The case for an Outer Space crucifixion in Revelation 11:8

[Giuseppe]

So the French Mythicist Maurice Mergui points out the important concept of LIMIT:

The passage beyond the limit coincides therefore with the death of the messiah. The death of the messiah is not other than the passage beyond the limit. This is why, inter alia, the first Christians were so much concerned about the quote from Osea 11:1: from Egypt (mi-mitsrayim) I have called my son. In Hebrew, metsar is the limit. The son (the messiah) is called when the limit is reached. In the Jewish eschatology, the redemption happens always in the middle of the night, at the maximum of the suffering of the exile. [...] We point out the link between the Egypt and the inversion. In addition Revelation 11:8 says us that the Passion happens in Egypt: Egypt ... there where their Lord was crucified too.

(extract and translated from Comprendre les origines du Christianisme: De l'eschatologie juive au midrash chrétien)

Now I see here a link with what Danielou says about the cosmic Cross as a celestial LIMIT:

it is, therefore, easy to see how on this view the Cross could come to be regarded as separating the lower world from the world above

...the entire quote is the following:

Is it possible to determine more precisely the origin of this theme of the Cross-Limit? There do not seem to be any grounds for suggesting the image of an erect pike or of a palisade, and such a symbolism would in any case be misleading. The best suggestion is that the Platonic X of the Timaeus underlies the Gnostic Stauros, and that this was thought of as a great cross of light traced in the sky. For Plato the cosmic X was constituted by the intersection of the sphere of the planets and the sphere of the fixed stars at the ecliptic, and thus formed a cross marking the boundary between the planetary world and the heaven of the stars. Now the Gnostics regarded the planetary world or hebdomad as the sphere of the Demiurge, who was a stranger to the Pleroma, and it is, therefore, easy to see how on this view the Cross could come to be regarded as separating the lower world from the world above. The reference to the Timaeus appears, therefore, to be by far the best explanation of the definition of the Cross as the Limit. But are there sufficient grounds for linking these ideas in this way? Gnostic texts make no allusion to the Platonic X, but on the other hand, this was identified with the Cross of Christ by second century writers of the Great Church. Thus the Demonstratio of Irenaeus states: 'He has imprinted the sign of the Cross on the universe,' which is in fact a scarcely altered quotation from the Timaeus of Plato (26 B-C), which Justin had seen as a prefiguration of the Cross in his First Apology: 'Plato, in the Timaeus, seeks to discover, in accordance with the laws of Nature, what the Son of God is, and puts it in these words: "He has marked Him in the form of a X on all things" (LX, I). Justin then explains that Plato borrowed this symbolism from the episode of the brazen serpent, and continues: 'which Plato reading, and not accurately understanding it, and not apprehending that it was a figure of the Cross, but taking it to be a X, he said that next to God the first principle, the second power, was traced in the form of a X upon the universe' (LX, 5-6). There is another detail in the text of the Timaeus which permits a still more definite conclusion. Plato explains that the function of the sphere of the fixed stars is to restrain (pedan) the movement of the planets. Now in the Acts of Andrew a eulogy of the Cross includes the following words: '0 Cross that hast restrained (pedesas) the moving sphere of the world' (JAMES,p. 360). It is impossible to avoid seeing in this an allusion to the Timaeus; moreover, the fact can be quite definitely established, thanks to a passage in Hippolytus on the disciples of Mark: '(The eighth heaven) has been added to the planetary sphere to restrain its rapid movement .... Hence it is an image of Horos ' (Elench. VI, 41; cf. also Irenaeus, Adv. haer. I, 17:I). Here the Gnostic Stauros-Horos is explicitly identified with the Platonic X.

(Danielou, The Theology of Jewish-Christianity, Darton, Longman & Todd, p.285-286, my bold)

In conclusion, the idea of LIMIT that was crossed through was both:

• temporal: the "last times" are arrived

• spatial: the Messiah has crossed the cosmic border between upper heavens and lower heavens: i.e. he is just entered in Outer Space

Hence, This is another answer for the question: why crucifixion?

Because the crucifixion represented the go beyond the LIMIT, both spatial and temporal, and hence the best sign of the coming of the Messiah.

[Giuseppe]

This explains why the "name aboves all the names" is Joshua/Jesus.

Only once someone was able to go beyond the celestial LIMIT (=crucified on the cosmic Cross between upper heavens and lower heavens) in the last times (the temporal LIMIT), he could deserve the title of Messiah and the name of JOSHUA:

a name that by guematria had messianic values (52 and 386)

metsar = Limit

mashiach = Anointed

[Charles Wilson]

Giuseppe --

Here's where making fun of Giuseppe kinda' comes to an end - for awhile anyway.
Your example verse from Revelation is PERFECT to illustrate the differences between various Camps in regards to the NT and what it says.

Revelation 11: 8 - 12 (RSV):

[8] and their dead bodies will lie in the street of the great city which is allegorically called Sodom and Egypt, where their Lord was crucified.
[9] For three days and a half men from the peoples and tribes and tongues and nations gaze at their dead bodies and refuse to let them be placed in a tomb,
[10] and those who dwell on the earth will rejoice over them and make merry and exchange presents, because these two prophets had been a torment to those who dwell on the earth.
[11] But after the three and a half days a breath of life from God entered them, and they stood up on their feet, and great fear fell on those who saw them.
[12] Then they heard a loud voice from heaven saying to them, "Come up hither!" And in the sight of their foes they went up to heaven in a cloud.

What is this all about?

Josephus, Antiquities..., 14, 7, 4:

But some time afterward Cesar [sic], when he had taken Rome, and after Pompey and the senate were fled beyond the Ionian Sea, freed Aristobulus from his bonds, and resolved to send him into Syria, and delivered two legions to him, that he might set matters right, as being a potent man in that country. But Aristobulus had no enjoyment of what he hoped for from the power that was given him by Cesar; for those of Pompey's party prevented it, and destroyed him by poison; and those of Caesar's party buried him. His dead body also lay, for a good while, embalmed in honey, till Antony afterward sent it to Judea, and caused him to be buried in the royal sepulcher...

How far do you want to go with this, Giuseppe?

This is where Logical Positivism picks up the trash and throws it out. There is no way to discern differences in the Metaphysics that you examine. The most that can be stated is "He/She/They stated in Document X/Y/Z and it appears that X/Y/Z supports these Positions. AS a Statement of Historical necessity, it may be interesting: "Titus sacrificed 300 cattle on the grounds of the Temple". Therefore, what? That Animal Sacrifice was not "Done away with..." immediately after Jerusalem fell? Well, that's an interesting fact.

As a matter of fact, there is an area of agreement between us here:

John 1: 1 - 5 (RSV):

[1] In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
[2] He was in the beginning with God;
[3] all things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made.
[4] In him was life, and the life was the light of men.
[5] The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

As soon as this was promulgated as the "Word of God" the New Testament changed. Where did this happen? Not in Outer Space. Probably Rome. There were no doubt people who, when faced with this, looked to the skies:

Acts 1: 9 - 11 (RSV)

[9] And when he had said this, as they were looking on, he was lifted up, and a cloud took him out of their sight.
[10] And while they were gazing into heaven as he went, behold, two men stood by them in white robes,
[11] and said, "Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into heaven? This Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven."

Again, does this tell you that a "Jesus" took the Holy Elevator up to Heaven? No.

The Historicist will look for an ARGUABLE - Non-Metaphysical - meaning.

There is a Consistent Explanation for the Revelation verses. It has to do with honey.

Revelation 10: 9 - 10 (RSV):

[9] So I went to the angel and told him to give me the little scroll; and he said to me, "Take it and eat; it will be bitter to your stomach, but sweet as honey in your mouth."
[10] And I took the little scroll from the hand of the angel and ate it; it was sweet as honey in my mouth, but when I had eaten it my stomach was made bitter.

How far do you want to go with it?

CW

[Charles Wilson]

Another note concerning the Revelation Passages:

Revelation 11: 11 - 12 (RSV):

[11] But after the three and a half days a breath of life from God entered them, and they stood up on their feet, and great fear fell on those who saw them.
[12] Then they heard a loud voice from heaven saying to them, "Come up hither!" And in the sight of their foes they went up to heaven in a cloud.

Compare with the Lesson of Hosea 6: 1 - 2 (RSV):

[1] "Come, let us return to the LORD; for he has torn, that he may heal us;
he has stricken, and he will bind us up.
[2] After two days he will revive us;
on the third day he will raise us up,
that we may live before him.

This is consistent with a certain strand of Judaic Thought that tells us that whatever the status of raising the dead, there is a limit - four days. "Jesus" raised Lazarus - Symbolically! - and appears to have accomplished something that even "the Father" could not do. "Jesus" raised Lazarus, perceived as a person, and did so on the fourth day. Yet, "...a breath of life from God entered them..." and they - Aristobulus 2 and his son - stood up on their feet.

Huh!?!!

The meaning should be that only the living may make it into Heaven. No celestial crucifixions allowed. No dead people ruining the lawn party in Heaven. There is great mischief here, however, in the transition from Judaism to Christianity.

The point of this is that there appears to be an Original Strain of a Story - a Judaic Story - that has been Transvalued into a Christian story. Revelation has been rewritten from the Aramaic/Hebrew into the Christian (Roman) story.

CW

[Joseph D. L.]

Revelation 11 is a historical witness of the Kitos revolt. There's nothing allegorical about it. Lukuas is the Lord crucified, Julian Alexander and Pappos are his witnesses who are killed by the first Beast, Trajan.

Not everything in Christianity involving crosses is reducible to Horos-Stauros or Plato's celestial chi.

[Charles Wilson]

JDL --

Tell me, plz, more of your Thesis that Revelation 11 is Kitos. You could even open a new Thread if you like.
Would you classify early Acts as a part of this?

I have this as going back to Pompey and being battered by Mithridiates the Poisoner after the "Honey Debacle" where Mithridates leaves poisoned honey (Rhdodendron honey) for Pompey's troops to eat. It gets complicated but it is possible to see Aristobulus 2 being poisoned by this type of honey. Key Idea: Honey is a preservative and Aristobulus is poisoned and then preserved by honey. His son is beheaded by Scipio but the Revelation Passages match up quite nicely with the Stories of Jannaeus, Salome, Aristobulus 2 and his son, with the rest of the Hasmoneans through their battles with Rome and Herod.

It's fascinating and I would interested in examining what you see.

Thanx,

CW

[Ben C. Smith]

I have this as going back to Pompey and being battered by Mithridiates the Poisoner after the "Honey Debacle" where Mithridates leaves poisoned honey (Rhdodendron honey) for Pompey's troops to eat.

Have you read Adrienne Mayor's biographical treatment of Mithradates? He was all about the poison, the trickery, and the intrigue.

[Charles Wilson]

1. Apologies to Giuseppe. I've hijacked your Thread a bit. I'm going to try and start a New Thread tomorrow and separate some of this out.
I'm a slight insomniac tonight. It's almost 6 AM. I got up about an hour ago, my eyes open wide. So, here I am and glad to be here.

2. BEN!!! Thank you.

I have this as going back to Pompey and being battered by Mithridiates the Poisoner after the "Honey Debacle" where Mithridates leaves poisoned honey (Rhdodendron honey) for Pompey's troops to eat.

Have you read Adrienne Mayor's biographical treatment of Mithradates? He was all about the poison, the trickery, and the intrigue.

We can imagine him overseeing the preparation of extravagant dinners, the most luscious fruits, the most expensive wines, - and for dessert, her [Queen Laodice] favorite honey cakes

Now look at Revelation 10: 1, 8 - 10 (RSV):

[1] Then I saw another mighty angel coming down from heaven, wrapped in a cloud, with a rainbow over his head, and his face was like the sun, and his legs like pillars of fire.
***
[8] Then the voice which I had heard from heaven spoke to me again, saying, "Go, take the scroll which is open in the hand of the angel who is standing on the sea and on the land."
[9] So I went to the angel and told him to give me the little scroll; and he said to me, "Take it and eat; it will be bitter to your stomach, but sweet as honey in your mouth."
[10] And I took the little scroll from the hand of the angel and ate it; it was sweet as honey in my mouth, but when I had eaten it my stomach was made bitter.

Lookit: As I've stated before, application of Symbolic Meaning is an acquired taste. Here, however, the alignment is quite good. Our expositor tells us that it was a "little scroll" that tasted sweet as honey but was bitter on the stomach. To paraphrase Adrienne Mayor, "We can imagine..." that Aristobulus was poisoned by Rhododendron Honey Cakes or a variation - perhaps a pastry like our cinnamon roll. You don't have to fear your cinnamon roll today but back then I'm not so sure. This is not Stone Cold Proof but it is VERY suggestive. Pompey learns the lesson well at the hands of Mithridates. He has been chased away from Rome but he will have a measure of revenge.

The Mapping in Revelation is quite exquisite. If it is Kitos, then from around the "Half hour of silence in Heaven..." on cannot be the Death of Jannaeus to Queen Salome and onwards. Joseph D. L., let's have it.

I'll start another Thread on this and maybe PK can strip this out from Giuseppe's Thread and we can Hash it out.

Hold the honey.

CW

[Joseph D. L.]

JDL --

Tell me, plz, more of your Thesis that Revelation 11 is Kitos. You could even open a new Thread if you like.
Would you classify early Acts as a part of this?

The first thread I made on the forum was about this theory:

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3624&p=77953#p77953

There's a couple of small details that I've had a change of mind on (this was over two years ago) but the overall thesis I think is sound.

As for Acts of the Apostles having some witness to Kitos I think it's doubtful. Although Lucius of Cyrene is a little too conspicuous.

[Joseph D. L.]

Anyway, this means that for the author of ch. 11 Lukuas was the crucified messiah, which was later turned into Simon of Cyrene and his two sons, and Jesus and the brothers Zebedee.