My conlcusion regarding fermented wine.

[maco]

I'm not disagreeing with you All I'm saying is that if God doesn't allow drunkeness then you pretty much can't drink wine. Maybe you could have 20mls a day and say woot I got my 30mls in look at me dancing on the edge of the precepice.

Some of the positive qualities of fermented wine that the Bible brings out is seen in its ablility to make the heart merry. The Bible also tells us that wine will lift a heavy heart. These discriptions are identifying the effects of fermented wine on the person, in other words, tipsy.

This tells me that God sees a difference between a specific amount of wine to make one merry and another amount of wine to make one drunk.

This also tells me that the amount of wine will effect the person who drinks it in different levels, one level is sinful while another level is not.

The key is to know your limit...

 

[thecountrydoc]

The key to this whole thread is the the possessive pronoun "MY."

Doc

 

[woobadooba]

I think we can tell people that drinking wine is sinful! Sure the wine is not a sinful thing... it's just a bunch of atoms minding their own business.

To take it in your body however will produce drunkeness which is sinful! What is drunk?

drunk (drŭngk)

v.
Past participle of drink.
adj.

1. 1. Intoxicated with alcoholic liquor to the point of impairment of physical and mental faculties.
   2. Caused or influenced by intoxication.

As soon as you start drinking the wine will start affecting your physical and mental faculties.. after 1 glass you will have measureable impairment of physical and mental faculties. This may be a small impairment but you are still drunk even if you are only a little bit drunk. But being only little bit drunk would surely only be a small sin, and a small sin couldnt possibly effect us.... could it?

Did you know that just as you can find the word 'drunk' in the dictionary, you can also find the word 'buzz'?

To get drunk one has to drink an excessive amount of alcohol. To get a buzz one only needs to drink a few beers, or less.

Do you know the difference between the words 'excessive' and 'few'? It's like comparing a whole bottle of wine with 2-3 small glasses of wine.

Furthermore, to be drunk is to be overly intoxicated. To have a buzz is to be slightly intoxicated.

If you don't believe me, then just look up these words and see for yourself.

However, if you have ever had wine or beer before, you might know the difference between getting a buzz and getting drunk, in which case you would know that you don't get drunk by drinking one glass of wine unless you have an extremely low tolerance for alcohol.

So your definition of 'drunk' is not only false, but irrational.

In any case, like I had said before, this argument is pointless since all of us agree that it is best not to drink wine.

 

[woobadooba]

The key is to know your limit...

The key is to just not drink it at all.

 

[JonMiller]

You can drink and not even get buzzed. Back when I use to drink a lot, it would sometimes take over 6 for me to feel anything (a buzz) and over 12 for me to be drunk. Currently I (mostly) have no desire to get drunk. And haven't for a quite a while. And I am definitely healthier, wealthier, and happier for it.

I am not encouraging people to drink. I am saying that drinking, in and of itself, isn't sinful and isn't drunkeness.

JM

 

[maco]

Some of the positive qualities of fermented wine that the Bible brings out is seen in its ablility to make the heart merry. The Bible also tells us that wine will lift a heavy heart. These discriptions are identifying the effects of fermented wine on the person, in other words, tipsy.

This tells me that God sees a difference between a specific amount of wine to make one merry and another amount of wine to make one drunk.

This also tells me that the amount of wine will effect the person who drinks it in different levels, one level is sinful while another level is not.

The key is to know your limit...

Read this again.

The things God is discribing here has to do with wine's effect on you and still it's not sinful.

 

[TrustAndObey]

http://www.baptistpillar.com/bd0494.htm

This whole page is really interesting, but I found this part of particular interest:

To completely exhaust the Bible on this very important subject would be impossible. However, to fully understand this debate between wine and grape juice advocates, we must consider when the Lord's Supper was instituted.

It is a given fact that the Lord's Supper was given as an ordinance at the time of Passover (Matthew 26:2, 16-30). Now comes the question, did the Jews use alcoholic, intoxicating wine or grape juice at Passover?

To comprehend the answer, we must go back to the institution of the Passover in Exodus 12. We are told that each family had to have a lamb. Not just any lamb would do, but it had to be a male of the first year without blemish (Exodus 12:5). Secondly, they were to eat bread. Not just any bread, but specifically unleavened bread (Exodus 12:8). Notice that before the observance of Passover, the people were to remove ALL leaven out of their houses (Exodus 12:15). They were not to remove just the leaven from the bread, but all leaven.

Now, friend, in order for the grape juice to ferment into wine, there must be the presence of yeast, or leaven as the Bible calls it. Grape juice will sour and turn to vinegar, but it will not ferment without the leaven (this is true, I just learned this in Microbiology today). If there could be no leaven in the house whatsoever to remove only part of the leaven, that which was in the bread, and leave another source of this picture of sin in the wine wouldn't make sense.

Did Jesus use alcoholic, intoxicating wine at the last supper? Tradition says, "yea", but the Scriptures say "nay"! Jesus did not have alcoholic, intoxicating wine available for the occasion, but only the purest grape juice.

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

Of course the idea was to not use leaven in the bread and thus not have to wait for it rise, e.g. it is ready sooner. (the latter passover tradition the feast of unleaven bread reflects the rememberance of the passover) Of course wine can be made without adding any yeast and no doubt orginally was made that way as the fungi were naturally found on the skin of the grape. So unless the grapes were sterilized by boiling Jesus would not have had the purest of grape juices either.

Once the juice is in the fermentation tank, preferred strains of yeast are often added, but are not needed. The skin of the grapes already have adequate yeasts on them that this step could be omitted. This is one of the uncontrolled quality of wines. Since the yeasts that grow on the grapes vary in different vineyard, especially if they are in different countries, the quality of the finished wine will also vary (this is probably the basis for the claim that one country's wine is superior to another). The addition of the preferred yeast gives some measure of control to the end product.
http://www.botany.hawaii.edu/faculty/wong/BOT135/Lect14.htm

Too bad some particular individuals have me on ignore as she could benefit from the above.

 

[honorthesabbath]

Lu 12:1 In the mean time, when there were gathered together an innumerable multitude of people, insomuch that they trode one upon another, he began to say unto his disciples first of all, Beware ye of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy.

 

[JonMiller]

In the passover I took part in, the wine was wine, not grape juice.

Probably the groups of israelites (the ones like John the Baptist) wouldn't have drank wine at passover, but likely the rest did? I can ask my Jew frenids how things are done now.

JM

 

[Dathen]

Of course the idea was to not use leaven in the bread and thus not have to wait for it rise, e.g. it is ready sooner. (the latter passover tradition the feast of unleaven bread reflects the rememberance of the passover) Of course wine can be made without adding any yeast and no doubt orginally was made that way as the fungi were naturally found on the skin of the grape. So unless the grapes were sterilized by boiling Jesus would not have had the purest of grape juices either.

Once the juice is in the fermentation tank, preferred strains of yeast are often added, but are not needed. The skin of the grapes already have adequate yeasts on them that this step could be omitted. This is one of the uncontrolled quality of wines. Since the yeasts that grow on the grapes vary in different vineyard, especially if they are in different countries, the quality of the finished wine will also vary (this is probably the basis for the claim that one country's wine is superior to another). The addition of the preferred yeast gives some measure of control to the end product.
http://www.botany.hawaii.edu/faculty...135/Lect14.htm

Now she can!!!!!!!

 

[TrustAndObey]

Uhh Dathen, I just made sure you can't do that again in the future, but thanks.

http://www.thewinemerchantinc.com/educational/yeast.html

Paradoxically, the most attractive attribute of wild yeasts actually results from their unpredictability, because they can often create additional levels of flavor and aroma complexity in the finished wine. They may also create softer wines because wild yeasts are not as efficient at converting sugar to alcohol as cultured yeast, so even when the wine is fermented to dryness, it has less alcohol and, often, subliminal levels of residual sugar.

The wine made with naturally occuring yeast has less alcohol than what is generally available to us today. In fact, if you do a little more research you'll find that that lovely "buzz" everyone keeps talking about was much more difficult to achieve with wine made with naturally occuring yeast.

Regardless, leaven of any kind was not allowed at Passover, and obviously people knew there was yeast on grapes. ALL leaven had to be purged from their homes.

Exodus 13:7 Unleavened bread shall be eaten seven days; and there shall no leavened bread be seen with thee, neither shall there be leaven seen with thee in all thy quarters.

I'm surprised that people really think that Jesus would use alcoholic wine as symbolic of His Own blood.

 

[maco]

Lu 12:1 In the mean time, when there were gathered together an innumerable multitude of people, insomuch that they trode one upon another, he began to say unto his disciples first of all, Beware ye of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy.

The Pharisees called things sinful that were not sinful. Most of their beliefs and burdens came from man.

Mark 7:5 Then the Pharisees and scribes asked Him, "Why do Your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashed hands?''

Isn't this what we're doing when we call wine, dancing, jewelry and makeup sinful?

 

[TrustAndObey]

Look not thou upon the wine when it is red, when it giveth his colour in the cup, when it moveth itself aright. ” —Proverbs 23:31

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tears_of_wine

If you go to that link, the information is really interesting, if anyone cares to take the time to read it.

Here's the main part of the message:

The phenomenon called tears of wine is manifested as a ring of clear liquid, near the top of a glass of wine, from which droplets form and flow back into the wine. It is most readily observed in a wine which has a high alcohol content. It is also referred to as wine legs.

Wikipedia quotes the text I did and then it says "Since the "tears of wine" are most noticeable in wine which has a high alcohol content, the author may be suggesting this as a way to identify wines which should be avoided in the interest of sobriety."

I'll do some research when I get home today because it would be really interesting to know how much the alcohol content differs in wines made with the naturally occuring yeast found on grapes as compared to what is used today.

Gotta get on the treadmill and get to class. Have a blessed day everyone!

 

[TrustAndObey]

The Pharisees called things sinful that were not sinful. Most of their beliefs and burdens came from man.

Mark 7:5 Then the Pharisees and scribes asked Him, "Why do Your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashed hands?''

Isn't this what we're doing when we call wine, dancing, jewelry and makeup sinful?

I'm starting to feel like Doc. I think my computer is an atheist too! I typed a response and then it got lost in cyber space.

I agree that the Pharisees made up a bunch of manmade laws as to what they considered a "burden" on Sabbath and they expected everyone (including Christ) to follow their laws.

But why did Christ call them hypocrites?

When I read scripture, and I could be wrong, but it appears as though the Pharisees went around "policing" everyone about breaking the laws, and didn't follow their own laws themselves.

That's what a hypocrite is. Someone that doesn't practice what they preach.

Scripture says that if someone considers something a sin, then it IS a sin to them. So really the Pharisees must've agreed at some point that certain things were sinful, and that's biblical.

However, to earn the name of hypocrite, I'm thinking they were too busy watching everyone else to worry about their own true transgressions or transgressions against their own self-imposed laws. And they didn't do any of it out of LOVE....that's the biggee.

That's a whole other discussion though.

You seem to think Adventists are comparable to the Pharisees because we don't condone drinking, dancing, or wearing jewelry...but come on Maco, you have to admit there's scripture about each and every one of those things.

The scripture I quoted above not only says not to drink "wine that is red" but it says not to even look upon it.

Even if it isn't perfectly clear to someone, if there's a remote chance of disobeying God, is it legalistic not to do certain things, or is it trying to obey and be pleasing in His sight? Scripture tells us to be pleasing in his sight, so I really do not consider it legalistic.

These aren't manmade laws anyway, they're scriptural, even if your interpretation of scripture is different than mine. I haven't read EGW, and I came to these conclusions on my own.

Maco, if I wanted to become a Progressive Adventist, is it a requirement that I'd have to agree that drinking alcoholic wine is okay with God?

You keep saying we're running people out of our church, but honestly, I wouldn't even consider becoming a Progressive if I had to agree to something like that. I think there's a lot of people that feel that way, so really the Progressives are shutting some doors too...if that's the accepted doctrine in the Progressive church anyway.

You have to consider that a lot of us weren't raised in the church and deliberately sought out a group of like-minded individuals. Not everyone is indoctrinated.

Dancing and rejoicing for the LORD is perfectly biblical. If you can find scripture that says the other kinds are, I'd like to see it.

I just don't understand trying to stretch scripture into saying something that it doesn't, or condemning people for holding to their beliefs that all of those things are wrong. They/we/I get their/our/my interpretation from scripture.

You're condemning Traditionals because you think they condemn. That just doesn't make sense.

If it's a preset belief that we don't condone certain things, then no one should feel forced out of the church by any means. They know the beliefs after just visiting a few times.

If someone is convinced in their own mind that something is a sin (scriptural), and someone else keeps trying to tell them that they're wrong....who's the one really comparable to a Pharisee?

Gotta get in the shower.

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

Uhh Dathen, I just made sure you can't do that again in the future, but thanks.

Thanks Dathen but it appears that her solution was to put you on ignore too.

I have to wonder what purpose would be served by carrying any discussion with someone who can't even stand to see what someone else has to say. Seems a symptom of a problem in relating to people and to information.

Here is a good article on the subject of yeast which we think of today is completely different from how ancients obtained yeast for breads.
http://www.therefinersfire.org/yeast_or_leaven.htm

The ancients did not use yeast as we know it today. Since the days of ancient Egypt, 5000 or more years ago right up to the present, bakers have captured and used wild yeast to make bread. (Remember your deep breath? The same stuff.) And you can do this as well, right in your own kitchen. Here's how:

1. Mix a cup of flour (whole wheat or white) with a cup of lukewarm water in a small jar, and stir them together until they are smooth. Place the mixture on a shelf or windowsill and leave it uncovered so the yeast will be able to find food. Now wait and watch it change over the next several days.
2. Stir that mixture each day with a wooden spoon or stick. After a few days, it will start to smell a little sour and become sticky. The mixture is fermenting - which is another way of saying that it has attracted invisible wild yeast which are feeding off the flour and water and changing everything in the process. Once it begins to ferment, place a cloth napkin or piece of cheesecloth over the jar to keep it from drying out on top.
3. After five to ten days, depending on the place and temperature of the room, you will notice small bubbles in the mixture. This is that carbon dioxide which is a by-product of the reproduction of the yeast. Notice that the smell is more pleasant - almost like peaches. Give it another five days to build strength, stirring it daily and feeding it by adding a few tablespoons of flour and maybe a little water if it is too dry.
4. You now have a cup of guess what? Sourdough starter that you can add to bread dough to make it rise. Remember a few minutes ago we explained the meaning of Khametz is "to be sour"? Isn't that amazing? You can store it in the refrigerator to keep it fresh and to slow down the fermentation process. After you have added it to the flour and water you use to make your bread dough, be sure to take a cupful out before adding any other ingredients so it will stay pure and be usable again and again.

Do you know what was just described? LEAVEN! Not yeast - yeast is a small microscopic plant and an important part of the substance, but it is the mixture - the mixture of sticky, pleasant smelling "stuff" that as a whole is the substance you add to knead into dough to make the dough rise. This is leaven.


Yaweh said "no leaven is to be found in your houses", not "no YEAST"! We can't get the yeast out of our homes, but we certainly can get the mixture out (if we had it) which we don't really use these days anymore - the small quantity of the starter material, the "chunk of leaven"....

The Baptist article is so typical of those who take a little Bible text take it away from it's historical context and create a faulty tower of misinformation.

 

[Mankin]

Let's remember that the wine back then had much less alcohol in it. It was extremely watered down. You had to drink it all day to get drunk. Read Peter's coment to the people after the Pentecost and see what I mean.

 

[maco]

Let's remember that the wine back then had much less alcohol in it. It was extremely watered down. You had to drink it all day to get drunk. Read Peter's coment to the people after the Pentecost and see what I mean.

The Bible gives no indication that the wine was watered down in those days.

Noah got drunk, David got Uriah drunk, Lot was made drunk by his daughters, people got drunk at the fellowship super. The Bible gives no indication that these people were drinking all day to get drunk. And besides according to SDA belief, even a pinch of alcohol is sinful.

 

[Mankin]

Historically it was. Peter said that it is too early in the day to be drunk when people were saying that the Christians who had received the Holy Spirit were just drunk.

 

[Mankin]

A Pinch of Alcohol is not sinful.