Turning water into wine

[for_his_glory]

for his glory,

I would agree with some of what you wrote, but I would caution against too much allegory. Also, you can't separate the spiritual from the physical. Point in case, Jesus was a physical man, and he died a physical death and experienced a physical resurrection.

As the book of john starts out, "The word became flesh, and dwelt among us".

I agree and as I stated I was presenting the Spiritual message relating to the Spirit of God as I not only look at the physical, but also the Spiritual meaning. This is just an excerpt of the whole that I wrote on this subject, but to long to really post.

 

[Chris.]

I always find I interesting how Jesus mother knew he could do that.

Maybe the father equipped Jesus with a way out of drinking thier wine for his earthly mission.

In thinking about it there would be wisdom in doing that because he could control the alcohol content.

 

[farouk]

I always find I interesting how Jesus mother knew he could do that.

Maybe the father equipped Jesus with a way out of drinking thier wine for his earthly mission.

'Whatsoever He saith unto you, do it', is great advice from Mary, the mother of the Lord Jesus, which she said at Cana.

 

[stovebolts]

I always find I interesting how Jesus mother knew he could do that.

Maybe the father equipped Jesus with a way out of drinking thier wine for his earthly mission.

In thinking about it there would be wisdom in doing that because he could control the alcohol content.

Hi Chris,

At this stage, I don't think Mary knew what her son was going to do. What she did know, is that it was He that would be doing it. I think the translation Stan quoted makes that clear. “Woman, what does that have to do with us?"

This is why she replies to the servants, "'Whatsoever He saith unto you".

Wine is part of a Jewish wedding. Wine is not the focal point and Jesus wasn't teaching for or against alcohol.

We use the Bible to interpret the Bible. Please read the chapters in Genesis that I posted earlier and you will start to see the connections to the promise to Abram being fulfilled through Jesus. Basically, the Bible tends to repeat the same theme over and over, only the characters change.

What I am afraid of Chris, is that you will see this story primarily about wine and alcohol, and you'll not understanding the significance of the event as a whole. In other words, you'll miss the main intent and swap it for an argument for or against alcohol.

 

[joethemechanic]

According to what I've read, naturally fermented grape juice contains a lot less alcohol than the alcoholic beverages of today.

Well I don't think Jesus turned the water into "Mad Dog" (Mogen David 20/20) :verysick:verysick:verysick

 

[farouk]

I don't really buy the view that what the Lord at Cana turned the water into wasn't really wine; liberal theologians can turn round and say, Nice to know the conservative people agree with us after all that it wasn't a real miracle.

 

[Stan53]

Lets step back and really look at the words that are spoken can we?

John 2:3 And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, They have no wine.

Clearly, this is an issue that Mary believes that she and her son can solve.

John 2:4 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come.

I bolded that part because we see something different with Jesus. Let's go back to when Jesus was a child.

Luke 2:51 And he went down with them, and came to Nazareth, and was subject unto them: but his mother kept all these sayings in her heart.

We see that when Jesus was a child, he subjected himself to the authority of Mary and Joseph. However, as Jesus starts his ministry he says, what have I to do with thee.

Ironically, we see the same words being used by the man with daemons.

Mark 5:7 And cried with a loud voice, and said, What have I to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of the most high God? I adjure thee by God, that thou torment me not.

What we see in this language is a clear demarcation. Jesus is no longer under submission to his Mother Mary, but now comes under sole submission to God which announces the beginning of his ministry. Even Legion knew who's son Jesus was. Jesus was the son of God.

There is also a lot more going on with this story. It is not coincidence that the first miracle happens in Cana. I believe that John writes with a known jewish technique. For example, if we look in the Old Testament, we see that the Land of Canaan was the promised land, and it was promised to Abraham. Genesis 12 and 13. However, in chapter 14, we see that he kings joined forces and went to war, and Abram's brother was taken, and Abraham retrieves his beloved brother. And after victory, who is it that Abraham meets but Melchizedek (14:18) and what does the text say? Genesis 14:18 And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God.

Later in John's writing we see Jesus saying that he is the bread of life... and we all know that the wine is the new covenant, in His blood. All this takes place in Cana, aka "The promised land". The same place God promised Abraham that he would be the father of many nations.

There is much more we could say about this.

Would have been nice if you said something here. I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. Quoting from an old English version of the Bible doesn't really help to clarify what it says.

BTW, Canaan is the promised land, not Cana.

 

[Chris.]

Hi Chris,

At this stage, I don't think Mary knew what her son was going to do. What she did know, is that it was He that would be doing it. I think the translation Stan quoted makes that clear. “Woman, what does that have to do with us?"

This is why she replies to the servants, "'Whatsoever He saith unto you".

Wine is part of a Jewish wedding. Wine is not the focal point and Jesus wasn't teaching for or against alcohol.

We use the Bible to interpret the Bible. Please read the chapters in Genesis that I posted earlier and you will start to see the connections to the promise to Abram being fulfilled through Jesus. Basically, the Bible tends to repeat the same theme over and over, only the characters change.

What I am afraid of Chris, is that you will see this story primarily about wine and alcohol, and you'll not understanding the significance of the event as a whole. In other words, you'll miss the main intent and swap it for an argument for or against alcohol.

Wine and beer were a normal part of the diet of many ancient cultures. Egyptians were living on beer building those pyramids. It wasn't just brought out for special occasions.

From the reference to Jesus in the temple as a kid until the water to wine miracle we have very little info and a lot of best guesses as to what was doing and what his parents saw him do.



My reference to the alcohol content wasn't missing a point, I was speculating how handy if one was attempting to live a sin free life not getting accidentally drunk would be.

It made me wonder if Jesus had done that already in front of his parents and did it for himself for the protection of his ministry.

Just a thought..

 

[stovebolts]

My reference to the alcohol content wasn't missing a point, I was speculating how handy if one was attempting to live a sin free life not getting accidentally drunk would be.

It made me wonder if Jesus had done that already in front of his parents and did it for himself for the protection of his ministry.

Just a thought..

Hi Chris,

I agree that alcohol was pretty common. Heck, even Noah got drunk and by accident I might add.

Scriptures are clear: 1 Timothy 5:23 Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach's sake and thine often infirmities.
Ephesians 5:18 And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit;

For some this may mean total abstinence from wine and for others it may mean whatever their limit is.

I understand in part what point you are trying to make, but I find it odd that you would ask "It made me wonder if Jesus had done that already in front of his parents and did it for himself for the protection of his ministry. "

While I too wonder about different things time and again, I try not to put too much emphasis on them when they wander to far outside the main intent of any particular passage. That being said, I don't see Jesus performing his first miracle to protect his ministry, but rather he is establishing his ministry and as I tried to show before, he was no longer under submission to his mother, but rather he was under submission to his Father in heaven.

Does that help?

 

[stovebolts]

This only happened because his mother bugged him about there being no more wine. He had no intention of doing what he did. John 2:3-5; When the wine ran out, the mother of Jesus said to Him, “They have no wine.†<sup class="versenum">4 </sup>And Jesus said to her, “ <sup class="crossreference" value='(E)'></sup> Woman, <sup class="footnote" value='[a]'></sup> <sup class="crossreference" value='(F)'></sup> what does that have to do with us? <sup class="crossreference" value='(G)'></sup> My hour has not yet come.†<sup class="versenum">5 </sup>His <sup class="crossreference" value='(H)'></sup> mother said to the servants, “Whatever He says to you, do it."

Doesn't this sound like a lot of Moms?

Would have been nice if you said something here. I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. Quoting from an old English version of the Bible doesn't really help to clarify what it says.

BTW, Canaan is the promised land, not Cana.

Hi Stan,
Sorry I didn't use a version you preferred. I'm pretty sure you can get clarity out of your own version if that helps you or if you prefer, let me know what version you prefer and I'll try to accommodate you.

The point I was trying to make was that your opinion "This only happened because his mother bugged him about there being no more wine." was lacking and I was simply trying to bring out a bit more of what was happening through a biblical lens.

As far as Cana and Canaan, they occupy the same space on the map. We see Abraham passing through Cannan first off in this verse,
Genesis 12:6 And Abram passed through the land unto the place of Sichem, unto the plain of Moreh. And the Canaanite was then in the land.

And then we see Abraham travel to Egypt due to a famine, thenhe moves just below Canaan and due to Lot, he then moves back to Canaan as shown by this verse. Genesis 13:12 Abram dwelled in the land of Canaan, and Lot dwelled in the cities of the plain, and pitched his tent toward Sodom.

Hope that helps.

 

[Stan53]

Hi Stan,
Sorry I didn't use a version you preferred. I'm pretty sure you can get clarity out of your own version if that helps you or if you prefer, let me know what version you prefer and I'll try to accommodate you.

I prefer, in order, NIV, NASB and HSCB. I also prefer MOUNCE in the NT. More than anything though, I prefer people know what the Bible really says when they quote it. So many people hide behind the KJV so they can tell others what it says.

The point I was trying to make was that your opinion "This only happened because his mother bugged him about there being no more wine." was lacking and I was simply trying to bring out a bit more of what was happening through a biblical lens.

Sorry you didn't understand my opinion. Seems you were the only one.

As far as Cana and Canaan, they occupy the same space on the map. We see Abraham passing through Cannan first off in this verse,
Genesis 12:6 And Abram passed through the land unto the place of Sichem, unto the plain of Moreh. And the Canaanite was then in the land.
And then we see Abraham travel to Egypt due to a famine, then he moves just below Canaan and due to Lot, he then moves back to Canaan as shown by this verse. Genesis 13:12 Abram dwelled in the land of Canaan, and Lot dwelled in the cities of the plain, and pitched his tent toward Sodom.
Hope that helps.

Well yes they do, just like a needle occupies the same place as the haystack it fell into.

I understand the geography of the OT/NT. Was just making sure you weren't confusing a country or large area of land, with a small village. Yes Schechem and Sodom are in Canaan, around the Dead Sea, not west of the Sea of Galilee, where Cana is. Hope this narrows it down for you.

 

[reba]

Stove my guess is you have read this before . I thought of you and the way you teach the Word as i was reading...

The way of duty is the way to mercy; and Christ's methods must not be objected against. The beginning of Moses' miracles was turning water into blood, Exo_7:20; the beginning of Christ's miracles was turning water into wine; which may remind us of the difference between the law of Moses and the gospel of Christ

It is snippet of Mat Henry..

That simple now obvious comparison i had never made....

I read it again so here is the whole...I really like what he says about Mary...
Joh 2:1-11
It is very desirable when there is a marriage, to have Christ own and bless it. Those that would have Christ with them at their marriage, must invite him by prayer, and he will come. While in this world we sometimes find ourselves in straits, even when we think ourselves in fulness. There was want at a marriage feast. Those who are come to care for the things of the world, must look for trouble, and count upon disappointment. In our addresses to Christ, we must humbly spread our case before him, and then refer ourselves to him to do as he pleases. In Christ's reply to his mother there was no disrespect. He used the same word when speaking to her with affection from the cross; yet it is a standing testimony against the idolatry of after-ages, in giving undue honours to his mother. His hour is come when we know not what to do. Delays of mercy are not denials of prayer. Those that expect Christ's favours, must observe his orders with ready obedience. The way of duty is the way to mercy; and Christ's methods must not be objected against. The beginning of Moses' miracles was turning water into blood, Exo_7:20; the beginning of Christ's miracles was turning water into wine; which may remind us of the difference between the law of Moses and the gospel of Christ. He showed that he improves creature-comforts to all true believers, and make them comforts indeed. And Christ's works are all for use. Has he turned thy water into wine, given thee knowledge and grace? it is to profit withal; therefore draw out now, and use it. It was the best wine. Christ's works commend themselves even to those who know not their Author. What was produced by miracles, always was the best in its kind. Though Christ hereby allows a right use of wine, he does not in the least do away his own caution, which is, that our hearts be not at any time overcharged with surfeiting and drunkenness, Luk_21:34. Though we need not scruple to feast with our friends on proper occasions, yet every social interview should be so conducted, that we might invite the Redeemer to join with us, if he were now on earth; and all levity, luxury, and excess offend him.

 

[stovebolts]

Stan,
I'm not sure why you give such stolid replies... it really makes it difficult to have an open discussion with you.

I prefer, in order, NIV, NASB and HSCB. I also prefer MOUNCE in the NT. More than anything though, I prefer people know what the Bible really says when they quote it. So many people hide behind the KJV so they can tell others what it says.

I have no idea what Mounce is.

When you say "I prefer people know what the Bible really says when they quote it. So many people hide behind the KJV so they can tell others what it says.", it feels as if you are saying that I am hiding behind the KJV and that I don't know what the Bible really says. Listen, I am open to discussion, but I find your insinuation very disrespectful and dishonest and I would ask in a very kind way that you not speak to me in that way.

I use a variety of versions, but the KJV is the one that is most readily available to me for posting. I have found the KJV very reliable in my studies where the NIV often lacks clarity, or even brings out the wrong clarity. That being said, I don't take any major issues with the NIV in most cases.

Sorry you didn't understand my opinion. Seems you were the only one.

Stan, you really don't have to respond that way. I understood your opinion perfectly and was actually very simplistic in response. Furthermore, I did not invalidate your opinion. What I said was simply your opinion was lacking. Simply said, your opinion was missing a piece and was incomplete. It's not a biggie Stan, chill a bit would ya?

Well yes they do, just like a needle occupies the same place as the haystack it fell into.

I understand the geography of the OT/NT. Was just making sure you weren't confusing a country or large area of land, with a small village.

I don't doubt that you understand the Geography Stan, but I am curious as to why you said, "BTW, Canaan is the promised land, not Cana." It seems to me that you could have said something along the lines of, "Just want to make sure your not confusing a country with a small village, btw, you do know that xyz... Kinda like you prefer the NIV, I prefer a friendlier, non combative discussion. We're on the same side here Stan... I'm not your enemy.

Yes Schechem and Sodom are in Canaan, around the Dead Sea, not west of the Sea of Galilee, where Cana is. Hope this narrows it down for you.

I understand that Stan, thank you. You can disagree with me and that's ok, but I was looking at a map of the conquest which I've attached. I realize that this whole land was considered as the land of Canaan, but as the attached map shows, there was an area that was considered Cananite and just west of the Girgi@#$%@#$%@#$%@#$%es is where Cana would have been. Again, you can disagree with me if you like, that's ok. But I think that the land of the Canaanites would have been far more associated with Cana, than Schechem since Schechem was in Hivite territory.

Exodus 3:8 And I am come down to deliver them out of the hand of the Egyptians, and to bring them up out of that land unto a good land and a large, unto a land flowing with milk and honey; unto the place of the Canaanites, and the Hittites, and the Amorites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites.

And yes, I also understand the genealogical connections....

 

[stovebolts]

Stove my guess is you have read this before . I thought of you and the way you teach the Word as i was reading... It is snippet of Mat Henry..

That simple now obvious comparison i had never made....

I read it again so here is the whole...I really like what he says about Mary...
Joh 2:1-11
It is very desirable when there is a marriage, to have Christ own and bless it. Those that would have Christ with them at their marriage, must invite him by prayer, and he will come. While in this world we sometimes find ourselves in straits, even when we think ourselves in fulness. There was want at a marriage feast. Those who are come to care for the things of the world, must look for trouble, and count upon disappointment. In our addresses to Christ, we must humbly spread our case before him, and then refer ourselves to him to do as he pleases. In Christ's reply to his mother there was no disrespect. He used the same word when speaking to her with affection from the cross; yet it is a standing testimony against the idolatry of after-ages, in giving undue honours to his mother. His hour is come when we know not what to do. Delays of mercy are not denials of prayer. Those that expect Christ's favours, must observe his orders with ready obedience. The way of duty is the way to mercy; and Christ's methods must not be objected against. The beginning of Moses' miracles was turning water into blood, Exo_7:20; the beginning of Christ's miracles was turning water into wine; which may remind us of the difference between the law of Moses and the gospel of Christ. He showed that he improves creature-comforts to all true believers, and make them comforts indeed. And Christ's works are all for use. Has he turned thy water into wine, given thee knowledge and grace? it is to profit withal; therefore draw out now, and use it. It was the best wine. Christ's works commend themselves even to those who know not their Author. What was produced by miracles, always was the best in its kind. Though Christ hereby allows a right use of wine, he does not in the least do away his own caution, which is, that our hearts be not at any time overcharged with surfeiting and drunkenness, Luk_21:34. Though we need not scruple to feast with our friends on proper occasions, yet every social interview should be so conducted, that we might invite the Redeemer to join with us, if he were now on earth; and all levity, luxury, and excess offend him.

That is very good Reba, thank you for sharing it!

I always enjoyed the parallel between the the turning of the water into wine and the Greek god Dionysus, who by the way was the son of Zeus in Greek mythology aka "son of god" and Dionysus and was the god of wine who had a following of nymphs.

You've already made one connection to the Exodus by turning the water into blood, and we see another connection to the Exodus when King Herod tries to kill the innocent male children much the same as the Pharaoh killed the innocent male children. I would suggest that we see yet another connection to Exodus by way of Dionysus in this passage because Jesus is showing that he is greater than Dionysus much in the same way that God sent the plagues against "All the gods of Egypt".

Have a great day Reba!

 

[farouk]

Stove my guess is you have read this before . I thought of you and the way you teach the Word as i was reading... It is snippet of Mat Henry..

That simple now obvious comparison i had never made....

I read it again so here is the whole...I really like what he says about Mary...
Joh 2:1-11
It is very desirable when there is a marriage, to have Christ own and bless it. Those that would have Christ with them at their marriage, must invite him by prayer, and he will come. While in this world we sometimes find ourselves in straits, even when we think ourselves in fulness. There was want at a marriage feast. Those who are come to care for the things of the world, must look for trouble, and count upon disappointment. In our addresses to Christ, we must humbly spread our case before him, and then refer ourselves to him to do as he pleases. In Christ's reply to his mother there was no disrespect. He used the same word when speaking to her with affection from the cross; yet it is a standing testimony against the idolatry of after-ages, in giving undue honours to his mother. His hour is come when we know not what to do. Delays of mercy are not denials of prayer. Those that expect Christ's favours, must observe his orders with ready obedience. The way of duty is the way to mercy; and Christ's methods must not be objected against. The beginning of Moses' miracles was turning water into blood, Exo_7:20; the beginning of Christ's miracles was turning water into wine; which may remind us of the difference between the law of Moses and the gospel of Christ. He showed that he improves creature-comforts to all true believers, and make them comforts indeed. And Christ's works are all for use. Has he turned thy water into wine, given thee knowledge and grace? it is to profit withal; therefore draw out now, and use it. It was the best wine. Christ's works commend themselves even to those who know not their Author. What was produced by miracles, always was the best in its kind. Though Christ hereby allows a right use of wine, he does not in the least do away his own caution, which is, that our hearts be not at any time overcharged with surfeiting and drunkenness, Luk_21:34. Though we need not scruple to feast with our friends on proper occasions, yet every social interview should be so conducted, that we might invite the Redeemer to join with us, if he were now on earth; and all levity, luxury, and excess offend him.

reba:

Yes, the whole hospitality thing with company that one can gently lead as far as the ethos is concerned is a precious privilege for Christians.

This was a great quote from Matthew Henry. He has many devotional applications in his big commentary.

Blessings.

 

[Stan53]

Stan,
I'm not sure why you give such stolid replies... it really makes it difficult to have an open discussion with you.

You would rather I rant and rave or insult you?

I have no idea what Mounce is.

http://www.biblegateway.com/blog/20...new-testament-now-available-on-bible-gateway/

​

When you say "I prefer people know what the Bible really says when they quote it. So many people hide behind the KJV so they can tell others what it says.", it feels as if you are saying that I am hiding behind the KJV and that I don't know what the Bible really says. Listen, I am open to discussion, but I find your insinuation very disrespectful and dishonest and I would ask in a very kind way that you not speak to me in that way.

Well you know when you give such a sarcastic response to my previous response, then I tend to be a little less stolid than you've seen. There was no reason at all for your sarcastic remark. You have to practise the ethic of reciprocity if you want to benefit from it.

I use a variety of versions, but the KJV is the one that is most readily available to me for posting. I have found the KJV very reliable in my studies where the NIV often lacks clarity, or even brings out the wrong clarity. That being said, I don't take any major issues with the NIV in most cases.

I have used the NIV for almost 40 years and have never found it to be less clear than the KJV, I have found the contrary. There is always the NASB. KJV language is just NOT what is meant today.

Stan, you really don't have to respond that way. I understood your opinion perfectly and was actually very simplistic in response. Furthermore, I did not invalidate your opinion. What I said was simply your opinion was lacking. Simply said, your opinion was missing a piece and was incomplete. It's not a biggie Stan, chill a bit would ya?

LOL...well ya made it a biggie Stove. You should have resisted your urge to show your superior understanding of scripture, no?

I don't doubt that you understand the Geography Stan, but I am curious as to why you said, "BTW, Canaan is the promised land, not Cana." It seems to me that you could have said something along the lines of, "Just want to make sure your not confusing a country with a small village, btw, you do know that xyz... Kinda like you prefer the NIV, I prefer a friendlier, non combative discussion. We're on the same side here Stan... I'm not your enemy.

Well I use BTW as an addendum to my thoughts. Your initial statement of, "All this takes place in Cana, aka "The promised land", was inaccurate and I wanted to point that out. Was I wrong? I understand that some of my comments may be bothersome to some. You will find I only get acerbic in response to demeaning or sarcastic comments. I'm not sure if we're on the same SIDE, but I know you are not my enemy. I respectfully suggest(so you don't think I'm belittling you) that you proof read your posts BEFORE posting them. This could eliminate some of the blow-back you get from people like me.

I understand that Stan, thank you. You can disagree with me and that's OK, but I was looking at a map of the conquest which I've attached. I realize that this whole land was considered as the land of Canaan, but as the attached map shows, there was an area that was considered Canaanite and just west of the Girgi@#$%@#$%@#$%@#$%es is where Cana would have been. Again, you can disagree with me if you like, that's OK. But I think that the land of the Canaanites would have been far more associated with Cana, than Schechem since Schechem was in Hivite territory.

Yes I see based on your map. Both Sodom and Cana were in the Canaanite territory as you have shown on the map. It also states in the verse you provided from Gen 12:6; Abram traveled through the land <sup class="crossreference" value='(A)'></sup> as far as the site of the great tree of Moreh <sup class="crossreference" value='(B)'></sup> at Shechem. At that time the Canaanites <sup class="crossreference" value='(D)'></sup> were in the land.

In any event, ISRAEL is the Promised Land, not Cana. Was just trying to make that clear.

 

[Chris.]

P.S. Watch how this thread will be consumed with alcohol now. Why? Because we like to argue... it's in our nature. Drama, drama drama...

Nah not me, don't care for arguing it bores me..

Self and Ego is the source of argument. Too much Alcohol and too much ego both are destructive to those around us and ourselves.

 

[Elijah674]

reba:

Yes, the whole hospitality thing with company that one can gently lead as far as the ethos is concerned is a precious privilege for Christians.

This was a great quote from Matthew Henry. He has many devotional applications in his big commentary.

Blessings.

Christ created fermentation? He was sinless. He would not even drink the vinegar stuff when dieing.

 

[stovebolts]

You would rather I rant and rave or insult you?

No Stan, I would rather you put a little salt with your words... It's not about always being right Stan, it's about open discussion.

http://www.biblegateway.com/blog/20...new-testament-now-available-on-bible-gateway/

​

Thank you.

Well you know when you give such a sarcastic response to my previous response, then I tend to be a little less stolid than you've seen. There was no reason at all for your sarcastic remark. You have to practise the ethic of reciprocity if you want to benefit from it.

Stan, I know that you and I have had words before in PM, but I don't believe I've been sarcastic to you, especially within this thread. You need to let up just a little bit brother... Let it go.

I have used the NIV for almost 40 years and have never found it to be less clear than the KJV, I have found the contrary. There is always the NASB. KJV language is just NOT what is meant today.

I'm glad you enjoy the NIV. I happen to own a very nice NIV that I read often. That being said, I'm just as comfortable in the kjv. As far as this conversation is concerned Stan, I'm sorry that you don't like me posting the kjv, but you do have your own bible software, so you can always read the verses I post in your preferred version. I'm not being sarcastic Stan, I'm just not going to get pedantic over a translation at this point. If I post a verse and you believe that another version makes it clearer, feel free to post it up for clarity. It won't hurt my feelings and if I feel, our you feel that a particular version is incorrect, then we can delve a bit deeper into the translation but at this point, I don't think that's necessarily our direction. Actually, I believe I used your post of the NIV to clarify with Chris about Jesus words to Mary where Jesus says "us".

LOL...well ya made it a biggie Stove. You should have resisted your urge to show your superior understanding of scripture, no?

Stan, I don't claim to have a superior knowledge of scripture. We all have something to bring to the table here. I do have a problem when the main intent of a passage becomes secondary. I said that your response was lacking and perhaps that's what upset you? I'll try to add a bit more salt to my words if that will help. I don't believe that I'm a rude person Stan, but I do know that I have a tendency to spit back when spat upon. All I'm asking Stan, is that you stop spitting on me. Can you try to do that?

Well I use BTW as an addendum to my thoughts. Your initial statement of, "All this takes place in Cana, aka "The promised land", was inaccurate and I wanted to point that out. Was I wrong? I understand that some of my comments may be bothersome to some. You will find I only get acerbic in response to demeaning or sarcastic comments. I'm not sure if we're on the same SIDE, but I know you are not my enemy. I respectfully suggest(so you don't think I'm belittling you) that you proof read your posts BEFORE posting them. This could eliminate some of the blow-back you get from people like me.

First off, we are on the same side. If you claim Christ as your savior, then we are brothers in Christ. You don't have a choice of who your brothers or sisters are Stan. So, just so we're clear Stan, we can disagree on things, but were still on the same side. It's really that simple.

As far as my remark about Cana aka "promised land", I can see how you would feel the need to correct me. Perhaps I could have been a bit more pedantic with my choice of words, but I do get lazy at times and don't articulate as verbosely as I should. Now that you know this Stan, in the future if you see that I am lacking, please don't feel the need to "correct" me and lets just talk about it huh? I'm sure we could learn from each other.. no need to be pitted against each other now is there?

Yes I see based on your map. Both Sodom and Cana were in the Canaanite territory as you have shown on the map. It also states in the verse you provided from Gen 12:6; Abram traveled through the land <sup class="crossreference" value='(A)'></sup> as far as the site of the great tree of Moreh <sup class="crossreference" value='(B)'></sup> at Shechem. At that time the Canaanites <sup class="crossreference" value='(D)'></sup> were in the land.

In any event, ISRAEL is the Promised Land, not Cana. Was just trying to make that clear.

Yes, Sodom, and Cana were part of the Cananitte territory while Shechem was part of the Hivite territory. All of the surrounding territories as far I'm aware were considered "Canaan" including Cana. As far as Isreal, I think were trailing off a bit now, but I know that you know that the promised land was also divided north from south. North being Israel and South being Judah.

Now then, let me see if I can clarify a bit and see if this opens another can of worms or not. Please excuse me for not being verbose as I am assuming you have a decent understanding of the Old Testament. Below is a rough overview.

(Genesis 9) Canaan was the son of Ham who was the son of Noah. Canaan was cursed by Noah and was supposed to be a servant to his brethren. However, that is not what happens and he marks out a territory called the land of Canaan. Canaan's descendants plus a very small handful of outsiders occupy this land and each territory is named respectfully.

Abram comes down the line of Shem, who was the brother of Ham, Noah's son. Abram is promised by God the land he was in (Gen 13) aka Canaan. Again, the land was never intended for Canaan's decedents.

We know the story of Egypt, and God tells Moses that he will drive out the inhabitants of Canaan thus fulfilling his promise to Abram and we should know the conquests of Joshua and David for the promise land.

Under this whole story is another story of pantheon and world views of various deity. Until YHVH, deity was concealed to a particular geographic location. YHVH and Exodus shattered that idea. As the conquest moved forward, the children of Israel were to eliminate the sovereignty of the deity's that occupied each territory much in the same way that YHVH conquered all the gods of Egypt systematically and then drove out the Israelite from the land of Egypt.

Fast forward to Jesus in Cana. Cana was in the old territory of the Canaanites as was all of Galilee. The main greek god who was very prominent in Galilee was Dionysus and he was the god of wine among other things. Also, Dionysus was the son of Zeus, so he holds authority from that ideological perspective.

As far as geography is concerned, I believe that Jesus was making two main statements. Again, Jesus made a few big statements and I am only addressing geography.

1. Is there a relation between Cana and the Canaanite territory? Yes. Cana is not is Hivite, Jebusite, Amorite or any other ite community. Cana is deep within what was known as Canaanite territory as far as Exodus was concerned. This is directly associate with Canaan, the son of Ham... the one who was to be a servant.

2. Is it coincidence that the first Miracle Jesus performs is in what was known as Canaanite territory which correlated directly to Ham's son Canaan? I believe there are some significant implications here.

3. Is it coincidence that the first Miracle Jesus performs trumps that of Dionysus who is known to occupy that region, and is considered the son of a god? As I said in an earlier post, I see the biblical narrative repeat itself in various forms. As Reba posted, the first thing Moses did was turn water into blood. I think that not only echo's of Exodus, but springboards theologically as well into the mission of Christ.

 

[Stan53]

No Stan, I would rather you put a little salt with your words... It's not about always being right Stan, it's about open discussion.

Do you mean sugar or honey? Paul would disagree with you Stove. 2 Tim 2:15

Stan, I know that you and I have had words before in PM, but I don't believe I've been sarcastic to you, especially within this thread. You need to let up just a little bit brother... Let it go.

I only deal with one thread at a time Stove. My responses have been pursuant to your posts. You have been sarcastic and facetious. The latter doesn't really bother me but the former does, especially if it comes with a demeaning attitude. Yours has not. Like I said, I respond to what I perceive. Sorry but I am human and I do try to be Christlike. I do have a pet peeve about Christians piously using sarcasm.

I'm glad you enjoy the NIV. I happen to own a very nice NIV that I read often. That being said, I'm just as comfortable in the kjv. As far as this conversation is concerned Stan, I'm sorry that you don't like me posting the kjv, but you do have your own bible software, so you can always read the verses I post in your preferred version. I'm not being sarcastic Stan, I'm just not going to get pedantic over a translation at this point. If I post a verse and you believe that another version makes it clearer, feel free to post it up for clarity. It won't hurt my feelings and if I feel, our you feel that a particular version is incorrect, then we can delve a bit deeper into the translation but at this point, I don't think that's necessarily our direction. Actually, I believe I used your post of the NIV to clarify with Chris about Jesus words to Mary where Jesus says "us".

I can understand the KJV but prefer the NIV because I trust the 150 some odd scholars that worked on it and not the 50 some odd King James lackies that worked on it. Well you came acros as being a pedant so I felt I had to address it. I was making a comment about a point of interest to me on the OP. It wasn't meant to be a full fledged theological discourse on the typification of water and blood/wine in the Bible. Yes you did use my post to correct Chris. Did it resolve anything?

Stan, I don't claim to have a superior knowledge of scripture. We all have something to bring to the table here. I do have a problem when the main intent of a passage becomes secondary. I said that your response was lacking and perhaps that's what upset you? I'll try to add a bit more salt to my words if that will help. I don't believe that I'm a rude person Stan, but I do know that I have a tendency to spit back when spat upon. All I'm asking Stan, is that you stop spitting on me. Can you try to do that?

No, you don't claim. Unfortunately you just come across like that some times. It's not hard to do when writing. This is a very impersonal type of place and can be easily abused. Part of the reason I am stolid. If you read my original post on this thread you should see it didn't need adding to or clarification. If you wanted to add another aspect to it, a simple post rather then a response to mine, would have been fine. You chose to critique my post. I don't perceive this as being a spitting contest Stove.

As far as my remark about Cana aka "promised land", I can see how you would feel the need to correct me. Perhaps I could have been a bit more pedantic with my choice of words, but I do get lazy at times and don't articulate as verbosely as I should. Now that you know this Stan, in the future if you see that I am lacking, please don't feel the need to "correct" me and lets just talk about it huh? I'm sure we could learn from each other.. no need to be pitted against each other now is there?
Yes, Sodom, and Cana were part of the Cananitte territory while Shechem was part of the Hivite territory. All of the surrounding territories as far I'm aware were considered "Canaan" including Cana. As far as Isreal, I think were trailing off a bit now, but I know that you know that the promised land was also divided north from south. North being Israel and South being Judah.
Now then, let me see if I can clarify a bit and see if this opens another can of worms or not. Please excuse me for not being verbose as I am assuming you have a decent understanding of the Old Testament. Below is a rough overview.
(Genesis 9) Canaan was the son of Ham who was the son of Noah. Canaan was cursed by Noah and was supposed to be a servant to his brethren. However, that is not what happens and he marks out a territory called the land of Canaan. Canaan's descendants plus a very small handful of outsiders occupy this land and each territory is named respectfully.
Abram comes down the line of Shem, who was the brother of Ham, Noah's son. Abram is promised by God the land he was in (Gen 13) aka Canaan. Again, the land was never intended for Canaan's decedents.
We know the story of Egypt, and God tells Moses that he will drive out the inhabitants of Canaan thus fulfilling his promise to Abram and we should know the conquests of Joshua and David for the promise land.
Under this whole story is another story of pantheon and world views of various deity. Until YHVH, deity was concealed to a particular geographic location. YHVH and Exodus shattered that idea. As the conquest moved forward, the children of Israel were to eliminate the sovereignty of the deity's that occupied each territory much in the same way that YHVH conquered all the gods of Egypt systematically and then drove out the Israelite from the land of Egypt.
Fast forward to Jesus in Cana. Cana was in the old territory of the Canaanites as was all of Galilee. The main greek god who was very prominent in Galilee was Dionysus and he was the god of wine among other things. Also, Dionysus was the son of Zeus, so he holds authority from that ideological perspective.
As far as geography is concerned, I believe that Jesus was making two main statements. Again, Jesus made a few big statements and I am only addressing geography.
1. Is there a relation between Cana and the Canaanite territory? Yes. Cana is not is Hivite, Jebusite, Amorite or any other ite community. Cana is deep within what was known as Canaanite territory as far as Exodus was concerned. This is directly associate with Canaan, the son of Ham... the one who was to be a servant.
2. Is it coincidence that the first Miracle Jesus performs is in what was known as Canaanite territory which correlated directly to Ham's son Canaan? I believe there are some significant implications here.
3. Is it coincidence that the first Miracle Jesus performs trumps that of Dionysus who is known to occupy that region, and is considered the son of a god? As I said in an earlier post, I see the biblical narrative repeat itself in various forms. As Reba posted, the first thing Moses did was turn water into blood. I think that not only echo's of Exodus, but springboards theologically as well into the mission of Christ.

What was that you said about "not getting pedantic"?