Wine vs. Grapejuice @ Communion

Refined

Strong's Hebrew Dictionary
2212. zaqaq
Search for H2212 in KJVSL
qqz zaqaq zaw-kak'
a primitive root; to strain, (figuratively) extract, clarify:--fine, pour down, purge, purify, refine.

Deny the truth.

 

Wiki is less reliable than Strongs. Anyone can go on wiki and edit the definition.

 

Yes you are. The lees are strained of dead yeast AFTER FERMENTATION AND AGING.

Lees refers to deposits of dead yeast or residual yeast and other particles that precipitate, or are carried by the action of "fining", to the bottom of a vat of wine after fermentation and aging. The yeast deposits in beer brewing are known as trub. However, yeast deposits from secondary fermentation of beer are referred to as lees.
Normally the wine is transferred to another container (racking), leaving this sediment behind. Some wines, (notably Muscadet and Rémy Martin), are sometimes aged for a time on the lees (a process known as sur lie), leading to a distinctive yeasty aroma and taste. The lees may be stirred (batonnage in French) in order to promote uptake of the lees character.
References go as far back as the early Jewish scriptures where the phrase "Wine on the Lees" is used in Isaiah 25:6 in the King James version of the Bible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lees_(fermentation)

 

Strong's Hebrew Dictionary
8105. shemer
Search for H8105 in KJVSL
rmv shemer sheh'-mer
from 8104; something preserved, i.e. the settlings (plural only) of wine:--dregs, (wines on the) lees.

See Hebrew 8104

Isaiah is not speaking of an alcoholic wine, he is speaking of a preserved, filtered wine. filtered from anything that would cause it to ferment.

 

There is no lees unless there is fermentation, that is your first fatal flaw. There is no dead yeast in freshly squeezed grape juice because there has been no reaction between the yeast and the sugar yet.

Keep reaching...

 

The biased description on wiki means is contrary to that which is recorded by historians of the first century AD.

Pliny records that the dregs or lees are at the bottom of the preserved unfermented wine that is taken out of the cold water it has been submersed in during the winter months.

Dregs can be found at the bottom of alcoholic wines or non alcoholic wines.

I will stick to the more reliable sources when it comes to how wines were preserved during Bible times.

Historians: Pliny, Plutarch, Cato, Aristotle, Columella and others.

Bible

unbiased commentaries that clearly show what verses are speaking of alcohol and which ones are not.

wiki, as I said, is unreliable. Anyone can go in and change the definitions on those pages.

 

Your fatal flaw is trying to defend that which God condemns in His Word.

Keep reaching...

 

Why are you guys trying to define biblical terms with modern definitions?

Historians from the first century are more reliable than thewinedoctor (the name alone shows the bias), wiki (another bias site), and decanter (more bias).

History records non alcoholic wines being made and preserved.

 

It's not off topic. The topic is wine or grape juice. I have showed through history and Bible that grape juice wine was known in that time and used by Disciples. Others are trying to prove the wine was always alcoholic using biased sites that sell wine or shrug off the truth found in the Word of God.

 

What was in the cup? Jesus answered that... 'this fruit of the vine.' It was grape juice. The wine that was found as a result of God's creation, not as the result of the work of man's hands.

Jesus knew the command not to look upon the alcoholic wine. He would not have served it.

*btw, Paul never called it wine either.

 

Actually, they were not getting drunk. Study the passage more closely, and the Greek word "methuo". While "methuo" can mean intoxicated, it can also mean drink well... which is an entirely different meaning.

The context is people eating and drinking more than their share while the poor go away hungry. It is not speaking of alcohol at all, but rather gluttony. Notice the contrast? One is hungry, and another is drunken? Paul was reprimanding them for their gluttonous actions, not for alcohol.

To further show it is not speaking of alcohol in Chapter 11, one only need to go back to Chapter 6 where Paul stated drunkards would not inherit the Kingdom. Paul goes on to say "...And such were some of you..." Why not 'and such were all of you, but some are washed...'? Paul clearly shows that those he was addressing were not drunkards.

Also, as I pointed out previously, it was not the Lord's Supper, but rather fellowship as Paul stated. They may have called it the Lord's Supper, but it was not.

 

I would agree. Paul was not speaking of a person being drunk on an alcoholic beverage in 1 Corinthians 11. He had already addressed the subject of drunkards earlier in the epistle. The error was gluttony that Paul was preaching against in this portion of his epistle.

 

What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise [you] not. (1 Corinthians 11:22)

This verse clears it up even more that Paul was addressing gluttony and not drunkenness. Notice he said eat and drink at home... or despise ye the church of God and shame them that have not?

Clearly alcohol was not even what was used at these dinners. He did not reprimand them for being drunk, but rather for shaming those that had not. to eat and drink.

If they were drunk on alcohol, Paul would have stated such... he did not.

 

Note the Greek for the word 'fruit' in Matthew 26:29 when Jesus refers to that which He institutes as the drink for the Communion. It is the word 'gennema' and it means 'fruit' and 'produce.' It is from the root word 'gennao' which means to 'bring forth' or 'pro-create' ... as in a birthing process.

The 'fruit of the vine' Christ was sharing was a fresh juice produced new, not something that had turned to alcohol.

 

1 Corinthians 11:21-22 For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken.
22 What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not.

In the early church they had a love feast before the actual Communion Service. All came together and brought food--kind of like a "pot luck." In the Corinthian Church one of the main problems was divisiveness. They were "cliquish." The chapter describes how the rich sat with the rich and the poor sat with the poor. The poor starved while the rich were accused of gluttony and drunkeness.

The Corinthian believers were the most carnal church that Paul addresses. They had many problems, and this is one of them. He tells them plainly to stop this practice. If they are going to act like this to stay at home and eat and drink there. The church is not the place for such gluttony and drunkeness.

Then Paul begins to speak of the Lord's Supper. One cannot infer that simply because one of the rich carnal Corinthians who brought his own fermented wine and got drunk with it, that it is the same filthy wine used in the Lord's Supper. The "wine" used in the Lord's Supper undoubtedly was unfermented wine or grape juice, which no one could get drunk on. The two words are completely different.

 

Yes, he knew the Proverb.
That is why He did not tarry "long" at the wine.

Oh, yes it is so clear.
We had a pot luck once and everyone got drunk on Pepsi!
Seriously though, it it talking about drunkenness AND gluttony.
Read the text SFIC!

Stop twisting the Holy Scriptures!