all that happened at the wedding was that on the third day the host, wanting to save money, told his servants to water down the wine. Jesus, at the urging of his mother, spoke to the host and told him that this was not the right thing to do. the host, seeing
this was an embarrassment, told the workers to stop diluting the wine with water and to serve the pure wine that had been
served in the first afternoon of the first day of the three day wedding.
water into wine was a conversation about being a good and unselfish host and not a miracle.
it became a miracle when advocates of a new jewish sect wanted to exagerate the history for their agenda,
- Joined
- 14 Mar 04
- Moves
- 210736
@the-grifter saidI made wine from water. I bought some concentrate and added water and some other “items” into my 5 gallon container and in a few weeks presto…wine.🍷
all that happened at the wedding was that on the third day the host, wanting to save money, told his servants to water down the wine. Jesus, at the urging of his mother, spoke to the host and told him that this was not the right thing to do. the host, seeing
this was an embarrassment, told the workers to stop diluting the wine with water and to serve the pure wine that ...[text shortened]... came a miracle when advocates of a new jewish sect wanted to exagerate the history for their agenda,
1 edit
@the-grifter saidMetaphors and figures of speech, it's all metaphors and figures of speech. Same with alchemy: the attempt to transmute lead into gold is a metaphor for the spiritual quest in humans. The attempt to interpret such things as literal facts is superstition (belief in magic, false causality).
all that happened at the wedding was that on the third day the host, wanting to save money, told his servants to water down the wine. Jesus, at the urging of his mother, spoke to the host and told him that this was not the right thing to do. the host, seeing
this was an embarrassment, told the workers to stop diluting the wine with water and to serve the pure wine that ...[text shortened]... came a miracle when advocates of a new jewish sect wanted to exagerate the history for their agenda,
@the-grifter saidit became a miracle when advocates of a new Jewish sect wanted to exaggerate the history for their agenda,
all that happened at the wedding was that on the third day the host, wanting to save money, told his servants to water down the wine. Jesus, at the urging of his mother, spoke to the host and told him that this was not the right thing to do. the host, seeing
this was an embarrassment, told the workers to stop diluting the wine with water and to serve the pure wine that ...[text shortened]... came a miracle when advocates of a new jewish sect wanted to exagerate the history for their agenda,
That's a rather sweeping statement considering:
1. You were not there
2. You didn't see what really happened
3. You didn't listen to the dialogue between Jesus and his mother
4. You didn't hear what was said to the workers (if anything)
5. You have no idea if anyone saw or felt any embarrassment
2 edits
@mchill saidFor that matter, not one of the people who wrote the four gospels was there or even knew Jesus. Biblical scholars are in general agreement that the first gospel was Mark’s, and that it was not written before 80 AD; some scholars date it to 110 AD. The four gospels were written by people who weren’t there.
it became a miracle when advocates of a new Jewish sect wanted to exaggerate the history for their agenda,
That's a rather sweeping statement considering:
1. You were not there
2. You didn't see what really happened
3. You didn't listen to the dialogue between Jesus and his mother
4. You didn't hear what was said to the workers (if anything)
5. You have no idea if anyone saw or felt any embarrassment
@the-grifter saidit became a miracle when advocates of a new jewish sect wanted to exagerate the history for their agenda,
all that happened at the wedding was that on the third day the host, wanting to save money, told his servants to water down the wine. Jesus, at the urging of his mother, spoke to the host and told him that this was not the right thing to do. the host, seeing
this was an embarrassment, told the workers to stop diluting the wine with water and to serve the pure wine that ...[text shortened]... came a miracle when advocates of a new jewish sect wanted to exagerate the history for their agenda,
What new Jewish sect wanted to "exaggerate" history for their agenda? Please show us any further evidence of your claims here, thank you.
3 edits
@moonbus saidThe Apostle John was there, and, he was also a Roman Citizen, and, he lived to a very old age. John was still alive when Pompeii and Herculaneum met their ends from Mount Vesuvius. He lived until 99 AD and was known as the youngest Apostle in Jesus's inner-circle.
For that matter, not one of the people who wrote the four gospels was there or even knew Jesus. Biblical scholars are in general agreement that the first gospel was Mark’s, and that it was not written before 80 AD; some scholars date it to 110 AD. The four gospels were written by people who weren’t there.
@KingDavid403 saidThere is no evidence that the gospel attributed to the Apostle John was actually written by him. It was common in ancient times to title written works after notable persons. Pythagoras, for example left no writings, yet writings were attributed to him by his students. The Gospel of John could well have been written someone else long after he died.
The Apostle John was there, and, he was also a Roman Citizen, and, he lived to a very old age. John was still alive when Pompeii and Herculaneum met their ends from Mount Vesuvius. He lived until 99 AD and was known as the youngest Apostle in Jesus's inner-circle.
4 edits
@moonbus saidThere is no evidence that the gospel attributed to the Apostle John was actually written by him.
There is no evidence that the gospel attributed to the Apostle John was actually written by him. It was common in ancient times to title written works after notable persons. Pythagoras, for example left no writings, yet writings were attributed to him by his students. The Gospel of John could well have been written someone else long after he died.
There is circumstance-AL evidence that is linked to John writing his Gospel According to John. The Jewish people were extremely good at keeping track of their historical events. And most of their historical scribes such as Josephus, were not Christians.
Either way, there is also NO known evidence that the Apostle John did not write, or at least narrate his version, to a scribe, to copy.
Oldest known writings of The New Testament.
"The oldest writings are fragments like P52, a copy of the Gospel of John from around \(125\) CE, and some of the earliest letters of Paul (c. \(50\)-\(60\) CE).
For more complete early texts, the Chester Beatty Papyri (mid-3rd century) contain a large portion of the New Testament, while the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus are the oldest surviving complete Bibles, dating to the 4th century.
Earliest fragments P52: The oldest existing fragment of the New Testament, a small piece of John's Gospel, dates to approximately \(125\) CE.Letters of Paul: The first Christian writings are considered to be the letters of the Apostle Paul, written between \(50\) and \(60\) CE. Early, more complete manuscripts Chester Beatty Papyri: A collection of papyri from the mid-3rd century that includes large portions of the New Testament, such as the Gospel of John, the Pauline epistles (in P46), and the Gospels and Acts (in P45).Codex P66: An extensive, early copy of the Gospel of John, dated to around \(200\) CE.Codex P46: Also from around \(200\) CE, this manuscript contains the Pauline epistles and Hebrews.
Oldest complete New Testament codices Codex Sinaiticus: From the mid-4th century, this is the oldest surviving complete copy of the New Testament.Codex Vaticanus: Also from the mid-4th century, it is one of the oldest and most complete manuscripts of the Bible."
[Goggle AI]
1 edit
@KingDavid403 said1600 yrs is an impressively long period for a MS to have survived, but that still leaves a three hundred yr gap to anyone who actually knew Jesus.
Oldest known writings of New Testament.
"The oldest writings are fragments like P52, a copy of the Gospel of John from around \(125\) CE, and some of the earliest letters of Paul (c. \(50\)-\(60\) CE).
For more complete early texts, the Chester Beatty Papyri (mid-3rd century) contain a large portion of the New Testament, while the Codex Sinaiticus and Code ...[text shortened]... mid-4th century, it is one of the oldest and most complete manuscripts of the Bible."
[Goggle AI]
Only four fragments survive from within one lifetime of Jesus. The fact that these fragments mostly agree with codexes from the fourth c. does not prove that either the four fragments or the 4thc. codexes are true or accurate accounts of events which actually happened. It only means that if there was an error, whether of copying or of translation, then the error got coped again and again.
I will give you one example of an error which crept in at the very beginning and got copied again and again. The Hebrew word for what Mary, the mother of Jesus was, was ALMAH. It was mistranslated into the Greek Septuagint as PARTHENOS, from which we derive our word parthenogensis, meaning a-sexual reproduction. Mary was no virgin. What the Hebrew word meant was not her physiological state, but her legal status: she was not previously married when she was betrothed to Joseph (she might, after all, have been a widow). It did not mean she had never had sex; it meant she had never before been married. The correct translation would therefore have been "maiden" not "virgin." This error was carried forward from the earliest translation and copied again and again.
It should be obvious that this particular mistranslation was the sole basis of the myth which arose, not earlier than the 4th c., of the perpetual virginity of Mary, and forms one of the pillars of the claim that Jesus was not just a man, but God incarnate, conceived miraculously.
John, notably, mentions nothing of a virgin birth. It is mentioned only by authors who weren't there.
Drop the virgin birth out of Cathlic dogma, and a very large edifice built on top of it suddenly looks wobbly.
@moonbus saidJohn, notably, mentions nothing of a virgin birth. It is mentioned only by authors who weren't there.
1600 yrs is an impressively long period for a MS to have survived, but that still leaves a three hundred yr gap to anyone who actually knew Jesus.
Only four fragments survive from within one lifetime of Jesus. The fact that these fragments mostly agree with codexes from the fourth c. does not prove that either the four fragments or the 4thc. codexes are true or accurate a ...[text shortened]... irgin birth out of Cathlic dogma, and a very large edifice built on top of it suddenly looks wobbly.
John was not born for some time after the birth of Jesus. John was much younger than Jesus.
Drop the virgin birth out of Cathlic dogma, and a very large edifice built on top of it suddenly looks wobbly.
I have no doubt that the church has negatively impacted our modern translations of the Bible today; I will give you that. Fairly recently they have changed Bible passages to fit their anti-abortion narrative; they will answer for this; something about blasphemy against the Holy Spirt, or something like that. However, this does not change the fact, or just of God, and what He has done for us; and what He is doing for us ALL through Jesus Christ.
Go look in a mirror; then tell yourself that you're just a fluke of circumstance;
not. 🙂 Either way, I disagree with you in this instance. 🙂
@KingDavid403 saidExtraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs. The Bible does not provide any. What it provides are stories standing in dire need of proofs. That, or one takes it all on faith ... which is fideism. Fine, no skin off my nose, only 'I just believe it, without proof' pretty much ends any debate.
John, notably, mentions nothing of a virgin birth. It is mentioned only by authors who weren't there.
John was not born for some time after the birth of Jesus. John was much younger than Jesus.
Drop the virgin birth out of Cathlic dogma, and a very large edifice built on top of it suddenly looks wobbly.
I have no doubt that the church has n ...[text shortened]... 're just a fluke of circumstance;
not. 🙂 Either way, I disagree with you in this instance. 🙂
As Christopher Hitchin remarks, claims without evidence can be dismissed without counter-evidence.
@moonbus saidclaims without evidence can be dismissed without counter-evidence.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs. The Bible does not provide any. What it provides are stories standing in dire need of proofs. That, or one takes it all on faith ... which is fideism. Fine, no skin off my nose, only 'I just believe it, without proof' pretty much ends any debate.
As Christopher Hitchin remarks, claims without evidence can be dismissed without counter-evidence.
And yet, life is all around you, and in you. 😉 Both spiritual, and physical. 🙂
pretty much ends any debate.
I agree. 😛 🙂
1 edit
@moonbus saidNot to mention Genesis.
For that matter, not one of the people who wrote the four gospels was there or even knew Jesus. Biblical scholars are in general agreement that the first gospel was Mark’s, and that it was not written before 80 AD; some scholars date it to 110 AD. The four gospels were written by people who weren’t there.
However, I think that as teaching stories go or as some kind of Jewish koan, the story about the water and the wine at the wedding at Canaan still seems a pretty good one no matter what it means, especially two thousand years later.
@Arkturos saidThe narrative is what matters, and the moral arc therein, not whether any of it really happened. That's the bit literalists don't get. Just on textual content, nothing in the OT or the NT is any more likely to be factually-historically true than Gilgamesh, or Enuma Elish, or the Upanishads, or Hesiod, or Homer, or any of thousands of other texts about gods and men.
Not to mention Genesis.
However, I think that as teaching stories go or as some kind of Jewish koan, the story about the water and the wine at the wedding at Canaan still seems a pretty good one no matter what it means, especially two thousand years later.