The wedding at Cana: Wine or grape juice?

[Lulav]

FYI, EO use leavened bread at their communion precisely because they believe it does symbolize life (His resurrection). RC and P use unleavened bread at their communion as a symbol of His death. All use wine because it symbolizes blood and life is in the blood (Deut 12:23). Wine is "alive".

What is interesting also is that Mormons won't even drink grape juice for communion but use water, and the RCC won't use anything but fermented juice, ie wine.

 

[Albion]

What is interesting also is that Mormons won't even drink grape juice for communion but use water, and the RCC won't use anything but fermented juice, ie wine.

Of course, the Mormons are unique in that respect whereas many different Christian churches use actual wine.

 

[Standing Up]

What is interesting also is that Mormons won't even drink grape juice for communion but use water, and the RCC won't use anything but fermented juice, ie wine.

Interesting division. I wonder what SDA and JW use? Wine, water, grape juice?

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Interesting division. I wonder what SDA and JW use? Wine, water, grape juice?

This one is easy to research. I already know SDA's forbid the consumption of alcohol. JW's hold to same view as most popular Christians. They are Moderationists.

 

[~Anastasia~]

This one is easy to research. I already know SDA's forbid the consumption of alcohol. JW's hold to same view as most popular Christians. They are Moderationists.

Who are popular Christians?

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Who are popular Christians?

Most Christians here in America hold to a form of OSAS (Once Saved Always Saved). Others hold to the opposite wrong extreme (Which is self directed Works Salvationism). Also, most churches gather in a building that they call a church. When in reality the body of believers is the church. Believers are supposed to gather in small groups within their homes and celebrate the Lord's supper and have close fellowship with one another in the LORD.

 

[Standing Up]

Who are popular Christians?

Check your Facebook

 

[~Anastasia~]

Most Christians here in America hold to a form of OSAS (Once Saved Always Saved). Others hold to the opposite wrong extreme (Which is self directed Works Salvationism). Also, most churches gather in a building that they call a church. When in reality the body of believers is the church. Believers are supposed to gather in small groups within their homes and celebrate the Lord's supper and have close fellowship with one another in the LORD.

I suspect the true statistics might surprise you.

Also ... I hold to neither OSAS as it is popularly expressed, nor "self-directed works salvationism".

I actually agree that both the building and the body of believers may properly be called "the church".

But I was curious to see what your answer would be. Thank you for the reply.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Check your Facebook

Depends which Facebook - I actually have two. Which would give vastly different answers to that question, LOL.

 

[Standing Up]

This one is easy to research. I already know SDA's forbid the consumption of alcohol. JW's hold to same view as most popular Christians. They are Moderationists.

Believe you have to be part of the 144,000 in JW to partake in wine, otherwise can't. But yes, wine.

So, SDA and LDS have juice. Any other popular groups?

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Believe you have to be part of the 144,000 in JW to partake in wine, otherwise can't. But yes, wine.

Actually, I am an Abstentionist and not a Prohibitionist. I am a proponent of Biblical house churches as seen in the New Testament and I am not a proponent of Institional Churches or a one man show type church.

See the four views on alcohol here within this thread.

SDA's are Prohibitionists.
And JW's and most of Christianity are Moderationists.

So, SDA and LDS have juice.

While I disagree strongly with the SDA church on many things, I do agree with them on the point of mention of wine in the Bible. This is the one point where they just happen to be Biblical. The Bible speaks of both fermented and unfermented wine. Meaning, the Bible speaks of
(1) freshly squeezed grape juice,
(2) normal drinkable wine (a substance that was not easy to get intoxicated with that was a perfect balance of a wine concentrate carried in wine skins mixed with water), and
(3) strong alcoholic wine (that can intoxicate easily).

As for Mormons or the LDS Church: At one time in history they believed it was okay to drink alcoholic wine. Now they do not believe it is okay. In other words, they are not consistent in what they believe. Meaning LDS are currently Prohibitionists but they used to be Moderationists.

Any other popular groups?

RCC (Catholicism) are Moderationists.
OSAS Churches are generally Moderationists.
Modern Jewish Believers are Modernationists.
Christian Science are supposed to be Prohibitionists (But from my experience they do not operate like an Institiional Church).
United Pentecostals are Prohibitionists.
Church of Christ are Prohibitionists.
Muslims are Prohibitionists (However, some are Modernationists).
Satanists believe you can do whatever you want to service your desires or Satan.
Atheists believe you can get drunk any time you feel like it, as long as you do not become a drunkard. However, technically morals techincally do not exist in this world view, though (Even though some may claim otherwise). For if everyone was just a single celled organism at one time and they are a product of Natural Selection or by the process of survival of the fittest (whereby one single celled organism eliminates another single celled organism to survive) then things like murder do not really exist.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I suspect the true statistics might surprise you.

Also ... I hold to neither OSAS as it is popularly expressed, nor "self-directed works salvationism".

I actually agree that both the building and the body of believers may properly be called "the church".

But I was curious to see what your answer would be. Thank you for the reply.

Most Institional Works Salvationist Churches are generally Prohibitionists.
Most Institional OSAS Church's are generally Modernationists.

I am an Abstentionist (Which is different from both of those views).

See the four views on alcohol here within this thread.

As for the reference that the church is a building and the body of believers is also the church: Nowhere will you find in the New Testament where the church is called a building. Nowhere in Scripture do we see one man giving a sermon every week as a part of a believer's normal fellowship (Please take note that this is not in regards to Evangelism or for calls to special meetings to address an important issue). Believers met in homes and broke bread and worshiped the LORD together in small groups.

As for your version of OSAS: Do you believe that a believer can stop sinning those types of sins (Like lying, hate, and lusting, etc.)? Even the most lightest version of OSAS believes this is not possible (Which in my view is not right because it is essentially making an excuse that one is going to sin sometime in the future willingly against God).

 

[Lulav]

I don't know of any Christian churches though that use only Kosher grape juice or Kosher wine, wonder why that is?

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I believe some form of alcoholic wine concentrate was in the wine skins was sort of like them carrying around beef boulion cubes to make beef soup. When it came to time to make wine, they used the concentrated wine juice and mixed it with the proper balance of water to have drinkable wine. This is evident by what Paul says to Timothy in 1 Timothy 5:23.

"Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach's sake and thine often infirmities." (1 Timothy 5:23).
​

Meaning, use a little concentrated wine in your water so as to have drinkable wine to help your stomach. Why? Because back then, their water was not filtered or purified properly always. Drinkable wine when it is in it's properly balanced state of concentrated wine (that was carried in wine skins) and water is what they drank back then. Such a wine would not intoxicate like the wines of today. Now, it is true Isaiah 1:22 does speak of a diluted wine and compares it with silver that has been watered down. But this is speaking of their best wine in it's already drinkable state whereby it was properly balanced with concentrated wine and water. For the point was not that it was bad to have other alloys mixed in with the silver. It was the fact that the silver was so diluted that it became worthless. The same is the case with the normal drinkable wine (that was not intoxicating); It was so diluted, it had lost it's flavor and health benefits (and it is not in reference to how much it can no longer intoxicate you). God does not want to intoxicate you with wine. For the Kingdom of God is not meat or drink but joy in the Holy Ghost. For Scripture warns us that wine (strong wine) is a serpent and it can bite you. In other words, the Bible speaks of both intoxicating alcoholic wine and non-intoxicating wine (more like grape juice because it has been balanced properly with water so as to drink).

Historical documents like the Talmud and Maccabees also back up the idea that they diluted their wine.

2 Maccabees 15:39 GNT
"We know it is unhealthy to drink wine or water alone, whereas wine mixed with water makes a delightfully tasty drink. So also a good story skillfully written gives pleasure to those who read it. With this I conclude."

Granted, Maccabees is not the Word of God, but it shows a pattern in other Historical documents that point out the truthfulness of God's Word.

However, Jesus's wine was not made from this concentrated wine mixture that they carried around in wine skins. Jesus's wine was a pure unadulterated juice of the grape. While Christ can do anything, Jesus did not allow the wine to ferment like the wine concentrate that was mixed with water to have normal drinkable wine. For Christ's miracle was an example of His glory. Jesus is pure. If He were to create something that was unpure that could lead people to be intoxicated, it would taint the perfect sinless Son of God.

Jesus's wine was the new covenant wine and it was not the old covenant wine. For no man desires the new after having the old. Meaning, it was hard for the Pharisees and others of the Old Covenant to come into the New Covenant because they were used to their old ways.

 

[Lulav]

Brings to mind the blood mixed with water when the soldier pierced Messiah's side.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Here are some great quotes:

"I am satisfied," states William Pettingill, "that there was little resemblance in it [wine made by Christ] to the thing described in the Scripture of God as biting like a serpent and stinging like an adder (Prov 23:29-32). Doubtless rather it was like the heavenly fruit of the vine that He will drink new with His own in His Father’s kingdom (Matt 26:29). No wonder the governor of the wedding feast at Cana pronounced it the best wine kept until the last. Never before had he tasted such wine, and never did he taste it again."

Christ’s miracles were always directed to benevolent ends. He "came not to destroy men’s lives but to save them" (Luke 9:56). If it were true that Christ miraculously manufactured an intoxicating wine, then that miracle would be a notable exception among His miracles. It would be a malevolent manifestation of His power. He would have manifested shame rather than glory.

Christ was aware of the powerful influence His example would have on contemporary and future generations. If, with all this knowledge He created an intoxicating wine, He would have revealed diabolic rather than divine power and glory. His disciples could hardly have believed in Him, if they had seen Him do a miracle to encourage drunkenness.

Leon C. Field aptly observes that Christ "was not Mohammed, holding out to men the allurement of sensual paradise, but a ‘man of sorrow,’ whose stern requirement of all who came after him was, that they should deny themselves and take up their cross and follow him (Matt 16:24). And it was by the personal embodiment and the practical encouragement of self-denial and abstinence, and not by the example or sanction of luxury and self-indulgence, that he won his followers and achieved his victories."​

Source of Quotes:
https://www.biblicalperspectives.com/books/wine_in_the_bible/4.html

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Brings to mind the blood mixed with water when the soldier pierced Messiah's side.

Yes, exactly. The new covenant wine. Jesus's miracle reflected His glory and purity. Jesus knew the perfect balanced of freshly squeezed grape juice mixed with water so as to create a wine like they never had before that was absolutely delicious. It was a perfect wine. Non-intoxicating. Pure. Holy. For God does not intoxicate us in a way whereby we become drunk (although the world might think we might be that way; Especially when they think the "new wine" is in reference to alcoholic wine - of which we can see mentioned in Scripture).

In other words, there are two "new wines" mentioned in Scripture. One good and one bad. There are two vines mentioned in Scripture. One good vine and one bad vine. The True Vine (Jesus) and the Vine of Sodom. There are two lions mentioned in Scripture. One good lion and one bad lion. Jesus is the Lion of the Tribe of Judah. Satan is a roaring lion seeking whom he may devour.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Most Institional Works Salvationist Churches are generally Prohibitionists.
Most Institional OSAS Church's are generally Modernationists.

I am an Abstentionist (Which is different from both of those views).

See the four views on alcohol here within this thread.

As for the reference that the church is a building and the body of believers is also the church: Nowhere will you find in the New Testament where the church is called a building. Nowhere in Scripture do we see one man giving a sermon every week as a part of a believer's normal fellowship (Please take note that this is not in regards to Evangelism or for calls to special meetings to address an important issue). Believers met in homes and broke bread and worshiped the LORD together in small groups.

In the earliest accounts, Christ and His disciples went to the temple/synagogue for worship. There is nothing in Scripture that says meeting in a designated building is bad. Some of those house Churches were built by wealthier persons for the purpose of having "Church" as the layout of the buildings demonstrate.

But a Church meeting is ideally those in close proximity who exist as a community. The current situation of such diverse beliefs makes this difficult for many. So I must travel a ways to worship with those of like belief.

As for your version of OSAS: Do you believe that a believer can stop sinning those types of sins (Like lying, hate, and lusting, etc.)? Even the most lightest version of OSAS believes this is not possible (Which in my view is not right because it is essentially making an excuse that one is going to sin sometime in the future willingly against God).

I'm not sure what you mean by "my version of OSAS". I may have been unclear, and if so, please forgive me. I don't subscribe to the more recent ideas labeled "OSAS". And yes, it is possible for a person to stop outward sins. For some it may be more of a struggle than others, but those are all things we can choose to stop engaging in. But there are finer and finer distinctions of sin, and those of the heart can take longer to eradicate than those of the behavior. Still it is possible.

However, in the very final analysis, sin is "missing the mark" - not living up to to the standard. And the standard is no less than Christ Himself. So by that definition, no matter how perfected we may become, with God's help, I don't know anyone who does, says, thinks, feels - EXACTLY as Christ, so by that definition, we can always have something to repent of and something to strive toward.

But I do not say that one must "be Christ" in order to be saved. No - who then could stand before God? We are saved by the mercy of God, through His grace, not our own works.

But it is our duty to strive toward the mark, and become as Christlike as possible, and our privilege as well. With God's help, of course. This is the mark of one who truly loves Him. And in the end, it is God who judges the hearts of men.

We are not "saved" ultimately, until we hear the words, "well done, thou good and faithful servant, enter into the joy of thy Lord." God willing. And even then, it is not works, as I said above - but a race well run, depending upon God and looking toward Him in love and thanksgiving.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

In the earliest accounts, Christ and His disciples went to the temple/synagogue for worship. There is nothing in Scripture that says meeting in a designated building is bad. Some of those house Churches were built by wealthier persons for the purpose of having "Church" as the layout of the buildings demonstrate.

No. While Christ primarily taught New Covenant and not Old Covenant (to prepare people for the way of the New Covenant), they were still technically under the Old Covenant during Christ's ministry (before He was crucified). The New Covenant officially began with His death (even though His teachings were already being followed). Also, the LORD Himself also set the standard for fellowship for us by having the LORD's supper by meeting in a house (Shortly before his crucifixion). In Hebrews 8:13, the author of Hebrews quotes Jesus as saying (shortly before His crucifixion) that the Old Covenant was about to vanish away and give way to the New Covenant.

As for wealthier persons building a church: We see no evidence of this in New Testament Scripture and we are told in Revelation not to add to God's Word. Furthermore, do a deep study again on 1 Timothy chapter 6 by way of prayer. You will discover that there is no way for a brother to be rich and or to chase after riches and still be a saint or a follower of Jesus Christ. Oh, one can claim that they follow Him and have money, but it is another matter if that is actually Biblical or not.

In addition, there is no evidence in Scripture of a one man show where one man primarily speaks while others are to remain silent. Scripture says every man has interpretation, a doctrine, a prophecy, etc. We all share in the body of Christ and have fellowship with each other and celebrate the LORD's supper. Try sharing the Word during your Pastor's sermon next time, I doubt you will be accepted (if you did such a thing). But yet, we are all Kings and Priests. There is no Aaronic Priesthood Order anymore. The Temple veil was torn.... top to bottom. Not bottom from the top. God (from above) had torn that veil top to bottom. We no longer look to a priest or a priesthood order except Jesus Christ who is our Heavenly High Priest and sole mediator. There is no praying to other god like entities like the saints or looking up to one man who has all the knowledge. Every believer is commanded by the LORD to show themselves approved unto God by study the Word (2 Timothy 2:15).

But a Church meeting is ideally those in close proximity who exist as a community. The current situation of such diverse beliefs makes this difficult for many. So I must travel a ways to worship with those of like belief.

A church is not a building. Nowhere does Scripture ever say that. But if you ask people today about what the word "church" means to them, they immediately think of a building like structure and they do not first think of the body of Christ. Again, people's focus is on meeting in a place that does not help to promote believers to come together in Christ in intimate fellowship and to pray for each other and or to bear one another's burdens and to go by the leading of the Spirit. Institutional Churches appear to be putting on a show as if it was to entertain people. They are about programs and they are not about close fellowship with one another in Christ. Granted, I am not saying God cannot use Institional Churches, but, I believe His deepest fellowship as it was intended is the model we see in New Testament Scripture.

Paul says we are to be examples after him. We are also to conform to the image of Christ and walk as He walked. They both met in homes and had fellowship with one another. If we want to emulate or imitate Jesus and Paul, then we have to re-adjust the way we think about what church actually means and what fellowship actually means (If we actually say we follow the Bible in what it says).

I'm not sure what you mean by "my version of OSAS". I may have been unclear, and if so, please forgive me. I don't subscribe to the more recent ideas labeled "OSAS". And yes, it is possible for a person to stop outward sins. For some it may be more of a struggle than others, but those are all things we can choose to stop engaging in. But there are finer and finer distinctions of sin, and those of the heart can take longer to eradicate than those of the behavior. Still it is possible.

However, in the very final analysis, sin is "missing the mark" - not living up to to the standard. And the standard is no less than Christ Himself. So by that definition, no matter how perfected we may become, with God's help, I don't know anyone who does, says, thinks, feels - EXACTLY as Christ, so by that definition, we can always have something to repent of and something to strive toward.

But I do not say that one must "be Christ" in order to be saved. No - who then could stand before God? We are saved by the mercy of God, through His grace, not our own works.

But it is our duty to strive toward the mark, and become as Christlike as possible, and our privilege as well. With God's help, of course. This is the mark of one who truly loves Him. And in the end, it is God who judges the hearts of men.

Do you believe a born again saint can fall away from the faith? That they can be saved at one time and then later be unsaved by a choice that they make? If you do not believe a believer can fall away and you hold to the view that all true born again saints will eventually endure, then who do you think Jesus was speaking to in Matthew 6:15? This is important to understand because Jesus says that if one does not forgive, then they will not be forgiven by the Father. Now, if Jesus was speaking to unbelievers, this would not make any sense. For it would not matter if an unbeliever forgives everyone in the world, they would still need the salvation of Christ because they would still need to accept Christ as their Savior. If you believe Christ's words no longer apply anymore (As some believe), then you have to explain what Paul meant in 1 Timothy 6:3-4 when he essentially said that if any man speaks contrary to the words of Jesus Christ and the doctrine of Godliness, they are proud and they know nothing.

We are not "saved" ultimately, until we hear the words, "well done, thou good and faithful servant, enter into the joy of thy Lord." God willing. And even then, it is not works, as I said above - but a race well run, depending upon God and looking toward Him in love and thanksgiving.

I believe we can have an assurance of our salvation right here and right now by Scripture; However, you are correct, there is a final stage of salvation (Which is called Glorification or to put it another way, God takes them home).

 

[Berean777]

When it came to time to make wine, they used the concentrated wine juice and mixed it with the proper balance of water to have drinkable wine. This is evident by what Paul says to Timothy in 1 Timothy 5:23.

"Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach's sake and thine often infirmities." (1 Timothy 5:23).
​

Meaning, use a little concentrated wine in your water so as to have drinkable wine to help your stomach. Why? Because back then, their water was not filtered or purified properly always. Drinkable wine when it is in it's properly balanced state of concentrated wine (that was carried in wine skins) and water is what they drank back then. Such a wine would not intoxicate like the wines of today.

The false premise you make is that Timothy was told to mix grape juice with water to avoid drinking untreated contaminated water. Now this may seem logical on the surface but it is in error. Water could be boiled and drank which was what they commonly did because from a Jewish perspective tea would have been a palatable hydration option for them instead of straight water.

Here Paul is instructing Timothy to drink alcoholic wine mixed with water for medicinal purpose to alleviate an upset stomach. May be Timothy had inflammation in his stomach that only alcoholic wine can alleviate. Grape juice on the other hand with the high concentrations of fructose will be breaking ground for stomach fungus and not to mention the painful bloating side effect of his inflamed stomach.

Wine has anti inflammatory properties according to today's medicine. On the other hand grape juice has the opposite effect.