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

[Bible Highlighter]

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.

Leaving so soon? But I was going to ask you how the two situations are different, though.

 

[Edison Trent]

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.

O my now your insulting Jesus relatives, the wedding was of a family member, hence the master of the banquet went to the bridegroom and said he has saved the best for last why because the bridegroom was part of the family and the man of the evening, Mary wasn't a mere guest at the wedding, what guest do you know go about worrying about the wine running out unless that guest wanted the reception to go smoothly, a family member does that not a guest. though invited of coarse but she wasn't in the wedding.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

It doesn't offend me in the least bit.. not even for a second. Where did you get that from?

You said, "the macho line wasn't funny";
And you implied that you were going to leave the thread.
I assumed that by these two things that you were offended or upset.

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.

It is not my bias but it is what I believe what the Bible teaches; And Scriptures says we are to preach the Word. So that is what I am doing. I am giving Scripture and showng the truth on this matter (All to the glory of Jesus of course).

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.

Then explain to me how they were not intoxicated?
Explain to me how Jesus did not contribute to their drunkenness if they were already drinking and were "....well drunk..." (John 2:10) of the substance they had at the wedding.

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???

Here is a point by point explanation of what I believe here (so as to avoid confusion):

#1. Jesus made unfermented wine (i.e. 100% fresh grape juice).
#2. The wedding guests at Cana (like most Israelites) drank their wine diluted with water whereby the alcoholic content was low.
#3. I believe the OT saint did not have a liberty in Christ to drink strong alcoholic beverages because the Old Testament condemns strong drink in several places. Do not look at wine when it red. It stings like an adder. Woe unto those who give strong drink to their neighbors, etc.
#4. I believe the NT saint does have a liberty in Christ to drink alcohol soberly and so as not to make their brother to stumble. This would not include drinking higher proof alcohols like 151 that are known for getting a person plastered right away. But for a believer like myself (who knows the truth about alcohol and it's destructive nature to one's health) cannot drink a glass of wine with a meal for recreational purposes because I know the truth about it. My conscience would condemn me for drinking it for that reason. I could only drink if I was in extreme pain or to ease a stomach issue if there was no other available medicines within a days journey or so. So while other Christians can drink recreationally. I cannot. Alcohol is one of the top killers here in America. A UK study has shown that drinking even moderately shrinks the brain. So what may be lawful, is not always profitable.
#5. The Bible speaks of three kinds of wines.
(a) Unfermented wine (Grape Juice).
(b) Wine diluted with Water (i.e. what the Israelites commonly drank) (Note: they bought and stored wine in it's undiluted state (sometimes in leather pouches); However, when it came time to drink it, they diluted it with water) (Only barbarians drank wine that was undiluted).
(c) Strong intoxicating wine (That is clearly condemned in OT Scripture).

The reason why it is important to speak on this subject is because of the importance of Jesus' miracle and to teach people that alcohol is not this great gift from God. Sure, it may be lawful, but not all things are profitable.

 

[Ken Rank]

You said, "the macho line wasn't funny";
And you implied that you were going to leave the thread.
I assumed that by these two things that you were offended or upset.



It is not my bias but it is what I believe what the Bible teaches; And Scriptures says we are to preach the Word. So that is what I am doing. I am giving Scripture and showng the truth on this matter (All to the glory of Jesus of course).



Then explain to me how they were not intoxicated?
Explain to me how Jesus did not contribute to their drunkenness if they were already drinking and were "....well drunk..." (John 2:10) of the substance they had at the wedding.



Here is a point by point explanation of what I believe here (so as to avoid confusion):

#1. Jesus made unfermented wine (i.e. 100% fresh grape juice).
#2. The wedding guests at Cana (like most Israelites) drank their wine diluted with water whereby the alcoholic content was low.
#3. I believe the OT saint did not have a liberty in Christ to drink strong alcoholic beverages because the Old Testament condemns strong drink in several places. Do not look at wine when it red. It stings like an adder. Woe unto those who give strong drink to their neighbors, etc.
#4. I believe the NT saint does have a liberty in Christ to drink alcohol soberly and so as not to make their brother to stumble. This would not include drinking higher proof alcohols like 151 that are known for getting a person plastered right away. But for a believer like myself (who knows the truth about alcohol and it's destructive nature to one's health) cannot drink a glass of wine with a meal for recreational purposes because I know the truth about it. My conscience would condemn me for drinking it for that reason. I could only drink if I was in extreme pain or to ease a stomach issue if there was no other available medicines within a days journey or so. So while other Christians can drink recreationally. I cannot. Alcohol is one of the top killers here in America. A UK study has shown that drinking even moderately shrinks the brain. So what may be lawful, is not always profitable.
#5. The Bible speaks of three kinds of wines.
(a) Unfermented wine (Grape Juice).
(b) Wine diluted with Water (i.e. what the Israelites commonly drank) (Note: they bought and stored wine in it's undiluted state; However, when it came time to drink it, they diluted it with water) (Only barbarians drank wine that was undiluted).
(c) Strong intoxicating wine (That is clearly condemned in OT Scripture).

The reason why it is important to speak on this subject is because of the importance of Jesus' miracle and to teach people that alcohol is not this great gift from God. Sure, it may be lawful, but not all things are profitable.

It doesn't matter... even when we find we agree on the basics you are still looking for things to fight over why? To prove something? I don't have time.. sorry.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

O my now your insulting Jesus relatives, the wedding was of a family member, hence the master of the banquet went to the bridegroom and said he has saved the best for last why because the bridegroom was part of the family and the man of the evening, Mary wasn't a mere guest at the wedding, what guest do you know go about worrying about the wine running out unless that guest wanted the reception to go smoothly, a family member does that not a guest. though invited of coarse but she wasn't in the wedding.

I am saying all of the wedding guests drank of the wine because that is what the wedding organizer was implying from a similar past wedding event.
Was she a wedding guest?

 

[Bible Highlighter]

It doesn't matter... even when we find we agree on the basics you are still looking for things to fight over why? To prove something? I don't have time.. sorry.

To prove that Jesus's blood was not adulterated in any way. It was pure. It was the pure blood of the grape; His sinless blood washes away our sins. For the wine represents His blood.

In other words, I am defending my Lord and His goodness.

 

[Edison Trent]

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).

Jesus did not say to judas anything about the money bag nor did judas reconsider stealing from the money bag, for the mentioning of what he was doing came in the last few days of Jesus life, Judas was a thief and turned Jesus in for money.

 

[Edison Trent]

I am saying all of the wedding guests drank of the wine because that is what the wedding organizer was implying from a similar past wedding event.
Was she a wedding guest?

Yes and she was a family member of the wedding as well as Jesus was also a family member of the wedding.

Was Jesus, his deciples, his brothers, wedding guest?

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Jesus did not say to judas anything about the money bag nor did judas reconsider stealing from the money bag, for the mentioning of what he was doing came in the last few days of Jesus life, Judas was a thief and turned Jesus in for money.

But Jesus did not create a miracle so as to influence Judas to steal.
Therein lies the difference.
Jesus did not teleport Judas in front of a pile of gold for him to steal while he was stealing out of the money purse. That is what it sounds like people are saying when they say that Jesus made intoxicating wine that would have contributed to their drunkenness at the wedding party.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Yes and she was a family member of the wedding as well as Jesus was also a family member of the wedding.

Was Jesus, his deciples, his brothers, wedding guest?

Does Scripture say they are?

 

[Edison Trent]

But Jesus did not create a miracle so as to influence Judas to steal.
Therein lies the difference.
Jesus did not teleport Judas in front of a pile of gold for him to steal while he was stealing out of the money purse. That is what it sounds like people are saying when they say that Jesus made intoxicating wine that would have contributed to their drunkenness at the wedding party.

Jesus did allow money to be place in the bag knowing fully well that judas was taking from it.

Nor did Jesus tell anybody to drink the wine, the master of the banquet did, not Jesus. for some reason your thinking Jesus went around pouring everyone a cup full of wine.

Jesus mother ask him to do it, and the servents picked up the wine and brought it to the master of banquet.

 

[Edison Trent]

Does Scripture say they are?

Yes it does, Mary, Jesus, His brothers, His deciples were all invited,

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know when the master of the banquet goes to the bridegroom to thank him for bringing the best wine for last, that the bridegroom was married into the family.

 

[Edison Trent]

Did you know the Catholic have built a whole doctrine from the wedding at Cana, they say to pray to Mary because she was being compassionate about the guest having more wine, that makes no sense. That is why the truth of the wedding needs to be known.

 

[Edison Trent]

It was Joanna and Chuza wedding and guess who Joanna was.

 

[prodromos]

When scripture refers to grape juice as wine, the text qualifies it as grape juice. Otherwise, without further qualification, wine refers to fermented grape juice.
By creating alcoholic wine at the wedding at Cana, Jesus was not contributing to their drunkenness any more than a person who drinks 1 glass of wine every hour. They were not binge drinking for the purpose of getting drunk.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Jesus did allow money to be place in the bag knowing fully well that judas was taking from it.

Nor did Jesus tell anybody to drink the wine, the master of the banquet did, not Jesus. for some reason your thinking Jesus went around pouring everyone a cup full of wine.

Jesus mother ask him to do it, and the servents picked up the wine and brought it to the master of banquet.

What does James 1:13 mean to you when it says God does not tempt any man to sin? Is this some kind of just empty saying whereby God does not tempt men directly but yet He places them in situations whereby they are tempted? If that is the case, then why does the Lord tell us to pray so as not to be led into temptation?

As for Judas: Like I said: We do not know ALL of what Jesus said to Judas so as to plead with Him in order to get Him to stop.

"There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it." (1 Corinthians 10:13).

So the Lord had provided a way of escape for Judas, but He obviously did not take it.

Again, the situations are not the same. I already told you before if they were the same situations, then Jesus would have done a miracle that would have directly resulted in tempting Judas without his knowledge that would have contributed to his sin.

At the wedding: If they were drunk, and Jesus made more intoxicating wine without their knowledge, Jesus would have been contributing to the sin of drunkenness.

This is not a hard concept to grasp.
If a woman comes by you and wants to have sex with you, she is trying to tempt you to sin.
If she was drugged and did not know who she was sleeping around with, then she really would not be tempting you.

If Jesus created a substance that helped to add to the sin of what men were already doing it would be like Jesus teleporting a prostitute into a harlot house sex party. He would only be contributing to their sin by doing that. If the prostitute was not teleported and she arrived of her own free will then that would be different. See the difference? There is a difference between intervention to contribute to a person's sin vs. the prevention of sin. One is direct interference and the other is not.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

When scripture refers to grape juice as wine, the text qualifies it as grape juice. Otherwise, without further qualification, wine refers to fermented grape juice.
By creating alcoholic wine at the wedding at Cana, Jesus was not contributing to their drunkenness any more than a person who drinks 1 glass of wine every hour. They were not binge drinking for the purpose of getting drunk.

So they were sober minded?
If they knew how to drive, would you let them drive you home even if it was legal?
Surely not. They would be intoxicated or drunk. Especially when it says in John 2:10 that they were "...welll drunk...". Jesus making MORE intoxicating drink would have just added to their sin.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Yes it does, Mary, Jesus, His brothers, His deciples were all invited,

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know when the master of the banquet goes to the bridegroom to thank him for bringing the best wine for last, that the bridegroom was married into the family.

Wine tasters today do not look to the alcoholic content as their primary reason as to what makes a good wine. They look to the taste. If not, then they might as well be drinking 151.

 

[Hank77]

(c) Strong intoxicating wine (That is clearly condemned in OT Scripture).

Gen 14:18 And MelchizedekH4442 kingH4428 of SalemH8004 brought forthH3318 breadH3899 and wine:H3196 and heH1931 was the priestH3548 of the most highH5945 God.H410

H3196
יין
yayin
yah'-yin
From an unused root meaning to effervesce; wine (as fermented); by implication intoxication: - banqueting, wine, wine [-bibber].

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Did you know the Catholic have built a whole doctrine from the wedding at Cana, they say to pray to Mary because she was being compassionate about the guest having more wine, that makes no sense. That is why the truth of the wedding needs to be known.

I am glad your version of the wedding is not what really happened. I would not be a believer then. For if the Lord did as you suggest, it would mean He creates miracles secretly so as to contribute to men's sins. Free will is not an excuse to explain this away in this case. There is this thing called "direct intervention and it's following fruits thereof" that plays a factor here.