Christ's First Miracle

[standingfirminChrist]

There were ways of making non alcoholic wine in Bible days, webdog. Historians have recorded this as fact.

Non alcoholic wines are still made today as well.

 

[webdog]

There were ways of making non alcoholic wine in Bible days, webdog. Historians have recorded this as fact.

Non alcoholic wines are still made today as well.

I edited into my post the usual arguments. That is not non alcoholic wine, my friend.

 

[npetreley]

I edited into my post the usual arguments. That is not non alcoholic wine, my friend.

You forgot the grape fizzies theory.

http://www.oldtimecandy.com/fizzies.htm

 

[dan e.]

Yayin (the wine in Jeremiah 35) is either fermented or non-fermented depending on the context.

Since God commanded that one is not to look at yayin (fermented wine) in Proverbs, He is not going to tell one to drink yayin (fermented wine) in Jeremiah. The yayin in Jeremiah is not fermented.

May I recommend "How to Read the Bible for All its Worth"?

 

[EdSutton]

HA! This is hilarious! Just like the old days! The original group is almost all in this!

I think I'll sit back and watch this one as well....although its sooooo tempting!

"Hail! Hail! The gang's all here..."

Ed

 

[webdog]

You forgot the grape fizzies theory.

http://www.oldtimecandy.com/fizzies.htm

:laugh: You're right. I don't think they can ferment...

 

[Jkdbuck76]

Well,

All good food for thought. Standingfirm and webdog and all others.....you've given me much to ponder.

Still, I have to say that Jesus chose a wedding to be the first miracle in His earthly ministry. Says a lot about weddings, doesn't it?

 

[standingfirminChrist]

May I recommend "How to Read the Bible for All its Worth"?

If it contains the lie that Jesus drank alcohol and approves of it, no you cannot recommend it.

 

[dan e.]

I think we have enough here to put together one of the four different views books. We could find an editor, and put all of the stuff together.

Do you think anyone would buy it? I do...it would be really edgy with all the tones of the different posts!

$$$

 

[npetreley]

I think we have enough here to put together one of the four different views books. We could find an editor, and put all of the stuff together.

Do you think anyone would buy it? I do...it would be really edgy with all the tones of the different posts!

$$$

I'm an editor! How much would it pay?

 

[saturneptune]

I edited into my post the usual arguments. That is not non alcoholic wine, my friend.

I have always wondered, since they ended up with the good wine, they must have started with the cheaper stuff, if this was not the start of Boone's Farm.

 

[canadyjd]

That's funny... I list nothing but Scripture from various places including Greek definitions... and you just claim Christ made the wine in essentially a bathtub (which by the way the Scriptures don't say anything about the pots being used by people to bath *in*... anywhere)

I didn't say they took a bath in them. I repeated scripture (2v.6) that they were large pots of water used for ritual purification. Compare to Mark 7:3 "For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they carefully wash their hands...." They used the pots to wash their hands, and arms, carefully.

One could just as easily make something up and say the Jews never would've washed themselves *in* those pots, because they needed only the cleanest water for ceremonial washing...

But that would be, as you said, making it up. It would have no biblical or historical basis. What I have stated has both.

And then on top of that, because of these claims you have seemingly pulled out of thin air, you want me to believe that when a wedding party ran out of wine and Christ's mother asked him to help, he turned water into wine, asked that some be drawn out and handed to the host, the host declared it to be excellent wine....
but neither he nor anyone else at the party drank it.

I am following what the text means. You want to use the text to push an agenda, which is contrary to the purpose of the text as originally given.

Sure, Christ said his time had not yet come... but then he turned water into wine. That is a miracle. It was taken to the host, who said usually the best wine for the guests brought out first, but you bring it out now (implying the guests were to enjoy the wine). Taking "my time has not yet come" to mean he didn't let people to see his miracle just does not work, because the Bible plainly says he did the miracle and let people see and taste it.

The bible doesn't say everyone knew He turned the water into wine. Instead, it clearly says only a few knew. Those who drew the water, and the disciples. The result was the disciples believed.

There is absolutely no evidence from scripture that anyone drank the wine, other than the head steward. You are assuming the Jews drank from cleaning pots.

Listen, it's been fun discussing this. Hopefully a few hearts and minds who have been lurking in the board have gotten something to think about. Maybe they'll even decide to enjoy the fruit of the vine God has made for us! If so, God bless, if not, God bless nonetheless.

And so, your agenda is made clear. You are not posting to understand what the text says in context, but to push an agenda.

I have to spend the next week preparing for my next semester of law school that is son to start, and then I'll be busy with school. So I won't be around. Make sure to "slam" my points while I'm gone since I won't be here to defend myself. ;-)

If you are going to law school, you should brush up on your spelling and grammar.

peace to youraying:

 

[canadyjd]

I have always wondered, since they ended up with the good wine, they must have started with the cheaper stuff, if this was not the start of Boone's Farm.

:laugh: I get it.

peace to youraying:

 

[jsn9333]

I didn't say they took a bath in them. I repeated scripture (2v.6) that they were large pots of water used for ritual purification. Compare to Mark 7:3 "For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they carefully wash their hands...." They used the pots to wash their hands, and arms, carefully.
But that would be, as you said, making it up. It would have no biblical or historical basis. What I have stated has both.
I am following what the text means. You want to use the text to push an agenda, which is contrary to the purpose of the text as originally given.
The bible doesn't say everyone knew He turned the water into wine. Instead, it clearly says only a few knew. Those who drew the water, and the disciples. The result was the disciples believed.

There is absolutely no evidence from scripture that anyone drank the wine, other than the head steward. You are assuming the Jews drank from cleaning pots. And so, your agenda is made clear. You are not posting to understand what the text says in context, but to push an agenda. If you are going to law school, you should brush up on your spelling and grammar.

peace to youraying:

Finally! I'm glad we now agree that neither of us has any definitive proof either way as to whether or not the Jews bathed *in* the pots Christ used to make the wine (making such pots essentially used as a bathtub) or whether they poured water *out* of them over their hands and utensils for washing. That is the point I was trying to make! It is so nice to finally agree.

When you were insisting the Jews washed themselves *in* the pots you were making yourself look pretty silly. In fact, you still look silly since you are now denying ever having said the Jews bathed themselves *in* the pots when we can all clearly go back to page 3 and read what you said. What you said was, "If you believe a Jew, that had spent 15-30 minutes ceremonially cleansing himself in a 30 gal. water pot, would turn around and drink wine from the same pot, you are indeed blinded by your agenda." (sic)

So yes, you were indeed insisting the Jews washed themselves *in* the pots. In fact, as silly as it may seem, that statement was relied on by you as underlying evidence that the Jews present would never have drank the wine Christ made. You seemingly ignored that we know for sure that one of them (the host) most definitely drank the wine and enjoyed it immensely. Also if you think Christ would serve a drink to someone that came out of what was essentially a bathtub that means you have a very low opinion of our Savior's manners.

It is also rather silly, in my humble opinion, to insist that only a few people knew of this miracle. Christ never told his disciples nor the host, bridegroom, and waiters to remain quiet about the miracle. It is silly to think that all these people saw water turned to wine and each decided to not tell anyone.

Finally, it is ultimately ridiculous for you to continue saying the guests definitely did not drink Christ's wine. Here is some Scripture and one final explaination (not that I think you will get it after this, but I might as well give it one last try):

John 2:
8 Then he told them, "Now draw some out and take it to the master of the banquet." They did so,
9 and the master of the banquet tasted the water that had been turned into wine. He did not realize where it had come from, though the servants who had drawn the water knew. Then he called the bridegroom aside
10 and said, "Everyone brings out the choice wine first and then the cheaper wine after the guests are methyō; but you have saved the best till now."

Here is a summary for you
8 Christ made wine.
9 Christ had it served to the host.
10 The host loved it; so he went to the bridegroom and said, "Most people serve the guests the good stuff first, and when they've become 'methyō' they bring out the cheaper wine... however you have done things in the opposite order.

If you can't understand that logically implies the bridegroom served Christ's choice wine to the guests, then you have bigger problems then just your hypocritical criticism of my grammar. Hint: 'the opposite order' means bringing out the cheaper wine to the guests first, and *then* bringing out the choice wine (that Christ made).

Once again, the Greek dictionary translates methyō as "drunken", and it is used only in relation to wine, not to other drinks.

On a personal note, while I thank you for your concern about my spelling and grammar in my upcoming law school experience, please don't worry yourself too much about it. My writing sample (given on a test with no computers, aids, or spell checkers) and a similar admission test got me accepted at the three highest ranked law schools in my current home state (Duke, UNC, and Wake Forest) and a few highly ranked schools in other states I applied to. I would not have brought this up because it could look "haughty", but you chose to criticize me. So before you criticize me or anyone else here again just know many of us intentionally don't pay much attention to grammar when chatting on the Internet because typing speed is more important to us in this setting.

And if you are going to criticize other's spelling and grammar you should brush up on your own first (see P.S. below for examples). And it is snide to say "peace be to you" and picture a praying icon directly after telling someone to brush up on his grammar. It makes you look insincere (not that you would ever be insincere!).

I'm leaving today for my family's cabin in the mountains to study and prepare for school. If my having spent 6 pages and several days discussing this topic with you and others means, as you say, that I'm not here to understand but just to push an agenda, then you're sadly mistaken. I thank you for expressing your point of view, as mistaken as it is.

jsn9333

P.S. ... from your posts on page 2 and 3:
- You wrote, "Yes, indeed." That is not technically a complete sentence.
- In your sentence, "The miracle may have been, more of less, a private miracle..." the correct English phrase should be "more or less", not "more of less".
- In your following sentence there should neither be a comma after "Jew" nor after "pot". "If you believe a Jew, that had spent 15-30 minutes ceremonially cleansing himself in a 30 gal. water pot, would turn around and drink wine from the same pot, you are indeed blinded by your agenda."

I personally don't mind these mistakes of yours given that most people let things slide when chatting quickly. However, in your case you should definitely brush up a bit since you apparently enjoy criticizing others on chat boards.

 

[npetreley]

I was browsing a site on Texas Primitive Baptists and came across this explanation as to why they use real wine and unleavened bread for communion. Enjoy.

# The communion took place immediately after the Passover. This was a time in which leavened bread was prohibited, both by scriptural law and by Jewish tradition (Ex 12:3-8, Num 9:9-11, Deut 16:1-3, Mt 26:17, Mk 14:12, Lk 22:7).
# Leaven is used in the scriptures as an emblem of sin (Lk 12:1, I Cor 5:6-8, Gal 5:7-9) and is therefore an unsuitable representative of the Lord's body.
# Wine is symbolically consistent with unleavened bread in that neither contain leaven. On the other hand, unfermented grape juice would contradict all that is portended by the unleavened bread because grape juice typically does contain leaven. There are some who erroneously assert that the opposite is true - that wine contains leaven but grape juice does not. The reader is invited to consult any authority on wine chemistry to resolve the matter.
# Wine was a traditional part of the Jewish Passover.
# Without modern methods of refrigeration, grape juice could not be preserved for all times of the year. The Passover season was not conducive to grape juice since it was well between harvests.
# The Corinthians obviously used a fermented substance in their communion service since they perverted it into a drunken festival (I Cor 11:20-30). Paul condemns them for their impiety and excesses, but not for the usage of wine in communion.

 

[canadyjd]

Finally! I'm glad we now agree that neither of us has any definitive proof either way as to whether or not the Jews bathed *in* the pots Christ used to make the wine.....It is so nice to finally agree.

I never said they "bathed" in the pots. That was your twisting my words and then calling me "silly".

When you were insisting the Jews washed themselves *in* the pots you were making yourself look pretty silly. In fact, you still look silly since you are now denying ever having said the Jews bathed themselves *in* the pots when we can all clearly go back to page 3 and read what you said. What you said was, "If you believe a Jew, that had spent 15-30 minutes ceremonially cleansing himself in a 30 gal. water pot, would turn around and drink wine from the same pot, you are indeed blinded by your agenda."

You look silly because you don't know the difference between ceremonial cleansing and taking a bath.

You seemingly ignored that we know for sure that one of them (the host) most definitely drank the wine and enjoyed it immensely.

You continue to ignore scripture, which points out the head waiter didn't know where the wine came from. And you continue to be intensely focused on using the text as a proof text that wine had a certain alcoholic content, rather than the text demonstrating the qualitative superiority of the New Covenant over the Old Convenant.

It is also rather silly, in my humble opinion, to insist that only a few people knew of this miracle. Christ never told his disciples nor the host, bridegroom, and waiters to remain quiet about the miracle. It is silly to think that all these people saw water turned to wine and each decided to not tell anyone.

You continue to ignore scripture that clearly says Christ told Mary, "My time has not yet come." There are many similar passages where it is obvious to anyone without an agenda that Jesus was not yet ready to make Himself widely known.

And, the passage clearly indicates only those who served the wine, and the disciples, knew about the miracle. The result was that the disciples "believed".

..before you criticize me or anyone else here again just know many of us intentionally don't pay much attention to grammar when chatting on the Internet because typing speed is more important to us in this setting....

You are finally correct about something. That was a cheap shot. I apologize.

Good luck at Duke, or wherever it was you decided to go.

peace to youraying: (Sincerely)

 

[standingfirminChrist]

I was browsing a site on Texas Primitive Baptists and came across this explanation as to why they use real wine and unleavened bread for communion. Enjoy.

I find no historical proof texts from the first century AD that say non alcoholic wine could not be made. I can, on the other hand produce, as others have, historical documents showing non alcoholic wine was made and kept fresh and free from intoxicants for more than a year at a time.

Josephus recorded wine and fresh fruits being found over a 100 years old and still as fresh as the day they were sealed in Herod's fortress.

I have never seen a primitive baptist that approved of alcohol... especially in the Sanctuary!

I am not sure these guys are legit in their claim to be Primitive Baptist.

 

[npetreley]

I am not sure these guys are legit in their claim to be Primitive Baptist.

Well, you can't prove it either way by me. I don't know enough about primitive baptists. That's why I was looking at the web site, to learn.

 

[webdog]

Josephus recorded wine and fresh fruits being found over a 100 years old and still as fresh as the day they were sealed in Herod's fortress.

I seriously doubt they were his words. As was the case with him describing who Christ was, there was obvious additions to his words. Since he was jewish, he would have used alcoholic wine at passover. There was no such thing as non-alcoholic wine.

 

[annsni]

Josephus recorded wine and fresh fruits being found over a 100 years old and still as fresh as the day they were sealed in Herod's fortress.

Is this possible? I'd think it would take a miracle for this to happen. I do not see how a fresh fruit could be preserved for over 100 years unless it was properly canned - and even then there's no way it would be safe to eat that long. I'd think the same with fresh juice (not wine in the sense of alcohol but juice as you're stating). I think even Welch's would be undrinkable after a number of years.