Katy Posted July 10, 2017 Share Posted July 10, 2017 So I was playing an old Beginner's Bible episode for the kids (free on YouTube) and realized turning water into wine probably wasn't Jesus's first miracle. It was just the first one witnessed by the disciples. He'd probably been performing small miracles his whole life, how else would Mary have even thought of asking him? I'm guessing the stories she shared weren't considered reliable, because she was female. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PrincessMommy Posted July 10, 2017 Share Posted July 10, 2017 So I was playing an old Beginner's Bible episode for the kids (free on YouTube) and realized turning water into wine probably wasn't Jesus's first miracle. It was just the first one witnessed by the disciples. He'd probably been performing small miracles his whole life, how else would Mary have even thought of asking him? I'm guessing the stories she shared weren't considered reliable, because she was female. I don't know about the first part of your post as I haven't ever looked into what the early church Fathers/documents say about it. But to the 2nd, I highly doubt that is the case. She was indeed considered a very reliable first hand witness to Christ's life. This is why the Gospel of Luke has some details about His birth... because Luke spoke with her. Because she was believed to be the Mother of God she was highly revered by the Church. 12 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeachyDoodle Posted July 10, 2017 Share Posted July 10, 2017 So I was playing an old Beginner's Bible episode for the kids (free on YouTube) and realized turning water into wine probably wasn't Jesus's first miracle. It was just the first one witnessed by the disciples. He'd probably been performing small miracles his whole life, how else would Mary have even thought of asking him? I'm guessing the stories she shared weren't considered reliable, because she was female. Well, maybe. She obviously knew who he was and what he was capable of from before he was born. The wine thing would have seemed like an odd request if he hadn't been inclined to do such things before, privately. But she may also have been nudging him to go ahead and reveal himself publicly. He kind of chides her about that, a little. If Mary had tried to tell the people in their hometown that Jesus could do miracles while he was growing up, they probably did ignore her. But I'm not sure it was because she was a woman. When Jesus himself taught and actually performed great works there, they not only didn't believe in him, they were downright ticked (cf. Mk 6). And none of his brothers believed in him either, until after the resurrection. Jesus' miracles all seemed to be particularly selected to highlight Jesus' identity and mission. He never appears inclined to do miracles just for heck of it, or even just to help somebody out. So I'm not convinced that he was going around as a kid turning stones into bread or anything. Obviously, the church accepts Mary as a reliable witness. Almost everything in the first couple of chapters of Luke, for example, pretty much had to come from her. But historically speaking, she certainly would have been excluded as a legal witness within her community on the basis of her gender. 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellie Posted July 10, 2017 Share Posted July 10, 2017 So I was playing an old Beginner's Bible episode for the kids (free on YouTube) and realized turning water into wine probably wasn't Jesus's first miracle. It was just the first one witnessed by the disciples. He'd probably been performing small miracles his whole life, how else would Mary have even thought of asking him? I'm guessing the stories she shared weren't considered reliable, because she was female. Yeah, I don't think that's true. The Church has always venerated Mary; I don't think they'd brush off her comments or experiences because she was a woman. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carol in Cal. Posted July 10, 2017 Share Posted July 10, 2017 The Bible actually says that this was the first of His signs (miracles) that he performed, so I believe that it was. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldberry Posted July 10, 2017 Share Posted July 10, 2017 Yeah, I'm sorry but that post seems to contain a ton of assumptions. You can speculate those things, but there is no evidence for them from the Bible. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluegoat Posted July 10, 2017 Share Posted July 10, 2017 I've typically heard it described as his first public miracle. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lauraw4321 Posted July 10, 2017 Share Posted July 10, 2017 It is generally described as his first public miracle. Although, I tend to take the entire book of John with a grain of salt. I like to focus on the Synoptic gospels... for a lot of reasons. I do disagree with the characterization of Mary. Luke very clearly interviewed her to gain a lot of insight into Jesus's conception, birth and childhood. There are stories in the Christian tradition (small t) of Jesus performing childhood miracles, such as bringing a bird to life. No way to know if they happened or not this side of heaven, but it is clear that if the water into wine miracle happened, Mary had full faith in Jesus's ability to do as she asked. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terabith Posted July 11, 2017 Share Posted July 11, 2017 There's always the Infany Gospels of Thomas and James. They're a hoot. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infancy_Gospel_of_Thomas Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 11, 2017 Share Posted July 11, 2017 There's always the Infany Gospels of Thomas and James. They're a hoot. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infancy_Gospel_of_Thomas Yeah. Complete with graphic and creepy virginity checks. Ugh gross. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
6packofun Posted July 11, 2017 Share Posted July 11, 2017 Although, I tend to take the entire book of John with a grain of salt. I like to focus on the Synoptic gospels... for a lot of reasons. I'd love to hear your reasons. Is it mainly the later authorship than the others? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bolt. Posted July 11, 2017 Share Posted July 11, 2017 So I was playing an old Beginner's Bible episode for the kids (free on YouTube) and realized turning water into wine probably wasn't Jesus's first miracle. It was just the first one witnessed by the disciples. He'd probably been performing small miracles his whole life, how else would Mary have even thought of asking him? I'm guessing the stories she shared weren't considered reliable, because she was female.Mary was respected in the early Church during the composition of the Bible. Therefore any 'stories' she might or might not have shared with the newborn Christian community were probably respected. However the gospels are not a record 'everything Jesus had ever done in chronological order' -- that would be some sort of ridiculous extremely long log book without any sense of focus or message. This initial public miracle, including the roles for the earliest disciples and Mary, is an intentionally chosen episode in a crafted narrative. It is crafted in full truthfulness, but it still tells a specific story, in a specific way, using storytelling methodology, guiding the audience along a path to the author's point. To fill up the opening scenes of this narrative with inconsequential details like, "Jesus was an extraordinary child" or "Jesus showed signs of becoming a prophet in his 20s" -- would be unwise. Under inspiration, these authors are writing *gospels* (so you might be led to trust Jesus for salvation) not a random collection of all known Jesus trivia. It wouldn't have been a question of whether Mary's memories were reliable -- just whether they were relevant to the story arc. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lauraw4321 Posted July 11, 2017 Share Posted July 11, 2017 I'd love to hear your reasons. Is it mainly the later authorship than the others? I will admit to not studying this deeply, this is just based off of my personal reading of the Bible/Gospels. In my opinion the Jesus of John does not "sound like" the Jesus of the other gospels. His tone is excessively argumentative and lawyer-like. He likes to argue with people in a way to make them look stupid, or at least that's how it reads to me. That tone isn't reflected in the other Synoptic gospels, which marry up much more closely in terms of miracles recorded, actions, and tone. I'm also very bothered by the "disciple whom Jesus loved." It just feels...wrong. Also, Jesus's statements in John are so poetic and metaphorical, that they are hard to understand. That feeds into an idea of "secret knowledge" required for salvation, which I reject. The Book of Revelations, John's other canonical books, was also apparently barely included in the cannon to begin with. I take it also, with a giant grain of salt, and have concluded that there is very little of value to be obtained from studying it. It does more to divide the church and hinder the gospel than help it. I realize this probably makes me a heretic to some. I don't consider the Bible to be "inerrant." I do consider it to be the word of God. I think I probably belong in the Roman Catholic or Orthodox tradition, but there's too much cultural/family pressure to stay on the Protestant side of things. So I do. And generally keep my opinions to myself. Except anonymously on the internet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
6packofun Posted July 11, 2017 Share Posted July 11, 2017 I realize this probably makes me a heretic to some. I don't consider the Bible to be "inerrant." I do consider it to be the word of God. I think I probably belong in the Roman Catholic or Orthodox tradition, but there's too much cultural/family pressure to stay on the Protestant side of things. So I do. And generally keep my opinions to myself. Except anonymously on the internet. Maybe, but you're the one working through it, right? lol Anyway, thank you for explaining. I have always felt that giving a Gospel of John to new believers or people wanting to get to know the Bible is just NOT the best choice, so I understand a bit of where you're coming from. There are some interesting explanations for the differences that you might like to know...but I think it's totally OK to just not love a book of the Bible. :p Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluegoat Posted July 12, 2017 Share Posted July 12, 2017 Well, John has alway been my favorite gospel. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris in VA Posted July 12, 2017 Share Posted July 12, 2017 Jesus says to Mary that his time had not yet come--whether that meant he wasn't yet supposed to do a public miracle or he wasn't supposed to do any at all, or something else, who knows. I like to think he wasn't sitting there at the wedding thinking about changing the water into wine but then his mom asked him, and he realized he could help (had permission so to speak). Who knows. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.