Why would Jesus open and shut the understanding of people? (church, gospels)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
One of the more perculiar verses in scripture I have encountered is John 9:39, where Jesus himself states;" For judgement I came into this world, that those who do not see may see; and that those who see may become blind."
An interesting thing for Jesus to say in my view; one of those " Loaded statements." Seemingly contridiction, he says he will give sight and take it away; perhaps meaning moreso " Understanding of spiritual things"-- Maybe? But if he meant spiritual understanding, then that would mean he will take away spiritual understanding from people? If so, why? And then give spiritual understanding to others who don't have it. So that is a curious thing to consider.
If he didnot mean spiritual understanding, then what did he mean? Because if it has something to do with judgement, then why judge people who you have blinded?
The Pharisee who heard him say this were just as confused in verse 40; they asked Jesus were they blind too?
In 41 Jesus responds;" If you were blind, you would have no sin; but since you say we see, your sin remains."
Did he mean that those who see, see sin? And that he came to blind people, meaning to take away their sins? But if it meant that it would also mean that those who didnot see sin, he would open their eyes to it?
One of the more curious things I have read from Jesus.
Given the context of the verse and a Christian interpretation of it, Jesus was speaking about the Pharisees and scribes as he saw them as hypocrits. They claimed to understand the things of God, but were blinded by their own religiousity. Since they claimed "to see", they would be blinded by the "truth" Jesus ostensibly brought. The common folk who were not versed in religious matters (blind) would understand the "truth" Jesus brought.
This is the normal Christian interpretation of John 9:35-41.
Tell me who's that writin, John the Revelator,
Tell me who's that writin, John the Revelator,
Tell me who's that writin, John the Revelator,
He wrote the book of the seven seals.
Given the context of the verse and a Christian interpretation of it, Jesus was speaking about the Pharisees and scribes as he saw them as hypocrits. They claimed to understand the things of God, but were blinded by their own religiousity. Since they claimed "to see", they would be blinded by the "truth" Jesus ostensibly brought. The common folk who were not versed in religious matters (blind) would understand the "truth" Jesus brought.
This is the normal Christian interpretation of John 9:35-41.
Well I am not Christian, so I am not up on their understandings. But I personally doubt myself that he was even refering to the Pharisees , I think he was talking about " The World;" or everyone. He said for Judgement I came into the World, and then continued on to say what he said; so I think he probally was refering to everyone. Which is unusual.
Even him saying that he came here for Judgement is unusual in my view, considering John 12:47 , where he clearly states that he didnot come to judge the world. This is why its hard for me to understand Jesus as much as I would like to. If theres one biblical characther I would like to know and understand, its Jesus.
Opening human minds is easy for me to understand Jesus or God doing, but closing their minds; thats an entirely different implication. It reminds me of Ecclesiastes 7:13;" Consider the work of God, for who is able to straighten what he has bent?" An unusual scripture which implys that God will " Bend people." Simular to the term " Blind:" God bending people, Jesus Blinding people; most unusual and hard for me to comprehend.
The verse states; Who can straighten what God has bent. Well obviously if God bent something, nobody can fix it but him.
Given the context of the verse and a Christian interpretation of it, Jesus was speaking about the Pharisees and scribes as he saw them as hypocrits. They claimed to understand the things of God, but were blinded by their own religiousity. Since they claimed "to see", they would be blinded by the "truth" Jesus ostensibly brought. The common folk who were not versed in religious matters (blind) would understand the "truth" Jesus brought.
This is the normal Christian interpretation of John 9:35-41.
Fullback, or anybody else: why do Chrstians focus so much on Pharisees and Sadduccees? What's the fascination?
I've never once seen a Jew mention these two groups. The Talmud has a few scant references, but even in the times of these two groups, there was scant mention of them by Jews themselves. Is it possible it's just some kind of Chrstian ploy to legitimize their own religion? This whole "Jesus was judging this Jew and that Jew?" In general, Jews shouldn't feel they have the right to judge anybody - only G-d can do that. But I suppose if Jesus was some kind of man-god, than maybe he had the right to be so judging and revengeful? I just don't get it.
Those who reject His gift, end up blinded (spiritually).
Are you then suggesting that they had sight before the gift was offered? Because if being blinded is a punishment, they were already blind before the gift was offered?
Fullback, or anybody else: why do Chrstians focus so much on Pharisees and Sadduccees? What's the fascination?
I've never once seen a Jew mention these two groups. The Talmud has a few scant references, but even in the times of these two groups, there was scant mention of them by Jews themselves. Is it possible it's just some kind of Chrstian ploy to legitimize their own religion? This whole "Jesus was judging this Jew and that Jew?" In general, Jews shouldn't feel they have the right to judge anybody - only G-d can do that. But I suppose if Jesus was some kind of man-god, than maybe he had the right to be so judging and revengeful? I just don't get it.
I wouldn't put it past the Roman Church of the day. I have often speculated that much of what we read in the gospels and in other places in the New Testament concerning the Jews is just a bit of propaganda to throw blame of Jesus' crucifixion away from Rome and onto the Jews. They certainly couldn't have the center of their church to have been killed by them. Bad press dontcha know. The Roman Church canonized Pilate afterall, didn't they?
The things that lead me to think that way are incongruous depictions of Pilate versus what the historians of the day said about him and the "demonizing" of the Jews. Words like Matthew 27:24-25 (“His blood be upon us and on our children”), I am willing to wager, were inserted into the story for that very purpose.
Last edited by Fullback32; 01-12-2012 at 02:01 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
