John Chapter 2

[Mo0n5tar]

John Chapter 2

1 And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there:

2 And both Jesus was called, and his disciples, to the marriage.

3 And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, They have no wine.

4 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come.

5 His mother saith unto the servants, Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it.

6 And there were set there six waterpots of stone, after the manner of the purifying of the Jews, containing two or three firkins apiece.

7 Jesus saith unto them, Fill the waterpots with water. And they filled them up to the brim.

8 And he saith unto them, Draw out now, and bear unto the governor of the feast. And they bare it.

9 When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, and knew not whence it was: (but the servants which drew the water knew;) the governor of the feast called the bridegroom,

10 And saith unto him, Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse: but thou hast kept the good wine until now.

11 This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested forth his glory; and his disciples believed on him.

Apart from the obvious water to wine miracle we see that Jesus has been invited to a wedding, not only this but "his mother" (Mary is not mentioned in the gospel of John) is already there.

Verse 3 where she is the one asked for wine and verse 5 where she directs the servants, lead me to think she is there in some authoritative position, that of not a mere guest, perhaps I would be bold as to type: perhaps Jesus' mother in Law, I certainly think verse 9 "The Bridegroom", and verse 10 where the governer addresses the bridegroom read in a way that to me would imply Jesus was the one undergoing the marriage ceremony.

"Every man at the beginning doth set fourth good wine and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse, but thou hast kept the good wine until now."

[dedicate]

If you are trying to shake somebody's faith, I think you are on the wrong site, me ami. Try the fundamentalist sites that are in abundance. You will find all sorts of debate on this non-subject.

Do you really think that you can conclude that Jesus was the Bridegroom from what is said there? Sort of a loose assumption don't you think? I mean it is said, "Jesus .. was called to the wedding". Sort of a stupid thing to add if he was the bridegroom. But maybe he was the groom.

So what? Do you think somehow that will rock my religious beliefs? What does it matter if Jesus was married or not? Or if he had children, even? What does that matter? I believe Jesus' interpersonal familial relationships are not much mentioned because these things are not really of much importance. Rather the Gospels show that he was truely beyond those things.. and made all humanity his family and his mom and pop were in of his soul. So, he could have been married, could have children and 15 brothers and sisters. And he could have been "in love" with many women, and maybe even men. And maybe he was black in skin, maybe he had no beard and short hair. So what?

[dedicate]

I hope you don't feel that I'm being overly critical of your thesis, mickyjaystoned. It was nice that you posted, and my post wasn't realy directed at you personally.

We (me) see so many post on this particular site that seem to be veiled afronts to religion.. For example, people will come up with, "The Cross is an occult symbol.!".. or "The Bible has Astrological symbols all the way through it .. to include the 12 appostles!"... Like those truths somehow debunk religion. Really those things confirm my faith, so I wonder why someone would think they would, if true, derail it. These facts actually confirm the validity of the Bible, and can be used to bring people to the truth of the teachings (the hidden truths and the truths "they" don't want us knowing).

I'm posting this second addition because I've scanned the boards and haven't found much interesting to read there. Not much else going on. Later I'll add something about changing water to wine from 7 level points of view. Ha Ha.

[Mo0n5tar]

Well the thing that annoys me about this KJV of the bible is the cryptic Shakespearian language used in the translation, not to mention the multiple words used for single Hebrew words, in this very chapter the Governor of the Feast is referred to by two names, Governor and Ruler when the Greek architriklinos is used for both, seems to be pointlessly confusing wouldn't you say?

Don't you think it strange that the Shakespearian authors found it fitting to use two names for one person, or two translations for one word?


14 Then came to him the disciples of John, saying, Why do we and the Pharisees fast oft, but thy disciples fast not?

15 And Jesus said unto them, Can the children of the bridechamber mourn, as long as the bridegroom is with them? but the days will come, when the bridegroom shall be taken from them, and then shall they fast.

16 No man putteth a piece of new cloth unto an old garment, for that which is put in to fill it up taketh from the garment, and the rent is made worse.

17 Neither do men put new wine into old bottles: else the bottles break, and the wine runneth out, and the bottles perish: but they put new wine into new bottles, and both are preserved.

See here in Matthew chapter 9 vs.15 how Jesus refers to himself as the Bridegroom, letting them know the events to befall him in the future, also he uses this allegory in Mark Ch.2 and Luke Ch.5 to refer to himself as the Bridegroom (Greek nymphios).

In John though we see the "architriklinos" addresses the Bridegroom, what he says is quite interesting and also tells me he is speaking with the Son of Man.

link (http://www.swedenborgdigitallibrary.org/FHS/fhs44.htm)
The comment made by the Master of Ceremonies was probably intended merely as a graceful compliment. But actually, in saying what he did, he laid his finger on the difference between what is natural and what is spiritual. In the universe of nature, everything does tend to degenerate - the best coming first, and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse. Our property deteriorates. Our houses, furniture, clothes, automobiles, everything is corrupted by rust and turns to dust. Our bodies are fighting a losing battle against death, and must one day succumb.... Also (and this is slightly different) our interest in material concerns tends to wither. Pleasure cloys. What thrilled and excited us in our youth now bores us. There is a general running down and exhaustion as we grow older, like the deterioration of wine at a feast. This dulling of the sensation of pleasure accounts for the almost universal opinion held by people past middle age, that the world is not as good as it used to be. In fact, it is going to the dogs! Oh, for the good old days, when everything was better and more enjoyable than today! How dreadful the young people are now, compared with when we were young. There are no great men any more. Art and music are inferior. There are no good plays or books. Oh, the wine was glorious in those far-off days of our youth; but now it is growing sour, and soon there won't be anything left worth drinking....

"Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse." It is cynical, but true. That is how things go. But with the Lord's intervention, it is just the other way about! Everything gets better and better, and the best is left till last.

Cheers Ded i'll check that out.

[dedicate]

Who knows what the translators were doing? Who knows what political motivations they had? Who knows how intelligent they were? That's a study all it's own. I think that there may not have been more than three Hebrew scholors who worked on the KJV translation. Most of the translators, I believe, just looked at a word -- and then looked it up in a dictionary -- and decided it meant that. Then who knows what was removed, added to and watered down?

But there are still grains of truth there. Still something there. If you are intelligent enough, it shouldn't be much of a problem.

Read the story of Adam and Eve in the original Hebrew. You get a very different understanding of the story then the one we are told. In Hebrew, the Garden of Eden is the word GENARDEN.. or quite litterally, "garden". So Adam and Eve were not in the garden of eden they were in either THE GARDEN or just EDEN (loose transliteration). So why did the translators translate the word GenARDEN as Garden of Eden? They used the English word that the Hebrew word signifies and the Hebrew word in semi-transliteration? -- Garden of Eden..
They were obviously not allowed to add the mystical teaching? In other words, the translators were not allowed to state that GENARDEN signifies both a phisical garden AND A STATE OF BLISS -- gEnarDEN means a state of bliss. It might be that one of the translators wanted to use the term GARDEN OF BLISS but that was not allowed, so they kept the word Garden and used the term Eden to hide the truth of bliss from the public. Then a whole mythology around the Garden of Eden, as some far off place, was built up around this translation.

But the GENARDEN is not just some far off place. It is always with you. A state of Bliss is always with you. Just get rid of the knowledge of good and evil, stop blaiming yourself, stop trying to make meaning out of life, stop feeling so important,, LIKE A CHILD and you are in THE GARDEN OF EDEN.

[Mo0n5tar]

Genesis 2:8 ¶ And the Lord God had planted a paradise of pleasure from the beginning: wherein he placed man whom he had formed.

Genesis 2:9 And the Lord God brought forth of the ground all manner of trees, fair to behold, and pleasant to eat of: the tree of life also in the midst of paradise: and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

This is from the Douay Rheims american bible, translated from Jeromes Latin Vulgate and it fails to mention either a Garden or Eden, but my strongs translated garden as Gan not genarden, where do you get that from?

H1588
גּן
גַּן ‎ gan


1) garden, enclosure
1a) enclosed garden
1a1) (fig. of a bride)
1b) garden (of plants)

n pr loc
1c) Garden of Eden

Derived from

H1598
גּנן
גָּנַן ‎ gânan
gaw-nan‘
A primitive root; to hedge about, that is, (generally) protect: - defend.

After they were created they were put into an enclosed garden, which was seperated from the previously created creatures of the earth, which was "Eastward in Eden".

Here is the footnote from the companion bible:

Eastward in Eden=In the cuneiform texts=the plain of babylonia, known in the Accado-Sumerian as edin="the fertile plain", called by it's inhabitants Edinu. In hebrew. Eden, in Septuagint.Paradise.

The story of Eden for me points to a new creation separate from something pre-existing.

[dedicate]

I go to the original Hebrew text, as kept safe and true by scribes for thousands of years.

You are going to some other book (strongs)to tell you what another mistranslated book is saying. --i.e. one mistranslated book is verified by another book of misinformation. STRONGS CONCORDANCE IS A BOOK OF MISINFORMATION!!!!

Garden of Eden.. or Paradise of Pleasure.. is one SIX LETTER word in Hebrew..--. Genarden. Look it up. You should at least be somewhat aware that Gan. was close? So did you wonder, "where the word "eden" or "pleasure" come from?"


The original Hebrew it is a six letter word. Gimmel, Nun, Kesh, Ayen, Daleth, and Nun.... In english,, GNKADN. with vowel sounds implied, -- something like GeNkadin with a soft "K"> This is going all from memory, so I may be wrong about something. ONE SIX LETTER WORD.-- close to english GARDEN but with implied bliss. That concordance and many others, totally obliviate the second half of the word!! Look it up. Do some research. What happen to the four letters after GN if GN means garden?

we might even get our word garden from this six letter word in Gen. 2:8

As for your idea about God sanctioning off a plot of land and having it guarded and all that. That's the children's story. Some truth for it, but for the Sunday school grade 1. Time to grow up.

[Mo0n5tar]

Thanks for approaching your teaching with such understanding and compassion, I find your helpful tone such a great help, the most helpful thing you could do is to link me to an article supporting your point.

Fancy sharing what angle you are coming from with your points, I take it you read Hebrew.

[dedicate]

I'm not being that rough on you, am I?

As for an article to back up my arguement. I don't know what you mean. You've got to get away from needing outside confirmation of truth.

I did read a book some time ago, THE KABBALLA OF GENESIS, where the author was doing the same sort of creative conceptual free form that I am doing here. He recommended it. What I wrote here was "off the top".

I believe it is a well known fact that there are 72 official Rabbinical tranlsations of the first two words in Genesis.. Do you know that? Bereshet Bera.. or Creation Creating, Let us start here, etc... Not "In the Begining". Ancient Hebrew is like that.

Each letter in the Hebrew Alphabet (also a word derived from Hebrew), is rich in meaning. When a letter is placed at the start of a word, middle or ending it is significant. The # of letters in a word is important. The # of words in a sentence is important too. Letters denote #s (there are no numbers in ancient Hebrew), and the #'s have meaning. Not like English, eh?

Translating the original Hebrew to English is like trying to describe a sunset; its' two different things. This is what should be taught people, rather than the childish story about a boat with all the animals floating about. OR SEVEN LITERAL DAYS OF CREATION. Rediculous.

To say that God created the universe in seven days is just one way of seeing it out of 5 million ways of saying it. But here we have a world that repeats the one way of seeing it 5 million times, like Tommy One Note. Boring, drives people away. Better, instead, to add new meaning every single time you speak on it. Gives us interest in the scripture. Attracts people.

[dedicate]

It's funny that we went from John Ch.2 to Gen.Ch.2. Did you put 2+2 together and get 1? I've always thought that John was a mystical text, not understood by even many in the clergy (which is why they are always quoting from it to make their points).. I've also thought that John 1.1, that is,-- In the Begining was the Word and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The Same was in the beginning with God.." is a kabballistic rendering, just like mentioned earlier, of Genisis 1:1. John is retelling the Genisis creation story. Then Chapter 2 .. from the marriage in Eden (Adam and Eve) to the marriage at Canin. Water to Wine. Water to Wine.

The original poster may be more right than wrong. Gan may be Garden. I don't know. The second part of the word yden.. may be Eden. I've looked into other times when Garden was used alone,, and just Eden,,, and Garden of Eden used in other verses.. and it is not clear. Especially with such poor trnaslations, and me not having a solid background in Ancient Hebrew.

I re-read Gen.2 and 3.. and must say, these two chapters are the most confusing chapters ever devised. No way could anyone make any sense of it, from an English analytical standpoint. In the King James Version.. "Man" is used to nearly verse 23 and suddenly is changed to "Adam". No reason at all for the change. The Hebrew word is the same but the translation changes. Newer translations don't use the word "Adam" (a transliteration of aDM) at all, but just "man". So I guess the term 'Adam and Eve' IS a fairy tale and means just MAN and WOMAN.? There was never an Adam, because the word means "man" in Hebrew. Maybe, I don't know.:p

[kblood]

Thanks for sharing :)

[Mo0n5tar]

Dedicate you raise some important points, that is interesting what you mention about John 2 being somewhat similar to Genesis, I am always open to hearing others views on the Bible as I have no real convictions of my own on it, I just read it independently and with a critical eye, reading the account of Marriage in Cana It made immediate sense that the Bridegroom was Jesus.

I have been reading a bit of prehistory recently and I find the use of Tohu Va Bohu in Genesis 1 very interesting, also the parallels to Mesopotamian mythology, and the replacing of the sacred 9 with the monotheistic supreme deity, also no cosmic Egg as we see in Hindu, Egyptian and Asian creation accounts.

With departing our polytheistic heritage, acknowledging every aspect of nature and the world as divine, seems to have developed an ignorance of and disconnection from nature, like a closing of our eyes and ears, or a hardening of our heart as described in the bible, but that is the very thing Genesis' creation has done, replaced and edited prior accounts which attribute creation to multiple divine forces, and made it the work of One supreme deity, sounds very Amarnian/Egyptian to me.

Regards.