You really want somebody to tell you?
How about searching the matter out for yourself?
Try studying up on what wine signified among that era's Jewry specifically in context of wedding celebrations which often could go on for days.
#596: I am familiar with the role of wine in ancient Jewish wedding ceremonies. I do not see what aspect of that disputes Mary’s awareness of Jesus’ miraculous capability as implicit in her drawing the shortage of wine to His attention, or in His follow-up response, or hers: “Do whatever he tells you.”
#598: I took the comment to refer to Jerome’s original rendering, my point being that Mariology was not Jerome’s motivation. The variant translation behind Jerome’s rendering was known to ancient Jewish authors such as Philo and Josephus (and also to Moses Maimonides in the Middle Ages) as well as Christian authors as early as Tertullian and Cyprian; Jerome was wrestling with a genuine translation issue inherited from the available manuscripts. Post-Reformation commentators are of course divided on the rendering, and Catholics debate the proper translation as much as Protestants. Both of the alternate popular translations have been considered as compatible with Catholic doctrine for some centuries. St. Alphonsus de Liguori, writing in the early 18th century, summed up: “he will crush your head: some question whether this refers to Mary, and not rather to Jesus, since the Septuagint translates it, He shall crush your head. But in the Vulgate, which alone was approved by the Council of Trent, we find She. Thus too St. Ambrose, St. Jerome, St. Augustine, and a great many others understood it. Be that as it may, it is certain that either the Son through the Mother, or the Mother through the Son, has conquered Lucifer.”
#599: What is the difference between asking for prayers from the living and the dead, if God is “not the God of the dead but of the living”?--I do not see it. And I have not been arguing that Paul recommends praying to the dead; I have been arguing that it is consistent with his other teachings (my main point in what you are responding to being that he does not see asking for prayers from other Christians as violating Christ being the only mediator) and that he does not forbid it. Nor does the rest of Scripture forbid it, so I do not see where some Protestants see Scriptural authority to forbid it (and not all Protestants do--C.S. Lewis did not)--it seems to me that this prohibition is merely a human tradition that has emerged since the 16th century. But if we are to discuss what Paul does have to say that is relevant to the topic, among other things, the practice was accepted among Jews of Paul’s time, as attested in 2 Maccabees, which Paul quotes; Paul does pray *for* the dead in 2 Timothy 1:16-18; and he alludes to the practice of praying *to* the dead during the worship service in Hebrews 12:22-24, where he says that Christians have come to an “assembly” of angels and “the spirits of righteous men made perfect”. John likewise speaks of the angels and elders in heaven holding bowls containing “the prayers of the saints” (Revelation 5:8, 8:3-5).
#600: As I prefaced above, do not be surprised if I have taken many days to reply, for as I have mentioned throughout the thread, my time available to reply is extremely limited. I quoted Steve Ray because he explicitly engages in detail with William Webster, whom you relied upon extensively as a reference. If your concern is with truth foremost, I should think you’d want to read his reply, if for no other reason than to refute it. In any case, I took the time to read Webster, and plan to read and reflect upon him further as time permits. Upon my first reading of the links you sent, I saw some of the same holes in his arguments that Ray points out, including that Webster is selective in his quotations and that he does not cite any instance of a Church Father denying the primacy of Peter or the Roman see but he merely disputes how this primacy was interpreted (the latter point which Webster conceded in his discussions with Ray). Moreover, I do not see how making all the early bishops co-equal in authority, as Webster would have it, helps Protestant groups which claim no historic descent through the laying of hands from any of the early bishops, Roman or otherwise; rather, if his argument held, I would see it as a refutation of modern Catholicism and Protestantism alike.
Dismissing German scholars and archaeological evidence a priori is arbitrary. Arnold Goldberg is one of the most influential international experts on ancient Judaism to emerge in the past few decades, not some obscure figure. And archaeology is essential for understanding the historical context of ancient literary documents.
Regarding Jesus’ instruction to call no man “father”, John does precisely what you are saying Jesus forbids in 1 John 2:13-14, just as Paul does in 1 Corinthians 4:15, suggesting that the Apostles did not interpret Jesus’ teaching to exclude legitimate usage of the term to refer to one’s spiritual ancestors.
#601: Yes, there are Jewish sources to back it up. The most obvious is 2 Maccabees, which you do not need to refer to German sources to access.
#602: Yes, “Lord” can mean different things in different contexts; but what other meaning of “Lord” could Elizabeth mean here, with her exultations about Mary and her child being “blessed” and herself being “favored”?--and in addition to using the term “Lord”, the passage alludes to the Ark of the Covenant (compare the text of 2 Samuel with Luke 1:26ff and especially 2 Samuel 6:9 with Luke 1:43). Regarding the Council of Ephesus, Cyril was explicit in his writings about why Mary should be called Theotokos rather than Christotokos as Nestorius would’ve had it; he and the council intended it to mean that Mary was the Mother of God (as Θεοτόκος can indeed be translated, as well as by “God-bearer”) and not merely the Mother of Christ as if the incarnate Christ were some being separate from the eternal Logos, contra Gnosticism. Note that this is not affirming that Mary gave birth to the eternal Godhead as such, which would of course be impossible--this is not what Catholics mean by “Mother of God”; rather, it simply affirms that she gave birth to the Logos’ incarnate nature. As to how Christ as the eternal Son of God/Logos relates to Christ as the Incarnate Logos, which is certainly a profound topic worthy of a more extended discussion than time permits, I would recommend St. Augustine’s On the Trinity for an extended commentary on the relevant Scriptures.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts. I will probably be out for the rest of the holiday, so I apologize in advance if any reply is necessarily delayed. Please enjoy your weekend, and God bless you in your spiritual walk.