Stuff Fundies Like is right on this one (and I hate to admit it)

[Just me]

What?  My IFBx pastor always said that the wine in that passage of Scripture was not fermented!  He said because it does not say that anyone was drunk only that the men had "well drunk".

sheeesh, could he be wrong?

Are you serious?

Yes sir and so was the "preeeecher"  But then that should be no surprise considering the way xer types twist things to their advantage. 

Spent many years being twisted myself by their twisting of the Scriptures.  So glad my Lord is helping me to untwist!!

First, I never heard anyone say that "well drunk" meant "they were drunk".  In this context, and in the context of all events serving wine, you generally bring out the best wine first.  Then when your guests have had enough (well drunk) to dull the senses to bitterness, you bring out the lesser wine which should now taste less bitter.  You aren't drunk -- you have just had enough wine so that your senses are dulled.  And this isn't something that can happen if you're drinking grape juice. 

If you want to talk about twisting, it takes a mental contortionist to conclude that the wine in the bible was grape juice.

"Context"  this IFBx dude I am referring to don't need no context.  Context kills control of the sheeple.

And there are many mental contortionists out there. 

 

[Smellin Coffee]

If you believe the wine in that passage was fermented then Jesus dumped another 135 gallons of premium alcohol on an already drunk crowd at a wedding feast which His own mother attended. To put that in context, examine what Proverbs says happens when people are drunk. And Jesus made them drunker...

Right.

First of all, the passage doesn't say that any of the guests were drunk. It identifies "first servings" in general (as was the culture) caused people to become drunk. Jesus' wine fit that standard. Granted, there might not have been enough quantity at this particular wedding to get everyone/anyone drunk but the passage doesn't say. Either way, Jesus' wine fit the description of a "first serving" which meant it had to have been alcoholic.

Second, does God create the grapes and fermentation process even today? Or are you suggesting that wine naturally will not ferment without man's interference?

FTR, I don't drink alcohol and have never had even a slight buzz any time in my life. The most alcohol I've consumed at one sitting was about 3 swigs of beer once and it tasted just nasty to me. I am not an "alcohol apologist" but I do believe the context of the passage of the Cana wedding defies the teetotaling stance.

 

[Timothy]

They were able to determine the best was saved for last ... so, how drunk were they?

 

[Ransom]

If you believe the wine in that passage was fermented then Jesus dumped another 135 gallons of premium alcohol on an already drunk crowd at a wedding feast which His own mother attended.

The crowd was "already drunk"? That's a pretty major (and unwarranted) assumption.

First-century Jewish society wasn't dry, but it was sober.

 

[subllibrm]

If you believe the wine in that passage was fermented then Jesus dumped another 135 gallons of premium alcohol on an already drunk crowd at a wedding feast which His own mother attended. To put that in context, examine what Proverbs says happens when people are drunk. And Jesus made them drunker...

Right.

Why wasn't he practicing separation from all those drunks?

 

[Castor Muscular]

If you believe the wine in that passage was fermented then Jesus dumped another 135 gallons of premium alcohol on an already drunk crowd at a wedding feast which His own mother attended. To put that in context, examine what Proverbs says happens when people are drunk. And Jesus made them drunker...

Right.

Why wasn't he practicing separation from all those drunks?

Good point.  Staying there totally ruined his testimony.  I'm beginning to think he wasn't even Christian.

 

[Ransom]

Staying there totally ruined his testimony.

What if some stranger had walked past the party and seen Jesus pouring out gallons of some dark red beverage? They couldn't have known it was only grape juice. They might have thought it was wine. Jesus should have kept away from the appearance of evil.

 

[ALAYMAN]

They were able to determine the best was saved for last ... so, how drunk were they?

The guests weren't the ones who made the statement, the head server did, and him saying it was most likely in a general sense, not to be necessarily applied to the goings-on of his present situation.

 

[ALAYMAN]

First of all, the passage doesn't say that any of the guests were drunk. It identifies "first servings" in general (as was the culture) caused people to become drunk. Jesus' wine fit that standard. Granted, there might not have been enough quantity at this particular wedding to get everyone/anyone drunk but the passage doesn't say. Either way, Jesus' wine fit the description of a "first serving" which meant it had to have been alcoholic.

Where do you get this information about "first servings"?  And more importantly, if your source info is true, how do you deduce that from the context?

 

[FreeToBeMe]

Staying there totally ruined his testimony.

They couldn't have known it was only grape juice.

Sure it was,  they slapped a label on the amphora as soon as Jesus made it.  That's proof enough!

 

[T-Bone]

Staying there totally ruined his testimony.

What if some stranger had walked past the party and seen Jesus pouring out gallons of some dark red beverage? They couldn't have known it was only grape juice. They might have thought it was wine. Jesus should have kept away from the appearance of evil.

That's why like Frag...I refuse to buy IBC Rootbeer. 8)

 

[Binaca Chugger]

I dislike Hamblin for several reasons, primarily his ego.  I do not believe Jesus produced alcohol for others who were well drunk.  Pro 23:31  Look not thou upon the wine when it is red, when it giveth his colour in the cup, when it moveth itself aright.

 

[FSSL]

I dislike Hamblin for several reasons, primarily his ego.  I do not believe Jesus produced alcohol for others who were well drunk.  Pro 23:31  Look not thou upon the wine when it is red, when it giveth his colour in the cup, when it moveth itself aright.

Back up one verse and you will see that the context is a warning to the drunkards. In fact, the whole passage is dealing with those who let alcohol take them over into drunkenness.

 

[Fresh Air]

If you want to talk about twisting, it takes a mental contortionist to conclude that the wine in the bible was grape juice.

Are you saying that every time the Bible uses the word 'wine' it means alcoholic wine?

 

[Castor Muscular]

Are you saying that every time the Bible uses the word 'wine' it means alcoholic wine?

I haven't done a word study to find any exceptions in some unusual context, but I'm guessing yes.  Yeast grows on grapes. The moment you make grape juice, it starts fermenting.  Heck, it starts fermenting on the vine if you let it.  Wine is wine. 

 

[christundivided]

I dislike Hamblin for several reasons, primarily his ego.  I do not believe Jesus produced alcohol for others who were well drunk.  Pro 23:31  Look not thou upon the wine when it is red, when it giveth his colour in the cup, when it moveth itself aright.

You have two issues. One, the KJV is a rather poor translation of the text. A much better translation is found in the ESV

Pro 23:31  Do not look at wine when it is red, when it sparkles in the cup and goes down smoothly.

The KJV has often been used to show the text is talking of the "fermentation process". Which is not true at all.

Which leads to the second issue......

Second, you have an issue with interpreting the verse. Wine "mocks"........... "Winos".

Pro 20:1  Wine is a mocker, strong drink a brawler, and whoever is led astray by it is not wise.

Wine does not mock everyone. The verse is teaching that those who have a problem with "wine". Shouldn't even look at "wine"..... To a wino, "wine" is beautiful and enticing. It goes down "smooth" as in having been drank everyday to excess. My father was a drunk. He could turn up a bottle of hard liquor and drink it like "water". Everyone else, would have vomited all over creation.

The verse is easily interpreted. You shouldn't make ii into what it isn't.

I would like to remind you our Lord said....

Luk 22:18  For I tell you that from now on I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes."

I look forward to that day. I don't have any problem believe it'll be good old fermented wine.

 

[christundivided]

If you want to talk about twisting, it takes a mental contortionist to conclude that the wine in the bible was grape juice.

Are you saying that every time the Bible uses the word 'wine' it means alcoholic wine?

Yes. Absolutely.

Its amazes me how people will take verses like be "not drunk with wine" and say its fermented wine and the next time they read the word "wine" they say its nothing more than grape juice.

The only think you have to say anything different is some idiots that wrote a few books saying there was no such thing as "fermented" wine in Jesus's day....

It either is... or it isn't. You can't have it both ways.

 

[AmazedbyGrace]

If you believe the wine in that passage was fermented then Jesus dumped another 135 gallons of premium alcohol on an already drunk crowd at a wedding feast which His own mother attended.

The crowd was "already drunk"? That's a pretty major (and unwarranted) assumption.

First-century Jewish society wasn't dry, but it was sober.

IFBxers tend to think any drinking of alcohol whatsoever equals drunkenness.

 

[Castor Muscular]

IFBxers tend to think any drinking of alcohol whatsoever equals drunkenness.

Nyquil is about 10% alcohol.  Do IFBxers get drunk when they take two tablespoons of Nyquil? 

 

[AmazedbyGrace]

It is intellectually dishonest to think wine is unfermented grape juice when the Bible speaks favorably of its use, but fermented when the Bible warns about its use.