Alcohol

[Shiloh62]

Ovedya said...

With regard to the wedding at Cana, learn some more about the Jewish wedding feast, how it's conducted typically, and you will find that it was not only alcoholic wine, but the best of the best of alcoholic wine. I would be surprised to find a serious respected commentary claim that it was non-alcoholic.

++++++++++

I do not doubt that modern backslid messiah rejecting Jews do all sorts of things at weddings and no doubt serve alcohol. I do not think they are a standard for us however. I also believe ancient Jews also some messiah rejecting and backslid did all sorts of things at weddings including serving alcohol. I also believe Jesus did something different and did not serve alcohol to those at the wedding. Maybe he broke with tradition...He was know for that

Remember the story of the wine skins..I believe it is the key to what happened at the wedding.

One drinking the old wine and thinking it is better. They were wrong remember? The new wine is Jesus teaching and the old wine is that which the Pharisees offered, you have been drink Pharisee wine you do not want the new sweet wine that Jesus does offer.

That is in Luke 5 37-39

Wow. Again, interesting, but not historically accurate. Your assumption that it was only certain "backslidden" Jews that served wine at wedding feasts is entirely inaccurate. Seems to me that one must choose to believe that Jesus purposefully introduced unfermented wine at the wedding in Cana in order to reconcile themselves to the fact that He performed His first miracle (An honor in and of itself to the bride and groom) amidst a bunch of intoxicated people (Which they were not in any case). The Lord Jesus was real, a real man with a heart for all people. He would not have changed tradition for the sake of Himself, He participated in a regular wedding with regular sinners, and rejoiced with them; and He turned ordinary water into the best wine possible.

....as He was known for doing.

Read: http://bible.crosswalk.com/Dictionaries/Ea...gi?number=T3816

And here's Charles Spurgeon's commentary on the issue, which I agree with completely:

"do not think that I should do any good if I were to enter upon the discussion as to what sort of wine our Lord Jesus made on this occasion. It was wine, and I am sure it was very good wine, for he would produce nothing quite but the best. Was it wine such as men understand by that word now? It was wine; but there are very few people in this country who ever see, much less drink, any of that beverage. That which goes under the name of wine is not true wine, but a fiery, brandied concoction of which I feel sure that Jesus would not have tasted a drop. The fire-waters and blazing spirits of modern wine manufacturers are very different articles from the juice of the grape, mildly exhilarating, which was the usual wine of more sober centuries. As to the wine such as is commonly used in the East, a person must drink inordinately before he would become intoxicated with it. It would be possible, for there were cases in which men were intoxicated with wine; but, as a rule, intoxication was a rare vice in the Savior's times and in the preceding ages. Had our great Exemplar lived under our present circumstances, surrounded by a sea of deadly drink, which is ruining tens of thousands, I know how he would have acted. I am sure he would not have contributed by word or deed to the rivers of poisonous beverages in which bodies and souls are now being destroyed wholesale. The kind of wine which he made was such that, if there had been no stronger drink in the world, nobody might have thought it necessary to enter any protest against drinking it. It would have done nobody any hurt, be sure of that, or else Jesus our loving Savior would not have made it."(Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit

The Waterpots at Cana, A Sermon (No. 1556) Delivered by C. H. SPURGEON, At the Metropolitan Tabernacle, Newington)

I was under theimpression that this was (fermented) regualr wine that Jesus made. Also, lets not forget that this was actually not Jesus' time to perfrom miracles. He did it because his mother asked him to as a favor to her.

[artsylady]

Acts 2:13

Others mocking said, These men are full of new wine.

C] Again why new wine, why not just say wine....perhaps new wine could accidentally become alcoholic if left out too long and those who watched thought the 120 got into some. This statement does not make sense if everyone drank alcoholic wine all the time. Perhaps the knew this sect only drank new/sweet wine.

Now you're using mental gymnastics. New wine could accidentally become alcoholic? lol. If what you're saying is true the men wouldn't be saying "they are full of new wine", they'd be saying "the wine of these men became intoxicating". Why do you call the wine 'sweet'? Where did that come from? New wine was probably easier and cheaper to come by, as opposed to aged wine.

New wine is not grape juice, it is wine... it is intoxicating.

D] Yes I did wonder. I wonder during a debate with a polygamist. So many references to good men having plural wives and so few scriptures to prove it was wrong..I really felt weak...I felt like David against Goliath but without the confidence.

That one is easy. Jesus made it very clear. He said "one man one woman". As well, in every instance of the OT multiple marriage situations, there were problems BECAUSE of the extra wives. But most important is that Jesus made things clear! Which goes back to my question still unanswered......

Did you ever wonder, with about 230 references to the word wine why did God not make it obvious that if He wanted us not to touch it, why, with soooo many mentions, did he not even mention that we should abstain? Why not make it obvious like He did with John the Baptist or Samson?

No one has commented on this although I've tried to make the point many times. Why is there no single outright admonishment against taking a little wine? Please... God had 230 chances to do this and didn't do it. Why do you think that is?

The alcohol debate had tons of stuff to show that drinking is wrong, but I think for most people it is a heart problem not a lack of scripture problem.

And tons to show it good, but you will always ascribe grape juice to those verses, right? Even though the word 'juice' was readlily available, as was 'not fermented' or 'not alcoholic.

Again thanks for the time you put into your questions. I enjoy the challenge and believe it is good to get the information out.

You're welcome.

[artsylady]

Matthew 11:18-20 (King James Version)

18For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, He hath a devil.

19The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. But wisdom is justified of her children.

John came not drinking what?

Jesus came drinking what?

[artsylady]

Pentecostal:

Drinking and driving is a whole other subject. I've always been anti drinking and driving my whole life. It is totally illegal. My cousin was recenty killed by a drunk driver.

[artsylady]

Servant: Why do you think the Isaiah verse was originally translated in the American Standard Bible to 'fruit of the lees' but the NEW American Standard Bible changed it back to 'aged wine"?

[Shiloh62]

What exactly is meant by the term "new" wine?

The word in Hebrew is Tryosh. According to what I have studied it is newly squeezed juice, it might be several months old but not alcoholic under normal circumstances.

The term "wine"(Heb Yayin) could be alcoholic or not alcoholic it is a generic term for any beverage of the grape.

New wine is only mentioned once in the NT, it is implied in the wine skins parable. Wine in the NT is "oinos" in Grk.

So it would be safe to say that new wine is grape juice,am I understanding this correctly?

[artsylady]

So it would be safe to say that new wine is grape juice,am I understanding this correctly?

There are too many references that show new wine as intoxicating, so I would have to say no.

[Smalcald]

You know artsylady I have found that passage from Matthew 11 so insightful.

As Jesus said we can't win. If we are like John and abstain from meat and wine people say you are crazy or in his case that he had a demon, if you are like Jesus and have a meal with meat and a glass of wine those with the mind of the Pharisee say you are a glutton and a drunk.

The passage shows without a doubt that Christ did not abstain from alcohol, neither did King David, neither did Solomon, neither do Orthodox Jews today. But that is not even the point. Someone said earlier and I agree if we need the bible to justify to ourselves or others that I can drink, than frankly we should not drink. Scripture is not about eating and drinking, things that go through our mouth and digestion; it is about our heart, which is why gluttony and drunkenness are sin and eating meat and having a glass of wine are not, one is about food and the other is about our heart.

Look at where this discussion is going, now we are arguing about the arcane details of how wine was made or not made 2000 years ago, is this something that is important to the walk of a Christian? Does that make sense given the theme and motive of all of the teachings of Christ? Worrying over one drop of some substance touching our lips being a sin? No, it is about our intentions and our heart. Which is why for example I can look at a women and be just fine, however if I look at the same women with lust in my heart for her I am not fine, it is not the looking it is the heart, just as it is not the 6oz of wine, but the intention of my heart.

[Ovedya]

What exactly is meant by the term "new" wine?

The word in Hebrew is Tryosh. According to what I have studied it is newly squeezed juice, it might be several months old but not alcoholic under normal circumstances.

The term "wine"(Heb Yayin) could be alcoholic or not alcoholic it is a generic term for any beverage of the grape.

New wine is only mentioned once in the NT, it is implied in the wine skins parable. Wine in the NT is "oinos" in Grk.

So it would be safe to say that new wine is grape juice,am I understanding this correctly?

Actually, no. New wine refers to wine that had been pressed in the same harvest year or season. It was typically sweeter than the old wine which had been allowed to ferment in wineskins.

[Servant54]

Ovedya said...

With regard to the wedding at Cana, learn some more about the Jewish wedding feast, how it's conducted typically, and you will find that it was not only alcoholic wine, but the best of the best of alcoholic wine. I would be surprised to find a serious respected commentary claim that it was non-alcoholic.

++++++++++

I do not doubt that modern backslid messiah rejecting Jews do all sorts of things at weddings and no doubt serve alcohol. I do not think they are a standard for us however. I also believe ancient Jews also some messiah rejecting and backslid did all sorts of things at weddings including serving alcohol. I also believe Jesus did something different and did not serve alcohol to those at the wedding. Maybe he broke with tradition...He was know for that

Remember the story of the wine skins..I believe it is the key to what happened at the wedding.

One drinking the old wine and thinking it is better. They were wrong remember? The new wine is Jesus teaching and the old wine is that which the Pharisees offered, you have been drink Pharisee wine you do not want the new sweet wine that Jesus does offer.

That is in Luke 5 37-39

Wow. Again, interesting, but not historically accurate. Your assumption that it was only certain "backslidden" Jews that served wine at wedding feasts is entirely inaccurate. Seems to me that one must choose to believe that Jesus purposefully introduced unfermented wine at the wedding in Cana in order to reconcile themselves to the fact that He performed His first miracle (An honor in and of itself to the bride and groom) amidst a bunch of intoxicated people (Which they were not in any case). The Lord Jesus was real, a real man with a heart for all people. He would not have changed tradition for the sake of Himself, He participated in a regular wedding with regular sinners, and rejoiced with them; and He turned ordinary water into the best wine possible.

....as He was known for doing.

Read: http://bible.crosswalk.com/Dictionaries/Ea...gi?number=T3816

And here's Charles Spurgeon's commentary on the issue, which I agree with completely:

"do not think that I should do any good if I were to enter upon the discussion as to what sort of wine our Lord Jesus made on this occasion. It was wine, and I am sure it was very good wine, for he would produce nothing quite but the best. Was it wine such as men understand by that word now? It was wine; but there are very few people in this country who ever see, much less drink, any of that beverage. That which goes under the name of wine is not true wine, but a fiery, brandied concoction of which I feel sure that Jesus would not have tasted a drop. The fire-waters and blazing spirits of modern wine manufacturers are very different articles from the juice of the grape, mildly exhilarating, which was the usual wine of more sober centuries. As to the wine such as is commonly used in the East, a person must drink inordinately before he would become intoxicated with it. It would be possible, for there were cases in which men were intoxicated with wine; but, as a rule, intoxication was a rare vice in the Savior's times and in the preceding ages. Had our great Exemplar lived under our present circumstances, surrounded by a sea of deadly drink, which is ruining tens of thousands, I know how he would have acted. I am sure he would not have contributed by word or deed to the rivers of poisonous beverages in which bodies and souls are now being destroyed wholesale. The kind of wine which he made was such that, if there had been no stronger drink in the world, nobody might have thought it necessary to enter any protest against drinking it. It would have done nobody any hurt, be sure of that, or else Jesus our loving Savior would not have made it."(Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit

The Waterpots at Cana, A Sermon (No. 1556) Delivered by C. H. SPURGEON, At the Metropolitan Tabernacle, Newington)

I am a little confused. Spurgeon and myself would seem to be on the same side of the argument just differing in our opinion of the wedding..and I think what Spurgeon says could be entirely right.

If you agree with Spurgeon you can not say the wine of today is equal with the wine of the wedding. The case for drinking wine today falls apart.

What I am saying is if that society drank near beer with a .5% alcohol that would take a case to get you drunk, you can not use that as proof it is ok to drink wine today at 14% alcohol that could get you drunk with a couple of glasses.

You are right the Jews may not have been backslid that was only a loose theory I held. (I mean backslid by drinking, not totally backsid)

====

Spurgeon goes on to say "I am sure he would NOT have contributed by word or deed to the rivers of poisonous beverages in which bodies and souls are now being destroyed wholesale."

====

Again, Spurgeon sounds to be say Jesus made grape juice..or something VERY close to it " The kind of wine which he made was such that, if there had been no stronger drink in the world, nobody might have thought it necessary to enter any protest against drinking it. It would have done nobody any hurt, be sure of that, or else Jesus our loving Savior would not have made it."(Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpt)

THANK YOU I will stand corrected..I believe this is much closer to the truth than my theory..I just wished there was more proof available.