The Best Wine

[gb93433]

Jesus could not have drank alcoholic wine. His blood was pure and He would not allow that which is impure to enter that bloodstream.

Are you sure he drank pure water without any germs

 

[Hope of Glory]

To those who mentioned "cider", I would suggest that you do an eymological study of the word. It's only in recent history that it has come to mean anything other than the fermented drink made from apples. The first use of the word (which is from Old French) shows up about 1280. Only recently has it come to mean the non-fermented juice of apples (and even the juice of other fruits now), and has to be clarified as "sweet cider" or "hard cider".

 

[Gina B]

Jesus could not have drank alcoholic wine. His blood was pure and He would not allow that which is impure to enter that bloodstream.

Why would you say that?

How do you define impure?

Can you give examples of impure things people put into their bloodstreams?

 

[ACADEMIC]

So, because alcoholic "wine" tastes good to you, and grape juice doesn't this is a good reason for you to make the Bible teach what it doesn't really teach. Amazing! You say: "I will twist the Scriptures because I don't like the taste of grape juice." That's pretty lame, don't you think.
DHK

You are the one who twisted my post because you hacked it to death and refused to see that the parts you deleted were the most important parts. Then you extract a tiny part of it from its original context and reply to it. That's is what is amazing here.

You are blinded by your bias. I suggest you recuse yourself from this thread, and I have written to all the senior moderators requesting you do so.

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

 

[gb93433]

If you look back only as far as the 1600s you will see that alcohol is a main stay of the typical persons diet in the colonies. Why? Because there was NOT any knowledge of how to purify water, therefore beer or wine was used as a drink. Even the Puritan Children consumed beer , at all times during the day including in the morning.

The highest use of alcohol in America was during the post Civil war era, and it is interesting that a man Named Dr. Welch came up with fixing the problem of FERMENTING WINE, he learned that pastorzing it would STOP the fermentation process and therefore Grape Juice would stay Grape Juice and NOT turn into wine.

Grapes have always been a highly prized fruit, it would be unreasonable to think that grapes would be used to make a fruit juice to give out at a wedding.

Although I do not personally drink, I think its very funny that people here think that at the Wedding at Cana , there would be Grape Juice and not wine.


Also people need to look further into the temperance movement that swept through out the U.S. during the 1800s. This was a moral issue that many pastors brought into their preaching, its funny that Southern Baptists were the last ones to stop drinking when their northern brothers had started the temperance movement first.

Those comments remind me of the days when I was in the RCC and saw so many practices changing calling them God's laws.

 

[Charles Meadows]

Smoky,

If you can find just one occurrence of yayin or oinos meaning pure grape juice in the Bible, then that’s enough.

I have to disagree with you on this one.

If we have an inerrant Bible then we can with confidence read it and believe it to be true. But what DHK, SFIC and others are doing is starting with their opinion that alcohol is evil and then deducing that since Jesus could do no evil then He must not have drunk wine. But that completely bypasses the Bible! I assert that we must read the Bible - in its context. That means that sometimes we encounter things that we might not have expected. We obviously do not understand everything. I find it very arrogant to think that we should approach the Bible letting our presuppositions influence the reading. Regarding the "words" - the vast majority of the time these words (yayin, oinos) refer to fermented wine. In addition the English translations render them as "wine". The times that they would refer to something else are exceptions. In addition there are strong contextual factors suggesting that wine was commonplace and would have been drunk by Jesus. Consider the instance it which it is said that John the Baptist did not drink wine. It is significant since it would have been the vast minority of those who did abstain from wine. If it were so important to avoid wine then why does the Bible not make a point to show that Jesus avoided it?

Look at all of the arguments from DHK, SFIC and others. Each one of them argues from his/her own opinions about what Jesus could or could not have done. I think the truth should come from the Bible and not from people's opinions. And the Bible makes no hint at all that Jesus would have abstained from wine.

 

[FundamentalOnly!]

Those comments remind me of the days when I was in the RCC and saw so many practices changing calling them God's laws.

Those statements were based on lectures and primary sources that I personally studied during my time in school, not personal thoughts about history as many do here.

 

[Gina B]

Mods are allowed to have an opinion and express it. I think he's done a great job.

Hasn't edited my posts, hasn't tried to force me to be quiet, and has answered questions and comments of mine gracefully.

 

[His Blood Spoke My Name]

Smoky,

If you can find just one occurrence of yayin or oinos meaning pure grape juice in the Bible, then that’s enough.

I have to disagree with you on this one.

If we have an inerrant Bible then we can with confidence read it and believe it to be true. But what DHK, SFIC and others are doing is starting with their opinion that alcohol is evil and then deducing that since Jesus could do no evil then He must not have drunk wine. But that completely bypasses the Bible! I assert that we must read the Bible - in its context. That means that sometimes we encounter things that we might not have expected. We obviously do not understand everything. I find it very arrogant to think that we should approach the Bible letting our presuppositions influence the reading. Regarding the "words" - the vast majority of the time these words (yayin, oinos) refer to fermented wine. In addition the English translations render them as "wine". The times that they would refer to something else are exceptions. In addition there are strong contextual factors suggesting that wine was commonplace and would have been drunk by Jesus. Consider the instance it which it is said that John the Baptist did not drink wine. It is significant since it would have been the vast minority of those who did abstain from wine. If it were so important to avoid wine then why does the Bible not make a point to show that Jesus avoided it?

Look at all of the arguments from DHK, SFIC and others. Each one of them argues from his/her own opinions about what Jesus could or could not have done. I think the truth should come from the Bible and not from people's opinions. And the Bible makes no hint at all that Jesus would have abstained from wine.

WRONG!! What I have done is presented scripture, history, medical and scientific facts to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt to those who are truly seeking truth to show that wine was both alcoholic and non-alcoholic in content in Bible times, that based on rightly dividing the Word of Truth, the Lord Jesus Christ, the Sinless and Spotless Son of God could not have created, drank, nor endorsed alcoholic wine, that even one glass of wine takes up to 2 hours to completely run its course through the human body, that it kills brain cells in the process, that it is not safe to drink in any amount despite the worldly fleshly views and lust for it.

It is damaging both to the physical body, and the spirit of man. That which has been proven to kill brain cells from the moment the bloodstream reaches the brain would not have been ingested in any amount by God's Perfect Son.

To say otherwise is to preach another christ and to bring anathema upon oneself.

 

[Charles Meadows]

To say otherwise is to preach another christ and bringing anathema upon oneself.

So not only do you force your will upon the Bible - now you prescribe punishment for those who disagree with you?

What's next - mysterious golden plates that prove your view?

:laugh:

(Sorry, couldn't resist that one.)

Now just how is it proven (much less beyond a shadow of a doubt) that Jesus didn't drink wine? I missed that one.

What is known is that the Bible talks about wine (negatively when to excess) being drunk habitually - Paul even suggested that Timothy drink some. Never once is it mentioned that Jesus abstained from it.

Let me ask you this - are you willing to submit to the Bible - even if it says something different than you would have predicted? The Pharisees were so puffed up in their knowledge of the law that they failed to recognize the Messiah when He came.

 

[FERRON BRIMSTONE]

You cannot not read scripture without prejudice and say that Jesus did not drink wine, though I believe it was usually much weaker than what we have today. Wine was also needed to purify water since in that arid climate the water would not always be safe to drink.

The real issue here seems to be whether it is ok to drink wine today. I choose to obstain from alcohol, because of those that might get the wrong idea if they see me buying it or drinking it.

Rom 14:1 As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions.
Rom 14:2 One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables.
Rom 14:3 Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him.
Rom 14:4 Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand.
Rom 14:5 One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind.
Rom 14:6 The one who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. The one who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God, while the one who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God.
Rom 14:7 For none of us lives to himself, and none of us dies to himself.
Rom 14:8 If we live, we live to the Lord, and if we die, we die to the Lord. So then, whether we live or whether we die, we are the Lord's.
Rom 14:9 For to this end Christ died and lived again, that he might be Lord both of the dead and of the living.
Rom 14:10 Why do you pass judgment on your brother? Or you, why do you despise your brother? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God;
Rom 14:11 for it is written, "As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God."
Rom 14:12 So then each of us will give an account of himself to God.
Rom 14:13 Therefore let us not pass judgment on one another any longer, but rather decide never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother.
Rom 14:14 I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself, but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean.
Rom 14:15 For if your brother is grieved by what you eat, you are no longer walking in love. By what you eat, do not destroy the one for whom Christ died.
Rom 14:16 So do not let what you regard as good be spoken of as evil.
Rom 14:17 For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking but of righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.
Rom 14:18 Whoever thus serves Christ is acceptable to God and approved by men.
Rom 14:19 So then let us pursue what makes for peace and for mutual upbuilding.
Rom 14:20 Do not, for the sake of food, destroy the work of God. Everything is indeed clean, but it is wrong for anyone to make another stumble by what he eats.
Rom 14:21 It is good not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything that causes your brother to stumble.
Rom 14:22 The faith that you have, keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the one who has no reason to pass judgment on himself for what he approves.
Rom 14:23 But whoever has doubts is condemned if he eats, because the eating is not from faith. For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin.

ESV

 

[Gina B]

Once again, someone accuses other Christians of "preaching another Christ", damning them to hell.

I tried to discuss that before and everyone went nuts...but I said it before and I'll say it again...

That is about THE worst and most horrible thing one believer can say to another.

I hope suspension or banning is discussed. It's better to cuss someone out (simply low class English) than accuse them of serving Satan and hating Christ by teaching a false one.

 

[His Blood Spoke My Name]

To say otherwise is to preach another christ and bringing anathema upon oneself.

So not only do you force your will upon the Bible - now you prescribe punishment for those who disagree with you?

What's next - mysterious golden plates that prove your view?

:laugh:

(Sorry, couldn't resist that one.)

Now just how is it proven (much less beyond a shadow of a doubt) that Jesus didn't drink wine? I missed that one.

What is known is that the Bible talks about wine (negatively when to excess) being drunk habitually - Paul even suggested that Timothy drink some. Never once is it mentioned that Jesus abstained from it.

Let me ask you this - are you willing to submit to the Bible - even if it says something different than you would have predicted? The Pharisees were so puffed up in their knowledge of the law that they failed to recognize the Messiah when He came.

I do not prescribe the punishment, Charles. Have you read all of the Word of God? or just bits and pieces? Do you only believe what you want to believe, what you think was right instead of what the Word of God clearly says?

I will post the passage for you, just in case your Bible failed to include them.

Galatians 1:8-9 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

If you preach another gospel, and yes, preaching a christ that allowed fermented beverage into his bloodstream is preaching another gospel... the Word of God says, let that man be accursed (anathema).

 

[Hope of Glory]

I
I'm very much familiar with beaver fever. It is something that has been encountered more in recent times than in times gone by, as is most of these diseases.

And earthquakes cause many more deaths than in times go by. Not because they're more severe or more prevalent, but because there are more people to get diseases or die from earthquakes.

For example, the earthquake that created Reelfoot lake was estimated to be greater than an 8 on the Richter scale, yet how many people died? Mostly, people shook a lot, fell down, then got up an went on their business. No skyscrapers to fall, no massive population centers, etc. (Although, in the 'quake of '64, which was a 9.2, 13 people died from the actual shaking, it was so violent and prolonged.)

If you have 100 peple living in an are of 25,000 square miles, I would hazard that there would far fewer cases of Beaver Fever than if you had 100,000 people in the same area, assuming that both were incapable of purifying water.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

Let me ask you this - are you willing to submit to the Bible - even if it says something different than you would have predicted? The Pharisees were so puffed up in their knowledge of the law that they failed to recognize the Messiah when He came.

The question, are you willing to submit to the Bible in this matter, so far it appears you have not, nor are you willing to. My Bible calls that rebellion, the children of disobedience comes to mind at this point in the conversation.

 

[webdog]

So the answer is an astounding "no".

 

[standingfirminChrist]

Once again, someone accuses other Christians of "preaching another Christ", damning them to hell.

I tried to discuss that before and everyone went nuts...but I said it before and I'll say it again...

That is about THE worst and most horrible thing one believer can say to another.

I hope suspension or banning is discussed. It's better to cuss someone out (simply low class English) than accuse them of serving Satan and hating Christ by teaching a false one.

Gina,

HBSMN did not damn anyone to hell. HSBMN quoted the Word of God. He even posted the scripture that backs up all he has said.

There has been far worse spoken on this thread by the advocates of moderation than what HBSMN has posted. Far, far worse.

Accusing our Lord of not having a pure blood when going to the cross, of not doing the will of the Father by abstaining from that which destroys the body, is far worse altogether.

 

[ACADEMIC]

Mods are allowed to have an opinion and express it. I think he's done a great job.

Hasn't edited my posts, hasn't tried to force me to be quiet, and has answered questions and comments of mine gracefully.

HAS edited my posts. If your neighbor is wronged do you only care about yourself?

 

[Charles Meadows]

SFIC,

HBSMN didn't send anyone to Hell - but what he did do was to invoke scriptural punishment on anyone who teaches falsely about Jesus - using his definitions and not the Bible's.

I do not drink nor do I suggest that Christians can drink even a little without entering into sin. But that fact does not allow me to say therefore - since I dislike alcohol - that Jesus never drank it.

I (again) challenge you or HBSMN to show how we know that Jesus did not drink wine.

Now if you were to assert that in your opinion Jesus would have abstained and drunk only grape juice I would respect it as your opinion, although I would disagree with it.

But you go further insisting that the Bible proves Jesus abstained from wine - which it does not.

And HBSMN goes even further suggesting that anyone disagreeing with his unsupported opinion is preaching a false Christ.

 

[His Blood Spoke My Name]

Why would the Lord put in His Body that which doctors have proven destroys brain cells?

Would not His body be contaminated if He did? Would not His Body brain have been damaged since doctors have proven without a doubt that from the moment it enters the bloodstream it is carried to the brain and cells there are destroyed?

Would not He become unable to be the sufficient sacrifice for man's sin since alcohol is a narcotic, as stated by medical science? Since putting a narcotic substance in His system would contaminate Him?

Not just Bible, history, medical and scientific facts prove He could not have drank alcoholic wine, but also just plain logic also proves this.

Of course, when the mind is clouded by the deception that alcohol causes, one cannot rightly divide the Word of Truth concerning this matter.