The Temptation Story in Mark is anti-marcionite

[Peter Kirby]

What is interesting is the silence by Peter Kirby about the Klinghardt's words above: is this silence evidence that he agrees with K and me on this point?

No, so you're wrong again.

[Peter Kirby]

In whiletime Peter Kirby continues to ignore the Klinghardt's argument above (that Mark 1:11 is revealing the identity of Jesus as son of a specific god: YHWH).

It's not even properly an argument, as it doesn't lead from true premises in a sound way to a conclusion.

It's just a claim.

I can write "no" more if you need me to be more clear.

[Peter Kirby]

Interestingly, Klinghardt means the Temptation Story as the proof that Jesus is really the son of YHWH.

But, no, it isn't.

[Peter Kirby]

Klinghardt gives me reason on this point:

The Markan report of Jesus’ baptism not only places the beginning of the Gospel into a framework of salvation history, it also provides the opportunity to have God himself proclaim the true identity of Jesus as ‘my beloved son’ (Mark 1,11). Compared to Jesus’ identification by the demons at the beginning of *Ev, this is a skilled and advanced development. It prepares the summary of Jesus’ message after he proved his sonship by resisting Satan’s temptations in the desert (Mark 1,12f).

(The Oldest Gospel, p. 233, my bold)

The "true identity" of Jesus as son of YHWH. Since only YHWH is the god behind the baptism by John (and behind the spirit sent during this baptism).

The quote doesn't even use the word YHWH, so even if Klinghardt were the inspired writer of Truth you irrationally take him for...

But then I'm just getting sucked into your nonsense. Klinghardt can write as much invalid stuff as you can, at the end of the day.

[Peter Kirby]

What is interesting is the silence by Peter Kirby about the Klinghardt's words above: is this silence evidence that he agrees with K and me on this point?

So, again, no.

[Peter Kirby]

Conversation goes completely stale because you have nothing valid to say.

You keep saying invalid things, which are essentially the same things already said.

Then it's a "gotcha" if someone doesn't keep saying no.

Fun times in Ward 6, I guess.

[RandyHelzerman]

*chuckle* Nice visual. Nobody can accuse you of using dead metaphors.

[RandyHelzerman]

Klinghardt gives me reason on this point:

The Markan report of Jesus’ baptism not only places the beginning of the Gospel into a framework of salvation history, it also provides the opportunity to have God himself proclaim the true identity of Jesus as ‘my beloved son’ (Mark 1,11). Compared to Jesus’ identification by the demons at the beginning of *Ev, this is a skilled and advanced development.

Klinghardt is comparing and contrasting with Marcion's evangelion, right? If so, this is a scene of the sons of YHWH (the demons) denouncing in the strongest possible way that Jesus has anything to do with YHWH, no?

[Giuseppe]

Klinghardt gives me reason on this point:

The Markan report of Jesus’ baptism not only places the beginning of the Gospel into a framework of salvation history, it also provides the opportunity to have God himself proclaim the true identity of Jesus as ‘my beloved son’ (Mark 1,11). Compared to Jesus’ identification by the demons at the beginning of *Ev, this is a skilled and advanced development. It prepares the summary of Jesus’ message after he proved his sonship by resisting Satan’s temptations in the desert (Mark 1,12f).

(The Oldest Gospel, p. 233, my bold)

The "true identity" of Jesus as son of YHWH. Since only YHWH is the god behind the baptism by John (and behind the spirit sent during this baptism).

The quote doesn't even use the word YHWH, so even if Klinghardt were the inspired writer of Truth you irrationally take him for...

But then I'm just getting sucked into your nonsense. Klinghardt can write as much invalid stuff as you can, at the end of the day.

in your satirical polemic (no problem, for that matter), you are ignoring the point of Klinghardt that is even more subtle than the my point:

Differently from me, K doesn't require that "YHWH" has to be mentioned (or is going to be mentioned). K is pointing out how Mark 1:11 is concerned with the identity of Jesus being made clear by "God". This is a breaking of the secrecy, since a more consistent secrecy would require that the identity of Jesus should be left in the shadow. We find that more consistent secrecy in *Ev, where none would believe the demons on the word, even when they are the only actors who hail Jesus as "son of God".




As a side note, remember that the author of this picture was excommunicated:


Why? Because the excessive secrecy about Jesus has always disturbed the catholic of any age, and Mark was too.

As a second side note: Think about how much comical is the scene: Basilides read *Ev and says: "I prefer canonical Luke to *Ev, because that secrecy in *Ev disturbs even myself, despite of the fact that both I and Marcion hate YHWH".

[Peter Kirby]

Can I be excused from writing more "polemic"?

I'm going to see a movie.