bacht

The Jesus of the gospels is a savior, promising eternal life to those who believe. The whole project is irrational and supernatural. Arguing for consistency or logic is pointless, especially from a modern scientific pov.

I think trying to convince fundamentalists with sarcasm or rational argumentation is a waste of time. It's a mindset which is infantile and defensive. There are reasons why the text is the way it is, but fundies don't want to hear the mundane truth behind the construction and institutionalization of their sacred book.

aa5874

But, fundies DO de-convert and it is the logical arguments that help to make them to do so.

It is certainly NOT a waste of time to present rational arguments to show that the miracles of gJohn did not happen or were unlikely.

Petergdi

That's not really fair. The temperance movement started in the eighteenth century by doing what its name suggested - telling people to drink in moderation. It sounds like a good idea, moderation is easy enough for those of us who have never had a drinking problem, but the message practically never helps alcoholics. What does sometimes work is to tell people not to drink any alcohol at all, and to provide them with friends who do not drink at all.

The total abstemption movement began in the 1830s and it soon took over the temperance movement. Teetotalers could actually show results: many people who had been notorious drunks were now staying sober. It didn't always work by any means, but it worked better and more often than preaching moderation did.

There may be a few people who try to deny that Jesus drank significantly alcoholic wine, but most teetotallers know that Jesus drank wine and that John Wesley drank beer. But they have a conviction that they can make the world a better place for both those with drinking problems and those who are the victims of people with drinking problems by not drinking alcohol and being conspicuous about not drinking.

I am not myself an abstainer, but I have certainly known some and I have some sympathy with their position.

Peter.

Chili

Relax Julio, John is the only Gospel where the miracles will add up to get one to heaven. Cana is crucial but it is the result of the sheep pool event where Joseph was suffering from "involutional melancholy" and just waiting to be healed . . . but he cannot jump into the pool himself since this is a non-rational event much in the way Jonah was on the bottom of a ship and while on a paid fair the storm of life set in and he shipwrecked and was swallowed by a whale that landed him at Ninevah where he celebrated the conversion of the multitude in his mind so they too could drink of the wine that [here] Jesus made.

It is all about healing by way of awakening to make sense of the 38 year involutionary [yang] period that got him thusfar and now he better get his ducks in a row if he is going to make it to the very end . . . which of course is known to him but it will be by way of 'water' instead of the of old earth earth . . . to say that intuition must get him there and that will be against reason that must be negative stand (antagonist) all the way and be crucified in the end.

Petergdi

Distillation of alcohol seems to have been invented by Arabs in the Middle Ages. "Strong drink" in the Bible must mean a fermented beverage other than wine - which almost certainly means beer or ale. The NIV seems to have it right. I doubt much wine often was near 15% either - that would require both very sweet grapes and yeast which was less susceptible to being killed by alcohol than most. Alcohol content in non-fortified wines has been climbing somewhat in recent years. In the late 19th century, few non-fortified wines contained as much as 14% alcohol by volume and Chateau Lafite averaged around 11% alcohol. (or so the 1911 Britannica says in the Wine article).

Peter.

spamandham

"Strong drink" might refer to something other than alcohol, such as "bitter water" mentioned throughout the Bible and explicitly connected with wormwood in Revelation.

Petergdi

Not likely. I've had wormwood tea. It has an almost unbearably strong bitter taste, but it doesn't appear to be an intoxicant in drinkable quantities.

Peter.

spamandham

Intoxication might be implied by the exact translation (unsure?), but a literal "give strong drink" does not generally imply an intoxicant in my mind.

Petergdi

Why do you bother with this? When Jesus says that his hour is not yet come, he is very likely saying that it isn't time for him to die yet. "My hour" and "my time" in John often look forward to the crucifixion. Most people (and that includes religious conservatives) notice that water and wine are used symbolically in John. While a conservative may believe that Jesus actually performed the miracle, they can still attribute the symbolic message to Jesus himself. While the use of symbolism is more obvious in John than in the synoptics, Jesus does use the same sort of symbolic language in the synoptics.

Water in the story seems to stand for John's baptism, and the wine stands for the blood of the new covenant. Jesus' mother says that they have no wine, and Jesus says that it isn't time for him to die yet. It seems like a non-sequitur, but if you are following the symbolism - it isn't.

Did Jesus actually do a miracle to illustrate the difference between John the Baptist and himself? I don't know, but in the story that appears in John's gospel that does seem to be what is happening.

- John the Baptist and his followers fast and do not drink; Jesus and his followers have feasts and drink wine
- John baptises with water, as do Jesus's followers, but Jesus dips people in the Holy Spirit.

Peter.

aa5874

In the KJV Bible "wormwood" is associated with "bitterness" not alcohol content and "strong drink" is asssociated with intoxication or the drinking of "wine".



Le 10:9 - Pr 5:4 -