Should a pastor be permitted to have a beer once in while?

[Zaac]

Alright. Time to shut this one down. Nurse! STAT!!!

 

[annsni]

Where does Scripture say that He "partook"?

Was He a Jew?

You're making a very large assumption. And obviously they DIDN'T know and that's why they accused Him of doing something He had not done.

Let's see the verses again from Luke 7

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!’

Clearly they saw Him eating and drinking. They would not accuse him of being a drunkard had He not actually partaken in wine.

This really doesn't mean much when you look at how Jesus turned the Jewish law and culture upside down.

He actually turned the culture but not the Law. He followed the law perfectly. He then went on to fulfill the law in His death and resurrection.

 

[matt wade]

It is much easier for him to put us on "Ignore" than to deal with his statements. He was called out concerning those statements and did what so many do. He turned tail and ran.

As my dad used to say, "If you can't run with the big dogs you better stay on the porch." In Calypsis4's case it seems he has retreated under the porch.

More like behind his momma's apron strings.

 

[TCassidy]

Nurse! STAT!!!

Don't you mean Dr. Kavorkian?

 

[Calypsis4]

Was He a Jew?

Let's see the verses again from Luke 7

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!’

Clearly they saw Him eating and drinking. They would not accuse him of being a drunkard had He not actually partaken in wine.

The Lord did drink wine, but it was not fermented. The charges against Him were false by those who hated Him. Are you going to trust their word in the matter? Will you also agree with His critics that He was a 'gluttonous man'?

The Lord never created intoxicating liquids nor did He ever drink intoxicating liquids. He referred to it as 'the fruit of the vine' (i.e. grape juice).

Fermented beverages have undergone a process of putrefaction/degeneration/decay. In other words it becomes 'rotten' in time.

 

[annsni]

The Lord did drink wine, but it was not fermented. The charges against Him were false by those who hated Him. Are you going to trust their word in the matter? Will you also agree with His critics that He was a 'gluttonous man'?

I'm going to go with what Jesus said - He ate and drank but was not a glutton or a drunkard. If Jesus were just drinking juice, how could they accuse Him of being a drunkard? They couldn't.

The Lord never created intoxicating liquids nor did He ever drink intoxicating liquids. He referred to it as 'the fruit of the vine' (i.e. grape juice).

I'm sorry but the fruit of the vine is wine - alcohol and non. When we read the account of the wedding feast, there is no other conclusion we can come to except Jesus made alcoholic wine.

Fermented beverages have undergone a process of putrefaction/degeneration/decay. In other words it becomes 'rotten' in time.

A putrefacation? I don't think so. Think of it more like refining.

 

[Zaac]

Was He a Jew?

Yes He was a Jew. But there's a huge difference between keeping Jewish LAW as seen in the Torah and keeping Jewish TRADITIONS and RITUALS. There is no Jewish law that demands that a Jew drink alcohol.

Let's see the verses again from Luke 7

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!’

Clearly they saw Him eating and drinking. They would not accuse him of being a drunkard had He not actually partaken in wine.

Again, if it's so clear, why did they incorrectly accuse Him?

He actually turned the culture but not the Law. He followed the law perfectly. He then went on to fulfill the law in His death and resurrection.

Where in the Law as seen in the Torah does it say must drink wine if you are a Jew?

 

[Zaac]

Don't you mean Dr. Kavorkian?

YIKES!

 

[Zaac]

I'm going to go with what Jesus said - He ate and drank but was not a glutton or a drunkard. If Jesus were just drinking juice, how could they accuse Him of being a drunkard? They couldn't.

This makes no sense. They INCORRECTLY accused Him so how do we conclude HE was drinking wine from their incorrect assessment?

I'm sorry but the fruit of the vine is wine - alcohol and non. When we read the account of the wedding feast, there is no other conclusion we can come to except Jesus made alcoholic wine.

I think I mentioned this before but I'll mention it again. If I squeeze orange juice fresh, I consider that the good orange juice. But if I leave it out for a few days it will start to go bad and get a very strong taste to it.

The same thing could have been said about the water turned into "wine". The best would be the freshly squeezed juice and not the rancid, strong tasting juice that had been allowed to sit and ferment.

Just a different thought.

 

[Rob_BW]

I wonder which old dead theologian was the first write about non-alcoholic grape juice? Does anyone have any idea?

 

[annsni]

This makes no sense. They INCORRECTLY accused Him so how do we conclude HE was drinking wine from their incorrect assessment?

Because of how they wanted to attack Him. They knew he drank wine so they accused Him of being a drunkard. They knew He ate as well - and accused Him of being a glutton.

I think I mentioned this before but I'll mention it again. If I squeeze orange juice fresh, I consider that the good orange juice. But if I leave it out for a few days it will start to go bad and get a very strong taste to it.

The same thing could have been said about the water turned into "wine". The best would be the freshly squeezed juice and not the rancid, strong tasting juice that had been allowed to sit and ferment.

Just a different thought.

But then let's look at the wedding feast - what difference would it make if someone brought out the "best" first and then later brought out the lesser quality stuff if it were juice? I think if I had a glass or two of yummy grape juice and then had a glass that was bad, I'd know it. However, with wine, you bring out the best in the beginning and when the people have "well drunk" as the Bible says, you sneak in the lesser quality and they can't tell the difference because their senses have been dulled. But Jesus made even better wine than what was served first - which only makes sense in this context if it were true wine.

 

[annsni]

I wonder which old dead theologian was the first write about non-alcoholic grape juice? Does anyone have any idea?

I think that would be George Welch's??

 

[Jerome]

If Jesus were just drinking juice, how could they accuse Him of being a drunkard? They couldn't.

But remember this:

"I see people at the yacht club drinking what I think is just a coke and yet it has alcohol in it as well. You can't tell by just looking at a drink." —Annsni

And do you not recall Hannah and Eli at Shiloh?

ESV I Samuel 1:9-15

"After they had eaten and drunk in Shiloh, Hannah rose. Now Eli the priest was sitting on the seat beside the doorpost of the temple of the Lord. She was deeply distressed and prayed. . . .Eli took her to be a drunken woman. And Eli said to her, “How long will you go on being drunk? Put away your wine from you.” But Hannah answered, “No, my lord, I am a woman troubled in spirit. I have drunk neither wine nor strong drink, but I have been pouring out my soul before the Lord."

 

[TCassidy]

I wonder which old dead theologian was the first write about non-alcoholic grape juice? Does anyone have any idea?

The switch from wine to grape juice probably occurred sometime after Thomas Welch perfected the process of pasteurization to prevent the fermentation of grape juice.

Prior to that it was impossible to keep grape juice from fermenting. About the only way to preserve it was to boil it down to a thick jelly and can the jelly. Then reconstitute it by adding water before drinking. But even that would only last a few days before it was fermented (remember, no refrigeration in those days). If the weather was too hot it would ferment into vinegar (fast fermentation). If the weather was a bit cooler it would ferment into wine (slow fermentation).

This also applies to Jesus turning the water into wine at the marriage in Cana. It was the spring of the year when there were no fresh grapes. All the grape juice from the previous year's harvest had already fermented into either vinegar or wine.

The wine that Jesus made was the common drink at such a feast. Wine mixed with water at a 4 or 5 to 1 ratio in order to make the water safe to drink and to avoid drunkenness.

 

[InTheLight]

The wine that Jesus made was the common drink at such a feast. Wine mixed with water at a 4 or 5 to 1 ratio in order to make the water safe to drink and to avoid drunkenness.

If the wine that Jesus made was "the common drink at such a feast" why was his called "the good wine" by the master of the feast? Not the "inferior wine?"

 

[TCassidy]

If the wine that Jesus made was "the common drink at such a feast" why was his called "the good wine" by the master of the feast? Not the "inferior wine?"

Because it was common practice to put out the best wine (mixed with water) first, then, later to use the wine (mixed with water) that was more sour due to it starting to turn to vinegar.

As they had used up all the wine, the early wine which was sweet, and the later wine, which was sour, the newly made wine tasted good, even better than the first wine served and stood in stark contrast to the later, sour, wine.

 

[Calypsis4]

I'm going to go with what Jesus said - He ate and drank but was not a glutton or a drunkard. If Jesus were just drinking juice, how could they accuse Him of being a drunkard? They couldn't./

The same way that they dishonestly accused Him of being a glutton. Was He? Do you really agree with their charges against Him?

I'm sorry but the fruit of the vine is wine - alcohol and non. When we read the account of the wedding feast, there is no other conclusion we can come to except Jesus made alcoholic wine.

You are totally wrong. Furthermore, you are merely giving an opinion. I said it earlier, but He who was holy, harmless, undefiled, and separate from sinners DID NOT create intoxicating drinks ....for it He had done so (i.e. at Cana) then He would have been guilty of causing the wedding guests to get even more drunk (or become drunk) after they had already had their fill of what was available. But there is a biblical curse on those who do that. Habakkuk 2:15, so Jesus could not/would not have done such a thing at Cana nor anywhere else.

No. He called it the 'fruit of the vine' on purpose as to distinguish between what is the pure juice of the vine and that which has been corrupted by fermentation. Friend, how in the world do people get drunk in the first place? By drinking grape juice(?)...or by drinking that which has decayed into an intoxicating liquid?

A putrefacation? I don't think so. Think of it more like refining.

You don't think so. Again a mere opinion. Once again, you are in error. Fermentation and putrefaction are the same thing and that involves far more than just wine. Documentation:

Quote: "These decompositions of nitrogenous material in which products of extremely objectionable character and of vile odor are frequently formed are generally grouped under the general name 'putrefaction' or 'putrefaction fermentation'. In some instances, particularly in aeorbic bacteria, oxidation processes are carried out in which these offensive substances are formed in but small amounts and to these frequently the term 'decay' is given while the stronger term 'putrefaction' is reserved for the anaerobic fermentations..."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1089464/?page=1

 

[Calypsis4]

If the wine that Jesus made was "the common drink at such a feast" why was his called "the good wine" by the master of the feast? Not the "inferior wine?"

Define 'good' and 'inferior' as it relates to wine and prove it scripturally.

Also, if God has placed a curse on those who cause others to get drunk (Habakkuk 2:15) then how can any Christian with a conscience suggest that the Lord Jesus provided the already full-of-wine wedding guests at Cana EVEN MORE FERMENTED WINE...after the first wine was gone?

Secondly, Jesus turned the water into wine. How long does it take new wine to decompose into that which is fermented?

 

[InTheLight]

Because it was common practice to put out the best wine (mixed with water) first, then, later to use the wine (mixed with water) that was more sour due to it starting to turn to vinegar.

As they had used up all the wine, the early wine which was sweet, and the later wine, which was sour, the newly made wine tasted good, even better than the first wine served and stood in stark contrast to the later, sour, wine.

OK, thanks for the explanation. Is it your belief the wine that Jesus made was merely grape juice or fermented (though diluted)?

 

[Calypsis4]

OK, thanks for the explanation. Is it your belief the wine that Jesus made was merely grape juice or fermented (though diluted)?

It was the pure juice of the vine.