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

[Giuseppe]

Don't you call Valentinians, who believed in an earthly Jesus, "mythicists"? Why can't Paul also, under mythicism, believe in an earthly Jesus? This is more about understanding your terminology. See the title of this thread, where you refer to "Valentinian mythicists".

you are correct, here. By "Valentinian Mythicists" I mean precisely, in the title and in the rest of the discussion, Valentinians who placed a crucified Christ in heaven, more precisely between the "pleroma" (=upper heavens) and the lower heavens. In the place called by Carrier (& Carrier's fan) as "outer space". Hence I should use, for sake of clarity, a more strict terminology, to distinguish Valentinians from Paul.

I think and believe that:

1) Paul was only a mythicist: the his Jesus is only one and he is always and only in heaven.

2) The Valentinians were historicists (we all agree about that, I would hope) but they were also mythicists: they believed that another Christ, one distinct from the earthly Jesus, was crucified in heaven.

Hence, when I use the term "Mythicist Valentinians", I am not denying the evident fact that the Valentinians were historicists: only, I am claiming that their system assumed two crucifixions, one earthly and the other celestial. Both with the same degree of reality.

Why couldn't Paul have been a "Valentinian" historicist?

Because Valentinians broke the silence about an earthly Jesus. While Paul didn't break the his silence about the earthly Jesus. At least, according to modern mythicists.

That is a seriously silly statement, Giuseppe. The apparent development of the Christ Myth (in its broader meaning) is from a man (as seen in Paul and the Gospel of Mark), to a virgin-born Son of God, to the pre-existing Logos/Son of God, to the status of God Himself. As Jesus' status grows, so the explanations regarding his origins expands and become more complex. This can be seen in any fan fiction. The Second Century was full of ideas about the origins of Jesus; the ones that didn't make it into orthodoxy became heresies. Many of those ideas developed long after Christianity had become historicist, even by mythicist time-frames.

ok, bravo, you will agree with myself that the way by which an earthly crucified Jesus was doubled by another Christ crucified in heaven, under a particular late Gnostic sect and under the historicist paradigm, is a different question. But the my goal here is to persuade you, possibly, that there is clear, strong and precise evidence of a Valentinian belief about two distinct crucifixions: one earthly and another celestial (=in outer space).

Again: I'm not reading Horos as symbolic, but the superior Christ being stretched out through Horos-as-boundary as a symbolic crucifixion.

precisely there you are wrong.

This is historicity:

The animal and carnal Christ, however, does suffer

This is not historicity and this is not symbolism:

after the fashion of the superior Christ, who, for the purpose of producing Achamoth, had been stretched upon the cross, that is, Horos,

..since Teetullian himself specifies the absolute degree of reality of the celestial crucifixion just described above:

in a substantial though not a cognizable form.

"substantial" is the exact contrary of "symbolic".

But then the balance seems to be inclined more towards the questioning of the same historicist belief:

In this manner do they reduce all things to mere images

"all things" are an earthly Jesus, an earthly cross, an earthly Christian, GDon and Giuseppe. The Valentinians, in reason of their belief in two crucifixions, are moved, according to Tertullian, to postulate a correspondent celestial thing for any earthly element: an earthly GDon becomes the "mere image" of a celestial GDon (=in outer space), an earthly crucified Jesus becomes the "mere image" of a celestial crucified Jesus (=in outer space), and so on. This is dangerously similar to a questioning of the same historical reality of a GDon, of a Jesus, and so on.

Here is what you quoted from Dr McGrath:

"The obvious question, of course, is whether one thinks the Valentinian reading of Romans is what Paul intended. If not, then this doesn't really provide anything that would support mythicism. Indeed, even if one thinks that Valentinus preserved precisely what Paul meant and taught, that still wouldn't help mythicism, since Valentinus thought Jesus had appeared in history."

I agree with the highlighted part. How about you?

McGrath doesn't say the entire truth.

The entire truth is the following:

Valentinus thought Jesus was crucified in history.

But Valentinus thought also that another Christ, distinct from the Jesus crucified in history, was crucified really (and not symbolically) in outer space.

Is it clear now?

[GakuseiDon]

Don't you call Valentinians, who believed in an earthly Jesus, "mythicists"? Why can't Paul also, under mythicism, believe in an earthly Jesus? This is more about understanding your terminology. See the title of this thread, where you refer to "Valentinian mythicists".

you are correct, here. By "Valentinian Mythicists" I mean precisely, in the title and in the rest of the discussion, Valentinians who placed a crucified Christ in heaven, more precisely between the "pleroma" (=upper heavens) and the lower heavens. In the place called by Carrier (& Carrier's fan) as "outer space". Hence I should use, for sake of clarity, a more strict terminology, to distinguish Valentinians from Paul.

Yes, a stricter terminology is needed, otherwise the confusion about what you are claiming (at least for me) will continue.

I think and believe that:

1) Paul was only a mythicist: the his Jesus is only one and he is always and only in heaven.

2) The Valentinians were historicists (we all agree about that, I would hope) but they were also mythicists: they believed that another Christ, one distinct from the earthly Jesus, was crucified in heaven.

Hence, when I use the term "Mythicist Valentinians", I am not denying the evident fact that the Valentinians were historicists: only, I am claiming that their system assumed two crucifixions, one earthly and the other celestial. Both with the same degree of reality.

Just call them "Valentinians", then!

Really, even the word "mythicist" is unclear. Too often mythicist proponents talk about "the mythicist theory" as though there was one overriding one. But some mythicists think that Jesus was earthly but not historical, others that Jesus was heavenly-only. I wish that they would use "celestial mythicist theory" when it is appropriate. I'm a "Christ Myth" proponent myself, in the sense that I think Jesus was just a man, and in my view the earliest layer of texts confirms that. The whole Christ story that later developed is a myth.

ok, bravo, you will agree with myself that the way by which an earthly crucified Jesus was doubled by another Christ crucified in heaven, under a particular late Gnostic sect and under the historicist paradigm, is a different question. But the my goal here is to persuade you, possibly, that there is clear, strong and precise evidence of a Valentinian belief about two distinct crucifixions: one earthly and another celestial (=in outer space).

Okay, clear enough. That should be our focus, I think.

"all things" are an earthly Jesus, an earthly cross, an earthly Christian, GDon and Giuseppe. The Valentinians, in reason of their belief in two crucifixions, are moved, according to Tertullian, to postulate a correspondent celestial thing for any earthly element: an earthly GDon becomes the "mere image" of a celestial GDon (=in outer space), an earthly crucified Jesus becomes the "mere image" of a celestial crucified Jesus (=in outer space), and so on. This is dangerously similar to a questioning of the same historical reality of a GDon, of a Jesus, and so on.

That doesn't seem to be an accurate reading, in that I don't see any correspondence between celestial and earthly things in the description of Valentinian beliefs described by Tertullian, but I do need to reread through it.

Here is what you quoted from Dr McGrath:

"The obvious question, of course, is whether one thinks the Valentinian reading of Romans is what Paul intended. If not, then this doesn't really provide anything that would support mythicism. Indeed, even if one thinks that Valentinus preserved precisely what Paul meant and taught, that still wouldn't help mythicism, since Valentinus thought Jesus had appeared in history."

I agree with the highlighted part. How about you?

McGrath doesn't say the entire truth.

Well, now you are moving from what he did say, to what he didn't say. Hardly grounds for declaring him a hypocrite.

The entire truth is the following:

Valentinus thought Jesus was crucified in history.

But Valentinus thought also that another Christ, distinct from the Jesus crucified in history, was crucified really (and not symbolically) in outer space.

Is it clear now?

Yes, your focus is on the idea that Valentinian beliefs support the notion of an early belief in an actual celestial crucifixion for Jesus. And that is a concept worthy of investigation. It is late here now so I'm heading off to bed. I'll respond to that tomorrow.

Just two questions: (1) in your understanding of the text, who crucified the celestial Jesus, and (2) did the two crucifixions take place at the same time, or was one before the other?

[Giuseppe]

Given the fact that we are agreeing with a so high number of things (I recognize now that I was wrong to accuse McGrath of hypocrisy, but the accusation of ignorance remains all, insofar the question is not more about Valentinus being or not a celestial mythicist just as Paul - in the mythicist paradigm - but about Valentinus being or not an early Christian who preserved partially - under the mythicist paradigm of Carrier/Doherty - the original belief of a celestial crucifixion in outer space, insofar he believed in two crocifixions, one of which in outer space), then I go right to the point of interest.

Just two questions: (1) in your understanding of the text, who crucified the celestial Jesus

Who crucified the celestial Jesus, according to Paul, were the planetary Archons.

Who crucified the celestial Jesus, according to Valentinus, could only be the planetary Archons and particularly one of them (or their chief): the demiurge, i.e. the same god of the Jews.

Who crucified the earthly Jesus who was the mere image, according to Valentinus, of the his celestial Jesus, are the Jews and Pilate, as per the Gospel of John.

and (2) did the two crucifixions take place at the same time, or was one before the other?

Tertullian says that the inferior Christ suffered "after the fashion" of the superior Christ. In an Italian translation of the passage, "after the fashion" is translated, in the English equivalent, so:

"Instead, was subjected to the passion the psychic and corporeal Christ, who was formed to reproduce the Christ who is above, i.e. the one who, in giving Achamoth a formation related to being and not related to knowledge, had been stretched on the Cross, i.e. in Horos. Thus they force everything into images, evidently imaginary Christians themselves as well.

Now, if the earthly Christ (crucified in earth) was "formed to reproduce" the celestial Christ (crucified in outer space), then this could only happen if the celestial crucifixion in outer space happened chronologically before the earthly crucifixion in Judea.

The entire passage sounds really as if the earthly Christ is simply an earthly avatar of the celestial Christ.

When X is avatar of Y, we can conclude that X has less ontological status than Y. In other terms, Y is a more real thing than X, pace all the realistic features said about X.

This is why I would be a bit reluctant to call, stantibus rebus, the Valentinians as historicists. Okay, they are said to accept a lot of Gospel material. Frankly, they seem in my eyes some of the more idiots among the Christians from II° CE, as any reader of the Fourth Gospel could be. But then, when I realize that their earthly Jesus was simply imitating on the earth what their celestial Jesus had already done in the outer space, I become perplexed about their historicist profession of faith. Afterall, Tertullian himself would agree with myself, since Tertullian himself recognized that the belief in two crucifixions could have only a possible outcome, from a logical point of view: the negation of the reality of the earthly things, insofar a correspondent celestial reality is claimed, of which the earthly clones are reduced to be the mere images, symbols, allegories, literature, myth.

[Giuseppe]

The original text reads :

proinde nec matris semen admisit iniurias aeque insubditivum et ne ipsi quidem Demiurgo compertum. patitur vero animalis et carneus Christus in delineationem superioris Christi qui Achamoth formando substantivali non agnitionali forma Cruci, ed est Horo, fuerat innixus. ita omnia in imagines surgent, plane et ipsi imaginarii Christiani.

http://www.intratext.com/IXT/LAT0258/_P9.HTM


Latin delineatio means delineation. It seems to have the same meaning of the Italian "delineazione".

The sense would be that the inferior Christ, suffering on the earth, is outlining (=is doing a delineation of) the suffering of the superior Christ in outer space.

[GakuseiDon]

I've gone through Tertullian now, so I think I have a good idea of what he writes with regards to his criticism of Valentinians. Two things are clear:

1. Tertullian is a sarcastic b*stard! I don't know if I trust he is reporting their views correctly, since some of what he writes seems to be to set up zingers. But it was a fun read!

2. The Valentinians had no actual celestial crucifixion belief.

To explain, I'll start at the end, and then go back around. Tertullian writes about Valentinian beliefs:

The animal and carnal Christ, however, does suffer after the fashion of the superior Christ, who, for the purpose of producing Achamoth, had been stretched upon the cross, that is, Horos, in a substantial though not a cognizable form

Christ is "stretched upon the cross" -- Horos -- "for the purpose of producing Achamoth."

So who is Achamoth, and what is the significance there? I'll give a summary as best as I understand it. A lot of this is Aeons generating each other, but I'll leave out the bits about Sophia and the others since they aren't relevant. I may get bits and pieces incorrect, but I think overall I have a good picture about what is happening.

We start with the Pleroma, which is the pure spiritual realm, the home of God and Jesus. Achamoth is Desire, and is expelled from the Plemora. Achamoth then goes on to mother the Demiurge, which is the animal, carnal side of the universe. The Demiurge creates the material world, including mankind. Within mankind there is a "spiritual germ" (Chapter 25). How can the Demiurge, that material god, pass on a spiritual germ? He got it from his mother, Achamoth. (Achamoth got it from her mother, Sophia.)

So Achamoth is expelled from the Pleroma, and Christ descends in a rescue mission to impart some of his own energies (though not knowledge, since Achamoth and the Demiurge are ignorant of the truth of the Pleroma) to give her form. From Chapter 14:

For Enthymesis, or rather Achamoth — because by this inexplicable name alone must she be henceforth designated — when in company with the vicious Passion, her inseparable companion, she was expelled to places devoid of that light which is the substance of the Pleroma, even to the void and empty region of Epicurus, she becomes wretched also because of the place of her banishment. She is indeed without either form or feature, even an untimely and abortive production. Whilst she is in this plight, Christ descends from the heights, conducted by Horos, in order to impart form to the abortion, out of his own energies, the form of substance only, but not of knowledge also. Still she is left with some property. She has restored to her the odour of immortality, in order that she might, under its influence, be overcome with the desire of better things than belonged to her present plight. Having accomplished His merciful mission, not without the assistance of the Holy Spirit, Christ returns to the Pleroma.

Now compare what I've highlighted above with what is later described as "the superior Christ being stretched upon the cross":

"The animal and carnal Christ, however, does suffer after the fashion of the superior Christ, who, for the purpose of producing Achamoth, had been stretched upon the cross, that is, Horos, in a substantial though not a cognizable form"

vs

"Whilst she is in this plight, Christ descends from the heights, conducted by Horos, in order to impart form to the abortion, out of his own energies, the form of substance only, but not of knowledge also."

So what is described as Christ "being stretched upon the cross" is actually Christ descending across the boundary of Horos, in order to impart his energies (of substance only, not knowledge!) to produce Achamoth.

In other words, no actual celestial crucifixion. However, that Tertullian describes it in figurative terms as a crucifixion is interesting. The symbolism I think is being driven by paralleling the actual crucifixion under Pilate. Still, it may be useful from a celestial mythicism point of view.

The final part isn't relevant to the point above, but it is interesting. The Demiurge, as the Old Testament god, has its own Christ -- the carnal one, the one the prophecies in the Old Testament predicted. From Chapter 27:

Even the Demiurge has a Christ of His own — His natural Son. An animal, in short, produced by Himself, proclaimed by the prophets— His position being one which must be decided by prepositions; in other words, He was produced by means of a virgin, rather than of a virgin!... [Tertullian is being sarcastic here!]

Upon this same Christ, therefore (so they say), Jesus descended in the sacrament of baptism, in the likeness of a dove. Moreover, there was even in Christ accruing from Achamoth the condiment of a spiritual seed, in order of course to prevent the corruption of all the other stuffing...

As for Soter (Jesus), he remained in Christ to the last, impassible, incapable of injury, incapable of apprehension. By and by, when it came to a question of capture, he departed from him during the examination before Pilate. In like manner, his mother's seed did not admit of being injured, being equally exempt from all manner of outrage, and being undiscovered even by the Demiurge himself. The animal and carnal Christ, however, does suffer after the fashion of the superior Christ, who, for the purpose of producing Achamoth, had been stretched upon the cross, that is, Horos, in a substantial though not a cognizable form.

So there you have it. What I don't understand is that it seems that Christ/Jesus/Soter descends twice from the Pleroma: once to produce Achamoth, and then again to descend into the carnal Christ. I don't know if I am misunderstanding this.

[GakuseiDon]

Who crucified the celestial Jesus, according to Valentinus, could only be the planetary Archons and particularly one of them (or their chief): the demiurge, i.e. the same god of the Jews.

Valentinians thought the Demiurge crucified the superior Christ??? I cannot find anything to support that in the text. Can you quote Tertullian directly on this, please?

[Giuseppe]

GDon, I should read later your reading of Tertullian in context. But I already see that you ignore conpletely the Hippolytus's description of the Valentinians, particularly the point where the Aeon Horos called Stauros is localized beyond any doubt between upper heavens and lower spheres.

In order, then, that the shapelessness of the abortion might not at all manifest itself to the perfect Aeons, the Father also again projects additionally one Aeon, viz., Staurus. And he being begotten great, as from a mighty and perfect father, and being projected for the guardianship and defense of the Aeons, becomes a limit of the Pleroma, having within itself all the thirty Aeons together, for these are they that had been projected. Now this (Aeon) is styled Horos, because he separates from the Pleroma the Hysterema that is outside. And (he is called) Metocheus, because he shares also in the Hysterema. And (he is denominated) Staurus, because he is fixed inflexibly and inexorably, so that nothing of the Hysterema can come near the Aeons who are within the Pleroma.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/050106.htm

[GakuseiDon]

GDon, I should read later your reading of Tertullian in context. But I already see that you ignore conpletely the Hippolytus's description of the Valentinians, particularly the point where the Aeon Horos called Stauros is localized beyond any doubt between upper heavens and lower spheres.

Yes, when describing what Tertullian wrote, I've ignored what Hippolytus wrote. Guilty as charged! Let's see what Tertullian wrote, and then let's move on to Hippolytus.

[Giuseppe]

Then, until here all well and I agree:

The animal and carnal Christ, however, does suffer after the fashion of the superior Christ, who, for the purpose of producing Achamoth, had been stretched upon the cross, that is, Horos, in a substantial though not a cognizable form

Christ is "stretched upon the cross" -- Horos -- "for the purpose of producing Achamoth."

So who is Achamoth, and what is the significance there? I'll give a summary as best as I understand it. A lot of this is Aeons generating each other, but I'll leave out the bits about Sophia and the others since they aren't relevant. I may get bits and pieces incorrect, but I think overall I have a good picture about what is happening.

We start with the Pleroma, which is the pure spiritual realm, the home of God and Jesus. Achamoth is Desire, and is expelled from the Plemora. Achamoth then goes on to mother the Demiurge, which is the animal, carnal side of the universe. The Demiurge creates the material world, including mankind. Within mankind there is a "spiritual germ" (Chapter 25). How can the Demiurge, that material god, pass on a spiritual germ? He got it from his mother, Achamoth. (Achamoth got it from her mother, Sophia.)

So Achamoth is expelled from the Pleroma, and Christ descends in a rescue mission to impart some of his own energies (though not knowledge, since Achamoth and the Demiurge are ignorant of the truth of the Pleroma) to give her form. From Chapter 14:

For Enthymesis, or rather Achamoth — because by this inexplicable name alone must she be henceforth designated — when in company with the vicious Passion, her inseparable companion, she was expelled to places devoid of that light which is the substance of the Pleroma, even to the void and empty region of Epicurus, she becomes wretched also because of the place of her banishment. She is indeed without either form or feature, even an untimely and abortive production. Whilst she is in this plight, Christ descends from the heights, conducted by Horos, in order to impart form to the abortion, out of his own energies, the form of substance only, but not of knowledge also. Still she is left with some property. She has restored to her the odour of immortality, in order that she might, under its influence, be overcome with the desire of better things than belonged to her present plight. Having accomplished His merciful mission, not without the assistance of the Holy Spirit, Christ returns to the Pleroma.

Now compare what I've highlighted above with what is later described as "the superior Christ being stretched upon the cross":

"The animal and carnal Christ, however, does suffer after the fashion of the superior Christ, who, for the purpose of producing Achamoth, had been stretched upon the cross, that is, Horos, in a substantial though not a cognizable form"

vs

"Whilst she is in this plight, Christ descends from the heights, conducted by Horos, in order to impart form to the abortion, out of his own energies, the form of substance only, but not of knowledge also."

But immediately after, there is a point of total disagreement precisely when you write:

So what is described as Christ "being stretched upon the cross" is actually Christ descending across the boundary of Horos, in order to impart his energies (of substance only, not knowledge!) to produce Achamoth.

Why do you use «actually»? The text doesn't distinguish between the act of «descending across the boundary of Horos» and the act of «being stretched upon the cross». It is one and the same concrete act.


Even more so, given the fact that:

• Horos is described until now (only in Tertullian) as a geographical location: precisely, a «boundary» between a celestial realm and matter;

• «Christ is conducted by Horos» means therefore: Christ goes through this location;

• Horos itself is called Cross (Stauros)

• this going through this line of boundary is described as a crucifixion

• this crucifixion is not a mere symbol, since Tertullian calls the form by which Christ is stretched upon the cross as a «substantial though not a cognizable form».

• Tertullian says that, according to Valentinians, the crucifixion of the earthy Christ is a «delineation» of the crucifixion of the celestial Christ: bringing this logic to its extreme conclusion, the risk, according to Tertullian, is that who is the mere earthly «delineation» of a celestial thing can become himself a «imaginary» thing.

Note that even if Horos/Stauros is not a cosmic cross (even if I am persuaded that it is a cosmic cross) but simply a celestial line of boundary, the passage of Christ through it is still a crucifixion. Not a symbolism, but a concrete crucifixion.




In addition, that the entire process is something of very concrete, physical, real is proved by the fact that the outcome of this going through Horos is a demiurgical action: Christ «imparts form to the abortion», i.e. to mere matter. I can only think, here about what prof Robert Price said about the Purusha's myth about the creation of the world (=the world was molded when a celestial man of light was killed/crucified at the his origin). Note also that by this crucifixion at the origin of the world, Christ gives only the form to the matter, but he doesn't give it the «knowledge»: a second coming of Christ, this time in Judea in recent times, is required to give this «knowledge» to men.


By the first celestial crucifixion on Horos, Jesus gives the form to the matter.

By the second earthly crocifixion in Judea, jesus gives the knowledge to the men.

The rest of the your post is flawed by the assurd conclusion that something said to be explicitly «in a substantial though not a cognizable form» becomes inexplicably, in the your words and pace Tertullian, a mere symbolism:

However, that Tertullian describes it in figurative terms as a crucifixion is interesting.

The symbolism I think is being driven by paralleling the actual crucifixion under Pilate. Still, it may be useful from a celestial mythicism point of view.

Note also the greater explanatory power of the my interpretation (but then again: it is not an intepretation, since I have simply reported what the text itself says!). Yourself recognize that you are not able to explain the following fact:

So there you have it. What I don't understand is that it seems that Christ/Jesus/Soter descends twice from the Pleroma: once to produce Achamoth, and then again to descend into the carnal Christ. I don't know if I am misunderstanding this.

The first time Christ imparts form to abortion. How? By dying on a celestial cross in outer space.

The second time Christ gives the «knowledge» to men (the same knowledge that makes one a Valentinian). How? By dying on an earthly cross, precisely in Judea.

You ask about who crucified Jesus in outer space.

The Devil is identified with the Demiurge:

Their most eminent powers, moreover, they confine within the following limits, as in a citadel. In the most elevated of all summits presides the tricenary Pleroma, Horos marking off its boundary line. Beneath it, Achamoth occupies the intermediate space for her abode, treading down her son. For under her comes the Demiurge in his own Hebdomad, or rather the Devil, sojourning in this world in common with ourselves

Note en passant again the reference to Horos (Stauros) as a boundary line.

[GakuseiDon]

But immediately after, there is a point of total disagreement precisely when you write:

So what is described as Christ "being stretched upon the cross" is actually Christ descending across the boundary of Horos, in order to impart his energies (of substance only, not knowledge!) to produce Achamoth.

Why do you use «actually»? The text doesn't distinguish between the act of «descending across the boundary of Horos» and the act of «being stretched upon the cross». It is one and the same concrete act."

Well, yes it does. Remember in the initial description, there is no being placed on a cross. To repeat what Tertullian writes:

"Whilst she is in this plight, Christ descends from the heights, conducted by Horos, in order to impart form to the abortion, out of his own energies, the form of substance only, but not of knowledge also."

There is no crucifixion there. It is only when doing a comparison with Christ being put on a cross on earth that the cross is mentioned, and it is a figurative example.

Note that even if Horos/Stauros is not a cosmic cross (even if I am persuaded that it is a cosmic cross) but simply a celestial line of boundary, the passage of Christ through it is still a crucifixion. Not a symbolism, but a concrete crucifixion.

No, it isn't. Is Christ pinned to the boundary? No. He passes through it.

"Christ going through Horos forms a celestial cross." Yes, that is a perfect example! A figurative cross! And is Christ pinned to that cross, or does he simply descend past it?

The first time Christ imparts form to abortion. How? By dying on a celestial cross in outer space.

NO. Christ does NOT die on a celestial cross. You are mixing up ideas with other celestial Jesus theories. Can you check the Tertullian text to confirm this please? That the celestial Christ does NOT die?

You ask about who crucified Jesus in outer space.

The Devil is identified with the Demiurge:

Their most eminent powers, moreover, they confine within the following limits, as in a citadel. In the most elevated of all summits presides the tricenary Pleroma, Horos marking off its boundary line. Beneath it, Achamoth occupies the intermediate space for her abode, treading down her son. For under her comes the Demiurge in his own Hebdomad, or rather the Devil, sojourning in this world in common with ourselves

Note en passant again the reference to Horos (Stauros) as a boundary line.

I actually asked you to quote Tertullian on who crucified the celestial Jesus. Can you quote that part, please? Once you realise that it wasn't the Demiurge or Satan or anyone, you'll understand that the cross is figurative.