Christ's First Miracle

[standingfirminChrist]

Is this possible? I'd think it would take a miracle for this to happen. I do not see how a fresh fruit could be preserved for over 100 years unless it was properly canned - and even then there's no way it would be safe to eat that long. I'd think the same with fresh juice (not wine in the sense of alcohol but juice as you're stating). I think even Welch's would be undrinkable after a number of years.

History records it as fact, annsni.

 

[canadyjd]

History records it as fact, annsni.

Josephus recorded it as a fact. He also mentions Jesus a time or two, but not very nicely. You don't consider that a "fact" do you?

peace to youraying:

 

[EdSutton]

I didn't say they took a bath in them. I repeated scripture (2v.6) that they were large pots of water used for ritual purification. Compare to Mark 7:3 "For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they carefully wash their hands...." They used the pots to wash their hands, and arms, carefully.
But that would be, as you said, making it up. It would have no biblical or historical basis. What I have stated has both.
I am following what the text means. You want to use the text to push an agenda, which is contrary to the purpose of the text as originally given.
The bible doesn't say everyone knew He turned the water into wine. Instead, it clearly says only a few knew. Those who drew the water, and the disciples. The result was the disciples believed.

There is absolutely no evidence from scripture that anyone drank the wine, other than the head steward. You are assuming the Jews drank from cleaning pots. And so, your agenda is made clear. You are not posting to understand what the text says in context, but to push an agenda.

If you are going to law school, you should brush up on your spelling and grammar.

The gent? has made some good points. Especially in the last few sentences! BTW, I do know that my last sentence is not a complete sentence.

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

Finally! I'm glad we now agree that neither of us has any definitive proof either way as to whether or not the Jews bathed *in* the pots Christ used to make the wine (making such pots essentially used as a bathtub) or whether they poured water *out* of them over their hands and utensils for washing. That is the point I was trying to make! It is so nice to finally agree.

When you were insisting the Jews washed themselves *in* the pots you were making yourself look pretty silly. In fact, you still look silly since you are now denying ever having said the Jews bathed themselves *in* the pots when we can all clearly go back to page 3 and read what you said. What you said was, "If you believe a Jew, that had spent 15-30 minutes ceremonially cleansing himself in a 30 gal. water pot, would turn around and drink wine from the same pot, you are indeed blinded by your agenda." (sic)

So yes, you were indeed insisting the Jews washed themselves *in* the pots. In fact, as silly as it may seem, that statement was relied on by you as underlying evidence that the Jews present would never have drank the wine Christ made. You seemingly ignored that we know for sure that one of them (the host) most definitely drank the wine and enjoyed it immensely. Also if you think Christ would serve a drink to someone that came out of what was essentially a bathtub that means you have a very low opinion of our Savior's manners.

It is also rather silly, in my humble opinion, to insist that only a few people knew of this miracle. Christ never told his disciples nor the host, bridegroom, and waiters to remain quiet about the miracle. It is silly to think that all these people saw water turned to wine and each decided to not tell anyone.

Finally, it is ultimately ridiculous for you to continue saying the guests definitely did not drink Christ's wine. Here is some Scripture and one final explaination (not that I think you will get it after this, but I might as well give it one last try):

John 2:
8 Then he told them, "Now draw some out and take it to the master of the banquet." They did so,
9 and the master of the banquet tasted the water that had been turned into wine. He did not realize where it had come from, though the servants who had drawn the water knew. Then he called the bridegroom aside
10 and said, "Everyone brings out the choice wine first and then the cheaper wine after the guests are methyō; but you have saved the best till now."

Here is a summary for you
8 Christ made wine.
9 Christ had it served to the host.
10 The host loved it; so he went to the bridegroom and said, "Most people serve the guests the good stuff first, and when they've become 'methyō' they bring out the cheaper wine... however you have done things in the opposite order.

If you can't understand that logically implies the bridegroom served Christ's choice wine to the guests, then you have bigger problems then just your hypocritical criticism of my grammar. Hint: 'the opposite order' means bringing out the cheaper wine to the guests first, and *then* bringing out the choice wine (that Christ made).

Once again, the Greek dictionary translates methyō as "drunken", and it is used only in relation to wine, not to other drinks.

On a personal note, while I thank you for your concern about my spelling and grammar in my upcoming law school experience, please don't worry yourself too much about it. My writing sample (given on a test with no computers, aids, or spell checkers) and a similar admission test got me accepted at the three highest ranked law schools in my current home state (Duke, UNC, and Wake Forest) and a few highly ranked schools in other states I applied to. I would not have brought this up because it could look "haughty", but you chose to criticize me. So before you criticize me or anyone else here again just know many of us intentionally don't pay much attention to grammar when chatting on the Internet because typing speed is more important to us in this setting.

And if you are going to criticize other's spelling and grammar you should brush up on your own first (see P.S. below for examples). And it is snide to say "peace be to you" and picture a praying icon directly after telling someone to brush up on his grammar. It makes you look insincere (not that you would ever be insincere!).

I'm leaving today for my family's cabin in the mountains to study and prepare for school. If my having spent 6 pages and several days discussing this topic with you and others means, as you say, that I'm not here to understand but just to push an agenda, then you're sadly mistaken. I thank you for expressing your point of view, as mistaken as it is.

jsn9333

P.S. ... from your posts on page 2 and 3:
- You wrote, "Yes, indeed." That is not technically a complete sentence.
- In your sentence, "The miracle may have been, more of less, a private miracle..." the correct English phrase should be "more or less", not "more of less".
- In your following sentence there should neither be a comma after "Jew" nor after "pot". "If you believe a Jew, that had spent 15-30 minutes ceremonially cleansing himself in a 30 gal. water pot, would turn around and drink wine from the same pot, you are indeed blinded by your agenda."

I personally don't mind these mistakes of yours given that most people let things slide when chatting quickly. However, in your case you should definitely brush up a bit since you apparently enjoy criticizing others on chat boards.

Oh, so I see you only have the same problems I do. Typing poorly, and failure to proof-read.

Ed

 

[Jkdbuck76]

This flaming argument war couldn't have happened at a better time!
On wednesday, we are going to discuss this passage at Bible study.

One thing I'm curious about....who knew that it was water turned into wine?
1. Jesus, b/c He did it.
2. The servants....they knew...see verse 9.

What is the meaning of this miracle? Folks, I don't care about "alcohol vs non-alcohol". Can someone explain this miracle? Why did He do it?

 

[npetreley]

Josephus recorded it as a fact.

If I recall correctly, Josephus recorded it second-hand (hearsay). If it is fact, then why didn't the technique used to preserve fruit for 100 years survive? How did they know such a process but we have no clue how to reproduce it?

 

[standingfirminChrist]

Who says the technique did not survive? I remember years ago visiting a farm in PA where they had shelves of fruits and vegetables canned and dated for a few years back. Not a hundred, mind you, but who is to say how long they will keep?

 

[npetreley]

Who says the technique did not survive? I remember years ago visiting a farm in PA where they had shelves of fruits and vegetables canned and dated for a few years back. Not a hundred, mind you, but who is to say how long they will keep?

How many years ago was that? Five? I'll meet you back here in 95 years to see if they're still fresh.

I'm obviously just joking with you, but I get the impression from the Josephus text that the fruits were not canned. I could be wrong about that, but it'll be the first time I've been wrong in 100 years. :laugh::laugh:

 

[Jkdbuck76]

....a microbiologist could tell you.

Eventually, won't botulism get the better of it, no matter HOW well
something is preserved?

 

[npetreley]

....a microbiologist could tell you.

Eventually, won't botulism get the better of it, no matter HOW well
something is preserved?

My understanding is that even the best canning techniques cannot prevent spoilage after a certain amount of time.

My personal experience is that my father had a can of cherries that he opened after 12 years, and made pie with those cherries. I refused to eat it, since the cherries looked terrible. The rest of my family ate the pie, and nobody got sick (however, the pie was COOKED -- I don't think anyone tried the cherries pre-cooked).

The cherries lost almost all their color and (from what they said) a lot of their flavor. If that is how they were after 12 years, I can't imagine what they'd be like 88 years later.

 

[mcdirector]

OK, there's not much going on on the old BB and I hit this thread -- go to the latest post and see

BOTULISM

ooo boy. Well, it's about time to change for open house anyway :laugh:

--------------------

Hey Ron! Good to see you back!

 

[canadyjd]

What is the meaning of this miracle? Folks, I don't care about "alcohol vs non-alcohol". Can someone explain this miracle? Why did He do it?

This is what I had written earlier.

canadyjd said: First of all, Jesus didn't create a 120 to 180 gallons of wine for consumption. Even if you hold the water that was turned into wine was in the pots (and not just in the cup), the fact they were in ceremonial cleaning pots would have prevented any Jew from knowingly drinking it. It would have been unclean to do so. This, perhaps, is why John points out that the head waiter did not know where to wine had come from.

Secondly, the ceremonial waters pots being full to the brim (which is not usual for a pot being used to clean your hands and arms) symbolizes the fullness of the ceremonial laws, which were about to pass with the coming of Jesus Christ.

His disciples were there to witness this miracle that symbolized the coming of the New Covenant. That the new wine is called "the best wine", deomonstrates the better quality of the New Convenant. The miracle may have been, more of less, a private miracle for the disciples since few knew it occurred, apparently. (I also pointed out that the result was that the "disciples believed".)

He did not do as His mother asked, since He didn't give them wine that was to be consumed (being in the cleaning pots). He specifically told her His time had not yet come.

 

[npetreley]

I have never seen a primitive baptist that approved of alcohol... especially in the Sanctuary!

I am not sure these guys are legit in their claim to be Primitive Baptist.

Are you sure about this? I was unsure, but I keep researching Primitive Baptists and I keep finding the same basic Q&A. So I'm getting the impression that avoiding real wine would be the exception, rather than the rule. The following is taken from a different PB site:

Question: Why do Primitive Baptists use real wine and real unleavened bread in communion?

While scriptural descriptions of the original communion use the terms bread, the cup, and fruit of the vine, it may be conclusively inferred that the bread was unleavened and that the drink was fermented wine. This follows from:

1. The communion took place immediately after the Passover. This was a time in which leavened bread was prohibited, both by scriptural law and by Jewish tradition (Ex 12:3-8, Num 9:9-11, Deut 16:1-3, Mt 26:17, Mk 14:12, Lk 22:7).
2. Leaven is used in the scriptures as an emblem of sin (Lk 12:1, I Cor 5:6-8, Gal 5:7-9) and is therefore an unsuitable representative of the Lord's body.
3. Wine is symbolically consistent with unleavened bread in that neither contain leaven. On the other hand, unfermented grape juice would contradict all that is portended by the unleavened bread because grape juice typically does contain leaven. There are some who erroneously assert that the opposite is true - that wine contains leaven but grape juice does not. The reader is invited to consult any authority on wine chemistry to resolve the matter.
4. Wine was a traditional part of the Jewish Passover.
5. Without modern methods of refrigeration, grape juice could not be preserved for all times of the year. The Passover season was not conducive to grape juice since it was well between harvests.
6. The Corinthians obviously used a fermented substance in their communion service since they perverted it into a drunken festival (I Cor 11:20-30). Paul condemns them for their impiety and excesses, but not for the usage of wine in communion.

The importance of adhering to the scriptural example in this matter cannot be questioned since God punished the Corinthians with illness and death for departing from it (I Cor 11:29-30). The usage of a leavened substance, such as grape juice, to represent the Lord is, in our opinion, a severe negligence, and is at risk of being chargeable as failure to discern the body of the Lord (I Cor 11:29).

 

[Jkdbuck76]

Well,

We discussed this last night at bible study. In fact, we're going thru the whole book of John. We ended up at the beginning of chapter 3 and Nicodemus talking to Jesus at night......fight after the Lord cleared the temple.

....and just to tell you all, we didn't solve the "was it alcoholic wine or not" debate. However, no matter what happened, it was a miracle to demonstrate His credentials as Messiah and Son of God.

 

[webdog]

Well,

We discussed this last night at bible study. In fact, we're going thru the whole book of John. We ended up at the beginning of chapter 3 and Nicodemus talking to Jesus at night......fight after the Lord cleared the temple.

....and just to tell you all, we didn't solve the "was it alcoholic wine or not" debate. However, no matter what happened, it was a miracle to demonstrate His credentials as Messiah and Son of God.

Something else to chew on...

Jesus made the best wine, did He not?

The Lord of Hosts will serve the best wine from Isaiah 25:6. What kind of wine does God state is the "best" from that verse? The well aged wine on the lees. Study about wine making and what the lees are. Grape juice that is "well aged" is alcoholic wine, plain and simple.

 

[tonyhipps]

The following versus are taken from the 1611 King James scriptures with Strong's numbering. I did this for the benefit of those with no formal Greek or Hebrew language training.

The first verse is taken from the Gospel of John.

John 2:3 And2532 when they wanted5302 wine,3631 the3588 mother3384 of Jesus2424 saith3004 unto4314 him,846 They have2192 no3756 wine.3631

The word wine in Greek is numbered 3631 and the definition follows:

G3631
οἶνος oinos oy'-nos
A primary word (of Hebrew origin [H3196]); “wine” (literally or figuratively): - wine.

We have been directed to the Hebrew word for wine with the corresponding number 3196. So lets find a verse in Hebrew with the word wine numbered 3196. The first time the word wine is introduced is in the ninth chapter of Genesis.

Genesis 9:21 And he drank8354 of4480 the wine,3196 and was drunken;7937 and he was uncovered1540 within8432 his tent.168

Great, we have also ran across the word drunken numbered 7937.

Definitions follows:

H3196
יין yayin yah'-yin
From an unused root meaning to effervesce; wine (as fermented); by implication intoxication: - banqueting, wine, wine [-bibber].

H7937
שׁכר shâkar shaw-kar'
A primitive root; to become tipsy; in a qualified sense, to satiate with a stimulating drink or (figuratively) influence. (Superlative of H8248.): - (be filled with) drink (abundantly), (be, make) drunk (-en), be merry. [Superlative of H8248.]

These are the definitions according to the Strong's Exhaustive Concordance.