|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Kerygmania: Fermented or unfermented?
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
I sparked off a minor tangent in Ecclesiantics by responding to this comment by NJA:
quote:
The "wine" [at the Last Supper] would probably have been unfermented grape juice.
as follows:
quote:
Is this a serious statement or an attempt at 'humour'?
because I have never come across this suggestion before and wondered what the evidence for it was. NJA responded:
quote:
Serious, what is your reason for thinking otherwise?
and dj_ordinaire made this hostly ruling:
quote:
This argument belongs in Kerygmania or Purgatory - not, not, NOT in Eccles... So let's draw a line under it, thank you.
Never having dared to start (or rarely join) a thread in Kerygmania I thought I'd try here. I don't expect a long discussion, but I'd like to hear some authoritative evidence that what Jesus and the disciples drank was not wine.
[ 29. December 2014, 21:14: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Clint Boggis
Shipmate
# 633
|
Posted
I have no evidence about the wine at Last Supper.
Alcohol isn't a modern invention and there's lots of evidence that ancient civilisations knew about it, made it and enjoyed it as we do. Letting fruit juice ferment means the alcohol helps preserve it, as well as making it a pleasure to drink.
Surely, those who claim that Jesus didn't drink alcohol are exhibiting wishful thinking, hoping that he conformed to their modern preferences.
The fact that it was referred to as wine is good enough for me. Unless people are claiming this is a translation error, I'd say there's little room for doubt.
Posts: 1505 | From: south coast | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
What I've heard is that there are some passages of Scripture which say it's a sin to get drunk. Somehow it's assumed that therefore it's a sin to drink alcohol (I never quite figure how that follows). Therefore, as Jesus was without sin he didn't drink alcohol. And, therefore the wine at the Last Supper, which he drank, didn't contain alcohol. QED.
The same argument applies to the miraculous wine at the wedding in Cana.
The weakness of the argument is that if it's a sin to get drunk therefore it's a sin to drink. I've never actually found a reasonable defense of that particular step in the argument.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
As a good Methodist, I am well-aware of the story of Thomas Welch. He was a Methodist active in the temperance movement who invented Welch's grape juice so that communion could be served with a non-alcoholic form of the grape. Prior to that, unfermented grape juice simply didn't keep. It is almost inconceivable that unfermented grape juice was the usual drink in Biblical times.
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
As a good Methodist, I am well-aware of the story of Thomas Welch. He was a Methodist active in the temperance movement who invented Welch's grape juice so that communion could be served with a non-alcoholic form of the grape. Prior to that, unfermented grape juice simply didn't keep. It is almost inconceivable that unfermented grape juice was the usual drink in Biblical times.
Indeed, given that the passover is celebrated in the spring, long after the grape harvest in the autumn, there can be no serious doubt that what Jesus was drinking must have contained alcohol.
However the real kicker is this passage:
quote:
31"To what, then, can I compare the people of this generation? What are they like? 32They are like children sitting in the marketplace and calling out to each other:
" 'We played the flute for you,
and you did not dance;
we sang a dirge,
and you did not cry.' 33For John the Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking wine, and you say, 'He has a demon.' 34The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and you say, 'Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and "sinners." ' 35But wisdom is proved right by all her children."
Luke 7:31-35
which contrasts the lifestyle of John the Baptist and Jesus and accepts that the allegation of being a 'drunkard' could be validly laid against him. Anyone who claims to be a biblical Christian has NO excuse for a blanket ban on alcohol on purely Christian grounds...
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
MSHB
Shipmate
# 9228
|
Posted
Paul, in ticking off the Corinthians in 1 Cor 11.21 about their attempt to celebrate the Lord's Supper (a common meal, incorporating communion), says:
"For in eating everyone takes before the other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken."
Clearly, the Corinthians in their gatherings for the Lord's Supper were drinking alcoholic beverages. But Paul does not tick them off for drinking alcohol, he simply scolds them for their general selfishness and gluttony - especially because the poor in their midst went hungry and thirsty, while the well-provided over-ate and over-drank. The issue was charity, not teetotalism (or tee-totalitarianism).
--------------------
MSHB: Member of the Shire Hobbit Brigade
Posts: 1522 | From: Dharawal Country | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The weakness of the argument is that if it's a sin to get drunk therefore it's a sin to drink. I've never actually found a reasonable defense of that particular step in the argument.
That would be like saying that if gluttony is a sin then it is a sin to eat. I don't think that most people regularly drink to the point of inebriation. Maybe they do. My experience, though, is that wine is a pleasant social drink that doesn't usually result in drunkenness. YMMV
It only takes a little reading to see that it is unlikely that the "wine" referred to in the New Testament was actually unfermented grape juice.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
The most that can be said about the wine at the last supper was that it may have been considerably watered down. This was a Greek and Roman practice at their feasts and symposiums (talking and drinking parties) so may have been picked up by the Jews in Israel, (although I have no evidence either way). Unwatered wine got people drunk quite quickly so a host who wanted civilised conversation more than drunken antics generally watered the wine down. I can’t remember the usual formula they used for how much water to how much wine, but it was more or less depending on the nature of the party.
--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts
Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
As far as I remember - and please correct me - there is no evidence at all that the wine in the New Testament is anything other than ordinary wine.
Its all a modern fantasy
And as ES points out the New Testament does explicitly point out that Jesus and his disciples drank the sort of wine that gets you drunk. So no Biblical literalist could consistently believe that Jesus only drank unfermented grape juice.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The same argument applies to the miraculous wine at the wedding in Cana.
How on earth can that be squared with the steward's observation that the guests were already half-cut when the miraculous wine was produced, and it would have been more usual to get them pissed on the good stuff now being served before getting out the cheap shit that they had just finished drinking?
That bit of the story makes no sense at all unless Jesus made wine that would have made someone drunk if they consumed enough of it (all indications being that this particular party, which had already drunk the house dry, would certainly have done so).
(I do appreciate that you are reporting, not making, this argument.)
If Jesus made wine for drunk people to drink more of, then what reason can there be for thinking he wouldn't have drunk it himself?
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
The most that can be said about the wine at the last supper was that it may have been considerably watered down. This was a Greek and Roman practice at their feasts and symposiums (talking and drinking parties) so may have been picked up by the Jews in Israel, (although I have no evidence either way). Unwatered wine got people drunk quite quickly so a host who wanted civilised conversation more than drunken antics generally watered the wine down.
This assumes that people would drink strong unwatered wine at the same rate they would drink weak watered wine.
Personally, if I am given a strong alcoholic drink, I sip it slowly. If it is weak, I drink much faster.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
Reminds me of PJ O'Rouke's account of going to a US Christian theme park back in 80s...
"A book store full of Bibles where wine is always translated grape juice and a record store full of bands who could easily be called 'I found Jesus and lost my talent."
Ah, those were the days. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
It reminds me of the old joke. Our Lord turned water into wine and for the last two thousand years the Church has been trying to turn it back.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
humblebum
Shipmate
# 4358
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The weakness of the argument is that if it's a sin to get drunk therefore it's a sin to drink. I've never actually found a reasonable defense of that particular step in the argument.
Another weakness of the argument is that fermented wine is presented as a gift of God in multiple places in scripture.
E.g. Isaiah 25:6
"On this mountain the LORD Almighty will prepare
a feast of rich food for all peoples,
a banquet of aged wine—
the best of meats and the finest of wines".
And the argument that the wine at Cana was non-alcoholic is ridiculous - the banquet master's comment becomes inexplicable: "Everyone brings out the choice wine first and then the cheaper wine after the guests have had too much to drink; but you have saved the best till now".
As Tom and ES have pointed out, unfermented grape juice would have been unavailable at the Last Supper.
At the same time though, I think it's possible to argue that the wine would have been LESS alcoholic than modern wine, as methods of fermentation would have been more primitive. But from what I've heard, we'd be talking about 4% ABV rather than 12% - more like drinking lager than modern wine. (But not like drinking Ribena).
--------------------
humblebum
Posts: 584 | From: Belfast | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
NJA
Shipmate
# 13022
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
... please correct me - there is no evidence at all that the wine in the New Testament is anything other than ordinary wine.
Its all a modern fantasy
Be careful not to project what you call "ordinary wine" onto people and times where the meaning was different.
The meaning has changed.
New wine or "must" was defined in Webster's 1949 dictionary:
must, n. [L.mustum, new wine, neut.of mustus, new, fresh.]
1. Wine pressed from the grape but not fermented.
But by 1969 it read:
1. juice pressed from the grape but not yet fermented into wine.
So, "wine" by our definition is different from their "new wine" (not yet fermented) which we would now call grape juice.
I got that thought from "Wine definition" here.
So, when you read new testament verses mentioning "wine" you have to "put new glasses on".
[ 08. June 2010, 12:32: Message edited by: NJA ]
Posts: 1283 | From: near London | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Christian Agnostic
Shipmate
# 14912
|
Posted
Did they have fresh grapes in the spring, ie. during Passover? ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
--------------------
Words to the wise: Don't read Kierkegaard when you're 16, and always set B.S. detectors to 11. "How can I sing a strange song in the Lord's land?"
Posts: 493 | From: The Great North Woods | Registered: Jul 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Low Treason
Shipmate
# 11924
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by NJA:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
... please correct me - there is no evidence at all that the wine in the New Testament is anything other than ordinary wine.
Its all a modern fantasy
Be careful not to project what you call "ordinary wine" onto people and times where the meaning was different.
The meaning has changed.
New wine or "must" was defined in Webster's 1949 dictionary:
must, n. [L.mustum, new wine, neut.of mustus, new, fresh.]
1. Wine pressed from the grape but not fermented.
But by 1969 it read:
1. juice pressed from the grape but not yet fermented into wine.
So, "wine" by our definition is different from their "new wine" (not yet fermented) which we would now call grape juice.
I got that thought from "Wine definition" here.
So, when you read new testament verses mentioning "wine" you have to "put new glasses on".
But as has already been pointed out, grape juice very quickly ferments and becomes alcoholic wine.
The ancient jews did not have modern methods of preservation or refrigerators, nor were fresh grapes available throughout the year.
--------------------
He brought me to the banqueting house, and His banner over me was love.
Posts: 1914 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
humblebum
Shipmate
# 4358
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by NJA:
So, when you read new testament verses mentioning "wine" you have to "put new glasses on".
I assume that you mean "post-nineteenth century temperance movement" glasses, NJA.
--------------------
humblebum
Posts: 584 | From: Belfast | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by NJA:
So, when you read new testament verses mentioning "wine" you have to "put new glasses on".
In other words, discard the glasses of teetotal prejudice.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
I have friends whose argument is, no good ever comes from drinking alcohol, so there's no good reason to ever drink it, so of course Jesus never drank it because Jesus did only good things.
I have read long detailed descriptions of a supposedly Roman practice of drying grape juice to the point of getting nothing but solids, which could then be carried (by the soldiers) in a pouch without risk of spoiling and water added later reconstituting grape juice when they want beverage to drink. My reaction is, what culture ever valued grape juice that highly? Their response is, it's like people today often prefer koolade or lemonade cokes to just water.
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
NJA
Shipmate
# 13022
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Low Treason:
But as has already been pointed out, grape juice very quickly ferments and becomes alcoholic wine.
The ancient jews did not have modern methods of preservation or refrigerators,..
No, but it seems they had methods we have forgotten (see website I cited)
[ 08. June 2010, 13:09: Message edited by: NJA ]
Posts: 1283 | From: near London | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by NJA:
Be careful not to project what you call "ordinary wine" onto people and times where the meaning was different.
The meaning has changed.
New wine or "must" was defined in Webster's 1949 dictionary:
must, n. [L.mustum, new wine, neut.of mustus, new, fresh.]
1. Wine pressed from the grape but not fermented.
But by 1969 it read:
1. juice pressed from the grape but not yet fermented into wine.
So, "wine" by our definition is different from their "new wine" (not yet fermented) which we would now call grape juice.
I got that thought from "Wine definition" here.
So, when you read new testament verses mentioning "wine" you have to "put new glasses on".
Except the Bible wasn't written in 1949 in English ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
The actual word used in the New Testament is Oinos, and this word means fermented wine. In Ephesians Paul writes "Do not get drunk on 'Oinos' (wine)".
--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts
Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by NJA:
quote:
Originally posted by Low Treason:
But as has already been pointed out, grape juice very quickly ferments and becomes alcoholic wine.
The ancient jews did not have modern methods of preservation or refrigerators,..
No, but it seems they had methods we have forgotten (see website I cited)
Forgive me, I have read a couple of pages of that website and it appears to be written by an obsessive who, frankly, needs a drink.
Can you point out what these methods were please?
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
3rdFooter
Shipmate
# 9751
|
Posted
NJA - I see your distinction, but it may come down to alcoholic strength and quality rather than anything else.
Buy a bunch of grapes. The white dust that you see on the surface, known as 'bloom'? It's yeast. No level of filtering is going to keep that out of the juice. Fermentation will begin in earnest within a day of pressing grapes into juice. The only way to avoid this is pasteurisation, which is not known to be a 1st century practice.
Comparitive quality of old and new wine would be another thing. I believe wine was aged beyond the year of production (see quote above) but it must have been a risky process. No carefully rack glass bottles with long corks in them. Probably ceramic jars sealed with cork and wax. Clearly from the 'new wine' references, 'new' was a valued product.
In my opinion, the last supper was held with alcoholic wine. Does that necessarily mean that grape juice would be wrong? I don't actually think so. The whole thing is symbolic at some level. If you can express the communities theology and faith better in grape juice, then that's fine with me. If transubstantiation is actually true, then the absence of C2H5OH should not be a major obstacle.
3F
--------------------
3F - Shunter in the sidings of God's Kingdom
Posts: 602 | From: outskirts of Babylon | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
humblebum
Shipmate
# 4358
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by NJA:
No, but it seems they had methods we have forgotten (see website I cited)
Do you have any sources less biased than a prohibitionist website that we can look into, NJA, for further information on what people did with their grapes in the first century?
--------------------
humblebum
Posts: 584 | From: Belfast | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
I have read long detailed descriptions of a supposedly Roman practice of drying grape juice to the point of getting nothing but solids, which could then be carried (by the soldiers) in a pouch without risk of spoiling and water added later reconstituting grape juice when they want beverage to drink.
I think you're referring to defrutum which was actually a cooking agent that the Romans liked to use and was included as provisions for soldiers since they liked it so much.
--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts
Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
NJA
Shipmate
# 13022
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
The actual word used in the New Testament is Oinos, and this word means fermented wine. In Ephesians Paul writes "Do not get drunk on 'Oinos' (wine)".
Yes, but new wine, "the blood of grapes" would not be alcoholic.
You have to look at the context.
Jesus wasn't promoting tee-totalism, in fact the word of God says:
"Give strong drink unto him that is ready to perish, and wine unto those that be of heavy hearts" (Proverbs 31:6)
There is a place for it, if you are a natural person wanting to relax or have a party.
But it will affect your judgement so you wouldn't want it when you need your wits about you.
BUT, when a person has received God's Spirit, the "new wine" from "the True Vine", they have a "new heart", not the old heavy heart of stone - no Christian needs alcohol, in fact it is contrary to the Spirit .. . it affects the judgement and is a poor testimony, even in small quantity, that's why Paul says "be not drunk with wine, which is an excess"
Alcohol is an excess, not needed.
Posts: 1283 | From: near London | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
NJA
Shipmate
# 13022
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
...Can you point out what these methods were please?
(+ humblebum)
I just did a search and found this.
Posts: 1283 | From: near London | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by NJA:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
...Can you point out what these methods were please?
(+ humblebum)
I just did a search and found this.
I wonder if this is a spoof, since the author's name translates as 'Bacchus eyes'?
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
St. Punk the Pious
Biblical™ Punk
# 683
|
Posted
Many above are on the right track.
Jesus served and drank wine at the Last Supper. Therefore (except for those with various health issues), that's what we should drink at the Lord's Supper.
'Nuff said.
[ 08. June 2010, 13:46: Message edited by: St. Punk the Pious ]
--------------------
The Society of St. Pius *
Wannabe Anglican, Reader
My reely gud book.
Posts: 4161 | From: Choral Evensong | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
As a good Methodist, I am well-aware of the story of Thomas Welch. He was a Methodist active in the temperance movement who invented Welch's grape juice so that communion could be served with a non-alcoholic form of the grape. Prior to that, unfermented grape juice simply didn't keep. It is almost inconceivable that unfermented grape juice was the usual drink in Biblical times.
Indeed, given that the passover is celebrated in the spring, long after the grape harvest in the autumn, there can be no serious doubt that what Jesus was drinking must have contained alcohol.
However the real kicker is this passage:
quote:
31"To what, then, can I compare the people of this generation? What are they like? 32They are like children sitting in the marketplace and calling out to each other:
" 'We played the flute for you,
and you did not dance;
we sang a dirge,
and you did not cry.' 33For John the Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking wine, and you say, 'He has a demon.' 34The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and you say, 'Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and "sinners." ' 35But wisdom is proved right by all her children."
Luke 7:31-35
which contrasts the lifestyle of John the Baptist and Jesus and accepts that the allegation of being a 'drunkard' could be validly laid against him. Anyone who claims to be a biblical Christian has NO excuse for a blanket ban on alcohol on purely Christian grounds...
It seems some think that Jesus was being accused of being a drunk because he drank some Welch's. When I read what he said about John and himself in relation to what was being said about the both of them by others, it seems he was also telling us that with some folks you just can't win. Your very existence is all the proof they need that you are just wrong.
Some will use 1 Thess. 5:22 as a reason to promote teatotalism. It appears they may be looking for a prooftext to back them up, though.
Well, we can also use that same verse to promote having a drink so we won't run the risk of appearing to have the same ideological-based religion of those who carried out or approve of what happened on 9/11.
It is also my understanding that Hitler didn't drink alcoholic beverages. Well, if so, I'm going to have a beer this evening so folks won't have to worry about me getting millions of people killed.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by NJA:
Yes, but new wine, "the blood of grapes" would not be alcoholic.
You have to look at the context.
What context? Where does it say Jesus drank "the blood of grapes"? Since the gospels only record that he drank 'Oinos' at the last supper, you don't have a leg to stand on.
--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts
Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
NJA
Shipmate
# 13022
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
What context? Where does it say Jesus drank "the blood of grapes"? Since the gospels only record that he drank 'Oinos' at the last supper, you don't have a leg to stand on.
"he took the cup ... this is my blood of the new testament ...I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine (Matt.26:27-29)
It symbolised his blood, pure, (unfermented) which would be spilled on his own clothing, if I understand this prophecy right:
"Binding his foal unto the vine, and his ass's colt unto the choice vine; he washed his garments in wine, and his clothes in the blood of grapes" (Gen.49:11)
Again, I conclude that "oinos" cannot only refer to fermented grape juice.
Also,
"It is not for kings, O Lemuel, it is not for kings to drink wine; nor for princes strong drink: Lest they drink, and forget the law, and pervert the judgment of any of the afflicted. " (Proverbs 31:4-5)
Jesus was/is a King, who came to fulfil the Law and save the afflicted.
Posts: 1283 | From: near London | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by NJA:
"It is not for kings, O Lemuel, it is not for kings to drink wine; nor for princes strong drink: Lest they drink, and forget the law, and pervert the judgment of any of the afflicted. " (Proverbs 31:4-5)
6Give strong drink to one who is perishing,
and wine to those in bitter distress;
7let them drink and forget their poverty,
and remember their misery no more.
8Speak out for those who cannot speak,
for the rights of all the destitute.*
9Speak out, judge righteously,
defend the rights of the poor and needy.--Proverbs 31:6-9
Just sayin'...
[ 08. June 2010, 14:48: Message edited by: Bullfrog. ]
--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by NJA:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
...Can you point out what these methods were please?
(+ humblebum)
I just did a search and found this.
I wonder if this is a spoof, since the author's name translates as 'Bacchus eyes'?
Who knows?
Andrews University is a Seventh-Day Adventist institution and SDA's take The Lord's Supper in the form of unleavened bread and unfermented grape juice.
The article is hardly from an objective source, but if NJA wants to believe that the disciples drank grape juice I won't stand in his way.
[ 08. June 2010, 14:50: Message edited by: Sioni Sais ]
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spiffy
Ship's WonderSheep
# 5267
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by NJA:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
... please correct me - there is no evidence at all that the wine in the New Testament is anything other than ordinary wine.
Its all a modern fantasy
Be careful not to project what you call "ordinary wine" onto people and times where the meaning was different.
The meaning has changed.
New wine or "must" was defined in Webster's 1949 dictionary:
must, n. [L.mustum, new wine, neut.of mustus, new, fresh.]
1. Wine pressed from the grape but not fermented.
But by 1969 it read:
1. juice pressed from the grape but not yet fermented into wine.
So, "wine" by our definition is different from their "new wine" (not yet fermented) which we would now call grape juice.
I got that thought from "Wine definition" here.
So, when you read new testament verses mentioning "wine" you have to "put new glasses on".
And the reason you don't put must ('new wine', i.e. grape juice) in old wineskins is that the natural yeasts present in the air start eating the sugars, converting them to alcohol and carbon dioxide. The little yeast farts build up in the wine skin and if it's old and inflexible, it bursts like a balloon.
Modern brewers have fancy relief valves they stick in the fermenting vessel, but the homebrewer still sometimes has to face the sadness of exploding bottles. Cleaning up after which, by the way, is a pain in the behind.
--------------------
Looking for a simple solution to all life's problems? We are proud to present obstinate denial. Accept no substitute. Accept nothing.
--Night Vale Radio Twitter Account
Posts: 10281 | From: Beervana | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anyuta
Shipmate
# 14692
|
Posted
seems to me, based on the description of the Pentacost "new wine" was also fermented: the apostles were mockingly accused of being full of "new wine" to explain why they were behaving so strangely. clearly "new wine" could intoxicate.
Posts: 764 | From: USA | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
This perverse twisting of facts to suit prejudices reminds me of those who argue that God deliberately planted fossils to fool people into thinking the world was more than four millennia old.
More serious though, is this point:
quote:
Originally posted by NJA:
BUT, when a person has received God's Spirit, the "new wine" from "the True Vine", they have a "new heart", not the old heavy heart of stone - no Christian needs alcohol, in fact it is contrary to the Spirit .. . it affects the judgement and is a poor testimony, even in small quantity, that's why Paul says "be not drunk with wine, which is an excess"
Alcohol is an excess, not needed.
which, to me, is rather like saying that a true Christian never needs to enjoy any of the good things of the earth, given by God, because s/he has God instead. As if God couldn't be present in wine, and parties, and sex, and food, and the beauties of nature, or in other human beings. It's a bit like the old story of the man stranded in the flood who refused the rescue helicopter because he knew God would be along to rescue him.
Heresy, if you ask me.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spiffy
Ship's WonderSheep
# 5267
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anyuta:
seems to me, based on the description of the Pentacost "new wine" was also fermented: the apostles were mockingly accused of being full of "new wine" to explain why they were behaving so strangely. clearly "new wine" could intoxicate.
I can't speak for the Greek word used in Acts, but from the fermentation science side, 'new wine' is right out of the tank and there's a folk misconception that it's more alcoholic than stuff that's aged.
I should probably mention that I know most all of this because I went to Vintage High School, home of the Crushers.
quote:
Originally posted by NJA:
BUT, when a person has received God's Spirit, the "new wine" from "the True Vine", they have a "new heart", not the old heavy heart of stone - no Christian needs alcohol, in fact it is contrary to the Spirit .. . it affects the judgement and is a poor testimony, even in small quantity, that's why Paul says "be not drunk with wine, which is an excess"
Alcohol is an excess, not needed.
Really? Why did Paul tell Timothy to drink some wine, then?
[ 08. June 2010, 17:21: Message edited by: Spiffy ]
--------------------
Looking for a simple solution to all life's problems? We are proud to present obstinate denial. Accept no substitute. Accept nothing.
--Night Vale Radio Twitter Account
Posts: 10281 | From: Beervana | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Is beaujolais nouveau non-alcoholic? I can't imagine the French would drink it if it were.
"Blood of the grape" is a euphemism, in English, for wine. Not Welch's.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by NJA:
no Christian needs alcohol, in fact it is contrary to the Spirit .. . it affects the judgement and is a poor testimony, even in small quantity, that's why Paul says "be not drunk with wine, which is an excess"
Alcohol is an excess, not needed.
Paul says "be not drunk with wine, which is an excess" and it is clear from this that it is being drunk that is an excess, not wine itself. You're twisting Scripture to match your anhistoric interpretation. These Protestants, always inventing brand-new interpretations of scripture and claiming they're what the Apostles believed, no really, even though there's no evidence for it before its 16th/17th/18th/19th/20th/21st century invention. Sigh.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wilfried
Shipmate
# 12277
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by NJA:
"Binding his foal unto the vine, and his ass's colt unto the choice vine; he washed his garments in wine, and his clothes in the blood of grapes" (Gen.49:11)
I'm no expert, but this strikes me as bog standard Hebrew poetic parallelism, where the second half line recapitulates the first half.
foal : calf
vine : choice vine
garments : clothes
wine : blood of grapes
"Wine" and "blood of grapes" are simply two ways of saying the same thing for poetic effect; "blood of grapes" is wine, not some alternative.
Posts: 429 | From: Lefty on the Right Coast | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
NJA
Shipmate
# 13022
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
which, to me, is rather like saying that a true Christian never needs to enjoy any of the good things of the earth, given by God, because s/he has God instead. As if God couldn't be present in wine, and parties, and sex, and food, and the beauties of nature, or in other human beings. It's a bit like the old story of the man stranded in the flood who refused the rescue helicopter because he knew God would be along to rescue him.
Heresy, if you ask me.
Well the Rastas use the same argument for smoking cannabis. One could say the same for many other mind-altering drugs that derive from things that God made / provided.
Same for sex - good things can be mis-used, am I a heretic for saying such things?
Posts: 1283 | From: near London | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
NJA
Shipmate
# 13022
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy:
Really? Why did Paul tell Timothy to drink some wine, then?
I've already given reasons why "wine" doesn't necc. have to be alcoholic.
Grape juice has lots of vitamins that promote health and we know the water in the region is not the best.
Why does a person who has received the Spirit of God need alcohol?
Posts: 1283 | From: near London | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
jlg
What is this place?
Why am I here?
# 98
|
Posted
I'll also point out that the Romans (and probably plenty of others over the centuries) used wine and other alcoholic drinks to mix with water, especially in cities or other places where the water sources might have been fouled. Simple observation and experience had taught that 'water and wine' was safer than water alone.
Probably the same sort of thing that led other cultures (the ones where adults consumed milk products) to come up with the various fermented versions of milk (kefir, yogurt, soft cheeses etc). Fermentation was, on average, safer than poorly handled and stored 'fresh' liquids.
Of course, I may have picked up this bit of knowledge more from reading historical novels rather than actual research, but this thread doesn't seem to have very high standards of debate.
Posts: 17391 | From: Just a Town, New Hampshire, USA | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moth
Shipmate
# 2589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by NJA:
Why does a person who has received the Spirit of God need alcohol?
I don't. I just happen to like it!
--------------------
"There are governments that burn books, and then there are those that sell the libraries and shut the universities to anyone who can't pay for a key." Laurie Penny.
Posts: 3446 | From: England | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
jlg
What is this place?
Why am I here?
# 98
|
Posted
Four or five x-posts there. Sorry.
Posts: 17391 | From: Just a Town, New Hampshire, USA | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leaf
Shipmate
# 14169
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
These Protestants, always inventing brand-new interpretations of scripture and claiming they're what the Apostles believed, no really, even though there's no evidence for it before its 16th/17th/18th/19th/20th/21st century invention. Sigh.
Hey! Don't incorporate. No one ascribed andreas' positions about Orthodoxy (when he was one) to the rest of the Orthodox.
Posts: 2786 | From: the electrical field | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leaf:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
These Protestants, always inventing brand-new interpretations of scripture and claiming they're what the Apostles believed, no really, even though there's no evidence for it before its 16th/17th/18th/19th/20th/21st century invention. Sigh.
Hey! Don't incorporate. No one ascribed andreas' positions about Orthodoxy (when he was one) to the rest of the Orthodox.
You're right, of course. Mea culpa.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LutheranChik
Shipmate
# 9826
|
Posted
I know this discussion has made me want to crack open a bottle of wine (FERMENTED). Drinks all around...cheers! NJA -- here's some Welch's; better drink it fast, before the yeast beastiess start reproducing.
--------------------
Simul iustus et peccator
http://www.lutheranchiklworddiary.blogspot.com
Posts: 6462 | From: rural Michigan, USA | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
