Jesus turning water to wine is a metaphor...

[pacer]

Mr. Dawkins is a highly intelligent, accomplished scientist. You, M.D., come across as insecure and envious. You certainly cannot insult Mr. Dawkins' intelligence and therefore resort to name-calling and posting verbal diarrhea. It certainly speaks to your character.

 

[hobelim]

If the turning of water into wine is metaphorical, there could not have been a response from the people that were drinking the wine. But there was. They commented on it being superb, and commended the host for saving the best wine for last, which means they actually drank the wine in question.

It was a wedding party during a very depressing time of brutal roman occupation. Wasn't much to be happy about.

Any happy or hopeful conversations ran dry fast and turned to the depressing stale water they talked about all the time, like downtrodden people talking about the weather..

Mary nudged Jesus into talking about some of the ideas he had been fermenting which revived the party and even made people hopeful about the future during the most unlikely of circumstances......

there goes another one of those 7 seals placed on scripture.........

 

[HenryBHough]

How about "fomenting"?
Or are we talking about how the initial stock of wine first ceased being mere grapes?

 

[daws101]

If the turning of water into wine is metaphorical, there could not have been a response from the people that were drinking the wine. But there was. They commented on it being superb, and commended the host for saving the best wine for last, which means they actually drank the wine in question.

.there is no way to tell if what they drank was miracled up by jesus or brought in by others...

 

[HenryBHough]

How would Jesus have squared HIS wine not having a union label with those who associate Him with fair treatment of all who labour?

 

[hobelim]

How about "fomenting"?
Or are we talking about how the initial stock of wine first ceased being mere grapes?

I'm suggesting the wine that ran out was symbolic of cheerful conversation running dry.

"Although the Lord gives you the bread of adversity and the water of affliction, your teachers will be hidden no more; with your own eyes you will see them." Isaiah 30:20

After any cheerful sentiments about a happy marriage ran dry, like running out of wine before the party was over, all that was left to talk about, drink, was the water of affliction.

Jesus turned the water of affliction, the hard to not notice brutal Roman occupation, into a fine wine by revealing what had been hidden in the teaching of the Torah....

"your teachers will be hidden no more; with your own eyes you will see them."


Here it is important to note that the marking of Gods servants occurs between the breaking of the sixth and seventh seals securing the faithful from destruction.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

for anyone who doesn't understand it is metaphor there is little hope

 

[hobelim]

for anyone who doesn't understand it is metaphor there is little hope

"They pay no heed to the real hidden meaning of things, but divert themselves instead with all kinds of iniquitous arcane lore. They do not know the hidden meaning of what is actually taking place, nor have they ever understood the lessons of the past. Consequently, they have no knowledge of what is coming upon them and have done nothing to save their souls from the deeper implications of present events."

THE DEAD SEA SCRIPTURES, The Triumph Of YAHWEH, (Of Thanksgiving for Victory (xviii 1-15).

 

[Peterf]

Dawkins' response is brain-dead stupid. All he's really saying in his denial that Christ could not have performed miracles is that he doesn't believe that God exists. Well, we already knew that. The redundancy of his blather flies right over his head.

Think about that for a moment (as more than a moment is too long) and grasp just how incredibly stupid Dawkins truly is for all his learning. With regard to everyday-walk-in-the-park logic, the man is a retard.

How is saying that Christ could not perform miracles because he was not god in any way illogical? Calling Mr Dawkins a 'retard' tells me nothing about him but a lot about you.

Ding Ding Ding. We got one who can't make the extrapolation!

So with even more than a moment to think about it, you still didn't grasp the redundancy of Dawkins' stupidity?

Dawkins asked a THEIST if he believes that Christ performed the miracle of transforming water into wine, and then stupidly implied that the THEIST’S belief was irrational. . . .

Still don’t see it, Einstein?

Obviously, the Creator of the universe can easily transform water into wine--an after thought, a trifle, a shrug, a leisurely walk in the park. There’s nothing irrational about a THEIST believing that the Creator could do such a thing.

Still don’t see it, Einstein?

Aside from the creation itself, whatever else could possibly constitute an empirical demonstration of God’s existence but a miracle, i.e., an introduction of something new into the creation or a momentary suspension of the physical laws that normally govern the natural world?

Still don’t see it, Einstein?

All Dawkins really said, redundantly, was that God doesn’t exist in the first place. Well, gee wiz, we already knew that!

Do you see it now, Einstein? LOL!

Here, see if you can handle this one: Prufrock's Lair: A Mountain of Nothin' out of Somethin' or Another

Our colleague Pacer calls your post 'verbal diarrhoea' and who am i to disgree?

 

[Moonglow]

Jews drink a lot of wine, they even use it in their ceremonies...

 

[Peterf]

Jews drink a lot of wine, they even use it in their ceremonies...

Yep. Just one of the things I like about Jews.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Actually, Jesus did not have anything to do with wine. I was raised in the deep South, and went to a Baptist church. They explained to us that "wine" was what they used to call grape juice in those days. That way, they the church did not have to serve real wine with the wafers at communion. Apparently, according to the Baptists, Jesus really enjoyed Welshes...

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Mr. Dawkins is a highly intelligent, accomplished scientist. You, M.D., come across as insecure and envious. You certainly cannot insult Mr. Dawkins' intelligence and therefore resort to name-calling and posting verbal diarrhea. It certainly speaks to your character.

Oh shut up. The obvious flew right over your head. In fact, virtually all of the observations made by the atheists on this thread are exercises in futility.

Character?

Dawkins intent was to ridicule, deride, scorn; yet the underlying, implied argument of his rhetorical question is redundantly nonsensical. In fact, Dawkins has been widely criticized, by me and many others, for his part in this very exchange. It’s infamous. And Dawkins has admitted that it wasn’t one of his finer moments.

I'm insecure?

Project much?

LOL!

Dawkins is a philosophical and theological hack, utterly incompetent. He doesn’t fly anywhere near the altitude of my intellect in that regard. It’s not even close. He’s been routed time and time again by guys like me with both sides of our brains tied behind our backs, and I routinely rip the idiotic chemistry and biology of atheism to shreds . . . an afterthought, as lifting a pebble off the ground.

For example: Prufrock's Lair: Abiogenesis: The Unholy Grail of Atheism

You don't have the first clue as to who you're talking to, do you?

This is old news, an embarrassing moment for Dawkins, and yet many of you remain utterly clueless.

“[R]esort to name-calling”?! “[P]osting verbal diarrhea”?!

Your criticisms are silly, and I note that you provide no discernibly relevant refutation of my unassailable deconstruction of Dawkins’ fallacious drivel. It’s not my fault you’re too stupid to grasp or too corrupt to acknowledge the truth of that.

The concern of honest intellects is not name-calling or derision in and of themselves, but such things backed by nothing but ad hominem, unsubstantiated attacks on the man or the position he holds, which is especially bad form when the perpetrator’s implied argument is sheer stupidity.

The only braying jackasses engaging in that sort of thing in this exchange is Dawkins . . . and you.

Armature. Lightweight. Schmuck.

You are refuted.

The bottom line:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m846oKiYQCY]Frank Turek Teaches an Atheist a Lesson - YouTube[/ame]

You are refuted again.

The fact of the matter is that beyond the tripe fed to sheep in the schools of today and by popular culture, atheists, who are forever confounding the imperatives of ontology with those of epistemology, the distinction between metaphysics and science, or the distinction between agency and mechanism, are routinely routed in debate against philosophers and theologians like me, you know, the real thing, unlike the self-anointed frauds of secularism, sophomoric yahoos sitting around and congratulating themselves for what is in fact nothing more than the mental masturbation of infants, as they cannot control the flow of argument from their faulty premises to their imbecilic conclusions. Throughout history, atheists have always been the most unimaginative and unoriginal hacks of thought. All of the very greatest minds have understood at a glance that the eternally existent first cause must be sentient and immaterial.

God loves you, pacer. Stop being stupid. Dawkins is a fool. And the atheist's nonsense has never held up against the facts and the logic of existence.

Behold what happens to atheism when confronted by the might of real logic and intellectual fire power. . . .

Who created God? What an idiot Dawkins is, another embarrassingly stupid thing to say. God, by definition, is the uncreated, eternally self-subsistent origin of all other things.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Domm1mvTEh0]The God Delusion Debate: Richard Dawkins and Dr. John Lennox - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9t6Fkhu_MA]John Lennox vs Richard Dawkins debate (Full) - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8MzPmkNsgU]Debate: Atheist vs Christian (Christopher Hitchens vs William Lane Craig) - YouTube[/ame]

My work is done here.

 

[daws101]

Actually, Jesus did not have anything to do with wine. I was raised in the deep South, and went to a Baptist church. They explained to us that "wine" was what they used to call grape juice in those days. That way, they the church did not have to serve real wine with the wafers at communion. Apparently, according to the Baptists, Jesus really enjoyed Welshes...

funny, the Mormons tell that same lie!

 

[hobelim]

Actually, Jesus did not have anything to do with wine. I was raised in the deep South, and went to a Baptist church. They explained to us that "wine" was what they used to call grape juice in those days. That way, they the church did not have to serve real wine with the wafers at communion. Apparently, according to the Baptists, Jesus really enjoyed Welshes...

funny, the Mormons tell that same lie!

and a lie it is. Jesus would not have been accused of being a drunkard and a glutton if he was drinking grape juice.

grape juice. What a load of crap!

 

[daws101]

Actually, Jesus did not have anything to do with wine. I was raised in the deep South, and went to a Baptist church. They explained to us that "wine" was what they used to call grape juice in those days. That way, they the church did not have to serve real wine with the wafers at communion. Apparently, according to the Baptists, Jesus really enjoyed Welshes...

funny, the Mormons tell that same lie!

and a lie it is. Jesus would not have been accused of being a drunkard and a glutton if he was drinking grape juice.

grape juice. What a load of crap!

yep I didn't buy that steaming pile even at 7 years old.