Kovacs's view about what the rulers knew

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 5641
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Kovacs's view about what the rulers knew

Post by Ben C. Smith » Thu Jul 12, 2018 11:33 am

perseusomega9 wrote:
Thu Jul 12, 2018 11:15 am
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Thu Jul 12, 2018 7:43 am
It is exhausting trying to understand your arguments. It sounds like you are trying to connect diminished eschatological hopes on the part of the author of the Ascension with the demons' not knowing who Jesus is in the Ascension, yet the connection itself eludes me completely.

Also, lacking a strong sense that the eschaton is nigh has nothing to do with whether a text is apocalyptic or not.
You could try my rule, don't read any Giuseppe posts unless it has over 4 responses, any less than 4 it's 99% likely it's just Giuseppe talking to himself
That is excellent advice. Just killing time on a lazy Thursday until the interesting events of my day really begin here in a couple of hours.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΕΘΕΙΑ

Giuseppe
Posts: 4222
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Vicenza (Italy)

Re: Kovacs's view about what the rulers knew

Post by Giuseppe » Thu Jul 12, 2018 11:35 am

My point is that the FULL visibility of the Son in the eyes of the Archons is projected in the future because of embarrassment for a previous version of the myth.
Last edited by Giuseppe on Thu Jul 12, 2018 11:37 am, edited 1 time in total.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 5641
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Kovacs's view about what the rulers knew

Post by Ben C. Smith » Thu Jul 12, 2018 11:36 am

Giuseppe wrote:
Thu Jul 12, 2018 11:32 am
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Thu Jul 12, 2018 11:28 am
The Son/Beloved is completely visible already in his ascent after death.
but only for the Christians (like Paul) who saw the Risen Christ.
You have lost the thread. I am asking you for the passages in the Ascension which deal with the parousia: you know, the parousia which has been delayed. If the ascent has already happened, then obviously any delay for it is moot, so the ascent is not what I am asking about. I am talking about the visions of future victory and judgment which are so easy to find in the Revelation but which you are dragging your feet to show me in the Ascension.
My point is that the visibility of the Son in the eyes of the Archons is projected in the future because of embarrassment for a previous version of the myth.
Then you are confused about the Ascension. The visibility of the Son/Beloved in the eyes of the demons is already past from the perspective of the author.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΕΘΕΙΑ

Giuseppe
Posts: 4222
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Vicenza (Italy)

Re: Kovacs's view about what the rulers knew

Post by Giuseppe » Thu Jul 12, 2018 11:41 am

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Thu Jul 12, 2018 11:36 am
My point is that the visibility of the Son in the eyes of the Archons is projected in the future because of embarrassment for a previous version of the myth.
Then you are confused about the Ascension. The visibility of the Son/Beloved in the eyes of the demons is already past from the perspective of the author.
no. When the author is writing the risen Son is only appeared to first Christians but he has still to ascend and reveal himself to the Archons.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 5641
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Kovacs's view about what the rulers knew

Post by Ben C. Smith » Thu Jul 12, 2018 11:49 am

Giuseppe wrote:
Thu Jul 12, 2018 11:41 am
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Thu Jul 12, 2018 11:36 am
My point is that the visibility of the Son in the eyes of the Archons is projected in the future because of embarrassment for a previous version of the myth.
Then you are confused about the Ascension. The visibility of the Son/Beloved in the eyes of the demons is already past from the perspective of the author.
no. When the author is writing the risen Son is only appeared to first Christians but he has still to ascend and reveal himself to the Archons.
Wow. You are so wrong there is no coming back from it. You disagree even with Carrier on this.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΕΘΕΙΑ

Giuseppe
Posts: 4222
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Vicenza (Italy)

Re: Kovacs's view about what the rulers knew

Post by Giuseppe » Thu Jul 12, 2018 11:54 am

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Thu Jul 12, 2018 11:49 am
Wow. You are so wrong there is no coming back from it. You disagree even with Carrier on this.
I can't believe that the Archons were already became Christians - having already seen and recognized the Risen Christ - according to the author of AoI (that is, in 90 CE) when the entire gentile world was still not Christian.

And of grace, where does Carrier disagree with me here?
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 5641
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Kovacs's view about what the rulers knew

Post by Ben C. Smith » Thu Jul 12, 2018 12:11 pm

Giuseppe wrote:
Thu Jul 12, 2018 11:54 am
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Thu Jul 12, 2018 11:49 am
Wow. You are so wrong there is no coming back from it. You disagree even with Carrier on this.
I can't believe that the Archons were already became Christians - having already seen and recognized the Risen Christ - according to the author of AoI (that is, in 90 CE) when the entire gentile world was still not Christian.
It is nonsense to assume that recognizing Jesus as the Son/Beloved makes one a Christians. "Even the demons believe... and tremble."

Where do you think the author imagines Jesus to be while he is writing? If he has not yet ascended, is he still in Sheol?
And of grace, where does Carrier disagree with me here?
Carrier puts the ascent in the past, just like literally everybody else who has ever read the text except you:

Richard Carrier, On the Historicity of Jesus, pages 43-44: Not only are we missing the original story (of Satan and his angels killing him, as we're told to expect in 9.14), but we also expect to hear an account of 'God's resounding voice' across the heavens, since Isaiah had heard he would see that, too (10.12), likewise an account of 'many of the righteous' ascending with Jesus (9.17; or in the Latin, being sent by Jesus) and Jesus hanging around for over a year (9.16, although this detail seems to have been abbreviated out of the Latin). .... It would appear the redactor who produced this version of the text was trying to erase an account of Satan's reaction, and likewise that of the warring angels of the air and the firmament. He has likewise removed the account of God's celestial voice summoning the stars, and what Jesus did in the year and a half (or whatever period) before he ascended and was recognized (as we were told to expect in 10.12-15).

ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΕΘΕΙΑ

Giuseppe
Posts: 4222
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Vicenza (Italy)

Re: Kovacs's view about what the rulers knew

Post by Giuseppe » Thu Jul 12, 2018 12:23 pm

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Thu Jul 12, 2018 12:11 pm
Where do you think the author imagines Jesus to be while he is writing? If he has not yet ascended, is he still in Sheol?
he is ascended to be seen only by the first Apostles on this earth but at the moment he is still going to the first heaven (the lowest heaven) to be seen there by the Archons of that heaven. So in the mind of the author of 90 CE the Vision is fulfilled in the real "history" only partially.

Carrier puts the ascent in the past, just like literally everybody else who has ever read the text except you:

Richard Carrier, On the Historicity of Jesus, pages 43-44: Not only are we missing the original story (of Satan and his angels killing him, as we're told to expect in 9.14), but we also expect to hear an account of 'God's resounding voice' across the heavens, since Isaiah had heard he would see that, too (10.12), likewise an account of 'many of the righteous' ascending with Jesus (9.17; or in the Latin, being sent by Jesus) and Jesus hanging around for over a year (9.16, although this detail seems to have been abbreviated out of the Latin). .... It would appear the redactor who produced this version of the text was trying to erase an account of Satan's reaction, and likewise that of the warring angels of the air and the firmament. He has likewise removed the account of God's celestial voice summoning the stars, and what Jesus did in the year and a half (or whatever period) before he ascended and was recognized (as we were told to expect in 10.12-15).

I don't see where precisely Carrier says that the Vision is realized fully. Sure, Isaiah had the Vision. Sure, Isaiah saw the fulfillment of the Vision. But the Vision is realized only partially in the eyes of the real author of AoI
since only the first ascension (=the first post-Easter apparition in a historicist model) is happened but the Archons have still to see the entire movie until to the end.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 5641
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Kovacs's view about what the rulers knew

Post by Ben C. Smith » Thu Jul 12, 2018 12:26 pm

Giuseppe wrote:
Thu Jul 12, 2018 12:23 pm
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Thu Jul 12, 2018 12:11 pm
Where do you think the author imagines Jesus to be while he is writing? If he has not yet ascended, is he still in Sheol?
he is ascended to be seen only by the first Apostles on this earth but at the moment he is still going to the first heaven (the lowest heaven) to be seen there by the Archons of that heaven. So in the mind of the author of 90 CE the Vision is fulfilled in the real "history" only partially.

Carrier puts the ascent in the past, just like literally everybody else who has ever read the text except you:

Richard Carrier, On the Historicity of Jesus, pages 43-44: Not only are we missing the original story (of Satan and his angels killing him, as we're told to expect in 9.14), but we also expect to hear an account of 'God's resounding voice' across the heavens, since Isaiah had heard he would see that, too (10.12), likewise an account of 'many of the righteous' ascending with Jesus (9.17; or in the Latin, being sent by Jesus) and Jesus hanging around for over a year (9.16, although this detail seems to have been abbreviated out of the Latin). .... It would appear the redactor who produced this version of the text was trying to erase an account of Satan's reaction, and likewise that of the warring angels of the air and the firmament. He has likewise removed the account of God's celestial voice summoning the stars, and what Jesus did in the year and a half (or whatever period) before he ascended and was recognized (as we were told to expect in 10.12-15).

I don't see where precisely Carrier says that the Vision is realized fully. Sure, Isaiah had the Vision. Sure, Isaiah saw the fulfillment of the Vision. But the Vision is realized only partially in the eyes of the real author of AoI
since only the first ascension (=the first post-Easter apparition in a historicist model) is happened but the Archons have still to see the entire movie until to the end.
:facepalm: Carrier puts the ascension and recognition a year and a half after Jesus' death.

You have contacted Carrier before. I recommend you contact him about this and just ask him.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΕΘΕΙΑ

Giuseppe
Posts: 4222
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Vicenza (Italy)

Re: Kovacs's view about what the rulers knew

Post by Giuseppe » Thu Jul 12, 2018 12:34 pm

How I interpret the AoI:

The prophet Isaiah had a Vision of A, B and C and saw the fulfillment of A, B and C.

Who is revealing now (that is, in 90 CE) the AoI is comforting the readers that A is happened and therefore B and C probably will happen.

While Ben and Carrier are saying that:

The prophet Isaiah had a Vision of A, B and C and saw the fulfillment of A, B and C.

Who is revealing now (that is, in 90 CE) the AoI is comforting the readers that A, B and C are already happened. So the Archons are confessing already their sins before God while the Romans rule still the world.

Really?
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Post Reply