Irenaeus talks about a celestial crucifixion in 4:1

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Irenaeus talks about a celestial crucifixion in 4:1

Post by Giuseppe »


.
1. The following are the transactions which they narrate as having occurred outside of the Pleroma: The enthymesis of that Sophia who dwells above, which they also term Achamoth, being removed from the Pleroma, together with her passion, they relate to have, as a matter of course, become violently excited in those places of darkness and vacuity [to which she had been banished]. For she was excluded from light and the Pleroma, and was without form or figure, like an untimely birth, because she had received nothing [from a male parent]. But the Christ dwelling on high took pity upon her; and having extended himself through and beyond Stauros, he imparted a figure to her, but merely as respected substance, and not so as to convey intelligence. Having effected this, he withdrew his influence, and returned, leaving Achamoth to herself, in order that she, becoming sensible of her suffering as being severed from the Pleroma, might be influenced by the desire of better things, while she possessed in the meantime a kind of odour of immortality left in her by Christ and the Holy Spirit.

https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103104.htm

By the celestial crucifixion of Christ, the world was created by the mere matter without form.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Irenaeus talks about a celestial crucifixion in 4:1

Post by MrMacSon »

The rest of the chapter goes on with Christianity-lite themes (and a couple of NT passages; one disagreeable, one agreeable) -
Wherefore also she is called by two names — Sophia after her father (for Sophia is spoken of as being her father), and Holy Spirit from that Spirit who is along with Christ. Having then obtained a form, along with intelligence, and being immediately deserted by that Logos who had been invisibly present with her — that is, by Christ — she strained herself to discover that light which had forsaken her, but could not effect her purpose, inasmuch as she was prevented by Horos ...

3. Now what follows from all this? No light tragedy comes out of it, as the fancy of every man among them pompously explains, one in one way, and another in another, from what kind of passion and from what element being derived its origin. They have good reason, as seems to me, why they should not feel inclined to teach these things to all in public, but only to such as are able to pay a high price for an acquaintance with such profound mysteries. For these doctrines are not at all similar to those of which our Lord said, "Freely you have received, freely give" [Matthew 10:8]. They are, on the contrary, abstruse, and portentous, and profound mysteries, to be got at only with great labour by such as are in love with falsehood ...

5. They go on to state that, when the mother Achamoth had passed through all sorts of passion, and had with difficulty escaped from them, she turned herself to supplicate the light which had forsaken her, that is, Christ. He, however, having returned to the Pleroma, and being probably unwilling again to descend from it, sent forth to her the Paraclete, that is, the Saviour. This being was endowed with all power by the Father, who placed everything under his authority, the Æons doing so likewise, so that "by him were all things, visible and invisible, created, thrones, divinities, dominions" [Colossians 1:16]. He then was sent to her along with his contemporary angels. And they related that Achamoth, filled with reverence, at first veiled herself through modesty, but that by and by, when she had looked upon him with all his endowments, and had acquired strength from his appearance, she ran forward to meet him.

He then imparted to her form as respected intelligence, and brought healing to her passions, separating them from her, but not so as to drive them out of thought altogether. For it was not possible that they should be annihilated as in the former case, because they had already taken root and acquired strength [so as to possess an indestructible existence]. All that he could do was to separate them and set them apart, and then commingle and condense them, so as to transmute them from incorporeal passion into unorganized matter. He then by this process conferred upon them a fitness and a nature to become concretions and corporeal structures, in order that two substances should be formed — the one evil, resulting from the passions, and the other subject indeed to suffering, but originating from her conversion. And on this account (i.e., on account of this hypostatizing of ideal matter) they say that the Saviour virtually created the world.

But when Achamoth was freed from her passion, she gazed with rapture on the dazzling vision of the angels that were with him; and in her ecstasy, conceiving by them, they tell us that she brought forth new beings, partly after her own image, and partly a spiritual progeny after the image of the Saviour's attendants.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Irenaeus talks about a celestial crucifixion in 4:1

Post by Giuseppe »

Another reference to the same celestial crucifixion is in 1:7:2:

They hold, accordingly, that our Lord, while preserving the type of the first-begotten and primary tetrad, was compounded of these four substances, — of that which is spiritual, in so far as He was from Achamoth; of that which is animal, as being from the Demiurge by a special dispensation, inasmuch as He was formed [corporeally] with unspeakable skill; and of the Saviour, as respects that dove which descended upon Him. He also continued free from all suffering, since indeed it was not possible that He should suffer who was at once incomprehensible and invisible. And for this reason the Spirit of Christ, who had been placed within Him, was taken away when He was brought before Pilate. They maintain, further, that not even the seed which He had received from the mother [Achamoth] was subject to suffering; for it, too, was impassible, as being spiritual, and invisible even to the Demiurge himself. It follows, then, according to them, that the animal Christ, and that which had been formed mysteriously by a special dispensation, underwent suffering, that the mother might exhibit through him a type of the Christ above, namely, of him who extended himself through Stauros, and imparted to Achamoth shape, so far as substance was concerned. For they declare that all these transactions were counterparts of what took place above.

https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103107.htm
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Irenaeus talks about a celestial crucifixion in 4:1

Post by Giuseppe »

Really, the separationism in proto-Mark is strictly connected with the role of separator worked by the cosmic Stauros, as reported in 1:2:4:

They term this Horos both Stauros and Lytrotes, and Carpistes, and Horothetes, and Metagoges. And by this Horos they declare that Sophia was purified and established, while she was also restored to her proper conjunction. For her enthymesis (or inborn idea) having been taken away from her, along with its supervening passion, she herself certainly remained within the Pleroma; but her enthymesis, with its passion, was separated from her by Horos, crucified, and expelled from that circle. This enthymesis was, no doubt, a spiritual substance, possessing some of the natural tendencies of an Æon, but at the same time shapeless and without form, because it had received nothing. And on this account they say that it was an imbecile and feminine production.

https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103102.htm

By crying 'My God, why have you forsaken me?", the passionate carnal Jesus is separated by the spiritual Christ just as the enthymesis ("passion"), was separated from the spiritual Sophia.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Irenaeus talks about a celestial crucifixion in 4:1

Post by Giuseppe »

Today I have found other 2 references of Irenaeus to the same celestial crucifixion in outer space:

If, however, He was Himself not to suffer, but should fly away from Jesus, why did He exhort His disciples to take up the cross and follow Him — that cross which these men represent Him as not having taken up, but [speak of Him] as having relinquished the dispensation of suffering? For that He did not say this with reference to the acknowledging of the Stauros (cross) above, as some among them venture to expound, but with respect to the suffering which He should Himself undergo, and that His disciples should endure, He implies when He says, For whosoever will save his life, shall lose it; and whosoever will lose, shall find it. And that His disciples must suffer for His sake, He [implied when He] said to the Jews, Behold, I send you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them you shall kill and crucify. Matthew 23:24 And to the disciples He was wont to say, And you shall stand before governors and kings for My sake; and they shall scourge some of you, and slay you, and persecute you from city to city. Matthew 10:17-18 He knew, therefore, both those who should suffer persecution, and He knew those who should have to be scourged and slain because of Him; and He did not speak of any other cross, but of the suffering which He should Himself undergo first, and His disciples afterwards. For this purpose did He give them this exhortation: Fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to send both soul and body into hell; Matthew 10:28 [thus exhorting them] to hold fast those professions of faith which they had made in reference to Him.

https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103318.htm

In the second reference:

and He knew those who should have to be scourged and slain because of Him; and He did not speak of any other cross, but of the suffering which He should Himself undergo first, and His disciples afterwards.

...it is evident that Irenaeus is obliged to specify:

and He did not speak of any other cross

...because he knew that the ''some'' of the heretics claim that Christ was crucified in outer space on a cross different from the earthly cross.

It was that cosmic cross that the true Christians had to go through, because that cosmic cross separated the pleroma from lower heavens.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Irenaeus talks about a celestial crucifixion in 4:1

Post by Giuseppe »

with reference to the first reference in 3:18:5, my Italian translation reads as this:

For that He did not say about the knowledge of a superior cross, as some among them are used to expound, but with respect to the suffering which He should Himself undergo,

Hence, the "knowledge of a superior cross" is just the language for only insiders by which interpret correctly the Earliest Gospel and Paul.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Irenaeus talks about a celestial crucifixion in 4:1

Post by Giuseppe »

"The passion of the Æon" is the celestial crucifixion of Enthymesis (to know who is Enthymesis, read the first post of this thread). Irenaeus reports explicitly that the heretics believed that the earthly passion of Christ was allegory of the "suffering Æon" in outer space:


But, in truth, the passion of Christ was neither similar to the passion of the Æon, nor did it take place in similar circumstances. For the Æon underwent a passion of dissolution and destruction, so that she who suffered was in danger also of being destroyed. But the Lord, our Christ, underwent a valid, and not a merely accidental passion; not only was He Himself not in danger of being destroyed, but He also established fallen man by His own strength, and recalled him to incorruption. The Æon, again, underwent passion while she was seeking after the Father, and was not able to find Him; but the Lord suffered that He might bring those who have wandered from the Father, back to knowledge and to His fellowship. The search into the greatness of the Father became to her a passion leading to destruction; but the Lord, having suffered, and bestowing the knowledge of the Father, conferred on us salvation. Her passion, as they declare, gave origin to a female offspring, weak, infirm, unformed, and ineffective; but His passion gave rise to strength and power. For the Lord, through means of suffering, ascending into the lofty place, led captivity captive, gave gifts to men, and conferred on those that believe in Him the power to tread upon serpents and scorpions, and on all the power of the enemy, that is, of the leader of apostasy. Our Lord also by His passion destroyed death, and dispersed error, and put an end to corruption, and destroyed ignorance, while He manifested life and revealed truth, and bestowed the gift of incorruption. But their Æon, when she had suffered, established ignorance, and brought forth a substance without shape, out of which all material works have been produced — death, corruption, error, and such like.

4. Judas, then, the twelfth in order of the disciples, was not a type of the suffering Æon, nor, again, was the passion of the Lord; for these two things have been shown to be in every respect mutually dissimilar and inharmonious.

https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103220.htm
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Irenaeus talks about a celestial crucifixion in 4:1

Post by MrMacSon »

Giuseppe wrote: Sat Jul 04, 2020 4:13 am
Another reference to the same celestial crucifixion is in [Irenaeus, Adv. haers.] 1:7:2:

https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103107.htm
The concepts outlined there are interesting. It's as if they're fore-runners of Christian theology.

The same passage with different emphases -

They hold, accordingly, that our Lord, while preserving the type of the first-begotten and primary tetrad, was compounded of these four substances, — of that which is spiritual, in so far as He was from Achamoth; of that which is animal, as being from the Demiurge by a special dispensation, inasmuch as He was formed [corporeally] with unspeakable skill; and of the Saviour, as respects that dove which descended upon Him. He also continued free from all suffering, since indeed it was not possible that He should suffer who was at once incomprehensible and invisible. And for this reason the Spirit of Christ, who had been placed within Him, was taken away when He was brought before Pilate. They maintain, further, that not even the seed which He had received from the mother [Achamoth] was subject to suffering; for it, too, was impassible, as being spiritual, and invisible even to the Demiurge himself. It follows, then, according to them, that the animal Christ, and that which had been formed mysteriously by a special dispensation, underwent suffering, that the mother might exhibit through him a type of the Christ above, namely, of him who extended himself through Stauros, and imparted to Achamoth shape, so far as substance was concerned. For they declare that all these transactions were counterparts of what took place above.

"the Christ above" = a/the definitive article by Irenaeus ...
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Irenaeus talks about a celestial crucifixion in 4:1

Post by Giuseppe »

Separationist christology is derived from the role of separator held by the celestial Stauros. The evidence is very strong in this sense.

Insofar one reads separationism in proto-Mark, one has to assume that for insiders proto-Mark refers to a celestial crucifixion when it talks about a Jesus separated by Christ on the cross.

In Paul, apart this verse of Galatians 6:14:

But far be it from me to boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world

...the cross doesn't work generally as celestial separator. The idea is missing in Paul.

Hence Mark is not pauline, if Mark is separationist, and vice versa.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Irenaeus talks about a celestial crucifixion in 4:1

Post by Giuseppe »

Giuseppe wrote: Sun Jul 05, 2020 7:19 am Separationist christology is derived from the role of separator held by the celestial Stauros. The evidence is very strong in this sense.

Insofar one reads separationism in proto-Mark, one has to assume that for insiders proto-Mark refers to a celestial crucifixion when it talks about a Jesus separated by Christ on the cross.

In Paul, apart this verse of Galatians 6:14:

But far be it from me to boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world

...the cross doesn't work generally as celestial separator. The idea is missing in Paul.

Hence Mark is not pauline, if Mark is separationist, and vice versa.
Commenting on Galatians 6:14, Elaine Pagels writes:

Finally Paul rejects any «boasting»: as one of the elect, he owes his redemption entirely to «the cross» which signifies his separation from the material and the psychic cosmos. So, according to the author of Philip, «Jesus came crucifying the cosmos», separating the hylic and psychic from the pneumatic elements.

(The Gnostic Paul, p. 112)

It is clear here the process by which the cross received the role of celestial separator. it became before a symbol of separation between Judaizers and Gentilizers, then between 'hylic'' and ''pneumatics'', hence between lower heavens (earth included) and upper heavens. A way to prove and confirm metaphysically the sectarian distinction.

Paul was only at the origin of the entire process, as the first of the Gentilizers. He didn't see the cross as separator, but despite of it he was the precursor of the idea, as Earliest Gentilizer.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Post Reply