Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Did Jesus Drink Fermented Wine ?

Lewis

Member
I think He did drink fermented wine, but others do not like in this following article.

Jesus and Wine
Did Jesus turn water into “alcoholic†wine at a party?

Did Jesus drink alcoholic wine? It is assumed by a great many that He did. Let’s examine this for a moment. Do you know how much wine Jesus made during His first miracle at the wedding feast of Cana? He made 6 firkins, or about 150 gallons. Now, of course, the New International Version (NIV), which never changes anything of significance (yea, right), says by implication that Jesus did this “after the GUESTS had too much to drinkâ€. You do understand that Jesus was a GUEST don't you??? So, let me understand this correctly, Jesus was at a party where the guests were drinking to excess, Jesus was one of the guests, and He supplied a few extra kegs to liven things up a bit after they had already drank to excess. Is that your Jesus?
Jesus Sinned?

The King James Bible (KJB) rendering which states they had "well drunken" (had plenty to drink) is the correct one. The New American Standard Version and other literal modern versions agree with the KJB here, leaving the NIV alone in its radically liberal paraphrase. Even if you take the rendering in the KJB, which I do, you have to conclude the guests had drank their fill of wine. If this wine was alcoholic then it is likely that they would not be ready for another 150 gallons of alcoholic wine. Think about it. How many glass of wine would this be? If you figure 4 ounces to a glass, 128 ounces to a gallon, you get 32 glasses of wine per gallon and a grand total of 4,800 glasses of wine. Now I do not know how many people were at this feast, but surely 500 would be a large number for such an event at this time. If this wine was alcoholic then Jesus did cause all who were there to drink to excess. This is clearly a sin in the Old Testament. Not only would His excessive drinking have been a sin, but causing others to do so is also a sin. Every Jew present at this wedding, and they were undoubtedly all Jews, would have known Him to be a sinner because of this verse, and many others:

Habakkuk 2:15 Woe unto him that giveth his neighbour drink, that puttest thy bottle to him, and makest him drunken also,.......

Now my liberal (apostate) friends are quick to assert that Jesus drank alcoholic wine, as a tea totaler of course, but are often shocked by the implication this has in John 2. Some have suggested that Jesus didn't drink any, and that the guests did not have to drink all that he made. These are interesting thoughts, but I think it is clear from context that the guests had drank their fill and were now given a great deal more to drink. I think it is also abundantly clear from context this was not alcoholic wine.
Biblical Word Wine and Its Usage

The word "wine" is mentioned 231 times in the King James Bible. In the Old Testament there are 3 Hebrew words that are all translated as “wineâ€.

* YAYIN: Intoxicating, fermented wine (Genesis 9:21).
* TIROSH: Fresh grape juice (Proverbs 3:10).
* SHAKAR: Intoxicating, intensely alcoholic, strong drink (often referred to other intoxicants than wine) (Numbers 28:7).

The New Testament, translated from Greek, uses the word “wine†for both fermented and unfermented drink. There are 2 Greek words for wine the New Testament.

* OINOS: Wine (generic) - Matthew 9:17 -- unfermented, Ephesians 5:18 -- fermented.
* GLEUKOS: Sweet wine, fresh juice (Acts 2:13).

The context reveals the type of wine as in Proverbs 20:1, â€Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging: and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wiseâ€. If grape juice is substituted for the word wine, the verse doesn't make sense.

The Bible is full of prohibitions about using alcoholic wine. It was forbidden for priests and for those who took the Nazarite vow. It was forbidden for kings and princes (Proverbs 31:4-6) and pronounced woe upon anyone who provided his neighbor alcoholic wine and made him drunk (Habakkuk 2:15). It would be inconsistent for the Bible to speak against alcoholic wine and then have Jesus ignore it.
Relevant Questions to the Discussion

Didn't they use fermentation to preserve wine? How much alcohol content does naturally fermented wine have? Did they ever water it down? Is granulated sugar important to fermentation and alcoholic content? Was fermentation the only way to preserve grape juice?
Fermentation, Preservation and Alcoholic Content

One must have a clear understanding of fermentation to see the unlikelihood of the above contention. First, naturally (no additives) fermented wine has a low alcoholic content. Until the advent of widely available granulated sugar, strongly alcoholic wine was rare. To make wine strongly alcoholic like what we have today (10%-15%) you must add a lot of sugar and yeast. These are the two key components to fermentation, and they are not present in large enough quantities naturally to create the strong wine we have today. Alcoholic wine during biblical times, which was much weaker than the wine of today, was often watered down for drinking. They basically only had water and wine. Like Pepsi or Coke today, wine was consumed by adults and children alike as a tasty substitute for water. Watering down wine was something they did and they drank it this way regularly. Also, boiling it down to a syrup was frequently done for preservation. This boiling killed the yeast that would cause fermentation. The syrup could easily be reconstituted later for drinking purposes. A third form of preservation was by straining out the yeast to prevent fermentation.
The Myth of Natural Fermentation

Nature NEVER forms spiritous liquors. The fruit (grape) may rot and turn sour but it takes ART to convert juice to alcohol. The indispensable conditions for vinous fermentation are exact proportions of sugar, yeast or gluten and water with air temperature between 50 and 75 degrees. Chemical science forbids vinous fermentation when heat exceeds 75 degrees and assures the acetous (vinegar). Since the Middle East is well above that even at night most of the year, something had to be done to preserve the juice (wine) for the year, or else it would all turn to vinegar! To assume it was all turned to alcoholic wine is a ridiculous assertion and flies in the face of historical fact. Josephus, famous Jewish historian declares that he has seen provisions at the Jewish fortress Massada including grapes and fruits, kept fresh to last for 100 years!!!! Pliny the Roman historian confirms this. Don't let anyone tell you that grapes have to be kept by making alcoholic wine so they can last the year!!

So we see that the portrayal that grape juice was only preserved by fermentation is utterly false. Unfermented wine was the most common wine in biblical times. It was not what we know as wine today which is always alcoholic. You cannot defend wine drinking today on the basis of biblical times because the two are totally different.
Argument from the Passover

Some will still say that Jesus Christ indeed drank alcoholic wine and we know this by the passover (which was the last supper - Mark 14:14-17). There is a difference of seven months grapes between the harvest and passover. They will say “they didn't have refrigerators, so to keep the grapes from souring, they were fermentedâ€. As we have shown above, the seven month time span would not have been a problem due to the multitude of frequently used preservation methods, all of which easier than fermentation, available to the people at that time.

Furthermore, in Matthew 26 it was "the fruit of the vine†(verse 29) they drank. This is also in Mark 14, Luke 22, and 1Corinthians 11. The “fruit of the vine†would be grapes, and when the grapes are crushed they do not make alcoholic wine. You do know that God calls it wine while the juice is still in the grape don't you?

Isaiah 65:8 Thus saith the LORD, As the new wine is found in the cluster....

Argument from the Good Samaritan

Another contention about Jesus drinking alcoholic wine stems from the story of the Good Samaritan. The Greek word for wine used here is oinos. The claim is that it is alcoholic here because the Good Samaritan used it as an antiseptic. This is the same Greek word used in John 2, so it is contended that Jesus did turn the water into alcoholic wine.

If you know anything at all about Greek you know that oinos can refer to fermented or unfermented grape juice. The word oinos is used at least 33 times in the LXX to translate tirosh the Hebrew word for grape juice. The word “wine†not only in Greek, but in Old English, in Latin, and in Hebrew is a generic term including all kinds of wine, unfermented and fermented.

In the 1828 Webster’s dictionary wine is defined as unfermented and fermented juice. Only by context can one know whether the wine in question is fermented or not. Thus, the fact the wine made by Christ at Cana is called oinos offers no grounds for concluding hat it was fermented wine.

It is interesting that the new versions, which claim to have up-to-date language, still translate all these original language words as wine since the definition of the English word "wine" has changed in the last 100 years. Where the KJB is accurate in its translation given the definition of the word in 1611, the new versions misrepresent the true meaning of these Hebrew and Greek words when they translate what is by definition juice in the Old Testament (tirosh) and clearly presented as such in context in the New Testament.

It is a false private interpretation of these passages in the NIV that the guests, including Jesus, were drunken and then Jesus made more to further the intoxication. The fact is that the context tells us otherwise. By the simple fact that the governor of the feast noted that He had saved the good wine until last. If they had been intoxicated the governor would not have been able to tell it was the best because his senses would be dulled. The argument from the Greek word oinos is completely invalid.
Argument from the Pharisee's Accusation

Another contention about Jesus drinking alcoholic wine comes from what our Lord said about the Pharisees. The Lord was demonstrating how it was impossible to please these arrogant theological intellectuals. No matter what you did they could find it to be wrong somehow. Jesus gives the illustration like this:

Matthew 11:18 For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, He hath a devil. 19 The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. But wisdom is justified of her children.

The argument from this passage goes like this: "Jesus must have drank alcoholic wine or they would not have made the accusation". That is an interesting comment, one that I considered very closely. However, if this argumentation is correct it must be applicable to the former comment about John the Baptist. For them to accuse him he must have been possessed by a devil (maybe just a little one and only infrequently). The obvious implication of this analogy is that neither is true. John was not possessed of a devil, and Jesus did not drink alcoholic wine and therefore could not have been a winebibber. It also bears mention that the Pharisees also accused him of breaking the sabbath by healing the sick, and of blaspheming God by making Himself equal with God. Neither of these accusations were true since helping the sick on the sabbath does not fall under the category of work (Mark 3:3-5), and He was equal and co-eternal with the Father (John 1:1-18).
What Does the Bible Say About Drinking?

Proverbs 23:29 Who hath woe? who hath sorrow? who hath contentions? who hath babbling? who hath wounds without cause? who hath redness of eyes? 30 They that tarry long at the wine; they that go to seek mixed wine. 31 Look not thou upon the wine when it is red, when it giveth his colour in the cup, when it moveth itself aright. 32 At the last it biteth like a serpent, and stingeth like an adder. 33 Thine eyes shall behold strange women, and thine heart shall utter perverse things. 34 Yea, thou shalt be as he that lieth down in the midst of the sea, or as he that lieth upon the top of a mast. 35 They have stricken me, shalt thou say, and I was not sick; they have beaten me, and I felt it not: when shall I awake? I will seek it yet again.

I know, I know, you guys that drink alcohol never drink too much do you? Sure you don't. I was around people who drank this stuff a lot before I was saved and I know from experience that someone who drinks almost always does it to get a buzz from it. Do your eyes behold strange women when you drink? Do you utter perverse things, like curse words, or dirty jokes when you drink? I am convinced that most of the fornication going on out there is at least partially attributable to alcohol consumption. Even the most worldly people consider it a sin product. Keep justifying it in your mind, but remember this verse:

Proverbs 14:12 There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.

Is Wine Destructive?

As I have demonstrated, nowhere in scripture do we find Jesus drinking alcoholic wine. Alcohol is destructive and addictive. It is a depressant drug that actually attacks the brain cells and destroys them. Twenty percent of all patients admitted into mental hospitals have a problem with alcohol. Alcohol has caused numerous health and social problems. In addition to this a majority of traffic fatalities and accidents can be directly attributive to alcohol. Drunkenness destroys lives and relationships. It is not just a disease. It is a sin.

Notice the damage alcohol did in the lives of these Bible characters:

* Noah - It brought shame (Genesis 9:21).
* Lot - His daughters committed incest (Genesis 19:30-36).
* Nabal - God killed him (1Samuel 25:36-37).
* Elah - Was murdered by Zimri (1Kings 16:9-10).
* Belshazzar - The Assyrians take his kingdom (Daniel 5)
* The Corinthians - During the Lord's Super God kills some (1Corinthians 11).

Where Do You Get Your Joy?

Some people seek their happiness, comfort and peace in a bottle. The Lord will always be the Christian's source of joy. Jesus said in John 15:11, "These things have I spoken unto you that my joy might remain in you, and that your joy might be full". 1John 1:4 reminds us, "And these things write we unto you, that your joy may be full".

God has given us His Word to provide comfort and to maintain joy in our lives. The Christian's happiness does not come in a bottle. It comes in a book -- the Bible! Consider that others are watching our example. What example are we setting? 1Thessalonians 5:22 warns us, “Abstain from all appearance of evilâ€.
Will Hoyt
http://www.learnthebible.org/jesus-and-wine.html
 
Two simple points to make about that article:

1) Despite what it says, yes, Jesus did drink wine with alcohol.
2) Providing it (by a miracle) does not mandate a person drinks of it. Each is responsible for their own actions just as surely as the bride and groom at a modern wedding do not hide all the alcohol just because some are not carrying themselves right. The burden of responsibility is to deal with the person, not to remove the alcohol.
 
I think the proper question is, -- Was he a Nazarite ?

I say, yes he was, and because of this did not drink anything other than milk, water and maybe a pepsi. or coke, don't want to be on the wrong side of you soda drinkers . :D

IN Christ - MM
 
Mysteryman said:
I think the proper question is, -- Was he a Nazarite ?

I say, yes he was, and because of this did not drink anything other than milk, water and maybe a pepsi. or coke, don't want to be on the wrong side of you soda drinkers . :D

IN Christ - MM
I most definitely respect your views MM, and believe you are very wise, and i also agree that Jesus was at one time a Nazarite. However I believe that He could have completely His vow before He was baptized starting His ministry. In number 6 it explains the vow of the Nazarite and in verse 20 it tells us that this vow does as some point end.

Numbers 6:20 And the priest shall wave them for a wave offering before the LORD: this is holy for the priest, with the wave breast and heave shoulder: and after that the Nazarite may drink wine.
 
watchman F said:
Mysteryman said:
I think the proper question is, -- Was he a Nazarite ?

I say, yes he was, and because of this did not drink anything other than milk, water and maybe a pepsi. or coke, don't want to be on the wrong side of you soda drinkers . :D

IN Christ - MM
I most definitely respect your views MM, and believe you are very wise, and i also agree that Jesus was at one time a Nazarite. However I believe that He could have completely His vow before He was baptized starting His ministry. In number 6 it explains the vow of the Nazarite and in verse 20 it tells us that this vow does as some point end.

Numbers 6:20 And the priest shall wave them for a wave offering before the LORD: this is holy for the priest, with the wave breast and heave shoulder: and after that the Nazarite may drink wine.

Thank you


The vow does end, but it ends at his final moment on the cross, when they gave him vinegar on a sponge. Also notice, that they tried to give him vinegar mingled with gall, but would not drink it. After drinking the vinegar that was given him the second time, he drank it, and then said - "it is finished", which means his "vow" as a Nazarite was finished. The vow was more than just not drinking femented items . But he came to fulfill the law, and he also fulfilled the law of a Nazrite as well.

IN Christ - MM
 
Mysteryman said:
"it is finished", which means his "vow" as a Nazarite was finished.
It means nothing of the sort.


On topic:

If one really looks at what is said, there is no difference from NIV to ESV to KJV, or what have you. Jesus likely drank fermented wine. The lengths people go to try and prove something that is utterly irrelevant to the life, teachings and works of Jesus are astounding.
 
Free said:
Mysteryman said:
"it is finished", which means his "vow" as a Nazarite was finished.
It means nothing of the sort.


On topic:

If one really looks at what is said, there is no difference from NIV to ESV to KJV, or what have you. Jesus likely drank fermented wine. The lengths people go to try and prove something that is utterly irrelevant to the life, teachings and works of Jesus are astounding.

I totally agree with your last sentence ! So when do you think people who do this will finally wake up and stop ?

It amazes me as well, why people want to make Jesus a drinker of fermented fruit or corn.

What is one's purpose to even suggest that Jesus drank anything that was fermented ? What conclusions do you draw from saying he drank wine or anthing fermented ? What purpose did it serve ?

When are people going to answer the simple questions ? And stop ignoring the obvious ?

Jesus always did something or anything with a "purpose" ! He didn't drink wine just to be sociable, and he most definantly didn't drink wine to fulfill any part of the law , unless he did so to fulfill the law of a Nazrite ! And in order to do that his vow would have to be finished ! And the scriptures are "clear" that he finished his vow.

But every man needs to be persuaded in their own hearts.

IN Christ - MM
 
I'm not going to get into a debate here about whether or not Jesus was a Nazarite since there is a thread for that, suffice to say that there is zero evidence to believe that he was.

No one is trying to make Jesus do anything he didn't do. Jews drank several glasses of wine with the Passover and so one can conclude that the likelihood of Jesus drinking wine is quite high, especially since he created wine and passed a glass around for his disciples to drink from. From your position don't you find it odd for someone who doesn't drink, and has supposedly taken a vow to not do so, to more-or-less encourage others to drink?

Most people who try to prove that Jesus didn't drink wine do so to then say that it is wrong for Christians to drink. One error leads to the next.
 
Jesus was the sacrifical lamb, he was the "offering". And under the law, which Jesus fulfilled, Leviticus 23:14 - "And ye shall eat neither bread , nor parched corn, nor green ears, until the selfsame day that ye have brought an offering unto your God : it shall be a statute for ever throughout your generations in all your dwellings"

Jesus was also the bread from heaven, and he was our Passover of unleavened bread.

Proverbs 20:1 - "wine is a mocker"

Psalm 75:8 "The hand of the Lord is the cup, and the wine is red, it is full of mixture ; and he poureth out of the same" < He shed his blood for us , poured out

Same verse, verse 8 - "but the wicked of the earth shall wring them out and drink"

IN Christ - MM
 
Free said:
I'm not going to get into a debate here about whether or not Jesus was a Nazarite since there is a thread for that, suffice to say that there is zero evidence to believe that he was.

No one is trying to make Jesus do anything he didn't do. Jews drank several glasses of wine with the Passover and so one can conclude that the likelihood of Jesus drinking wine is quite high, especially since he created wine and passed a glass around for his disciples to drink from. From your position don't you find it odd for someone who doesn't drink, and has supposedly taken a vow to not do so, to more-or-less encourage others to drink?

Most people who try to prove that Jesus didn't drink wine do so to then say that it is wrong for Christians to drink. One error leads to the next.

I love a beer now and then, and I even like a glass of wine from time to time with a certain meal, or even for thy stomachs sake.

But I was not the passover lamb ! He was !

IN Christ - MM
 
Mysteryman said:
But I was not the passover lamb ! He was !
How is this relevant? The Passover was celebrated long before he came into the world. As a Jew he would have observed the Passover throughout his life.
 
Free said:
Mysteryman said:
But I was not the passover lamb ! He was !
How is this relevant? The Passover was celebrated long before he came into the world. As a Jew he would have observed the Passover throughout his life.

Its relevant because Jesus was a priest who came to fulfill the law of Moses/God. If he drank fermented drinks, he would not have fulfilled the law of Moses/God !

He was the Passover, the priest, Prophet, Apostle, friend, brother, High Priest , a brethren, a Nazarite, etc.

Everything had to be fulfilled and he fulfilled it "all" when he said - "It is finished"

IN Christ - MM
 
Depending on the yeasts that are present, the sugar in wine will turn either into vinegar or alcohol. The only way to prevent this is to refrigerate or freeze, boil and hermetically seal, or desiccate (remove all the water). These technologies did not exist at the time of Jesus.

Jesus was derisively called a "wine bibber". This insult would not have too much impact if it was just grape juice.

The "new wineskin" also points to the carbon dioxide produced by fermentation.

The 12-14% alcohol wine we have today was probably not easily achievable at the time of Jesus. However, 6-8% (strong beer levels) would probably not have been a problem. Wine would often be watered down. But cutting it even as much as half would be discernible and not tolerated except for a huge price discount. There was a market even for the purple sludge at the bottom of a vat that was often sold for use by slaves.

It is doubtful that the economics of the time would have supplied enough disposable income for alcoholism to be as widespread as it is today.

Alcohol has caused a lot of damage to families throughout history. We do not need to twist science or history to try to prove that Jesus didn't drink alcohol. We can take from the description of the "weaker brother" by Paul that we shouldn't partake of those things that might cause a "weaker brother" to stumble.
 
Quote Timf : "Jesus was derisively called a "wine bibber". This insult would not have too much impact if it was just grape juice."

Hi Tim

In Matthew 11:18 Jesus said that John the baptist did not eat nor drink, and they thought he had a devil. That should show you and others where the minds of these individulas were at.

In verse 19 Jesus did come eating and drinking (what he drank is not mentioned) and they also thought that Jesus was gluttonous and a winebibber, and they thought that Jesus was a friend of publicans and sinners.

These individuals looked not at what they saw, but assumed as to what they saw. They blew everything out of proportion. They were not rational in any way, form or manner of thought .

IN Christ - MM
 
Mysteryman said:
In Matthew 11:18 Jesus said that John the baptist did not eat nor drink, and they thought he had a devil. That should show you and others where the minds of these individulas were at.

In verse 19 Jesus did come eating and drinking (what he drank is not mentioned) and they also thought that Jesus was gluttonous and a winebibber, and they thought that Jesus was a friend of publicans and sinners.

These individuals looked not at what they saw, but assumed as to what they saw. They blew everything out of proportion. They were not rational in any way, form or manner of thought .
Do you think they knew what John wasn't drinking?
 
Free said:
Mysteryman said:
In Matthew 11:18 Jesus said that John the baptist did not eat nor drink, and they thought he had a devil. That should show you and others where the minds of these individulas were at.

In verse 19 Jesus did come eating and drinking (what he drank is not mentioned) and they also thought that Jesus was gluttonous and a winebibber, and they thought that Jesus was a friend of publicans and sinners.

These individuals looked not at what they saw, but assumed as to what they saw. They blew everything out of proportion. They were not rational in any way, form or manner of thought .
Do you think they knew what John wasn't drinking?

Hi

Let me answer by asking you a question :

Why did they think John the baptist had a devil ?
 
Here is an intersting report:


" I recently obtained a copy of “Bible Wines: on The Laws of Fermentation and Wines of The Ancients†by Rev. William Patton, D.D., originally published in 1874. In this book, Patton presents information about fermentation and the historical uses of words like yayin, shekar, and oinos to show that most of what was used in biblical times was unfermented fruit juice, and not alcoholic at all. It is only when the Bible speaks negatively of wine, or strong drink, that an alcoholic beverage is in view.

It is not my intent for this to be an exhaustive review, but only to look at a few highlights.


Patton gleaned a lot of his information from two articles published more than thirty years earlier, which he identifies only as Bacchus and Anti-Bacchus. Bacchus was written by Ralph Barnes Grindrod, and Anti-Bacchus was written by Rev. B. Parsons. Both were written as submissions to a contest offering one hundred sovereigns “for the best Essay on the Benefits of Total Abstinence from All Intoxicating Drinks.â€[1] Many of the quotes in Patton’s “Bible Wines†that appear to be from some other source, are actually quotes from either Grindrod or Parsons quoting that other source.

Patton did not seem to be aware that both articles had been thoroughly discredited in 1841 by Rev. John McLean in the April (http://www.hti.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/text… and October (http://www.hti.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/text… issues of the Princeton Review [2]. McLean was a professor of ancient languages at the College of New Jersey. Patton presents quotes that Parsons and Grindrod took from authors such as Pliny, Columella, Aristotle, and others who lived contemporarily with the Apostles or earlier. McLean shows that some of these quotes were taken out of context, and that these ancient authors actually provide ample proof that the Two Wine Theory is false.

One example is the claim that grape juice was frequently boiled into a syrup, in order to prevent fermentation. The truth (as shown by McLean from documents written during or before the time of Christ) is that the must was boiled into a syrup prior to fermentation in order to improve, not prevent, fermentation. It had the effect of producing a concentrated wine (similar to our concentrated orange juice) that was both extremely sweet and extremely alcoholic. This is the wine we read about that was “always diluted with water†(i.e., reconstituted).

Another example is the claim that Pliny describes a process for preventing fermentation by allowing the must to settle. McLean shows that Parsons mistranslated the word "deferbuit" and that it really referred to the cessation of fermentation (i.e., not “when it has settled†but “when it has ceased to fermentâ€) [3].

McLean also shows that during the first century, and well before, the words we associate with wine and strong drink were not used unmodified to refer to unfermented beverages. Any time an unfermented beverage was mentioned, it was always by some other term. He also shows from ancient documents that there was no concept of “two winesâ€, but only one that was always fermented.

Fortunately, McLean’s articles are available for viewing on the internet [2], so they can be examined by anyone who is interested.

But, it is not even necessary to search archives of nineteenth century literature to expose the false statements in Patton’s book. All you have to do is use your favorite internet search engine and look for things like “anaerobic fermentation†or look up “fermentation†in an encyclopedia. For example, Patton says that one method of preventing fermentation was to bury containers of grape juice in order to exclude air. He says excluding air will prevent fermentation. That’s demonstrably false. Vinous fermentation is an anaerobic process that works better when air is excluded. In addition, excluding the air prevents acetous fermentation, which is what turns wine into vinegar. Another benefit to burying a container of must, is that it would stay nicely in the middle of the 50-75 degree range necessary for optimum vinous fermentation (which Patton says would be impossible in Palestine two thousand years ago). Patton also says that adding sulfur to the must was for the purpose of preventing fermentation. However, sulfur was (and sometimes still is) added to prevent the acetous fermentation of wine into vinegar. The purpose is to ensure that the finished product will be an alcoholic beverage.

Patton’s "Bible Wines" is base on false claims about fermentation, and incorrect assertions about processes applied to grape juice. My opinion, after reading a great deal from both sides, is that there is no basis in science, history, or scripture to support The Two Wine Theory. In fact, I think there is ample evidence from all three that disproves the theory completely."

Dan Campbell
Source(s):
http://www.sharperiron.org/archive/index…
 
Free said:
Because he wasn't drinking wine?

The opposite is true. They thought he had a devil spirit because they thought he was figuratively drunk and out of his mind . They couldn't tell the difference. All they did was assume. And because they themselves were not spiritual men, walking in the Spirit. They were walking by their five senses. It does not mean that they thought he was drunk literally. It means that he looked drunk and acted drunk, so they assumed he had a devil spirit.

They didn't understand what or who should be considered as one who has a devil spirit. So they assumed he had a devil spirit, so they were claiming that he was totally drunk(figuratively) and out of his mind. Yet, he was not drinking, which is what the Lord "said". The Lord said he had not been drinking. There is no mention of anything they said, other than John having a devil.

The Lord said he was eating a drinking, but they thought he was gluttonous and drunk. Of which neither account was true.

Jesus was drinking, but had not been drinking anything that had fermented, and he was eating, but not gluttonous.

What we need to differentiate from these two accounts is this - Both accounts , the one of John, and the other of Jesus, were both seen by these others, as being totally different from reality that was true.

IN Christ - MM
 
Mysteryman said:
They thought he had a devil spirit because they thought he was figuratively drunk and out of his mind ....It means that he looked drunk and acted drunk, so they assumed he had a devil spirit.
Assumption and assumption. Also, if, as you state below, "They didn't understand what or who should be considered as one who has a devil spirit," and John supposedly "looked and acted drunk," why would they assume "he had a devil spirit?" The most logical assumption would be that they thought he was drunk.

Mysteryman said:
They didn't understand what or who should be considered as one who has a devil spirit. So they assumed he had a devil spirit, so they were claiming that he was totally drunk(figuratively) and out of his mind.
This really doesn't make sense.

Mysteryman said:
There is no mention of anything they said, other than John having a devil.
Exactly. So why is it that you are presuming to know their very thoughts?

Mysteryman said:
Jesus was drinking, but had not been drinking anything that had fermented
Assumption.
 
Back
Top