18 Oct 17
Originally posted by @handyandyThat was my thumbs up, Andy, btw.
A parable is a brief allegorical story, not literal fact, designed to illustrate a point. But you already knew that.
18 Oct 17
Putting aside all the science v religion arguments for a minute, I agree with Handy Andy that the bible stories are not meant to be taken literally.I think a lot of exaggeration and mis - interpretation has falsified the stories as they were passed down by word of mouth and probably a lot of rubbish spoken by religious fanatics in their attempts to "convert" more to the cause.
To me it smacks of the 72 virgins promised by Islamist fanatics and the Hans Christian Anderson story -the Kings new clothes.
The operative word here is stories i.e not fact.
18 Oct 17
Originally posted by @handyandyJesus taught with specific parables such as the parable of the sewing of the seeds.
A parable is a brief allegorical story, not literal fact, designed to illustrate a point. But you already knew that.
I suppose one could claim how to view the Bible in general but the turning the water into wine is not identified in the Bible as a parable.
18 Oct 17
Originally posted by @vendaSo you are a liberal, go figure.
Putting aside all the science v religion arguments for a minute, I agree with Handy Andy that the bible stories are not meant to be taken literally.I think a lot of exaggeration and mis - interpretation has falsified the stories as they were passed down by word of mouth and probably a lot of rubbish spoken by religious fanatics in their attempts to "convert" ...[text shortened]... istian Anderson story -the Kings new clothes.
The operative word here is stories i.e not fact.
In this thread the story of turning water into wine is assumed literal and true.
18 Oct 17
Originally posted by @eladarDoes the wine have properties of wine that has been aged? If so, why? Is Jesus incapable of making new wine that's as good or better than aged wine? If Jesus performs miracles so people believe in him, why would he make aged wine that would cast doubt on the wine being newly made?
If one could go back in time, take a sample of that wine moments after Jesus turned water into wine, could science determine the process by which it was made. Assuming Jesus made actual wine based on actual grapes, could science determine the kind of grape used? How long it was allowed to age?
And why would you assume the wine was made from actual grapes? The bible story says it was made from water.
18 Oct 17
Originally posted by @vivifyAccording to the Bible old wine is better than new wine amd Jesus' wine was supposed to be the best at the wedding.
Does the wine have properties of wine that has been aged? If so, why? Is Jesus incapable of making new wine that's as good or better than aged wine? If Jesus performs miracles so people believe in him, why would he make aged wine that would cast doubt on the wine being newly made?
And why would you assume the wine was made from actual grapes? The bible story says it was made from water.
In any case, could a scientist tell this wine was made from water not grapes?
18 Oct 17
Originally posted by @eladarIf it isn't a parable, what is it?
Jesus taught with specific parables such as the parable of the sewing of the seeds.
I suppose one could claim how to view the Bible in general but the turning the water into wine is not identified in the Bible as a parable.
18 Oct 17
Originally posted by @handyandyIt is just a written account which can be interpreted any way you wish.
If it isn't a parable, what is it?
In this thread the assumption is literally true account.
18 Oct 17
1 edit
Originally posted by @eladarLet me help you out with the experimental design here.
It is just a written account which can be interpreted any way you wish.
In this thread the assumption is literally true account.
If an omniscient presence created wine de novo, with the intended purpose of making it look and taste like wine, one hypothesis is that this wine would contain a unique chemical composition compared to a wine made from grapes. Even good wines can be bitter, or odd-tasting. We might also find that certain compounds like some vitamins, which taste sour or bitter, are omitted even though they show up in regular wine. A perfect wine would be able to overcome the limitations of biological sources of sugar and carbohydrates.
If you discover a unique chemical compound (sugar, carbo, vitamins) in the wine with no biological source, then it would be reasonable to conclude that it was made synthetically. The omission of other compounds that are typically seen in wine would be evidence but not conclusive proof that the wine was not made from biological sources.
If, however, there was no measurable distinction between Jesus' wine and regular wine, then we should reasonably conclude that the wine was made by traditional means using grapes and fermentation.
18 Oct 17
Originally posted by @wildgrassNo, he a tially made wine.
Let me help you out with the experimental design here.
If an omniscient presence created wine de novo, with the intended purpose of making it look and taste like wine, one hypothesis is that this wine would contain a unique chemical composition compared to a wine made from grapes. Even good wines can be bitter, or odd-tasting. We might also find that c ...[text shortened]... d reasonably conclude that the wine was made by traditional means using grapes and fermentation.
18 Oct 17
Originally posted by @handyandyNo, I would call it truth. You and most people here would call it fantasy.
Wouldn't you call that fantasy?
In any case, the assumption in this thread is that it is true.