My opinion is the same as Steve's. In John we read:
John 3:22-23 New American Standard Bible (NASB)
22. After these things Jesus and His disciples came into the land of Judea, and there He was spending time with them and baptizing. 23. John also was baptizing in Aenon near Salim, because there was much water there; and people were coming and were being baptized—
John 4:1-2
1. Therefore when the Lord knew that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John, 2 (although Jesus Himself was not baptizing, but His disciples were),
We would all be thinking some were personally baptized by Jesus if John hadn't supplied additional information. Matthew did not provide a similar explication in the case of Cornelius. And it is not difficult to think of numerous cases where some prominent person, the initiator of an action, is said to have done something although it was actually accomplished by subordinates.
Against this idea is the apparent personal direct interchange with Jesus in Matthew's account, but I doubt if that was the main point on Matthew's mind.
Did the centurion speak directly to Jesus?
Re: Did the centurion speak directly to Jesus?
Thank you for that additional example, Homer. It does seem to support the second hypothesis. It is interesting that John explains that Jesus didn't personally baptize in chapter 4, though he doesn't do so in chapter 3. Or it is possible that some scribe inserted the explanation.
Paidion
Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.
Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.
Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.
Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.
Re: Did the centurion speak directly to Jesus?
We would all be thinking some were personally baptized by Jesus if John hadn't supplied additional information. Matthew did not provide a similar explication in the case of Cornelius. And it is not difficult to think of numerous cases where some prominent person, the initiator of an action, is said to have done something although it was actually accomplished by subordinates.
Good post Homer. Additionally you continue to expand my vocabulary. EXPLICATION! way to go!
Good post Homer. Additionally you continue to expand my vocabulary. EXPLICATION! way to go!
-
jriccitelli
- Posts: 1317
- Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 10:14 am
- Location: San Jose, CA
- Contact:
Re: Did the centurion speak directly to Jesus?
I wanted to clarify that (for the reasons I gave), that Jesus did 'not' meet the Centurion, and that I felt that this is what Matthews Gospel 'may' have originally, or intended to say.
I've never used the term infallible, but I might define what I believe is infallible; the major doctrines of the Bible are infallible.
Although the Bible has some inconsistencies in it, they have to be compared to the sheer volume and incredible amount of names, places, numbers and details it contains. Nothing distorts the overall completeness and integrity of the 'whole' Bible. Considering the ‘huge’ magnitude and ‘huge’ amount of detail, history, stories and concepts contained in the Bible, the Bible is of itself nothing short of amazing. The Bible itself even encourages and welcomes challenge, like Elijah on Mount Carmel, and Moses before Pharaoh, not many books or religions do that.
I think the bible has stood up quite well to the microscope, no document on earth has had more scrutiny, attacks and enemies.
We 'do know' the Bible is a 2000 plus year old document written in 'ancient' languages. It seems it 'was' understood by the people back then. We live 2-3000 years in the future, so I am not complaining if something minor seems out of place, do you think someone from their culture could understand a document from our century? I think the Bible is more understandable and easily translated than most any other ancient document we know of from similar time periods.
I came to faith in Christ reading a NWT Jehovah’s witness translation of the Bible (all I had), and although the Witness’s have tampered with it (and made it difficult to read) the meanings and objectives are all still there! Even if you only had two books of the Bible the meaning could still be discerned. Despite many men writing they’re own versions, some trying to distort the bible, and the deliberate, or unintentional, miss-translation of some verses or words, the major doctrines are almost impossible to erase. We have many very good and trustworthy translations, I would surmise that our better translations are easily 98% complete and accurate to the originals and by reading three of our best translations we get closer than 98%.
All the major Theological doctrines have material and support from nearly every book (and some have support on nearly every page) so there is no worry over not being able to understand the major doctrines, if you read it, trust in it, and believe what it is; Gods Word.
(Note; I had posted this previously on another forum, but it fit here)
I've never used the term infallible, but I might define what I believe is infallible; the major doctrines of the Bible are infallible.
Although the Bible has some inconsistencies in it, they have to be compared to the sheer volume and incredible amount of names, places, numbers and details it contains. Nothing distorts the overall completeness and integrity of the 'whole' Bible. Considering the ‘huge’ magnitude and ‘huge’ amount of detail, history, stories and concepts contained in the Bible, the Bible is of itself nothing short of amazing. The Bible itself even encourages and welcomes challenge, like Elijah on Mount Carmel, and Moses before Pharaoh, not many books or religions do that.
I think the bible has stood up quite well to the microscope, no document on earth has had more scrutiny, attacks and enemies.
We 'do know' the Bible is a 2000 plus year old document written in 'ancient' languages. It seems it 'was' understood by the people back then. We live 2-3000 years in the future, so I am not complaining if something minor seems out of place, do you think someone from their culture could understand a document from our century? I think the Bible is more understandable and easily translated than most any other ancient document we know of from similar time periods.
I came to faith in Christ reading a NWT Jehovah’s witness translation of the Bible (all I had), and although the Witness’s have tampered with it (and made it difficult to read) the meanings and objectives are all still there! Even if you only had two books of the Bible the meaning could still be discerned. Despite many men writing they’re own versions, some trying to distort the bible, and the deliberate, or unintentional, miss-translation of some verses or words, the major doctrines are almost impossible to erase. We have many very good and trustworthy translations, I would surmise that our better translations are easily 98% complete and accurate to the originals and by reading three of our best translations we get closer than 98%.
All the major Theological doctrines have material and support from nearly every book (and some have support on nearly every page) so there is no worry over not being able to understand the major doctrines, if you read it, trust in it, and believe what it is; Gods Word.
(Note; I had posted this previously on another forum, but it fit here)