Timeline for What did Jesus mean in Jn.9:37: "You have BOTH seen him and ..."?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
29 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 17, 2020 at 9:51 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
| Aug 23, 2016 at 20:38 | vote | accept | Cannabijoy | ||
| S Aug 23, 2016 at 16:50 | history | bounty ended | Cannabijoy | ||
| S Aug 23, 2016 at 16:50 | history | notice removed | Cannabijoy | ||
| Aug 23, 2016 at 4:26 | answer | added | ScottS | timeline score: 3 | |
| Aug 21, 2016 at 23:28 | answer | added | user6503 | timeline score: 5 | |
| Aug 21, 2016 at 21:27 | comment | added | Cannabijoy | @Dhammadhatu This would make sense to me, but Yeshua doesn't ask the man if he believes in the Messiah. He asked him if he believes in the son of the man or ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου. Where can it be confirmed, without any doubt, that Yeshua refers to himself alone that he is the son of man? | |
| Aug 21, 2016 at 20:12 | comment | added | Dhammadhatu | I cannot provide an answer. Regardless, if the man was physically blind, when he was cured from his physical blindness, in that moment, he would have seen internally in his mind that Jesus was the Christ. He did not have to see Jesus in the flesh to see or have gnosis that Jesus was the Christ since it was the power to heal that proved Jesus was the Christ. This is the same as you yourself who have never seen Jesus in the flesh but only know the Christ within your heart/mind/spirit. | |
| Aug 21, 2016 at 19:18 | comment | added | Cannabijoy | @Dhammadhatu, I've been considering this, but I don't understand how to make it fit with the story. The man was blind from birth, and he says "When was it ever heard that a man blind from birth could see". If this were spiritual blindness, I don't understand why the crowds were so excited. Also, how would we explain paralysis? hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/23365/… I'm not saying it's impossible, but perhaps if you provide an answer I can think about it more. Thank you. | |
| Aug 20, 2016 at 9:41 | comment | added | Dhammadhatu | Does 'seen' here refer to seeing Yeshua physically or seeing The Christ spiritually? Also, I think the conclusion of the chapter, namely, “For judgment I have come into this world, so that the blind will see and those who see will become blind" gives the impression the blindness spoken about in the entire chapter is spiritual blindness rather than physical blindness. | |
| Aug 17, 2016 at 21:36 | history | edited | Schuh | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Clarified OP's question per Aug.16 comment; added link
|
| Aug 17, 2016 at 3:40 | comment | added | Cannabijoy | Hello @Schuh, I'm asking "when did the blind man see the son of man prior to this event, since the last time he was with Yeshua, he was blind". I do believe Yeshua is the son of man because he is a man, so I understand his second statement "it is he that talketh with you", but why did he say "you have both seen him and"? Does that help? Thank you. | |
| Aug 16, 2016 at 19:49 | comment | added | Schuh | @anonymouswho, could you please clarify? The bulk of your post seems to concern the meaning of v.37a (per fumanchu & Susan above). You suggest Jesus said the man had just seen his 'neighbors', not that the man had seen 'him', meaning Jesus, per the traditional reading. Are you asking if your reading is exegetically valid? Or, unrelated to all this, are you asking if v.35 should read 'son of man' (which you also assert)? Or are you asking if Jesus identifies himself as the 'son of man' in v.37b (which you also assert)? What's your real question? Thanks! | |
| S Aug 16, 2016 at 18:04 | history | bounty started | Cannabijoy | ||
| S Aug 16, 2016 at 18:04 | history | notice added | Cannabijoy | Canonical answer required | |
| Aug 13, 2016 at 15:13 | history | edited | Dɑvïd |
edited tags
|
|
| Jul 22, 2016 at 18:45 | history | edited | Cannabijoy | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 111 characters in body
|
| Jul 22, 2016 at 18:42 | comment | added | Cannabijoy | Thank you @Susan. I wrote fumanchu back, but it would only allow me to respond to one person at a time. Thanks for the resources. It seems I'm free to agree or disagree with either position, so I choose to accept that Yeshua was referring to the men that the blind man saw previously. The detailed order of events seem to confirm that this is how we should interpret this passage. Would you agree that this is the most plausible explanation based on John chapter 9 alone? | |
| Jul 22, 2016 at 18:38 | comment | added | Cannabijoy | Thank you @fumanchu. I guess I could allow Yeshua to smile a bit, but I'd rather understand what he actually says as opposed to what I think he should have said. This is the only verse that has Yeshua explicitly answer who the son of man is, and he does so in a peculiar way that is very relevant to understanding every occurrence of the son of man. Isn't this at least worthy of further investigation? Perhaps there is a particular occurrence that you believe is incomprehensible if applied to all men (or at least the righteous). I'm sure the answer is there, because it's always there. | |
| Jul 18, 2016 at 0:01 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackBibleHerm/status/754828430038994944 | ||
| Jul 17, 2016 at 22:32 | history | edited | Susan |
edited tags
|
|
| Jul 17, 2016 at 22:31 | comment | added | Susan | I think fumanchu's got the right idea about the author's intentions, although I'm not sure it's reading "too much" into he grammar so much as it is reading the wrong category of meaning into the grammar (i.e. the fact that ἑώρακας is perfect) . This is the stuff of lively debates in Greek grammar, much of it reflected in the so-called Porter/Fanning debate. See also this answer on verbal "markedness", similarly arising from an (apparently) "anomalous" perfect. | |
| Jul 17, 2016 at 6:41 | history | edited | Cannabijoy | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 8 characters in body
|
| Jul 16, 2016 at 17:14 | comment | added | fumanchu | It sounds like you're reading too much into the grammar, as if the fact that ἑώρακας is a perfect form means there was someone else because it happened "in the past", or the fact that he says "you have seen him" instead of "you have seen me". But allow Jesus to smile a little bit while he says it and it's just a wordier version of "you know who (pause for effect); it's me!". | |
| Jul 16, 2016 at 14:03 | answer | added | user15733 | timeline score: 0 | |
| Jul 16, 2016 at 12:56 | history | edited | Cannabijoy | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 17 characters in body
|
| Jul 16, 2016 at 10:58 | history | edited | Cannabijoy | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited title
|
| Jul 16, 2016 at 9:17 | history | edited | Cannabijoy | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited title
|
| Jul 16, 2016 at 8:14 | history | asked | Cannabijoy | CC BY-SA 3.0 |