Is John the “killer” of Jesus during the baptism?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Is John the “killer” of Jesus during the baptism?

Post by Giuseppe »

So Neil:
If baptism in the Gospel of Mark is a symbol of death (as it is in the Epistle to the Romans and in Jesus’ own direct use of baptism as a metaphor for his crucifixion) it would follow, I think, that the baptism of Jesus would be no more embarrassing that Jesus’ crucifixion.

https://vridar.org/2019/01/16/jesus-and ... ment-90131

I report my post also here:
I would like to follow the implications from the premise (that the baptism is not embarrassing since the baptism is allegory of the crucifixion, and the latter is not embarrassing).

If baptism = crucifixion, then who is John the Baptizer? He would be the “killer” of Jesus, during the baptism.

Is John surprised in virtue of the effects of the baptism, just as the centurion is surprised about the effects of the crucifixion? In that precise moment, John seems not realize nothing about the baptism of Jesus, in Mark.

But then he is said, in Luke, to be surprised/scandalized about the “new” teaching of Jesus (“are you the coming Christ?”). But there is not this surprise/scandal, in Mark.

So, what is the effect of the baptism of Jesus, for John, in Mark? The his immediate imprisonment, after precisely the time of 40 days of Jesus in the wilderness.

We know that, precisely 40 years after the presumed death of Jesus in the fiction, Jerusalem is captured by the Romans. As RG. Price explains, the Jews kill Jesus, and God destroyes the Jews (by using the Romans).

So, John “kills” Jesus during the baptism, and after 40 days, God destroyes John (by using Herod).

So the message is: the fate of John the Baptizer prefigures the fate of the Jews the Killers.
Further questions:

Is this another sign of secret rivalry between John and Jesus?

If John is punished just as the Jews are punished, then which was his sin, afterall?

The Jews killed Jesus without know who he was really.

John the Baptist baptized Jesus without know who he was really.

The sin of both is a sin of ignorance.

In the Fourth Gospel, John the Baptizer knows in advance the identity of Jesus.


But, afterall, in the Fourth Gospel John doesn't the sin of ''baptizing'' Jesus. This fits the Neil's words:

That explanation would also help us understand why there is no baptism scene in the Gospel of John. That gospel consistently stressed the glory and power of Jesus and remove any “less than perfect” or “less than all-powerful” human attributes. If so, then there was no more room for Jesus to be baptized than there was that the Gospel of John’s Jesus would be in torment or helplessly arrested in Gethsemane.

So the words of Jesus in Matthew addressed to John the Baptist assume a sinister meaning:
13 Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to be baptized by John. 14 But John tried to deter him, saying, “I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?”
15 Jesus replied, “Let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness.” Then John consented.
Basically, the Matthean Jesus would be saying to John: Let it be so now: it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness, i.e., punish you by death.

Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Is John the “killer” of Jesus during the baptism?

Post by Giuseppe »

Effectively, the Mandean episode about John’s baptism reflects more the Matthean version, since there John realizes the identity of who he is going to baptize reluctantly (while in Mark he didn’t realize it). The ”fulfill all righteousness” of Matthew 3:15 would be both the purification of the spiritual John (=new Israel) and the death of the carnal John (=old Israel). The same ambivalent meaning of Matthew 17:25.

But in Mark it is hard to see a redemption of John: his sin is the absolute ignorance about the identity of the baptized Jesus, the same sin of the Jews (and of the Archons in Paul). And John is buried without hope of resurrection. His baptism comes “from heaven” (Mark 11:31), insofar the death of Jesus is wanted by God (and the pharisees didn’t know this). But his baptism comes “from men” insofar the death of Jesus is the sin of the Jews (and the entire people of the Jews didn’t accept this).


27 They arrived again in Jerusalem, and while Jesus was walking in the temple courts, the chief priests, the teachers of the law and the elders came to him. 28 “By what authority are you doing these things?” they asked. “And who gave you authority to do this?”
29 Jesus replied, “I will ask you one question. Answer me, and I will tell you by what authority I am doing these things. 30 John’s baptism—was it from heaven, or of human origin? Tell me!”
31 They discussed it among themselves and said, “If we say, ‘From heaven,’ he will ask, ‘Then why didn’t you believe him?’ 32 But if we say, ‘Of human origin’ …” (They feared the people, for everyone held that John really was a prophet.)
33 So they answered Jesus, “We don’t know.”
Jesus said, “Neither will I tell you by what authority I am doing these things.”

So the logic of the pharisees gives reason to condemn themselves, insofar the accusation against themselves is:
Then why didn’t you believe him?
i.e., they didn't believe that the baptism(=crucifixion) of Jesus was wanted by God.

...but the same logic gives reason to condemn the entire people, insofar the sin of the entire Israel is:
everyone held that John really was a prophet
...i.e., the people believed that John was right to baptize (=to kill) Jesus.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Post Reply