G
George_Waters
Guest
Great post catholic-rcia!
Peace,
George
Peace,
George
- Status
C
Catholic_Heart
Guest
My family attends an evangelical church that serves grape juice at their weekly communion services…and the general belief is that drinking alcohol is a sin…But…I know for a fact that MANY of these people DO drink…I always make a point of saying that I enjoy a glass of wine every night…Sometimes just to see what their reaction will be…I guess I like to stir the pot now and then.
To say that Jesus did not approve of drinking wine is rediculous. If he felt that way, he surely would not have provided all that lovely wine at Cana, would he? Everyone drank in those days…There was no refrigeration, so fermentation was a natural event.
And…What about the wine at the Last Supper?
To say that Jesus did not approve of drinking wine is rediculous. If he felt that way, he surely would not have provided all that lovely wine at Cana, would he? Everyone drank in those days…There was no refrigeration, so fermentation was a natural event.
And…What about the wine at the Last Supper?
D
Daniel_Marsh
Guest
Romans 14:21
It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.
Ask them to explain Romans 14 to you about eating meat, and about sabbath day vs sunday. After they say it is ok to eat meat or worship on sunday, point out verse 21.
It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.
Ask them to explain Romans 14 to you about eating meat, and about sabbath day vs sunday. After they say it is ok to eat meat or worship on sunday, point out verse 21.
L
Lance
Guest
Fundamentalists believe that wine drinking is wrongand I believe the Fundamentalists are wrong.
Y
YahShuaMessiah
Guest
May I?
Scripture warns against the drinking of alcoholic wine. The Bible is consistent on this, both in the Old and New Testaments. Two quoted passages, Pr. 20:1 and 23:29-35, are good examples of scriptural warnings against consuming alcohol. Pr. 23:32 says “at the last it biteth like a serpent, and stingeth like an adder.” Verse 33 shows that it will cause one to look at strange women (that is, not one’s wife) and to say perverse things, or things which he would not say if he were sober. Verse 34 predicts that it will cause death, such as drowning, or loneliness, such as lying upon the top of a mast. Verse 35 warns against numbness (“they have beaten me and I felt it not”) and "addiction (“when shall I awake? I will seek it yet again”).
Pr. 31:4-5 teaches, “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.” The danger is obvious.
By the way, Pr. 31:6,7 give us the only legitimate use of alcoholic wine in Scripture. “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.” This would be using it as an anesthetic; a painkiller. But this is not for everyone; he says in v. 6, “unto him that is ready to perish.” Of course, they did not have all the painkillers that we have today. In our time, it would not be necessary to do this. We have many anesthetics available for those who are dying. Then, about the only thing available to the average person would have been some kind of alcohol. Alcohol is a depressant; it is not a stimulant, as some think. After several drinks, one gets dizzy; then he will pass out. So this passage teaches that alcoholic beverage would be only for the person who is ready to die; there would be no hope for his life. All that would be possible would be to ease his pain and help him forget his misery.
Another passage is Is. 5:11. “Woe unto them that rise up early in the morning, that they may follow strong drink; that continue until night, till wine inflame them!” Obviously this is alcoholic, because it inflames. Why does he say, “Woe unto them”? Verse 12 answers, “…they regard not the work of the Lord, neither consider the operation of his hands.” Everyone knows that when one gives himself to the drinking of alcoholic beverage, he will not be more spiritual, more desirous of learning the Word of God. To the contrary, it causes a person to ignore the Lord. Verses 13-14 reveal two other serious results: people go into captivity (become slaves to something or someone) and Hell enlarges itself! The drinking of alcoholic wine has caused Hell to be enlarged! God does not want anyone to go to Hell; He has given the greatest, dearest gift that He possibly could, to rescue sinners from it. He never made Hell for people. The Lord Jesus Christ said that Hell was prepared for the devil and his angels (Mt. 25:41). However, because of alcohol, Hell has had an enlargement campaign. Here, then, is a clear warning against drinking alcohol, because God does not want anyone to go to Hell.
Is. 28:7,8 continues the warning. “But they also have erred through wine, and through strong drink are out of the way; the priest and the prophet have erred through strong drink, they are swallowed up of wine, they are out of the way through strong drink; they err in vision, they stumble in judgment. For all tables are full of vomit and filthiness, so that there is no place clean.”
S
Scott_Waddell
Guest
I find it disturbing that fellow Christians are willing to dispense with the virtues of prudence and temperance and adopt a quasi-gnostic/islamic prohibition against all drinking of alcohol. Let’s look at the teaching from the actual Church authority (as opposed to several flimsy proof-texts cobled together and held up as binding by heaven knows what):
M
malachi_a_serva
Guest
Hi Deb1, thank you…you have a nice way about your posts. I do believe the bible teaches alcoholic wine for medicinal purposes only…as you mentioned. In answer to the quote,
Jesus did not drink or make alcoholic wine. Here are proofs from Scripture.
Because of His holy nature. In He. 7:26, we read that the Lord Jesus is “holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners.” No doubt, the Saviour, being God in the flesh, had an air of holiness about Himself that could be seen by even the most casual observer. For instance, the profane soldiers, who were sent to arrest Him, gave as their reason for returning without Him, that “never a man spake like this man.” (John 7:46) The words of Jesus were different; He, no doubt, had a very holy appearance, character, and speech.
Why is this so important? Consider this illustration. The word “cider” may mean an alcoholic beverage, or plain apple juice. Suppose we lived during the 1920s, prohibition days, and were approached by two people offering us a drink of cider. One of the persons, we knew to be one of the holiest men in town, faithful to the house of God, separated from the world, diligent in prayers, always witnessing to others; the other was a known liquor dealer. If each one offered us a drink of “his very own cider,” we would assume that the holy person’s was no more than apple juice, but there would be no doubt about our opinion regarding the liquor dealer’s cider! Obviously, the character of a person influences what that one does.
Since the Lord Jesus Christ was “holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners,” we may safely assume that He would not make that which is called in Scripture a mocker and deceiver of man, causing untold misery.
Another reason is that He would not contradict scripture. In Mt. 5:17- 18, Christ made this clear, saying, “Think not that I am come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.” Therefore, Christ could not have contradicted Hab. 2:15, “Woe unto him that giveth his neighbor drink, that puttest thy bottle to him, and makest him drunken also, that thou mayest look on their nakedness!”
Certainly, Jesus knew that this verse was in the Bible; He was well-acquainted with Scripture, since it is His Word and was written about Him. He did not come to violate Scripture, but to fulfill it. He could not have done so, if He had made alcoholic wine and had given it to his neighbor.
Some people object to the use of this verse by saying that it would apply only to one who would give his neighbor drink for the purpose of looking on his nakedness. But we must remember: when one gives his neighbor something which will make him drunk, he is putting himself in the very class of those who do so in order to look on their nakedness. And since the Scripture commands us to “abstain from all appearance of evil” (1 Th. 5:22), we can be sure that the Lord Jesus would not have done something that would have been associated with such an evil practice as that described in Hab. 2:15. For the same reason, no Christian should be engaged in the selling of alcoholic beverage.
Another, is that Le. 10:9-11 commands the priest of God, “Do not drink wine nor strong drink … that ye may put difference between holy and unholy, and between unclean and clean; and that ye may teach the children of Israel all the statues which the Lord hath spoken…” Now, since He. 2:17 calls Christ “a merciful and faithful high priest,” we would expect Him to obey all Scriptures pertaining to that office. If He had made or drunk alcoholic wine, He would have disobeyed these verses and would have been disqualified from teaching the children of Israel the statues of the Lord.
More,…Pr. 31:4-5 prohibits kings and princes from drinking alcoholic wine or any other strong drink. If they had done so, their judgment would have been perverted. It was necessary for Christ to obey these verses also, since He was Prince of Peace (Is. 9:6) and King of Kings (Re. 19:16). In Mt. 27:11, He admitted to being the King of the Jews. He rode into Jerusalem on a donkey’s colt, to fulfill Zec. 9:9, which prophesied that Israel’s king would enter the city in just that way. Undoubtedly, He was king, and as such, would have had to obey Pr. 31:4-5.
Another is that Christ did not come to mock or deceive people, yet Pr. 20:1 says that wine does both. Rather than coming to mock or deceive he came to save!
He did not come to send people to Hell. We have already seen that Is. 5:11-14 teaches that Hell had to be enlarged because of the drinking of alcoholic beverage. Christ did not come to send people to Hell; listen to Jn. 3:17: “For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.”
L
landstander
Guest
drinking beverages with alcohol in them was often the safest and most sensible thing to do, since water often was unpure. Maybe what they’re referring to is just going out and getting totally plastered, but Jesus was the son of a carpenter, so plaster was probably part of his everyday routines for a while. 
M
malachi_a_serva
Guest
Christ did not come to cast a stumblingblock before anyone; yet, Ro. 14:21 teaches that a person who gives another alcoholic wine does just that. “It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.” Everyone who has studied the problem of alcoholism has learned that some people cannot handle any amount of alcohol, while others may drink one or two “social” drinks and stop. Experts do not know why this is true; various theories have been propounded, but nothing has been proved to be true regarding every person. Some say it is chemical; others insist that it must be psychological. The fact is, we do not know for certain. In any given group of people, there would be several potential alcoholics. What a shame it would be for a person, who is a potential slave to it, to get his first taste at the Lord’s table in church, then proceed down the road of misery to an alcoholic’s grave!
I certainly would not want my children to get their first taste of alcohol at the family meal; nor would I want them to get it at church. One or more of them could well be potential alcoholics. As evidence that this is possible, we should consider that some denominations which serve alcoholic wine in their religious services also operate homes for alcoholic priests!
But we can be absolutely sure that Christ did not come to cause others to stumble!
John 2, the miracle of turning water into wine, does not require that it be alcoholic. Many insist that it was, on the basis of verse 10, which says, “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.” They would say that, in those days, it was common to serve the best alcoholic wine at first, saving the worst until later, when men’s tastes have been dulled by much drinking. But the point is just the opposite here! These people could definitely recognize that the wine which Jesus made was much better than what they had been served at first. This could not have been possible if they were already well on their way to becoming intoxicated! The fact is, neither the wine which they had at first, nor that which Christ made, was alcoholic.
The Lord Jesus Christ would not have gotten glory from making drunk people drunker. Verse 11 is most important when it states that, by this miracle, Jesus “manifested forth his glory.” Verse 10 indicates that the people had drunk quite a bit of whatever kind of wine they were drinking. If it had been alcoholic, they would have been intoxicated, or nearly so. Had Christ made alcoholic wine, He would have made drunk people drunker, or almost-drunk people completely drunk! Such a deed would certainly not have manifested any glory to Him!
This chapter also gives us another reason, making drunk people drunker would not have caused his disciples to believe more strongly on him, yet verse 11 says that, as a result of what He did in turning the water into wine, “his disciples believed on him.” Jn. 1:41 shows that they had already believed on Him as Messiah; this was a deepening of their faith and a proof that they had not been wrong. Would making drunk people drunker inspire such faith? The opposite would be likely! They were not looking for a Messiah who would pass out free booze! Thus, because of the description of this miracle and its result, we can not conclude otherwise than that this wine was non-alcoholic.
I certainly would not want my children to get their first taste of alcohol at the family meal; nor would I want them to get it at church. One or more of them could well be potential alcoholics. As evidence that this is possible, we should consider that some denominations which serve alcoholic wine in their religious services also operate homes for alcoholic priests!
But we can be absolutely sure that Christ did not come to cause others to stumble!
John 2, the miracle of turning water into wine, does not require that it be alcoholic. Many insist that it was, on the basis of verse 10, which says, “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.” They would say that, in those days, it was common to serve the best alcoholic wine at first, saving the worst until later, when men’s tastes have been dulled by much drinking. But the point is just the opposite here! These people could definitely recognize that the wine which Jesus made was much better than what they had been served at first. This could not have been possible if they were already well on their way to becoming intoxicated! The fact is, neither the wine which they had at first, nor that which Christ made, was alcoholic.
The Lord Jesus Christ would not have gotten glory from making drunk people drunker. Verse 11 is most important when it states that, by this miracle, Jesus “manifested forth his glory.” Verse 10 indicates that the people had drunk quite a bit of whatever kind of wine they were drinking. If it had been alcoholic, they would have been intoxicated, or nearly so. Had Christ made alcoholic wine, He would have made drunk people drunker, or almost-drunk people completely drunk! Such a deed would certainly not have manifested any glory to Him!
This chapter also gives us another reason, making drunk people drunker would not have caused his disciples to believe more strongly on him, yet verse 11 says that, as a result of what He did in turning the water into wine, “his disciples believed on him.” Jn. 1:41 shows that they had already believed on Him as Messiah; this was a deepening of their faith and a proof that they had not been wrong. Would making drunk people drunker inspire such faith? The opposite would be likely! They were not looking for a Messiah who would pass out free booze! Thus, because of the description of this miracle and its result, we can not conclude otherwise than that this wine was non-alcoholic.
M
malachi_a_serva
Guest
Rationally I ask this. Who would benefit more from man drinking alcohol?
Yahwey
or
Satan?
How many men say I will have one or two and end up having enough to be drunk?
During these periods, one’s inhabitions are diminished and who’s work is done then? Satan’s…the flesh’s. The flesh can bear only destructive fruit. Gal. 6:8a: “For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption…”
Romans 8:6a: “For to be carnally minded is death…”
These are the Word’s of Yahwey.
Yahwey
or
Satan?
How many men say I will have one or two and end up having enough to be drunk?
During these periods, one’s inhabitions are diminished and who’s work is done then? Satan’s…the flesh’s. The flesh can bear only destructive fruit. Gal. 6:8a: “For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption…”
Romans 8:6a: “For to be carnally minded is death…”
These are the Word’s of Yahwey.
I
imroc
Guest
But he’ll touch a “defiled” man also known as a leper in contradiction to law and standard to heal, right? He is not detracting from the law, Malachi, he is fulfilling the law. You have completely taken more scripture out of context by quoting scripture when Jesus talked about the law and how He won’t change one IOTA. But He did come to fulfill the law, something in which you will miss out on when referencing scripture in tiny excerpts. Let’s just say for sake of argument you were correct that OT wine was some kind of “grape juice” (geesh, I can’t believe I’m saying this
). Let’s say that touching a leper in the street was forbidden as well (It was…). Now Jesus came and healed lepers by touching them AND forgave them of sins, right. Jesus instituted the Eucharist as well, right? Yes! Can Jesus not use your so called “tainted” wine to heal your “tainted” soul and forgive you as well? Or will you keep giving Jesus boundries? We are not worthy to even consider claiming what Jesus can and cannot do when it comes to Law. Your fundamentalist friends have helped you build a boundry and we would be more than happy to explain what this means, Malachi. We love you and we want you to come home. The term fundamentalism is the very limiting factor in which I refer to.
I
imroc
Guest
Malachi, you have limited your scope so narrow you have forgotten Christ our Lord. You claim that wine isn’t alcoholic in regard to Jesus’ drinking. Fine, you’re completely off the charts with that statement and I have the utmost proof I am holding back on, but fine. You ask who would benefit from a man drinking alcohol more, correct? Like I said, your limiting yourself. The deeper question and most important is who would benefit from your abstanance from the Eucharist?!
Yahwey
or
satan?
(why do you capitalize satan’s name, by the way? I’m not accusing you of anything, just wondering.)
M
malachi_a_serva
Guest
Catholic Heart:
Jesus mentions, “the cup” and “fruit of the vine”…nothing translated wine.
I
imroc
Guest
You refer to the Eucharist and neglect everything about it? Of course wine comes from the fruit of the vine. You’re beginning to reach, but nothing is there, my friend. Let us help you out? Please…
M
malachi_a_serva
Guest
Perhaps you should ask GOD. He capitalized the name in his book.
I
imroc
Guest
perhaps you aren’t God.
Just kiddin’. I wasn’t looking for a sarcastic answer, just wondering.
I
imroc
Guest
I see a one-sided Q&A here. You ask us questions and we answer wholeheartedly. You on the other hand, how come you don’t answer? Your answers are extremely important.
M
malachi_a_serva
Guest
I do believe your sarcasm does come with some heartfelt concern. Is sarcasm a fruit of the spirit?
The word of God tells me:
Acts 16:30-31
“…what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you shall be saved…”
Romans 10:9-10
“That if you shall confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus Christ, and shall believe in your heart that God has raised him from the dead, you shall be saved. For with the heart man believes to righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made to salvation.”
Now this is quite clear and I pose this question. That if any of these statements are lacking in anything regarding salvation, than both St. Luke and St. Paul have commited a lie to the receipients of their writtings. Think about that for a moment. The Romans would have received a lie. They did not have any other part of the New Testament at the time they received the letter from Paul. So, Paul would have being lieing to them about salvation.
You can pray for my lack of the euchrist. I will pray for your trusting in anything other than the sacrafice our Lord Jesus Christ did on the cross, his death and ressurection.
N
NotWorthy
Guest
Malachi? The key is the Last Supper. You can look up all the instructions on how to perform the Jewish Seder. See if it allows wine or grape juice (I know, maybe they used little dixie cups, too?). There are numerous sites that can show this. I believe you’ll find they are very particular, our Jewish friends.
Second, can you explain how a seasonal fruit, like the grape, can be preserved in Ancient Israel without fermenting.
A third key is Biblical Context. The ancients didn’t make wine because they were raving drunks. They made it for practicality. Alcohol was the only thing transportable over any great distance that didn’t sour. Water didn’t last long in transportable skins. Grapejuice? Even worse, if it even was producable.
Fermented drinks were by far the most reliable drink. Which reminds me of the college professor who dropped two worms in beakers, one filled with pure alcohol and one filled with water. The one in water swam around with no problems. The one dropped in alcohol died immediately.
What’s my point, you might say? My final point is something the ancients obviously realized**. Drink alcohol and it will get rid of your worms**!!!
Notworthy
Second, can you explain how a seasonal fruit, like the grape, can be preserved in Ancient Israel without fermenting.
A third key is Biblical Context. The ancients didn’t make wine because they were raving drunks. They made it for practicality. Alcohol was the only thing transportable over any great distance that didn’t sour. Water didn’t last long in transportable skins. Grapejuice? Even worse, if it even was producable.
Fermented drinks were by far the most reliable drink. Which reminds me of the college professor who dropped two worms in beakers, one filled with pure alcohol and one filled with water. The one in water swam around with no problems. The one dropped in alcohol died immediately.
What’s my point, you might say? My final point is something the ancients obviously realized**. Drink alcohol and it will get rid of your worms**!!!
Notworthy
M
malachi_a_serva
Guest
- Status