The man born blind

[YesMe]

I agree, it's not good, however I also believe in reading in context and if you read further down you will see where that might have come from.

It seems by the story that the Pharisees were aware of this man and his parents and why they answered the way they did.

The end of their interrogation of the man goes as follows

33 If this Man were not from God, He could do nothing.”

34 They answered and said to him, “You were completely born in sins, and are you teaching us?” And they cast him out.

It should be noted that the word for sin is in the plural and we aren't told if his parents were married at the time or not. A child conceived out of wedlock even while in the womb would fall under sin.

That was a very rude statement made out of anger and jealousy. Why you bring in discussion things that are not found in that story? No, it's not about falling under the sin, it's about sinning, a bad action made by that person alone that he alone is responsible for, it's a big difference between inheriting sin and sinning for yourself.

I have no desire to convince you guys of what that verse says, I have only showed you something that I bet few of you have seen.

 

[eleos1954]

One of the thing that got my attention is the story of the man born blind that was healed by Christ.

John 9:1-3 "And as Jesus passed by, he saw a man which was blind from his birth. And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind? Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.

So the question is, how could that man sin even before being born, because if you look at the question of His disciples, they asked who did sin, the man or his parents, that he was born blind?

Now, I would understand if they would have asked only about his parents, I know about the generational sin, and that would make sense, they sinned and as a result, their child was born blind, but the disciples asked also if this man sinned so how could he sin even before being born so that he was born blind? Notice the expression "who did sin", it's about the past, but before being born, the man had no past because he did no exist in this reality before being born, yet they asked this question.

Notice that Christ did not rebuke them about this strange question, but He continued the conversation saying that none of them sinned.

The jews had no belief in past lives yet His disciples, by using that question,show signs of having this belief, and more importantly, Christ did not rebuke them because of this strange question.

I think the point Jesus was making that this man's blindness was not due to sin.

This verse counters a misconception that was common in Jesus' era, the disciples assume that the man they've passed by (John 9:1–2) must be blind as a punishment for something. For them, this raises a difficult question: did the man somehow sin before he was born, or is he being punished for his parents' sin? This suggests the concept of karma, which implies that all suffering in this life is payment, or punishment, for prior acts of wrongdoing.

This type of thinking is also referenced in the book of Job. Whereas, his "friends" were sure his (Job's) afflictions was due to sin Job committed ... and as we know this is not the case.

 

[faroukfarouk]

I think the point Jesus was making that this man's blindness was not due to sin.

This verse counters a misconception that was common in Jesus' era, the disciples assume that the man they've passed by (John 9:1–2) must be blind as a punishment for something. For them, this raises a difficult question: did the man somehow sin before he was born, or is he being punished for his parents' sin? This suggests the concept of karma, which implies that all suffering in this life is payment, or punishment, for prior acts of wrongdoing.

This type of thinking is also referenced in the book of Job. Whereas, his "friends" were sure his (Job's) afflictions was due to sin Job committed ... and as we know this is not the case.

Even Paul had a 'thorn in the flesh', for the bearing of which the grace of God was liberally supplied.

 

[YesMe]

I think the point Jesus was making that this man's blindness was not due to sin.

This verse counters a misconception that was common in Jesus' era, the disciples assume that the man they've passed by (John 9:1–2) must be blind as a punishment for something. For them, this raises a difficult question: did the man somehow sin before he was born, or is he being punished for his parents' sin? This suggests the concept of karma, which implies that all suffering in this life is payment, or punishment, for prior acts of wrongdoing.

This type of thinking is also referenced in the book of Job. Whereas, his "friends" were sure his (Job's) afflictions was due to sin Job committed ... and as we know this is not the case.

Yes, but they were sure Job sinned while being very much alive, not prior to his birth.

As I said, Jesus said that none of them sinned, but He did not say a thing about their strange question, it's quite clear what His disciples where asking Him, did he sin prior to his birth so this is why he was born blind or his parents sinned? This is their question but the writer of that gospel made it so that it's not easy to actually see it for what it is, you just go on reading, as I did for many years...

You see, it's important that it's about this man sinning, you know, his actions lead him to that state, not about an inherited sin and not about the sinful nature of mankind.

To me, the fact that Jesus did not rebuke them, says a lot.

 

[Francis Drake]

The interpretation of the passage depends entirely on the verse numbering, and that of course was added by academics long after the scriptures were written, and was not done under Holy Spirit inspiration.
I have therefore shifted the verse construction slightly to make better sense of the passage.

By splitting verse3 into two halves, and tacking the first half to the end of verse 2, then tacking the other half to the start of verse4. The original sense becomes clearer. (Remember the original Greek has no verses)

John9v2And his disciples asked him, saying, Rabbi, who sinned, this man, or his parents, that he should be born blind? 3Jesus answered, Neither did this man sin, nor his parents:

But that the works of God should be made manifest in him we must work the works of him that sent me.

Jesus clearly rejects the idea that the man or his parent's sin was to blame, but emphasises the nature of God to heal the sick.

This verse construction also denies the oft taught idea that God caused the sickness in order that Jesus could demonstrate his power to heal.

 

[prodromos]

The jews had no belief in past lives yet His disciples, by using that question,show signs of having this belief, and more importantly, Christ did not rebuke them because of this strange question.

The disciples weren't asking if the man had sinned, but phrased the question that way because they understood (wrongly) that affliction was always the result of sin in their life.

The important point you have missed in the above passage is that the man wasn't just born blind, he was actually born without eyes. Christ fashioned new eyes from the clay He formed, in the same way He had once fashioned Adam from the clay. This is the reason why this particular blind man receiving his sight caused such a commotion. People quite literally could not recognise him as the same man because all his life his eye sockets had been empty yet now he had eyes.
Jesus had healed other blind men yet none of those healings elicited anything like the response this one did.
Jesus was demonstrating quite plainly that He was God Almighty, not just a great prophet.

 

[YesMe]

The disciples weren't asking if the man had sinned, but phrased the question that way because they understood (wrongly) that affliction was always the result of sin in their life.

The important point you have missed in the above passage is that the man wasn't just born blind, he was actually born without eyes. Christ fashioned new eyes from the clay He formed, in the same way He had once fashioned Adam from the clay. This is the reason why this particular blind man receiving his sight caused such a commotion. People quite literally could not recognise him as the same man because all his life his eye sockets had been empty yet now he had eyes.
Jesus had healed other blind men yet none of those healings elicited anything like the response this one did.
Jesus was demonstrating quite plainly that He was God Almighty, not just a great prophet.

That particular question brings both views in discussion, the inherited sin ( caused by his parents which ultimately is caused by the sinful nature of man ) and the sins of that man, that caused him to be born blind. It's a major difference when we talk about the sins of that man because he and only he could sin and this is what they asked, did he sin that he was born blind or his parents? It's a very very strange question, this could have been asked in many other ways, you know, to be more clear.. but my opinion is that it was written this way purposely.

Well, I know that story very well because I've read the gospels dozens of times but I was not aware of this, that he had no eyes, thank you, I love learning new things!

Jesus also says that the blind should have no sin which once again according to the doctrines of the christian churches, this is not possible because all men are sinners, yet Jesus said that the blind should have no sin, but blind in what way? Spirtually blind, my opinion, the ones who simply can't understand the concepts of good and evil and so their conscience can't accuse them.

I too believe that He was the very manifestation of the Father!

 

[prodromos]

That particular question brings both views in discussion, the inherited sin ( caused by his parents which ultimately is caused by the sinful nature of man ) and the sins of that man, that caused him to be born blind.

It really doesn't, because to interpret it that way is contrary to everything in both the Old Testament and the New. Everyone is granted one life to live, after which they will rise again either to eternal life, or eternal death. There is absolutely no suggestion of a belief by the Jews in reincarnation, whereby someone is reborn as a new infant. What Gregorikos claimed was for in Josephus is false, it only referred to the Pharisees belief in the resurrection, which the Sadducees did not believe in, something the Apostle Paul used to his advantage when he was on trial in Acts 23:6-8.

You simply cannot apply the modern Western English norms for asking questions against a Semitic culture expressed in the Greek language. Their entire history, culture and religious beliefs preclude your interpretation. You are reading something into the text which simply is not there.

 

[YesMe]

It really doesn't, because to interpret it that way is contrary to everything in both the Old Testament and the New. Everyone is granted one life to live, after which they will rise again either to eternal life, or eternal death. There is absolutely no suggestion of a belief by the Jews in reincarnation, whereby someone is reborn as a new infant. What Gregorikos claimed was for in Josephus is false, it only referred to the Pharisees belief in the resurrection, which the Sadducees did not believe in, something the Apostle Paul used to his advantage when he was on trial in Acts 23:6-8.

You simply cannot apply the modern Western English norms for asking questions against a Semitic culture expressed in the Greek language. Their entire history, culture and religious beliefs preclude your interpretation. You are reading something into the text which simply is not there.

No, I am not interpreting that verse, that verse is as clear as it can be but it was left out of the main picture, how many of you have seen this?

And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?

Who did sin, this man or his parents, that he was born blind? It clearly talks about a previous life otherwise this question makes no sense, how could he sin even before being born so that he was born blind. To me it's fascinating that they asked this question and more fascinating is that Jesus did not rebuke them.

You are trying to show that this verse says something else, creating all sorts of theories, I am only showing what that verse says, it's a bible verse, a real verse.

You know, the bible was put together, every book tells a story from a different point of view, if you go to the OT, you will find countless verses that the dead go to Sheol and that they are there in a state of sleep, even more, the spirit goes to God and the dust ( the body ) to dust. Then you find Jesus's story about the rich man and poor Lazaurs, that the rich man was in hell ( the actual word is Hades and it's the same with Sheol )

Ecclesiastes 9:10 "Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with your might, for there is no work or thought or knowledge or wisdom in Sheol, to which you are going"
Ecclesiastes 12:7 "And the dust returns to the earth as it was, and the spirit returns to God who gave it. "

The rich man was very much alive and able to think, at first glance, Jesus's story contradicts those verses above, but there's so so much more to the truth, so much more.

 

[prodromos]

No, I am not interpreting that verse,

You are, for the reasons explained above.

that verse is as clear as it can be but it was left out of the main picture, how many of you have seen this?

The big picture is there is not even the remotest hint of reincarnation anywhere in the Scriptures, nor was there ever any Jewish school of thought that considered it.

 

[YesMe]

You are, for the reasons explained above.

The big picture is there is not even the remotest hint of reincarnation anywhere in the Scriptures, nor was there ever any Jewish school of thought that considered it.

This I know, but that verse suggests something else, at least his disciples had beliefs about past lives, I know that some of you are too confortable with your own beliefs about God and so on but I am trying to go further and to explore those things that have been left in shadows for the last 2000 years.

So don't worry, I am not here to prove that your beliefs are wrong.

 

[prodromos]

This I know, but that verse suggests something else, at least his disciples had beliefs about past lives, I know that some of you are too confortable with your own beliefs about God and so on but I am trying to go further and to explore those things that have been left in shadows for the last 2000 years.

So don't worry, I am not here to prove that your beliefs are wrong.

I am not concerned about you supposedly proving anything contrary to my beliefs. I am concerned about the person who believes he has discovered something that has supposedly remained undetected for 2000 years.

 

[Whitelinen]

We maybe don't have the whole conversation recorded, only the pertinent parts. The object of the lesson was that the man was born blind for the sake of Jesus to heal him.

'but that the works of God should be made manifest in him'

He was born blind to be there at the time and place the Jesus came along and could manifest his power over creation and heal him. Just as the storm rose up so he could calm the waters.

He may have had a long and lengthy discussion with them later on about their question.

Assumptions and speculation is not good, because in doing so, we can change the meaning of any bible verse, you see. The writer of that gospel could make that verse more clear, but ask yourself why he did not do it. It took me years to see what that verse says, I read it so so many times before..

Assumptions and speculation is not good, because in doing so, we can change the meaning of any bible verse, you see. The writer of that gospel could make that verse more clear, but ask yourself why he did not do it. It took me years to see what that verse says, I read it so so many times before..

I agree, it's not good, however I also believe in reading in context and if you read further down you will see where that might have come from.

It seems by the story that the Pharisees were aware of this man and his parents and why they answered the way they did.

The end of their interrogation of the man goes as follows

33 If this Man were not from God, He could do nothing.”

34 They answered and said to him, “You were completely born in sins, and are you teaching us?” And they cast him out.

It should be noted that the word for sin is in the plural and we aren't told if his parents were married at the time or not. A child conceived out of wedlock even while in the womb would fall under sin.

That was a very rude statement made out of anger and jealousy. Why you bring in discussion things that are not found in that story? No, it's not about falling under the sin, it's about sinning, a bad action made by that person alone that he alone is responsible for, it's a big difference between inheriting sin and sinning for yourself.

I have no desire to convince you guys of what that verse says, I have only showed you something that I bet few of you have seen.

Can you please show me what I said that you found rude, angry and jealous? I'm quite confused here.

 

[Lulav]

The disciples weren't asking if the man had sinned, but phrased the question that way because they understood (wrongly) that affliction was always the result of sin in their life.

The important point you have missed in the above passage is that the man wasn't just born blind, he was actually born without eyes. Christ fashioned new eyes from the clay He formed, in the same way He had once fashioned Adam from the clay. This is the reason why this particular blind man receiving his sight caused such a commotion. People quite literally could not recognise him as the same man because all his life his eye sockets had been empty yet now he had eyes.
Jesus had healed other blind men yet none of those healings elicited anything like the response this one did.
Jesus was demonstrating quite plainly that He was God Almighty, not just a great prophet.

Hi, may I ask where you learned or heard that from?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Not someone, but the disciples, the very people where were with Him.

Anyway, I hope someone can see deeper into this and do more research as I did for myself.

Your research led you to believe or to think and post things not true.
Hopefully some others have posted appropriate corrections.

 

[YesMe]

Can you please show me what I said that you found rude, angry and jealous? I'm quite confused here.

34 They answered and said to him, “You were completely born in sins, and are you teaching us?” And they cast him out.

This is how they answered Christ.

 

[YesMe]

Your research led you to believe or to think and post things not true.
Hopefully some others have posted appropriate corrections.

It's a real bible verse, I did nothing special, how can not be true when the words are there and they are very clear... If I go to a preacher and ask exactly the same question about a man that had a illness from his birth, I will be told that this is not what the bible teaches, but how would that preacher react if I tell him that this question is also found in the scriptures.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

When or where or from whom did you receive understanding of that "real Bible verse" ?

It's a real bible verse, I did nothing special, how can not be true when the words are there and they are very clear... If I go to a preacher and ask exactly the same question about a man that had a illness from his birth, I will be told that this is not what the bible teaches, but how would that preacher react if I tell him that this question is also found in the scriptures.

 

[YesMe]

When or where or from whom did you receive understanding of that "real Bible verse" ?

The verse is as clear as it can be, what more it's to be understood?

You have two possible answers, either they were talking about past lives or a predetermined punishment for his "future" sins? But a predetermined punishment for "future sins", does not make sense, how can you be punished before committing the sin? I don't think you will ever find this belief in any religion of this world.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

The verse is as clear as it can be, what more it's to be understood?

You have two possible answers, either they were talking about past lives or a predetermined punishment for his "future" sins? But a predetermined punishment for "future sins", does not make sense, how can you be punished before committing the sin? I don't think you will ever find this belief in any religion of this world.

Since neither of your explantions is truth in line with all Scripture,
but directly contradict all Scripture,
there is more to find out.