Why did Ignatius insist that Jesus was baptized by John?

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

Why did Ignatius insist that Jesus was baptized by John?

Post by Giuseppe »

I have always compared the baptism of Jesus by John, in all the canonical Gospels, as a kind of coronation.

But there are two types of coronation.

1) when who gives the crown is more powerful than who receives it. For example, Charlemagne's coronation.
Image

2) when who gives the crown is less powerful than who takes it by force. For example, Napoleon's coronation.
Image

Now, it is more expected that Mark (=or who wrote the first gospel) would have meant a baptism/coronation of the second type for Jesus, if he had introduced a baptism at all.

The Christian apologists are eager to apply the Criterion of Embarrassment on the baptism episode, to prove it as historical.

But pace the apologists, the point is that Ignatius (therefore someone rather similar to the author of Matthew) was really more embarrassed by who preached that Jesus wasn't baptized by John than the contrary. How could this happen?

Hence my belief is that the Ignatius's opponents preached yes a meeting with John in their heretical Gospels, only a meeting where John didn't baptize Jesus.

Question: could the Mark's gospel vehicle the heretical idea that Jesus was not really baptized by John, insofar there was only partially a baptism by John, but not a full baptism?

I think that the answer is a sound YES:
9 In those days Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. 10 And just as he was coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens torn apart and the Spirit descending like a dove on him. 11 And a voice came from heaven, “You are my Son, the Beloved;[h] with you I am well pleased.”
(Mark 1:9-11)

The verse 9 may mean that John baptized fully Jesus. Period. Stop.
But the incipit of the verse 10:
And just as he was coming up out of the water,
...shows that the baptism ''by John'' was not realized fully by John. The divine intervention (God, the holy spirit or the spiritual Christ, if you want) prevents that baptism ''by John'' from being a real, normal baptism by John.

Further indication that Jesus was not baptized by John in Mark, even if he met John, is found in the following words of Jesus addressed to John in Matthew 3:13-16:
13 Then Jesus came from Galilee to John at the Jordan, to be baptized by him. 14 John would have prevented him, saying, “I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?” 15 But Jesus answered him, “Let it be so now; for it is proper for us in this way to fulfill all righteousness.” Then he consented. 16 And when Jesus had been baptized, just as he came up from the water, suddenly the heavens were opened to him and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting on him.
Really, Matthew was more embarrassed by the fact that in Mark the baptism seems to be not fully done by John, than by the baptism itself by John for the remission of the sins of a potential sinner Jesus. Therefore Matthew would want to have the certainty that only after that a normal full baptism is done entirely by John, and only then, the divine intervention enters on the stage.

In other terms, Matthew is really embarrassed by the implicit presence in Mark of a hostility, a secret conflict, between the baptism of Jesus by John and the baptism of Jesus by the holy spirit (or God or the spirit of Christ).

This confirms me in the belief that in Mark the baptism by John is only apparent because it was interrupted abruptly by another, more spiritual baptism: the baptism by Christ himself.

Ignatius couldn't accept this divine interruption of the baptism by John in Mark - an interruption that is dangerously a disapproval -, hence his insistence that ''really'' Jesus was baptized by John.
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: Why did Ignatius insist that Jesus was baptized by John?

Post by Giuseppe »

After this analysys, I think that in Mark the Christ is an angelic superbeing who comes from heaven (as the real Baptizer replacing John the Baptist) and is not really a man, and the “man part” - Jesus -- is just a disposable shell only apparently baptized by John but not really baptized by him.

I wonder: why all this secrecy by Mark in giving, from a hand, a proto-catholic reading of the 'events', and from the other hand, in giving so easily (for who has eyes to see) another heretical reading that goes directly against the proto-catholic one ?

Sometimes my feeling is that Mark was written by heretical docetics for proto-catholic readers by inside the proto-catholic church and not by outside it. Something of similar to the pictures of Hyeronimus Bosch, interpreted as the last Cathar vehicling in incognito Cathar themes in his works.
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: Why did Ignatius insist that Jesus was baptized by John?

Post by Giuseppe »

Another clue in support of the thesis that the baptism by John is interrupted by the spirit of Christ as the true baptizer (replacing John) of the man Jesus, is found in the end of the Gospel.

The angel says to the women that Jesus Nazarene is risen, i.e., the mere earthly container of the spiritual Christ. Therefore what is left implicit is that the spiritual Christ, having abandoned the man Jesus on the cross, takes again possession of him to make him risen. In this way, only at the Resurrection, Christ and Jesus become one and the same being. This fits what the Philippians Hymn says: that Christ becomes really Jesus only after the resurrection.

Therfore Mark is saying that the true baptism of Jesus - the his real anointment or 'becoming Christ' - happened only after the death of the man Jesus, and is the same his Resurrection as Christ.

In this way the prophecy of the same John the Baptist is realized: John could only baptize ''by water'', while the Christ will baptize/anoint really the man Jesus by holy spirit.

The proto-Catholic Ignatius and Matthew couldn't accept that the baptism by John was so limited and not even a baptism (because interrupted by another baptism in his place).
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
outhouse
Posts: 3577
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: Why did Ignatius insist that Jesus was baptized by John?

Post by outhouse »

You seem way off base of reality here.

Baptism by John was that of known poor Galileans, this movement was the hard working mans movement, the peasants, the normal peoples movement.

yet you place it as if should relate to kings and the elite, just because so many people found value in the crucifixion. You sort of twisted everything out of historical context to sell some really pretty poor rhetoric.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Why did Ignatius insist that Jesus was baptized by John?

Post by Giuseppe »

Can you recognize for me the benefit of the doubt since you insistence that Jesus was baptized by John seems so similar to the insistence of IGNATIUS that Jesus was baptized by John?
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
outhouse
Posts: 3577
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: Why did Ignatius insist that Jesus was baptized by John?

Post by outhouse »

If Johns movement was popular and it was, it only makes sense one of is leading followers would take over his movement and keep it alive.

You do not deserve the benefit of doubt
Post Reply