Jesus turned water into unfermented wine and not fermented wine.
- Thread starter Jason0047
- Start date
-
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.
Think about it objectively. Juice is just juice, be it grape, oranges, apples, pineapple and so on. Quality of juice can vary, but the difference is not great, buy a cheap value carton of juice and it will be not much difference from the expensive stuff, its still juice!
Wine on the other hand, well that certainly is a different story, buy cheapest bottle of wine at its full price and its not going to be brilliant. A good wine will cost a bit more, most of these wines will be young wines, fermented within the year. Aged wine which has been left to mature for a lot longer is even more expensive, there is more in the processing of mature wine, but tastes even better.
Why do we see so much money traded on wine and other alcohol? Why do we see a bottles fetch so high prices? 50 year old single malt, left to mature for 50 years! why would that happen if it was not to improve the drink?
DO we see this with grape juice? NO! oh gosh look here , this is a bottle of grape juice squeezed in 1938, Ill pay $20,000 for that easily. Seriously NO? 50 year old grape juice will proberbly have gone off had it not been properly preserved and even then it would still taste the same as it was bottled.
Seriously then think about the wedding feast, when it speaks of the best quality wine to last, it had to be absolutly amazing to trump the existing wine and for that statement to be made and recorded. How do we know they were not already serving up expensive wine, which they proberbly were, in which case it has to be fantastic quality does it not. You do not get that margin of quality in taste and texture with just juice .
100% nailed on alcoholic wine.
The fact this has gone on for so long and this should be the 1400 post, kind of shows that the original proposition and statement about non-alcoholic wine can not be proved, when in fact the opposite has been proven, so of course it will carry on until we are all so weary with just trying to put the point across that everyone will just give up.
Had the statement about being alcohol was correct, it proberbly be only 3 pages long at max with everyone going, "Oh yes thats right, how cool". But its not.
Wine on the other hand, well that certainly is a different story, buy cheapest bottle of wine at its full price and its not going to be brilliant. A good wine will cost a bit more, most of these wines will be young wines, fermented within the year. Aged wine which has been left to mature for a lot longer is even more expensive, there is more in the processing of mature wine, but tastes even better.
Why do we see so much money traded on wine and other alcohol? Why do we see a bottles fetch so high prices? 50 year old single malt, left to mature for 50 years! why would that happen if it was not to improve the drink?
DO we see this with grape juice? NO! oh gosh look here , this is a bottle of grape juice squeezed in 1938, Ill pay $20,000 for that easily. Seriously NO? 50 year old grape juice will proberbly have gone off had it not been properly preserved and even then it would still taste the same as it was bottled.
Seriously then think about the wedding feast, when it speaks of the best quality wine to last, it had to be absolutly amazing to trump the existing wine and for that statement to be made and recorded. How do we know they were not already serving up expensive wine, which they proberbly were, in which case it has to be fantastic quality does it not. You do not get that margin of quality in taste and texture with just juice .
100% nailed on alcoholic wine.
The fact this has gone on for so long and this should be the 1400 post, kind of shows that the original proposition and statement about non-alcoholic wine can not be proved, when in fact the opposite has been proven, so of course it will carry on until we are all so weary with just trying to put the point across that everyone will just give up.
Had the statement about being alcohol was correct, it proberbly be only 3 pages long at max with everyone going, "Oh yes thats right, how cool". But its not.
I don't think Moses ever bought concentrated fruit juice at the grocery store 3500 years.
This is what you get when you use a site like NoDrinking.com as your source. What should we expect?
Again, I have seen no person whose name I recognize say that Deuteronomy 14:26 refers to nonalcoholic beverages except Ellen G. White.
Do you know of anyone else who has said this whose name I would recognize?
I'm interested in objective evidence and persons where you can verify his/her credibility. Any nut job with a personal agenda can put up a website. Again, you can find articles and books that say the Holocaust never happened.
This is what you get when you use a site like NoDrinking.com as your source. What should we expect?
Again, I have seen no person whose name I recognize say that Deuteronomy 14:26 refers to nonalcoholic beverages except Ellen G. White.
Do you know of anyone else who has said this whose name I would recognize?
I'm interested in objective evidence and persons where you can verify his/her credibility. Any nut job with a personal agenda can put up a website. Again, you can find articles and books that say the Holocaust never happened.
Consider the source.
Both of them - Jerome and the NoDrinking.com website you got this from.
The owners of this very website where you are posting would likely consider Jerome, Saint of the Catholic Church, to be a heretic.
What with Jerome's dogma on the perpetual virginity of Mary and other such nonsense.
What with the sticky thread always at the top of these forums entitled "Catholic Heresy (for the record)" and what it says in the very first post.
Jerome was NOT a Hebrew scholar. His "translation" of the OT is rife with error and lack of knowledge of Hebrew.
But that doesn't stop you from saying over and over and again and again that the Latin Vulgate was the PERFECT translation until the KJV became the PERFECT translation.
Both of them - Jerome and the NoDrinking.com website you got this from.
The owners of this very website where you are posting would likely consider Jerome, Saint of the Catholic Church, to be a heretic.
What with Jerome's dogma on the perpetual virginity of Mary and other such nonsense.
What with the sticky thread always at the top of these forums entitled "Catholic Heresy (for the record)" and what it says in the very first post.
Jerome was NOT a Hebrew scholar. His "translation" of the OT is rife with error and lack of knowledge of Hebrew.
But that doesn't stop you from saying over and over and again and again that the Latin Vulgate was the PERFECT translation until the KJV became the PERFECT translation.
Uh, none of them are old enough to drink alcohol if the high school is in the U.S.
What does that have to do with learning about fermentation?
Do you have to give all the students a doobie to talk about the legalization of marijuana?
But you did hear about the elementary teacher who took beer to school to teach the kids, right?
There is a very important lesson in that one.
What does that have to do with learning about fermentation?
Do you have to give all the students a doobie to talk about the legalization of marijuana?
But you did hear about the elementary teacher who took beer to school to teach the kids, right?
There is a very important lesson in that one.
Um Excuse me, but you seem to have ignored my questions yet again.
Just answer this one, if Alcohol is so bad, then why is it not prohibited in Leviticus and second, why did Jesus use alcohol and wine to illustrate his purpose here on earth in Luke 5 36-39
[SUP]36 [/SUP]He told them this parable: “No one tears a piece out of a new garment to patch an old one. Otherwise, they will have torn the new garment, and the patch from the new will not match the old. [SUP]37 [/SUP]And no one pours new wine into old wineskins. Otherwise, the new wine will burst the skins; the wine will run out and the wineskins will be ruined. [SUP]38 [/SUP]No, new wine must be poured into new wineskins. [SUP]39 [/SUP]And no one after drinking old wine wants the new, for they say, ‘The old is better.’”
Just answer this one, if Alcohol is so bad, then why is it not prohibited in Leviticus and second, why did Jesus use alcohol and wine to illustrate his purpose here on earth in Luke 5 36-39
[SUP]36 [/SUP]He told them this parable: “No one tears a piece out of a new garment to patch an old one. Otherwise, they will have torn the new garment, and the patch from the new will not match the old. [SUP]37 [/SUP]And no one pours new wine into old wineskins. Otherwise, the new wine will burst the skins; the wine will run out and the wineskins will be ruined. [SUP]38 [/SUP]No, new wine must be poured into new wineskins. [SUP]39 [/SUP]And no one after drinking old wine wants the new, for they say, ‘The old is better.’”
The Meaning of the Saying.*This interpretation is further confirmed by the symbolic meaning of Christ’s saying. The imagery of new wine in new wineskins is an object lesson in regeneration. As fittingly explained by Ernest Gordon, "The old wineskins, with their alcoholic lees, represented the Pharisees’ corrupt nature. The new wine of the Gospel could not be put into them. They would ferment it. ‘I came not to call the self-righteous but repentant sinners.’ The latter by their conversion become new vessels, able to retain the new wine without spoiling it (Mark 2:15-17, 22). So, by comparing intoxicating wine with degenerate Pharisaism, Christ clearly intimated what his opinion of intoxicating wine was."
Source:
Jesus and Wine
Source:
Jesus and Wine
Sorry, wrong again.
Consider your source.
The author of your quote was a Seventh-day Adventist in the tradition of Ellen G. White.
Not only did he rail on alcohol, he did so against contemporary Christian music and bikinis at the beach. And he claimed the papacy was the antichrist.
Personally, I think Ellen G. White was an antichrist.
Consider your source.
The author of your quote was a Seventh-day Adventist in the tradition of Ellen G. White.
Not only did he rail on alcohol, he did so against contemporary Christian music and bikinis at the beach. And he claimed the papacy was the antichrist.
Personally, I think Ellen G. White was an antichrist.
You're logic is not logical. Catholics believe in the Trinity, that doesn't mean the doctrine of the Trinity is false.
Also, I am not a follower of Ellen G. White nor am I a Seventh Day Adventist.
The best source I prefer is the Word of God. So your problem is not actually with me but with God's Word, my friend.
Also, I am not a follower of Ellen G. White nor am I a Seventh Day Adventist.
The best source I prefer is the Word of God. So your problem is not actually with me but with God's Word, my friend.
The adult wine drinkers in the wedding at Canaan, where enjoying the first batch of wine provided by the host until there were no more. Then later they were served with beloved Jason0047's justification of grape juice, freshly made by JESUS. And the head of caterer tasted some and proclaimed that the grape juice was the best wine from the previous, that has been saved for last in that wedding. So the guest carried on, from wine to now grape juice.
Who is willing to buy that theory of his?
If yes, continue with your teacher Jason0047 and if no, pull out from this manipulative uncertain Tread discussion. What has it got to do with our faith or even to be built up?
Please allow little ones to come into their senses later.
Who is willing to buy that theory of his?
If yes, continue with your teacher Jason0047 and if no, pull out from this manipulative uncertain Tread discussion. What has it got to do with our faith or even to be built up?
Please allow little ones to come into their senses later.
Was the old a good thing or a bad thing in both parables?
In other words, it is talking about change and how you can't hold onto the old ways anymore. The holding onto the old ways doesn't mix well with embracing the new ways or things. For mixing the old and new causes a problem and it is the old that is the problem. So Jesus speaking from the perspective of the person who does not want to change their old ways. Their old ways seem better and they do not like the new ways at first. The person liking their old ways does not mean it is approved. How can it be? It causes a problem.
Side Note:
Old ways is no doubt also their traditions, as well. For Jesus did not condemn anyone who was following the Law. He only conndemned those who held onto the traditions of men.
In other words, it is talking about change and how you can't hold onto the old ways anymore. The holding onto the old ways doesn't mix well with embracing the new ways or things. For mixing the old and new causes a problem and it is the old that is the problem. So Jesus speaking from the perspective of the person who does not want to change their old ways. Their old ways seem better and they do not like the new ways at first. The person liking their old ways does not mean it is approved. How can it be? It causes a problem.
Side Note:
Old ways is no doubt also their traditions, as well. For Jesus did not condemn anyone who was following the Law. He only conndemned those who held onto the traditions of men.
Last edited: