Which wine is the good wine?

[JerryNumbers]

Yes, it is indeed.

OK, being as fermentation is corruption, how can fermented wine represent the blood of the Savior?

[Standing Firm In Christ]

Those who say Jesus made alcoholic wine at the wedding feast of Cana totally dismiss Christ's holy nature and the reason He came to this world.

I have given Scripture that proves without a shadow of doubt that there was a non alcoholic wine in the Word of God. I will post it again.

Isaiah 16:10 And gladness is taken away, and joy out of the plentiful field; and in the vineyards there shall be no singing, neither shall there be shouting: the treaders shall tread out no wine in their presses; I have made their vintage shouting to cease.

Isaiah reveals that by treading in the presses, the treaders had previously produced wine in those presses. Any winemaker will tell you today that when the grapes are pressed that which they have is not wine yet, but has to have yeast added and time and temperature factored in before that juice becomes wine. But in Bible times it was not so. The Word of God reveals that the juice of the grape was called, not juice... but wine.

And that which Jesus produced was a wine that was not able to intoxicate but was able to satisfy.

So many, in their desire to justify drinking alcohol, will foolishly attempt to put alcohol in the Lord's hands. They feebly present a christ that would give alcohol to a group of men who were already on their way to drunkenness.

Edited May 19, 2011 by Standing Firm In Christ

[Standing Firm In Christ]

It can't. Christ would not have given to His Apostles a product of corruption and then tell them 'This is my body."

And yet, this is what many would have us to believe He did.

Edited May 19, 2011 by Standing Firm In Christ

[mattd]

I have not said anything unbliblical. In fact, I quoted extensive scripture to establish that the Bible does not prohibit all use of alcohol. Having a beer does not give a bad witness. I fail to see how it does so. Having a beer or glass of wine does not take on the appearance of evil. How is that? Is eating chicken fried steak and gravy, rolls with butter, and apple pie for dessert setting a bad example because it might lead some into glutony? Glutony is evil, but I don't see any condemnation of eating unhealthy, fatty foods in moderation. I fail to see how alcohol is any differnt. Alcohol in excess, is clearly condemned, as is food in excess. There is simply no support for your position that the Bible authoritativly prohibits all use of alcohol. I can see how some interpret the Bible to say it is best not to partake, but there is not authoritative scripture you can point to.

I guess it is easy for you to say just because I do not agree with you on every point, then my view is incorrect and makes me not a follower of Christ, and that your interpretation is superior.. Mypoint is that this ought not be a divisive issue. How can you not see that reasonable minds can differ on this topic? I have tried to point out the falacy of your argument, but obviously you are blinded by your presupositions. I can tell you that you are reading things that are simply not there in the Bible when you say it condemns all use of alcohol.

To counter your point, I have known many young people driven to excessive drinking because of their upbringing that all alcoholic use is wrong. How many of these people would have been saved heartache if they had been taught to use alcohol in moderation and to use it responsibly instead of binge drinking and using it solely to get drunk? I can say that failing to teach responsibility has led to many young people abusing alcohol. All I am pointing out is there are many issues here, and the Bible is not clear as to any use of alcohol, it is only clear that excessive use is wrong. You can't point me to anything that says that is unbiblical.

While the decision to use alcohol in moderation should not be a cause for division, adding to or contradicting scripture should be. We are to reprove and rebuke those that are spreading messages contrary to scripture. Things such as "fermentation is the same as corruption" and "when God said wine he really meant grape juice" is not Biblical. It's a distortion of biblical principles developed based on preconceived notions of right and wrong. Their inability to even address your comparison to food and gluttonay is further proof of their false religionist message. So, although we should not let positions on moderate use of alcohol to destroy our unity, we are obligated to stand against the manipulation of scripture. Pray that they might accept the Bible as God's holy and perfect word. What we are dealing with is a people hat refuse to accept the authoratative plain meaning of God's word. Edited May 19, 2011 by mattd

[heartstrings]

While the decision to use alcohol in moderation should not be a cause for division, adding to or contradicting scripture should be. We are to reprove and rebuke those that are spreading messages contrary to scripture. Things such as "fermentation is the same as corruption" and "when God said wine he really meant grape juice" is not Biblical. It's a distortion of biblical principles developed based on preconceived notions of right and wrong. Their inability to even address your comparison to food and gluttonay is further proof of their false religionist message. So, although we should not let positions on moderate use of alcohol to destroy our unity, we are obligated to stand against the manipulation of scripture. Pray that they might accept the Bible as God's holy and perfect word. What we are dealing with is a people hat refuse to accept the authoratative plain meaning of God's word.

Ok, you've made a statement...Am I supposed to just accept your statement that it is unbiblical? If it is unbiblical, please show, with the Bible, why it is unbiblical. Please prove without any reasonable doubt....using the Bible. Thanks

[Standing Firm In Christ]

Isaiah 16:10 refutes the notion that all wine in Bible times was alcoholic. Proverbs 3:10 also refutes it.

[mattd]

Ok, you've made a statement...Am I supposed to just accept your statement that it is unbiblical? If it is unbiblical, please show, with the Bible, why it is unbiblical. Please prove without any reasonable doubt....using the Bible. Thanks

In the scriptures at issue (those dealing with the wedding at Cana), God clearly says wine. The wine that Christ created from water is explicitly related to wine that had been previously served and which was clearly alcoholic (as a side note, there is no such thing as "nonalcoholic wine" -- that's called grape juice). I haven't searched the Bible from front to back, but a word search shows that the Bible never says fermentation is a corrupt process -- it's almost impossible to prove a negative anyway. I of course cannot prove it beyond a resonalbe doubt as what is or is not reasonable is subjective. However, a plain literal reading of scripture supports what I have stated. An interesting question is when did certain Christians first start believing that God really meant 'grape juice' when he said 'wine?'

[mattd]

Isaiah 16:10 refutes the notion that all wine in Bible times was alcoholic. Proverbs 3:10 also refutes it.

Maybe, if you twist it round and round and round and round and round and round and round. WAR EAGLE! TIGER PROWL! BIG CAT WEEKEND!

[heartstrings]

Isaiah 16:10 refutes the notion that all wine in Bible times was alcoholic. Proverbs 3:10 also refutes it.

I agree, Brother.
But which type is being referred to in John chapter 2. Can you show without a reasonable doubt? Edited May 19, 2011 by heartstrings

[heartstrings]

Maybe, if you twist it round and round and round and round and round and round and round. WAR EAGLE! TIGER PROWL! BIG CAT WEEKEND!

Can we keep this on an adult level?

[Standing Firm In Christ]

I agree, Brother.
But which type is being referred to in John chapter 2. Can you show without a reasonable doubt?

Is not the very nature of Christ (pure, holy, undefiled) and the reason He came into this world (to seek and save that which is lost, to give life more abundantly) enough?

Let's suppose that all wine in the Bible was alcoholic. Now, the guests had already exhausted the supply provided, which means they would have been on their way to drunkenness. Jesus and His Disciples, by the way, were also guests at this wedding celebration; which means that He and His Disciples also had been drinking the wine provided. So, they run out of wine. What are they to do? Well, Jesus provides more alcohol (between 120 and 150 more gallons; between 1280 -1600 12 oz cans) for the celebration and the guests that had already 'drunk well'. With that amount He made, He would not only contributing to their drunkenness, He would have destroyed His mission... to seek and save that which was lost. He would have been helping man further down the road to hell, not saving man from hell.

Now, verse eleven in that Chapter teaches us that Christ manifested His glory by that first miracle.

So tell us, how would giving alcohol to a group of people that had already drank whatever was provided by the governor of the feast manifest His glory?

Simple logic reveals that Christ did not make alcoholic wine there in Cana.

[Standing Firm In Christ]

Maybe, if you twist it round and round and round and round and round and round and round. WAR EAGLE! TIGER PROWL! BIG CAT WEEKEND!

No twisting necessary.

Tell you what, mattd... go to the store, buy a few bags of grapes and take them home. Then put them in a pot and crush them (that is what the treaders do to extract the juice). Then put them in a glass and drink that glass as swiftly as you can. I can guarantee you you will not get drunk.

But add yeast, time and temperature to the juice and then drink the same amount as fast as you can and you will experience a measure of drunkenness.

Grape wine is not immediately alcoholic in the presses. The Word of God reveals that.

[HappyChristian]

mattd, I would suggest that you do a little study of Jewish culture before you try to prove or disprove what wine was in Bible times.

Old wine was fermented (whether you can find the word in the Bible or not, that's what it is...and the result of that process is described in Proverbs by "when it is red, when it giveth his color in the cup, when it moveth itself aright." Even amateur winemakers know that is an indication of full fermentation). Fermentation is a controlled decaying process, whether you want to admit it or not...and whether the exact wordage was used in scripture or not.

New wine was what we would likely call grape juice (however, the grape juice that is on the market today, thanks to Welch, is actually alcohol free by process which Welch invented) today, albeit with the alcohol still present...a negligible amount, to say the least, but enough there that, without refrigeration, it will sour.

Proverbs 3:10 clearly shows that there is a difference in wine: "So shall thy barns be filled with plenty, and thy presses shall burst out with new wine." The presses were used to press grapes...the drink was fresh when pressed. Ergo, new wine was not intoxicating (unless a person drank gallons and gallons and gallons...try it yourself - get some fresh grapes, and press a few gallons - all you'll get is a tummy ache from too much, and quite probably diarrhea).

What Jesus created was fresh. It wasn't sour because it was fresh. And it wasn't fermented (yep, He could have created it so, but biblical principle regarding drunkenness proves He didn't). It was just tasty stuff. Juice that any of us could drink, whether we believe scripture forbids complete imbibing or allows moderation.

heart - I don't think there can be no reasonable doubt as to the content of the wine at Cana. But that is where faith has to come in. Biblical principle would show that Christ, who is God, would not create something that would run the risk of drunkenness, because drunkenness is forbidden by God.

Standing - looks like we were posting along the same lines at the same time! :clapping:

[heartstrings]

Is not the very nature of Christ (pure, holy, undefiled) and the reason He came into this world (to seek and save that which is lost, to give life more abundantly) enough?
Let's suppose that all wine in the Bible was alcoholic. Now, the guests had already exhausted the supply provided, which means they would have been on their way to drunkenness. Jesus and His Disciples, by the way, were also guests at this wedding celebration; which means that He and His Disciples also had been drinking the wine provided. So, they run out of wine. What are they to do? Well, Jesus provides more alcohol (between 120 and 150 more gallons; between 1280 -1600 12 oz cans) for the celebration and the guests that had already 'drunk well'. With that amount He made, He would not only contributing to their drunkenness, He would have destroyed His mission... to seek and save that which was lost. He would have been helping man further down the road to hell, not saving man from hell.

Now, verse eleven in that Chapter teaches us that Christ manifested His glory by that first miracle.

So tell us, how would giving alcohol to a group of people that had already drank whatever was provided by the governor of the feast manifest His glory?

Simple logic reveals that Christ did not make alcoholic wine there in Cana.

Yes, that is my reasoning on it too. But suppose you are telling all this to a lost man who brings up the "water into wine" subject. A lost person doesn't even know Christ and certainly has no concept of abundant life, Christ's glory or His nature. So, as far as our logic goes, that's not logical to a lost man. Before faith can come, they must have the Word . What does the Word say?

[heartstrings]

heart - I don't think there can be no reasonable doubt as to the content of the wine at Cana.....

There has to be, Happy, We just haven't found it yet.