IT WAS JUST PLAIN STUPID AND DISTRACTING FOR DOMINICAN-SISTER HELEN ALFRED, OP, TO QUOTE A DOMINICAN PRIEST FATHER MICHAEL PALUCH, OP, WHO SAID JESUS WAS INITIALLY “FLIRTING” WITH THE SAMARITAN WOMAN—DID I SAY IT WAS JUST PLAIN STUPID?

What a stupid, silly, unnecessary and even blasphemous thing for Dominican Sister Helen Alfred to repeat at a Vatican meeting, what a Dominican Priest, Fr. Michal Paluch said about Jesus, that he initially was flirting with the Samaritan women. What nonsense and why repeat something so false and filled with calumny and far more than just breaking the 8th Commandment? What was the point in using that term or repeating it and its sloppy and lazy academic point? A complete distraction from an otherwise good talk!

 I asked my good friend, AI, if Jesus was flirting with the Samaritan woman when our sinless Lord asked her for water. And this is what Artificial Intelligence knows which evidently two human Dominicans, with non-artificial intelligence don’t know:

No, Jesus did not flirt with the Samaritan woman in John 4; the biblical narrative describes a theological encounter offering spiritual salvation, not a romantic or sexual interaction. [1]

What the Bible Says

The Setting: Jesus met an unnamed Samaritan woman at Jacob's Well in Sychar at noon. [1, 2]
The Social Barrier: In first-century culture, it was socially shocking for a Jewish man to speak publicly with a Samaritan—and with a woman outside his family. [1, 2]
The Dialogue: Jesus asked her for a drink of water and then shifted the conversation to "living water,"using it as a metaphor for eternal life and the Holy Spirit rather than any physical or double-entendre meaning. [1, 2]
The Result: The woman recognized Jesus as a prophet and the Messiah, then left her water jar to run back to her town and tell others about him. [1]

Where the Flirtation Claim Comes From

Unconventional Sermons: The idea that they were flirting or that "living water" was a sexual euphemism comes from a small number of modern sermons and commentators (such as a Florida Episcopal pastor's sermon that drew widespread public critique). [1]
Wits and Teasing: Some interpreters describe their back-and-forth dialogue as snappy, sharp, or playful verbal sparring—breaking deep cultural and religious taboos—which a few people loosely describe as a "verbal flirtation" or "matching of wits". [1]
Mainstream Theological Consensus: Christian scholars, historians, and mainstream traditions reject the idea of romance or flirtation, viewing the passage strictly as a moment of radical grace, cross-cultural breaking of barriers, and theological revelation. [1]