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

[Giuseppe]

Ignoring Giuseppe's usual nonsense the idea seems to be that the physical cross witnessed on the earth hearkened back to a cosmic principle which began or was associated with the beginning of the universe.

what a shame that you appeal to use the term "cosmic principle" in order to not use what Horos is called also: Cross. A cosmic Cross put in outer space where the superior Christ was "extended through" according to Irenaeus. Can you explain how one can extend himself on a palisade, or on a "cosmic principle"? Nonsense.

[Secret Alias]

Right but there is nothing any of that to suggest that THERE WASN'T a historic event referencing the original cosmic event. In other words, there was an understanding of 'real world' and 'spiritual world' - it wasn't all make-believe.

[Secret Alias]

Here is the difference between you and me. I am interested in the saltire cross idea. When Ben brought up the argument for a T-shaped cross there was a part of me that was like 'hmmm. how do we know the Valentinians didn't have a saltire cross.' But then I read through his argument and decided, 'meh, he's probably right. His explanation better explains the evidence than my wishful thought.' You on the other hand are nothing but an apologist for your wish-list of things from ancient Christianity. Not every piece of evidence has to support your theory. You have stop twisting citations to support your beliefs. You act like a religious lunatic.

[Giuseppe]

Right but there is nothing any of that to suggest that THERE WASN'T a historic event referencing the original cosmic event. In other words, there was an understanding of 'real world' and 'spiritual world' - it wasn't all make-believe.

this your line of argument is totally idiotic.

THE FACTS:

Paul is silent about the your "historic event" and he talked about only one crucifixion while the Valentinians talked about two distinct crucifixions (evidently with a lot of rumor).

THE QUESTION:

Hence, of these two crucifixions, which of them do you think that Paul was more probably talking really about?

THE ANSWER:

But about the celestial crucifixion!!!

THE COROLLARY:

It is evident that you are reluctant to apply the elementary probabilistic approach. This is the real difference between myself and you.

[Joseph D. L.]

The typical Giuseppe process...

Make a proposal
Twist the evidence to support it
Call anyone who disagrees "ignorant" and "intellectually dishonest"
Double down on original proposal
Repeat

He's a fucking moron.

[Joseph D. L.]

That's the thing with Giuseppe. For us this is a matter of study and discussion, and while we have our own opinions, we are open to different ideas.

Giuseppe, on the other hand, is not interested in discussion. He only cares about preaching his doctrines as if they are absolute facts. He is a fundamental mythicist--to hell with others who disagree.

[Giuseppe]

Your word has value zero, I see, since yourself have promised the end of any comment here while now you continue to write only to insult. No wonder since you are playing the role of the O'Neill of the situation, here. As such the "your own different opinions" are only anti-mythicist propagandas again and again. As it is typical of any O'Neill on the earth.

There are not something as "fundamental mythicists". There are only mythicists with more degree of certainty than others. And surely that degree increases insofar one finds allusions and indications to a crucifixion in outer space, the exact thing by you so much hated, in virtue of the your decision of being a mere clone of O'Neill. And the your view of the Gospels as allegories doesn't change the situation, because it is too much evident the your hostility a priori against the Carrier and Doherty's model.

Go distant.

[GakuseiDon]

Various editions of the Panarion, including Holl's influential version, emend ἀποστερηθῆναι to ἀποσταυρωθῆναι precisely because crucifixam is found in the Latin (both in Irenaeus and in Tertullian). As Harvey explains:

W. Wigan Harvey, Sancti Irenaei, Adversus Haereses, page 20: Ἀποσταυρωθῆναι must be the correct reading of which crucifixam is the translation. The meaning of the word used by Irenaeus was not perceived; it refers to σταυρός in the same sense as before, viz. a fence. Horus fenced out and kept away this Enthymesis from the Pleroma....

The Greek verb ἀποσταυρωθῆναι, in other words, is the emendation which best explains both the corruption ἀποστερηθῆναι and the Latin (mis)translation crucifixam; but it does not mean to crucify; it means to fence off or to erect a palisade; recall that the basic and original meaning of σταυρός is an upright pale or stake.

Thanks Ben. And this is why I always like to stress that people shouldn't take my word for anything. As much as I love reading the thoughts of ancient writers and trying to understand the mythology of their world (and I really really love that!), I have no knowledge of the ancient languages, so I am relying on English translations only. That is a dangerous situation for me to be in when proposing what passages in early literature might really mean. Giuseppe and I are mere amateurs having fun, as seriously as we actually take the topic ourselves.

Not that I want to underplay my contributions either, nor the contributions of Giuseppe. I've read a lot, as I think Giuseppe has also, so we might have a small role to play in bringing forward information that might be interesting and that others might have missed.

Giuseppe, don't you agree that having an understanding of the original Greek and Latin might shed light on those passages that isn't obvious from the English/Italian translation?

[Ben C. Smith]

Giuseppe and I are mere amateurs having fun, as seriously as we actually take the topic ourselves.

For the sake of clarity, I am an amateur having fun, as well. It is no secret that I have been trained in Classical Greek and Classical Latin, but I do not make my living in the field (or in any closely related field), nor am I published in it. This is one of my handful of hobbies, and I enjoy it a lot.

[GakuseiDon]

It is general knowledge the fact that the Gnostic myth was highly complex just as the Greek myths, populated by a lot of entities all rigorously mythological. Why is so important for you the fact that not Sophia, but an emanation of the emanation of an emanation (assuming that "emanation" is the correct term to be used here) called "enthymesis" was "crucified" in outer space? To my knowledge, the matter of dispute between us is to decide if there is or not in the Valentinian myth at least a celestial crucifixion of an entity in outer space.

Because, if it is there, then you should prove that it figures there only as symbolism. A very hard task, I think!

No, quite the opposite. Valentinian gnosticism seems to be nothing but symbolism. I gave examples earlier: "Christ being 30 years old means 30 Aeons", etc. The whole point of gnosticism is about uncovering hidden knowledge, hidden truths. So if an emanation of an emanation was crucified in outer space, I would automatically ask "what does that mean?" I wouldn't think that they had uncovered some raw fact, like some piece of news about their universe.

It's obvious that the crucifixion on earth is being equated to some event that happened in the heavens. I just don't think that it is pointing to some actual crucifixion in the heavens. But even if it isn't pointing to an actual crucifixion in the heavens, it might still be useful to a celestial Jesus mythicist view.