John 9:1-3 Jesus Heals a Man Born Blind

[ttruscott]

I do know the LDS position but I differ on other things...

peace, Ted

[Christum]

[QUOTE=ttruscott;3398868]John 9
1 As he went along, he saw a man blind from birth. 2 His disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?”

3 “Neither this man nor his parents sinned,” said Jesus, “but this happened so that the works of God might be displayed in him.”

First century Judaism did not entertain the later Christian notion of original sin so this could not have been a reference to transferred culpability.
Much historical evidence has emerged in recent years that Jesus and many Jews (notably the Pharisees) believed in reincarnation. For example take a look at The Original Jesus by E Gruber and H Kersten, 1995,p89-93.

The other interesting aspect of Christ's reply here is that he deprecated the idea of assigning guilt either to individuals or to God for the existence of suffering in this world. Here he is clearly stating it should be always approached in a positive way, as an opportunity for expressing compassion which is our highest spiritual attribute. As a Christian Humanist I believe Christ was telling us that it is only by maximizing our compassionate sensibilities over a multitude of reincarnated lifetimes that we might ultimately will find redemption.

[ttruscott]

First century Judaism did not entertain the later Christian notion of original sin so this could not have been a reference to transferred culpability.

It could if Jesus had been teaching them of their pre-earthly life in sheol and what happened there...

Peace, Ted

[Nicodemus]

Perhaps in Jesus' time it was known that some people born blind had an eye condition (known today as interstitial keratitis) as a reult of one or both parents suffering from syphilis. The pathology would not have been understood of course, but the link could have been established between a venereal disease causing childhood blindness. This would have been an excellent example of the sins of the fathers being visited on the newborn.There may also have been the concept of hereditary congenital disease e.g. congenital cataract or infantile glaucoma. The grandparents, the parents and the child would all have suffered from the same condition. Sins of the parents ? Of course not in these cases but it might have appeared that way.

Traditional Christians, myself included, do not believe in reincarnation.

Nicodemus

[Christum]

OK Nic but that does not account for the reference to the sins of the man himself quite obviously from a previous life.
Perhaps its time traditional Christians looked at the evidence and opened their minds to other possibilities.
As a Christian Humanist, I do not believe that heaven or hell awaits us at the end of one particular lifetime. How could that be fair for countless millions of people whose life circumstances and opportunities are so reduced?
Nor do I believe the crucifixion per se achieved salvation for us. What a disincentive for us to excel, to make our world a better place! Christ's repeatedly said that we will be judged according to our deeds, the way we put into practice the compassion he spent his entire mission demonstrating. Take a good look at Matt 25:34-46.

[ttruscott]

Perhaps in Jesus' time it was known that some people born blind had an eye condition (known today as interstitial keratitis) as a reult of one or both parents suffering from syphilis.
...

Traditional Christians, myself included, do not believe in reincarnation.

Nicodemus

Ummm, they did not ask what disease caused him to be blind but whose sin caused him to be blind; his own or his parents.

And I see nothing here of reincarnation, only an attestation to his existence in sheol pre-his birth where he bacame a sinner, though elect.

Peace, Ted

[ttruscott]

OK Nic but that does not account for the reference to the sins of the man himself quite obviously from a previous life.

Not necessarily a life on earth though, but a spiritual life in sheol where he made some true free will decisions (the only place in creation where such true free will can be expressed), which ended in both his election an dhis sinfulness.

Perhaps its time traditional Christians looked at the evidence and opened their minds to other possibilities.
As a Christian Humanist, I do not believe that heaven or hell awaits us at the end of one particular lifetime. How could that be fair for countless millions of people whose life circumstances and opportunities are so reduced?

We (the sinful elect who chose to be evil in HIS sight), only need one life to achieve GOD's plan for us AND the plan for the countless millions of people whose life circumstances and opportunities are so reduced is well under way as they indeed also had their time for true free will decisions but chose to reject GOD's purpose for their creation thus becoming HIS eternal enemies and outside of HIS grace and election forever.

There really is no works on earth that can save the damned.

Peace, Ted

[Christum]

Not much peace there Ted. Still it must be nice to know you are one of the righteous saved, not like those wicked children in the Congo who were raped and then forced to murder their own parents.

[KingsGambit]

Not much peace there Ted. Still it must be nice to know you are one of the righteous saved, not like those wicked children in the Congo who were raped and then forced to murder their own parents.

What are you talking about?

[Christum]

This.

http://iphoneproj2011.wordpress.com/...-in-the-congo/

[KingsGambit]

Well, yes... but how does it relate to our subject at hand?

[Christum]

do you really think the girl that was forced to eat her father's heart would be capable of making decisions of such magnitude as to determine her eternal fate?

If works cannot save us, why did Christ say we will be judged according to our compassionate deeds or callous indifference which he outlined in Matt 25:34-46?

[KingsGambit]

do you really think the girl that was forced to eat her father's heart would be capable of making decisions of such magnitude as to determine her eternal fate?

If works cannot save us, why did Christ say we will be judged according to our compassionate deeds or callous indifference which he outlined in Matt 25:34-46?

Works cannot save us. However, actual faith should inevitably lead to good works - the point of the Matthew 25 passage you allude to.

[Christum]

"Should lead to good works" but invariably does not- beyond perhaps tokenism in a world screaming in pain.
Why do traditional Christians insist that works cannot save us when Christ worked himself to the point of exhaustion healing and re-empowering people cowered by the Temple thugs? The Temple used its monopoly on forgiveness to create a culture of guilt that allowed the Sadducee landowners to more easily dispossess people of their land and with it, their Jewish identity. Christ's entire mission was about expressing compassion and demanding justice for these multitudes "beaten down and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd."
Matthew 26:27 could be more accurately read as Jesus "pouring out his blood for (challenging the Temple's monopoly of) the forgiveness of sins."

[ttruscott]

do you really think the girl that was forced to eat her father's heart would be capable of making decisions of such magnitude as to determine her eternal fate?

If works cannot save us, why did Christ say we will be judged according to our compassionate deeds or callous indifference which he outlined in Matt 25:34-46?

You missed the part where I said we self chose our eternal relationship with GOD BEFORE we came to live on earth, and that is why no works on earth can help those who chose to become evil in HIS eyes for eternity.

AS to how I treat people, leave that to me, please.

Peace, Ted