Alcohol in Heaven

[RND]

"Many churches apparently believe and avidly teach that biblical wine is really unfermented grape juice. According to all indications both implicit and explicit, there is no possible way for this position to appear at all feasible. First, Noah could not have gotten drunk on grape juice (Genesis 9:21), nor could have Lot (Genesis 19:32-35). "But," some will claim, "that was Old Testament wine which was obviously alcoholic. The New Testament is clear in its condemnation of the use of alcohol and the instances where `wine' is drunk it is grape juice only." Even a quick look at the New Testament exposes the error of this argument. In John 2:11, the already-mentioned miracle at Cana is recounted. In accordance with Jewish custom, they were drinking real wine. It was a joyful occasion with probably several hundred people attending, so Jesus helped when the wine supply became prematurely exhausted. The product had to be fermented wine, for if it had been mere grape juice, there would have been complaints rather than superb compliments. "A feast is made for laughter, and wine makes merry" says Ecclesiastes 10:19 with the Hebrew word requiring a fermented product!

A laughable opinion no doubt!

This is mere assumption that Jesus had to have made alcoholic wine because, well everyone was partying and, well, Jesus would have been messin' with 'em if He hadn't provided more wine for them to get drunk!

Say it ain't so!

Fact of the matter is that the wine Jesus provided woke people up and snapped them out of their drunkenness. They were all ready drunk as the phrase "well drunken" indicates the people were already intoxicated. These drunks were able to deduce that the wine Jesus offered was beter than any they had ever had. The wine at this wedding is representative of the blood of Christ and thus what the author is suggesting is that the wine Jesus gave at the wedding was representative of His tainted blood! And to that the fact that Jesus filled 6, count 'em 6, stone pots with represent man in his "empty" state and it's not too difficult to pass on the notion that Jesus symbolically was filling man with tainted blood.

Oh, how willingly we go on deceiving ourselves in order to justify our behavior!

Then at the "Last Supper" Jesus passed around wine to His disciples. Since this was six to seven months after the grape harvest and since there was no way to preserve grape juice, this also had to be fermented wine. (The actual phrase is "fruit of the vine," but, as pointed out by The New Westminster Dictionary of the Bible, this expression was "employed by the Jews from time immemorial for the wine partaken of on sacred occasions, as at the Passover and on the evening of the Sabbath. The Greeks also used the term as a synonym of wine which was capable of intoxication.")

This is also an assumption. The fermentation process could be completely eliminated by boiling the wine bottles in water and reducing the water content. Later that grape juice could be reconstituted by simply adding water. The Egyptians were doing this for 2,000 years before Christ.

The Greek word used in John 2:1-11 for "wine" and in Paul's command to Timothy to drink wine (1 Timothy 5:23) is the term oinos. This same word appears in Ephesians 5:18 ("be not drunk with wine") and Luke 10:34 ("and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine"). Can you get drunk on grape juice? Would you pour grape juice on a wound? Of course not! You get drunk on alcoholic wine and fermented wine would provide sufficient alcoholic content to serve as an antiseptic. The New Testament always refers to fermented wine. And how could the apostles stand to be accused of being drunk on grape juice (Acts 2:13-15)?"

Again, this is speculation and nothing offered here proves that Jesus drank alcohol.

 

[RND]

offer up the proof you have that Jesus drank alcohol or refrain from derailing the thread.

"Some take the words for wine to mean ‘grape juice.’ If this were so, then why would there be prohibitions against drunkenness? One cannot get drunk on grape juice. Further, Jesus’ first miracle was changing the water into wine at the wedding of Cana in Galilee. He made between 120 and 180 gallons of wine! Even if this had been grape juice, it would soon turn to wine because the fermentation process would immediately begin. But it most certainly was not grape juice: the head waiter in John 2:10 said, “Every man sets out the good wine first, then after the guests have drunk freely, the poor wine. But you have kept the good wine until now.†The verb translated ‘drunk freely’ is almost always used of getting drunk (and is so translated in the NRSV here). In the least, the people at this wedding feast, if not drunk, would certainly be drinking alcohol fairly freely (if not, this verb means something here that is nowhere else attested4). And this makes perfect sense in the context: The reason why a man brings out the poorer wine later is because the good wine has numbed the senses a bit. Grape juice would hardly mask anything. Note also Acts 2:13—â€they are full of sweet wineâ€â€”an inaccurate comment made about the apostles when they began speaking in tongues, as though this explained their unusual behavior. The point is: If they were full of grape juice would this comment even have made any sense at all? That would be like saying, “Well, they’re all acting strange and silly because they have had too much orange juice this morning!â€

There are other references to alcoholic beverages in the Bible: Several times in the first books of the Bible, wine and strong drink are prohibited to those who take a Nazarite vow (cf. Num 6, Judges 13). Even grape juice and fresh and dried grapes (i.e., raisins, as the NIV renders the word) are prohibited to the Nazarite (Numbers 6:3)!5 But that restriction is only for those who make this vow. If someone today wants to claim that believers do not have the right to drink alcohol on the analogy of a Nazarite vow (as some today are fond of doing), they also should say that believers ought not to eat Raisin Bran!
Negative Statements about Wine Indicate that it is not Grape Juice

Further, the Bible at times speaks very harshly about becoming enslaved to drink or allowing it to control a person, especially to the point of drunkenness. Proverbs 20:1—“Wine is a mocker, strong drink a brawler, And whoever is intoxicated by it is not wise†(NASB). Cf. also Prov 21:17 (where heavy drinking and gluttony are equally condemned); 1 Sam 1:14; Isa 5:11, 22; 28:1 (drunkenness is condemned); 28:7; 29:9; 56:12; Jer 23:9; 51:7; Joel 3:3. In the New Testament notice: Eph 5:18 (“do not get drunk with wineâ€); 1 Tim 3:3, 8; Titus 1:7 ([elders and deacons ought not be] “addicted to wine or strong drinkâ€); Titus 2:3 (older women, who would serve as role models to the younger ones, must not be addicted to wine). As well, numerous passages use wine or drunkenness in an analogy about God’s wrath, immorality, etc. (cf. Rev. 14:8, 10; 16:19; 17:2; 18:3).

The significance of these negative statements is just this: If this were only grape juice, why would excess in drinking it be condemned? If this were only grape juice, why are certain mental effects attributed to it (cf., e.g., Psalm 60:3)? One can’t have it both ways. You can’t say that wine is always grape juice, for then the negative statements in scripture make no sense; those who say that it is only grape juice tend to focus just on the neutral and positive passages, conveniently allowing them to condemn the drinking of real wine at all times. But even this position is not logical: If the Bible only speaks of grape juice, then it makes no comment about alcoholic wine. And if so, then it does not directly prohibit it. And if we are going to prohibit something that the Bible does not address, why stop at wine? Why don’t we include the ballet, opera, football games, country-western music (actually, I might be in favor of banning this one!), salt water fishing, zippers on clothes, etc. Once legalism infests the soul it doesn’t know where to quit.

In sum, is wine the same as grape juice? No, for if it were, the Bible would hardly condemn the abuse of such. Those who argue that the two are identical simply cannot handle the passages that speak about excess."

http://bible.org/article/bible-and-alcohol

Nothing offered here proves Jesus drank alcohol, it's mere speculation.

 

[researcher]

it's mere speculation.

Lol. As is your textbook SDA view. :yes

 

[RND]

it's mere speculation.

Lol. As is your textbook SDA view. :yes

Iasked for proof that Jesus drank wine. You copied opinion and speculation from two sources that certainly prove there was alcoholic wine in the Bible. If I had known you were going to do that I could have saved you some time.

No, I asked for specifics. Specifically verses that show conclusively that Jesus drank alcohol. You provided nothing of the sort. One of the guesses I would offer about not finding any scriptures about Jesus drinking alcohol is because He never did.

No reason to write about it when it never happened. :yes

researcher, I understand you have to justify yourself and your lifestyle. You drink so you have to prove the Bible allows it and no doubt it does in extreme moderation. But to insist Jesus drank alcohol is without merit or proof.

 

[researcher]

You drink so you have to prove the Bible allows it

If the Bible said, "thou shalt never drink alcohol ever." I probably wouldn't.

But it doesn't. So why abstain from something I enjoy in moderation, and even prophets drank?

To appease the legalists? Lol. Surely not! 2

The day you do the miracles of the Old and New Testaments like I do, and God talks to you like he did to the prophets, kings and apostles like he does me, then maybe I'll be concerned. But since God has spoken to me audibly and literally, and I have done the miracles Jesus and the apostles and prophets have done, things which you apparently have never experienced, I can't justify worrying over your mind's (or your denomination's) interpretation of things written in scripture. It would be illogical for a spiritual person to adhere to a non-spiritual person's way of thinking. The two go together like oil an water. :yes

 

[RND]

If the Bible said, "thou shalt never drink alcohol ever." I probably wouldn't.

Probably?

You know, the Bible says nothing about having intercourse with children (sorry mods, just making a point) so would this be a probably for you as well?

But it doesn't. So why abstain from something I enjoy in moderation, and even prophets drank?

The question is related to the thread topic "Alcohol in Heaven." There is no chance alcohol will be served there just as much as you won't be eating pickled pigs feet there either! No death in heaven no hog maws and pork chops.

To appease the legalists? Lol. Surely not! 2

Was Jesus a legalist when He said, "Thou shalt no commit adultery?" Ah, God, you're such a legalist!

The day you do the miracles of the Old and New Testaments like I do, and God talks to you like he did to the prophets, kings and apostles like he does me, then maybe I'll be concerned.

I wouldn't base anything the Bible says on me or anything I say. I would just simply remind you that there won't be any alcohol in heaven. So I guess get your fill now.

But since God has spoken to me audibly and literally, and I have done the miracles Jesus and the apostles and prophets have done, things which you apparently have never experienced, I can't justify worrying over your mind's (or your denomination's) interpretation of things written in scripture.

Well, if you've done the miricles that Jesus has done who needs Jesus? Maybe we should just worship you then?

It would be illogical for a spiritual person to adhere to a non-spiritual person's way of thinking.

I would agree. So again, make sure you get you fill of alcohol now because there won't be any in heaven.

The two go together like oil an water. :yes

Or the two go together like people who say Jesus drank wine but when tasked to offer evidence can't.

 

[RND]

I want to see the evidence that Jesus drank wine. That's what I haven't seen so far. Where's that scintillating proof at?

 

[researcher]

I want to see the evidence that Jesus drank wine. That's what I haven't seen so far. Where's that scintillating proof at?

Obsession

 

[researcher]

RND wrote: You know, the Bible says nothing about having intercourse with children (sorry mods, just making a point) so would this be a probably for you as well?

You should go back to your Ellen G. White cult.

 

[RND]

I want to see the evidence that Jesus drank wine. That's what I haven't seen so far. Where's that scintillating proof at?

Obsession

Just admit you have none! Don't say that Jesus drank wine ever again until you can produced evidence from scripture that He did! Otherwise you are making up unprovable doctrine and you might as well say Jesus fathered children and smoked dope!

 

[RND]

RND wrote: You know, the Bible says nothing about having intercourse with children (sorry mods, just making a point) so would this be a probably for you as well?

You should go back to your Ellen G. White cult.

Can't answer anything without trying to change the subject and belittle yourself in the process?

The Bible says "thou shalt no commit adultery." Is that just a "probably with you also? How about stealing? Coveting? Lying? Are those all "probably's with you as well?

researcher, just admit you have -zero- prove Jesus drank wine. It's simple enough to do. I suspect you won't though because by believing Jesus drank wine it justifies your drinking alcohol.

 

[researcher]

I want to see the evidence that Jesus drank wine. That's what I haven't seen so far. Where's that scintillating proof at?

Obsession

Just admit you have none! Don't say that Jesus drank wine ever again until you can produced evidence from scripture that He did! Otherwise you are making up unprovable doctrine and you might as well say Jesus fathered children and smoked dope!

Back to your cult ,you're useless to the body

Luk 7:33 For John the Baptist came neither eating bread NOR drinking wine; and ye say, He hath a devil.
Luk 7:34 The Son of man IS come eating and drinking; and ye say, Behold a gluttonous man, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners!

Eph 5:18 And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit;

John the Baptist didn't drink wine (Luk 7:33), Jesus did (Luk 7:34), wine gets people drunk (Eph 5:18).

 

[RND]

Back to your cult ,you're useless to the body

That's only because I'm pointing out what a deceiver you are when it comes to the word of God!

Luk 7:33 For John the Baptist came neither eating bread NOR drinking wine; and ye say, He hath a devil.
Luk 7:34 The Son of man IS come eating and drinking; and ye say, Behold a gluttonous man, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners!

Eph 5:18 And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit;

John the Baptist didn't drink wine (Luk 7:33),

That's right, John's parents were instructed to raise him as a Nazarite.

Jesus did (Luk 7:34),

Prove it was alcoholic. Oh, what's that? You can't. Just an assumption. OK, carry on.

wine gets people drunk (Eph 5:18).

It does. Now, prove Jesus drank alcohol.

Mat 9:17 Neither do men put new wine into old bottles: else the bottles break, and the wine runneth out, and the bottles perish: but they put new wine into new bottles, and both are preserved.

What's "new wine?"

 

[researcher]

Prove it was alcoholic. Oh, what's that? You can't. Just an assumption. OK, carry on.

Post the verse that says wine is not alcoholic.

 

[researcher]

[quote:3o2lip5a]The day you do the miracles of the Old and New Testaments like I do, and God talks to you like he did to the prophets, kings and apostles like he does me, then maybe I'll be concerned.

I wouldn't base anything the Bible says on me or anything I say. I would just simply remind you that there won't be any alcohol in heaven. So I guess get your fill now.[/quote:3o2lip5a]

[quote:3o2lip5a]But since God has spoken to me audibly and literally, and I have done the miracles Jesus and the apostles and prophets have done, things which you apparently have never experienced, I can't justify worrying over your mind's (or your denomination's) interpretation of things written in scripture.

Well, if you've done the miricles that Jesus has done who needs Jesus? Maybe we should just worship you then?[/quote:3o2lip5a]

1Co 12:7 But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal.

God gives the supernatural gifts. It means God gave me some, and you none apparently.

Mar 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
Mar 16:17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
Mar 16:18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

I've done those. Guess I believe. You do those?

 

[RND]

Prove it was alcoholic. Oh, what's that? You can't. Just an assumption. OK, carry on.

Post the verse that says wine is not alcoholic.

New wine.

Mat 9:17 Neither do men put new wine into old bottles: else the bottles break, and the wine runneth out, and the bottles perish: but they put new wine into new bottles, and both are preserved.

No reason to put "new wine" in old bottles because the fermentation process would cause the old bottles to burst. That's why "new wine" has to go into new bottles because the fermentation process won't cause the bottles to burst.

New wine = grape juice, freshly squeezed.

 

[researcher]

Prove it was alcoholic. Oh, what's that? You can't. Just an assumption. OK, carry on.

Post the verse that says wine is not alcoholic.

New wine.

Mat 9:17 Neither do men put new wine into old bottles: else the bottles break, and the wine runneth out, and the bottles perish: but they put new wine into new bottles, and both are preserved.

No reason to put "new wine" in old bottles because the fermentation process would cause the old bottles to burst. That's why "new wine" has to go into new bottles because the fermentation process won't cause the bottles to burst.

New wine = grape juice, freshly squeezed.

It doesn't say that wine is not alcoholic. But the Bible does say that you can get drunk from it. So far I'm winning.

As for the new wine:

Act 2:13 Others mocking said, These men are full of new wine.
Act 2:14 But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said unto them, Ye men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words:
Act 2:15 For these are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day.

Drunk on new wine.

 

[RND]

1Co 12:7 But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal.

God gives the supernatural gifts. It means God gave me some, and you none apparently.

Doesa this prove there will be alcohol in heaven? Will we have beer commercials there too?

Mar 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
Mar 16:17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
Mar 16:18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

I've done those.

Good for you!

Guess I believe.

No doubt.

You do those?

Not necessary I guess. I believe without having to do those things. I'm easy. Of course, we aren't judged in our belief based on if we handle snakes or not! That would make it "works" based and not strictly on faith.

 

[RND]

It doesn't say that wine is not alcoholic. But the Bible does say that you can get drunk from it.

Honestly, I'd look into getting a concordance and begin understanding how these words are used.

In Acts 2:13 the word "new" is not translated. The word here is: gleukos which means akin to glukuV - glukus 1099; sweet wine, i.e. (properly) must (fresh juice), but used of the more saccharine (and therefore highly inebriating) fermented wine:--new wine. Did you catch that? Highly inebriating.

After saying that "all were amazed," etc. Luke immediately adds, "But others, mocking, said, These men are full of sweet wine." This is how it was rendered originally. The wine was not new, as rendered in the common version; for new wine was not intoxicating; but it was old, and very intoxicating, though by a peculiar process it had been kept sweet. Thus Strong's Concordance defines this word for wine as highly intoxicating, fermented wine. On the Day of Pentecost, the disciples are accused of having been drinking too much wine, gleukos, not oinos.

So far I'm winning.

Hubris.

As for the new wine:

Act 2:13 Others mocking said, These men are full of new wine.
Act 2:14 But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said unto them, Ye men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words:
Act 2:15 For these are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day.

Drunk on new wine.

Sweet wine. Old and very intoxicating. You see researcher you have yo find anyway you can to justify your drinking and you'll do everything except "research" the words of scripture to understand what is being said. That's a shame frankly.

 

[researcher]

It doesn't say that wine is not alcoholic. But the Bible does say that you can get drunk from it.

Honestly, I'd look into getting a concordance and begin understanding how these words are used.

In Acts 2:13 the word "new" is not translated. The word here is: gleukos which means akin to glukuV - glukus 1099; sweet wine, i.e. (properly) must (fresh juice), but used of the more saccharine (and therefore highly inebriating) fermented wine:--new wine. Did you catch that? Highly inebriating.

After saying that "all were amazed," etc. Luke immediately adds, "But others, mocking, said, These men are full of sweet wine." This is how it was rendered originally. The wine was not new, as rendered in the common version; for new wine was not intoxicating; but it was old, and very intoxicating, though by a peculiar process it had been kept sweet. Thus Strong's Concordance defines this word for wine as highly intoxicating, fermented wine. On the Day of Pentecost, the disciples are accused of having been drinking too much wine, gleukos, not oinos.

So far I'm winning.

Hubris.

[quote:3pjcpl41]As for the new wine:

Act 2:13 Others mocking said, These men are full of new wine.
Act 2:14 But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said unto them, Ye men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words:
Act 2:15 For these are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day.

Drunk on new wine.

Sweet wine. Old and very intoxicating. You see researcher you have yo find anyway you can to justify your drinking and you'll do everything except "research" the words of scripture to understand what is being said. That's a shame frankly.[/quote:3pjcpl41]

You still haven't brought a verse that says that wine is not alcoholic.

The verse that talks about John not drinking doesn't say "sweet wine," or "new wine," it says "wine."
(No, John did not drink sweet or new wine either)

It clearly says, "wine" makes you drunk (Eph 5:18).

So, we still need a verse that says "wine" is not alcoholic.

As for a concordance.. I have one (actually more than one), and I knew that the word in Acts was different. It appears once in the NT. Did you think I was going to give you a freeby without making you work? lol. Not!

Verse that says that "wine" is not alcoholic?