Alcohol Drinking - a NEW perspective?

  • Thread starter Thread starter malachi_a_serva
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
so that the only way to procure a ritually satisfactory beverage would be to make it at home. Though alcoholic wine cannot be easily manufactured by amateurs

Last link I provided.
 
See above post where “good” is defined - according to what I have studied.

As well; I have been told that the greek word “good” in “kept the good wine till last” is the same greek word as in John when scripture referrs to the “good shepard”. And that the greek word mean pure, unblemished, uncorrupted…

uncorrupted being opposite to fermentation. Thoughts.

As well, why would the bread HAVE TO BE unleavened (uncorrupted - no yeast) and then we consume corrupted (fermented) wine? That I cannot grasp. Thoughts?
Again - why serve unblemished grape juice first and the worse stuff later? Which is what the steward said most people did, as opposed to Jesus. Or are you saying they served FERMENTED stuff (ie … WINE… :confused: ) later?

There is no point to it, people would notice the worse (blemished) stuff whenever it was served.

It just doesn’t make sense to read it as being only or even partly grape juice. Wouldn’t matter how much ‘good’ grape juice they’d drunk beforehand, people would notice something different being served later.

WINE, on the other hand, gets people tipsy - and I can tell you from personal experience when you start to get tipsy you start not to notice the quality of the later wine you drink. The steward’s comment makes perfect sense then - but ONLY if it was wine.

And I’ve already said - the bread used at Passover was unleavened because God in Exodus ordered it so. He didn’t give the order because leaven is ‘corrupt’, simply because the Israelites were leaving in a hurry and didn’t have the time to wait for the yeast (leaven) to make the bread dough rise. They only had time to make the flat and quickly-cooked unleavened bread. It says exactly so right there in Exodus for crying out loud!
 
Some good points I will have to ponder. Question…so “drunkards” that do not get into heaven are people who live a drunkly life … as opposed to the odd person getting drunk the odd time?

i.e…you or I might “get drunk” but no one would refer to us as drunkards…yet some of the down and out on skid row (just for reference sake) would be refererred to as drunkards because of their lifestyle and habit. Is that correct.

I see what you mean about “pride”…

I often wonder though…all social outings have alcohol. How many people wouldn’t feel comfortable there or whatever if they didn’t drink? Just bothers me - alcohol is more like an anty anxiety that anything else…thoughts?

Thanks for the wonderful comments.
  1. Regarding drunkards: I think it is important to understand too distinctions.
Some are alcoholics because of genetic disposition or other emotional causes. This is a disease requiring treatment (psycological as well as physical). Divine Mercy will be predominant when they meet their Maker if they never overcome this problem.

Others are alcoholics by lifestyle choice and unwillingness to conform to God. Divine Justice will be predominant for them upon death.

Unfortunately, we don’t have the omniscience to knwo who is which in many cases so we have to reach out to them in charity and love so as to be instruments of the Holy Spirit.
  1. You raise a good point about non-drinkers sometimes being uncomfortable in social situations that include alcohol consumption. Whether it be because they are non-drinking alchoholics or sacrificial teetotalers, I understand that they may have to sometimes choose to not be at those places. But that places greater obligation for some Christians to be there. Imagine an alcohol served social gathering with no Christians there? Will it provide greater opportunity or less opportunity for great sinfulness?
I am a child of an alcholic and so is my wife. We take great personal pains to both be moderate. Because of our parents example, we understand the ostracization that occurs to both one who has a drinking problem and one who chooses or HAS to abstain.

Let me tell you a little story that involves a different distortion of a gift from God. I went on a golf outing with seven other guys. After a day of golfing, we went to dinner and had a few drinks. Before long someone suggested that they go to the strip club. One person made his views known in a subtle and charitable way and retired to his room. I chose to go along.

The next morning, this fellow Catholic Christian said “I was really disappointed that you condoned their conduct and went along.” To paraphrase my response I said, "you have it wrong. I never condoned it. I went, placed my back to the stage and took great pains to let them know that I wasn’t enjoying the show but was enjoying their company. After listening to a couple of snide remarks about you and your “holier than thou” attitude (to which I said nothing), I was asked why I wasn’t looking at the girls. I responded, “I have daughters and they are someone’s daughter.” You could have heard a pin drop by the two guys who heard my comment who also had daughters. I was given an opportunity to witness in a way by being there that you weren’t. It is in combination that we spread the Good News. I didn’t have to quote scripture, I didn’t separate myself, and I appealed to their inner conscience where the Holy Spirit was already talking.

While this friend still thought I caused scandal, I am quite comfortable that I showed a greater good that I could hate their sin but I still loved them as persons. At the risk of sounding prideful:) , several months later one of the guys said that he hasn’t been to a strip club since and never will.

Coincidentally, the other day I was with this same Catholic Christian. We had been forwarded a “joke” that was offensive. I responded by expressing that I didn’t see any humor. I told this friend that I was disappointed that he didn’t second my opinion. He responded that he just deleted it with no response. I was kinda hard on him for appearing to condone it. Now that I recall these two events together and realized that he always says “good joke” or some other positive response to unoffensive jokes, I realize that I need to better live by my own preaching of the following:

There are different strokes for different folks. We have to respond as we feel called. Not all responses are the same for everyone.
 
Again - why serve unblemished grape juice first and the worse stuff later? Which is what the steward said most people did, as opposed to Jesus. Or are you saying they served FERMENTED stuff (ie … WINE… :confused: ) later?

There is no point to it, people would notice the worse (blemished) stuff whenever it was served.

It just doesn’t make sense to read it as being only or even partly grape juice. Wouldn’t matter how much ‘good’ grape juice they’d drunk beforehand, people would notice something different being served later.

WINE, on the other hand, gets people tipsy - and I can tell you from personal experience when you start to get tipsy you start not to notice the quality of the later wine you drink. The steward’s comment makes perfect sense then - but ONLY if it was wine.

And I’ve already said - the bread used at Passover was unleavened because God in Exodus ordered it so. He didn’t give the order because leaven is ‘corrupt’, simply because the Israelites were leaving in a hurry and didn’t have the time to wait for the yeast (leaven) to make the bread dough rise. They only had time to make the flat and quickly-cooked unleavened bread. It says exactly so right there in Exodus for crying out loud!
I would beg to differ as as demonstrated even the Jews are split on this issue. They themselves do not know.

As far as the unleavened bread…

It was about getting ride of everything “coorupt” - fermented.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passover

[edit] Removal and sale of chametz
In accordance with the mitzvah of not eating or owning leavened products during Passover, religious Jewish families typically spend the weeks before the holiday in a flurry of housecleaning. The purpose is to remove every morsel of fermented grain products (called chametz) from all the cupboards and corners in the home. The search for chametz is often a thorough one, as children’s rooms and kitchens are cleaned from top to bottom and forgotten packages or pieces of cookies or crackers are uncovered under beds and inside closets. Although many ensure that not even a crumb of chametz remains, the Halakha only requires the elimination of olive-sized quantities of leavening from one’s possession.
Meanwhile, the family attempts to consume or dispose of all edible chametz products (like bread, pasta, cookies, soup mixes, and even non-kosher-for-Passover matzo—which, being designed for year-round use, is allowed to rise for more than 18 minutes before baking) so as to have nothing left by the morning before the holiday begins.

Seems like a pretty thourough process = to ensure no corupt product as it says. I agree that if they did drink wine - then wine is fine. I, just from browsing the web the last hour, beg to differ. That with - why uncorrupted bread but corrupted wine - doesn’t make sence.

Jesus kept the “good” wine for last …good meaning, pure, unfermented. “good” was the english translation of the greek word meaning “unspoiled, uncorupted”… so if it was translated “left the uncorrupted wine until last” that would end the controversy.

But doesn’t it say something when even the Jews disagree on the subject. If it was cut and dry - OK. But it is not. And logic says keep uncorupt products together to use. My logic anyway.
 
  1. Regarding drunkards: I think it is important to understand too distinctions.
Some are alcoholics because of genetic disposition or other emotional causes. This is a disease requiring treatment (psycological as well as physical). Divine Mercy will be predominant when they meet their Maker if they never overcome this problem.

Others are alcoholics by lifestyle choice and unwillingness to conform to God. Divine Justice will be predominant for them upon death.

Unfortunately, we don’t have the omniscience to knwo who is which in many cases so we have to reach out to them in charity and love so as to be instruments of the Holy Spirit.
  1. You raise a good point about non-drinkers sometimes being uncomfortable in social situations that include alcohol consumption. Whether it be because they are non-drinking alchoholics or sacrificial teetotalers, I understand that they may have to sometimes choose to not be at those places. But that places greater obligation for some Christians to be there. Imagine an alcohol served social gathering with no Christians there? Will it provide greater opportunity or less opportunity for great sinfulness?
I am a child of an alcholic and so is my wife. We take great personal pains to both be moderate. Because of our parents example, we understand the ostracization that occurs to both one who has a drinking problem and one who chooses or HAS to abstain.

Let me tell you a little story that involves a different distortion of a gift from God. I went on a golf outing with seven other guys. After a day of golfing, we went to dinner and had a few drinks. Before long someone suggested that they go to the strip club. One person made his views known in a subtle and charitable way and retired to his room. I chose to go along.

The next morning, this fellow Catholic Christian said “I was really disappointed that you condoned their conduct and went along.” To paraphrase my response I said, "you have it wrong. I never condoned it. I went, placed my back to the stage and took great pains to let them know that I wasn’t enjoying the show but was enjoying their company. After listening to a couple of snide remarks about you and your “holier than thou” attitude (to which I said nothing), I was asked why I wasn’t looking at the girls. I responded, “I have daughters and they are someone’s daughter.” You could have heard a pin drop by the two guys who heard my comment who also had daughters. I was given an opportunity to witness in a way by being there that you weren’t. It is in combination that we spread the Good News. I didn’t have to quote scripture, I didn’t separate myself, and I appealed to their inner conscience where the Holy Spirit was already talking.

While this friend still thought I caused scandal, I am quite comfortable that I showed a greater good that I could hate their sin but I still loved them as persons. At the risk of sounding prideful:) , several months later one of the guys said that he hasn’t been to a strip club since and never will.

Coincidentally, the other day I was with this same Catholic Christian. We had been forwarded a “joke” that was offensive. I responded by expressing that I didn’t see any humor. I told this friend that I was disappointed that he didn’t second my opinion. He responded that he just deleted it with no response. I was kinda hard on him for appearing to condone it. Now that I recall these two events together and realized that he always says “good joke” or some other positive response to unoffensive jokes, I realize that I need to better live by my own preaching of the following:

There are different strokes for different folks. We have to respond as we feel called. Not all responses are the same for everyone.
I appreciate your comments.

In my church is an individual that works with people with mental problems. He says there are no such thing - please do not get defensive I am just explaining a/his position. He indicates that it is the ploy of satan for us to “think” there is a predisposition etc (just like with pedofelia (sp?), homosexuals, beastality etc.) people. They take no responsibility because they “have a desease”. - again please don’t take this as an offensive attake as I understand the sensitive nature of it.

desease = not my fault = no responsibility = don’t necessarily have to change = gets pity

no desease, just acting on sinful impulses = sinner whoi needs to repent.

Just some thoughts.

I am not guilty of stealing because I have a mental desease = cleptomania = I can’t help it.
 
Hi LilyM - thanks for the response.

What are your thoughts on the apparent contradiction. Word of God says don’t drink - Jesus drinks and other verses say drink.
The Word of God was addressed specifically to Aaron and his Sons, not to all Israelites.
 
The Word of God was addressed specifically to Aaron and his Sons, not to all Israelites.
Good morning NotWorthy, I appreciate your comments. What about:

Leviticus 10:9-10
“Do not drink wine nor strong drink, thou, nor thy sons with thee, when ye go into the tabernacle of the congregation(God’s temple), lest ye die: it shall be a statue for ever throughout your generations: And that ye may put difference between holy and unholy, and between unclean and clean.”
 
Could you explain the wine skin bursting to me please - I do not understand that.
Fermentation is a rough process, lots of chemical reactions going on for a while even after you have a drinkable product, and stuff “dropping out” along the way. Part of the process of making wine is to transfer it from one container to another in a way designed to leave behind the parts that have either sunk or are floating. Today, we use mostly glass or plastic for the vairious stage, which hold up well tot he chemical reactions going on. But in Judea at the time the Bible was written, the firs stages were in clay pots, and when drinkable but perhaps not fully cured, it was transferred into a bag made of leather for transportation and use. However, each bag could only handle the finishing process once, after it was emptied it could be used to hold water or the like, but putting in another batch of fresh wine was an invitation for a mess
Another angle - what about the “alcohol” being nithing near as strong as our alcoholic drink/wine?
This is a common assertion by the “no alcohol” proponents. However, yeasts haven’t changed much. Among the brewing and wine making communities, there is stronger conjecture that wines used to be even stronger than they are now, certainly the classical brews and wines are stronger than the mass market stuff.
A quick search on the internet says the wine at the passover meal was unfermented. …
This was not a Jewish site you referenced, but one by a Christian Fundamentalist likely to have held the no alcohol conclusion before starting to research. From the root page: “These doctrines and categorical lessons are edited versions of the teachings of Robert H. Kreger, pastor of the Metropolitan Bible Church in Berkley, Michigan”. That it was yeast causing the fermentation was probably not fully understood when the rules about leaven were instituted.

We’ve already pointed out that there was not a way to stop fermentation until recently. Further, the grape harvest is in late summer, while passover in spring. Even with calendar drift, Passover has always been well before the grape harvest.
so that the only way to procure a ritually satisfactory beverage would be to make it at home. Though alcoholic wine cannot be easily manufactured by amateurs
Tell that to the batch of wine that i have finishing off in my bathroom, which is tasting quite nice on my first attempt at wine making. The first attempts at making wine were probably completely accidental. If anything, it is hard not to make wine with unpasteurized fruit juice.

It is starting to look like you chose not to learn anything at all about the actual process of wine making before starting to make claims about it and are you just looking for people claiming making wild claims about it that happen to support the position you decided on before first evaluating the available evidence…
 
I guess I should have realize this was controversial before I thought of it. Since I am of Baptist belief here is a baptist perspective (I think I have been fair in posting everythinbg I find).

No where is the Bible is the word “wine” ever applied to the Lord’s Supper, which is exceedingly strange, if so be that this is an absolute necessity to the scriptural observance of it. And our Lord in His omniscience must surely have foreseen the great controversies that would arise over this question. Why then did He not in the beginning set the matter at rest and tell us that it had to be fermented, if this was the case? The thunderous silence of the Bible about this is surely significant, yet this significant silence is drowned out by the loud voices of human reasoning and tradition which are raised in defense of the fermented juice of the grape. Now it is to be granted that the Lord’s Supper is not to be found in the Old Testament. But the question, which, in God’s sight, is the purer of the two elements, is settled by the Old Testament. Of Israel’s wilderness trek, it is said, “Thou didst drink the pure blood of the grape,” Deut. 32:14, so that if we can determine what Israel drank, we will know what the inspired word designates as the pure element of the grape. A very similar statement is found in Gen. 49:11: “Binding his foal unto the vine, and his ***'s colt unto the choice vine; he washed his garments in wine, and his clothes in the blood of grapes.” Here we see several things proven. (1) The blood of the grape is found in the vine, not in the vat. (2) This fresh “blood” of the grape is sometimes called “wine” though it is unfermented. Actually, the Hebrew word for “wine” here means only that it is “pressed out”. It is a generic term for the extract of the grape, irregardless of its condition. (3) Since the “blood” of the grape is found in the vine, then the pure blood of the grape is the unfermented juice of the grape.

Further proof of this is found in Deut. 29:6: “Ye have not eaten bread, neither have ye drunk wine or strong drink: that ye might know that I am the Lord your God.” God fed the Israelites on manna, and they drank of the pure juice of the grape which they pressed out from the vines in their wilderness trek. They drank no fermented wine nor other alcoholic beverages during the forty years in the wilderness, so neither of these could have been pure blood of the grape, which, for the Bible believer, makes it clear what God considers to be the pure blood of the grape. To which then shall we submit ourselves. Tradition, human reasoning or the Scriptures?

tbaptist.com/aab/wineorgrapejuice.htm

I had hoped to get to the bottom of this - but doubtful. I figured if I could see someone as erroneous (baptists or catholics) I could then see perhaps other things are erroneous (baptists or catholics)
 
My body is simply a Temple that serves beer and wine as the drinks of choice.
 
It is starting to look like you chose not to learn anything at all about the actual process of wine making before starting to make claims about it and are you just looking for people claiming making wild claims about it that happen to support the position you decided on before first evaluating the available evidence…
Hey I am just searching the web. On the web it says alcohol making is hard. Others say easy. Some say keeping grape-wine is easy - alcoholic wine as we know it - hard.

If the Jews are split - how could that be used to help Christians. I do not think it can.

Interesting, as above “wine” is never referred to in regard to the Lord’s Supper/Communion.
 
I appreciate your comments.

In my church is an individual that works with people with mental problems. He says there are no such thing - please do not get defensive I am just explaining a/his position. He indicates that it is the ploy of satan for us to “think” there is a predisposition etc (just like with pedofelia (sp?), homosexuals, beastality etc.) people. They take no responsibility because they “have a desease”. - again please don’t take this as an offensive attake as I understand the sensitive nature of it.

desease = not my fault = no responsibility = don’t necessarily have to change = gets pity

no desease, just acting on sinful impulses = sinner whoi needs to repent.

Just some thoughts.

I am not guilty of stealing because I have a mental desease = cleptomania = I can’t help it.
Absolutely no offense taken.

I think there is great wisdom in his position as he focuses on a conversion of heart by making them realize change starts with them (with the help of Grace of course). At the same time, we have to recognize that the science of biology indicates that for some genetics makes some more inclined to suffer from physical dependency. In my family, our knowledge of this risk of dependency forces us to dedicate our will and mind to be moderate. But if we were to fall, I believe that change would be stimulated and aided by his message. Alcoholics know in their heart that their life is a mess even if they don’t admit it out loud. At the same time, once one falls into an unholy and unhealthy life, most lose their capacity to pull out on their own. Knowing it is now also a sickness stimulates a humility that they need help. It is no accident that the 12 Steps of AA include a need to turn to God and treatment.

The combination of a message of “This is my life and I have to take responsibility” and the realization “I am sick and need help (counseling from people as well as God’s Grace)” provide the complete package for successful change. Holiness is not just a gift from God via His Graces but requires our cooperation of our free will.
 
I would beg to differ as as demonstrated even the Jews are split on this issue. They themselves do not know.

As far as the unleavened bread…

It was about getting ride of everything “coorupt” - fermented.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passover

[edit] Removal and sale of chametz
In accordance with the mitzvah of not eating or owning leavened products during Passover, religious Jewish families typically spend the weeks before the holiday in a flurry of housecleaning. The purpose is to remove every morsel of fermented grain products (called chametz) from all the cupboards and corners in the home. The search for chametz is often a thorough one, as children’s rooms and kitchens are cleaned from top to bottom and forgotten packages or pieces of cookies or crackers are uncovered under beds and inside closets. Although many ensure that not even a crumb of chametz remains, the Halakha only requires the elimination of olive-sized quantities of leavening from one’s possession.
Meanwhile, the family attempts to consume or dispose of all edible chametz products (like bread, pasta, cookies, soup mixes, and even non-kosher-for-Passover matzo—which, being designed for year-round use, is allowed to rise for more than 18 minutes before baking) so as to have nothing left by the morning before the holiday begins.

Seems like a pretty thourough process = to ensure no corupt product as it says. I agree that if they did drink wine - then wine is fine. I, just from browsing the web the last hour, beg to differ. That with - why uncorrupted bread but corrupted wine - doesn’t make sence.

Jesus kept the “good” wine for last …good meaning, pure, unfermented. “good” was the english translation of the greek word meaning “unspoiled, uncorupted”… so if it was translated “left the uncorrupted wine until last” that would end the controversy.

But doesn’t it say something when even the Jews disagree on the subject. If it was cut and dry - OK. But it is not. And logic says keep uncorupt products together to use. My logic anyway.
Forget Passover, as you said there’s evidence on both sides. Let’s just concentrate on the Wedding at Cana now.

And please don’t call unfermented juice ‘wine’. ‘Wine’ in English ONLY means fermented juice. You’re using the word in a wrong and confusing way. Stick to calling it ‘juice’ if it’s not fermented.

We have the steward saying common practice was to serve ‘good’ drink (either good quality wine, or juice for argument’s sake) first … and plenty of it.

But it cannot possibly have been common practice to serve ‘plenty’ of fresh grape juice. Or indeed ANY fresh grape juice. For one thing grapes actually have a limited growing season, fresh juice would have been very difficult to get for most of the year, ie for most weddings or social events. And not at all available for a large part of the year too.

But wine, of different qualities, absolutely would have been common and easy to get, since it keeps a long time and is easy to store whatever the season.
 
My body is simply a Temple that serves beer and wine as the drinks of choice.
I have studied where in the Bible, i.e. Rev. 21:8
“…immoral, sorcerers, idolaters…”

and Gal 5:21 “… sorcery, hatred,…”

Thatthe word in greek is PHARMAKEIA actually should be translated (drugs - like “pharmacy”).

Hense the USA lists alcohol as the no. 1 drug. Which would equal drug users not getting into heaven. Which would make bartenders “drug pushers” - just a perspective. 😦

definition of the Greek word that Paul used in Galatians 5:20. The word is farmakeia, which is translated literally, “the use or administering of drugs” (Thayer, page 649). From this root, we derive our English word “pharmacy.”

watchmanmag.com/0405/040520.htm
 
I appreciate your comments.

In my church is an individual that works with people with mental problems. He says there are no such thing - please do not get defensive I am just explaining a/his position. He indicates that it is the ploy of satan for us to “think” there is a predisposition etc (just like with pedofelia (sp?), homosexuals, beastality etc.) people. They take no responsibility because they “have a desease”. - again please don’t take this as an offensive attake as I understand the sensitive nature of it.

desease = not my fault = no responsibility = don’t necessarily have to change = gets pity

no desease, just acting on sinful impulses = sinner whoi needs to repent.

Just some thoughts.

I am not guilty of stealing because I have a mental desease = cleptomania = I can’t help it.
I hope you see how this line of reasoning is faulty. The reality is a disease such as alcoholism only pre-deposes a person towards drinking excessively. This does not mean that the person affected by the disease does not have control over it. Just like a person with diabetes has control on how the disease affects them through medication, diet and excercise.

But I digress…back to the thread…🙂
 
No where is the Bible is the word “wine” ever applied to the Lord’s Supper, which is exceedingly strange, if so be that this is an absolute necessity to the scriptural observance of it. And our Lord in His omniscience must surely have foreseen the great controversies that would arise over this question. Why then did He not in the beginning set the matter at rest and tell us that it had to be fermented, if this was the case? The thunderous silence of the Bible about this is surely significant, yet this significant silence is drowned out by the loud voices of human reasoning and tradition which are raised in defense of the fermented juice of the grape. Now it is to be granted that the Lord’s Supper is not to be found in the Old Testament. But the question, which, in God’s sight, is the purer of the two elements, is settled by the Old Testament. Of Israel’s wilderness trek, it is said, “Thou didst drink the pure blood of the grape,” Deut. 32:14, so that if we can determine what Israel drank, we will know what the inspired word designates as the pure element of the grape. A very similar statement is found in Gen. 49:11: “Binding his foal unto the vine, and his ***'s colt unto the choice vine; he washed his garments in wine, and his clothes in the blood of grapes.” Here we see several things proven. (1) The blood of the grape is found in the vine, not in the vat. (2) This fresh “blood” of the grape is sometimes called “wine” though it is unfermented. Actually, the Hebrew word for “wine” here means only that it is “pressed out”. It is a generic term for the extract of the grape, irregardless of its condition. (3) Since the “blood” of the grape is found in the vine, then the pure blood of the grape is the unfermented juice of the grape.
First with regard to what is underlined, see the following from Scripture

Mathew 26: While they were eating, Jesus took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and giving it to his disciples said, “Take and eat; this is my body.”
Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins. I tell you, **from now on I shall not drink this fruit of the vine **until the day when I drink it with you new in the kingdom of my Father.”

Mark 14: Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, and they all drank from it. He said to them, “This is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed for many. Amen, I say to you, I** shall not drink again the fruit of the vine** until the day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.”

Luke is quite similar.

Now, I know the words are not “wine” as you state. So there is potentially a question of whether the “fruit of the vine” was fermented or unfermented. However, let’s use your logic that I bolded followed by an additional underline.

If the tradition is quite clear (fermented grapes) as you say yourself, if his intention was unfermented, wouldn’t it be more imperative that He say “unfermented”? Isn’t the silence more indication that He intended that which was traditional at the time and prior? He obviously endorsed the tradition at Cana. It takes a lot more “loud voices of human reasoning” to aggregate multiple NT and OT verses to come to the conclusion of unfermented than the simple conclusion of the local tradition and common use of fermented combined w/ Cana that He meant fermented.
 
Not sure I follow - where does “do not drink” mean do not get drunk, am I missing something?
The quote you provided said do not drink… when you go into the Temple.
That is all it said
Holy and clean - God’s temple
Unholu and unclean - alcohol - I see the corelation right in that verse. It is telling us to seperate the two because of the opposing principles… no?
No.
As pointed out above wine was poured out as an offering
Therefore it can’t be considered unclean or otherwise not fit for Temple.

It seems that the verse you cited could just as easily be interpreted that (a) going into the Temple is serious business and one should be mindful of what you’re doing and (b) since you will be walking in there with a jug of wine as an offering it would be a good thing to make sure it winds up as an offering so no sampling.

Think of what a wonder and mystery that fermentation was before the advent of microbiology and even afterwards.
And when you consider that yeast, the little wonder of Creation that gives us wine, also gives us bread… kind of makes you wonder.
😉
 
…uncorrupted being opposite to fermentation. Thoughts…
My hobby is making beer and wine.
Be assured that fermentation is not the same as corruption

When you get a bacteria or wild yeast in your batch you know right away that it is corrupted.

Side note: during the beer making process foam will appear on the surface. The traditional English name for this foam is “God is good”. I’m told that this came from the medieval monks/brewers who would say a little prayer of thanks when they saw that the fermentation was going correctly.

As it was explained to me by a brewing expert “….and God is good, He gave us beer.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top