Let's Talk About Hell

[Studious One]

From Albert Barnes Notes on the New Testament:

The good wine—This shows that this had all the qualities of real wine. We should not be deceived by the phrase “good wine.” We often use the phrase to denote that it is good in proportion to its strength and its power to intoxicate; but no such sense is to be attached to the word here. Pliny, Plutarch, and Horace describe wine as “good,” or mention that as “the best wine,” which was harmless or “innocent”—poculo vini “innocentis.” The most useful wine—“utilissimum vinum”—was that which had little strength; and the most wholesome wine—“saluberrimum vinum”—was that which had not been adulterated by “the addition of anything to the ‘must’ or juice.” Pliny expressly says that a good wine was one that was destitute of spirit (lib. iv. c. 13). It should not be assumed, therefore, that the “good wine” was “stronger” than the other: it is rather to be presumed that it was milder.​

The wine referred to here was doubtless such as was commonly drunk in Palestine. That was the pure juice of the grape. It was not brandied wine, nor drugged wine, nor wine compounded of various substances, such as we drink in this land. The common wine drunk in Palestine was that which was the simple juice of the grape. we use the word “wine” now to denote the kind of liquid which passes under that name in this country—always containing a considerable portion of alcohol not only the alcohol produced by fermentation, but alcohol “added” to keep it or make it stronger. But we have no right to take that sense of the word, and go with it to the interpretation of the Scriptures. We should endeavor to place ourselves in the exact circumstances of those times, ascertain precisely what idea the word would convey to those who used it then, and apply that sense to the word in the interpretation of the Bible; and there is not the slightest evidence that the word so used would have conveyed any idea but that of the pure juice of the grape, nor the slightest circumstance mentioned in this account that would not be fully met by such a supposition.​

No man should adduce This instance in favor of drinking wine unless he can prove that the wine made in the waterpots of Cana was just like the wine which he proposes to drink. The Saviour’s example may be always pleaded just as it was; but it is a matter of obvious and simple justice that we should find out exactly what the example was before we plead it. There is, moreover, no evidence that any other part of the water was converted into wine than that which was “drawn out” of the water-casks for the use of the guests. On this supposition, certainly, all the circumstances of the case are met, and the miracle would be more striking. All that was needed was to furnish a “supply” when the wine that had been prepared was nearly exhausted. The object was not to furnish a large quantity for future use. The miracle, too, would in this way be more apparent and impressive. On this supposition, the casks would appear to be filled with water only; as it was drawn out, it was pure wine. Who could doubt, then, that there was the exertion of miraculous power? All, therefore, that has been said about the Redeemer’s furnishing a large quantity of wine for the newly-married pair, and about his benevolence in doing it, is wholly gratuitous. There is no evidence of it whatever; and it is not necessary to suppose it in order to an explanation of the circumstances of the case.​

 

[Der Alte]

Thayers is wrong on this one.

John 2:10 And saith unto him, Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse: but thou hast kept the good wine until now.

Notice the governor did not say 'when men are well drunk,' he said "when men have well drunk" meaning when they have drunk in abundance.

The primary definition of drunk is intoxicated, but in this instance, it merely means to drink in abundance.

As I rightly pointed out, if the guests were drunk as you claim, Jesus would not have added to their drunkenness. He would have been participating in their sin.

You falsely accuse Jesus.

Lexicons are not a buffet! You don't go through the line and pick and choose what definition you want! Here is the definition from Bauer Arndt, Gingrich, Danker Lexicon of NT Greek. The definition that you are arbitrarily choosing from Strong's is for a different form of the word, i.e. Methusthenai, which occurs in Diod. S. 23, 21, see blue highlight NOT the specific form which occurs in John 10! The form which occurs in John 2:10 means "those who had become drunk," see red highlight!

Μεθυσκω ( Pla. et al .; LXX ) cause to become intoxicated; in our lit. only pass. mequvskomai, 1 aor. ejmequvsqhn ( Eur. , Hdt. +; Pr 4:17 ; 23:31 ; Jos. , Bell. 2, 29; Test. Judah 14:1) get drunk, become intoxicated oi[nw/ with wine Eph 5:18 (as Pr 4:17 ; cf. Bl-D. §195, 2; Rob. 533). oiJ mequskovmenoi ( Cornutus 30 p. 59, 21; Dio Chrys. 80[30], 36) 1 Th 5:7 ( s. mequvw 1). W. pivnein ( X. , Cyr. 1, 3, 11) Lk 12:45 . mequsqh`nai drink freely, be drunk ( Diod. S. 23, 21 mequsqevnte" =those who had become drunk. Likewise 5, 26, 3; 17, 25, 5; Jos. , Vi. 225) J 2:10 . ejk tou` oi[nou (like ÷yIY"mi rk'•;O ) Rv 17:2 . M-M. *

A Greek-English Lexicon Gingrich & Danker​

You entire argument is NOT based on sound exegesis and hermeneutics but your unsupported assumptions/presuppositions and an arbitrary definition.

 

[Studious One]

Lexicons are not a buffet! You don't go through the line and pick and choose what definition you want! Here is the definition from Bauer Arndt, Gingrich, Danker Lexicon of NT Greek. The definition that you are arbitrarily choosing from Strong's is for a different form of the word, i.e. Methusthenai, which occurs in Diod. S. 23, 21, see blue highlight NOT the specific form which occurs in John 10! The form which occurs in John 2:10 means "those who had become drunk," see red highlight!

Μεθυσκω ( Pla. et al .; LXX ) cause to become intoxicated; in our lit. only pass. mequvskomai, 1 aor. ejmequvsqhn ( Eur. , Hdt. +; Pr 4:17 ; 23:31 ; Jos. , Bell. 2, 29; Test. Judah 14:1) get drunk, become intoxicated oi[nw/ with wine Eph 5:18 (as Pr 4:17 ; cf. Bl-D. §195, 2; Rob. 533). oiJ mequskovmenoi ( Cornutus 30 p. 59, 21; Dio Chrys. 80[30], 36) 1 Th 5:7 ( s. mequvw 1). W. pivnein ( X. , Cyr. 1, 3, 11) Lk 12:45 . mequsqh`nai drink freely, be drunk ( Diod. S. 23, 21 mequsqevnte" =those who had become drunk. Likewise 5, 26, 3; 17, 25, 5; Jos. , Vi. 225) J 2:10 . ejk tou` oi[nou (like ÷yIY"mi rk'•;O ) Rv 17:2 . M-M. *

A Greek-English Lexicon Gingrich & Danker​

You entire argument is NOT based on sound exegesis and hermeneutics but your unsupported assumptions/presuppositions and an arbitrary definition.

BDAG is wrong as well.

Both Thayer's definition, and BDAG's definition present to the reader a sinful Christ. One who adds to man's drunkenness by giving to him alcohol. The Jesus they present is one who is stained by sin in his helping the drunk further down the road to hell.

 

[Der Alte]

From Albert Barnes Notes on the New Testament:

When men have well drunk—This word does not of necessity mean that they were intoxicated, though it is usually employed in that sense. It may mean when they have drunk sufficient, or to satiety; or have drunk so much as to produce hilarity, and to destroy the keenness of their taste, so that they could not readily distinguish the good from that which was worse. [Grape juice does NOT produce these effects!] But this cannot be adduced in favor of drunkenness, even if it means to be intoxicated; for,
1.It is not said of those who were present “at that feast,” but of what generally occurred. For anything that appears, at that feast all were perfectly temperate and sober.
2.It is not the saying of Jesus that is here recorded, but of the governor of the feast, who is declaring what usually occurred as a fact.
3.There is not any expression of opinion in regard to its “propriety,” or in approval of it, even by that governor.[There is no question of "propriety" drinking Grape juice]
4.It does not appear that our Saviour even heard the observation.
5.Still less is there any evidence that he approved such a state of things, or that he designed that it should take place here. Further, the word translated “well drunk” cannot be shown to mean intoxication; but it may mean when they had drunk as much as they judged proper or as they desired. then the other was presented. It is clear that neither our Saviour, nor the sacred writer, nor the speaker here expresses any approval of intemperance, nor is there the least evidence that anything of the kind occurred here. It is not proof that we approve of intemperance when we mention, as this man did, what occurs usually among men at feasts.

I don't think you are properly reading, this does NOT support your argument!

 

[Der Alte]

BDAG is wrong as well.

Both Thayer's definition, and BDAG's definition present to the reader a sinful Christ. One who adds to man's drunkenness by giving to him alcohol. The Jesus they present is one who is stained by sin in his helping the drunk further down the road to hell.

As with many false religious groups, JW, LDS, SDA, UPCI, UU, OP, proto-WWCG, anti-trin MJ, the Way, kristadelfian, etc. you make your assumptions/presuppositions, and prejudices the final authority on scripture instead of letting scripture informing your beliefs.

Giving someone alcohol does NOT necessarily lead to or add to anyone's "drunkeness" nor does it automatically stain anyone or anything. There is NO, ZERO, NONE scripture which says that alcohol is evil or that drinking it is a sin!

 

[Studious One]

As with many false religious groups, JW, LDS, SDA, UPCI, UU, OP, proto-WWCG, anti-trin MJ, the Way, kristadelfian, etc. you make your assumptions/presuppositions, and prejudices the final authority on scripture instead of letting scripture informing your beliefs.

Giving someone alcohol does NOT necessarily lead to or add to anyone's "drunkeness" nor does it automatically stain anyone or anything. There is NO, ZERO, NONE scripture which says that alcohol is evil or that drinking it is a sin!

No assumptions on my behalf at all.

Scripture reveals that no drunkard will enter heaven. Your assumption has Jesus giving alcohol to a bunch of drunks... making them drunker.

Jesus came to seek and save that which was lost. He came to call sinners to repentance... not to participate in their sin as your stance has Him doing.

 

[Studious One]

[SIZE=+2]Did Jesus Make Alcoholic Wine?
[SIZE=+1]By Bruce Lackey[/SIZE][/SIZE]

THE FIRST REASON IS BECAUSE OF HIS HOLY NATURE. In Heb. 7:26, we read that the Lord Jesus is "holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners." No doubt, the Saviour, being God in the flesh, had an air of holiness about Himself that could be seen by even the most casual observer. For instance, the profane soldiers, who were sent to arrest Him, gave as their reason for returning without Him, that "never a man spake like this man." (John 7:46) The words of Jesus were different; He, no doubt, had a very holy appearance, character, and speech.
Why is this so important? Consider this illustration. The word "cider" may mean an alcoholic beverage, or plain apple juice. Suppose we lived during the 1920s, prohibition days, and were approached by two people offering us a drink of cider. One of the persons, we knew to be one of the holiest men in town, faithful to the house of God, separated from the world, diligent in prayers, always witnessing to others; the other was a known liquor dealer. If each one offered us a drink of "his very own cider," we would assume that the holy person's was no more than apple juice, but there would be no doubt about our opinion regarding the liquor dealer's cider! Obviously, the character of a person influences what that one does.
Since the Lord Jesus Christ was "holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners," we may safely assume that He would not make that which is called in Scripture a mocker and deceiver of man, causing untold misery.

A SECOND REASON: HE WOULD NOT CONTRADICT SCRIPTURE. In Mt. 5:17-18, Christ made this clear, saying, "Think not that I am come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." Therefore, Christ could not have contradicted Hab. 2:15, "Woe unto him that giveth his neighbor drink, that puttest thy bottle to him, and makest him drunken also, that thou mayest look on their nakedness!"
Certainly, Jesus knew that this verse was in the Bible; He was well-acquainted with Scripture, since it is His Word and was written about Him. He did not come to violate Scripture, but to fulfill it. He could not have done so, if He had made alcoholic wine and had given it to his neighbor.
Some people object to the use of this verse by saying that it would apply only to one who would give his neighbor drink for the purpose of looking on his nakedness. But we must remember: when one gives his neighbor something which will make him drunk, he is putting himself in the very class of those who do so in order to look on their nakedness. And since the Scripture commands us to "abstain from all appearance of evil" (1 Th. 5:22), we can be sure that the Lord Jesus would not have done something that would have been associated with such an evil practice as that described in Hab. 2:15. For the same reason, no Christian should be engaged in the selling of alcoholic beverage.

THE THIRD REASON IS THAT LEV. 10:9-11 COMMANDS THE PRIEST OF GOD, "DO NOT DRINK WINE NOR STRONG DRINK ... That Ye May Put Difference Between Holy And Unholy, And Between Unclean And Clean; and that ye may teach the children of Israel all the statues which the Lord hath spoken..." Now, since Heb. 2:17 calls Christ "a merciful and faithful high priest," we would expect Him to obey all Scriptures pertaining to that office. If He had made or drunk alcoholic wine, He would have disobeyed these verses and would have been disqualified from teaching the children of Israel the statues of the Lord.

THE FOURTH REASON IS FOUND IN A PASSAGE WHICH WE HAVE ALREADY CONSIDERED: PR. 31:4-5 PROHIBITS KINGS AND PRINCES FROM DRINKING ALCOHOLIC WINE OR ANY OTHER STRONG DRINK. IF THEY HAD DONE SO, THEIR JUDGMENT WOULD HAVE BEEN PERVERTED. It was necessary for Christ to obey these verses also, since He was Prince of Peace (Is. 9:6) and King of Kings (Rev. 19:16). In Mt. 27:11, He admitted to being the King of the Jews. He rode into Jerusalem on a donkey's colt, to fulfill Zec. 9:9, which prophesied that Israel's king would enter the city in just that way. Undoubtedly, He was king, and as such, would have had to obey Pr. 31:4-5.

REASON FIVE: CHRIST DID NOT COME TO MOCK OR DECEIVE PEOPLE, yet Pr. 20:1 says that wine does both. Rather than coming to mock or deceive he came to save!

REASON SIX: HE DID NOT COME TO SEND PEOPLE TO HELL. We have already seen that Is. 5:11-14
teaches that Hell had to be enlarged because of the drinking of alcoholic beverage. Christ did not come to send people to Hell; listen to Jn. 3:17: "For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved."

REASON SEVEN: CHRIST DID NOT COME TO CAST A STUMBLINGBLOCK BEFORE ANYONE; yet, Rom. 14:21 teaches that a person who gives another alcoholic wine does just that. "It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak." Everyone who has studied the problem of alcoholism has learned that some people cannot handle any amount of alcohol, while others may drink one or two "social" drinks and stop. Experts do not know why this is true; various theories have been propounded, but nothing has been proved to be true regarding every person. Some say it is chemical; others insist that it must be psychological. The fact is, we do not know for certain. In any given group of people, there would be several potential alcoholics. What a shame it would be for a person, who is a potential slave to it, to get his first taste at the Lord's table in church, then proceed down the road of misery to an alcoholic's grave!
I certainly would not want my children to get their first taste of alcohol at the family meal; nor would I want them to get it at church. One or more of them could well be potential alcoholics. As evidence that this is possible, we should consider that some denominations which serve alcoholic wine in their religious services also operate homes for alcoholic priests!
But we can be absolutely sure that Christ did not come to cause others to stumble!

THE EIGHTH REASON: JOHN 2, THE MIRACLE OF TURNING WATER INTO WINE, DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT IT BE ALCOHOLIC. Many insist that it was, on the basis of verse 10, which says, "Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse; but thou hast kept the good wine until now." They would say that, in those days, it was common to serve the best alcoholic wine at first, saving the worst until later, when men's tastes have been dulled by much drinking. But the point is just the opposite here! These people could definitely recognize that the wine which Jesus made was much better than what they had been served at first. This could not have been possible if they were already well on their way to becoming intoxicated! The fact is, neither the wine which they had at first, nor that which Christ made, was alcoholic.

REASON NINE IS FOUND IN THE SAME PASSAGE: THE LORD JESUS CHRIST WOULD NOT HAVE GOTTEN GLORY FROM MAKING DRUNK PEOPLE DRUNKER. Verse 11 is most important when it states that, by this miracle, Jesus "manifested forth his glory." Verse 10 indicates that the people had drunk quite a bit of whatever kind of wine they were drinking. If it had been alcoholic, they would have been intoxicated, or nearly so. Had Christ made alcoholic wine, He would have made drunk people drunker, or almost-drunk people completely drunk! Such a deed would certainly not have manifested any glory to Him!

This chapter also gives us the tenth reason: making drunk people drunker would not have caused his disciples to believe more strongly on him, yet verse 11 says that, as a result of what He did in turning the water into wine, "his disciples believed on him." Jn. 1:41 shows that they had already believed on Him as Messiah; this was a deepening of their faith and a proof that they had not been wrong. Would making drunk people drunker inspire such faith? The opposite would be likely! They were not looking for a Messiah who would pass out free booze! Thus, because of the description of this miracle and its result, we can not conclude otherwise than that this wine was non-alcoholic.

 

[Der Alte]

No assumptions on my behalf at all.

Scripture reveals that no drunkard will enter heaven. Your assumption has Jesus giving alcohol to a bunch of drunks... making them drunker.

Jesus came to seek and save that which was lost. He came to call sinners to repentance... not to participate in their sin as your stance has Him doing.

Deliberate misrepresentation of what I said! Drinking real alcohol content wine is NOT a sin! Making real alcohol content wine is NOT a sin! Serving real alcohol content wine is NOT a sin! I said nothing about a bunch of drunks! I quoted scripture and the correct definition of the words in John 2:9,10. If you can't handle or discuss the truth without deliberately misrepresenting what is said I am not the one who is sinning here. I know what Baptist's teach and I know that much of it is NOT based in scripture. You have yet to prove your arguments from scripture or any accredited Greek language source.

 

[LutheranMafia]

What does this debate about wine have to do with Hell?

 

[Studious One]

Deliberate misrepresentation of what I said! Drinking real alcohol content wine is NOT a sin! Making real alcohol content wine is NOT a sin! Serving real alcohol content wine is NOT a sin! I said nothing about a bunch of drunks! I quoted scripture and the correct definition of the words in John 2:9,10. If you can't handle or discuss the truth without deliberately misrepresenting what is said I am not the one who is sinning here. I know what Baptist's teach and I know that much of it is NOT based in scripture. You have yet to prove your arguments from scripture or any accredited Greek language source.

Not misrepresentation of what you said at all.

You claim that the wine Jesus made was alcoholic. You also claim that the phrase 'well drunk' in verse 10 means intoxicated. When one adds 1 and 1 together, it always adds up to two.

The governor of the feast said Jesus had saved the best wine until last. You say that wine was fermented. Hence, you have Jesus creating alcohol for a bunch of drunks... assisting them in getting drunker than what they already are.

The fact is, it is you who is doing the misrepresenting. You misrepresent the character of Christ when you have Him giving to man that which has the ability to deceive man into becoming a drunkard.

 

[Der Alte]

Not misrepresentation of what you said at all.

You claim that the wine Jesus made was alcoholic. You also claim that the phrase 'well drunk' in verse 10 means intoxicated. When one adds 1 and 1 together, it always adds up to two.

The governor of the feast said Jesus had saved the best wine until last. You say that wine was fermented. Hence, you have Jesus creating alcohol for a bunch of drunks... assisting them in getting drunker than what they already are.

The fact is, it is you who is doing the misrepresenting. You misrepresent the character of Christ when you have Him giving to man that which has the ability to deceive man into becoming a drunkard.

Last time! I have NOT misrepresented anything. I have quoted scripture and defined words according to the definitions in accredited Greek lexicons. You try to play word games! If the lexicons such as Thayer and BAGD don't agree with your assumptions/presuppositions you say they are wrong.

You are the one who wants to twist scripture to make it fit Baptist teaching. If you don't like what John 2:9-10 says talk to God, don't try to change it! If you don't like the meaning of the original Greek words in John 2:9-10 or any other passage, talk to God, don't try to change them. You quoted Barnes trying to prop up a false argument. Barnes does NOT support your argument! Even Barnes admitted that the wine Jesus made at the wedding was real alcohol content wine. His argument was that it was not as strong or as intoxicating as wine today, as if he has some magical way of knowing that. Here is the definition of Methuo translated "well drunk" in John 2:10 from the Liddell, Scott, Jones Lexicon of classical Greek from which Koine was derived. It NEVER had the meaning to drink quite a bit!

μεθύω [ ῠ], ( μέθυ ), only pres. and impf. : fut. and aor. Act. belong to μεθύσκω ( μεθύσας is f.l. in Nonn. D. 28.211 ; μεθύσαντας is f.l. for - τες in Plu. 2.239a), aor. being supplied by Pass. of μεθύσκω : — to be drunken with wine , νευστάζων κεφαλῇ, μεθύοντι ἐοικώς Od. 18.240 ; μεθύων , opp. νήφων , Thgn. 478 , 627 , cf. Alc. Supp. 4.12, Pi. Fr. 128 , Ar. Pl. 1048 , PHal. 1.193 (iii B. C.) , etc.; μ. ὑπὸ τοῦ οἴνου X. Smp. 2.26 ; τὸ μεθύειν drunkenness , Antiph. 187.2 , Alex. 43 ; τὸ μ. πημονῆς λυτήριον S. Fr. 758 . II metaph., 1 of things, to be drenched, steeped in any liquid, c. dat., e.g. βοείην . . μεθύουσαν ἀλοιφῇ Il. 17.390 ; μεθύων ἐλαίῳ λύχνος Babr. 114.1 ; [ χείμαρρος] ὄμβροισι μ. AP 9.277 ( Antiphil. ).
2. of persons, to be intoxicated with passion, pride, etc., ὑπὸ τῆς Ἀφροδίτης X. Smp. 8.21 ; ὑπὸ τρυφῆς Pl. Criti. 121a ; ἔρωτι Anacr. 19 ; τῷ μεγέθει τῶν πεπραγμένων D. 4.49 ; περὶ τὰς ἡδονάς Philostr. VS 1.22.1 ; οὐ μ. τὴν φρόνησιν Alex. 301 ; μ. τὸ φίλημα AP 5.304 . to be stupefied, stunned , πληγαῖς μεθύων Theoc. 22.98 ; ἐξ ὀδυνάων Opp. H. 5.228 , cf. Nonn.l.c.​

In your attempt to prop up your false argument you even misrepresented Strong's. "drink well" is part of a single definition, "drink well, make (be drunken)" Note the comma between "well" and "make."

G3184 μεθύω methuō meth-oo'-o
From another form of G3178; to drink to intoxication, that is, get drunk: - drink well, make (be) drunk (-en).

NIV Joh 2:10 and said, "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."

ISV Joh 2:10 and said to him, "Everyone serves the best wine first, and the cheap kind when people are drunk. But you have kept the best wine until now!"​

 

[Studious One]

Last time! I have NOT misrepresented anything. I have quoted scripture and defined words according to the definitions in accredited Greek lexicons. You try to play word games! If the lexicons such as Thayer and BAGD don't agree with your assumptions/presuppositions you say they are wrong.

You are the one who wants to twist scripture to make it fit Baptist teaching. If you don't like what John 2:9-10 says talk to God, don't try to change it! If you don't like the meaning of the original Greek words in John 2:9-10 or any other passage, talk to God, don't try to change them. You quoted Barnes trying to prop up a false argument. Barnes does NOT support your argument! Even Barnes admitted that the wine Jesus made at the wedding was real alcohol content wine. His argument was that it was not as strong or as intoxicating as wine today, as if he has some magical way of knowing that. Here is the definition of Methuo translated "well drunk" in John 2:10 from the Liddell, Scott, Jones Lexicon of classical Greek from which Koine was derived. It NEVER had the meaning to drink quite a bit!

μεθύω [ ῠ], ( μέθυ ), only pres. and impf. : fut. and aor. Act. belong to μεθύσκω ( μεθύσας is f.l. in Nonn. D. 28.211 ; μεθύσαντας is f.l. for - τες in Plu. 2.239a), aor. being supplied by Pass. of μεθύσκω : — to be drunken with wine , νευστάζων κεφαλῇ, μεθύοντι ἐοικώς Od. 18.240 ; μεθύων , opp. νήφων , Thgn. 478 , 627 , cf. Alc. Supp. 4.12, Pi. Fr. 128 , Ar. Pl. 1048 , PHal. 1.193 (iii B. C.) , etc.; μ. ὑπὸ τοῦ οἴνου X. Smp. 2.26 ; τὸ μεθύειν drunkenness , Antiph. 187.2 , Alex. 43 ; τὸ μ. πημονῆς λυτήριον S. Fr. 758 . II metaph., 1 of things, to be drenched, steeped in any liquid, c. dat., e.g. βοείην . . μεθύουσαν ἀλοιφῇ Il. 17.390 ; μεθύων ἐλαίῳ λύχνος Babr. 114.1 ; [ χείμαρρος] ὄμβροισι μ. AP 9.277 ( Antiphil. ).
2. of persons, to be intoxicated with passion, pride, etc., ὑπὸ τῆς Ἀφροδίτης X. Smp. 8.21 ; ὑπὸ τρυφῆς Pl. Criti. 121a ; ἔρωτι Anacr. 19 ; τῷ μεγέθει τῶν πεπραγμένων D. 4.49 ; περὶ τὰς ἡδονάς Philostr. VS 1.22.1 ; οὐ μ. τὴν φρόνησιν Alex. 301 ; μ. τὸ φίλημα AP 5.304 . to be stupefied, stunned , πληγαῖς μεθύων Theoc. 22.98 ; ἐξ ὀδυνάων Opp. H. 5.228 , cf. Nonn.l.c.​

In your attempt to prop up your false argument you even misrepresented Strong's. "drink well" is part of a single definition, "drink well, make (be drunken)" Note the comma between "well" and "make."

G3184 μεθύω methuō meth-oo'-o
From another form of G3178; to drink to intoxication, that is, get drunk: - drink well, make (be) drunk (-en).

NIV Joh 2:10 and said, "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."

ISV Joh 2:10 and said to him, "Everyone serves the best wine first, and the cheap kind when people are drunk. But you have kept the best wine until now!"​

So the Jesus you believe in makes alcohol and serves it to drunks and then sends the to hell for being drunkards. Ok, I understand.

You can keep him. I don't want any part of a Jesus who was responsible for my oldest brother dying a drunkard.

 

[godisreal36]

Praise the Lord He is Good. Have a good day brothers and sisters.

 

[Der Alte]

So the Jesus you believe in makes alcohol and serves it to drunks. Ok.

You can keep him. I don't want any part of a Jesus who was responsible for my oldest brother dying a drunkard.

I have been a Christian since you were a about 6 years old and I have never said any rubbish such as this! Thus this post is a deliberate distortion of the truth. Even you own source, Barnes, said

When men have well drunk—This word does not of necessity mean that they were intoxicated, though it is usually employed in that sense. It may mean when they have drunk sufficient, or to satiety; or have drunk so much as to produce hilarity, and to destroy the keenness of their taste, so that they could not readily distinguish the good from that which was worse. [Grape juice does NOT produce these effects! DA] But this cannot be adduced in favor of drunkenness, [Absolutely correct DA!] even if it means to be intoxicated; for,
1.It is not said of those who were present “at that feast,” but of what generally occurred. For anything that appears, at that feast all were perfectly temperate and sober. [Correct! But the wine Jesus provided was the same kind that produced these effects! DA]
2.It is not the saying of Jesus that is here recorded, but of the governor of the feast, who is declaring what usually occurred as a fact.
3.There is not any expression of opinion in regard to its “propriety,” or in approval of it, even by that governor.
4.It does not appear that our Saviour even heard the observation.
5.Still less is there any evidence that he approved such a state of things, or that he designed that it should take place here. Further, the word translated “well drunk” cannot be shown to mean intoxication; [In all lexicons "Methuo" only has that meaning.! DA] but it may mean when they had drunk as much as they judged proper or as they desired. then the other was presented. It is clear that neither our Saviour, nor the sacred writer, nor the speaker here expresses any approval of intemperance, nor is there the least evidence that anything of the kind occurred here. It is not proof that we approve of intemperance when we mention, as this man did, what occurs usually among men at feasts.​

If Barnes knew or assumed that the "wine" which Jesus made was NOT real alcohol content wine there is no need to discuss temperance, which is the "habitual or excessive drinking of intoxicants." Drinking any amount of unfermented grape juice cannot produce "intemperance!"

Just as Barnes argued, the ruler of the feast knew that the wine which Jesus provided was the same kind of wine that was usually consumed at feasts and which made men "Methuo" and it was better than the wine which was served at the feast before Jesus arrived! Nothing you have said explains why someone would serve worse grape juice early in a feast and better grape juice later in the feast, what is the difference between the best and worse grape juice?

Let me know if you ever can deal with my posts truthfully, without misrepresenting what I say and making false accusations. If you can't don't expect a reply!

 

[Studious One]

As I said, you can serve this Jesus that gives alcohol to drunks. I will serve the one that delivers drunks from the bondage of alcohol.

This will be my last post concerning alcohol in this thread because it is evident you dismiss the truth that the real Jesus would not have given alcohol to man who was already drunk.

Barnes clearly showed that he did not see the guests drunk at the feast when he wrote:

Title : Barnes’ Notes on the New Testament
Edition : Second
Copyright : Electronic Edition STEP Files Copyright © 1999, Parsons Technology, Inc

5. Still less is there any evidence that he approved such a state of things, or that he designed that it should take place here. Further, the word translated “well drunk” cannot be shown to mean intoxication; but it may mean when they had drunk as much as they judged proper or as they desired. then the other was presented. It is clear that neither our Saviour, nor the sacred writer, nor the speaker here expresses any approval of intemperance, nor is there the least evidence that anything of the kind occurred here. It is not proof that we approve of intemperance when we mention, as this man did, what occurs usually among men at feasts.

"Well drunk" cannot be shown to mean intoxication... yet you hold to the false interpretation of BAGD and Thayer that "well drunk" means intoxication.

Again, Barnes says:

The good wine—This shows that this had all the qualities of real wine. We should not be deceived by the phrase “good wine.” We often use the phrase to denote that it is good in proportion to its strength and its power to intoxicate; but no such sense is to be attached to the word here. Pliny, Plutarch, and Horace describe wine as “good,” or mention that as “the best wine,” which was harmless or “innocent”—poculo vini “innocentis.” The most useful wine—“utilissimum vinum”—was that which had little strength; and the most wholesome wine—“saluberrimum vinum”—was that which had not been adulterated by “the addition of anything to the ‘must’ or juice.” Pliny expressly says that a good wine was one that was destitute of spirit (lib. iv. c. 13). It should not be assumed, therefore, that the “good wine” was “stronger” than the other: it is rather to be presumed that it was milder.

The good wine does not carry the power to intoxicate... meaning that good wine that was preferred, that which was served to the governor, was not alcoholic in content... it did not have the power to intoxicate.

Yet you hold to the false teaching of Thayer and BAGD that Jesus made an alcoholic wine.

No, Barnes did not say Jesus made an alcoholic wine, nor did he say the guests who had "well drunk" were intoxicated.

Intoxication and alcohol at the wedding feast of Cana was a product of someone's vain imagination and is not a biblical teaching at all.

 

[sk8Joyful]

re hell
I believe that "hell" is the darkness outside of heaven
where the evil souls are because they can't get into heaven, and
because they are evil they torment each other.
But, not a pit of fire.
course, I could be wrong.

What do you think?

People obsessing about Hell, & stay stuck stewing about the subject, have sadly
missed
GOD's Gospel: you know their Blessed Saved-relationship personally with Him, & how to serve as example of God's love... to the world.

 

[FredVB]

I will agree with this. There is a reality of hell, it does not bode well for non-believers to deny there is hell that they would see, and pursue their life in avoiding God.

Denying that there is a hell of eternal torture is a different thing than "avoiding God."

I believe in God, the Creator of everything,
I believe in Jesus Christ, His only begotten Son, by whom all things were made,
Who suffered and died on the cross and rose again from death on the third day,
I believe Jesus rose into heaven,
I believe Jesus will return on the last day to judge the living and the dead. (by dead, I mean not-living)
I believe in the Holy Spirit.
I believe that all Christians are part of one church, which has many parts, and there are believers in each denomination, and there are pretenders in each denomination.
I believe that baptism is a sign of our entrance into that church, and a sign of our faith in God who forgives our sins.
I believe the dead will be resurrected
and I believe in the life of the world to come.

I don't believe there is a hell of eternal torture...

So Fred, I don't care if you think I am a non-believer because I can't make myself believe in a pagan hell.

Timothew, my comment was not to be taken personally, it was not directed specifically to you. Some believers might not believe there is hell, this does not affect the salvation of anyone. So I in no way assumed unbelief from your position. I meant that the unbelief of hell would be used by non-believers who do not value coming to God as their comfort that they do not need to worry, Heaven might be boring to them in their thinking, they do not think much of God, and not having that in their future then does not matter so much. As Bible references for hell are used by any of us taking the position that supports its reality, it is not properly called pagan, although some pagans may have had understanding of eternal justice afterward.

You have also called the passage on Lazarus a parable, not only that names are used being denied by you to mean that it is not, you neglect that the Bible passages themselves do not say it is a parable. Is there another parable from Christ then which is not stated in the Bible that it is a parable?

 

[FredVB]

I think of using "eternal" as I find it being used in the Bible. I do understand the distinction you are making, between what we can hope to have and that which is essential characteristic of the Self-existent. Do you have basis from anything in the Bible for that in your terminology?

what part? the part in this quote? if so then I will try to provide examples:

1Tim 1:15 (ESV)
(1:15) The saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the foremost.

Christ is not a sinner and we are. so I think that is already showing a difference.

Gal 4:8 (ESV)
(4:8) Formerly, when you did not know God, you were enslaved to those that by nature are not gods.

God is always Himself and yet we become enslaved to other things that are not even gods.

Rom 12:2 (ESV)
(12:2) Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.

we have to go through a process of renewal of our mind... and we have to discern what is the will of God. God does not seem to have to renew His mind or to discern His will. though one day we may be awesome enough to not have to discern, there was a point in which we had to and for God it was not so ( ~I do not change~ as one of the prophets say ).

Eph 1:3 (ESV)
(1:3) Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places,

God is blessed and there was never a time when He is not blessed. but we need the blessings of God.

I thought there is an obvious difference since God is not created and we are. since we can be shaped and God can not be shaped. if I did not answer your question correctly or if I did not understand what you asked... then let me know so that I can try again, because I am not exactly sure on what terminology you want me to explain.

Noxot, all your points were good. I really do understand the distinction. I was asking if there is a distinction in terminology for what I have seen in the Bible as eternity after our life here for us and eternity for God that you would have as a basis for needing to use different terms.

 

[Timothew]

You have also called the passage on Lazarus a parable, not only that names are used being denied by you to mean that it is not, you neglect that the Bible passages themselves do not say it is a parable. Is there another parable from Christ then which is not stated in the Bible that it is a parable?

The parable of the pearl
The parable of the treasure
The parable of the fishing net
The parable of the unforgiving debtor
The parable of the vineyard workers
The parable of the fig tree
The parable of the two sons
The parable of the ten virgins
The parable of the two debtors
The parable of the Good Samaritan
The parable of the good friend at night
The parable of the guests
The parable of the Tower and Waging War
The parable of the Lost Coin
The parable of the Prodigal Son
The parable of the Unjust Steward
The parable of Lazarus and Dives
The parable of the Master and the Servant
The parable of the Pharisee and the Publican

None of the parables are stated in the Bible that they are parables, yet the only one you say is not a parable, because it is not directly stated, is the parable of Lazarus and Dives.

In fact, in his public ministry he never taught without using parables; but afterward, when he was alone with his disciples, he explained everything to them.

So we know that the parable of Dives is a parable, the Bible states that Jesus never taught the public without using a parable.

You asked for one other parable that is not directly called a parable, I gave you 18 others.

 

[Timothew]

I call the Hell of Eternal Torment Pagan because the idea comes from Pagan Greece, not the Bible.