Jesus's Wine Fermented or NOT?

I have seen arguments both ways, and frankly, does it really matter?

If some want to use the scriture to justify their consumption of alcoholic beverages, they will do it regardless.

Cheers,

Jim

 

Thank you. End of subject.

 

Sounds like it matters to you

 

If Jack Van Impe is quoted...it has to be true :laugh:

 

In the old threads - If you can wade through them - there are some good posts and links to be found.

http://baptistboard.com/search.php?searchid=518234

Every once in a while, I enjoyed one or two of the discussions

 

Jews don't recognize Jesus as the Messiah.
Protestants don't recognize the supremacy of the Pope.
Baptists don't recognize each other at the liquor store.

:laugh:

 

Magnetic:

Funny thing about liquor store and Baptists. Each Hallowe'en, I take little bags of candies to all the people who serve in our community. It is sort of a thank you for their service.

I do not use the liquor store. This past Hallowe'en the new manager was in the store. She didn't know me at all. When I took the little bags in and ask how many staff where working......She remarked: "Oh, it must be Hallowe'en. Baptist Jim is here!"

I fear I might be getting a reputation for frequenting the liquor store........

Cheers,

Jim

 

What a terrific way to minister to people who are so often overlooked! Maybe you should wear a costume next year so they won't see you coming until it's too late! :laugh:

 

I think it was wine, the wine with alcohol. There was no way to keep grape juice from fermenting at that time in history.

 

Grapes either rot or ferment unless they are placed in cold storage.

 

OF COURSE it was fermented. It was called "wine" because it WAS wine.

The scriptures make that pretty clear. It was the type of wine that people could have gotten drunk from if they over did it.


:godisgood:

 

If the wine then couldn't intoxicate, why did the Bible to say to be not drunk with wine?

Why then would it be a problem to the Pharisees to see Jesus drinking wine and then call him a "wine bibber"?

I fully realize that too much juice is not a good thing, particularly to a diabetic, but I can't imagine it was Jesus' health they were so concerned about.

 

"Hey!

No fair!

You're not supposed to make a simple statement that makes that much sense!"

Ed

 

I'm not wanting to get into the thread per-say but the above is the usage of poor logic. (not saying you are poor in your logic but on this it is simply poor logic).

They called Jesus these things NOT becasue of what He did but because of who He was around. He was also called a glutton, why - because He ate food. That makes no sense, especially not in the context of passages.

Personally, I am against drinking. My whole point is based not off the typical abstinance scrptures (though they can be used - but not to the degree some take them) but primarily my abstinance stand on Pauls point of the weaker brother. He didn't state that you have the liberty to do what you like even when a brother finds it to be sinful. His entire point is that your liberty is NOT for you but your brothers sake. You are at liberty to deny yourself for the sake of your brother. Paul stated whether it be meat or drink if it cause one to stumble or offend he will NEVER partake. Not that he will did it at home or when he is out of their sight - never.

 

I'm trying hard, but I don't see your quoted part as poor logic. I see your opinion as poor logic.

Jesus was accused of being a glutton and a winebibber, and by people who were looking for something whereof to accuse, no less. They had to have a small basis for their accusations.

Jesus was the guest of honor at many a feast. He ate with them. He was not gluttonous. He drank with them. He was not drunken.

The logic I find even less understandable is that of "the wine could not intoxicate". It makes no sense, imo. If it could not, then the scriptures to the contrary (telling on to not be drunken) are moot.

 

Just some food for thought but no real interaction required because I'm not looking to argue.

The Levi priests were forbidden upon death not to drink at all before or during their duties while serving as the priests of God.

Kings and princes were not to indulge in wine or strong drink.

The Nazarite (one who was especially separated unto God) was prohibited from the use of wine altogether (see Numbers 6:3; Judges 13:4-7, 13-14). So much so were they to be seperated from it that they could not even touch a grape!! (that would be hard for me)

In Jeremiah 35:1-10, the Rechabites are highly commended by God and by Jeremiah for their total abstinence.

We even find that John the Baptist abstained - most likely because he had patterned his life after the Nazarite Law which showed one was totally commited to God and His plan.

Even Timothy abstained absolutely from it - even to the point he would not even partake of it's purely medicinal applications.


Why is it that scripture makes a fuss about this in their lives, concerning those who are devoted to Him, committed to Him, and serving Him. They all have a similar aspect apparent in their lives which were devoted to God.

Another interesting thing about the NT is that believers are now called 'priests' and 'kings' and we are called to sever God every moment of every day all the rest of our lives.

As I said - just thoughts... nothing intended except to give some pause to thought is all.

 

Very good food for thought. I'm not looking for argument, either.

Here's one that goes along with one of your points and then veers back again:

[Mat 11:18] For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, He hath a devil.
[Mat 11:19] The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. But wisdom is justified of her children.

 

Then I take it you know the Greek word for wine in NT passages cited thus far (that I have read) use the word "oinos" which is simply a generic term interchangably used for both fermented and unfermented wine. Which is one good reason why the debate still goes on.

Secondly, the accusations made against Him are not because Jesus did any of these - eat almost to much or drank to close to the tipsy side. To assume just becasue Jesus ate, that this gave them rise to call him a glutton, is not logical nor contextual. Notice how Jesus states it at the end for clarity. "...a friend of tax collectors and "sinners" It is a reference to what those people He was around did. Jesus was, in their opinion, guilty of the same sins by association. In other words, if Jesus was hanging around them he had to be partaking in what these sinners typically did. Keep the context and you shouldn't stay confused. This idea comes from the OT Psalm which states something like - if you don't rebuke a person for their sin but stay quiet then you are just as guilty as they are. Why? Because to the Pharisee only a sinner would/will hang out/around sinners. No righteous man would do such. It is a play on a phrase the speaks of one who makes themselves familar with other around them - "to eat and drink".

Thirdly, do some historical research on juice peservation in early first centuries and water purifications.