Julio

Actually it took us four hours to walk about 7 kilometers, because we took our cameras to photograph the wild animals in the park.
We saw some 40 Wildebeest in a flock, with zebras and hartebeest.
It was lovely, up and down the Reserve.
We do that regularly, Sundays or Saturdays.
On the way back, we picked from the stream a bunch of watercress for our lunch salads.
Next, my wife and I went to have lunch with our son, his wife and the baby daughter.
A lovely day, like Jesus would not be able to supply in heaven [not even with a miracle].

bacht

Interesting. I just assumed that John was re-writing the special effects from the synoptics.

Julio

WHAT other miracles were less important than to mention the water changed into wine?
One thing we realize quickly: this “first” miracle is not acknowledged by the synoptic gospels.
There is also no concordance regarding the order of miracles in the four canonical gospels.
As a matter of fact, Matthew’s first miracles start at chapter 8 with the cleansing of a leper.
I find those miracles of healing the lepers one most amazing contradiction of Jesus’ ministry, in the sense that he would prefer to heal the lepers rather then destroying the origin of that dreadful disease.
Why was this allowed to develop over the centuries by the Creator, when he could have stopped it right at its outset?
Logically, we have enough mental capacity to reason that the Creator would accept that we humans somehow deserved to be attacked by disease.
It is therefore a most dishonouring attribute of God to send his Son to heal SOME few lepers and leave the virus to carry on its devastation throughout the generations.
In other words, a God like that is very suspicious.

Chili

The gospels are inspired by God on account of them being real life events in the mind of the writer. In this sense are they like testamonies and the miracles are the critical highlights only because they are the most metaphysical parts of Galilee where the messianic movement takes place (purgatory we call it), and so effectively is where we work out our salvation and that is how eternal life becomes fully grounded in truth.

Let's put it this way, if we can have intimations of immortality, immortality must be real and so eternal life must be real and if that is true our life wherein we die when we die must be temporal. So now you can see that at Calvary we only die to the life wherein we die and 'thus' are set free from our first death . . . that was an illusion to begin with or eternal life could not be real.

The miracles in John take us through the highligths of this journey in Galilee (purgatory we call it) and the first one is John's recollection of the "Sheep Pool" at Bethesda" that landed him in Cana where 'the father and I are one" (5:17)in the seventh day of life as the 6 jars to fill with water designate that to be. His plea that 'others keep going before him' shows a certain amount of urgency in the matter which so is just opposite to the evangelist 'tugging away' to get someone in the pool.

No lepers in John, obviously not, because John goes to heaven and Matthew does not, ie, no lepers in heaven because they won't have any water to fill those jars and so no mansion to show for and thus no Cana event, which, I think is supposed to last a week for sure.

Julio

Chili, I don't know what to say to your comment, I'm sorry.
It sounds like more jargon, but you might have a point.
Let us wait for others' comments.

Transient

Chili lives in a different dimension to the rest of us so we never understand what the hell he/she is talking about.
One must be enlightened to understand the things from that dimension.

PhilosopherJay

Hi bacht,

It has been a while since I tried to figure out the relationship of the synoptics and John. It is a difficult problem. I believe a good deal of the material in John predates the synoptics and is independent of them. I do not think that John is directly responding to the synoptics in most cases, but may be responding to some pre-synoptic sources.

One might compare the Synoptic Gospels to the First Three Star Wars Movies: "Star Wars," (1977) "The Empire Strikes Back" (May, 1980) and "Return of the Jedi" (1983), and the Gospel of John to the movie "Flash Gordon" (December, 1980).

Both are heavily dependent on the original three Flash Gordon serials "Space Soldiers," (1936), "Flash Gordon's Trip to Mars," (1938) and "Flash Gordon Conquers the Universe" (1940). In fact, George Lucas only made the original "Star Wars" when he found that Dino Di Laurentiis had the rights to the original Flash Gordon serials and he couldn't do them.

Let us imagine that the original serials had been lost and the dates for the later movies forgotten. We would certainly realize that they were related from their fantastic portrayals of interplanetary travels, intergalactic Wars and athletic fighting heroes and villains. Probably most people would see elements from the 1976 and 1980 Star Wars in the 1980 Flash Gordon and conclude that it must have been a revision of these two movies. Some people might see some Flash Gordon 1980 influences in "Return of the Jedi" and conclude that, no it was George Lucas who copied Dino Di Laurentiis, at least for some scenes in the final Movie.

In fact, one can say that both are heavily reliant on the source material and that Flash Gordon 1980 is in some ways much closer to the original source, but in other ways is just copying Star Wars. Thus Flash Gordon 1980 has both elements that are more faithful to the original and elements that are further away from the original. For example in the naming of the characters, it is more faithful, but in the use of rock and roll band "Queen" for some of the music, it is further away than anything in the Star Wars Trilogy.

I believe that the gospel of John is more faithful to earlier lost texts and in some ways copies of the less faithful synoptics. Analogous to the Star Wars Trilogy and Flash Gordon 1980, they are probably still closer to each other then they are to the original lost texts.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

bacht

Thanks Jay. As you say the relationship between John and the synoptics is still unclear. Then there's the question of gnostic roots and later re-working.

Chili

If I had time I would argue that John is based on Luke and often is contrary to Matthew. Luke is onmiscient John show is is how to get there.

Julio

The other imponderable is that no disciples, just assembled by Jesus the day before, is said to have tasted the divine wine, and yet they seemed to take great amazement in the “miracle” and then believed Jesus’ divinity.
Sorry, it doesn’t ring clear, and it doesn’t hold to logic.
Verse 11 says: “This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested forth his glory; and his disciples believed on him.”
What?!
To change water into wine to satiate a crowd of happy drinkers was the best way to manifest Jesus’ glory?
Hardly; first serious mistake John did with this incongruent statement.
Why not rather mention the apparent real miracles quoted in verse 23?
We read over there that Jesus performed many miracles in Jerusalem, but not one of those would be mentioned.
How inspiring can that be?
It is in the previous verses that Jesus attacks the vendors in the Temple, a misdemeanour mentioned at the end of his ministry in the synoptic gospels.
Was that more important than describe the miracles Jesus did in the area, as some solid testimony to his divine powers?
Sorry, but again John missed the point.
I maintain that he wrote several sections of his gospel without thinking, never mind inspired.