"Nobody suspects the Spanish Inquisition!" and apparently neither does this wikipedia page that omits it from the timeline. In 1478, 300 years after these more noted inqusitions, the Spanish had thier turn. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition

Murdered Michael Servetus (1553) by burning him at the stake for his unitarian theology

Absent from this history is the emergence of Unitarian Christian theology which formally developed into the first Unitarian Church in Transylvania under King John Sigismund in 1568 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_II_Sigismund_Z%C3%A1polya

This is a little creative interpretation. Abraham's understanding of God's ability to raise the dead is not mentioned in this part Genesis. I'm pretty sure it's not in genesis at all. I think the fact that he didn't know the potential outcomes and was still ready to sacrifice his son, who had already been fortold to be the seed that woudl birth many nations - is a better testament to Abraham's faith.

Shout out to the ladies! Woot! Rahab has been my favorite woman-identified character of the Bible since my Hebrew Bible class.

This fits the theology presented in Luke and the Synoptics and supports a Luke-Acts common writer. (If I'm remembering correctly) Jesus starts off human, remains human through the crucifiction, and then God makes him divine upon the ascension/resurrection.

Reference to Genesis 26:18? (I don't want to stretch but Jacob is a direct descendant of Isaac.) "And Isaac dug again the wells of water that had been dug in the days of Abraham his father, which the Philistines had stopped after the death of Abraham. And he gave them the names that his father had given them." Is this a reference to Judaism and the old ways standing in contrast to Jesus as a path to salvation?

I wonder how this impersonal reference to Mary plays into the Johannine tradition. The emphasis seems to be on the teachings of the adult Jesus. Is his origin less important than his work?

Unique to Luke - baptism is noted as more of a community action rather than the unilateral focus on Jesus in Mattew and Mark.

In Mark, the heavens are "torn apart" but in Matthew and Luke they simply open. Is this a translation issue or is the author of Mark trying to imply something more here? The working is violent and I'm reminded of the second time something will be torn - the curtian in the temple. Any connection?

I think it is interesting here that there still seems to be some residual monaltry in the newly formed monotheism. As the author of Luke presents, the devil clearly has supernatural powers akin to God in his ability to show Jesus "all the kingsoms of the world" and has the power to give them over to Jesus.

Erhman notes the chellenge the apostles had with Jesus' identity. Passages like this certainly could not have helped. Jesus seems to be fortelling of another supernatural being that will come to usher in the new kingdom. Is he speaking of himself in the 3rd person? This aspect of the gospel is very confusing to me.

Here the author of Mark uses "teacher." Later, according to the NRSV translation, in 9:5, the term "rabbi" is used. It is used again in 11:21 and 14:45. Is this a choice made in translation or were two different Greek words used?