Did Christ heal Jews because he loved them?

[unknown soldier]

Recently I was discussing Christ's love for the Jews with our resident prophetess, Tam. As far as Tam is concerned Christ can do no wrong, and she can post Bible passages to prove it. She is fond of posting passages describing Christ's preaching love, mercy, and forgiveness. Who can argue with that? Christ we can assume had to have acted on his love for the Jews, and that's why he spent so much time healing them, for example.

Well, we all know what happens when we assume. So rather than assume we know what Jesus' motive was, let's see what he actually said about it. John 9:2-3 (NRSV) gives us the answer:

As he walked along, he saw a man blind from birth. His disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” Jesus answered, “Neither this man nor his parents sinned; he was born blind so that God’s works might be revealed in him. ...

Did Christ say that his love for the Jews was the reason he was to restore this man's sight?

[unknown soldier]

So basically was born blind so he could benefit from a miraculously event, a divines healing such as Jesus was to perform on him that day.

The passage nowhere says that the man born blind would benefit from anything.

The passage nowhere says that that God made the man blind nor does it mention magical powers.

In other words you are denying Jehovah as creator and Jehovah as miracle worker. In that case I have no argument with you.

[unknown soldier]

Please answer my question. Why was the man born blind?

I am not interested in your bait and switch. You asked a question in the thread: Did Christ say that his love for the Jews was the reason he was to restore this man's sight?

The answer has been given. The fact that even you are not beating that dead horse suggests the answer is conclusive.

If you want to start a new thread about why bad things happen to good people, feel free.

I never cease to be amazed what you apologists come up with. Since I asked a second question, it's a "bait and switch," whatever that means.

Anyway, the answer to the first question is no, Christ never said he loved anybody he reputedly healed. At best he had compassion for them, but compassion isn't love.

The answer to the second question is that the man was blinded from birth by God so that God could later show off his magical powers via Christ. So again, love has nothing to do with the alleged healings on Christ's part. It all just amounted to a divine ego trip.

[gadfly]

Recently I was discussing Christ's love for the Jews with our resident prophetess, Tam. As far as Tam is concerned Christ can do no wrong, and she can post Bible passages to prove it. She is fond of posting passages describing Christ's preaching love, mercy, and forgiveness. Who can argue with that? Christ we can assume had to have acted on his love for the Jews, and that's why he spent so much time healing them, for example.

Well, we all know what happens when we assume. So rather than assume we know what Jesus' motive was, let's see what he actually said about it. John 9:2-3 (NRSV) gives us the answer:

As he walked along, he saw a man blind from birth. His disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” Jesus answered, “Neither this man nor his parents sinned; he was born blind so that God’s works might be revealed in him. ...

Did Christ say that his love for the Jews was the reason he was to restore this man's sight?

After surveying some of the responses it would seem the OP has presupposed a false antithesis: either Jesus healed the man because he loved him or he healed him to reveal God's work, as if the two cannot be combined. This reading is astonishingly ignorant of reality as we know it. Can anyone imagine a questioner confronting a scientist working on a vaccine for a virus with the question, "Do you work so hard because you love science and medicine and the process or because you love helping people? It's one or the other!"

What really astonishes me about OP's like these is that none of us would ever approach any other historical work in such an artificial and calculated way. For instance, no attention was given to the context of the whole scene in John. The disciples presume some sin is the cause of the man's blindness; this was a common assumption of the time; if calamities have befallen you, you deserve it. They assume that Jesus shares their assumption. It does not (it should not) take much reflection to see why the narrative goes the way it does. Jesus challenges their assumption. It is really quite straight forward and would be taken so if it occurred in any other book.


The irony is that skeptics, after demanding the Bible be treated like any other book, go on to treat it like no other book has ever been treated!

[Tcg]

It is really quite straight forward and would be taken so if it occurred in any other book.

If the healing of a blind man occurred in any other book even those who think Jesus was a miracle worker would deny it. It is only this one special book that gets special treatment by the Christians.

The irony is that skeptics, after demanding the Bible be treated like any other book, go on to treat it like no other book has ever been treated!

Actually it is Christians who treat this book like no other book has been treated. One can only wonder why most accept the wild tales of curing blindness in their book, but would deny the possibility of it happening at the hands of any other Son of God, miracle worker or other type of flim flam man.


Tcg

[1213]

...
Did Christ say that his love for the Jews was the reason he was to restore this man's sight?...

Didn’t need to say so. Everything Jesus did, can be seen as love for the people.

Love is caring without conditions and that Jesus did. That he would say "I love", would be as reasonable as if you would say, “I speak now”, as if people would not notice it otherwise.

[unknown soldier]

Recently I was discussing Christ's love for the Jews with our resident prophetess, Tam. As far as Tam is concerned Christ can do no wrong, and she can post Bible passages to prove it. She is fond of posting passages describing Christ's preaching love, mercy, and forgiveness. Who can argue with that? Christ we can assume had to have acted on his love for the Jews, and that's why he spent so much time healing them, for example.

Well, we all know what happens when we assume. So rather than assume we know what Jesus' motive was, let's see what he actually said about it. John 9:2-3 (NRSV) gives us the answer:

As he walked along, he saw a man blind from birth. His disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” Jesus answered, “Neither this man nor his parents sinned; he was born blind so that God’s works might be revealed in him. ...

Did Christ say that his love for the Jews was the reason he was to restore this man's sight?

After surveying some of the responses it would seem the OP has presupposed a false antithesis: either Jesus healed the man because he loved him or he healed him to reveal God's work, as if the two cannot be combined. This reading is astonishingly ignorant of reality as we know it. Can anyone imagine a questioner confronting a scientist working on a vaccine for a virus with the question, "Do you work so hard because you love science and medicine and the process or because you love helping people? It's one or the other!"

What really astonishes me about OP's like these is that none of us would ever approach any other historical work in such an artificial and calculated way. For instance, no attention was given to the context of the whole scene in John. The disciples presume some sin is the cause of the man's blindness; this was a common assumption of the time; if calamities have befallen you, you deserve it. They assume that Jesus shares their assumption. It does not (it should not) take much reflection to see why the narrative goes the way it does. Jesus challenges their assumption. It is really quite straight forward and would be taken so if it occurred in any other book.


The irony is that skeptics, after demanding the Bible be treated like any other book, go on to treat it like no other book has ever been treated!

Please answer the question for debate as outlined in the OP, and then I can address other issues you think may be related.

[unknown soldier]

...
Did Christ say that his love for the Jews was the reason he was to restore this man's sight?...

Didn’t need to say so. Everything Jesus did, can be seen as love for the people.

That's not true. According to the Christ story, many Jews found what Jesus said to be an insult to them, and they felt that way for good reason.

Love is caring without conditions and that Jesus did.

I'm afraid not. Christ never said his mission was to improve health and fitness among the Jews or anybody else. His mission was to reign as king over all people or at least all the people who would bow to him. All those who would not bow to him were to be destroyed.

That's a very twisted view of love.

That he would say "I love", would be as reasonable as if you would say, “I speak now”, as if people would not notice it otherwise.

Well, loving is not as obvious as speaking, and it would help a lot to cite a passage in which Christ's love for those he healed is spelled out.

You are also ignoring what John 9:2-3 is saying: "...he was born blind so that God’s works might be revealed in him..." "God's works" are a reference to Christ's magical healing. So Christ healed this man to "reveal" those works--not to love the man. If Christ and his God really loved the poor guy, then they wouldn't have blinded him from birth!

Finally, I should point out that the responses I've received on this thread from you and the other apologists are hardly loving. Not one of you have expressed one bit of sadness for a man born blind. If Christ taught love, then why have none of you learned it? Rather than express concern that some Christian practices can harm those who are blind or anybody else, all you've done is fight to maintain your faith no matter the human cost.

It would be laughable if it wasn't so sad.

[1213]

That's not true. According to the Christ story, many Jews found what Jesus said to be an insult to them, and they felt that way for good reason.

Jesus told the truth and they were offended of it. Loving other doesn’t mean you try to protect him from the truth so that he would not be offended. Loving other means you care of him and that means you tell the truth, if it is important to know, even if the person would get offended.

It is actually selfish and not loving to try to please other so that you will get easier life.

I'm afraid not. Christ never said his mission was to improve health and fitness among the Jews or anybody else. His mission was to reign as king over all people or at least all the people who would bow to him. All those who would not bow to him were to be destroyed.

Where it is said his mission was to reign?

I know where he says part of his mission was to heal:

"The Spirit of the Lord is on me, Because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to heal the brokenhearted, To proclaim release to the captives, Recovering of sight to the blind, To deliver those who are crushed, And to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord."
Luke 4:18-19

You are also ignoring what John 9:2-3 is saying: "...he was born blind so that God’s works might be revealed in him..." "God's works" are a reference to Christ's magical healing. So Christ healed this man to "reveal" those works--not to love the man. If Christ and his God really loved the poor guy, then they wouldn't have blinded him from birth!

I think all people have difficulties in this life and if God allows it, I believe there is a good reason, even if we would not see it right now.

[unknown soldier]

That's not true. According to the Christ story, many Jews found what Jesus said to be an insult to them, and they felt that way for good reason.

Jesus told the truth and they were offended of it. Loving other doesn’t mean you try to protect him from the truth so that he would not be offended. Loving other means you care of him and that means you tell the truth, if it is important to know, even if the person would get offended.

Actually Christ often slandered the Jews and in particular he slandered the Pharisees. He falsely accused them of murder, for example.

Anyway, there's no need to be uncivil toward others even if it is the truth. Heck, Christ would get banned from this forum for talking to people they way he spoke to the Pharisees and many of the other Jews.

Where it is said his mission was to reign?

You honestly don't know? If you really don't know, then try Revelation 17:14.

Christ was an egomaniac constantly telling people about how great and important he thought he was. He threatened all those who disagreed with destruction. He was a dangerous and fanatical religious leader.

I know where he says part of his mission was to heal...

Sure, and John 9:2-3 tells us that his alleged healings were meant to glorify Christ and his God and not as acts of love, a fact that the apologists here are loathe to admit.

If Christ and his God really loved the poor guy, then they wouldn't have blinded him from birth!

I think all people have difficulties in this life and if God allows it, I believe there is a good reason, even if we would not see it right now.

Then let's blind you to see how good that reason might be. You can tell us how loved you feel.

[brunumb]

I know where he says part of his mission was to heal:

"The Spirit of the Lord is on me, Because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to heal the brokenhearted, To proclaim release to the captives, Recovering of sight to the blind, To deliver those who are crushed, And to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord."
Luke 4:18-19

If it was in his mission to recover sight to the blind, why did he only do that with a very limited few? If he truly had that ability the blind would have flocked to him in droves and news of the miraculous cures would have spread far and wide. But, we have no extra-biblical records of any such wandering blindness clinic working wonders. We have an itinerant preacher apparently using spit and dirt to cure blindness in what appears to be nothing more than a phony magic trick.