Talk:Healing the centurion's servant

Contendo: Sorry, but I didn't know how to get in touch with you. I read your article on Wikipedia about Jesus healing the gladiator. I love this story! I wanted to let you know, in case you didn't already, that there were different words for "slave" in Rome at that time, depending on the duty of the slave. The Word that the gladiator used is translated as "sex slave". So Jesus knew the gladiator was homosexual by the choice of word he used for slave. What I think is so awesome about this story is how Jesus responded. He could have cursed him, scolded him, but instead, He praised him for his faith. The message so profound here is that Jesus cares more about our FAITH in Him than anything else. That is the most important message in the story. It's just a shame that the translators choose not to explain that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Queentulawanda2 (talk • contribs) 22:03, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is not the case at all. The word is 'pais', and if you look at the contexts where it is used to refer to a servant/slave, it can't possibly specifically mean 'sex slave': (It also can mean 'boy' or 'child', but that's irrelevant here!) 86.169.156.193 (talk) 18:47, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * In the parable in Luke 12, the master has lots of slaves, described as 'pais' and 'paidiske' i.e. male & female slaves
 * The prodigal son's father had several servants (Luke 15v26)
 * The royal official's servants came to tell him his son was alive (John 4v51).
 * In multiple places, Jesus is called God's servant, Israel is called God's servant, and King David is called God's servant. All 'pais'.

Is "Healing the Centurion's servant" the same as "Healing the royal official's son"?

 * It would seem to me that either there is consensus by authors (or certain types of authors) or there isn't... and if you cannot tell if there is consensus then you should act like there isn't any (that you know of) and not assume they are the same with the Gospel harmony.
 * That said-- if anyone at all considers them the same event-- it still could a good thing to add discuss of the view to the Healing the Centurion's servant article itself. Asking what others may have read at Talk:Healing the Centurion's servant sounds like a good idea also, re if there is consensus. şṗøʀĸ şṗøʀĸ:  τᴀʟĸ 17:49, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem was that I built over 15 articles for miracles in a week or two and it all happened too fast too long ago. I will now do a "serious" search and let you know. I do not have a specific opinion now, but will try to see what there is out there. History2007 (talk) 18:40, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I added the scholarly opinions to Healing the Centurion's servant. What do you think? The main person against it is R. T. France (on linguistic grounds), but many others think they are the same miracle. History2007 (talk) 19:48, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * (Before looking at any) I would think the best reference source would either a (good) commentary on John or a (good) harmony. The best harmony that I have on hand is Orville Daniel: A Harmony of the Four Gospels, 2nd Ed, Baker Books Pub, and he sees them as different. The best commentary on John that I have is the Merrill C. Tenney, from EBC vol. 9, and he considers them different. Looking
 * Looking by at The horizontal line synopsis of the Gospels By Reuben J. Swanson online it does not seem his purposes have anything to do with identifing which passages are of the same events and which are not. Is work is totally consistant with just printing any passages togther that reader may want to compare for any reason. For example, at the end of the book he prints John 21:1-14 with Matt 4:18, Mark 1:16, and Luke 5:1-10-- even thou no one considers the event(s) from the Synoptic Gospels the same event as John 21.
 * It would be easy for commentors on the various synoptic gospels to only look at the text of "healing the royal official's son" from a distance and not have to really deal with the whole text of John 4:46-54 in forming their view, if they didn't want to. şṗøʀĸ şṗøʀĸ:  τᴀʟĸ 21:58, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Look, I cited what I found. There are so many other articles that need more serious help that I see no point in making a big deal of this. Time will be wasted in this discussion. If you want to build the Royal official page, I see no problem, provided we mention that some people think it is the same as this one. It will make very little difference to the world either way. History2007 (talk) 23:44, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree in not making a big deal of this. If I get a chance I will add some of these refs, etc; but I don't plan on making a royal official's son article. Thanks. şṗøʀĸ şṗøʀĸ:  τᴀʟĸ 01:21, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Adding a reference
I added "J.R. Nally rejects the suggestion of homosexuality. " because he gives a reasoned clear list of arguments, whether we agree or not with his orthodox evangelical website. Hansmuller (talk) 22:37, 10 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Hello, Hansmuller. The bar for inclusion in Wikipedia isn't having a website with a "reasoned clear list of arguments". Instead, it's publishing in a particular kind of source. The kind of sources we use are outlined in WP:RS. One of the kinds of sources we don't use is self-published internet sources like this article by Nally. You can find the policy on self-published internet sources at WP:BLOGS.Alephb (talk) 22:44, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Quotations labelled TNIV
The two New Testament quotations are both labelled "TNIV". Are they taken from Today's New International Version or from the (older) New International Version (NIV)? They look like the NIV version as far as I can tell - are both versions the same for both of these passages? - BobKilcoyne (talk) 07:19, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism
I'm not a prolific editor but I think this article was the subject of homophobic vandalism on July 29 2020.

LGBT Christians and their Christian allies do tend to interpret this story from the bible as a story about a gay couple.

An anonymous user attempted to remove that interpretation on the grounds of it being "incorrect information". This is not the place to argue about people's religious beliefs. Some people interpret this as gay, that is a factually correct statement. The anonymous user also removed a "see also" link to the "Homosexuality in the New Testament" page, which lends itself as evidence pointing to homophobic censorship.

Therefore I have reverted the edits to the best of my ability.

I am adding this talk discussion to give the issue visibility and have a reference, in case anyone censors this page in the future. Eggshells (talk) 17:19, 30 August 2020 (UTC)