
Originally Posted by
regnauld
The disputed text is the introduction to the healing of the man born blind in John 9,2. Considering the apostles' question: "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?", it is obvious that the first option (the man was born blind because of his sin) implies that he could sin only in a previous life. According to the classic theory of reincarnation, he might have been a cruel dictator who got the just reward for his bad deeds.
However, the apostles' question about the possibility of having sinned before birth should not necessarily be judged as indicating an existing belief in reincarnation. It rather confirms that some religious factions believed that the fetus could somehow sin in its mother womb. If Jesus had considered reincarnation to be true, surely he would have used this opportunity, as was his custom, to explain to them how karma and reincarnation work in such a peculiar situation. Jesus never missed such opportunities to instruct his disciples on spiritual matters, and reincarnation would have been a crucial doctrine for them to understand.
Nevertheless, in the answer Jesus gave, he rejected both options suggested by the apostles. Both ideas of sinning before birth and the punishment for the parents' sins were wrong. Jesus said: "Neither this man nor his parents sinned, but this happened so that the work of God might be displayed in his life" (John 9,3). "The work of God" is described in the next verses, when Jesus healed the blind man as a proof of his divinity