Apocalyptic Function of the Baptism for the early Christians

[Giuseppe]

1) the maximum of evil is the definitive sign of the coming End.

2) the Death of Jesus is not still the maximum of evil.

3) even more so, the sharing of this same death by the early Christians via baptism "in the name of Jesus" is the real maximum of evil: the same believers "die". Which crime is more scandalous than this on the earth?

4) therefore, the End is "really" coming.

The previous baptisms of John the Baptist were not connected with this apocalypticism. Hence the eschatological superiority of the Baptism of "Jesus": of the early Christians themselves.

[Giuseppe]

The embarrassment for a Jesus baptized by John is the same embarrassment of the Christians being baptized "in the name of Jesus": how could the "brothers of the Lord" "share" the same death of the Son of God without that God could revenge them?

[Giuseppe]

This is the reason because Revelation says what the genial Roger Parvus has pointed out:

There, as you know, we have the vision of the woman and the dragon. The woman may be a symbol for the Kingdom of God movement. The woman gives birth to a male child, destined to rule the nations with an iron rod (Rev. 12:5). What I find interesting here is that the women has other offspring (Rev. 12:17). So it appears that the male child was just the first of her offspring that the dragon attempted to devour. His attempt failed because her child was caught up to God and his throne. Does this mean the dragon didn’t kill the child. Not necessarily; for a death that is immedately undone by resurrection could still be considered a failure. The dragon then goes on to pursue the woman and make war against the rest of her offspring, i.e., against the rest of the members of the movement

(my bold)
https://vridar.org/2019/03/07/revising- ... ment-91650

The dragon goes on to "make war against the rest of her offspring" is a real historical fact: the Baptism of the early Christians "in the name of Jesus".

By the baptism, The mere "Brothers of the Lord" suffered just as the Lord Jesus himself suffered.

[Giuseppe]

Who despised or doubted about the apocalyptic efficacy of the Baptism "in the name of Jesus" was ipso facto a real enemy of the early movement. The doubt was equivalent to a negation of the same death of Jesus.

Hence the reason why Jesus himself has to be baptized in the synoptics (what not coincidentially he doesn't in Mcn and in the other apocryphal Gospels of the "heretics").

The "heretics" denied that Jesus suffered really. Hence they denied also the Baptism of Jesus.