ph2ter

Marcion made a distinction between the two Christs, one flesh-like and the other phantom-like. The flesh-like Christ is the Jewish one, which the Jews expected to come and to be born. The other is spiritual, phantom-like and unbegotten.

I believe that the prototype for the two Christs is the ritual of the two goats of the Day of Atonement (Leviticus 16). Crossan already made a point that the passion story is modeled according to this ritual, but I think we can go little further.
For this ritual it must be taken the two similar goats, identical in appearance, height, and value. After lots were cast to determine which goat would play which role, crimson threads were tied around the throat of the goat that was to be sacrificed and around a horn of the goat that was to be escorted to the wilderness (Yoma 4:2:16).
The first goat is sacrificed in the Temple of Jerusalem. Its blood is taken to be a purificatory agent because it cleans the sins of the people. But those sins are afterward taken into the wilderness to 'Azazel' by the other goat which is accursed. The location specified as "the wilderness" was a distance of five sabbath days journey away east of Jerusalem, and elaborate precautions were taken to ensure that the goat was led there and would never return. At equal intervals along the route from the Mount of Olives to that location, ten stations were set up.

Jesus Christ and Jesus Barabbas are believed by a mentioned theory to represent those two goats. Jesus Christ was crucified and resurrected, but nobody ever mentioned what happened afterwards to Jesus Barabbas. It is clear that crucified Christ represents the sacrificed goat and that Barabbas represents the goat sent into the wilderness. The Christ's blood and flesh are purificatory agents which clean the sins. But from the logic of the two goats it must be supposed that those sins are taken then into 'the wilderness' by Barabbas.

Now, I believe that the Gospel according to Mark was meant to be read in a circular way, spanning a year after year, i.e. after the empty tomb in such calendar comes the baptism of Jesus. It is a dogma that Jesus bears the sins of people. But where he bears it? Into the wilderness according to Leviticus 16. But the Jesus which bears the sins there, is not a crucified one, but the released one – Jesus Barabbas. He must had been originally believed to go into the wilderness where he met the the voice of one crying in the wilderness: Prepare the way of the Lord, make his paths straight. There the sins which Jesus Barabbas carried away were by the baptism of John taken by the waters of the river Jordan. After that, the goat sent into the wilderness actually may return.

So the one which was baptized was not baptized because he sinned, but because he carried the sins of people which were cleaned by the blood of the crucified one.
This is compatible with the resurrection of the first goat which was crucified.

So Irenaeus can argue along the lines:
Concurring with these statements, Paul, speaking to the Romans, declares: "Much more they who receive abundance of grace and righteousness for life, shall reign by one, Christ Jesus." It follows from this, that he knew nothing of that Christ who flew away from Jesus; nor did he of the Saviour above, whom they hold to be impassible. For if, in truth, the one suffered, and the other remained incapable of suffering, and the one was born, but the other descended upon him who was born, and left him again, it is not one, but two, that are shown forth. But that the apostle did know Him as one, both who was born and who suffered, namely Christ Jesus, he again says in the same Epistle: "Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized in Christ Jesus were baptized in His death? that like as Christ rose from the dead, so should we also walk in newness of life." (Irenaeus Against Heresies, 3.16.8, 9)

The one which was flesh-like was born and was crucified, and the other was impassible and descended upon him who was born, and left him again.
Going into the wilderness is like Jesus descending into hell which is part of the Apostles Creed. The wilderness and hell are the places where accursed go. Azazel is another name for that in Leviticus 16.

The second goat is sent into the wilderness only after the first goat is already sacrificed. The only person which was present at Golgotha when Jesus was crucified was the beloved disciple. Along the Stephan's theory, the beloved disciple could be the crucified one which was resurrected on the forth day by Jesus who descended on him at the baptism at Jordan, and who left him again when he was crucified again .... repeating the ritual every year.

MCalavera

That would be Marcion's reason, not the original reason.

Marcion was a rebel, nothing more.

aa5874

If Jesus was an ORDINARY man and John the Baptist was baptising ORDINARY men then Jesus would NOT be regarded as sinless or special if he was baptized at all or ever lived.

John was in the business of baptizing ordinary SINNERS and John did NOT even recognize Jesus on the day he was baptized until the fiction of the HOLY GHOST bird and the talking cloud.

There could have been NOTHING at all embarrassing for John to have baptized an ordinary supposed man HJ of Nazareth who was like other ordinary men.

MCalavera

:clapping::clapping::clapping:

You are getting there, son. Just a bit more.

aa5874

I have ALREADY REACHED MARK 16.8 and there is NOTHING but REJECTION and DECEPTION.

HJers claim Jesus was really an ordinary man and was known as an ordinary man and still want to claim he was regarded as sinless by NON-EXISTING Christians.

In the Gospels, there was NO NEW religion under the name of Christ on the day Jesus was baptized by John and NO expectation that Jews did NOT NEED to observe the Jewish Laws of Sacrifice for Remission of Sins.

The claim by HJers that the baptism of an ordinary Jewish man was embarrassing is highly ILLOGICAL.

MCalavera

Argument from conflation fallacy (if there's such a thing). :redface:

aa5874

You NOW admit that you don't even know what you are talking about.

You INVENT your own fallacies.

MCalavera

You have to admit: it makes sense.

aa5874

HJers have put forward a most absurd proposition that Jesus was an ordinary man yet was still regarded as sinless by non-existing "Christians" or followers of Jesus when he was baptized by John who baptized ordinary people.

Jesus started to preach AFTER he was baptized and had NO new religion under the name of Christ up to the day he died.

It should have occurred to HJers that Jesus as an ordinary Jew would have followed the Laws of the Jews regarding remission of Sins even though baptized by John.

It is just highly illogical and unsubstantiated that if Jesus was an ordinary man that John would be embarrassed to have baptized him.

Iskander

Why was john baptizing people?

I am sorry if my question is simple, but I am a simple man.