and here we have a perfect example, yet again, of the ignorance of actual scripture
this dude does not seem to understand he is saying God is bringing punishment on an innocent baby because mom or dad sinned
at any rate, Jesus disagrees with him
1As he went along, he saw a man blind from birth. 2His 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 works of God might be displayed in him.
4As long as it is day, we must do the works of him who sent me. Night is coming, when no one can work. 5While I am in the world, I am the light of the world.”6After saying this, he spit on the ground, made some mud with the saliva, and put it on the man’s eyes.7“Go,” he told him, “wash in the Pool of Siloam” (this word means “Sent”). So the man went and washed, and came home seeing. John 9
WOF tries to make a case for any scripture that seems to make the case they wish to make, conveniently leaving out anything that might throw different light on their conclusions
you cannot make a doctrine out of an event when another event, with the same formula, states the opposite of the first event
this is typical WOF
I will also make note of the fact that the first parable is speaking about FORGIVENESS NOT sickness
so we have a mashup of two different examples in which the poster tries to connect the dots when the examples are not about the same thing
just take your Bible, pick and choose, and then string your personal examples like popcorn and call anyone who disagrees with this very unsound practice, ignorant, simple and deceived
yes...anyone who disagrees with this...cough cough...great Bible scholar, is ignorant, simple AND deceived
love how the WOFers love to call names
it's one of the finer points of their ability to squeeze out of scripture what only they see
I hope you don't mind, but I combined both of your replies in this one post.
Jesus said He did not come to destroy the law and the prophets, but to fulfill it, and Paul said we establish the law, and part of the law is that the sins of the fathers will come on their children to the third and fourth generation.
Num 14:18 The LORD is longsuffering, and of great mercy, forgiving iniquity and transgression, and by no means clearing the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation.
That law didn't just go away because you received Christ.
And yes, you have to read into that a little to find out what it means when God says He will visit the iniquity of the fathers upon the children.
Why do you think the Jesus' disciples asked Him who sinned for the man to be in his current condition from birth, if they didn't know about the curses of the fathers coming on their children? That was why they asked.
But for this case alone, God cause this man to be born blind knowing that Jesus would exalt Him by healing him.
"you cannot make a doctrine out of an event when another event, with the same formula, states the opposite of the first event"
Agreed.
The reason why I wrote about the parable in Matt 18 is because a lack of forgiveness results in a curse, because it is a sin before God. He said if we refuse to forgive others, He will refuse to do the same to us.
So when a person refuses to forgive another, a curse is place on that person and/or their family members, and can therefore result in or be the cause of an illness of some kind.
What was John the Baptist's ministry?
Was it to baptize people?
No, it was to make the people ready for Jesus.
What did He do, and for what cause, did to make them ready?
Yes, he baptized, but that was only symbolic.
What John did was he got them to repent of their sins and confess them.
This not only prepared them to accept Jesus, because of the new condition of their hearts, but it also prepared them to receive healing and deliverance from Him.
Jesus equated healing with forgiveness by saying, "which is easier to say, thy sins be forgiven thee or to say, rise up and be healed?"
And how are we forgiven of our sins?
No it is not done for us automatically by the blood of Jesus.
We too must repent and confess our faults that we may be healed, as it is written in James 5.
So the point I was making with the parable is that when we hold a grudge against another person, refusing to forgive them, God will do the same to us as we have done to others, only it will come with a curse. And not only will God refuse to forgive us, since forgiveness is tied to healing, or one must first be forgiven to be healed, God will refuse to heal us.
Did you understand at least what I was saying?
The short of it is, no forgiveness, no healing. And in order for us to be forgiven, we must first repent of it, and then confess it. Then God is faithful and just to both cleanse and forgive us of all unrighteousness.
Now God can heal the person who stands in faith.
And I wasn't calling anyone names when I said they must be, ignorant, simple, or deceived. I was stating a fact or truth.
If I was trying to insult anyone, I would have included stupid.