Price defines 'crazy" the Carrier's sperm bank theory

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Price defines 'crazy" the Carrier's sperm bank theory

Post by Giuseppe »


In this way, Carrier adopts some improbable interpretive choices, some of which, like the cosmic sperm bank hypothesis, are declared “crazy” even by other mythicists like Dr. Robert M Price: see time 54:04 ff of the video here:

https://youtu.be/jjj4ar3-iws

(Source)

I agree with Bob Price here. If mythicists placed in different space and time are going independently to conclude that the Paul's Jesus was crucified on the celestial Stauros/Limit/Horos (the same cosmic cross adored yet by late Valentinians and Manicheans), then there is no more need at all of scruples about the presumed authenticity of naïve passages as "seed of David" (Romans 1:3), "born by woman" (Galatians 4:4) etc.

It is the general tenor of these scriptures that must decide, and as to this there cannot be the slightest doubt in the mind of the unbiassed. This general tenor gives great dogmatic value to the Death of Jesus as a God, but does not recognise at all the Life of Jesus as a Man. The very few exceptions are trivial, and only apparent ; but even if they were not trivial, and not merely apparent, it would still not matter—they could not weigh against the utterly unequivocal general tenor. Many more important isolated statements may have been, and confessedly have actually been, interpolated into the text, no one knows when or how, but the general tenor is unmistakable and determinative. The general tenor cannot have been interpolated or corrupted.

(W. B. Smith, Ecce Deus, p. 23, cursive original)
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Price defines 'crazy" the Carrier's sperm bank theory

Post by MrMacSon »

Giuseppe wrote: Tue Nov 29, 2022 12:38 pm If mythicists ...conclude that the Paul's Jesus was crucified on the celestial Stauros/Limit/Horos...then there is no more need at all of scruples about the presumed authenticity of naïve passages as "seed of David" (Romans 1:3), "born by woman" (Galatians 4:4), etc.
This is unnecessary conflation of several concepts : confabulation

What the "seed of David" was or might have been, and Carrier's portrayal of its origins, is independent of perceptions of Jesus' crucifixion (and to certain extent, or even fully, perceptions of Galatians 4:4: born or made of a woman)

This isn't about presumed authenticity of Romans 1:3

(Giuseppe, you have a significant tendency to mix or to try to mix many concepts or competing views in your posts here. It often doesn't work)
Last edited by MrMacSon on Tue Nov 29, 2022 3:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Price defines 'crazy" the Carrier's sperm bank theory

Post by Secret Alias »

The danger of being a "popular" speaker/personality is that you have to appeal your message to the lowest common denominator. It's done unconsciously. I hope. But even Bill Maher. No one who makes a living off public perception can truly be truthful or truly truth-seeking. Canaille au fond.
schillingklaus
Posts: 645
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2021 11:17 pm

Re: Price defines 'crazy" the Carrier's sperm bank theory

Post by schillingklaus »

All Pauline authenticists are infinitely crazy, as are the Markan prioritists; and Carrier falls for both naive doctrines.
User avatar
Sinouhe
Posts: 495
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 2021 1:12 pm

Re: Price defines 'crazy" the Carrier's sperm bank theory

Post by Sinouhe »

When I began to think that Jesus did not exist, I was at first convinced by the celestial theory but I had trouble with his celestial crucifixion. It didn't really fit with what Paul was writing.
In fact, Paul never really says that Jesus was crucified in heaven, and even by inference, this assumption is uncertain.

And then I studied Jewish messianism of the second temple period in more depth. And now I don't agree anymore with this purely celestial existence.
I now think that Jesus was for Paul a character he (and the apostles) found in the scriptures (Romans 16:25-26).
Like his contemporaries, Paul (and the apostles) had given too much importance to the book of Isaiah which they thought contained prophecies and secrets about the Messiah.

And like the vast majority of Jews of the time, he believed that the Messiah was the servant of Isaiah. The only difference was that for him the servant had already come and would return for the judgment day (exactly like in Isaiah).

So my theory is now to think that for Paul, the servant (that he and the apostles called Jesus), had lived and had been hanged at an unknown time. This is what he says he discovered in the scriptures (Isaiah) isn't it ? (1 Corinthians 15:3-4)

And we can see that all the verses used by the historicists (born of a woman, seed of David) are allusions to this Isaiah's servant who was also described by the prophet as being born of a woman (Isaiah 49:1,5) and from a Davidic lineage (Isaiah 11:1-2).

The fact that Paul compares Jesus to Adam is not insignificant either. For Paul, Jesus is a mysterious but historical figure in the same way as he saw Adam as a mysterious and historical figure whose existence was also revealed to Moses by God (according to the tradition).
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Price defines 'crazy" the Carrier's sperm bank theory

Post by Giuseppe »

The evidence for a celestial crucifixion in Paul is based on two items of equal importance:
  • Various passages in the Pauline epistles (and also in the Catholic -- Irenaeus, Justin, etc -- and anti-demiurgist tradition) where the cross figures clearly as a symbol of cosmic power (the related passages are too much numerous to list them all here, but I assume the reader can easily find them) as opposed to a mere tool of torture;
  • Wells conceded this point to the supporters of a celestial crucifixion in Paul:
    Perhaps Doherty's strongest point is Paul's assertion (1 Cor.2:8) that Jesus was crucified by supernatural forces (the archontes). I take this to mean that they prompted the action of human agents: but I must admit that the text ascribes the deed to the archontes themselves.

    https://infidels.org/library/modern/g_a ... liest.html
The union of those two items are sufficient to make the case that the crucifixion was a celestial event, since, at contrary, an obscure earthly crucifixion by definition can't be conceived as a symbol of cosmic power and can't be conceived as one worked by only demons.
User avatar
Sinouhe
Posts: 495
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 2021 1:12 pm

Re: Price defines 'crazy" the Carrier's sperm bank theory

Post by Sinouhe »

Giuseppe wrote: Wed Nov 30, 2022 5:41 am The evidence for a celestial crucifixion in Paul is based on two items of equal importance:
  • Various passages in the Pauline epistles (and also in the Catholic -- Irenaeus, Justin, etc -- and anti-demiurgist tradition) where the cross figures clearly as a symbol of cosmic power (the related passages are too much numerous to list them all here, but I assume the reader can easily find them) as opposed to a mere tool of torture;
I am not convinced by these verses. And using some church fathers who base their knowledge of Jesus on the gospels is not really relevant imo.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Price defines 'crazy" the Carrier's sperm bank theory

Post by Giuseppe »

Sinouhe wrote: Wed Nov 30, 2022 5:49 am
Giuseppe wrote: Wed Nov 30, 2022 5:41 am The evidence for a celestial crucifixion in Paul is based on two items of equal importance:
  • Various passages in the Pauline epistles (and also in the Catholic -- Irenaeus, Justin, etc -- and anti-demiurgist tradition) where the cross figures clearly as a symbol of cosmic power (the related passages are too much numerous to list them all here, but I assume the reader can easily find them) as opposed to a mere tool of torture;
I am not convinced by these verses. And using the church fathers who base their knowledge of Jesus on the gospels is not really relevant.
when Justin disturbes the celestial cross found in Plato, or when Irenaeus describes the celestial Stauros of the Valentinians, or when Paul talks about the cross as "the power of God and the wisdom of God" (1 Corinthians 1:23-24), they are alluding to the same tradition (a "wisdom") of the cross as a symbol of cosmic power, which hardly placed it on the earth.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Price defines 'crazy" the Carrier's sperm bank theory

Post by Giuseppe »

See it in this way:
  • That Paul talks about the cross as a symbol of cosmic power: FACT
  • that Justin talks about the celestial cross of Plato as a symbol of cosmic power: FACT
  • That the Valentinians adored the celestial cross as a symbol of cosmic power: FACT.
Stantibus sic rebus, could Paul, Justin and Valentinians are talking about three different crosses (Paul about a mere earthly cross, Justin about a celestial cross, the Valentinians about another distinct celestial cross) as opposed to talking about the same identical celestial cross?

My answer: NO.
Paul the Uncertain
Posts: 994
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:25 am
Contact:

Re: Price defines 'crazy" the Carrier's sperm bank theory

Post by Paul the Uncertain »

Sinouhe wrote: Wed Nov 30, 2022 5:20 am When I began to think that Jesus did not exist, I was at first convinced by the celestial theory but I had trouble with his celestial crucifixion. It didn't really fit with what Paul was writing.
In fact, Paul never really says that Jesus was crucified in heaven, and even by inference, this assumption is uncertain.

And then I studied Jewish messianism of the second temple period in more depth. And now I don't agree anymore with this purely celestial existence.
I now think that Jesus was for Paul a character he (and the apostles) found in the scriptures ...
Paul seems to think of the Resurrection, though, as a recent event based on he and his contemporaries having met the risen Christ in visions and some have received teaching commissions, Paul's interpretation of the Resurrection as the beginning of a general resurrection (Jesus being its "first fruits"), Paul expecting to avoid death himself now that the general resurrections has begun, and his apparent walking back his earlier preaching that his converts would also avoid death.

In your current thinking, does Paul view the Resurrection as a recent event, where does the "third day" after Jesus's death fit in, and is Paul inferring the Resurrection (and its timing) from scripture, or just from the visionary meetings, or both?

Anyway, yours is in an interesting alternative viewpoint.
Post Reply