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

[GakuseiDon]

Your hypothesis (that the celestial crucifixion in outer space is simply a symbolism meaning the going through Horos) is falsified for two reasons, in essentia:

FIRST REASON: Tertullian himself specifies that the celestial crucifixion in outer space is not symbolism, but "in a substantial though invisible form".


GDon should explain why something by him considered as mere symbolism is said to be, at contrary, "substantial".

The superior Christ extends his energies, stretching himself across Horos. That is actual, that is substance. The stretching forms a figurative cross. That is the symbolism. See the image you yourself created on the last page: that is a perfect example.



But there are no actual crucifiers and no actual crucifixion. Just the superior Christ stretching past Horos (Staurus/boundary/stake/pole).

SECOND REASON: I apply on the your words the Reductio ad Absurdum:
if the celestial crucifixion in outer pace is merely the allegory of a banal descending through a banal boundary, without no Death of all, then you create two inconsistencies:

There is no death of the superior Christ in the text. You've either not read Tertullian on Valentinians' views, or you don't understand it. No actual death, no actual crucifiers, no actual crucifixion.

Who crucified a Christ can only be a satanic being. In Valentinus theology, Satan is the demiurge. Therefore, the demiurge crucified Jesus in outer space. While on the earth, Pilate crucified the Jesus who is the delineation of the celestial Christ crucified in outer space.

In Valentinian theology (according to Tertullian), the Demiurge is ignorant of the Pleroma and all that comes from it. It thinks that it alone is God. It has no idea of the superior Christ, much less have the ability to crucify him. Satan comes out of the same process that created the Demiurge, so I assume the same for Satan as well, though Tertullian doesn't specify Valentinian beliefs on that matter.

We've gone past the point of discussing what is in the text, and gone on to what is in your imagination. I've enjoyed the discussion since it's pushed me to read about Valentinian gnosticism, but it's reached the point that further discussion is not productive. I wish you well Giuseppe, and no doubt I will cross (symbolic) swords with you again soon on the next topic!

[Joseph D. L.]

For what it's worth, my understanding was that Horos and Stauros formed a boundary, and Christ had to pass through them. Not a crucifixion, but the symbolism was there. This is why Christ is referred to as the door, because the cross was the door into Heaven/Pleroma.

[Giuseppe]

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."

I see also that the same passage quoted by GDon and interpreted by him (wrongly) as not mentioning a celestial crucifixion in outer space but simply a mere going through a banal boundary:

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

...has the following more faithful English translation, where it is even more clear the mention of a crucifixion in outer space and not of a mere passage of a line of boundary:

"Then the (higher) Christ took pity on it, extended himself through the cross (Horos) and formed it by his power into a figure, but only according to nature, not according to knowledge.

https://books.google.it/books?id=3XxxkE ... 2C&f=false

I am not going to get involved in this debate, but I feel compelled to point out, for the sake of clarity, that you (Giuseppe) and GDon are quoting two different authors. GDon was quoting Tertullian; the extract which you give as a "more faithful English translation" is from Irenaeus.

Even so, the text from Irenaeus makes it clear that also the same passage quoted by GDon doesn't talk about a mere vertical passage of an horizontal line of boundary. This is the passage in Tertullian of which GDon talks:

dum ita rerum habet, flectitur a superioribus Christus, deducitur per Horon aborsum ut illud informet de suis viribus solius substantiae, non etiam scientiae, forma.

The GDon's translation is wrong:

conducted by Horos

since a better translation is:

conducted through Horos

Since Horos is a celestial Cross, the Christ has to be crucified in the moment itself when he descends from the pleroma.
Hence the term "conducted" is figurative, while Tertullian makes it clear that what happened really "in a substantial form" was the celestial crucifixion of Christ in outer space in order to go through the Limit Horos.

Afterall, it is the earthly suffering of Christ that has to find an equivalent fact in heaven, not the mere presence of an earthly cross. Tertullian is rather explicit on this point:

The animal and carnal Christ, however, does suffer after the fashion of the superior Christ

The superior Christ has to suffer also: the same logic of the text requires strictu senso the his suffering in outer space.

This is the my conclusion:

McGrath is ignoring (deliberately?) the evidence in Irenaeus, in Tertullian and in Hippolytus about Horos/Stauros as the celestial cross in outer space where the Christ was crucified "in a substantial form" to give form to matter (probably at the origin of the world).

GDon doesn't like to recognize the evidence, particularly the fact that "substantial" is the exact contrary of "symbolic", evidently as part of the his apology of McGrath's ignorance.

In addition to this, why there is a Cross in outer space? But evidently to crucify someone! The cross, everywhere it is, is always a tool of torture, especially when we are talking about the Christ, the crucified par excellence.

It is interesting the fact that I have found at least a PhD thesis supporting the my view of two crucifixions in the Valentinian theology: one happened in outer space and the other happened in Judea.

[Joseph D. L.]

Always a tool for torture?

Read Timeaus you nincompoop. Look at the numerous coins in which this very cross appears.

No, Giuseppe. The cross formed by Horos and Stauros is not used to crucify Jesus. It is meant purely in symbolic terms. Jesus merely passes through this point to enter the material realm.

This cross is well established in ancient philosophy. They are known as the Gates of Helios in The Odyssey, and used in Mithraism (yes, Giuseppe, f***ing Mithraism) as the gates used by the soul to enter and leave the material sphere.

There's nothing unique about the Valentinian system of the cosmos.

And since you already agree that the Valentinians were fully historicists...

WHAT IS YOUR POINT?

[Giuseppe]

Joseph D.L. you are totally wrong (as usual) when you say:

Jesus merely passes through this point to enter the material realm.

That is not the real fact. That is the figurative fact. The real fact, as per Irenaeus, Tertullian and Hippolytus, is the celestial crucifixion in outer space. Not viceversa.

Even if we had only this proposition by Tertullian:

The animal and carnal Christ, however, does suffer after the fashion of the superior Christ

...the pure and simple logic requires that if you accept the historical reality of the sufferings of the animal and carnal Christ, then you have to accept also the ontological reality of the sufferings of the superior Christ, not merely the reality of an idiotic passage through celestial gates without sufferings.

Curiously, even the apologist McGrath is so intelligent, differently from you, that he recognizes this fact, when he writes:

And so Ascension of Isaiah seems not only to fit the otherwise-attested Docetic view of Jesus (that the life and crucifixion of the terrestrial Jesus was a revelation of a spiritual reality which was made known in the world but did not become part of the world), but to do so much better than the mythicist interpretation, otherwise unattested in ancient times.

http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/201 ... 8028.shtml

The logic requires that what McGrath is saying there, is that the earthly crucifixion of Jesus was a revelation of the spiritual reality of a celestial crucifixion in outer space.

The precise thing explained by Tertullian about Valentinus, quasi verbatim.

It is too much evident that there McGrath is basing himself on Valentinus as interpreted by myself.

Hence I think that even the apologist McGrath recognizes the presence of two crucifixions in Valentinus. Unless, when he wrote that passage, he was totally idiot and "didn't know what he was saying".

[Joseph D. L.]

"After the fashion" can, unfortunately, mean a variety of things. Do Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, or the Gospel of Truth, say unambiguously that Jesus is crucified upon Horos? The answer is: no. That's your own concoction. And according to the pre-Valentinian philosophers, the soul passed without harm from the celestial gates. Were they idiotic?

No, that's you projecting your own biases onto them.

And the Valentinians didn't use the Ascension of Isiah, so once again you are conflating two separate beliefs to form one that fits your agenda.

Unless you can produce a text or passage that unambiguously states that Jesus was crucified to Horos and Stauros, then your entire argument is not based on facts, but speculation. That's what you don't understand, you nitwit. You think every thought you have is some divinely inspired truth. It's not.

[Giuseppe]

Joseph D.L. writes:

Unless you can produce a text or passage that unambiguously states that Jesus was crucified to Horos and Stauros

There is a celestial crucifixion in outer space, just in connection with Horos/Stauros, to mean clearly that it is not a mere cosmic gate, but a gate who provokes death and sufferings on who has to go through it:

By his assistance they declare that Sophia was checked in her illicit courses, and purified from all evils, and henceforth strengthened (in virtue), and restored to the conjugal state: (they add) that she indeed remained within the bounds of the Pleroma, but that her Enthymesis, with the accruing Passion, was banished by Horos, and crucified and cast out from the Pleroma,-- even as they say, Malum for as!

http://www.clerus.org/clerus/dati/2001- ... Valen.html

Note what is the necessary requisite for who abandons the pleroma by "going" through Horos/Stauros: crucifixion in outer space.

You and GDon should explain me why you don't consider as symbolism the crucifixion of Sophia in Horos/Stauros, while you are so rapid to consider only as symbolism the crucifixion of Christ in Horos/Stauros. Even when the latter is said to be "in a substantial form".

In addition:

A. Orbe ... makes a probable cause ... because of the relation bewtween reaping (karpoun) and offering (holokaustoun) in the LXX, and because Horos, who bears these names, is also Cross, which is, of course, related to sacrifice. It is interesting note that Hippolytus ... has a different word, Metokheus ("Partaker"), and an explanation in keeping with that word: "Because he partakes of Degeneracy", that is, Wisdom.

https://books.google.it/books?id=LUOskd ... os&f=false

[Giuseppe]

Even a blind realizes that the translation above is wrong, since a more faithful English translation of:

Concupiscentiam uero eius cum Passione | ab Horo separatam et crucifixam

...is:

[Sophia] was banished and crucified by Horos, and cast out from the Pleroma,

We see so that Horos is a "gate" that kills who passes through it.

So, who is the symbolism now?

[Giuseppe]

(While expecting in vain a reply on what I have written above)

The strongest evidence that Horos is the celestial Cross of sacrifice for Jesus in outer space is also found in the Valentinian interpretation respectively of a famous Pauline passage and of a famous Gospel passage:

5. They show, further, that that Horos of theirs, whom they call by a variety of names, has two faculties, — the one of supporting, and the other of separating; and in so far as he supports and sustains, he is Stauros, while in so far as he divides and separates, he is Horos. They then represent the Saviour as having indicated this twofold faculty: first, the sustaining power, when He said, Whosoever does not bear his cross (Stauros), and follow after me, cannot be my disciple; and again, Taking up the cross, follow me; Matthew 10:38 but the separating power when He said, I came not to send peace, but a sword. Matthew 10:34 They also maintain that John indicated the same thing when he said, The fan is in His hand, and He will thoroughly purge the floor, and will gather the wheat into His garner; but the chaff He will burn with fire unquenchable. Luke 3:17 By this declaration He set forth the faculty of Horos. For that fan they explain to be the cross (Stauros), which consumes, no doubt, all material objects, as fire does chaff, but it purifies all those who are saved, as a fan does wheat. Moreover, they affirm that the Apostle Paul himself made mention of this cross [i.e. Horos] in the following words: The doctrine of the cross is foolishness to those who perish, but to us who are saved it is the power of God. 1 Corinthians 1:18 And again: God forbid that I should glory in anything save in the cross of Christ, by whom the world is crucified to me, and I unto the world.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103103.htm

There is even the connection of the cross about which Paul talks in 1 Corinthians 1-2 with the celestial cross in outer space that is called "Horos".

So the prof Elaine Pagels confirms the my reading about that passage from Irenaeus on Horos:

The Valentinians point out that throughout his epistle Paul consistenlty has proclaimed this kerygma that he has preached in common with the other apostles. They go on to point out, however, that he describes this message as part of the tradition that he has received "from the Lord" (11:23), i.e., they explain, from the demiurge, as being essentially "foolishness" (1:21). He has shown in 1 Corinthians 1 and 2 that this kerygma represents an accommodation of the message of Christ to "the foolishness of the cosmos" - i.e., in Valentinian terms, to psychics. For Paul has explained in 1:18 that to the psychis, to "those who are perishing", the logos of the cross - the symbolic interpretation of the cross as signifying stauros and horos in the pleroma - "is foolishness". For these psychis remain under the power of "the Lord", the demiurge, who has sworn to "destroy the wisdom of the wise, and set aside the understanding of those who understand" (1:19). The psychis are those whom Paul calls in 1:22 "the Jews" who "seek signs"...

https://www.jstor.org/stable/3263097?re ... b_contents
(my bold)

Note also that when Jesus said "I have not come for peace but a sword" he was really saying, according to Valentinians: "I have come for Horos, i.e. to die on the cross".

[Joseph D. L.]

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

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).

But this =/= Jesus dying or suffering upon Horos.

Let me make this as clear as I can for you, Giuseppe.

There is a boundary in the aether (not fucking outer space)
This boundary is Horos
This boundary separates the Pleroma and material spheres
Jesus emanates through this barrier into the material sphere
He suffers the passions of the material sphere
He is crucified, on earth.

There is zero mention in any Gnostic text, Valentinian or otherwise, of Jesus being crucified on the celestial cross, because, surprise, that implies this celestial cross is material. JESUS CAN NEVER BE CRUCIFIED ON THIS CROSS. ONLY ON AN EARTHLY CROSS.

Just like how the Acts of John distinguished between the cross of light and cross of wood. The cross of wood is death, the cross of light is life/resurrection.

Jesus fucking Christ, you're thick.