The Bible and Older Dictionaries say that 'wine" is also grape juice.

Edison Trent · Nov 11, 2017

Tannins are contained within the complex family of phenolic compounds. That doesn't sound like a nice thing, but they are actually vital to life. Many phenolics are natural anti-oxidants, protecting the grape against things like UV in sunlight UV, or diseases like mildews. Red grapes produce much more of these in their skins than white grapes, and they act like a natural sunscreen.

Edison Trent · Nov 11, 2017

Tannins are a major part of red wines, but we can change the style of the wine by changing winemaking practices. For example, if I want a big red, I may pre-soak the grapes for a while, and then soak for a while after fermentation. During the fermentation, the carbon dioxide released by the yeast makes the skins float to the top, so we have to mix the skins back into the wine to get the tannins out. I can vary the amount of mixing to get different levels of extraction. I could also try different temperatures - higher temperatures seem to get more extraction, but significantly speed up how fast the yeast work.

To make a lighter style of wine I could reduce the length of time I ferment everything together, or I can use a grape with lower levels of tannin. Grapes grown in cooler climates tend to have lower levels of tannins than warm-climate grapes, so this is another way to change the wine style.

Finally, close to bottling I can tweak the tannins using fining agents such as egg white (remember that tannins precipitate proteins - we are just using a protein to precipitate the tannin). This softens the wine and makes it more approachable, especially when young.

Edison Trent · Nov 11, 2017

The finest of wines are aged over time.

Neogaia777 · Nov 11, 2017

So, was it alcoholic or not...?

prodromos · Nov 12, 2017

Jason0047 said:
Let's take this one step at a time. Please. Can you read for me the three previous parables leading up to the parable about the leaven being put in three measures of meal? I say this because one can see that they are similar to each other.

Also, again, "yeast" is a type of sin in the Bible.
You cannot change this meaning. It is a fact of Scripture.
One has to change this meaning in the parable in order for it not to be that way.

Just out of interest, I've looked up dozens of commentaries on Matthew's Gospel, just to see if anyone else drew the same conclusions as you did, and thus far I've come up empty. From the Early Church Fathers to the heroes of the Reformation, they all interpret the parable of Matthew 13:33 as referring to the spread of the Gospel from its humble beginnings throughout the entire world.

As John Calvin said:

The word leaven is sometimes taken in a bad sense, as when Christ warns them to

beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees,
(Matthew 16:11

and when Paul says, that

a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump,
(1 Corinthians 5:6.)

But here the term must be understood simply as applying to the present subject. As to the meaning of the phrase, the kingdom of God, and the kingdom of heaven, we have spoken on former occasions.

I stand by my statement that your interpretation isn't just in error but is blasphemous.

Neogaia777 · Nov 14, 2017

I think were missing the bigger issues here, and I think the problem is people who might or do have a problem or would make any distinctions or judgments, even against our Lord, based on whether or not the wine was alcoholic or not (which it was) but the problem I think is people who would have a problem with that...

We all know that drunkeness and being a drunkard or alcoholic is the problem, not a couple glasses of red wine a day...

Was the wine Jesus made at the Wedding at Cana, alcoholic...? or not...?

(it was)...

Anyhow,

This is such a childish issue I do not wish to take part in it,

God Bless!

prodromos · Nov 15, 2017

Neogaia777 said:
Was the wine Jesus made at the Wedding at Cana, alcoholic...? or not...?

(it was)...

That's correct. The wedding steward's comment would make no sense if the "good wine" was not alcoholic, otherwise the guests would easily discern that the wine usually being served later was of a poorer quality.

Neogaia777 · Nov 15, 2017

prodromos said:
That's correct. The wedding steward's comment would make no sense if the "good wine" was not alcoholic, otherwise the guests would easily discern that the wine usually being served later was of a poorer quality.

Nor would he have said "after people are well drunk" either...

God Bless!

Theo Book · Nov 15, 2017

Jason0047 said:
It is not irrelevant that Scripture and older dictionaries speak of wine as being grape juice because most people do not really care to know the difference. They see the word "wine" and that means an alcoholic beverage to them. This has led to lots of misunderstanding of what has happened at the Wedding at Cana.

Speaking of the Wedding at Cana:
So Jesus contributed to their drunkenness then?
Do you realize that drunkenness is a sin in the Bible?

There are basically two choices respecting "Wine" in scripture; one is moderation and the other is drunkenness. Moderation is blessed of God, and drunkenness is condemned as losing control through bad choice.

The different strengths of the product is not the issue for Christians. it is the STRENGTH OF CHARACTER that is under consideration. Remember, one of the blessings God gave to Israel when He gave them Canaan, was a grape vine for every house. The roof was flat, and the vine was grown on the roof, to provide shade in a desert land.

The family would gather in the shade on the roof and under the shade of the grape vine, and imbibe the blessings, giving thanks to God. Unless one or more of the people grew careless with drunkenness, it would indeed contribute to the happiness of a family gathering.

I have no idea what the situation has become since the changing of the Covenant, as regards the vine on the roof.

I do know Jesus made water into wine, at a wedding, and I do know Jesus said to use wine, whether grape-juice or stronger, in the communion, but in most Christian applications, there is never enough wine taken into one's system, by which one can become drunk. Of course that can be modified by bad choice overrun.

Bible Highlighter · Nov 17, 2017

Theo Book said:
There are basically two choices respecting "Wine" in scripture; one is moderation and the other is drunkenness. Moderation is blessed of God, and drunkenness is condemned as losing control through bad choice.

The different strengths of the product is not the issue for Christians. it is the STRENGTH OF CHARACTER that is under consideration. Remember, one of the blessings God gave to Israel when He gave them Canaan, was a grape vine for every house. The roof was flat, and the vine was grown on the roof, to provide shade in a desert land.

The family would gather in the shade on the roof and under the shade of the grape vine, and imbibe the blessings, giving thanks to God. Unless one or more of the people grew careless with drunkenness, it would indeed contribute to the happiness of a family gathering.

I have no idea what the situation has become since the changing of the Covenant, as regards the vine on the roof.

I do know Jesus made water into wine, at a wedding, and I do know Jesus said to use wine, whether grape-juice or stronger, in the communion, but in most Christian applications, there is never enough wine taken into one's system, by which one can become drunk. Of course that can be modified by bad choice overrun.

Jesus talks about new wine that goes into wine skins. He talks about how you are supposed to put new wine into new wine skins. For if you put new wine into old wine skins (that have already been stretched by the process of fermentation) they will burst. So this tells us that the new wine is freshly squeezed grape juice that has not been fully fermented yet. For an old wine that has been fully fermented cannot stretch a wine skin and cause it to burst. Only freshly squeezed grape juice with natural yeast in it can ferment and stretch a wine skin. So no. Wine can either refer to fresh grape juice or fermented grape juice (just as older dictionaries say).

Bible Highlighter · Nov 17, 2017

Also, folks who have a bias towards alcoholic beverages in some way and grew up having a romanticism with alcohol are going to be biased towards being in favor of alcholic drinks when reading the Bible as their presupposition. So they see the word "wine" and immediately think alcohol without realizing (or wanting to see) that older dictionaries say that wine can be either fresh grape juice or fermented grape juice (alcoholic). This is further confirmed by both Scripture and historical documents. But like I said, people come in with preconceived ideas before they read the Bible (and are not willing to change).

See, I used to drink. I used to think the wine Jesus made was alcoholic, too. But the truth is more important to me than some alcoholic beverage. So I dug in Scripture and the more I found, the more the truth had set me free.

Bible Highlighter · Nov 17, 2017

prodromos said:
Just out of interest, I've looked up dozens of commentaries on Matthew's Gospel, just to see if anyone else drew the same conclusions as you did, and thus far I've come up empty. From the Early Church Fathers to the heroes of the Reformation, they all interpret the parable of Matthew 13:33 as referring to the spread of the Gospel from its humble beginnings throughout the entire world.

As John Calvin said:

The word leaven is sometimes taken in a bad sense, as when Christ warns them to

beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees,
(Matthew 16:11
and when Paul says, that

a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump,
(1 Corinthians 5:6.)
But here the term must be understood simply as applying to the present subject. As to the meaning of the phrase, the kingdom of God, and the kingdom of heaven, we have spoken on former occasions.

I stand by my statement that your interpretation isn't just in error but is blasphemous.

John Calvin's teachings are not biblical. It also has been reported that he had no pity in the execution of a Christian with a heretical belief. So I would take what he says with a grain of salt.

As for Paul's statement in 1 Corinthians 5: He was talking about sexual immorality within the church and not abstinence of a poison or drug such as alcoholic drinks as they exist today.

As for Matthew 13:33:

First, the truth about God's Word is not learned by seeking out what other men say or by how many believe a certain teaching. Jesus said narrow is the way that leads unto life and few be there that finds it. So this tells us that the majority is not always right.

Second, just read the previous parables leading up to Matthew 13:33 and they say essentially the same thing as Matthew 13:33. Also, types exist in the Bible for a reason, as well.

Bible Highlighter · Nov 17, 2017

SBC said:
The Bible is clear;
~ not all Scriptures apply to ALL MEN.
~ Noah walked with God.
~ Men who walk with God, are with God in Spirit.
~ Men who walk in Spirit WITH God, can not sin.

Again, you are confusing the two events. Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord before the global flood. While Scripture does not say specifically that Noah sinned, the fall out of his drunkenness suggests that it was sinful and wrong. The Canaanites were later destroyed as the result of Ham taking advantage of Noah's wife while Noah was passed out drunk. Canaan was the result of incest (By Ham and Noah's wife), and that is why he was cursed (along with their offspring). In fact, this event repeated itself again in Scripture. Lot got drunk, and his two daughters took advantage of him. The offspring were also later destroyed. Why? Because they were a by-product of drunkenness and incest (Which are sins that God condemns).

To learn more about how Ham took advantage of Noah's wife, see this CF thread here:

So What Really Happened in Noah's Tent After the Flood?

You said:
Yes, Noah's life BEFORE he got drunk. Yes, BEFORE he got drunk, He walked with God. and AFTER he became sober he still walked with God.

Noah did not sin. Ham's own actions were cursed for shaming his father.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 says be not deceived that drunkards will not inherit the Kingdom of God.

You said:
... by HIS Power can never AGAIN SIN AGAINST God.

1 John 3:9

Yeah, that's just wrong and immoral. You kind of have to read 1 John 3:10 to get the context. It says,

"In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother." (1 John 3:10).

For to say that a believer is saved even while he sins is to turn God's grace into a license for immorality (Jude 1:4).

SBC · Nov 18, 2017

Jason0047 said:
Again, you are confusing the two events. Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord before the global flood.

While Scripture does not say specifically that Noah sinned,

Correct. Nor did I say so.

the fall out of his drunkenness suggests that it was sinful and wrong.

Your speculation.

The Canaanites were later destroyed as the result of Ham taking advantage of Noah's wife while Noah was passed out drunk.

Scriptures say no such thing.

Gen 9:20 "And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard:
Gen 9:21 And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent.
Gen 9:22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without.
Gen 9:23 And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father’s nakedness.
Gen 9:24 And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him.
Gen 9:25 And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.
Gen 9:26 And he said, Blessed be the LORD God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant."

Leviticus 18:7 says,

"The nakedness of thy father's wife shalt thou not uncover: it is thy father's nakedness."

So we have:

You have -
Ham entering his father's tent - having sex with his father's wife.

Scripture has -
Ham entering his father's tent - SEEING - his father and his father's wife naked, and then going outside of the tent and telling his brother's.
The two brother's enter their fathers' tent backwards, with a cover, and cover BOTH the shoulders of their father and his their father's wife, and exit the tent, without ever having looked upon their nakedness.

Nothing whatsoever says Ham "uncovered his father or his father's wife".

Bottom line - Noah was in HIS TENT, sleeping with HIS WIFE, and there was NO indication for Ham to join them, or be INVITED into their private tent, where they were lying together naked from the waist up. And Ham was cursed for his own behavior.

God Bless,
SBC

badatusernames · Nov 24, 2017

The Bible and Older Dictionaries say that 'wine" is also grape juice.

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Old Soul

Senior Veteran

Old Soul

Senior Veteran

Old Soul

Active Member

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Similar threads