The Wedding at Cana (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> The Bible



Message

MrFribbles -> The Wedding at Cana (7/22/2008 12:50:00 AM)

I was reading John 2 tonight, and a question popped into my head.
If turning the water into wine was Jesus' first sign (as it says in verse 11), why does it appear as if Mary expected Jesus to be able to do some sort of miracle to provide more wine? Was it because of the circumstances surrounding His birth? Or something else?

Any thoughts?



mvic -> RE: The Wedding at Cana (7/22/2008 3:34:31 AM)

Mary knew from the moment she was first visited by the Angel Gabriel about Jesus and His mission on earth.

The Wedding at Cana was perhaps the sign of encouragement from a Mother to a Son saying: "Come on, You are ready to start your ministry now!"

Of course, I have no evidence for this - just my guess-work; but I believe it is significant that the very first miracle of Jesus involved His Mother Mary.



psende -> RE: The Wedding at Cana (7/22/2008 8:54:58 AM)

And here's another possibility.
quote:

And Jesus kept increasing in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man. (Luke 2:52)

Perhaps Jesus had shown Himself to be so wise that His mother knew that He could handle any situation satisfactorily. She didn't know how He would handle the immediate crisis, but she did know the outcome would be greater than could be expected.



BerianAardvark -> RE: The Wedding at Cana (7/22/2008 9:44:47 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mvic

Mary knew from the moment she was first visited by the Angel Gabriel about Jesus and His mission on earth.

The Wedding at Cana was perhaps the sign of encouragement from a Mother to a Son saying: "Come on, You are ready to start your ministry now!"

Of course, I have no evidence for this - just my guess-work; but I believe it is significant that the very first miracle of Jesus involved His Mother Mary.



I think that you might be right mvic. My mother the nudzh!! (Yiddish for to pester or nag, if you pronounce it like nudge you won't be far off). [8|] [;)]

Tim



URForgiven -> RE: The Wedding at Cana (7/22/2008 10:12:56 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrFribbles

I was reading John 2 tonight, and a question popped into my head.
If turning the water into wine was Jesus' first sign (as it says in verse 11), why does it appear as if Mary expected Jesus to be able to do some sort of miracle to provide more wine? Was it because of the circumstances surrounding His birth? Or something else?

Any thoughts?


Obviously she knew what was possible through Him. It says that turning the water into wine was His first miraculous sign, it was His public coming out miracle. I do not think that precludes Him having performed previous miracles that were not public. But, of course, when we step out of Scripture we step into speculation, so anything we come up with will only be that and nothing more.

Peace



rcjames -> RE: The Wedding at Cana (7/22/2008 10:25:55 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrFribbles

I was reading John 2 tonight, and a question popped into my head.
If turning the water into wine was Jesus' first sign (as it says in verse 11), why does it appear as if Mary expected Jesus to be able to do some sort of miracle to provide more wine? Was it because of the circumstances surrounding His birth? Or something else?

Any thoughts?


Keeping to Scripture and not speculation as URForgiven mentions, that might have been the case, and the events of Jesus at the Temple when he was twelve some years prior may have been a factor.

On the speculation side Mary might just have been one of those pushy moms that think their kids can do anything.[8D]

Thanks
RC

edited for spelling



makarizo -> RE: The Wedding at Cana (7/22/2008 7:55:45 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrFribbles

I was reading John 2 tonight, and a question popped into my head.
If turning the water into wine was Jesus' first sign (as it says in verse 11), why does it appear as if Mary expected Jesus to be able to do some sort of miracle to provide more wine? Was it because of the circumstances surrounding His birth? Or something else?

Any thoughts?

Joh 2:5 His mother *said to the servants, "Whatever He says to you, do it."

that sounds like a lot of faith.

Jesus was a perfect man, and had more self control than anyone who has ever lived. and if it was "not His time".... count on it, this was the very first miracle.



rcjones -> RE: The Wedding at Cana (7/24/2008 12:38:58 AM)

I believe it was something else. But I'm sure you won't like the answer.

If when Jesus was 12 and in the temple he taught the teachers how to see the shadows by asking "What are these stones?", then it is likely and probable that he shared the same observation of the shadows with his mother.

For eighteen years he is telling her of the Torah:Word of God and of hearing, seeing and walking. And although He intellectually knew He was the son of God, having emptied himself, he chose not to use his omniscience, and learned of his mission and purpose through the scriptures rather than through special revelation. In this way he could be tempted in every way as we are , without supernatural advantage for resisting temptation.

When he stayed in the temple at age 12, this was prophesied in the shadows. They further prophecy that when he returns to Jerusalem that he will know that he is God, and in fact he goes to the temple to clean it.

John calls to our attention that the wedding at Cana happened on the third day, just as he calls out that the fishing experience after he is resurrected happens on the third time he showed himself.

The two narratives are related and are also both examples of the Torah:Word of God.

The first day is the day of hearing for Jesus. John testifies of Christ having heard from God. The first showing of himself was a day of hearing for the disciples.

The second day was a day of seeing for Jesus, and the second showing was a day of seeing for the disciples.

This means that the third day is a day of walking for Jesus. It is Jesus's 'coming out'. The day he realized he was God. Just as Peter walked with Christ, the marriage is when Jesus starts to walk with the Father. Mary's nudging is literally pushing him out of the nest and saying, "You have now heard and seen, it is time to walk with your Father."

Prior to the miracle Jesus could say "It's not my time", because he lacked the third testimony. It took his mothers nudge to get him to 'walk' with his Father.

Just as the husband and wife become one, The church and Christ become one, as Peter and Christ became one, and the Father and Christ became one.

Jesus changes the water into wine, which he later says is his blood, and life is in the blood. So he made living water come from the "stone" jars. Just as the Rock gave water in the desert and He is called the stone that was rejected, and blood and water poured from his side at the cross.

The miracle was for Jesus' sake, so that he would know that he was God and 'walk' with Him after having heard and seen.

Jesus said he only did what he saw his Father doing. An interesting study in the shadows is to see how the child Jesus could discern his identity, and mission from the shadows. How did he know he could walk on water or heal the sick if he chose not to use his omniscience? How did he know that he should go to the desert and be tempted by Satan?

You will find the shadow telling of his 12 year old stay in the temple by searching the nine kings in the battle.
Ge 14:4 Twelve years they served Chedorlaomer, and in the thirteenth year they rebelled.
http://idontknownuthin.com/wiki/index.php/Dwg:Abram-10.jpg



You will find that he knew he was God upon his return to Jerusalem in the shadow http://idontknownuthin.com/wiki/index.php/When_did_Jesus_know_he_was_God%3F



URForgiven -> RE: The Wedding at Cana (7/24/2008 9:09:54 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: rcjones

I believe it was something else. But I'm sure you won't like the answer.

If when Jesus was 12 and in the temple he taught the teachers how to see the shadows by asking "What are these stones?", then it is likely and probable that he shared the same observation of the shadows with his mother.

For eighteen years he is telling her of the Torah:Word of God and of hearing, seeing and walking. And although He intellectually knew He was the son of God, having emptied himself, he chose not to use his omniscience, and learned of his mission and purpose through the scriptures rather than through special revelation. In this way he could be tempted in every way as we are , without supernatural advantage for resisting temptation.

When he stayed in the temple at age 12, this was prophesied in the shadows. They further prophecy that when he returns to Jerusalem that he will know that he is God, and in fact he goes to the temple to clean it.

John calls to our attention that the wedding at Cana happened on the third day, just as he calls out that the fishing experience after he is resurrected happens on the third time he showed himself.

The two narratives are related and are also both examples of the Torah:Word of God.

The first day is the day of hearing for Jesus. John testifies of Christ having heard from God. The first showing of himself was a day of hearing for the disciples.

The second day was a day of seeing for Jesus, and the second showing was a day of seeing for the disciples.

This means that the third day is a day of walking for Jesus. It is Jesus's 'coming out'. The day he realized he was God. Just as Peter walked with Christ, the marriage is when Jesus starts to walk with the Father. Mary's nudging is literally pushing him out of the nest and saying, "You have now heard and seen, it is time to walk with your Father."

Prior to the miracle Jesus could say "It's not my time", because he lacked the third testimony. It took his mothers nudge to get him to 'walk' with his Father.

Just as the husband and wife become one, The church and Christ become one, as Peter and Christ became one, and the Father and Christ became one.

Jesus changes the water into wine, which he later says is his blood, and life is in the blood. So he made living water come from the "stone" jars. Just as the Rock gave water in the desert and He is called the stone that was rejected, and blood and water poured from his side at the cross.

The miracle was for Jesus' sake, so that he would know that he was God and 'walk' with Him after having heard and seen.

Jesus said he only did what he saw his Father doing. An interesting study in the shadows is to see how the child Jesus could discern his identity, and mission from the shadows. How did he know he could walk on water or heal the sick if he chose not to use his omniscience? How did he know that he should go to the desert and be tempted by Satan?

You will find the shadow telling of his 12 year old stay in the temple by searching the nine kings in the battle.
Ge 14:4 Twelve years they served Chedorlaomer, and in the thirteenth year they rebelled.
http://idontknownuthin.com/wiki/index.php/Dwg:Abram-10.jpg

You will find that he knew he was God upon his return to Jerusalem in the shadow http://idontknownuthin.com/wiki/index.php/When_did_Jesus_know_he_was_God%3F


I am sorry but this is all just plain nonsense. You may be the riddler, but this is not the movie Batman.

You seem to believe you have received secret revelation from God based on your shadows theory. There is no secret revelation, and there is no need for any secret decoder.

It is the Holy Spirit who reveals by illumination the meaning of the Word of God to those in whom He dwells. Whatever you are selling, I am not buying.



MrFribbles -> RE: The Wedding at Cana (7/24/2008 11:44:22 AM)

You rightly predicted, rcjones. ; )

quote:

If when Jesus was 12 and in the temple he taught the teachers how to see the shadows by asking "What are these stones?"


Where did Christ do this?

quote:

For eighteen years he is telling her of the Torah:Word of God and of hearing, seeing and walking.


Or this?

Also, what in Scripture suggests that Christ was unaware of His deity until a certain part in His life?

quote:

as Peter and Christ became one


Where is this taught?

quote:

and the Father and Christ became one.


Are you suggesting that there was separation in the Godhead?

quote:

How did he know he could walk on water or heal the sick if he chose not to use his omniscience? How did he know that he should go to the desert and be tempted by Satan?


1, even if Christ chose not to use full omniscience, it is clear that Christ exhibits some supernatural knowledge. How else could He have known what He did about the woman at the well? 2, we know how Christ knew to go into the desert. The Spirit led Him.



rcjones -> RE: The Wedding at Cana (7/24/2008 5:50:10 PM)

quote:



You seem to believe you have received secret revelation from God based on your shadows theory.


You seem to be the one with supernatural ability to read minds. I have made it clear that there aren't any secrets, so you misrepresent me whether intentionally or ignorantly. Please refrain.

I have made it clear that this is the result of applying a Jewish hermeneutic that was available at the turn of the century. Nothing mystical about it.

And I am selling nothing.



rcjones -> RE: The Wedding at Cana (7/24/2008 6:02:23 PM)

quote:

1, even if Christ chose not to use full omniscience, it is clear that Christ exhibits some supernatural knowledge. How else could He have known what He did about the woman at the well? 2, we know how Christ knew to go into the desert. The Spirit led Him.



Why would you ask questions about the results when you know you don't accept the methodology.

If the methods aren't legit, then none of the answers are. Since I have previously made it plain to you that all of the shadows are presented as examples of observations made using the hermeneutic, and should be validated by others who are able to use the hermeneutic, it makes no sense for me to try to defend them to you if you will not discuss the methodology.



MrFribbles -> RE: The Wedding at Cana (7/24/2008 6:19:21 PM)

quote:

it makes no sense for me to try to defend them to you if you will not discuss the methodology.


I am discussing the methodology. I just happen to disagree with it. If a methodology cannot stand up to disagreements, then it ain't much of a methodology.



rcjones -> RE: The Wedding at Cana (7/24/2008 6:22:03 PM)

quote:

a methodology cannot stand up to disagreements, then it ain't much of a methodology.


I'm sorry, I must have missed your discussion on methodology.

Did you address the guiding rules, the 32 rules of Rabbi Eliezer, or PaRDeS?

All I saw were exceptions with the results of the methods.



MrFribbles -> RE: The Wedding at Cana (7/24/2008 6:32:49 PM)

quote:

Did you address the guiding rules, the 32 rules of Rabbi Eliezer, or PaRDeS?

All I saw were exceptions with the results of the methods.


Ah, of course. In order to discuss something, you have to go back to the very source every single time. I thought that you could take the results of the methodologies workings and discuss them, just as one can discuss Michelangelo by discussing his David. Silly me.
Well, such a discussion would be straying from the topic, and as I started this one, I'd feel especially bad straying from it. So, if you wish to discuss these "exceptions" on here, that's fine. If not, start a new thread to discuss your shadows.



rcjones -> RE: The Wedding at Cana (7/24/2008 6:58:05 PM)

quote:

Silly me.


See we can agree on something..

quote:


Me:
If the methods aren't legit, then none of the answers are.


And this too.


The derivation of When Jesus knew he was God, was documented point by point, giving the specific rule of Rabbi Eliezer that permitted each point. I am not sure what additional information you require.

Furthermore, since you claim to be familiar with the site, you know that I generally verbalize just enough to point you to the ideas to think about for yourself. So if in my brief verbalization, you think you detect something that, with a little of your invention might make me sound heretical, then you have ignore one of the basic guiding rules of the shadows. "If it doesn't look like Christ, it isn't a shadow of Christ."

Since in the past, your attempts to twist my words in order to make me look heretical have failed. And since my theology has been acceptable in Southern Baptist, Assembly of God, Church of Christ, Calvary Chapel, Nazarene and Presbyterian churches for 28 years, I can assure you that anything you think I have implied that sounds heretical is either due to an abbreviated explanation, as I have mentioned, or to your intentional twisting of my words.

A theology that is Biblical must reconcile that Jesus was tempted in every way as we are, and yet was God, who cannot be tempted. How many Christians reconcile this is in recognizing that he had "emptied" himself. He made a choice to not avail himself of the powers of deity and to limit himself to the strengths and knowledge of man. Your observation "that he must have"... does not fully reconcile that he was tempted in every way as we are. If he had supernatural divine knowledge, then he had an advantage in facing temptation.

In the shadows, the separation of the Father and the Son is indicated dually in many places saying that it happened twice. His death is indicated in many places dually. Christ not only died physically, but the Father forsook him on the cross. All the imagery of things splitting, the water, the rock, the veil, etc. all point to the real agony of the cross, which was not the physical suffering, but being separate from the Father.

Lot's of people lose their only sons. Lots of people died on crosses and suffered longer, days longer than Jesus did, upon them. The real agony for the Father was being unable to look upon his son who had been made to be sin. And for the Son to be forsaken.

Is there a heresy in that somewhere?



Denker -> RE: The Wedding at Cana (7/24/2008 7:31:38 PM)

The whole contrived goetic incident of allegedly transforming water into wine, [a complete chemical impossibility as water contains no carbon] in order to induce further intoxication, seems to me an accomplishment more worthy of Dionysos/Sabazios than the god of Abraham, Moses and Jesus of Nazareth.



MrFribbles -> RE: The Wedding at Cana (7/24/2008 7:38:14 PM)

quote:

The whole contrived goetic incident of allegedly transforming water into wine, [a chemical impossibility] in order to induce further intoxication, seems to me an accomplishment more worthy of Dionysos/Sabazios than the god of Abraham, Moses and Jesus of Nazareth.


So, you believe this incident didn't happen?



MrFribbles -> RE: The Wedding at Cana (7/24/2008 7:42:49 PM)

rcjones, if I may repeat myself -

quote:

So, if you wish to discuss these "exceptions" on here, that's fine. If not, start a new thread to discuss your shadows.


I understand that some of what you addressed were those exceptions - and I admit that I began this whole thing by straying from the topic to begin with - but if this discussion is to continue to stray from the wedding at Cana, we really ought to start another thread.



Denker -> RE: The Wedding at Cana (7/24/2008 7:57:34 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrFribbles

quote:

The whole contrived goetic incident of allegedly transforming water into wine, [a chemical impossibility] in order to induce further intoxication, seems to me an accomplishment more worthy of Dionysos/Sabazios than the god of Abraham, Moses and Jesus of Nazareth.


So, you believe this incident didn't happen?



Not as an actual historical event.

In essence Christian narrative fiction.



MrFribbles -> RE: The Wedding at Cana (7/24/2008 8:05:10 PM)

quote:

Not as an actual historical event.

In essence Christian narrative fiction.


In your opinion, is the entire book of John Christian narrative fiction, just this scene, or this scene and other select portions?



Denker -> RE: The Wedding at Cana (7/24/2008 8:37:25 PM)

quote:

Lot's of people lose their only sons. Lots of people died on crosses and suffered longer, days longer than Jesus did, upon them. The real agony for the Father was being unable to look upon his son who had been made to be sin. And for the Son to be forsaken.

Is there a heresy in that somewhere?



Not "heresy," the word literally means a choice - generally speaking the choosing of an opinion contrary to the received wisdom of authoritarian orthodoxy, but in my estimation morbid theological speculation combined with naive anthropomorphic sentimentality - yes definitely!



Denker -> RE: The Wedding at Cana (7/24/2008 9:51:15 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrFribbles

quote:

Not as an actual historical event.

In essence Christian narrative fiction.


In your opinion, is the entire book of John Christian narrative fiction, just this scene, or this scene and other select portions?



The Gospel of John, like the Synoptic Gospels, is not a work of factual historical inquiry [the meaning of the Greek verb from which our word history is derived = to learn by inquiry] but an aretalogy a type of ancient biographical writing. [from Greek arete = virtue] In essence the semi- fictitious account of the life and achievements of a revered, possibly semi-divine, teacher which would serve as a basis for moral and spiritual instruction.

Any historical information deducible from such slanted documents must, of necessity, be treated with extreme caution and tested against extraneous contemporary sources of evidence in order to extract information and project tentative reconstructions. Determinations must correspondingly be attempted as to whether particular incidents and details have any bases within estimated probability.

With regard to specific narrative descriptions within such works, corroboration is extremely difficult if not impossible from the very nature of the texts themselves. It should always be remembered that religious and political "spin" are not solely modern manifestations.

These writings were produced by the early Christian church to proclaim their preaching and teaching imperatives.

Jesus of Nazareth was an Aramaic speaking ascetic Galilean, Jewish teacher, healer and exorcist - not the god/man conflation developed by later Christian theology. When investigating the historical origins of Christianity it is vitally important to bear this distinction constantly in mind.






ta_mosquito -> RE: The Wedding at Cana (7/24/2008 10:39:17 PM)

MODERATOR'S NOTE :: ATTENTION PLEASE

Denker -

Welcome to Forums!

We do not require that you be an orthodox Christian to be a member of the site, but we do require that you respect our Terms of Service, especially TOS #15.

You may want to read our Range of Doctrine and our Statement of Faith.

Repeated statements against these documents and TOS 15 will result in disciplinary action against your account here.

Thank you!

Tricia
Forums Moderator

Please do not reply to this message within the forums or chat.

Please email Community@salemwebnetwork.com with questions, comments, or concerns.

Please do not send me PMs regarding this message.



MrFribbles -> RE: The Wedding at Cana (7/24/2008 11:08:16 PM)

Denker, as you may imagine, I disagree. However, this is straying quite a bit from the thread's original topic. If you are willing to start a new thread on the subject, I'd be willing to discuss it further there.



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI