fromdownunder

This got buried in another thread, so I thought I would start it off fresh:

John 9:2 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 work of God might be displayed in his life.

Jesus' statement on Verse 3, that "neither this man nor his parents sinned" seems at best, to contradict the concept of original sin, and the fall.

If we are to take the view of Genesis that seems to be pretty fundamental to Christian dogma, what, precisely was Jesus inferring when he made this statement?

That these people were without sin?

That original sin is not taken into account when afflictions are applied to individuals?

That it is just the luck of the draw if one is born blind or otherwise?

Any comments, or thoughts? I would appreciate it if responses would stay away from the "(evil/good God caused this so that he could later show how great he is" type reply.

That is not relevant to what I am asking.

Norm

Deathscyth Hell

What do the words mean in greek?

TollHouse

No offense DH, but shouldn't you know?
I mean, if you've decided to live you're life by the words of God than shouldn't you know what His words really mean?

Does anyone else find this odd?

ChadD

Well, the obvious solution is to say that although it at first appears a plain contradiction, in light of other passages we realize that the actual purpose for this particular phrasing was to specifically emphasize that it was so that the "works of God might be revealed in him;" while at the same time demonstrating to the disciples that the power of God is more than only what they first suspect.

However, if this is not the case, it is easy to see how a minor bit of phrasing could have been lost at some point through a copying error.

Yet, I personally do not assert that a flawless New Testament is essential to the faith, but only that it is possible that it is 'perfect'.

[ September 28, 2001: Message edited by: ChadD ]

Nomad

Hi Norm

It's been awhile eh?

Actually, the doctrine of original sin basically states that because we are born sinful, we are separated from God, and the consequences of this sin is that we will suffer the first death. The clearest definition of original sin comes from the Catholic Catechism:

389 The doctrine of original sin is, so to speak, the "reverse side" of the Good News that Jesus is the Savior of all men, that all need salvation and that salvation is offered to all through Christ. The Church, which has the mind of Christ, knows very well that we cannot tamper with the revelation of original sin without undermining the mystery of Christ.

As everyone is born equally into this sin, it would be fallacious to think that some suffer from it more than others. Thus, we cannot say that a man or woman born with a disability is suffering from that disability because of the taint of his or her own sins, nor that of the parents.

Jesus is telling us that men are not born with a disability because of something they did themselves, nor, necessarily because of the fault of the parents. Even today many think that is the case, but Jesus is telling us that it is not.

Definitely not. Remember, in order to heal the sick, Jesus most often told the suplicant that his or her sins were forgiven, and that their faith had healed them. In this specific case, Jesus tells us that the man was born blind specifically so that people would come to know the truth of Jesus' power, message and person. In other words, that He was the Messiah.

Yes. He is telling us this as well.

Each of us is born with our own individual sets of gifts and hardships. It is in how we deal with them, and whether or not we come to faith in God, using our gifts, and overcoming our infirmities through faith in Christ that will show whether or not we are worthy of His glory.

An excellent set of questions Norm. Thank you.

Nomad

fromdownunder

Hi Nomad,

Yeah, I do not come to BC&A much lately – busy elsewhere with Mod. Duties on other Boards, and lots of other stuff, plus many of the threads here require knowledge which I simply do not have, and do not have the time to research.

Correct me if I am wrong (I like to simplify things for my poor fried brain), but your response seems to say that while the man and his parents were born with original sin, the man was not born blind because of original sin but for "....whatever...." reason. (Hope what I am trying to get at is clear)

If so, this is fair enough, otherwise we would all have problems, and if my interpretation of this part of your post is correct, I can live with that (in the context of my original questions).

But Jesus did say “Neither this man nor his parents sinned but this happened so that the work of God might be displayed in his life.”

So I seek clarification as to how you can reconcile Jesus’ seemingly specific words that the man had not sinned, and the dogma of original sin being in all of us. Or was Jesus not referring to "original" sin, but subsequent "earthly" sin in his statement?

Regards

Norm

Nomad

Yes, this is basically what I was saying.

Well, we all ARE born with problems, but I take your meaning, yes.

Jesus is answering the specific question of his disciples, in which they betray the common error in assuming that the man was born with a disability because of some sin of his parents, or that he had committed himself. Jesus' answer is meant to assure them (and us) that people are not born with a disability BECAUSE of their sin, or that of the parents. In this specific instance, the man was born blind so that God might be glorified. In other cases it is, as you have said, the "luck of the draw" that we are born with the disabilities or limitations each of us has in this life.

Bottom line, original sin is not the cause of our disabilities, nor are our specific sins for that matter. At the same time, Jesus is not saying here that the man (and his parents) were without original sin. He was correcting an erroneous belief, one that is ironically still held to this day, even by many Christians.

Nomad

[ September 29, 2001: Message edited by: Nomad ]

excreationist

Some lesser known translations of the Bible remove the problem in this passage. But this isn't true of versions such as the authoritive KJV. Since these other translations would rely on smaller, less qualified translating teams (unlike NIV, etc), maybe those translations are less accurate. (Or maybe they are somehow more accurate since they make sense)

NIV - "...Neither this man nor his parents sinned..." (bad)

New American Standard Bible - "...It was neither that this man sinned, nor his parents..." (ambiguous)

New Living Translation - "...It was not because of his sins or his parents' sins..." (good)

KJV - "...Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents..." (bad)

New KJV - "...Neither this man nor his parents sinned..." (bad)

Revised Standard Version - "It was not that this man sinned, or his parents" (ambiguous)

21st Century KJV - "...Neither hath this man sinned nor his parents..." (bad)

Worldwide English - "...It was not that he or his parents did any wrong thing..." (ambiguous/bad)

Young's Literal Translation - "...Neither did this one sin nor his parents..." (bad)

Darby Translation - "...Neither has this [man] sinned nor his parents..." (bad)

My comment in brackets refers to whether the translation is seemingly contradictory to the doctrine of universal original sin.

Vorkosigan

Jesus' answer is meant to assure them (and us) that people are not born with a disability BECAUSE of their sin, or that of the parents. In this specific instance, the man was born blind so that God might be glorified.

Only a complete ethical nihilist could believe something like this. Do you honestly believe that imposing years of suffering on someone so that "god could be glorified" is a good thing?

Michael

Foxhole Atheist

Nomad:

You stated: “In this specific instance, the man was born blind so that God might be glorified.”

I think I may be missing something here, and as turtonm has asked, how is god gloried in this instance?