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"
Amen, my brother.
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"
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.
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?
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
The Lord did not drink alcoholic wine. Alcoholic wine is a drug and the Bible calls it a mocker and says it is not for kings. It also says it can bite you like a serpent. Alcoholic wine is a process of death. Yeast eats the sugar and poops out the by product of alcohol. It's a waste product from a micro organism.
one wedding party hardly makes someone a drunkard though. Drunkards are people who are habitually drunk. Not one wild night drunk.
For John the Baptist has come neither eating bread nor drinking wine, and you say, He has a demon. The Son of Man has come eating and drinking, and you say, Behold, a man, a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners.(Luke 7.33 – 34)
The above passage declares quite plainly that John the Baptist abstained from drinking alcohol, while Jesus drank alcohol frequently.
yea, this pretty much proves Jesus drank fermented wine. As long as you dont allow alcohol to rule you or master you, or drink it to get drunk and abuse it, there is nothing wrong with consuming it.
And taking the cup (potérion),and giving thanks, He gave to them, saying, Drink all of it. For this is My blood of the New Covenant which concerning many is being poured out for remission of sins. But I say to you, I will not at all drink of this fruit of the vine after this until that day when I drink it new with you in the kingdom of My Father.(Matt 26.27 – 29)
Further proof that it was wine that Jesus drank is provided by the Greek term ‘potérion’ which literally means ‘wine cup’!
Why use a wine cup for grape juice?
The Cup Jesus raised was a cup of Passover wine, which by Jewish Law had to be fermented wine. I will repeat that, ACCORDING TO JEWISH LAW IT HAD TO BE FERMENTED WINE. No grape juice on Passover.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.
#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.
#4. One of the major problems with natural fermentation is that it does not always complete reach a complete fermentation. Thiis is why cultured yeast (and sometimes sugar) is added.
In 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. 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.
The Cup Jesus raised was a cup of Passover wine, which by Jewish Law had to be fermented wine. I will repeat that, ACCORDING TO JEWISH LAW IT HAD TO BE FERMENTED WINE. No grape juice on Passover.
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.
#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.
#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.
In 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. 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.
But let's say for the sake of argument that they were drinking at the party because of some false commandments that they were following, Jesus miracle of a non intoxicating wine would have been 1 million times better in taste and quality than some crumby intoxicating wine that they might have had at the Wedding feast. It is true that Jesus manifested his miracles before unbelievers before (With the bread and fish). So it is a possible (Although I do not see that is how happened, though). But if Jesus made an intoxicating wine, then he would be contributing to their drunkenness and that would be evil and wrong. Jesus does not add to people's sins. Jesus was sent forth to save men from their sins and to set them free from sin (So they are no longer slaves to it).The Jews had a lot of commandments back then that Jesus did not agree with. So no, I am not buying it. If Jesus had made the substance intoxicating, then he would be contributing to drunkenness. But that's not possible. God is not evil. He is good.
By that same argument, God is to blame for people getting drunk, sick, and high, because God created all of those things that are used to cause those things.But let's say for the sake of argument that were drinking at the party because of some false commandments that they were following, Jesus miracle of a non intoxicating could have been 1 million times better in taste and quality than the crumby intoxicated wine that they might have been drinking. It is true that Jesus manifested his miracles before unbelievers before (With the bread and fish). So it is a possible (Although I do not see that is how happened, though). But if Jesus made an intoxicating wine, then he would be contributing to their drunkenness and that would be evil and wrong. Jesus does not add to people's sins. Jesus was sent forth to save men from their sins and to be set free from sin (So they are no longer slaves to it).
Jesus never disagreed with any of the commandments. He disagreed with how they were enforced and interpreted.The Jews had a lot of commandments back then that Jesus did not agree with. So no, I am not buying it. If Jesus had made the substance intoxicating, then he would be contributing to drunkenness. But that's not possible. God is not evil. He is good.
Where does the Bible say that being a winemaker(fermented) is sinful?But let's say for the sake of argument that were drinking at the party because of some false commandments that they were following, Jesus miracle of a non intoxicating could have been 1 million times better in taste and quality than some crumby intoxicating wine that they might have had at the Wedding feast. It is true that Jesus manifested his miracles before unbelievers before (With the bread and fish). So it is a possible (Although I do not see that is how happened, though). But if Jesus made an intoxicating wine, then he would be contributing to their drunkenness and that would be evil and wrong. Jesus does not add to people's sins. Jesus was sent forth to save men from their sins and to be set free from sin (So they are no longer slaves to it).
`To the OP: "Wine" in and of itself IS fermented juice. IF it is 'wine' it is fermented. If it is not fermented, it is just simply juice. Wine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Pretty Simple.
Maggie
Jesus never disagreed with any of the commandments. He disagreed with how they were enforced and interpreted.