The Temptation Story in Mark is anti-marcionite

[Giuseppe]

If Hebrews doesn't persuade you, what about Romans 8:3 ?

For what the law was powerless to do because it was weakened by the flesh, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh to be a sin offering

• Marcion interpreted this verse to mean docetism: Jesus only appeared to be in the sinful flesh. No need of a Temptation Story because the divine Jesus was immunized a priori to it.

• Mark interpreted this verse to mean humanity of Jesus: Jesus was really 'in the sinful flesh', hence he problem had to be arisen: if Jesus was a man, did he share the same sinful character of the human flesh? The Temptation Story answers: no.

It is Mark who is raising the problem and the his solution, here.

The core of the my argument is that this problem (that afflicted Mark) is identical in origin to the problem raised by the birth by woman: also there the respective authors (Matthew and Luke) share the same problem (infection of the sinful flesh) and the same solution (birth via Holy Spirit).

If I reject the birth stories in Matthew and Luke as anti-marcionite, then accordingly I have to reject the Temptation Story in Mark as anti-marcionite.

[Peter Kirby]

• Marcion interpreted this verse to mean docetism: Jesus only appeared to be in the sinful flesh. No need of a Temptation Story because the divine Jesus was immunized a priori to it.

• Mark interpreted this verse to mean humanity of Jesus: Jesus was really 'in the sinful flesh', hence he problem had to be arisen: if Jesus was a man, did he share the same sinful character of the human flesh? The Temptation Story answers: no.

It is Mark who is raising the problem and the his solution, here.

And somehow only Marcionites ever considered the idea that humans are sinful, so it relates to Marcionism...

[Giuseppe]

(...continuing...)
Mark emphasizes the difference between the Jesus before the baptism,

• a sinful Jesus in need of purification via baptism

...and the Jesus after the baptism:

• a Jesus defended successfully by the holy spirit against the temptations in the wilderness.

Hence it is self-evident that Mark would like to resolve the problem of what implies the humanity of Jesus.

But the Mark's solution betrayes the presence of Marcionites who would have accused easily:
humanity == infection of sin.

Mark's answer:
humanity == infection of sin, but only in absence of the spirit.

[Peter Kirby]

(...continuing...)
Mark emphasizes the difference between the Jesus before the baptism,

• a sinful Jesus in need of purification via baptism

...and the Jesus after the baptism:

• a Jesus defended successfully by the holy spirit against the temptations in the wilderness.

Hence it is self-evident that Mark would like to resolve the problem of what implies the humanity of Jesus.

But the Mark's solution betrayes the presence of Marcionites who would have accused easily:
humanity == infection of sin.

Mark's answer:
humanity == infection of sin, but only in absence of the spirit.

You're just seeing Marcionites wherever there are more general religious and ancient Christian concepts.

[Giuseppe]

And somehow only Marcionites ever considered the idea that humans are sinful, so it relates to Marcionism...

that is indeed the implication, since it is a fact that "only Marcionites ever considered the idea that human births are sinful, so the birth via holy spirit relates to Marcionism".

[Peter Kirby]

And somehow only Marcionites ever considered the idea that humans are sinful, so it relates to Marcionism...

that is indeed the implication, since it is a fact that "only Marcionites ever considered the idea that human births are sinful, so the birth via holy spirit relates to Marcionism".

That's not very smart.

[Giuseppe]

If the Temptation Story didn't target Marcion and was a mere general innocent concept, then how do you explain this curious "signature" by Mark ?

But the Mark's solution betrayes the presence of Marcionites who would have accused easily:
humanity == infection of sin.

Mark's answer:
humanity == infection of sin, but only in absence of the spirit sent by YHWH.

[Peter Kirby]

If the Temptation Story didn't target Marcion and was a mere general innocent concept, then how do you explain this curious "signature" by Mark ?

But the Mark's solution betrayes the presence of Marcionites who would have accused easily:
humanity == infection of sin.

Mark's answer:
humanity == infection of sin, but only in absence of the spirit sent by YHWH.

Your question isn't clear.

[Giuseppe]

If the Temptation Story didn't target Marcion and was a mere general innocent concept, then how do you explain this curious "signature" by Mark ?

But the Mark's solution betrayes the presence of Marcionites who would have accused easily:
humanity == infection of sin.

Mark's answer:
humanity == infection of sin, but only in absence of the spirit sent by YHWH.

Your question isn't clear.

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,

[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.