Do O'Neill and McGrath ignore or deny Valentinian Mythicists?

[Giuseppe]

Okay, so the closest you can muster is Sophia being crucified.

not only that, idiot. See the post above about a even more strong argument: what Irenaeus says on the Valentinian association between the cosmic Horos/Cross (found in outer space) and the same cross mentioned by Paul in 1 Cor 1-2 where Jesus was crucified. Read also the quote of Elaine Pagels confirming the my point.

And this helps you how?

Even in this case, crucified may very well be figurative, not literal, as Sophia is nailed Platonically to the passions of the material realm. (And it's clear that the Valentinians are indebted to Platonic ideas).

there is no symbolism here. BEYOND ANY REASONABLE DOUBT. You can't escape the clear meaning of Sophia being CRUCIFIED IN OUTER SPACE just by "going" through Horos.

I realize that you can't be a serious interlocutor, since you are playing here clearly the role of the b...d O'Neill of the situation: pure opposition against the idea of a celestial crucifixion in outer space only because of hate against Carrier and Doherty.
I can't imagine, really, a greater insult against you than the comparison of you with O'Neill. Come on, Joseph D.L. proclaim all the world that you are historicist!


You have even the idiotic arrogance of mentioning Platon (sic) against the my point. Just when Doherty insists so much about the platonic influence on the cosmogony of the early Christians and on what he calls paradigmatic parallelism! Remember that the ideal world in Platon is even more real than our world, not mere symbolism.

[Ben C. Smith]

The GDon's translation is wrong:

conducted by Horos

since a better translation is:

conducted through Horos

The Latin per bears a range of meanings. You are correct about its primary meaning ("through," with regard to space), but a common second meaning involves means or agency ("by" or "by means of").

[Giuseppe]

The Latin per bears a range of meanings. You are correct about its primary meaning ("through," with regard to space), but a common second meaning involves means or agency ("by" or "by means of").

if Tertullian wanted to mean "conducted by Horos" then he could use "ab + accusative" as he has made in the other case above reported:

ab Horo separatam et crucifixam

The meaning of "conducted by Horos" is excluded a priori by the fact that the same event is reported by Irenaeus as:

per crucem estensam

...where also the reference to a celestial crucifixion in outer space is evident beyond any reasonable doubt, pace GDon's obsession in seeing symbolisms where they are not.

[Ben C. Smith]

if Tertullian wanted to mean "conducted by Horos" then he could use "ab + accusative" as he has made in the other case above reported:

ab Horo separatam et crucifixam

That is not how language works.

The Latin ab can also imply means or agency. In the case you refer to above, the ab is most fitting, since its primary meaning is "away from," which lines up perfectly with the sense of separation or relegation.

I will not be pursuing the finer points of Latin diction with you any further on this thread, since you do not know Latin. Just please, take the overconfidence down a notch; it does your argument no favors to overplay your hand in a language you do not know.

[Giuseppe]

it does your argument no favors to overplay your hand in a language you do not know.

What a shame that your last comment! As if I am advancing an "argument" when, as I have said before, until now I am not giving a my interpretation of the evidence, I am simply reporting the pure and simple evidence, in Tertullian and in Irenaeus, of a Valentinian belief in a crucifixion of Christ and of Sophia in outer space.


I remember well that you, Ben, are the same guy who,with extreme display of suspicion about the only idea, denied the presence in all the ancient record of a celestial crucifixion in outer space. Now here you have one: at least the crucifixion of Sophia.

Now, I would like to apply the Argument from Silence to GDon's absence of a his answer about the evidence of a crucifixion in outer space of Sophia just while she is said to go through Horos.

I would be curious to know if GDon will give the same idiotic answer of Joseph D.L ("the crucifixion in outer space of Sophia is mere symbolism"). Or if he means the crucifixion of Sophia in outer space as a fact, while the crucifixion of Christ in outer space as symbolism. In the latter case, GDon will be totally unable to explain why he is conceding the status of reality only to the crucifixion of Sophia in outer space and not to the crucifixion of Christ in outer space.

Stantibus sic rebus, I can conclude that James McGrath ignores that the Valentinians believed in two crucifixions. And that they believed that Paul talked cryptically about the crucifixion in outer space just in 1 Corinthians 1-2. Something that is expected only under the mythicism.

[Ben C. Smith]

I remember well that you, Ben, are the same guy who,with extreme display of suspicion about the only idea, denied the presence in all the ancient record of a celestial crucifixion in outer space. Now here you have one: at least the crucifixion of Sophia.

In case you missed my posts:

I am not going to get involved in this debate....

I will not be pursuing the finer points of Latin diction with you any further on this thread....

[Giuseppe]

I remember well that you, Ben, are the same guy who,with extreme display of suspicion about the only idea, denied the presence in all the ancient record of a celestial crucifixion in outer space. Now here you have one: at least the crucifixion of Sophia.

In case you missed my posts:

but of course, but certainly...

[Joseph D. L.]

I never denied I am a historicist.

Just as I don't deny the allegorical nature of the Gospels.

Giuseppe, you are a confused man with severe mental issues.

Jesus was not crucified upon Horos. That is a fact.

The only thing you managed to show was Sophia being crucified, but even that is not at all clear based on the language as crucified here can simply just be metaphorical.

As always, you are too snowed to see your way out.

You have managed to cross another boundary yourself. I now declare you to be the absolute worst person on here. Worse than outhouse, worse than Steve Avery.

I have no further intentions engaging with you.

Get help.

[Giuseppe]

The only thing you managed to show was Sophia being crucified, but even that is not at all clear based on the language as crucified here can simply just be metaphorical.

said by the same idiot who believes that the Pagans believed in the ontological reality of their gods (and relative celestial things), this alone is sufficient, for me, as an excellent confirmation of the my point.

But there is reason to doubt it. Put it this way: as Paul Veyne once asked whether the ancient Greeks believed their myths, I ask whether the Gnostics believed in their myths of the Demiurge, Sophia, the Primal Man, the Aions, the archons, etc. I suspect that they did. What was the supposed esoteric truth of which the Gnostics boasted? Was it a psychologization such as this book expounds? If it was, my guess is that they would simply have interpreted our familiar gospels and epistles in an allegorical way (and of course that was going on, too). Whence all the super-extravagant mythology of multiple redeemers and cosmogonies? I picture the ancient Gnostics as no less superstitious than their Catholic cousins, just addicted to more elaborate theosophical fantasies analogous to those of Madame Blavatsky.

http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/ ... oddess.htm

[GakuseiDon]

duplicate