EarlDoherty

Don, you seem to have completely missed the point of my post. So I will try to spell out the bottom line. You are trying to impose a literal, common-sense (even 'scientific') understanding of the workings of the Platonic universe, and specifically the activities of savior gods like Christ within it, but it doesn't make that kind of sense. And even though it did not, they still believed in it anyway, and I gave you a pretty thorough explanation of why this was so, but it all went by you, apparently. That's the aspect you need to address, not simply restating your personal, modern preference for scientific accuracy.

You also continue to argue a point I virtually conceded. I said that I don't know if the believers and philosophers involved regarded the firmament as a "separate" dimension, if they ever drew up a chart and submitted it to the Library of Congress. There was no standardization, and in any case, it doesn't matter. Things could still go on there, in the air, in spirit form by spirit beings. You seem fixated on whether people standing on earth could see such things, or whether Isaiah in his ascent could still be visible to earthlings using telescopes. But this is all theoretical. Are you going to judge ancient world poppycock by modern rational considerations? If you're claiming that the ancients themselves would have claimed that, yes, it would be possible to see the warring angels and an ascending Isaiah if we had a telescope, I would ask how you would know that? None of our sources are that specific. In any case, what would it prove? Again, your bottom line is that, due to types of considerations we regard as rational, the ancients couldn't have believed such-and-such, and I'm saying that this is simply unfounded. In the 21st century, people still believe in wildly irrational things. (As in your above: "It's where Christ will break through with the hosts when he arrives on clouds in the last days.")

You quote Ocellus:

"Ocellus understood the cosmos as divided in two parts, the supra-lunar and the sub-lunar, the gods existing in the former and daemons and humans in the latter. It is only in the sub-lunar regions, he argued, that generation and decay occurs, for it is in this region that "nonessential" beings undergo alteration according to nature."

And what does this prove? That gods couldn't descend into the firmament and undergo suffering and death there? Hardly. Anyway, that's Ocellus. Were his particular views universal? This is a nicety, or semantic distinction of interpretation which is hardly going to lead any follower of a mystery cult (including Christianity) from deciding that Attis or Osiris or Christ couldn't have undergone death, burial and resurrection in the firmament. We don't even know if the Attis 'passion week' celebrations had Attis dying in the firmament, because no sources are that specific. We don't know if Osiris was 'buried' in the firmament because no sources are that specific. We don't know if Christ died for our sins and was buried in the firmament, because Paul and the others aren't that specific. But because of our understanding of the thought of the time, we can assume these specifics.

But the Ascension of Isaiah chapter 9 is that specific. The descending Son was hung on a tree by the god of that world (Satan). His identity is hidden from those spirits ("concealed from the heavens," the spirits who crucifiy him), not from humans. And the later Julian the Apostate was at least specific in bringing Attis down into the sublunary realm.

As far as swords and armor are concerned, I was being rhetorical, to make a point. Apparently your literalism demands that I supply proof that the angels used swords and armor.

GakuseiDon

Earl, I think we need to takes things step-by-step. You are right, you had more in your earlier post than what I addressed, and it does need to be looked at, but I wanted to focus on one of the points raised in the OP.

The point that I believe Muller is correct on is where he states that there is no "intermediary world between God's heaven and earth, a world ruled by bad demons". Muller seems to believe, as do I, that the sub-lunary realm extended from the earth to the dome of the firmament. In other words, it formed one continuous world.

Now, you seemed to concede the point on the one hand, but then you added: "Don seems to claim that the sublunary realm was essentially continuous with that of the material earth, with no distinction made or possible. One could see it “simply by looking up.� Well, I don’t think the evidence we do have bears that out."

But I say that the evidence DOES bear that out, and I gave examples. The demons lived in the air above. That is, the air that people could see by looking up was inhabited by demons. The dome of the firmament that people could see by looking up was the extent of the realm of Satan.

I also brought up the view of Ocellus, who divided the cosmos into two parts, the supra-lunar and the sub-lunar. Everything below the firmament (the sub-lunar) is subject to change and decay, and included the earth. So that is evidence that it formed one continuous realm.

So, the air isn't its own world. Demons lived in the air because that was their nature, not because they existed in some separate 'spiritual realm'. I know you think I am fixated on this point, but since this seems to be one of the your points of disagreement with Muller, I think that it is worth pursuing. Can we agree that Muller is in fact correct? (If the difference between your position and Muller's is essentially one of semantics, then can we conclude that you are both right on this point?)

TedM

Earl, this post address 3 things:

1. Evidence in Paul for crucifixion in the invisible world within the firmament.
2. Where the crucifixion in the Ascention of Isaiah, Chapter 9, takes place
3. A possible entirely different interpretation of Chapter 10 which, if true, removes any argument for the place of crucifixion based on Chapter 10.


I think we can assume that people MIGHT have believed in such things, but to my knowledge it remains that Paul never clearly says THAT these kinds of things DID happen there, WHY they happened THERE, WHEN they happened THERE, or HOW they happened THERE.. He doesn't say that the Zion he implies the crucifixion occurred in was in the invisible world in the air, that the rulers who didn't understand the wisdom of God's mysteries were there, that a woman who gave birth to him under the law was there, or that he was descended from David there. Paul's silence seems unusual to me, and in the absence of evidence I think DonG is right to question it.




Comments about Chapter 9:

1. I agree that the passage is referring to Satan's "they" as the ones who crucified him, and they did it because they somehow saw and knew that Enoch and the others would receive their thrones and crowns because of him, AND they thought that he was a man who they could defeat through death. It is silent about humans killing him.

2. The passage is silent as to where the crucifixion takes place. It says he was "made in your form, and they will think he is flesh and is a man". Since demons were believed to have acted through humans on earth, and man lived on earth and not in an invisible world in the air, one might most reasonably conclude that the crucifixion took place on earth. However, Doherty points out that things don't always make sense to OUR minds, and since the idea of activities in the firmament (envy and fighting among the demons) having a “likeness� to earth was present (Ch 7), the writer may have been referring to it as something happening in the invisible world in the air.

3. 9:15 says "And thus His descent, as you will see, will be hidden even from the heavens, so that it will not be known who He is." The use of the word EVEN is curious to me. It is not necessary, yet the author used it presumably for some reason. Is it simply emphasizing HOW great/large a secret it is? Or, is it betraying knowledge that those on earth didn't know him by sight?

4. 9:14 says "And the god of that world will stretch forth his hand against the Son". The image of Satan stretching forth his hand makes me wonder where he was stretching it to. Does it imply reaching down from the firmament to earth?


5. Do other close references to “that world� help us understand where these things were happening?:

There are two ascensions. One after 3 days, and then another with the righteous to the higher heavens. What was "that world" he ascended to after 3 days and then remained at? It seems likely to me that it is referring to earth.

The response appears to only reference things done on this earth. Since the question was about EVERYTHING done in 'that world' the response implies to me that the world being referenced is the one the response pertains to: earth.



Doherty makes a good argument that chapter 10, with an assumption of interpolation in 11:1-22, doesn’t reference a descent to earth at all. I agree. However, when reading through something occurred to me: Maybe chapter 10 isn’t repeating the FIRST descent of the Son, which had just been discussed in the previous chapter. It seems to me that it may be a continuation of the vision of Chapter 9, one that describes the end days of judgment. IF that is the case, then it cannot be used as evidence for WHERE the FIRST descent occurred at all. Here are things that seem to favor this interpolation:


1. Chapter 9 ends with ALL the angels and righteous praising God after the ascension of the Son, and Chapter 10 begins with the same kind of praise: It seems to me to flow naturally.





2. The descent in Chapter 10 appears to be directly to Sheol, through the firmament. The emphasis appears to be on a descent straight into Sheol, without events taking place in the firmament first.. Also, the descent appears to not involve an appearance in the form of a mortal, or in flesh at all! Rather he is to have the same appearance as the angels in the firmament and Sheol: Since the emphasis appears to be on a different destination than in Chapter 9 and the likeness is different, perhaps this is a DIFFERENT descent from that in the prior chapter:



3. He isn’t recognized at all by the angels of the firmament in this descent, as opposed to the descent in chapter 9. In chapter 9 he was somehow recognized as being able to help Enoch and others get their crowns and thrones. And, he apparently was recognized in the flesh. Here, the emphasis is on the NEED to NOT be recognizable by the angels in the firmament AND Sheol AT ALL. Verse 10 emphasizes the need to be careful to become like the form of the angels of the firmament. The purpose is so that he wouldn‘t be known. This doesn‘t seem compatible with descending in the flesh in the air in order for Satan’s demons to recognize him so they could crucify him.“



4. The purpose given is so that he may destroy the evil forces as JUDGE. Nothing is said about death or overcoming the power of death at all. Note that Christians thought of the end of the world as a time of Judgment, with Christ as the Judge:



5. This time there seems to be an emphasis on the evil angels beginning at the lowest levels of Sheol (place of the dead) being judged and destroyed followed by their WORSHIP of him. That didn’t happen in the first descent. This also seems more befitting to the end times:



6. Verses 16 through the end of the chapter describe the descent. Note that when he gets to the firmament in 29 he is not recognized at all.





7. The Transformation into flesh takes place in the early part of Chapter 11, which Doherty thinks is an interpolation. If true, we don’t know if he was transformed into flesh and THEN recognized by the angels of the firmament and below or not.



8. Skipping on to verse 23, where Doherty thinks the interpolation ends, we have no indication of a transformation into flesh, a crucifixion, a burial, a resurrection over death, or an ascent with the righteous as having taking place. All we have is the worshipping by “Satans�. This sure didn’t happen in the descent of Chapter 9!. Then he ascends on up, being recognized as “Lord� by ALL creatures, something that Christians think happens at END TIMES:




9. Then we have the benediction, in which the angel refers to “the end of this world�.


All of the above points indicate to me that possibly Chapter 10 isn’t referring to the FIRST descent at all, but is referring the FINAL coming of Christ, to execute judgement and destruction of evil, and from which ALL beings will bow down and acknowledge that he is Lord. If one considers 11:1-22 to be an interpolation, as Doherty and others believe, then this portrayal flows chronologically as a fitting end to the book, while explaining the many differences with the descent in Chapter 9.

If this hypothesis of a FINAL descent is correct, then Chapter 10 is of no value in determining anything with regard to where the crucifixion took place in the first descent.

Comments?

ted

andrewcriddle

I have doubts whether in Middle Platonism a spiritual being in the firmament could suffer violent death in that region. (I emphasise violent because we do find a few writers like Plutarch in 'On the Face in the Moon' referring to a non-violent death very different from death on earth as occurring in the lunar/sublunar regions of the firmament.)
All existing versions of the Ascension of Isaiah explicitly have the Son sojourning on the physical earth. (See chapter 11 in its various versions.) The accounts of this sojourning are so different that one might argue that the Archetype of all existing versions lacked anything explicit like this and the different versions have been independently adjusted towards orthodoxy. However detailed analysis taking into account the Greek Legend to which I previously posted a link and which sometimes agrees with the Ethiopic on this point sometimes with the Latin/Slavonic makes this IMO unlikely.

It is of course possible to postulate a version underlying the Archetype of existing versions in which the Son dies in the firmament but this is rather problematic.

chapter 9 on its own has the Son dying but without it being clear whether this is on Earth or in the Firmament (The fact that it occurs in the realm controlled by the 'Prince of the Air' is compatible with either option)

chapter 10 on its own has the Son descending to the Firmament then Sheol without apparently sojourning on earth but without any reference to the Son dying (Apart from in a subdivision of the Ethiopic manuscript tradition)

chapter 11 has the Son explicitly sojourning on Earth, with the death of the Son on Earth present explicitly in the Ethiopic and Greek Legend but not explicitly in the Latin/Slavonic. IMO the Death of the Son on Earth was explicitly stated in the Archetype of Chapter 11 but we cannot be fully certain.

The only plausible original form of the Ascension of Isaiah in which the Son seems to die in the Firmament not on Earth, seems to be one with both chapters 9 and 10 but not 11. I see no reason to postulate such a stage in the composition of the Ascension.

Andrew Criddle

TedM

Andrew, you may have seen this already, and I may be WAY OFF, but I just posted before yours a hypothesis that chapter 10 is actually referring to Jesus coming at the end times to be judge of all, and worshipped by all--including the lower angels, as opposed to another descent like that in chapter 9. Since you've looked at this more than I, I'm curious as to your thoughts about that..

ted

andrewcriddle

It's an interesting idea.

There are I think two problems.

This is all supposedly happening to Isaiah hundreds of years before Christ.
In chapter 9 he's told what the Son will do and in chapter's 10 and 11 he is given a prophetic vision of something happening in future times with major similarities to what he had been told would happen in chapter 9. This suggests to me that in chapters 10 and 11 'Isaiah' actually sees what he has been told about in chapter 9.

The other point is that IF verses 2-22 in chapter 11 are simply an interpolation then your suggestion might work. However although I don't think the standard (Ethiopic) form of 2-22 is original I don't think that simply deleting it can be original either. There has for example to originally have been a reference to the Son descending to Sheol as commanded in chapter 10.

IMO it is difficult to construct a plausible original for 11 2-22 which doesn't explicitly refer to the Son sojourning on Earth.

For 2-22 the Latoin/Slavonic has 'living with men' is paralleled in the Greek Legend which usually agrees with the Ethiopic and is IMO part of the original text. From parallels in the other versions 'and they did not recognize him was probably followed by something like 'so they killed him and he descended to Sheol.' IF I'm right then chapters 10-11 is talking about the incarnation, not the last judgment.

Andrew Criddle

TedM

Yes, and now I "see" that too. There are several references to the "showing" of what was being explained. That does seem to kill my hypothesis.


It appears that the angels of the firmament don't recognize him because he looks like them when he gets there. Yet, at the point in which he becomes a man they do recognize him:


It seems to me that the above contradicts this from Chapter 11, which seems to imply that they didn't recognize him until AFTER the crucifixion:

Doesn't this last verse impy that while he had been in the firmament he HADN'T been in the flesh?

Doesn't this from Chapter 9 imply that even when he was in the flesh, they didn't know who he was?:

If so, doesn't that mean that the crucifixion WASN'T prompted by the recognization of a man in the flesh who didn't belong in their world--implying that the reason they killed him is because of SOMETHING he did in the flesh on earth--perhaps his perfection?

curious, gotta go,

ted

TedM

I"m going to try and build on the above post of questions.

If one assumes that 11:1-11:22 is an interpolation of some kind, and that nothing in Chapters 9,10, and the remaining of 11 contradict each other, what might one conclude about where Jesus was crucified, based on the following quotes?


No one will know who he is during his descent. That includes the time up until his death.

The implication is that even in the firmament no one knew or even CARED who he was, because he looked just like them, and that therefore they had no MOTIVATION to kill him.


The passage still doesn't state a motivation for killing him. Satan and his "they" don't know who he is, so why should they kill him? Is it because he looked different now--in the flesh yet in their world? I don't think so. There is nothing to indicate that he changed into flesh while in their world. 10:29 above implies the opposite. Satan's "stretched" hand may also imply reaching down to earth.



After the death, and plundering of the angel of death,

In the ascention upward, 11:23 says he didn't change into their form, so they then recognized his glory. Had he been a man in their world, it seems like either here or in 10:28 something would have been said or at least implied that he CHANGED into a man in their world previously, and that is why they killed him. Or a contrast made here in 11:23 between the now- higher form in their world with the then-lower form (flesh) previously. Not only do we have these silences, we have a reference to Satan's "stretched" hand, which might imply a descent to earth as man, and we have the references I mentioned a few posts ago to "that world" which seem to be talking about earth. Also, why would he have descended into their world in their form, with the author pointing out that no one seemed to even notice, if the whole point was to get their attention enough to want to crucify him? It makes more sense that if he was going to be "in the flesh" in their world in order to get crucified he would have just ENTERED it as an apparant man in the first place.

The only thing I see against this theory is the attribution of the crucifixion to Satan and his demons and not humans in 9:14.

ted

TedM

I"m not sure why you say this Andrew. Could you clarify?


I"m curious why "so they killed him and he descended to Sheol" isn't in the Latoin/Slavonic versions now (if it isn't). Do you know?

ted

EarlDoherty

Yes, I do think you are fixated on this point, simply because it doesn’t matter. As for Ocellus, he didn’t determine any official line, or what everyone believed even if such an official line had existed. Nor does Muller. As I said in connection with Ted M and the Minucius Felix thread, this is an attempt to raise “technicalities� as though by allegedly establishing some assumption or other you can rule out something else. I have already shown that in this situation, that is not the case.

In any event, you are sidestepping what I pointed out in my last post. And I’m not going to let you continue to do so. Once again, chapter 7 of the Ascension of Isaiah says this:

“And we went up into the firmament, I and he, and there I saw Sammael and his hosts; and there was a great struggle in it, and the words of Satan, and they were envying one another. And as above, so also on earth, for the likeness of what is in the firmament is here on earth…�

First of all, the language of the first sentence suggests a ‘step’ from one sphere into another, or at least from one locale into another, whether different ‘spheres’ or different and distinctive ‘layers’ within a single sphere, it doesn’t matter. As I say, your appeal to Ocellus’ (or Muller’s) understanding is immaterial.)

The fact that those two spheres or locales are different in some way(s) is inherent in the statement itself. “As above (i.e., the firmament), so also on earth.� If they are simply continuous and the same, the statement becomes a tautology. “As in the bedroom, so in the bedroom� makes no sense. “As in the bedroom, so in the kitchen� does. If you or Muller (or Ocellus) want to see it as two rooms in the same house, fine. But two different things, which can be compared and declared to be counterpart, are taking place in those two different rooms. For the writer of the Ascension he is treating them as if they are separate or distinct, and that is what matters. Thus you cannot rule out the idea that believers could see a god as descending into the bedroom and undergoing some fate there at the hands of those who live in the bedroom, nor can you claim that all the conditions existing in the kitchen, and only those, must apply to the bedroom. It is established that angels/spirits lived in the aer (or higher regions of the aer/firmament, if you wish), while humans lived on the earth (lower or earthbound portion of the aer/firmament, if you wish). And since the former denizens are “spirit�, they can do spirit things which humans slaving below over their hot stoves cannot.

Andrew Criddle expressed his “doubt� that violence could happen in the firmament. I fail to see the basis of this doubt, and he didn’t supply any. If the evil angels can do violence to one another in their ‘struggle’ within the firmament, there is no reason to deny that gods cannot also have violence inflicted upon them.

You need to address the clear implication (like my Three Observations in regard to Felix’s smoking gun, it’s virtually a mathematical equation) of that passage of the Ascension (and it’s supported by other passages, as well), and not continue to play games with what Muller or Ocellus are claiming, which seems to be your way of avoiding the matter.

We also need to take a more detailed look at what the Ascension is saying, from chapter 7 through 11, but that will have to wait until the weekend. As usual in mid-week, I am too tight for time to make longer or more frequent postings.