Talk:Baptism in early Christianity

Repeated removal of sourced material
Taiwan boi has three times successively removed the following material (which initially had fewer sources):
 * Maxwell Johnson states: "We do not know enough about specific baptismal practices within the various New Testament communities to suggest that one mode of baptismal administration was normatively practiced over another." Even among those who express a preference for one view or another, some indicate that they only consider that view likely or probable. An example is La Sor. Laurie Guy says immersion was probably the norm, but that at various times and places full immersion, partial immersion and affusion were probably in use. Tischler says that modes other than total immersion may also have been used. "We are not told what method of baptism was used, whether it was by total immersion or by some form of pouring or sprinkling. Probably each of these was used at one time or another depending on the circumstances"; "Although the descriptions of New Testament baptisms indicate that baptism occurred with both the officiator and the candidate standing in water, they do not state specifically what happened in the act"; "It can be questioned whether the NT proves immersion was used at all"; "The New Testament considers it enough to establish it as the initiatory title of Christianity, outline its significance in broad touches, and let it go at that" - these are some of the expressions that others have used.

What appearance of justification can be adduced for removing this sourced material? Esoglou (talk) 08:38, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Please read my edit summaries.--Taiwan boi (talk) 08:45, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you mean "Your citation is mischievous; the article goes on to prove it with numerous citations" (a comment, rather than an edit summary, that does not seem to presume good faith) and "The statement is substantiated by the standard reference works which follow"? And the following claim?

"standard reference works commenting on early church practice agree that full immersion was the usual mode of baptism." This statement is substantiated by citations which follow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taiwan boi (talk • contribs)
 * Standard reference works
 * In general, your citations speak of "immersion", not, as claimed, of "full immersion". Yet you claim that they "agree" that it was full immersion.


 * In any case, by talking of that, you are avoiding the point. Why do you delete sourced information that shows that many sources, even among those that you decorate with the description "standard reference works", indicate that their conclusions are only tentative?  That is the point of the passage that you have deleted.  A well-sourced point that has every right to be maintained in the article.  Esoglou (talk) 11:28, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Infant baptism is one sided. Many documents that are pro infant baptism are jumped.

Not in citation given?
The following referenced statements are tagged "not in citation given".


 * "A recent Bible encyclopedia speaks of the "consensus of scholarly opinion" that the baptismal practice of John the Baptist and the apostles was by immersion.[75][not in citation given]"

The citation given is "Lexicographers universally agree that the primary meaning of baptizo G966 is 'to dip' or 'to immerse", and there is a similar consensus of scholarly opinion that both the baptism of John and of the apostles was by immersion", Jewett, "Baptism", in Murray (ed.), "Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, volume 1, p.466 (rev. ed. 2009). Clearly the statement is in the citation given.


 * "a standard Bible dictionary says that baptism was normally by immersion.[77][not in citation given]"

The citation given is "Baptism was normally by immersion either in the river or in the bath-house of a large house", Dowley (ed.), "Eerdman's Handbook to the History of Christianity", p.10 (1977). Clearly the statement is in the citation given.


 * "Grimes says "There is little doubt that early Christian baptism was adult baptism by immersion".[79][not in citation given]"

The citation given is Grimes, "Deeply Into the Bone: Re-Inventing Rites of Passage", p. 50 (2002). Clearly the statement is in the citation given. All three citation tags were completely spurious. These references were tagged falsely.--Taiwan boi (talk) 09:16, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The statement they were cited for was: "While other forms were occasionally used, standard reference works commenting on early church practice agree that full immersion was the usual mode of baptism." Not one of them says this: all they show is that immersion was used. This I indicated in my edit summary. Esoglou (talk) 13:54, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That is completely false. None of them were cited for that statement. Each citation was preceded by a completely different statement.--Taiwan boi (talk) 03:17, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That's what I thought. But now you tell me that what followed the statement "While other forms were occasionally used, standard reference works commenting on early church practice agree that full immersion was the usual mode of baptism" was not meant as support for it.  Since you say so, I must accept that in fact you were uncharacteristically leaving that statement with no source to back it up.  Esoglou (talk) 12:48, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * We had already been through this before. Your repeated insertion of separate citation tags for each source demonstrates that you were calling into question the statement which preceded each citation. If that's not what you meant, then you were using the tags inappropriately. If that's what you meant, you should have tagged the relevant statement as unsourced. But it appears that's not what you meant.--Taiwan boi (talk) 06:49, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I accept your reproof for not having tagged in the clearest and best way the fact that these three, out of the nine that seemed to be cited as proof of the opening statement, did not in fact support the opening statement. Esoglou (talk) 12:07, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Baptism in early Christianity. 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/20101203091327/http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P3I.HTM to http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P3I.HTM

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:14, 25 October 2016 (UTC)