What Would a Good Jewish Girl Do?

[RedEye]

I want to pose a hypothetical scenario. Imagine a young Jewish girl a couple of thousand years ago. She is pledged to be married but the marriage has not been consummated yet. This girl is a devout follower of Judaism like her parents and husband-to-be. She attends her local Synagogue with them and listens earnestly to the Rabbi reciting Jewish scripture and teachings. Judaism teaches that there is only one true God (Yahweh). There are no other gods or demi-gods.

The region in which she lives is occupied by the Romans and she is aware that they worship a pantheon of gods and demi-gods. (Demi-gods are produced by a male god mating with a human female or a human male mating with a female god). They even worship their emperor in Rome like a god. She has no doubt had some contact with Greeks (gentiles) in her town too and come to know that they also have a pantheon of their own gods and demi-gods. Her Rabbi warns her against such pagan beliefs and constantly stresses that all these other gods are false. There is one and only one true God and his name is Yahweh.

Then one day an apparition appears to our Jewish girl. It tells her that God wants to inseminate her so that she can give him a son. Now, what would a good Jewish girl do in these circumstances?

A. Run immediately to her parents and tell them that a pagan god wants to inseminate her before she is married. (It has to be a pagan god because Yahweh would never ask for such a thing).
B. Run to her future husband and ask for help so that she does not end up committing adultery against her will.
C. Run to her Rabbi, tell him of this blasphemous request and get advice on how to deal with this demon that approached her.
D. Acquiesce meekly despite it going against everything she has ever been taught as a devout Jew.

Which course of action makes the least sense given the cultural context?

[Tcg]

I never claimed He [Jesus] had no interactions with Gentiles.

My bad. I thought you had made that claim but it was actually JW.

Are you claiming I have mentioned Jesus even once before this point t in this tread? If so, please present evidence. If not it would be good show to retract your remark as being in a accurate.

ref:Re:%20What%20Would%20a%20Good%20Jewish%20Girl%20Do?

• "No. Gentles[sic] and Jews did not mix, period".

Jesus was a Jew. He had interactions with Gentiles. Jews and Gentiles mixed.

The most outer court of the Temple was known as the Court of the Gentiles. It was a meeting place for all:

"In the year 20-19 BC, King Herod began a major renovation, almost a restructuring of the Temple of Jerusalem, the second, one that had been built after the exile. In addition to the areas reserved to the members of the people of Israel (men, women, priests) in this temple there was a space in which everyone could enter, Jews and non-Jews, circumcised and uncircumcised, members or not of the chosen people, people educated in the law and people who weren't. Here gathered the rabbis and teachers of the law ready to listen to people's questions about God, and to respond in a respectful and compassionate exchange. This was the Court of the Gentiles and pagans, in Latin the atrium gentium, a space that everyone could traverse and could remain in, regardless of culture, language or religious profession. It was a meeting place and of diversity."

http://www.cultura.va/content/cultura/e ... ili--.html

This clearly describes a mixing of Jews and Gentiles.

[RedEye]

As to the contact between Jews and Gentiles, I will refer you to some information from post 44.

I saw it. It doesn't seem to help your case much. The main barrier they are talking about is inter-marriage between Jews and non-Jews. So what? Later it states "Only considerations of humanity, such as relief of their poor, visiting their sick, affording them last rites (Git. 61a), and discretion ('one greets a gentile on their festivals for the sake of peace')". That sounds like some interaction to me.

As to 'influence', are you not suggesting that Mary's (limited) exposure to pagan beliefs influenced her far more than her exposure to her own religion and her own God?

Um, no. You really need to focus on my argument. Mary just needed to be aware that gods having sex with mortals to produce demi-gods was a pagan belief and contrary to her own. If she had that basic awareness then all the rest follows.

Because you said that Christ interacted commonly and easily with Gentiles, and I thought you must be referring to the Samaritans, because those are the only people outside of the Jews that Christ had much interaction with. The examples we have of Him interacting with Gentiles (most clearly the example of the woman) show that this was an exception, and not the norm... and on each occasion they came to Him, He never went to them.

How does that matter? Here was Jesus, a Jewish preacher, who was fairly uninterested in Gentiles and yet even he had some interaction with them mainly due to reports of his alleged healing powers. If a Jewish preacher specifically only interested in his fellow Jews had no problems in speaking with Gentiles, how can it be asserted that ordinary Jews had no interactions with Gentiles? That makes zero sense.

(And yet the centurion had enough faith to come to Christ and believe that He could heal the servant without touching him.)

And there is your problem right there. You presume that every word in the Bible is true whether it makes sense or not. To me, the gospels are a pack of lies and you have to sift hard to find a glimmer of truth in them. For some reason you think that the centurion was a Christian who bought the whole Christ is the messiah nonsense. That is beyond absurd. This centurion would probably have never heard of this Jesus character before he came into town (Capernaum). More likely it reached his ears (via a servant) that a Jewish healer had appeared and, in his desperation to save his boy lover, he sought this healer out. You couldn't have great faith in someone you just heard about. As to healing at a distance, I have already explained that this would have been an alien concept at the time. The centurion only came up with it on the spur of the moment as a pretext to keep Jesus from seeing the boy in person. What's more he did it fairly well by flattering Jesus thereby getting him to do what the centurion wanted. It was a brilliant strategy and Jesus fell for it.

As to the rest, you have no evidence (perhaps the servant might be a lover, but that is supposition... or perhaps the servant was just a loved one... for whatever reason, the servant was valuable to the soldier). You must also change what is written in the story and spoken by the soldier to come to your 'theory' that the man was simply jealous, rather than that the man said he did not deserve to have Christ come under his roof.

You are simply repeating yourself on points which I have already refuted as implausible. I refer you to my previous answer.

[RedEye]

The most outer court of the Temple was known as the Court of the Gentiles. It was a meeting place for all:

"In the year 20-19 BC, King Herod began a major renovation, almost a restructuring of the Temple of Jerusalem, the second, one that had been built after the exile. In addition to the areas reserved to the members of the people of Israel (men, women, priests) in this temple there was a space in which everyone could enter, Jews and non-Jews, circumcised and uncircumcised, members or not of the chosen people, people educated in the law and people who weren't. Here gathered the rabbis and teachers of the law ready to listen to people's questions about God, and to respond in a respectful and compassionate exchange. This was the Court of the Gentiles and pagans, in Latin the atrium gentium, a space that everyone could traverse and could remain in, regardless of culture, language or religious profession. It was a meeting place and of diversity."

http://www.cultura.va/content/cultura/e ... ili--.html

This clearly describes a mixing of Jews and Gentiles.

Thank you. This had to have been the case. And if this happened right outside the Temple in the Holy City in Judea what must it have been like in Galilee where Joseph and Mary allegedly lived and Jesus grew up? More strict? I think not.

[JehovahsWitness]

You claim absolutely zero separation between Jew and Gentile on a social level. Transport, trade and commerce, marriage, Medicale, dietry, dress, grooming, entertainment, "NO HINT" (zero hint) of social separation between the two cultures, anywhere to be found in the entire territory of ancient Palestine.... unless no hint means something other than zero indication, this is your claim. Correct?

... I have said what I wanted to say and I am not going to condone your behaviour by responding to you further.

I'll take that as an admission that you cannot back up your claim (you made a categorical statement denying any kind of social segregation between Jews and Gentiles). Since you claim there was "No hint" of segregation that means you claim total integration, which is a ludicrous affirmation anyway, so yes, it's maybe wiser that you do stop now and refrain from digging yourself deeper into the hole your claim has put you in. Smart move.

Do try and enjoy the rest of your day anyway,


Be Well.

JW

[Willum]

[Replying to post 74 by JehovahsWitness]

I hate to burst everyone's bubble, but Luke was a Greek physician from Antioch.

Why are theists so completely unable to research what they consider holy? and believe only what they want to believe - and those tiny bits and snippets of what they believe, somehow justifies mountains of misinformation about their religion.

[tam]

Peace to you redeye,

As to the contact between Jews and Gentiles, I will refer you to some information from post 44.

I saw it. It doesn't seem to help your case much. The main barrier they are talking about is inter-marriage between Jews and non-Jews. So what? Later it states "Only considerations of humanity, such as relief of their poor, visiting their sick, affording them last rites (Git. 61a), and discretion ('one greets a gentile on their festivals for the sake of peace')". That sounds like some interaction to me.

You left out the rest of the quote:

Only considerations of humanity, such as relief of their poor, visiting their sick, affording them last rites (Git. 61a), and discretion ("one greets a gentile on their festivals for the sake of peace" " Tosef. Av. Zar. 1:3) were reasons for breaking the otherwise impenetrable barrier.


There does not appear to exist this social inclusion that you seem to be referring to; and there is most definitely segregation. We can also see some of that attitude displayed at Acts 10:28, Galatians 2:11-14.


Regardless, it seems to all be a bit beside the point. From the only evidence that we do have, Mary did not believe this message that she received to be from a pagan god. You do not know how much interaction she may or may not have had with any gentile person; nor do you know what she would have been thinking. You have one exposition that suggests the phrase 'come upon you' is referring to coitus, but you ignore the other expositions that do not suggest this. You also disregard the fact that the phrase 'the holy spirit will come upon you' is also written elsewhere, such as at Acts 1:8, which does denote a union and power, but not sex.

https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/act ... nc_1019008

https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/luk ... onc_974035


I will leave my previous posts to stand. Though I might add one thing more: she was a virgin with child.

As to 'influence', are you not suggesting that Mary's (limited) exposure to pagan beliefs influenced her far more than her exposure to her own religion and her own God?

Um, no. You really need to focus on my argument. Mary just needed to be aware that gods having sex with mortals to produce demi-gods was a pagan belief and contrary to her own. If she had that basic awareness then all the rest follows.

Why would Mary have believed that pagan gods had sex with mortals when Mary did not believe pagan gods existed? She was a Jew. A good Jewish girl, correct? A monotheist.

(And you are still suggesting that she allowed others' pagan beliefs to influence her thinking, even more than her own religion and belief God. You seem also to be overlooking the fact that the apostles were all Jews, and they did not seem to find it a problem that their Messiah is the Son of God. While it is true that many Jews did not accept this as being true... that just shows that something does not have to be believed by the majority in order for some to hold that belief. Therefore, even if you WERE right - and I am not saying that you are - about what most Jewish girls might have thought at this message from the angel, that does not mean Mary must think that way. Why would God have chosen a girl who would not have been able to accept this as being from Him to begin with?)

Because you said that Christ interacted commonly and easily with Gentiles, and I thought you must be referring to the Samaritans, because those are the only people outside of the Jews that Christ had much interaction with. The examples we have of Him interacting with Gentiles (most clearly the example of the woman) show that this was an exception, and not the norm... and on each occasion they came to Him, He never went to them.

How does that matter? Here was Jesus, a Jewish preacher, who was fairly uninterested in Gentiles and yet even he had some interaction with them mainly due to reports of his alleged healing powers. If a Jewish preacher specifically only interested in his fellow Jews had no problems in speaking with Gentiles, how can it be asserted that ordinary Jews had no interactions with Gentiles? That makes zero sense.

Your conclusion here make no sense to me; I am not sure what you are not seeing. Christ interacted freely with Samaritans even when "ordinary Jews" refused to speak with Samaritans. Obviously He did things that "ordinary Jews" did not do.

(And yet the centurion had enough faith to come to Christ and believe that He could heal the servant without touching him.)

And there is your problem right there. You presume that every word in the Bible is true whether it makes sense or not.

I certainly do not.

But your theory makes no sense. Why in the world would the soldier have come to Christ in the first place and put his servant in the 'spotlight' if he a) did not need his servant to be healed, and so b) did not believe that Christ could heal him from afar?

To me, the gospels are a pack of lies and you have to sift hard to find a glimmer of truth in them.

Why are you bothering to sift at all, if indeed that is what you truly believe? Seems that there must be something you are seeking; or someone you are seeking.

For some reason you think that the centurion was a Christian who bought the whole Christ is the messiah nonsense. That is beyond absurd.

I think nothing of the sort. There were no Christians at that time. Regardless of what the soldier thought about the Christ/Messiah, he obviously believed that Christ could heal.

This centurion would probably have never heard of this Jesus character before he came into town (Capernaum). More likely it reached his ears (via a servant) that a Jewish healer had appeared and, in his desperation to save his boy lover, he sought this healer out.

Okay then... you agree that he sought this healer out to save his servant; therefore he did have enough faith that Christ could heal and without even touching the boy.

You couldn't have great faith in someone you just heard about.

Either your statement is incorrect (because the man showed great faith), or Christ was not someone the soldier had only just heard about.

As to healing at a distance, I have already explained that this would have been an alien concept at the time. The centurion only came up with it on the spur of the moment as a pretext to keep Jesus from seeing the boy in person. What's more he did it fairly well by flattering Jesus thereby getting him to do what the centurion wanted. It was a brilliant strategy and Jesus fell for it.

Except it makes no sense, because the soldier is the one who put his servant in the spotlight to begin with; as mentioned above.




Peace again to you!

[RedEye]

I saw it. It doesn't seem to help your case much. The main barrier they are talking about is inter-marriage between Jews and non-Jews. So what? Later it states "Only considerations of humanity, such as relief of their poor, visiting their sick, affording them last rites (Git. 61a), and discretion ('one greets a gentile on their festivals for the sake of peace')". That sounds like some interaction to me.

You left out the rest of the quote:

No I didn't. As I said the main barrier was inter-marriage. So what? the phrase used was "social contact with them [gentiles] was regarded as being a pernicious social and moral influence". Again, that doesn't mean unavoidable social contact did not occur. It wasn't encouraged but neither was it strictly forbidden. That is not segregation.

You have one exposition that suggests the phrase 'come upon you' is referring to coitus, but you ignore the other expositions that do not suggest this.

The one I quoted (Gill's) is scholarly and compelling. The others you refer to don't say much of anything at all, their main job is to serve as apologetics.

You also disregard the fact that the phrase 'the holy spirit will come upon you' is also written elsewhere, such as at Acts 1:8, which does denote a union and power, but not sex.

Context is everything.

I will leave my previous posts to stand. Though I might add one thing more: she was a virgin with child.

Relevance?

As to 'influence', are you not suggesting that Mary's (limited) exposure to pagan beliefs influenced her far more than her exposure to her own religion and her own God?

Um, no. You really need to focus on my argument. Mary just needed to be aware that gods having sex with mortals to produce demi-gods was a pagan belief and contrary to her own. If she had that basic awareness then all the rest follows.

Why would Mary have believed that pagan gods had sex with mortals when Mary did not believe pagan gods existed? She was a Jew. A good Jewish girl, correct? A monotheist.

That's exactly the point. Such a communique could not possibly have come from her god. However if she was aware of the pagan concept then it could be Satan tricking her into a pagan act.

You seem also to be overlooking the fact that the apostles were all Jews, and they did not seem to find it a problem that their Messiah is the Son of God.

They should have. The Jewish priesthood certainly had a problem. Jesus's followers were actually disciples then, not apostles, and not very smart. Jesus wasn't flouting his Son of God status (he mostly evaded the question when asked directly). You can find lackeys to accept almost anything though if you try hard enough. Look at the number of Christian denominations around today. What is orthodoxy to some is heresy to others.

Why would God have chosen a girl who would not have been able to accept this as being from Him to begin with?

Ah, so God picked a dummy to carry his son? Is that what you are implying?

How does that matter? Here was Jesus, a Jewish preacher, who was fairly uninterested in Gentiles and yet even he had some interaction with them mainly due to reports of his alleged healing powers. If a Jewish preacher specifically only interested in his fellow Jews had no problems in speaking with Gentiles, how can it be asserted that ordinary Jews had no interactions with Gentiles? That makes zero sense.

Your conclusion here make no sense to me; I am not sure what you are not seeing. Christ interacted freely with Samaritans even when "ordinary Jews" refused to speak with Samaritans. Obviously He did things that "ordinary Jews" did not do.

Firstly, Jesus did not have a lot of dealings with Samaritans. I can only remember one and it was brought on by necessity when he needed a drink in a Samaritan city. Secondly, Gentiles were everywhere. Samaritans on the other hand had their own region and Jesus encountered them only because he traveled near their lands as he made his way around Galilee and Judea. That would not be the case with most ordinary Jews. Lastly, Jews actively hated the Samaritans because of long-standing religious conflicts and other factors (as I previously explained). That makes it an entirely different situation to the Gentiles and therefore not comparable.

(And yet the centurion had enough faith to come to Christ and believe that He could heal the servant without touching him.)

And there is your problem right there. You presume that every word in the Bible is true whether it makes sense or not.

I certainly do not.

Well, you could have fooled me. Isn't that exactly what you are doing?

But your theory makes no sense. Why in the world would the soldier have come to Christ in the first place and put his servant in the 'spotlight' if he a) did not need his servant to be healed, and so b) did not believe that Christ could heal him from afar?

You don't require faith for either a) or b). You need hope for a) (arising from desperation) and you put b) to Jesus on the off-chance that he might rise to the challenge. The centurion did not need to believe that Jesus could heal from afar (an alien concept as already mentioned). He only needed to put it out there in a situation where he had nothing to lose by trying.

To me, the gospels are a pack of lies and you have to sift hard to find a glimmer of truth in them. For some reason you think that the centurion was a Christian who bought the whole Christ is the messiah nonsense. That is beyond absurd.

I think nothing of the sort. There were no Christians at that time. Regardless of what the soldier thought about the Christ/Messiah, he obviously believed that Christ could heal.

Good, we agree about something (the former). As to the latter it was obviously more hope than belief. That is the plausible explanation unless this seasoned centurion was highly credulous regarding healers and their abilities. Either way it doesn't matter much to my overall argument.

This centurion would probably have never heard of this Jesus character before he came into town (Capernaum). More likely it reached his ears (via a servant) that a Jewish healer had appeared and, in his desperation to save his boy lover, he sought this healer out.

Okay then... you agree that he sought this healer out to save his servant; therefore he did have enough faith that Christ could heal and without even touching the boy.

You are repeating yourself. See my answer above.

You couldn't have great faith in someone you just heard about. As to healing at a distance, I have already explained that this would have been an alien concept at the time. The centurion only came up with it on the spur of the moment as a pretext to keep Jesus from seeing the boy in person. What's more he did it fairly well by flattering Jesus thereby getting him to do what the centurion wanted. It was a brilliant strategy and Jesus fell for it.

Except it makes no sense, because the soldier is the one who put his servant in the spotlight to begin with; as mentioned above.

Again, you are merely repeating yourself. See my earlier response. (It may make no sense to you because you are only looking at it from one perspective).

[tam]

Peace to you redeye,

I saw it. It doesn't seem to help your case much. The main barrier they are talking about is inter-marriage between Jews and non-Jews. So what? Later it states "Only considerations of humanity, such as relief of their poor, visiting their sick, affording them last rites (Git. 61a), and discretion ('one greets a gentile on their festivals for the sake of peace')". That sounds like some interaction to me.

You left out the rest of the quote:

No I didn't.

Of course you did. You did not even finish the sentence of what you were quoting, which spoke to an impenetrable barrier (which could only be breached for those reasons stated in the quote from post 44). I am not stating that there were no exceptions.

As I said the main barrier was inter-marriage.

Intermarriage is mentioned in that clip from post 44 but it is not the only area that is mentioned.

So what? the phrase used was "social contact with them [gentiles] was regarded as being a pernicious social and moral influence". Again, that doesn't mean unavoidable social contact did not occur. It wasn't encouraged but neither was it strictly forbidden. That is not segregation.

I never claimed that unavoidable social contact did not occur. But of course there was segregation. Perhaps not as extreme as the racial segregation from the US (if that is what the word segregation brings to your mind), but segregation is defined as the setting apart of one people from another. Jews were most definitely set apart from Gentiles. There were different religions, different laws and customs, different dress, etc.

As per my previous post:

We can also see some of that attitude displayed at Acts 10:28, Galatians 2:11-14.

**

I will leave my previous posts to stand. Though I might add one thing more: she was a virgin with child.

Relevance?

There was no sexual intercourse.

You seem also to be overlooking the fact that the apostles were all Jews, and they did not seem to find it a problem that their Messiah is the Son of God.

They should have. The Jewish priesthood certainly had a problem.

The Jewish priesthood had many problems. But so what? That does not change the fact (or address the point) that the apostles (and disciples) were Jews who did not have a problem with their Lord being the Son of God. So it was obviously possible to be a Jew and to not have a problem with Christ being the Son of God.

Jesus's followers were actually disciples then, not apostles,

Yes, but what is the relevance of this comment?

Why would God have chosen a girl who would not have been able to accept this as being from Him to begin with?

Ah, so God picked a dummy to carry his son? Is that what you are implying?

Since you (should) know very well that I am not implying this, this question does not warrant much of a response. (and I am stating that it is you who has misunderstood, though you will note that I am not calling you a dummy because of it)

How does that matter? Here was Jesus, a Jewish preacher, who was fairly uninterested in Gentiles and yet even he had some interaction with them mainly due to reports of his alleged healing powers. If a Jewish preacher specifically only interested in his fellow Jews had no problems in speaking with Gentiles, how can it be asserted that ordinary Jews had no interactions with Gentiles? That makes zero sense.

Your conclusion here make no sense to me; I am not sure what you are not seeing. Christ interacted freely with Samaritans even when "ordinary Jews" refused to speak with Samaritans. Obviously He did things that "ordinary Jews" did not do.

Firstly, Jesus did not have a lot of dealings with Samaritans. I can only remember one and it was brought on by necessity when he needed a drink in a Samaritan city.

This does not address the point that Christ did things that "ordinary Jews" did not do.

But to your point:

- My Lord also spoke with that Samaritan woman about her life, about God, about Him being the Messiah and the water of life, etc. That is more than necessary dealing when asking for a drink of water. As well, when the Samaritans of that village asked Him to stay with them for a while, He stayed with them for two days, and many of them put their faith in Him because of his words. That is also more than 'necessary dealings'.

- There is the time when He healed a Samaritan leper (the only leper out of the ten that were healed, to come back and give thanks to him for the healing).

- There was another time when he was supposed to pass through a Samaritan town in order to reach Jerusalem, but the Samaritans from that town refused to welcome him because of where he was going (Jerusalem).


My Lord did not refuse to heal or to speak with Samaritans. He did not interact with them to the same extent that He did with the Jews of course. .. He came first for the Jews, then the Samaritans (because Samaritans are also Israel), then the Gentiles. He did however refuse (at first) to speak with the gentile woman who asked for her daughter to be healed, but because she showed great faith, he granted her request. There is no example of anything like that with regard to the Samaritans.



**

I did a little more research into the Centurian and discovered something interesting. The Centurian had asked some of the Jewish elders (of Capernaum) to ask Christ on his behalf, to heal the servant.

When [Jesus] had finished saying all this to the people who were listening, he entered Capernaum. There a centurions servant, whom his master valued highly, was sick and about to die. The centurion heard of [Jesus] and sent some elders of the Jews to him, asking him to come and heal his servant. When they came to [Jesus], they pleaded earnestly with him, This man deserves to have you do this, because he loves our nation and has built our synagogue. So [Jesus] went with them.

He was not far from the house when the centurion sent friends to say to him: Lord, dont trouble yourself, for I do not deserve to have you come under my roof. That is why I did not even consider myself worthy to come to you. But say the word, and my servant will be healed. For I myself am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. I tell this one, Go, and he goes; and that one, Come, and he comes. I say to my servant, Do this, and he does it.

When [Jesus] heard this, he was amazed at him, and turning to the crowd following him, he said, I tell you, I have not found such great faith even in Israel. Then the men who had been sent returned to the house and found the servant well.

Secondly, Gentiles were everywhere. Samaritans on the other hand had their own region and Jesus encountered them only because he traveled near their lands as he made his way around Galilee and Judea. That would not be the case with most ordinary Jews. Lastly, Jews actively hated the Samaritans because of long-standing religious conflicts and other factors (as I previously explained). That makes it an entirely different situation to the Gentiles and therefore not comparable.

Yes, you are correct that His travels took him near (or through) Samaritan villages and towns. But it is not a matter of comparison between gentile and Samaritans; it is a matter of Christ doing things that "ordinary Jews" would not do. You cannot say that just because Christ did something, therefore all "ordinary Jews" did it.

But your theory makes no sense. Why in the world would the soldier have come to Christ in the first place and put his servant in the 'spotlight' if he a) did not need his servant to be healed, and so b) did not believe that Christ could heal him from afar?

You don't require faith for either a) or b). You need hope for a) (arising from desperation) and you put b) to Jesus on the off-chance that he might rise to the challenge. The centurion did not need to believe that Jesus could heal from afar (an alien concept as already mentioned). He only needed to put it out there in a situation where he had nothing to lose by trying.

The story does not demonstrate only hope; the story also demonstrates faith, especially considering the review that some of the Jews gave on his behalf. The Centurion also called Christ "Lord".




Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[StuartJ]

[Replying to post 78 by tam]

The Centurion also called Christ "Lord".

The propagandists wrote in the possibly fictional story that the centurion called the possibly fictional Jesus, "Lord".

[RedEye]

With all due respect, I am snipping out most of your last post as it is mostly ground which has already been covered. I have nothing to add to my previous comments.

I did a little more research into the Centurian and discovered something interesting. The Centurian had asked some of the Jewish elders (of Capernaum) to ask Christ on his behalf, to heal the servant.

When [Jesus] had finished saying all this to the people who were listening, he entered Capernaum. There a centurions servant, whom his master valued highly, was sick and about to die. The centurion heard of [Jesus] and sent some elders of the Jews to him, asking him to come and heal his servant. When they came to [Jesus], they pleaded earnestly with him, This man deserves to have you do this, because he loves our nation and has built our synagogue. So [Jesus] went with them.

Two points on this version from Luke. Firstly, note that the centurion has just heard of Jesus. There goes your entire case regarding him having faith in someone he has only just heard about. Secondly, the Jews in this town were trying to curry favour with the centurion (a powerful man) and would say whatever was necessary to get Jesus on board. Even if the hearsay about the centurion were true, so what? He might have had affection for Galilee and provided labour to build a synagogue to keep the townspeople happy (good relations and all that) but that has nothing to do with personal faith in someone he had never met.

He was not far from the house when the centurion sent friends to say to him: Lord, dont trouble yourself, for I do not deserve to have you come under my roof. That is why I did not even consider myself worthy to come to you. But say the word, and my servant will be healed. For I myself am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. I tell this one, Go, and he goes; and that one, Come, and he comes. I say to my servant, Do this, and he does it.

Once again this backs up my version of events. The centurion realizes that he doesn't want Jesus seeing his boy lover in person (having probably been briefed in the interim on who Jesus was and what reputation he had) so he sets out to cut him off. What is curious here in this account from Luke is that the centurion does not meet and speak to Jesus himself (directly contradicting Matthew). Now, why would someone refuse to even plead his case in person if they had such respect and faith? That makes no sense. In fact if I were Jesus I would have considered it an insult to receive a bizarre request for healing secondhand.

When [Jesus] heard this, he was amazed at him, and turning to the crowd following him, he said, I tell you, I have not found such great faith even in Israel. Then the men who had been sent returned to the house and found the servant well.

I don't see any argument here so there is nothing really to respond to. That Jesus fell for the centurion's ploy hook, line and sinker has no relevance to whether the centurion actually did have great faith or not. All it demonstrates is that Jesus was gullible enough to be persuaded by a few flattering words. So what?

You don't require faith for either a) or b). You need hope for a) (arising from desperation) and you put b) to Jesus on the off-chance that he might rise to the challenge. The centurion did not need to believe that Jesus could heal from afar (an alien concept as already mentioned). He only needed to put it out there in a situation where he had nothing to lose by trying.

The story does not demonstrate only hope; the story also demonstrates faith, especially considering the review that some of the Jews gave on his behalf. The Centurion also called Christ "Lord".

No. That is you once again believing everything you read to be literally true. Firstly, this was a relayed message and the two friends could have used any mealy-mouthed language they liked to persuade Jesus to do something as preposterous as healing from a distance. Secondly, no centurion would have called a common Jew "Lord". It's beyond absurd. The gospel authors put words into the mouths of their characters which were impossible given the cultural and social context. It reminds me of this passage:

• Matthew 27:54 When the centurion and those with him who were guarding Jesus saw the earthquake and all that had happened, they were terrified, and exclaimed, Surely he was the Son of God!

Could a Roman centurion uttering these words be any more silly? (And who was there to hear them say it anyway?).