ApostateAbe

My alternative sources would be those three Wikipedia articles, which really is not much better, but at least it is a reason to remain skeptical. I suppose that one of the interests of the GLBTQ community would be in having ancient figures that they could look up to and model themselves after. For example, the last paragraph of the second page of that article is:

For embracing a permanent state of feminine subjugation, the galli were marginalized to the fringes of Roman society. They seem to have converged in a subculture that protected them from the enmity of the majority. In the cult of Cybele, they were able to pursue their minority sexual interests without the ostracism that they experienced in the larger society.

One way or the other, online activist encyclopedias are not reliable sources of information concerning ancient history, and I strongly doubt that Richard Carrier gets his information from such a thing as that.

aa5874

Ehrman must know that It is standard practice that sources be corroborated for credibility. A questionable source cannot be the very source which corroborates itself.

Once the NT is questioned for its credibility then it is most logical that accepted credible sources external of the NT MUST be used.

Ehrman, like a joker, has only accepted plausible events in the NT as credible when he knows that any event in the NT can be fictitious even if plausible.

Ehrman knows that plausibilty is not the test of credibilty but corroboration from accepted credible sources.

Ehrman is a joker.

ApostateAbe

Look, listen. I know why you choose to have your little group Bible studies here in broad daylight. I know why you're afraid to go out at night: the Mytherman. You see, Mytherman has shown Gotham your true colors unfortunately. Dent, he's just the beginning. And, and as for the television's so-called plan? Mytherman has no jurisdiction. He'll find him, and make him squeal. I know the squealers when I see them and...

...It's simple: We, uh, kill the Mytherman.

Steven Carr

I don't think so, although I base my statement on reading the article by Ehrman, while you base your statement on not reading the article by Ehrman.

'For the life of Jesus, we do in fact have a number of independent sources. For example, Mark, the apostle Paul, and the authors of Q,M, L and the signs source probably all wrote independently of one another...'

I'm not sure why I 'must' be mistaken where I state that Ehrman considers M,L, and Q as independent sources. That does seem to be very much the gist and thrust of his statement that they probably all wrote independently of one another.' I could be mistaken here, but why 'must' I be?

Apostate Abe has put me on his ignore list.

Probably because I asked one time too many for a case where these Biblical criteria have been used successfully to establish what a character in a text really did say or do.

From my limited knowledge, the criterion of multiple attestation is the only one used by historians in other fields.

Which possibly explains why Jesus now seems to be multiply attested to by many hypothetical sources, the unknown authors of which are presumed 'probably' to have written independently of one another.

Although Ehrman also sometimes claims multiple attestation, and cites Mark, Matthew and Luke as some of this multiple attestation. Those are not hypothetical documents.

Steven Carr

I though Ehrman had written about a teaching in Mark, and in the next sentence claimed that John reinterpreted such teaching. How then can it be independent in the sense of not using anything found in Mark?

Toto

My question to you still stands: why are you selectively skeptical of sources that you don't like?

Richard Carrier is a bona fide expert in his own right. The Lesbian-Gay-Transgender community contains many good classical scholars.

You, on the other hand, find three wikipedia entries, none of which denies the point at issue.

ApostateAbe

I can answer your question, Toto. If I do, will you please answer mine?

Toto

My question to you and yours to me were both rhetorical. I am pointing out that you are ignoring obvious facts that undermine your position. I really don't know what it will take to get through to you. You keep floating bad arguments, factoids that are not supported, and weird graphics.

avi

Abe was replying to aa5874's comment about Ehrman as a "Joker", by including a photograph of Jack Nicholson in the role of Joker, in the movie Batman....

I wish Abe had, instead, (in response to aa5874) explained why he thinks that Ehrman should be entitled to regard MML as independent sources, since they obviously are not, as Steven Carr has pointed out....

avi

ApostateAbe

My guess was that you were asserting that Richard Carrier's PhD was a reason to trust his claims.

Anyway, to answer your question, "...why are you selectively skeptical of sources that you don't like?" I am skeptical primarily of secondary or tertiary sources that have strong explicit biases in relation to obscure claims of ancient history. I hope that sufficiently answers your question.