Wine vs. Grape Juice

[New Legacy]

LOL no.

You can make grape juice out of freshly squeezed grapes. As long as you consume the beverage quickly, it will not turn into wine or vinegar.

People have been doing this since ancient times, already gave you enough examples.

But Jesus did not celebrate the Last Supper on a vineyard. He celebrated it in a city on the opposite side of a year when grape juice was not even available on a vineyard.

This argument is absurd - that Jesus could have gone to a vineyard to celebrate communion in an unfermented form.

 

[New Legacy]

Of course, wine is of the fruit of the vine, after all.

Grape juice is also of the fruit of the vine, so its permitted for the LORD's Supper.

The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it.

The bible talks about fruit of the wine which among the writers would only imply vinegar or wine. You are arguing it could also mean grape juice because given our modern understanding, it could also mean unfermented grape juice is not being true to what the authors meant.

Jesus used wine and described it as fruit of the wine, that does not mean that it is okay to use any other products.

"Take this, a product of ranching" does not mean it is okay to use another product of ranching. It just described that is a product of ranching.

 

[New Legacy]

There are at least 6,000 Christians held in North Korean prisons who might disagree with you.

You are talking about prison, where communion would be impossible to have even with only bread.

 

[Lion King]

Small amounts found naturally are not.

I think I know my own body better than you.

 

[RDKirk]

You are talking about prison, where communion would be impossible to have even with only bread.

Bread, they have. With bread, communion they could have--Buzz Aldrin and Neil Armstrong had communion on the moon.

Regardless, I asked the question of whether Catholic doctrine provided for such a situation, and I've been told (and then verified by my own research), that indeed, Catholic doctrine does provide for that situation. Therefore, I'd conclude that Roman Catholicism recognizes the possibility of such a situation.

Even if you don't.

 

[Albion]

Bread, they have. With bread, communion they could have--Buzz Aldrin and Neil Armstrong had communion on the moon.

Regardless, I asked the question of whether Catholic doctrine provided for such a situation, and I've been told (and then verified by my own research), that indeed, Catholic doctrine does provide for that situation. Therefore, I'd conclude that Roman Catholicism recognizes the possibility of such a situation.

Not only in "such a situation" as we've been discussing. Roman Catholic laymen and laywomen were denied the wine by their church until only about fifty years ago, and received communion in only one kind (bread). Now, it's optional to take the cup, so we might say that the exception is still the rule.

 

[Dylan Michael]

Please show this "older and TRUER" translation of Numbers 6:1-4.

Latin Vulgate:
vino et omni quod inebriare potest abstinebunt acetum ex vino et ex qualibet alia potione et quicquid de uva exprimitur non bibent uvas recentes siccasque non comedent

Douay Rheims:
They shall abstain from wine, and from every thing that may make a man drunk. They shall not drink vinegar of wine, or of any other drink, nor any thing that is pressed out of the grape: nor shall they eat grapes either fresh or dried.

 

[Lion King]

Latin Vulgate:
vino et omni quod inebriare potest abstinebunt acetum ex vino et ex qualibet alia potione et quicquid de uva exprimitur non bibent uvas recentes siccasque non comedent

Douay Rheims:
They shall abstain from wine, and from every thing that may make a man drunk. They shall not drink vinegar of wine, or of any other drink, nor any thing that is pressed out of the grape: nor shall they eat grapes either fresh or dried.

The Old Testament was not written in Latin. Second, the Latin Vulgate is not an "old" translation nor is it more accurate than others before it.

Anyway, is grape juice not pressed out of grapes?

 

[Albion]

I'm wondering if now isn't a good time to return to basics and ask...

"Since wine was certainly what Jesus used, is there any good reason to substitute something routinely?"

I'm not speaking of rare situations where someone is on a desert island or we're dealing with alcoholism. We all know that the churches make exceptions in such cases, but what about standard practice?

 

[Cappadocious]

Sulphites.

All wine contain sulfites, even the ones produced in ancient Israel contained this preservative.

Lion King,

I make booze, myself, and can assure you that you don't need sulfites to make wine. If you say sulfites were known in ancient Israel, that's plausible, but it doesn't mean that *all* their wine contained sulfites.

Sulfites provide four main functions: They can be used to kill unwanted yeasts before introducing a selected yeast; they kill many harmful bacteria; they can be used to halt yeast's growth before bottling a wine; they decrease oxidation.

People can, have, and do make wine without sulfites. To make safe, cheap wine without sulfites, you have to take certain safety precautions and often use weaker strains of yeast if you don't want your end product to be strong (ancient producers would fore-go a lot of the safety we take, and survived just fine most of the time). It is a very easy process.

You can also buy sulfite-free wines today.

 

[MKJ]

Actually, when you squeeze grapes you end up with must.

 

[Lion King]

Actually, when you squeeze grapes you end up with must.

Grape juice in an instant.

 

[Lion King]

Lion King,

I make booze, myself, and can assure you that you don't need sulfites to make wine. If you say sulfites were known in ancient Israel, that's plausible, but it doesn't mean that *all* their wine contained sulfites.

Sulfites provide four main functions: They can be used to kill unwanted yeasts before introducing a selected yeast; they kill many harmful bacteria; they can be used to halt yeast's growth before bottling a wine; they decrease oxidation.

People can, have, and do make wine without sulfites. To make safe, cheap wine without sulfites, you have to take certain safety precautions and often use weaker strains of yeast if you don't want your end product to be strong (ancient producers would fore-go a lot of the safety we take, and survived just fine most of the time). It is a very easy process.

.

If you REALLY made booze as you say, then you should know that sulphites are natural by products of fermentation. There is NO wine without sulphites.

You can also buy sulfite-free wines today

Even wines that do not have a sulphite warning label attached to them contain trace amounts of sulphites. Certain governments don't require wine makers to place warning signs of sulphites if its below a certain threshold.

 

[MKJ]

Grape juice in an instant.

No, it is still must. And you can actually, at least in the Roman Church, use it in the Eucharist. It is wine that is not done fermenting, not a juice.

 

[Lion King]

No, it is still must. And you can actually, at least in the Roman Church, use it in the Eucharist. It is wine that is not done fermenting, not a juice.

 

[Tangible]

 

[MKJ]

I understand your confusion.

Its a funny language thing.

Grape juice is pasteurized, its undergone a process to change its nature. It is something different than what it is before.

Must isnt processed, and it will ferment unless you freeze it and suspend the activity, that is part of its nature. Its alive, you could say. It is immature wine, not sterile juice.

Its a bit like the difference between cider and apple juice (despite the fact that some unscrupulous people try and sell pasteurized cider.)

Or like a sapling. A sapling is an immature tree, and if I leave it, it will become a mature tree. But if I process the sapling, it becomes a log or pole, it is not a tree any longer.

 

[MKJ]

I bet they are pro-juice.

 

[Lion King]

I understand your confusion.

Its a funny language thing.

Grape juice is pasteurized, its undergone a process to change its nature. It is something different than what it is before.

Must isnt processed, and it will ferment unless you freeze it and suspend the activity, that is part of its nature. Its alive, you could say. It is immature wine, not sterile juice.

Its a bit like the difference between cider and apple juice (despite the fact that some unscrupulous people try and sell pasteurized cider.)

Or like a sapling. A sapling is an immature tree, and if I leave it, it will become a mature tree. But if I process the sapling, it becomes a log or pole, it is not a tree any longer.

Tell me, what do you call freshly pressed raw liquid from grapes?

 

[PaladinValer]

I find it amazing why people outright object and attempt to change or ignore proven history in order to fit their personal theological opinions...

Jesus made and drank wine, and used wine in the institution of Holy Communion at His Last Supper. Wine is what is used and was used and will always be used. History has LONG proved that no such "grape juice" as we have today was available to the people in Roman-held lands in the 1st century ce or bce for that matter. Wine back then was cut with water; no arguing that, but it was still alcoholic. The Japanese had a process of preserving wine back in the 16th century, but, well, that's the 16th century and in Japan, and pasteurization isn't automatically sterilization; it severely reduces viable pathogen but doesn't eliminate them, and only for a duration. Furthermore, it was only until 1869 that Thomas Bramwell Welch invented his revolutionary process that prevented fermentation in wine, rendering it non-alcoholic.