durangodawood
Dis Member
- Aug 28, 2007
- 23,763
- 15,839
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Seeker
- Marital Status
- Single
If Jesus made something other than wine for wedding, then the Bible should not call it wine.
Upvote
0
If Jesus made something other than wine for wedding, then the Bible should not call it wine.
Proverbs 23:31-33 King James VersionIt was wine. Tee totalers play with the language to discourage consumption. Which the bible never forbids. We're admonished against drunkenness and reference Paul's statement on convictions.
All things are lawful [that is, morally legitimate, permissible], but not all things are beneficial or advantageous. All things are lawful, but not all things are constructive [to character] and edifying [to spiritual life].
If a believer feels consumption is wrong they are free to abstain. But they aren't granted equal liberty to impress there conviction on another. In like fashion, if a brother is aware of their position they ought to abstain in their presence out of love (not to cause them to stumble). It's a courtesy not a declaration of agreement.
~bella
Proverbs 23:31-33 King James Version
Look not thou upon the wine when it is red, When it giveth his colour in the cup, When it moveth itself aright. At the last it biteth like a serpent, And stingeth like an adder. Thine eyes shall behold strange women, And thine heart shall utter perverse things.
They have already been drunk, though (J 2:10). So it depends on what you mean by moderate drinking.The Bible says that Jesus made wine for people.
Thats a pretty strong endorsement of moderate drinking right there.
I’m not bending scripture. The Bible talks about non alcoholic wine and alcoholic wine throughout. Saying that all wine in the Bible is alcoholic is bending scripture.Quoting a passage doesn't alter the truth. If you feel abstinence is best then do so. But don't bend the scriptures to support your stance.
~bella
I’m not bending scripture. The Bible talks about non alcoholic wine and alcoholic wine throughout. Saying that all wine in the Bible is alcoholic is bending scripture.
John 2:10 reads more as a reflection on human behavior, and not necessarily an approval.They have already been drunk, though (J 2:10). So it depends on what you mean by moderate drinking.
Creation of wine in a situation when the guests were already drunk, at least some.John 2:10 reads more as a reflection on human behavior, and not necessarily an approval.
But actually making wine for people, that clearly an endorsement of at least moderate drinking.
There is no suggestion that it was alcoholic.He turned it into wine. There is no suggestion in the text it was non alcoholic
Furthermore, if the people there are already drunk, then Jesus bringing more alcohol would be enabling people to get even more drunk, clearly a sin.and they go on to say he saved the best for last. I can only assume from your response you've never done the same. If you'd made wine, spirits or vinegars you'd understand the verse from a practical standpoint. If you were conversant in earlier periods you'd be aware of the practice of watering down beverages.
~bella
A. alcohol is harmfulCreation of wine in a situation when the guests were already drunk, at least some.
Even in the church, the first suppers of the Lord were not ceremonial sips, but it was mixed with dinners and so much wine that some members of the church got drunk even in the church, at least in Corinth (1 Cor 11:21).
To be clear, I certainly do not defend drinking, alcohol is harmful in any amount and I do not drink at all, basically. Maybe one glass a year.
It could be a better thing than the infectious water in the era before sanitation. Alcohol probably killed you slower than the water.I dont know how a Christian reconciles those 2 facts except perhaps by conceding that in careful moderation the harm just isnt that big a deal in the big picture. And that the human conviviality you get from careful moderate use is a good thing on average.
Hmm. Everyone was drinking wine all day long every day just like we do with water? Even diluted, it sounds unlikely most people had it available.It could be a better thing than the infectious water in the era before sanitation. Alcohol probably killed you slower than the water.
Its not a good thing today.
Nothing ever applies to everyone. But most people were drinking weak wine (wine mixed with water) if they could. And normal wine for dinners, if they could afford it. Poor ones could not.Hmm. Everyone was drinking wine all day long every day just like we do with water? Even diluted, it sounds unlikely most people had it available.
Yes, partying is another thing. Alcohol serves as a drug in such occasions, not as a sanitation thing. It was their culture and their choice.More likely: people at a wedding wanted to drink wine because its a wedding party. In this regard people then were probably just like people today.
That would be so great that I would (maybe) start watching commercials. "True ads" would be more amusing than the nonsense they create.Booze ads don't show sots on skid row just as snack ads don't show the morbidly obese.