ChristiaNet MallWorld's Largest Christian MallChristian BlogsFree Bible QuizzesFree Ecards and Free Greeting CardsLoans, Debt, Business and Insurance Articles

Water Turned Into Wine

Jesus turned water into wine. Who's wedding might the celebration have been for? (John. 2:1-11)

Join Our Free Singles and Take The Who Is Jesus Bible Quiz
 ---Leon on 1/27/13
     Helpful Blog Vote (11)

Post a New Blog



Rod4him, ultimately I am doing the will of God when I sin. Everything was included in the plan of God. Not one thing was left out, and God did not make any mistakes. For God tells us,
"I know the things that come into your mind, every one of them" (Ezek. 11:5) And how does He know?
"A man's heart deviseth his way: but the Lord directeth his steps" (Prov. 16:9). For this reason we read'
"For of Him, and through Him, and to Him, are all things" (Rom. 11:36) for
"He doeth according to His will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay His hand" (Dan. 4:35).
---Mark_V. on 3/10/13


Rod4him, here is the real truth that people do not want to hear, sinful man at that, who call themselves Christians, that they want freedom from God. They do not want God to determine their lives. And they get angry when told it was God who chose them, and not the other way around. This are not unbelievers arguing, but supposely Christians. God from the beginning chose Adam, and others, then chose the nation of Israel over others. Had many of those nations exterminate, sent the angel of death to kill all firstborns, and what good was those people's free will? Now when it comes to them, they demand their free will from God. So Leon wants me to stop speaking on behalf of Almighty God and His authority over man.
---Mark_V. on 3/10/13


//when I sin, it is me not doing the will of My Father. I do not practice sin, but I fail many times. What motivates me to sin? My flesh...//

Sounds right to me. Blessings to you
---Rod4Him on 3/10/13


"...You don't try to be a slave to God, you become one."
---Mark_V. on 3/10/13


What you fail to comprehend is all "believers" FREELY, WILLINGLY CHOOSE to become slaves/SERVANTS to God. Christ died to set the captives FREE~ all of sin laden mankind! Why is it so hard for you to understand that? You've clearly overworked (complicated) the truth & made up a legalistic scenario that's not Bible accurate.
---Leon on 3/10/13


Romans 8:7 Because the carnal mind [is] enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

Romans 8:8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.

I am still in my flesh
---Mark_V. on 3/10/13

but those of us who believe in Jesus: are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. Romans 8:9

And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin, but the Spirit is life because of righteousness. Romans 8:10
---francis on 3/10/13




Rod4him, when I sin, it is me not doing the will of My Father. I do not practice sin, but I fail many times. What motivates me to sin? My flesh. Paul call's it, "sin within me" I am still in my flesh as you are. I speek the Truth because the Truth is within me.
"For if we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the Truth is not in you" (1 John 1:8).
---Mark_V. on 3/10/13


//...but I do what I do because I have a reason, my will is not free, it has a motive behind what I do.//

So, when you sin, it is really God's fault?
---Rod4Him on 3/10/13


Leon, to counter the Truth you gave a passage in (Gal. 5:1) to suggest you are now free, well you are free from the bondage of sin, but what next? Here, I will help you with the Word of God:

"For when you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness. What fruit did you have then in the things of which you are now ashamed? For the end of those things is death. But now having been set free from sin, and having become slaves of God, you have your fruit to holiness, and the end everlasting life." (Rom. 6:20-22).

You don't try to be a slave to God, you become one.
---Mark_V. on 3/10/13


Mark: Whatever your problems are, I pray the Lord will give you His peace & understanding in the matters. :)

"For freedom Christ has set us free, stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery." (Galatians 5:1, ESV)

---Leon on 3/9/13


Leon, I choose to be freely home answering some of your rediculous statements. No one has a gun to my head, but I do what I do because I have a reason, my will is not free, it has a motive behind what I do. It is to show that no one's freedom over powers the freedom of God. So my will is not free it is to do the will of my Father in heaven not the will of sinful man, because the Spirit has me in bondage, I am not free, my will is in bondage to God.
You make a statement I'm drinking, but As Peter told the men from Judea, those people were not drunk but, "this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel" (Acts 2:14-21).
---Mark_V. on 3/9/13




Alright, no more wine for Mark! Someone please drive him home ~ thx!!! :)
---Leon on 3/9/13


Leon, you said to me on the "free will' blog,

"I "freely choose" not to further participate in this unfruitful blog. Mark "freely chooses" not to hear the Bible Truth that sets captives free!"

And God can freely choose to keep you from going to heaven. And can feely choose to keep you from knowing the Truth. And He can freely choose to sent you to hell. You are free and He is free. Whose freedom do you think over rules the other? Yours are God's?
I sure hope you do not belief your freedom over powers God's freedom. If you do, you are far from been saved. And to this day your freedom has condemn you.
---Mark_V. on 3/8/13


Cluny: I'm really not interested in the traditions, e.g., old wives tales, of men. In John 2:1-11, it says Jesus & the disciples were called (invited) to the wedding. So, obviously if Jesus were the bridegroom that wouldn't have been the case since he would've been at the center of attention in the proceedings, not just someone invite to the wedding. The Bible passages clearly indicates another (unnamed) man, not Jesus, was the bridegroom. Were Jesus the bridegroom, I believe the passages would've said so.

Also, the skewed beliefs of multitudes of mislead people isn't at issue here.

I am glad you read my question over the potentially misleading title given by the Mod. :)

Praise God from whom all blessings flow!
---Leon on 3/6/13


Leon, you say,
"Mark is off topic & off track as he tries, in vain, to force "his legalism" on others by using Scripture out of context to the subject matter/topic.."
What lie. Most of your questions suggest for others to add to Scripture what is not there.
Second, God did not leave us defenseless against any kind of trickery by the enemy. Cults are build by adding or taking away from Scripture. God gave us everything we need in the Bible to enable us to separate the wheat from the chaff. We have a responsibility to God to seek the Truth, His Word. We should never add or take away from His Word.
"Deuteronomy 4:2, 12:32: Proverbs 30:5,6: Rev. 22:18,19). Galatians 1:6-12 warns us again.
---Mark_V. on 3/6/13


WARNING: These is the Word of the Lord,
"For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: "If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book" (Rev. 22:18,19).
---Mark_V. on 3/5/13


The Word of God (Rev. 22...) is absolutely True, from Gen.-Rev.!!! But, as usual, Mark is off topic & off track as he tries, in vain, to force "his legalism" on others by using Scripture out of context to the subject matter/topic at hand.
---Leon on 3/5/13


WARNING: These is the Word of the Lord,
"For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: "If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book" (Rev. 22:18,19).
---Mark_V. on 3/5/13


Read These Insightful Articles About Education


People who practice legalism "ALWAYS" major in the minors, i.e., get themselves bogged down in nonessential details (in the weeds). Their bogus explanations are "ALWAYS" too detailed, off topic & off track (derailed). Why? They're not trying to "reason with & persuade" you with the facts you already know to be true. Instead, "they want to convince" you to believe exactly the way they do regardless of the facts. After all, they're right & you're "ALWAYS" wrong in their eyes!

Legalist run wild on CN blogs.
---Leon on 3/4/13


Worth repeating
FYI, in the essentials of the Christian faith Legalism is the opposite of Antinomianism. Whereas antinomianism denies the significance of law, legalism exalts law above grace. The legalist of Jesus day were the Pharisees, and Jesus reserved His strongest criticism for them. The Pharisees believed that due to their status as children of Abraham and to their scrupolous adherence to the law, they were the children of God. At the core, this was a denial of the gospel.
A corollary article of legalism is the adherence to the letter of the law to the exclusion of the Spirit of the law.
---Mark_V. on 3/4/13


FYI: LEGALISM, in Christian theology, refers to one's over-emphasis on the conduct of others, usually implying allegations of misguided information of actions. Institutionalized legalism restricts free choice.

Legalist are dogmatic about their views of right & wrong. If other's views fall outside the rigid opinions of a legalist, in his mind, it can't be right (has missed the "mark") so he will doggedly criticized what he doesn't agree with and/or understand.

Many legalistic Christians today mistakenly demand unqualified adherence to their own biblical interpretations. Legalism fails to accomplish God's purposes because it is outward performance instead of an inward change.
---Leon on 3/2/13


Leon, for your information only and just for you, when I said not to question the Word of God I did not mean not to ask questions concerning parts of the bible to find information, how else can anyone learn if they don't ask questions concerning many stories?
I was speaking of questioning what God said through His Word. It is His Word after all, and inspired by the Holy Spirit.
Baby milk or meat is a different matter. Some like meat and some only like milk. Those that like the meat of the Word, are those who want to know who God is first. Those who only want the milk are those who are just happy to know who they are in Christ, not who God really is.
---Mark_V. on 3/2/13


Read These Insightful Articles About Home Equity Loans


God gave us the Bible for us to, by faith, believe it (Gen.-Rev.) & thereby grow in knowledge & understanding. You can't grow if you don't ask questions & the only dumb questions are the ones not asked! This is true in the natural world & spirit realm. Faith (trust in God), as some suppose, isn't blind. (John 16:13)

There are two types of Christians: Spiritual babes & spiritual maturing children. The infant is content to drink milk only. That's not healthy & stunts growth. It's healthy to slowly ween babes off a milk only diet. Those growing in maturity desire solid food. (Hebrews 5:13-14)
---Leon on 3/1/13


Strongaxe, thanks for answering. I'll explain what I feel. We, as people of God, live our lives by faith not by sight. As simple people, We can question every part of the Bible if we want, or we can accept it by faith as the Word of God. We can question Moses never writing the first five books, we can question the flood, or why the slaughter of all those nations. We can question just about every part if we have no faith. But we are people of faith, even though we do not understand how it came about. We have to believe that God made it possible for us to have His Word today no matter how much it had to go through. If we don't believe that, then we are not people of faith. God did not give us the Bible to question it, but to believe it.
---Mark_V. on 2/16/13


\\The LXX (Septuagint) has 7 books our OT does NOT have: Tobit, Judith, 1,2,3,4 Macabees, Wisdom and Baruch.\\

What you mean is that the Massoretic Text lacks several books that the OLDEST copies of the OT contain, which until the discovery of the DSS, were in the LXX.

These books were EXCLUDED by the Jews over 60 years AFTER Pentecost and the Christians had accepted them.

I'd rather believe Christians filled with the Holy Spirit than the spiritual children of the Scribes and Pharisees who rejected Jesus.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 2/13/13


Mark_V.:

As you said, the Church didn't "define" the Canon, they just recognized what was "commonly accepted" - i.e. it recognized human tradition (not "divinely mandated" tradition, because no books of the Bible list which other books are Canon - even being quoted in the N.T. is no guarantee, because 1 Enoch is quoted, and Esther is not).

If some people believe book XYZ is Canon and others disagree, how can one decide who is right? There IS no objective criterion, other than popular opinion.

When Jesus and his disciples quoted OT, all are LXX word-for-word, even if those disagree with our best OT manuscripts. This means that they themselves accepted the LXX (which contains the Apocrypha).
---StrongAxe on 2/13/13


Send a Free Humor Ecard


Mark V: Having re-read your post, it is not really connected to what I wrote. I was commenting about the apocrypha in the OT, which where at some point accepted by the Hebrews (as the books were in the LXX, the common Greek OT at the time of Christ). As there are more copies of LXX than the Hebrew, and I can read Greek, I have used that.

The LXX (Septuagint) has 7 books our OT does NOT have: Tobit, Judith, 1,2,3,4 Macabees, Wisdom and Baruch. There is something in Hebrews that some have suggested relates to Macabees, but other suggest it connects to Kings, so......??

I just am saying that those books were in the the Gentiles Bible of that time.

I do not say that mean God wants US to use them. On that I don't know.
---Peter on 2/12/13


Marc V: Your point is well taken.

From my analysis of the Biblical quotations, they appear to be more likely from the Septuagint, which has a couple of books that are not in our OT. I do not say that as a certainty, but it has often been believed due to exact wording. If this is the case, and as this was the almost exclusive OT Bible of the time, it had a number of the Apocrypha in it.

This is a subject that I do not like to get involve in, as it is something I do not think I know enough about.

I started only commenting that I don't think wikipedia is a good enough source!
---Peter on 2/12/13


Peter, it matters not what a person says is truth or no truth. The only reliable source we have is the Bible. When a person begins to question one part of the Bible, then they become the bar of what is truth and what is not truth.
If you check history, you will find out the first bible was created by a heretic. His name was Marcion. He produced his own expurgated version of the Bible. To combat this heretic, the Church found it necessary to declare the exact content of the New Testament. The Church did not create the Canon but merely recognized the books that bore the marks of canonicity and were therefore authoritive within the Church. Once Canon closed, anything else is not inspired. We have no right to say only parts are inspired.
---Mark_V. on 2/12/13


Peter:

You said: The Encyclopedia Britannica (which is far more reliable than wikipedia)

Actually, in 2005, a study in the journal Nature determined the accuracy of Wikipedia and Brittanica were comparable. See Wikipedia article "Reliability of Wikipedia". One of the things Wikipedia demands is that it contains no primary data sources - everything it includes MUST come from other sources, which are referenced and can be independently verified. So don't take their word for anything, just check out the sources they reference. Many other studies have demonstrated the reliability of Wikipedia. Its collaborative editing model means people who ACTUALLY KNOW about a subject can maintain the accuracy of articles about it.
---StrongAxe on 2/11/13


Read These Insightful Articles About Interest Rates


John II: In this particular subject, it would be better if you went over to another encyclopedia that is more reliable than Wikipedia.....

The Encyclopedia Britannica (which is far more reliable than wikipedia) agrees closely with Cluny that with you, in that the Jews were not fixed in their books of the OT.

Of course, the question is whether we should we be using the same OT as the Jews did at the time of Christ......

But I will leave the two of you to argue that out
---Peter on 2/10/13


John_II:

You presume a particular book order, a fairly recent invention (and still different from the Jewish order). You are also presuming that the Apocrypha is something separate and distinct, so by assuming that, you can't subsequently use any conclusions you derive from that assumption to PROVE they're separate - because that's circular reasoning. For example, Baruch and the Letter of Jeremiah are traditionally included right after Jeremiah - right in the middle of all the other prophets, so the bookends say nothing about whether they are in or out.

I ask you again, do you think 1 Enoch is canonical? If not, why not (since Jude quoted it).
---StrongAxe on 2/10/13


\\Cluny, you bang on: tradition, tradition, tradition! Man-centered, man-centered, man-centered!\\

John II, everything you have said on these blogs was said much more succinctly by a character in C.S. Lewis's THE PILGRIM'S REGRESS.

"Oogle obble glooble globble oogle globble gloo!"

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 2/7/13


John 11, very good answers you are giving. Keep the good work up for the glory of God.
---Mark_V. on 2/7/13


Read These Insightful Articles About Internet Marketing


StrongAxe, you are not reading my posts comprehensively: The bookend prophets verse (Luke 11:51) does tell us what is not between them - the Apocrypha, of which, as a reprove, Jesus nor the Apostles ever quoted from. So, how do I know which books are between the bookends? Well, Romans 3:2 tells me that what the Jews canonised is inspired. So I see that my O.T. is the same as the Tanakh (Hebrew bible), and neither, obviously, contain the Book of Enoch. So why is this book uninspired? Evidently it is not 100% truth and therefore rejected. So why did Jude quote from it? Evidently there is at least one truth we know of in the Book of Enoch, and Jude sourced it under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, this needn't be problematic.
---John_II on 2/7/13


Cluny, you bang on: tradition, tradition, tradition! Man-centered, man-centered, man-centered!

God gave the Law, God gave the Prophets, God gave the Writings. Nevertheless, Jesus and the Apostles knew those 'sections' for what they were.



Proverbs 29:25 Fear of man will prove to be a snare, but whoever trusts in the LORD is kept safe.

Get yourself unsnared, Clunes.
---John_II on 2/7/13


\\Jesus and the Apostles didn't quote from every book in Jewish canon, but they quoted from every section of Jewish canon.\\

And just what constitutes a "section" of the Jewish Canon? Such divisions into "sections" are man-made, arbitrary, and used for convenience--in other words, TRADITIONAL!

A list of "sections of the Jewish Canon" didn't drop down out of heaven, did it? Or did you think one did?

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 2/6/13


Cluny, you say, 'John 5:39 does not prove your point that the Jews did not canonize the Apocrypha.'

Not on its own, but once you understand that Jesus omitted the Apocrypha (Luke 11:51), and how Paul commends the Jews (Romans 3:2), then it does.

Also you claim, 'But John 5:39 DOES say that devotion to the Scriptures can get in the way of seeing Jesus.., the Bible itself can become an idol.'

No, Cluny, not at all, in fact that's the Devil you are speaking. It teaches us that these Jews wanted to grab the Kingdom for themselves, and not to accept Him, but to usurp Him:

Matt 21:38 But when the tenants saw the son, they said to each other, This is the heir. Come, lets kill him and take his inheritance.
---John_II on 2/6/13


Read These Insightful Articles About Life Insurance


John_II:

You said: Esther was part of the Jewish canon of which Jesus Himself endorsed: Luke 11:51 From the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, ..,
These names all but bookend the Jewish canon of Scripture.


Yes, they are bookends, but they tell us nothing about WHICH books are inbetween, do they? How do YOU know WHICH books were old testament canon? Not from the above quote. Your very own criterion (i.e. was it quoted by New Testament writers) would make 1 Enoch canonical, and Esther not.

Jesus and the Apostles didn't quote from every book in Jewish canon, but they quoted from every section of Jewish canon.

Jude DID explicitly quote 1 Enoch. Does that make it canon? And if not, why not?
---StrongAxe on 2/6/13


Don't know! It was a marriage in Cana of Galilee. The honor which Christ hereby put upon the ordinance of marriage, that He grace the solemnity of it, not only with His presence, but with His first miracle....It was a good wine--the best. He allowed a sober cheerful use of wine, especially in times of rejoicing, yet He does not invalidate His own caution, which is, our hearts be not at anytime, no not at a marriage feast, overcharged with surfeiting and drunkenness.
---pat on 2/6/13


\\ Cluny, you are wrong about the Jews canonising the Apocrypha. Incredulous you may be, but Jesus has intimated so:
John 5:39 You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have (hold, posses) eternal life, it is these that testify about Me. ..\\

John 5:39 does not prove your point that the Jews did not canonize the Apocrypha.

But John 5:39 DOES say that devotion to the Scriptures can get in the way of seeing Jesus--in other words, the Bible itself can become an idol.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 2/6/13


Cluny, you are wrong about the Jews canonising the Apocrypha. Incredulous you may be, but Jesus has intimated so:
John 5:39 You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have (hold, posses) eternal life, it is these that testify about Me. ..,
Seems the Jews entirely knew that they were the regents of God's word. And there's nothing said here, by Jesus, challenging the Jews regarding what they had, or had not, canonised. Jesus was content, why do you contend?

Wouldn't it be more sensible, Cluny, to understand that the Name (reputation) of God is not with the contradictory, inaccurate, inconsistent, enchanting, superstitious, etc?
---John_II on 2/5/13


Read These Insightful Articles About Make Money


StrongAxe, Esther was part of the Jewish canon of which Jesus Himself endorsed:
Luke 11:51 From the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, ..,
These names all but bookend the Jewish canon of Scripture. The Apocrypha, however, is not included by The Great King Himself.

Jesus knew, right?

So once we understand this, we can then appreciate what Paul was saying about the regents of God's oracles:
Romans 3:2 .., they have been entrusted with the very words of God.
And we know that the Jews rejected the book of Enoch as being inspired.

So Paul was happy, right?

Jesus and the Apostles didn't quote from every book in Jewish canon, but they quoted from every section of Jewish canon.
---John_II on 2/5/13


\\Cluny, are you asserting that the Jews once canonised the Apocrypha? You need to clarify because you're suggesting that they did. Your quote, "Jews did NOT exclude them"
\\

That's right.

And Wikipedia is NOT always a reliable source.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 2/4/13


John_II:

I don't believe any new testament writers quoted Esther. Does that make Esther not canon? Jude quoted the book of 1 Enoch. Does that therefore make 1 Enoch canon?
---StrongAxe on 2/4/13


Cluny, are you asserting that the Jews once canonised the Apocrypha? You need to clarify because you're suggesting that they did. Your quote, "Jews did NOT exclude them"

Also, you say, "The truth is .... They were translated as part of Jewish scripture TWO CENTURIES before Christ into the LXX."

Yet Wikipedia says, "In the Early Christian Church, the presumption that the Septuagint was translated by Jews before the era of Christ"

Now I'm not saying that WP is the final word, but it most likely trumps yours.

Aren't Jesus' words enough for you? Neither of our words are final, that is why I gave you Scripture and what Jesus said and what is noteworthy about what He didn't say.
---John_II on 2/4/13


Read These Insightful Articles About Rehab Treatments


\\Cluny, your word is not final. You need to provide support for your assertion.\\

John II, your word is not final. You need to provide support for your assertion.

The thing is, Rome did NOT decided that the Apocryphal books were in the Bible.

The truth is that Jews did NOT exclude them until some two generations AFTER the Church had accepted them. They were translated as part of Jewish scripture TWO CENTURIES before Christ into the LXX.

And I'm not Roman Catholic. I'm Orthodox, though I know you can't tell the difference.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 2/3/13


Cluny, your word is not final. You need to provide support for your assertion.

Jesus didn't have a problem with the books that the Jews canonised and those they rejected, He even confirmed what they had recognised as inspired of God (see my comments below). So why do you accept that it was right to insert the Apocrypha into the Bible nearly 1500 years later?

To use your prose: You don't think that because Rome called the Apocrypha "Deuterocanon" that it makes it God-breathed, do you?
---John_II on 2/3/13


\\The Apocrypha is not God-breathed\\

Yes, it is. Your denying it will not change the facts.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 2/3/13


Peter, my charge to Cluny's declaration is there, "The Protestant Bible is self-validating" That is to say, i.o.w, "not solely or entirely on tradition", because it's all God-breathed. So, by deduction, God is the authority, thus annuling his sarcasm. And then I moved on to challenge Cluny regarding the Apochrypha, which is not God-breathed.

To answer your question: (If you re-read my post) The books in the Old Testament not quoted from by Jesus or the Apostles are Jewish canon, which prompts Roman 3:2, the Apochrypha is not.

You really ought to read fully what someone submits, give it a chance to defend itself first, then maybe ask a question for clarity, before charging the author.
---John_II on 2/2/13


Read These Insightful Articles About Stocks


Cluny, 'circular arguement'? Try deduction: "All Scripture is God-breathed" (2 Timothy 3:16) - making God the authority. The Apocrypha is not God-breathed, which Romans 3:2 attests to. See, I have already provided the scripture, and here is more:
Luke 11:51 From the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, .., I tell you, it shall be charged against this generation,
Even Jesus excluded the Apocrypha while confirming the end of the old Jewish order of canon. Or do you have something from your Apostolic Tradition that extends Jesus' words? I'm reckoning not.

So, Apocrypha that is God-breathed is as rare as Apostolic Tradition from Christ.

Seems I understood your question after all, Clunes.
---John_II on 2/2/13


Peter, you said,

"But Jesus never quoted from the '27 books in the NT', because when Jesus spoke, those book had not been written. You are getting confused between the OLD TESTAMENT Apocrypha which is accepted by the RCC and the Orthodox churches."

Jesus didn't have to study what is written, First, He is God in His Divine nature. It's His Word. Second, in His human nature He did what the Father told Him. The Jews marveled saying "How does this Man know letters, having never studied?" Jesus replied,
"My doctrine is not Mine, but His who sent Me. If anyone wills to do His will, he shall know concerning the doctrine, whether it is from God or whether I speak on My own authority"
---Mark_V. on 2/2/13


\\The Protestant Bible is self-validating.\\

Circular argument. Try again.

Jesus and the Apostles never quoted from Esther, Song of Solomon, or Obadiah, therefore, by your argument, they are not Scripture, either.

In any case, I was asking specifically about the New Testament, not the Bible as a whole. Did you understand my question?

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 2/1/13


--John_II on 2/1/13: Your quote to Cluny is a bit confused. You say towards the end 'the same that neither Jesus nor the Apostles ever quoted from?'

But Jesus never quoted from the '27 books in the NT', because when Jesus spoke, those book had not been written.

You are getting confused between the OLD TESTAMENT Apocrypha which is accepted by the RCC and the Orthodox churches.

Now when you say about Jesus, I will ask one question. Protestants take the OT as being 39 books. Does the NT quote for all of the 39 books?
---Peter on 2/1/13


Read These Insightful Articles About Diabetes


Cluny, your quote, "what authority do you have for 27 books in the NT, and just those particular 27, OTHER than tradition? You don't actually think that God floated a list down, do you?"

The Protestant Bible is self-validating. The same cannot be adequately said about what Eastern Orthodox (or the RCC) has deemed canon:

Do you not include the Apocrypha, the same that neither Jesus nor the Apostles ever quoted from? Doesn't it contain contradictions and historical inaccuracies? And hasn't it been rejected by the Jews, who, after all, are the custodians of God's oracles:
Romans 3:2 .., they have been entrusted with the very words of God.
---John_II on 2/1/13


Very good question, but not really important since the message is what is important. (What amuses me is that Jesus's mother ignores His comment about this not being His "time".) By doing this miracle, He shows: 1 His power and He also save's the host/hostess from embarrassment since they had plenty of wine for the guest - and it was good wine and 2. another purpose was to show that this purification water was no longer needed now that He was here - all purification from now on would be through Him.
---wivv on 2/1/13


"\\ point well taken Francis about Cluny's spurious tradition(s)! :D
---Leon on 1/29/13
\\

It's very easy to mock what you neither know nor understand."

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 2/1/13


If I, as you say, "mock" it's the folly of men like you that I mock, but never the Word of God!

To God be all glory, honor & praise!
---Leon on 2/1/13


\\ point well taken Francis about Cluny's spurious tradition(s)! :D
---Leon on 1/29/13
\\

It's very easy to mock what you neither know nor understand.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 2/1/13


Read These Insightful Articles About Depression


Peter,

the gospel of John does not say that the wedding at Cana was on Tuesday. It says "on the third day"

If you read the account starting in chapter 1, you'll see that it was the third day after Jesus was baptized

cf
1:29 the next day [after John was questioned] - (Jesus was baptized this day)
1:35 the next day (first day after His baptism)
1:43 the next day (second day after His baptism)
2:1 on the third day (after His baptism)

Most think Jesus went straight up out of the Jordan into the wilderness to be tempted. He didn't. He went to a wedding

Tuesday wedding puts His baptism on the Sabbath
---James_L on 1/31/13


Leon, after you explanation on why you put the blog up, that many do not know many things and by putting those questions people can learn. That is a good idea. But when people answer, you get mad. Cluny gave you an answer, you cut him down. I myself thought you had the answer as to who was the bridegroom. But all you had was that it was a relative of Jesus. That doesn't help anyone, maybe to those who do not believe Jesus had brothers and sisters or relatives. I believe Catholics like Ruben do not believe Jesus had brothers. Or that Mary was without sin. Those are RCC doctrines. They have there own place. Sorry if you are upset at me. I believe I answered you kindly anyway.
---Mark_V. on 2/1/13


Earl: Why does the gospel of Earl change the day of the week of the wedding? John says it was a Tuesday
---Peter on 1/31/13


MarkV,
Jesus was invited to Cana to participate in the wedding of a prominent young woman of the town.
This event was advertised a month in advance.
The Wednesday turnout was almost 1000 people by noon who many if not most came to see the most popular to attend -Jesus.
This is why there were 6 large pots of water to wine made-for the very large turnout.
6 of his disciples were present.
---earl on 1/31/13


Read These Insightful Articles About Bible Study


Leon, it was only an opinion you now say you had. I thought you had Scripture to tell us who' wedding it was, or who the bridgroom was. I waited a couple of days for a real answer that I might have missed. Thanks for the question.
---Mark_V. on 1/31/13


mary and joseph did have other children. the only difference is Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit.
I sure would love to have lived and met Jesus in the flesh. what an experience that would be. God bless
---shira4368 on 1/30/13


Bartles & James?! Very funny & point well taken Francis about Cluny's spurious tradition(s)! :D
---Leon on 1/29/13

I know it was not Ernest Gallo and Julio Gallo , they were brothers
---francis on 1/30/13


Rita_H: Probably the best thing for you, & others who think like you, is to ignore my blog postings. That way what I understand won't conflict with your understanding. In short, you don't have to respond to my questions. I won't be offended if you don't. :) Peace!
---Leon on 1/30/13


Read These Insightful Articles About Bible Verses


Absolutely Leon, Jesus has siblings and Mary was not a virgin all her life. However, back to the wedding: if God has wanted us to know who was getting married He would have told us.

You obviously enjoy trying to solve puzzles and finding hidden meanings here and there.

For me, I prefer to accept God's word as it has been given to me. If, in my scripture readings I find something which gives me new insight I will take that on board and study as God guides me but I don't add things which are not there or twist scripture to make it say what I want it to say.
---Rita_H on 1/30/13


Rita_H: Consider this. Some well meaning Christians don't know Jesus, being 1st born, had siblings. It's in the Bible! Also, some Christians don't know some of His disciples were relatives of Jesus. Again, in the Bible! Many well meaning Christians think Mary was a virgin all her life. They just don't get it when it comes to Jesus having a family on earth.

There's a fabric woven throughout entire Bible ~ FAMILY. The ultimate family is when the bride of Christ (church) & Jesus are united forever.

Point: Jesus may have been at the wedding of a relative when he turned water into wine. What relative? I dunno! :)

We all have opinions & that's as it should be as each of us work out our salvation in the Lord.
---Leon on 1/30/13


It really does not matter who the bride and groom were. The narrative is to tell us about the miracle performed and to show us what power Jesus had.

Knowing the names of these people is of no more consequence than knowing what the bride wore, what food was served or what music was played.

We should learn from what we ARE told and not use the vagueness of some parts as a guessing game.
---Rita_H on 1/30/13


Bartles & James?! Very funny & point well taken Francis about Cluny's spurious tradition(s)! :D
---Leon on 1/29/13


Read These Insightful Articles About Arthritis


the wedding where Jesus turned water into wine is a picture of Jesus calling us to come eat from the table...invites us to be saved but we are all way to busy. I love the picture this scripture provides.
---shira4368 on 1/29/13


Leon, I do repent everyday. There is no day I am perfect. But here you posted the question, you must know whose wedding it was. Stop keeping us in suspense. I cannot take it any longer. It's Tuesday and I have learned a lot today, but not that answer, so I am waiting.
---Mark_V. on 1/29/13


Cluny: I'm really not interested in the traditions, e.g., old wives tales, of men.
---Leon on 1/27/13
Since the bible does not say whose wedding it was, you will have to settle for tradition

Tradition may say it was the Bottles and James wedding

Thank you for your support
---francis on 1/29/13


Mark, Cluny: It is written: "An angry [argumentative, quarrelsome] man stirs up dissension, & a hot-tempered one commits many sins." (Proverbs 29:22)

Repent guys!!!
---Leon on 1/29/13


Read These Insightful Articles About Asthma


Leon, first of all I have no stones with me. Second, when you asked the question, you already knew the name of the bridegroom was not given in Scripture. Why did you ask the question? What are you looking for? This way people can answer and you won't get mad when they do answer. Does it have to do again with a blind spot you say people have? I ask because it could be that somewhere other then in that context, in another book of the Bible the name of the bridegroom is given that we might have missed.
---Mark_V. on 1/29/13


Leon, can you read and understand simple English prose?

I NEVER said that Jesus was the bridegroom at Cana. In fact, I said He was NOT.

BTW, what authority do you have for 27 books in the NT, and just those particular 27, OTHER than tradition? You don't actually think that God floated a list down, do you?

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 1/28/13


Cluny: I'm really not interested in the traditions, e.g., old wives tales, of men. In John 2:1-11, it says Jesus & the disciples were called (invited) to the wedding. So, obviously if Jesus were the bridegroom that wouldn't have been the case since he would've been at the center of attention in the proceedings, not just someone invite to the wedding. The Bible passages clearly indicates another (unnamed) man, not Jesus, was the bridegroom. Were Jesus the bridegroom, I believe the passages would've said so.

Also, the skewed beliefs of multitudes of mislead people isn't at issue here.

I am glad you read my question over the potentially misleading title given by the Mod. :)

Praise God from whom all blessings flow!
---Leon on 1/27/13


Copyright© 1996-2015 ChristiaNet®. All Rights Reserved.