any former mormons out there?

[zerinus]

You could be right on that, that’s why I prefaced with “So far as I know”. I have been taught as a youngster (a Catholic youngster) that the soul was the union of the body and the spirit but as I got older I think I encountered some people who did not agree with this. If it’s true though or at least not heresy, then I think it’s okay for there to be a pre-existence.

He is not right at all. Some of the Early Church Fathers, most notably Origen, who was probably the greatest of the early Christian theologians, believed in the pre-existence of spirits. The church didn’t seem to be too worried about that at that time. There are also biblical passages that indicate the pre-existence. To Jeremiah the Lord declared: “Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations” (Jeremiah 1:5). If God knew Jeremiah before he was born, then he existed before he was born. To Job the Lord declared: “When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy” (Job 38:7). This speaks of a time before the foundation of the world was laid. Who were those “sons of God” who “shouted for joy” in the pre-existence when the world was created? When the Lord’s disciples questioned Him concerning the blind man who was born blind, this conversation took place: “And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind? Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him” (John 9:2-3). How could the blind man have sinned if he had not pre-existed before he was born?

zerinus

 

[geraldffff]

He is not right at all. Some of the Early Church Fathers, most notably Origen, who was probably the greatest of the early Christian theologians, believed in the pre-existence of spirits. The church didn’t seem to be too worried about that at that time. There are also biblical passages that indicate the pre-existence. To Jeremiah the Lord declared: “Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations” (Jeremiah 1:5). If God knew Jeremiah before he was born, then he existed before he was born. To Job the Lord declared: “When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy” (Job 38:7). This speaks of a time before the foundation of the world was laid. Who were those “sons of God” who “shouted for joy” in the pre-existence when the world was created? When the Lord’s disciples questioned Him concerning the blind man who was born blind, this conversation took place: “And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind? Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him” (John 9:2-3). How could the blind man have sinned if he had not pre-existed before he was born?

zerinus

I’m not a learned, but just a grunt Catholic and what you have written has an element of truth, however the Catholic Church, for good reason teaches the soul is created at the moment of conception. It’s such an easy question the real apoligist need not concern themselves with an answer to you. newadvent.org/fathers/2914.htm It is enlightening to me that you mention Origin without putting what he had to say about in to the context of the official Church teaching. It is enlightening to me to see what is at the root of what Mormon’s believe.To believe in pre-existence is to be Mormon then with all it’s trappings. I hope the OP can see how this is central to the theme in this thread.

 

[geraldffff]

You could be right on that, that’s why I prefaced with “So far as I know”. I have been taught as a youngster (a Catholic youngster) that the soul was the union of the body and the spirit but as I got older I think I encountered some people who did not agree with this. If it’s true though or at least not heresy, then I think it’s okay for there to be a pre-existence.

There are many conclusion that we come to as young people that upon becomming Adult that we must put aside. The older I get, now at 55, the clearer that becomes. Haveing being Confirmed Catholic when I was 15 and then an athiest or agnostic and seeking when I was in my twenties I understand this well. To become Catholic I found that i could not just be a seeker of truth but I had to REASON using all that history and life could offer. I could not DENY the warts and flaws of the Catholic Church that my older brother now denies exists in his Jehovah’s Witness, Watchtower religion. I see from this thread that Mormons also refuse to look at the totality of the evidence that is available to them that would draw them to the Catholic Church. I understand your trepidation. I am drawn to the Catholic Church not because I feel warm and fuzzy about it but because REASON will not allow me to do otherwise. If the Holy Spirit allows you to understand the following passages in context you will not deny the Son of God, Jesus unless you make a concious choice to do so.
John 6: 66From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.

67"You do not want to leave too, do you?" Jesus asked the Twelve.

68Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. 69We believe and know that you are the Holy One of God.”

 

[Marat]

Well ldstalk is out then, that’s not an open enough forum for me. I can’t have dialogue and not challenge a church teaching or scriptural interpretation.

Try this one. mormonapologetics.org/index.php?showforum=11 You can challenge them there as long as it is civil.

Back to was God once a man. Do any of the members or former members remember hearing Heavenly Father was not only once a man, but on another planet was actually the Messiah for his own Heavenly Father. One of the missionaries who taught me taught me this twenty years ago, but I haven’t heard it anywhere else. Anyone else ever heard of this?

 

[tundramom]

google ZLMB. It used to be a happening place, but most of the faithful Mormons have gone over to the mormonapologetics board.

in Christ
Steph

 

[truthsilence]

Back to was God once a man. Do any of the members or former members remember hearing Heavenly Father was not only once a man, but on another planet was actually the Messiah for his own Heavenly Father. One of the missionaries who taught me taught me this twenty years ago, but I haven’t heard it anywhere else. Anyone else ever heard of this?

Well, there is this link

ldsces.org/inst_manuals/doc-gosp/manualindex.asp

to a Student Manual prepared by the Church Education System (CES) of the LDS church.

Pay attention to Chapter 3 under “supporting statements”. Many of the comments that were made by LDS church leaders in the past, (that for some people seem to no longer apply), are in fact contained within this manual.

“. . . It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the Character of God, and to know that we may converse with him as one man converses with another, and that he was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did; and I will show it from the Bible” (Smith, Teachings, 345–46).

I haven’t read this entire manual, so I don’t know if it has any statements about God the Father having been a Messiah for his Father on another planet, but yes, I have heard of it also.

 

[truthsilence]

Woops I only needed to read a little further:

“What did Jesus do? Why; I do the things I saw my Father do when worlds came rolling into existence. My Father worked out his kingdom with fear and trembling, and I must do the same; and when I get my kingdom, I shall present it to my Father, so that he may obtain kingdom upon kingdom, and it will exalt him in glory. He will then take a higher exaltation, and I will take his place, and thereby become exalted myself. So that Jesus treads in the tracks of his Father, and inherits what God did before; and God is thus glorified and exalted in the salvation and exaltation of all his children” (Smith, Teachings, 347–48).

ldsces.org/inst_manuals/doc-gosp/manualindex.asp

 

[Nan_S]

He is not right at all. Some of the Early Church Fathers, most notably Origen, who was probably the greatest of the early Christian theologians, believed in the pre-existence of spirits. The church didn’t seem to be too worried about that at that time. There are also biblical passages that indicate the pre-existence. To Jeremiah the Lord declared: “Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations” (Jeremiah 1:5). If God knew Jeremiah before he was born, then he existed before he was born. To Job the Lord declared: “When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy” (Job 38:7). This speaks of a time before the foundation of the world was laid. Who were those “sons of God” who “shouted for joy” in the pre-existence when the world was created? When the Lord’s disciples questioned Him concerning the blind man who was born blind, this conversation took place: “And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind? Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him” (John 9:2-3). How could the blind man have sinned if he had not pre-existed before he was born?

zerinus

OK, a quick :twocents: then I’m off to bed. I need some sleep so that my term paper will come out making a little bit of sense.

I’m not going to research and pick apart the various bible translations of these verses tonight, although that might shed some light on this. As I said, I need to sleep sometime.

Z, what you have stated about the ECFs and preexistence sounds logical if you hold also that both the universe and God are bound by time. If God exists wholly within Linear Time, one way for God to personally an individual before he exists in bodily form is for the spirit to exist first.

Two considerations arise as alternate ideas on how God can know someone before the body/soul are created, and both do not require pre-existence. The first is the omniscience and omnipotence of God. Omniscience, of course, is part of the basic definition of God. If God knows all things that have happened, are happening, and will happen even before they come about, God can know us personally before we exist.

The second alternative has to do with the nature of Linear Time and its relation to God. Now Linear Time deals with Past, Present, and Future. Those three words only make sense within time. If time does not exist, neither do Past, Present, or Future, and there is no way to distinguish between their essences. Man mortal existence is wholly within time, and by requirement, therefore, his whole perspective is colored by Past, Present, and Future (Before, During, and After).

So, here we go with the second alternative: God is greater than everything, therefore God is greater than time. God created everything, therefore God also created time. This means that God existed when and where time did not exist. In a nutshell, God’s basic nature is completely outside of time, although God, being omnipotent, has the ability to enter time and follow the rules of time, as Jesus Christ did during His mortal life.

The end result of this: God can know something “before” it exists (“before” is Man’s perspective), because God is outside of time where Before, During, and After are meaningless.

And as you ponder that one, you get to join me in staying up all night thinking. At least you’re not also writing a term paper.

Nan

 

[zerinus]

OK, a quick :twocents: then I’m off to bed. I need some sleep so that my term paper will come out making a little bit of sense.

What is your term paper? Is it about Mormonism? Can I help? If it is about Mormonism, it is easy to write. All you have to do is to say, “It is true!” and you are done! You can’t have it any easier than that.

I’m not going to research and pick apart the various bible translations of these verses tonight, although that might shed some light on this. As I said, I need to sleep sometime.

Z, what you have stated about the ECFs and preexistence sounds logical if you hold also that both the universe and God are bound by time. If God exists wholly within Linear Time, one way for God to personally an individual before he exists in bodily form is for the spirit to exist first.

It looks like you do need some sleep. This one didn’t make much sense to me at all.

Two considerations arise as alternate ideas on how God can know someone before the body/soul are created, and both do not require pre-existence. The first is the omniscience and omnipotence of God. Omniscience, of course, is part of the basic definition of God. If God knows all things that have happened, are happening, and will happen even before they come about, God can know us personally before we exist.

This may be a feeble explanation of the Jeremiah quote, but not of the rest. Those references I had given combin to reinforce each other, and together they help build a strong case in favour of the pre-existence.

The second alternative has to do with the nature of Linear Time and its relation to God. Now Linear Time deals with Past, Present, and Future. Those three words only make sense within time. If time does not exist, neither do Past, Present, or Future, and there is no way to distinguish between their essences. Man mortal existence is wholly within time, and by requirement, therefore, his whole perspective is colored by Past, Present, and Future (Before, During, and After).

So, here we go with the second alternative: God is greater than everything, therefore God is greater than time. God created everything, therefore God also created time. This means that God existed when and where time did not exist. In a nutshell, God’s basic nature is completely outside of time, although God, being omnipotent, has the ability to enter time and follow the rules of time, as Jesus Christ did during His mortal life.

The end result of this: God can know something “before” it exists (“before” is Man’s perspective), because God is outside of time where Before, During, and After are meaningless.

You are now entering into the murky world of philosophical speculation; a path down which I would not like to venture. I don’t think we know enough about the nature of time and space, and of God’s relationship to them, to be able to tread safely down the path of that kind of speculation. I would rather stick to the timeframe that I can know and understand. When God tells Job that “all the sons of God shouted for joy” when He laid the foundation of the earth, I must take that at face value, and assume that there was linear temporal relationship between the creation of the world and the sons of God shouting for joy, and that the latter took place before the former, hence must have existed before the former. In the preface to that quote from Job the Lord said to him, “Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?” (Job 38:2). I think that that censure might be applicable to you, going down that road of philosophical speculation!

zerinus

 

[Karin]

What is your term paper? Is it about Mormonism? Can I help? If it is about Mormonism, it is easy to write. All you have to do is to say, “It is true!” and you are done! You can’t have it any easier than that.

Now if she did that she would more than likely FAIL

 

[artist3189]

Zerinus has it all wrong, again. You quote" And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind? Jesus answered, Neither , nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him” (John 9:2-3). How could the blind man have sinned if he had not pre-existed before he was born?" Read this line, again. “Neither hath this man sinned” and then you say, “How could the blind man have sinned.” Wha? Huh. You also quote Origen, who was a brilliant thinker, but is neither a father nor doctor of the church. Some of his theology was rejected, especially later in his life. Because someone THOUGHT something at one time in history is not PROOF of anything. You stray, as usual. mcmanus, It is NOT my opinion that the BOM is considered heretical nor should be read by Catholics, that is FACT. Since you and zerinus like to quote parts of the Bible when you think it suits you, try this on. Gen Chap 3.

But the serpent said to the woman: “You certainly will not die!
No, God knows well that the moment you eat of it your eyes will be opened and YOU WILL BE LIKE GODS who know what is good and what is bad.”

The reason for the fall of man.

And that is what the LDS promise is. It is about ‘I’, me, what can ‘I’, become. It is NOT Christ centered, it is NOT Christian at it’s roots, it is NOT 2000 years old, it is NOT compatible with any other Christian religion. The LDS is about ‘you’, not Christ. It is a false promise. Most of the Mormons I have meet are great, kind, loving people. But it seems to me that they are more in love with the FEELING they get from the church rather than its content. Again, it is about the person, the ‘I’. What do I get, what do I feel, how does this make ME feel. While having a feeling of love and community is wonderful for sure, and the Catholic Church could learn from it, our core is Christ and His Truth, not ME. I do not strive to become a god or like god. That brought sin and death into the world. There is no other way to look at it. Twist as you may, but don’t quote scripture at us when the first book squarely puts you at odds with the rest of it.

 

[Jerusha]

And if you compare that scripture with the dream in I Nephi, you will see that “original sin” can be interpreted as the knowlege of race.

 

[zerinus]

Ask any of the knowledgeable ex-Mormons that frequently post here, the pre-existence is standard Mormon doctrine (I’m not supposed to be proselytizing!) Check the charts on the last couple of pages, they all include a pre-existence.

There is nothing wrong with proselytizing. Nobody debates here to promote somebody else’s religion. Everybody debates to uphold the tenets of his own religion. Just as all the Catholics would like all Mormons to become Catholics, all Mormons would like all Catholics to become Mormons. That makes us even.

When I debate with Catholics, I do so from the standpoint that Mormonism is true, and therefore Catholicism can’t be. They debate with me from the opposite stand point. Everybody is ultimately proselytizing for his own religion. A gospel discussion between two people of different religions is necessarily an exercise in proselytising by both parties. That is in the nature of the beast. It can’t be anything else.

The baptismal covenant carries with it the obligation to “mourn with those that mourn; yea, and comfort those that stand in need of comfort, and to stand as witnesses of God at all times and in all things, and in all places that ye may be in, even until death, . . .” (Mosiah 18:2). That includes CAF!

Never be ashamed, embarrassed, or fearful to stand for what you believe. Never apologize for being a Mormon. Always stick up for what you know to be true, and you will be respected by your friends and enemies alike.

zerinus

 

[tundramom]

zerinus,
give it up. Most of us here on this forum are more well informed than those in the outside world.

in Christ
Steph

 

[Allweather]

He is not right at all.

In fact, I am right. This, from the Modern Catholic Dictionary, abridged, by Fr John A. Hardon S.J. bearing imprimatur and nihil obstat:

“Soul. The spiritual immortal part in human beings that animates their body. Though a substance in itself, the soul is naturally ordained toward a body; separated, it is an “incomplete” substance. The soul has no parts, it is therefore simple, but it is not without accidents. The faculties are its proper accidents. Every experience adds to its accidental form. It is individually created for each person by God and infused into the body at the time of human insemination. It is moreover created in respect to the body it will inform, so that the substance of bodily features and of mental characteristics insofar as they depend on organic functions is safeguarded. As a simple and spiritual substance, the soul cannot die. Yet it is not the total human nature, since a human person is composed of body animated by the soul. In philosophy, animals and plants are also said to have souls, which operate as sensitive and vegetative principles of life. Unlike the human spirit, these souls are perishable. The rational soul contains all the powers of the two other souls and is the origin of the sensitive and vegetative functions in the human being.”

And this, from the new Catechism:

366. The Chruch teaches that every spiritual soul is created immediately by God - it is not “produced” by the parents - and also that it is immortal: it does not perish when it separates from the body at death, and it will be reunited with the body at the final Resurrection.

You arrive at pre-existence by means of innovative scriptural interpretations, to say nothing of extra-Scriptural sources. That is to be expected of a religion that has emerged from the primordial ooze of Protestantism. Protestantism, which rejects the teaching authority of the Church that Jesus founded upon the Apostles, is the father of Mormonism, which likelwise rejects this teaching authority, and is, therefore, just as lost in ridiculous notions of God and Man.

 

[Allweather]

When the Lord’s disciples questioned Him concerning the blind man who was born blind, this conversation took place: “And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind? Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him” (John 9:2-3). How could the blind man have sinned if he had not pre-existed before he was born?

zerinus

Uh, Z, did you proofread this before you posted it? Jesus says the blind man did not sin, nor did his parents. So, where do you get that he did sin in respect to his blindness BEFORE HE WAS BORN???

 

[zerinus]

In fact, I am right. This, from the Modern Catholic Dictionary, abridged, by Fr John A. Hardon S.J. bearing imprimatur and nihil obstat:

“Soul. The spiritual immortal part in human beings that animates their body. Though a substance in itself, the soul is naturally ordained toward a body; separated, it is an “incomplete” substance. The soul has no parts, it is therefore simple, but it is not without accidents. The faculties are its proper accidents. Every experience adds to its accidental form. It is individually created for each person by God and infused into the body at the time of human insemination. It is moreover created in respect to the body it will inform, so that the substance of bodily features and of mental characteristics insofar as they depend on organic functions is safeguarded. As a simple and spiritual substance, the soul cannot die. Yet it is not the total human nature, since a human person is composed of body animated by the soul. In philosophy, animals and plants are also said to have souls, which operate as sensitive and vegetative principles of life. Unlike the human spirit, these souls are perishable. The rational soul contains all the powers of the two other souls and is the origin of the sensitive and vegetative functions in the human being.”

And this, from the new Catechism:

366. The Chruch teaches that every spiritual soul is created immediately by God - it is not “produced” by the parents - and also that it is immortal: it does not perish when it separates from the body at death, and it will be reunited with the body at the final Resurrection.

You arrive at pre-existence by means of innovative scriptural interpretations, to say nothing of extra-Scriptural sources. That is to be expected of a religion that has emerged from the primordial ooze of Protestantism. Protestantism, which rejects the teaching authority of the Church that Jesus founded upon the Apostles, is the father of Mormonism, which likelwise rejects this teaching authority, and is, therefore, just as lost in ridiculous notions of God and Man.

I quote you scripture, and the teachings of Early Church Fathers; and you quote me uncorroborated Catholic encyclopaedia, and uncorroborated Catholic tradition. That is not worth the time I would have to spend replying to. It is characteristic of your posts—a lot of hot air and no substance.

zerinus

 

[zerinus]

Uh, Z, did you proofread this before you posted it? Jesus says the blind man did not sin, nor did his parents. So, where do you get that he did sin in respect to his blindness BEFORE HE WAS BORN???

There are two factors to be considered in this verse. Firstly, why would the disciples want to ask that question in the first place, unless they believed it was possible for someone to have sinned before he was born? It is an utterly stupid and nonsensical question to ask otherwise. Secondly, Jesus’ reply would be equally strange unless it is understood in the context of the pre-existence of spirits. He did not censure them for asking that question. He did not say to them, “Why do you ask such foolish questions? No one can sin before they are born.” But the reply He gave can only make sense in the context of the pre-existence of spirits. He is effectively admitting that it is possible for someone to have sinned before they were born; but that in this particular instance that was not the cause of his being born blind.

zerinus

 

[Nan_S]

There are two factors to be considered in this verse. Firstly, why would the disciples want to ask that question in the first place, unless they believed it was possible for someone to have sinned before he was born? It is an utterly stupid and nonsensical question to ask otherwise. Secondly, Jesus’ reply would be equally strange unless it is understood in the context of the pre-existence of spirits. He did not censure them for asking that question. He did not say to them, “Why do you ask such foolish questions? No one can sin before they are born.” But the reply He gave can only make sense in the context of the pre-existence of spirits. He is effectively admitting that it is possible for someone to have sinned before they were born; but that in this particular instance that was not the cause of his being born blind.

zerinus

Good morning.

Thank you for your answer to my comments on God existing outside of time, and your not wanting to venture there. That’s fine. It explains quite a lot about the Catholic viewpoint, and there’s more that follows out of that concept. But it can indeed be a difficult concept to grasp, so you’re in good company.

I’ve presented God’s existence outside of time to many people before. Sometimes they get it right away and react with “wow, suddenly a lot of things make sense.” :tiphat: Sometimes they ask me to repeat it slowly, several times, then gradually the light comes on. And sometimes they look at me with a strange expression and change the subject.

Moving on, regarding the blind man and the question “who sinned”, spiritual pre-existence could be inferred from that I suppose, but you’re the first person I’ve ever seen make that suggestion. There is another explanation which comes straight out of scripture.

The disciples weren’t thinking of spiritual pre-existence, they were instead remembering God’s words about multi-generational retribution for sin:
Numbers 14:18 The LORD is slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love, forgiving iniquity and transgression, but he will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of fathers upon children, upon the third and upon the fourth generation.

The Jews believed that physical deformity was the result of sin. Yet they knew the family involved, and knew them to be righteous people, so they were at a loss on this one. Hence their question to Jesus: God is obviously making this family pay a sin-penalty. What is their secret sin? Who did it? Was it the man’s father, or perhaps one of his grandfathers?

No spiritual pre-existence is needed to understand this verse. They thought the man was born blind because his father or one of his grandfathers was a sinner, and the price for that sin was that the family would be burdened with a handicapped son.

Nan

 

[zerinus]

Good morning.

Thank you for your answer to my comments on God existing outside of time, and your not wanting to venture there. That’s fine. It explains quite a lot about the Catholic viewpoint, and there’s more that follows out of that concept. But it can indeed be a difficult concept to grasp, so you’re in good company.

I’ve presented God’s existence outside of time to many people before. Sometimes they get it right away and react with “wow, suddenly a lot of things make sense.” :tiphat: Sometimes they ask me to repeat it slowly, several times, then gradually the light comes on. And sometimes they look at me with a strange expression and change the subject.

I don’t dispute that God’s relationship with time will be different than ours. The Book of Mormon teaches that as well:

Alma 40:

8 Now whether there is more than one time appointed for men to rise it mattereth not; for all do not die at once, and this mattereth not; all is as one day with God, and time only is measured unto men.

But to claim to be able to define and comprehend that relationship is precise philosophical, theological, or scientific terms in order to make precise inferences from it, as you are trying to do, I don’t believe anyone on earth has that kind of knowledge including you; and it would be highly speculative and presumptuous to claim to be able to do so. The arguments that I had set forth I believe are valid, while at the same time not ignoring the reality that God’s relationship with time and space will not be identical to ours.

Moving on, regarding the blind man and the question “who sinned”, spiritual pre-existence could be inferred from that I suppose, but you’re the first person I’ve ever seen make that suggestion. There is another explanation which comes straight out of scripture.

The disciples weren’t thinking of spiritual pre-existence, they were instead remembering God’s words about multi-generational retribution for sin:
Numbers 14:18 The LORD is slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love, forgiving iniquity and transgression, but he will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of fathers upon children, upon the third and upon the fourth generation.

The Jews believed that physical deformity was the result of sin. Yet they knew the family involved, and knew them to be righteous people, so they were at a loss on this one. Hence their question to Jesus: God is obviously making this family pay a sin-penalty. What is their secret sin? Who did it? Was it the man’s father, or perhaps one of his grandfathers?

No spiritual pre-existence is needed to understand this verse. They thought the man was born blind because his father or one of his grandfathers was a sinner, and the price for that sin was that the family would be burdened with a handicapped son.

Sorry Nan, but this is a completely illogical and unreasonable explanation, based on a lot of unjustifiable assumptions. It may offer an explanation as to why they thought that he might have been born blind because of the sins of his parents; but it offers no explanation at all as to why they thought that it could have been because of the sins of himself. You will have to do a lot better than that if you want to convince me.

zerinus