Permissible external performance of prayer versus superstition

  • Thread starter Thread starter Johnpeter073
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

Johnpeter073

Guest
Why did Jesus spit to heal the blind man and deaf man? Why isn’t it a superstition? How can we draw a line to distinguish what constitutes mere superstitions and what is mere external performance of faith? Suppose, if there is a blessed religious oil, will it be superstitious to apply it to miraculously heal some diseases?
 
It was a divine act of creation.

In the case of the Man Born Blind (John 9, is it), spit and clay was creating of eyes from dirt, just as Man was created in Genesis.
 
So you are telling that there was a logical connection between His act of spitting and His act of healing, right?
 
So you are telling that there was a logical connection between His act of spitting and His act of healing, right?
undoubtedly…but more than just healing, His act of creation is undeniable.
 
Last edited:
Suppose, if there is a blessed religious oil, will it be superstitious to apply it to miraculously heal some diseases?
That sounds like the definition of superstitious to me. Otherwise what would be the difference between a petitionary prayer or a petitionary prayer PLUS application of something like blessed oil?
 
The heck?

The character and use of most ordinary oils includes medicinal and healing uses. This was obvious to a pre-modern person – even if we are ignorant about it, because we have different medicines.

Blessing an oil is a way of claiming it for God, helping the creature oil (as the older forms of blessing address the oil) serve God more fully.

Miraculous healing by God through a blessed oil is not superstitious unless people treat it as a vending machine, instead of a sacramental and a gift from God. But being healed by a blessed oil would be within the range of stuff that often happens. It is not normal oil; it is a sacramental – oil dedicated to God and working for Him.

Look. God made matter. It was His invention and creation. Jesus Christ is God, and became man. He became matter. It was His special way to.approach us.

So of course He was going to include matter in His miracles. It was a sign for us, and it indicated His role as the New Adam, in charge of earthly creatures.

Also, it was fun and thematically appropriate. Mud over the eyelids or painted on the face like a football player, was a common way to soothe eyestrain, so using it for blindness was like using a Band-Aid to instantly heal a sucking chest wound – impressive. It goes to the tradition that the Messiah would provide heavenly medicine and balm, and the mud has other implications too that I cannot remember.

Basically, Jesus knew what He was doing, and His signs make clear statements if you are a Biblically knowledgeable Jew of that time. Which is why He made.people so angry. They understood what His signs and miracles were saying, and they did not like it.
 
Last edited:
Permissible external performance of prayer versus superstition
Would you care to define what you mean by the term “external performance of prayer”? Would it include, for example, making the sign of the cross? Baptism?
 
Why did Jesus spit to heal the blind man and deaf man? Why isn’t it a superstition?
Are you talking about John 9? If so, you’re missing a lot of the context of the story. With the proper context understood, you’ll see that this isn’t about ‘superstition’…

Moloney explains it well in his volume on the Gospel of John in the Sacra Pagina series. The context of this passage is the Feast of Tabernacles in Jerusalem. The feast includes a daily procession to the Pool of Siloam in order to bring water to the temple; the people cry out to God for the arrival of the promised messiah. Jesus stands up and declares Himself to be the living water sent from God. Jesus also makes a number of claims about a certain ‘moral’ blindness that’s being exhibited by the leaders.

Outside of the temple, Jesus meets the man who has been blind from birth. With a simple action, he acts out what is happening in this situation: Jesus places a physical barrier to the man’s sight on his eyes and tells him to go to the Pool of Siloam. The evangelist adds that this means “sent one.” He goes and washes, and he gains sight.

Here’s the question: who’s the ‘Sent One’? The blind man? Nope… Jesus, who is sent by the Father as the Living Waters. Jesus literally demonstrates, through this action, that He is the one who washes and removes blindness.

So… ‘superstition’? Far from it. More like the ancient literary technique of acting out what one is saying.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top