The world of our experiences came into existence through a creative force that structured the laws, regularities and moral order we see today (Jn 1:3). That creative force is the Word of God (Jn 1:1).

The Word of God took the form of a man (Jn 1:9) called the Son of God (Jn 1:49) so that we could know God through him, live in accordance with his will and understand the meaning of life (Jn 1:13).

The Son of God tells us that to see God’s purpose for life we must be born again (Jn 3:3) and born of the Spirit (Jn 3:5). The Word of God has become a man to die and be raised, to show mankind what it means to be reborn (Jn 3:14-15).

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4580217&forum_id=2#40575539)

not that it means it's more "accurate" than the synoptics, but the old idea of a "metaphysical"/"hellenized" Jesus in John vs a historical and earthly Jesus in the synoptics is way too simplistic. John is way more deliberate in his selection and presentation of events though (hence it's way more a work of theology than the synoptics).

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4580217&forum_id=2#40575775)

as an aside i've long found it hard to think through on terms i feel good about the importance medievals (east and west) placed on Pseudo-D (as they mistakenly thought he was the biblical Dionysius) having read the guy and sensed he's pretty much just a platonist mystic with a little dash of Christianity thrown in.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4580217&forum_id=2#40575850)

The individual's confrontation with Jesus is persistent throughout the entire gospel--this coming from a highly collectivist culture, much unlike our own.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4580217&forum_id=2#40575893)

1:14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.

- "dwelt among us" is more literally "pitched a tent among us" (David Bentley Hart's recent "pitilessly literal" translation does this), i.e. "tabernacled" among us. It's pretty clear that John 1 is a recapitulation of Genesis 1; some (NT Wright claims this, though I don't know how much support he's got) say Genesis 1 describes the creation of the world as the creation of a temple (intersecting heaven+world). Perhaps the logos's "tabernacling" hints at a new temple theology for the gospel where we enter into the divine presence through [faith in?] Christ's incarnate life. (cf. Ezekiel 43:7?)

- "full of grace and truth" - echoes God's abundance of חֶסֶד and אֶמֶת (i.e., echoes Exodus 34:6). already in the first chapter we have hints that Christ will fulfill the promise of creation found in Genesis and promise of salvation in Exodus

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4580217&forum_id=2#40576040)

which is a little confusing and ambiguous but appears intentional as a literary matter: not to get to the punch line too quickly, but Thomas's post-resurrection statement of faith is unambiguous in its proclamation that Christ is both lord and [the] God.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4580217&forum_id=2#40576065)

brother Upset Jew, whatever it is, i am sorry and Christ loves you

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4580217&forum_id=2#40576144)

2:11 closes the story with commentary--that it revealed (ἐφανέρωσεν) Jesus's glory (ἐφανέρωσεν occurs again in John in the final chapter for the resurrected/glorified Jesus's revealing himself) and that as a result his disciples believed (side note that I'll probably mention again--John never talks about "faith," it's always verbed, believe).

What happens in between is poetic in its simplicity. The man may have been Jesus's personal friend (his family is there, as are the 5 followers introduced in ch 1). Wine at weddings was particularly important (of course, it still is now): "gifts" were not the gratuitous thing that we have in our culture, they were part of a web of social obligation (I mean, you could say the same thing about our gifts--but a gift to us need not be reciprocal; indeed, an un-reciprocated gift is a more perfected gift than a reciprocated one). A gift required a responsive gift; one commentator I have open claims wedding gifts had the status of loans that could be recovered in court. The groom's reciprocation was bountiful wine. This guy--maybe he overstretched himself financially, maybe he didn't plan well, maybe Jesus's crew were insane drinkers, whatever--was about to run out. So Jesus changes water into wine; some realize what's going on, some don't, but Jesus's friend is spared major embarrassment and the wedding is able to continue on as a joyous celebration.

Christ's gift is not likes ours; there is no reciprocity and it is found even (or perhaps especially) in the mundane.

(Of course, there's more to the story--Eucharistic overtones, perhaps, and there's perhaps an antitype thing with Moses changing water to blood and salvation happening through destruction while Jesus brings salvation through joy; but I like what's right there in the story: Jesus kicks off his ministry by helping his friend.)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4580217&forum_id=2#40577259)

And drinking is celebrated.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4580217&forum_id=2#40577438)

i just meant our catholic friends like GJR who proposed this whole bible study thing and now are doing gay shit like "spending time" with their "friends" or something

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4580217&forum_id=2#40577460)

Regarding the former sense for example I found recently that there is some scholarship that turning the other cheek was a quasi political move having to do with Roman rules about the way to hit someone. I’d have to look, but it was something like if they back hand slapped you it was a sign of disrespect, and if you turned your cheek they then have to slap with their forehand, which was a sign of equality. So the notion that Christ was compelling us towards suffering for the purpose of nonviolent acceptance would miss the more strategic rationale.

That theory was put forward by a shitlib though so who knows, he may be reading into it too critically.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4580217&forum_id=2#40577340)

Or thus; It might be said that the guests were drunken, and could not, in the confusion of their senses, tell whether it were water or wine. But this objection could not be brought against the attendants, who must have been sober, being occupied wholly in performing the duties of their service gracefully and in order. Our Lord therefore bid the attendants bear to the governor of the feast; who again would of course be perfectly sober. He did not say, Give to the guests to drink.

Our Lord wished the power of His miracles to be seen gradually; and therefore Hedid not reveal what He had done Himself, nor did the ruler of the feast call upon the servants to do so; (for no credit would have been given to such testimony concerning a mere man, asour Lord was supposed to be,) but He called the bridegroom, who was best able to see what was done. Christ moreover did not only make wine, but the best wine. And (the ruler of the feast) said to him, Every man at the beginning does set forth good wine, and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse; but you have kept the good wine until now. The effects of the miracles of Christ are more beautiful and better than the productions of nature. So then that the water was made wine, the servants could testify; that it was made good wine, the ruler of the feast and the bridegroom. It is probable that the bridegroom made some answer; but the Evangelist omits it, only mentioning what it was necessary for us to know, viz. the water being made wine. He adds, This beginning of of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee. It was very necessary to work miracles just then, when His devoted disciples were all collected, and present at the place, attending to what was going on. ID. Should any say that there is notsufficient proof of this being the beginning of miracles, because it is added, in Cana of Galilee, as if some had been preferred elsewhere: we answer, as we did before, that John says below, That He might be made manifest to Israel, therefore have I come baptizing. Now if Hehad performed miracles in the earlier part of His life, the Jews would not have wanted another person to point Him out. If our Lord in a short time became so distinguished for the number of His miracles, that His Name was known to every one, would He not have been much moreso, had He worked miracles from His earliest years? for the things themselves would have been the more extraordinary, being performed by a Child, and in so long a time must have become notorious. It was fit and proper however that He should not begin to work miracles atso early an age: for men would have thought the Incarnation a fantasy, and in the extremity of envy would have delivered Him to be crucified before the appointed time.

-John Chrysostom

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4580217&forum_id=2#40577599)

At the time of our Lord’s appearing in the flesh, the sweet vinous taste of the law had been weakened by the carnal interpretations of the Pharisees.

-Bede

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4580217&forum_id=2#40577585)

In many traditions and most notably evangelicalism being born again is a dramatic event in which the believer, in prayer, repents and put faith in Christ for their salvation. In the order of salvation, this takes place (for reformed evangelicals) after God's unilateral work of regenerating the unbeliever's heart.

In some traditions, most notably the Wesleyan and Pentecostal traditions, baptism by the holy spirit is a important and distinct concept. In both the concept corresponds to a second event in a believer's life - a "second blessing" - after having been born again. This is another dramatic event in which the holy spirit descends on the believer in prayer and, secondarily, seals the believer's heart. This spiritual (perhaps mystical) event is also associated with equipping the believer with spiritual gifts that enable subsequent acts of christian ministry.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4580217&forum_id=2#40579171)