The Lord Jesus Christ drank new wine.

[Zaac]

It doesn't say "and Jesus drank wine" but He was an observant Jew so He would have at least had it at Passover.

That's not what I asked.:laugh: You get into what He would have had to do and it opens the door for what did He take Passover with?fermented, etc, etc... :laugh:

So you are saying that Scripture DOES NOT say that Jesus drank wine?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Is there anywhere in Scripture that it clearly says that Jesus drank wine? Not what people think can be inferred. Not what someone thinks He had to be doing.

But where in Scripture does it actually say that Jesus drank wine?

Only by accusation ...they called a wine bibber.

 

[Zaac]

Only by accusation ...they called a wine bibber.

That's what I thought. Accusations. Scripture never SAYS that He drank wine.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

That's what I thought. Accusations. Scripture never SAYS that He drank wine.

It doesn't say he didn't either. He did however interact with it enough though via turning water into wine & offering it to the apostles. That tells me that he has no objection to it, right! :love2:

 

[Ed B]

What is a laughing jig? Your historical perspective? Say, since you are in China, could you bring back some fireworks?

I am guessing it looked something like this only with more laughing perhaps?

 

[annsni]

That's what I thought. Accusations. Scripture never SAYS that He drank wine.

It also doesn't say He drank water either. Or juice. Or milk. I guess Jesus just didn't drink anything!

 

[Amy.G]

But where in Scripture does it actually say that Jesus drank wine?

Luke 7:33-34 For John the Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking wine; and ye say, He hath a devil. The Son of man is come eating and drinking; and ye say, Behold a gluttonous man, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners!

 

[Zaac]

It doesn't say he didn't either.

Very true.

He did however interact with it enough though via turning water into wine & offering it to the apostles. That tells me that he has no objection to it, right! :love2:

I don't know about that. He ALLOWS for divorce too, but it's still considered sinful.

 

[annsni]

Very true.



I don't know about that. He ALLOWS for divorce too, but it's still considered sinful.

Show me where Jesus said "you are divorced" to someone wanting to get divorced.

 

[Don]

I don't know about that. He ALLOWS for divorce too, but it's still considered sinful.

Granted, this could rabbit-trail and derail the thread quickly...but my understanding is that Jesus did not "allow" for divorce.

Matthew 19:8 ...Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.

9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

The following is from Fallible Blogma, at http://fallibleblogma.com/index.php/did-jesus-drink-alcohol/

For the first 1800-1900 years of Christianity, drinking alcohol in moderation was one more way to enjoy God’s gifts. But a movement in the social politic of America in the early 1900’s suddenly changed some protestant denominations stance on alcohol consumption.

These groups began teaching that drinking alcohol was always or almost always a sin. This was a huge change from historical Christianity.

As a result of this new teaching, we had a lot of people twisting scripture to try and support this idea that Jesus didn’t drink alcohol and that the word “wine” in scripture is actually referring to grape juice.

But this is not supported by scripture, history, or logic.

The Jews, prior to Jesus’ birth, had considered “wine” to be fermented (alcoholic) grape juice. And it was certainly a part of many activities, including weddings, and it was definitely used in the passover celebration.

When Jesus came along there is no indication that He changed or condemned any of these existing practices. In fact, he seems to have encouraged them. His first miracle was turning water into wine at the wedding feast at Cana (John 2:1-11). And again, the wine that these Jews would have been drinking was fermented, alcoholic wine – not grape juice. And then of course Jesus used wine when he celebrated passover with his apostles and instituted the Eucharist – wine being the object of consecration. Jesus actually humbles himself, taking on the form of wine, so that we can consume Him.

Another point to remember is that back then people had no way of preserving juice. They had no preservatives or other modern processes to easily keep grape juice from fermenting. So once they harvested the grapes for the year and stored the juice in skins, the fermentation process naturally began. If you put juice in a container and leave it alone for a few months what do you get? Fermented, alcoholic wine. That’s what you get.

The passover feast occurred 6-7 months after the grape harvest. By then the grape juice was surely a nice shiraz, or a pinot (ok…I’m not sure how nice it was). So it would have been impossible to not have alcoholic wine for the passover and really for any occasion during the large part of any year.

And even in scripture the apostles themselves are mistakenly accused of being drunk on wine (Acts 2:13-15). First, this seems to infer that it’s not unreasonable to think the apostles may have been drinking alcoholic wine. And second, Peter responds to the accusers, not by saying that they didn’t drink alcohol or that it was bad. He responds by saying basically, “hey, we’re not drunk, it’s too early to be drinking wine.” The implication is obviously that the apostles did drink alcoholic wine, it was just too early in the day to have done so – and they certainly weren’t drunk.

And the constant teaching of the Church is consistent with all of this. Drinking wine can be a good and holy thing.

All that being said, the Church has also always taught that abuse of alcohol or anything else to the point of impairing your judgment is a serious sin. Just as some groups have taken the use of alcohol to an extreme by prohibiting it, it is just as incorrect and even more dangerous to take it to the other extreme of abusing it.

Many Catholics take the Church’s acceptance of the use of alcohol as a license to get drunk. This couldn’t be further from the truth and is a sin of grave matter. I’ve heard many a Catholic respond to negative inferences of getting drunk by saying, “Oh, I’m Catholic…so it’s cool.”

No, it’s not cool. And it’s not Catholic.

It’s another one of those things where a little common sense goes a long way. And if you want to know the best way to drink, read the words of G.K. Chesterton, writer, lay theologian, poet, dramatist, journalist, orator, literary and art critic, biographer, and Christian apologist:

“In so far as drinking is really a sin it is not because drinking is wild, but because drinking is tame; not in so far as it is anarchy, but in so far as it is slavery.

Probably the worst way to drink is to drink medicinally. Certainly the safest way to drink is to drink carelessly; that is, without caring much for anything, and especially not caring for the drink. In such things to be careless is to be sane: for neither drunkards nor Moslems [sic] can be careless about drink.” G. K. Chesterton, Wine when it is Red.​

 

[DHK]

A survey found that while binge drinking among teens dropped a little in the last decade, there are still thousands of high school students downing five or more drinks on a single occasion at least once a month.

"There's a culture among young people of binge drinking that's potentially dangerous, and the challenge is how do you break into that," Dr. Robert Mann, the report's main author, said in an interview Tuesday.

His research showed that alcohol was the substance used by the largest number of students, with 55 per cent saying they'd had a drink in the past year, and one in 10 students reporting binge drinking at times of psychological distress.

http://toronto.ctvnews.ca/binge-drinking-among-ontario-teens-a-concern-survey-1.732832


In another study:

The study looked at costs that included -- among other things -- lost work productivity, property damage from car crashes, expenditures for liver cirrhosis and other alcohol-associated medical problems, and money spent on incarceration of drunk drivers and criminals using alcohol.

The CDC estimated excessive drinking cost society nearly US$224 billion in 2006, the most recent year for which all necessary statistics were available. That worked out to about $1.90 per drink, 80 cents of which was spent by federal, state or local governments, the researchers estimated. The rest came from drinkers, their families, private health insurers, employers, crime victims and others.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/cdc-calculates-societal-costs-of-excessive-drinking-1.712544



And to think it all started with just ONE drink.

Would Jesus have given those young people that one drink, that one alcoholic beverage?
He did know the consequences didn't he?

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Would Jesus have given those young people that one drink, that one alcoholic beverage?

He would have cautioned them to take it in moderation. Like it or not, He drank wine Himself. Those of you who deny it have no historical or biblical leg to stand on.

 

[Revmitchell]

Anyone who thinks that what people drink today is the same as alcohol back then does not know what in the world they are talking about.

 

[annsni]

Anyone who thinks that what people drink today is the same as alcohol back then does not know what in the world they are talking about.

Ours may be stronger but you could still get drunk back then! Drunk is drunk whether it's from 10 Mike's Hard Lemonades or 2 shots of whiskey.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Anyone who thinks that what people drink today is the same as alcohol back then does not know what in the world they are talking about.

Ours may be stronger but you could still get drunk back then!

Actually, their wine was probably close to 17% alcohol whereas ours is limited by law in all 50 states to 12%.

 

[Revmitchell]

Ours may be stronger but you could still get drunk back then! Drunk is drunk whether it's from 10 Mike's Hard Lemonades or 2 shots of whiskey.

It doesn't matter. The volume you had to drink in order to obtain a drunk was significantly more then. Now it takes no more than one or two drinks. Then it was used to keep water quality. Now it is used for nothing but pleasure.

The only thing that is the same is that sitting around getting drunk was looked down upon the same way then as it does now.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

It doesn't matter. The volume you had to drink in order to obtain a drunk was significantly more then.

Sorry, Rev, but that argument doesn't hold water ... or wine, for that matter. I've seen this argument used by abstentionists who insist on believing the wine of the Bible was heavily diluted, having been turned into a paste and then mixed into the water to kill the germs swimming around inside most water, even today, in the Mideast.

While dilution was certainly used in some circumstances, this was far from the universal practice. The Biblical admonitions against drunkenness should suffice to prove that not everyone was diluting. Obviously, at least some people were getting a hold of the real thing and becoming drunk. If all "wine" was so low in alcohol content, then one would have to consume gallons and gallons to get drunk. I know that's what you're claiming, but it's a baseless claim, teetering on a weak assumption.

Moreover, this low-alcohol content argument has no support in historical scholarship. Virtually every scholar agrees that the alcohol content of wine during Biblical times was usually between 5-20%, which is enough to intoxicate. If the wine of the Bible was as strong as American Lager -- and it was at least that strong and sometimes much, much stronger, depending on how long it had been allowed to ferment, they it didn't take "gallons and gallons" for someone to achieve drunkenness. As I stated before, oinosflugia literally means "too much wine" and they didn't label it that because they drank too much volume.

Ironically, one popular abstentionist argues that the burden of proof should fall on those who claim that Biblical wine contained alcohol. This bold claim is precisely the opposite of reality. The burden of proof always falls on those who are against the consensus of historical scholarship. Such abstentionists have failed to prove that dilution was the universal practice.

Furthermore, many Biblical texts become silly or meaningless if they refer to non-alcoholic grape juice. Would the Shulamite have said to Solomon, “Your love is better than grape juice” (Song of Songs 1:2)?

If wine was super-diluted, why did the good Samaritan pour grape juice on the wounds of the man going to Jericho (Luke 10:34)? Why did Paul counsel Timothy to drink a little grape juice for his stomach (1 Timothy 5:23)? Counsel with was, by the way, 2,000 years ahead of its time, as it's only been 20 years that scientists have acknowledged that red wine is good for digestion and limiting cholesterol.

If wine was basically grape juice, then the weaker brother argument is pointless (Romans 14; 1 Corinthians 8). Why would anyone object to the consumption of grape juice? No one’s faith is threatened by grace juice.

The wine of the Bible had to have been alcoholic. Alcohol can intoxicate, clean wounds, and heal stomach troubles. Grape juice does none of these things. The wine was alcoholic, and similar in alcoholic content to that we have today.

 

[Revmitchell]

I do not believe the bible says anywhere that we are not to drink alcohol. The problem is in our day and age what amount will still leave us sober minded which is a command from scripture.

The idea that alcohol was 17% is absurd.

 

[annsni]

Sorry, Rev, but that argument doesn't hold water ... or wine, for that matter. I've seen this argument used by abstentionists who insist on believing the wine of the Bible was heavily diluted, having been turned into a paste and then mixed into the water to kill the germs swimming around inside most water, even today, in the Mideast.

While dilution was certainly used in some circumstances, this was far from the universal practice. The Biblical admonitions against drunkenness should suffice to prove that not everyone was diluting. Obviously, at least some people were getting a hold of the real thing and becoming drunk. If all "wine" was so low in alcohol content, then one would have to consume gallons and gallons to get drunk. I know that's what you're claiming, but it's a baseless claim, teetering on a weak assumption.

Moreover, this low-alcohol content argument has no support in historical scholarship. Virtually every scholar agrees that the alcohol content of wine during Biblical times was usually between 5-20%, which is enough to intoxicate. If the wine of the Bible was as strong as American Lager -- and it was at least that strong and sometimes much, much stronger, depending on how long it had been allowed to ferment, they it didn't take "gallons and gallons" for someone to achieve drunkenness. As I stated before, oinosflugia literally means "too much wine" and they didn't label it that because they drank too much volume.

Ironically, one popular abstentionist argues that the burden of proof should fall on those who claim that Biblical wine contained alcohol. This bold claim is precisely the opposite of reality. The burden of proof always falls on those who are against the consensus of historical scholarship. Such abstentionists have failed to prove that dilution was the universal practice.

Furthermore, many Biblical texts become silly or meaningless if they refer to non-alcoholic grape juice. Would the Shulamite have said to Solomon, “Your love is better than grape juice” (Song of Songs 1:2)?

If wine was super-diluted, why did the good Samaritan pour grape juice on the wounds of the man going to Jericho (Luke 10:34)? Why did Paul counsel Timothy to drink a little grape juice for his stomach (1 Timothy 5:23)? Counsel with was, by the way, 2,000 years ahead of its time, as it's only been 20 years that scientists have acknowledged that red wine is good for digestion and limiting cholesterol.

If wine was basically grape juice, then the weaker brother argument is pointless (Romans 14; 1 Corinthians 8). Why would anyone object to the consumption of grape juice? No one’s faith is threatened by grace juice.

The wine of the Bible had to have been alcoholic. Alcohol can intoxicate, clean wounds, and heal stomach troubles. Grape juice does none of these things. The wine was alcoholic, and similar in alcoholic content to that we have today.

While I agree with you, I just read that elsewhere at http://dispensationalist.blogspot.com/2007/11/alcohol-content-of-wine-in-bible.html Is that your writing or did you c&p it? If you c&p it, you should really post the link to give credit for the writing.

I do personally think that to pour unpure water mixed with a very small amount of wine to cleanse a wound just doesn't make sense. And for the miracle at Cana, did Jesus just put a drop or two of pure wine in the water and it was now the best wine? I don't think that's quite right. But I do think that most likely for day to day drinking, watered-down wine was more than likely the thing to drink.