Hate to be the bearer of bad news, but new wine was indeed alcoholic. It wasn't as refined as the "old", but the apostles could not be accused on being drunk on new wine and Noah couldn't have been drunk on it.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Drinking Alcohol Moderately
- Thread starter PrivateWoman
- Start date
- Status
dwmoeller1
New Member
It starts in the early 1800s. However, you don't see cider=apple juice till the early 1900s. Evidently cider as an alcoholic beverage falls out common use in the 1800s in America (beer takes over as the common alcoholic beverage), so the word also sees much less use in America. Then with Prohibition the word comes back into use but in reference to the non-fermented juice.
Short story. Cider = apple juice has a very short history in the total history of the word "cider".
dwmoeller1
New Member
Actually, the word for wine there is in reference to grape juice. They were a very wise people to abstain from grape juice.
7Neither shall ye build house, nor sow seed, nor plant vineyard, nor have any: but all your days ye shall dwell in tents; that ye may live many days in the land where ye be strangers. 8Thus have we obeyed the voice of Jonadab the son of Rechab our father in all that he hath charged us, to drink no wine all our days, we, our wives, our sons, nor our daughters; 9Nor to build houses for us to dwell in: neither have we vineyard, nor field, nor seed: 10But we have dwelt in tents, and have obeyed, and done according to all that Jonadab our father commanded us.
Not to mention, they were a very wise people for refusing to live in houses, or plant vineyards, or sow seed. We should all follow their example.
Last edited by a moderator:
dwmoeller1
New Member
Hosea 4:11
Whoredom and wine and new wine take away the heart
Grape juice takes away the heart?!
Joel 1:5
Awake, ye drunkards, and weep; and howl, all ye drinkers of wine, because of the new wine; for it is cut off from your mouth.
Drunkards howl because they can't have grape juice?!
Acts 2:13
Others mocking said, These men are full of new wine.
People thought the apostles were drunk from drinking grape juice?!
In short, the claim that "new wine" means grape juice is patently absurd. What irks me is not so much that the prohibitionist forbids alcohol (me not being a partaker anyways) but that they constantly resort to blatant misuse of Scripture, not to mention logic.
dwmoeller1
New Member
Articles like these invariably forget one very key thing. They are modern writers and to them grape juice is the "norm" - squeeze the grapes, pasteurize the juice, store it in an air tight bottle and, voila, you got grape juice all year round. So these modern writers in the effort to negate any possible approval for alcoholic wine, ignore the very pertinent fact that in Biblical times, fermented grape wine was the norm. Grape juice was only possible during the few weeks out of the year that grapes were being harvested. At all other times, unfermented grape juice was an impossibility. One couldn't go to the local store and buy a bottle of grape juice. Within a week or so after the harvest ended, grape juice ceased to exist until the next harvest came around.
So, for instance, at the Last Supper when Jesus drank wine, this occurred in the spring - months after the grape harvest. At this point in the year, the Greek word for "wine" could no longer mean both wine and grape juice, for the simple fact that grape juice was not available.
So the author of articles like this all read Scripture in light of their own cultural perspective and thus mistakenly treat the topic as if grape juice and wine were both equally good choices in Scriptural times. They point out that the word for wine could possibly refer to either choice, but they ignore the fact that for 10 months out of the year, when the word was used it could *only* mean alcoholic drink. Acting as if the word could equally mean both wine and grape juice is a fallacy of anachronism.
This is a good point enhanced by the vow the Nazarite took which was clearly all inclusive of all grape products used during the entire year
2"Speak to the sons of Israel and say to them, 'When a man or woman makes a special vow, the vow of (A)a [a]Nazirite, to dedicate himself to the LORD,
3he shall (B)abstain from wine and strong drink; he shall drink no vinegar, whether made from wine or strong drink, nor shall he drink any grape juice nor eat fresh or dried grapes.
4'All the days of his separation he shall not eat anything that is produced by the grape vine, from the seeds even to the skin.
Also it's ironic if wine were really grape juice in this passage (remember, when it was allowed it is juice
) the necessity of a clear distinction between grape juice and wine.So, we're to believe that alcohol is responsible for deaths, ruined relationships, etc.
I wonder if Steadfast owns a gun. Do guns kill people or do people kill people? We could say that guns are responsible for the same things as alcohol, but, in reality, someone has to pull the trigger - or take the sip. Being from the great state of Mississippi, five will get you ten that he either owns a gun or supports gun rights.
This is one of those subjects that will go around in a circle. Opponents will make a biblical argument, and when that is shown to not hold water, they will try a logical or rational argument (i.e. alcohol kills). When the holes are found, they will move to the anecdotal, sentimental arguments, which of course are not persuasive. Then, they go back to the Bible and start all over again.
There's just no defending the prohibitionist perspective.
You can believe drinking is wrong all you want, but this is a non-essential. It's adiaphora. So, don't like it? Don't drink it. But allow the rest of us the freedom to follow our own conscience in the matter.
I wonder if Steadfast owns a gun. Do guns kill people or do people kill people? We could say that guns are responsible for the same things as alcohol, but, in reality, someone has to pull the trigger - or take the sip. Being from the great state of Mississippi, five will get you ten that he either owns a gun or supports gun rights.
This is one of those subjects that will go around in a circle. Opponents will make a biblical argument, and when that is shown to not hold water, they will try a logical or rational argument (i.e. alcohol kills). When the holes are found, they will move to the anecdotal, sentimental arguments, which of course are not persuasive. Then, they go back to the Bible and start all over again.
There's just no defending the prohibitionist perspective.
You can believe drinking is wrong all you want, but this is a non-essential. It's adiaphora. So, don't like it? Don't drink it. But allow the rest of us the freedom to follow our own conscience in the matter.
The alcoholic beverage industry spends $3 billion a year on advertising and promotion, and now here we have 25 pages of Christian justification for the use of alcohol. Congratulations!
We have an entire Bible that does this as well.
When half the times it's mentioned in the Bible it is as a warning?
Christian liberty is a wonderful thing. Awfully easy to use that liberty to spread stumblingblocks all over the landscape.
Steadfast Fred
Active Member
The weapons of our warfare are not carnal.
The warning is not against alcohol itself but the misuse and abuse of alcohol - drunkenness.
Steadfast Fred
Active Member
You really need to study the Scripture better.
Those who accused the Apostles of being drunk on new wine were mocking. They were accusing falsely. They knew that new wine was not alcoholic.
The Bible does not say the wine Noah made was new wine.
Steadfast Fred
Active Member
Studies have proven that too much grape juice indeed is bad for ones heart.
Moderation is best in non alcoholic wine. Paul gave Timothy that advice for deacons.
dwmoeller1
New Member
The alcohol beverage industry spends 3 billion a year to convince people that drinking will
- make you cooler
- make you sexier
- make you have a fun time
- help you make friends
- help you to find a mate
etc. etc. etc.
In short, the alcoholic beverage industry tries to convince you that alcohol provides some answer or need.
We on the other had have spent 25 pages explaining that alcohol is a good gift from God that can be partaken of in moderation and thankfulness, *never* as a means to fill a need that only God can or should fill.
So, on the one hand we have a message that alcohol is the answer to some need. On the other hand we have the message that alcohol is not the answer to a need, but is a gift from God to be used as such in joyfulness and thanksgiving.
Yep, I do feel that congratulations are in order. After all, the food industry does the same sort of thing with their advertising of food. But we all agree that instead of rejecting enjoyment of food, we as Christians should instead teach the proper enjoyment of food. Same with alcohol. That the world corrupts their use of something is never a reason to reject its use. The world abuses food, sex, marriage and money, yet instead of rejecting these things we instead seek to teach and give example of how to properly use these things. Same with alcohol.
dwmoeller1
New Member
And that addresses my point how?
Steadfast Fred
Active Member
Needs that can only be met through Jesus Christ... not through alcohol.
dwmoeller1
New Member
Yet the warnings are always in the context of its abuse. Otherwise, Scripture speaks with approval of its use. So the message of Scripture is
- wine is a good gift from God
- wine is dangerous if abused
Same basic message the Scripture gives about food, sex and money.
Ah yes, the weird allegation that the mockers of Jesus and the Apostles were completely incoherent when it comes to the topic of grapes, but coherent when it comes to everything else.
Luke 7:33-34
"For John the Baptist has come eating no bread and drinking no wine, and you say, 'He has a demon!' "The Son of Man has come eating and drinking, and you say, 'Behold, a gluttonous man and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!'"
eating --> gluttonous (eating to excess)
drinking --> drunkard (drinking to excess)
If Jesus wasn't drinking something alcoholic, then the mockers would have to be making a selectively incoherent attack on Jesus (but only regarding drink).
If it truly was an incoherent accusation, don't you think Jesus would have pointed that out?
- Status