Replies

I don't think you are understanding me here much at all.

When you say things like "No. She suffered as a sword or javelin passed through her own soul, as it were." in reply to me -- what is the worth of that, when I just WENT OVER THAT, addressing that?

Can you hear yourself talk, or must you continue to provide reply towards whatever it is I may say, as long as it's being postured as rebuttal but which is no rebuttal at all?

"No, I don't see Cana as representative of his crucifixion..."

I did not quite put it like that, but was indeed comparing the wine itself with the blood.

Christ himself does no less in other contexts.

That is the key for why when He responded to her (Mary) having said "there is no wine" (the Gospel writer John having just prior to this mentioned that "the wine had failed" roughly meaning -- the supply was exhausted) Jesus saying "Woman, what [is that] to you and me?" saying then also "My hour has not come".

Why, oh why would He have said "My hour has not yet come", which 'hour' you have insisted is the hour of his death, --- then straightaway turned water (which has and carries it's own symbolism) into wine, and that not be included (but not solely inclusive of) representing his own life giving power, even as also the blood payment which He in "his hour" gave, as sign towards the "fall and rising of many in Israel"? (Luke 2:34)

He told the people in John 6 that He was the bread which came from Heaven, even right after having spoken of the manna which had sustained the Israelites in the Wilderness (of Sinai, or Sin) and now Himself somewhat by explanation & demonstration (in John 6) showed Himself also having been all along, the Passover, and now the blood of the new covenant Jeremiah 31:31;

31 “Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah—

[full chapter Jeremiah 31:31

What did he pour out during His "hour"?

The Life is in the blood.

At Jewish weddings (which could go on for the better part of a week) plentiful abundance of wine held significance as representative of God's blessings, and even "life" itself. The wedding toast pronounced over the wine, L'Chaim == To Life.

Roughly a millennium later the Persian poet Omar Khayyam utilizes and toys with the thematic symbolism of wine & life representing one another, although I am not suggesting that writer borrowed alone from Judaic & Christian influences, even there the mark is shown, as it is also evident there was a variety of religious thought & philosophy expressed in form of distillation from his own mind, but I digress...and the Rubaiyat is not exactly scripture...

Red, Red, Wine UB40

Why, oh why would He have said "My hour has not yet come", which 'hour' you have insisted is the hour of his death, --- then straightaway turned water (which has and carries it's own symbolism) into wine, and that not be included (but not solely inclusive of) representing his own life giving power, even as also the blood payment which He in "his hour" gave, as sign towards the "fall and rising of many in Israel"? (Luke 2:34)

They needed wine. Sometimes people needed food. He went about doing good. His mother had faith to ask him to help others. It all depends on the context of "ma li v'lach ?" If one believes Yeshua and Miriam had a relationship of love and faith grounded in the Holy Spirit you have my answer already. If one believes they were adversaries this day, one comes to a completely different conclusion, thinks she interfered with his Messianic ministry, he rebuked her for it, but did a miracle anyway; cognitive dissonance.

At Jewish weddings (which could go on for the better part of a week) plentiful abundance of wine held significance as representative of God's blessings, and even "life" itself. The wedding toast pronounced over the wine, L'Chaim == To Life.

If you mean the seven blessings (שבע ברכות), the wedding has already occurred. As regards L'Chaim as a toast, it was a later custom.

Let’s look briefly at l’ḥayim’s history. The earliest mention of it in Jewish sources in the context of drinking can be found in the 13th-century Italian rabbi Tsedakiah ben Avraham Anav’s guidebook to Jewish ritual, “Shibbolei ha-Leket.” There he writes: “And when drinking a glass of wine… it is customary to respond [to anyone reciting the blessing over it] l’ḥayim, that is, ‘May what you drink bring you life and not harm.’” In medieval times, in other words, when the practice first originated, l’chaim was said not by a toaster in our sense of the word, but rather by anyone hearing the borei p’ri ha-gafen, the “Blessed are You O God our Lord, King of the Universe, who creates the fruit of the vine.” This is a custom observed to this day by Sephardic and Middle Eastern Jews in Israel and elsewhere, who, during the Sabbath and holiday Kiddush, exclaim l’chaim after the Aramaic call to order savrei maranan, “Attention, my masters,” that precedes the actual blessing.

L’chaim, in other words, did not originally mean “[Let us drink] to life;” it meant, “[May you be consigned] to life,” the life in question being that of the blessing’s reciter, not life in general. In such a case, ḥayim does not take the definite article and l’chaim, not la’chayim, is correct.

Among Ashkenazi Jews, under the influence of the European custom of toasting (in the Muslim Middle East, where alcohol was not openly consumed, it didn’t exist), the l’chaim of the blessing over wine became the l’chaim of a toast without the l’ changing to a la-, so that today it seems to us that we are saying, “Here’s to life!” And indeed, if we don’t mind being ungrammatical, that is what we are doing. Grammar, I repeat, isn’t everything.