Allan, thanks for the article. I really don't have a problem with that content, because at least he is not attempting to argue wine is merely juice. While I might question the idea that Jesus turned water into '4 parts water and 1 part wine' rather than 'good wine' as was noted by the Governor, I really think this is beside the point of our discussion regarding what is permissible and what isn't.
The reference to good wine reflects quality of wine TO BE used, and thus yet unmixed. If it was of good quality it's flavor and other aspects will not be diminished excessively by whatever water to wine ratio was added.
The permissibility, enjoyment and benefits of wine are established and maintained even if you concede that is was typically 'mixed' with water during biblical times. What this information does is acts as a warning that we should be all the more diligent not to abuse it and to drink only in small moderation. It certainly doesn't prove complete abstaining as a rule/law, which I know is not what you believe.
...
This quote serves to show that the point of your article is valid regarding the mixing of wine with water, however it also shows that the use of wine for its benefit and pleasure isn't negated . It was still used for pleasure and enjoyment. And I don't believe the bible condemns its use for that purpose. That article also explains that the alcohol content was closer to 16% in many wines of that day as compared to 4% in the Merlot my wife and I enjoy on occasion.
But, who cares what all of them say? Let's listen to the very words of God Himself:
Use the silver to buy whatever you like: cattle, sheep, wine or other fermented drink, or anything you wish. Then you and your household shall eat there in the presence of the LORD your God and rejoice. Deut. 14:26
You can't argue with that! REJOICE!
While I agree on the 16% being the strongest wine/strong drink that could made during that time, I would change your statement from 'many' to some based upon both articles, but more specifically your own:
Distillation was unknown in the ancient world (and would not be discovered until the early middle ages); wine, therefore, was the strongest drink of the Romans. Falernian was full-bodied (firmissima), with an alcohol content as much as fifteen or sixteen percent (at which point the yeast is killed by the alcohol it produces).
However it is noted that this is not the
typical average of alcoholic percentage but high content wine had become the Romans favorite drink who liked and desired strong wines. But again, according to both articles these were almost always mixed with water to an average of 3 to 1 ratio. For stronger, you reduced the ratio, and depending on what was going on, you might increase it. Thus if one tended to the average ratio and wanted to drink the strong stuff, you would get the alcohol content of your Merlot. However since most wines were less in their percentage, you would have typically drank much less.
Now, that aside.. since we both agree apparently on the historical point..
I have NO idea what you are presuming to argue against me on. I have not argued in any post that alcoholic consumption in and of itself is wrong. My point in giving the article was that I was giving a bit of accurate understanding as to 'how' they drink wines historically not what types there were (which is what yours
mostly addresses - and I agree there were varying types from weak to strong wines). So your addressing me as if I'm in opposition to drinking just because it is alcoholic, is not accurate.
Lastly
Just because God say we can does not mean we must as there are vary factors to consider 'when' not just 'if' we should. In fact, we note from scriptures that Spirit led men of God who, in spite of your verse of scripture, did not drink, such as John the Baptist, Timothy, as well as the Rechabites who are highly commended by God and by Jeremiah for their abstinence. Thus one can conclude that one may or may not choose to imbibe and still have all the blessing of God which He alone imparts.
Therefore my argument 'in' drinking (not with drinking) is simply this.. in whatever we do (whether to drink or not - or anything else) it is for 3 basic purposes.
1. to the glory of God (are we drinking or whatever so we can lift God high and others can see God who do not see);
2. for benefit of others in their spiritual growth;
3. for our Christian testimony in the location or culture we might be in (and obviously this one varies where ever one is at).
I believe without question that if any of the 3 are not answered in the positive, we should abstain, not due to the alcohol in and of itself but the other factors we as believers must take care to notice and act accordingly.
I have no question you would agree with me here that there should be reason and purpose in not only 'what' we do, but more importantly 'why' we are participating in/with it and therefore we need to evaluate seriously the affects we propagate if we choose to do or not do something.
But hey, that's my two cents.
