Jesus turned water into unfermented wine and not fermented wine.

[Last]

Yes, Modern Wines that are a super high in alcoholic content. That's what the Wiki article says. In order to acheive higher levels of alcoholic wines that are used today, you need to increase the sugar and yeast amount.

No Jason, modern wines are generally made from squeezing grapes and the alcohol content depends on the level of sugars within the grapes. The amount of yeast you start with has nothing to do with it.

For winemakers who wish to make an unnaturally high 15%+ alcohol wine, they need to add sugars to the juice. A different strain of yeast is used because most are not tolerant of such high alcohol levels.

 

[lisa79]

If people were "well drunk" at the Wedding of Cana, then they would have been drunk. Which is a sin. For 1 Corinthians 6:10 says drunkards shall not inherit the Kingdom of God. How exactly is that Biblical again?

He was making a comment to support the compliment he was about to make.

 

[lisa79]

If you live a spirit filled life you dont have to get drunk on wine to laugh and be merry. Christ himself was accused of being a drunkard. Sometimes I am so full of His spirit I cant help but smile and be merry for no other reason.

 

[Jason0047]

I quoted that. Any what does this have to do with anything you have said? You have repeatedly tried to claim that ancient wines had low alcohol content unless you added yeast to it, and that is not true.

Yes, very good. You did quote that. I am trying to tell you (from your source) that you need to have the right amount of grapes and their sugar content (which mixes with the natural yeast) that will produce alcohol. So the amount of the grapes and their sugar content mixed with yeast determines the alcohol level content. This would not always be a 10% alcohol in every case. That's what I was trying to get you to see.

Oh, and I will admit, when I am wrong. I might have been misinformed about the fact that grapes can naturally produce 12% alcohol type wine on it's own power. I am human and I am constantly learning. But the Wiki article says if you want to acheive a higher level (Which is among the popular wines today), then you need to increase the yeast and sugar value.

However, none this changes the fact that Jesus did not serve an intoxicating wine at the Wedding, though. The Bible says drunkards shall not inherit the Kingdom of God. Jesus would not contribute to people sinning or not inheriting the Kingdom of God. It is that simple.

 

[ThomistColin]

Yes, very good. You did quote that. I am trying to tell you (from your source) that you need to have the right amount of grapes and their sugar content (which mixes with the natural yeast) that will produce alcohol. So the amount of the grapes and their sugar content mixed with yeast determines the alcohol level content. This would not always be a 10% alcohol in every case. That's what I was trying to get you to see.

Oh, and I will admit, when I am wrong. I might have been misinformed about the fact that grapes can naturally produce 12% alcohol type wine on it's own power. I am human and I am constantly learning. But the Wiki article says if you want to acheive a higher level (Which is among the popular wines today), then you need to increase the yeast and sugar value.

However, none this changes the fact that Jesus did not serve an intoxicating wine at the Wedding, though. The Bible says drunkards shall not inherit the Kingdom of God. Jesus would not contribute to people sinning or not inheriting the Kingdom of God. It is that simple.

There is no such thing as unfermented wine in the Ancient world. It had to do with health. Alcohol was good, everyone drank it because it was safe. The Honored Guest would have commented on grape juice, which they had. He would not have called it wine.

Let me remind you, the JEWS to this day still drink wine for Sabbath, there is even a blessing for it. Jesus would not have served grape juice.

 

[Jason0047]

If you live a spirit filled life you dont have to get drunk on wine to laugh and be merry. Christ himself was accused of being a drunkard. Sometimes I am so full of His spirit I cant help but smile and be merry for no other reason.

Yes, I agree. If you are led by the Spirit and are happy in God, then there is no need to get drunk with wine or even to take a sip of it. For the Kingdom of God is not meat or drink but it is in having righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost (Romans 14:17).

 

[Jason0047]

There is no such thing as unfermented wine in the Ancient world. It had to do with health. Alcohol was good, everyone drank it because it was safe. The Honored Guest would have commented on grape juice, which they had. He would not have called it wine.

Let me remind you, the JEWS to this day still drink wine for Sabbath, there is even a blessing for it. Jesus would not have served grape juice.

Ancient Testimonies. The most celebrated Roman poet, Virgil (70-19 B.C.), in his Georgics, pictures a housewife thus "She boils down by the fire the moisture of sweet must, and skims off with leaves the wavy froth of the simmering caldron." This method was widely used, as indicated by Columella’s lengthy description of how to preserve must successfully by boiling it down. "Care should also be taken," he writes, "so that the must, when it has been pressed out, may last well or at any rate keep until it is sold. "To ensure its preservation, Columella explains that "some people put the must in leaden vessels and by boiling reduce it by a quarter, others by a third. There is no doubt that anyone who boiled it down to one-half would be likely to make a better thick form of must." Must boiled-down to a third was called defrutum: "Must of the sweetest possible flower will be boiled-down to a third of its original volume and when boiled-down . . . is called defrutum."


Pliny differs from Columella by calling defrutum the must boiled-down to one-half and sapa, the must boiled-down to a third. In discussing the various kinds of "sweet wine" (vinum dulce), he writes: "Siraeum, by some calledhepsema and in our country sapa, is a product of art, not of nature, made by boiling down must to a third of its quantity; must boiled-down to only one-half is calleddefrutum." The difference in the names given to the different kinds of boiled-down must, only serves to confirm the common usage of this beverage.

The preservation of must by boiling required considerable care. Columella gives us this insightful description: "We shall heat the furnace at first with gentle fire and with only very small pieces of wood, which the country people call cremia (brushwood), so that the must may boil in a leisurely manner. The man in charge of this boiling should have ready prepared strainers made of rushes or broom, but the latter should be in a raw state, that is to say, not beaten with a hammer. He should . . . stir up any dregs which have settled at the bottom and bring them up to the top; he should then clear away with the strainer any scum which remains on the surface, and he should go on doing this until the must seems cleared of all lees."

Source:
The Preservation of Grape Juice

 

[ThomistColin]

Ancient Testimonies. The most celebrated Roman poet, Virgil (70-19 B.C.), in his Georgics, pictures a housewife thus "She boils down by the fire the moisture of sweet must, and skims off with leaves the wavy froth of the simmering caldron." This method was widely used, as indicated by Columella’s lengthy description of how to preserve must successfully by boiling it down. "Care should also be taken," he writes, "so that the must, when it has been pressed out, may last well or at any rate keep until it is sold. "To ensure its preservation, Columella explains that "some people put the must in leaden vessels and by boiling reduce it by a quarter, others by a third. There is no doubt that anyone who boiled it down to one-half would be likely to make a better thick form of must." Must boiled-down to a third was called defrutum: "Must of the sweetest possible flower will be boiled-down to a third of its original volume and when boiled-down . . . is called defrutum."


Pliny differs from Columella by calling defrutum the must boiled-down to one-half and sapa, the must boiled-down to a third. In discussing the various kinds of "sweet wine" (vinum dulce), he writes: "Siraeum, by some calledhepsema and in our country sapa, is a product of art, not of nature, made by boiling down must to a third of its quantity; must boiled-down to only one-half is calleddefrutum." The difference in the names given to the different kinds of boiled-down must, only serves to confirm the common usage of this beverage.

The preservation of must by boiling required considerable care. Columella gives us this insightful description: "We shall heat the furnace at first with gentle fire and with only very small pieces of wood, which the country people call cremia (brushwood), so that the must may boil in a leisurely manner. The man in charge of this boiling should have ready prepared strainers made of rushes or broom, but the latter should be in a raw state, that is to say, not beaten with a hammer. He should . . . stir up any dregs which have settled at the bottom and bring them up to the top; he should then clear away with the strainer any scum which remains on the surface, and he should go on doing this until the must seems cleared of all lees."

Source:
The Preservation of Grape Juice

That is speaking of a special type of "aperitiff" or after dinner wine. It was common among Greeks and Romans, but not among the Semitic peoples. Nor was it common to the lower classes, since it was extremely expensive. Again, you are ignoring the hosts claim that the good wine was intoxicating. He draws that comparison to the wine he was drinking. I'm sorry that God doesn't work in a way that makes sense to you, but His ways are not our ways. Jesus changed the water into the wine of Heaven. It would be intoxicating to a human to taste something so pure. The wine used for the Passover was fermented wine (in fact it has to be by Jewish law). Jesus drank that wine on many occasions. He was never drunk nor given to drunkeness. Alcoholic wine is not evil. Its what you do with it that makes it evil. You act like alcohol is the cause of alcoholism, or that drugs are the cause of drug addicts. The addiction is to a substance, but that addiction exists because of a problem with the person. You act like sin is a tangible thing, when instead sin is something that is done.

 

[lisa79]

First, it was actually the governor who pointed out to the bridegroom that the wine was good (and not the bridegroom). Second, in this scenario, if one or two people were only sober enough to recognize that the wine was good, then what about all the other people who were not sober that Jesus was making more drunk with his intoxicating wine? In other words, you are saying that the people at the party were drunk. But how exactly do you think that drunkenness is not a sin in the Bible, though? 1 Corinthians 6:10 clearly says drunkards shall not inherit the Kingdom of God.

Maybe drunkards can not inherit the Kingdom of heaven because they have no self control ever thought about that? Drinking wine is not sin Christ made that clear by drinking it himself. This is not an excuse to be a gluten but an example of how it should be done. The Kingdom of God is within you. God is love....you have to have enough love within you and for you to control yourself to not distroy the temple that houses it.

 

[lisa79]

Yes, I agree. If you are led by the Spirit and are happy in God, then there is no need to get drunk with wine or even to take a sip of it. For the Kingdom of God is not meat or drink but it is in having righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost (Romans 14:17).

Its about knowing when to say when.

 

[Jason0047]

That is speaking of a special type of "aperitiff" or after dinner wine. It was common among Greeks and Romans, but not among the Semitic peoples. Nor was it common to the lower classes, since it was extremely expensive. Again, you are ignoring the hosts claim that the good wine was intoxicating. He draws that comparison to the wine he was drinking.

Unfermented wine is a term that was used by Dr Welch to describe the grape juice that he made (by taking out the fermentation process that will naturally will occur with crushed grapes.



Also, check out the post by "Standing Firm In Christ" that shows an actual screen capture of an old dictionary on the word "wine." Please note that you have to understand that it defines the word "liquor" as NOT an alcoholic substance. Here is the link to that.

http://christianchat.com/bible-disc...ed-wine-not-fermented-wine-7.html#post1648489[

I'm sorry that God doesn't work in a way that makes sense to you, but His ways are not our ways. Jesus changed the water into the wine of Heaven. It would be intoxicating to a human to taste something so pure. The wine used for the Passover was fermented wine (in fact it has to be by Jewish law). Jesus drank that wine on many occasions. He was never drunk nor given to drunkeness. Alcoholic wine is not evil. Its what you do with it that makes it evil.

I agree that it is what you do with things that makes something evil. A woman who is beautiful is not evil. But if a man looks upon her in lust, then that is evil. But in the Old Testament, there were things that were considered unclean, though. They were not to eat certain animals because they were unclean, etc. We have a liberty in Christ now (to eat any animal meat and drink soberly and in private) that they did not have before the cross. Before the cross, it was forbidden to even look at certain alcoholic beverages that were high in alcoholic content. For wine is a mocker and it can bite you like a serpent and those who are deceived by it are not wise. In other words, the Israelites were not allowed to drink alcoholic beverages that were super high in alcoholic content whereby they would have gotten drunk off it. Today we have a liberty in Christ, but we have to be careful with that liberty, though. For if we make our brother to stumble, then we are making our good as evil spoken of. That is why I ddon't believe the wine was highly intoxicating at the Wedding. For if it was, then folks who were "well drunk" of such a substance (John 2:10) would have been drunk; And drunkenness is a sin (1 Corinthians 6:10).

You act like alcohol is the cause of alcoholism, or that drugs are the cause of drug addicts. The addiction is to a substance, but that addiction exists because of a problem with the person. You act like sin is a tangible thing, when instead sin is something that is done.

News flash, my friend. Drugs are addictive. People have to sometimes be gradually still be given a drug bit by bit until it is completely out of their system before they are drug free. Drugs like alcohol offer no nutritional value. The substance seeks to destroy your body. For alcohol dries things out and people who have abused alcohol have serious medical problems. In other words, while certain things may be lawful for you, not all things are profitable, though. For example playing around outside while there is heavy lightning outside may be lawful, but it is not profitable.

 

[Jason0047]

Maybe drunkards can not inherit the Kingdom of heaven because they have no self control ever thought about that? Drinking wine is not sin Christ made that clear by drinking it himself. This is not an excuse to be a gluten but an example of how it should be done. The Kingdom of God is within you. God is love....you have to have enough love within you and for you to control yourself to not distroy the temple that houses it.

This is not complicated.

Question #1: Were they drunk at the Wedding of Cana? Yes or no?

Question #2: Did Jesus make an intoxicating substance that would have contributed to their drunkeness? Yes or no?

Question #3: Will a drunkard inherit the Kingdom of God? Yes or no?

 

[Jason0047]

My point is that it takes time to make an intoxicating substance and it is a process or the by product of death.

Jesus blood is pure and the wine represented that substance.

Did Jesus make wine for people at the Wedding at Cana? Yes, but it was a non-intoxicating wine. It was a wine that came straight from the cluster of the grape. This means that this juice did not have time so as to ferment into an intoxicating substance. Now, is it possible Jesus could have made an already fermented (decayed fruit like process)? Sure He could. With God all things are possible. But why would Jesus need to do that, though? The taste of the natural fruit juice can still be called "good" (i.e. good wine). Is it possible that the juice was fermented? Well, if the skin of the grape was present (which had the yeast), then it is possible that the juice was slightly fermented at a very low alcoholic content). However, either way, Jesus provided a miracle that showed forth his glory, though. A glory that would have not led men into falling into drunkenness and or anti-sober state of mind. For Jesus is good and He led by example.

 

[lisa79]

[QUOTEJason0047;1652544]This is not complicated.

Question #1: Were they drunk at the Wedding of Cana? Yes or no?

Question #2: Did Jesus make an intoxicating substance that would have contributed to their drunkeness? Yes or no?

Question #3: Will a drunkard inherit the Kingdom of God? Yes or no?[/QUOTE]
I will not answer what I cant be sure of

Questions 1 and 2 ....I am not God and I cant judge that but I can say it is obvious not everyone has understanding.
Question 3 no....gluinty comes in many forms....pride can make you drunk and deluded as well

 

[Nautilus]

This is not complicated.

Question #1: Were they drunk at the Wedding of Cana? Yes or no?

Question #2: Did Jesus make an intoxicating substance that would have contributed to their drunkeness? Yes or no?

Question #3: Will a drunkard inherit the Kingdom of God? Yes or no?

one wedding party hardly makes someone a drunkard though. Drunkards are people who are habitually drunk. Not one wild night drunk.

 

[royalscot]

sorry i forgot to say, unfermented wine is vinger. not water. so you can put in on your chips , or french frys ,etc

 

[StandingFirmInChrist]

Jesus drank wine. Period. People have used wine for thousands of years. It is part of many Jewish practices.

If you have a problem with alcohol, then don't drink it.

I have no problem with alcohol... I don't drink it. Haven't in many years.

I wasn't a drunkard, Only drank a can of beer once every few weeks or so. I could attend parties and accept a drink, or I could just as easily (as I most often did) reject that drink offered.

So, no, I don't have a problem with alcohol.

Those who drink, trying to justify their habit by using Scripture, are the ones who have a problem with alcohol. They also have a problem with the Word of God.

Perhaps it is because the proof in the bottle has dimmed their minds too much for them to see clearly the Bible proof concerning alcohol.

 

[StandingFirmInChrist]

I can be "well drunk" full of kool aid or water but that does not mean I am drunk. It just means I had "drunk well" of a particular substance. It doesn't mean I am drunk.

John 2:10 And saith unto him, Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse: but thou hast kept the good wine until now.

Notice the text does not say "when men ARE WELL DRUNK, it says HAVE WELL DRUNK. This is in agreement with your statement that it means "drunk well", not that they are drunk.

Nowhere in the text of John 2:1-11 is a fermented wine mentioned at all.

 

[StandingFirmInChrist]

Many denominations use wine for the Lord's Supper because they believe that to be biblical.

Included in those that do are the Church of England and the Episcopal Church. You know, the ones responsible for the perfect King James Bible.

Would those who created the King James perfect Bible engage in behavior not approved by Jesus? (That's more of a question for Jason0047 and the other KKJV-ONLY cultists.)

And of course we know what the person most responsible for the Reformation thought about the subject.

Please cease with the "cultist's" accusation.

Those of us who do not drink do not accuse those who do of being "alcoholic cultist's"

 

[Jason0047]

No Jason, modern wines are generally made from squeezing grapes and the alcohol content depends on the level of sugars within the grapes. The amount of yeast you start with has nothing to do with it.

For winemakers who wish to make an unnaturally high 15%+ alcohol wine, they need to add sugars to the juice. A different strain of yeast is used because most are not tolerant of such high alcohol levels.

While I agree with you on the point that alcohols can now reach a high alcoholic content on their own, this is not always a guaranteed case, though; And adding sugars is cheating. That is not a normal process of fermentation, which would occur naturally with the grape that is already present. You need to read the Wikipedia article again. Read the paragraph above the one you quoted that starts with the words, "yeast is already normally present." This paragraph essentially says that "natural yeast" gives unpredictable results. It says that one of the main problems with natural ferments is that it fails to reach a stage of complete fermentation (Whereby some of the sugars are unfermented). This is why cultured yeast is added.

So the amount of yeast is just as important as the amount of the sugar. In fact, the article says, to start primary fermentation yeast may be added to the must.


Article Source:
Winemaking - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia