Why water into wine?

[bbyrd009]

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...

and i mean you gotta admit that this line of thought is maybe a bit myopic or something. Alcohol consumption is a grave sin for many, so i seriously doubt that Christ meant to confirm any such thing wadr. Beside the fact that the spiritual significance of the passage is completely obliterated in that interpretation.

 

[bbyrd009]

and insinuate that I was making excuses for my drinking.

i am not finding this post where you admitted to drinking at all, sorry. what post? ty

 

[lforrest]

There are probably those who assume people that defend drinking are drunkards. Like those that defend smoking are smokers. it's worldly wisdom.

 

[Job]

and i mean you gotta admit that this line of thought is maybe a bit myopic or something. Alcohol consumption is a grave sin for many, so i seriously doubt that Christ meant to confirm any such thing wadr. Beside the fact that the spiritual significance of the passage is completely obliterated in that interpretation.

It's not an interpretation. Can you guys not read? This is what I said regarding the interpretation of that passage.

I don't know why He turned water into wine,

Does that really look like an interpretation to you? Doesn't the 1st 4 words kinda give you a hint that it's not? "I DON'T KNOW WHY",.......those 4 words scream ignorance toward the topic, that's why I used'em.

And this!!!

but I do know that in doing so, He confirmed that alcohol consumption is not a sin.

This is a common sense statement. If alcohol consumption was a sin, Jesus wouldn't be making any wine. You do understand that.....right?

People need to settle down...

 

[bbyrd009]

ok, ty.

 

[Job]

There are probably those who assume people that defend drinking are drunkards. Like those that defend smoking are smokers. it's worldly wisdom.

I defend everybody's right to do what they want.




Except get in my way...
.

 

[skyangel]

i get you, but we call that "fiction," and i also notice that now you are using the term "mythical" to mean fiction, its current use, when "mythology" is not fiction anyway, and propagates differently, etc. Fiction would never have passed muster, or propagated the same way, i don't think.

Now don't get me wrong, i'm prepared to accept that "God rained fire and brimstone on Sodom" really means "a volcano erupted and the ash cloud fell on Sodom," but see the difference, which is that there is no material difference.

The term one uses makes little difference when people take something literally which is not meant to be taken literally.
EG, Whether a talking snake is a myth or fiction makes no difference to the FACT that snakes do not talk in reality.
As for raining fire and brimstone on anything, one can interpret that in a physical sense as a volcano erupting etc but it is also possible to interpret it in a spiritual sense where "fire and brimstone" metaphorically refers to wrath and judgement and has absolutely nothing to do with literal fire at all. Do you see the difference in that?

 

[bbyrd009]

The term one uses makes little difference when people take something literally which is not meant to be taken literally.
EG, Whether a talking snake is a myth or fiction makes no difference to the FACT that snakes do not talk in reality.
As for raining fire and brimstone on anything, one can interpret that in a physical sense as a volcano erupting etc but it is also possible to interpret it in a spiritual sense where "fire and brimstone" metaphorically refers to wrath and judgement and has absolutely nothing to do with literal fire at all. Do you see the difference in that?

well, my understanding is that the site of Sodom is buried in sulphur, so i'm not sure how that would apply there.

 

[skyangel]

Well imo you are ignoring that Christ said He must be lifted up like a Snake on a Pole though. Iow a counterfeit is always installed, so that people may reveal their hearts. Churches did not just spontaneously arise with a false gospel, i don't think; they express the will of the people, even as they advertise expressing the will of God.

Churches that actually tell the truth would not get "tithes" as we define them today, and so the conflict of interest again reveals hearts. Stating that Jesus is mythical when you cannot prove it is just going to be counterproductive on at least a couple of levels imo.

I do not ignore anything. I take all things into consideration.
Consider the literal interpretation of Christ as a physical man being literally crucified on a wooden pole as if he was a snake which symbolizes the devil. That interpretation mixes literalism of Christ as a man with symbolism of the snake as the devil
VS..
A spiritual interpretation is where Christ symbolises or actually IS the SPIRIT of TRUTH not a physical man and the serpent on the pole symbolises or IS the devil or deception. Then the interpretation is about The Spirit of Truth being "crucified" due to being perceived as a lie, deception, devil, etc.
The messenger of Truth is also perceived as a liar or deceiver but rejecting a messenger is not as bad as rejecting Truth itself.
The messenger is irrelevant to the message. Any messenger can physically die, be falsely accused and be unjustly put to death or sacrifice his life for others... but Truth will never die in a physical sense. It can however be "crucified daily" in a spiritual sense, in the hearts of those who reject the Truth because they perceive it as a lie.
The spiritual interpretation is not about a physical man dying for sins or saving anyone from sins but rather about Truth itself "dying" because of the foolishness and blindness of mankind who cannot recognise the Truth when they see and hear it but prefer to reject it and cast it out of their hearts and lives.
The fact is that Truth can be perceived as a lie and vice versa. Therefore unless you know how to tell the difference between what is True and what only appears to be true, it is easy to be deceived.
Also no devil sends strong delusions to those who reject the Truth. God himself in the story admits to sending those delusions and causes people to believe lies.(2 Thess 2:11) That APPEARS to make God ( also known as the Spirit of TRUTH) the deceiver. Does it not?
That question can be answered with YES and also with NO depending on ones perception. Do you have a clear enough overall perception to be able to answer it both ways and understand why the opposite perceptions are what they are?

 

[skyangel]

you are just going to be labelled a Christ-denier, and you are demonstrating that maybe you don't really understand "scapegoat" at all though. Even if you are materially correct--which you cannot prove, and i frankly doubt myself--you are not going to end up communicating your message i don't think.

There isn't a Christian alive hardly who has ever even heard the term "Nehushtan," why not educate them there?

I fully understand how people will perceive me and I expect it so it doesn't surprise me in the least. Those who want to know the Truth will consider all things and find the Truth. Those who refuse to consider all things will simply not listen anyway. MANY are on the wide road to destruction. FEW will find the narrow path. Quality is far better than quantity. Truth simply is what it is. There will always be those who will listen and hear the message and those who will not. The communication of it does not depend on the way it is conveyed but depends on the way it is perceived and received. Truth does not go around with the intention of getting people to like it or listen to it. That is the choice of the hearers to make. People will listen to what interests them and will ignore what does not. It has always been that way and will always be that way.

 

[skyangel]

There isn't a Christian alive hardly who has ever even heard the term "Nehushtan," why not educate them there?

If you feel they need education on the subject, and you have a passion for it, it is up to you to educate them. Those who are interested will research it themselves anyway.

 

[skyangel]

yes, otherwise there would be condemnation in those who are in Christ. But "forgiven" does not mean "exempt from the consequences" anyway.

Correct.
No man will ever avoid death because death is a natural part of life. Some people threaten other with death as some kind of punishment for doing something wrong but whether people kill each other or they die of natural causes, good and bad people all die in the end. All end up in a "grave".

 

[skyangel]

if you give a toddler a pass on something simply because a toddler is not mature enough to understand, are they still going to make mistakes? Not that i see what this has to do with denying Jesus.

It has nothing to do with making physical mistakes. Spilt milk can easily be cleaned up. Deceptions however are not as easy to clean up. Imagine a toddler who believes in Santa as a magic man at the North pole. If adults keep encouraging that fantasy and never tell the child that Santa is not real, the toddler might grow up into an adult still believing in the magic man. Now that is mental immaturity due to the lies which the adults encouraged because they decided it was fun to allow small children to believe things which are not true.
So who is making the mistake in that case? The toddler or the adult who is supposed to encourage mental maturity in children not encourage mental immaturity?
A person who believes that Jesus is a man with supernatural powers is mentally no different to a small child who believes that Santa is a magic man at the North Pole. Both need to be encouraged to grow and mature mentally and learn to perceive their magic man in a different light. When they do, they will no longer think like a child or believe in magic men or men with supernatural powers being any more real than Superman.
However, letting go of a fantasy character is difficult and can be very traumatic when a person has held on to that fantasy character all their lives.

 

[skyangel]

yes, you reap what you sow, and the cure may be to stop finding fault.

People tend to find what they are searching for if they search hard enough. Seek and you will find.

 

[skyangel]

it obviously came from within, call it conscience or whatever i guess. But i note in the mythology that God did not just leave them feeling guilty, but provided a covering. Granted God didn't have a problem with their nakedness though.

So it might be seen as you are trying to rip away the cover, rather than allow people to reach the same conclusion for themselves.

If people are never told that they have been led astray, or are deceiving themselves, how do you suppose they will ever reach that conclusion themselves?
People who make themselves a covering of "fig leaves" need that covering taken away and replaced with a far stronger coat of skin. Too many professing believers are "thin skinned" and need to grow a thicker skin.

 

[skyangel]

ha well i don't personify devils, they have no free will, it is pretty obviously people who manifest devils, but to your point, that people "need" something in your opinion, this may be true enough from your perspective, but nonetheless it is their perspective that you must appeal to.

Light does not appeal to darkness to change into Light. Light simply embraces darkness and due to embracing it, destroys darkness in the process of turning it into light. The darkness has no choice in the matter except to flee from the Light if it wishes to remain as darkness.

 

[skyangel]

i think the lesson of Nehushtan is plain, and people join Jesus cults because that reflects their hearts; we seek to fit Christ into our lives, instead of the other way around. So, you don't think it matters that you are denying that Jesus walked the earth, even though you cannot prove it, and Scripture tells a different story? If you cannot be convinced, why should they be any different?

Scripture merely tells a story. That story only appears to be different to different readers because of the way they perceive and interpret the story. In reality the story is always the same but the interpretation of it is obviously not. It can be interpreted in many ways and this is the whole problem. One person claims one way is correct and another claims another way is correct and so conflict occurs between them because neither wish to budge from their personal point of view. To understand another persons point of view, one must step "into their shoes" as it were, otherwise they will never understand each other. I have seen and understood from a childs point of view and also from an adult point of view and can therefore relate to both. I have seen from the carnal minded point of view and also from the spiritual point of view and can relate to both. I have seen and can still see from the temporary point of view where future things have not happened yet and some scripture has not yet been fulfilled. I also see from the eternal point of view where there is no new thing under the sun and all scripture has already been fulfilled and will continue to be fulfilled in the future the same as any natural cycles repeat themselves.
When it comes to spiritual things, the eternal point of view makes the most sense due to spiritual things being eternal.
Finite things with finite beginnings and ends can only apply to finite worldy earthly things which all pass away eventually. Those finite things are temporary and not eternal heavenly treasures.
Those who seek for Truth will find it only WHEN they search with ALL their hearts and not just half heartedly.

 

[skyangel]

Don't you think anyone ought to try to explain to you that the character is 100% real for all you know and can prove, and that you are denying Scripture with this stance, even if you are not denying Christ? Or do you have some Scriptural backing for your position? Because otherwise the lesson that you are trying to illuminate is already in the Book, and my answer is no, people aren't supposed to be worshipping/praying to Christ anyway, and if they read their Bible with the Spirit as their guide they would know that and if they have voluntarily ingested some tares then they cannot hear me anyway.

I fully understand your point of view. I have been on the side of the fence where I once believed that Jesus was 100% historical. I believed it for almost 40 years of my life before I let go of the man I idolised and understood how to "worship" in Spirit and Truth without idolising a person. You are totally incorrect about me denying scripture with the stance. I am merely denying one interpretation of scripture because that interpretation does not help anyone to mature spiritually or see the WORD through an eternal perception. I am attempting to explain why that particular interpretation leads people astray into following a false Christ. That is very different to denying scripture itself. However, as you say, those who have ingested tares cannot hear and some simply don't want to hear any better than the Pharisees wanted to hear the Truth. Many love their traditions and false doctrines more than the Truth and simply are afraid to let go of them. I understand and forgive them.

 

[skyangel]

well, that depends. If someone is in the world and cannot practically follow the example, they will instead idolize the person, this is called "sitting on the fence," which is of course what most people do. So it becomes a question of "what matters most--to whom?" that i cannot see how denying Jesus' humanity can possibly affect anyway.

The reason people cannot follow the example of a person who has supernatural powers is because they do not have the same supernatural powers. When we understand that no person who is filled with the Spirit of LIFE or Spirit of TRUTH has physical supernatural powers to do physical miracles, like raise physically dead people from graves, we don't strive to do those kind of physical miracles or try to impress others with so called "spiritual gifts" of healing and such things. When we understand that following a sinless example is not about being without sin but rather about overcoming the "inner sin", it makes the goal a lot more achievable in this human body on Earth and there is no need to wait to be physically resurrected into a new body before you become sinless or sin free. When we understand that any command to raise people from "the dead" and to heal "the sick" is referring to spiritually dead and spiritually sick, it is a far more achievable goal than trying to raise physically dead people from a physically dead state and trying to heal physically sick people by just speaking to them.

 

[skyangel]

and i mean you gotta admit that this line of thought is maybe a bit myopic or something. Alcohol consumption is a grave sin for many, so i seriously doubt that Christ meant to confirm any such thing wadr. Beside the fact that the spiritual significance of the passage is completely obliterated in that interpretation.

Consuming wine or alcohol is a sin in the eyes of some people yet Christ was perceived by some to be a winebibber and a glutton according to Matt 11:19, Luke 7:34. So what kind of example was he setting to be perceived in such a way?

Some passages in the bible SEEM to convey it is not good to drink wine. Others SEEM to convey it is OK. So how do we reconcile these seeming opposite sides of scripture?
One must look at all of them as a whole and understand the balance between them and how they work together. It is about using wisdom and not going to extremes.

When it comes to being filled with the so called "Holy Ghost", many believers tend to go to extremes with their literal interpretations and attempt to do physical supernatural healings or think that speaking a bunch of nonsensical syllables makes them more spiritual than others or something. Ultimately they act and sound no better than drunk and disorderly people.