Why water into wine?

[bbyrd009]

No. Not out of character.

so you say, but here we have this most shining of Examples telling mom "what does that have to do with me, woman?" Seems incongruous to me. This is a dialectic argument imo, as of course "It" has everything to do with Him lol. But first one has to see that Jesus did not come into the world to perform miracles at actual weddings or to make alcoholic wine

 

[bbyrd009]

re

ok, re granpa, he even posts here sometimes, sorry i have problems at Fandom, trying to find anything there, a google search isn't helping.

and i guess "distillation" is a better characterization than "fermentation," not having much luck in search because i want the spiritual implications, don't care about making alcohol here, but Aqua vitae - Wikipedia is a start--edit; a poor start, a stub, but points out "distilled spirits from wine" at least, and i'll find granpa sooner or later

 

[BreadOfLife]

You need reading glasses, 'Nuff said.

Thank you for that non-answer.

Death came to ALL PEOPLE - the effects of Original Sin.
Don't just quote the Bible until you LEARN what it means . . .

 

[bbyrd009]

further reflections here are that alcohol (distilled wine) can mix with water, right. Whereas "oil" will not, ergo "oil" would be a further refinement i guess, re the virgins needing more oil for their lamps

 

[perrero]

What is the thief on the cross an exception to???

Works???

YES, BoL has a list of things that need to be done so that one can be saved.
I told him that ll it required was Repent and believe.
He disagreed so I gave the example of the thief on the cross. This obviously took him for a loop and he therefore called it an exception.
He is like that when the Word doesn't agree with his theology he differs to an exception, an anthropomorphism or the ECFs.
You'll notice that all through this thread.

 

[perrero]

I kind of dislike your attitude, although I DO understand why since you're so attacked.

However, the post is excellent.

This would be a great one if you believe in Post-Millennialism, however if you believe in Pre-Millennialism it is wrong. The C church is Post, the majority of Protestants are Pre.
Definition of Pre, Post, and A.
Pre-Millennialism, Post-Millennialism or Amillennialism?

 

[abbey]

Very thoughtful. Haven't thought of a few of those things such as the representation of the stone vessels.

One of my favorite points of this story is that of the governor's response [paraphrasing], "most serve the best wine first, and then when the guests are well drunken, bring out the poorer wine. But you have saved the best for last."

This to me signifies the better covenent of grace that was coming as a result of Jesus's ministry.

The one thing that eludes me is the converation between Mary and Jesus. Mary informed Jesus that they were out of wine. Jesus said mine hour hhs not yet come. So if it wasn't his time, why did he do it?

Actually there is a second point: did HE turn the water into wine? No doubt it changed, but no verse says Jesus did anything to turn the water into wine. He told the sevants what to do and they obeyed (as you noted).

Jesus is credited with the miracle in John 2:11, but what actually did it? Was it Jesus or the revants obedience to Jesus that did it?

It's all very thought provoking. I've always wondered why he said his time was not yet when he was asked that.
Why does Jesus tell his mother his "hour has not yet come"?

 

[GodsGrace]

Didn't mean to misrepresent you, if I did. I wasn't really 'quoting' you, just making a point concerning things you said.

Well, that means it is not the same.

The apocryphal books were always in question. That is why they had the term apocryphal. The Reformers usually placed them by themselves at the end of the Bible with the note that they were not inspired Scripture but could be used for history etc. etc. Which is why it is found in the early KJV. But they were never received as Scripture by the KJV interpreters. If Luther could move books out of the Bible because he thought they disagreed with him, then he would have taken James and Esther out also. Of course, as you say, Luther did not like them.

The Roman Church says they have 7 extra books. But that just isn't so. They also incorporated into Daniel, the books of Susannah and Bel and the Dragon. And, extra writings have been added to the book of Esther also.

I am glad you use a Protestant Bible.

Stranger

I am Protestant!
Why Esther??

 

[mjrhealth]

The Church, however, is not the organized structure or framework, but rather is the people themselves. The foundation is Jesus himself.

Now if people could just get it

 

[BreadOfLife]

Didn't mean to misrepresent you, if I did. I wasn't really 'quoting' you, just making a point concerning things you said.

Well, that means it is not the same.

The apocryphal books were always in question. That is why they had the term apocryphal. The Reformers usually placed them by themselves at the end of the Bible with the note that they were not inspired Scripture but could be used for history etc. etc. Which is why it is found in the early KJV. But they were never received as Scripture by the KJV interpreters. If Luther could move books out of the Bible because he thought they disagreed with him, then he would have taken James and Esther out also. Of course, as you say, Luther did not like them.

The Roman Church says they have 7 extra books. But that just isn't so. They also incorporated into Daniel, the books of Susannah and Bel and the Dragon. And, extra writings have been added to the book of Esther also.

I am glad you use a Protestant Bible.
Stranger

EHHHH - wrong.

The Catholic Church never "added" a single Book to the OT Canon. The Church simply kept what was already there. The 7 Books in question were part of the OPEN Jewish Canon 200 years BEFORE the life of Christ.

It was the splintered factions of Protestantism that removed the 7 Books and portions of Daniel and Esther. Had it not been for his contemporary, Philip Melanchton - Luther would have removed several Books from the New Testament, including
James, Jude and Revelation.

Let's not forget that there are over 150 references, allusions and quote to the Septuagint version of the OT in the NT.
The Septuagint gets its name from the 70 Jewish scholars who translated the text into Greek.

LONG after Jesus d rose and ascended into Heaven and AFTER the destruction of the Temple in AD 70 - Jewish rabbis removed the 7 Books, including portions of Daniel and Esther because of the effects they were having on the Dispersed Jews (Diaspora). They were converting to Christianity. This was a non-authoritative move on their part but this revised Canon adopted anyway. Remember - the Jewish Canon of Scripture was not closed when Jesus was alive and before the Temple was destroyed by Rome. It was an OPEN Canon up to that point.

Since Luther and others didn't like these Books either because they support Catholic doctrines like Purgatory and praying for the dead - He chose to go with the non-authoritative POST Christ, POST Temple Canon that the Jews later adopted. We see ancient Jewish prayers for the dead in the Peshitta, which Orthodox Jews do to THIS day.

 

[mjrhealth]

Since Luther and others didn't like these Books either because they support Catholic doctrines like Purgatory and praying for the dead - He chose to go with the non-authoritative POST Christ, POST Temple Canon that the Jews later adopted. We see ancient Jewish prayers for the dead in the Peshitta, which Orthodox Jews do to THIS day.

And Jews are not Christians....

 

[Stranger]

I am Protestant!
Why Esther??

Glad to hear it sister. And I also. Though as I have said, I am not anti-Catholic.

Concerning Luthers disdain for Esther, I believe it was because of the vengeance, or protection of God, for the Jews even though they were a people in rebellion against God. I don't think Luther could see any grace or mercy in it.

(F.F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture, IVP, 1988, p.101) " It may have been for this reason that Luther manifested a special animus against 2 Maccabees : he is reported as saying, 'I hate Esther and 2 Maccabees so much that I wish they did not exist; they contain too much Judaism and no little heathen vice."

Stranger

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

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

When you think of it, the majority of the people at the wedding didn’t even know he did it. The servants knew and perhaps His disciples did, but certainly the festive crowd didn’t. So what was the reason for that? Why not heel 10 lepers? That would have been spectacular. Or, what about delivering a demonized individual? That could have been more sensational. Better still, Jesus could have raised a dead person. Now that’s what I call dramatic.

Nope, Jesus changed water into wine. Hmm! Is there maybe more to that than meets the eye. Let’s have a look.

When the wine ran out, Jesus told the servant to fill 6 waterpots with water. We are told that these pots were made of stone. In this command we can glean four pieces of information.

The number 6,
The Waterpots, which were made of
Stone, and then
The Water

Numbers in scripture are significant. They are there for a reason. In our story, the number 6 symbolizes MAN who was created on the 6 day. It is also found elsewhere in scripture. Such as in (Revelation 13:18|) when identifying the MAN of sin with 666.

Waterpots = Containers or vessels. These also relate to MAN who often is identified as a vessel. See (1Thess. 4:4, 1Peter 3:7)

Stone – Note that the scriptures do not characterize the waterpots as made of clay which was the most common at the time. These waterpots are specifically made of stone which, for us, should remind us of the heart of MAN, a heart of stone that changes to a heart of flesh at the touch of the Master. (2Cor. 3:3)

Finally, the water signifies the life of MAN as explained by Jesus to Nicodemus. People must be born of water and of Spirit. (John 3:5)

So what we are seeing in this miracle is an allegory of what the ministry of Jesus is all about. He came to transform these vessels of stone and water into vessel of flesh and fill them with the presence of His Spirit, which in this case is depicted as the New Wine. This can be done through Hid death and resurrection which by the way was on the third day. Did you notice, in verse 1, when this wedding celebration occurred?

Yes, He could have He could have healed ten lepers showing His power over sickness and pain, he could have rebuke a demon showing His power over evil and His enemy or He could have raised the dead proving He was greater than death, the destiny of sinners. However, Jesus came for a higher purpose. That purpose was redemption which eventually would cover all kinds of miracles. So He changed water into wine.

The final noteworthy item in this story is the servants conduct. These servants are likened unto us, who in faith and obedience, follow through at the words of Jesus and received the miracle of changed water into wine. However, we are also called to take that new wine of the Spirit and pour it into the lives of others. We are to become the Bordeaux of benevolence, the Merlots of mercy and the Rosées of reconciliation.

Why water into wine?
Come on, who wants a glass of water when they can have Jesus made wine.
Let's be serious here.

 

[pia]

Please begin reading 1 Corinthians 3:4 and continue on.

I read a lot of the time, as well.........Kids are grown and I'm on my own........Recently moved from country to inner suburb........So I have plenty of time

 

[BreadOfLife]

And Jews are not Christians....

Then WHY do you adhere to their POST Christ, POST Temple Canon of the OT??

 

[mjrhealth]

Then WHY do you adhere to their POST Christ, POST Temple Canon of the OT??

I dont I stick to Jesus like glue. It is you that is stuck in the canon. You know what canons do?? They kill people... It is amazing how many people who read the bible dont know God, so sad.

 

[GodsGrace]

i agree, but then if one is dying of thirst, gotta drink some water i guess

another curious phrase, that i relate to "don't find love until you are ready."

How about drinking some water at a good Church?
Where real theologians have kind of figured things out.

And what does "don't find love until you are ready" mean?
It wasn't Jesus time.
Time for what?
Stop being so mysterious!

 

[GodsGrace]

ha no kidding. A Bible search of "water" is interesting imo. I think "Spirit" is one decent analogy

Spirit is analogeous to fire, not water.
No?
or wind
or a dove

Water?
Do you consider John 3:5 to be baptism by water or physical Birth?
We receive the Holy Spirit through water,
But I cannot recall where He is symbolised as water...

 

[GodsGrace]

if you are fermenting, yes. Change will be a symptom of this.

iow if your beliefs are the same now that they were xx years ago, i would pause and reflect

Funny. Sometimes I take 3 steps ahead...
and 1 back.

I thoughtI had evil figured out. After about 10 years or so, I found I didn't!
Still don't.
Never will.

 

[GodsGrace]

No - Baptism.

Jesus and the Apostles state that Baptism is necessary (John 3:5, Mark 6:16).
Most Protestants reject this idea. The Thief was an exception to the rule because he didn't have a chance to be baptized when he came to Christ. He was a little "busy" at the time . . .

The same is true for those who desire to be baptized and didn't have the chance.
Martyrs, last minute conversions, etc.

Baptism by desire.
Know that.

But that would mean that the only way I could not be baptised AND be lost is if I refused to be baptised.

Why would anyone born from above insist on NOT being baptised?
Maybe because he's not born from above?

Jesus did say to baptise in the name of the Father, the Son, and the HolySpirit.
Mathew 28:19

We should just do what Jesus said and not argue about it so much.