The wedding at cana - Comments please - What does it mean to YOU?

lionmqj

John 2:1-11



1And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there:
2And both Jesus was called, and his disciples, to the marriage.
3And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, They have no wine.
4Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come.
5His mother saith unto the servants, Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it.
6And there were set there six waterpots of stone, after the manner of the purifying of the Jews, containing two or three firkins apiece.
7Jesus saith unto them, Fill the waterpots with water. And they filled them up to the brim.
8And he saith unto them, Draw out now, and bear unto the governor of the feast. And they bare it.
9When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, and knew not whence it was: (but the servants which drew the water knew; ) the governor of the feast called the bridegroom,
10And saith unto him, Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse: but thou hast kept the good wine until now.
11This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested forth his glory; and his disciples believed on him.

georgieporgy

It nice to see a good thread like this come up . Good post lionmqj.

The story of the wedding at Cana is one of my favourites. There is so much in it in many levels. As it's late now (midnite) I will confine myself to one or two brief observations : if Jesus can turn water into wine there is no reason why he can't turn wine into blood (his blood)if he wants to. And he did just that at the Last Supper.

And in performing his first public miracle at a wedding he undoubtedly draws attention to that particular event too, ie,the wedding ceremony.

And even though his "hour had not yet come", he relented and did as his mother asked of him. (hence the catholic habit of going to Jesus through Mary).

Onesimus

georgieporgy wrote: »

It nice to see a good thread like this come up . Good post lionmqj.

The story of the wedding at Cana is one of my favourites. There is so much in it in many levels. As it's late now (midnite) I will confine myself to one or two brief observations : if Jesus can turn water into wine there is no reason why he can't turn wine into blood (his blood)if he wants to. And he did just that at the Last Supper.

And in performing his first public miracle at a wedding he undoubtedly draws attention to that particular event too, ie,the wedding ceremony.

And even though his "hour had not yet come", he relented and did as his mother asked of him. (hence the catholic habit of going to Jesus through Mary).

thats on an apologetic level ( explaining the faith etc ) but it means also so much more too on other levels. Here we see Jesus being a part of the community being one with them. Enjoying their company and also they enjoying his and not just purely for the free wine, but for having the sheer company of the Lord at our wedding. It also shows his creation of the sacrament and how at every wedding party the risen Jesus is always there with us continuosly throughout the ages. Mother Mary of course being with us too and overlooking our celebration, interceding for us.

lionmqj

Ok to me ................

Verse 4 "Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come."

Jesus was brisk with His mother (not disrespectful). "What have I to do with you He says, My time has not yet come".
But He goes ahead and does what she asks anyway.




Verse 6 - 7
"6And there were set there six waterpots of stone, after the manner of the purifying of the Jews, containing two or three firkins apiece.
7Jesus saith unto them, Fill the waterpots with water. And they filled them up to the brim."

He tells His servants to fill some purification jars.
These waterpots were used by the Jews for ceremonial cleansing. They were vessels that made people pure!
Not an accident.
Jesus gave us an acted out parable of His own death and His own blood and what it would mean.
He would be the final purifier for sins!

Ritual cleansing was now over (see the book of Hebrews) and also
(Rev 7:13-14
13And one of the elders answered, saying unto me, What are these which are arrayed in white robes? and whence came they?
14And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.)






Verses 9 - 10
9When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, and knew not whence it was: (but the servants which drew the water knew; ) the governor of the feast called the bridegroom,
10And saith unto him, Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse: but thou hast kept the good wine until now.

The bridegroom symbolizes Jesus and the good wine is His saving blood which was kept until now.
He is the all providing bridegroom.
The people of God (the church) are His bride.

Rev 19:7-8
7Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honor to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come and his wife hath made herself ready.
8And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints.

The life giving wine of His death in our place never runs out. He is the perfect all providing husband for the church.
Salvation is in Him ............. plus nothing else.

marty1985

Am I right in thinking that this story does not appear in the gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke? And if it's true that Mark's was the first written, and John's the last, why did it take so many more years for it to be written and included in a gospel? This would leave me to think that a lot of it could be perhaps a literary device (sorry for using that term, I can't think of anything better). John's gospel is so full of symobolism (light and water especially) that I think this story could be just symbolic, for the reason that another poster has already made, regarding turning water into wine and later turning wine into blood, so to speak.

While I do find it a bit of a stretch to say that it means that the risen Jesus is present at every wedding party and Mary is always overlooking our celebration, I do like the story.

I also like the fact that according to this, Jesus' ministry began at the command of a woman. Surely that has to be one of the most important parts of this story?

keano_afc

This was the passage that was spoken on at my wedding, so its good to see it come back up. One thing I remember is that Jesus was invited to this wedding, and performed a miracle. If we invite Jesus into our lives he can perform miracles in us too.

lionmqj

marty1985 wrote: »

Am I right in thinking that this story does not appear in the gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke? And if it's true that Mark's was the first written, and John's the last, why did it take so many more years for it to be written and included in a gospel? This would leave me to think that a lot of it could be perhaps a literary device (sorry for using that term, I can't think of anything better). John's gospel is so full of symobolism (light and water especially) that I think this story could be just symbolic, for the reason that another poster has already made, regarding turning water into wine and later turning wine into blood, so to speak.

Hi Onesimus.
Here are two videos wrt which gospel was written first.
Watch both in full and let us know what you think mate.

This blew my mind by the way.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=flbaJfRwYxM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxYwLvtnoyc

georgieporgy

interesting that the video was in post 7

marty1985

I watched the videos with a lot of interest. Thank you for posting.

I don't want to deviate too far from the OP's intention for the thread. I do find the multiples of seven interesting, but I don't know what it proves. My point was simply that the story of the wedding at Cana might be a methaphorical story by the author of the gospel of John. I thought the gospel of John was written last - is this true? Or is this under dispute?

The multiples of seven are interesting, but I think he goes a bit far. I have no doubt that the Bible is an inspired book, but I'm sure most of these things are incidental. I think if you looked hard enough for things like this in any book, you'll find them.

As for the specifications-
I have always found the one about being born in Bethlehem to be a bit of a stretch. Why did Joseph have to go back to Bethlehem? Because of a census that meant he had to go back to the birthplace of his ancestors? That sounds improbable and chaotic.
But I understand the story of his birth has to fulfill this specification in order for him to be the Messiah. As with the virgin birth. I have always thought Mark's gospel was the first to be written, and he didn't mention these things. If I was writing an eye witness account, I would have included these details. And I've heard it's also in dispute about which leader was ruling at the time, be it Herod or someone else. These are just questions I have in my own mind, and is not intended as an attack on anyone else's convictions.

lionmqj

marty1985 wrote: »

I watched the videos with a lot of interest. Thank you for posting.

I don't want to deviate too far from the OP's intention for the thread. I do find the multiples of seven interesting, but I don't know what it proves. My point was simply that the story of the wedding at Cana might be a methaphorical story by the author of the gospel of John. I thought the gospel of John was written last - is this true? Or is this under dispute?

The multiples of seven are interesting, but I think he goes a bit far. I have no doubt that the Bible is an inspired book, but I'm sure most of these things are incidental. I think if you looked hard enough for things like this in any book, you'll find them.

As you can see from the videos all the writings from the new testament contain this astonishing numerology and the authors all have their own unique writing styles using their own unique words to suit their style.
Their have also been lots of recent discoveries proving the gospels and the epistles ( the whole of the new testament in fact ) have all been written about 50 -70 AD.
So it's impossible to say whether Matthew, Mark, Luke or John was written first.

As for the rest of the bible the rest of it also contains this amazing numerology. There is nothing absolutely nothing incidental in it.

Without looking at numerology, the Gospel is even written in Gen 5 (I digress).
Genesis 5

1This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;
2Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.
3And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, and after his image; and called his name Seth:
4And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters:
5And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.
6And Seth lived an hundred and five years, and begat Enos:
7And Seth lived after he begat Enos eight hundred and seven years, and begat sons and daughters:
8And all the days of Seth were nine hundred and twelve years: and he died.
9And Enos lived ninety years, and begat Cainan:
10And Enos lived after he begat Cainan eight hundred and fifteen years, and begat sons and daughters:
11And all the days of Enos were nine hundred and five years: and he died.
12And Cainan lived seventy years and begat Mahalaleel:
13And Cainan lived after he begat Mahalaleel eight hundred and forty years, and begat sons and daughters:
14And all the days of Cainan were nine hundred and ten years: and he died.
15And Mahalaleel lived sixty and five years, and begat Jared:
16And Mahalaleel lived after he begat Jared eight hundred and thirty years, and begat sons and daughters:
17And all the days of Mahalaleel were eight hundred ninety and five years: and he died.
18And Jared lived an hundred sixty and two years, and he begat Enoch:
19And Jared lived after he begat Enoch eight hundred years, and begat sons and daughters:
20And all the days of Jared were nine hundred sixty and two years: and he died.
21And Enoch lived sixty and five years, and begat Methuselah:
22And Enoch walked with God after he begat Methuselah three hundred years, and begat sons and daughters:
23And all the days of Enoch were three hundred sixty and five years:
24And Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him.
25And Methuselah lived an hundred eighty and seven years, and begat Lamech.
26And Methuselah lived after he begat Lamech seven hundred eighty and two years, and begat sons and daughters:
27And all the days of Methuselah were nine hundred sixty and nine years: and he died.
28And Lamech lived an hundred eighty and two years, and begat a son:
29And he called his name Noah, saying, This same shall comfort us concerning our work and toil of our hands, because of the ground which the LORD hath cursed.
30And Lamech lived after he begat Noah five hundred ninety and five years, and begat sons and daughters:
31And all the days of Lamech were seven hundred seventy and seven years: and he died.
32And Noah was five hundred years old: and Noah begat Shem, Ham, and Japheth.

Adam Means Man
Seth means Appointed
Enosh means Mortal
Cainan means Sorrow,
Mahalalel means The Blessed God
Jared means Shall come down
Enoch means Teaching,
Methuselah means His death shall bring
Lamech means the disparing
Noah means Comfort (rest)

This was written thousands of years before.
Thousands of years before!
You will not find this in any other book ever.
It's supernatural!
It's entirely God.

Here is something to try, get a pen and paper click on this link http://www.khouse.org/6640/CD006-19/ and listen to the track called "The Geneology of Jesus"

wolfsbane

lionmqj wrote: »

John 2:1-11



1And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there:
2And both Jesus was called, and his disciples, to the marriage.
3And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, They have no wine.
4Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come.
5His mother saith unto the servants, Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it.
6And there were set there six waterpots of stone, after the manner of the purifying of the Jews, containing two or three firkins apiece.
7Jesus saith unto them, Fill the waterpots with water. And they filled them up to the brim.
8And he saith unto them, Draw out now, and bear unto the governor of the feast. And they bare it.
9When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, and knew not whence it was: (but the servants which drew the water knew; ) the governor of the feast called the bridegroom,
10And saith unto him, Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse: but thou hast kept the good wine until now.
11This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested forth his glory; and his disciples believed on him.

Rather than reading into it a sacrament, especially one perverted into Catholic Transubstantiation, this passage should be read for its actual teaching - it is the record of the first of Christ's miracles. THAT is the message.

We can of course derive other truths and applications from it, but need to make sure they are in the text, not in our imaginations. One such truth is that it is OK to drink wine.

But if we think of more important doctrine, then it teaches us that Mary did not have the automatic power to get things of Jesus that Rome says - Jesus made sure we had that reminder recorded, 'Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come.'

A great application is this: Mary's request to the servants, 'Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it.' No better advice can anyone follow. Our focus is on Christ, not Mary. When our fellow-believers (like Mary) call us to follow Christ, they are not the objects of our faith - Christ alone is.
_________________________________________________________________
Matthew 12:46 While He was still talking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers stood outside, seeking to speak with Him. 47 Then one said to Him, “Look, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, seeking to speak with You.”
48 But He answered and said to the one who told Him, “Who is My mother and who are My brothers?” 49 And He stretched out His hand toward His disciples and said, “Here are My mother and My brothers! 50 For whoever does the will of My Father in heaven is My brother and sister and mother.”

Manach

Drink good. Water bad. Protestants tend to long-windedess.

wolfsbane

Manach wrote: »

Drink good. Water bad. Protestants tend to long-windedess.

Well, the last bit is certainly true.

georgieporgy

Wolfsbane, good points. I don't think catholics would disagree with anything you said there. (esp the wine bit).

All the rest is tweeking and nuances (non enough to start a religous war )

Can I add one thing. Whenever Jesus says "my hour" he is referring to calvary. ie, his suffering, death etc. So the sooner he goes public the sooner he draws attention to himself and the clock starts ticking so to speak. But he can't refuse his mum's request because being the perfect son he is perfectly obedient. And obeying the 4th comandment would be important to him.

it's nice to get observations from christians other than catholic on this and other topics in Scripture to see what we have in common.

Des Carter

Read something interesting about the wedding at Cena.

http://http://www.jesusfamilytomb.com/forum/THE_WEDDING_OF_JESUS_TO_MARY-9-550-0-0/

It basically says that the wedding was Jesus' and is worth a look.

Its 'alleged' that the wedding at Cana was Jesus'. info sources say his mum Mary was the hostess. She was concerned with the depletion of wine and ordering the servants around; something only the hostess or the organizer does. Secondly, why would Mary think that Jesus needed to know about the finished wine, unless he was the 'person of honor'. We know that he wasnt the MC coz the steward was! The identity of the groom is concealed despite the steward pointing out that he, 'the groom' provides the best wine last.

wolfsbane

georgieporgy wrote: »

Wolfsbane, good points. I don't think catholics would disagree with anything you said there. (esp the wine bit).

All the rest is tweeking and nuances (non enough to start a religous war )

Can I add one thing. Whenever Jesus says "my hour" he is referring to calvary. ie, his suffering, death etc. So the sooner he goes public the sooner he draws attention to himself and the clock starts ticking so to speak. But he can't refuse his mum's request because being the perfect son he is perfectly obedient. And obeying the 4th comandment would be important to him.

it's nice to get observations from christians other than catholic on this and other topics in Scripture to see what we have in common.

Thanks, Georgie.

He was no longer a child, under His parents' authority, so a answer to Mary's request was dependent on it being in line with His greater purpose. The buck stops with adulthood.

BTW, have you any thoughts on why RCs call it the 4th and Protestants call it the 5th Commandment? I've asked personal Catholic friends, but none seemed to know.
_________________________________________________________________
Exodus 20:12 “ Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long upon the land which the LORD your God is giving you.

georgieporgy

wolfsbane wrote: »

Thanks, Georgie.

He was no longer a child, under His parents' authority, so a answer to Mary's request was dependent on it being in line with His greater purpose. The buck stops with adulthood.

BTW, have you any thoughts on why RCs call it the 4th and Protestants call it the 5th Commandment? I've asked personal Catholic friends, but none seemed to know.
_________________________________________________________________
Exodus 20:12 “ Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long upon the land which the LORD your God is giving you.

We say you guys divide the first commandment into 2 and join #9and 10 together

catholic 9 = do not covet neighbour's wife
catholic 10- do not covet neighbour's goods

As for obeying parents, the commandment says honour them ,not obey, (but we tend to tell our kids to obey us cos God says so.)
But when we obey them we show our respect and honour. The command to honour them never ends but of course we don't expect them to order us around when we grow up. But if your old mum asked you to go out of your way and pick up something from the store for her you probably would do it just because she's your mum. That is also why we have a duty to care for our elderly parents when they can no longer look after themselves. The secular view would be to encourage then to get a one way ticket to Switzerland

georgieporgy

Des Carter wrote: »

Read something interesting about the wedding at Cena.

http://http://www.jesusfamilytomb.com/forum/THE_WEDDING_OF_JESUS_TO_MARY-9-550-0-0/

It basically says that the wedding was Jesus' and is worth a look.

More scripture study needed Des

wolfsbane

georgieporgy said:

We say you guys divide the first commandment into 2 and join #9and 10 together

catholic 9 = do not covet neighbour's wife
catholic 10- do not covet neighbour's goods

Thanks. I just wondered why and how this came about. I have just now found this Catholic site and it seems to cover it well:
http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/NUMBERNG.HTM

I do think it unfortunate that the Catholic friends of my youth thought You shall not make for yourself a carved image—any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth was not part of the Commandments. Apparently they must not have been listening when the full commandment was read out in the readings.

As for obeying parents, the commandment says honour them ,not obey, (but we tend to tell our kids to obey us cos God says so.)
But when we obey them we show our respect and honour. The command to honour them never ends but of course we don't expect them to order us around when we grow up. But if your old mum asked you to go out of your way and pick up something from the store for her you probably would do it just because she's your mum. That is also why we have a duty to care for our elderly parents when they can no longer look after themselves.

Indeed.

The secular view would be to encourage then to get a one way ticket to Switzerland

No doubt an evolutionary instinct to maximise resources for the productive.
_________________________________________________________________
Hebrews 11:11 By faith Sarah herself also received strength to conceive seed, and she bore a child when she was past the age, because she judged Him faithful who had promised. 12 Therefore from one man, and him as good as dead, were born as many as the stars of the sky in multitude—innumerable as the sand which is by the seashore.

lionmqj

Des Carter wrote: »

Read something interesting about the wedding at Cena.

http://http://www.jesusfamilytomb.com/forum/THE_WEDDING_OF_JESUS_TO_MARY-9-550-0-0/

It basically says that the wedding was Jesus' and is worth a look.

Quote:
Its 'alleged' that the wedding at Cana was Jesus'. info sources say his mum Mary was the hostess. She was concerned with the depletion of wine and ordering the servants around; something only the hostess or the organizer does. Secondly, why would Mary think that Jesus needed to know about the finished wine, unless he was the 'person of honor'. We know that he wasnt the MC coz the steward was! The identity of the groom is concealed despite the steward pointing out that he, 'the groom' provides the best wine last. End QUOTE







This may be an eastern tradition now but this was two thousand years ago!

If Jesus married it would say so in the bible so it's pure rubbish.

Dan Brown has the secular world soooooo confused.

lionmqj

wolfsbane wrote: »

Rather than reading into it a sacrament, especially one perverted into Catholic Transubstantiation, this passage should be read for its actual teaching - it is the record of the first of Christ's miracles. THAT is the message.

We can of course derive other truths and applications from it, but need to make sure they are in the text, not in our imaginations. One such truth is that it is OK to drink wine.

But if we think of more important doctrine, then it teaches us that Mary did not have the automatic power to get things of Jesus that Rome says - Jesus made sure we had that reminder recorded, 'Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come.'

A great application is this: Mary's request to the servants, 'Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it.' No better advice can anyone follow. Our focus is on Christ, not Mary. When our fellow-believers (like Mary) call us to follow Christ, they are not the objects of our faith - Christ alone is.
_________________________________________________________________
Matthew 12:46 While He was still talking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers stood outside, seeking to speak with Him. 47 Then one said to Him, “Look, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, seeking to speak with You.”
48 But He answered and said to the one who told Him, “Who is My mother and who are My brothers?” 49 And He stretched out His hand toward His disciples and said, “Here are My mother and My brothers! 50 For whoever does the will of My Father in heaven is My brother and sister and mother.”

Agreed.
Also see Luke
Luke 11:27-28



27And it came to pass, as he spake these things, a certain woman of the company lifted up her voice, and said unto him, Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked.
28But he said, Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it.

Jesus got straight to the point on this.


wolfsbane, I would ask you spare a thought for the people in Catholicism though.

Let's all strive to preach the gospel here.

georgieporgy

some of us are new to this site so why don't we do a little introduction before we all fall out.

i'm Irish RC in my 50s, lived abroad half my life so am not inclined to attack every heretic I meet.

In fact I only really discovered my religion when I found myself living among pagans (a long time ago). It was only after I did a good study of my own religion that I could accept the society I found myself in.

So before we start accusing each other of being heathens and blasphemers why don't we decide to all just get along (some black guy in LA said that a few years ago.... what was his name?)

I think the big issue today is the great divide between believers and unbelievers. things like abortion and euthanasia versus climate change and low carb diets.

If we don't take offense from each other's posts maybe we will have a good interfaith dialogue.

marty1985

Living among pagans?

I also don't believe it was Jesus' wedding, although he definately stole the bride's thunder.

I also like that Jesus took twelve lads as his +1.

lionmqj

georgieporgy wrote: »

some of us are new to this site so why don't we do a little introduction before we all fall out.

i'm Irish RC in my 50s, lived abroad half my life so am not inclined to attack every heretic I meet.

In fact I only really discovered my religion when I found myself living among pagans (a long time ago). It was only after I did a good study of my own religion that I could accept the society I found myself in.

So before we start accusing each other of being heathens and blasphemers why don't we decide to all just get along (some black guy in LA said that a few years ago.... what was his name?)

I think the big issue today is the great divide between believers and unbelievers. things like abortion and euthanasia versus climate change and low carb diets.

If we don't take offense from each other's posts maybe we will have a good interfaith dialogue.

Hi georgieporgy
Im an ex RC. I now just call myself a Christian ( follower of Christ for anyone who doesnt know the proper definition of the term ).

You are correct QUOTE"If we don't take offense from each other's posts maybe we will have a good interfaith dialogue"

wolfsbane

lionmqj wrote: »

Agreed.
Also see Luke
Luke 11:27-28



27And it came to pass, as he spake these things, a certain woman of the company lifted up her voice, and said unto him, Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked.
28But he said, Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it.

Jesus got straight to the point on this.


wolfsbane, I would ask you spare a thought for the people in Catholicism though.

Let's all strive to preach the gospel here.

Catholic people are in my thoughts and prayers, as are the rest of my fellow-men. The gospel is for them all.

It's their Church and its leaders with whom I have the problem.
_________________________________________________________________
Revelation 18:4 And I heard another voice from heaven saying, “Come out of her, my people, lest you share in her sins, and lest you receive of her plagues. 5 For her sins have reached to heaven, and God has remembered her iniquities.

wolfsbane

georgieporgy wrote: »

some of us are new to this site so why don't we do a little introduction before we all fall out.

i'm Irish RC in my 50s, lived abroad half my life so am not inclined to attack every heretic I meet.

In fact I only really discovered my religion when I found myself living among pagans (a long time ago). It was only after I did a good study of my own religion that I could accept the society I found myself in.

So before we start accusing each other of being heathens and blasphemers why don't we decide to all just get along (some black guy in LA said that a few years ago.... what was his name?)

I think the big issue today is the great divide between believers and unbelievers. things like abortion and euthanasia versus climate change and low carb diets.

If we don't take offense from each other's posts maybe we will have a good interfaith dialogue.

Hi, georgieporgy

Thanks for the introduction. I'm a British Protestant (Baptist); 60; and seek to emulate the apostles' in their approach to error and to errorists. Some folk are ignorantly in error and need to be instructed rather than attacked. Others are wilfully in error and need to be rebuked at least.

Most of the errorists I encounter here are of the former sort, so I can get on just fine with them; what they feel about me is another matter! When someone honestly presents their beliefs, I take no offense no matter how wrong they may be. I take offence when people lie or wilfully misrepresent things.

I look forward to good interfaith dialogue with all here - RC, Muslim, Athiest, whatever. I also look forward to good inner-faith dialogue to any who share my faith in Christ.
________________________________________________________________
Revelation 22:8 Now I, John, saw and heard these things. And when I heard and saw, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel who showed me these things.
9 Then he said to me, “See that you do not do that. For I am your fellow servant, and of your brethren the prophets, and of those who keep the words of this book. Worship God.”

lionmqj

So, to conclude, what do we take from this scripture (the wedding at cana)?

marty1985

I'm opening up an old thread here but only recently it occured to me that turning water into wine carries some significance when you consider only shortly before this, he refused to turn rocks into bread for the devil. It's practically the same miracle, but obeyed for his mother, although his hour had not yet come - it's sad to think his only appointment in life was with death.

Bob Cratchet

lionmqj wrote: »

Jesus was brisk with His mother (not disrespectful). "What have I to do with you He says, My time has not yet come".
But He goes ahead and does what she asks anyway.

Yes, Mary is a very powerful intercessor to be sure.
It also shows how much she cares for people.

Even more importantly, the miracle at Cana was the beginning of Jesus’ public ministry.

It is the second mystery of light, of the most holy Rosary.

There is a lot to meditate on when praying this mystery.

Bob Cratchet

Des Carter wrote: »

Read something interesting about the wedding at Cena.

http://http://www.jesusfamilytomb.com/forum/THE_WEDDING_OF_JESUS_TO_MARY-9-550-0-0/

It basically says that the wedding was Jesus' and is worth a look.

I'm always highly amused by people who don't find the bible entertaining enough on its own. There are no secrets waiting to be "discovered".
Christianity is not a Gnostic religion.

marty1985

Bob Cratchet wrote: »

lionmqj wrote: »

Jesus was brisk with His mother (not disrespectful). "What have I to do with you He says, My time has not yet come".
But He goes ahead and does what she asks anyway.

Yes, Mary is a very powerful intercessor to be sure.
It also shows how much she cares for people.

Even more importantly, the miracle at Cana was the beginning of Jesus’ public ministry.

It is the second mystery of light, of the most holy Rosary.

There is a lot to meditate on when praying this mystery.

When he said this to Mary, did she understand what he was saying and what he was alluding to by saying his "hour"? Didn't she ponder that maybe by instructing her son to perform a miracle that she was setting in motion a series of events that would lead to his hour coming.

Bob Cratchet

wolfsbane wrote: »

BTW, have you any thoughts on why RCs call it the 4th and Protestants call it the 5th Commandment? I've asked personal Catholic friends, but none seemed to know.

I wondered that for a while as well, and then found the answer after doing a bit of research. Basically they are the same ten commandments, just divided slightly differently.

The Bible gives two versions of the Ten Commandments, in essential content identical, one in Exodus and another in Deuteronomy. The enumeration of the commandants (which is number one, which is two etc.) are traditional and neither contained in the texts nor obvious. The Catholic Church has traditionally used the Deuteronomy account and followed the division of the text given in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Scriptures made by second century BC Jews in Egypt and used by the early Church as its Old Testament. The Anglican Church and the Lutheran Church also use this account. The other Reformation churches use the Exodus listing, and adopted the Jewish enumeration of the Hebrew text.
http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/ten_commandments.htm

Bob Cratchet

marty1985 wrote: »

When he said this to Mary, did she understand what he was saying and what he was alluding to by saying his "hour"? Didn't she ponder that maybe by instructing her son to perform a miracle that she was setting in motion a series of events that would lead to his hour coming.

Very possible she was chosen to be so. As we know, Mary was the first to be made aware of the coming of Christ.

'And Mary said: “My soul glorifies the Lord and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior, for he has been mindful of the humble state of his servant. From now on all generations will call me blessed " ' Luke 1:46-48

marty1985

Bob Cratchet wrote: »

marty1985 wrote: »

When he said this to Mary, did she understand what he was saying and what he was alluding to by saying his "hour"? Didn't she ponder that maybe by instructing her son to perform a miracle that she was setting in motion a series of events that would lead to his hour coming.

Very possible she was chosen to be so. As we know, Mary was the first to be made aware of the coming of Christ.

'And Mary said: “My soul glorifies the Lord and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior, for he has been mindful of the humble state of his servant. From now on all generations will call me blessed " ' Luke 1:46-48

On second thoughts, is there any significance to the fact that she doesn't ask him to perform a miracle, or even tell him to do it. She states matter-of-factly "they have no wine" as if laying down a challenge. And why is he so reluctant?

Bob Cratchet

marty1985 wrote: »

On second thoughts, is there any significance to the fact that she doesn't ask him to perform a miracle, or even tell him to do it. She states matter-of-factly "they have no wine" as if laying down a challenge. And why is he so reluctant?

Good pondering. Although aware of his divinity, she still no doubt had a bit of eager mother prompting instinct. She really was a divine choice, though naturally her timing would not have been as divine as Jesus’s. Like all woman, she probably inadvertently found a way to cause a very slight dilemma !

antiskeptic

lionmqj wrote: »

Adam Means Man
Seth means Appointed
Enosh means Mortal
Cainan means Sorrow,
Mahalalel means The Blessed God
Jared means Shall come down
Enoch means Teaching,
Methuselah means His death shall bring
Lamech means the disparing
Noah means Comfort (rest)

This was written thousands of years before.
Thousands of years before!
You will not find this in any other book ever.
It's supernatural!
It's entirely God.

If this was intended by God as evidence of divine origin (which I've no doubt the bible is) then I'd be supposing he'd have stitched his prose together better

"Man apppointed mortal sorrow" .. sounds a little like gobbeldygook to me.

antiskeptic

I'm wondering whether the Father (who directed Jesus as to all he was to do and say) didn't instruct Jesus to begin his ministry so. Until he instructed the start, Jesus wouldn't necessarily have known when it was to begin.

God has constructed the bible such that it is full of types and symbols. A few spring to mind.

The ultimate groom coming to the aid of this weddings groom - empathizing with us.

Embarking on his ministry with the same ceremony that will be used to wrap it up.

Changing from OT symbolism (water) to NT symbolism (wine)

Saving the best til last - our sure hope