Jesus turned water into unfermented wine and not fermented wine.

[lisa79]

Matthew 27:48 "And immediately one of them ran, and took a sponge, and filled it with vinegar, and put it on a reed, and gave him to drink."

I may be way off base here but I was reminded of this scripture. If it had not been alcoholic wouldnt it have been vinegar? And isnt the power in the alcohol in many ways (safe to drink) having self control? I always interpreted the whole event as a fortelling of the blood....and how blood thirtsy they (Jewish wedding) were that they found savor in its taste and told of it. The first miracle being the turning of water into wine and the last turning wine into blood. I doubt that the wine in question was diluted.

 

[Jason0047]

i am glad to hear that "poverty" and a "heavy heart" is a medical condition!

You don't understand the context of what is being said. This was Lemuel's mother encouraging King Lemuel to abstain from strong drink. She was not approving of proverty stricken people and those who were depressed to get drunk as a high standard of righteousness. She was saying that the king should refrain from alcohol and leave it to those who are lower than kings who do misuse it and or who need it because they require medical help (Because they are more likely to contract diseases, and food poisoning, etc.). She is saying wine is not for kings because they have great responsibilities (Wheras the poor do not) (See verse 5).

should be covered in any basic plan now under Obamacare!

This is not a joking matter. Alcohol is a drug that has destroyed many lives. Please be considerate to those who might be around you who have lost loved ones because of a drug that has left a wake of destruction in people's lives.

blackberries and sugar are not "leaven" - that's all i hoped to convey

It is a mute point because this was not the primary method of how they made alcoholic wine back then. It was yeast which represents sin.

 

[Ukorin]

You don't understand the context of what is being said. This was Lemuel's mother encouraging King Lemuel to abstain from strong drink. She was not approving of proverty stricken people and those who were depressed to get drunk as a high standard of righteousness. She was saying that the king should refrain from alcohol and leave it to those who are lower than kings who do misuse it and or who need it because they require medical help (Because they are more likely to contract diseases, and food poisoning, etc.). She is saying wine is not for kings because they have great responsibilities (Wheras the poor do not) (See verse 5).



This is not a joking matter. Alcohol is a drug that has destroyed many lives. Please be considerate to those who might be around you who have lost loved ones because of a drug that has left a wake of destruction in people's lives.


It is a mute point because this was not the primary method of how they made alcoholic wine back then. It was yeast which represents sin.

Yeast only represents sin in a parable, not as a general analogy.

The Greek is clear. There is no room for this to be deemed non-alcoholic.
Do you think that Jesus really never had actual wine?
Do you also claim Jesus a drunkard, like the men of His day, just because He had wine?

I respect your decision to abstain from alcohol entirely, in all it's forms,
But to begin inserting that conviction into Scripture is foolishness.

If the Word was "sweet wine" or "new wine" or "nectar" or "juice" or "drink", then you would have a solid argument.
But the Word is oinos. Wine. Alcoholic by nature.

Also, yeast was only used to make cheap hard alcohol. Grapes naturally ferment.
Yeast was only used to speed the process, and produced an inferior quality drink.

 

[StandingFirmInChrist]

Dictionaries of ages past would disagree with you. They define "wine" as either fermented or unfermented.

You are correct. Here's Nathan Bailey's 1726 Dictionary. Notice the word wine in the left column, then the word liquor in the right column

 

[Ukorin]

If Jesus or the Apostles were abstentionist, then they would have been more specific with the word for "wine", to not confuse the weak minded.

The truth is, they were not abstentionist. They were celebrating! Christ was in the world!

If you have any argument for abstaining, it is not in the word "wine", but in the fact that we are in anticipation of His Second Coming, and not currently in celebration.

 

[lisa79]

Just because some abuse a simple pleasure such as wine does not mean God did not create it. God gave us pleasures to enjoy and excersice self control with or to bring out a flaw within us not to condemn us but to be given an opportunity to overcome that demon and gain wisdom. To say that God did not create alcoholic wine because it would be tempting alcholics and that is wrong would be equal to saying that it is wrong for pain medicines to exist because they tempt addicts.

 

[Jason0047]

If Jesus or the Apostles were abstentionist, then they would have been more specific with the word for "wine", to not confuse the weak minded.

The truth is, they were not abstentionist. They were celebrating! Christ was in the world!

If you have any argument for abstaining, it is not in the word "wine", but in the fact that we are in anticipation of His Second Coming, and not currently in celebration.

First, not everything is spelled out neatly for us within Scripture as we would like. In fact, Jesus spoke in parables so as to hide the mysteries of the Kingdom from those who are of this world. Second, look at dictionaries going back into the past. What does the word "wine" say?

 

[Jason0047]

Matthew 27:48 "And immediately one of them ran, and took a sponge, and filled it with vinegar, and put it on a reed, and gave him to drink."

I may be way off base here but I was reminded of this scripture. If it had not been alcoholic wouldnt it have been vinegar? And isnt the power in the alcohol in many ways (safe to drink) having self control? I always interpreted the whole event as a fortelling of the blood....and how blood thirtsy they (Jewish wedding) were that they found savor in its taste and told of it. The first miracle being the turning of water into wine and the last turning wine into blood. I doubt that the wine in question was diluted.

Vinegar is a non alcoholic substance that is created from fermenting alcohol, which could include various wines, etc. Before a wine is alcoholic, it is simply grape juice or unfermented wine. As for alcohol being safe: While it may be lawful to drink moderately and soberly in private, the Bible warns against drinking alcohol because it says wine is a mocker and that it can bite you like a serpent. Meaning, wine or strong drinks are highly addictive and can lead you to want to drink more. For it only takes one drink for a person to become an alcoholic. For some folks do not have the will power to resist. As for the last miracle (as you claim): Jesus did not turn wine into blood. Such a thing never happened. The wine merely represents his blood. It is not actually his blood. Drinking blood in the Bible is forbidden in the Scriptures. When Jesus said that we must drink of his blood he was talking about believing that his shed blood would cleanse of us of our sins when he died upon the cross for us (See Romans 3:25). Eating of his flesh was representative of doing His will or in abiding in Him (See John chapter 4 about Jesus mention about meat). In other words, the blood is believing and the meat is the abiding (or doing God's will).

 

[JaumeJ]

Shalom Jason......

It never occurred to me the wine was not fermented, but that is interesting to consider. I know our Lord was accused of being a drunkard and a glutton because He ate and drank with "sinners." Knowing the hypocrisy of many around our Lord at that time, it is quite possible He was accused wrongly by appearances and not by right judgment. You give ssomething to consider. Thanks, and God bless you always.

 

[Jason0047]

Just because some abuse a simple pleasure such as wine does not mean God did not create it. God gave us pleasures to enjoy and excersice self control with or to bring out a flaw within us not to condemn us but to be given an opportunity to overcome that demon and gain wisdom. To say that God did not create alcoholic wine because it would be tempting alcholics and that is wrong would be equal to saying that it is wrong for pain medicines to exist because they tempt addicts.

There are certain drugs and poisons that can be extremely harmful to your body. Alcohol is one of them. It also offers no nutritional value. It only seeks to destroy or to effect your mind. In other words, there are many things God created in this universe, but that does not mean all things were intended for us. For example, God created two trees. One tree would be bad for us and one would be good. Adam chose the bad tree. Adam could have thought the same thing. Well, God created it so it can't be bad. Right? Wrong. There was no excuse that God accepted from Adam in his wrong decision.

 

[Jason0047]

Shalom Jason......

It never occurred to me the wine was not fermented, but that is interesting to consider. I know our Lord was accused of being a drunkard and a glutton because He ate and drank with "sinners." Knowing the hypocrisy of many around our Lord at that time, it is quite possible He was accused wrongly by appearances and not by right judgment. You give ssomething to consider. Thanks, and God bless you always.

Thank you my friend. When I first dscovered the truth regarding this topic, it felt like a veil had been lifted from eyes. However, please do not take my word for it, but pray and seek the Scriptures for yourself, my brother. I know that if you do, I know He will guide you into the truth on this matter (Just as He had done with me).

 

[Ukorin]

First, not everything is spelled out neatly for us within Scripture as we would like. In fact, Jesus spoke in parables so as to hide the mysteries of the Kingdom from those who are of this world. Second, look at dictionaries going back into the past. What does the word "wine" say?

I do not care for English dictionaries from any century.
I only care for the definition of oinos in the mid 1st century ad.

Oinos does not only hold the connotation of containing alcohol,
It's very definition is containing alcohol.

I assume you are in the Assemblies of God denomination. They have been the main proponent of this nonsense.
I was raised in an AG church, and have had to put aside far more false doctrine than I care to bring up.

 

[Ukorin]

I should not have brought up denomination. That talk only brings division, rather than unity.
Forgive me, and ignore my dissentive comment.

 

[Tintin]

I don't think some of you realise that language is incredibly dynamic. Even Strong's Concordance has some issues and that's almost 200 years old.

 

[Brother_Don]

God made the grapes. God did not ferment the grapes. i can't see Jesus drinking fermented grapes, i don't think He even ate fresh grapes, Numbers 6. Then Luke 1:15, Zacharias was getting his instruction for John. Jesus was of the same family so i believe His parents taught Him the same vows.

 

[KJV1611]

New wine is unfermented grape juice found in the cluster.

Isa 65:8 Thus saith the LORD, As the new wine is found in the cluster, and one saith, Destroy it not; for a blessing is in it: so will I do for my servants' sakes, that I may not destroy them all.

 

[SeaBass]

This has been covered numerous times and context dictates what the bible teaches about wine.....

Question.....

Were the Pharisees stupid and or the bible not inspired when they raked Jesus over the coals for eating and drinking with the people when they called him a

1. Wine bibber

or

2.Grape juice drinker

Can straight grape juice expand old wineskins to bursting point without having help?

Was God stupid and or misinformed when Jesus said...

I sent John unto u (strait laced and walking the line and your refused to dance)...

I came eating and drinking and was accused of being a WINEBIBBER and friends of sinners.....

And they would not (dance).....obviously paraphrasing

Jesus was not called a winebibber because he drank unfermented grape juice.....

It is not those things that enter into a man that defiles a man.......

I agree with some things you say....

In the context of Matt 11:18,19 Jesus being called a winebibber in no way proves he drank alcoholic wine.

If Jesus falsely being called a drunkard/winebibber "proves" that He must have drank fermented drinks,


then


Jesus being called a sinner, Jn 9:24, must "prove" that He must have committed sin

Jesus being called a deciever, Mt 27:63, must "prove" He must have deceived people

Jesus said to have a demon, Jn 7:20, must "prove" He had demonic powers, "proves" He was Beelzebul as they called Him, Mt 10:25

Jesus was said to do that which is not lawful, Mt 12:2, must "prove" he broke the law on occasion

Jesus was said to blaspheme, Jn 10:33, so that must "prove" He must have done some blaspheming


The truth is, Jesus was no more a winebibber than He was a glutton or that John had a devil. Jesus came to save sinners and He went among sinners, those that were winebibbers and gluttons, and His enemies accused Jesus in participating in those sins since He was seen among those that were gluttons and winebibbers.


Lastly, in the context of Matt 11, the phrase eating and drinking is used figuratively to describe the lifestyles. When it says John came not eating or drinking that is figurative for his reclusive, anti-social lifestyle away from people. When it says Jesus came eating and drinking that is figurative for His social lifestyle among people and not literally about what He ate or drank.

Does the phrase "John came neither eating nor drinking" literally mean John did not eat or drink anything? No. So that must mean the phrases "eating and drinking" is used in a figurative sense.



Jn 2:11 "This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested forth his glory; and his disciples believed on him".

The purpose of Jesus performing miracles. as the one in Cana, was to 1) manifest His glory and 2) induce a belief in men. Jesus sinning in contributing to the drunkenness of men would not accomplish either.

 

[peacefulbeliever]

I just figure drinking wine back then would be equivalent to our drinking tea today. [At least it seems that way from TV shows depicting Rome!] I mean what did they have to drink back then? Grape juice, wine, goat's milk or water . . . .

 

[lisa79]

Vinegar is a non alcoholic substance that is created from fermenting alcohol, which could include various wines, etc. Before a wine is alcoholic, it is simply grape juice or unfermented wine. As for alcohol being safe: While it may be lawful to drink moderately and soberly in private, the Bible warns against drinking alcohol because it says wine is a mocker and that it can bite you like a serpent. Meaning, wine or strong drinks are highly addictive and can lead you to want to drink more. For it only takes one drink for a person to become an alcoholic. For some folks do not have the will power to resist. As for the last miracle (as you claim): Jesus did not turn wine into blood. Such a thing never happened. The wine merely represents his blood. It is not actually his blood. Drinking blood in the Bible is forbidden in the Scriptures. When Jesus said that we must drink of his blood he was talking about believing that his shed blood would cleanse of us of our sins when he died upon the cross for us (See Romans 3:25). Eating of his flesh was representative of doing His will or in abiding in Him (See John chapter 4 about Jesus mention about meat). In other words, the blood is believing and the meat is the abiding (or doing God's will).

You are right non alcholic wine is called grape juice. But back then vinegar was sour wine (still alcoholic) and He was given it to drink in public at the most unforgetable public event known in all of the history of creation.

 

[Jason0047]

I do not care for English dictionaries from any century.
I only care for the definition of oinos in the mid 1st century ad.

Oinos does not only hold the connotation of containing alcohol,
It's very definition is containing alcohol.

I assume you are in the Assemblies of God denomination. They have been the main proponent of this nonsense.
I was raised in an AG church, and have had to put aside far more false doctrine than I care to bring up.

First, I believe you have things backwards when it comes to understanding written works and you have bought into the lie sold at Seminaries; For while I believe God can teach a person Greek (Because all things are possible with God), most times people are not humble enough to look at Scripture from a balanced approach and are only interested in seeking their own interpretation on Scripture by selecting a Greek word in a Lexicon (that they prefer) from a multiple list of definitions (As if it was the Bible). Why do I say this? Because Biblical Greek is a dead language and even Greek scholars disagree with each other. For you did not repent by hearing the Greek. Nor are you fluent in Biblical Greek. In fact, you can't be fluent in a language that no longer exists because Paul and the other believers who did speak and write Greek are not here to correct your Greek interpretation. You are only making guesses as to what those words are saying. For a Lexicon written by a group of men is not divinely inspired. Yet, you are treating it as if it was inspired. You are also pretending like you know that language when in reality you really don't know that language. Nobody truly knows Biblical Greek today. Oh, I am sure many basic words could be understood on some level, but we still do not have any way to truly know unless we verify our Greek with another source that we do know (Like with the English). For God does not require people to learn a dead language in order to understand the Word of God.

Second, writing off dictionaries in English is being hypocritical. You would not be able to know what you know now in English if it was not for dictionaries. You would also not be able to read your Bible in English if it was not for dictionaries. The English words come from somewhere. They do not appear out of thin air or on trees. Words have a set meaning within the English language. You ingore that and you might as well stop talking to people on an English speaking forum. For it appears that you are choosing to select what words you want to be true in English (When you read your Bible in English), then changing or ignoring other words in English by looking to a dead language that you really don't know. This view has you ignoring the meaning of words in a language that you do understand. However, God is not going to hold people accountable for not knowing a dead language. God is simple. He is not the author of confusion, either. God is going to hold people accountable to His Word in their own language. For it was the scholars in Jesus day that he had a problem with; And it was the simple man like the fisher-man or regular worker that he accepted as his disciples. None of the 12 were scribes. They were simple and hard working men.

Third, as for your assumption that I am affiliated with the Assemblies of God: You would be wrong. I was not raised in their church. I was not raised in any one particular church. At one point in time in my childhood, I was an atheist. I received a Bible Tract and accepted the Lord and repented of my sins. The bulk of what I have come to know was all from personal study of God's Word and not from any one particular pastor or teacher (Although, some pastors have taught me certain things).