Why water into wine?

skyangel said:

No Mary, I do not think anyone conspired to write a story to make anyone look like a God anymore than all the Greek writers conspired to write about their mythical gods.
Do you even know the history or the meaning of the name "Jesus" and do you understand the original name in the original text was not even Jesus?
If not, do some research and find out. The evidence is there if you want to find it. I am not doing your research for you. I have done mine myself.
It is no different to hearing a myth being told today and retelling the myth in your own words.
Characters name can change in a story but the lessons in the story are what are most important not the characters.
The bible story is not about worshipping and idolising a character as God but is all about following an example of living in the LIGHT and growing in wisdom, knowledge and understanding of the Light (God) regardless of what label, title or name, you attach to the character. The character is merely a personification of LIFE itself.

Click to expand...

skyangel,

Since you are a student of scripture you know that several different people wrote out their sworn testimony about Jesus. If you do not think they conspired to write about Jesus being the son of God then why does all the different writers stories match up or say basically the same thing? Isn't that a very clear conspiracy?

If you do not believe that Jesus was a real person then I suspect you do not believe that His 12 Apostles were real people?

I am familiar with the history of the name Jesus or Iesius.

Curious Mary

Dear perrero,

I do not have scripture that backs up that Mary knew it was time for Him to be revealed. I am basing my belief on logic. No where in scripture does it say that you need scripture to back up everything you believe about scripture. So I ask you again: When she told the servants to do whatever Jesus asks them to do what (in your opinion/theory) do you think Mary EXPECTED Jesus to do?

The evidence shows that Jesus did what Mary wanted him to do. Provide wine for the wedding. I don't think she expected him to go out and buy it with his own money. I think it is more logical that she KNEW he would perform a miracle. He told her it wasn't his time. She basically told him "Yes it is". She was right. He was wrong. Interesting how Jesus was wrong and Mary was right. I guess God took Mary's side on this one?

Please don't dodge my legitimate questions which are based on your statements: The Catholic Church has been wrong for almost 2,000 years? Calvin (a heretic as declared by you), Luther and Zwingili called the Catholic Church wrong and left it however, according to you, they were actually wrong themselves and didn't go far enough into condemning The Church? And finally, 1500 years later perroro knows The Truth? And perroro has the authority to determine who is a heretic and who isn't?

Curios Mary!!

imo one would be much better served to abandon even trying to make sense of the cover story, and understand the symbology of "water, wine, wedding, 'my time is not yet, woman,' 4 stone jars," etc. Prolly already said this tho sorry

perrero said:

I realize, Mary, that you're trying to get me to admit to something that you think is very logical and evident but in reality the thought never once crossed my mind that she knew Jesus would produce a miracle or even more specifically changing water into wine. Matter of fact, I read that she said "whatever" which tells me she did not know specifically what He was going to do. That to me is more logically based on what the scripture says. Once again I base my theories on scripture, "Whatever", "mine hour is not yet come", etc. You however, seem to want to romanticize what happen and bring in a little bit of fiction which is fine if you are writing such a book, but to take it further and try to convince ne that it is factual, sorry I don't bite.

MARY WAS NOT RIGHT & JESUS WAS NOT WRONG. God was not on her side. Jesus, who was God, chose to do what He saw appropriate to do at a moment that was NOT His hour.

The Catholic church has held onto doctrines that are totally against scripture for 2000 years. Ex. Purgatory
Calvinism is the biggest lie and heresy that has ever infiltrated the churches doctrines and tenets. Its lies have divided the church in two camps down through the centuries. But I will not debate with you how Calvinism misrepresents our loving God and turns Him into a sadistic cruel being.
Luther I have great respect for as he stood against all odds to bring reformation. However, none of us are perfect and neither was he. He was anti-semitic, but then many Christians today are also.
Zwingli, I do not know and at this time do not care.
I do not think that I am more discerning in God's word than anybody else, but yes I do think that I can spot erroneous doctrine when I see it. If not how can the church stand up against the gates of hell. No, not 1500 yrs later, only 47 years later having studied, immersed, mined, and prayed over the Word, the Spirit has enlightened me on many Truths that I can share and humbly confess that it is but for the Grace of God that I know what I know.
And I do know this, that when Jesus Himself says that "Mine hour has not yet come" I will believe that He was telling the truth instead of believing your version of the truth which is: He told her it wasn't his time. She basically told him "Yes it is". She was right. He was wrong. Interesting how Jesus was wrong and Mary was right. I guess God took Mary's side on this one?
In the beginning you were pushing the point that Mary knew it was His time, now you are going further, stating she was right and Jesus was wrong.
And guess what, to say that Jesus was wrong, that is heresy.

(2 Cor. 13:1)
This is the third time I am coming to you. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.

It is well known among scholars of the Word that cannot just interpret scripture with whatever comes to your mind. For we know full well that many times the flesh can impede in proper exegesis. The verse above has been used as a benchmark in interpretation. In other words, if one is going to put forth a theory, an interpretation, a thought that may be established as Truth or may formulate a tenet or doctrine then it should stand that the thought would repeated twice or thrice within the Word of God in order to give it solid ground.
For example: In my OP I have compared waterpots or vessels to man himself. Is this a sound interpretation?

What does David say: Psalm 31:12
I am forgotten as a dead man out of mind: I am like a broken vessel.

What does Luke say: Acts 9:15
But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel:

What does Paul say: Romans 9:21
Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

What does Peter say: 1 Peter 3:7
Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel,

I this case of interpreting vessels equating to man, I have 4 witnesses who have also done the same, David, Luke, Paul and Peter.
When one couples this interpretation with the Stone, the # 6 and the water all 4 metaphor strongly point toward man.

But in the case of stating that Mary KNEW or that she was RIGHT, there is not one witness to support that and a matter of FACT, there is one witness, Jesus Himself who says the contrary, "mine hour is not yet come".
Having said that, this is not the only rule of interpretation. You can find all kinds just by typing "Rules of Bible interpretation" in your browser search.

Hope this helps!

Click to expand...

Dear Sir,

I appreciate the response and still hold to what I believe and stated earlier: Interesting how Jesus was wrong and Mary was right. I guess God took Mary's side on this one? God was CLEARLY on Mary's side since Jesus did what Mary wanted him to do. If God didn't want Jesus to perform the miracle he would not have allowed him to do it. Mary got what she wanted, God allowed it to happen. Jesus said it wasn't his time however he obviously didn't know it was his time. God took Mary's side. Plain and simple. I don't need 3 verses from scripture to back up what is logical and CLEARLY said in scripture.

My statement that Jesus was wrong is not meant in a blasphemous way. CLEARLY Jesus did not know that it was his time that means that he wasn't given the knowledge by God to know it was his time. That means he was wrong, thru no fault of his own, in his statement; it is not yet my time.

You called me a heretic. That is a very strong charge from one Christian brother to another. Who gave you that authority? If I call your beliefs/interpretation of scripture heretical does that then make you a heretic? I do not think I am a heretic. Scripture does tell us how to settle this difference in Matthew 18: Take it to the Church. Which Church do you choose?

What I do not understand is you have been given the gift of interpreting scripture but when I ask you to interpret scripture you can't do it? So I ask you again: What is your interpretation of "do whatever he tells you"? What is the "whatever"? Did you expect him to pull a couple hundred dollars out of his pocket and pay for it? He was going to walk down the street and beg for some wine? He was going to have a friend deliver it? What do you think Mary was expecting? There are only a few scenarios that could take place.

How do you know the Catholic church has doctrines that are totally against scripture? You have great respect for Luther even though a lot of the doctrines he held onto AFTER his departure from the Church were Catholic doctrines? Do you only respect his doctrines that match with your beliefs and interpretations of scripture? How do YOU know which doctrines are totally against scripture? Have you been given a gift the men of the Catholic Church hasn't been given?

How do you know Calvinism is the biggest lie and heresy? What gift has been given to you by God to make that bold statement? To call another Christian (Calvin) a liar and heretic? How do you know you are right and Calvinism/Catholic Church wrong? You don't know or care about Zwingli? Maybe he is right and everyone else is wrong.

Your 2 Cor. 13:1 example is NOT about interpreting scripture. Paul is telling them, via his third letter or visit, he will use the testimony of two or three witnesses to decide who has been sinning because he has been hearing about abuses in the Cornith Church. Read 2 Cor. 12 to get the WHOLE story instead of the small snippet you miss-quoted.

I have never contested that you were wrong about the vessel interpretation. I thought you did a wonderful job. BRAVO...once again.

Hope this helps!

Love...Mary

Perhaps we should get back to the topic of "Why water into wine?" Let's try to keep this from turning into another Protestant vs. Catholic dialogue. There are plenty of those forums on here if that is the discussion you would like to have. I'm curious as to the "why" with the water into wine. I have some of my own thoughts, but curious about what others think on this.

Wormwood said:

Perhaps we should get back to the topic of "Why water into wine?" Let's try to keep this from turning into another Protestant vs. Catholic dialogue. There are plenty of those forums on here if that is the discussion you would like to have. I'm curious as to the "why" with the water into wine. I have some of my own thoughts, but curious about what others think on this.

Click to expand...

Sounds good to me. I am frustrated that my legitimate questions have not been answered by perrero anyways. Catholic, Protestant. What's the difference. Some Protestants believe what the Catholics believe; they are Catholic lite.

Water into wine: You must be baptized (with water) before you can receive the new wine (wine at last supper) which is Jesus. Translation: Jews must be baptized as Christians before they can receive the NEW WINE which is Jesus. He said: Truly, truly, I tell you,Unless you eat the flesh and drink the blood (wine) of the Son of Man, you have no life in you.

Truly, Truly I tell you....By saying Truly, Truly he is EMPHASIZING how important it is.

They have no wine and you have kept the good wine until now represents the Jews were bankrupt and ineffective until the arrival of Jesus (the good wine). The Jews were the OLD WINE and Jesus is the NEW WINE.

Love Mary

perrero said:

Where do you get that I have a Gift of interpreting scripture? First of all there is no such thing as a gift of interpreting scripture. The only Gift of Interpretation is the Gift of Interpretation of Tongues.
And now to interpret the word "whatever". Well Webster says: a : anything or everything that take whatever you want b : no matter what whatever he says, they won't believe him
Dictionary.com says:
1.
anything that (usually used in relative clauses):
Whatever you say is all right with me.
2.
(used relatively to indicate a quantity of a specified or implied antecedent):
Take whatever you like of these.
3.
no matter what :
Do it, whatever happens.

Strong's Concordance list it as G3748, Greek pronoun, Ho-stes, whoever, whatever, who.

And so using my imagination as you so cleverly do. Jesus could have told the servant to put sand and water in the pots, He could have instructed them to go to the larger winery down the road and ask for 200 bottles of wine and if they object just tell them; The master sent you", or they could have taken all the grapes off the tables and put them in the jars and "Voilà" instant wine or Jesus could have gone touching each wineglass with His magical ET finger filling every one of them, WHATEVER!!! See where fiction can take you? There is no shortage of ideas with WHATEVER. That's my interpretation.



The infallibility of the Pope, the Catholic Church has greater Authority than the Bible, You can only be saved in the Catholic Church, Sacred Tradition equal to scripture, Purgatory, Mary was sinless, Mary is co-redeemer with Christ, Praying to the dead, praying for the dead, Idol worship, in order to accommodate idols they remove the 2nd Commandment and split the 10th one in two separate commandments, their eschatology doesn't allow for the millennial reign of Jesus, infant baptism totally eradicates your sins, Last Rights is an instant ticket to heaven or purgatory, Salvation through faith and works, Transubstantiation. Shall I go on? Having said that there are Catholic individuals who do come to the full revelation of the gospel and actually make a born again commitment to follow Jesus. Those who choose to remain in the C church probably do so in order to spread the new truth they have received and experienced in Christ Jesus. Others, like myself, chose to move on with the congregation that led them to the cross of Calvary for their salvation. Read my post, I said: Luther I have great respect for as he stood against all odds to bring reformation. However, none of us are perfect and neither was he. He was anti-Semitic, but then many Christians today are also. Through his stand he brought back the full gospel to the forefront, changing the course of history. Am I suppose to respect all his beliefs? Am I supposed to become anti-Semitic. If you were under a Pastor who at times you knew was wrong in his theology, would you drink the coll-aid when offered? I know doctrines are against scripture because I spend time in His Word, I pray over His Word and I diligently research His word so that I am not caught unawares. (2 Tim. 2:15) Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
I do not purport to have any gift more than any other.



Well, I'm certainly not going to get into a discussion on Calvinism in this thread. That's for another day.



In response to this, here's a question. Do you and your church members handle snakes? If you don't, why not? Would you want a second opinion before trying? MARK 16:18
Here's a link to check out: https://agapegeek.com/2010/01/21/key-to-understanding-in-the-mouth-of-2-or-3-witnesses/

Click to expand...

Please don't dodge my legitimate questions which are based on your statements: The Catholic Church has been wrong for almost 2,000 years? Calvin (a heretic as declared by you), Luther and Zwingili called the Catholic Church wrong and left it however, according to you, they were actually wrong themselves and didn't go far enough into condemning The Church? And finally, 1500 years later perroro knows The Truth? And perroro has the authority to determine who is a heretic and who isn't?

Marymog said:

Sounds good to me. I am frustrated that my legitimate questions have not been answered by perrero anyways. Catholic, Protestant. What's the difference. Some Protestants believe what the Catholics believe; they are Catholic lite.

Water into wine: You must be baptized (with water) before you can receive the new wine (wine at last supper) which is Jesus. Translation: Jews must be baptized as Christians before they can receive the NEW WINE which is Jesus. He said: Truly, truly, I tell you,Unless you eat the flesh and drink the blood (wine) of the Son of Man, you have no life in you.

Truly, Truly I tell you....By saying Truly, Truly he is EMPHASIZING how important it is.

They have no wine and you have kept the good wine until now represents the Jews were bankrupt and ineffective until the arrival of Jesus (the good wine). The Jews were the OLD WINE and Jesus is the NEW WINE.

Love Mary

Click to expand...

I believe in the great importance of baptism, but I don't think this passage has a flattering view of water. Thus, I don't think it is indicating water as a rite of passage to receive wine (although I agree other passages speak of the great importance of baptism). Here are a few of my thoughts on this passage.

First, it is important to note that John references 7 miracles of Jesus. Each of these miracles speak to something significant about who Jesus is and why he is to be the focus of our faith and hope. For instance, Jesus heals a blind man and proclaims himself to be the light of the world. He raises Lazarus and proclaims himself to be the resurrection and the life. He feeds the 5,000 and declares himself to be the bread of life. So what is Jesus declaring himself to be with this water to wine miracle? There are a few OT passages that I think would have been at the forefront of the Israelites minds as they examined such a work.

“How the faithful city has become a whore, she who was full of justice! Righteousness lodged in her, but now murderers. Your silver has become dross, your best wine mixed with water. Your princes are rebels and companions of thieves. Everyone loves a bribe and runs after gifts. They do not bring justice to the fatherless, and the widow’s cause does not come to them.” (Isaiah 1:21–23, ESV)

Wedding hosts would often dilute the wine as the party progressed. As the attendants became less perceptive, the wine would be watered down to hide the fact that the host was trying to save a buck. Watered down wine was used metaphorically by the prophets to indicate a people who were exchanging what was precious to God for a cheap substitute. Likewise, the prophets often referred to Israel as a vine and God was often angry at the fact that his vineyard was not producing a good crop. Here Jesus reveals that unlike Israel, his life and ministry would be full of justice, righteousness and the fruit the Father was truly seeking. He is "the true vine" (one of the 7 "I am" statements Jesus makes in John's Gospel.

Furthermore, the discourse between Jesus and his mother I do not think have anything to do with a Protestant/Catholic debate. Throughout John's Gospel, Jesus reveals he is acting on God's timetable, not man's. For instance, Jesus' brothers mockingly encourage him to go to Jerusalem to the feast to "reveal" himself to the world. It seems clear they do not believe he is who he claims to be. Yet, Jesus responds he will not go to the feast because it is not his time. Yet, he does end up going to the feast, shortly after in secret. The point here is that Jesus' acts were always part of his role in fulling the work he was sent to do, and it had nothing to do with trying to meet the agenda of those around him. Jesus makes it clear that even when his act were in response to those around him, he was acting according to God's will and plan, not human pressure or authority. John makes this very clear early in his Gospel when he says,

“But Jesus on his part did not entrust himself to them, because he knew all people and needed no one to bear witness about man, for he himself knew what was in man.” (John 2:24–25, ESV)

Finally, I think it is important to note that the feast was on "the third day." Jesus turns the worthless water into the most exquisite wine on the third day and subsequently goes to the Temple to condemn the worthless activity taking place and declares that if this temple is torn down, he would raise it up in three days. I think the link between the water into wine miracle and the following actions in the Temple are meant to provide insight into the miracle. As I pointed out before, this happens frequently in John where the miracle is followed by a teaching lesson that provides insight that the miracle is a very specific sign that John is pointing us to that reveals something significant we need to understand about who Jesus is. Jesus is the one who would drive out the watered-down injustice and corruption and usher in a new era of fruitfulness toward God "on the third day."

Some of my thoughts anyway.

perrero said:

Did you not say in your post above, regarding the Catholic/Protestant debate, that it "sounds good" in so much as dropping that area of debate, since it is being discussed elsewhere in other forums and really has nothing to do with Water into Wine? Then why do you persist with these questions?

Your tenacity to want to defend the C church tells me you may be C yourself. So I will attempt to be delicate in my answer.
Yes Mary, the C church has been wrong in a large amount of their theology over the last 2000 years. So has Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Taoism, Baha'i and any other faith that does not recognized the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross has the only means of Salvation for mankind and also do not recognize that the Bible, the Holy Scriptures of God, is the only true, accurate and literal word of God given to man, through the means of scribes, for their instruction, reproof, correction, hope, direction and standards of living. Now I have given you a list of beliefs of the C church that are not found in scripture or can be vaguely supported by scripture. It will be up to you to take each item and research the Bible to see if I am right. Should you find me wrong in any of the quoted tenets or beliefs, feel free to share that with me. So yes the C church is wrong because their major beliefs are wrong.
You ask if 1500 years later I know the Truth. Well, Mary I certainly do not know ALL truth, I am not God, but I do have a personal relationship with Jesus, who is the Way , the Truth and the Life. His Spirit of Truth inhabits my heart and I read continually His Word of Truth.You can only learn Truth if you are willing to submit to it.

Paul teaches in the Word that there will come many false teachers and many false prophets and that we must be discerning so as not to fall for their doctrines.
In response to that, do I consider Calvin a false teacher? Absolutely Now that's an answer! I will not discuss Calvinism in this thread.

Click to expand...

Thank you.

perrero said:

Yes Mary, the C church has been wrong in a large amount of their theology over the last 2000 years. So has Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Taoism, Baha'i and any other faith that does not recognized the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross has the only means of Salvation for mankind and also do not recognize that the Bible, the Holy Scriptures of God, is the only true, accurate and literal word of God given to man, through the means of scribes, for their instruction, reproof, correction, hope, direction and standards of living. Now I have given you a list of beliefs of the C church that are not found in scripture or can be vaguely supported by scripture. It will be up to you to take each item and research the Bible to see if I am right. Should you find me wrong in any of the quoted tenets or beliefs, feel free to share that with me. So yes the C church is wrong because their major beliefs are wrong.

Click to expand...

I would be more than happy to properly educate you which Catholic doctrines you think are wrong and your reasons for making this claim - should you like to start a thread about it.

The difference between the Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Taoism, Baha'i faiths is that they are not the Original Tree from which Protestantism splintered from and continues to perpetually splinter.

You know where to find me . . .

perrero said:

Although this may be a plausible meaning or interpretation, I do have one reservation on it and that is that it would seem that the majority of the people at the wedding had no clue that this was a miracle performed by Jesus. Except for the servants and His close entourage, there is no indication that the general crowd was aware of what went on. Just saying.



I thought this to be very insightful, as you tied it in to the other 7 miracles of John's Gospel. It you would permit, I might use this in the future.

Click to expand...

Yes, and it is very possible that I could be mistaken on it. It certainly has always been the most puzzling of the cited miracles in John's Gospel for me. However, this would not be the only time John records a miracle of Jesus that was not very public in nature and yet it draws overarching theological implications...

“But he answered them, “The man who healed me, that man said to me, ‘Take up your bed, and walk.’ ” They asked him, “Who is the man who said to you, ‘Take up your bed and walk’?” Now the man who had been healed did not know who it was, for Jesus had withdrawn, as there was a crowd in the place.” (John 5:11–13, ESV)

Feel free to share, tweek or revise any thoughts I have on here. I am honored anyone would consider any thought I have as worth further reflection. But again, I am still learning and could be very well mistaken on this. Yet, it seems to me that the Gospels are all very deep reflections on the person and work of Jesus that are far more than mere historical narratives (although they certainly are that as well). John clearly chose specific miracles to bring to our attention for a very specific reason. As he says in chapter 20...

“Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.” (John 20:30–31, ESV)

So, at the very least, we can know that John's purpose for recording this miracle of the vast works of Jesus was because he saw in it something significant regarding the identity of Jesus as the Christ and Son of God that warrants our faith and devotion. It would seem to me that John goes to some length to help us understand why he has recorded each miracle. I think the Temple cleansing and subsequent interactions with Nicodemus and the woman at the well build off of this miracle. They all seem to point to something completely new and wonderful coming to pass as Jesus "reveals" himself to the world. The old has to make way for the new. New wine. A new Temple. A new birth and new possibilities for all people to look to him.