Julio

Apparently his Father didn’t oblige and went ahead with the wicked deed.
If that were true, Jesus would have the duty to heal ALL such cases; and surely, he passed by other similar ones!
He didn’t, and so he was telling lies to his disciples.
A christ that tells lies is a charlatan.
That is, Jesus took the situation of an unfortunate to score points for his own party.
That is divine dishonesty in a moral book.
Was Jesus telling his followers that ALL those born blind were to be used as guinea pigs to highlight his miraculous powers?
Jesus messed it up once again; and the church still applauds him.
Suddenly, we are confronted with this unimaginable quandary: if God had allowed that INNOCENT child to be born blind and allowed him to reach adulthood for the simple purpose of making him the object of a miracle to advertise his special Son’s powers, we have here a clear case of divine INJUSTICE.
Unjust gods are charlatans, too.
When Jesus said it wasn’t the fault of anyone, he lied again to defend his weird “Father”.
Surely blindness would be blamed on God for not taking care of our fragile human condition in this life.
Surely God would have “designed” this world with the possibility of genetic defects that could cause blindness!
Surely too the living conditions in this planet were not appropriate for our complete happiness.
How come suddenly Jesus has the indecency to excuse his “Father”?
If he said that God is Impersonal Light, not involved in the running of the universe, would have been a much better proposition, even though we would disagree or confront the statement some other way.
But when he defended God’s actions AGAINST innocent children he SINNED against us and himself [as also a human being].
He, then, had to die for his and his Father’s sins.
There were MANY other chances for God to prove his Son’s potential, like finding the evil people who molest children or rob the property of others.
STOP WAR if a God can do that!
Jesus would have done a priceless job to those where he lived if he had the miraculous ability to do right justice in bringing to trial the criminals, the robbers and the like.

Chili

I like that one, worse yet, they are all spirit filled but have to pray the HS down from heaven every time they meet. Obviously, they are Matthew's kind of Christians where the dove just hovered over Jesus and then left again. . . . and then of course he makes this clear with: "You shall do homage to the Lord your God, him alone shall you adore. At that the devil left him" (4:11) because that is exactly what he wanted to hear and 'a Jesus worshiper' he will be. . . and so now you also know what a so called Christian is other than torn between faith and doubt..

But I have no time Julio or I could have a lot of fun with you here.

Julio

Chili, what a pity, really.
I wanted to hear your "interpretation" on this stuff.
Please, try.

Julio

Jesus NEVER did one single miracle in that intrusive area of our living.
Many robbers and thieves could have been found in the places where Jesus walked, but NOT ONE such case is ever recorded in the holy book.
On the contrary, he had the guts to actually tell a story of a certain Good Samaritan (Luke 10:30-37) who found a naked and beaten up man by thieves on a public road, but did he go a step further and find the criminals themselves to bring them to justice?
No way Jose, that Jesus wasn’t that interested in the hard struggles of our daily affairs!
Churches rebuke the Devil every Sunday morning in the name of this Jesus that could not locate the thieves who attacked the innocent man; it’s a joke.
Then came down a “certain” priest and next a Levite who [in typical fashion] passed by the injured man without helping him.
Only when a compassionate Samaritan came across that place was the wounded man properly helped.
Then Jesus asks the lawyer who challenged him [about “who is my neighbour”] this most disturbing question at the end of his story:
“Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the thieves?”
He didn’t want to say “which one of these FOUR”, including himself, who saw the crime taking place!
The Samaritan was, the challenger would reply.
Yes, religion didn’t help the man in need; neither did Jesus nor his Father!

Julio

The lawyer wasn’t clever enough to reply that that Jesus’ Father observes crime every hour of the day to use as illustration of our wickedness.
But, the lawyer would add, what did YOUR Father do when the very first man was assaulted, naked and wounded by robbers?!
And, Jesus – he would conclude his intervention – what did YOU do to catch those criminals, since you know the story happened like you told it?!
NOTHING, dear Jesus, NOTHING!
Don’t come telling us the story of a crime you witnessed and ALSO did nothing to help the victim!!
Who then said that we needed this Christ in our suburbs, tolling bells early on Sunday mornings to awaken us when we needed to sleep a bit more?
But on the other hand, why would God need to prove anything if at one time in the human affairs he had had the UNIQUE opportunity to do the right thing to prove his love towards us the human race but left it escape his attention, and now we were stuck in perpetual misery surrounded by misfortune and disadvantage?
What sort of God was that of THAT Jesus who needed applause through the misfortunes of our suffering race?
It’s preposterous!

Julio

What are we dealing here with, folks?
And then John spent an entire chapter of his gospel using this unfortunate INNOCENT man to highlight Jesus’ saving qualities!
Come on!
Something is terribly disturbing in the gospel of John; or was his mind awfully unstable at ninety years of age?
You see, writing a gospel at that age has to be suspicious, for how could he remember verbatim what was said?
Surely he ADDED in much of his own imagination; besides, today’s textual students are convinced that NOTHING in John’s gospel can be trusted as genuine content.
My computer’s word counter counted 876 words in this chapter nine, 128 representing what Jesus said in the whole transcript (just a few short sentences).
That is, there are 748 words added by John to explain the detail of the miracle; that is Jesus’ words are only 15% of the entire narration!
JOHN LIED at ninety years of age; and he lied to all the generations of Christians who would believe God HURTS children with blindness to promote his Christ!
We go to church on Sunday to support this gospel with our money?!
With this miracle, therefore, the apostle John makes a God of love to look awfully debased.
What love would that be to allow a child be born BLIND, go through life handicapped without sight, depending on the social welfare or charity and subjected to a life of ostracism and rejection for the only reason that Jesus would one day pass by his house and heal him to show off his powers?!
That cannot be a serious intention.
What God would not find a more dignified way to advertise his begotten Son?
I repeat: the apostle John LIED in the name of Jesus and in the name of all the stuff he never said.
Do you see how quickly a “nice” miracle is terribly discredited, if one has the normal ability to read the encoded facts?

Chili

. . . and I'll be busy for the next few months, and I really am. Yes I can string the whole thing together using all the gospels but that takes a book and I am not about to do that. I appreciate your feedback and I like your exposition.

Julio

As for spitting on the ground and collecting the “clay” to rub the blind man’s eyes, it was excellent discernment of the writer NOT to mention exactly where that happened, otherwise we would have some Catholic or Charismatic church erasing some altar on the spot and start selling divine saliva and holy clay to heal blindness!
Surely they would find some gimmick to “prove” the miracle, and maybe some sight-impaired individual would get a better vision, for we can [in some cases] heal ourselves if shocked enough with strange phenomena.
Well, surely a tremendous business if it could be arranged.
There was a time the popes were selling all sorts of relics by the ton to build St. Peter’s Cathedral or whenever they needed cash from their superstitious followers.
Religious dishonesty gets to those levels.
For centuries, at special occasions, they sold milk from Mary’s breasts in small vials [against which Calvin wrote some harsh words]!
Read on the Internet “Forgery In Christianity – A Documented Record of the Foundations of the Christian Religion” by Joseph Wheless.
Next, after “anointing” the blind man’s eyes with that “healing clay” medicine, Jesus, sort of rudely, orders him to go wash his eyes in some pool without explain the technicalities.
The Bible does always leave out the detail we would need to critique the text properly.
What intrigues me is that this Jesus had no compassion for the individual by taking him by his hand and leading him to the pool, like a kind person would do.
No; the blind had to go there by himself, asking people around the way if he was on the right track!
Not one of the twelve disciples offered to help the blind man, either, so much for charity.
It is still like that in many forms of religion, where the adherent has to support the going system without a simple thanks.
The blind man went, wash his eyes and came back seeing.
Well, that is debatable, how much was he seeing?
The story then degenerates into a sort of a theological debate with many other actors, obviously all INVENTED by John, since no disciple was present to witness all of it.
That is the usual misdemeanour in the miracles, ending up disturbing the local peace.
Only a blind man can see any moral or spiritual lesson in this affair.
Jesus is the hero, but he and his disciples were also inconsiderate, both to the blind man and to the Pharisees for doing another “miracle” on the Sabbath.

Julio

Miracle number seven.
When the conscientious Bible student arrives at John chapter eleven, he has already studied six other miracles and found them forged propaganda to promote a christ that would end his life a complete failure in the primary endeavour he had been chosen for [the salvation of the Jews and the inauguration – arrival – of John the Baptist’s “Kingdom of Heaven” where Jesus Christ the Jewish Messiah would sit on the physical throne of king David, sort of utopia dream].
This angle is not only terribly traumatic, but disturbingly disrupting, for when a Christ fails, so does his divine integrity.
And a Christ with no integrity is a charlatan, a dangerous impersonator we need to expose before something terribly grave takes place and many innocent bystanders end up dead!
In this Jesus’ history, the procedure wasn’t implement in time.
He came, not in the pleroma [fullness] of the time (Galatians 4:4), but millennia before Armageddon (!), and MILLIONS had to die an inglorious death for nothing of real value.
Religion has always propagated a vicious form of hatred whereby its custodians are ready to KILL to defend that Christ’s holiness.
If, on the other hand, the original plan was formulated with its intrinsic defects to, sort of, camouflage some undisclosed purpose, the more we have reason – yes, we REASON the entire process – to get angry at God for not finding a more honourable way to save us [from that nasty invisible Enemy he allowed in our territory].
Sorry, folks, but either way, the “PLAN” of salvation, or the “arrival” of that weirdest “kingdom” – that never came – is corrupted with many flaws.

[To be continued]

Chili

The plan of salvation sounds awful protestant Julio as Catholics do not have such a plan, and of course know better because they have the kingdom emerge from the mystry of faith, which to me sounds just opposite to a plan . . . lest we have even one eye asquint towards an event that was planned instead of "like a thief in the night."

We just play the game different and even think different, kind if like you are playing footbal on a soccer field and insist that you have to carry that ball while we think that that is what sends you to hell.