The Real Deal

[tall73]

And finally, the real questions:

a. Why would God simply prohibit wine and strong drink for Nazarites and for the priests when at the tent of meeting, if He could simply say, "no strong drink at all"? With all of the very explicit commands such as no sorcery, no idolatry, etc. why not, no consumption of alcohol?

b. If they were bringing a tithe of strong drink, what were they doing with the rest of it?

c. Where did all of these people get strong drink if no one had it?

My point is not to endorse alcohol at all. But I don't think you can biblically say it was totally forbidden. Drunkeness was clearly said to be wrong. And alcohol in any form was viewed dimly. In light of what we know now, I would say it is fit for no one to consume. But you don't seem to see a complete ban in the Bible on it.

So if there was no explicit ban, Israelites are found to have it often, there are bans on specific jobs, etc. having it, and the usage is consistent throughout that strong drink is referring to alcoholic beverages, why would we say that Deuteronomy 14 is referring to anything else?

 

[HoneyDew]

Really good points. In discussions, I use the same arguments.
(But one always has to put the disclaimer that one is not endorsing drinking alcohol.)

 

[StormyOne]

As I stated from the start, it is my belief through studying that God did permit the COI to consume wine and/or strong drink on certain occasions given the info we have in Deut 14. It is interesting to note that some have a problem with God permitting it, almost like it is contradictory.... God gave the command, "Thou shalt not kill," then specifically told his people to completely wipe out a select few nations, which is killing... Contradictory? Nope, not in my opinion. God is God, and He can do what he chooses.... we are to obey....

Let me add again that I am not using Deut 14 as an excuse to drink alcoholic beverages or condone it, however one cannot say that God explicitedly condemns all consumption of alcoholic beverages because he didn't. Why are we so clear about the text that says "wine is a mocker and strong drink is raging" and then become less clear, and uncertain with the text that says, "if the way is too long, take the tithe, turn it into money, buy whatever your heart desires including wine and strong drink and have a celebration..." I think God knew what He was saying......

 

[moicherie]

So no need to stop putting that 'special flavour' in your wedding cakes.

(I gots jokes today I feel unwell so laughter is helping my stomach ache)

 

[HoneyDew]

So no need to stop putting that 'special flavour' in your wedding cakes.

(I gots jokes today I feel unwell so laughter is helping my stomach ache)

LOL Me too. I am totally off today. I don't even know why I am laughing. I look a mess!!

 

[Roustalski]

I've read the four links provided in the first post, and I must say I'm convinced by those pages that alcoholic beverages, even in moderation, are wrong.

I've also read most of this thread, although it is very hard for me to keep focused on what is being said, so I admit I skimmed, and when I skimmed I lost track - but it seemed to be like the debate isn't taking into consideration of what was said in the original post with the four links.

Has everyone in the debate read those four links and actually verified what is there as true? If wine really is meant as just fresh grape juice as well as fermented (alcoholic), then you can make the argument that Jesus's miracle of water to wine really wasn't alcoholic.

And that, to me, is the key point. What would Jesus do? Would He drink in moderation? Well of course! He drank wine himself! But then, was the wine he had actually alcoholic? After reading those pages, I'll be doing some research on my own to see if what is presented on those pages (meaning of the words in all 4 languages) is true.

 

[Seraph1m]

Whether the wine was fermented or not, "if" Jesus drank the wine of his day, obviously it would call into question any claims that doing so was inappropriate.

What of Hebrew custom which required the head of household to minister to the spiritual needs of the family in His day. The sacrifices that were required of meat and wine etc.?

Noone here is advocating drinking, what needs to be understood is that no matter ones personal preference "scripture does not forbid" drinking. This fact has been pointed out by actual elders/ministers of the church. Continue to pray and study on the matter which is what the Lord desires, so that we may know and live that which the Holy Spirit convicts the heart of His children to do.

Grace & Peace

I've read the four links provided in the first post, and I must say I'm convinced by those pages that alcoholic beverages, even in moderation, are wrong.

I've also read most of this thread, although it is very hard for me to keep focused on what is being said, so I admit I skimmed, and when I skimmed I lost track - but it seemed to be like the debate isn't taking into consideration of what was said in the original post with the four links.

Has everyone in the debate read those four links and actually verified what is there as true? If wine really is meant as just fresh grape juice as well as fermented (alcoholic), then you can make the argument that Jesus's miracle of water to wine really wasn't alcoholic.

And that, to me, is the key point. What would Jesus do? Would He drink in moderation? Well of course! He drank wine himself! But then, was the wine he had actually alcoholic? After reading those pages, I'll be doing some research on my own to see if what is presented on those pages (meaning of the words in all 4 languages) is true.

 

[tall73]

I've read the four links provided in the first post, and I must say I'm convinced by those pages that alcoholic beverages, even in moderation, are wrong.

I've also read most of this thread, although it is very hard for me to keep focused on what is being said, so I admit I skimmed, and when I skimmed I lost track - but it seemed to be like the debate isn't taking into consideration of what was said in the original post with the four links.

Has everyone in the debate read those four links and actually verified what is there as true? If wine really is meant as just fresh grape juice as well as fermented (alcoholic), then you can make the argument that Jesus's miracle of water to wine really wasn't alcoholic.

And that, to me, is the key point. What would Jesus do? Would He drink in moderation? Well of course! He drank wine himself! But then, was the wine he had actually alcoholic? After reading those pages, I'll be doing some research on my own to see if what is presented on those pages (meaning of the words in all 4 languages) is true.

A. No one that I know of is advocating drinking here. To me that is a non-issue, it is a bad practice. But what is not a non-issue to me is that we say what the Bible actually says. And it doesn't seem it is as clear in prohibiting it as we might hope.

 

[moicherie]

The wine issue seems to be a case of making doctrine based on what we think the Bible says or what we want it to say rather than what it actually says. An error our anti drinking pioneers made which has led to this 'confusion'?

 

[chrispykreme]

General warnings:

But the point is, there is little to recommend it, and much reason to avoid it.

Wow, amen to that entire post...

 

[moicherie]

The wine issue seems to be a case of making doctrine based on what we think the Bible says or what we want it to say rather than what it actually says. An error our anti drinking pioneers made which has led to this 'confusion'?

Just had a thought this is similar to the polygamy issue we cannot argue the Bible condemns it, because it does not,but as 21st century practising Western Christians we don't encourage it either.....

 

[PaleHorse]

The prohibition against having leaven in one's home was not a universal prohibition; they could not have any leaven in their homes for passover and the feast of unleavened bread but the remainder of the year there was no prohibition. Also, wine can be and is produced utilizing carbonic maceration to produce sweet wines without the utilization of yeast. In this process, the grapes are not even pressed. This wine making process dates back to the sumerian civilization some 6+ millenia ago.

In His service,
Mr. J

Very true.

Again, you are not basing it on usage, but on your understanding of other Hebrew realities. I don't see one passage that makes it clear it wasn't alcoholic. And as to herbs, I am not aware of any either, but then if your other quote was correct there would be other elements added. And there certainly could be herbs with drug like qualities.

Whether the word could take in the idea of non-fermented beverages, it seems rather troubling that we never see a plain text where it does.

Yes, I have to agree here as well.


If I could offer one point regarding the wedding miracle:
In the story we learn that the guests drank all the wine and thus Christ created more. Upon drinking the wine made by Christ one of the guests happily states his surprise that it was superior wine (compared to what they had been drinking) and remarked that this was a reverse of the standard practice.
Of course, the standard practice then, as it is now, is to drink the "good stuff" first and then, after the taste buds are deadened by drinking the "good" alcohol first, the low-quality stuff is then imbibed because at this point no one can taste the difference.

Is this a true and accurate description of the wedding miracle story?

If so, answer me this; if the guest's taste buds were deadened by drinking all the other alcoholic wine first (which is the whole point of serving the "good stuff" first) then how could the guests tell that the wine created by Christ was superior? This cannot be explained if we go with the assumption that the wine at this party was alcoholic.

On the other hand, if they were drinking grape juice (as made from must (which was the common method employed to preserve non-alcoholic grape juice at that time)) they would most certainly be able to taste the difference between it and fresh grape juice - for grape juice does not deaden the taste buds. It is our assumption that parties must be celebrated with alcoholic wine (since that is the norm for our present society) that leads us to think that the wine in the wedding miracle was alcoholic. The details of the story however don't bear that assumption out.

 

[HoneyDew]

Just to clarify:
It was the master of the feast who realized that the converted water was the "good wine." He asked that question of the bridegroom.



lad

 

[PaleHorse]

Just to clarify:
It was the master of the feast who realized that the converted water was the "good wine." He asked that question of the bridegroom.
lad

Clarification noted - but the outcome is the same; the question still stands.

 

[HoneyDew]

If so, answer me this; if the guest's taste buds were deadened by drinking all the other alcoholic wine first (which is the whole point of serving the "good stuff" first) then how could the guests tell that the wine created by Christ was superior? This cannot be explained if we go with the assumption that the wine at this party was alcoholic.

On the other hand, if they were drinking grape juice (as made from must (which was the common method employed to preserve non-alcoholic grape juice at that time)) they would most certainly be able to taste the difference between it and fresh grape juice - for grape juice does not deaden the taste buds. It is our assumption that parties must be celebrated with alcoholic wine (since that is the norm for our present society) that leads us to think that the wine in the wedding miracle was alcoholic. The details of the story however don't bear that assumption out.

I think we would do better asking several wine connoisseurs if their taste buds can tell the difference should they start with drinking inferior wines and then get a taste of the good stuff.
To my uneducated tongue, since the liquids differ in taste and characteristic, there should be a difference tasted. I know I have drank juices (generic cheap stuff) and then gone right on to drink the more expensive and better stuff and can tell the difference. Similar to your sense of smell which become saturated with the aromas in the environment until a new scent comes along. Ever wonder why you never smell your rice burning even though you are in the kitchen, but someone comes along and can smell the char? (Slightly different approach but the general meaning is there, for me anyway.)
But that approach might not even make a difference to this story since we are never told that the drunken guests themselves comment on the new wine, but only the master of the feast does, and I am not sure that he would have been drunk since he has the oversee the whole affair. Hence his more discerning palate.

 

[PaleHorse]

Okay, we can do that. BUT, we must also be sure that the wine connoisseur takes into consideration in his/her opinion that prior to drinking the "good stuff" that they first drink a lot of the bad stuff; for that is what is indicated in the story. For not only should we determine what affects alcohol has on the taste buds are but also how inebriation affects the senses.

Also, you are now asking us to determine if the master of the feast would have drank or not. Well honestly, I think it is encumbant upon you to prove otherwise. For the story tells us he did drink the wine, your point hinges upon how much he would have drank. So, please put forth your evidence to support your contention.

 

[HoneyDew]

I will be back later, but it is dinner time now.

Consider this though: if Jesus had made his wine to be served first before that which the bridegroom had provided, people would have said, "wow! This is delicious." And that would have been it. However, He didn't. Palehorse, when you drank the "good beer" before quaffing the "cheap" stuff (just pulling this from your post in Trad) to deaden your senses against the inferior taste of the inferior taste, it worked for you, right? However, the cart is before the horse: did you drink the inferior beer before drinking the good stuff? If you hadn't, then you can't use the example, simply because Jesus provided the superior wine after.
Taste buds are revived.

BTW, I burned my rice -- just a little.

 

[Roustalski]

A. No one that I know of is advocating drinking here. To me that is a non-issue, it is a bad practice. But what is not a non-issue to me is that we say what the Bible actually says. And it doesn't seem it is as clear in prohibiting it as we might hope.

My fiance drinks. She likes to have a beer every now and then with dinner or something, and we've had a major discussion about it - which ended up in an argument.

One of the key points that she uses in justifying (other than growing up with it), is that Jesus drank wine and that makes drinking in moderation OK or appropriate. So after reading all of that, I'll have some new information for her, and that's why I'm interested in this thread and those links.

 

[SassySDA]

My fiance drinks. She likes to have a beer every now and then with dinner or something, and we've had a major discussion about it - which ended up in an argument.

One of the key points that she uses in justifying (other than growing up with it), is that Jesus drank wine and that makes drinking in moderation OK or appropriate. So after reading all of that, I'll have some new information for her, and that's why I'm interested in this thread and those links.

Alcohol is a poison to the human body. Even one drink kills brain cells, so you see, there is no level of "moderation" that would make it not harmful to drink. Those same brain cells that are killed, stay dead, they don't regenerate...

Just something to think about. If someone is giving you an excuse of ANY kind, or justifying their having that beer to you in ANY WAY, there's a problem brewing...no pun intended.

 

[SassySDA]

I will be back later, but it is dinner time now.

Consider this though: if Jesus had made his wine to be served first before that which the bridegroom had provided, people would have said, "wow! This is delicious." And that would have been it. However, He didn't. Palehorse, when you drank the "good beer" before quaffing the "cheap" stuff (just pulling this from your post in Trad) to deaden your senses against the inferior taste of the inferior taste, it worked for you, right? However, the cart is before the horse: did you drink the inferior beer before drinking the good stuff? If you hadn't, then you can't use the example, simply because Jesus provided the superior wine after.
Taste buds are revived.

BTW, I burned my rice -- just a little.

I think part of a point that may be being missed here, is that once you become inebriated, you may notice a difference in the taste...but you aren't going to care.

I guess, after having seen all of the devastation from drinking that I have seen, I just have a REAL hard time, picturing Jesus having anything to do with it at all, let alone making it for others to drink.

As far as drinking the inferior stuff before the good stuff...once you drink inferior beer you know how yucky it is. That's why you learn to drink the good stuff FIRST. At some point in time, PaleHorse drank inferior beer while sober. It only takes once. LOL