Further definitive evidence that John's baptism is anti-marcionite: water == Torah

[Giuseppe]

I read that for the Jews and Samaritans the water is symbol of the Torah.

SO, by giving a baptism "of water", John the Baptist is simply imparting the Torah on the Jesus who had rejected the Torah:

on the Jesus of Marcion.

[mlinssen]

I read that for the Jews and Samaritans the water is symbol of the Torah.

SO, by giving a baptism "of water", John the Baptist is simply imparting the Torah on the Jesus who had rejected the Torah:

on the Jesus of Marcion.

I like that idea, as Thomas and John hint at a Samaritan background for their authors: it would be a fine smack in the face.
However, this is not the only reason, as IS and John B simply had to meet:

Malachi 3: 1 "Behold, I send my messenger, and he will prepare the way before me; and the Lord, whom you seek, will suddenly come to his temple; and the messenger of the covenant, whom you desire, behold, he comes!" says Yahweh of Armies.

The Lord will come to the temple of the messenger? Now that's interesting: Jesus comes to John the Baptist because prophecy foretells so - but why don't the gospel-writers mention that, why do they miss out on a chance to fulfil scripture?
John the Baptist doesn't have a temple, and the gospel-writers couldn't have supplied him with one because that would obviously have had to remain in its place and it would have become well known with all the people having to visit him there - what other purpose would the temple of John the Baptist serve? It would have had to be a large temple, perhaps the size of a church or even cathedral, or people would have stood in line for it for many kilometres - at least that is what one would suspect, based on the text of the gospels.
All the events in the life of Jesus, all the miracles, everything: they all are perfectly transient.
Temporary, short-lived, ephemeral, impermanent - and so on. Driving out demons, healing people, raising one or two (three, actually) from the dead who will die eventually anyway;
magically conjuring food out of thin air that hours later has been digested and disappeared:
nothing that Jesus does persists for longer than a few hours. The veil of the Temple that is allegedly torn is the only exception, yet an event that can't be witnessed or confirmed because it covers the most sacred of the entire Temple and only the High Priest is allowed to visit it - once a year. Naturally, there is no record of the event outside the gospels.
Nothing that Jesus does can be proven - and that is great, because that means it can't be disproven either: it can't be disproven that the Temple veil did not tear, nor can it be disproven that Jesus raised people from the dead, nor can it be disproven that he cured hundreds of sick people.

So John the Baptist isn't assigned a temple by the gospel-writers, because it should have been located at a place easily accessible to multitudes of people, in plain sight of many: it could be disproven that there ever was a temple at that location.
Hence, Jesus has to visit John wherever he is, and the gospel-writers carefully omit the location: "in the river Jordan" says Mark, a river that is 250 kilometres long. Luke states "all the region around the Jordan", even less precise (even though "the river Jordan" is more than imprecise enough), and Matthew states that Jesus came to the Jordan to John. What is he to do there? Whatever the Lord is to do in the temple of the messenger - it doesn't say, only that it is 'suddenly', and that it is.
Jesus and John could have had a conversation, but about what? It would deepen John's character, but most importantly it would settle the matter between which of the two really was Elijah - of all the things incredible it would have been more than most incredible that neither of the two would bring up the topic. That is why there is no conversation at all between the two, and why John sends his messengers to Jesus so the gospel-writers can use that as a pretext to come up with the logion about John the Baptist.
So Mark, desperately searching for an angle, a way to shape and fulfil just another terribly inconvenient prophecy, probably has a mental breakdown - and in a momentary lapse of reason, Mark has Jesus baptised.

At that point, Church history is written, the event is fixed, Mark's legacy extended, and Jesus is to be baptised by the others as well - period. As easily as Mark could have forgotten to mention that Mary was a virgin, it really is impossibly implausible to omit an incredibly significant event - even when that is a significantly incredible event. The baptism of Jesus couldn't be undone, yet the clever and cunning Matthew turns their weak point to a strong point and takes on all challenges at the same time: he does let Jesus and John have a conversation with each other, and he does infer scripture. Matthew certainly doesn't quote Malachi 3:1 nor use any other words to infer scripture, but only has Jesus say the very vague 'Allow it now, for this is the fitting way for us to fulfil all righteousness.'

Never forget that Mark's achievement is phenomenal: he takes Chrestianity head on and reverts it, deflects it all, turns their IS into a Judaic puppet and prophecy who still conducts nasty business towards Pharisees and still is anti-Judaic - but by focusing both into the focal point of Pharisees and Scribes Mark magnificently manages to tackle both problems.
And on top of that he resurrects Jesus - in our eyes to no avail because there is no purpose to Mark 16:8, yet the entire goal and purpose is right in front of our eyes: Mark manages to resurrect Jesus AND blame the Thomasine women for nobody ever having heard of it

But Giuseppe, really: how is your Greek?

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... bapti%2Fzw

βαπτίζω

1.to dip in or under water; metaph., βεβαπτισμένοι soaked in wine, Plat.; ὀφλήμασι βεβ. over head and ears in debt, Plut.
2.to baptize, τινά NTest.:—Pass., βαπτίζεσθαι εἰς μετάνοιαν, εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν id=NTest.:—Mid. to get oneself baptized, id=NTest

It's ordinary Greek, Giuseppe, and it always meant dipping in water

βάπτω Root ΒΑΦ

I.trans. to dip in water, Lat. immergere, Od., Plat.:—of slaughter, ἐν σφαγαῖσι βάψασα ξίφος Aesch.; ἔβαψας ἔγχος Soph.; φάσγανον εἴσω σαρκὸς ἔβαψεν Eur.
2.to dip in poison, ἰούς, χιτῶνα Soph.
3.to dip in dye, to dye, Hdt., Aesch.:—Comic, βάπτειν τινὰ βάμμα Σαρδιανικόν to dye one in the [red] dye of Sardis, i. e. give him a bloody coxcomb, Ar.
4.to draw water by dipping a vessel, Theocr.; βάψασα ἁλός (sc. τὸ τεῦχος) having dipped it so as to draw water from the sea, Eur.
II.intr., ναῦς ἔβαψεν the ship dipped, sank, id=Eur

And so on

βαπτιστής

one that dips: a baptizer, ὁ B. the baptist, NTest

Do note that this is NOT Greek. Why is it Baptisths and not Baptistos - it's a guy, right?

ⲓ̉ⲱϩⲁ_ⲛⲏⲥ ⲡ ⲃⲁⲡⲧⲓⲥⲧⲏⲥ

βάπτω - to immerse
ἱστῇς - 2nd singular of ἱστάω; 'you stand'

Antiquities Book 10 Chapter 7 Section 5:

But for the king himself, he was not at all irritated against Jeremiah, such was his gentle and righteous disposition; yet, that he might not be engaged in a quarrel with those rulers at such a time, by opposing what they intended, he let them do with the prophet whatsoever they would; whereupon, when the king had granted them such a permission, they presently came into the prison, and took him, and let him down with a cord into a pit full of mire, that he might be suffocated, and die of himself. So he stood up to the neck in the mire which was all about him, but there was one of the king's servants, who was in esteem with him, an Ethiopian by descent, who told the king what a state the prophet was in, and said that his friends and his rulers had done evil in putting the prophet into the mire, and by that means contriving against him that he should suffer a death more bitter than that by his bonds only. When the king heard this, he repented of his having delivered up the prophet to the rulers, and bid the Ethiopian take thirty men of the king's guards, and cords with them, and whatsoever else they understood to be necessary for the prophet's preservation, and to draw him up immediately. So the Ethiopian took the men he was ordered to take, and drew up the prophet out of the mire, and left him at liberty [in the prison]

Jeremiah 38:4 Then the officials said to the king, "Let this man be put to death, for he is weakening the hands of the soldiers who are left in this city, and the hands of all the people, by speaking such words to them. For this man is not seeking the welfare of this people, but their harm." 5 King Zedekiah said, "Behold, he is in your hands, for the king can do nothing against you." 6 So they took Jeremiah and cast him into the cistern of Malchiah, the king's son, which was in the court of the guard, letting Jeremiah down by ropes. And there was no water in the cistern, but only mud, and Jeremiah sank in the mud. 7 When Ebed-melech the Ethiopian, a eunuch who was in the king's house, heard that they had put Jeremiah into the cistern-the king was sitting in the Benjamin Gate- 8 Ebed-melech went from the king's house and said to the king, 9 "My lord the king, these men have done evil in all that they did to Jeremiah the prophet by casting him into the cistern, and he will die there of hunger, for there is no bread left in the city." 10 Then the king commanded Ebed-melech the Ethiopian, "Take thirty men with you from here, and lift Jeremiah the prophet out of the cistern before he dies." 11 So Ebed-melech took the men with him and went to the house of the king, to a wardrobe in the storehouse, and took from there old rags and worn-out clothes, which he let down to Jeremiah in the cistern by ropes. 12 Then Ebed-melech the Ethiopian said to Jeremiah, "Put the rags and clothes between your armpits and the ropes." Jeremiah did so. 13 Then they drew Jeremiah up with ropes and lifted him out of the cistern.

Zedekiah the Immerser, who immersed the prophet Jeremiah in mud - and Jeremiah stood in the mud

[Giuseppe]

Never forget that Mark's achievement is phenomenal: he takes Chrestianity head on and reverts it, deflects it all, turns their IS into a Judaic puppet and prophecy who still conducts nasty business towards Pharisees and still is anti-Judaic - but by focusing both into the focal point of Pharisees and Scribes Mark magnificently manages to tackle both problems.

what I can't never forgive to Mark is his use of secrecy to silence the disturbing clamor provoked by the Jesus Son of Father of Marcion and other anti-demiurgists. When secrecy doesn't serve more that goal, Mark doesn't refrain himself from attacking the same pious women for their secrecy about the Risen one, i.e. for the same sin of secrecy done by his own Jesus while in life.

On the verse, “They traveled three days in the wilderness and found no water” (Exodus 22), some mystically inclined Rabbis opined: “Water actually stands for Torah, as it is said (by Isaiah, 55:1), ‘Ho, all who are thirsty, come for water.’ Having gone for three days without Torah, the prophets among them stepped forth and legislated that the Torah should be read on the second and fifth days of the week as well as on Shabbat so that they would not let three days pass without Torah”

(Babylonian Talmud, BavaKama 82a)

It is curious that Jesus emerging from the waters of the his baptism is often compared to Israel emerging from Egypt (accordingly: in need of water).