The Man Born Blind

Asked if a man blind from birth lacks his sight because of his own sin or that of his parents, Jesus says it is not because of the sins of the man, his mother, or his father.  The fact that someone cannot have sinned before their birth outside of very unverifiable or unbiblical scenarios (an example of the latter would be reincarnation) already means the question has a flawed foundation, even if only epistemologically, but this is not what Jesus focuses on.  In the words of John 9:3, "'Neither this man nor his parents sinned,' said Jesus, 'but this happened do that the work of God might be displayed in his life.'"  The disability is present so there would be an opportunity to display the power and splendor of God.  Jesus spits on the ground, makes mud with the moisture, applies the mud on the man's eyes, and tells him to wash at the Pool of Siloam (9:6-7).  Once the man did as instructed, for the first time in his life, he had the sense of sight.

Like many people Jesus encounters in the gospels talking of other matters, the disciples appear to be making very erroneous philosophical assumptions that, even aside from what the Bible teaches or whether it is true, can be proven epistemologically invalid due to the logical and thus metaphysical possibility of other reasons for blindness.  Someone could be born blind or otherwise impaired because of genetic circumstance (one living in the time of Christ would not need to know of genetics terminology nor the specifics of how certain traits can become active to know this could have been a natural occurrence).  The underlying belief of the disciples is like that of Job's friends who assume that such great trouble would only befall him if he had done something immoral (Job 16:1-4) despite how this is not true by necessity of suffering.

After the miracle, some Pharisees likewise assume that the man must have been steeped in sin at birth (John 9:34), lashing out at him because he points out the inability of people to perform such feats with no divine assistance (or demonic/sorcerous assistance, like in Matthew 24:23-25) when the Pharisees question him (John 9:24-33).  The group of religious figures also thinks that since Jesus healed on the Sabbath (9:13-16), his act of healing would be a condemned type of work on the day of rest (this is not the case whatsoever [1]).  They become furious at the man who was blind because he does not misrepresent Jesus to them.  The presumption of guilt that supposedly led to the birth of a disabled person is combined with a broader self-serving, tradition-oriented irrationalism, which makes the fallacies of these Pharisees greater than those of the disciples.

Yes, both the disciples of Christ and the Pharisees are guilty of general philosophical assumptions or misunderstandings of Old Testament doctrines during the events of John 9.  The followers of Jesus simply seem to have no malice towards the blind man while in the grip of their petty presuppositions, but the Pharisees irately speak as if aligning with Christ alienates someone from the revelation God gave to Moses (9:28) when this is both untrue (Matthew 5:17-19) and only accepted on the basis of their legalistic egoism.  Many Christians actually agree with the Pharisaic misconception while thinking they are the real followers of Christ.  As for the error-prompted question of the disciples about the man born blind, it does not follow from the presence of disability and illness that someone must have sinned to receive them.  This delusion shared at points by the disciples, the Pharisees, and Job's companions is false and highly damaging.

[1].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2022/11/healing-on-sabbath.html