Yes, a couple of people have alluded to some nebulous teachings of Jesus that allegedly makes it clear that illness/disease is not a punishment from god, but other than John 9:1-3 (which does not make this clear) we never seem to see examples of these supposed teachings.

My interpretation may not be the only one, but for the reasons I’ve mentioned it is the best one and you’ve given no reason to suggest it is not.

As I stated, given the Jewish belief you mentioned, that illness/disease is a punishment from god, it would be a total non-sequitor for Jesus to say “go and sin no more lest a worse thing befall you” unless he was suggesting the man’s illness was a result of sin. Given that people typically believed this at the time, it simply isn’t credible that Jesus would bring up the man’s sinning for no reason, especially knowing that a typical Jew of the time was likely to assume he WAS suggesting his illness was a result of sin. If Jesus wasn’t suggesting the man’s illness was a result of sin, why is this story even in the bible, why not simply have him telling a healthy person “go and sin no more lest something bad happen to you”?

If Jesus was intending to suggest to the man, as you said, “go and sin no more lest you be cast out from god” why wouldn’t he have specifically said that instead of leaving his words open for being misunderstood as suggesting further sin would result in further disease as he must have known a Jewish person of the time would be likely to think? Your interpretation is decidedly less likely than the one I’ve presented.

If Jesus wasn’t trying to say sin caused disease it makes no sense for him to have suggested sin would result in “a worse thing” befalling the man and leaving it open to the assumption that disease was one of those “worse things”, certainly he gave no reason to believe that this wasn’t his meaning and if as you suggested he didn’t want the man to think that was his meaning it makes no sense for him not to have been specific about sin causing, for example, a seperation from god, rather than “something bad”, which does not rule out disease.

Once again your interpretation is a possible one, but in light of the context it is decidedly the less likely one and it is quite simply wrong for you to say claiming mine is the best interpretation is “bad scholarship”.

“go and sin no more” is like Christianese for “farewell and good luck.” Taking it, as we have, as a single passage and ignoring the entire context of Jesus’ teachings, sure, your reading makes sense, but to claim it is the only interpretation or even the best interpretation is simply bad scholarship. And be assured, yours is an *interpretation* based on how you read the text and what you want it to say, not what it actually says or what the intent of the entire book is.

The funny thing is, I actually agree with you, in that I also believe the Bible is contradictory and has no more validity as a book of truth than the Illiad or Odyssey does.

I never told you what your interpreation was, I merely stated that your interpretation in light of John 5:1-14 is at worst completely wrong, or at best merely contradictory of that passage.

You are entitled to believe that, if you so chose.

I find no value in debating theology in the manner that you enjoy.

Thanks for that strained reading Desiree, you didn’t disappoint. The implication of the story WAS that sickness would befall the man if he sinned. The implication of saying “sin no more lest a worse thing come upon you” was that this had come upon him because of sin. Particularly in light of what you mentioned, the jewish idea that illness/disability is a punishment from god, that is the natural meaning that follows from the story, the one you assign to is decidedly much less likely and certainly at the very least you don’t make a case that my interpretation has any reason to be dismissed.

Timothy said “No. I don’t claim that my interpretation is correct and yours is not. You are entitled to your own interpretation.”

Yes, you did claim that you said “it is directly contradicted by Christ in Scripture.”.

You did not say “my interpretation is that it is directly contradicted by Christ in Scripture”, you said “It IS contradicted” – statement as though it were fact, no conditional. You have made an extremely weak case to support your assertion that your interpretation is correct.

Timothy said “You are not, however, entitled to tell me (or other Christians) what our interpretation is in order to then attack the interpretation which you assign us.

I never told you what your interpreation was, I merely stated that your interpretation in light of John 5:1-14 is at worst completely wrong, or at best merely contradictory of that passage.

And for Timothy: what is a “dogmatic atheist”? Dogmatic means “Characterized by an authoritative, arrogant assertion of unproved or unprovable principles.” Since all atheist state “there is no God” and all Christians state “there is a God” wouldn’t they all be “dogmatic”?

No. Not all Christians nor all atheists are characterized by an authoritative, arrogant assumption. Some are. Many of our commenters are either Christian or atheist and are not dogmatic or evangelical in their faith.

You say scripture is not “consistant” and that it is “contradictory” – I couldn’t agree more. You acknowledge that and yet somehow want to claim your interpretation is clearly correct and mine is not – that’s not rational or consistant.

No. I don’t claim that my interpretation is correct and yours is not. You are entitled to your own interpretation.

You are not, however, entitled to tell me (or other Christians) what our interpretation is in order to then attack the interpretation which you assign us.

I guess if you want this particular passage to contridict the other, you could take it that way, but I think in this case you are reaching. There are far more and better places to show the illogical of the Bible.

And for Timothy: what is a “dogmatic atheist”? Dogmatic means “Characterized by an authoritative, arrogant assertion of unproved or unprovable principles.” Since all atheist state “there is no God” and all Christians state “there is a God” wouldn’t they all be “dogmatic”?

You are attempting to apply a word that can apply to Christians in terms of how they interpret scripture but atheist have no such holy writ to assert or interpret. Just the simple statement: There is no God. How can one not dogmatically adhere to that if one professes to be an atheist?