Jesus turned water into unfermented wine and not fermented wine.

[kennethcadwell]

John 2:6 And there were set there six waterpots of stone, after the manner of the purifying of the Jews, containing two or three firkins apiece.

Firkin= 8.625 gallons....that's approximately 9 gallons. The capacity of each waterpot was 2-3 firkins, which is equal to 18-27 gallons each. There were 6 waterpots. That would total to about 162 gallons of water. If you really believe that that Jesus would turn 162 gallons of water into 162 gallons of fermented wine for a party of people who were already "well drunk", then you need your head examined.

Jesus would have violated Habakkuk 2:15:

Habakkuk 2:15 Woe unto him that giveth his neighbour 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.

You need to read post 77, I showed the words used for wine in the new testament in the original language.

oy'-nos was the word used in this passage where Jesus turned water to wine, which means fermented wine.

This is what scripture says, not what I say.

 

[tourist]

You need to read post 77, I showed the words used for wine in the new testament in the original language.

oy'-nos was the word used in this passage where Jesus turned water to wine, which means fermented wine.

This is what scripture says, not what I say.

Exactly. Perhaps the guest list was in the thousands. It must have had some importance for Jesus to have been invited there.

 

[posthuman]

[TABLE="class: tborder, width: 100%, align: center"]
[TR]
[TD="class: alt1, bgcolor: #F6F6F6"]#1. Jesus is a king and Jesus would not have ignored his own sage advise or wisdom within His Word that says "it is not for kings to drink wine; nor for princes strong drink" (Proverbs 31:4 KJV); And the very Scriptures themselves are a testimony of Jesus: "Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me" (John 5:39 KJV). So if this verse is true, I want you explain how Proverbs 31:4 is a testimony of Jesus Christ.
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

i think you should read the rest of the Proverb:

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.

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.

Open thy mouth for the dumb in the cause of all such as are appointed to destruction.
Open thy mouth, judge righteously, and plead the cause of the poor and needy.
(Proverbs 31:4-9)

did Christ only make wine for Himself (the King) or for all the guests?
were all the guests of the wedding rulers and judges whose minds would be clouded and so might pervert justice while celebrating?

have you read what the law said to do with your tithe if you were too far from Jerusalem to bring it to the temple? have a look:

But if that place is too distant and you have been blessed by the Lord your God and cannot carry your tithe (because the place where the Lord will choose to put his Name is so far away), then exchange your tithe for silver, and take the silver with you and go to the place the Lord your God will choose.
Use the silver to buy whatever you like: cattle, sheep, wine or other fermented drink, or anything you wish. Then you and your household shall eat there in the presence of the Lord your God and rejoice.
(Deuteronomy 14:24-26)

my, but that's interesting!

[TABLE="class: tborder, width: 810, align: center"]
[TR]
[TD="class: alt1, bgcolor: #F6F6F6"]#2. Jesus could not have made alcoholic wine because John chapter 2 says, that the people at the wedding were "well drunk" (John 2:10 KJV). This means that they had already had drank a good amount of wine already and would have been either tipsy or close to being tipsy (at the very least). Jesus creating more good wine (i.e. good wine supposedly meaning that it was stronger in alcoholic content) would have contributed to the intoxication of those at the wedding party. This means that if they were not sober before, Jesus creating even more stronger alcoholic wine would have definitely made them at least tipsy or with having a mind that was not sober. This is a direct violation of Scripture that commands Christians to be sober (1 Peter 1:13 KJV) (1 Peter 4:7 KJV) (1 Timothy 3:2 KJV) (1 Timothy 3:11 KJV) (Titus 1:8 KJV) (Titus 2:2 KJV) (Titus 2:4 KJV) (Titus 2:6 KJV) (Titus 2:12 KJV) (1 Thessalonians 5:6, 7, 8). For God's Word wants us to be sober minded for our adversary the devil, is a roaring lion, who walks about, seeking those whom he may devour (1 Peter 5:8 KJV). So were they sober at the wedding or not?
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

"so were they sober or not" -- you answered yourself -- they were "well drunk" already.
by this we know that the wine they were already drinking was fermented.
now look back up there at the proverb for a second, and then look back at John 2 and see who it was that declared the wine to be superior:

When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, and knew not whence it was: (but the servants which drew the water knew the governor of the feast called the bridegroom, and saith unto him, 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.(John 2:9-10)

brother, i don't think that the ruler of the feast was drunk as the guests were. that is why the wine was brought to him to approve before being served. i also think that as master of the banquet, he was quite well educated on good and poor foods and wines, chosen to have charge over the feast. he was shocked at the quality of it, expecting diluted, unfermented grape juice to be brought out when the stores were depleted and the guests tastes numbed already by their rejoicing.

were the epistles that the apostles wrote sent to these people at the wedding? no, these came decades later. at the time that they were written, the King was not with them on earth - but at Cana, He was. now have a look at somethign else the King said:

And they said unto him, Why do the disciples of John fast often, and make prayers, and likewise the disciples of the Pharisees; but thine eat and drink?
And he said unto them, Can ye make the children of the bridechamber fast, while the bridegroom is with them? But the days will come, when the bridegroom shall be taken away from them, and then shall they fast in those days.
(Luke 5:33-35)

was the bridegroom at Cana?
He certainly was!!


[TABLE="class: tborder, width: 810, align: center"]
[TR]
[TD="class: alt1, bgcolor: #F6F6F6"]#3. The public creation of alcoholic wine would also contradict Romans chapter 14 that tells us that you are not to do anything to make your brother to stumble. For verse 21 says, "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" (Romans 14:21 KJV). For a public wedding of drinking and the writing down of that event is like a giant billboard sign declaring to Christians who have struggled with alcoholism and have put it away could then think that it is okay to drink again (when their conscience condemns it and or because they are horribly addicted to it). This would be the same thing as a Christian drinking in front of an alcoholic (knowing they are an alcoholic); For if a Christian were to do so, they could make this alcoholic stumble back into alcoholism again. Which would be evil. For Romans 14 says, "Let not then your good be evil spoken of" (Romans 14:16 KJV). Jesus knows there are alcoholics who would read John chapter 2. Such a stamp of approval on alcohol could easily send them back into alcoholism. This would be evil.
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

was the wine served to people who did not drink wine? the guests were "well drunk" -- were these people who came to the wedding instead of the tavern, for the sake of their conscience? i don't know if you've ever been to a Jewish wedding party, but if you have a weakness for food or wine, i warn you that you should not go.

what would it be if Christ had given the guests red colored water when they were expecting wine?
deception.

Paul wrote to us not to be drunk with wine but be filled with the Spirit -- now what would we say about it if a speaker moved his audience with emotion and fervor talking of spiritual things, and then when they were rapt in attention & trusting his message, he finished his sermon with false signs and trickery, staged shenanigans and deceptive speech speaking lies and blasphemy, then passed around an offering plate? we'd start talking about Benny Hinn or some other charlatan that deceives masses with counterfeit "spirituality"

can we believe Christ made counterfeit "wine" to deceive all the guests? is God a deceiver?
does He give false gifts?

He later cleansed the temple of moneychangers, and at another time He cleansed a house of mourners when He went to wake a little girl from death -- i do not read that He 'cleansed the wedding party' of people drinking wine as though it were out of place for them to be doing so.
what i read is that He turned water into the best wine that the master of the feast had tasted.

i think it's ridiculous to believe that the best wine - probably the best wine that has ever existed on earth at any time - was nothing but kool-aid, and that the guests were lied to and tricked into thinking it was actual wine.

 

[Linda70]

You need to read post 77, I showed the words used for wine in the new testament in the original language.

oy'-nos was the word used in this passage where Jesus turned water to wine, which means fermented wine.

This is what scripture says, not what I say.

The word wine in the Bible is a generic term; sometimes it means grape juice; sometimes it means alcoholic beverages. The context will always show when "wine" refers to alcoholic beverages.

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.

 

[secularhermit]

You can twist the Bible to say what you want. The fact remains that Jesus turned the water into fermented grape juice = wine.

otherwise, it sounds like Jesus was a sinner, and we believed differently.

 

[dcontroversal]

The Lord did not drink alcoholic wine. Alcoholic wine is a drug and the Bible calls it a mocker and says it is not for kings. It also says it can bite you like a serpent. Alcoholic wine is a process of death. Yeast eats the sugar and poops out the by product of alcohol. It's a waste product from a micro organism.

Jesus said the Son of man came eating and drinking..........do you not understand that it would make absolutely no sense for Jesus to ay this if it pertained to grape juice.

Jesus said, The Pharisees called him a winebibber..do you not understand that it would make no grammatical sense for them to call a grape juice drinker a winebibber....

Jesus contradicts himself against John who DRANK NO WINE as a NAZARITE and showed how they listened to NEITHER...do you not understand that it makes no grammatical sense to do this if he was speaking of juice...

How about open your eyes instead of going to seed on a few scriptures bro!

 

[secularhermit]

Keep it low!: "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."

Otherwise you will promote it. :P

 

[secularhermit]

Keep it low!: "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."

Otherwise you will promote it. :P

Was it the reason why Jesus received that drug to prolong that agony He denied to be faked?

Mat 27:34 they offered him wine to drink, mixed with gall, but when he tasted it, he would not drink it.

Mat 27:34 εδωκανG1325 V-AAI-3P αυτωG846 P-DSM πιεινG4095 V-2AAN οινονG3631 N-ASM μεταG3326 PREP χοληςG5521 N-GSF μεμιγμενονG3396 V-RPP-ASM καιG2532 CONJ γευσαμενοςG1089 V-ADP-NSM ουκG3756 PRT-N ηθελησενG2309 V-AAI-3S πιεινG4095 V-2AAN

 

[Jason0047]

Instead, I was born of fornication and I´m a liar.

If you quated those verses is "OK". As you probably have seen by yourself, there´s no point in reading the whole thread to say words.

Thanks for telling it before, but i don´t read the whole thread to give my opinion.

Let´s open a can of beer, cider or wine to celebrate it? ;D

I rather like cider!

I understand that folks don't always need to read the whole thread. The major point of the link I provided was so that you could be informed so as to what I said. As for your invitation to drink alcohol, I have made a promise to someone not to drink. Not that I had a drinking problem mind you and not because I feel it is unlawful to drink soberly and in moderation (within the privacy of one's own home). I am declining because I want to walk that higher road with Christ.

 

[posthuman]

As for your invitation to drink alcohol, I have made a promise to someone not to drink. Not that I had a drinking problem mind you and not because I feel it is unlawful to drink soberly and in moderation (within the privacy of one's own home). I am declining because I want to walk that higher road with Christ.

abstinence is wholly commendable, and doesn't require any ignorance, twisting or misrepresentation of scripture to justify.



Verily I say unto you, I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine,
until that day that I drink it new in the kingdom of God.
(Mark 14:25)

Christ too is waiting for that day to celebrate with us at the wedding feast!!

 

[Jason0047]

Look, friend, you want to abstain? By all means, do so. Me? I am one of those just needs to stay away from it. Not everyone is like that. But whatever your viewpoint, stop perverting scripture to meet your opinionated viewpoint. Want someone to listen to your opinion? Base it on scripture.

Acts 2:13 "Others mocking said, These men are full of new wine."

Well, this is not the first time I debated this topic before; And I am fully aware of the verse you brought up. So you are not telling me anything new or surprising. In other words, I am not twisting the Scriptures. How so?

First, many people misunderstand Scripture because they fail to grasp that the Bible has homonyms within it. Words can look and sound the same but they can have completely two different meanings based on the context. For example: "Sons of God" is a reference to angels primarily in the Old Testament. In the New Testament, "sons of God" is primarily in reference to believers. The Bible says that both Jesus and the devil are lions. However, Jesus is the Lion of the Tribe of Judah and the devil is a roaring lion in which he seeks to devour people. The Bible talks of two vines. One vine is the vine of Sodom and the other vine is the true vine, which is Jesus Christ. There are two trees in the Garden. One bad and one good. The Bible also mentions wine as being either fermented or unfermented based on it's context. The same is true for "new wine" (Which leads me to my second point). For example new wine in reference to being put into old wine skins (bottles) is talking about unfermented wine. For if you know anything about wine: The process of fermentation is what would cause the old wine skins to burst because they would have already been stretched by the process of fermentation of already. Hence, why new wine (unfermented wine or grape juice) would need to be placed in new wine skins that are not stretched so that they won't burst.

 

[posthuman]

in re: Acts 2:13

i don't understand why you would think the ones mocking them would accuse them of being drunk on some non-alcoholic beverage.
& it's clear that being drunk was exactly what they were implying - this is exactly the charge that Peter stood up and denied:

for these are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day
(Acts 2:15)

one can infer from this passage that even "new wine" had intoxicating qualities.

 

[Jason0047]

in re: Acts 2:13

i don't understand why you would think the ones mocking them would accuse them of being drunk on some non-alcoholic beverage.
& it's clear that being drunk was exactly what they were implying - this is exactly the charge that Peter stood up and denied:

for these are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day
(Acts 2:15)

one can infer from this passage that even "new wine" had intoxicating qualities.

I don't think you understood what I had written. I am saying the words "new wine" in Acts is in reference to alcoholic wine. But the Bible has homonyms within it, though. So this means that words can look and sound the same and also have completely two different meanings based on the context. For example: The new wine that Jesus talked about that went into new bottles or new wine skins needed to be placed into new skins because of the process of fermentation. New wine is not fermented yet. If new wine that is unfermented is placed into old wine skins or old bottles, they would burst the old skins because they had already been stretched by the process of fermentation. So in this context, Jesus is speaking of new wine as unfermented wine. The unbelieving men in Acts speak of "new wine" as fermented or alcoholic wine.

In other words, there is a good "new wine" just as there is a bad "new wine" mentioned in the Scriptures. Just as there was a good tree and a bad tree in the Garden. Just as there is a good vine and a bad vine. Just as there is a good lion and a bad lion. A false Christ and Jesus Christ, who is the way, the truth, and the life.

 

[posthuman]

I don't think you understood what I had written. I am saying the words "new wine" in Acts is in reference to alcoholic wine. But the Bible has homonyms within it, though. So this means that words can look and sound the same and also have completely two different meanings based on the context. For example: The new wine that Jesus talked about that went into new bottles or new wine skins needed to be placed into new skins because of the process of fermentation. New wine is not fermented yet. If new wine that is unfermented is placed into old wine skins or old bottles, they would burst the old skins because they had already been stretched by the process of fermentation. So in this context, Jesus is speaking of new wine as unfermented wine. The unbelieving men in Acts speak of "new wine" as fermented or alcoholic wine.

In other words, there is a good "new wine" just as there is a bad "new wine" mentioned in the Scriptures. Just as there was a good tree and a bad tree in the Garden. Just as there is a good vine and a bad vine. Just as there is a good lion and a bad lion. A false Christ and Jesus Christ, who is the way, the truth, and the life.

sure, but these aren't homonyms:

in Acts --

gleukos: sweet new wine​

Original Word: γλεῦκος, ους, τό
Part of Speech: Noun, Neuter
Transliteration: gleukos
Phonetic Spelling: (glyoo'-kos)
Short Definition: sweet wine


in Mark 2:22 (new wine in old wineskins) -- and also in John regarding the miracle at Cana:

oinos: wine​

Original Word: οἶνος, ου, ὁ
Part of Speech: Noun, Masculine
Transliteration: oinos
Phonetic Spelling: (oy'-nos)
Short Definition: wine

 

[Jason0047]

abstinence is wholly commendable, and doesn't require any ignorance, twisting or misrepresentation of scripture to justify.

Verily I say unto you, I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine,
until that day that I drink it new in the kingdom of God.
(Mark 14:25)

Christ too is waiting for that day to celebrate with us at the wedding feast!!

You are making a lot of assumptions off this one passage. Nowhere does this verse or any other verse suggest that the wine Jesus Christ drank with his disciples was intoxicating wine. It also does not state that it will be a wedding feast, either. Actually, I believe the Marriage Supper of the Lamb is not an actual feast up in Heaven (Which many Christians have falsely cooked up in their own minds). I believe Scripture plainly tells us that the Marriage Supper of the Lamb is when the saints will eat the flesh of kings and the flesh of captains at Christ's 2nd Coming when he destroys all of the remaining nations upon the Earth. Does that mean Christians will eat people? No, of course not. That would be silly. They are merely gaining victory over their enemies when Jesus Christ returns to execute Judgment upon this world.

 

[StandingFirmInChrist]

How many times have we heard someone state, "I believe in moderation. There's got to be a balance"?

Ahhhh, the proverbial "balance"

I remember reading sometime back from the Book of Daniel, the words: MENE, MENE, TEKEL, UPHARSIN". The word "TEKEL" may fit here perfectly... "Thou are weighed in the balance and found wanting."

Many times, we tend to think of what is and is not allowed on our own terms, placing a dividing line down that we refuse to cross, but at the same time allowing ourselves to get as close to that dividing line as we possibly can without going over to the side that we deem to be "wrong."

But suppose, just suppose, that God has stricter guidelines for where that line is to be placed? After all, God's Word says if we look on a woman to lust after in our hearts we have already committed adultery. He also said that if we hate our brother, we are murderers. Is it not possible that God holds the same high standards concerning alcoholic beverage?

You may not be crossing the line that you have laid out, but you may be crossing the line that God has established.

In 1 Thessalonians 5, we read:

1 Thessalonians 5:4 () But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief.
1 Thessalonians 5:5 () Ye are all the children of light, and the children of the day: we are not of the night, nor of darkness.
1 Thessalonians 5:6 () Therefore let us not sleep, as do others; but let us watch and be sober.
1 Thessalonians 5:7 () For they that sleep sleep in the night; and they that be drunken are drunken in the night.
1 Thessalonians 5:8 () But let us, who are of the day, be sober, putting on the breastplate of faith and love; and for an helmet, the hope of salvation.
1 Thessalonians 5:9 () For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ,
1 Thessalonians 5:10 () Who died for us, that, whether we wake or sleep, we should live together with him.

Notice the two contrasts mentioned in the above verses...

DAY as opposed to NIGHT
SOBER as opposed to DRUNKEN


The word "SOBER" means "abstaining from alcohol; not intoxicated; of a clear mind"
The word "DRUNKEN" means "inebriated from alcoholic beverage; intoxicated"

EXACT OPPOSITES! God wants us to walk as far from the dividing line as we possibly can. he wants us to be watchful and alert. The best way to make sure you are not crossing God's already established line is to not touch alcohol at all.

God doesn't favor compromise.

Revelation 3:15 () I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.
Revelation 3:16 () So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.

If you are walking according to your line, the scales may already be against you. "MENE, MENE TEKEL, UPHARSIN"

 

[Jason0047]

sure, but these aren't homonyms:

in Acts --

gleukos: sweet new wine​

Original Word: γλεῦκος, ους, τό
Part of Speech: Noun, Neuter
Transliteration: gleukos
Phonetic Spelling: (glyoo'-kos)
Short Definition: sweet wine


in Mark 2:22 (new wine in old wineskins):

oinos: wine​

Original Word: οἶνος, ου, ὁ
Part of Speech: Noun, Masculine
Transliteration: oinos
Phonetic Spelling: (oy'-nos)
Short Definition: wine

In English they are homonyms. Looking to the Greek and or looking at the context helps to prove that they are not the same words with the same exact meaning.

 

[posthuman]

You are making a lot of assumptions off this one passage. Nowhere does this verse or any other verse suggest that the wine Jesus Christ drank with his disciples was intoxicating wine. It also does not state that it will be a wedding feast, either. Actually, I believe the Marriage Supper of the Lamb is not an actual feast up in Heaven (Which many Christians have falsely cooked up in their own minds). I believe Scripture plainly tells us that the Marriage Supper of the Lamb is when the saints will eat the flesh of kings and the flesh of captains at Christ's 2nd Coming when he destroys all of the remaining nations upon the Earth. Does that mean Christians will eat people? No, of course not. That would be silly. They are merely gaining victory over their enemies when Jesus Christ returns to execute Judgment upon this world.

wait -- what??

And I saw an angel standing in the sun, who cried in a loud voice to all the birds flying in midair,
“Come, gather together for the great supper of God, so that you may eat the flesh of kings, generals, and the mighty, of horses and their riders, and the flesh of all people, free and slave, great and small.”
(Revelation 19:17-18)

you think the birds of the air are the saints??

you think a marriage supper consists of dining on the corpses of your enemies?

do you think the miracle at Cana was a metaphor??

 

[Jason0047]

Jesus said the Son of man came eating and drinking..........do you not understand that it would make absolutely no sense for Jesus to ay this if it pertained to grape juice.

Jesus said, The Pharisees called him a winebibber..do you not understand that it would make no grammatical sense for them to call a grape juice drinker a winebibber....

Jesus contradicts himself against John who DRANK NO WINE as a NAZARITE and showed how they listened to NEITHER...do you not understand that it makes no grammatical sense to do this if he was speaking of juice...

How about open your eyes instead of going to seed on a few scriptures bro!

So you believe Jesus was born of fornication because the Pharisees had said that he was?

 

[posthuman]

In English they are homonyms. Looking to the Greek and or looking at the context helps to prove that they are not the same words with the same exact meaning.

it remains that they are both words describing beverages with an alcoholic content.
i see no scriptural ground to stand on to say that when Jesus turned water into wine, what He really did was make fruit punch.