A Prayer Of Salvation (2 Viewers)

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

I am more in the Jesus was an apocalypse guy

Can you say more about this? I know Ehrman uses this language, too: Jesus as an apocalyptic preacher. What apocalypse is he preaching and what are the implications/results of this apocalypse?

Jesus, like John the Baptist before him, like Paul after him, like a good chunk of Pharisees around him, and the Essenes, and who knows who else believed that the reason God's people suffered despite now doing the best they could to follow God's commandments was because the forces of evil were running the world. This is why bad things happened to good people and good things happened to bad people. Why there were still occupiers in charge. These ideas all started to form about a few hundred years before Jesus and within about a hundred years before Jesus most of the rural, peasant Jews had coalesced around this general idea. Though the details varied quite a bit. It was within this environment that Jesus was born, raised, and then preached.

What he preached was that those from his time were living in the "end times". That soon, very soon the "Son of Man" would ride in on a cloud and start destroying the cosmic forces aligned against God. That when the dust settled God's kingdom would be established here on earth. In Jesus' version Jesus would be the ruler of this Kingdom of God, and the twelve disciples would be the rulers over the twelve tribes.

The implications of this for Jesus was the "no time to waste" comments where he seems to support the "status quo" as opposed to being some kind of social reformer. That justice and freedom and equality and all of those kinds of ideas/ideals are coming soon enough, but better not waste time on that now. Instead, one should live like it will be in the Kingdom of God. There will peace so be peacemakers. There will be love so love everyone including your enemies. And start to do this kind of stuff now. Etc.

And in this battle against good and evil no one can be neutral. You are either on God's side, Jesus' side or you are on the side of evil. And make no mistake, no one can live a good life siding with evil and escape this cosmic justice by simply dying before it happens. The idea of different afterlives for good versus evil people, the "judgment of the living and the dead" come from here. Before now death sent everyone to the same dreadful place. Now we have heaven and hell, eternal reward and especially eternal punishment and good and evil being defined by which side you are on.

Oh, and another implication of this which plays out is that people jump the gun and stop living productive lives.

Okay, that reads much more authoritative than it should. I'm a hack at this. I don't want to be the expert with the answers, but the guy with all the questions. And this sound the opposite. Sorry.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

@dgreen - back to this

I don't think there was much of a trial.

As opposed to this on page 150.

In the TF, Josephus says that it was the ‘first men’ (πρώτων ἀνδρῶν) who brought an accusation against Jesus. With these words Josephus implies that it was not merely a few of the most senior of the chief priests who took Jesus to trial, but a broader collection of Jewish leaders. In agreement with this are the Gospel accounts which maintain that it was ‘all the chief priests and elders’,74 ‘the scribes’,75 and ‘the whole Sanhedrin’76 and also Herod Antipas the Tetrarch77 who participated in the judicial (or extrajudicial) proceedings against Jesus, and that the great majority voted for death. The Babylonian Talmud also portrays the trial of Jesus as being held before a court, undoubtedly the Sanhedrin.78 The Mishnah (third–fourth centuries ce) further reports that quorum for the Sanhedrin in cases of trying a false prophet was seventy-one members.79 Thus, the outlined scenario from Josephus, the Talmud, the Mishnah, and the Gospels is that there were dozens of ‘first men’ taking part in the proceedings against Jesus during the Passover of 30/ 33 ce, from the High Priest and Herod Antipas the Tetrarch, to chief priests and the junior members of the Sanhedrin and perhaps other high-ranking Jews besides—anyone who might be classed among the ‘first men’.80

I might be convinced that some kind of first century Sanhedrin grand jury convened that condemned Jesus to be arrested and put to death, but from arrest to crucifixion is just a short overnight period, half a day a best, and supposedly he was dragged from residence to residence for various "trials" so this idea that there was this trial before "a court" doesn't really fit with my biblical understanding. And this is before my individual beliefs that Jesus just wasn't all that important to anyone in charge. He was a troublemaker. Troublemakers threatened the cozy life of the temple priest and Roman governing authorities so they were squashed well before they could become somebody, become a threat. All of this handwashing and reluctance to execute and passing the buck and other stuff are just later exaggerations. Are we really to think that a broader collection of Jewish leaders was awakened and gathered in the middle of the night to seriously deliberate the fate of some nobody that is disrupting business? That seems absurd to me. And if Jesus was actually somebody rather than a nobody to them, it becomes even more ridiculous to me that there was such a preceding after the arrest. Before? I might be able to buy into that as I imagine they were mostly all hanging out together for Passover anyway. But still don't see much of a trial or formal proceedings.

"Hey, this guy is turning over tables in the temple. What do we do?"​

"Hand him over to Pilate to make an example of what happens to troublemakers! "​

"Was that even a serious question? Back to partying!"​

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Jesus, like John the Baptist before him

@dgreen
That is unless as learned from the PDF you shared that John the Baptist comes after Jesus in the TF suggesting it is sourced from Jewish sources such as the Gospel of the Ebionites (where this is the order).

 

[dgreen]

@dgreen - back to this

I don't think there was much of a trial.

As opposed to this on page 150.

In the TF, Josephus says that it was the ‘first men’ (πρώτων ἀνδρῶν) who brought an accusation against Jesus. With these words Josephus implies that it was not merely a few of the most senior of the chief priests who took Jesus to trial, but a broader collection of Jewish leaders. In agreement with this are the Gospel accounts which maintain that it was ‘all the chief priests and elders’,74 ‘the scribes’,75 and ‘the whole Sanhedrin’76 and also Herod Antipas the Tetrarch77 who participated in the judicial (or extrajudicial) proceedings against Jesus, and that the great majority voted for death. The Babylonian Talmud also portrays the trial of Jesus as being held before a court, undoubtedly the Sanhedrin.78 The Mishnah (third–fourth centuries ce) further reports that quorum for the Sanhedrin in cases of trying a false prophet was seventy-one members.79 Thus, the outlined scenario from Josephus, the Talmud, the Mishnah, and the Gospels is that there were dozens of ‘first men’ taking part in the proceedings against Jesus during the Passover of 30/ 33 ce, from the High Priest and Herod Antipas the Tetrarch, to chief priests and the junior members of the Sanhedrin and perhaps other high-ranking Jews besides—anyone who might be classed among the ‘first men’.80

I might be convinced that some kind of first century Sanhedrin grand jury convened that condemned Jesus to be arrested and put to death, but from arrest to crucifixion is just a short overnight period, half a day a best, and supposedly he was dragged from residence to residence for various "trials" so this idea that there was this trial before "a court" doesn't really fit with my biblical understanding. And this is before my individual beliefs that Jesus just wasn't all that important to anyone in charge. He was a troublemaker. Troublemakers threatened the cozy life of the temple priest and Roman governing authorities so they were squashed well before they could become somebody, become a threat. All of this handwashing and reluctance to execute and passing the buck and other stuff are just later exaggerations. Are we really to think that a broader collection of Jewish leaders was awakened and gathered in the middle of the night to seriously deliberate the fate of some nobody that is disrupting business? That seems absurd to me. And if Jesus was actually somebody rather than a nobody to them, it becomes even more ridiculous to me that there was such a preceding after the arrest. Before? I might be able to buy into that as I imagine they were mostly all hanging out together for Passover anyway. But still don't see much of a trial or formal proceedings.

"Hey, this guy is turning over tables in the temple. What do we do?"​

"Hand him over to Pilate to make an example of what happens to troublemakers! "​

"Was that even a serious question? Back to partying!"​

Hmm, yeah, I’ve heard it described as an informal Sanhedrin run primarily by a corrupt chief priesthood. That would make sense of all the overnight activity. But, come morning, it does seem like the language includes the full court.

 

[The Longtime Lurker]

I think I understand why people want to exclude "the Bible" when asking about the historic Jesus, but can someone unpack that for me more because something just isn't quite clicking for me. I'm trying to remember back to the link @Captain Cranks posted earlier about the historical method and how that might apply here.

I mean, if the 27 books were never canonized into one "book" many years later, would people say, "Does Jesus appear in any writings other than Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, ! Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Hebrews, James, 1 Peter, 2 Peter, 1 John, 2 John, Jude, and Revelation"? That's 26 different texts from, at minimum, nine different authors (and most likely more). And then there's things like the Epistle of Barnabas, Gospel of Thomas, Clement, the Didache, etc.

While all of these are certainly biased writings, their bias doesn't seem to be that they all want to try to convince people into thinking a person existed who never existed. I think one could argue their bias was to try to convince people that this historical person performed great miracles and rose from the dead, but that agenda would assume the person was historical. The NT seems like strong evidence for the historical Jesus, but people usually want to discard it in this discussion. Again, I think I understand, but I also kind of don't.

I guess for me i look at the Bible as a biased source less interested in historical accuracies than it is in moving forward a religious agenda. In modern times with our art and entertainment we can use a real setting with a fictional story and i imagine that's been a human trait long before the time of the Bible. Also as has been mentioned the first writings on Jesus miracles were 70(?) years after what would have been the time of his death.

Josephus, Tacitus and Pliny the younger were the possible sources outside of the Bible i was aware of, though they seem rather passing in their mentioning without any mention of documented miracles. I suppose i feel non Biblical sources would further legitimize that an actual historical Jesus from the Bible is corroborated, miracles or not.

Now it's going to be pretty hard for me to accept a 2k year old story about the only person ever to die and come back, but for the historical notion of Jesus, who started the Christian faith the more documentation from as many sources as possible the better.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

@dgreen - back to this

I don't think there was much of a trial.

As opposed to this on page 150.

In the TF, Josephus says that it was the ‘first men’ (πρώτων ἀνδρῶν) who brought an accusation against Jesus. With these words Josephus implies that it was not merely a few of the most senior of the chief priests who took Jesus to trial, but a broader collection of Jewish leaders. In agreement with this are the Gospel accounts which maintain that it was ‘all the chief priests and elders’,74 ‘the scribes’,75 and ‘the whole Sanhedrin’76 and also Herod Antipas the Tetrarch77 who participated in the judicial (or extrajudicial) proceedings against Jesus, and that the great majority voted for death. The Babylonian Talmud also portrays the trial of Jesus as being held before a court, undoubtedly the Sanhedrin.78 The Mishnah (third–fourth centuries ce) further reports that quorum for the Sanhedrin in cases of trying a false prophet was seventy-one members.79 Thus, the outlined scenario from Josephus, the Talmud, the Mishnah, and the Gospels is that there were dozens of ‘first men’ taking part in the proceedings against Jesus during the Passover of 30/ 33 ce, from the High Priest and Herod Antipas the Tetrarch, to chief priests and the junior members of the Sanhedrin and perhaps other high-ranking Jews besides—anyone who might be classed among the ‘first men’.80

I might be convinced that some kind of first century Sanhedrin grand jury convened that condemned Jesus to be arrested and put to death, but from arrest to crucifixion is just a short overnight period, half a day a best, and supposedly he was dragged from residence to residence for various "trials" so this idea that there was this trial before "a court" doesn't really fit with my biblical understanding. And this is before my individual beliefs that Jesus just wasn't all that important to anyone in charge. He was a troublemaker. Troublemakers threatened the cozy life of the temple priest and Roman governing authorities so they were squashed well before they could become somebody, become a threat. All of this handwashing and reluctance to execute and passing the buck and other stuff are just later exaggerations. Are we really to think that a broader collection of Jewish leaders was awakened and gathered in the middle of the night to seriously deliberate the fate of some nobody that is disrupting business? That seems absurd to me. And if Jesus was actually somebody rather than a nobody to them, it becomes even more ridiculous to me that there was such a preceding after the arrest. Before? I might be able to buy into that as I imagine they were mostly all hanging out together for Passover anyway. But still don't see much of a trial or formal proceedings.

"Hey, this guy is turning over tables in the temple. What do we do?"​

"Hand him over to Pilate to make an example of what happens to troublemakers! "​

"Was that even a serious question? Back to partying!"​

Hmm, yeah, I’ve heard it described as an informal Sanhedrin run primarily by a corrupt chief priesthood. That would make sense of all the overnight activity. But, come morning, it does seem like the language includes the full court.

I guess I should clarify. Caiaphas may have been hosting a healthy group of scribes and elders at his private residence (which I understand was a complex of buildings) that night, but I still don't see that as a large gathering or formal court. Nor do I see it as everyone that may have been elsewhere was awaken in the middle of the night and assembled. And even if it did, I don't see any deliberations taking place. It all happens way too quickly. And come morning I think Jesus is Pilate's concern. But maybe I'm misreading all the shuffling from place to place.

ETA: And not to lose the context, this is about whether or not Josephus routinely interacted with those were at Jesus' trial that "knew Jesus" enough to be Josephus' primary source almost sixty years later. Even f they are all there, I don't think it was big enough deal for anyone to have remembered much at all. (Then again Josephus doesn't really say that much anyway.)

 

[Captain Cranks]

I think I understand why people want to exclude "the Bible" when asking about the historic Jesus, but can someone unpack that for me more because something just isn't quite clicking for me. I'm trying to remember back to the link @Captain Cranks posted earlier about the historical method and how that might apply here.

I mean, if the 27 books were never canonized into one "book" many years later, would people say, "Does Jesus appear in any writings other than Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, ! Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Hebrews, James, 1 Peter, 2 Peter, 1 John, 2 John, Jude, and Revelation"? That's 26 different texts from, at minimum, nine different authors (and most likely more). And then there's things like the Epistle of Barnabas, Gospel of Thomas, Clement, the Didache, etc.

While all of these are certainly biased writings, their bias doesn't seem to be that they all want to try to convince people into thinking a person existed who never existed. I think one could argue their bias was to try to convince people that this historical person performed great miracles and rose from the dead, but that agenda would assume the person was historical. The NT seems like strong evidence for the historical Jesus, but people usually want to discard it in this discussion. Again, I think I understand, but I also kind of don't.

I think the argument mythicists like Richard Carrier make are that the gospels were not written by those who claim to be eyewitnesses so they could very well be allegorical narratives. Also, they're not independent corroborations because they're iterations of Mark. It would be like finding the Harry Potter series in 4025 CE and suggesting there are seven independent sources that show the existence of Voldemort.

 

[Captain Cranks]

I am more in the Jesus was an apocalypse guy

Can you say more about this? I know Ehrman uses this language, too: Jesus as an apocalyptic preacher. What apocalypse is he preaching and what are the implications/results of this apocalypse?

Jesus, like John the Baptist before him, like Paul after him, like a good chunk of Pharisees around him, and the Essenes, and who knows who else believed that the reason God's people suffered despite now doing the best they could to follow God's commandments was because the forces of evil were running the world. This is why bad things happened to good people and good things happened to bad people. Why there were still occupiers in charge. These ideas all started to form about a few hundred years before Jesus and within about a hundred years before Jesus most of the rural, peasant Jews had coalesced around this general idea. Though the details varied quite a bit. It was within this environment that Jesus was born, raised, and then preached.

What he preached was that those from his time were living in the "end times". That soon, very soon the "Son of Man" would ride in on a cloud and start destroying the cosmic forces aligned against God. That when the dust settled God's kingdom would be established here on earth. In Jesus' version Jesus would be the ruler of this Kingdom of God, and the twelve disciples would be the rulers over the twelve tribes.

The implications of this for Jesus was the "no time to waste" comments where he seems to support the "status quo" as opposed to being some kind of social reformer. That justice and freedom and equality and all of those kinds of ideas/ideals are coming soon enough, but better not waste time on that now. Instead, one should live like it will be in the Kingdom of God. There will peace so be peacemakers. There will be love so love everyone including your enemies. And start to do this kind of stuff now. Etc.

And in this battle against good and evil no one can be neutral. You are either on God's side, Jesus' side or you are on the side of evil. And make no mistake, no one can live a good life siding with evil and escape this cosmic justice by simply dying before it happens. The idea of different afterlives for good versus evil people, the "judgment of the living and the dead" come from here. Before now death sent everyone to the same dreadful place. Now we have heaven and hell, eternal reward and especially eternal punishment and good and evil being defined by which side you are on.

Oh, and another implication of this which plays out is that people jump the gun and stop living productive lives.

Okay, that reads much more authoritative than it should. I'm a hack at this. I don't want to be the expert with the answers, but the guy with all the questions. And this sound the opposite. Sorry.

Good summary. Where do you come down on whether Jesus considered himself the messiah?

 

[Northern Voice]

Brother Love is an all-time underappreciated song.

And wrestler

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Good summary. Where do you come down on whether Jesus considered himself the messiah?

Purely personal speculation. I guess the problem is how did Jesus define "messiah"? I would think being a first century Jew that he considered that he would be the messiah - the anointed one - as opposed to that he was the messiah at first. Maybe somewhere along the line (his baptism maybe) he came to think that he already was. (Ignoring the voices from heaven and such things and sticking with normal things that a historian can realistically consider). Does that make any sense?

As far as being "Son of Man", I'd think already walking around on earth would have made him a bad candidate at first, but again maybe somewhere along the line he came to think that this was him also.

 

[Captain Cranks]

Good summary. Where do you come down on whether Jesus considered himself the messiah?

Purely personal speculation. I guess the problem is how did Jesus define "messiah"? I would think being a first century Jew that he considered that he would be the messiah - the anointed one - as opposed to that he was the messiah at first. Maybe somewhere along the line (his baptism maybe) he came to think that he already was. (Ignoring the voices from heaven and such things and sticking with normal things that a historian can realistically consider). Does that make any sense?

As far as being "Son of Man", I'd think already walking around on earth would have made him a bad candidate at first, but again maybe somewhere along the line he came to think that this was him also.

Doubt this changes your answer, but I'm using messiah in the same way that Jews at the time would have used it which is anointed by God to be the king here on earth.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Good summary. Where do you come down on whether Jesus considered himself the messiah?

Purely personal speculation. I guess the problem is how did Jesus define "messiah"? I would think being a first century Jew that he considered that he would be the messiah - the anointed one - as opposed to that he was the messiah at first. Maybe somewhere along the line (his baptism maybe) he came to think that he already was. (Ignoring the voices from heaven and such things and sticking with normal things that a historian can realistically consider). Does that make any sense?

As far as being "Son of Man", I'd think already walking around on earth would have made him a bad candidate at first, but again maybe somewhere along the line he came to think that this was him also.

Doubt this changes your answer, but I'm using messiah in the same way that Jews at the time would have used it which is anointed by God to be the king here on earth.

I think that is how Jesus likely defined messiah and I think he came to believe that was him over time. If it is at his baptism, then right from the start of his ministry. But I could see it coming after he was on the road for a while and, at least in his mind having success. But when I think this, it is a big stretch to the suffering messiah on the cross. But then there is Luke where Jesus goes to Jerusalem specifically to be crucified because that is what happens to prophets, so is that Luke's idea or Jesus'? Considering how dense Jesus' disciples seem to be, it kind of makes sense that he must have told them some of this for them to connect the dots. That or it was the women that were the brains of the operation. Like I said earlier, I prefer pondering the questions than pretending to know.

Basically, I am pretty confident that there was a historical Jesus that fits the general outline and said a few things, some of which are inconvenient to Orthodox Christianity. Whether he was more than that is one of those great questions. I lean yes for reasons I simply cannot articulate.

 

[Gally]

Pliny the younger

I really like Pliny the Elder. Probably my favorite IPA

 

[Paddington]

A 6:1 ratio is near optimal for large cargo ships and barges — it balances stability, strength, and wave-handling ability.

Cargo ships today often use ratios between 6:1 and 8:1, depending on purpose and hull design.

I think it was pointed out materials (wood) used would not be favorable for that size/length without having steel to reinforce structural members. Your AI response doesn't specify materials used so while this may be ideal today (with materials of today) it wasn't likely the case in Noah's time.

It was a virtually indestructible wood called Gopher Wood. It was sealed with pitch. It was very sea worthy and the epic of Gilgamesh vessel was a cube that would have killed all life inside. This is further evidence that tbey Biblical account is the correct account, given to Moses by God Himself.. There is a full scale replica in Kentucky called "The Ark Encounter ". It is a museum. I have been there along with the Creation Museum.

 

[Zow]

A 6:1 ratio is near optimal for large cargo ships and barges — it balances stability, strength, and wave-handling ability.

Cargo ships today often use ratios between 6:1 and 8:1, depending on purpose and hull design.

I think it was pointed out materials (wood) used would not be favorable for that size/length without having steel to reinforce structural members. Your AI response doesn't specify materials used so while this may be ideal today (with materials of today) it wasn't likely the case in Noah's time.

It was a virtually indestructible wood called Gopher Wood. It was sealed with pitch. It was very sea worthy and the epic of Gilgamesh vessel was a cube that would have killed all life inside. This is further evidence that tbey Biblical account is the correct account, given to Moses by God Himself.. There is a full scale replica in Kentucky called "The Ark Encounter ". It is a museum. I have been there along with the Creation Museum.

Putting aside the issues with the ark itself, I have a few questions:

1. How logistically did Noah gather two of every animal on the earth? Presumably, since different species live in different areas of the world, Noah would have traveled from like Australia to Alaska. How did he do that?
2. Were dinosaurs on board?
3. Would you define genociding the entire Earth but for Noah and his family as Christian?

 

[dkp993]

A 6:1 ratio is near optimal for large cargo ships and barges — it balances stability, strength, and wave-handling ability.

Cargo ships today often use ratios between 6:1 and 8:1, depending on purpose and hull design.

I think it was pointed out materials (wood) used would not be favorable for that size/length without having steel to reinforce structural members. Your AI response doesn't specify materials used so while this may be ideal today (with materials of today) it wasn't likely the case in Noah's time.

It was a virtually indestructible wood called Gopher Wood. It was sealed with pitch. It was very sea worthy and the epic of Gilgamesh vessel was a cube that would have killed all life inside. This is further evidence that tbey Biblical account is the correct account, given to Moses by God Himself.. There is a full scale replica in Kentucky called "The Ark Encounter ". It is a museum. I have been there along with the Creation Museum.

Putting aside the issues with the ark itself, I have a few questions:

1. How logistically did Noah gather two of every animal on the earth? Presumably, since different species live in different areas of the world, Noah would have traveled from like Australia to Alaska. How did he do that?
2. Were dinosaurs on board?
3. Would you define genociding the entire Earth but for Noah and his family as Christian?

-What about the food and water food needed
-there are 6.5 million individual land animals species, so 13 million animals.
-assuming, by a literal miracle, we can somehow agree the ark could hold 13 million animals and their food and water. Noah and his family cared, fed and watered, for all of them?
-let’s, for the sake of further questions, also ignore the birds and insects, how does each species repopulate off of 2 parent animals?

 

[Captain Cranks]

It was a virtually indestructible wood called Gopher Wood.

Gopher wood is an unidentified wood from the Bible that was used to build Noah's Ark. Its exact identity is unknown, as the term is a hapax legomenon (appearing only once in the Bible) and is not a recognized wood type today. Scholarly debate suggests it could have been a specific type of strong wood like cypress, cedar, or pine, a unique or extinct species, or even a method of preparing or shaping wood, such as "squared beams".

• Biblical context: The term appears in Genesis 6:14, where God instructs Noah to build the ark out of gopher wood.
• Possible identities:
  • A specific species: Some speculate it could have been a durable wood like cypress, cedar, or pine, which were common for shipbuilding in ancient Mesopotamia.
  • An extinct or unknown species: It is possible that gopher wood refers to a species of tree that no longer exists, especially since the world's geography changed significantly after the flood.
  • A method of preparation: Some translations, like the Greek Septuagint, translate the term as "squared beams," suggesting it could refer to wood that was cut and planed smooth rather than a specific tree species.
  • A scribal error: One theory proposes the word may have been a scribal error for "kopher," a Hebrew word for "pitch," meaning the ark was to be made of pitched wood.

 

[Gally]

This is further evidence that tbey Biblical account is the correct account,

This doesn't seem like evidence to me. As other's have pointed out there is a lot of different interpretations of what "gopher" wood represents. That is not evidence it is assumptions.

 

[BlackCrowes]

A 6:1 ratio is near optimal for large cargo ships and barges — it balances stability, strength, and wave-handling ability.

Cargo ships today often use ratios between 6:1 and 8:1, depending on purpose and hull design.

I think it was pointed out materials (wood) used would not be favorable for that size/length without having steel to reinforce structural members. Your AI response doesn't specify materials used so while this may be ideal today (with materials of today) it wasn't likely the case in Noah's time.

It was a virtually indestructible wood called Gopher Wood. It was sealed with pitch. It was very sea worthy and the epic of Gilgamesh vessel was a cube that would have killed all life inside. This is further evidence that tbey Biblical account is the correct account, given to Moses by God Himself.. There is a full scale replica in Kentucky called "The Ark Encounter ". It is a museum. I have been there along with the Creation Museum.

Putting aside the issues with the ark itself, I have a few questions:

1. How logistically did Noah gather two of every animal on the earth? Presumably, since different species live in different areas of the world, Noah would have traveled from like Australia to Alaska. How did he do that?
2. Were dinosaurs on board?
3. Would you define genociding the entire Earth but for Noah and his family as Christian?

-What about the food and water food needed
-there are 6.5 million individual land animals species, so 13 million animals.
-assuming, by a literal miracle, we can somehow agree the ark could hold 13 million animals and their food and water. Noah and his family cared, fed and watered, for all of them?
-let’s, for the sake of further questions, also ignore the birds and insects, how does each species repopulate off of 2 parent animals?

can't you just picture it? the lions come down the ramp, look over at the gazelles and say: "playtime is over, we'll give you a two-hour headstart"

 

[bolzano]

I’m gonna preface this by noting that I don’t take the flood story literally and ditto with pretty much the rest of the Old Testament. That said, I think we’re missing the point when we try to search for scientific explanations for things like the Garden of Eden, Noah’s Ark, the plagues, and the parting of the Red Sea. For folks who believe these stories, I’m assuming they view them as miracles, which, by definition, means that these events were scientifically impossible. Indeed, they are supposed to be examples of God intervening in the world and revealing his divinity.

 

[dkp993]

I’m gonna preface this by noting that I don’t take the flood story literally and ditto with pretty much the rest of the Old Testament. That said, I think we’re missing the point when we try to search for scientific explanations for things like the Garden of Eden, Noah’s Ark, the plagues, and the parting of the Red Sea. For folks who believe these stories, I’m assuming they view them as miracles, which, by definition, means that these events were scientifically impossible. Indeed, they are supposed to be examples of God intervening in the world and revealing his divinity.

And that’s completely fair. I think the reason people like myself respond to posts about this is when they aren’t presented as you propose, but are presented as a fact backed up with “facts” as Paddington does. When presented like this people come out of the woodwork to challenge those “facts”.

If it was presented as a miracle or magic, i.e. God snapped his fingers and made it happen. I certainly wouldn’t be responding to it because that is a belief system and people should be able to believe what they want too. But tell me it’s a fact and I’m gonna challenge it.

 

[Captain Cranks]

Good conversation about the difference between Paul and Jesus' messages.

TL;DW - Jesus taught others to follow his path (be loving, humble, etc) to be with God; not that he was a sacrifice you had to buy into to be with God. Paul changed this message so that you had to accept Jesus' sacrifice to be with God.

 

[bolzano]

I’m gonna preface this by noting that I don’t take the flood story literally and ditto with pretty much the rest of the Old Testament. That said, I think we’re missing the point when we try to search for scientific explanations for things like the Garden of Eden, Noah’s Ark, the plagues, and the parting of the Red Sea. For folks who believe these stories, I’m assuming they view them as miracles, which, by definition, means that these events were scientifically impossible. Indeed, they are supposed to be examples of God intervening in the world and revealing his divinity.

And that’s completely fair. I think the reason people like myself respond to posts about this is when they aren’t presented as you propose, but are presented as a fact backed up with “facts” as Paddington does. When presented like this people come out of the woodwork to challenge those “facts”.

If it was presented as a miracle or magic, i.e. God snapped his fingers and made it happen. I certainly wouldn’t be responding to it because that is a belief system and people should be able to believe what they want to do. But tell me it’s a fact and I’m gonna challenge it.

Yep, I get you. My post was directed at Paddington, too. Apologists often adopt modern metaphysics and try to prove God’s existence and show his nature through science. IMO, that’s wrongheaded.

God can’t do something that’s logically impossible (e.g., he can’t make 2+2=5), as he’s the divine mind and that would be contrary to his nature. However, he can do anything that’s metaphysically possible, including violating the laws of physics (i.e., miracles). Moreover, God is an immaterial being, whereas science is in the business of explaining the material world. Therefore, science will never be able to prove or disprove God’s existence. So, my point to people like Paddington is to stop trying to engage skeptics with science/ history and instead use pure philosophy/ theology.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

However, he can do anything that’s metaphysically possible, including violating the laws of physics (i.e., miracles).

But why would he?

instead use pure philosophy/ theology

I am asking the question from the perspective that God is an all knowing, all power creator where time is not the same as for us. So as the creator of the material world who can know every possible outcome at any given time, why would not use his power to have all of this happen within nature itself? Why would he ever need to go outside of nature and break a law of physics or whatever? Why would he need to intervene in the natural course of his perfect plan? Did he mess up? Change his mind? Got bored? Not quite "all knowing" or "all powerful" or all whatever?

I think you know that this is a trap question. There is no answer that you can honestly give where you don't either end up talking in circles or get backed in a corner. I am not actually setting this trap for you I'm just continuing my theme of preferring to ponder these tough questions than pretend that there is an answer.

 

[Zow]

I’m gonna preface this by noting that I don’t take the flood story literally and ditto with pretty much the rest of the Old Testament. That said, I think we’re missing the point when we try to search for scientific explanations for things like the Garden of Eden, Noah’s Ark, the plagues, and the parting of the Red Sea. For folks who believe these stories, I’m assuming they view them as miracles, which, by definition, means that these events were scientifically impossible. Indeed, they are supposed to be examples of God intervening in the world and revealing his divinity.

And that’s completely fair. I think the reason people like myself respond to posts about this is when they aren’t presented as you propose, but are presented as a fact backed up with “facts” as Paddington does. When presented like this people come out of the woodwork to challenge those “facts”.

If it was presented as a miracle or magic, i.e. God snapped his fingers and made it happen. I certainly wouldn’t be responding to it because that is a belief system and people should be able to believe what they want too. But tell me it’s a fact and I’m gonna challenge it.

Yep. This is the distinguishable factor. Well said.

 

[bolzano]

However, he can do anything that’s metaphysically possible, including violating the laws of physics (i.e., miracles).

But why would he?

instead use pure philosophy/ theology

I am asking the question from the perspective that God is an all knowing, all power creator where time is not the same as for us. So as the creator of the material world who can know every possible outcome at any given time, why would not use his power to have all of this happen within nature itself? Why would he ever need to go outside of nature and break a law of physics or whatever? Why would he need to intervene in the natural course of his perfect plan? Did he mess up? Change his mind? Got bored? Not quite "all knowing" or "all powerful" or all whatever?

I think you know that this is a trap question. There is no answer that you can honestly give where you don't either end up talking in circles or get backed in a corner. I am not actually setting this trap for you I'm just continuing my theme of preferring to ponder these tough questions than pretend that there is an answer.

God is a transcendent being, so his nature and will is mostly beyond human understanding. But, the way I look at it is that God performs miracles to reveal himself and his word to us. So, it’s not about trying to correct mistakes in his plan.

To understand this, I would note is that there are two major paradigms of God’s relationship with the natural world. (1) The first is the more modern/ common way, where God is seen as, say, a scientist who is performing what amounts to an experiment. That is, he initiates the experiment, observes what transpires, and then may come in and tinker with things. (2) However, Aristotelean/ Scholastic philosophers like Thomas Aquinas would reject this paradigm. They see God as more like a musical composer, who is writing or playing music in a single instant or divine thought. So, the idea is that God is conserving everything in existence at every single moment that things exist. From this lens, divine intentionality is everywhere and there is no mistake that needs to be remedied. It’s all a beautiful symphony of his making, and once the music stops everything ceases to exist.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

However, he can do anything that’s metaphysically possible, including violating the laws of physics (i.e., miracles).

But why would he?

instead use pure philosophy/ theology

I am asking the question from the perspective that God is an all knowing, all power creator where time is not the same as for us. So as the creator of the material world who can know every possible outcome at any given time, why would not use his power to have all of this happen within nature itself? Why would he ever need to go outside of nature and break a law of physics or whatever? Why would he need to intervene in the natural course of his perfect plan? Did he mess up? Change his mind? Got bored? Not quite "all knowing" or "all powerful" or all whatever?

I think you know that this is a trap question. There is no answer that you can honestly give where you don't either end up talking in circles or get backed in a corner. I am not actually setting this trap for you I'm just continuing my theme of preferring to ponder these tough questions than pretend that there is an answer.

God is a transcendent being, so his nature and will is mostly beyond human understanding. But, the way I look at it is that God performs miracles to reveal himself and his word to us. So, it’s not about trying to correct mistakes in his plan.

To understand this, I would note is that there are two major paradigms of God’s relationship with the natural world. (1) The first is the more modern and common way, where God is seen as, say, a scientist who is performing what amounts to an experiment. That is, he initiates the experiment, observes what transpires, and then may come in and tinker with things. (2) However, Aristotelean/ Scholastic philosophers like Thomas Aquinas would reject this paradigm. They see God as more like a musical composer, who is writing or playing music in a single instant or divine thought. So, the idea is that God is conserving everything in existence at every single moment that things exist. From this lens, divine intentionality is everywhere and there is no mistake that needs to be remedied. It’s all a beautiful symphony of his making, and, once the music stops, everything ceases to exist.

Very thoughtful answers. Why you should stick around. I reflectively say "no" to both, but I'm not sure that there is any real thought behind that reaction. Will need to ponder. At least the second one.

The tinkering scenario suggests strongly to me an apathetic, indifferent god which could very well be the case, but if that is the nature of god, why would anyone worship and praise him? (Other than a "biggest bully of the block" situation, but my experience is that sucking up to bullies is the wrong strategy to deal with a bully.)

The second scenario fits the idea that moving forward through time applies to us, not necessarily God. My gut still says "no", but I'll be thinking about this one. Thanks!

 

[sho nuff]

“The opposite of faith is not doubt, but certainty. Certainty is missing the point entirely. Faith includes noticing the mess, the emptiness and discomfort, and letting it be there until some light returns. Faith also means reaching deeply within, for the sense one was born with, the sense, for example, to go for a walk.“

Anne Lamott

 

[Desert_Power]

Pliny the younger

I really like Pliny the Elder. Probably my favorite IPA

Blind Pig was pretty nice too.

 

[Gally]

Pliny the younger

I really like Pliny the Elder. Probably my favorite IPA

Blind Pig was pretty nice too.

I am not a fan. I like Pliny much, much more.

 

[Desert_Power]

Pliny the younger

I really like Pliny the Elder. Probably my favorite IPA

Blind Pig was pretty nice too.

I am not a fan. I like Pliny much, much more.

I was surprised how much I enjoyed different offerings there. But it was a while ago.

 

[bolzano]

Pliny the younger

I really like Pliny the Elder. Probably my favorite IPA

Blind Pig was pretty nice too.

I’m more of a heavy cannabis user than I am a drinker. But, Russian River is a terrific brewery. I often have a pint or two of Blind Pig, Happy Hops, or one of the Pliny varietals in my fridge. If you like lagers/ pilsners, Velvet Glow and STS are super solid, too.

 

[Gally]

Pliny the younger

I really like Pliny the Elder. Probably my favorite IPA

Blind Pig was pretty nice too.

I am not a fan. I like Pliny much, much more.

I was surprised how much I enjoyed different offerings there. But it was a while ago.

My daughter went to Sonoma St so we would hit the brewery every time we visited. I yried a bunch of different beers but always came back to Pliny.

 

[Paddington]

This is further evidence that tbey Biblical account is the correct account,

This doesn't seem like evidence to me. As other's have pointed out there is a lot of different interpretations of what "gopher" wood represents. That is not evidence it is assumptions.

Assumptions don't invent perfect demensions for a large vessel to survive a world wide flood.

From Chat GPT

In the Bible, “gopher wood” is mentioned only once—Genesis 6:14—as the material God commanded Noah to use when building the Ark. Its exact identity is unknown, and the Hebrew word gopher does not appear anywhere else in the Bible.

Main scholarly ideas about what “gopher wood” might be

Because the term is unique, translators and scholars have proposed several possibilities:

1. A type of cedar or cypress

Many scholars think gopher refers to a species of cedar or cypress, both of which were common, durable, and rot-resistant in the ancient Near East.

Some ancient translations (like the Septuagint) use general terms meaning “squared timber” or “smoothed wood,” which could match cedar/cypress.


2. A general term for “pitched” or “resinous” wood

Some say the word might be related to a root meaning “to coat with pitch” or “resinous wood,” so the phrase might mean wood suitable for coating with pitch.


3. A lost or archaic species name

It might refer to a specific species that is now unknown, or the original word may have been lost over time.


4. A construction technique, not a species

A minority view is that gopher describes a type of laminated or plank construction (similar to “gophering”), meaning “timber boards” rather than a species of tree.


In short

We don’t know exactly what “gopher wood” was, but the strongest candidates are cypress or cedar wood, or a general term for resinous, durable timber suitable for shipbuilding.

If you want, I can also give:

A comparison of how major Bible translations handle the term

The linguistic background of the Hebrew word

Historical/archaeological insights about shipbuilding materials in the ancient Near East

 

[dgreen]

“The opposite of faith is not doubt, but certainty. Certainty is missing the point entirely. Faith includes noticing the mess, the emptiness and discomfort, and letting it be there until some light returns. Faith also means reaching deeply within, for the sense one was born with, the sense, for example, to go for a walk.“

Anne Lamott

Amen. And from Peter Enns:

“But doubt is not the enemy of faith, a solely destructive force that rips us away from God, a dark cloud that blocks the bright warm sun of faith. Doubt is only the enemy of faith when we equate faith with certainty in our thinking.

Doubt is what being cornered by our thinking looks like. Doubt happens when needing to be certain has run its course.

Doubt can certainly leave us empty and frightened, but that is precisely the benefit of doubt: it exposes the folly that strong faith means you need to “know what you believe,” that the more faith you “have,” the more certain you are.

Doubt means spiritual relocation is happening. It’s God’s way of saying, “Time to move on.”

Doubt is powerful. It can do things spiritually that must be done that we would never do on our own. Doubt has a way of forcing our hand and confronting us with the challenge of deeper trust in God, rather than leaning on the ideas we have been holding in our minds about God. Doubt exposes our frail thinking.

We might be accustomed to thinking of our faith as a castle—where we go to be safe and protected. That’s a good place to be, and we all need that experience now and then. But what if God isn’t a helicopter parent? What if feeling safe and secure aren’t always signs of God’s presence but a pattern of fear that keeps God at a distance? And what if God wants to close that gap, for our sake, and doubt helps get us there? Doubt isn’t a sign of spiritual weakness but the first steps toward a deeper faith.

Doubt tears down the castle walls we have built, with the false security and permanence they give, and forces us outside to walk a lonely, trying, yet cleansing road. In those times, it definitely feels like God is against us, far away, or absent altogether. But what if the darkness is actually a moment of God’s presence that seems like absence, a gift of God to help us grow up out of our little ideas of God?

Doubting God is painful and frightening because we think we are leaving God behind, when in fact we are only leaving behind ideas about God that we are used to surrounding ourselves with—the small God, the God within our control, the God who moves in our circles, the God who agrees with us.

Doubt strips away distraction so we can see more clearly the inadequacies of whom we think God is and move us from the foolishness of thinking that our god is the God.”

 

[massraider]

God is a transcendent being, so his nature and will is mostly beyond human understanding

Moreover, God is an immaterial being, whereas science is in the business of explaining the material world. Therefore, science will never be able to prove or disprove God’s existence

Those are convenient sentiments. Really ends the argument.

A couple thousand years ago, people were explaining that thunder and lightning were from the gods, and beyond our understanding.

Those people were guessing and/or lying.

 

[bolzano]

God is a transcendent being, so his nature and will is mostly beyond human understanding

Moreover, God is an immaterial being, whereas science is in the business of explaining the material world. Therefore, science will never be able to prove or disprove God’s existence

Those are convenient sentiments. Really ends the argument.

A couple thousand years ago, people were explaining that thunder and lightning were from the gods, and beyond our understanding.

Those people were guessing and/or lying.

I’m not begging the question. God’s immateriality follows directly from the proofs of his existence. But, If you’re a staunch materialist, then that really ends the argument, too. As I’ve said in previous posts, discussions about God (between theists and atheists) usually turn into metaphysical food fights, which is why I generally don’t participate in them.

 

[Joe Bryant]

“The opposite of faith is not doubt, but certainty. Certainty is missing the point entirely. Faith includes noticing the mess, the emptiness and discomfort, and letting it be there until some light returns. Faith also means reaching deeply within, for the sense one was born with, the sense, for example, to go for a walk.“

Anne Lamott

Word.

Love Anne Lamott and her writings on faith.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Lamott talks how she started to follow Jesus in her book "Traveling Mercies:"

Summary:

Anne Lamott’s “Fine, come in” story

She was living on a houseboat in Sausalito, drinking too much, barely sleeping, and carrying more grief than she knew how to name. Her life felt like it was slowly collapsing. She’d slip into the little church down the street some Sundays, always late so she could hide in the back. She didn’t want to believe anything. She didn’t want to join anything. She just wanted to sit in the dark and listen to people sing because it made her feel human for a few minutes.

During that time, a small stray cat kept showing up at her place every night. Thin, persistent, and needy. She’d try to ignore it, but it would curl up right against her door, waiting. She later said it felt like this little creature was “grace in a fur coat,” refusing to leave her alone.

One night she hit bottom. She was terrified, drunk, and shaking. She felt something in the room with her and knew it wasn’t her imagination. She called it “Jesus,” but she didn’t make it fancy. It felt like love had sat down beside her and wasn’t leaving.

She panicked at first. Then she just quit fighting.

Her “conversion prayer” was the opposite of a polished church moment. She said it was more like:

“Fine. F*** it. You can come in.”

That was it. No big production. Just surrender. She went to bed and slept deeper than she had in years. And in the morning, the cat was waiting again.

She calls the whole thing a story about letting love catch you when you’re too tired to run anymore.

 

[Paddington]

I hope you all have a great Sunday.

 

[dgreen]

Good conversation about the difference between Paul and Jesus' messages.

TL;DW - Jesus taught others to follow his path (be loving, humble, etc) to be with God; not that he was a sacrifice you had to buy into to be with God. Paul changed this message so that you had to accept Jesus' sacrifice to be with God.

Thanks. I listened this morning. He's doing history, but the history he's trying to do requires properly interpreting the meaning of the texts. And I think he gets Paul wrong.

I've been influenced by scholars in the New Perspective on Paul (NPP) school of thought (also called Paul within Judaism). For a long time, Jesus had his Jewishness stripped from him and he was gentilized. Over the last 100ish years, that picture of Jesus has moved in favor of a Jewish Jesus. There was a movement from seeing Jesus as only ethnically Jewish to Jesus being fully Jewish in his teachings, actions, and rituals. So, as Jesus becomes more Jewish in our modern eyes, that causes some tension between Jesus and Paul. But, that's because we kept Paul as being anti-Jewish. This is where all the NPP scholarship comes in as they also depict Paul as being fully Jewish. My understanding is that this is the direction most of scholarship is going regarding Paul. It's still contested to what extent Paul remained Jewish, but Paul is seen as more and more Jewish over the years.

I think that matters here because it seems like Tabor is reading Paul through a presupposition that diminishes Paul's Jewishness. I'm certain Tabor is familiar with NPP and has his own good reasons for disagreeing with that approach.

 

[Captain Cranks]

Good conversation about the difference between Paul and Jesus' messages.

TL;DW - Jesus taught others to follow his path (be loving, humble, etc) to be with God; not that he was a sacrifice you had to buy into to be with God. Paul changed this message so that you had to accept Jesus' sacrifice to be with God.

Thanks. I listened this morning. He's doing history, but the history he's trying to do requires properly interpreting the meaning of the texts. And I think he gets Paul wrong.

I've been influenced by scholars in the New Perspective on Paul (NPP) school of thought (also called Paul within Judaism). For a long time, Jesus had his Jewishness stripped from him and he was gentilized. Over the last 100ish years, that picture of Jesus has moved in favor of a Jewish Jesus. There was a movement from seeing Jesus as only ethnically Jewish to Jesus being fully Jewish in his teachings, actions, and rituals. So, as Jesus becomes more Jewish in our modern eyes, that causes some tension between Jesus and Paul. But, that's because we kept Paul as being anti-Jewish. This is where all the NPP scholarship comes in as they also depict Paul as being fully Jewish. My understanding is that this is the direction most of scholarship is going regarding Paul. It's still contested to what extent Paul remained Jewish, but Paul is seen as more and more Jewish over the years.

I think that matters here because it seems like Tabor is reading Paul through a presupposition that diminishes Paul's Jewishness. I'm certain Tabor is familiar with NPP and has his own good reasons for disagreeing with that approach.

What are your thoughts on the methodology he (and other scholars) uses to get at "the historical Jesus before it's been overlayed by theology"?

 

[dgreen]

Good conversation about the difference between Paul and Jesus' messages.

TL;DW - Jesus taught others to follow his path (be loving, humble, etc) to be with God; not that he was a sacrifice you had to buy into to be with God. Paul changed this message so that you had to accept Jesus' sacrifice to be with God.

Thanks. I listened this morning. He's doing history, but the history he's trying to do requires properly interpreting the meaning of the texts. And I think he gets Paul wrong.

I've been influenced by scholars in the New Perspective on Paul (NPP) school of thought (also called Paul within Judaism). For a long time, Jesus had his Jewishness stripped from him and he was gentilized. Over the last 100ish years, that picture of Jesus has moved in favor of a Jewish Jesus. There was a movement from seeing Jesus as only ethnically Jewish to Jesus being fully Jewish in his teachings, actions, and rituals. So, as Jesus becomes more Jewish in our modern eyes, that causes some tension between Jesus and Paul. But, that's because we kept Paul as being anti-Jewish. This is where all the NPP scholarship comes in as they also depict Paul as being fully Jewish. My understanding is that this is the direction most of scholarship is going regarding Paul. It's still contested to what extent Paul remained Jewish, but Paul is seen as more and more Jewish over the years.

I think that matters here because it seems like Tabor is reading Paul through a presupposition that diminishes Paul's Jewishness. I'm certain Tabor is familiar with NPP and has his own good reasons for disagreeing with that approach.

What are your thoughts on the methodology he (and other scholars) uses to get at "the historical Jesus before it's been overlayed by theology"?

Not sure. I'll admit that I'm not super familiar with the methodology. It seems like it is chasing after something that is unknowable, though. Nobody cared to document things in a way to answer that question so we are trying to use texts against their intended purpose.

One analogy I use for this is studies about charitable contributions. People have looked at tax returns and made claims about the charitable contributions of Americans. But, tax returns aren't trying to collect those data to answer that question. An obvious problem is that tax returns don't show charitable contributions for people who don't itemize.

Of course, if all you have is something that wasn't designed to answer your questions, then you make the best with what you have.

 

[Captain Cranks]

Good conversation about the difference between Paul and Jesus' messages.

TL;DW - Jesus taught others to follow his path (be loving, humble, etc) to be with God; not that he was a sacrifice you had to buy into to be with God. Paul changed this message so that you had to accept Jesus' sacrifice to be with God.

Thanks. I listened this morning. He's doing history, but the history he's trying to do requires properly interpreting the meaning of the texts. And I think he gets Paul wrong.

I've been influenced by scholars in the New Perspective on Paul (NPP) school of thought (also called Paul within Judaism). For a long time, Jesus had his Jewishness stripped from him and he was gentilized. Over the last 100ish years, that picture of Jesus has moved in favor of a Jewish Jesus. There was a movement from seeing Jesus as only ethnically Jewish to Jesus being fully Jewish in his teachings, actions, and rituals. So, as Jesus becomes more Jewish in our modern eyes, that causes some tension between Jesus and Paul. But, that's because we kept Paul as being anti-Jewish. This is where all the NPP scholarship comes in as they also depict Paul as being fully Jewish. My understanding is that this is the direction most of scholarship is going regarding Paul. It's still contested to what extent Paul remained Jewish, but Paul is seen as more and more Jewish over the years.

I think that matters here because it seems like Tabor is reading Paul through a presupposition that diminishes Paul's Jewishness. I'm certain Tabor is familiar with NPP and has his own good reasons for disagreeing with that approach.

What are your thoughts on the methodology he (and other scholars) uses to get at "the historical Jesus before it's been overlayed by theology"?

Not sure. I'll admit that I'm not super familiar with the methodology. It seems like it is chasing after something that is unknowable, though. Nobody cared to document things in a way to answer that question so we are trying to use texts against their intended purpose.

One analogy I use for this is studies about charitable contributions. People have looked at tax returns and made claims about the charitable contributions of Americans. But, tax returns aren't trying to collect those data to answer that question. An obvious problem is that tax returns don't show charitable contributions for people who don't itemize.

Of course, if all you have is something that wasn't designed to answer your questions, then you make the best with what you have.

I'd say the "chasing after something unknowable" would apply to correctly interpreting the Bible, though. Especially when we consider it's not just the original author's purpose, but the layers of scribes and other authors that have made changes along the way.

Tabor's intent is to isolate what is most likely the accurate depiction of Jesus and his teachings before the theological and embellishment layers were added on. It's obviously not going to be perfect and some errors will be made along the way, but that's always going to be the case with this stuff.

I guess I'll have to read his book to know "what falls out" once all the theoretical add-ons are stripped away.

 

[dgreen]

Good conversation about the difference between Paul and Jesus' messages.

TL;DW - Jesus taught others to follow his path (be loving, humble, etc) to be with God; not that he was a sacrifice you had to buy into to be with God. Paul changed this message so that you had to accept Jesus' sacrifice to be with God.

Thanks. I listened this morning. He's doing history, but the history he's trying to do requires properly interpreting the meaning of the texts. And I think he gets Paul wrong.

I've been influenced by scholars in the New Perspective on Paul (NPP) school of thought (also called Paul within Judaism). For a long time, Jesus had his Jewishness stripped from him and he was gentilized. Over the last 100ish years, that picture of Jesus has moved in favor of a Jewish Jesus. There was a movement from seeing Jesus as only ethnically Jewish to Jesus being fully Jewish in his teachings, actions, and rituals. So, as Jesus becomes more Jewish in our modern eyes, that causes some tension between Jesus and Paul. But, that's because we kept Paul as being anti-Jewish. This is where all the NPP scholarship comes in as they also depict Paul as being fully Jewish. My understanding is that this is the direction most of scholarship is going regarding Paul. It's still contested to what extent Paul remained Jewish, but Paul is seen as more and more Jewish over the years.

I think that matters here because it seems like Tabor is reading Paul through a presupposition that diminishes Paul's Jewishness. I'm certain Tabor is familiar with NPP and has his own good reasons for disagreeing with that approach.

What are your thoughts on the methodology he (and other scholars) uses to get at "the historical Jesus before it's been overlayed by theology"?

Not sure. I'll admit that I'm not super familiar with the methodology. It seems like it is chasing after something that is unknowable, though. Nobody cared to document things in a way to answer that question so we are trying to use texts against their intended purpose.

One analogy I use for this is studies about charitable contributions. People have looked at tax returns and made claims about the charitable contributions of Americans. But, tax returns aren't trying to collect those data to answer that question. An obvious problem is that tax returns don't show charitable contributions for people who don't itemize.

Of course, if all you have is something that wasn't designed to answer your questions, then you make the best with what you have.

I'd say the "chasing after something unknowable" would apply to correctly interpreting the Bible, though. Especially when we consider it's not just the original author's purpose, but the layers of scribes and other authors that have made changes along the way.

Tabor's intent is to isolate what is most likely the accurate depiction of Jesus and his teachings before the theological and embellishment layers were added on. It's obviously not going to be perfect and some errors will be made along the way, but that's always going to be the case with this stuff.

I guess I'll have to read his book to know "what falls out" once all the theoretical add-ons are stripped away.

Yeah, I can see some parallels between a difficulty to interpret and a difficulty to uncover the historical Jesus. But, I think we have far more pieces of relevant evidence to answer a question like, "What does Matthew 5:17 mean?" than we do, "Is Matthew 5:17 an accurate quote of Jesus?" (Then again, I guess I'm not too familiar with what types of questions historical Jesus historians are trying to answer. I remember the Jesus Seminar came up with a % of the number of Jesus quotes that we can confidently say were actually his, so that's why I used "accurate quote" as an example.) So, even if the first question can't be answered with 100% knowledge, and in that sense is "unknowable", I think our chances of answering it are way higher than the second question. And different passages will vary in our confidence to interpret them correctly. My understanding is that, despite any changes to the texts along the way, textual critics are pretty confident in saying that we are probably really close to whatever the originals said. That's a big part of the battle of answering the interpretation/meaning question, but does far less, in my mind at least, of answering the historic question.


I'm definitely not saying that I find this type of research useless. If people are interested in such questions then they should use whatever they think gives them the best answer right now and future research can continue as new discoveries are made. I think that's how it works. I think the historic Jesus research is fairly young, so I'm sure it will get better as we go. I just currently question how well we're doing answering these questions.

 

[Captain Cranks]

Good conversation about the difference between Paul and Jesus' messages.

TL;DW - Jesus taught others to follow his path (be loving, humble, etc) to be with God; not that he was a sacrifice you had to buy into to be with God. Paul changed this message so that you had to accept Jesus' sacrifice to be with God.

Thanks. I listened this morning. He's doing history, but the history he's trying to do requires properly interpreting the meaning of the texts. And I think he gets Paul wrong.

I've been influenced by scholars in the New Perspective on Paul (NPP) school of thought (also called Paul within Judaism). For a long time, Jesus had his Jewishness stripped from him and he was gentilized. Over the last 100ish years, that picture of Jesus has moved in favor of a Jewish Jesus. There was a movement from seeing Jesus as only ethnically Jewish to Jesus being fully Jewish in his teachings, actions, and rituals. So, as Jesus becomes more Jewish in our modern eyes, that causes some tension between Jesus and Paul. But, that's because we kept Paul as being anti-Jewish. This is where all the NPP scholarship comes in as they also depict Paul as being fully Jewish. My understanding is that this is the direction most of scholarship is going regarding Paul. It's still contested to what extent Paul remained Jewish, but Paul is seen as more and more Jewish over the years.

I think that matters here because it seems like Tabor is reading Paul through a presupposition that diminishes Paul's Jewishness. I'm certain Tabor is familiar with NPP and has his own good reasons for disagreeing with that approach.

What are your thoughts on the methodology he (and other scholars) uses to get at "the historical Jesus before it's been overlayed by theology"?

Not sure. I'll admit that I'm not super familiar with the methodology. It seems like it is chasing after something that is unknowable, though. Nobody cared to document things in a way to answer that question so we are trying to use texts against their intended purpose.

One analogy I use for this is studies about charitable contributions. People have looked at tax returns and made claims about the charitable contributions of Americans. But, tax returns aren't trying to collect those data to answer that question. An obvious problem is that tax returns don't show charitable contributions for people who don't itemize.

Of course, if all you have is something that wasn't designed to answer your questions, then you make the best with what you have.

I'd say the "chasing after something unknowable" would apply to correctly interpreting the Bible, though. Especially when we consider it's not just the original author's purpose, but the layers of scribes and other authors that have made changes along the way.

Tabor's intent is to isolate what is most likely the accurate depiction of Jesus and his teachings before the theological and embellishment layers were added on. It's obviously not going to be perfect and some errors will be made along the way, but that's always going to be the case with this stuff.

I guess I'll have to read his book to know "what falls out" once all the theoretical add-ons are stripped away.

Yeah, I can see some parallels between a difficulty to interpret and a difficulty to uncover the historical Jesus. But, I think we have far more pieces of relevant evidence to answer a question like, "What does Matthew 5:17 mean?" than we do, "Is Matthew 5:17 an accurate quote of Jesus?" (Then again, I guess I'm not too familiar with what types of questions historical Jesus historians are trying to answer. I remember the Jesus Seminar came up with a % of the number of Jesus quotes that we can confidently say were actually his, so that's why I used "accurate quote" as an example.) So, even if the first question can't be answered with 100% knowledge, and in that sense is "unknowable", I think our chances of answering it are way higher than the second question. And different passages will vary in our confidence to interpret them correctly. My understanding is that, despite any changes to the texts along the way, textual critics are pretty confident in saying that we are probably really close to whatever the originals said. That's a big part of the battle of answering the interpretation/meaning question, but does far less, in my mind at least, of answering the historic question.


I'm definitely not saying that I find this type of research useless. If people are interested in such questions then they should use whatever they think gives them the best answer right now and future research can continue as new discoveries are made. I think that's how it works. I think the historic Jesus research is fairly young, so I'm sure it will get better as we go. I just currently question how well we're doing answering these questions.

I think we have disagreement on how confident we can be when determining the meaning and intent of Biblical passages. Take Matthew 5:17 for example. Each of the Christian and Jewish traditions have a different opinion on it. Here's a summary from Chatgpt. There is definitely disagreement on what is meant by fulfill the Law, each pointing to different sources for corroboration but no real way of knowing which is most valid.

Tradition	What “Fulfill” Means	Primary Basis for Interpretation
Evangelical / Reformed Protestant	Jesus completes the purpose of the Law; ceremonial & civil laws end; moral law continues under Christ.	Paul’s letters (Romans 10:4; Gal. 3:24–25), Covenant Theology, Greek meaning of plērōsai.
Catholic	Jesus perfects, deepens, and completes the Law; moral law endures, interpreted through the Church; ritual law fulfilled.	Scripture + Sacred Tradition, Aquinas (Summa), Catechism, Natural Law theory.
Eastern Orthodox	Jesus brings the Law to its spiritual goal: restoring humanity to God (theosis). The Law’s deeper moral intent continues.	Church Fathers (Chrysostom, Athanasius), theosis theology, liturgical continuity.
Lutheran	Jesus satisfies the Law’s demands for us (active obedience). The Law no longer condemns believers but guides them.	Law–Gospel distinction, Luther’s writings, Book of Concord, emphasis on Galatians & Romans.
Messianic Jewish	Jesus correctly interprets and upholds Torah. Torah remains valid for Jewish believers; not abolished.	Rabbinic meaning of “fulfill the Torah,” Matthew’s Jewish context, Acts 15.
Seventh-day Adventist	Jesus confirms the continued validity of the Ten Commandments—especially the Sabbath. Ceremonial laws end.	Literal reading of Matt 5:18, Exodus 20, Revelation 14:12, SDA 28 Fundamental Beliefs.
Judaism (non-Christian)	“Fulfill the Law” = correctly interpret and fully obey it; Torah is eternal and cannot be abolished.	Talmudic/rabbinic definitions, Deut. 7:9; Psalm 119; doctrine of Torah’s eternality.

 

[dgreen]

Good conversation about the difference between Paul and Jesus' messages.

TL;DW - Jesus taught others to follow his path (be loving, humble, etc) to be with God; not that he was a sacrifice you had to buy into to be with God. Paul changed this message so that you had to accept Jesus' sacrifice to be with God.

Thanks. I listened this morning. He's doing history, but the history he's trying to do requires properly interpreting the meaning of the texts. And I think he gets Paul wrong.

I've been influenced by scholars in the New Perspective on Paul (NPP) school of thought (also called Paul within Judaism). For a long time, Jesus had his Jewishness stripped from him and he was gentilized. Over the last 100ish years, that picture of Jesus has moved in favor of a Jewish Jesus. There was a movement from seeing Jesus as only ethnically Jewish to Jesus being fully Jewish in his teachings, actions, and rituals. So, as Jesus becomes more Jewish in our modern eyes, that causes some tension between Jesus and Paul. But, that's because we kept Paul as being anti-Jewish. This is where all the NPP scholarship comes in as they also depict Paul as being fully Jewish. My understanding is that this is the direction most of scholarship is going regarding Paul. It's still contested to what extent Paul remained Jewish, but Paul is seen as more and more Jewish over the years.

I think that matters here because it seems like Tabor is reading Paul through a presupposition that diminishes Paul's Jewishness. I'm certain Tabor is familiar with NPP and has his own good reasons for disagreeing with that approach.

What are your thoughts on the methodology he (and other scholars) uses to get at "the historical Jesus before it's been overlayed by theology"?

Not sure. I'll admit that I'm not super familiar with the methodology. It seems like it is chasing after something that is unknowable, though. Nobody cared to document things in a way to answer that question so we are trying to use texts against their intended purpose.

One analogy I use for this is studies about charitable contributions. People have looked at tax returns and made claims about the charitable contributions of Americans. But, tax returns aren't trying to collect those data to answer that question. An obvious problem is that tax returns don't show charitable contributions for people who don't itemize.

Of course, if all you have is something that wasn't designed to answer your questions, then you make the best with what you have.

I'd say the "chasing after something unknowable" would apply to correctly interpreting the Bible, though. Especially when we consider it's not just the original author's purpose, but the layers of scribes and other authors that have made changes along the way.

Tabor's intent is to isolate what is most likely the accurate depiction of Jesus and his teachings before the theological and embellishment layers were added on. It's obviously not going to be perfect and some errors will be made along the way, but that's always going to be the case with this stuff.

I guess I'll have to read his book to know "what falls out" once all the theoretical add-ons are stripped away.

Yeah, I can see some parallels between a difficulty to interpret and a difficulty to uncover the historical Jesus. But, I think we have far more pieces of relevant evidence to answer a question like, "What does Matthew 5:17 mean?" than we do, "Is Matthew 5:17 an accurate quote of Jesus?" (Then again, I guess I'm not too familiar with what types of questions historical Jesus historians are trying to answer. I remember the Jesus Seminar came up with a % of the number of Jesus quotes that we can confidently say were actually his, so that's why I used "accurate quote" as an example.) So, even if the first question can't be answered with 100% knowledge, and in that sense is "unknowable", I think our chances of answering it are way higher than the second question. And different passages will vary in our confidence to interpret them correctly. My understanding is that, despite any changes to the texts along the way, textual critics are pretty confident in saying that we are probably really close to whatever the originals said. That's a big part of the battle of answering the interpretation/meaning question, but does far less, in my mind at least, of answering the historic question.


I'm definitely not saying that I find this type of research useless. If people are interested in such questions then they should use whatever they think gives them the best answer right now and future research can continue as new discoveries are made. I think that's how it works. I think the historic Jesus research is fairly young, so I'm sure it will get better as we go. I just currently question how well we're doing answering these questions.

I think we have disagreement on how confident we can be when determining the meaning and intent of Biblical passages. Take Matthew 5:17 for example. Each of the Christian and Jewish traditions have a different opinion on it. Here's a summary from Chatgpt. There is definitely disagreement on what is meant by fulfill the Law, each pointing to different sources for corroboration but no real way of knowing which is most valid.

Tradition	What “Fulfill” Means	Primary Basis for Interpretation
Evangelical / Reformed Protestant	Jesus completes the purpose of the Law; ceremonial & civil laws end; moral law continues under Christ.	Paul’s letters (Romans 10:4; Gal. 3:24–25), Covenant Theology, Greek meaning of plērōsai.
Catholic	Jesus perfects, deepens, and completes the Law; moral law endures, interpreted through the Church; ritual law fulfilled.	Scripture + Sacred Tradition, Aquinas (Summa), Catechism, Natural Law theory.
Eastern Orthodox	Jesus brings the Law to its spiritual goal: restoring humanity to God (theosis). The Law’s deeper moral intent continues.	Church Fathers (Chrysostom, Athanasius), theosis theology, liturgical continuity.
Lutheran	Jesus satisfies the Law’s demands for us (active obedience). The Law no longer condemns believers but guides them.	Law–Gospel distinction, Luther’s writings, Book of Concord, emphasis on Galatians & Romans.
Messianic Jewish	Jesus correctly interprets and upholds Torah. Torah remains valid for Jewish believers; not abolished.	Rabbinic meaning of “fulfill the Torah,” Matthew’s Jewish context, Acts 15.
Seventh-day Adventist	Jesus confirms the continued validity of the Ten Commandments—especially the Sabbath. Ceremonial laws end.	Literal reading of Matt 5:18, Exodus 20, Revelation 14:12, SDA 28 Fundamental Beliefs.
Judaism (non-Christian)	“Fulfill the Law” = correctly interpret and fully obey it; Torah is eternal and cannot be abolished.	Talmudic/rabbinic definitions, Deut. 7:9; Psalm 119; doctrine of Torah’s eternality.

I'm not necessarily arguing that Biblical interpretation is always really easy and that we have near 100% confidence about its meaning. I think there are difficulties given the passage of time and differences in culture and language. I just think, whatever the confidence % is for a particular verse, it is higher than our confidence can be about whether or not a particular Biblical character said something or did something. In other words, despite the various interpretations of what Jesus meant by "fulfill the law", I think we are closer to knowing what that meant than we are to knowing whether Jesus actually said those words and in what setting he might have said those words (or whatever other historical questions a historian might ask).

I think we have more evidence that can help with the interpretation questions than we do for the historical questions. Proper interpretation can even be an important piece of evidcence to answering a historical question, so if interpretation is really difficult then that just makes the historical question even harder. Tabor's historical argument that Paul's message diverged from Jesus' message requires a proper interpretation of both Paul and Jesus.

I'm not sure the varied interpretations of Matthew 5:17 means that we can't have confidence in what Jesus meant by "fulfill the law". We don't need to give each opinion equal weight in the discussion. I think we can think of some other topics (the only ones coming to mind right now are political so I won't' mention them) where there are different opinions out there where I assume you'd agree that we can have high confidence what the right answer is.

Admittedly, I say all of this with far more experience in Biblical interpretation than i do in thinking about the historical questions. I could be overestimating how hard it is to make some of these historical claims. So, maybe our disagreement isn't so much on how confident we can be in interpretation, rather in how confident we can be on the historical questions.

 

[Captain Cranks]

I'm not necessarily arguing that Biblical interpretation is always really easy and that we have near 100% confidence about its meaning. I think there are difficulties given the passage of time and differences in culture and language. I just think, whatever the confidence % is for a particular verse, it is higher than our confidence can be about whether or not a particular Biblical character said something or did something. In other words, despite the various interpretations of what Jesus meant by "fulfill the law", I think we are closer to knowing what that meant than we are to knowing whether Jesus actually said those words and in what setting he might have said those words (or whatever other historical questions a historian might ask).

I think we have more evidence that can help with the interpretation questions than we do for the historical questions. Proper interpretation can even be an important piece of evidcence to answering a historical question, so if interpretation is really difficult then that just makes the historical question even harder. Tabor's historical argument that Paul's message diverged from Jesus' message requires a proper interpretation of both Paul and Jesus.

I'm not sure the varied interpretations of Matthew 5:17 means that we can't have confidence in what Jesus meant by "fulfill the law". We don't need to give each opinion equal weight in the discussion. I think we can think of some other topics (the only ones coming to mind right now are political so I won't' mention them) where there are different opinions out there where I assume you'd agree that we can have high confidence what the right answer is.

Admittedly, I say all of this with far more experience in Biblical interpretation than i do in thinking about the historical questions. I could be overestimating how hard it is to make some of these historical claims. So, maybe our disagreement isn't so much on how confident we can be in interpretation, rather in how confident we can be on the historical questions.

That makes sense and I agree that historicity is more difficult than interpretation. I still like the exercise of attempting to simmer things down to what Jesus most likely taught versus what was layered on by scribes, Paul, etc. who had their own agendas. For example, there is nothing is the Gospels that compares to 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 and based on Jesus' treatment of women, it's probably not something he would have taught. Would you agree with that?

 

[dgreen]

I'm not necessarily arguing that Biblical interpretation is always really easy and that we have near 100% confidence about its meaning. I think there are difficulties given the passage of time and differences in culture and language. I just think, whatever the confidence % is for a particular verse, it is higher than our confidence can be about whether or not a particular Biblical character said something or did something. In other words, despite the various interpretations of what Jesus meant by "fulfill the law", I think we are closer to knowing what that meant than we are to knowing whether Jesus actually said those words and in what setting he might have said those words (or whatever other historical questions a historian might ask).

I think we have more evidence that can help with the interpretation questions than we do for the historical questions. Proper interpretation can even be an important piece of evidcence to answering a historical question, so if interpretation is really difficult then that just makes the historical question even harder. Tabor's historical argument that Paul's message diverged from Jesus' message requires a proper interpretation of both Paul and Jesus.

I'm not sure the varied interpretations of Matthew 5:17 means that we can't have confidence in what Jesus meant by "fulfill the law". We don't need to give each opinion equal weight in the discussion. I think we can think of some other topics (the only ones coming to mind right now are political so I won't' mention them) where there are different opinions out there where I assume you'd agree that we can have high confidence what the right answer is.

Admittedly, I say all of this with far more experience in Biblical interpretation than i do in thinking about the historical questions. I could be overestimating how hard it is to make some of these historical claims. So, maybe our disagreement isn't so much on how confident we can be in interpretation, rather in how confident we can be on the historical questions.

That makes sense and I agree that historicity is more difficult than interpretation. I still like the exercise of attempting to simmer things down to what Jesus most likely taught versus what was layered on by scribes, Paul, etc. who had their own agendas. For example, there is nothing is the Gospels that compares to 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 and based on Jesus' treatment of women, it's probably not something he would have taught. Would you agree with that?

Strangely, despite being a member of a congregation that leans pretty conservative on women's roles in the church, I haven't spent time studying that issue. I agree at first glance Paul seems to be out of line with Jesus here. But, since my bias is to assume that Paul's primary mission is to take the Jesus way of life and apply it in new (largely gentile and former pagan) contexts, then I'll tend to look for reasons why Paul is NOT out of line with Jesus,

As I start to look at this, it does appear that there might be some validity to a more skeptical view of these verses. Some scholars have argued that these verses don't belong and weren't original. Others argue they don't belong as verses 34-35, but should come at the end of the chapter. Many obviously argue they are original and belong right where we have them. To me, it sounds like there's enough noise to not make any definitive church congregation decisions without a ton of study, especially if those decisions are going to contradict something clearer from Jesus (and from Paul elsewhere) like, "love you neighbor as yourself". So, I agree this looks, at worst, anti-Jesus and, at best, complex. Having said that, while I'm comfortable with some Biblical "contradictions", I'll do my best to harmonize this with Jesus to fit my bias.

The initial problem is that It sounds anti-woman and Jesus doesn't appear to be anti-woman. However, it's possible it is not anti-woman. Women aren't the only ones being told to be silent. The preceding verses also talk about those speaking in tongues and prophets to be silent in certain situations. The women are being treated the same as whoever is in those groups and I don't think interpreters see Paul's instructions to them as being anti-Jesus. Paul certainly isn't being anti-tongue or anti-prophecy. He spent the bulk of this chapter talking about speaking in tongues and prophesying. Just a few chapters earlier (11:5), Paul talks about women who pray and prophesy, so I think it's clear that this command to be "silent" is a little different than what it might appear.

In verse 26, Paul says "Let all things be done for building up" and then he ends 40 with "But all things should be done decently and in order." That, in the context of "When you come together", seems to be the main point of this section. Those ideas bookend a section that has this in the middle (verse 33a): "For God is not a God of confusion, but of peace." It is then interesting to take a look at different translations and their paragraph breaks. The NASB, ESV, and NET all put 33b as the start of a paragraph with 34-35. However, the NIV puts 33b as the end of the previous paragraph. That reads very differently to me because 33b sounds like a universal statement, while the commands about tongues, prophecy, and women come off as more specific insider talk between Paul and Corinth.

So, I think Paul uses the three examples of tongues, prophecy, and women in church gatherings in order to make a point about God desiring order and peace and building up the body. The women is one application of that larger principle. When you ask, "it's probably not something he [Jesus] would have taught," I guess that depends on what you think Paul is teaching. I think the principle that God desires order, peace, and building up when his people gather is something Jesus would support. I suppose it's possible that Paul then misapplies the principle to his new gentile/recently-pagan audience and could then become something Jesus wouldn't teach. And I definitely think modern interpreters should be very careful what lesson they get from this and try to apply to their own context. If they can see the principle about order, peace, and building, then that's what a modern church should apply to their meetings rather than a straight-forward "all women should be silent in church."

I think Jesus challenges some cultural norms, but he also doesn't completely overturn everything. He cared a lot about how people were treated. He especially spent time addressing how insiders/leaders were treating outsiders and those who they were supposed to be leading. I think it's possible that's what Paul is doing here. He's not admonishing the single group of "women", but has instructions for particular people who are acting a particular way that must have been hurting other people's opportunity to be built up and to experience order and peace in their gatherings.

So that's my biased interpretation for now. Like I said, it does seem like there could be good arguments that this doesn't even belong as being originally from Paul. I mean, it's pretty weird to have a whole chapter that repeatedly talks about tongues and prophecy and then throws in one comment at the end about women disrupting things. It seems out of place. If it doesn't belong, then that gets at the questions you're asking about simmering things down to what Jesus would have supported. It's an interesting exercise.

 

[Captain Cranks]

I'm not necessarily arguing that Biblical interpretation is always really easy and that we have near 100% confidence about its meaning. I think there are difficulties given the passage of time and differences in culture and language. I just think, whatever the confidence % is for a particular verse, it is higher than our confidence can be about whether or not a particular Biblical character said something or did something. In other words, despite the various interpretations of what Jesus meant by "fulfill the law", I think we are closer to knowing what that meant than we are to knowing whether Jesus actually said those words and in what setting he might have said those words (or whatever other historical questions a historian might ask).

I think we have more evidence that can help with the interpretation questions than we do for the historical questions. Proper interpretation can even be an important piece of evidcence to answering a historical question, so if interpretation is really difficult then that just makes the historical question even harder. Tabor's historical argument that Paul's message diverged from Jesus' message requires a proper interpretation of both Paul and Jesus.

I'm not sure the varied interpretations of Matthew 5:17 means that we can't have confidence in what Jesus meant by "fulfill the law". We don't need to give each opinion equal weight in the discussion. I think we can think of some other topics (the only ones coming to mind right now are political so I won't' mention them) where there are different opinions out there where I assume you'd agree that we can have high confidence what the right answer is.

Admittedly, I say all of this with far more experience in Biblical interpretation than i do in thinking about the historical questions. I could be overestimating how hard it is to make some of these historical claims. So, maybe our disagreement isn't so much on how confident we can be in interpretation, rather in how confident we can be on the historical questions.

That makes sense and I agree that historicity is more difficult than interpretation. I still like the exercise of attempting to simmer things down to what Jesus most likely taught versus what was layered on by scribes, Paul, etc. who had their own agendas. For example, there is nothing is the Gospels that compares to 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 and based on Jesus' treatment of women, it's probably not something he would have taught. Would you agree with that?

Strangely, despite being a member of a congregation that leans pretty conservative on women's roles in the church, I haven't spent time studying that issue. I agree at first glance Paul seems to be out of line with Jesus here. But, since my bias is to assume that Paul's primary mission is to take the Jesus way of life and apply it in new (largely gentile and former pagan) contexts, then I'll tend to look for reasons why Paul is NOT out of line with Jesus,

As I start to look at this, it does appear that there might be some validity to a more skeptical view of these verses. Some scholars have argued that these verses don't belong and weren't original. Others argue they don't belong as verses 34-35, but should come at the end of the chapter. Many obviously argue they are original and belong right where we have them. To me, it sounds like there's enough noise to not make any definitive church congregation decisions without a ton of study, especially if those decisions are going to contradict something clearer from Jesus (and from Paul elsewhere) like, "love you neighbor as yourself". So, I agree this looks, at worst, anti-Jesus and, at best, complex. Having said that, while I'm comfortable with some Biblical "contradictions", I'll do my best to harmonize this with Jesus to fit my bias.

The initial problem is that It sounds anti-woman and Jesus doesn't appear to be anti-woman. However, it's possible it is not anti-woman. Women aren't the only ones being told to be silent. The preceding verses also talk about those speaking in tongues and prophets to be silent in certain situations. The women are being treated the same as whoever is in those groups and I don't think interpreters see Paul's instructions to them as being anti-Jesus. Paul certainly isn't being anti-tongue or anti-prophecy. He spent the bulk of this chapter talking about speaking in tongues and prophesying. Just a few chapters earlier (11:5), Paul talks about women who pray and prophesy, so I think it's clear that this command to be "silent" is a little different than what it might appear.

In verse 26, Paul says "Let all things be done for building up" and then he ends 40 with "But all things should be done decently and in order." That, in the context of "When you come together", seems to be the main point of this section. Those ideas bookend a section that has this in the middle (verse 33a): "For God is not a God of confusion, but of peace." It is then interesting to take a look at different translations and their paragraph breaks. The NASB, ESV, and NET all put 33b as the start of a paragraph with 34-35. However, the NIV puts 33b as the end of the previous paragraph. That reads very differently to me because 33b sounds like a universal statement, while the commands about tongues, prophecy, and women come off as more specific insider talk between Paul and Corinth.

So, I think Paul uses the three examples of tongues, prophecy, and women in church gatherings in order to make a point about God desiring order and peace and building up the body. The women is one application of that larger principle. When you ask, "it's probably not something he [Jesus] would have taught," I guess that depends on what you think Paul is teaching. I think the principle that God desires order, peace, and building up when his people gather is something Jesus would support. I suppose it's possible that Paul then misapplies the principle to his new gentile/recently-pagan audience and could then become something Jesus wouldn't teach. And I definitely think modern interpreters should be very careful what lesson they get from this and try to apply to their own context. If they can see the principle about order, peace, and building, then that's what a modern church should apply to their meetings rather than a straight-forward "all women should be silent in church."

I think Jesus challenges some cultural norms, but he also doesn't completely overturn everything. He cared a lot about how people were treated. He especially spent time addressing how insiders/leaders were treating outsiders and those who they were supposed to be leading. I think it's possible that's what Paul is doing here. He's not admonishing the single group of "women", but has instructions for particular people who are acting a particular way that must have been hurting other people's opportunity to be built up and to experience order and peace in their gatherings.

So that's my biased interpretation for now. Like I said, it does seem like there could be good arguments that this doesn't even belong as being originally from Paul. I mean, it's pretty weird to have a whole chapter that repeatedly talks about tongues and prophecy and then throws in one comment at the end about women disrupting things. It seems out of place. If it doesn't belong, then that gets at the questions you're asking about simmering things down to what Jesus would have supported. It's an interesting exercise.

Thanks for presenting your thought process. Paul does seem to be crafting things in the context of cultural norms of his time. Perhaps Jesus did the same, but I don't think we see evidence of that in the Gospels here. ChatGPT summarizes the key difference as:

"Jesus and Paul share the principle that women are spiritually equal and fully capable of discipleship and ministry, but Jesus emphasizes ethical inclusion and relational modeling, while Paul emphasizes practical order and cultural symbols in worship. In other words, Jesus acts radically within social norms, whereas Paul adapts women’s participation to maintain decorum in the early church."

That distinction makes sense to me, but speaks more to Paul's agenda (not meant as a pejorative) rather than what Jesus actually taught.