GakuseiDon wrote: ↑Mon Aug 26, 2019 5:42 pm
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.