Re: [asa] Conversation with Timaeus, part one

From: <>
Date: Tue Sep 23 2008 - 12:39:39 EDT

Sure, we might speak differently about what had happened & get into a debate about how to understand miracles. But as people of faith we'd all be in a position to grasp the sign value of the event - which doesn't mean we automatically would. Part of the judgment expressed in the 4th Gospel is that people didn't see what the signs were pointing to - Jn.12:37.

But all of this about Cana is really outside the topic of "natural theology" because what happened at Cana was part of God's historical revelation - "special revelation" in contrast to a supposed "general revelation." Of course if you want to call Cana or other things Jesus did or said God's "fingerprints" I won't object but that's not the kind of thing Johnson meant.


---- j burg <> wrote:
> On 9/23/08, George Murphy <> wrote:
> > Burgy -
> >
> > At Cana those who knew Israel's traditions about what YHWH had done &
> > promised could indeed recognize who had "committed the crime" - noting,
> > z.B., Ps.104:15 & Amos 9:13. That's why John describes it as a "sign." But
> > the response of any Gentiles who were there (as there indeed might have been
> > in Galilee) might have been just "Wow, this guy is a pretty good magician."
> >
> Maybe so. But what if you and I and Randy and Ted and Tim (and Loren,
> Allan, Gregory, Moorad, Glenn, etc) were there?
> I can only imagine the confab among us after the wedding ended (and we
> had slept off the wine)!
> jb
> To unsubscribe, send a message to with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Sep 23 12:39:58 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Sep 23 2008 - 12:39:58 EDT