Jesus and Wine

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

posthuman

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2013
22,311
4,344
113
#81
There is no such thing as good grape juice. I prefer cranberry. OJ is good too.
i know it's not all that popular, but i like grapefruit juice.
 

posthuman

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2013
22,311
4,344
113
#82
In the same way, deacons are to be worthy of respect,
sincere, not indulging in much wine, and not pursuing dishonest gain.

(1 Timothy 3:8)

i wonder why Paul didn't write "not tasting even a single drop of wine"


:confused:
 
May 15, 2013
4,307
27
0
#83
Moses had permitted the Hebrews to do a lot of things that wasn't allowed in the beginning because they were stubborn. But after Adam and Eve had fell, they look for things as a substitute of the things that they once had in the presence of God. God had chosen Noah because he was the best of the fruits at the time, but never was perfect. His heart wanted to do what is right, but the things that he has gotten accustom of doing has over-powered him, but God look at his heart because it was willing to do what is right, but the rest didn't give a care at all.
 

john832

Senior Member
May 31, 2013
11,283
162
63
#84
Last edited:

posthuman

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2013
22,311
4,344
113
#85
In the same way, deacons are to be worthy of respect,
sincere, not indulging in much wine, and not pursuing dishonest gain.

(1 Timothy 3:8)

i wonder why Paul didn't write "not tasting even a single drop of wine"


:confused:
oh OK, it makes sense after reading this:

Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances, (Touch not; taste not; handle not; Which all are to perish with the using;) after the commandments and doctrines of men?
Which things have indeed a shew of wisdom in will worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body; not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh.
(Colossians 2:20-23)

=]
 
K

kennethcadwell

Guest
#86
Obviously I did not write the bible so it's not up to me to not determine if the social drinking is sinful or not, but is it up to me to examine the bible without prejudice to see what the bible says about it. Too many approach this subject with prejudice for no more reason that to justify a personal vice.

I am talking specifically about the Greek word onios. As it is used in the LXX it can mean grape juice to fermented wine so no one can just ASSUME when Jesus made onios that is can only mean fermented wine. Jesus would have been a hypocrite and sinner ( a bar-tender) if He made fermented wine in contributing to the drunkenness of others.


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 was for Jesus to manifest His glory and induce a belief in people. Neither of which could be accomplished if Jesus sinned by contributing to the sin of others.

"Good wine" does not necessitate it was fermented.

Albert Barnes:

The good wine - This shows that this had all the qualities of real wine. We should not be deceived by the phrase “good wine.” We often use the phrase to denote that it is good in proportion to its strength and its power to intoxicate; but no such sense is to be attached to the word here.

Pliny, Plutarch, and Horace describe wine as “good,” or mention that as “the best wine,” which was harmless or “innocent” - poculo vini “innocentis.”The most useful wine - “utilissimum vinum” - was that which had little strength; and the most wholesome wine - “saluberrimum vinum” - was that which had not been adulterated by “the addition of anything to the ‹must‘ or juice.” Pliny expressly says that a good wine was one that was destitute of spirit (lib. iv. c. 13). It should not be assumed, therefore, that the “good wine” was “stronger” than the other: it is rather to be presumed that it was milder.


The wine referred to here was doubtless such as was commonly drunk in Palestine. That was the pure juice of the grape. It was not brandied wine, nor drugged wine, nor wine compounded of various substances, such as we drink in this land. The common wine drunk in Palestine was that which was the simple juice of the grape. we use the word “wine” now to denote the kind of liquid which passes under that name in this country - always containing a considerable portion of alcohol not only the alcohol produced by fermentation, but alcohol “added” to keep it or make it stronger. But we have no right to take that sense of the word, and go with it to the interpretation of the Scriptures. We should endeavor to place ourselves in the exact circumstances of those times, ascertain precisely what idea the word would convey to those who used it then, and apply that sense to the word in the interpretation of the Bible; and there is not the slightest evidence that the word so used would have conveyed any idea but that of the pure juice of the grape, nor the slightest circumstance mentioned in this account that would not be fully met by such a supposition.

No man should adduce This instance in favor of drinking wine unless he can prove that the wine made in the waterpots of Cana was just like the wine which he proposes to drink. The Saviour‘s example may be always pleaded just as it was; but it is a matter of obvious and simple justice that we should find out exactly what the example was before we plead it. There is, moreover, no evidence that any other part of the water was converted into wine than that which was “drawn out” of the water-casks for the use of the guests. On this supposition, certainly, all the circumstances of the case are met, and the miracle would be more striking. All that was needed was to furnish a “supply” when the wine that had been prepared was nearly exhausted. The object was not to furnish a large quantity for future use. The miracle, too, would in this way be more apparent and impressive. On this supposition, the casks would appear to be filled with water only; as it was drawn out, it was pure wine. Who could doubt, then, that there was the exertion of miraculous power? All, therefore, that has been said about the Redeemer‘s furnishing a large quantity of wine for the newly-married pair, and about his benevolence in doing it, is wholly gratuitous. There is no evidence of it whatever; and it is not necessary to suppose it in order to an explanation of the circumstances of the case.

I am not assuming nothing if this is your point.
I am taking the meaning of the word, how it is used in this context, the tradition of the Jews during that time, and I also use other biblical references that show when drinking alcohol is wrong and when it is ok to drink. Yes there are biblical scriptures that make alcohol consumption acceptable.
I can find people on the internet and post them on here to that would show it was fermented by their opinion just like your source is doing here.

The problem I see with your source is that in what you have posted he makes no attempt to talk about Jewish tradition and how it applies to celebrations as is the case in the passage of Jesus turning water into wine. It is just another attempt of somebody trying to look smart when claiming it was just wine that pretty much has the same quality of grape juice.

The problem is that during celebrations such as a wedding, which we have here, they served fermented wine then after everybody got drunk they would take it away and bring out the less quality tasting wine. That is why the master of the fest was surprised the best was saved for last.

If tradition said this was not fermented wine the guest would have known the change in quality. There would be no need to change the wine, and the guest would notice the difference in the change.
For example if you take a social drinker who drinks a bear (Budweiser) here or there, and change out and give him a different beer (Keystone) then what he has been drinking they will know the difference. Now if you take a drunk who drinks 10 or more beers a day, if you take a serve him a different beer in an unmarked glass or cup 9 times out of 10 I bet they would not know the difference.
 

tourist

Senior Member
Mar 13, 2014
27,006
5,358
113
64
Florida
#87
keep in mind, anything can be 'tainted' in sin, as you say...Wine is NO exeption..However, it is clear that even in JESUS' day, everyone knew that wine could be dangerous..although they used it for medicimal and cleansing purposes. We even know that you can't put NEW wine in OLD wineskins...and such. I do believe that people can overabuse anything, even oxygen...I enjoy wine in my food, my hotdogs, duck, bread, etc. steeped in beer and even as a hair rinse (remember beer shampoo in the 1970's?) DO I get drunk over it? NO...
Your attitude is most refreshing.
 

tourist

Senior Member
Mar 13, 2014
27,006
5,358
113
64
Florida
#88
Obviously I did not write the bible so it's not up to me to not determine if the social drinking is sinful or not, but is it up to me to examine the bible without prejudice to see what the bible says about it. Too many approach this subject with prejudice for no more reason that to justify a personal vice.

I am talking specifically about the Greek word onios. As it is used in the LXX it can mean grape juice to fermented wine so no one can just ASSUME when Jesus made onios that is can only mean fermented wine. Jesus would have been a hypocrite and sinner ( a bar-tender) if He made fermented wine in contributing to the drunkenness of others.


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 was for Jesus to manifest His glory and induce a belief in people. Neither of which could be accomplished if Jesus sinned by contributing to the sin of others.

"Good wine" does not necessitate it was fermented.

Albert Barnes:

The good wine - This shows that this had all the qualities of real wine. We should not be deceived by the phrase “good wine.” We often use the phrase to denote that it is good in proportion to its strength and its power to intoxicate; but no such sense is to be attached to the word here.

Pliny, Plutarch, and Horace describe wine as “good,” or mention that as “the best wine,” which was harmless or “innocent” - poculo vini “innocentis.”The most useful wine - “utilissimum vinum” - was that which had little strength; and the most wholesome wine - “saluberrimum vinum” - was that which had not been adulterated by “the addition of anything to the ‹must‘ or juice.” Pliny expressly says that a good wine was one that was destitute of spirit (lib. iv. c. 13). It should not be assumed, therefore, that the “good wine” was “stronger” than the other: it is rather to be presumed that it was milder.


The wine referred to here was doubtless such as was commonly drunk in Palestine. That was the pure juice of the grape. It was not brandied wine, nor drugged wine, nor wine compounded of various substances, such as we drink in this land. The common wine drunk in Palestine was that which was the simple juice of the grape. we use the word “wine” now to denote the kind of liquid which passes under that name in this country - always containing a considerable portion of alcohol not only the alcohol produced by fermentation, but alcohol “added” to keep it or make it stronger. But we have no right to take that sense of the word, and go with it to the interpretation of the Scriptures. We should endeavor to place ourselves in the exact circumstances of those times, ascertain precisely what idea the word would convey to those who used it then, and apply that sense to the word in the interpretation of the Bible; and there is not the slightest evidence that the word so used would have conveyed any idea but that of the pure juice of the grape, nor the slightest circumstance mentioned in this account that would not be fully met by such a supposition.

No man should adduce This instance in favor of drinking wine unless he can prove that the wine made in the waterpots of Cana was just like the wine which he proposes to drink. The Saviour‘s example may be always pleaded just as it was; but it is a matter of obvious and simple justice that we should find out exactly what the example was before we plead it. There is, moreover, no evidence that any other part of the water was converted into wine than that which was “drawn out” of the water-casks for the use of the guests. On this supposition, certainly, all the circumstances of the case are met, and the miracle would be more striking. All that was needed was to furnish a “supply” when the wine that had been prepared was nearly exhausted. The object was not to furnish a large quantity for future use. The miracle, too, would in this way be more apparent and impressive. On this supposition, the casks would appear to be filled with water only; as it was drawn out, it was pure wine. Who could doubt, then, that there was the exertion of miraculous power? All, therefore, that has been said about the Redeemer‘s furnishing a large quantity of wine for the newly-married pair, and about his benevolence in doing it, is wholly gratuitous. There is no evidence of it whatever; and it is not necessary to suppose it in order to an explanation of the circumstances of the case.
I think the purpose of the miracle is that Jesus honored the request of his mother. He did not attempt to deceive her by only having the small amount of wine drawn out by the chief steward to be wine and the rest to remain water.
 

posthuman

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2013
22,311
4,344
113
#89
I think the purpose of the miracle is that Jesus honored the request of his mother. He did not attempt to deceive her by only having the small amount of wine drawn out by the chief steward to be wine and the rest to remain water.
what's more ludicrous?

that the Lord who causes grapes to ferment even on the vine, by the natural action of yeasts that He also created, turned water into the best wine the earth has ever seen?

or that the Lord turned only a small taste of the water into wine for the sake of the emcee, deceiving both him and all the guests?

God cannot lie. Al Barnes, i believe you are sorely mistaken.
 
Mar 12, 2014
6,433
29
0
#90
I am not assuming nothing if this is your point.
I am taking the meaning of the word, how it is used in this context, the tradition of the Jews during that time, and I also use other biblical references that show when drinking alcohol is wrong and when it is ok to drink. Yes there are biblical scriptures that make alcohol consumption acceptable.
I can find people on the internet and post them on here to that would show it was fermented by their opinion just like your source is doing here.

The problem I see with your source is that in what you have posted he makes no attempt to talk about Jewish tradition and how it applies to celebrations as is the case in the passage of Jesus turning water into wine. It is just another attempt of somebody trying to look smart when claiming it was just wine that pretty much has the same quality of grape juice.

The problem is that during celebrations such as a wedding, which we have here, they served fermented wine then after everybody got drunk they would take it away and bring out the less quality tasting wine. That is why the master of the fest was surprised the best was saved for last.

If tradition said this was not fermented wine the guest would have known the change in quality. There would be no need to change the wine, and the guest would notice the difference in the change.
For example if you take a social drinker who drinks a bear (Budweiser) here or there, and change out and give him a different beer (Keystone) then what he has been drinking they will know the difference. Now if you take a drunk who drinks 10 or more beers a day, if you take a serve him a different beer in an unmarked glass or cup 9 times out of 10 I bet they would not know the difference.

Yet I see nothing in the context, or any historical evidence, that the 'wine" Jesus made was fermented.

IF, IF "well drunk" methyo Jn 2:10 means they were drunk - inebriated, then Christ giving them more to drink adding to their already drunkenness would be sinful since Jesus own word condemns drunkenness, correct?

IF, IF they had already been drinking fermented wine and were already drunk-inebriated, then why would the wine Jesus made be "good wine"? Why would the supposed fermented wine Jesus made taste any different than the fermented wine they had already been drinking? What difference was there in the fermented wine they had been drinking and the fermented wine Jesus supposedly made?
 
Mar 12, 2014
6,433
29
0
#93
I think the purpose of the miracle is that Jesus honored the request of his mother. He did not attempt to deceive her by only having the small amount of wine drawn out by the chief steward to be wine and the rest to remain water.

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 this first miracle at Cana and Christ's other miracles was to manifest His glory and cause people to believe in him.
Did Jesus perform this miracle to cause men to sin?
 
K

kennethcadwell

Guest
#94
Yet I see nothing in the context, or any historical evidence, that the 'wine" Jesus made was fermented.

IF, IF "well drunk" methyo Jn 2:10 means they were drunk - inebriated, then Christ giving them more to drink adding to their already drunkenness would be sinful since Jesus own word condemns drunkenness, correct?

IF, IF they had already been drinking fermented wine and were already drunk-inebriated, then why would the wine Jesus made be "good wine"? Why would the supposed fermented wine Jesus made taste any different than the fermented wine they had already been drinking? What difference was there in the fermented wine they had been drinking and the fermented wine Jesus supposedly made?

I have told you twice now how Jewish tradition plays into this, and how you need to take that into account.

The second thing that you would be wrong on, is just like I tried to explain to Jason on here who had another thread on this same subject of water to wine. Is that you take and have misplaced blame if you put another's misuse of alcohol on the Lord.

God makes it clear He makes all things the bad and the good.
The reason for this is like given as an example in the book of Job, are faith is tested to see if it is a genuine faith.
The Lord does not tempt anybody, for those temptations are within us. We choose to act or not act on those temptations.
So when Jesus turned water into wine, even with it being fermented. It falls on the individuals there at that time if they drink in an acceptable manner, or if they misuse it.

Just like food, God made all the food for us. Can you eat in a sensible manner, or can you take and abuse eating turning it into an idol. Yes on both accounts. Anything can become a crutch that leads one to stay in sin, or go back to a life of sin.
He falls on how we use or misuse what is given.
 

posthuman

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2013
22,311
4,344
113
#95
Yet I see nothing in the context, or any historical evidence, that the 'wine" Jesus made was fermented.

IF, IF "well drunk" methyo Jn 2:10 means they were drunk - inebriated, then Christ giving them more to drink adding to their already drunkenness would be sinful since Jesus own word condemns drunkenness, correct?

IF, IF they had already been drinking fermented wine and were already drunk-inebriated, then why would the wine Jesus made be "good wine"? Why would the supposed fermented wine Jesus made taste any different than the fermented wine they had already been drinking? What difference was there in the fermented wine they had been drinking and the fermented wine Jesus supposedly made?

is this a Jewish wedding feast we're talking about, or a bunch of sots on a bender at a hole-in-the-wall saloon?

there's a difference between a soirée and a frat party, but not to the "touch not, taste not, handle not" crowd.
 

posthuman

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2013
22,311
4,344
113
#96
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 this first miracle at Cana and Christ's other miracles was to manifest His glory and cause people to believe in him.
Did Jesus perform this miracle to cause men to sin?
my, what if there were gluttons among the 5,000 He fed?

And when they had eaten their fill, he told his disciples,
Gather up the leftover fragments, that nothing may be lost.
(John 6:12)

they ate their fill!!

oh noes!
 

Nautilus

Senior Member
Jun 29, 2012
6,488
50
48
#97
Right,thats great for you,you dont have that problem.But guy sitting next to you might take a drink and he will be a drunk for life.Im saying as a Christian drinking is a stumbling block and not needed.
"Therefore, if what I eat causes my brother or sister to fall into sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause them to fall." I Cor.
Seeing how I live in an area where grown-ups can make their own decisions and be responsible for them, I highly doubt that someone drinking near me either at my house or at a bar is only doing it because they see me doing it. Im not responsible for the decisions John Doe down the road makes. Some people seriously take the whole stumbloing block thing way too far. I'm not going to live a life of solitude and boredom simply because someone might falter. They need to be in charge of their own actions, not being a weakling and blaming others.
Not to mention I don't have the time or desire to spend my waking moments weighing every action I take on the basis of whether or not it might make random person sin or not. What an awful way to live.
 

Jakob

Senior Member
Jul 15, 2014
298
4
18
#98
Nautilus, i dont think it's an awful way to live.
Try to change the whole alcohol thing out with lust.
If a woman goes around showing skin, and she says "Well it's not my fault that guys get tempted, they are just weaklings.
I'll do whatever I want, I'll wear whatever I want"
I know it's a pretty different point of view, but that's litteraly how many people are with alcohol, especially ex alcoholics.
True, they should be in charge of their own actions, and not blaming others, but the last thing people can do to help the person, is not to be provocative.
But I guess we all see it subjectively :p..
 

gb9

Senior Member
Jan 18, 2011
6,543
2,243
113
#99
Seeing how I live in an area where grown-ups can make their own decisions and be responsible for them, I highly doubt that someone drinking near me either at my house or at a bar is only doing it because they see me doing it. Im not responsible for the decisions John Doe down the road makes. Some people seriously take the whole stumbloing block thing way too far. I'm not going to live a life of solitude and boredom simply because someone might falter. They need to be in charge of their own actions, not being a weakling and blaming others.
Not to mention I don't have the time or desire to spend my waking moments weighing every action I take on the basis of whether or not it might make random person sin or not. What an awful way to live.
a practical example to back up what you said: my next door neighbor has a drinking problem. I know this because of what I see with my own eyes. for me to go over and offer him a drink or have him to my home to do the same would be wrong and sinful. so I don't. me having a drink in my own house is not causing him or anyone to stumble. as you said, at some point personal responsibility kicks in.
 

Jabberjaw

Senior Member
Mar 21, 2014
1,039
7
0
Seeing how I live in an area where grown-ups can make their own decisions and be responsible for them, I highly doubt that someone drinking near me either at my house or at a bar is only doing it because they see me doing it. Im not responsible for the decisions John Doe down the road makes. Some people seriously take the whole stumbloing block thing way too far. I'm not going to live a life of solitude and boredom simply because someone might falter. They need to be in charge of their own actions, not being a weakling and blaming others.
Not to mention I don't have the time or desire to spend my waking moments weighing every action I take on the basis of whether or not it might make random person sin or not. What an awful way to live.
a practical example to back up what you said: my next door neighbor has a drinking problem. I know this because of what I see with my own eyes. for me to go over and offer him a drink or have him to my home to do the same would be wrong and sinful. so I don't. me having a drink in my own house is not causing him or anyone to stumble. as you said, at some point personal responsibility kicks in.
I guess you both just threw out the second commandment for personal enjoyment putting his burdens on him, you can't be bothered with it!

Mark 12:31 (NKJV)
31 And the second, like it, is this: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no other commandment greater than these."