Something my pastor said during service

[Secondhand Lion]

River,

I have addressed most of your post already in other posts that I have made, but you do bring up a very good point that I think needs to be addressed here. Your point on the fish and loaves is taken into consideration, and on the surface appears to thwart my opinion on the matter. Maybe you are right, but I would point out a couple of key differences.

1. God makes a point to point out that everyone ate just until they were satisfied. (Luke 9:17) I do not see that in John.

2. God makes a point to point out that there was plenty left over, 12 baskets to be exact. (an interesting study if you ever have the time) Do these two points make any difference between the two events? Maybe not. But what if they do? I do not believe anything God points out is coincidence. Could Jesus have made food to be gluttons on? Yes. Is it coincidence He pointed out no one did? You decide.

SL

Wormwood,

I have made my case for why the wine was non-alcoholic. I am not requiring that anyone accept it. To say that the word for wine does not also indicate wine made from grapes straight from the vine....or "new wine" is flying in the face of every Greek translator ever to translate for us.

I am making the case that just one sip does indeed hurt anyone. This does not require anyone to believe me or to see things as I do. I am not saying anyone's salvation is in jeopardy if they do drink. I would stand against anyone on here who tried to say someone was not saved based on drinking or just about any work. I have made many common sense observations that are largely dismissed, I just offer them as a counter argument...nothing more, take them as you will.

My point is even a sip of alcohol is some state more drunk than zero alcohol is. Thus...it is a state of drunkenness...no matter how little we perceive it to be.

SL

ChristianJuggarnaut,

While I can appreciate your zeal and acknowledge the validity in sometimes making a point the way you seem to 99% of the time, I must say that I find the overwhelming deficiency in your ability to make points using the method you choose is the personal attacks. Attack the idea, not the person. People will take it as an attack on their person either way, most of the time, but you can at least sleep at night knowing you stuck with the idea...not the person. Eh, maybe you sleep like a baby at night anyway. I do not see a need for the personal attacks. We all have misconceptions about things, it doesn't make us stupid, just still learning. Are you finished learning everything there is to learn about life? How about Christ?

SL

Everyone,

I will leave with one last thought on the subject. I am already starting to repeat my same arguments over and over, I, generally speaking, leave as soon as I do not have anything more to add, or just keep repeating myself.

My last thought is when someone is willing to say, do, ignore, distort, manipulate anything to be able to keep doing something...we call that an addiction. Everyone on here has made points that can be found as valid. If you have found absolutely nothing valid or "thinkworthy" (new word by SL :) ) about my posts to maybe even cause a slight pause...I would consider that. I know I am not a super intelligent being and my posts are overtly simple arguments, just like the person making them, but some of those ideas I share maybe should cause some pause. Sometimes I find the greatest wisdom in the simplest forms.

SL

 

[River Jordan]

SL,

I think it's absurd to suggest that the setting of John 2:1-11...a wedding celebration...is consistent with non-alcoholic wine. The master of the celebration says, “Everyone brings out the choice wine first and then the cheaper wine after the guests have had too much to drink; but you have saved the best till now.”

The idea of bringing out the cheap stuff after everyone has had "too much to drink" isn't at all consistent with grape juice.

 

[Wormwood]

SL,

"New wine" is wine that is newly fermenting. It is, in fact, wine. As I posted above, there is a word for unfermented/unfermenting grape juice that could have been used if the author wanted to speak of purely grape juice.

I understand your point and I am not trying to beat you up over the issue. I appreciate your convictions and am not trying to dismiss you. I just don't think your arguments are valid.

Finally, I think the concept of "drunk" or "drunkenness" do not imply any level or alcoholic content in the body. Drunkenness is a clearly defined concept in which a persons judgment and faculties are significantly impaired due to a high blood-alcohol content. A glass of wine with a meal does not make a person "more drunk" than they were before. The person is not drunk before the glass and neither are they drunk after the glass. A person is only "drunk" after consuming a large quantity of the beverage.

That is like arguing that a person is more obese and more gluttonous after a bowl of cereal in the morning than they were prior, therefore we should only eat salads without dressing. No, gluttony and obesity denote an over indulgence that leads to health problems and an unhealthy fixation on food just as drunkenness denotes an over-indulgence of alcohol that leads to impaired and irrational behavior.

 

[ChristianJuggarnaut]

It is absurd to think of a non alcoholic wedding because that is your life experience.

I cannot imagine a wedding where the most important aspect is to get wasted.

What a disrespect to the institution.

 

[Secondhand Lion]

SL,

I think it's absurd to suggest that the setting of John 2:1-11...a wedding celebration...is consistent with non-alcoholic wine. The master of the celebration says, “Everyone brings out the choice wine first and then the cheaper wine after the guests have had too much to drink; but you have saved the best till now.”

The idea of bringing out the cheap stuff after everyone has had "too much to drink" isn't at all consistent with grape juice.

River and Wormwood,

I said I was finished with this thread since I had nothing more to add, since then I have spoken with my father about this situation and now have new information to add to the conversation.

My father was standing there and I was relating to him how I just did not think it absurd that it was non-alcoholic wine and my reasoning for it. He stood there patiently and listened to his rambling son in a way that only an older-wiser person can do. Calm, circumspect.

Finally he speaks, "Secondhand", he says (and you didn't think it was my real name did you?), "Of course it was not alcoholic wine." "Anyone who says differently does not know the history of not only wine, but the history of the Jewish wedding." My father then goes onto describe how wine especially in that context was used for purifying the water. Thus John 2:6 pointing out specifically the "purifying pots", made of stone, "after the manner of the purifying of the Jews". He went on to describe how a Jewish wedding worked and how no alcoholic wine would ever be used at a respectable Orthodox (as we call it today) Jewish wedding. I spent most of the evening reading about these ideas. I had no idea wine was used so widely for purification because of the bad water situation. Look it up, it is an interesting point of view. He also mentioned that is why they were not so sloshed to notice the wine got "better", which in the context is Pure and sweeter. When water was purified with this method, it produced a sweet non-alcoholic wine.

This viewpoint also helps make sense out of why this was the beginning of the miracles (John 2:11). If you put it into context of Jesus being the Living Pure Water that would help men never thirst again...it makes sense He would purify water first. There are no coincidences with the Lord.

Ever wonder why they didn't question putting water into the pots or that wine came out of them? They just noted how much better it was. They were used to purifying water in this manner. http://www.salembible.org/biblestudies/issues/alcohol/alcohol_2.htm Link is to just one of the sources I found when I went looking. There is plenty of reading on the internet besides this one link. Check it out on wine websites also in case you think I just went looking for the first Christian site I could find.

I think it is pretty neat, you guys probably think I am even more crazy now. :) Who knew if you stop and listen to your elders...you just might learn something.

SL

 

[Wormwood]

So you are suggesting (or your dad is) that Jesus had the disciples fill the pots with water, so he could turn them into wine, so the wine could be used to purify other water? Does your dad have a source where he is getting this information about 1st century Jewish wedding proceedings? If so, I would love to read up on it.

I have never read a scholar who would agree with your dad's interpretation of the events. It is true that water would be mixed with the wine, but that would not prohibit the possibility that a person could become intoxicated, and the wine was most certainly fermented. Otherwise, the comments of the steward would make no sense.

[SIZE=medium]The verb rendered “drunk a lot” literally means “to become drunk” (see Zür, Luther Revised, Segond; note BJ sont gais), but most translators seem to prefer the meaning TEV has (NEB, Mft, Gdsp; RSV “have drunk freely”; JB “have had plenty to drink”; NAB “have been drinking awhile”). It is not necessary to press the meaning “to become drunk” in this context, because the degree of intoxication is irrelevant. The important element is the contrast between the new wine and the old. Commentators generally agree that the point of the story is to mark the contrast between the new way of Jesus and the old way of Judaism, symbolized by the new wine and the old.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]Barclay Moon Newman and Eugene Albert Nida, A Handbook on the Gospel of John, UBS Handbook Series (New York: United Bible Societies, 1993), 61-62.[/SIZE]

.

[SIZE=12pt]Among most Jews in Palestine there is evidence that wine was mixed with water for drinking purposes—from 70% to 90% water was usual. However, we cannot ignore the possibility that the steward had intoxication in mind when he said the guests could no longer tell the difference between wines after they had drunk freely (NIV: “have had too much to drink”).[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]Beauford H. Bryant and Mark S. Krause, John, The College Press NIV Commentary (Joplin, MO: College Press Pub. Co., 1998), Jn 2:8–10.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]From these words we learn that it was apparently a custom to hold in reserve the inferior wine until the taste of the guests had been dulled sufficiently so that they would not be able to discern the exact flavor and excellence of the wine that was served last of all. The steward, therefore, expressed astonishment that this bridegroom had reversed the usual order. The remark of the banquet-manager has been interpreted as a mild rebuke. However, it is not necessary to draw this conclusion. The exclamation must be regarded as one that expresses surprise. It may even have been intended as a compliment to the groom on the excellence of this wine.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]William Hendriksen and Simon J. Kistemaker, vol. 1-2, Exposition of the Gospel According to John, New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1953-2001), Jn 2:9–10.[/SIZE]

 

[Secondhand Lion]

Wormwood,

You are most certainly right. Or rather, nothing will ever change your mind from thinking you are right. It is plausible. Unless you have the need to justify something, and then nothing will ever suffice and no honest conversation can ever be had. To suggest it is ridiculous that Jesus served non-alcoholic wine with no language that you could possibly be wrong, quite frankly, speaks for itself.

SL

 

[aspen]

The reason the water was purified by wine was because of the alcohol content in the wine.

 

[KingJ]

KIngJ,

IF, and I hope you notice how big of an if that is, Matthew 15:11 means what you guys are saying it does, then who is to say taking "just one" of any illicit drug is bad? By the way, many have used that verse to justify just about anything you can imagine, if it is one of the verses the world uses to justify behavior...maybe we should think twice before throwing it out there to justify something, or maybe I am wrong. If we are discussing "degrees of sin", may we try to bear that out to see if it makes any sense?

Are you able to get drunk to revelry without ever taking the first drink?

How much closer are you to drunk to revelry with one drink than you were with none? (infinite)

So then, does it stand to reason, that the first drink does have an impact on you and any amount of drunkenness beyond 0 is drunkenness?

Therefore, we find a principle at work. 0=0 sin, 1=infinitely more sin

Alcohol (especially as we know it today) is a drug, we can not get around it. What is worse it is a known depressant. You have to keep drinking and keep drinking to maintain that "high" and your body always goes through a depressed state on the way back down, even beyond when your blood alcohol level evens out. Why are Christians putting a known depressant into their bodies? Are you not the dwelling of the Holy Spirit of God? http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/you-illuminated/201006/your-brain-alcohol <--not a christian publication

Why didn't anyone address my questions about why you do not give it to your 6 year old? Certainly he or she wouldn't be defiled by it if you put it in through their mouths right?

As I already stated in another post. Many will point you out as being a hypocrite as a Christian just for one drink. I will say the equal and opposite is true for those who wanted to take exception to that. Not drinking makes people automatically assume you are a Christian. Before Christ ever grabbed ahold of me, when I told people I didn't drink...they "accused" me of being a Christian. Just food for thought.

SL

Hi SL, I 'nervously' disagree with you and CJ on this.

Yes, avoidance eliminates all risk of drunkenness. Yes, alcohol affects kid's health. Yes, alcohol has a stigma of debauchery attached to it. Just like tattoos have from pagan beliefs. Yes, if you havn't eaten, one drink can make you dizzy.

BUT (note the caps ), we are in the world. Do you want people to know you are a Christian because you don't touch a drink? Or because you can control it and avoid revelry? An unsaved person cannot control their drink. The flesh doesn't care about pleasing a higher power. The flesh pleases itself. No drink in their eyes = self righteous. One or two drinks always and no revelry = amazing out of this world self control and no judgement. A brilliant platform from which to witness to them the next day. Their ''friend'' but yet not a fellow drunkard.

If it 1. Doesn't lead to you sinning (drunk = reckless behaviour = fool in public), 2. Doesn't hurt you (like it would a kid or like pork in the OT), 3. doesn't mock God (drinking blood) and 4. is not for selfish gain (cool / fashionable tattoos)....what is wrong with it?

We will judge angels one-day. We can judge our intake of alcohol too. The spiritual man judges all things 1 Cor 2:15.

But I do agree with you that many, can't control their intake. It is playing with fire if we are young Christians or older and going to regular functions.

If you can control your intake, God will use you to witness to those at the bar. Just like a Christian biker with a tattoo will witness to other bikers. Just like a rich Christian will be used to witness to the rich. It just happens to be the case that the majority of the unsaved in need of witnessing are at the bar. Hence there is a ''bar'' taboo. Hence, a Christian should not frequent a bar. But work functions, casual social gatherings and random outings with unsaved ....is perfectly fine.

Meditate on these two scriptures:
1 Cor 5:10 and Matt 10:16.

 

[River Jordan]

SL,

That still makes no sense. Why would the same word used to describe the wine at the wedding also be used when Paul wrote "don't get drunk on wine"? And as Aspen asks, how does grape juice purify water?

And I think some more info on Jewish weddings, culture, and wine is in order...

The Tradition of Kosher Wine at Your Orthodox Jewish Wedding

Wine is an integral part of the Orthodox Jewish wedding and has been for thousands of years. But, it can't be any wine. It must be kosher and in accordance with the laws of Torah.

Wine is so significant in everyday elements of Jewish life, it is introduced to children at an early age as a normal and essential part of life. It is also traditional for Kiddush cups to be given as gifts for babies, at bar mitzvahs, and weddings. Kiddush cups are beautifully decorated cups that serve as the vessel for wine and nothing else.

According to the teachings of the Midrash, the grape is believed to be the forbidden fruit Eve partook of and gave to Adam. The grape itself is what makes wine so unique. If left to completely natural means, grapes would themselves convert into wine. When the wild yeasts on the bloom mix with the pulpy insides of the grape, natural fermentation begins.

Because of this natural occurrence, it is considered to be a divine process and one that G-d intended. It also why only wine derived from grapes can be considered kosher.


So there's very good traditional and cultural reasons to conclude that the wine at the wedding where Jesus performed his miracle was alcoholic.

 

[Wormwood]

Wormwood,

You are most certainly right. Or rather, nothing will ever change your mind from thinking you are right. It is plausible. Unless you have the need to justify something, and then nothing will ever suffice and no honest conversation can ever be had. To suggest it is ridiculous that Jesus served non-alcoholic wine with no language that you could possibly be wrong, quite frankly, speaks for itself.

SL

SL,

I don't understand these comments. I don't think I have come across as unyielding or harsh. I said I would like to read where your dad is getting his information that non-alcoholic grape juice is what was used to purify water. I also quoted a list of commentaries that indicate that the wording makes it sound very much like the steward is speaking of drunkenness in this context. If you can provide me with some sources that give any kind of rationale for seeing this differently, I would be happy to consider it.

 

[ChristianJuggarnaut]

I am not going to play dueling jewish wedding or greek scholars here. So, let's look at the english text.

It is clear that the water needed to be purified, probably the ph balance. You could boil it, or you add fermented grape juice. Yes, the fermentation purified the water. This was common practice.

Hopefully we all agree to this point. Now, the water pots were filled to to the top. There was no room for wine. Jesus performed a miracle by providing the vine. He purified the water. Someone here said previously that all of Jesus' miracles had special meaning. Here lies the meaning in this miracle.

Now, you have a choice to make in what you believe. It is just this simple. Did Jesus use just enough (this is what moderation means to me) to purify the water? Or did He create a wine whereby the wedding guests were about to partake in drunkenness?

This, in my opinion, is an extremely serious accusation to make about a Holy God, so I have avoided any sarcasm. You can't have it both ways, He either did, or He didn't.

I say He used moderation and the alcohol content was so minimal that drunkenness was next to impossible. I use nyquil on occasion.

What say you?

 

[River Jordan]

I say it's extremely clear that wine (you know....the kind with alcohol) is a long-standing tradition at Jewish weddings, and an integral part of their culture. And the fact that the fermentation process (you know....what produces alcohol) is natural, is why Jews believe the process is divine and have incorporated it so deeply into their culture.

Unless someone is going to argue that Jews are misunderstanding their own history and culture, I believe we should be done here.

 

[ChristianJuggarnaut]

So then, just to be clear, there is no sin of drunkenness? The many scriptures referring to this is are in error.

And we are finished here because thou oh queen has declared it to be so?

If I return thither to this thread, I do so at peril of mine own head. So let it be written, so let it be done.

 

[River Jordan]

So then, just to be clear, there is no sin of drunkenness? The many scriptures referring to this is are in error.

Um........wut? :blink: Where in the world did you get that from?

 

[ChristianJuggarnaut]

No one at the wedding was "buzzing?"

The great tasting, alcoholic wine that Jesus provided after they ran out of the cheap TJ Swann did not make anyone inebriated? Yes, I forgot how adept we are at moderation. We are so full of self-control. God tempts no man, so every man there was a self control freak. Do you often post without even thinking about what you are saying?

 

[River Jordan]

Nope, there's nothing in the scripture that says anyone got drunk at that wedding. But there are very clear linguistic, cultural, and historical indications that the wine at Jewish weddings contains alcohol.

 

[ChristianJuggarnaut]

"Contains Alcohol"

Let's not get confused over this phrase. It did.

 

[River Jordan]

Well then, so much for the "even one drink is a sin" thing.

 

[ChristianJuggarnaut]

This is legalism. You don't know how much is too much, you only know that none does not satisfy the will of flesh. If you knew how much was a sin, you just may stop at that point.

You accuse God as being the tempter. He gives us relationships, we give Him fornication and adultery in return. He gives us liberty and we give Him alcohol abuse and justification.

Everything He gives, we want to abuse. This is what the pastor from the OP was talking about. We trample His grace.