Was Jesus a wine bibber

[miz3]

Consider this:

1) Neither the language nor the context shows that the wine was alcoholic.

2) There is good evidence that the people of that time used the word translated "wine" in John 2 to refer to pure grape juice.

3) Jesus made between 120 and 180 gallons of wine. How many people would that amount of liquer make drunk?

4) Does it make biblical sense that the God of heaven could make non-intoxicating wine but instead chose purposely to make liquer on which people would almost certainly get drunk?

5) The prophet of God has written clearly that it was not fermented wine.

6) The Bible's counsel is that people not drink intoxicatants. These counsels were written by the Spirit of Jesus Christ.

7) People shouldn't decide the issue until they have studied Bacchiochi's book on wine in the Bible. His book convinced me to stop drinking alcohol. I did not begin reading the book with the desire to quit drinking. I loved vodka and every other kind of liquer.

1. Ok, John let's just say John chapter 2 is fuzzy.

2. On the language issue, Numbers chapter six demonstrates that the Jews had words for all the stages of drink and that they were not handicapped in this regard. So if it says "wine" it is wine because they have a word for non intoxicants and they did not use that word.

3. You have a strong point in those terms. I agree that would make a lot of people drunk. That is actually staggering.

4. Again, you make a strong point. God is capable either way it goes. The unknown question is which way did Christ go?

5. Again, you are correct. Ellen White is not ambiguous on this story. She flat out says it was "grape juice". No wiggle room here and you can't make any either.

6. The Bible nowhere states that a person should not drink intoxicants. Only, in Numbers 6 a special specific case is such a prohibition given. It is clear that many of God's chosen people in the Bible drank intoxicants and neither God nor any of His prophets said that doing such was wrong! They do not even say, "we suggest, or we recommend". The Bible takes this practice as a factual practice that is OK by God.

7. I was not aware that Bacciochi or Bacchiochi's book was "inspired". He is entitled to his opinion. We all know that although Mr. Bacciochi may be a good man, he is a hired entity by the SDA Church to trouble shoot difficult theological problems.

Yes, the SDA Church has its "hired guns" so to speak. As such we can hardly recommend Mr Bacciochi or his book as being a fair and unbiased assessment.

Besides we need the Holy Spirit not Mr. Bacciochi to interpret what God is saying in His Word. SDA Church has a number of "interpreters" of Holy Scripture which they hope will keep the SDA membership in theological line. This of course is not a secret because the practice has gone on for decades since the death of our dear Prophet Sister White. I know this because I know some of the "hired guns" over many years.

8. Personally I can't stand intoxicant drink especially beer. Just the smell of beer makes me nauseated. I also don't see any upside value enough for me to waste my money on such stuff. I will waste my money in ways that please me much more.

I am amazed that people testify a love for the stuff. Wow!

[Woody]

Originally Posted By: Woody

.. Even our prophet drank a little wine when she felt a little down on occassions through the year.

I think this statement is liable to give readers the wrong impression.

What is the evidence that she drank fermented wine when she felt a little down on occassions through the year?

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

Miz3, you are misspelling "Bacchiochi" as "Bacciochi"... I know you'd want to have this correct.

[miz3]

John, the scriptures you have supplied only strengthen the argument that drukeness is the sin, not the wine. As far as the EGW quote, I cannot understand how people were addicted to non-fermented wine. Why are individuals today not addicted to grape juice. And if so, shouldn't we abstain from grape juice based on its addictive nature? I would file this under her "non-inpired" opinion. If the wine was not fermented why were decons instructed to not drink to much and elders forbidden to drink wine. If it was truely unfermented juice, why was it so important that those in positions of authority were to be drink very little or not at all. I guess EGW would chalk it up to the grape-juice addiction. Further more, if the individuals of that time were truly addicted to grape juice, why would Jesus feed their addiction at the wedding?

Shelly, you are absolutely impressive. I couldn't agree more! That is a cogent a remark as I have ever heard. I am impressed to the max!

WOW!

[miz3]

Miz3, you are misspelling "Bacchiochi" as "Bacciochi"... I know you'd want to have this correct.

Thank you rudywoofs. I stand corrected. I thought I was doing it correctly but obviously I wasn't.

Thanks again.

By the way very cogent remarks Woody concerning our Prophet and her drinking habits. Thank you. The Truth is always healthy.

We can make fun, and rightly so, of the Prophet's clear blunder in regard to "grape juice addiction". However, making a stupid blunder does not disqualify one from being truly inspired. She clearly was not inspired in that statement, just as Moses blundered when he spoke to Israel and then "struck" the rock. Moses was not inspired in that moment and Ellen White was not inspired on the "grape juice addiction" comment.

However, like Moses we then cannot discount everything and say that because of their horrid blunder they cannot be "inspired" about anything because they both have clear "inspired" communications in my view.

This a great example of how a Prophet of God is not a 24/7 Prophet in the "on" position all the time.

[Flyboy]

Flyboy,

Who was responsible for the accusations against Jesus that are bothering you? His friends? Neutral parties? His enemies?

It doesn't bother me at all, in fact, I quite enjoy it. What bothers me is that generally SDA will come up with the "it wasn't wine, it was grape juice" argument because we have become so comfortable in what we consider the truth.

Whether he drank grape juice or wine, I don't care, but I can promise you that if Jesus were a church elder today and a church member was at the grocery store standing behind him at the check-out line and noticed a bottle of wine in his cart, well... he wouldn't be an elder much longer.

Must say that from the posts I've read thus far in response to this, I am refreshed. It seems people are willing to consider the possibility, and are okay with it. I don't drink, and I think abstinence is okay, as is temperance, but we should not change the Bible to fit our ideas.

[Flyboy]

Dr. Samuele Bacchocchi wrote an excellent and thorough study on the topic of wine in the Bible. You may read it online at the following link:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/7818027/Wine-in-the-Bible-unabridged-by-Samuele-Bacchiocchi

In the above book, Bacchiocchi presents convincing evidence that the wine referred to in John 2 was non-intoxicating. The author also shows that the people of that time had ways of keeping the wine from fermenting.

Jesus wouldn't have gone contrary to the Bible's teaching about wine, a teaching that He Himself inspired the Bible writers to write.

For instance, in Prov. 23: 29-35 and Prov. 31: 4-7:

Who has woe? Who has sorrow?

Who has strife? Who has complaining?

Who has wounds without cause?

Who has redness of eyes?

[30] Those who tarry long over wine;

those who go to try mixed wine.

[31] Do not look at wine when it is red,

when it sparkles in the cup

and goes down smoothly.

[32] In the end it bites like a serpent

and stings like an adder.

[33] Your eyes will see strange things,

and your heart utter perverse things.

[34] You will be like one who lies down in the midst of the sea,

like one who lies on the top of a mast.

[35] They struck me," you will say, "but I was not hurt;

they beat me, but I did not feel it.

When shall I awake?

I must have another drink."

[4] It is not for kings, O Lemuel,

it is not for kings to drink wine,

or for rulers to take strong drink,

[5] lest they drink and forget what has been decreed

and pervert the rights of all the afflicted.

[6] Give strong drink to the one who is perishing,

and wine to those in bitter distress;

[7] let them drink and forget their poverty

and remember their misery no more.

Or in Eph. 5: 18--

And do not get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery, but be filled with the Spirit,

1 Thes. 5:6-8

So then let us not sleep, as others do, but let us keep awake and be sober. [7] For those who sleep, sleep at night, and those who get drunk, are drunk at night. [8] But since we belong to the day, let us be sober, having put on the breastplate of faith and love, and for a helmet the hope of salvation.

The wine Jesus made was non-intoxicating. The language doesn't require that the wine at the wedding be fermented.

I see no words in there that say one should not drink. It appears to say that people should not get drunk.

And my original question is not about Jesus first miracle, which has been beat to death for years. It is about Matthew 11:19, in which Jesus says "I eat and drink a little and you call me a glutton and drunkard". The implication from Jesus own mouth is clear. But, again, as in my original post, someone familiar with Biblical languages could shed more light on these words of Jesus.

[John317]

Its about "QUANTITY" in this case. Too much----is a NO!, NO!

My experience with drinking alcohol is that once people start drinking it, they frequently don't have good judgment and therefore don't know when to stop. Most people don't only have one or two drinks and then stop. If you don't believe it, go to a place where there's drinking, and you will see many people who are obviously intoxicated.

One thing we can say for sure is that if a person never takes that first drinkk of alcohol, he won't become an alcoholic. At any large gathering where alcohol is being served, it's likely there are people who will go on to become habitiual drinkers. Jesus of course knows this. I don't believe that God in human flesh would perform a miracle that would result in people getting drunk.

[shelly]

miz3,

I have to agree with you that one mispoken line or misguided execution of God's will does not disquallify EGW from being a prophet. I believe that God revealed to her certain truths for his church. However, I think the statement under discussion is her opinion rather than "prophecy". EGW was a prohibitionist before becoming a SDA. Here revelation that alcohol was a "sin" predated her role as the prophet for the SDA church. After all of that, I do not drink. I have had a sip here and there but I can say I have never had a full serving of an alcoholic beverage. Given my family history, it would be unwise for me to drink. I also think that avoiding alcohol is a good choice for many as it is a sure way to avoid drukeness. I don't disagree with the churches councel to abstain from alcohol, I just don't think abstenence is biblically based.

[Flyboy]

Below is documented evidence that the word "wine" in John 2 is not necessarily fermented wine but the pure juice of the grape.

I have no problem accepting that there were all kinds of wine, fermented and non, and I have no interest in a debate about the first miracle, as SDA seemingly have their mind made up about this and because there is no proof either way. My question points to Matthew 11:19 where Jesus, with his own mouth, specifically implies that he has drank fermented wine.

"They see me eating and drinking and call me a glutton and drunkard." What could he be eating? Non-food? Food of course. What can he be drinking then? Fermented wine it seems. The comparison of eating and drinking together, with the compared results of gluttony and drunkenness.... seems temperance was the standard of the day, not abstinence.

[shelly]

Originally Posted By: miz3

Its about "QUANTITY" in this case. Too much----is a NO!, NO!

My experience with drinking alcohol is that once people start drinking it, they frequently don't have good judgment and therefore don't know when to stop. Most people don't only have one or two drinks and then stop. If you don't believe it, go to a place where there's drinking, and you will see many people who are obviously intoxicated.

One thing we can say for sure is that if a person never takes that first drinkk of alcohol, he won't become an alcoholic. At any large gathering where alcohol is being served, it's likely there are people who will go on to become habitiual drinkers. Jesus of course knows this. I don't believe that God in human flesh would perform a miracle that would result in people getting drunk.

I actually know plenty of people who only have 1 glass with dinner or socially. There are many chrisitians who drink but are careful not to become drunk. I also know that there are SDA who also enjoy a glass or two of wine with dinner so long as they do not get drunk. The question of drinking came up in a Sabbath School class and I was shocked that about 1/3 of the class admitted to drinking but not to getting drunk. I found it to be an eye opening expereince. It seems that the church has some many "fundamental beliefs" that do not reflect the true belief system that is embraced by its memebers. But that is another topic for another time.

[John317]

I see no words in there that say one should not drink. It appears to say that people should not get drunk.

Most people who drink aren't very good judges of when to stop drinking. They typically drink past the time when they should stop. Most people drink in order to get high, or feel the buzz, and many actually drink in order to get drunk, "soused."

Telling people only to drink a little bit is like telling people only to sin a little bit. It is bad advice. Both sin and alcohol are highly addictive.

Quote:

And my original question is not about Jesus first miracle, which has been beat to death for years. It is about Matthew 11:19, in which Jesus says "I eat and drink a little and you call me a glutton and drunkard". The implication from Jesus own mouth is clear. But, again, as in my original post, someone familiar with Biblical languages could shed more light on these words of Jesus.

Matt. 11: 19 says no such thing as what you claim above. Not sure where you get that translation, but it is not accurate. The Greek word is pino and simply means to drink or imbibe. There is no indication of "little" at all. It is Strongs #4095. The same word is used in Matt. 6: 25. Notice it does not say "drink a little." Look it up in Young's Literal translation or in the New American Standard or the Engslish Standard Version.

What Jesus is talking about is the fact that the Son of man comes and enjoys life, and he is falsely accused of being a drunkard. In other words, there are people who are out to find things for which they can falsely acccused Christ even though there is no reason for it. Remember that Jesus avoided all appearances of evil. He followed the advice He gives us in the Bible through His holy prophets and apostles.

I take pictures of people in all kinds of situations, and these are two that show what alcohol frequently does to people. They did not start out drinking with the intention of ending up like this:

[John317]

Yeah, and a few years ago, I could have told you I was on female hormones and living with a man and about to have a sex change. I was a member of the SDA church and my cupboards had a lot of alcohol in them. In fact they were in there right up to about two years ago, although I stopped drinking about 3 years before. Does that mean my actions represented the truth that we believe as a people?

Are we going to look to people as our role models or to Christ? Are we going to believe uninspried men or are we going to believe and obey the directions we've been given by God through the prophet He gave to us?

Do we want to be ready for Jesus to come or do we want to live like the world?

[Flyboy]

What Jesus is talking about is the fact that the Son of man comes and enjoys life, and he is falsely accused of being a drunkard. In other words, there are people who are out to find things for which they can falsely acccused Christ even though there is no reason for it. Remember that Jesus avoided all appearances of evil. He followed the advice He gives us in the Bible through His holy prophets and apostles.

Take your pick from the options below mate, but the implication is clear. And if Jesus is talking about enjoying life, and didn't mean to suggest that he was drinking alcohol, perhaps He could have chosen different words.

As for avoiding the appearance of evil, this is purely your interpretation that having a glass of wine is, or appears to be, evil. When I go out for dinner and see someone drinking a glass of wine I don't automatically say to myself, "oh, that evil person", or "oh, they sure look evil". I do feel pity for people whose lifestyle dictates more reliance on alcohol though.

I think that the SDA church's view on alcohol is good, no other church has a better health message. But I do not agree that the church should teach that Jesus definitively did not drink alcohol and that the Bible forbids it when there is no such proof. We should teach abstinence first, and beyond that, if someone feels that they do not want to do that, then we should teach temperance and, more importantly, we should not make a person who enjoys a glass of wine every now and then feel out of place or judged. Even though I do not drink I have felt that this issue is one of the many litmus tests of being a real Adventist. This disturbs me.

New International Version (©1984)

The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, 'Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and "sinners."' But wisdom is proved right by her actions."

New Living Translation (©2007)

The Son of Man, on the other hand, feasts and drinks, and you say, 'He's a glutton and a drunkard, and a friend of tax collectors and other sinners!' But wisdom is shown to be right by its results."

English Standard Version (©2001)

The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Look at him! A glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’ Yet wisdom is justified by her deeds.”

New American Standard Bible (©1995)

"The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, 'Behold, a gluttonous man and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!' Yet wisdom is vindicated by her deeds."

International Standard Version (©2008)

The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, 'Look, a glutton and a drunk, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!' Absolved from every act of sin, is wisdom by her kith and kin."

GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)

The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and people say, 'Look at him! He's a glutton and a drunk, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!' "Yet, wisdom is proved right by its actions."

King James Bible

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.

American King James Version

The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a drunkard, a friend of publicans and sinners. But wisdom is justified of her children.

American Standard Version

The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold, a gluttonous man and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners! And wisdom is justified by her works.

Bible in Basic English

The Son of man has come feasting, and they say, See, a lover of food and wine, a friend of tax-farmers and sinners! And wisdom is judged to be right by her works.

Douay-Rheims Bible

The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say: Behold a man that is a glutton and a wine drinker, a friend of publicans and sinners. And wisdom is justified by her children.

Darby Bible Translation

The Son of man has come eating and drinking, and they say, Behold, a man that is eating and wine-drinking, a friend of tax-gatherers, and of sinners: and wisdom has been justified by her children.

English Revised Version

The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold, a gluttonous man, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners! And wisdom is justified by her works.

Webster's Bible Translation

The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold, a man gluttonous, and a wine-bibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. But wisdom is justified by her children.

Weymouth New Testament

The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they exclaim, 'See this man! --given to gluttony and tippling, and a friend of tax-gatherers and notorious sinners!' And yet Wisdom is vindicated by her actions."

World English Bible

The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, 'Behold, a gluttonous man and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!' But wisdom is justified by her children."

Young's Literal Translation

the Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, Lo, a man, a glutton, and a wine-drinker, a friend of tax-gatherers and sinners, and wisdom was justified of her children.'

[Flyboy]

Are we going to look to people as our role models or to Christ? Are we going to believe uninspried men or are we going to believe and obey the directions we've been given by God through the prophet He gave to us?

Do we want to be ready for Jesus to come or do we want to live like the world?

I don't think anyone is suggesting we uphold any human, and that is my point in asking this question. The words of Jesus tell us one thing, but many here will uphold the institution of the SDA church and its beliefs before they will consider changing their views to follow the words of Jesus.

My point is not that the church is wrong, rather it is that in my experience the church is so unwilling to consider it may be wrong, so sure that it already has every kernel of truth possible to mankind, that it will not look at issues that may reveal not just further truth but ultimately may help them build a more effective ministry. People respond to rational logic. People reject dogma.

[Musicman1228]

Originally Posted By: Gary K

Flyboy,

Who was responsible for the accusations against Jesus that are bothering you? His friends? Neutral parties? His enemies?

It doesn't bother me at all, in fact, I quite enjoy it. What bothers me is that generally SDA will come up with the "it wasn't wine, it was grape juice" argument because we have become so comfortable in what we consider the truth.

Whether he drank grape juice or wine, I don't care, but I can promise you that if Jesus were a church elder today and a church member was at the grocery store standing behind him at the check-out line and noticed a bottle of wine in his cart, well... he wouldn't be an elder much longer.

Must say that from the posts I've read thus far in response to this, I am refreshed. It seems people are willing to consider the possibility, and are okay with it. I don't drink, and I think abstinence is okay, as is temperance, but we should not change the Bible to fit our ideas.

You remind me of the head elder at a church at which my wife and I were singing. We were singing for church service. It was a cold day so I was wearing a turtle neck sweater and a jacket; very conservative. After the service the head elder came up to me, took me aside and asked if he could buy me a new suit. I told him that I very rarely wear suits so no thank you. He then proceeded to lecture me as to how Jesus would have been upset at my wearing a turtle neck sweater to church, and that the next time we came to sing I would have to wear a suit. I was very gentle with him and said that if what he said was true the I and my wife would never sing in their church again.

This is the bigoted attitude that many SDA's have against people and situations over which they feel they should be in control. Drinking wine is not a salvation issue. Abusing it is. Jesus would no more jump to conclusions about a persons spiritual life and identity over a bottle of wine that He did in His close association with the many sinners that He helped and forgave.

Lighten up. SDA's in Europe drink wine ALL THE TIME, and no one says 'boo'. Why should we do that here in the good old US of A I don't know.

[shelly]

Yeah, and a few years ago, I could have told you I was on female hormones and living with a man and about to have a sex change. I was a member of the SDA church and my cupboards had a lot of alcohol in them. In fact they were in there right up to about two years ago, although I stopped drinking about 3 years before. Does that mean my actions represented the truth that we believe as a people?

Are we going to look to people as our role models or to Christ? Are we going to believe uninspried men or are we going to believe and obey the directions we've been given by God through the prophet He gave to us?

Do we want to be ready for Jesus to come or do we want to live like the world?

Everyone has differnet expereinces in life. You can't take your experience and generalize it as an absolute. I believe in the bible and the inspired word. I try not add to anything that is put into the bible. The bible is plain on drukeness being a sin but I cannot find any biblical reference that forbids all alcohol. While I have made the choice myself not to drink, I cannot condem someone who drinks but does not become drunk. The bible first, EGW second. The clear condemenation comes from EGW, not from the bible. I have always been taught when in doubt, go with the bible. I think everyone can agree that not drinking is the smart choice!

[shelly]

Musicman,

Your post made me remember a sermon I heard several years ago about if Jesus came today would he be a member of the SDA church. Sometimes I wonder.

[Dr. Rich]

Flyboy wrote: "Must say that from the posts I've read thus far in response to this, I am refreshed. It seems people are willing to consider the possibility, and are okay with it. I don't drink, and I think abstinence is okay, as is temperance, but we should not change the Bible to fit our ideas."

Well now, I can drink to that!!!!! (to all of it)

[Flyboy]

You remind me of the head elder at a church at which my wife and I were singing. We were singing for church service. It was a cold day so I was wearing a turtle neck sweater and a jacket; very conservative. After the service the head elder came up to me, took me aside and asked if he could buy me a new suit. I told him that I very rarely wear suits so no thank you. He then proceeded to lecture me as to how Jesus would have been upset at my wearing a turtle neck sweater to church, and that the next time we came to sing I would have to wear a suit. I was very gentle with him and said that if what he said was true the I and my wife would never sing in their church again.

This is the bigoted attitude that many SDA's have against people and situations over which they feel they should be in control. Drinking wine is not a salvation issue. Abusing it is. Jesus would no more jump to conclusions about a persons spiritual life and identity over a bottle of wine that He did in His close association with the many sinners that He helped and forgave.

Lighten up. SDA's in Europe drink wine ALL THE TIME, and no one says 'boo'. Why should we do that here in the good old US of A I don't know.

If you knew me you'd know I'm not like that elder at all. Quite the opposite actually. Musicman, if you have spent much time in the church then you well know that there is a very judgmental attitude to certain things, one of which, as you said, is what to wear. What I am trying to do here is to get people to think. That's all. If you've read my posts you'll see that I'll state my position but that ultimately I'm really only seeking open thought, a willingness to consider. An online forum is the place for that. You'll never see me bringing this discussion up with any of my church members because I generally don't think that the average church attender is interested in re-evaluating his/her accepted beliefs, and I'm okay with that UNTIL it affects how we reach out to other people. When I was younger I was once having a discussion with a man over potluck. The discussion was political, not religious. The wife of the man, who had not been participating in the conversation, suddenly stood up, looked at me, and said "And I thought you were a fine Christian young man!", gave me a nasty look and walked off. Later she wrote a letter to my boss (I work for the church) stating that I should be fired because I have political views. She cited writings from EGW, and photocopied the pages, stating that any church worker with political views ought to be fired. I called her and expressed my disappointment that she hadn't come to engage me first, and invited her to my office to chat. My bosses had a good chuckle, but no longer do I air any views over lunches with other SDA which require much thinking. I really do hate to say it that way, but this has been my experience during my life. Maybe your experience is different.

When the comfort of our beliefs gets in the way of rational thought then something is not right. There is an approriate time/place to do this... in a corner of the church after the service is not that place, nor, in that case, was the message even worth delivering, but this is a discussion forum, it is where ideas develop and as we go back to our churches every week we begin to share. As we reach out to others we may do so with more understanding and compassion, and if nothing else, at least we understand (if not agree with) the other views that are out there.

[Tom Wetmore]

Originally Posted By: Tom Wetmore

Gail, that is nice to think so but not too faithful to the gospel account...

Read very carefully the comment of the steward of the wedding about the wine Jesus had brought in. He asked why was this good stuff brought out last. He said this is the wine that is usually served first until the people are drunk. And once they are drunk on the good stuff, you bring out the less good wine when they are too drunk to care or tell the difference.

Except that the account doesn't say that the guests "are" well drunk. It says that they "have" well drunk...

You are arguing from the old English translation and then from the French translation. I am basing my reading of the account on the Greek word used in John 2:10. The word is methyo, a verb that means quite simply, "to be intoxicated." It is derived from the root Greek noun, methe which only and unambiguously means "intoxication or drunkenness." The steward says the good wine is served first and the poorer quality wine later after the guests are too intoxicated to be able to taste the difference or care.

According to the taste test of the steward of the wedding, Jesus had turned the water into the good fermented wine that would be intoxicating to those who drank it. He could taste the bite of the alcohol.

[miz3]

My point is not that the church is wrong, rather it is that in my experience the church is so unwilling to consider it may be wrong, so sure that it already has every kernel of truth possible to mankind, that it will not look at issues that may reveal not just further truth but ultimately may help them build a more effective ministry. People respond to rational logic. People reject dogma

Oh! This is sooooo true!

We have Doctrinal views that fit into this category as well.

[Gustave]

Okay, this question has been bothering me for sometime. Actually, I will clarify, it's not the question itself because I don't care if Jesus drank a few glasses of wine from time to time or not. But within the last few years I discovered a verse and when I asked three or four pastors about it they didn't know of the verse and when I showed it to them they gave me an unsatisfactory answer.

Matthew 11:19: “The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Behold, a gluttonous man and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’ Yet wisdom is vindicated by her deeds.”

In this verse the implication is that Jesus eats a little and is called a glutton, he drinks a little and is called a drunkard. Doesn't seem that he could be called a drunkard for imbibing innocent grape juice. But I'm not a Biblical languages scholar, does anyone know the original words for these?

And, FYI, I think that he probably did, and it doesn't bother me, but my point of asking this question is to stimulate some uncomfortable thought among the less radical among this group.

So, did he or didn't he?

There was no such thing as 'grape juice' the way we understand it today....

...Juice started to ferment even prior to it being put into skins.

...Jesus drank wine and yes it was the kind you could get drunk on.

Scripture warns about being a drunkard or "given to wine or strong drink"....

...However there were times in Jewish life when one was expected to have a few.

...Such as at weddings and certain Liturgical celebrations.

I'm sure Jesus would have had a few drinks when He was on earth...

...His first miracle in fact was turning water into wine.

...And it was said that wine tasted like OLD fine wine.

...That's all the proof anyone should need.

[Parade Orange]

am i hearing u right?

it wasnt welchs grape juice?

[Gary K]

Originally Posted By: Gary K

Flyboy,

Who was responsible for the accusations against Jesus that are bothering you? His friends? Neutral parties? His enemies?

It doesn't bother me at all, in fact, I quite enjoy it. What bothers me is that generally SDA will come up with the "it wasn't wine, it was grape juice" argument because we have become so comfortable in what we consider the truth.

Whether he drank grape juice or wine, I don't care, but I can promise you that if Jesus were a church elder today and a church member was at the grocery store standing behind him at the check-out line and noticed a bottle of wine in his cart, well... he wouldn't be an elder much longer.

Must say that from the posts I've read thus far in response to this, I am refreshed. It seems people are willing to consider the possibility, and are okay with it. I don't drink, and I think abstinence is okay, as is temperance, but we should not change the Bible to fit our ideas.

Exactly what does your answer have to do with my questions? I see no correlation whatsoever.