The Best Wine

Let me suggest that moderationists here are casting their pearls before swine. There are plenty of other ways and venues to get your points across where it actually counts.

Let these closed others to have their tribal pow-wow amongst themselves. Leave them to it.

------------------------------------------

 

Matthew 11:18-19 For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, He hath a devil.
The 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.
The accusations:
1. John fasted therefore he was demon-possessed. Was John demon-possessed. Is this your belief. Is this an accurate and true accusation.

2. Christ came eating and drinking (socializing) with sinners. Thus he was accused of both gluttony and a winebibber (a drunkard). Were either one of these true accusations? Do you believe this. Was Christ gluttonous. Was he a drunk? All of the above were false accusations given purely on the pretence that he associated himself with "bad company," according to the standards of the hypocritical Pharisees..
Yet the hyporcrites on this board try to draw some kind of "truth" from those lies that Jesus drank. To that Jesus answers:

But wisdom is justified of her children.
--And so it is. His children come out with any excuse to justify their wrong doing.
DHK

 

You have completely missed my point. Of course Jesus was not a drunkard, nor a glutton. But He says Himself that He did drink something, and because of whatever it was that He drank the Pharisees (falsely) charged Him with drunkenness, and whatever it was, it was something that John abstained from. What was it that Jesus drank that opened Him up to this charge?

You speak of "those lies that Jesus drank" and yet it was Jesus Himself who said "The Son of man came eating and drinking". You really ought to be careful who you charge with lying.

 

It does not say what Jesus drank. We are silent where the Bible is silent. It could have been water, or fig juice for that matter. The fact remains it doesn't say. Furthermore, just because John abstained from those things that were made from grapes does not automatically mean that Jesus drank those things that were made of grapes. That is an absurd comparison. Again, you cannot read into Scripture that which is not there. That is a common practice of the Catholics and the cults. That is one of the justifications of infant baptism--reading into the Scripture that which is not there. There were obviously infants in the jailors household even though the Scripture doesn't say so--reading into Scripture that which is not there. You are doing the same thing.
DHK

 

Actually, I've not done any such thing. I haven't said what it was that Jesus drank that opened Him up to this false charge. I only asked you what it was. Please be more careful with the accusations.

How likely is it that anyone would have called Jesus a winebibber after seeing Him drink water, or fig juice for that matter?

 

He was accused of gluttony--It was false.
He was accused of being drunk--It was false.
That is all that can be determined from that passage.
Don't try to read anything more into it. The Pharisees were making false accusations based on the company that he kept.
DHK

 

I agree, but don't you find it strange that someone who never drank alcohol would be accused of being a drunkard? It's almost as strange as someone who would never eat but was accused of being a glutton. Sure seems odd to me.

I am not saying, nor have I ever said, that this verse proves anything about whether Jesus drank alcohol or not. I am only saying that your interpretation sure does seem unlikely.

 

DHK, it was Jesus Himself who made the direct comparison, not "Whatever".
(By the way, whatever, I have to say it cracked me up to see, on the title page here "The Best Wine" whatever)

He compared the fact that whatever it was that John the Baptist was not eating and drinking, He was, and they were both getting condemned for what they did.

What John did not drink is stated specifically in Luke 1:15b: "He is never to take wine or other fermented drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit even from birth."

That is what John was NOT drinking and they, according to Jesus in Matthew 11, called John demon-possessed. Jesus was drinking what John was not drinking and they called Jesus a wine-bibber, or drunkard. One can hardly be called that, even in error, if the person has never had ANY wine or other fermented drink!

Bible does explain Bible and Jesus' comparison between John and Himself could not have been more clear.

 

You are reading INTO the passage what it NOT there.

When I was younger, I had friends who were pot smokers. (1970's) Because I was friends with them, I was accused of smoking pot also. It was a FALSE charge but because I kept company with them, the charge stuck. Unlike Jesus, I eventually succumed to peer pressure. Jesus NEVER drank nor created alcoholic beverages. That would be tempting men with evil, and God don't play that way.

I wonder why they are called alcoholic beverages, hmmm?

 

Who made the bodies that lead so many into sexual immorality?

Who made the food that leads so many into gluttony?

Who gives the blessings that lead so many into covetousness and idolatry?

You know Who ...

 

Thou hast begged thy question.

 

My Bible seems to say, "All things were made by him, and without him was not anything made that was made."

You were saying about God not creating alcohol?

Michael

 

It might be noted that there are some fruits which ferment on the bush with no involvement by man whatsoever! Pyracantha berries will ferment on the bush. Birds get drunk on them. We used to have to pull dead birds out of the horse troughs in November and December because they would fall over trying to get a drink of water and drown, they were so drunk! They would fly into cars, pick fights with themselves in windows, etc. It was bizarre, and man never had to do anything but try to rescue the poor little things!

There are other fruits which ferment by themselves before they are even picked or fallen on the ground. Pyracantha berries are simply the most clear example I know of because of the birds.

Man does not cause fermentation. He has learned how to control it, however.

 

In other words, he learns how to make wine and other alcoholic beverages. Wine just doesn't happen naturally. Fruits rot. Grapes rot. Grape juice grows moldy.
Is it not interesting, that thought there was plenty of fruit in the garden of Eden, there is no evidence of Adam and Eve ever getting drunk. In fact there is no evidence of anyone in the Bible becoming inebriated until about 2,000 years after creation--around the time of the Flood.
You see, Adam and Eve, or Seth or Enoch just couldn't go your local Safeway or Wal-Mart and buy a wne-making kit. As you just said Helen, "He has learned how to control it," or do it. Wine making is a learned art or process. It just doesn't happen.
What does happen is that we naturally eat fruit: apples, oranges, and grapes, and many other such fruit. It doesn't take much intelligence to know that one can squeeze the juice out almost all of those fruits and then drink them--a common practice.

Now which was more common--drinkiing grape juice or drinking wine?
Which was easier to preserve--grape juice or fermented wine?

Many of the church fathers and other ancient sources declare that it is the grape juice that it is easier to preserve, and that the wine was far more difficult to preserve.
The reason is simple. Both the Egyptians and the Israelites had mastered the art of preserving the fruit itself. From grapes to peaches to apricots and other fruits, they had learned how to preserve fruit. Fermented wine would not keep; but the fruit (the actual grapes) would. Thus when grape-juice was needed, they would simply retrieve the grapes and crush them, straining the skins out. Daniel and his three friends would not drink of the wine (fermented) of the others. So what did they drink? Most likely fresh-squeezed juice from grapes that had been preserved. Perhaps their greater intelligence was partly due to their diet. The Bible seems to indicate that. Perhaps the others were inhibited from learning by the fermented wine that they were drinking whereas Daniel and his friends were not. Of course all glory must be given ultimately to God.
DHK