Talk:Baptism/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Immersion and submersion

The discussion "Remove submersion" ~~immediately~~ above ~~this~~ is really about the article immersion baptism. At some stage the two sections of this article that A ntv refers to must be revised, but I have not wanted to complicate things at this moment by touching them. Esoglou (talk) 12:49, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I believe that "immersion" is the normative scholarly description of completing covering the body during baptism, and mainstream scholarship seems to back this up. I think your (A ntv's) solution is more reasonable than having a submersion section because the term is not accurate. Swampyank (talk) 19:33, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Do you deny that there is such a thing as partial immersion? And where do Wikipedia rules acknowledge the concept of "normative" scholarly description? Esoglou (talk) 20:16, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The term is accurate. The fact that people don't use it correctly is the inaccurate part. As long as we explain the difference between the correct linguistic and common usage, I'm fine with it. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:21, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

POV. Esoglou (talk) 20:22, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for admitting that your position is POV. I was waiting for that. I mean it's obvious since the lexical definition of both stems from the Latin and the one (sub) means below while the other (im) means in or into. No other possible definition can be reasonable. The fact that it is not used correctly any longer is an inherent problem of the English language (and most others): it changes over time. So all we need to do is, as has been done in the Immersion baptism article, make the linguistic roots clear and then explain common usage. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:59, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Walter, I think you may have misread. Swampyank has not admitted that his position is a POV position. It is I who who have characterized his position in that way. And, unless it is I who have misread, you agree with that assessment. Have I misread? Esoglou (talk) 21:05, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Possibly, since now I don't know what you were labelling POV. There is no possible way to define partial immersion since by definition immersion is partially in the water, not fully. There is also technically no possibility of partial submersion (in a liquid) since that is by definition immersion. With that stated, I wouldn't doubt that "immersion" is used more often than not to describe a "baptism by submersion". That definition is at the academic level, by clergy (or those who are ordained to pastoral ministry), and the public. I definitely feel that the distinction must be made between correct linguistic categorization of the terms and how it used. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:16, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, a partial submersion would be possible, if only part of the body were completely submerged, like, say, the head. I don't know if that is done anywhere, actually, but I suppose it is possible. And of course, you did just define "partial immersion," so I guess it is possible to define it. And I guess what you as an individual do or don't doubt is probably of less importance to the rest of us than what the reliable sources say. I'm a Catholic, so believe me, I know that there are a number of individuals in Christianity who misuse words which have a technical definition but which are more often used in a less correct way by the general public. Having said that, we are still bound by policy and guidelines to focus our attention on what the reliable sources say. If you can find reliable sources which indicate that the term is used in a less correct way by a significant percentage of the population, I think we'd like to see them. Otherwise, such statements might violate WP:OR or similar policies and guidelines. John Carter (talk) 21:29, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I tend to (only "tend to") agree with Walter about the proper sense of "immersion". What I called POV was Swampyank's declaration that "immersion" is the normative scholarly description of completely covering the body during baptism. Unlike perhaps Walter, I judge that, even if we regret it, we ought to accept the fact that the word "immersion" is used (also) to mean the same as "submersion". And, it seems, unlike Swampyank, I judge that the article should recognize that, in relation to baptism, "immersion" is used, even by scholars, in more than one sense. Esoglou (talk) 21:57, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree that immersion is used to mean submersion, albeit incorrectly. Perhaps an analogy is the fewer vs. less grammatical issue. As seen in many express check-outs where it (grammatically incorrectly) reads "X items or less" (emphasis mine). The correct usage is "X items or fewer" (emphasis mine), but everyone understands what is meant and the convention has become normative. It's still not correct and has started to pervade in other areas of communication where "less" has become to mean "fewer".

Wouldn't submerging only the head technically be torture? Also, submerging the head only would still be just immersion with respect to the whole body. I still don't know if you can have partial submerging, but I suppose we could defer to a submarine captain who may partially submerge his vessel leaving only the periscope exposed. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:48, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

No. In fact, I have myself seen, once or twice, a baptism in a stream where both the minister and the party to be baptized were standing to waist level in the water. Upon the completion of the phrasing, the minister told the person to be baptized to breathe in, and then took his hair and submerged his head in the stream for about one or two seconds. Unfortunately, that is something I saw personally, and I'm not a RS. It isn't torture if the person involved volunteers to take part, if there is warning (like telling them to breathe in), and if it doesn't last so long that it could be potentially harming. I have to say that I myself question the possibly incendiary comment that it would be torture. John Carter (talk) 17:52, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't suppose Walter's question about torture was a fully serious one, raised after reflection. (I also doubt the justice of a judgement that I did hear expressed by someone who did quite seriously use the word "torture" with regard to the Eastern practice of total immersion of babies.) Ducking the head is no more trying than ducking the whole body, head and all. It isn't waterboarding. If I may be permitted to ask something out of mere curiosity, not as material for this discussion, was what John Carter saw total immersion or incomplete? Esoglou (talk) 20:03, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

In this instance, considering I was at a bit of distance from the baptism (on shore), all I could judge by would have been the degree of extension of the minister's arm, which was such that he looked like his whole hand was underwater, which led me to think that the whole of the head of the person to be baptized was as well. John Carter (talk) 16:48, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for being unclear. What I wanted, out of mere curiosity, to know was: Was the whole body of the person underwater? I presumed that the head was. And I presumed that the body was too, so that what was seen was baptism by total immersion. Esoglou (talk) 20:36, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

It certainly appears to be that the whole body was under the surface of the water. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Then it wasn't the "baptism by the partial immersion of a person whose head is dipped in water" mentioned by the writers in notes 10-12 of the "immersion baptism" article. Esoglou (talk) 20:49, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Swampyank wrote: "submersion...because the term is not accurate".

I'm assuming you mean that it doesn't accurately reflect common usage not that it doesn't mean what the section states it does. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:14, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Removed tag

I have removed the following tag:

The first source doesn't mention βαπτίζω at all. The second source indicates only one appearance of βαπτίζω in the Septuagint, so how it be said to note anything as the usual meaning of that word in the Septuagint? In fact none of the quotations says anything whatever about a usual meaning. They talk almost exclusively of other verbs, not of βαπτίζω. The only exception is the last, which talks about a single NT use of βαπτίζω in the passive or middle voice, and says that, since the verb βαπτίζω (immersed) is used of people who washed their hands it follows that, since the people are thus spoken of as (only partially!) "immersed", they must have immersed their hands in water, instead of having water poured over their hands!

1. The first source does mention βαπτίζω. It seems the author of this tag didn't know that baptízomai is indeed the verb βαπτίζω (I suspect someone who doesn't know Greek). 2. The second source identifies the use of βαπτίζω in the Septuagint as a reference to dipping, but since this apparently wasn't clear I have added some more text. 3. The third source identifies βαπτίζω in the Septuagint as 'dip oneself 2 Kgs 5,14'. I have added a note explaining that lexicons typically cite 'dip, plunge or immerse' as meanings of the word in the LXX and New Testament.--Taiwan boi (talk) 10:11, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Please use English transcription

All good content, but please we should all try to remember to use transcription then Greek text in brackets to remain reader friendly. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:00, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Move of article

I disagree with the move of this article from "Baptism" to "Baptism in Christianity". I think that "baptism" in the strict sense of the English word is a Christian concept. Other religions have ceremonies that are called "baptism" only by analogy. The "baptism" of a ship, military "baptism of fire" and similar experiences are also called "baptism" only by analogy. Better than this move would have been to create an article called something like "Baptism-like rites", letting "baptism" keep its primary meaning. What do others think? Esoglou (talk) 07:20, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I also disagree with the move of this article from "Baptism" to "Baptism in Christianity" for the same reasons listed by Esoglou. A ntv (talk) 07:36, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, I understand your concern. I did have some misgivings about the move. The problem is that the article had gotten up to 240kb which is way too long for any article but especially one of moderate scope as this one. Heck, even the article on the Catholic Church was considered too long when it was only 180-190kb in size. This is a link to the article at its 240kb size.

It occurred to me that one thing contributing to the article size was a section titled "Other initiation rites". I figured that we could delete that section and rename what was left to be Baptism in Christianity. Through a few slash-and-burn type edits, I was able to cut the article down from 240kb to 148kb. It's still a little too long but at least it's not as ridiculously long as it used to be. If you have a better solution, let's hear it.

--Richard S (talk) 07:47, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Would it not have been better to turn what you removed into a new article, as I suggested above? Esoglou (talk) 07:57, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. "Baptism in Christianity" is a redundant title. I think WP:Summary style applies here. It would have been better if the sections on "Other traditions", "Non-practitioners", and "Comparative summary" was branched off to a new article, possibly called "Baptism by tradition" or something. Ltwin (talk) 15:00, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Esoglou, time to switch back. If you go up to a Muslim and ask him if he has been baptized, you will get a strange look, I think. And that makes the point, while Muslims may wash often, Christians do not get baptized twice a day. History2007 (talk) 16:04, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm not fully convinced by the arguments above but neither am I strongly committed to the move that I made. If the consensus continues to run strongly in favor of moving the article back, I will not stand in the way. --Richard S (talk) 17:27, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

If you decide to keep a second article, how about "Baptism (analogies)" for a title? Esoglou (talk) 17:31, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I suggest to rename Article "Baptism" to "Religious Initiations" and Article "Baptism in Christianity" to "Baptism" A ntv (talk) 17:50, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

It seems that there is general agreement, but the lack of an "alternative name" for baptism is the obstacle. I think we should see what they generally do, and may I suggest a look at Holy Water for that matter? The Hindu, etc. do have purification ceremonies, but I do not know enough about multi-religion items. Also, maybe you guys want to ask John Carter, he knows about multi-religious issues as well, and the terms they use. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 18:00, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I like A ntv's idea. But I think it may be suitable to wait to see if anybody else wants to chime in. In particular, I agree with asking John Carter. I'll leave him a message on his Talk Page --Richard S (talk) 18:05, 9 December 2010 (UTC)y

Now, what about initiation without water? Is there some type of wet/dry distinction here? As a joke, can there be new religions in California where baptism-like ceremonies are performed at a eco-friendly dry cleaning places, given water shortages, etc? I guess that is the next trend to hit the golden state now, dry-baptism, possibly remotely done with an ipad in hand. But the wet/dry distinction needs to be made. And by the way, the Muslim section is not an initiation ceremony, given that it can be done a few times a day. History2007 (talk) 18:14, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Britannica online refers to only Christian forms of baptism, so it seems to me that it can be supported that "Baptism" is a basically exclusively Christian term. I do acknowledge that there are other religious groups which perform similar rites, such as the Mandeans, but that material might be best placed in some other article, maybe Baptism (non-Christian) or something similar. John Carter (talk) 19:19, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I see the other problem as having the non-initiation and the we/dry issues. Basically there are 4 cases: wet/initiation, dry/initiation, wet/routine, dry/routine. Christian Baptism is wet/initiation, now the other 3 cases may or may not belong in the same article. History2007 (talk) 19:27, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

OK... I moved the current Baptism article to Religious initiation rites. There will need to be some siginficant cleanup to that article. I could not move this article back to Baptism as a "move over redirect" needs an admin to delete the redirect and then do the move. Are any of you guys admins? Can you do this please? --Richard S (talk) 19:31, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

An article on religious initiation rites (preferred, I think, by A ntv and Richard) will include initiation by profession of faith (Muslims), circumcision (Jews), and many more rites (ancient mystery religions, and more modern cults), departing far from the baptism idea. Is that what you want? At least at this moment, and probably longer, I am indifferent. Esoglou (talk) 19:39, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, initiation is a strange story. Beyond religion, it happens in gangs where they have to beat up someone, in the Navy where they do hazing, in law firms where they have to win a big case before becoming a partner, etc. So I do not really understand that process. But even at the religious level it is Alice in Initiation Land and quite unexplored. Again the Muslim routine practice is not an initiation, neither is the Hindu purification with water. History2007 (talk) 19:53, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

My thought is that Religious initiation rites would cover baptism, circumcision, and other initiation rites. Muslim ablutions would not be covered in that article but would be covered in the restored Baptism article. I know this spreads out stuff that was formerly all in the Baptism article but as Repku pointed out the article was way too long. --Richard S (talk) 22:37, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

A part that should be shortened and/or hived off is that on the meaning of βαπτίζω.

I don't see what Muslim, Jewish, mystery-religion, pre-knighting etc. etc. ablution rites really have to do with baptism. Esoglou (talk) 12:21, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Some of them are actually some "third type" of activity, not Baptism, nor initiation, but some "religious ritual". There is no reason to try to pigeon-hole everything into two categories of "Baptism vs initiation". The ablutions are not Baptisms and not initiations, and there are probably 5 types, etc. Trying to pigeon-hole things is ok, provided we have enough holes, but certainly 2 pigeon-hole are not enough. History2007 (talk) 12:48, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I just mean, Why put these ceremonies, which are neither initiations nor baptisms, in the Baptism article (as Richard apparently intends to do at least with Muslim purification rites), and not rather in a "Ritual purifications" article? Esoglou (talk) 15:47, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Or perhaps in a "Baptism (analogies)" article. Esoglou (talk) 15:50, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I think you just found a suitable title for that other article beside Baptism: "Ritual purifications". Baptism is then a Christian form of Ritual purifications which is also an initiation. I think that is a logical categorization. History2007 (talk) 16:11, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeh, I like that. The Religious initiation rites can cover baptism, circumcision, etc. Baptism can focus on baptism in Christianity since, as we've agreed, that's the only religion that uses water as an initiation rite. Ritual purifications can include baptisms and Islamic ablutions among the list of purifications. It's claimed by some that the folks at Qumran may have used water as a purification. Baptism can mention very briefly that there are other uses of water in ritual purification but mostly it refers the read to Ritual purifications for a detailed discussion. --Richard S (talk) 17:22, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok great. Then I suggest we (i.e. you) can go ahead and "just do it". Cheers. History2007 (talk) 17:27, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

So someone will be moving that back sans extra material? Student7 (talk) 21:13, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I guess the someone is Richard, since he has been doing it. So let us wait for him. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 21:37, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Unless "someone" does something, the present confusion about what the article or articles are about will continue, and there is nothing we can do to put it or them in order. Is there "someone" who can and will put it all back as before, so that we can collaboratively start from there? That might be better than waiting for "someone" to single-handedly divide the material that was once a single article into three(?) separate articles? Esoglou (talk) 21:48, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

One thing is for sure: someone is not yours truly. I am just an observer here. I said Richard because he had started it and out of respect I think we should let him put it back together. So my suggestion is to wait until Monday, else please feel free to go for it. As for articles, my suggestion would be "Ritual purifications" as a top level article and Baptism as a Christian version of that. "Ritual purifications" may get too long and split whichever way, and that does not bother me, as long as Baptism as a Christian item is done nicely. History2007 (talk) 21:59, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been busy with that annoyance they call "real life" today. I'll work on it some tonite although I will need an admin to help with the move back to Baptism. --Richard S (talk) 02:46, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

OK... here's the status: Ritual purification already exists and has for a few years now; Religious initiation rites has been created and a speedy delete request has been placed on Baptism. As soon as it is deleted, anybody can move this article back to that title. Sorry for the mess but I think the net result will at least partly address the problem of article length. --Richard S (talk) 07:41, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Fine, no need to worry. There is so much more that needs fixing in Wikipedia, another few days will not create a world crisis here. Let us just have it done slowly and right. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 10:23, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I have moved the article back to "Baptism" as requested, leaving a redirect at Baptism in Christianity. JohnCD (talk) 10:39, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Time to trim quotes and more?

Now that it is back, I looked at the article again. Why are there so many huge box-quotes? To me that is an "invitation not to read" anything. I do not want to edit this article, but I would suggest at least a 30% trim for all the text. This is just too heavy and hard to read. History2007 (talk) 10:50, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I am not going to watch this page any more, so good luck with the fixes. History2007 (talk) 15:22, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

The article could be trimmed considerably by moving extended discussion of various sectarian views to their relevant pages. I have made a start on this, moving the Baptist view on baptism to the page on Baptist beliefs.--Taiwan boi (talk) 09:23, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Baptism/Comments

Talk:Baptism/Comments should be (re)moved at this point; could this be added the correct talk page archive for the time-frame of the comments? -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 22:15, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Largescale reference deletion

I don't pay much attention to this page, or subject, but it's on my watchlist, and I note the following [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Baptism&curid=4298&diff=436206233&oldid=436199112 deletion of sentence largescale deletion of references]. In ictu oculi (talk) 20:51, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Since you put so much value on these references, I have put them back in, but only in relation to the statement that "(certain) standard Bible dictionaries define as affusion standing in water having water poured over the head", which they do support, and without the curious statement, which they do not support, that "for New Testament usage it (the Greek-English Lexicon of Liddell and Scott) gives two meanings ... but never as standing in water having water poured over the head". Do you still think the statement about how some Bible dictionaries describe (rather than define) "standing in water having water poured over the head" is relevant under the heading of the meaning of the Greek verb βαπτίζειν? Surely not. And so, may this statement be removed again? Esoglou (talk) 06:15, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Esoglou,

Your separation of the sentence and refs to Standard Bible dictionaries define as affusion standing in water having water poured over the head.[42][43][44][45][46][47][48] does indeed look irrelevant and ripe for removal.

But the original wording didn't:

.. "baptize", with which it associates the Septuagint mention of Naaman dipping himself in the Jordan River, and "perform ablutions", as in Luke 11:38,[28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41] but never as standing in water having water poured over the head, which standard Bible dictionaries define as affusion.[42][43][44][45][46][47][48]"

This makes perfect sense and is relevant, why should it and the refs be deleted?

In ictu oculi (talk) 13:22, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Did it really make even imperfect sense to say that Liddell and Scott never associated βαπτίζω with "standing in water having water poured over the head"? What is the relevance to the meaning of the Greek verb of the silence of Liddell and Scott on this particular form of baptism? Liddell and Scott never associated the Greek verb with having water poured on the head without standing in water, with a bathtub, with a river or lake or the sea, with a Trinitarian or other formula to be recited, with an action by clergy or laity, a man or a woman, or with any of the thousands of other matters that you yourself can think of. Should Liddell and Scott's silence on these matters be mentioned too? And what do the precious references (which do classify baptism by affusion as baptism) say about this (or any other) silence of Liddell and Scott? Do they suggest that this particular silence is in some way significant, or that it is somehow more significant than Liddell and Scott's other silences? Esoglou (talk) 14:53, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

The deletion seemed to have good references but seemed to consist of "your way is invalid" as the main sentence. I agreed with the removal of that theme. I hope we can discuss affusion with less polemics than that! But it almost seemed that a half-way decent subtopic could be made of the footnotes which went out the window with the statement. "Affusion" has but a tiny summary here.

For example, yes, ancient pictures mostly display affusion. (On the other hand a bit hard to depict immersion/submersion in a dignified manner! So that may come down to "artistic license." But it is true, nonetheless).

Also, the Greek root was changed from a noun (in one sentence) to a verb. My Greek is a little rusty, so I won't argue. But this seems to change the meaning of the subsection and maybe the article. We need general consensus there I would think. Student7 (talk) 19:43, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

We agree, I think, that these references have no relevance to what the Liddell and Scott lexicon says about the meaning of the Greek verb baptizein, which is what the section is about. They concern instead use of the term "affusion" for the mode of baptism in early Christian depictions, a mode for which other reliable sources prefer to use the term "immersion". There is no danger whatever that they will be lost. They did not "go out of the window". Every one of them is given in the article Immersion baptism, where they are relevant. Indeed, in that article, all but one of them (Freedman) are given not just once but repeatedly.

From the Greek verb baptizein comes the English verb "baptize". The English noun "baptism" comes, as the opening words of the article state, from the Greek noun baptisma, itself derived from the Greek noun baptismos. The spelling of the two English words, the verb and the noun, surely hints at this fact, which you can check in any etymological English dictionary. There is no lack of consensus on it – unless perhaps you dispute it. I don't see how correcting the previous mistaken wording can be thought in any way to "change the meaning of the subsection or of the article": the subsection is about the meaning of the Greek verb baptizein; the article as a whole is about baptism, the thing (noun) that is done by the action (verb) of baptizing. Esoglou (talk) 09:08, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Esoglou, I don't really understand "there is no danger that they will be lost" when you have deleted them, isn't deleting them "lost"? And as for the introductory sentence, it doesn't seem unreasonable or trivial to note that the Greek verb baptizein doesn't cover a main use of the English verb "baptize" but, well, finetuning the sentence introducing the refs is something someone else probably can bother with. I just noted a large ref deletion, and it doesn't sound like deleting the refs is the only option here.In ictu oculi (talk) 10:35, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

By "they are not lost", I mean that, though they are no longer in a place where they had no relevance whatever, they are all - and in nearly every case several times over - where Wikipedia discusses the question they do deal with.

What is the main use of the English verb "baptize" that baptizein does not cover? Whatever it is, I suppose it could and should be mentioned, with citations that state that the use in question is not covered by the Greek verb baptizein (unlike the citations removed from here, which use the English word "affusion" for one particular mode of baptism, but say nothing either positive or negative about the relation of that mode to the Greek verb baptizein). It might be difficult to insert it into this section, which speaks only of what is in Liddell and Scott, and Liddell and Scott says nothing about any main use of the English verb "baptize" that baptizein does not cover; but perhaps it could be done You do know, of course, that the Didache, written in Greek and using the verb baptizein ("baptize thus ..."), indicates several modes, including pouring water three times on the head.

There was a statement (now removed) that Liddell and Scott did not mention (either positively or negatively) a particular mode of baptism in relation to the Greek verb baptizein. The discussion here shows that some readers mistakenly took this statement to mean that the Greek verb baptizein did not apply to that mode of baptism. Neither Liddell and Scott nor the citations in question said that the verb baptizein did not apply to that mode. The misunderstanding of that irrelevant statement shows how necessary it was to remove it. Jumping to that non-sequitur conclusion was, as I already indicated, no more logical than, for example, arguing that, because Liddell and Scott did not mention (positively or negatively) pronouncing the formula "I baptize you in the name of the Father...", Liddell and Scott was declaring that the Greek verb baptizein did not cover baptism with the Trinitarian formula.

What was removed from here was a statement that was irrelevant here, but that remains in Wikipedia where it is relevant. What was the other option for dealing with an irrelevancy? Esoglou (talk) 16:06, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

FSM

A few editors wanted to add a section on baptism in the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. First of all, that is a significant addition that has already been disputed here, so please discuss this first and don't edit war. Secondly, the hatnote and lead clearly indicate that this article is about Baptism in Christianity, and I don't think anyone seriously suggests Pastafarianism is Christian. Thirdly, the reference used was dubious - we would need a citation from a reliable secondary source. St Anselm (talk) 22:10, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Naked ?

So some modern person can write a book salaciously claiming that early christians were baptised naked , and that is just accepted as a verifiable fact ? Is there any other evidence to corroborate this claim ?

If you scroll down to the "apparel" section, there is a quote from Cyril of Jerusalem. St Anselm (talk) 09:56, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Thoughts on Baptism without immersion

A couple of anecdotes. I once worked for a company where everyone used a time clock to punch in and out. People were office workers and annoyed at this. Finally someone thought to interrogate the NLRB. "Do we have to use time clocks? A: Yes, if you've got them. Q:"What if we don't have them?" A: "Well, then, you can't very well use them, can you?" The company went back home and tore out its' time clocks! Everyone recorded their time manually from then on and were delighted to do so!

2. After Vatican II, it had been mentioned that women might be allowed to participate more. But not in the sanctuary. Hypothetical Q:"What if we don't have a railing denoting a sanctuary?" hypothetical answer: "Well, then, you don't really have a sanctuary, do you?" The American bishops went home and tore out their railings! Girls became acolytes, women became lectors and cantors.

What if? What if the original requirement was for complete immersion. What if the question was "What if we don't have sufficient body of water for immersion?" Hypothetical answer: Well, then, you'll have to use pouring of water. Pouring suddenly became very popular in the northern states of Europe and eventually everyplace. Student7 (talk) 21:52, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Other initiation ceremonies

I wonder what the place of this section is. The article is clearly about Baptism in Christianity (and perhaps should be renamed) - so why do we have little bits from other religions? I can understand the "Baptism of objects" and "Debaptism" subsections, but the other ones don't seem to belong here. St Anselm (talk) 20:17, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

It's good to discuss it. IMO they seem to fit here. Mithraic seems to have been omitted. Could you pick the worst one and critique it? Maybe that would help.

I suppose if we need to limit it, we could fork Baptism in Christianity. Seems a bit early for that, but that is worth discussing as well. Student7 (talk) 20:17, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

OK - "Mandaeans revere John the Baptist and practice frequent baptism as a ritual of purification, not of initiation." Firstly, it's unreferenced. Secondly, it's in the section on "initiation ceremonies", when it isn't. Thirdly, it is not Christian baptism, and I don't suppose anyone would say that it is. St Anselm (talk) 20:23, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Good start. I tried to cite it. Moved it to "Other", though it unnerved me a little. The remainder of Christianity does not consider LDS Christian either, but they are in the same subsection. So I tried to answer the three points.

Having said that, I do not agree that non-Christian baptism cannot be mentioned here (LDS being a case in point). Student7 (talk) 01:04, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Chart

I think the chart in section "Comparative summary" takes up a lot of room unnecessarily. The "beliefs about baptism" column doesn't belong in such a chart in my opinion. If the information in that column were moved to the "Specific Christian groups practicing baptism" section, the chart would be a useful reference quickly showing differences on the points in the other columns. --JFH (talk) 20:58, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

re: textual "proof" against baptein as immerse

The Luke 11:38 passage does not necessarily indicate that baptizein had the merely the meaning of "wash" rather than "wash by immersion". To say that a modern Westerner couldn't see how a person might be required to wash by immersion when eating with a Pharisee merely shows ignorance of 1st Century Palistinian Judaism. See mikva

--67.1.179.58 (talk) 06:34, 26 August 2013 (UTC)Pagurus0

For Wikipedia, you'd need a reliable source that in relation to Luke 11:38 says a Pharisee's guest would be expected to immerse himself fully before eating with him (in spite of Luke 7:44, which says a Pharisee who invited Jesus to a meal provided no water even for him just to wash his feet). If Gwēbh- means "dip, sink" and baptein means "dip", does that mean "baptizein" (a different word) can only mean "dip"? Esoglou (talk) 10:39, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

The site I provided states that one would only have to perform tevilah (ritual immersion) if the meal of which they were about to partake was considered sacred. Your point is well taken (with regards to Lk. 7:44- unless it was used specifically to show the Pharisee's inhospitality and his disdain for Jesus); if the word in Luke 11:38 means simply "to wash" -as in, one's hands- it can not mean that the hands were immersed as Jewish custom requires the water to be poured over the hands and then run off the elbows to ensure impurities did not remain. After reading though some sites, particularly one from Reformed Theological Seminary showing the diversity of meaning in the word baptein and one explaining baptism for the dead in its Jewish context -which showed βαπτιζειν being interchangeable with λουω, which I had always though meant just "washed", I think I shall have to do more careful research.--67.1.179.58 (talk) 18:24, 26 August 2013 (UTC)Pagurus0

---The Church of Christ section is written from an omniscient point of view, hardly NPOV. When I added "they believe" to the sentence about baptism in the NT being only immersion, it was reverted. Evidently someone can't let the public read their source and make up their own minds.Markewilliams (talk) 21:24, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I apologize that the explanation in my edit comment wasn't clearer. The problematic part of your edit had to do with the changes to the text on how the Churches of Christ reacted to the position of the International Churches of Christ. You added "and producing fruit" to the parenthetical description of the ICoC position, which simply isn't what the entry from the Encyclopedia of the Stone-Campbell Movement cited there is getting at. I've gone back to the Encyclopedia entry and pulled a direct quote so the reader can see exactly how that source characterized the ICoC's baptismal practices (i.e., that they "saw themselves as the only true Christians and insisted on reimmersing all who come into their fellowship, even those previously immersed 'for remission of sins' in a Church of Christ"). My concern had nothing to do with not letting "the public read their source and make up their own minds"; the goal was to make sure that our text accurately followed the source. EastTN (talk) 17:49, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Unbaptism

Recently I learned that the catholic church has a process to have your baptism officially annotated to essentially revoke baptismal privileges and Catholicism generally.

This seems like an extremely important and highly relevant fact to be including in the Baptism page under the Roman Catholic Church.

The process is cited with an online reference (via Gawker media) however it also made it into an Australian newspaper (The Echo).

Proposed Edit : In 2014, an Australian man sought excommunication and/or nullification of his baptism from the Catholic Church. In lieu of an offence worthy of excommunication, his baptism records were instead officially annotated to record the fact that he was no longer a Catholic. ^[1]

Any suggestions for revision of how this is worded or why something like this should not be included?

Erfmufn (talk) 10:30, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

The answer is at Formal act of defection from the Catholic Church. Esoglou (talk) 12:09, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 14 external links on Baptism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:57, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Baptism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090708014704/http://www.doulosresources.org:80/books/william/william.html to http://www.doulosresources.org/books/william/william.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:47, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Baptism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:28, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Baptism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090302205741/http://apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/name.htm to http://apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/name.htm
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.woodsonchapel.com/coc.php/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090224055615/http://anglicansonline.org/basics/thirty-nine_articles.html to http://anglicansonline.org/basics/thirty-nine_articles.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:31, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Baptism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:11, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Baptism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:12, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Baptism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140325191223/http://newsite3299.web07.intellisite.com/363937.ihtml to http://newsite3299.web07.intellisite.com/363937.ihtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:05, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Baptism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:11, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

On debaptism

A small section added in reference to that well-sourced article has now twice been removed by an IP citing nothing but h personal opinions. We don't do that. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:34, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

El Battistero.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:52, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Baptîzma êzidiyan.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:08, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Immersion

Does the statement: "The earliest Christian baptisms were probably normally by immersion, complete or partial." really require nine separate citations? Mannanan51 (talk) 00:49, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

- probably not, see WP:OVERCITE - tertiary sources like the Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible could be removed without affecting the article - cheers - Epinoia (talk) 02:27, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Maybe, as such is debated, and it would be good to have several sources. Misty MH (talk) 10:50, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Section 5.7, Catholicism, inaccurate

The second sentence, "Catholic doctrine holds that the baptism ceremony is ordinarily performed by deacons, priests, or bishops, but in an emergency can be performed by any Catholic." is inaccurate. It should read: "...in an emergency can be performed by any person." Reference: Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 1256, which reads: "In case of necessity, anyone, even a non-baptized person, with the required intention, can baptize, by using the Trinitarian baptismal formula. The intention required is to will to do what the Church does when she baptizes." — Preceding unsigned comment added by BF2021 (talk • contribs) 21:07, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Ah, thank you for pointing that out. I've expanded it a bit and clarified that point. I hope this is helpful. Elizium23 (talk) 06:14, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

^ Dylan O'Donnell (2014). "How I officially lost my religion". Gawker Media. Retrieved 2014-20-03. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)

[1] Dylan O'Donnell (2014). "How I officially lost my religion". Gawker Media. Retrieved 2014-20-03. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)

[1]