How Animals Could Be 'Redeemed' From Sacrifice in Judaism

People don't think. Origen was castrated. No one thinks about why he would engaged in this gruesome act ... even when Irenaeus tells us that 'those of Mark' had a redemption ritual which 'spared' or 'freed' them from martyrdom. We are told by Tertullian on a number of occasions that the Marcionites who underwent baptism HAD TO BE castrated before they partook of this sacrament. We also have the intimation that the heretical priesthood understood itself to be 'spared' from sacrifice owing to the others being offered in their place.

Is there an argument that COULD BE made from the Torah that severing of the testicles 'spared' or 'redeemed' someone from being offered as a martyr (in the manner of what is hinted in Irenaeus about the Markan 'redemption' ritual). No, no - 'experts' on Jewish legal observances will tell us. But they are only thinking one way. They are thinking in terms of the consecration of animals FOR sacrifice. Certainly animals who were blemished in this manner could not be offered on the altar for God.

Yet you can't understand Christianity - a messianic formulation within Judaism - by simply plugging in statements from Jews about their religion like:

Lev. 22:24 meant that Jews were forbidden to castrate the male of any species; neither a man, nor a domestic or wild beast, nor a fowl.

Yes all of this true but if the logic is applied to the idea of which males within Christianity could be ritually 'spared' or 'redeemed' from sacrifice or martyrdom, we can turn around the logic of this same passage - Lev. 22:24 - and argue that this was the logical basis for the Marcionite practice of castrating their priesthood:

You must not offer to the LORD an animal whose testicles are bruised, crushed, torn or cut. You must not do this in your own land, and you must not accept such animals from the hand of a foreigner and offer them as the food of your God. They will not be accepted on your behalf, because they are deformed and have defects

In other words, Origen who says that when he was young was spared from being taken away with his father as a martyr might well have underwent the Markan 'redemption' ritual which was based on little more than an inversion of Lev. 22:24.

Yes, it's 'speculation' but how else are we going to explain the Marcionite and Markan practice? Oh, we shouldn't speculate at all. I can see what the agenda is here. Keep knowledge of forbidden practices - under wraps.

Indeed the fact that Marcionites continued to engage in ritual castration well into the late second century and beyond demonstrates how they defied an Imperial edict established since the time of the Bar Kochba revolt. It also explains how Mark - whose 'finger' was severed - resembles the warriors who engaged in the revolt who are identified as severing their index finger as a means of securing 'divine protection' and leading them to abandon traditional rituals in Judaism including the wearing of phylacteries.

If only we could figure out what sexual organ the 'finger' symbolizes? Hmmm ....

Maybe if my critics stopped 'giving me the finger' they might have time to reacquaint themselves with the (incredible) truth about their own religion.

Interestingly Isidore identifies that something was wrong with Agrippa's genetalia in the Acts of the Pagan Martyrs (not my own guess but acknowledged in the footnotes of the critical edition. I hope the reader excuses me for not including this in my Real Messiah. It would only serve as a distraction from my main point.

Maybe it also explains why Agrippa was so outspoken against circumcision. He had suffered the unkindest 'cut' of all.

Him who has ears, let him hear ...