Wine As A Beverage

[Dr. Walter]

First that was not my argument. Second the plain meaning is not fermented wine. It is no where indicated in that passage. And it is a false assumption that every time wine is used it must mean fermented in scripture. But if your trying to support your desired habit through scripture you can read all kinds of things into it.

Now instead of misdirecting maybe you can deal with my argument that God would not have supplied alcohol to drunks.

Is there such a thing as a not so good, versus "good" grape juice?


Jn 2:10 And saith unto him, Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse: but thou hast kept the good wine until now.

The term translated "drunk" means they drank alcoholic wine. What was Jesus doing at a wedding party when many were drunk there?? The fact that what they had been drinking is the same as what Jesus produced but only better indicates he produced a better grade of alcoholic wine.

The meaning is very simple to see. There are different grades of wine. Usually the better grade is given out first, until they are tipsy and then the cheaper grade of wine is brought out because no one then knows the difference - matter of economics.

 

[Revmitchell]

Is there such a thing as a not so good, versus "good" grape juice?


Jn 2:10 And saith unto him, Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse: but thou hast kept the good wine until now.

The term translated "drunk" means they drank alcoholic wine. What was Jesus doing at a wedding party when many were drunk there?? The fact that what they had been drinking is the same as what Jesus produced but only better indicates he produced a better grade of alcoholic wine.

The meaning is very simple to see. There are different grades of wine. Usually the better grade is given out first, until they are tipsy and then the cheaper grade of wine is brought out because no one then knows the difference - matter of economics.

So your assumption here is "good" equals fermented?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

RevMitchell: So your assumption here is "good" equals fermented?

HP: It is called begging the question, assuming something without proof, something DW does very often. When you do not agree with his unsupported assumptions he most likely will deem you ignorant….. or even worse.

 

[Dr. Walter]

So your assumption here is "good" equals fermented?

Apply it to juice and see what you get? Is there some juice that is better than other juice or are they all just juice?

These people were well "drunk" and you don't get "drunk" on juice!!! The point is so obvious that one must be blind in one eye and cannot see out of the other eye to miss the fact that he is saying the more costly wine, better grade of wine, is always served first and then when they have become tipsy the cheap grade wine is served because no one knows the difference.

What kind of logic would say the better juice is served first and then after they have become "drunk" the cheaper grade, or worse grade of juice is served later.

If that is your logic with how he uses the word "good" with the word "drunk" then your welcome to it but it makes little sense.

 

[Revmitchell]

Apply it to juice and see what you get? Is there some juice that is better than other juice or are they all just juice?

These people were well "drunk" and you don't get "drunk" on juice!!! The point is so obvious that one must be blind in one eye and cannot see out of the other eye to miss the fact that he is saying the more costly wine, better grade of wine, is always served first and then when they have become tipsy the cheap grade wine is served because no one knows the difference.

What kind of logic would say the better juice is served first and then after they have become "drunk" the cheaper grade, or worse grade of juice is served later.

If that is your logic with how he uses the word "good" with the word "drunk" then your welcome to it but it makes little sense.

Well drunk can only be in the context of inebriated or is it also reasonable that it means have drank a large amount?

And if they are "drunk" as you say then we have Christ contributing to their sinful behavior. Creates a big problem.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Well drunk can only be in the context of inebriated or is it also reasonable that it means have drank a large amount?

And if they are "drunk" as you say then we have Christ contributing to their sinful behavior. Creates a big problem.

Why? Jesus Christ created sex as well. Does that mean he's contributing to fornication or adultery?

 

[Dr. Walter]

Well drunk can only be in the context of inebriated or is it also reasonable that it means have drank a large amount?

And if they are "drunk" as you say then we have Christ contributing to their sinful behavior. Creates a big problem.

That is completely false reasoning. It is the master of ceremonies that made this statement not Christ. Your rationale is about as reasonable as saying Christ contributed to gluttony by providing more food than the crowd of 5000 could eat. Personal accountability is completely denied by your rationale. You just as well charge God to be the author of sin as to charge Christ for the drunkeness of some.

Your definition of "drunk" makes no sense in the context any more than your definition of "good" makes any sense.

I think you are so committed to a position that the scriptures mean nothing to you in this matter as you are throwing out common sense in dealing with the scriptures. That is more dangerous than wine.

 

[Revmitchell]

Why? Jesus Christ created sex as well. Does that mean he's contributing to fornication or adultery?

You can do better than this. I have seen it. This is not an equal example. Would you give alcohol to a drunk person?

Could Jesus stand in the middle of a party where there was illicit sex going on and give someone sex?

 

[Revmitchell]

That is completely false reasoning. It is the master of ceremonies that made this statement not Christ. Your rationale is about as reasonable as saying Christ contributed to gluttony by providing more food than the crowd of 5000 could eat. Personal accountability is completely denied by your rationale. You just as well charge God to be the author of sin as to charge Christ for the drunkeness of some.

I did not say Christ did anything. I suggested by your false interpretation that would have to be the case.

Your definition of "drunk" makes no sense in the context any more than your definition of "good" makes any sense.

Sure it does. When you place "drunk" with its associated words instead of just isolating it you are forced to consider more than your position:

when men have well drunk-KJV

when people have drunk freely-ESV

when men have drunk freely-ASV

I think you are so committed to a position that the scriptures mean nothing to you in this matter as you are throwing out common sense in dealing with the scriptures. That is more dangerous than wine.

And I say your are over emotional on this issue and are simply projecting.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Could Jesus stand in the middle of a party where there was illicit sex going on and give someone sex?

Your missing the whole point! He already gave them sex and that is why they are able to abuse it. The master of ceremonies had already given out wine and because a Jewish wedding last for days they had run out of both the better quality and worse quality of wine.

The master of ceremonies only stated a general principle true of ONLY the one in charge of the wedding. Jesus was not in charge of this wedding.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

You can do better than this. I have seen it. This is not an equal example. Would you give alcohol to a drunk person?

Could Jesus stand in the middle of a party where there was illicit sex going on and give someone sex?

Not an exact example? Jesus provided wine to a group of people each person using the wine as they saw fit. If some get drunk how is that Jesus' fault or even contributing to their sin?
I see it the same thing as sex. Jesus created sex. He's not contributing to illicit behavior however many will use it that way. It's not Jesus fault.

 

[Revmitchell]

Your missing the whole point! He already gave them sex and that is why they are able to abuse it.

No you are missing the point. Jesus made more wine. Let me say it again. Jesus made more wine. Repeat after me J-E-S-U-S M-A-D-E M-O-R-E W-I-N-E.

 

[Revmitchell]

Not an exact example? Jesus provided wine to a group of people each person using the wine as they saw fit. If some get drunk how is that Jesus' fault or even contributing to their sin?
I see it the same thing as sex. Jesus created sex. He's not contributing to illicit behavior however many will use it that way. It's not Jesus fault.

It is contributing whether you like it or not. Would you give alcohol to a drunk man?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

It is contributing whether you like it or not. Would you give alcohol to a drunk man?

I would give alcohol to a party of people if some one used it to get drunk and did not moderate himself then that is on his head. It can only be contributing if I was in cooperation to help this man get drunk. It seems the man got drunk without me.

 

[Dr. Walter]

I did not say Christ did anything. I suggested by your false interpretation that would have to be the case.



Sure it does. When you place "drunk" with its associated words instead of just isolating it you are forced to consider more than your position:

when men have well drunk-KJV

when people have drunk freely-ESV

when men have drunk freely-ASV




And I say your are over emotional on this issue and are simply projecting.

Your possible alternative options for "drunk" make no sense with the term "good" as juice is just juice. However, this is a common expression in regard to wine as better and more expensive wine is aged.

Your interpretation is not natural but forced. No person living in the middle east today would read that verse and come away thinking it grape juice. The history of Jewish weddings then and now use wine NOT JUICE.

I did a lot of research while I was in college in the Library at Lexington Theological Seminary in Lexington Kentucky. At this Seminary were some Jewish rabbi's using the same library as there was a large synogue in town. I asked the Jewish rabbi if EVER in the history of the Jewish nation they had used grape juice in the passover? He roared with laughter. He told me that the Jews NEVER used anything but red wine in the passover except at one short point in their history where it was illegal because it was associated with "blood" rebellion. Jesus told his disciples to go prepare for the passover and therefore he used the materials in the passover. The Jewish Misnah written 200 years after Christ, which was the oral traditions of the Jews, specifies red wine mixed with three parts water must be used in the Passover.

The history of Jewish weddings use wine not grape juice. Any other position is forcing common words that normally would refer to wine by context and by unanimous Jewish history in regard to Jewish weddings that have not changed even today.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

No you are missing the point. Jesus made more wine. Let me say it again. Jesus made more wine. Repeat after me J-E-S-U-S M-A-D-E M-O-R-E W-I-N-E.

Yep for the entire group of people all at different stages of use.

 

[Dr. Walter]

No you are missing the point. Jesus made more wine. Let me say it again. Jesus made more wine. Repeat after me J-E-S-U-S M-A-D-E M-O-R-E W-I-N-E.

Thank you! Confession is good for the soul! I believe Jesus made more "wine" but you don't! You believe he made juice.

The statement by the master of ceremonies makes no sense when applied to "juice" as juice is just juice. It would make no sense then or now among Jews in a Jewish wedding.

Your definition of "drunk" makes no sense in the statement of the Master of ceremonies then or now among the Jews in a Jewish wedding.

What you do is separate and ISOLATE each term from its context and that is the ONLY way you can justify your perverted interpretation. Take them both together in the context of a Jewish wedding then, as well as now, and your manufactured artificial walls come tumbling down.

 

[Revmitchell]

Thank you! Confession is good for the soul! I believe Jesus made more "wine" but you don't! You believe he made juice.

The statement by the master of ceremonies makes no sense when applied to "juice" as juice is just juice. It would make no sense then or now among Jews in a Jewish wedding.

Your definition of "drunk" makes no sense in the statement of the Master of ceremonies then or now among the Jews in a Jewish wedding.

What you do is separate and ISOLATE each term from its context and that is the ONLY way you can justify your perverted interpretation. Take them both together in the context of a Jewish wedding then, as well as now, and your manufactured artificial walls come tumbling down.

First it is false that wine always means fermented grape juice. And you have knowingly accused me falsely. I isolated nothing and in fact provided the word drunk in its context in three different translations. You have not even come close. All you have done is thrown accusations at me without supporting them with any facts.

1. I asked you if it was your assumption that "good" equals fermented. You responded with your own personal logic but no actual support for your position.

2. Asked you if the word "drunk" can only be understood as inebriated. You responded with an accusation and no supporting evidence.

2. I provided three translations in context of the word "drunk" you ignored that fact and accused me of isolating words.


It is clear you are unable to answer my questions with supporting facts and it is clear you are dodging my supporting facts only to use your personal reasoning.


Good luck with that.:thumbs:

 

[rockytopsgt]

It is contributing whether you like it or not. Would you give alcohol to a drunk man?

THe fact is that Jesus made wine at that party. It is not our job to justify what the bible says to you., even though we have already tried. I have a question for you. If it were to be proven beyond shadow of a doubt that you were right, my faith would not be shaken. I would just say" guess I'm no good at reading comprehension." If the reverse were true and you came to understand that the obvious is indeed true , would it shake you? It seems that you cannot accept Jesus' actions. Are you so committed to prohibition that you have bound God in a legalistic box as well?

 

[Revmitchell]

I would give alcohol to a party of people if some one used it to get drunk and did not moderate himself then that is on his head. It can only be contributing if I was in cooperation to help this man get drunk. It seems the man got drunk without me.

The problem here is you dodged my question. Would you give alcohol to a drunk person. It is your position that:

1. The first wine had to be fermented.

2. That Jesus miraculously made fermented wine for the people.

3. That the word "drunk" means inebriated

Correct me if I am wrong on any of these.

So if these being correct hold true then Jesus gave alcohol to drunk people. Would Jesus give alcohol to drunk people? Would you give alcohol to drunk people? yes or no