Ship of Fools: Kerygmania: Fermented or unfermented?

Thread: Kerygmania: Fermented or unfermented? Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=001188

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

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 ]

Posted by Clint Boggis (# 633) on :

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.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

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.

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

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

Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :

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...

Posted by MSHB (# 9228) on :

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).

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

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.

Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on :

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.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

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.

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

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?

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

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

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

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]

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

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

Posted by humblebum (# 4358) on :

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).

Posted by NJA (# 13022) on :

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 ]

Posted by Christian Agnostic (# 14912) on :

Did they have fresh grapes in the spring, ie. during Passover? [Confused]

Posted by Low Treason (# 11924) on :

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.

Posted by humblebum (# 4358) on :

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.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

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.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

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.

Posted by NJA (# 13022) on :

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 ]

Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on :

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]

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)".

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

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?

Posted by 3rdFooter (# 9751) on :

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

Posted by humblebum (# 4358) on :

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?

Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on :

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.

Posted by NJA (# 13022) on :

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.

Posted by NJA (# 13022) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
...Can you point out what these methods were please?

(+ humblebum)

I just did a search and found this.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

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'?

Posted by St. Punk the Pious (# 683) on :

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 ]

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :

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.

Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on :

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.

Posted by NJA (# 13022) on :

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.

Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :

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. ]

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

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 ]

Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on :

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.

Posted by Anyuta (# 14692) on :

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.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

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.

Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on :

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 ]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

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.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

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.

Posted by Wilfried (# 12277) on :

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.

Posted by NJA (# 13022) on :

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?

Posted by NJA (# 13022) on :

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?

Posted by jlg (# 98) on :

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.

Posted by Moth (# 2589) on :

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!

Posted by jlg (# 98) on :

Four or five x-posts there. Sorry.

Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on :

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.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

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.

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :

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.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

I do not know if NJA has ever been in grape-producing areas when the harvest was coming in. New wine is easily available in large pitchers at local restaurants or during fiestas and I can assure you that cool cloudy tart beverage is alcoholic. The proportion varies, but is generally weaker than the regular stuff-- it is consumed in tumblers or pottery cups in Bierzo, where I have run into this phenomenon. Walking through the vineyards, I was more than once summoned to join the workers in a glass of that which was pouring from the tanks, fizzy and thirst-quenching but definitely alcoholic.

Posted by jlg (# 98) on :

[Sorry, I seem doomed to x-post on this thread]

Especially since if you drink it at the wrong time during its unsupervised transition from nice fresh grape juice to rotting grape juice you might have some very unpleasant results in your GI tract. At the least.

Ever had food-poisoning, NJA?

[ 08. June 2010, 18:55: Message edited by: jlg ]

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by NJA:
I've already given reasons why "wine" doesn't necc. have to be alcoholic.

It's just that you won't find anyone outside a narrow group of people desperate to prove the scriptural basis for abstinence who believes a word of it.

There's no record anywhere outside of a few people's imaginations that non-alcoholic wine was ever produced in Israel around Jesus' time, or that the technology was available.

Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on :

quote:
Originally posted by NJA:

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.

And I've given you plenty of reasons why what you keep insisting isn't "fermented wine" could and probably was, based on my practical knowledge of fermentation science and years of playing with yeastie beasties for fun and profit.

Wine and other fermented food products also have many health benefits, from improved digestion, promoting beneficial flora in the digestive tract, and in moderate doses as suggested by Paul and backed by modern scientific studies can reduce stress. But as Paul, and those same modern scientific studies state, drinking alcohol in excess amounts isn't all that good an idea, and can actually exacerbate stress.

I'm certain that's why Paul suggests to Timothy that he should mix a little (not gallons, dude, not to chug the whole skinful, but a *little*) wine with his water.

Does that mean I think everyone should rush out and drink? No, but I sure as shootin' will defend my Gewurztraminer from grabby hands and busy bodies who insist that I can't be a Christian and still drink when it's totally clear that Jesus not only did drink, but had operational knowledge of fermentation based on his Parable of the New Wine!

[ 08. June 2010, 19:11: Message edited by: Spiffy ]

Posted by Trudy Scrumptious (# 5647) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

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.

It is certainly not a spoof, and while I heard many things said about Dr. Bacchiocchi while I was at Andrews U. (a favourite game while waiting in long cafeteria lineups was to rearrange letters on the menu board to spell things like "fried bacchiocchi"), the fact that his name translated to "Bacchus Eyes" was never mentioned.

He was a completely serious, if very conservative, Biblical scholar, whose three main areas of expertise were arguing in favour of the seventh-day Sabbath, against women's ordination, and in favour of the belief that "wine" in the Bible often referred to unfermented grape juice. While I did once take a class from him, I am not a big fan of many of his views, but I was going to come along and provide the link to his book (parent page of the one NJA linked to) for those who are interested in how this line of thought works.

I've never been convinced, myself, although "Jesus drank only grape juice" is a popular SDA belief and certainly what I was taught. In my case, official church teaching was always balanced at home by my sensible SDA parents pointing out things like the extreme unlikelihood of keeping unfermented grape juice around long in pre-refrigeration Mediterranean countries.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by NJA:

quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy:
[qb]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./QB]

Your problem is that you do not believe the Bible - you allow the bosses of your church to edit it for you by making up new meanings for words. Trust the Spirit of God rather than your pastors who are in error on this.

Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :

quote:
Originally posted by NJA:

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.

And why did they need a grape based beverage when they had bad water? You'd think the sugar would be a bacterial paradise far surpassing mere drinking water, but for one little chemical addition...

And do you really think Paul was talking about the vitamins? If you want to make a modern health-wise argument for abstinence, feel free, but don't mask it as a "biblical" argument.

Posted by NJA (# 13022) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
It's just that you won't find anyone outside a narrow group of people desperate to prove the scriptural basis for abstinence who believes a word of it.

The majority don't want to hear it so others don't want to teach it.

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
There's no record anywhere outside of a few people's imaginations that non-alcoholic wine was ever produced in Israel around Jesus' time, or that the technology was available.

The sites I cites give plenty of record.
I have given scriptural reasons and in addition many will testify that since receiving the "new wine" / the new heart of God's Spirit they no longer desire or need alcohol, they have better!

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

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.

At Oktoberfest you can buy new wine: this year's wine, from grapes recently harvested. Yes it's fermented.

Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on :

quote:
Originally posted by NJA:

I have given scriptural reasons and in addition many will testify that since receiving the "new wine" / the new heart of God's Spirit they no longer desire or need alcohol, they have better!

I've also given scriptural citations, and a testimony that a little glass of wine is a great stress reliever for people in high-impact jobs such as myself.

Now, I'm not quite sure how this goes, having only spent a brief time in a church where testimonies were accepted as evidence*--- do we now have a Bible throw-down, or will there be arm wrestling?

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

Just tell me this, NJA. Do you believe that God was present at the Cana marriage feast, not just in the person of Jesus but in the joy and happiness of people celebrating? Whether or not it was grape juice or wine that they were drinking, it surely helped the party along and contributed to the joy. If they didn't need the drink (alcoholic or otherwise) why did Jesus bother to provide more?

Posted by Dal Segno (# 14673) on :

quote:
Originally posted by NJA:

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
It's just that you won't find anyone outside a narrow group of people desperate to prove the scriptural basis for abstinence who believes a word of it.
The majority don't want to hear it so others don't want to teach it.

That is the ultimate unanswerable argument. It also applies to Papal infallibility, the assumption of the BVM, the vital importance of apostolic succession, trans-substantiation, and seventh-day adventism. [Devil]

-DS

[though I think some of those are majority beliefs within the world-wide church]

Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Just tell me this, NJA. Do you believe that God was present at the Cana marriage feast, not just in the person of Jesus but in the joy and happiness of people celebrating? Whether or not it was grape juice or wine that they were drinking, it surely helped the party along and contributed to the joy. If they didn't need the drink (alcoholic or otherwise) why did Jesus bother to provide more?

And where on earth does anyone ever get that happy by drinking simple pasteurized grape juice? "Hey! This is the best grape juice of all! Why did you save it for last?"

Posted by NJA (# 13022) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Just tell me this, NJA. Do you believe that God was present at the Cana marriage feast, not just in the person of Jesus but in the joy and happiness of people celebrating? Whether or not it was grape juice or wine that they were drinking, it surely helped the party along and contributed to the joy. If they didn't need the drink (alcoholic or otherwise) why did Jesus bother to provide more?

God was present at the feast of Belshazzar in Daniel 5, but God does not dwell in people and give them a new heart until they receive His Spirit (Pentecost onward).

Jesus provided more because it is preferred to water.
Water only at a marriage feast is a bit of a downer - they had run out.
The whole thing is of copurse prophetic - 6 earthen vessels is man under sin, changing water into wine is changing a person from natural to Spiritual by the infilling of the Hioly Spirit.

Posted by Spike (# 36) on :

quote:
Originally posted by NJA:
God was present at the feast of Belshazzar in Daniel 5, but God does not dwell in people and give them a new heart until they receive His Spirit (Pentecost onward).

Fair point, but on page 1, you said

quote:
Originally posted by NJA:

Why does a person who has received the Spirit of God need alcohol?

Well, this thread is about whether fermented wine was used at the Last Supper. Last time I checked my Bible, the Last Supper happened before the day of Pentecost.

Posted by tobity (# 15684) on :

the fruit of di-vine is wine
numbs the pain of being alive
gathered in name to proclaim the same...
a toast to death!

Posted by tobity (# 15684) on :

the eucharist...let us give thanks
exit found
proclaim death
his and ours
let us eat drink and be merry
for tomorrow we die!
enter the tomb
be born again!

Posted by humblebum (# 4358) on :

quote:
Originally posted by NJA:
Water only at a marriage feast is a bit of a downer.

Yes. So is unfermented grape juice.
Why exactly would Jesus do that?

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

That sneaky Jesus. He waited until everybody was drunk, and THEN gave them Welch's, so they wouldn't know it was just grape juice.

Posted by the gnome (# 14156) on :

Maybe I'm wrong about this, but doesn't the Gospel carefully avoid saying that the miracle at Cana actually produced wine? Aren't we just told that the people responded to it as if it were wine?

Posted by AristonAstuanax (# 10894) on :

Hahaha. Oh man. As any homebrewer could tell you, it would take a miracle to keep grape juice/wort/must/anything with sugar in it from fermenting. In a way, if Christ really did drink Welch's, it would be proof of His divinity—sugary solutions will grow shit whether you want them to or not. Sometimes, the results ain't pretty (i.e., when you get a bacterial infection—fizzy, tart, literally tastes like vomit without the chunks), but honestly? There's no good reason to believe that people who thought nothing of drinking weak wine, as it was part of life, would think of it as "excess" or "unneeded." Even in Colonial America, hard cider was served to children and drunk by all (see that bit about "pathogens in the water"—Johnny Appleseed wasn't planting those trees to make pies!); once something's fermented, all the sugar has been used—and once the sugar's used, Bad Bugs can't grow in it.

But, let's look at it this way. Time for a bit of interpretation here. What happens in the process of making wine/beer/cider, especially in the eyes of a pre-Louis Pasteur culture? One grows fruit/grain, which, though coming from the earth, cannot grow without the light that descends from Heaven; the fruit is then stripped from that which gave it life, crushed and destroyed—but, a few days later, somehow, in a way beyond all knowledge of the world, what was once dead matter is now alive!

Can anyone think of a better metaphor for the Incarnation, Mission and Passion of Christ than brewing? Somehow, in a way beyond our control, a gift to us is given, one that can give life, joy and hope to those who need it. Though the fruit remains alive but a short time, after its death and return to new life a new and greater gift is ours, one which we could not hope to have on our own.

Thanks be to God.

*Having said all that, I should probably toss in the disclaimer that, as a "good" member of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), I don't usually find wine served at Communion—not, however, because we find any Scriptural reason not to serve it, but because of pastoral reasons (the church I grew up in had a very active AA chapter and, even during weddings, would not allow alcohol on church property) and, well, Welches is cheaper.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

John 2:9-10

[A]nd the master of the banquet tasted the water that had been turned into wine. He did not realize where it had come from, though the servants who had drawn the water knew. Then he called the bridegroom aside and said, "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."

Seems pretty plain to me.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by AristonAstuanax:
Can anyone think of a better metaphor for the Incarnation, Mission and Passion of Christ than brewing?

Baking?

Posted by pjkirk (# 10997) on :

Did brewers and bakers actually think of there being life in fermenting foods/drinks and dough back then?

Any sources would be neat...I'd love to read them, and pass them on to brewer biologists that I know.

Posted by AristonAstuanax (# 10894) on :

MT: seeing as baking's just fermentation on a shorter scale with more solid things (solid beer/liquid bread), I'll grant it to ya.

PJKirk: Okay. No, I'm pretty sure they didn't associate the thing doing the fermentation with a living organism*—but there are plenty of references, even in modern languages (think of French sparkling wines described as "vif"), indicating that they thought of the fermenting, bubbling thing itself as, in some way, alive. Furthermore, there is this prayer that, though of uncertain-to-me temporal provenance (okay, Ecclesiantics geeks, help me here! Who wrote the prayers in the Rituale Romanum, or can we even tell?), does describe "this creature beer" in its opening line.

*What exactly they thought this "Godisgood" was (yes, that was the name given to S. cerveciae), I do not know. Useful sludge that came from . . . well, God?

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by AristonAstuanax:
MT: seeing as baking's just fermentation on a shorter scale with more solid things (solid beer/liquid bread), I'll grant it to ya.

True. I also mentioned it because bread and wine are the elements for Holy Communion. Both are from nature, but are also more than nature, in a sense: both are handiworks of human beings.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

Even if one accepts for the sake of argument that 'new wine' starts out as non-alcoholic, I find it fascinating that anyone wouldn't grasp that 'new wine', over time, turns into 'older wine'.

It's not as if becoming old is some kind of mistake in the process.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by AristonAstuanax:

Can anyone think of a better metaphor for the Incarnation, Mission and Passion of Christ than brewing?

through a different lens, it could be viewed as transfomation. [Biased]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Even if one accepts for the sake of argument that 'new wine' starts out as non-alcoholic, I find it fascinating that anyone wouldn't grasp that 'new wine', over time, turns into 'older wine'.

It's not as if becoming old is some kind of mistake in the process.

And since the grape harvest is in the Fall, and the Passover is in the Spring, it wouldn't be "new wine" any more. Without pasteurization or refrigeration, after 6 months in storage, baby, it's wine wine.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by NJA:
The majority don't want to hear it so others don't want to teach it.

I can't imagine why they wouldn't want to hear it. I would be mildly disappointed to learn I had to give up alcohol, so I accept I have a conflict of interest. But the majority of historians and scholars in the area who aren't christians wouldn't mind either way. They would have no vested interest.

So find one of them who thinks that non-alcoholic wine was the common practice in 1st C Israel.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

Even evidence that it was possible to have unfermented grape juice more than a few hours old would be a big step in making the case. There are some 'historians' and 'archeaologists' who just love to show how the ancients had technology only rediscovered in the last century or two. I'm sure one of them would be upto the challenge.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

Well according to the SDA professor-type you have to put the grapes in pitch, use some vinegar, and maybe do a bit of judicious boiling, and then you can store the grapes whole for a year.

You then squeeze them out when you want grape juice, and apparently there's an apocryphal bit of post-gospel writing that confirms that's what Jesus did for the last supper.

I have the gift of discernment and stick to the plain reading of scripture (using no extra-biblical sources to interpret it), so of course I see right through it all.

Posted by NJA (# 13022) on :

quote:
Originally posted by humblebum:
Yes. So is unfermented grape juice.
Why exactly would Jesus do that?

see my post of 08 June, 2010 14:35

Posted by pjkirk (# 10997) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Well according to the SDA professor-type you have to put the grapes in pitch, use some vinegar, and maybe do a bit of judicious boiling, and then you can store the grapes whole for a year.

You then squeeze them out when you want grape juice, and apparently there's an apocryphal bit of post-gospel writing that confirms that's what Jesus did for the last supper.

I have the gift of discernment and stick to the plain reading of scripture (using no extra-biblical sources to interpret it), so of course I see right through it all.

Boy, that sounds like a hell of a lot of work for an inferior product! [Yipee]

Posted by Deckhand (# 15545) on :

The suggestion that Jesus and his disciples drank only unfermented grape juice reminds me of Kenneth Hare's quatrain:

The Puritan through life’s sweet garden goes

To pluck the thorn and cast away the rose;

And hopes to please, by his peculiar whim,

The God who fashioned it and gave it him.

Isn't wine one of God's good things which he gave us to enjoy? (along with gin, of course, see other threads). When Paul advised us to take a little wine for our stomachs' sake, he surely can't have been recommending unfermented grape juice? Of course alcohol needs to be taken in moderation, along with food, sex, exercise, sleep etc and I understand why the temperance movement grew up when faced with the ravages of excess alcohol. But for those of us who are quite capable of sticking to 'a little', please do not spoil our enjoyment.

[ 09. June 2010, 08:20: Message edited by: Deckhand ]

Posted by humblebum (# 4358) on :

quote:
Originally posted by NJA:

quote:
Originally posted by humblebum:
Yes. So is unfermented grape juice.
Why exactly would Jesus do that?
see my post of 08 June, 2010 14:35

You didn't make a post at 14:35 yesterday, NJA.

If you mean the post at 14:45, you were referring to what Jesus did at the Last Supper, not what he did at the Wedding at Cana.

If you're telling me that he transformed the water into a bland fruit juice in order to symbolise his pure and unfermented blood, to all the assembled wedding guests, that makes no sense at all.

The passage in John 2 tells us that the wedding guests had had a lot to drink. How exactly are they supposed to notice the symbolism of "oh look, Jesus has come up with lots of this fruit juice stuff, that's mysteriously blander than everything we're used to drinking. Clearly it's a symbol of his pure and unspoilt blood, so different from all that sinful fermented stuff we've been drinking for the last couple of days."

It's not even an interpretation that's provided for sober readers of the passage - the likelihood of party-goers "getting it" is non-existent.

Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on :

Hell you don't even need to be a brewer or a 1st century Palestinian to figure this one out. Try opening a plastic bottle of fruit juice, drinking some, and leaving the rest in your bag, forgotten, for a few days. Bottle swells up like a balloon as the thing starts to ferment. It's not pretty.

(When will I learn to remove the stuff from my bag each day?)

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

Actually, you need to get unpreserved stuff to do that experiment. Most stuff in the shops is preserved with sulphur dioxide, and so when it goes fizzy it often not yeast fermentation doing it but other contaminating microbes and the results are neither pretty nor tasty.

If you use the freshly pressed stuff it is yeast fermenting it and you end up with something palatable.

The unpreserved stuff doesn't always last very long in the fridge.

Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on :

OK, fair enough. I'm not an expert.

Posted by uncletoby (# 13067) on :

If Jesus had really tried to foist non-alcoholic wine on a bunch of well-refreshed wedding guests, my guess is that he would have been crucified rather sooner than the gospel accounts suggest.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by uncletoby:
If Jesus had really tried to foist non-alcoholic wine on a bunch of well-refreshed wedding guests, my guess is that he would have been crucified rather sooner than the gospel accounts suggest.

Posted by DonLogan2 (# 15608) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by AristonAstuanax:
Can anyone think of a better metaphor for the Incarnation, Mission and Passion of Christ than brewing?
Baking?

Just keep away from the "Pharisees Yeast®" [Biased]

Posted by Sparrow (# 2458) on :

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.

New wine certainly is alcoholic, as I found out to my cost many years ago when I overdid it at a wine festival in one of the little villages outside Vienna.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Deckhand:
The suggestion that Jesus and his disciples drank only unfermented grape juice reminds me of Kenneth Hare's quatrain:

The Puritan through life’s sweet garden goes
To pluck the thorn and cast away the rose;
And hopes to please, by his peculiar whim,
The God who fashioned it and gave it him.

Unfair to Puritans!

quote:

Let this be our principle, that we err not in the use of the gifts of Providence when we refer them to the end for which their author made and destined them, since he created them for our good, and not for our destruction. No man will keep the true path better than he who shall have this end carefully in view. Now then, if we consider for what end he created food, we shall find that he consulted not only for our necessity, but also for our enjoyment and delight. Thus, in clothing, the end was, in addition to necessity, comeliness and honour; and in herbs, fruits, and trees, besides their various uses, gracefulness of appearance and sweetness of smell.

Were it not so, the Prophet would not enumerate among the mercies of God "wine that maketh glad the heart of man, and oil to make his face to shine," (Ps. civ. 15.)

The Scriptures would not everywhere mention, in commendation of his benignity, that he had given such things to men. The natural qualities of things themselves demonstrate to what end, and how far, they may be lawfully enjoyed. Has the Lord adorned flowers with all the beauty which spontaneously presents itself to the eye, and the sweet odour which delights the sense of smell, and
shall it be unlawful for us to enjoy that beauty and this odour?

What? Has he not so distinguished colours as to make some more agreeable than others? Has he not given qualities to gold and silver, ivory and marble, thereby rendering them precious above other metals or stones? In short, has he not given many things a value without having any necessary use?

(John Calvin, Institutes III.10.2)

Posted by NJA (# 13022) on :

quote:
Originally posted by humblebum:
You didn't make a post at 14:35 yesterday, NJA.

yes I did, here's the relevant text:

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"

Posted by Dal Segno (# 14673) on :

quote:
Originally posted by NJA:
...and in addition many will testify that since receiving the "new wine" / the new heart of God's Spirit they no longer desire or need alcohol, they have better!

I am happy to believe that many people who were addicted to alcohol were freed of this addiction by God's spirit. Such people will, of course, steer clear of alcohol in order not to be tempted back.

However, that does not generalise to all Christians not drinking alcohol. Different folks are tempted in different ways and by different things.

Posted by humblebum (# 4358) on :

Okay - we seem to be in different timezones. (That post is displayed as 13:35 on my browser).

So I think I understand you better now. You're saying that:

- Jesus did transform water into fermented wine at the Wedding at Cana.

(from a later post)
- He did this as a prophetic act, symbolising the transformation from natural to Spiritual by the infilling of the Holy Spirit

(But you also seem to be saying that)
- If the wedding guests had been Spirit-filled believers, they would been expected to refuse this symbol of the infilling of the Holy Spirit, on the basis that it was alcoholic, and therefore unnecessary, and contrary to God's Holy Spirit.

Have I got you right?

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

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 does not say that in the Bible. It does not say, anywhere, that Christians should not drink wine,. It does not say, anywhere, that those with the Spirit of God should not drink wine. You are either making it up or getting it from somewhere else. Where? Its only fair for you to tell us.

quote:

that's why Paul says "be not drunk with wine, which is an excess"

He does say that. Why do you disagree with him?

He says not to get drunk, not to drink an excess of wine. He also tells Timothy to drink more wine. Do you think that Timothy was not a Christian or did not have the Spirit?

I hope not because he was the co-author of some of the inspired Scriptures.

Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :

As far as I'm aware NJA has failed to engage with my post quoting Jesus' words that seem to indicate unambiguously that he was drinking wine because he was in danger of being accused of being a drunkard... (Click on the paper symbol beside the posted at statement to put a post's unique URL into your browser and then copy and paste it into the URL field)

If it's good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me. Or are we to aspire to a higher standard of holiness than that practised by God when here on earth as a man? [Projectile]

Yes of course it can be abused, but the legalism of banning everything that 'could be abused' is one of the worst habits of the church down the years.

Posted by Snags (# 15351) on :

quote:
Dr. Bacchiocchi

Ooh, reading this but too lazy to follow the link, I was thinking "This is all hauntingly familiar, and reminds me of an extended and ultimately fruitless (no pun) debate I had with some bloke 12 years ago. Started on Usenet and went to mail, and he was a Dr S. Bsomebody or other".

In the end I broke off the debate because simply replying "But that's clearly bollocks" to his very long and erudite emails seemed somehwat inappropriate, and I didn't have any other way left to express myself (my failing). He seemed a very nice bloke, just utterly, utterly determined to make everything fit a particular viewpoint. Wish I still had the emails.

FWIW if you want a justification for abstinance I'd have thought that the passages based around everything is permissible but not everything is good, and, don't let your actions in freedom be a stumbling block to others, would carry more weight than frantically trying to say that when it says wine, it doesn't mean wine. But YMMV.

Posted by uncletoby (# 13067) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Snags:
FWIW if you want a justification for abstinance I'd have thought that the passages based around everything is permissible but not everything is good, and, don't let your actions in freedom be a stumbling block to others, would carry more weight than frantically trying to say that when it says wine, it doesn't mean wine. But YMMV.

The trouble is that, for some people at least, justifying their own abstinence is not enough; they want to find a justification for their insistence that everyone else should abstain too, or, better still, find a justification for their belief that anyone who even sometimes feels like drinking wine can't possibly be a Real Spirit-Filled Christian. Hence the exegetical contortions.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by NJA:

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
It's just that you won't find anyone outside a narrow group of people desperate to prove the scriptural basis for abstinence who believes a word of it.
The majority don't want to hear it so others don't want to teach it.

This may well be applicable to your position as well. There is a short, but interesting post on this.

Posted by Carex (# 9643) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
...Without pasteurization or refrigeration, after 6 months in storage, baby, it's wine wine.

Unless it has passed beyond wine to vinegar.

That may have been why new wine was considered better than old: given the difficulties of preventing the introduction of micro-organisms (which makes the grape juice likely to ferment in the first place) it would also be difficult to keep the wine from turning sour after too long in the jar.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

True re. vinegar.

Psalm 104 says God gave us wine to make our hearts glad. Should Christians not have glad hearts? Or should our hearts only be made glad by reading NJA's theology? It doesn't say "pre-Pentecost man".

Also, it is a huge leap from "nobody needs wine" (patently true) to "nobody should drink wine" (much less obvious). True, no Christian needs wine. We don't need clothes, or houses, or cars, or electricity either. You give all those things up, I'll give up my wine. Fair? Fair.

God's love for us is not just about what we need. It's also about God's overflowing, abundant gifts for us, far beyond what we need or deserve. I think the pleasure of sex is one of those overabundant gifts. We could just have a mating instinct, and a once-a-year mating season like most other mammals, and do it out of compulsion, not because it feels good. It needn't feel good at all, let alone be as pleasurable as it actually is (nearly as good as chocolate, some women say).

But it's not about need, it's about God's love for us and Her gifts to us of pleasure and joy. Unless you think yeast was a result of the fall, wine was already presupposed when God saw the world and said that it was good.

Gin, on the other hand, we are more to blame for. It's like the famous mathematician said, God gave us the integers, all the rest is man's fault.

Posted by Sandemaniac (# 12829) on :

quote:
Originally posted by uncletoby:
If Jesus had really tried to foist non-alcoholic wine on a bunch of well-refreshed wedding guests, my guess is that he would have been crucified rather sooner than the gospel accounts suggest.

Worthy, in fact, of the quotes thread...

AG

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Snags:
FWIW if you want a justification for abstinance I'd have thought that the passages based around everything is permissible but not everything is good, and, don't let your actions in freedom be a stumbling block to others, would carry more weight than frantically trying to say that when it says wine, it doesn't mean wine. But YMMV.

Quite. I've always thought that;

quote:
Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day.

would prevent the individual judging others, but last time I quoted this (specifically about the sabbath) I was told that the correct interpretation of the verse is that if we wish to not be judged we need to keep the Sabbath and follow the dietary restrictions. In that way we won't let anyone judge us.

I changed the subject.

Posted by barrea (# 3211) on :

Deuteronomy 14:26
God is telling His people that they may spend the tithe money on whatever their heart requires including wine or strong drink.
That dosn't sugest to me that God disaproves of wine,although I do believe that drunkeness is Wrong. People can abuse anything but that dosn't mean that every thing is wrong.

Posted by barrea (# 3211) on :

Sorry should have said whatever your heart desires.,not requires.

Posted by NJA (# 13022) on :

quote:
Originally posted by barrea:
Deuteronomy 14:26
God is telling His people that they may spend the tithe money on whatever their heart requires including wine or strong drink.
That dosn't sugest to me that God disaproves of wine,although I do believe that drunkeness is Wrong. People can abuse anything but that dosn't mean that every thing is wrong.

I believe that we have to "rightly divide" the word of truth.
God's people now are those that have received His Spirit, they have a "new heart", not the old heart of stone, they are "kings"
"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.
Give strong drink unto him that is ready to perish, and wine unto those that be of heavy hearts. Let him drink, and forget his poverty, and remember his misery no more."
(Proverbs 31:4-7)

The "new wine" is better!

Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :

NJA - still no response to this?

IMHO people who are legalistic about alcohol are condemned by:

quote:
20Since you died with Christ to the basic principles of this world, why, as though you still belonged to it, do you submit to its rules: 21"Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!"? 22These are all destined to perish with use, because they are based on human commands and teachings. 23Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence.

Col 2:20-23

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Proverbs is notoriously unreliable as a guide for action. It repeatedly says the godly will become rich in the riches of this world, which is patently false. I would hardly pit one single verse from Proverbs against the repeated witness of the rest of Scripture.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

I'm not a king or a prince, in any case, so I guess I'm not prohibited from drinking according to Proverbs. I'm a bit heavy of heart now and again, so I might even feel positively encouraged to drink by those verses.

But hang on, maybe we're not talking about alcoholic wine in those verses? How can we tell?

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Proverbs is notoriously unreliable as a guide for action. It repeatedly says the godly will become rich in the riches of this world, which is patently false. I would hardly pit one single verse from Proverbs against the repeated witness of the rest of Scripture.

But it wasn't wine that clouded Solomon's mind -- it was marrying all them furrin wummin, as attested throughout the scriptures...

--Tom Clune

Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :

quote:
Originally posted by NJA:

quote:
Originally posted by barrea:
Deuteronomy 14:26
God is telling His people that they may spend the tithe money on whatever their heart requires including wine or strong drink.
That dosn't sugest to me that God disaproves of wine,although I do believe that drunkeness is Wrong. People can abuse anything but that dosn't mean that every thing is wrong.
I believe that we have to "rightly divide" the word of truth.
God's people now are those that have received His Spirit, they have a "new heart", not the old heart of stone, they are "kings"
"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.
Give strong drink unto him that is ready to perish, and wine unto those that be of heavy hearts. Let him drink, and forget his poverty, and remember his misery no more."
(Proverbs 31:4-7)

The "new wine" is better!

I would guess that the reason kings aren't supposed to drink is the same reason why people driving cars aren't supposed to drink. It's not about status, per se, it's about responsibility.

And what mousethief said about Proverbs in general.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:

quote:
Originally posted by NJA:

quote:
Originally posted by barrea:
Deuteronomy 14:26
God is telling His people that they may spend the tithe money on whatever their heart requires including wine or strong drink.
That dosn't sugest to me that God disaproves of wine,although I do believe that drunkeness is Wrong. People can abuse anything but that dosn't mean that every thing is wrong.
I believe that we have to "rightly divide" the word of truth.
God's people now are those that have received His Spirit, they have a "new heart", not the old heart of stone, they are "kings"
"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.
Give strong drink unto him that is ready to perish, and wine unto those that be of heavy hearts. Let him drink, and forget his poverty, and remember his misery no more."
(Proverbs 31:4-7)

The "new wine" is better!
I would guess that the reason kings aren't supposed to drink is the same reason why people driving cars aren't supposed to drink. It's not about status, per se, it's about responsibility.

Precisely. It's actually written in the passage quoted. It doesn't just say they shouldn't drink, it says WHY they shouldn't drink. In the translation used, the word 'lest'.

And the reason given so obviously relates to the FUNCTION of kings and princes, it takes a major twisting to suggest that we are all, metaphorically, kings and princes. We don't all decide legal disputes.

[ 10. June 2010, 21:46: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on :

quote:
Originally posted by NJA:

quote:
Originally posted by barrea:
Deuteronomy 14:26
God is telling His people that they may spend the tithe money on whatever their heart requires including wine or strong drink.
That dosn't sugest to me that God disaproves of wine,although I do believe that drunkeness is Wrong. People can abuse anything but that dosn't mean that every thing is wrong.
I believe that we have to "rightly divide" the word of truth.
God's people now are those that have received His Spirit, they have a "new heart", not the old heart of stone, they are "kings"

Hm. I'm emphatically not qualified to be a king (as God knit the XX instead of the XY pattern whilst I was in my mother's womb), therefore according to NJA, even though I have a new heart and the Holy Spirit, I get to drink all the wine I want!

Woohoo!

Posted by NJA (# 13022) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
As far as I'm aware NJA has failed to engage with my post quoting Jesus' words that seem to indicate unambiguously that he was drinking wine because he was in danger of being accused of being a drunkard... If it's good enough for Jesus,

Sorry I missed it - Re. Luke 7:31-35 - Jesus drinking does not mean he was drinking alcoholic wine, the fact that certain false accusers who sought to justify their rejection of his message said John the Baptist had a demon because he ate locusts & honey, not bread & wine is hardly reliable reason to think it was.

quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
it's good enough for me. Or are we to aspire to a higher standard of holiness than that practised by God when here on earth as a man? Yes of course it can be abused, but the legalism of banning everything that 'could be abused' is one of the worst habits of the church down the years.

Depends who "we" are.
Look, if I didn't make good use of what all the disciples receivbed at Pentecost I would see banning alcohol as a legalistic restriction, as I have mentioned Proverbs 31 reccommends the use of alcoholic drink to certain people.

But I believe a Christian is not one of those people anymore.
He/she isn't better than the others, he/she just has something better.

Posted by Cottontail (# 12234) on :

What you all need is The Temperance Bible Commentary (1868). It is a surprisingly scholarly piece of Higher Criticism, which at times displays a commendable social awareness. In addition,as befits the Victorians, is thoroughly scientifically grounded - the Temperance lobby have even gone to the trouble of scientific experiment, in which they claim to have preserved unfermented wine for 16 years! (see p. xxxiv) Trust me, the book is a sheer delight! [Cool]

I draw your attention particularly to pages 304ff on the Wedding at Cana. The fact that the wine is not alcoholic seems to rest on a number of premises:

a) who says that fermentation is of the essence of wine anyway?

b) those of you who do, say so because you are enamoured of alcohol in the first place. Yours, sir, is an hermeneutic of intoxication!

c) It is unfitting for the reverential mind to attribute the provision of the means of drunkenness to the Lord.

This one is fascinating:
d) the process of fermentation is a process of decay. Jesus is the Lord of life, whose body did not see corruption. Why would he instigate a process of decay? Fermentation is the opposite of creation!

e) when Solomon condemned wine as a 'mocker', to then produce (and approve of) wine would mean that Jesus had contradicted scripture, which is an impossibility.

So there!

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by Deckhand:
The suggestion that Jesus and his disciples drank only unfermented grape juice reminds me of Kenneth Hare's quatrain:

The Puritan through life’s sweet garden goes
To pluck the thorn and cast away the rose;
And hopes to please, by his peculiar whim,
The God who fashioned it and gave it him.
Unfair to Puritans!

quote:

... Now then, if we consider for what end he created food, we shall find that he consulted not only for our necessity, but also for our enjoyment and delight. Thus, in clothing, the end was, in addition to necessity, comeliness and honour; and in herbs, fruits, and trees, besides their various uses, gracefulness of appearance and sweetness of smell.

Were it not so, the Prophet would not enumerate among the mercies of God "wine that maketh glad the heart of man, and oil to make his face to shine," (Ps. civ. 15.)
...
(John Calvin, Institutes III.10.2)

Calvin was not a Puritan.

But otherwise, agreed. I raise you Institutes III:19.9.
Certainly ivory and gold, and riches, are the good creatures of God, permitted, nay destined, by divine providence for the use of man; nor was it ever forbidden to laugh, or to be full, or to add new to old and hereditary possessions, or to be delighted with music, or to drink wine.

People forget that Calvin was a Frenchman!

Posted by NJA (# 13022) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
...And the reason given so obviously relates to the FUNCTION of kings and princes, it takes a major twisting to suggest that we are all, metaphorically, kings and princes. We don't all decide legal disputes.

"And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,
And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen." (Rev.1:5-6, see also 1 Cor. 4:8)

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by NJA:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
...And the reason given so obviously relates to the FUNCTION of kings and princes, it takes a major twisting to suggest that we are all, metaphorically, kings and princes. We don't all decide legal disputes.
"And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,
And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen." (Rev.1:5-6, see also 1 Cor. 4:8)

Oh my goodness NJA, what a spectacular and totally unconvincing failure to consider context. Kings have multiple functions and the use of it as symbology for our elevated status is hardly in keeping with the literalness of kings needing sober judgment to decide legal disputes.

The Bible also calls me the salt of the earth, does that mean I should be ground up to a fine powder and sprinkled over food?

Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :

"Non-alcoholic wine" is an oxymoron.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

If I am remembering what I learned in 2nd year Hebrew lo these many years ago, the Hebrew word for wine, YYN, means "to effervesce" or "to ferment". It's unlikely it stands for unfermented grape juice.

The Greek word is oinos, used in the LXX to translate the Hebrew YYN. This is what Jesus made at Cana.

Posted by JohnWesleysHorse (# 14975) on :

it was wine, it was fermented, get over it.

no amount of theological twisting can prove that oinos is unfermented grape juice. It just didnt exsist in first century palestine:

Unfermented grape juice is a very difficult thing to keep without the aid of modern antiseptic precautions, and its preservation in the warm and not overly clean conditions of ancient Palestine is impossible (p.3086). - International Standard Bible Encyclopedia

However at our church we use non alocholic wine - as we are next door to a wet hostel and often get rresidents dropping in on a sunday morning

Posted by JohnWesleysHorse (# 14975) on :

B 17 Of bread and wine for the Holy Communion

2. The bread, whether leavened or unleavened, shall be of the best and purest wheat flour that conveniently may be gotten, and the wine the fermented juice of the grape, good and wholesome.

Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :

quote:
Originally posted by NJA:
Re. Luke 7:31-35 - Jesus drinking does not mean he was drinking alcoholic wine, the fact that certain false accusers who sought to justify their rejection of his message said John the Baptist had a demon because he ate locusts & honey, not bread & wine is hardly reliable reason to think it was.

Good try - but the context and structure of what Jesus says really won't carry the interpretation you are offering.

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."

Jesus is talking of the propensity of the world to find fault with the messengers of God.
He comments firstly that they decided John the Baptist is a nutter because he doesn't eat bread or drink wine. But then along comes another prophet - who they promptly disdain BECAUSE HE DOES THOSE THINGS. It makes no sense to suggest that it's a false allegation made against Jesus; the parallelism - remember that such parallelism is a major feature of Hebrew Poetry - only works if Jesus does 'Eat bread and drink wine.' I'll give you slight credit if you are prepared to try to argue that Jesus didn't eat bread either [Killing me]

, but to separate out the two... [Disappointed]

Posted by humblebum (# 4358) on :

quote:
Originally posted by NJA:

quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Or are we to aspire to a higher standard of holiness than that practised by God when here on earth as a man?
Depends who "we" are.

No NJA, it really doesn't.
Are you really trying to say that the sending of the Spirit at Pentecost enables and requires us as Christians to be more holy than the Son of God in his life on earth (pre-Pentecost)? If you're going to stand by that implication, I'm frankly astonished.

quote:
Originally posted by NJA:
Look, if I didn't make good use of what all the disciples received at Pentecost I would see banning alcohol as a legalistic restriction, as I have mentioned Proverbs 31 reccommends the use of alcoholic drink to certain people.
But I believe a Christian is not one of those people anymore.
He/she isn't better than the others, he/she just has something better.

But you're banning Christians from drinking alcohol based on something you're "reading between the lines" of Scripture, when the New Testament makes no such prohibition. (We need to take your word for it that Scripture's qualified commendation of alcohol for some people definitely doesn't apply to Christians).
That certainly smells like legalism to me.

Also, can you respond to my earlier post, where I asked you to clarify your position on the symbolism of the Wedding at Cana?

[ 11. June 2010, 12:06: Message edited by: humblebum ]

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

It's a Friday night and my heart feels really very heavy indeed.

What could I do about that I wonder? Oh look, here's some advice in Proverbs.

Posted by NJA (# 13022) on :

quote:
Originally posted by humblebum:
No NJA, it really doesn't.
Are you really trying to say that the sending of the Spirit at Pentecost enables and requires us as Christians to be more holy than the Son of God in his life on earth (pre-Pentecost)?

You really aren't listening, I never said Jesus drank alcohol, (so we would be more holy by not doing so).

Alcohol is a patch for the weakness and failings of the "old life" once you get the new (and live it) you really don't need alcohol and after a while you find you really don't want it!

quote:
Originally posted by humblebum:
you're banning Christians from drinking alcohol based on something you're "reading between the lines" of Scripture, when the New Testament makes no such prohibition. (We need to take your word for it that Scripture's qualified commendation of alcohol for some people definitely doesn't apply to Christians).
That certainly smells like legalism to me.

If you have the Spirit of the living God you have a liberty, a joy and a peace and a power others just cannot understand... those without feel a need for alcohol and they cannot understand you not wanting it, then they accuse you of "legalism".

quote:
Originally posted by humblebum:
Also, can you respond to my earlier post, where I asked you to clarify your position on the symbolism of the Wedding at Cana?

The people at that wedding were not regenerate, so Jesus maty well have created alcoholic wine, I don't know, maybe they considered the un-fermented wine he created better than the fermented stuff they had been drinking before ... but the changing of water into something considered superior is prphetic of how people are tranmsformed by the infilling of God's Spirit.

6 earthen vessels represents man under sin.

Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on :

quote:
Originally posted by NJA:

6 earthen vessels represents man under sin.

You've said this before, but haven't cited whom you're quoting. I'm kind of interested.

quote:
Originally posted by NJA:

quote:
Originally posted by humblebum:
No NJA, it really doesn't.
Are you really trying to say that the sending of the Spirit at Pentecost enables and requires us as Christians to be more holy than the Son of God in his life on earth (pre-Pentecost)?
You really aren't listening, I never said Jesus drank alcohol, (so we would be more holy by not doing so).

Alcohol is a patch for the weakness and failings of the "old life" once you get the new (and live it) you really don't need alcohol and after a while you find you really don't want it!

Are you a reformed drinker? Have you ever had alcohol? Have you ever worked with alcoholics, or Alcoholics Anonymous?

Have you ever even had a drink at all?

[ 12. June 2010, 12:57: Message edited by: Spiffy ]

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :

NJA reminds me of the gentleman who, many years ago when I was slumming as a clerk in a Christian bookstore (interesting experience, that), came in with a pile of his self-published books touting a "Bible-based diet." His thesis was that only foods mentioned in the Bible were wholesome for Real Christians[tm] to eat. Which of course meant that any food plant originating in the New World, or discovered/developed after the writing of the biblical texts, or that simply wasn't mentioned explicitly in Scripture, was verboten to Real Christians.[tm] Except that this guy was also a vegan -- this despite numerous morally neutral or even approving references to God's people, even our Lord himself, availing themselves of or speaking positively of milk products, fish, locusts, even one famous "fatted calf." When asked about this discrepancy by the bookstore owner, Diet Guy responded with a remarkably creative attempt, very similar to NJA's, to argue that these texts really meant something completely different than meat/milk-products ingesting.

My advice to NJA, channeling Gordon Ramsey: Just cut the bullshit. As numerous others have already noted, you can build a convincing ethical case for contemporary abstinence based upon a combination of biblical injunctions against causing a brother/sister to stumble combined with what we now know about the physiological effects of problem drinking and the disease process of alcoholism. If you argue from that angle, people may disagree on remaining completely alcohol-free, but they'll at least respect the thought behind your opinion. But screwing around with Scripture in order to align it with a particular mystic-crystal-revelation-based 19th-century Am-Brit sectarian scrupulosity is simply being dishonest. It's like PETA's "Jesus Was a Vegetarian." No, he wasn't; he also wasn't a teetotaler; get over it.

Posted by Lothiriel (# 15561) on :

NJA, in saying this:

quote:
and in addition many will testify that since receiving the "new wine" / the new heart of God's Spirit they no longer desire or need alcohol, they have better!

you're assuming that anyone who drinks does so merely to get a buzz. While this may be true for some, it is not a universal truth that you can use to support the notion that no Christian filled with the Holy Spirit should drink.

Most days I have wine with dinner. I don't drink it to forget my troubles or soothe my emotions, but because, for example, baco noir is fantastic with a grilled steak. I deliberately stop drinking before I get buzzed (two smallish glasses is my limit), because I don't like that feeling at all.

So I'm not drinking to fill a hole in my life where the Holy Spirit should be (because She's there already, and, you're right, nothing can compare to that), but because wine tastes good.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by NJA:
Alcohol is a patch for the weakness and failings of the "old life"

This is wholly unbiblical.

quote:
If you have the Spirit of the living God you have a liberty, a joy and a peace and a power others just cannot understand...

Denial. It's not just a river in Egypt.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by NJA:
Jesus maty

Ah-oh! We've got Coiled Spring back with us. [Disappointed]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

No no. He spelled it "matey" and it only applied to bishops.

Posted by NJA (# 13022) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy:
You've said this before, but haven't cited whom you're quoting. I'm kind of interested.

Many people see that certain numbers represent a theme:
7 - the seal of God
12 - God's govebrnment
13 - rebellion
666 - the number of a man who is the antithesis of what God wants

E W Bullinger in Number in Scripture is a good source of more work on this subject.

quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy:
Are you a reformed drinker? Have you ever had alcohol? Have you ever worked with alcoholics, or Alcoholics Anonymous?

Have you ever even had a drink at all?

No, yes, yes, no, yes.

Posted by NJA (# 13022) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
It does not say, anywhere, that Christians should not drink wine,... Where? Its only fair for you to tell us.

I have told you, you havn't been willing or able to "hear" it.

Proverbs 31 is clear when you beleive that Christians (people that have received God's Spirit) are Kings.
Failure to accept this and just take the verses as referring to natutral kings and add that it should apply to motorists is just bad hermaneutics .. like Nicodemus asking if he needs to re-enter the womb to be born again.

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
that's why Paul says "be not drunk with wine, which is an excess" ...He does say that. Why do you disagree with him?

I don't - alcoholic wine, for the Christian is an excess.

You may say "I can drink in moderation without getting "drunk"", but at will still affect your judgement, and your testimony.
By testimony I mean that God's people are supposed to be changed, set free, have a source of peace and joy that others don't have - which is manifestly true and demonstrated by every person who walks in "newness of life"

Time and again the NT speaks of being sober:

1Thess. 5:6: Therefore let us not sleep, as do others; but let us watch and be sober.

1Peter 1:13: Wherefore gird up the loins of your mind, be sober

My e-sword disctionary says for "sober":
to abstain from wine (keep sober), that is, (figuratively) be discreet.

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
He says not to get drunk, not to drink an excess of wine. He also tells Timothy to drink more wine.

You seem determined to believe that "wine" must be alcoholic, in spite of all I have said since the begining.

Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :

NJA: You seem determined to think that "wine" can possibly not alcoholic, despite all that has been said from the beginning of this thread, that it's physically impossible without pasteurization, which was developed in the 19th century AD, not the 1st.

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

It's rather heartening that liberals aren't the only ones capable of being accused of "twisting scripture" to make their own agenda. [Snigger]

Come on, NJA. There are lots of prudent reasons not to drink alcohol in this day and age. It's not a bad thing that your church is advocating sobriety. But a Bible ban on drinking alcohol just isn't one of those reasons, and the delusional nature of the Biblical "proofs" only weakens the case.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

An underlying question asked occasionally on this thread is "why does a person who has received the spirit of God need alcohol?"

That seems to make the intriguing assumption that the Spirit of God and alcohol are both addressing the same need. If that were true I could maybe understand the argument: "alcohol was a weak way of being filled with spirit, we now have a more complete and satisfying way so why revert to the lesser way?"

If alcohol is being used as an attempt to fill a need only God can fill, then the argument makes sense. And perhaps some alcohol abusers use it that way. But I don't think most people who enjoy a small glass of wine at a meal are using alcohol that way.

There are good reasons for some to always and most to sometimes avoid alcohol, or any other optional aspect of life.

The people I know personally who are opposed to all alcohol beverages are reacting to the severe and/or persistent damage caused by abuse of alcohol in their family; they are not seeking to deny any fun in life.

Alcohol abuse is destructive. One way to ban that particular destruction is to ban alcohol. But it cannot be banned because it is too natural, birds get drink on grapes fermenting on the vine. parrots cedar waxwings

It can be really hard to accept that a substance or activity that has caused great harm to you or your family has innocent uses, too. One part of the description of the fruit of the spirit is moderation, that is something many have trouble with, in alcohol, sugar, and many other aspects of life.

Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on :

Wait, wait... so on this thread, mousethief is appealing to the plain meaning of Scripture, while NJA is arguing from his tradition? [Eek!]

I need a drink.

Posted by Timothy the Obscure (# 292) on :

Make mine a double. [Killing me]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

[Killing me]

Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
Make mine a double.

Tempting as it is to indulge in mocking NJA, it will merely encourage him in his beliefs as he will perceive it as persecution. I have some, limited, sympathy for his position in terms of attitude to alcohol; it's one that we need to be conscious of as a challenge to our attitude to it. However this doesn't justify the fatuous misinterpretation of the biblical material that he and other teetotallers have demonstrated in the last 150 year since the idea emerged as a possibility. It's interesting to note that the 19th century Anglo-American evangelicals were responsible for any number of historically unprecedented biblical interpretations - the Rapture and the abandonment of the correlation between church leadership and presiding at communion being two others that spring to mind, and perhaps Mormonism is an outcome of the same disease.

And yes, again, NJA, you've ignored my challenge to your interpretation; I find this unhealthy - if we are to take the bible seriously, we need to work hard at proper exegesis, not allowing the doctrines of our 'denomination' to determine what we read.

Posted by JFBEagle (# 10763) on :

quote:
Originally posted by NJA:

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.

If you press a red grape you get white juice the skin colouring is not soluble on the syrup.
However, if you start the fermentation on the red skins the resulting alcohol leeches out the colour and you get red wine.
So to push the wine / blood analogy there must be (or have been) at least some alcohol in any red grape juice.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by NJA:
Proverbs 31 is clear when you beleive that Christians (people that have received God's Spirit) are Kings.
{snip}
Time and again the NT speaks of being sober:

1Thess. 5:6: Therefore let us not sleep, as do others; but let us watch and be sober.

1Peter 1:13: Wherefore gird up the loins of your mind, be sober

My e-sword disctionary says for "sober":
to abstain from wine (keep sober), that is, (figuratively) be discreet.

I have just looked up 'sober' in the Oxford English Dictionary. The original meaning is 'temperate'. The quotations with this meaning pre-date the King James translation. The earliest citation of the meaning 'not intoxicated' is dated after the King James translation was made. Therefore the quotes you give do not refer to abstinence from alcohol.

Moo

Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :

Superb analysis Moo, thank you [Overused]

Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:

quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
Make mine a double.
Tempting as it is to indulge in mocking NJA...

It. Was. A. Joke. Referring to the confusion caused by unexpectedly switched hermeneutics. Now I'm tempted to say "humour-impaired", but you know, can't say "impaired"... [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leaf:

quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:

quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
Make mine a double.
Tempting as it is to indulge in mocking NJA...
It. Was. A. Joke. Referring to the confusion caused by unexpectedly switched hermeneutics. Now I'm tempted to say "humour-impaired", but you know, can't say "impaired"...

Yes I laughed. But then it came back and worried at me; there is an issue about 'mocking' - when is it a legitimate joke, and when is a form of bullying? Irishmen and Jews are off limits these days, but Evangelicals and Americans are usually regarded as fair game. Remember 'It was only a joke' is the traditional cry of the bully in the playground.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:

quote:
Originally posted by Leaf:

quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:

quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
Make mine a double.
Tempting as it is to indulge in mocking NJA...
It. Was. A. Joke. Referring to the confusion caused by unexpectedly switched hermeneutics. Now I'm tempted to say "humour-impaired", but you know, can't say "impaired"...
Yes I laughed. But then it came back and worried at me; there is an issue about 'mocking' - when is it a legitimate joke, and when is a form of bullying? Irishmen and Jews are off limits these days, but Evangelicals and Americans are usually regarded as fair game. Remember 'It was only a joke' is the traditional cry of the bully in the playground.

My take on such things is that when you make fun of the better off or more powerful party, it's a joke. When you do so about any currently or historically disadvantaged group it's bullying.

My church is Charismatic-cum-Evo and we do have a few bleeding heart "I suffer for my faith" Evo's, whom I remind that they should so full of Grace that ridicule shouldn't matter. Sticks and stone, etc.

Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on :

Ender's Shadow, I forgot the following rider on my post:

*The Management does not endorse the consumption of alcohol as a coping mechanism for intellectual, psychological, social, emotional, physical or spiritual problems.

Sheesh.

Are you seriously - or even passive-aggressively - suggesting that my humourous comment, directed at myself I might add, in some form constitutes bullying? Contact a Host or take it to Hell.

Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on :

*"Sheesh" is intended as an expression of exasperation, and in no way implies or endorses disrespect for OLASJC.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leaf:
Wait, wait... so on this thread, mousethief is appealing to the plain meaning of Scripture, while NJA is arguing from his tradition?

I need a drink.

Well, NJA's arguments here, and on other threads, are a lot like those of some Orthodox posters.

He's coming from a tradition that teaches that the saved will inevitably exhibit certain fruits of the Spirit. I'm not sure which ones he has in mind but I suspect that the list would include speaking in tongues and being a member of the same denomination as him (which is likely to think of itself as not a denomination at all but merely the church, possibly even the One True Church)

So from his point of view, so-called Christians who do not exhibit those fruits are no real Christians at all, unsaved, and probably bound for Hell.

Being a nice guy he wants to save us from that fate. But he's not stupid, he knows that we are unlikely to respond well to outright claims that we are all doomed. So he is conducting a campaign of evangelism here under the guise of asking rhetorical questions, in the belief that when we answer them correctly they will lead us to the truth of his doctrine. As I said, exactly like certain Orthodox shipmates in the past.

But his problem is that the doctrines of his church are not based on the plain words of scripture but on the preaching and prophecy of supposedly spirit-filled leaders who can't really be called in evidence here because the rest of us, who he would think of as unregenerate and unspiritual, will insist on not believing wehat they say.

The inexorable logic of this (from his point of view) is that people who want to be Christians ought not to bother with trying to read the Word of God for themselves, but rather should put themselves in subjection to a living saint who can "rightly divide" the word of truth for them.

Posted by MSHB (# 9228) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
No no. He spelled it "matey" and it only applied to bishops.

But Mousethief, according to 1 Peter 2:25, Jesus is a Bishop (KJV): "For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls."

Posted by humblebum (# 4358) on :

quote:
Originally posted by NJA:
Alcohol is a patch for the weakness and failings of the "old life" once you get the new (and live it) you really don't need alcohol and after a while you find you really don't want it!

No, I can say from experience that this is not necessarily the case.

I have known the transformative power and indwelling of God's Holy Spirit in my life for many years now, praise God. And just yesterday, when I got home from church by myself, rather than making myself beans on toast, I cooked myself a lamb steak in garlic and rosemary, served it with some mashed potatoes, and cherry tomatoes roasted with garlic and balsamic vinger, and served it with a glass of chilled white wine. As I sat down to eat, I paused for some moments of thankfulness to God for his good gifts to me, which I knew I could appreciate even without the opportunity of company for Sunday lunch. The white wine was no less enjoyable to me than the steak or the roast vegetables.

(I realise that you may be trying to imply that people who do enjoy alcoholic drinks in either moderation or excess must not REALLY know the Holy Spirit, or be a proper Christian, but I will do my best to ignore this).

quote:
Originally posted by NJA:
Proverbs 31 is clear when you beleive that Christians (people that have received God's Spirit) are Kings.
Failure to accept this and just take the verses as referring to natutral kings and add that it should apply to motorists is just bad hermaneutics .. like Nicodemus asking if he needs to re-enter the womb to be born again.

This post is so discouraging. [Disappointed]

The only way that Proverbs 31 can mean what you clearly want it to mean is if Christians are LITERALLY kings. Christians do not necssarily have ongoing responsibility for the government of a country, which they clearly would if they were kings. To accuse people of bad hermeneutics when they don't "get" your really non-obvious reading of Scripture is just ridiculous - it really helps no-one, least of all yourself.

If your interpretation of this passage is so clear, then why is this connection not spelt out in the New Testament (when it really ought to be if you're right)? e.g. "but now that you have received God's Spirit, it is not for you to drink alcohol, even in moderation"

(It is getting to the stage where I'm despairing of useful discussion coming out of this thread. I'd be inclined to agree with Ender's Shadow on this - if we simply make fun of NJA's untenable position, then the persecution mentality will quite likely set in, and convince him that he must be right. It might be good fun, with little offense meant, but I don't think it's what Purgatory discussions are for).

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by humblebum:
if we simply make fun of NJA's untenable position, then the persecution mentality will quite likely set in, and convince him that he must be right.

Unfortunately I think the same will happen if we soberly disagree with forceful argument. He's convinced he is right and I doubt anything will change that. The only justification I can see for continuing to post on this thread is that there's some mild interest in understanding how the argument works. The belief that we might save NJA from his untenable position is as hopeless a motive as his belief that he might convert us to his brand of christianity.

Posted by humblebum (# 4358) on :

Fair point, mdijon.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

And, if NJA is still reading - and this is a serious point though maybe a kerygmatic one - taking isolated bits of the Bible that give advice to kings and applying them arbitrarily to Christians because we are a "royal priesthood" is a pretty odd way to read the Bible. 1 Samuel 8 says a lot about how kings behave - do you recommend that for Christians?

Who do you think wrote Proverbs 31? Who were they talking to at the time? What did the original hearers or readers get out of it?

Before you can make sense of a Bible story or teaching (or any other story or teaching for that matter) you have to know who is talking and who they are talking to. This is practically "Literal Interpretation of the Bible 101" as Americans might say.

The Bible says "there is no God" (shock! horror!). It does. In fact it says it at least twice, probably more often.

That whole "writings" section of the Old Testament is in different voices. You simply can't take arbitrary verses from Proverbs or Psalmns or Job and assume they are God's word to us, or about us, any more than you can take the words of a Babylonian king or Balaam son of Beor from the historical books and assume they are God's word to us. Some of the passages are arguments - almost all of Job is. They can't all be right at the same time.

A strictly literal inrterpretation of the Bible would recognise that some of it is God's direct word to the original hearers or readers - the "Thus says the LORD" passages in the prophets, Jesus's teaching in the Gospels (which is why some Bibles used to print it in red), inspired teaching in the epistles and so on - but other parts of it are accurate reporting of what other people said. It is God's Word in the sense that God has miraculously caused it to be written down accurately. The Bible is the book God wants us to have.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:
Originally posted by humblebum:
if we simply make fun of NJA's untenable position, then the persecution mentality will quite likely set in, and convince him that he must be right.
Unfortunately I think the same will happen if we soberly disagree with forceful argument. He's convinced he is right and I doubt anything will change that. The only justification I can see for continuing to post on this thread is that there's some mild interest in understanding how the argument works. The belief that we might save NJA from his untenable position is as hopeless a motive as his belief that he might convert us to his brand of christianity.

This is true of every thread NJA starts.

Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Unfortunately I think the same will happen if we soberly disagree with forceful argument. He's convinced he is right and I doubt anything will change that. The only justification I can see for continuing to post on this thread is that there's some mild interest in understanding how the argument works. The belief that we might save NJA from his untenable position is as hopeless a motive as his belief that he might convert us to his brand of christianity.

I suspect you're right; however as someone who comes from a position close to his, it's important to me to work out very clearly why he's wrong, and I do find what he says challenging at times. But yes, I suspect we have little chance of really changing him; it's just sad to see such a lack of engagement with the text in someone who claims to be an Evangelical.

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

I'm not sure why we should want to change him, even if his position seems strange and off the charts. I haven't seen a lot of people here doing a lot of changing over the years. Some, yes, some even "converting" to other churches and even out of Christianity or Theism altogether. Mostly I've seen people learning something of why other people think as they do, and then perhaps nudging them a few points over in certain areas. Or being nudged in turn.

Personally, one thing I've changed in because of Ship discussions is in thinking about the Trinity too modally. But I don't think I'm going to quit having the occasional glass of wine because NJA has woven a theological construct of disparate, unrelated Bible verses. But he's free to tee-total, if he likes, more health to him.

Posted by Timothy the Obscure (# 292) on :

Speaking strictly for myself (following on Leaf), the humor came from the fact that NJA and others of his inclination usually argue that the "plain sense" of scripture is obvious to any reasonable person. To see him resorting to extreme symbolic exegesis (or eisegesis, actually) to get the desired result was amusing. Because that's exactly what conservatives routinely accuse liberals of doing. I wasn't involved in the discussion, but I was enjoying the spectacle.

Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on :

Lyda*Rose,

I think you are right and have the right attitude.

I think it was fermented. Some don't.

I think that alcohol is bad for some people.
My mother-in-law thought I was likely to turn into an alcoholic and it took 20 years of not becoming one to convince her otherwise. She came from a culture which saw the evils of alcohol, and I came from one which saw the joys of it. We did not let it become a family split. It's not a big spiritual deal.

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
Speaking strictly for myself (following on Leaf), the humor came from the fact that NJA and others of his inclination usually argue that the "plain sense" of scripture is obvious to any reasonable person. To see him resorting to extreme symbolic exegesis (or eisegesis, actually) to get the desired result was amusing. Because that's exactly what conservatives routinely accuse liberals of doing. I wasn't involved in the discussion, but I was enjoying the spectacle.

I saw the irony in that, too. Bless his heart.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
But he's free to tee-total, if he likes, more health to him.

Of course. I don't think anyone felt strongly they needed to persuade him to have a drink. On the other hand he could do with understanding that that's not a biblical position and not judging the Christianity of others on the basis that they do drink.

But like I say, that's not going to happen. Well, not as a consequence my posting on a thread anyway.

Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :

For those who extol abstinence on scriptural grounds, surely the wedding at Cana must be a terrible embarrassment?

Unlike our modern day truncated affairs, it would probably have lasted about a week and the guests would have been extrememly merry given how much alcohol Jesus donated.

I have also heard it said that one reason that the apostles were so tiried in Gethsemane was the sheer amount they drank at the passover.

Posted by humblebum (# 4358) on :

Scroll up the thread for more info Sebby.

NJA's take on the Wedding at Cana is that it didn't really matter that the guests were celebrating with alcohol, since they weren't "Spirit-filled Believers" (so to speak).

Jesus might have even given them more alcoholic wine - with a clear conscience as well, because he hadn't gotten round to giving them the Holy Spirit, so imbibing one of the next best things wasn't so bad.

(I don't think this is the standard Christian teetotaller viewpoint, but it is one view).

---
I'd also like make it clear that I wasn't trying to convince NJA to abandon abstinence. (And incidentally NJA - no, no-one here is saying that not drinking alcohol makes you a legalist).

But I had hoped that we could help him reflect on whether his "no alcohol for Christians" position had a particularly solid basis in Scripture. (Which is not in any way to say that a position of "no alcohol for me" is a bad one). Like Ender's Shadow said, such a lack of engagement with the text is discouraging for a self-professed Evangelical.

[edited for speeling - I must lay off the sauce while posting [Biased]

]

[ 16. June 2010, 13:12: Message edited by: humblebum ]

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by humblebum:
Scroll up the thread for more info Sebby.

NJA's take on the Wedding at Cana is that it didn't really matter that the guests were celebrating with alcohol, since they weren't "Spirit-filled Believers" (so to speak).

Jesus might have even given them more alcoholic wine - with a clear conscience as well, because he hadn't gotten round to giving them the Holy Spirit, so imbibing one of the next best things wasn't so bad.

(I don't think this is the standard Christian teetotaller viewpoint, but it is one view).

The really fascinating implication of this point of view is that Jesus gave the wine.

So Jesus gave them a bad thing... except somehow it wasn't bad for them because they weren't Christians... so while it's 'bad' it can't be SINFUL, because otherwise that would mean that some things are only sinful for saved people, for the unsaved it's not actually a sin (and therefore something they don't need saving from)... and also, it would have meant Jesus used a miracle to create a temptation...

Frankly, I'm surprised the entire universe didn't just explode.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

So Jesus gave them a bad thing... except somehow it wasn't bad for them because they weren't Christians... so while it's 'bad' it can't be SINFUL, because otherwise that would mean that some things are only sinful for saved people, for the unsaved it's not actually a sin (and therefore something they don't need saving from)... and also, it would have meant Jesus used a miracle to create a temptation...

No, not at all. I think you have missed his entire point.

As an analogy there is nothing wrong with giving medicine to sick people, but its pointless or harmful giving it to well people.

NJA's position is that being a Christian makes you spiritually "well" so you don't need the consolations of this world any more, because the Holy Spirit is so much better.

The obvious implication of this is that so-called Christians who choose to drink alcohol are not really Christians at all because if they were they wouldn't want to. NJA has not gone that far on this thread but I suspect he might believe it and it looks very likely that his chuirch might teach it.

I can;t think why the same logic wouldn't apply to Christians who use other worldly or fleshly pleasures. Cuddling a teddy bear? Eating expensive food? Watching TV (apart perhaps from news)? Reading novels? Masturbation? Dancing? Smoking? Gambling? Horseracing? Marmalade on toast? Tea? Chocolate? Fashionable clothes? Marriage? Sex other than for procreation? Cuddles without sex? Music other than church music? Illegal drugs? Sport? Arguing with strangers online? Growing flowers rather than food in your garden?

Posted by Christian Agnostic (# 14912) on :

"Thou knowest, Lord, the secrets of our hearts." I really can't say what is going on in NJA's head and heart. I don't believe he's trinitarian, so I tend to think that he's barely, if at all, a part of the Body of Christ, but my hope is that the Lord Jesus will forgive him. We should all pray for him.

The trouble with pentecostalism is that the theology is always tied up with feelings, and feelings of joy, happiness etc. are proof of the indwelling of the Spirit. If one is not experiencing good feelings, then one is not possesing the Holy Spirit but. rather, in thrall to Satan.

This sort of circular logic leads to all sorts of legalistic thinking. There are those who believe insurance is evil, as a "true" Christian need only trust God. The same holds true for those who shun medical treatment. To me, this reeks of "Works Righteousness".

Two questions I'd like to ask NJA:

1. Do you get treated by medical doctors when you are ill?

2. From the time you received the Holy Spirit, have you ever sinned?

Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :

quote:
Originally Posted by ken:
I can;t think why the same logic wouldn't apply to Christians who use other worldly or fleshly pleasures. Cuddling a teddy bear? Eating expensive food? Watching TV (apart perhaps from news)? Reading novels? Masturbation? Dancing? Smoking? Gambling? Horseracing? Marmalade on toast? Tea? Chocolate? Fashionable clothes? Marriage? Sex other than for procreation? Cuddles without sex? Music other than church music? Illegal drugs? Sport? Arguing with strangers online? Growing flowers rather than food in your garden?

Freakin' stoics ruined Christianity through the church fathers...

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Christian Agnostic:
I really can't say what is going on in NJA's head and heart. I don't believe he's trinitarian, so I tend to think that he's barely, if at all, a part of the Body of Christ,

Is that meant to be an ironic reflection of his argument? Because I don't find it written anywhere that you get saved for understanding trinitarian theology. Or for subscribing to any doctrine at all. That's just replacing one work with another.

(Agreement with the rest of your post of course)

Posted by Christian Agnostic (# 14912) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by Christian Agnostic:
I really can't say what is going on in NJA's head and heart. I don't believe he's trinitarian, so I tend to think that he's barely, if at all, a part of the Body of Christ,
Is that meant to be an ironic reflection of his argument? Because I don't find it written anywhere that you get saved for understanding trinitarian theology. Or for subscribing to any doctrine at all. That's just replacing one work with another.

(Agreement with the rest of your post of course)

Maybe I should change my screen name to Jonathan Swift [Snigger]

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

I think NJA has left this thread. His last post was on Saturday, June 12.

Moo

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

He left a marvellous legacy.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
I think NJA has left this thread. His last post was on Saturday, June 12.

Moo

Probably gone to the pub.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
I think NJA has left this thread. His last post was on Saturday, June 12.

Moo
Probably gone to the pub.

carrying a large placard with a badly-spelled quotation from scripture in wobbly capital letters.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

Such as 'Ho, come to the waters, everyone who thirsts' with the spelling as 'Hoe'.

Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :

Having read most of pages 1 and 2 and bits of three I'm going risk repeating what someone else may have already said. 1 Cor 11.17-22 says,

quote:
17In the following directives I have no praise for you, for your meetings do more harm than good. 18In the first place, I hear that when you come together as a church, there are divisions among you, and to some extent I believe it. 19No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God's approval. 20When you come together, it is not the Lord's Supper you eat, 21for as you eat, each of you goes ahead without waiting for anybody else. One remains hungry, another gets drunk. 22Don't you have homes to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you for this? Certainly not!

So, NJA, two questions:

1) What were people getting drunk on at these suppers (v.20-21)?
2) What sort of drink is Paul suggesting one may drink at home (v.22)?

It seems to me that Paul is saying 1) that drunkenness at church meetings through excess consumption of alcoholic wine invalidates the eucharist at those meetings. And 2) that the drinking of wine (presumably alcoholic on the basis of v.21) is an acceptable practice in the home.

How do you read the text?

Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :

Excellent Numpty - a scriptural argument that is new, at least to me. May I suggest you PM NJA and see if you can encourage him to show that he really is an Evangelical?

Posted by NJA (# 13022) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
...
1) What were people getting drunk on at these suppers (v.20-21)?
2) What sort of drink is Paul suggesting one may drink at home (v.22)?

It seems to me that Paul is saying 1) that drunkenness at church meetings through excess consumption of alcoholic wine invalidates the eucharist at those meetings. And 2) that the drinking of wine (presumably alcoholic on the basis of v.21) is an acceptable practice in the home.

How do you read the text?

(I've been busy at a new job & too tired to do much at home)

Good point Numpty, I read it that they were getting drunk on alcohilic wine in meetings and Paul is saying if you want to get drunk, do it at home.

I'd say Paul is allowing them to drink alcohol at home, not condoning or encouraging it. Before you think that that contradicts my belief that Christians shouldn't drink any alcohol please cosider the following:

(1) "No man also having drunk old wine straightway desireth new: for he saith, The old is better." (Luke 5:39)

- it takes a while to appreciate that the "new" is better.

(2) The Corinthians were still immature Christians, in some ways worse than the heathen.
Paul knew they wouldn't be able to accept the saying "no alcohol" so he helps them in other areas so that they will see for themselves.

In our church we often find this. People take a whole to see that they no longer have any need for alcohol, nicotine or their old religious ideas & traditions. By focusing on the new rather than just saying "don't do x, y z" we help them see the new Life and don't need us to tell them not to.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

It seems to me, NJA, that you're not too far from the position that the bible doesn't in fact teach abstinence all that clearly, because it would have been too tough in that social/cultural context. But we can take it now.

I wonder what else there might be in the bible that isn't all that clear, but we can deal with now?

Quite exciting, this progressive revelation and re-interpretation stuff, isn't.

Liberating really. Some would say intoxicatingly so.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by NJA:
In our church we often find this. People take a whole to see that they no longer have any need for alcohol, nicotine or their old religious ideas & traditions. By focusing on the new rather than just saying "don't do x, y z" we help them see the new Life and don't need us to tell them not to.

(emphasis added) This sounds frighteningly like the modus operandi of a wife-beater, or a cult. Separate you from all your old way of life and program you with ours. Do they not need their old friends, either?

Posted by Silver Faux (# 8783) on :

Or, at the very least, do they not need some very good, old French Brandy?

Posted by NJA (# 13022) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
.. or their old religious ideas & traditions. ..This sounds frighteningly like the modus operandi of a wife-beater, or a cult. Separate you from all your old way of life and program you with ours. Do they not need their old friends, either?

Only to your way of thinking.
Separation is sometimes essential.

Failure to recognise the power of ingrained beliefs and habits may mean that you yourself are still under their influence.

Revelation does warn about people who are "drunk" on the wine of the spiritual fornication of false Christianity. Like literal wine it obscures the judgement & gives people a false sense of security.

Posted by MSHB (# 9228) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
Having read most of pages 1 and 2 and bits of three I'm going risk repeating what someone else may have already said. 1 Cor 11.17-22 says,

quote:
17In the following directives I have no praise for you, for your meetings do more harm than good. 18In the first place, I hear that when you come together as a church, there are divisions among you, and to some extent I believe it. 19No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God's approval. 20When you come together, it is not the Lord's Supper you eat, 21for as you eat, each of you goes ahead without waiting for anybody else. One remains hungry, another gets drunk. 22Don't you have homes to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you for this? Certainly not!
So, NJA, two questions:

1) What were people getting drunk on at these suppers (v.20-21)?
2) What sort of drink is Paul suggesting one may drink at home (v.22)?

It seems to me that Paul is saying 1) that drunkenness at church meetings through excess consumption of alcoholic wine invalidates the eucharist at those meetings. And 2) that the drinking of wine (presumably alcoholic on the basis of v.21) is an acceptable practice in the home.

How do you read the text?

You mean, you didn't read my quote from the same passage on page one of this thread?

http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=014532;p=1#000005

Given that nobody paid any attention when I said it, it needed saying again.

Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :

Yes - sorry MSHB, I did overlook your reference to this passage earlier [Hot and Hormonal]

Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :

quote:
Originally posted by NJA:

quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
...
1) What were people getting drunk on at these suppers (v.20-21)?
2) What sort of drink is Paul suggesting one may drink at home (v.22)?

It seems to me that Paul is saying 1) that drunkenness at church meetings through excess consumption of alcoholic wine invalidates the eucharist at those meetings. And 2) that the drinking of wine (presumably alcoholic on the basis of v.21) is an acceptable practice in the home.

How do you read the text?
Good point Numpty, I read it that they were getting drunk on alcohilic wine in meetings and Paul is saying if you want to get drunk, do it at home.

I'd say Paul is allowing them to drink alcohol at home, not condoning or encouraging it.

With respect to MSHB, this text was cited on page one. However, with regard to your reading, I have to disagree. Paul is most certainly not saying, "if you want to get drunk, do it at home." That would be a total contradiction of Ephesians 5:18a where Paul says, "Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery"

What is clear from the passage, then, is this:

1) Alcoholic wine was used being used at the Lord's Supper.
2) The Corinthian Christians were spiritually immature and this showed itself primarily in greed, inequality and overindulgence.
3) That Paul is OK with consumption of alcohol (but not drunkenness) in the home.

I therefore submit to you that:

1) Alcoholic wine can legitimately be used at the Lord's Supper.
2) The Lord's Supper is not supposed to be a drunken bun-fight.
3) The Lord's Supper require restraint in the amount of alcohol that is consumed.
4) That alcohol can legitimately be consumed in the home, but not to the point of drunkenness.

This question now remains: what is the biblical definition of drunkenness?

Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :

quote:
The Corinthians were still immature Christians

Yes, Paul says this in the text of 1 Corinthians.

quote:
in some ways worse than the heathen.

Paul says as much in the text of 1 Corinthians.

quote:
Paul knew they wouldn't be able to accept the saying "no alcohol" so he helps them in other areas so that they will see for themselves.

This isn't in the text of 1 Corinthians and cannot be arrived at by reading the text of 1 Corinthians. It is, therefore, merely speculative. It has been illegitimately read into the text and, on that basis, must be rejected as false.

Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :

Thanks Numpty for that exegesis. I think we can draw a further conclusion. When Paul established the church at Corinth, he would have taught them to celebrate the Lord's supper. At that point he had TOTAL control over what happened at that event; for all the people in this new church, it was something completely new. Therefore he would have had the opportunity to introduce the use of any liquid that he felt like, and discourage the use of any he didn't. Despite that, the Corinthians are using alcoholic wine for the Lord's supper. Therefore the only reasonable interpretation is that Paul taught them to do so. It's surely inconceivable that he would have done so in the knowledge that such a liquid was inappropriate for their celebrations of the Lord's death... It therefore clearly follows that the use of alcohol for the Lord's supper has apostolic warrant.

I remain sympathetic to the concerns of Temperance movements in terms of the damage that alcohol does and the value of Christians modelling ways of having fun without its aid. But the legalistic attempts to impose not using it as sign of being a 'spiritual' Christian is fundamentally flawed and deeply unhealthy.

Posted by MSHB (# 9228) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Thanks Numpty for that exegesis. I think we can draw a further conclusion. When Paul established the church at Corinth, he would have taught them to celebrate the Lord's supper. At that point he had TOTAL control over what happened at that event; for all the people in this new church, it was something completely new. Therefore he would have had the opportunity to introduce the use of any liquid that he felt like, and discourage the use of any he didn't. Despite that, the Corinthians are using alcoholic wine for the Lord's supper. Therefore the only reasonable interpretation is that Paul taught them to do so. It's surely inconceivable that he would have done so in the knowledge that such a liquid was inappropriate for their celebrations of the Lord's death... It therefore clearly follows that the use of alcohol for the Lord's supper has apostolic warrant.

I think this is generally true about a lot of things in the early church. The NT church did not learn to celebrate the Lord's Supper from reading the scriptures, they learned it from the people (e.g. the apostles and their co-workers like Timothy and Titus) who preached the gospel, founded the local church, and taught the new converts how to do most church things - including the Lord's Supper. The NT scriptures were written decades after the first NT churches came into existence, and took this "foundational knowledge" for granted (especially when it was the same person who founded the church and then later wrote them an epistle to correct problems).

Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on :

quote:
Originally posted by the gnome:
Maybe I'm wrong about this, but doesn't the Gospel carefully avoid saying that the miracle at Cana actually produced wine? Aren't we just told that the people responded to it as if it were wine?

No. John 2:9: "When the steward tasted the water that had become wine, and did not know where it came from (though the servants who had drawn the water knew), the steward called the bridegroom..."

Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
[T]he use of alcohol for the Lord's supper has apostolic warrant.

I agree. Yes, I think it does.

quote:
I remain sympathetic to the concerns of Temperance movements in terms of the damage that alcohol does and the value of Christians modelling ways of having fun without its aid. But the legalistic attempts to impose not using it as sign of being a 'spiritual' Christian is fundamentally flawed and deeply unhealthy.

Yes, I agree. The notion that abstinence from alcohol is taught as a condition of greater infilling with the Holy Spirit isn't scriptural. It's legalism. Scripture says that drunkenness is a sin, not the consumption of alcohol.

Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on :

quote:
Originally posted by NJA:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
.. or their old religious ideas & traditions. ..This sounds frighteningly like the modus operandi of a wife-beater, or a cult. Separate you from all your old way of life and program you with ours. Do they not need their old friends, either?
Only to your way of thinking.
Separation is sometimes essential.

Failure to recognise the power of ingrained beliefs and habits may mean that you yourself are still under their influence.

Revelation does warn about people who are "drunk" on the wine of the spiritual fornication of false Christianity. Like literal wine it obscures the judgement & gives people a false sense of security.

I'm going with MouseThief on this one. Having been both in a cult and in abusive relationships, you're describing exactly the power trips taken to ensure separation of the victim from outside help and make the victim totally dependent on the abuser.

Now before anyone starts jumping on me, I'm not saying NJA is abusive or being abused or in a cult. What I am saying is these kind of thought patterns contribute to a culture where people turn a blind eye to abuses, physical, emotional, and spiritual.

Posted by NJA (# 13022) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:

quote:
Paul knew they wouldn't be able to accept the saying "no alcohol" so he helps them in other areas so that they will see for themselves.
This isn't in the text of 1 Corinthians and cannot be arrived at by reading the text of 1 Corinthians. It is, therefore, merely speculative. It has been illegitimately read into the text and, on that basis, must be rejected as false.

I disagree with this form of exegesis, i.e. basing doctrine on one passage and refusing to temper it by what is said on the subject elsewhere.

I didn't read it into the text.
Paul had spent 3 years with the Corinthians, they knew masses more than in this one letter. The other scriptures must be understood also.

Consider:
"Others said, This is the Christ. But some said, Shall Christ come out of Galilee?
Hath not the scripture said, That Christ cometh of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was?" (John 7:41-42)

- see how people took one scripture and jumped to the wrong conclusion.

Many others do the same with Genesis 6 & 7 that seem to preach a global flood.

The history of "Christianity" is littered with people who grabbed hold of 1 or 2 verses at the expense of others.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by NJA:
The history of "Christianity" is littered with people who grabbed hold of 1 or 2 verses at the expense of others.

But that's just what you're doing. You grab hold of one verse from the end of Proverbs, and one verse about our being priests and kings, and develop a whole doctrine about growing out of "the need for" alcohol.

The argument supporting the Christian use of alcohol, on the other hand, is supported by a score of verses, as shown in this thread.

Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :

quote:
Originally posted by NJA:
I disagree with this form of exegesis, i.e. basing doctrine on one passage and refusing to temper it by what is said on the subject elsewhere.

Consider this. And then this. It seems to me that we're all rather black here. But some of us are willing to own up to it. Everybody interprets through an hermeneutic.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by NJA:
I disagree with this form of exegesis, i.e. basing doctrine on one passage and refusing to temper it by what is said on the subject elsewhere.

I didn't read it into the text.
Paul had spent 3 years with the Corinthians, they knew masses more than in this one letter. The other scriptures must be understood also.

Consider:
"Others said, This is the Christ. But some said, Shall Christ come out of Galilee?
Hath not the scripture said, That Christ cometh of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was?" (John 7:41-42)

- see how people took one scripture and jumped to the wrong conclusion.

Many others do the same with Genesis 6 & 7 that seem to preach a global flood.

The history of "Christianity" is littered with people who grabbed hold of 1 or 2 verses at the expense of others.

Ahem.

Kings need to be sober to judge legal disputes... Christians are kings...

The opposite of 'refusing to temper a passage by what is said on the subject elsewhere' would be 'lumping two passages together just because they use the same word'.

EDIT: Also, the example you managed to pick was of people jumping to a wrong conclusion because they didn't have all the facts, NOT because they misinterpreted Scripture. They were perfectly correct in interpreting Scripture to mean that the Messiah would come from Bethlehem!!

[ 19. June 2010, 20:06: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

Okay, I wasn't going to add this to my edit, but I feel compelled to say it.

How on earth can I trust the Bible interpretation skills, when the Bible is capable of many interpretations, of a person who can't even get LOGIC right? Who manages to pick an example to illustrate a point that is the complete opposite of what they're attempting to say?

Statement 1: The Messiah will come from Bethlehem. Category: interpretation of Scripture.

Statement 2: Jesus does not come from Bethlehem. Category: interpretation of facts.

Conclusion: Jesus is not the Messiah.

The Conclusion is wrong because (according to the Gospels) Statement 2 was wrong. There was nothing in the Scripture they were consulting that said "this bloke standing in front of you was actually born in Bethlehem, not Galilee". They could of consulted the Scriptures until the proverbial cows came home, and wouldn't have foud anything saying that. What they needed to consult was (ancient equivalent of) his birth certificate.

It's got nothing to do with 'picking one verse over another' because the verses saying that Jesus was born in Bethelehem weren't WRITTEN yet.

As I said, whatever small thought I might have had, NJA, that you could be onto something is utterly gone. Your grasp of logic is simply to weak for me to believe that the things you string together have any right to be connected to each other.

Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on :

Just to clarify, a slightly more sophisticated argument (held by, for example, my own mother) by teetotalers is that wine can lead to drunkenness in some people, which is sin; Jesus, as God, would not cause people to sin; therefore, Jesus couldn't have been involved in providing alcoholic wine (at Cana) or prescribing it (at the Last Supper).

Of course, one gaping hole in that argument is that by creating grapes, yeast, and the fermentation process, God is eventually behind all the drunkenness in human history, if you want to talk about giving occasion to sin. But then again, what God does in creation and allows in the fall aren't the same as what God would or should do in the flesh in Jesus Christ.

That said, I'm in the alcoholic camp here. [Biased]

That is, I think the NT means wine with alcohol.

It was, as I understand it, the custom to dilute wine for certain purposes - e.g., table wine at dinner. This seems to be preserved in the custom of adding water to the wine at the Eucharist (for which "theological" reasons were later added).

But a textual reading of the wedding at Cana is all we need here. Not only were the guests getting drunk on the wine that was served before, but the host said Jesus' wine was better. Just try handing unfermented grape juice to revelers who are half in the bag and see if they prefer it to the wine they'd been drinking!

I'm fine with the use of unfermented grape juice for Communion; it allows recovering alcoholics to partake of the cup. (It probably doesn't kill germs as well, though, so use of a common cup might be more iffy.) But we should just be honest that that's what we're doing, if that's what we do, and not try to paste it back into the biblical text as if we needed our practice to be found literally in the Bible. As I understand it, the reason for insisting on using alcoholic wine is concern for the validity of the Sacrament. If you think of Communion as only symbolic and an act of obedience, I can't imagine substituting non-fermented grape juice for wine would be frowned upon by Our Lord! (Then again, I also can't imagine it would invalidate the Sacrament, but that's pretty far down on the list of reasons I will never be Pope.)

Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :

quote:
Originally posted by NJA:

quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:

quote:
Paul knew they wouldn't be able to accept the saying "no alcohol" so he helps them in other areas so that they will see for themselves.
This isn't in the text of 1 Corinthians and cannot be arrived at by reading the text of 1 Corinthians. It is, therefore, merely speculative. It has been illegitimately read into the text and, on that basis, must be rejected as false.
I disagree with this form of exegesis, i.e. basing doctrine on one passage and refusing to temper it by what is said on the subject elsewhere.

I didn't read it into the text.

Yes you did. What you said didn't come from the text of 1 Corinthians and cannot be inferred from any other New Testament text either. You simply made it up.

Also, the primary goal of exegesis is to exegete the text. The Apostolic text in question is 1 Corinthians. You will see that I have quoted from Ephesians already in support of Paul's opposition to drunkenness. I therefore still maintain that you simply cannot support the assertion you've made from any biblical text. So, NJA, the burden of proof still lies with you, and I ask you: on what biblical text do you base your assertion that,

quote:
"Paul knew they wouldn't be able to accept the saying "no alcohol" so he helps them in other areas so that they will see for themselves."

Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by NJA:
I disagree with this form of exegesis, i.e. basing doctrine on one passage and refusing to temper it by what is said on the subject elsewhere.

I didn't read it into the text.
Paul had spent 3 years with the Corinthians, they knew masses more than in this one letter. The other scriptures must be understood also.

Consider:
"Others said, This is the Christ. But some said, Shall Christ come out of Galilee?
Hath not the scripture said, That Christ cometh of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was?" (John 7:41-42)

- see how people took one scripture and jumped to the wrong conclusion.

Many others do the same with Genesis 6 & 7 that seem to preach a global flood.

The history of "Christianity" is littered with people who grabbed hold of 1 or 2 verses at the expense of others.
Ahem.

Kings need to be sober to judge legal disputes... Christians are kings...

Our ministry apprentice preached on 1 Corinthians 4 yesterday. I couldn't help thinking about NJA's kings idea when he touched on verses 8 & 9.

quote:
8Already you have all you want! Already you have become rich! You have become kings—and that without us! How I wish that you really had become kings so that we might be kings with you!

Looks like NJA needs to read 1 Corinthians! He'd then realise that the claim to ontological kingship is a very, very old expression of over-realised eschatology.

[ 21. June 2010, 08:24: Message edited by: Call me Numpty ]

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

quote:
Originally posted by humblebum:

I have known the transformative power and indwelling of God's Holy Spirit in my life for many years now, praise God. And just yesterday, when I got home from church by myself, rather than making myself beans on toast, I cooked myself a lamb steak in garlic and rosemary, served it with some mashed potatoes, and cherry tomatoes roasted with garlic and balsamic vinger, and served it with a glass of chilled white wine. As I sat down to eat, I paused for some moments of thankfulness to God for his good gifts to me, which I knew I could appreciate even without the opportunity of company for Sunday lunch. The white wine was no less enjoyable to me than the steak or the roast vegetables.

Heretic! Blasphemer! Everyone who has the Spirit of God knows that the proper companion for lamb is red wine, ideally a robust Cabernet Sauvignon.

You are in immediate mortal danger of eternal death unless you repent and use claret and I claim my £5.

Posted by NJA (# 13022) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
... You grab hold of one verse from the end of Proverbs, and one verse about our being priests and kings, and develop a whole doctrine about growing out of "the need for" alcohol...

Nonsense, please read all my posts.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

Well, some of us have lives...

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

And some of us HAVE read all of his posts and can plainly see that he is cherry-picking scripture and inventing things with no scriptural warrant (as Numpty pointed out at the bottom of the previous page). There is absolutely nothing in scripture that says that Christians grow out of the "need" for alcohol. Or indeed that anybody's relationship with alcohol has anything to do with "need", or that, apart from ONE verse in Proverbs (probably the least trustworthy source of advice in the entire Bible), different people have different relationships to alcohol. NJA's perverse alcoholology is clearly read back into two completely and utterly unrelated verses, and is supported nowhere else. It is the clearest and most blatant example of eisigesis I have ever seen in my 30 years as a Christian.

Posted by Organ Builder (# 12478) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
It is the clearest and most blatant example of eisigesis I have ever seen in my 30 years as a Christian.

So you are saying this is your first NJA thread?

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

[Killing me]

Posted by humblebum (# 4358) on :

Hey guys :-)

Sorry it's taken a while to get back to some earlier comments on this thread, but I got sidetracked, and then didn't notice the extra flurry of posts since I last chipped in:

quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:
As I understand it, the reason for insisting on using alcoholic wine is concern for the validity of the Sacrament. If you think of Communion as only symbolic and an act of obedience, I can't imagine substituting non-fermented grape juice for wine would be frowned upon by Our Lord!

Actually, I would have to go with Frederick Buechner on this on (who I have been meaning to quote since this thread started). From his excellent book of musings "Wishful Thinking":

quote:
Wine: Unfermented grape juice is a bland and pleasant drink, especially on a warm afternoon mixed half-and-half with ginger ale. It is a ghastly symbol of the life blood of Jesus Christ, especially when served in individual antiseptic, thimble-sized glasses.

Wine is booze, which means it is dangerous and drunk-making. It makes the timid brave and the reserved amorous. It loosens the tongue and breaks the ice, especially when served in a loving cup. It kills germs. As symbols go, it is a rather splendid one.

In other news:

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Heretic! Blasphemer! Everyone who has the Spirit of God knows that the proper companion for lamb is red wine, ideally a robust Cabernet Sauvignon.

Aye, I know this, I would normally have red wine with a lamb steak. But I was in the mood for white - and it was really nice. Sue me. [Razz]

[ 28. June 2010, 00:00: Message edited by: humblebum ]

Posted by Timothy the Obscure (# 292) on :

Thanks for that Buechner quote--I've been remembering it since this thread started, and trying to recall where I read it.

Posted by jlg (# 98) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
There is absolutely nothing in scripture that says that Christians grow out of the "need" for alcohol. Or indeed that anybody's relationship with alcohol has anything to do with "need", or that, apart from ONE verse in Proverbs (probably the least trustworthy source of advice in the entire Bible), different people have different relationships to alcohol.

Actually, there are people with a "need" for alcohol; they're called alcoholics.

And in some cases, adopting a conservative Christian view can help them overcome the addiction.

On the other hand, I know RC alcoholics currently in successful recovery, who do partake of the Eucharist in both species without relapsing ("Hey, it's not wine, it's the Precious Blood of Christ!").

I also know lots of religious people who have no serious objection to alcohol, but whose religious beliefs combined with serious practice lead them to personally abstain.

In particular, I'm thinking about a particular Baptist Church I have been involved with for over a decade. The vast majority do not drink, but it is considered a matter of personal conscience, I guess, because some do, and they don't need to hide it, even from the Pastor.

I'm also thinking of some Benedictine communities. The Rule of Benedict allows for at least wine, but many (I really don't know beyond my own limited experience and readings)either don't drink (except for the Eucharistic wine) or reserve it for special occasions. This is usually based more on practicality than moral principle: wine and liquor are expensive and usually a luxury and therefore unnecessary for persons trying to live a life of austerity.

Which leads me to mention:

NJA, if you ever somehow get to know a genuine monastic community and can say that they aren't Christians, simply because they used real wine for the Eucharist, then ... well, let's just say I'd have to call you to Hell.

Posted by Timothy the Obscure (# 292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by jlg:

I'm also thinking of some Benedictine communities. The Rule of Benedict allows for at least wine, but many (I really don't know beyond my own limited experience and readings)either don't drink (except for the Eucharistic wine) or reserve it for special occasions. This is usually based more on practicality than moral principle: wine and liquor are expensive and usually a luxury and therefore unnecessary for persons trying to live a life of austerity.

Well, clearly the Benedictines have not historically had any fundamental objection to distilled liquor, having invented a rather famous one.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0