Wine vs. Grapejuice @ Communion

[webdog]

Frederick "Lees"?!? What a great name for someone to argue abstinence...when his name means a by-product of fermentation :laugh:

 

[standingfirminChrist]

Frederick "Lees"?!? What a great name for someone to argue abstinence...when his name means a by-product of fermentation :laugh:

Lees are not just found as a result of fermentation. Lees can also be found in the bottom of unfermented grape juice that is preserved according to Plutarch, Pliny, and other historians of the first century AD.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Roger, I recommend you read the book "The Temperance Bible-Commentary" by Frederic Lees. Beginning on page 277, Mr Lees answers the most arguments concerning wine and grape juice. He gives solid references as well.

Not the point of this thread.

Do you think that men like the Wesleys, Bunyan, Edwards, Carey, and Taylor were vile men who used alcoholic wine to bring their vice into the church?

 

[standingfirminChrist]

Not the point of this thread.

Do you think that men like the Wesleys, Bunyan, Edwards, Carey, and Taylor were vile men who used alcoholic wine to bring their vice into the church?

I believe if they used alcohol in their observance of the Lord's Supper, they were deceived.

 

[Dale-c]

I believe if they used alcohol in their observance of the Lord's Supper, they were deceived.

Who deceived them?

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

I believe if they used alcohol in their observance of the Lord's Supper, they were deceived.

Were there any godly men in the church during the time when alcoholic wine was all they had?

 

[standingfirminChrist]

Who deceived them?

Those who twisted the Word of Truth into a lie. Those who convinced them that when God said "Look thou not upon the wine when it is red, when it giveth his colour in the cup, when it moveth itself aright" that He did not mean alcoholic wine. Those who subtily taught moderation is accepted even though God's Word said "Look thou not."

The same ones who have deceived many into believing the lie that alcohol is a gift from God.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

Were there any godly men in the church during the time when alcoholic wine was all they had?

Even godly men can be deceived into sinning. David, Paul, Peter, etc..

 

[Palatka51]

Who deceived them?

Either ignorance or cultural influence. Yet wine too is a deceiver. The more it's used the more they succumb to it's deceptions.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Even godly men can be deceived into sinning. David, Paul, Peter, etc..

So every man who took the Lord's Table during the centuries when alcoholic wine was all they had sinned and made a mockery of the Lord's death?

If that is the case than Dr Welch is surely the greatest man of God who has ever lived, for he alone delivered Christians from centuries of vice and gratifying the flesh. .

 

[Palatka51]

So every man who took the Lord's Table during the centuries when alcoholic wine was all they had sinned and made a mockery of the Lord's death?

If that is the case than Dr Welch is surely the greatest man of God who has ever lived, for he alone delivered Christians from centuries of vice and gratifying the flesh. .

Not all Christians used wine throughout the centuries. If the above names did then they were in error.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Not all Christians used wine throughout the centuries.

Then why did Dr Welch have to invent grape juice?

Do you men honestly contend that anyone who has every used alcoholic wine at the Lord's Table has made a mockery of the Lord's death through their desire to gratify their flesh?

 

[standingfirminChrist]

Paul, saved and sealed, spoke of his body being vile in the book of Romans.

Just because a man is a preacher, evangelist, orator, expositor , or whatever for God does not mean that man cannot or will not give in to his vile body of death at times... whether in pure ignorance, or intentional.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Paul, saved and sealed, spoke of his body being vile in the book of Romans.

Just because a man is a preacher, evangelist, orator, expositor , or whatever for God does not mean that man cannot or will not give in to his vile body of death at times... whether in pure ignorance, or intentional.

So your answer is yes? Everyone who has ever used fermented wine at the Lord's Table sinned in so doing, even when they had no grape juice? So they would have been better not to remember the Lord's death?

BTW - I am done here. I have wasted too much time with the vain babbling. Apologies for getting involved.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

So your answer is yes? Everyone who has ever used fermented wine at the Lord's Table sinned in so doing, even when they had no grape juice? So they would have been better not to remember the Lord's death?

BTW - I am done here. I have wasted too much time with the vain babbling. Apologies for getting involved.

Yes, they did sin in using alcohol for the Lord's Supper. And many continue to do so.

 

[Bible-boy]

I believe that in western culture, we need to look no further than the great plague to find an answer to that question. From Martin Luther to the Pilgrims fermentation became the quick and easy way to have a potable beverage. While it maybe said that fermentation saved western Europe it was soon found that the water of the new world was potable.

One must realize that the plague held back human development immensely. Even to the point of having lost many of the ancient ways of doing things, even that of food preservation methods such as pasteurization. It is not out of the realm of impossibility.

The Black Plague of Europe and availability of potable drinking water has nothing to do with this debate. The Black Plague is not a water-born disease.

The etiologic agent of the plague is Y pestis, a facultative anaerobic, intracellular, gram-negative bacillus.

The organism can be transmitted from a host to a human via the bite of a vector, via close contact with infected tissue or body fluids, and via direct inhalation of the bacterium. Currently, the most common form of transmission involves the bite of a vector infected by a host. Infection through an inhalational route would be of concern if the bacillus was aerosolized.
More than 200 different rodents and species can serve as hosts. These include domestic cats and dogs, squirrels, chipmunks, marmots, deer mice, rabbits, hares, rock squirrels, camels, and sheep.
The vector is usually the rat flea, Xenopsylla cheopis. Thirty different flea species have been identified as able to carry the plague bacillus. Other carriers of plague include ticks and human lice.
Rodents resistant to the infection form an enzootic stage that ensures the long-term survival of the bacillus. Occasionally, the infected animals are not resistant to the disease and die. This is known as an epizootic stage and ensures the spread of the organism to new territory. A sylvatic stage occurs when humans are infected from wild animals. Source: http://www.emedicine.com/emerg/TOPIC428.HTM

Let’s at least check our scientific and historical facts before we pop off an answer that suits our presuppositions. European Jews, during the Dark Ages, were often accused of causing the plague through some kind of “Jewish witchcraft” (or whatever) because they appeared less likely to become infected. In reality the Jews were less likely to become infected because of their biblical dietary and cleanliness laws. Thus, they did not get bitten by the fleas as much as their less hygienic European neighbors.

 

[Palatka51]

So your answer is yes? Everyone who has ever used fermented wine at the Lord's Table sinned in so doing, even when they had no grape juice? So they would have been better not to remember the Lord's death?

BTW - I am done here. I have wasted too much time with the vain babbling. Apologies for getting involved.

Does it take having to actually engage the eating and drinking of the Lord's Communion to hold what He did in memory? Why then does it seem impossible to us if the Saints of the last 2000 years would not have waited until grape harvest to have communion? I know that Jesus said we should do this in remembrance of Him but there is no set schedule for this service. Once a year, twice a year, four times a year, or in the case of Catholics every week or as last rights. So by reasoning you can see that it is very likely that there are many that did not drink alcohol for the communion.

Luke22:19&20
19And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.
20Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.

Also both Matthew and mark refer to the wine in this manner.

Matthew 26:26-30
26And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.
27And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; 28For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
29But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.
30And when they had sung an hymn, they went out into the mount of Olives.

Fruit of the vine. Wine the archaic word fits meaning vine or grapes.
Fruit of the vine is self explanatory, it is juice. If the juice is out of season (of which I am not convinced that it was) then it was preserved as being unfermented.

Thus all those that have received the Communion with alcohol have done so in error. Of which I too have done on two occasions. In ignorance mind you, as I was still a young lad going to Church with my Mom and Dad.

The word "wine" derives from the Proto-Germanic *winam, an early borrowing from the Latin vinum, "wine" or "(grape) vine", itself derived from the Proto-Indo-European stem *win-o- (cf. Ancient Greek οῖνος - oînos, Aeolic Greek ϝοίνος - woinos)[8][9]. Similar words for wine or grapes are found in the Semitic languages (cf. Arabic ﻭﻳﻦ wayn) and in Georgian (ğvino), and the term is considered an ancient wanderwort.[10]

 

[ccrobinson]

Yes, they did sin in using alcohol for the Lord's Supper. And many continue to do so.

This is just as silly as your statement you made not that long ago that Jesus is Strong Drink.

 

[Palatka51]

The Black Plague of Europe and availability of potable drinking water has nothing to do with this debate. The Black Plague is not a water-born disease.

Let’s at least check our scientific and historical facts before we pop off an answer that suits our presuppositions. European Jews, during the Dark Ages, were often accused of causing the plague through some kind of “Jewish witchcraft” (or whatever) because they appeared less likely to become infected. In reality the Jews were less likely to become infected because of their biblical dietary and cleanliness laws. Thus, they did not get bitten by the fleas as much as their less hygienic European neighbors.

I am sorry for the misunderstanding BB. I was referring to the plague of Cholera that is water borne and was a problem for having potable water. This plague was a problem for all the cities of Europe for a longer period of time than that of the Black Plague. It was brought under control only after cities like Paris and London developed a sewer system that removed waist out of the streets and kept it from flowing into their rivers that supplied their citizenry with drinking water. I am fully aware that typhus and Black plague is spread by insects and rodents. If my posts of "the plague" made many think of black plague then I truly am sorry.
I refer you back to a post where I mentioned that Ancient Rome had a sewer system with running water that prevented such outbreaks in ancient times.

 

[Bible-boy]

I am sorry for the misunderstanding BB. I was referring to the plague of Cholera that is water borne and was a problem for having potable water. This plague was a problem for all the cities of Europe for a longer period of time than that of the Black Plague. It was brought under control only after cities like Paris and London developed a sewer system that removed waist out of the streets and kept it from flowing into their rivers that supplied their citizenry with drinking water. I am fully aware that typhus and Black plague is spread by insects and rodents. If my posts of "the plague" made many think of black plague then I truly am sorry.

I refer you back to a post where I mentioned that Ancient Rome had a sewer system with running water that prevented such outbreaks in ancient times.

Cholera was originally endemic to the Indian subcontinent, with the Ganges River likely serving as a contamination reservoir. The disease spread by trade routes (land and sea) to Russia, then to Western Europe, and from Europe to North America. Cholera is now no longer considered a pressing health threat in Europe and North America due to filtering and chlorination of water supplies.

• 1816-1826 - First cholera pandemic: Previously restricted, the pandemic began in Bengal, and then spread across India by 1820. The cholera outbreak extended as far as China and the Caspian Sea before receding.
• 1829-1851 - Second cholera pandemic reached Europe, London and Paris in 1832. In London, the disease claimed 6,536 victims; in Paris, 20,000 succumbed (out of a population of 650,000) with about 100,000 deaths in all of France.[19] The epidemic reached Russia (see Cholera Riots), Quebec, Ontario and New York in the same year and the Pacific coast of North America by 1834. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cholera#History

Since 1817, 7 cholera pandemics have occurred. The first 6 occurred from 1817-1923 and were probably the result of V cholerae O1 of the classic biotype. The pandemics originated in Asia, with subsequent spread to Europe and the Americas. Source: http://www.emedicine.com/med/TOPIC351.HTM

Cholera has smoldered in an endemic fashion on the Indian subcontinent for centuries. There are references to deaths due to dehydrating diarrhea dating back to Hippocrates and Sanskrit writings. Epidemic cholera was described in 1563 by Garcia del Huerto, a Portuguese physician at Goa, India. The mode of transmission of cholera by water was proven in 1849 by John Snow, a London physician. In 1883, Robert Koch successfully isolated the cholera vibrio from the intestinal discharges of cholera patients and proved conclusively that it was the agent of the disease.

The first long-distance spread of cholera to Europe and the Americas began in 1817, such that by the early 20th century, six waves of cholera had spread across the world in devastating epidemic fashion. Since then, until the 1960s, the disease contracted, remaining present only in southern Asia. In 1961, the "El Tor" biotype (distinguished from classic biotypes by the production of hemolysins) reemerged and produced a major epidemic in the Philippines to initiate a seventh global pandemic (See map below). Since then, this biotype has spread across Asia, the Middle East, Africa, and parts of Europe. Source: http://www.textbookofbacteriology.net/cholera.html

Sorry, I don’t know where you are getting your data. However, this assertion is also incorrect. Cholera originated in the Indian Subcontinent and was unknown, did not arrive, in Western Europe until the early 1800s. Let’s get our facts right.