authority for trinitarian baptisms

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

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

Secular baptisms

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

Baptism of objects

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

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

Choice of main image

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are people baptized in or into a denomination?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Opening definition

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

scholars in "baptism by Jesus" section

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

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

Mormonism?

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

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

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

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

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

More illustrative image needed

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

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

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

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

Etymology

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

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

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

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

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

History: Jewish section & its source

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

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

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

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

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

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

Original research

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Blog and how it is interpreted

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

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

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

Excommunication

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

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

WP:RS again

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Scholarly consensus"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edit war warning

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

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

Remove submersion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion with numbers, 1

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

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

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

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

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

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

Check out the definition for the verb.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What's ambiguous about "baptism by immersing a person bodily (but not necessarily completely) in water"? Surely you don't deny that, according to this dictionary, if you have your head dunked in a bucket of water, of if you stand under a waterfall, you can be spoken of as being immersed in water? Esoglou (talk) 10:55, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Taiwan boi, I would like to see you strike your comment above since it is inaccurate. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:10, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

According to that dictionary, baptism can mean "immersing a person bodily (but not necessarily completely) in water". What it doesn't say is that "immerse" means to stand in or out of water and have water poured on the head. It reserves the word "immerse" for the action of being bodily immersed in water, partially or totally.--Taiwan boi (talk) 11:34, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

If you press that description and claim without reason that no other description is acceptable, you might exclude the baptism in a bucket mode, but not the standing or kneeling in water and being further immersed by drenching mode. But even the head-dunking mode fits the definition of immersion of other dictionaries, and it is undeniably the description adopted by some writers. Esoglou (talk) 11:48, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Discussion with numbers, 2

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

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

1. I prefer to take the Oxford English Dictionary (and the others that say the same thing) as an indication that "normative use" is to understand "immersion" as meaning either total or partial. Both you, who use the word to mean total, and those who use it to mean partial, are in exactly the same position: either both sides, without distinction, are violating "normative use", or both sides, without distinction, are observing "normative use". 2. You seem to have become confused: the dictionary we were talking about was the small one published by the (Anglican) Canterbury Press; but the work that you are now speaking of seems to be the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, which, in spite of its name, is more encyclopedia than dictionary. In any case it does fit in with what turns out to be what you call "the normative use", that based on general English dictionaries. 3. I think we can consider this thread ended. 4. Some of those I cited disagree with ODCC, using the term "immersion baptism" to mean dunking the head, even with the rest of the body dry, while the ODCC uses the same term to mean pouring copious water over someone standing or kneeling in water. But both groups agree with what the Oxford English Dictionary says, that "immersion" doesn't have to mean submersion. 5. The text does say (in translation) that they were "dunked", "dipped", "immersed", "baptized", "purified", "washed", "cleansed", "overwhelmed" ... or whatever other way you think the Greek word βαπτίζονται should be translated; but whatever way you choose to translate it, the fact remains that the word used in the text is the same word that is used to say that some people "are given Christian baptism". A clear indication of the breadth of meaning of the word βαπτίζω and (since the word is here applied to the persons, not to their hands) a clear indication that the word βαπτίζω does not have to involve complete immersion. If you agree that "baptizo" has more than one meaning (i.e. the meaning "immerse totally"), then we both agree. Wonderful. Esoglou (talk) 07:41, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

1.Exhibiting a preference for sources which say what you want is POV. Please observe [WP:NPOV]] and WP:WEIGHT. The article already contains sources which breach WP:NOTE, because you are simply throwing in any source you can find which says the same as your POV. 2. No dictionary or encyclopedia provided has shown that the normative use of "immersion" is "standing in water while water is poured over the head". 3. Good. 4. Regardless of what the sources you cite say, we have to represent them accurately. That means verified scholarship goes in one section and is identified as scholarship, and the individual views of various Christian groups from non-scholarly sources go in a different section. You keep combining the two, in an attempt to represent "standing in water while water is poured on the head" as the meaning of "immerse" and "baptizo", when this is not the meaning of either word. 5. The text already says that the same word is used to say that some people are given Christian baptism, a clear indication of the breadth of the word has been given showing that the word doesn't have to involve complete immersion. What is your complaint? The fact is that you are trying to appeal to its use outside the context of Christian baptism, in order to redefine its meaning in the context of Christian baptism. All the standard New Testament Greek specific lexicons identify it as meaning "immerse" in the context of Christian baptism. The fact that you have failed to cite a single Greek lexicon at all is significant. Throughout your editing of this article you have used almost no scholarly sources whatsoever, and you have repeatedly used sources which are blatantly POV.--Taiwan boi (talk) 10:31, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

1. I am showing no preference. I accept that "immersion baptism" is used by some people to involve submerging and that others use it to mean only partial submerging of the body. It is you who are insisting on a preference for one meaning only. 2. Dictionaries and encyclopedias indicate that the normative use of "immersion" covers both total submersion and partial immersion. Standing under a waterfall is one form of partial immersion in water. 4. Although some do use "immersion baptism" to mean partial immersion in water, I never called this the meaning of "immersion baptism". It is only a meaning of "immersion baptism". 5. Of course, "all the standard Greek specific lexica identify βαπτίζω as meaning 'immerse' in the context of Christian baptism". And they don't say that in the context of Christian baptism "immerse" means "submerge" and nothing less. Esoglou (talk) 11:18, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

1. Of course you're showing a preference. You keep trying to define "baptizo" as standing in water and having water poured on the head. There is no such meaning. I haven't insisted on one meaning only, I've acknowledged there's a non-normative fringe meaning for "immersion baptism". 2. The overwhelming majority of standard Bible dictionaries and encyclopedias say that the normative use of "immersion" was submersion, not "partial immersion". This is not surprising given that the normative user of the word "immersion" is not "partial immersion". You have found only one Bible dictionary which gives another definition, and it is a dictionary which has been criticized soundly for its POV definitions and limited scope. Standing under a waterfall is affusion, the water is being poured on you from above. 4. The normative use of "immersion baptism" is not "standing in water and having water poured over the head". I have already made it clear that this fringe meaning can be included in the article, but your attempt to represent it as normative is inaccurate. 5. All the standard Greek specific lexica identify βαπτίζω as meaning dip, plunge, immerse, submerge. This is not a description of standing on land and having water poured over the head. It does not involve having water poured over the head at all, and where Christian baptism is involved the lexicons make it clear that the act of βαπτίζω was the dipping, plunging, immersion, submersion of the candidate in water. None of them say anything about pouring, for which a completely different Greek word is used. Making a claim on the basis of what they don't say is completely invalid. None of them say that βαπτίζω doesn't mean "rolling in mud", but that doesn't mean you can then use that as the definition of βαπτίζω. We have to use what the lexicons actually say, not what they don't say. It's completely invalid to say "Well my version of "immersion baptism" combines partial immersion or no immersion at all, with pouring water on the head, so that means that it falls within the definition of βαπτίζω". No definition of βαπτίζω exists.--Taiwan boi (talk) 11:52, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

1. I do not define "baptizo" as "standing in water ..." 2. Which of them, even one, speaks of "normative use"? Which of them say that partial immersion is not immersion? Your claim that being drenched in water is no form of immersion in water is just your claim. 4. My only claim about "normative use" is that it is not limited to any one mode, such as the mode that, according to you but falsely, I am supposed to be saying is the normative use. 5. I agree that the Greek lexica do not say (nor deny) that βαπτίζω means "standing in water ..." However, the architectural and early pictorial evidence does indicate that the early Christians considered that this was a legitimate mode of baptism, which the Greek-speakers among them referred to by the verb βαπτίζω. And surely it is unquestionable that the evangelist Mark, a Greek-speaker, felt that the Greek word could be used to refer to people who only had their hands washed. I can't help thinking that he understood the word better than you. So I can't help thinking that a word that applies to getting your hands wet applies also to getting more than that of your body wet. Esoglou (talk) 12:36, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

1. You just said exactly that further down in this page (and you're doing it in this post):

• " The architectural and early pictorial evidence indicates that the early Christians considered that the mode described was a legitimate mode of baptism, which the Greek-speakers among them referred to by the verb βαπτίζω."

2. Please don't be obtuse. The usage found in the overwhelming number of Bible dictionaries is, by definition, normative use. No it is not my claim, the overwhelming number of Bible dictionaries and other standard reference sources identify having water poured over you as "affusion". This is verifiable.

4. If you agree that your view is non-normative use, then you will have no objection to it being identified as non-normative use in the article. To date you have resisted this. 5.

The architectural and early pictorial evidence of which you speak only dates from the third century, which is the time at which affusion started to become commonly used. This should be identified in the article, but you have removed this fact every time I included it. The article as it stands falsely implies that the third century usage shows the normal method used by the earliest Christians, which is simply untrue. The fact that later Christians understood affusion to be an acceptable form of baptism is not under dispute. What you have failed to provide is that they understood one of the usages of the verb "baptizo" to be "standing in water while water is poured over the head", and their recognition of affusion as a valid form of baptism does not mean that they understood the verb "baptizo" to be "standing in water while water is poured over the head. None of the relevant Greek lexicons gives this as a definition of "baptizo". I have the works of the early Christian writers in Greek, and since I read Greek I can provide you with every single instance of their usage of "baptizo" (which by their time had become a technical term, which changes everything). Then you can tell me which of them mean "standing in water while water is poured over the head", and you can explain why this meaning is absent in the relevant Greek lexicons. How about we do that? Furthermore you are still completely misunderstanding the reference in Mark. You are making the very error which is corrected in the lexical sources I have provided as explanatory notes. Mark's usage refers to someone as having "washed themselves" because they had washed their hands. It does not refer to someone who had been baptized, or who had "baptized themselves"; this is the middle/reflexive use of the verb and it is irrelevant to the usage of the word in the context of Christian baptism. The hands are specifically identified as the part which was to be washed, not the entire person, and Mark's usage of the word "baptizo" is not an example of "baptizo" to mean someone was partially immersed, it's an example of "baptizo" to mean someone washed themselves, by completely immersing their hands. Please read the lexical sources I provided:

• 'Washing or ablution was frequently by immersion, indicated by either baptízō or níptō (3538), to wash. In Mark 7:3, the phrase “wash their hands” is the translation of níptō (3538), to wash part of the body such as the hands. In Mark 7:4 the verb wash in “except they wash” is baptízomai, to immerse. This indicates that the washing of the hands was done by immersing them in collected water.', Zodhiates, S. (2000, c1992, c1993). The Complete Word Study Dictionary : New Testament (electronic ed.) (G908). Chattanooga, TN: AMG Publishers.
• 'Mark 7:4 [v.l. in v. 8]; here βαπτίσωνται appears in place of ῥαντίσωνται in Koine D Θ pl, giving βαπτίζω the meaning of βάπτω', Balz, H. R., & Schneider, G. (1990-c1993). Exegetical dictionary of the New Testament. Translation of: Exegetisches Worterbuch zum Neuen Testament. (1:195). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans.
• 'Βάπτω dip, immerse', Balz, H. R., & Schneider, G. (1990-c1993). Exegetical dictionary of the New Testament. Translation of: Exegetisches Worterbuch zum Neuen Testament. (1:195). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans. [provided because the previous quotation refers to baptw]
• 'Despite assertions to the contrary, it seems that baptizō, both in Jewish and Christian contexts, normally meant “immerse”, and that even when it became a technical term for baptism, the thought of immersion remains. The use of the term for cleansing vessels (as in Lev. 6:28 Aquila [cf. 6:21]; cf. baptismos in Mk. 7:4) does not prove the contrary, since vessels were normally cleansed by immersing them in water . The metaphorical uses of the term in the NT appear to take this for granted, e.g. the prophecy that the Messiah will baptise in Spirit and fire as a liquid (Matt. 3:11), the “baptism” of the Israelites in the cloud and the sea (1 Cor. 10:2), and in the idea of Jesus’ death as a baptism (Mk. 10:38f. baptisma; Lk. 12:50; cf. Ysebaert, op. cit., 41 ff.).', Brown, C. (1986). Vol. 1: New international dictionary of New Testament theology (144)

If you still don't understand then you need to register on the B-Greek email list, where you will find professional Greek scholars. Although not a professional scholar myself, I have been a member of these lists for years. One of the recurring queries is with regard to the word "baptizo", and every now and then someone comes along who wants to try out their amateur ideas and make claims contrary to the lexicons. They are invariably dismissed summarily. If you really believe you have evidence for your claims, if you really believe your view is valid, then you will have no hesitation in expressing that view on the B-Greek list. I'll be waiting to see what happens.--Taiwan boi (talk) 15:01, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

1. That was not defining "baptizo" as "standing in water ..." It clearly indicates that βαπτίζω may well be interpreted as allowing this mode of baptism, but it certainly does not mean that this, and nothing else, is what baptism consists of.

2. The claim of the group of sources that include ODCC is that the ancient form of baptism that involved standing or kneeling in perhaps only waist-deep water can be called immersion baptism. Seems reasonable.

4. It is as much "normative" or "non-normative" as submersion baptism. I have no objection to you calling it whatever you call the latter.

5. There is no evidence that the form of immersion used in 3rd-century (201-300) baptism was unknown in the the 2nd century (101-200), the century in which the latest of the NT books were written (and the Didache?).

Mark. Mark uses the verb βαπτίζω (immerse) to speak (in 7:4) of people who only washed their hands (7:3), does he not? You have again cited Zodhiates, who argued that therefore they must have washed their hands by immersing them in collected water. Accordingly those people were partially immersed (only the hands), not totally immersed. Yet Mark uses the word βαπτίζω (immerse) to speak of them. If the word βαπτίζω (immerse) could be applied to people who in those circumstances were only partially immersed, there are no grounds for excluding its applicability to other partially immersed people, as for instance in a baptism rite. Your two quotations from Balz&Schneider are about the verb βάπτω (immerse, dye), which is never used of baptism, so would you please explain what relevance you see in them? And your quotation from Brown rightly speaks of immersion, but does not specify total immersion. Zodhiates raises no difficulty against the use of βαπτίζω with regard to people who were only partially immersed (hands only). Esoglou (talk) 17:05, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

1. You're doing it again. You're including "standing in water having water poured over the head" in the definition of βαπτίζ. I never claimed you said this was the only thing βαπτίζ means, but you are repeatedly trying to claim that it is within the definition. This is false. It is not found in any standard Greek lexicon. If you were actually happy with the lexicons you wouldn't try to meanings they never mention.

2. The only standard scholarly reference source you have provided which makes that claim is the ODCC, which has been criticized soundly by scholarship as I have demonstrated. In contrast, we have this:

• Standard Bible dictionaries differentiate between immersion, affusion, and aspersion as modes of baptism, with immersion being identified as submersion and affusion being identified as pouring water on the head of an individual who may or may not be standing in water. Baptism by immersion is typically understood as submersion by scholarly sources commenting on Jewish and Christian baptism, and is differentiated from pouring water over the head of a baptismal candidate.

4. No, that is simply not true. Look at the overwhelming list of standard scholarly reference sources and lexicons I've provided. That's normative use. In contrast, we have the ODCC. That's non-normative use.

5. There is no evidence that the affusion of the third century was ever used in the first century (the affsion in the Didache was only for circumstances in which there was insufficient water for immersion, so even by your definition of immersion the pouring of the Didache was not standing in water and having water poured over the head; in any case, the Didache doesn't even refer to this pouring as baptizo), and as I have demonstrated from the relevant scholarly literature, the affusion of the third century is only attested from this time onwards, not earlier.

6. You still don't understand either Mark or Zodhiates, and you haven't read the explanatory note I gave for the EDNT; I made the note that the EDNT definition of "bapto" was "[provided because the previous quotation refers to baptw]". Clearly you just didn't even read what I wrote. Mark uses the verb βαπτίζω of people who washed their hands by immersion. That is not describing a partial immersion of the person. As Zodhiates points out, that is describing a complete immersion of the hands. The person themselves was described simply as having "washed themselves", not "partially immersed themselves". Furthermore, as I have already pointed out many times, this usage is outside the context of Christian baptism. What you are doing is a textbook example of WP:COAT; "Oh look, word A is used in context X with meaning Y, so let's import the meaning of context X into context Z". You're trying to justify a meaning for a word which is not attested in any standard Greek lexicon. As I've already demonstrated more than once, the irony here is that the word in this context still refers to immersion, not "partial immersion". The quote from Brown says specifically "dip, immerse, submerge, baptize". The onus is on you to prove that he really meant "immerse partially".

My offer to join me on the professional Greek email list is still open. If you really believe you have evidence for your claims, if you really believe you understand the Greek, and if you really believe you're right, you'll have no reason not to join me there. My offer of all the instances of baptizo in the early Christian literature (in Greek), is also still open. Just let me know, I have my copy of TLG standing by right here.--Taiwan boi (talk) 10:46, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

1. I report what reliable sources say.

2. ODCC is a reliable source whose noteworthy view, supported by others, should be reported.

4. What you call normative use is not the only one.

5. Your opinion.

6. Ἰατρέ, θεράπευσον σεαυτόν. Οὐ γὰρ πάντες ἐσμεν βάρβαροι. Esoglou (talk) 20:19, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

1. A number of the sources you reference are not reliable sources, and you have removed a number of reliable sources from the Immersion baptism article.

2. I am not disputing that it should be reported. I have included it in my edit.

4. Of course it isn't the only use, and I've made that clear in my edit. But it is the normative use, so it deserves WP:WEIGHT, whereas the fringe use deserves to be identified as non-normative.

5. No that is not my opinion. Read the lexicons for yourself, and if you still disagree with them then you can check on the professional Greek email list to which I linked.

6. Ok, we've established that you can't read Greek. That explains why you don't want your view examined by professional Greek scholars, and why you never cited any lexicons.--Taiwan boi (talk) 16:25, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Why discuss, without need, with someone who - I skip other considerations - thinks that one who writes Greek thereby "establishes" that he can't even read Greek? Perhaps Tb is not from Taiwan, but from Ἄβδηρα? "Εἰς ὦτα ἄφρονος μηδὲν λέγε, μήποτε μυκτηρίσῃ τοὺς συνετοὺς λόγους σου." Esoglou (talk) 17:57, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that "one who writes Greek thereby "establishes" that he can't even read Greek". Furthermore, I haven't seen any evidence at all that you can write or read Greek. Copy/pasting from the LXX doesn't prove anything; it certainly doesn't prove that you can read or write Greek. What convinces me that you can't read or write Greek is your lack of reference to any of the standard lexicons, your dispute with them when they were quoted, your failure to understand Zohdiates and EDNT, and your refusal to have your claims concerning Greek tested by qualified professionals in the language. The fact that you copy/pasted from the LXX corroborates this conclusoin.--Taiwan boi (talk) 06:13, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you might want to consider that he's a native speaker of modern Greek. I'm not sure what sort of qualifications that gives him for reading Koine Greek however. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:22, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I have no reason whatever to consider that he's a native speak of of modern Greek. I would not expect a native speaker of modern Greek to be copy/pasting from the LXX without attribution in order to give the impression that they can read and write Greek, especially give that the LXX certainly isn't in modern Greek. It has already been seen that he is unfamiliar with the Greek of the New Testament, and does not wish his views on the subject to be scrutinized by professionals.--Taiwan boi (talk) 06:31, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Just a suggestion. Here's another suggestion. I have noticed that you don't read the posts made by other editors. I fully understand that the LXX and NT are written in Koine Greek and I even alluded that I'm not sure what sort of facility being familiar with modern Greek might give someone with Koine Greek. However here are a few things to consider. Esoglou seems to write quite a bit about Eastern Orthodox matters. My explanation for this affinity was being raised in it. You don't have any proof that Esoglou copied and pasted from an online version, or perhaps electronic version on his computer. You simply see the phrase from Proverbs 23:9 and made an assumption that it was a copy and paste job. I suppose what would be better would be to actually heed the advice given in the passage rather than try to undermine the person who reminded you of it. But then again, you don't like taking advice. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:44, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

As I predicted, instead of letting go you have gate crashed a conversation between Esoglou and I, and you are making false accusations again (this time of claiming I don't read posts by other editors, and claiming I don't like taking advice). The fact that Esoglou writes a lot about Eastern Orthodox matters gives me absolutely no reason to believe he is familiar either with Koine or modern Greek. The considerations I have listed are far more weighty. Of course I don't have proof that Esoglou copy/pasted from an electronic copy of the LXX, but the fact that he has shown no proficiency whatever with Greek, and the fact that the exact phrase he presented is found with the exact same accents and font in standard electronic copies of the LXX is significant positive evidence that this is what he did. It is certainly a more rational conclusion than the conclusion that he knows modern Greek. If you don't want your suggestions criticized by others, I suggest you don't make them. Wikipedia is not the place for those who don't want what they write to be critiqued.--Taiwan boi (talk) 07:29, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Walter, I did copy and paste the verse from Proverbs, since I have an electronic text at my disposal, and I put the verse between quotation marks to show that it was only a quotation. The rest I wrote myself. But, even if I had only given that quotation, whether by cut-and-paste or by letter-by-letter transcribing, it would still be a very curious logic to take my copying of that verse as proof that I can't read Greek! Esoglou (talk) 07:40, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

There you go Walter.--Taiwan boi (talk) 07:57, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I see that Tb seems to have dropped his claim that my writing Greek was proof that I can't read Greek. Would he consider having a discussion with me in Greek, perhaps in the ancient Greek in which I have written above. That would indicate which of us has the proficiency in Greek. Esoglou (talk) 07:40, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

As I have said twice now, I never claimed that your writing Greek was proof that you can't read Greek. I never said this, and I twice denied saying it. That is a false accusation. I have no intention of having a conversation in ancient Greek since I never used to converse in it and almost never wrote in it; in my studies I needed to read, parse, and translate it, but hardly ever write in it. The topic under discussion is not who has the better proficiency in Greek, it is whether or not you have any proficiency in Greek at all, and specifically whether you can demonstrate to professional Greek scholars that your claims regarding the Greek are accurate. I have offered to provide you with Greek texts which you could examine to try and prove your claim. You chose not to accept. I have linked to an email discussion list of professional Greek scholars to whom you could write in order to try and prove your claim. You chose not to accept. This speaks volumes of your personal confidence in your understanding of the Greek.--Taiwan boi (talk) 07:57, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Walter, to my "6. Ἰατρέ, θεράπευσον σεαυτόν. Οὐ γὰρ πάντες ἐσμεν βάρβαροι" (the second part of which is no quotation), Tb replied: "6. Ok, we've established that you can't read Greek." Esoglou (talk) 08:36, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

So what? I never said that the fact that you had posted some Greek was evidence that you culdn't read Greek (certainly not in this quotation from me), even though in this case the first sentence was simply a quote from the New Testament (Walter, Ἰατρέ, θεράπευσον σεαυτόν means "Physician, heal yourself", Luke 4:23). The claim you and Walter made was simply false. I have already explained my reasons for assessing your knowledge of Grek as I have done, and I have provided you with ample opportunity to prove me wrong if you so choose. The choice remains yours.--Taiwan boi (talk) 08:46, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I must remember not to sleep. Lies are spoken about me when I do. The first is that I told Taiwan boi to WP:LETITGO in relationship to christening not this thread. Tb, if this is a private conversation, do it in private not on the public talk pages. You have this tendancy to frame discussions in ways that you want and once again, your logic is flawed.

Second, I never said that Esoglou didn't copy and paste the text, I merely stated that Tb had no proof of it. At the time he didn't, now he does. Clarification that my Greek teacher would remind you of Esoglou: Ancient Greek was that which was used by Homer; Koine Greek, while also encient in relationship to modern Greek, was that which was used by the writers of the NT; modern Greek is that which is spoken now. You made reference to "ancient Greek". Finally, Tb your direct quote is "6. Ok, we've established that you can't read Greek....16:25, 3 November 2010 (UTC)". I have made no claims regarding the Greek I simply suggested that you should follow the advice from Proverbs (or was that advice from Esoglou to other readers?). --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:19, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Continuation of pre-number discussion

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

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

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

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

Standing in or out of water and having water poured on the head is the definition you are promoting for "immerse" and "baptizo". I have never disputed that it is one of the meanings used for the English word "baptize", and I have included it in the article, but it not the meaning of the English word "immerse" nor the Greek word "baptizo". You need to accept this. What you're talking about would be referred to as "immersion of the head", but not "immersion baptism". As we have seen from the relevant scholarly literature, the distinction made between "immersion baptism" and "submersion baptism" is a minority viewpoint found in specific Christian traditions. It is not even close to the scholarly consensus.--Taiwan boi (talk) 10:31, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

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

That is the definition you keep arguing for. Why? As we can see from standard Bible dictionaries and lexicons, "immersion" is normatively used to refer to submersion. I realise you're not happy about it, but we can't change the facts.--Taiwan boi (talk) 10:31, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

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

... which, if "normative use" is decided by general English dictionaries, is that "immersion" can mean either full or partial immersion. Esoglou (talk) 07:41, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

But you're arguing that both "immersion" and "baptizo" mean 'standing in water while water is poured over the head". That is not normative use of either word. Sooner or later you have to address this.--Taiwan boi (talk) 10:31, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I am not "arguing that both 'immersion' and 'baptizo' mean 'standing in water while water is poured over the head'". I am only saying that, according to what you define as normative use, any partial immersion in water, such as having your head dunked in a bucket of water, or standing under a waterfall, or kneeling in water and having someone else drench you with water poured over you, or ..., is immersion in water. Isn't it? 11:18, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

No it isn't. Standing in water is partial immersion. Having someone drench you with water is affusion. Standing under a waterfall is affusion. Having your head dunked is partial immersion. The word "immersion" does not mean "having water poured over you". That's affusion. Regardless, this discussion is irrelevant since the Greek word in question does not mean "standing in water while water is poured over the head", and the overwhelming majority of standard Bible dictionaries and encyclopedias define what you refer to as "immersion" as in fact affusion.--Taiwan boi (talk) 11:52, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

The evangelist Mark, a Greek-speaker, felt that the Greek word could be applied to people who only had their hands washed. I can't help thinking that he understood the word better than you. So I can't help thinking that a word that applies to getting your hands wet applies also to getting more than that of your body wet. The architectural and early pictorial evidence indicates that the early Christians considered that the mode described was a legitimate mode of baptism, which the Greek-speakers among them referred to by the verb βαπτίζω. I can't help thinking that they too understood the word better than you. Esoglou (talk) 12:36, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

1. I'll go through it with you again. First of all, standard lexicons understand the word better than either you or I. I'm happy using them, you aren't. That's the difference between me (NPOV), and you (POV). I'll go with whatever the relevant scholarly literature indicates is the general consensus, because I have no personal stake in this.

2. Secondly, the fact that later Christians understood affusion to be an acceptable form of baptism is not under dispute. What you have failed to provide is that they understood one of the usages of the verb "baptizo" to be "standing in water while water is poured over the head", and their recognition of affusion as a valid form of baptism does not mean that they understood the verb "baptizo" to be "standing in water while water is poured over the head. None of the relevant Greek lexicons gives this as a definition of "baptizo". I have the works of the early Christian writers in Greek, and since I read Greek I can provide you with every single instance of their usage of "baptizo" (which by their time had become a technical term, which changes everything). Then you can tell me which of them mean "standing in water while water is poured over the head", and you can explain why this meaning is absent in the relevant Greek lexicons. How about we do that?

3. Thirdly, you are making the very error which is corrected in the lexical sources I have provided as explanatory notes. Mark's usage refers to someone as having "washed themselves" because they had washed their hands. It does not refer to someone who had been baptized, or who had "baptized themselves"; this is the middle/reflexive use of the verb and it is irrelevant to the usage of the word in the context of Christian baptism. The hands are specifically identified as the part which was to be washed, not the entire person, and Mark's usage of the word "baptizo" is not an example of "baptizo" to mean someone was partially immersed, it's an example of "baptizo" to mean someone washed themselves, by completely immersing their hands. Please read the lexical sources I provided:

• 'Washing or ablution was frequently by immersion, indicated by either baptízō or níptō (3538), to wash. In Mark 7:3, the phrase “wash their hands” is the translation of níptō (3538), to wash part of the body such as the hands. In Mark 7:4 the verb wash in “except they wash” is baptízomai, to immerse. This indicates that the washing of the hands was done by immersing them in collected water.', Zodhiates, S. (2000, c1992, c1993). The Complete Word Study Dictionary : New Testament (electronic ed.) (G908). Chattanooga, TN: AMG Publishers.
• 'Mark 7:4 [v.l. in v. 8]; here βαπτίσωνται appears in place of ῥαντίσωνται in Koine D Θ pl, giving βαπτίζω the meaning of βάπτω', Balz, H. R., & Schneider, G. (1990-c1993). Exegetical dictionary of the New Testament. Translation of: Exegetisches Worterbuch zum Neuen Testament. (1:195). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans.
• 'Βάπτω dip, immerse', Balz, H. R., & Schneider, G. (1990-c1993). Exegetical dictionary of the New Testament. Translation of: Exegetisches Worterbuch zum Neuen Testament. (1:195). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans. [provided because the previous quotation refers to baptw]
• 'Despite assertions to the contrary, it seems that baptizō, both in Jewish and Christian contexts, normally meant “immerse”, and that even when it became a technical term for baptism, the thought of immersion remains. The use of the term for cleansing vessels (as in Lev. 6:28 Aquila [cf. 6:21]; cf. baptismos in Mk. 7:4) does not prove the contrary, since vessels were normally cleansed by immersing them in water . The metaphorical uses of the term in the NT appear to take this for granted, e.g. the prophecy that the Messiah will baptise in Spirit and fire as a liquid (Matt. 3:11), the “baptism” of the Israelites in the cloud and the sea (1 Cor. 10:2), and in the idea of Jesus’ death as a baptism (Mk. 10:38f. baptisma; Lk. 12:50; cf. Ysebaert, op. cit., 41 ff.).', Brown, C. (1986). Vol. 1: New international dictionary of New Testament theology (144)

If you still don't understand then you need to register on the B-Greek email list, where you will find professional Greek scholars. Although not a professional scholar myself, I have been a member of these lists for years. One of the recurring queries is with regard to the word "baptizo", and every now and then someone comes along who wants to try out their amateur ideas and make claims contrary to the lexicons. They are invariably dismissed summarily. If you really believe you have evidence for your claims, if you really believe your view is valid, then you will have no hesitation in expressing that view on the B-Greek list. I'll be waiting to see what happens.--Taiwan boi (talk) 15:01, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

1. I'm happy with using them.

2. The claim of the group of sources that include ODCC is that the ancient form of baptism that involved standing or kneeling in perhaps only waist-deep water can be called immersion baptism. They don't claim that this mode is the meaning of βαπτίζω. Of course not.

3. Mark's usage of βαπτίζω in 7:4 is about people, not hands. These people washed or, if you wish and as Zodhiates does say, immersed their hands (although Mark doesn't say so explicitly in 7:3). The hands were totally immersed, but the people were not. Yet Mark applies the verb βαπτίζω to the people, who were only partially immersed. If the verb βαπτίζω applied to those partially immersed people, there are no grounds for claiming that the same verb did not apply to people partially immersed in other circumstances, such as a baptismal rite. Your two quotations from Balz&Schneider are about the verb βάπτω (immerse, dye), which is never used of baptism, so would you please explain what relevance you see in them? And your quotation from Brown rightly speaks of immersion, but does not specify total immersion. Zodhiates raises no difficulty against the use of βαπτίζω with regard to people who were only partially immersed (hands only). Esoglou (talk) 17:05, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

1. If you were actually happy with the lexicons you wouldn't try to include meanings they never mention.

2. The only standard scholarly reference source you have provided which makes that claim is the ODCC, which has been criticized soundly by scholarship as I have demonstrated. In contrast, we have this:

• Standard Bible dictionaries differentiate between immersion, affusion, and aspersion as modes of baptism, with immersion being identified as submersion and affusion being identified as pouring water on the head of an individual who may or may not be standing in water. Baptism by immersion is typically understood as submersion by scholarly sources commenting on Jewish and Christian baptism, and is differentiated from pouring water over the head of a baptismal candidate.

3. You still don't understand either Mark or Zodhiates, and you haven't read the explanatory note I gave for the EDNT; I made the note that the EDNT definition of "bapto" was "[provided because the previous quotation refers to baptw]". Clearly you just didn't even read what I wrote. Mark uses the verb βαπτίζω of people who washed their hands by immersion. That is not describing a partial immersion of the person. As Zodhiates points out, that is describing a complete immersion of the hands. The person themselves was described simply as having "washed themselves", not "partially immersed themselves", and not "baptized"; they did this action to themselves, it wasn't done to them as with baptism. Furthermore, as I have already pointed out many times, this usage is outside the context of Christian baptism. What you are doing is a textbook example of WP:COAT; "Oh look, word A is used in context X with meaning Y, so let's import the meaning of context X into context Z". You're trying to justify a meaning for a word which is not attested in any standard Greek lexicon. As I've already demonstrated more than once, the irony here is that the word in this context still refers to immersion, not "partial immersion". The quote from Brown says specifically "dip, immerse, submerge, baptize". The onus is on you to prove that he really meant "immerse partially".

My offer to join me on the professional Greek email list is still open. If you really believe you have evidence for your claims, if you really believe you understand the Greek, and if you really believe you're right, you'll have no reason not to join me there. My offer of all the instances of baptizo in the early Christian literature (in Greek), is also still open. Just let me know, I have my copy of TLG standing by right here.--Taiwan boi (talk) 10:51, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

See above. Esoglou (talk) 20:21, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Rename sections

By the way, I suggest to rename the two sections as follows: to replace the title Immersion with Partial immersion, and to replace the title Submersion with Complete immersion (submersion). This solution supersedes the problem of the meanings of the terms in English-not-liturgical dictionaries, and is more adherent with the different liturgical uses. A ntv (talk) 12:28, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I would not object. Do Tb and Swampyank? Esoglou (talk) 12:49, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Christening

Not sure how an intelligent person can protest the phrase "sometimes called christening" from the lede of the article.

• http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/christening : "the ceremony of baptizing and naming a child"
• http://oxforddictionaries.com/view/entry/m_en_gb0147500#m_en_gb0147500 "a Christian ceremony at which a baby is christened; a baptism"
• http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/christening : "a Christian ceremony at which a baby is given a name and made a member of the Christian Church"

It is a term common in paedobaptist churches, particularly state churches, and it makes perfect sense to include it in the lede, but only in passing. A small section is also included in the body. What are the objections to its inclusion other than "Christening is a separate subject" and "If you think it's important, put it somewhere relevant and reference it"? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:11, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Its context in the lede is also related to traditional church phraseology. : "Baptism, sometimes called christening, has been called a sacrament and an ordinance of Jesus Christ." It may be better to phrase it "Baptism has been called a sacrament and an ordinance of Jesus Christ, and in this sense is often called christening." --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:14, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Christening is a naming ceremony which sometimes accompanies infant baptism in some Christian groups. It is not synonymous with baptism. The very references you've provided make that clear. You can't keep calling anything and everything "baptism". Someone being baptized as an adult and not being ceremonially named has not been Christened. Christening is not "baptism". Baptism is not sometimes called Christening, Christening is the word for a naming ceremony involving baptism. Christening involves baptism, baptism does not necessarily involve Christening. Does that help?--Taiwan boi (talk) 16:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Stop being pedantic. No one is saying that it is always, the qualifier "sometimes" is intentional. Christening is sometimes synonymous as is referenced from my two reliable sources. It is not me who is calling it that, it is my WP:RS who are. I don't know of anyone who is christened as an adult so your reference is misplaced. Baptism is sometimes synonymous with christening in the same way that immersion is sometimes synonymous with submersion. No one is asking for the two to be equated, simply a reflection of what is done in practice. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:26, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I am not being pedantic. Look at your own sources; they are defining "christening", not "baptism":

• "the ceremony of baptizing and naming a child"; not "baptism: sometimes called christening"
• "the ceremony of baptizing and naming a child"; not "baptism: sometimes called christening"
• "a Christian ceremony at which a baby is christened; a baptism"; not "baptism: sometimes called christening"
• "a Christian ceremony at which a baby is given a name and made a member of the Christian Church"; not "baptism: sometimes called christening"

None of them say that baptism is sometimes called christening, or that baptism is sometimes synonymous with christening. Not even one. One of them says that christening is also known as "a baptism", which is the exact opposite. All of them identify the fact that christening is a ceremony which is specific to babies (baptism isn't), and three of them identify it specifically as a ceremony in which a baby is given a name.

You have provided four quotes which indicate that X is a Y, and claim that because one of them says X is also known as a Z then a Z is sometimes called X. But none of the sources you quote say that a Z is ever called X. You are not reading your own sources, and you are committing a logical fallacy. You have to stop making up meanings for the word "baptism" which aren't found in WP:RS.--Taiwan boi (talk) 05:48, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry you don't speak English. The sources are clear that christening and baptism are linked. That is all the phrase says. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:06, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Further to the point what is the article at christening? Also The CoE states:

Q. What's the difference between a baptism and a christening?

A. None, they are just different words for the same thing. http://www.cofe.anglican.org/lifeevents/lifeevents/baptismconfirm/baptism1.html#difference#difference

Google would offer you a few million more hits which I don't have time to vet for you. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:12, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

That was WP:UNCIVIL. Please don't tell me I don't speak English when your own sources don't support your claim. Your claim was not "baptism and christening are linked". Your claim is that baptism is sometimes called christening. In support of this claim you provided three quotations, none of which say that baptism is sometimes called christening. The fact that in the Anglican Church baptism and christening are considered equivalent can be noted in an article on christening. Vague references to "a few million hits" in Google are without any value at all. Christening belongs in Infant baptism, where else would you put it?--Taiwan boi (talk) 06:35, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

You're talking to me about WP:UNCIVIL? How precious.

The Anglican Church is a denomination. The one reference out of seven million in Google was from the Church of England, a single branch of the Anglican Church.

The phrase was "sometimes". I have added it back "In this sense it is often called christening." That simply means some people do not equate the two. However some groups, such as the CoE do. Baptism is baptism as per Paul: Ephesians 4:5. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:04, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm talking to you about WP:UNCIVIL because you were uncivil. This is not the first time. You've also abused me on my Talk page, and accused me of sock puppetry. Your second edit, "often called christening" was even worse, and you did it after Esoglou had already made a proper edit with a proper reference. All this, after you supplied four sources which you claimed said that "baptism" meant "christening", when in fact none of them said any such thing.--Taiwan boi (talk) 14:11, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I never accused you of sockpuppetry, I merely suggested that the appearance of a new user whose only contributions were to this talk page appeared suspicious and felt like sockpuppetry. I never came out and stated that the two of you were sockpuppets. I did not see Esoglou's edit only that the addition I made disappeared. I only noticed it after I made my edit. Actually, one of my sources clearly indicated that "they are just different words for the same thing", but this may not be clear enough for you. Oxford indicates that christening is "a baptism". Not sure how that could be ambiguos. Webster is also relatively unambiguous in stating that it is "the ceremony of baptizing and naming a child". The fact that naming is part of the ceremony is a throwback to when Christianity was the state religion and the state required a birth record that included a name. There was both an ecclesiastical and secular function. The baptism was the ecclesiastical function. Naming was the secular function. Hope this explains it for you. You were wrong. I know that comes as a shock to you, but it's time to WP:LETGO and WP:GETOVERIT. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:33, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Pointing out that you used weasel words to accuse me of sock puppetry doesn't excuse you. Next time please actually read the article before you edit. Yes one of your sources said that "they are just different words for the same thing", but that source was specific to the Anglican Church, which you made no attempt to identify. You have clearly forgotten the claim you originally made. The claim was not that christening is a baptism, but that baptism is christening. Your own words were "Baptism, sometimes called christening", not "christening, sometimes called baptism". Do you understand the difference?--Taiwan boi (talk) 14:42, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

It's time to WP:LETGO and WP:GETOVERIT. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:41, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

It's not me who picks fights. You keep leaving uncivil comments on my Talk page, and accusing me falsely of things I've never done. It's clear that's going to keep on happening; you're not going to WP:LETGO and WP:GETOVERIT.--Taiwan boi (talk) 16:27, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Now to address your question. The statements are that christening is baptism. The statement as I wrote it was that baptism is sometimes known as christening. Again, not a source specific to the Anglican Church, but to the Church of England. There is a difference between the two. Second, a christening is a baptism. That's what the sources say. It is fully correct to say that baptisms are christenings, but only when performed in churches that were once state churches. Christenings were preformed to carry out both a sacred ceremony (baptism) and a secular one (naming). They're not called naming ceremonies. And as I stated before, the term has now come to mean the act of baptism in the same way that immersion has come to mean submersion in other churches. Since language changes, the definitions of words do as well.

As for your hurt feelings for suggesting that you might be in a sockpuppet arrangement, it was merely an observation that was not an accusation. Had it been the latter, there would have been a formal investigation. If it offended you, I'm sorry, but at the time it passed the duck test. In retrospect, I was mistaken and I apologize for any offence it may have caused. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:55, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Whatever happened to WP:LETGO and WP:GETOVERIT? I said you wouldn't, and sure enough you haven't. As I have already pointed out, your original claim was that baptism is sometimes called christening. When called on to support this, you provided four sources, none of which said sometimes called christening. That's it. It is not fully correct to say that baptisms are christenings, it is correct to say that in some Christian traditions a baptism is also known as a christening. As you can see from your own sources, a christening is indeed referred to as a naming ceremony. Your historical excursus has nothing to do with the subject under discussion. The word "baptism" has not changed its meaning. I said nothing about hurt feelings; my feelings weren't hurt, I simply objected to your insinuation of sock puppetry. Thank you for your apology--Taiwan boi (talk) 07:11, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

There you go misquoting me. I told you to WP:LETGO and WP:GETOVERIT and yet you won't because you're an antagonist.

My original claim gave three sources, not four. One of the three never claimed that baptism and Christening were one in the same: "a Christian ceremony at which a baby is given a name and made a member of the Christian Church". Baptism isn't mentioned there. Hence, when the other two showed that it was, it is sometimes. Also, it is a term only used in paedobaptist churches. That is why I intentionally left it in proximity to the "sacrament" section since the two are frequently related. Anabaptists would never hold a christening service. I'm not sure if non-Western denominations would ever use the term. I alluded to that as well but may not have made the point completely or clearly enough. That was the full thrust the the qualifier "sometimes". Baptism itself has not changed its meaning. But some people do equate the two terms. The claim was not that all groups use the term christening only that some groups do. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:06, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I didn't misquote you. I commented on what I had said, not what you had said. I predicted you wouldn't WP:LETGO and WP:GETOVERIT, and sure enough you didn't. You're still forgetting what you claimed originally, that "baptism" is sometimes called "christening". Not even one of your quotations said that. This is hardly surprising since none of them were defining "baptism", they were all defining "christening". Please understand that "christening is sometimes called baptism" and "baptism is sometimes called christening" are two completely different statements. They are not equivalent. You provided no evidence whatever for your original claim. It's that simple.--Taiwan boi (talk) 14:14, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

---

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Baptism/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

May I respectfully point out to the author of the article on Baptism that he is in error where he states that John's baptism did not remit sin. Mk. 1:4-5 is a "stumbling block", "Ac.19:4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus." Had John's baptism actually remitted sins then there was no need for animal sacrifices nor for Jesus to shed His blood for the sins of the world. "Heb:9:22: And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission." John's baptism was merely "UNTO" remission which had not yet come. -Respectfully; See Jesus' Name WitnessesWkdemers (talk) 06:46, 15 January 2011 (UTC) In Mark Ch 1 V 4 and 5 it states that John's baptism WAS for the remittance of sin. The difference was that baptism in the Name of Christ conveyed the gift of the Holy Spirit - Acts 2-38. Whether the Holy Spirit gave a gift or indeed was the gift Himself is open to debate. The Jews underwent ANNUAL baptisms for various ritual purposes and one of these was the ceremony that John conducted at the Jordan when Jesus, a law-abiding Jew, came to the river to be baptised [ which for Him was un-necessary ]. The people who gathered at the Jordan from the whole region were there for John's ceremony - they did not know of Jesus. As I see the matter, from a non immersion for salvation viewpoint, the water requirement, which was a work under law, has been superseded by spiritual immersion in the Holy Spirit. I am a Roman Catholic and former Anglican and I ask that it be noted that the question asked by the people in Acts 2 - "What must we do"? does not in-clude the words " to be saved". I have noticed some water immersion preachers insert those three words for the purpose, I believe, of pushing their immersion for salvation bandwagon. Salvation is the free, unattainable by works gift of the Grace of God and of faith. Roger DESHON, Toowoomba 07 4 635 8930 122.111.76.124 (talk) 11:22, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Last edited at 06:46, 15 January 2011 (UTC). Substituted at 20:05, 2 May 2016 (UTC)