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

[Archivist]

To create something is one thing; But to create something so as to magnify your glory that is sinful is quite another. To create something that would silently contribute to men's already drunkened state would be a sin. It was not like they KNEW what Jesus made for them. This was not the Garden of Eden test that God gave to Adam here. God told Adam to NOT eat of the wrong tree. No such warning was given to the wedding guests after Jesus made the supposedly intoxicating beverage. Jesus was not testing them and they failed. This miracle magnified His glory and through it his disciples believed on him all the more because of it. If Christ's miracle led men to continue in their sin, they would hardly believe in Him. That would be like Jesus going to a harlot house and then creating the most beauitiful looking prostitute so as to get men to continue in their sin all the more. Such a thing would be so wrong I would not even know where to begin to say that such a thing is wrong. It is the same with secretly creating a substance for the wedding guests that would help to contribute to their sin.

Again, there is nothing sinful about alcohol. It is a sin to abuse alcohol. God gives us free will. If some of those at the wedding chose to abuse the wine that Jesus created that was their free will. That is not a case of Jesus "silently contributing" to their sin.

 

[Archivist]

There is No evidence whatsoever exists to support the notion that the wine mentioned in the bible was unfermented grape juice. when juice is referred to, it is not called wine (Genesis 40:11).

Agreed.

 

[Ken Rank]

So if it was an intoxicating beverage of macho alcoholic awesomeness, then how do you view that drunkenness did not take place at the Wedding of Cana then with Jesus not contributing to their drunkenness?

You prove your own bias with phrases like, macho alcoholic awesomeness." You are not objective AT ALL but think you are. As for the answer to your question, you ASSUME they were all drunk. It doesn't say it... you simply have an anti-alcohol lens through which you think and read and only see the devil and not anything else. But again, the bottom line is simple Jason... the Hebrew language itself proves alcohol used by Israel and the context in both the OT and NT prove it. That's it... so again, instead of forcing your view on others... just follow your own personal convictions and stop trying to make everyone else adhere to your standards.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

You prove your own bias with phrases like, macho alcoholic awesomeness." You are not objective AT ALL but think you are. As for the answer to your question, you ASSUME they were all drunk. It doesn't say it... you simply have an anti-alcohol lens through which you think and read and only see the devil and not anything else. But again, the bottom line is simple Jason... the Hebrew language itself proves alcohol used by Israel and the context in both the OT and NT prove it. That's it... so again, instead of forcing your view on others... just follow your own personal convictions and stop trying to make everyone else adhere to your standards.

I can be humorous and also objective at the same time.
In fact, to show you that I am objective, I am not a Prohibitionist, but I am an Abstentionist. This means that I believe that it is not always a sin for a Christian to drink a glass or two of wine with a meal. But what is lawful is not always profitable and so I preach to folks about how the best option is to abstain because alcohol is technically a mild poison and it is a drug that gets you addicted, which then leads to all kinds of problems like pain, death, etc.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Agreed.

So older dictionaries are just lying then?

 

[Archivist]

So older dictionaries are just lying then?

Already addressed by others. Take a look back through the thread.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Again, there is nothing sinful about alcohol. It is a sin to abuse alcohol. God gives us free will. If some of those at the wedding chose to abuse the wine that Jesus created that was their free will. That is not a case of Jesus "silently contributing" to their sin.

John 2:10 says the wedding guests were all "....well drunk". So if it was intoxicating wine, they would be drunk, and Jesus secretly creating more intoxicating wine would have just been a contribution to their sin in making them more drunk (Which is wrong).

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Already addressed by others. Take a look back through the thread.

Althought they did not specifically say it, they are essentially saying these older dictionaries are a lie in this case. For they are basically in favor of languages that they did not grow up in writing and speaking themselves instead of trusting their own language that they do know. They are guessing. But you cannot do that with English. Now, if they had a time machine and said they talked with Paul to confirm that their Greek was accurate and they talked with Moses to confirm that their Hebrew was correct, then that would be another matter entirely. Then I would need to ask them where I can get this time machine or if they could let me borrow it for a while.

 

[Ken Rank]

I can be humorous and also objective at the same time.

You're not objective at all. I said you were bias'd 20 posts ago and others see it too. And the macho line wasn't funny, it was how you view this because you have made that clear all through this thread. Don't run from your own beliefs, keep them... just stop trying to make sure we all follow your convictions. The language and the context disagree with you, period, end of story.

Take care... unfollowing thread now.

 

[Archivist]

John 2:10 says the wedding guests were all "....well drunk". So if it was intoxicating wine, they would be drunk, and Jesus secretly creating more intoxicating wine would have just been a contribution to their sin in making them more drunk (Which is wrong).

Again, Jesus created wine. Wine, in and of itself, is not sinful. How the guests choose to use it their doing.

And we know that the wedding guests were not all well drunk. Mary, Mother of Jesus, was aguest and she most certainly was not "well drunk."

 

[Archivist]

Althought they did not specifically say it, they are essentially saying these older dictionaries are a lie in this case. For they are basically in favor of languages that they did not grow up in writing and speaking themselves instead of trusting their own language that they do know. They are guessing. But you cannot do that with English. Now, if they had a time machine and said they talked with Paul to confirm that their Greek was accurate and they talked with Moses to confirm that their Hebrew was correct, then that would be another matter entirely. Then I would need to ask them where I can get this time machine or if they could let me borrow it for a while.

That is your interpretation of what they said, not what they actually said.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

You're not objective at all. I said you were bias'd 20 posts ago and others see it too. And the macho line wasn't funny, it was how you view this because you have made that clear all through this thread. Don't run from your own beliefs, keep them... just stop trying to make sure we all follow your convictions. The language and the context disagree with you, period, end of story.

Take care... unfollowing thread now.

Why does the macho line offend you?
If you are offended greatly, I apologize.
But you have to realize: Is there not a certain acceptance among men or manliness in drinking?
Jesus was also humorous in his words and yet he spoke truth.
He said it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.

Also, do not take it personally. My attack is against the wrong belief and not you personally.

Anyways, if I was not objective, I would be a Prohibitionist. But Scripture tells me that as much as I don't like alcohol, believers do have a liberty in Christ to drink soberly and so as not to make their brother to stumble. I may not like that idea, but I have to believe that because it is what Scriptures says.

In any event, may God bless you; And may He lead you into all truth and love in this life.
Wishing you nothing but good things to you in Christ Jesus;
And again, I do apologize if you felt hurt in some way by my comment. It was not meant to hurt you; But it was meant to show my lack of distaste of the belief in uplifting alcohol above what the Scriptures say.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

That is your interpretation of what they said, not what they actually said.

So you think they are in agreement with these old dictionaries on the word "wine"?
I did not get that impression at all.
Can you show me where they appear to agree with them?

 

[Edison Trent]

I've often wonder why Jesus contributed to Judas stealing money from the money bag. surely Jesus knew Judas was taking money from the bag, yet did not try to stop him from doing it.

 

[Archivist]

So you think they are in agreement with these old dictionaries on the word "wine"?
I did not get that impression at all.
Can you show me where they appear to agree with them?

I never said that anyone agreed with them. You wrote "so older dictionaries are just lying then?" I replied "already addressed by others."

You then wrote "although they did not specifically say it, they are essentially saying these older dictionaries are a lie in this case." I replied "that is your interpretation of what they said."

I never said that that anyone is "in agreement with these old dictionaries on the word "wine."

Please do not make false accusations.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Again, Jesus created wine. Wine, in and of itself, is not sinful. How the guests choose to use it their doing.

And we know that the wedding guests were not all well drunk. Mary, Mother of Jesus, was aguest and she most certainly was not "well drunk."

The wedding organizer implies that this wedding is similar to your traditional wedding whereby they have "...well drunk...." of the wine. Yet, he says the difference here is that the good wine is saved until last instead of it being served first (See John 2:10). Also, John 2:11 says that this miracle magnified Christ's glory and it was because of this miracle that his disciples believed on Him. A miracle that would result in others sinning is not really a magnification of Christ's glory and it is not really a cause for His disciples to believe in Him.

It sort of be like Jesus teleporting the most beautiful harlots in all of human history into an open sex party that was taking place at a harlot house so as to show forth His glory and have His disciples believe in Him. However, such a thing would hardly bring glory to Himself or cause His disciples to believe in Him. It is no different with the situation involving Jesus contributing to men's drunkennness at a wedding party. It's the same thing.

 

[Ken Rank]

Why does the macho line offend you?
If you are offended greatly, I apologize.
But you have to realize: Is there not a certain acceptance among men or manliness in drinking?
Jesus was also humorous in his words and yet he spoke truth.
He said it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.

It doesn't offend me in the least bit.. not even for a second. Where did you get that from? All I said was, that your use of it PROVES you are going through this topic without going beyond your own bias. You have an anti-alcohol view, which again and for about the 6th of 7th time.. is fine, just don't impose it on others.

Also, do not take it personally. My attack is against the wrong belief and not you personally.

The Hebrew language and the context of certain NT passages (OT too but we are focused on the NT primarily) says you are the one who is wrong. But your bias is SO STRONG that you can't see it.

Anyways, if I was not objective, I would be a Prohibitionist. But Scripture tells me that as much as I don't like alcohol, believers do have a liberty in Christ to drink soberly and so as not to make their brother to stumble. I may not like that idea, but I have to believe that because it is what Scriptures says.

Then why have you been arguing with me and wasting both our time and others on here as well? What have I said? I said that the English 'wine' can be either fermented or unfermented and that the underlying language and context will clarify. Everytime I have said that you have taken issue against what I am saying. Why? You admit a Christian can drink if he remains sober. I have said nothing more or less! If this is what you believe we have been agreeing all along???

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I never said that anyone agreed with them. You wrote "so older dictionaries are just lying then?" I replied "already addressed by others."

You then wrote "although they did not specifically say it, they are essentially saying these older dictionaries are a lie in this case." I replied "that is your interpretation of what they said."

I never said that that anyone is "in agreement with these old dictionaries on the word "wine."

Please do not make false accusations.

It is not a false accusation because they are essentially saying that these dictionaries are basically wrong or lying in this particular case with the word .... "wine." For some have said that I should look to the original languages instead.

 

[Archivist]

The wedding organizer implies that this wedding is similar to your traditional wedding whereby they have "...well drunk...." of the wine. Yet, he says the difference here is that the good wine is saved until last instead of it being served first (See John 2:10). Also, John 2:11 says that this miracle magnified Christ's glory and it was because of this miracle that his disciples believed on Him. A miracles that would result in others sinning is not really a magnification of Christ's glory and it is not really a cause for His disciples to believe in Him.

It sort of be like Jesus teleporting the most beautiful harlots in all of human history into an open sex party that was taking place at a harlot house so as to show forth His glory and have His disciples believe in Him. However, such a thing would hardly bring glory to Himself or cause His disciples to believe in Him. It is no different with the situation involving Jesus contributing to men's drunkennness at a wedding party. It's the same thing.

Now you are comparing a Jesus turning water into wine at a Jewish wedding with "Jesus teleporting the most beautiful harlots in all of human history into an open sex party that was taking place at a harlot house."

You are really stretching in desperation to prove you point. Really there is no sense in continuing this conversation. You are, of course entitled to your interpretation of scripture, but in this case you are frankly wrong.

I am out of here. No use beating a dead horse.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I've often wonder why Jesus contributed to Judas stealing money from the money bag. surely Jesus knew Judas was taking money from the bag, yet did not try to stop him from doing it.

The gospels are not a second by second play of all of events that went down. There were a lot time gaps in the record of these events. We do not know what Jesus said or did to get Judas to reconsider or to think in regards to his stealing from the money purse. Knowing Jesus and or God, I would say that He made every attempt He could indirectly to talk to His heart so as not to steal (even with Him knowing that Judas had a part to play in His crucifixicion, i.e. our salvation).