EarlDoherty

But Don, surely you can see that this doesn't work. If the "firmament" is merely a border, a "line" between the air and the supra-lunary heavens, how can anything go on "in" it? How can it be "entered"?

Ascension of Isaiah 7:9 - "And we went up into the firmament...for the likeness of what is in the firmament is here on earth."

Even likenesses are three-dimensional. The firmament must be three-dimensional for anything to go on in it. Ascension 11:2 says:

"And I saw him, and he was in the firmament, but was not transformed into their form. And all the angels of the firmament..."

The firmament is a space, a region. Even taking the text as it stands, Jesus (actually, the name "Jesus" does not appear once in the chapter 11 interpolation, and the only antecedent within striking distance is "the Lord, the Son")

"sent out the twelve disciples and ascended. And I saw him, and he was in the firmament..."

which clearly, for this writer, is a region, not a border or a line between one sphere and another. He ascended from the earth and went into the firmament. It's as clear as day, Don. If Ocellus would differ, it only shows that there was no firm, consistent understanding, which has been my point all along.

But that is precisely what the Ascension of Isaiah constitutes. If the writer presents the firmament as a region of space above the earth and distinct from it, in which demons operate in spirit form, doing things in spirit form, then this is indeed evidence that it represents "some other reality that is near or overlaps our own." Once that is established, then we must accept that when this document represents the Son as descending into the sublunary realm, concealing his identity ("from the heavens") and is hung on a tree by Satan and his demons who don't know who he is, then it's pretty clear that the author is presenting this crucifixion as taking place in a spirit reality, part of the firmament that is distinct from the surface of the earth.

And I don't think it was ever said that the demons possessed human "flesh". Rather, they possessed "corporeal forms" that resembled flesh. They possessed "heavenly versions of earthly bodies." (TDNT, VII, p. 128: The angels "have flesh or at least appear to have it" though it is a different "corporeality" between humans and angels.)

Ted Hoffman

GDon, thanks for your answers. Would you agree, that for the seven heavens to exist as distinct heavens, there must be borders that separate them into distinct layers or spheres?

GakuseiDon

Earl, the dome of the firmament was regarded as a structure that held back the waters above. I don't think there is any doubt about that. Some people thought it was a crystalline structure, others that it was metal, still others that it was Zeus himself.

But "firmament" was also used to mean the sky. According to Theophilus:

And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament. And God called the firmament Heaven... fowl flying over the earth in the firmament of heaven... In the very beginning, therefore, of the history and genesis of the world, the holy Scripture spoke not concerning this firmament [which we see], but concerning another heaven, which is to us invisible, after which this heaven which we see has been called "firmament"

Theophilus is distinguishing between the heaven we can see, which is the firmament above us, and the heaven we can't see, which is the domain of God. Note that he says, quoting Gen, that "birds fly over the earth in the firmament of heaven".

Yes, it was a space. It was the air, the area between the earth and the dome of the firmament.

"In the firmament" means "in the sky". Certainly birds weren't flying in a spirit world.
If by "the region of space above the earth" you mean the air, then fair enough. You'll then need to show that there was trees in the air, which I don't think there is evidence for.

If you mean that it represents "some other reality that is near or overlaps our own", then I disagree. That is a modern concept that you are imposing on the text.

Interesting. Is it referring to angels who appeared on earth (e.g. to Lot), or angels above the firmament? And what does it say about the makeup of demons?

EarlDoherty

No, Don, if you would open your mind a little instead of trying to fight a rearguard action at every step of the way, you would see that this still doesn't work. Consider:

Ascension of Isaiah 7:9 - "And we went up into the firmament...for the likeness of what is in the firmament is here on earth."

Does it make any sense to say:

"And we went up into the sky...for the likeness of what is in the sky is here on earth."?

Obviously not. The whole point of counterpart correspondences between material and spiritual is that they exist in two different dimensions. That's basic to Platonic thinking, going right back to Plato. This is the principle being stated here. It is absolutely necessary, therefore, that as far as this writer and this statement and this document is concerned, the firmament and the earth are two different regions, possessing two distinctive natures.

Yes, and still others thought....

So you agree that there was no universal standardization of what all these regions and structures of heaven constituted. You go on to quote Theophilus, saying that the firmament "was also used to mean the sky," but this simply shows that there were different concepts and different usages of terms and ideas; and Theophilus quotes Genesis, whose ideas were far different and less developed than those of Middle Platonism. All of which fits into what I have been saying. Theophilus might well have disagreed with the writer of the Ascension over the strict application of those ideas. And the fact that Theophilus did not have a religion involving the descent and sacrifice of a god in lower celestial regions could very well explain why he had no interest in presenting the cosmological imaginings of the writer of the Ascension or of Paul.

And here I am pretty well going to wash my hands of this whole debate, because we are simply going around in circles. I have not managed to make a dent in your obsession with literalism, no matter how often I point out that ancient savior-god mythology did not require that everyone believed literal knives, nails, trees, bulls, caves, Davids, birth canals as we know them on earth existed in some heavenly spiritual realm. I haven't been able to get you to see that, regardless of how they might or might not understand it, scripture told apostles like Paul, as it told the writer of the Ascension, that certain things relating to God, his Son, and salvation, went on in spiritual dimensions. I haven't been able to get across to you the philosophical idea practically universal in the ancient world that things on earth had "genuine" correspondences in heaven to which the former were "copies", regardless of whether our modern scientific minds can find any sense in it. Did the "heavenly Jerusalem" not contain trees, or walls, or cobblestones? Or perhaps people who believed in such a place in the heavens simply didn't think things through with your 21st century, scientific, literal mind. The point is, they still believed in it.

And the point is, until you abandon your apologetic mindset, you will never understand things either, and the western world will continue its monumental misconception of how Christianity began and what its mythical Christ Jesus was all about.

GakuseiDon

Earl, every resource that I have read has the firmament as "the sky". "Firmament", "the sky", "the [visible] heavens", are all synonyms. You seem to dismiss Theophilus (just as you dismiss Ocellus), but "birds flying in the firmament" can be found in Tertullian and Origen. There is no question that "firmament" was meant to mean the sky above. You are going against the evidence by trying to suggest that it meant a region in a separate sphere.

So, let's look at that sentence again, giving the context:

7:9. And we ascended to the firmament, I and he, and there I saw Sammael and his hosts, and there was great fighting therein and the angels of Satan were envying one another.
10. And as above so on the earth also; for the likeness of that which is in the firmament is here on the earth.
11. And I said unto the angel (who was with me): "(What is this war and) what is this envying?"
12. And he said unto me: "So has it been since this world was made until now, and this war (will continue) till He, whom thou shalt see will come and destroy him."

The "likeness in the sky" is fighting and envying. Is that the same as what was on the earth? Yes, sure. It may even by the complement to Chapter 3:

28. On account of the spirit of error and fornication and of vainglory, and of covetousness, which shall be in those, who will be called servants of that One and in those who will receive that One.
29. And there will be great hatred in the shepherds and elders towards each other.
30. For there will be great jealousy in the last days;

Demons envy in the sky; people envy on earth. I have no problems with that.

If that is the principle you are using, then you are wrong. Platonism related to idealised forms. Demons are NOT idealised forms by any stretch of the imagination. The reason for placing them in the sub-lunar realm with humans was because they were 'earthly' and 'weighed down and immersed in vices', as Minucius Felix put it.

Demons and humans shared ONE dimension - the sub-lunar realm. You are simply wrong to assert otherwise. There is no 'other reality that is near or overlaps our own' below the firmament. None.

They are two locales, but both are part of the same realm - the sub-lunar realm. They are subject to change and degradation.

Yep. The Romans and Jews/Christians varied in what they thought existed ABOVE the firmament. They were more in sync about what lay beneath the firmament AFAICS. The main difference is that the Romans believed that there were both good and bad spirits ("daimons") in the air, while Jews/Christians generally considered them to be bad ("demons").

No, Earl. The firmament is the sky. The dome of the firmament is the hard structure that separates the earth from heaven. That "firmament" can be used to indicate both doesn't mean that there were different concepts.

Earl, I deliberately quoted Theophilus because he was writing around the time the final redactor of the AofI was writing. This is Theophilus's understanding. Shall I repeat what he says about the firmament?:

fowl flying over the earth in the firmament of heaven... this heaven which we see has been called "firmament"

Maybe Theophilus was being too literal as well? Anyway, his use of "firmament" is consistent with EVERY source that I have read.

I'm just going where the evidence leads, Earl. Since your analysis is based on a flawed concept - that there was a 'other reality that is near or overlaps our own' below the firmament - your conclusions need to be re-thought. The first place to start is what the people of the first few centuries meant by "firmament".

I have no problem with that concept, if the correspondence was between what was ABOVE the firmament to what was BELOW the firmament. It is when you try to make a separate 'parallel dimension' of demons below the firmament that I have problems.

I'm just going where the evidence leads me, Earl. I am concentrating on what is BELOW the firmament. That you keep mixing concepts about what is ABOVE the firmament with what is below indicates to me that your thinking is (frankly) confused on this topic. Things above the firmament are immortal and unchanging. Things below are mortal and subject to change. Demons were not in a "heavenly spiritual realm" that had correspondences to earth. Demons were part of the same realm as humans.
Earl, in this thread I've given quite a few quotes from the writers of that time, which you've dismissed. How can I prove to you that the writers from Paul's time to Theophilus's time believed that the firmament was just the sky? And that demons lived in the air, and not in a separate reality? And that there was no 'other reality that is near or overlaps our own' below the firmament? What kind of statement would convince you?

EarlDoherty

As you have dismissed all analysis of the Ascension itself, along with much of the other mythical thinking of the time. Your 'defense' entirely boils down to semantic manoeuverings. I have long since allowed you, if you wish, to call the sublunar realm a single region, with different areas within it subject to certain distinctive characteristics. You allow that demons could behave in their own way in "correspondence" with certain behaviors on earth, that demons were subject to change and violence, or what-have-you, in their locale within the firmament (by the way, I notice you are now retreating from calling the firmament only a border) as similar things on earth. Good. If "envying" and "struggling" can be going on among the spirit demons, like that on earth, then I guess there's no impediment to "crucifying" going on among them too (oh wait, I forgot, no trees).

Your rejoinder about Plato is again, semantics. I said that the basics of the idea of different dimensions went back to Plato, but what it had become by Middle Platonism was much advanced over the idea of "forms". But, of course, this kind of rejoinder is smokescreen, to avoid dealing with the actual issues.

As usual, the apologetic approach, in its policy of never giving an inch while rolling with whatever punches are thrown your way, will win out, because I'm withdrawing from the field. This is in no way an admission of defeat, and I'll simply borrow a line from your own style of argumentation and declare that "you're wrong," which, of course, accomplishes nothing. If anyone else would like to weigh in on this subject, be my guest. But I have better things to do. And I've run out of aspirin.

GakuseiDon

Earl, I think that we have both stated our positions clearly, but as you say, this debate seems to have reached a natural end and it is time to allow others to weigh in. I really do appreciate your time and patience, perhaps more than I deserved.

I've enjoyed this debate very much, mostly because you debate clearly and fairly. It's been a pleasure to 'cross swords' with you, and I hope we can do so again another time on another topic.

TedM

Don does discuss the AOI and other mythical thinking in the prior posts, so how can you say that?

Don writes: "Demons and humans shared ONE dimension - the sub-lunar realm. You are simply wrong to assert otherwise. There is no 'other reality that is near or overlaps our own' below the firmament. None."


It appears to me that Don may be saying that that if people from earth were to be able to fly up to the firmament in which demons resided, they would be able to SEE the demons. Is THAT why there can't be any trees up there?

Or, maybe Don is saying that demons are invisible, but there still can't be trees up there because they are still residing in a physical place (the air)? If that is your position Don, why can't there be invisible trees there too?


As for the likeness, it looks to me like Don addressed this already when he wrote:

This again seems to get back to the idea of what this fighting and envying is--is it physical fighting or just arguing-fighting? Is it with swords or just with their bodies? Where is the evidence for things found on earth also being found in the firmament, other than something as vague as fighting and envying?


Didn't Don answer this here?:

Don, check your pm--I've forwarded something to you.

ted

GakuseiDon

Yes, that's right. It depends on where you place the firmament and the dwelling places of the demons. If, as I am suggesting, they are literally located above us, then yes, I believe that the implication is that demons could be seen by certain people if those people were able to fly up into the firmament.

I don't think there is any doubt that demons were placed in the air. From Tertullian's Apology: "From dwelling in the air, and their [the demon's] nearness to the stars, and their commerce with the clouds, they have means of knowing the preparatory processes going on in these upper regions, and thus can give promise of the rains which they already feel."

And the demons could be seen by certain people. From Tatian's Address to the Greeks: "But none of the demons possess flesh; their structure is spiritual, like that of fire or air. And only by those whom the Spirit of God dwells in and fortifies are the bodies of the demons easily seen, not at all by others"

I can't rule out that they believed that there were invisible trees. As Earl correctly points out, we shouldn't impose our own ideas of what is rational on early writers. But we have to go with whatever the evidence says. Earl has drawn his conclusions from the evidence, as have I.

krosero

I have posted a reply to issues raised here, at the thread "The Ascension of Isaiah." See http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=144279 for that thread.

I decided to do it that way, because all my comments had to do with the Ascension, which seems to be the recurring piece of evidence in this debate about. My post is just called, "The Firmament."