RugbyJJ:

Nothing you have said takes away the poor editing job. Something is missing. You may be willing to gloss over it, but for a divinely inspired story I would expect more than cheap prose.

I can not conjecture what happened in the gap. I already said the question in my opinion is moot. I just see a gap.

Sorry if that offends you.

Nomad,

I would be interested in reading more about the Greek fathers seeing an insult or hostility in this verse. To date, I have not seen anything to support that view. Could you point me in a direction, please? The closest thing I found to someone making this negative in anyway was in Harper's commentary, where the commentator states: "Jesus' mother helpfully informs him the wine has run out (v.3), but his response seems brusque (v.4)."

Since brusque means ”Abrupt and curt in manner or speech; discourteously blunt.”, coupling this with His other statement that his hour had not yet come, it sounds as if Jesus was telling His mother to not draw attention to Him at this time. While fixing the wine problem would be a nice thing, miracles have a tendency to draw crowds.

This is purely conjecture on my part, so I would be interested in some of the stuff you may have read on this subject.

RugbyJJ

Nomad,

I would be interested in reading more about the Greek fathers seeing an insult or hostility in this verse. To date, I have not seen anything to support that view. Could you point me in a direction, please? The closest thing I found to someone making this negative in anyway was in Harper's commentary, where the commentator states: "Jesus' mother helpfully informs him the wine has run out (v.3), but his response seems brusque (v.4)."

Since brusque means ”Abrupt and curt in manner or speech; discourteously blunt.”, coupling this with His other statement that his hour had not yet come, it sounds as if Jesus was telling His mother to not draw attention to Him at this time. While fixing the wine problem would be a nice thing, miracles have a tendency to draw crowds.

This is purely conjecture on my part, so I would be interested in some of the stuff you may have read on this subject.

RugbyJJ

Jess,

I am not at all offended. I just fail to see where you see the gap. If it would not be too much trouble, could you explain the gap that you see in a little more detail?

I used the scenario method to try to demonstrate where I saw the absence (scenario #1) or presence (scenario #2) of a gap. I concur that if the idiom is interpreted as hostile or as an insult, there is a gap. Where is the gap if it is interpreted in the traditional manner?

RugbyJJ

Rugby:

The passage is this As far as a story goes, this is not smooth, whether it is an idiom or an insult... I see a gap right in the middle...

ok, let's rewrite it so you can see what I mean:

And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, They have no wine. Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come. His mother saith unto him this hour is as good as any other. Jesus thinks about it, and says, yes, my first miracle should be to change water into wine. That will stop people from believing that alcohol is evil in the 1800's in North America! And Mary and turned to the servants who had assembled and said unto the servants, Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it.


or:

And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, They have no wine. Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come. His mother said Please? unto him, and he saith oh, alright back, and His mother saith unto the servants, Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it.

You see?

Jesus says no--- and then his mother ignores it and he does it--- as it stands.


We do not see what changed his mind--- the important part of the story. Why does he do it, change the water into wine if nothing was cut?

If you accept it as it stands, and I still feel it was poorly written but will swallow this for now, then you have painted Mary to be a mega bitch who ignores her son's feelings and Divine Mission(tm), making it obvious that there is family strife, even if Jesus didn't start it.

Is that clearer?


[This message has been edited by jess (edited February 09, 2001).]

[This message has been edited by jess (edited February 09, 2001).]

While I do not agree with your conclusions, I do believe I see your point more clearly. Thanks for taking the time to clarify it for me.

In regards to the story of the star shining over Bethleham, a poster on another message board claims that this is proof that it accured. Is he right?

"One of the more accepted theories comes from the rare triple conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn in Pisces in 7 B.C., which takes place every 900 years, coupled with the massing of Mars, Jupiter and Saturn in Pisces in February of 6 B.C., which takes place every 800 years (Strobel, 1995). The probability of this catching the attention of the wise men has led Ivor Bulmer-Thomas to suggest that the wise men would have been alerted by the triple conjunction and massing. If they then followed Jupiter from the time it emerged from behind the sun in May 5 B.C. they would have seen it pass through its retrograde stage (Jupiter would appear to be staying still while going through its retrograde loop) four months later at the end of their journey (Strobel, 1995). This seems very likely but there is yet another possibility involving the conjunction theory. Kepler saw the same procession of the triple conjunction and massing, which resulted in a new star appearing. He hypothesized that the same events in 6-7 B.C. would have produced a miraculous nova which was the star of Bethlehem (Mosely, 1981). There was, however, another conjunction on September 11th, 3 B.C.; the double conjunction of Jupiter with Regulus. Jupiter and Regulus were very close together and the sun was in the constellation Virgo. Interestingly, this date was traditionally looked at as the anniversary of Noah's landing after the flood and thus of the Jewish new year. A couple of months later, during Hanukkah, Jupiter went through a retrograde loop in 2 B.C. This event, coupled with the close encounter of Jupiter with Venus in June of 2 B.C. where the rings of the two seemed to touch, are very convincing as evidence as well (Chester, 1992). There is even a planetarium where Jupiter is identified, albeit tentatively, as the Star because of these conjunctions."

I fail to see how this proves that a star moved directly over Bethleham!

While the article is interesting, I do not find it convincing to me that this is THE answer. Perhaps it is, or perhaps it is part of the answer. Perhaps it is none of it.

I tend to believe that the court astromoners of that time would have been aware of these different planets (okay, maybe not Saturn), and would have tracked them well enough to have recognized a combination of planets versus a star. But since I was not there, I can only read the hypothesis of others who have done more study in this field.

What do you make of the article?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by RugbyJJ:
You started with a bit of a bizarre premise, and really haven’t proven any point so far. You example of the wedding feast is contingent on an idiom which Nomad stated has two acceptable translations. One, the traditional interpretation which is supported in each of the seven commentaries I consulted, maintains the flow of the story. The interpretation you have chosen to embrace is not supported in any of the commentaries I have access to, is not consistent with the flow of the story, nor is it consistent with anything else in the Bible.

Are you a historian or a Christian apologist? If you wish to speak of history, then I would be willing to debate it. If you wish to promulgate Christian propaganda, then we have nothing to discuss.

For example, how many of the "commentaries" were written by historians? Virtually all that I have seen were written by theologians, not individuals looking for what actually happened in history.


RugbyJJ: You stated that: “I used the FACT that some of the Greek Fathers found the comment by Jesus to be more hostile than not to support my argument. I haven't researched to find out what any of them actually said.” You have NOT established any FACT that ANY Greek Father ever supported this interpretation.

That FACT was established by a source used by Nomad. Go back and read his commentary again.

RugbyJJ: I do not accept this FACT, as I have not come across this interpretation by ANY Church Father (and I have done the research!) that supports this interpretation of the idiom, and you have certainly provided no evidence to support your choice of interpretations. Simply because an idiom can possibly be interpreted in a manner does not mean that it should be, or that it can correctly be translated in that manner in this particular situation.

1. If you have read ALL the Church Fathers, then you have been very busy. They wrote hundreds and hundreds of books. I personally doubt that you have read everything they wrote.

2. Jesus' hostile remark to his mother is consistent with a person who does not get along with his mother. You haven't looked at the evidence.

RugbyJJ: When the interpretation does not fit into the flow of the situation, when it creates more problems than it solves, and there is an equally acceptable interpretation that does contribute to the flow of the story and does not create conflict, it is common sense to use the option that makes sense.

I consider the remark to be hostile and I have given textual evidence to support my view. What textual evidence do you have to support your opinion?

RugbyJJ: It is patently ludicrous for you to assert as FACT something that you do not know to exist.

You misunderstood my statement. I said that it is a FACT that the NET Bible stated some of the Greek Fathers interpreted the remark of Jesus to be a rebuke. Are you challenging the NET Bible on this?

RugbyJJ: How many other FACTS do you believe that are the results of statements others of have made that you have taken on blind faith to be true?

Are you challenging the integrity of the NET Bible? On what basis?

RugbyJJ: As far as the other “evidence” you have “provided”, the only thing you have demonstrated is a poor grasp of what the text was actually says, and an excellent ability to cut and paste verses unrelated to either your premise or to one another, and then attempt to make a coherent point. No one holds the Gospels to be a collection of “Personal Relationships for Dummies”, nor a personal treatise by Jesus of mother/son relationships.

You apparently cannot read what I wrote. I have established that Jesus DID NOT have a good relationship with his family, including his mother. I have NOT stated the anonymous writers of the gospel narratives created a "collection of 'Personal Relationships for Dummies." You have misrepresented what I said and you have misrepresented my argument.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++

RugbyJJ: The biggest problem with absolute statements is that they are so easily disproved. Perhaps the “nowhere in the NT does Jesus indicate any love or compassion” fails to take into account Jesus’ action while on the cross, dying (John 19:26&27).

And, perhaps Jesus' actions during his execution are disputed and cannot be used as convincing historical evidence. For example, please list all the times Jesus expressed love and compassion toward his family in "Mark," "Matthew," or "Luke." BTW, they do not mention the incident the writer of "John" does. PERHAPS "John" made it up.

RugbyJJ: As He is hanging there in unimaginable pain, He looks down and sees His mother. In a display of love and compassion, He turns her over to the care of another disciple – one that He knew that He could trust to look after His mother and take care of her.

See above.

RugbyJJ: Penatics, the problem is that you start with a premise, and then try to find supporting evidence.

I consider Jesus' remark to be a rebuke of his mother. I have provided textual evidence supporting the view that Jesus did not have a good relationship with his mother. I contend that since the relationship was not a good one, the rebuke makes perfect sense. It fits better than any other explanation.


RugbyJJ: You are trying too hard to make the Bible say what you want it to say, and not reading it to see what it does say.

"Woman, what have you to do with me? My hour has not yet come" is a hostile statement and a rebuke. Anyone who reads it differently is not reading what it clearly says.

RugbyJJ: You argument here, on this subject, carries the same credibility, validity, and consistency as the argument that one auto maker demonstrably cares 20% more for families than another auto maker because they put 6 lugnuts per wheel instead of five.

False analogy. I suggest you READ ALL the gospels carefully. Find evidence supporting the view that Jesus had anything but a hostile relationship with his family, including his mother, then present it.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by penatis:
My statement about the Church Fathers is confirmed by a piece of NET Bible commentary provided by Nomad. I presume the commentary to be accurate; however, you and I can check it out for ourselves.


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

Nomad: I see. So you are prepared to accept the word of Christians on a subject as an article of faith. In fact, you are prepared to accept what they said, based on faith in them, eventhough their "propaganda" tells us that they are Christians and wish to lead people to Christianity.

Apparently, Nomad does not take the word of one of his favorite Christian sources. My, my.

Nomad: I thought you had cautioned us about such things before penatis.

I said to be cautious when using the website. My original statement still stands.

Nomad: Up until now you have demonstrated absolutely no sense of humour. I wonder if you at least understand the concept of irony.

Nomad is the master of unintended irony, not I.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nomad: Just out of curiosity penatis, which of the arguments from the Early Greek Fathers did you find most convincing?
I used the FACT that some of the Greek Fathers found the comment by Jesus to be more hostile than not to support my argument. I haven't researched to find out what any of them actually said. I am not sure the information gained would be worth the effort.


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

Nomad: So you accept facts without researching a possibly incorrect presentation of past opinion. How interesting.

Say what?

Nomad: The definition of irony again is... ?

The difference between what appears to be true and what is actually true. Nomad's commentary abounds with it.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Would verification of the existence of this information change your mind?
Nomad: If their arguments turned out to be particularily lame, would it change yours

Nomad answered a question with a question.


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

Yep, he sure did. And you dodged yours. It looked awkward and a bit forced, but I understand your desire to dance, weave and avoid. No worries though. Personally I think www.bible.org probably reported accurately that some Fathers did think Jesus insulted His mother here. I was just hoping that you might actually have done some research to affirm your faith in www.bible.org and their scholastic skill here.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nomad: Personally, I'd like to see what they had to say on the subject before deciding that their argument(s) had a lot of merit.
Great. Go for it.


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

Nomad: Well, I didn't place the kind of faith in www.bible.org that you did, so it really isn't my problem.

How convenient.

Nomad: I think that some Fathers did make this assertion, but I have not read their argument, so I would with hold judgement until I did. I think that is only prudent, don't you?

When has Nomad been "prudent" in the past?


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What about the other issues?
Nomad: Which are those exactly?

Nomad needs to read the thread. It isn't very long.


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

Nomad: Gotcha.

Is this an attempt at humor?

Nomad: You mean the red herrings you tried to introduce. I'm going to stick with just the passage, look for a reasonable interpretation, and leave it at that.

Ostensibly, Nomad thinks that there is more than one history of Jesus and that they are contradictory. I think there may be contradictions in the narratives, but I also think all four writers had the same individual in mind. If the Jesus of the synoptics is the same Jesus of the Fourth gospel, then he did not have a good relationship with his family, including his mother. That would perfectly explain his hostility toward his mother at the wedding at Cana in Galilee.

Nomad: We have two such interpretations on the table (from the same source in which you have invested so much faith), and some have chosen one, others have chosen the other. Such is life, and I can live with that.

I have invested no faith in the NET Bible. I have merely taken their word that some Greek Fathers considered the remark of Jesus to his mother to be a rebuke. If the NET Bible had said that Jesus was acting in a loving and compassionate manner with his remark, I would have researched their reasoning for I would have totally disagreed with that position.

Nomad: Now, do try and lighten up a little. I think it could do you a world of good penatis.

I am light as a feather. Whether Jesus rebuked his mother or showered her with kisses at Cana, I couldn't care less; however, the text clearly shows he rebuked her. The text, in other places, also clearly shows he did not get along with her.

Nomad should remember this: I have no desire to do anything but discern precisely what Jesus actually did and said. (The narratives may actually depict some historical things about Jesus.)

Unlike Nomad, I don't have to prove that Jesus was a son of a god, that he was the savior of mankind, that he came back to life after being executed, that he was born of a virgin, that he did not have sisters and brothers, that he was the prince of peace, that he was Yahweh, or any other superstitious nonsense.