Featured The Lord Jesus Christ drank new wine.

The temperance Movement actually started in the 1820's in America and the next decade abroad.

T

 

I don't post around here much, mainly cause of idiotic threads like this, but I occasionally check out the latest arguem...errr discussions. Anyway, I just thought I'd point out that you must have your info off somewhere cause the bottle of merlot I have is 13%.

Anyone care to guess my opinion on the alcohol issue? :tongue3:

 

Barns Commentary:

"The good wine - This shows that this had all the qualities of real wine. We should not be deceived by the phrase “good wine.” We often use the phrase to denote that it is good in proportion to its strength and its power to intoxicate; but no such sense is to be attached to the word here. Pliny, Plutarch, and Horace describe wine as “good,” or mention that as “the best wine,” which was harmless or “innocent” - poculo vini “innocentis.” The most useful wine - “utilissimum vinum” - was that which had little strength; and the most wholesome wine - “saluberrimum vinum” - was that which had not been adulterated by “the addition of anything to the ‘must’ or juice.” Pliny expressly says that a good wine was one that was destitute of spirit (lib. iv. c. 13). It should not be assumed, therefore, that the “good wine” was “stronger” than the other: it is rather to be presumed that it was milder."

The wine referred to here was doubtless such as was commonly drunk in Palestine. That was the pure juice of the grape. It was not brandied wine, nor drugged wine, nor wine compounded of various substances, such as we drink in this land. The common wine drunk in Palestine was that which was the simple juice of the grape. we use the word “wine” now to denote the kind of liquid which passes under that name in this country - always containing a considerable portion of alcohol not only the alcohol produced by fermentation, but alcohol “added” to keep it or make it stronger. But we have no right to take that sense of the word, and go with it to the interpretation of the Scriptures. We should endeavor to place ourselves in the exact circumstances of those times, ascertain precisely what idea the word would convey to those who used it then, and apply that sense to the word in the interpretation of the Bible; and there is not the slightest evidence that the word so used would have conveyed any idea but that of the pure juice of the grape, nor the slightest circumstance mentioned in this account that would not be fully met by such a supposition.

 

13-17%??
Someone has been badly misinformed. Here is some good information:

http://www.swartzentrover.com/cotor...ohol/Wine-Drinking in New Testament Times.htm


This of course is speaking of the average drink, called wine, in the Bible--such as the wine that Jesus created.

It is not saying that fermented wine could not be made with which one could get drunk. Read the above link. It has a lot of good information.

 

This thread was more fun with the KJV / Yoda quote battle.

 

Eating and drinking what? They accused Him of being a winebibber. That was their ACCUSATION. If it was an accusation, are we to believe what they said to not be true?

 

In verse 9, Don, appears to be the exception to allow for divorce. That and an unsaved person leaving a saved person.

He gives reasons why you CAN, but it doesn't say that it is right. That's why I offered it as a parallel to the making of wine at the wedding of Cana.

 

Jesus is GOD. the Bible is ALL His word. If you trust that He is God and His word is truth, does it not stand to reason that if His word says I am giving an exception that allows you to divorce, and it is HIS inspired word, that He means you are divorced?

That's not the same as did He drink wine because Scripture never explicitly says that HE did. But Scripture does show GOD's word---Jesus's word---giving a couple of reasons why folks can divorce.


Doesn't mean divorce isn't sinful, but He does allow for it.

 

Again, my Biblical legs don't show anywhere in Scripture where it says that Jesus drank wine without someone inferring something that makes them have to infer something else that makes them have to infer something else. Pretty soon the entirety, or most of, your belief system is based on inferences instead of what the words on the pages say.

 

I ask people this question a lot. When I look at the statistics of all the violence and crime and drug abuse in the world, most of it, I do't think it would be far fetched to say darn NEAR all of it, can be traced back to alcohol.

Given the statistics of death and despair tied to alcohol, would an all-knowing God encourage it?

Considering what happened when alcohol was consumed by Lot...considering that there was no doubt some drunkenness in Sodom...or in the story of Esther... and all the stats tieing all sorts of evils back to drinking, why do we want the association?

 

Actually the Bible says this as well....

Ecclesiastes 10:19

19 A feast is made for laughter,
And wine makes merry;
But money answers everything.

 

The Bible tells us that the LOVE of money is the root of all kinds of evil.

Again, feel free to justify doing whatever you wish as God says all things are allowable, but not all things are beneficial.

Considering the wickedness associated with alcohol, is it beneficial to the Christian witness to drink at all?

You will always find Christians who say yes because they got to have that drink just like they think they've got to have water.

Want outweighs the witness. It simply is what it is.

 

And yet, you continue to engage.

LOL

 

And the Bible says:

http://www.andrewcorbett.net/articles/alcohol.htm

​

 

If we are to believe those who advocate drinking, either Jesus didn't know, or He didn't care that hundreds of thousands that started with just ONE drink would become murderers for another drink, become paupers for another drink, become child abusers, be doomed to hell, etc..

So many use the Word of God deceitfully and place a stumbling block in the paths of others by telling them Jesus approves of alcohol.

 

Continued from above:

 

Show me in John 2 where Jesus told those wedding guests to "take in moderation."

 

Your logic is incorrect. Consider the rich young ruler; Jesus let him simply walk away. Did Jesus not care about him?

 

"Jesus, beholding him, loved him and said: "one thing thou lackest; Go, sell all that thou hast; give to the poor, and come follow me."

Not only did he love him, he told him exactly what he must do.