Water into wine: natural or supernatural?

[gnostic]

I don't take it all literally. The bible is a collection of books by many different authors over hundreds and hundreds of years. It's never been a science book to me.

The Bible has never been science book to me too, even when I did believe in the scriptures.

it wasn’t until I had joined my 1st forum (which is not RF) in 2003, that I had encountered evolution vs creation debates for the 1st time.

 

[John D. Brey]

From my perspective, and my understanding of chemistry, this cannot be possible, let alone probable. This would only be possible if you believe in miracle, a supernatural occurrence. That's just simply blind faith, a conviction that the story is true.

One of, if not thee, greatest historians of the evolution and function of the scientific-method, Sir Karl Popper, said two critically important things concerning your comment. First, he said for science to occur, something like blind faith in a proposition is necessary, and two, he said all science is derived from articles of blind faith. Science's job is to use observation and experimentation to deconstruct and prove false, articles of faith that appear to be based on nothing but blind, maybe even ignorant, faith.

During his studies concerning the scientific-method, Popper came to realize that what most people think is the genesis of science, i.e., observation and experimentation, in truth, is not the genesis, but merely a second tier process required for science. In his destruction of the fallacy of inductive logic, Popper showed that scientific growth occurs not by observation, but by pitting ideas and beliefs that transcend observation against observation in a systematic matter (by means of experimentation).

​

What prevented Anaximander from arriving at the theory that the earth was a globe rather than a drum? There can be little doubt: it was observational experience which taught him that the surface of the earth was, by and large, flat. Thus it was a speculative and critical argument, the abstract critical discussion of Thales theory, which almost led him to the true theory of the shape of the earth: it was observational experience which led him astray.​

​

Conjectures and Refutations, p. 139.​

Popper examines one of, if not thee, greatest proofs concerning the human mind's power to perceive things that go beyond observation when he studies Bishop Berkeley's statement that a chair doesn't exist when no one is there to observe it. Berkeley wrote a long, logical, treatise, through which he used concepts found in the Gospels to state that based on the Gospels a chair only exists when looking at it. Popper, and numerous other world class scientists state that Berkeley's statement caused immense attempts to prove it wrong through experimentation eventuating, eventually, in the current understanding of quantum physics that far from refuting Berkeley, came about because of Berkeley, Kant, and those Christian men whose blind faith in Christian concepts eventuated in modern physics.

One thing that has always struck me forcefully about this doctrine of Kant's is that it legitimates important components of a belief which he had held since long before he began to philosophize, namely Christian belief. It is a standard part of the traditional Christian faith that time and space and material objects are local characteristics of this human world of ours, but only of this world: they do not characterize reality as such . . . But what he did, unmistakably (and unremarked on to an extent that has never ceased to astonish me), is produce rational justification for many aspects of the religious beliefs in which he grew up [Christian belief] . . . it is as if he then said to himself: "How can these things be so? What can be the nature of time and space and material objects if they obtain only in the world of human beings? Could it be, given that they characterize only the world of experience and nothing else, that they are characteristics, or preconditions, of experience, and nothing else?" In other words, Kant's philosophy is a fully worked out analysis of what needs to be the case for what he believed already to be true [according to his pre-existing religious theory].​

​

Bryan Magee, Confessions of a Philosopher p. 249,250.​

​

The picture of science of which I have so far only hinted may be sketched as follows. There is a reality behind the world as it appears to us, possibly a many-layered reality, of which the appearances are the outermost layers. What the great scientist does is boldly to guess, daringly to conjecture, what these inner realities are like. This is akin to myth making.​

​

Popper Selections, p. 122.​

In the same sense quantum physics proves that to be is to be perceived, so too, modern physics will eventually show that Jesus' turning water to wine is precisely what every biblical "miracle" is: the production of an event that transcends the understanding of the contemporaries viewing it but which in no way relies on anything but what is real and repeatable if the necessary elements required to repeat the event are fully understood and obtainable.



John

 

[gnostic]

One of, if not thee, greatest historians of the evolution and function of the scientific-method, Sir Karl Popper, said two critically important things concerning your comment. First, he said for science to occur, something like blind faith in a proposition is necessary, and two, he said all science is derived from articles of blind faith. Science's job is to use observation and experimentation to deconstruct and prove false, articles of faith that appear to be based on nothing but blind, maybe even ignorant, faith.

During his studies concerning the scientific-method, Popper came to realize that what most people think is the genesis of science, i.e., observation and experimentation, in truth, is not the genesis, but merely a second tier process required for science. In his destruction of the fallacy of inductive logic, Popper showed that scientific growth occurs not by observation, but by pitting ideas and beliefs that transcend observation against observation in a systematic matter (by means of experimentation).

​

What prevented Anaximander from arriving at the theory that the earth was a globe rather than a drum? There can be little doubt: it was observational experience which taught him that the surface of the earth was, by and large, flat. Thus it was a speculative and critical argument, the abstract critical discussion of Thales theory, which almost led him to the true theory of the shape of the earth: it was observational experience which led him astray.​

​

Conjectures and Refutations, p. 139.​

Popper examines one of, if not thee, greatest proofs concerning the human mind's power to perceive things that go beyond observation when he studies Bishop Berkeley's statement that a chair doesn't exist when no one is there to observe it. Berkeley wrote a long, logical, treatise, through which he used concepts found in the Gospels to state that based on the Gospels a chair only exists when looking at it. Popper, and numerous other world class scientists state that Berkeley's statement caused immense attempts to prove it wrong through experimentation eventuating, eventually, in the current understanding of quantum physics that far from refuting Berkeley, came about because of Berkeley, Kant, and those Christian men whose blind faith in Christian concepts eventuated in modern physics.

One thing that has always struck me forcefully about this doctrine of Kant's is that it legitimates important components of a belief which he had held since long before he began to philosophize, namely Christian belief. It is a standard part of the traditional Christian faith that time and space and material objects are local characteristics of this human world of ours, but only of this world: they do not characterize reality as such . . . But what he did, unmistakably (and unremarked on to an extent that has never ceased to astonish me), is produce rational justification for many aspects of the religious beliefs in which he grew up [Christian belief] . . . it is as if he then said to himself: "How can these things be so? What can be the nature of time and space and material objects if they obtain only in the world of human beings? Could it be, given that they characterize only the world of experience and nothing else, that they are characteristics, or preconditions, of experience, and nothing else?" In other words, Kant's philosophy is a fully worked out analysis of what needs to be the case for what he believed already to be true [according to his pre-existing religious theory].​

​

Bryan Magee, Confessions of a Philosopher p. 249,250.​

​

The picture of science of which I have so far only hinted may be sketched as follows. There is a reality behind the world as it appears to us, possibly a many-layered reality, of which the appearances are the outermost layers. What the great scientist does is boldly to guess, daringly to conjecture, what these inner realities are like. This is akin to myth making.​

​

Popper Selections, p. 122.​

In the same sense quantum physics proves that to be is to be perceived, so too, modern physics will eventually show that Jesus' turning water to wine is precisely what every biblical "miracle" is: the production of an event that transcends the understanding of the contemporaries viewing it but which in no way relies on anything but what is real and repeatable if the necessary elements required to repeat the event are fully understood and obtainable.



John

While that's all interesting, it is not blind faith in HOW wine are made from process of fermentation of grape juice…You don’t require faith to make wine, as yeasts will convert sugar into alcohol and carbon dioxide. And people have been making centuries and even millennia before the gospel story of the miracle at Cana, and they have made wine without having the knowledge of science behind winemaking.

Yeasts are single-celled organisms, of which the genus Saccharomyces, in which the Saccharomyces cerevisiae & Saccharomyces bayanus being two examples of species that tends to grow on skins of ripe grapes. When the grapes are pressed and the skins mixed with the juice, fermentation will take place when the yeasts feed on the natural sugar in the grape juice: the yeast metabolism is what changed the properties of sugars into byproducts of carbon dioxide & alcohol, and the mix of alcohol & grape juice are what make it wine.

That‘s just chemistry for modern winemakers to know, but for the ancient winemakers without chemistry, it would come from experiences in knowing how to make wine.

So for water alone to turn into wine (as it narrated in John 2), then that would require magic transformation - what the gospel (of John) and Christians would call “a miracle” - * hallelujah! *

The fact is that water contains neither grape juice, nor sugar, plus yeasts wouldn’t grow on water.

A miracle that defied the natural law (in this case, biology & biochemistry); so when people believe such a story of miracle to be true, then…that’s what you would call “blind faith”.

 

[John D. Brey]

While that's all interesting, it is not blind faith in HOW wine are made from process of fermentation of grape juice…You don’t require faith to make wine, as yeasts will convert sugar into alcohol and carbon dioxide. And people have been making centuries and even millennia before the gospel story of the miracle at Cana, and they have made wine without having the knowledge of science behind winemaking.

Yeasts are single-celled organisms, of which the genus Saccharomyces, in which the Saccharomyces cerevisiae & Saccharomyces bayanus being two examples of species that tends to grow on skins of ripe grapes. When the grapes are pressed and the skins mixed with the juice, fermentation will take place when the yeasts feed on the natural sugar in the grape juice: the yeast metabolism is what changed the properties of sugars into byproducts of carbon dioxide & alcohol, and the mix of alcohol & grape juice are what make it wine.

That‘s just chemistry for modern winemakers to know, but for the ancient winemakers without chemistry, it would come from experiences in knowing how to make wine.

So for water alone to turn into wine (as it narrated in John 2), then that would require magic transformation - what the gospel (of John) and Christians would call “a miracle” - * hallelujah! *

The fact is that water contains neither grape juice, nor sugar, plus yeasts wouldn’t grow on water.

A miracle that defied the natural law (in this case, biology & biochemistry); so when people believe such a story of miracle to be true, then…that’s what you would call “blind faith”.

If someone brought a couple I-phones into a deep woods village of a group of aboriginal peoples who had never had contact with the outside world and let them communicate with one another on video phone, to them (the aboriginals), these tools (the I-phones) would be absolutely miraculous since nothing in their world (or their form of conceptualization) can account for how something like these phones could exist. It would have to come from some other world since the aboriginal mind can't imagine how rocks, wood, water, organic materials as it were, could be assembled into the I-phone.

The wine produced in Cana is the I-phone here. And although our modern scientific education far exceeds the form of conceptualism that circumscribes the aboriginal's epistemology, we are, all of us, aboriginal in relationship to the science available to Jesus. He could no more explain the workings of his turning water into wine to us or his contemporaries than we could explain a semiconductor chip to aboriginals who's idea of extreme design technicality is a rock attached to a stick with chicken intestines. Like the stubborn aboriginal all proud with their contemporary worldview believing it to be the epitome of knowledge and observational reality, we too are completely in the dark since we, like they, misconstrue our own ---admittedly impressive ---knowledge and insight as being something it simple is not.

Every language and every well-knit technical sublanguage incorporates certain points of view and certain patterned resistances to widely divergent points of view. . . These resistances not only isolate artificially the particular sciences from each other; they also restrain the scientific spirit as a whole from taking the next great step in development—a step which entails viewpoints unprecedented in science and a complete severance from traditions. For certain linguistic patterns rigidified in the dialectics of the sciences—often also embedded in the matrix of European culture from which those sciences have sprung, and long worshiped as pure Reason per se—have been worked to death. Even science senses that they are somehow out of focus for observing what may be very significant aspects of reality, upon the due observation of which all further progress in understanding the universe may hinge.​

​

Benjamin Whorf, Language, Thought and Reality, p. 352-353. Kindle Edition.​

John

 

[Pogo]

If someone brought a couple I-phones into a deep woods village of a group of aboriginal peoples who had never had contact with the outside world and let them communicate with one another on video phone, to them (the aboriginals), these tools (the I-phones) would be absolutely miraculous since nothing in their world (or their form of conceptualization) can account for how something like these phones could exist. It would have to come from some other world since the aboriginal mind can't imagine how rocks, wood, water, organic materials as it were, could be assembled into the I-phone.

The wine produced in Cana is the I-phone here. And although our modern scientific education far exceeds the form of conceptualism that circumscribes the aboriginal's epistemology, we are, all of us, aboriginal in relationship to the science available to Jesus. He could no more explain the workings of his turning water into wine to us or his contemporaries than we could explain a semiconductor chip to aboriginals who's idea of extreme design technicality is a rock attached to a stick with chicken intestines. Like the stubborn aboriginal all proud with their contemporary worldview believing it to be the epitome of knowledge and observational reality, we too are completely in the dark since we, like the they, misconstrue our own ---admittedly impressive ---knowledge and insight as being something it simple is not.

Every language and every well-knit technical sublanguage incorporates certain points of view and certain patterned resistances to widely divergent points of view. . . These resistances not only isolate artificially the particular sciences from each other; they also restrain the scientific spirit as a whole from taking the next great step in development—a step which entails viewpoints unprecedented in science and a complete severance from traditions. For certain linguistic patterns rigidified in the dialectics of the sciences—often also embedded in the matrix of European culture from which those sciences have sprung, and long worshiped as pure Reason per se—have been worked to death. Even science senses that they are somehow out of focus for observing what may be very significant aspects of reality, upon the due observation of which all further progress in understanding the universe may hinge.​

​

Benjamin Whorf, Language, Thought and Reality, p. 352-353. Kindle Edition.​

John

So your argument is that we should still accept alchemy because of a story about technological advances and ignorant people in this day and age .
This might be reasonable, with the difference that I phones have never been impossible, but we know that water into wine is not possible without a violation of the physics of the universe.
You could argue against this rational position, but you would need to provide a reason that does not rely just on we don't know everything and thus anything might be possible.

 

[gnostic]

If someone brought a couple I-phones into a deep woods village of a group of aboriginal peoples who had never had contact with the outside world and let them communicate with one another on video phone, to them (the aboriginals), these tools (the I-phones) would be absolutely miraculous since nothing in their world (or their form of conceptualization) can account for how something like these phones could exist. It would have to come from some other world since the aboriginal mind can't imagine how rocks, wood, water, organic materials as it were, could be assembled into the I-phone.

The wine produced in Cana is the I-phone here. And although our modern scientific education far exceeds the form of conceptualism that circumscribes the aboriginal's epistemology, we are, all of us, aboriginal in relationship to the science available to Jesus. He could no more explain the workings of his turning water into wine to us or his contemporaries than we could explain a semiconductor chip to aboriginals who's idea of extreme design technicality is a rock attached to a stick with chicken intestines. Like the stubborn aboriginal all proud with their contemporary worldview believing it to be the epitome of knowledge and observational reality, we too are completely in the dark since we, like the they, misconstrue our own ---admittedly impressive ---knowledge and insight as being something it simple is not.

Sorry, John, but Jews in Galilee, contemporary to Jesus and to whoever wrote the gospel of John, would know how to make wine.

Your points are not convincing, as wine making were known as far back in Bronze Age Phoenicia and northern Canaan, as far back as 3600 years ago. As excavation of ancient palace near modern Nahariya, showed they know to make wine during that period. Ancient Arad was another place in the Israel but during the early Iron Age.

so for you to say winemaking is miracle in the 1st century CE, would only demonstrated that you know nothing about ancient Canaan, Israel/Judah, and Galilee/Judaea.

 

[Pogo]

Sorry, John, but Jews in Galilee, contemporary to Jesus and to whoever wrote the gospel of John, would know how to make wine.

Your points are not convincing, as wine making were known as far back in Bronze Age Phoenicia and northern Canaan, as far back as 3600 years ago. As excavation of ancient palace near modern Nahariya, showed they know to make wine during that period. Ancient Arad was another place in the Israel but during the early Iron Age.

so for you to say winemaking is miracle in the 1st century CE, would only demonstrated that you know nothing about ancient Canaan, Israel/Judah, and Galilee/Judaea.

That is just refined wine making, consumption of fermented sugar containing fruit and vegetable products is found in every ancient civilization and probably predates civilization in that it is found in our evolutionary cousins dating back 55 million years. We like ripe fruit that has gone a little tangy, from there it is just working out how to get more of it from leaving the under-ripe grapes for later to collecting crushed fruit in vessels.

 

[John D. Brey]

So your argument is that we should still accept alchemy because of a story about technological advances and ignorant people in this day and age .
This might be reasonable, with the difference that I phones have never been impossible, but we know that water into wine is not possible without a violation of the physics of the universe.
You could argue against this rational position, but you would need to provide a reason that does not rely just on we don't know everything and thus anything might be possible.

My argument is that even today's scientifically enlightened populace is still aboriginal when it comes to the fact that we ---like simpler aboriginal peoples ---still live within the prison of our own simplistic epistemological falsehoods concerning knowledge and the growth of knowledge; particularly the growth of so-called scientific (and or theological) knowledge.

Case in point. When I point out that since Jesus turned water to wine we can know that some day the knowledge of how that occurred will be common knowledge, I get all kinds of confused responses that are similar to the responses the people received who said the earth was round, or the responses Copernicus received when he said the earth revolved around the sun. People who gain most of their knowledge and insight merely through observation and from other people are rarely aware of how genuinely new knowledge is actually acquired.

This doesn't mean that since we don't know everything anything is possible. Nevertheless, it's true that much more is possible than we would ever believe to be the case.

Case in point. If we were able to transport a Civil War General forward to our current day (a mere 150 years forward), take him up on a rocket to the International Space Station, show him nuclear explosions, images from the Webb Space Telescope peering back in time to the beginnings of the universe, I-phones, brain-surgery, heart-transplantation, instantaneous communication around the world, etc., etc., and then ask him how far forward in time he thinks he's been transported, he would probably say thousands or tens of thousands of years. He would never believe that he'd merely be transported forward 150 years.

Similarly, if anyone in this forum were transported 150 years from today, even assuming only the same scale of change as took place in the last 150 years, they would see things as unbelievable to their eyes, more so, than what the Civil War General sees peering down at earth from the International Space Station.

While the Civil War General peering down on earth from the International Space Station may not seem to break any of the laws of physics, what a person going forward 150 year from today will see will surely appear to break the laws of physics. In the coming years the laws of physics, though they might not be breakable, will definitely be revealed to be far more elastic than anyone would have ever thought in their wildest imaginations.

I can put forward on very good authority two things people will consider amazing if they're transported 150 years forward. One, that water can indeed be transformed into wine without breaking any of the laws of physics. And two, that hidden among the indigenous population of planet earth for the last two thousand years were creatures, or beings, who are not indigenous to earth, but who, though they're immortal, and not subject to death, were, nevertheless incarnate, fleshly, and were taken to be mere earthlings all along. These being will be ruling planet earth in 150 years sporting indestructible bodies made of light rather than flesh. Their existence will be as unbelievable and indescribably amazing to people living in the mindset extant today, as would be the stories the Civil War General has to tell his contemporaries when we return him to the late 1870's.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

so for you to say winemaking is miracle in the 1st century CE, would only demonstrated that you know nothing about ancient Canaan, Israel/Judah, and Galilee/Judaea.

. . . If I were so uneducated that I was unaware that wine-making was common knowledge in Jesus' day, if I had so casually read the Bible (which makes it clear that wine-making goes back long before Jesus' day), that my argument was that wine-making itself was miraculous, then I would hope you'd have the sense not to respond to me at all since it would clearly be a waste of your time.

On the other hand, I thought my response was clear enough that only the most casual reader could ever assume, based on what I wrote, that the crux of my message was about wine-making in general, generic wine-making, rather than the unique wine-making that occurred at Cana in the Gospels.




John

 

[Twilight Hue]

This thread is about whether such a miracle can occur naturally, or whether it is story invented by a person who has no understanding of how wine are made.

In the gospel of John, John 2 narrated that Jesus attended the wedding at Cana, where they have no wedding feast have no wine. So Jesus made wine, by turning water into wine.

Other than John, the other 3 gospels make no mention of this event.

You will have to ask yourself, can this miracle happen? Can water possibly turn into wine, or is this just a story, another parable or allegory? Or is it fairytale or myth, where the supernatural (like magic) is possible?

From my perspective, and my understanding of chemistry, this cannot be possible, let alone probable. This would only be possible if you believe in miracle, a supernatural occurrence. That's just simply blind faith, a conviction that the story is true.

People have been making wine, as far back as the Neolithic period, as well as the later periods (Bronze Age, Iron Age).

To understand wine making, you have to realize water are just basically molecule of 2 hydrogen atoms bonded to 1 oxygen atom.

But of course, there are type of water may have salt (eg sea water) and all sort of minerals (hence today, we can buy and drink mineral water). Plus, instead of the normal hydrogen atoms, it could be its isotope - deuterium, where the water known as "heavy water".

My point is that none of these types of water can turn into wine.

Wine required not only grapes, it also take time to turn grape juice and fermented the natural sugar in the grape into alcohol, and this chemical reaction can only occur if there are yeasts. That's how fermentation work for any alcoholic drinks (eg wine, beer, brandy, mead, etc).

Yeasts that what would turn sugar into alcohol, yeasts are actually unicellular fungi, more specifically

Fermentation is what distinguish wine from fruit juice.

So not only you would need grapes, you would need yeasts, to make wine.

Wine don't naturally come from water. Water has no grape juice, no sugar, no alcohol.

So Jesus' miracle a myth, or do you still think that water can turn into wine?

Agree...disagree. Your thoughts please.

Truth of the matter is, changing water into wine is clearly mythological.

 

[John D. Brey]

Truth of the matter is, changing water into wine is clearly mythological.

Twilight Hue verse 12:22.



John

 

[IndigoChild5559]

This thread is about whether such a miracle can occur naturally, or whether it is story invented by a person who has no understanding of how wine are made.

A "miracle" is simply anything exceedingly rare and wonderful for which we do not YET have a scientific explanation.

We cannot "naturally" make wine out of water. Water is composed of only two atoms: hydrogen and oxygen. It simply doesn't have all the elements necessary to make wine.

These kinds of stories are often simply fiction made up to bolster the faith of the followers.

 

[gnostic]

. . . If I were so uneducated that I was unaware that wine-making was common knowledge in Jesus' day, if I had so casually read the Bible (which makes it clear that wine-making goes back long before Jesus' day), that my argument was that wine-making itself was miraculous, then I would hope you'd have the sense not to respond to me at all since it would clearly be a waste of your time.

On the other hand, I thought my response was clear enough that only the most casual reader could ever assume, based on what I wrote, that the crux of my message was about wine-making in general, generic wine-making, rather than the unique wine-making that occurred at Cana in the Gospels.

When you accept a belief in something that couldn’t naturally occur, like this miracle, then that conviction is just that, blind faith.

Not knowing how wine being made, don't make it a miracle. It just simply means that you don’t know. Applying an agent to such a miracle, eg God, son of God, demon or fairy, or whatever supernatural being, is mere giving into superstitions. Saying it is a miracle or magic or divine intervention, is just you jumping into conclusion.

I don’t the author of the gospel doesn’t know how the wine is made, I actually believe he had invented the story, to boost the new religion with embellished allegory.

 

[gnostic]

We cannot "naturally" make wine out of water. Water is composed of only two molecules: hydrogen and oxygen. It simply doesn't have all the elements necessary to make wine.

That’s what I’ve been trying to get at, which you have done so brilliantly brief.

These kinds of stories are often simply fiction made up to bolster the faith of the followers.

I agreed.

A "miracle" is simply anything exceedingly rare and wonderful for which we do not YET have a scientific explanation.

Not necessarily.

I think your middle & last lines, says it all.

Wine making don’t require scientific explanations, as people with vineyards have been making wine contemporary to the 1st century Galilee and Judaea, like in Syria, in Greece and Rome, so I very much doubt the people in Palestine were ignorant of the processes.

It is more likely that the author of the gospel of John tried to wow early Christian believers with another miracle.

 

[John D. Brey]

A "miracle" is simply anything exceedingly rare and wonderful for which we do not YET have a scientific explanation.

Amen.

We cannot "naturally" make wine out of water. Water is composed of only two atoms: hydrogen and oxygen. It simply doesn't have all the elements necessary to make wine.

Your statement above is the kind of belief I was attempting to deconstruct with the message about aborigines feeling the same about the impossibility of an I-phone being a natural product of our world as you do about the possibility of turning water into wine like Jesus did. To the aborigines, nature simply doesn't have all the elements required (that shiny translucent face, the hard shiny gray material that boarders the translucent face, etc., etc.). And to the aborigine, i.e., in his world, the idea that an image of himself could be captured and imprisoned behind that translucent face, bordered by the gray material, and that it could mimic his actions perfectly, like some kind of miniaturized animated zombie or golem, well, to say that tool exhibiting that illusion is indigenous to planet earth, that it's made out of just the elements in the aborigines world, i.e., that it's not a miracle, or a demonic ruse designed to test his faith, well, that's just more than his epistemology can bear.

Yes Virginia, the educated Western World too is peopled by modern educated aborigines trapped inside the same empirical rational facade found haunting the more deep woods aborigines.

Throughout the evolution of thought, particularly scientific thought, ideas like the one you express above have been shattered to pieces over and over again to no effect in the case of those bamboozled by their own lyin eyes and stubborn minds .

Quantum physics is the perfect example. According to classical physics, say Einstein's General Relativity, faster-than-light travel and or communication is as impossible as turning water to wine. The laws of physics prove it's utterly impossible without shattering everything we know to be true. Einstein was initially as doubtful concerning many of the revelation of quantum physics as you are about the revelation that water was in fact turned into wine as was recorded to have occurred at Cana. Unfortunately, we now know faster-than-light communication can, does, occur. Repeated scientific experimentation has proven that.

Ironically, and to the point of this message, the evolution of science that led to the shattering of the belief in classical physics (faster-than-light communication, and such) came about when a Christian thinker (Bishop Berkeley) confounded his scientific-minded contemporaries with annoyingly logical treatises on why a chair doesn't exist when someone who does exist isn't looking at it. Dozens of our greatest scientists to include Einstein himself have remark that there's little doubt that Berkeley's treatises, with Kant's own Christian idealism, led, eventually, to the revelations of quantum physics.

In the same sense that we now know a chair doesn't exist when it's not being observed by someone who does, in the same sense we now know faster-than-light communication exists, we can similarly know that since Jesus turned water to wine, our stubborn prejudices about the impossibility of that occurring will soon day succumb to the same truth concerning the elasticity of the laws of physics that led to all the other impossiblities occurring.

But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.​

​

Revelation 21:8.​

John

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Amen.



Your statement above is the kind of belief I was attempting to deconstruct

It is a simple FACT that water does not contain the necessary atoms to reconstruct as wine. In order to turn water into wine, you would literally have to tear apart the water atoms into their subatomic particles and form entirely different atoms, and this technology does not exist. It may never exist. Even if we START OFF with a buttload of subatomic particles, we can't combine them into atoms.

 

[Pogo]

It is a simple FACT that water does not contain the necessary atoms to reconstruct as wine. In order to turn water into wine, you would literally have to tear apart the water atoms into their subatomic particles and form entirely different atoms, and this technology does not exist. It may never exist. Even if we START OFF with a buttload of subatomic particles, we can't combine them into atoms.

aboriginal I phones is in the realm of logical possibility, rewriting physics is not, it is in the realm of mythology just like all the other myths of the time. I go with Ockham 's barber.

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

“Prove to me that you’re divine. Turn my water into wine!”

Jesus Christ Superstar (1973) - King Herod's Song Scene​

 

[Yerda]

This thread is about whether such a miracle can occur naturally, or whether it is story invented by a person who has no understanding of how wine are made.

In the gospel of John, John 2 narrated that Jesus attended the wedding at Cana, where they have no wedding feast have no wine. So Jesus made wine, by turning water into wine.

Other than John, the other 3 gospels make no mention of this event.

You will have to ask yourself, can this miracle happen? Can water possibly turn into wine, or is this just a story, another parable or allegory? Or is it fairytale or myth, where the supernatural (like magic) is possible?

From my perspective, and my understanding of chemistry, this cannot be possible, let alone probable. This would only be possible if you believe in miracle, a supernatural occurrence. That's just simply blind faith, a conviction that the story is true.

People have been making wine, as far back as the Neolithic period, as well as the later periods (Bronze Age, Iron Age).

To understand wine making, you have to realize water are just basically molecule of 2 hydrogen atoms bonded to 1 oxygen atom.

But of course, there are type of water may have salt (eg sea water) and all sort of minerals (hence today, we can buy and drink mineral water). Plus, instead of the normal hydrogen atoms, it could be its isotope - deuterium, where the water known as "heavy water".

My point is that none of these types of water can turn into wine.

Wine required not only grapes, it also take time to turn grape juice and fermented the natural sugar in the grape into alcohol, and this chemical reaction can only occur if there are yeasts. That's how fermentation work for any alcoholic drinks (eg wine, beer, brandy, mead, etc).

Yeasts that what would turn sugar into alcohol, yeasts are actually unicellular fungi, more specifically

Fermentation is what distinguish wine from fruit juice.

So not only you would need grapes, you would need yeasts, to make wine.

Wine don't naturally come from water. Water has no grape juice, no sugar, no alcohol.

So Jesus' miracle a myth, or do you still think that water can turn into wine?

Agree...disagree. Your thoughts please.

Wait until you hear about the time Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Wait until you hear about the time Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead.

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. Sure, we have a legend that Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead and most people are familiar with this story. So? And?