Fermented/"non-fermented" wine

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tasha
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
It turns out that the religions of god of wine, Dionysus and Bacchus and of others like Apollo included “ecstasy” or speaking in tongues, glossolalia.

“With the ecstacisrn of Dionysianism and the emphasis on tongues-speaking and oracles in the religion of Apollo, it is not surprising that some of the Corinthians carried these pagan ideas in the church at Corinth, especially the practice of glossolalia for which both of these religions are known (though the Dionysian cult did not include interpretation of the glossolalia as did that of Apollo) .”

from, Tongues and the Mystery Religions of Corinth–H. Wayne House

davidcox.com.mx/library/H/House,%20Wayne%20-%20Tongues%20and%20The%20Mystery%20Religions%20of%20Corinth.pdf

Thus because they were speaking in tongues, it was assumed that the early christians were drunk on wine.
 
Mt 11:19 - Jesus comments that He is accused of being a drunkard, because He drinks. Seems to me, you would not accuse someone of being a drunkard -unless they drank.
To presuppose that at Cana at a Jewish wedding, wine was not served -is to be either ignorant of how Jews celebrated marriage feasts (as they do today still), or to be so clouded with your own agenda, that you read into the Scripture something that is not there.
Sorry, but Jesus drank wine. Have to live with that. Its a fact.
 
Re: Esther –

Jews have a law saying that they should drink on Purim (the feast celebrating Esther) until they can’t tell the difference between the phrases “Cursed be Haman” and “Blessed be Mordecai”. So if Jesus celebrated Purim as an adult, He probably got ritually tipsy!
 
From a winemaker’s perspective, there are two fermentations that occur. Since the skin of grapes has yeast growing on it (that whitish frosting you see if you look closely) fermentation of the sugars begins when the grapes are crushed. This takes a few days to a couple of weeks. At this stage, you have new wine, which is like grape juice with a kick. The second fermentation then takes another couple of weeks. This is the old wine. It is somewhat stronger, since alcohol is a by-product, but it really helps develops complex flavors to the wine. The bubbles in sparkling wines such as champagne come from the secondary fermentation.

For Lutherans and Catholics, I will propose an experiment. Ask your local wine merchant to give you a call when the Beaujolais Nouveau comes in. Get a bottle and another of a Beaujolais that has aged a year or two. Have your own tasting party and I think you will find, as in Scripture, no one prefers the new wine when they have tasted the old wine. And be sure to thank God for the gift of wine.👍
 
Tasha said:
I was having a discussion with a family that is Pentecostal. They are strictly against alcoholic beverages. (I’m not sure if that is the family’s position or the Pentecostal position) but we were discussing Jesus at the wedding at Cana. They say that “non-fermented” wine- in other words grape juice- was what Jesus made and not wine. I always thought grape juice was impossible to keep back then, and never gave a second thought to the subject. Then I did some research and I found this: orgsites.com/ky/jesusfirst/_pgg9.php3

It basically says it was possible to preserve grape juice back then. It goes on the explain that wine was not used at the Last Supper, either.

Now I am confused! How do I defend this issue after this argument? Thanks!
Click to expand...
I’ve encountered this saw a number of times. The theory advanced by the teetotaling fundamentalist or Pentecostal is that Jesus turned water into grape juice. They will often call it “new wine” as opposed to fermented wine. Something akin to Welch’s Grape Juice.

The fact of the matter is the Greek word used for wine in Jn. 2:9 is simply the word for wine, not “new wine” or juice.

As respects the created concept of “new wine” being a non-alcoholic substance, one need only refer to Acts 2:13: “But others mocking said, “They are filled with new wine.”” 2:15 Peter:" for these men are not drunk as you suppose…" So “new wine” can inebriate a person.

And out the window goes the concept of alcohol less wine. It’s all biblical dontcha know so that should confound your interlocatur. Now, I have never over indulged, but it is my understanding that too much grape juice, like too much prune juice can wreak havoc on the whole system!
 
Tasha said:
It’s very hurtful and insulting to me and it makes me so angry that people think we are drinking from “a cup of demons”.
Click to expand...
Don’t be insulted. If you knew everything they thought you’d really be insulted. No big deal.
 
As I’ve repeated in other threads on this same topic - Jesus was personally accused of being a DRUNKARD - not just a drinker of unfermented grape juice (which is hardly a damning accusation). Impossible if He never drank alcohol.

And He HIMSELF said that He came ‘eating and drinking’, directly contrasting Himself with John the Baptist who DID abstain from alcohol. The passage makes no sense if unfermented beverage is being referred to.

And look at the host’s reaction at Cana - the best WINE was usually served first, because once people were drunk they wouldn’t notice the wine served later was inferior in quality. Again, none of this makes the least bit of sense if it’s unfermented grape juice - because of course people would notice a drop in quality of a non-alcoholic drink! Would people normally serve Coca Cola early in the evening at a function and leave the cheaper brands of cola until later ‘because no-one will notice the difference’? :whacky:

As for the argument that by producing wine He would’ve been implicated in the sin of drunkenness - by that same logic He was implicated in the sin of gluttony by producing a surplus of food when He fed the five thousand. You get any group of five thousand people having a free feed, many are going to pig out big-time, to the point of gluttony, especially if they’re hungry, and especially if they know there’s plenty of leftovers that won’t keep for ever, unlike wine.

And the Apostles on Pentecost were accused of being DRUNK - hence their strange speech. Drinking unfermented grape juice doesn’t cause one to speak strangely in any way, drinking wine, however …

and what was Peter’s response to the charge of drunkenness? ‘It’s untrue because we never drink’? No, even that would be the logical response if it were the case. His defence was ‘no-one drinks this early in the morning!’
 
Tasha said:
I was having a discussion with a family that is Pentecostal. They are strictly against alcoholic beverages. (I’m not sure if that is the family’s position or the Pentecostal position) but we were discussing Jesus at the wedding at Cana. They say that “non-fermented” wine- in other words grape juice- was what Jesus made and not wine. I always thought grape juice was impossible to keep back then, and never gave a second thought to the subject. Then I did some research and I found this: orgsites.com/ky/jesusfirst/_pgg9.php3

It basically says it was possible to preserve grape juice back then. It goes on the explain that wine was not used at the Last Supper, either.

Now I am confused! How do I defend this issue after this argument? Thanks!
Click to expand...
As everyone knows, there is good wine and there can be bad wine. But is there much difference between good grape juice and bad grape juice?

And as everyone also knows, grape juice ferments very quickly. I left a bottle of opened Welch’s grape juice on the front seat, and the next day it was fermenting vigorously. I’m glad I found it before it blew up. Fermentation can be prevented by killing the natural yeast that is on the grape, or inhibited by keeping the juice cold. Boiling, or treating the juice with sulfer gas, will kill the yeast, but of course it then must be kept sealed to prevent re-inoculation by air born yeast.

All these remedies seem to require a lot of extra work and expense. Boiling the juice down to a syrup? Did the ancient Israelites use extra fire wood to do that? Did they then use precious water in the desert to reconstitue the syrup when they wanted to drink it? Did they have sulfer gas? (Hmm, maybe they did, and that’s how they treated the grape juice! But then, I don’t think anybody would want to drink it.)

It all seems impractical, especially in a warm desert environment.

So, is there evidence that they actually did all these things to prevent fermentation, as talked about in the article?
 
In reference to filtering, how don’t see how that would remove alcohol from wine. Filtering would remove the pulp and sediment and help clarify the wine, but not remove alchohol. Of course removing the solid matter would probably help the palatability of the wine, make it more pleasant to drink, and possibly with more pleasant after effects if drunk to excess.

Nor would filtering out the pulp stop fermentation because the yeast would have been mixed into the juice during the grape stomping. As well as air born yeast getting in anyway.
 
JRRTFAN said:
Don’t be insulted. If you knew everything they thought you’d really be insulted. No big deal./QUOTE

I’m going to have a smirk on my face all day from that quote. A whole lot of truth in a tiny sentence. Thanks for that!
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top