Featured Most drinkers are moderate

The Greek word for "grape juice" (trux) is not used in the New Testament so I don't believe it wouldn't be in Strongs. Wine by its very definition means 'fermented' and any extrapolations to try and avoid that fact is naive at best. It is like trying to argue there is 'clean filth' or something....'unfermented wine' is an oxymoron.

If the Lord wanted to say "grape juice" He could have, and, in fact, He did in Numbers 6:3.

He shall separate himself from wine and similar drink; he shall drink neither vinegar made from wine nor vinegar made from similar drink; neither shall he drink any grape juice, nor eat fresh grapes or raisins. (Numbers 6:3)

In the OT, the Hebrew words for "grape juice" (mishrat `anâviym) are literally rendered, "juice of grapes," or in other words, "grape juice." When the Bible says, "wine" it means "wine."

 

Plus, if the wine of biblical times wasn't fermented, as some here seem to think, then why all the warning about not partaking too much of it? Were the biblical authors fearful of people getting drunk off juice? I can tell you that the Governor would have never said what he did about withholding the 'good wine' if it were merely juice. The tradition was to serve the good stuff first while people were sober and noticed, and then to bring out the cheap stuff after they didn't care anymore, but the governor is shocked that they save the 'good wine' for the end, a comment that would make little sense if it was juice.

 

For John the Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking wine, and you say, 'He has a demon.' The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and you say, 'Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and "sinners." ' 35 But wisdom is proved right by all her children." John 7:33-34

I suppose some think that Jesus got the reputation of being a 'drunkard' because he drank from juice boxes? Or could it be that Pharisees, kind of like some here, interpret drinking responsibly as equal to being a drunkard? Hmmmmm

 

It is estimated that over 2 million people around the world attend AA meetings. A little bit right?

I wonder how many are still in denial that they have a problem.

About 30 years ago drinking and driving wasn't as big as it is today. My dad was drinking seagrams 7 and sprite. The cop pulled him over for speeding and ask my dad if he was drinking he said yes i can let my son drive. The cop actually told him, you can drive better than your son drunk and didn't know me or my dad. My dad had a problem he drunk seagrams 7 and coffee on the way to work and never believed he had a problem. Way it was back then isn't the same today even the world is recognizing the dangers of drinking, not everyone can control themselves when they start drinking. You can't go on a percentage of a world that is in denial they have a problem. I personal will not promote something that someone can lose control of.

I don't believe Jesus was a stiff-necked. Jesus loved being with us and He could of seemed as being drunk just like they made a judgement on them.

Acts 2:
13 Some, however, made fun of them and said, “They have had too much wine.[Or sweet wine]”
Peter Addresses the Crowd

14 Then Peter stood up with the Eleven, raised his voice and addressed the crowd: “Fellow Jews and all of you who live in Jerusalem, let me explain this to you; listen carefully to what I say. 15 These men are not drunk, as you suppose. It’s only nine in the morning!

 

1. So you don't recommend a good dessert? But what about the glutton with an eating disorder?

2. You don't recommend a medication? But what the person who could overdose on over the counter meds?

3. You don't recommend owning a gun? But what about the person who may use it for evil?

Listen, I'm not saying anyone needs to promote drinking. I have no problem with you or anyone abstaining, in fact, most of the time I abstain myself. My problem is preaching that even drinking responsibly is sinful.

 

If I love them I will not recommend anything that might danger them or others. I think we need to use a thing like common sense and tact what we promote without being judgmental, because it is ultimate their choice. I can tell my wife I would like this and she has the right to say no. People should know the difference between being judgmental and caring about them. They can believe what they want about me, but i will not promote it.

Sometimes we can deceive ourselves and believe we are drinking responsible, so i will not promote it, they do it they do it by their own decision. The world even knows good people to man standards can lose control when they drink.

 

Wine in their day was not the same as in our day.
What was the fruit of vine that Paul speaks to regarding the last supper, for it is not 'oinos' or wine. Then what did Jesus drink that was 'oinos' at the last supper? and why does Paul 'seem' to change it in 1 Cor ? (don't get me wrong it is a trick question). What is new wine?

All of these must be understood in relation to THAT time period.
Here is a really good documentation relating the period's understanding of wine and of strong drink, as well as what would one would need to become drunk in relation to wine, or strong drink. It is written by Robert Stein "Wine and Drinking". It is a good read and will help bring a bit of clarity to some things in understanding the meanings from a historical perspective, to note it in a biblical one. It is referenced by many, such as Danny Akin, John MacArthur, I believe John Piper (I could be wrong there) but yes others as well.

 

Is this the word?:

 

Allan, thanks for the article. I really don't have a problem with that content, because at least he is not attempting to argue wine is merely juice. While I might question the idea that Jesus turned water into '4 parts water and 1 part wine' rather than 'good wine' as was noted by the Governor, I really think this is beside the point of our discussion regarding what is permissible and what isn't.

The permissibility, enjoyment and benefits of wine are established and maintained even if you concede that is was typically 'mixed' with water during biblical times. What this information does is acts as a warning that we should be all the more diligent not to abuse it and to drink only in small moderation. It certainly doesn't prove complete abstaining as a rule/law, which I know is not what you believe.

In an another article about the history of wine, it states:

Wine almost always was mixed with water for drinking; undiluted wine (merum) was considered the habit of provincials and barbarians. The Romans usually mixed one part wine to two parts water (sometimes hot or even salted with sea water to cut some of the sweetness). The Greeks tended to dilute their wine with three or four parts water, which they always mixed by adding the wine. The intention of the symposium was to enjoy the aesthetic pleasure of the wine, to be intoxicated just enough to have the mind released from inhibition and conversation stimulated. At its Roman counterpart, the convivium, there was a tendency to get drunk more blatantly.​

This quote serves to show that the point of your article is valid regarding the mixing of wine with water, however it also shows that the use of wine for its benefit and pleasure isn't negated . It was still used for pleasure and enjoyment. And I don't believe the bible condemns its use for that purpose. That article also explains that the alcohol content was closer to 16% in many wines of that day as compared to 4% in the Merlot my wife and I enjoy on occasion.

But, who cares what all of them say? Let's listen to the very words of God Himself:

Use the silver to buy whatever you like: cattle, sheep, wine or other fermented drink, or anything you wish. Then you and your household shall eat there in the presence of the LORD your God and rejoice. Deut. 14:26​

You can't argue with that! REJOICE!

 

The reference to good wine reflects quality of wine TO BE used, and thus yet unmixed. If it was of good quality it's flavor and other aspects will not be diminished excessively by whatever water to wine ratio was added.

While I agree on the 16% being the strongest wine/strong drink that could made during that time, I would change your statement from 'many' to some based upon both articles, but more specifically your own:

However it is noted that this is not the typical average of alcoholic percentage but high content wine had become the Romans favorite drink who liked and desired strong wines. But again, according to both articles these were almost always mixed with water to an average of 3 to 1 ratio. For stronger, you reduced the ratio, and depending on what was going on, you might increase it. Thus if one tended to the average ratio and wanted to drink the strong stuff, you would get the alcohol content of your Merlot. However since most wines were less in their percentage, you would have typically drank much less.

Now, that aside.. since we both agree apparently on the historical point..

I have NO idea what you are presuming to argue against me on. I have not argued in any post that alcoholic consumption in and of itself is wrong. My point in giving the article was that I was giving a bit of accurate understanding as to 'how' they drink wines historically not what types there were (which is what yours mostly addresses - and I agree there were varying types from weak to strong wines). So your addressing me as if I'm in opposition to drinking just because it is alcoholic, is not accurate.

Lastly
Just because God say we can does not mean we must as there are vary factors to consider 'when' not just 'if' we should. In fact, we note from scriptures that Spirit led men of God who, in spite of your verse of scripture, did not drink, such as John the Baptist, Timothy, as well as the Rechabites who are highly commended by God and by Jeremiah for their abstinence. Thus one can conclude that one may or may not choose to imbibe and still have all the blessing of God which He alone imparts.

Therefore my argument 'in' drinking (not with drinking) is simply this.. in whatever we do (whether to drink or not - or anything else) it is for 3 basic purposes.
1. to the glory of God (are we drinking or whatever so we can lift God high and others can see God who do not see);
2. for benefit of others in their spiritual growth;
3. for our Christian testimony in the location or culture we might be in (and obviously this one varies where ever one is at).

I believe without question that if any of the 3 are not answered in the positive, we should abstain, not due to the alcohol in and of itself but the other factors we as believers must take care to notice and act accordingly.

I have no question you would agree with me here that there should be reason and purpose in not only 'what' we do, but more importantly 'why' we are participating in/with it and therefore we need to evaluate seriously the affects we propagate if we choose to do or not do something.

But hey, that's my two cents.

 

And if you recall, I acknowledged that point when I said, "It certainly doesn't prove complete abstaining as a rule/law, which I know is not what you believe." However, this response was also for those reading along who have been making this point along the way... I'm sorry if it came across as if I thought you were making that point, because I knew you didn't. :thumbsup:

I agree. God does say, "if you want..." It is not commanded.

And I know you know that I do not begrudge anyone who chooses to abstain for the right reasons.

I agree with the rest of your post as well. :godisgood:

 

LOL.. you know what.. I didn't see it..
That was funny, thank you