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

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
GakuseiDon
Posts: 799
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm

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

Post by GakuseiDon » Fri Aug 30, 2019 4:02 pm

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Fri Aug 30, 2019 3:54 pm
GakuseiDon wrote:
Fri Aug 30, 2019 3:37 pm
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. :cheers:
:D It must almost drive you to drink sometimes, seeing us non-ancient language illiterates arguing over interpretations of English translations!
It is really important, in life, to concentrate our minds on our enthusiasms, not on our dislikes. -- Roger Pearse

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 6631
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

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

Post by Ben C. Smith » Fri Aug 30, 2019 4:30 pm

GakuseiDon wrote:
Fri Aug 30, 2019 4:02 pm
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Fri Aug 30, 2019 3:54 pm
GakuseiDon wrote:
Fri Aug 30, 2019 3:37 pm
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. :cheers:
:D It must almost drive you to drink sometimes, seeing us non-ancient language illiterates arguing over interpretations of English translations!
It all depends on the attitude(s) of the one(s) so arguing. Done well, in a congenial spirit, it can be as fun and potentially informative as anything. Done poorly, with stubbornness and rancor, yes, the brandy can begin to sparkle.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

Giuseppe
Posts: 6010
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

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

Post by Giuseppe » Fri Aug 30, 2019 7:13 pm

1) the problem is that Tertullian says that the Valentinians have the bad vice of interpreting too much often the gospels themselves as mere symbolism. The idea that they interpreted their myths in outer space as symbolism sounds so strange and improbable just as the idea that the Greeks didn't believe really their myths. The onus probandi is on who means it as symbolism to prove it.
GakuseiDon wrote:
Fri Aug 30, 2019 3:56 pm
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.
2) well, at this point we can conclude by agreeing in disagreement. The Sophia was not crucified, ok, but since I can't conceive how one can "extend himself" on a cosmic palisade, then I conclude that a Christ extended on a palisade is a crucified Christ.


The negative feature of this thread comes surely from the numerous attacks against me by Joseph D.L. and Secret Alias. I realize that the category of the atheists who hate the Carrier's paradigm includes a high number of people. They believe that it is a mere version of a reconstruction of the Origins. No, it is a paradigm. Within it I can concede a lot of variants. For example one variant where one crucifixion becomes later two crucifixions in the same sectarian theology.

That is not evidence of dogmatism.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Giuseppe
Posts: 6010
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

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

Post by Giuseppe » Fri Aug 30, 2019 10:41 pm

I would like to add (from the linked thread) this surprising finding in Hippolytus that at least in my view corroborates very strongly what I see in the Valentinian belief about a crucifixion of Christ in outer space at the origin of the world.
Giuseppe wrote:
Fri Aug 30, 2019 10:34 pm
Really, the Golgotha is a Skull in virtue of this belief of the Naassenes, that connects the creation of the world with the Skull:

The expression rock, he says, he uses of Adam. This, he affirms, is Adam: The chief corner-stone become the head of the corner. For that in the head the substance is the formative brain from which the entire family is fashioned.Ephesians 3:15 Whom, he says, I place as a rock at the foundations of Zion. Allegorizing, he says, he speaks of the creation of the man. The rock is interposed (within) the teeth, as Homer says, enclosure of teeth, that is, a wall and fortress, in which exists the inner man, who there has fallen from Adam, the primal man above. And he has been severed without hands to effect the division, and has been borne down into the image of oblivion, being earthly and clayish.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/050105.htm

Note the reference to "a wall and fortress", allegorized by the teeth of this Skull. This "wall" is obviously the Limit called Horos/Stauros by the Valentinians and often described as a cosmic palisade.

Now, the function of this Limit is the separation of the "inner man" (the divine spark fallen in ourselves) from the "primal man" (the superior Christ).

Now note who, in correspondence of this Limit or cosmic Cross, dismembered the Primal Man in numerous pieces that were going to be sown under the Limit in the matter of the demiurge:

And he [the Primal Man] has been severed without hands to effect the division


The quote is from Daniel 2:45:

This is the meaning of the vision of the rock cut out of a mountain, but not by human hands—a rock that broke the iron, the bronze, the clay, the silver and the gold to pieces.

“The great God has shown the king what will take place in the future. The dream is true and its interpretation is trustworthy.”

Attention precisely to this point: the Primal Man Christ, allegorized by the danielic "rock cut out of a mountain", was dismembered at the origin of the world, according to Naassenes, "but not by human hands".

Who could dismember the giantlike Primal Man Christ without be human beings?

But the answer is too much obvious!!!

The Archons.
Curiously, GDon asked myself some previous post about who would have crucified the superior Christ in Horos/Limit/Wall. Now he has the answer, in my view.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

theeternaliam
Posts: 58
Joined: Fri Aug 30, 2019 6:33 am

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

Post by theeternaliam » Tue Sep 03, 2019 8:47 am

Joseph D. L. wrote:
Mon Aug 26, 2019 8:35 pm
GakuseiDon wrote:
Mon Aug 26, 2019 6:38 pm
Giuseppe wrote:
Mon Aug 26, 2019 4:44 am
McGrath denies the existence of mythicist Valentinians, i.e. Christians who placed the crucifixion in outer space, beyond if they had also a Jesus placed on earth.
So, the mythicist position can include that early mythicist Christians believed that Jesus was crucified on earth as well as in outer space?

Can the historicist position include that early historicist Christians believe that Jesus was crucified on earth as well as in outer space?

Because this may cause confusion very quickly.
This is why Giuseppe and mythicism fails, because they cannot distinguish between a myth and an allegory..
Amen to that.

What is the reality of myth?
What is the myth of reality?

He who has discovered the world has discovered a carcass. He who has discovered the carcass the world is not worthy of.

I think i believe all the gospel accounts of Jesus's crucifixion are accurate. The stoic sorta Jesus who went to the cross heroically, the passionate Jesus who suffered and the gnostic Jesus who while suffering on the cross was above it laughing at the rulers. Because in my personal experience I, too, can experience suffering while also transcending it. Also, the observers of someone else's sufferings may perceive the same event differently as there is a level of projection going on in most people's perceptions

theeternaliam
Posts: 58
Joined: Fri Aug 30, 2019 6:33 am

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

Post by theeternaliam » Tue Sep 03, 2019 9:02 am

Giuseppe wrote:
Tue Aug 27, 2019 5:49 am
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.

GakuseiDon wrote:
Tue Aug 27, 2019 5:07 am

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.
GakuseiDon wrote:
Tue Aug 27, 2019 5:07 am

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.
You would do well to consider the possibility that the celestial crucifixion happens outside of space and time, and so therefore the point is moot whether it happened "chronologically before" the historical crucifixion. This is why your translation of the celestial as "outer space" is very inaccurate because to us moderns, outer space implies within space and time

theeternaliam
Posts: 58
Joined: Fri Aug 30, 2019 6:33 am

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

Post by theeternaliam » Tue Sep 03, 2019 9:16 am

Giuseppe wrote:
Wed Aug 28, 2019 1:32 am
[ concretely (="in a substantial form") on it.

These simple words "in the substantial though invisible form", referred to this celestial crucifixion on Horos, are sufficient alone to make that celestial crucifixion in the outer space a concrete real physical fact.

The real physical fact would be Jesus's earthly crucifixion. NOT the celestial crucifixion. In fact, I think you shouldn't use the word, "celestial" because that implies in outer space amongst the stars. Rather, the word, "spiritual" would be more accurate because it occurs in the spiritual realms

Joseph D. L.
Posts: 463
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

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

Post by Joseph D. L. » Tue Sep 03, 2019 4:17 pm

theeternaliam wrote:
Tue Sep 03, 2019 8:47 am
I think i believe all the gospel accounts of Jesus's crucifixion are accurate. The stoic sorta Jesus who went to the cross heroically, the passionate Jesus who suffered and the gnostic Jesus who while suffering on the cross was above it laughing at the rulers. Because in my personal experience I, too, can experience suffering while also transcending it. Also, the observers of someone else's sufferings may perceive the same event differently as there is a level of projection going on in most people's perceptions
No, they are not accurate. They are allegorical.

The historical crucifixion occurred during 117 ad. The allegory presented in the Gospels is that of the transmigration of the Christ spirit from one to another. In this case, Simon of Cyrene is crucified, Joseph of Arimathea is the new host of Christ.

Joseph D. L.
Posts: 463
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

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

Post by Joseph D. L. » Tue Sep 03, 2019 4:20 pm

theeternaliam wrote:
Tue Sep 03, 2019 9:16 am


The real physical fact would be Jesus's earthly crucifixion. NOT the celestial crucifixion. In fact, I think you shouldn't use the word, "celestial" because that implies in outer space amongst the stars. Rather, the word, "spiritual" would be more accurate because it occurs in the spiritual realms
The cross that the Valentinians allude to is the same as Plato and ancient astronomers observed as a cross in space. "Spiritual" is not more accurate. Aether would be better, but again the cross existed in the universe, so celestial is acceptable.

theeternaliam
Posts: 58
Joined: Fri Aug 30, 2019 6:33 am

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

Post by theeternaliam » Tue Sep 03, 2019 9:38 pm

Joseph D. L. wrote:
Tue Sep 03, 2019 4:17 pm
theeternaliam wrote:
Tue Sep 03, 2019 8:47 am
I think i believe all the gospel accounts of Jesus's crucifixion are accurate. The stoic sorta Jesus who went to the cross heroically, the passionate Jesus who suffered and the gnostic Jesus who while suffering on the cross was above it laughing at the rulers. Because in my personal experience I, too, can experience suffering while also transcending it. Also, the observers of someone else's sufferings may perceive the same event differently as there is a level of projection going on in most people's perceptions
No, they are not accurate. They are allegorical.

The historical crucifixion occurred during 117 ad. The allegory presented in the Gospels is that of the transmigration of the Christ spirit from one to another. In this case, Simon of Cyrene is crucified, Joseph of Arimathea is the new host of Christ.
That's just, like, yer opinion, man.
Which would seem to have little practical benefit for me.

You make a bold, presumptuous claim, as many many men do who believe they know the truth of the scriptures.

But, as I'm a sincere seeker of knowledge of truth I would be fair and consider the possibility of your claim, though yer presumptuous sense of certainty gives me the impression it comes from the proud rulers

Post Reply