Why water into wine?

[skyangel]

These links might be of interest to you...
Marriage in the Bible
Favorite Jewish Wine

 

[Marymog]

No, I am saying they were very creative writers who wrote about spiritual things in a way that made those spiritual things capable of being interpreted in many different ways. The writings have an ambiguous nature about them and have deeper meanings than what just APPEAR on the surface. The stories are filled with HIDDEN TREASURES which can only be found by looking a LOT deeper than the surface. It is as foolish to simply read them superficially and accept the characters as literal with supernatural powers as it would be foolish to accept a story about three little talking pigs as literally being about pigs which could talk. The story is about much more than just the characters in it. It is about learning lessons and principles which all people can adopt and live in their lifetime on Earth before they physically die and not need to wait for something else to happen before they manage to live the same kind of life as the character in the story lived.

You are of the opinion that 2,000 years ago the writers (plural) of the NT got together, created several fictitious writings about a person named Jesus, presented those writings to the general public, the general public then (probably over time) mistakenly took those fictitious writings as being true stories so they put those fictitious writings (which they now believe to be true stories) into a book 400 years after the death of Jesus and for 2,000 years the entire word has been deceived?

Is that a good general summary of your theory?

Curious Mary.

 

[Marymog]

I feel quite comfortable and perfectly justified for calling a self deceived person, self deceived since that is what they are. It does not mean they are deliberately lying to themselves. It means they have fooled themselves because they have accepted a false doctrines as true. People who are deceived including with self deception are that way because they have been convinced that something is true when its not.
People who preach and teach false doctrines do it in ignorance and have no clue they are teaching anything false. They have been convinced that what they teach is correct. If they knew it was false they would stop teaching it unless they deliberately want to lead others astray.
The problem is that very few will listen to the reasons why their doctrines are false. They are too proud to admit their mistakes because they want to believe they are being led by the Spirit of Truth not by some deceiving spirit.

Could you fall into this same category?

 

[Marymog]

I do not choose either one the scriptures do not say anything about her knowing it was His time. You are the only one reading that into the text.
Matter of fact when she made that attempt for Him to do something she was rebuke by Jesus who told "His hour hadn't come."


I can't tell you what she was expecting because there is nothing in scripture that says what she was expecting. If anything it would not have been a miracle because His first one was "water into wine". So she wouldn't have seen miracles before, why think of one now.


I agree with the whole sentence you stated except "The mother of God". Nowhere in scripture is that term or name given to Mary. She was the earthly (mother of Jesus [ found 3 times in the NT] ), the Son of Man.


Yes, the Catholics are wrong. They have raise Mary to such a high level that they pray to her instead of Jesus, they say she is the intercessor between us and Jesus, they venerate her, have fashioned statues of her, Like the Our Father they have a special prayer for her. Newsflash! She was a human being like you and me. A sinner like you and me, needing salvation like you and me. I don't care about Calvin, Luther or Zwingli. If they put her on a pedestal it's wrong. And I wouldn't quote Calvin anyway, he was a heretic.

Dear perrero,

You say that the scripture we are talking about does not say anything about her knowing it was His time and that I, Mary, am the only one reading that into the text. Your OP then goes into your interpretation of the wedding at Cana and turning water into wine. YOU my friend, in your OP, are reading that into the text but then accuse me of reading into the text. I don't want to call you a hypocrite so Can you please explain yourself?

May I quote you from your OP? "Hmm! Is there maybe more to that than meets the eye."

Why can YOU see more than meets the eye but I can't?

You say that you can't tell me what she was expecting because there is nothing in scripture that says what she was expecting yet your entire OP is your interpretation (reading into the text) of the wedding event. You can properly interpret the rest of that passage when it comes to the number 6, stone, water, water pots etc. etc. but you can't figure out what Mary was expecting when she instructed the servants to do what Jesus says? Where in scripture does it say that changing the water into wine was his first miracle? It was definitely his first RECORDED miracle but it doesn't say it was his first.

Lets go with your theory that Mary hadn't seen any miracles from Jesus before. When she told the servants to do whatever Jesus asks them to do what (in your opinion/theory) do you think that Mary EXPECTED Jesus to do? Give them money to go get some wine? Tell them I have a friend down the road that owes me a favor lets go get the wine from him? You have given your theory/interpretation/opinion on other parts of this passage so I just ask for it on this part. Was Mary surprised that he could change water into wine? She already knew who he was, the son of God, so I doubt she was surprised.

Jesus was God and man therefor Mary was the mother of God and man.

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?

Curious Mary

 

[perrero]

I don't want to call you a hypocrite so Can you please explain yourself?

The only difference is that my assertions in this story have been backed up by Scripture. When I study the story and see that there can be a hidden meaning to it, I attempt to decipher that meaning BUT in doing so I know that I may be treading on water (or wine in this case ) and therefore force myself to find other Scripture that supports my thoughts or interpretation. "For on the testimony of two or three witnesses everything shall be established."

Why can YOU see more than meets the eye but I can't?

I'm not saying can't see more than meets the eye. But is what you see based on fact or fiction.

Was Mary surprised that he could change water into wine? She already knew who he was, the son of God, so I doubt she was surprised.

I will concede to you that Mary from the beginning knew that Jesus was God, "Thou shalt call Him Emmanuel", and therefore was probably not surprised at the miracle he performed. I just disagree that at that very event and very moment in time, you say she knew it was His time to reveal Himself and therefore played the mother card to get Him to start something. What Scripture backs that up? If anything, Jesus Himself contradicts what your saying in stating "Mine hour is not yet come". We are seeing from two totally 2 different points of view. If we were both writing a novel on this, we would have 2 diff. fictitious points of view. But I would have scripture to support my view, you would have your imagination, which is OK for fiction. Based on evidence who do you think a judge would decide on?

Jesus was God and man therefor Mary was the mother of God and man.

I know that Jesus was both God and man. You have no opposition there. Mary therefore was the mother of Jesus and in inference was the mother of God and man. My problem with saying she was the mother of God is that 1) there is no other Scripture that uses that term and I assume the reason it doesn't use that term is that 2) God knowing man very well, also knows that man would take it to the extreme and practically wrap a religion around "Mary Mother of God". I'll leave it at that. You don't want to get me going on Catholicism.

 

[skyangel]

You are of the opinion that 2,000 years ago the writers (plural) of the NT got together, created several fictitious writings about a person named Jesus, presented those writings to the general public, the general public then (probably over time) mistakenly took those fictitious writings as being true stories so they put those fictitious writings (which they now believe to be true stories) into a book 400 years after the death of Jesus and for 2,000 years the entire word has been deceived?

Is that a good general summary of your theory?

Curious Mary.

No

 

[skyangel]

Could you fall into this same category?

I fall into the category of a mature adult who has grown out of childish beliefs.
You can only know for sure that a fictional character is indeed fictional when you are mentally mature. Mentally immature people don't even know that the magical Santa is not real. Mentally immature people don't know that ALL gods in religious stories are fictional characters. They obviously love to hold on to one god and believe he is real so they can talk to their invisible friend. It will not physically harm them to remain mentally immature all their lives but why remain mentally immature when you have a chance to grow up, be more enlightened, and understand what you did not understand before?

 

[Marymog]

No

Ok. What is your opinion on the history and validity of the NT?

 

[Marymog]

I fall into the category of a mature adult who has grown out of childish beliefs.
You can only know for sure that a fictional character is indeed fictional when you are mentally mature. Mentally immature people don't even know that the magical Santa is not real. Mentally immature people don't know that ALL gods in religious stories are fictional characters. They obviously love to hold on to one god and believe he is real so they can talk to their invisible friend. It will not physically harm them to remain mentally immature all their lives but why remain mentally immature when you have a chance to grow up, be more enlightened, and understand what you did not understand before?

Got it. You believe a majority of the people in this world are immature. You are blessed to be mentally mature.

 

[bbyrd009]

No

"No?" That's it. Suddenly you are awful coy here, sky.

 

[Marymog]

The only difference is that my assertions in this story have been backed up by Scripture. When I study the story and see that there can be a hidden meaning to it, I attempt to decipher that meaning BUT in doing so I know that I may be treading on water (or wine in this case ) and therefore force myself to find other Scripture that supports my thoughts or interpretation. "For on the testimony of two or three witnesses everything shall be established."

I see your point. It makes sense. (love your treading on wind quip)

I'm not saying can't see more than meets the eye. But is what you see based on fact or fiction.

I get your point. Fair enough.

I will concede to you that Mary from the beginning knew that Jesus was God, "Thou shalt call Him Emmanuel", and therefore was probably not surprised at the miracle he performed. I just disagree that at that very event and very moment in time, you say she knew it was His time to reveal Himself and therefore played the mother card to get Him to start something. What Scripture backs that up? If anything, Jesus Himself contradicts what your saying in stating "Mine hour is not yet come". We are seeing from two totally 2 different points of view. If we were both writing a novel on this, we would have 2 diff. fictitious points of view. But I would have scripture to support my view, you would have your imagination, which is OK for fiction. Based on evidence who do you think a judge would decide on?

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?

 

[Job]

Have you ever wondered why Jesus changed water into wine as His first miracle?

I don't know why He turned water into wine, but I do know that in doing so, He confirmed that alcohol consumption is not a sin.

Just saying...

 

[perrero]

I don't know why He turned water into wine, but I do know that in doing so, He confirmed that alcohol consumption is not a sin.

Just saying...

Out of all the possible interpretations, I can't think of one more ridiculous than that.

 

[Job]

Out of all the possible interpretations,

Seriously? You didn't see this? "I don't know why He turned water into wine,"

First 4 words of the post...

I can't think of one more ridiculous than that.

If I did in fact say, "This is my interpretation of that passage", then yes, it would be ridiculous to say the least. The phrase "I don't know why" disqualifies my words as being an interpretation. You can see that......right?
.

 

[skyangel]

Ok. What is your opinion on the history and validity of the NT?

It is a collection of mythical stories with hidden lessons and meanings. The stories are simply reruns or rewrites of their mythological archetypes.
They are as valid as any other myths which convey morals and lessons to be learned. However, that does not make characters with supernatural powers any more real than Superman.
Jesus in comparative mythology - Wikipedia
The Birth of Jesus and the Christmas Story: Pagan and Unhistorical

 

[skyangel]

"No?" That's it. Suddenly you are awful coy here, sky.

No, some people just seems to like reading between the lines a lot and see things which are not there. It's understandable since people filter the words through their own perceptions, preconceived ideas and beliefs.

Ancient writers were no different to todays writers. They get their inspiration from previous stories and previous writers as well as from their own experiences. Creative writers are very good at personifying things like human attitudes and thoughts.
Immature people believe fictitious writings like children believe fairy tales. The entire word is not deceived by myths, only immature minds who cling to any invisible gods and other mythical characters are deceived.

When you really study the themes in any stories, most are about good overcoming evil and some even have the twist at the end where the good character ends up being the bad one in reality and vice versa.
No new thing under the sun. Human tradition is what it is and ignorance continues to be handed down from one generation to the next simply because very few question what they have been convinced is true.

 

[skyangel]

I don't know why He turned water into wine, but I do know that in doing so, He confirmed that alcohol consumption is not a sin.

Just saying...

Matt 11:18-19 For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, He hath a devil.
The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. But wisdom is justified of her children.

Many people seem to judge sin as as an outward action but if the scriptures are studied without bias, it becomes clear that sin is not about any outward actions but rather about the motives of the heart.
1Sam16:7........."for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the LORD looketh on the heart."

 

[Helen]

perrero....a good study. I have enjoyed reading through the posts..( well, "some" of the posts )
You did say -Quote "When I study the story and see that there can be a hidden meaning to it, I attempt to decipher that meaning BUT in doing so I know that I may be treading on water (or wine in this case ) and therefore force myself to find other Scripture that supports my thoughts or interpretation. "For on the testimony of two or three witnesses everything shall be established."
Maybe you don't mean it as it sounds...maybe its just the wording you use...But where I made it bold above..I would say it differently, = "I wait on the Lord to show me by His Spirit the deeper meaning.. rather than "attempting to decipher"..which brings it our the spiritual realm into the natural mind, does it not?
You did mention the two or three scriptures that support......yet we all know that we can always search the scriptures and find scriptures ( some obscure ) which confirm what we want our study to say!LOL

Sorry, maybe I am just splitting hairs here. I like your thread...thank you.

 

[perrero]

Seriously? You didn't see this? "I don't know why He turned water into wine,"

First 4 words of the post...


If I did in fact say, "This is my interpretation of that passage", then yes, it would be ridiculous to say the least. The phrase "I don't know why" disqualifies my words as being an interpretation. You can see that......right?
.

Nice backtrack, but you said;

I don't know why He turned water into wine, but I do know that in doing so, He confirmed that alcohol consumption is not a sin.

And here is something I do know, that those I know who used that kind of reasoning, used it to justify their drinking.

 

[Job]

And here is something I do know, that those I know who used that kind of reasoning, used it to justify their drinking.

So I'm a drunkard? That's your interpretation of my post?

Wow...