It’s right in the Bible that they got drunk,
Then he called the bridegroom aside and said, “Everyone brings out the choice wine first and then the cheaper wine after the guests have had too much to drink; but you have saved the best till now.”
John 2:10 NIV
My devout baptist grandma swore that he only turned the water into grape juice.
When I was a kid the Church Of The Nazarene told us that when they had “too much to drink” it only meant that they were over-full of healthy non-alcoholic juice.
Jesus apparently didn’t want to do this, but it could said Jesus did it to honor his mother Mary.
And later they get him drunk and rape him in order to get pregnant. Was that supposed to be some kind of poetic justice?
Yes, but mostly this,
According to a footnote in the New English Bible this is an unflattering origin story of the Ammonites and the Moabites, the two traditional enemies of Israel.
Lot's daughters - Wikipedia
It is true they were expecting a messiah that would be more of a warrior, powerful leader and king rather than what Jesus taught.
I would agree that he was trying to reform certain elements of Judaism. The main issues he seemed to have were the Sanhedrin and how they were applying the law. I would say he was trying to reform the leadership.
I would say the bible clearly states that he knew he would be crucified and that was something that needed to take place.
This is a direct quote from Psalm 22,Even while he was being crucified he was still teaching. He was bringing peoples attention to this psalm. They would see the many prophesies that were being fulfilled mentioned in the song of David. Jesus was teaching the crowd and showing that he was the messiah.
The people who were there would understand the scripture he was quoting. Since they did not have chapters, verse divisions back then. The original manuscripts were written as continuous texts without any breaks. People were taught to memorize these scriptures and would know what Jesus was referring to.
The Suffering Servant is not about Jesus.
Saying it’s about Jesus is an attempt by Christians to write Jesus into the “Old Testament”.
No idea perhaps he felt certain topics were covered enough and he needed to speak more about these specific areas. Perhaps love and compassion were areas the people at that time needed to work on. That does not some how mean the other scriptures dealing with different issues were invalidated. Lets not forget what the bible mentions of his teachings is not an exhaustive record of every thing he taught. The Bible acknowledges that Jesus said and did many things that were not recorded.
Some of his disciples focused on areas that he did not get into much. That does not mean that what he taught is some how was invalidated or not important. Paul may have focused on different aspects of the faith. Does that invalidate what came before?
Its a good thing I never made the argument that he was obsessed with sexuality then. That’s an argument totally brought up by others. However to say that he was not concerned with sexuality is a bad argument.
When some one mentions something people don’t like in one area of the bible people will often times say well Jesus did not talk about that as some type of mike drop to refute the parts of scripture they don’t like which is the argument here in a nut shell. I never said sexuality was the only thing he was concerned with.
This passage has nothing to do with a prophecied Messiah. If you read it in its full context it makes it explicitly clear that this is a metaphor for Israel and the severe persecution of the Israelites at the time.
This is what I mean by Christians not understanding the Bible.
Every Sunday I turn on the television set and there’s a priest or a pastor reading from my book, and interpreting it, and their interpretation, I have to tell you, are usually wrong. It’s not their fault, 'cause it’s NOT THEIR BOOK!
Uh…
I guess I will agree with many critics, Actually Jesus kept a party going when all the wine was gone. It is more likely that the point was that there is no problem on having fun on occasion.
For Christ’s sake! 
. Christians try SO hard to remove the fun from every single thing in the name of being holier than thou.
It reads somewhat differently,
John 2:1-11 KJV
And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there: And both Jesus was called, and his disciples, to the marriage. And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, They have no wine. Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? Mine hour is not yet come.
…
This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested forth his glory; and his disciples believed on him.
More like Mary was a stage mom and she was pushing her boy out into the spotlight.
Yes, but in the end, it was Jesus anyhow the one who decided to keep the merriment going.
I’ve been to a couple Baptist weddings and receptions, If I prayed, I would’ve prayed to Jesus. “Jesus, could someone pleeeeeease hit the liquor store, this party is bo-ooring!!”
Um….
……….
…
Yeah…
..
I can’t disagree with what you say here. I do suspect Jesus had some ‘fun’, it’s just a degree of how much, but Jesus hung out with sinners, not the holier then thou crowd, which He vehemently opposed.
But look no more than King David, getting drunk, dancing with all his might in public, half naked - ‘onto the Lord’, and all the Lord had against him in the end was he murdered the man who’s wife he slept with and impregnated, but generally say he did Good and was a man after God’s heart.
I will have to go back and check the reply I made, but I think I was specifically talking about modern day America rather than ancient Israel if that was not specifically indicated.
The Bible doesn’t say that Jesus did everything that was not recorded, so shoehorning him as a substitute for everyone not specifically named seems cheap to me.
I don’t get the context here. It feels like some lines of dialogue are missing, or they buried the lead. Do I have to be a certain ethnicity/faith to get this?
“They have no wine.”
“What have I got to do with you? It’s not my time.”
As in, “leave me out of this,” “you’re a poor party planner,” “What, I was supposed to bring the wine? Nobody bloody told me,” “It’s my day off. I’m not even supposed to be here.”
THEN HE PERFORMS A MIRACLE.
Is this where he turned water into wine? It doesn’t specify.
‘Woman’, is as I understand it a term of honor, and not dismissive here.