Concerning the fact that christ healed a blind man. Could it possibly mean that he didn't physically heal the man? Instead, he showed the man that he already saw much more than those who see. For it could mean that the truth is not in what you see but what you see through. A man off lowly stature is told that he sees more with his imagination? This is just an idea I had. What do you think?
There's all sorts of explanations of what could have happened. For example, what if the mans blindness was caused by mental trauma, rather than an actual physical malady? The touch and reassurance of a man believed to be holy, being told that he has the ability to see, as a gift directly from God - that could be enough to break through a mental block and allow the man to see again. Or maybe someone made the whole thing up, or misunderstood what did happen, or maybe Jesus did a minor bit of first-aid for someone with an eyelash in their eye and the story was blown all out of proportion? That's the problem with a book written so long after the "fact" - it's really hard to get the true occurances straight, even if it DID really happen in the first place. So, in a nutshell...I think your explanation is just as likely (and by that same token, just as unlikely) as any other, including what's written in the Bible itself. *shrugs* You're right...it COULD have happened that way. (And to this heathen, a lot more likely than the miracle explanation)
If it were a story of fiction...it is a fact of the story. If it were of reality...then, you might have a point.
