Talk:Cana

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: [Untitled]

message: 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:
#The people of Lebanon consider Qana, Lebanon to be a possible location for Cana of Galilee;
#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
#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)
thread_title: Qana, Lebanon

message: 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)
thread_title: Pronunciation

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Of Galilee Cana" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]