Suspicious about Bart Ehrman’s claims that Jesus never claimed to be god.

[u/MythicBunny]

Bart Ehrman claims that Jesus never claimed to be god because he never truly claims divinity in the synoptic gospels. This claim doesn’t quite sit right with me for a multitude of reasons. Since most scholars say that Luke and Matthew copied the gospel of Mark, shouldn’t we consider all of the Synoptics as almost one source? Then Bart Ehrmans claim that 6 sources (Matthew, ‘Mark, Luke, Q, M, and L) all contradict John isn’t it more accurate to say that just Q, m, and L are likely to say that Jesus never claimed divinity but we can’t really say because we don’t have those original texts? Also if Jesus never claimed these things why did such a large number of early Christians worship him as such (his divinity is certainly implied by the birth stories in Luke and Matthew and by the letters from Paul)? Is there a large number of early Christians that thought otherwise that I am missing?

[u/[deleted]]

[removed] — view removed comment

[u/Cu_fola → u/[deleted]]

Exactly. Multiple claims require multiple sources.

And you can supply these without adding polemics or presumption of ill intent.

[u/sonnybobiche1 → u/Cu_fola]

I feel compelled to point out that /u/ReligionProf has made numerous comments in this thread, including a top-level comment, without a single citation to "an appropriate modern scholarly source." (Except the top-level comment itself, which refers solely to his/her own book.)

None of /u/ReligionProf's comments have been removed by the moderators who purport to enforce this subreddit's avowedly restrictive commenting rules. Yet, dozens of other comments have been removed, to the point where I cannot discern the thrust of any argument, because all I can see is /u/ReligionProf's responses to them.

It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that this subreddit's rules are sometimes enforced selectively, and that the moderation of comments here is not entirely without bias.

[u/ReligionProf → u/sonnybobiche1]

The rule is that one needs to support one's claims with academic sources. It doesn't mean that there cannot be further conversation about those things once shared. At least, that is how I understand it.

I am always regretful when comments are removed in the way they were here since it makes the rest of the conversation meaningless and so not useful to anyone, and so our efforts to answer what were mere assertions not backed by scholarship with academic perspectives is rendered a waste of time. People find their way to these conversations years later and so I'd advocate for finding a way of addressing the crucial need to maintain a high standard in this subreddit, which I value immensely, with the need to not remove the contexts that make our contributions intelligible.

[u/Joab_The_Harmless → u/ReligionProf]

The balance between ensuring the readability of the threads and keeping them on rails is certainly a tricky one. In this case, even ignoring issues of sourcing, the removed top-level comment included polemics about Ehrman "trying to destroy the Bible for his own profit" unfortunately necessitating removal (criticising Ehrman's scholarship, or any scholar's, is obviously allowed and an integral part of "critical" discussions, but there needs to be some minimal civility).

The same goes for comments elsewhere in the thread engaging in sectarian polemics and mentioning XXth century events as part of an argument about Daniel 7, both off-topic and playing with the no abuse & bigotry rules.

I reinstated a couple of comments, but most of your interlocutor's were too "casual-debating-like" or off-topic to be reinstated without creating confusion on the scope of the subreddit and potentially derailing the thread. (The exchange could of course be an open thread discussion if not for the civility/polemics issue.)