Jesus drank alcohol

[alexander garcia]

Hi, again I was just reading through and could some one stating that ( it was Yahshua not Jesus ) that stated to do this in rememberance of Him. That is what it matters! As far as man is does it matter NO! As far as scripture YES

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Hi, just an opinion on this. First the best wine is not juice it is aged. As to anothers point of the keg party theory . We have Yahshua and at least 12 others besides his motherand brothers and sisters and the rest of the town. What kind of keg parties do you go to? It was not even their party and they came with at least 13 people so how many were at this party? If you have 50 people on a keg do you still want to make drunk jokes? I think that the reason that the churches don't allow wine (alcohol) is that since their beliefs are powerless theories and traditions of man brought by the devil, they can do nothing to change a person. So it is hard to say to someone that Jesus is going to set them free, but since you are still a drunk we don't want to tempt you. Wait what happened to the new creation? Oh ya that is only good with the true name as scripture states ACTS 4:12 their is only ONE NAME. So if you wish to be saved from who you are and wish to be who the Almighty wants you to be repent and be immersed in the name of Yahshua to take away your sins nd you will receive the gift of the Holy spirit

Alex,

You really should get to know Steve. I'd love to see you two go head to head in a debate on anything.

 

[JillianMarie77]

I know that LDS people use water because of the Word of Wisdom.

The WoW is a big ....mess. DOesn't make any sense. None of them can agree on the details of it. Hot drinks means no coffee or tea but hot chocolates okay. Maybe its the caffeine but why is Coke okay? Or is it?

See what I mean?

On another debate baord I've had LDS people tell me "jesus didn't drink wine! They just called it wine but it was unfermented wine aka grape juice!"

Go ahead - wipe the tears from your eyes

 

[Smoke]

It's important to note the alcohol content would have been considerably lower. Until the last 30 years beer was around 2 % alcohol.

I'm not going to rag you too hard about that one because you obviously never had the opportunity to sample any beer 30 or 40 years ago. But I can assure you that people have been brewing beer quite a bit stronger than 2% for much longer than 30 years. And the ancients not only had regular, full-strength wine, they also had fortified wines from about the time people discovered distilling: around 6,000 years ago, if not earlier.

Wine as a preservative: Wine doesn't keep indefinitely, especially if you're carrying it around in a goatskin or storing it in clay jars in the Mediterranean heat. That's one of the reasons the ancients found distillation such a handy skill.

Wine as a disinfectant/bactericide: Not very effective, and obviously less effective than spirits.

Wine as something other than wine. Believe it or not, the ancients understood how to make wine, and they even knew that wine was not juice. At least in Greek, the ancients had words for juice, must, and wine. Juice is not wine. Must is not wine.

Oinos, the word used in the story of the wedding at Cana, is wine.

A little dab'll do ya. I think the clear implication of the chief steward's comment -- "Every man at first setteth forth good wine, and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse" -- is that he'd have preferred to serve the good wine -- the wine Jesus made -- before the guests were too tipsy to know the difference.

Drinking till you fall down is rarely a good idea, but if Jesus objects so much to people getting a little buzz, why would he make them more wine when they're already in their cups?

Also, even assuming (as I do) that the Pharisees' accusation that Jesus was a glutton and a drunkard* was untrue, it wouldn't have made any sense at all if he'd been notably abstinent. Jesus not only drank, he drank a bit more than the righteous people thought was proper.


_____
*The NASB gives "drunkard" where the KJV has "winebibber." The New King James, curiously, retains "winebibber," which makes me wonder just how intent they really were on updating the translation.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I'm not going to rag you too hard about that one because you obviously never had the opportunity to sample any beer 30 or 40 years ago. But I can assure you that people have been brewing beer quite a bit stronger than 2% for much longer than 30 years. And the ancients not only had regular, full-strength wine, they also had fortified wines from about the time people discovered distilling: around 6,000 years ago, if not earlier.

Wine as a preservative: Wine doesn't keep indefinitely, especially if you're carrying it around in a goatskin or storing it in clay jars in the Mediterranean heat. That's one of the reasons the ancients found distillation such a handy skill.

Wine as a disinfectant/bactericide: Not very effective, and obviously less effective than spirits.

Wine as something other than wine. Believe it or not, the ancients understood how to make wine, and they even knew that wine was not juice. At least in Greek, the ancients had words for juice, must, and wine. Juice is not wine. Must is not wine.

Oinos, the word used in the story of the wedding at Cana, is wine.

A little dab'll do ya. I think the clear implication of the chief steward's comment -- "Every man at first setteth forth good wine, and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse" -- is that he'd have preferred to serve the good wine -- the wine Jesus made -- before the guests were too tipsy to know the difference.

Drinking till you fall down is rarely a good idea, but if Jesus objects so much to people getting a little buzz, why would he make them more wine when they're already in their cups?

Also, even assuming (as I do) that the Pharisees' accusation that Jesus was a glutton and a drunkard* was untrue, it wouldn't have made any sense at all if he'd been notably abstinent. Jesus not only drank, he drank a bit more than the righteous people thought was proper.


_____
*The NASB gives "drunkard" where the KJV has "winebibber." The New King James, curiously, retains "winebibber," which makes me wonder just how intent they really were on updating the translation.

I will add that I've read a good deal of texts in the ancient world, and not one of them complains about perferring wine to the water supply.

Clean water was readily available in Rome via the aquaduct. Most ancient cities were built near a river with ample clean water. All over the Mediteranean there were religious sects and philosophical sects who only drank water and were fine. The idea that the ancients perferred wine to water because they knew the water was unhealthy is unfounded, rediculous, ignorant, and a historical fallacy.

They drank wine because they liked the buzz and they enjoyed getting drunk, just like us.

 

[Merlin]

It is an accepted fact that people drank beer as water was largely dangerous. People had no understanding about germs before Pasteur. Therefore pots and carrying skin pouches and pans and cups would be dirty, as were hands. Birds dropped their faeces into aqueducts; animals drowned in them; people swam and washed in them (as in the Ganges).

As late as the 1800s we had poor or non-existent sewers and filthy streets in Cities. They did drink things with some alcoholic content 'for their stomach's sake'. Beer was the cheapest, and low alcohol beer is the cheapest to make.

Earlier in the thread, Mormons argued that alcoholic beverages did not exist in biblical times. It is a major plank in their doctrine. There actually are dozens of references in the Bible (maybe 100s) of people getting drunk. Where does that leave the belief that Jesus was a non alcohol drinker?

 

[zenzero]

Friend Merlin,

Jesus drank alcohol

Yes, He was a monk/saint and those on fruit juices are not!

Love & rgds

 

[logician]

Eat, drink, and be merry.

 

[ChristineES]

As far as I know, Jesus drank wine with His meals.

 

[Thief]

I am pretty sure that in the occation in which Jesus turned water into wine, it was non-alcoholic wine that was made by him. I say this for two reasons:

1) The reference is for "New Wine" which means new from the grape, which would not have had time to ferment, and therefore not contain alcohol.
2) If the wine created was alcoholic, it would have been equivalent to a couple of kegs of alcoholic substance, and would be liked to having a massive keg party, and allow everyone to be drunk. I find it hard to believe that the Lord would on one hand instruct us to, "not be drunk with wine", and at the same time create enough one to do exactly that to everyone at the wedding feast.

Peace.

Sorry I got here so late for this one.
The first cup poured went to the governor of the wedding feast.
You can't fool an adult...who grew up drinking wine...with grape juice.

On another occasion, an accusation was dealt, that the Carpenter was a wine bibber.
Such accusation carries no weight if the drink in hand is grape juice.

Your reference to 'new' wine, is a metaphor.
The parables of the Carpenter are the 'new' wine....
intended to go to your head.

 

[xxclaro]

Maybe someone already said this,but here's a few points. If Jesus didn't want us to drink any alcoholic beverage,why didn't he make the distinction in wines that were acceptable? If "wine" really translated into 17 or something different words, you'd think that Jesus would have realized he needed to be specific.
Also, the argument that the water was unsafe doesn't seem supportable. First off, I don't think the water was as bad as many would have you believe,as people obviously did drink water and there's no mention of made that I know of in the Bible that the water was dangerous and should not be drunk. Also,Jesus being who he was, would not have had any reason to worry about such things. He could have safely drank the water as it was, or rendered it safe if he wanted.
If you feel it is best not to drink any alcohol, that's absolutley fine. I drink very little myself. However,trying to make the bible support that positions is just not going to happen if you are honest about it.

 

[Thief]

Maybe someone already said this,but here's a few points. If Jesus didn't want us to drink any alcoholic beverage,why didn't he make the distinction in wines that were acceptable? If "wine" really translated into 17 or something different words, you'd think that Jesus would have realized he needed to be specific.
Also, the argument that the water was unsafe doesn't seem supportable. First off, I don't think the water was as bad as many would have you believe,as people obviously did drink water and there's no mention of made that I know of in the Bible that the water was dangerous and should not be drunk. Also,Jesus being who he was, would not have had any reason to worry about such things. He could have safely drank the water as it was, or rendered it safe if he wanted.
If you feel it is best not to drink any alcohol, that's absolutley fine. I drink very little myself. However,trying to make the bible support that positions is just not going to happen if you are honest about it.

In the first book of Timothy...
'Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach's sake and thine often infirmities.'

Quoting the Carpenter...
'No man is defiled by what enters the mouth, but rather by what comes out.'
There is no judgment call to make, about what you ingest.

And in these days we know a small amount of alcohol helps to purge various parts of your bodily chemistry.

And in a pinch, it can clean your wound, better than water.

 

[no-body]

I've only skimmed through the last two pages but has anyone mentioned that the "safety" reasons for drinking wine is ridiculous when you're talking about the son of God? He can make wine out of water but he can't magik up some clean water or grape juice?

If one part of the bible has to be taken into the context of the times it was written maybe it all should.

 

[sojourner]

If one part of the bible has to be taken into the context of the times it was written maybe it all should.

You don't need the qualifiers "if" and "maybe" in this statement. but you do need a semicolon after "written."

 

[logician]

I've only skimmed through the last two pages but has anyone mentioned that the "safety" reasons for drinking wine is ridiculous when you're talking about the son of God? He can make wine out of water but he can't magik up some clean water or grape juice?

If one part of the bible has to be taken into the context of the times it was written maybe it all should.

For that matter, he could have "miraculously" saved himiself from his own execution, but seemed unable to do so.

 

[sojourner]

For that matter, he could have "miraculously" saved himiself from his own execution, but seemed unable to do so.

He could have saved himself without a miracle, too. It's not a question of "unable," it's a question of "unwilling."