35.Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when he had found him, he said unto him, Dost thou believe on the Son of God?
36 . He answered and said, Who is he, Lord, that I might believe on him?
37 .And Jesus said unto him, Thou hast both seen him, and it is he that talketh with thee.
- And he said, Lord, I believe. And he worshipped him.
John 9:35-38 KJV
What a blessing to know that when men reject The Son of God seeks and saves that which was lost. The blind was not only healed by the Son of God so that he could see the Son himself came to him when all cast him out and darkness began to overcome and began to shine and enlighten! Dos't thou believe in the Son of God? These words graciously drawing the question from the lips of faith " who is he lord that I might believe on him? ... Oh the worship that followed must have been so glorious !
The NIV and a host of other translations of modern invention would rob this man of his introduction to the Son of God and bring him to the Son of man only . The theological term for Messiah truly is profound however not here, not now, this is not a time for a study through or Daniel. Born blind, having never read, begging for alms and charity, hearing a conversation listening to others discuss the scriptures and the crowds talk of a miracle worker this man now all alone, mocked and even his parents to timid to truly defend him needs more and so the Saviour gives him the ultimate revelation of himself.
Dost thou believe on the Son of God?
36 . He answered and said, Who is he, Lord, that I might believe on him?
37 .And Jesus said unto him, Thou hast both seen him, and it is he that talketh with thee.
- And he said, Lord, I believe. And he worshipped him.
There is a great deal of good research out there exposing the texts behind the corruption in replacing Son of God with Son of Man. , One such site among many being http://textualwarfare.blogspot.com/2017/10/john-935-who-is-born-blind.html?m=1
The issue really is, if the Words Son of God should be replaced with The Son of man because a small set of conflicting 3 -6 century manuscripts say so and modern critics like Westcott and Hort and 99% of the bastions of theological learning agree that Son of God was a late insertion , then what in the world is Tertullian doing quoting the passage in question as " Dos't thou believe in the Son of God" rather than Son of man? 
I will leave you with the complete quotes below....
Tertullian ( Ante-Nicene Fathers , vol. 3, Against Praxeas, chapter 22, ) when arguing the position of the deity and eternal existence of Jesus in the 2 d century against Praxus illustrates his position with the scriptures stating
John viii.54-55 " Were I to glorify myself, my own glory is nothing : there is He that glorifieth me, the Father, who you say is your God and ye know Him not ;
but I know Him, and if I were to say: I know Him not,' I shall be, like you, a liar ; but I know Him and I keep His word."
And when He adds :
John viii. "Abraham saw my day and rejoiced,"
of course he indicates that the Son had been seen of Abraham in the past, not the Father. Also over the
cf. John blind man He says that He " must do the Father's works," to whom after restoring his eyes He says :
John 5:39 " Dost than believe in the Son of God ? " and when asked " who He was," He pointing to Himself, of
35 course pointed out the Son, who He had said should 36*37 " be believed.