Why did Jesus make wine?

[David Lamb]

According to your quote my friend the 'term' Son of God is no where in this. Jesus DECLARED Him to the same as the Father.
It does not state:
31 Jesus said "I am the Son of God" (sic)
32 Then the Jews took up stones again to Him.
et...

I agree, which is why I wrote "what the idea of Jesus being the Son of God implied." Even so, Jesus had just been talking about His "Father", and saying that He and His Father are one. The Jews then took up stones to stone Him, saying that they were doing so because He, in their eyes a mere man, had dared to make Himself equal to God.

I am not sure what your sic means - I have only seen it used before to indicate when quoting what someone else has written, that you know there is a mistake, but you are giving an accurate quote. But in this case, I did not mistakenly write that John 10.30 (not 31 by the way) say: Jesus said "I am the Son of God".

 

[Allan]

I agree, which is why I wrote "what the idea of Jesus being the Son of God implied." Even so, Jesus had just been talking about His "Father", and saying that He and His Father are one. The Jews then took up stones to stone Him, saying that they were doing so because He, in their eyes a mere man, had dared to make Himself equal to God.

I am not sure what your sic means - I have only seen it used before to indicate when quoting what someone else has written, that you know there is a mistake, but you are giving an accurate quote. But in this case, I did not mistakenly write that John 10.30 (not 31 by the way) say: Jesus said "I am the Son of God".

You are correct I mixed up it meaning about a phrase being "incorrect and has been written intentionally ". My appologies.

I have NEVER disputed that Jesus IS God, just so you know.
However, what I was showing that the term Son of God does not have only one meaning and in fact has more than one.
I do not dispute the term 'Son of God' involves deity but it is not always equated with deity by those who used it. It is true other were called son or sons of God, that can not be disputed. It meant they were men of God thus implying the divine to them as Gods own and not so much as to say they were God.

 

[David Lamb]

You are correct I mixed up it meaning about a phrase being "incorrect and has been written intentionally ". My appologies.

I have NEVER disputed that Jesus IS God, just so you know.
However, what I was showing that the term Son of God does not have only one meaning and in fact has more than one.
I do not dispute the term 'Son of God' involves deity but it is not always equated with deity by those who used it. It is true other were called son or sons of God, that can not be disputed. It meant they were men of God thus implying the divine to them as Gods own and not so much as to say they were God.

Thanks, Allan. And rest assured, I didn't for a moment think that you were disputing that Jesus IS God. I also agree with you that the term "son of God" does not necessarily imply deity (indeed it only does so when applied to Christ). Thanks again.

 

[LeBuick]

Thanks, Allan. And rest assured, I didn't for a moment think that you were disputing that Jesus IS God. I also agree with you that the term "son of God" does not necessarily imply deity (indeed it only does so when applied to Christ). Thanks again.

David, what are your thoughts on who/what Mary thought Jesus was? We have the stories at his birth, story at age 12 then we see Mary coming to him to resolve the refreshment delimma. What are your thoughts (if any)?

 

[David Lamb]

David, what are your thoughts on who/what Mary thought Jesus was? We have the stories at his birth, story at age 12 then we see Mary coming to him to resolve the refreshment delimma. What are your thoughts (if any)?

A thought-provoking question - thanks! Mary was told by the angel that her Child would be the Son of God. Luke 1.34-35:

34 Then Mary said to the angel, "How can this be, since I do not know a man?"
35 And the angel answered and said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God.​

I understand that the last phrase, "be called the Son of God," does not mean (as it might in English), "He will not really be the Son of God; He will just be called the Son of God."

Then in Luke 1.43, Elizabeth, Mary's relative, says to her:

"But why is this granted to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?"​

The shepherds were told that a Saviour had been born in Bethlehem, and after their visit, Luke 2.19 says:

But Mary kept all these things and pondered them in her heart.​

We know that there were people who knew Who Jesus was. Simeon, for instance. Luke 2.25-33:

25 ¶ And behold, there was a man in Jerusalem whose name was Simeon, and this man was just and devout, waiting for the Consolation of Israel, and the Holy Spirit was upon him.
26 And it had been revealed to him by the Holy Spirit that he would not see death before he had seen the Lord’s Christ.
27 So he came by the Spirit into the temple. And when the parents brought in the Child Jesus, to do for Him according to the custom of the law,
28 he took Him up in his arms and blessed God and said:
29 "Lord, now You are letting Your servant depart in peace, According to Your word;
30 For my eyes have seen Your salvation
31 Which You have prepared before the face of all peoples,
32 A light to bring revelation to the Gentiles, And the glory of Your people Israel."
33 And Joseph and His mother marveled at those things which were spoken of Him.​

So I believe that Mary would have had some idea of Who He was, though for a long time those ideas were hazy, and confused.

 

[Allan]

A thought-provoking question - thanks! Mary was told by the angel that her Child would be the Son of God. Luke 1.34-35:

34 Then Mary said to the angel, "How can this be, since I do not know a man?"
35 And the angel answered and said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God.​

I understand that the last phrase, "be called the Son of God," does not mean (as it might in English), "He will not really be the Son of God; He will just be called the Son of God."

Then in Luke 1.43, Elizabeth, Mary's relative, says to her:

"But why is this granted to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?"​

The shepherds were told that a Saviour had been born in Bethlehem, and after their visit, Luke 2.19 says:

But Mary kept all these things and pondered them in her heart.​

We know that there were people who knew Who Jesus was. Simeon, for instance. Luke 2.25-33:

25 ¶ And behold, there was a man in Jerusalem whose name was Simeon, and this man was just and devout, waiting for the Consolation of Israel, and the Holy Spirit was upon him.
26 And it had been revealed to him by the Holy Spirit that he would not see death before he had seen the Lord’s Christ.
27 So he came by the Spirit into the temple. And when the parents brought in the Child Jesus, to do for Him according to the custom of the law,
28 he took Him up in his arms and blessed God and said:
29 "Lord, now You are letting Your servant depart in peace, According to Your word;
30 For my eyes have seen Your salvation
31 Which You have prepared before the face of all peoples,
32 A light to bring revelation to the Gentiles, And the glory of Your people Israel."
33 And Joseph and His mother marveled at those things which were spoken of Him.​

So I believe that Mary would have had some idea of Who He was, though for a long time those ideas were hazy, and confused.

So would you say that the full realization of who He was, would have been made known to Mary (along with all the other disciples) after His resurrection, as to who Jesus truly was?

I see it as Mary might have had some hazy idea of who Jesus was, but it was not until the resurrection when His glory was manifested that they (Mary and all the disciples) saw clearly what before were only darkened (not fully illuminated) musing.

 

[David Lamb]

So would you say that the full realization of who He was, would have been made known to Mary (along with all the other disciples) after His resurrection, as to who Jesus truly was?

I see it as Mary might have had some hazy idea of who Jesus was, but it was not until the resurrection when His glory was manifested that they (Mary and all the disciples) saw clearly what before were only darkened (not fully illuminated) musing.

The full realization probably did not come until after the resurrection, as you say, but I believe she had more than a "hazy" notion before that. The very fact that He had been conceived and born with no human father must have given her a good idea

 

[Allan]

The full realization probably did not come until after the resurrection, as you say, but I believe she had more than a "hazy" notion before that. The very fact that He had been conceived and born with no human father must have given her a good idea

Granted, but do you agree (or maybe you don't :laugh: ) that she did not see him as God clothed in the flesh (divine), at least until AFTER the resurrection?
Or am I going a little off base in that assumption?

 

[David Lamb]

Granted, but do you agree (or maybe you don't :laugh: ) that she did not see him as God clothed in the flesh (divine), at least until AFTER the resurrection?
Or am I going a little off base in that assumption?

No, I agree with that. In fact, I had planned to include the words, "She would not have realized the full implications of Jesus being God's Son until after He had risen from the dead." I must have been distracted, then come back to my computer, and sent the incomplete message by mistake. Sorry.