Jesus turned water into unfermented wine and not fermented wine.

[Jason0047]

You keep putting the blame on Jesus, and now saying He would be pushing it on them.

He does not force anything on people. We are given the freewill to chose the proper way to use things.

Let's get one thing straight here. I am not putting any blame on Jesus Christ because the real Jesus Christ of the Holy Scriptures would not do anything evil or contribute or influence anyone into any kind of sin. I am putting the blame on those who have cooked up a false Christ thinking that God can do evil.

For obvioulsy if I went to an elementary school and passed out intoxicating beverages to the kids, I would be doing something wrong and evil. Especially if they were unaware if the beverage was secretly spiked with alcohol so as to get them drunk. Such a thing would be wrong. Morality does not change when you switch around the scenario. Morality is a standard that is taught in the Bible that you can trust and rely upon in many different situations.

Like I mentioned before about the snakes, spiders, and plants, you justify some of them being poisonous from the sin being initiated in this world.

It's not the same scenario. The miracle was to show forth his glory (John 2:11). It was not a test or something that was the result of the fall of Adam and Eve. God was creating something beautiful and good. For they called it "good."

I pose you a question;

Couldn't God just as easily make them non-poisonous and safe to handle or eat for all ?

Yes He could, but He gives us the freewill to chose the proper way of doing things, and living our lives.
Also it says in the scriptures that for a true believer the snake will not harm him.

Again, that is not the same thing. There is a difference between choosing between right and wrong that we are faced as we grow up and learn the things of God by the Holy Scriptures and secretly adding an intoxicating wine (that was supposed to show forth His glory or goodness).

 

[Jason0047]

Psalms is speaking on how God told us to walk, and he has not departed from that judgment on how he should walk.

John is speaking of the Holy Spirit guiding us to say and do the right things.

The individual can still refuse to listen to that guidance, and walk in there own desires and wants defiling the word.

I am not saying we can not know God's truth, that He exists and that He helps us to live a good and righteous life to Him.

What I am saying is we are not to question His motives, and His laws was placed for us to abide by.
He can do what ever He wants whenever He wants.

He is above all.

Psalm 115:3
But our God is in the heavens: he hath done whatsoever he hath pleased.

I am not questioning God's motives. If I were to do that, then I wouldn't believe the Bible. Jesus says there is none good but God. The Scriptures also say that we can know between what is good and what is evil. I know God can never do evil. Not maybe. Not sometimes. Never. God is good. If you believe otherwise, then we do not believe in the same God.

 

[kennethcadwell]

Let's get one thing straight here. I am not putting any blame on Jesus Christ because the real Jesus Christ of the Holy Scriptures would not do anything evil or contribute or influence anyone into any kind of sin. I am putting the blame on those who have cooked up a false Christ thinking that God can do evil.

For obvioulsy if I went to an elementary school and passed out intoxicating beverages to the kids, I would be doing something wrong and evil. Especially if they were unaware if the beverage was secretly spiked with alcohol so as to get them drunk. Such a thing would be wrong. Morality does not change when you switch around the scenario. Morality is a standard that is taught in the Bible that you can trust and rely upon in many different situations.



It's not the same scenario. The miracle was to show forth his glory (John 2:11). It was not a test or something that was the result of the fall of Adam and Eve. God was creating something beautiful and good. For they called it "good."



Again, that is not the same thing. There is a difference between choosing between right and wrong that we are faced as we grow up and learn the things of God by the Holy Scriptures and secretly adding an intoxicating wine (that was supposed to show forth His glory or goodness).

You are the one who keeps saying He would be contributing, forcing, and/or tempting others if he made alcoholic wine.

I have clearly showed you the word used in this scripture ( oy'-nos ) which means fermented wine, but yet you refuse to believe it.

God makes all things, we chose to do bad or good with what we are given.

1 Corinthians 10:23
All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not

 

[Jason0047]

You are the one who keeps saying He would be contributing, forcing, and/or tempting others if he made alcoholic wine.

I have clearly showed you the word used in this scripture ( oy'-nos ) which means fermented wine, but yet you refuse to believe it.

God makes all things, we chose to do bad or good with what we are given.

1 Corinthians 10:23
All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not

The verse you show says, "all things edify not." This was not the case with the miracle done by Jesus at the Wedding of Cana. For as I said, John 2:11 says that miracle did essentially edifty because it showed forth his glory. Yet you are saying that this is not the case, though?

 

[kennethcadwell]

The verse you show says, "all things edify not." This was not the case with the miracle done by Jesus at the Wedding of Cana. For as I said, John 2:11 says that miracle did essentially edifty because it showed forth his glory. Yet you are saying that this is not the case, though?

It does apply because even though this was His first miracle.

It applies because it shows the Lord our God can and does make all things. Jesus made the wine out of water.

It then falls on those who drink it, if they drink it responsibly or not responsibly. This would not be a reach at scripture.
A reach at scripture is trying to change it from what it says. Oy'-nos does not mean unfermented, it means fermented.

We are allowed to use everything created by the Lord our God, but we can use it in an edifying manner or a non-edifying manner. If it is in a non-edifying manner it is wrong.

Just because something can be used in a non-edifying manner, we can not say Jesus would not have made it.

There is a proper and edifying way of drinking alcoholic beverages such as wine.

 

[lisa79]

No Jason please open your eyes and see that I have been trying to tell for days....right or wrong is not for you to decide. You have fallen in the enemies snare. You have it backwards God is judge not man for only He knows the hearts of men. We have presented enough fact and evudence to convince an atheist yet your heart is still hard and though you hear you can not comprehened. Why would you take a chance on offening God this way? Drunkards cant inherit the Kingdom of God because they dont know when they have been beaten. You are drunk on zeal but not of absoultue certainty.[/QUOTE


You are right, we have presented enough evidence.

Some will want to stay blinded to the truth because it is still beyond understanding.

They are still in the milk stage, and are not ready to accept the meat of the word.

The biggest evidence we have given against their debate, is the word oy'-nos.

This is the one used in the original text for wine, which means fermented.
Yet they still refuse to believe.

How can he (Jason) not see that the event we are talking about is a foreshadowing that with all the needed scriptures from the OT lining up with this event was how Jesus Christ understood the will of the Father! He saw His own death in it! The Master=God the Father....the Bridgroom=God the Son....The wine = God Holy Sprit!!!! We are then SERVANTS! GOD IS THE JUDGE! You DONT NOT KNOW WHAT YOU SPEAK JASON. Enough is enough...Judge yourself!

 

[lisa79]

Matthew 11:17 We have piped unto you, and ye have not danced; we have mourne unto you, and ye have not lamented."

 

[Last]

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.

You can have wine without getting drunk.

 

[Last]

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's not grape juice. That's a sweet liquid that was used to sweeten wine or used as an ingredient in food.

 

[Jason0047]

You can have wine without getting drunk.

Yes, this is true, but it says in John 2:10 that tbey had "drunk well" of that particular substance at the party. If they were "well drunk" with intoxicating wine they would either be tipsy or drunk and Jesus making more intoxicating wine would have put them into a state of drunkenness or deeper into one. Such a thing is not possible.

 

[Last]

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 just attacked your own strawman. I showed you the article about how sugars determine the final percentage. The thing about adding sugars was a tangent you went on that had nothing to do with my posts.

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."

I am not seeing how any of this goes against what I said, in fact, it is stuff I already said!

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.

No, natural yeast produce wild flavors, which is why cultured yeast is added. Some will not consume the small amounts of sugar that remain.

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.

No Jason, nothing in the article and nothing is science will tell you that the amount of yeast you begin with determines the level of alcohol.

Article Source:
Winemaking - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/QUOTE]

 

[Last]

Yes, this is true, but it says in John 2:10 that tbey had "drunk well" of that particular substance at the party. If they were "well drunk" with intoxicating wine they would either be tipsy or drunk and Jesus making more intoxicating wine would have put them into a state of drunkenness or deeper into one. Such a thing is not possible.

John 2:10 does not say the people at the party were well drunk or drunk well.

John 2:10 is about the waiter mentioning that people serve the best wine first.

 

[Jason0047]

Ask yourself. What is your motivation for defending that Jesus promoted intoxicating wine? Is it selfless or selfish?
Ask your selves that question and talk to God about it. But will most of you do this? No. None the less I still have to beg with you to not stop in seeking the on this matter.

 

[Bowman]

Ask yourself. What is your motivation for defending that Jesus promoted intoxicating wine? Is it selfless or selfish?
Ask your selves that question and talk to God about it. But will most of you do this? No. None the less I still have beg with to not stop in seeking the on this matter.

What's YOUR motivation for denying scripture?

 

[Last]

I want to clarify what is meant by wine.

#1. The Bible speaks of the new wine that comes straight from the cluster of the grape. This is the type of wine or (grape juice) that I am referring to. Freshly squeezed juice or wine from a grape is not powerful enough to intoxicate you.

#2. The wine that Jesus made is not a wine that has been purified of the fermentation process (Like Welch's Grape Juice - Which is true 100% unfermented wine - Or a non alcoholic drink). This is NOT the type of grape juice I am referring to.

Accept there is no biblical evidence that Jesus made grape juice. In fact, if it was grape juice, people would have wondered where in the heck it came from. There was no comment about it being grape juice, just wine.

#3. It is a freshly squeezed wine from the fruit of the vine that is INITIALLY very low in alcoholic content because it takes the right conditions and time to create natural fermentation for it to be naturally alcoholic (or intoxicating) on it's own power.

Grape juice ferments into wine on its own. It does not need the right conditions.

#4. One of the major problems with natural fermentation is that it does not always completely reach a complete fermentation. Thiis is why cultured yeast (and sometimes sugar) is added.

You continue to give misinformation or distort facts to fit into your view.
Earlier you tried to claim that naturally fermented wine has very low alcohol. This is not the case.
Natural fermented wine produces virtually the same amount of alcohol. The difference is very small, but you can taste it.

n other words, (Although it is technically wine immediately starts to ferment when the yeast on the skin of the grapes activates with the sugars inside when they are crushed in a vat) it is not wrong to say that Jesus made unfermented wine because it was a juice that did not go thru a complete process of fermentation.

Naturally fermented wine will completely ferment. Some strains may leave a small amount of sugars that gives the wine a sweet taste. Others will completely consume those sugars, making it dry.

God makes things that are natural and good. He would not need to make something intoxicating for it to be considered good. Also, the process of fermentation symbolizes death and decay with the yeast feeding off the sugar (whereby it poops out alcohol and dies). Jesus blood symbolized the wine. Jesus' blood was pure and it gives us life and washes away our sins. If his blood represented decay and death and not life, then that would be sending the wrong message about the purpose of what His blood does for us.

Yeast does not die in the production of alcohol. It only dies if you have an unnaturally high sugar content.

 

[Last]

Ask yourself. What is your motivation for defending that Jesus promoted intoxicating wine? Is it selfless or selfish?
Ask your selves that question and talk to God about it. But will most of you do this? No. None the less I still have to beg with you to not stop in seeking the on this matter.

Because you cannot promote an idea by giving false information. There are plenty of reasons not to drink, you do not need to tell people Jesus never had wine.

 

[StandingFirmInChrist]

Drunkard | Define Drunkard at Dictionary.com
druhng-kerd] Spell Syllables

• Synonyms
• Examples
• Word Origin

noun1.a person who is habitually or frequently drunk.

The New Testament Greek Lexicon:

Mehtusos - drunken, intoxicated. Says absolutely nothing of habit.

 

[Jason0047]

Because you cannot promote an idea by giving false information. There are plenty of reasons not to drink, you do not need to tell people Jesus never had wine.

Again, never said I am against a believer drinking soberly and in moderation within the privacy of their own place. So you are way off base. But you are turning the miracle of Jesus into something that it was not. For the miracle at the Wedding at Cana was NOT ABOUT ANYONE DRINKING (or your defense in drinking), it was about Jesus manifesting His glory with that miracle. And serving intoxicating beverages to people is not all in any way glorious. For you have turned him into a bartender or a liquor store owner. That is not what His miracle was about.

The wine represented His blood which was pure. The containers that Jesus used were ceremonilal washing jars for the Old Testament saint. When Jesus turned the water into non intoxicating wine he was showing showing them that they could no longer go back and wash themselves with their Old Testament ways but they had to go to His pure blood so as to get clean. Not wine that is decayed by the process of fermentation or death. A wine that was good and pure and fresh and wholesome and able to make us think soberly in the day yet be filled with joy.

 

[StandingFirmInChrist]

You don't know much about the bible, considering your user name.

Acts 2:13 "Others mocking said, These men are full of new wine."

What was Peter's reply?

"These men are not drunk as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day." Peter, like Paul, knew those that are drunken are drunken in the night (1 Thessalonians 5)

Peter's statement was not an admission that new wine contained alcohol. Rather, it was a statement that since it was only the third hour of the day, the foolish accusations of those mocking were unfounded.

Nice try.

 

[Fishbait]

This is not correct to say the wine could not have been alcoholic.

That is a false assumption for those who want to look at all alcoholic drinks as being wrong.
Many of renowned people of the bible had vineyards, and drank the wine that came from that vineyard. It was not wrong to drink it until they used it for the purpose that they got drunk off it. Then it became wrong.

A glass of wine a day is proved to have health benefits.

Plus, remember what the man said in this passage about the wine that Jesus turned from the water.

He said what is this, why have you saved the best for last.

It was custom back then at celebrations to serve the good well fermented wine tell the people got drunk, then to bring out the cheep diluted wine so that they did not waste the good wine.

Once upon a time...

The story of Abraham Lincoln’s humorous response to criticisms of General Ulysses S. Grant’s imbibing is famous. The earliest instance appeared in the New York Herald on September 18, 1863:

"After the failure of his first experimental explorations around Vicksburg, a committee of abolition war managers waited upon the President and demanded the General’s removal, on the false charge that he was a whiskey drinker, and little better than a common drunkard. “Ah!” exclaimed Honest Old Abe, “you surprise me, gentlemen. But can you tell me where he gets his whiskey?” “We cannot, Mr. President. But why do you desire to know?” “Because, if I can only find out, I will send a barrel of this wonderful whiskey to every general in the army.”

Grant battled with 'adult beverages' his whole life. One day they help kill him.