The point of intoxication

If you believed the Word as presented, you would not be advocating the drinking of alcoholic wine. You would be preaching against it. For the Word of God preaches against it.


God calls the alcoholic wine 'venom of asps'. Why don't the advocates of ingesting that venom go to the zoo and put their hands in a asp's pit and let it bite them and then come back and tell us how glad it made their heart?

 

In John chapter 2, where Jesus turns water into wine, we get to the point where after the wine had been created, then the wine is served to the master of the banquet in verses 8-10:

Then he told them, "Now draw some out and take it to the master of the banquet." They did so, and the master of the banquet tasted the water that had been turned into wine. He did not realize where it had come from, though the servants who had drawn the water knew. Then he called the bridegroom aside and said, "Everyone brings out the choice wine first and then the cheaper wine after the guests have had too much to drink; but you have saved the best till now."


Here are my thoughts on the subject:

1. It's a wedding party. I seriously doubt that if fermented wine was in existence, that a party would choose to have non-fermented wine.

2. The part in bold above is hugely significant. Basically what they used to do is exactly what this guy said, the really good wine, the "choice wine", is brought out first, then when people get tipsy and "drink too much" and really don't know any better, the cheap wine is then brought out. This is exactly what this guy is describing, HOWEVER, he says that the wine that Jesus made is the good stuff, the best wine that is usually served at the beginning of the ceremony, which would be alcoholic. Any rational person should be able to deduct that the wine that Jesus made was in fact alcoholic, and if Jesus made alcoholic wine, why is any form of it really bad? It's just not.

3. Grape juice is grape juice, there wouldn't be vastly varying differences of the quality of this non-fermented juice. However, there could easily be huge quality differences in alcoholic wine due to aging. They're not talking about the quality differences between Welch's and Sam's Club grape juice.

4. Why would the ceremony master specifically say "drink too much"? Do you really think he was talking about drinking too much non-alcoholic grape juice?

 

1 Timothy 3:8 - "Deacons, likewise, are to be men worthy of respect, sincere, not indulging in much wine, and not pursuing dishonest gain."

It doesn't say "never touch wine whatsoever", it says to not drink alot of it. If it were non-alcoholic grape juice they were talking about, well, quite honestly I don't see why it would ever need to be mentioned to begin with.
------------------------

1 Timothy 5:23 - "Stop drinking only water, and use a little wine because of your stomach and your frequent illnesses. "
-------------------------

Titus 2:3 - "Likewise, teach the older women to be reverent in the way they live, not to be slanderers or addicted to much wine, but to teach what is good. "

Again, it doesn't say to not drink any wine whatsoever, just not be an alcoholic.
--------------------------

Matthew 27:34 - "here they offered Jesus wine to drink, mixed with gall; but after tasting it, he refused to drink it."

I think it's pretty obvious here that Jesus was going to drink the wine but then he figured out that it had animal bile in it... I'd spit it out too.

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

Luke 5:36 - (Jesus's words) "He told them this parable: "No one tears a patch from a new garment and sews it on an old one. If he does, he will have torn the new garment, and the patch from the new will not match the old. And no one pours new wine into old wineskins. If he does, the new wine will burst the skins, the wine will run out and the wineskins will be ruined. No, new wine must be poured into new wineskins. And no one after drinking old wine wants the new, for he says, 'The old is better.' "

There you have it folks, Jesus said that old wine is better, he knew it was. Why? Because of the aging process of alcoholic wine. Grape juice doesn't age well.

 

You are correct, it is your opinion. Too bad that opinion does not line up with the Word of God.

1. Just because it is a party does not mean that alcoholic beverages were present.

2. 1st century BC history and from Jewish Rabbi's show that unfermented sweet wine was preferred over alcoholic wine.

3. See #2

4. They did not drink too much. They had 'well drunk'. Well drunk means they drank a good amount, not necessarily too much

Get your mind out of the liquor and beer stores when reading the Word of God and you just may see the truth about the wine that Jesus created, and endorsed. Unfermented

Wine and strong drink are very deceiving. They cloud the mind to the point that it will not receive the Word of God. Just as Paul said the natural man cannot receive the things of the Spirit, and things of the Spirit of God are foolishness to man, the thought of Jesus keeping Himself unspotted from the world is foolishness to alcohol advocates.

 

Depart from me?

I'm sorry, but I tried to get an explanation of your thoughts and ideas and where they came from.

But how can I be expected to take anything you say seriously after you say one will be rejected by Christ if they drank wine in his name, as in using wine in communion? That is not just a silly mistake, it's a grievously abberrant twist of doctrine.

Apart from that, you've not answered my original questions concerning where you gained your determination on certain wording and the meanings of them.

Further, you trailed off about "tradition" in response, which had nothing to do with anything.

I'm very disappointed in our communications.

Hopefully someone who agrees with your cause will be able to pick up your slack on this one for me. My one question was rather simple, so I'll be grateful if someone else with the belief that any and all alcoholic intake is sinful could answer them. Here it is again:

Where do you get the idea that the word "wine" doesn't mean wine when Jesus drank wine, but when it says not to be drunk with wine, it means wine? I'm assuming it must be a difference in wording from the originals to English, but would appreciate an explanation.

 

Would you please tell us where the Bible says this?

Thank you.

 

Deuteronomy 32:33 Their wine is the poison of dragons, and the cruel venom of asps.

 

I know you're at least trying to come across as sticking to exactly what the Bible says, but when I see the scripture, and it says "the guests have HAD TOO MUCH TO DRINK", how can I believe that your points hold any merit when you immediately turn around and say that "they did not drink too much"??? You're just making stuff up, that's exactly what the Bible says, and you're saying that it's not true, I'm not the one who is twisting the scripture here.

 

Exactly, this was my point when I said that I think people are picking and choosing which kind of wine is applicable to which situation, and the people doing the picking don't really have much reasoning behind their choices. When the bible mentions wine along with drunkenness time after time, then on multiple occasions warns against too much wine... when it mentions wine else where and even portaining to Jesus, logically one would and should believe that they are talking about the exact same substance, unless it specifically says otherwise... which it doesn't.

 

checkmate...

 

That is totally taken out of context. Read that entire chapter. It is talking about their senseless enemy nation who worship foreign gods and make sacrifices to demons, basically saying that everything about them is evil, even their wine. It does not say ALL wine is the poison of asps, it says THEIR.


Deuteronomy 32

15 Jeshurun [d] grew fat and kicked;
filled with food, he became heavy and sleek.
He abandoned the God who made him
and rejected the Rock his Savior.

16 They made him jealous with their foreign gods
and angered him with their detestable idols.

17 They sacrificed to demons, which are not God—
gods they had not known,
gods that recently appeared,
gods your fathers did not fear.

18 You deserted the Rock, who fathered you;
you forgot the God who gave you birth.

19 The LORD saw this and rejected them
because he was angered by his sons and daughters.

20 "I will hide my face from them," he said,
"and see what their end will be;
for they are a perverse generation,
children who are unfaithful.

21 They made me jealous by what is no god
and angered me with their worthless idols.
I will make them envious by those who are not a people;
I will make them angry by a nation that has no understanding.

22 For a fire has been kindled by my wrath,
one that burns to the realm of death [e] below.
It will devour the earth and its harvests
and set afire the foundations of the mountains.

23 "I will heap calamities upon them
and spend my arrows against them.

24 I will send wasting famine against them,
consuming pestilence and deadly plague;
I will send against them the fangs of wild beasts,
the venom of vipers that glide in the dust.

25 In the street the sword will make them childless;
in their homes terror will reign.
Young men and young women will perish,
infants and gray-haired men.

26 I said I would scatter them
and blot out their memory from mankind,

27 but I dreaded the taunt of the enemy,
lest the adversary misunderstand
and say, 'Our hand has triumphed;
the LORD has not done all this.' "

28 They are a nation without sense,
there is no discernment in them.

29 If only they were wise and would understand this
and discern what their end will be!

30 How could one man chase a thousand,
or two put ten thousand to flight,
unless their Rock had sold them,
unless the LORD had given them up?

31 For their rock is not like our Rock,
as even our enemies concede.

32 Their vine comes from the vine of Sodom
and from the fields of Gomorrah.
Their grapes are filled with poison,
and their clusters with bitterness.

33 Their wine is the venom of serpents,
the deadly poison of cobras.

 

The Word isn't telling me otherwise. About the only thing telling me otherwise is people like you who try to point out that it doesn't necessarily mean that the wine was alcoholic, yet can't show scripture that proves that it wasn't. All you've got is the word of some guys who came along after the fact and said that this is how it was, and you believe it, and twist the scripture to fit those beliefs. As for your point about "Jesus used history"... that just wasn't my point... I'm just saying that all you've got to go on are some people who did third party historical research that was long after the fact and outside of the bible, so your claims aren't backed up in scripture, just by some dudes that said this is how it is.

 

Gina,
The old English word "wine" translated from the Hebrew yayin, and the Greek oinos, all have the same meaning. They are very much like our English word cider. I can order cider at Second Cup and drink a very nice non-alcoholic apple drink or juice. But when I travel, and pass through German, if I ask for cider there, I am apt to get a bit tipsy after having a couple of drinks of cider there. It is the same word. But it can be either alcoholic or non-alcoholic.
The same is true of wine, yayin and oinos. The only way to tell whether wine is alcoholic is by the context. Noah got drunk. Obviously it was fermented wine. The context is very clear on that. But it is not so clear in the passage describing the wedding of Cana. In fact I believe the evidence points that the "wine" (oinos) means grape juice in that passage not fermented wine. There are too many contradictory passages for Christ to have had made alcoholic beverages at such an event. He doesn't go against his word.
The elements of the Lord Table are another example.
How could a beverage that is fermented or representative of corruption represent the uncorrupt sinless body of the Lord Jesus Christ?
Thus context must tell us whether or not the word "wine" refers to alcoholic or non-alcoholic.
DHK

 

Well, gluttony is corruption and sinful, right? And Jesus wouldn't do that right? What does gluttony in the terms of eating require? Food. So, if Jesus ate something, does that mean it's sinful? No. He would have to eat... and eat... and eat some more, then it turns into gluttony and is sinful. Which, by the way, is ironic that alot of the same anti-alcohol folks just totally ignore the fact that gluttony is sinful and do just this... but anyway...

It is my opinion that wine is the same way. It is the drunkenness that is corrupt and sinful, not the wine itself. In the same way that a regular serving of food is not sinful until you take in several servings of food then it turns into sinful gluttony... I think that a single glass of wine is not sinful until that turns into several glasses of wine, which turns into sinful drunkenness.

 

I never said that it was either in context or out of context. I simply posted the verse. Helen asked for the reference. I posted it for her.
It was His Blood Spoke My Name
that originally referenced it.
DHK

 

Yeah, I know, it was just a weird situation, I was directing my comments towards "His Blood Spoke My Name".

 

Food isn't a poison. Wne is. Food has never been banned by any country. Alcohol has. But, alas some people will make the most irrational and illogical excuses to try and justify their social drinking. Every social drinker is an example and an excuse for a drunkard.
DHK

 

Tell someone with a severe food allergy that food isn't poison. You have a lot of room to talk about being irrational and illogical.

 

Since Christ did not drink, create, or endorse alcoholic wine, you better take me seriously.

 

There's the mistake, Gina. Nowhere in scripture does Jesus say He drank wine. Show me one verse that out and out says He did. It is not there.