Beer is Proof God Loves Us

The OP: "Beer is proof that God loves us."
Added by the peanut gallery: "Beer is proof that horses urinate."

 

I personally dont think that people need to drink but to call all drinking a sin, Im gonna argue with ya. If you havnt noticed, I will jump sides just for the sake of a good debate.

 

No it wouldnt it would ferment and become wine. Its a known fact that aged wine is much better than New Wine. Just do a search on the internet and see what wines made years ago go for. Its alot more than the new stuff.

 

You ain't arguing with me brother, I agree with ya.

 

Correction noted, now if I may, let me correct your correction

I do not disagree with what you gave but I believe your argument lacks substance for this reason. (please don't take that as a put down just an observation from my point of view)

What is being stated by the governor of the feast is not that this is what has occured but that is a typical process of many of those types of events. Everyone comes, gets drunk to the point they do not know the difference between what is considered good and poor anymore. It all tastes the same. He is making this observation from the stand point of the governor of the feast. However you will notice at this event is that unlike what is typically done, you will find that the govenor of the feast is able to distinguish between what would be good and poor. This is important since the governor not only oversees the event and keeps thing moving smoothly but also participates in the festivities keeping people involved and happy. This shows us that this particular feast was at the very least distinctly different than the others like it, in that they (the party) were not drunk by this time as is common regarding other feasts of this type.

 

Actually there is some pretty strong evidence that this was intoxicating. First, there is no indication of any such thing in Scripture as non-alcoholic wine. The same word used here is used in

Second, the word "drunk" is the same in both passages.

The Greek words mean "wine" and "drunk". How can you have the same words used in similar ways with two different meanings?

I actually have spent quite a bit of time on this one, even though I do not drink alcoholic beverages and NEVER have. Not even once. Did eat a piece of rum cake once though! Hah! My only motivation is to handle the Word of God faithfully...

 

In this subject, as in all others, believers must be first concerned to understand what the Bible clearly says about the matter. One cannot allow his personal ideas our preconceptions to in any way color or cloud his interpretation of scripture in any matter. One writer of the last century said it well when he defined the purpose of his commentary as being to “honestly ascertain the sense of the sacred text without regard to any preconceived systems, and fearless of any possible consequences.” To impose our own ideas on this matter, or to search the commentaries till we find one that supports our position is not only intellectual dishonesty, but it is theological suicide. To be sure, it is a wise man who does his homework and fully researches what other godly and gifted men have concluded about a particular issue. Yet we must not lose sight of the fact that just as Solomon praises the wisdom of one who listens to wise counselors we also find a strong warning against those who give bad advice. (Pro 11:15; 12:20; 15:22; 24:6; 2Chron 22:3-4, 18; Pro 1:10; 12:5; 13:20; 19:27).

What is one to believe concerning the nature of Biblical wine? In reference to wine in the Old Testament, Unger’s Bible Dictionary says:

In most of the passages in the Bible where yayin is used (eighty-three out of one hundred and thirty-eight), it certainly means fermented grape juice, and in the remainder it may be fairly presumed to do so. In four only (Isa 16:10; Jer 40:10-12; Lam 2:12) is it really doubtful. In no passage can it be positivley shown to have any other meaning. The intoxicating character of yayin in general is plain from Scripture.

Concerning the wine in John 2, Dr. Bruce Lackey says:

If the wine Jesus made was alcoholic, He would have encouraged drunkenness! The miracle in John 2 is often used to support “social drinking.” But a careful reading will teach just the opposite. Verse 10 quotes the governor of the feast as saying, “every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have WELL DRUNK, then that which is worse...” Obviously these people had drunk a lot! If it was alcoholic, they were drunk, and Jesus would have made them drunker. It is not necessary to interpret this as alcoholic. Drinking an excess of tea or coffee or cola or almost any beverage will dull one’s taste for it, as anyone knows.

Though many wise and godly men have differed greatly on this matter, the subject is not an obsure one as far as the Word of God is concerned. The fact that many good men hold different interpretations on this matter suggests that our study must be very thorough. Whenever there is such a wide diversity of opinion among men who have devoted their lives to the study of the Bible the serious student of the Word cannot make up his mind lightly or frivolously. It is not sufficient to quote one respected Bible scholar over against another. The arguments they present and the issues they raise must be fully addressed, individually considered, and weighed against the Word of God. One cannot deny a clear statement in the Word of God just because it may be difficult to harmonize with preconceived notions of what is right and wrong.

The serious student of the Bible must be seek to discern the meaning of the text by following sound principles of interpretation without regard for the consequences. If God said it, the fact that we may have difficulty explaining or applying it is of little consequence. There is a tendency among fundamentalist conservatives to cite ones personal preferences and views as though they came verbatim from the Word of God. Conservative Bible believers certainly have greater regard for the Word of God than to take away from what God has said. Why is it then that some feel quite comfortable adding their own interpretations, against the clear meaning of the original words, and then declaring that the result of such interpretive addition is “the Word of God.” It is extremely arrogant and self-deceived for any man to think that he can improve on what God has said. Indeed, Revelation 22:18-19 stresses the serious nature of either adding to or subtracting from the Word of God. Could there be any significance in the fact that adding to the Word is condemned first? Could it be that for some it is much more natural to add to the Word than to subtract from the Word?

There are at least six key principles of Bible interpretation:

1. Consider to whom the passage is addressed.
2. Consider the context of the passage.
3. Consider other passages relating to the subject.
4. Never interpret a clear passage in light of an unclear passage
5. Always accept the literal interpretation of a passage if the normal word usage and meaning will allow.
6. Consider the original meaning of the words.

These principles of sound Bible interpretation are neither optional nor whimsical. It is certainly possible to add to these principles and clarify different styles of writing in Scripture, yet if any one of these key principles is violated there is a serious danger of misinterpreting the Bible.

In the Old Testament wine (yayin) was clearly fermented. It was the instrument of Noah’s drunkeness (Gen 9:21); Nabal drank wine and was very drunken (1Sam 25:36-37); the drunkards of Ephraim were drunk with wine (Isa 28:1). Some would attempt to make the same term apply to that which is non-alcoholic and that which is alcoholic suggesting that sometimes words are used generically. It is true that some words are used in a generic sense, however the Hebrew words for wine, strong drink, new wine, grapes, and raisins are very specific. The person who would attempt to build a case for non-alcoholic wine must do so by ignoring the simple meaning of both the original and english languages. One writer refers to the practice of reading into the scriptures as “hermeneutical ventriloquism.” At the end of this brief treatment of the subject is a listing of every occurance of the two key Hebrew words used in reference to alcoholic beverage in the Old Testament and the key words used in the New Testament. It is readily observable that the same words are used both in positive, negative, and neutral manners. Sometimes the wine is said to be a blessing from God (Gen 27:28; 49:12; Num 18:12; Deut 7:13; 14:23,26 et.al. - and others). Sometimes we find the abuse of wine causing drunkenness and leading to shameful behavior (Gen 9:21,24; 19:32-34 et.al.). Many times wine is presented as an offering (Gen 14:28; Exod 29:40 et.al.).

One of the key arguments advanced by those who advocate a non-alcoholic wine is that Jesus turned the water into grape juice. This argument cannot be based on any grammatical or linguistic foundation, there is none. Rather, it must be argued logically by pitting Scripture against Scripture. For instance, since drunkenness is everywhere condemned in Scripture and since there are numerous warnings against the danger of being influenced and controlled by alcohol the Jesus certainly could not have made alcoholic wine. However, such arguments deny the clear and basic meaning of the words in order to simplify a Biblical difficulty that some would rather deny altogether.

With Paul we must ask, “What saith the Scripture?” (Rom 4:3). John 2:10 says that the wine that Jesus made was the kind that was usually put out first. Then after everyone had “well drunk” then the lesser quality was put out. It is inconsistent to understand simple words to mean one thing in one passage and another some place else. The key words in John 2:10 are the words wine and well drunk. In the Greek they are the words oinos and methuo. These same words are used in Eph 5:18 where we read, “be not drunk with wine.” If methuo means drunk in Ephesians, it must mean drunk in John 2:10. The word methuo is used seven times in the New Testament and is translated as “drunken” five times, “made drunk” one time, and “well drunk” one time (Matt 24:49; Acts 2:15; 1Cor 11:21; 1Thes 5:7; Rev 17:6; 17:2; John 2:10). The words are clear and for the thorough student who approaches the Bible with the intent of discovering what it says and what it means without regard for personal bias, the meaning is unmistakable. It is at best naive to claim that the wine in John chapter 2 was non-alcoholic. It is simply not possible for the serious student of the Bible to stick his head in the sand and contend that it was grape juice.

 

One rather unique interpretation of Eph 5:18 suggests that the Greek tense behind “be not drunk with wine” implies that one should “not even begin to be drunk with wine.” In other words, “do not drink the first drop.” This may be good advice, but is it the meaning of the text? The claim for this interpretation has no basis in the Greek wording or syntax of the passage, nor can any reputable support be found for such a view. Drunkenness is everywhere condemned in the Word of God just as is gluttony. Sometimes the concept of drunkenness is combined with gluttony (Deu 21:20; Pro 23:21; Matt 11:19; Luke 7:34). Could we then infer that in order to avoid becoming a glutton one should not take the first bite? While recognizing that food is required for sustaining life and wine is not, the interpretive process of such an argument is certainly flawed.

Further, what can be done with passages like Matt 11:19 and Luke 7:34 where we read that the “Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners.”? If the charge of gluttony was a charge of eating too much food, how can the second accusation be anything less than drinking too much wine? This was the charge made by the religious leaders of the day. It was not necessarily true. Yet, if Jesus did not eat some food and drink at least drink some wine in moderation, how could they have made such a charge? Further, Jesus Himself says that the Son of Man came “eating and drinking.” If He drank only water, such a charge would be ludicrous. This is not reading into the text! It is simply taking the words of Scripture at face value.

Where does that then leave us? Can we now say that it is perfectly fine for a Christian to consume alcoholic beverage as long as it is with a meal or in moderation? In our desire to promote wholesomeness in our families can we act as if the Bible totally prohibits and condemns all fermented wine?

It may be well to compare this issue with a situation in Corinth (1Cor 8:1-13). It was common that meat was often brought to a pagan altar and sacrificed to the pagan god. Paganism and idolatry were rampant in the city. Since the pagan god obviously could not consume the left over sacrifice the priests and priestesses would take the meat that had been offered and sell it at a discounted price. This was one of the ways they were supported by the community. The pagan god was appeased; the worshiper felt like he was in better standing with his god; the priests and priestesses made a little extra money on the side; and, somebody got a good deal on meat for the family and friends. Everybody was happy. Everybody except the young converts to Christianity who had formerly worshiped the pagan gods. They had been so deeply entrenched in their former paganism that they still cringed whenever they thought about their former worship. Paul says,

We know that they are those that are called ‘gods’, but really aren’t. We know that there is only one God, the other ‘gods’ are nothing but wood and stone (verses 4-6). But, not everybody understands that. When someone with a pagan background still cringes over the thought of the former ‘god’ he may be bothered by seeing another believer eat the meat that has been sacrificed to idol (v. 7). God does not care what we eat. If we eat ‘idol meat,’ God won’t love us less. If we don’t eat it, He won’t love us more. If that was all there was to it, you could go ahead and eat all the ‘idol meat’ you wanted. But the weaker brothers don’t think it is right to do that. If they see you do it, they may think they can too, even though they feel guilty about it. If they go against their conscience, they are on dangerous ground. If you cause them to violate their conscience by insisting on your right to eat ‘idol meat’, you not only hurt them, but you sin against Christ (v 11-12). If eating that meat is going to hurt my baby brothers in Christ, I won’t eat meat. It is worth giving it up, even though I could argue that the idol is nothing and meat is meat. My brother is more important than for me to get my own way about the matter. (Parapharased)

In Romans 14:19-21 Paul says much the same thing.

Let’s live in peace and seek to build each other up. Don’t destroy what God is doing over a piece of steak. Sure, meat is meat, but it is wrong if you are calloused to the tenderness of a younger brother in Christ. If it may hurt your brother, don’t do it. Don’t eat meat, or drink wine, or do anything else that may cause them to fall.

It is not very mature for a believer to insist on his right to do something if it is hurting another believer in Christ. There are some things that may be in the realm of biblical freedom, but not to the neglect of those around us. Later in the Corinthian passage, Paul said, “I am become all things to all men” in order that I might be a better witness for the Lord Jesus Christ and more effectively draw them to the Savior (1Cor 9:22; 10:33).

A further issue relates to the danger and power of alcohol. It might be well to ask the following questions.

1. Does it have the power to control me?
2. Has it ever controlled anyone else?
3. Is the potential risk worth any potential gain?
4. Does this strengthen my walk with the Lord?
5. Does this strengthen my relationship with others?
6. Will this potentially help or hinder my testimony?

Another matter worth considering is that when we think about the wines and alcoholic beverages of Bible times we are dealing with a much lower content of alcohol. Further, even these drinks were often mixed with water to reduce the intoxicating effects. Culturally, for many people in our area of the country, drinking alcoholic beverages may hinder our testimony.

Can we say that the Word of God absolutely forbids the use of alcoholic drink as beverage with meals and in conservative moderation? Could we say that with full intellectual integrity? Could we say that for the sake of testimony, self-protection, family preservation, and health that Christians should abstain from alcohol? Personally, I am much more comfortable and honest with myself and with the Word of God in holding to the latter position. Could this bother some people? Yes. Does it matter? Yes. But what matters most is that the Word of God be handled with the utmost integrity and respect. If God had wanted to say things differently, He could have. I am not in the business of trying to reword what God has said into something that I think is a little better.

The following list contains every occurrence of the Hebrew word yayin: Gen 9:21,24; 14:18; 19:32,33,34,35; 27:25; 49:11,12; Exo 29:40; Lev 10:9; 23:13; Num 6:3,4,20;15:5,7,10; 28:14; Deu 14:26; 28:39; 29:6; 32:33,38; Jos 9:4,13; Jud 13:4,7,14; 19:19; 1Sa 1:14,15,24; 10:3; 16:20; 25:18,37; 2Sa 13:28; 16:1,2; 1Ch 9:29; 12:40; 27:27; 2Ch 2:10,15; 11:11; Neh 2:1; 5:15,18; 13:15; Est 1:7,10; 5:6; 7:2,7,8; Job 1:13,18; 32:19; Psa 60:3; 75:8; 78:65; 104:15; Pro 4:17; 9:2,5; 20:1; 21:17; 23:20,30,31; 31:4,6; Ecc 2:3; 9:7; 10:19; Son 1:2,4; 2:4; 4:10; 5:1; 7:9; 8:2; Isa 5:11,12,22; 16:10; 22:13; 24:9,11; 28:1,7; 29:9; 51:21; 55:1; 56:12; Jer 13:12; 23:9; 25:15;35:2,5,6,8,14; 40:10,12; 48:33; 51:7; Lam 2:12; Eze 27:18; 44:21; Dan 1:5,8,16; 10:3; Hos 4:11;7:5; 9:4; 14:7; Joe 1:5; 3:3; Amos 2:8,12; 5:11; 6:6; 9:14; Mic 2:11; 6:15; Hab 2:5; Zep 1:13; Hag2:12; Zec 9:15; 10:7. The word occurs 140 times and is translated as wine 138 times. In Song of Solomon 2:4 it is translated banqueting. In Proverbs 23:20 it is combined with caba and translated winebibbers. The passages that may be seen as presenting wine in a positive sense are underlined.

The following list contains every occurance of the Hebrew word shekar: Lev 10:9; Num 6:3; 28:7; Deu 14:26; 29:6; Jud 13:4,7,14; 1Sa 1:15; Psa 69:12; Pro 20:1; 31:4,6; Isa 5:11,22; 24:9; 28:7; 29:9; 56:12; Mic 2:11. The word occurs 23 times and is translated as strong drink 21 times. It is translated strong wine in Num 28:7. It is translated drunkard in Psa 69:12. Of the 21 verses in which it occurs 19 are in a context that could be considered negative. The verses that are in a positive context are underlined.

The following list contains every occurance of the Greek word oinos: Mat 9:17; Mar 2:22; 15:23; Luk 1:15; 5:37,38; 7:33; 10:34; Joh 2:3,9,10; 4:46; Ro 14:21; Eph 5:18; 1Ti 3:8; 5:23; Tit 2:3; Re 6:6; 14:8,10; 16:19; 17:2; 18:3,13; 19:15. In addition, gleukos, or sweet wine occurs once in Acts 2:13. The Greek word Sikera, or strong drink; it is used once in Luke 1:15. The word oxos, translated vinegar in the KJV, is used 7 times. It refers to the cheap sour wine that was the common drink of the Roman soldiers and the poor. It is used in the following passages where we are told that Jesus received the vinegar: Matt 27:34,48; Mar 15:36; Luke 23:36; John 19:29,30.

It is often argued that the wine of John 2 was non-alcoholic. It is true that the New Testament Greek word oinos is less specific than some of the Old Testament Hebrew words. It has been argued that oinos is used in Classical Greek to refer to grapes, fresh juice, jellies, jams, and dried grapes. Even if this were admitted, it makes little difference since the context of John 2 clearly indicates that fermented wine is in view.

 

Caught the double post... but I stopped the most dreaded triple post

 

The very word oinos in the Greek is used to refer to both fermented and unfermented drinks. This is known from it's usage in both it's secular and religious usage. Here is a fairly decent sourse which cites everthing he states as historical data not just on how the Greek word "oinos' was used but also in the historical methods used to store it for long periods of time. (as well as other thoughts on the subject) but at the very beginning is what we are discussing about it's usage. Also in what you just presented you show that there are places where the term "yayin" does not mean fermented. Just because something can 'fairly be presumed' does not mean that is to be stated as fact when it's usage can be found to support both fermented and unfermented historically. You show this same thing in your post I clipped from below:

emphasis mine

Thus even the above author can not maintain his own statement when the facts are before him. Therefore if it's usage consists of describing both fermented and unfermented, and the passage can not positively be shown to have fermentation in view, what other meaning can it have? Do we ignore the fact that it is used to describe unfermented as well? Do you see my point here?

Context.

Then continue on. But understand also that many of us have labored as diligently as you have in the word to know the truth of the matter. I don't know if you know Greek or not and will not presume anything in relation to it whether negitively or positively. But please understand that the idea that 'oinos' only means fermented is idealogically based and not one that is historically based. Granted the general usage can cause some confusion on how one wishes to interpret certain passages but that is due to the general usage being either/or and not the text itself.

I don't drink at all but have no real issue with those who do IF they are doing so without 'knowingly' giving offence toward a 'known' brother who considers it a sin )and are thus a stumbling block to them), and if their testimony for themselves and their church is not damaged by it.

 

When I said that I have spent a great deal of time on this issue there is no way that you could have understood that this time is well in excess of 200 hours.

I actually have in my possession a copy of Teachout’s May 1979 dissertation presented to the faculty of DTS. In the preface/synopsis he says, “When it is recognized that the same word [yayin] may legitimately refer to two distinctly different beverages, it becomes clear that God always approves of grape juice and never approves (in any amount) of wine”. This statement reveals his conclusion and therefore his thesis. While this is not an appropriate place to evaluate his 462 page (with footnotes, addenda, bibliography, etc), suffice it to say that even he recognizes the likelihood that more objective scholars will fault both his methods and his conclusions – “It should be added here that the writer recognizes that, despite all of the evidence that has been presented, it is probable that some who defend the value of wine (if taken in moderation) might yet charge this author with being highly subjective in his handling of the data at hand.” (p. 312, footnote 1).

I do not have the time, nor the appropriate formal credentials, to critique Teachout’s work. However should one wish to possess a copy, it can be ordered from University Microfilms International in Ann Arbor, MI. Seems like the I recall the cost as being about 75$. Even a cursory reading of the document will reveal an obvious bias in his handling of the data and the ease with which he retranslates even non-Biblical sources in a manner inconsistent with the scholars who have gone before. He seems to have no difficulty at all in making a statement like the following:

I find his common practice of substituting “grape juice” for “wine” in passages where intoxicating beverage is clearly indicated by the context to be somewhat disconcerting – I have a real problem with translating a passage based on ones presuppositions independent of the clear and common meaning of the words. Please do not think I am claiming to be any kind of a scholar – such is not the case. I am a student, not a scholar. Only had three years of Greek in college and seminary and no Hebrew and only taught NT Greek in a Christian High School for two years at an elementary level (Ray Summers intro as a text). What I have picked up on the Hebrew has been from reading English lexical tools. But when Teachout cites a source as reputable and prominent as Driver and then freely substitutes “grape juice” where Driver has “wine”, his bias should be obvious to even the most casual reader (p. 119-120).

The fact that the Graeco-Romans had several methods of preserving the must of the grape in ways that provided a non-alcoholic beverage in NO WAY demonstrates that such practices were prominent, occasional, or even known in Israel in the days of Jesus!

The fact that some passages do not have a conclusive textual indicator that yayin is clearly referring to alcoholic beverage relates to the frequent usage of the word (141 if I recall correctly). Many other passages are without question. Unless there is a clear contextual indicator to the contrary, the most natural understanding of the words use in that particular passage would be the most common use of that word in the rest of Scripture.

IN ANY CASE, the fact that the words oinos and methuw (that is with an omega, long o sound) are used in both John 2:10 and Eph 5:18 makes it very clear that Jesus turned the water into WINE, not grape juice. The bursting wine skins also makes it clear that the NT use of oinos is clearly wine that has alcoholic content.

All of the attempts at manipulation in order to justify a different conclusion reminds me of the sign posted at the establishment of an accomplished blacksmith - “All kinds of fancy twistings and turnings done here”.

Just one more quick note, I was only about sixteen when I heard Jack Van Impe proclaim that oinos can mean either wine, grape juice, grapes, raisins, jam, or jelly in a crusade at the civic auditorium in Jacksonville, Florida. I was greatly relieved to learn at that point that Jesus certainly did not turn the water into wine, but grape juice. I continued with this understanding till the first couple years of ministry when I heard a radio preacher present the same position. I thought, I need to be able to conclusively demonstrate this from Scripture.

The more I worked to prove the “non-alcoholic” wine view, the more convinced I became that it was wrong. Then during a trip to Tennessee I took a day and gathered as much material as I could find at the library of my undergrad alma mater. The best was a series of articles from the early 1900's (1904 or 1905) out of Bib Sac when it was still published in Andover. That day in the mid 1980's was the beginning of my serious study into this question. After many more days and weeks I became convinced that I could no longer hold that position in good conscience, I wanted to, but couldn’t. I have since spent a GREAT deal more time reading and analyzing the very best works that I have been able to find arguing for the "Jesus made grape juice" view. Sadly, I remain unswayed, I would rather have been swayed.

ALL of the articles that discuss the nature of wine as being sometimes non-alcoholic fail to contend adequately with clear indications in Scripture that wine, in both the Old and New Testaments is capable of producing intoxication. Statements like the one at the beginning of this post cited from Teachout can be found in abundance. However, NONE of them deal adequately with the clear meaning of the words in John 2:10. It is not only inconsistent, but it is dangerous and it borders on intellectual and Biblical dishonesty to contend that the wine in John 2 was non-alcoholic. I wish otherwise, but I will not exalt my desires above the clear meaning of the words of this text or any text. Quite frankly there are some things in the Word that really bother me! I would not have done it that way. But I am not willing to exalt my mind and my beliefs above the Word of God! Indeed the whole point of exposition is to draw out what is in the Word, not to read into the Word what we think it should say. I wish I could agree with the conclusions of Teachout, Swartentrover, Lackey, and the SDA writer who’s name escapes me at the moment, but I cannot.

If others are comfortable preaching that the wine of John 2 is non-alcoholic and that drunk does not mean drunk, then that is between them and the Lord (1Cor 4:1-5). Frankly, there are times when I am not comfortable teaching what a text clearly says, but I have no other choice. I read recently that we must declare what the Word says, nothing more, nothing less, and nothing else. There I stand. I can do nought else.

 

1 Timothy 3:8 (New American Standard Bible)

8 Deacons likewise must be men of dignity, not double-tongued, or addicted to much wine or fond of sordid gain,



If wine is grape juice, how much grape juice can deacons have before they are addicted?

 

Grape juice will rot, wine will not. Wine will last for a long time, grape juice will not. Yeast goes into wine and eats the corrupt elements and what is left is alcohol. Alcohol is pure, what better substance to represent Christ’s perfect blood. People do a real disservice to use grape juice to represent Christ's blood.

 

I was going to say that!

You are spot on....imagine how GREEN their water would have been by the end of their voyage...YUCK!!!!!

Beth

 

I have heard that lame excuse before and I don't buy it.

 

"But in most essentials there was little difference in production techniques or quality, so far as we can determine, between the wines of 2500 B.C. and those of A.D. 1800. After about A.D. 1800, distillation of alcohol from wines became common. Fortification of fermenting musts (crushed grapes, or grape juice) with this alcohol enabled regular production of dessert wines, especially in some of the Mediterranean countries. However, most of the production continued, and still continues, to be of unfortified, low-alcohol, natural table wines that were highly subject to spoilage; most were, therefore, consumed within 1 year of the vintage. Some great wines and even some aged wines were surely produced in ancient and an modern times before Louis Pasteur, but the process was highly empirical and the process of fermentation was so inadequately understoof that success was limited and sporadic.
The prevalence of wine spoilage, particularly of the wines of Burgundy, was one of the reasons why Pasteur started his investigation of wines."
---Maynard A. Amerine, "The Search for Good Wine" Science, New Series, Vol. 154, No. 3757 (Dec. 30, 1966), p. 1622.

 

"Alcoholism" is no worse than an overweight preacher, they both suffer from substance abuse. Now, when you have company over, do you skip dessert because a former obese person might relapse into binge eating? Take it from someone who drinks, alcohol has no mystical hold over people. Alcohol can have no hold over the born again believer, no more than a fat person is forced to eat sweets against his will.

 

His opinions are much too subjective to be accurate. Never assume that people from 3000 years ago where unintelligent Neanderthals. The wine process is mentioned in the bible, it is the same basic process used today. Grapes are crushed, yeast is added, and the wine is put into new wine skins. During this process the yeast is eating bacteria and producing alcohol. Gas being released stretches the skins. Once completed the skin would harden and the wine would be preserved by the alcohol. Christ told this parable, do you think He had some understanding of the fermentation process?


17Neither do men put new wine into old bottles: else the bottles break, and the wine runneth out, and the bottles perish: but they put new wine into new bottles, and both are preserved.