wine

[standingfirminChrist]

Nooooo!!! I've been found out! :laugh:



But he's Jesus. I doubt the Roman soldiers pulled a fast one on all-knowing God. :laugh:

John 19:28-30
After this, Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the scripture might be fulfilled, saith, I thirst. Now there was set a vessel full of vinegar: and they filled a spunge with vinegar, and put it upon hyssop, and put it to his mouth. When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.

He requested a drink, saying "I thirst", and the Romans, in compassion, gave Him what they were accustomed to drinking. Either that, or they gave him the strong non-cut vinegar wine trying to be evil (which I don't think was the case). But either way, I think we call all agree that Jesus drank knowing full well what it was.

That does not say the vinegar was alcoholic. Again, you are reading into text what is not there. The translation for vinegar in John 19 is 'oxos'. It is translated 'sour wine or vinegar'. Nowhere does it imply that the sour wine or vinegar was alcoholic content.

 

[npetreley]

It would take a miracle for either side to change sides, so how about this:

Those who believe they drank grape juice, not wine: Don't drink wine or anything with alcohol in it, but please don't act as if you're more righteous than those who don't agree with you.

Those who believe they drank wine: Drink wine if you want, but not in the presence of those who believe it was grape juice.

Settled, okay? Thread over.

 

[Joe]

Here's a pic of me---->>>> :saint: <--------I don't drink alcohol LOL

 

[webdog]

No, it's not referring to smoking a ham. I agree with you.

The smoking is referring to the smoke coming from a cigarette, now what kind of cigarette, I don't know. That's as far as I can go.
I don't know because he was riding a Harley and I probably couldn't tell unless I stared real close to see how he was holding the cigarette, whether he held the inhale for a few seconds longer, then let it out slower than usual.
And If he coughed a little after, that might help me decide. Or if a bong was used, then I would assume it was weed.



Imho, Christ thought it was water, that is why he drank it kubel

Now I think you are reaching to come to the conclusion that is desired...

The context dictates how the words are used...

 

[webdog]

Here's a pic of me---->>>> :saint: <--------I don't drink alcohol

...and here's a pic of me---->>>> :saint: <--------and I do drink alcohol

 

[TCGreek]

It would take a miracle for either side to change sides, so how about this:

Those who believe they drank grape juice, not wine: Don't drink wine or anything with alcohol in it, but please don't act as if you're more righteous than those who don't agree with you.

Those who believe they drank wine: Drink wine if you want, but not in the presence of those who believe it was grape juice.

Settled, okay? Thread over.

Now, I can kick back in my lazyboy and have me some wine, real wine. :laugh:

 

[webdog]

It would take a miracle for either side to change sides, so how about this:

Those who believe they drank grape juice, not wine: Don't drink wine or anything with alcohol in it, but please don't act as if you're more righteous than those who don't agree with you.

Those who believe they drank wine: Drink wine if you want, but not in the presence of those who believe it was grape juice.

Settled, okay? Thread over.

:laugh: :laugh:
That was a good one!

 

[TCGreek]

...and here's a pic of me---->>>> :saint: <--------and I do drink alcohol

Somehow, I knew all along. :laugh:

Maybe, I've been using too much wine.

 

[mcdirector]

It would take a miracle for either side to change sides, so how about this:

Those who believe they drank grape juice, not wine: Don't drink wine or anything with alcohol in it, but please don't act as if you're more righteous than those who don't agree with you.

Those who believe they drank wine: Drink wine if you want, but not in the presence of those who believe it was grape juice.

Settled, okay? Thread over.

:applause:

. . . . . . . .

 

[Hawaiiski]

For those who insist that the term wine indicates fermented juice only, I highly recommend the book Bible Wines by William Patton. This book is full of citations from Bible dictionaries & historical references dealing w/ word origins, usage, fermentation, culture, etc., showing that the term wine was a reference to both fermented & unfermented juices.

 

[webdog]

Somehow, I knew all along. :laugh:

Maybe, I've been using too much wine.

The Bible says give wine to the perishing...and I ain't getting any younger, you know...

 

[webdog]

I think a real end to this debate would be an honest, thorough study of the Lord's Supper and the elements and symbolism used (bread and juice not containing yeast).

If one is honest, grape juice from that day (not the Welches that was invented in the 1800's that removes the yeast through pasteurization) would have violated this very symbolic act.

 

[TCGreek]

The Bible says give wine to the perishing...and I ain't getting any younger, you know...

Webdog, Just Brilliant!

 

[TCGreek]

I think a real end to this debate would be an honest, thorough study of the Lord's Supper and the elements and symbolism used (bread and juice not containing yeast).

If one is honest, grape juice from that day (not the Welches that was invented in the 1800's that removes the yeast through pasteurization) would have violated this very symbolic act.

Yes, we need to understand that cultural context and avoid the fallacy of anachronism.

 

[npetreley]

If one is honest, grape juice from that day (not the Welches that was invented in the 1800's that removes the yeast through pasteurization) would have violated this very symbolic act.

This is where I appreciate the Primitive Baptist reasoning. From a pb faq:

Question: Why do Primitive Baptists use real wine and real unleavened bread in communion?

While scriptural descriptions of the original communion use the terms bread, the cup, and fruit of the vine, it may be conclusively inferred that the bread was unleavened and that the drink was fermented wine. This follows from:

1. The communion took place immediately after the Passover. This was a time in which leavened bread was prohibited, both by scriptural law and by Jewish tradition (Ex 12:3-8, Num 9:9-11, Deut 16:1-3, Mt 26:17, Mk 14:12, Lk 22:7).
2. Leaven is used in the scriptures as an emblem of sin (Lk 12:1, I Cor 5:6-8, Gal 5:7-9) and is therefore an unsuitable representative of the Lord's body.
3. Wine is symbolically consistent with unleavened bread in that neither contain leaven. On the other hand, unfermented grape juice would contradict all that is portended by the unleavened bread because grape juice typically does contain leaven. There are some who erroneously assert that the opposite is true - that wine contains leaven but grape juice does not. The reader is invited to consult any authority on wine chemistry to resolve the matter.
4. Wine was a traditional part of the Jewish Passover.
5. Without modern methods of refrigeration, grape juice could not be preserved for all times of the year. The Passover season was not conducive to grape juice since it was well between harvests.
6. The Corinthians obviously used a fermented substance in their communion service since they perverted it into a drunken festival (I Cor 11:20-30). Paul condemns them for their impiety and excesses, but not for the usage of wine in communion.

The importance of adhering to the scriptural example in this matter cannot be questioned since God punished the Corinthians with illness and death for departing from it (I Cor 11:29-30). The usage of a leavened substance, such as grape juice, to represent the Lord is, in our opinion, a severe negligence, and is at risk of being chargeable as failure to discern the body of the Lord (I Cor 11:29).

I don't agree that it would be failure to discern the body of the Lord. I don't think that's what is being addressed in 1 Cor. However, I do think it's a mistake. But I also think it's futile to try to get grape juicers to think differently.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

As Hawaiiski pointed out, William Patton's book "Bible Wines" will show Bible referrences and Historical referrences that would refute your theory that the juice of the grape could not have been used. The preservation of grape juice and usage of grape juice was documented in the first century AD.

 

[EdSutton]

Everyone, put on their seatbelts !

The picture shows you already are wearing yours. :laugh: :laugh:

Ed

 

[webdog]

As Hawaiiski pointed out, William Patton's book "Bible Wines" will show Bible referrences and Historical referrences that would refute your theory that the juice of the grape could not have been used. The preservation of grape juice and usage of grape juice was documented in the first century AD.

Nothing but urban legends...

 

[EdSutton]

BTW, I'm new here.

thanks

Welcome to the Baptists bored, 'er I mean Baptist Board.

Ed

 

[TCGreek]

This is where I appreciate the Primitive Baptist reasoning. From a pb faq:



I don't agree that it would be failure to discern the body of the Lord. I don't think that's what is being addressed in 1 Cor. However, I do think it's a mistake. But I also think it's futile to try to get grape juicers to think differently.

A good start. :thumbs: