Yes, it does, but I've not heard your definition before - perhaps you can reference a source?
Lumen, I think you know exactly what I think one of the definitions of the word "Samaritan" is. But I'll clarify; Samaritans were known as "half-breeds" since the beginning and that is how it became synonymous with that definition among many people; As well every definition I've ever heard of the word states something like "racially mixed Jews" in so many words.
I don't see how this definition could possibly be associated with Christ. I think Lumen gave a very good explanation of what a Samaritan is. If you can find some passage in the Fathers that does so, please give the location.
That's partly right, but not quite accurate.
That doesn't matter because that is what people think (or "know") is the definition.
Actually, I always understood the word to mean more of what Lumen was describing, though I couldn't have given you all the details. If people have some other notion of what a Samaritan is, then that is because of ignorance and/or the normal corruption of speech, and not because of it's true meaning in the Bible, from whence it came.
You say later that David could be considered a Samaritan, for example, and that's an anachronism. Israel existed in 12 united tribes under David and Solomon. They split into north and south under Rehoboam. The capital city of the southern kingdom was Judah (hence the name "Jew"), and the capital city of the northern kingdom was Samaria (hence the name "Samaritan").
I'm sorry, what's "anachronism" mean?
It isn't an uncommon word, but here is a definition from wordsmith.org:
1. The error of placing a person, object, custom, or event in the wrong historical period.
2. A person, thing, or practice that does not belong in a time period.
[From French anachronisme, from Latin anachronismus, from Greek anakhronismos, from ana-, (backwards) + khronos (time).]
So, an example of an anachronism would be Shakespeare's Julius Caesar speaking of a clock. Another one would be considering David to be a Samaritan, since the Samaritans did not exist yet in David's time.
Anyway, as was pointed out, it's clear from Scripture that Jesus was a Jew from the southern tribe of Judah. If He were not, He could make no valid claim to be the Messiah.
I don't disagree if your talking religiously but even at that time Judaism was considered what the High Priests, scribes, and Pharisees taught and thought, just as people do today with the Church; people don't see the Catholic Faith as the Tridentine Faith but the "Novus Ordo" modernist faith.
[/QUOTE]
I don't understand how your analogy fits into this argument. The Pharisees, et. al., could only possibly have considered him a Samaritan if they didn't know where he came from. I think they did know where he came from- they were familiar with the Scriptures.
I also really don't understand why you are trying to justify calling Jesus a Samaritan. It seems to me that the Pharisees meant it as an insult, as we would say that someone is a "bastard" but we don't mean literally. How you could build up a theory that Christ was a Samaritan over one passage in Scripture, when dozens of other texts, and indeed the whole Bible contradicts it, is beyond me.
I can see that it may be true that Christ is considered the "good Samaritan" in a symbolic way from that parable, but that would not mean that he was literally a Samaritan (any more than we would call Him a bastard, forgive the analogy.) If that is true, then it still would not justify calling Christ a Samaritan outside of the references to the parable.
