Did Jesus drink alcohol?

[Mem]

Jesus said in Mt 26:29 and Mk 14:25 say, " I will no longer drink of the fruit of the vine until I drink it new in the kingdom of God," and some translations say, "again," and Luke 22:18 say, "from now on."
Job 32:19 Elihu compares his belly (heart) to a new wineskin filled with wine, "Behold, my belly is like unvented wine; it is about to burst like a new wineskin."
And Mk 2:22 instructs us regarding the error of putting new wine into old wineskins which burst more readily than new wineskins. So, wine is to be put into proper wineskins anticipating its fermentation.
Three witnesses of fermented wine that Jesus drank.

 

[Magenta]

Didn't many of not all of those chosen to do God's will in scripture have or end up having lapses in righteous behavior?

Moses, Lot, others?

Every single one of them.

Joseph? Jacob's son...

 

[Amanuensis]

Why did the Son of Man come eating and drinking if this were the case?

1) I already said it was not a sin to drink wine if you didn't get intoxicated.
2) They did not have the choices we have today. Diluted wine was the better choice.
3) They accused Jesus of over indulgence not because they witnessed him over indulging, but because he shared table fellowship with those who were known drunks and in that culture doing so meant you condoned their behavior. They were not accusing him of being a wine bibber because he drank wine at all. They all did. Those Pharisees were not vowed to abstinence, but they accused Jesus of over indulgence because of the company he kept.

They wiped their butts with less effective measures than what we have today. So should we go back to those methods becuase that's how they did it in bible times? I think not.

 

[Amanuensis]

Joseph? Jacob's son...

There is none righteous, no, not one.

They all failed and needed redemption. Even if their failures are not recorded in scripture.

 

[Magenta]

There is none righteous, no, not one.

They all failed and needed redemption. Even if their failures are not recorded in scripture.

We must keep in mind also that sin is not always evinced in outward behavior... which is what the question pertained to.

1 Samuel 16:7b - God looks at the heart

 

[Amanuensis]

We must keep in mind also that sin is not always evinced in outward behavior... which is what the question pertained to.

1 Samuel 16:7b - God looks at the heart

So true.

 

[presidente]

3) They accused Jesus of over indulgence not because they witnessed him over indulging, but because he shared table fellowship with those who were known drunks and in that culture doing so meant you condoned their behavior. They were not accusing him of being a wine bibber because he drank wine at all. They all did. Those Pharisees were not vowed to abstinence, but they accused Jesus of over indulgence because of the company he kept.

Jesus said the Son of Man came eating and drinking, not that He just sat at the table and abstained.

They wiped their butts with less effective measures than what we have today. So should we go back to those methods becuase that's how they did it in bible times? I think not.

You went there. Since you went there...
Plenty of cultures still use the left hand and water. An American friend of mine who lived overseas said that he had converted. He said it was cleaner. I suppose it depends on whether cleanliness of the left hand is a priority or something else.

It doesn't involve chopping down as many trees or dealing with the paper waste.

 

[Amanuensis]

Jesus said the Son of Man came eating and drinking, not that He just sat at the table and abstained.



You went there. Since you went there...
Plenty of cultures still use the left hand and water. An American friend of mine who lived overseas said that he had converted. He said it was cleaner. I suppose it depends on whether cleanliness of the left hand is a priority or something else.

It doesn't involve chopping down as many trees or dealing with the paper waste.

Those flushable are the way to go. Much cleaner. I can't believe my momma didn't train me with those. All those stinky folks walking around being stinky unnecessarily.

 

[Amanuensis]

Jesus said the Son of Man came eating and drinking, not that He just sat at the table and abstained.

I already said he drank wine. But they did not see him over indulge.

Those that accused him of being a wine bibber drank the same as he did. They accused him of something they did not think that they were guilty of.

If they drank wine but did not over indulge then seeing Jesus drink wine in and of itself was not what caused them to accuse him of being a wine bibber.

They accused him because of the company he kept. They wrote and taught that if you ate with sinners you condoned their sin and were a partaker of their sin.

It was a doctrine that was fundamental to their religion. For Jesus to ignore this teaching was the same as admitting guilt to them. Jesus teaching to love sinners and eat with them without partaking of their sins was a foreign concept to them.

To attend a dinner there were known to over indulge would be sufficient for the Pharisees to feel justified in calling one a wine bibber even if that person was not seen getting drunk.

I don't care if people drink wine or not. If they get drunk they are sinning and we all agree on that. I believe if they get high at all they are sinning and should dilute it so they don't get high. That would be more biblical culture. If they want to use the bible as support.

 

[TheLearner]

I repeat. No amount of alcohol is good for you. This is a scientific fact. Google. "No amount of alcohol is good for you" and read about Acetaldehyde. There may be benefits from a glass of wine but it is not the alcohol part that helps your organs.

All of the verses you mentioned can apply to the nutrients and ingredients in wine other than the alcohol.

We are not limited to bad water or wine in our choices today. Cultural context matters. As does motives of the heart.

"Moderate alcohol consumption may provide some health benefits, such as: Reducing your risk of developing and dying of heart disease. Possibly reducing your risk of ischemic stroke (when the arteries to your brain become narrowed or blocked, causing severely reduced blood flow) Possibly reducing your risk of diabetes. "
https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-...on may provide,reducing your risk of diabetes

Prevents Kidney Stones
Helps Your Brain
Balances Blood Sugar
https://www.webmd.com/diet/ss/slideshow-alcohol-health-benefits

 

[TheLearner]

https://www.google.com/search?q=alc...1CHBD_enUS1006US1006&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

 

[TheLearner]

I don't think it is a sin for a person to drink a glass of wine with a meal if that's all they do and they are not trying to get a buzz and don't get one.

But I don't think it is good for them.

Do a survey. Ask anyone who believes it is ok to drink a glass of wine with a meal as long as you don't get drunk and ask them when was the last time they drank too much? If you discover that they all have a story of a time they did, then you have learned that abstinence would be a better goal than moderation.

I have ofen drank wine with my dinner and never got drunk. Many of My Jewish friends too without getting drunk.

 

[presidente]

Those flushable are the way to go. Much cleaner. I can't believe my momma didn't train me with those. All those stinky folks walking around being stinky unnecessarily.

Bad on the pipes, and probably sewage systems.

 

[TMS]

No
Wine is a mocker

Jesus did not expose himself to things that allow the temptations of Satan to enter.

Pro 20:1 Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging: and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise.

 

[TMS]

If alcohol affects us mentally, and the level of affect is determined by the amount. Were do you draw the line between safe and unsafe amounts.
Non is safe and non is good.

The flesh lusts after alcohol.

 

[posthuman]

I can give my best guess. I can't prove it. I think that Noah did not have experience with fermentation. I think he did not see it coming. I don't think he was trying to get drunk. Ham went and told his brothers about his sin instead of covering him up.

The lesson being that we need to help our fallen brother recover and not talk about them to others without even trying to help them first.

If Noah knew that he was going to get drunk then his sin is obvious and didn't need explaining since we all know that he would have had to deal with that between him and God and probably did. It would suggest that sin is in the heart of even the best man left on the planet. Or the capacity to sin is always there. But what Ham did involved others and what Noah did involved only himself. Plus maybe Ham had not repentance and therefore brought the judgment upon himself due to his own heart condition.

These are a few of my guesses.

What do you think?

Jesus telling us to be on our guard about drunkeness in Luke 21:31 is sobering. No pun intended. This will dull a mind and make them not ready for the coming of the Lord. That is what Jesus said. Carousing, drunkeness and worries about life. Doing that will dull the mind and make them not ready to stand before the Son of Man.

Noah's drunkeness might have been a willful sin, and if so, the lessons deepen. If not, then it makes sense that nothing is mentioned about it being a sin. But when most people read it they think wonder... "did he know? or did he do it on purpose?"

i think it's not plausible at all that Noah didn't know what he was doing.
he had to have taken the grapeseed with him.
winemaking isn't simple - he had to cultivate those grapes, harvest them, make a winepress, process them & tend to them from mash to straining several times and finally bottling. that's not all accomplished in a few days; that's at least a year's worth of investment.
also i don't know what your experience is with drinking wine but one doesn't just drink to passing out by accident, either. the effects are gradual and noticeable. Noah would have definitely known he was experiencing intoxicating effects long before he finished his wine and fell asleep. this is only wine; it's not shots of strong liquor you might be able to imbibe several of before you realize how strong they were.

concurrent with all this is that his whole family watched him carrying out his plan to make wine for at least a year. they knew what he was doing, and that he knew how to do it. they knew that after the horrendous catastrophe of the flood and Noah spending all this time making wine, he would drink it when he finally had a completed product. Ham knew this. Ham knew Noah would probably drink himself to sleep, enjoying the fruit of his labour.


the other thing i think is that if what Noah did was sinful it's awfully strange that Noah curses Canaan and God carries out that curse.
how often do we find someone wicked speaking curses that God agrees with and causes to come to pass, hmm?


fact is that the narrative doesn't portray Noah as being at fault at all, unless you approach it with the preconceived notion that drinking any alcohol in any amount is evil. if that's the case you project that onto the text. but the text itself doesn't have that present in it - it presents Noah as being attacked when he is not on his guard - asleep - and Ham as the one who did evil. and it curses Canaan.

why Canaan is cursed is something that really has to be understood to make sense of this. for that we have to remember what happened before the flood ((that's still the context)) and what was found in Canaan later when God had Joshua carry out judgement on the land, and we have to figure out what happened to Lot, and why, with his daughters - what the relationship to Sodom was. we have to have an idea of exactly what Ham did and why he did it.

it is a very complex story, that ultimately is portraying something of Christ to us. so #1 goal in understanding Noah & Ham is finding how it testifies of Christ. it is not a story about 'drinking is bad yo see what happened' -- it is a story about the Messiah, about love, salvation, life and death. about God and Satan and the redemption of our souls.


so, what i honestly think is that you're projecting a misguided teetotaling attitude on the story, and you are winding up with nothing more than a superficial gloss from it. i think if you set that aside and try to figure out how this account is speaking about Genesis 3:15 and about the cross and the victory of Christ over sin, then you will find it is a much deeper & richer section of scripture than you currently imagine. it is spiritual; it is not about mere carnal rules like 'touch not taste not handle not' or simple earthly things -- something very profound is happening there.

 

[posthuman]

They wiped their butts with less effective measures than what we have today. So should we go back to those methods becuase that's how they did it in bible times? I think not.

in the Greco-Roman world of the 1st century people used a sponge soaked in vinegar on a stick.
you might argue that that's actually a more effective measure than dry paper, actually. the vinegar is anti-bacterial, and the wet sponge would be an overall good cleaning pad.
the most expensive butt-wipes you can buy these days are kinds of scented anti-microbial wet-naps. not entirely dissimilar.
it was called a tersorium. feel free to look it up.

it has been posited that when the centurions offered Jesus a sponge soaked with vinegar on the cross, that is exactly what it was.

 

[posthuman]

Jesus did not expose himself to things that allow the temptations of Satan to enter.

like food?
ever heard of gluttony?

or worship?
ever heard of pride?

but Christ is God, and God cannot be tempted.

 

[Magenta]

the other thing i think is that if what Noah did was sinful it's awfully strange that Noah curses Canaan and God carries out that curse.
how often do we find someone wicked speaking curses that God agrees with and causes to come to pass, hmm?

Ham uncovering Noah's nakedness could mean he had sexual relations with his mother while his father
was drunk; Canaan being cursed in such a case would indicate that he was the progeny of such a sin.

Leviticus 18:7 ~ You must not expose the nakedness of your father by having sexual relations
with your mother. She is your mother; you must not have sexual relations with her.

Something to consider?

 

[Amanuensis]

in the Greco-Roman world of the 1st century people used a sponge soaked in vinegar on a stick.
you might argue that that's actually a more effective measure than dry paper, actually. the vinegar is anti-bacterial, and the wet sponge would be an overall good cleaning pad.
the most expensive butt-wipes you can buy these days are kinds of scented anti-microbial wet-naps. not entirely dissimilar.
it was called a tersorium. feel free to look it up.

it has been posited that when the centurions offered Jesus a sponge soaked with vinegar on the cross, that is exactly what it was.

Well there you go then. See there's nothing new under the sun.