Somebody mentioned a thread on wine. It got me thinking about a preacher I recently heard stating that there was no alcohol in the wine Jesus made during His first recorded miracle.
However, I do have a problem with the statements made about serving the "good wine first" and the "bad wine last". It is obvious that this was a wedding party and there was alcohol in the wine and from my interpretation, "Good wine" was served after the guest was drunk enough not to pay much attention to the taste.
This preacher said that since it was obvious that Jesus made new wine it did not have time to become tainted by the worldly sin of alcohol, so therefore it was grape juice. This seems to be a bit contridictory to the "Good wine" statements of the guest.
Based on my past experiences before I became a Christian I had quite a background in being able to drink just about anybody under the table. I would have known, and so would any other drunk, that grape juice, no matter how tasty did not contain alcohol. So, based on this, I think that the pastor is using an excuse.
We do know that wine is consumed in other countries and is not mixed with water, but is used moderately while eating and usually the natives do not get drunk. This is moderation and the evil I see pointed out in the Bible is not to lose control or moderation which would allow someone to drink a glass of wine before bed to sleep better and also reduce heart attacks (check AMA bulletins and tests). Where the problem lies is an alcoholic would not be able to stop at one or two drinks.
There is another issue we have today, which is essentially covered with "plucking your eye out if it causes your brother to sin" , well, my take would be that if a non-Christian sees me sitting in the front yard chugging a beer he/she might get the impression that I am a hypocrite and it would hurt my witness. So, my point being here is that it depends on the environment you live in and time period.
Is there any proof that wine during Biblical times was also two parts water and one part wine? (Sounds pretty nasty and there is not enough alcohol to kill most types of germs and parasites.) In fact, the wine can only contain 16 - 17% (can't remember my biology so well), but it will kill the yeast; so in those days, without a distillation method they were limited to those levels of ethyl alcohol (unlike fortified wine--wine with added alcohol) would have to be at least in the 15% level to kill some parasites and then it will still have problems killing many germs which require around 70% alcohol (usually sold in isopropyl).
Adding 2 parts water would knock the wine down to the level of beer which, as we all know, you can still get drunk on if you consume enough, but it certainly doesn't taste very good, so who is a history expert of the first century and what do the preacher's and theologions here have to say about the Biblical wine Jesus made at the wedding feast? I am having problem believing it was pure grape juice with zero percent alcohol or the guests would have been complaining very quickly.
Thoughts?
However, I do have a problem with the statements made about serving the "good wine first" and the "bad wine last". It is obvious that this was a wedding party and there was alcohol in the wine and from my interpretation, "Good wine" was served after the guest was drunk enough not to pay much attention to the taste.
This preacher said that since it was obvious that Jesus made new wine it did not have time to become tainted by the worldly sin of alcohol, so therefore it was grape juice. This seems to be a bit contridictory to the "Good wine" statements of the guest.
Based on my past experiences before I became a Christian I had quite a background in being able to drink just about anybody under the table. I would have known, and so would any other drunk, that grape juice, no matter how tasty did not contain alcohol. So, based on this, I think that the pastor is using an excuse.
We do know that wine is consumed in other countries and is not mixed with water, but is used moderately while eating and usually the natives do not get drunk. This is moderation and the evil I see pointed out in the Bible is not to lose control or moderation which would allow someone to drink a glass of wine before bed to sleep better and also reduce heart attacks (check AMA bulletins and tests). Where the problem lies is an alcoholic would not be able to stop at one or two drinks.
There is another issue we have today, which is essentially covered with "plucking your eye out if it causes your brother to sin" , well, my take would be that if a non-Christian sees me sitting in the front yard chugging a beer he/she might get the impression that I am a hypocrite and it would hurt my witness. So, my point being here is that it depends on the environment you live in and time period.
Is there any proof that wine during Biblical times was also two parts water and one part wine? (Sounds pretty nasty and there is not enough alcohol to kill most types of germs and parasites.) In fact, the wine can only contain 16 - 17% (can't remember my biology so well), but it will kill the yeast; so in those days, without a distillation method they were limited to those levels of ethyl alcohol (unlike fortified wine--wine with added alcohol) would have to be at least in the 15% level to kill some parasites and then it will still have problems killing many germs which require around 70% alcohol (usually sold in isopropyl).
Adding 2 parts water would knock the wine down to the level of beer which, as we all know, you can still get drunk on if you consume enough, but it certainly doesn't taste very good, so who is a history expert of the first century and what do the preacher's and theologions here have to say about the Biblical wine Jesus made at the wedding feast? I am having problem believing it was pure grape juice with zero percent alcohol or the guests would have been complaining very quickly.
Thoughts?
