A thought about biblical "wine" being grape juice

[ckempston]

[continued from above]

And you are sounding sort of stoned yourself here - how is this relevant?

Are you trying to just be difficult? It was blatantly obvious what my point was. We don’t do everything they did in the OT; even Jesus did not.

What makes it complicated is your picking and choosing bits and parts of scripture and presenting them in contexts that they were not intended to address. Satan slung scripture out of context at Christ so I suppose Catholics should not take offense when you do it either.

Please, be more specific.

But the Jews can use this same argument for turning Christ over for crucifixation and for persecuting the One Holy Apostolic Catholic Church. So can the Arians and the Gnostics etc. You have an opportunity to know the fullness of the faith and its never been achieved through revolution and breakaway sects from the mainline church. What we have is a new NT convenant and a new single and visible Catholic Church. Why not come in and take a look around?

I grew up there, and most of my family are members already. I’m quite familiar with how it operates.

Listen to Christ like Simon Magus did or how Judas did or how the false disciples who walked away from Him did in John 6:66 over their nonacceptance of real presence?

I’m not rejecting the Real Presence.

This is a forum to help others know what Catholics teach but some come here to pick fights and to slander The Church. Many who do that often end up staying and converting when they find out what we really believe is so different than what others have told them Catholics believe. I think you will be amazed at how much you can learn a lot here if you listen sincerely to what we say.

Non-Catholics come here to pick fights??? Are you joking me? The reason I started responding to any posts here was because of VociMike’s (the original poster in THIS thread) made a blatant, false attack on Evangelicals. Why don’t you come to our defense when Catholics unreasonably attack us? Do you not see the hypocrisy in this? I am amazed that you have the gall to say I came here to attack anybody. Look at the OP!!!

And you think you have the sacerdotal authority to effect the sacraments and to forgive sins? Are you an apostolically ordained priest who has since left the faith and been defrocked? If not then show your scriptural basis for having the rights to conduct mass and effect the sacraments.

God forgives sins. I ask him directly. This is 100% biblical:

Matthew 6:12 Forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors.

Did Jesus tell us to pray a senseless prayer? If it requires a priest to forgive sins, why ask the Father directly?

Matthew 6:14 For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you.

Either Jesus was a liar, or Catholic doctrine is wrong. Doesn’t require a priest to be forgiven, once again.

Acts 8:22 Repent of this wickedness and pray to the Lord. Perhaps he will forgive you for having such a thought in your heart.

Why didn’t Peter tell him to go to confession in order to be forgiven?

James 5:16 Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective.

Confess to each other? What’s that about? No mention of a priest.

1 John 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.

Again, no mention of a priest.

What is absurd is the self delusion in imagining that you speak and interpret for Christ. You contradict Christ by rejecting His church - its that simple.

James

On the contrary, my attitude is “I could be wrong, but I can only do what I believe to be right and have faith in God’s grace, not my own performance or perfect understanding.” Would you agree or disagree with this attitude?

I don’t reject Christ’s church, I simply interpret it as it was intended - the body of believers, living out Christ’s commands, not those in subjugation to the Vatican State.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

ckempston,

Perhaps you disagreement comes down how you believe Christ’s words should be applied?

The Church views Christ command to “take and eat” and “take and drink” with deep reverence and utmost seriousness. It is considered a divine command.

The Church, recognizes, however that the command was given to a ministerial priesthood, and not to all. The divine command is also codified as Church law (a very serious law) that priests must consume under both species.

My understanding is that in the early Church (*very early), *the faithful would sometimes communicate under one species only – the martyrs for instance, since they couldn’t conceal the species of wine upon their person; those who took the Eucharist home with them, again taking the species of wine was prohibitive. If the early Church didn’t object to this (and that is important isn’t it?), and yet also maintained a strict rule that the priest himself should communicate under both species – is it possible that you might be looking at it differently than most have, specifically wanting to extend Christ’s command to all the faithful?

VC

 

[ckempston]

ckempston,

Perhaps you disagreement comes down how you believe Christ’s words should be applied?

The Church views Christ command to “take and eat” and “take and drink” with deep reverence and utmost seriousness. It is considered a divine command.

The Church, recognizes, however that the command was given to a ministerial priesthood, and not to all. The divine command is also codified as Church law (a very serious law) that priests must consume under both species.

My understanding is that in the early Church (*very early), *the faithful would sometimes communicate under one species only – the martyrs for instance, since they couldn’t conceal the species of wine upon their person; those who took the Eucharist home with them, again taking the species of wine was prohibitive. If the early Church didn’t object to this (and that is important isn’t it?), and yet also maintained a strict rule that the priest himself should communicate under both species – is it possible that you might be looking at it differently than most have, specifically wanting to extend Christ’s command to all the faithful?

VC

I apologize if I am not coming across clearly. Here is my point:

The OP made the claim that Evangelicals are wrong for using non-alcoholic “fruit of the vine.” He even misrepresented their reasons for doing so, along with other Catholics.

Catholics seem very strict in interpreting Jesus’ words as literal as possible in this passage, so I find it strange when they take what Jesus plainly said and make it out to say something else.

I find this hypocritical and inconsistent.

I understand what you are saying, and agree that what the early church did/believed is important. But look at that example. They were flexible, not rigid. The approach was practical, not dogmatic. There is a difference between saying this is allowed or accepted in the early church, and taking that position and dogmatically saying that if you don’t do as we do, you’re wrong.

 

[Teflon93]

AFAIK, but I could be wrong, prunes are part of the plum family and grow on trees, not vines.

If so, I’ll ask you to explain why tomato juice isn’t acceptable.

Apparently, Christ didn’t bid me to do anything. Catholics in this discussion have repeatedly said that his words only apply to Priests in this instance. Guess I’m free to just do whatever I please.

Yes, that is what Protestants do.

See Matthew 26, Jesus says “fruit of the vine,” which grape juice certainly is. Paul also says it is OK for anyone to abstain from alcohol. The only way to reconcile these passages is to say that any “fruit of the vine” can be substituted. Use the rational mind that God gave you.

How patronizing we are when we ignore John 6. There’s no “fruit of the vine” reference there, is there?

Now kindly provide a classical reference wherein “fruit of the vine” meant anything BUT wine.

Wine was well known in antiquity. For the many reasons noted and which you have ignored for the sake of irrationality, grape juice was unknown.

Why would I proclaim such a thing? You still believe contrary to what Christ said: this is my body, this is my blood. Catholics make a HUGE deal over this verse when some non-Catholics don’t take it literally. And yet, they hypocritically change what Jesus says in regard to the “species.” Amazing. He didn’t take bread, and say, “This is both my body and my blood, take the wine if you feel like it. If you don’t, no big deal.”

What would it have mattered had he said so? Protestants wouldn’t have listened anyway.

He also nowhere insisted on alcoholic wine and we have no way of knowing “how alcoholic” it was. This dogmatic approach is a slippery slope. Was it 5%, 10%, 15%, 25%? Where is the cut-off point? At what percentage does it become disobedience? Can you not see how ridiculous this is?

Well, I suppose you completely discount the earlier post of a winemaker in this regard.

You certainly discount the testimony of, say, Arrian, who talked quite a bit about wine since Alexander the Great was wont to quaff enormous amounts of it.

Seek and ye shall find—but better not seek too widely or you’ll find you’re quite mistaken.

 

[YADA]

I can’t speak for all of Protestantism nor all evangelical or bible believing churches … I do know that they have various beliefs, having been a member of several denominations and ‘bible’ believing churches through the years …

One church [and the one in which I received baptism], the Church of Christ does in fact teach that Jesus did not consume “wine” at any time. Wine being defined as having alcoholic content.

At Cana, they specifically teach that the ‘wine’ could have no alcohol because Jesus made it from water …

They also teach that musical instruments are not to be used in worship, that all singing in worship ust be done acapella …

Even though they also teach biblical authority and as others have noted the lack of alcoholic content would not be biblical based upon various descriptions [serving good wine first until senses have been dulled, then poor wine … Jesus sitting at table with drunkards, etc].

I often wondered why they [the Chruch of Christ] made the claim against consuming based upon the Bible, Jesus’s actions and early Christian belief rather then just hold it as a discipline of the faith … As in Alcohol leads to alcoholism, destruction of families, poor health or a host of reasons as justification to abstain.

Similarly, the arguments against the use of instruments is equally weak … IMHO

And yes, this I know first hand … the Church of Christ is comprised of very good people who love Jesus and many of whom will be at home in Heaven …

 

[ckempston]

If so, I’ll ask you to explain why tomato juice isn’t acceptable.

I’d find it odd, but wouldn’t consign someone to hell on that basis.

Yes, that is what Protestants do.

What a blatantly false and bitter statement. Most Protestants do their best to follow the Bible, just as most Catholics do their best to follow what they believe to be true. I’ll make you a deal - let’s all try to be more charitable in our responses. I’ve admittedly not been in several.

How patronizing we are when we ignore John 6. There’s no “fruit of the vine” reference there, is there?

Please be more specific. John 6 is a long chapter, and Jesus does a lot of talking.

Now kindly provide a classical reference wherein “fruit of the vine” meant anything BUT wine.

Fermentation occurred naturally and there was no known way to stop it in Jesus’ day. You could also go down the slippery slope and claim that the alcoholic content has to be the same, and it has to be the same type of grapes that grow in Palestine. You guys are totally missing the point. You are being inconsistent. You DEMAND that Evangelicals are wrong for not using wine, but also claim that you are justified in not taking any drink at all, when it is clearly what Christ commanded.

Wine was well known in antiquity. For the many reasons noted and which you have ignored for the sake of irrationality, grape juice was unknown.

This is obvious and has not been contested.

What would it have mattered had he said so? Protestants wouldn’t have listened anyway.

Such charity!

Well, I suppose you completely discount the earlier post of a winemaker in this regard.

You certainly discount the testimony of, say, Arrian, who talked quite a bit about wine since Alexander the Great was wont to quaff enormous amounts of it.

Seek and ye shall find—but better not seek too widely or you’ll find you’re quite mistaken.

If wine is not necessary at all (according to Catholics), why do you quibble about whether it’s fermented or not?

In any case, I did find an article in the Jewish Encyclopedia that has some interesting information, and it seems that non-alcoholic wines were known to the Jews. It was called “new wine” (as in, it hadn’t fermented yet):

jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=201&letter=W&search=wine

I’d say this strengthens my position.

I also found other articles regarding Jewish questions, and found that:

“Both fermented wine and unfermented wine is permissible, as documented in the “Code of Jewish Law” O.C. 472:10; MB 37.”

This also supports my assertion that non-alcoholic fruit of the vine is OK to use.

 

[gavanhe]

Here we go again, back to the “personal interpretation” issue. Catholics rely on personal interpretation as well: the personal interpretation that the Catholic church is correct. How is that any different individual interpretation?

The Lord did not say that both are equally efficacious to us. “Eat his flesh AND drink his blood.” He didn’t say OR, which is what he would have had to say for your point to be valid.

Perhaps you might like to interpret this in your own way but the Catholic church has it as reading:
1Cor 11:27. Therefore, whosoever shall eat this bread, OR drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord.
Where did you get your bible?
Gerry

 

[ckempston]

Perhaps you might like to interpret this in your own way but the Catholic church has it as reading:
1Cor 11:27. Therefore, whosoever shall eat this bread, OR drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord.
Where did you get your bible?
Gerry

We already discussed this passage. And as far as "where I got my Bible: probably the same place you did. I have several different translations, including a Catholic Bible with the “apocrypha”.

The answer is to your question is simple. Being guilty of a thing says nothing of the nature of that thing. The passage is also semantically awkward, so I would be hesitant to make a dogmatic statement based on it. This goes to the root of my disagreement with Catholicism. Catholics don’t hesitate to be dogmatic about the smallest hint or suggestion. A problem with this is it isn’t systematic or consistent, as has been demonstrated repeatedly by my simple statement of the contradiction:

Jesus: X is my body, Y is my blood.
Catholics: X is my body and my blood.

 

[jmcrae]

We already discussed this passage. And as far as "where I got my Bible: probably the same place you did.

This is absolutely true, since we all got our Bibles from the infallible decree of Pope Innocent I that was given in 405 AD, telling us that we had one, and of what books it consisted.

 

[jmcrae]

No, you just made an unsubstantiated, and might I add, false accusation against me. I have indeed made a specific charge:

Jesus said do both.

Jesus said to His priests, do both. The Church says to Christ’s priests, do both.

Jesus did not offer the Eucharist to the lay people at all.

The Church offers the Eucharist to lay people, under one or both species, on the condition that they are in full communion with the Church, not conscious of any unconfessed grave sin, and appropriately prepared to receive it, through the disciplines of fasting and prayer that are given by the Church to each generation according to need.

The Catholic church has contradicted Christ.

No - it has only spoken where He did not, by allowing “the people” (the lay people of the Church) to partake of the Eucharist under certain conditions.

Yeah, the truth hurts. Judas was indeed a priest. He fell, and didn’t get back up.

This is actually quite true - Judas was more of a priest than you or I will ever be.

 

[Teflon93]

I’d find it odd, but wouldn’t consign someone to hell on that basis.

Try to find the point.

How do you know that “fruit of the vine” referred to grape juice and not tomato juice?

What a blatantly false and bitter statement. Most Protestants do their best to follow the Bible, just as most Catholics do their best to follow what they believe to be true. I’ll make you a deal - let’s all try to be more charitable in our responses. I’ve admittedly not been in several.

It was neither false nor bitter. “Doing your best” has resulted in schism after schism within Protestantism, several more of which are underway in the mainline Protestant denominations as we speak.

“Go your own way” is not Christ’s message. Never has been.

St Paul’s exhortations were invariably for unity—for resisting the lures of heretics and schismatics by keeping to what the Apostles had taught.

This included St Paul’s own teaching of the Eucharist, which completely refutes the notion in many a Protestant community that it is simply symbolism at best and an abomination at worst.

I seem to recall St Paul urging Timothy to take a little wine for his stomach, as well—no “fruit of the vine” wiggle room there.

Please be more specific. John 6 is a long chapter, and Jesus does a lot of talking.

Since he refers to the Body and the Blood we must consume six or seven times, you can have your pick. What you cannot do is refer to Matthew’s account while completely ignoring John’s. Both are Gospels; both must be reckoned with.

Fermentation occurred naturally and there was no known way to stop it in Jesus’ day. You could also go down the slippery slope and claim that the alcoholic content has to be the same, and it has to be the same type of grapes that grow in Palestine. You guys are totally missing the point. You are being inconsistent. You DEMAND that Evangelicals are wrong for not using wine, but also claim that you are justified in not taking any drink at all, when it is clearly what Christ commanded.

No, our claim is that those who subordinate Scripture itself to their 19th/20th century traditions and then claim Scripture to be the sole rule of faith are deluding themselves, if not attempting to delude others.

This is obvious and has not been contested.

You attempted to contest the obvious by making silly claims that “fruit of the vine” referred to grape juice rather than wine.

Such charity!

You seem to believe charity requires embracing others’ falsehoods. Some save with fire, says St Jude.

Protestants chiefly reject Christ’s command in John 6. It is clear and compelling; he says it over and over again, even with people leaving as a consequence. Moreover, the Early Church Fathers uniformly practiced the Eucharist. It is one of the “distinctives” which led the pagans and Jews to claim Christians were “cannibals”.

Christ could not have been more clear. Some refused to follow his commandments then; many still do so today.

And for the same reason.

If wine is not necessary at all (according to Catholics), why do you quibble about whether it’s fermented or not?

Wine is the product of fermentation. Are you now going to claim Christ produced non-alcoholic wine? Let’s see the Scripture reference, please.

In any case, I did find an article in the Jewish Encyclopedia that has some interesting information, and it seems that non-alcoholic wines were known to the Jews. It was called “new wine” (as in, it hadn’t fermented yet):

jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=201&letter=W&search=wine

I’d say this strengthens my position.

Where in Scripture does it say Christ produced “new wine” or bid the Apostles to drink it?

Where in the Early Church do we see evidence of new wine?

I also found other articles regarding Jewish questions, and found that:

“Both fermented wine and unfermented wine is permissible, as documented in the “Code of Jewish Law” O.C. 472:10; MB 37.”

This also supports my assertion that non-alcoholic fruit of the vine is OK to use.

Have you become Jewish now?

 

[Teflon93]

And while we’re at it, let’s see what Christ—himself accused by the Pharisees of being a drunkard and consorting with drunkards—had to say.

Luke 5:

30: But their scribes and Pharisees murmured against his disciples, saying, Why do ye eat and drink with publicans and sinners?
31: And Jesus answering said unto them, They that are whole need not a physician; but they that are sick.
32: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.
33: And they said unto him, Why do the disciples of John fast often, and make prayers, and likewise the disciples of the Pharisees; but thine eat and drink?
34: And he said unto them, Can ye make the children of the bridechamber fast, while the bridegroom is with them?
35: But the days will come, when the bridegroom shall be taken away from them, and then shall they fast in those days.
36: And he spake also a parable unto them; No man putteth a piece of a new garment upon an old; if otherwise, then both the new maketh a rent, and the piece that was taken out of the new agreeth not with the old.
**37: And no man putteth new wine into old bottles; else the new wine will burst the bottles, and be spilled, and the bottles shall perish.
38: But new wine must be put into new bottles; and both are preserved.
39: No man also having drunk old wine straightway desireth new: for he saith, The old is better. **

“The old is better.”

And John 2:

“1”: And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there:

“2”: And both Jesus was called, and his disciples, to the marriage.

“3”: And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, They have no wine.

“4”: Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come.

“5”: His mother saith unto the servants, Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it.

“6”: And there were set there six waterpots of stone, after the manner of the purifying of the Jews, containing two or three firkins apiece.

“7”: Jesus saith unto them, Fill the waterpots with water. And they filled them up to the brim.

“8”: And he saith unto them, Draw out now, and bear unto the governor of the feast. And they bare it.

“9”: When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, and knew not whence it was: (but the servants which drew the water knew the governor of the feast called the bridegroom,

**“10”: And saith unto him, Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse: but thou hast kept the good wine until now. **

“11”: This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested forth his glory; and his disciples believed on him.

The first of Christ’s miracles.

Very inconvenient for those teetotalers who would out-Pharisee the Pharisees while claiming to do no such thing.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

ckempston,

I’ve seen it alluded to in this thread, although I don’t know all of the details, that you were Catholic at one point. I just wanted to clarify some things regarding what the Church teaches – although you may already be aware of it – and perhaps I misunderstood you or you weren’t able to be as accurate as you would have liked (which is understandable given the fast pace of these posts ometimes).

If wine is not necessary at all (according to Catholics), why do you quibble about whether it’s fermented or not?

There are two different but concurrent considerations regarding the necessity of wine from the Catholic point of view. Wine **is **absolutely necessary for the celebration of the Mass and the consecration. Without wine there is no Mass.
ckemptson:

Catholics don’t hesitate to be dogmatic about the smallest hint or suggestion. A problem with this is it isn’t systematic or consistent, as has been demonstrated repeatedly by my simple statement of the contradiction:

Jesus: X is my body, Y is my blood.
Catholics: X is my body and my blood.

Although I know you intend the above as a simplified statement and not an exhaustive examination of the issue, I don’t think your statement accurately represents the Catholic position even in simplified form.

The Church wholeheartedly believes Christ when he says that “this is my body” and the Church teaches that he changed the bread into his body only. **Likewise, Christ changed the wine into his blood only.

Similarly the Church teaches that when priests follow Christ’s command to “do this in memory of me” and consecrate bread and wine, the sacramental change is such that the bread changes into Christ’s body only and the wine changes into Christ’s blood only.

The action of confecting the Eucharist and obeying Christ’s command to confect it, is distinct from the reality of receiving the Eucharist. The Church believes so strongly in the reality of Christ’s body and blood, and takes Christ at his word that this now is his real body, that She must also point out that, since Christ can never die again, where his real body is his real blood is.

The Church takes this position because to do otherwise would be to consign the Eucharist and Christ’s words “this is my body” to symbolism and not reality. The bread doesn’t symbolize his body, but it is Christ in totality as he is now – flesh and blood.

God bless,
VC

 

[ShellKell]

One of the more preposterous claims of American Fundamentalism (and a good portion of Evangelicalism) is that the “wine” spoken of in the bible was really grape juice. I wonder how many people have stopped investigating Christianity largely because of that one claim?

Anyway, my thought was that if anybody knew what the Jews in the first century were drinking, it would be the Jews. And furthermore, if the biblical “wine” was really grape juice, the Jews would not have missed the opportunity to correct the Christian world over the past 2000 years when the latter claimed that the “wine” was wine. But I am unaware that the Jewish world has ever corrected the Christian world on the age-old claim that the “wine” of the New Testament was actually wine.

Hi
Why would it matter to Catholics, you don’t believe that it’s wine when you drink it. Why would it have to be wine for Protestants?

 

[Teflon93]

Hi
Why would it matter to Catholics, you don’t believe that it’s wine when you drink it. Why would it have to be wine for Protestants?

Catholics dislike falsehood.

 

[ShellKell]

Catholics dislike falsehood.

Hi Teflon
I appreciate your answer, but could you please tell me why it would matter if it’s grape juice or wine. Catholics believe that it’s the actual blood of Christ so therefore it’s no longer wine. I think it’s relevent because we seem to waste so much time on differences that won’t have an impact on our Salvation.

 

[Stephen_C]

Hi Teflon
I appreciate your answer, but could you please tell me why it would matter if it’s grape juice or wine. Catholics believe that it’s the actual blood of Christ so therefore it’s no longer wine. I think it’s relevent because we seem to waste so much time on differences that won’t have an impact on our Salvation.

Not Tef but here is the really short answer.
Because that is what Jesus used.

 

[jmcrae]

Not Tef but here is the really short answer.
Because that is what Jesus used.

And He didn’t make any mention of possible substitutions. He was using as his basic format a ritual that had been prescribed by God to Moses, and given to Moses in a ritual that hearkened back to the Covenant of Abraham - and hearkened forward to the Mass.

Melchisedec, Moses, and Jesus used wine. The Mass uses wine. Why not use wine?

 

[sandusky]

Hi
Why would it matter to Catholics, you don’t believe that it’s wine when you drink it. Why would it have to be wine for Protestants?

 

[sandusky]

Catholics dislike falsehood.

.