Julio

Beautiful stuff from all of you, folks.
Thanks very much.
I will try to comment throughout the day.
Quarter to seven AM here in Johannesburg right now, and I'm waiting for my friend Tony to go for a walk at the Klipriviersberg Nature Reserve.
[lovely weather today.]
Three hours walk - in one of the trails.
See you later.

http://www.footprint.co.za/klipriviersberg.htm

spamandham

How do you argue against that which is patently absurd?

1. Water into wine. Ok, recall that later on Jesus proclaims wine to be his blood. So this is really Jesus turning water into blood, because Jesus is a vampire.

2. Healing of nobleman's son. Since Jesus is a vampire, he need only bite the son, and the son is now immortal and thus healed

3. Impotent man - everyone knows how sexy vampires are

4. five thousand fed ....magic vampire feeding powers

5. walks on water - vampires can fly

6. heals blind man. ....hmmmm, we'll go with magic vampire powers again

7. raising the dead. Treivial for the living dead.

Doug Shaver

No miracle story is credible to a naturalist. Why would I want to give those particular ones any special attention?

Julio

"1st - John 2:1-12 - water into wine;

This is not a miracle story. Jesus or Jesus' mom offers drunk guests at a wedding wine, and they're so drunk, they say it is the best wine. This is more of a garbled joke than a miracle."

I like this!
To me, there are two "imponderables" in the tale.
One is Jesus lying to his mother [telling her it was yet not his time, and next performing the "FIRST" miracle to launch his messianic manifesto];
the other is Jesus promoting drunkenness [supplying an extra 600 liters of the inebriating liquid, AFTER the guests had already consumed all the first supply!
If there were 100 guests, the miracle provided an extra 6 liters per guest!!].
The disciples, just gathered to be "fishers of men" [I never understood this concept], were hard drunk to the point of exclaiming, "This is the christ Israel was waiting for, Alleluia!"

Julio

Miracles in the gospels are publicity stunts in a context of no credible witnesses, with unrealistic chances of ever having occurred.
Most liberal critics of the NT text agree that in all probability not one of the miracles ever took place in real life.
The most obvious testimony against its performance is that there are no WITNESSES among the other canonical gospels.
Either it wasn’t considered credible, or wasn’t actually the first; in any case, both instances are very implausible to a reasonable inspection.
Why wouldn’t the synoptic start the list of miracles with this FIRST one, if we would have to accredit the theory that the gospels were verbally inspired by some [indefinable] “Holy Spirit”? Verbal or plenary inspiration would mean proper order and/or historical sequence.
Nothing like that can be detected in the “chronology” of the gospels.
John appeared in the “canonical plateau” 60 years after Pentecost (assuming correct the conservative and orthodox dates).
Wouldn’t this LOGIC be enough proof of two things: one, there is no verbal inspiration, and two, there is also no inspiration for any historical sequence.
In other words, the entire narration of the gospels has no chronological credibility, but a “document” with an ad hoc and random presentation; excepting perhaps the “last week of the Saviour”, sort of plan.

Chili

For what it's worth 'water into wine' is knowledge tied into 'the whole' rather than individual 'forms' so now we can say that the shepherds were the 'water' that Joseph had accumilated and that was set 'under' the woman who presides over the TOL and saw that the TOK was good for gaining wisdom etc (Gen.3:6).

So here we have Joseph looking for meaning in life because his strongholds (shepherds) that once were his claim to power, wealth and beauty had 'gone on the run' in that he was looking for meaning in life, and after the unconscious surrender (from the heart) of all he 'had' (his claim to fame) he found the pearl of great worth.

His reward is to journey into his own subconscius mind where he encounters his own lineage (for up to 1000 years they say) and that is what this Cana wedding is all about. It is here that the 'chosen 12' will become transformed into wine and be RNA that in the final end they can be raised into DNA. So the transformation of water into wine is a necessary condition for it to become the body of Christ . . . which then is how the Intelligent Designer exist inside the species and that is why there is truth in the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ that so deserves our "Amen."

So yes, it is all metaphor and really doesn't mean much at all.

Chili

Now if you consider that the major of each and every inquiry is ours by intuition as per Aristotles "Posterior Analytics" (= prior to us by intuition), you can see why Joseph wanted to know "who he was co-creator with" (as above) because he had 12 of them in disarray and that deserves an answer (cf Hitler's jail house conversion for example or even Macbeth who also wanted to be king hereafter but was an 'apostle short' in his cast of characters too; Macbeth is actually a satire against the C of E to be compared with "Coriolanus" of Rome).

If the above is true it means that science extracts from omniscience in the same way as math was there before we became mathematicians in the same way as the celestial light was there before the light of common day we saw, and here then, the celestial sea is for us to walk on in the end . . . but not until the seventh day (seventh sacrament), wherefore there were 6 jars to be filled . . . to the brim, I think Jesus said, to say that this party is not for cowards (because we must need to have water to fill those jars, would be the inference here), but nevertheless means that the answer to this question leads us directly into our own mind.

To this, may I ask, what is wrong with America in that it encourages 'spiritual fornication' by way of 'altar calls'?. . . where the evangelist is literally jerking on the veil that devides our mind to set free this inner child before it's own time (eg. Songs 2:7), much in the way Macbeth was "from his mother's womb untimely ripped" . . . and even that play is popular in America but only in America.

The number 12 is archetypal, I suppose.

Julio

We could say that John lied to his readers [about this water/wine miracle].
Luke had written his gospel (again, accepting the fundamentalist dates) some thirty years earlier and never referred to any water turned into wine, after declaring in writing that he was going to be the most accurate possible (assuming the “Inspirer” would lead him to the right information).
This is to prove beyond reasonable doubt that at least some of the gospels do include serious inaccuracies.
We need to remember that, had this “first” miracle happened, it would have been around the year thirty, whereas the gospel of “John” being written conservatively 60 years later.
Luke is at fault in matters of inspiration, or John is telling lies.

Julio

Another imponderable is that nowhere in the description does Jesus say that the water was transformed into wine.
It is “John” who inserts the comment in the story.
The story is so badly presented that it ends up being a monument to unbearable credulity.
Why wound be Mary the person to worry that the budgeted wine had already been consumed?
Well, it is apparent that Mary had nothing else to worry about at that moment but to keep the lot of guests including herself and her son occupied with drinking ALCOHOL.
Naturally, we can also establish that she was used to drinking the stuff, and perhaps more than what was enough, otherwise she would rather say that it was too bad the guests had already finished with the whole lot!
But, no; Mary got rather worried that the wedding wouldn’t go well without MORE wine to make the guests happy.
Do you see it?
It is right there in front of your “spiritual eyes” I would guess.
Mary was, no doubt, worried with the shortage of wine, inferring that she was used to drinking the joyous stuff (why do you take wine to a wedding?!).
The text is incorrect by saying that they wanted wine (verse 3), when in fact they wanted MORE WINE to help them get on with their happy festivities.
It is true that there are always a few guests that indulge too much in wine and other spirits and become the [uncalled for] attraction of the party.
It’s Mary who first wants to help to get more wine, and approaches Jesus for the solution!
How Mary knew that Jesus could supply the inebriating “spirit” the text doesn’t say.
But it is rather clear that Mary’s call to her son for help was for something spectacular.
They had drunk already ALL the wine supplied for the party, and surely some were intoxicated; therefore, Mary wasn’t the saint the popes worship!
Instead of leaving the disorderly party, she actually asked for more of the inebriating liquid.
I assume here that Mary could have also gotten a little drunk [and speech-inhibited] in the end (perhaps Jesus and the disciples too).

Julio

The next terrible imponderable is when Jesus lies to Mary by telling her – it appears rather abruptly, if not rudely – that it wasn’t the time to do miracles [and surely it wasn’t!], but next performs the [supposed to be enchanting] first one.
Please, go see how the “orthodox” Bible commentators do their usual tricks to soften and change the text.
Do you know how much controversy this “miracle” has caused all through the centuries in matters of understanding its reason to be mentioned in the Holy Scriptures?
It could be inferred from this “incident” that Jesus had not planned to start his public ministry at that particular wedding, although he had already chosen his disciples.
Imagine deciding to impress them with a miracle where natural water of the fountains of God on earth was going to be converted into wine to encourage DRUNKENNESS!
Certain Baptist factions will insist the stuff was pure grape juice, with no alcohol, in spite of the text clearly mentioning WINE.
Wine has always gone through a process of fermentation, and thus it contains alcohol!
New wine would also produce drunkards – see Acts 2:13 “These men are full of new wine.”
If Jesus intended to supply grape juice, he was then not too clever to perform the miracle at the end of the common supply of real wine.
The real miracle would be to get rid of the fermented liquid supplied to the wedding and replace it with a blessed amount of the purest grape juice or any other divine one.
This miracle, therefore, is not for Baptists to change and preach sermons about grape juice!