Jesus drank alcohol (translation, church, LDS, sin, last supper)

[alexander garcia]

Hi, again I was just reading through and could some one stating that ( it was Yahshua not Jesus ) that stated to do this in rememberance of Him. That is what it matters! As far as man is does it matter NO! As far as scripture YES

[angellous_evangellous]

Originally Posted by alexander garcia

Hi, just an opinion on this. First the best wine is not juice it is aged. As to anothers point of the keg party theory . We have Yahshua and at least 12 others besides his motherand brothers and sisters and the rest of the town. What kind of keg parties do you go to? It was not even their party and they came with at least 13 people so how many were at this party? If you have 50 people on a keg do you still want to make drunk jokes? I think that the reason that the churches don't allow wine (alcohol) is that since their beliefs are powerless theories and traditions of man brought by the devil, they can do nothing to change a person. So it is hard to say to someone that Jesus is going to set them free, but since you are still a drunk we don't want to tempt you. Wait what happened to the new creation? Oh ya that is only good with the true name as scripture states ACTS 4:12 their is only ONE NAME. So if you wish to be saved from who you are and wish to be who the Almighty wants you to be repent and be immersed in the name of Yahshua to take away your sins nd you will receive the gift of the Holy spirit

Alex,

You really should get to know Steve. I'd love to see you two go head to head in a debate on anything.

[JillianMarie77]

I know that LDS people use water because of the Word of Wisdom.

The WoW is a big ....mess. DOesn't make any sense. None of them can agree on the details of it. Hot drinks means no coffee or tea but hot chocolates okay. Maybe its the caffeine but why is Coke okay? Or is it?

See what I mean?

On another debate baord I've had LDS people tell me "jesus didn't drink wine! They just called it wine but it was unfermented wine aka grape juice!"

Go ahead - wipe the tears from your eyes

[MidnightBlue]

Originally Posted by ChrisP

It's important to note the alcohol content would have been considerably lower. Until the last 30 years beer was around 2 % alcohol.

I'm not going to rag you too hard about that one because you obviously never had the opportunity to sample any beer 30 or 40 years ago. But I can assure you that people have been brewing beer quite a bit stronger than 2% for much longer than 30 years. And the ancients not only had regular, full-strength wine, they also had fortified wines from about the time people discovered distilling: around 6,000 years ago, if not earlier.

Wine as a preservative: Wine doesn't keep indefinitely, especially if you're carrying it around in a goatskin or storing it in clay jars in the Mediterranean heat. That's one of the reasons the ancients found distillation such a handy skill.

Wine as a disinfectant/bactericide: Not very effective, and obviously less effective than spirits.

Wine as something other than wine. Believe it or not, the ancients understood how to make wine, and they even knew that wine was not juice. At least in Greek, the ancients had words for juice, must, and wine. Juice is not wine. Must is not wine.

Oinos, the word used in the story of the wedding at Cana, is wine.

A little dab'll do ya. I think the clear implication of the chief steward's comment -- "Every man at first setteth forth good wine, and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse" -- is that he'd have preferred to serve the good wine -- the wine Jesus made -- before the guests were too tipsy to know the difference.

Drinking till you fall down is rarely a good idea, but if Jesus objects so much to people getting a little buzz, why would he make them more wine when they're already in their cups?

Also, even assuming (as I do) that the Pharisees' accusation that Jesus was a glutton and a drunkard* was untrue, it wouldn't have made any sense at all if he'd been notably abstinent. Jesus not only drank, he drank a bit more than the righteous people thought was proper.


_____
*The NASB gives "drunkard" where the KJV has "winebibber." The New King James, curiously, retains "winebibber," which makes me wonder just how intent they really were on updating the translation.

[angellous_evangellous]

Originally Posted by MidnightBlue

I'm not going to rag you too hard about that one because you obviously never had the opportunity to sample any beer 30 or 40 years ago. But I can assure you that people have been brewing beer quite a bit stronger than 2% for much longer than 30 years. And the ancients not only had regular, full-strength wine, they also had fortified wines from about the time people discovered distilling: around 6,000 years ago, if not earlier.

Wine as a preservative: Wine doesn't keep indefinitely, especially if you're carrying it around in a goatskin or storing it in clay jars in the Mediterranean heat. That's one of the reasons the ancients found distillation such a handy skill.

Wine as a disinfectant/bactericide: Not very effective, and obviously less effective than spirits.

Wine as something other than wine. Believe it or not, the ancients understood how to make wine, and they even knew that wine was not juice. At least in Greek, the ancients had words for juice, must, and wine. Juice is not wine. Must is not wine.

Oinos, the word used in the story of the wedding at Cana, is wine.

A little dab'll do ya. I think the clear implication of the chief steward's comment -- "Every man at first setteth forth good wine, and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse" -- is that he'd have preferred to serve the good wine -- the wine Jesus made -- before the guests were too tipsy to know the difference.

Drinking till you fall down is rarely a good idea, but if Jesus objects so much to people getting a little buzz, why would he make them more wine when they're already in their cups?

Also, even assuming (as I do) that the Pharisees' accusation that Jesus was a glutton and a drunkard* was untrue, it wouldn't have made any sense at all if he'd been notably abstinent. Jesus not only drank, he drank a bit more than the righteous people thought was proper.


_____
*The NASB gives "drunkard" where the KJV has "winebibber." The New King James, curiously, retains "winebibber," which makes me wonder just how intent they really were on updating the translation.

I will add that I've read a good deal of texts in the ancient world, and not one of them complains about perferring wine to the water supply.

Clean water was readily available in Rome via the aquaduct. Most ancient cities were built near a river with ample clean water. All over the Mediteranean there were religious sects and philosophical sects who only drank water and were fine. The idea that the ancients perferred wine to water because they knew the water was unhealthy is unfounded, rediculous, ignorant, and a historical fallacy.

They drank wine because they liked the buzz and they enjoyed getting drunk, just like us.