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

[GakuseiDon]

GDon is not answering from a lot of time. The Argument from Silence is strong here.

I was asleep. It was night time here in Australia.

I should conclude that the only his "answer" is to insist irrationally again and again that Horos is mere symbolism for the Valentinians when really it is was a concrete geographical place, for them. Just as the Pleroma. Just as the lower spheres (including this earth).

Please reread what I wrote (and also what Tertullian wrote).

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. In this manner do they reduce all things to mere images

It isn't "Horos" that is the symbolism, it is the crucifixion. As Jesus descended he suffered, "who, for the purpose of producing Achamoth, had been stretched upon the cross, that is, Horos" in a "not cognizable form". It is a "mere image", a symbolic crucifixion, to match the suffering done to the "carnal" Christ, whom the Valentinians claimed appeared before Pilate.

As I said, if that helps your argument, then fine.

I can only conclude, definitely, that GakuseiDon shares with McGrath the same lack of intellectual honesty.

And not only him. But all the people who, reading the evidence above, deny that the Valentinians, even if still believers in an earthly Jesus, believed that a "superior" Christ was crucified in outer space.

Do you really not see the danger that this poses to Dr Carrier-style mythicism? If the Valentinians believed in both an EARTHLY crucifixion and a CELESTIAL crucifixion, how can mythicists argue that Paul's belief in the archons of the air crucifying Christ weakens the idea of an earthly crucifixion? They can't. Dr McGrath's point that reading Paul as a Valentinian doesn't help the celestial Christ argument is correct.

[GakuseiDon]

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.

[Joseph D. L.]

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.

But Giuseppe's own position is so confused and obscure that no one can make out what he's saying.

Also, the Apocraphon of John makes it clear that the Valentinians WERE historicists.

[Giuseppe]

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. In this manner do they reduce all things to mere images

It isn't "Horos" that is the symbolism, it is the crucifixion. As Jesus descended he suffered, "who, for the purpose of producing Achamoth, had been stretched upon the cross, that is, Horos" in a "not cognizable form". It is a "mere image", a symbolic crucifixion, to match the suffering done to the "carnal" Christ, whom the Valentinians claimed appeared before Pilate.

GDon, the your reading is wrong from a grammatical point of view.

When Tertullian says:

In this manner do they reduce all things to mere images.

...what he means by "all things" (that are reduced to be "mere images") are the earthly things, not, as in the your reading, celestial/heavenly things. Tertullian is basically saying that for the Valentinians, the celestial things (in primis the celestial crucifixion) have more degree of reality than the earthly things. Tertullian applies against them the reductio ad absurdum argument: if the earthly death of Christ is only a mere image of the real thing (the celestial crucifixion of Christ), then also the same Valentinians are "imaginary beings" since the real correspondent beings are in heaven.

Do you really not see the danger that this poses to Dr Carrier-style mythicism? If the Valentinians believed in both an EARTHLY crucifixion and a CELESTIAL crucifixion, how can mythicists argue that Paul's belief in the archons of the air crucifying Christ weakens the idea of an earthly crucifixion? They can't.

Really?

Please, note the difference between the two paradigms:

Under mythicism, you have before a Paul who places a crucified Jesus only in outer space, and after you have Valentinians who place a crucified Jesus on the earth and a crucified Jesus in outer space.

Under historicity, you have before a Paul who places a crucified Jesus only on the earth, and after you have Valentinians who place a crucified Jesus on the earth and a crucified Jesus in outer space.

The Mythicism can explain easily who is the late intruder: the Gospel Jesus, shown even to outsiders (as Tertullian) as a "mere image" of the "real" thing (the celestial Jesus).

The historicity can explain hardly why an earthly Jesus was doubled later to have another Jesus crucified in outer space. Was not sufficient only one Jesus? Why the need of two?

The dualism between an earthly crucified Jesus and a celestial crucified Jesus is fully 100% expected under mythicism: especially when the first is said to be "mere image" of the second.

Is it more clear now?

Dr McGrath's point that reading Paul as a Valentinian doesn't help the celestial Christ argument is correct.

I have explained in detail that your reading of Horos as "mere image" is wrong, since according to Tertullian, the Valentinians reduced earthly things to be "mere images" of celestial things. Not vice versa.

It doesn't matter that the Valentinians professed historicity. I think that the fourth Gospel was written even by a Valentinian. What matters really is that they believed that a real Christ was crucified in the outer space, too. We have evidence of that. If McGrath denies that, then he is hypocrite or ignorant.

[Giuseppe]

Also, the Apocraphon of John makes it clear that the Valentinians WERE historicists.

Idiot. I am not denying that apparently the Valentinians were historicists. Just as apparently "Mark" (author) was historicist. Just as apparently whoever you consider the author of the Earliest Gospel was historicist.

In this precise moment I can invent a new life on the earth for Osiris and an idiot like yourself would call myself an Osiris historicist. It is ridiculous.

The Valentinians could believe (or did believe) BLINDLY that a historical Jesus existed on the earth. But I have proved that they believed EQUALLY BLINDLY that a distinct Christ was crucified in outer space. Period.

[MrMacSon]

Were the Valentinians in fact mythicists? Did they believe that Jesus never came to earth?

According to Wiki, they used the Gospels and believed that Jesus lived on earth: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valentinianism

Aside from the Church fathers, however, “the majority of Christians did not recognize the followers of Valentinus as heretics. Most could not tell the difference between Valentinian and orthodox teaching.”[47] This was partially because Valentinus used many books that now belong to the Old and New Testaments as a basis for interpretation in his own writing. He based his work on proto-orthodox Christian canon instead of on Gnostic scripture, and his style was similar to that of early Christian works.

Aside from the Church fathers, however, “the majority of Christians did not recognize the followers of Valentinus as heretics. Most could not tell the difference between Valentinian and orthodox teaching.”[47]

[47] = Elaine Pagels in her 1979 The Gnostic Gospels. She's not saying Valentinus or Valentinians "used the Gospels and believed that Jesus lived on earth", she's saying “the majority of Christians did not recognize the followers of Valentinus as heretics" and "Most [Christians] could not tell the difference between Valentinian and orthodox teaching.” (And it's likely many early Church Fathers would have struggled with such differences too, especially if their access and familiarity with orthodox texts was poor.)

[MrMacSon]

.. the Apocraphon of John makes it clear that the Valentinians WERE historicists.

The Apocryphon of John (aka the Secret Book of John) is not a Valentinian text. It's a pre-Valentinian, Sethian text.

The narrative is about disciple John on his way to the Temple in Jerusalem when he meets a Pharisee who asks "Where is your master/teacher whom you followed?" John replies, "He has gone back to the place from which he came."

The Pharisee tells John that the Nazarene misled/deceived you (pl.), and had turned him away from the true traditions of his ancestors, the Jews. This encounter upsets John, who begins to question his beliefs, thinking, -

""How then was the savior appointed, and why was he sent into the world by his Father, and who is his Father who sent him, and of what sort is that aeon to which we shall go? For what did he mean when he said to us, 'This aeon to which you will go is of the type of the imperishable aeon, but he did not teach us concerning the latter, of what sort it is."

Then, the heavens open, and a being - said to be the Savior - appears to John, but strangely taking three forms —first a child, a young person, and an elderly person. The Savior then begins a long speech to John, which takes up the remainder of the book.

When the Saviour finishes his revelation, he instructs John to write it down and keep it safe. The Savior then disappears, and John goes off to tell the disciples what the Savior has revealed to him, which is a very elaborate Gnostic creation myth.

Many scholars, such as Stevan Davies, think many aspects were added by a Christian editor who had sought to present the text as a long dialogue between Jesus and John son of Zebedee, especially these introductory aspects.

[Joseph D. L.]

.. the Apocraphon of John makes it clear that the Valentinians WERE historicists.

The Apocryphon of John (aka the Secret Book of John) is not a Valentinian text. It's a pre-Valentinian, Sethian text.

The narrative is about disciple John on his way to the Temple in Jerusalem when he meets a Pharisee who asks "Where is your master/teacher whom you followed?" John replies, "He has gone back to the place from which he came."

The Pharisee tells John that the Nazarene misled/deceived you (pl.), and had turned him away from the true traditions of his ancestors, the Jews. This encounter upsets John, who begins to question his beliefs, thinking, -

""How then was the savior appointed, and why was he sent into the world by his Father, and who is his Father who sent him, and of what sort is that aeon to which we shall go? For what did he mean when he said to us, 'This aeon to which you will go is of the type of the imperishable aeon, but he did not teach us concerning the latter, of what sort it is."

Then, the heavens open, and a being - said to be the Savior - appears to John, but strangely taking three forms —first a child, a young person, and an elderly person. The Savior then begins a long speech to John, which takes up the remainder of the book.

When the Saviour finishes his revelation, he instructs John to write it down and keep it safe. The Savior then disappears, and John goes off to tell the disciples what the Savior has revealed to him, which is a very elaborate Gnostic creation myth.

Many scholars, such as Stevan Davies, think many aspects were added by a Christian editor who had sought to present the text as a long dialogue between Jesus and John son of Zebedee, especially these introductory aspects.

Kind of a retraction. It was actually the Acts of John, which has a strong Valentinian system, that I was thinking about. Specifically, that there is both a cross of light (celestial) and cross of wood (earthly).

I was too flustered with Giuseppe that I couldn't think straight.

[Joseph D. L.]

Also, the Apocraphon of John makes it clear that the Valentinians WERE historicists.

Idiot. I am not denying that apparently the Valentinians were historicists. Just as apparently "Mark" (author) was historicist. Just as apparently whoever you consider the author of the Earliest Gospel was historicist.

In this precise moment I can invent a new life on the earth for Osiris and an idiot like yourself would call myself an Osiris historicist. It is ridiculous.

The Valentinians could believe (or did believe) BLINDLY that a historical Jesus existed on the earth. But I have proved that they believed EQUALLY BLINDLY that a distinct Christ was crucified in outer space. Period.

What the hell are you even saying?

We're not talking about now, we are talking about when these theologies were emerging. Yeah, I would call you an Osiris historicist, because that's what you would be you moron. What else am I supposed to call you? Delusional? I already think that.

Typical Giuseppe-ism.

The Valentinians hold/held that there was both an earthly Jesus and a celestial (not air, celestial, it happened in the aether) Jesus. So they were 100% historicists. And if you're not denying that, why bother with this diatribe?

[GakuseiDon]

GDon, the your reading is wrong from a grammatical point of view.

When Tertullian says:

In this manner do they reduce all things to mere images.

...what he means by "all things" (that are reduced to be "mere images") are the earthly things, not, as in the your reading, celestial/heavenly things. Tertullian is basically saying that for the Valentinians, the celestial things (in primis the celestial crucifixion) have more degree of reality than the earthly things. Tertullian applies against them the reductio ad absurdum argument: if the earthly death of Christ is only a mere image of the real thing (the celestial crucifixion of Christ), then also the same Valentinians are "imaginary beings" since the real correspondent beings are in heaven.

I'll need to relook at that. Not that I want to! Reading the Gnostics gives me a headache.

Under mythicism, you have before a Paul who places a crucified Jesus only in outer space, and after you have Valentinians who place a crucified Jesus on the earth and a crucified Jesus in outer space.

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

(Edited to add: Giuseppe is getting me confused by calling Valentinians, who believed Jesus appeared on earth, "mythicists" along the lines of celestial Jesus mythicism. Of course there are mythicists like GA Wells who believe that Paul's Jesus was earthly, just not historical.)

The historicity can explain hardly why an earthly Jesus was doubled later to have another Jesus crucified in outer space. Was not sufficient only one Jesus? Why the need of two?

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.

Dr McGrath's point that reading Paul as a Valentinian doesn't help the celestial Christ argument is correct.

I have explained in detail that your reading of Horos as "mere image" is wrong, since according to Tertullian, the Valentinians reduced earthly things to be "mere images" of celestial things. Not vice versa.

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

It doesn't matter that the Valentinians professed historicity. I think that the fourth Gospel was written even by a Valentinian. What matters really is that they believed that a real Christ was crucified in the outer space, too. We have evidence of that. If McGrath denies that, then he is hypocrite or ignorant.

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?