This is interesting because he's asking a timeless question, but then he's very much putting it into the modern context of a recent encounter with a martyr.

Is this a premonition of Jesus admonishing those who were making money in the Temple later? This may be a stretch.

Is this Josephus kissing up to the Jews, stating that their Bible is the ultimate word?

I don't know if this is necessarily about the origin of the Christian tradition (and I don't know a lot about Christianity), but it seems that much of the struggle of the time was understanding who had the power and who justified it was because God (or Gods) were on their side.

I have to admit that i don't understand what this means? But is it foretelling of the resurrection? Women "receiving" the resurrected--is that like the women discovering Jesus?

This feels like it comes out of left field--the idea that God might be ashamed to be called their God. That's an extreme idea that is just thrown out there.

This seems so matter of fact. Paul tells them about the resurrection--and then they join him. It doesn't really say why that is important (although I know it is covered in plenty of other areas), but it feels so dry when this element is so critical.

I'm assuming that this one ancestor is of the Jewish line. Abraham?

Can we quote this one line out of context (as seems to be the rage) and share it with those in our government right now?

I think that it is interesting that it says above that Jews and Samaritans don't share information. But then this woman is a voice proclaiming that Jesus is a prophet. Somehow, she was indeed heard and her story spread.

I love that the servants know. There seem to be a lot of secrets in the NT. Some people know and others are absolutely clueless.

It seems that this location is important. Why the pinnacle? Is this a way to say that even the Devil sees fit to put him on an exalted place?

Is this an instance of where it is referenced from Mark? Or from Q? Now that I see this, it is just fascinating to me.

This seems like a very easy and convenient resolution. Just say "away with you!" and it is done? And then you get waited upon by angels? That sounds a little too easy.

Is this one of the places where it is referring to what is written in the Hebrew Bible? If so, this would be a good case of the author saying, "See? This is what they were saying."

This also feels like Paul, foretelling of the end. I want to go back and tell them, "watch out because these things may not happen right away and you'll need to backtrack on your story."

This is an interesting passage to me as someone who's Christology is very low--how do we know that Jesus isn't a false messiah? It seems a little odd to say--there are lots of people who will say they are....but I am saying that Jesus is the Messiah...and I'm right!

I thought that either Eric or Ehrman said that the "holy spirit" wasn't a concept yet in the development of Christianity. Is this something that was edited later?

It seems that a big component of the Greco-Roman story telling of the Gospels is the "foretelling"--the telling that something amazing is going to happen. Then--POOF!--amazing--that thing happens!

If this was mostly an oral tradition, it is amazing to me that this amount of detail and the same order was retained. This seems like a minor detail, given the rest of the story.

This is a way of showing the Jews that this was foretold in the Hebrew scripture. It is a connection from the old to the new--so as to make it more acceptable.

I note that in both this passage and the Collossians passage, marriage, child-rearing and slave treatment are all handled in the same paragraphs as if they are all related.

In the Hebrew Bible, we learned that many of the words were edited by the rulers as a way to get the people to do what they wanted of them. I wonder if some of the Pseudo-Paul epistles are similar--someone who is using Paul's words to reinforce the world order they are seeking to achieve. In this passage, it seems the goal is for an obedient heirarchy, with the arm of religion as its reinforcer.

And right there, my good people, is a main source of the subjugation of women for decades.

I wonder what his motivation to slander Israel is here? Is it to show the Roman Christians that he is "on their side"?

I can't read this without saying "oh hell no!" in my head.

Ok, ok, I get it! You're a big deal! I heard you! :)

This totally feels like he's saying "I'm absolutely as good as those apostles. I'm sure I've made that clear to you." Sounds like an inferiority complex to me.

The summary of my point above--that he thinks that the end is near and that what exists now is going to pass soon. I would interpret much of the New Testament differently, knowing that Paul thought that this was the case.

I wonder if this is tied to his thinking that the end is coming soon? It would make sense that he would say don't change anything about their station in life since the end is imminent.

This actually seems to be less of a statement of faith and more of a statement of "see?! I was right! They were trying to slander me before but I was correct--and worthy of glorifying God for my work."

Here's that famous line. I can so see how this could be seen as the key line to convince others that there was a "conversion"--especially when it is paired with him "violently persecuting the church." But the different context is very eye-opening.