The Best Wine

[Charles Meadows]

"If the literal sense makes sense, seek no other sense, lest it result in nonsense." M.R. DeHaan

That's why you see the literal sense of "wine" as being not really wine?



In Jesus' time there was only wine, water, fruit juice, and milk. Only one of those could be guaranteed not to make you sick with E coli or brucellosis - that was wine since the alcohol killed the germs! Of course it was alcoholic wine! That's why the Bible calls it wine (literal sense here!).

Nowadays things are different. We have pasteurized milk, clean water, pop etc. Today we have no need of any alcoholic beverages.

You can't change the Bible to make it conform to your own desires.

 

[gb93433]

{sorry - I was just being absurd to illustrate the absurdity of some of the anti-alcohol arguments - I guess I didn't make it clear enough - don't tell the others though}

Thanks. I know there are those who believe such things. That is the reason I took your posting seriously. I grew up with a mom who thought much like you wrote.

 

[tinytim]

"If the literal sense makes sense, seek no other sense, lest it result in nonsense." M.R. DeHaan

That's why you see the literal sense of "wine" as being not really wine?



In Jesus' time there was only wine, water, fruit juice, and milk. Only one of those could be guaranteed not to make you sick with E coli or brucellosis - that was wine since the alcohol killed the germs! Of course it was alcoholic wine! That's why the Bible calls it wine (literal sense here!).

Nowadays things are different. We have pasteurized milk, clean water, pop etc. Today we have no need of any alcoholic beverages.

You can't change the Bible to make it conform to your own desires.

That is the most sensible statements I have seen so far.
A real big light bulb went off over my head when I read the part about alcohol killing germs.

Thanks

 

[annsni]

Yes, dear Sister---I understand---but forbidding to indulge in alcoholic beverages is not a Puritan law because it is deemed a pleasure.

A beautiful sunrise and sunset---will not alter one's mind

A piece of music played well---will not alter one's mind

A laugh here and there will not alter one's mind

Giving away the rose garden or the animal farm will not alter one's mind

You know, these things DO alter one's mind! There are times in our home when things get a little crabby - kids are cranky as am I. I'll turn on some great fun, fast praise music and we'll all dance and worship God and not only will our minds be altered - our hearts will be also!

And your husband certainly should be a pleasure to you---but still, that will not alter one's mind. The Bible does not say its a sin to "linger long" with your husband---nor I with my wife!! But it does say not to linger long at the wine----and that linger---no matter how short---is too long!!! I chose to abstain---because I do not want to succume to any minute fraction of my mind becomeing altered beyond the control of the Holy Spirit. I have but one influencer of my mind--and that is the Spirit of the Lord Jesus Christ!

Bro. David

Bro. David - then in that case, since you have decided against alcohol, then by all means, do not partake! It would be a sin to you since you see it as a sin for yourself. But to tell someone ELSE that to partake a bit is a sin is what's wrong. I agree that getting drunk is wrong - that's the 'linger long' part of it. But in the thought of not lingering long, there is an assumption that you will atleast BE there to even possibly linger - NOT giving the sense of not even going there.

Ann

 

[His Blood Spoke My Name]

So are you saying that Jesus never drank wine?

Yes, without a doubt. Christ was sinless. Not one verse can be found in Scripture to say that He partook of or endorsed alcoholic beverage.

Christ drank of the pure, unfermented fruit of the vine.

 

[annsni]

Yes, without a doubt. Christ was sinless. Not one verse can be found in Scripture to say that He partook of or endorsed alcoholic beverage.

Christ drank of the pure, unfermented fruit of the vine.

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, 'Look at him! A glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!'

 

[DHK]

"If the literal sense makes sense, seek no other sense, lest it result in nonsense." M.R. DeHaan

That's why you see the literal sense of "wine" as being not really wine?



In Jesus' time there was only wine, water, fruit juice, and milk. Only one of those could be guaranteed not to make you sick with E coli or brucellosis - that was wine since the alcohol killed the germs! Of course it was alcoholic wine! That's why the Bible calls it wine (literal sense here!).

Nowadays things are different. We have pasteurized milk, clean water, pop etc. Today we have no need of any alcoholic beverages.

You can't change the Bible to make it conform to your own desires.

What a farce!
I suppose if they all drank from the same cup they all had AIDS or Hepatitis A or B or C, and who knows what else??
DHK

 

[His Blood Spoke My Name]

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, 'Look at him! A glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!'

The devil has deceived you if you believe Jesus was admitting to drinking alcoholic beverage.

Jesus just pointed out that they falsely accused John the Baptist and were then falsely accusing Him.

He went on to say 'But wisdom is justified of her children.' In other words, 'My followers know that I do not drink alcohol.'

You are falsely accusing the Lord Jesus Christ just as the Pharisees did.

 

[Charles Meadows]

Actually of those diseases only hepatitis A could be acquired that way - and in Palestine they almost all certainly had it as a children - causing only mild gastroenteritis. It is endemic there.

This is a clear example of several individuals here twisting the words of the Bible to fit their own presuppositions. Jesus drank wine - deal with it. As I already explained there were reasons for those in the first century to do that - the small amount of alcohol (and it likely was small) killed germs. Everyone drank it (except for a few Nazirites - of whom Jesus was not one) and didn't think twice about it being something evil.

No one here is suggesting that we as Christians are thus liberated to booze it up. Nowadays we have processed drinks with no risk of infection. And I don't condone Christians drinking today - it is a bad witness.

This attempt to say Jesus never drank wine is a shameful twisting of scripture. That puts you in poor company - with the liberals who likewise twist scripture to say that monogamous homosexuality is not sin and things like that. You have twisted it in a well-meaning way - but twisted it none the less. The end does not justify the means. Shame on you for such a poor example of exegesis.

 

[His Blood Spoke My Name]

Actually of those diseases only hepatitis A could be acquired that way - and in Palestine they almost all certainly had it as a children - causing only mild gastroenteritis. It is endemic there.

This is a clear example of several individuals here twisting the words of the Bible to fit their own presuppositions. Jesus drank wine - deal with it. As I already explained there were reasons for those in the first century to do that - the small amount of alcohol (and it likely was small) killed germs. Everyone drank it (except for a few Nazirites - of whom Jesus was not one) and didn't think twice about it being something evil.

No one here is suggesting that we as Christians are thus liberated to booze it up. Nowadays we have processed drinks with no risk of infection. And I don't condone Christians drinking today - it is a bad witness.

This attempt to say Jesus never drank wine is a shameful twisting of scripture. That puts you in poor company - with the liberals who likewise twist scripture to say that monogamous homosexuality is not sin and things like that. You have twisted it in a well-meaning way - but twisted it none the less. The end does not justify the means. Shame on you for such a poor example of exegesis.

Jesus did not think twice about alcohol being evil? How can you make such a statement? Your mind obviously is not the mind of Christ in this matter. He, as the Prince of Peace and the King of kings, would not have drank alcohol. It is foolish to make such accusations to make our Lord a winebibber. BTW, the word 'winebibber' means wine-drinker, which would be not just getting drunk on alcoholic wine, but drinking it to any extent. Nowhere in Scripture can it be found that Christ drank alcoholic beverages.

Produce those Scriptures that say otherwise, or else, quit playing the same role the Pharisees did.

 

[Charles Meadows]

"If the literal sense makes sense, seek no other sense, lest it result in nonsense." M.R. DeHaan

If you believe this then why do you keep saying that wine is not wine? Jesus made wine at Cana. At the last supper He drank the "fruit of the vine" (wine). If Jesus forbade drinking wine that would have been clear in scripture - because everyone drank it (because it didn't spoil). And didn't Paul tell Timothy to drink a little wine?

I dislike drinking just as much as you. But that doesn't allow me to go back and alter scripture. You think Jesus could not have drunk wine because you think drinking is wrong. But unfortunately the Bible says you are wrong. He made it and drank it.

 

[Hope of Glory]

Charles Meadows, you posted what I was going to post almost word for word. I preach against drinking every chance I get, and turned down a chaplain position for the VFW even though it's in a separate building from the bar, and I have no opposition to using grape juice for communion now that we can get rid of the leaven without fermentation, but:

"If the literal sense makes sense, seek no other sense, lest it result in nonsense." M.R. DeHaan

Good advice.

"Wine" is wine, not grape juice.

 

[mcdirector]

I am also in agreement that wine is wine not grape juice.

 

[His Blood Spoke My Name]

You still have not produced one iota of evidence that that wine that Jesus created was fermented in the least.

You just keep arguing that it was.

You say you are against drinking, but your very words betray you. You are not against it or you would be preaching the truth.

Jesus did not create an alcoholic wine.

 

[whatever]

You still have not produced one iota of evidence that that wine that Jesus created was not fermented in the least.

You just keep arguing that it was not.

 

[Charles Meadows]

You also still have yet to explain how you make wine be not wine. The Bible says "wine". The burden of proof is on you to show that it was not wine.

If you suggest that it was not wine then you do not believe in an inerrant Bible.

 

[Linda64]

The word "wine" in the Bible is a generic term. It can mean EITHER fermented or unfermented depending on the CONTEXT--OT and NT. Wine TODAY is ALL fermented. Therefore, you are comparing APPLES to ORANGES. By saying that Jesus turned the water into FERMENTED wine--and drank FERMENTED wine, you are calling Jesus a "winebibber" as the Pharisees did. How do you know this? You have not given ANY scriptures that specifially state that Jesus turned the water into FERMENTED wine or that He drank FERMENTED wine at the Last Supper. He never even used the word WINE at the Last Supper--He used the term "FRUIT OF THE VINE"--the "fruit of the vine" is the unfermented juice of the grape.

And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom. (Matthew 26:27-29)

Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging: and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise. (Proverbs 20:1)

The above verses speak for themselves. The wine today is definitely NOT grape juice--a far cry from it. The "wine" in Proverbs 20:1 is NOT the same as the "fruit of the vine" in Matthew 26:27-29.

 

[tinytim]

Wine is wine... period.
The Bible says Wine.... to say otherwise is blasphemy against God's Holy Word....

Charles is right.
The Bible says Jesus made wine, so He made wine... no matter what some say today that wants to "water down" (no pun intended) the Bible.

To say it says something it doesn't say, is twisting scripture. And is a sin.

If it says wine, it is wine.

 

[Charles Meadows]

From Merriam Webster:

1 : the alcoholic fermented juice of fresh grapes used as a beverage
2 : the alcoholic usually fermented juice of a plant product (as a fruit) used as a beverage <blackberry wine>
3 : something that invigorates or intoxicates

Wine is wine. If the inerrant Bible had intended to depict unfermented grape juice then it would not have used the word "wine".

You cannot have it both ways. Either Jesus drank wine (which He did) or the Bible is wrong. Which is it?

 

[His Blood Spoke My Name]

It has been proven using Scripture to interpret Scripture, that there were wines in the Bible that were not alcoholic in content, and wines that were alcoholic in content.

I have given Scripture that clearly show that Jesus did not drink, create, or endorse alcoholic wine.

You, on the other hand have done nothing but take the word wine to mean that wine that we know today, alcohol.

You are making the Lord that which He is not, fulfilling that which is spoken of in God's Word when it says some turned the truth of God into a lie.

Yes, I am revealing the evil that is being manifest in man's heart when he claims Jesus drank and created and endorsed alcoholic wine.

Men loved darkness rather than light because their deeds were evil.