Continued from: Jesus Heals a Blind Man
Did Jesus really conspire with a sighted beggar?
Some Christians say that the first beggar indeed recognized the voiceprint of the man speaking to him as the one who put clay on his eyes, but he did not know what "Son of Man" meant. In the Old Testament, the term "Son of Man" always referred to prophets (and not to ordinary people). And the beggar knew about this because he used to go to the synagogue. If he did not know what “Son of Man” meant, then this means that he did not go to the synagogue. In this case both he and his parents lied about it (and the testimony of liars does not stand). Actually he did admit that the man who put clay on his eyes was a prophet:
(Jn 9,17) So they said to the blind man again, "What do you have to say about him, since he opened your eyes?" He said, "He is a prophet."
So the beggar acknowledged the man who put clay on his eyes was a prophet; and he also knew that a prophet is referred to as "Son of Man". This beggar knows that the one who put clay on his eyes was the "Son of Man".
Other Christians say that the beggar recognized his voiceprint but did not know that this prophet (Son of Man) was the Jewish long awaited Messiah. But those Christians keep forgetting what happened that day:
(Jn 9,22) His parents said this because they were afraid of the Jews, for the Jews had already agreed that if anyone acknowledged him as the MESSIAH he would be expelled from the synagogue...
Which means that the subject of the day was already raging whether the one who put clay on his eyes was the long awaited Messiah or not. So if the beggar really recognized his voiceprint then he should have spontaneously asked him: 'Are you the Messiah?' (or at least 'Thank you for giving me vision'). But this was not the case; instead he asked him: 'Which one is the prophet so that I worship him?'. Which means that he still does not know that the one speaking with him is the one who gave him sight; the subject of the day (the Messiah or not). No, this beggar did not recognize the voiceprint of Jesus. He could not have been born blind.
Who would have known this beggar more than his neighbors? His neighbors saw him everyday. They would have surely known if he were born sighted, if he were born blind, or if he faked it later in his life… The neighbors themselves would be the ones who would testify that he was really blind from birth. But this was not the case. It was his neighbors and those who saw him earlier who did not believe that he was blind. If his neighbors knew that he was blind from birth they would not have asked his parents. This man was a beggar. Everybody knew him as a beggar and not a blind man. If he were really blind, his neighbors would have remembered his disability more than his financial status; but this was not the case:
(Jn 9,8) His neighbors and those who had seen him earlier as a beggar said, “Isn’t this the one who used to sit and beg?” 9 Some said, “It is”, but others said, “No, he just looks like him”. He said, “I am”.
So, everybody remembered him as the beggar. His biggest trait was his way of making a living and not any disability whatsoever. His neighbors suspected that he faked his blindness for begging purposes and/or to help do the hoax. This is why his neighbors did not believe that he was blind from birth and went on to investigate this matter further. The neighbors asked how his eyes were OPENED because they were CLOSED. Anyone can CLOSE his eyes (for a month or so for the hoax). They asked his parents because they didn't remember them CLOSED from birth.
According to Jesus himself:
(Jn 8:17) “Even in your law it is written that the testimony of two men can be verified”.
So to verify any claim, one needs two testimonies. But also according to Jesus:
(Jn 5:31) “If I testify on my own, my testimony cannot be verified”.
Therefore, according to Jesus, a person cannot testify for himself in order to prove his own claim. So to verify the beggar’s claim, that he was really blind and not staging a sham with Jesus, he needs at least two other testimonies to prove that he was really blind. For this reason his neighbors asked his parents:
(Jn 9:20-23) His parents answered and said “we know that this is our son and that he was born blind. 21 We do not know how he sees now, nor we know who opened his eyes. Ask him, he is of age, he can speak of himself”. 22 His parents said this because they were afraid of the Jews, for the Jews had already agreed that if anyone acknowledged him as the Messiah he would be expelled from the synagogue.23 For this reason his parents said “He is of age, question him”.
“His parents said this because they were afraid of the Jews”, 'John' bluntly says that his parents are lying somewhere in their testimony. 'John' himself admits that they were lying somewhere in their testimony and were hiding something.
Other Christians believe that his parents did not lie to the neighbors that 'he was born blind', but that they only lied to the neighbors that ‘We do not know how he sees now, nor we know who opened his eyes’. Christians seem to keep forgetting that his parents were not direct eyewitnesses to the ‘miracle’ but only knew what their son had told them. Wouldn’t his parents be telling the truth when they say that they weren’t there to see who did what? They can only be telling the TRUTH about it either way (blind or fake). How can they testify who did what if they never saw who did what? Actually, if they gave any other answer they would be lying about it. They had to be telling the truth. This leaves only one part where they were lying and hiding something: 'he was born blind'. Anyhow, no matter where they lied or what they were hiding, a lying testimony does not stand. So, the lying testimony of his parents does not stand. After the growing suspicions, that he was not blind from birth but just faked it later, the neighbors and those who saw him earlier as a beggar tried to interrogate his parents but couldn’t because his parents evaded. The beggars’ parents DID NOT testify for their son and evaded interrogation: “Ask him, he is of age, he can speak of himself”. This is why the neighbors and the Rabbis were only able to interrogate the beggar himself. Accordingly, the beggar did not secure a single valid testimony to prove that he was really blind and not faking his blindness just to help Jesus do his ‘miracles’.
The claims of the beggar remained uncorroborated. In the end, his own neighbors and the Rabbis who questioned him did not believe him, and then they threw him out:
(Jn 9:34) They answered and said to him “You were born totally in sin, and are you trying to teach us?” Then they threw him out.
If his own neighbors did not believe that he was blind from
birth, why should we? Jesus was receiving donations (from which
Judas was steeling, and Jesus who knows everything and is going to judge us,
did not know this). The more donations Jesus received the more miracles he
was able to finance. The beggars’ parents did not want to interfere, fearing
the Rabbis from one side and fearing to lose the money from Jesus from the
other side, after all, their son was a professional beggar. This is why they
said ‘question him’ and won both sides.
