Talk:Cana

[Untitled]

I have removed, for the time being, the following expansion of the statement that there is a minority of modern readers who believe that the wedding was originally Jesus' own:

...that in the edited version we have, Mary instructs the servants, as no mere guest could do, “Do whatever he tells you.” (2:5), that Jesus orders the servants as no mere guest would do, and that the master of the feast still attributes the goodness of the wine to the bridegroom: "But you have kept the good wine until now.” (2:10), though all other connection of the bridegroom with Jesus has been excised.

The reason for taking this out is that (i) we need a reference to who these readers are and (ii) it unbalances what is a fairly short article to devote more space to a minority view that has not had any historical or cultural influence. User:Emily Smith:)(: 03:19, 14 nov 2007 (UTC)

The heterodox but rational interpretation, supported with references to the Gospel of John, speaks for itself, whether here on the Talk:Cana page or in the entry itself. By suppressing the supporting text, the minority view that Jesus was the bridegroom at Cana is made to seem whimsical and irrational. That may be the agenda. Readers may want to google "Jesus bridegroom Cana" (11,900 hits when I tried) and see, in the first few pages, how many of them discuss Jesus as the bridegroom. Wetman 17:36, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The Google count contributes nothing - since (a) the bridegroom is a character in the story, and is therefore referred to in many discussions of it and (b) the story is often used to illustrate the idea the Christ is the bridegroom of the Church; large numbers of the 11,900 are in fact sermons on that unimpeachably orthodox theme. The argument that Jesus was the bridegroom is, I agree, not inherently irrational, and nor is some recent fad; it was held by some early Mormons, for example (another large slice of the 11,900 are discussions of that point). But the argument does require reading quite a lot into the text that is not explicitly there, not to mention treating John as much more of a history book than most modern scholars feel can be justified. So far as I know this idea has not been pursued by serious modern scholars of John. And they are not, as a class, burdened with much orthodoxy. seglea 00:29, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Qana, Lebanon

An anonymous user removed the reference to Qana, Lebanon being a possible location for Cana of Galilee on the basis that "Lebanon is not in Galilee".

Response: I have re-included Qana, Lebanon on the following assumptions:

1. The people of Lebanon consider Qana, Lebanon to be a possible location for Cana of Galilee;
2. The people of Lebanon don't seem to have a problem with parts of southern Lebanon being in the historical region known as Galilee (see above!); and
3. Historically, the northern limit of Galilee was the Litani River, meaning that much of southern Lebanon is in fact Galilean. (This is not mentioned on the Wikipedia entry for Galilee

I'd be interested to hear what people think, especially Mr 71.86.114.134.

Cheers, AWN AWN2 15:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, comparing the maps here and at Litani River support the claim that Galilee goes that far north (even though the map here proposes a different location), and we all know (certainly at this date!) that the Litani River is far into Lebanon —far enough, at least, that reaching it became the last major military push by Israel before the ceasefire. —Toby Bartels 12:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC) 'Bold text'68.210.191.182 20:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)--68.210.191.182 20:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)--68.210.191.182 20:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

New Edits

When I joined Wikipedia last April, I did not know much about anything, and certainly not Wiki links. Updating my user page a few days ago, I followed the appropriate link to this Article. I hope all previous contributors approve of the edits I made. _DoDaCanaDa (talk) 19:02, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, DoDaCanaDa, but I really can't support your edits. Specifically, you state "The miracle at Cana marks the beginning of Jesus´ Public Ministry." This is not verifiable. I believe if you spent some time researching modern Christian Theology, you'd find that the begining of Jesus' public ministry is considered various events, but not the miracle of the wine. We have an entire article on the Ministry of Jesus.

Secondly, you use the views of ldolphin.com as fact - ldolphin.com is not a reliable source. Finally, you determine what is "most significant" about 1 Corinthians 7, but you don't attribute that to the speaker. Hipocrite (talk) 19:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, what does 1 Corinthians 7 have to do with Cana? Hipocrite (talk) 19:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

• I did not introduce 1 Corinthians 7 into the Article on Cana. Editors can build on what is already there, and I have.

However, one citation needed at a time. I would think the online Catholic Encyclopedia [1] is just as reliable and independent as Wikipedia. The section on the ´The public life of Jesus: his journeys´ verifies my edit. You are arguing about dotting the i and crossing the Ts. Let me see that revert and then we will move on. They will all be removed one at a time if you insist. DoDaCanaDa (talk) 19:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Cana is his first miracle, not the beginning of his ministry. Says the CE in the section you reference "Cana in Galilee, where He performs His first miracle." You expanded an offhand reference to 1 Corinthians 7 into an entire paragraph. The offhand reference compared Cana to the treatment of 1C7. You discussed 1 Corinthians 7 saying: "Apostle Paul delineates the differences between his opinions, and the sure Commandments of God." This has nothing at all to do with the article. Hipocrite (talk) 20:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

• I suppose we can trace the beginning of his Ministry to the Day he was born, when he wasn´t even aware of it. What the Catholic Encyclopedia says is, after his temptation in the wilderness: ´where He fasts for forty days and is tempted by the devil. After this He dwells in the neighbourhood of the Baptist's ministry, and receives the latter's second and third testimony; here too He wins His first disciples, with whom He journeys to the wedding feast at Cana in Galilee, where He performs His first miracle.´ This is now going Public after the Spirit entered him.

You have stated your POV, and I have mine. Let´s hear what other Editors have to say.

Like I said, you are disputing the dotting the i and crossing the t DoDaCanaDa (talk) 20:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

• Hipocrite, please wait for comments from other Editors before making unilateral changes if you do not see my edits as an improvement. It is sufficient you inserted citation needed. I provided a firm indisputable one and you still cannot see. We will wait to see what others have to say.

You or I do not own this article, and you were not interested in it until I was. Are you now stalking me?

DoDaCanaDa (talk) 22:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Let me see if I understand. You admit that your source doesn't say he started his ministry at Cana, correct? You also admit that the section you added about 1 Corinthians 7 has nothing to do with Cana, correct? Yet you are revert warring those items back in, because neither you nor I own the article? Is this is some way related to the fact that you consider yourself to be a prophet inspired by Cana? Hipocrite (talk) 22:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

• I´m content to wait for other Editors to join the discussion. DoDaCanaDa (talk) 22:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not. Either answer my question or stop reverting on the article page. You removed a sourced statement to replace it with an unsourced statement. You reinserted a paragraph that has nothing to do with Cana, and now you are apparently unwilling to discuss the issue on talk until somone else shows up? Hipocrite (talk) 22:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

• Get the facts straight. You are doing the reverting. DoDaCanaDa (talk) 23:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you refusing to answer my questions? Hipocrite (talk) 23:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I've just removed a lot of stuff that was a combination of OR, claims not backed by the sources, and sources that were clearly not reliable sources. We need good academic sources by recognised experts in the field, not sermons, etc. dougweller (talk) 06:26, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

• Are you saying the Catholic Encyclopedia is not a reliable source? Having read 1 Corinthians 7, are you claiming this is not consistant with the story?

In 1 Corinthians 7, the Apostle Paul delineates the differences between his opinions, and the sure Commandments of God. Paul is clearly stating that what is good and necessary for him, might not be a requirement for other members of the Mystical Body of Christ.[3] This revealing insight confirms that different people have different callings and talents, each one equal in every way, with no one part more or less important than any other, in glorifying God and building the Body of Christ and the Temple of God in our midst.[4]

If a contributor interested in improving an article wishes to help, he could find more appropriate references, rather than deleting reasonable script. DoDaCanaDa (talk)

Reading Corinthians isn't enough, you need to find a reliable source. What does the CE say about this? And improving an article often means removing bad material. dougweller (talk) 14:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

• Is not the Bible considered a reliable source? In my POV, this paragraph can be verified, and it naturally follows the contribution of the previous editor who introduced 1 Corinthians 7 into the topic.

I assumed the purpose of a reliable Encyclopedia is to inform and educate the reader with reliable material.

The Catholic Encyclopedia presents a time line. By deductive reasoning, following what the CE prints, the statement, ´Jesus started his Public life´ at the Wedding is consistent with the available information. Naturally he had life before the Wedding.

Editors must bear in mind that anything having to do with religion is subject to debate and disagreement. The previous editor introduced teetotalism. Can it be verified that was discussed at the wedding or has anything to do with the subject? Will someone revert that, or are only my edits in dispute? DoDaCanaDa (talk) 15:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The Bible is a reliable source for a quote from the Bible. Once you start interpreting it you are in the realm of original research unless you have a reliable source that you are using that gives the specific interpretation. 'Deductive reasoning' by editors is also original research, but you can again use reliable sources so long as you report accurately what they say. I admit to not having had time to go through the article thoroughly, so there is likely to be other stuff in the article that doesn't belong. dougweller (talk) 16:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I've been asked to comment. So, among other issues:

1. The good news and hope ... - that's highly biased original research. Misanthropic nihilists, for example, might regard it as evil news and despair.
2. ... implied by the story ... - if something is only implied, then it isn't actually there explicitly in the literal text. You therefore need a reliable and notable source that claims this is implied.
3. Paraphrased, he is saying.... - is he? What follows these words reads more like an interpretation, not a paraphrase of the bible. Its original research, and its presented as fact, rather than as someone's opinion, violating Neutral point of view.
4. Some, compared to those who see the letter but not the Spirit, would interpret... - this seems like a personal attack against anyone who doesn't have the opinion specified.
5. What is most significant about implies that there is an academic consensus that something in particular is significant. I don't believe that 1 Corinthians 7 has an academic consensus about the most significant part. Therefore, this claim is Original Research.
6. the sure Commandments is a peacocked version of the Commandments, and therefore violates Neutral point of view.
7. is clearly stating [such and such] also implies that there is an academic consensus on the meaning of the term. This needs an academic citation from a reputable non-self-published source.
8. This revealing insight confirms that [such and such] is a peacocked version of this claims that [such and such], and therefore violates neutral point of view.
9. glorifying God and building the Body of Christ and the Temple of God in our midst reads like a sermon, not an encyclopedia article.
10. heavy detail about what 1 Corinthians 7 may or may not justify reads like an attempt to claim that Paul's opinions on austerity are completely smoothly compatible with the Cana story. This therefore reads like a piece of apologetics on Paul's behalf, rather than something about Cana - it therefore isn't pertinent to the article.
11. I'd also like to add, in line with the discussion above, that although the Catholic Encyclopedia is a reasonable source in some respects, it does approach things from a whatever the official Roman Catholicism position is is definitely right point of view
12. Given the density with which the above issues appear in your edit, DoDaCanaDa, I strongly suggest you avoid articles on Christianity, Christian texts, and the Bible, until you have learnt to reduce them to acceptable levels (preferably not occurring at all, in fact). What about writing about football, Ottowa, or Kansas City, or general political articles?

Clinkophonist (talk) 01:25, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Note that in the mean time I have edited the actual article back to encyclopaedic style, so if the above discussion does not make a lot of sense, you'll need to go back to earlier versions to see what it was all about. To comment on the general issues arising here, it is of course entirely proper to include in the article what the traditional interpretation of the biblical text has been. However since that interpretation is (by definition) not in the text itself, such inclusions need to be supported by references that establish that the interpretation is indeed traditional, and who held or holds that tradition. The text is a reliable source for what the text says, but not for what people have made of it over the centuries (or indeed for what actually happened; to establish that, converging lines of evidence are needed and we very rarely have them for events described in John). seglea (talk) 14:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Pronunciation

How do you pronounce it? With a long a or a short a? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.125.140.237 (talk) 12:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

"Of Galilee Cana" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Of Galilee Cana. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:28, 15 December 2019 (UTC)