Hello all---

Just decided to swing by and muddy the waters a bit...

What has always bothered me about that story is how poorly edited it was. I mean, like the Dungeons and Dragons movie, when the bad guy is suddenly facing the other way and armed when a second before he was watching the dragon fight.

I mean really.

There is obviously something missing (oh, Nomad, calm down. Obviously in my opinion. What do I know, my field is writing?)

There is something cut between not yet come and His mother said

Which means that this discussion is moot. This is where Mary wheedled her favorite son into performing a parlour trick, or where she was hurt and the idignation of the crowd caused Jesus to repent. Either way, whatever changed Jesus' mind has not been recorded. Something is missing, and we will never know what (unless we find an original document)


One could only argue from silence that if the deleted scene had been positive, it would not have been cut.


My two ¢




[This message has been edited by jess (edited February 06, 2001).]

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.

Would verification of the existence of this information change your mind?

What about the other issues?

It would have been so much simpler if Jesus had just gone down to the liquor store and bought the damned wine!

Just out of curiosity penatis, which of the arguments from the Early Greek Fathers did you find most convincing?

If their arguments turned out to be particularily lame, would it change yours?

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.

Which are those exactly?

Nomad

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: 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.


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.

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.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What about the other issues?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nomad: Which are those exactly?

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

what do you think of this link?
http://cgi.chron.com/content/interac...ds/991217.html

Also here
http://interact.cbc.ca/cgi-bin/WebX?...@.ee78c00/1722

"Then, mythical crazy writers decided to write books. So what if they didn't know each other and lived in different parts of the world during different time periods. So what if they spoke of just One God, as a Creator, while the majority followed multiple gods. So what if they described themselves as lowly and wormlike compared to this god. Many writers through the centuries called themselves lowly and worm-like. It was a scam and somehow they were all in on it."

My first guess is that the books weren't written at the same time and independently. Is that correct?

Has the golden calf been discovered?

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

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.

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. 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. 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.

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

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.

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


There is no hostility here whatsoever. If you were in a college classroom, and the family of the professor came to take the professor away (to lunch, a prolonged vacation, home to play Charades), would you expect the professor to get up and abandon the classroom? Of course not. That a dedicated professor would look over his students, and say “This is my family” would be taken as a sign of endearment. Would anyone think – “Hmmm, he must have family issues?” You are way off base here.

This quote has become a standard cliche in our language, and the meaning is clear – you don’t get the same awe and adoration from the people who know you best. There is no way that this could be honestly construed to indicate a family rift. Have you never heard the definition of an “expert”? A person with a briefcase at least 50 miles from home? Where do you think that joke came from?

Even the most cursory reading of this leaves the reader with the clear understanding of what Jesus said: There will be great rewards for those that follow me.

You have finally put two verses together that have a similar theme. The road Jesus calls us to is not an easy one, and there is no reason to believe that your family will necessarily support you in it. Some people have to make some pretty hard decisions as to what path they will follow. For some, there will be more sacrifices than for others. Some people will have the support of their families, some will not. Each person makes the decision as to what they value, and where they place their priorities. That you can not recognize hyperbole is really a problem you might want to work on before making such dogmatic statements. It makes you look rather silly and shallow.

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). 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.

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

tgamble:

As far as the first link, I find it interesting and plausible. I am not ready to embrace it as THE answer, but it is interesting. Personally, I believe that miracles are not only in the occurrence of supernatural events, but also the supernatural timing of purely natural events. This second type, natural events with supernatural timing, are (in my opinion) the most frequent type. And because they have purely natural explanations, the miraculous part (the timing) is frequently overlooked or ignored.

As far as the second link, the lady has a definite sense of humor. Even if it were not determinable by the text that she was speaking tongue in cheek, she posted immediately below your link that she was being sarcastic.

For your questions: Yes, the Bible is a collection of 66 books, with an accepted number of 50+ different authors, writing during a timespan of 1600 years. These authors came from various walks in life, holding various statures in society. Some wrote from prison, some from the King’s court. Some wrote during times of prosper, others during periods of exile and captivity.

As far as the Golden Calf – if you are referring to the one that Aaron created in Exodus 32, it was ground into powder, poured into the water supply, and the populous was made to drink it (Exodus 32:20). There would be nothing now to find. I am not aware of any other Golden Calf in the Bible. Does this answer the question?

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.

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

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

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

The definition of irony again is... ?

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.

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

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?

Gotcha. 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.

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.

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

Nomad

Jess:

I fail to see the poor editing that you say is there. The flow of the text, as written, is logical and consistent, and the only “problem” here is introduced when the attempt is made to interpret the idiom in an alternative, non-traditional manner.

Nomad has extensively outlined the two acceptable English variations of this idiom, and did an excellent job of explaining when each of the options might be used. All that is left is to determine which makes more sense in this case.

Scenario #1: Jesus, some of the disciples, as well as Jesus’ mother, Mary are attending a feast as guests of the marriage couple. The wine begins to run out (a social no-no), and Mary approaches Jesus with an implied request for him to do something. I say implied, because while the there is no specific request recorded, there is no reason for her to come to him with this tidbit of gossip unless she thought He could/would remedy the problem. Coupling this with her statement to the servants to do whatever Jesus asked them to do, it is reasonable to infer that Mary believed that Jesus could/would “fix” this problem.

Jesus replies with an idiom that is traditionally interpreted to mean “Why do you bring this problem to me?” No insult, no hostility, perhaps almost a rhetorical question (one not necessarily requiring a reply). Assuming that Jesus would take action, Mary turns to the servants and tells them to do as He says.

Jesus did not do this miracle for public acclaim, as the story states that neither the groom nor the wedding master knew from where this wine appeared. The story says that only Mary, the disciples, and the servants involved knew what had happened. Since the primary players in the wedding neither asked for nor knew of the miracle, the question would be – why did Jesus do it? The only answer comes from the story – because his mother requested it. She asked, He produced. No missing time, no need for conjecture.

Scenario #2: Same prelude to the point of Mary making Jesus aware of the fact that the party is running out of wine. Jesus, in a hostile and unprovoked manner, publicly insults his mother (major social fopar). Now we have the problem of the poor editing. How do we get from Jesus humiliating his mother to His turning the water into wine? After all, why do such a favor for someone you have so little respect for? Since neither the groom nor the wedding master knew from where the wine came, Jesus did not do it to score points. He made more than enough for him and his buddies, so personal consumption doesn’t make sense. What is the motivation for the miracle – since we have ruled out his having done it at his mother’s request? And if it was for her sake, how do we get from humiliation to his granting her request? Guilt? Shame? Threats? Yes, you are right, there is an awful lot missing in this scenario that must be left to conjecture.

And so I say again, all of this is contingent on how the idiom is interpreted. And that is determined by the agenda one brings to the story.