The Temptation Story in Mark is anti-marcionite

[Giuseppe]

Mark makes it clear the identity of the god who sent the spirit who defended Jesus against the temptations in the wilderness who otherwise would have won his human nature:

And a voice came from heaven: “You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased.”

At once the Spirit sent him out into the wilderness,

You're wrong. In a later context of dispute with Marcionites, the identity of God isn't made clear here.

how can you say a wrong claim as that, when the phrase "you are my son etc" is taken from the OT and the god of the OT is YHWH sic et simpliciter ?

[Giuseppe]

Psalm 2:7 is spoken by YHWH:

7 I will tell of the decree:

The LORD said to me, “You are my Son;

today I have begotten you.

Isaiah 42:1 is spoken by YHWH:

1 Behold my servant, whom I uphold,

my chosen, in whom my soul delights;

I have put my Spirit upon him;

he will bring forth justice to the nations.

[Peter Kirby]

Mark makes it clear the identity of the god who sent the spirit who defended Jesus against the temptations in the wilderness who otherwise would have won his human nature:

And a voice came from heaven: “You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased.”

At once the Spirit sent him out into the wilderness,

You're wrong. In a later context of dispute with Marcionites, the identity of God isn't made clear here.

how can you say a wrong claim as that, when the phrase "you are my son etc" is taken from the OT and the god of the OT is YHWH sic et simpliciter ?

Because you are wrong, and you don't understand how Marcionites could interpret things in their favor. There's no point of you posting any of your material on the subject if you can't even be sympathetic to the Marcionites you're trying to find everywhere.

They could also read this as the higher good God declaring Jesus. It's not clear enough to settle a debate with a Marcionite.

[Giuseppe]

Mark makes it clear the identity of the god who sent the spirit who defended Jesus against the temptations in the wilderness who otherwise would have won his human nature:

And a voice came from heaven: “You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased.”

At once the Spirit sent him out into the wilderness,

You're wrong. In a later context of dispute with Marcionites, the identity of God isn't made clear here.

how can you say a wrong claim as that, when the phrase "you are my son etc" is taken from the OT and the god of the OT is YHWH sic et simpliciter ?

Because you are wrong, and you don't understand how Marcionites could interpret things in their favor. There's no point of you posting any of your material on the subject if you can't even be sympathetic to the Marcionites you're trying to find everywhere.

They could also read this as the higher good God declaring Jesus. It's not clear enough to settle a debate with a Marcionite.

really? Not even when you see the curious coincidence that in *Ev's incipit Jesus is recognized as 'son of god' by a demon, not by YHWH ?

I am sorry but your answer is not very smart. The Psalm makes it even clear who "the Lord" is.

And in the (not so) remote case you quote the same words in the Transfiguration episode, there you have Jesus being hailed as 'my son' by a god who is just opposing Jesus to Moses and Elijah.

[Peter Kirby]

Mark makes it clear the identity of the god who sent the spirit who defended Jesus against the temptations in the wilderness who otherwise would have won his human nature:

And a voice came from heaven: “You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased.”

At once the Spirit sent him out into the wilderness,

You're wrong. In a later context of dispute with Marcionites, the identity of God isn't made clear here.

how can you say a wrong claim as that, when the phrase "you are my son etc" is taken from the OT and the god of the OT is YHWH sic et simpliciter ?

Because you are wrong, and you don't understand how Marcionites could interpret things in their favor. There's no point of you posting any of your material on the subject if you can't even be sympathetic to the Marcionites you're trying to find everywhere.

They could also read this as the higher good God declaring Jesus. It's not clear enough to settle a debate with a Marcionite.

really? Not even when you see the curious coincidence that in *Ev's incipit Jesus is recognized as 'son of god' by a demon, not by YHWH ?

I am sorry but your answer is not very smart. The Psalm makes it even clear who "the Lord" is.

And in the (not so) remote case you quote the same words in the Transfiguration episode, there you have Jesus being hailed as 'my son' by a god who is just opposing Jesus to Moses and Elijah.

If that kind of stuff would be convincing to a Marcionite, there would never be any Marcionites.

[Giuseppe]

They could also read this as the higher good God declaring Jesus. It's not clear enough to settle a debate with a Marcionite.

WRONG! It's not clear enough to settle a debate with a Basilidian. It is clear enough to settle a debate with a Marcionite.

Please like the difference.

[Peter Kirby]

They could also read this as the higher good God declaring Jesus. It's not clear enough to settle a debate with a Marcionite.

WRONG! It's not clear enough to settle a debate with a Basilidian. It is clear enough to settle a debate with a Marcionite.

Please like the difference.

No.

[Giuseppe]

They could also read this as the higher good God declaring Jesus. It's not clear enough to settle a debate with a Marcionite.

WRONG! It's not clear enough to settle a debate with a Basilidian. It is clear enough to settle a debate with a Marcionite.

Please like the difference.

No.

How can you answer 'no'? We are said that Marcion interpreted ad litteram the OT.

The allegorical expedient was not available to him. It was used by Basilides when the gospels were all written (included Canonical Luke).

[Peter Kirby]

They could also read this as the higher good God declaring Jesus. It's not clear enough to settle a debate with a Marcionite.

WRONG! It's not clear enough to settle a debate with a Basilidian. It is clear enough to settle a debate with a Marcionite.

Please like the difference.

No.

How can you answer 'no'? We are said that Marcion interpreted ad litteram the OT.

The allegorical expedient was not available to him. It was used by Basilides when the gospels were all written (included Canonical Luke).

If you think this would trouble a Marcionite:

And a voice came from heaven: “You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased.”

You know nothing of Marcionites, Giuseppe.

[Giuseppe]

They could also read this as the higher good God declaring Jesus. It's not clear enough to settle a debate with a Marcionite.

WRONG! It's not clear enough to settle a debate with a Basilidian. It is clear enough to settle a debate with a Marcionite.

Please like the difference.

No.

How can you answer 'no'? We are said that Marcion interpreted ad litteram the OT.

The allegorical expedient was not available to him. It was used by Basilides when the gospels were all written (included Canonical Luke).

If you think this would trouble a Marcionite:

And a voice came from heaven: “You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased.”

You know nothing of Marcionites, Giuseppe.

please don't remove the phrase from their context.

Surely that voice would disturb a Marcionite when heard at the baptism, not when "listen him!" is addressed to his enemies Moses and Elijah on the mount Tabor.