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

[Giuseppe]

There is no crucifixion there. It is only when doing a comparison with Christ being put on a cross on earth that the cross is mentioned, and it is a figurative example.

Really, there is seriously some problem of understanding by you, here.

You don't want to admit how, "when doing a comparison with Christ being put on a cross on earth", the celestial "cross is mentioned". It is said clearly that the earthly crucifixion is a "delineation" (=is a figurative example) of the Christ being put on a celestial cross. Hence what becomes really a mere symbol, a mere figurative image, is just the earthly crucifixion!

I can't know how an earthly fact (in this case: the crucifixion in Judea) can be a symbol of another symbol (the exact thing that you are saying). A symbol is, by definition, symbolic/allegorical of something that is not a symbol.

In addition, you go against a great obstacle: Tertullian says that Christ was streched on Horos "in a substantial form".

He does NOT say that Christ was streched on Horos "in a symbolical form"

It happens that Christ went through Horos/Stauros by being crucified 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.

Not a symbol.

ADDENDA:

This is even a greater error by you;

NO. Christ does NOT die on a celestial cross. You are mixing up ideas with other celestial Jesus theories. Can you check the Tertullian text to confirm this please? That the celestial Christ does NOT die?

you ignore not only the fact that a cross is by definition a tool of death. But also the fact that a death on a celestial cross (in outer space) is required, to make the death on an earthly cross a "delineation" of it.

[GakuseiDon]

There is no crucifixion there. It is only when doing a comparison with Christ being put on a cross on earth that the cross is mentioned, and it is a figurative example.

Really, there is seriously some problem of understanding by you, here.

You don't want to admit how, "when doing a comparison with Christ being put on a cross on earth", the celestial "cross is mentioned". It is said clearly that the earthly crucifixion is a "delineation" (=is a figurative example) of the Christ being put on a celestial cross. Hence what becomes really a mere symbol, a mere figurative image, is just the earthly crucifixion!

<snipped>

I'm sorry, I don't understand your point here.

ADDENDA:

This is even a greater error by you;

NO. Christ does NOT die on a celestial cross. You are mixing up ideas with other celestial Jesus theories. Can you check the Tertullian text to confirm this please? That the celestial Christ does NOT die?

you ignore not only the fact that a cross is by definition a tool of death. But also the fact that a death on a celestial cross (in outer space) is required, to make the death on an earthly cross a "delineation" of it.

Please quote Tertullian: (1) Who crucified the superior Christ? (2) Did the superior Christ die?

You will find that Tertullian doesn't mention anyone doing the crucifying, because there was no actual celestial crucifixion.

[Giuseppe]

There is no crucifixion there. It is only when doing a comparison with Christ being put on a cross on earth that the cross is mentioned, and it is a figurative example.

Really, there is seriously some problem of understanding by you, here.

You don't want to admit how, "when doing a comparison with Christ being put on a cross on earth", the celestial "cross is mentioned". It is said clearly that the earthly crucifixion is a "delineation" (=is a figurative example) of the Christ being put on a celestial cross. Hence what becomes really a mere symbol, a mere figurative image, is just the earthly crucifixion!

<snipped>

I'm sorry, I don't understand your point here.

As I have explained before, the more faithful translation of the passage of interest is the following:

The animal and carnal Christ, however, does suffer in the delineation of the superior Christ [Latin: in delineationem superioris Christi] , 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 — Christians themselves being indeed nothing but imaginary beings!

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0314.htm


In short: the earthly crucifixion is a "delineation" of the celestial crucifixion in outer space:

Hence, as I have said before, what becomes really a mere symbol, a mere figurative image, a mere delineation, is just the earthly crucifixion!


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".

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:

1) the earthly crucifixion becomes the allegory (=the delineation) of the allegory (=the celestial crucifixion) of the descending through a banal boundary (=the fact). I have never heard about a fact that is symbol of a symbol. Usually, or better, always, when a fact is the symbol of something, that something is by definition a real fact, not a symbol.

2) the sufferings of a Jesus crucified in Judea have to find a correspondent suffering of a Jesus in heaven (per the definition of "to be a delineation of"), but GDon is denying that the Jesus being stretched on Horos is really suffering. GDon thinks that, even as a mere symbol, the Jesus who is stretched on Horos is a Jesus who doesn't suffer. As if the suffering was not implicit in the concept itself of a Cross (meaning of Stauros).

Please quote Tertullian: (1) Who crucified the superior Christ? (2) Did the superior Christ die?

You will find that Tertullian doesn't mention anyone doing the crucifying, because there was no actual celestial crucifixion.

This is idiotic. If the earthly suffering of Christ has to be a "delineation" of a fact (or in the your hypothesis: of a symbolism) happened in outer space, then the fact (or the symbol) has to be necessarily a suffering of Christ in outer space, too. By definition of "delineation", "after the fashion of".

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.

[Joseph D. L.]

Giuseppe, you are an ignorant and arrogant man.

GakusaiDon proofed, emphatically, with the very evidence you have yet to show, that

1) the Valentinians were 100% historicists,
2) they did not hold to a celestial crucifixion

Yet you continue to play word games and twist the evidence to fit your narrative, and insult those who disagree with you as being "intellectually dishonest," and "ignorant," over and over. This is why no one on here likes you Giuseppe. Because you're so fucking full of yourself.

[Joseph D. L.]

Remember what Justin Martyr said about Plato's philosophy of the celestial cross? That the demiurge was stretched along this cross, to form a chi?

Well, that's not what Plato (or Timeaus) said. What he did say is that the demiurge took two celestial substances and bound them together to form a great chi. That's it.

Giuseppe is doing the same thing. He is twisting the evidence, arguing through implication what he thinks it should mean.

That alone I don't have a problem with. The problem I have is that Giuseppe is such a huge d*** to anyone with a different opinion. His arrogance, coupled with a disingenuous sense of superiority, makes everything he says worthless.

"Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye."

[Giuseppe]

GakusaiDon proofed, emphatically, with the very evidence you have yet to show, that

1) the Valentinians were 100% historicists,
2) they did not hold to a celestial crucifixion

I am sorry for the your and GDon's total absence of understanding that what is said be by Tertullian as "in a substantial form" - i.e. the Jesus being stretched on Horos/Stauros - cannot be a symbolism. In the English vocabulary "substantial" is not "symbolic". Isn't it?

In addition, even the fool apologist Tertullian himself realizes the problem, differently from you: if the earthly crucifixion is the mere "delineation" of a celestial crucifixion in outer space, then the risk is that the earthly Christ himself becomes an "imaginary being". Do you know as the rest of the world would call it, now?

MYTHICISM.

In addition still, Horos is called Cross. Who is stretched on a cross, by definition of Cross, is a suffering being. Is for you the Cross an hammock?

Is she stretched on a Cross, according to you?




See what RG Price has said about the evidence shown in Tertullian:

Giuseppe
Very interesting indeed. I had not seen that before. Thanks for pointing it out. Yeah, I think this goes along with Dohety’s interpretation of Paul. It would appear to be another case of reconciling the pre-Gospel view with the Gospels.

https://vridar.org/2019/08/25/the-tone- ... ment-94675

I am really satisfied that the my point is realized easily by a true expert as RG Price while the same point is not realized, not even seen (sic), by an idiot called Joseph D.L.

[Giuseppe]

In an Italian commentary of the passage of interest, I read (my translation):

It is clear here that the Valentinian dualism highlights the symmetry between the historical passion of Christ and the spiritual passion of the Eon Christ, placed on the Horos limit, or Cross, to illuminate Sophia. What is important to underline, in addition to the dualism, often taken into consideration, is the allegorical exegesis of the Valentinians.

(my bold)

Seen? These are words said not by a mythicist but by a historicist who assumes (just as myself) that Valentinus was historicist. Only, Valentinus believed also in the "spiritual passion of the Aeon Christ". In outer space.

[Giuseppe]

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

Hence in any occurrence of Christ in connection with Horos, the reference is always to a celestial crucifixion in outer space.

[Ben C. Smith]

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.

[perseusomega9]

I am not going to get involved in this debate